THE COST OF PRODUCING COTTON. 15 
TasLe X.—Distribution of costs (842 records). 
Pe a 
Wace: zon Yield ercentage of total cost to— 
State and county. of Staci a of lint 
records. |-0' 2CTES. | ner acre. «. eens 
in cotton. Labor. | Material.| Ginning.} Other. 
Georgia: | Pounds. 
Laurens County .--.--..---- 85 | 3,968.0 277 70 7 3 20 
Greene County .....-.....-- 78 | 4,147.5 260 68 9 3 20 
SumtermCountys +) 80 | 4,188.5 244 64 12 3 21 
Alabama: 
Tallapoosa County.-.....-.-.-- 89 | 1,169.0 172 76 7 2 15 
Marshall] County... ..------.- 90 | 1,249.5 227 65 ate 2 21 
Wale Count ys 2-3 = 90 | 1,226.5 194 71 9 2 18 
South Carolina: 
Anderson County.........-- 89 | 2,865.5 248 63 10 3 24 
Barnwell County..........- 91.) 3,935.5 268 61 17 3 19 
Texas: : 
Dllis: Countyess ease 75 | 8,148.0 176 47 3 4 46 
yuUSKke COUN yes seen 75 | 2,568.0 185 68 7 4 21 
The labor column includes all man and mule labor. This group 
is by far the most important from the standpoint of cost in the 
production of cotton. The above table shows a range from 47 per 
cent in Ellis County, Tex., to 76 per cent in Tallapoosa County, Ala. 
In eight districts the labor costs approximated 61 to 71 per cent of 
the total cost of production. 
The. item second in significance was fertilizers. In view of the 
fact that cotton occupies such a prominent position on these farms, 
and taking into account the necessity for plant food on many of the 
soil types on farms which are reported in this survey, it would be 
quite natural to look for a fairly large outlay for fertilizers, especially 
under the prices that obtained during the season of 1918. The Ellis 
County farmers applied no fertilizer whatever. In the remaining 
areas the fertilizer expense varied from 7 to 33 per cent of the total 
farm expenses. Dale and Tallapoosa Counties, Ala., and Rusk 
County, Tex., had a relatively low proportion of the total farm expense 
devoted to the purchase of fertilizers. 
TaBLE X1.—Dvstribution of costs—charge for ‘‘use of land’’ excluded (842 records). 
Percentage of total cost to— 
Num- | Totalnum-} Yield of 
State and county. ber of | ber ofacres| lint per ¥ | % | 
records.) in cotton. acre. : Mate- sin- | 
| | Labor Tale | ning. | Other. 
| | 
Georgia: | Pounds. 
WATEeuUS GOURD sss 85 3, 968.0 277 77 8 3 12 
Greene: County si sie seek 78 4,147.5 260 7 10 3 | 11 
Site COUNTY. ass =n eee ee 80 4,188.5 244 71 14 3 | 12 
Alabama: : | 
Maliapoosa: Coumtiv=-c<-- = =-2 5 5228. 89 1,169.0 172 7 8 2 | 11 
Marshalii@ountya2-2<. 2.5. 2.5) 2. 90 1, 249.5 227 73 13 2 | 12 
MaleConnty= <4. es 90 1, 226.5 194 76 9 3 | 12 
South Carolina: 
ANG eTSOM COUNLY=o-5- =" eens 89 2, 865.5 248 74 12 3 il 
Barnweli@ounty.. 2 0 91 3, 935.5 268 68 18 3 | li 
Texas: 
IBHMSIC OUNLYo-s oe ee eee 75 8,148.0 176 75 4 6 15 
AUS OU Lycee ee ee ee ee | 75 2, 568. 0 185 76 7 4 13 
Itis significant to note that the omission of land rent from Table XI changes the percentages in the labor 
column so that thisitem constitutes from 70 to 80 per cent of the totalcost of producing cottonin practically 
alldistricts. A comparison of the two methods shows distinctly that where land rentalis omitted in the 
Ellis County area the percentage of totalcost for labor fallsin line with the proportion indicated for other 
districts which were used in this study. 
