J CATALOGED August 1352 UNITED STATED DEPARTMENT Of <\GRICULTU! Bureau of Agricultural hcuriuuuoa — — . Washington, D. C. VARIABILITY OF CtlTON YIEIDS By Counties, in the United States By Ralph R. Botte, Agricultural Economist This is the third in a series of reports on the ■variability of county yields, by crops, over a relatively long period of time. The previous reports dealt with wheat and corn.l/ The variability index used in each report has been the coefficient of variation. 2/ In general, the average yields and coefficients of variation, shown by counties in tables 2-17, are based on county yieldu ner planted acre for 1929-50. Although no adjustment for trend was made in the data, a procedure for estimating the effect of trend on the variability of yields is included on pages 2 and k .jj The calculations were made for ail counties in which more tnan 2,000 acres of cotton were harvested in 3$J*9> as shown by census reportB, except for a few counties for which five or more years of yields were missing during 1929-50. Indices of variability in yields (coefficients of variation) provide an indication of the relative yield risk among counties. For counties in which cotton is a major crop, these indices should be useful in appraising land values, in studies of crop insurance, and as background information for studies in which yield uncertainty is an important consideration. Potential users of this information include lending agencies and research workers in crop insurance and farm management who are concerned with the measurement of risk costs. The relative nature of the coefficient of variation as an index of yield risk is illustrated by the following example. Suppose that the average yield for each of two counties is 300 pounds; but that the co- efficient of variation is kO percent in county A and 20 percent in county B. According to normal distribution logic, two-thirds of the annual yields 1/ "Variability of Wheat Yields, by Counties, in the United States," and { "Variability of Corn Yields, by Counties, in the United States." 2/ Standard deviation of annual county yields divided by the average ' county yield for the period. 3/ Attention is also directed to the average yields (1938-^6) that are shown, by counties, in United States Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1042 . The county coefficient's of variation shown in that report are based on deviations from trend (standard error of estimate of trend values expressed as a percentage of average yield). The slope of the trend values is also shown, by counties, in that bulletin. - 2 - for county A might b© expected to fall between SO and lUO percent of the average, or between lBo and 420 pounds - a range of 2^0 pounds. With the same average yield, but with a coefficient of variation of only 20 percent, two-thirds of the annual yields for county B might be expected to fall between 60 and 120 percent of average, or between 2^0 and 3 60 pounds - a range of only 120 pounds. Therefore, with the same average yield (300 pounds), the range within which two-thirds of the annual yields might be expected to fall is twice as great for county A as for county B. Regional Differences in Yield Risk General differences in the degree of yield risk are shown in figure l.j/ The greatest relative variability in county yields has occurred in Texas and Oklahoma. The variability decreases - in general - from west to east. In areas in which all acreage of cotton is ordinarily irrigated, the variability is less than in areas in which the proportion of the total acreage of cotton irrigated varies materially from year to year and is much less than in areas where cotton is grown without irrigation. The upward trend in yields has been n- re pronounced in tho East than in the West. Increased use of fertilizer, better selection of land, and wider use of improved varieties have contributed toward these increased yields. In the Carolinas, yields apparently have been somewhat more variable in counties in the Coastal Plain than in counties in the Piedmont area. In South Carolina, part of this greater variability has apparently been due to the stronger upward trends in annual yields and the lower average yields that have occurred in the Coastal Plain than in the Piedmont area. In North Carolina, the greater variability in yields in Coastal Plain counties has occurred despite the stronger upward trends in annual yields and the higher average yields in the interior counties. Data in the tables included in this report may be used to make comparisons between counties. Estimated Reduction in Coefficient of Variation if Based Upon Devictiona from Trend Values Rflther than Upon Deviations from Average Yield If a substantial trend in annual county yields existed, a coefficient of variation based upon (A), the squared deviations of the annual yields from the average yield, would be substantially higher than one based on (B), the squared