TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

R. D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR
College Station, Texas

BULLETIN NO. 686 DECEMBER, 1946

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE
OF MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTERS
(STRIPPER TYPE), EXTRACTORS
AND CLEANERS

H. P. SMITH, D. T. KILLOUGH AND D. L. JONES

 

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
GIBB GILCHRIST, President

VB40-147-6M-L180

v.» I 1

.  

Increasing interest has been shown by cotton growers of the High Plains

i area in the use of tractor-mounted cotton stripping machines during the

past five years. Several concerns are now building two-row tractor mounted
machines for the commercial trade. The performance of the stripper type
cotton harvester is influenced by a number of factors.

Tests to determine the various factors that affect the performance and

-- efliciency of the mechanical cotton stripper have been conducted by the
f Texas Agricultural Experiment Station for a number of years. Many com-

monly grown varieties, selections and strains were tested for their varietal
reaction to machine stripping, extracting and cleaning in an efiort to obtain
a high quality cotton.

Results of tests covering a seven-year period, 1939-1945, are reported
in this bulletin. '

The performance or efliciency of the stripper harvester varied with the
seasonal conditions existing from year to year, between varieties. and
between locations. The average efliciency of the Texas Station Stripper
at Lubbock for the" seven-year period was 96.4 percent, while at College

_ Station it harvested 89.0 percent of the cotton on the plants at harvest

time. At College Station there was a difierence of 9.3 percent in machine

s performance between varieties, while at Lubbock the difference between

the best and poorest varieties was 6.8 percent.

Field losses in terms of lint cotton varied with the performance of the‘
machine and the suitability of the variety for machine-stripping. At Col-
lege Station the average lint lost per acre was 19.2 pounds (1945 data

I excluded), while at Lubbock the average lost was 8.4 pounds per acre

(1942 data excluded).
Tall, branchy, wide spreading plants materially affected the performance

i, of the machine causing severe losses while small, short limbed plants
§ reduced the field losses.

.Varietal characteristics, such as, stormproofness, size of plant and flufli-

A I ness of the locks are important factors that influence machine performance
 and field losses.

Stormproofness and flufliness of the lock also alfect the performance of

 extracting machines and the loss of cotton with the burs.

There was no significant difference in the percentage of burs and waste

u removed from machine-stripped cotton and hand-snapped cotton.

At College Station hand-snapped and machine-stripped cotton averaged
approximately 1% grades lower than hand-picked cotton, while at Lubbock

l‘ the difference was slightly less than one grade. There was only .2 of a
V; grade difference in hand-snapped and machine-stripped at each of the
1 locations.

There was no significant dilference in the average staple length for the

 methods of harvesting at the two locations.

Characteristics, such as the degree of spread of the boll sections, the

~ pounds pull required to remove the boll; the length and diameter of the
f boll peduncle; and the inter-seed fiber drag apparently had no significant

affect on the performance of the machine units.

CONTENTS f
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .< . . . . . 

Equipment Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Varieties Tested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _

Seasonal Conditions and Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Date of Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f?

Performance of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester (Stripper) . . . . . . . . 

Performance of the Texas Station Cotton Extracton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3‘
Waste Removed in Cleaning Machine-stripped and Hand-snapped f.
Seed Cotton‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
Grade of ‘Harvested Cottons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . . . .. i»
Staple Length of Harvested Cottons . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boll Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inter-seed Fiber Drag ............................................ 
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

 
 
  
  
    
  
   
    
     
      
  
  
   
  

BULLETIN NO. 686  DECEMBER, 1946

‘FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF
i MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTERS
(STRIPPER TYPE), EXTRACTORS
AND CLEANERS

H.  Smith, Chief, Division of Agricultural Engineering
 T. Killough, Agronomist, Cotton Breeding, Division of Agronomy
D. L. Jones, Superintendent, Substation N0. 8, Lubbock, Texas

When the study of mechanical harvesting of cotton was begun by the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in 1930, interest of both the cotton
grower and the machine manufacturer was high. This was particularly
true for the cotton farmer of the High Plains area of Texas.

g In 1931, one manufacturer made about 500 one-row horse-drawn cotton
istrippers, but the depression, with all of its accompanying ills, caused the
totton grower to use the great supply of low-cost labor that was available.
‘Interest was not revived in mechanical harvesting until there was a short-
age of labor due to war demands. In 1943 the C. E. Morris Company* of
Dallas, Texas, manufactured and sold 35 two-row tractor mounted strippers
using the principles developed in this study. In 1944 at least four different
l ‘concerns manufactured approximately 325 t'wo-row integral mounted trac-
tor operated cotton strippers. In 1945 the number of strippers manufac-
iatured rose to approximately 1500. Approximately 300 mechanical cotton
,picking machines were available for the 1945 harvest.

<1
i.

r During all these periods of fluctuating interest, studies on the develop-
inent of a cotton harvester of the stripper type, an extractor and a cleaner
were continued with the thought that interest would develop with the
 Efiorts to develop new strains of cotton better suited to mechanical
 rvesting were continued at both College Station and Lubbock.

 This bulletin reports data on the mechanical harvesting of cotton and
jthe breeding and testing of new strains for the period 1939-1945.

Equipment Used

p The original experimental model of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester
iqwas constructed and tested in 1930. Changes and improvements made up
to and including 1938 are listed and described in Texas- Station Bulletins
452, 511, and 580. During the seven-year period, 1939-1945, a number of
improvements were made by the Texas Station in both the stripper unit
and the extractor unit, (Figures 1 and 2).

I ‘Went out of business in 1944.

6 BULLETIN“NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Figure 1. Front view of tractor mounted experimental stripper-harvester unit developed by
the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

Figure 2. Rear view showing tractor-mounted extractor unit. Used in combination with
the stripper-harvester.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 7,

Improvements "in the Stripper Unit: An outstanding improvement made
in 1939 was that of installing perforated sheet iron of new design in "the
conveyor troughs (Figure 3). The perforations were rectanguar, 1/2 inch
wide and 43/8 inches long. These rectanguar perforations extended across
the bottom of the conveyor at an angle of about 30 degrees. The perfora-

jtion permitted dirt, trash and some bur sections to be screened out -as~the
Ycotton was conveyed back to the extractor.

Figure 3. Perforated sheet iron designed and used to screen out green leaves and trash in
e conveyor troughs of stripper, cross conveyor of extractor and extractor elevator.

 In 1940, a pair of right- and left-hand tapered spiral augers were
éidesigned, built, and tested to determine the amount of green leaf removed
Efrem stripped cotton (Figure 4). It was planned to substitute these
Eiaugers for the conveyor chain used in elevating the cotton from the stripper
innit to the extractor unit. In 1943, the C. E. Morris Company adapted
 type of conveyor for their two-row tractor mounted cotton stripper
inow being made by C. T. Boone.

 ‘During the 10-year period, 1930-1940, the Texas Station Cotton Har-
ivester had been used on an F-20 Farmall tractor equipped with steel
iwheels. As this model has been superseded by a newer design, Model H
éFarmall, equipped with pneumatic tires, it was necessary in 1941 to com-
pletely rebuild the harvester unit. The machine was made 6 inches nar-
rower and 20 inches sh.orter. The method of attaching the harvester to
the tractor was completely changed. The pick-up fingers were redesigned
to fit the narrower machine. Many other details, such as bearings, ar-
rangement of gears, universal joints and shafting, were rearranged.

BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 
 
 
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  

Many different arrangements of d
vices to support and permit horizonta
movement of the right stripper ro ’
were tried during the time the Tex
Station Cotton Stripper was being deg-r‘
veloped, but none of these devices h
proved entirely satisfactory. In 1944i
new bearings and supports were ma
for the front end of the stripping rolls.‘
The movable roll was supported by a
parallel linkage arrangement whiché‘
proved to be very satisfactory. 

 

Improvements "in the Extractor Uni  A
Several changes were made in the Te -
as Station Extractor for the 1939 har- A
vest. The stationary and oscillating
fingers were curve-d upward at the free
end next to the extractor saw. The bars
to which the fingers were attached
were removed farther away from the
Figure 4- Tgnzzfgeiypiia: agigndgiliglgfig saw to give more capacity to the “roll-é?

stripper-harvester unit being bOX”. A 116W“ elevator having right- ‘f
tested t° determine effects °f left-hand au er fli hts was made and‘

angles and percentage of green g g
131'“ that “"14 be s‘~"°°'“°d attached to the rear of the extractor W
These flights conveyed the cotton tothé
center and to an elevator which delivered the extracted cotton to a
trailer. The method of driving the extractor was changed from they
power take-off to the pulley, thereby eliminating a set of bevel gears on:
the drawbar of the tractor. The extractor drive was moved from the?
slow moving saw shaft to the high speed doffer shaft. This reduced ‘theft;
shock in starting the unit and there was less change in speed of the?
extractor when there was a change in tractor speed. ‘ A

In an efl-‘ort to screen out as much trash as possible a new elevator was ‘i
constructed in 1940. Harness rivets 11/2 inches long were fastened to a
woven cotton canvas belt 40 inches wide. The rivets were spaced 3 inches?
apart in rows spaced 3 inches. This arrangement rolled the cotton and‘?
was not satisfactory. They were later changed to form a diamond pattern a‘
which kept the locks of cotton spread and permitted the loss of more‘.
leaves and trash. There was a tendency for cotton to work under the?
edge of the belt and collect the-re, making frequent inspections and cleaning;
necessary. This trouble was remedied by placing a deflector shield ju u
under the doffer to de-flect the cotton further in toward the center of thf
belt. Figure 5 shows a cross sectional view of the extractor as used 

1941 to 1945. 

Vertical Cleaner: The Texas Station vertical cleaner described in 
Station Bulletin 511 was used to clean the seed cotton obtained in all l,
harvesting tests for the period 1939-1945. Y

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 9

  
 
  

THE TEXAS smnon BuR

     
    
   
   
    
   
  
 
  
  

EXTRACTOR
I940

I hmerm Saw |o Sfahoqqpy 5W5»,

z Rnlmm" 54W I I Extra nor Frame

3 Doffer Brush l2 fled Thmaf
. ‘SWPFW!’ R0|| (MdW 50W) l3 ElevqTor 01w: Pulley L}
1 5 5MP?" Roll (RflI-54w) l4 Elevator m" PvHq/(Adjusfnbk) ¢R°55 5E0T|0N

‘ Di""°"'"°"-A~9er 15 Emma.- 8m
' 7 sl4'|'"""¥ ""765 l5 Eltvqfcv nous-n’
, 3 oiflllfllny Finger: l7 Perforated Metal Bottom

: 9 WPF-rhrjSpr-n] Fmger: I8 Flea-bk. Discharge Spout
Figure 5. Cross-sectional view of extractor unit as used from 1941 to 1945.

Varieties Tested

During the seven-year period, 1939-1945, 125 varieties, crosses and
strains of cotton were tested to determine the varietal characteristics
required for efiicient performance of the stripper type cotton harvester.
f~Data also were obtained on varietal ‘characteristics that affected the
performance of cotton extracting and cleaning equipment. Of the 125
“varieties, 79 were tested at College Station and 46 at Lubbock. Many of
the varieties did not have characteristics suitable for eflicient machine
stripping and they were tested for only one year. Other varieties were
jtested two or more years before more promising varieties were substituted
for them. Complete data are shown for only 17 varieties at College
Station and 14 varieties at Lubbock.

In addition to the 125 varieties for which data were obtained, practically
as many progenies of crosses were tested to determine if they had char-
a teristics suitable for the stripper type harvester.

Seasonal Conditions and Rainfall

The amount of rainfall and the moisture in the soil during the entire
1 owing season has considerable influence on the size of the plant at
Iarvest. Low rainfall and a deficiency of soil moisture, a periodic occur-
fnce at Lubbock, results in small plants. Table 1 shows that, at Lubbock,

1Q BULLETIN NQ.'6,86, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

rainfall was low for the years 193-9, 1940, 1943 and 1945. In these studies,
to be sure that cotton was available for harvesting, the plats were given .
one or more irrigations. In 1942, the plat at Lubbock was given a heavy I
application of manure and several irrigations. This resulted in tall, wide i‘
spreading branchy plants, which made harvesting with the stripper type

1

mtachine diflicult.

College Station, which is located some 500 miles southeast of Lubbock, 
has approximately twice the rainfall that occurs at Lubbock (Table 1). 7
As a consequence, the plants are larger. During the years 1943 and 1944, ‘
the plat at College Station had heavy applications of calcium cyanamid t
to defoliate the plants, and vetch was planted as a winter legume. This f
caused luxuriant growth in 1945 and resulted in excessively large plants
for the location. Harvesting cotton with the stripper type machine from ‘-

such large plants resulted in heavy field losses by the machine.

