The cost of producing cotton : 842 records, 1918

Historic, archived document

Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

‘UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BULLETIN No. 896

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics
H. C. TAYLOR, Chief

Washington, D. C. Vv November 19, 1920

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON

(842 RECORDS—1918)

By |

: |

L. A. MOORHOUSE, Associate Farm Economist i |

: : and 4 )
M. R. COOPER, Assistant Farm Economist ;

: |

Entreduechion) “rina Be, eo Se ses Normal Times Required for Various Op- |

Yield of Cottonin the South . .... 4 Cran@usie sae erates <p elke erate aes 17 z |
Method of Study and Description of warm Receipts 2s oe aoe cele oe = 41 *

RECESS a caese ig cate avin belies oh all -8 4 | Basic Cost Factors .....-..+---. 42 Ey
Analysis ef 1918 Costs ..... ‘, ... 9 | Variations in Cost and Relation to Price 45 : +S
Relation of Acreage and Yield to Net PA npenUex a) 4 tests cots wee ere 50 E

Cost Per Pound of Lint. ....... 16

WASHINGTON
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1920
eee eee a ig, Many ower Ang een RSS =

WASHINGTON ; GOVERNMENT®?RINTING OFFICE : 1920

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

BULLETIN No. 896

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management and
Farm Economics

H. C. TAYLOR, Chief

Washington, D. C. Vv November 19, 1920

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON.

(842 RECORDS—1918. )

yt, A. MoornouseE, Associate Farm Economist, and M. R. Coopzr, Assistant
Farm Economist.

>

CONTENTS.

Page. Page
EMER OUUCtLON S seroma nels esses cere nioeie o oi 1 | Normaltime required for v arious operations. iz
Waeldiokcottontinithesouth=ss-eee- ss]. eee. 4s armerecelptSse asset ae eee 41
Method of study and description of areas.... 45 | DB aSicGicost factors tes eaeee = eee 42
JNTE INES CHIE) GOS e5coqoocuceeuccasdaeacs 9 | Variations in cost and relation to price.....- 45
Relation of acreage and yield to net cost IAD DON GER see ae see eee eee ee eee 50

[OG KOUNAOL@ hit iogedqaccoaadocacosass7ocose 16
INTRODUCTION.

This bulletin is based upon estimates from 842 farms representing
10 districts in the Cotton Belt, viz: 3 districts in Alabama, 3 in Geor-
gia, 2 in South Carolina, and 2 in Texas. (See fig. 1 and Table I.)
The relative importance of the cotton crop in these four States is
shown by Table IT.!

This investigation pertains to the crop year 1918 and the cost
figures for each farm are applicable only to the cotton crop of this
particular year. |

1Considerable work has been done by the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics in the
Cotton Belt, and bulletins showing the business organization of farms in typical cotton districts have been
published. Farm practices in the cultivation of cotton have also been studied tosome extent. See the
following Bulletins:

Dept. Bul. 492, ‘‘ An Economic Study of Farming in Sumter County, Georgia’’; Dept. Bul. 511, ‘‘ Farm
Practicein the Cultivation of Cotton”; Dept. Bul. 648, ‘‘A Farm Management Survey in Brooks County,
Georgia”; Dept. Bul. 651, ‘‘A Farm Management Study in Anderson County, South Carolina”; Dept.
Bul. 659, ‘‘A Farm Management Study of Cotton Farmsin Ellis County, Texas’; Dept. Bul. 665, ‘‘Status_
of Farmingin the Lower Rio Grande Irrigated District of Texas.”’

Note.—Acknowledgment is due to Messrs. R. 8. Washburn, M. A.Crosby, E. 8. Haskell, and H. B.
_ McClure, ofthe Office of Farm Management, United States Department of Agriculture; Mr. F. D. Stevens,
ofthe Alabama College of Agriculture; and Mr. S. H. Starr, of the Georgia College of Agriculture, for
assistance in collecting the data which are presented in this bulletin. Acknowledgment is also due Miss
Catherine R. Hawley, of the Office of Farm Management and Farm Economics, for careful work in
supervising the tabulations which are used as a basis for this discussion. Thanks are extended tothe
farmers ofthe respective districts who cooperated so willingly in furnishing information with reference
to the cost of producing cotton.

2 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

General interest in figures relating to farm costs has been manifested
during the past two years. This is especially true with reference to
such farm staples as cotton and wheat. However, the real signifi-
cance of figures of this character is generally missed, while minor
features are emphasized to such an extent that the real purpose of
the study is forgotten.

It is highly desirable, therefore, to keep in mind some of the
limitations of cost figures. The cross section which is here presented
for inspection represents a relatively small portion of the total cotton
production of the United States. The conclusions which may be
drawn from this analysis can be applied to the farms of the Cotton
Belt in general only so far as is warranted by similarity of conditions.

COTTON BELT COUNTIES
IN WHICH ;
COST RECORDS WERE OBTAINED

Fic. 1.—Black portions show locations of areas surveyed.

However, a review of the methods followed by these growers will
undoubtedly prove suggestive to any cotton grower, and should
make for more efficient practices even where conditions differ from
those that obtain in the areas surveyed.

The basic factors of production constitute the fundamental data
of this report. Money costs fluctuate appreciably, and thus do not
provide a satisfactory basis for comparison throughout a period
of years. There are items of cost, however, that remain fairly con-
stant from year to year, and these can be used much more effec-
tively than costs reported in dollars and cents. Factors that possess
this stability are known as ‘‘the basic requirements of production.”
Such factors include the hours of man and mule labor utilized in

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 3

growing the crop; the quantity of seed used; the amount of fertilizer
applied per acre; and the quantities used of such other materials
as are necessary in growing cotton.
Information as to the hours of labor and the quantities of seed and
fertilizer used constitutes the basis upon which good farm organiza-
~ ® tion is built. If we do not know how many hours it takes to grow a
given crop, and if no facts have been recorded concerning the distri-
bution of this labor from a seasonal viewpoint, it will not be possible
to proceed with the initial steps in bringing about a more efficient
management. Furthermore, such information is essential in drawing
up new plans which may include the introduction of new enterprises
-_ to be carried in connection with the major enterprise of the area.
| Cost figures should serve primarily to make for better farm organi-
| zation and greater profits. These studies have been planned with this
end in mind. Cost figures are used in commercial work for the pur-
pose of making adjustments that will greatly enhance the business;
“ they can be applied equally well in the field of agriculture.

TasLe I.—Distribution of cotton enterprise records (1918 crop).

| .
| Number ‘ 5
State and county. | Area. we: Total by

|
| records. | State.
EL Tk eh Er pe RE Re SDRC eg US a eres Se he ha ae [Seger ere 243
PAHrOns County. see aes Se HAD F121 eee Perea gl 2 eer agi ae nae oie ee eee
Greene County:a. ss=5 26 Bee eee (EC CNSDOLO Sn Sere Be A eee ae aE (hoy eee e
pigsatber: COUNGY? 3a 8 Sree SASEN CLIGUS Se eg ee ese | 80} bk ease
HALEY PODS a oe ie es Se he a RI ei | eg ee Bs Sea ety ee a eee [een ee 269
att POOSAC OUTG Ysera eee Alexander @tive ce eo a oe Si | ee
Marshall Connty se =.= 3 fede ovey ca DS 5 i ee ee 00a See
Dale Gountyes—-0 5 eee eae ee lab aleville=© zark: so ees ee O0b Sees
SOMO ALOMM A seer er ee ee Se SSE a ee ta a = Oe ee eee ee I eae 180
Amerson County 5 == <a ee He DelL On ser 255 a ee 89:
Barnwell C ounty-25 8 Aca ee |pBarwell-Bikose~ Soe a.2 ssn Soa Oia) ee
BRE AG Sy pee eee ene Ne eo ecaareseee ee eee ee ee ee ie [et fe RS 150
PANS Ceantye ee ae INWiaxahachi@us ce! s <2 55 Ss ase Sse S (ES) eee
RISK QUITE eases eee) ese tee PpETondersOlace sao eae yee os See eo (5: | 2 eee

3 | pee

TasLe I1.—Production of lint (excluding linters) in 500-pound gross weight bales, by
States, 1909 to 1918.4

[Thousands of bales, as finally reported by U. S. Bureau of the Census.]

State. 1909 | 1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1913 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1917 | 1918
Bg aa fe eee ae ee eae eee Coe

Virginia............. 10 15 30 24 23 25 16 27 19 | 26
NorthCarolina.....| 601 | 706| 1,076] 866| 792) 931] 699] 655| 618| — 870
South Carolina... -_- 1,100 | 1,164] 1,649| 1,182] 1,378| 1,534] 1,134] 932] 1,237] 1,500
Geutiias S25 = 1,804 | 1,767| 2,769| 1,777] 2,317| 2,718] 1,909| 1,821 | 1,884] 2,100
(On ee ee 54 59 83 5 59 81 48 41 38 | 25
Alabama.........._- 1,024} 1,194] 1,716 | 1,342] 1,495] 1,751| 1,021| 5383} 518 820
Mississippi... --..-- 1,083 | 1,263] 1,204| 1,046] 1,311] 1,246] °954| 812| 905] 1,210
ouisiana......- =. 253 | 246| °385| 376| (444| 449] 341| 443) 639 525
Tenis sone ee eee 2,523 | 3,049 4,256| 4,880] 3,945] 4,592| 3,227] 3,726| 3,125] 2,580
Arkansas...-.......- 714| 821} °939| °792| 1,073] 1,016] 816] 1,134| “974 935
s Wennessees- == === == 247 332 450 277 379 384 303 382 | 240 330
Missouri. .----....- 45 60 97 56 67 82 48 63} 61 70
Oklahoma...-.--.-. 545 | 923 | 1,022| 1,021| 840] 1,262] 640] 923) 959 550
Galipenia so des fos 2 6 10 8 23 50 29 44} 58 100
SPREAZ OUI eee a |g | el eee Ute (eae el Pre ae eee) Pree oe hee co 22 51
MiFothers=— = =<! 2 | 4 7 3 10 14 7 14 | 5 8

United States .| 10,005 | 11,609 | 15, 693

13,703 | 14,156 | 16,135 | 11,192 | 11,450 | 11,302 | 11,700

1 Yearbook, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1918.

4 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

YIELD OF COTTON IN THE SOUTH.

A cost study of this character is designed to give a true picture
of representative areas, so that the conclusions drawn may be ap-
plicable, not only to the areas in question, but also to contiguous
districts where climatic and soil conditions are similar and methods
of production are identical or nearly so. The farm costs reported
in this bulletin are based upon the actual yields obtained on each
farm. It is of interest to compare the yields of lint cotton reported
by States in 1918 with the average yields obtained in the districts
included in this survey. 7

The average yield of lint cotton for the 842 farms was 227 pounds
per acre. The average yield for all cotton produced in the United
States during the year 1918 was 155.9 pounds of lint per acre. The
latter average was approximately 20 pounds below the 10-year
average 1909 to 1918. It will be seen, therefore, that in 1918 the
farms used in connection with this cost study had a higher average
return than the normal, and even higher than the 10-year average
for the Cotton Belt as a whole. (See p. 16 for discussion of relation
of average and yield to production costs.)

TasLE III.— Yveld of cotton per acre, by States.!

Ten-
year ©
State. average,| 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918
1909 to

1918 |
Wincimiare ns es 247 \y 100 (22202) | 330) 2500) 2408! 6 265c 225. S10 SO 270
North Carolina......- 248| 210 227 315 |- 267 239 290 260 215 194 265
South Carolina. ...... 222 210 216 280 209 235 255 215 160 208 235
Georgi acne ata eae 192 184 173 240 159 208 239 189 165 173 188
WOT Ga eee 119 110 110 130 113 150 175 120 105 100 78
PA aa epee Nye ee 159 142 160 204 172 190 209 146 79 125 160
IMASSISSHDDISeaa seen nee 172 157 182 172 173 204 195 167 125 155 185
WOUISIaAN ae 165 130 120 170 193 170 165 165 170 210 161
IMOKAGS St ees nyees ese ae 154 125 145 186 206 150 184 147 157 135 110
ATKANISAS eae eee 182 153 175 190 190 205 196 180 209 170 155
Menmnesseesegear a2 oe se 189 158 207 257 169 210 200 188 206 130 168
MOSSOURIE eee eee 260 271 285 360 260 286 270 240 225 190 215
Oklahoma 160 147 200 160 183 132 212 162 154 165 85
Californias see ee Rel leases ae 335 390 450 500 500 380 400 242 265
Nah A 0) a, Yee eee em et Sor fa ON oe |b A Ue ot ns ae ee gk liter Ibo Set ener, nes 285 280

United States..| 175.7 | 154.3 | 170.7 | 207.7 | 190.9 | 182.0 | 209.2 | 170.3 | 156.6 | 159.7 | 155.9

842 farms: StU GPS ig e212 we eit | he as pe ee | i | eee oe Lp oe | ee | eae see 227

1 Yearbook U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1918.
METHOD OF STUDY AND DESCRIPTION OF AREAS.

A special cotton enterprise schedule was prepared and each grower
who was visited gave a detailed report of the man and mule labor
required in preparing the land, planting the seed, cultivating and
harvesting the cotton. Each operator also estimated the cash
expenses and other costs chargeable to cotton. Fairly complete
data were obtained with reference to the acreage devoted to crops
other than cotton. A comparison of the receipts from cotton lint

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 5

and seed with that portion of the farm income that was derived from
other crops, as well as from live stock and live-stock products, indi-
cates the relative importance of the various enterprises which are
found on these farms. With the exception of one district (Dale
County, Ala.), the cotton crop is the outstanding industry in the
districts which were selected. The income from cotton and cotton
seed constituted from 75 to 93 per cent of the total farm receipts in
nine districts, while in Dale County, Ala., 45 per cent of the total
farm receipts came from cotton, and 35 per cent from peanuts.
Naturally, cotton receives first consideration in the management and
operation of most of these farms. :

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS.

In Ellis County, Tex., there was an increase in the average pre-
cipitation for 1918 in comparison with the mean annual rainfall.
However, this excess occurred mainly in October, November, and
December. The rainfall for the early part of the season was below
normal. Jor many sections of the State there was a deficiency in
precipitation during the first nine months of the year. In Alabama
there was a wide range in both temperature and rainfall during the
year 1918. Comparatively low yields of cotton were reported for
the three Alabama districts. Dry weather was a characteristic
feature of the growing season in Georgia, yet this was not reflected
in the average annual precipitation for 1918. The yields of cotton
were above the average in the districts surveyed. ‘There were also
wide seasonal fluctuations in South Carolina, but these conditions
did not work to the disadvantage of the cotton grower in the areas

represented in this study.
SOILS.

Laurens and Sumter Counties, Ga., are situated in the coastal plain
area. These two districts represent the central and southwestern
parts of the State. The soils in Laurens County are sandy in the
surface portion and have sandy clay subsoils. Norfolk sand is the
most important soil type in this county. In Sumter County the soils
are mainly sandy in character, the prevalent types being Greenville
loamy sand and sandy loam. In Tallapoosa County, Ala., the Cecil
type is found. Such soils as Cecil stony, sandy loam, Cecil stony
loam, Cecil slate and sandy loams are the outstanding members of
this group. Dale County, Ala., is represented by such well-known
soil types as Norfolk sand and Susquehanna fine sandy loam, while
in Marshall County, the DeKalb silt loam and the DeKalb fine, sandy
loam are types that cover rather extensive areas. Anderson County,
S..C., is situated in the upper Piedmont area. In this district the
Cecil sandy loam is the most common type, while Cecil clay stands
second. Barnwell County is within the coastal plain area and it
possesses such types as the Norfolk sand and the Norfolk sandy loam.

6 BULLETIN 896, U. §. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

It may be observed that in all these areas commercial fertilizers are
used quite extensively. Ellis County, Tex., which possesses a soil
type known as Houston black clay, did not report any expense
for fertilizers used in cotton production. Rusk County, Tex., has
at least three well-defined soil types; namely, the Orangeburg fine
sand, Norfolk fine sand, and the Susquehanna fine sandy loam.
It will be seen that practically all districts contain soils of the
lighter types. Many of these types are deficient in organic mat-
ter. The practice of growing legumes, such as the velvet bean,
cow peas, and peanuts between the rows of corn has given excellent
results, and greater interest will be manifested in these crops as the
benefits come to be understood more clearly.

Fic. 2.—A cotton planter’s home, Anderson County, S. C.

SIZE OF FARMS.

Recent information is not available with respect to size of farms in
the counties which were selected for this investigation. However, the
Thirteenth Census gives a detailed report on the size of farms for these
counties during the year 1909. Therefore, these figures have been
used for comparison with the farms upon which cost estimates were
obtained. Table IV contains two columns, one giving the size of all
farms in each county by groups, and the other showing the distribu-
tion of the 842 records in accord with the size-groups established by
the Census Bureau. In the census classification a cropper farm is
considered as a unit, and not as a part of a plantation, as in the classifi-
cation followed in this survey. This undoubtedly accounts for the
relatively large numbers which the census reports show for the size-
group including farms from 20 to 49 acres. There are 148 farms, or
17.5 per cent of the total number of farms surveyed, which fall within
the group of 20 to 49 acres. More than 50 per cent of the records wil)

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. (i
be found within two size-groups embracing farms from 50 to 99 acres
and farms of 100 to 174 acres. The records in these two groups are
equally divided, there being 233 farms within each class. A limited
number of the very large farms or plantations were visited and records
obtained therefrom. It will beseen that very small farms have been
omitted.

Taste IV.—Comparison of groups by size of farms (thirteenth census), with farms

studied.
Georgia. Alabama.
Laurens - Greene Sumter Tallapoosa Marshall Dale
Size of farm. County. County. County. County. ~ County. County.

Cen- | Sur- | Cen- | Sur-| Cen- | Sur- | Cen- | Sur- | Cen- | Sur-| Cen- | Sur-

sus. | vey. | Sus. | vey. | Sus. | vey. | Sus. | vey. | Sus. | vey. | Sus. | vey.
Under 3 acreS.-.-...-.- 773] el ee aera a ees ene ae Pa Ne winod te ea
SROWIACKESr2 = aneee as Obalee ees: ee LOO B | Eee= DAs S853 GHA ee LZ Sales O(a
AVitolO acreses 226 3: DUS Age ee ie SOR Oe [em ee SA (elle oe 8 AOS alos once 659s 1S | eee
20 to 49 acreS.......-- 2,581 8-| 1,144 1,578 5 | 1,839 Vey | seen ly/ 51 | 1,390 20
50 to 99 acreS....-...- 1,125 23 636 23 591 14 | 1,149 18 | 1,210 28 758 25
100 to 174 acres....... 540 25 4492 16 342 30 795 23 623 | 10 631 22
175 to 259 acreS....... 239 12 118 12 160 13 274 11 177 jo5cees 256 11
260 to 499 acres....... Ga ceate 70 9 109 11 175 16 104 1 164 6
500 to 999 acres......- 57 5 23 7 44 7 34 8 On eee 26 4
1,000 acres and over... ARIE ea 5 5 Balas aa Ones eras AM ane 4 2

= South Carolina. Texas.
Anderson Barnwell . i =
Size of farm. County. County: [= Us County), Rusk Count ye
Cen- Sur- Cen- Sur- Cen- Sur- Cea- Sur-
sus. vey. sus. vey. sus. vey. sus. vey.

