mic Analysis An

mic Analysis An

An

mic Analysis

ORGANIZATION

BOARD OF REGENTS

HOWARD PYLE, LL.D (ex officio)

MARION L. BROOKS, M.A. (ex officio)

Governor of Arizona

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

CLEON T. KNApp, LL.B., President

WILLIAM R. MATHEWS, A.B

WALTER R. BIMSON, Treasurer

LYNN M. LANEY, B.S., J.D., Secretary

JOHN G. BABBITT, B.S

MICHAEL B. HODGES

JOHN M. JACOBS

MRS. EVELYN JONES KIRMSE, A.M

Term expires Jan., 1953

Term expires Jan., 1953

Term expires Jan., 1955

Term expires Jan., 1955

Term expires Jan., 1957

Term expires Jan., 1957

Term expires Jan., 1959

Term expires Jan., 1959

RICHARD A. HARVILL, Ph.D.

ROBERT L. NUGENT, Ph.D

President of the University

Vice -President of the University

EXPERIMENT STATION ADMINISTRATION

PHIL S. ECKERT, Ph.D

RALPH S. HAWKINS, Ph.D

Director

Vice- Director

This study was developed by the Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station under Regional Marketing Research Project SM -1.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY

Origin and development of leading varieties

Establishment of the industry

SUPPLY

Supply areas

Domestic acreage, yield, and production

Acreage

Yield

Production

Some factors affecting acreage and production

Relative returns

Prices and price-production relationships

Biological factors

Governmental programs

National defense needs

Factors affecting yield

DEMAND

Fiber properties affecting use

Uses

Consumption

Factors affecting consumption

Purchasing power

Price

Price of substitute products

Buying habits, tastes, and preferences

Availability

Defense needs

Governmental aid and intervention

Empirical analysis of factors affecting consumption of extra-long-staple cotton

TARIFF AND IMPORT QUOTA HISTORY

Oumoox

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX TABLES

32

35

36

39

39

25

27

32

21

23

24

39

40

42

42

43

43

PAGE

3

7

7

10

11

11

12

12

13

14

15

15

44

48

49

54

58

ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURE

PAGE

1.- ORIGIN OF LEADING EGYPTIAN AND AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN LONG

-

STAPLE COTTONS

8

FIGURE 2.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON ACREAGE HARVESTED

UNITED STATES BY STATES, 1911 -50

IN

THE

13

FIGURE 3.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON YIELDS BY STATES, 1911 -50

14

FIGURE 4.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES

BY STATES, 1911 -50

15

FIGURE 5.- PREHARVEST GROSS RETURN DIFFERENTIALS FOR ARIZONA COTTON,

1917 -50. ( AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN MINUS UPLAND COTTON RETURNS) 16

FIGURE 6. -NET REGRESSION OF AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN

-- UPLAND COTTON

PREHARVEST GROSS RETURNS RATIO, ARIZONA 1917 -49,

ON:

(A) AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN - UPLAND COTTON PRICE RATIO

AND

B) AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON YIELD RATIO

18

FIGURE 7.- UPLAND AND AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRICES, AND

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN BREAK EVEN PRICE, ARIZONA, 1913 -50 22

FIGURE 8.- AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN - UPLAND

PRICE

RATIOS, BREAK EVEN

RATIOS, AND DEVIATION OF ACTUAL PRICE RATIOS FROM BREAK

EVEN PRICE RATIOS, ARIZONA, 1913 -50

23

FIGURE

9. -YIELD OF AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON IN ARIZONA AND SECULAR

TREND BY YEARS, 1917 -50

27

FIGURE 10.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN - UPLAND COTTON YIELD RATIOS BY STATES,

1911 -50

28

FIGURE 11. -NET REGRESSION OF YIELDS OF AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

IN

ARIZONA, 1919 -49, ON: (A) HARVESTED ACREAGE AND (B) DATE

OF FIRST AUTUMN FROST. (1931 -33 AND 1947 EXCLUDED)

31

FIGURE 12.- -PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF EXTRA -LONG -STAPLE COTTON

BY

GROWTHS, UNITED STATES, 1920 -49

38

FIGURE 13.- RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF ALL

EXTRA- LONG -STAPLE COTTON AND THE INDEX OF INDUSTRIAL

PRODUCTION, UNITED STATES, 1928 -49

45

FIGURE 14.-NET REGRESSION OF THE PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF DOMESTIC

EXTRA -LONG -STAPLE COTTON IN THE UNITED STATES, 1925 -45,

ON: (A) THE PRICE OF AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON AND

B) THE INDEX OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION

47

SUMMARY

1. The American -Egyptian cotton industry has always been characterized by a high degree of instability. The purpose of this study was to examine and appraise the apparent causes of this instability with a view toward the ultimate improvement of this situation.

2. Egyptian -type cotton was first planted in the United States shortly after 1900. The Mitafifi variety was imported from Egypt and during the fifty years since this original seed was planted, cotton breeders of the United States Department of Agriculture have developed many improved varieties. Pima 32, released for commercial production in 1948, represents the latest improvement in American -Egyptian type cotton.

3. The two major factors in the establishment of the American -

Egyptian cotton industry in the United States were (1) the boll weevil, and (2) the need for extra- long -staple cotton during and following World War I.

4.

5.

Small consumption of extra- long -staple cotton following World

War I, and increased plantings of Upland cotton in Arizona resulted in a pronounced decrease in the production of American- Egyptian cotton. This decline was reversed during World

War II and in those years when acreage quotas, limited Upland cotton plantings.

In addition to the United States, the principal producing areas of Egyptian type cotton are Egypt, the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan, and Peru.

6. Acreage of American -Egyptian cotton in the United States increased from about 400 acres in 1912 to a peak of 243,000 acres in 1920. Four years later there were only 8,000 acres planted.

The first plantings in the New Mexico -El Paso area were made in 1939 and 1940. With the outbreak of World War II, United

States acreage increased rapidly to a peak of 185,175 in 1942.

Acreage remained high in 1943 and then dropped rapidly to a low of 1,460 in 1947. The acreage allotments on Upland cotton in 1950, forced American -Egyptian acreage up to 103,200 acres.

In 1951 approximately 58,000 acres were planted.

7.

Yields of American- Egyptian type cotton vary from 250 to 450 pounds lint per acre.

8. Changes in production of American- Egyptian cotton have followed the same pattern as changes in acreage. During the 1944-

49 period, the New Mexico -El Paso area produced 46 per cent of the crop and Arizona produced the remainder. Present prospects indicate that the New Mexico -El Paso area may produce an even greater proportion in the future.

9.

In the cotton -producing areas of the Southwest competition for land is primarily between Upland and American- Egyptian type cottons.

Relative dollar return to the producer from each type cotton is the principal factor to be considered in determining which type to plant. Relative price ratios and relative yield ratios are the principal determinants of relative returns; and

together account for approximately 95 per cent of the variation in this item.

10. Prices of American- Egyptian and Upland cottons have generally tended to move together.

11. Break -even prices, i.e. those prices where American -Egyptian and Upland cottons are equally profitable, are dependent upon both realized prices and yield.

12. Several factors tend to hinder American- Egyptian acreage adjustments in response to price: a. Cotton production in Arizona is accompanied by high fixed costs.

b. Because of the increased risk and uncertainty associated with the production of American- Egyptian cotton as compared with Upland cotton, lending agencies have been hesitant to finance production of the former type cotton.

c. Verticillium wilt has become a serious problem to producers of Upland cotton in the New Mexico-El Paso area.

American- Egyptian cotton is more tolerant to this fungus than is Upland cotton. Therefore some producers in those areas have found it profitable to plant American- Egyptian cotton in spite of unfavorable price ratios.

d. Trade restrictions in the form of tariff and import quotas;

price supports; and acreage controls have served to

complicate the price- acreage relationships.

e. Defense purchase programs and picking labor shortages have also been important factors influencing acreage adjustments.

13. Yields of

American- Egyptian cotton have been increased by about 1.3 per cent annually. However, the American-Egyptian----

Upland yield ratio has been decreasing because Upland yields have been increasing at an even faster rate. Yield ratios have generally been more favorable for the production of American-

Egyptian cotton in the New Mexico -El Paso area than in Arizona.

14. As a general rule, most mills require the higher grades and longer staples of extra -long -staple cotton. The lower grades and shorter staples tend to accumulate in the carry -over from year to year.

15. The uses of extra- long -staple cotton in the United States may be conveniently classed into use categories as follows:

(1) threads and handwork cottons; goods; and (4) miscellaneous.

(2) woven fabrics;

(3) knit

16. The thread industry is the most important outlet for extra

long- staple cotton, consuming 59 per cent of the total used in

1949. Woven fabrics ranked second, using 25 per cent of the total.

17. The thread market is supplied chiefly by Egyptian Karnak cotton. However, Pima 32, a new cotton which has fiber properties approximately equal to Karnak, may be able to capture a larger share of this market. The greatest proportion of American-

Egyptian cotton consumed in 1949 was in the woven fabrics field.

18. Since the end of World War II, 90 per cent of all American consumption of extra- long -staple cotton has been from foreign sources.

19. Demand for extra -long -staple cotton is derived from the consumer demand for products of this cotton.

20. The demand for thread is relatively inelastic, while that for woven fabrics is more elastic. Because most of the production of

American -Egyptian cotton has gone into the manufacture of woven fabrics, its demand should be relatively elastic.

21. Manufacturers, desirous of maintaining a product of uniform quality, are often reluctant to change from one variety of cotton to another. A stable supply is often more important to them than a small price advantage.

22. Competition from rayon and other synthetic fibers is becoming increasingly important in the woven fabrics fields.

23. Fluctuating supplies prevent consumption of extra- long -staple cotton from being as high as potentially possible.

24. Governmental defense needs, trade restrictions, price support programs, and acreage control plans have all influenced domestic consumption of extra- long -staple cotton.

25. A statistical analysis of the consumption of this cotton indicated that low levels of industrial production were accompanied by low levels of extra- long -staple cotton consumption. Approximately

65 per cent of the variation in consumption of extra -long -staple cotton was associated with the level of industrial production.

26. The first tariff on cotton, in 1790, levied a duty of 3 cents per pound on all cotton. Since that time the duty has been changed eleven times, and now is 31 /z cents per pound on all lengths

11/8 inches and longer.

27. Import quotas on long -staple cotton have been in effect since

1939.

28. The American -Egyptian cotton industry in the United States owes its continued existence to wars and political manipulations.

If the industry is to be established on a permanent basis, it must successfully compete with Egyptian production and Upland cotton production in the United States.

To do this, the in-

dustry must: a. Develop a variety which can successfully compete with

Egyptian Karnak cotton in the sewing thread market.

Pima 32 appears to offer definite possibilities in this respect.

b. Increase yields of American- Egyptian cotton relative to yields of Upland cotton.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

An Analysis of Some Economic Factors Affecting

Production and Marketing

By SCOTT HATHORN, JR.1

Instability has always characterized the American- Egyptian cotton industry.

Wars, depressions, and intervention by the Government have kept the industry in confusion. Spinners have hestitated to rely on the irrigated Southwest as a supply area for extra -long- staple cotton because of unstable supply. Producers of this area have hesistated to produce American -Egyptian cotton because of unstable demand. Out of this confusion arises the need for this study.

The origin, development, and history of the American -Egyptian cotton industry are presented as background information as an aid in better understanding the causes of instablility. Causes for instability are developed in detail in analyses of factors affecting the supply and demand for American- Egyptian cotton.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE INDUSTRY

Origin and Development of Leading Varieties

Gossypium, a genus comprising all of the cultivated cottons of the world, is a member of the sub -tribe Hibisceae of the natural order Malvaceae.

The cultivated cottons of the world, may be divided into two groups: Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense.' our interest centers on G.

barbadense.

Of these

Although G.

barbadense may be divided into several types, only

Egyptian and Sea Island cotton are of interest here. These two types of cotton are characterized by long, fine fiber of high strength and luster. It is believed that Sea Island cotton reached its finest development in the Lesser Antilles of the West Indies and in Fiji.

No one definitely knows how the Egyptian type originated, but taxonomists believe it resulted,from an earlier hybridization between

Sea Island and a barbadense tree type cotton which had brown lint. Present writings indicate that the genus barbadense had its center of origin in South America.

The origin and the development of present leading varieties of

Egyptian type cotton is traced in Figure 1. Both the leading American and Egyptian varieties of extra -long- staple cotton originated from the same species, G.

barbadense.'

1Formerly Associate Agricultural Economist in the Agricultural Experiment

Station.

Some work on demand analysis was conducted by George W. Barr under a project on supply -price relationships of Arizona agricultural commodities.

The assistance of John D. Rowell in statistical computations and in criticizing the manuscript is gratefully acknowledged.

2G. hirsutum comprises all of the cultivated Upland or short staple cottons of

North America.

3For footnote, see next page.

8

(

JUMEL

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

GOSSYPIUM BARBADENSE

FROM SOUTH AMERICA

SEA ISLAND

EARLY INTRODUCTIONS

INTO EGYPT

MITAFIFI

TAKEN TO AMERICA

YUMA

SULTANI

310

EARLY SAKEL

RETURNED

TO EGYPT

GIZA 7

VARIOUS

SAKEL

TYPES

SAKHA 3

AMSAK

EARLIPIMA

MAARAD

LN/'x

Ì

KARNAK

(GIZA 29)

PIMA 32

Figure 1. -Origin of leading Egyptian and American -Egyptian long -staple cottons.

Source: Development of Egyptian varieties from E. Lord, "The Production and

Characteristics of the World's Cotton Crops: Part 2, Egypt," The Journal of the

Textile Institute, April, 1947, T 167 -211.

Development of American- Egyptian varieties was traced from information supplied by R. H. Peebles, U. S. Field

Station, Sacaton, Arizona.

Mitafifi, a rather heterogeneous variety of Egyptian cotton from which the American variety Yuma was selected, originated from a cross between Early Ashmouni and a Sea Island type. Following his visit to Egypt in 1900, David Fairchild, United States Department of Agriculture, imported stocks of Mitafifi seed from Egypt.

First Arizona plantings of this Egyptian type cotton were made

by Dr. A. J. Chandler of Mesa. This was a year or two before

facilities were established at Sacaton, Arizona, and Bard, California, by the Department of Agriculture to carry on plant breeding work and to study cultural methods for this type cotton. In 1908, after several years of work a variety called Yuma was segregated from a stock of Mitafifi seed.4

3For the purposes of this report the term "long- staple" will include all cottons having a staple length of 11 inches or longer.

The term "extra-long-staple" will include all cottons having a staple length of 1% inches or longer.

The term

"ordinary- long -staple" will include all cotton having a staple length of 11 inches or more but less than 1% inches in length.

4For a detailed description of this variety and its history see: T. H. Kearney,

Breeding New Types of Egyptian Cotton, U.S.D.A., B.P.I. Bul. 200, 1910.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

9

The Yuma variety was characterized by a lint of pale pinkish

buff color, 11/2 inches in length, and a 28 per cent lint out -turn.

During the next few years, spinning tests by fiber manufacturers and field tests demonstrated the suitability of Yuma for commercial production. In 1912, enough seed was distributed to farmers to plant a few hundred acres in Salt River Valley of Arizona and in the

Imperial Valley of California. American- Egyptian cotton acreage increased rapidly in these two areas, and had reached slightly more than 35,000 acres by 1917.

In 1910, an outstanding different plant was observed and selected from a field of Yuma. A new strain developed from this single plant was named Pima. This new cotton was more productive, had larger bolls, longer fiber, and better lint quality than did its parent. The staple averaged approximately

116 inches.

After five years of testing, Pima was proven superior to its parent, Yuma. Enough seed to plant a few hundred acres in the Salt River Valley was released in 1916. By 1918, practically the entire cotton acreage in the Salt River Valley was planted to the new Pima variety. Replacing one variety with another without the seed of the two varieties getting mixed is usually difficult, but the cotton growers of the

Salt River Valley were sufficiently well organized to do so successfully.

From 1918 until 1933, Pima was the only variety of American

-

Egyptian cotton grown in Arizona. In 1933, SxP, a new variety, was planted on 200 acres near Chandler. In succeeding years acreages of SxP planted were:5 600 in 1934, 1,700 in 1935, 9,000 in 1936,

6,900 in 1937, and 20,000 in 1938. SxP originated from a cross made in 1918 between a plant of Sakel (Sakellaridis, the leading Egyptian variety) and Pima ( the leading American extra -long- staple cotton)

.

Best plants were selected from the hybrid progenies and the new variety was stabilized by the fifth generation.

The greatest advantages of this new variety over Pima were in its agronomic characteristics; namely, approximately 13 per cent higher yield, larger bolls and earlier maturity, slightly higher lint index, and less -fuzzy seeds. From the standpoint of fiber characteristics, SxP was only slightly better than Pima. Although the lint of SxP was a full ,6 of an inch shorter than that of Pima, it was slightly more uniform, and the yarn produced from it was 3 to

5 per cent stronger. Perhaps the principal advantage gained through the adoption of this variety was higher yield. The fact that the lint of SxP sold on parity with Pima bears out the contention that SxP lint was not superior but only equal to that of Pima.

An original cross between SxP and Sakel in 1934 resulted in hybrid progeny which, through subsequent selection, gave rise to a new variety known as Amsak. For several years this variety was carried under the designation "SxP x Sakel 35." The lint of Amsak was characterized by its high luster and strength. Open pollinated in-

crease plantings were made in 1942, and the variety was first

5T. H. Kearney, R. H. Peebles, and E. G. Smith, SxP in Comparison With Pima,

U.S.D.A. Cir. 550, April 1940.

This publication gives a detailed description of the development of SxP and compares its characteristics with that of Pima.

10

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 grown commercially in 1943. Because Amsak did not generally yield as well as SxP under Arizona conditions, it was never recommended to cotton growers and it failed to gain much favor. Amsak yielded quite well in the higher elevations of the New Mexico -

El Paso producing area and for the past three years it has been one of the principal varieties produced there.

A cross between SxP and Pima resulted in a variety known as

Earlipima. This variety was never released for commercial produc-

tion, but was used for further breeding work. In Egypt, in the

meantime, a variety known as Giza 7, selected from hybrid progeny resulting from a cross between Early Ashmouni and Sakel, had been developed. Giza 7, subsequently brought to America, was crossed with Earlipima in 1940. A selection from this cross was designated "Earlipima x Giza 7, 51 -32." Later this selection was named Pima 32. This new variety is characterized by it fruitfulness, high fiber strength, earlier maturity, and higher yield. The first open pollinated seed increase plantings were made in 1947. This variety was released for commercial production in 1948. The seed stocks were increased in 1949 -50 and virtually extra- long -staple acreage in Arizona was Pima 32.6

all of the 1951

It is interesting to note that Karnak, the present leading Egyptian variety of extra- long -staple cotton, was developed from a cross between Sakha 3 and Maarad, a direct plant selection from the early American variety, Pima.

Establishment of the Industry

Early attempts to grow Egyptian type cotton in the United States met with little success. Because of late maturity, the yields from

Egyptian varieties were comparatively low in relation to Upland yields in the old established cotton producing areas of the South.

Enterprising experimenters turned to the Southwest because it has a climate similar to that of Egypt. In the period 1902 to 1904, several foreign varieties were planted in different places in the

Southwest, mostly Texas. These experiments were largely abandoned by 1905 because nothing of value appeared.

In 1902, Dr. A. J. Chandler planted some Mitafifi seed imported from Egypt by David Fairchild. Yields from this planting were poor because of lateness of maturity of the variety. Following his return from Egypt in 1903, Dr. T. H. Kearney and his associates made a concentrated effort to establish an American -Egyptian cotton industry in the irrigated valleys of Arizona and California. Selection of best plants from fields of heterogeneous Mitafifi gradually brought about some improvement in earliness, productivity, and quality of fiber. Finally in 1908, an outstanding type called Yuma was isolated. In 1912, the Yuma variety was released for commercial production. At that time Arizona took the lead in the production of American -Egyptian cotton in the United States and retained it until recently. From 1922 through 1938, Arizona was the sole pro-

6lnformation on the development of Amsak and Pima 32 was kindly furnished to the author by R. H. Peebles, U. S. Field Station, Sacaton, Arizona.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

11 ducer of American -Egyptian cotton. Beginning in 1939 -40, farmers around Las Cruces, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, began to plant this cotton.

Two factors playing a dominant role in the establishment of the

American -Egyptian cotton industry in the United States were: (1) the boll weevil, and (2) the need for extra- long -staple cotton during

World War I. Of these two factors perhaps the latter was the more important in the establishment of the industry.

Prior to 1919, Sea Island cotton, grown mostly along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina, was the principal extra- long -staple cotton produced in the United States. Low yields resulting from extensive boll weevil damage reduced the profitability of this crop to such extent that production has been negligible since 1920.

