TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT EEXEEGTELE” B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, mzfxzos COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 362 JULY, 1927 DIVISION OF FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRO- DUCTION IN TEXAS \ ERQ , ~‘ '11? ;!l"»11‘ = U», "i" I ‘I 1 ' 1 ‘l m ‘p! I“ M]! 4W ,. ‘ 1 *' H VMHY:%~.5" ,W :I: I l I \ millilmffll '1 F I 131m“ WHMEI-Eulik“. m ‘ MW I Ia m’ _ ‘ ”WMwWMWMW"' AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President ENTOMOLOGY: STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION : *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director . B. CoNNER, M. S., Acting Qirector . E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director M. ScHAEDEL, Secretary . P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk . K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER Hmcs, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B S., emist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist ADAH P. STURcIs, B. S., Assistant Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: ,Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations _ J. L. LUsH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations W. H. DAMERDN. B. S., Wool Grader F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist _ . J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist . K. FLETcHER, M. A., Fntomologist . L. OwEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist . C. GAlNEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist ~gHw> Hgwm F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist . _ . CQFFIN, B. S., Entomologist _ . ADKINS, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . CUNYUs, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . McCov, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . ToDD, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . McGREcoR, J R., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector OTTO MAcKENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector GILLIs GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: _ . B. REYNoLDs, M. S., Chief _ _ . B. CoNNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research _ _ . E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research _ C. IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronemist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- a ions D. . KILLQUGH, M. S., Agronomist; C0110" Breeding _ E. C. CUsHINc, B. S., Assistant in Crops P. R. JoHNsoN, B.S.,' Assistant in Soils rpm mo: OI> 041% £11m C!) IVSU>I11 No. 1, Beevllle, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County: R H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: _ HENRY DUNLAVY, M. S., Acting Superintend- ent H. E. REA, B. S., Botanist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations Ne. 6 Denton, Denton County: P. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Slgur, Dickens County: R. E. ICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nursergman - No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent RANKLIN SHERMAN, III, M. S., Entomologist‘ SUBSTATIONS VETERINARY SCIENCE: **M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JoNEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOL J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief ; L. J. PESSIN, PH. D., Plant Pathologist Laboratory Technician .7 W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist i‘ FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GAEBARD, M. S., Chie - _. *8. YouNGBLooD, M. S., P . D.; Farni Ranch Economist " G. L. CRAwFoRD, M. S., Marketing Rel Specialist j V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research ***T. L. GASTON, JR., S., Assistant; Records and Accounts ‘f ***J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant;Ranch ' and Accounts , RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssIE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief SOIL SURVEY: '**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAwKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REITcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NEss, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: f. ‘ A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief ,- SWINE HUSBANDRY: ' Y FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: ——--——— Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERwooD, M. S., Chief '"**AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: . MAIN STATION FARM: '~ G. T. McNEss, Superintendent g APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORAT (San Antonio): “ H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Ch A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: . F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. RocERs, Feed Inspector . H. Wo0D, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Insp SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspecto 1, xéuw No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, ‘ Colle e Station, Brazos County: " R. M. HERwooD, M. S., Animal Husb man in Charge of Farm - L. J . McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Count: H. F. MORRIs, M. S., Superintendent ‘g ***No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: 1 J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent ***J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronom,’ No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Countie: ‘i E . THOMAS, B. S., Superintendent * W. L. BLACK, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research Bot ***0. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating ' Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent M. McPHAIL, B. S., Entomologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILsoN, B. S., Superintendent Teacher in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: . W W TA: of July l, 1927. *On leave. . ADRIANCE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture . BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Finance SCOATES, A. E., Professor of A ricultural Engineering P. SMITH, B S., Associate Profgssor of Agricultural Engineering "Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. ***In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ****In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. SYNOPSISA The recent introduction of tractor power and improved farm machinery in cotton-growing, the new methods in cotton har- vesting, and the recent improvements in machinery for ex- tracting the burs and cleaning the lint in the ginning process, mark the beginning of a new era in cotton production; This Bulletin reports the results'of a survey made in the Corpus Christi and the San Angelo areas of Texas. In a gen- eral way it shows the effects of large-scale methods on the utilization of land, labor, and power. Specifically, itseeks: (1) to describe the common practices and show the ac- complishments in the principal operations involved in large- scale cotton production, (2) to compare the use of animal and tractor power, (3) to point out the influence of these methods on the cost of cotton production, (4) to state the conditions under which such methods are practical, and (5) to indicate those areas in the State to which such methods are most applicable. l The survey shows that one man with a tractor can handle the field operations of at least twice as many acres of cotton as he can with the usual team of four horses. For example, it was found in the Corpus Christi area that one man planted, on an average, 14.3\acres with a two-row planter drawn by four horses and 35.7 acres with a four-row planter drawn by a tractor; in cultivating, one man covered, on an average, 15.4 acres with a two-row horse-drawn outfit and 43.5 acres with a four-row tractor-drawn outfit. It is generally recognized that the lack of suitable me- chanical devices for harvesting cotton has delayed the appli- cation of more extensive methods in its production.‘ This Bulletin devotes a brief discussion to mechanical harvesting of cotton, particularly to the method popularly known as “sledding.” Courtesy of International Harvester Company. ' Figure 3.——The usual horse-drawn outfit which plants about 14 acres per day. Courtesy International Harvester Company. Figure 4.——Four-row outfit which plants from 35 to 40 acres per day. ‘., LL BULLETIN NO. 362 ' JULY, 1927 LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRCDUCTION IN TEXAS* L. P. GABBARD F. R. JONES‘? The recent developments in cotton production in certain areas of the State arenothing less than revolutionary. While they are spectacular, nevertheless, they are fundamental and far-reaching in their economic significance, and even though new, they have already attracted both national and world-wide attention. These new developments have been made both in the growing and in the harvesting of cotton, and thus far in the State have been limited almost altogether to the coastal plains region about Corpus Christi and to the low plains and high plains regions of Western and Northwestern Texas. For example, in the Corpus Christi area the introduction of tractorrpower, together with four-row outfits for planting and cultivat- ing, enables one man. to handle 200 acres or more of cotton. Similar developments are being introduced in the San Angelo and other areas of the west and northwestern cotton belt of the State. Simultaneously, and particularly during the past season, a large-scale method of har- vesting known as “sledding” has been developed by which one man and a team of two horses can harvest 4 to 5 acres of cotton a day. Along with this new method of harvesting, improvements in gin machinery for extracting burs and cleaning the cotton have been developed and are being perfected. . These large-scale, low-cost