THE QUALITY AND GRADING OF EGYPTIAN COTTON

 The objectives of this study were to assess the cotton quality and grading systems in Egypt and to recommend improvements.

Findings:

· High-quality cotton has some measurable characteristics, some un-measureable characteristics. Quality also depends upon the absence of trash and contaminants.

· Foreign spinners consider Egyptian cotton to have excellent spinning qualities, but they warn that the presence of contaminants, especially synthetic fibers, endanger this good reputation.

· Foreign spinners prefer a simple, numeric grading system for Egyptian cotton.

· Other countries that produce ELS cotton have much simpler grading terminology and much fewer grades.

· By the 1990's the grades actually received by the lint cotton produced in Egypt had collapsed into a narrow range. This was due to the nationalization of production and marketing systems and the subsequent lack of attention to quality and to the incentives needed to produce quality cotton.

· The collapse of grades over time implies that all of the cotton is put 'in the same sack.’ thus, the good cotton is mixed with the poor cotton, which lowers the overall spinning value of the cotton.

· The premiums paid for high grades of seed cotton in Egypt have, for many years, been small, and the penalties for poor cotton have also been small, thus providing small incentives to produce and trade high-quality cotton.

· The current campaigns by the GOE to eliminate contaminants are helpful but have not eliminated contamination. These campaigns must be coupled with better market price premiums for clean cotton and market penalties for contamination.

· Many private seed cotton buyers in the 1998-99 season were avoiding low-value cotton. Continuation of this practice will widen the quality price premiums.

· The large number of cotton producers in Egypt complicates the problems of the MALR in
extension efforts to train producers in improved production and marketing techniques.

· It appears that CATGO is understaffed and its cotton classers are overburdened by volume and, hence, lack sufficient time to do the best possible job of grading, particularly at the sales rings.

· CATGO now performs HVI tests on all lots of lint cotton.

· Ginners lack the flexibility to increase their profits by improving the quality of cotton in ginning.

· The GOE has recently ordered the installation of trash analyzers at gins.

· The traditional farfarra methods of blending cotton for export may be adding, instead of removing, contamination.

· Repressing of bales for export at Alexandria is becoming expensive, but alternatives are being found, such as more selective buying of seed cotton and seed cotton blending, and baling for export at the gins.

· Most people in the trade feel that free markets and free market pricing will improve quality price

premiums and hence will improve cotton quality.

 Recommendations:

· To improve cotton quality, the GOE should continue to play its critical role in breeding, seed certification and production, grading, and inspections at sales rings and gins.

· The GOE needs to play a larger role in the future in providing timely market information to producers, traders and exporters.

· The Egyptian cotton grading system should be simplified.

· Exporters should consider supplementing the grading system by providing buyers with reliable, standardized, HVI results.

· CATGO should distribute the results of HVI tests on the current cotton crop as widely and quickly as possible during the marketing season.

· CATGO graders need to spend more time grading seed cotton. This will result in more accurate grading and will impress upon farmers the importance of quality.

· The GOE should sustain and enhance its campaigns with producers at sales rings and at gins to control contamination in cotton.

· The GOE should attempt to remove synthetic sacks from the agricultural scene to keep synthetic fibers from contaminating the cotton.

· The MALR should expand its extension efforts to educate producers in production, harvesting, post-harvest handling, and marketing techniques that improve cotton quality.

· The MALR should continue its efforts to improve seed quality through the expansion of seed delinting and treatment, through continued reduction in the number of varieties grown, and increases in bonuses paid to producers for seed multiplication.

· The GOE should consider offering a special bonus for the production of planting seed from the first picking.

· Gins should increase efforts to clean seed cotton with manual methods and should supplement manual cleaning of seed cotton with new mechanical technology to reduce contamination prior to ginning.

· The GOE should continue moving toward free markets and privatization of publicly owned companies in the cotton subsector. This includes trading, ginning, spinning, weaving and ready-made garment firms. Quality premiums at the spinning and weaving level will result in higher quality premiums for seed cotton.

