The progressive farmer and southern farm gazette., 1912-03-16
HARROWINGS.


n ALL the insane propositions made to the
] farmer for reducing the cotton crop, the
~ one to reduce his fertilizers the crop is
the most senseless / have SEEN If we used no
fertilizers cotton lands, the crops would cer-
tainiy be reduced. The crops would also be re-
duced if we planted it and then gave it only half
the work it needed The one proposition is about
as sensible as the other. or course. the ferti-
lizers cost money, but so does it cost money to
cultivate the crop and costs still more not to
fertilize cultivate.
1 hope there is no one so ignorant to deny
that fertilizers pay. They pay and pay well, or
their use would not have grown to the proper
tions reached in recent years. If they pay why
use less for the purpose of reducing the crop and
making it less profitable? Could anything be
ridiculous? Harrow would like to see the
acreage reduced about rs per cent and the ferti-
lizers increased 25 per cent. If that done the
crop would be about SO per cent more profitable.
After reading and studying all the reasons
given for reducing the cotton acreage, I have
only that seems logical The cotton
acreage should be reduced because we are plant
ing too much land In this one crop TO enable
to do good farming-to increase soil fertility.
It is true, that we should reduce our expenses
for nitrogen in fertilizer bills, by growing
more legumes, but this should be done after we
have grown the legumes and not before. Until
have grown the legumes and actually OBJ
tanned the nitrogen needed, we should buy more
There is no manner of doubt to what we ought
to do. We ought to grow more legumes and then
quit buying much nitrogen, but just that
is not the question relates to this years crop
We haven't grown the legumes, and the question
now is, shall we buy nitrogen and make the crops
profitable, refuse to buy it and make the crops
Improbable? Plainly, must buy the nitrogen
until we have obtained it the cheaper and better
way, through the growing of legumes. To the
farmer whose land needs nitrogen. l say buy II
this year, at 20 cents pound and use II
inteigently. If you will only let legumes gather
the nitrogen for your next years crop, it will be
better and cheaper; but If you will not do that,
then buy it again next year. 1t is more profitable
to buy limited amount of 1t at 20 cents pound
than to allow your cotton to suffer for the lack of
it. We have bought too much phosphoric
acid, nor half enough of it, and shall continue
to buy it, and more of 1t, because soils need
it and will continue to need it. Stop buying nj
trogen after, but not before you have gotten II
through the legumes, and then spend the money
saved in buying phosphoric acid and lime That
must be the rational practice of the future.
Prof. Barrow had better look out or the So
called seed breeders will get him. He says: ''As
with livestock so with seed. Good feed and care
are just important good breeding"
This Is all wrong, according to the seed breed
ers. They say, not to put the seed plat rich
land or the seed produced will not be fit for ordi-
nary land. In improving livestock feeding has
breeders, or many of them, seem to want to de-
pend on breeding alone. Give the seed patch
rich land and the best of care The seed pro-
duced will not make big crops on poor land, but
better seed will be produced in this way, and
good seed will produce more either poor or