Variability of cotton yields by counties, in the United States

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Variability of cotton yields by counties, in the United States
Physical Description:
Mixed Material
Creator:
United States -- Bureau of Agricultural Economics
Botts, Ralph R ( Ralph Rudolph ), 1906- ( joint author )
Publisher:
s.n. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028421754
oclc - 26697753
System ID:
AA00017388:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text


By A/ CoutA ee, August 1ne



A
ii TEV/' UM D STATE) DARThmE OF AGMICULURE
(kI / / -ashington, f. C. n

,, VARIABILITY OF COTTON YIELDS
By Counties, in the United Sthtes

By Ralph R. Botts, Agricultural Economist
C
t. This is the third in a series of reports on the variability of
county yields, by crops, over a relatively long period of time. The
previous reports dealt with wheat end corn.j/ The variability Index
used in each report has been the coefficient of variation./

In general, the average yields and coefficients of variation,
shown by counties in tables 2-17, are based on county yields per painted
acre for 1929-50. Although no adjustment for trenM was made in the dnta,
a procedure for estimating the effect of trend on the variability cf yields
is included on pages 2 and 4 ../ The calculations were made for all
counties in which more than 2,000 acres of cotton were harvested in 1949,
as shown by census reports, except for a few counties for which five or
more years of yields were missing during 1929-50,

Indices of variability in yields (coefficients of variation) provide
an indication of the relative yield risk among counties. For countleE in
which cotton is a major crop, these indices should, be useful in appraising
land values, in studies of crop insurance, and as background information
for studies in which yield uncertainty is an important consiieretlon.
Potential users of this information include lending agencies and research
workers in crop insurance and farm management who are concerned with the
measurement of risk costs.

The relative nature of the coefficient of variation as an index
of yield risk is illustrated by the following example. Suppose that the
average yield for each of two counties is 300 pounds; but that the co-
efficient of variation is 40 percent in county A and 20 percent. in county
B. According to normal distribution logic, two-thirds of the annual yields

It "Variability of Wheat Yields, by Counties, in the United States," and
"Variability of Corn Yields, by Counties, in the United States."
2/ Standard deviation of annual county yields divided by the average
county yield for the period.
3/ Attention is also directed to the average yields (1938-46) that are
shown, by counties, in United States Department of Agriculture Technical
Bulletin 1042. The county coefficients of variation shown In that report
are based on deviations from trend (standard error of estimate of trend
values expressed as a percentage of average yield). The slope'of the
trend values is also shown, by counties, in that bulletin.









Vwo-taiV or W1 GTUw'aL 71615 -W I om Ucy i Ao so S We3 U lWp o@o K ILL& mS S g
80 end 120 percent of average, or between 20 and 360 pounds a a1 of,:
only 120 pounds. Therefore, with the sae av gem yield (300 pounds), the i
range within which two-thirds of the annual yields ght be paooted to fl
is twice as great for county A as for county B.

Regional Differences in Yield Risk

General differences In the dgree of yield risk we Sou in figure 1.3
The greatest relative variability In county yields bas occurred In Teea eand
Oklahomm. The variability decreases In general from vest to east. In
areas in which all acreage of cotton Is ordinarily irrieted, the variability
ie leess than in areas in which the proportion of the total acreage of cotta.
irrigated variee materially from year to year and is uab less than In ars |
where cotton is grown without irrigation.

The upward trend in yields has been acre pronaounoed in the Bat On a ,
the Wet. Increased use of fertilizer, better selection of land, and winter
use of improved varieties have contributed toward these increased yields. iii

In the Carolinas, yields apparently have been somewhat ore variable III
in counties in the Coastal Plain than in counties in the Piedaont area. In '.
South Carolina, part of this greater variability han apparently been due
to the stronger upward trends in annual yields and the lover average yields .
that have occurred in the Coastal Plain than In the Piedmont area. In: "
North Carolina, the greater variability in yields is Coastal Plain counties
has occurred despite the stronger upward trends in annual yields :and the
higher average yields in the interior counties. |

Data in the tables included in this report y be used to 'te
comparisons between counties. .

Estiasted Reduction in Coefficient of Variation If Baseaed
upon NYlations from Trh Values Rather than U1on
Deviations from A&vser YIo IA

If a substantial trend in annual county yields existed, a ooeffloient
of variation based upon (A), the squared deviations of the annual yold"s from
the average yield, would be substantially higher than one based on (B), the
squared deviations from trend. As previously indicated, method (A) ws used
to compute the coefficients of variation shown ain the appendixz tables of thisl
report. However, for purposes of comparison, oonputations based o method
(B) were also ade for every fifth county. The results are tmnarsled In
table 1.

_/Counties that are shaded alike had coefficients of variation that fell.
within the samos ooeffiolent-of-Mriation interval. J
.. t.


L 'Siiiiiiii








VARIABILITY OF COUNTY COTTON YIELDS


PERCENT*
complete data


over


U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


NEG. 48714-HX BUREAU Of AGRICULTURA, ECONOWICI


FIGURE 1






The steep the slope of the tread U throg anmal y;lw:s te
greater would be the difference between the coefficients of variation c -
puted by the two methods. Only lA or the 1 counties had a doumnwar
rather then an upward tread In annual yelds during 199-0. Nine of the
li counties were west or the Mississippi River. In about half of the 154
counties the coefficient of variation voul] have been reduced by leeoss thae
5 percent if baaed on method (B) rather than on nethod (A). In 72 percent
of the counties the reduction would have amounted to less than 10 percent.
for all 154 counties, the reduction in the coefficient averaged 7.6 percent.

The correlation between the slope of the trend line (used in method B)
and the percentage reduction in the coefficient of variation, using (B)
rather than (A), was 0.89, so that 79 percent of the difference in the per-
centagee was accounted for by the slope of the trend line.

Those who have need for a coefficient of variation based upon
deviations from trend rather than upon deviations from average yield, vill
find the following regression equation useful:

Pr w 2.79S 1.08 .... where "P is the percentage reduction
r
in the coefficient of variation if based on trend, and "S" is the slope of
the trend line through annual yields.

As an example, the (upward) trend in cotton yields during 1929-50
averaged 5 pounds per acre per year in Cherokee County, Ala. The above
formula indicates that the coefficient of variation (22 percent) shown
in table 2 vould be reduced by about 13 percent if the squared deviation
from trend had been used in the calculations instead of the squared deviatilon
from average yield. Such a coefficient of variation would be estimated, thue-
fore, at 19.1 percent in comparison with the 22 percent shown in table 2.2/
Using actual county yield data for these years, it was found that the co-
efficient of variation based on deviations from trend was 19 percent, which
compares closely with the 19.1 percent computed for this county by use of
the formula.

S22(1 .13) 19.1 percent.





'4






able 1.- Reltiohip between (1) slope of trend line thrQ1h annual county
yields d (2) percentage reduction in coefficient of variation if ed
on (A) deviaton fr trend values, rather than (B deviatio from
average county yield
...I Peroentage reduction in coefficient of variation
Slpe of trend lineI I if based on (A) deviations from trend rather
t Coun- I than upon (B) deviations fr average yield
1tle. i I I 25 per- I
eidess than, 5-9.9 10-1i4.9 115-24.9 cent or Averge
15 percent! percent percent percentI over |percent
Iu mber1Nuer of5 umber oflNumber oflNumber of'N umer oflPercent
I I counties Icounties Icounties Icounties Icounties I
I I I I I I I
tze~~I I I I I i
I I I I t I I
7 poundsor over I 13 I I 1 1 5 8 I 27.9
6 6.9pounds I 8 1 1 3 1 3 I 2 '18.8
S-. do. I 9 1 I 7 1 2 1 12.6
- 4.9 do. 18i 1 9 I 6 1 2 10.0
S 3.9 do. 1 18 1 5 10 -i 1 I 2 I 7.9
2 S.9 do. 1 29 14 1 13 1 2 1 I 5.0
S- 1.9 do. 1261 24 2 1 1 t 2.5
tha1 pound 1 19 I 19 I I I I 0.5
I I I I I I I
trend I I I i I
I I I I 1 1
e than 1 pound I 12 1 12 1 1 1 0.3
1 1.9 pounds I 2. 1 2 II I I 1 1.6
I I 1 1 1
3ota 15 4 1 77 31 4 1 19 1 14 1 10 1 7.6
I I I I I II
Percent of counties I 100.01 50.0 1 22.1 12.3 I 9.1 I 6.5 i XX
percentage I I I .
reduction I XX .1.7 1 7.3 1 11.4 1 19.1 1' 31.3 I 7.6
I I I I I i!