deviations from trend. As previously indicated, method (A) was used to compute tho coefficients of variation shown in the appendix tables of this report. However, for purposes of comparison, computations based on method (B) were also made for every fifth county. The results are summarized in table 1. \f Counties that are shaded alike hnd coefficients of variation that fell within the same coefi'icient-of -variation interval. - 3 - CO o 22 * -o ._ ■< h- a> 4) z • o > u a. Q.O o o "O o E- cn ro c 7 LU O 1 1 1 o **J O. _E° o o o O cn n ^ u. o O «o u 00 >- o* ^ z u D < O -o u -o o LL (/) o 1_ a. 00 < < o - k - The steeper the slope of the trend line through annual yields, the greater would be the difference between the coefficients of variation com- puted by the two methods. Only Ik of the l^U counties had a downward rather than an upward trend in annual yields during 1Q29-50- Nine of these lh counties were west of the Mississippi River. In about half of the 1*& counties the coefficient of variation would have been reduced by less than 5 percent if based on method (B) rather than on method (A). In 72 percent of the counties the reduction would have amounted to less than 10 percent. For all I5U counties, the reduction in the coefficient averaged 7.6 percent. The correlation between the slope of the trend line (used in method B) and the percentage reduction in the coefficient of variation, using (B) rather than (A), was O.89, so that 79 percent of the difference in the per- centages was accounted for by the slope of the trend line. Those who have need for a coefficient of variation based upon deviations from trend rather tnan upon deviations from average yield, will find the following regression equation useful: P„ » 2.79S - 1.08 where "P " is the percentage reduction r r in the coefficient of variation if based on trend, and "S" is the slope of the trend line through annual yields. As an example, the (upward) trend in cotton yields during 1929-50 averagod 5 pounds per acre per year in Cherokee County, Ala. The above formula indicates that the coefficient of variation (22 percent) shown in table 2 would be reduced by about 13 percent if the squared deviations from trend had been used in the calculations instead of the squared deviatiore from average yield. Such a coefficient of variation would be estimated, there- fore, at 19.1 percent in comparison with the 22 percent shown in table 2.^/ Using actual county yield data for these years, it was found that the co- efficient of variation based on deviations from trend was 19 percent, which compares closely with the 19-1 percent computed for this county by use of the formula. £/ 2?(1 - .13) = 19.1 percent . - 5 Table 1.- Relationship between (I) slope of trend line through ' county yields and (2) percentage reduci i' Q in coefficient of variation If based on (A) deviations from trend values, rather than (B) deviations from average county yield Percentage reduction in coefficient of variation Slope of tread line 1 p baa< jd on (A) deviations from trend rath through annual 1 Coun- ties than upon (B) deviations f. "om c-verage yiold yields 25 per- Less than '3-9.9 10-1U.9 15-2U. 9 cent or Average 5 percent percent percent percent over percent Number Number of counties Number of counties Number of counties Number of counties '.' iml r of counties Percent Upward trend 7 pounds or over 1 13 1 5 8 27.9 6-6.9 pounds 8 3 3 2 18.6 5 - 5.9 do. 9 7 2 12.6 1* > k.g do. 18 1 9 . 6 2 10.0 3 - 3-9 do. 18 5 10 1 2 7.9 2 - 2.9 do. 29 11+ 13 2 5.0 1 - 1.9 do. 26 2k O c 2.5 Less than 1 pound 19 19 0.5 Downward trend Less than 1 pound 1? 12 • 0.3 1-1.9 pounds ^ 1 c 2 • 1.6 Total 15*» 77 3U 19 1U ' 10 7.6 Percent of counties 100.0 50.0 22.1 12.3 9.1 6.5 XX Average percentage reduction XX 1.7 7.3 11. U 19.1 . 31.3 7.6 ALABAMA Table 2.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotron acreage lierveeted as percentage of ;ropland h&rvested, 1949, b v counties County Autauga . . Baldwin . . Berbour . . Bibb . . . Blount . . Bullock . . Butler . . Calhoun . . Chambers Cherokee Chilton . . Choctaw . . Clarke . . Clay . . . Cleburne Coffee . . Colbert . . Conecuh . . Coosa . . . C ovine ton . Crenshaw Cullman . , Dale t . , Dallas . , De Kalb . . Elmore . , Escambia Etowah . , Fayette . . Franklin Geneva . , Greene Hale . . . Henry . . , Houston . . Jackson . , Jefferson , Lamar . . Lauderdale Average yield Pounds 207.7 226.3 163.7 222.6 292.4 139.9 197.0 221.1 19^.8 287.9 233.8 170.5 180.8 208.6 212.4 205.1 278.8 204.1 179.9 202.6 192.5 337.8 I89.O 192.1 345.8 228.4 232 2 280.9 228.0 252.0 230.4 166.6 209.0 213.0 235.3 283.I 246.6 232.6 251.3 Coefficient of variation Percent 30 31 30 31 26 3* 3* 21 28 22 26 37 36 18 20 27 29 30 28 29 28 26 27 39 27 20 27 26 31 25 29 26 32 24 22 26 26 28 22 Cotton acreage har- vested as percental of cropland harvested n Percent 25 3 13 27 39 24 22 30 33 47 24 22 15 20 27 18 55 22 18 17 21 V7 9 35 37 36 22 38 30 41 20 3* 15 21 3* 22 38 48 (Continued) - 7 - ALABAMA Table 2.