22 



Till: MEXICAN COTTON-BOLL WKEVTL. 



throughout the State were unfavorable to the cotton crop, resulting 

 in a reduction of 0.05 bale per acre for the uninfested portion of the 

 State. The weevil loss was estimated at 100,920 bales. In 1902 

 the 32 counties infested produced 0.28 hale per acre. The loss 

 chargeable to the boll weevil was 200,000 bales. In 1903 the 49 

 counties infested yielded 0.23 bale per acre, as against an average of 

 0.43 bale during years previous to infestation, which was interpreted 

 to -low a loss of 500,000 bales due to the weevil. In 1004, 69 counties 

 were infested. These showed a loss of 0.22 bale per acre. This 

 meant, after deducting the Losses due to the bollworm and other 

 causes, a loss of 550,000 hales due. bo the boll weevil. In these esti- 

 mates the losses for the period from 1899 to 11)04 amounted to 

 1,725 000 hales. 



The weevil was in Texas from 1S99 to 1904, bul had not caused 

 any appreciable damage in Louisiana during that period. The 

 statistics of production and acreage of the two States for these years 

 show clearly the effect of the weevil on the crop. 



Table I. Comparison of cotton production and acreagi in Texas and Louisiana in 



equivalents of '500- ■pound hales. 



Year. 



Texas. 



Louisiana. 



Acreage. 



Crop. 



Acreage. 



Crop. 





A cres. 

 0,642,309 

 7,041,000 

 7, 745, 100 

 8,006,546 

 8.129,300 

 8,704,000 



Bales. 

 2,609,018 

 3, 438, 386 

 2,502,166 

 2,498,013 

 2,471,081 

 3,030,433 



Acres. 

 1, 179, 156 



-- 

 1 . -loo. »;.%(> 

 " ? 

 7 - 



Bales. 

 7(M 1.352 

 705,761 



1900. 





840,471 













893 19 







It will be seen that while the acreage in Texas and Louisiana 

 increased at about the same proportion the crop in Texas decreased 

 annually for the six years ending with 11)04 (with two exceptions— 

 1 900 and L904), while the crop in Louisiana increased annually (with 

 one inconsiderable exception, in 1903). That the boll weevil pre- 

 vented Texas from keeping pace with Louisiana during this period 

 will be admitted by all. The exceptional years. 1000 and 1904, in 

 which the production in Texas did not decrease, were those in which 

 the conditions for the cotton plant were unusually favorable. More- 

 over, it is to be noted that in the first of these two years the pest had 

 qoI reached far into the most productive counties. 



Further indications of the amount of weevil damage are available 

 from the statistics of production per acre, as shown by Table II: 



Table II. .1 < ag< yield per acn of cotton by jive-year periods in 500-pound bales. 



Vears. 





Louis- 

 iana. 



Arkan- 



Okla- 

 homa. 



sippi. 





Bale. 



a 39 



.37 



3 

 1.39 

 ' . 34 



. 2 



Bah. 

 i L 58 

 .51 



. 52 



i . 49 

 i . 29 



Bale. 

 0. 58 

 .40 

 .45 



. i:. 

 i .40 

 • .37 



Bale. 

 (i. 48 



. is 

 .52 



.47 



■ .47 

 i.35 



Bah. 

 (1.45 

 .40 





. 43 











.40 





.44 







i .40 







During these periods the weevU ha* caused more or less damage to the crop. 



