North Carolina tobacco report

              TOBACCO
REPORT
f965-f966
THE BULLETIN
of the
North Carolina Department of Agriculture
James A. Graham, Commissioner
Number 183 April, 1966
FOREWORD
The seventeenth annual issue of the North Carolina
Tobacco Report has been compiled and prepared by
J. H. Cyrus, in charge of the Tobacco Marketing Sec-tion,
and Roger L. Mozingo, tobacco specialist, Divi-sion
of Markets of the North Carolina Department of
Agriculture, in cooperation with the U. S. Department
of Agriculture under the AMA Matching Fund Pro-gram.
Credit is due the Cooperative Crop Reporting Ser-vice
of the North Carolina and United States Depart-ments
of Agriculture, the U. S. Tobacco Division
Agricultural Marketing Service and the Agricultural
Stabilization Conservation Service for their contri-butions.
This issue of the Tobacco Report is dedicated to
Wendell Phillip Hedrick vi^ho retired December 31,
1965, after more than 28 years of service as head of
the Tobacco Marketing Section. His vi^ide experience
and broad knowledge of tobacco around the world has
contributed much to the welfare of tobacco farmers
and the tobacco industry as a whole.
Cy^uJ^.
Commissioner of Agriculture
W. p. Hedrick Retires
W. p. (Phil) Hedrick
wlio headed the Tobacco
Marketing Section of the
North Carolina Depart-ment
of Agriculture for 28
years retired on December
31, 1965. He came to the
Department in 1937 as its
first Tobacco Marketing
Specialist and organized
the Tobacco Section. Hed-rick
served continuously in
this position except for two
years of Army service dur-ing
World War II.
During his years with
the Department of Agricul- ^- >"• Hedrick
ture, Hedrick helped tobacco farmers solve many problems and
crises related to the marketing of tobacco. Following World War
II, he was instrumental in organizing the Tobacco Advisory
Council under the authority given the N. C. Department of
Agriculture by the General Statutes. The purpose of this Council
was to bring together agricultural and related leaders who had
an interest in the welfare of the tobacco industry so that prob-lems
related to tobacco could be dealt with on an industry-wide
basis.
He was Executive Secretary of the Tobacco Advisory Council,
Secretary of the Tobacco Tax Council and member of the Board
of Tobacco Growers Information Committee. He also held mem-berships
in the N. C. Farm Bureau Federation and the N. C.
State Grange.
Mr. Hedrick is a native of Taylorsville, North Carolina. He
graduated from George Washington University in 1918 with an
A.B. degree in chemistry, and served in World War I in the
U. S. Army Gas Defense Corps. Following the first world war,
he was employed by the British American Tobacco Company in
foreign service. His first ten years with this company were spent
in China and Korea where he was employed to locate suitable
territory for the cultivation of flue-cured tobacco. From 1929
to 1933 he was assistant factory manager in Venezuela, Panama
and Costa Rica.
In 1933 Hedrick became associated with the Farm Credit
Administration in Puerto Rica where he was in charge of crop
loans. He continued in this position until 1937, when he re-turned
to the United States and joined the N. C. Department
of Agriculture.
Mr. Hedrick is now associated with the Progressive Farmer
as an editorial tobacco consultant.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
W. P. Hedrick Retires 3
Flue-Cured Tobacco Outlook, 1966 5
Burley Tobacco Outlook, 1966 9
Marketing Flue-Cured Tobacco Under Acreage-Poundage Quotas 10
State Summary, 1965-66 14
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouse Sales Report, 1965-66 16
Summary of Dealer and Warehouse Resales, 1965 18
Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured Tobacco By States, 1965 18
Stabilization Receipts by Belts, 1965 , 19
Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19
Burley Movement In and Out of North Carolina 19
North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops, 1919-1965 20
North Carolina Burley Crops, 1928-1965 21
North Carolina Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments, 1966 22
North Carolina Burley Tobacco Allotments, 1966 24
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses and Operators
By Belts and Markets 25
Domestic Cigarette Consumption By Kinds, 1965 Back Cover
For free distribution by the Tobacco Section,
Markets Division, North Carolina Depart-ment
of Agriculture, Raleigh, N. C.
4/66—6M
4
Flue-Cured Situation and Outlook 1966
Flue-cured tobacco farmers had a new experience during 1965
as they produced and marketed their first crop under the acreage-poundage
program. A year that started out with much grumbling
and dissatisfaction among farmers toward acreage-poundage
quotas found most growers happier with the program by the
time the marlteting season had come to a close.
One thing that created a better feeling toward the new pro-gram
was the fact that a large percentage of the flue-cured
growers came up short of their 1965 quotas. So they were able
to salvage and bring forward to 1966 approximately 96 million
pounds of quota that would have been lost forever under the
old acreage program. The amount of over-marketing into the
10 percent overage was only about 27 million pounds according
to the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service.
In evaluating the first marketing season under acreage-pound-age
quotas, it is generally agreed that the program operated
very satisfactorily. The record shows that the smoking qualities
and usability of the offerings were the best in a number of
years. There was also an increase in buyer demand and accept-ability
of the crop that resulted in a $6 per hundred increase in
average price over the previous year. The acreage-poundage
program definitely improved the attitude and confidence of the
domestic and export buyers toward U. S. flue-cured tobacco, and
started the whole tobacco program moving in the right direction
again.
Supply Decreases
The 1965-66 total flue-cured supply of 3,615 million pounds
is down about four percent from the record 1964-65 level of
3,774 million pounds. This drop in total supply of 159 million
pounds represents the first improvement in the flue-cured sur-plus
since 1961.
The supply of 3,615 million pounds is still just slightly short
of a three-year supply compared to the current domestic and
export disappearance. Based on the 1965 experience, it will
take several years yet to bring the total supply back to a normal
2.5 years level. However, with quotas based on poundage, the
supply can be more effectively kept in line with demand. So
there is no reason why the surplus should not be cleared up over
a period of about three years. In fact, the carryover of flue-cured
I
at the beginning of the new market year on July 1, 1966, will
likely be down to around 2,350 million pounds, or about 200
million pounds less than in mid-1965. It should be realized that
the surplus was built up over a period of three or four years,
and it must be taken off at about the same rate to prevent an
economic repercussion.
The acreage-poundage program which was approved by 73.7
percent of the growers voting in a referendum in May of 1965
called for a quota of 1,126 million pounds in 1965. However,
growers marketed only 1,060 million pounds. This drop below
the quota was due directly to the fact that the change to acreage-poundage
came late in the season after many farmers had
planted their crops. Therefore, they could not take advantage of
the acreage restored in the switch from a straight acreage con-trol
to the acreage-poundage program. More than 40,000 acres
of the 607,000 alloted under acreage-poundage last year went
unplanted. If growers had planted closer to their allotments last
year, with a national flue-cured yield of 1,933 pounds per acre,
they would have marketed about 105 percent of the 1965 quota.
Stabilization Stocks
The Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corpora-tion
started reducing its stocks in 1965 from the record level of
958 million pounds held on January 1 of last year. Sales by
Stabilization during 1965, which amounted to 152 million pounds,
were the largest since 1961. This reduced Stabilization's stocks
to 877 million pounds on January 1, 1966, including 71 million
pounds received from the 1965 crop.
Stabilization incorporated two changes in their sales policy
for 1966 in order to take advantage of the current world market
situation. The first change was to offer certain specified inven-tories
to the trade on sealed bids with Stabilization retaining
the right to reject unacceptable bids. Tobacco offered in this
categoi-y includes all I'emaining stocks of the 1957 crop, and
the export grades from the 1958 and 1959 crops. The total
amount offered on sealed bids amounted to about 57.5 million
pounds. All of this tobacco is offered on a "where is, as is" basis
with no recourse upon Stabilization.
