The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-11-08
Totals. ..........34,134,1I 8


11.27l-5 S45 70 Is
The average animal acreage for the
first five years was IL SOC, 600 acres, the
average of production for the same
period being 4,S55,732 bales, or 171.5
pounds of lint per acre. The average
for the next five years is: Acres, A.
$4,000; bales, 6.S26.S23; yield per acre,
1889 pounds lint. There was nearly
100000 bales difference in favor of
the last five years, and yet there is
but $142OOO,OOO difference in value,
the 100000 bales excess having add
ed but S14.20 per bale to The aggregate
value of bales for the last five years,
against the first five years. 1t is esti-
mated the latter period produced
an average of 12.4 pounds
per acre more than the
first. In other words, should the av-
erage area of the first period have
been retained in the second, the crop
of the latter period, at the rate yield
of the second period, would have been
$4,000 bales more per annum than the
crop of the first period; or the crop
from 1878 to 1882, inclusive, would
have given the same amount of
money that the 81, 1874, 118 bales actual
ly amounted to at 1127 1-5 cents per
pound. 1t is clear, since such lesser
crop would have maintained the av-
erage price indicated, that producers
have been at the pains and trouble to
make this extra 100000 of bales to
no earthly advantage. But this is not
the ugliest feature that pre-
sents itself. affecting producers.
It is shown that the price of cotton
for the first years was 143S 2-5 cents;
for the last period it was 11.27 is
cents. 1t is assumed that the price of
production for the first period aver
aged 10 cents per pound; for the last
s cents. The balance, over cost of
production in the first case would be
438 2-5 cents per pound, while in the
latter it would be 3.27 1-5 cents, pro-
ducing Il net profit in one case
of 1852 12 per bale, against
$13 oS2l per bale. The interesting
search is extended further. Carry
these net products, one of $17.521s on
26,O61, 1852 bales, which the area of the
first decade would have produced at
the actual yield per acre of the last
half of the decade, and the latter net
product of $13.O8A per bale on the
81, 134, 11S bales of actual crop of the
last five years of the decade, and for
the first there is net product of
1856, 721,8 1854 against $446,747, 1856 for
the latter. Here is loss suffered in
the 100000 bales production
amounting to $10,OOO,OOO,l But sup
pose the price of 14.38 2-5 cents should
not have been maintained, that the
price should have declined to 1898 2-5
cents. Then if eight cents be the
cost of production for the lat
ter per pound, we have
the same 438 20 cents net per pound
giving US the same results with the
retained area of the first half of the
decade and actual yield of the latter.
Retaining the acreage of the first half
of the decade in the latter half, there
would have been saved S,278,OO0 acres
of cotton area, and since two acres
may be cultivated in gram to one of
cotton. it is shown that $3.50, 600 acres
could have been used for additional
food production. 1t is estimated
that the product of this acre
age would have amounted to
$50 100000 worth of grain, annually,
for the five years an aggre-
gate of $300.OO0,O0O. But the &c.
100000 gain, in the last five years, has,
with the additional expense alone of |
baling. transportation and handling
at home, cost 100000, which makes
the real shrinkage in value of the big
crop period of $35oOOO,OOO. The
Charleston News and Courier, to |
which we are indebted for much care
full calculation on this subject, says:
If the cotton states have to |
buy this year thirty millions of grain
and provisions, it is a great mercy |
that we have not made a full average |
crop of cotton. See it. Carry 1874 |
pounds on 16,7S0OC0 acres (the area as
stated by the cotton movement) for
1888 and we would have grown 49,
O00 bales of 400 pounds weight; and |
at last years yield per acre, $4,000
bales. Do we not see that such crop
with considerable overplus from last
years crop on hand would in all hui
man probability have touched 8 cents
What then would our millions of bales
product have stood US in? The
cost of production would have eaten
up the whole product so that, literal
ly, nothing would have been left to
buy our bread with, though weshould
have piled Pelion on OsSa in cotton.
Now, if we can save 21S cents a pound
over cost of production and make
{. 100000 bales of 400 pounds weight,
we shall have net product of $780,
100000.
Certainly, here are figures for the
earnest consideration of cotton pro
iucers. The problem of production
Is supplemented by the more i'm
portant one of cash balances in the
hands of producers. Surely there can
be nc sense in making big crops of
cotton, that make the cost of produc-
ton damaging to producers. Our
crops should be pitched so as to pr o
vide for bigger showing on the
credit side ofledgers.
|