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage- cropland harvested, 19"9, by counties - continued County Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested ae percentage of cropland harvested M Lawrence . Lee . . . Limestone Lowndes Macon . . Madison Marengo Marion . . Marshall . Mobile . . Monroe . . Montgomery Morgan . . Perry . . Pickens Pike . . . Pandolph . Russell St. Clair Shelby . . Sumter . . Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker . . Washington Wilcox . . Winston Pounds 28U 1?8 28-5 168 186 282 Vjh 2^1 351 235 21? 177 298 166 220 180 228 152 228 225 166 209 196 228 238 201 176 267 •5 ,2 .0 • 5 .0 •3 •5 .0 .7 .1 .6 .9 .3 .5 • 3 .1 .9 .6 .0 .7 .8 .1 .0 .7 -9 .5 .0 .6 Percent 27 26 25 3^ 26 2k 31 27 23 29 30 33 23 32 3^ 28 20 28 20 25 38 2k 23 29 30 29 3* 27 Percent 53 ^0 58 30 no 55 32 39 50 8 32 2k kl 26 38 18 28 31 30 29 2e 35 30 36 28 13 31 ko l/~Percentage based on census" data for 19^9. b - ARIZONA Table 3.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by counties County 1/ 1 Average 1 Coefficient ( 1 yield 1 Of | variation 1 Pounds Percent 1 1 534.9 17 1 1 423.0 31 1 1 1*59.8 32 1 I 551-0 29 1 1 423.8 3* 1 1 397-7 1 23 1 Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested iL Graham . Greenlee Maricopa Pima 2/ Pinal . Yuma . . Percent 72 55 32 75 75 7 l/~0nly counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 19^9 are shown. Less than this acreage was harvested in all unlisted counties except Cochise and Santa Cruz, which are not shown because 5 ° r more years of yields were missing. 2/ Percentage based on census data for 19^9- 2/ Average yield and coefficient of variation based on data for periods 1923-31 and 1933-50. - 9 - ARKANSAS Table k.- Average yield and coefficient of .-variation of annual v1 elds, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9 , by counties County 1/ Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2/ Pounds Arkansas . . Ashley . . . Bradley . . Calhoun . . Chicot . . . Clark . . . Clay . . . . Cleburne . . Cleveland Columbia . . Conway . . . Craighead . Crittenden . Cross . . . Dallas . . . Desha . . . Drew .... Faulkner . . Fulton . . . Grant . . . Greene . . . Hempstead Hot Spring . Howard . . . Independence Izard . . . Jackson . . Jefferson . Johnson . . Lafayette Lawrence . . Lee .... Lincoln . . Little Elver Logan . . . Lonoke . . . Miller . . . Mississippi Monroe . . . Nevada . . . 227 270 183 I69 271 190 319 166 162 175 355 392 3kk 173 293 216 189 183 168 319 171 176 151 210 180 21+5 297 170 ?.ok 2hQ 291 252 167 160 258 196 1*36 258 157 • 5 .k .7 .9 .6 .7 .5 .h .1 .0 .1 .6 .9 .1 • 3 .8 .9 .5 .7 .7 .7 .7 .h •7 .5 .6 .0 • 3 .8 ■ 1 .9 .6 • 9 .h .8 .h .0 .k .2 .1 Percent 33 33 29 28 . 33 3^ 26 35 30 22 35 • 23 • 32 3^ 30 31 35 31 37 29 27 29 32 28 31 38 27 33 1+2 28 29 30 32 27 37 30 27 25 3^ 26 Percent 8 51 kl 52 59 3^ kl 32 si hi 38 56 69 kh ko 58 hi 11 27 hk 42 19 22 25 28 57 72 5 68 41 61 65 37 10 53 60 61 58 *3 ^Continue dT - 10 - ARKANSAS Table *.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-50, and cotton acreage harveoted as percentage of cropland harvoeted, 1949, by counties - continued County 1/ i Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested ___£/ Pounds Ouachita . , Perry . . , Phillips . , Pike . . . , Poinsett . , Pope . . . , Prairie . , Pulaski . , Randolph . , St. Francis Sevier . . , Sharp . , , Union . . , Van Buron White . . , Woodruff . , Yell . . . , 158 163 300 I3U 409 158 235 260 252 r*8 138 182 169 152 198 264 I83 .U .3 .6 .7 .0 .5 .4 .8 .4 • 7 .8 -3 .0 .7 .9 >9 Percent 29 36 31 31 25 35 . 35 30 31 31 30 37 30 . 39 29 27 31 Percent 38 19 64 16 56 21 16 53 35 64 16 32 3* 21 46 52 25 l/~~0nly counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 1949 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for 1949* - 11 - CALIFORNIA Table 5.- Avorage yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreago harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 1949, by counties County 1/ Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested i/ Fresno . Kern . . Kings . , Madera . , Merced. . , Riverside Tulare . , Pounds 567.0 652.8 574.4 495.1 41+0.6 367.2 558A Percont 20 15 15 17 25 30 14 Percent 29 50 36 30 14 3 37 l/~0nly countIes~with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in I949 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I949. FLORIDA Table 6.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 1949, by counties County 1/ Cotton acreage har- 1 Average Coefficient vested as percentage 1 yield of of cropland harvested variation _ 1/ 1 Pounds Percent Percent 1 200.1 32 12 1 179.0 31 15 1 170.9 27 6 1 111.8 32 • 4 1 130.9 31 6 1 I62.9 28 14 1 184.6 32 16 1 154.4 t 30 11 Escambia . Holmes . . Jackson Jefferson Madi son . Okaloosa . Santa Rosa Walton , . l/"~0nly counties"wi th more~than 2,000 acres of "cotton harvested in 1949 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I949. - 12 - GE0R3IA Table 7.