In order to further encourage exports, the second change in
sales policy involved a $5 per hundred refund to any exporter
on any grades of tobacco exported from the 1960, 1961 and 1962
crops. In this transaction, exporters must submit documented
proof of exportation to qualify for the refund.
During the first two months of 1966, Stabilization sold 44
million pounds of tobacco which was more than double the
amount sold for the same period in 1965. This brought Stabili-zation's
stocks down to 833 million pounds on March 1, and the
prospects for moving large volumes during the remainder of this
year are very good. Furthermore, the acreage-poundage quotas
should continue to hold Stabilization's receipts from the 1966
and future crops to a minimum, which should prevent large
volumes of loan stocks from building up again in future years.
Domestic and Export Use
The total domestic and export disappearance of flue-cured
for the 1965-66 market year is estimated at 1,260 million pounds.
This is a gain of approximately 41 million pounds or three per-cent
above the total use in 1964-65.
The domestic use of flue-cured during the year ahead is ex-pected
to show a continuous increase based on the current trend
in the cigarette industry. Cigarette production in 1965 made a
remarkable recovery from the tailspin of 1964 caused by the
Surgeon General's Report, and set a new record of 561 billion
pieces. If this upward trend continues through 1966, there
should be further increases in domestic use of flue-cured during
the 1966-67 market year.
The cigarette labeling act, which went into effect January 1,
1966 requiring that all cartons and packs of cigarettes carry a
health warning, has had no noticeable effect on consumption. In
fact, the tactics of anti-tobacconists seem to have shifted from
health warnings to that of taxing cigarettes to death. The biggest
threat to the domestic cigarette consumption today is the con-tinuous
upward spiral in state and local taxes, which range from
2.5 cents to 11 cents per pack.
Flue-cured growers took a giant step forward toward improv-ing
their export position in 1965 when they voted to accept
acreage-poundage quotas. Because of the improvements in qual-ity
and usability of the 1965 crop, there was a noticeable increase
in export demand during the marketing season. Even though
purchases were larger, export shipments during the last half of
1965 were about 11 percent behind the volume moved during
the same period a year earlier. But export movement during the
first half of 1966 is expected to more than offset this drop. There-fore,
the exports of flue-cured for the full 1965-66 market year
I
is expected to be considerably above the 444 million pounds
exported in 1964-65.
If the current unsettled situation in Rhodesia continues, the
1966-67 export demand is expected to show a substantial in-crease
over the average exports for the past several years. How-ever,
any gains made in the export market because of bans by
many countries on the purchase of the 1966 Rhodesian crop will
probably be a shoi't term gain of about one season's duration. If
and when an agreement is reached in Rhodesia, that country
will likely have a surplus of cheap tobacco that it will push into
the world market in competition with U. S. flue-cured tobacco.
Market Outlook 1966
United States flue-cured tobacco growers will sell more to-bacco
during the 1966 marketing season than in 1965 because
most growers will plant closer to their allotted acres under
acreage-poundage quotas. Practically all growers in 1965 pro-duced
their allotted yields per acre, but fell short in their total
quota because they could not plant all of the acres restored with
the approval of acreage-poundage in May. These growers will
plant closer to their allotments in 1966. Furthermore, to remove
the strain in counties where growers will estimate their acreage
in 1966, a 10 percent tolerance will be allowed. This permits a
grower to over-estimate his acreage as much as 10 percent with-out
being penalized.
Therefore, barring a disaster, flue-cured growers should have
no trouble at all producing the 1966 quota of 1,126 million
pounds plus a 69 million pound balance brought forward from
the 1965 crop. This brings the total U. S. allotted quota of flue-cured
for 1966 to approximately 1,195 million pounds. Further-more,
growers will be pei-mitted to sell 110 percent of the 1,195
million pounds, which brings the potential sales of flue-cured for
1966 to more than 1,300 million in contrast to sales of 1,060
million pounds in 1965. So when the 1966 marketing season
rolls around, buyers are likely to find an ample supply of most
grades from which they can fill their orders.
Even with a larger crop, the 1966 marketing season should
find prices well in line with those paid during the 1965 season.
This assumption is based on the anticipated strong export and
domestic demand during the 1966 marketing season plus the
(Continued on page 23)
Burley Situation and Outlook-1966
North Carolina's 18,000 burley tobacco growers experienced
one of their best auction seasons last year. They recorded an all
time high average of $66.86 per hundred with price hikes of
$1.00-$11.00 for some grades. Volume of sales were down about
four million pounds from the previous year due to weather con-ditions
which produced a thinner bodied smoking crop and a 10
percent reduction in acreage for 1965. However, the dollar value
of the 1965 crop was only slightly less than the $12 million re-ceived
for the 1964 crop because of the $10 per hundred increase
in average price.
The burley support price for 1966 has been determined by
the Secretary of Agriculture to be 60.6 cents which is two per-cent
higher than last year. This reflects the continuous increase
in cost of production. Although the support price will be higher
for 1966, there is no guarantee that prices will average as high
as in 1965 because of the large supply of burley on hand. Fur-thermore,
there is less chance of reducing the total supply in
1966 since burley acreage-poundage quotas were rejected.
Total 1965-66 burley supply is 2,026 million pounds or approxi-mately
3.3 years' supply. Although down from the 3.5 years'
ratio of 1964-65, the 1965-66 indicated ratio is still substantially
above 2.8, determined by law as the desirable ratio for burley
tobacco. The fact that the average yield in 1965 was the second
highest on record—topped only in 1963—prevented any signifi-cant
drop in the 1965-66 supply.
During the year ended September 30, 1965, domestic dis-appearance
of burley, calculated from stocks, production and
foreign trade data, was 560 million pounds, a jump of 46 million
above the previous year. Burley exports at 56 million pounds
were about one million pounds below the 1963-64 record. Foreign
competitors such as Rhodesia, Greece, Mexico and Japan con-tinue
to increase their production hoping to enter the market
on a price advantage.
On March 10, North Carolina burley growers voted by a bare
two-thirds majority favoring the acreage-poundage referendum.
However, beltwide, the referendum received only a 57 percent
favorable vote—far short of the required two-thirds. As a result
(Continued on page 24)
Marketing Flue-Cured Tobacco Under
Acreage-Poundage Quotas
The process of marketing flue-cured tobacco from the farm
through the complex channels of trade, often leaves many farm-ers
stranded on an island of confusion. Much of the confusion is
due to the highly technical world that surrounds him. This situa-tion
makes it a necessity that the grower have a general knowl-edge
of the current market trends and buying patterns as they
relate to the sequence of marketing various curings and to the
amount of farm sorting necessary under acreage-poundage
quotas in order to obtain the highest price per pound. He should
also know the meaning of terms used by the trade such as
"quality" and "usability." In addition to this trade knowledge, a
grower should have a general understanding of the U. S. Stand-ard
Grades and the interwoven relationship between the support
prices attached to the standards and the market value of tobacco
offered for sale.
Quality
The question of quality in tobacco has become a debatable one
in recent years. The quality question has caused much confusion
in the minds of growers, and no doubt it has caused many farm-ers
to fall down on the job of properly preparing their tobacco
for market. This situation is understandable because of the
complexity of the quality factor. Tobacco quality is made up of
many complex components closely related to the physical, chemi-cal
and economical aspects of the leaf, which make it desirable
or undesirable for a specific use.
Thus, we find that the term "quality" as used in the tobacco
trade today has many meanings. For instance, the definition of
quality as outlined in the specifications of the U. S. Standard
Grades goes in one direction based primarily on physical char-acteristics;
while the buying companies' idea of quality quite
often goes in a different direction, with each company having a
different definition for quality which is closely related to eco-nomics
and the purpose for which the tobacco will be used.
Therefore, "quality" to the tobacco trade has become more or
less a nebulous term. Good tobacco does not mean the same thing
to all leaf buyers. Some purchasers look for certain characteris-tics
in their tobacco that other buyers carefully avoid as being
undesirable. For this reason most buying companies have sub-stituted
the term "usability" in the place of "quality."