LUBE RS P GiGGl ROSE Se Bea ee ee ee eae 1S i a eee 12] oe ae eo TFs ee la tate:
DELO MLA CT OSH ee Ses eer sess ee ote eS LOR oeeeeee PANY i eel | GSR ED ose
OGOR DIA CKES Haase et ese eee 1,100 il 15 Sim | ee iN 7elonl | eereten ee HIB Al see sabce
ZOOM OMELES ss aee ee ee ee 3,611 24 | 1,927 Se eole Ste bare 1,560 3
RO TOON ACTeS= hae eee 52 eee 2,022 40 888 25 | 2,264 17g eat 322 20
TOOsfoOMl/Biacrese= =. 2 ee aa 809 20 462 Neale 32 | 1,029 31
Hee OLZD OIA CLES 2 eee a eee a ke 181 1 206 13 287 | 15 241 14
ZOO OY OO ACKOSE sas eee | 102 1 176 10 132 10 299 7
'500:60:999 ACheS asses ee 15 1 82 1 14 | 1 505 | Ssaeatee
l-O00iacheS:and(OVels--s2 <2 - 2. se s-- 5] 2 | 1 AO Abeer | oh eee Si eeeeee

1 Jt should be bornein mind thatin this survey a cropper’s land is considered as part of the owners’
farm, while in the census Classification each cropper farm is considered a farm unit.

TENURE.

For classification on the basis of tenure, the 842 records have been
divided into two classes, namely, white farmers and colored farmers.
Within these two groups will be found owners, that is, men who own
and direct the operation of their farms; ‘‘owners additional,’’ or
men who operate some rented land in addition to the farm land
held under direct ownership; ‘owners, part rented out,’ men who
operate part of their land and reut out the rest for a specified share
of crop or cash payment. The latter arrangement may apply to
owners additional and also to tenants. The tenant group includes
men who furnish all labor and equipment and direct the entire oper-

8 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

ation of the farm, paying the landlord a cash rent or a specified
amount of cotton. (See Table V.)

Approximately 40 per cent of the men interviewed were white
owners. The second largest group, comprising 25 per cent of the
records, was tnat of the white tenants. These two groups taken
together constitute 65 per cent of the 842 records. ;

Wage and cropper cotton.—A large proportion of the cotton crop is
produced by two classes of labor, namely, wage hands and croppers.
Both of these classes of labor are under the direct supervision of the
farm owner or-farm operator. Wage hands receive their compen-
sation for the labor performed in a stipulated daily, monthly, or
annual payment in cash, whereas croppers are sometimes treated as
farm operators, but in reality they should be considered as wage
hands who receive their compensation in a share of the crop. The
cropper furnishes labor; he is provided with equipment by the owner
of the land.

In assuming that the cost of cropper cotton to the operator equals
the amount paid to the cropper for his share of the crop, we must
take into consideration the fact that a margin above the going wage
rate may accrue to the cropper as return for the risk he assumes,
especially when the price of cotton is high, as was the case with the
crop with which this study is concerned. This margin, which
accrues to the cropper, must be counted as cost to the operator, since
to him the cost of cropper cotton is essentially that part of the crop
necessary to provide this class of labor. Thus there enters an anom-
alous factor, which it has been found impossible to eliminate, since
to assume a labor cost for cropper cotton at the current rate for
cotton wage hands would be to assume something contrary to fact.
There is no reason to believe that men would be available for cropper
farming unless they thought they stood to make more than the
going wage.

TaBLeE V.—Tenure of farms (842 records).

Records.
| Number. | Per cent.
White:
QOUWIMCES cbse oir ae i ea ae RI SI ek cr gee een eet an eT 335 39.8
Oh agate) isiezvo Ke lpg) iy ene en A as be UN ea eee Ale dake esuocseuc: 43 Haak
Owners, Part Cen ted: Owl nS as ee pe ee 128 15, 2
Owners additional, Pact Mente OUts alesse eee ee eee eee 3 7 8
Tenants 2. . 35 sce c eee a we Se eee eagle: ae Sane een ee OA 25.0
Tenants, part rented Outcast ee pe een as Ce 14 ee}
738 87.6
Colored:
4 01 :) i: ere En RC OE Ney Ne Ae Vie PT Re rape Nagi ute me NN Se gas ole 19 2.2
Owners additional”. 2203s Ae ee ee eee 4 =0
Owners, part rented: Otut sss ee eee ert ne gee a 8 1.0
Menants.......... 2, ok en gata eae 72 8.6
Tenants, part rented: Ouwt see ea eat 1 1
104 12.4
10} :)| et ERR Scone Oeil Seas ne ce oe 842 100

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 8)

In view of this consideration, it becomes apparent that the cost
figures here presented can not properly be used as a basis for deter-
mining a fair selling price, since in that case the price of cotton would
become an element in its cost with the result that the higher the
price, the higher would go the cost, and the higher the cost, the higher
the price, and so on, ad infinitum.

ANALYSIS OF 1918 COSTS.

In summarizing production costs they have been divided into three
groups; namely, ‘“‘labor costs,” including man and mule labor;
‘“material costs,’’ such as seed and fertilizer, etce., and ‘‘ other costs,’
embracing such items as use of land, use of machinery, ete.!

MAN LABOR.

Each grower visited gave a detailed estimate of the value of all
farm labor utilized in the operation and management of the farm
during the year 1918. This statement showed the total value of all
family labor employed upon productive enterprises, the total value
of all wage labor, and the total expense for labor performed upon a
contract basis. The cost per unit of product is given for each farm
irrespective of tenure. Cropper cotton and wage cotton on owned
and rented farms have been combined in this analysis. Cropper
labor was charged at the actual value for the share of the cotton
received. A small amount of supervision was included with the total
of the labor which has been specified. The man labor costs for the
entire farm, as determined by bringing the above classes together,
were distributed to the crop and live-stock enterprises on the basis
of receipts from the respective enterprises. Inasmuch as cotton was
the outstanding enterprise in each district, the bulk of the man labor
costs for the farm as a whole was apportioned to cotton. The rate
for man labor approximated 30 cents per hour in this study.

MULE LABOR.

No attempt was made to secure estimates for each farm on the
cost of keeping work stock, nor did the schedule contain any questions
relating to the number of days of actual work performed by mule
or horse labor during the year. To approach the problem from this
standpoint a special study would be necessary. A careful record
was made of the mule or horse labor required with each field opera-
tion in growing and marketing the cotton crop. These data were

1Tt has been shown that some very striking differences existed in the unit costs that were determined
for individua! farms in the severai districts visited. By bringing together the farms in each district and
securing an average for this group, a comparison can be made with group averages in other areas. Sucha
comparison reveals the fact that quite marked differences are also apparent between several of the groups
used in thisstudy. In order to obtain a complete explanation for some of these group variations, it will be
necessary to review the prevailing practices which were employed by cotton growers in the districts repre-

sented. Methods of cotton culture are discussed in a section of this bulletin which deals with the normal
man and mule labor requirements.

397°—20 2

10 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

taken by operations and the mule or horse labor is therefore recorded
in hours. The total hours of mule labor in all work of growing cotton
was multiplied by a rate of 12 cents per hour in order to determine
the total mule labor costs in money. (See Table VI.)

TABLE VI.—Summary of labor costs (842 records).
|
Nigihce Total Yield Labor cost per acre. Labor
State and county. of Pee of lint. _——-—-- eee
records. | ‘cotton. | PeTacre-| Man. | Mule. | Total. | of lint.
Georgia: Pounds.
Laurens County -........-.- 85 | 3,968.0 277 $45.09 $7.22 $52.31 $0. 1887
Greene: County =_- 222 fs 78 | 4,147.5 260 43.39 7.15 50. 54 - 1945
Sumter County..........<.- 80 |} 4,188.5 244 32.78 7.66 40. 44 1657
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County.......---) - 89 | 1,169.0 172 47.41 7.10 54.51 3163
Marshal} County..........-.. 90 | 1,249.5 227 50. 76 LAZ 57.88 2554
Dale County 22 ss Se 90 1,226.5 194 40. 96 6.42 47.38 2445
South Carolina:
Anderson County........-.-- 89 | 2,865.5 248 43.41 6. 80 50. 21 2026
Barnwell County .........-- 91 | 3,935.5 268 41.52 7.51 49. 03 1832
Texas: |
HilisCounty-—. === 75 | 8,148.0 176 17.51 4.42 21.93 1242
Rusk Conntys see sao ee 75 | 2,568.0 185 29. 33 5. 89 35. 22 1909

I

This rate was arrived at in part from estimates obtained in these
districts. Consideration was also given to the ratio which exists
between mule and horse labor rates and man labor rates. Former
studies made by this office from the standpoint of single enterprises
have approximately a ratio of 1 to 2. In other words, where a rate
of 10 cents per hour for mule or horse labor prevailed in a given dis-
trict, a rate of 20 cents per hour for man labor was current. In this
study the ratio stands 12 cents per hour for mule labor, in contrast
with 30 cents per hour for man labor. Table VI contains a sum-
mary of the man and mule labor costs for the 10 districts included
in this survey.

The lowest acre cost for man and mule labor was found in Ellis
County, Tex., while the highest cost for these two items was reported
for Marshall County, Ala. The lowest cost for labor, when reduced

to a unit basis, was shown for Ellis County, Tex. The highest cost

for the respective groups occurred in Tallapoosa County, Ala.

MATERIAL COSTS.

This group of costs takes into consideration cotton seed used in
planting, farm manure applied to the land, commercial fertilizer
purchased and applied to cotton, and baskets, sacks, or sheets used
in harvesting the crop.

SEED. :

On many farms the cotton seed used in planting was bought, and
in such cases 1t was an easy matter to determine the total cost of this
material. Where the seed was carried over from the preceding crop
and was used for planting the 1918 cotton acreage, the value was
based upon the market price of seed at the time of planting. The

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 11

quantity of seed used was also recorded for reference in connection
with a study of the basic requirements of this crop. The latter
subject will be treated in the concluding pages of this bulietin.

FERTILIZERS.

The commercial fertilizers which are applied annually to the
cotton represent a direct cash expenditure. As a rule, the indi-
vidual grower has no difficulty in recalling the total cash outlay for
this material. He also has very definitely in his mind the number
of tons or the number of pounds of fertilizer purchased during the
year. If a part of this fertilizer was applied to some crop or crops
other than cotton, these amounts were determined and this infor-
mation aided the operator in arriving at the total amount of fertili-
zer applied to cotton. The records, therefore, show the total quan-
tity of commercial fertilizer that was apphed to cotton and they
indicate the cash expenditures which were made in the purchase of
this fertilizer. |

FARM MANURE.

Farm manure was used only to a limited extent upon cotton land
and the total cost for such manure was relatively small. Usually the
grower who apples manure can give an accurate estimate relative to
the number of loads that were hauled and scattered upon a given
field, and each agricultural community has also set up a standard of
value for farm manure. With several estimates of this character
available, the cost for manure can be approximated quite closely.

BASKETS, SACKS, AND SHEETS.

There is an annual replacement charge for baskets, sacks, and
sheets which are used in harvestine the cotton at the end of the
erowing season. Like the charge for farm manure, this may also be
considered as a minor item. Estimates were obtained from each
grower upon the annual cash outlay for baskets, sacks, and sheets.
Table VII contains a summary of the costs for seed, manure, fertilizer,
baskets, sacks, and sheets.

Tasie VII.—Summary of material costs (842 records).

Material costs per acre. Mate-
N ee Ab otal pacld rial
per of | number | of lint | | costs
State and county. rec- | acresin | per Ma- | Ferti- | S2¢ks per
ords. | cotton. | acre. | Seed. ane liner and | Total. | pound
| UUs - | sheets. | of lint.
Georgia: Pounds. |
Laurens County ....... 85 |- 3,968.0 277 | $1.27 | $0.04 | $8.85 | $0.24 | $5.40 | $0.0195
Greene County ........ 78 4,147.5 260 1.75 30 4.17 -18 6. 46 . 0248
Sumter County. -....... 80-| 4,188.5 244 2. 05 . 44 4. 92 a2 7. 63 . 0313
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County...-- 89 1,169 172 1.60 moe, 3. 07 .18 yale . 0300
Marshall County ....-. 90 | 1,249.5 227 1.72 1. 90 6. 43 -25 | 10.30 . 0455
Dale County........-- 90 | 1,226.5 194 1.69 39 3. 54 . 26 5. 88 . 0303
South Carolina:
Anderson County... -.- 89.|. 2, 865. 5 248 1.70 - 46 5. 93 aly 8. 21 . 0331
fe Barnwell County .-...-- 91 | 3,935.5 268 1.48 .46 | 11.24 .23 | 13.41 . 0501
exas:
Ellis County.......... 75 | 8,148 176 1.14 01 eee . 05 1.20 . 0068
Rusk County...-...- ot 75 2, 568 185 1.12 . 02 2.11 27 3. 52 °0190

12 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The average seed cost for the year 1918 varied from $1.12 per acre
in Rusk County, Tex., to $2.05 per acre in Sumter County, Ga. The
highest acre cost for farm manure occurred in Marshall County, Ala.
Fertilizer costs constituted by far the most important single item of
expense included under materials. Combined with seed cost, these
two items make up the major portion of the expense for materials.
No commercial fertilizer was purchased and applied by the Hllis
County farmers who gave estimates. The lowest average acre cost
for commercial fertilizer was reported for Rusk County, Tex., while
the highest average cost, $11.24 per acre, occurred in Barnwell
County, 8. C. The quantity of fertilizer applied per acre will be
considered under the general heading of ‘‘ Basic requirements. ”’

OTHER COSTS.

‘““Other costs”? embraced such items as interest or land rent, insur-

ance and taxes, machinery charges, and overhead expense. Interest
and rent charges may be considered under the heading of ‘Use
of land.”’ In the case of owned farms a conservative estimate was
secured with reference to the value of the cotton land. It was found
that farmers paid approximately 8 per cent on first-mortgage loans.
This rate was used in working out the cost chargeable on owned farms.
On rented farms this cost was included in the value of the share of
the crop given or in the proportionate share of the cotton rent charge-
able to the cotton acreage or in the cash rent actually paid. Very
few farms of the cash rent type were found in this survey. Share and
cash rent differ from the interest charge on land investment in that
the latter cares for the capital invested in cotton land only, while the
former is assumed to cover this item as well as such expense as taxes
and general upkeep on the farm.

INSURANCE AND TAXES.

The farm owner who pays insurance on farm buildings and taxes
which are assessed against the farm must draw upon his sources of
income to meet these expenses. Definite information was taken in
each case concerning the total amounts paid under the respective
headings. The proportion chargeable to cotton was ascertained in
each instance and was entered under each heading as a production
cost.

USE OF MACHINERY.

Complete inventories were taken of the machinery on each farm;
values were given in the case of each implement, and repair costs for
the year were carefully estimated. Each operater also indicated the
percentage depreciation for the year. He also gave his estimate
regarding the proportion of the total machinery expense which
should be carried by cotton. All of these phases were taken into
account in working out the machinery costs for cotton.

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 1L33

‘OVERHEAD EXPENSE.

There are certain costs in the operation of a farm that are not
directly chargeable to any special enterprise, but they are applicable
to the farm as a whole and they must be carried by the respective
crop or live-stock enterprises in proportion to the magnitude of these
enterprises. very farm possesses some unproductive land which
forms a part of the total capital investment. Interest and taxes must
be paid upon this portion of the investment. Furthermore, such
items as telephone service, building maintenance, and miscellaneous
cash expenses must be apportioned to the farm as a whole. In areas
where detailed farm accounting records are available, some sugges-
tions can be made concerning the percentage of the farm expense
that does not appear to be directly chargeable to single enterprises,
but must be considered under the heading of ‘‘Overhead expense.”’
Practically no detailed farm accounting work has been done in the
Cotton Belt. Consequently, the necessary facts with reference to
percentage of overhead common to typical areas of this region have
not been made available. In this study a 10 per cent charge was
taken of the total labor and material costs and this was included
under the general heading “Overhead expense.’’ Table VIII contains
a summary of such costs as use of land, insurance and taxes, use of
machinery, and overhead.

TasBLeE VIII.—Summary of other costs (842 records).

Other costs per acre.

Num- Total WIA | —————$ —— = cael cue
State and county. ber of number of lint cure per
eles BO Re per Use of | ance Ma- Over- ound
ords. | . cotton. acre. x é chin- Total. | Leu
land. and ae head. of lint.
taxes. y: |
Hy emo e |
Georgia: Pounds.
Laurens County....... 85 | 3,968.0 277 | $7.38} $0.30] $1.69 | $5.77 | $15.14 | $0.0546
Greene County.......- 78| 4,147.5 260 7.47 SC 1. 64 5.70} 14.98 . 0576
Sumter County........ 80 4,188.5 244 6. 76 20) 1.62 4.81 13. 44 . 0551
Atabama:
Tallapoosa County..... 89 1,169.0 172 3.10 .13 1.59 5.97 10. 79 . 0626
Marshall County....... 90} 1,249.5 227 9. 32 . 25 2. 63 6.82} 19.02 . 0840
Dale County........... 90 1, 226.5 194 5. 25 . 20 1.63 5. 32 12.40 . 0640
South Carolina: ‘
Anderson County...... 89 2, 865. 5 248 11.80 - 28 1.57 5. 84 19.49 . 0786
a Barnwell County ...... 91 | 3,935.5 268 Use? 15 1.67 6.24 | 15.28 . 0571
exas:
Ellis County........... 75 8, 148.0 176 16. 83 | . 44 1.48 2.31 21.06 . 1193
Rusk County.......-.. 75 | 2,568.0 185 5.15 . 28 1.72 3.87] 11.02 . 0594

The most important item in this group 1s the cost for the use of land.
It will be seen that there is a range from $3.10 per acre in Tallapoosa
County, Ala., to $16.83 per acre in Ellis County, Tex. Overhead
expense is the second item of importance under ‘Other costs.”
Under this heading there was a variation in the average cost from $2.31
to $6.82 per acre. The unit cost for all of the items which have been
mentioned varied from 5 cents per pound to approximately 12 cents

14 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

per pound. Table IX gives a summary of .all costs, the seed credit
per acre allowed ea each group, and the total net cost per acre
and per pound.

The cotton seed was considered as a by-product of the cotton enter-
prise. On farms where the seed was sold at the end of the harvest

season a record was made of the income derived from this source. |

Where the seed was not sold a value was assigned corresponding to
market value at the time the record wastaken. These two estimates
were used in making up the total seed credit per acre. It will be
seen that there was a range in seed credit of from $9.78 per acre in
Ellis County, Tex., to $15.81 in Greene County, Ga. In seven
districts there was considerable uniformity in the average seed credit
which was computed from the records taken. The average unit cost
per district has been discussed in preceding tables.

TaBLe [X.—Summary of all cosis (842.records).

All costs, including use of land. | Total net
ANGE! | Sree a | cost.
No. | num )¥ ue Seed
State and of ber | lint Z Mis- Total | credit |
county. rec- | acres | SB ee ere se | cel- |Total| per per Per
ords.| in | Ae a feats ae of |lame-| per | pound) acre. | Per | pound
cotton. | : : ; ©-| land.| ous | acre.| of acre. iw
| cost. lint. lin

Georgia: |-Lbs. |

Laurens Co... 85} 3,968.0! 277$52.31 $5.40) $2.14) $7.38] $7. 76/$74. 99|$0. 2705} $15. 55|$59. 44 $0. 2144

Greene Co.... 78| 4,147.5) 260} 50.54 6.46) 2.09) 7.47) 7.51) 74.07) .2850) 15.81) 58.26 .2242

Sumter Co..-. 80} 4,188.5 244 40.44 7.63} 1.92! 6.76) 6.68) 63.43) .2599) 15.35) 48.08 .1970
Alabama: |

Tallapoosa Co. 89] 1,169.0} 172) 54.51; 5.17] 1.39} 3.10] 7.69} 71.86) .4169} 10.31 61.55, . 3571

Marshal] Co... 90) 1,249.5) 227) 57.88 10.30) 1.94) 9.32) 9.70) 89.14) .3934) 13 72) 75.42) .3329

DaleCos=e ee 90] 1, 226. 5 194] 47.38 5.88] 1.62} 5:25} 7.15} 67.28] .3472| 13. 17 54.11} . 2792
South Carolina: | | |

Anderson Co. 89} 2,865.5} 248) 50.21 8.21) 1.97) 11.80) 7.69} 79.88) .3223] 14.80! 65.08 .2626

Barnwell Co-. 91) 3,935.5) ~ 268) 49.03 13.41) 2.07) 7.22) 8.03) 79.79) .2981) 14.13) 65.66 .2453
Texas: |

his Gosess- == 75| 8,148.0} 176} 21.93 1.20} 1.82} 16.83] 4.23) 46.01} .2607| 9.78] 36.23) .2053

RUSkiCo ese. 75| 2,568. 0| 185, SOLZet oon | hae 5:15} 5.87} 51.55} . 2781} 10.19) 41. =] . 2231

DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS.

