70 



THE AGRICULTURAL NEWF. 



Mai;, ji 9, 191 S. 



THE QUERTTjN op PURE STRAINS OF 



COTT^X IN EGYPT. 



The following letter by Mr. John W. Mc( 'onnei, of 

 Manchester, is reproilnced \\\>m the Te.ftilr M'^rcur;/, 

 of.lannary. 19. IMlS Into the merits ot the controversy 

 wc do not at present propose to enter, but the matters 

 •discussed are of intense interest to workers in the 

 improvement of West Indian cotton atid will not be 

 without their appeal to cotton planters in general: — 



It i^ probable that comparatively few of your read- 

 ers ever see the Atrj/a/Z/iim/ Jounial of Egypt. It is 

 however the official publicaiiou of the Egy^itian Ministry 

 -of Agriculture, and consecjuenily what it says about conon 

 is of real importance to Lancashire. The issue, Vol. VII, 1917, 

 just published, contains a repnrt by ihe Botanist on his work 

 on cotton during the year 1915. This occupies about 108 

 pages, and is followed by somr- 8 pages in the editorial notes, 

 in which some information is given of the reports by spinners 

 and others on the four cotlims, of which the fiist pure 

 strains were separated by Dr. W Liwrence Balls when occu 

 pj^ing the position of Botanist. 



These reports on the samples are apparently printed for 

 the purpose of throwing doubi on the favourable reports made 

 by spinners, and indeed also by the broker. But whatever 

 may be the exact object ot the iditor in printing these more 

 or le.ss confidential reports and stigmatizing them as ' rather 

 contradictory,' it does not seem to be a very courteous reply 

 to those .^pinners who have hitherto put their machinery and 

 personnel at the service of the Agricultural Department. 

 What, however, is of much more importance is that both from 

 the editorial remarks, and from the opening sentences of the 

 Botanist's repwrt, it is evident that there is a definite intention 

 to return to the antiquated practices by which in former years 

 succcs.^ive strains of cotton in Kgypt have so sadly drterior- 

 • ated. 



The Botanist speaks of work previous to 1915 being 

 conducted 'solely on .Mendelian principles,' with unsatis- 

 factory results. It is ditiicuh to know what this means. 

 Again the I'.otanisi raises a curious kind of issue between the 

 introduction of new strains and the improvement of existing 

 -one.'. lie does not explain what is meant by a new strain 

 of cotton, nor yet how an old strain cau be improved. Is the 

 Mendelian theory to be taken as the basis, or is it to be 

 ignored? It seems hardly possible at this time of day to 

 ignore it. .Surely in an attempt to devulop plants for the 

 practical .service of man, .'ome system of scientific law must 

 be followed. It would bi' interesting to know at what point 

 the liotanisl Ihink.s .Mendel s law to be incapable of application 

 to cotton. It is not, however, the object of this letter to 

 -diticuss the iiuestions of botanical science that seem to an 

 •out'lder to be so curiously touched upon in this issue of the 

 ^grhuUiiidl ■lunrnal. Then' arc two other matters, or 

 perhaps other aspects of tbt; matter, on which I desire to say 

 something, be3ai]se of their importance to the propr under- 

 standing of the need for resiarcli in raw cotton. 



(1) Wha'. do spinners really want; 



(2) .\re the reports on samples made by .s|)inner3 of ,iny 

 value to the grower? 



As n/gar.ls the tir.st '|uestion, it must be remembered 

 th'.t there are ni;iny different branches of cotton spinning. 

 Js'ol only are then' wide differences in counts, but there are 

 Other ilitferencfs, such as those between twists and wefts. 

 Sometimes colour is important; -sometimes everything else 

 4n>iv bi- Miriifici'd to vtren[;th; =oinetiniei cleanliness is the 



main reqiusite. Therefore, that the editor .should speak as 

 he does of Sakell.iridis, as meeting all rcrjuirements in Egypt, 

 is itself a grave danger to the industry. It is true, of course, 

 that Sakellaridis has many features which are attractive to 

 the grower, l)ut what follows from 'his is that .uiy cotton 

 which is also wanted by the trade i>i'wt also be attractive to 

 the grower. Cottons wliich will only command a lower price 

 than that of Sakellaridis will have to b<> better in yield, better 

 in lint percentage, as good or better in eailiness. Is it not 

 the proper function of the .\gricultural Department to 

 find out how to produce these lesults? < )n the other 

 hand, it is obvious to any student of th" economics of cotton 

 that there is just now an urgent need for some new supply of 

 really fine stapled cotton to take the place of American Sea 

 Island when the boll weevil has destroyed it. For this 

 purpose Balls's .310 was at any rate so promising as to deserve 

 fun her investigation and perhaps further development. I!ut 

 f<jr such cotton as this a higher price would have been paid, 

 and a useful study for the Agricultural Department would 

 have been the equivalents of price and ijuantity for such 

 a cotton as compared with Sakel. Unfortunately this has 

 not been recognized by those in charge. 



In this connexion it will be reimmbered that when the 

 Sakellaridis cotton fir.=!t came into general cultivation on 

 a large scale strong recoiumondations were made by spinners 

 and other authorities that it should not be grown .so 

 extensively as to crowd out all other cottons. It is a cotton 

 with many and great merits, but it is undoubtedly not the 

 cotton that the Bolton mills want us the .solo product of 

 Egypt. If, then, it is desirable thit, Eaypt shou'd grow 

 some other cottons as well as Sakellaridis, is it necessary that 

 these should be new strains? This cannot be answered 

 without defining what is meant by a new strain. It is clear 

 that when a ditierent kind of cotton is introduced as an 

 exotic into any country this may be spoken of as a new strain. 

 Thus the American Uplands and some f'gyptian types have 

 been introduced experimentalK into India and into different 

 places in Africa. .Mso the l^gyptian .Mitafifi has been 

 introduced into .Arizona, and there developed into a cotton 

 equal to or belter than Sakellaridis. These are all obviously 

 called new strains. But this is not the kind of thing that 

 has bten done in l-gypt. The history of cotton in Egypt 

 during the la.st half century is broadly that one kind or 

 si vcral closely kindred kinds have been for a time satisfactory, 

 that each in turn has gradually or rapidly become poor, and 

 that the general good quality of Egyptian cotton has been 

 maintained or r.iiscd only by the more or less accidental 

 di.scovery of a special plant which has bred true and has 

 yielded an imiiroved stock for tcneral use. Thus spinners 

 of mature years will ivmember the great attractions presented 

 when they first appeared by tJallini, Mitafili. Nannovich, 

 Nubaii, and finally by Sakellaridis, not to mention Abassi 

 and Voltos. Now if these ate what the present 

 Bot>nist calls new strains, it is (piite clear that Hgypt 

 in the |)a5t has absolutely depended on the finding 

 of a new strain just in time to replace the deteriorated cotton 

 of the moment. If, on the other hand, these are what he 

 speaks of as improvements of existing strains, then it .seems 

 that he and the ediloi- might well have refrained hum speak- 

 ing of Dr. Balls's v;irietiesas if they li.id been something 

 strange, and therefore abhorrent to si)inners. Dr. Balls's varie- 

 ties arc, all four, true born children of the Egyptian family; 

 .'(10 is so much tlnoi that it may claim a more .secluded 

 walk in life, but the other three- -77, 9."), Ill — do not 

 difl'er from the usual type in any other way than did the 

 various new or improved types named abote. The claim 

 made for Dr. liallss varieties w.is that (hey were pure, and 