Small crops of Sea Island cotton coupled with the entry of the

United States into World War I in 1917 resulted in a large demand for extra- long -staple cotton. Interest centered in the use of extralong-staple cotton for tire cord and airplane fabric. In 1917, the

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company started developing ranches in Arizona for the production of American -Egyptian cotton. Prior to 1917, airplane fabric was made from linen. Because warring countries were absorbing the available supplies of linen, an acute shortage developed by the time the United States entered the war.

A small flax crop in 1917 created an even greater shortage in the linen supply. Consequently, the Government had to turn to a substitute material for linen in aircraft fabric. American- Egyptian cotton was tested for such purposes and found to be satisfactory. High level war -time demand coupled with high prices resulted in increased acreages of American- Egyptian cotton in the producing areas of

Arizona and California. By 1920, the industry had become well established.

Small consumption of extra -long- staple cotton compared with high war -time levels reduced the profitableness of the American- Egyptian crops in the years immediately following World War I. About 1922, large acreages of Upland cotton were first planted in Arizona.

Because Upland cotton appeared to be a better alternative, Arizona producers increased acreages of Upland cotton and decreased acreages of American -Egyptian cotton. Since 1920, there has been continuous competition between Upland cotton and American -Egyptian cotton for land in Arizona. Effort has been expended endlessly to improve the competitive position of American -Egyptian cotton. In spite of these efforts the acreage of American -Egyptian cotton has continued to decline, except in response to unusual needs experienced during

World War II and during years when acreage quotas limited

Upland cotton plantings.

SUPPLY

Supply Areas

The three major types of cotton comprising the world supply of extra -long- staple are (1) Sea Island, (2) Egyptian types, (3) and

American- Egyptian.

12

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Sea Island cotton was first produced on commercial scale along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. Large quantities of this cotton were produced as early as 1900. Because of heavy damage due to boll weevil infestation in the South, production of this cotton was negligible by 1922. Since that time, a limited quantity has been produced in the West Indies. It is doubtful that the world production of Sea Island cotton will expand in the future unless large changes occur in alternative crop competitive relationships in areas suited to the production of this type of cotton.

The principal producing areas of the Egyptian type cotton are

Egypt and the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan. For many years Egypt has been and still remains the leading producer of extra -long -staple cotton in the world.

Karnak, currently the leading Egyptian variety of extra- long

- staple cotton, has been produced commercially since 1941. Since that time, it has gained an unusually high reputation both with growers and in the mill trade. During the past four years, Karnak has comprised approximately 50 per cent of the total Egyptian cotton acreage.

Karnak possesses outstanding fiber and agronomic characteristics.

Its staple is quite strong, highly uniform in quality, and ranges from

1A- to 1 s inches in length. Yarns relatively clean and free from neps can be spun from this cotton. The variety has a large boll,

"minimum leaf," and is tolerant to wilt attack. Only leading Egyptian shorter staple varieties, Menoufi and Ashmouni /Zagora, outyield

Karnak.

The Anglo- Egyptian Sudan currently produces about 250,000 bales of cotton annually of which approximately 92 per cent is Egyptian type. The Egyptian cotton produced in the Sudan is often grouped with and identified as Egyptian cotton. For the most part, Egyptian cottons produced in the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan were derived from

Sakellaridis, an earlier Egyptian variety. The varieties currently produced are selections from Domain -Sakel, known as Type L and

Type S. Type L is resistant to leaf curl while Type S is not. Both of these cottons staple approximately 11/2 inches.

Little

Egyptian and to Egyptian cottons in fiber properties.

if any

Egyptian type cotton is imported from the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan by the United States. The United Kingdom has provided a market for the bulk of this cotton during the past several years.

A few years prior to 1920, Peru imported seed of the American

Pima variety. In 1920, the United States imported 63,000 bales of this cotton from Peru. From this record high, imports declined until

1939, increased during World War II, and declined again.

Peruvian Pima is considered approximately equal to American

-

It has an average staple length of about 11 inches. Acreage devoted to the production of Peruvian Pima has ranged from 35,000 to 50,000 acres annually. Practically all of this cotton has been available for export and in recent years most of it has gone to the United Kingdom.

Domestic Acreage, Yield, and Production

Acreage -Since the American- Egyptian cotton industry was first established, it has been characterized by wide fluctuation in acreage

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

13

ACREAGE

240,000

U. S. TOTAL

200,000

'50,000

TEXAS

NEW MEXICO

20,000

80,000

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

40,000

1910 1915

1920 1925

`'+.

1930

YEAR

+

*?F':: h

+.

i$ \.\\*.Z...\a`a.`?rS.....

1935 1940 1945 1950

Figure 2.- American -Egyptian cotton acreage harvested in the United States, by states, 1911 -50.

Source: Table 1, Appendix.

(see Fig. 2, also Table 1, Appendix)

.

Thirty acres were grown in

California in 1911 and 400 acres in Arizona in 1912. From these small beginnings, acreage was increased rapidly to a peak of 243,000 acres in 1920. In response to a decline in demand and lower prices, acreage decreased to 8,000 by 1924. California ceased to produce

American- Egyptian cotton after 1922. During the period 1922 -39 acreages in Arizona increased from a low of 8,000 acres in 1924 to 67,000 acres in 1929, declined steadily through 1932, and then increased gradually through 1935. From 1935 to 1939, there were no large changes in acreage except for a rather steep decline in

1937 when acreage quotas on Upland cotton were removed.

In 1939, American- Egyptian cotton was first grown commercially in New Mexico on 80 acres near Las Cruces. In the El Paso area of Texas, 1,300 acres were planted in 1940. Plantings in the New

Mexico -El Paso area increased rapidly to a peak in 1942 in response to high war -time demands. The acreage planted in Arizona increased rapidly from 41,000 in 1939 to a peak of 129,000 in 1942. In 1943, acreages planted in all areas declined slightly from the 1942 peak.

Since 1943, acreages have declined, averaging less than 6,000 acres for the 1944 -49 period.

Yields -The yield of American -Egyptian cotton in the United

States has fluctuated widely, but proportionately not as much as has acreage. Yields in each of the producing areas are shown in

Figure 3 ( also Table 2, Appendix) .

Yields of lint per acre in the

United States have been as follows: 1911 -19, 265 pounds; 1920 -29,

245 pounds; 1930 -39, 237 pounds; and 1940 -49, 300 pounds.

14

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

LBS. LINT

600

500

I l

1 i 1 1 1 I

1 l i l i

I

- - -- -- -- CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

- DISTRICT 6,TEXAS

EL PASO AREA,TEXAS

400

300

200 loo

0-'

1910 i 1 1 1

1915 i 1 1

I

1920

I I I I I

1925

I I

I

1

1

1

1930

YEAR

I f l

935

!

940

Figure 3.- American -Egyptian cotton yields by states, 1911 -50.

Source: Table 2, Appendix.

945

1950

Average yields in Arizona have shown about the same general pattern of fluctuation as those for the United States. During the forties, yields in New Mexico averaged 330 pounds per acre and those in Texas, 355, as compared with 265 pounds in Arizona.

There has been a gradual upward trend in the yield of American

-

Egyptian cotton produced in Arizona. Since 1941, the upward trend in yields in Arizona and the New Mexico -El Paso area has been steeper. Trend in the yield of Arizona American -Egyptian cotton will be examined in detail in a later section.

Production -Since the industry was established in 1911, the pattern of production has been similar to that exhibited by fluctuations in acreage. Production increased rapidly from the establishment of the industry in 1911 to a peak in 1920, declined until 1924, rose sharply until 1929, declined until 1932, increased sharply, with the exception of a minor dip in 1937, until a peak was reached in 1942.

Since 1942, production of this cotton has declined to a low level

(see Fig. 4, also Table 3, Appendix)

.

Average annual production of American- Egyptian cotton in the

United States by periods has been as follows: 1911 -19, 11,922 bales;

1920 -29, 31,287 bales; 1930 -39, 17,000 bales; 1940 -43, 56,900 bales; and 1944 -49, 4,044 bales. During the 1944 -49 period, the New Mexico-El Paso area produced 46 per cent of the crop; Arizona produced the remainder. Present prospects indicate that the New Mexico -

El Paso area may produce an even greater proportion of American-

Egyptian cotton in the future.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

15

BALES

90,000

80,000 _-

70,000 -

60,000 -

50,000 -

40,000

30,000

20,000

0

1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

YEAR

1935

1940 1945

1950

Figure 4.- American -Egyptian cotton production in the United States, by states,

1911 -50.

Source: Table 3, Appendix.

Some Factors Affecting Acreage and Production

Relative returns -In general, small grains, alfalfa, and cotton compete for land in the cotton -producing areas of Arizona. In cotton

producing areas, small grains and alfalfa are considered more or less as supplementary or complementary crops and are not largely depended upon as primary sources of cash income. Competition for land is therefore primarily between Upland and American -Egyptian type cottons. In choosing between these two crops, production decisions should be guided by estimated relative returns. If estimated returns from American- Egyptian cotton appear to be higher at the time production decisions are made, economically motivated producers will give preference to this type cotton over Upland cotton.

To examine their effectiveness as guides to production, preharvest gross returns per acre from Upland and American -Egyptian cotton in Arizona were computed for the period 1917 -50.' Because detailed costs and returns for both types of cotton were not available, a gross return figure was computed. For the purposes at hand, a gross return figure will suffice because production costs up to harvest time on both types of cotton have been approximately equal. Because differences have existed in harvesting and ginning costs between the two types of cotton, it was necessary to adjust the gross returns figures to a preharvest base.

This was done by adjusting the per

7Details of computation are explained and illustrated in Tables 13 and 14,

Appendix.

16

40

2

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

-20 -

-40 -

MINUS FIGURE INDICATES

THAT UPLAND RETURNS EXCEEDED

AMERICAN-EGYPTIAN RETURNS.

o r- m m O - N M a in

,X co e 0- N M a 4) t0 r W o O

YEAR

°-'

Figure 5.- Preharvest gross return differentials for Arizona cotton, 1917 -50.

(American -Egyptian minus Upland cotton returns.)

13 and 14, Appendix.

Based on data in Tables acre gross lint and seed return for each type of cotton by the cost of ginning and harvesting each type of cotton. Preharvest gross returns from American -Egyptian and Upland cotton and differential returns per acre are presented in Table 1. Of primary interest here are the differential returns shown in Figure 5. For example, in

1917, a producer receiving average prices and producing average yields could have expected approximately $23 greater net return from an acre of land planted to American- Egyptian cotton than from the same acre of land planted to Upland cotton.° If this same acre of land had been planted to American- Egyptian cotton in

1918, the producer would have made $6 less per acre than from

Upland.

Through the years differential returns have favored first one type of cotton and then the other. In the pre -AAA period, 1917 -32, the differential return averaged $7 in favor of American- Egyptian cotton. In the post -AAA period, 1933 -50, the average differential return of $13 was in favor of Upland cotton. For the entire period,

1917 -50, the average differential return of $4 was in favor of

Upland cotton.

Important factors affecting preharvest relative returns are relative price ratios and relative yield ratios. For the purpose of this part of the analysis, American- Egyptian preharvest gross returns were

8This return can be considered as a net return because the calculations were based on the basic assumption that all production costs on the acre of land were equal up to the time of harvesting and ginning. Although the figures shown in Table 1 are gross differential returns, the difference between the net returns would be the same as the difference between the gross returns if the assumption of equal production costs up to the time of harvest is accepted.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

17

TABLE 1.- PREHARVEST GROSS RETURNS AND DIFFERENTIAL

RETURNS PER ACRE FROM AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN AND

UPLAND COTTON, ARIZONA 1917 -50

Year

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1948

1949

1950

1917-32 Average

1933-50 Average

1917-50 Average

31

54

51

46

69

58

100

83

111

102

141

115

58

84

78

44

32

21

147

111

180

26

49

47

89

97

76

21

27

43

38

54

51

204

71

77

74

Preharvest gross returns per acre

American- Egyptian*

Uplandt

Dollars Dollars

56

48

57

33

35

43

31

13

17

31

75

67

156

142

149

36

66

69

59

153

344

64

90

78

124

117

178

38

38

56

85

56

66

39

58

63

50

* From Table 14, Appendix.

t From Table 13, Appendix.

t Minus figures indicate the amount by which Upland exceeded American -

Egyptian returns.

Differential returns

Dollars

-4

4

-13

-3

18

-4

11

8

15

-20

0

-1

25

18

-45

-40

-8

-38

-140

-4

7

23

-6t

-18

-12

11

-9

4

41

10

19

26

15

-6

1 expressed as a percentage of Upland preharvest gross returns. Similarly, the price of American -Egyptian cotton was expressed as a percentage of the price of Upland cotton and the American- Egyptian

yield was expressed as a percentage of the Upland yield. The

results are shown in Figure

6.

Using the American- Egyptian-

Upland price ratio and the American- Egyptian - Upland yield ratio as independent variables, approximately 95 per cent of the variation in the American- Egyptian- Upland cotton preharvest gross returns ratio can be explained. A multiple correlation coefficient of 0.37

was obtained. Beth regression coefficients were found to be highly

18

180

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 iiriliiiiliiitir1iiii1iiliii

I i

1

I

Z

00165

I- x

F-

02150 oa

ZCC a

I-

Z w

120 aa-

A

X12=0.70422

X2- 34.247

A

:)

6

}2 eO

E6

36

'd1

_

}Ñ105

Z o ow

90

wiz 75 a

ä

-

Xá60

-

°6 m

2s

°9 d6

-

E2

45-

0 111111III

II FIIiii 1111 1111111

11

100

125

150

175

200

X2: AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN /UPLAND

225 250

275

111111-1

300

COTTON PRICE RATIO x100

-

325

180

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiili

i1111111I1111 l

B

00 x

V-150

OQ

ZX zé

_a

1--N aN

0105

Z

Úw 90

W

>

Q 75

Q=

W

$38

43

° xa so

O

40

X3: iiliii l,,iili,iil11111111111111 1111iiliiii

45

50 55

60

65

70

75

80 85 90

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN/UPLAND COTTON YIELD RATIO x 100

95

Figure

6. -Net regression of American -Egyptian - Upland cotton preharvest gross returns ratio, Arizona 1917 -49, on: (A) American- Egyptian - Upland cotton price ratio and (B) American- Egyptian cotton yield ratio.

Based on data in

Table 2, Text.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

19

TABLE 2.- ANALYSIS OF SOME IMPORTANT FACTORS AFFECTING

THE AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN UPLAND COTTON PREHARVEST

GROSS RETURNS RATIO, ARIZONA, 1917 -1949

Year

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

Am. -Egypt - Upland cotton preharvest gross returns ratio x 100

XI

1

118.5

94.9

89.9

68.4

128.9

83.9

98.9

173.2

115.2

148.7

144.8

123.8

88.0

103.2

161.5

123.5

87.1

76.8

79.2

94.7

154.5

88.6

125.6

141.7

69.7

100.0

98.3

133.3

123.9

71.2

71.8

94.6

75.2

Sources of data:

Col. 1: Computed from data in Table 1, Text.

Col. 2: From Table 15, Appendix.

Col. 3: From Table 17, Appendix.

Am.- Egypt. - Upland price ratio x 100

X2

2

232

196

200

165

167

128

132

204

197

221

190

190

182

189

258

223

194

160

190

214

285

223

238

303

179

237

247

225

196

139

168

193

183

Am.- Egypt. - Upland yield ratio x 100

X3

3

55

49

48

55

45

58

45

84

73

58

65

62

60

51

44

45

42

65

78

66

52

57

50

55

53

48

59

92

80

91

91

64

76 significant as evidenced by the "t" ratios. Price ratio was relatively more important than yield ratio in explaining variation returns ratio.

in the

The equation for estimating differential gross returns is:

X'1=-139.067+ 0.70422X2+ 1.71580X3

X 1-= preharvest gross returns ratio

X 2=

X 3= price ratios yield ratios

The standard error of estimate of this equation is approximately

6 per cent.

20

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

A producer may ask: "What is the significance of this estimating equation, and how could it be used as a guide to production?"

For example, when a producer wishes to decide whether to plant

Upland or American- Egyptian cotton, certain factors are known, at least approximately, and certain other factors must usually be estimated. The known factors are:

(1) The average yields of Upland cotton and American -Egyptian cotton on his own farm. If he does not have yield experience on both types of cotton, he will almost certainly have yield experience on Upland cotton, and, as a prospective yield for American -Egyptian cotton, he can use the community average.

(2) The price of Upland cotton, as indicated by either October or December future quotations, is known at this time. The producer also desires to make at least an equivalent return from the land devoted to the production of either type cotton. Of course, it is probable that the return from one type cotton will be either greater or less rather than equal to the return from the other type cotton. If the prospective returns are much in favor of American- Egyptian cotton, the decision to plant that type cotton should be clear -cut.

The unknown factor at the time the production decision must be made is the price of American- Egyptian cotton. Because there are no organized commodity markets in the United States for extra long- staple cottons, there is no effective market guide to the price to anticipate for this type cotton. Even though the price to expect for American -Egyptian cotton is unknown at the time the production decision must be made, the estimating equation can be of use in this respect: The price the producer will have to receive for his

American- Egyptian cotton relative to the price of Upland cotton, to make at least an equivalent return can be estimated.

The use of the equation as a guide to the production decision can be illustrated by assuming the following:

(1) a gross return ratio of 100 per cent (X') .

This means an equivalent return from an acre of land regardless of the type of cotton planted.

(2) a yield ratio of 0.50 (X3)

.

This means that the yield of

Upland cotton would be twice that of American- Egyptian cotton.

(3) a price of 40 cents per pound for Upland cotton as evidenced, say in January, by either the October or December

New York cotton futures quotation.

Substituting the known values into the equation -100 for Xi and

50 per cent for X3 -the unknown value for X2 ( American- Egyptian-

Upland price ratio) can be determined. Upon solving the equation, the value computed for X2 is 217.65. This means that in the above example, the price of American- Egyptian cotton must be approximately 218 per cent of the price of Upland cotton for the producer to make an equivalent return from an acre of land.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

21

Assuming as we did that the price of Upland cotton was 40

cents, the price of American -Egyptian cotton would have to be 87 cents per pound. The price ratio worked out by using this equation under the conditions set forth, will give a gross returns ratio range of 100 at 6.4 per cent two times out of three.

The reader must be cautioned that this equation will only give the price ratio required to result in equivalent returns. In other words, by use of this equation the producer can determine approximately what price he will have to obtain for American- Egyptian cotton relative to the price of Upland cotton, to make an equivalent return from the acre of land devoted to the production of either of these cottons. The equation does not insure that the price which must be obtained to result in an equivalent return will necessarily be the price that will prevail at harvest time, for the required price and the realized price at harvest time could be quite different.

The likelihood that the realised price will equal the required price is what the producer really needs to know.

To estimate the price that is likely to prevail for American- Egyptian

cotton at harvest time, the producer needs to know before the

decision to plant is made such information as:

(1) the likely level of business activity at harvest season,

(2) stocks of American- Egyptian cotton on hand,

(3) stocks of foreign extra- long -staple in the United States,

(4) stocks of goods produced from extra -long -staple cotton carried in inventory,

(5) estimated consumption rates of raw -stock as much as six months in advance.

Even with this type of information, a considerable degree of uncertainty would still prevail. But it would probably be less than if no information were available. If producers are to make intelligent production decisions it is imperative that reliable economic information for extra- long -staple cotton be developed and be available at the time planting decisions are made.

Prices and price -production relationships -The prices of American- Egyptian and Upland cottons and the American -Egyptian break even prices are shown in Figure 7. Arizona prices of the two types of cotton have generally tended to follow one another. Prices of both types of cottons reached peaks in 1920, declined during the recession in 1921, rose until 1925, declined generally through 1933, and have shown an upward trend since that time. The break even price for

American- Egyptian cotton that would have resulted in returns equal to those of Upland cotton has generally fluctuated about the realized price of American -Egyptian cotton. The annual fluctuations in the break even price series have been influenced by such factors as year -to -year fluctuations in relative yields and prices of Upland cotton. The required break even price and the realized price bear little relation to each other. When the yield of American- Egyptian cotton is high relative to that of Upland, the price required for

American- Egyptian to give a return equal to that for Upland cotton need not be as high as when the yield of American -Egyptian cotton is low relative to that of Upland.

22

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

CENTS PER LB.

1IO

1 i i

1

100 -

90 -

80 -

70 -

60 -

AMERICAN EGYPTIAN PRICE

50

40 -

30 -

20 -

IO -

0

1 1 1 i

1 i i i i

I

I 1

1910 1915

1920

AMERICAN EGYPTIAN

BREAK EVEN PRICE i' A f.si

1

/

/

. / l_J

\ /". -.

\v/

UPLAND PRICE/ i l

1925 l i i I I i

\\`-.-.

..

