xt7wdb7vnz40 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7wdb7vnz40/data/mets.xml   Agricultural Experiment Station, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky 1974 journals kaes_research_rprts_19 English University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 19 : April 1974 text Research Report 19 : April 1974 1974 2014 true xt7wdb7vnz40 section xt7wdb7vnz40 l AN INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY
L OF BURLEY TOBACCO
 i By
  Dana G. Card and Willard H. Minton
O
 1 RESEARCH REPORT 19 ; April 1974
 _ University of Kentucky : : College of Agriculture
Agricultural Experiment Station : : Department of Agricultural Economics
  Lexington
 { 1
T   l `.,1
l ,

 I
A
\

 CONTENTS
Page
I.IST OI·` 'I`ABI,I·ZS ...................................... 4 f
Sl'MNl.·\RY .......................................... 5
ACIiNOWI.I·lDGMICNTS ................................... 6
INTR()I>I‘(i'I`ION ...................................... 7
'I`III·l I·`EI)ERAI, SYSTEM OI·` STANDARD GRADES ................... 8
Group .......................................... 3
Quality ............... . ......................... 9
Color .......................................... 9
MEASURES OI·` QUALITY USED IN TIIE INDEX ..................... 9
The Proportion of the Crop Made up of Lugs and Flyings ............... 9
The Proportion of the Crop Made up of Choice, Fine and Good Quality Grades .... 9
The Proportion of the Crop in the Dark-Colored, Nondescript and Miscellaneous
Classifications ................................... 10
The Proportion of the Crop in l9 Selected Grades, by Groups ............. 10
The Proportion of Tan Color Within the Leaf Group .................. 10
CALCULATION OF TIIE INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY ................ ll
E\'ALL‘A'I`ION OF TIIE INDEX .............................. 11
QUALITY SCORES FOR CROPS PRIOR TO 1939 ..................... 12
CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 13
RI·ZFERENCES ........................................ 25
APPENDIX ..... . .................................. 27
Notes on Tables ..........,.......................... 27
Percentage of Sales by Group, Quality and Color .................... 22
Notes on the Quality of Burley Tobacco Crops ..................... 29
PREVIOUS PUBLICATIONS IN TIIIS SERIES ....................... 35
3
I l
l
i T .i
I `

 i   LIST OF TABLES
S Table Page
  1. An Index of General Quality of Burley Tobacco ................... 14
  y . i 2. Key to Standard Grade Marks for Burley Tobacco .................. 15
  . A 3. Components of the Index of General Quality of Burley Tobacco .......... 16
i   . , 1 4. Average and Range in Percentage of Burley Tobacco Classified in 19 High—Quality
1   Grades, by Groups . ................................. 18
  5. Twenty-two Year Average Value of Five Indicators of Quality and Their Range of
  Variation .... . ............................ . ..... I9
  i e 6. Calculation of the Index of Quality ......................... 20
  ' · 7. Quality Scores for Crops of Burley Tobacco, 1912-1938 .............. 21
    8. Percentage of Sales, by Groups, for Crops of Burley Tobacco ............ 22
_ I 9. Percentage of Sales, by Quality, for Crops of Burley Tobacco ............ 23
` IO. Percentage of Sales, by Color, for Crops of Burley Tobacco ............. 2-}

 SUMMARY
 
Average quality of burley tobacco has varied from year to year, but no standard measure of
quality has been used to compare one crop with another over a period of years. An index number
of general quality, based upon the distribution of tobacco among standard federal grades is
presented here.
Some 25 measures of quality were considered for use in an index number, but no one of
them was entirely satisfactory. A combination of the following five measures appears to reflect
thickness of leaf, color, extent of damage and other characteristics of quality: (1) the proportion
of the crop made up of lugs and flyings, (2) the proportion of the crop in the choice, fine and
good quality classifications, (3) the proportion of the crop in the buff, tan and tannish red colors,
(4) the proportion of the crop in selected high-quality grades, by groups, and (5) the proportion
of tan color within the leaf group. T`he sum of these five percentages divided by the 1949-70
average of the sums constitutes the index presented in Table 1.
l·`or years l9l2 to 1938, prior to extensive use of federal grades for burley tobacco, the
quality of crops is presented as scores ranging from l to 5 in Table 7. The scores are based on
various types of information available for those years.
5
l
i
i i
l . ..
l

