The Waxahachie daily light. [volume] (Waxahachie, Tex.) 1894-current, 1906-10-23
PRODUCTION OF COTTON
oenSas Report Shows Quantity Of Cotioa
tinhed in United States.

ot the census showing the quantity
.of cotton ginned In the United States
Tor the year of 1905 has Just been
issued This report shows the crop
Tor tnat year to be t0.725.Ga2 bales
theAe figures include iintcrs and the
round bales counted as halves
When compared with The crop of
1905, that Of 1904 was 27.7 per cent
greater, that Of 1903 6.e per cent
less, and that OF 1909. 0.5 per cent
greater When expressed In 500
pound bales. the crop of 1905 is To-
A04.536 bales. that Of 1904 is 2G.g
per cent greater that of 1909 is :
per cent less, and that of 1902 Is o ,
per cent greater.
Because of the variation In the
average weight Of the bale through
out the several cotton growing states.
the number of running bales does not
credit the states with their proper
quota Of the cotton crop. On account
OF thls condition, while the number
OF running bales is given in each in
stance. the crop Of the United States
and of every county of each state is
also given in equivalent 5N0-pound
bales
In order TO distribute the total pro
duction by states, it is necessary to
add the quantity of linters. obtained
by the cottonseed- mills from re-
ginning cottonseed, to the quantity of
cotton obtained from ginning seed
cotton. Linter cotton has become a
permanent factor in production sta
tistics and no comparisons are com
plete which do not include it. 1t
forms part Of cotton exports and of
the takings and consumption of cot
ton using mills.
The average production of cotton
for the last four years is 11.339.323
bales, or 534,767 bales in excess of
the crop grown in 1905. The aver
age annual production of the seven
year period covered by Table | is TO-
679,932 bales, or 124,623 less than
the growth of 1905 The production
of every state, except Kansas, where
the production is insignificant, is less
in 1905 than in 1904. The largest
decrease, as compared with the pro-
duction in 1904, are G15, 1S4 bales in
Texas, 603, 401 in Mississippi, 5S7 :
26S in Louisiana and 31o,4S7 in Ar
kansas. Measured in percentages the
| greatest losses sustained are SIS pei
| cent in Louisiana, "a in Arkansas
32.9 in Mississippi, and 24S in In
dian Territory The combined pro
duction of Louisiana, Mississippi, Al
| kansas. and Texas in 1905 was /,
$50, ,999 bales, compared with 7,107,
339 in 1904, a loss of 2,116,3 $40. TIL,
combined production of the states o
| North Carolina, South Carolina, Geor
| gia, Florida, and Alabama in 1905
! lNpln NM AI wi
| 5,342,759 in 1904, loss of 572, ,341
| bales The loss in the first group OF
| states is 29S per cent, and in the
second groupe 10.7 per cent. The
| heavy loss in the first group of states
was brought about by a reductiop in
| the planted area and by climatic con-
ditions Bad weather prevented the
! thorough preparation of the soil foI
! planting; excessive rains in the states
which show the greatest losses dam
aged the growing crop, and the over
| flowing of the Mississippi and the
| Red Rivers necessitated the abandon
ment of large cotton areas.
The extension of cotton growing
lin Oklahoma and Indian Terrltoi
since 1899 is noteworthy. The com
bined production of these territories
i'm 1899 was 2lT,990 bales and IL
1905 il was 692, ,433 bales, an in
crease of 474,443 bales, or 2lI-6 pei
cent. compared with an increase o
Il4.2 per cent for the entire country
The total production of cotton IN The
United States Tor the seven years
shown In Table / amounts 10 t4.toS,
l52G bales. OF this amount. the states
west of the Mississippi river contrib
Iut,d 24.5T3.3SO bales, or tG.2 pei
lCput. and the states east fU.l>b, 10
lor 53.N per cent
Estimated value uf the cotton crol
includes both value oi Ihv lint yottoi
land that of the seed grown u th'
several wears The value of th, eiol
Iof 1905 i4 found ta h, St--,-HN.
IYGa.5T. compared with Stn--"a 3.
It8ag- for 1905. $500. H4H.-H".>- io
1908. lud u1.N9T.ttt. f1l IFN-
lTtr average value uI J Hnn-pouut
I hJI, ut upland cotton tha season t
ISsHtu compared with SisHH t'
ItsuI. 8n Increase of StI.t'. oI -t.
prr ,eui Ths combined value "i im
tuF gFaps amounts iu N-.ftt. Do.
lEfIul. thr attllsr htIus sol '.'Ff.
loss tu. which Ia Sre.hnt -tH."t .e
lfhau fhr f1iue of rho crop H."Nu H
I8Hr.
I tn tlr f-poft b, .Yuuu.- rH. naN
IHrr sHss Io NNiiamsuH county. IsN
I4s tar IVH NrIHI u .hH' t.Hu I"H
Ihatur Nst tr,u hrId nt tI.
.a.N .E... HiHE eH NHN
nHn ...H ..t FrIE Aes eH..|
.Af.t.HH e. ta.nnt eir ."
HH .ut UfH NerHNI# t'