U

S::.s i. .. .. .. ... ... i
.. ::,... ,. .... *.. p~
Table 2.- Average yield ad oeoffici.et of wwrlation of manel yi*oMA,
1928-, ana otte arm g Arntd. a paeaetge ot ..................
oroplael bresteA, 1949, by couties
- -----aaaa u aa....a.a.ea- T T5Si"aak.d
I Averse I oelfoient IvestSt as persatme
County I yield of l of oropland bnrwt. d
I variation I
---a -b -- -- --a 0- -0 a 0 a a a
I Pounds I Percent I Percent
I I 1
Autau . 207.7 30 25
Bs.ldin . I 226.3 31 13 3:':;::
Barbour . .. 163.7 30 13
Bibb . 222.6 31 27
Bloaunt . 292.41 26 39
Bullock . 139.9 34 1 21
Butler . .I 197.0 1 34 22
Calhoun . 221.1 I 21 1 30
Chamber . 194.8 28 3
Cherokee . I 287.9 22 47
Chllton . 233.8 1 26 1 2..
Chocta... 1. 170.5 1 37 22
Clarke ... I 180.8 1 36 1 V
Clay . 208.6 18 1 20
Cleburne . 212.4 20 1 27'
Coffee ... .I 205.1 27 18 !
Colbert . .I 278.8 29 55
Con"cuh . 204.1 30 1 22
Cooa . 179.9 28 18
Covineton . 202.6 29 17 .
Crensbav .. .I 192.5 28 1 21 ir
Cullumn . 337.8 26 17 7
MlS . i 189.0 27 9
Dalla . 192.1 39 35
De Kab .3 .. 345.8 27 37
Elamore . 228.41 20 1 36
scambia .. .1 232.2 1 27 1 22
towah .. 280.9 26 I 38
rayette .. 228.0 31 30
Franklin .I 252.0 25 41
Geneva . .I 230.41 29 20
Greene .. .. ; 166.6 1 26 34
e .. 209.0 32 34
Henry . .I 213.0 24 15
Houston .. I 235.3 22 21
Jaokson . 283.1 26 34
Jefferson .I 246.6 26 22
A . .. 232.6 28 38
Lauderdale 251.3 1 22 48
1 1 1I cg qj y




- 7 -


ALABAMA

Table 2.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland. harvested, 19h9, by counties continued
-I i ICotton acreage har-


I Average
I yield


Pounds


Lawrence .t
Lee a 0 ,I
Limestone .
Lowndes .
Maoon . .,
Madison .
Marengo ..
Marion ,
Marshall . .
Mobile .
Monroe .
Montgomery. .I
Morgan 1
Perry .1
Pickens .,

Pike .ll .1
St.Randolph .1
Russelby . .1
St. llair .,
Shelby . .I
Sumter .a. .
Talladega 0
Tallapoosa .0. .. .* .
Tuscaloosa .
Walker . .1
Washington .o
Wilcox .. .. .. .1
Winston .


284.5
178.2
285.0
168.5
186.0
282.3
174.5
241.0
351.7
235.1
217.6
177.9
298.3
166.5
220.3
180.1
228.9
152.6
228.0
225.7
166.8
209.1
196.0
228.7
238.9
20o.5
176.0
267.6


SCoefficient Ivested ae percentage
i of |of croplJnd harvested


I,
~1*~





I


I
I
I


rariatlon
Percent I Percent
I
27 53
26 1 10
25 I 58
34 1 30
26 4 o
24 1 55
31 32
27 39
23 I 50
29 I 8
30 I 32
33 I 24
23 1 47
32 I 26
34 1 38
28 18
20 28
28 31
20 I 30
25 1 29
38 I 28
24 1 35
23 1 30
29 1 36
30 1 28
29 I 13
34 1 31
27 140


y- Percentage based on census


I I
data for 1 9.-- --------------


County





-8-


Tabla 3.-


fass
... .... ... :: : .:
AnVUes yfld. a. ocaefolat of uWftaftoa ot n t+ yi ,
1928-50, ao cotton crew. b'arstods pamsale of
cropland. Irvested, 19149, oonmbleUs


-- ---a a- a a- ---- a- -


Count I/


Graham .
Greenlee
Ibtricops.
Mmrloop_
Plman
PiBB 3/
Spinal .
PuMl


I Average
I yield


ia
I


Pounad


Sa a 0 .1 5314.9
* S 6 U S 423.0
S. 41159.8
.. .UaM 551.0
. .1 423.8
* S 0 397.7


ails.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I


- -Wa a
Coefficient
of
variation


Pe a en
Percent


a


I cotton eme ac-res
I veted a percflg
lot aropland. hakrMted
I aa erce
I Percent


1
I
I
I
I
I


72

32
75
75
7


I I I -
- yo-S counties vi tE or 'tha 2.OU sores or cotton DTtU" "
are shown. Losee than this acreage was harvested. in all unlisted countiS
except Coohie and Santa CruzG vhioh are not shown because 5 or more ywst
of yields vere missing.
?/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.
/ Average yield and coefficient of variation based on data for pelt
1928-31 and 1933-50.


1~**'"