 I — ° ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Q Without the data gathered and published by the Tobacco Division of the USDA Agricultural
j ’ Marketing Service, this index of burley tobacco quality would not be possible. Robert T. Gaitskill
  i A and Aubrey R. Waits of the Tobacco Division; Ira Massie, Extension Specialist in Tobacco; and
  Garnett L. Bradford, Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, encouraged us to develop an
  y T index of quality. Our associates, Harry H. Hall and Loys L. Mather, reviewed the manuscript and
.   . i offered helpful suggestions. Ruth E. Wagner and Carol H. Holbrook carefully typed the tables
  . . i and manuscript through its revisions, and Dana R. Ritchie prepared the final format and typing.
i C We are grateful for all of these services.
6

 AN INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY OF BURLEY TOBACCO
by
Dana G. Card and Willard H. Minton* f
Introduction marketing season. Inasmuch as all burley
tobacco is graded before it is sold, the
"Quality" is a term used frequently proportion of tobacco falling in the better
when discussing the merits of a crop of burley grades should provide an index of general
tobacco, yet just what is meant by "quality" quality [9] .1 No one measure appears
is not easy to describe. In the system of adequate, however, because grade
federal grades for burley tobacco, relative designations do not completely reflect the
quality is a characteristic considered within a difference between heavy-bodied and
group and color in determining a particular thin-bodied crops. A combination of measures
grade of burley. More frequently, however, seems more accurate.
the term quality is used in a general sense Since 1938, the Tobacco Market News
such as "the l967 crop was of better quality Service2 has issued, at the close of each
than the 1966 crop" or a statement to the marketing season, a brief comment on the
effect that tobacco grown in one area is of general quality of the crop, usually compared
better quality than that grown in another area with that of the previous year. Thus, there is
during the same year. available a year—to-year comparison of burley
Such statements usually mean that the quality but no comparison except between
better quality tobacco has more desirable succeeding years, and then only in general
characteristics such as brighter color, thinner terms. (See the Appendix for these
body, better burning qualities, etc. statements.) The statements are not
Year-to-year quality comparisons are often consistent in their use of terms. There are
made but no system now in effect assigns a some references to the proportion of lugs and
numerical quality score to burley tobacco flyings, some to the predominance of low
grown each year. grades or to dark red and green colors. This
Data on the distribution of tobacco suggests that no single characteristic
among the various standard grades are used adequately reflects general quality but
here to compute a numerical index which indicates some measures that are important.
reflects differences in average quality between In this report. a numerical index of the
crop years, or between periods in the general or overall quality of burley tobacco
*I’rofessor Emeritus and Assistant Professor, respectively, of lliigures in brackets refer to literature listed on page
Agricultural Economics. This report results from work on 2U·S· Department of Agriculture and Departments of
E¥‘P°**m°"* $****0** _**¤·¤'· Ptsim 72 and ’8· *~‘*·¤¤** M Aalcuitac in southern tobacco growing .ma,mpma..g.
\\'llI"| tobacco l"I'\Z1I`l(C[lI'lg 11HCl PTICCS.
7
i
l
ll

