The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1900-11-20

4
Correspondence OF The Progressive Farmer.
/ have just received my copy of
The Progressive Farmer of Nov. 13,
and will right now while I am think
ing of it, write out few hasty inn
pressions of some of the articles.
Your correspondent from Wilson
county warns US against going too
heavily into cotton next year. True,
we ought not to plant it recklessly,
but things ought to be so arranged
as to let US raise cotton very largely,
while depending partially, at least,
on the North and West where corn,
pork and wheat can be raised more
cheaply for these supplies. But as
things now stand and with the pros
poets for a heavy crop next spring,
w. G. DIS suggestions are eminently
sane.
We cotton raisers must study the
problem of keeping up the soil fer
tility. Our cotton lands are being
impoverished far more rapidly than
the corn and wheat lands of the
North and West. Yet, cotton is the
least exhaustive staple crop grown,
taking less fertility from the soil
than corn, oats, wheat, or other grain.
The lint and the oil are the only
parts of the plant necessarily lost to
the soil, removing less than three
pounds per acre of nitrogen, potash
and phosphoric acid, while the roots,
stems, leaves, bolls and seeds con-
tain more than fifty pounds, and all
these, except the oil, may be returned
to the soil. Crop rotation is one
thing essential, and more grasses in
crop rotation than heretofore.
Harry Farmers talks are good.
More of our farmers ought to write
such letters. Yet we seem afraid of
pen and paper, and think that is
the foundation reason for our pow
erty. We've paid too much to other
people to Go our pen AMI paper work
for us-merchants, lawyers, and
book, tree, and fertilizer agents, etc.
Mr.. Jones' letter on curing bacon
is first-class throughout, but it is not
everybody that has the time for such
careful work. The liquid extract of
smoke does very good work for me.
read the report Of Secretary Viii
son on North CaroIina's poor show
ing as to sheep. Sheep raising would
be very profitable here were it not
for the absence of protection fur
nished by law. Dogs are allowed to
run at large, and the class of hounds
kept are especially adapted to sheep
killing. If the laws in regard to dogs
were sufficiently strict, sheep raising
would greatly increase and would
prove very remunerative indeed, as
the natural advantages are unsur-
passed for a wool growing section.
If the editor wants to encourage
sheep breeding, let him work for an
anti-dOg law. He might keep stand
ing what Edward Atkinson says:
when the inhabitants Of the up
land cotton section of the Atlantic
coast attain sufficient intelligence
and power to suppress the yellow
dog, of which it is related that "every
poor man keeps two and every d.
poor man keeps four" that section
may become the centre of wool pro-
duction of the world, while the sheep
fed with the nitrogenOus COW pea
vine and the fat-prOducing cotton
seed meal will renovate the slave
stricken soils Of these States and will
bring them to the maximum prOduc-
tion of food and of cotton and wool
len fibres."
The best anti-dog law that have
heard of is Ohio's. 1t provides for
tax of 81 per head on dogs valued at
less than $50; if over they are as
sessed with other stock. This poll
tax is fund to pay part or all the
losses caused by dogs whose owners
are unknown or insolvent. Losses
are appraised by three land holders
and returned to the county commits
sioners, who pay pro rata in Decem-
ber of each year. but the fund rarely
equals the amount Of damages. The
assessor can't find nearly all the dogs
and some more tell white lies.
Again, any dog found alone off own
ers' premises may be killed by any
one who has the nerve.
Whenever the farmers get to
watching their own interests, we
may get such law in North Caro-