- 0 -


ARKANSAS

Table h.- Average yield and coefficient of .variation of annual fields ,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties
~~~~~~~~~- -- -.- --.- -- -. -ceae -ar-
I I IC'Cittr1n create har-
o yI Average Coefficient Ivested aB percentage
County I yield of iof crnpland harvested
-----variation .j
Pounds I Percent I Percent
I I I
Arkansas .........I 227.5 I 33 8
Ashley . 270.4 I 33 I 51
Bradley 183.7 I 29 .I 41
Calhoun .. 169.9 I 28 1 52
Chicot . 1 271.6 1 33 59
Clark .I 190.7 I 34 134
Clay . 319.5 I. 26 i 41
Cleburne .. .1 174.4 1 35 I 32
Cleveland .1 166.1 1 30 151
Columbia .. 162.0 I 22 1 47
Conway . 175.1 I 35 38
Craighead .. 355.6 I. 23 1 56
Crittenden .. 392.9 I 32 1 69
Cross .. 344.1 I 34 I 44
Dallas .1 173.3 I 30 .. 40
Desha . .1 293.8 1. 31 I 58
Drew . 216.9 I 35 I 45
Faulkner . .I 189.5 I 31 I 47
,Fulton... ... .1 183.7 I 37 11
Grant . 168.7 I 29 I 27
Greene . 319.7 I 27 1 44
Hempstead .I 171.7 I 29 I 42
Hot Spring .. 176.4 I 32 1 19
Howard . .. 151.7 I 28 I 22
Independence .. 1 210.5 1 31 I 25
Izard. .. 180.6 I 38 I 28
Jackson .. 245.0 1 27 I 57
Jefferson .I 297.3 I 33 I 72
Johnson 170.8 I 42 1 5
Lafayette 204,7 1 28 I 68
Lawrence .. 248.9 1 29 I 41
Lee 0 .1 291.6 I 30 61
Lincoln .I 252.9 I 32 I 65
Little River 1 167.4 I 27 I 37
Logan .I 160.8 I 37 1 10
Lonoke..........I 258.4 I 30 53
Miller . 196.0 I 27 I 60
Mississippi 436.4 25 I 67
Monroe 258.2 I 34 I 58
Nevada .. 157.1 I 26 i 43
conlnudI I I-
-----------------------------------------------------------TCo- ntinud7 -




-10-


amme


Aveme yield e Un ooeffotist of eReMoM ta t yiiSMIV
19.8-5, ia otot snage bovete pUottse ofat
oroplAnd. ervutl, 2v99, Lg onetee% aaMttin


n a a a n m a a nad-


County I/

.............-


Ouachlta
Perry .
Phllipe
Pike .


* *
* S
* I
* a


Poinsett *
Pope .
Prairie .
Pulaski .
Randolph .
St. Franoois
Sevter .
Sharp .
Union .
Van Buren .
White .
Woodruff .
Yell .


S








B
U
S
S


IAverags
yield

I PounWs

158.1
163.3
1 300.6
S 134.7
I 409.0
I 158.5
I 235.4
1 260.8
I 252.4
I 338.7
I 138.8
1 82.3
169.0
S 152.7
S 198.9
S 264.9
1 I 183.4


- V-c 3,,7t-,ei-. w-' ZZ
are shown.
?/ Percentage based on oenusu data I


lble It.-


T- aWaaDa- awm W m
Coefficient aot,:,n a perg i -
oI tined a. percmmect
I ITiiI ** pJdw w
T~rtatof orpa WPbr iwend

I Percent Int
I I
29 38
1 36
I 31 1
31 1 16
251 5
na

35 16
S 30 I 53
S 31 I
301 6
30. I 1.6
3.37 1 32
30 31
39 1 21
29 I 46
27 95
31 I 2
r-o o1t99 LvTn- J WiN

for 1949.


t








'K
*




I.











V




- 11 -


CALIFORNIA

Table 5.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties


County I


Fresno .
Kern .
Kings .
Madera .
Merced. .
Riverside
Tulare. .


I
- ---
-.


vm "m ~m


Average
yield

Pounds


S9 .I 567.0
.. 652.8
. .1 574.4
S I ~ 1 495.1
. .I 440.6
S. 0 .I 367.2
S. .I 558.4


-i
I
I


I
I
I
I
I


yonijy counties wvth more than 2,0o0
are shown.


Coefficient
of
variation
Percent

20
15
15
17
25
30
14


c e co oi
acres of cotton


ICotton acreage har-
Ivested as percentage
lof cropland harvested


Percent

29
50
36
30
14
3
37
harvested rn- V-
harvested in 1949


2/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.



FLORIDA


Table 6.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties


------- --------d ----4-


County _/


Escambia
Holmes .
Jackson
Jefferson
Madison .
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Walton I .


I Average
I yield

I Pounds


S 0 .I 200.1
S. .I 179.0
S. 170.9
S .1 111.8
S. .I 130.9
* 0 .1 162.9
. .1 184.6
S. 154.4 I


- ow- -m
Coefficient
of
variation
Percent


32
31
27
32
31
28
32
30


ICotton acreage har-
Iveeted as percentage
[of cropland harvested
I _- --
I Percent

1 12
I 15
I 6
I 4 6
6
14
I 16
I 11


-Ol U countries with more than 2,000
are shown.
2/ Percentage based on census data for


acres I coto harvest T"l.9
acres of cotton harvested in--~l4'9




-12 -

(OwnA


Table 7-- Aveagie yieldA ad ooeftoloent of mzratls r f ammnl ISSld,
1928-0,o and cotton oresge srveets1 aers"eatgeg of
croplad, hbarvftls, 1949, tv counties
---------- ------ a---- --- a a ~iotna 'a m a a -
i I ICotton acreage "hr
I Average Coeffi Lenta vted as pecentag
County ,/ I yeld I of lo dropiaA harvested
variation i
I Pounde 1 Percent Percent
I I
Appling .. 201.9 I 28 1 18
Atkinson . 174.5 37 1 9
Bacon . 205.6 1 28 1 14
Baker . 161.2 1 34 1 5
Baldvln ....I 190.6 25 16
Bans . 1 225.0 1 25 I 28
B rrTOV . 258.7 1 17 36
Bartov . .I 257.5 I 22 1 51
Benl 111 H 1 206.1 I 20 1 18
Berrien ......... 208.0 30 7
Bibb . 206.7 1 25 11
Bleckley . .1 2114.0 i 30 1 24
Brooks .. 210.4 1 27 I 12
Bulloch .1 232.1 I 24 I 17
Burke. a I 226.0 24 I 37
Butte . 238.0 24 I 31
Calhoun.... .. 215.1 1 22 I 9
Caniler . .1 21.1 1 25 1 24
Carrol..... 248.7 I 21 i 31
Catooa. .. .1. 250.5 i 26 I 18
Chattooga .. .1 258. 1 26 38
Cherokee . .1 230.9 1 26 1 21
Clarke m .. .l 231.4 I 26 I 25
Clay . ...I 208.1 26 9
Clayton ..... .6 201.4 1 23 17
Cobb . .1 224.7 I 25 I 20
Coffee . 202.9 3 I
Colquitt . .I 249.4 1 2 1
Columbia .. I 184.5 I 30 1 23
Cook . .I 221.8 I 29 1 13
Coveta . .I 229.1 1 19 I 26
CraVfor .d.. .I 148.9 1 30 I 11
Crisp J 229.3 1 20 20
Decatur . 155.15 37 I3
Dodge ... 200.2 I .25 I2
Dooly . 222.0 I 20 1 26
Dougbhert . 175.0 1 24 6
Douglas .... .. 221.0 I 22 I 2
arly, . 210.5 i 25 .I 15
0- -I -- Izge )




- 13 -


(EORGIA