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1923-50^ and cotter acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by counties 1 1 Cotton acreage har- t 1 Average 1 Coefficient ( vested as percentage County 1/ , yleld 1 of of cropland harvested variation __ _iZ 1 Pounds 1 Percent 1 Percent Appling ! 201-9 1 28 1 18 Atkinson 1 m.5 1 37 i 9 Bacon . . , 1 205-6 ! 28 I 14 Baker . . 1 161.2 ! 3* 1 5 Baldwin . i 190.6 25 1 16 Banks . . 1 225.0 1 25 28 Barrow . 258.7 i 17 36 Bartow . 1 257.5 22 I 51 Ben Hill 206.1 ! 20 18 Berrien . I 203.0 30 7 Bibb . , 2C6.7 ! 25 11 Bleckley 1 21U.0 i ^0 a Brooks I 210.4 ! 27 12 Bulloch . . 1 232. 1 1 24 17 Burks . . , I 226.0 ; 24 37 Butts , . , , 1 238.O ! 24 31 Calhoun . 1 215.1 1 22 9 Caniler . , 1 211.1 i 25 24 Carroll . : 248.7 i 21 31 Catoosa . . 1 250.5 i 26 18 Chattooga 1 258. k ! 26 38 Cherokee i 230.9 ! 26 21 Clarke . 1 231. k i 26 1 25 Clay . . 1 208.1 1 26 9 Clayton . 1 201. k 1 23 1 17 Cobb . . 1 224.7 1 25 20 Coffee . 1 202.9 1 33 13 Colquitt 1 249.4 1 24 1 18 Columbia 1 I84.5 1 30 23 Cook . . .1 221.8 1 29 11 Ccweta . 1 229.1 ! 19 26 Crawford 1 1^8.9 30 1 11 Crisp .... 1 229.3 1 20 20 Decatur . . 1 155. 4 i 37 3 Dodge . . 1 200.2 1 25 1 2h Dooly . . , 1 222.0 1 20 26 Dougherty 1 175.0 1 24 6 Douglas . 1 221.0 1 22 22 Early . . . 1 210.5 1 25 15 (Continued) - 13 - GEORGIA Table J.- Avorage yield and coefficient of variation of annual ylolde, I928-5O, and cotton acreage uarvooted aa por contain of cropland hervestod, 1949, by countiee - continued County 1/ Avorage yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested / Pounds Effingham , Elbert . , Emanuel . , Evans . . , Fayette . , Floyd . . , Forsyth . , Franklin , Fulton . , Glascock , Gordon . , Grady . . , Greene . , Gwinnett . Hall . . , Hancock . , Haralson . Harris . , Hart . . , Heard . . , Henry . . . Houston . . Irwin . , Jackson . . Jasper . , Jeff Davis Jefferson , Jenkins . , Johnson . , Lamar . . , Laurens . , Lee . . . , Lincoln . , Lowndes . , McDuffie , Macon . . , Madisori . , Marion . , Meriwether Miller . , 194 210 186 210 241 238 242 240 233 218 281 188 195 228 215 199 253 179 257 210 245 I89 23O 218 237 199 222 227 213 205 211 186 192 204 227 199 253 I65 209 192 • 9 .4 .0 .6 .0 • 3 .5 • 3 .7 .0 .9 .4 .8 .1 .8 .1 .8 .7 .4 .0 .6 .0 • 9 • 5 .6 .4 .6 .0 .1 .3 .8 .2 .4 .0 •3 .2 .4 .2 .5 .0 Pcrcont 28 27 27 26 21 21 25 22 20 26 21 24 22 16 23 23 23 26 27 19 24 24 23 17 24 30 24 25 26 24 25 26 22 29 24 27 22 29 23 29 Percent 11 33 28 13 32 38 28 33 21 35 46 4 24 60 23 3 4 32 17 36 27 3* 13 17 37 29 14 31 32 38 20 31 6 25 6 36 21 35 18 32 6 (Continuod) - Ik - G] >RGIA Table 7.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland liar vested, 1949, by counties - continued County 1/ Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested U. Mitchell . Monroe . . Montgomery Morgan . . Murray . . Newton . . Oconee . . Oglethorpe Paulding . Peach . . Pickens Pierce . . Pike . . . Polk . . . Pulaski . Putnam . . Randolph . Richmond . Rockdale . Schley . . Screven Seminole . Spalding . Stewart . Sumter . . Talbot . . Taliaferro Tattnall . Taylor . . Telfair . Terrell Thomas . . Tift . . . Toombs . . Treutlen . Troup . . Turnor . . Twiggs . . Upson . . Pounds 207 I85 18? 258 256 256 244 222 246 223 207 202 221 264 209 217 202 219 240 194 232 202 227 171 228 149 171 203 203 187 259 206 242 200 187 163 222 158 173 .0 .6 .0 .3 .8 .0 .9 .0 .9 .9 .0 .5 .8 .0 .6 .0 .8 .2 .0 .4 .4 .7 .4 .4 .2 • 9 .9 .2 • 3 •3 .4 .0 .8 .4 .1 .0 • 3 •3 .6 Percent 27 28- 26 20 ■ 26 21 21 24 24 25 27 26 23 25 24 21 25 21 24 27 27 26 21 31 22 24 25 24 27 29 22 28 22 25 28 23 23 28 29 Percent 9 17 19 49 31 32 39 30 35 7 27 9 29 46 29 22 9 24 31 24 31 11 17 9 16 16 30 12 23 16 17 6 12 25 23 15 16 20 11 (Continued) - 1! - GEORGIA Tattle 7.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I926-50, and cotton acreage harvested ae percenter^ ol croplend harvested, 19^9, by countleu - continued County 1/ Walker . . Walton . . Warren . . Washington Wayne . . Webster . Wheeler Whitfield Wilcox , . Wilkes ". . Wilkinson Worth . . Avorago yield Pounds 272.2 278.6 237.2 216.1 213.1 159. h I89.9 252. k 205.1 188.0 168.2 222.6 Coefficient of variation Percent 23 20 23 23 • 29 31 33- 21 20 • 19 28 2k Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested Porcont 21 k 9 k3 29 19 6 15 22 25 28 Ik 18 l/ Only counties with more than 2,000 acres" of cotton harvested in 19^9 are shown. • • 2/ Percentage based on census data for I9U9. ,n - 16 - LOUISIANA Table 8.