The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1916-03-22

Southern agriculture.
The gain in the entire country
outside of the South, was S20S,ooi,-
600, or $1Os, 100000 less than the
gain in the South.
The percentage of increase for the
South in 1915 over 1914 was Io'oo
The percentage of increase for the
rest of the country in 1919 over
1914 was only 5.25 per cent.
Notwithstanding the great decrease
in the value of the cotto- crop last
wear. by virtue of war conditions,
Compared with the big crops. and
high prices for some years PRIOR 10
the war, the rate of increase OF the
South's farm crops over the tlve-year
average from 1909 to 1913 was 6.2S
per cent.
Though the cotton crop last year
was small and prices were lower tnan
for some years prior to the war; the
value of last years farm crops in the
South was s153, 900, 900 greater than
the average value for the tive-year
period from 1909 to 1913, both IN
elusive.
Notwithstanding the much lower
value of last years cotton crop. COM
pared with 1909 to 1918, while on
the other hand the West had large
grain crops with high prlces que 70
the phenomenal European demano
for foodstuffs, the value OF the
South's farm crops for 1915, was
2.6O7.349, 900 as compared with S4'-
i81.556,O for the rest Of the coun.
trv. The United States Department
of Agriculture estimates the value
~ last vear's cotton crop, not includ-
inc seed, at $3.50, 900, 900, which we
think is probably an ultra-conserVa..
tive figure. Counting the value OF
the seed, we believe the crop may yno De
safely estimated at $75O,Ooo,ooV'
though no exact figure can be gwen
until the end of the crop season:
Taking, however, an estlmate ol
s75O. .00O, 900 as the value OF the cot,
ton crop, including seed, this would
leave as the value of other crops 81
957. 100000, or, in other words, the
value Of diversified crops was con-
s;derably more than two and one.
half times as great as the value OF
.he cotton crop and nearly twice as
great as the most valuaole coIUoi
crop ever produced by the South.
It must be borne in mind that Snese
figures relate to farm crops ana not
to all agricultural products, Tor tney
do not include the value OF amman
The Department of Agriculture es,
+;mates the total value of animal
products for the United States IN
1915 at $3,s49, 100000, but does not %
attempt to make an estlma1e as W
the value by States.
As the South has almost exactly
one-third of the total number OF i've
stock in the United States, 1t Is rea-
sonahle to estimate the value OF the
animal products of this section as ap,,
nroximately one-third of the total
rajue for the whole country. inns
NAV possibly be fraction too nign, 81
hat # cannot be vary far out OF the
way. Nevertheless, to be on the sa1e
side. we will estimate the value ed od
the South's animal products as 81
nor cent. instead of 33 1-3 per cent.
af the total for the whole country.
This would make the total for the
South s1,O54, 100000. Taking the
round figure of 81 900, 900, 600, to be
On the side of conservatism, and add
mo # to the value of farm crops, we
have a total of S3,6OO,O0O,Oo9 as
the value of all agricultural produc!s
of the South last year, ana Oh tnaS
only about $750,0OO,OOO was repre-
sented by cotton.
Even If we were to take the strlctc
w cotton-growing States of Nortn
and South Carolina, Georgia, Florida
Alabama. Mississippi, LOUISIANA,
Texas. Arkansas, and Oklahoma II
would be found that the value OF
farm products other than cotton Is
very much greater than the value a oa
their cotton crops, whereas, When we Z
include the non-cotton producing
States. such as Kentucky, Maryland
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia,
and Missouri, we get the strlklngly
imnortant fact which cannot be too
often reiterated and emphasized that
the value of diversified farm products
of the South last year was $2,o5O,-
600, 900, against $750,O00,OO0 Tor
cotton. Cotton, therefore, com
nrised but little more than one-fifthi
of the total agricultural products OF
$4,000, 100000 of the South, and the
other products were nearly four
times as great in value as the cotton
crop.
Some very striking facts are
brought out by comparing the value
of farm crops in some of the South
ern States with Eastern and western
States.
For instance, the value of Georgia's
farm crops, last year, of $233,5O6,-
900 was more than 81 900, ,0OO, 600 In
excess of the value of Pennsylvan-
las, and was $32,000,O00 in excess
of the value of Michigan's, $54, ,000,-
600 in excess of the value of Wis
consin's, nearly $13,000,000 in ex-
cess of the value of North Dakota's,
and $66,0OO,O00 in excess Of South
Dakota's.s
Kansas, with all of its wonderful
agricultural prosperity, exceeded the
value of Georgia's farm crops by on
~ $29,000,00O; but Kansas and