﻿24 



BULLETIN 1374, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



In Figure 3 the upper curve represents the percentage of non- 

 pickable cotton on the Tlahuahlo plantation for the seasons from 

 1919 " to 1922, inclusive, and the lower curve the average price of 

 "good ordinary" cotton on the Houston, Tex., market during the 

 last three months of the years from 1918 to 1922, inclusive. 



TOTAL DAMAGE 



For an estimate of the total damage, considering matured bolls 

 only, these are data, other than those showing the percentage of 

 nonpickable cotton, only in the case of the test of seed and Hnt sam- 

 ples from fields on the Tlahualilo plantation in 1921. Kef erring to 

 Table 16, there is a reduction in the weight of the seed of 4.7 per cent. 

 In the absence of definite data, let the damage to the lint be con- 

 sidered the same. Figures in Table 17 indicate an average loss in 



% 



% 



\ 















_^^ 



w 



1 











A^c 



^yV/^'/ 



CytTy^l 



9A£ 



COT-, 



x'^'^ 



^^/y 



\ 



V 

























\ 



















































































—/^/e. 



'C^C 























^ ' 





^.^ 



.-•" 





»* 































/^/<s 



/^/^ 



/S2'^ /A?/ 



/^^^ 



Tig. 9.— The relation between the price of cotton and the amount of "nonpickable" cotton left in 



the field 



1921 on this plantation (No. 31) of 16.1 per cent in the form of 

 nonpickable cotton. This leaves 83.9 per cent representing the crop 

 picked; 4.7 per cent of this gives the damage to picked cotton, 

 amounting to 3.9 per cent of the total matured crop, which added to 

 16.1 gives a total average damage of 20 per cent. In 1921, however, 

 only approximately one-third of the cotton at Tlahualilo received 

 summer irrigation. So a weighted average on this basis, but not 

 considering acreages in individual fields, would give the nonpickable 

 cotton as 14.5 per cent of the total crop, the damage to the picked 

 cotton as 3.9 per cent, and a total damage of 18.4 per cent. 



The total loss for 1922 can not be calculated on the above basis, 

 because, as was pointed out before, the figures for the percentage of 

 nonpickable cotton for the two seasons are evidently not comparable. 



" The figures for nonpickable cotton for 1919 and 1920 are from Loftin (Dept. Bui. 918 and a subsequent 

 unpublished report by him). 



