The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1903-12-22
OIL MILLS AND THE COTTON CROP.

OIL MILLS AND THE COTTON CROP.
OF such Importance does Daniel ].
sully. who engineered one of the cor
ners in cotton last spring. consider
his theory that inferior cotton seed
is responsible for the decline in the
yield of cotton per acre, that he has
had an article, which he had publish
ed in New York a couple of weeks
ago, put in circular form. and is scat
tering it through the cotton states.
He practically charges that the cotton
oil mills are responsible for the short
cotton crops of the last two or three
years.
He says that the cotton oil mills
insist upon having the very best seed,
and that they pay such a high price
for it that cotton planters sci their
best seed and keep the inferior for
planting. If this is a fact planters
ought to be warned that instead of
profiting by a high price for their
best seed they are pursuing a course
that not only prevents them from
raising good crops of cotton but also
good seed.
1t seems that there is a falling off
in the quality of the seed. On this
point Mr.. Sully quotes George A. Nor
rison, president of the American Cot
ton Oil Company. In recent report
Mr.. Morrison says: 1.-The decrease
in surplus earnings of the American
Cotton Oil Company is attributed to
extreme competition for cotton seed
and the seed proving to be of poor
quality, producing oil of an inferior
grade and less than normal quantities
to the ton"
From this it seems that even the
cotton oil mills are not getting very
good grade of seed, though the price
they pay is so high that it is one of
the reasons that cotton oil mills are
not so profitable as they once were.
If it be a fact, however, that the
quality of the seed received by the
cotton oil mills is gradually becom-
ing poorer it is a reasonable inference
that the decline in the yield per acre
Of cotton is due to some extent to seed
sterilization.
A day or two ago we quoted some
figures showing the yield Of cotton per
acre thirty years ago-the average yield
and compared the yield then with the
yield now. They did not seem to sup
port Mr.. Sully's theory. Still, the year
for which the figures were quoted may
not have been a favorable one for cot
ton. Mr.. Sully quotes figures which
support him in his contention. For
instance, he says that in 1S97-9S the
yield of lint per acre planted was 224
pounds; in 1S9S-99, it was 1872; in 10000,
it was 21O; 10000, it was 211: in 1901
OF, it was 1888; in 1902-03, it was 1888; in
10000 government estimate), it was
176.
These figures certainly show a grad
ual falling off in the yield. We were
inclined to the opinion when Mr.. Sully
first advanced his theory, that there
might be other reasons for the decline
in the yield, the boil weevil in Texas
and bad weather conditions, but it
must be admitted that these reasons
would hardly account for such an I'M
interrupted decline.
1t seems hard to believe that cotton
planters would part with the best
seed, even though the price offered for
it was high, knowing that the plant
ing of inferior seed would result in
a decline in the yield of cotton per
acre, and also in the yield and quality
of seed. In the corn belt and the
wheat belt the very best grain is kept
for seed. The same rule ought to be
followed in the cotton belt. No price,
however high, ought to tempt the
planter to part with the best seed
and keep only inferior seed for plant
ing. BY planting inferior seed year
after year the yield may become so
small that it will not pay to cult
vate cotton, even though the price
be much higher than it is now. But
is Mr.. Sully right in saying that
planters, as a rule, are planting in
ferior seed?