The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-05-13
Editorial Comment.

/ .hS ll4dl MS own state spends
about SIG for commercial fertilizer
Tor every bale of cotton produced.
We do not think it worth while ar
guing this case. All any man has to
do to be convinced is to take all the
different States Of the Union and
find out the number of farm
work stock to each farm worker,
and then the average yea.iy earn
ings Of the farm workers in these
number of farm work stock is larg-
est in prpOrtion to the farm work
ers, there he will also find, with reg
ularity, that the avearge farm work
er earns most. How can our friend
| explain the cOnstancy of these rela-
tons, If the extra work stock does
the man?
In the first place, we wish to state
that we also have much respect for
many one-horse farmers; but in such
a case as this the absurd idea of res
! pect or lack of respect does not en-
ter into the proposition. We do not
base OUR respect for d man on such
| things; but we know many men for
whom we have the greatest respect
who are mighty poor farmers. They
are honest, kind and Industrious,
and in many cases have much knowl-
| edge and consequently have right
to and receive our respect; but that
does not mean that they are doing
the best farming or that they could
not do better farming if they should
two horses and two-horse maple
monts and methods. Let us be done
with the silly idea that because we
state man is not doing as good farm
| ing as he might, that we do not re-
! spect him as a man.
! We have repeatedly pointed out in
The Progressive Farmer that the
, mule or horse is the most expensive
/ animal kept on the farm and that
| he should be kept busy all the year.
We have also stated that if man
| is going to continue to use one-hOrse
| implements and One-horse methods,
| two horses will he a needles eX-
pense.
| Our correspondent places the cost
Of keeping mule at a price beyond
| all reason; but even accepting his
! from So 70 toU PER cent too high.
! We have no hesitation IN stating tna,
! any man who viii use two horse i'm
I pIcmenjs ana direct TN" work with
! a Two horse brain, can make TWO
mules earn $144 more than one
horse, used to one-horse implements
with the old '-one-horse methods"
| The trouble is we are so set in the
habits formed by using one horse
we do not make full use Of the sec
Ond horse, in many cases, when we
have him. Our friend says: 1T
rarely pays TO keep more horses than
you have land and labor with which
to keep them employed" That is
certainly true, but it is begging the
| real question. One man can keep
/ two horses employed if he uses two
horse implements and manages prop
| erly. If he uses the extra mule only
| for breaking the land, it is indeed
| doubtful whether it will pa him TO
| buy second mule. There are -wo
errors involved here: CD Two horses
| Will do better and more economical
| preparation and cultivation after the
| land is "broken," and CD he should
! not buy another mule. He should
get a mare and when not used in
breaking the land and preparing and
cultivating the land better than can
| be done with one horse, employ her
in rearing a colt and in that way
enable her to pay for her keep.
The method of breaking the land
with one-horse pOlw; which our
correspondent has described, need
not be discussed; for it is simply
case of putting up a STRAW man"
Tor the PLEASURE of knocking him
down If this is the best method Of
breaking land, We submit that it can
be better and more rapidly done in
this way with two horses than with
one. Everything which ne states is
best with the One-horse ploW. can be
better done with the tWo-horse plow.
We do not agree with all that is said
about the methods af plowirg the
land, but if it is correct, it can be
better done with - tWo-horsc pIow.
Moreover the argument that the