The relative importance of some items of farm expense pertaining to
the production of cotton has been brought to the attention of the
reader-in a general discussion of labor costs, material costs, and other
costs. These three groups have been contrasted for the purpose of
showing the importance of man and mule labor when combined, with
all materials combined, and other costs combined. Table X con-
tains an analysis of the percentage distribution of costs under four
headings. Ginning has been set out separately in this analysis.

MED iy ot

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 15

TasLe X.—Distribution of costs (842 records).

Pe a
Wace: zon Yield ercentage of total cost to—
State and county. of Staci a of lint
records. |-0' 2CTES. | ner acre. «. eens
in cotton. Labor. | Material.| Ginning.} Other.
Georgia: | Pounds.
Laurens County .--.--..---- 85 | 3,968.0 277 70 7 3 20
Greene County .....-.....-- 78 | 4,147.5 260 68 9 3 20
SumtermCountys +) 80 | 4,188.5 244 64 12 3 21
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County.-.....-.-.-- 89 | 1,169.0 172 76 7 2 15
Marshall] County... ..------.- 90 | 1,249.5 227 65 ate 2 21
Wale Count ys 2-3 = 90 | 1,226.5 194 71 9 2 18
South Carolina:
Anderson County.........-- 89 | 2,865.5 248 63 10 3 24
Barnwell County..........- 91.) 3,935.5 268 61 17 3 19
Texas: :
Dllis: Countyess ease 75 | 8,148.0 176 47 3 4 46
yuUSKke COUN yes seen 75 | 2,568.0 185 68 7 4 21

The labor column includes all man and mule labor. This group
is by far the most important from the standpoint of cost in the
production of cotton. The above table shows a range from 47 per
cent in Ellis County, Tex., to 76 per cent in Tallapoosa County, Ala.
In eight districts the labor costs approximated 61 to 71 per cent of
the total cost of production.

The. item second in significance was fertilizers. In view of the
fact that cotton occupies such a prominent position on these farms,
and taking into account the necessity for plant food on many of the
soil types on farms which are reported in this survey, it would be
quite natural to look for a fairly large outlay for fertilizers, especially
under the prices that obtained during the season of 1918. The Ellis
County farmers applied no fertilizer whatever. In the remaining
areas the fertilizer expense varied from 7 to 33 per cent of the total
farm expenses. Dale and Tallapoosa Counties, Ala., and Rusk
County, Tex., had a relatively low proportion of the total farm expense
devoted to the purchase of fertilizers.

TaBLE X1.—Dvstribution of costs—charge for ‘‘use of land’’ excluded (842 records).

Percentage of total cost to—
Num- | Totalnum-} Yield of
State and county. ber of | ber ofacres| lint per ¥ | % |
records.) in cotton. acre. : Mate- sin- |
| | Labor Tale | ning. | Other.
| |
Georgia: | Pounds.
WATEeuUS GOURD sss 85 3, 968.0 277 77 8 3 12
Greene: County si sie seek 78 4,147.5 260 7 10 3 | 11
Site COUNTY. ass =n eee ee 80 4,188.5 244 71 14 3 | 12
Alabama: : |
Maliapoosa: Coumtiv=-c<-- = =-2 5 5228. 89 1,169.0 172 7 8 2 | 11
Marshalii@ountya2-2<. 2.5. 2.5) 2. 90 1, 249.5 227 73 13 2 | 12
MaleConnty= <4. es 90 1, 226.5 194 76 9 3 | 12
South Carolina:
ANG eTSOM COUNLY=o-5- =" eens 89 2, 865.5 248 74 12 3 il
Barnweli@ounty.. 2 0 91 3, 935.5 268 68 18 3 | li
Texas:
IBHMSIC OUNLYo-s oe ee eee 75 8,148.0 176 75 4 6 15
AUS OU Lycee ee ee ee ee | 75 2, 568. 0 185 76 7 4 13

Itis significant to note that the omission of land rent from Table XI changes the percentages in the labor
column so that thisitem constitutes from 70 to 80 per cent of the totalcost of producing cottonin practically
alldistricts. A comparison of the two methods shows distinctly that where land rentalis omitted in the
Ellis County area the percentage of totalcost for labor fallsin line with the proportion indicated for other
districts which were used in this study.

16 BULLETIN 8%, U. S, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. -

Ginning, bagging and ties combined come third in point of impor-
tance in the list of farm expenses. From 3 to 11 per cent of the total
farm expenses came under this heading. There was considerable
uniformity in the proportion paid out in the various districts under
such headings as machinery repairs, depreciation of buildings, seed,
insurance, and taxes.

RELATION OF ACREAGE AND YIELD TO NET COST PER POUND OF LINT.

Cotton is a crop which requires intensive culture. The area
devoted to cotton on a given farm will be limited by the amount of
labor available to do the chopping and picking. Even on the large
plantations the operating plans must take these two items into con-
sideration. The areas assigned to tenants and croppers should
conform to the size that will enable the operator, tenant, and cropper
to handle the cotton crop efficiently.

In order to throw more light upon the costs for the small units in
comparison with the costs for the larger units, the farms in this study
have been grouped according to the number of acres of cotton grown.
They have also been classified with respect to the yields obtained.
(See Table XII.) The latter arrangement affords an opportunity
to study the effect of normal yields upon the cost of producing the
cotton crop. It has been pointed out that the average yield of lint
cotton for the 842 farms was 227 pounds per acre and that this was
considerably above the average yield reported for the United States
in 1918. It was also somewhat in advance of the average yield of
lint cotton reported for the 10-year period in the United States.

TaBLe XII.—Relation of acreage and yield to net cost per pound of lint.
|

100 pounds and under.} 100 to 159 pounds. 150 to 200 pounds.
Groups. Num! Net | Net [N21 Net | Net [NU] Net | Net
AG cost cost cost cost ae cost cost
_ | per per - _ | per per =| = per per-
aaaae acre. | pound. ee acre. | pound. eras: acre. | pound.

Aacresjand tn ders ee 24 | $49.90 |S0.5716 54 | $53.92 |$0. 4035 95 | $57.41 | $0.3245
20 40 a Cresses serene eee eae 2] 31.36] .3248 22} 40.37] .3064 63 | 48.21 . 2690
400. 60lacKess see eee eee 1 22.04 . 2204 OA reeby ial . 2528 24 | °46.17 . 2658
GOO: S0ACrese egret eee ee 1 | 27.93] .2992 9] 33.88] .2464 14] 41.17 . 2276
80'¢0,100 ares 22222 2 Se Se ee See ee 6 | 38.91 2954 13>}. 3%5t 2106
OVER OOLACRES eye eae Bret ren Peete chs | eee | eee tie 6} 35.7 2550 17 | 35.74 2011
200 to 250 pounds. 250 to 300 pounds. Over 300 pounds.
Groups. pare Net | Net Non Net | Net a Net | Net
of cost cost aE cost cost ae cost cost
ap er per_ | rec | Per Dee ae per per
ords.| 2¢Te: pound. ords.| 2¢Te: pound. ords.| 2¢re pound
20 acres and under-:....-.2-9= ...-| 83 | $68.36 |$0. 2974 48 | $64.73 's0. 2356 53 | $80.65 | $0. 2226
AU AQ ACTOS... oo ae eee 75 54. 28 SAY 46 66. 00 . 2385 38 76. 93 . 2130
TOOGIACKES. 7. (2, ae ee 30 | 53.92] .2392 19 | 58.41} .2100 193 ions . 2048
Hora sOlacres:-. 2 ee ee Ly ees Ziv 2226 Sse alban 1867 5 | 64.89 2016
BOMOMOUIACTES. {= 5-7 ok ee 8 49. 25 2129 2} 40.12 1669 4] 81.72 1894

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. eg

In general, it may bestated that as the yield of lint cotton increases
on these farms the net cost per acre increases, while the net cost per
pound decreases. Within the limit reached by these growers.
increasing the yield is an important factor in reducing the unit cost,
The point of diminishing returns has not been reached by any of the

» groups. The 24 farms having a yield of 100 pounds of lint per acre

and under had a net cost per acre of $49.30 and a net cost per pound
of 57 cents; whereas the 53 farms producing over 300 pounds of lint

per acre had a net cost of $80.65 per acre and a net cost per pound of

22 cents.

Some of the groups (Table XII) contain only a few farms, hence
the costs for these groups can not properly be compared with groups
including a large number of farms. Where comparison can be made
it would appear that the farms producing the larger acreages have
the lower unit costs. This correlation is particularly noticeable in
comparing the farms producing 20 acres of cotton and under with
those which had 20 plus to 40 acres. With a few exceptions, this
rule holds true for the farms producing the higher yields up to farms
having more than one hundred acres of cotton. It should be pointed
out that it does not necessarily follow, because unit cost goes down
as size of farm increases, that the cost is altogether controlled by
size of farm. The human factor comes into play here, and it may be
that the reduction in cost on the larger farms is attributable in con-
siderable measure to the superior ability of their operators.

NORMAL TIME REQUIRED FOR VARIOUS OPERATIONS.

The various operations involved in the production of cotton will
be taken singly in succeeding pages. It might be well first to con-
sider these operations as a whole. The interest of the grower is con-
cerned chiefly with the more common crew sizes, with the number of
acres that can be covered in a normal day’s work, and with the sea-
sonal distribution of the different classes of work. Table XIII
presents a summary of these items.

It has been shown that the man and mule labor required in cotton
production constitutes a very important part of the total cost of
growing the crop. It would, therefore, appear to be exceedingly
desirable to analyze these two factors for the purpose of presenting
the normal time devoted to the different labor operations that were
reported for the ten districts under consideration. There was quite
a wide variation in the methods employed in the respective areas.
There was also an appreciable range in the time required for these
operations. The latter may be explained in part by variations in
the crew size, the character of the implements used, and the number
of times the area may have been worked. A brief review of the tables
which contain an analysis of the man and mule labor requirements

397°—20——3

18 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

will assist in bringing to the attention of the reader a few of the out-
standing differences in cultural practices. This study will also pro-
vide some fundamental facts concerning the normal time required
for both man and mule labor in the more common field operations of
cotton production.

Tasie XIII.—Acres covered per day in various operations and seasonal distribution of
labor.

Most common
crew.

Operation. Bas Time of operation.
Man. | Mule.

Cut Stalks sere d 2 3 ee eee 1 2 5to 9 | Januaryand February.
Haultertilizers c=" oa. ee ae een a eae eee ie 2 9to 15 | DecembertoFebruary.
Distribute fertilizer... ps4 Se ae ee eee eee 1 1 4to 6 | March and April.
IB Tea ene nance alge ae ae nee eee ee eee 1 2 1to 2 | November to March.
Nar OW: seers ocean eta ata eee Be ee ae cee ee a ie 2 5 to 15 | February to April.
Gay OMT OWS ree see ee ee ee 1 | 1 4to 8 Do.
O Pen TOWSa ane oon Sa5ok shee Bese Tae see il 1 5to 6 Do.
PINVOMIC Aen see see cane esa Sr eee ee eS ees 1 | 2 5 to 12 -Do.
Bedtandebed esate oa aa ee 1 | 1 2to 5 | March and April.
TEEEOY Tet CO K6 Ul (Seyi els emer eee mega eae Ss os Oe se 1 4to 8 Do.
PAG Ree A ee ee os Sas So Sees ae ea te Se eres 1 1 5to 8 |-Apr.1toJunel.
WCCO eae See co sarc crema nals Uys Son Ses See ree ia} 1 4to 8 | Aprilto June.
WB ATAO hess eee Sees, ae ate ee Ac a ee ee ee 1 1 2to 4 | May and June.
CRO Ds ee ret = aan we eG eee ee a fo) Stace en 2 to: 2 Do.
Sid COLL OME sa ee Se eae nee corn eee: 1 1 3to 4- | Juneand July.
Busi dless so. eee we gee et ome 1 1 5to 7 | Juneto August.
15 (pee Sie 7 Oe ee er Pes eee ere ean Te ae | foliea sare Lore, Do.
RIOWHOF CUILIVATC.. 5-2 5. een sae eee | ile 1 3 to 6 Do.
Ha Ke Se Sete oe Bat” een ah ser tee Mae pen eS pee ie eee .2to.4 | Aug. 15to Dec. 25.
Wiel ian denouse he. aie Bae eer eee ee are 1 2 4to 6
JER NDU TT Royer tate ee OS ae ie oe eee as ne 1 2, 2to 5
Marketlintesce 25-228 Se PIG REINS oink ea Sena ie eae 1 2 5 to 8

In reporting the crew sizes for the various operations connected
with the production of cotton, it will be observed that fractions occur
in both the man and mule columns. These figures represent averages
for all the farms performing the different classes of work. With many
of these operations there was considerable variation in the crews that
were employed. For instance, flat breaking was done with crews
consisting of one man and one mule, one man and two mules, one

“man and three mules, one man and four mules, and in a few eases -

even larger crews were shown. By placing all farms within a given
district together and by computing averages for the number of men
and mules utilized in doing the flat breaking, fractions will of course
occur, though in actual practice there is no such thing as a fractional
unit. The dominance of certain crew sizes always exerts considerable
influence upon the average which is obtained. It is of very great
importance to know something about the distribution of the crew
sizes for the different operations. That feature has been given
special attention in the discussions which accompany each of the
field practice tables.

.
=
*

4

“..

Ma

y

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 19
CLEAN DITCHES AND TERRACES.

It is a common practice in the Cotton Belt, especially on land that
was somewhat rolling, to terrace in order to prevent undue erosion.
Except on new land, the terraces have existed for several years.
After the terrace has been constructed there is more or less annual

up-keep. Some terraced fields have open ditches through them.
Attention must also be given to drainage and where open drains are
used a certain amount of cleaning must be done during the spring and
summer months. There were 580 records (70 per cent) which
included cleaning terraces and ditches. (See Table XIV.)
TaBLE XIV.—Clean ditches and terraces.
Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. . Per | i i | |
Num- | cent of cot- Ov- |
ew AGT eR. ereq, | Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records. |
Georgia: |
Laurens County..........2..22:-- 48 56 45.041" 44101 6.81 o 1.81 245 1.7
Greene: COUN bys aa oe 71 91} 54.99} 54.43 2.1 .9 3.8 et
SHMIeL COUN bys = ene 47 59 | 59.63 | 59.63 2.3 | su 2.0 aD
Alabama: | |
Tallapoosa County............... 60 67 | 13.93} 13.93 1.3 | 8 4.6 228
Marshall County ................. 88 981) 14:06:| 14,06.) 1.1] 10 73|- 218 3.9
Wale Comity == 44 49-1 16.6851 = 16268 |e 1.2 3 353 3.7
South Carolina:
Anderson County -............-.- 88 99 | 32.28} 32.28 2.6 | 2.0 2.4 1.6
Barnwell County................. 17 19| 66.59] 66.59] 23] .7| 3.2 7
exas:
Bilis @ountyos ses aa te 71 95 | 166 | lti52)| 1.8 | 1981 1.0 9
ask County <2 2202. 46 Bieler al laa eae 20) eS 7

On the farms of some districts the cleaning was done entirely by
hand. Other farms in the same area use both man and mule labor.
Crews of one man and one mule, one man and two mules were
reported in nearly all districts. These crew sizes were about equally
divided. Sometimes the cleaning was done with a V-drag, scraper,
or turning plow. The hand work was done with a shovel, or hoe,
and in some instances a scythe. For most districts the normal
requirement varied from one to three man hours per acre. In a nine-
hour day, one man would be able to do the cleaning on three to nine

acres of land. —
CUT STALKS.

In the districts visited cotton is frequently planted upon the same
land continuously. It may also follow corn. The stalks of cotton or
corn, especially if of any great size, are usually broken down with a
stalk cutter before the operator is ready to proceed with the initial
tillage in the preparation of the land for a new crop. There were
some areas in which the stalks made a very limited growth and no
cutting was necessary prior to the breaking or plowmg. _ These records

20 BULLETIN 89, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

represented approximately 20 per cent of the growers who were inter-
viewed. Of the remaining 80 per cent, 60 per cent did the cutting
with the stalk cutter, using mule or horse power. The remainder did
the work by hand, using a stick ora hoe. The latter process is known
as ‘knocking stalks.’’ The most common crew employed in stalk
cutting consisted of one man and two mules. Under the average
requirements, 5 to 9 acres would constitute a day’s work with the
latter crew. (See figs. 3 and 4.)

Fic. 3.—Knocking stalks,

TABLE XV .—Cué stalks.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.

State and county. Per |

Num- | cent | Incot-| Cov-
ber. |oftotal} ton. | ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. Mule.

records.
Georgia:
Laurens: Countyss-osss-eaee eee 78 92} 45.49} 45.04 if 2.0 1.3 2.6
Greene) CountyAe eee eee 11 14} 85.00] 84.00 1 2.0 Tle3 2.6
Sumter Countysee seen 42 53 | 59.48] 58.10 1 2.0 1.2 2.4
Alabama: -
Dallapoosa Countyse.s25--=- eee 2 OAs | TG aS Ne TGS as 1 ond 22 3.2
MarshalliCountyaes -oseneecs- eee 77 86} 13.99] 13.99 1 2.0 1.2 2.4
Dale County sess eee 49 54 16.65 15. 6S 1 2.0 1.4 2.8
South Carolina:
Anderson: County 924-24) eee 33 37 | 41.86] 33.65 1 2.0 1.2 2.4
‘Barnwelli'County25. 4-2 eee 59 65 | 46.53 | 46.02 1 2.0 iol 2.2
Texas:
NilisiCountyac eee ee 60 80 | 106.68 | 84.62 13 2.4 1.0 2.2
Rusk, County 2. . 2-25 eee 62 83 | 935.74) |) 3323 1 | 2.0 1.2 2.4

HAUL AND SCATTER MANURE.

A casual glance at Table XLIII showing the distribution of receipts
from various enterprises on these farms will indicate that live stock did

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 21

a

‘\

not contribute very substantially to the farm income, for only 27
per cent of the total operators who were interviewed applied some
farm manure to cotton land. The application of manure ranged

Fic. 5.—Hauling manure.

from 1 to 5 loads per acre, while the most common crew consisted of
2men and 2 mules. Some hauling was done with a crew of one
man and one mule. (See fig. 5.)

