COTTON. 387 



The average weight of a bale of cotton is estimated at 475 pounds. Upon this basis, 

 and upon the commonly-accepted average proportion of one part of lint to two of seed in the 

 &quot; seed-cotton &quot; as it comes from the field, are based the data given in columns 7 to 11. Of 

 these, the first three give the weight in pounds, severally, of seed-cotton, of lint or fiber, and 

 of cotton seed produced per acre, on the average, in each State, while columns 10 and 11 give 

 the weight in tons of the total product of each of the States, in lint and cotton-seed. 



It will be seen by a comparison of the total population of the States of the cotton-belt 

 proper, from North and South Carolina to Texas, that in all but two cases there is an approx 

 imation to the proportion of one bale to every two persons, or rather one-half a bale to each 

 inhabitant. These exceptional States are Mississippi and Arkansas, in which the ratio is from 

 two-thirds to more than three-fourths of a bale per head. As will be seen, Mississippi stands 

 first in the total production of cotton, while sixth in population among the cotton States, 

 making its product to .84, or more than eight-tenths of a bale per head. It appears that the 

 high production of this State is due to the great fertility of the soil together with the circum 

 stance that the culture of this product is the leading pursuit of the population. In &quot;Wash 

 ington County, Miss., the product per acre averaged .87 of a bale or 413 pounds of lint, 

 which is equal to 1,239 pounds of seed-cotton per acre. E. W. Hilgard, Professor of Agri 

 culture of the University of California, says, with respect to the above table: 



&quot; Even with the imperfect tillage and incomplete picking of the cotton crop now pre 

 vailing in the Yazoo bottom, Miss., the present average product per acre is over three-fourths 

 of a bale; and estimating the lands reclaimable by simple exclusion of the Mississippi over 

 flow at three million acres, the annual production could thus readily be raised to 2,250,000 

 bales, without any change in the methods of culture, in the Yazoo bottom alone. With 

 improved cultivation the production could easily be brought up to 5,000,000 bales, and thus, 

 with a similar improvement in the culture of the uplands, it is evident that the State of 

 Mississippi alone could produce the entire crop now grown in the United States. So far from 

 this being an over-estimate, this statement does not adequately state the possibilities within 

 reach of careful culture. Fully 1,000 pounds of lint have repeatedly been picked from an 

 acre of the buckshot soil of the Yazoo bottom. 



Georgia stands second in total production; but examination shows the causes that place 

 the State so near to the highest in position to be widely different from those in Mississippi. 

 With half a million more inhabitants than Mississippi, the cotton product of Georgia is a 

 little over half a bale (.53) per head, and the average product per acre is but two-thirds of 

 that of Mississippi. A detailed examination of the soils of Georgia shows that her area of 

 what in Mississippi are considered first and second-class soils, is very limited; far more so than 

 is the case in the neighboring State of Alabama. Yet Georgia stands ahead of Alabama in 

 the average cotton product per acre, and is only a trifle behind in production per capita. In 

 other words, the high position of Georgia is due, not to natural advantages, but to better 

 cultivation of the soil, the use of fertilizers, and the thrift of an industrious population. 



The geographical position of Alabama between the States standing at the head of the 

 list gives double interest to the question regarding the cause of her position in the same, 

 which would be the third place, but for the enormous area of Texas, where the sparse popu 

 lation has thus far picked the best lands. Alabama is a newer State than Georgia, and 

 there reach into it from Mississippi the two belts of rich prairie lands, which terminate short 

 of the Chattahoochie. Northern Alabama is almost identical in its agricultural features with 

 Northern Georgia; and we should therefore expect to find a- much more marked difference 

 in favor of Alabama than is shown in the figures above quoted. The inference seems irre 

 sistible, that while Mississippi is still partly within the period of the first flush of fertility, and 

 Georgia has reached the stage when the use of fertilizers is renovating her fields, the soils of 

 Alabama have passed the first stage, and her population has not yet realized the necessity of 

 sustaining the soil s powers by fertilization. 



