St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1900-04-21
FARMER AND PLANTER.
THE SOUTHERN COTTON AREA.
The WatchNvard of the Farmer
Should BE "PIant Fewer ana
Retter Acres


Should BE ssPIant Fewer ana
BETTER Acres.
Some of the arguments employed by
those who are endeavoring to solve
the problem of the area of the next
crop possess the merits of novelty, If
not wisdom. One gentleman claims
that it would not be wise for the farm
ers to SO reduce the aggregate produce
ton of cotton as to cause such an adj
vance in the price as would encourage
foreign competition (Russia, India,
Egypt, Turkey, etc). In other words,
he thinks is would be wise to keep
down the market price to point al
which these foreign nations could not
produce it profitably. But what saves
the utter fallaciousness of his argu-
ment is the advice that he gives to re-
duce the cost of production. He does
not, however, explain how the price
can be kept down to the prohibitory
point by increasing the aggregate
crop production, and at the same time
reduce the cost of production. Farm
ers pretty well understand that if they
increase the area in cotton the cost
per pound will generally increase, be-
cause poorer or less productive lands
will be planted.
Another gentleman suggests that
the world is so short on cotton that
even twelve-million bale crop would
fetch good, paying price. He may be
correct in his opinion, but it is pretty
certain that past experience does not
justify it. 1t is a leap in the dark to
encourage the farmers to go ahead
and produce a twelve-million-b crop
in expectation of getting present
prices for it.
Many others insist that the farmers
either use no commercial fertilizers
at all, or a very much less amount, III
order to thus cut down the aggregate
production and keep up or advance
the price. Would it not be just as rea-
sonable to advise the farmers not to
use good tools, not to buy a new p1ow
or cultivator, not to plant prolific va
rieties, and not to use so much skill
in cultiavtion-if the object be to SIM
ply reduce production? To comply
with either of any of these "don'ts'
would tend to reduce production just
as certainly as to 'squit using fer
tilizers. To refrain from using the
best tools and machinery, the best
seeds, the best skill and care would
save some outlay, and thus reduce
expenses just as certainly as to ''quit
using" commercial fertilizers. The ar
gument reminds me of the Irish house
painter who was observed to be in IL
very great hurry in painting house.
When asked the reason for his remark
able speed, he replied: "Faitah, and
want to get done before my paint
gives OUT
The simplest and most direct appeal
is the best. 1t goes straight to the
comprehension of any farmer. 1t is
the appeal to his own personal inter
ests, urging his to pursue a course
that will be best for him whatever
other farmers in the south may do.
It is to cut down the cost of produc-
tion. 1t is a thing that he can do him
self, without cooperation or consul
tation with other farmers. The coop
Grafton of other farmers-which be
knows he can not rely on-is not nee
essary to do this. Every experienced
farmer knows that the cheapest cot
ton he makes is that which he gets
from the best land. Every farmer who
uses fertilizers knows from experience
that the cheapest cotton he makes is
that produced by the aid of fertilizers.
If rich soil does not enable farmer
to make his cotton cheap, then there
is no need for rich soil, and poor
acre or several poor acres are as good
as a rich acre. If fertilizers do no
enable the farmer to produce cheaper
cotton, then there is no need of fer
tilizers in cotton farming.
What, then, should be the farmers
watchword? 1t should be this: Plan-
fewer and better acres and fertiiize
them better. Cut the area in cotton,
and increase the application of the
right kind of fertilizer per acre, until
the two conspire to produce cotton
1t may be necessary for a given farm
er to reduce his cotton area to one
fourth the usual amount, and to
double the dose of fertilizers to each
acre in order TO meet the require
ments. Then let him do it. He plant |
ed last year 100 acres, applied tel.
tons. or 5000 worth of fertilizers, 10
produce a yield of 33 bales. Suppose
he cuts his acreage this year to IS
acres, and applies to these 25 acres
$500 worth (twice as much per acre!
of judiciously home-mixed fertilizer. |
The result would probaly be Is to 20
bales of cotton. The difference in
economic results between last year
and this year might be indicated by
the figures and 5, or possibly by 5 |
and 5, representing the cost per
pound of the farmers last crop, and |
S the cost per pound of his next one. |
But this difference would not be all. |
If he cuts his cotton acreage from |
100 to 25 acres, he will have larger |
area of corn, cowpeas, oats and pas
ture. He viii very probably have more
and better cows, have some beef cat |
tie, plenty of pork and bacon, etc
Cor. Atlanta Constitution.
FARM LIFE MADE ATTRACTIVE. |