72 CIRCULAR 10 0, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



division, and a separate set of grades was drawn up for each pooling 

 area. In some areas, where the type of tobacco was somewhat 

 different, members claimed that the grading system did them an in- 

 justice. This was true especially along the eastern edge of the new 

 belt of North Carolina. 



The leaf department had to bring together and train a sufficient 

 number of graders in preparation to handling the 1922 crop of 

 tobacco. Most of these men were recruited from persons who had 

 been in the leaf -tobacco business for years and it was not difficult for 

 them to become accustomed to the new system of grading. But the 

 grading of tobacco is, to a certain extent, a matter of independent 

 judgment, and even among the best graders some lack of uniformity 

 or regularity may exist. To insure a greater degree of uniformity of 

 grading within each pooling area, supervising graders were ap- 

 pointed to visit the different receiving points and to check the 

 grading. Most of these graders and supervising graders were expert 

 at grading only one type of tobacco. Graders who failed to grade 

 satisfactorily at some markets were often found to be more familiar 

 with another type of tobacco. 



GRADING PRACTICES 



Although the grading system was undoubtedly workable, the actual 

 operation of grading was not always strictly and satisfactorily car- 

 ried out. Pressure was frequently brought to bear upon graders by 

 farmers to overgrade their tobacco. Sometimes the graders were 

 partial; farmers often were friends or relatives of the grader. In 

 other instances the tobacco was overgraded in order to prevent a 

 member from becoming disatisfied. There was some evidence that 

 the practice of discrimination prevailing under the auction system 

 of marketing was not entirely absent, to the disadvantage of the less 

 influential farmers. It also frequently happened that a whole com- 

 munity managed to have graders removed to other warehouses, if 

 they graded too strictly or contrary to the ideas of the farmers. It 

 is a well-known fact that the farmers as a whole overestimated the 

 quality of their crops. 



The supervising graders were continuously employed to correct any 

 tendency to unfair or not uniform grading. It has been maintained 

 in some quarters that some officials of the association did not frown 

 on the tendency toward overgrading as members were thereby paid 

 higher advances and were kept better satisfied. There is no doubt 

 that in spite of the efforts of the supervising graders, a great deal of 

 tobacco was overgraded. The balance sheet of June 30, 1926, shows 

 that members were overpaid $404,326.03 on tobacco; a large part of 

 these overpayments was claimed to be due to overgrading. Every 

 year it was found necessary to transfer several hundred thousand 

 pounds to lower grades. 



In spite of these defects, however, the adoption and development 

 of a grading system proved a great boon to the tobacco producers of 

 the South. It taught farmers how to sort their tobacco more skill- 

 fully by quality and t}^pe, and gave them a better idea of the relative 

 value of the different grades. This experience still lives with them 

 and helps them, although the association no longer functions. The 