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by parishes Parish 1/ Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2Z Acadia .... Avoyelles . . Bienville . . Bossier . . . Caddo .... Caldwell . . . Catahoula . . Claiborne . . Concordia . . De Soto . . . East Carroll . East Feliciana Evangeline . , Franklin . . . Grant .... Iberia .... Jackson . . . Lafayette . . Lincoln . . . Madison . . . Morehouse . . Natchitoches . Ouachita . . . Points Coupee Rapides . . . Red River . . Richland . . . Sabine .... St. Helena . . St. Landry . . St. Martin . . Tensas .... Union .... Vermillion . . Vornon .... Washington . . Webster . . . West Carroll . West Feliciana Winn Pounds 269 296 11+7 248 268 266 276 155 309 I56 335 17^ 260 274 234 200 155 254 I5U 318 298 255 266 289 319 212 269 167 162 264 246 334 171 220 168 212 160 286 160 165 .6 .6 .6 .4 .6 • 5 .4 .7 • 3 .0 .5 .8 .4 • 3 .9 .2 .4 • 5 .0 • 5 .8 .1 •3 .0 .6 .1 .4 .4 .4 • 9 .6 .0 .6 .6 .6 • 9 • 3 .7 .8 .1 Porcent 3^ 38 35 31 29 32 35 27 39 37 32 39 3* 27 39 38 32 3* 30 35 3* 33 30 42 39 3* 29 35 36 39 *5 27 29 29 3* 36 40 26 42 3* Percent 13 • 4 • 38 59 65 • 47 51 46 52 49 57 17 24 62 32 4 23 28 39 46 56 5* 52 25 39 50 65 30 17 31 18 46 1 16 20 40 51 9 22 l/~0nly parlshos with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvosted Tn 1949 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I949. - 1 MISSISSIPPI Table 9.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9 * ^ v counties County if Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland nor vet? IL Adams Alcorn . . . . Amite Attala . . . . Benton . . . . Bolivar . . . . Calhoun . . . . Carroll . . . . Chickasaw . . . Choctaw .... Claiborne . . . Clarke . . . . Clay . . . . . Coahoma .... Copiah .... Covington . . . He Soto .... Franklin . . . Grenada .... Hinds Holmes .... Humphreys . . . Issaquena . . . Itawamba . . . Jasper .... Jefferson . . . Jefferson Davis Jones Kemper .... Lafayette . . . Lamar Lauderdale . . Lawrence . . . Leake . . . Lee Leflore . . , . Lincoln .... Lowndes .... Madison .... Pounds 200 25U 199 205 2^3 340 232 211 214 190 209 202 180 368 192 231 287 182 224 219 271 326 278 225 214 209 240 239 179 227 221 191 232 232 246 351 197 199 222 .6 .3 .5 .6 .4 .2 .6 .0 .8 .9 .5 • 9 .0 .8 .7 .4 .4 .8 • 3 .4 .9 • 3 .2 .8 .6 • 3 .0 .3 .4 .6 .8 .0 .9 .0 .9 .5 .2 .0 Percent 42 30 39 35 28 29 39 34 42 43 38 40 44 30 35 36 30 41 36 36 28 30 33 36 37 39 39 31 24 33 36 39 37 3^ 3^ 30 37 37 3^ Percent 22 41 30 37 39 67 30 33 32 27 ?6 20 26 74 26 39 52 16 42 • ^3 47 • 83 54 37 ■ 26 27' 42 26 33 42 18 25 35 ' 43 *3 58 26 31 46 (Continued) - 1. MISSISSIPPI Tablo ^.- Avorogo yiold and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-5 , and cotton acroago harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by counties - continued County l/ Average yield Coefficient of variation I Cotton acreage har- I vested as percentage I of cropland harvested li Marlon . . . Marshall . . Monroe . . . Montgomery . Neshoba . . Nov ton . . . Noxubee . . Oktibbeha . Panola . . . Perry 3/ . Pike . . . Pontotoc . . Prontlss . . Qui tmon . . Rankin . . . Scott . . . Sharkey . . Simpson . . Smith . . . Sunflower Tallahatchlo Tate .... Tippah . . . Tishomingo . Tunica . . . Union . . . Walthall . . Warren . . . Washington . Wayne . . . Wobetor . . Wilkinson . Winston . . Yalobusha Yazoo . . . Pounds 225.7 227.4 221.6 200.8 220.8 216.2 188. 4 I58.O 255.0 195.7 199.8 231.1+ 248.4 342.9 222.6 23U.O 3U5.O 233.4 2^9.6 336.9 301.8 281.6 236. 4 239.0 370.5 241.0 233.5 250.2 355.8 206.5 216.4 I87.O 210,6 215.5 269.2 Per cent 36 32 38 39 36 3^ 38 *7 33 35 38 32 36 31 35 35 31 3^ " 36 30 35 33 30 30 35 32 35 37 26 31 38 U5 40 38 32 Porcont 31 50 39 • 35 33 27 32 19 48 9 26 4i 42 7* 32 3^ 63 39 33 6Q 59 50 h3 *5 61 41 35 28 66 24 3* g l/~0niy counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested In 19^9 are shown. 2/ Porcentago based on census data for I949. '£/ Avorago yiold and coefficient of variation based on data for 1928-48. - 19 - MISSOURI Table IC1- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9- by counties County 1/ Average yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2/ Butler . . Dunklin . Mississippi New Madrid Pemiscot . Ripley 3/ Scott . . Stoddard . Pound s 301.2 371.2 1*05.3 366.3 U05.0 229.9 310.8 324.2 Percent 2U 26 33 30 25 3* 33 31 Percent 2Y 59 26 kl 66 13 17 2k 1/ Only counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 19^9 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I9U9. ^/ Average yield and coefficient of variation based on data for t % i 1928-48. - 20 - NEW MEXICO Table 11. - Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields , 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9 > by counties County 1/ 1 Average Coefficient 1 yield of variation 1 Pounds Percent, 1 1 1+1+0.3 22 1 1 506.5 19 1 1 1+10.7 22 1 1 1+1+5.2 27 1 1 11+5.3 1+9 1 1 1+1+0.0 30 1 1 105.2 51 1 1 152.1+ 37 l I 1+1+3-5 21+ 1 Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2/ Chaves . Dona Ana Eddy . . Hidalgo Lea . . Luna . . Quay . . Roosevelt Sierra . Percent 59 86 69 71+ 70 73 1+ 7 61 1/ Only counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in I9I+9 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for 19I+9. 1 - NORTH CAROLINA Table 12.