· The GOE should make a commitment to stop setting ginning charges once the privatization of gins is complete.

· In the long run, the price premiums for grades, and differentials between varieties, should be set in a free, competitive market, not by the Government.

Ronald Krenz Abt Associates

William Breginc Galal El Rifai GTZ

Adel Mostafa Nabil El-Sentrecy Mohamed Messelhi EQI

Read more...

Analysis of Yield - Egyptian Cotton

A Genetic Analysis of Yield and its Components of
Egyptian Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.)

Under Divergent Environments
¹Gamal I.A. Mohamed, 'S.H.M. Abd-El-Halem and^'E.M.A. Ibrahim

¹Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut University, Egypt
²Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University at Assiut, Egypt

Abstract: A half-diallel set of crosses was established among six local cotton varieties: Giza-88, Giza 90, Giza 87, Giza 89, Giza 91 and Giza 83 in order to estimate the genetic parameters of seed-cotton yield and its components under two divergent environments of clay-fertile and a sandy-calcareous infertile soils. The average reduction in seed-cotton yield/plant under drought stress were 42 and 37.4% and in lint yield/plant were 46.2 and 40.5% for the parent and it is F1 hybrids, respectively. The results revealed that the additive and non-additive gene effects were involved in the control of the studied traits in both environments. Most of the variation was attributed to the non-additive gene effects. For seed-cotton yield per plant and boll weight the additive gene effects were more important under favorable conditions but under stress, the non-additive effects of the genes were more important. The Wr/Vr analysis revealed that over-dominance was operating for the F1 generation and partial dominance was detected for the F2 generation under the two environments. The order of the dominance of the cultivars was reversed under drought. The genetic parameters indicated unequal distribution of dominant and recessive alleles among the six parents analyzed. Narrow-sense heritability values were much smaller relative to broad-sense heritability in the two environments indicating that the additive component was smaller than the other components of variance.

Key words: Egyptian cotton ~ Diallel analysis ~ Drought ~ Yield and its components

INTRODUCTION

Improving yield of cotton is the ultimate objective of many cotton breeding programs especially under adverse environmental conditions which prevail in the new land. Most of the newly reclaimed soils in Egypt are located in the desert where the availability of irrigation water is the most limiting factor. Drought stress is among the most important environmental factors influencing the yield components of cotton. Reduction in cotton yield is mainly due to moisture deficiency of the soils. Thus, breeding cotton for stress environments depends on their ability to resist drought [1]. Estimating the genetic parameters is an important step for identifying the best progenies to be used in the breeding program. Using information on the genetic structure of yield and its components as a quantification and selection criterion should be superior to use of yield under both normal and moisture deficiency [2,3,4]. The present investigation was conducted to study the effects of drought stress on the performance and genetic behaviour of some local cotton genotypes crossed in a half diallel and grown in stressed and non-stressed environments. Moreover, the genetic parameters and heritability were estimated for seed-cotton yield and yield components under both environments in order to determine the appropriate breeding strategy for yield improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Plant Materials: Six Egyptian cotton varieties: namely Giza-88 (P1), Giza-90 (P2), Giza-87 (P3), Giza-89 (P4), Giza-91 (P5) and Giza-83 (P6) were used in this study.: The seeds were grown in fertile clay-loam soil in Al-Azhar University Experimental Farm.

Field Experiment Conditions: In 2005 season, the six cotton varieties were sown into the field of Al-Azhar University Experimental Farm and crossed in all possible combinations, excluding reciprocals, in order to obtain a

total of 15 F1 crosses. In 2006 growing season, seeds of the six parental varieties and the 15 F1 hybrids were sown into the field and of Al-Azhar University Farm in order to produced the F2 seeds. Crosses were also made to produce more F₁ seeds.

In 2007 season, seeds of the six parents, the 15 F1 s and the 15 F2 s of the six-parent half diallel cross were sown into the field at two experimental sites. The first experiment was conducted under the favourable conditions of the fertile clay-loam soil of Al-Azhar University Farm and was irrigated each three weeks after the planting irrigation.