10
11
Usability
Now, what do purchasers of tobacco mean when they say that
they want "usable" tobacco? First of all, usable tobacco can be
tobacco from any U. S. Standard Grade depending on the specific
purpose for which the tobacco will be used. However, our pri-mary
interest with flue-cured is in the kind of tobacco that
domestic and export companies consider usable in the manu-facture
of cigarettes. Thus, the category termed "usable" to-bacco
can come from a wide range of grades from all of the
major groups of flue-cured tobacco, which are commonly known
as priming, lug, cutter, leaf and smoking leaf.
Based on the buying pattern of the 1965 season and the cur-rent
market trend, the characteristics that seem to make tobacco
most desirable and usable are found in the varous grades of
medium to thin body with open grain, thoroughly ripe so as to
be a little on the fluffy side, with full flavor and aroma. Tobacco
of this nature usually has good cigarette filling capacity and
burning qualities, and it is considered quite usable by most manu-facturers.
However, in order for growers to receive the highest
market prices for this tobacco, it must be properly prepared into
uniform lots for market.
Preparation and Marketing Practices
A farmer who has worked hard all the year and has applied
all of the skills and know-how to produce a good usable crop of
tobacco cannot afford to become careless at market time. Under
poundage quotas, there is nowhere in the process of handling
a crop of tobacco where a few extra hours will pay more divi-dends
than in the time spent in properly preparing tobacco for
market.
Based on the preceeding definition of quality and usability, we
conclude that the amount of farm sorting necessary in order for
a grower to obtain the highest market price for his offerings is
determined by the current market demand. However, in recent
years most tobacco growers have learned from experience that
the standard grade placed on a basket of tobacco determines to a
great extent the price that he receives for that lot of tobacco.
Therefore, it is very important that every tobacco farmer pre-pare
his tobacco for market so that it will meet the requirements
for the highest possible standard grade in order to get the highest
possible price.
12
Some farm sorting is necessary under acreage-poundage quotas in order to get
the highest possible price per pound.
It is essential that growers realize the cold fact that the
tolerance for off-color or off-quality tobacco in a straight grade
is very small in many instances. For example, the tolerance for
red tobacco having a scorched characteristic is only 10 percent,
which means that an average of only two or three of these
leaves per bundle in any lot of lemon (L) or orange (F) color
tobacco will drop it into a variegated mixed color (KM) grade.
The (KM) grades carry support prices that range from 10 to 15
cents per pound less than the straight lemon or orange grades,
and they usually result in a corresponding drop in the auction
price.
In the case of variegated leaves of (KL) , (KF) , (KV) tobacco
and slick leaves of (LS), (FS) and green (G) immature tobacco,
the tolerance is 20 percent of these leaves in a straight grade.
There again, it takes only about four or five leaves of this off-
(Continued on page 30)
13
State Sum ma ry-1 965-66
North Carolina flue-cured tobacco growers completed their first market-ing
season under acreage-poundage quotas with many growers happier
with the program by the time the season was over than they were at the
beginning. About 60 percent of the tobacco growers in North Carolina came
up short of their 1965 quotas due to the growing season and the fact that
many farmers did not plant all of their alloted acreage. However, the
rmoking quality and usability of the crop was the best offered in a number
of years.
According to U. S. Standards, the volume of the crop grading in good
and fair qualities increased to 49 percent of the crop in contrast to 41 per-cent
the previous year. There was a drop in the volume of poor and low
qualities, and only eight percent of the crop fell into nondescript grades
compared to 14 percent in 1964. The color of the crop improved with more
of the crop going into straight Lemon and Orange grades with variegated
(K) grades showing a decline to 24 percent in contrast to 30 percent the
previous year. The percentage of the crop grading into mellow-ripe and
over-ripe .smoking leaf (H) grades doubled during the 1965 marketing
season.
The 44 flue-cured markets in North Carolina sold for producers 651,525,-
240 pounds of tobacco during the 1965 season for an average price of
$64.09 per hundred. Total returns to growers from these sales dropped to
$417,585,147 in contrast to $519,672,463 received for the 1964 sales of
899,347,616 pounds. The average price received by growers in 1965 was an
increase of $6.31 above the $57.78 received in 1964. But, even with the in-crease
in price, there was a loss of $102,087,316 because of the 247,822,376
pounds drop in volume.
Price support continued to be available in 1965 on untied gradis of prim-ings,
lugs and the best nondescript from those grades during the first seven
days of sales in each belt. A total of nine market holidays were called dur-ing
the marketing season due to congestion in some processing plants.
Type 13—Sales on the eight North Carolina Border Belt markets began
August 5, 1965. Higher grade prices and improved quality of offerings
pushed the average price near the record level of 1961. Practically all
grades were up $1 to $3 per hundred over 1964. Many variegated and green
lugs and green primings went up $4 to $9 while nondescript jumped up $5
to $14.
Producers sold 154,189,734 pounds in 1965 for a return of $101,045,590
which gave them a season average of $65.53 per hundred. In 1964 Border
Belt growers sold 165,688,468 pounds for $97,646,067 averaging $58.93 per
hundred for the season.
Sales ended on October 14 after operating for 41 sales days. Marketing
holidays were in eff'ect nine days because of congested conditions in some
processing plants. The Border Belt operated for 43 sales days in 1964.
Type 12—Eastern Belt markets started 1965 sales on August 25, two
days earlier than the previous season. A much stronger demand and im-proved
quality of eastern flue-cured tobacco caused a reversal in trends in
the general average price and government loan receipts compared with
recent years. Volume of sales was the smallest in 22 years and gross value
$49.5 million dollars less than in 1964. Overall, grade prices averaged $1
to $7 per hundred above last year. Largest gains occurred chiefly for
14
variegated and green leaf, lugs, and primings of green color and nonde-script.
Volume of sales was 296,024,450 pounds compared to 420,093,250 pounds
in 1964. The dollar value of $187,386,497 compared poorly to $238,216,548
in 1964. Average price in 1965 was $63.30, $6.59 above 1964.
The sales season ended on November 5 after 42 days of auctions com-pared
to 49 days the pi-evious year.
Type IIB—Middle Belt auctions began September 8 with offerings com-posed
of larger percentages of fair and good qualities and less poor and
nondescript grades than in 1964. Middle Belt markets experienced a 38
percent drop in sales volume during the season. Grade prices generally
averaged $1 to $5 higher than last year. Here again low primings and
nondescript showed substantial gains.
The 1965 volume and dollar value of producer sales in the Middle Belt
were the lowest since 1957. Growers sold 108,026,541 pounds of tobacco for
$68,444,459 averaging $63.36 per hundred. In 1964 producers sold 177,578,-
510 pounds for $104,985,097 for a season average of $59.12.
Middle Belt markets were open 41 sales days. However, nearly two-thirds
of the crop was sold within the first 15 days. In 1964 the Middle Belt selling
season extended over a period of 48 days.
Type llA—The nine North Carolina Old Belt markets began sales on
September 20 and operated for two days before all sales were suspended
for five days due to congestion in processing plants. Producers received for
their 1965 crop the highest general average price ever paid for their tobacco.
Despite the high average, volume of sales and value received were the
smallest since 1957 and 1960 respectively. The improved crop quality
here was due to a sharp decrease in the percentage of nondescript. Bulk of
sales consisted of low to good leaf, fair lugs, nondescript and low smoking
leaf.
Old Belt growers received a record average price of $65.08 per hundred
for their 1965 sales of 93,284,515 pounds which returned them a gross
value of $60,708,601 for the season. This compares with 135,987,388 pounds
in 1964 which brought $78,824,751 for an average of $57.96 per hundred.
Old Belt markets closed on December 7 after 46 days of auction sales
which was four days less than the 1964 season.
