Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1921-05-03

agency of it's office of farm man
| agement, and the agricultural coli
| leges in the states concerned. The
investigation represents facts gath
| cred from farms in Alabama, Arkan-
Sas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Car
DINA and Texas. Eight hundred and
| twenty-one farm records were OBJ
tanned from the crop of 1919. The
sembled and some of the primary
facts in connection Herewith are
| presented below.
In the studies involved an endeav-
| or has been made to determine the
proportionate amount of time and
cost chargeable to man and mule la
Dor. The amount of seed and fertil-
izer used has also been ascertained.
1t may be surprising to. many of our
| farmers to learn that the results in
d1cate that man and mule labor con-
| stituted from So to rs per cent of
| the operating expenses involved IN
| the production of cotton, while the
outlay for fertilizer Appropriated
only from 10 to 10 per cent. In some
! instances, the cost of four items, Ia
Dor of man and mule, fertilizer and
seed, constituted from 10 to sc per
cent of the total operating expense.
| These results make it evident at once
that greater skill in the handling
of the labor of man and mule is eS-
Sential in reducing the cost of cotton
production. 1t is also certain that
as we increase the use of fertilizer
and labor, We raise the cost Of either
the seed or lint cotton materially.
Naturally, if a farmer knows some
thing about the cost involved in cot
ton production, he is in better posi-
ton to control the same and so handle
and manage his farming operations
as to effectively minimize eXpendi-
lures along certain lines. Without
this knowledge he must of necessity
be at sea, and it is indeed fortunate
that the studies in question have been
made. OF course, they must still be
regarded as superficial, but they are
sufficiently authentic and cover
| large enough number of farms to
provide US with basic information on
which to predicate better type OF
farm practice in relation to the pro-
duction of cotton.
The hours of man and mule labor
required to grow an acre of cotton
varied all the way from as to 14O.
Roughly speaking, one-fourth to one
third more man labor was involved
than of mule labor. There were
cases in which more than 200 hours
of man and mule labor were used to
grow an acre of cotton, and there
were instances where the crop was
made for an outlay OF ~ hours OIL
man and mule labor. 1t would ap-
pear that more money was, expended
for man and mule labor in South Car
DINA and Alabama than in the other
states Indicated.
The amount of fertilizer used va
ried greatly. In the case OF one rex,
was applied. The largest amount
was used in Barnwell county, South
Carolina, where 1880 pounds per acre
were used Less fertilizer was used
in Mississippi than in any OF the
other states. the average being ~
pounds per acre. In Arkansas 22 29
dc xUaro nSa6. in Texas, l43
bounds; in Georgia, from 263 to 296
bounds, and in South Carolina, from
449 to 500 pounds. 1t would appear
in many instances as though the
amour of fertilizer as to make its
effect on the crop negligible quantl-
ty. In other instances, it appears
that they used more plant food than
the crop could utilize to advantage
No doubt the residue left in the soil
South Cardinals recor din production
would, of course, indicate that the
heavy application of fertilizer to
which she resorted proved to be an
advantage.
The amount of seed planted per
acre varied from Z of a bushel to 1.25
bushels. We do not presume that the
variation in this respect had any mat
terial influence on the crop. In some
cases where the lands are more fri
able than In Othef SeCtlOnS, the use OIL
less seed might be advisable. Where
clay lands predominant, the soil is
likely to bake or crust and thick
planting is necessary in order to help
the plants force their way through,
especially in a dry year.
The value of the lands devoted to
cotton varied quite as widely as any
other factor recorded. In some in
stances, the price was placed at sly
per acre lin other cases, at $3.50 per
acre. The difference in this respect
was therefore 1881. 1t is easy to see
how difficult it is to determine the
cost of cotton production when fac
tors of this character enter into the
discussion. Of course, when the av-
erage of all the farms examined is
taken into consideration, such wide
variations are not observed.
We come now to a most interesting
question in connection with this dis
cussion. 1t appears that an average
of from 1872 to 1914 acres were in
cotton in the case of the farms
studied. The yield per acre varied all
the way from 81 to 2S6 pounds. The
largest yields were obtained in South
Carolina. These figures, of course,
refer to lint cotton. The yield of
lint cotton was, however, relatively
larger in South Carolina than in the
other states, though good records
were made IN Green county, Georgia;
7T"rshall county, Alabama. and
NS-aSh IN ortoO county NiSSiSSiDDi The