Savannah courier. (Savannah, Tenn.) 1885-1979, 1890-02-27
METHODS COMPARED.
Farming in the South VS.. Farming
Ohio.

Farming in the South VS.. Farming in
Ohio.
A recent trip through Ohio and spe-
cial examination into farm methods fol-
lowed in that State, induce me to make
some comparison with our plans at the
South.
Possibly the most notable differences
are found in the fertility of the soil and
the character of the labor.
The lands in Ohio have been brought
to much higher state of productive
ness than any have seen at the South.
This is the result of high manuring, the
incorporation of vegetable matter into
the soil, and a judicious rotation of
crops. Much of the land upon the farms
visited will YIELD on an average, sixty
bushels of corn per acre. In Georgia,
farmers feel that they do we'll to aver
age fifteen. In Georgia, we cultivate
four acres to obtain the product of one,
if it is true that Georgia lands can be
brought to productivehess of sixty
bushels of corn per acre. see no rea-
son why this is not easily possible.
| AS before stated, this result has been
reached in Ohio by high fertilization.
For this purpose, farmers in that State
rely upon barn-yard manure and clover
mainly. These elements are easily OBJ
tainable in Georgia and the South if
we will only begin, more extensively,
stock raising. In addition we have the
stock pea, about as valuable as clover
and much more easily grown. Glover
requires moderately good land to begin
with; the stock pea will grow on the
thinnest soil and make fairly good
crop. have before given, not only the
most approved methods for bringing up
our lands, but the handsome and profit
able yields they have been made to
produce.
If our farms could be reduced to small
areas, the improvement would not be
so much of an undertaking. If our
lands are ever brought up, we must be
content to operate small farms. Really,
this would seem the desirable thing to
do, as it brings the same results with
much less labor, time and expense.
So many times farmers have been
urged to this course, and so constantly
have they pursued the opposite, that it
seems useless to make further effort on
this line. A practical demonstration of
the difference, as shown upon the farms
in Ohio and the average farm at the
South, would, possibly, do more than
many newspaper articles % bring a
change.
Our farms are not put in shape as they
ought to DO. The lands that should be
given entirely to crops are much taken
up by trees, bitches and waste places.
1t is not an uncommon thing with us to
see ''cuts" cultivated between thickets,
that have roots running from one side
to the other; bitches, at close intervals,
overgrown with weeds and bushes.
Much of the fertility that belongs
rightfully to the crops goes to useless
and hurtful growth. All such cultiva.
tion-or rather the lack of ten.
courages slovenly methods and brings
poor results. This, again, follows from
the necessary abundance of work over
such extended territory. Large farms
give us so much land to be looked aftel
that it is next to impossible to keep it in
shape and make it productive.
The first thing to do if we would ap
proach the results Of our neighbors is tc
improve our land.-W. j. Northen, in
Dixie Farmer.