Type 31—The three burley markets in North Carolina at Asheville,
Boone and West Jefferson opened for the 1965-66 marketing season on
November 29. The 1965 crop of burley in North Carolina consisted mostly
of medium to thin body tobacco, which made it one of the best cigarette
crops in a number of years. A larger percentage of the crop graded into
fine and good (2nd and 3rd) quality grades when compared to the previous
year. The percentage of the crop going under government loan amounted
to less than four percent compared to about 15 percent last year. This was
the smallest amount going under loan in four years.
Growers selling on North Carolina markets received a record high aver-age
of $67.00 per hundred for their offerings in contrast to $56.87 the
previous year. The volume of producer sales dropped to 15,614,115 pounds
compared to 18,591,150 the year before. However, the dollar value of
$10,460,713 compared very favorably with the $10,572,368 received from the
1964 sales.
The three North Carolina markets held final sales of the 1965-66 season
on January 7, 1966 covering a period of 20 sales days. The season covered
22 days the previous year.
15
co"^as^ocoico^ C<lC<l0it>O'^<MO00'-lt-t-lAi-(t-C00i
'^mmcov^icirsm ] la icuiioioicu^ioiommiAiAiooioirsirt |io
«5(MO:itDi—ifX^'^'Xi j"^
CO •-' CO I t-
^(NCJOOCO-^'^'X'TJ'IM^TJ'OOOO^DOO
OOi--r.-HOLOC<rOCOCOtOC>GO^ '^crS ''^J^OO t>tr--^-^COCnCMOt-OCOC-iO(M(MCO-^
rH.-Hi-l(Ni-l^l£Si-'ir3C<li-l^'-''-('-<C
i-l?£)lMt-OOU5^uO
(M'^'^I^OO'-HOOiO
^ (m' CD lO r-i ^ <iD LO
CO^T-lNt-(NO'^C<J-^lOlCOiHO^W
T-H'-HrHCOCOC<i'^'--H^NcicOC<lNr4lOO
- CO OS O U^ 00
Tft-OOC-OlCOO IfH
NLOtON'^COCMCO'^'-t M^ LO ^_Oi_iLn tr- ^^ I t-;^
aTcoo^oo-^iOTjTt- \ oi
?Dtr-t-cOu^Oc-JCO 00
COOOtr-Ot-C-^OiO -^
lo c4" CO I u^r
u:)i^t-Oo'^cMoo lo
'^COCD'^OJ'^tr-^'^ ^
-:r"o5"(M"ir^co'^'"art>oco 1—«o:ioco^oi
coaiicoc6-^'^LOcoo:ioouooOi-HtCioo<Nt:-
tr- lO 00 (N tlD 00(lDi-HC0rHO500U0iocOU^00
oart~^araroo.fa5050oooas t> t> oo ooio
3(M':fiX'i-<OOOT-H00O(M'^00O00t0
^i-i(M<X5a^^ooocoi^oot-tDaiO'-io^
/oTfoO'-n'ooc^TiccM tDooo;>io CiOi'-i oo
^^coi—it-cot-'X'toc^ooooooaic^oco
coco'XJ-^cDiccoooit^'^cooit-ii^MCO |o
00-^cOCO00i-llO«O(M^'-HO5(N00i-;C0l^ CO
i-^oi(>icococo'^'-H(>icviocooi(Ni-Hu^o co
16
CO co"
00 m
t-^ 00 c- o ^
lO CO c- IM 05 "=
OT 00_ Tj<_ CO_^ 00__
f~>
[^ lO t^ yj t— ^
05 Oi CO Oi CM ^ 05 ^O^ -^ t- O
•,^/^i .^^^co
CO iH CO
in t; -!-> T o •--
^
CO(MOOOOiCD-<*COCqOOS^a5'^-^THO
COD^T-Hi-lt>OOi(NtHlOU500tOO(N05050 ,-1 c<I :0 00 CD 00 00 CO CO O^ 00^ "^^ 00 05^ 00
o 00 00 t> i-Tio tD^T-Too o"co o -^ oo m 00 00
O^ir^CDi-Ht-OOOtr^fMCDCDOfMCDlOi-HCO
'~*O<NfM0^CDt-ir3C<I00l0"^C0tMO'-Hl0
^ c
Q) O "'
m ° _
° ScScljtS:2aic-SJJ-SS'SMSSrS.S
;::^ 3 cc o t.-— o o c rat-»^-..^-fcb»b»t>.
Ttco^j^'-iosm'-icooco lo:)
in)iOkOir5(£)iciouou^ir3 |ir5
T-H T? W C^^ O "^ Ol ^^ Tt L-; CO O t>; T-H '-] CO
06 ^ id CD t>
UD ic 10 I 10 10
CDOO-^'^OtPOOOOOiX''^
OOi-HOOtr-COOO^uitiCO
(XJ Tj^^ CO 10 Oi_ ai_ CO <N t- CN^
ciLor--coiOcotocoi/:i"^
10 tr~^ C^__ (M^ T-H in t~^O 00 i-J^
O CD TjT csf o' oT CO CO O CO
r-l -^ COtMi-HC^r-H-H
OOlMOCOOOrHTtM
(N'X'CNC0'X)tr-Ot--^
1X3^O O^ OJ^ C^^O LO^ en IJ^
O 00 i-T Cd" C^ CO CO 00" CO
rH rH ,-1 CO
eg 00 «D
C- 1J5 00
0;) oToo"
CTi 00 00
'3<__ 05^ oo_
rH ^' Tf"
to a>
^ to
t- 00 COM
ocoo^osc»t-t>ocoo I
10
OCOlCNC<|OOlOOit-^t> O
rHi-HCOoi'^COi-H'NCOO CO
OiWOiCD^lC'^fCDOO li-HCO
tOCOCDCOCDCDCDCOCO OCD •-0 CO CD CD CD
^ (M-^OCOCDCDOOtMOO
COt-tNOi-HCOCDCOmc^l
CO^ -^^M C5_ i-H CD O^ 1-H [-__ rH^
^ c^*'uo irrcD'"orco'"o'o tr^io
0-1 (M OS CO CO 00 r-l 00 ai XJ t
G^ .-HO] rH
OJ-^W'^OOOOCDCOIOIO
OCOCDOt-CO-—iiOCDCO
OiOOfMCOt-OOt^-GOO
lOfNCDCDlOOamOSCOt—
C0iOCO"^C^CDOi^O5C0
tXM 00^ 05_a) CO 1-H^-^ T-H
lOrHCDUDinOOOOOiCD
(MOitMOCO-^OCOUD
(Mlr-O5Cv3-<^C^t-Q000
OSCOC-OOCDCDO-^CO
- LC ^ '^OO
OOlr-WLraiMtr-OOTl^OlCOCD »J -"^OOCDOOmOOiHiOO
CDCDCDiOCOCDCDcDCDCD CD
00 t> O CD
CDCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD CDCD
00 CO CD
Cl, ^ C3 Oi C lO^CO^OO^
^ o'co'co"
CD^CO^
oTco
05 10
CO i-<
QM
OS
t)
Bh (N 01 <M
-f 'S' CO 00 0 10
CO rH 10 CO c-
(M CO to (N t-
H CO^CO "^ rH a
.J t— 01 to
Hn >-
M
-1
ui CO CO -31
hJ 00 c- rH
cc C- C- Tt t>-^
CD CD CD CD CD
OOOOOSOOOO'^'^tr-CO
CO'** i>coi> coc^^-^ '^'^
CD cocC^o coio"-^ cTcooo
OO-^-rfOSCDiOOOTtt-CO
cOi-H^tr-asoo ""i^C^ "^"^
iO-rfCO 10 oT t> CD CD t-
COOOiOOO^i-HlO-Tji
OOCOOiOOlOIMi-HO^iiO
(MO'<:t<COCDt-i-iOCD
Oa^^OOCOT-nCDrHOJcO ^ CD_t> Oi^OO C^iniOCO
iS^o coco t>oo odinrH
10 o
10 w
VO 00 (M
to to 00
CO__OT t^
to'c-^oT
00 OlIM
rH C» -*
oTc^Tco""
in 10
rH iO
rH CO_
"* 01"
rH CO
tD_rH
10" I>
rH to
CO, >-g^ I
^h3^ t< 2.^-2 o<S S
-5; O Q W E^ ffi J O W ^
5 g >.^ ^"/ 3
3!Hj3aj*^So^;r 00
<;pq^
17
Summary of N. C. Dealer and
Warehouse Resales—1965
Belt Pounds Dollars
Border Belt
Dealer 3,243,969
Warehouse 12,238,792
Eastern Belt
Dealer 4,541,129
Warehouse 13,395,517
Middle Belt
Dealer 2,681,310
Warehouse 6,253,550
Old Belt
Dealer 2,114,006
Warehouse 9,685,617
Total Flue-Cured Resales 54,153,890
Burley Belt
Dealer 611,708
Warehouse 1,511,964
Total Burley Resales 2,123,672
1,843,949 1.9
7,761,619 7.2
2,492,515 1.4
7,875,482 4.3
1,512,137 2.3
3,783,309 5.3
1,233,982 2.0
6,376,941 9.2
32,879,934 7.7
395,696 3.4
992,902 8.5
1,388,598 12.0
Producer and Gross Sales of Flue-Cured
Tobacco by States—1965
Producer Sales Gross Sales
state Pounds Averaffe Pounds Average
N. C. 651,525,240 $64.09 704,679,130 $63.83
Va. 128,920,106 64.65 136,751,794 64.45
S. C. 122,820,507 65.61 137,421,325 65.32
Ga. 137,278,128 66.08 152,095,784 65.89
Fla. 17,773,790
. 1,058,317,771
67.09 20,063,531
1,151,011,564
66.98
Total . $64.65 $64.47
18
Stabilization Receipts by Belts—1965
Belt Type
Producer
Sales (lbs.)