Table 7.-Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage narvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties Continued

| | ICotton acreaWe har-
I | Average Coefficient Ivestod Ea percentage
County 1 yield I of lot cropland harvested
-- Ivariation 1
....."" -----""- Pounds I Percent I Percent ---

Effingham..... .*. .1 194.9 1 28 11
Elbert ....... 210.4 1 27 1 33
Enanuel . 186.0 1 27 1 28
Evans . 210.6 1 26 13
Fayette . 241.0 1 21 I 32
Floyd . 238.3 I 21 I 38
Forsyth 242.5 25 28
Franklin .I 240.3 I 22 3
Fulton .1 233.7 1 20 i 21
Glascock 218.0 1 26 35
Gordon 281.9 I 21 I 46
Grady 188.4 1 24 I 4
Greene 1 1 195.8 22 I 24
Gvinnett .........I 228.1 1 16 I 60
Hall . 215.8 1 23 1 23
Hancock..........I 199.1 1 23 I 34
Haralson .1 253.8 1 23 I 32
Harris ..... ....I 179.7 1 26 1 17
Hart . .1 257.4 1 27 I 36
heard . 210.0 I 19 1 27
Henry 245.6 I 24 I 34
Houston .. .1 189.0 I 24 1 13
Irwin . 230.9 I 23 1 17
Jackson . 218.5 1 17 1' 37
Jasper 1 .1 237.6 1 24 I 29
Jeff Davis .. .I 199.4 I 30 I 14
Jefferson .. 222.6 1 24 1 31
Jenkins . .1 227.0 I 25 1 32
Johneon .. ........I 213.1 J 26 1 38
Lamar ... 205.3 1 24 I 20
Laurens .1 211.8 I 25 1 31
Lee . 186.2 I 26 6
Lincoln... ..... .1. 192.4 I 22 1 25
Lowndes .1 204.O 29 1 6
McDuffle . .1 227.3 I 24 36
Macon . .1 199.2 I 27 I 21
Madsleon . 253.14 i 22 I 35
Marion 165.2 I 29 I 18
Merlwether ,!. 209.5 I 23 I 32
Miller .... 192.0 1 29 I 6
"- Continud --




-u -


abm 7.- AmIyeu yle- -a coeffio ent. of ISnSh ,.. d flbL 'w
19"65, atd oattam acreage ts6"Wtd s d at
roplaSn &wvstod, 19kgL, 1 omontlee ooctLam



e a a am a a a am -a- -- i- -km a a, aW am a a a a a
I t...,tn acreagelM.
cat w Avrepg Coatficoeat Iseet s- percentage
Conyyyield of ^f oroplISM IhfZV-tS
;variation .b3tmnn
Pound I Percent I Peroent
Mitce.... .. 207.0 27 9
toaroe .. 185.6 28 17
Monteomery. ... 187.0 1 26 1 19
Morgan .. 1 258.3 20 1 9
Itirray....... .. 1 256.8 1 26 I 31
evton . .. 256.0 21 1 32
Oconee ... 244.9 21 1 39
Oglethorp .. 222.0 1 21 30
Pauldig . 2146.9 21 3
Pach ..... 223.9 25 1 T
Picken . 207.0 1 27 27
Pierce...... ... 202.5 26 1 9
Pike..... 1 221.8 23 29
Polk e a s 1 264.0 25. .46
Pulaki ...... ... 209.6 24 129
Putu . 217.0 1 21 1 22
eandolph. .. 202.8 25 9
RIel d. 219.2 21 24
Rookdale .. 20.0 24 31
Shley 1 ..194.4 1 27 I 4
Soreven . 1232.4 27 31
semnole 202.7 26 1 113
Bpaldianlg .. 227.4 21 I 17
Ste art . 171.4 31 1 9
Ster .... 228.2 22 16
Talbot....... 1 149.9 24 1 16
Tali f error 171.9 1 2 30
Tattall . 203.2 24 1. 12
Taylor ... 203.3 1 27 1 23
Telftir . 187.3 29 1. 16
Terrell . 259.4 1 22 it

Thane .. 2063.0 28 *- 6
T sm, u....... .. 206.0 I 28 1 6
Tift . 242.8 1 22 1 12
Tocbe .......... I 200.4 1 25 1
Treutlen .. ...... 187.1 1 28 I 23
Troup .. .. .. .... 163.0. 1 23 1-1
Turner s a 1 222,3 1 2A 1 16
Tvlgg . 158.3 1 21. .20
Upon ... 173.6 29. i 11
ae aaa--aaa- -a -",aaa a)- a a a""




- l15 -


GEORGIA

Table 7.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percenta 7e of
": "cropland harvested, 1949, by countleu continueI


County ,/



Walker . .
Walton. .
Warren .
Washington .
Wayne .
Webster .
Wheeler .
Whitfleld .
Wilcox .
Wlkes .
Wilkinson .
Worth ., 0


I Average
I yield
I-.* -" -. f -" -
I Pounds

S 272.2
I 278.6
I 237.2
I 216.1
I 213.1
I 159.4
I 189.9
S 252.4
1 205.1
I 188.0
I 168.2
i 222.6
I


I- yi0ly counTies wvth more than 2,t000
are shown.


Cf iet !Cotton acreage har-
I Coefficient Iveste as pcrconthge
I of luf cropland harveuted


I
I
I











acres


Sriatt
Percel


23
20
21
23
29
31
33
21
20
19
28
24


ion
nt I
-I




I


I
* I


Percent

21
49
43
29
19
6
15
22
25
28
* 14
18


of cotton harvested in 1949


2/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.


I


I *




- 16-


wTle 8.- AvMW s ylelt at coeffeoae t of aar ttsot ..."y ,
19.S-., a oottom acreage harreste an pe. .o.a"s ofr,
oroplat harveaeted, 1949, 1a walahis
S- mya -a a>a S S M mm a a aw a a aqau o
Avenge CI oefficient Ivete. as p]?ewtea
frtm I yield. of l or..,a.s a .
Tarlatlon g
I Pounds I Percent I Peroent

Aoadia .1..... ... I 269.6 1 34 13
Avoyelle .. 1 296.6 38 1
Blenville .. 14I7.6 35 1 38
Bossier . 248.4 1 31 1 59
Caddo . 268.6 19"'
Caldwell .... 266.5 32 1 7
Catahoula ... 276.4 1 35 '"
Claiborne ... 155.7 27 6
Concordia . 309.3 39 52
De Soto I 156.o 37 V 49
huetCarroll 1 335.5 1 32 1 57
Eaht Feliolana 1 174.8 39 17
vangelline .... 260.4 1 34 1'
Franklin ; ... 274.3 27 1 f
Grant .. ... 234.9 39 32
Iberia 200.2 1 38 1 4
Jackson . 155.4 32 1 23
Lafayette a 254.5 34 28
Lincoln 154.0 30 1 39
MIlson . 318.5 35 1 6
Morehouse . 298.8 31 56
Natchitochee 255.1 33 5k
Ouaohita . 266.3 30 52
Pointe Coupee ...I 289.0 142 25
apides ... 319.6 39 39
Red River . 212.1 34 90
Richland... ..* I 269.4A 29 65
Sabine .. 17.4 1 35 130
St. elen 162.4 1 36 1 17
St. Iandry .. 26.9 39 1 31
St. Martin . 246.6 45 18
Tenaa .. 33.0 27 46
Union a 171.6 29 36
VeYrllllon ........ 220.6 1 29 6
Vernon 168.6 31 16
Washington ..1 212.9 ?6 20
Webster . 160.3 0 40
Wet Carroll 286.7 1 26 1 51
Weet Fellotana 160.8 42 9
Winn . 165.1 31 22

V /oni0 parishes "TtE i trehan Ft &Z oares' of' oottocn LrmJ;- Tnil4
are shown.
?/ Percentage based. on census data for 1949.




- 17 -


MISSISSIPPI
Table 9.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties

SI ICotton acreapo har-
I Average Coefficient Ivested as percentage
County yield I of lof cropland r.arveted
-. 1 variation
