Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1922-08-26
Data Relative to Agricultural Condi-
tons i'm Central Georgia

tiOnS IN central Georgia
Inc central part of the state of
georgia has probably suffered more
from depredations Of the bon weevil
than any other part of the state. 1t
IS probable, Of course, that the con-
ciuslon of this years farm opera
tions may tell a different tale and
lhat other sections may also be in
vowed. The question has naturally
arisen with most of the farmers in
many of the counties situated in
central Georgia as to how or what
tney might be able to do to offset
the depredations of the weevil. In
oroer that an accurate conclusion
relative to this matter might be
made, an agricultural survey of the
counties indicated below was made
under the direction of the editor of
these columns. It reveals some very
interesting facts, and the conclu-
SONS reached relative to the needs
ok thls section, and its possibilities
Apply so generally to other sec lions
Oh the state that their reproduction
mere has been arranged for in re-
spouse to the very large number of
inquiries received as to plans and
programs of action which should be
instituted in order to enable the
farmers of central Georgia to recoup
themselves against weevil losses.
The figures presented in this arti-
Gle are all taken from the census re-
port or 1913, unless otherwise stated.
!hey were used because they are
comparatively recent and the most
rehable data on which to predicate
any definite conclusions which
might be drawn from this survey.
This area may be appropriately
considered as including the follow
ing counties: Baldwin, Bibb, Bleck-
Iey' Butts, Crawford, Dodge, Dolly,
greene, Hancock, Henry, Houston,
Jasper, johnson, Jones, Laurens,
macon, Monroe, Morgan, Newton,
IKE, Pulaski, Putnam, Schley,
Spalding, Talbot, Taylor, Twiggs,
Epson, Washington and Wilkinson.
IL constitutes one of the richest and
most progressive agricultural Sec
tlons OF the state of Georgia. Many
OF the facts obtained in making this
investigation apply with equal force
10 other parts of the state. This
survey may, therefore, be regarded
with propriety as of a very illumi-
mating nature, and as providing
Data OF general interest and concern
10 all our people. The facts set
Iorth evidence the desirability of
every town or center of importance
making an analysis of the agricul-
tural and trade conditions prevailing
In that territory.
IL appears that the population of
the thirty counties under considera-
uon Is $40, $50. The rural popula-
ton numbers 42S,903 individuals.
Macon, with population of 52,995,
constitutes the principal city in the
territory. The next largest town is
Dub1n in Laurens county, with a
population of 7,707. All the other
towns contain less than 5000 people.
The capital of each county is nat
uarlly of more or less Importance as
business center and exercises a
considerable influence on the char
acter and trend of trade, and to
some extent the type of agriculture
practlced IN the open country by
which it is surrounded. There are
ABOUT $4,000 farms in Georgia, of
Whlch 66,S52 are contained in the
lhlrty counties under discussion.
rms area, therefore, contains more
IMAM one-fifth, but somewhat less
IMAM one-fourth, of all the farms in
the state. About one-third of these
farms, or 16,428, are operated by
owners, and 50,424 by tenants. This
evidences entirely too large a pro.
portion of absentee landlords to in.
sure stabilized production of the
principal farm crops. Animal in.
dustries seldom flourish under the
tenant system, and crop diversified
ton is hindered rather than encour.
aged.
The improved acres per farm vary
from l31 in Washington county to
1913 in Butts county. The average
for all the counties was SO.7 acres,
The total area of improved farm
lands, or, in other words, lands I'M
der cultivation, was 3,193,252 acres