Table 1. Monthly Rainfall at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

Month 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
College Station
January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.44 1.00 1.55 .56 2.98 6.97 2.83 i

February . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.36 4.25 3.64 1.15 .18 4.18 2.66

arch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .98 .92 6.63 1.27 2.17 3.96 2.87 -

April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .93 4.20 1 91 7.79 .67 .30 3.02

May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.41 4.46 3.06 3.91 7.04 10.70 1.63 '

June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.79 8.97 6.39 5.36 176 1.52 3.76 '

July . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . .. 1.96 3.55 5 49 2.58 5 66 .95 2.64 '6

August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .96 .87 2.76 3.05 50 5.82 8.11 5

September . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.22 1.89 2.67 6.17 3 14 2.84 1.70 f

October.... . . . . . . . . . .. 2.26 2.26 6.75 2.05 77 .15 3.66 ,

November . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.05 8.27 1.61 5.18 2 44 8.89 .27 i

December . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.10 8.38 2.12 2.32 3.19 7.26 1.39 l

Total . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.46 49 02 44 58 41 39 30 50 53 54 34 54
_ Lubbock
January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.45 .23 , .55 .04 .04 1.28 .69

February . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 19 1.97 .61 .18 .02 1.36 .39

March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 T 3 .56 .51 .25 1.09 .10

A ril . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .28 1.84 2.23 3.25 .53 .84 .46

ay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.82 1.74 12.69 .35 2.71 3.03 .46 -.

June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .67 2.06 4.13 1.74 2.37 1.75 .36 >

July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.73 T 3.68 2.58 3.17 2.93 3.08 I

August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.75 1.57 1.85 4.97 .00 2.37 2.17 .

September . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .01 .73 4.47 7.61 1.16 3.73 2.22 ‘

October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .94 1.07 5.89 3.39 .10 .80 2.26 i

November . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .18 2.35 .17 .01 .62 1.72 .27 "

December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 .20 .72 2.70 1.87 1.64 32

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.71 13.76 40.55 27.33 12.84 22 54 12 78

Date of Harvest

In these studies an efi-‘ort was made to harvest as early as the conditio-
of the cotton would permit. Table 2 shows that at College Station th i
average date of harvest was September 14, with the exception of 1945

This delay in 1945 was due to the late delivery of a tractor on which r
mount the harvester. Table 2 also shows that the average date of harve
at Lubbock was November ~14, with the exception of 1943 when the harve -

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 11
was made October 19. This early harvest was possible because defoliant
was applied to the mature cotton the last week of September. When the
leaves were removed from the plants“ all the well matured bolls opened. It
is noted that the date of harvest atLubbock is 60 days later than at
College Station.

Harvesting at College Station was done at a time when the plants were
usually in full foliage while at Lubbock harvesting was done soon after
the first killing frost.

Table 2. Date of Harvest at College Station and Lubbock .
_ Date
Locatlon
1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945
College Station . . . . . . . . . . Sept. 4 Sept. 11 Sept. 3O Sept. 16 Sept. 1O Sept. 14 Oct. 11
Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov. 7 Nov. 13 Nov. 19 Nov. 26 Oct. 19 Nov. 8 . . . . . . ..

Performance of Texas Station Cotton Harvester (Stripper)

Data showing the performance or the percentage of cotton harvested
by the Texas Station Cotton Harvester for the period 1939-1945 at College
Station and Lubbock are given in Tables 3 and 8.

Performance at College Station: A study of Table 3 reveals that the
performance or efiiciency of the machine varied from year to year and
for the various varieties harvested each year. The highest percentage of
cotton harvested was in 1939 and 1944 when it totaled 94.4 percent. In
both these years, low rainfall during June and July retarded the growth
of the plants and also caused ‘extensive shedding of foliage. In 1945,
however, ample rainfall during the early growing season caused the
development of large branchy plants (Figure 6). This condition resulted

Figure 6. Left—showing height of plants at College Station in 1945. Right—showing num-
ber and length of sprouts on plants at time of harvest.

12 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

in very poor machine harvesting. The average efliciency for six varieties
was 62.2 percent, which was the poorest performance obtained with the
machine during the entire period of 15 years. i

Figure 7. Top—showing yield and size of cotton plants before harvest at Lubbock in 1941.
Bottom—showing field losses and condition of same plants after harvest. Varic-e
ties—left to right. A. Macha, B. Deltapine, C. Mebane 140, D. Mebane 140 x
Mebane 140 x Mebane 804.

-' r-wwwffll
v

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 13

Again referring to Table 3 and, the period of years average (Table 8), '

it is-seen that the machine performed best when harvesting Holtz and
Regular Ducona, or an average 92.6 and 92.2 percent respectively.

These varieties, however, were not included in the 1945 tests when the
best performance of the machine for a single variety was 65.7 percent
in harvesting Gorhams Lone Star. If the .d-ata for 1945 is disregarded
it is found that Roldo Rowden ranked highest with a percentage of 94.6
of the cotton harvested for the period 1942-1944. Other high ranking

i. varieties were Arkansas B-6, 93.2 percent; ‘Vestern Early, 90.9 percent;

Mebane 140, 91.9 percent; Macha, Suntex and Gorhams Lone Star, 91.7
percent. The average percentage of the cotton harvested by the machine
for all varieties tested for the period 1939-1944 was 91.3. Hi-Bred because

a of its poor storm resistance, ranked lowest for the five year- period 1939-

1943, with a machine performance of 88.8 percent.

Next to the lowest average for the period 1939-1945 was for Oklahoma
Triumph, and was 83.4 percent, though it did rank highest in 1944 with 96.2
percent. There was a difference between the highest and lowest of 9.3 p-er-
cent, which may be largely attributed to varietal characteristics. The widest

g difference in a single year between the percentage of cotton harvested

.,.,v..._1_r,;,V-.-.w-.,-.---.,;., H ..., . ~ w

i.
F

w w", ,_,_.,._...vr,,  ._.  .-.,. t <7" ,.,

Bolls of stormproof Macha, cotton showing non-flufiiness of locks and how fibers
adhere to bur which makes it hard to remo-ve locks from ‘the bur.

Figure 8.

14 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
from different varieties was 12.6 percent in 1943 and was between Roldo
Rowden for a high of 95.6 and a 10w of 83.0 for Oklahoma Triumph.

Performance at Lubbock: Table 3 shows data on machine performance
at Lubbock covering a six year period, 1939-1944. The general average
in harvesting 14 varieties was 96.4 percent. The highest percentage was
in 1941 when the average for‘ 13 varieties was 98.5 percent (Figure 7).
The lowest yearly average was for 1942 when 90.5 percent of ‘the cotton
Was harvested. This decided drop in performance in 1942 was due to
there being large branchy plants not suitable for‘ machine stripping.

The difference in the average machine performance in. harvesting differ-
ent varieties was 6.8 percent. The highest efiicie-ncy in harvesting was
98.0 percent for Macha, and the lowest was 91.2 percent for Shafter x
Half and Half x Shafter. The former was semi-dwarf in plant growth and
had extra stormproof bolls, (Figures 8 and 9), while the latter developed
a large branchy plant and quite fluffy cotton in the bolls (Figure 10).
The highest percentage harvested from any variety was 99.8 percent from

A

Figure 9. Single boll of stormproof Macha cotton showing two locks undisturbed, three
locks removed and the fibers hanging to sides of the carpel and bur.

-;_m“....;.x..v:;..x..l_.-.h.  ... .1...lxnh.._px.axia.x...nu.u._h.g.z.»..uh..xaxmmi“A... .. ....1 . tr r=

 

 

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS

 

 Figure 10. Normal bolls of Deltapine co-tton showing flufliness of locks and how the locks

are easily removed from the bur leaving it clean.

Macha in 1944. The lowest was 83.8 percent from Shaffer X Half and
{Half X Shafter in 1942, a difference of 16.0 percent.

Comparison of Locations: A study of Tables 3 and 8 shows that there
i-was a difference of 7.4 percent in the average performance of the machine
*at College Station and Lubbock when all varieties are considered. Of all
the varieties listed in the tests, seven ..were used at both locations from
three to seven years. The average machine performance for these seven
varieties when harvested at Lubbock was 96.7 percent. But, when har-
vested at College Station, the average was 89.2 percent, or a difference
of 7.5 percent due to the difference in plant development at the two loca-
;tions. At Lubbock the average plant height was 22.2 inches while at

College Station the average was 28.6 inches, a difference of 6.4 inches,
(Table 7).

 

15

16 BULLETIN 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Cotton Harvested by the Texas Station Cotton Harvester (Stripper) at College
. Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.0 84.4 94.3 95.5 93.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.2

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.6 83. 93.6 96.3 91.2 94.1 . . . . .. 91.9

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95.2 88.4 91.0 94.8 85.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.0

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95.0 84.7 87.2 94.5 89.0 94 9 61 3 86.7

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.3 85.2 84.9 93.1 88.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 89.2

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.8 88.3 92.2 92.0 90.4 90.7 65 ,88.0

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 93.1 87.9 86.6 88.2 88.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 88.8

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.7 87 .9 86 .4 89 .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 .5

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.2 85.3 91.9 93.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 4 85.9

. Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.5 88.2 90.2 92.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.3

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.9 93.8 83 .0 96 2 57. 83.4

oltz..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.5 91.9 88.4 95 6 . . . . .. 92.6

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.7 94.3 88.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.1

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 .5 87 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.8

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.9 95.6 95 62 2 86.5

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.0 92.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.7

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.4 93 .0 63 .5 83.3

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94.6 86.4 90.0 93.0 89.6 94.3 62.2 89.0
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.5 96.4 97.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.3 . . . . .. 97.7

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.8 96.6 97.8 86.5 97 4 98.8 . . . . .. 96.0

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.1 97.5 98.3 91.3 . . . . .. 97.8 . . . . .. 96.6

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 99.6 97 .3 99 .1 93.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97.2

Ducona X Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.1 95.8 99.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.8

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 98.3 95.3 98.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.4

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.8 97.9 99.4 94 0 . . . . .. 99.8 . . . . .. 98.0

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.6 96.7 98 9 91 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.4

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 .1 94.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.0

Ducona x Half & Half . . . . . . . . . . . 95 .6 97.2 99.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.3

Half&HalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.8 97.4 98.4 92.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.3 97 .4 90.4 96 .5 97 3 . . . . . . 95.8

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.9 98.3 91.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95.5

Shafter x Half 8c Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.6 83 .8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.2 96.7 98.5 90 5 97 0 98.4 . . . . .. 96 4'

 

Cotton Lost by Harvester: The data in Table 4 show the pounds of lint '

cotton 10st per acre by the Texas Station Cotton Harvester in harvesting
the various varieties tested at both College Station and Lubbock. The
losses, of course, are in inverse relation to the percentage of cotton

harvested by the machine shown in Table" 3. It is of interest, however, l

to see exactly the loss in pounds of lint per acre. At College Station the
average loss for all varieties for the seven-year period, 1939-1945, was
24 pounds per acre. At 25 cents per pound this would be a loss of $6.00
per acre. If, however, the poor results of 1945 are disregarded the
average loss would be 19.2 pounds per acre, or $4.80.

At Lubbock, the average lint lost per acre was 15.7 pounds, or $3.92-
per acre at 25 cents per pound. If the results for 1942 are disregarded »

the average loss would amount to only 8.4 pounds, or $2.10 per acre.

Cotton on Ground Before Harvesting: In all the harvesting tests the

cotton on the ground was picked up and the amount per acre calculated. _

The cotton was gleaned from the ground before harvest so that any cotton

found on the ground after the machine was used would be charged as,

  

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 17

Table 4. Pounds of Lint Cotton Lost Per Acre by the Texas Station Cotton Harvester at
College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

             

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ularDucona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.1 31.6 10.0 7.0 7.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.6

Me anc 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.8 38.7 19.8 17.0 7.7 16.0 . . . . .. 20.2

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.4 26.3 23.6 10.0 15.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.2

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 37.6 35.6 12.0 12.5 10 138 0 37.1

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.4 39.4 34.8 12.0 15.6 . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.4

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 20.5 15.8 17.0 10.8 26 0 68.0 23.4

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.9 35.8 36.2 19.0 13.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.2

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 30.3 32.1 13.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.3

acha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 39.5 23.5 14.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 74 0 32.0

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.6 23.2 13.3 17.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.0

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.6 11.0 27.0 8 0 131.0 43.1

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 17.0 11.6 7 0 . . . . .. 11.9

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.3 12.0 16.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.9

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 16.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.2

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.0 6.5 10 0 86.0 30.4

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.0 7.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.4

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.8 15.0 105.0 42.9

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.8 32.3 24.7 14.2 12.7 13.1 100.3 24.0
Lubbock
RogersAcala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.4 7.8 14.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 . . . . .. .5

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 10.0 9.8 74 0 16.8 5.0 . . . . .. 20.0

WesternEarly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.9 7.4 6.3 710 . . . . .. 8.0 . . . . .. 18.9

Ducona x Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 6.7 14.6 34 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.2

DuconaxLoneStar . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 8.5 4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4

Mebane804xMebanc l40....... 4.4 10.8 6.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3 7.1 2.9 48 0 . . . . .. 11.0 . . . . .. 14.5.

Ferguson406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3 7.2 5.4 48 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.5

urnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 11.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0

DuconaxHalfdk Half . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 5.4 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2

HalfdcHalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 6.6 7.5 46.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 16.0 75.0 6,9 18 0 . . . . . . 24.7

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 7.2 56.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.4

Shafterx Half & Half x Shaflcr. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.6 67.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.3

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 8.0 8.2 57 7 11.8 100 . . . . .. 15.7

. machine loss. The data in Table 5 show the amount of seed cotton gleaned

 

from each variety prior to harvest. These data give some indication as to
i the comparative storm resistance of the various varieties used in the tests
.which in turn may have some influence on the adaptability of the variety
a for machine harvesting. ' .

p It was stated above that Oklahoma Triumph gave poor machine per-
t formance. In Table 5, the data for College Station show that this variety
A was the highest for pre-harvest losses, or 31.0 pounds of seed cotton per
acre. Other varieties that ranked high in pre-harvest losses were Mebane
. 804-50, Stoneville 2B, Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 and Hi-Bred. The lowest
losses were for Macha, Arkansas B-6, Regular Ducona and Roldo Rowden.
“These varieties also ranked high in machine performance. There‘ was
slightly more than 1 percent difference in the average pre-harvest loss of
cotton at College Station and Lubbock.