.i/.`-

-0` i i I r 1

I r

1940

1930

YEAR

1935

J

1 1

1945 l

'1950

Figure 7.- Upland and American -Egyptian cotton prices, and American -

Egyptian break even price, Arizona, 1913 -50.

Source: Tables 15 and 16, Appendix.

American- Egyptian -Upland price ratios and break even price ratios are shown in Figure 8 ( and Table 15, Appendix) . The price ratio has been characterized by continual fluctuations. The trend in the price ratio was slightly upward until 1940. Since that time, however, there has been a steep downward trend. The break even price ratio has fluctuated within a narrower range than the price ratio and has generally exhibited a steep upward trend. This was

to be expected, however, because the yield ratio has shown a

downward trend.

The nature of farming operations in Arizona has tended to hinder acreage adjustments in response to price. Arizona, like other irrigated regions, operates with high fixed costs. High taxes and water fees, or heavy investments in wells and pumping equipment, ditches and laterals, and heavy equipment for leveling land, plus the usual tractors and miscellaneous equipment, tend to make fixed costs high relative to variable costs. In industry where fixed costs are high relative to variable costs, adjustments to changing demand conditions, especially downward adjustments, are relatively inflexible.

Individual farmers attempt to produce at the level of output where marginal costs equal marginal revenue. And they will continue to produce at such levels of output where the point of intersection of marginal cost and marginal revenue curves gives a price high enough to cover variable costs. Under conditions of high fixed costs and low variable costs, producers can minimize losses by producing at levels of output which would not be possible under conditions of higher average variable costs. In view of the foregoing, it is

1.50

1.00

-F.50

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN

UPLAND PRICE RATIO

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTOIN

'

I

' "

' r

'

I

1

'

'

1

I-

'

PRICE RATIO

2.50

2.00

BREAK EVEN PRICE RATIO

23

-. 50

DEVIATION OF PRICE RATIO FROM

BREAK EVEN PRICE RATIO

-1 00 i

1 I I 1 i 1 i i

1910 1915 l

1920

1 i i l

1925 i i

1

1

1 1

1930

YEAR

1

1

1 1

1935

1 1 1 1 1

1940

1 1 1

1 1

1945

1 1 1

1950

Figure 8.- American -Egyptian - Upland price ratios,

Source: Tables 15 and 18, Appendix.

break even ratios, and deviation of actual price ratios from break even price ratios, Arizona, 1913 -50.

readily understandable that producers of American -Egyptian cotton in Arizona did not respond quickly to changing conditions of price during periods of depressed demand during the thirties.

Arizona producers have been restrained from shifting rapidly from Upland cotton to American- Egyptian cotton due to lack of adequate working capital. Because of the increased risk and uncertainty associated with the production of American- Egyptian cotton compared with Upland cotton, lending agencies have been hesitant to finance production of the former type cotton.

Biological Factors -A further factor that influences the conditions of production for American -Egyptian cotton is

Verticillium wilt.

American- Egyptian cottons possess a much higher degree of tolerance to this fungus than do Upland types. On some farms in the Dona

Anna County, New Mexico, and the El Paso, Texas, areas the degree of Verti ' llium wilt infestation is sufficient to reduce the yields of

Upland cottons to a low level. Because of the wilt some producers in thos' areas have found it profitable to plant American -Egyptian cotton rather than Upland cotton despite recent unfavorable price ratios. At the present time, Verticillium wilt is tending to spread

in the

few Mexico -El Paso area.

If this

continues, production condition.

for American -Egyptian cotton will become more favorable relative tc 'hose for Upland cotton in this area.

Another biological factor that influences the conditions of production for American- Egyptian cotton is nematodes. Nematodes are a parasitic form of worm that attack the roots of cotton plants, killing young plants or retarding development in older plants. In general, yields of American -Egyptian cotton are reduced more than

24 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Upland cotton yields as a result of nematode attacks. Limited infestations of these parasitic worms occur in the lighter soils of

Arizona. Their effect on yields tends to make conditions for the production of American -Egyptian cotton in those areas less favorable relative to Upland cotton.

Governmental Programs- Governmental programs designed to control acreage of Upland cotton have further hindered acreage adjustments of American- Egyptian cotton. Two general types of governmental programs affecting acreage of American -Egyptian cotton will be discussed: (1) trade restrictions, and (2) price support and acreage control.

A duty of 7 cents a pound was placed on long -staple cotton

entering the United States in 1930. This duty was intended to

encourage domestic production of long -staple cotton by raising the

price of foreign produced lint in the United States relative to

domestically produced lint. Despite the duty of 7 cents a pound,

American -Egyptian cotton generally sold for 1 to 3 cents a pound more than Egyptian type cottons at New England mill points.

During the thirties and until World War II, SxP, the leading American variety of extra- long -staple cotton, was not strictly competitive with Sakellaridis, the leading Egyptian extra- long -staple cotton.

Sakellaridis was used primarily in the manufacture of sewing thread and SxP was used in the production of fine goods, such as high quality broadcloth and voiles.

In 1939, an import quota of 45.7 million pounds of long -staple cotton (11/2 inches or longer) was imposed. In 1942, the import duty of 7 cents was reduced to 31/2 cents a pound on importations of long -staple cotton from foreign sources. The reduction of the tariff duty was a move toward freer trade, but on the other hand, the import quota was a restrictive element to trade.

Despite these restrictive devices which were intended to encourage the production of American -Egyptian cotton in the United States, acreage declined. This resulted because of relatively unfavorable conditions of production in relation to Upland cotton within the producing areas.

Many people interested in the extra- long -staple cotton industry of the United States have advocated that American -Egyptian cotton must be competitive price -wise with Egyptian extra -long -staple cottons. This viewpoint over -simplifies the problem. Not only must

American- Egyptian cotton be competitive with Egyptian cotton price -wise, but also the conditions of production for American

-

Egyptian cotton must be favorable to those for Upland cotton within the producing areas.

The influence of acreage con' J1 and price support operations on acreage has been an importe factor influencing domestic acreage of American -Egyptian cotton. Since the institution of the AAA program in 1933, acreage planted to American -Egyptian cotton has been affected by governmental action relative to Upland cotton.

Acreage allotments and marketing quotas for Upland cotton were established on each farm in the producing areas. In order to maintain

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

25 his allotment, each producer had to plant his entire yearly allotted acreage of Upland cotton. In some cases allotments were changed from year to year. In those years when producers had to divert land from the production of Upland cotton, it was necessary to seek an alternative crop for this land. The choice of profitable alternatives in Arizona was quite limited. In many cases producers planted the land taken from Upland cotton to American-

Egyptian cotton, although economic conditions alone might not have justified this decision. The acreage control program resulted in production decisions which were not necessarily economically sound.

Prior to the Agricultural Act of 1949, no provisions existed for acreage allotments on American -Egyptian cotton. To date the provisions of that act have not been exercised.

Since 1930, the yields of American -Egyptian cotton have become increasingly unfavorable compared with those of Upland cotton.

Other things being equal and with this condition prevailing, producers of American -Egyptian cotton would have to get higher and higher prices relative to the price of Upland cotton to produce American

-

Egyptian cotton on parity with Upland cotton. During the same time that these events were occurring, the United States Department of Agriculture entered into price support operations intended to raise the level of domestic prices of Upland cotton higher than might have prevailed under conditions of a free market. The net effect was to reduce the American-Egyptian--Upland price ratios.

This, coupled with a declining yield ratio, resulted in a gradual decline of production of American -Egyptian cotton in the United

States.

Past inconsistencies in departmental policies within the Federal government have further hindered acreage adjustment. On the one hand the Department of State was imposing barriers to free trade with a view to making conditions of production more favorable for American -Egyptian cotton. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture through its price support operations of Upland cotton, was clearly making the conditions of production for American-

Egyptian cotton less favorable. Whether or not the real objective was to promote the production of American -Egyptian cotton, the two programs were leading in opposite directions.

National defense needs.- During World War I and more recently during World War II, defense programs of the Government resulted in large and rapid increases in both acreage and production of

American- Egyptian cotton. Early in 1942, when it appeared that the supply of Egyptian cotton would be cut off by the threatened

German conquest of Egypt, the Government embarked on a purchase program for American -Egyptian cotton. This program was in effect both in 1942 and 1943. American producers responded by planting about 185,000 acres in 1942, an acreage higher than any year since

1920, when 243,000 acres were planted. Many growers had difficulty in getting enough pickers and much long -staple cotton was picked very late, or not picked at all. Even though the purchase program was in effect in 1943, acreage was reduced to approximately 138,000.

26

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

At the end of 1943 with enough American- Egyptian cotton on hand and with supplies from Egypt assured, the purchase program was discontinued. In response to this action, American growers reduced their acreage from 138,000 in 1943 to approximately 14,500 acres in 1944. Since that time, the acreage of American -Egyptian cotton declined gradually until 1950, when 103,000 acres were planted.

The increase in the acreage of American- Egyptian cotton from 6,000 in 1949 to 103,000 in 1950 was not due to economic conditions.

Rather, it was a direct result of acreage restrictions placed upon plantings of Upland cotton.

In June of 1950, the United States found itself again in a world faced with political unrest, and a real prospect of war. The Korean situation demanded an immediate strengthening of defenses, and the United States began a program of partial mobilization.

In

January of 1951, the Department of Agriculture announced a purchase program of American -Egyptian cotton. For defense purposes, the

Southwest was requested to produce 75,000 bales of American -

Egyptian cotton in 1951 at a guaranteed price of $1.04 a pound for No. 2,

11/2 -inch staple. The Arizona share of this requested production was about 35,000 bales to be produced on approximately

50,000 acres. With the prospective price for American Upland cotton at 38 cents a pound and a guaranteed price of $1.04 a pound for

American -Egyptian cotton, the price ratio was about 2.7. Even though this was a favorable price ratio and Arizona obtained higher yields from American -Egyptian cotton in 1950 than at any time in its history, Arizona planted only 22,000 acres of this type cotton in 1951. Perhaps the major reason for this was again the uncertainty of the picking labor supply.

At a hearing held by the Production and Marketing Administration in Phoenix in January of 1951, producers repeatedly remarked that they wished to have labor guaranteed. The price guarantee of $1.04

was satisfactory to everyone present. Of course, the Government could make no guarantee that sufficient labor would be available, but not even an attempt was made to work out a program to supply enough labor.

Most pickers prefer to pick Upland cotton to American -Egyptian cotton and they usually will not pick much American -Egyptian cotton as long as there is good picking in Upland cotton. In the event of a labor shortage, the American -Egyptian cotton probably would be the last cotton picked. Everyone at the hearing believéd that a shortage of labor by harvest season was probable. Unless picked within a reasonable time after the bolls open, American -Egyptian cotton deteriorates rapidly in grade. If the grades fall below No. 2, discounts become large. Although the price of American -Egyptian cotton was guaranteed at $1.04 a pound for No. 2,

11/2 -inch staple, Arizona growers feared that under conditions of a short labor supply and late harvesting they might not average more than 85 or 90 cents a pound for the entire crop. Should this occur, the price ratio would not be as favorable as it first appeared. The experience of 1950 should be considered. Using Arizona average yields for both types

LBS LINT HARVESTED

PER ACRE

I

1

I

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

I

I I I

1 i

I I i

350

300

27

250

FREEHAND TREND

200

O i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 i l

1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l

1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1917

1922 1927 1932 1937 1942 1947

YEAR

1 i

1952

Figure 9. -Yield of American -Egyptian cotton in Arizona and secular trend, by years, 1917 -50.

Source: Table 16, Appendix.

of cotton and a season average price of 41.5 cents per pound for

Upland cotton, producers of American- Egyptian cotton would have

had to receive $1.04 a pound to obtain a return equal to that

from Upland cotton. It should be pointed out that the 1950 season was a favorable one, particularly for Upland cotton. On the other hand, the yield ratio was about 0.45 which is neither the lowest of all time nor the highest. Suppose yield ratios are more favorable to American- Egyptian cotton in 1951. It is unlikely that the gain in yields would offset the loss in quality resulting from a shortage of labor for harvest. Whether the decision was patriotically right or wrong, Arizona producers were not willing to gamble on the risk of quality deterioration resulting from labor shortage. Because of this unwillingness, they did not plant the total acreage requested by the Government.

The New Mexico -El Paso area planted 35,000 acres of American -

Egyptian cotton in 1951. This increased acreage resulted from the

favorable price ratio and a lesser degree of risk from quality

deterioration because of labor shortage. That area has an advantage over Arizona in that ample labor for harvest is available in the neighboring Mexican state of Chihuahua. Also, yield ratios are likely to become even more favorable to American- Egyptian cotton in the New Mexico -El Paso area because of Verticillium wilt infestation.

Factors Affecting Yield

During the 1917 -50 period, the yields of American- Egyptian cotton in Arizona gradually increased (see Fig. 3). A free -hand trend line fitted to the yield data is shown in Figure 9.

28

RATIO

2.93

1.00

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 i l i l i i 1 i r r.i

l i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

- - -- CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA

NEW MEXICO

DISTRICT 6, TEXAS

EL PASO AREA,TEXAS

AI

%

/J

I

I

-

-

nIl

-

-

0.50

000

1 1

1910

II

1915 i i i i

I

1920 i i i i

1, i r l_I i

1925 1930

YEAR

1935 1940

1945 1950

Figure 10.-American-Egyptian- Upland cotton yield ratios by states, 1911 -50.

Based on data in Tables 17 and 18, Appendix.

The free -hand trend line indicates an average yield of approximately

225 pounds in 1917 and 300 pounds in 1950. In drawing this line little weight was given to yield data for the years 1931 -33 and 1941 -43.

In the earlier period, which was during the Great Depression, producers did not pick all of the American -Egyptian cotton produced.

Yield data for these three years does not accurately reflect actual yields. During the war years of 1941 -43, labor shortages prevented complete harvesting of the American- Egyptian cotton acreage. A number of growers had to plow under unharvested acreages in the spring in order to prepare the land for the next crop. Yield data for those three years also do not accurately reflect actual yields.

For these reasons, very little weight was given to those two periods in the placement of the free -hand trend line.

The following factors underlie the upward trend in the yield of American- Egyptian cotton:

(1) increased use of fertilizer,

(2) improved cultural practices,

(3) improved insect control measures,

(4) improved irrigation practices,

(5) improved varieties through better breeding.

American -Egyptian -Upland cotton yield ratios for the various producing areas are shown in Figure 10 ( also see Table 17, Appendix)

.

The yield ratio has shown a downward trend since 1920, except in the 1944 -47 period when Arizona acreages were small.

Although the yield of American- Egyptian cotton has increased by about 1.3 per cent annually, the downward trend in the yield ratios indicates that the yields of Upland cotton have been increasing

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

29 at a faster rate than those of American- Egyptian cotton. Because of differences in the yield growth rates, the production disadvantage for American -Egyptian cotton is becoming increasingly greater.

The downward trend in yield ratios may be slowed by Pima 32, a recently developed variety, which outyields the old strains of

American- Egyptian cotton, Amsak and SxP. For the past two years

Arizona yield ratios averaged less than 0.50. The 1949 -50 yields of Arizona 28, a leading Upland variety, and Pima 32, the new

American -Egyptian variety, were compared in scientific tests conducted at the United States Field Station at Sacaton, Arizona.

The yield ratio for this two -year period averaged 0.559. If producers are able to do as well on a commercial scale as the tests indicate, it is possible that the downward trend in the yield ratio can be changed.

Yield ratios have generally been more favorable for the production of American- Egyptian cotton in the New Mexico -El Paso area than in Arizona. Verticillium wilt, an important factor affecting yield ratios in this area, was discussed in the section on biological factors affecting acreage.

What factors affect the yields of American -Egyptian cotton in

Arizona? A multiple correlation technique was employed to determine important factors affecting yields of American -Egyptian cotton (see

Table 18, Appendix, for data used in the analysis). In the first analysis, the dependent variable was the yield of American- Egyptian cotton in Arizona (X,) . The independent variables were: American-

Egyptian cotton acreage harvested (X2) ,

the day of the year of

the first autumn frost (X3)

, condition of the crop on October 1

(X4)

, and June mean minimum temperatures (X5) .

By using these independent factors in the correlation analysis,

85 per cent of the variation in yields can be explained. The coefficent of multiple correlation was 0.92; the standard error of estimate was -!- 17 pounds or 6.6 per cent. The importance of each independent variable factor in explaining variation in yields, the dependent factor, is indicated by the beta coefficents. In order of importance the independent variables ranked as follows:

(1) X2 = American-Egyptian cotton acreage harvested.

(2) X3 =the day of the year of the first autumn frost.

(3) X4= condition of the crop on October 1.

(4) X5= June mean minimum temperatures.

"t "' ratios at the P =0.01 level of significance indicated that the regression coefficients for X4 and X5 were insigificant. This means that regression coefficients as high or higher could have been obtained for either of these variables purely through chance variation within the sample selected. Because only variables X2 and X3 were significant, a second analysis was made.

Eighty -two per cent of the variation in yields was explained by using these two factors as contrasted with 85 per cent when all four independent factors were used. The multiple correlation coefficient was 0.90 compared with 0.92. The standard error of

9Data supplied by R. H. Peebles, Agronomist, United States Field

Station,

Sacaton, Arizona.

30

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 3.- ARIZONA AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON: MULTIPLE

CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF SOME IMPORTANT FACTORS

AFFECTING YIELDS, 1919 -49 (EXCLUDING 1931 -33

AND 1947)

Item

Equation

1

2

Dependent variablea

Constant term

Regression Coefficientsa:

Log X2

Log X3

Log X4

Log X5

Coefficient of multiple determination R2

Coefficient of multiple correlation R

Standard error of estimate:

S actual in pounds

S relative in per centd

Beta coefficients:

X2

X3

X4

Xs

X1

- 389.8774

-66.4352 (10.752 b -67.8699

(10.179)c

1.5493

(

4.714) c

1.1530

2.1194

( 5.180 b

1.4788

( 2.356 b

( 1.584 b

0.8524

0.9233

±16.94

±6.65

XI

-121.2796

0.8191

0.9050

+18.76

±7.37

- 0.8324

0.4131

0.1826

0.1269

- 0.8511

0.3942

a x1= American -Egyptian cotton yield per acre in pounds

Appendix) .

(see Table 18,

Log X2 = American -Egyptian cotton acreage harvested in units of 1,000's of acres

( see Table 18, Appendix)

.

X3 = Day of year of the first autumn frost (see Table 18, Appendix).

X4 r= Condition of the crop on October 1 in per cent of normal (see Table

18, Appendix) .

X5 = June mean minimum temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (see Table

18, Appendix).

b t- ratios.

C t- ratios.

At P = .01 level of significance with n = 22; the t -ratio equals 2.819.

At P = .001 level of significance with n = 24, the t -ratio equals 3.745.

d Based on the mean yield for the sample.

estimate was slightly higher, approximately 19 pounds as contrasted with 17 pounds or, percentage wise, 7.4 compared with 6.610. The two regression coefficients were highly significant. The acreage planted influenced yields to a much greater degree than did the day of the year of the first autumn frost.

The net influence of American- Egyptian acreage on yields is shown in Panel A, Figure 11. The equation of the regression line is indicated in the upper right -hand corner of Panel A. The net influence of acreage on yield was as follows: Each 10 per cent change in acreage was accompanied by a change in the opposite direction in yield of about 2.8 pounds.

The net influence of the day of the year of the first autumn frost on the yield of American- Egyptian cotton is shown in Panel B,

Figure 11. The equation of the regression line is indicated in the upper section of the panel. The net influence is as follows: For

each day that the first autumn frost is

later than average, the

'°The efficiency of the second analysis in estimating the yields of American

-

Egyptian cotton is indicated in Table 19, Appendix.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

31

350

Z

O

H

325

0

Z W

áIr300

f- 0 a Q

275 a

Z1-

Ú

250

CC N

W Q

áZ225

; 49

46 p5

Li- O

Oa

p

200

-J

W

5-

175

X

I

11111111111111111111111111111111I11111-

X12.355.1038-67.8699 log

X2

A

2.6

1920 AND 1949

OFF CHART

25

23 27

30

38

36 g

40

29

21

22

ï

ï

15

X2:

30 45

60 75 90

105 120

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON ACREAGE

HARVESTED (1,000 ACRES)

-

135

350

Z W

.4 cc

>-

325

CL

Q

W

W a

300

ZF-

Z_

-1 275

111

X1.3 -- 221.8519 +1.4788 X3

B

111111111

1111111 t1111111111

39 sW °N

Z

0

250

- :

35

22 29

0

W ZO 225

T-F~-

1..O

X 0

200

300

X3: DATE

310

24

320

ö nammmommunilnnsoznmnrs

330 340

350

OF FIRST AUTUMN FROST (DAY 0F YEAR)

360

Figure 11. -Net regression of yields of American -Egyptian cotton in Arizona,

1919 -49, on: (A) harvested acreage and (B) date of first autumn frost. (1931 -33 and 1947 excluded).