22 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TasBLe XVI.—Haul and scatter manure.

|

F Acres per Hours per
Reporting. fara. Crew. Soares
Loads
State and county. Per per _
Num- E In Cov- BOR: 4.
ber. | total |cotton.| ered. | Man- | Mule. Man. | Mule. ‘
rec-
ords.
Georgia: |
WaurensiCounityeeee ee eee eee 6- 7 | 38.17 | 12.33. 1.8 2.5] 3.48 6.1 9.5
Greene Counbya sees 522 oer 42 | 54 | 49.33 | 27.33 1.9 2.0 |. 1.02 Sto 3311
Sumter Counbyes see ssen se ose e 38 | 48 | 58.80 | 21.07 3.0 2.2] 2.44 ted Bee
Alabama: |
Mallanossa: Coumbyeen asses 11 12 6.95 } 6.59 1.3 2.0 | 3.08 6.9 11.3
Marshall Counity2eeas2-2 5-2 59 66 | 14.38 | 11.36 1.5 1.8] 1.02 3.3 3.7
Wale-s ees eee eas saeeace 13 14 | 19.73 | 9.19 2.5 220 5|ee2250) |LOG 8.2
South Carolina: :
Anderson-Countyss= <=. s4--sn2— 28 31 | 41.59 | 34.20 3.0 2.0 62 2.6 17
BariwelliCounty: 245-5-5--- sea 27 30 | 60.41 | 40.22 3.9 1.8} 1.04 5.0 a
Texas:
Iii Clowitin~sa=ssss5claessssascc 2 37 | 2005508 eso eos see [eee ae 2.43 | 12.0 17.2
Rusk Counby= seh -¢ cae ea ee ee 2 3} 32.50] 5.00 eds 2503 |e del oe) eet ae 24.5

COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS.

Commercial fertilizers are used quite generally in the cotton-grow-
ing areas of the South, and in the ten districts embraced in this
survey commercial fertilizer was purchased and applied quite liberally
in all areas except on the farms of Ellis County, Tex.

TaBLE XVII.—HAHaul fertilizer.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. . | Eee ae é
; um- | cen cot- Ov-
ber. | oftotal) ton. | ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records. |
Georgia:
aurensi Couniiyzeser= sae ee | 82 96 | 47.02 | 46.90 1.4 Asi 0.8 1.3
Greene County 255-5 -5- 22-222. | 76 | 97 | §2.49 | 49.99 1.3 eal 4 att
Sumter Countess ee see ees 79 | 99 | 52.77 | 52.7 1.3 2.2 9 Uls¥
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County --..-2..--.--.- 79 89 | 13.89 | 13.89 1.0 1.9 1.1 2.1
Marshall County2-- 222-20 s- 90 | 100 | 18.88 | 13.88 1.0 15-7 1.0 1.5
Dale Counityet ses ese eee 88 | 98 | 13.74 | 18.67 1.0 1.8 -8 1.4
South Carolina: |
Anderson Countiyesss te eee 87 98 | 32.28 | 32.28 tg 2.0 6 FO
BarnwelllCounty22]=senes ose. == 91 | 100 43.25 43.25 1.4 ral 1.1 1.8
Texas: ; : |
RuSkeaC oun bye ease nee eee 67 | 89 |} 35.03 | 30.55 1.0 2.0 -8 1.6

Taking all farms where fertilizer was hauled into consideration
there was a variation from 0.6 of a man hour up to 1.1 man hours
per acre, with slightly higher normal requirements for mule labor.
Under average conditions one would expect to use about an hour of
man labor and two hours of mule labor for the purpose of hauling
commercial fertilizer for each acre of cotton.

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. DS

TasLtE XVIII.—Distribute fertilizer

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.

Be fe . Pounds) ;

ate and county. er
. Percent Pp
Num- In Cov- acre
oftotal - | Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
ber. records.| Cotton. | ered. | |
Georgia: | |

Laurens County.......-- 83 98 | 46.96) 46.84 294 | 1 Pe 1.0 1.9 Wea
Greene County.......... 77 99 | 53.69 | 53.69 260 | eae 1.0 2.0 1.9
Sumter County........-.. 80 100 52. 36 52. 29 286 | ats 1.0 1.9 1.8

Alabama: | |
Tallapoosa County...... 81 91 13.62} 13.59 205 | 1.0 | 1.0 2.0 2.0
Marshall] County......... 90 100 13. 88 13. 88 333 1.0 | 1.0 1.8 1.8
MaleCountyesss-s55- a 90 100 13. 63 | 13. 56 250 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0

South Carolina: |
Anderson County....--.- 88 99 32. 20 32. 20 408 | 12 | 1.0 2.4 2.0
Barnwell] County....-.-- 91 100 | 43.25 | 43.25 555 | 159) ial 2m 1.9

Texas: |
Rusk County-.......---- 68 91 34. 88 30. 47 159 1.0 leat 125 HES)

1 This table includes records where fertilizing was done by hand, except as regards normal time.

Mix fertalizer—Some hand labor was used in mixing fertilizer
on the farms prior to distribution in the field. Occasionally two or
more grades may be purchased separately and before distributing

to the cotton rows the two or more kinds may be mixed. Compara-

tively speaking, only a few growers did any hand mixing of fertilizer.

The applicairon of feritlizer.—Ordinarily the distribution of fertilizer
on cotton land follows some of the primary work of seed bed prepara-
tion. If the successive steps in getting land ready for cotton are to
be treated in logical order, then breaking or plowing should precede
a discussion of labor used in putting on fertilizer. However, in
dealing with the requirements of the latter work it seemed desirable
to bring together all of the items that relate directly to the utilization
of commercial fertilizer. Eight:-nine per cent of the men interviewed
gave estimates on fertilizer distribution. (See Table XVIIT.)

On a majority of the farms the fertilizer was put on with a l-row
distributor operated by a crew of one man and one mule. There were
a few cases In which the man running the distributor had some assist-
ance for part time. About two hours per acre of man labor were
spent in distributing fertilizer in a majority of the districts. This
means that about 5 acres of cotton land would be treated with fer-
tilizer in a 10-hour day. The period of application varied from March,
20 to May 10. Two districts, i. e., Tallapoosa County, Ala., and
Anderson County, S. C., included some farms where the fertilizer was
put on by hand. The normal man labor requirement for 10 farms
where fertilizer was put on by hand was 2.9 hours per acre. This
work was done with a minimum of 2.2 hours per acre in a few dis-
tricts. (See fig. 6.)

Side dress.—This term refers to fertilizer applied at the side of the
row after the cotton plants had attained some size. The chief center

94 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

of this work appeared to be in Barnwell County, 8S. C. Some side
dressing was done in Anderson County, 8. C. Likewise a very small
amount of this work occurred in Sumter County, Ga. Taking all
records into consideration only 6 per cent of the men interviewed did
any side dressing.

Fic. 6.—Distributing fertilizers by hand.

TaBLE XIX .—Cover fertilizer.

|
Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.

State and county. Per

Num-| cent | Incot-| Cov- ; E
ber. |oftotall ton. | ered, | Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.

records.
Georgia:
aurens Countyess-seeereree seer 32 38 | 58.09 | 56.28 1 1.0 1.6 1.6
Sumter County=on eee 7 Oh eval |) GS zal ft 1.0 25 2.5
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County.-------2-- 2. =. 6 @ 1 125005) 12500 1 1.0 18 1.8
Marshalli@ountymece eee Dey 28 | 14.90] 14.90 1 1.0 1.6 1.6
DaleiCountyeas-ce ee ee 4 AS Se 2 5500 | eb2250 1 1.0 2.8 2.8
South Carolina:
Anderson: Countyee = 8 9) 21385 19545 1 iba dl 2.3 2aD
Barnwell Countyseseseee eee eee 46 51 53.37 53.37 1 1.0 2.8 2.8

Cover fertilizer—Only 15 per cent of the total number of farmers
interviewed did any covering following the application of the fertili-
zer. In cases where this plan obtained the rows were opened first
with a stripper or middle-buster, then the fertilizer was applied either
with a distributor or by hand and the covering was done with a

g

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 25

scratch harrow, a scooter plow, or a cultivator. A crew of one man
and one mule was used almost exclusively in doing the covering.
The normal time required for covering fertilizer appeared to be
slightly greater than the normal time required for distributing fer-
tilizer. However, it should be noted that only 128 men reported
covering. 3
BREAK LAND.

There was a wide difference in the methods followed in plowing or

breaking land. In several districts it was a common practice to

break the land level. This method is known as “flat breaking” in
some districts. However, in areas where this plan was the dominant

Fic. 7.—Breaking land with a one-horse turning plow.

one, other methods of doing the initial work were frequently men-
tioned. Obviously there was a wide difference in the crew sizes
utilized and in the type of implement used in doing the breaking.
Flat breaking was pepouted BY, 67 per cent of all operators. (See
Table XX.)

The greater part of the breaking was done during the period from
November to March. However, in a few cases this work was done
outside of these limits. In six districts it required six hours or more
of man labor to break an acre of land. One may infer that the men
in these areas did the breaking at the rate of an acre and a half per ~
day under average conditions. (See fig. Ton } 7,

397°—20——4 ™

yachasins

26 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TABLE XX.—Flat break land.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. < Eo ae? G eee
um- | cent o n Ov- g
ber. | total |cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.

Georgia:

Laurens County ...-..--- 85 100 | 46.68} 46.51 1.0 1.0 1.8 6.1 10.5

Greene County...-....-- 54 69 | 55.53 |} 42.51 1.1 Hell ike 7 6. 6. 11.0

Sumter County. -.....-.. 78 98 | 53.01 | 51.60 1.0 1.0 j 1.9 4.9 9.3
Alabama:

Tallapoosa County....-.. 53 60 | 13.84 | 13.84 1.0 1.0 2 8. 4 9.5

MarshallCounty........- 42 AT MO eta 432, 1.0 1.0 Nez 6. 4 10.3

Dale.Counmtyaes see 51 » 57 | 17.06 | 16.67 1.0 1.0 1.7 6.4 9.8
South Carolina:

Anderson County... --.-.-.-| 24 27 | 29.87 | 27.50 1.0 1.0 1.8 5.6 10.1

Barnwell County .-....-- 88 97 | 44.19 | 44.18 1.0 1.0 1.4 6.1 8.1
Texas:

Ellis County..........-.- 48 64 | 120.00 | 21.35 1.0 1.0 3.3 4.7 14.7

RuUskaCountyees eee 43 57 | 40.05 | 30.86 1.0 1.0 1.9 5.0 9.9

HARROW.

Twenty-four per cent of the farm operators reported harrowing.
(See Table X XI.) The period for this work extended from Feb-
ruary to April. In the western part of the cotton belt the crew
sizes reported for harrowing were uniformly larger than in the eastern
districts. It was not uncommon to find one man and four mules
assigned to this work in the Texas areas visited. It will be seen that
about 5 acres would be harrowed per day in several of these districts.

TABLE X XI.—AHarrow.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre,
State and county. . Ee A ; pies
um- | cent 0 n ‘OvV- H a
ber. tota!] |cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.
Ceorgia: | |
Laurens County ......... 34 40 | 48.74) 37.10 1.2 1.0 252 lez, Sali
Greene County .........- 26 33 | 62.33 51.37 1.4 1.0 1.9 2.2 4.3
Sumter County.......... 33 41 | 52.73 | 51.79 1.4 1.0 2.9 2.0 4.9
Alabama: |
Tallapoosa County......- 25 28 | 14.00 14.00 1.0 1.0 1 1.9 2a
Marshall County.......-.- 3 3 | 24.00) 24.00 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.9
DalesGourrty eae er 3 3] 21.67) 13.67 1.0 1.0 ibs 7 1.3 1.9
South Carolina: |
Anderson County.......- 13 15 | 30.54 | 28. 23 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.7 2.6
Barnwell County .......- 18 20 | 82.17) 68.44 1.4 1.2 Pe) 1.9 3.6
Texas:
Hillis Countyeseseeosenece 23 31 | 120.83 | 33.13 te? 1.0 3.3 Su 2.4
Rusk Countyaese-eeeaeee 26 35 | 44.92 | 34.46 1.1 1.0 yo V2 1.1 2.6

LAY OFF ROWS.

After breaking the land and doing some harrowing, it is customary
to lay off or mark out the rows with a small shovel plow. Rows are
laid off as a guide for bedding or planting. The fertilizer is dis-
tributed in the bottom of this furrow. <A bed is then made over the

~

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. oT,

fertilizer with a one-horse turning.plow. Sixty-eight per cent of the
cotton growers laid off rows. (See Table X XIT.)

In several districts the rows were laid off almost exclusively with
a crew consisting of one man and one mule. There were some
farmers of these districts who used a crew of one man and two mules.
In several of these districts a day’s work approximated 5 acres.

~ See fig. 8.)

i
4

Fic. 8.—Laying off rows with two mules,

Taste XXII.—Lay off rows.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. | Per | : - nes |
ao ee ee oN Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
‘records.
B sGeorgia: |
Laurens County .-........ 72 | 85 | 48.26 | 47.81 1.0 1 ey, .8 2.1
Greene County -..-....---- 47 | 60 | 49.52 | 47. 24 1.0 1 1.6 2.1 3.3
Sumter County...--..-.: 75 | 94 | 53.26 | 52.33 Of lere al 1.4 1 & 2.1
Alabama: |
Tallapoosa County....... o7 | 64 | 14.39) 14.39 | 1.0 1 1.0 73 2.1
Marshal! County-......-.- 79 | 88 | 14.03 | 14.03 1.0 1 fez 1.5 1.9
Dale County............. 54 | 60 |} 15.97 | 15.60 1.0 1 1.2 1.9 22,
South Carolina: | | |
Anderson County......-.- 34 38 | 28.03 | 26.85 eal eae 1.5 | 2.0 2.8
Barnwell County ........ 90 99 | 438.55 | 438.55 1.0 As 1.0 1.4 1.4
Texas: | |
PillisiCounty==---.<. 36 48 | 129.06 | 25.17 1.0 1 er Bg 1-7
Rusk County............ 25 33 | 43.28 | 33. 96 1.0 1 | ev 1.4 1.8
OPEN ROWS.

A few of the growers (13 per cent) followed the practice of opening
' rows prior to putting on the fertilizer. (See Table X XIII.)

_ The rows were opened in different ways, some using a stripper or
middle-buster, others using a heel sweep, bull tongue, scooter, or
some such implement, attached to a Georgia stock. The crew con-
sisted chiefly of one man and one mule. This practice was common

4

28 BULLETIN 89, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

to Tallapoosa and Dale Counties, Ala., and Rusk County, Tex. Ina
majority of the districts reporting this work the normal man labor
requirement was approximately two hours per acre, which would
mean that the average grower could count upon opening rows on 5
acres per day. (See fig. 9.)

Fic, 9.—Using alister to open rows.

TaBLE XXIII.—Open rows.

| Reporting. | Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
| | uf :
State and county. | e Per Ae Bueee |
Num- | cent 0 n OvV- . \)
ber. | total |cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
fee
Georgia: |
Laurens County ........- 5 6| 48.80! 48.80 1 1 1.0 1.5 1.5
Sumter County.--....-.- 7 9} 63.43] 63.438 1 1 1.3 1.8 2a0°
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County....... 34 38 | 14.10} 14.10 i} 1 1.0 2.0 2.0
Marshall County........- 3 3} 21.50} 11-50 1 1 10 eye £7
Dale'County sc see eae 15 Zia SON els 4-7, 1 1 1.0 rly Tez,
South Carolina: ~
Anderson County........ 7 8 | 28.29] 26.43 1 1 liga 1.8 2.0
Barnwell County........ 9 10 | 90.22 | 90.22 1 1 1.0 1.4 1.4
Texas:
1 1 Ist Peo 1.6

Rusk County-eeee-eeeeee 33 44} 29. e 28. 88

DRAG OR SMOOTH.

Frequently it is the practice to level off the land with a log drag
or float. This may appear to be a repetition of some work included
under harrowing. In some districts at least there appeared to be
a distinct difference in the two classes of work. Sixteen per cent

of the records contained estimates on smoothing the land. (See
Table XXIV.)

Lz

>

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 29

TaBLE XXIV.—Drag or smooth. »
Reporting. Acres per farm. . Crew. Hours per acre.
|
State and county. ‘t Per zeees : eee
um- } cent o Ov- :
nent totai \cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. } Man. | Mule.
records. | |
Georgia: |
Laurens County...-..-..-- 6 7 | 56.83} 33.50 fee 1 1.8 1.7 3.0
Greene County......-.-.. 34 44 | 66.97] 58.91 ie? 1 1.8 1.9 3. 2
Sumter County..-......- 6 8 | 116.00 | 116.00 1.0 1 2.0 1.4 2.8
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County....- -- 6 7| 14.08] 14.08 | 1.0 1 1.0 1.8 1.8
Marshal] County........- 5 Go) 150" |e 50. 1.0 1 1.8 1.7 2.8
DaleiCountyassss-4---- 1 1} 13.00] 13.00 1.0 4 2.0 ie 3.4
South Carolina:
Anderson County....---- 60 67 | 35.69] 33.64 sal iL 7 1.3 2.0
Barnwell County .. .----- 9 10} 71.67] 45.83 1.0 1 | 1.8 1 2. 2
Texas: |
Hlis\Countyes22-22--—- - - 3 4} 100.00 | 35.00 1.0 ils] Dev SE fees
Ruski Countyess--2> 55. - 1 1} 64.00] 64.00 2.0 1 | 3.0 1.8 5.4

BED AND REBED.

Bedding may be defined as the practice of throwing two or more
furrows together for the purpose of forming a ridged surface. In
many of the cotton-growing districts of the South it is customary
to break the land, and harrow or smooth, open rows, and after dis-
tributing the fertilizer the soil is thrown into beds. In cases where
the land is not broken, bedding may be the first operation after stalk
cutting. Some cultivation may be given between the beds and after
the fertilizer is distributed the land is rebedded, leaving a ridge
upon which the cotton seed will be planted. Seventy-eight per cent
of the farms surveyed reported rebedding. In the column “Times
over,’ in Table XXV, the areas in which rebedding occurred are
indicated by the figures showing bedding in excess if one time over.

TABLE XX V.—Bed and rebed.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
{
State and county. = Per a é ee
um- | cent 0 Ov- | ; y
ber. total |cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.
Georgia:
Laurens County. ..=..--- 24 28} 48.88] 46.90 1.0 1 iil 2.6 FT!
Greene County... .--.-- 54 69 | 46.46 | 39.70 1.6 1 a2 6. 2 7.0
Sumter County....--.-.-.- 72 96} 53.20] 51.94 eS 1 Weak 4.3 4.5
Alabama: ; ;
Tallapoosa County..-...--| 62 TOA A GS Its 2, 1 1.0 Onl Bs ¥
Marshall County........- 84 93 | 14.00] 14.00 12 1 Vales 6. 0 6.4
Dale;Countyssee—- se 78 87 13. 02 12.16 leas 1 1.0 6.6 6.6
South Carolina:
Anderson County... .--- 78 88 | 32.12} 31.92 15 1 3 6.6 8.1
Barnwell County.....--- 52 57 | 45.89 | 41.97 1a 1 1.0 3.1 3.1
Texas:
BD iss@Goun byes. =e =e 75 100 | 108.64 | 108. 04 bal 1 3.9 lis 7 6.7
Rusk County— :
Bedaiaes-= Bea ies 75 100 | 34.24} 33.39 1.0 1 1ls'7 2. 4 3.6
Re Rede eet eae 59 79 | 32.47 | 26.81 1.0 1 15 27 3.6

-

30 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. -

On many of the farms where no breaking was done bedding and
rebedding occurred. This work is usually done with a one-mule
turning plow. The crew generally consisted of one man and one
mule. Exceptions to this were found in Greene County, Ga.; Ander-
son County, S. C.; and Rusk County, Tex., where the crew included.
one man and two mules. In Ellis County, Tex., 90 per cent of the
farm operators utilized a crew of one man and four mules for bed-
ding. The bedding was done in Ellis County chiefly with a four-
mule middle buster. The normal time for bedding in Ellis County
was about two man hours per acre. It required approximately 6
man hours per acre to do this work in several districts.

