The Lancaster news. [volume] (Lancaster, S.C.) 1905-current, 1916-03-10
IMPROVING THE YIELD
OF CORN.
Address of Frank G. Tarbox, Jr.,
seed Corn Selection Day, Lam
caster, Monday March 6, 1916.

Improving the Yield of Corn.
1t Is hardly necessary for me
to tell you how important it is
Tor us to increase the yield of
corn in South Carolina. For the
past ten years our average yield
per acre has been only 1872
bushels. If this average was
taken from our best farmers and
our improved land then it would
Del Mlch higher. There have
peen numbers of reported high
yields made by members of the
corn clubs and others, all of
them being made on improved
land and on highly fertilized
land. To me the question of i'm
proving our corn yields at pres
ent lies much in soil improvement
as in securing highly bred seed.
Our improved soils will make
from 35 to SO bushels per acre
now, without any better seed.
Our soils, taken as a whole are
poor, and unless we fertilized
our crop the average yield would
be only about one half of what
it now is.
In 1914 South Carolina plant
ed 1,975,000 acres in corn, pro-
ducing 36,538,00O bushels, or an
average of 1875 bu. per acre. The
state of Wisconsin planted l.
72b,OO0 acres, producing $780,
600 bu. or an average of 40.5 bu.
per acre. South Carolina plant
ed 100000 acres more than Wis
consin, and yet made 33,324.0O0
bu. less corn. There are prob
ably several things which cause
such a difference, but those
which are most important to us
are, the soil, the labor, and the
seed.
Wisconsin has a rich glacial
soil, far richer than we can ever
make ours, and this one thing
is probably the chief reason for
the high yields made in that
state. IF we take fertilizers out
of Sohth Carolina where would
our fSrmers be? Our high yields
are made by enrichening our
lands and by the intelligent use
of commercial fertilizers. All
Of the high yields reported in
the past few years are the direct
result of improved soil condi-
tions. and fertilizers. Should
we discontinue the use of com.
mercial fertilizers our state av-
erage would scarcely be one half
of what it now is. Our first
step then is to improve our land.
Cotton is our money crop, and
1t is but natural for this reason
that more care and attention is
given to that crop. We cannot
borrow money on corn as we
can on cotton. The negro ten
ant knows it, and so why does
he want to put in any extra time
on his corn. The result is that
the best is given to
cotton, the best land,
the best working, and the most
fertilizer. Corn is either neg
lected or is put on the poorest
land. 1t is often allowed to grow
up in weeds and grass. Consid-
ering the number of negro farm
ers in the state, can we be other
than surprised that our average
yield per acre is no larger? Were
all of our farmers white, then
we could expect to see our Yields
increased. The state of Wiscon-
sin has no negro farmer to con-
tend with, and they pay more
attention to the corn crop, both
as to planting, and cultivation,
as well as to seed selection. 1t
is true that it is more of a sta
pie crop with them than with
us. We should take steps to
make the negro farmer pay more
attention to his corn crop. If
necessary we should see that he
gdts good seed, plants it on well
prepared land, and then works
it as it should be.
Moisture is the final controll-
ing factor in crop production.
The most productive soils. no
matter how we'll cultivated. or
highly bred the corn, cannot
make a crop without water.
South Carolina as rule has am
pie rainfall to make good crop
of corn. AS the rainfall varies.
4 a n