Pounds I Percent I Percont
I I I
6 22,
Adam a a *. 200.6 I 42 22
Alcorn a 254.3 1 30 41
Amite . 199.5 1 39 'I 30
Attala ... .. 205.6 I 35' 1 37
Benton 1 243.4 I 28 1 39
Bolivar ..... .I 340.2 I 29 1 67
Calhoun .. .I 232.6 I 39 1' 30
Carroll . .I 211.0 I 34 1 33
Chickasavw .. .. 214.8 I 42 I 32
Choctaw . .1 190.9 1 43 I 27
Claiborne .. 209.( 1 38 1 26
Clarke .1 202.5 I 40 4 20
Clay .... 180.9 1 44 P6 6
Coahoma . 368.0 I 30 74
Copiah 192.8 1 35 i 26
Covington ...I 231.7 1 36 'I 39
Be Soto . 287.4 1 30 1 52
Franklin ....I 182.4 41 1 16
Grenada ..I 224.8 I 36 42
Hinds . 219.3 I 36 1 43
Holmees . .I 271.4 1 28 1 47
Humphreys .. .. 326.9 I 30 I 83
Issaquena . .1 278.3 I 33 I "54
Itavamba . .I 225.2 1 36 1 37
Jasper . .1 214.8 37 I 26
Jefferson . 1 209.6 1 39 I 7
Jefferson Davis ..I 240.3 i 39 1 42
Jones . .1 239.0 1 31 26
Kemper . .. 179.3 I 24 33
Lafayette .. 227.4 I 33 1 42
Lamar . .1 221.6 I 36 1 18
Lauderdale .I 191.8 I 39 1 25
Lawrence .1 232.0 1 37 I 35
Leake. *. 232.9 1 34 41
Lee . 246.0 I 34 I 43
Leflore *. .,. ... 351.9 1 30 1 58
Lincoln'. .. 197.5 I 37 1 26
Lowndes 199.2 I 37 I 31
Madison 222.0 34 I 46
I i ntne)




-18-


ftb3e 9.- Avenge yleld ant aoeftlcoeat of.at iationf wtCC tSf1
1928-50, andM ottoc aorege aa rweti pC@SveGe
croplaMnd harvested, 199, bc oountleso ootlinad
- aa- --a-a-a-a- a a- --- a--a- --a a^a^ a a ya
I s rqAvege CoefOicient Iveted u paeenWge
o / yield. of Io1 oSofa m ban hervm tde
variation |g
I Pouns I Peoent I ercnt
I I I
Marion...... 225.7 1 36 31.
arahall ... 227. 1 32 .50
Monroe ........ 221.6 38 1 39
MontG ry........I 200.8 39 1 35
Neshoba ... 220;8 36 33
Nevton . .I 216.2 34 27
Noxuboe .. ... I 188.4 38 32
Oktibbeba .1 158.0 17 19
Panola .......... 255.0 1 33 1. 48
Perry 3/ ........ 195.7 35 1 9
OM199.8 I 3 I26
Pike 199.8 38 -1
Pontotoo . 1 231.4 32 41
Prentis .. .. 248.41 36 2
Quitam . .I 342.9 131 74
Banln ... 222.6 1 35 32
Soott .......... i 234.0 1 35 34
Sharkey . 345.0 1 31 63
Simpson .. 233.4 34 39
ath a a .249.6 1 36 1
Sunflower .I 336.9 30 68
Tallahatch ie .. .! 301.8 35 1 59
Tate 2. 281.6 33 1 50
Tippah . .. 236.4 1 30 43
Tlh=ango .....a. 239.0 30 1 45
Tulo . .5 35 61
Union . .I 241.0 32 41
WValtall . 233.5 35 35
Warren. ......... 250.2 1 37 28
Washington . 355.8 28 1 66
Wayne . 206. 31 1 24
Webstor . 216:.? 1 38 3
Wilkinmon a ... .I 187.0 45 9
Vinston ... I 210.6 40 1
Talobusba .I 215.5 38 31
Yazoo . 1 269.2 32 1
8I IhoI
yd5 oounties wvth moreff t000 &ar oreu or coton raarnm!I a
are *bovn.
2/ Percentage based on ooneua data for 1919.
3/ Average yield and coefficient of variation based on data for
108-48.






MISSOURI

Table D- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by counties


T------- I-


County 1/


I Average
I yield


SCoefficient
S of
Variation


I Cotton acreage har-
I vested as percentage
I of cropland harvested
1 2/


S- Pounds


Butler .
Dunklin .
Mississippi
New Madrid .
Pemiscot .
Bipley j/ .
Scott .
Stoddard .


. I
. I I I I
. I. I. I I


301.2
371.2
405.3
366.3
405.0
229.9
310.8
324.2


I/ Only counties with more than 2,000
shown.


T Percent : Percent -
I I
I 24 I 27
I 26 59
S 33 1 26
I 30 I 47
I 25 66
I 34 I 13
1 33 1 17
I 31 I 24
I i
acres of cotton harvested in 1949 are


j/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.
^/ Average yield and coefficient of variation based on data for <
1928-48.


- 19 -




- 20-


lbI.. UI- Averap fliel atd offleiat oatfu NUs At Sf aiImAbA
1926-50, atd cottt mines bsrwstet a peratnp at
roplad bmarveated, I919p, by counties


County /


I
Chaves .. I
Doa. Ana .. I
Bdy . .
Hidalgo .. .
Lea . .
Luna . I
QuayR . I
Roosevelt ... I
Sierra . .I

1/Only counties with more
are shown.


Average
yield


Pounds

440.3
566.5
41o.7
445.2
145.3
44o0.0
105.2
152.4
443.5


Coefficient
of
variation


Porcet

22
19
22
27
49
30
51
37
24


Cotton acremae Br-
vested as pereente
of eroprht harvested
V'


I Percent


than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested In 19


2/ Percentae based on census data for 1919.




- 21 -


NORTH CAROLINA

Table 12.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual lelde,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvoetod as porcontiagf. of
cropland harvested, 194, b: countleB
-W -- -------------------- -------------.0w----- ------ ----. ~ ~ ---
S Coefficient ICcttCn ncruare hMr-
I Average I Ivos' ud an p-rc'!ntage.
County / iel I varltln Icf crolnnd hr-,rvest(A
,var1 t n -
I Pounds I Percent I Percent
I I I
Ansen 278.4 1 21 I 31
Beaufort .I 272.0 i 40 1 3
Bertio 1 306.5 I 35 i 13
Bladen .1 254.8 I 33 1 12
Cabarrus 1 287.0 1 25 I 15
Catavba 328.8 I 26 I. 13
Chowvan I 299.9 I 38 1 9
Cleveland . .1 391.3 I 24 1 55
Columbus . .1 257.2 I 38 1 4
Cumberland .I 288.1 27 I 27
Davie . .290.3 I 23 I 7
Duplln . 283.9 I 33 1 7
Edgecombe . .I 288,8 I 34 1 19
Franklin .. .I 275.5 1 30 22
Gaston . 30o4.4 I 25 I 21
Gates .. 308.6 1 32 I 11
Greene . 1 263.4 I 41 1h 11
Halifax . 312.1 I 31 1 28
Harnett . 1 342.6 1 27 I 26
Hertford. .1 304.4 36 I 14
Hoke . I 340.7 i 26 I 47
Iredell . .I 325.3 1 22 I 17
Johnston . 1 303.4 I 30 I 22
Leo . .1 287.0 I 27 t 11
Lenoir # .1 262.6 I 38 1 6
Lincoln . I 361.0 I 23 I 32
Martin . .I 298.4 I 40 I 7
Mecklenburg, I 288.8 I 26 I 23
Montgomery .. 253.4 24 I 8
Moore . 241.0 1 30 5
Nash 305.9 I 32 1 21
Northampton . 355.6 I 31 1 28
Perquimans q .1 302.2 I 39 1 7
Pitt . 272.0 I 40 1 8
