A21-628—9000-Ll80 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 383 " JULY, 1928 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON AGRICULTURAL a» MBOHARTOAL 9° Tans LIBRARY AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Director R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director J. M. ScRAEDEL, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J . K. FRANcKLow, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER Hrccs, Executive Assistant C. B. NEELErrE, Technical Assistant cu MISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist _ WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist R. O. BRooKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist _ ATHAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist G. S. CRENSHAW, A. B., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEGAs, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: HAMILTON P. TRAUB, Ph. D., Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINRARD, B. S., Entomolo ist R. K. FLETcRER, M. A., Entomo ogist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAlNEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist C. J. ToDD, B. S., Entomologist F. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist _ S. E. McGREGoR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector OTTo MAcKENsEN, F oulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNoLDs. M. S., Chief R. E. KARPER. M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sor- ghum Research B! P. C_. IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- ations D. . KrLLoUcR, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations E. C. CUsiuNG, B. S., Assistant in Cro s P. R. JonNsoN, B. S., Assistant in Soi s PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKs0N, Chief VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JoNEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUEENRAUs. Ph. D., Chief W. N. EzEKiEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist and Laboratory Technician W. J. BACH, M. S.. Plant Pathologist J . PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief G. L. CRAwFoRD, M. S., Marketing Research Specialist C. A. BoNNEN, M. S., Farm Management Research Specialist V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research BOIGIIISI “T. L. GAsToN, JR., B. S., Assistant; Farm Records and Accounts **J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Record: and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssiE WRiTAcRE, Ph. D., Chief _ MAMIE GRIMEs, M. S., Textile and Clothing Specialist _ _ EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition SPCCIGIISJ SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief E. H. TEMPLIN, B S.. Soil Surveyor T. C. REiTcH, B. S.. Soil Surveyor HARVEY OAKEs, Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NEss, M. S., Chief SIMON E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: _ FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. COPELAND, B. S., Dairy Husbandman POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief ***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. . PARKs, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARCE, Secretary . H. RocEns, Feed Inspector . H. WooD, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector . D. NORTHCUTI‘, JR., B. S., Feed Inspecta SIDNEY D. REYNoLDs, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector €w€um SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 8, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist No. 4, Beaumont. Jetferson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist H. E. REA. B S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations SIMON E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root ‘ Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent N0. 7, S ur, Dickens County: R. E. icKsoN, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs. Superintendent FRANK GAiNEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balrnorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, near Colle e Station, Brazos County: R. M. RERw0oD, M. S., Animal HUSbtlIll man in Charge of Farm L. J . McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MoRRis, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe. Hardeman County: J. R. UINBY, B. S., Superintendent _ **J. C. TEPRENs, M. A., Junior Agronomis: No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent E. A. TUNNICLIFF, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian ‘ V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research Botani **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. l5, Weslaco, Hldalgo County: W. H. FRrEND, B. S., Superintendent SHERMAN W. CLARK. B. S. Entomologist w. J. BAcR, M. s., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WiLsoN, B. S., Superintendent _ J . PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist Teachers ln the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: . . ADRiANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture o é VPV. BILSXNG, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology <10 . P. SuiTn, >wmp H TA! of July 1, 1928. . . LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance ScoATEs, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering M. S.. Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering . H. WILLIAMS, Ph. D., Professor of Animal Husbandry K. MAcKEY, M. S., Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry . S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Associate Professor of Agronomy ‘Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. "'11: cooperation with the School of Agriculture. SYNOPSIS The chief defect of the local or primary cotton market is its failure to recognize quality as a basis for trading. A corollary to this is the failure t0 properly reflect central market values. The fundamental weakness in- volved is the prevailing system of “point buying,” or the system of buying cotton on the average basis. Such a system fails to adequately reward quality as designated by grade, staple, and character; consequently the indi- vidual grower is discouraged in his efforts to improve the quality of his product. The primary object of this study is to more accurately measure and describe the present situation. Such information should contribute to a more satisfactory solution of the problem. An analysis of the price data collected shows a tendency to follow grade differences, but not a uniform and_consistent one. The grades from mid- dling to low middling, inclusive, show a rather uniform difference between the price obtained in the local market and the quoted price for cotton of the same description in the Houston market on the same day less certain handling charges. This uniformity of differences or spreads indicates a conscious effort on the part of the buyer to recognize grade in the price paid. The net spread of this group averaged about $3.25 per bale. For the grades below and above this group, with slight exceptions, a much wider spread is shown—averaging about $5.35 per bale. A plausible explanation of this is that the lower grades were unduly penalized for the lack of quality, while the extra quality of the upper grades was largely disregarded. Very little evidence, if any, was found of a conscious effort on the part of the buyer to recognize staple length on the individual bale basis. A decided tendency was shown for the spread to widen with an increase in staple lengtill. The average net spread per bale for the different staple lengths is as o ows: l. Average Average Staple Length Net Spread Staple Length Net Spread Per Bale Per Bale I ’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $ 74 1 1/32" _ . . , . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . .. 5,5 5.86 15/16" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. —l 56 1 1/16" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.26 r s" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. 4 2e 1 3/32" . . . . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . .. 8.17 15/16" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. 3.50 1 1/8" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . .. 8.09 ’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . .93 It was quite evident that prices tend to conform to the average quality of cotton produced by each community. As an example, the average monthly price paid per pound for strict middling during October at Robstown, Hills- boro, Henderson, and Lubbock was 13.25 cents, 13 cents, 11.33 cents, and 11.09 cents, respectively. The sample secured at Robstown graded 99 per :ent white with 80 per cent of it 1” to 1-1/16” in length; Hillsboro was 91 per cent white with 92 per cent 15/16” to 1-1/32" in length; Lubbock was 71 J61‘ cent white with 92 per cent 7/8" to 1” in length; and Henderson was 97 J81‘ cent white with 94 per cent 13/16" to 15/16” in length. This fact sug- gests the possibility of a community’s materially raising its price level by mproving the quality of its cotton, particularly the staple. It is too ideal- stic, however, under the present system of local buying to expect the indi- ridual producer, actuated largely by economic motives, to make a sacrifice 'or something as intangible as an increase in the average price for the com- nunity. The desired response is much more likely to be secured through a lystem which rewards him personally on the basis of the quality of product vhich he produces. ~ i CONTENTS I PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Object of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 i Method of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 A Quality of Cotton Grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 t Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 a Date of Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _11 Relation of Farm Prices to Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Grade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 The Grower’s Price is Largely on an Average or “Hog Round” Basis 13 Prices on Local Cotton Market Compared with Quotations on Cen- tral Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Spread Between Local Price and Central Market Price . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 26 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BULLETIN NO. 383 JULY, 1928 RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON c. L. CRAWFORD AND L. P. GABBARD IN CooPERATIoN WITH BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, DIvIsIoN or CoTToN MARKETING, UNITED STATEs DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Cotton is by far the most important crop grown in the state of Texas. Not only is it the most important crop in so far as wealth created is concerned, but it is more universally grown, involving by far a greater number of farmers in its production than any other one crop. It is highly commercialized, and with the exception of a small amount of seed fed to livestock on the farm, is grown entirely for the market. At present the bulk of the crop is sold locally by the individual grower. It is through the local market that he makes contacts with the cotton trade, and it is here that a price is put on his cotton. The common practices on this market determine to a large degree whether or not this price is satisfactory. Furthermore, they may have a far-reaching in- fluence on the quality of cotton produced. Those in a position to know claim that the quality of Texas cotton has undergone a gradual deterioration during the past ten to fifteen years. Substantial premiums formerly paid for a Texas bill of lading, on account of the rugged, hard, and even character of our cotton, have almost been lost. Last year (1926) in particular, Europe paid more for short staple cotton from the Southeast than for Texas cotton of similar descriptions. It is almost impossible to measure the significance of such a condition accurately in terms of money, but it is safe to say that it is costing the State as a whole an enormous sum. Such a loss need not be sustained. The soil and climatic conditions of Texas favor the production of a high-quality cotton, and it is fair to assume that the grower would produce a higher-quality product if the premiums paid in the central market were properly reflected in the local prices paid the grower. The local market may be characterized by two main groups—sellers and buyers. The sellers are primarily growers and as growers quite often efficient. As sellers, however, it cannot be claimed that they are equally as efficient. They are selling a commodity, the market value of which is based on quality as indicated by grade, staple, and character. The bulk of them are not able to class their cotton, and do not have access to such a service. This fact practically precludes the possibility )f their knowing anything very definite as to the market value of the zotton which they are offering for sale. Then, too, it is often necessary tor them to sell regardless of price in order to satisfy obligations against the crop they have produced. Thus, as bargainers they are in a very weak position. 6 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OBJECT OF THE STUDY The object of this study is to show what quality of cotton selected? localities in different parts of the State are producing relative to grade,» staple, and character; the extent to which the farmer is paid on the basis of quality for his cotton, and to what extent central market values are reflected in these prices. The data summarized in this Bulletin are for the season of 1926, and are offered as a preliminary report. It includes data for the first year t; of a study outlined to extend over a period of three to five years. f The present report is a summary of data collected on four representa- t’ tive local or primary cotton markets in the State for the season of 1926. j The aim of such research is to present a more detailed picture and make a more accurate measurement of the present situation than now exists. The word “primary” is the term used in defining the first sale or ' country cotton market as found in most literature on the subject. In! order to conform to local usage and probably avoid confusion, the term"; “local” is used in this publication instead of “primary” in designating . the markets. " METHOD OF PROCEDURE Four local markets, representative of the four principal cotton- § producing areas of the State, were selected for this study: Robstown l. for South Texas, Henderson for East Texas, Hillsboro for the black ‘- waxy prairie belt, and Lubbock for West Texas. The study has been g expanded to include other points for the season of 1927. A field man was placed at each of these local points at the beginning of the harvesting season where he remained until its close. Samples’ i were secured daily on each market from growers and local buyers, chiefly, growers, throughout the ginning season. Along with each sample such data as the date ginned, the date sold, the price received, the variety grown, etc., were secured. Also general information relative to the § organization and practices of each market was noted. g All samples secured were assembled at the Texas Agricultural Experi- f ment Station, where at the close of the season they were classified as to ; grade, staple, and character by cotton classers of the Division of Cotton Marketing, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A. i QUALITY OF COTTON GROWN One of the first steps in a program for the improvement of cotton in a community is to secure a knowledge of the quality of cotton that is being produced at present. This can be determined fairly accurately . by a sample, say, of 10 per cent, secured throughout the ginning season ~ and classified as to grade, staple, and character. With a knowledge of the quality of cotton being produced, with information as to soil and climatic factors, and finally with facts indicating the probable market prospects for cotton of the various grades and staple lengths, the com- munity is in a position to intelligently formulate a constructive program RELATION OF‘ FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON 7 of cotton production. The logical procedure is to make this program parallel as closely as possible market demands. Mills buy cotton for the purpose of spinning it, and pay for it on the basis of its spinning utility. In all of the important cotton markets of the world cotton is bought and sold on a quality basis. If growers fail in a significant degree to produce the kind of cotton spinners want and are willing to pay for, there must be a serious maladjustment in the methods of buying cotton by the trade which fails to carry back to the grower the full force of the consumptive demand. With this viewpoint in mind a brief analysis of the data collected will be presented. The first task of this report will be to present data showing the quality of cotton sold by growers on the local markets mentioned above for the season of 1926-27. No doubt the quality of cotton for each of these points will vary considerably from year to year, due principally to variations in climatic factors. A continuation of this study over a period of years should help to reveal the nature and extent of such variations. Grade In Table 1 is given a distribution by grades of the 2,518 samples of cotton collected at the four local markets during the months of August, September, October, November, December, 1926, and January, 1927. One will readily observe that almost 90 per cent of this cotton was white, 10.5 per cent spotted, and .1 per cent tinged. All but 4.6 per cent of it was within tenderable grades. Table 1. Distribution of grades, 2,518 bales, four local markets, Texas, 1926. Color Grade White _ Spotted Tinged Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Strict Good Middling . . . . . . . 3 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GoodMiddling............. 98 3.9 2 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Middlmg. . . . . . . . . . . .. 532 21.1 115 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middlmg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 887 35.2 100 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict L_ow Middling . . . . . . . . 482 19.2 40 1 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LowM1ddl1ng.............. 183 7,3 8 ,3 2 1 Strict Good Ordinary . . . . . . . 58 2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Ordinmv - - - - - - - - - - - . - 8 .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2251 89 4 265 10 5 2 1 s BULLETIN NO. ass, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2. Distribution of grades on four local cotton markets, Texas, 1926. Color Grade White Spotted Tinged Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent‘ Robstown; _ ‘ Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 .2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___ Strict Middhng . . . . . . . . . . 81 19.9 3 .7 . . . . . . . . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ __ Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 59.8 1 .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling . . . . . . 65 15.9 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 99.0 4 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . Henderson: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 16 1.7 1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . 324 34.5 24 2 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 43.4 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling . . . . . . 151 16.1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . 2 .2 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 913 97.3 25 2 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hillsboro: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1.3 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. ‘ Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . 90 18.8 13 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 30.5 23 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . Strict Low Middling . . . . . . 139 29. 1 3 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 33 6.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .. Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . 21 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gocd Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 438 91.6 4O 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubbock: Strict Good Middling. . . . . 3 .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 71 10.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . 37 5 .3 75 10.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 13 0 76 11.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Low Middling . . . . . . 127 18.3 37 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 18.6 s 1.2 2 s i Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . 35 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *‘ Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49s 71.4 19s 2s .3 2 .3 5 Table 2 shows the distribution of grades for each local point in a way . similar to that shown for all points in Table 1. It is apparent that 1 grade is influenced very decidedly by the date of harvest. For example, as shown in Table 2 the samples collected at Robstown class out 99 per cent white while those collected at Lubbock class out only 71 per cent white. The bulk of the cotton crop was harvested at Robstown during the months of August and September, while at Lubbock a very small amount of the crop was harvested before October 1. This means that the cotton crop at Lubbock was subjected much more severely to weather hazards such as frost and wind than at any of the other three points. Then, too, the methods of harvesting at Lubbock were considerably different from the methods used in other‘ markets studied. The bulk of the cotton crop at Lubbock during the season of 1926 was either snapped or sledded. These methods, it has been found, lower the grade from one to two grades. The marked improvements being made in ginning machinery of this region is doing much to offset the disad- vantages of snapping and sledding, and should encourage the mechanical harvesting of cotton. RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON Date of Harvest Table 3 shows a distribution of grades by months for each of the four markets. It will be observed that the grades became lower as the har- vesting season advanced. This fact shows the im the crop out of the field as early as possible. portance of getting It is in this connection that mechanical methods of harvesting cotton, once they are satisfac- torily perfected, may function in a very beneficial way. Table 3. Distribution of grades by months of samples collected at four local cotton markets, Texas, 1926.‘ DATE Grade July August September October November December January No Per No. Per No. Per No. Per No. Per N0. Per N0. Per Bales Cent Bales Cent Bales Cent Bales Cent Bales Cent Bales Cent Bales Cent Robstown: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling......... 1 .2 35 8.6 44 10.8 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 26.0 122 29.9 16 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling. . .. . . . . . . . . .. 19 4.7 33 8.1 13 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .5 7 1.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . 2 .5 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .2 169 41.5 207 50.7 31 7.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Henderson: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 2 .2 10 1.1 . . . . . . . . .. 3 .3 1 .1 . . . . . . . . .. Good Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1.3 183 19.5 77 8.2 32 3.4 16 1 . 7 2 .2 Strict Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . 3 .3 11 1.2 8 .9 1 .1 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 1 Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 .3 110 11.8 185 19.6 92 9.8 13 1.4 4 .5 Strict Low Middling. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 .3 49 5.2 80 8.6 16 1.7 2 .2 Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 8 .9 3 .3 . . . . . . . . . . Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GoodOrdinary......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 2.1 318 34.0 320 34.2 219 23.4 49 5.2 9 1.0 Hillsboro: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 9.6 40 8.5 2 .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.1 3 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 14.4 76 16.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3 .4 6 1.3 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3.0 67 14.2 57 12.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling ' Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .4 1 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 1.9 22 4.7 1 .2 . . . . . .. Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .4 17 3 .6 2 .4 . . . . . . . . . . Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 160 34.0 205 43.5 103 21.9 3 .6 . . . . . . . . .. Lubbock: Strict Good Middling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .4 . . . . . . . . . . Good Middling......... . . . . . . . . . . .. 66 9.6 3 .5 Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 .2 14 2 .1 Strict Midd ling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 9.4 iddling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .5 58 8.4 Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8.1 Strict Low Midd ling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 9.7 Strict Low Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 .5 Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 24 3 .5 Low Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 Low Middling Tinged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 Strict Good Ordinary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .1 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 13.8 308 44.6 ‘One bale secured in February. 10 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 4. Percentage of staple lengths, 2,518 bales, four local markets, Texas, 1926. _ Number of Per Cent Staple 1n Inches Bales of Total 3/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1.0 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 11.2 7/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568 22.5 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 737 29.3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 21.2 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 6.0 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 8.1 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 0.6 1 1/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .1 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.518 100.0 Table 5. Number and percentage of staple lengths at four local cotton markets, Texas, 1 926 _ Number of Staple 1n Inches Bales Percentage Robstown: 7/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .5 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 13.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 30.6 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 10.8 1 1/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 41.2 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 2.9 1 1/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 13.0 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 100.0 Henderson: 3/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 2.5 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 278 29.7 /8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 427 45.5 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 18.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3.5 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .1 1 /16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 .4 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938 100.0 Hillsboro 7/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2.7 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 37.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 40.6 1 1/32 . . . . . ..! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65 13.6 1 1/1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 5.0 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .2 1 1/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .2 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478 100 .0 Lubbock 3/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 .3 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .7 7/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 18.2 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .329 47.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 26.1 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 5.9 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 1.1 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .3 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 694 100.0 RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF OOTTQN 11 Staple Table 4 gives the number of bales and percentages of staple lengths for the same 2,518 bales of cotton for which a distribution of grade is shown in Table 1. Almost 88 per cent of this cotton is of tenderable length, g" and above, while 36 per cent has a staple length of one inch and above. As will be pointed out in a distribution of staple by local points, the staple lengths in Table 4 below §” are due, with the exception of seven bales, to a single local point. Of the 2,51.8 bales secured 0n the four local markets, 383, or 15.2 per cent, are not tenderable because of grade or staple, or both. a Table 5 shows the percentage of staple lengths for each of the four local markets studied. This table admits of some rather interesting comparisons. For example, the samples secured at Robstown and Hills- boro show no cotton below g" in length, while one per cent of the sample secured at Lubbock, and 32.2 per cent of the sample secured at Hender- son are below g" in staple length, or untenderable on account of length. The relatively large amount of “short” cotton coming on to the Hender- son market is due largely to the growing of varieties of short staple. RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY The ideal situation for the local cotton market would be one in which cotton is sold on the basis of quality as indicated by its grade, staple, and character. In this event, there would be a more or less constant parallel between central and local prices at any given time for cotton of the same grade, staple, and character. Unfortunately this is an ideal yet to be realized. General observation and the facts available agree that far too little consideration is given to the grade and staple of cotton on the local market. Grade Table 6 gives monthly average prices received by farmers, arranged according to grade. This indicates a slight tendency to recognize grade differences, but not a uniform and consistent one. For example, the monthly average prices paid for cotton on the Robstown market for the month of August show a gradual decline from 18.8 cents for good mid- dling to 15.0 cents for low middling. On the other hand, the same degree of regularity is not true of the month of October. The prices are 13.25 cents for strict middling, 12.55 cents for middling, 13.7 5 cents for middling spotted, and 12.38 cents for strict low middling. This illustration holds good in a general way for the other three markets. As a further illustration in this connection, let us examine the daily prices paid for different grades of the same staple. For nine diiferent sales during the period August 17 to September 16, strict middling sold only twice for more, four times for the same, and three times for less than middling. Illustrations of this nature could be duplicated many times from the data secured on the local markets studied. 