The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1921-12-17

OF YEARS
COTTON CROP
Of Agri-.
culture Expl al n S
How and Why First
Forecast Was S O
Far Wrong

travel funds prevented personal
checking Of acreage planted and
forced acceptance Of growers re-
ports of acreage reductions which
were biased by propaganda and
generally believed" the crop report
ing board Of the department of ag-
riculture declared in statement
today'in announcing the final fore
cast for this years cotton crop Of
/ $50. .000 bales, an increase Of L.
SOC. 600 bales over the last forecast.
. Favorable weather conditions since
the last condition report on Septem-
Der 25 permitted maturing Of late
cotton, the board said, while re-
/ duction Of fertilizer reported earlier
in the season was Offset by residue
remaining in the ground from last
! year. Boil weevil and other in
sect damage, the statement said,
was not so great as expected and
the hot dry weather Of the early
fall hastcned the maturity Of the
crop and prevented mucl, Of the
da:r age which otherwise would
have resulted.
/ Data on which the acreage il cul-
tivation was estimated on June 25
was correct, the statement declar-
ed, when checked against data sub
mitted by the growers at the time,
"but it now appears that the data
upon which the estimate was bas-
ed was misleading, the acreage was
, underestmiated.
Reports from statisticians Of the
department, who were able to
travel after July /, indicated that
reports of acreage reductions on
June 25, exaggerated the reduc-
/ ton in acreage" the statement
: said, adding that while many
growers actually reduced their
acreage, others took advantage OF
/ the propaganda sentiment and
/ proceeded to increase their own
acreages."
This is still the smallest crop
grown in the United States since
1895" the statement asserted.
The average weight per running
bale is estimated at 1878 pounds.
The price paid producers De-
cember was 1872 cents per pound.
i The estimated production by
states, in equivalent 500 pound
bales, is: Virginia, 10000; North
Carolina, 100000; South Carolina,
! 760, 900; Georgia, $4,000; Florida,
$4,000; Alabama, $4,000; Mis-
issippi, $4,000; Louisiana, 2s5.0O0;
Texas, 100000: Arkansas, 100000;
Tennessee, 10000; Missouri, 49,
/ 900; Oklahoma, $4,000; California,
$4,000; Arizona, 10000; all other
states, 1900.
The crop reporting board, the de-
partment of agriculture announced,
was forced to accept growers re-
ports of acreage reductions, which
were biased by propaganda and
generally believed"
In a sta cement issued with the
governments estimate today. the
department Of agriculture said:
The December cotton report,
forecasting total crop of $780,
| coo bales, is much in excess Of earl
ier estimates during the growing
season. 1t may be we'll. therefore,
to explain the principal factors
which account forthe difference
between the early promise and the
last estimate.
Acreage: % Persistent and
widespread propaganda at planting
time for reduction in cotton acre
age of from SO to SO per cent. as
compared with 1920. CD Propa-
ganda supported by large carry
over from previous season, low
prices below cost Of production in
| 1920, reduced foreign consUmp-
ton and demand with great finan-
cial loss to growers in 1920. and
lack OF credit at planting time. CD
Acreage reduction reported at
planting time by growers affected
by propaganda. (4) Lack Of travel
funds prevented statisticians OF the
bureau from personally inspecting
and checking acreage in their states
in 1919. 1920 and first half OF 1921.
60 Crop reporting board forced
to accept growers report Of acre
age reductions. which were biased
by propaganda and generally be-
lieved CD Since July l held
statisticians have been able to trav-
el and their reports indicate that
the growers reports on June Is
exaggerated the reduction IN acre
age It appears that while many
growers actually reduced their
acregae, otheis took advantage Of
the propaganda sentiment for re-
duclion and proceeded to increase
their own acreages. CD The esti-
mate Of the acreage in cultivation
on June p was correct when
checked against data submitted by
growers at that time, but it now
appears that the data upon which
the estimate was based were mis-
leading. the acreage was underesti-
mated, and the crop reporting
board was deprived of the check
afforded by personal travel and in
spec.ion of field statisticians until
the last half of the crop year.
Yield per acre:
Cd Weather conditions were re-
ported generally unfavorable during
the growing season over large por-
tons OF the cotton belt up until the
last condition report as Of Septem-
Der 25. Since that date the wealth
er has been better than the aver