"COTTON AND `CAWN" A spot map of the distribution of corn shows that it is cultivated in all portions of the Cotton Belt although there is no such concentration as found in the Corn Belt reaching through Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. Baker esti mates that 48 to 52 per cent of the crop land in the Cotton Belt is given over to the production of feed for live stock.' This includes cotton seed, however, which is estimated to occupy about 6 per cent of the crop area. In areas of less intensive specialization corn often occu pies an area equal to that of cotton. The farming system is based upon the two crops which are "planted in suc cession or alternation until the productiveness of the soil is reduced." 41 The Belt does not produce enough corn to supply its own needs. As a result the price of corn in the Cotton Belt is often twice as high as in the Corn Belt. On the other hand, the production per acre is about half that of the Corn Belt. Dr. Baker suggests that "the pro duction of corn, hay, cattle, and hogs in the Cotton Belt appears likely to be profitable only up to that point at which the supply of these products does not exceed the local demand." 42 H. C. Taylor also suggests that corn may pay when grown for home use and yet fail to achieve a place as a commercial crop." The northern and western fringes of this Belt are devoted to combination crops of wheat, rye, and oats. These are exceeded in acreage fur ther south by cow peas, velvet beans, and peanuts. Sweet potatoes are evenly distributed throughout the humid portions of the whole Cotton Belt. The facility and abundance with which these "by-products" crops can be grown in the South is responsible for the fact which W. E. Dodd notes when he says that "the problem of subsistence during the Civil War was much simpler than in any of the European countries fighting in the Great War." " Rainfall, however, limits southern agriculture in the production of hay. The higher rainfall for all except the Western area of the Cotton Belt results in autumn show ers that make the growing of hay extremely hazardous.
"In all the states from North Carolina to Louisiana many farmers attempt to produce hay," but a large part of the crop is lost each year in the curing and much of the rest is damaged by untimely rains. More dependable autumn weather is found in states further from the At lantic and the Gulf, particularly Arkansas, Oklahoma, and parts of Texas, all of which have larger acreages of hay. As a result, the relative proportion of crop land devoted to hay in the cotton states is the smallest in the United States. Not enough hay is produced for home use, and much has to be imported from the Middle West. Since the freight charges often equal the original cost, southern planters pay a high price for their hay. If methods of curing suitable to the climate were worked out, hay would be more generally grown. It would, how ever, be valuable as a cash crop if only a few farmers in each community grew it for market." Excessive rainfall is the main regional factor re sponsible for ruining a great deal of southern farm land. It is estimated that in the Cotton Belt in the decades since 1860 "erosion has destroyed an area equal to that of Belgium." Regional factors combine with the tenancy system to allow the fields to wash away. Southern soils are peculiarly liable to leaching. Iowa, for instance, has thirty inches of rainfall a year, and her soils are frozen impervious to water all winter ; the cotton states have fifty to sixty inches of rainfall and winters that are nearly frostless. Grass serves to retain the soil, but cot ton and corn are two crops which require that vegetation be weeded out. Thus agriculture without grass and with out humus has been combined with a tenant-landlord sys tem to ruin thousands of acres. Gullies best described in the term "red washes" have reduced many of the best upland farms to sandy wastes."