RISKS OF THE COTTON MARKET 133 



. . . The average net income per farm received for its 

 operation by the family for the year, after paying all inter- 

 est on borrowed capital (and including the value of that part 

 of the family living furnished directly by the farm as part 

 of the farm receipts) was for 139 farms over $3,000. Three 

 men lost money, 10 per cent made less than $1,000, but 13.5 

 per cent made over $5,000 and the remainder made between 

 $1,000 and $5,000. These incomes were obtained on farms 

 averaging 232 acres in size, valued at $68 per acre, with 37.6 

 per cent of the land in harvested cotton having an average 

 yield of 148 pounds of lint selling at an average price of 

 about 20 cents per pound. The average net worth of these 

 farmers when they settled in the region was just over $5,000 

 per man and on March 1, 1925, the corresponding figure was 

 $18,000, the difference having been made by the operation of 

 the farm and its own increase in value in an average period 

 of operation of 5.84* years. 42 



The conditions in this county are typical of about eight 

 others in the region. 



Such an analysis serves to explain why the period from 

 1915 to 1926, which saw an increase in cotton acreage 

 of 51 per cent in the whole United States, found the 

 Western Belt with an increase of 87 per cent. Texas in- 

 creased her acreage in this period 77 per cent and Okla- 

 homa 169 per cent. The disastrous bumper crop of 1926 

 found several of the eastern states with acreage prac- 

 tically stationary and in some cases reduced. Texas and 

 Oklahoma for that year increased production 2,076,000 

 bales, which almost accounted for the disastrous in- 

 crease from 16,004,000 bales in 1925 to 18,618,000 in 

 1926. This analysis also serves to show why any state 

 agreements to restrict acreage are likely to fail. When 



42Wooten, op. cit., p. 274. 