Polk . .1 333.6 I 22 I21
Richmond .. ..... .I 262.4 i 25 23
Robeson . 305.8 i 25 I 32
Rowan . 327.8 I 20 12
.. .. I .dI_ I
-------------------------------------------




-22\

I M3SIIt' WSB&IM

Table 12.- Avenge yield aS coefficient of OrYlaWtto of dnlVA ieol,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland harvested, 1949, by ountites oontiusd.


1'!i


a ----- ---- -. a -


County I/


- a -- --- a a


Rutherford
Sampson .
Scotland
Stanly .
Union .
Vance .
Wake .
Warren .


I -
a a -


H
*i. .o.o.

o0H S I


Average
yield

Pounds
Pamd

317.3
308.0
316.2
314.7
303.6
294.6
273.0
286.7


Wayne . I 280.6
Wilson . .. 1 298.5
S------------_ -_---
-_/-Ony1 counties with more than 2,000
are shown.


I lCotton acrewe bhar-
I Coeffioleont Ivested as percentage
S of I o cropland harvest.
variation
I Percent I Percent
I I


acresI
-
ace


26 36
31 12
30 1 49
31 1 7
27 1 27
26 131
33 I 12
28 I25
34 I 17
37 I 18
of-- ---ctto harve ed n ."
of cotton harvested in 191s


2J Percentage based on census data for 1949.




- 23 -


OXLAHOMA

Table 13.- Average -leld and coefficient of variuation of anonia yields,
1928-r0, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of
cropland bharvoetod, 1949, by counties
- -W "W "0 "aa -- -- .. .
|I i Cotton acreage har-
County I Average I Coefficient Ivoetod as porcdntoge
County 'Qeld I of lof crcpl.rd hrirvested
i variation 2 2


Atoka .
Beckham .
Blalne .
Bryan .
Caddo .
Canadian
Carter
Choctaw .
Cleveland
Coal .
Comanche
Cotton .
Creek .
Custer .
Dewey .
Garvin .
Gradv .
Greer .
Harmon .
Baskell .
Hughes .
Jackson .
Jefferson
Johns ton
Kiowa .
Latimer .
Le Flore
Lincoln .
Logan .
Love .
McClain .
McCurtain
McIntosh
Marshall
Mayes .
Muekogee
Noble .
Okfuskoe
Okmulgee


* I
* *





* *
* 41






* I
* S 41



* S
* S S
* S S
* A
* St
* S S

* 5 *
* *
* *
* i *
* *
* *
* *
* *
I *
* i


I Percent


Penrce!rnt


I Pounds
I
S 104.9
S 150.3
I 158.7
S 115.1
I 166.6
S 168.1
97.0
S 119.4
154.6
1 112.9
119.4
I 134.4
S 142.0
1 154.1
1 16.4
i 147.1
S 147.3
141.4
136.6
1?4.0
136.3
S 14Q.1
I 14c.4
120.8
S 142.4
115.4
131.9
S 128.2
136.9
S 125.6
S 149.9
1 146.o
1 39.2
S 130.0
1 149.2
1 144.5
1 150.7
139.5
S 147.3


C nI I
...... ... ... .....(Contr nue[) ..


1^
36
5
2?
25
6
Q
18
6
22
14
12
18
8
3
13
15
40
50
19
16
30
38
12
15
13
12
6
4
29
22
33
31
21
3
27
1
28
28


* S


* S


* S


* U




24w

OKEAN L::


table 13.- Aweras yield. and oceficloent of valatle of nat ma7 0ield0,
1928-5", aMd cotton acreage bdrwvte& as $roemts of
cropland barnestelt, 1949, by oouutlee continued


County/


Osage .
Pawnee .
Payne .
Pittsburg .
Pontotoc .
Pottavatomi e
Roger Mills .
Rogers
Seminole
sequoyah
Stephens
Tillman .
Tulsa .
Wagoner
Washlta .


-r"OireLo V tuntiei
are shovn.


S


I


Average
yield


-j a -
Pounds

S.: 181.2
174.6
S1 159.7
S1 130.4
.I 120.4
S 1 143.0
1 28.4
1 136.1
1 120.1
1 138.6
1 119.2
1 183.9
S 176.0
.1 154.2
.1 165.3

more than 2,000


-~~~ --- -- a n a a6
I offI Cotton acreage har-
I Coeffiient vested u percntqe4
o1 f lof pland haret
a ain...d.._ lot oroplaud harv ested


i _i


Icre
I

I




I

I.



ace


2/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.


.. : .- *"..


Percent I Percent
-
48 I 12
49 14
51 1 9
42 1 24
40 I 7
38 1 4
37 15
49 j 3
47 8
51 6
45 13
42 19
40 8
51 21
35 I 25

of cotton harvested in 16-97





- ?V -


C'UiT! Cf-ROLI NA

Table 14.- Averaguo j'lyeld and co-.fflcieont of vtrlrntlc:n c" finn-ri.l -.'I,1,
1928-50, and cotton acruago harvustod nas pjrcontrI'u cf-
croplrnd harvcotod, r,49 b- ccuntie.s


Count:, /


. .-.- -,. -^- t~^ n .cr,.nj<, .%ur-
I Avoragu I CoLffilcent (vcst.d n" ;,r ..nt.t'
1 yluld 1 f lof crcoplrni .!rvBtd
varlitlon
-P-- -- -Pc -
I Pounds I Purcunt I Forc,.at


Abbevllle .
Aiken .
Allendale .
And-ereon .
Bamborg .
Barnvwoll .
Berkeley .
Calhoun .
Cherokoo .
Cheater .
Chos torfi eld
Clarend.on .
Colloton .
Pa-"llngton .
Dillon .
Dorchestcr
Edgefleld .
Fairfield .
Florence .
Georgetown .
Greenville .
Greenwood.
Hampton .
Horry .
Jasper .
Kershaw .
Lancaster .
Laurens .
Leo .
Lexington .
McCormick .
Marion .
Marlboro .
Newberr, .
Oconec .
Oranguburg .
Pickons .
Richland .


-(Ccntinuod)


221.6
266.2
233.0
273.5
230.5
244.0
244.2
30,3
289.6
276.0
254.1
265.8
235.9
270.5
320.9
265.0
296.6
218.8
266.3
2P2.4
301.0
215.4
247.5
248.7
454.0
225.0
250.0
270.7
3o4.7
259.7
201.0
299.1
333.2
26 .5
269.1
279.2
314.3
227.6


-I-





- 26 -


SOOTn cGaoUia

Table 1k.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of eamml yiS&a,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested au percentage of
cropland harvested, 1999, by counties contimted


- a-.----.-- ------ ---- a


County V/
a----------------------- ----


Saluda .
Spartanburg
Sumter .
Union .
Wlii amsburg
York .


Average
yield

Pounds


. U 284.4
S.. I 285.6
. I 292.5
.. .. 6 1 239.1
. I 267..7
. I 285.8


-- WJL-Oa GountosB Wiith more than 2,000


are shown.
2/ Percentage based on census data for 1949.


- -o- a M a. a
Cotton acree QCa
SCoefficient Ivested as prcentage
I of Iof cropland harvested
variation i
- a-. -E1 -- a aSZ a a -
I Percent I Percent
I
31 25
21 1 29
31 1 45
S 22 1 30
S 31 I 28
S 31 1 32

acres of cotton harvested in 195'1





- 27 -


TENNESSFE

Table Ift.- Averaguo ylold and coeffIclcnt of vrlantlon of fLnnul ylu.'l1ide,
1928-50, and cotton acrunago harvoestd Ls purc ,rit-r. of