Based on data in Table 18, Appendix.

32

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 yield of American -Egyptian cotton may be expected to increase by about 1.5 pounds. For each day that the frost date is earlier than average, the yield may be expected to be reduced by a corresponding amount.

The question may be raised: Do increases in the

acreage of

American -Egyptian cotton harvested cause decreases in the yield of American -Egyptian cotton? The answer is clearly "no." The correlation technique establishes relationships in functional terms, but it does not establish causation. Causation can be established only through reasoning. The decrease in yield associated with the increase in the level of acreage planted can be explained in terms of two factors: (1) poor production techniques, and (2) of marginal land.

possible use

Growth habits of the American -Egyptian cotton plant differ from those of Upland cotton. American -Egyptian cotton plants achieve rank growth, produce small bolls, and require a somewhat longer growing season. Producers who achieve high yields from Upland cotton do not necessarily obtain high yields from American -Egyptian cotton. The American -Egyptian plant appears to be more "temperamental" and perhaps requires irrigation schedules different from those used for Upland cotton. Because of their small size, bolls should be set on American- Egyptian cotton tinuously as possible in the growing season.

as early and as con-

Experimental results obtained at the United States Field Station at Sacaton indicate that producers have not been achieving yields as high as are possible. If both types of cotton are planted on the same quality of land, apparently growers have not achieved the yield which is potentially possible for American- Egyptian cotton due to poor production techniques or neglect.

DEMAND

Fiber Properties Affecting Use

The fiber properties upon which the different uses of American -

Egyptian cotton depend are classified commercially according to

(1) grade, (2) staple length, and (3) character.

Grade denotes (1) the nature and amount of foreign

matter present in the lint, (2) color and brightness of the fibers, and (3) preparation or the smoothness of ginning.

The grade of cotton is

influenced by the weather prevailing during harvest time, timeliness and type of picking, handling, and ginning. Costly damage to the quality of American- Egyptian cotton can be caused by rains or showers accompanied by winds and undue exposure of seed cotton to weather between the time of opening and picking. Weather factors generally cause a lowering of the grade by increasing the amount of dust, dirt, and leaf particles washed

into the sample, which reduces the brightness of the lint. The

grade of American -Egyptian cotton averages about one -half grade lower for each inch increase in the total rainfall during the harvesting season."

11For footnote, see next page.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

33

TABLE 4. -GRADE OF AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON IN THE CARRY-

OVER, THE CROP, AND TOTAL SUPPLY, UNITED STATES, 1928 -49

11/2

Grade

1 and

2 - 2%

3 - 31/2

4 - 4%

5 and below

Year

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

Carry -over on

August 1 Crop Total

1,000 bales 1,000 bales 1,000 bales

17.7

12.7

63.7

31.4

34.6

97.1

49.1

47.3

160.8

14.9

34.9

16.1

54.6

17.9

15.0

8.7

60.9

40.5

83.0

5.0

28.7

23.6

95.8

56.6

137.6

22.9

43.7

5.9

30.2

9.9

2.8

1.9

7.5

2.2

0.7

2.6

0.3

0.5

14.7

40.8

1.2

4.8

3.4

9.9

0.1

0.3

0.4

1.3

20.6

71.0

11.1

7.6

5.3

17.4

2.3

1.0

3.0

1.6

0.5

Carry -over as a percentage of total

Per cent

36.0

26.8

39.6

63.1

36.4

28.4

39.7

78.2

21.6

28.6

42.5

89.2

36.8

35.8

43.1

95.7

70.0

86.7

18.8

100.0

Source:

1928 -37:

United States, 1928 -29 to 1937 -38, USDA, BAE, October, 1938, pp.

14 and 84.

Grade, Staple Length, and Tenderability of Cotton in the

1938 -49: nual Issues.

Cotton Quality Statistics, United States, USDA, PMA, An-

Rough harvesting will lower the grade by inclusion of leaf, trash, and boll bracts. Special care should be exercised in harvesting the crop.

The condition of the cotton as it comes to the gin is an important factor in determining its quality. Trashy, roughly harvested, and damp seed cotton almost invariably results in rough gin preparation and a low grade. To achieve high grades, American- Egyptian cotton should be harvested as soon as possible after it opens, as cleanly as possible, and as dryly as possible.

As a general rule, most manufacturers require the higher grades of extra -long -staple cotton, preferably No. 2 or better. Yarns produced from extra- long -staple cotton must be of high quality and meet exacting specifications. Such yarn can be produced only from

the higher grades of cotton. Because of the high quality yarn

produced and the quality of raw cotton required to produce it, growers of American -Egyptian cotton often have difficulty in disposing of their low grades. The lower grades tend to accumulate in the carry-over from year to year ( see Table 4 )

.

Staple length is simply the length of the dominant mass of fibers in the sample. The length of fibers in a sample of cotton of any given

11For detailed information on American -Egyptian cotton quality and ginning see:

A. J. Johnson, J. S. Townsend, and T. C. Walton, American -Egyptian Cotton

Quality and Ginning, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., B.P.I., and Bur. of Agr. Chem. and

Engr., October, 1941.

34 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 5.- STAPLE LENGTH OF AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON IN THE

CARRY -OVER, THE CROP, AND THE TOTAL SUPPLY,

UNITED STATES, 1928 -49

Inches

Shorter than

11/2

11/2

Staple length and

117 -32

19 -16 and up

Year

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

1928 -34

1935 -39

1940 -44

1945 -49

Carry -over on

August 1 Crop

Total

1,000 bales 1,000 bales

1,000 bales

1.4

2.5

0.9

1.9

3.9

2.8

61.3

22.1

12.4

15.7

96.4

3.7

157.7

25.8

46.7

85.8

22.5

57.3

22.5

9.2

1.1

34.3

25.8

121.0

10.5

89.3

65.0

14.8

0.7

41.5

206.8

33.0

146.6

88.3

24.0

1.8

Carry -over as a percentage of total

Per cent

35.9

32.1

38.9

85.7

26.6

37.8

41.5

68.2

39.1

25.5

38.3

61.1

Source:

1928 -37:

Grade, Staple Length, and Tenderability of Cotton in the

United States, 1928 -29 to 1937 -38, USDA, BAE, October, 1938, pp.

14 and 84.

1938 -49: nual Issues.

Cotton Quality Statistics, United States, USDA, PMA, Anstaple length varies greatly. In spite of this, the average length and the length distribution of the fibers of a cotton of the same type and grown under similar conditions will be quite similar.

From the standpoint of spinning value, as indicated by wider price differentials, staple length is relatively more important than grade in the higher qualities. Staple length is considered to be an important factor because, except within narrow limits, one staple length cannot be substituted for another without readjustment of the mill machinery. Differences in staple length determine the fineness of yarn to which a cotton can be spun and, to a certain extent, the strength of yarn. As a general rule, the longer the staple, the higher the yarn number that can be spun from the cotton. Not only does staple length generally affect the strength of the yarn that can be spun, but it also largely determines the use of the cotton and the degree of competition of one variety with another.

Grade and character also affect the selection of a cotton for a particular purpose. Spinners generally prefer the long staples of extra -long -staple cotton, preferably the PA-11%-inch range. The shorter lengths of - American- Egyptian cotton have tended to accumulate in the carry -over (see Table 5)

.

Character, heretofore the intanglible element of quality determined by cotton classers by the sense of feel, refers to the fiber strength, maturity, uniformity, fineness, smoothness, and all other fiber qualities not covered by grade and staple length. With the development of testing devices, some of the intangible elements of character are now subject to measurement. For example, strength, fiber fineness, mean length, upper half mean length, and uniformity ratio may be measured with various testing machines. Maturity may

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON 35

TABLE 6.- ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF UNITED

STATES CONSUMPTION OF EXTRA- LONG -STAPLE COTTON

BY USE CATEGORIES FOR SPECIFIED YEARS *

Use category 1929

Per cent

1932

Per cent

1933

Per cent

1946

Per cent'

1949

Per cent

Threads and hand work cottons

Woven fabrics

Knit goods

Miscellaneous

74

21 t

5

58

35 t

7

54

39 t

7

59

21

6

14

59

25

5

11

*Except for 1949, these figures represent only a part of the total consumption and they must be used to give only a general indication of the relation of consumption between use categories.

t Included in miscellaneous.

Source:

The figures for this table were developed from data appearing in the following sources:

1929, 1932, and 1933: Long- Staple Cotton, U. S. Tariff Commission

Report No. 85 (second series), 1935, p. 117.

1946: Supplemental Import Quota on Long- Staple Cotton, U. S. Tariff

Commission, Report No. 158 (second series), 1947, pp. 22 -23.

1949: J. H. McClure, Market Outlets for Extra -Long- Staple Cotton in the United States, USDA, PMA (Agricultural Information Bulletin

No. 33) 1950, p. 13.

also be determined by certain laboratory techniques.

Through experience, it has been found that best spinning results can be obtained from cottons possessing certain character elements or given ranges of character elements. Because of a rather high degree of uniformity in fiber length and exceptional strength and fineness, American -Egyptian cottons have been found to be suitable for spinning yarns of high numbers. Possession of these character elements to an outstanding degree has made Karnak, the present leading Egyptian extra- long -staple cotton, highly suitable for manufacture of thread.

Character has a large influence on the particular use to be made

of a cotton. Fine, silky cotton which takes a high luster in the

process of mercerization is particularly suitable for the manufacture of fine goods in which a soft, lustrous, lofty finish is required. Rough, coarse cottons are generally used in the production of coarse goods

or blended with asbestos or wool in producing products from

those raw materials.

Uses12

The uses of extra- long -staple cotton in the United States may be conveniently classified into use categories as follows: (1) threads and hand work cottons, (2) woven fabrics, (3) knit goods, and

(4) miscellaneous.

Within the sewing thread category, thread for industrial purposes is by far the most important use. Industrial thread of standard construction is used for many general purposes and special threads are used in making garments, shoes, gloves, book bindings, athletic

12For a rather detailed discussion of raw cotton qualities and processing results for extra -long -staple cotton used in various specified products, see: Market Outlets for Extra -Long- Staple Cotton in the United States, U.S.D.A., P.M.A. (Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 33) December, 1950.

36

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 equipment, leather goods, and other specialty items. Thread for household uses is used in general hand sewing, machine sewing, and needlework.

Woven fabrics comprise many types of construction of which the most important are: (1) broadcloths and shirtings; (2) lawns, organdies, and voiles; (3) suitings, twills, and sateens; (4) typewriter cambrics; (5) balloon fabrics; and (6) airplane fabric.

All cotton yarns used in the knit goods trade to produce the

various types of products made by this industry are included in the knit goods use category.

Miscellaneous uses of extra- long -staple cotton include such items as lace yarns, wire insulation yarns, rubber covering yarns, and sales yarns.

An indication of consumption of extra- long -staple cotton by use categories or by industries in the United States is given in Table

6. Because data on consumption were meager, the figures presented in this table must be used to represent general rather than precise indications of use. The data for 1949 are based on total consumption and therefore should accurately represent the percentage distribution of consumption by industries. The thread industry has been and still remains the most important market outlet for extra -longstaple cotton. The woven fabrics industry ranks as the second most important outlet. Of the total consumption in 1949, these two industries consumed 59 and 25 per cent, respectively.

The greatest proportion of American -Egyptian cotton consumed in 1949 was in the woven fabrics industry. This was also the principal use made of Peruvian Pima. Approximately 85 per cent of the Egyptian Karnak used domestically in 1949 was in the thread and woven fabrics industries. These two industries also utilized about 85 per cent of the total consumption of extra -long -staple cotton in the United States in 1949. If American -Egyptian lint is to capture a larger share of the market for extra -long- staple cotton, apparently it will have to be in those two industries. From the standpoint of fiber properties alone, Pima 32, which has fiber properties approximately equal to Karnak, may be able to capture a sizable portion of this market.

Consumption

Consumption of American- Egyptian cotton has been unstable and has tended to fluctuate with business conditions. Although

Sea Island cotton was an important type of extra -long- staple cotton in the first two decades of this century, consumption of this cotton has been negligible since 1920. Historically, Egypt has been the principal source of extra -long -staple cotton for world needs and still remains the most important single source for American mills.

Because the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan extra- long - staple cottons originated from Sakellaridis, they have generally been classed with that type cotton, and consumption figures for the Sudan are included with Egyptian cotton in Table 7. From 1935 through 1944, Peru was not an important source of extra- long -staple cotton for the

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

37

TABLE 7.- UNITED STATES MILL CONSUMPTION OF EXTRA -LONG-

STAPLE COTTON BY GROWTHS, 1915 -49

Year beginning

Aug. 1

Domestic

American -Sea

Egyptian Island

Total

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

2.3

1.2

1.3

0.8

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.9

0.3

0.6

0.2

0.4

1.6

2.6

2.5

2.6

2

1,000 bales

82.6

94.3

85.9

51.2

43.0

18.7

9.0

6.3

4.9

4.0

4.3

5.7

3.3

1.1

0.5

1.3

1.6

1.0

0.8

11.7

19.7

15.1

13.5

12.6

15.4

12.4

17.8

12.5

11.3

1

1,000 bales a a a a

45.9

16.8

49.4

65.2

36.0

19.0

21.4

20.1

6.2

18.8

21.2

26.9

47.0

49.8

43.8

43.5

19.5

9.5

5.2

4.4

3.2

Egyptian

12.7

18.7

12.8

11.9

21.6

20.5

7.8

21.2

23.7

29.5

3 4

1,000

1,000 bales bales

82.6

94.3

b b

85.9

51.2

88.9

35.5

b b b b

58.4

71.5

40.9

23.0

14.0

20.9

b b b b b b

16.4

14.3

13.0

15.8

b

98.0

74.0

46.0

14.0

49.0

32.0

50.9

67.0

77.9

47.9

53.2

53.9

60.9

51.3

55.5

47.1

44.6

20.0

10.8

83.9

103.6

66.7

65.7

77.4

106.5

6.8

119.4

5.4

87.2

4.0

100.2

Foreign

Peru vian

5

1,000 bales c c e e c c e e

C e c c

C

Total

Foreign as a

Total percentage of all of all growths growths

6 7

8

1,000 1,000 bales bales Per cent e e c e e e

1.0

1.3

0.6

0.6

0.8

1.6

98.0

112.3

74.0

46.0

14.0

49.0

87.0

61.8

26.7

32.0

50.9

67.7

44.8

62.8

68.0

79.2

48.5

53.8

54.7

89.6

99.7

56.3

75.0

78.4

62.5

88.8

107.6

92.0

140.1

4.9

4.0

2.7

163.1

3.2

10.0

8.4

15.4

69.4

116.5

68.9

113.5

87.4

26.4

132.9

24.5

143.9

95.6

115.6

107.4

143.7

150.7

101.0

119.6

a Not available.

b Prior to 1928 cotton 1% inches and longer longer classification.

e Although data are not available, consumption ton believed to be negligible.

Sources of data:

Cols. 1 and 2: 1915 -34: was included in the 11, -inch and of Peruvian extra -long- staple cot-

USDA, World Cotton Situation, September 5, p. 44.

1939,

Cols. 1 and 2: 1935 -49:

Col. 4

Col. 4

:

:

1928 -33:

1934-

Cols. 4 and 5: 1935 -49:

Cols. 3, 6, 7, and 8

.

:

J. H. McClure, Market Outlets for Extra -Long -Staple

Cotton in the United States, USDA, PMA, Agricultural

Information Bulletin 33, December, 1950, p. 12.

U. S. Tariff Commission: Long- Staple Cotton, Report

No. 85 ( Second Series ), 1935, p. 81.

C. F. Wells and M. R. Cooper: The Tariff on Long

-

Staple Cotton and Its Effects, USDA, BAE, July, 1938, p. 56.

J. H. McClure, op. cit.

Computed from data in Cols. 1, 2, 4, and 5.

71.7

69.8

67.9

63.4

66.0

59.8

60.7

81.4

92.5

95.5

94.7

98.7

87.3

85.1

74.4

52.4

72.4

71.4

81.0

75.9

79.4

86.1

38

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

LBS. PER CAPITA

Io

08

07

06

05

04

03

EGYPTIAN a

PERUVIAN

02

UNITED STATES TOTAL

010

009

0.08

007

0.06

005

0.04

0.03

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN a SEA ISLAND

0.02

(YEAR BEGINNING AUGUST Ist)

001

1920

1 1 1 1

1 1 1

1

1925 1930 1935

YEAR

1940 1945 1950

Figure 12. -Per capita consumption of extra -long -staple cotton by growths,

United States, 1920 -49.

Source: Table 20, Appendix.

United States. But at the present time Peru appears to be increasing in importance as a source of supply.

The United States has always been more or less dependent upon foreign sources of supply for extra -long -staple cotton. During the late twenties and in the thirties about 75 per cent of all extra -longstaple cotton consumed in the United States was of foreign growth.

Even during World War II, when it appeared that Egyptian supplies would be cut off and when shipping space was difficult to obtain, at least two- thirds of American consumption was of foreign origin.

Since the end of World War II at least 90 per cent of all American consumption has been from foreign sources.

Per capita consumption of extra - long -staple cotton in the United

States by origin is shown in Figure 12 and in Table 20, Appendix.

Two important facts revealed by this chart are:

(1) From 1920 through 1937, American consumption of domestically produced extra- long -staple cotton showed a downward trend. This trend was interrupted by World War

II. Since 1944, however, the downward trend in the consumption of this

World War II.

cotton has been steeper than before

(2) American consumption of foreign produced extra- long -staple

cotton has shown a gradual upward trend since

1928.

Because 85 per cent or more of American consumption of extra- long -staple cotton has been from foreign sources, the upward trend in consumption of this cotton from foreign sources has also been reflected in the total consumption of extra -long- staple cotton in the United States.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

39

Per capita consumption of extra- long -staple cotton in the United

States shown in Figure 12 is in terms of logarithms. The area

between the lines representing the total United States consumption of all growths and the Egyptian and Peruvian consumption represents that part of the total consumption comprising domestically produced extra- long -staple cotton. From 1928 through 1936 the area between these two lines remained roughly the same. This indicates relatively little substitution of American growth for foreign growth.

The share of the market going to American produced extra- long -staple cotton did not become greater until 1938.

The gaining of a larger share of the market by American produced extra- long -staple cotton during the 1938 -44 period was brought about by the limited availability of foreign supplies rather than by technical improvements in fiber properties of the American cotton.

Since 1944, the American- Egyptian share of the market has been

negligible. Had it been available, perhaps more of this

cotton would have been consumed. Because production conditions in the domestic supply areas were so unfavorable to American -Egyptian cotton, production, and hence consumption, declined sharply.

Factors Affecting Consumption

Purchasing power. -Mill demand for extra -long -staple cotton is derived from consumer demand. Levels of consumer purchasing power affect consumer demand for products produced from American extra- long -staple cotton. Consumers tend to consume more extra -longstaple cotton when the income flow within the economy is at a high level than when it is low. Possibly the level of purchasing power affects per capita consumption of extra -long- staple cotton more than it affects demand elasticities.

That is,

if a person will not

consume more of the cotton when it is cheap, probably he will not consume much less of it when its price rises.

Despite depressed levels of purchasing power during the thirties,

United States per capita consumption of extra -long -staple cotton increased after the low -point of the depression was reached. This upward trend in consumption apparently indicated a basic change in consumption patterns.

Price. -As a general proposition, price affects the amount of a commodity that a consumer is willing to buy. Consumption tends to vary inversely with price and the degree to which consumption is affected by price is reflected in the elasticities of demand. Commodities for which there are only poor substitutes generally have low demand elasticities.

A major use of extra -long - staple cotton is in the manufacture of high quality thread used as a material for further production in a number of industries. The cost of thread used in making a garment comprises only a small portion of the value of the finished article. The price of thread exerts relatively little influence on the quantity consumed. It is not surprising, therefore, that the demand for high quality thread for most industrial uses is highly inelastic.

The demand of thread manufacturers for extra -long -staple cotton is derived from the demand of the users of thread made from that

40

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 type cotton. Because the demand for extra -long -staple cotton used in manufacturing thread is derived from an inelastic demand, it too should be relatively inelastic. Under such conditions, price would exert much less influence on consumption of extra- long -staple cotton used in making thread than factors affecting the consumption of products in which thread is used.

Domestically produced extra -long -staple cotton has been used primarily in the woven fabrics field. Because the prices of the products produced by the woven fabrics industry that are used in further production comprise a much larger share of the prices of the finished articles than does thread, one would expect to find the demand for extra- long -staple cotton used by the woven fabrics industry to be more elastic than that for the thread industry. The domestic demand for American- Egyptian cotton should be more elastic than that for Egyptian Karnak cotton.