methods are destined to affect very de- cidedly the economic welfare of the cotton industry and particularly in those areas where such methods are‘ applicable. Throughout its history, cotton has been characterized and handicapped by an unusually high labor requirement. These new developments in a greater applica- tion of power and machinery should do much to remedy the situation. In short, they‘ mean a more efficient utilization of both labor and land. They mean a greater volume of production per man and consequently a better chance of a larger net income. Thus the purchasing power, or *In cooperation with the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Bureau of Public Roads, United States Department of Agriculture. A. P. Brodell, Bureau of Agricultural Economics and W. M. Hurst, Bureau of Public Roads assisted in the field work. Robert F. Spilman, employed by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and P. T. Montfort, employed by the Bureau of Public Roads assisted in tabulating and summarizing the data. TAssistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering, School of Agriculture. 6 BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION economic status, of the individual farmer will have been materially im- proved. A more eflicient use of land, or a greater net profit per acre, ; will have its direct effect on increasing the purchasing power of the area, " and an indirect effect of facilitating the development of vast untilled a areas, thus adding to the entire wealth of the community and the State. Q- Evidently this shift in cotton production from the areas of high costs to the areas of low costs will work a hardship on the farmers of the former. There are certain alternatives open to them such as improving p, their methods, changing to other enterprises, reducing their standard of living, or going out of business; A number of factors have contributed to the recent interest in the l" development of these low-cost, large-scale methods in cotton production. The relative scarcity of farm labor, the increase in wages demanded by such labor as is available, the difficulty of securing and holding labor j at the time and in the amount needed, the increase in land values, and i; the present low prices of- cotton, are factors which make more economical _ methods in cotton production imperative. At the same time, the recent expansion of cotton growing in the level, sub-humid regions of western a i“ Texas and Oklahoma, and the marked improvements in farm implements and power machinery, have done much to encourage and facilitate the '1 application of extensive methods, not only in the growing of cotton, but also i11 the harvesting of it. Object of the Study These new developments in both farm power and machinery raise the question of‘ their influence on the methods and costs of producing cotton. " The primary object of this study, therefore, is to collect and analyze f . data from a number of farms where large-scale operations in cotton are employed. In this analysis the influence of such factors as types of A. farm organization, types of power, types of machinery, and the effect of different types of power and machinery on labor requirements for the i‘ production of cotton on a large scale will be determined. This involves a comparison of the relative efficiency of tractor and animal power, and ' of the different sizes and types of farm implements, as well as the study of the effect of different combinations of power and machinery upon the utilization of labor. Source of Information Two areas were selected for study: namely, Corpus Christi and San Angelo. These areas were selected because, in both of them, a number of farmers have recently changed partially or entirely from horse to tractor power. Data were secured by personal interview -from approxi- mately 50 farm operators in each of these areas. The schedules used were designed to secure information as to the organization ofthe farm, types of power and machinery used, and the labor and power require- ments for each of the several operations in the growing-of cotton and LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRODUCTION IN 7 feed crops. Data were secured from three groups of farmers: namely, those using mechanical power alone, those using mechanical and animal power, and those using animal power alone. In all cases, an attempt was made to obtain schedules from operators who were considered as fairly successful with whatever type of power used. Description of the Areas Studied The Corpus Christi area, the first to be studied, is located on the Gulf Coast in the southern part of the St-ate.