Table 5 shows that at Lubbock the highest pre-harvest losses were from
Rogers Acala, Hi-Bred and Burnett, or 34.4, 24.8 and 23.4 pounds of
g seed cotton per "acre respectively. The lowest pre-harvest losses were from

 

18 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 5._ Pounds of Seed Cotton on Ground Per Acre Before Harvesting with the T“
Station Cotton Harvester, at Qollege Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945 j

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 A.
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 .9 12.5 . . . . .. 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . ..

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 1.6 33.1 . . . . .. 6.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ 15.0 4.2 35.0 . . . . .. 15.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. Y,

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 .4 16.6 . . . . .. 12.7 . . . . .. 6.1 ~I

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 .5 34.9 . . . . .. 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1"-

GorhamsLoneStar . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 3.3 15.9 . . . . .. 19.7 . . . . .. 9.6 =5

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.5 1.6 62.8 . . . . .. 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . .. As

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 3.9 62.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 2.1 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , 5.9 ‘._

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.4 .8 ' 13.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .2 . . . . . . 14.9 . . . . . . 10.8 3 f

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.0 . . . . .. 11.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 .2 . . . . .. 11.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . e

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 . . . . . . 10.8 7

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 . . . . . . 4.7 v;

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.7 1.9 32.1 . . . . .. 11.5 . . . . .. 8.0 14*
Lubbock A
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.6 42.8 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.2 . . . . .. 34

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.6 32.3 5.5 30.0 . . . . .. 25.8 . . . . .. 24

WesternEarly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.6 13.3 2.9 4.6 . . . . .. 4.8 . . . . .. 5

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 25.3 .4 17.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 18.6 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ;

blebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . .. 14.6 4.5 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8W

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .8 3.5 .0 4.4 . . . . .. 2.0 . . . . .. 2;‘

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 4.9 1.0 15.1 . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . .. 81

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 39.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Ducona x Half & Half . . . . . . . . . .. 10.5 12 .5 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8"’

Half 8c Half x, Acala . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.4 22.5 1.8 23.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Deltapine . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.9 4.0 21.0 . . . . .. 12.6 . . . . .. 18

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.4 5.1 17.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .0 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 21.6 2.6 15 8 . . . . .. 21.1 . . . . .. 13

Macha, Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter, Western Early and Du 
x Lone Star, or 2.1, 5.2, 5.4, and 6.8 pounds of seed cotton per p
respectively. “i

Acre Yield of Lint: Table 6 shows that the average acre yield of" g
cotton for all varieties at Lubbock was 406 pounds in "comparison ' 
224 pounds at College Station. For three of the five years at Lubb‘
the average yield for all varieties was almost a. bale to the acre. The 
at College Station dropped to 136 pounds in 1943 when the season v
dry. The best year was in 1941 when 286 pounds were produced.
was also a year of good rainfall at optimum times during the gro",
season. 

Of all the varieties tested at College Station, Deltapine yielded I
highest with an average of 271 pounds of lint per acre. Stoneville 2B 
lowest with 170 pounds. 31

A careful study of. Tables 3, 6 and 8 "does not show that the yield -.‘
acre consistently influenced the efficiency of the machine in the same ~ i}
That is, low yields did not consistently show high machine efficiency.

   

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 19

Table 6. Pounds of Lint Cotton Produced Per Acre for the Various Varieties Harvestedjwith
the Texas Station Cotton Harvester at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

             

   
  
 
 
  
  

Variety I 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
 ./ College Station .
i Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 216 183 146 115 . . . . . . . . . . . . 173

E Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 23-9 337 245 133 273 . . . . . . 255

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 246 294 192 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 247 295 201 125 193 364 243

> Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 374 327 346 167 143 . . 4 . . . . . . . .. , 271

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 190 219 208 133 286 207 204

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333 298 334 228 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

 Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270 254 298 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

g: Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 289 287 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 246

'5 Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 199 231 225 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232

f Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 183 174 211 321 246

E Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 232 216 116 172 . . . . .. 184 I

5 Mebane 804 x lylebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 209 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . 227

f Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

t Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  .. 250 15s 215 25s 214
1
g Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.76
g; Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 212 293 215
 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 250 286 205 136 223 271 224
E i Lubbock

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264 260 601 . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 . . . . . . 404

A Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 327 434 581 298 441 . . . . . . 418

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 310 373 812 . . . . . . 346 . . . . . . 394

Bucona x Ilt/Iebage 140 . . . . . . . . . . .    495 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

uc a o e ‘t r . . . . . . . . . . . . . a ‘ ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ L

Mehjilrlie 1804 irclMeliane 140. . . . . ..    . .81.‘; . . . . . . . H56 . . . . . . .. 

ac a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ ' . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . 4

Eerguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   505 570 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

urnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 Ducona x Half & Half . . . . . . . . . . . 242 207 550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

1 Half &_Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 279 484 662 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456

Deltaplne . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 609 799 423 661 . . . . . . 563

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 440 650 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562 421 . . . . _ . . . . . » . . . . . . . . . 492

A Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 274 496 645 360 4S9 . . . . . . 406

  
   
   
  
  
 
   
   
 
  

same is true for high yields. For some years the machine efficiency was
fairly uniform, even though there may have been quite a difference in the
yield for the different varieties. In some cases, the machine efiiciency
"iwas high for low yields, and in other cases it was high for high yields.
Therefore, this would indicate that there are other plant characteristics
that affect machine efliciency and performance’ more than just the yield.
It is true, however, that a high yield per acre permits a greater field
-loss; ye-t the percentage of loss will not be as great as where there is a.
‘low yield with a high percentage of the cotton lost. This can be seen for
College Station data when Regular Ducona and Holtz are compared with
Mebane 140, Rogers Acala and Mebane 804 x Mebane 140.

At Lubbock, Burnett and Ducona x Lone Star yielded 258 and 262
pounds of lint per acre, but the machine efficiency was 97.0 and, 97.8
ercent respectively. When these varieties are compared with Mebane
>140, with an average yield of 449 pounds, and Macha, with a yield. of 488
g unds of lint per acre, with an average machine efiiciency of 95.5 and
38.0 respectively, the small difference in machine efiiciency cannot be‘
ttributed to the difference in acre yield of lint. The Macha and Mebane

  
  
   
   
  
   
  
    

20 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 7. Average Plant Height in Inches for the Various Varieties Harvested with the Tenlé
Station Cotton Harvester at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945 .-

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave. "
College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 42.5 31 .1 30.9 26.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6

Me ane140 . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. 2 .8 27.1 27.0 26.1 28.1 25.8 45.5 29

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.8 37.3 29.2 28.0 26.3 . . . . .. ... . 29.1

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.2 29.0 25.2 26. 1 26 .3 26 . 0 36 2 27.6

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 37.6 25.5 24.5 26.1 . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.0

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.7 29.5 21.2 26.3 19.8 21.2 36.1 25.4 =>

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.4 34.9 29.2 27.4 29.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.45

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 24.8 28 .9 30. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 i

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25 .6 33.5 25.2 24.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 45. 30.7~

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 26 . 1 27 .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2 

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 24.0 28.0 24 1 40.3 29.1_

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.8, 26.3 25.4 24 8 . . . . .. 25.3""

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 31.4 23.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0.

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...  . 27.0 25.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.2‘

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. 1 26.3 24.7 43 3 30.1.».

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .0 26.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6‘;

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .8 25.5 43 31 .7j

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.5 32.8 27.0 27.2 25.9 24.6 41.4 28.6
Lubbock _
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.9 15.9 28.6 . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.7 . . . . .. 20.31

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 11.6 20.8 _ 34.7 17 2 20.0 . . . . .. 20.2;

Western Early. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 13.2 25.5 37.1 . . . . .. 15.4 . . . . .. 21.4.

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 22.3 15.4 25.6 40.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.0

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. 8 13.3 20.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.0.,

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . .. 19.6 13.5 23.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.9}

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.5 13.4 23.5 37.4 . . . . .. 17 6 . . . . .. 21.5

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.6 12.1 25 .0 38.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.9

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2 14.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5

Ducona x Half & Half . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 13.4 24.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.

Half&HalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.8 14.4 24.1 33.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.

Deltapiue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 26.7 37.6 20.3 19 6 . . . . .. 24.

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 24.0 37.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.

Shafter x Half 8c Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .2 46.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.8 13.8 24.4 38 3 18.8 19 1 . . . . .. 22

140 have plant characteristics such as stormproofness and short “L:
that enable the machine to perform better when harvesting them th
when harvesting other varieties.

Plant Height: The data in Table 7 show the average plant height d,
all varieties harvested each year with the Texas Station Cotton Harve A
at College Station and Lubbock. The average height for the period 19
1945 at College Station was 28.6 inches while at Lubbock for irriga_
cotton the average height was 22.2 inches. Therefore, at College Stati‘
the cotton plants grew on the average 6.4 inches taller than they did
Lubbock. 

In general, Table 7 shows that during those years when the pla
grew tall the average machine efficiency was lowest. For example, in 1i
and 1945, the average plant height at College Station for all varieties --
32.8 and 41.4 inches respectively. Referring to Table 3, it is seen f
during these years the machine efficiency averaged 86.4 and 62.2 perc;
On the other hand, in 1939, 1942 and 1944, when the average plant hei
was 26.5, 27.2 and 24.6 inches respectively, the average machine efficiei
was 94.6, 93.0 and 94.3 percent respectively. i

-x

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 21

 

 Table 8. Average Percentage of Cotton Harvested by Machine, Pounds Lost Per Acre,
 Pounds Lint on Ground Before Harvest, Acre Yield and Plant Height for Varieties
‘ Harvested at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

    

  
 

 

    
  
 
  
 
 
  

Cotton _ Lint
harvested Lint lost per acre on Total Average
Variety by per acre by round acre yield plant
machine stripper efore of hnt height
harvest _
(Percent) (pounds) (pounds) (pounds) (inches)
- College Station
'1'- R lar Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92.2 13.6 6 8 173 32 6

.Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91.9 20.2 13.0 255 29 1

l: Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.0 18.2 17.4 238 29 1

 Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.7 37.1 8.1 243 27 6

 eltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 24.4 14.0 271 29 0

 Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.0 23.4 10.8 204 25 4

 i-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88.8 25.2 21 .6 262 29 4

‘ Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.5 22.3 27 O 250 27 8

1- Mac a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85.9 32.0 3.1 246 30 7

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.3 17.0 7.0 232 28 2

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.4 43.1 31.0 246 29 1

* oltz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 6 11.9 12.8 184 25 3

. Mebane 804 x Mcbane 140 . . . . . . . 91 1 17.9 29.4 227 28 0

toneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 8 13.2 25.1 170 26 2

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 86 5 30.4 7.3 214 30 1

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 7 14.4 12.9 176 27 6

f, Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 3 42.9 6.0 215 31 7

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 0 24.0 14.9 224 28 6
- Lubbock
. ‘R0 ers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97.7 8.5 34.4 404 20 3

;: 53nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.0 20.0 24.8 418 20 2

a,» Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.6 18.9 5.4 394 21 4

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 97.2 14.2 ll .4 423 26 0

 * Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97.8 5.4 6.8 262 18 O

Webane 804 x Mebane140 . . . . . .. 97.4 7.1 8 .1 320 18 9

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98.0 14.5 2.1 488 21 5

erguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.4 16.5 8.2 432 22 9

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 97.0 7.0 23.4 258 14 6

Ducona x Half & Half . . . . . . . . . .. 97.3 4.2 8.2 333 19 3

Half&HalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.4 18.0 17.3 456 23 0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.8 24.7 18.6 563 24 0

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 .5 23.4 15.6 449 25 2
after x Half & Half x Shafter. .. 91.2 37.3 5.2 492 35 8
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96.4 15.7 13.5 406 22 2

A This indicates that the plant height, with its corresponding tendency to
 uce longer branches as the plant grows taller, has a definite influence
"in the efficiency and performance of the machine.

A  This same trend is seen for the data at Lubbock, which is also shown
u Table 7. For example, in 1942 when the average plant height at Lubbock
as 38.3 inches, the average machine efliciency was 10w with an average
f 90.5 percent of the cotton on. the plant harvested. For all other years;
_ hen the average plant height did not range above 24.4 inches, the lowest
saverage machine efliciency was 96.7 percent. "

   
 

The length of the limbs on the plant is also a very important factor
ain influencing the efficiency of the machine. For example, it was observed
that Regular Ducona, Mebane 140, Ducona 39-10, Holtz and Arkansas
i_B-6 normally had relatively short branches. ‘It can be seen from Table 3
Jthat, for College Station, the average machine efliciency for these varieties

22 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

was 92.2, 91.9, 91.3, 92.6 and 93.2 percent respectively, if the results for»,
1945 are not included. On the other hand, varieties that produced numerous j,
long branches, such as Deltapine, Gorhams Lone Star, Hi-Bred, Mebane if
804150 and Oklahoma Triumph, gave a machine efiiciency of 89.2, 88.0,.