stabilization
Receipts (lbs.)
Per
Stab.
centage
Received
Old Belt
Middle Belt
Eastern Belt
Border Belt
Ga.-Fla. Belt
Total
llA
IIB
12
13
14
11-14
222,204,621
108,026,541
296,024,450
277,010,241
155,051,918
1,058,317,771
21,205,778
9,568,874
19,371,356
18,794,024
2,380,288
71,320,320
9.5
8.9
6.5
6.8
1.5
6.7
Flue-Cured Movement In and Out of
North Carolina
state
N. C. Tobacco
(Pi
1965
Sold
aunds
Out of State
i)
1964
Out of State Toba
(Pou
1965
nds)'
Sold in N. C.
1964
Va.
s. c.
Ga.
Fla
36,884,113
15,378,431
6,014,602
11,420
54,004,372
14,828,958
2,480,800
80,938
7,604,100
12,749,416
11,119,919
13,475,875
464
1,364
20,355,344
Ala 1,332
Total 52,288,586 71,395,068 24,597,126
Burley Tobacco Movement In and Out
of North Carolina
N. C. Tobacco Sold Out of State
(Pounds)
1965 1964
of State Tobacco Sold
(Pounds)
1965
Tenn.
Va.
W Va
3,770,604
1,482
4,796,636
2,238
551,394
1,359,643
18,652
53,032
492
1,265,042
1,787,596
30,710
52,280
1,724
Ga
S C
Total 3,772,086 4,798,874 1,983,213 3,137,352
19
North Carolina Flue-Cured Crops
1919-1965*
Yield Per
Acre Production Value Average
Year No. Acres (Pounds) (1.000 lbs.) (1.000 Dollars) Price
1919 521,000 612 319,276 $157,340 $49.30
1920 621,900 681 423,703 88,271 20.80
1921 414,900 594 246,540 60,402 24.50
1922 444,000 611 271,170 74,572 27.50
1923 544,300 728 396,354 81,998 20.70
1924 473,500 585 276,819 62,597 22.60
1925 536,200 696 373,352 83,756 22.40
1926 546,700 692 378,274 96,762 25.60
1927 639,600 755 482,982 100,414 20.80
1928 712,400 692 493,132 93,450 19.00
1929 729,300 665 484,630 89,470 18.50
1930 768,000 757 581,200 74,733 12.90
1931 688,500 692 476,382 42,024 8.80
1932 462,500 624 288,750 34,949 12.10
1933 667,800 794 530,133 85,530 16.10
1934 486,500 847 412,055 117,999 28.60
1935 612,500 635 572,625 116,418 20.30
1936 591,000 765 451,975 101,856 22.50
1937 675,000 883 595,815 143,058 24.00
1938 603,500 844 509,470 115,428 22.70
1939 843,000 964 812,540 123,893 15.20
1940 498,000 1,038 516,835 85,792 16.60
1941 488.000 928 452,825 132,291 29.20
1942 539.000 1,052 566,810 221,538 39.10
1943 580,000 935 542,200 219,074 40.40
1944 684,000 1,077 736,990 317,628 43.10
1945 722,000 1,100 794,310 349,148 44.00
1946 802,000 1,138 912,970 451,639 49.50
1947 783,000 1,139 892,205 374,513 42.00
1948 594,000 1,239 739,380 368,040 49.80
1949 621,000 1,178 731,530 352,508 48.20
1950 640,000 1,441 858,140 477,508 55.60
1951 735,000 1,331 978,375 523,358 53.50
1952 735,000 1,222 898,090 448,582 49.90
1953 674.000 1,235 832,305 447,076 53.70
1954 686,000 1,204 889,490 483,003 54.30
1955 653,000 1,499 978,775 . 520,845 53.20
1956 579,000 1,661 961,495 496,324 51.60
1957 443,000 1,469 650,780 358,442 55.10
1958 429,000 1,718 736,855 427,307 58.00
1959 458,500 1,533 702,942 407,055 57.90
1960 457,500 1,836 839,870 512,731 61.10
1961 463,000 1,797 832,215 541,468 65.10
1962 483,000 1,890 912,810 549,594 60.20
1963 460,500 1,999 920,660 535,622 58.18
1964 416,000 2,282 949,450 549,875 57.90
1965** 375,000 1,879 704,700 446,644 64.10
'Source: N. C- and USDA Crop Reporting Servi<
* Preliminary for 1965.
20
North Carolina Burley Crops
1928-1965*
Yield Per
Acre Production Value Average
Tear No. Acres (Pounds) (1.000 lbs.) (1,000 Dollars) Price
1928 3,600 650 2,340 $ 690 $29.50
1929 5,500 730 4,015 863 21.50
1930 7,200 750 5,400 853 15.80
1»31 7,100 710 5,041 464 9.20
1932 6,500 735 4,778 726 15.20
1933 9,200 785 7,222 715 9.90
1934 5,500 870 4,785 809 17.50
1935 5,200 925 4,810 1,025 21.30
1936 6,000 900 5,400 2,095 38.80
1937 9,000 975 8,775 1,787 21.40
1938 8,600 900 7,740 1,308 16.90
1939 8,100 1,070 8,667 1,447 16.70
1940 6,500 1,050 6,825 1,242 18.20
1941 6,200 1,075 6,665 2,093 31.40
1942 6,600 1,150 7,590 3,211 42.30
1943 8,500 1,225 10,412 5,102 49.00
1944 12,000 1,390 16,680 8,157 48.90
1945 13,000 1,500 19,500 7,568 38.30
1946 9,800 1,475 14,455 5,999 41.50
1947 9,600 1,560 14,976 6,335 42.30
1948 10,300 1,680 17,304 8,012 46.30
1949 10,800 1,440 15,552 6,750 43.40
1950 10,500 1,700 17,850 9,175 51.40
1951 12,200 1,750 21,350 11,572 54.20
1952 12,000 1,680 20,160 9,818 48.70
1953 11,400 1,800 20,520 11,019 53.70
1954 12,700 1,920 24,384 12,680 52.00
1955 9,800 1,900 18,620 10,651 57.20
1956 9,400 1,850 17,390 10,747 61.80
1957 9,600 1,975 18,960 11,073 58.40
1958 9,300 2,000 18,600 11,978 64.40
1959 9,800 2,060 20,188 11,426 56.60
1960 9,500 1,940 18,430 12,016 65.20
1961 10,400 2,090 21,736 14,346 66.00
1962 11,000 2,185 24,035 14,421 60.00
1963 11,000 2,285 25,135 13,573 54.00
1964 9,700 2,165 21,000 12,054 57.40
1965** 9,000 1,934 17,403 11,660 67.00
•Source: N. C. and USDA Crop Reportmg Service.
