Lancaster enterprise. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1891-1905, 1900-01-17
Use OF Commercial Fertilizer,

cultural journals, are again
urging farmers to buy less fertil,
izers and use more home manures.
The arguments advanced In sup
port of such advice are not very
clear cut, nor verv distinctly
stated, but the idea seems to be
that by reducing the amount of
fertilizers the expense account
would be reduced and the cotton
production be diminished. The
main stress seems to be placed
on the proposition that the total
production of cotton would be
reduced In reply. it NAV be said
that no one will undertake to
deny that by using a smaller
amount of fertilizers on cotton
the effect would be to reduce the
WELD of cotton correspondingly.
The proposition is just a plain
open and shut one, that proves
Itself, so is self evident. 1t as e.
sumes that a reduced cotton crop
is desirable aud will prove bene
ficial to the farmers. But what if
half the farmers should quit us
ing commercial fertilizers and the
other half should follow the same
methods they have usually fol-
lowed, and apply as much fertlli-
zers as before, or even increase
the amount used? Ad hitting that
the result would be a smaller crop
OF cotton and higher, or at least
a sustained market price, how
would that benefit the half of the
farmers who bought no fertlli-
zers! You reply at once that
they will have no guapo bills TO
pay and will get more for their
cotton. That is quite true, and it
is freely admitted; but will not
their cotton, made without fcrtil
lZerS, have cost them more to
make II then If they used the
customary amount? Ii the farm
ers do not produce cotton ut a
less cost by using fertilizers, why
In the name Of heaven do they
persist In using them2
The argument would have
force IT 1t were practicable to
persuade the whole body of cot
ton planters, acting as one man.
10 cut down their guano bills
But everyb body knows, or ought
to know, that such unanimous
action is in the very nature of
the case impracticable. Would it
not be just as logical to advise
the farmers not to buy any i'm
proved seeds, improved imple.
ments, high class mules, good
machinery, and thereby reduce
the production of cotton and at
the same time cut off the higher
cost of these improved aids to
farming? 1t seems so.
If farmer can buy a properly
balanced fertilizer, apply it judi
clously, prepare and cultivate
well and thus produce cotton at
a cost Of 1 or cents a pound,
and sell it for 6 to I ceuts, it is
plain common sense wisdom to
do ii. If he wants to reduce his
crop let HIM cut off the area
planted, SO that with a reduced
area and yet an increased yield
per acre, he Will still make less
cotton. If he wishes to produce
cotton cheaper than a cost of 4 or
> rrnts q pound, let him cut his
aroa down, limit il to say one.
bah, nr even less than one ha Il
,h"snSt"mary are. and apply o
htli" more fertilizer TO the acre
tEau before. The result. will be a
reduction of possibly one third in
~" number of bales, and one.
;blrd III the cost Of producing
each bale. | favor that kind of
r'Hur'ion--that is. to reduce the
'"iai 3mOnnt Of fertilizers bought
"S larmcr, reduce the area to
he planted in cotton and increase
The amount applied to each acre.
Bat tn" general idea does not
seem 30 have such reduction IN
Vl"w Tho common argument iu
i"J.r ~ uCtpr- lnSc fartili-,rc an