The Progress., 1892-05-14
PRACTICAL FARMER
COMES TO The FRONT WITH HIS
FIGURES,
And Proves His Proposition Without q
Doubt.

huu fEOVeS MS IIO pOSIIAOA "-SASN1 q
Doubt.
Editor PROGRESS:
KEACHI, La, May l., 1892.
see from your issue of May Z,
that your correspondent signing
himself Reason" seems to think
that you have been imposed upon
by some clod-hopper farmer in
reference to the cost of labor for
the production of corn, and the
cost of raising pork on a hill farm
in North Louisiana, and he goes
right into figures to prove his po-
sition. Now let us suppose that
he is right and / am wrong. What
then?
Corn was worth in Shreveport
on May 7th, 62 cents per bushel.
If it costs rs cents to raise and
harvest it, including a very fine
per cent on the capital invested in
raising it, it seems to me it would
pay TO raise it.
Bacon was quoted steady at Z
cents. What a profit, if it only
costs 2 cents to raise pork.
He seems to think that Red
river land is too rich to plant IN
corn. Well, that is a new idea to
me. I have always. thought that
the better the land the more corn
could be made. Land which will
make one bale Of cotton per acre
will, with proper cultivation, aver
age so bushels of corn. Count the
difference in cost of production
and harvesting of both crops, fix
the market price on corn at 50
cents per bushel and cotton at q
cents per pound, and you will soon
/ find which is the most profitable.
Don't let NE create the impress
sion that l favor the raising OF
corn to the neglect OF a reasonable
cotton acreage. Cotton Will al
ways be the main money crop for
the Southern agricultuIist, but l
mean plant corn and raise hogs IN
connection with cotton. Any prac
! tical farmer knows that the corn
; and cotton crops, in the hills, when
properly managed, do not conflict
: with one another very much.
Now as to his cost Of raising
, corn. He charges fret rent OF
land, S2 per acre. Wen, L hardly
t think that land owAar ought &c
3 charge himself up with the rent Of
lands he works, and then expect
an additional profit on the crop he
raises on said land. A capitalist
: would hardly expect to loan out
J his money at an interest of say
( about 40 per cent, and expect tc
use the same money in business
! that he may realize another 10(
3 per cent profit. There seems tc
3 be a wrong impression on thi;
subject. Land is the farmers
stock in trade. If any charge i:
, made at all, it ought not to bt
more than a legitimate interest
with credit of rent for house anC
3 such other conveniences had on {
farm, which in most cases strike:
an even balance. He next charges
50 ff fertilizers. / think it hardly
a fair charge. l am of the opinion
that he does not exhaust all the
benefits of the application the frs
year. If fertilizers are beneficial
and 1 believe proper ones, anC
properly applied, they are, thu
o extra yield will more than pay TO
g their cost.
HIS next charge is 50 for prepa
ration of land and planting corn
1 hardly know what to say abou
}. that. He either pays very extrav
agant wages, or don't know wha
he is talking about. His cost o
cultivation is about on the SAM
line, cost of harvesting worse, ant
the average production of so bush
els per acre on hill lands caps j
all. Now let us see il l canno
prove my proposition-the cost o
labor to raise corn on hill lands II
cents per bushel.
. In order to get at the cost o
. ty-I - ~o,.,Dcr oorp {ha ayaroor