   ” [ grown each year is presented, Measures of second, a number indicating the quality <
V   ‘ I quality which did not agree fairly well in the Withlll the gTOup; and third, Ll l€[tCI' 0I` letters l
  A , . direction of change with the market news signifying color [10 and 14]. l
T . ~   statements were considered inadequate. Some (
  ‘ Q 25 different measures were considered, but 5
  only five are used in the numerical index. Group
  . r It is hoped that this index of burley
  i _’ . _ . tobacco quality may be of interest and of The tobacco plant does not ripen (
  , . [ i   value to people in the tgbaeeg industry, to uniformly. OftCIl 8. few Oli the bottommost
    agrghgmists who study tobacco production leaves deteriorate and slough off while the
  [   · [ and ways to improve its quality, and to topmost leaves still are growing actively. The r
.   1 . ° economists who work on marketing and oldest leaves at the bottom of the plant tend <
  _ _ ` l ( policy aspects Of the ei·Op_ i to be light ill COlOI`, {hill lll body and S0 (
[ i T tissuey that they often shatter when handled. l
  e L These leaves are called "Flyings" and are '
  _ T 2 The Federal System of Standard Grades given the group designation X. {
  - . V ‘ ` Farther up the stalk are longer leaves, a  
  T t ( L . The system of standard grades now used little heavier than flyings but still thin enough l
  i , ; t for burley tobacco was developed in the U.S. to have good burning qualities. These are
lf j r Department of Agriculture during the l920’s. called "Lugs" and are given the group
  I ‘ T It is part of a general system for all types of designation C. They usually are the most l
g l ’ tobacco grown in the United States and has valuable part of the burley plant.
} if been in use since about 1930 [10]. The next series of leaves, called "Leaf"
  1 T ( - Even with federal grades in use, each are given the group designation B. They form l
T _ · [ tobacco company places its private grade on later than lugs and, therefore, are not quite as ‘
I the tobacco it buys. Private grades vary mature, and thus tend to be medium-to-heavy l
` between companies, and descriptions of the in body and darker in color than either lugs or I
i grades are not available to others. The Burley flyings. This leaf group makes up some 45% *
_ [ A Tobacco Growers Cooperative Marketing of the crop and varies in color and body with *
; Association (1921-26) used a set of grades general quality of the entire crop. ‘
  . which included all qualities of burley tobacco, The fourth regular group is made up of l
l but those grades were replaced by official the topmost leaves harvested.These leaves are ·
[ ` ( government grades. shorter and heavier in body and darker in ‘
3 ( The 107 grades listed in Table 2 are the color than those of the leaf group. Quite
l ones now used by official government graders logically, this group of leaves is called "Tips" “
· of burley tobacco. and is given the group designation T. Still '
  V Subjective evaluation of a product into other small leaves, at the top of the plant, are
‘ so many grades would be practically cut off and discarded before burley tobacco is
. impossible were it not for the fact that burley harvested.
tobacco can be sorted on the basis of three Three other group designations also are
J ~ distinguishable characteristics: group, quality used: "Mixed" (M) for tobacco containing
i and color. The grade symbols have three two or more of the above-mentioned groups
i V characters: first,aletterindiciating the group; in mixed amounts; "Nondescript" (N) for

 9
damaged tobacco or tobacco which does not 1. The Proportion of the Crop made up
H'ICC[ [hc mmlmum Sp€Clf1CH.tlOFlS of the Of Lugs and   thi]-Incl--bOdi€d
l0W€$t Bmdcs in other STOUPSS and “$€f¤P” lighter—colored and better buming leaves of a
(S) for broken pieces of tobacco leaves and burley crop usually are the lugs and flyings. If
stems. one year’s crop has lighter thinner leaves than
that of another year, it is probable that a f
higher proportion of the leaves will be
Quality classified as "lugs". The proportions of lugs
and flyings do not always increase or decrease
The second character in the grade together, but when lugs and flyings are
symbol is a number (1 to 5) which relates to combined, this seems to be a good indicator
quality within the group and color. The five of overall quality of burley tobacco.
degrees of quality are based on elements in In recent years, differences in the prices
tobacco such as: smoothness, maturity, body, of lugs, flyings and the better grades of leaf
texture, injury, finish and uniformity. They have been so small that some farmers have not
are Choice (1), Fine (2), Good (3), Fair (4) taken the trouble to separate these groups. As
and Low (5). No choice or fine qualities occur a result, the amount of burley classified as
in the tip group. Mixed (M) has increased (Table 8). "In Mixed
Group grades: F indicates light general color
and medium-to-tissuey body," [11, p. 10].
Color V Most of this tobacco, therefore, would have
appeared as lugs or flyings had it been sorted
The third character in the grade symbol into groups more carefully. When calculating
is a letter, or letters, representing color. The the index of general quality of burley
colors and the letters assigned to them from tobacco, mixed tobacco which carried the
light to dark are: Buff (L), Tan (F), Tannish "F" designation was considered to be flyings
Red (FR), Red (R) and Dark Red (D). Other and lugs.
color designations are: Variegated (K),Mixed In the 22 years, 1949-70, the flyings
(M), Greenish (V), Greenish Tan (VF), group (X) made up about 19% of the crop,
Greenish Red (VR), Green (G), Green Tan the lugs group (C) about 21%, and the F part
(GF) and Green Red (GR) The buff color of the mixed group   a little over 2%.
occurs only in flyings and lugs, while red and Thus, these three components averaged over
tannish red occur mainly in leaf and tips. 42% of the burley tobacco marketed. It varied
Thus a grade symbol of C4F represents from 31% in 1962 to 53% in 1955 (Table 3).
tobacco belonging in the lugs group, of fair 2. The Proportion of the Crop Made up
quality and {LID in color. of Choice, Fine and Good Quality
Grades—The sum of the first two or three
quality designations should give a satisfactory
Measures of Quality Used indicator of overall quality. Two limitations
in the Index arise, however. The first two qualities
constitute 10% or less of the entire crop and
Five indicators of quality are combined the percentage varies erratically from year to
in the quality index (Table 3). year. The 3rd quality "Good", includes, a
r l
l
l , ».
  _