Meanwhile, the second experiment was carried out under the stressed conditions of the infertile sandy-calcareous soil of the El-Ghoraieb Experimental Station which is located in the eastern desert 15 km south of Assiut and was irrigated each two weeks after the planting irrigation. The experimental layout in each site was a complete randomized block design with three replications. The parents and the F1 hybrids were represented by one row of plants per block, while four rows per block were used for each of the 15 F2 populations. Each row was 4.0 meter long, spaced 60 cm apart with plants spaced 25 cm within rows, on one side of the ridge with one seed per hill using the dry planting method. The agricultural practices recommended for cotton production were applied throughout the growing season. Measurements were recorded on a random sample of seven guarded plants for parents and the F1 hybrids and 20 guarded plants for each F2 populations in each replicate in the two experiments. The following characters were recorded for each plant: seed-cotton yield/plant, Lint yield/plant, Lint percentage and boll weight (gm).

Statistical Analysis: The collected data were analyzed using diallel analysis as developed by Hayman [2,5,6,7], Mather and Jinks [8] and Gomez and Gomez [9].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Means of the seed-cotton yield/plant, lint yield/plant, lint percentage and boll weight of the six parental cultivars, the 15 F1 hybrids and 15 F2 populations in the favourable (Al-Azhar) and stressed (El-Ghoraieb) environments are presented in Table 1. The parental means of seed cotton yield/plant under favourable conditions ranged from 27.64 (P1) to 54.27 (P2) grams with an average of 44.88 g. Under drought stress, the means were rather reduced to range from 14.02 (P1) to 46.72 (P6) with an average of 26.02 g indicating a 42% average reduction in seed-cotton yield/plant. The means of the F1 hybrids ranged from 48.45 to 63.21 g with an average of 54.64 g in the non-stress condition but in the stressed environment ranged from 14.53 to 49.11 g with an average of 34.21 g indicating 37.4% average reduction in seed-cotton yield/plant. Averaged over parents and F; s, seed-cotton yield/plant were reduced by 39.5% under stress conditions.

For lint yield/plant, the parental average reached 19.46 g in the favourable environment but was reduced to 10.53 g under the stressed sandy soil conditions indicating 46.2% reduction in lint yield/plant. The average of the F1 hybrids decreased from 23.21 g in the non-stress environment to 13.81 g under stress conditions indicating 40.5% reduction in lint yield/plant. In the two environments, the cultivar Giza 88 (P1) was the best in lint percentage trait (50.67 and 47.06) under favourable and stress conditions, respectively. Whereas, Giza 87 (P3) showed the lowest lint percentage (35.86 and 30.87, respectively).

The average lint percentage of the F1 hybrids decreased from 44.67 in the favourable environment to 38.26 in the stress environment. Giza 83 (P6) was the best for boll weight under favourable and stressed environments (2.89 and 2.44 g, respectively). The average boll weight of the F1 hybrids decreased from 2.98 g in the favourable environment down to 2.43 g in the stressed environment. Such reductions under stress are agreement with Hendawy [10], Kiani et al.[11], Mohamed et al. [12], Zerihun et al. [13] and Rokaya et al. [14].

The analysis of variance (Table 2) revealed highly significant differences among the genotypes for all characters studied in both the favourable and the stressed environments.

The Diallel Analysis of Variance: For seed-cotton yield/plant and its components, both "a" and "b" items measuring additive and non-additive gene effects, respectively were highly significant for both F1 and F2 generations in the two contrasting environments (Table 2). Directional dominance towards greater expression was operating for seed-cotton yield/plant, lint­yield/plant and boll weight in the two contrasting environments as indicated by the significance of the "b1" item. However, dominance was ambidirectional for lint percentage in the favourable environment but was directional towards lower lint percentage under stress. The "b2" item was significant for all characters in the two contrasting environments indicating unequal distribution of dominant and recessive alleles among the parents. The significance of the "b3" item for all studied traits in the

two environments in the F1 and F2 generations indicated further dominance due to specific cross combinations and/or epistasis.