- Aver • eld and coofflciont of variation of annual yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvostod as percentage of croplond harvested, I94y, by counties County 1/ Anson . . . Beaufort Bertio . . Bladen . . Cabarrus Catawba . . Chowan . . Cleveland . Columbus Cumberland Davie . . . Duplin . . Edgecombe . Franklin . Gaston . . Gates . . . Greene . . Halifax . . Harnett . . Hertford . Hoke . . . Iredell . . Johns ton . Lee .... Lenoir . . Lincoln . . Martin . . Mecklenburg Montgomery Moore . . . Nash . . . Northampton Perquimans Pitt . . . Polk . . . Richmond Robeson . . Rowan . . . Coefficient 1 Avorage of 1 yield variation 1 Pounds 1 Percent 1 278.4 1 21 1 272.0 1 40 1 306.5 r 35 1 254.8 1 33 1 287.0 1 25 . 1 328.8 1 26 1 299.9 1 3B 1 391.3 1 24 1 257.2 38 1 288.1 27 1 290.3 1 23 1 283.9 1 33 1 288.8 3^ 1 275.5 1 30 1 304.1+ 25 1 308.6 1 32 1 263.4 1 41 1 312.1 31 1 3^2.6 27 1 304.4 36 1 3^0.7 26 1 325.3 22 1 303.4 30 1 287.O 27 1 262.6 38 1 361.O 23 1 298.4 | 40 1 288.8 26 1 253.4 24 1 241.0 30 1 305.9 1 32 1 355.6 31 1 302.2 1 39 1 272.0 1 40 1 333-6 1 22 1 262.4 | 25 1 305.8 1 25 1 327.8 l 20 Cotton acreage har- vested an percentage of crocl r '.nd nf.rvestoc ... Percent 31 3 13 12 15 13 9 55 4 27 7 7 19 22 21 11 11 28 26 14 47 17 22 11 6 32 7 23 8 5 : 28 7 8 21 23 32 12 (Continued) \ - 22 - NORTH CAROLINA Table 12.- Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-^0, and cotton acrecfe harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by counties - continued County l/ rage vield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage In- vested as percentage of cropland harveste* 2/ Rutherford Sampson Scotland . Stanl\ . . Union . . Vance . . Wako . . . Warren . . Wilson . . Pounds 317.3 3O8.O 316.2 31^.7 303.6 29U.6 273.0 286.7 280.6 298.5 Percent 26 31 30 31 27 26 33 28 3^ 37 36 25 U 9 7 27 11 12 25 17 18 l/~Only counties vith more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 19^9 IT shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for 19^9. Table 13 . - 23 - OKLAHOMA Avora^o yield and couffioiont of variation of annual ylolds, l9?8-^0, and cotton acreage harvested as porcuntoge of cropland hnrvoetod, 1949 , by count! ob County 1/ Average yield I Cotton acroage har- Coofflclent ; V0B tod ae porcuntoge lof cropland harvested variation 3L Atoka . . Beckham . Blaine Bryan . . Caddo . . Canadian Carter Choctaw . Cleveland Coal . . Comanche Cotton . Creek . . Custer Dewey . . Garvin . Grady . . Greer . . Harmon . Haskell . Hughes Jackson . Jefferson Johnston Kiowa . . Latimer . Le Flore Lincoln . Logan . . Love . . McClain . McCurtain Mcintosh Marshall Mayes . . Muskogee Noble . . Okfuskee Okmulgee Pounds 104.9 150.3 158.7 115.1 166.6 168.1 97.0 119. 4 154.6 112.9 119.4 134. k 142.0 154.1 136.4 147.1 147.3 141.4 136.6 124.0 136. T 149.1 140.4 120.8 142.4 115.4 131.9 128.2 136.9 125.6 149.9 146.0 139.2 I30.0 149.2 344.5 150.7 139.5 147.3 Por 10 36 5 22 25 6 8 18 6 22 14 12 18 . 8 3 13 15 40 50 19 16 30 38 12 15 13 12 6 4 29 22 33 31 21 3 27 1 28 28 (Continued) - 2k - OKLAHOMA Table 13.- Avorage yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 1949, by counties - continued County l/ Coefficient 1 Average 1 vield of variation 1 Pounds Percent 1 181.2 48 1 Ilk. 6 4 9 1 159.7 51 1 130. k 42 1 120.U 40 1 143.O 38 1 126.4 37 1 I36.I 49 1 120 . 1 47 1 I38.6 51 1 119.2 45 1 I83.9 42 1 176.0 40 1 154.2 51 1 165.3 35 Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested IL Osage ... Pawnee . . , Payne . . . , Pittsburg . , Pontotoc . , Pottawatomie Roger Mills . Rogers . . , S-jminole . , Soquov ah . , Stephens . , Tillman . , . ju . . . , Wagoner . . . Washita . . , Percent 12 14 9 24 7 4 15 3 8 6 13 19 8 21 25 l/~0nly counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in I949 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I949. - 25 - SOUTH CAROLINA Tablo II4.- Average .yield and coefficient of v rlatioi 1 yields, I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvostod as porcontago of- cropland harvostod, 19^9, by counties Count;,- 1/ Avurago yiuld Coofficiont of variation Cotton • vestod ar of crop la ni 1 Abbeville . Aiken . . . Allendale . Anderson Bamberg . . , Barnwell . , Berkeley . , Calhoun . , Cherokee . , Chester . . , Chesterfield Clarendon . . Colleton . . Tabling ton . Dillon . . . torches tcr Edgefield . . Fairfield . . Florence . . Georgetown Greenville Greenwood . . Hampton . . . Horry . . . . Jasper . . . Kershaw . . . Lancaster . . Laurens . . . Lee . . . . Lexington . . McCormick . . Marion . . . Marlboro . . Newberry . . Oconee . . . Orangoburg Pickens . . . Eichland . . Pounds 221.6 266.2 233.0 273.5 230.5 2hk.O 2kk.2 3OO.3 289.6 276.0 25I4.I 265.8 235.9 270.5 320.9 265.O 296.6 218.8 266.3 222. h 301.0 215.1+ 2^7.5 2U8.7 k^k.O 225.0 250.0 270.7 30U.7 259.7 201.0 299.I 333-2 267.5 269.I 279.2 31^.3 227.6 Percent 29 2k 28 26 29 29 36 25 26 31 25 27 ko 32 30 37 26 30 3^ 37 25 30 29 ko 37 31 29 25 32 28 27 32 30 27 25 28 25 ■ 29 28 31 27 28 27 31 ^3 32 kl 37 20 31 38 26 31 22 10 30 23 21 5 Ik Ik 30 31 kk 20 32 55 26 37 27 33 (Continued) - 26 - SOOTH CAROLINA Tabl,. 