Price of substitute products. -Should the prices of products made from substitute fibers become low relative to the prices of products produced from extra -long- staple cotton, consumers would begin substitute the former in their purchases.

to

In the ordinary course of processing, manufacturers become accustomed to a certain "type" of extra -long- staple cotton. Because the production of a uniformly high quality product is more important to most manufacturers of fine cotton goods than possible small savings on the cost of raw cotton, they are reluctant to change, even when some cottons could be bought cheaper. Before substituting a cheaper cotton or even substituting a new cotton for the cotton that has been used, manufacturers of high quality fine goods produced from extra -long -staple cotton must make exhaustive tests on the raw stock to assure themselves that a high quality product can be made from the cotton in question. Even when the possible substitute cotton is found to be satisfactory from the standpoint of maintaining product quality, manufacturers are rather reluctant to substitute the new cotton, especially if it appears that supplies will not be stable. Unstable production of American -Egyptian cotton has tended to deter its consumption.

Processors of extra -long- staple cotton adjust their machinery to the particular cotton used and processing techniques are developed that lead to efficient handling of the particular cotton used. To change from one growth of extra -long -staple cotton to another may be expensive for a manufacturer because the change may require adjustments in the mill machinery. Also, him to learn how to process the new cotton efficiently. Moreover, it

it would take time for

is doubtful if product quality could be maintained when the switch is made to the substitute cotton. These factors tend to delay the response to changes in prices of the various growths of extra long- staple cotton.

Although mills may prefer one variety and

use it more than

any other, they are able to blend varieties and qualities within varieties. Blending is now common practice. This is the mill's price control. If specifications for a certain product do not require Karnak

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

41 quality a mill may substitute Peruvian Pima or Sea Island or even

"peelers."

( If not run 100 per cent, mills will at least use some

American- Egyptian in the blending operation. )

It is not intended to convey the impression that manufacturers refuse to make changes. They do change to other cottons when they believe conditions justify or necessitate making the change.

For example, when supplies of Sea Island cotton became relatively scarce, manufacturers using it had to switch to another type of cotton. During World War I, a large proportion of the American -

Egyptian production was used for tire cord. Because selling tires

became more difficult during the price recession in the

early twenties, manufacturers sought a cheaper source of raw material from which to make tire fabric. Eventually, they shifted from extra

long- staple cotton to ordinary long -staple Upland cotton or Egyptian

Uppers for the manufacture of tire fabric. Only tire fabric that had to meet most exacting specifications for strength and quality continued to be produced from extra- long -staple cotton.

Price was not the only factor that brought about this change.

Improved processing techniques also played an important part.

Manufacturers learned that tire fabric made from shorter lengths of cotton would ordinarily outlast the quality of rubber then used in the production of automobile tires. Substitution can be further illustrated by the use of high tenacity rayon and nylon instead of extra- long -staple cotton in the production of large truck and bus tires, and to some extent in aircraft tires during World War II.

Perhaps there has been less substitution of shorter cottons or synthetic fibers for extra -long -staple cotton in the thread industry than in any other industry using this type of cotton. Thread produced from extra -long -staple cotton is especially suitable for machines making thousands of stitches per minute. To date neither nylon nor rayon have been satisfactory substitutes in this important use.

About 60 per cent of the extra- long -staple cotton consumed in the

United States in recent years was used for the manufacture of thread, and about 90 per cent of this cotton was supplied by Egypt.

American -Egyptian cotton growers should attempt to capture this market. The development of a superior cotton for this particular use would do much to revive the American- Egyptian cotton industry in the United States. Pima 32, the leading American variety, is approximately equal to Karnak for manufacturing thread but spinners are reluctant to switch to Pima 32 because of the prospect of unstable supplies.

The greatest degree of substitution of rayon and other synthetic fibers for extra -long- staple cotton has occurred in the fine woven goods field. Production of fine dress fabrics from filament rayon yarns or spun rayon has tended to reduce the market for extra long- staple cotton. The combination of relatively low and stable prices plus an assured supply of synthetic fibers has tended to bring about this development. Although rayon and synthetic fibers are not completely satisfactory substitutes, combinations of the above mentioned factors have brought about an improvement in the

42 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 competitive status of synthetic fibers..

Buying habits,

tastes, and preferences.-At one time

it was fashionable for women to wear fine lingerie produced from extra

long- staple cotton. With the passage of time rayon lingerie became preferred. During the twenties fashions for men included high quality Pima shirts. With a reduction of purchasing power resulting from the depression of the thirties, adjustment in the consumption pattern for shirts was forced. During the thirties advances in processing techniques occurred along with improved styling so that when the level of purchasing power was restored men did not readily shift to the consumption of Pima shirts again. They generally continued to purchase shirts made from shorter lengths of cotton. Consumer purchasing habits cause gradual adjustments in buying patterns which affect mill demand for extra- long -staple cotton.

Technological restrictions also play an important part in causing a lag in adjustments in consumption patterns.

Various other restrictive elements enter into adjustments in consumption patterns. For example, a manufacturer might have spent much money and promotional effort in developing a brand name for a particular product. A case in point is that of sheets produced by a well -known manufacturer. Through the years, these sheets had gained an enviable reputation for high quality and durability.

During a price recession the price of cotton used in the manufacture of these sheets became high relative to other staple lengths of cotton and the manufacturer was faced with deciding whether to cheapen the sheets. The management believed that the brand name would be damaged and the product would lose sales appeal if the sheets were cheapened. It was decided to maintain the high level of quality and there is ample proof that this decision was wise.

Protection of brand names or the maintenance of quality standards tend to hinder adjustments in demand for extra -long -staple cotton.

Because quality is uppermost in their minds, manufacturers of fine goods tend to adopt the special type of cotton which has proven satisfactory for their purpose. These manufacturers would hesitate to change to another cotton if there was a doubt of a continuing supply of the preferred cotton or unless there was an opportunity for greater profit from use of the new cotton. Under certain conditions, manufacturers may form opinions about a new cotton which would cause them not to buy it. These prejudices and biases may continue to influence the outlet for the new cotton despite the fact that the opinions might have been in error in the first place.

Even though some 'improvements might have been made to overcome earlier defects of a cotton, manufacturers may still hesitate to switch to the new cotton. Such restraining influences tend to prevent rapid adjustments in consumption patterns.

Availability. -The consumption of extra -long -staple cotton is influenced by the supply available. Not only must there be a supply available, but also it must be of the types desired. For example, had Pima cotton had fiber properties superior to Sakellaridis, probably a large share of the thread market could have been captured by

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON 43

Pima. Since 1944, the production of American -Egyptian cotton has been negligible; so has its consumption. A more ample supply of

Amsak might have led to a greater consumption of this cotton, for its fiber properties were suitable for several uses. Because of inferior fiber properties, it is doubtful that more SxP would have been consumed even if it had been available.

Fluctuating supplies prevent consumption from being as high as potentially possible. Even though a particular type of extra -longstaple cotton may be slightly inferior from the standpoint of fiber properties, manufacturers may prefer it if the supply is stable or assured, in preference to a cotton of highly fluctuating supplies.

Some of the principal reasons for widely fluctuating supplies of

American- Egyptian cotton have already been discussed.

Fluctuations in supply also result from the nature of the demand.

For example, under conditions of unrestricted supply adjustments and imperfect knowledge concerning costs and returns of alternatives, the supply of a product whose demand is inelastic is likely to be more variable than the supply of a product whose demand is elastic.

Defense needs.- Because extra- long -staple cotton is war material, national military establishment.

a strategic

its consumption is influenced by the size of the

Governmental aid and intervention.- Domestic consumption of extra -long -staple cotton has been influenced by: (1) trade restrictions and (2) price support programs and acreage control.

Trade restrictions may be of two types: (1) quotas restricting imports and (2) duties on imports. A restrictive quota tends to limit the availability of foreign supplies and the gap in consumption must be filled either from domestic production or from substitute fibers.

In 1939, an annual import quota of approximately 45.7

million pounds was established on long- staple cotton. During the period 1935 -42 consumption of both foreign and domestic extra long- staple cotton increased. Consumption of domestic extra -longstaple cotton tended to increase slightly more rapidly than did

that of foreign cottons. Just how much of this was due to the

restrictive quota and how much was due to defense needs during the war is not determinable. Since 1944, consumption of foreign produced extra- long -staple cotton has increased while consumption of domestically produced extra- long -staple cotton has declined to a low level. Because domestic production declined, thus failing to fill the gap created by the restrictive quota, it was necessary to authorize additional quotas for the quota years of 1947, 1948, and 1950. Apparently this restrictive quota has not accomplished its objective. Despite the quota, American -Egyptian cotton has failed to gain a larger share of the market. At the present time, there appears to be no economic justification for continuing this restrictive quota on extra -long- staple cotton.

Import duties are intended to increase consumption of domestically produced products by restricting the entry of competing foreign products. Except for a short time in 1921 -22, extra -long -staple cotton entered the United States duty free from 1868 until 1930. In 1930,

44

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 a duty of 7 cents a pound was established. In 1942, this duty was reduced to 31/2 cents a pound. From 1940 to 1942, the consumption of both domestically produced and foreign produced extra -long- staple cotton in the United States increased.

During the 1930 -38 period, the consumption of foreign produced extra- long -staple cotton appeared to increase did domestically produced extra- long -staple more rapidly than cotton. Apparently the

7 -cent duty did not have the desired effect. During the thirties, production of extra- long -staple cotton in the United States generally trended downward. The extent to which the duty prevented domestic production of extra- long -staple cotton from declining more than it did during the thirties is not determinable. Had the duty achieved the desired effect, production probably would have increased. Neither the tariff nor the import quotas have been effective in stabilizing

American production of extra -long -staple cotton.

The principal effects of price support and acreage control operations of the Government have already been discussed. Such programs affect consumption by interrupting normal supply adjustments within the producing areas by disturbing normal competitive relationships and profit opportunities for various alternative crops.

For example, during the 1944 -49 period loan rates for American

-

Egyptian cotton were relatively unfavorable compared with those for Upland cotton. Relative loan rates could be estimated by producers at planting time. Most Arizona producers tended to plant

Upland cotton because they believed that a price ratio higher than was indicated by the loan rates was necessary for them to break even or to make a greater return on American- Egyptian cotton. Data already presented bear out these opinions. During this period; had the loan rate of American -Egyptian cotton been higher relative to that of

Upland cotton, the acreage planted might have been larger. Another factor was that the announcement of the Government loan rate on

American -Egyptian cotton often came too late in the Spring.

Empirical analysis of factors affecting consumption of extra -longstaple cotton. -This analysis was divided into two parts:

(1) the

consideration of those factors affecting the consumption of all extra- long -staple cotton, and (2) an analysis of those factors affecting the consumption of domestically produced extra- long -staple cotton.

The consumption of extra- long -staple cotton as well as other cottons has varied with the level of business activity. Generally, high levels of business activity have been associated with high levels of consumption of extra- long -staple cotton. Similarly, low levels of business activity have been accompanied with low levels of consumption. This has applied especially to extra -long- staple cotton because in times of high purchasing power consumers have more income with which to buy expensive and high quality products produced from this type cotton.

The Federal Reserve Board index of industrial production (manufacturers group) was used in the analysis to represent the level at which the economy was operating. The relationship between the

United States per capita consumption of all extra -long -staple cotton

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

45 z

P=0.803

47 as

28

43

:6

45

44

4

9

i9

5

40 48

32

39

38

34

20

Ñ J ,J .20

-

23

0 Z

_

U

Ñ

1-.10

-

000

170

1.80

i

1

1.90

1

2.00

2.10

i

I

2.20

1

2.30

2.40

LOGS OF INDEX OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (MANUFACTURERS)

LAGGED 5 MONTHS (1935-39 =100)

-

Figure 13.- Relationship between per capita consumption of all extra- long -staple cotton and the index of industrial production, United States, 1928 -49.

Based on data in Table 22, Appendix.

and the index of industrial production is shown in Figure 13.

An index of correlation of 0.8013 and a standard error of estimate of 0.014 were obtained. Approximately 65 per cent of the variation in consumption of extra- long -staple cotton

can be explained by

this one factor alone or factors correlated with it. The analysis indicates that low levels of industrial production are accompanied with low levels of extra- long -staple cotton consumption. Similarly high levels of industrial production are associated with high levels of extra- long -staple cotton consumption.

Attempts to explain more of the variation in consumption with additional independent variables met with little success. When the residuals from the regression line in Figure 13 were plotted against either actual or deflated prices of extra- long -staple cotton, little relationship was found. It appears that a combination of complex factors in addition to the index of industrial production has affected the consumption of extra -long -staple cotton in the United

States.

Apparently none of the additional factors were dominant enough to enable the investigator to isolate a clear -cut relationship by use of the correlation technique. The remaining variation must be explained in terms of the factors already discussed above.

13This index of correlation is highly significant.

index of correlation as high as 0.537 could be obtained due to chance. Since the index of correlation obtained in this analysis substantially exceeds this it is termed highly significant.

With 20 degrees of freedom, an figure,

46

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

The attempt to

isolate factors affecting the consumption of domestically produced extra -long -staple cotton in the United States was more successful than in the above analysis. The technique of graphic multiple correlation was employed. The variables used in the analysis were as follows:

XI =United States per capita consumption of American -Egyptian cotton and Sea Island cotton.

X2 = Deflated price of American -Egyptian cotton at Phoenix,

Arizona.

X3 =Index of industrial production (manufacturers) lagged 5 months (1935-39=100).

Data for the analysis appear in Table 22, Appendix.

The net relationship between the dependent variable and each of the independent variables is shown in Panels A and B of Figure

14. In both Panels A and B the periods 1920 -24 and 1946 -49 are surrounded by lightly dotted lines. Those years were omitted from the analysis, but they can be explained by additional factors not included. For example, in the earlier period, 1920 -24, per capita consumption was much higher than was to be expected either due to price or the index of industrial production. During this period, the price of American -Egyptian cotton was low relative to the price of

11/4 -inch Upland cotton. Because this situation justified the substitution of the shorter lengths of extra- long -staple cotton for the longer lengths of American Upland cotton, consumption of American- Egyptian cotton was higher than it otherwise would have been during that period. The 1946 -49 period was omitted for the following reason: Although higher levels of consumption of extra- long -staple cotton were to be expected in that period, actual consumption was low because so little American- Egyptian cotton was available for consumption. Unfavorable production conditions relative to Upland cotton in the producing areas resulted in abnormally low supplies of domestic extra- long -staple cotton.

Results of the analysis are as follows:

P21.23 = 0.85

P 1.23 = 0.92

0.019

S

9.f(x)

With 21 degrees of freedom and with the true correlation of the universe from which this sample was drawn equal to more than

0.82 there is only one chance out of 20 that a correlation coefficient as high as 0.92 would occur due to chance variation in sampling.

Therefore, the index of multiple correlation found in this analysis is highly significant. Approximately 85 per cent of the variation in the per capita consumption of domestically produced extra -long -staple cotton can be explained by the two independent factors used in the analysis. The remaining 15 per cent of unexplained variation must be explained in terms of factors not included in the analysis.

Some of these factors were discussed above in detail.

The regression line shown in Panel A, Figure 14, can be thought of as a demand curve for domestically produced extra -long -staple

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON z o u_

0.30

Z

Op

a.a

0.25

«i

D (/) zm0.20

O W t>

UwZ

áó0.15

0d z

0.10

ao

w

a

Z 0.05

a

U

X W

Q

000

10

X2:

15

20

25 30

DEFLATED PRICE OF AMERICAN - EGYPTIAN COTTON

AT PHOENIX, ARIZONA, IN CENTS PER POUND

0.30

1 i1

I

1

0.25

z

O 0.20

1-

U

47

50

X3: l i i i i l i i i l i i i i l i i t i l i i i i l i i i i i t i

75

100

125

150

175

200

225 250

INDEX OF INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION (MANUFACTURERS)

LAGGED 5 MONTHS (1935-39=100)

Figure 14.- -Net regression of the per capita consumption of domestic extra -longstaple cotton in the United States, 1925 -45, on:

Based on data in Table 22, Appendix.

(A)

The price of American -Egyptian cotton and (B) the index of industrial production.

48

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238 cotton. The average elasticity of this demand curve is -0.8214. This coefficient of elasticity indicates that the demand for domestically produced extra -long -staple cotton is relatively inelastic. Because the demand curve is relatively inelastic, the

In terms of total revenue from the consumption of domestic extra -long -staple cotton is influenced relatively little by price.

crop, the nature of the demand

curve indicates that a relatively small crop would result in

a greater total revenue than either an average crop or a large crop.

Production of a crop either larger or smaller than normal results in wide fluctuations in price.

The nature of the demand curve also exerts an important influence upon supply. Even if conditions of production in the producing areas were favorable to the production of extra- long -staple cotton, the matter of stabilizing supply would be difficult. Apparently production would have to be synchronized with fluctuations in business conditions rather than with fluctuations in price to equate supply and demand.

Tariff and Import Quota History

In 1789, the first United States Tariff Act specifically exempted raw cotton from duty. Beginning on December 1, 1790, that Act imposed a duty of 3 cents a pound on all cotton. The history of the tariff acts as they affect cotton is outlined below:

Date

Duty in cents per pound

Comment

Dec.

1789 - Dec.

1, 1790 All raw cotton free of duty

1, 1790 - -

1812 - -

1812

1816

1846

3c on all cotton

6c on all cotton

3c on all cotton

1846 - -

1862 All raw cotton free of duty

1864 %c on all cotton

Action established by various tariff

1864 - -

1865

1866

2c on all cotton

5c on all cotton

1866 - -

1868 3c on all cotton

1868 - May 27, 1921

All raw cotton free of duty

May 28, 1921 - Sept. 21, 1922 7c on all lengths 1% acts.

inches and longer

Sept. 22, 1922 - June 17, 1930

All raw cotton free of duty

June 18, 1930 - July 28, 1942

7c on all lengths 1% inches and longer

July 29, 1942 -

31%zc on all lengths 11,E inches and longer

Trade agreements with Peru which became applicable to all nations.

A trade agreement between the United States and Peru provided that the 7 cent duty on all lengths of cotton 11/8 inches and longer would be reduced to 31/2 cents effective July 29, 1942. Subsequently that trade agreement became applicable to all countries. At the present time the duty on long -staple cotton remains at 31/2 cents a pound. In May, 1951, a trade conference was held at Torquay,

14This coefficient of elasticity was derived by substituting following formula: Qi - Q2

Pi + P2

X

PI P2

Q1 +Q2 proper values in the

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

49

England, and the President was authorized to reduce the duty on long -staple cotton by 50 per cent. If such action is taken, the duty could become as low as 1% cents a pound.

In 1939, the President imposed an annual import quota of 45,656,420 pounds on cotton having a staple of 11/8 inches or more in length.

Authority for this action was provided for under Section 22 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 as amended and Executive

Order 7233 of November 23, 1935. From time to time this annual import quota has been modified. A summary of its establishment and its modifications follows:

September 20, 1939: A 45,656,420 pound quota was established on long staple cotton 11/8 inches in length and longer. This quota was the sum of the country quotas which were based on the average imports from each country in the two highest recent years prior to 1939.

December 19, 1940: Cotton 116 inches or longer was removed from quota restriction.

July 29, 1942

June 16, 1947

: Sum of country quotas was made global, thus eliminating separate quotas for each country.

: A supplemental quota of 23,094,000 pounds of cotton 1% to 1 4 inches long for the quota year 1946 -47 was opened.

July 20, 1948

:

Supplemental quota of 18,000,000 pounds of cotton 11 /8 to 1-H inches long for the quota year 1947 -48 was opened.

September

3, 1949: By Presidential Proclamation the opening date of the quota year on cotton 11,E inches or

more but less than la inches in length was

changed from September 20 to February 1, effective February 1, 1950. From September

20, 1949 to February 1, 1950 an interim quota of 16,487,042 pounds ( 41/3 months' supply on the basis of the regular annual quota of 45,-

656,420 pounds) was opened.

October 12, 1950

:

Supplemental quota of 7,500,000 pounds of cotton 1% inches or more but less than 1H. inches in length for the 1950 -51 quota year was opened.

No analysis of the specific effects of the tariff duties long- staple cotton was attempted in this study.

or the import quotas on the _production or consumption of long -staple or extra -

OUTLOOK

The consumption of American -Egyptian cotton has declined steadily since 1920 except during World War II. In contrast, consumption of all extra- long -staple cotton in the United States has gradually increased since 1928. Since the establishment of the American

Egyptian industry, the United States has never produced enough

extra- long -staple cotton to meet all her requirements. During 1944 -49, production of American- Egyptian cotton was small. What is the significance of these facts? Do they indicate that the American-

50

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Egyptian cotton industry will soon pass completely out of the picture? Will it be possible to revive the industry?