88.8, 89.5 and 83.4 percent respectively for the period of years tested.

At Lubbock, in 194,2, the wide spreading, branchy plants of Shafter x
Half andHalf x Shafter, which averaged 46.3 inches tall, gave a machine '

efficiency of 83.8 percent, while Mebane 140 and Ducona x Mebane 140

with shorter limbs and an average plant height of 37.9 and 40.9 inches, a

gave a machine efficiency of 91.2 and 93.0 percent respectively;

Hi-Bred plants grew to an average height of 34.7 inches at Lubbock in *
1942 and gave a low machine efficiency of 86.5 percent, largely because
of the ease with which the compact locks shattered at the least shock i
given the plant. Table 4 shows that the field loss for Hi-Bred was 74 .
pounds of lint per acre for that year. Other varieties of low storm.

resistance gave high field losses in harvesting.

Performance of the Texas Station Cotton Extractor

The extractor unit developed in connection with this study was designed
as a field tractor mounted and operated extractor, to be used in conjunction
with the Texas Station Cotton Harvester (Figure 2). In operation, the

cotton passes directly from the harvester unit into the extractor unit. '

A pan attached underneath the extractor catches all the burs and waste.
Therefore, the amount of cotton left in the burs, and that which might
drop through the fingers was collected, and the percentage of cotton lost

by the extractor was determined separately from that lost by the harvester '

unit.

Cotton Lost by the Extractor Unit: The pounds of lint cotton lost per
acre by the extractor for the various varieties harvested at both College
Station and Lubbock are shown in Table 9. The average pounds of lint
lost per acre for all varieties at College Station was 10 pounds for the
seven-year period, 1939-1945. At Lubbock, the average loss was 26.1
pounds of. lint per acre. This difference in loss is attributed largely to
the difference in the acre yield at the two locations (Table 6). It is obvious
that a larger volume of cotton passing through the machine would cause
more pounds of cotton to be lost. The loss of 10 pounds per acre by the
extractor amounted to 4.5 percent of the average total yield of 224 pounds
per acre at College Station. At Lubbock, the loss of 26.1 pounds of lint
per acre by the extractor amounted to 6.4 percent of the total acre yield.

A study of the averages for the different varieties in Table 9 reveals
that the loss by the extractor varied considerably when varieties are com-
pared. For example, at College Station the lowest loss of 6.7 pounds was
for Deltapine, a fluffy cotton (Figure 10), and highest was 23.0 pounds
for Macha, a very tight stormproof cotton (Figures 8 and 9). At Lubbock,
Burnett gave a low loss for the two-year period, 1939-1940. Low yields

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HA VE TERS

Figure 11. Close up view of single plants of stormproof cotton on left and normal fluffy
type on right.

Figure 12. Field scene at Lubbock 1945 showing stormproof Macha cotton on left and
normal flulfy Deltapine cotton on right.

Figure 13. Strain of cotton with short

. waste were removed from machine-stripped cotton for different varieties

24 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
were also obtained during these years. Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter
and Mebane 140 gave high average losses during 1941 and 1942, years
when all varieties showed a high loss.

A close analysis of the data in Table 9 and Table 25 will show that
two factors stand out as causes of excessive losses by the extractor. The
first is the stormproofness of the variety. At both locations, Macha gave
a high extractor loss. This variety is extremely stormproof and, there-

fore, very hard to extract. Varieties that produce a fiuffy lock and cotton
that is easily caught by the extractor saw teeth gave fairly low losses.
Figures 11 and 12 show a comparison of fiufliness, of stormproof and of
normal types of cotton. Figure 13 shows a short limb type of plant with
intermediate stormproof bolls.

The second factor is the staple length
combined with a compact lock. Hi-Bred
which produced a staple averaging
26/32 inch at College Station and
26.7/32~ inch at Lubbock shows a high
extractor loss at bo-th locations (Table.
9).

Other factors such as size of’ boll,
the degree which the boll carpels spread
apart when open, the amount of limbs
pulled off with the bolls, the percentage
of green bolls on the plant and bursted
by the extractor, and how close the
points of the extractor fingers are ad-
justed to the extractor saw drum, will
influence the amount of cotton lost by
the extractor. If the points of the fin-
gers are set close to the saw, the burs
do not drop through the space as freely
as when they are set farther away from
the saw drum. This factor, together
with the yield, probably had consider-
able influence on the variable losses
from year to year. In operation, an
attempt was made to adjust the fingers
to suit the conditions encountered each year.

limbs and intermediate storm-
proof bolls. This strain was
found at Lubbock in 1945.

Burs and Waste Removed from Stripped Cotton by Extractor: When 
harvesting the various varieties at College Station and Lubbock, a pan j

was suspended underneath the extractor to catch all the waste in the form.
of burs and trash. As can be seen in Table 10, different percentages of

and at the two locations. At College Station, an average of 34.1 percent l
of the material harvested was removed by the extractor as burs and waste,
while at Lubbock the percentage was 28.7. The data disclose that the

 

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 25

Table 9. Pounds of Lint Cotton Lost Per Acre by the Texas Station Extractor at College
Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Statlon
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 4.9 11.9 14.0 5.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.4

Me ane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 4.9 14.5 16.0 4.9 13.0 . . . . .. 10.6

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1 8.7 13.0 26.0 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.6 5.1 11.0 11.0 4.6 11 0 7 2 8.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8.5 4.1 7.8 8.0 5.2  . . . . .. 6.7

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.1 3.4 8.1 11.0 4.0 14.0 3 9 .1

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.0 12.2 20.0 21.0 9.6 . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 4.9 13.0 10.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 7.1 34.0 37.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 9 23.0

Ducona39—10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 6.5 9.8 11.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.4

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.3 12.0 5.1 14.0 7.5 10.4

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 10.0 4.5 11.0 . . . . .. 9.4

Mebane 804xMebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 10.0 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.1

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.0 4.2 11 5.0 9.3

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 12 5.7 7.5

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.9 6.2 14.1 14.6 5.1 12.3 9.0 10.0
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 6.2 54.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 . . . . .. 20.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.7 11.7 66.3 41 0 4.1 5.0 . . . . .. 24.5

WesternEarly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.6 5.6 28.3 33 0 . . . . .. 3.0 . . . . .. 17.7

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 4.1 66.3 30 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.3

DuconaxLone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 4.5 63.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.0

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . .. 3.3 2.9 38.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.6 3.2 103.7 40 0 . . . . .. 18.0 . . . . .. 35.3

Ferguson406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8 3.2 60.7 33 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.7

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6

DuconaxHalf and Half . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 ‘4.9 76.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.3

Half and HalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 4.0 52.5 30.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 55.6 12.0 6.8 13 0 . . . . .. 18.5

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0 64.5 53.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.8

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 30.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 5.0 63.3 33 6 5.4 1O 8 . . . . .. 26.1

lowest percentage of waste for both College Station and Lubbock. was
for the stormproof variety, Macha. As the cotton did not fluff or protrude
out of the boll, and fibers adhered to the carpel walls (Figures 8 and 9),
the extractor saw teeth chipped and cut the burs so badly that an excessive
amount of bur particles passed out with the seed cotton. This, of course,
reduced the total weight of the bur waste and at the same time added to
the weight of the seed cotton, thereby affecting the percentage of waste.

Varieties that normally produce a heavy bur, a great number of bolls,
or bolls with large peduncles, usually rank high in percentage of waste.
Regular Ducona and Ducona 39-10 produced large burs and thick heavy
stems, and the percentage of burs and waste removed by the extractor
was 37.9 and 37.4 percent respectively at College Station. The brittleness
of the limbs will also affect the amount of waste, as at Lubbock, Shafter
x Half and Half x Shafter produced numerous fairly long branches, a
number of which were pulled 01f in harvesting. Consequently, the per-
centage of burs and waste was high for the location, or 33.8 percent.

It is noted from the data in Table 10 that the average percentage of

26 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

burs and waste was higher at College Station for the same varieties and
for all varieties collectively. This can be attributed largely to the condi-
tion of the plant at the time of harvest. For example, at College Station
the average date of harvest was September 14. At this time the plants
were in full foliage. Consequently, considerable green leaves were removed
from the plant in harvesting. The plants were larger, more sappy and
more limbs and twigs broke off in harvesting. This, of course, resulted
in more waste.

At Lubbock, the average date of harvest was November 14, or soon
after the first killing frost. At this time the plants were free of green
vegetation and had not become dry and brittle, consequently, less trash
was collected with the stripped cotton. It is of interest to note that when
cotton vsgas stripped with the Texas Station Harvester soon after the first
freeze, the percentage of waste removed each year was fairly constant.
It was observed, however, that when cotton was stripped several weeks
after the first freeze, the amount of the waste, consisting largely of plant-
sections, increased considerably. An additional amount of waste was
removed in the cleaning process. These percentages are given in Table 17

Table l0. Burs and Trash Removed From Samples of Machine-stripped Cotton by the Texas
i Station Extractor at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1914 1945 Ave.
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 51.0 37 .5 28.9 34.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 41.4 30.1 28.6 27.3 25.0 . . . . .. 30.8

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.9 43.8 34.4 30.5 38.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.1

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 5 42.3 28.7 35.1 32.4 31 28 8 33.6

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.7 42.9 32.4 34.9 33 .9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.0

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.4 42.8 34.2 33.0 35.2 28.4 34.9 35.4

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.5 39.2 34.8 33.2 32.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 42.3 34.3 34.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1

ac a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.0 38.2 24.5 22.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.9 30.7

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 47.2 35.5 31.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.4

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 36.1 32.1 27 .9 31 2 32.3

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.8 29.4 33.6 31.4 . . . . .. 31.3

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.8 29.5 35.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .4 35.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . 8 34.0 29 36. 33.6

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.8 34.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.4

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 29 33 .2 31.8

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 43.1 32.6 31 8 33 7 29. 33 34.1
Lubbock
R0 ersAcala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.5 27.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.6 . . . . .. 29.1

Hi- red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 25.0 . . . . .. 27.4 32.7 23.2 . . . . .. 27.7

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.3 26.5 . . . . .. 20.3 . . . . . . 26.9 . . . . .. 27.8

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 29.5 28.8 . . . . .. 32.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.3

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 5 26.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 33.6 30.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.9 19.9 . . . . .. 21.3 . . . . .. 18.1 . . . . .. 22.6

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32. 9 27 .9 . . . . . . 28.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.8 32.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.6

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . 26.7 25 .3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.0

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 . . . . . . 25.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.7 . . . . .. 24.2 32.1 22.8 . . . . .. 27.2

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.0 . . . . .. 25.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26,2

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.8 27.4 . . . . .. 26.5 32.4 23.9 . . . . .. 28.7

 

$1.41.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 27

and are discussed under “Waste Removed inlCleaning Machine-stripped
and Hand-snapped Seed Cotton.”

Burs and I/Vaste Removed from Hand-snapped Cotton by Extractor:
Samples of hand-snapped cotton were harvested as nearly as possible at
the same time as the machine-stripped cotton. Usually there was one
day’s difference in the date of harvest. The hand-snapped samples were
harvested the day before the machine was to be used. This was done so
that the ginned samples could be readily compared as to grade, thus
showing the effect of method of harvesting.

The data in Table 11 show that the average waste in the form of burs
and trash removed from hand-snapped cotton was 1 percent more than
that removed from machine-stripped cotton for all the varieties harvested
at College Station. At Lubbock, there was only a fraction of 1 percent
difference in the amount of waste removed from machine-stripped and
hand-snapped cotton. '

In most cases, the percentages of waste removed for each method of
harvesting are close.

Table ll. Burs and Trash Removed by the Texas Station Extractor from Samples of Hand-
snapped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ularDucona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.8 35.1 38.3 33.3 37.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.2

Me ane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.1 27.2 36.5 28.2 35.8 29.1 . . . . .. 31.1

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 38.6 39.8 40. 36.7 36.7 . . . . .. 37.7

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.2 30.9 39.7 34.9 38.7 32.1 29 2 33.8

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.5 35.4 40.9 30.6 37.1 41.1 . . . . .. 36.3

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.4 38.2 42.0 38.1 36.4 31.9 31.0 35.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0 28.6 39.6 32.4 32.8 39.4 . . . . .. 34.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 28.7 39.2 37.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.3 30.8 29.9 31.2 . . . . .. 43 7 . . . . .. 33.6

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.6 31.0 42.1 37.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘35.6

klahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 30. 6 53. 9 30.9 29 . 1 37 .2

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.2 33.5 34.0 31.3 . . . . .. 33.5

Mebane 804xMebane 140. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.2 35.2 36.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.3

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 37 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41.4 35.6 31 31.9 35.2

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.1 35.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.8

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.5 33 33.1 34.4

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.7 32.4 38.8 34.8 37.4 34.7 30.9 35.1
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . 7 26 5 29.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. 6

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.7 27 9 26.6 30.0 37 7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 25 3 29 9 21 .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1

Duconax Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 29.9 27.5 31.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.4

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 26.4 28.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3

Mebane 804x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 30. 6 29.3 26. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.6 18.0 18 21.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.0

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.8 24.4 24 3 31.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.8

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.8 31.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.4

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.2 26.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 27 .0 33,. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.5 27.5 29.8 34.6‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.1 25.7 32.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.4

Shafter x Half 8c Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 .0 34. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .7 26 .5 26.5 29 .7 36 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28‘; 6

28 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Seed Cotton in Machine-stripped and Hand-snapped Cotton: It is obvious
that if the stripped cotton is considered as 100 percent of the material
harvested, and that a certain percentage is removed as waste the remaining
material will be the percentage of seed cotton in the original amount
harvested.. Consequently, the percentages of extracted cotton shown in
Tables 12 and 13 will vary directly as the percentages of waste shown in
Tables 10 and 11 vary.