The Interpretation of the Wr/Vr Graph: The Wr, Vr, (Wr+Vr) and (Wr-Vr) values were calculated for each array in each block separately from the F1 and F2 diallel tables in both environments. The results of the analysis of the variance of the (Wr+Vr) and (Wr-Vr) values (Table 2) revealed significant array differences in the (Wr+Vr) value for F1 generations in most cases confirming the presence of non-additive genetic variation for most characters

studied, except boll weight under favourable environment. The differences in the magnitude of the (Wr-Vr) values over arrays were significant in most cases indicating the presence of either non-allelic gene interaction or epistatic effects. The Wr/Vr relationship is graphically illustrated in Fig. 1. The slope of the Wr/Vr regression line was significantly different from zero but not from unity (b = 0.76±0.23) for the F1's of seed cotton yield/plant under favourable conditions indicating the adequacy of additive-dominance model. The regression line intercepted the Wr axis near the origin point indicating almost complete dominance. However, for the F2

generation, the regression line was not significantly deviating from zero indicating non-allelic interaction. Under stress conditions, the slope of F1 regression line was not significantly deviating from zero (b = 0.12±0.77). However, the F2 regression line was significantly deviating from both zero and unity (b = 0.596±0.156) indicating that non-allelic interaction was operating. For lint yield per plant, the slope of the Wr/Vr regression line was significantly different from zero but not from unity (b = 0.81±0.36) for the F1 under favourable conditions indicating the adequacy of additive-dominance model. The regression line intercepted the Wr axis below the origin point indicating over-dominance. However, for F2 generation, the regression line was not significantly deviating from zero indicating non-allelic interaction. Under stress conditions, the slope of the F1 regression line was not significantly deviating from zero (b = 0.13±0.65). However, the F2 regression line was significantly deviating from zero (b = 0.89±0.17) indicating the adequacy of additive-dominance model. For lint percentage, the slope of the regression lines were not significantly deviating from zero for the F1 (b = 0.33±0.46) and the F2 (b = 0.13±0.26) under favourable conditions, as well as the F1 (b = 0.29±0.32) and the F2 (b = 0.39±0.27) under stress conditions indicating non-allelic interaction was operating. The regression line of the F1 generation under favourable condition intercepted the Wr axis near the origin point indicating almost complete dominance. For boll weight, the slope of the regression line were not significantly deviating from zero for the F1 (b = 0.35±0.41) and the F2 (b = 0.297±0.15) under favourable conditions indicating non-allelic interaction. However, under stress conditions the slope of the regression lines were significantly different from zero but not from unity for both the F1 (b = 0.85±0.12) and the F2 (b = 1.28±0.31) indicating the adequacy of additive-dominance model. The regression line intercepted the Wr axis below the origin point indicating over-dominance for both the F1 and F2 generations under stress conditions.

Genetic Parameters: The estimates of various components of genetic variation are given in Table 3. For seed-cotton yield/plant, the "D" parameter estimating the additive effect was much smaller than the dominance parameter "H1" for both the F1 and the F2 in the two environments except that of the F1 in the favourable environment where the "D" parameter was quite larger. These results confirmed those revealed by the Wr/Vr graph regarding the non-allelic interaction operating. The average degree of dominance as measured by the (H1/D)^1/2