* The area extends for a radius of about 50 miles about Corpus Christi, and in general has the appearance of a perfectly level plain. The surface slopes in a general way from the western part toward the coast, and as a whole the area is well drained. The climate is semi-tropical. The average annual rainfall for the past 54 years has been 27.18 inches and is fairly well distributed throughout the year. The temperature is re- markably uniform. The average annual temperature for the past 55 years has been 70.70° F, while the difference for this period between the monthly average for January, the coldest month, and July, the hottest month, has been 26.70° F. The soils range from dark, cal- careous clays to sandy loams, with the heavy types predominating. For the most part these soils are fertile and are well suited to the pro- duction of cotton, truck, and feed crops. The average size of the 52 farms studied was 3'76 acres. Of this, 95 per cent was in crops in 1926, and 84 per cent was planted to cotton. The remainder of the cultivated land was planted very largely to feed crops such as corn, grain sorghum, and cane for hay. Forty-eight farms were studied in the San Angelo area. Almost all of these were east of San Angelo in the vicinities of Miles and Bal- linger, Texas. The region, of which this area is taken as fairly typical, extends east as far as the east side of Coleman County, north to the State line, and west to the High Plains. _According to W. T. Carter, Chief, Division of Soil Surveys, Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, the prevailing soil series are Abilene, Miles, Roscoe, and Vernon. They are clays, clay loams, and fine sandy loams, with clay loams predominating. The rainfall of the region ranges from about 20 inches in the extreme western part to 2'7 inches in the eastern part. The mean annual temperature is 60° to 65° F. In the vicinity of Ballinger the growing season is around 230 to 24.0 days. The topog- raphy of the area is rolling to undulating. There are some large areas of very smooth land, while on the other hand there are some large bodies of rather rough and broken lands. A large percentage of the area is well suited to cotton farming and is smooth enough for the use of mechanical power and improved farm machinery. The average size of the 48 farms studied in the San Angelo area *Soi1 Survey of the Corpus Christi area, Texas, U. S. D. A. Bureau of Soils, by A. W. Magnum and H. L. Westover, 1908. 8 BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Was found to be 453 acres. The average number of acres per farm planted to cotton was 153 acres, or 34 per cent, While 46.7 per cent of the farm was in crops. The principal crops, in addition t0 cotton, Were grain sorphum, oats, etc. In addition to these two areas there is the High Plains section, estimated to be at least 8,000,000 acres in extent. Its level topography, fine sandy ].oam soils, and general freedom from Weed pests are con- ditions very favorable to extensive methods of cotton production. There are also limited areas throughout the cotton belt of the State Where more extensive methods in cotton production might Well be introduced. Principal Operations and Common Practices in Cotton-Growing The principal field operations in cotton-growing common to both areas are bedding, harrowing, planting, chopping, hoeing, and culti- vating._ The disposal of the cotton stalks by one method or another is the usual practice. This operation Was of much greater importance in the Corpus Christi area than in the San Angelo section. In fact, the disposal of cotton stalks is, perhaps, one of the most diflicult oper- ations, certainly the least standardized, of all confronting the cotton grower in the Corpus Christi area. There are~~at. least tWo reasons for this. First, the cottonplants in this region grow unusually large; and second, the stalks remain green and tough after the crop has been harvested because of semi-tropical Weather conditions. Under these conditions the use of the ordinary stalk cutter has proved unsatisfac- tory. Four fairly distinct methods seem to prevail. A brief descrip- tion of each Will help to indicate the Wide variation in practice for this operation. 1. One rather common practice, particularly among farmers using animal power alone, is that of ripping out or cutting off the stalks by means of a middle buster from Which the moldboard has been removed. Following this, the stalks are usually raked together in windrows With an ordinary hay rake, and after being allowed to dry for several days are burned. This method leaves the land clean, but deprives it of the possible fertilizer value of the stalks, and makes a heavy de- mand on labor. 2. In some cases Where the stalks are not excessively rank and tough a tandem disc harroW is first run over them. This is followed immediately by the bedding operation; a one- or a tWo-row middle buster is used. Although this method did not give as satisfactory re- sults as others perhaps, it required less labor. 