The Marietta journal. [volume] (Marietta, Ga.) 1866-1909, 1905-03-02
REDUCING ACREAGE
AND
REDUCING FERTILIZER

The following article, by Colonel r. J.
Redding, Director of the Georgia Agricul-
tnral Experiment Station, is reproduced
from the Atlanta Constitution of Monday.
February 18th, 1905. 1t is of much interest
10 the farmers and their careful attention
Is directed to 1T:
The work of the recent cotton growers
convention at New Orleans deserves in ire
main features, the hearty approval and
Endorsement Of the farmers all over the
south The action of the committee since
the adjournment in formulating constitu-
tion and bylaws as a basis and bond of
union for the continued existence of the or
ganzation is also worthy of all S"aise for
It's comprehensiveness and adaptation to the
objects sought to be promoted. 1t is an
able document and should be TIA means Of
consolidating and unifying she Interests of
the cotton growers and manufa . rers in
the future Whether its effective infu-
ence shall outlive the present emergency.
and promote the cotton growers best in
terests in the future will depend largely
upon the good judgment and sound disrre-
ton Of those in active control of the organi-
cation, backed by the loyal and voluntary
support Of the great mass of the farmers
themselves.
But many of the most intelligent and up-
to-date farmers, supported by those who are
themselves only sincere friends OF the farm
D.
vice to reduce the amount of fertilizers to
be used by the growers of cotton
1t is all well and good" to cut down the
acreage in order to curtail the size of the
coming crop. 1t. would have been better
to have cut the area to one-haf the acre
age Of last year. 1t would have been still
better to have advised and argued upon a
horizontal cut to 10 acres to the pillow. as
suming that such a reduction would
amount to about. one-half, taking the en-
tire cotton area into account. The effect
OF such q reduction would practically have
resulted in such large decrease In the ag-
greeate cotton output that even q very
much larger increase in the per acre appli-
cation of fertilizers than is at all probable
would not suffice to produce more than a
10000 900 bale crop, under moSts favorable
conditions.
For what does a farmer use commercial
fertilizers if not for the purpose OF increas-
ing the yield per acre and at the same time
as an inseparable incident, to lessen the
cost per pound Of producing cotton? If
the fertilizer does not enable the farmer
to produce Il bale OF cotton III a less cost
than it could be produced without the fer
till@cr, then what good office does the fer
tiiiZtr perform: If Il farmer who has been
EsoNinS cotton without the aid of fertil-
t2c'S at a cost Of 1 cents per pound of lint
"A"t Is the use OF applying fertilizers if
sUtA use does not lower the cost to cents
or {" cents, per pound of lint?
Suppose given farmer has usually plant
ed lEl acres In cotton ana that the aver
az, tlSld without fertilizer has been about
foit' bales which is about the general av-
era&c. VIII any CEe claim that such a
yIs'd laS cost less than cents per pound
G. hAt: VIII 1t cost him any less by sim
ply reducing the area to rs acres and con
Ill ing to abstain from fertiiiGer or apply
CiF an Insignificant amount per acre? Not
Llucl, II any and if any less. ii will be be-
cause lie Will he able to throw out % acres
OF Tie most unproductive land.
Eut instead of reducing the area TO only
70 acres suppose he shall cut 1t down to 81
ceres and apply 200 pounds per acre Of a
wei balanced, hOme-n!ixed fertilizer VIII
lie not thus Increase the yield per acre by
at least oue-haf. that he Will get thirty
bale from the 30 acres? The Fixed
rhaf"eS In labor, interest supcrinten-
OeLcc etc. Will be no greater per acre on
tle 80 acres than they were formerly ca
the ! - acres. or just half as much for pro-
dGciag the thirty bales as for producing
the forty bales
I.r VII have produced on the so acres
~ bales: WAp"c"S before he rr9drcrd ouly
~ tles tthe hait OF 70 Bales On that area.
I'M, gain az - bales is alno entirely due
10 tie use of 50 worth of fertilizers per acre
o. Si"' worth on the 30 acres making the
zen bales cost SO cal. OF = cents per
pound ready to pick, or cents per pound
u"'tH ready Tor market. OF course, these
!, "".'S q" @&@i p5HniS are diStrihu; I'd
tLI"ItL"at 5.r - bales. The twenty bales
lual tAe 30 aces % Land produced OF it
eel we EaNe srpEo&ed to have cost : cents
Per PuHh0. or SlOJ for the 20 Jules The
~ oa'cs OF Increase cost 500. pas the cost
VI packing. $40, total, $3.50. OF course,
tEeh the 80 sales will have cost 500 plus
prov or grand total OF $3.50 for the 30
DaieS' or 2-3 cents per pound Of lint
The suppositions on which these calcula-
nohS are based are all within very moder-
AZ BOUNDS, and are used only to illustrate
I4e principle. AS much more liberal APP
p"eauoh OF fertilizers per acre would make
sSi'l stronger illustration.
wherefore, it seems to me plain, that the
Itfmer should produce a larger percentage
that undivided portion of each bale that
eost only cents per pound, and a small
percentage Of the portion that costs
cents per pound. II one-half OF each bale
"a COTTON cost cents per pound and the
remaining half cost cents per pound then
Is quite clear that the mean cost Of the
D4Ie OF cotton would be an exact meah Be-
%een and or 3 cents per pound. II one
saLu only, or the bale cost cents pound
Snu the remaining two-thirds cost cents
bSos pound, the whole bale will have cost
20 cents per pound. If one-fourth of the
t sIe cost cents a pound and the remain
~ taree-quarters cost cents per pound,
sueu the whole bale will have cost cents
per pound.
10 sum up and present the whole at a
kSance' we may reasonably draw the follow
ing comparisons:
g.