The general average for both the percentages of waste and extracted
seed cotton are shown for better comparison in Tables 14 and 15.

Waste Removed in Cleaning Extracted Seed Cotton

After the machine-stripped cotton had been run through the extractor
and the burs and as much trash removed as possible by the extractor, the
cotton was then cleaned. The Texas Station Vertical Cleaner was used to
clean the cotton harvested from all the different varieties for the seven-
year period, 1939-1945.

Table 12. Seed Cotton in Machine-stripped Material at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-
1945, in Percentage
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ularDucona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.2 49.0 62.5 71.1 65.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.1

Me anel40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.9 58.6 69.9 71.4 72.7 75 0 . . . . .. 69.2

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.1 56.2 65.6 69.5 62.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.9

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63.5 57.7 71.3 64.9 67.6 68 71.2 66.4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.3 57.1 67.6 65.1 66.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.0

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.6 57.2 65.8 67.0 64.8 71 6 65.1 64.6

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.5 60.8 65.2 66.8 67.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62. 1 57 .7 65.7 66 . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.9

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65.0 61.8 75.5 77.1 . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.1 69.3

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.1 52.8 64.5 68.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.6

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.5 63.9 67.9 72. 1 68.8 67.6

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.2 70.6 66.4 68.6 . . . . .. 68.7

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .2 70. 5 64.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .4

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66. 6 64. 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .7

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.2 66.0 70. 2 63.3 66.4

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.2 65.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.6

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 .7 71 .0 66.8 68.2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.0 56 9 67 3 68 2 66 71 67 .0 65.9
Lubbock
R0 ers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.5 72.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.4 . . . . .. 70.9

Hi- red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.0 75.0 . . . . .. 72.6 67.3 76.8 . . . . .. 72.3

Western Earl% . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  62.7 73.5 . . . . .. 79.7 . . . . .. 73.1 . . . . .. 72.2

DuconaxMe ane140 . . . . . . . . . .. 70.5 71.2 . . . . .. 67.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.7

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 .5 73.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 66.4 69 .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.1 80.1 . . . . .. 78.7 . . . . .. 81.9 . . . . .. 77.4

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .0 72.0 . . . . .. 71.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.2

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.2 67 .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.4

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 .7

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.0 . . . . . . 74.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.8

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.3 . . . . . . 75.8 67.9 77 2 . . . . . . 72.8

Mebane140.....» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.0 . . . . .. 74.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.8

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.7 72.6 . . . . .. 73 5 67.6 76 1 . . . . .. 71.3

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HAEVESTERS 29

Table 13. Seed Cotton in Hand-snapped Material at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-
1945, in Percentage

       

Variety 1939 m 1940 1941 | 1942 ‘ 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re larDucona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.2 64.9 61.7 66.7 62.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.8

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.9 72.8 63.5 71.2 64.2 70.9 . . . . .. 68.9

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.1 61.4 60.2 59.5 63.3 63.3 . . . . .. 62.3

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.8 69.1 60.3 65.1 61.3 67.9 70.8 66.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.5 64.6 59.1 69.4 62.9 58.9 . . . . .. 63.7

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6 61 .8 58.0 61 .9 63.6 68. 1 69 .0 64. 1

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.0 71.4 60.4 67.6 67.2 60.6 . . . . .. 66.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.4 71.3 60.8 63.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.1-

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.7 69.2 70.1 68.8 . . . . .. 56.3 . . . . .. 66.4

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 .4 69.0 57 .9 62.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.4

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 .4 69 . 4 46 . 1 69 . 1 70 9 62. 8

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.8 66.5 66.0 68.7 . . . . .. 66.5

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 .8 64.8 63.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.7

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.8 62.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.6

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.6 64.4 68 . 1 68 1 64.8

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.9 64. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 .2

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . 5 66 .3 66 . 9 65 . 6

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.3 67.6 61.2 65.2 62.6 65.3 69.1 64.9
_ Lubbock
Rogers Aeala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .3 73 .5 70.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.4

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67.3 72.1 73.4 70.0 62.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.0

Western Early.....- . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64.6 74.7 70.1 78.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.9

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 67.6 70.1 72.5 68.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.6

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.7 73 6 71.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.7

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 69.4 70.7 73.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . 1

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 74.4 82.0 81.1 78.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.0

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.2 75.6 75.7 68.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.2

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.2 69.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.6

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.8 73 .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73. 6

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.7 73.0 66.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 72.5 70.2 65.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.4

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.9 74.3 67.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72.6

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.0 65.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.9

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.3 73.4 73.5 70 3 63.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.4

Waste Removed from Machine-stripped Cotton by Cleaner: The data in
Table 16 show the percentage of waste removed from each variety for

each year the variety was tested. An average of 7.3 percent of the weight.

of the cotton, after extracting, was removed as waste at College Station
and 5.8 percent at Lubbock. The higher percentage of Waste removed
from the cottons grown and harvested at College Station than from those
grown and harvested at Lubbock, can be again largely attributed to
condition of the cotton plants at the time of harvest. That is, the plants
were larger, more tender and sappy, and they were, in most cases, in full
foliage when harvested at College Station. Therefore, even though the
extractorremoved a slightly higher percentage of the trash in relation
to the total amount of material harvested, there was more trash left in
the cotton. The cleaner, thus, removed an additional percentage. The
grade of the cottons shown in Table 21 also reflects the- fact that there
was an excessive amount of trash left in the lint cotton after ginning.

The data in Tables 16 and 17 do not reflect the cleaning quality of a
particular variety in comparison with another variety, even though the

30 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTUARAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 14. Burs and Trash Removed by Extractor from Samples of Machine-stripped Cotton
and Seed Cotton in Harvested Material at College Station and Lubbock,

1939-1945, in Percentage

Burs and
_ trash 1n Seed cotton
Varlety material in material
harvested harvested
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 62.1

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 30.8 69.2

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37. 1 62.9

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 66. 4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 64.0

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 64.6

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 66.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .1 62.9

acha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 7 69.3

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 62.6

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 67.6

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.3 68.7

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 67.4

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 3 65 . 7

oldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 66.4

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 65.6

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .8 68.2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 1 65.9
Lubbock
R0 ers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29. 1 70.9

Hi- red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 .7 72.3

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 72.2

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.3 69.7

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 69.6

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 67.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.6 77.4

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .8 70.2

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 68.4

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 74. l

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27... 72.8

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 72.8

Mebane 140. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.2 73.8

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 66.2

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 71.3

two varieties may have contained an equal amount of waste before they
were extracted. If the variety had good cleaning qualities, the extractor
would remove more waste in the extracting process than it would from
a variety that had poor cleaning qualities. For example, it is known that
Hi-Bred is a good cleaning cotton in comparison with Deltapine, yet- there
is only 0.5 percent difference in the percentage of waste removed in the
cleaning process for the same period of years. At College Station, the
average grade for Hi-Bred for the period was SLM+, while for Deltapine
it was LM+, or a diiference of one grade, indicating that there was con-
siderably more waste in the Deltapine than in the Hi-Bred lint when
ginned and classed.

At Lubbock, for the same two varieties, less waste was removed from
Hi-Bred than from Deltapine, but Hi-Bred classed M-l", while Deltapine
classed SLM, or a difference of 1% grades. It should be noted in this
comparison that the staple length for Hi-Bred averaged 26/32 inch in

. _....1.-....4l.....___xh.. “ma...

   
   
     
   
  
  
   
   
  
  
 
  
  
   
   
    
   

FACTORS AFFECTING THETfERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 31

Table 15. Average Burs and Trash Removed from Samples of Hand-snapped Cotton by
Extractor and of Seed Cotton in Snapped Cotton, College Station and
Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage

- Burs and Clean seed
trash 1n cotton in
Variety snapped snapped
cotton cotton
, College Station

Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 64.8

Me ane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.1 68.9

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .7 62. 3

a Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 66.2

A Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.3 63.7

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 64.1

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 66.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 66. 1

f1 Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 66.4

‘ Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 64.4

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37.2 62.8

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.5 66.5

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 62.7

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 35.5 64. 6

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . 35.2 64.8

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 63.2

Arkansas B-G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 65.6

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 64.9
_ Lubbock
7. Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6 70.4

; I'll-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0 69.0

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 1 71.9

._ Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4 69.6

"a Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.3 70.7

 Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 71.1

ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .0 79 .0

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 72 2

urnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.4 68.6

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 73 6

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 70.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6 70.4

_Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.4 72.6

Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 69.9

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.6 71 4

Qllength at College Station, and 26.7/32 inch at Lubbock. Deltapine aver-
iaged 29.5/ 32 and 30.2/ 32 inch in length for the two locations, respectively.

Waste Removed from Hand-snapped Cotton by Cleomer: As hand-
‘snapped cotton contained both the bur and the cotton, it was run through
"ff-he Station Extractor before cleaning and ginning to separate the burs
i: cotton. For comparison with machine-stripped cotton, the data in
Table 17 show the percentages of waste removed from hand-snapped cotton
the cleaning process only. A study of the data in Table 17 reveals
“jthat the. percentage of waste removed from the various varieties harvested
flat College Station and Lubbock averaged approximately the same, or 5.3
 5.1 percent respectively. This was less than the difference for machine-
stripped cotton for the two locations. It is to be expected that less waste
Find a more constant amount, will be found in hand-snapped cotton than
gin machine-stripped cotton, as only the bolls were snapped from the plants.
" ‘At College Station, there. was 2 percent more waste removed from

32 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 16. Additional Waste Removed by the Texas Station Cleaner from Samples of Extracted
Stripped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage

Variety 1939 1940 1941 , 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
. College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.2 19.9 5.4 3.0 4.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 16.3 8.0 3.6 6.3 4.6 . . . . .. 7.6

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 14.1 4.3 3.0 4.6 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.4

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.5 14.0 5.7 8.5 5.6 2 5 7_6

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 14.6 5.0 5.2 5.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.7 10.8 7.5 2.4 7.0 7 12.8 8.5

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4 13.2 9.2 8.8 5.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 14.4 5.8 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0 14.8 6.2 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.3 8.0

Ducona39-10_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 18.6 6.6 7.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.9 4.7 5.7 4.8 7,7 5,8

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 2.4 6.1 6.7 . . . . .. 4.8

Mebane 804xMebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.1 1.8 8.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 8.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 5.4 3 7 9.2 5.3

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 6.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 4 7 10.2 7.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 15.1 6.1 4.5 6 5.5 8 7.3
Lubbock _
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 3.8 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 2.9 3.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8 5.8 3.5 3.2 4 6 3.0 2.8 4.1

WesternEarly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.3 8.9 5.4 6.4 . . . . .. 7.0 . . . . .. 7.2

DuconaxMebane140 . . . . . . . . . .. 9.5 8.0 4.1 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5

DuconaxLoneStar . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3 5.8 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7

Mebane804xMebane140....... 11.9 10.0 4.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 3.9 5.9 6.0 . . . . .. 5.2 110 6.5

Ferguson406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.7 8.8 4.0 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.6

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1 11.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 4.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8

HalfandHalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 .5 5.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 4.2 6.2 4 7 7.0 3 9 5.7

Mebane14O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 3.6 3.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 4.1

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 7.1 4.2 4.8 4 6 5.2 4 7 5.8

machine-stripped than from. hand-snapped cotton. This is attributed to
the machine removing waste in the form of green leaves and parts of
limbs which were not present in the hand-snapped cotton.

At Lubbock, there was only 0.7 percent difference in the waste removed
~from machine-stripped cotton and hand-snapped cotton. It has been stated
above that both the machine-stripping and hand-snapping was done soon
after the first freeze at Lubbock, and it is reasonable to expect that the
amounts of waste collected in the two methods of harvesting would be
fairly comparable. -

Grade of Harvested Cottons

Most machine-stripped cotton Will be "slightly lower in grade than hand-

-harvested cotton. For comparison, cotton was hand-picked and hand-

snapped so that the grade of the lint could be obtained for each, and the
grades compared. The cottons harvested by each of the three methods
were treated as near the same as possible. That is, all samples were

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 33

Table 17. Additional Waste Removed by the Texas Station Cleaner from Samples of Extracted
Hand-snapped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Percentage

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station ‘
Re ularDucona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 5.1 8.9 4.5 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .3.4 1.9 7.9_ 3.0 4.4 7.7 . . . . .. 4.7

RogersAcala . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .. 4.0 5.0 6.9 5.8 2.5 9.4 . . . . .. 5.6

\Vestern Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 2.6 8.9 5.5 2.8 6.7 3 2 4.9

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 4.6 8.5 5.0 2.9 11.4 . . . . .. 6.1

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 4.7 10.8 4.5 5.7 7.7 4.0 5.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 3.3 8.3 4.7 2.8 10.8 . . . . .. 5.6

Mebane804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 4.0 7.9 5.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.5

acha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 10.3 6.4 7. . . . . .. 14 3 4 7.7

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 3.6 7.3 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0

OklahomaTnumph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.5 4.0 3.0 7. 4.8 5.7

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4 4.1 2.3 8.7 . . . . .. 5.1

l\Iebane804xMebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 5.5 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 6 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 4

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.7 3.3 5.9 3 1 4.2

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 8 2.1 4.4

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 4.5 8.0 4.9 3 8 3.4 5.3
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 5.3 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.6 6.5 4.1 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3

\Vestern Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 5.4 4.9 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.4

DuconaxMebane140 . . . . . . . . . .. 5.7 6.6 4.3 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4

DuconaxLone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.2 3.6 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3

Mebane 804 x Mebane140 . . . . . .. 6.1 7.5 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 3.3 5.0 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9

Ferguson406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.5 5.3 3.1 4 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.1 7.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.0

DuconaxHalfand Half.......... 7.0 4.3 3.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0

HalfandHalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . .. 4.6 5.2 2.7 5.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0 3.7 6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 3.1 4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5

Shafter x Half 8: Half x Shafter. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 4.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.8

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.3 >5.3 3.7 5.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.1

cleaned and ginned with the same equipment. Hand-snapped and machine-
stripped cottons were extracted with the same equipment.