Unless some factors occur which result in a reversal of these important trends, the future of the American -Egyptian cotton industry appears doubtful, especially in Arizona. The mere fact that domestic consumption of all extra -long- staple cotton the manufacture of thread. It is

has been

increasing through the years is encouraging. A major portion of the American consumption of extra- long -staple cotton is used for

this large share of the market

that American- Egyptian producers should attempt to capture. The principal cotton presently used for this purpose is Karnak which is supplied by Egypt. The present leading American variety of extra- long -staple cotton, Pima 32, is approximately equal to Karnak in respect to fiber propertiest5. Not only is Pima approximately equal to Karnak with respect to fiber properties, but it also outyields by large margins the American- Egyptian varieties formerly produced.

American -Egyptian breeders are constantly attempting to develop new varieties which have both superior fiber properties and higher inherent yield. It is possible that these objectives may be achieved in the near future.

Will we lose our market for American -Egyptian cotton? This is a question often raised by Arizona cotton producers. The extent of the market for extra -long -staple cotton in the United States is shown in Table 8. Since 1941, at least 100,000 bales of extra -longstaple cotton have been consumed in the United States annually.

During the 1946 -49 period, consumption of this type cotton exceeded domestic production by approximately 100,000 bales annually, or about 95 per cent of total consumption. Data presented in Table

10 indicate that there is a large market in the United States for extra- long -staple cotton. Moreover, data were presented which indicate that this market is expanding.

In view of the fact that a large market for extra- long -staple cotton exists in the United States, and that there is now an American variety equivalent to Karnak in respect to fiber properties, can the American -Egyptian industry be revived? Many informed people have said that America must compete price wise with Egypt to gain a substantial share of the market. Fundamentally this statement is true as far as it goes. But it must be predicated upon the assumption that American -Egyptian cotton could compete quality wise.

Fortunately, Pima 32 can do that now. Assume for a moment that

American -Egyptian cotton does compete price wise with Egyptian

cotton. Would a greater share of the market be gained? Not

necessarily.

It is possible that American- Egyptian cotton could compete with Egyptian cotton price wise and still not gain a large share of the market because of unstable supplies. In order to get American- Egyptian cotton produced in the American producing areas, it must be a better alternative than Upland cotton.

15lnformation supporting this contention was supplied by Dr. Burt Johnson, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, Tennessee, in correspondence dated

February 22, 1951.

TABLE 8.- UNITED STATES MILL CONSUMPTION, SUPPLY, AND PRO-

DUCTION DEFICIT OF EXTRA- LONG -STAPLE COTTON, BY YEARS

Year

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1 a

112.3

87.0

61.8

26.7

67.7

44.8

62.8

89.6

99.7

56.3

75.0

78.4

92.0

140.1

163.1

116.5

113.5

107.4

1,000 bales a a a a a a a a a a a a

143.7

150.7

101.0

119.6

Total mill consumpproducproduction

Domestic supply

American-

Egyptian Sea Island tion tion"

American-

Egyptian carryovert

2

1,000 bales

1.2

20.6

15.5

25.4

30.0

30.0

24.0

14.6

8.7

10.0

14.7

18.6

18.3

11.6

21.5

28.0

33.6

59.4

74.2

60.3

8.8

4.1

2.5

1.2

3.3

16.2

37.2

40.5

91.7

38.3

34.0

23.0

4.4

3.6

4.0

0.1

0.7

3.2

3.4

1.8

4.0

2.8

0.7

0.3

b

3

1,000 bales

73.5

94.0

74.1

41.8

5.5

1.5

2.7

4.1

0.6

b b b b b b b b b h b b b b b

0.1

16.5

9.8

7.0

8.6

7.0

5.5

7.9

10.3

13.7

15.7

24.9

36.7

65.5

31.9

5.7

3.7

.2.5

1.9

4

1,000 bales a a a a

21.7

18.6

55.2

59.5

29.2

15.2

4.4

9.1

6.4

5.8

7.2

8.1

16.7

Total

5

1,000 bales

74.7

97.3

90.3

79.0

67.7

111.8

96.2

97.6

52.8

19.6

25.0

24.6

31.9

35.8

37.2

32.1

31.3

25.2

19.8

99.8

97.3

74.3

36.0

8.2

4.9

6.1

5.9

21.7

27.3

26.0

20.3

32.8

40.1

51.3

77.9

Production deficit as a per cent of

Productotal mill tion consumpdeficit tion

6

1,000 bales

7

Per cent

63.3

19.2

39.2

71.4

135.5

145.8

94.9

113.7

62.3

73.7

36.0

42.2

38.3

40.7

62.2

76.5

49.8

29.7

4.6*

42.5

25.0

41.1

* Because Sea Island cotton bales were reported as 400 pound bales, these data were converted to a 500 -pound basis (multiply by 0.8) .

t Carry -over of Sea Island cotton was excluded because the production of this cotton has been negligible since 1919.

Prior to this year carry -over statistics were not available.

Production surplus.

a Not available.

b Less than 100 bales.

Source of data:

Col. 1: From Table 7, Text.

Col. 2: From Table 3, Appendix.

Col. 3: 1915 -27: A. M. Agellasto, et al.: Some Phases of the Long -Staple Cotton

Situation in the United States, USDA, BAE, July, 1932, p. 23.

1928 -49: U. S. Tariff Commission, Summaries of Tariff Information, Paragraph 783, Table 4, p. 208.

Col. 4: 1928 -42: H. G. Porter: Some Phases of the American- Egyptian Cotton

Situation and Outlook with

Statistical Supplement, USDA,

BAE, December, 1943, p. 28.

1943 -49: Cotton Quality Statistics, United States, USDA, BAE, Annual

Issues.

56.3

48.9

44.2

44.4

38.8

16.5

34.5

66.5

94.3

96.7

94.0

95.1

68.1

57.2

48.1

17.2

62.8

55.8

85.4

69.5

73.9

63.9

52

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN

8

Col. 5: Sum of columns 2, 3, and 4.

Col. 6: Column 1 minus column 5.

Col. 7: Column 6 divided by column 1.

Since 1933, American- Egyptian cotton has usually been a poor alternative to Upland cotton, especially in Arizona. What, then, is the answer to the problem?

A key to the survival and revival of the American- Egyptian cotton industry lies in yield. The yields of American- Egyptian cotton relative to Upland cotton must be increased. A comparison of yield ratios in Egypt and in Arizona follows:

Year

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1940 -47 average

Karnak /Ashmouni- Zagora yield ratios*

0.82

0.93

0.99

0.72

0.72

0.80

0.63

0.70

0.78

American -Egyptian - Upland yield ratios

0.45

0.44

0.45

0.42

0.65

0.78

0.66

0.52

0.55

* Based on data appearing in: Cotton in Egypt, p. 69.

During the 1940 -47 period, the average yield ratio in Egypt was

0.78 as compared with 0.55 in Arizona. Because of small acreage influences on yields in four years out of this eight

-year period, the Arizona yield ratio of 0.55 is somewhat overstated. Perhaps a yield ratio of 0.50 would be a more representative figure. If the production of American -Egyptian cotton in Arizona averaged 78 per cent of the production of Upland cotton, Arizona would be in a much better position to compete with Egypt for the domestic extra -long -staple market.

Yields of American -Egyptian cotton can be increased through improved production techniques and development of higher yielding varieties. For reasons discussed above, Arizona producers do not achieve the yield potential possible from American -Egyptian cotton.

Production techniques can be improved through experience and by educational activity. Much effort is being made to increase the yields of American -Egyptian cotton through breeding work. It is encouraging to note that important gains have been made in this direction. But still greater gains must be achieved. The amounts of money expended on breeding work and research on American

-

Egyptian cotton have been relatively small compared to Upland cotton. If progress is to be made in developing higher yielding varieties through breeding, it appears that much more money will have to expended on research and breeding work.

At the present time the Government is contributing most of the money for breeding of better American- Egyptian cotton. Arizona

Cotton Planting Seed Distributors as well as some Arizona cotton growers also are financially supporting this work. Extra- long -staple cotton is considered strategic materiel for military purposes. As long as this cotton remains essential to national defense, it appears

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

53 that money required to develop high- yielding varieties to stabilize production should be contributed by the entire country.

Factors other than yield are important in reviving the American

-

Egyptian cotton industry. Prices and price trends are important.

Should the price of Upland cotton become cheap in relation to

American -Egyptian cotton a great incentive would be provided for the revival of the American -Egyptian cotton industry. The trends at present have been in the opposite direction, that is, American

-

Egyptian cotton has become cheap relative to Upland cotton. A general shortage of cotton in the world has caused prices of Upland cotton to become high relative to American- Egyptian cotton. Because

Egypt is the major source of supply of extra- long -staple cotton in the world, Egyptian output is important in determining the world price. A reduction in the real price of extra -long -staple cotton in the world markets has been brought about through higher yields in Egypt. Reversal of these trends would provide a major incentive for increasing American- Egyptian production.

Political conditions also influence the future level of production of American -Egyptian cotton. As long as political conditions remain unsettled and the western world is on a partial mobilization footing, the United States may wish to stock -pile extra- long -staple cotton.

Should the supply of Egyptian cotton become imperiled, the Government will have to turn to the irrigated Southwest to obtain the necessary supply of this cotton. Under such conditions should the price become too high, synthetic fibres will be substituted progressively more for extra -long- staple cotton. Although political conditions exert a great influence on the prospective production of this crop, they probably will prove to be only of a temporary nature. In evaluating the future prospects for the industry, probably more weight should be given to the basic underlying trends discussed above than to political conditions.

54

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, H. B.,

Cotton, McGraw -Hill Book Company,

London, 1938.

Dunn,

R.

T.,

Jr.,

Tennessee, 1949.

Cotton in

Egypt, National

Inc., New York and

Cotton Council, Memphis,

, Cotton in the Anglo- Egyptian Sudan, National Cotton Council,

Memphis, Tennessee, 1949.

Harland, S. C., The Genetics of Cotton, Jonathan Cape, 30 Bedford Square,

London, 1939.

Hastings, S. H. and Noble, E. G., Pima- Egyptian Cotton in Irrigated Rotations at the Yuma Field Station, Bard, California, U.S.D.A., Tech. Bul. 369, August, 1933.

International Institute of Agriculture, The Cotton Growing Countries, Present and Potential, P. S. King and Son, Ltd., London, 1926.

Johnson, A. J., Townsend, J. S., and Walton, T. C., American- Egyptian Cotton

Quality and Ginning, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., B.P.I., and Bur. of Agr. Chem. and

Engr., October, 1941.

Kearney, T. H., and Peterson, W. A., Egyptian Cotton in the Southwestern

United States, U.S.D.A., B.P.I., Bul. 128, June, 1908.

Kearney, T. H., Breeding New Types of Egyptian Cotton, U.S.D.A., B.P.I.,

Bul. 200, 1910.

, Uniformity of Pima Cotton, U.S.D.A., Dept. Cir. 247, October 1922.

Kearney, T. H., Peebles, R. H., and Smith, E. G., SxP in Comparison With

Pima, U.S.D.A., Cir. 550, April, 1940.

King, G. J., Beckett, R. E., and Parker, O., Agricultural Investigations at the

United States Field Station, Sacaton, Arizona, 1931 -35, U.S.D.A., Cir.

479,

July, 1938.

Lord, E., "The Production and Characteristics of the World's Cotton Crops; Part

II, Egypt," The Journal of the Textile Institute, Vol. 38, April 1947, T 167 -211.

McLure, J.

H., Market Outlets for Extra -Long- Staple Cotton in the United

States, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Agr. Inf. Bul. No. 33, December, 1950. (Processed.)

Martin, J.

G., The Handling and Marketing of the Arizona- Egyptian Cotton of the Salt River Valley, U.S.D.A., Bul. 311, November, 1915.

Merrill, G. R., Macormac, A. R., and Mauersberger, H. R., American Cotton

Handbook, First Edition, American Cotton Handbook Company, New York, 1941.

,

American Cotton Handbook, Second Revised Edition, Textile

Book Publishers, Inc., New York, 1949.

Norris, P. K., Cotton Production in Egypt, U.S.D.A., Tech. Bul. 451, October, 1934.

Peebles, R. H., Pure Seed Production of Egyptian Type Cotton, U.S.D.A., Cir.

646, April, 1942.

Porter, H. G., Some Phases of the American -Egyptian Cotton Situation and

Outlook With

Statistical

Supplement, U.S.D.A., B.A.E.,

December, 1943.

(Processed.)

Pressley, E. H., Whitaker, R., and Barr, G. W., American -Egyptian Cotton

Utilization,

Supplies, and Prices, Univ. of Ariz. Agr. Exp.

January, 1943.

Sta.

Bul. 167,

Reed, W. G., "Competing Cottons and United States Production," Economic

Geography, Vol. 8, July, 1932, pp. 280 -98.

Scofield, C. S., Kearney, et. al., Community Production of Egyptian Cotton in the United States, U.S.D.A., Bul. 332, January, 1916.

,

Production of American- Egyptian Cotton, U.S.DA., Bul. 742,

January, 1919.

Shabana, Z. M., "Competitive Situation of Egyptian Cotton in the American

Market," Journal of Farm Economics, May, 1951, pp. 216 -21.

Shaw, W. K., Jr., American- Egyptian Cottons, E. A. Shaw and Company, Inc.,

128 Washington Street, Boston, Mass., May, 1950.

Taylor, Fred, and Earle, D. E., Manufacturing and Laboratory Tests to Produce an Improved Cotton for Airplane Fabric, U.S.D.A., Bul. 882, 1920.

United States Tariff Commission, Long- Staple Cotton, Report No.

Series, 1935.

,

85, 2nd

Supplemental Import Quota on Long- Staple Cotton, Report No.

158, 2nd Series, 1947.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

55

,

2nd Series, 1948.

The Import Quota on Long- Staple Cotton, Report No.

161,

,

Import Quota on Long- Staple Cotton, Report No. 166, 2nd

Series, 1949.

,

Harsh or Rough Long -Staple Cotton and Extra -Long- Staple

Cotton, Report No. 171, 2nd Series, 1951.

Wells, C. F., and Cooper, M. R., The Tariff on Long- Staple Cotton and Its

Effects, U.S.D.A., B.A.E., July 1938. (Processed.)

Willis, H. H., Utilization of Pima Cotton, U.S.D.A., Bul. 1184, November, 1923.

Yearbook of Agriculture 1926, U.S.D.A., pp. 251 -54.

Yearbook of Agriculture 1934, U.S.D.A., pp. 167 -69.

Yearbook of Agriculture 1936, U.S.D.A., pp. 694 -95.

56

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

APPENDIX TABLES

TABLE 1.- AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON ACREAGE HARVESTED,

CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND

UNITED STATES, 1911 -50

Year

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1928

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

California* New Mexicot

Acres

30

150

62

550¶

Acres

2,400

6,600

1,500

43,000

9,100

100

500

80

1,780

18,500

23,200

17,900

1,070

400

268

160

800

940

16,500

Texas/

Acres

1,300

15,550

32,975

25,000

4,500

1,200

780

1,000

1,600

2,050

42,200

Arizona§

Acres

67,000

46,000

35,000

22,000

26,000

28,000

39,000

38,000

20,000

44,000

41,000

65,000

101,000

129,000

95,000

9,000

5,000

2,000

300

1,600

2,600

44,000

400

4,000

12,000

2,600

7,300

33,000

72,260

86,200

200,000

71,400

77,000

40,000

' 8,000

40,000

27,000

44,000

51,000

United

States

Acres

30

550

4,062

12,550

2,600

7,300

35,400

78,860

87,700

243,000

80,500

77,100

40,000

8,000

40,000

27,000

44,000

51,000

67,000

46,000

35,000

22,000

26,000

28,000

39,00()

38,000

20,000

44,000

41,080

68,080

135,050

185,175

137,900

14,570

6,600

3,048

1,460

4,000

5,590

103,200

°Imperial Valley.

¡Dona Ana County.

/District 6 (Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Pecos, Presidio,

Reeves, and Ward counties).

§Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

¶Includes 100 acres grown in Mexico; yield 250 lb.; production, 50 bales.

Sources of data:

California

:

1911 -14 and 1917 -22: H. B. Brown, Cotton (6th ed.; New York:

McGraw -Hill Book Co., Inc., 1938) p. 562. Brown quotes BAE,

Washington, D. C., as his source. 1950: The Federal Crop and

Livestock Reporting Service for Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix,

Arizona, release of May 17, 1951.

New Mexico: 1939 -49: Fred Daniels, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Las Cruces, New Mexico, correspondence, October 9, 1950. 1950:

Federal Crop Reporting Service, release of May 17, 1951.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

57

Texas

Arizona

:

:

1940 -49: V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950. 1950: Federal

Crop Reporting Service, release of May 17, 1951.

1912 -17: H. B. Brown, Cotton, p. 562. Brown quotes BAE,

Washington, D. C., as his source.

1918 -21: Estimates assembled by George W. Barr, Extension

Economist, University of Arizona, October 1930.

1922 -25: Brown, op. cit., p. 562.

1926: Edward C. Paxton, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Phoenix, Arizona, figures of record as of June 1939.

1927: Brown, op. cit., p. 562.

1928: Paxton, op. cit.

1929 -30: Brown, op.

cit., p. 562.

1931 -38: Paxton, op.

cit.

1939 -40: M. R. Wells, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, AMS,

Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 26, 1941.

1941 -42: Ibid., USDA, BAE, release of May 5, 1943.

1943 -44:

The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of June 16, 1945.

1945: Ibid., release of September 12, 1947.

1946- 47:Ibid., release of July 7, 1949.

1948 -49: Ibid., release o August 3, 1950.

1950: Ibid., release of May 17, 1951.

United States: Computed by summing California, New Mexico, Texas, and Ari-

1911-50

: zona acreages each year.

58

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 2.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON YIELD PER HARVESTED

ACRE, CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND

UNITED STATES, 1911 -50*

Year

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

Californiat

New Mexico* Texas§

Lbs. lint

478

370

301

96

Lbs. lint Lbs. lint

197

218

215

107

173

311

191

305

358

264

168

288

330

275

458

302

481

381

238

482

236

146

264

255

355

488

450

521

350

214

Arizonan

Lbs. lint

United

States

199

189

184

251

227

231

276

234

326

236

210

192

209

289

298

392

395

433

344

297

Lbs. lint

478

309

263

240

211

216

219

226

221

180

228

211

274

261

246

275

276

281

214

249

246

275

276

281

214

249

199

189

184

251

227

231

276

234

326

228

196

208

180

300

287

346

260

320

325

401

287

263

247

211

216

220

226

221

196

235

210

274

261

*All yields computed from acreage and production data in Tables 1 and 3 by

Production use of the following equation: Acreage harvested X 478 = 1h. lint per acre.

tlmperial Valley.

*Dona Ana County.

§District 6 ( Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Pecos, Presidio,

Reeves, and Ward counties).

nPrincipally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

TABLE 3.- AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCTION, CALIFORNIA,

NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA AND UNITED STATES, 1911 -50

Year

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

California*

Baleslf

30

116

30

110 °°

990

3,007

675

9,650

3,300

65

200

New Mexicot

Baleslf

51

1,333

10,232

8,130

10,790

738

230

257

101

805

750

8,200

Texast

Baleslf

1,310

7,665

10,099

13,800

2,400

890

796

941

1,745

1,500

18,900

Arizona§

Baleslf

25,439

30,000

30,000

24,000

14,594

8,707

9,989

14,707

18,552

18,343

11,556

21,499

240

2,200

6,200

1,150

3,300

15,200

34,227

39,817

82,041

35,032

33,907

22,960

4,374

20,586

15,512

28,000

31,000

41,500

56,000

35,700

5,658

3,000

1,447

163

1,070

1,770

36,900

United

States

Bales11

30

356

2,239

6,310

1,150

30,000

24,000

14,594

8,707

9,989

14,707

18,552

18,343

11,556

21,499

28,051

33,643

59,397

74,229

60,290

8,796

4,120

2,500

1,205

3,620

4,020

64,200

3,300

16,190

37,234

40,492

91,691

38,332

33,972

22,960

4,374

20,586

15,512

25,439

30,000

°Imperial Valley.

tDona Ana County.

tDistrict 6 (Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth,

Jeff Davis,

Loving, Pecos,

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

§Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham Counties.

1478 lb. net or 500 lb. gross weight.

° °Includes 100 acres grown in Mexico; yield, 250 lb.; production, 50 bales.

Sources of data:

California

:

1911 -14 and 1917 -22: H. B. Brown, Cotton (6th ed.; New York:

McGraw -Hill Book Co., Inc. 1938), p. 562. Brown quotes BAE,

Washington, D. C., as his source.

1950: The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 17, 1951.

New Mexico: 1939 -49: Fred Daniels, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Las Cruces, New Mexico, correspondence, October 9, 1950.