1>.- Average :1old end coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-50, and cotton acreap rvoeted as percentage of cropland harvested, l9*+9, fcy counties - continued Countv 1/ Saluda . . . Spartanburg Sumter . . . Union . . . Williamsburg York .... Cotton acreage har- 1 Average Coefficient voe jted as percentage 1 yield of of cropland harvested variation 3l 1 Pounds Percent Percent I 26U.U 31 25 1 285.6 21 29 1 292.5 31 ^5 1 239.I 22 30 1 267.7 31 28 1 285.8 31 32 l/~~0nl> counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 19^9 arc shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I9U9. - 27 - TENNESSEE Tablo 1*.- Average yield and coefficient of . 'on of annual jrloldl, 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvosted l b para •ntago of cropland harvested, 1949, by count 1 County l/ 1 Average Coofficli-m I Id. of variation 1 Pounds Percent 1 21+5.2 29 1 226.4 27 1 301.7 28 1 ?9~<-6 32 1 361 . 3 27 1 216.6 31 1 367.: 23 1 257.6 29 : 280.8 32 1 33^6 26 1 255.7 24 1 271.6 30 1 2P6.1 31 1 316.U 29 1 29^.3 28 1 264.6 27 1 1+15.8 2Q l 378.9 28 1 276.2 22 1 280.6 25 1 212.8 23 1 273.0 31 1 301.4 27 1 316.0 26 1 266.1 27 1 2^8.9 32 1 284.6 30 1 358.1 25 1 234.8 27 I 268.0 | 28 ICotton a* har- vested ar I of cropland hcrvesie-d 2/ Bonton . . Bradlo.v Carroll Chester Crockett . Decatur Dyer . . . Fayette Franklin . Gibson . . Gilos . . Hardeman . Hardin . . Hayvood Henderson Henr:/ . . Lake . . . Lauderdale Lawrence . Lincoln McMi nn . . McNalry Madison Obion . . Polk . . . Rutherford Shelby . . Tipton . . Wayno . . Woakley Percent 17 6 33 42 51 26 39 49 11 36 14 41 26 46 *5 10 40 31 18 3 44 45 12 15 6 51 51 16 11 1/ Only counties wltn more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 1949 arc shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for I949. 3 - TEXAS Table 15.- Averege yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields, 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 1949, by counties County l/ Coefficient Average of 1 • ield vr.rio.tion 1 Founds Percent 1 124.3 33 1 103. 4 49 1 I85.6 29 1 1C2 . 1 47 1 188.8 32 1 153-2 ^3 1 118.6 33 1 142.5 53 1 134.0 47 1 152.7 20 1 113.5 35 1 133.0 54 1 117.5 22 1 144.1 28 1 209.5 51 1 197.5 25 1 147-5 45 1 92.9 42 1 IO9.3 33 1 18O.9 29 1 110.7 19 1 146.4 31 1 194.5 45 1 114.7 44 1 256.O 35 1 115.8 32 1 137.8 27 1 157.3 56 1 129.2 33 1 133.7 49 1 13^.9 41 1 133.5 54 1 06.4 29 ! >.8 44 1 5.2 24 1 147.2 35 1 ;.i 36 I 86. 5 27 1 130.5 39 Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested *± Anderson . Andrews *j Angelina . Atascosa . Austin . . Bailey . . Bastrop Baylor . . Bee .... Bell .... Bexar . . . Borden . . . Bosque . . . Bowie . . . Brazoria . . :;os ... Briscoe . . Brooks . . . Brown . . . Burleson . . Burnet . . . Caldwell . . :oun . . Cal lahan . . Canoron . . Camp 4/ . . Cass . . . Castro ... Cherokee . . Childress .... Cochran . . Coke .... ■man . . , Lin ... , Colling . ncho 4/ , >ho ... Percent 25 35 3^ 5 34 ^3 3 1 * 17 15 44 5 71 14 47 13 61 20 36 11 57 15 49 55 10 79 38 40 6 36 61 1* 66 24 15 47 49 15 7 26 ^Continued! TEXAS Table I : .- Avorogo yiold Qnd coofflciont of •' on of I928-5O, and cotton acreage harvootod as percuntago of croplond h.rvustod, I9I+9, by counties - continued County 1/ Cooke . . Coryell . Cottle . Crosby Dallas Dow3on Boaf Smith Bolta . . Denton . . . Do Witt . . . Dickens . . . Donley . . . Duval . . . . Eastland kj Ellis . . . . El Baoo . . . Erath . . . . Falls . . . . Fannin . . . Fayette . . . Fisher 6/ . Floyd . . . . Foard . . . . Fort Bond . . Franklin . . Freestone . . Frio \J . . Gaines . . . Garza . . . . Glasscock kf Goliad . . . Gonzales . . Gra.y kj . . Grayson . . . Gregg kj . . Grimes . . . Guadalupe . . Halo . . . . Hall . . . . 2/ Average yiold Poundc* 133 120 ike nk 171 164 127 183 1*51 128 159 150 87 87 177 587 92 15*+ 172 150 138 173 162 221 129 111+ 77 117 166 123 126 121 131 156 121 166 134 181 160 .2 .k .1 • 5 .2 • 9 •3 .1 •5 •3 .1 .1+ .8 .7 • 5 .6 .0 .1+ .2 .1+ • 7 .6 .1 .1+ .6 .1+ .5 .1+ .8 • 3 .6 .1 • 9 • 3 • 3 .1+ • 5 .5 • 7 Coefficient of variation Per 33 22 52 U9 22 U2 86 32 27 k2 hi 32 26 30 20 21 39 23 33 31 *5 hS he 38 32 21+ hi 1+0 52 1+2 1+1 37 38 33 31 31+ 32 1+2 1+1+ Cot ton acreagu ). vosted as pcrc^ a of . -id harvioted Jd. rcont 13 21 61+ 59 37 78 1 83 23 23 56 3* 1+1+ 3 69 85 15 57 58 33 65 21+ 17 56 53 1+2 6 38 67 76 17 26 3 20 31 51 25 36 6Q TContinuodT - 30 - TEXAS TabL- 1*.