138 MONTHLY JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURE. 



PLANTING IN SOUTH CAROLINA, AND IN MISSISSIPPI 

 AND LOUISIANA. 



EXPENSE AND RESULTS COMPARED. 



Sir : In your periodical for July, 1846, there is a communication sij^ned S. B. 

 on the subject of the " Cost and Profit of Cultivating Corn and Cotton " in South 

 Carolina and Georgia. 



Presuming something on the same subject from Mississippi and Louisiana 

 would not be unacceptable to your readers, I offer you the following : 



On the uplands in Mississippi and Louisiana, the average product of corn per 

 acre is not less than 25 bushels. It ranges generally between 25 and 30 bushels. 



On the lowlands the average product is 35 bushels per acre, and generally 

 ranges between 35 and 45 bushels. 



On the uplands the average product of cotton per hand is 6 bales of 400 lbs. ; 

 or 2,400 lbs. 



On the lowlands the average product is S bales, or 3,200 lbs. per hand. 



The average cost of production is rated at 2 cts. per lb. ; leaving 4 cts. per lb. 

 (assuming the value to be 6 cts.) for interest on capital, insurance on property, 

 ice. &c. 



On all well-managed plantations there is no difficulty in raising com and fod- 

 der enough for the supply of the place, without any interference with the culture 

 of the cotton crop. On the lowlands it is an easy matter to raise more corn than 

 the place can consume, and as much cotton as the hands can pick, from August 

 till January, 



Contrast the product in South Carolina and Georgia with that of the low lands 

 of Louisiana and Mississippi : 



SOUTH CAROLINA AND GEORGIA. 



12 bushels of com per acre. 

 150 lbs. of clean cotton do. 

 Average product per liaiid, 1,200 lbs. 

 Worth, at 6 cts. $72. 



LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. 



35 bushels of corn per acre. 

 450 lbs. of clean cotton do. 

 Average product per hand, 3,200 lbs. 

 Worth, at G cts. $192. 



It is not universally conceded, among our most intelligent cotton planters, that 

 the cost of production is increased by the policy of the Government. On the con- 

 trary, many, very many, of our most intelligent planters — and of those, too, most 

 devoted and minute in their attention to their interests — believe the policy of the 

 Government, in fostering home industry, has diminished the cost of production, 

 and enhanced the value of the product. 



The mere expense of feeding and clothing in Louisiana and Mississippi amounts 

 to but little^ and forms a small item in the plantation accounts. For example : 

 Take a force of 50 hands (and, to give this force, the aggregate number will be 

 75 or SO), and what will be the cost of clothing and feeding? 



Say for 7'>(> yds. of cotton cloth, for the effective force, at 10 cts. per yd $7.5 



2.")0 . . jeans, at 38 cts. per yd 9a 



1'tO . . linseys, at 28 cts. per yd 42 



.50 .. .. for the children. !it 28 cts. per yd 12 



l.'JO . . cotton clotli, for do. at 10 cts. per yd 1.5 



65 brl.s. of pork, at $10 per brl 650 



Hats, shoes, and head lidkfs 1 25 



Thus, the total cost of feeding and clothing a plantation (the eflbctive force on ■which is 



.50 hand.«) would be $1014 



Deduct the amount for pork — which is not uHi'ctod (at least, not rtilinnad in price) by 



the policy of the Government 6.50 



And we have for clothing $364 



Now, admitting that the cost of this item is enhanced 30 per cent, by the pro- 

 tective duties, and it onlv adds |;109 20 to the plantation expenses. So that a 



(982) 