3. Another method is to tear and cut the stalks to pieces by means of a disc harroW draWn by a. tractor, the rear Wheels of Which are equipped With long, specially constructed, Well-sharpened, angle-iron cleats. Unless the stalks are excessively large and tough this arrange- ment does quite satisfactory Work. It has the advantage of leaving the stalks in such a condition that they can be plowed under or fairly Well _ LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 9 covered so as not to interfere With the planting and cultivation of the succeeding crop. The principal objections in this method of stalk dis- posal seem to be the expense and the time required to equip the tractor with these cleats and keep them sharpened, and the danger to the operator. On types of tractors having the wheels close together and unprotected by fenders, there is danger of the operator’s being caught and injured by these sharp cleats. Figure 1.—Specia1ly constructed stalk cutter used in the Corpus Christi area. 4. A number of farmers were found who were using a heavy, spe- cially constructed stalk cutter, similar to that illustrated by Figure 1, which was pulled either by a tractor or team and which cut two to four rows at a time. This device consisted essentially of an extremely heavy cast iron drum to which were attached a number of long sharp knives. It was pulled behind the tractor like a long roller and, owing to its weight of about 500 pounds to the row, broke down and cut up the stalks in a very satisfactory manner. Some farmers have con- structed cutters of a similar type, using wood instead of cast iron for the drum. . The disposal of the cotton stalks in the San Angelo area is a much simpler problem because the plants do not make the rank growth and also because they become dry and brittle before time for preparing the land for the next crop. In fact, with a few exceptions, the condition of the stalks is such that the land can be plowed or bedded immediately without previously resorting to some special means of stalk disposal. In exceptional cases, the common stalk cutter is the only implement used. The next step in the preparation of cotton land is bedding. If done by horses, a one-row,‘ four-hourse middle bust-er is used. The usual tractor-drawn machine beds two rows at a time as shown in Figure 2. Following the-bedding operation, it is quite a common practice to flatten or smooth down the beds by means of a section or spike-tooth harrow drawn either by horses or a tractor. " . 1O BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ Courtesy Ford Motor Company. ‘ Figure 2.—-—Bedding with a two-row outfit. Fifteen acres in a 10-hour day is quite common Planting in both areas is done largely by means of the usual two- row, riding type of cotton planter. Four horses are required for the horse-drawn outfit as illustrated in Figure 3. In the Corpus Christi area a special four-row, tractor-drawn cotton planter, Figure 4 (see page 4), is being used with satisfactory results. In fact, a number of tractor operators in this area hitch two two-row, horse planters behind the tractor. The practice of harrowing or scratching following planting is quite common. In many cases it is the first cultivation to young cotton. The operation is more necessary when there is a considerable amount of rainfall following planting in order to keep down young weed growth. Perhaps three-fourths of the farmers in the Corpus Christi area harrow or scratch as a first cultivation regardless of moisture conditions. _ Cultivation for the purpose of destroying weeds and conserving soil moisture, begins soon after the harrowing or scratching operation and is done by two-row riding cultivators pulled by four horses or by two-, four-, or six-row outfits drawn by tractors. The four-row machine seems to be the most economical for tractor power. This is illustrated in Figure 6. The majority of the farmers cultivate their cotton crop, on an average, five times. _ The usual insect pests such as’ leaf worm and boll weevil are con- trolled largely by means of poisons applied in dust or spray form with horse- or tractor-drawn machines. The number of applications and the amount of work and time involved vary from year to year in the different sections, according to the degree of infestation and other factors. More poisoning is done in the Corpus Christi area than in -1 ..,-....< ... “an. ugpjz;fjlfini.lia.nk‘kéluililfiifi7ilsazliukfa1).».Limit LARGE~SCALE COTTON PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 11 Courtesy International Harvester Company. Figure 5.—The usual horse-drawn outfit for cultivating cotton and other crops, 15 to 16 acres per day 1s the usual amount covered. Courtesy International Harvester Company. F igure-6.——F our-row outfit which cultivates from 4O to 45 acres per day 12 BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the San Angelo area. Figure 7 illustrates a common type oi’ dusting machine as used in the former area. i Courtesy International Harvester Company. Figure 7.