- Avorogi Pficiont of \ ion of L violds, I928-5O, r.nd cctnon acreage harvestod as percentage of croplcnd hi I i, 19^9, "by counties - continued County 1/ Id Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage h°.r- t-ud as porcontago of cropland harvested £Z k/ Ham1 1 ton . Hardeman , rrls . , Hrrrison , Hr skull , Ha;s . . , Henderson Hidalgo Hill . . , Hockley Hood 4/ , Hopkins Houston Howard . , Hudspeth , Hunt •. . , J- ok 4/ , J'lCknon Jim Hogg Jin Wolls . Johnson . . Jonofl . . . K- rnoe . . . ilnan . . Kant .... King .... berg . . Knox .... . . . I/mb .... Leunp&aae . . La Salle 4/ . .... Loon .... Lihorty . . Limes tono . . Lubbock . . Pounds 113.1 lUl.3 I69.I+ 127.3 172.1 134.8 122.1 224.0 160.6 172.0 85.6 127.6 153.0 154.1 416. 3 157.4 103.? 178.5 86.5 131.6 147.8 141.4 116. Q 14? .a 135.6 147.8 151.8 176.4 156.5 202.6 3.4 68.6 148.2 114.3 135.2 ►5.2 129.8 131.1 207.6 Percent 21 47 34 32 46 33 35 40 18 40 38 32 28 44 23 29 31 44 41 37 22 46 37 22 51 51 30 46 31 31 23 41 30 33 26 3U 21 37 43 Percent 10 34 6 ^3 59 31 33 59 72 75 15 65 40 83 87 76 7 36 47 27 38 47 25 67 58 65 44 51 63 60 6 9 41 23 24 8 66 23 77 7JcontinuodT - 31 - TEXAS Table 1-',.- Averago yield and cou:' -.t of ■ I 'on of ie, I928-5O. and cotton acreagi of cropland h- . d, 1949, by counties - contlnuod County 1/ Lvnn McCulloch . . McLennan . . . Madison . . . Marion 4/ . . Martin . . . Mason 4/ . . Matagorda . . Maverick . . . Midland . . . Milam .... Mills y . . Mitchell . . . Montague 7/ • M rris . . . . Motley .... Nacogdochos Navarro . . . Nolan .... Nueces .... Palo Pinto 4/ Panola .... y y Parker Parmer Pecos Polk . . Presidio Rains . . . Red River . Reeves ... Refugio . . Robertson Rockwall . . , Runnels . . Rusk .... Sabine 4/ . San Augustine San Jacinto San Patricio Average Pounds 175 121 IU9 14 5 110 136 90 213 252 125 ii+e 101 1U5 118 128 145 158 150 147 232 102 135 97 1*7 20«5 I83 284 121 148 272 199 165 175 137 128 144 158 178 236 .8 .6 .4 .6 .1 .4 .7 .9 .1 • 5 .7 .8 .7 .1 .6 .4 .4 • 5 • 9 .0 .0 .0 • 9 .1 • 9 .1 .9 • 9 .8 .2 .4 .Q .6 • 5 .6 .0 .6 .9 •Tictont of ion Percent 50 *3 i 30 26 55 28 42 27 50 24 29 40 32 32 42 32 17 41 24 29 31 30 49 38 37 35 30 30 28 46 29 25 3* 31 31 29 36 32 Cotton acroago h- r- veotud ae 10 of croplnnd I %L Percent 66 13 48 31 36 85 8 24 ^3 74 46 8 72 14 36 66 29 74 h9 41 12 51 8 3 81 38 63 63 61 85 31 50 77 42 46 37 46 33 5^ ^ContinucdT - 32 - TEXAS Table 16.- Average ;. ield and coefficient of variation of r-nnual yields, I928-5O, and cotton a Btod ae percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9, by counties - continued County 1/ San Saba . . . , Schleichor . . , Scurry . . . . , Shackelford 4/ Shelby . . . . , Smith . . . . Somervell 4/ , Starr . . . . Stonewall . . , Swlshor . . . Tarrant ... Taylor . . . , Terry . . . . , Throckmorton . , Titus . . . . , Tom Green . . , ■/is . . . . ; Trinity . . . Upshur .... Uvalde 8/ . . Van Zandt . . , Victoria . . . Walker .... W- llcr .... Ward Washington . . Webb 4/ . . . Wharton . . . Wheolor . . . Wichita . . . Wilbarger . . vrniAo ... Williamson . . Wiloon .... Wis., 4/ . . . Wood Yoakum .... rage yield Fcunds 120.5 IU5.2 138.7 L09.1 157.9 121. 4 95-9 91.7 I3U.O 137.1 150.5 122.7 145.9 141.2 137.0 146.1 147.6 182.0 112.9 80.0 122.5 176.0 153.0 I80.7 221.2 168.7 1.1 222.2 141.2 177.2 190.3 235.6 166.1 104.6 109.4 123.3 113.7 Coefficient of variation Percent 30 48 *5 50 36 35 27 33 46 ^9 24 38 40 60 32 41 26 31 36 58 32 ^3 2 38 27 39 42 3^ 33 37 3* 19 45 32 36 42 Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2/ Percent 19 44 70 7 44 28 19 80 *3 7 15 23 46 11 ^3 55 51 29 31 4 50 44 42 13 85 39 22 47 25 9 33 82 59 7 5 31 30 TContinuodT - 33 - Table 16. - Avurago yield and oooffic ion of annuaj. ia, 1928-50, find cotton 1 ■ das : cropl 1, 1^9, by ' oa - continuod Count;' 1/ Avor • vlcld of Ion ■ J Young , Zap Zav V P ounds 116.6 119.1 ' r :ont k2 29 Percont 9 hi kO if Onl; counties with r.oro th^.n ? , i erus of cotton hrr. 4 in 19^+9 aro shown. Less than this acreage w' s harvested in all unlistod countios except Dimmit which is not shown "because 5 or mor ' rs of yields w missing. 2/ Percentage based on consus data for I9U9. • g ' uld and coefficient of variation based on data for I92I3-M, 19U7, hj Average yield end coefficient of variation based on data for 1928-48. nd coefficient of v 1 U ion based on data for efficient of variation based on data for - L 3, and 1°50 Average yield end coefficient of variation based on da.ta for l928--^9. 6/ Avorago : iold and coefficient of variation based on data for 1928-^5, 19U7, and If.' . - 3^ - VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA iiiiiiiii nun 3 1262 08918 7289 Table l/. -Average yield and coefficient of variation of annual yields. 1928-50, and cotton acreage harvested as percentage of cropland harvested, 19^9 > oy counties County 1/ A /e rage yield Coefficient of variation Cotton acreage har- vested as percentage of cropland harvested 2/ Brunswick . Greensville Mecklenburg Nansemond . Southampton Sussex . . Pounds 27L3 317-3 284.1 337.2 331.5 285.7 Percent 28 33 23 32 31 33 Percent 9 19 5 o 8 6 1/ Only counties with more than 2,000 acres of cotton harvested in 19^9 are shown. 2/ Percentage based on census data for 19^9 .