** PPeliminary for 1965 with value based on market average.
21
N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments
1966
County No. Farms Acreage Poundage Rank
Alamance 1,429 3,982.99 6,625,304 36
Alexander 946 1,141.21 1,773,408 51
Anson 252 332.99 485,959 61
Beaufort 2,308 8,061.95 14,148,202 22
Bertie 1,680 4,805.62 9,018,510 30
Bladen 3,089 6,269.31 11,902,451 26
Brunswick 1,699 2,796.57 5,313,903 39
Burke 1 0.48 829 68
Cabarrus 1 0.02 14 71
Caldwell 264 405.44 687,954 59
Camden 2 3.95 8,166 65
Carteret 343 1,139.67 2,000,237 50
Caswell 1,913 7,774.61 13,182,196 24
Catawba 3 3.20 4,090 66
Chatham 1,038 2,423.42 3,557,928 47
Chowan 184 462.90 814,125 58
Cleveland 1 0.29 505 69
Columbus 4,488 13,980.96 31,116,139 4
Craven 1,671 7,199.96 13,216,307 23
Cumberland 2,384 4,515.38 8,477,300 33
Dare 1 0.06 68 70
Davidson 1,830 2,754.05 4,295,539 44
Davie 816 984.35 1,421,375 55
Duplin 4,144 13,080.14 24,689,356 11
Durham 943 3,163.12 4,747,935 43
Edgecombe 1,445 9,741.04 19,329,819 14
Forsyth 2,209 4,085.25 6,434,708 37
Franklin 2,633 9,647.92 17,124,754 17
Gaston 1 3.88 1,322 67
Gates 122 229.53 410,459 62
Granville 2,149 11,310.00 19,026,980 15
Greene 1,223 10,141.87 21,145,709 13
Guilford 3,154 7,673.94 12,716,245 25
Halifax 2,068 4,986.48 9,444,047 29
Harnett 3,343 12,239.39 24,694,846 10
Hertford 906 2,758.42 5,081,200 40
Hoke 734 2,165.08 3,976,667 46
Iredell 806 1,031.89 1,538,042 53
Johnston 5,191 19,300.81 38,726,011 2
Jones 880 4,595.52 8,584,578 32
Lee 1,290 3,475.95 6,177,291 38
Lenoir 1,842 11,941.91 24,586,333 12
Martin 1,452 7,221.00 14,955,215 20
Montgomery 401 815.44 1,232,674 57
Moore 1,541 4,144.94 7,240,909 35
Nash 2,837 15,353.28 30,059,169 6
New Hanover 84 180.07 287,744 63
Northampton 215 402.70 658,473 60
Onslow 1,763 5,276.63 8,994,774 31
Orange 944 2,793.12 4,785,110 42
Pamlico 369 928.16 1,439,687 54
Pender 1,630 2,781.80 5,003,511 41
Person 1,743 8,135.39 14,520,679 21
Pitt 2,599 21,340.56 41,700,895 1
Randolph 1,603 2,760.24 4,231,559 45
22
N. C. Flue-Cured Tobacco Allotments
1966 (Continued)
County No. Farms Acreage Poundage Rank
Richmond 969 1,760.42 2,665,272 48
Robeson 4,528 17,513.88 36,496,703 3
Rockingham 2,952 11,055.23 18,808,054 16
Rowan 23 23.08 29,522 64
Sampson 5,035 12,923.81 25,849,974 9
Scotland 518 973.51 1,649,246 52
Stokes 2,762 9,683.59 15,588,658 19
Surry 3,057 9,277.59 16,929,292 18
Vance 1,365 6,927.15 11,624,791 27
Wake 3,645 16,456.99 30,130,526 5
Warren 1,784 5,162.32 8,156,129 34
Washington 290 813.56 1,343,004 56
Wayne 3,045 12,299.27 25,921,359 8
Wilkes 934 1,303.97 2,092,564 49
Wilson 2,056 14,306.20 29,398,300 7
Yadkin 2,700 6,828.72 11,599,775 28
Unadjusted
Total 114,270 400,054.14 749,880,379 1-71
Under-marketing 1965 — 38,219.51 70,866,508 —
Over-marketing 1965 — 7,863.98 14,726,887 —
iNct unuer-iiitirKf^
1965 - 30,355.53 56,139,621 -
N. C. Total Allotment
1966 114,270 430,409.67 806,020,000 1-71
Flue-Cured Outlook
(Continued from page 8)
fact that cost of production has pushed the farmers' support
price up another 1.1 cents to the current level of 58.8 cents per
pound. So, if growers can come up with another good smoking
crop in 1966, their average price should hold around the 65
cents per pound level.
Thus, the economic outlook for U. S. flue-cured tobacco farm-ers
is somewhat brighter for 1966 than it was a year earlier. It
is quite possible that flue-cured growers will recover in 1966
much of the $123 million loss that occurred in 1965.
23 ^
N. C Burley Tobacco Allotments
1966
Acreage
Coanty No. Farms Allotment Rank
Alleghany 528 216.02 9
Ashe 2,540 1,047.70 3
Avery 248 108.50 11
Brunswick 1 0.09 32
Buncombe 2,996 1,392.69 2
Burke 12 4.47 21
Caldwell 19 6.75 20
Catawba 1 0.45 29
Cherokee 196 67.40 15
Clay 219 83.71 12
Cleveland 9 3.39 22
Davidson 2 0.97 25
Gaston 1 0.50 28
Graham 702 302.38 8
Granville 1 0.12 31
Haywood 1,990 954.77 5
Henderson 113 43.84 16
Iredell 2 0.95 26
Jackson 291 113.04 10
McDowell 70 25.20 18
Macon 240 76.42 13
Madison 2,857 2,058.44 1
Mitchell 952 469.09 7
Polk 6 1.75 24
Rutherford 56 25.03 19
Stokes 2 0.34 30
Surry 7 0.94 27
Swain 218 69.11 14
Transylvania 71 28.13 17
Watauga 1,645 724.90 6
Wilkes 8 2.04 23
Yancey 1,832 983.09 4
State Totals 17,835 8,812.22 1-32
USDA Asrricaltnre Stabilization and Gonservation Service.
Burley Outlook
(Continued from page 9)
of the vote, the Secretary of Agriculture will apply the pre-viously
announced 15 percent cut in total acres.
With fewer acres in 1966, farmers will probably follow the
customary practices of using more nitrogen, setting tobacco
closer and using heavy yielding varieties so as to increase pro-duction
enough to offset acreage cuts. All this will be at the
sacrifice of producing top quality, usable tobacco demanded by
both domestic and export trade.