Grade of Hand-picked Cotton: The ‘average grade of hand-picked cotton
at College Station was M for all varieties during the seven-year period,
1939-1945, (Table 19). At Lubbock, the average grade for all varieties
harvested during‘ a four-year period, 1939-43, was SM—, or 0.9 grade
higher than the cottons harvested at College Station. At College Station,
6 of the 17 varieties averaged M, 8 averaged M—, and 3 averaged SLM-lr.
At Lubbock, data are shown for 14 varieties. Of this number, 2 averaged
SM+, 5 SM, 2 SM—, 4 M+ and 1 M, with a general average of SM—.

A study of the data in Table 19 reveals that the date of harvest influ-
enced the grade. For example, the average grade for all the varieties
tested at College Station during the years 1939, 1940 and 1941, was SM—,
M+ and SLM—, respectively. The dates of harvest were September 4, 11
and 30 respectively. This means that in 1940 the cotton was harvested a

' week later than it was harvested in 1939; that, in 1941, the harvest was

two weeks later than in 1940, and three weeks later than in 1939. It is

34 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS,AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

  

Table 18. Average Percentage of Additional Waste Removed by the Texas Station Cleanerg

from Samples of Extracted Cotton for Stripped and Snapped
Cotton, College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

 
 
   
  
 

  

Waste removed from extracted seed .
_ cotton by cleaner from \
. Variety
Machine-stripped Hand-snapped
cotton cotton
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 1 5.3

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.6 4.7

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .4 5.6

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 4.9

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 6.1

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .5 5.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 5.6

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 5 .5

acha.....-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘ . . . . . . . .. 8.0- 7.7

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.6 5.0

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.8 5.7

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 5 .1

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 5.7

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 4. 4

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 4.2

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 3.6

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .0 4.4

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.3 5.3
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 4.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 1 5. 3

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 6. 4

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 5.4

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.3

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.8 5.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .5 4.9

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 6 4.6

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3 8.0

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 5 .0

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 4.9

Mebane14O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 3.5

Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 6 3.8

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 8 5.1

noted that as the date of harvest becomes later the grade of the cotton
was also lower.

The data for these years at Lubbock when the dates of harvest were
progressively later, show the same trend, as the average grades for 1939,
1940 and 1941 were GM-—, SM- and M+, respectively.

Grade of Hand-snapped Cotton: The average grade for all varieties
hand-snapped at College Station was SLM—. This is slightly more than
a grade lower than was obtained for the hand-picked cottons. At Lubbock,
the grade of the hand-snapped cottons was M, as compared with SM-
for hand-picked cotton of the same varieties. Thus, itis seen that the
method of harvesting will make a difference in the grade obtained.

The hand-snapped cotton contained more foreign matter and, of course,
graded lower. If the averages (Table 25) are, compared, it is seen that
the average grade for hand-picked cotton was higher than hand-snapped

  
  
 
  
    
   
  
 
 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE. PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 35
cotton for all varieties. If the grades of hand-picked and hand-snapped
tton are compared for individual varieties for the same years, it is seen
gthat in a few cases the grade of the hand-snapped cotton was either equal
‘5 or better than the grade of hand-picked cotton. A

Grade of Machine-stripped Cotton: The yearly averages for the grades
tained for the machine-stripped cottons are shown in Table 21. At
llege Station, the general average for all varieties for the seven-year
 riod was LM+. This is 1.4 grades lower than hand-picked cotton and
 grade lower than hand-snapped cottons. At Lubbock, the general
lverage grade for all varieties machine-stripped was M—, or 0.9 grade
i er than hand-picked, and 0.2 grade lower than hand-snapped cottons.

 Four varieties at College Station and two varieties at Lubbock show no
1. erence in the average grade between hand-snapped and machine-

Table 19. Grades of Hand-picked Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

  

   
   
 

 

Variety 1 939 1 940 1 941 1 942 1 943 1 944 1 945 Ave.
» College Station
w Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + M LM + SLM + M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M—-

’. 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M SLM SLM M SLM . . . . . . . . M—-

I ala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M SLM M . . . . . . . . SLM M—-

‘(Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SM LM SLM SM SLM M—-

‘ ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M SLM SLM + M . . . . . . . . SLM ' M——

; Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . GM M LM M M M M

‘ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . SM SM SLM M M . . . . . - . . . SLM M

50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM LM SLM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM +

.». . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM SM LM + M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM M

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + 1N1 LM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M——-

_ Triumph. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM M M + SLM SLM + SLM +

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM M M . . . . . . . . SLM +

I x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SLM SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M—-

. . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SLM+ M  M——

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SM SLM M M

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M -M  M

B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM SLM M M

‘ Y rage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM— M + SLM— M—~ M + SLM M—— M
erical Average..... 4.1 4.9 6.5 5.3 4.7 5.7 5.6 5.2
Lubbock
' a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GM M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM--

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GM SM M + M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM-—

 : ly . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. GM M M + SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM

 ;Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . SM SM M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

’ Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . GM M SM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM +

xMebane 140.... GM M+ M+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. GM SM M SM  SM

_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM M SLM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M

" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM

HalfandHalf...... GM SM M+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM+

Half x >Acala . . . . . . . .' GM SM SM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM

v- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + M + M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M +

_j I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M +

g alf& Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M +

l ‘ge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GM— SM— M + M + M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM--

* erical Average..... 3.2 4.4 4.7 4.8 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.3

 

 

36 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

  

Table 20. Grade of Hand-snapped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945
Variety 1 939 1940 194 1 1942 1943 1944 1945 Av
College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM LM ‘SGO SLM LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M M LM SLM SLM LM . . . . . . . ._ S 

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM SGO LM SLM . . . . . . . . LM S \

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . M-—- SLM LM SLM SLM LM . . . . . . . . S l

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M M LM SGO . . . . . . . . M S .

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . M M SGO SLM SGO SGO SGO +

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  M+ M LM SLM M . . . . . . .. LM+ S ._

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M LM SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S .'_

’ Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM— M SGO SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM S P‘

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SGO LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM S {

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM SLM SLM SLM LM S »

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM SLM SLM . . . . . . . . 

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM SLM SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S e

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SGO SGO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S _'

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM LM + SLM LM + S 

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLIM SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S ,

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM LM LM S

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-—- M-~ LM—— SLM— SLM— LM + LM
~Numerical Average..... 5.1 5.4 7.4 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.9
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

‘ Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M + SLM + SLM + M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + SLM + M LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S -‘

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . M + M SLM + M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Duconax Lone Star.....1.... SM M+ SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140. . . . SM M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM SM LM + SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M + M SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . SM SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . SM M SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . l SM M + M M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM + SLM + SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM— M + SLM + SLM + SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Numerical Average..... 4.1 4.8 5.5 5.6 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

stripped cotton. All other varieties show a slightly lower grade for the
machine-stripped than for the hand-picked and hand-snapped cotton.

At Lubbock, two varieties had better grades for machine-stripped cotton
than for hand-snapped cotton. Three varieties had the same average grade
for these two methods of harvest. The average grade for all varieties
was SM— for hand-picked, M for hand-snapped and M—— for machine-
stripped cotton.

Staple Length of Harvested Cottons

A comparison of the length of staple for all varieties harvested by
hand-picking, hand-snapping and machine-stripping for the seven-year
period 1939-1945, is shown in Tables 23, 24 and 25.

Staple Length of Hand-picked Cotton: The general average length of
staple for the hand-picked cottons at College Station and Lubbock was
28.8/32 and 29.7/32 inch respectively. If the seven varieties that were

  

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 37

Table 21. Grades of Machine-stripped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

 
 
    
   

  
 
 
  
    
  
  
 

 

Variety 1 939 1940 1 941' 1 942 1 943 1 944 1 945 Ave.
College Station
, Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SGO- SGO LM SLM . . . . . . . . LM LM
" 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SGO LM SLM SLM . . . . . . . . SLM—-
Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SLM LM SLM + . . . . . . . . SGO + SLM—-
LM SGO SLM SLM SGO + SGO + LM +
LM SGO SLM LM . . . . . . . . SGO LM +
SLM SGO SLM LM + SGO GO + LM
M LM SLM + M . . . . . . . . LM SLM +

SLM SGO SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM-—

LM SGO LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SGO + LM

' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SGO LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM +

gm Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM LM + SLM SLM SGO LM +

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM SLM SLM + LM . . . . . . . . SLM—-

, e804 x Mebane 140.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. LM SLM LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. LM +

 ' e 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM

f Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LM SLM SLM SGO LM

» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM +

¢~ B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SLM SGO LM +

_;.-' Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -M— SLM—— SGO + SLM-—— SLM LM + SGO + LM +
i. Numerical Average..... 5.5 6.2 7.6 6.3 6.0 6.6 7.7 6.6
Lubbock
Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + M + LM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM M——

.- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM M M M M + M + M +

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M SLM+ SLM SLM+........ M  M—

x Mebane 140 . . . . . . .. M + M + SLM + SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M,

x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . GM M SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' M +

804 x Mebane 140. . . . * M + M SLM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M M+ LM+ SLM  M LM SLM-1-

n 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M M SLM SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M-—

' t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M + SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

" ax Half and Half . . . . . . M + M LM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M—-

 nd Half x Acala . . . . . . . . SM M + M LM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M

ine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM SLM SLM SLM LM SLlVI

--140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M M + SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SLM M

i x Half & Half x Shafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM SLM + . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM +

" Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM— M + SLM + SLM + M—- M SLM— M-
j Numerical Averagc..... 4.4 4.9 5.8 5.7 5.2 5.1 6.2 5.2

. grown at each location are compared, it is foundlthat the staple average
i is slightly longer for each variety at Lubbock. This was probably because
 the plats at Lubbock were irrigated and the plants had sufficient moisture
; for staple growth at the critical time.
i staple at both locations, 25.7/32 inch at College Station and 26.6/32 inch
 at Lubbock. The average length of staple for Rogers Acala was 30.5/32
i inch, the longest for a single variety. At Lubbock, Deltapine produced the

Hi-Bred produced the shortest

longest staple, or 315/32 inch (Table 23).

Staple Length of Hand-snapped Cotton: By comparing the data in Tables
22 and 23, it can be seen that there is no significant difference in the
average length of staple for the hand-picked and hand-snapped cottons.
For picked cotton, the length of staple for the seven varieties grown at
each location was slightly longer at Lubbock than at College Station.

Staple Length of Machine-stripped Cotton: The average staple length
of _machine-stripped cottons harvested at College Station was practically

Variety 1 939 1 940 J 94 1 1942 1 943 1 944 1 945 Ave.
College Station
Re lar Ducona. . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 32 30 30 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.4

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 28 28 24 28 . . .  . 27.5

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3O 3O 30 28 . . . . . . 32 30.5

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 29 3O 28 28 33 29.6

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 30 32 30 28 . . . . . . 29 30.2

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 29 3O 3O 30 28 30 29.6

Hi-Bredl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 26 24 24 . . . . . . 24 25.7

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 28 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.8

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28.0

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3O 28 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 28 29 28 28.6

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 26 28 . . . . . . 28 .0

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . .* . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.0

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 28 28 30 29.0

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.5

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . 28 28 31 29.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 29.6 28.6 29.1 27.6 28.1 29.2 28.8
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 31 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 '

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 29 30 24 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.6

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 31 31 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . 30 29 32 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

‘Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 32 32 .... .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.3

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 3O 29 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .7

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 26 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 30 3O 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Ducona x Half and Half. . . .. . . . .. 31 30 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.3

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 29 29 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 33 29 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.0 29.5 30.5 28.2 28.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.7

38 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

   
   

Table 22. Staple Length of Hand-picked Cotton in 32nd of an Inch at College Station and l
Lubbock, 1939-1945

the same as obtained for hand-picked and hand-snapped cottons. The
stripped cottons averaged only 0.2 to 0.3 of 1/32 inch shorter than the
hand harvested cottons, (Tables 24 and 25). Comparison between varieties 
show that for 3 of the 17 varieties, the stripped cotton was slightly longer _
than the hand-picked, and for 6 of the 17 varieties the stripped was 
slightly longer than the hand-snapped. "

At Lubbock, the same trend in staple length prevailed as at College
Station. That is, the staple length of hand-picked and hand-snapped aver
aged slightly longer. The picked averaged 0.8, and the hand-snapped
averaged 0.9 of 1/32 inch longer than the stripped cotton. Such a smal
difference is insignificant and could well be charged to experimental error. 5; 1
At Lubbock, 4 of the 14 varieties of stripped cotton averaged slightly",
longer than the hand-picked, and 1 variety of stripped cotton averaged’. A
slightly longer than the hand-snapped. i 1

This slight and insignificant difference in length of staple obtained for;
some varieties by each method of harvesting indicates that the fiber was y
not injured when harvested by the rougher methods. i“

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 39

     

Table 23. Staple Length of Hand-snapped Cotton in 32nd of an Inch at College Station and
Lubbock, 1939-1945
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 29 29 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

Me ane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 30 26 24 26 . . . . . . 27.2

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 29 28 30 30 . . . . . . 29 I 29.7

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O 31 30 29 30 28 31 29.9

‘ Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 29 30 3O 30 . . . . . . 29 29.8

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 29 28 30 31 30 29 . 3

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 26 26 26 20 . . . . . . 26 25.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28. 3

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 26 26 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 26.8

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31 28 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 28 29 29 28.6

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 29 29 . . . . . . 29 .0

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 28 28 30 . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.7

Stoneville 2B _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 . 5

RQldQ Rgwden _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 29 28 .5

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 _ 28 29 29 .0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.4 28.8 28 4 28.5 28 4 28 4 28.7 28.7
raubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 33 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28 28 28 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31 31 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3O 29 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 32 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 3

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 31 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 3

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28.8

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

D,ucona x Half and Half. . . . . . . .. 31 33 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.3

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 26 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 30 32 32 . . . . . . 32 31.4

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28.3

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.8 30.5 29.4 29.3 28.0 . . . . .. 28.7 29.8

Mary Anna Grimesl studied 84 samples of machine-stripped cotton and
found that there is a statistically significant relationship between the
grade and the length of the fiber when it was measured in the laboratory;
but the relationship between the grade and the length of staple given
by the classer is not statistically significant.

Boll Characteristics

The adaptability of a variety of cotton to machine harvesting is greatly
affected by the boll characteristics of the variety. As stated above, in a
variety suitable for the stripper type machine, the bolls should be firmly
attachedto the plant, yet pull off fairly easy; have stormproofness, yet
fairly fiuify locks for good extracting; a medium-sized peduncle, and a

{boll that does not spread wide.

lOn the other hand, a variety suitable for machine picking should have
good stormproofness, fl-uffy locks, with a high inter-seed fiber drag, fiber

1Textile and Clothing Specialist in the Division of Rural Home Research, Texas Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, Unpublished data.

40 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 24. Staple Length of Machine-stripped Cotton in 32nd of an Inch at College Station .
and Lubbock, 1939-1945
Variety 1 939 1940 1941 1942 1 943 1 944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re lar Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 29 28 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 29 26 24 24 26 . . . . . . 25.8

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 31 29 31 29 . . . . . . 29 30.2

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 28 30 28 28 28 28.7

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 29 29 30 30 . . . . . . 28 29.5

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 29 30 28 28 28 28.9

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28 26 26 24 . . . . . . 26 26.0

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 26 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 27.6

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 30 28 26 28.4

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 29 29 28 24 . . . . . . 27.5

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 30 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 .0

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.5

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 29 28 26 28.2

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 30 28.7

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.0 29.5 28.0 29.0 28.0 27.1 27.4 28.5
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 29.0

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28 29 28 26 26 24 26.7

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 31 30 31 . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . 30.0

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 31 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.3

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.7

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 28 29 . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 26 29 29 . . . . . . 24 28 27.3

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 29 29 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.2

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0

Ducona x Half and Half. .  . . . .. 29 30 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.0

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . 29 28 28 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 31 29 32 28 30 30.2

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . 28 29 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 28.0

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.8 29.3 29.5 28.4 29.0 26.8 27.2 28.9

long enough to Wrap around the picking spindles, Wide spreading boll
sections and a peduncle that will hold the boll securely so that the machine
can remove the cotton.

Considerable data have been collected on the pounds pull necessary to
remove bolls from the plant, the degree of boll spread, the length and
diameter of the peduncle and the inter-seed fiber d-rag.

4
i

i

Pounds Pull to Remove Bolls from the Plant: On pages 39-44 inclusive 

of Texas Station Bulletin 580, data are given on the average pounds
required to remove cotton bolls from the plant for a four-year period,
1935-1938, at College Station and for a two-year period, 1937-1938, at
Lubbock. The general average pull for 23 varieties at College Station
was 4.7 pounds, and at Lubbock was 4.6 pounds. This compares fairly
close with the average pull for the seven-year period, 1939-1945, when
at College Station the average pull for 17 varieties was 3.4 pounds, and
at Lubbock for 14 varieties when the average pull was 4.1 pounds (Table
26). The pull for individual bolls ranged from 0 to more than 25 pounds.

 

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON‘ HARVESTERS 41

Table 25. Average Grade and Staple Length for Hand-picked, Hand-snapped, and Machine-
Stripped Cotton at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945

l»

   

 

  

Grade Staple in 32nd of an inch
' Variety Hand- Hand- Machine- Hand- Hand- Machine-
picked snapped stripped picked snapped stripped
»  College Station
, 1- ar Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M— LM + LM 30.4 30.0 29.0

" ne 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-— SLM + SLM— 27 5 27.2 25.8

Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M—— SLM—- SLM— 30 5 29.7 30.2

- rn Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M— SLM—- LM + 29. 6 29 .9 28. 7

<| pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M— SLM— LM+ 30.2 29.8 29.5

ams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M LM + LM + 29.6 29.3 28 .9

red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M SLM+ SLM+ 25.7 25.0 26.0

4-» 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM + SLM SLM—- 28.8 28.3 28.5

a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M SLM— LM 28.0 26.8 27.6

na 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M— SLM—— LM + 29.8 29.5 29 8

» ~ oma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM + SLM— LM + 28.6 28 . 6 28.4

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLM + SLM SLM— 28.0 29 .0 27 5

Mne 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . — SLM— LM + 28.0 28.7 29 0

eville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M— SGO LM 30.0 29 .5 29 5

o Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M SLM— LM + 29 0 28.5 28 2

t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M SLM + SLM + 27 5 28.5 28 5

sas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M SLM + LM + 29 0 29.0 28 7

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l\/1 SLM— LM + 28 8 28 .7 28 5
Lubbock
sAcala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM—— M M— 31.3 32.7 29.0

9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM—— M+ M+ 26.6 26.8 26.7

- n Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM SLM + M—— 30.5 30.0 30.0

,naxMebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . .. M+ M M 30.0 30.5 30.3

naxLone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM+ M+ M+ 31.3 30.3 29.7

_e804xMebane 140 . . . . . . . .. SM M+ lVI 29.7 30.3 29.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM M— SLM+ 28.5 28.8 27.3

son 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M M + M— 29 .5 29 . 5 28_. 2

ett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM M+ M 29.5 30.0 30.0

axHalf and Half . . . . . . . . . .. SM+ M M— 30.3 31.3 29.0

-_aud Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . .. SM M + M 29 .0 28.5 27.2

- pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M+ SLM+ SLM 31.5 31.4 30.2

e140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. M+ M—— 28.7 28 3 28.0
-' rxHalf&HalfxShafter..... M+ M—~ SLM+ 29.5 29 0 30.5
. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SM— M M—- 29 .7 29 8 28 9

 

During years when the harvesting date was early in September (Table 1),
and there was a low rainfall (Table 2) as in the years 1939, 1940 and
1941, at College Station the pull was higher than in years when the
harvest was later, and there was more rain between the time the cotton
opened and the date of harvest, as for the years 1943 and 1945 (Table 26).

Generally, the pounds pull necessary to remove bolls from the plant
does not show a close relationship between the efliciency of the machine
and the boll pull. For example, Regular Ducona at College Station gave
the highest pull of all varietiesitested (6.4 pounds, Table 26), yet) the
machine efficiency in harvesting this variety was considerably above the
average or 92.2 percent. Other plant characteristics, such as short limbs,
large bolls, and medium-sized plant, counteracted the poor, high boll pull
characteristics. '

At Lubbock, Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter gave a high boll pull
and a machine efliciency below the average. Here, the plants were medium
to large with numerous long fruiting and vegetative branches.

 

g _
i
l

42 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 26. Pounds Pull Required to Remove Bolls from Plants at College Station and Lubbock, z

   

1939-1945
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station.
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 8.6 5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.4

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.2 5.2 6.4 3.9 1.6 . . . . .. 2.8 3.8

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3 3.7 4.1 3.2 1.2 . . . . .. 1.4 2.6

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 7.1 4.6 2.8 2.2 . . . . .. 2.3 3.6

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 3.1 3.1 . . . . .. 1.1 . . . . .. 2.9 2.3 -

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 4.9 6.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 4.3

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 3.4 2.5 1.6 1.0 . . . . .. 1.8 2.1

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 5.3 4.8 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2

acha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3 3.8 3.8 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 3.3

Ducona39-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8 5.5 4.1 5.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 2.1 1.6 . . . . .. 2.2 2.2

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 2.7 1.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6

Mebane 804xMebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 3.5 1.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 1.6 . . . . .. 2 8 3.1

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 2.4 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.4

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 . . . . .. 5. 4.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . .  3.2 5.1 4.3 3.3 1.5 . . . . .. 2. .4
Lubbock
RogersAcala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.4 1.9 8.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 . . . . .. 4.0

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .5 .5 4.6 5.4 3.8 2.9 . . . . .. 3.0

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 1.8 7.5 3.3 . . . . .. 4.4 . . . . .. 4.0

DuconaxMebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 3.1 1.8 6.8 5.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4

DuconaxLone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 1.7 4.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . 322 1.2 8.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 2.6 5.1 5.4 . . . . .. 4.9 . . . . .. 3.9

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 2.6 6.8 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.4 1.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0

DuconaxHalfandHalf.......... 3.0 1.1 4.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.8

Halfand HalfxAcala . . . . . . . . . .. 3.4 3.4 7.8 6.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.6 4.7 2.9 3.6 3 1 . . . . .. 3.2

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 7.7 3.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 4.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.7

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 2.0 6.6 4.5 3.7 3.8 . . . . .. 4.1

Degree of Boll Spread: The data in Table 27 show that the tight-boll
stormproof Macha cotton, shown in Figures 8 and 9, has a boll spread of
109.2 and 108.2 degrees for College Station and Lubbock, respectively.
As a comparison, Deltapine, which produces a well-opened boll with fiuffy
locks (Figure 10), has an average boll spread of 118.8 and 126.7 degrees
for the two locations, respectively. The field losses for Macha averaged
32 pounds of lint per acre at College Station, and 14.5 pounds at Lubbock.
The losses for Deltapine was 24.4 pounds at College Station, and 24.7
pounds of lint per acre at Lubbock (Table 4).

This comparison seems to indicate that there is a relationship between 3‘

degree of boll spread and field losses in machine harvesting. The data in
Table 5, which show storm losses prior to harvest, also indicate, if these
two varieties are compared, only that the degree of boll spread has some
influence on the .amount of cotton shed from the bolls before harvest. The
pounds of seed cotton per acre on the ground before harvest at College
Station for Macha was 3.1 pounds, and at Lubbock was 2.1 pounds. The

 

h.|m..m...__;..‘._..»..._.._ ..._...

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 43

Table 27. Degree of Boll Spread at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-1945
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118 115 125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 119.3

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 117 128 130 130 118 123 121.4

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 103 108 104 118 . . . . .. 149 115.3

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 110 128 122 132 115 121 121.4

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 112 122 . . . . .. 131 . . . . .. 123 118.8

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 111 123 . . . . . . . . . . .. 123 125 117.2

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 112 120 122 141 . . . . .. 115 120.0

lVIcbane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 110 121 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114.5

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 125 93 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 109 .2

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111 111 98 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110.2

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 120 124 116 125 123.4

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 111 104 116 . . . . .. 110.0

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114 119 136 . . . . . . . . . . .. 123.0

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 139 . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.5

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115 128 113 105 115.2

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.5

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 123 . . . . . . 126.0

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109.5 112.6 117.0 119.5 128.0 117.7 121.6 119.0
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 103 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 106 112.0

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 120 129 128 107 132 109 117.7

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 115 153 125 . . . . . . 143 . . . . . . 127.6

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. 106 114 130 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118.5

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 126 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.3

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . .. 107 113 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..i . . . . .. 116.0

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 103 115 116 . . . . . . 127 108 108.2

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 114 118 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113.8

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120.0

Ducona x Half andHalf . . . . . . . . . . 123 124 124 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.7

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . .. 113 114 126 139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123.0

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112 114 143 131 146 114 126.7

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 113 122 120 . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 116.2

Shafter x Half 8: Half x Shafter. . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 115 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123.5

Average . . . . . . . . . ..' . . . . . .. 105.2 115.3 123.6 127.1 119.0 136.0 109.4 118.8

loss for Deltapine was 14 pounds at College Station, and 18.6 pounds
per acre at Lubbock.