ratio reached (0.999) for the F1 in the favourable environment indicating complete dominance. Meanwhile, the (H1/D)^1/2 were (2.396) for the F2 in the favourable environment and for F1 and F2 were 2.417 and 1.215, respectively in the stressed condition indicating over-dominance. Similar results were obtained by Talaat [15] and Iqbal et al. [16], however the results are on the contrary with those obtained by Ahmed [17]. The "F" parameter is positive for both the F1 and the F2 in the two soil types indicating that there were more dominant than recessive alleles. Similar results were obtained by Abdel-Hafez et al. [18] and Afiah and Ghoneim [19]. The HJ4H1 value indicated that the UV value was not equal to 0.25 indicating non-equal distribution of the dominant and recessive alleles among the six parents analyzed, which was indicated before from the significance of the "b2" item. Broad-sense heritability values were 0.32 and 0.83 for the F1 and F2 in the favourable environment, whereas under stress, the values were 0.78 and 0.87, respectively. The narrow-sense heritability values were 0.09 and 0.13 under favourable conditions and 0.07 and 0.42 under stressed for F1 and F2, respectively. These results indicated that the additive component was much smaller than the other components of variance. Such moderate estimates were also reported by Basal and Turgut [20] and Costa et al. [21].

For lint yield/plant, the "D" parameter was much smaller than the dominance parameter "H1" for both the F1 and the F2 in the two environments. Thus, over-dominance was operating which confirm the results revealed by the Wr/Vr graph. The "F" parameter is positive for both the F1 and F2 in the two environments indicating that there were more dominant alleles than recessive ones. Similar results were obtained by El-Ameen [22]; Esmail and Abdel-Hamid [23] and El-Zahab et al. [24]. The (H1/D)^1/2 ratio were 1.58 and 2.19 for the F1 and the F2 , respectively, in the favourable environment and were 2.95 and 1.35 for the F1 and the F2, respectively, in the stressed environment indicating over dominance. Similar results were obtained by Kar et al. [25]. The value of UV was not equal to 0.25 indicating non-equal distribution of the dominant and recessive alleles among the six parents analyzed, which has been indicated before from the "b2" item. Broad-sense heritability values were 0.69 and 0.88 in the favourable environment, but were 0.82 and 0.88 under stress for both F1 and F2, respectively. Meanwhile, narrow-sense heritability values were 0.11 and 0.14 in the favourable environment and were 0.18 and 0.39 under stress for F1 and F2, respectively. These results indicated that the additive component was much smaller

than the other components of variance. Similar results were also reported by Lyanar et al. [26].

For lint percentage, the "D" parameter was much smaller than the dominance parameter "H1" for both the F1 and the F2 in the two environments, confirming that over-dominance since the (H1/D)^1/2 were 2.29 and 9.69 in the favourable environment and 2.896 and 1.83 under stress for the F1 and the F2, respectively. These results confirming the results of the Wr/Vr graph. Similar results were also reported by Zerihun et al. [13]. The "F" parameter is positive for both the F1 and F2 in the two environments indicating that there were more dominant than recessive alleles. Similar results were obtained by Zerihun et al. [13] and Rajeswari [27]. The value (H2/4H1) that measures UV was not equal to 0.25 indicating non-equal distribution of the dominant and recessive alleles among the six parents analyzed, which was indicated before from the "b2" item. Broad-sense heritability values under favourable conditions were 0.26 and 0.71, whereas under stress, the values were 0.69 and 0.59 for the F1 and F2, respectively. The narrow-sense heritability reached -0.11 and 0.13 under favourable conditions and 0.08 and 0.15 under stress for the F1 and F2, respectively. Similar results were obtained by El-Ameen [22] and Nadeem et al. [28].

For boll weight, the "D" parameter estimating the additive effect was much smaller than the dominance parameter "H1" for both the F1 and the F2 generations in

the two environments, indicating over-dominance since the average degree of dominance as measured by the (H1/D)^1/2 were 1.55 and 1.48 in the favourable conditions and were 1.49 and 1.17 for the F1 and the F2, respectively, under stress. The "F" parameter is positive for both the F1 and the F2 in the stressed environment indicating that there were more dominant than recessive alleles. However, for the favourable environment the "F" value was negative for both the F₁ and the F₂ indicating an excess of recessive over dominant alleles. The UV value was not equal to 0.25 indicating non-equal distribution of dominant and recessive alleles among the six parents analyzed. Broad-sense heritability values under favourable conditions were 0.19 and 0.21 and under stress, the values were 0.82 and 0.47 for the F1 and F2, respectively. These results indicating that the major proportion of the total phenotypic variation was non-genetic variation, except for the F1 generation under stress. The narrow-sense heritability values indicated that the additive component was much smaller than the other components of variance. Similar results were obtained by Iqbal et al. [16], Esmail and Abdel-Hamid [23] and Gerik et al. [29].