 t ( c ( 10
  i fairly large amount of relatively low-grade in 1959 to 89% in 1955 (Table 3).
i P · ` tobacco. The key to standard grades (Table 2) 4. The Proportion of the Crop in 19
  i .( _ shows that a number of grades of red, Selected Grades, by Groups—A large
i _ 1 .   variegated and green tobacco carry the good proportion of tobacco in the better grades of
  ‘ i T _ or 3rd quality designation, as does the tip each group should reflect ahigh quality crop.
  ( i group. The grades selected to be "high-grade" or
  ’ I Looked at another way, the choice, fine "low—grade", within groups, doubtless would
  ‘ ( ( I and good quality tobacco is better than the depend on the person making the selection.
  i _ P   fair, low, nondescript and miscellaneous, so For this index of quality, 19 grades were
  ( i using the proportion falling in the first three selected. An average of 14.8% of all burley
  ( ( ( ( qualities should reflect changes in overall was in these 19 grades during the years
,   1 _ ’ quality. In the 22 years, 1949-70, nearly 29% 1949-70. The percentage varied from a low of
g ( _ ‘ f of the crop fell in the first three qualities 6.44 in 1959 and in 1960, to ahigh of 30.76
    i (choice, fine and good) and varied from 17% in 1968 (Table 3). Table 4 lists the grades
1 c 3 i in 1959 to 48% in 1968 (Table 3). used, the average percent of the crop
  ( . · i 3. The Proportion of the Crop in the represented by each group and the ranges in
  ; , . i ( Dark-Colored, Nondescrzpt and Miscellaneous percentages. Neither the high percentages nor
  2 . i . ( Classi]%ations—In some years a lower quality the low percentages for all groups came in the
  t   ¤ crop is indicated by a larger-than-usual same year. Data for this indicator of quality
  ( ; 1 proportion of off—colored tobacco. More dark, were not published prior to 1949.
l l . T variegated and green tobacco shows up in the 5. The Proportion of Tan Color Within
  3 ‘ - crop. Table 10 shows the percentage of red, the Leaf Group—Although color by itself may
g ( ( . dark red, variegated, Mixed,3 greenish, gY€€¤, not be an important determinant of quality, it
    2 ( nondescript and miscellaneous tobacco. The is associated with other physical
  s 1 key to standard grades (Table 2) shows that characteristics which are important [14, p.
1 i IHOSI of Sl.1Cl1 tO1)3.CCO is 1I‘l 1Zl`1€ lower gI'3.ClCS. A   _ SO Color is 3 Cgnsidcygtign in assigning
» sum of the eight columns gives a negative g·l·3_d€s_
j indicator of quality. That is, the larger the The amount of light-colored tobacco in a
( total, the poorer the general quality of the crop is reflected to some extent by the
¤ — crop. This percentage can be changed to a proportion of lugs and flyings. On the other
  positive lI'1C11C8.lZOI`     lZl'1€ p€I`C€l'1t3.g€S hand, vafiatigns in CQiOI' in the leaf gygup  
= ( in the first three columns, those for buff, tan not bg reflected Leaf makes up abgut 45%,
` and tannish red colors. Inasmuch as tannish by weight, of burley tobacco so the quality of
  P red (FR) grades were not used in the leaf leaf is important in affecting the overall
1 ` EYOUP Prior YO 1943» wd in th€ UP STOUP quality of the crop. As an indicator of
( prior to 1949, some allowance was made for quality, the prgpgrtign of leaf which was
1 this. graded tan in color is used in calculating the
· During the 22 years, 1949-70, this index. From 1949 to 1970, an average of 50%
( ( positive indicator of   1I`lClUdCd, OI1 tl`l€ of leaf was [an in Color, but ranged from  
average, 71% of the crop and varied from 54% in 1949 to 71% in 1955 (Table 3)_ Here too
° _ .§.......__......... some allowance was made for the absence of
E "lYiixed" here. refers chiefly to mixed colors in contrast to FR grades in l€3.f pl‘lO1‘ to 1943 and in tips
. - mixed groups in Table 8. prior to 1949.

