The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1902-05-13

4 E0R0CG5 81 @G4O G~4 0& w. @9 G@0 AVA
lowing on "Gradually Selling the
Farm" by Mr.. Dewitt G Wing in
the Journal Monthly:
The practice of grain farming in
wolves a gradual disposal of the
farm. whenever a crop of wheat or
corn is removed from a field and
sold, a part of that field goes with
the grain, and the farmer can never
again use that part.
Mixed farming or live stock farm
ing does not admit of so large a loss
of plant food and soil life as OCCURS
in grain farming. Live stock hus,
bandry husbands the fertility of the
soil. Mixed farming, by which is
meant the growing of varied crops
in rotation, likewise oonduoes TO the
maintenance of fertility.
The selling of hay or any kind of
grains from the farm is "a system of
bad farming which the foregoing
caption briefly states. In the pro-
duction of grain crops large quaint
ties of nitrogen, potash and phos-
phoric acid, the three very import
ant elements of plant food, are used,
Seeds contain much higher percent.
ages of these elements than do the
stalks or canes upon which they
grow.
Is is estimated, for instance, that
If an acre produces sixty bushels of
corn the soil sustains a loss of 1870
pounds of nitrogen, 61.16 pounds of
potash and 25.77 pounds of phos-
phoric acid, which at the following
respective prices per pounds, z
and 4 cents, average commercial quo
tations-would amount TO $17. SO.
This includes the stalks. Selling the
corn at 80 cents per bushel and burn
ing the stalks the farmer would
come out in debt on his crop. He
would receive $18 for the corn and
nothing for the stalks. His labor in
producing the crop properly esti-
mated would land him in debt.
But let Us say that the stalks we're
left standing in the fields, as is
usually the case, and only the corn
were sold off the land. This reduces
the value of the plant food 30 about
$6 as compared with the SIT So for
the entire crop, grain and stalks. To
the $6 should be added the cost of
production. The difference between
the product and $18 will represent
the farmers profit from the acre of
corn. It won't be a fabulous sum.
Figure it up carefully allowing fair
wages for yourself and horses, and
take into account the wear and tear
of the machinery.
In the case of wheat we find that
il an acre of ground produces twenty
Eve bushels of that cereal it sustains
a loss of 40.17 pounds of potash,
26 IS pounds of phosphOric acid and
55 IS pounds Of nitrogen, which at
the figures given for these elements
if bought commercially would
amount TO $12 %. These figures
represent the value of the plant food
contained in both grain and straw.
AS is we'll known about one-third of
the straw is left on the ground in
the form of stubble which is turned
under in the fall, or At all events is
eventually returned TO the soil, while
the other two-t thirds is either burned
Oh stacked. In view of these facts
we Can safely appropriate about So so
out of the $12 % TO represents the
fertilizing value of the stubble turned
under. Selling the twenty five bush
els of wheat at so cents per bushel
we have $16, from which we are to
subtract So. 72-the difference be-
tween $12 % and 50. 5O-plus the cost
OF growing and threshing the prop.
If any be left that will represent the
growers profit.
A careful study of the figures
given will o~onclusively show that
the growing Of, and selling from the
farm, grain is equivalent to selling
little ohCnks, as it we're, of the farm.
It 10 a practice comparable with that
of yearly drawing large amounts of
money from a bank in WHICH limited
deposits have been made. The end
is bound TO come. Is ia as certain as
two and two make four.
Grain farming as an exclusive
business does not pay the farmer
who owns the land, for every year
he makes Il heavy demand upon il