The Lexington dispatch. [volume] (Lexington, South Carolina) 1870-1917, 1905-03-08

The work Of the recent Cotton Grow.
ers' Convention at New Orleans de-
serves, in its main features, the hearty
approval and endorsement Of the farm
ers all over the South. The action OF
tn. committee since the adjournment
in formulating constitution and BY
laws as a basis and bond Of union for
the continued existence Of the. organl-
zation is also worthy Of all praise for
it's comprehensiyeness and adaptation
to the objects sought to be promoted.
I,"is an able document and should be
the means of consolidating and unity
ing the interests of the cotton gr, .!ers
and manufacturers. in the future.
Whether it's effective influence shall
outliye the present emergency and pro-
mote the cotton growers best interests
in the future will Nepend largely upon
the good judgment and SOUND 6lscre-
ton of those in active control OF the
organization. backed by the loyal anu
voluntary support Of the great mass OF
the farmers themselves.
Bat many of the most Intelligent and
up-to-date farmers, supported oy those
who are themselves only sincere
friends of the farmers, are unable to
see the wisdom of the advice to reduce
the amount of fertilizers to be used by
the growers of cotton.
It is all "well and good to cnt down
the acreage in order to curtall the size
of the coming crop. 1t would have been
better to have cut the area to one-nalf
the acreage Of last year. 1t would have
been still better to have advised and
argued upon horizontal cut to 10
acres to the plow, assuming that such
a reduction would amount to about
one-half, taking the entire cotton area
into account. The effect Of such re-
duction would practically have result
ed in such a large decrease in the ag-
gregate cotton output that even a very
much larger increase in the per acre
application of fertilizers than is at all
probable would not suffice to produce
more than 10,000,000 bale crop, under
most favorable conditions.
For what does a farmer use conc
mercial fertilizers if not for the pur-
pose of increasing the yield per acre
and at the same time, as an INSOFAR
able incident, to lessen the cost per
pound o. producing the cotton? II the
fertilizer does not enable the farmer
to produce a bale OF Gotten at a less
cost than it could bc produced without
the fertilizer, then what good Office
does the fertilizers perform? II q
farmer who has been growing cotton
without the aid Of fertilizers at a cost
of 7 cents per pound Of lint, what is
the use of applying fertilizers If ~uch
use does not lower the cost to cents
or to 5 cents per pound Of lint?
Suppose a given farmer has usually
planted 100 acres in cotton and that
the average yield, without fertilizer,
has been about forty bales, which is
about the general average. Will any
one claim that such yield has cost
less than Z cents per pound Of lint?
Will it cost him any less by simply
reducing the area to Is acres. and con-
iinuing to abstain from fertilizer, or
apply only an Insignificant amount per
acre? Not much, if any, and if any
less, it will be because he will be able
to throw out 25 acres Of the most IN.
productive land.
But instead Of reducing the area to
only Is acres, suppose he shall cut it
down to so acres and apply 200 pounds
per acre Of we'll balanced, home mix.
ed fertilizer. Will he not thus increase
the yield per acre by at least one-half,
SO that he will get thirty bales from
the so acres? The fixed charges In
labor, interest, superintendents, etc,
will be no greater per acre on the: so
acres than they we're formerly on the
100 acres, or just half as much for pro-