12 



AMOUNT OF DAMAGE. 



Althoug-h many conditions make it very difficult to reduce the dam- 

 age caused by the weevil to figures, it is believed that the following 

 table presents a reasonably accurate estimate of the extent to which 

 the pest affects the production of cotton for a few years subsequent to 

 its advent: 



Comparative estimate of amount of damage by cotton-boll weevil. 



Typical counties inwhieli weevil was not present 

 in 1899, but was present in 1902. 



Typical counties in which weevil was not present 

 in either 1899 or 1902. 



County. 



Caldwell 



Colorado 



Fayette 



Gonzales 



Grimes 



Lavaca 



Montgomery . 

 San Jacinto . . 



Travis 



Wharton 



Product in com- 

 mercial bales. 



County. 



Total 



Decrease per cent. 



47, 473 

 30, 923 

 73,238 

 44, 131 

 26, 541 

 42, 484 

 10, 272 

 8,826 

 60, 078 

 27,383 



371, 349 



1902. 



23, 133 

 11, 493 

 31,200 

 25, 351 

 12, 13S 

 22, 906 

 3,660 

 3,044 

 28, 382 

 12, 870 



Montague. 



Cooke 



Grayson . . . 

 Fannin ... 



Lamar 



Wise 



Denton ... 



Collin 



Hunt 



Delta 



174, 174 

 53 



Total 



Increase per cent. 



Product in coui- 

 mereial bales. 



15,064 

 11,905 

 40,871 

 59, 802 

 49, 193 

 17, 556 

 20, 381 

 49, 077 

 50, 317 

 24,706 



338, 871 



16, 981 

 11, 012 

 54, 087 



70. 540 

 59, 269 

 18, 869 



24. 541 

 47,344 

 49, 713 

 26, 256 



378,612 

 11 



The first section of the above table shows a comparison of the pro- 

 duction in ten counties in Texas in 1899, when the weevil had scarcelv 

 reached them, and in 1902, when it had multiplied to such an extent 

 as to be found in great numbers in practically all cotton fields. These 

 two years were selected for comparison for the reason that they were 

 practically identical in amount and distribution of rainfall and in 

 other essential crop conditions. The second part of the table gives a 

 comparison of the production during the same years in ten other lead- 

 ing counties situated so far north that the weevil had not affected 

 them in either of the two years used for comparison. It will be 

 noticed that while in the counties of the first series there had been a 

 decrease in production of 53 per cent, in the counties of the second 

 series there had been an increase of 11 per cent. There seems to be 

 no reason why the cotton production of the counties of the first series 

 would not have increased at about the same rate as was the case in 

 those of the second series had it not been for the damage caused by 

 the weevil. This makes it fair, it is believed, to conclude that the 

 approximate damage caused by the insect was the sum of the decrease 

 in one case and the increase in the other, or about 61 per cent. There 

 are two sources of possible error in these figures. One is in the like- 

 lihood of a change in acreage between 1899 and 1902 that may not 

 have affected the two regions alike, and th_e other is in the probability 

 that the two seasons were not exactly similar. In relation to the first 

 point it must be stated that increases in acreage are generally the 

 result of conditions of the markets that would affect the whole State 



189 



