FARM PEACTICE IN THE CULTIVATION OF COTTON. 3 



have shown that crop yields are far more closely related to and 

 influenced by inherent soil fertility and by other farm practices than 

 by the tiUage methods. 



From such a study as this, therefore, it is not to be expected that 

 a best method of tillage for cotton will be determined which would 

 be applicable under all conditions and circumstances. This paper 

 presents a broad, general idea of what practices are employed in 

 growing cotton under various conditions. It is highly probable 

 that some practices found in one area might be employed elsewhere 

 to advantage. The object of this publication, however, is not 

 to recommend any certain methods for cultivating cotton, but rather 

 to give the reader a detailed knowledge of the various practices which 

 are employed in the different areas, in order that he may adopt any 

 suggestions which might prove advantageous under his conditions. 



Table I. — Nuviher of farms surveyed, with the average sizes of farms, average acreage per 

 head of live stock, etc. , in nineteen areas in the cotton belt. 



Region surveyed (fig. 1). 



County, State, etc. 



Date of 

 survey. 



Record 

 taken. 



Land in farms. 



Area 



per 



farm. 



Area 

 culti- 

 vated. 



Value 

 per 

 acre. 



Cultivated 

 area per 

 head of— 



Cat- 

 tle. 



Land per 

 horse. 



Culti- 

 vated. 



Inter- 

 tilled. 



Cost of farm 

 labor. 



Per 

 day. 



Per 



month. 



Pemiscot, Mo 



Mississippi Delta. . 



Robeson, N. C 



Mecklenburg, N. C 



Barnwell, S. C 



Pike, Ga 



Tift, Ga 



Giles, Tenn 



Bulloch, Ga 



St. Francis, Ark.... 



Ellis, Tex 



Chambers, Ala 



Johnston, Okla 



Jefferson, Fla 



Lincoln Parish, La 



Lavaca, Tex 



Houston, Tex 



Monroe, Miss 



Bexar, Tex 



1914. 

 Aug. 

 July 

 June 

 Jtme 

 June 

 July 

 June 

 July 

 June 

 Aug. 

 Sept. 

 July 

 Sept. 

 July 

 Aug. 

 Sept. 

 Sept. 

 July 

 Oct. 



Acres. 

 159 



1,316 

 260 

 172 

 193 

 144 

 160 

 222 

 178 

 356 

 194 

 408 

 239 

 179 

 125 

 210 

 241 

 299 

 295 



Acres. 

 147 

 824 

 123 

 115 

 130 



96 



83 

 136 



85 

 226 

 174 

 231 

 163 

 101 



62 

 102 

 108 

 166 

 130 



$108. 00 

 55.00 

 55.00 



120.00 

 34.50 

 44.00 

 41.50 

 67.50 

 54.00 

 34.50 



146. 50 

 30.00 

 34.00 

 22.00 

 20.50 

 85.50 

 26.00 

 35.00 

 97.00 



Acres. 

 34 

 16 

 37 

 12 

 31 

 22 

 13 



8 



7 

 19 

 46 

 18 

 10 

 12 

 10 



7 

 13 



7 

 14 



Acres. 

 7 

 8 

 7 

 16 

 9 

 17 

 4 

 5 

 3 



16 

 12 

 17 

 5 



Acres. 

 19 

 19 

 22 

 24 

 28 

 27 

 28 

 17 

 25 

 20 

 24 

 26 

 25 

 34 

 20 

 15 

 19 

 23 

 19 



Acres. 

 16 

 17 

 19 

 14 

 24 

 21 

 21 

 12 

 22 

 18 

 22 

 22 

 19. 

 29 

 17 

 12 

 17 

 17 

 19 



11.15 

 .90 

 .70 

 .70 

 .70 

 .80 



1.00 

 .80 

 .95 

 .95 



1.30 

 .70 



1.15 

 .70 

 .95 

 .95 



1.00 

 .75 



1.20 



$22. 50 

 16.00 

 17.50 

 16.50 

 15.00 

 13.50 

 19.50 

 16.50 

 16.50 

 17.75 



15.00 

 20.00 

 15.50 

 14.00 

 15.50 

 20.00 

 16.75 

 20.00 



GENERAL STATEMENTS. 



In all the general tables the areas included in this study are ar- 

 ranged in order of rank in yield of seed cotton per acre. 



The facts presented in Tables I and II have little direct bearing 

 on or relation to tillage other than showing the acreage of cultivated 

 land and intertilled crops per horse and the price of farm labor. 

 Indirectly these data have a very important relation to tillage, in 

 that they show the general farm conditions and practices as found 

 in the various regions surveyed, so that the purely tiUage data as 

 presented in subsequent tables may be better interpreted. The 

 data presented in Table II will give some idea regarding the type 



