The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1882-04-26
FARM aud Garden.
For the Central Presbyterian.
Tobacco in Virginia.

Tho time is drawing near when the
olant;nq of tobacco will begin, and it
bebooyes those who contemplate any de-
Dorture from their previous practice to
make up their minds what they are going
TO do. l wish therefore to make few
suggestions with reference to the crop
which will possibly be of service to some
farmers.
I saw recently statement taken from
the census report of 1880, to the effect
that the county which produced the
LARGEST number of pounds of tobacco in
the United States was Lancaster county,
Penn. 1 do not remember the acreage
or total product-but the average pro
duct per. acre was about fifteen hundred
pounds. The next largest product in
any county was in Christian county, Ky.
Here the average per acre was about six
hundred and fifty pounds Now why
this immense difference in the average
product of:the two counties2 Why, Just
the difference between good and poor
farming. The soil of Christian county
is rich and we'll adapted to tobacco, but
the system pursued is just the same as
that which makes tobacco growing I'M
profitable in Virginia, viz: too large an
area and too little manure.
The writer has recently had some cor
respondence with growers of seed-leaf to-
bacco in Connecticut. take the liberty
of publishing a statement from Mr.. Geo
Hopson. of Kent, who raised $500
pounds of fine tobacco to the acre; as to
the comparative results of fertilizing
plentifully or scantily. He says:
"By the use of 1000 pounds per acre
of Mapes Tobacco Manure, the product
will be, say 1000 pounds of fine tobacco
which at Is to 20 cents per pound, will
be, say $3.50 to $500. On the contrary,
acre, the yield will be about l 900 pounds
of tobacco of inferior quality, which at
10 to IL cents pound would be 800 to
1920. While the expense of production,
except about $25 per fertilizers, would
be the same.
1t seems to be the common practice of
Pennsylvania and Connecticut farmers
to apply fertilizers-compl ete tobacco
manures are no doubt the nest-at the
rate of ton to the acre but Virginia
or Carolina farmer would think such a
thing the height of folly; yet that con-
stitutes the difference between "high
farming" and "poor farming" between
success and failure. How many readers
of the Central will try this year small
patch-if no more than half an acre, Just
as rich as they can make it, and de-
monstrate to their own satisfaction
whether the plan so successful elsewhere
will not do we'll here?
In speaking of manures, the term
fertilizer" has been used, not that it is
better than farm yard manure; on the
contrary. no artificial fertilizer is so good;
but because that can be applied in def
nite quantities and at definite costs, so as
to obtain positive results. If farmers
would apply their barn-yard manure at
the rate of 40 or so loads per acre, in
steads of 10 or II, no doubt their sue
cess would be as certain and as great as
that Of farmers in Pennsylvania. But
since artificial manures are used to a
very large extent, it is very essential
that the best and cheapest should be had.
Your readers will probably find of in
terest in this connection the following
letter to N. Carolina farmer, from DR..
Charles w. Dabney, Jr., State Chemist
of that State M.
1000