RUN MIDDLES.

In bedding land for cotton a narrow strip of soil is left in the fur-
row between the two beds. When this is worked down with some
tillage implement the operation is known as “running middles.”’
Some of this work was undoubtedly given under other headings.
Consequently a relatively small amount of time is reported in this
connection. There were four districts in which this operation ap-' °
peared to receive considerable attention. (See Table X XVI.)

TaBLe XXVI.—Run middles (seed-bed preparation).

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours pet acre.
: t
State and county. ‘ Ree ee ee
um- | cent 0 Ov- ?
ber. total | cotton.| ered. a ee \
records. |
Se oa ae | S| Se le
Georgia: .
Greene County--..-.------ 4 5 | 34.50] 33.00 1.0 1 1.5 ile 2.5
Sumter County........-- 44 Gis |= 68h Uy |v GBw7As) 1.0 1 1.0 2.1 2.1
Alabama: |
Tallapoosa County.....- 35 SO) 2a sl 1.0 1 1.0 219% 2.9
Marshall County---....-- 24 PA Ns Ae file Ss Te Zl 1.0 i 1.0 1.8 2.0
DaleiCounityaess ee eee 6 (eet OSsiseataOs 1.0 1 1.0 1.8 1.8
South Carolina:
Barnwell County .......- 9 TOs eee -eRsyealz/ 1.0 1 1.0 1.4 1.4
Texas: .
Rusk Counityas -sesseee se 23 31) 46.00 | 41.70 1.2 1 1.2 | 1.6 159

This operation was not reported by cotton growers in Laurens |
County, Georgia, Anderson County, South Carolina, and Ells County, |

Texas.
PLANT.

Planting was done in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina from
March 15 to May 15. In the two Texas districts planting dates
varied from March 15 to April 1 to June 8 and 10. In practically
all of these areas cotton was planted on beds. This survey indicates ~
a very extensive use of the one-row planter for putting in the cotton !

¥

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. ol

seed. In all areas except one, more than 95 per cent of the operators
planted with a one-row implement. In Rusk County, Tex., there
were nine growers who planted with a crew of one man and two mules.

Elis County, Tex., had three men who planted with a crew of one
man and three mules. (See Table X XVII.)

TaBLE XX VII.—Plant.

Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
Nu: Bu-
_ ber shels | Times.
State and county. report- Tae aoe per acon
ing. cot- are at acre. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
ton

Georgia:

Laurens County......... 85 | 46.68 | 46.68 0. 82 lig dl 1.0 1.0 Leif Is2/

Greene County .........- 13 | 538.17 | 53:47 1.18 gal eal 1.0 2.2 2.1

Simitersce st as ae ae 80 52. 36 52. 36 1.27 Gal 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.9
Alabama:

Tallapoosa County...-...-. 89 13.13 T3St3 1.10 1.03 1.0 1.0 PAL 2.1

Marshall County.-....... - 90] 13.88} 13.88 93 1.04 i) 1.0 1.8 1.8

Dale County...........-.. 90 13. 63 13. 63 . 88 gal 1.0 1.0 Dnte, 49)
South Carolina: :

Anderson County........ 89 32. 20 32. 20 Heid 5 lot 1.0 10 2.0 2.0

Barnwell County........ 91 43. 25 43. 25 1.02 ifsal 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.6
Texas:

HW Nisi\County-cs-- oan 75 | 108.64 | 108. 64 .70 1.03 1.0 2.0 1.4 2.8

AUIS ka COMME Assen oo sets 75 | 34.24 | 34.24 79 1.1 1.0 Meal 1.6 1.8

Fig. 10.—Planting cotton, Ellis County, Texas (one man and two mules).

The column headed ‘“Times over’) indicates that some replanting
was done in all areas. The amount in each area was, however,
insignificant. About 2 hours of man labor were required in most
districts to plant an acre of cotton. For the average farm this
would mean that planting would be done at the rate of 5 acres per
10-hour day. (See fig. 10.) :

32 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

~

HARROW, OR WEED.

This work occurred between the planting period and the time
when the cotton was large enough to chop. The implement used
consists of a small one-horse A harrow, and sometimes a spike-
tooth harrow. Weeding was done on 41 per cent of all farms. (See
Table XXVIII.)

Taste XXVIII.—dHarrow, or weed.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. < Per ; ‘ rs Tikes
; um- | cent 0 n OV- :
ber. tetal | cotton.} ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.

Georgia:

Laurens County ........- 72 85 | 46.81] 45.90 iba 1 1.0 ils 7 ilsz/

Greene County.........- 28 36 | 68.89] 66.25 lil 1 ie 1.8 2.0

Sumter County-......:.- 14 18 | 87.71 | 81.64 il, 1 1.4 1S 5) 2.0
Alabama:

Tallapoosa County.....- 36 40 | 12.07] 12.07 1.0 1 1.0 2.2 ne

Marshall County......... @ 80 | 13.84] 13.84 Ne? 1 1.0 1.8 1.8

iMaleiCountye-se*seanee es 12 - 13 | 25.92) 24.50 1.0 1 ik @ 2.0 2.0
South Carolina:

Anderson County.-.-...-. 71 80 | 33.89 | 32.79 2 ail sil 2.0 Delt
Texas:

HP MisiCounty=ss- se ee 21 28 | 130.71 | 79.43 1.2 1 2.0 .6 ee

RuskaC ounithysees= se eee 20 27 34. 35 31.10 1.0 1 1.4 ie 3} ils 7

In nearly all districts the bulk of the harrowing and weeding was
done with a crew of one man and one mule.

BAR OFF.

This operation, which precedes chopping cotton, is usually done
with a small turning plow. This implement is run on either side of
the cotton row, throwing the loose earth to the center and leaving
the young cotton plants standing upon a narrow ridge. By doing
te the plants are placed in a position which facilitates the work of

“chopping out.” There were two districts in which no barring off
was reported. Barring off occurred.on 59 per cent of all an

(See Table X XIX.)
TaBLeE XXIX.—Bar off.

Reporting. Acres per farm. : Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. : oe Per : . pes
um- | cent o n Cov- ;
ber. total |cotton.) ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.
Georgia:
Laurens County........- 60 TAL AT AO) = Ale Barf 1.0 1 1.1 2.9 Sw
Greene County .........- 67 86 54.15 54.15 le) 1 10 3.4 3.4
Sumter County Ly ren pres 77 O6n | SO 2s 51s | S186 10 1 1.0 Bh See
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County ..... 68 76 | 12.93 | 12.93 1.0 1 1.0 335 7 oa
Marshall County... ....- 80 89 14.18 | 14.18 1.0 1 1.0 3 shod
DaleiCounty... 2-25 2a 90 100 | 13.63] 13.63 1.0 1 1.0 3.4 3.4
South Carolina:
Anderson County...... 4. 18 20 | 32.42] 27.69 1.0 1 1.0 3.9 3.9
Texas:
IS kNC@ounty.....--....-25- 39 52 | 35.97] 34.03 el 1 1167) 2.9 3.2

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 33

The barring off was done on the majority of farms with a crew of
one man and one mule. In two districts there were a few growers
~ who used a crew of one man and two mules. The normal amount of
man labor required in performing the operation was approximately
three hours per acre for a majority of the districts.

eo CHOP COTTON.

Sufficient cotton seed is planted to give a thick stand of plants,
thereby necessitating considerable thinning when the young cotton
has attained the proper growth. It is the custom to chop out these
extra plants with a hoe, leaving the desired stand. This operation
involves hand labor exclusively. Chopping out was done in part by
the operator and his family, some by wage labor, and some on a con-

tract basis. (See Table XXX.)

OM DODO ODrbv

Fig. 11.—Chopping cotton.

Chopping begins some time in April for the early areas and it may
extend well into June in the districts where the planting is done com-
paratively late. (See fig. 11.)

TaBLE XX X.—Chop cotton.

Reporting. Acres per farm.
12 Cc Ti ie an
er Trew imes | hours
State and county. Num- | cent of| In cot- | Chopped | Chopped | (many.| over. per
ber. total | ton. De Nee Dy wae acre.

records. BOE: rae
Georgia: ee
Waunvens Counbty:-=--- .-55-- 80 94) 47,95 41.59 6. 36 1 1.0 9.
Greene County sass seen ee 78 100 | 53.17 30. 30 22.87 1 1.0 12.
. Sumter Countycs 7. -52-- 2: 80 100 | 52.36 35, 25 17.11 1 1.0 11.
» Alabama:

Tallapoosa County........... 89 LOON ASS 11.58 1.55 1 1.0 13.

Marshalli@ounty. =... 2-222 5: 90 100} 13.88 12. 37 1.51 1 eat 10.

Wale: Countyasss- =. 2 css ase. 90 100 | 13.63 10, 34 3. 29 1 1.0 11.
South Carolina:

Anderson County ..-....--.-.- 89 100 | 32.20 27.38 4.82 1 1.0 12:

Barnwell County .........--.- 91 100 | 43.25 25.98 Lea P47 if ot 10.
Texas:

MPSCounty= 25. se eees 75 100 | 108. 64 1085645) pases ee 1 1.0 7.5
IRUSkaCOunG yes ee 75 100 | 34.24 See leosaaccosc 1 1.0 9.9

34 BULLETIN 8, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

SIDE (DIRT BACK, RUN AROUND, ETC.).

Siding may be done with an ordinary sweep or with a side harrow
or with a small shovel plow. Prior to chopping, the cotton is barred
off or the soil is worked away from the plants. Immediately follow-
ing the chopping the cultivation known as “siding” is given. This
operation usually throws the dirt back to the plant. If the work is

done with a scooter, the soil is simply stirred up and weeds are.

destroyed along the ridge left by the barrmg. This work was done
on 86 per cent of the farms visited. (See Table XXXT.)

For all areas, with the exception of Rusk County, Tex., where
about one-half of the growers reporting used a crew of one man and
two mules, the common crew consisted of one man and one mule.
In a few districts it required a day and a half of a man’s time, or
slightly more, to do the siding on an acre of land. There were other
districts where this work was ordinarily done at the rate of 1 acre

per day.
TaBLe XX XI.—Side (dirt back, run around, etc.).

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
Per Times
State and county. Num-|centof| In Cov- | over:
ber. | total |cotton.| ered. Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
records.
Georgia: |
Laurens County....-.---- 70 82 | 43.99) 43.77 4.5 1 1.0 12.9 12-9
Greene County..-.-.-.--- 78 100 | 53.17 | 52.96 4.1 1 1.0 14.3 14.3
- Sumter County.......-..- 80 100 52.36 | 52.36 5.1 1 | 1.0 16.5 16.5
Alabama: |
Tallapoosa County....-.- 88 89, 13.24 | 13.24 2.6 1 1.0 9.6 9.6
Marshall County...-.----- 90 100 | 13.88 | 13.88 3.3 1 | 1.0 10. 9 10.9
Dale Countye v2 2s oee 90 100 13.63 | 18.63 2.9 1 1.0 10. 4 10.4
South Carolina:
Anderson County...-. eee 87 98 | 31.83 | 31.83 4.7 1S eset bes( 1) 16. 4 16.4
Barnwell County.....-.- 91 100 | 48.25 | 43.25 6.4 1 | 1.0 17.8 17.8
Texas:
RuskaCountys 22 -e-ee se 49 65 34.80 | 33.24 3.7 1 | Ld: 11-0) eee te?

RUN OUT OR SWEEP MIDDLES.

This operation is usually done with a sweep. The object of the
work is to tear down the ridges between the rows. The middles
were cultivated with the sweep from one to four times. Highty-

five per cent of the farmers visited gave estimates concerning this
operation. (See Table XXXII.)

Taste XXXII.—Run out or sweep middles.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew, Hours per acre.
Per Times |
cial aud county: Num- |centof| In | Cov- | over
ber. | total |cotton.| ered. Man. } Mule.) Man. | Mule.
records. |
Georgia: |
Laurens County.......-.- 66 78 | 44.21] 44.21 2 Leal 3.2 | 29)
Greene County.....-...- 74 95 | 53.80] 53.80 2.3 1 | 1.0 4.1 4.1
sumter\County22-222-2-5 80 100 | 52.36] 52.36 3.5 1 1.0 5. 9 | 5.9
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County......- 77 87 | 14.23} 14.23 1.6 1 1.0 3), 44 | 3.2
Marshall County......... 89 99} 13.75) 13.75 2.3 1 1.0 3.8 | 3.8
Wale:County: 2-0-5. e 85 94 14.96 | 13.96 2.0 1 1.0 3.8 | 3.8
South Carolina: |
Anderson County.......- 89 100 |; 32.20] 32.20 2.0 1 1.0 3.7 3.7
Barnwell County........ 87 96 | 44.42} 44.42 5 1 1.0 B58) S53)
Texas:
iis County... -......... 4 5 | 103.75 | 25.50 1.0 1 1.8 1.6 2.9
RaskiCounty <4. ..- 2. 67 89 | 33.61 | 32.63 2.4 1 1.1 3.9 | 4.1

—,---—-._ ~~

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 35

HOE.

This consists chiefly of cutting out weeds which are not destroyed
by cultivation, plowing, or chopping out. (See Table XX XIII.y

There was considerable difference in the number of times the cotton
was hoed. The hoeing was done at the rate of from one-half acre to

+ slightly more than 1 acre per day, under average conditions.

h)

TABEE) DOCK Hoe:

Reporting. | Acres per farm.
| Cc Av | Tee
State and county. : Per foe dig pELoedial pao eal teed enols
Num- | cent In by by | “mam).| over. | per
ber. .| of total| cotton.| wage con- acre:
records. labor. | tract. |
Georgia:
Laurens County......--.-.-----.- 75 88 | 48.89 | 47.88 1.01 1 1.6 | 11.2
Greene Countys=--- 552-222. 2-3 78 100 | 53.17 | 47.25 5.92 1 1B 15.2
Sumter County-...-.-.-. Boge oasis 79 99 | 52.83 | 46.86 5. 97 1 159) 17.9
Alabama: . Loe |
Tallapoosa County ....-.-...----- 86 97 | 13.11 | 12.68 43 1 a; 5 | 16.6
Marshall County. ....... oe 90 100 | 13.88] 13.7 15 1 Ps (pi OES
Dale County. - 222225235222 89 99 | 13.61} 13.07 .54 1 1.4 12.9
South Carolina: |
Anderson County............-.-- 87 98 | 32.45 | 31.48 .97 1 1.9 15.5
Barnwell County........--------- 91 100 | 43.25} 32.83) 10.42 1 2.6 | 17.5
Texas:
I isiCountyes. sees ese ee 75 100 | 108.64 | 108.11 |.-.....- 1 2.0 8.5
Rusk County<< =sss=22-- oSc22c-n 71 95 | -34.94 | 34.54 |_....... 1 Heal 6.6
|
CULTIVATE.

The term “plowing” cotton is in much more general use in the
South than cultivating. Such operations as barring off, siding and
sweeping middles are all essentially intertillage processes. The fact
that only 25 per cent of the total number of operators who were inter-
viewed gave estimates on cultivation does not mean that on the
remaining farms the cotton received no spring or summer cultivation.
It does imply, however, that some other operation similar to barring
off, busting middles, etc., was substituted for cultivation. (See

Table XXXIV.)
TABLE XX XIV.—Cultivate.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county. Per | Times |
Num- | cent of} In Cover aoe: M cre OMe | wut
ber. total |cotton.| ered. aie : aS mee
records. |
| |
Georgia: lta
Laurens County ...-.---- 30 35 | 48.97 | 48.97 4.4 1 1.0 12.9 12.9
Greene County......---- 5 6 | 58.30} 54.30 ES, 1 ils? Pye Al 2.6
Sumter County.......... 1 1] 65.00 | 65.00 2.0 1 2.0 Be 0 7.4
Alabama: | |
Tallapoosa County....... 51 57 12.93 | 12.93 .8 1 ie) 14.6 14.6
Marshall County.......-- 32 36 13. 41 13. 41 4.2 1 1.0 13.4 13. 4
Dale Countyas-s=2- 2 37 4] 12523 ND OB B50) 1 1.0 12.6 1256
South Carolina:
Anderson County.....--- 16 18 | 26.31 | 25.06 1.6 1 1.0 366) 35 83
Texas:
Ellis County.=.---.-..--- 75 100 | 108. 64 | 108. 64 5.5 1 2.0 7.8 15.6
Rusk County-.-.-..-.----.- 46 61 33. 78 30. 24 4.0 1 2.9 6.9 13.0

36 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

It will be seen that in Greene and Sumter Counties, Ga., and in
Barnwell County, S. C., practically no cultivation was reported as
such. A reference to preceding tables will indicate that the growers
in these areas employed other methods. The crews in Georgia,
Alabama, and South Carolina were largely 1-man and 1-mule, with
a few l-man, 2-mule crews. In Ellis County, Tex., the cultivation
was all done with crews of the latter size. (See fig. 12.)

SS ee =
Fic. 12.—Type of cultivator used in western part of Cotton Belt.

PICK UP SQUARES IN THE BOLL WEEVIL DISTRICTS.

Some growers spent a limited a mount of time in picking up squares
which had fallen from the cotton plants. This work was done by hand
and it occurred chiefly in Laurens and Sumter Counties, Ga., and
Tallapoosa and Dale Counties, Ala. Altogether 132 farmers did
some of this work. The time requirement varied from 3 hours to
14.9 hours per acre. Practically the entire acreage of cotton on the
farms reporting was gone over and the material which was gathered

was burned.
PICK COTTON.

During the year 1918 the first picking of cotton was made from
August 15 to September 1. In several areas harvesting continued
intermittently up to the middle of December. Some picking was
done as late as December 25 in one district. Four classes of labor
were represented in doing the picking: First, the operator and his
family; second, the wage laborer; third, the cropper labor; and,
fourth, labor working on a contract basis. The first two classes are in-
cluded under the heading ‘“ Picked by wage labor” in Table XXXYV.

The normal quantity of seed cotton picked per day would not be
far from 150 pounds for most districts. The yield of seed cotton per
acre has a very important bearing on the amount of labor required in

i

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 3

doing the picking. The weather conditions throughout the harvest
period are also significant because of the influence on the rapidity of
ripening and subsequently on the length of the picking period.

TABLE XXX V.— Pick cotton.

