13 



alike, and that if there were any increase in these years it would 

 probably have been very much alike in either case. As to the possi- 

 bility of an appreciable difference in the seasons, it must be stated 

 that the two regions are comparatively close together, and that a care- 

 ful examination of the records shows that they were remarkably alike 

 in all important respects. Nevertheless, jt is the tendenc}^ of planters, 

 as soon as the weevil becomes a serious menace, to devote more of their 

 land to other crops. Accurate figures on this point are not obtainable, 

 but on the whole an allowance of a reduction of this kind that would 

 account for 10 per cent decrease in production would be ample. It 

 therefore seems to the writer that a figure in the neighborhood of 50 

 per cent represents a ver}^ fair approximate estimate of the loss. 



In this connection it is interesting to note that the statistics drawn 

 from acreage and production to which the writer referred in a previous 

 article (Yearbook, Department of Agriculture, 1901, p. 373), indicating 

 that the boll weevil causes the amount of land required to produce a 

 bale to be practically doubled, bear out the foregoing conclusions. 



Upon the foregoing basis, during the past season the boll weevil has 

 caused the planters of the State of Texas a loss of fully $15,000,000, 

 and this estimate agrees rather well with the estimates made in other 

 waj's by the more conservative cotton statisticians. 



Many conditions of climate and plantation practice in the eastern 

 portion of the cotton belt indicate that the weevil problem will even- 

 tually be as serious there as it now is in Texas. With Mr. Richard H. 

 Edmunds's estimate that the normal cotton crop of the United States 

 represents a value of $500,000,000, the possible ultimate damage when 

 the pest has spread over the belt would be in the neighborhood of 

 $250,000,000 annually, provided no means of avoiding damage were 

 adopted. 



There are conditions at work that seem to indicate that planters in 

 the weevil region are gradually adopting changes in their sj^stem of 

 producing the staple that have a tendency to avert damage. No one 

 who travels through the southern counties of Texas or who carefull}^ 

 examines the statistics pertaining to that region can avoid the con- 

 clusion that the planters will continue to produce cotton profitably 

 and with a comparative!}' immaterial decrease. For instance, the 

 following table shows to what extent cotton has been raised in Victoria 

 County since the weevil reached it: 



Cotton production in Victoria County, Tex., in equivalents^ of 500-pound bales. 