1950: Federal Crop Reporting Service, release of May 17, 1951.

Texas

:

1940 -49: V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950.

1950: Federal Crop Reporting Service, release of May 17, 1951.

60

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Arizona

United

States

:

1912 -26: Brown, op. cit., p. 562.

1927: Edward C. Paxton, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Phoenix, Arizona, figures of record as of June 1939.

1928 -30: Brown, op. cit., p. 562.

1931 -38: Paxton, op. cit.

1939 -40: M. R. Wells, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, AMS,

Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 26, 1941.

1941 -42: Ibid., USDA, BAE, release of May 5, 1943.

1943 -44: The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of June 16, 1945.

1945: Ibid., release of September 12, 1947.

1946 -47: Ibid., release of July 7, 1949.

1948 -49: Ibid., release of August 3, 1950.

1950: Ibid., release of May 17, 1951.

: Computed by summing California, New Mexico, Texas and

Arizona acreages each year.

TABLE 4.- UPLAND COTTON ACREAGE HARVESTED IN THE

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF

CALIFORNIA,

NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA TOTAL, 1911 -50

Year

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925 a a a a a a a a

California.

New Mexicot

Acres

11,620

7,875

25,940

34,000

10,000

54,600

68,100

54,500

53,745

65,700

30,200

44,450

47,000

58,400 a a a b b b b b b b b b

Acres b b b b b b b b a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

54,300

56,520

50,000

43,500

39,800

39,600

33,500

31,500

43,900

55,800

34,020

33,470

35,260

34,400

34,800

37,300

52,300

56,350

58,900

66,000

72,200

75,800

Texast

Acres b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

101,820

94,760

98,470

82,040

56,680

72,450

53,730

52,360

66,160

91,870

60,621

62,980

65,320

61,890

60,450

62,700

78,400

81,860

85,370

104,280

138,400

175,130

Arizona§

Acres

375

5,300

2,200

5,500

8,100

22,300

21,000

30,000

18,600

24,000

87,000

172,000

122,000

140,000

95,000

151,000

159,000

164,000

149,000

91,000

113,000

109,871

121,000

170,000

286,720

161,371

147,000

155,000

150,000

142,000

107,000

135,000

149,000

143,000

224,700

279,400

397,400

231,000

Area total

230,400

122,000

140,000

95,000

307,120

310,280

312,470

274,540

187,480

225,050

197,101

204,880

280,060

434,390

256,012

243,450

255,580

Acres

11,620

7,875

26,315

39,300

12,200

60,100

76,200

76,800

74,745

95,700

48,800

68,450

134,000

246,290

237,250

207,000

265,700

287,210

287,270

394,980

490,000

648,330

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

61

°Imperial Valley.

tDona Ana County.

District 6

(Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth,

Jeff Davis, Loving,

Pecos,

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

(Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of Ameriban- Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

Sources of data:

California

:

1911 -24: R. E. Blair, Agricultural Statistician (cotton), USDA,

BAE, Sacramento, California, correspondence, January 4, 1951.

New Mexico: 1928 -38: Fred Daniels, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Las Cruces, New Mexico, correspondence, December 26, 1950.

Texas

:

1939 -49: Ibid., correspondence, October 9, 1950.

1928 -39: Cotton Statistics for Texas, Texas Agri. Exp. Sta. Circular 117, September 1947, Table 3.

1940 -49: V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Arizona

:

Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950.

1913 -27: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 7.

1928 -29: M. R. Wells, State Statistician, USDA, BAE, Phoenix,

Arizona, correspondence, July 26, 1934.

1930 -33: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 7.

1934: Carl Teeter, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, correspondence, January 1937.

1935 -36: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 7.

1937: Teeter, op. cit., correspondence, June 3, 1938.

1938: Ibid., correspondence, May 17, 1940.

1939 -40: M. R. Wells, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, AMS,

Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 26, 1941.

1941 -42: Ibid., USDA, BAE, release of May 5, 1943.

1943 -44: The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of June 16, 1945.

1945: Ibid., release of September 12, 1947.

1946 -47: Ibid., release of July 7, 1949.

1948 -49: Ibid., release of August 3, 1950.

1950: Ibid., release of May 17, 1951.

Area Total

:

1911 -50: Computed by summing California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, each year.

62 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 5.- UPLAND COTTON YIELD PER HARVESTED ACRE IN THE

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF CALIFORNIA,

NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA AVERAGE, 1911 -50°

Year

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

California?

New Mexico?

Lbs. lint

390

467

323

332

332 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

171 a a a

317

215

243

220

221

180

106

243

Lbs. lint b b b b b b

Texas§

Lbs. lint b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

317

298

305

350

318

329

486

385

456

508

464

534

561

468

503

442

441

462

550

515

477

512 b b b b b b b b b b b

452

343

456

516

391

500

714

555

576

644

685

714

784

727

606

628

588

538

659

637

873

668

Arizona

Lbs. lint

Area total

Lbs. lint

390

467 e c e e

386

364

330

373

343

369

361

333

377

508

455

493

522

527

578

555

490

493

487

480

427

559

525

557

616

235

297

287

256

209

180

282

258 c e e e

386

364

330

383

370

382

322

317

364

401

428

459

334

256

261

302

288

453

460

485

503

517

566

506

445

461

426

462

366

523

497

559

651

903

°All yields computed from acreage and production data in Tables 4 and 6 by

Production use of the following equation: Acreage harvested X 478 = lb. lint per acre.

tlmperial Valley.

?Dona Ana County.

§District 6 (Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties ).

Davis, Loving,

Pecos,

11Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of American -Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

CData not available.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

63

TABLE 6.- UPLAND COTTON PRODUCTION IN THE AMERICAN -

EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, NEW

MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA TOTAL, 1911 -50

Year

California* New Mexicot

Texas+

Arizona§

Area total a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

Baleslf

9,483

7,700

17,549

23,635

6,950

36,160

30,607

27,750

24,755

30,331

11,363

9,834

23,929

20,873 a a a

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

Bales4 b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

67,570

59,120

62,800

60,070

37,760

49,870

54,670

42,180

63,110

97,660

58,840

70,390

76,620

60,600

63,657

57,945

72,345

79,040

98,229

112,442

138,030

187,670

Baleslf b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

51,300

40,520

47,740

47,000

32,590

41,440

50,050

36,550

52,900

75,190

48,760

49,991

56,346

52,338

44,110

49,000

64,302

63,470

81,170

87,899

105,585

106,000

Bales4 Balesll

9,483

7,700 e c e e

37,407

47,738

44,938

51,290

21,331

22,927

78,969

124,490

98,414

106,488

65,561

239,970

222,640

241,540

207,476

130,643

177,321

208,820

195,178

288,667

474,294

282,181

294,381

296,966

252,438

244,767

202,245

266,989

256,510

335,952

434,178

570,545

834,900 c e e e

6,800

19,988

20,183

20,959

9,968

13,093

55,040

103,626

98,414

106,488

65,561

121,100

123,000

131,000

100,406

60,293

86,011

104,100

116,448

172,657

301,444

174,581

174,000

164,000

139,500

137,000

95,300

130,342

114,000

156,553

233,837

326,930

541,230

437,000

°Imperial Valley.

tDona Ana County.

+District

6

( Principally in

El Paso, Hudspeth,

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

Jeff Davis, Loving,

Pecos,

§Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

1478 lb. net or 500 lb. gross weight.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of American -Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

eData not available.

Sources of data:

California

:

1911 -24: R. E. Blair, Agrictultural Statistician (cotton), USDA,

BAE, Sacramento, California, correspondence, January 4, 1951.

New Mexico: 1928 -38: Fred Daniels, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Las Cruces, New Mexico, correspondence, December 26,1950.

1939 -49: Ibid., correspondence, October 9, 1950.

Year

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

84 EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Texas

:

1928 -39: Cotton Statistics for Texas, Texas Agri. Exp. Station

Circular 117, September 1947, Table 3.

1940 -49: V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE,

Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10,

1950.

Arizona

:

1917 -27: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 9.

1928: M. R. Wells, State Statistician, USDA, BAE, Phoenix,

Arizona, correspondence, July 26, 1934.

1929 -33: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 9.

1934: Carl Teeter, Agricultural Adjustment Administration, correspondence, January 1937.

1935 -50: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 9.

Area Total

:

1911 -50: Computed by summing California, New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona, each year.

TABLE 7. -ALL COTTON ACREAGE HARVESTED IN THE AMERICAN -

EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, NEW

MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA TOTAL, 1911 -50

California° New Mexicot

Texas#

Acres

11,650

8,025

26,002

34,550

10,000

54,600

70,500

61,100

55,245

108,700

39,300

44,550

47,000

58,400 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a b b b b b b b b b b b b

Acres b b b b b

101,820

94,760

98,470

82,040

56,680

72,450

53,730

52,360

66,160

91,870

60,621

62,980

66,620

77,440

93,425

87,700

82,900

83,060

86,150

105,280

140,000

177,180

Acres b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

54,300

56,520

50,000

43,500

39,800

39,600

33,500

31,500

43,900

55,800

34,020

33,550

37,040

52,900

58,000

55,200

53,370

56,750

59,168

66,160

73,000

76,740

Area total

Acres

11,650

8,425

30,377

51,850

14,800

67,400

111,800

155,660

162,445

338,700

129,300

145,550

174,000

238,400

162,000

187,000

139,000

348,120

377,280

358,470

309,540

209,480

251,050

225,101

243,860

318,060

454,390

300,012

284,530

323,660

381,340

422,425

344,900

280,270

293,810

290,318

396,440

494,000

653,920

Arizona§

Acres

205,371

188,000

220,000

251,000

271,000

202,000

144,000

154,000

145,000

225,000

281,000

400,000

275,000

400

4,375

17,300

4,800

12,800

41,100

94,560

107,200

230,000

90,000

101,000

127,000

180,000

162,000

187,000

139,000

202,000

226,000

210,000

184,000

113,000

139,000

137,871

160,000

208,000

306,720

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

65

°Imperial Valley.

tDona Ana County.

#District 6

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

4Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of American- Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

Sources of data:

California, New Mexico, Texas and Area Total: All figures computed from data

Arizona

(Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, in Tables 1 and 4.

:

1912 -24:

Economist, University of Arizona, October 1930.

Loving, Pecos,

Estimates assembled by George W. Barr, Extension

1925 -27: M. R. Wells, State Statistician, USDA, BAE, Phoenix,

Arizona.

1928 -29: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 4.

1930 -33: Rasor and Minor, Farm Production, Farm Disposition, and Value of Cotton and Cottonseed and Related Data, 1928 -42,

USDA, BAE, Washington, D.C., June 1944, p.

10.

1934: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 4.

1935 -36: Rasor and Minor, op. cit., p. 10.

1937 -38: Computed from acreage figures in Tables 1 and 4.

1939 -40: M. R. Wells, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, AMS,

Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 26, 1941.

1941 -42: Ibid., USDA, BAE, release of May 5, 1943.

1943 -44: The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 7, 1945.

1945: Ibid., release of September 12, 1947.

1946 -47: Ibid., release of July 7, 1949.

1948 -49: Ibid., release of August 3, 1950.

1950: Ibid., release of May 17, 1951.

66

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 8. -ALL COTTON YIELD PER HARVESTED ACRE IN THE

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF CALIFORNIA,

NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA TOTAL, 1911 -50*

Year

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

Lbs. lint

390

466

323

329

332

317

214

241

220

176

178

106

243

171 a a a

Californiat New Mexicot

Texas§

Lbs. lint b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

452

343

456

516

391

500

714

555

576

644

685

713

744

565

431

518

583

537

658

636

697

665

Lbs. lint b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

456

508

464

534

559

421

377

391

431

460

549

515

477

510

317

298

305

350

318

329

486

385

Area total

Lbs. lint

390

457 e e e e

230

261

251

202

221

187

280

258

351

349

313

360

320

354

343

318

357

475

419

461

511

484

542

488

391

361

364

470

424

557

525

556

613

ArizonaII

Lbs. lint

287 e e e e

403

439

488

456

514

424

345

340

310

451

363

521

313

358

324

353

299

292

330

412

256

274

268

214

239

222

294

287

351

349

497

558

649

824

*All yields computed from acreage and production data in Tables 7 and 9 by

Production use of the following equation.

Acreage harvested

X 478 = lb. lint per acre.

tlmperial Valley.

Mona Ana County.

§District 6 (Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth,

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

Jeff

Davis, Loving, Pecos, ifPrincipally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of American- Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

CData not available.

TABLE 9. -ALL COTTON PRODUCTION IN THE AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN

COTTON PRODUCING AREAS OF CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO,

TEXAS, ARIZONA, AND AREA TOTAL, 1911 -50

California* a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

Bales li

9,513

7,816

17,588

23,745

6,950

36,160

31,597

30,757

25,430

39,981

14,663

9,899

23,929

20,873 a a a

Year

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950 b b b b b b b b b b b

51,300

40,520

47,740

47,000

32,590

41,440

50,050

36,550

52,900

75,190

48,760

50,042

57,679

62,570

52,240

59,790

65,040

63,700

81,427

88,000

106,390

106,750

New Mexicot

Texast

Baleslf b b b b b b

Bales4 b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b

67,570

59,120

62,800

60,070

37,760

49,870

54,670

42,180

63,110

97,660

58,840

70,390

77,930

68,265

73,756

71,745

74,745

79,930

99,025

113,383

139,775

189,170

Arizona§

Baleslf

Area total

Bales4

9,513

8,056 e c e c

53,597

84,972

85,430

142,981

59,663

56,899

101,929

128,873

119,000

122,000

91,000

269,970

252,640

265,540

222,070

139,350

187,310

223,527

213,730

307,010

485,850

303,680

322,432

330,609

311,835

318,996

262,535

275,785

260,630

338,452

435,383

574,165

838,920

240 e e e c

96,000

118,807

135,000

191,000

313,000

196,080

202,000

195,000

181,000

193,000

131,000

136,000

117,000

158,000

234,000

328,000

543,000

474,000

22,000

54,215

60,000

103,000

45,000

47,000

78,000

108,000

119,000

122,000

91,000

151,100

153,000

155,000

115,000

69,000

°Imperial Valley.

TDona Ana County.

tDistrict 6

(Principally in El Paso, Hudspeth, Jeff

Davis,

Loving,

Pecos,

Presidio, Reeves, and Ward counties).

§Principally in Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, and Graham counties.

¶478 lb. net or 500 lb. gross weight.

aData beyond 1924 were not considered pertinent to the study because the last year of American- Egyptian cotton production was 1922.

bData preceding 1928 were not considered pertinent to the study.

cData not available.

Sources of data:

California, New Mexico, Texas, and area total: All figures computed from data in Tables 3 and 6.

Arizona

:

1917: Yearbook of Agriculture, 1930, USDA, Washington, D.C.,

Table 128, p. 682.

1918:

Estimates assembled by George W.

Economist, University of Arizona, October 1930.

D. C., Table 128, p. 682.

Barr, Extension

1919 -27: Yearbook of Agriculture, 1930, USDA, Washington,

1928: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 6.

1929 -33: Edward C. Paxton, Arizona Cotton, USDA, BAE,

Phoenix, Arizona, January 1939, pp. 2 -3.

1934: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 6.

1935 -36: Paxton, op. cit., pp. 3-4.

1937: Edward C. Paxton, State Statistician, USDA, BAE, Phoenix,

Arizona, release of May 29, 1939.

1938: Computed from production figures in Tables 3 and 6.

1939 -40: M. R. Wells, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, AMS,

Phoenix, Arizona, release of May 26, 1941.

1941 -42: Ibid., USDA, BAE, release of May 5, 1943.

1943 -44: The Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, release of June 16, 1945.

1945: Ibid., release of September 12, 1947.

1946 -47: Ibid., release of July 7, 1949.

1948 -49: Ibid., release of August 3, 1950.

1950: Ibid., release of May 17, 1951.

TABLE 10.- UPLAND AND AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON ACREAGE

IN AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS

OF DISTRICT 6, TEXAS

Year

El Paso

Hudspeth

County County

El Paso-

Hudspeth total

Per cent of

Dist. 6

Per cent of

Dist. 6 Dist. 6 total

Other* total total

Upland:

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1938

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

44,370

49,270

52,300

1949

54,390

American- Egyptian:

1940

1941

1,215

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

12,200

18,000

14,800

2,820

900

730

930

1,500

1,610

50,800

47,000

48,700

51,300

32,500

38,900

29,600

28,900

36,600

45,900

30,000

31,100

32,195

28,600

29,000

28,500

38,180

44,100

16,800

15,610

16,250

8,770

7,070

9,750

8,200

7,750

8,100

9,900

7,490

8,360

8,150

7,400

7,400

7,000

9,600

10,900

12,950

15,370

18,100

23,500

40

1,150

3,500

2,000

250

300

50

30

100

400

67,600

62,610

64,950

60,070

39,570

48,650

37,800

36,650

44,700

55,800

37,490

39,480

40,345

36,000

36,400

35,500

47,780

55,000

57,320

64,640

70,400

77,890

1,255

13,350

21,500

16,800

3,070

1,200

780

980

1,600

2,010

61

67

67

62

51

44

62

63

62

58

60

57

66

66

66

73

70

67

70

70

68

61

97

86

65

67

68

100

100

96

100

98

45

2,200

11,475

8,200

1,430

0

0

40

0

40

33

30

30

32

39

38

37

38

34

34

34

27

30

42

40

43

39

33

33

38

49

56

34,220

32,150

33,520

21,970

17,110

23,800

15,930

15,710

21,460

36,070

23,131

23,520

24,975

25,890

24,050

27,200

30,620

26,860

28,050

39,640

68,000

97,240

32

0

0

4

0

2

3

14

35

33

101,820

94,760

98,470

82,040

58,680

72,450

53,730

52,360

66,160

91,870

60,621

62,980

65,320

61,890

60,450

62,700

78,400

81,860

85,370

104,280

138,400

175,130

1,300

15,550

32,975

25,000

4,500

1,200

780

1,000

1,600

2,050

"Includes Jeff

Source:

1928 -39:

1940 -49:

Davis, Loving, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves and Ward counties.

Cotton Statistics for Texas, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 117, September 1947, pp. 21 -23.

V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE, Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

69

TABLE 11.- UPLAND AND AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON YIELDS IN

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING AREAS

OF DISTRICT 6, TEXAS

Year

El Paso-

Per cent of

El Paso Hudspeth Hudspeth

Dist. 6

County

County area average

Other*

Per cent of

Dist. 6

Dist. 6 average average

Lb. lint

Upland:

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

689

590

595

782

732

763

1949 734

American -Egyptian:

1940 487

485

592

695

633

729

755

665

828

427

370

417

376

407

447

648

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

258

194

385

301

380

491

454

532

378

Lb. lint

307

298

252

464

274

294

422

293

404

441

429

437

467

331

417

423

419

462

593

507

489

575

418

206

141

220

172

279

440

478

359

253

Lb. lint

485

254

186

365

291

355

488

455

521

353

125

124

128

116

144'

126

123

134

132

145

134

125

118

123

111

121

127

123

115

122

128

128

592

667

697

597

585

636

558

569

739

679

693

686

397

352

376

388

384

417

599

444

558

650

101

108

127

137

114

100

100

101

100

101

Lb. lint

159

188

262

242

164

249

253

373

193

167

245

168

150

220

247

244

289

257

312

341

289

380

393

126

73

57

178

323

179

82

53

50

22

70

_._.

45

64

54

57

55

50

65

55

70

53

46

52

30

48

53

73

58

61

62

76

43

59

72

51

Lb. lint

385

456

508

464

534

561

468

503

442

441

462

550

515

477

512

317

298

305

350

318

329

486

482

236

146

264

255

355

488

450

521

350

°Includes Jeff

Source:

1928 -39:

1940 -49:

Davis, Loving, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves and Ward counties.

Cotton Statistics for Texas, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 117, September 1947, pp. 21 -23.

V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE, Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950.