Acres per farm. mepor
| cent of Fas
Wansereree ea total |Pounds| Yield | ee
State and county. waar _Picked | Picked} yield per per =
: In by by |picked| day. | acre.! _
cotton. | wage con- by Bes
labor. | tract. | wage.
3 :
reorgia: |
Laurens County.........--------- 85 | 46.68] 29.39 | 17.29 61 152 781 | 57.0
Greene Gounbye.-5-o=--- s- aes 78 | 53.17 | 37.95 | 15.22 65 151 743 45.0
SuméenCounbya.- 2s. .--- 552-22 80} 52.36 | 36.12 | 16.24 ia 157 728 46.9
Alabama:
iRallapoosa. County. —_--- =... === eli TS) |) ea 2.01 86 155 484 33.8
MarshalliCounty=..- ==. 22 =.= S05} 13588) | e125 715 1.13 91 155 632 | 46.6
WaleiCoun tysees == 7a <oS=2 90 | 13.63 | 10.38} 3.25 69 143 574 | 44,1
South Carolina: |
Anderson County =. -22 22-228. 2. 89°} 32.20 | 27.50 4.7 82 159 696 | 46.8
iRannwell:County.—- --..2 <2------ 91} 43.25 | 24.95 | 18.30 55 142 723 49. 2
Texas:
PHNSIWOumiye a at SISA. Fok 7) | 108.64 | 12.71 | 95.93 11 236 510 | 23.8
iske GOUMEy ee ase et a= 75 | 34.24 | 22.15 | 412.02 65 183 533 31.8
1 Weighted average. a Five acres washed out.
TaBLE XXXVI.— Weigh (man and horse labor).!
|
Reporting. | Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
State and county: : Per z
NU Area ecu ico | Man. |. Male | Man” | Mule:
| records.
Georgia: |
aurens| Countyee.- == s-5—2se2s54] 54] _ 64) 50.80} 50.80 | ike 1.97] 2.3 3.8
Greene Coun byazssss.s- 2 se So 4 69 | 60.80 52.18 ei! 1.9 | 2.8 5.0
euMNTber COUN bye. oe eee ee see 36 45 | 59.51 | 57.42 | 1.4 TLS | 2.0 3.4
Alabama: |
‘Tallapoosa County. .-.----------- 17 19} 17.24 7.24 | 1.3 2.0 1.8 3.0
MarshallCountyve-2-s-.-2 2 = =4 i 1 1} 15.00} 15.00 | 1.0 2.0 1.3 2.6
Pale Couniiyee stance ee se oe 11 12 | 22.73 22.73 1.0 2.0 | 1-9 3.8
South Carolina:
Anderson: County==.2. .=..4)-2.2.0- 41 46 | 31.07 28.14 1.6 1.9 | 2.4 3.1
Barnwell County... 5.22.52... 39 43 | 54.73 | 47.68 Bi) be 2G | 2.1 3.0
| |
WEIGH.

Several crew sizes were used in weighing up the seed cotton.
The most common crew consisted of one man and two mules. (See
Table XXXVI.) Weighing, in this connection, includes the mule
labor of hauling cotton to cribs in the field or to the farm buildings
at night. The normal man time for all groups varied from 1.3 to 2.8
hours per acre, while the normal mule labor requirement ranged
from 2.6 to 3.8 hours per acre. Approximately 14 per cent of the
farmers who were interviewed used man labor only in weighing up
cotton. The normal requirement on these farms varied from 1.1
hours per acre to 3 hours per acre. In Ellis County, Tex., it was a
common practice to pay a contract price of a dollar per bale for
weighing in the field.

38 BULLETIN 8%, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TaBLeE XXXVII.— Weigh (man labor).

Reporting. | Acres per farm. - |
Man
= z Crew
State and county. ee: 7 Gnan). | hours
|Number. oftotal | orton. | Covered. Jaeger
records. HD: a
Georgia: |
Laurens. County---5-o45-. ae Se 20 24 46. 65 46. 65 1.1 1.9
Greene Counttye: = eee ee 6 8 | 25. 00 25. 00 1.0 3.0
Sumter Comity=-+-2- hos a eee oe 22 28 51.91 49.95 | 1.0 i |
Alabama:
Pallapooss:County=: 23222 scs— econ TAa te 16 15.82 15. 82 | 1.3 187;
Dale County: 22-53 an et ee | 7 8 | 16.71 16.71 | er 2
South Carolina:
“Anderson: Countys = ee ss eee 14 16 25.71 25.71 | pees 1.6
Barnwell County. 2-98 a oe ai 12 42.82 42.82 | 2.3 1.3
Texas: |
Ellis County....... ise hee lot oer 16 21; 134.25| 127.69 1.0 2.0
Rusk County. cs: eis eas ees 9 12 44.78 30.24 | 1.0 3.3

HAUL TO GIN.

The comparatively low hauling distance in Ellis County, Tex.,
(Table XX XVIII) is due to the fact that there are many, small gins
located at different points in the district. The normal man labor
requirement for hauling to the gin ranged from 1.8 hours per acre
in Rusk County, Tex., to 7.2 hours per acre in Barnwell County, S. C.

TasBLeE XX XVIII.—dAaul to qin.

i

Reporting. Acres per farm. | Crew. | Hours per acre.
|
zd |
State and county. Ler an Re- | | | Miles. |
Num- | cent of | a ;
Ros areata licat tan pout | Man. | Mule. | | Man. | Mule.
records. ae |
| |
Georgia: | |
Laurens County. ...---.-- @ 83 98 | 47.23 | 47.23 | 1.0 TAQ: | ASOT 5.3 10.6
Greene County...........| -78| 100| 58.17|-53.17| wi| 22| 3.95} 46) $9
Sumter County-.....-.-- 80 100 52.36 | 52.36 | 1.0 2.0 5.31 4.0 | 8.0
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County......- 89 100 | 13.13 | 13.13 | 1.0 2.0} 5.06 3.4 | 6.5
Marshall County....._..- b 89 99 | 13.94] 13.94 | 1.0 2:0}; 2.68 3.9 7.8
Dale 'County-= 25225 -s 90 100 | 13.63} 13.63 1.0 2207) SsstS 3.2 6.4
South Carolina: |
Anderson County.......- b 88 99 32.36} 32.36 1.0 2.0! 2.46 5.0 10.0
= Barnwell County........- | 590 99 43.56 | 43.56 1.0 it 9 3.65 7.2 13.3
exas:
BlhisiCounty === 75 100 108.64 | 108.64 1.0 2.0 3.65 1.8 3.6.
Rusk Countya-eseeaaeee | 75 100 34.24 | ¢34.17 | 1.0 | 205 te SF 25 5.0
| !
2 One with truck and one by contract. c Five acres not picked—washed out.

b One by contract.
MARKET LINT.

At the time these records were obtained a portion of the lint was
still in the hands of the grower. Some lint was sold at the gin imme-
diately after picking. A portion of the crop was placed in cotton
warehouses. This explains in part the fact that only 51 per cent of
the total number of growers gave estimates concerning the mar-

keting of lint. (See Table XX XIX.)

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 839

In the marketing of lint the majority of farmers used a crew of
one man and two mules. However, on a few farms the hauling was
done with a crew of one man and one mule. The column showing
the per cent of the total records represents the proportion of growers
who either hauled the lint back to the farm and in turn to the ware-
house or who hauled from the country gin to the warehouse. All
other labor for marketing lint is accounted for under the heading
“Seed cotton to gin.” The normal time requirement varied from
0.8 of an hour to 2.3 hours per acre. A corresponding range was
shown for the mule labor.

TABLE XX XIX .— Market lint.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. . Hours per acre.

Miles
State and county. Per
Num-|centof| In Ie = M Mul hauled.
cca Potala cotton |e oes an. ule. Man. | Mule.
records. ine.
Georgia:
Laurens County.....-.-. 63 74.) 51.383] 41.18 1.1 Pe AL 6. 52 15 2.9
Greene County.-.....--.- a 49 §3 | 53.60] 31.78 16? 2.0 4, 43 8 163
Sumter County. .......-- "34 42] 55.47 | 44.21 1.0 2.0 SHE 1.3 2.6
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County.....-- 32 36 | 14.59] 12.81 1.0 1.9°| 11.87 253 4,3
Marshall County... ..---- 31 34 | 12/73 | 12.13 1.0 LB 5. 61 1.8 2.9
Dale County...........2- 13 14 | 20.92} 14.22 1.0 2.0 7.05 2.0 4.0
‘South Carolina:
Anderson Countyv......-. 72 81 |} 32.81 | 23.95 1.0 1.9 3.11 8 1.4
= Barnwell County.....-..- 79 8&7 44.88 | 30.38 1.0 1.9 4.45 1.2 2.1
Texas:
Rusk County. ..........- 53 7 | 31.70 | 30:75 1.0 2.0 7.38 1.4 2.8

a One with truck,
MARKET SEED.

This operation was reported by 35 per cent of the farmers visited.
(See Table XL.) Seed sold at the gin when the seed cotton was
delivered does not come under this head. The labor involved in
handling seed this way has been cared for under the heading “‘ Hauling

seed cotton.”
TaBLe XL.— Market seed.

Reporting. Acres per farm. Crew. Hours per acre.
Miles |
State and county. fe See a Res | hauled:
hon Paraieslleotton! por Man. | Mule. Man. | Mule.
records. 8.

Georgia:

Laurens County.......-- 5 69 | 47.41] 35.61 1.2 2.1 7.11 2.0 3.7

Greene Countyv.......... 31 40 | 62.27 | 28.38 1.0 1.9 3.91 1.3 2.4

Sumter County........-- 20 25 | 58.85 | 47.23 1.0 2.0 6. 87 1.8 3.6
Alabama:

Tallapoosa County....... 17 19 | 16.82] 13.77 1.0 1.9 | 12.96 2259) 4.1

Marshall County....--.-- 2 2| 12.50 5. 00 1.0 1.5 5. 00 1.4 is

Dale County..........-.- 6 WAY Ups Ae | es ale 1.0 2.0 9. 83 3.1 6.2
South Carolina:

Anderson County.......- 57 64} 33.11 | 19.23 1.0 2.0 3. 24 1.3 2.6

Barnwell County-.....-.. 65 71 | 47.91 | 25.91 1.0 1.9 4. 42 15 2 3.0
Texas:

Rusk County............ 30 47 | 32.63 | 26.26 1.0 2.0 7. 87 1.9 3.8

Pete

40 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

The hauling was done largely with a crew of one man and two
mules. A crew consisting of one man and one mule was used on a
few farms. It will be observed that there was a wide variation in
the average distance of hauling. Hauling distance is a factor which
influences the amount of time required in doing the marketing and
this in turn has a direct relation to the cost of placing the cotton
upon the market.

TOTAL MAN AND MULE LABOR REQUIREMENTS.

The man and mule labor required in growing and delivering to
gin or market the cotton covered in this survey has been computed
by districts on the basis of a weighted average. (See Table XLI.)

TasBLE XLI.— Man and mule labor requirements (per acre).

Total hours Total hours | Total hours -
F er acre if er acre if per acre, haul-
Acres in cotton. ee Pp | ing to market
i <eted at hauled to ln) Sep
Num- gin. market! | p 2
State and county. ber of _ included.
records.) | ne rola Seas Sie kere
Total pas Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule. | Man. | Mule.
aaa ae aT = Bea, Sle | =a Soar | ee | an
Georgia: |
Laurens County....----- | $5 1|3,968.0| 46.68| 123 56 | 127 63} - 142 63
Greene County.--..------| 78 |4,147.5 | 53.17 130 59 132 63 150 63
SumbenCountya.- 2522 -—- 80 |4, 188.5 52. 36 135 62 138 68 142 68
Alabama:
Tallapoosa County...----| 89 |1,169.0 | 13.13 123 57 127 65 138 65
Marshall County...-...--- 90 |1, 249.5 13.88 127 58 130 63 131 63
Dale Countys-ceeeeeee te. 90 |1,226.5 | 13.63 13h 53 122 62 127 62
South Carolina:
Anderson County...----.-| 89 |2,865.5 32. 20 130 55 132 59 145 59
Barnwell County.-...---- 91 3,935.5 | 43.25 134 61 137 66 154 66
Texas: |
MisiCountya=-=eee 75 |8,148.0 | 108.64 | 56 37 (2) (2) 63 37
Rsk Counties 25 -see roe 75 |2,568.0 | 34.24 | 84 46 87 52 99 52
{ |
1 Direct labor only, no supervision included. 2 All sold at gin.

A very considerable part of the cotton crop in 1918 was not sold
immediately after harvesting and ginning, but was held in ware-
houses-or on the farms. -When held on the farm there is labor to
account for in returning the lint from the gin, and this amount is
increased still further when these bales are sold and marketed. In
tabulating these data, the total hours per acre if marketed at the
gin were determined. A second calculation was made, which shows
the total hours of man and_horse labor when lint is hauled to market.
The final columns of Table XLI include an allowance for hauling
to market and supervision in these districts.

Reasons may be found in the discussion of various practices and
the occurrence of these cultural methods in the 10 districts under
consideration for the wide difference in total hours of man and mule
labor utilized in producing cotton in these districts. The average
man labor requirement ranged from 63 hours per acre in Ellis County,

f

Qe

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON, 41

Tex., to 154 hours per acre in Barnwell County, S.C. In six dis-
tricts having fairly uniform methods of culture there was a variation
of from 131 hours per acre to 145 hours for man labor.

The more extensive cultural methods employed in Texas, in
comparison with those used in the southeastern portions of the

Cotton Belt, explain in some measure the differences in the total

man-labor requirement. The lower yields reported for the three
Alabama areas will account for the lower labor requirement of those
areas in contrast with that of the five districts in Georgia and South
Carolina. There was considerable uniformity in the average require-
ments for man labor in the latter districts. The lowest average
mule-labor requirement occurred in Ellis County, Tex., whereas
the highest was found in Sumter County, Ga. It is interesting to
note that in no less than eight districts the variation for the mule

labor was but from 59 to 68 hours per acre.

FARM RECEIPTS.

In making this study it was the purpose to secure not only complete
information with respect to production costs for cotton, but also to
obtain a fairly complete statement of the total receipts and the
major items of expense on each of these farms. (See Table XLII.)

TasBLe XLII.—Farm area, receipts, ecpenses,! and farm income (842 records).

é Number | Acres per} Total Total Farm
State and county. offarms.| farm. | receipts. | expenses.! income.

Georgia:

WAUIRENS: COUNUY isis om cs hats orcs Shei sai= Soe sie > Sie dese otal 85 172. 99 $4,616 $2, 076 $2, 540

GreenelCountyaeesaaes. pases Sas cee ee eee 78 280. 06 5, 217 2, 267 , 950

Sumber COwmMby snr sa erast- mites see cleeterare ole rare sya 80 188. 16 5, 513 2,699 2,814
Alabama:

MallapooseiCountyeessemeece eee EP ee nee aoe 89 203. 53 1,041 648 393

Marshall oumtye=-hiss. sae one tees eee ee erect ie 90 58. 48 1,118 594 524

iD ale COUNTY eesti her eco terete = seeesice 90 169. 92 2,079 823 1, 256
South Carolina:

ATG eCrSOMMMOUMN bYysse e-em nee ese cee ee est ee 89 94. 87 2,823 1, 209 1,614

arnyelluC oumtiya mate me aoe ee ee cote Saceae 91 137.36 3, 920 2,021 1,899
Texas: |

HO ULISKC OUIM iy eee eer eta ei ete Se oa ee 75 167. 90 7,079 2, 200 4,879

Isic OODITUATS 5 45 beseocte SESS One aeCceeren esate 75 145.31 2,515 951 1, 564

1Certain minor items of expense missing.

The average total farm receipts, as reported by districts, varied
from $1,041 in Tallapoosa County, Ala., to $7,079 in Ellis County,
Tex. There was a range in the average total farm expenditure from
$594 in Marshall County, Ala., to $2,699 in Sumter County, Ga.
The individual farms in each district displayed considerable variation.

DISTRIBUTION OF FARM RECEIPTS.

Farm receipts have been divided into six groups, three of which
deal with cotton. (See Table XLITI.) It is important to know the
chief sources of income on the farm. When the outstanding enter-

42 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

prises are given and the returns from each enterprise are segregated
as in this table, it becomes possible to study the relative importance
of the various crops or by the different classes of live stock.

; ¥
TaBLeE XLIII.—Distribution of receipts (842 records). %
| z 1) ;
Percentage of receipts from— z
State and county. ber of Mis-
records.| Total | Cotton | Cotten| Total | Other | Live | cana. 3
crops. | lint. seed. | cotton.| crops. | stock. ace :
a SER et Gay a, 7
Georgia: ;
WanrensiCounty-— se eee ee 85 93 TR 14 91 2 3 4 4
Greene: County: <. cas seas eee 78 91 75 14 90 1 2 7 .
SUM LereCOuntVe = eee eee 80 87 68 12 80 7 7 66 3
Alabama: y
walianoosa Countveseeesee eee 89 81 66 Q 75 6 15 4
Marshall: Countvass ee eee et 90 89 83 5 88 1 4 7
WaleiCounbyaee eee eee hee eee 99 80 38 ff 45 b35 15 5
South Carolina:
Anderson Countye-— eee 89 95 g2 13 Sal eee ee 2 3
iBarnwelliCounty=)- 25s eee tele 91 9g 82 13 95 3 1 1
Texas:
list Caun Gye neice eee 75 97 SI 12 93 4 2 1 :
EUS ke COUNTY assets ee eee 75 90 7 12.5 86 4 5 5

a 2 per cent of receipts were from increase in feed and supplies in Sumter County, Ga.
b 33 per cent of receipts were from sales of peanuts in Dale County, Ala.

In this analysis the percentage of receipts from cotton lint and |
cotton seed are shown separately. These two sources of income have |
also been combined and the total percentage of receipts from cotton |
is given. ‘There were seven districts out of ten in which the com-
bined receipts from lint and seed cotton constituted 85 per cent or
more of the total farm receipts. In these same districts the receipts
from cotton seed approximated 12 to 14 per cent of the total farm
receipts.

In Dale County, Ala., 35 per cent of the total farm receipts came
from crops other than cotton. Thirty-three per cent of this amount
was obtained from the sale of peanuts. Both Dale and Tallapoosa
Counties, Ala., reported approximately 15 per cent of farm receipts
as coming from the sale of live stock and live-stock products.
Other crop sales and live stock together constituted 14 per cent of
the farm receipts in Sumter County, Ga.

BASIC COST FACTORS.

The prominence of the man-and-mule-labor factor in the produc-
tion of ‘cotton is shown very clearly in a review of the distribution of
costs as reported for the 842 farms discussed in this bulletin. The
actual cost in money, figured at current rates, may be considered as
of minor importance in the long run, although there is a very insistent
demand for such figures. It is much more desirable to have accurate
data as to the hours of man and mule labor that are required in
growing an acre of cotton than to possess figures which give merely

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. — 43

the dollar costs for the man and mule labor. Cost data expressed
in terms of money lack stability, and they are especially unreliable
in periods in which extreme fluctuations occur. This has been par-
ticularly noticeable during the past three or four years. The meth-

_ ods of growing cotton have not changed appreciably during this

period. The normal man labor requirements do not vary greatly
from year to year except as they may be influenced in the individual
cases of high or low yields, with resultant increase or decrease in
labor requirements. It is obvious, therefore, that basic data, like
hours of man and mule labor, have a much wider application in the
field of farm economics and farm management than costs which are
given in dollars and cents. If the acre requirements for man and ~
mule labor are available, current rates for this labor can be applied
and the costs for each class of labor per acre can be determined quite
closely.

There are other reasons why more attention should be given to a
study of such basic requirements as hours of man and of mule labor.
During the past two years farmers have been compelled to get along
with a reduced supply of man labor. A study of the man labor
necessary in performing different operations in the production of
cotton in widely separated districts will tend to bring the more effi-
cient methods to the attention of the grower. By applying some of
these improved practices, practically the same acreage of cotton can
be handled and essentially the same yields can be obtained as for-
merly and with less labor. A complete story of farm practices and
related costs for different areas, such as those in question, will show
quite a wide range in time required for performing a given field
operation. It has been pointed out that Ellis County farmers used
much larger crew sizes than any of the other areas visited. ‘This
accounts in part for the comparatively low costs reported for that
county. Possibly Ellis County methods can not be adapted to other
districts in toto, but it is probable that some of the characteristic
features of Ellis County practice can be applied to advantage by
farmers in other sections.

Data on the normal seasonal labor requirements of crops are of value
in any farm reorganization work. In making plans for changes in his
cropping system it is useful for a farmer to know how man and mule
labor is distributed throughout the season. The introduction of a
new crop might so increase the peak load of labor during certain
seasons that it would be impossible to care for the work which must
be done. But if it is known in advance how much labor will be
needed to harvest competing crops, then the acreage of each can be
regulated so as to make the plan practicable.