 11
Calculating The Index Of General Quality just one. lf each is a good measure of quality,
why use more than one? One answer to this
To calculate the index of quality can be found by comparing the year-to—year
presented here, the following five percentages changes in the five measures used in the
were added together for each year: (1) the index. Only about half of the time did all five /
percentage of the crop in flyings, lugs, and the indicators move in the same direction from
thin side of the mixed group; (2) the year to year, In other words, one indicator
percentage of the crop in the three top may show an improvement in quality at the
qualities (choice, fine and good); (3) the same time that another shows a decline. An
percentage in the three brighter colors (buff, average of the five indicators seems preferable
tan and tannish red); (4) the percentage of to any one.
leaf which was classed as tan in color; and (5) Using several indicators helps maintain
the percentage of the tobacco which was comparability over a period of years. The
included in 19 selected high—quality grades indicators used show different trends. The
(Table 3). proportion of burley graded as lugs and
Table 5 gives the 22-year average of flyings tended to decrease during the 22-year
these indicators, together with the highest and base period. The amount of burley graded
lowest value for each. Even though the choice, fine and good, however, tended to
indicators differ considerably in average value, increase and about offset the decline in lugs
their ranges are less variable. An index based and flyings. The proportion of low grades and
on the sum of the five indicators should give the proportion in the selected 19 high grades
each indicator roughly the same importance showed very slight but opposite trends. The
in determining changes from year to year. proportion of tan color in the leaf group
Index numbers usually are expressed in declined slightly. These offsetting changes
percent of some base number. For a time improve the merits of the index over one
series, some relatively normal or recent period based on a single measure of quality.
often is selected for the base value of 100. The characteristics and uses of burley
The 22 years, 1949-70 inclusive, are used as a tobacco have changed materially in the past
base for this index of burley quality. Data 50-60 years   Because of this, an index of
were more complete for these years than for quality may not be applicable over an
earlier ones. The sum of the five percentages extended period. Our index is judged to be
averaged 207.1 in the 22-year period. The reasonably satisfactory in this respect,
figure 207.1 is taken as the base and yearly however.
totals are expressed as percentages of it. The Tobacco grown in different parts of the
method of calculation for the year 1971 is burley producing area differs in average
illustrated in Table 6. Indexes for other years quality [4] . Prior to 1940, the collection of
are given in Tables 1 and 3. grade information, upon which the index of
quality is based, was much less complete and
consistent than for the years since 1940. The
Evaluation Of The Index markets on which Federal grading was done,
and for some years the amount of tobacco
Some may question the need for five graded, is shown below. The location of
measures of quality in the index rather than markets on which grade information was
I  
I.