70

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 12.---UPLAND AND AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

PRODUCTION IN AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON PRODUCING

AREAS OF DISTRICT 6, TEXAS

Year

El Paso-

Per cent of

El Paso Hudspeth Hudspeth

Dist. 6

County County total

Per cent of

Dist. 6 Dist. 6 total Other" total total

Bales

Bales Bales

Bales

Upland:

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

29,300

45,300

66,700

39,700

47,400

50,862

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

39,810

38,090

41,060

47,123

54,935

1946

1947

1948

72,550

75,500

83,500

1949

83,527

American- Egyptian:

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

Bales

45,400

36,400

42,500

40,300

27,700

36,400

40,100

1,238

6,591

7,310

11,910

1,777

715

750

884

1,670

1,273

10,800

9,720

8,560

8,510

4,060

6,000

7,240

4,750

6,840

9,140

6,720

7,650

7,965

5,120

6,460

6,200

8,410

10,525

16,054

16,300

18,500

28,288

35

495

1,034

920

90

175

46

30

75

212

56,200

46,120

51,060

48,810

31,760

42,400

47,340

34,050

52,140

75,840

46,420

55,050

58,827

44,930

44,550

47,260

55,533

65,460

88,604

91,800

102,000

111,815

1,273

7,086

8,344

12,830

1,867

890

796

914

1,745

1,485

77

83

93

78

100

100

90

82

74

60

84

85

87

81

83

78

81

81

77

74

70

82

83

78

79

78

97

92

83

97

100

99

11,370

13,000

11,740

11,260

6,000

7,470

7,330

8,130

10,970

21,820

12,420

15,340

17,793

15,670

19,107

10,685

16,812

13,580

9,625

20,642

36,030

75,855

37

579

1,755

970

533

0

0

27

0

15

3

8

17

7

22

0

0

3

0

1

22

21

22

23

26

30

15

13

19

17

18

23

17

10

18

26

40

17

22

19

19

16

67,570

59,120

62,800

60,070

37,780

49,870

54,870

42,180

63,110

97,660

58,840

70,390

76,620

60,600

63,657

57,945

72,345

79,040

98,229

112,442

138,030

187,670

1,310

7,665

10,099

13,800

2,400

890

796

941

1,745

1,500

°Includes Jeff

Source:

1928 -39:

1940 -49:

Davis, Loving, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves and Ward counties.

Cotton Statistics for Texas, Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 117, September 1947, pp. 21 -23.

V. C. Childs, Agricultural Statistician, USDA, BAE, Austin, Texas, correspondence, October 10, 1950.

Picking charge per acre*

§ Column 2 times column 3 /2000, and rounded to the nearest dollar. If Lint production per acre ttColumn 5 times column 6 and rounded to the nearest dollar. U1917-27: Arizona ginning charges were estimated by multiplying the United States ginning charge for each of

returns Price per tons

ceived by Farmers, Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. Seed prices in Table 14 are averages of September- December prices each year 1917 -50, except 1922 which is a December price only.

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

75

TABLE 15.-ARIZONA COTTON PRICES, PRICE RATIOS, INDEX OF

PRICES RECEIVED BY FARMERS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND

ARIZONA AMERICAN - EGYPTIAN COTTON ACREAGE EXCLUSIVE

OF THE SALT RIVER PROJECT ACREAGE, 1913 -50

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

Year

-Price of cotton per lb.- Americanat Phoenix, Arizona

Egyptian-

Upland

Upland*

American-

Egyptiant price ratio

3

Index of prices received by farmers

(1910 -14

= 100)

20.2

21.0

21.8

27.2

24.5

18.5

21.9

28.2

28.3

43.3

46.4

45.9

43.7

46.5

53.5

60.0

55.0

69.1

2

Cents

20.0

15.0

22.0

43.0

72.0

55.0

80.0

28.0

30.0

32.0

40.0

47.0

41.0

31.0

38.0

36.4

32.4

19.8

15.2

15.4

17.8

10.5

5.9

6.9

10.4

13.1

11.5

12.7

8.6

8.3

9.2

9.3

15.8

1

Cents

14.0

8.0

13.0

20.0

31.0

28.0

40.0

17.0

18.0

25.0

30.3

23.0

20.8

14.0

20.0

19.2

18.3

18.8

20.4

22.3

33.4

31.8

31.1

30.0

41.5

131

142

143

156

146

141

149

148

125

87

65

70

90

109

114

122

97

95

100

123

158

192

196

4

Per cent

102

102

99

119

178

206

218

212

124

206

234

275

285

249

256

1.28

1.32

2.04

1.97

2.21

1.90

1..90

1.82

1.89

2.58

2.23

1.94

1.43

1.88

1.69

2.15

2.32

1.96

2.00

1.65

1.67

1.60

1.90

2.14

2.85

2.23

2.38

3.03

1.79

2.37

2.47

2.25

1.96

1.39

1.68

1.93

1.83

1.67

*1913 -27 prices as of December 1. 1928 -50 prices are September- December averages for middling. These prices received by farmers reflect the average grade and staple of cotton marketed.

t1913 -27 prices as of December 1. 1928 -50 prices are September- December averages for No. 2 grade. These prices received by farmers reflect the average staple of cotton marketed.

allot available.

Sources of data:

Column 1:

1913 -24: Arizona Agr. Ext. Cir. 59, 1929.

1925 -27: Dept. of Agr. Economics, Univ. of Arizona.

1928 -50: Federal Crop and Livestock Reporting Service for

Arizona, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona.

American-

Egyptian cotton acreage,

Salt River

Project

American -

Egyptian:

Arizona acreage less

Salt River

Project acreage

26

5

31

19

32

35

42

27

23

5 6

1000 Acres 1000 Acres

4

10

2

5

23

50

66

142

2

0.6

2.3

10

22.3

20.2

58

61

71

10.4

6

14

3

9

8

12

16

25

19

12

22

12

20

18

14

17

18

23

16

18

21

14

2

.__.

a

1

1

10

16

8

9

16

8

24

23

49

83

108

81

7

4

2

0.3

1.6

a

1.6

76

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

Column 2:

1913 -27: S. H. Hastings, Southwestern Cotton Co., Phoenix,

Arizona.

1928 -47 and 1950: Op. cit.

1948 -49: Estimates by trade sources.

Column 3: Computed by dividing column 2 by column 1.

Column 4: 1913 -49: Agricultural Prices, USDA, BAE, January 31, 1950 p. 44.

1950: The Agricultural Situation, USDA, BAE, May, 1951.

Column 5: 1913 -20: Arizona Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 120, July, 1927.

1921 -50:

Salt River Valley Water Users' Association Annual

Reports.

Column 6: Computed from acreage data in Table 1 and column 6, this table.

TABLE 16.- CALCULATION OF BREAK EVEN PRICE RATIO,

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN TO UPLAND COTTON, ARIZONA 1917 -50*

Year

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

Upland preharvest gross returns per acre

Dollars

124

117

178

38

38

56

85

56

66

17

31

56

48

57

33

35

43

36

68

69

59

75

67

156

142

39

58

63

50

31

13

149

153

344

American- Egyptian

Ginning Picking charges charges per per acre acre

Break

Seed even returns lint per returns acre per acre

Yield per acre

Break even price per poundt

Upland cotton price

Dollars Dollars Dollars Dollars Pounds

Cents Cents

6

8

8

7

8

7

9

9

8

9

9

10

8

9

5

4

5

7

6

6

8

5

8

5

5

8

8

5

9

10

8

12

17

19

24

26

27

27

22

21

28

29

27

26

24

26

25

15

7

6

8

14

14

14

17

13

19

14

16

28

33

50

53

75

58

68

66

97

19

19

18

5

9

8

16

12

10

8

12

12

8

7

3

2

3

11

9

11

8

7

10

6

12

12

12

20

20

35

29

29

19

43

135

130

195

67

59

76

106

82

91

66

79

87

75

48

22

25

41

66

59

66

50

47

60

49

75

90

85

113

109

206

179

200

217

417

220

226

221

196

235

210

274

261

246

275

276

281

214

249

199

189

184

251

227

231

276

234

326

228

196

208

180

300

287

61.4

57.5

88.2

34.2

25.1

36.1

38.7

31.4

37.0

24.0

28.8

31.0

35.0

19.3

11.1

13.2

22.3

26.3

26.0

28.6

18.1

20.1

18.4

21.5

38.3

43.3

47.2

37.7

38.0

346

280

320

325

59.5

68.8

82.5

66.8

401 104.0

31.0

28.0

40.0

17.0

18.0

25.0

30.3

23.0

20.8

14.0

20.0

19.2

17.8

10.5

5.9

6.9

10.4

13.1

11.5

12.7

8.6

8.3

9.2

9.3

15.8

18.3

18.8

20.4

22.3

33.4

31.8

31.1

30.0

41.5

Break even price ratio

1.98

2.05

2.20

2.01

1.39

1.44

1.28

1.38

1.78

1.71

1.43

1.81

1.97

1.84

2.00

2.31

2.42

2.37

2.51

1.85

1.70

1.78

2.18

2.01

2.23

2.51

1.88

1.91

2.14

2.01

2.26

2.25

2.10

2.42

*Computed from data in Tables 13, 14, and 15.

tBreak even price = Upland preharvest gross returns per acre plus American-

Egyptian ginning charges per acre plus picking charges per acre minus seed returns per acre divided by yield.

Break even price ratio= Amercian- Egyptian break even price divided by

Upland cotton price.

AMERICAN- EGYPTIAN COTTON

77

TABLE 17.- AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN

- UPLAND COTTON YIELD RATIOS

CALIFORNIA, NEW MEXICO, TEXAS, AND ARIZONA, 1911 -50

Year

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1921

1938

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1950

California

New Mexico

1.23

0.79

0.93

0.29

0.92

0.90

0.98

0.48

0.96

2.93

District 8

Texas

El Paso -Hudspeth

Counties

0.43

0.47

0.36

0.28

0.46

0.56

0.51

0.69

0.47

0.71

0.57

a

0.86

0.50

0.29

0.60

0.58

0.77

0.89

0.87

1.09

0.68

a a Data not available.

Source: Computed from data in Tables 2, 5, and 11.

0.70

0.43

0.32

0.57

0.52

0.62

0.88

0.67

0.75

0.51

a

Arizona

0.60

0.51

0.55

0.49

0.48

0.55

0.45

0.64

0.76

0.84

0.73

0.58

0.65

0.62

0.55

0.53

0.48

0.59

0.92

0.80

0.91

0.91

0.58

0.45

0.44

0.45

0.42

0.65

0.78

0.86

0.52

0.57

0.50

0.44

78

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 18.- ANALYSIS OF SOME IMPORTANT FACTORS AFFECTING

THE YIELD OF AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON, ARIZONA, 1919 -49

( EXCLUDING 1931 -33 AND 1947)

Year

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

American-

Egyptian acreage

1

86,200

200,000

71,400

77,000

40,000

8,000

40,000

27,000

44,000

51,000

67,000

46,000

Logs of acreage

(1000's)

2

1.9355

2.3010

1.8537

1.8865

1.6021

0.9031

1.6021

1.4314

1.6435

1.7076

1.8261

1.6628

Day of year of first autumn frost

3

311

326

322

308

337

316

321

327

338

320

310

321

Crop condition on

October 1

American -

Egyptian

June mean yield, minimum pounds temperatures per acre

4

98

84

88

88

87

80

83

88

94

67

89

82

63

70

72

71

68

70

69

68

5

68

68

68

69

6

221

196

235

210

274

261

246

275

276

281

214

249

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1948

28,000

39,000

38,000

20,000

44,000

41,000

65,000

101,000

129,000

95,000

9,000

5,000

2,000

1.4472

1.5911

1.5798

1.3010

1.6435

1.6128

1.8129

2.0043

2.1106

1.9777

0.9542

0.6990

0.3010

330

306

324

337

312

356

314

321

326

322

323

320

336

93

87

91

85

90

95

78

83

85

74

87

83

90

66

68

71

67

70

67

72

64

66

67

62

63

68

1948

1949

1,600

2,600

0.2041

0.4150

311

303

94

98

67

70

320

325

Sources of data:

Col. 1: Table 1.

Col. 2: Any table of 4 -place logarithms to base 10.

Col. 3: Climatological Data, Arizona,

U.S.

Department of Commerce,

Weather Bureau, monthly issues.

Col. 4: 1919 -27: Craps and Markets, USDA, June 1928.

1928 -43: Ibid., October issue each year.

1944 -49: Cotton Report as of October 1, The Federal Crop and

Livestock Reporting Service, USDA, BAE, Phoenix, Arizona, October issue each year.

Col. 5: Climatological

Data, Arizona, U.S.

Department of

Commerce,

Weather Bureau, monthly issues.

Col. 6: Table 2.

251

227

231

276

234

326

228

196

208

180

300

287

346

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON

TABLE 19.- ACTUAL AND ESTIMATED YIELD PER ACRE OF

AMERICAN -EGYPTIAN COTTON, ARIZONA 1919 -49

( EXCLUDING 1931 -33 AND 1947 )

Year

1919

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

Actual

1

Pounds

221

196

235

210

274

261

246

275

276

281

214

249

Yield

Estimated

2

Pounds

207

205

229

206

268

285

245

265

267

236

213

240

Differences:

Col. 1 minus

Col. 2

3

Pounds

14

- 9

6

4

6

-24

1

10

9

45

1

9

Percentage differences:

Col. 3 as per cent of Col. 1

4

Per cent

6.3

- 4.6

2.6

1.9

2.2

- 9.2

0.4

3.6

3.3

16.0

0.5

3.6

79

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1948

1949

251

227

231

276

234

326

228

196

208

180

300

287

346

320

.325

268

223

251

289

229

296

220

217

218

221

292

304

355

325

299

Sources of data:

Col. 1: From Table 2.

Col. 2: Based on Equation 2, Text Table 5.

-17

4

-20

-13

5

30

-21

8

--10

-41

- 9

8

- 5

26

- 6.8

1.7

- 8.7

- 4.7

2.1

9.2

3.5

-10.7

- 4.8

-22.8

2.7

- 5.9

- 2.6

- 1.6

8.0

80

EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 238

TABLE 20. -MILL CONSUMPTION OF EXTRA- LONG -STAPLE COTTON,

POPULATION AND PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF EXTRA

-

LONG- STAPLE COTTON, UNITED STATES, 1920 -49

Year

1939

1940

1941

1942

1943

1944

1945

1946

1947

1948

1949

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

1936

1937

1938

1920

1921

1922

1923

1924

1925

1926

1927

1928

1929

1930

U. S.

American -

Egyptian and

Sea Island mill consumption

Egyptian and

Peruvian

Total*

2

Mil. pounds

3

Mil. pounds

1

Mil pounds

17.8

29.2

35.8

20.4

11.5

7.0

10.4

8.2

7.2

10.8

10.2

3.9

10.6

11.8

14.8

6.5

7.9

6.4

9.4

6.4

6.0

25.6

27.8

23.6

22.3

10.0

5.4

3.4

2.7

2.0

49.0

37.0

23.0

7.0

24.5

16.0

25.4

34.0

39.6

24.2

28.9

27.4

31.2

44.4

53.8

34.7

34.4

43.7

66.4

72.0

47.8

57.8

28.2

37.5

39.2

46.0

70.0

81.6

58.2

56.8

53.7

71.8

75.4

50.5

59.8

56.2

43.5

30.9

13.4

33.8

22.4

31.4

44.8

49.8

popula-

U.

mill

American -

S. per capita consumption

U. S. Egyptian and tion Sea Island

Egyptian and

Peruvian Total

4

Millions

106.5

108.5

110.1

111.9

114.1

115.8

117.4

119.0

120.5

121.8

123.1

124.0

124.8

125.6

126.3

127.2

128.1

128.8

129.8

130.9

132.0

133.2

134.7

136.5

138.1

139.6

5

Pounds

0.17

0.27

0.33

0.18

0.10

0.06

0.09

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.06

0.05

0.08

0.05

0.05

0.08

0.08

0.03

0.08

0.09

0.11

0.19

0.21

0.17

0.16

0.07

141.2

144.0

146.6

0.04

0.02

0.02

1492

0.01

6

Pounds

0.41

0.30

0.19

0.06

0.20

0.13

0.20

0.27

0.31

0.19

0.21

0.21

0.24

0.33

0.40

0.25

0.25

0.31

0.47

0.50

0.33

0.39

7

Pounds

0.47

0.36

0.25

0.11

0.27

0.18

0.25

0.35

0.39

0.22

0.29

0.30

0.35

0.53

0.61

0.43

0.41

0.38

0.51

0.52

0.34

0.40

°The sums of Cols. 1 and 2 do not always check with the total figures in

Col. 3 due to rounding.

Sources of data:

Cols. 1, 2, and 3: Data in Cols. 3, 6, and 7, Text Table 7, converted to a pound basis by multiplying by 500.

Col. 4: 1920 -39 : Statistical Abstract of the United States 1947, p. 9.

1940 -49

:

The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1951, New

York World Telegram p. 52.

Cols. 5, 6, and 7: Computed by dividing data in Cols.

spectively by data in Col. 4.

1, 2, and 3 re-

o

.-

..

Ú

,

, op00ON cDeM

.riric7clriel-i1-iriri.olc7ri.c]c7c7.riri

o+

ó

U

ó ómo

m

CU

C;

:000000000000000vvaociv!eaóoq

.

:ómcicocilnóoóóciól`.-1riadcdcioiu5Inó.-1.,

GV.-eVeMl in00cgo MeM

'to

COMcOMti.r.-CVCVC7 ti

° c0 cOClncOOOr4CVCONOmInInc00000O)Nd4cVlz cc

M aoVoornoornooornoótir r r tir agr r aq c]c7NN,--1.-,--ÌNC]cINNNNNNNNNNNNNN.-1N

Ú tiÓW

NOONGOWCOInO)C71e o

OCVCpI7OCVNC1COln.Oo».

c1NNcycVC7c7cv,-4i,-i-

Uo

ONCO00W,-0-1,41MCV,7CC-j m

'8

A

`"

>n

° °m°ómmmmmS

0.-i-i.ci-4.Nrc4cl,-oi,m-4°r°c~icc4vc07cOc°tc°1c°7c°vcOc°tc°7otlorcmro

4:0

M 0) h

CVNGVCI COObCOCOCyd4GVGV

WN

1.4p?lee_44ML_C)OV1nOjCJCh.-4d!.i.iC.1.+c100;0000CD1-COCOOJt

CO C7CVC7C7c7c7MM'OV4'd

C+)cmOMCÓCOMMc'ÓMC00cm7cm1c07M

Ú l»

Ifi

N i

882,128008.i.i.i010)O101000000)00h1 0000

V

~

óóóóócváóóíNnMNní`VnímníWniDníníncmióóói

Q-0100 epInCOI o0060NCVCJVInCOI 000)ONtN VIn

NNNNNNNC1cle1C7C1C7clCÌ4NClMC00000000

00)0000)00O)00000>00>00)000)00)00)0

N N N N N

....... N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

by the conversion factor (1.53) times base period price (37.49c). This gives a parity price of 64.93c. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 as amended by the Agricultural Acts of 1948 and 1949 provides for certain changes in computing parity prices.

period price of 12.4c =parity price. The base period price of 12.4c is a 60 -month average, August 1909 -July 1914 (reported on page 54 of Agricultural Prices, USDA, BAE, January 1950, Supplement No.

until 1954 of the basic commodities, of which Upland cotton is one, is parity as computed by the old formula or parity as com- puted by the new formula whichever is the higher.

b Effective parity price September 15,1950 reported on page 5 of Agricultural Prices, USDA, BAE, September 29, 1950. ° °1923 -38 World Cotton Situation, USDA, September 5, 1939, p. 64. Prepared for use at the International Cotton meeting. Based upon

oe °°cvccccí0n

ó r

ñín°w aoa4a4e6aóóóóóóódóddódddóddcSddd

N t

.-c7c2óóópplt(CCpp11oopp11AAl1ttaoaoyC0oopppp.-io.rt

tDtt eerCVCI-

OOOOOOOOOOOOrtic700000

áOC?ÓÓÓ660666ÓÓÓÓÓÓdÓ6Ó66OOÓÓGQÓÓ

4 yln,-10oqwr Mrn..11nMomc;oo,rc101,+cy.lagVcvmcav»nM

Ñ.-Ñ.Ñ°'ÑÑ..-i.~i-+-, i i°cVi`Cicmac~7c7cci

U m

4 ac qotOCOOr;covr01rrmo..1,-1N0oom rnalmytimti c+cc+ccovcicic3ci-+°..i.m0.°-`+-4i^+ccocoocc` ríir>>oo

U vQnr.aooa5rnoor.umtioóoov

cgooP

.

"4:.-it.7:7claclGVlttCOrGVCVOt9mOrl.-id!1efCOI GVGVMe.e1

c0 cletjí+Gtqt~17Clcicl-6Cy.O-Ict.O-i-mic]C7MCOOCm7cmlc7cyC`t

U

N

N

U) c7µ.qte0.-ImO.-+omt taotplqco>ne-eM+.-+culn5t

-m ffi"C3.-i.-ri,v-,m-,.t.m-Ñr;.-óOáaó.-rti-i.-i

;..,.-.-.-.-.=.t-cìClCCi

U

1mmdm

C000000ooNtd;oqqd;cwagcutnmaloicocoerotlntnc0

rnirni

rl .. i .1 M .i

......

t Includes American- Egyptian, Sea Island, Egyptian and Peruvian cottons. a Data not available.

Col. 3: Column 1 divided by Column 2. Col. 4: 1920 -47: U. S. Department of Commerce: Survey of Current Business,

Col. 7: From Table 20, Column 5. Col. 8: From Table 20, Column 7.

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement