A STUSY OF fiECEHT GWGES £34 COTTON PROQHCFEOH PATTERH AND TECHMQUES EN THE UNITED $TATES Méfl THEIR WWW TO HtIE‘UW COMETIQM That: (at the Day!“ of M. S. MlQ‘il-GAN STATE UHNERLSIW 1". Y. pm: 25955 A STUDY OF RECENT CHANGES IN COTTON HICDUCTION PATTERN AND TECHNIQUES IN THE UNI'IED srms AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO INDIAN CCNDITIONS by T. Y. Patil AN ABSTRACT Sumitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial mum- ment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultm-al Economics 1955 Approved by XML“ 44/10.? T. Y. Patil ABSTRACT A Study of Recent Changes in Cotton Production Pattern and Techniques in the United States and their Applicability to Indian Conditions This study represents an attempt to evaluate recent changes re- sponsible for improvements in United States cotton production and to find possible application of these factors to Indian conditions. In the last 30 years cotton production in United States increased in spite of the considerable decrease in acreage. (Many developnents were responsible for it.) India is the second largest cotton produc- ing country in the world following the United States. 1% in India similar improments to those in the United States have not been made. It was believed that the study of different factors responsible for recent increased cotton yields in the United States would be helpful as a guide to recommend impromerrt of Indian cotton production. Data used for this study were obtained from various sources report- ing United States Agricultural Statistics and different bulletins of the United Nations. lost of the data show acreage, yield and pro- duction of cotton in the United States and India for the period of 1910 to 1952. Statistics required to study technological changes, costs returns and efficiency were collected for different periods from dif- ferent studies and bulletins. This period was one of contrasting changes in acreage and yield in these two countries. 8815:9133 T. I. Patil Qualitative analyses were made. The basic notion here is that production of cotton is a function of acreage and yield. It was found that the increase in yields irrespective of decline in acreage was responsible for increased production. Different factors such as improved varieties, fertilizer, tillage techniques and land selection seemed to have a significant influence in increasing yield; mechanization also had a great influence on production efficiency. In- crease in yield and decrease in labour requirement were significantly responsible for increases in production efficiency. Mechanized large farms and intensively cultivated mall farms both increased production per man hours. Returns per acre appeared to be higher on the small scale fams than the large scale farms. Larger capital expenditures and higher cost caused lower returns on large-mechanized farms. An analysis of the role and applicability of these factors to Indian cotton production, indicated that the use of improved varieties, fertilizer and tillage are the most feasible possibilities to increased cotton yield in India. Use of labour saving devices such as mechani- zation though necessary and desirable as a long run of objective do not appear to represent an immediate source of improvement. A STUDY OF RECENT CHANGES IN COTTON PRODUCTION PATTERN AND TECHNIQUES IN THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR APPLICABILITY TO INDIAN CONDITIONS by T 0 Yo Patil A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1955 I'll“! A ny..|\.,(—“~VT —‘r.‘a‘ I7r1-’:‘s -‘\I. _'. n..~J.-...‘J\_-‘.-..' 1.1. The author wishes to express his gratitude to the many people who helped with the development and completion of this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are Xpressed by the author to Dr. Vernon L. Sorenson for providing much of the incentive and inSpirntion necessary in completing the study. For constant supervision and _I interest which he has given to this study is highly appreciated. The helpful suggestions given by the menbers of the Department of Agricultural Econonics and graduate students, in particular Hr. C. Beringer are deeply appreciated. The writer is also indebted to Dr. L. T. Witt, Dr. C. L. Johnson, Dr. L. L. Roger, Dr. 0. Ulrey and Dr. R. H. Lindholm for their advice and guidance. To these men and to all others not mentioned by name who made valuable suggestions in one way or another, so the author's sincere thanks. Thanks are due for the assistance given by hrs. Arlene King and others of the secretarial staff of the Department of Agri- culture Economics for the typing of the original manuscript. Thanks are also expressed to Kiss Phyllis Jagger who typed the final manuscript. The author feels that this is the appropriate place to express his gratitude to the American people. the generous attitude of their institutions, in particular the Graduate ‘I School, Iichifian State University made it fossiole for him to spend the most beneficial time in the United States, where he Tethered rich human ard acaflehic exrerience. Last, but not least, the author rerls that this is the aberPriate nlace to eigress his Cratitude to his brothers Kr. V. n. and Er. G. D. :atil. Their generous COOperation and insniration made it possible for the author to finish hi- work in the United States of America and hence this thesis 183 been dedicated to them. The author assures full reSponsihility ior any errors which may be present in this manuscript. TABLE OF CON NTS Chapter I IIWRODUCTIONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I. AgricutureinIndiaoooooooooooo. 1) Importance of Agriculture in the Economy 2) Present Position of Agriculture 3) FOOdPrOblemooooooooooooo II. Partitionooooooooooooooooo 1) Effect of Partition on Food and Fibre 2) Importance of Cotton in the National Economy and Related Problems . o . III. Organization of the Thesis . o . o 1) Nature of the Problan . . . o 2) Purpose of the Study... 0 . 3) FomoftheSttfiy...... II RECENT CHANGES IN UNITED Sl'ATES COTTON PRODUCTIGV I. Introdllctianoooooooooooooooo 1) HistoryandImportance........ 2) cottonRegionBoooooooooooo II. Analysis of Changes in Acreage, Yield and Production in the United States, 1910-52 1) Acreage ooooooooooooooo 2) Yield oooooooooooooooo 3)P1‘0duc'bionoooooooooooooo III. Analysis of Changes by Production Regions 1) SOutheaStRegiOnooooooooooo 1? 18 18 22 22 27 31 33 35 TABIE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Chapter 2) DeltaRegion.......o..... 3) SouthwestRegion........... 1;) Western Irrigated Region . . . o o o o IV. Production and Price Relations . . . o . o o 1) Production mce Trend . o o o o o o o 2) Prices, Alternative Crops, Incone . . V. Conclusion .o....oo......... III M1315 0F FACTORS AFFECTING UNITED STATES COTTON PRODUCTION 0.0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o coo o I. Introduction ................ 11. Factors Affecting Cotton Production 0 . . o A) Factors Contributing to Increased . o 1) Insects, Diseases and Weather . . 2) Fertilizer.ooooooooooo 3) BetterVarietieso . . .. .. . . h) Land Selection, Tillage, Techniques B) Factors Responsible for Increasing Production 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 1)SizeoftheFamooooooooo 2) Hechanization, Changes in Equipnent 3) ChangesinCamtal...oooo. III. Production PerManHour .,. o . . . . . o 0. IV. Production COSt o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o Page 36 37 39 16 h7 h8 50 So 51 51 5h 59 63 63 82 77 8h TABLE OF CG‘ITENTS (Continued) Chapter 1) Southern Plain o o o o o 2) The Black Prairie Region 3) Mississippi Delta . . o o V.Sunmary.......o.... IV DEMOEETW S OF TECHIJmOGICAL POSSIBEITIES TO MOVE INDIAN COTTON PRODUCTION o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Io Introduction 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o 0 II. Comparative Changes in Indian and United States (:0th ProdllCtion . Q g g g g g g . l) Acreage, Yield, Production III. Technological Development and Possibilities in Indian Cotton Production 1) Disease, Pest, Varieties 2) Tillage Techniques 0 o o 3) Manure and Fertilizer o o )4) Land Selection . o o o o 5) Capitalooooooooo 0...... O O O O O... 6) Mechanization and Problems Arising From It IV. CODCIUSiOfl o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o e V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Page 85 87 8 7 88 101 101 102 105 106 106 113 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I The Number and Percentage of Psople Occupied in Agriculture and Industries in India, 1911-1952 (By Census Year) . . o 3 II Index Numbers of Change in Popllation and Food Supply in India, 1910-11 to 1937-38 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 III Imports of Food Grains in India, Midi-52 o o . o o . . . o 8 IV Total and Irrigated Area Under Some Important Crops and Production in India and Pakistan—After Partition (Basel-9185.486)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO 9 V Foreign Rchange Position Due to Changes in Cotton Textile Industry, l9h7-h8 to 19149-50 (In Million Rupees) . o o o 33 VI Export and Import of Cotton Cloth and Yarn: India 1938-39 . to 19h8-h9 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o 0 VII Cotton Production: World and Leading Countries by Specified 'Years 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o o 19 VIII Average Acreage and Farm Value of Major Crops in the United Statea, 19h3’52 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 20 IX Acreage, Yield Per Acre and Pr0duction of Cotton, United States, 1909.52 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2h X Changes in Acreage and Yield of Cotton in the United States for’1926 and 1937 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 28 X1 Average Acreage, Yield and "Production of Cotton for United States by Periods o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 3h XII Cotton Acreage, Production, Yield Per Acre and Reduction From Full Yield Due to Specified Causes, United States foriDifferent Periods o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 52 XIII Percentage of Acreage Fertilized, Fertilizer Per Acre and Yield Per Acre of Cotton by States and United States by Periods 1928-52 0 o o o o o o o o . c o o o 0 0 56 XIV Yield Changes in Pounds Per Acre Due to Different Factors Affecting Changes in Yield for Different Periods in United States 0 o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 62 XV Cotton Fem Percentage of all Farms, United States, 1930'h0 and 1950 o o o o o o e o o e o o o o o o o o o o 6h Table XVII XVIII ' XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Changes in Acreage Under Cotton for Different States and United States, by Periods o o o o o o o o e e o o o 3 Percentage of Indicated Operations on Cotton Acreage Worked with Tractor Power, by Geographic Division, 1939 and 19h6 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Estimated Man Hour Labor Needed Per Acre and Per Bale to Produce Cotton with Different Types of Power and Equipnent and Various Methods of Harvesting in SPGCified PTOdUCtiOHHAreas o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Effect of Change in Yield Per Acre and Mechanization and Other Factors on Pounds of Cotton Lint Produced Per 100 Man Hours, by Geographic Division, Indicating Periods, 1919-19h6 o e o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Changes in Capital Investment in Machinery and Equipnent On Cotton Farms By Specified Areas in the United States, 1930-1950 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 6 o o o o o 0 Average Annual Rate of Change in Crop Production Per Man Hour and Man Hour and Crop Production Per Acre of Cotton, United States by Periods, 1910-1953 c o o o o o o o e o 0 Pounds of Cotton Produced Per Man Hour of Labor for the United States and by Geographic Divisions, 1920-19148 . . . Par Acre and Per Pound Costs and Returns for Cotton Produced on Farms in Southern Plain, Black Prairie and Delta of Mississippi by Periods, 1930-52 . . . . . . . Cotton; Acreage, Yield Per Acre and Production for U.S.A. and India, 1912-1952 0 o o o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o 0 Changes in Acreage, Yield Per Acre and Production of Cotton in U.S.A. and India, 1932 and 1952 o o o e o o c e e o o 0 Imports Of TractorS, India, 1914-9-52 0 o o o e o o o 0 o o O Page 65 79 83 86 91 95 111 usr OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 CottonRegi.ons,UnitedStates............... 23 2 Trends in Cotton Acreage Harvested, U. 3., 1909-52 . . . . 26 3 Average Yield Per Harvested Acre of Cotton in U. S., 1910'5’4...000.000000.000.00..00.30 h Acreage, Average Yield and Production of Cotton, U05031909’52 00.0000000000000..... 32 5 Average Yield Per Acre Harvested of Cotton in the U. S. byRegions,l9lO-52................... ’41 E 6 Changes in Cotton Production by Regions, 1909-52 . . . . . 7 Changes in Cotton Acreage by Regions, 1909-52 . . . . . . . 1:3 8 Deflated Seasonal Average Prices and Production of Cotton,U.S.,1910-52 .0.....0...0..00. ’46 9 Percentage of the Total Cotton Acreage Fertilized, Average Fertilizer Per Acre and Yield Rr Acre of COttODlIlU050,1928-52 00.00.....00.... 58 10 Cotton Acreage, U. S. and India, 1912.52 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 11 Yield of Cotton Pear Harvested Acre in U. S. axrl India, 1912‘5200.00.00000000....0.000.0 97 12 Cotton Production, U. s. and India, 1909-52 . . . . . . . . 98 CHAPI‘ER I INTRGW CTION I. Agriculture in India 1) W of Agriculture in the Economy - Agriculture is India's most important industry ad has elm occupied-ninportentplACeinIndie'eeconow'. Thetroilcitreteins even today despite the fact that them is being steadily industri- alized. It is the'uin occupation of the people, but me ilportant than this is the rise in proportion of population dependent on agri- culture. ThieproportionheerisenfrmélpementinlBfltofi percent in 1901 to 73 percent in 1921. According to the census of 1951, 71 percent of the population depends directly on agiculture at the present tins. merchasbeeneeteedyincreeeeinthepoplletionintndieend the additional population instead of being absorbed into industry has wholly remained on agriculture. “The indigenous cottage iniustries veredriventothennbythe competitionofness pontoon, machine Indechsepgoodeinportedfranelroui, andtheirdeclinedrove themaJl artisans to seek their livelihood from land. Thus, Ihereas industrial- ieetion provided more and more aploynent in testes-n countries, for India it meat the destruction of .11 ilfligemus imlustrie. with no offsetting increase in employment at hane."1 or the rural papilation nearly 90 percent is directly or indirectly connected with agriculture. Agriculture contributed 149.9 percent to the national incane of India for the year 1915-52.2 A large anount of capital is invested in agriculture. Agrimltural holdings represent perhaps the largest fixed capital investment in the country. Furthermore, agriculture provides the bulk of India's uports a1 helps in earning a considerable mount of foreign exchange necessary for the planning of different schanes of social and economic developsent. Again, agriculture forms a basis for India's various industries includingtruiemdtrenspcrt. Someofthemstindustriesalchas sum and textiles depend on agriculture for the apply of raw materials. Besides, agriculture is the main source of reveme for the state govern- ments. Above all domestic agriculture is the main source of food and fibre for the vest and grosing population of the country. The simificant place of miculture in the country's life and econm is thus quite evident. India is M an agricultural country and agriculture is the basis of India's national economy. 2) yacht Position of Agriculture - The change in number of people engaged in agriculture and in- dustry for different periods is illustrated in Table I. It shows lilarsymsuni, B. V. and P. S. Narsiguhm, The Economies of Indian Emmi-e, Richouse and Sons, Ltd., undress, a, , p. . 2 "The Special mdget Number for l955--56,'I The Eastern Economist, New Delhi, narch 5, 1955, p. 361. .enosez scrap our no 83.3530 33339. one econ .eonpeaeeem doggone? one econ no noon new .econeoflnd chosen ethane one eons ordnance .eonnoma . . . . . conceded e on o as e an c on o Sm Hence . Nd Sam «.4 «.3 9: mg: as an: m.m on." gathered 98 0.3“. 9E. Esau o.m~. o.mm~ 0.2. o.mm~ «.fi p.98 . causing eneo 88.3 38 88d enee 88d pace 883 seen 883 ,5 need 98.52 1.3m 3952 them 9352 ISA .3852 them sonanz uphoadso amen 33 WW Haws fima edoem III.- . its» create any «media: .38 E massage en mmaéamuq E manage need no carcinoma a: Eng an H 3mg that industries provide employment to about )4 to 9.2 percent of the total population of the country. The total volume of industrial deployment has increased during recent years. Agriculture, boulevards—and mobabla' 1111 main for many years to come—India's largest single industry. Unformnately it is also one of her most depressed industries. The outstanding features of the Indian mral economy is the appalling poverty of the cultivatcrs. "Average annual per capita net income of the Indian farmer in 1952 was not more than Rs. 110 or 32h.oo«1 as compared with that of 8930.00 of the famsr in the 11.5.1.2 in the sane period. The con- tract is alarming; many factors are responsible for it. One of these factors is the null size of holding; the average unit of cultivation being less than five acres. A farm of this size fails to give deployment to the farmer throughout the year. These holdings usually are not compact but in fragsents scattered throughout the village area. Another reason is that the Indian farmer is may dependent on monsoon rainfall inch is proverbially irregular. The frequent crop failures which result, have the effect of making Indian farmers fatal- istic an! hence have reduced the incentive to improvement. Extremelylcwyields per acre onsnsll sis. famsmeanaverylcw per capita income fie. farming and because of the absence of subsidiary occupation the fewer is completely dependent on the produce from land. 1 "Records and Statistics"- Quarterly Bulletin, The Eastern Economist, Nev Delhi, 1951:, Vol. VI, No. 1, p. 36. 2T1” Farm IMO” Simum’ A0H.80, U.S.D0‘0, 1955 01%]: 18mg p. 23. A defective marketing system adds to the was of the Indian farmer. A narbeting eyetan often built around repayment of production debts by delivery of fan products often compels him to sell cheap then he has bought dear. For these and new other reasons, the cultivator often does not earn enough to maintain himself until the next harvest. This inade- quacy of income plus expenditures on social ceremonies demanded by custom forces farmers to borrow. Thus being a debtor, his right to the land because precarious. The loss of the liberty to dispose of his empacepttothelendertcrepayhisdebttendstorednce theincen- tive for imcvmnts. These troubles are aggravated by illiteracy Ihich prevents the rapid adoption of improvements. 3) Food Problem - These conditions affect month-a1 production. no. 1915 through 1925, thefocd mpplycf the ccuntrydidnot heeppaceriththeincrease in pomlaticn even though the number of people engaged in agriculture increased. Though statistics reaming food production are not current, some available information gives a rough picture of the situation. Table II chm the index nunber of change in population and food supply in India from 1910 thrmgh 1935. . The table shows that though food production ruained above popu- lation growth in this period, the margin between these ten indices was narrowing. “‘1'. P. K. lattal in his presidential address at the All- India population conference of 1938 pointed out that during 1913-11; .to 1935-35 population increased at the rate of nearly one percent per wéLE II INDEX NUMBERS OF CHANGE IN POPULATION AND FOOD SUPPLY IN INDIA, 1910-11 to 1937-381 Food Food supply Excess or deficit . production available for of food supply Year Population (weighted) consumption index in relation to (unweighted) population index 1910-11 to 100 100 100 191t-15 1915-16 103 129 125 + 22 1916-17 101; 135 126 + 22 1917-18 101; 130 122 +18 1918-19 105 91 87 -18 1919-20 100 130 113 +13 1920-21 99 99 ‘ 99 0 1921-22 100 127 120 +20 1922-23 101 1M; 125 +2h 1923-214 101 126 109 + 8 19 2h-25 101 121 103 + 2 1925-26 101 121 113 +12 1926-27 102 126 117 +15 192 7-28 102 117 111 + 9 1928-29 103 118 120 +17 1929-30 101; 123 122 +18 1930-31 107 126 123 +16 1931-32 11h 126' 122 8 1932-33 117 1211 123 + 6 1933-314 118 123 122 + h 193h-35 120 125 123 + 3 1935-36 121 115 122 + 1 1936-37 123 123 128 + 5 1937-38 125 110 118 - 7 ISource: Mukerjee Rashakamal, Food Planning for Four Hundred Millions, Macmillan and Co. Ltd., St. MarTin's, St. 0 8r 9 e annum whereas crop production increased by only 0.65 percent per anmnnml Extrapolation of the above trends by using recent figures of food imports in Imia will give a picture of the unbalanced situation of the popu- lation and food. Table III shows the imports of food grains in India. The solution of- India's food problem, chronic and grave as it has become, is urgent fran every point of view. It affects seriously the life and efficiency of both the present and future generations. Food shortages sense certain diseases by lonering vitality. The general depression of health and lack of efficiency in work are important national problems. II. Partition 1) Effect of Partition on Food and Fibre " The partition of India into the ”union of India and Pakistan took place on August 15, 19137. The economy of the country received a violent shock by partition. It resulted in an uneven distribution of area when related to agricultural resources and population. India had nearly 77 percent of the total area with 61 percent of total population of undivided India. The area under irrigation is another important factor. The proportion of irrigated area to not scan area is larger in Pakistan than in India. The Republic of India has under irrigation 20.2 percent of the not com area, while Pakistan has 115.0 percent. Table IV shows these changes in absolute figures for differ- ent crops. Irrigated land provides higher and more consistent yields than those from non-irrigated land. The loss of irrigated facilities has made Indian agriculture poorer and more dependent on monsoon rains. lJathar am Bari, Indian Economies, Oxford University Press, 19118, Vol. I, Pe 78s TABLE III IMPORTS OF FOOD GMT-IS IN INDIA 191111-52 W *= Quantity in tons Value in dollars Year (millions) (millions) 19kt 0.6h9 h.h8 19h5 0.850 7.03 19h6 2.250 26.2h 19h? 2.330 32.31 19h8 2.8uo hh.65 19u9 3.700 51.03 1950 h.hoo 119.0h 1951 h.720 102.82 1952 3.900 62.85 l Nadia and Merchant, Our Economic Problem, New Book Company Ltd. , Bombay, 19h8 and "The as Eco s ,3 arterly Station Bulletin, Vol. VI, No. 1, New Delhi, India, Oct. . I 1 Re. I 21¢ - after September 191:9 1 Re. I 29¢ - before September l9h9 .canoduoho pod I .ed .meoammhboficb 95 Ho cofieadqamno mangoes»; use E eeofimwpflm define. 4 one pooh no mnoom to» as .o .n 63228: 33th.: .coaeflcoem acacia “cochlea H ~.c.c «91% 3.2 «6.: 833 Swen“ once a 8.} 80a momfi swim who; 83H 838 ea «2 fie when 313 Sun recess mm.” mmm Sm «he; 3.1m Rue acafim a: 81. «84 83.. «8 at.» one: Rim «8 .1. 1.3.3 Ema Sm.» 813a peas mg and.“ Sin came Sm: $28 @5333 Sea: 8.3 mmm.~ ofiJN 8a.“: 2.28 . 306m 8% one... _ . ll moans coon—”ll neon oooieh I... mouse 80.7.... mg drum. dohm 308“ 832615 eoeeeg H38 scapegoat accessed Hosea: cacao canned 38H HI ['1 [Ir inhuman emery zOHEmfi Elfiamgm 92 «HE E EHBDBE a: mcomo baseman new has «use Baeogfi 93 .389 >H an. lO Partition thus increased India's food shortage by .5 to .7 million 1 This necessitates an increase in the production of tons per year. food crops and has created even greater pressure towards increased reactivity of land. If the food shortage rare the only problem in Indian agriculture, it could have been faced fairly well , but partition created other p'oblens. It has agg-evated the problem of disequilibrim betnen agricultural production and requirements of both food and fibre crops. India has becaae a heavy importer of cotton. The cotton story is similar to that of food crops. Undivided India utilised 1h.9 million acres in the production of cotton. 01’ this mount Paustan received 3.3 million acres. Pakistan received nearly 80 percent of the total irrigatedcottcnareainundividedIndia. Thisenplainsthelarger productivityper acre inPakistanthaninIniia. Yieldsperacrein boththenationsarelevbutaveragedlmpoundsinMstanandloo pounisinIndia. TushOpercentcfthecottonprochicticnofmdivided Indianenttoraflstan. TableIVshoIsthechangeinacreageani production of cotton in India ad Pakistan after partition. 2) We of Cotton in the National Econqfiand Relamd Problems - Thecottontextile industryisbyfarthelargestandthenost important non-farm industry in India. According to the Eastern Econo- mist in 1953 it provided deployment directly and indirectly to 1,007,000 people. The total value of the output estimated was over Rs. 300 million 1 Nadia and Merchant, Our Econanic Probleg, New Book Company Ltd. , Bulb”) 19113, P- . 11 (nearly $60 million) producing nearly 14,500 million yards of cloth at installed capacity} sit the partition caused serious dislocation in the distribution of rat cotton required for the Indian textile iniustry. Pakistan has less than five percent of the total cotton mills of undivided India, hit produces to percent of the total ran cotton of the best mie- ties. The Indian Central Cotton Guarantee estimated that 25 percent of the total consumption of the Indian textile industry in 19h7-h8 was from Pakistan. The change in production pattern of cotton obviously raised the important question of the extent of dependence of the Indian textile industry on Paflstan cotton. The goverment of India at an Inter- amnion conference for Exchange of Essential Comedities in May 19118 raised for a supply of 900,000 bales. Between lay l9h8 an new 1919 it was found that the government of Pahstan could supply only about h00,000 bales. The problem of price and custom duty did not receive any recog- nition in toms of the Lgremnt cfllay 19h8. Pakistan decided to levy an export duty of $12.00 per bale on raw cotton despite the fact that the government ofIndia exempted from any mstaudutyallinportsfron Pakistan. This increased the cost of production of cotton textiles in India. The problem was aggravated more after September 191:9, when India followed Great Britain in devaluation of currency. Since Pakistan did not devalue, cotton from Pakistan became more expensive. This, again, 1"'Records and Statistics'- Quarterly Bulletin, The Eastern Economists, Vol. vI,No. I, New neIhi, Oct. 1951;, pp. 15-hB. increased the cost of production of cotton textiles in India. Pakistan was an important consumer for Indian tutile, but Pdcistan tried to ptrchase more and more cloth fran other countries even though Indian textile Ins comparatively cheaper.l Cotton is also important in India's trade. Before 1933 the total volts; of Indian cotton export appeared to be very closely related to United States export. It occupied one-fifth of the world's total.2 IIlore than 50 percent. of total production vas exported in canal times before World We II."3 After partition imports of cotton had a very adverse effect on India's foreign exchange position. Table V shows that with reduced imports of raw cotton and increased exports of ten- tiles India barely maintained a balance in 19h9-50. Unfortunately the cotton control ministration in India is defective. The prices of ginned cotton are controlled but the prices of raw cotton arenct. Themill—olnershave, frantinetotime,beenagitatingfora control over prices of both raw and manufactured cotton. The prices offered by mill-owners did not cause the cotton farmers to increase ccttcnprcdncticn. Inpert, asarosult oftheprice policyinthe country and the politics in the cotton export-import market the textile 1"The Sterling gee -Ln Ms," Economic amperation Adminis- tration Special Kission to the U.N., London 1951, The Supt. of U. S. Govt. Printing Office, Wash" D. 0., pp. 313-339. 2 'Cotton Production in Pakistan," Wedharal Report No. 1&2, U. SeDeAe, 0015. 191:9, Fe 13. 3Wadia and Herchant, op. cit. 6.85 .ann 3% .33 an: .0338an antenna 39 3398 H 098:on nwflouom 3.. 3V aw no Alv mood poz 9mm + mémml moama... ~43 doom 0&8 3388 3.893 omnonoofl $3.8m H38 JAE” mean comm 3.3: .533 can no wanna nomfl. woman NomON mogodmdfis heme one 93% €95.00 no P33 5.on 35 3.3 enmeshed Aflonfiv omfinoam :3an 38 H33." 0.2...” dmm non—Song one the» sopaoo no genome—H woumw Nomi Oomdm noppoo Bu.» v.6 apnoea owlwa Ni: 3:5 _ neow Agfidnooxov oaofi 'H‘J 'f .1255 ESE 25 3.3% 3 973% bamBzH edema 28,80 E Eczema 2. as 22938 wagon 5% b H.549 ‘l |" In. ‘II. I I’ll: l I III [I ' Ill industry of India, being largely dependent on imports of raw material became depressed. TableVI shows the changes in exports and imports of cotton cloth and yard in India'since 1938-39. All this indicates that unless production—based on workable price policy—improves, aw farther pushing up exports of cloth would create a scarcity and black-market of textile in the country. III. Organisation of the Thesis 1) Nature of the Problaa - In smary cotton production has a unique importance in India's national as sell as in the social econanic life of the country. It gives subsidiary employment as a cottage industry. Also as a cash crop it helps famers to finance their daily expenditure. Partition has seriously dislocated the distribution of cotton am has led to heavy import of ru cotton. It has created an unbalmced situation in the countries trade and foreign exchange position. All these have necessitated a program of self-sufficiency in cotton. The government of India Iith the help of the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research and the Indian Central Cotton Omittee is making a determined effort to increase cotton production. The limitations are determined by the extent to which such efforts cone in conflict with the schemes which have been implemented to increase the food production such as the grow- more-food-scheune. is Inna has deficits both in food grains and ru cotton, peat caution is necessary in the alternative utilization of cultivated area as between the production of ra cotton and that of food grains. In problems like this it may be found, for example, that 15 .fiomom donnflnoafi $3.5m finiteness." fl 83265 n .39” .H none: 0043 sewage-3o nwaoaou condone savaged N .33 £8 33.3. «NJ 002 33.008 “00%." End 5 8.3 mots... 3.3 83” mm 3 «363“ «3:3 as 3 Sum mafia :13 3 m 1.2:: Sign 912 N2 m Sumo." 80.2: 3&3 one 4 goes 533 .32 use 3 ofi in .8328 31.3 23 N3 838 mmmJt. 2:3 nah 23 8mg 36% 3.3 3.3 2m 33... 3:43 91% anion Se earn «as: omen .2: 08; .3» 8.3.2: .8: oSJ at» 804 Fad . « H gen shone shah enema ”Boar flow $4.39” 3 «in: den ”aw a: 5.0.5 209.80 .3 amonEH 924 among H> Ends 16 the same area it devoted to the production of food grains, would be less advantageously used both in terms of internal cost and in terms of foreign exchange than if devoted to the production of cotton. India has to decide if it is worth while to carry production of cotton to the maxi- mum capacity and if so what steps should be taken to assure steady Iro- dmtion or the necessary quality and quantity. 2) Expose of the Study - In the last five years progress has been made in improving the culti- vation and hence the modnction of rice. India looked to the countries producing rice nith the higzest possible yield with maxim efficiency for assistance in this effort. By adopting a simple Japanese method of rice wodnction Indian farmers achieved yields ranging fram 8,000 to 17,500 pounds per acre. in additional. million tons of rice was produced. _, As Iith the recent improvement in rice production it may be possible to improve cotton production. It is natural to look to other cotton pro- ducing countries and especially to the United States as India for a long time has been second only to the United States in world cotton production. So the purpose of this study is to observe changes in cotton pro— duction in the United States to determine the main elements contributing to improved production, to analyze and find the contribution made by different factors responsible for improving production, and to evaluate the possibility of applying these factors to the cotton prochiotion in m ‘ l7 3) Fem of the Study - ‘me relevant analysis of change in production as it is affected by change in .acreage under cotton and yield per acre of cotton for the period of the last ho years will be covered in Chapter II. The factors contri‘mting to improvements in the production of cotton, changes in those factors over a period of time, and their role in cotton prodnction till he discussed in Chapter III. Chapter IV will be an analysis of changes in cotton production in India relative to that of the United States and an evalnation of the possibility of applying these factors responsible for improved cotton production in the United States to Indian conditions. A may and general conclusion will be presented in Chapter V. CHAPTER II RECENT CW3 IN UNITED STATES COTTON PRODUCTION I o IntrOdmtion 1) History and Importance - ‘ Though cotton is a major crop only south of the thirty-seventh parallel, it is one of the most important cash crops in the United States. During the last 1.0 years, united States production has been relatively constant but there has been a change in the relative importance of the United States as a cotton producer. The United States ranged up to 72 pament by producing 15,69h,000 bales in 1911, and did not fall below 50 percent of the total. world's production until the 1933 season. Sub- sequent to that time, the trend of United States production has been generally downward, with the exception of a record breaking crop of 18,9h6,000 bales in 1937. The trend of foreigl and world production has, meanwhile, been gradually upward. Eat, the United States con- tinues as the world's leading cotton producing country. In 1950 it produced one-third of the world' a total supply, more than three times as much as India, the second largest cotton producer. Table VII shows the production of cotton in the principal countries of the world by decades from 1910. For many years, cash income from cotton lint in the United States has been greater than that of any other farm crop. The relative im- portance of cotton in the agriculture of the United States may be observed from the data in Table VIII. During the period of 19142-52 l9 6.3939er won 38%..“ .m.m.m.pm Jana—Hebe no: I .ed N .05 rams: 2.33.: Senegal“ doasmfifim e5 nonsmfimpm 3.393% scheme on .3 11 mm 8 we .33 do encased , 3.3% e33: 80.9w; 08.8%“ 0833 “V865 Sodamm dash 803m; 5.8m; 89.3.; Soda; o8.mmm.a fihm 828? 82824 08.53; 086m 806% $35.: 08.8? o8...mm.~ 8o.m.8.~ 8069} «6.: «fine oooSEJ ooo.o8.m Sofia; 8o.m8.m ooo:_m~.m 38H o8.~_8.3 893mg 08....R.S 838%? 8280.3 "83... e33: oooénfim 08.93.0m 0868.8 o8.omm.a 80.8.3." 38: lung 3%. quad 3837 dad 9&on I Eugen haw EHoEm Hm mmHmHZDOU 62H? 9,? ado? .ZOHHUBOE 209.50 E 393. TABLE VIII AVERAGE ACREAGE AND FARM VALUE OF MAJOR CROPS IN THE UNITED STATES 19h3-521 Crops Acreage cultivated Total farm value Corn 87,108 14.3614, 293 Hay 7b,, 650 2,199,123 ‘Wheat 73,032 2,107,269 Oats ° 10,815 1,016, 662 Cotton and cotton seed 22,390 2,202,613 1Source: Agricultural Statistics, 1953. \ Ii! oil .lulIIIIIIJ‘LlII loll Di cotton was fourth among the crops in acreage, being exceeded only by com, hay, wheat and oats. In value, however, cotton was even more important than the acreage and was second only to corn in that period, having an average annual fem value of over tIro million dollars. 2) Cotton Regions - The cotton producing region of the United States is one of the most specialized farm regions of the world. Bounded on the north by the frost line which marks the northern limit of 200 dw frost free growing season and a mean summer temperature of not less than 70°F, the belt dips irregularly to the south around the higher altitudes of the southern appalachian to the north again in the low levels of the Mississippi and then tends to the southwest in response to both in- adequate rainfall and low temperatures. 0n the east and south the cotton belt is fringed by sub-tropical border, begimaing in the Carolinas and following around the gulf and includes practically all of Florida.1 There are several fairly distinct sections of the cotton belt in the U.S.A. Cotton is produced, in sufficient quantities to be sta- tistically recorded, in 16 states. An area extending from southern Virginia through North all South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Alabama is usually referred to as the Southeast Region. Proceeding westward from the broad delta or river batten areas along the Mississippi River through Tennessee, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana 1 Holley, Willim c. and Lloyd E. Arnold, Cotton, Work Progress Administration, National Research Project; PhilE'e'l'phia, September, 1938, Chap. 1. in‘llli ‘Il'l is another area known as the Delta Region. Cotton has been produced here for many years. During the 20's additional land was drained and cleared and cotton acreage in this region increased from seven to nine million acres. The Southwest Region includes Texas and Oklahoma. The greatest recent relative increases have occurred in Arizona, California and New Ilenco where cotton is grown on irrigated land. In these areas . an average of 14,000 acres was reported for the years 1907-11 as canpared with 2,h02,000 acres in 1953. Figure 1 shows different cotton regions in the United States. As will be seen later, these changes are highly important in their effects on production, acreage and yield per acre for the country as a whole and go far in eXplaining trends in the total amount of inpits used in the crop production. II. Analysis of Changes in Acreage, Yield and Production in the United States, 1910-52 1) Acreage - Cotton acreage, yield and production in the United States for the years 1909-52 as shown in Table II. Acreage steadily increased from ' 30,555,000 acres in 1909, reaching about 35,038,000 acres in 1918. 1 decrease occurred during the period of heavy boll weevil infection firm 1919-211. Meanwhile, acreage in the western region was increasing ' but acreage for the country as a whole did not increase because the increase in the western region was less rapid than the decrease in the eastern cotton region. Then came a sharp increase in total United States acreage, largely through expansion in the western areas. a‘lhe acreage harvested in the western cotton region increased from 11.8 million acres in 1909 to 22.6 million acres in 1926. The greatest , ICOOII:~ eeeeeeeeeeeee (‘Q o H .33 £298 Tmfize flours £03.21?“ 8.38 "ogeeoma mmpmpm HompHCD nwfiowmmm COHFOD oH mhdmflh Pm 9,5950 m IIIIIIIIIII OIIIOOIOIIIOO‘. ' .1“ _ -J- Svoomgugp 0 34:2 ”.0 m4<0u (DEE—)2 “.0 amp/Eb Quiz... -K‘ - emeemfled he“ 3.33238258333338388838333 3:3:32338-‘8333833333:3383833333331 .:::nzza:nuu8mmenm 1 333333333831 TABLEIX ACREAGE, YIELD PER ACRE AND PRODU ION OF COTTON UNITED STATES 1909-52 r ——.—i v; - Acreage harvested Yield per acre Production Iear 1,000 acres pounds 1:000 bales 1909 30,555 156.5 10,005 1910 31,508 176.2 11,609 1911 311.916 215 .2 15,691; 1912 32,557 201.14 13.703 1913 35,206 192.3 H.153 1911; 35,615 216.1. 16,112 1915 29,951 178.5 11.172 1916 33,071 165.6 11,1110 1917 32,216 167.1; 11,28h 1918 35,038 16h.1 12,018 1919 32.906 165.9 11.th 1920 31.,h08 186.7 13,129 1921 28,678 132.5 7.91.5 1922 31,361 11:8.8 97,515 1923 35,550 136.1. 10,1110 1921; 39,501 165.0 13,630 1925 hh,386 173.5 16,105 1926 hh,608 192.9 17,978 1927 38,3h2 161.7 12,956 1928 hush 163.3 1h,h77 1929 . 10,232 1611.2 lh,825 1931 ‘ 38 y 7014 2n e 5 17, 079 1932 35,891 173.5 13,003 1933 29,383 212.7 13.0117 1931. 26,866 171.6 9,636 1935 27,507 185.1 10,638 1936 29.755 199.1: 12,399 1937 33,623 269.9 18,9h6 1938 2h,2h8 235.8 11,9113 1939 23,805 237.9 11,817 191.0 22,861 252.5 12,566 101.2 21,602 272.1. 12,817 191.3 21,610 251w 11,127 ”Ml 190619 299el$ 129230 191.5 17,029 2514.1 9,015 19h6 17.58). 235.7 8,6140 19h? 21,330 266.6 11,860 191:8 22,911 311.3 111,877 19,49 27: ’43? 28108 169128 19;: 1&3? 269.0 3,012 19 2 7 2 .7 1952 25:661. 232.0 15: 1 Source: cultural Statistics, 1952, U.S.D.A. Gov't Printing OffioeW, , .c,, , p. 76. 25 relative increase was found in California where there was a rise from 8,000 acres in 1910 to 368,(X)0 acres in 1936. Acreage in New Hence and Arizona increased mm 111,000 acres in 1917 to 353,000 in 1929."1 United States acreage reached a peak during 1926 when uh,608,000 acres were harvested. This represents an increase of 1:6 percent over that of 1909 or approximately 111,000,000 acres. Following this peak, acreage began to decrease in all areas. The decrease is rehab]; attributed to lower price conditions at least through 1933. Though declining gradually, acreage remained more than 140,000,000 acres well: except for a sudden fall to 38,70h,000 acres in 1927. After 1933, there was a continuous decline in acreage as the Agricultural Adjus‘hnent munistration took steps to bring production down to an amount Ibieh would sell at support price levels. In 1933, the first year of the Agricultural Adjusment Programs, about 29,383,000 acres were harvested and the trend contimed downward with acreage drop- ping to 17,029,000 acres in 19115 - the lowest in recent history. This rep'esented a 71.61 percent decrease Iran 1926. From 19115 onward there has been a steady increase in acreage to the point where the average acreage is approximately 26,561,000 acres at the present time. Figure 2 shows the trend in acreage harvested for the United States from 1910-52. It can be seen from this Figure that the trend in Cotton acreage from 1909 to the present time can be divided into three distinct linear pattemaas illustrated in Figure 2. Ibid. .o .n .sonmfinsse 333.: $93 663263 3063323 "meson melmomd nomob 30$ng emerges. coppoo 5 955. .m 0.53m H 6 .33 mm? . show 2 .. + a , mwmd e mama aoma q a 1 1 1 .1 o $80.3 / / foods nr/I . / I I 1 z . Beam Hesse] 20¢ 27 The first period is fras 1910 to 1926. The trend during this period was upward with a moderate slope. The least square line of the best fit rises at the rate of h82,770 acres per year.1 The fluctu- ations about trend were relatively small as compared with the other periods. The second distinct period begins in 1927 and runs to 1915. Throughout this period the trend was downward at the rate of 1,394,860 acres per year.2 The third period is from 19116 through 1952. Through this period ' the average again increased by 1,077,130 acres per year.3 While acreage reduction was attained, production was not reduced as much as intended. An all-time record crop was grown in 1937 with a production of 18,252,000 bales. This was 89 percent greater than in 1909 and was grown on but nine percent greater acreage. A yield of 270 pounds per acre was attained. As shown in Table I, this was a 50 percent increase in yield 'as compared to that of 1926. 2) E13 - Average United States cotton yield per acre ruained approximately constant from 1909 to 1911;. From 1911; to 1923 there was a downward adjustment largely becmse of boll weevil damage in the lmmidareas and a westward movement of cotton mainl;r to low yielding arid non- irrigated regions. From 1921; onward the trend turned uplard as hell 1 Y1 I 3187391418011 ‘8' [1827071 1, .. 29,588.ho #:4391861 I3 8 22,803057 " I’D-(70131 TAHLEX CHANGES IN ACREAGE AND min 01“ canon IN ms UNITED STATES Fos.1926 AND 19371 '5 1:.- r... 1.... humans 11:85” M22233” 5;,“ 1926 117,087,000 180 -28.5 +50 1937 33,623,000 270 1 Source: égricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C., p. 760 29 weevil damage was reduced and as acreage declined in some low yielding areas and increased in some of the higher yielding areas. From 1933 onward, when acreage was reduced as a measure adapted by the Agricultural 1d justment Administration to reduce production so as to sell it at the support price, yields have shown a very definite up- ward trend. Hany acres of low yielding land were thrown out of production, support prices encouraged farmers to increase prodiction from the reduced acreage by using better land and larger inputs of fertilizer. Beginning in 1931. and through 19119, the trend has been decidely upumd. It attained an all-time average of 258 pounds with a high 01' 311.3 pounds per acre in 19148. 01 the basis of a nine year moving average "the yield of cotton per harvested acre in the United States has tended to increase steadily since the middle of the 1920's. The yield in 1952 of 282.? pounds per acre was about four pounds below that indicated by a projection of the trend line, (Figure 3). From 18-70 to 19118 actual yields were within 20 pounds of the trend about 70 percent of the time.'1 Iield varies not only for the country as a whole from time to time but also varies from state to state. Year to year fluctuations in yield were mainly due to drought, floods and insect attacks. The principal reason, however, for the marked increase in recent years is that pro- duction has been shifted to better and higher yielding lands among the regions or within the cotton acreage of a given region. Farmers have 1 Cotton Situation, 0.3.13.1” 1.n.s., ingest, 1951, p. 1. .mmma finds to .n antennae: :33 .4565 39.1838 838 "cannon . . in images .65 3.. 838 to once nonsense nod 3on onshore .m enemas . A newer 30 £3 amen $3 «an . 82 02 {fr P b L 385m 31 devoted more attention to cultivation, insect control, and have used more fertilizers per acre. These and several other factors have been directly or indirectly important in increasing yield. These factors are highly important in their effects on production and on the average man hours employed per acre for the different regions and the country as a whole. They go far towards explaining the production efficiency as measured by labor productivity and in detennining production costs for the crop. The role of these factors and their effects on cotton production is shown later. 3) Pmduction - Acreage harvested, yield per acre and cotton production in the United States by years from 1909 to 1952 have been shown statistically in Table 1': and graphicale in Figure h. There have been fairly regular five year to six year intervals between the peak of successive upswings in moduction. Since 1909 cotton p‘odnction has always remained above 10,000,000 bales mummy, with the exceptions of 192]. and 1922 men there was a severe boll weevil attack and in 19311 and 19115-116 ten there was a sharp reduction in acreage. During the period of 1909 to 1952, production averaged 12,770,000 bales per year. The steady increase in acreage associated with some- what constant level of yield during the period of 1909 to 1911; caused production to rise steadily to an average of 13,5116 bales. Fran 1915 to 1922 production averaged 11,057,000 bales a year. This lower pro- duction compared with the previous period was-caused by low yield which prevailed in that period. The lowest production of cotton since .o .o screening. 333.: .Nmfi .eeefifleem assigned “Sheena . 3383 ...ms .838 we eefleéeem e5 33» emerge. .emeeeeq A eases mHooN «m3 3% +33 993.. amen” $5 £2 3? flea 83 ‘ .\ \\ \ i, \ xi. \\ \ 10H x \ \1 1 \I ) I a . \ f l\ I‘\ I \ \ \ I I\ /\ \. row A .\ \nfeu. _, . ..\ .w a. ...... \......,.., .....\ ...s w\/_... .x\ ....N.\ ~\\ I fl. .- "We.“ a\ e .mna 98s. gem , Hem Hanna Amév mmhod 33 1909 took place in 1921 when eight million bales were produced. This was caused principally by the severe boll weevil infestation which reduced cotton yields to 132.5 pounds per acre—a reduction of 31 per- cent of the yield in the previous year. From 1923 onward to 1931, with a steady annual average increase in yield and moderate increase in acreage, average cotton production in- creased to ll;,S71,000 bales, the highest peak for this period was nearly 18 million bales observed in 1926. A downward trend in prediction began in 1932 largely as a result of steps taken by the Agricultural Adjustment Administration to bring pro- duction to a level which would sell at support prices. Px‘oduction ranmd from 9,636,800 bales in 1931; to 15,136,000 bales in 1952 with a high of nearly 19 million bales in 1937 and a low of 8,Q40,000 bales in 19h6. III. Wis of Changes by Prochlction Regions Although both acreage and yields for the cotton belt as a whole have shown a rather definite trend, the changes have not been unifom as between differmt parts of the belt. According to the soil, climate, geographical changes and changes in production pattern, the cotton belt can be divided into different regions of production. These different regions show different changes in acreage and yield of cotton and show well explained characteristics of cotton productim. An examination of changes by areas is,therefore, desirable. Table XI shows the changes in acreage, yield and prediction of cotton by regions by periodsl908 to 1952. An analysis and discussion of the situation in each area follows. TABLE XI AVERAGE 10331013, 11121.0 AND 23011101101: 0F COTTON FOR UNITED swss BY monsl Average Acres e in 1 000‘ acres 1W - M *1- 19 -3 9 11183579 Regions Southeast 12,231 10,127 10,050 5,893 h, 780 Delta 7,078 7,1178 10,631, 6,708 6,685 Southwest 12,803 111,310 19,011). 10,013 10,911 lest (irrigated) 217 531 676 1,706 United States 32.117 32.1178 110.5111 23,350 211.1112 Average yield per acre (in pounds) Southeast 212 193 206 215 291 Delta 215 200 216 323 361 Southwest 167 133 1113 172 201 West 232 372 507 656 United States 190.58 159.6 173.9 2116.1 283.0 Average production per year (in 1,000 bales) Southeast 5.14147 11,127 14,183 3,051; 2,78h Delta 2,850 2,751 11, 363 11,522 5,032 SouthIIS‘b h35hh 33 919 59689 3’ 631‘ ll», 39h West 108 1418 7115 2,239 United States 12,850 10,675 111,666 11,977 1h,253 1 Source: Cotton Statistics, U.S.D.A., B.A.E., Statistical Bulletin No. 99, Wafii'fiéton, D. 0., June, 1951. 35 1) Southeast Region - The southeast region includes that part of the cotton belt in the states of Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia and Florida} namely the costal plain areas, Piedmont areas and eastern hilly areas of southeast United States. The acreage under cotton in the southeast region declined almost continuously between 1909-52 from an average of 12,231,000 acres per year in the period of 1908-12 to 11,780,000 acres in the period 19118 through 1952. This represents a decrease of 61.2 percent. new factors were reSponsible for this continuous decline. Advent of the bell weevil and its severe and continuous attack during the 1920's and the 1930's, 10!! prices, uninterupted cotton cropping leading to acceler- ated erosion and finally the inauguration of the Agricultural Adjust- ment Administrator' 6 programs, were all contributing factors. When- ever opportunities were available for the substituting of other crops, like peanuts, vegetables and field crops, their acreage increased. Especially during World War II prices for peanuts and vegetables were sufficiently attractive to compete favorably with cotton for the use of land and labor and, in this region, acreage of these crops increased materially while cotton acreage continued to decline. Afterward acreage under feed crops were increased at the expense of cotton acreage because a given labor force would handle a large acreage- This meant higher net returns per man—resulting in a greater total net farm imme.2 icotton Situation, 0.3.0.1., 1.11.5” p. 39. 2Cotton: Hearing before Subcommittee of Committee on Ag'icul’mre, House of Representatives, 78th Congress, Second Session, 19%, p. 735. Yield trends for this area followed the sauna pattern of change as shown by the country as a whole. It declined from 212 pounds in the period of 1908-12 to 193 pounds in 1918-22, or by 11 percent. There was a mall but steady increase totaling 11.5 percent from 1918-22 to 1938-112 along with a 51.9 percent decrease in acreage in the same period. The most influential factors in this increase in yield was the increased use of fertilizer and selection of better land. The same relation of change between acreage and yield was continued from then with a different degree of change from 1938-118 to 19113-52. Acreage decreased by 19.9 percent while yield per acre increased by 35.3 percent. Table XI shows the changes in absolute figures by periods. 0!: the whole, this region showed a very clear pattern of change in acreage and yield of cotton. There was a 60 percent decrease in acreage in 19118-52 as compared with that in the period of 1908-12. The increase in yield was not ade- quate to compensate for the decrease in acreage; hence, production declined by 119 percent from S,hh7,800 bales a year in the period 1908-12 to 2,78h,000 bales a year in 19118-52. 2) Delta Regon - This region includes delta areas, sandy land areas and the mountains and valley areas in the states of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi. and Louisiana} The trend in acreage under cotton in this region was upward fran 1909 to 1930. Acreage increasedfrom an average of 7,078,000 acres a year in the period 1908-12 to 10,63h,000 acres in 1928-32 with the peak of lcotton Situation, U.S.D.1., 1.1.1.8., Sept.-0et., 1953, p. 31. 37 11,105,000 acres in 1930. With the advent of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration Program, acreage began to decline reaching an average of 6,708,000 acres a year in 1938-112. Little change in acreage has occurred since them. Because the main source of family farm income of this region is cotton, farmers try to plat up to their acreage allotment. Land is highly predictive in cotton and being level is adaptable to mechanical “ment- The major portion of land under cotton in this region, produced higher and higher yield per acre in each period and on the average it was next in yield to irrigated cotton farms in the western region. Even though there was a 110 percent decrease in the acreage in 1938-412 as compared with the 1928-32, production increamd by 177 Percent. During the early period of 1918-22 this region produced 22.1 percent of the total production of the United States. In 1938-112 it accounted for 38 percent of the total. In 19118-52 as compared with 1938-112, production has increased by more than 5,000,000 bales; hit inspite of this, there was a reduction in percentage of the country's total production. It was mainly due to a proportionately larger increase in prediction in the southwest and west in recent years. Production in the Delta region was nearly 33 percent of the total in 19h8-52. 3) Southust new - The southwest region includes cotton farms in the Blackland, low and high plains, prairie, and sandy land areas in the states of Texas and dilemma} 11131.2. The pattern of change in acreage under cotton in this area was somewhat similar to that of the country as a whole. During the period of 1908-12, annual acreage was 12,803,000 acres. In 1928-32, this increased to 19,0hh,000 acres contributing nearly half of the United States acreage. After 1933, as a result of the action taken by the Agricultural Adjustment Achinistration, acreage declined to 10,043,000 acres. Iield per acre in this region coincided with the change for the country as a whole but at a lower level. Continuous croppings of cotton and erosion have reduced the fertility of soil in nary parts. Disease and insect attacks played their part in preventing large yield in- creases; furthermore, cotton does not appear to respond to commercial fertilizers in this area, hence very little is used. The yield per acre therefore increased by only 31 pounds from 1908-12 to 19118-52 as capared to more than 1100 pounds increase in the western region in the same period. A moderate but constant in- crease in yield did not result in any appreciable increase in pro- duction except in a few years due to an offsetting decline in acreage. Production was largest in the period 1928-32 when this region con- tributed 110 percent of the country's total. By 19118-52 it had declined to 30 percent. Even though yields per acre were relatively lower and total acreage was declining in this region, acreage per farm was increasing as large scale highly mechanized farms were found profitable. However, in some areas relationships between cotton and other crops, like grain-sorghum and feed crops, have tended to replace cotton. This was largely true during the was years and vixen there was a shortage of labor. 39 1;) Western Irrigated Begin - This region included cotton areas iron the states of California, Arizona and New Monica. Cotton in this region is almost all. under irrigation.1 Since 1919, acreage has increased continuously from 217,000 to 1,706,200 was in the period of l9h8-52. In absolute figures cotton increased from nothing and now it represents more than 10 percent of the total United States cotton acreage. Yields have also increased materially from an average of 232 pounds per acre in 1918-22 to 656 pounds per acre in l9h8-52. This increase is largely due to irrigation. Other causes are the adoption of better varieties, an internal shift in acreage to land which is better adapted to cotton production and good response to fertilizer because of irri- gation. Rapid increases in acreage as well as in yield continuously con- tributed to higher and higher production per year. Production increased from 108,600 bales a year in 1918-22 to 2,239,000 bales a year in l9h8-52. This represents an increase from near zero to 20 percent of the total United States production. The irrigated areas probably have expanded cotton acreage to nearer the limit of land and water resources and of profitable competition with other crops. Therefore, cotton acreage in these areas may remain at about the layels of recent years unless new land is brought into production or unless the relationship between the prices of cotton and prices for competing crops change materially.2 12.13.. to This discussion has been primarily in terms of rather large areas. 'flle more important differences in the changes of cotton production among these regions have been mentioned. in analysis involving different areas within the regions might show other variations within each of the pro- duction regions discussed. It should be emphasized that even though they are not brought out in this comparison, important differences undoubtedly exists amongst the farms, and localities within each of these broad regions. Changes in acreage, yield and production of cotton by regions by periods have been shown in Table XI and in Figures 5, 6 and 7. With the help of the above analysis some contrasting obser- vations can be made here about the shift in acreage related to yield and hence production. 1) There was a contimmus shift in acreage from the east to the west in the cotton belt for the country as a whole. 2) Acreage in states in the southern region declined continuously even though yields were increasing. 3) States in the southwestern region, Texas and Oklahoma, grow a greater percentage of total United States acreage even though yields were lower than that of my other region. 14) Yield, acreage and production all. have increased contimously in the irrigated cotton region in California, Arizona and New Mexico. As previously mentioned it appears that the shift towards irrigated p'oduction is almost completed in the western region. Further shift and increase in acreage may be anticipated in the Delta and southwest regions. 111‘ ..RS 83. ..o .n accesses: .mm anodes dungeon ..m..1m .4336 .eonmeflm 838 888$ Hmmzoaa. .msoawom an .ms one an cocoon co octets: whoa. com 33w mascara .m magmas macaw 0H3 tomhmd b L nwmwmfl b 0mm f L OFNQH - a O ..I.I\ \ II .II ’It\.\..l..l. ‘‘‘‘‘ ).l‘a.lo.l../ \ \t . III is... ...k ...: s..xtii!llt...t....ic.i!sctt! I) I I e ./ QH $033.33... - l .... . \ . . . . CON .mo?i.§§ .1--. ammonesom \ . \ .. . \ .o o. \ .. \ul, 1. \\II.’ ‘\\ ...... .... \ a... . . . - \ ... 00m \ .. . cannon . ... . ..... Y. 00: 0... at aaaaaaaa o a e e re a e .... dom ..... Anchopcoo omsngo 9526a ummhlmv A Agosmgv to: .. 11 com. once and meadow an.” use .& caesium degassed 3min 531%: .mfitatom sconce “mouse HNmImomH .mnoawom hp nanosecond sconce 5. 89.830 .w enema macaw mmma mmma m H 33 momH .a x |\\\// \5/ \\ pmmoApdo .v- , \ / x < ( < . \./ a w . . Aeopmwgv 9mm . . x x . s a. .. I. .. . r I a \ I ./ w. fimfigom/J \‘\ p.” W ‘ 1’ \‘. ..‘I I v \ M M .la N a \\ x .\ W 7‘. .I. \ do .\ .l a a . ._ u (xx 5, (\A a “ . s s a a l . . l a X \\ L’— s z s . . m I s . < r a a .. a w ./ . when i. . . < . r ._ . ., l .l . . .7, l ’ o ‘ ‘ o I x . — A s a“ a \ . . I . ’ a. \ . \ . . u _ s . .l s . a. . . . ..s l . a . . s. .\ .. . .i. a f _ l < . w. .l .6 . .a . . l. /.\ v c « x I ~ _ a. . a . _ l. x a .$\.. . -- .é huge .mmma 93“. ...o .n .33: .mm .oz 53ng Hofipmfiopm ..m.4.m 34.96.: .modvnflovm coupon «oogomH melmomd ansoamom .3 093.34 5300 5 homage .w 953m . march and r 3.3 . 33 . £3 . it 1 4 t d. 11 ( fooosmahd toe announce. \ \ \I I \ I I . s33: \ x \ .... - - > t s \ ...}. .. II: I I t x z \, /\\ cat. s... I \\ \l/ \>/ \III\. (\|\ //\\.|.L . n M ... o \ \ I! \l \ . ... / i \\ I \ I.\ m a. ..s ..K I \ I \ m W h / < a: > \\ w .... ......“ 1...... .11... p x I s l l h t ,, , e , . _ l l, a. .f......... r: x ( k n w ... .. I I s. n 4 ‘ fimfifiom .N. . i, M. m. a #— \........./. R. .d .u .. x... x M . ... M ......a M... K . r . \ _. e ...\ ,7... / .\. m \x _ .g s t. ..., .. . n aw um /.... x, m T03 .. m ..c l .....c. .. ......a x\ .gH A ,, ... x a A «I... an? ace? M; is will be seen later these changes are highly important in their effects on production and can be considered further as they relate to the influence of natural, biological and economical factors affecting production of cotton. IV. Production and Price Relations It may be said that production shifts were along the lines of comparative advantage. Furthermore, it has been observed that shifts occurred after the inaguration of the price support program. Cotton production shifted from the southeast to relatively lower yielding regions of southwest and to western irrigated areas. It was found that in some cases that price relationships between cotton md alterna- tive crops have tended to reduce cotton production. This was especially true during the war years. It, therefore, becomes important to evalu- ate the effect of the price change on production of cotton. There are two principal methods that can be used to illustrate changes in comparative production advantage. First, if accurate cost data are available, comparison of production costs and related returns can be used to analyze changes in comparative production advantage either between regions or between crops within an area. Secondly, inferences regarding changes in comparative production advantage can be drawn from a trend analysis of production and price data»:l Because of the nature lGray, Roger W., V. L. Sorenson and Willard W. Cochrane, An Economic Eggs of the 1.1222“ of Government ngams on the Potato Must? of the nited §tategr Tec . Bul. 11, University of Minnesota, June 19 , p. 13 . ” ’ 16 of costs on the farms other than single crop-farms, a limited amount of data are available. The major reliance is this analysis if placed on the second method. However cost data included in the next chapter will be supplementary evidence. Permanent shifts in farming practices may not occur immediately in response to change in price-cost relationships. The rate of shift would to a seat extent depend on the amount of long term specialized capital required. Shift into or out of production of arw coamnodity may be more or less rapid. These shifts are also influenced by the cost of production for the commodity concerned and for the nearest possi- ble alternatives available to the farmer. From 1933 onwards changes in cotton production appear to have been influenced by price support and production control programs designated to reduce the production so as to sell the commodity at the support price levels. Generally relative price levels for different crops change as production costs charge. These changes require some time to couplets. 1) Production Price Trend - Figure 8 shows the relation between cotton prices deflated by the index of prices received for all farm products and cotton production for United States, 1909 to 1952. It indicated that before the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, there were relatively wider fluctuations between prices and production. After production control programs of 1933, there were relatively less fluctuations in price and production. These data indicate that at least two to three years are needed to amend or con- tract production in response to the corresponding charge. .o .o .8333 that». Rina.» .mwm «meshedm espgoaaww. «condom VD. H Hamlin ..ms .838 do concussed as mocha omens: ashamed consume .m Peers . . once» ommH t can? . omma . Omrma s o . o .. o m. am > 2 r \ ... r 2 a. ’ s I q i \ fi . z ’ a d . t // , N l a . .H c l l l . l _ \ / l , l . a . \\ . ~ f x, l .1 \ . an s r . < a , \\/ \s s l a /\ fiH , l a ‘ , d I a l a . . . \ 8. < . low 8H3 coo; easel. . god 350 h? 2) Prices, Alternative Crops, Income - Any anperical determination of responses of cotton growers to price supports and its effects on the level of income of cotton grower is beyond the scope of this study. Some general conclusions regarding this effect may, however, be dram from observations already made regarding the role of cotton in the production pattern of different cotton producing regions. It was observed that the role of cotton in the agricultural economy is different in different regions depending upon the number and types of alternatives available to cotton producers and the proportion of producers' income from cotton production. Tho- retically, the total. effect of price change can be broken down into an income and a substitution effect due to alternatives. A lower price of cotton would make the producer worse off and a mduction in his welfare vould have an effect on his inclination to produce alternative crops. But it depends upon the availability of alternatives and the importance of crop in the farm income. On the farms in the Delta of Hississippi, cottin is all. important as 80 percent of the farm income is from cotton and there is no good alternative to cotton open to farmers. The response to change in the price of cotton appem‘s to be very small and may be said to be of an inelastic nature. In the southeast region, the Iroduction of cotton has been established as an adjacent to vegetables, peanuts and food crops. The place of cotton therefore in this region as a cash crop has been'limited to mall acreage even in the absence of acreage re- striction. Another type of movement has been observed in other regions. Under the price relationship existing during the war years, in the states 1&8 of Oklahoma and Texas, wheat, grain, sorghum and the feed crops appear to have had an income advantage over cotton and hence some cotton acreage was diverted to these crops. In the irrigated cotton region, having many aid varied alternatives to cotton, cotton acreage and production declined proportionately more than any other region. This was more pronounced during the war years. Most of the vegetables showed relatively favourable prices, acreage in vegetables increased while cotton acreage declined. There are some implications arising from factors other than alternatives to cotton. These are changes in natural resources, biological factors, technological changes, pro- duction control programs and other factors which mitigate changes in cotton prediction as a response to change in price. A more meaningful conclusion can be brought by a comparison on state level or at the actual farm level. V. Conclusion The analysis presented in this chapter can be summarized as follows: cotton production in the United States increased from 10 million bales to 15 million bales from 1910 to 1952. Of the two elements affecting pro- duction, acreage went down while yield per acre of cotton increased. Acreage in the southeast region declined while it increased in the south- west and especially in the western irrigated region. fields per acre increased at different rates for different reaons. These different changes in acreage and yield in various regions resulted in different changes in production. In the eastern region production declined be- cause reduction in acreage was proportionately larger than increases 119 in yields per acre. In the remaining regions production increased be- cause of either proportionately larger increases in yield than in acreage decline, or increases both in acreage and yield. A decline in production continued in the eastern region in the face of higher prices after 1933. These changes can be evaluated again with reference to the criteria of perfectly competitive conditions. With perfect knowledge, full employment, complete mobility and rational adjustment it is logi- cal to assume that any change in the qrantity of cotton produced at different prices at different periods and in different regions was an effort to maximize producers! profit. Hence it seems reasonable to conclude that farmers increased or decreased cotton poduction and maximized their profit by diverting resources towards or away from cotton whichever the case may be. As observed previously and inferred before, the major increase in production has resulted from increased yield per acre, it may, there- fore, be generalized that prodnction shifted to and increased in regions having greater production efficiency. Evidence of changes in efficiency with vhich resources are used cannot be conclusive unless the contribution of different factors to increase efficiency are determined and a compari- son of cost are made. Since data are not availablefor this kind of comparison on either an interemporal or interspatial basis this further refinement must be foregone. CHAP'ER III ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING UNITED STATES COTTON PRODUCTION I . Introduction It has been observed that increase in cotton production resulted mainly from increase in yield. There are mam factors affecting yield and production and changes in these factors contri‘mted to in- creased production. Technological development includes both invention and innovation, the latter meaning application of the former. Some of the developnents contribute directly to increased yields and hence pro- duction, while others indirectly contribute to increased production and hence efficiency. Accordingly they have divided into two groups. The first group deals mainly with developnents ehich contribute directly to increased yield as for example improved fertilization and better varieties. The second group deals mainly with developnents which were responsible for and helped to increase production indirectly. This group consists mainly of innovation which reduce labour requiranents and includes such things as capital, machinery, etc. All of these factors do not operate with equal effectiveness at the same time in all cotton roaming areas. They have made their contribution differently in different areas and in different parts of the same area. Recent changes in production of cotton in different region and states has not been uniforn. The following dis- cussion will analyze the relevant factors affecting production and their relative importance in different regions of the United States. II. Factors Affecting Cotton Production A) Factors contributian increased yield l) Insects, Diseases and Weather - Insects - Cotton have had an important effect upon the agri- cultural and industrial life of the South. Boll worm, boll weevil, cotton hopper, and leaf worm are mong the most important. The boll weevil has been one of the most serious insect pest of cotton in the United States for the last to years. In sane years it causes millions of dollars of damage and threatened to wipe out cotton production over large areas. Table XII shows that the estimated average reduction fran the calculated full yield per acre caused by boll weevil damage was no.1; pounds more during l9h8-52 than during 1918-22. Damage hasivaried for different periods. In general, the available data suggest the recurrence of the boll weevil by five year cycle. "From 1909 to 1922 the weevil moved from the east to the north and brought about reductions in the acreage planted to cotton in the affected regions."1 In some cases recovery was brought about by better adapted varieties; improved methods of combating boll weevil were available by the time the weevil reached these areas again. Cotton leaf worm and the boll wom also attack and damage cotton but not as seriously as the boll weevil. "The estimated loss caused by these insects amounted to tvm to four percent of the cotton crop 2LHolley, W. C. and L. E. Arnold, Cotton, Work Progress Adminis- tration Natural Research Project, RepoRT-i'z, Philadelphia, (Penn.) Sept. 1938, P0 93. 52 . Be in :33 one. .65 63323: .& ficcfiem 13333...” ..méd times .838 cc Sateen... «apnea»... a moo... .530 8.0 gem «Cam nonwomdn 35m 8.3 3.3 8cm new." .afl .389: a fleece gem 3.8 2.3% 8.8 seam 09mm .2: .eaeefiae .. 353s 23..” «mousse 333mm» .24 3.3..” mmcmoa 92H “Head” «can one...“ .83 non . Seen dud sad concedes 363 86mm 3.0% :38 «.93 .3.” .88 be Ben as 8.8“ 8.S~ 8J3 we: egg .3: .88 ad 33» oceaoecm «was: than $3: was.” £23 84.3 coda... .eeaeeeeeh «333 833 5.3 atom camdm . ache cease .cmeaaee omm need gamed «anobd o no.5 swash m5. Ngmd Maw-Rm." lewNmH NleHmH filgmfl amazed Enamels Ba when DEEP .mmmeeo seesaw 8 man a dB 8% menopause e: mesa he have roaches“ fiancee zohoo HHH H548 53 mounting to some 32 million dollars during the period of 1910-1920. "1 "Entcmologists have developed methods of combating insects; plant breeders developed cotton varieties able to resist the insects attack. Agroncmists developed improved methods of planting and cultivating the crop which reduced insect damages; chemists developed dusts and insecticides and engineers used airplanes filled with new mechanimn for dusting."2 Diseases - The cotton plant in most areas is subject to attack by disease, some of which causes serious losses. Soil born fungus and bacterial diseases from the air are the most important. Of the soil born fungus diseases "root rot has been estimated to cause a loss of 10 to 15 percent of the cotton crop under normal conditions in the Southern states; while under severe conditions in the costal plain area it reduced the yield by as much as 75 to 90 percent":3 Effective controls have been secured against various cotton diseases by selection of disease free seeds, by avoidance of susceptible varieties, by development of better methods of controlling cotton dis- eases by treating seeds with chemicals, etc. Weather - Weather and climatic conditions affect cotton yields because of either successive moisture, lack of moisture or other climatic abomalities which affect the physiological condition of the cotton lFalson J. m, Insect Enemies of the Cotton Plant, Agri. Farmers Bul. No. 16 , U.S.D.I""T§3§., , p. 3. “— 2Ibid. , p. 20. 3Neal, D. C. and W. W. Gilbert, Cotton Diseases and Methods of Control, U.S.D.A., Farmers Bulletin 1755, Hay 1353, pp. 8- . 5h plant. Unusual weather and climatic conditions reduce yields by as much as 50 percent of the possible yield. Since the weather is unpredictable; it is the most important uncontrollable factor affecting cotton yields. Greater consistency in yields have been observed in irrigated areas where the moisture content in the soil is at least partly under control. Table III gives more information about the role played by different factors in reduction of the cotton yield. The reduction fran estimated full yield of cotton due to various causes was varied from period to period. Weather conditions were not favourable during l9h8-52 when climate and weather reduced yield per acre by 23.26 pounds. This re- duction was greater than any other period, largely because of deficient moisture and other unfavourable climate conditions during 1951 and 1952 when it is estimated that weather damage reduced yields by about 15 and 22 percent respectively. This was much above the average dmnage by weather ard climatic conditions. Table III also shows that diseases were less harmful in 19h8-52 but the net reduction due to all causes was larger by 36.63 pounds in 19h8-52 than in 1938-442. In other words average yield would have been 70.63 pounds more in the years 19148-52 than in 1938-52, if weather and boll weevil damage had been at canpar- able levels. 2) Fertilizer - The use of fertilizer is very important in the production of cotton. Throughout the greater portion of the cotton belt, production would be less profitable without the use of ccmmercial fertilizers year after year, but in several sections fertilizer is not required, notably in the Mississippi Delta and in much of Texas and Oklahoma. The percentage of the acreage fertilized, the quantity of fertilizer applied per acre and the yield per acre by states and the United States as a whole for different periods are presented in Table XIII. The use of fertilizer was newly universal in the southeast region where in l9h8-SO more than 95 percent of the cotton acreage was fertilized. An average of 75 Percent of the cotton acreage was fertilized in the Delta region during this period. On a state basis, during this period, Georgia was at the top having nearly all of the cotton acreage fertilized. Only 11 percent of the cotton acreage in Texas was fertilized in 19148-50. As far as rate of application is con- cerned, North and South Carolina were high using 550 pounds per acre in the period l9h8-50, while Oklahoma was lowest applying 221 pounds per acre on 15 percent of the total acreage. For different periods Table XIII shows that there has been a wide variation in percentage of acreage fertilized and average application per acre by states. "Rather wide fluctuations have occurred in the tonnage of fertilizer used frmn year to year. These are closely associated with the Irice of cotton in the preceding year and the cost of fertilizer."1 It was observed that in some states the use of leguminous green manuring crepe has caused some saving to the farmer in the pirchase of his fertilizer. Table XIII also shows that increased application of fertilizer has generally increased the yield of cotton. It indicates that for the country as a whole, percentage of acreage fertilized and yield 1Holley, W. C. and L. E. Arnold, op. cit., p. 68. ..o .n 333%.”: .& .3 533m dofimflfim ..m.<.m 3196.: .858 no 33394.8 mHmMH mash a 9me 3m 3H 3m 8m new $.Nm :43 49% H38 33% e32: a: a: S." d." m? .8.” m.m.n 8...” 84 «gonads 8.03 «2 m3 n8 m2” mfi mHJH 3.0 mod seams am SN m3 8“ m3 m3 3.8 223 2.3 message «mm SN «3 mow mum 8w 8.3 flea 36m Endgame“: Sm an :3 8m 8m Sm 3.3 23m Sam 83058.". Em an 8.” m8 8H 03 duma $33 323 3mg 9.5». m3 :8 cm." Ra Rd 8.3 3.3 8.: unsound: 8.8m mom 2...” .5 Sn :8 8.9% 8.3 «Tum sauna 2.8“ 03 mm." m3 8w SN at? 824m 8.5 «38$ mum 8N Se 3: 8m m3 843 3.8 mafia awesome SN mum mom 03 H3 own :33 8.3 5.2 geese seem new man emu .wmm m3 :3 5.3 «.3 8.8 2388 efioz Sm m9 Q.“ 3m man an Hm.~m «33 made aafiwhp omuB aim omumu 3:3 3:3 8:8 3:3 91mm 033 smug once @9305 one.» hem «senator. «manages A vaodh mmwnm>< nmuaadphem omwhmpd peoonmm Hmmummma magma E $58 636 a: madam em 2298 mo 23 men SEN 3 mega ma fiaaafia .mfiaefia nuance no 832ng HHHxnmum a: EQHBH Q24 5.5% .m0 mama. SHED mBHB 209.80 858$ 09 gm ME 024 584 E gamma momma mbom a Egmm HHHPN an: Tl assumptions, estimates of man labour requirements for Ire-harvest opera- tions, estimates of man labour needs for producing cotton with different sizes of equipment, and harvesting methods have been estimated and are given in Table XVIII. These estimates indicate that "large reductions in man-labor re- quirements would be possible with the use of these machines. 0n the basis of these assumptions total man-labor requirements in the high plain area would be only about one—third as great with the use of the two row stripper as with hand snapping. In the Delta areas the percent- age reduction would be even greater. With the use of a one row mechani- cal picker and flame cultivator, the estimated man labor requirements would be less than one-fifth as great as when one row mule equipnent was used and picking was done by handml Although specific production areas used in Table XVIII illustrate the effect of those machines on the labour needed to produce cotton, it should not be inferred that the high plain and Delta areas are the only areas in which mechanical equipnent is used. They were among the first to adopt the new machines. But, in general, reduction in labour requirements would be observed with different degrees, corresponding to the amount of mechanical equip- ment used in different cotton producing regions with the prevailing con- ditions and equipnent there. Table XVII shows that the percentage of tillage work done by tractor power on cotton acreage is increasing as time goes on. Some studies have lVarious Methods of Harvesting Cotton in Specified Production Areas, Misc. mBEE gEB’ Bvo—IQ, UOSODOAO, E9123. show that "The annual increase in pounds of cotton produced per hour is to some extent associated with mechanizationfll Table XIX shows the effect of change in yield per acre and mechanization and other factors, on pounds of cotton lint produced per 100 man hours by geographic divisions in the periods 1919-19146. It indicates that "from 1919-21 to l9hh-hé the effect of greater yields was almost double than that of increases in mechanization in all geog'arhic divisions, except in the West South Central. The increase in yield was less in this area than in any other geographic division and it is among the areas in thich the most [romeo has been made in mechamzing the production of cotton."2 3) Changes in Capital - "The higher yields obtained in recent years are in" a fundamental sense, the results of changes in production methods. The changes in the process of production, on or off the farm, imply correspomiing changes in the instruments used. In ayiculture, this general principal has been doubly true because the change in process often originates in improvements in the power units or in the farm equip- ment when technological changes call for new equipnent it requires more capital investment than did older methods."3 It has been 1Hecht, Ruben w. and S. T. Barton, Gainsin Productivig of Farm Labor, Tech. 3111. 1020, B.A.E., U.S.D.A., ec. , pp. . 2Ibid. , p. 7h. 3Hopkins, John L, C Technolo and En ent in Agriculture, B.A.E., U.S.D.A., (mnfi; Hay 1913:, p. g5. 73 comma” Gag mean-Modem QO‘QQemoD .83 .oz 3..on donate conch can no antacocoocd fi 330 .8ch .9 some as cocoa é condom 828$ mma 0m ..NH n «a 0: mm." cu an.” .3 03 men 3.38m ed in mm mu n T on on mm mm». «on on guano: mm mm 3 d S a. is an m: SN emu «2 0.3.80 finom coo... NS 3 me me o a S n 3 RN , NNN m3 Hofinoo 58m coca 0a 00 0m mm 0 mm 3 an an .5 Now 8H 33.34 nceom no no. .3 a. c H .8 0H 3 m5 new SN .3580 nfioz to: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII cocoon: III!!! II IIIIIIIIIIIII muopoou chemo muonoom chemo shoves“ chemo .80 o .H Ho 0 .H hm o .H as . a... an to. . is ca 3; n at 3 on. n. no 5 oncono 5 owqcno fl oncono flea R3 33 fin. concaoocoe I fin. Ennaoonnd net. oBoaocone ommmwmwmo glean co. HmImHmH who: and 00a and soapoaohm 3” omsono . mm; 20850 egos 001.39” 3 mmlumma mason cos 00H nod 33360.8” 5 owfino mmlwmmfi 3 5:33” when: one 00a and 5330030 5 ownnno 3.33 .mBHmmm message .203 .53 00a Em gaseous :5 2028 no mason dos 00H non soaps: mnzbom 20 mmoeodm go 924 zopdugmomfi 0.2.4. 564 E a 2H gun ho Huang Nun as 7h observed that cotton production has shifted from horse drawn to tractor drawn equipnent and has resulted in tremendous labour savings. This shift from horse to mechanical source of power has also caused one of the most important change in the males-up of the capital requirement in cotton production. Studies have been made on comercial family operated cotton farms in the areas of Delta Mississippi, Black Prairie and Southern Plain from 1930 awards. Though the data are limited to these three areas, these areas are characteristic in their operation, production and return. The sathern Plains are characterized by large scale highly mechanized production. Delta fame are small in terms of acres, in- cme, and total output while the Black Prairie cotton farms represent in many respects a transition between the other two. Table XX shows changes in capital inves’ment in machinery and equipnent on cotton fans by specific areas in the United States 1930-50. a) The Hississimi'nelta - Capital investment in machinery and equipnent per cotton farm in this area has been smaller than those of other areas during the period of 1930-52. The increase in investment for this period was not proportionate to other areas. Capital investment on machinery and equipnent per farm was $130.00 in 1930 and increased to $290.00 in 1950. This was less than one-third of the capital investment pertarmintheBlackPrairie endlessthanone-fonrth ofthatinthe Southern Plainsarea in 1930 and these proportions decreased to less than one-fifth and one-sixth respectiver in 1950. This shows that there was very little investment on machinery md equiment on farms TABLEXX CHANGES IN CAPITAL INVEsnIENT IN MACHINERY AND EQUIRIENT 0N COTTON was BI SPECIFIED AREAS IN m2: UNITED STATES, 1930—19501 —v—. Ien' Southern Plain Black Prairie Delta Area 1930 8 562 8 1439 $130 1931 526 1.28 123 1932 NM 393 108 1933 395 356 97 1931; 395 360 92 1935 551 399 101 1936 612 Ni? 10? 1937 739 1.71 115 1938 815 510 137 1939 838 511 1th 1910 836 501 1h? 19151 915 60? 11:9 19h2 1,0140 71.6 165 19143 1,157 788 179 191.1. 1,150 821 182 1916 1,289 909 200 19,46 1:376 965 210 19h? 1,625 1,170 228 1919 1,920 1,196 275 1950 1,979 1,h98 290 1951 310 1952 320 1953 330 lSource: Farm Costs and Returns, Commercial Fmily-gerated w, 1930.51, FJI. 55, 70 8111 82, UoseDeAe, BeAeEo, Washington, D. C. 76 in this area. Many factors are responsible: family operated farms in this area are mall in terms or average production and income. Resident labour is need to meet even peak period labour requirements. Each family's scale of operation is limited to about 15 to 20 acres. is the area is not well adapted to mechanization, these small farm operators have understandabe stqed with mule dram equipnent and hand labour. 1:) Southern Plains - Capital investment in machinery and eqiipnent per cotton farm in the Southern Plains has alive been larger than that of my other area. Investment amounted to $562.00 per farm in 1930 and increased to $1979.00 per farm in 1950 or an increase of 350 percent as compared in 1930. cmparatively level and large scale faunas in this area are more suitable than those in any other area for the use of tractor-drain mechanical equipnent and hence more investment is found on these farms. 0) The neck nut-13:52 - The males-up of the capital inveshnent in mechanical equipment in this area has share the same pattern of change’as 1n the Southern mains cotton area in all respects except the, absolute mint. In~ torment increased from 31.39.00 per farm in 1930 to $1108.00 in 1950. Investment has always been less per farm than in the Southern Plains but alwm more per term than in the llississippi Delta. This relation- ship m be attributed to the fact that Black H‘airie cotton farms are inmanyrespectsa transitionrrcmthe malltarntype oforgani- aation in the east to the large scale mechanical cotton fame of the anther!) Plains. The tepography makes this area well adapted to the use of mechanical ecpipaent for cotton harvesting and production 77 and hence there has been a substantial increase in the amount used. Table II show changes in capital investment in machinery and equip- ment on cotton farms for these areas from 1930 to 1950. It should be remembered that these data do not indicate the investment in cotton machinery only—they are for the fan as a whole, cotton being the major enterprise. The process by union this chmge in investment occurred followed a definite pattern. is farmers found an opportunity for its profit- able adoption, they invested more capital in farm machinery and eminent. It has already been shown that mechanization resulted in a lugs saying of labour. This is one of the opportunities for the profitable adoption of mechanical power. Similu‘ generalisation can be drain from all these discussions, i.e. that the larger the farm, the more profitably machinery can be used and total investment per tan will be greater. Because of unanflabili‘ty of data shoeing changes in expenditures for labour used for cotton production, it is impossible to shell con- clusively to what extent the increase in investment in machinery and ecpipnent caused a reduction in expenditure on labour. It can be generalised from the observation made so far, however, that increas- ing capital investment is one of the factors of production which has pretend]: affected the use of labour. III. Production Per Man Hour "The rise in man hour productivity during the last to years has resulted in a sharp increase in farm output and moderate decrease in , I total man hour requirement for farm work."1 A number of factors are responsible for the increase in yield and for reducing the amount of labour required to produce cotton. These factors already have been discussed. Output per man hour of labour or production per worker is a camnonly used measure of production efficiency, though neither production per nan hour nor production per worker is an ideal measure. Both are ratios of total production to labour inputs. Ratios of this kind do not measure thenet contribution of labour or of capital or of my other factor of prediction. The change in ratio reflects the joint efforts of all factors of production such as sibstitution of machinery for labour and increased production by the development of higher yielding, more disease resistmt varieties and hybrids, more effective methods of disease and insect controls, different tillage techniques, fertilisers, etc. How- ever, since labour is the ‘nost important input in cotton production the change in labour requirement provides a useful masure of change in production efficiency. Year to year fluctuations in yield results fran different factors. When changesinmanhonr andcrop reduction per core are convertedto an average annual rate of change the change in production per nan hour is more clearly seen. Table III shone the average annud rate of change in cotton production per man hour, and man hours and crop Iro- duction per acre of cotton for the United States by periods 1910-53. 1 Hecht, Reuben I. and Glen T. Barton, "Gaimin Productivity of Farm Labor,” U.S.D.i., B.l.3., Tech. 3111. 1020, Dec. 1950, p. 2. .emma one. times :33 run afloflnm anointing... . one Born no.“ some n83 .8; .m 5 ea in; .ooeoom 38h 3?ng 888ml” mom.m+ 3% + use? mum.o.. .30: use .89 sofieseoem 30.? 09”.: + mat? 3&1 once you 532.60g.“ «on: some + eon? 8...? £8 non neon can IIIIIIIIIII vacuum“!!! IIIIIIII... mmlomma 44.0de amnomma $183 on 3 3. 3 .3132” £709? 310me 47.0.8." $3.33 68% E mane.” are 2880 0 need. a zoESBE name a? meow 5a Q24 gom 243 E ZOHBUBOE momo 2H @9va .mo mafia A4324 "H.854 a an. 80 It shows that the decrease of 1.72 percent per year in labour require- ment per acre was associated with a decrease of .529 percent in crop p‘cdnction per man hour from 1910-11; to 1919-21» This occurred becmse cotton yield declined during this period. But during the period from 1920-21; to 1930-31; a mall increase in man hours per acre associated with a substantial increase in average yield, resulted in an increase in production per man hour of 1.78 percent per year. Han hours per acre increased 0.101; percent and yields increased 1.88 percent during this period. In the period of 1930-31. to 19h0-hh, a 3.86 percent in- crease in production per an hour was associated with a 0.206 percent increase in an hour per acre and a yield increase of 1:43 percent per year. From 1910-hi; to 1350-53 a 5.305 percent increase per year in production per man hour was associated with a 2.62 percent decrease in Ian hours per acre and a 1.019 percent increase in yield annually. This indicates that cotton yield increased greatly during and after World War II aid was influential in raising total poduction at a high rate. Thus (hiring these periods, changes in yields were chronologically, less effective, equally effective and more effective than were changes in labour requirements in raising cotton production per man hour. The new factors which affect cotton production and changes in labour productivity has seldom had a uniforms effect in all the cotton areas. As seen above, reduction in man hours per acre and greater yield were lugs]: responsible for the increase in production per hour of labour used not on]: for cotton but for all crops. The importance of each factor varies, however from crop to crop from area to area and from one period to anotha'. Cotton prodxmtion per hour 81 of labour decreased during the early part of the last 140 year period. The boll weevil was advancing over the cotton belt and its ravages severely reduced cotton yields and more labour was needed to fight the scourge. Since 1921, however, production of cotton per man hour has increased almost as much as the average for all. crops. During the interwar periods it advanced more than the average increase for other crops except food grains. The greater yields which have been attained, are the results of several factors which have already been discussed. There has been a rather slow but steady increase in mechani- zation of cotton production which has helped to reduce the labour upch on cotton farms an'l thus increased the productivity of labour spent on cotton production. Table XVII shows the percentage of indicated operations on cotton acreage done with tractor power by geographic division while Table XVIII, the effect of different types of mechanical equipment as labour saving device on a per acre and a per bale basis. These indicate that use of such machines have resulted in more mduction in labour requiremmts and thus in an in- crease in labour productivity. But such machines have not yet been used on an extensive scale in all states, therefore their effect on labour productivity has not yet been fully exploited. Table III sumarises the effect of mechanization and other factors on the amount of cotton lint produced per 100 man hours for geographic divisions by indicated periods, 1919-h6. It also shows their effect on labour productivity. It indicates that if mechanical farming is more widely adopted in the future its effect on labour productivity in the cotton belt will be significant. 82 The available data permits a partial evaluation of changes in efficiency by the criterion of man hour of labour required to produce a pound of cotton. Table XXII shows production per man hour of labour for the United States and the geographic divisions by periods, 1920-348. Areas which are characterized by large mechanized farms and farms producing cotton under irrigation have the highest output per nan hour of labour. The Pacific and the Mountain divisions consisting of irrigated cotton producing fame in California, New Mexico and Arizona have had constantly greater output per hour of labour than other divisions. Among these California was highest followed by “icons and New Mexico. Production in the West South Central division dominated bymechaniaed farms in Texas and Oklahoma has followed a somewhat different pattern. Average production per labour hour in this area was relatively low compared to all other divisions during the early years but has steadily increased in each period because of continuous reductions in labour requirements caused by the rapid progress in the shift from mule drawn to tractor dram equipment on the family operated farms in this area. The East South Central area consisting of the Delta states :3th a slow but steady increase in production per nan hour of labour and this may be due to concentration of cotton production on higher yielding rich soils of the Delta area. The South itlantic division consisting of the eastern cotton states demonstrated somewhat the same pattern. Production per hour of labour increased while total acreage was declining. This may be accounted for by the elimination of inefficient farms. 83 RE eoneooon .82 flooded Hecaneooa than 24th ...ch and no mefiseoceohm 5 shoe doses .9 code as .s condom .ecpom ”conch.” mm.m.n mafia mméa no.3” om.m 329 3.3” 313m." $43 8.3 3:: 32:” Res” 3.4:" 5.2” 4.133 3.3 3.3 mmJH 31.2 8.0.” 3.2 mas—H Rimmed EA“ so.” ends so.» mad mod one stones. and.” aims and .36 86 no.3 and 3:33 3.5 n33 nod Sc. 36 one 3.» finance .95ch defines encased denote cocoon when caused cheeses flew to: coach poem finch wefioz coo: copes Become.” .szHmEn outshone Hm 8% mafia sneeze new man nomad no meow 52 men message 2038 so meson HHMN an. 81:, It seems well to mention, at this point, that three influences are responsible for this change. one was a general shift tonards specialized and high yielding areas, the other mechanized cotton production causing reduction in labour requirement and the third importance of crop mong divisions and within the crop enterprise. These all significantly affected total cotton production per man hour at different levels. IV. Production Cost Change in production per man hour or'per worker must be interpreted in the light of changes in capital inputs and hence the consideration of production costs is essential. Although output per man hour of labour represents one measure of production efficiency, low cost of production is usually associated with high labour productivity. In some cases, however, this measure does not give a clear indication of production efficiency. Geographical differences in the relationship between wages and .of other factors of production may in many cases, prevent direct comparisons. For example, in the Delta area on the mall family operated farms where mule drawn equipment and hand labour is used, wage costs are always higher especially during the picking season than on a larger and specialized tractor dram power unit farms in Texas and Orlahoma. In this latter area little labour requir- ed. Investment in machinery and equiment is, however, much higher. Became of these differences, unequivocal generalization cannot be made on the basis of labour input alone. In general, production cost is least in areas of specialized production and on the farms having relatively large acreage and where labor saving equipnent is used. 85 Additional evidence concerning changes that have occm'red in the effi- ciency with which resources are used in the production of cotton could be obtained by comparing cost data. However, unavailability of this type of data either on a state or regional basis is the limiting factor. Studies have, however, been made on a year to year basis from 1930 on- wards for typical fmnily operated farms in the area of the Mississippi Delta, the Black Prairie Region, and the Southern Plains. A summary of data showing cost on a per acre and per pound basis by periods are given in Table XXIII. Returns per acre and per pound have been calculated from the receipts obtained from cotton lint and seed. Unavailadeity of cost data in such form has necessitated the allocation of costs with some assumptions. Suppose 80 percent of the total receipt is frcn cotton lint and seeds, the total cost £93 the farm enterprise as a mole has been allocated on the same basis and has been assmned to be the cost for cotton production in that particular case. In this way costs per acre and per pound of cotton have been calculated. With these assumptions reasonable comparison can be made. An analysis and discussion of the situation follows. 1) Southern Plain - Returns an! cost per acre and per pound of cotton in this area were smaller than in other areas. Returns are smaller because yields per acre for the period under consideration were relatively lower than other areas. Costs were lower because of large scale mechanized cotton modicum). "The recent increase in cost came from building material and machinery, increased wage rates and cotton snapping rates. The latter two increased by five to eight percent while the investment 86 .oanuaasse pen a .m.o AOMO¢Om “Olgomomob. “OF E Nm ”mm 0: 0-H “mg-H U3“.H&o kin-“ah HdOfiE m Andras . .b . a £353; «condom a $13 8.02 3.: fix: 3.3 3.8 3.3 .3.- 3.3 09$ mad «.2 umnomma 36m mméma m9... «...? 91%.. 8.3 mm; $2: earn SJm fish 56 313% 8.8 dém Him new $5." 8.8 $4.. 23m 8.5 8.5 and mo.m €739“ Rafi 8.3 320. 36 .32: 073 ~m.~ 3.; 3.2 «.3 Rd and «mummma 5.3 233 min 3.» 8.3 3.3 meg 3.: a.» m4" d..~ in...” 4.933 n m a iar a. n a war a Law a w .mnH ones .mnH chow .mna ones .mQH shoe .nnH ones .opH onus nonovma pace monopou fimoe nqnpmmh pace 3H8 3334..me 3.38m team was“ $228 bl. Humming” .mBHEm am 5533: no «SS 92 SEE Moss .23 ESQ. 3 23a 20 amoboomm 205500 mom mzmbamm Q24_mamoo azaom mam 02¢ me< mum HHHNN_mnmda 87 in machinery increased by 16 to 26 percent from 191.4,6-l9h8."1 Compar- ing these changes in costs to those of returns the percentage change was the same in both cases. In absolute figures gross profit has been definitely increasing. 2) The Black Prairie REESE - These farms showed a continuous increase in cost per acre and per pound. Absolute cost increases are not large but percentage-wise costs increased by more than 500 percent from 1920 to 1951, on a per acre and on a per pound basis. At the same time fairly stable yields pre- sented an increase in returns that was proportionately as great as the increase in costs. For the period of 21 years from 1930 to 1951 the ratio of returns to costs increased from 1:31 to 6:1 in the first half and decreased to less than 3:1 in the later half of the period. In the second half of the period prices of cotton did not advance enough to offset the effect of increases in cost. Hence Iith stable yields the ratio of returns to capital declined. "Cost rates in this region increased by 12 percent from 191;; to 1950 compared with an increase of only six percent in prices received."2 3) Mississim Delta - ' V The pattern of change in cost and returns in this area is peculiar. Cost per acre and per pound increased in all regions from 1928 to 1952, but the pattern of change in this area and that observed in the other 1 Source: Farm Costs and Returns, 1 50, Commercial Family-Qperated Farms, FJ‘. 82, 0.3.5010, EOIOEO, Washin 0n, Do—Ce, pp.9-18. 2Farms Costs and Returns 191454;? for Commercial Family Operated Farms, fi.S.fi.A., Bo‘ofio’ WM“, 5. 00, FM ’6, pp. In. 88 two areas were different. Cost per acre increased from $7.16 to $16.21; while cost per pound increased from 3.h5¢ to h.28¢. The increase in cost per pound was less than in any other area. Percentage-wise a comparison of this change with those of other areas would show a very significant difference. Returns per pound increased by four times while the increase in reimrns per acre was near to seven times. This relationship between returns per acre and per pound was due to increas- ing yields and decline in acreage. From 1928-51 the acreage under cotton declined by 25 percent while yield increased by 275 Percent. V. Summary These changes in costs and returns in different regions help to explain changes in production efficiency. To get the exact picture of production efficiency from the pattern of changes in costs and returns, cotton production should be observed in the light of changes in yield ,labour requirements, and capital used for labour saving devices. The high value of cotton obtained from 12 to 20 acres in the Delta area probably resulted in large part from the fact that store yields could be obtained by using more family labour which was available without additional cash eicpendimres. That is why these mall scale farms showed the greatest net profit per acre. Second lower yielding fanns in the Southern Plains were profit- able as mechanized production in that area enabled farmers to aid more acreage to their large scale farms and thus helped to increase production with decreasing costs per acre. There efficiency is associated with mechanical production which saves labour. 39 The Black Prairie fans are shifting from horse drawn to tractor eqaipnent and are neither fully mechanized nor intensively specialized. Resulting costs in the Black Prairie are somewhat higher than in any other area. This pattern can be summarized in the statement efficiency in cotton production has resulted from reduction in labour requirement and increase in yields. me is associated with costs while the other is associated with output. CHAPTER IV DEVELOEIENTS OF TECHNOLOGICAL POSSIBILITIES TO IMIROVE INDIAN COTTON PRCEUCTION I . Introduction For the last forty years India1 has been second to the United States in the production of cotton. Thus attention should nattn'ally be directed to the United States to find possible ways of improving production methods in India. In the first part of this chapter an attempt is made to compare the natire of some important developments in the Indian cotton sitiation dm'ing the last forty years with those of the United States in order to evaluate the possibilities of improv- ing production in India. The second. part will discuss and appraise possibilities and implications of adopting and applying different technological advances which helped to increase production in the United States. II. Comparative Changes in Indian and United States Cotton Production 1) Acreage, Yield, Production - Table XXIV shows the cotton acreage, yield per acre and production for the United States and India, 1912 to 1952. Indian cotton production IUnless otherwise specified 'India' and 'Indian' will refer to pro-partition India, thus including Pakistan, but excluding Burma, separated from India in 1937. TABIE XXIV COTTON - ACREAGE, YIELD PER ACRE 110 PRODUCTION FOR 0.3.1. 1ND INDIA, 1912-19521 Total acreage Yield Production Year (1,000 acres) (lbs. per acre) (1,000 bales) Us Soho India U. Svo India Us SCAG India 1912 32,557 23,166 201.1 76.7 13,703 3,702 1913 35,206 23,500 192.3 86.5 11.153 1,239 1911 35,615 21,595 216.1 85.0 16,112 1,359 1915 29,951 17,716 178.5 81.6 11,172 3,128 1916 33,071 21, 715 165.6 82.9 11,118 3,759 1917 32,215 25,188 167.1 61.6 11,281 3,393 1918 35,038 21,037 161.1 75.9 12,018 3,328 1919 32,906 22,353 165.9 99.7 11,111 1,853 1920 31,108 21,311 186.7 67.7 13,129 3,013 1921 28,678 18,151 132.5 97.6 7,915 3,752 1922 31,361 21,792 118.8 93.5 9,755 1,215 1923 35,550 23,626 136.1 87.7 10,110 1.320 1921 39,501 26,801 165.6 91.2 13,630 5,095 1925 ,386 28,191 173.5 101.9 16,105 5,201 1926 11,608 21,822 192.9 81.3 17,978 1,205 1927 38, 312 21,761 161.7 96.7 12,956 1,990 1928 12,131 27,053 163.3 85.8 11,177 1,838 1929 13,232 25,922 161.2 81.2 11,825 1,387 1930 ,111 23,812 157.1 88.1 13,932 1,373 1931 38, 7014 239 772 211.5 6708 17,097 33353 1932 35,891 22,183 173.5 83.2 13,003 3,898 1933 29,383 23,739 212.7 86.1 13,017 1,271 1931 26.866 23,907 171.6 81.6 9,636 1.065 1935 27,509 25,999 185.1 91.6 10,638 14,962 1936 29,755 25,219 199.1 101.1 12,399 5,312 1937 33,623 25,716 269.1 91.6 18,916 1,911 1938 ,218 23,182 235.8 88.2 11,963 1,315 1939 23,805 21,356 237.9 91.2 11,817 1,195 1910 23,861 22,902 252.5 108.6 12,566 5,182 1911 22,236 21,151 231.9 101.8 10,711 5,127 1912 22,602 19,203 272.1 98.3 12.817 3,935 1913 21,610 21,086 251.0 100.1 11,127 1,101 1911 19,617 11,813 298.9 119.1 12.230 3,693 1915 17,029 11,668 253.6 115.1 9,015 3,529 1916 17,581 11,361 235.3 111.8 8,610 3,557 1917 21,330 11,222 266.3 115.0 11,860 3,110 19"“ 22’9” him 381% ”'2 ”3’8"; 38%" 9 7 7 1. 2. 1 12 o 19 0 17118113 11:55g 269.0 39.6 101012 21320 1951 26,851 16,213 270.2 91.7 15,111 3,100 1952 25,661 16,175 282.7 81.5 15,136 2,850 Statistics, U.s.D.1., 8.1.3.,‘wa‘s1fingtcn, 171‘“. . J‘Sources: Compiled from Statistical Abstracts and gricultural 92 was not controlled by the government until the middle of World War II. During the period of 1912 to 1913, Indian cotton production was much more stable than that of the United States. Production reached a peak in 1936 when 5.3 million bales were produced. From 19113 on the Indian Government's "Grow More Food" campaign and later on the effect of the political partition of the country, which was aggravated by a nation- wide famine in 1918, resulted in immediate restrictions on cotton acreage and production declined. Production in 19119, was the lowest of the entire forty year period totaling only 2.3 million bales. This resulted from a sharp and sudden decrease both in acreage and yield after the partition. Government restrictions were not in effect in 1936 or 19119 either. United States production on the other hand reached its peak in 1937 when almost 19 million bales were produced. The low point in cotton production for the forty year period of 1912 to 1952 was in 19116 when 8.6 million bales were produced. Governmental restrictions on acreage which applied intermittently from 1933 onward were not in effect in either year. Table XXIV shows that production in the United States for 1952 exceeded by 18 .08 percent of the average for the period 1912 to 1952 while Indian cotton production in the same year was only .56 percent of the average for the period. It indicated that United States cotton production has made a strong recovery from the war time slump. Indian cotton production, on the other hand, was declined steadily. Unless India can reverse the present downward trend in Iroduction by using different methods of production she will not be able in the future to im- prove her cotton economy, which was seriously disturbed after partition. 93 Cotton acreage is a better measure of farmers reaction to chang- ing econanic coalitions than production since production is a function of both acreage and yield and the latter is to a considerable deg'ee affected by non-economic .factors such as weather and insect infections. In the United States, change in cotton acreage, in the absence of govern- mental control, reflect changes in famers estimate of the profitability of using land for cotton production rather than for some alternative use. When cotton acreage remains stable for a considerable period of time as was the case in India in the thirties, the meaning is not so clear. Stability in acreage planted to cotton may reflect stability in the relative profitability of cotton compared to other crops but it may also be due to inertia on the part of farmers who are often bound by customs and unwilling to change rotations of cropping system even when it would be economical to do so. EXPerience of the last forty years indicates that Indian cotton acreage and to a lesser extent, production is relatively stable and is significantly responsive only to very powerful influences such as war and govenmental pressure such as the "Crow More Food" scheme. Even strong economic force such as sharp reductions in cotton prices in the United States and artificial’high prices for American cotton did not greatly change the pattern of land use in India. It appears reason- able to conclude that cotton acreage in India will not deviate signifi- cantly in the next few years unless India is able to win the present and future food war which is the first and the most immediate problem of the country. 9h Table UV shows the changes in acreage, yield per acre and pro- duction of cotton for India and the United States for 1932 and 1953. The decline in Indian cotton production of 26.88 percent from 1932 to 1952 was associated with a fall in acreage of 28.07 percent. For the same years, United States cotton production increased by 16.140 percent despite a decline in acreage of 28.149 percent. Production is a function of both acreage and yield. In the same years, yield in the United ' States increased by 62.93 percent or by more than 100 pounds while in India it increased by 1.56 percent or by 1.3 pounds per acre. Actually yields in both couniries have increased absolutely. Production being the function of acreage and yield this confirms that the increase in United States cotton production despite a decline in acreage is mainly due to increase in yields. Figures 10, 11 and 12 show the changes in acreage, yield per acre and production of cotton in the United States and India from 1912 to 1952. This long run increase in yield in the United States is due to many factors. One group of factors includes development and propagation of higher yieldings, disease resistant varieties, improvanent in cultural practices through improved tillage techniques to fight diseases and ad- verse conditions, shifting cotton production from low yielding to high yielding irrigated areas. This group of factors has contributed directly to increased yield. The other group, consists of factors which helped to increase efficiency mainly by reducing labour requirement. These consist of such things as machinery, capital, etc. Some of these factors operate in India but not to a sufficient deg-es to keep yields from falling relative to United States yield. Since economic, social 95 .o.n anopweaemee...m.<.m ..4.n.m.p .mmma new zmma ooapmacapm Heacpasoammw “monsow mw.e~u mso.a 0mm.~ mam.m. os.ea mmfi.~ ema.ma moo.ma om.a m.H «.mw m.sm mm.~e ~.moa a.~m~ m.maa ao.m~a oom.e maa.ea mm:.- m4.m~: a-.oa see.m~ Hmm.mm coacoaeonm macaw amassed [mascara .»Hspom‘ w M H unwound 1M Hupop a a mmma owns . «mas . wmma . «mad op . «med H mama mmmH mmmm no no NmMH 36mm newnmnoi.. waeeH N .«.m.: gamma use «man .aHmzH 924 .<.m.p 2H zoaeoo mo 20 Duncan mze meme mum QQMHH .moemmoe 2H mmwzemo _>NN unmda .o .n .838: scum hogan—co "wagon.” H84.” nadvavmvm Han—.5. newsman e5 . . e qo¢ememeb UWPONHPWQ HMOH nowflag “00.3.00 CH Ohm—MATH ..m um . as .mé Hansen 3an e endow NHmH «NEH . «HRH m NIMMH a . mmMH I L I .0: 3m iuuflcmho god—”a .o .n accesses; than .33.: «moapflpmpm $53323 as 9.8.534 $03333 sob efimgodwo e5 eofinaoo .8088“ 7. 9 Hmmufima Juan use .ms 5 once essential com cognac no 33» .3 993a mhm. . mm? t SE - .. an amen _ «mes r «en . “we n ) > \)I mnfi \ \ I; s . a a \ I av EIII‘II.’ sol \ l/‘K /\\ /J./. \)I \\I \\ It \\ rill-II‘\ ....) ..I \\ .l/ \ /\ I \\ [IL I a. I \\ II \x /\ Ix ( / \ x4 sow f .r I I \ It OOH \ \ \/I/\ tom...“ s/j \ .3\I/\)\/\ I! 3 93H 33H 98 .o .n 33333 ..m.<.m 24.96.: 5333um 393323 was passage, 303353 scam cadence “8 ma mimosa .fiefi e5 .3. .eofiaeoh goats .fi 8&3 p munch in 33 i amen t 8% h awn L Saw maeeH:(\.// ., > - > )z [...-I/ \ \\ / \.\\\ l \ -IJ‘ I \\ ’l < / \./z s} u\ (1 1.. x) N- \ (... (...... //¢.\ 0.: r/\ l\ 1m / ...\~ \ 5H ‘ /\ \/ \/\..... \ \/\ \\ OM03 a . B ImH l r0m nods Ho magma 99 and institutional conditions in India and in United States differ Widely, it would be expected that the applicability of each group of factors differs widely between the two countries. In the first chapter a survey of agricultural problems in India indicated the nature of problems faced there. Agricultural policy occupies an important place in India's national econany, because of the problm of producing adequate food and fibre for a growing population. India has used a policy of intensive developnent of a certain line of production aiming at high degree of self-sufficiency. The importance of the food problem has forced itself upon the attention of the people during the last decade. No agrarian reform in India has any likelihood of success unless the question of agricultural indebtedness is settled. This means examination and proposal of a sound agricultural credit policy. The second question is of small and scattered holdings. It requires to change the tenure system and the law of inheritance. Such a radical transformation would involve redistri- bution of land. These problems represents the result of accumulated neglect and blunders of generations. Some of them are the product of institutional forces. Their solution requires a firm political body prepared to achieve ends at the cost of reshaping the foundation of social stability. Apart from these, there are other problems. If the country is to enter upon agricultural production by new technologies and use of scientific application, it would appear that the government has to pro- vide all requirements such as seed and fertilizer and accanpalv their distribution with intensive propaganda and educational programs to familiarizing the farmer with new methods and techniques. However it must be remembered that the problem of agriculture cannot be solved by agricultural policy alone. There can'be no large scale development in agriculture unless it is correlated to the develop- ment of non-agricultural industries. Both agriculture and industry'in turn are dependent on well organized and well planned fiscal and.mone— tary policy as well as efficient transportation and.commmnication facilities. This shows that the problem of improvement of cotton or agri- cultural production.in India.is not purely technological. It is primarily a social, economical and political problem. It is beyond the scope of this study to analyze these problems in detail. In facing the problem of cotton production, policy should be oriented both to the short run and a.long run point of view; The short run policy should include programs which help to increase yield. Immediate needs should be given first priority. Long mn policy should include such programs as mechanization and.redistribution of‘land. Some of the factors which helped to increase cotton production.in the United States are already operating in India. The fellowing section will investigate the role of those factors which.mdght prove to be use- ful if adopted in India. The economic goal is to increase yield and thus help to reorganize the country's disrupted economy. 101 III. Technological Developnent and Possibilities in Indian Cotton Production , 1) Disease, PestL Varieties - Insect pests aid plant diseases are sources of serious loss to cotton and food crops in India. Insects causing the greatest damage are boll worms and leaf insects which destroy plants and bolls and lower the quality of lint. 0f the cotton diseases found in India only wilt and root disease are important. Research into the disease and insect pests of cotton is being conducted both by the Imperial Council of Agricultural Research and the State Departments of Agriculture. Methods of controlling dis- eases and pests in general use are: 1) Destroying the insect fungus by chemical and biological means 2) Obviating the attack by some changes in tillage techniques 3) Adoption of better and resistant varieties of cotton. This is one of the most outstanding achievements of cotton improvement work which has been done by Indian cotton breeders. The Indian Central Cotton Committee with state governments main- tain cotton experiment stations in major cotton producing areas. Many varieties suitable to particular areas and resistant to cotton disease prevailing in that area have been developed. Cotton aperi- ment stations have done an outstanding job in convincing the farmers to use improved seeds, but even so improved cotton is seeded only on 30 percent. of the area. Indifference by the majority of the farmers to the improved varieties is due partly to inadequate education and partly to the absence of organized agencies for the production and 102 distribution of seeds of improved varieties at reasonable prices. The absence of private agencies in this area is a great handicap. The agricultural departments have, therefore, had to undertake supplying seed of the improved varieties through the agency of seed farms, seed store and cooperative socieities. 2) Tillage Techniques - w The yield from land can be increased by a good system of crop rotations. Though the practice of crop rotation has been known to Indian farmers for a long time, the use of proper rotational system has been declining in recent years. Farmers have concentrated more on certain connnercial crops. This is particularly true of cotton. The attention of the Agricultural Research Stations have been centered on rotations connected with cotton. Systems of crop rotations based on the soil and climatic conditions suited to each particular area have yet to be evolved and popularized. As regards to actual method of cultivation, although some areas are highly developed, there is much possibility for improvement in processes like cultivation, seeding and harvesting. Methods of culti- vation in India today are what they were centuries ago. There is a need to examine different practices and to select and popularize the best ones. 3) Manure and Fertilizer - Scientific manuring based on needs of the crop and type of soil, which will increase the supplies of plant food available in the soil, will greatly increase the yield. Soils in India are not naturally 103 poor but are deficient mainly in nitrogen as most lands in India have been under constant cultivation for centuries. Indian farmers are not, of course, ignorant of the value of manuring and in irrigated areas artificial manures are being used increasingly. But there is lack of eXpert guidance advising farmers to use the proper manure at the right time and to apply it correctly under widely differing crop, soil and climatic conditions. One of the causes of the present low yields per acre of cotton is the tremendous waste of farm yard manure. Results of experiments have shown that yields of cotton when two and one-half tons of farm yard manure was applied, increased to 532 pounds per acre from 318 pounds per acre with no manure. To restore organic matter and nitrogen to the soil and to maintain soil fertility, afferent measures have al- ready been sought and farmers have been encouraged to use compost and farm yard manure, green marmres and oil cake manures. The yield of cotton can also be increased by the use of commercial fertilizers. The present consumption is inadequate to maintain soil fertility. As a result of the five year plan, the production capacity of the National Fertilizers Projects is expected to fulfill the needs in 1955-56. Cotton, however, is hardly considered in this program. Fertilizer is scarce and therefore used on food crops only. In a way cotton benefits indirectly from fertilizers used on previous crops since not all of the plant food would be used or leached out of the soil before cotton is planted. Existing yields of cotton should be increased by increased application of fertilizer, but because of the 10h lack of purchasing power, it is not possible unless large scale advances to farmers are made available for the purchase of fertilizer either through cooperative credit associations or by direct governmental advances through the Department of Agriculture. Indian farming is extremely dependent on seasonal rainfall which is proverbially irregular; the surest way in which agricultural production can be increased is through the developnent of irrigation potentials. At present very little cotton is irrigated. It may con- tribute considerably to increased cotton production in the future when the number of irrigation schemes and dams under construction start operating. These different factors, namely, development of improved disease resistant varieties, improvements in tillage techniques and culhzral practices, use of manures and fertilizers, are operated and practiced through State Departments of Agriculture. Ultimately no government can succeed in helping the farmer unless farmers are willing to help themselves. Indifference of the farmers and their poverty and illiteracy are the obstacles in the way of rapid adoption of these improved varieties and techniques. Cooperative societies working in villages with illiterate farmers should act as a local agent of the Agicultural Departments and should educate and advise the farmer in adopting the improvemnts suggested by the Agriculture Departments. The cooperative societies- should also undertake the supply of improved seeds, manures on credit at reasonable rates and prices. 105 The second group of factors which affected cotton production in- directly and helped to increase United States production are: land, size of farm, mechanization and capital. Differences in institutional, social and especially in economic life of the two countries create different problems and they not only affect cotton production but affect all agricultural production differently. ’4) Land Selection - The possibility of bringing new acreage into cultivation to in- crease cotton production is limited. Limited increase may be obtained by irrigating dry land and reelaiming swamp land through extensive drainage. Some such projects are underway, some are planned. Whether these projects can be brought to completion in time to allow increased production of either food or cotton in the near future is doubtful. If cotton can be advantageously traded for food, some of the new land should be used to produce cotton. The shifting of cotton production to higher yielding areas which contributed to in- creased yields and production in the United States has received very little attention. The problem of size of cotton farms is closely related tomechanization and therefore will be discussed under mechardzation. Since there is very little scope for increasing the acreage under cotton increased production must come from increased output per acre through new technological improvement oriented towards this goal. 106 5) Capital - Production requires capital and in a country like India where agriculture produces nearly 50 percent of the national incomel and where subsistence farmers have little capital reserved for future production, agricultural finance must {necessarily be a problem of interest. The snail holding which is prevalent is in most cases not a sufficient security to get required loans from cooperative credit or land mortgage banks. This is the case for agriculture in general and cotton does not escape from it. It is beyond the scope of this study to delve deeply into this matter. Even though the government and the Re serve Bank of India have given serious thought to it, the problem of agicultural finance has not been solved. The unavailability of credit and inherited poverty on the part of the farmer, mevents him fran taking the initiative in agricultural improvement. Such initiative has to come from the government. 6) Mechanization and Problems Arising from It-- The production per worker is primarily a function of the tools and power with which he works. In this respect India is still in a primi- tive stage using crude and inadequate farm equipnent. It is one of the chief causes of low agricultural productivity. Implements that are used by the Indian farmers are in keeping with their standard in general, but are far from the best that should be utilized for efficient The Eastern Economist, New Delhi, India, September 19514, p. 107 and successful cultivation. They yet rely on primitive plows to cultivate land, crude sickles to harvest crops, natural wind to winnow grains and hands for picking cotton. The scope for mechani- zation should be explored with the progress of education in better fanning methods. It is clear that the adoption of machinery is partially deter- mined by the price of substiimtable animal or man power and the prices of farm products. Proper conditions can come into existence only after industrialization in industry has been attained to a sufficient degree. Only then will labour become relatively costly in agriculture because of transfer into and absorption by industry. In the United States where labour is scarce there is a sharp contrast with India where labour is excessive and cheap. In addition, some technical and social requirements must be fulfilled. Most important of them are the size of farm, which should be large enough to make it economically advantageous to introduce machinery and a large amount of capital must be provided for mechanization of agriculture. These conditions raise a very important question: What is the. role of mechanization in the fight against agricultural inefficiency and poverty? Unfortunately, on this issue one finds a good deal of con- fused thinking. Such conflicting view-points are a very great hinderance in arising at any definite conclusion. In general, the problems with which the mechanization of Indian agriculture is faced are as follows: a) Uneconomic 1101ng - It was observed previously that mechardzation goes hand in hand with large scale farming. It, therefore, requires a large farm as a prerequisite for its application. The United States, where mechanized cotton production is followed, average cotton acreage is between 60 to 70 acres. The prerequisite is clearly lacking in India where average cotton acreage per farm is notoriously small and widely scattered. The average size varies from a patch of land to three to four acres. On such size mechanization is out of the question. These holdings are uneconomical even for wooden plow and a pair of bullooks. Tractor mechanization would increase cost and reduce output. On such mall farms mechanization has no place. This necessitates a change in the land tenure policy of the country. Fragnentation of farms under the law of inheritance should not be allowed below an optimum size of holding. The only feasible and effective ww in the short run is to try mechanization through Joint farming societies on a cooperative basis with the use of small tractors designed to meet economic and technical needs of mall acreage. b) Scarcity of Capital Resources - The general question of capital has been discussed preViously in detail. Mechanization of agriculture. requires a large amount of capital. In the underdeveloped economy of India, savings are very small and government has either to supply capital by postponing or abandoning other developnents and schemes. is a result progress in some other direction will be stopped. The other alternative is to take the risk of borrowing foreign capital. 109 c) Question of Unemle - Mechanization of agriculture in India has been regm'ded as highly undesirable on the grounds that it will result in tremendous displace- ment of labour. Assuming that one worker will be required instead of four, with mechanized fanning 75 percent of the workers employed in agriculture or nearly 53 million workers will be thrown out of employ- ment. It is very difficult to find alternative jobs for persons on such a large scale. In support of this, attention m be drawn to the amount of employment provided by the development of industries in India. Though the developnent of large scale industries has been rapid, particular- ly during the last decade, the number employed in industries has increased by 16.5 million or by a small fraction of h.6 percent of the total popl- lation. On this younds well known Gandhian Economists regarded mechani- zation of cotton production as undesirable. They argued, "Mechanination is good when the hands are too few for work intended to be-accomplished. It is an evil when there are more hands than required for the work. As the case in India the problem is how to utilize their idle hours which are equal to the working days of six months in a year." On this opinion there is no unanimous agreenent. It need not necessarily follow that fewer men per occupation would mean lesser men employed. It may create more opportunities for work in other directions. Mechanization of agriculture will help in stepping up llama, A. N., The Gandhian Plan, Padma Publication Ltd., Bombw, 19%, p. 2h. the economy of the country to a higher level. As a consequence secondary and tertiary occupation will multiply offering adequate employment to the airplus worker. Increased cotton production with reduced labour requirement would require more and more people to work in the textile industry and thus the problem of displaced labour could possibly be solved within the cotton economy of India. Bullocks are used for cultivation. They in turn aggravate the food problem as they require large amount of produce of the soil. Thus there is a need for a mduction in their number. It has men observed in the United States that about 33 million acres of land have been made available for production after replacing draft horses and mules by tractors} This is a very important possibility for India. d) Attempts at Mechanization - The analysis within various limits shows that there are no doubt, a number of difficulties in the way of mechanization. Under the stress of these and other difficulties the progress of mechanized fuming in India is bound to be slow. As an immediate need there exists wide scope for the improvement in the fam implements that are commonly used as well as for the manufacture of improved implements and machinery suited to requirement of Indian conditions. Central and state governments have made limited attempts to encourage pro- duction of improved implements suitable to existing conditions of Indian farmers and farms. Also by gradually developing the system of cooperative am joint farming, it is possible to benefit from the use of machines ani tractors omd or hired from the government station. Johnson, Sherman E. , Changes in American Farming, Misc. Publication NO. 707’ UOSODOAO’ Eeequ, 113811., Bio—CO, Dec. 19119, p. 150 The increase in the use of tractors for general purpose has been in- creased as shown in Table XXVI. . TABLE XXVI REPORTS OF morons, INDIA, 1919-521 No. of tractors Year imported 191:9 - 50 3.318 130me - The Eastern Economics, Quarterly Bulletin, New Delhi, India, Sept. 1953. IV. Conclusion The problem of cotton production in India should be examined from the short run inmediate needs and m the long run point of view. To meet the immediate needs, the smart run program deals with improving cotton production by using fertilizer, different rotations, improved varieties while the second is related mainly to labour saving devices such as machinery. The long run planning has serious implication, arising out of unemployment, finance and land tenure system. These problems can never be solved unless considered as a part of wider planning that extends its activities to all aspects not only of our economic life but also of social, cultural and political thoughts. Agricultural planning must be related to planning of industrial production and these two again can be success- ml only if they rest upon the foundation of planned credit organization and technical education. The evolution of new technique should be pushed more vigorously. The syetm of farming practiced should be examined from the point of view of the economic situation of the farmer and his capacity to make the use of technical know-how as it be come 8 available . CHAPTERV SW AND CONCLUSIONS This study represents an attempt to observe: 1) Changes in cotton production in the United States; 2) To study the main factors responsible for improvement of pro- duction in the United States; and 3) To evaluate the possible application of these factors to cotton production in India. ' Data used were obtained from United States Agricultural Statistics and different United Nations bulletins. Data on acreage yield and pro- duction of cotton in the United States and India were collected for the period from 1910 to 1952. Statistics for fertilizer application, mechani- zation costs and returns were collected from different statistical and research studies, bulletins and publications. in analysis of changes in acreage yields and production from 1910 to 1952 is presented in Chapter II. It was observed that cotton pro- chiction in the United States increased by one and one-half times in the period under consideration. Of the two elements affecting production. acreage decreased while yield per acre increased. On the regional basis a contrasting and peculiar pattern of change in- yield and acreage was observed. There was a cmtinuous shift in cotton acreage from the South- east to the Southwest and Western regions. This shift continued in the face of higher cotton prices after 1933 an! a relatively higher yield in the Southeast. With the criteria of perfect competitive conditions a reasonable conclusion is that farmers changed their pattern of cotton production to maximize profit by diverting resources towards or away from cotton depending on the availability of the alternatives available to and the importance of the cotton in the farm incane. Technological developnents on the farm appears to be responsible for increases in yield and production. Due to the unavailability of statistical data and a suitable unit for measuring technological change, qualitative analysis of the factors affecting cotton prediction was necessary. This is done in Chapter III. Technological factors were divided into two groups; one group includes factors contributing di- rectly in increasing yields and another group which included factors which contributed increasing production efficiency through the re- duction of labour requirements. It was found that the developnents of new high yielding and disease resistant varieties, developments of chemicals and insecticides to fight disease and pests, increased use of fertilizer am the new tillage techniqres have to a large extent contributed to increased yields. The second group of factors indicated that the important mechani- cal inovations like cotton pickers and harvesters permitted the develop- ment of larger sized farms and increased production per worker. Thus an increase in yields per acre and a reduction in labour required for production increased production efficiency. The analysis indicated that different regions improved production efficiency in accordance with the level of increase in yield per acre and the amount of the labour saving equipment in use. 115 It was found that anall. but intensively cultivated, man—mus operated farms in the Delta improved production efficiency substantially. At the same time highly mechanized low yielding, large size farms in the South- west were also prochlcing cotton efficiently as measured by output per man hour. The efficiency in the first case was due to high yields per acre while in the second it resulted from a reduction in labour requirements. Because of the unavailability of data in the required form, no quantative estimates of the contribution made by different factors were obtained in this sturdy. Chapter IV is devoted to an analysis of the role and the application of these factors to Indian conditions. Primary developnmts and the applicability of different factors are discussed, the analysis indicated that yield increasing factors such as improved varieties,disease controls, fertilizer applications and tillage technique are also already in prac- tice, but not on a very large scale. Illiteracy is a main obstacle to improvement. Government and especially village cooperatives encourage the farmers to use new varieties and apply new methods. It is hoped that newly formed National. Extension Service will benefit a large number of farmers. Applicability and use of other factors responsible for increasing production efficiency by reducing the amount of labour required, especially mechanization, have different economic implications. Small holdings, lack of capital and unemployment are among the most important obstacles to their adaption. Pro and con views on these implications 116 indicated that mechanization is both necessary and possible. The progess of farm mechanization in India is slow at the present time. The central and state governments have taken steps to divert and eliminate these difficulties within a reasonable period. Itimay'be pointed out at this point that through technological _ developnent in Indian Agriculture is necessary and desirable, its course should be determined by efforts to obtain economic use of available re sources. Bibliography Anstery, Vera. The Economic Developnent of India. London: Longnans, Greer and Company, I939. Chang, Pei-Kang. Agriculture and Industrialization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: HarvarfUniversity Press, 1919. Clark, Colin. The Conditions of Economic Progress. London: Macmillan Company, 191:0. Driver, P. N. Pmblems of Gamindari and Land Tenure Reconstruction. Bombay: New Bo—ok Company, Ith, 191$. Ellsworth, P. T. International Economy. New York: Macmillan Company 1950. Fulmer, John L. and Ralph R. Botts. Analysis of Factors Influencing Cotton Yields and Their Variability. Teamical Bulletin th2, Gray, Roger W., V. L. Sorenson and Willard W. Cochrane. An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Government Programs on the Potato Indust of the Unitéd StatEs. Technical Bulletin 211, Universityo esota, line 19514. Halcrow, Harold A. Agricultural Policy of the United States. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1953. Jathar, G. B. and M. A. Beri. Elementary Principles of Economics. Madrass: Oxford University Press, 19h8. Jathar, G. B. and M. A. Beri. Indian Economics. Madrasss (India), Oxford University Press, Vol. I. Nanavati and Anyeria. Indian Rural Roblem. (In regional language) Maharastra Grouth Bhandaerolhapur (Bud). Narayauswani, B. V. and P. S. Narasiguham. The Economics of Indian Agriculture, Part I 8: II. Madrass: Richouse & Sonsffitd" I9h6. Royall, Brandis, "Cotton Competition - U. S. and Brazil, 1929-1910." Journal of Farm Economics, Vol. XXXIV, February 1952. Shrikhande, M. S. Indian Rural Pr0blem.( In regional language) Maharastra Grouth Bhandar, Kolhapur (India) Henry W. Cotton Production in India, Foreign Agriculture SReport ants, U.S.D .A.‘,“fiasrangten,m. 0., March 1950. llb Schultz, T. W. The Economic Organization of Agriculture. New York: McCraw-Hill BooE Company, 132., 1953. Technology on the Farm. A special report by B.A.E., U.S.D.A., U. S. Tovernmenf Printing Bffice, August 19h0. Tiber, Scitovslqr, Welfare and Competition. Richard Irwin Company, Inc. Chicago (Illinois, 1951. Wadia and Merchant. Our Economic Problem. Bombay: New Book Company, Ltd., l9h8. ~.-,---_, "a A u. Hialeah? Li; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IIILHIIIIIIII 26 3 1293 O3 03 7