 I - _ 12
P ‘   _ gathered undoubtedly affects its 1945 crop was considered to be of quite low
i I comparability from year to year [14, pp. quality but our index shows it slightly better
; ( . 16-25]. than the 1944 crop. This is due to an
’ . . , unusually low percentage of tan colored leaf
  ‘   _ 1931 crop-—Ga1latin, Tenn. 5,470,265 pounds in 1944 and a sharp rebound in 1945. Other
  1932 crop—No grading years with small discrepancies were 1950,
  ` · 1933 cr0p—Horse Cave, Carrollton, Maysville, 1951, 1952 and 1964. In each of these years,
  · 1 Lexington, Ky. and Knoxville, either the amount of tan tobacco in the leaf
  _ e f T   Tenn. 63,318,898 pounds group or the proportion in the 19 selected
  1934 cr0p—Knoxville, Tenn. 3,966,674 grades, moved in divergence to the market
  _ ; I pounds news report. In only one case, however, did
  , i 1935 crop-Lexington, Shelbyville, Ky. and the index show a change of as much as four
  ( = W Knoxville, Tenn. points in the opposite direction from the
  l ` ( 1936 crop—Bowling Green, Cynthiana, Horse news report. Changes of four points or less in
  T Cave, Mt. Sterling, Ky. 157,383 the index probably are not important in
  . 3 lots (probably 20-25 million reflecting quality differences.
  Q _ » i pounds) Among the 36 years for which tobacco
    I _ ( 1937 crop-—Bowling Green, Cynthiana, market news comments are available, eight
    f l Danville, Horse Cave, Mt. Sterling, changes in the index were four points or less
    I _ 1 Ky. while 18 were 12 points or more. Changes
    A 1938 crop—Same as 1937 plus Maysville, ranged from a decrease of 28 points from
l L ( V Paris, Springfield, Ky.; Ripley, 1958 to 1959 to an increase of 33 points
g Ohio;Abingdon,Va.;Huntington, between 1966 and 1967, and averaged 12
  ` I W. Va.; and Knoxville, Tenn. (12 points for the 34 year-to·year changes.
1 Q markets) 105,715,613 pounds
{ I 1939 crop—14 markets
= ` 1940 crop—1 6 markets Quality Scores For Crops Prior To 1939
Q 1941 crop-—All 43 markets
V In 1939, when information by federal
; » i When selecting indicators of quality for grades was not available, quality scores were
  I use in the index, comparisons were made with assigned to crops of burley tobacco for the
1 the comments in the market news summaries. years 1912 to 1938   The best crops were
1 ` If too many discrepancies were found the scored 1 and the poorest were scored 5. These
  proposed indicator was discarded. No one of scores reflect variability in quality of crops
i ‘ the five indicators used, however, agreed with even though the burley tobacco of those days
I l the market news comments in all of the 35 was quite a different product from that of
; possible year-to·year comparisons (1937-72). today.
{ l Comparison of the composite index with The numerical scores were based on
i the market news comments shows agreement receipts by the Burley Tobacco Growers
  whenever a marked change in quality took Cooperative Marketing Association from 1921
. _ , place. With moderate changes in quality the to 1926, sales records of buyer’s grades,
  agreement is less consistent. For instance, the opinions of reputable tobacco dealers, buyers

 13
and warehousemen and upon personal the relation of weather conditions during the
observation. growing and curing seasons to tobacco
Table 7 shows the scores assigned to quality.
each crop. For a few years, both an index The index of quality presented here
number and a score are available. They agree appears to reflect changing characteristics of f
reasonably well, but no attempt is made here burley tobacco. There is some upward trend
to link the two together. in the index during the 42-year period, but
this would be expected from changes which
have taken place in the burley tobacco plant
Conclusions as a result of new varieties and cultural
practices. On the other hand, the index
The average quality of burley tobacco reflects short-time fluctuations in quality as
has varied considerably from year to year, but well.
no recognized measure of quality has been One limitation in using the index is a
available. Because quality is important in time lag in availability of federal grade data
determining the value and use of burley for inclusion in the index. A considerable
tobacco, there is need for an index of general portion of the year’s crop must be sold before
quality which can be used to compare one a reliable index number for that crop can be
crop with another over a period of years. calculated. The index could be used, however,
Such an index should be of value to people in to show changes in average quality from week
the tobacco industry, to farmers and to to week during the marketing season.
educators. It may also be useful for analyzing
i
F
i

 L 14
Q l 7 ; TABLE 1
I ‘ i AN INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY OF BURLEY TOBACCO
; (1949-70 average = 100)
T »  
{ 1 L L Crop Year Index Number Crop Year Index Number
é .......................................................................
E 1930 1950 90
· J 1931 80 1951 92
i 1 ` 1932* 90 1952 93
1   1933 80 1953 118
3 1934 96 1954 102
1 1935* 104 1955 128
g , g 1936 100 1956 109
1 S 1 1937 85 1957 102
1; ? 1938 99 1958 101
; l 1939 98 1959 73
U 1940 83 1960 88
i i 1941 84 1961 102
, I 1942 96 1962 80
_ I 1943 101 1963 85
I 1944 88 1964 89
1945 91 1965 101
1946 82 1966 94
, 1947 109 1967 127
3 1948 96 1968 131
1949 87 1969 107
4 1970 101
3 1971 113
L 1972 125
 
