The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1909-02-18
Prostitution Of Cotton Seed.
(Continued from first page]


exported to Denmark, Germany AMI
Great Britain. In 1907 Denmark
took 277,124 tons; Germany. 224,-
O64 tons, and Great Britain, 9O.539
tons. These same countries in 1900
consumed respectively, 13f .a79.
19O,424 and 1856 tons. Notice
the remarkable increase in consump-
ton shown by Germany and Denmark
Apparently there ia a considerable
falling off SO far SIS Great Britain is
concerned, but it should be remem-
bered that in recent years Great Brit
ain has obtained a part OF its supply
from Egypt and other countries. so
that in all probability the stockmen
of that country are using more than
even at the present time. The chief
interest of Denmark is in dairy hus-
bandry. They have not the natural
ly favorable conditions OF soil and
climate that obtain i'm many sec
lions of the United States, yet they
have developed dairy business OF
phenomenal proportions. and sup
ply OF large part OF the prime butter
consumed in London and other large
cities of Great Britain. Germany
has Il rapidly increasing population
and very considerable dairy indus
try. The German people are among
the most careful agricultural econO-
mists in the world, yet they are TAX
ing larger and larger supplies of our
cotton seed meal each year, which
leads US to believe they must prize it
very highly as food stuff and fer
tilizer, and realize that according to
the price paid they are obtaining IL
very cheap product, a truth which
we are now beginning to recognize
ia the South
Apparently, cotton seed meal is re-
garded as an essential food for dairy
cattle in these European countries,
and if it is true that this meal can be
SO largely purchased and utilized
profitably abroad, it is, indeed, re-
markable that it cannot be fed here
at home in view of the high prices
prevailing for dairy products and the
large amount of these feedstuffs
which are annually imported into the
South. That the export demand is
likely to increase is apparent from
the figures quoted, and ultimately it
would appear as if market might
be found abroad for all our cotton
seed meal. But can we afford such
tremendous drain on the plant-food
resources of our soils? We think not
for each year sees largely increased
outlay for commercial fertilizers
which have but temporary slim
ulating effect on crop growth, where
as the use of farmyard manure
would increase the supply of vege-
table matter in the soil, make it less
liable to wash and stimulate crop
production for much longer periods
of time. We do not mean, of course.
that the mere feeding Of cotton seed
meal would render the Use of com
mercial fertilizers unnecessary or
inadvisable. but it would mitigate
the burden now imposed upon the
farmer by his depending exclusively
on commercial fertilizers, for it is
realized in many sections that COM
mercial fertilizers are not now giving
the results one would naturally
anticipate from them, and this is
directly traceable to the fact that
the soils are devoid of vegetable
matter and need to be improved so
far as their mechanical and physical
condition is concerned to insure
more stable yields OF corn, cotton
and other essential crops.
If cotton seed meal is worth $500
ton as fOodstuf, and there are
few who are competent to pass upon
its merits that will not admit it's adj
vantages as foodstuff over any
concentrate sold at this figure, we
are certainly losing 500, 100000 a
year by exporting it, "a We are re-
ceiving nothing for the enormous
amount of fertilizer it contains, and
it is for the purpose of directing the
attention OF our farmers to this
enormous annual loss that these
figures have been presentad, as they
illustrate one OF the ways in which
we are needlessly prostituting cot
ton seed meal and losing great
part Of the benefit which nature in
tended we should enjoy from one of
The by-products incident to the pro-
duction of the fleecy staple.
In the last two years we have ex-
ported G, 300, 900 tons OF cotton seed
| meal, containing SSO,6OO,OOO lbs.
| of nitrogen, which, at Is cents a h.,
! is worth at least $132, 100000. 1t
is an axiom that we cannot con-
tinually take from Il given quantity
of material and have anything left.
We have been taking away from the
| soil supplies OF nitrogen and other
essential forms of plant food for
many years, and now we are be-
ginning to reap the result of this
wasteful practice. 1t has already
been necessary for us to put prob
ably quite as much nitrogen into the
! soil in the form of commercial plant
| food, as we have sold without an
| adequate return. If it had not been
for the natural richness of our soils
we could not have done this, but,
now that the available stores of
| plant food, which nature had been
| hundreds of years accommodating,
have been used up, we are forced to
pursue other methods of practice in
order to raise profitable crops. Let
US cease the waste incident to ex-
porting more than $2O,OOO,OOO
worth OF plant food in cotton seed
meal, as we did in 1907, for which
we received no adequate return.
| But this is only one of the ways in
which we are prostituting cotton seed
meal. Attention has already been
directed to theenormous loss incident
to the use of seed SO largely as food
Or fertilizer, since the oil contained
is of no benefit in crop production
The 2,O3S,665 tons of seed which
were kept on the farms in 1907
would have yielded, ordinarily, $780,
912 tons of cotton seed meal. This
meal, if rightly handled, should
have been worth as feed and fertilizer