In order to make a comparison of the results which are obtained
by experiment stations, investigational committees, and other

44 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

organized bodies interested in the study of farm costs, it is exceed-
ingly useful to have the quantity of the various materials that enter
into production reported on a basis that will permit comparisons
between pieces of work conducted in different periods in the same or
other areas. From an accounting standpoint it is important to
know the cost of manure, fertilizer, and seed, but it is equally im-
portant that the quantities which are applied or used should be
determined.

There are a few cost items which must of necessity be reported
on the dollar basis because cash expenditures are the only source of
information and there is no opportunity to convert these sums into
hours of labor or quantities of material.

The more stable factors of cost as worked out in this investigation
are presented in Table XLIV for the Texas areas visited, and in
Table XLV for representative areas of the older part of the Cotton
Belt.

TasBLe XLIV.—Basic factors in the production of cotton (per acre) on 150 farms in Texas
areas (1918 crop).

Ellis County, Tex. Rusk County, Tex.
Item. ‘ : :
| Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average
| Unit. | for 75 |for lowest forhighest| for 75 for lowest|forhighest
| records. 10. 10. records. 10. 10.
Manhourssctcs sts st «seu ee |PELOUTSS=5| tenis G3 aed eee 85 99 71 140
Minlewhourstescce sacct a sce ce esos eee dole 37 27 50 52 36 66
Mantine zara seme e iran. Sees Loads. - .| 2.48 19 4.67 29 8 50
Merhlizens Seas rosee seecee ose Pel sdoybials jel ees amen S ee SoBe ee 159 96 220
S CEG Saeree otis ee ae i eee | Bushels-. 0.70 0.45 1.00 0.79 0.41 1.22
Sacks and sheets................| Dollars..| 0.07 0.02 0.17 0.27 .13 - 63
TEN eee ee eee eee see OF52- 1.82 1.24 2.66 1.79 1.01 3.16
imsoranceanditaxes sesece = selene do . 44 -09 97 -28 . 09 55
MACHINE RYe at ees sees hoe eral nae GOtsi. 1.48 89 2.38 1.72 -88 3.33
Overhead ans es oe Ses na dos 2.31 1.68 3.13 3.87 2.59 5.49
Interest and rent. .-............-. esos cece 16.83 10.75 21.14 5.15 2.28 15.73

1 Man hours include supervision.
2 Three farms reporting in Ellis County; two farms reporting in Rusk County.

TasLt—E XLV.—Basic factors in the production of cotton (per acre) on 168 farms in
Alabama and Georgia (1918 crop).

Marshall County, Ala. Greene County, Ga.

Item. Average | Average | Average | Average | Average | Average
Unit. for90 for lowest/forhighest} for 78 |for lowest/forhighest
records. 10. 10. records. 10. 10.

Manvhoursitenase seer reeeee OUTSSee eel oL 91 172 150 | &8 187

Minlevhours-f2cee ne eae eee | ee Gomes 63 44 80 63 42 82
Mantires.oSs.t5.5 ee eee Loads 1.02 0.23 2.64 1.02 0.16 2.74

Mertlizer 5. 2c. eocccee ee eee Pounds.) 333 200 502 260 134 454
Seed a 4 oe SE eee Bushels.-| 0.93 -57 1.40 1.18 - 68 2.02
Sacks and sheets.. 2-2 oe eeee eee Dollars..| soa 0.08 0.76 | -18 . 06 0.44
Ginming 235 Si. oes eee | ee dos 1.94 1.06 3-50 | 2.09 -99 3.49
Insurance and taxes..........-- dos te 25 07 .69 ely AT ass)
Machinery... 5_<=s sean | Seedoe eee) 2.63 | .96 6.64 1.64 .62 3.13
Wrerhead a5. 0 2 See eee ee doses 6.82 4.62 11.55 5.70 3.24 8.74
7.47 2.28 19.19

intereshand rent... :../-. 22232 | td Oeaeee 9.32 O13 26.47 |

1 Man hours include supervision.

!

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. Ad

: VARIATIONS IN COST AND RELATION TO PRICE.

At the beginning of such a discussion it should be clearly under-
stood that there is not one cost of production, but, in fact, many
costs of production. This is due to the variation in the producers
themselves as weil as in the instruments of production which they
employ. This variation in the cost of production has a direct rela-
tion to prices and renders the subject more complex than has been
assumed by those who have asked that the price should equal the
cost of production plus a fair profit. Few people have appreciated
either the wide range in cost or the significance of such a wide varia-
tion in cost. It has been assumed that most costs would be close
to the average of production, and, this being the case, would facili-
tate the usage of the average cost to determine price. The futility
of using the average in this way is shown by the accompanying
charts (see fig. 13 and Table XLVI), which give the range in the cost
of producing cotton. Because of this wide variation in the cest of
producing cotton it does not necessarily follow that there is no rela-
tion of cost to price and therefore the cost data have no significance,
for, as a matter of fact, there is an important relation of cost to price.

The first question that at once arises is what proportion of the
producers in any given line of production must receive the cost of
production in order to stimulate the production of the desired sup-.
ply. This question can not be answered offhand for the various
Imes of agricultural production largely because data have not been
gathered which will answer it. Neither has it been determined just
how widely the costs on a given farm vary from year to year, but
it is obvious that the important thing in the mind of the farmer
that provides a basis for deciding whether or not a specific product
is to be produced is the relation between the cost and the price
through a series of years.

There are a number of other considerations which enter into a
discussion of the relation of cost to price on which no authoritative
data are available. It is not known to what extent farmers con-
tinue to produce at a loss through a series of years through force of
custom instead of adjusting their production to the market condi-
tions. Neither has it been determined how high a percentage of
producers are just getting into farming and produce at a loss while
gaining the ability to manage the farm profitably. Furthermore,
it is not known what percentage of those who are now producing at
a loss in a given year will drop out and be replaced by more capable
farmers. All of these conditions have a direct bearing and influ-
ence on prices. =

The question of what proportion of the farmers must receive the
cost of production of a given crop in order that their returns shall
be an adequate stimulus to further production can at this stage of
our studies be no more than an off-hand guess. In the absence of

A6 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

VARIATION IN NET COST PER POUND OF LINT COTTON
BASED ON 842 RECORDS
1918

NET COST NUMBER OF RECORDS

20 “25 30. 35 40 45 50 S55

Wl
Z

ah Mh

eee eee

We,
a
— ty
Wh MM
Zam

WA =

MLL hhh,
MMM LLELz YT
WLLL LLL
Logg
LLL: —_— iy LLL LA
CMM MLE LLC
MMLLLLEELOLL: VE
WHY. YEE YE CZ LD.

“NN NYNANNNNOYHVOWUUWVUOR DDS DADDAADUUUNUUUUOUNUODDD HOD DOHININS
SES lbh acl lela Neth ostoh AL Fd SE Oo

0 0006000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

VILLE

LLL 9) WHA

Ws ty

Wit

LLL
LLL, WM
LL TE CL ETIIZCZEZEZ_ WLLL
LLL aviv ——
Wht ty ti ay LLL YOUU: Wiis
LLL
LLL fli Yh 4
IL.
an {
ae €

Fic. 13.—Variation in cost of cotton production on 842 farms.

))

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON, 47

sufficient data on this point in connection with the cost of producing
cotton on the farms in this study, an estimate of 85 per cent of the
product as the bulk-line cost was used in order to call attention to
the fact that the price relation which is significant is not that of the
average cost but the marginal or bulk-line cost. Further investiga-
tions will be necessary in order to obtain a satisfactory basis for
estimating, with a fair degree of accuracy, the relation which will
need to cxist between the range of costs and the market price in
order to maintain a given line of production.

Taste XLVI.— Variation in net cost per pound of lint, as shown by records on 842
farms (1918 crop).

Cae Acreage. Production.
a Number tive a
pound of | of farms. pent or Total Cumula-| Total | Cumula- -
lint. Ri eine, ROD EEAT tive per | pounds | tive per
-|Pergroup-| cent. |pergroup.| cent.
$0. 08 3 0. 36 35 0.10 10, 200 0.13
ROD Reet erwiotree HoOne |e ce aos SOE eae eae 5s}
-10 2 . 60 31 .19 12, 000 . 29
ll 7 1. 43 161 . 67 61, 000 1.09
.12 3 1.79 60 -85 15,175 1.30
-13 7 2. 62 256 1.62 77, 430 2.32
14 11 3. 93 531 3. 21 149, 168 4.28
15 12 5.35 864 5.79 | 306,503 8.31
16 24 8.20 | 1,549 10.42 | 391,470 13. 46
17 24 11.05 1, 213.5 14.05 | 266,936 16. 97
18 37 15.44 | 2,386 21.18 | 533,801 23.99
19 30 19.00 | 1,487 25.62 | 331,842 28. 36
20 47 24.58 | 3,169.5 35.09 | 798,920 38. 87
21 48 30.28 | 2,229.5 41.75 | 529,945 45. 84
22 45 35.62 | 2,037.5 47.84 | 456,512 51.85
23 51 41.68 | 2,401 55.02 | 526,054 58. 77
24 58 48.57 | 2,718 “63.14 | 629, 221 67.05
25 38 53.08 | 1,956 68.99 | 409, 286 72. 44
26 39 57.71 1, 885 74.62 | 402,587 77.74
27 37 62.10 | 1,345.5 78.64 | 292,190 81. 58
28 37 66.49 | 1,215.5 82.27 | 258,900 84. 99
29 31 70.17 898 84.95 | 202, 240 87.65
30 28 73. 50 981 87.88 | 205,408 90. 35
31 19 75. 76 377 89. 01 67, 130 91. 23
-o2 12 77.19 201 89. 61 38, 461 91.74
Oo 26 80. 28 662 91.59 | 156,415 93. 80
. 34 19 82. 54 815 94.03 | 135,225 95. 58
xo 13 84. 08 283.5 94.88 55, 280 96. 31
. 36 8g 85. 03 108.5 95. 20 19, 940 96. 57
37. 7 85. 86 132 95. 59 22,945 96. 87
- 38 i 86. 69 146 96. 03 27, 990 97. 24
39 5 87. 28 51 96.18 8,300 97.35
- 40 5 87. 87 85 96. 43 15, 950 97.56
41 9 88. 94 211.5 97.06 35, 540 98. 03
.42 3 89. 30 64 97. 25 10, 650 98. 17
-43 5 89. 89 39 97.37 6, 231 98. 25
-44 7 90. 72 108 97.69 17, 088 98. 47
45 8 91. 67 105 98. 00 16, 734 98. 69
- 46 7 92. 50 71 98. 21 11,348 98. 84
-47 4 92. 98 48 98. 35 9, 590 98. 97
48 3 93. 34 42 98. 48 6, 571 99. 06
-49 2 93. 58 13 98. 52 1,775 99. 08
. 90 3 93. 94 25 | 98. 60 5, 040 99.15

Notre.—Fifty-one farms, representing less than 1 per cent of the cotton production having costs exceeding
50 cents per pound, are omitted because the total acreage and production for these farms represent only
a small part of the totals.

Theoretically it may be claimed that the supply will readily ad-
just itself to changes in cost and in price, but there are undoubtedly
some farm operators in the Cotton Belt who would be very reluctant
to substitute other farm enterprises for cotton, since they have grown
this crop for many years and they do not see clearly how they can

48 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

make a living in any other way. They will continue to produce
cotton even though the returns fail to pay the wages they might
obtain by hiring out and the rent they could get by letting their
farms to other men.

The keeping of cost records will enable the farm operator to make
frequent adjustments between the various enterprises which make
up the entire farm business. Without these records, and the inform-
ation which they convey, it will be impossible to single out the enter-
prise that is giving the lowest profit or what may perchance be taking
the farm account into the loss column. <A knowledge of what is hap-
pening will assist perceptibly inpreventingsubstantiallosses. Futher-
more, if adjustments are made in the farm business in order to increase
profits, the operators concerned will reap their rewards not so much
in the gains that may be obtained in any one season, but in the greater
stability of the business as a whole, and in the more uniform returns
that will be apparent from year to year.

RANGE IN PRICE.

Tt has been pointed out that the average cost of producing cotton
on the 842 farms was 23 cents per pound. The range in cost Was
extremely wide (8 cents to $1.07 per pound), but the bulk of the cot-
ton was produced at a cost of 28 cents per pound or less. Consider-
able variation was also noted in connection with the prices these
farmers received for their cotton. It was not possible to secure com-
plete information in this regard, since when the records were taken
a part of the crop was still unsold. However, in order to determine
the approximate receipts from cotton, the unsold portion was valued
at the price which obtained when the account was closed. The aver-
age price received by these farmers for their 1918 cotton, as computed

in this way, was about 29 cents per pound. The range in prices
received is shown in Table XLVITI.

TasBLeE XLVII.— Variation in price per pound received for cotton lint.

[Cotton given as rent considered as sold.]

| Cumula- | | Cumula-
tive per tive per
Price per pound of lint. ound: cent of Price per pound oflint. | Pounds cent ol
ele nee eer eee DE OCUIC=e II yi wa cee eprodue-
| tion sold. | | tion sold.
Under 20icentshe== see 79, 230 | 1.45) @30CenbSeieca= so eae oe ae edna Oe 17.9
20 cents. sae sae eee 30, 875 | TOS TCents =r es eee ee eee OO 85.7
ZI CONES a= ee | 41,062 1 OES 2CONLS seen ae ee eee 450, 673 93.5
22iCCNItS hea ae ae ee | 23, 450 DESH | (Poot CCT USE sane ne 173, 684 96.5
23 ' cents sai ae 28, 465 OUSE AS ACen tesa a tee eee re 83, 618 97.9
ZAI CONUS | ee eee ees | 77, 215 Acie GOOLE CIS ane ee ee es 83, 104 99.3
20 \CeNtS® eee een ee eee 700,178 GSD CO OCCT S mee aa se eee es 34, 846 99.9
26 {CONtS ake oe ene eee ae | 177, 483 19.3: SA Cents <4. Moses A Pe 5, 250 100.0
ZiKCENtS Ao eee eons 369, 254 25 (a| | POS CEILS = wre teers aes a 525 100.0
28icentis: a2 ek See 880, 152 | 40:9. ABi cents 4 on ae ave eres 21,500 100.0
29 cents. ....- Been) Sy 511, 295 | 49.7 || |
I] |

Total cotton sold, 5,795,448 pounds, representing 76.3 per cent of production.
Total cotton held 1,804,474 pounds, representing 23.7 per cent of production.

a ess than one-tenth of 1 per cent.

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 49

For that portion of the 1918 crop which was actually sold from
these farms prior to the time the records were taken, representing
76 per cent of their total production, there was a range in price from
less than 20 cents to 43 cents per pound. Eighty per cent of the
cotton sold brought prices which varied from less than 25 cents
'@ to 32 cents per pound. Only a very small percentage of the cotton
sold brought less than 23 cents per pound, which was the average
cost of producing cotton on these farms.

APPENDIX.

TaBLE la.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 85
farms in Laurens County, Ga. ;

Acreage. Production. ;
| Farms in
Cost be Sa LL ee ee
pound | Acres |Cumula-| Total |Cumula-| ,2TOU
Bas per |tiveper| pounds | tive per ce
group. cent. per group. cent. :
$0. 10 19 0.5
-1l 78 2.5
12 12 2.8
13 35 3.7
14 121 6.7
15 56 8.1
16 151 eS
17 . 59 13.4
18 347 22.1
19 122 25. 2
- 20 418 35.7
.21 560 49.8
~22 203 54.9
- 23 71 56.7
. 24 397 66. 7
<2 500 79.3
. 26 177 83.8
S74 241 89.9
28 108 92. 6
29 183 97.2
- 30 20 97.7
Bel ee) Beeesaase 97.7
sao) s|5oscece eee 97.7
505 tay (esos aor ! 97.7
34 25 98.3
35 1 GPa 98. 7
ality eeeosance 98. 7
37 20 | 99. 2
OS, sfosseeceees 99. 2
a) aed eee 99.2
40 30 100.0

The lowest cost on these farms was 10 cents and the highest 40 cents per pound. The average cost for
the 85 farms was 21 cents per pound. Essentially 50 per cent of the acreage and 56.6 per cent of the total
amount of cotton was produced at a cost of 21 cents per pound or less. A price of 26 cents per pound would
be necessary to meet cost of 83.8 per cent of the acreage and 86.8 per cent of the production on these farms.
Everaee yield, 277 pounds per acre, the lowest individual yield being 105 pounds, and the highest 560

ounds.
E The average yield of cotton per acre, as reported for the various cotton-growing States, was appreciably
lower in 1919 than in 1918. Labor and fertilizer costs were higher in 1919 than in 1918, which indicates
that the average cost per pound of cotton was considerably higher for 1919 than for the preceding year.
How these factors affected the cost on the individualfarms will be determined by a further study on these
farms covering the 1919 crop.

00

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 51

TaBLs 2a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 78
farms in Greene County, Ga.

Cost per |-

Acreage.
Acres. | Cumula-
per tive per
group cent.

13 0.3
meg Ss pages 433
ap compeaN .3
5 Drapes .3
st BR pace 533
Ue ene 50)
ake Cae ENO ao)
175 4.5
214 9.7
116 12.5
79 14. 4
82 16. 4
8024 35. 8
140 39. 2
270 45.7
437 56. 2
353 64.7
164 68. 7
283 75. 5
290 82.5
131 85. 7
246 | 91.6
| 94.7
25 95. 3
Ris ae Sa 95.3
43 96.3
118 99.1
Spams, Sha 99.1
30 99. 8
ede aka 99.8
Greene a nee 99. 8
Ba SS ote ch 99.8
ee 99.8
9 100. 0
4, 1474 100. 0

Production.
Total Cumula-
pounds tive per
per group. cent.

3, 500 0.3

Ss ascore .3

SRI BEERS a3

BeBe here 13

Seen -3

ee es moe .3

Baines ne tea ue a3

72, 500 7.0

74, 155 13.7

33, 625 16.8

29, 670 19.6

19, 420 21.4

205, 250 40. 5

46, 600 44.8

82, 325 52.4

102, 115 61.9

89, 250 70. 2

38, 550 73.8

70, 150 80.3

61, 950 86. 1

26, 650 88. 6

53, 100 93.5

26, 700 96. 0

4, 000 96. 4

Seen ates ek 96. 4

9, 000 97. 2

23, 350 99. 4

Seis aio hates eae 99. 4

4, 000 99. 8

Set eee 99. 8

Spi a Se pa 99. 8

peeing cane ats 99. 8

SRMES Gouaoee 99.8

2, 000 100. 0

1,077, 860 100. 0

Farms in
each cost
group
(each star
one farm).

78

There was a range in production costs on these farms of from 8 cents to 41 cents per pound. The aver-
age cost for the 78 farms was 22 cents per pound. Farm operators who had a cost of 22 cents per pound or
less cultivated 45.7 per cent of the cotton acreage and produced 52.4 per cent of the total cotton. It would
require a price of 27 cents per pound to care for 82.5 per cent of the acreage and 86.1 per cent of the produc-
tion. Average yield, 260 pounds; range of yields per farm from 133 pounds to 450 pounds.

52 - BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TABLE 3a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 80

farms in Sumter County, Ga.

Cost per

pound
of lint.

Acreage. Production.

Acres | Cumula- Total Cumula-
per tive per pounds tive per

group. cent. per group. cent.