1 Source: The basic data on federal grades came from U.S.D.A. Light
Air-Cured Tobacco Market Reviews.
*Estimated from unofficial data.
1 .
, 1 1

 15
TABLE 2
KEY TO STANDARD GRADE MARKS FOR BURLEY TOBACCO
Group Qualitx Color
B - Leaf 1 - Choice L — Buff V - Greenish
T - Tips 2 - Fine F - Tan VF — Greenish tan
C - Lugs or Cutters 3 - Good FR — Tannish red VR - Greenish red
X - Flyings 4 — Fair R - Red G — Green
M — Mixed Group S — Low D - Dark red GF - Green tan
N - Nondescript K — Variegated GR — Green red
S - Scrap
SUMMARY OF STANDARD GRADES
35 Grades of Leaf
BIF B1FR B1R
B2F BZFR B2R
BSF BSFR BSR BSK BSM BSVF BSVR BSGF BSGR
B4F B4FR B4R B4D B4K B4M B4VF B4VR B4GF B4GR
BSF BSFR BSR BSD BSK BSM BSVF BSVR BSGF BSGR
21 Grades of Tips
TSF TSFR TSR
T4F T4FR T4R T4D T4K T4VF T4VR T4GF T4GR
TSF TSFR TSR TSD TSK TSVF TSVR TSGF TSGR
21 Grades of Lugs or Cutters 14 Grades of Flxings
C1L C1F X1L XlF
C2L C2F X2L X2F
CSL CSF CSK CSM CSV XSL XSF
C4L C4F C4K C4M C4V C4G X4L X4F X4M X4G
CSL CSF CSK CSM CSV CSG XSL XSF XSM XSG
8 Grades of Mixed Group 7 Grades of Nondescript 1 Grade of Scrap
M1F NlL N1F N1R N1G S
M2F NZL N2R N2G
MSF MSFR
M4F M4FR
MSF MSFR
 
SP€Ci3l f3CtOrS "W"_.L/ and "U" E] may be applied to all grades, Tobacco not covered by the standard gl'Hd€$
is designated as No-G (no grade).
j_/ "W" - Unsafe order - Sound but containing excessive moisture which is likely to damage unless unusual
precaution is taken.
Q "U" — Unsound — Damaged under 20 percent. A l
Source: Light Air- Cured Tobacco Market Review, Part I, (Burley) U. S. Department of Agriculture, {
Agricultural Marketing Service, Tobacco Division (1970 Crop).  

 E Q 16
ig TABLE 3
E I Q Z COMPONENTS OF THE INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY OF BURLEY TOBACCO
I ‘ (1949-70 average = 100)
5 ‘
g t
p' ·’ Components of the Indexl Composite A
€ »¥ Crop F1 . .
E y1ngs . . Buff, Tan N1neteen
g Year Lugs and guglggéeg and Top Grades T?; Ezggr Total Index
P - ( Mixed "F" ’ Tannish Red in Groups
E 1 ——----——--—---- percent of sales --------------- (percent)
1 . 1 } 1930
A g 1931 38.0 27.0 50.2 38.0 153.2 79.7
f ». 1 7) 1932
Q I 1933 41.6 31.4 45.4 36.4 154.8 80.5
E 1934 42.6 38.5 62.6 41.5 185.2 96.3
Q ( I 1935
Q * _ 1936 48.6 38.9 61.0 43.3 191.8 99.7
1 p 1 . 1937 45.0 22.5 60.6 36.1 164.2 85.4
P ’ I 1938 49.8 28.5 71.3 41.3 190.9 99.3
g . T 1939 46.2 30.3 70.1 41.6 188.2 97.9
1 L 1 P 1940 36.3 24.0 59.3 39.5 159.1 82.7
S A p 1941 42.3 21.3 59.7 39.0 162.3 84.4
i 1942 47.4 31.2 67.0 39.7 185.3 96.4
` 1943 48.3 38.8 65.6 40.6 193.3 100.6
4 1944 47.0 32.6 59.4 31.0 170.0 88.4
4 1945 46.3 25.8 63.5 38.7 174.3 90.6
1946 41.7 20.8 60.6 35.2 158.3 82.3
l 1947 55.0 30.6 75.7 48.9 210.2 109.3
Q 1948 50.7 25.7 67.4 41.4 185.2 96.3
3 1949 51.2 20.9 64.7 13.3 28.9 179.1 86.6
Z I 1950 50.7 20.9 64.2 12.1 39.1 187.0 90.3
j 1951 45.5 19.5 65.1 9.3 50.3 189.7 91.6
I 1952 42.9 23.3 66.7 14.2 45.4 192.5 92.9
1953 52.7 31.7 79.0 24.1 57.4 244.9 118.3
U 1954 43.6 22.5 76.4 10.0 58.9 211.4 102.1
z 1955 53.3 30.2 88.7 22.2 70.7 265.0 128.0
1956 48.7 25.7 81.0 15.8 54.2 225.3 108.8
_ ~ 1957 39.6 24.2 73.0 13.7 60.5 211.1 101.9
2 1958 46.5 22.7 74.2 13.5 53.1 210.0 101.4
’ 3 1959 33.7 17.2 53.6 6.4 39.8 150.8 72.8
M
 2*