Read more...

THE GROWTH OF THE EGYPTIAN COTTON INDUSTRY.

KING COTTON: A STUDY OF THE EGYPTIAN COTTON ECONOMY

BRIAN WADE MILLER
DR. HOWARD

INTRODUCTION

Cotton, as an agricultural industry, has had an enormous impact on the world. Some countries have been torn apart by the cotton industry, while others have prospered. Great Britain has had a major effect on the cotton industry and cotton production in several areas of the world. Especially following the Industrial Revolution, cotton became a major import into Great Britain. British cotton manufactures bought all the raw cotton that they could get their hands on because no cotton was grown in England. Realizing the potential for making a large amount of money, many farmers in North America converted their tobacco plantations into cotton plantations. Cotton fast became a major cash crop of the southern United States economy.

It did not take long for the American cotton industry to expand where it dominated the world market, the transition occurring sometime between 1790 and 1820. In 1800, American cotton displaced that of the West Indies, and in 1821 India was also surpassed by the productivity of the American cotton industry. America soon became Great Britain's single largest source of cotton. Nearly 77% of cotton imports between 1815 and 1859 into Great Britain came from America.'

America's dominance of the cotton market started to fade during the late antebellum period. Great Britain began to see hostilities occurring between the American states. As the threat of hostilities increased, Britain looked elsewhere to fulfill its raw cotton needs. India, Brazil, Turkey, and Egypt emerged as alternative sources for cotton. England began to import cotton from Egypt as early as 1822.

Egypt became a very important trading partner for Great Britain. Although Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire, Great Britain showed a great interest. Egypt was able tc receive financial support to build the infrastructure necessary for the large export of

cotton. Even though Great Britain was an active partner in the Egyptian cotton industry, it did not officially occupy Egypt until 1882.² Many historians would lead you to believe that British occupation of Egypt was due solely to the importance of the Suez Canal. This paper will demonstrate that the importance of the cotton industry was also a major factor in the eventually occupation of Egypt.

THE GROWTH OF THE EGYPTIAN COTTON INDUSTRY

The American Civil War enabled Egypt to benefit enormously. Cotton ginning factories began to be built in order to handle the increase in cotton production. Advances in transportation took place simultaneously with the increase in cotton. The Alexandria-Cairo railway was completed, creating branch lines to the important cotton market centers of Samannud and Zagazig.³ With these improvements in transportation, Egypt became a major cotton producer. As a result, Egypt became a very important trading partner with Great Britain. Egypt helped to fill the cotton void left by America. The cotton trade between Great Britain and Egypt eventually led to the British Empire's occupation of Egypt.

Cotton production began to rise dramatically a year before war was declared in America. England, foreseeing a cotton shortage, encouraged colonies to start planting more cotton. Although Egypt was still a part of the Ottoman Empire, Egypt responded to the call. The Secretary of the Manchester Cotton Association sent New Orleans seed to Egypt. Enclosed in the packages were also cultivating instructions. Although the New Orleans seeds were never successfully grown, England got its foot into the door of the Egyptian cotton market.

Exports reached approximately six hundred thousand cantars⁴ in 1860. By 1861, the cotton exports increased to approximately seven hundred thousand cantars. Five hundred to six hundred thousand feddans⁵ were under cotton by 1862.⁶ Great Britain decided that if it was to have a stake in the Egyptian cotton market, it needed to invest heavily. Steam plows, cotton gins, packing presses, etc. were sent in 1863 to Egypt. One third of the Egyptian cotton crop in 1863 was being ginned in one of the eighty steam ginning factories, compared to twenty-four in 1862. The British Consul estimated that approximately forty percent of the total cultivated area in Lower Egypt was planted with cotton by 1864. Egypt's cotton economy was growing at a very rapid pace with the help of financial backing from European investors.