24
North Carolina Tobacco Warehouses
and Operators By Belts and Markets
BORDER BELT
Chadbourn (one set buyers)
Producers—Jack W. Garrett, J. Franklin Bullard
Green-Teachey—J. C. Green
Clarkton (one set buyers)
Bright Leaf—Joe Stephenson & Brothers
New Clarkton Warehouse—J. M. Talley, J. C. Hartley
Fair Bluff (one set buyers)
Powell—A. H. Powell & Sons
Riverside—Robert Musgrave, Aaron Parrish
Planters—Carl Meares, Randolph Gun-in
Fairmont (four sets buyers)
People's Big 5—E. J. Chambers, Yarboro & Garrett Company
Davis & Mitchell—F. A. Davis, Harry and Jack Mitchell
Holliday-Frye—E. H. Frye, J. W. and J. M. Holliday
Planters No. 1 & 2—G. R. Royster, Daniel
Square Deal 1-2-3—W. C. Bassett
Star Carolina 1-2-3—W. M. Puckett, A. M. Best
Liberty-Twin States—P. R. Floyd, Jr., Paul Wilson, F. P. Joyce,
Joe Pell
Big Brick—V. J. Griffin, A. D. Lewis, Jr.
Fayetteville (one set buyers)
Big Farmers 1 & 2—P. L. Campbell, Sherrill Aiken
Planters—J. W. Stephenson, J. C. Adams
Lumberton (three sets buyers)
Carolina—J. L. Townsend, Jr., James Johnson, Jr.
Smith-Dixie—Furman Biggs, Sr. & Jr.
Hedgpeth—R. A. Hedgpeth, R. L. Rollins
Liberty—R. H. Livermore
Star, Inc.—Hogan Teater, D. T. Stephenson
Lumberton Cooperative—C. E. McLaurin, Mgr.
Tabor City (one set buyers)
By-Pass Carolina & New Farmers—R. C. Coleman, Mrs. Harriet Sikes
Planters—Don Watson, Mgr.
Whiteville (three sets buyers)
Crutchfield—G.^E. & R. W. Crutchfield
Lea's Big Dixie—William Townes Lea, Louie Love
Moore's—A. H. Moore, C. C. Mason, C. F. JefTcoat
Nelson's No. 1 & 2—John H. Nelson, Jim Smith
Planters No. 1 & 2—A. O. King, Jr., J. W. Peay
Gray-Neal Farmers-Columbus County—A. Dial Gray, J. L. Neal
Liberty—J. W. Hooks, L A. Barefoot & Sons
Smith—Ernest Smith, Joe T. Smith, Jr., Percy McKeithan
25
EASTERN BELT
Ahw liit (mne set bnyers)
Basnie^t No. 1-2-3—L L. Wilkens. H. G. Veaiey
Fanners No. 1 £ 2—^W. M. Odoms. Pierce & Winbome
Clfaitsa (<Mie set bnyers)
Carolina—L. D. Herring. C. J. Strickland, X. L. Daughtry
Ross Xo. 2—Clarence Kirven, Jr.. W. K. Beech
Farmers—J. J. HiU. W. M. Buck
Dma (one set buyers)
Big 4 Warehoose—^Tom ¬hers. Jack Calhoun, Norman Hardee
Planters—^Leland Lee. J. M, Smothers
Farmville (rwo sets buyers)
Belis—Ben Brothers
Fotmtain £ Monk Xo. 1—John X. Fountain, Mgr.
Fountain &. Monk Xo. 2—John X. Fountain, Mgr.
Planters & Prewits—Chester Worthington. W. O. Xewell. B. S. Correll
Lee's—Gordon Lee
Goldsboro <one set buyers)
Carolina—S. G. Best, D. V. Smith. D. Price
Farmers Xo. 1—S. B. Hill, Carl Holloman, J. F. Hill
Big Brick—J. B. Musgra'^e
Victory—Richard Gray, Clarence Whitley
GreenTiDe i&ve sets buyers
>
Cannon's—W. T. Cannon, Carlton Dail
Farmers
—
W. A, Tripp, Dal Cox, T. P. Thompson
Star-Planters—^Harding Suggs
Keel-^. A. Worthington
New Independent—Bob Cullifer, F. L. Blount
Raynor-Forbes—Xoah Raynor, A. H. Forbes
Harris & Rogers—R. E. Rogers
New Carolina—^Larry Hudson, Laddie Avery. C. C. Harris
KiBstoB (four sets buyers)
Central
—
W. L Herring, Bill King
Farmers—John T. Jenkins, L. E. Pollock
Knotfs 1 & 2—H. G. Knott, W. E. Brewer
New Dixie—John T. Jenkins, Mgr.
Sheppard Xo. 1—J. T. Sheppard
Sheppard Xo. 2-^. T. Sheppard
New Central—W. I. Herring, BUI King
The Star Warehouse Xo. 2—Dempsey Hodges
Banner—K. W. Loftin, John Heath
Brooks Warehouse—Roger Brooks. Jr., Frederick Brooks
Robersonrille (one set buyers)
Red Front-Adkins & Bafley—J. H. Gray. Jack Sharpe
Planters Xo. 1 £ 2—H. T. EBgfasmith, E. G. .\nderson
26
Rock J- Mount (tour sets buyers)
Cobb & Carlton No. 1 & 2—W. E. Cobb, J. C. Carlton
MangTJm—Roy M. Phipps
Planters No. 1-2-3—W. H. Faulkner, Mgr.
Smith No. 1 & 2—James D. Smith
Works Warehouse—R. J. Works, Jr.
Peoples Warehouse Company, Inc.—Guy Barnes, Gene Simmons
Farmers Warehouse. Inc.—J. C. Holt Evans. M^.
Fenners—J. B. Fenner
Smithfield itwo sets buyers I
Big Planters—Mrs. W. A. Carter, Paul McMillan
Farmers No. 1 & 2—Joe & C. E. Stephenson
Gold Leaf No. 1 & 2—R. A. Pearce
Perkins Riverside—N. L. Perkins
Wallace No. 1 & 2—Lawrence & Dison Wallace
Tarboro (one set buyers)
Clarks No. 1 & 2—H. I. Johnson, S. A. McConkey
Farmers No. 1—W. L. House, J. P. Bunn
Farmers No. 2—W. L. House, J. P. Bunn
Victory No. 1 & 2—Cliff Weeks, W. L. Leggett
Wallace 'one set buyers)
Blar.jhard & Farrior—O. C. Blanchard, W. H. Farrior
Hussey No. 1 & 3—Joe Bryant, Bill Hussey
Sheffield's—John Sheffield
Farmers—H. G. Perry
Washington (one set buyers)
Sermon's—W. J. Sermons, J. E. Roberson
Talley-Hassell—M. M. HasseU, W. G. Talley
Wendell (one set buyers)
Farmers—Roy Clark, Jr.
Liberty 1 & 2—Bubber & Berdon Eddins
Nor-hside—G. Dean, Bill Sanders
Eir.-er—C. P. Southerland
Williamston (one set buyers)
Rogers Warehouse—L'rbin Rogers, Russell Rogers, Leland Bamhill
New Dixie—C. Fisher Harris. J. Elmo Lilley
Wilson (five sets buyers*
Big DLxie—E. B. Hicks, W. C. Thompson
Wainwright—G. L. Wainwright
Center Brick No. 1-2-3—Cozart & Eagles Co.
Growers Cooperative—S. E. Griffin, Mgr.
New Planters No. 1 & 2—R. T. & W. C. Smith. B. S. Can-
Smith Warehouse. Inc.—H. H. Harris, Jr., Mgr.
Watson—W. H. Cozart. Jr., Pres.
Clark's—C. R. & Boyd Clark
New Liberty—Carl B. Renfro
Bob's Warehouse—Bob Clark
Windsor i one set buyers)
Planters 1 & 2—C. B. & B. U. Griffin. Dave Newsom
Farmers 1 & 2—Grover & B. H. Jemigan. Bill Davis
27
MIDDLE BELT
Aberdeen (one set buyers)
New Aberdeen—Tom Faulkner
Planters—W. Fentriss Phillips
Hardee's—Hugh T. Hardee
Carthage (one set buyers)
McConnells—C. Hoover Carter, R. J. Brim, Jr.
Victory—Earl Ennis, Buck Layton
Durham (three sets buyers)
Liberty—Walker Stone, John W. Sears
Roycroft—H. T. & J. K. Roycroft, Randolph Currin
Star-Brick—A. L. Carver, Cozart, Currin
Famers-Planters—J. M. Talley, Howard Talley, Bob Dale, Sam Mangum
Ellerbe (one set buyers)
Farmers—Bill Maurer
Richmond County—Bud Rummage
Fuquay-Varina (two sets buyers)
Big Top—Talley Brothers, E. E. Clayton
New Deal—W. M., A. R. & A. L. Talley
Goldleaf—Sherrill Akins, J. W. Dale
Carolina—P. L. Campbell
Roberts—Joe, John & Earl Roberts
Growers—King Roberts
Dixie—King Roberts
Star—King Roberts
Henderson (two sets buyers)
Moore's Big Banner—A. H. Moore, C. E. Jeffcoat
Carolina—J. S. Royster, M. H. High, B. W. Young
Farmers—W. J. Alston, Jr.
High Price—C. J. Felming, C. B. Turner
Liberty—George T. Robertson
Ellington—F. H. Ellington & Sons
Louisburg (one set buyers)
Big Franklin—S. T. & H. B. Cottrell
Ford's—Charlie Ford
Friendly Four—James Speed, Gus McGhee
Oxford (two sets buyers)
Banner—W. L. Mitchell, Jr., David Mitchell
Mangum-Farmers—Julian Adcock, S. B. Knott
Fleming No. 1 & 2—G. B. Watkins, D. T. Currin
Planters & Johnson—C. R. Watkins, C. R. Watkins, Jr.
Owens No. 1 & 2—J. S. Watkins, L. Gregory
Granville —L. S. Bryan, Jr., Sherman Bullock
Yeargin—W. W. Yeargin
Sanford (one set buyers)
Twin City 1 & 2—W. M. Carter, T. V. Mansfield
Morgan's—Jimmy Morgan
Castleberry's—C. N. Castleberry
Woods 3 W—Bill Wood, R. A. Owen
28
Warrenton (one set buyers)
Boyd's—W. P. Burwell
Centre No. 1 & 2—M. P. Carroll, E. W. Radford, E. M. Moody
Farmers—E. G. Tarwater
Thompson—C. E. Thompson
Currin's No. 1 & 2—C. W. Currin
OLD BELT
Burlington (one set buyers)
Carolina—Lee Russell, Bob Rainey
Coble—N. C. Newman, Curry King
Farmers—Bill McCauley, Glenn McCray
Greensboro (one set buyers)
Greensboro Tobacco Warehouse Co.—R. C. Coleman, Mgr.
Guilford County Tobacco Warehouse Co.—H. P. Smothers, W. B. Hull
Madison (one set buyers)
New Brick—R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster
Carolina—R. T. Chilton, S. F. Webster
Sharpe & Smith-Farmers—W. S. Smith, D. C. Hoilman, Banner
Williams
Mebane (one set buyers)
Farmers 1 & 2—Joe Dillard, Jule Allen
New Piedmont—A. 0. King, Jr., Billy Hopkins, Hugh Strayhorn
Mt. Airy (one set buyers)
New Farmers—Tom Jones, Buck White, O. L. Badgett, F. V. Dearmin
Hunters—J. W. & J. L. Hunter
Dixie—W. H. Brown, H. G. Hodges
Reidsville (one set buyers)
Farmers—C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines
Leader-Watts—A. P. Sands, W. A. McKinney
Smothers—T. G. & J. M. Smothers
Brown's—C. E. Smith, P. D. McMichael, D. H. Huffines
Roxboro (one set buyers)
Farmers—Lindsay Wagstaff, R. L. Hester
Hyco—W. R. Jones, F. J. Hester, George Walker
Foacre—H. W. Wlnstead, Jr., Pres.
Planters No. 2—T. 0. Pass
Winstead—T. T. & Elmo Mitchell
Pioneer—T. T. & Elmo Mitchell
Stoneville (one set buyers)
Joyce's No. 1 & 2—0. P. Joyce, Gary Pell
Joyce Brothers—W. Q. Chilton, G. 0. Joyce
Piedmont—R. N. Linville
Winston-Salem (four sets buyers)
Brown—R. W. Newsome, W. B. Simpson
Carolina-Star—G. H. Robertson, H. M. Bouldin
Growers—Floyd Joyce, W. G. Sheets, J. R. Pell, M. M. Joyner
Pepper No. 1 & 2—F. L. Kellam, C. F. Hutchins, Joe & Baxter Cook
Taylor—Paul Taylor
Big Winston—R. T. & J. F. Carter
Cooks No. 1 & 2—B. E. Cook, William Fowler, Claude Strickland, Jr.
29
BURLEY BELT
Asheville (two sets buyers)
Burley-Dixie No. 1 & 2—R. A. Owen
Planters No. 1 & 2—J. W. Stewart
Walker Warehouse—James E. Walker
Day's—Charlie Day
Boone (one set buyers)
Farmers & Big Burley—Joe E. Coleman
West Jefferson (one set buyers)
Tri-State Burley—C. C. Taylor, Rex Taylor
Farmers Burley—Tom Faulkner, Hoover Carter
Marketing
(Continued from page 13)
color or immature tobacco per bundle, or in untied tobacco about
five leaves out of 25, to throvi^ a lot of tobacco out of a straight
grade into a special factor grade. When this happens, it reduces
the support price and usually the market average from 10 to 25
cents per pound on the various grades.
Therefore, as a minimum requirement in order to get the
highest price per pound under the acreage-poundage quotas,
every tobacco grower should at least sort out of each barn of to-bacco
the green, red, slick, dead or other variegated off-color
leaves that do not blend with a lot of tobacco. A fevi^ leaves
removed from many lots of tobacco could increase the market
value as much as $10 to $25 per hundred, in addition to making
it more desirable and usable to the domestic and export trade.
Sequence of Marketing
Every year there are hundreds of tobacco farmers who lose
thousands of dollars because they market perfectly good barns
of tobacco at the wrong time of the season. The sequence in which
the various curings of flue-cured tobacco from different positions
on the stalk are marketed can make a great deal of difference in
the price received for certain grades.
It is always a good practice to follow the market pattern in
offering the various curings, because buyers always have more
orders for the kind of tobacco that makes up the bulk of the sale
30
in that particular belt. For example, during the first week or
ten days of sale under normal market conditions in any belt,
the bulk of the sale is usually made up of priming and lug
grades. Thus, your major buyers will have order primarily for
those grades of tobacco coming from the lower part of the stalk
while they are moving in volume large enough to keep their re-drying
facilities operating without switching grades and groups
so often. Therefore, if a grower offers leaf tobacco from the
upper part of the stalk during the first several days of sale, he
very seldom, if ever, receives market value because it is usually
bought by the warehouse or a speculator who holds it for resale
after company buyers receive orders for leaf tobacco.
In the past the marketing pattern followed by most growers
was to start with their first two or three barns in the order
that they were harvested. These barns usually consist of prim-ings,
lugs, low cutters and the nondescript from those curings.
After the tobacco from the lower part of the stalk was sold,
most growers then moved to the tips and barns just under the
tips which were usually in heavy volume by the third week of
sales. From here most growers then dropped back to where they
had left off" with their lugs and marketed the remainder of the
barns in the order that they were harvested.
However, under acreage-poundage quotas, this marketing pat-tern
may be altered slightly, since most farmers will want to
sell their best or highest price tobacco first so that their lowest
price tobacco will be left in the packhouse if they should have
any production beyond 110 percent of their quotas. Therefore,
it is very likely that many growers in the future will hold back
poor barns of primings and tips to be marketed last. But regard-less
of the sequence of sale, the important factor is for each
individual grower to follow as nearly as possible whatever mar-keting
pattern he finds developing under the acreage-poundage
program.
31
DOMESTIC CIGARETTE CONSUMPTION
BY KINDS 1965
Total Domestic Consumption
515 Billion Cigarettes