—A six-row dusting and spraying outfit which covers from 7O to 80 acres a day. Labor and Power Requirements in Cotton-Growing One of the primary “objects of this study is to measure the relative efliciency of animal and tractor power for doing the principal crop operations When used with the same and different-sized implements. Tables 1 and 2 show the usual power and implement combinations used in the important field operations in these particular cott-oir-growing areas, and the daily accomplishments of such combinations as indi- cated- by the survey. It will be observed from both of these tables that all of the horse-drawn implements used require a four-horse team. The tractor handles implements of the same or larger size. In the San Angelo area it is the common practice to use two-royv implements with both animal and tractor power, with the exception of bedding with horses. Doubtless larger tractor-drawn implements will replace the two-row outfits in this area, especially in planting and cultivating machinery. The Corpus Christi area showed a much wider range in the size of implements. For example, in the case of cultivating all 13 LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRODUCTION IN TEXAS ©. my . . . . . . . . M . . . . . . . . fi . . . . . . 3QHI@ ...? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . €- . . . . . . . - . . . _ . . - . ¢ . . . N - . . ‘ - . - v . q f - ¢ - n -m . - . . . . . - . . . . fl . . . . . . .. % ......?C.~|@ 3...? .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4w M . . . 4 ..>/O.~|@ . . . . . . .. .m . . . . . . . . . . . . . §£- . - . . - - . . % . - . - . . . . ? . . . . . - 1F - . . u . ' . . . . . . . . . . %. @ . . . . . . . - - - . . . . ~ . . ' . . €N. w $f.. 7 . - - - . ' . . q l? . . V . . -ao|fil? . - - . - ~ .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¢ 50G 0030C. 020E E32 P AA .2 5003B 030E 0:03-55. Qcoflmfisvw 0582060 .||\|||||l|l1 QOMFMQQQO E 0002/00 300E 0004 00m 200E 30.6 M0 vim 003cm $.64 @5950 mcobw w. mm 000cm. .3000 05 0w 00E 030 02305030000 H0 0932/0 cw 6N2 .0004 0~own< 00w 000000 wig/Pa E .6300 00000.5 00m 1200:“ H0 wwcofiamsafioonélld 030M. .00m0cm0w QEOOQQ OH QMEH-O MOwUflhw 000.725 30.7.52 05H MO.“ S“??? .0923. OH 0G0 EOFw moi?’ >?Q.~Q d: CUE .wO uvnfisZfw $500.“ 050m GO 00w: 0on3 ~NGO@H@U@<* . . . . . . .. M . . . . . . . . "rm . . . . . .>?O.~|© . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ki fiwm. . . . . . . . . @T4. % . . . . . . . . **§ . . . . . .3°H|% -P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w. mm om. w N0. . . . . . . . . m0. fi . . . . . . . . i . . . . . Qvoh-N F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .wcBm>§:U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. fi w . . . . . .3Q.~IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x@. . . . . . . . . fi . . . . . . . . vwx . . . . ..>?QHIQ .P . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . . .....mi@.wnmflwm . . . . . . .. fi . . . . . . .. vwfi . . . . ..3Oh|@ . . . . . . m4; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. owfi on . . . . . . .. w H ......?0.TN . . . . . . .. Am ...............wswwcm_m m . co. w . . . . - - . . i . | - - - - . . .3 I . . ahk . - ¢ » . - - . . ~ . - . . . - - . . . F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fi . . . . . aw .2 . . .H~QS.O®w|W . . . . . . .. .m . . . . . . . . . . . . .mi@>>mvhumwm Q2 00.: mm. . . . . . . .. mo ~ . . . . . . .. H . . . . I30$m Q. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29:00am m. m . - » - . . - . - . - - . ~ ~ - - . .-. QN. § ow. .? - v . - - ~ 0 - fi % . ~ . . n uao-Ml? . - . 4 - - - . -E . . . . - . - . ~ . . . . n 20G 0303M. Q0 hofivmLP _ 030m _ s32 H. .5 _ 2 0:01-00 P Efiwznvm 000E030; kowomfiw. 300E ¢0$WEQO 000M300 050E 0S4 00m 300E 300D H0 vfim 5,64 .32 .0004 0x30 E5000 00300 M5303 E .6300 00000.5 0cm 351E m0 $=oEs§nE000<1lA mznwP 14 BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION horse operations are performed with two-row implements, while with the tractor, two-, four-, and six-row implements are used. The most interesting and significant fact shown in these tables is the horse equivalent of the tractor for the several operations with the different-sized implements. The number of horses displaced by the ‘tractor, or the number which would be required to do the same amount of work as one tractor in an equal period of time ranged from 5.21 in planting with a two-row planter to 13.70 in cultivating with a six- row outfit. . OPERATION SIZE OF IMPLEMENT HOQSiS REPLACED b‘! HORSE TRACTOR o Trzixgroiz BEDDING lbOTTOM Z BOTTOM lo '5 HAPJZOWING Z SEC. 4 SEC. Z. 20W Z. ROW LANTING p Z ROW 4 ROW 7. ROW 2. ROW CULTIVATING Z ROW 4 ROW Z BOW (-2 ROW Figure 8.