12 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 6. Monthly Average price paid farmers for cotton, 1926. (Basis-—Grade) Average Price of Lint Per Pound Grade August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Robstown: _ Good Middling . . . . . . . . . .. 18.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . 18.25 17.34 13.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Y‘ Strict Middling Spotted. . . 18.38 18.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.84 16.44 12.55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. » . . . . . . . . . ' Middling Spotted_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '_ Strict Low Middling . . . . . . 17.34 14.79 12.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. * Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 15.13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘ . Henderson: _ Good Middling . . . . . . . . . .. 18.02 17.08 . . . . . . . .. 10.97 11.00 Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . 16.08 15.41 11 .33 11.52 10.78 12.22 Strict Middling Spotted. . . 16.97 15. 19 10.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.45 Middling...._...._ . . . . . . .. 17 68 15.09 11.09 10.86 9.98 11.50 Strict Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.87 10.17 9.94 9.50 11. Low Middling.._.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00 10 05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Hillsboro: Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.05 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Good Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . 17.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Middling. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. 14.95 13.00 10.25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . 15.86 13.03 11 00 . . . . . . . . -. . . . . . . . . . _ Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.96 12.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ Middling Spotted_......... . . . . . . . .. 17.41 12.00 7.65 . . . . . . . .. Strict Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.80 10.99 9.98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Low Middling. . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.42 8.92 6.00 . . . . . . . . . Strict Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.75 7 83 7.00 . . . . . . . . . Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lubbock: _ _ Strict Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.52 11 .25 . . . . . . . . . 11.25 . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.62 11.09 8.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strict Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.56 10.09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.75 10.49 10.09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Middling S otted. . . . . . . .. _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.24 9.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Strict Low iddling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.38 8.83 5.50 . . . . . . . . . Strict Low Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.99 8 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.85 8.94 8 38 6.28 . . . . . . . . . Low Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.87 7.2 Low Middlin T_inged.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.75 Strict Good rdinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.00 7.75 5.84 6.86 Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.00.. . . . . . . . .. 6.50 6.65 Staple Table 7 gives a tabulation of the monthly average prices paid farmers grouped on the basis of staple. An examination of these figures indi- cates that very little, if any, recognition is given staple length in deter- mining the price paid the cotton grower. This fact is further illus- trated by an examination of daily local sales selected at random. For example; on one of the local markets during the period September 18 to 24, a sale of 7 bales of good middling cotton, varying in staple from i} to an inch in length, is recorded. In the case of three bales the lower grade sold for more, in one for the same, and in three for less than the next longer staple. On the same market during the period October 19 to October 28 a record of the sale of 9 bales of middling cotton varying in length from g- to 1-1 / 16 inch shows that five times the RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON 13 shorter staple sold for less and four times for more than the next longer staple. Here, as in the case of grade, similar illustrations may be dupli- cated many times from the data available. Table 7. Monthly average price paid farmers for cotton, 1926. (Basis-Staple) Average Price of Lint Per Pound Staple Length, Inches August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Robstown 7/ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.75 13 25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 92 15.06 12 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1795 16.24 1244 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 59 16.47 13 O0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 86 17 56 12 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 45 16 69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1/s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Henderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 83 11.06 9.50 12 00 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 35 15 10 10.96 10.36 1O 42 l0 75 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 51 15 21 11.04 10 62 10 08 0 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 70 15 83 10.85 10 66 10 92 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1765 1579 1105 1092 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Hillsboro: 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. 12.20 9.17 .50 . . . . . . . .. 15/16 . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.58 11.75 9.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.24 1174 9.03 00 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.90 12 01 8.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.86 55 . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. /8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Lubbock 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.75 9.50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.25 10.00 8.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.41 10.25 9.08 6 15 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 58 10.06 9.01 5 96 6 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.39 10.13 8.90 5 94 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.12 9.92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.94 8.50 6.50 . . . . . . . .. 1 1/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. THE GROWER’S PRICE IS LARGELY ON AN AVERAGE OR “HOG ROUND” BASIS As shown by Tables 6 and 7 with accompanying illustrations‘ the grower generally sells his cotton locally on an average or “hog round” basis. This practice places a premium on cotton below the average for the community and a penalty on cotton above the average for the com- munity. As a result of this practice, many growers have resorted to the growing of varieties of shorter staple and higher yields. Such a reac- tion is quite logical on the part of the individual grower, even though by this act the level of quality for the community and the State is low- ered, the average price reduced, and the total wealth of the community diminished. The harmfulness of this practice is not its failure to pay the com- munity what its cotton is worth. No doubt it is paid approximately the worth of the cotton produced, some of it selling for more and some of it 14 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION for less than its market value, but all of it for about what it is worth. The unsound and uneconomic principle involved, however, is the fact that the local cotton market as organized and operated at present not only fails to reward the grower for the production of quality, but in reality places a penalty on quality and a premium on volume regardless of quality. Table 8. The average price paid for cotton during the month of October, 1926, on four local markets compared by grades. Average Monthly Price Per Pound by Grade. Local Market Strict Strict Strict Middling Middling Middling Low Low Middling Spotted Spotted Middling Middling Robstown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.25 12.55 . . . . . . . .. 13.75 12.38 . . . . . . . .. Hillsboro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.00 13.03 12.38 12.00 10.99 10.42 Henderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.33 10.90 11.09 . . . . . . . .. 10.17 10.00 ' Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.09 10.56 10.49 10.24 9.38 8.94 Under the system of “point buying,” or buying on an average basis, the price paid tends to conform to the average grade and staple value of the cotton in that market. Or, stated differently, the price paid for" the same grade of cotton on different markets will vary relative to the average quality of cotton produced on each market. This fact is illus- trated in Table 8. The month of October has been chosen because the sample for this period is more adequate. It is evident from these figures- that prices paid for the same grade of cotton on the Henderson and Lubbock markets were consistently, and in some cases, considerably lower than prices paid on either the Robstown or Hillsboro market. This difference is accounted for very largely by the difference in the average quality of cotton sold on these markets. It has already been pointed out in Tables 2 and 5 that 99 per cent of the cotton secured at Robstown was white and none of it below 5" in length; almost 92 per- cent of the cotton secured at Hillsboro was white and none less than fir" in length; slightly above 9'7 per cent of the Henderson sample was white, but 32 per cent of it was below g" in length; and 71 per cent of the sample secured at Lubbock was white and one per cent below g" in length. PRICES ON LOCAL COTTON MARKET COMPARED WITH QUOTA» TIONS ON CENTRAL MARKET In an attempt to compare local prices received by growers with central market values, certain difliculties arose and it is felt that an explanation of the manner in which they were met should be made clear before going into the details of this part of the report. In the first place it was necessary to reduce local and central prices to a comparable basis. This was done by adding to the grower’s price the handling charges. RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON l5 necessary to move the cotton from the local markets to the Houston market. Such charges as freight and compress, interest, exchange, in- surance, and drayage have been included. The amount per bale for each of these items and for each of the local markets studied is given in Table 9. One will readily observe that the item “freight and compress” comprises a very large part of the total handling charges. _ C Table 9. Handling charges from local points to Houston, season of 1926-1927. Charges on 514-pound Bale of Cotton* Local Points Freight and Compress Interest Exchange Insurance Drayage Total Points Charges (Cents) (Cents) (Cents) (Cents) a to Houston Robstown . . . . . . . $ 4.11 19.0 22 1O 0 ‘g3 4.62 90 Henderson . . . . . . 4.11 14 .0 16 8 O 4.49 87 Hillsb0r0..... 4.11 14.0 16 8 0 4.49 87 Lubbock . . . . . . . . 4.75 14 .0 13 6 40 5.48 106 Average..... r» 4.43 16.5 17 s] s 4.86 92 *.')14 pounds average weight of cotton per bale, Texas, 1926. Estimate of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The central market values as used in this comparison were calculated by adding to or subtracting from the Houston middling spot price* the grade and staple differences of a particular bale of cotton for a specified date. For example, the price of middling spot cotton quoted for Hous- ton, September 21, 1926, was 15.95 cents per pound. On this date strict middling cotton was 50 points on, and the staple premium for 15/16" over g" was 60 points. The central market value, therefore, of strict middling 15/ 16" cotton on the Houston market, September 21, 1926, was 15.95 cents plus 1.10 cents, grade and staple premiums, or 17.05 cents per pound. Staple differences corresponding to the daily grade differences are not quoted by the cotton exchanges. This being the case, an effort was made to secure such differences from concerns handling cotton on the Houston market. The most complete and satis- factory data Were found in the records of the Texas Farm Bureau Cotton Association. This association kept a daily record by grade and staple of the premiums received for its cotton sold on the Houston market for the season 1926-27. For those grades and for those days for which no sales Were made a judgment figure in line with the market Was recorded. A complete record of the staple differences used is given in the appendix of this report, Table l-a. SPREAD BETWEEN LOCAL PRICE AND CENTRAL MARKET PRICE The term local price as used in this comparison may be defined as the groWer’s price plus the necessary expenses incurred in moving the cotton *All middling spot prices and grade differences used were furnished by the Division of Cotton Marketing, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 16 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to the Houston market. The central market value is the middling s‘ quotation on the Houston market plus grade and staple difierenc The spread is the difference between these two prices. To illustra i, on October 19, 1926, a grower received on the Henderson market 11. -' cents per poundfor a middling 15/16" bale of cotton. The han charges required to move cotton from this point to Houston, as culated, amount to 87 cents per 100 pounds or .87 cent per pound. L, grower’s price (11.25 cents) plus handling charges per pound (.87 cent equals 12.12 cents per pound delivered on the Houston market. l, this date the middling spot quotation for Houston was 12.75 cents g pound. The staple premium for 15/16" over fir" was 10 points or .1 cent per pound. The central market value, therefore, for this 0.; was 12.75 cents plus .10 cent or 12.85 cents per pound. The If is 12.85 cents minus 12.12 cents or .73 cents per pound, making a sprei of $3.75 for a bale weighing 514 pounds. This is to say, the grower =_ Henderson received $3.75 less for this bale than it was selling for on t1 Houston market. p In presenting the average net spread per bale for each market studie attention is called to the fact that wide variations on individual bal" are evident in the data secured. - For example, at Lubbock the highe i1 plus spread recorded is $35.15 and the highest minus spread is $15.2 t? per bale. In other words, the farmer’s price plus handling charges $35.15 less than the central market value in the first case, and $15.21» more than the central market value in the second case. ' Table 10. Average spread per bale on local markets studied. ' Average Local Market Number Spread of Bales Per Bale Hillsboro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 ' $1 . 1o Henderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 2.43 Robstown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408 3.51 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521 6.65 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .702 $3 .80 The average spread per bale for each local market studied is given in a Table 10. It ranges from $1.10 per bale for Hillsboro to $6.65 for Lubbock, with an average spread of $3.80 for the four local marketsfl This means that of the four local points cotton growers on the Hillsboro A market received the best price and growers on the Lubbock market the poorest price relative to central market values. Without attempting to i explain the wide difference in the spread between cotton prices at Hills- i. boro and Lubbock, it may be observed that a greater amount of cotton ,; on the Lubbock market sold on a rapidly declining price than on any of - ' the other three markets. The decline in cotton prices for the season of 1926-27 started around the middle of September, at which time cotton " harvesting in the Lubbock_area was just getting well under way. Added a RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY or COTTON 17 i to this situation was the uncertainty introduced by a new method of harvesting known as “sledding.” Naturally local buyers were reluctant to buy this cotton until it had been generally accepted by the trade, which action tended to cause a further depression of prices. Table 11. Average spread per bale between local and central market value, for season 1926-27. (Basis-Grade) Local Markets All Points Hillsboro Henderson Robstown Lubbock Grade p, Average Average Average Average Average ' N0. Spread No. Spread N0. Spread N0. Spread No. Spread Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Strict Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9.03 3 9.03 ' Good Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8.38 10 5 93 5 6.42 ' 61 6.22 78 6.25 Good Middling Spotted . . . . . . . 1 .92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .92 V Strict Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.13 176 3 78 81 7.15 30 6.57 315 5.03 ‘, Strict Middling Spotted . . . . . . 7 —-2.93 17 24 3 —-2.06 68 6.87 95 4.68 Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 .59 258 1 95 244 3.77 80 7.83 649 3.22 i” Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 -2.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 —-8.48 61 4.82 75 3.43 p, Strict Low Middling . . . . . . . . . 73 . 76 75 1.14 65 -—-.38 79 8 .63 292 2.73 j Strict Low Middling Spotted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.88 20 2.88 Low Middling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 1.72 4 ——2.09 9 -—6.8O 79 5.71 112 3 .86 f Low Middling Spotted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 .83 6 7.83 skint Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . 17 2.33 2 4.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8 .58 47 6.14 -_- Good Ordinary . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 --9.35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 -— .82 7 -—4.48 Low Middling Tinged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w. . . . . . . . . 2 .33 2 .33 E Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 231 1.10 542 2.43 408 g 3.51 521 6.65 1702 3.80 W R n I 0 o A more detailed analysis of spread may be had by an examination of k its relation to grade and staple considered separately. Table 11 shows ‘the average spread per bale by grade for each of the four local markets f considered, and for all combined. As one would surmise, a great many bales sold for more on the local market than they were being quoted on 1 the central market. The comparison in such cases would result in a ‘ minus spread and has been so designated. In other words, the minus sign designates the average amount per bale by which the local price exceeds the central price. For all other bales the local price was less gthan or equal to the central market price. Theoretically local buyers lost on the former and made a profit on the latter. f Figure 1 shows graphically the amount and nature of the spread when like grades from the four markets were grouped and averaged. It will be observed at a glance that the widest fluctuations in spread are ~ ound among both the lower and higher grades. The most uniform ‘pread is grouped about middling and includes the range of grades from ‘ strict middling to low middling. With but one exception, that of seven les of good ordinary, the average spread by grade resulted in a plus. uantity. The average spread for all grades and all points is $3.80 §~ r bale. 1; The fact that the spread was found to be considerably wider for both ie lower and the higher grades is interpreted as significant. It sug- ts that the low grades show a marked contrast when compared with l8 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0.50 9.00 s00 {v.00 1.50 zoo 0.50 0.00 5.50 *1 5.00 ‘Q 450 d a‘ 400 3 3.50 5.6M. .4‘ 3 S” 3 u» 9' 3 i. 9‘ O Q 3 1 i!’ iiiiiiijj m ‘D01. A = lilllllll a . a . rr-P.