Newspapers / The Progressive Farmer (Raleigh, … / June 13, 1905, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Progressive Farmer (Raleigh, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
PROGKESSIVE FARMER AND COTTON PLANT. Tuesday, June 13, 1905 SURFACE CULTIVATION OF CORN. Deep stirring of cornfield soils is never necessary. It is a positive in jury to the plants after they have at tained a height of eight or ten inch es. At this stage of growth their root system becomes very complex and extensive, the moist soil to a a network of foraging rootlets which feed the plants. In dry seasons these rootlets are further from the surface than when the soil is abun dantly supplied with moisture, but they are not in any event below the range of the cultivator shovels too commonly used. Surface cultivation serves all the rational aims of tillage. It stirs the soil sufficiently to form a dust mulch, which aids in husbanding moisture, and destroys weeds. More over, the weeder or surface cultiva tor does this work without pruning the plant, roots. Deep cultivation facilitates the escape of moisture, injures the roots and ridges the field. From every standpoint deep culture is fundamentally wrong and shallow or surface tillage scientifically cor rect. Such is the verdict of all re ' corded experimental work in which the two systems have been fairly tested. Cultivation has more than the one object of eradicating weeds, -which is no more important in grow ing corn than the aeration of the soil and conservation of moisture. Larger yields would be the result if tod fnllv the w . - f r- - threefold purpose of cultivation. If the maintenance of a surface dust mulch in their fields received as much attention as the extermination of weeds more profitable crops would be garnered. If the old-fashioned deep-running cultivator were aban doned and the surface-working im plement adopted the wholesale de struction of corn plant roots would be avoided and an augmented yield would logically follow. It is a . common belief among growers of corn that in order to be effective the implement used in cul tivating the crop must bring moist earth to the surface. To do this when the soil is markedly deficient in water, as it often is about the middle of July and during the month of August, requires excessively deep plowing. Determined to leave a black streak of moist dirt behind him as he cultivates from one side of the cornfield to the other the plowman sets his shovels so that they will stay out'of sight, increasing his own work in handle or foot pressure, adding to the draft of the machine and, what is of far more consequence, tearing out a part of the root system of the corn plants. When corn is laid by it is the rule in some parts of the country to throw dirt from the spaces between the rows toward and against the stalks, forming ridges' which leave the field in very bad condition for subsequent use. Surface culture is best for corn from start to finish, but is especially appropriate as a finish. As it :is easier on man and beast and enables the corn-grower to produce more bushels per acre than he could obtain from deep cul tivation the system should be uni versally adopted. ' Whether the season be wet or dry the man who surface-works his corn fields will grow more corn, other con ditions being equal, than the farmer who cultivates his crop to a depth bf from six to ten inches. Deep cul ture has long been practiced for no better reason than it covers up or HTnnThfra wP(a whiob it does not unroot. But it does not occur to its advocates that 'while deep-running shovels kill and bury weeds they also injure the corn plants by cropping their roots. Weed destruction may be effected much more thoroughly by the use of cultivators which shave the entire surface between the rows of corn, severing weeds just below their crowns or uprooting them en tirely. A fair trial of shallow culti vation will bear out all the state ments made in its favor. Breeders Gazette. Improved Machinery. z Last week we published a com munication from . Pottawattamie County, Iowa, 'on improved machin ery, and we make it the occasion of a little more talk on that subject. The farmer is inclined to hang on to his old tools as long as they will do fairly- decent work and without much reference to the cost of the work done, thus violating one of the first rules of success. The men who are running our successful manufac turing establishments are always on the lookout for improved machinery. Whenever they can find a machine which will turn out a unit of the thing manufactured at less cost than can be done with the old machines, they immediately get rid ofthe old and buy the new. What they are aiming at is economy of production and they will invest in whatever will economize in that line. If the farmer is to succeed, he must pursue exactly the same policy. He is competing with the world and hence must produce a bushel of grain, a pound of live weight, or a ton of hay at the minimum of cost. Two of the main elements in the cost of production are labor and machin ery. The farmer must choose be tween investing money in labor-saving machinery or in labor. Money paid out for labor is gone at once and never comes back to him again. The money paid out for an improved machine goes gradually while the machine lasts or its usefulness lasts. Referring again to the article, this correspondent says that a boy who can handle four horses with a gang plow can do as much work as two men with four horses with the ordinary plow. The purchase of a gong plow, therefore, saves the cost of one man and his board, or about $25 to $30 per month. How long will it take a gang plow to pay for iself under this showing? The same rule applies in every other kind of ma chinery? We are not advocating or championing gang plows or any oth er tool. The point we insist on is that where a man can reduce the cost of a bushel of wheat or corn, or a ton of hay, by investing in improved ma chinery, he should do it and at once. He should, however, be sure of it be fore he makes the change. Do not buy any new machine until you have tested it so thoroughly, that you know just what you are doing. No man can afford to take any risks on this line. Improved machinery necessarily requires improved labor, a man of higher ability, and this man will de mand a higher price. There is the same difference between men that there is in machines. Our readers will all bear us out that in their past experience one hired hand has often been worth twp others and at prob ably a difference of only $5.00 per month in wages. We are quite-sure that we can pick out hired hands on the farms of Iowa of whom their employers will say that they made them a large profit, and for every one we can pick out three or four, "of whom their employers will testify that they have employed them at a loss. If -improved machinery leads to the sifting out of hired men and relegating the poorest of them to some other business, it will in itself o Klesaincr of no mean propor tions. There is a sentiment abroad that anybody can work on. the farm or is fit to be a hired hand on the modern farm. They imagine there is no skill about it, that it is simply ha.