Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1916-11-28
Cotton Wastes.

Tho statement nv the federal Department of
Agriculture tkat inaccurate grading cost the cotton
growers of the United States something IKE se'on
and a half million dollars in the year 1913-14 is
another reminder of the large economic losses uue
to inefficient methods in handling farm products.
OF all such products cotton is handled most care
lessly from the time it leaves the field until 1t
reaches the LOOM ..
Since the Government promulgated official cot
ton standards there has been marked improvement
in the matter of grading, though conditions are
still short of what they should be and OF what they
will be when the growers themselves famlllarlze
themselves with the various grades 1t frequently
happens too, that the grade and. accordingly the
value of cotton lowered by inadequate ba1ng ana
covering and storage Cotton that is exposed 10
the weather often becomes stained trashy, so
that though the fiber is unchanged lts market
value is impaired.
A still more prolific source of cotton losses
is exposure tc fire. In the crop-moving season
thousands of bales are scattered along streets or
near stations without protection The cost of
such carelessness is indicated by the fact that
during the first eight months of the present year
there were ffty-seven cotton fires, involving
total loss of more than nine million dollars In
the last few years it is gratifying to note cotton
storage facilities have improved. At a number
of points in the South substantially built and mod
have been built Such warehouses reduce insur-
ance charges to u minimum and also enhance the
credit value of the cotton stored in thenl
Cation ought to be handled with particular
care because it is the collateral behind more
loans than is, perhaps any other product OF
American farms. Mr.. Charles E. Meek, New
York banker and president of the National Fire
Protection Association Interestingly says. in this
connection:
THE planter borrows money to buy seed,
fertilizer and labor the storekeeper bor-
rows money to pay for goods he supplies to
the planter the local bank borrows money
from its correspondents to lend the planter
and the storekeeper; and the correspondents,
in turn borrow from the banks in the larger
cities When the crop has been harvested, the
cotton buyer borrows money to pay for his
purchases and then there begins another
chain of borrowings which ends only when
YOU borrow to pay for your cotton purchases.
The converting of the raw materials into
manufactured article starts new series of
borrowing transactions, which doesn't end
til the ultimate consumer is reached, and even
he sometimes is compelled to touch friend
in order to purchase shirt. Therefore, cot
ton as a great factor of credit, is entitled to
more respect than it has been receiving. OF
course there is the protection against money
loss in these transactions through fire insur-
ance, but it is impossible TO replace the
nomic waste which, in the last analysis means
more than the mere money involved"
There nothing better in the world to lend money
on than cotton, Mr. Meek adds, and it should
mand reasonable credit rates. But where methods
of storing negligent there will be necessarily
high tax both for insurance and banking facilities
Accurate methods of grading, according to the
federal Department of Agriculture. would have
fho nottn md haIf
dollars in a single year. Better fire protection in
cotton storage would have saved upwards of nine
million dollars in the of eight months
reform of neficiencies in ginning and bang and
covering would save, there is no telling how much
from season to season. The principles of
economy and resourcefulness which are praciced in
well-managed industrial plants would conserve in
calculable wealth if applied in agriculture and in
time they Undoubtedly will be applied.