Length of Peduncle (Boll Stem): It appears from the data in. Table 28
that the length of the peduncle will vary slightly from year to year, and
between varieties. It also appears that the amount of moisture available
at the time the bolls are set influences the length of the peduncle. For
example, at College Station in 1943, no effective rainfall occurred in July
and the average length of the peduncle was 0.64 inch, as compared with
0.93 and 0.94 inch in 1939 and 1940 when there were good moisture con-
dition for growth at the critical fruiting stage.

Again, at Lubbock in 1942, when the plot was given several irrigations,
the average length of the peduncle was 0.92 inch as compared with the
seven-year average of 0.78 inch.

It cannot be said that the length of the peduncle has a significant
bearing on the efficiency of the stripper harvester.

44‘ BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

Table 28. Length of Peduncle for the Various Varieties Harvested at College Station an 

Lubbock, 1939-1945, in Inches

 

Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave. j
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 .94 .98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 .87 .97 .72 .67 .79 .87

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99 .88 g .87 .71 .65 . . . . . . .72

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 .91 .85 .70 .58 .80 .61

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 .84 .74 . . . . . . .54 . . . . . . .64

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.02 1 .08 .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 .69

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 88 .66 .57 60 . . . . . . .69

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 1.00 .76 .84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .97 1.02 .81 .72 . . . . . . . . . . .. .87

Ducona 3-9-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 .99 .80 .74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97 .69 .69 .78 .84

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .65 .44 .64 . . . . . .

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88 .68 .89 . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 .45 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 .70 .88 .93

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .73 . . . . . . . . . . . .

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .86 1 . 00

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 .94 .85 .72 .64 .77 .79
_ Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 .66 .75 . . . . . . . . . . . . .89 .80

Hi-BredQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 .58 .61 .93 .62 .65 .70

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .64 .76 .66 . . . . . . .70 . . . . . .

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . .83 .76 .83 .88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .66 .94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140. . . . . .. .82 .86 .79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .64 ‘ .62 .74 .88 . . . . .. .70 .60

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 .74 .80 1.06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00 .66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . .

DuconaxHalfandHalf.......... .77 .66 .67 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . .76 .64 .69 .89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64 .88 .80 .84 .78 .78 .70

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 .69 1.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .77 1.16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 .70 .76 .92 .70 .74 .70

Diameter of the Peduncle (Boll Stem): As with the length, the diameter
of; the peduncle varies slightly from year to year, and between varieties.
There is no significant difference between the general average for the two
locations, as the average diameter at College Station was 0.083, and at
Lubbock 0.081 inch (Table 29). There is some indication that the diameter
of the peduncle has an influence on the pounds pull required to remove
the boll from the plant.‘ The diameter of the peduncle for Ducona averaged
0.10 inch, and the pull was high with 6.4 pounds (Table 30). The average
pull for Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter was 6.7 pounds, and the
average diameter of the peduncle was 0.09 inch. '

The peduncle for Hi-Bred at Lubbock averaged 0.07 inch, and the pull
was 3 pounds. At College Station, however, Hi-Bred and Deltapine had

peduncles averaging 0.07 inch, and the pull was 2.1 and 2.3 pounds, respec-g

tively.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 45
Table 29. Diameter of Peduncle of Bolls at College Station and Lubbock, 1939-
1945, in Inches
Variety 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Ave.
College Station
Regular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 .11 . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 .10 .08 .08 .08 .08 . . . . .. .08

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .09 .09 .09 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .09

\\'estern Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .09 .08 .07 .07 .07 . . . . . . .08

_ Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .09 .05 . . . . . . .07 . . . . . . . . . . . . .07

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 .10 .10 . . . . . . . . . . .. .08 . . . . .. .09

i-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .09 .05 .07 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .07

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .09 .07 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .08 .10 .09 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .09 .08 .09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 .08 . . . . . . .08

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .08 .08 .08 . . . . . . .08

Mebane 801 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .09 .08 . . . . . . .09

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .07 . . . . . . .08

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .09 .08 .08 .08 .08 . . . . . . .083
Lubbock ~
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .08 .09 . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .07 .08

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .07 .08 .09 .07 .07 .06 .07

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 .08 . . . . . . .07 . . . . . . .08

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . .. .08 .08 .09 .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . .08 .07 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Iacha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .07 .08 .09 . . . . . . .07 .06 .08

Ferguson 406 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .09 .09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

DuconaxHalfand Half......... .09 .08 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .08

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . .09 .08 .08 .09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 .07 .07 .07 .08

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .09 .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .08

Shafter x Half & Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .08 .08 .09 .07 .07 .07 .081

46 BULLETIN NO._ 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 30. Boll Characteristics for Varieties Harvested at College Station and Lubbock,

1939-1945
Pull to Peduncle
remove boll Boll —i———— ———i—-———-
Variety from plant spread Length Diameter
(pounds) (degrees) (inches) (inches)
College Station
Revular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.4 119.3 .96 .10

Methane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.8 121.4 s4 .08

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 115.3 80 .09

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 121.4 75 .08

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 118.8 74 .07

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 117.2 .88 .09

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 120.0 .70 .07

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 114.5 89 .08

acha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3 109.2 88 .09

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.3 110.2 86 .09

Oklahoma Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 123.4 79 .08

Holtz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.6 110.0 62 .08

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 123.0 82 .08

Stoneville 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 132.5 5") .08

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 1 115.2 86 .09

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 125.5 72 .08

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4.0 126.0 85 .08

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 119.0 79 .083
Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 112.0 .76 .08

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 117.7 .68 .07

Western Early .. . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 127.6 7O .08

Ducona x Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 118.5 82 .09

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 116.3 82 .08

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 116.0 82 .08

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 108.2 70 .08

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 113.8 8') .08

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 120.0 83 .08

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 123.7 70 .08

Half and Half x Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 123.0 74 .08

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 126.7 77 .08

Mebane140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.0 116.2 79 .08
Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter. . . . 6.7 123-5 -95 .09
Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.1 118.8 78 .081

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 47

Table 31. Inter-seed Fiber Drag in Grams for Varieties Used in Harvesting Tests at College
Station and Lubbock, 1941-1945

   

Variety 1941 1942 1943 1944 g 1945 Ave.
College Station v g
Re ular Ducona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 163 . . . . . . .. 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 114

Me ane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.04 154 103 116 . . . . . . . . 144

Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 >175 .' . . . . . . . . .  . . . . a 175'

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 168 135 j 99, 115 .. .  . .. ’ 129 Y

‘ Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  > _97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97-,

Gorhams Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 190 . . . . . . .. 6O 93 V. .  . . .. 114

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 212 . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . 232'

Mebane 804-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> . . . . . . . . . . 175

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175 . . . . . . . . . . . . .   175

Ducona 39-10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . 150

Oklahoma Triumph. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 67 99 . . . . . .  ;_ 105

o z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 200 76 81 . . . . r 119

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 100 89 . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . 94

Stoneville 2B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 94 . . . . . . . . . . . .  J . i 134

Roldo Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 137 139 . . . . . . . . 150

Suntex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Arkansas B-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 116 . . . . . . . . 108

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 181 163 105 108 ..  . . .. 136
_ Lubbock
Rogers Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 147 190 -

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 228 401 272 285

Western Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 . . . . . . . . 258 . . . . . . . . 217

Ducona x Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ducona x Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mebane 804 x Mebane 140. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Macha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . 271 212 228

Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ducona x Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

HalfandHalfxAcala........... . . . . . . .. 176 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 176

Deltapine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 128 199 186 157

Mebane 140 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 . . . . . . . . 248 208 206

Shafter x Half and Half x Shafter. . . . . . . . . . 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 178 268 205 195

48 BULLETIN NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Inter-seed Fiber Drag

During the five-year period, 1941-1945, some data were obtained on the -4

inter-seed fiber drag. That is, the number of grams pull required to pull
apart and separate "seeds in a lock of cotton. Figure 14 shows the special-
made gram scales used in determining the inter-seed fiber drag.

The data in Table 31 show that
there was considerable variation in
the drag when varieties are compared.
General trend indicates that the short
staple cottons have the strongest drag,
while the longer staple cottons have
the lowest drag. For example, at
Lubbock, Hi-Bred had the shortest
staple (26.7/32 inch) of all the va-
rieties (Table 25), yet it had the
strongest inter-seed fiber drag (Table
31). At College- Station, the average
drag was 232grams and at Lubbock
285 grams, as compared with Rogers
Acala which had an average staple
length of approximately 30/32 inch,
and an inter-seed fiber drag of 175
grams at College Station and 190
grams at Lubbock.

When the grade is considered, it ap-
pears that the short staple cottons

Figure 14. Apparatus developed to deter-
mine the intebseed fiber dmg_ clean better than the longer staple

cottons. The individual seed for the
short staple cottons come from the cleaner separately with the fiber stand-
ing out radially from the seed, while with the longer staple all the seeds
do not separate and there is a greater tendency for the fiber between the
seeds to twist and “rope” during the cleaning operation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their thanks and appreciation to M. H. Byrom
and W. E. McCune- for their assistance in collecting data in connection
with these studies, and to J. M. Ward for classing the many samples of
cotton. The authors are also indebted to and wish to express thanks to
the Nisler Hardware and Implement Company- of Lubbock, Texas, for the
use of a tractor in these studies at that location.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF COTTON HARVESTERS 49

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The data presented in this bulletin give results of tests conducted at
College Station and Lubbock during the seven-year period, 1939-1945, to
determine the factors affecting the performance of mechanical cotton
strippers, extractors and cleaners.

Numerous commonly grown varieties, and new strains of cotton devel-
oped by means of selection, crossing and backcrossing were tested for
their varietal reaction to machine harvesting, extracting and cleaning.

Complete data are given for 17 varieties at College Station and 14
varieties at Lubbock.

The performance or efficiency of the stripper harvester varied from
year to year and for the various varieties harvested each year. The
average efficiency of the stripper harvester at Lubbock and College Station
was 96.4 and 89.0 percent respectively, or a difference of 7.4 percent for
the two locations. At College Station, there was a difference of 9L3 percent

a in machine performance between varieties, while at Lubbock the difference

between the best and poorest varieties was 6.8 percent. These differences

t may be attributed largely to differences in varietal characteristics, such

as size and type of plants, stormproofness and fiuffiness of the cotton.

At‘ College Station under normal conditions, the average loss ‘by the
stripper amounted to 19.2 pounds (1945 data excluded) of lint per acre
or at 25 cents per pound, $4.80 per acre, and at Lubbock to 8.4 pounds
(1942 data excluded) of lint or $2.10 per acre.

The average acre yield of lint cotton for all varieties at Lubbock was

‘ 406 pounds, in comparison with 224 pounds at College Station.

The average plant height at College Station was 28.6 inches, while at
Lubbock for early irrigated cotton the average height was 22.2 inches.

Tall, branchy, wide spreading plants materially affected the performance

t of the stripper, causing severe losses.

Varietal characteristics, such as stormproofness and staple length com-

gbined with a compact lock and yield are important factors that cause
' excessive losses in extracting cotton.

V At College Station, an average of 34.1 percent of all the material

[harvested by the stripper was removed by the extractor as burs and waste,
 while at Lubbock the percentage was 28.7. The larger amount of waste
i at College Station can be attributed to a large extent to the condition
‘l of the plants at the time of harvest.

There was little difference in the percentage of burs and waste removed '
i from machine-stripped cotton and hand-snapped cotton. At College Station,
. the average percentages of burs and waste removed from machine-stripped
j and hand-snapped cotton were 34.1 and 35.1 percent, respectively, while
' at Lubbock the averages were 28.7 and 28.6 percent, respectively.

l the cleaning qualities of different varieties.

  
    
  
   
  
  
   
   
  
 

5.0 BULLETIN" NO. 686, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

The average percentage of waste removed from extracted machine-
stripped_ and hand-snapped cotton did not vary greatly between the two‘
locations. There was, however, considerable difference in the percentagesi
of waste removed when varieties are compared. This apparently reflects-l‘

The average grade for hand-picked, hand-snapped and machine-stripped»
cotton at College Station was middling, strict low middling minus, and f
low middling plus, respectively. At Lubbock, the average grades were
strict middling minus, middling and middling minus, respectively. The o
grade of the machine-stripped cotton was definitely affected by condition 3:
of the plants at the time of harvest. i"

» Method of harvesting had no significant effect on staple length.

A variety of cotton suitable for machine-stripping should have bolls
firmly attached to the plant, yet pull off fairly easy; have stormproofness, 
but fairly fiuffy locks for good extracting; and have a medium-sized‘ 
peduncle and a boll that does not spread wide. A 

A variety suitable for machine-picking should have good stormproof-.
ness, fiuffy locks, with a high inter-seed fiber drag; fiber long enough to
wrap, around the picking spindles, and a peduncle that will hold the bollf
securely so that the machine can remove the cotton. . =

The average pull required to remove cotton bolls from plants of all
varieties at College Station was 3.4 pounds, while at Lubbock the average '
was 4.1 pounds.

The average degree of spread of boll sections at College Station ranged '
from 109.2 degrees for Macha to 132.5 degrees for Stoneville 2B. At p.
Lubbock, the range was from 108.2 degrees for Macha to 127.6 degrees .
for Western Early. The data indicate that there is a relationship between
the degree of boll spread and the field losses in machine harvesting.

The length and diameter of the boll peduncle apparently did not affect
machine field losses. ,

Inter-seed fiber drag was highest for the short staple varieties and
lowest for‘ the‘ long staple varieties. I ' '