 17
TABLE 3.--Continued
COMPONENTS OF THE INDEX OF GENERAL QUALITY OF BURLEY TOBACCO
(1949-70 average = 100)
Com•onents of the Indexl Com•osite
Crvp Flyings . . Buff, Tan Nineteen
Yea? Lugs and ?ua;1;g§S3 and Top Grades Tg: Egggr Total Index
Mixed "F" ’ Tannish Red in Groups I
-———-- — --——— -—--percent of sales-- --————----— (percent)
1960 35.1 22.1 67.2 6.4 51.2 182.1 87.9
1961 38.9 32.0 72.3 14.5 54.0 211.6 102.2
1962 30.9 24.4 58.0 9.7 42.9 165.9 80.1
1963 33.0 28.3 60.3 7.1 47.9 176.7 85.3
1964 37.0 26.6 62.5 12.2 46.0 184.3 89.0
1965 39.9 34.0 70.7 17.1 47.3 209.0 100.9
1966 35.2 34.6 66.6 13.0 44.1 193.6 93.5
1967 43.5 46.7 86.2 28.5 58.3 263.2 127.1
1968 52.6 47.9 87.2 30.8 53.8 272.3 131.4
1969 43.2 37.3 77.1 17.3 47.1 222.1 107.3
1970 36.5 37.3 69.7 14.3 50.6 208.5 100.7
1971 47.0 43.9 77.7 19.2 46.2 234.0 113.0
1972 47.0 50.6 81.6 22.7 56.5 258.4 124.8
Source: Light Air—Cured Tobacco Market Review, published by the United
States Department of Agriculture.
1See accompanying text for description of components of the index.
h i
{
a  __
( -

 18
} 0. TABLE 4
{ AVERAGE AND RANGE IN PERCENTAGE OF BURLEY TOBACCO CLASSIFIED
Z _  IN 19 HIGH—QUALITY GRADES, BY GROUPS
  G S d G des Percent of the Cro Re resented
. { roup an ra 1949-70 Average Range
I F1yingS; XIL, X2L, XSL, XIF, X2F, XSF 6.13 1.20 - 15.00
3   LugS; CIL, CZL, CSL, CIF, C2F, CSF 3,76 1.14 · 11.49
2 3 Leaf; BIF, B2F, BIFR, B2FR 4.31 0.53 — 12.57
I n Tip; TSF, T4F, TSFR 0.60 0.10 - 1.88
` Total 19 grades 14.80 6.44 - 30.76
i .
I   I _

 19
TABLE 5
TWENTY-TWO YEAR AVERAGE VALUE OF FIVE INDICATORS OF
QUALITY AND THEIR RANGE OF VARIATION
:::::::::Z::::::::ZZ:Z:IZZ:ZZ::::::IIZ:ZZ:::Z:Z:Z::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Indicator of Quality 1949-70 Average Lowest Highest
Percent Percent
 
Lugs, flyings and the thin side of
the mixed group 42.5 31 53
Qualities 1, 2 and 3 (choice, fine
and good) 28.6 17 48
Buff plus tan plus tannish red 71.1 54 89
Tan color in leaf 50.