A cotton boom occurred in Egypt, causing a sharp rise in the number of immigrants arriving in Egypt. Many of these immigrants were European settlers hoping to invest in the rapidly growing cotton industry. Immigration not only helped the cotton industry to flourish, but it also sparked many investment opportunities in other sectors of

the Egyptian economy. For instance, homes had to be built in order to house all of the new immigrants. Houses being built created a demand for lumber and labor. Many jobs were created through the rapid immigration to Egypt.'

A majority of all Egyptian cotton produced was exported to England. England imported sixty-five percent of Egypt's cotton crop by 1859. This number rose to seventy-five percent during the following decade. Great Britain's demand for cotton helped to solidify the cotton economy in Egypt. With a constant buyer, Egyptian farmers planted more and more cotton.

Although the cotton boom ended in 1866, Egyptian cotton was still in high demand. British manufacturers, by selling goods made from Egyptian cotton, advertised the great quality of the cotton. This enabled Egypt to still be able to sell their cotton after the boom ended. Egyptian cotton was considered to be suitable for sewing thread, medium-fine yarns, fine underwear and hosiery, among other things. The cotton produced in Egypt was very versatile, creating a constant demand.

THOUGHTS OF BRITISH OCCUPATION OF EGYPT BECOMES A REALITY

Trading was not limited to cotton. Egypt began to import more goods from the British Empire, the trade relationship between the two was positively related. As exports to Great Britain increased, so did imports from Great Britain. England supplied manufactured goods to Egypt while Egypt supplied England with wheat and cotton. Egypt and England soon found themselves very close trading partners. Both countries had a stake in the other's economy, and both parties profited from the arrangement.

British occupation of Egypt came about due to the fast growing debt of the Egyptian government and the growing belief that they would not be able to repay the debt. The Egyptian ruler, Ismail, sold his interest in the Suez Canal Company to Great Britain for £4,000,000 in 1875. This money bought Great Britain 176,602 shares of the total 400,000 shares. Great Britain now had a great stake in the Egyptian government and economy.⁸

Ismail was spending enormous amounts of borrowed money. There came a point when investors began to worry about the security of their investments. Most of the borrowed debt accumulated through London and Paris counting houses, creating panic among many European creditors. Britain and France saw it fit to take action in Egypt in hopes of protecting their investments. Following pressure by Great Britain and France, the Egyptian government accepted a joint Anglo-French supervision of Egyptian Finances.

A British Consul General guided Khedive's ministers on financial matters. The financial system, irrigation schemes, the legal system, Egyptian schools, and the Egyptian army were all under the control of British advisors. Many Egyptian did not like the foreign intervention, creating a forum for a nationalist movement to begin in 1881.⁹

Colonel Arabi Pasha led the Egyptian nationalist movement and controlled Egypt by the end of 1881. "Egypt for Egyptians" was a slogan used by Pasha to gain support for the nationalist movement. The flames of nationalism were growing stronger everyday, leading nationalists to massacre fifty Europeans on June 11, 1882 in Cairo. Furthermore, the British Consul was wounded. Great Britain and France had to make a

decision about committing troops to Egypt. Due to opposition in Paris, France could not offer any military support. Great Britain decided to send troops, backed by the liberal government led by Gladstone. ^1°

Admiral Seymour was given orders to bombard Alexandria in hopes of destroying Colonel Pasha's newly fortified port. The bombardment was a success and on July 20, 1882 orders were given to prepare an expeditionary force." British forces neutralized Pasha's army without much difficulty. The British force consisted of approximately thirty thousand troops, while Arabi Pasha's army consisted of ten thousand trained soldiers and a rabble of newly recruited fellanhins. British forces attacked the sleeping Egyptian forces on September 23, 1882 at Tel-el-Kebir. It took Sir Garnet Wolseley barely forty minutes to destroy the rebel army. During the battle, the British forces lost fifty-seven men dead and twenty-two missing. The Egyptian casualties were much greater. Nearly ten thousand Egyptians were dead following the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Following the defeat, British forces occupied Cairo.¹²

