The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1899-12-27
PROLIFICACY VERSUS PRODUC.
TlNEN ESS.
Correspondence Cotton Plant.

= meaning fruitful, it by 10 means fc
T." lows that they are TO be regarded ;
synonymous, meaning one aud II
y, same thing, or that they are int
: changeable, the one with the other.
IN The case of vegetation in genera
Il plant may be exceedingly profit,
without being what may be iustl
termed productive while on the 9th,
hand, plant may be enormously pr,
oucIlvc without being eXceptlunall
prolific.
This difference is plaiuly cxempli
hed IN the case of popcorn and the so
cilled scNen-car corn, which may b
regarded as being exceedingly prolific
hul not necessarily productive: or a
lcaSt not so much SO us other and lar
ger varieties while such varlr,,cs =.
WcIborn's Conscience, Kcntuck,
Mammoth, Chester County Mommoti
ana many other equally large varieties
are enormously productive, vet could
hardly be termed prolific.
Inc same Is equally true of the c,us-
Ter cottons, which are us rule ey.
ceedlngIy prolific, but not nccc,Sari,y y
productive, while the big boil varlr,ir,
are usually enormously productive bu,
likewise without being cXccptionoll,
| prolific.
Irolilicacy seems then to deal more
especially with the number of fruits
while productivcncss Las more direct
reference to their size, while neither
term has amy reference whatever as lo
lhc quality of the product. 1t is very
important, i'll fact highly essential. i
not absolutely Indispensable for Tic
soil tlIltr, in whatever special branch
OF agriculture he may be engaged. 70
keep IN mind the difference i'm the ac-
tual meaning of the above named terms.
frollllcacy does not always mean
producllvcncss, neither does product
NenesS necessarily imply or include
proliticacy.
Some of our farming brethren NAV
possibly think that this is a distinction
"lIhout difference, and that we are |!
unnecessarily precise in our definition: |
put IL they were engaged, as we are
III STRIVING to obtain maximum viclLs
per acre OF each and every crop planted
as well as in obtaining extra fine speci-
mems OF each, i'll fact making not only
'hc lahd, but also each individual plant
40 It's very lcvc! best, thereby find on,
tiie capabliltics of, not only each spc-
clcs OF vegetation, but also of the land
itself and each individual acre of #
thcy would then find out the i,ooera.
1--WE necessity of bearing above dis
uncllon constantly in mind.
We hear Cf scedlcss ,uisins. srcdlnss [
melons, peaches, oranges, etc. u, etc. IN
some instances these are rroduc,ivn
nul IN no sense could they possibly be
termed prolific, while the so-callcd
nhtIcss cotton is, on the other hand.
prolific, but is far from be-
ing productive, in The usual sense of
i. e. in lint.
The very best of gooG seed is essential
IN order TO the production of LARGE
yields per acre
Almost without exception, extreme
y early varieties are also extremely
small an insignificant varieties corli-
ness and not pr"ductivencs3 being the
lh'in ana leading object of the produ-
cer III his cholcc OF varieties medium
carry varieties are invariably more pro
ducuVc than are either extremely earl,
or extremely late varieties. AS an cN-
perlmcntal farmer, experimenting
Solcly Tor our own satisfaction, and in
order 10 gain positive, practical valua.
be information at first hand. and with
all mere idle theory eliminated. TO en-
aple us to sift the chalr from the purc
Soldcn gram on questions pertaining
10 leitlllZers, to varieties, to soils, and
TO culture, with the probable effects,
possible elects and positive effects of
each, when intclligcntly and iudicious
~ employed we have found il decid-
~ advantageous to study closely the
leculiar characteristics of each ard
every agent ell pIoyed, or that could be
employed.
IN TIE PRODUCTION OF MAXIMUM
YIELDS.
Fcrtilzing for prollicacy and rcrlill-
ZlnS for productlvcncss. Is it possible
10 so fcrtll,zc as to increase prollicacy |
at the expense Of producliveness, or
TO lncrascc productivcness at the cx
pensc OF proiiicacy?
TO limited extent, yes. If we had
not believed it posslqle, we would
neVc" have called the readers attention
to it by propoundng the query. What
ever Other functions may be attributed
to pho'phoric acid, ii undoubtedly in
crcascs proliiicacy /; but tins very pro-
i'llcacy Is sometimes an actual draw
back, disadvantage, for the reason
that the quality Of The fruit is so de-
cidcdly inferior that productivencss is
actually decreased thereby.
Potash and nitrogen on The other
hand, exert but little influence toward
Increasing prolificacy, but seem to cx-
ert Their entire influence in increasing
the size and improving tic quality of
the fruit; and this, even az the cx
pcnsc OF its prolilicacy. and This is
Is more especially tine of potash.
a multiplication of the number of
| fruits at the expense of size and oual-
| ity would possibly be advantageous in
the case of lintlcss cotton and possibly
OF some few other agricultural pro-
ducts but with the generality of farm
| products, quantity and Qualit, both
take precedence Of excessive fecundiry
or prolilicacy; tt is size, appearance,
general superiority that everybody de-
sires, everywhere hence it is that ex.
ccssiVc iccundity or excessive ploliii.
cacy ls rclcgalcd to a back seat, and
comes of but secondary importance
N