Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1921-05-03
AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
BY DR.. ANDREW NJ SOULE

| yield of lint cotton in South Carolina
1852 pounds; in Alabama, 122 pounds;
| in Mississippi, 160 pounds; in Arkan-
sas, 155 pounds, and in Texas, lao
| pounds. In 1920 the figures were as
| follows: South Carolina, 254 pounds;
| Georgia, 1876 pounds; Alabama, Ill
pounds; Mississippi, l40 pounds; Ar
! kansas, 1874 pounds, and Texas, l6O
| pounds. The yields in Georgia and
| Alabama, of course, were reduced
considerably by weevil damage.
These facts make it clear that the
yields of lint cotton obtained on
many of the farms surveyed We're
greatly below the average yield OBJ
tanned throughout the state. 1t would
seem clear, therefore, THAI there are
many farmers who are not cultivat-
ing cotton with sufficient skill and
care. 1t is costing them entirely
too much to produce their crops, as
compared with certain other classes
of growers. Naturally, those who
raise the smallest yields find the
cost of production more nearly out of
proportion to the price they can OBJ
tain for their cotton than the more
successful class of growers. Those
who are in the condition indicated
must, therefore, undertake to improve
| their practice and increase their
yields as offering one of the best
| means of solving the difficulties by
| which the cotton planter is confront
ed at this time.
The year 1920 was one of the worst
in the history of cotton production
| in the south, and the experiences of
that season will not soon be forgot
ten. Will we remember the lesson
lit taught us and will we profit by it?
If we do, we are then again on the
| highway to success and prosperity.
If we ignore it, the situation can
not improve materially until we
eliminate and correct some of the
wasteful and careless management
now occurring on many of our plan
tations. The control of this situa-
ton is primarily in the hands of the
lando wner or operator himself, and
he must of necessity therefore work
out his own salvation. He can
achieve much more along this line
than he probably thinks he is capa-
BILE of accomplishing. There is also
much more to be done in the direc-
tion indicated than most Of us appear
to believe.
The plan or action suggested is
far more likely to win a profit for
the farmer from the land he cult
Yates this summer than the idea of
handling the crop in such manner as
will very materially force the price
upward. I am as much interested in
the price being raised and standardiz-
ed as any individual can possibly be,
but I think when we come to the
crossroads in dealing with any. prop
osition we should be sure to view
both angles of the problem with Cir
cumspection and do all we can to
help ourselves along those lines that
|offer the most certain reward in the
shortest period of time.
Naturally, one of the first things
for the grower to undertake it to re-
1t hi
year, and it is for this reason that I
am emphasizing the Importance of
this matter so strongly at this time
It is a saving grace within our own
control. If we can handle the cot
ton crop later on through some me-
the sale price materially when 1t
goes to market, so much the better,
but let us not lose sight of the main
issue involved at this time.
A study of the cost of cotton pro-
duction in Mitchell county, Georgia,
was made by the office. of farm man
agement. The figures from 1920 were
applied to the results presented. 1t
was found that 81 per cent of the
total operating expenses, exclusive of
the rent of the land, was represented
in the cost of man and mule labor,
seed and fertilizers. The other is
per cent included the cost of ginning
and equipment, taxes, insurance and
overhead Man labor was charged
at the rate of 80 cents per hour, mule
labor at 20 cents per hour, seed at
$81 a ton, and fertilizer at $40 a
ton. There was a yield of 159 pounds
of lint cotton and 300 pounds of seed.
Two hundred ninety-two pounds of
fertilizer were applied. 1t took 148
hours of man and mule labor to make
the crop. The total cost involved per
acre amounted to $56.16. To this
should be applied a seed credit of
$3.50, leaving a balance of $52.26. The
cost of the lint cotton per acre was
therefore 33 cents. The profit was
represented by a minus sign. We
can not afford to continue any such
practice If we expect to maintain our
agricultural Industries here in the
south upon a solvent basis.