cropland harvested, 1949, b.,, countiLB
----------------------------------------.----- ---*0^[cr'-.i h
SICo*.on acroi.ru har-
I Avurasu I Coufficlc-nt IVLst.d as pLrct'nt.PI'L
County i/ I d 1'id of of cropnirnd horvLn;Lu'I
I vnrrAtlon I
I Pounds I Purcunt PjrcL.nt
I I
Bonton ..... .1 245.2 29 I 17
Bradley .I 226.4 27 I 6
Carroll .1 301.7 28 I 33
Chester 29.6 32 42
Crockott . .. 31.3 27 51
Docatur . 216.6 31 I 26
Dyor .... 6( 23 I 39
Fayette . .1 257.6 1 29 49
Franklin .... 280.8 1 3? 11
Gibson .. .1 334,6 26 I 6
Giles . 255.7 24 i4
Hardoman ..... 271.6 1 30 41
Hardin . 226. 1 31 I 26
Hayvood . 316.4 29 I 46
Henderson . 1 29.-3 28 I 45
Henry . 264.6 27 I 10
Lake .. 415.8 1 29 54
Lauderdalo . 378.9 28 1 40
Lawrnce 1... 276.2 22 I 31
Lincoln . 280.6 25 I 18
McMinn . .. 212.8. 23 I 3
McNairy . 273.0 31 I 44
Madieon .. 301.4 27 I 45
Obion . .I 316.0 26 1 12
Polk .. 266.1 27 I 15
Rutherford .. 278.9 32 I 6
Shelby . .1 284.6 1 30 1 51
Tipton . .I 358.1 25 1 51
Wayno . 234.1 27 I 16
Woakley . 28.0 2 I 11
-I I-----------------
/Only counties with morc thtFn ,000 acroe of cotton harvostod in 194
aro shown.
2/ Porcontago basod on census data for 1949.








Table 16.- Average feld ad. coefficient of warisatlm of ahal4iF&S Add4e
1908-90, and cotton argoes har.erteS paeo I oWgE ofat
ropland barmeted, 19, i iy eouttoes
- -- -- -a
1 I lOotton SOtarSm
I Average I Coof int ve1 sted as percentage
County I yield I of lof oroplam laretes
I I variation | -... .
a-- a- -- a -a -- aa--


I PoundsA

Anderson . 124.3
Andreve V,. 103.4
Angelina . 185.6
Atascosa . 102.1
Austin . 188.8
Bailey .. .1 153.2
Bastrop . 118.6
Baylor .. .1 142.5
Bee .. .... .1 134.0
Bell . 1 152.7
Bear . 113.5
Borden . 133.0
Boeque . 117.5
Boiyle . 144.1
Brazoria . 209.5
Brazos . 197.5
Briscoe . 147.5
Brooks . 92.9
Brown . 109.3
Burleson . 180.9
Burnet . 110.7
Calwdvell . 1 146.4
Calhoun . 194.5
Callahan . 114.7
Cameron .. .. 2p6.0
Camp .. 115.8
Cass a a .1 137.8
Caetro . 157.3
Cherokee . 129.2
Childre e . 138.7
Clny . 134.9
Cochran .. 133.5
Coke . 06.4
Coleman . 119.8
Collin . 185.2
Colllngavorth 147.2
Colorado . 166.1
Comanche 86.5
Concho . 130.5
------------------


I












I






I










I


Percent

33
49
29
47
32
43
33
53
47
20
35
54
22
28
51
25
45
42
33
29
19
31
45
44
35
32
27

33
49
41
54
29
44
24
35
36
27
39


I Percent

25
35
I 34
I5 04 d.

1 143
34
17
15
5 .. ..... .


71 .
144
47 .
13. .
61 ...., -F
20
36

57
15
49
55
10
79
38
40
6
36 .I
61 w :
1

66
24
15
47
49
15
7
26

IC tcontii T -


.- e -




- 2' -


Tablu I; .-Avornge ylold and cooffictcrnt of vr-.rlitLIon of -.nnurl yijd. ,
1928-50, and cotton ncrcago harvoBstd as percentage of
cropland hL.rvostod, 1949, by countlus crrontlnur,u:-d

I I ICo, t.n ', .crL:n i:r-
I Avcrac Coufficlcnt vuvLtod ac pcrc.n'-,--
Coun.ty -i cid of lof crorl-nd harv,-stud
-- vrr.tlon I
I Pounds Percont I Purcr.t
I I ~I
Cooke . I 133.2 33 I 13
Coryoll .. 120.4 212 21
Cottle 146.1 52 64
Crosby .. 1.5 49 59
Dallas . .I 171.2 22 1 37
Deveon ... 164.9 42 78
Boaf Snmith / 127.3 86 1
Dolta . I 183.1 32 I 83
Denton . 151.5 1 27 I 23
Do Witt . .I 128.3 42 1 23
Dickens .. . 159.1 47 1 56
Donley . I 150.4 32 I 34
Duval . I ,.8 26 1 44
Eastland 4/ .I 87.7 30 1 3
Ellis . .i 177.5 20 1 69
El Paio .. I 587.6 21 I 85
Erath .. .I 92.0 39 I 15
Falls . .I 154.4 1 23 I 57
Fannin . .i 172.2 33 1 58
Fayette . .I 150.4 1 31 I 33
Fisher / 138.7 45 1 65
Floyd . .. I 1,3.6 1 46 I 24
Foard . I 162.1 46 I 17
Fort m,-nd . 221.4 38 56
Franklin .. I 129.6 1 32 I 53
Froostono 114.4 24 I 42
Frio 4/ 77.5 1 47 I 6
Gaines .I 117.4 40 I 38
Garza .. .. I 166.8 52 6I
Glasscock / .I 123.3 1 42 I 76
ollad .. I 126.6 1 41 17
Gonzales ... I 121.1 37 1 26
Gray / ... 131.9 1 38 1 3
Grayson . 156.3 33 I
Grogg / I 121.3 I 31 1 31
Grimes ...... I 166.4 I 3 I 51
Guadalupe . I 13.5 1 32 I 25
Halo .... 181,5 I 42 I 36
Hall . .. 160.7 I 44 I 68
-I I I C ont n d
................-----------..._




-30 -
W"

Tablo 1 .- Averwne yield a coeffticlont of variation of uaal gyldsm, ,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested a percentage of
oropland harvested, 1949, 'by counties contimed.
- --- ------ -- --- -- aa a -a
I I ICotton acre eh-
I Avorege Coefficient ineoted as poroentae
County 1/ yield I of Iof oropland harvested
vIIwlation I
Pounds Percent Percent
I I -I
Hamilton . 113.1 I 21 1 10
Hardoman . 11.3 47 34 "
Harris . 169.-1 34 1 6
Herrison . 127.3 1 32 1 43
Haskcll . 172.1 1 46 59
H -S .. 134.8 1 33 1 31
Hondoreon . 12?. I 35 1 33
Hidalgo . 224.0 I 40 1 59
Hill . 160.6 18 1 72
Hockloy . 172.0 1 40 75
Hood 4/ . 85.6 38 1 15
Hopkins . 127.6 1 32 15
Houston . 158.0 28 140"
Howard. . 1 154.1 1 441 83
Hudspeth . 416.3 1 23 1 87
Hunt . 157.4 29 1 76:
Jack 4/ . 103.3 1 31 1 .::
Jackson 178.5 44 16
Jim Hogg y. 86.5 41 .7 ". ......
Jim Wolls .... 131.6 37 17 2:
Johnson . 1147.8 1 22 31 .8 .
Jonos . 1 141.4 1 46 1 7
arno . 116.9 1 37 25
Kaufman . 147.0 22 67
Kont . 135.6 51 58 '
King . 147.8 51 65
Kloborg . .1 151.8 30 44
Knox . 176.4 46 51
Lamnar . 15.5 31 63 '
I.nmb . 202.6 31 60S
Lnmpasc ...... 108.41 23 1
La 8llo 68.6 41 9
Lavaca . 148.2 30 41,
Loc . .. 114.3 33 23
Loon . 135.2 26 24
Liberty ...... .. 195.2 34 8
Limestone . 129.8 21 66
Livo Oek . 131.1 37 1 23
Lubbock . 207.6 43 77 .
--------------------------------------- tconitiu --T -




- 11 -


TUJI, CI

