8 BULLETIN" 332, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Valley, Cal., which includes about 500,000 acres. If 20 per cent of 

 the land in these two sections were to be used for Egyptian cotton, 

 it is estimated that 100,000 bales might be produced annually, in 

 addition to the 50,000 bales which the Salt River Valley could- supply. 

 While the production of Egyptian cotton appears to be possible to 

 the extent indicated here, it seems unlikely that this crop will be 

 grown in the Imperial and Yuma Valleys in the near future. 



COMPARISON OF AMERICAN AND EGYPTIAN CONDITIONS. 



The commercial production of Egyptian cotton in the United 

 States involves the marketing of the product in direct competition 

 with the crop of Egypt. This fact warrants a brief consideration 

 of the status of the cotton industry in that country and a comparison 

 between the conditions there and in the southwestern United States. 1 

 The production in Egypt of cotton having a staple comparable with 

 that of- the Salt River Valley product is limited to what is known as 

 Lower Egypt, that is to say, the Nile Delta, north of Cairo. This 

 region includes about 3,250,000 acres of irrigated land, of which about 

 40 per cent is annually devoted to cotton, with ah average yield of 

 about 450 pounds of lint per acre. 



This land is heavily capitalized, and the cost of irrigation water is 

 high. These features are best expressed by rental values, which range 

 for the best land from $50 to $75 a year per acre. It is probable that 

 the average rental value of land in Lower Egypt is not far from $40 

 per acre, or at least twice the rental value of land in Arizona having 

 similar capabilities of crop production. 



While the cotton growers of Arizona have the advantage in 

 respect to land rental or interest on land investment, those of Egypt 

 are able to get their cotton picked at much less cost, owing to the 

 cheapness and abundance of labor in that country. Aside from these 

 two items, the cost of production is probably not very different in the 

 two countries, since the low wage paid to farm laborers in Egypt is 

 offset by the fact that the American farmer works with large fields 

 and uses horse-drawn implements extensively. Much of the Egj^ptian 

 crop, on the other hand, is grown by peasant farmers in small fields 

 and with the use of very primitive implements. 



The Egyptian industry suffers two serious disadvantages which 

 do not exist in Arizona. One of these is the difficulty of maintaining 

 pure seed, due to the widespread occurrence of Hindi, or " weed," 

 cotton, which is discussed more in detail elsewhere in this paper. 

 The other is the existence of certain insect pests, notably the pink 



1 For a more detailed discussion of the physical conditions in Egypt and in the south- 

 western United States, see Kearney, T. H., and Peterson, W. A., Egyptian cotton in the 

 southwestern United States, U. S. Dept. Agr., Bur. Plant Indus. Bui. 128, 71 p., 2 figs., 

 5 pi., 1908. 



