The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1877-08-16

Progress and improvement is the order
of the day. We see it at every turn.
We neither sow nor reap as our fathers
did. Change is seen in everything save
the fencing around our fields. This
alone is practiced as it was two hundred
years ago, and there is no change that
has been made by an agricultural people,
when change is so imperatively demand
ed and so easily pointed out. To state it
would seem to be all that is necessary !;
to argue it would only be to confound.
The proposed change in the fence law
consists in this, and this only, fence or
inclose stock and turn out crops.
The arabic or cultivated lands is about
ten times as great as is necessary for pas
ture. Ny observation is that one acre is
sufficient for each head of cattle, and
that hogs pay best when confined in
small pens. I find by the returns in the
Auditors Office of this County that the
average farm is forty acres. This is just
ten times as much as is necessary for the
pasture, as no farm Of that size should
keep more than four head of cattle. AS
suming these returns to be correct, and
to inclose the farms of the County in ten
acre fields, which, / believe, is above the
average size, it would require, estimating
rails at S1.OO per hundred, near $4O0, 900
to pay for the fencing of this County. I
believe it is generally conceded that ten
per cent. annually is required to keep
them in repair. Think of this, $4,000
annually spent in repairing fences-a
sum sufficient to pay our State and Coun-
ty taxes. If so, can farmers prosper
under such management.
Prudence and economy cry aloud for
the change. With our forest land re-
duced more than three-fourths in forty
years, and our population increased FIVE
fold in the same time, how long will it
require, at this rate, to destroy the bal
ance of. the timber? I think we should
leave some to posterity, at least enough b
to show the kind of timber that formerly
grew in this country. 1t is argued by
some that this change in the fence law is
demanded alone by the large land-owl.-
ers. / contend that the reverse is true.
A prudent man with tract of fifty acres
will retain one-half in forest, whilst a
tract of one hundred acres will require
one-third, a tract of one thousand can be
kept up with one hundred acres, or ten
per cent. AS you will readily perceive,
the larger the premises, the larger the
fields, the smaller number of rails per
acre will be required to enclose them.
This being the case, the poor man, on
fifty acres, has one-half locked up or
dead capital; the middle man, on his
one hundred acres, has but one-third
noa-productive; and the party with one
thousand can bring all into cultivation
but one hundred, thus reserving but ten
per cent. It may be urged that the
change will reduce the number of cattle.
If so, good will be accomplished, as this
is not grazing country, and as you
diminish the number you improve the
quality. Far better they be kept on
small pastures and soiled, thus improv-
ing the manure heaps, aud saving time
by having them at hand instead of cours-
ing them by the bell, to be driven up at
night or, what is worse, suffering them to
remain out. Again, it is argued that by
the proposed change we lose the CLEAN
il.S of the fields. I think it is generally
conceded that more injury is done the
land and subsequent crops, than benefits
derived by the stock. All good farmers
know the great injury done to our fields
by the hoof in wet weather, and yet how
few keep them off, 1 cannot see how
any sane man can insist for the present
custom, when everything cries aloud for
the change.