Once Egypt was occupied, Great Britain began to modernize the country. The Nile tolls were abolished, creating a rise in river traffic. A rise in river traffic caused the railways to lower their freight rates in order to compete. Competition drove prices down, making it cheaper for cotton to be transported to the main cotton markets. The first census of Egypt was taken in May 1882. In 1885, currency reforms took place to help stabilize the economy. Great Britain also took measures to protect the Egyptian cotton crop from the cotton worm.

The Khedival Decree was written in April 1905 so as to prevent large spread cotton damage from the cotton worm. It states that if cotton worms were found in the cotton fields, the appropriate authorities must be notified immediately. Once the authorities were notified, immediate action would be taken to kill the worms and to stop further contamination. If a person did not report the sightings of worms, they would be punished. The British government wanted to protect their investment in the Egyptian cotton industry."

Many historians would argue that the Suez Canal's opening in 1869 led Great Britain to eventually colonization of Egypt.¹⁴ The Suez Canal was very important to Great Britain because it created a root to India. The protection of the canal was a reason for Great Britain's occupation of Egypt; however, the cotton industry played just as significant of a role.

CONCLUSION

England's demand of cotton helped the British Empire in many ways. First, the demand led to the eventual colonization of Egypt, securing a cotton crop. The cotton industry in Egypt gave many opportunities for investment and for making money. Many English citizens became very wealthy due to the cotton industry. The standard of living in Egypt rose significantly creating a market for some of the finer things in life. A permanent trading partner was found in Egypt.

The trade relationship created another market for Great Britain to sell its products. It is very profitable for Great Britain to have a country buying its goods. The cotton market also benefited England by supplying the cotton manufacturers with raw cotton. This raw cotton was then spun and sold back to Egypt and other colonies as manufactured goods. Great Britain was in a very good position to continue to prosper. Egypt helped to make the British Empire prosper and stay an economic superpower.

Although Egypt never became an official colony, it reaped all of the benefits. Infrastructional growth occurred, allowing for cotton and other products to be transported to marketplaces' throughout Egypt. One hundred and twelve canals, totaling 8,400 miles were dug and the railways in Egypt were extended from 275 to 1,185 miles. Five

hundred miles of telegraph lines were established throughout Egypt, making communication easier.

Investments from Europe allowed Egypt to build the Alexandria harbor and the Suez docks.'⁵ Alexandria soon became an important port for the Egyptian cotton market. In 1850, the port was ranked the eleventh most important port in the Mediterranean. By 1870, the port was considered to be the 4^th most important port. Egyptian cotton became known as high quality cotton, creating many other markets besides the British Empire. The Egyptian economy, as a whole, was able to expand and prosper because of the cotton trade with Great Britain.

Imports and exports rose dramatically in the period from 1862-1879. This dramatic rise can be attributed to the cotton industry. During this period, imports rose from £1,991,000 to £5,410,000. Similarly, exports rose from £4,454,000 to £13,810,000. English ships brought coal to Alexandria to use for the new railways and steam

appliances. Often times when returning to England, these ships would be laden with cotton. Egyptians learned how to use modern engines and machines with the help of English engineers. Egypt created many investment opportunities for British citizens, while at the same time exporting goods that were not readily available in England.^I6

Both Great Britain and Egypt prospered from their trade relations. To say that the only reason Britain decided to occupy Egypt was because of the Suez Canal is absurd.

The Suez Canal was very important to Great Britain; it created a faster route to India. However, if it had not been for the cotton industry, Great Britain would not have had an opportunity to buy shares of stock in the Canal. Cotton brought Great Britain to Egypt; the Suez Canal played a major role in keeping Great Britain there.

Read more...