50 132 15, 000 156
Sewers bee eee aS Soe 1.5

165 sal 46, 680 6.1

148 8.6 44, 000 10. 4

520 21.0 171, 900 Mil; 2

276 27.6 78, 000 34. 8

75 29. 4 26, 000 37.3

463 40.5 111, 950 48.2

277 47.1 67, 460 54. 8
287 54.0 72, 185 61.9

| 333 62.0 70, 100 68.8

206 66. 9 47, 480 73.4

67 68. 5 13, 000 74.7

352 76.9 78, 500 82. 4

174 81.1 25, 500 84.9

246 87.0 48, 000 89. 6

211 92.1 43, 500 93.9

Sas eee WPS eres = ie rae 93. 9

97 94.4 22, 500 96.1

564 95. 7 8, 500 96.9

14 96. 0 2, 250 97.1

Bae Se N05 (Ueca IGRaceeee aces 97.1
117 98. 8 19, 350 99.0

Ey Greene ae OSS emer ee ees 99. 0

| 17 99. 2 3, 605 99.3
10 99. 4 1,750 99.5

Bees seaoe| GORA Sal sare ae ee 99.5
27 | 100.0 5, 000 100.0
4,188 | 100.0 | 1,022,210 100. 0

There was a range in production costs on these farms of from 11 cents to 38 cents per pound. The aver-
age cost for 80 farms was about 20 cents per pound. Ifthe price had been fixed at the latter point, 46 per

Farms in
each cost

group
(each star
one farm).

Losleslest

80

cent of the acreage and 38.1 per cent of the cotton would have been produced at a loss.

range of yields per farm, from 112 pounds to 469 pounds.

A price of 25 cents
per pound would include 85 per cent of the total production in this group. Average yield, 244 pounds;

|
;

~s

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON.

53

TABLE 4a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 89
farms in Tallapoosa County, Ala.

Cost per
pound
of lint.

Acreage.
Acres | Cumula-
per tive per
group cent.
17 Tot)
pea Cog 158)
eee aS a 1.5
6 2.0
72 8.2
Piles BARN 8.2
15 9.5
89 ile
117 Qe
19 28.7
eee eee ate 28.7
17 30. 2
78 36.9
63 42.3
43 46.0
30 48.6
B25) 50.7
31 53.4
25 ORO
7 56.1
154 57.4
14 58.6
28 61.0
23 63.0
SS ais 63.0
21 64.8
55 69.5
10 70.4
25 225
32 Wen,
5 75.6
29 78.1
22 80.0
a eae 80.0
17 81.5
25 83.6

Production.
Total Cumula-
pounds tive per

per group. cent.
5, 215 2.6
epee SO gba 2.6
as ae Se ORIN 2.6
1, 462 3.3
16, 435 11.5
Ee ea Ieee: 11.5
2, 500 12.7
21,696 23.5
20, 200 33.5
3,775 35.4
AL SSS EL Sh 35.4
3,320 BYifoa
13, 750 43.9
12,470 50.1
8, 500 54.3

3, 550 56. 1
3, 750 58.0
5,915 60. 9
3, 500 62 6

980 63.1
3, 250 64.7
2, 200 65.8
4,130 67.9
3, 000 69.4
ees IRAE 69.4
3, 500 Fila
8, 500 75.3
1, 857 76.2
3, 000 Tot
4, 054 79.7

900 80.1
4,375 82.3
4,071 84.3
RE NS i 84.3
4,040 |* 86.3
3, 000 87.8

Farms in
each cost
group
(each star
one farm).

“%

There was a range in production costs on the farms visited in this district of from 16 cents to $1.07 per

pound of lint.
This group represente
shown in the above table.

Average yield, 172 pounds; range of yields per farm, from 73 pounds to 375 pounds.

Twenty-four farm operators had costs which varied from 51 cents to $1.07 per pound.
only 16.4 per cent of the acreage and 12.2 per cent of the production and is not

The average cost per pound of lint was about 36 cents per pound for all farms.

To cover 84 per cent

of the cotton grown on these farms would require a price of 48 cents per pound.

D4 BULLETIN 89%, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TaBiE 5a.—Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 90
farms in Marshall County, Ala.

Acreage. Production. 2
| | Farms in
Cost Der ; each cost
noun Acres |Cumula-| Total | Cumula- , 8'OUP
of lint per | tive per | pounds | tive per each star 4
group. cent. | pergroup.| cent. °° farm). t.
| a ol
$0.11 10 0.8 1,250 | 0.4 * |
| a Pa Eoeee ee St: Ric MSGS esscs | Be Sie BE GORA See
ile oe tenes = = SOF NE a ie SE ie io [Serene pe Seg
me [YS eg eae 40 | Saeeee ee St Ne tees ee Pedi
aye el Pe eee tee ret ear ae BL Pei are Tate oe A
3a iis) eee aes ae Biel ta eres ate ae oY: DE iene ees Oe
Si/ 123 1.8 5,010 201 | ae
SLRS tea ee Pes S arn see ee 7 ey ad | eRe eee
.19 10 2.6 3,150 Seay | fee
Ba), 0 ese aes enon ZO hae eee nee Se G3.0g eee Soe tie
"21 8 3.2 2, 000 4.0 | *
"39 291 5.0 6, 450 6.3 |
"33 15 6.2 4” 500 7.9) |
. 24 65 11.4 16,200 | 1356) | Fe
5745) 14 14, 55} 4,500 | 57) || eee =
-26 25 14.5 6,500 Vig PeS
27 303 | 16.9 8, 000 20.3 |
28en 107 Zao) 26, 604 29.7 | SKK
.29 | 91 32.8 25, 070 38.5 *eesick :
.30 1064 41.3 24,775 47.3 | #8
31 593 46.1 | 12,470 Sl 7/- || BRS Ss
32 44 49.6 | 10,805 | SE) |) Sese
33 97 57.4 | 29,910 | 66.1 eRe
. 34 108 66.0 | 19, 000 (Peis) S| sesces
35 443 69.6 | 9, 245 76.1 | #8
"36 8 70.2 |~ 1,500 76.6 | *
SOI ee ae MORZINE ae eel (hor eal Coooe eons
38 20 71.8 4,360 73.1 | *
39 23 73.6 4, 500 (ON ea leaes
40 17 75.0 4000 | 81.1 | *
41 55 79.4 11; 040 85.0 | RE
42 9 80.1 2’ 150 85.8 | *
43 21 81.8 3 500 87.0 | +
44 | 34 84.5 5, 588 89.0 | ***
45 42 87.9 | 6, 750 91.4 | #e
46 40 91.1 | 5,850 93.5 |
47 | 12 OOR is 2,215 94.3 *
48 20 | O35 ia] 2,500 | 95.2 *
49 10 | 94.5 | 1,250 | 95.6 *
|

There was a range in the production costs on the farms visited in this county of from 11 cents to 62 cents
per pound. Eight farms having costs which varied from 51 cents to 62 cents per pound are not shown
in the above table. This group represents but 5.5 per cent of the total acreage and 4.4 per cent of the
total production. The average cost per pound oflint for allfarms was 33 cents. Average yield, 227 pounds; .
range in yields per farm, from 125 pounds to 457 pounds. A price of 41 cents per pound would be required
to meet produetion costs on 85 per cent of the cotton.

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 55

TABLE 6a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 90
farms in Dale County, Ala.

Acreage. Production. z
| Farms in
Cost Des Sea See each cost
poue Acres | Cumula- Total Cumula- StOnP
™ of lint. per tive per | pounds | tive per (em Siar
am group. cent. |pergroup.| cent. | M¢ farm).
$0. 08 5 0.4 2, 200 0.9 | *
OOS. Pitter a BY | tere Cen SN Ie eee eae
.10 12 1.4 3, 500 Oia Nx
ll 23 3.3 7, 050 5.4 |
cel ae larger es are abo d) Peermecesecce Spe fe ee aa nee
Se eel ae ee ae Soi ese eee Se dl ee ee ae
14 14 4.3 3, 800 Ue WEES
15 10 5.1 2, 200 Ue Gr es
BA Gy = |e Sees ol rales eee oi GAO a | ea Aa
17 48 9.0 13, 500 13.6 | **
18 53 13.3 16,250 | 20.4 | *
19 75 19.4 21,500 | 29.4 | *
20 13 20.5 2,880 | 30.6 | **
21 684 26.1 15,165 | 37.0 | eRe
22 72 32.0 12,150 42.1 | ***
23 58 36.7 10, 550 46.5 | *e«
. 24 72 42.6 11,673 51.4 | **Fr*
. 29 40 45.9 11,700 56.3 | **
.26 35 48.8 6,770 59.2 | ‘eK
o20 25 50.8 4,150 61.0 | **«
.28 12 51.8 2, 000 61.8 | *
.29 16 53.1 4, 030 G38 Ome.
- 30 27 55.3 4, 800 6525) 4) |
ar 96 63.1 14, 500 71.6 | |
32 17 64.5 2, 861 72.8 | >
33 68 70.1 | * 12,590 78.1 | ERE |
34 45 73.8 5, 500 80.4 | *%*
35 30-7652 6,350 83.1 |
36 ps eal eee AC 2,940 84.3. **
37 8 | 78.6 1,620 85.0 | *
38 12. |e 719.6 2, 000 85.8 | *
.39 Deel 80.0 800 Shall eoe
. 40 22 81.8 2, 500 87.2 | *
41 123 82.8 2, 000 88.0 | %
AD ten Pees cee S2S8 Fal es ee ee SS: Oe Rene cee
43 8 83.5 874 88.4 | *
44 18 85.0 2, 500 89.5 | *
| 45 IZ 86.4 4, 250 91.3 | ESS
| 46 TORS 87.7 2,098 92.2 | *es

In this district there was a range in production costs of from 8cents to 93cents perpound. Eighteenfarms
which are not included in Table 6a had costs from 49 cents to 93 cents per pound; thesefarmsrepresented
12.3 per cent of the cotton acreage and 7.8 per cent of the production for the 90 farms. The average cost
for all farms in this group was practically 28 cents per pound. Average yield, 194 pounds; range of yields
per farm, from 69 pounds to 467 pounds. In this district a price of 37 cents per pound would be required
to cover production costs on 85 per cent of cotton. -

56

BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TABLE 7a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 89 farms

in Anderson County, S.C.

’ Acreage. Production. |
Farms in
Cost per / each cost
pours Acres |Cumula-; Total Cumula- ( Bees
: per tive per | pounds tive per one farm)
group. cent. per group. cent. 5
$0.08 17 0.6 4,500 OSGi es
nA) 9 iis eerste tear 2 O4 cee oe i Oiriliekee Ramer
SO Sl eae eee Bas erase ieee Gis ee 5eoee hee
Siler dl Soe Renee AW jl leseeta Geerane SUE | Reo Romoge coe
cel Diente ese E Gyles ene SON ee See es
.13 18 1.2 7,500 iL Ss ore | as
ela ee eee Br es assesses swindle Se es eecese
re al cates eee dye cea terres carne Sle Thos laacoeaacc lee
.16 65 3.5 20, 500 4.6 | *
Sly 54 5.4 12, 750 6.4 | **
.18 108 9.2 29, 000 HOLE | Ses
.19 43 10.7 10, 850 1250s is
. 20 100 14.2 25, 050 155) 4), Sees
ByAl 96 17.6 28, 500 1QF 55 jpees
yaa eee eae 7 G2n Se Sess oe LOUD Netw se
. 23 303 28. 2 77, 500 30.4 | #eerrerece
24 209 35.5 55, 000 S852 seer
25 252 44.3 65, 400 47,4 | *eeErrek
. 26 409 58. 6 86, 850 59.6 | ***
SG; 103 62.2 32, 125 O40 | es
. 28 218 69.8 53, 855 TALS SESSA R ARS
29 111 eat 29, 570 (TOGO | RRRED
. 30 125 Usp 27,100 TOE N ECE
S08 534 80. 0 14, 000 SU
32 58 82.0 13, 000 83.5 | *
.33 121 86. 2 28, 650 87.5 | *ereKrk
. 34 107 89.9 28, 000 91.4 | #68
.3d 120 94.1 21, 000 94.4 | #5
. 36 24 94.9 6, 500 9553) | *
.37 15 95. 4 3, 000 OS Gee
. 38 59 97.4 12, 500 Sia) |
SO om reas Geers OA SS Ge ee ae Oi) |e ren
. 40 16 97.9 3, 700 98.0 | *

In this district production costs ranged from 8 cents to 51 cents perpound. Three farms having unit costs
of 44, 46, and 51 cents are not shownin the table. Theaverage cost for the 89 farms was 26 cents per pound.
If the price had been fixed for this district at 26 cents per pound, 41.4 per cent of the acreage and 40.4 per
cent of the cotton grown by these operators would have been produced at aloss. Average yield 240 pounds;
range of yield per farm, from 150 pounds to 417 pounds.

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON.

57

TABLE 8a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of tint) on 91 farms
in Barnwell County, S. C.

Acreage.
Cost per ee
pore Acres | Cumula-
Salt per | tive per
group. cent.
$0. 12 18 0.5
11 Silo eee ees =5
.14 23 sal
zal 103 Sh
.16 50 5.0
Ait Sees aaa 5.0
.18 171 9.3
19 138 12.8
. 20 187 17.6
Seal 187 22. 4
=22, 374 31.9
23, 486 44,2
. 24 575 58. 8
20 191 63. 7
. 26 264 70. 4
a2 75 (253
. 28 2044 UES
29 71 79.3
30 281 86. 4
Sail 61 87.9
232 41 88. 9
<3 160 93. 0
. 34 15 93. 4
30 50 94.7
BC en easee epee 94,7
seul 75 96.6
Spice |seasesaee 96.6
Bota |Sseueacree 96.6
ape OS eens aes 96.6
41 114 99.5
RC became 99.5
Bc Si) eee ae cae 99.5
Rc NS ae aesresaesees 99.5
. 45 14 99.8
AGP ete re 99. 8
.47 7 100. 0
3,9353 | 100.0

Production. e
Farms in
each cost
Total Cumula- SuouP
pounds | tive per ceach ae
per group. cent. OEM EST EN
5, 500 (Rye |) a3
as So eas BD ea | See Saree
7, 968 say || Se
39, 503 5.0 | ***«
11, 750 6.1 eK
Sas See 6.1
39, 680 9.9
37, 000 13.4
48, 500 18.0
57, 700 23. 5
108, 000 33.8
135, 970 46.7
156, 786 61.6
51, 500 66.5
73, 200 73.4
25, 500 75. 8
47, 250 80.3
17, 500 82.0
78, 000 89. 4
11, 000 90. 4
6, 500 91.0
47, 500 95.5
2, 000 95. 7
10,500 ! 96. 7
Se ES QOS aS ee eee
13,125 N7ia 8). |) ERE
ES aaa Oi Ole ee ers sees
Rae oe ese DRO | ae ea eee
eee eee ae, COIR! i CEs whe a
17, 000 99.5 | **
Ta 6005 ae i oom et
cyte, NES, 0 a eo | ee
ph PP ee PO OOF Oye cee eee
1, 680 90075 2s
Be ee ae | QO (ier Peace a= AY
3, 000 100. 0 | *
1, 053, 612 100. 0 91

The range in production costs for the farms studied in this district was from 12 cents to 47 cents per pound

of lint.

NE

Ss

The average cost for 91 farms was 24 cents per pound.
for 79.3 per cent of the acreage and 82 per cent of the cotton produced on these farms.
at 29 cents per pound 69 farmers would make a profit, 2 operators would break even, and 20 men would grow
cotton ataloss. Average yield, 268 pounds; range of yields per farm, from 120 pounds to 462 pounds.

A price of 29 cents per pound would care

In other words,

58 BULLETIN 896, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

TABLE 9a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 75 farms
in Ellis County, Tex.

Acreage. Production. : :
Farms in
Cost Be SSS Se eaehveost
pour Acres |Cumula-| Total | Cumula-| ,,8%0UP
of lint per | tiveper| pounds | tive per (eaet siae
group. cent. per group. cent. one farm):
$0. 14 115 1.4 23, 400 1.6 | *
sb | o sens Sees Ded: Seer ee 1 Gigi tes ee eet
.16 733 10.4 153, 875 12.3 | ‘eR
17 694 18.9 130, 545 21.4 | *#eeKK
18 1,135 32.8 206, 026 35.7 | #eEEE RRR
19 656 40.9 123, 480 44,3 | #eER RK
20 1, 042 53. 7 202, 020 58.3 | *kieKtliek
21 713 62. 4 120, 210 66.7 | #eERREK
22 579 69. 5 91, 818 73.10 | ee
23 720 78.3 110, 393 80.8 | RPE:
24 375 82.9 65, 872 85.4 | FE
25 430 88. 2 68, 547 90.2 | rk
26 180 90. 4 29, 445 92.2 | **
27 242 93. 4 36, 000 94.7 | rs
. 28 154 95.3 27, 486 96.6 | *
she it a eee ae ikea aes ansoses o 966. |e ae ae oe
30 80 96. 3 9, 533 Oise 2 |)
RS [ee me eee OG nel es ceees ares ee yi Se Seer aes
BY dl oe adeoised one bea Ser mioacaa ae OES SE eee
Sie lle Sats bears A90N3,0) |e nae ee eee OES ail ee epee rere
34 300 100.0 39, 375 100.0 | *
8, 148 100.0 | 1, 438, 025 100. 0 75

Therangein production costs on these farms was from 14 cents to 34 cents per pound oflint. The average
cost for all farms was 20.5 cents per pound. A little over 58 per cent of the total cotton on 53.7 per cent of
the acreage was produced at or below an average cost. It would require a price of 24 cents to cover the
cost of 85.4 per cent of the total production of these farms. Average yield, 176 pounds of lint; range of
yields per farm, from 100 pounds to 288 pounds.

‘OL

THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 59

TABLE 10a.— Variation in cost of producing cotton (net cost per pound of lint) on 75 farms
~ ine husk County. Nex.

|
Acreage. Production. :
Farms in
(Cosi Dae | SS each cost
pound Acres |Cumula-| Total | Cumula- | , peewee
: per tive per | .pounds | tive per | on¢ farm)
group. cent. per group. cent. 5
$0. 12 30 12, 6, 825 Leelee
13 » 38 2.7 10, 250 3.6 | **
14 110 7.0 30, 500 1050) 28
eel Meu a ies So aM cea em aie BAO) | Baas een
16 43 8.7 10, 225 2A ges ees
17 155 14.7 33, 006 TQ Sot cierto
18 30 15.9 4, 500 2051 ales
19 78 18.9 15, 770 Q3e4 | bere
20 248 28. 5 70, 600 Bios 2 lf fotots
21 124 33.3 26, 170 ERY Th) Soest
22 296 44.8 54, 774 202 |) eee rRRrsice
23 155 50. 8 25, 330 GOsor Pereek
24 203 58. 7 36, 240 68.1 | #eReerr
25 172 65.4 27,314 (OGS5 seek
26 266 75.8 36, 857 81.6 | eR
27 11 80.1 20, 545 85.9 | EEE
. 28 203 88. 0 32,175 Ops | eto83
. 29 20 88. 8 3, 000 9353 mas
30 115 93.3 12, 000 95.8 | +
31 38 94.8 5, 360 96.9 | **
32 16 95. 4 1,545 Oe =I be
33 25 96. 4 3, 500 98.0 | *
34 72 99. 2 8, 000 OO analeisss
52 20 100.0 1,590 100.0 | *
2, 568 100. 0 476, 076 100. 0 75

Production costs on the 75 Rusk County farms varied from 12 cents to 52 cents per pound. The farm
operators who had an average cost of 22 cents or less harvested 44.8 per cent of the acreage and 55.2 per cent
of the total cotton for the entire group. It would require a price of 27 cents per pound to care for 85.9 per
cent of the production. Average yield, 185 pounds; range in yield per farm, from 80 pounds to 321 pounds.

ADDITIONAL COPIES

OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.

AT
15 CENTS PER COPY

A