“ 3883 E E El . G3 O p E iilljii 5 j__i_ i_i i— , ivscnmjemSvmexo J. l." o g "250 ~i:>.o0 ‘$.50 -'4.00 ~ 4.50 Figure 1.——Sh0ws the nature and extent of the average spread pefibale grouped according "tofgrade. Zero indicates the point at which local and central market prices COlIICldG, or the point of no spread. Thc bars above this line indicate the amount per bale by WhIClI central market prices exceed those of the local market, and vice versa below the lino. The number of_ bales 1n each group is indicated by the figure in cwch bar. Thisjschemc is followed for figures 2, 3, and 4 M ......... |m|HH m----Wnrw m. su M a H3 E lllllllllllll in 7 Illllii %/%=__ .|L....4.4.&s.&a7.r _ . _ Z Z 3 1_J 2 ._n$<.~3>< . _ _ _ _. wowmwwwwwwwwwwwwm _____ 2O BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATfON "’ L50 " 1.00 Figure 3.——Average spread per bale grouped according to staple lengths. 22 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION middling cotton-hence are readily recognized and penalized. On the; other hand the high grades show less contrast with middling and are» less easily recognized. Then, too, it is to the advantage of the buyer to. ignore or minimize the importance of the high grades. f As has already been stated, the local buyer does not always buy at a "r figure that will insure a profit. This is well illustrated in Figure 2. It!“ will be observed from this figure that only three out of thirteen gradesi showed a profit in every bale, while the other ten grades showed that* some of the bales 10st money; but on an average a profit was realized for i all grades except one. To illustrate: there were 112 bales of cotton of low middling grade in the sample secured on the four local markets. Of these, 24 were bought at a price which shows an average loss to the buyer of about $6.50 per bale, while 88 bales were bought at a price A which shows a profit of about $6.40 per bale, or an average net profit on the entire lot of about $3.70 per bale. Table 12. Average spread per bale between local and central market value, for season 1926-27. (Basis-Staple) Local Markets All Points Hillsboro Henderson Robstown Lubbock Staple _ Average Average Average Average Average j No. Spread No. Spread No. Spread No. Spread No. Spread g Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale Bales Per Bale 3/4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 .04 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 8.56 22 .74 13/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 —-1.59 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 - .18 167 —1.56 ‘ 7/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.01 243 4.09 2 —9. 12 88 5 .05 340 4.26 15/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121 —— .59 86 4.26 56 -—- .90 241 6.31 504 3.50- . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 2.20 25 6.47 125 .61 144 7.28 369 3.93 1 1/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 4.37 l 19.94 46 3.72 35 9.12 102 5.86 1 1/16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 6.03 4 9.66 168 6.93 6 16.40 185 7.26- 1 3/32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 8.17 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 8.17 1 1/8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 2.47 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 3.60 1 18.20 3 8.09 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231 1.10 542 2.43 408 3.51 521 6.65 1702 3.80 Still more light is thrown on the nature of the spread if examined in its relation to staple length. Table 12 exhibits the average spread per bale for the different staple lengths represented in the sample secured.. The relation of spread to these different staple lengths is shown graph- ically in Figure 3. Out of the nine lengths included only one shows a minus spread, or was bought presumably at a loss to the buyer. The greatest uniformity of spread is indicated for g1’, 15/16”, and 1" lengths. These lengths include at least '70 per cent of the total number of bales- _ considered. The widest spread is shown for those staple lengths above a an inch. There is a decided tendency for the spread to widen as the length increases. This indicates little, if any, effort on the part of the local buyer to recognize staple on the individual bale. A uniform spread for all staple lengths would have resulted had the cotton been bought strictly on a quality basis. A similar fact holds here as in the case of the distribution on the _4->._/n41~_‘@m£.54in.t..m \~ " ‘ RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON 23 basis of grade that a considerable number of bales for the majority of staple lengths were bought at a price above the central market value or at a loss to the buyer. On the other hand, the bulk of the cotton showed .a substantial plus spread, with the spread being more pronounced in the longer staple. In relation to staple it was evident that little,.if any, recognition was given length in the determination of local prices for individual bales. t is observed that spread is roughly divided into three groups. The first of these may be designated as “short” cotton, or the cotton of 5}" and 13/16" in length. These lengths made up about 11 per cent of the total sample and taken together show a minus spread. The second group is that cotton included in g", 15/16", and 1" lengths, composing ‘* about 71 per cent of the total. The spread for this group is fairly uni- form and about equal to the average for the entire sample. The third group, including 1-1/32, 1-1/16, 1-3/32, and 1%” lengths, and compos- ing about 18 per cent of the total, shows the widest spread, with a marked tendency to increase with the increase in length. It appears evident that a prevailing or type staple length is recognized for each local market, which more or less fixes the staple basis for that point. The lengths above this basis are penalized, while those lengths below are paid a premium. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary object of this study is to determine the degree to which the local markets discriminate between the different grades and staples of cotton, and to show the extent to which central market values are reflected in the prices received by cotton growers. A tabulation of monthly averages of local prices according to grade shows some effort on the part of the local trade to follow grade but not a consistent effort. Illustrations from the sale of individual bales of the same staple length for the same date revealed the fact that a given grade quite frequently sold for less than the next lower grade. In a study of the spread between local prices and central market values grouped ac- cording to grade, regardless of staple, it was quite evident that the low grades had been recognized and penalized. The higher grades seemed to have been bought on a fiat basis, thus being automatically penalized. In the case of staple there was no evidence of a conscious elfort on the part of the local trade to reward long staple and penalize short staple. Each point seems to have had a staple rating and all cotton regardless of staple length bought on that basis. Such a practice fails to penalize cotton of short staple and to adequately reward cotton of long staple. This was evident in a study of the spread between local prices and central market values on the basis of staple. Thus it is seen that the great bulk of cotton is bought from the farmer, not on a quality basis, but on an average basis, and particularly so in regard to staple. It is quite generally recognized that this method of local buying is 24 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION encouraging the farmers to plant varieties that will give them the highest yields regardless of staple. It has been estimated that of the fifteen million bushels or more of cotton seed planted in Texas during the spring of 1927, more than ten million bushels Were gin-run seed, more than four and one-half million bushels were somewhat improved, and less than one-half million bushels were pedigreed seed. It is evi- dent that the farmer who plants low quality varieties tends to reduce the average of the quality or spinning utility of the cotton of his com- munity. However, under the method of buying “point cotton,” the grower who grows cotton of high quality is penalized for his efforts to hold the average of the community high. In effect he is paying his neighbor who grows the poor-quality cotton a premium. The responsibility for the solution of this problem cannot be placed upon any one group. It is one in which the full cooperation of growers, spinners, ginners, breeders, the cotton trade, and agricultural workers is required. Agricultural Experiment Stations in the cotton belt have done much to test and develop cotton varieties in an effort to keep the quality of cotton high. Cotton breeders have a constructive program of improvement, but all of these efforts fall far short of their possible application because the farmers’ market fails to properly recognize and adequately reward a quality product. The seriousness of the situation is recognized by the trade. A very wholesome and constructive attitude was recently expressed by H. G. Safford, President of the Texas Cotton Association, in an address deliv- ered before the Seventeenth Annual Convention of the Texas Cotton Association at Galveston, Texas, relative to this immediate problem. He said: “In a discussion of our ‘buying methods’ here at home, we must admit that we have been very remiss in a number of Ways and have allowed to creep in, mistakes and abuses we should have avoided. By failure to give to the individual farmer the proper inducement for planting good seed and raising even stapled cotton of good character, we have helped to pave the way for the introduction of poor seed, such as half and half, of mixed planting and other reprehensible farming methods. We have allowed the State to lose its fair name and the premium it used to receive for the good character of its cotton. If we do adopt the principle of selling only against physical standards for staple, we must apply it equally in our buying. We must issue difference sheets for staple as well as for grade and must follow them as closely. In this way only, can the proper rewards be given to the growers for the use of good seed and proper farming methods and just penalties be assessed for poor seed and lack of intelligent farming. We must encourage ‘community standardization,’ proper ginning, crop rotation and the complete good farming program. In other words, we must help the farmer to improve the quality of our Texas cotton, but we cannot hope to succeed in this, unless We can show him that it is to his own direct profit and selfish z . _ Atk~1|é-Z_<.L..»~1L§M&.J‘aa RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF‘ COTTON 25 interest to do so. We must absolutely discontinue the unfair and unjust custom of buying ‘point cotton.’ ” What should be done about it? Evidently one of the first tasks is to assemble, analyze, and focus as much information as possible pertinent to the solution of the problem. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. D. A., Division of Cotton Marketing, has under way some very constructive research work in this connection. For example, a ten per cent sample of the crop will be taken from which an estimate of the grade, staple, and character of the entire cotton crop will be made this year (1928). Also data as to the utilization of this cotton by mills are being studied. Such facts should help very much to indicate what we are producing as compared with what spinners need and arewilling to pay most for. The final and important application of such information should be to help the grower fit his production program to mill needs. Such a program is possible only when the prices received by the grower reflect the values of the central market. For this situation to obtain, cotton must be sold in the local market on the same basis as in the central market—strictly a quality basis. BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 26 APPENDIX Table 1-a. Staple differences used in calculating the central market value of cotton. STRICT GOOD MIDDLING Month Short 7/8" 15/16" 1" 1 1/32" 1 1/16" 1 1/8" 1 3/16" Aug. 11 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 9O on 150 on 225 on 300 on 365 on 465 on Aug. 18 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 50 on 110 on 150 on 225 on 325 on 425 on Aug. 25 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 100 on 110 0n 115 on 250 on 335 on 425 on Sept. 1 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 9O on 120 on 150 on 250 on 350 on 450 on Sept. 8 . . . . . . . . 1OO ofi’ pass 1OO on 125 on 155 on 225 on 340 on 425 on Sept. 15 . . . . . . . . 1OO ofi‘ pass 9 on 130 0n 160 on 210 on 300 on 385 on Sept. 22 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 85 on 115 on 150 on 275 on 340 on 440 on Sept. 29 . . . . . . . . 1OO ofl’ pass 50 on 100 on 150 on 275 on 360 on 460 on Oct. 6 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 30 on 55 on 105 on 240 on 315 on 415 on Oct 13 . . . . . . . . 10 off pass 15 on 60 on 115 on 230 on 305 on 405 on Oct. 2O . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 25 on 80 on 130 on 245 on 320 on 420 on Oct. 27 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 20 on 75 on 130 on 250 on 325 on 425 on Nov. 3 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 25 on 1OO on 150 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Nov. 1O . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 25 on 9O on 150 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Nov. 17 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 25 on 9O on 155 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Nov. 24 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 90 on 160 on 280 on 355 on 455 on Dec. 1 . . . . . . .. 90 ofl’ pass 60 on 125 on 180 on 270 on 345 on 445 on Dec. 8 . . . . . . .. 1OO ofi‘ pass 70 on 135 on 190 on 285 on 360 on 460 on Dec. 15 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 90 on 135 on 205 on 290 on 345 on 440 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 75 on 135 on 200 on 275 on 325 on 400 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 75 on 135 on 190 on 290 on 355 on 445 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 75 on 130 on 185 on 285 on 340 on 440 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 75 on 130 on 185 on 285 on 340 on 440 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . . . 10 off pass 75 on 130 on 185 on 285 on 335 on 435 on Jan. 26 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 55 on 115 on 170 on 260 on 315 on 415 on GOOD MIDDLING Aug. 11 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 90 on 150 on 215 on 290 on 365 on 465 on Aug. 18 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 50 on 110 on 175 on 250 on 325 on 425 on Aug. 25 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 1OO on 110 on 125 on 250 on 325 on 425 on Sept 1 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 9O on 120 on 150 on 250 on 350 on 450 on Sept 8 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 95 on 125 on 160 on 225 on 315 on 390 on Sept 15 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 95 on 125 on 160 on 21O on 295 on 375 on Sept 22 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 85 on 115 on 150 on 275 on 340 on 440 on Sept 29 . . . . . . . a 1OO off pass 5O on 1OO on 150 on 275 on 360 on 460 on Oct. 6 . . . . . . .. 110 off pass 20 on 55 on 105 on 240 on 315 on 415 on Oct 13 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 15 on 6O on 11O on 235 on 315 on 415 on Oct. 2O . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 8O on 135 on 250 on 325 on 425 on Oct. 27 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 2 on 75 on 130 on 255 on 320 on 415 on Nov 3 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 25 on 9O on 15O on 275 on 350 on 450 on Nov 10. . . . . . 100 off pass 30 on 95 on 160 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Nov 17 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 3O on 95 on 160 on 275 on 350 on 455 on Nov 24 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 3O on 95 on 165 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Dec. 1 . . . . . . .. 1OO ofi” pass 6O on 115 on 170 on 260 on 335 on 435 on Dec. 8 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 7O on 130 on 185 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Dec. 15 . . . . . . . . 1OO ofi" pass 95 on 140 on 21O on 295 on 350 on 440 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 75 on 135 on 200 on 275 on 325 on 400 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 80 on 135 on 195 on 295 on 355 on 450 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 75 on 130 on 185 on 285 on 340 on 435 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . . . 1OO off pass 75 on 130 on 195 on 285 on 340 on 435 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . .. 1OO off pass 75 on 130 on 185 on 285 on 335 on 435 on Jan. 26 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 55 on 115 on 170 on 265 on 315 on 415 on RELATION‘ OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON 27 ~. Table l-a. Staple differences used in calculating the central market value of cotton. STRICT MIDDLING Month Short 7/8" 15/16" 1" 1 1/32" 1 1/16" 1 1/8" 1 3/16" Aug. 11 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 75 0n 130 on 175 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Aug. 18 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 50 on 105 on 160 on 235 on 310 0n 410 on Aug. 25 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 75 on 100 on 125 on 235 on 310 on 410 on 100 off pass 65 on 100 on 135 on 240 on 315 on 410 on 100 off pass 60 on 95 on 140 on 215 on 290 on 400 on lOO 01f pass 6O on 95 0n 135 on 210 on 285 on 395 on 100 off pass 50 0n 100 on 150 on 235 on 310 on 400 on 100 off pass 45 on 100 on 150 on 275 on 345 on 445 on 100 off pass 10 on 65 on 115 on 250 on 315 on 415 on 100 off pass 15 on 75 on 130 on 260 on 335 0n 435 on 100 off pass 20 on 7O on 125 on 250 on 325 on 425 on 100 off pass 2O on 75 on 130 on 255 0n 330 on 430 on lOO off pass 4O on 95 on 150 on 275 on 350 on 450 on lOO off pass 50 on 105 on 165 on 275 on 350 on 450 on 100 off pass 5O on 110 on 170 on 275 on 350 0n 450 on lOO off pass 45 on 105 on 165 0n 265 on 340 on 440 0n Dec. 1 . . . . . . . . lOO off pass 45 on 105 on 165 0n 245 on 320 on 420 on Dec. 8 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 105 on 170 on 245 on 310 on 415 on Dec. 15 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 50 on 120 on 190 on 270 on 325 on 415 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 95 on 155 on 250 on 300 on 375 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 35 on lOO on 165 on 260 on 300 on 390 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 40 0n 105 on 165 on 255 on 290 on 380 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 4O on 90 on 140 on 255 on 305 on 390 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 0n 9O on 150 on 250 on 3OO on 385 on Jan. 26 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 3O on 90 on 150 on 245 on 290 on 380 on MIDDLING pass 30 on 100 on 150 on 240 on 315 on 415 on pass 5O on 8O on 110 on 210 on 285 on 385 on pass 50 on 60 on 75 on 200 on 275 on 375 on pass 5O on 75 on 100 on 185 on 260 on 360 on pass 45 on 75 on 100 on 175 on 250 on 335 on pass 45 on 70 on lOO on 165 on 235 on 325 on pass 30 on 65 on 105 on 185 on 260 on 350 on pass 15 on 50 on 9O on 190 on 265 on 365 on pass 10 on 45 on 80 on 185 on 260 on 360 on pass 10 on 45 on 8O on 210 on 295 on 395 on pass 1O on 40 on 80 on 225 on 300 on 400 on pass 2O on 55 on 90 on 250 on 325 on 425 on pass 30 on 75 on 120 on 250 on 315 on 415 on pass 25 on 7O on 115 on 245 on 320 on 420 on pass 25 on 70 on 115 on 245 on 320 on 420 on pass 25 on 70 on 110 on 235 on 315 on 415 on pass 35 on 85 on 130 on 225 on 290 on 390 on pass 35 on 75 on 125 on 215 on 290 on 390 on pass 45 on 9O on 140 on 245 on 300 on 390 on pass 25 on 75 on 125 on 225 on 280 on 375 on pass 30 0n 8O on 130 on 235 on 275 on 375 on pass 25 on 75 on 125 on 220 on 270 on 370 on pass 15 on 55 on 100 on 215 on 265 on 350 on pass 15 on 65 on 120 on 215 on 265 on 350 on pass 15 on 65 on 120 on 215 on ‘265 on 350 on 28 BULLETIN NO. 383, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION \ Table l-a. Staple differences used in calculating the central market value of cottonv STRICT LOW MIDDLING Month Short 7/8" 15/16" 1" 1 1/32" 1 1/16" 1 1/8" 1 3/1 Aug. 11 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 40 on 95 on 150 on 240 on 315 on 415 u . Aug. 18 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 85 on 135 on 210 on 285 on 385 1* Aug. 25 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 85 on 135 on 210 on 285 on 385 w‘ Sept. 1 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 50 on 85 on 125 on 210 on 280 on 380 o ' Sept. 8 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 50 on 75 on 110 on 195 on 265 on 365 0' Sept. 15 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 55 on 70 on 100 on 180 on 255 on 350 on Sept. 22 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 45 on 75 on 100 on 200 on 275 on 365 o‘ Sept. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 ofi pass 20 on 55 on 85 on 185 on 260 on 360 Oct. 6 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 55 on 85 on 185 on 260 on 360 onj Oct. 13 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 15 on 45 on 75 on 175 on 250 on 350 on Oct. 20 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi’ pass 15 on 45 on 75 on 175 on -250 on 350 on Oct. 27 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 30 on 65 on 100 on 210 on 255 on 385 on Nov. 3 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 3O on 65 on 105 on 215 on 290 on 390 on; Nov. 10 . . . . . . .. 100 ofl‘ pass 25 on 65 on 95 on 205 on 280 on 380 on‘ Nov. 17 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 65 on 95 on 205 on 280 on 380 on _ Nov. 24 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi‘ pass 20 on 6O on 85 on 200 on 275 on 375 on: Dec. 1 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 15 on 60 on 105 0n 180 on 255 on 355 0111 Dec. 8 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 10 off 35 on 80 on 145 on 220 on 320 on. Dec. 15 . . . . . . .. 95 off pass 25 on 70 on 120 on 190 on 240 on 315 on a Dec. 22 . . . . . . . . 90 off pass 25 on 60 on 100 on 200 on 265 on 325 on *- Dec. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 35 on 85 on 200 on 260 on 325 on l. Jan. 5 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on. 35 on 85 on 190 on 255 on 325 on i Jan. 12 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 10 on 40 on 70 on 185 on 240 on 310 on“ Jan. 19 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 15 on 45 on 75 on 190 on 240 on 315 on ~ Jan. 26 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi pass 20 on 45 on 75 on 175 on 225 on 300 on ~ LOW MIDDLING Aug. 11 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 100 on 140 on 175 on 300 on 365 on 465 on Aug. 18 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 65 on 110 on 150 on 275 on 350 on 440 on Aug. 25 . . . . . . .. 100 ofl’ pass 65 on 100 on 150 on 275 on 350 on 450 on Sept. 1 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 80 on 125 on 300 on 375 on 450 on Sept. 8 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 65 on 90 on 175 on 310 on 375 on 460 on _ Sept. 15 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 8O on 100 on 195 on 315 on 390 on 475 on I Sept. 22 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 65 on 100 on 135 on 285 on 365 on 465 on ~‘ Sept. 29 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 75 on 100 on 150 on 260 on 355 on 455 on Oct. 6 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 40 on 75 on 100 on 240 on 315 on 415 on Oct. 13 . . . . . . . . 100 ofl‘ pass 60 on 80 on 100 on 225 on 300 on 400 on Oct. 20 . . . . . . .. 10O ofi" pass 40 on 65 on 90 on 215 on 290 on 390 on Oct. 27 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 50 on 75 on 100 on 225 on 300 on 400 on Nov. 3 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 15 on 40 on 65 on 185 on 260 on 360 on Nov. 10 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 5 on 20 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov. 17 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 10 on 35 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov. 24 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 5 on 30 on 45 on 170 on 245 on 345 on Dec. 1 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 1O off 30 0n 65 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Dec. 8 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 off 5 on 40 on 140 on 215 on 315 on Dec. 15 . . . . . . .. 100 01f pass 35 on 50 on 75 on 180 0n 245 on 330 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . .. 100 ofl’ pass 25 on 5O on 75 on 150 on 215 on 290 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 3O on 75 on "135 on 210 on 280 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 40 on 8O on 140 on 205 on 270 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 5O on 75 on 150 on 215 on 280 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . . . 100 ofi’ pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 150 on 215 on 280 on Jan. 26. .' . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 45 on 65 on 140 on 205 on 280 on RELATION OF FARM PRICES TO QUALITY OF COTTON 29 Table 1-a. Staple differences used in calculating the central market value of cotton. STRICT GOOD ORDINARY Month Short 7/8" 15/16" 1" 1 1/32" 1 1/16" 1 1/8" 1 3/16" Aug. 11 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 95 on 130 on 170 on 295 on 365 on 465 on Aug 18 . . . . . . . . 90 off pass 65 on 110 on 150 on 275 on 355 on 435 on Aug. 25 . . . . . . . . 90 off pass 65 on 110 on 150 on 275 on 350 on 440fon Sept. 1 . . . . . . .. 115 off pass 35 on 100 on 145 on 300 on 375 on 450 on Sept. 8 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 65 on 90 on 175 on 300 on 375 on 450 on Sept. 15 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 75 on 90 on 190 on 310 on 365 on 435 on Sept. 22 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 65 on 100 on 135 on 285 on 365 on 440 on Sept. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 ofl‘ pass 65 on 90 on 140 on 260 on 355 on 455 on Oct. 6 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 60 on 85 on 115 on 250 on 335 on 435 on Oct. 13 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 75 0n 100 on 115 on 240 on 305 on 405 on Oct 20 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 40 on 65 on 9 on 215 on 290 on 390 on Oct 27 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 50 on 75 on 100 on 225 on 300 on 400 on Nov 3 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 15 on 40 on 65 on 185 on 260 on 360 on Nov 1O . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 10 on 25 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov. 17 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 10 on 35 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov. 24 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 5 on 30 on 45 on 170 on 245 on 345 on Dec. 1 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 10 0H 30 on 65 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Dec 8 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 off 15 on 50 on 150 on 245 on 345 on Dec 15 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 35 on 50 on 75 on 180 on 175 on 345 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 50 on 55 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 135 on 210 on 280 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 4O on 8O 0n 140 on 210 on 310 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . . . 100 ofl‘ pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . . . 100 on pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Jan. 26 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 45 on 65 on 140 on 205 on 305 on GOOD ORDINARY Aug. 11 . . . . . . . . 100 ofl pass g5 on 130 on 170 on 295 on 365 on 465 on Aug 18 . . . . . . .. 9O o pass 5 on 110 on 150 on 275 on 355 on 450 on Aug 25 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 65 on 120 on 160 on 285 on 370 on 475 on Sept. 1 . . . . . . . . 115 off pass 35 on 100 on 145 on 300 on 375 on 650 on Sept. 8 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 75 on 90 on 180 on 300 on 375 on 425 on Sept 15 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi‘ pass 75 on 90 on 190 on 310 on 365 on 425 on Sept 22 . . . . . . . . 100 oil‘ pass 65 on 100 on 135 on 285 on 365 on 440 on Sept 29 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 65 on 90 on 140 on 260 on 355 on 455 on Oct. 6 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 60 on 85 on 115 on 250 on 335 on 435 on Oct 13 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 75 on 100 on 110 on 235 on 310 on 410 on Oct. 20 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 40 on 65 on 90 on 215 on 290 on 390 on Oct. 27 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 50 on 75 on 100 on 225 on 300 on 400 on Nov 3 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi‘ pass 15 on 4O on 65 on 185 on 260 on 360 on Nov 10 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 10 on 25 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov 17 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 10 on 35 on 55 on 180 on 255 on 355 on Nov. 24 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass on 30 on 50 on 175 on 250 on 350 on Dec. 1 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 5 off 30 on 55 on 170 on 245 on 345 on Dec 8 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 ofi‘ 1-5 on 50 on 150 on 245 on 345 on Dec 15 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 35 on 50 on 75 on 180 on 245 on 345 on Dec. 22 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Dec. 29 . . . . . . . . 100 ofi pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 130 on 210 on 310 on Jan. 5 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 40 on 80 on 135 on 210 on 310 on Jan. 12 . . . . . . . . 100 off pass 25 on 50 0n 75 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Jan. 19 . . . . . . .. 100 ofi‘ pass 25 on 50 on 75 on 150 on 215 on 315 on Jan. 26 . . . . . . .. 100 off pass 25 on 45 on 65 on 140 on 215 on 315 on