—The horse equivalent of the tractor for the important machine operations in cotton growing for Corpus Christi area. The horse equivalent of the tractor for cultivating with two-, four-, and six-row cultivators as shown in Table 1 is 6.2, 11.3, and 13.7, re- spectively, when compared with the usual two-row horse-drawn cul- tivator. The accomplishment of a six-row, cultivator would probably be greater if a more adequate sample were available. Only three farm- ers who used six-row cultivators were interviewed. A six-row outfit is gotten by trailing two two-row riding cultivators in the rear of the regular two-row tractor cultivator. Three men are required for this outfit, whereas only one man is needed on the standard four-row cul- tivator. The six-row outfit has the disadvantages of being unwieldy in turning and of being too much of a load on the tractor where the soil conditions are not vcry favorable. Figure 8 is a further emphasis of the “horse equivalent” as given in Table 1. The size of the horse-drawn implement is given for the operations, followed by the size of the tractor-drawn implement and these followed by the “horse equivalent,” or the number of horses neces- sary to do a like amount of work in the same period of time as that of the tractor. The important fact to note is that the tractor is com- G LARGE-SCALE COTTON PRODUCTION IN TEXAS 15 paratively most eflicient in those operations, such as bedding, planting, and cultivating, which require the greatest amount of power. ' Another interesting comparison is on the basis of the acres covered in a ten-hour day by animal and tractor power when implements of both similar and different sizes are used. It will be observed from Table 1 that a crew ofone man and four horses bedded, on an average, 5.5 acres per day, while a crew of one man and a tractor bedded 15.9 acres per day. It will be seen from Table 2 that for the same oper- ation and like crews 6.4 and 16.9 acres, respectively, were covered per day. Comparisons for cultivating show 15.4 acres for a. two-row horse outfit and 23.8 acres for a two-row tractor outfit at Corpus Christi, and 16.4 acres for a two-row horse outfit and 25.6 acres for a two-row tractor outfit at San Angelo. Four- and six-row tractor-drawn outfits in the Corpus Christi area cultivated, on an average, 43.5 and 52.6 acres, respectively. Furthermore, it is observed in comparing the acres cov- -ered per day in Tables 1 and 2 that for like crews with similar-sized implements the accomplishments are slightly greater in the San Angelo area. This difference is caused, no doubt, very largely by a soil dif- ference in the two areas. The greater acreage covered by the tractor pulling an implement of pzthe same size as that drawn by horses is for the most part due to (a) its greater speed; (b) the relatively small amount of time lost in turn- Igjng at the ends; and (c) no stops for rest. Another significant fact shown in these tables is the better utiliza- ition of labor when combined with tractor power. For example, in the Corpus Christi area the man hours per acre were 1.80 when one was fqbedding with a team and .63 when one was bedding with a tractor. i-The man hours per acre for planting with a two-row, horse-drawn r-planter was .70, while with a four-row tractor-drawn planter the man {hours per acre were .28. In both illustrations the labor requirement f with animal power is almost three times the labor requirement with §qtractor power. Utilization and Cost 6f Animal and Tractor Power Q Having discussed the physical requirements in labor and power for the several field operations, and the accomplishments in acres per day 5' or each, let us next consider the utilization and cost of both animal d tractor power. One of the most important items of cost in the roduction of cotton is that of power, and the cost of power per unit is fluenced very materially by the extent to which it is utilized. The power for growing cotton in Texas is furnished by horses and 1n actors. At present a relatively small part of this power is furnished tractors. But as previously indicated in this Bulletin, the use of actors is gaining headway rapidly in the level blackland area about orpus Christi and in the level, sub-humid cotton belt of the rolling 3 d high plains of western and northwestern Texas. In fact, a num- f of cotton farms in these regions have been completely tractorized 16 BULLETIN NO. 362, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION within the last few years. These changes in both farm power and m leaning“... - ‘ machinery raise the question of their influence on the methods and costs of producing cotton. The Corpus Christi and San Angelo areas. furnish a good oppor- tunityr to compare the use of tractor and horse power, as Well as a combination of the two, in the organization and operation of the cotton farm. Table 3.—Utilization and cost of horse and tractor power per farm. Corpus Christi Area, 1926. e OJGWOG OJQEQSAQ EvSA Ur/Jm-v-nflqn-mc HoursPerAcreon woman]; hwmgwwm hm Kind of fgg s32 egg Cotton uvw Pwklns sew afjgz sgswafigz Power 5N §~U §ao “'“'——““’—'_'_—_"— $202 2mg 23°; gwgja Zia <25 <