-d knocks and the exercise of mus cle. This is a very great mistake. The model farmer, whether he farms himself or is employed by others, is a skilled laborer, and the employ- mfvnt " of unskilled labor to do the work of a skilled laborer necessarily! mpfltia loss to the employer. Bear in mind that first-class ma chinery requires a first-class man to run it and that a first-class man earns first-class pay and should have it. Wallace's Farmer. Fruit Growing on the Farm The greater value of fruit grow ing to the farmer is not primarily in its commercial aspect, or how much money it will bring in, al though the receipts from the sale of the surplus are not to be despised, either: it is rather the health of good living" that comes from an abundant supply of all kinds of fruit that may be readily grown m the lo cality, so that all the year 'round the family may have all they can con sume. There are fruit specialists, the Homestead remarks, of course, just as there are sDecialists in other lines of farm industry, who make a handsome income out of the orchard and small fruit plantings. They like the work and therefore learn it eas ily and keep on learning until they are gray, and their .knowledge be comes more valuable every year by accretion. Any young farmer who begins on a scale adapted to his home needs may grow into a spe cialist of this kind, but thousands never do. This is no reason why the thousands should not have all the fruit their families can use. Be ginning with the most useful kinds and those most easily grown, the farmer can gradually surround him self with a good home orchard and small fruits of all kinds, that im prove his living and reduce its cost, thus adding to his comfort and in dependence. We do not find it nec essary to do much in the way of urging hoiticulture. Those who are already fitted for it know enough about it to determine for themselves whether or not they shall engage in it, while those who are not suffi ciently informed must work their way to it, if at all, by beginning at the bottom of the ladder; and there is no better way to do this than by beginning with a few good trees in a home orchard, and small areas of small fruit for home use. We do urge this upon every farmer. If no cash income ever comes from it, it is still worth all the expense in time and money "that it costs. it. the better we like it - undoubtdly the universal verdict Scrub stock and razor-back hoc have become things of the past Speaking for myself and from an individual standpoint, I am not an advocate of the strictly no-fence law I believe in fences, and as many aj needed; not in order that I may keep other people's stock out, but that I may pasture my fields any time and every time I wish, and yet never let my stock out on my neighbors. This is exactly what I am doing. In addi tion to abundance of pasture, under a fence that is abundantly capable of effectually restraining any and all stock enclosed therein, I have a boundary fence around my entire farm. This enables me to glean the fields and pasture them at my own will and pleasure. This is as it should, be, and I would not be satis fied to have it any other way. Our boundary fence consists of four barebd wires. This is sufficient to restrain our own stock and also that of other people. In spite of the fact that it is not best, in the long run, to habitually make a practice of pasturing the fields, the time does come, and with even the very best of farmers occasionally, when we are very much gratified in having a field that we can pasture, if we wish to; and we often wish to. The stock law has many advan tages far too many to enumerate here and entails no hardships on any one with the single exception of those who are short of stock wa ter, while it gives simple justice to many and does injustice to none. In short, the enacting of. the "nofence" law in any section is bound to result in the greatest good to the greatest number. It may result in fewer stock, but not necessarily so; and what, stock there is will be better stock, and they will be better cared for; .they will be both more profitable as well as more valuable, while. whenever they may, from any spe cial cause, need the owner's atten tion, he always knows exactly where to find them G. H. Turner, Bur gess, Miss., in Southern Planter. The Stock or No Fence Law. It is a veritable mystery to me how it is and wny it is that the soil til lers and land-owners of as old and otherwise progressive and up-to-date a State as that of old Virginia, can stand in their own light so far and adhere so faithfully to the an tiquated, unprogressive and obsolete law known as the fence law, or a. law that forces one to fence out his neighbor's stock instead of keeping his own in an enclosure. Unprogressive as Mississippi may be in many other ways, she is still progressive enough to give her soil tillers a chance to decide for them selves, in each and every township in the State, whether they shall have a fence law or a no fence law. The result is that, with the exception of a few of the most densely, timbered sections, we have the stock or no fence law over almost the entire State. We have tried it for the past fifteen years, and the longer we try Profit in Farming. TTiprp ia a wrv infprptsini? story on the first nase of this naner of the improvement of one of our worn-out Stokes County farms by a young man of intelligence and determina tion. The farm was bought when it wasn't, navinc thf taxes and the in terest on the money invested in it. To-day it is yielding a handsome profit and is worth many times what thA owripr naid for it. The Reporter has always contended that there is good money in sane methods ot i arm ing. Our proposition is demonstrat ed by the experience above referred to. Whilp sn rnrmv of our youn? men are restless, longing to go- to the towns in search of easier job3 much advantage, reflect on what this young Stokes County man has ac complished. A city job, unless the employe is more fortunate than the trrpnt. mninTitv rk-f ViirplinfTS. means hard work anywhere from ten to fifteen hours a dav? a. stern and strict boss, high expenses and poor pay With little time for amusement or diversion, the novelty of the new life soon wears off, the glamour oi i i l Vio hOT uxiv ueuomes nrasaic, auu m - -longs for the ease and freedom ot the old plantation. And it's ten to onp. flint ha noTt ti-nin brings him home. This we dare-say is the case in hundreds of instances, lhe sam hard work that was required of njm in the city, and the same good judg ment that direotpd his movements under the eye of the city boss, would, if applied to the farm, make him contented and happy. Danbury -K -lorter.
The Progressive Farmer (Raleigh, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 13, 1905, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75