Tablo I',.- Avorago %told 'ind crL'Tli'cI'nt of '.,..rl'itlon r f nnur,'1 ii ldr,
1928-50, rnd cotton : r, r!'.g,. h r', Lh r d ".: p r-, nt.g,. v. f
cropl1rnd hr.rv.e cd, sli .', b., court'..u conti riud
I I IC,-' ton 'cr, r.p, r-
S Avur,- r CcV. fflc I unt Ivu L,..a [d.r r.' ,r,_
County I j0ed of I of cr',plnd 1'.:-vL '. :
i vIirlr t ii n _
SP--------- ,- pund. I Purcont I, P.rc r.rit
I iI
Lynn . 175.8 50 6
McCulloch . 121.6 I 43 1 13
McLonnan . 149.4 I 17 4Q
Madison . 145.6 1 30 31
Marion 1/ ..... 110.1 i 26 36
Martin ......... 138.4 i 55 85
Mason 4/ ... 90.7 1 28 8
Matagorda .. 213.9 I 42 24
Maverick .. 252.1 I 27 43
Midland . .I 125.5 I 50 (4
Milm . 148.7 I 24 46
Mills / .I 101.8 I 29 8
Mitchell .. 145.7 I 40 72
Montaguo J/ ....... 118.1 1 32 14
M:rris .. ......... 128.6 I 32 36
Motley . 145.4 42 66
Nacogdoches ....... 158.4 I 32 29
Navarro . 150.5 I 17 1 74
Nolan . .I 147.9 I 41 49
Nuecos . 232.0 I 24 1 41
Palo Pinto V/ 102.0 I 9 1 12
Panoln . 1i.0 1 31 51
Parkor 4/ 9;.9 30 8
Parmer . .I 147.1 I 49 1 3
Pocos I.. 205.9 I 381 81
Polk . .1 183.1 I 37 1 38
Presldio / 24.9 3 5 1 63
Rains . 121.9 i 30 1 63
Bod Rivor . 148.8 I 30 1 61
Reevos . 272.2 I 8 P5
Refuglo .. 199.4 I 46 31
Robertoon . 165.9 I 29 50
Rockwall . 175.6 I 25 77
Runnels .. .1 137.5 I 34 42
Rusk . .. 128.6 I 31 46
Sabinc V ... 144.0 i 31 1 37
San Augustine 15.6 1 29 46
San Jaclnto I 178.9 I 36 1 33
San Pr.tricio 236.9 i 32 1 4
(Coni I
----------------------------- Continucd .




32 -
TEAS
Table 16.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annijal yields,
1928-50, and cotton acreage harvostod as percontase of
cropland harvoatod., 1949, by counties continued.
------------- ---- --------- ----- a ---
I I ICotton aareage bar-
I Average I Coofficlent Ivoeted as percentage
County / yiold I of of cropland harvoestod
variation i -


SPounds I Percent I Porcent

San Saba ... 120.5 30 1 19
Schlelchor . 145.2 1 48 1 44
Scurry . 138.7 45 70
Shackelford .1 109.1 50 7
Sholbyv . 157.9 36 1 44
Smith . 121.4 1 35 26
Somervoll :p 95.9 1 27 1 19
Starr . .1 91.7 33 80
Stonewvall 134.0 46 43
Svwishero .......... 137.1 1 49 7
Tarrnnt ... .. 150.5 24 15
Taylor . 122.7 38 23
Terry . 145.9 01 o 46
Throckmorton 141.2 60 11
Titus . 137.0 1 32 1 43
Tom Groon . 146.1 i 41 55
Travis . 147.6 26 51
Trinity . 182.0 31 29
Upshur . 112.9 I 36 1 31
Uvald1o / . 80.0 1 58 1 4
Van Zandt . 122.5 32 1 50
Victoria . 176.0 1 43 44
Walkor . 153.0 29 42
Wallor . 180.7 34 13
Ward . .. 221.2 38 1 85
Washington ........ 168.7 27 39
Webb 4/ ........... 71.1 I 39 22
Wharton . 222.2 42 47
Whoolor . 141.2 34 25
Wichlita . 177.2 33 1 9
Wilbargur . 190.3 37 33
Willcy . 235.6 34 82
Williamson . 166.1 i 19 59
Wilson . 104.6 45 7
W ev / .. 109.4 32 1 5
Wood . 123.3 36 31
Yoakum . 113.7 42 1 30
Tc- -





33 -
T XAS

Trablo 1.- Avoralgo ylcid rtnd coufl'Ic!, n: )f v, r'l.ttcnr. ',f *.nrinu".l .*i' ldu,
192b-50, :..nd cot on tcru,.- hr) rv.Ir t.. ':L p r it,.g, t
cropland hrv,.t.,i. 1 1'D by cc. n'.r n .tir.'' i
-- -. - -'. r : "- .- -
/ Avorr .I C', fl'l't r t : v *, r r. z" "'
Cr'unt! I/ I c .Id *r T. 1.F Id .v. 1 .d
v,.rl, tlon -
SPounds F. r :.n9i T'orc' r:t
II I
Young . .I 116.6 4" 9
Znapta ./ ...'...O r' 47
Znv.1!, ........... 119.1 1 77 I 40
I I I I
-/--OTnl count lo awith roro thr.n ?,, cr*rU ,f c:,tton her'-.',L L14i In -
nru shown. Less than this ncri.iv ws hs.rvcotcd "n ..ll unllr-.,_-d.'unti-z
except Bimmrt whlch is nc.. shown c-..crucL- 5 or morL :.'.-rs ,"f Oldss w,.rc.
missing.
9/ Porcuntagc based on consus d&t-i for 1-jhc:.
? 'v'jr:.go, ylold. nd cccffici,-nt of vriatlc.n brs,.s'd on data for
19 "a-4 !1 7, .* 1'h".
f/ [',*'r::i ,. oldi :.id 'c..fficicnt of variation based on d :ta for

5/ vorru..; :ji: '.* and. c( -iclont cf variation b,_.s,.d cn 1,_tz. f.:r

6/ /v. "... ,id nd. cLffiCicl.nt cf variation based on drta for
IQ2/:-'- ',. and lI:.''?:!
7/ v.*.'a_,, yiold. t.ni cofflclI nl. of vcr'ntlon bs,_-lI on data for
19"- nof.
M/ Avr,?,! yiold -.nn:_ cooffic,-:nt of v-.riation brns.d on d&.tA for
1928-L5, 15'117, ^1'^






-3'-

VsIMM


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIA
IIIhIIiUIIIIEIIiHii
3 1262 08918 72119


hble 1.-Average yield and coefficient of vartatios of in yttaV "
192B-50, and cotton aeag haremsted as penhmtes ao
cropland barvested, 2909, bf 4bbati*5


o - ema % -0 -.6-M


County 1/


SAverage
S yield


emafeem f aainehu
T wwI Cott.o acreage bar-
I Coeff Icient I veted as perna&tag
I of I a rwlaat hmated
I variatio I I/


BrmsDvick .
Greensrville
SouJthlebur6
Ianswn..
Bouthaqtonm
Sussex .


* 6 5 U S S I
* S 6 U S I
* U S S S S I
* S U S S U I
* U U U U 5 I
* U S S S I


Plmst

271.3
317.3
28l.1
337.2
331:5


I




I
I
I


28
33
23
32
31
33


I
T


9
19

6
8
6


Y/ Only counties with more than 2,000 ames of cotta 'arvest i2 "Y19
are abo-.
?/ Percentaqe based on census data for 1949.


'St


'I

NE


I'



...:! .........
. : .li : :'*





. ..:, ......
.... i : :;..::. :.
" .:: ... ..........
i............
..........E.i!
.IN i...

,*iii!i ..


:/Is

..i 'EE Iiiii


:1 ii:




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EMB14EA31_I9K3RY INGEST_TIME 2014-04-25T01:19:18Z PACKAGE AA00017388_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E38Z4GTAT_6CP19I INGEST_TIME 2014-04-21T22:34:59Z PACKAGE AA00017388_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES