TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS. Director, College Station, Texas gal/elm 735 Inna /95/ Economics 0F Mechanical gallon J/aaaedling, IN THE HIGH PLAINS COTTON AREA OF TEXAS LIBRARY A. & M. COLLEGE OF TEX/ig- in cooperation with the UNITED STATES» DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE The TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM GIBB GILCHRIST, Chancellor [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] Digest Production 0f cotton in the High Plains cotton area of Texas is highly mechanized except for some hand hoeing and much of the harvesting. Some growers rely on mechanical strippers to harvest their entire crop. Others use hand labor to harvest cotton that matures before frost and harvest the remainder with strippers. An estimated 40 percent of the 1949 record crop, or about 575,000 bales, was machine harvested in the 10 counties in type-of-farming area No. 3, Figure 1. During the 4 years of study, 1947-50, costs of hand harvest- ing averaged about $40 per bale. Total cost per bale for operat- ing mechanical strippers (exclusive of field and grade loss) on dry-land farms averaged $9.10 in cotton that had not been pre- viously hand snapped. For scrapping, the average cost was $20.10 per bale. On irrigated farms, with higher yields, average costs were $4.50 and $10.85, respectively. Field losses in storm resistant cotton due to mechanical har- vesting, ranged from 2 to 1.0 percent, depending upon the yield, stripper operation and harvesting conditions. Mechanical stripping is confined to the period after frost has killed the plants. Open cotton left standing in the field is subject to weather damage. Therefore, hand harvested cotton before frost grades higher than does cotton harvested after frost. Average grades of cotton machine harvested after frost were slightly below that harvested by hand. It is estimated that 50 acres of cotton yielding an average of 200 pounds of lint per acre is the minimum acreage required to justify the purchase of a mechanical stripper under conditions prevailing during the study. The optimum acreage for a stripper would be about 275 acres for dry-land and 200 acres for irrigated. With the exception of dry-land cotton in 1948, when yields were extremely low, there was a financial advantage in har- vesting mechanically. The usual higher grade and price of cotton harvested by hand before frost was more than offset by the economies of mechanical harvesting after frost. Owner-operators retain full advantage of the lower costs ef- fected by machine use. On rented farms, the tenant benefited but the landlord did not. Returns to landlords during the study, excluding housing costs for migrant labor, averaged $3 to $4 less per bale when cotton was harvested mechanically. Mechanical strippers reduce harvest labor requirements from about 17 man hours per acre on dry-land and 33 hours on irri- gated cotton to about 1.5 hours and 2 hours, respectively. The operator with family labor may do all the harvesting work on many cotton farms by using mechanical strippers, thus reducing the cash costs involved. However, when labor is plen- tiful and wages relatively low, some of the production risk may be avoided by hand harvesting before frost and scrapping me- chanically after frost. An unusually late frost, or continued bad weather after frost, could cause excessive field losses and lower grades, and thereby reduce net returns. CONTENTS Page Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Introduc.tion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Purpose 0f the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Soils and Topography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Weeds, Insects and Plant Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Developments Alfecting Harvesting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Plant Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Defoliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Gin Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Harvesting Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Hand Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Mechanical Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Field Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Grade Differentials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Mechanical Stripper Performance and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Rates of Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Average Costs for Machine Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Minimum and Optimum Acreage per Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Returns from Dilferent Harvesting Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Returns Above Harvesting and Ginning Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Returns for Labor and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Effect of Me-chanization on the Competitive Position of Cotton . . . . . . .. 28 Possibilities for Expanding the Use of Machine Harvesters . . . . . . . . .. 29 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 V60-751-5M-Ll50 BULLETIN 735 JUNE 1951 Economies ol Mechanical Bolton Harvesting in the High Plains Gotten Area ol Texas M. N. WILLIAMSON, Jr., Q. M. MORGAN and RALPHSH. ROGERS* OMPLETELY MECHANIZED cotton production is a goal , sought by many producers in the High Plains cotton area. A few farmers already have attained this position. Most grow- ers, however, resort to some hand hoeing and much of the crop is still harvested by hand labor. Migratory workers are the main source of harvest labor. In recent years the cost of this labor has varied from $1.75 to $3.00 per 100 pounds of snapped cotton. Generally, these prices have included charges for hauling to the gin. An average of nearly $40 per bale was paid for hand harvesting during the past 4 years andoften this was more than the net amount re- ceived by either a tenant or landlord. PURPOSE O-F THE STUDY This study was made to ascertain the results obtained by farmers with cotton which was harvested mechanically as con- trasted with that which was hand harvested. With such data obtained as a basis for analyses, some judgment may be made by farmers, implement dealers and manufacturers, educators and other interested parties as to how far mechanical harvest- ing may be expanded economically under differing circumstances. BACKGROUND INFORMATION For background material concerning the physical character- istics of the High Plains cotton area in Texas, many of the following statements have been selected from Texas Station Bulletins 544, 652, 686 and 704; Circular 117; and Miscellaneous Publications 37 and 59. These give more detailed descriptions and statistics. Soils and Topography The High Plains of Texas is a tilted plain which slopes to the south and east at about 7 feet per mile. Elevation ranges from *Respectively, associate and assistant professors, Department of Agri- cultural Economics and Sociology, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, and agricultural economist, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. 6 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 3,700 feet in the northwest t0 2,500 feet in the southeast. The dominant soils are fine sandy loams which are capable of ab- sorbing water rapidly. After crops become well established on these soils they can Withstand prolonged drouth. Wind erosion occurs to some extent throughout the area. On the lighter, sandier soils, blowing is a serious problem-—espe- cially in the western and southwestern parts. Rainfall is seldom excessive and there is little loss of fertility because of leaching. The light vegetative growth on dry-land farms requires comparatively small amounts of soil nutrients to produce a crop. The natural soil fertility has not been depleted to the extent that commercial fertilizers can be used profitably. On irrigated farms, where the drain of soil nutrients is in- creased, the use of fertilizers may become significant in produc- ti-on practices. Climate The climate of the High Plains is classed as subhumid with an average rainfall of about 20 inches. This approaches the lower limit for successful dry-land farming. A high percentage of the rainfall comes as local showers, frequently of the tor- rential type. On the average, more than four-fifths of the total annual precipitation falls during the growing season from April to October. Evaporation is rapid and as moisture in the topsoil is removed quickly after a rain, the number of planting oppor- tunities is reduced as is the length of the optimum planting period for all crops. Hailstorms occur occasionally, but severe damage is usually confined to relatively small areas. The growing season, or frost-free period, averages 210 days at Lubbock. The average dates of the last frost in the spring and the first killing frost in the fall are April 7 and November 4, respectively. Weeds, Insects and Plant Diseases Weeds are comparatively easy to control in this area. Germi- nation of seed is retarded and vegetative growth i-s limited be- cause of the low average rainfall. Most weeds are annuals and are easily destroyed by timely cultivation. Before 1950, insect control received little attention. In 1950, however, infestation of leafworms was severe enough to justify poisoning. This was done by plane over large areas. Tractor- drawn dusters also were used extensively. Recently, grades of lint cotton have been affected in numer- ous cases by stains resulting from angular leaf spot or bacterial blight. Work is in progress in an attempt to develop strains resistant to this disease. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 7 Crops lVIost of the cropland in type-of-farming area N0. 3, Figure 1, is planted to cotton or grain sorghum. Combine-type sorghum is grown almost exclusively. With irrigation water available, some farmers have developed small improved pastures. A small acreage of sugar beets, potatoes, carrots and head lettuce has been grown. Two types of cotton are grown in the High Plains cotton area. Normal-boll varieties include Hi-Bred, Half & Half and Lockett 140. Storm-resistant varieties include Macha, Storm- Master and Stormproof No. 1. The latter varieties hold the seed cotton more firmly in the mature bolls, therefore do not “string out” and become subject to weather damage or field loss as readily as the normal-boll varieties. About 80 percent of the cotton produced on the High Plains of Texas is grown in the 10 counties designated as type-of- farming area No. 8; This area includes all or part of the fol- 9 Figure 1. Type-of-farming areas in Texas. Adapted from Texas Station Bulletin 544. The High Plains cotton area is type-of-farming area No. 3—the shaded portion in this figure. 8 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION lowing counties: Bailey, Crosby, Dawson, Hockley, Howard, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Martin and Terry. When production in Hale and Floyd counties (TOFA No. 1) and Cochran county (TOFA No. 5) is added to area No. 3, about 95 percent of the High Plains cotton crop is accounted for. Although tabulated in areas other than No. 3, cotton is produced under similar conditions in these three counties. DEVELOPMENTS AFFECTING HARVESTING METHODS With the advent of well irrigation and multiple-row tractor equipment, including mechanical strippers, and the marked im- provement in the equipment of modern gins, significant changes have been made in cotton production practices in the High Plains cotton area. Some of these items are discussed in the sections that follow. Irrigation About 15,000 wells on the High Plains provide water for irri- gation. This represents almost a threefold increase during the period, 1947-50. In Figure 2, the approximate region is indicated Figure 2. The shaded area shows the approximate boundary of the High Plains irrigated from wells. From Progress Report No. 7, Texas Board of Water Engineers, March 1949. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 9 in which irrigation wells are located. Less than half of the “well region” lies in type-of-farming area No. 3, where 6 counties have most of the significant irrigation development. These are Bailey, Crosby, Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock and Lynn, where two- thirds of the cotton in the area and more than half of the cot- ton on the High Plains is grown. Basic data for this report were obtained for the most part from farmers, ginners and implement dealers in these counties. Plant Breeding Attention has been given at Substation No. 8 near Lubbock to the development of cotton plants that meet more nearly the requirements for mechanical harvesting. Commercial plant breeders also have been working toward similar selections hav- ing early and uniform maturity, storm resistance, bolls borne on branches off the ground and other characteristics which pro- duce a cotton plant more suitable to machine harvest. Defoliation At present, mechanical harvesting of cotton is confined to the period after frost has killed the plant and the leaves have dried or fallen off. Strippers can begin operation about 10 to 14 days after a killing frost. Some growers have tried strippers in cot- ton before frost without defoliating, but the results have not been satisfactory. Defoliation of cotton in the High Plains cotton area, so far, has not been practicable on a large scale because of the lack of sufficient dew to activate the chemicals used. However, in 1949 a defoliant was applied on an estimated 10 percent of the cotton acreage in Lubbock county and a smaller percentage in sur- rounding counties. Advantage was taken of exceptionally heavy dews on about 5 mornings early in October. Cotton, after de- foliation, was more easily harvested by hand. Top growth re- curred after about 2 weeks, so only a little benefit was realized by operators of machine strippers. Experimental work continues in an effort to develop a defoli- ant that can be depended upon season after season. Should one be found suitable to High Plains conditions, there is no doubt that added use of machines for harvesting would result, par- ticularly in years when frost was later than average. More extensive use of strippers, however, would shorten the harvest season and complicate ginning problems, especially in years of high production. Farm storage of seed cotton, and possibly in- creased storage facilities at gins, would be needed to hold har- vested cotton until it could be ginned. The percentages of cotton ginned by specified dates in type- of-farming area No. 3, during the 10-year period, 1940-49‘, are shown in Table 1. Generally, more than half of the cotton was already ginned by mid-November when stripper operation usual- ly began. 10 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 1. Percentage of cotton ginned by specified dates, 1940-491 ‘l Bales Year Oct 1 Nov 1 Nov. 14 Dec 1 Dec 13 Jan 16 produced 1940 . . . . . . . .. 8.4 56.6 71.8 80.0 86.4 93.5 357,458 1.941 . . . . . . . .. 1.4 15.3 35.1 60.2 76.8 91.5 473,908 1942......... 4.7 37.9 57.6 77.7 84.8 95.0 525,078 1943 . . . . . . . .. 11.1 7.3 78.8 91.5 94.4 96.8 437,378 1944......... 3.1 32.9 49.9 65.2 71.1 89.5 495,330 1945 . . . . . . . .. 3.5 33.0 54.0 80.1 87.7 95.9 102,523 1946.......... 9.0 41.9 56.0 77.8 86.9 95.1 189,949 1947 . . . . . . . .. 6.4 43.7 62.2 72.0 81.7 98.1 858,911 1948 . . . . . . . .. 9.1 46.8 66.7 89.5 96.6 99.4 524,614 1949......... 3.3 21.4 39.3 63.6 77.6 95.9 1,433,453 10-yr. ave., 1940-49.... 5.5 35.7 54.2 72.8 82.6 95.4 539,860 3-yr. ave., 1947-49.... 5.3 32.9 51.4 71.0 82.4 97.2 938,993 ‘Compiled from annual reports published by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Gin Equipment Some of the best equipped gins in Texas are located on the High Plains. Facilities have been installed to handle machine- stripped or hand-snapped cotton, both being more difficult to gin than hand-picked cotton. Green-boll and trash eliminators, bur extractors, adequate driers and fans have been added to the regular equipment to assure better preparation. A few gins have installed the newer types of lint cleaning equipment. Most gins have seed cotton storage bins that hold only a small percentage of their annual volume. Thus, when cotton harvest exceeds daily gin capacity, seed cotton is either piled on turn- rows in the field or is held on gin yards in the farmer’s trailer. The record crop in 1949 taxed gin capacity to the extent that many gins were operated “around-the-clock” for approximately 60 days and still were unable to keep abreast of harvest. At the peak of the season, it was not unusual for farmers to have cot- ton stand in trailers on gin-yards from 48 to 72 hours awaiting their turn. During this period, enormous quantities were piled in the field or on turnrows and were later reloaded and carried to the gin. This reloadingwas facilitated in many localities by the use of improvised pneumatic loaders resembling the unload- ing devices commonly used at gins. A number of such rigs were available for custom Work. One grower used a buck-rake and stacker to reload cotton piled in the field and was well pleased with the results. This equipment was similar to that used in some states for stacking hay. HARVESTING METHODS Cotton is harvested in the area by hand-snapping or by me- chanical, two-row strippers. On some farms, a combination of MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 11 the two methods is employed Where most or all of the cotton acreage is gone ove'r by hand one or more times soon after the crop matures, followed after frost by mechanical harvesting to “scrap” the remainder. Hand Harvesting Practically all work on cotton is done by family or local labor except at harvest time. Crews of migratory laborers move into the area in September, some to stay until harvest is completed, and some move out as soon as the first spell of bad weather hits the High Plains. For the most part, these crews are made up of Latin-American families from South Texas. Harvest crews re- quire the attention of the cotton producer in hiring and in keep- ing such labor until harvest ‘is completed. Housing of itinerant labor requires some capital investment, repair and other ex- penses such as for heat, water and often lighting facilities. No attempt was made in this study to evaluate the cost of recruit- ing and housing harvest laborers. All hand-harvested cotton in the area is snapped or pulled. The entire boll and often some branches and leaves are har- vested. For this reason, it usually requires from 1,700 to 2,000 pounds of hand-snapped seed cotton to make a 500-pound gross- weight bale. Mechanical Harvesting Harvest labor was abundant and relatively cheap during most of the 1930’s, thus putting a damper on the initial interest in machine harvesting which had been given some attention in pre- ceding years. Labor scarcity and prevailing high wages during World War II and the following years revived interest in meth- ods of reducing harvesting costs. Annual sales and the use of harvesters have varied with the supply and cost of labor, the acreage of cotton and the availability of machines. So many machines are now being used, and improvements in strippers and gin equipment have been so marked that harvesting by machines may be expected to continue as a regular procedure. Machine use will vary, of course, with the availability and cost of seasonal labor, the current price of lint and seed and the initial investment in harvesting machines. The development of cotton harvesters especially designed for operation in the High Plains cotton area is described in Texas Station Bulletin 704. It is estimated that about 40 percent of the record 1949 crop, or about 575,000 bales, was machine harvested in type-of-farm- ing area No. 3. Between 5,500 and 6,000 mechanical strippers were available and most of them were used to harvest all or part of the crop on farms where machines were owned. A con- siderable amount of custom harvesting also was done in the area. It is estimated that about 100 bales were harvested per machine, counting both owner’s cotton and the amount that was custom harvested. Probably 60 percent of the cotton acreage 12 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 2. Proportion of cotton harvested by various methods on farms studied Percentage of 1 Method of Acreage Production harvest 1947 1948 1949 1947 1948 1949 Dry-land cotton: Snapping (no stripping) . 28 23 21 57 51 51 Stripped (no snapping). . 31 45 38 31 32 37 Stripped after snapping. g 41 32 41 12 17 12 Irrigated cotton: 1 \ Snapping (no stripping) . 28 36 15 l 72 75 56 Stripped (no snapping). . 20 8 29 \ 17 8 27 Stripped after snapping.‘ 52 56 56 11 17 17 l lOnly farmers owning strippers were included in this study. The percentages, therefore, are somewhat higher than for all farms in the area. was covered by machines to harvest 40 percent of the crop. The percentages of cotton, both acreage and production, harvested by various methods on farms included in this study are pre- sented in Table 2. Each year, on both dry-land and irrigated farms, a larger percentage of the production was hand-harvested than was machine-harvested. The acreage covered by machines, however, greatly exceeded the acreage that was harvested ex- clusively by hand. Machines were used extensively for “scrap- ping” fields after being hand-harvested one or more times earlier in the season. It is difficult for machinery dealers and manufacturers to forecast accurately the demand for machines for the next har- vesting season. In 1949, one manufacturer made no new ma- chines because the company and associated dealers had 600 ma- chines held over from the previous year and estimated this as . a sufficient supply. The demand for strippers in the High Plains cotton area, resulting from the unusually large crop, was greater than expected. The supply of strippers in dealer’s hands was exhausted and several machines formerly bought by farmers in other parts of the Cotton Belt were resold to growers on the High Plains. Field Losses The amount of cotton left on stalks or lost on the ground as the result of harvesting is very important in comparing the relative efficiency of various methods of harvesting. Losses caused by Wind or storms before harvest cannot be charged to harvesting operations. S-tudies at the Lubbock station, reported in Texas Station Progress Report 1029, indicate that by late November the field loss of normal-boll cotton greatly exceeds that of storm-resistant varieties. Estimates of the usual percentage of storm-resistant cotton MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 13 lost by strippers on the farms studied are presented in Table 3. Losses usually were higher in normal-boll cotton than in storm-resistant varieties. In 1947, with relatively good yields, field losses were moderately low. In 1948, when yields were be- low average on both dry-land and irrigated farms, percentage losses were above average. In 1949, yields were usually above those obtained in 1947 and smaller percentage field losses might have been expected. However, cotton plants generally were larger than usual and many machine operators would have found it advantageous to equip their tractors with wheel shields un- der the circumstances. The percentage losses shown in Table 3 were higher when the remaining cotton was machine-har- vested after hand-snapping. This was mainly because of the smaller amount of seed cotton left on the plants as the poten- tial yield. In 1950, percentage losses were estimated as somewhat higher than in 1949. This may be explained in part because of the killing freeze on November 4 which caused plants and stems to become brittle and shattery. The usual frost, upon which satis- factory conditioning for stripper use depends, does not make the plants as brittle as did the hard freeze experienced in 1950 over the greater portion of the area. In obtaining the maximum advantages from machine har- vesting and to keep field losses low and produce a desirable grade of cotton, the planning for proper machine use should begin well before a field is planted. The seedbed should be pre- pared in such a manner as to leave no crop residue or trash on the surface. Planting should be in row widths identical with the specifications of the stripper to be used. With plants on a slight ridge and the middles left level at the time of the last cultivation, leaves and trash will collect in the middle of the rows instead of around the base of the plants. Fields free of weeds will aid greatly in harvesting. The skill of the stripper operator is one of the most important factors in keeping stripper loss to a minimum. A good tractor driver will govern the stripping speed by the size, type and condition of the plant as well as by the condition of the field. Table 3. Average potential yield per acre and usual percentage loss in storm- resistant cotton harvested by machine, 1947-49 1947 1948 1949 Method of harvest Yield Loss Yield Loss Yield Loss Lbs. Pct. Lbs. Pct. Lbs. Pct. Dry-land cotton: No previous snapping. . . 224 2 110 9 309 4 After hand-snapping. . . . 58 5 61 10 87 6 Irrigated cotton: No previous snapping. . . 480 2 339 6 502 4 After hand-snapping. . . . 121 5 125 8 157 7 14 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION In addition to the setting of the machine to conform to row Width, the use of tractor wheel shields and a flexible hood for the elevator opening has an important bearing‘ on stripper losses. At the expense of trailer capacity, the operator can reduce the loss in grade caused by trash and foreign materials by mini- mizing the tramping of the seed cotton in the trailer. Trash and dirt that are not tramped and embedded in the lint fibers can be removed t0 a large extent by present gin equipment. By growing a storm-resistant type of cotton, field loss 0r waste may be reduced since this type is better adapted to machine stripping than is the normal-boll type. Failure to follow any or all of the foregoing recommended practices increases field loss, or lowers the grade, or both. Grade Differentials Grade information was analyzed for about 2,000 bales of cot- ton for each of three seasons, 1947-49, to evaluate the effect of method and time of harvest on the grade of cotton. The major differences in grades of cotton harvested by hand as compared with cotton harvested by machine were caused largely by the difference in the time of harvesting. Hand-harvested cotton be- fore frost usually makes the higher grades for the season and the market basis customarily is lower as the season progresses. After frost, more trash is harvested by both hands and ma- chines than is the case with cotton harvested by hand before frost. Weather damage, stains and spots are more likely to cause lower grades as the season advances. Average grades of machine-harvested cotton, as reflected in values per bale, were slightly below average grades of cotton harvested by hand after mid-November, Table 4. However, it was not unusual for a farmer to get the same grade for cotton from the same field which was harvested the same day, part by hands and part by machine. Sometimes the machine-harvested cotton would not have as much trash and dirt in it as would the hand-harvested cotton from the same field. Much depends upon the ability and integrity of the harvesting crew. An additional illustration of the effect of time ‘of harvest on grade and values is shown in Table 5, which includes data on ' all of the 3,048 bales of cotton handled at a gin in Lynn county in 1947. Practically all the cotton was produced on dry-land farms. The percentages of the bales ginned during the specified periods are shown according to the grades established at the USDA Classing Office in Lubbock. The average loan value per pound of lint for each period is shown. Eighty-one percent of all the cotton was 13/ 16-inch staple. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS mHEsoQ com c0 2am 5Q 53a> 202a m0a5 Em OOO 0.0a?» m0aa Q0 H5mam 2am 5Q 03a> .20 2B 02am Q0 QQQHHHDHH am H03 .585 60EO wsQwwaQO <5 .2203 wwobw mwQwk HEa c0300 H~QHHTwH\m.H Q0 QQTHQ caoH D 0m» 02a 30:25 SEQ s0$aEH0QsQ c0 50am? mm EH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. Hm omH mm mm ...mH|H.=aQ. ooH wmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mm am ww E. HmlmH dwmH a2 Nam 2: ma aHH 5a mHH a0 g 3a a0 Haw . .mH|H 60G 2: a Haa HHH a a0 mHH a 03 mHH a 2a ma w a2 2: w QbH 0H1: .>02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vHH 2a HNH a 5H bmH 00a HQHH w 3H vHH m? imHlH S02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mHH owH mmH 3A.. mNH 3am HmlwHd0O . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. omH 3. HmH vwm NNH mmH imHlHsuO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % wQam m2am 2am 02am 2am 02am 2am 02am aQam m2am 2am 02am 5Q Q0 .02 5Q Q0 .02 5Q Q0 .02 5Q Q0 .02 5Q Q0 .02 5Q Q0 .02 02a> w3a> 53a> 03a> wama> w3a> \ l H5Q5>~am waQQQhQw waQQacm wwQQQbm wwQQacm wwQQQbm woQQacm 55D Qwwaiam Q0 Q00mQ0H>H QmPZam Q0 H00mQ0H>H QwQPHam Q0 H5852 35H $2 5A2 0200-355 ezwmoQQQw k3 UQQwQQYQQS iOuwOQ wQ 2am QQQ QHZN> owa~o>< J» Qiaflrfi 16 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 5E >238 25nd w Bot v.80“! msmcfiw w»m_mEoO_ i: Z: m2 N3 w? mew mam .2555 ma mass Mafia wcmhsw m3m> cs2 .w>< X %L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - v2.6a wfipsw 35% mfiwm 3.2 923 92: 903 Q63 92: 0.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . 113cm. ¢.x N-% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.x @..? , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . x.$x X.1 @. %. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 9w 92 v.3 vm H. m. “w. . . . . ..w5=.E& B2 85w - . . . - - . - . . . . - . - . ¢ - . - . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. £.% X. @. ......-..-....Mn.-@.?.©U.F2 - - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . - . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . X x . »% § . x . . . . . . . - . ~ . - - . . - . . . - . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aha . . . . . . . . . - “uwpuomm w-mi %.m o..% . . . - . - . - - . . . . - . . - . . . . . . - . . - - . - . . . - . . . . . . - > . - I $.X X.§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %. . - . . 9mm N? 93 9% Nd 9N m. . . . . . . . . . Iwcmwvwfikoq - . - . . - - . . . . . i. X.£ . .. . . ¢ . . . - - . . . . - - . . - - . . . . . . -. £..% ............-.wg.-@i..©.©%2 - - . . . . - . - . - . . ~ . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . i . . . . . . . . . - ¢ - . - . . - . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . x . % . . . . . . . v . 635$ mQTIQH xsfilwifi mqfilqfi om<3|w<3 QQS|QS fixilwqi miilwia méfiw RES éomaom “mafia: .3 2.2.6.. wwfiuonm 9E3. 6252M 3 £22m main .3 ccsnnmbmm. owflnofiom .m Baum. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 17 MECHANICAL STRIPPER PERFORMANCE AND COSTS Information pertaining to stripper performance and costs Was collected from High Plains farmers on the operation of 90 ma- chine strippers in 1947, 64 in 1948 and 63 machines in 1949. Many details summarized herein were presented in preliminary form in preceding Texas Station Progress Reports 1111, 1134 and 1200. An average of 212 acres was covered per machine in 1947, 195 in 1948 and 211 in 1949. Custom work or harvesting on an exchange basis accounted for 64, 67 and 37 acres per machine, respectively, for these 3 years. Approximately half the stripper owners did some custom work in 1947, while only one-third of the operators did custom work during 1948 and 1949. Rates of Performance Rates of performance are largely influenced by yield or the amount of cotton on the plant at the time stripping operations are performed, by the size and type of cotton plant and by the condition of the field at harvest time. The prevailing harvesting conditions varied considerably from farm to farm and from one year to another. In general, yields in 1947 were more nearly normal. Records were obtained on 12,807 acres of dry-land cotton which averaged 223 pounds of lint per acre, and on 5,814 acres of irrigated cotton which averaged 478 pounds. The 1948 season was marked by prolonged drouth dur- ing July and August which resulted in yields below normal. Data obtained on 5,100 acres of dry-land and 6,442 acres of irrigated land showed an average yield of 106 pounds and 395 pounds of lint per acre, respectively. In 1949, abundant rainfall during the growing season resulted in yields above normal for dry-land cotton. On 7,504 acres of dry-land cotton, the average yield was 304 pounds of lint per acre, and on 5,814 acres of irrigated cotton, the average was 495 pounds. The average quantites of lint harvested per acre in scrapping Table 6. Average stripper performance. per day, 1947-49 1947 1948 1949 Item Dry-land Irrigated Dry-land Irrigated Dry-land Irrigated cotton cotton cotton cotton cotton cotton First time over: N0. bales harvested1..... 5.7 8 5 3 3 9.8 7 4 10.1 No. acrescovered. 13.0 9 0 16 5 13.0 12 5 10.5 No.hours....... 6.5 65 75 75 85 8.5 Scrapping: No. bales harvested1..... 1.7 3 5 2 0 3.8 2 5 3 9 No. acrescovered. 15.0 15 0 18 0 16.5 15 5 13 5 No.hours . . . . . .. 6.5 65 75 7.5 85 85 1500-pound gross-weight bales. 18 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION operations (stripping cotton previously hand-snapped) on dry- land farms Were 55 pounds in 1947, 55 pounds in 1948 and 82 pounds in 1949. Comparable amounts for irrigated farms were 115, 115 and 146 pounds of lint per acre, respectively. The average number of bales harvested per day, the acreage covered and the length of the working day are shown in Table 6. In addition to higher yields, the rank growth in irrigated cotton usually made it necessary for farmers to run tractors at slower speeds for stripping operations than was the case in dry-land cotton. This was particularly so in 1947 and 1949. Some late fall rains and frequent early morning dews were responsi- ble for the shorter workdays in 1947. In 1949, an almost ideal harvest season prevailed until after mid-December throughout most of the area. Therefore, the length of the average workday was 1 hour longer than in 1947 . Average Costs for Machine Harvesting Average costs for mechanical cotton strippers, compiled from information supplied by stripper owners, are presented in Table 7. These costs consist of operating and overhead costs, based on the average acreage covered per machine and average per- formance rates during each year of the study. Operating costs include labor, power and machinery charges, while overhead costs consist of depreciation and interest on the stripper and trailer complement. Labor costs were calculated at $1.00 per hour per man. Two men were required to operate a mechanical stripper. Charges for tractor use were calculated at $1.00 per hour for fuel, oil, grease, repairs, interest and depreciation. The cost items shown for repairs to mechanical strippers pertain to relatively new machines and may increase as machines become older and are subjected to greater use. Charges for trailer repairs are average costs based on the number of trailers used per stripper. Haul- ing to the gin was charged at 65 cents per bale for an average round trip of 7 miles. I Overhead costs were based on an average new value of $925 per stripper, $720 trailer investment per stripper and an interest charge of 4.5 percent of half the new value. Depreciation was based on a salvage value of 25 percent remaining after 6 years of use for the stripper and 7 years for trailers. An estimated 80 percent of the total annual trailer costs was charged to the stripping operation when harvesting was done exclusively by machine. It was assumed that trailers were used 20 percent of the time in other farm operations. When hand-snapping pre- ceded mechanical-harvesting, only 40 percent of the trailer costs was charged to the stripping operations, since trailers also were used in hand-harvesting operations. Although the variations in costs of operating mechanical MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 19 strippers from one year to another were affected by differences in rates of performance, the major differences Were due to the quantity of cotton harvested per acre, Table 7. For example, in 1947, the average cost of operating a stripper, based on a yield of 220 pounds of lint per acre, was $6.90 per bale on cotton not previously hand-snapped, While in 1948 with a yield of 100 Table 7. Average cost of operating mechanical cotton strippersl ‘Based on acreage covered per machine; 212, 195 and 211 acres in 1947, 1948 and 1949, respectively. Excludes consideration of field Waste and grade differences as these items are reflected in returns. glncludes depreciation and interest charges on stripper, $137; charge for mount- ing and demounting stripper unit, $11; depreciation and interest charges for average number of trailers used, $74. 3Same as 1 except charges for trailers average $37, or half as much as when all harvesting was done by machine, since same trailers were used previously for hand-harvesting operations. See text. 1947 1948 1949 Cost items Dry-land: Irrigated Dry-land Irrigated Dry-land! Irrigated Dollars Dollars Dollars No previous snap- ping: Operating costs per machine: - Labor . . . . . . . . . . . 212 306 178 226 288 340 Tractor use . . . . . . 106 153 89 113 144 170 Stripper repairs. . 9 9 15 15 13 13 Trailer repairs. . . 30 30 27 27 29 29 Hauling to gin. . . 61 130 25 95 81 132 Total . . . . . . . 418 628 334 476 555 684 Overhead costs per machine” . . . . . . . . 222 222 222 222 222 222 Total costs: Per machine. . . . . 640 850 556 698 777 906 a Peracre......... 3.00 4.00 2.85 3.55 3.70 4.30 Perbale......... 6.90 4.25 14.25 4.75 6.20 4.45 Stripping after snapping: Operating costs per machine: Labor . . . . . . . . . . . 184 184 162 178 232 266 Tractor use . . . . . . 92 92 81 89 116 133 Stripper repairs. . 9 9 15 15 13 13 Trailer repairs. . . 15 15 14 14 15 15 Hauling to gin. . . 15 32 14 29 22 40 Total . . . . . . . 315 332 286 325 398 467 Overhead costs per machine“ . . . . . . . . 185 185 185 185 185 185 Total costs: Per machine. . . . . 500 517 471 510 583 652 Peracre . . . . . . . .. 2.35 2.45 2.40 2.60 2.75 3.10 Per bale . . . . . . . .. 21.45 10.60 21.95 11.35 16.85 10.60 20 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION pounds of lint, the costs increased to $14.25 per bale. When stripping exclusively by machine or stripping after hand-snap- ping in irrigated cotton, per bale costs of harvesting were lower than for similar operations on dry-land, principally because of the higher yields of irrigated cotton. The cost per bale of cotton harvested mechanically is also affected by the number of acres harvested per season. For ex- ample, in 1947, if the yield per acre had remained the same but the acreage harvested had been reduced approximately one-half —from 212 acres to 100 acres—stripper operating costs would have increased from $6.90 to about $9.45 per bale in dry-land, cotton harvested exclusively by machine. In irrigated cotton, stripper operating costs would have increased from $4.25 to about $5.50 per bale. On the other hand, if the amount of cotton harvested per acre had remained the same and acreage of cot- ton scrapped by machine in 1947 had been reduced from 212 to 100 acres, average costs per bale would have increased from $21.45 to $30.35 in dry-land cotton and from $10.60 to $14.85 in irrigated cotton. It is apparent from the foregoing examples that both the number of acres covered per season and the cotton harvested per acre will largely determine the costs per bale for operating a mechanical stripper. Neither the mechanical stripper field loss nor the loss in grade and value of cotton was included in the mechanical harvesting costs just discussed. These factors affect the net returns from different methods of harvest and are in- cluded later i-n the bulletin. Minimum and Optimum Acreage Per Machine Many inquiries have been made concerning the acreage of cotton that would justify the purchase of a machine stripper. Custom work for others, of course, calls for available time of the owner-operator to be away from his own farm and no ap- praisal of this factor can be made by anyone other than the individual concerned. For a farmer planning on harvesting only his own crop, however, it is estimated that 50 acres of cotton yielding an average of 200 pounds of lint per acre is the This estimate is based upon conditions prevailing during the 4 years studied, when the initial cost of a stripper averaged $925, average lint values were around 25 cents a pound, seed was bringing about $90 a ton and harvest labor cost an average of $2.25 per 100 pounds of snapped cotton. Most of the growers in the area have more than 50 acres of cotton each year. In 1944, according to the U. S. Bureau of the Census, approximately 65 percent of the cotton acreage i-n the area was grown on farms with 100 or more acres in cotton. Since then, it is probable that the average size of the cotton enterprise has been increased. The optimum acreage for stripper operation may be that which can be covered in about 3 weeks of stripping after frost. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 21 Early stripping reduces weather damage and some of the mar- keting uncertainties. Ordinarily harvest can be started with strippers around November 10 to 15. In the period covered by this study, 3 weeks of stripper use would mean that harvest could be completed before Christmas. Based on average rates of performance, the optimum acreage would thus be about 275 acres for dry-land farms and 200 acres for irrigated farms. These optimum acreages could be increased with the develop- ment and use of a dependable defoliant. RETURNS FROM DIFFERENT HARVESTING PRACTICES The problems involved in growing cotton in the High Plains cotton area differ from year to year and practices that may be profitable one season may not be advantageous the next. Dif- ferences exist among farms, too. Condition of fields, soil type, Water-holding capacity and susceptibility to wind erosion are a few of the factors that affect yields and production costs. More- over, individual growers vary in their ability to take advantage of timely practices or to use various types of equipment that will overcome some o-f the natural hazards of farming. It would, therefore, be impossible to weigh the advantages and disadvan- tages of different harvesting practices found on a variety of farms over a period of years, average the results and present the data in a manner that would apply specifically to a given farm or for a particular year. The following presentation of comparative returns under average conditions, as disclosed by this study, can serve only as a guide to individuals in deciding upon the most economical and practical method of harvesting on'their own farm. Returns Above Harvesting and Ginning Costs Operations on 150 acres of cotton are shown as an illustration of the effect of difierent methods of harvest on returns above harvesting and ginning costs. Usual practices, requirements and costs have been used as found on the farms studied where the cotton enterprise averaged 150 acres on both dry-land and irri- gated land. It was assumed that a storm-resistant variety of cotton was grown. In making these comparisons, estimated returns were evalu- ated for three common harvesting practices-—all hand-harvested, all machine-harvested and a combination of hand and machine- harvested cotton. The analysis of the combination harvesting practice was based on the average portion of lint harvested by each of the two methods on farms using this harvesting prac- tice. The average practice on dry-land farms using the combina- tion method in 1947 and 1949 was to hand harvest about 75 percent of the cotton and machine strip the remainder. In 1948, harvesting was divided about equally between the two methods. On irrigated farms, an average of about 75 percent was hand harvested and the remainder mechanically harvested in 1947, 22 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION while in 1948 and 1949, approximately 70 percent of the pro- duction was harvested by hand and. the remainder by machine. Estimated yields and requirements are shown in Table 8. Comparison of estimated returns shown in Table 9 indicate the advantage of machine over hand harvesting. Dry-land cotton in 1948 was an exception, when estimated returns from hand har- vesting 150 acres were $37 more than those from mechanical stripping. This was principally due to the fact that weather conditions prevailing during the growing season caused ex- tremely low yields which increased the mechanical harvesting costs per bale. Also, small and brittle plants caused relatively large percentage losses with mechanical strippers. To arrive at the 1948 dry-land figures in Table 9, wages for snapping were Table 8. Yields, prices and costs used in a comparison of relative returns‘ from different . harvesting practices on 150 acres of cotton, 1947-49 Item Unit 1947 1948 1949 Yields per acre: Dry-land: All hand snapped . . . . . . . . . . . Pounds of lint 224 110 309 All machine stripped . . . . . . . . Do. 220 100 297 Combination hand-machine. . Do. 222 104 304 Irrigated: All hand snapped . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 480 399 502 All machine stripped . . . . . . . . Do. 470 375 482 Combination hand-machine. . Do. 474 389 491 Average price of lint cottonz‘ All hand snapped . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cents per pound 28.4 26.4 24.0 All machine stripped . . . . . . . . . . Do. 26.4 23.4 21.9 ‘A Combination hand and machine Do. 27.8 23.6 23.4 ’ Average price of seed. . . . . . . . . . . . Dollars per ton 90 70 45 Seed cotton and trash per 500-lb. gross-weight bale: Hand snapped, first time over. . Pounds 1 ,725 1 ,800 1 ,780 Hand snapped, scrapping . . . . . . Do. 1 ,925 2 ,000 2 .065 Machine stripped . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 2,000 2 ,100 2 ,065 Hand snapping wage rates: Dry-land: First time over . . . . . . . . . . . . . Per cwt. seed cotton 2.25 2.00 2.35 Scrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 2. 50 2.25 2.00 Irrigated: First time over . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 2.25 1.75 2.35 Scrapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 2. 50 2.00 2.00 Ginning rates: Ginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. .50 .50 .60 Bagging and ties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dollars per bale 3. 50 3. 50 3.90 Cost of operating strippers? No previous snapping: Dry-land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 7.85 15.95 6.90 Irrigated................... Do. 4.70 5.25 4.90 After hand snapping: Dry-land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 24.75 24. 55 19.00 Irrigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Do. 12.15} 12.60 11.80 . 1 ‘Based on pricesfat Lubbock and adjusted for grade differences. ZBased on Table 7, and adjusted to reflect costs for harvesting 150 acres of operators cotton. . 23 MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS inn 6n Hvwom Ho @253 oHv Hvnm wimp psmiozTwwonm v53 com no H523 dwim> Hvwom Hvnw i: mwwnHunHn mmQ NH as. 2 wNm. HH HmH. NH mi. mH $12 Nwm. vH Nam. oN Sm. NH 6O . . . . . . . dpwoo minim Hvnw MCEmMYwHNQ w>onw wnnnewm wNNw N $3.. N wwN. N 3mm H 3m. H Nmm. H 3». H 2a. H n? H 6Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . wnmoo miniU 3w. w Q; wwN. w 2o. m wwm. w»? w 5m. w as HHmh m 6Q . . . . _ . . . . . .380 “Bimini >3. NH wwH. mH w; oN H5 m: w? 2 EB. m: m3. wN 51mm mwo. mN wsaon . . . . . . . . . . . . iwnnnpwn mwonU m5; wwwH 98H g: mNHH :3 N.NwH cHwH owwH mmfim . . . . . . . . . . . ..Ha8%2n uiwH "nofioo HvmpwmmnnH wNw_ b NHH. m wwm. w woH. m Sm. m wmm. m 2N. w NHw. m. N8. w an . . . . . . . demon. minim Es mipmmkrnws w>onw mnnnnwmH Nbm. H Hmw. H wmm. H 2w aNw Hmw Hmm Haw Nmw dmH . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifiwoo miniU HWNN. m Sm m3. m wmm. 3w Em. H mwm. N m5 3». N 6Q . . . . . . . . . . .330 wfinmwiwm >NH. NH 2:. HH mow. NH Ew w 3N. w 31m 3Q HH HNw. oH m3. HH méon . . . . . . . . . . . Inmnnnpwn mmonU N . Hm H 3 5% NHm 9cm. 0.2.. P3 o3 NEw wwnwm . . . . . . . . . . . . awfiizn piwH “nofioo HVnmHJCmH winowi winomnn UHHNS miwnumnn oinuwnn Hvnmn winuwi winumnn Hvnmn Hvnm :< :< Es :< :4 HE.» 24 =4 finD Uflwm wnwm wnwHH 83H mmiubwnn miumwnrnmm mwmH mwofiumnn minmonrnafl wwmH wwipumna miplmwnwnmfl ma: mw|>wmH £038 Ho mob“ smH no Ema» mnmnnmm wna 353:2 95am mnnnewn Hnwnnicmfi 6 Q-nmu... 24 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION calculated at the usual rate of $2.25 per 100 pounds of snapped cotton. However, many dry-land farmers with 10w yields found it impossible to hire hands at this price. Offers as high as $3.50 per 100 pounds of snapped cotton were reportedly made without obtaining harvesting labor. As a result, such farmers had the following alternatives: use mechanical strippers, resort to sleds, pay a high price for hands, or abandon the crop. It is estimated that on 150 acres of dry-land cotton the me- chanical method of harvest returned $1,320 above hand methods in 1947 and $1,766 more in 1949. Returns above harvesting and ginning costs on 150 acres of irrigated cotton were $3,190, $628 and $3,152 more when harvesting was done by machine com- pared with hand harvesting for the respective years, 1947, 1948 and 1949. The combination hand and machine-harvesting prac- tice ranked second in returns for 1947 and 1949, and third for 1948 on both dry-land and irrigated farms. It is emphasized again that costs shown in Table 8 and used in computing Table 9 do not include any charge for recruiting or housing of the hand harvesting crew. Returns for Labor and Land Use Further comparison of the results of machine and hand har- vesting may be made by adding preharvesting costs (exclusive of operator’s labor) to the foregoing analysis, leaving as a residual the returns for operator’s labor, management, general overhead and land use (rent) on 150 acres of cotton. In making these comparisons, preharvest production require- ments with 4-row equipment were used, as reported in Texas Station Miscellaneous Publication 37, “Cotton Production Prac- tices in the High Plains Area, 1947.” Charges for irrigation are Table l0. Production requirement and cost items for cotton before harvest‘ Cost Cost per acre - Amount per acre per (dollars) Item unit —— —~— Unit Dry-land Irrigated (dollars) Dry-land Irrigated land land Planting seed . . . . . . Pounds 20 20 0.078 1.56 1.56 Machinery use. . . . . Hours 2.48 3_14 1.50 3.72 4.71 Hoe labor . . . . . . . .. Do. 3.75 4.70 0.60 2.25 2.82 Irrigation... . . . . . . . Dollars . . . . . . .. 13.23‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.23 Total, per acre” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.53 22.32 on 150 acres . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 ,130.00 3 ,348.00 lRequirement and cost items in this table do not include operator’s labor, management or any charge for land use or general overhead. 2On one-fourth share rental farms, the tenant usually pays all costs shown except for irrigation. The landlord’s share of irrigation costs, covering in- vestment in the well and pump amount to an average of $4.03 per acre, or $605 on 150 acres of cotton. 25 MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS a . Awamb .Hmmmaam>o Hmamamw wam mm: HEmH a8 HZoHHEmH o». Ham “wamaammmamaa Hmam wmmsami. Hmamamw aonmH mHa a3 mamama o» Bamaamwmamaa was wmmaam>o Hwamamw .88: .3: HmamH mom aowmamQoJamaBo o» maaawmm... .326 aoHwmaHmoaa HHm 59a Hmmfi-Haao ammn m>ma .88.: wzaowmamao a2 mmwamam Qm>m>>oa 63S. m3» aH naowmamao $.32... moo mmwm? mHmaHmaH w mHnFH. aH aofiom Hmmwwm>aaa oaHHHmmaa a3 wwwoO w mHnmm. mmm. NE w 2w“ w www. HH Hww. w www. > www. oH www. w wow. wH :5. >H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . azmwsraw maHammw/H 2a w www w oww. w 2:. m mHH. w wHw. w wHw. w S». w woo. wH . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . efiwmtaw HEmHH . NHwaHaaHw Hmam amm>ams .695 m>onm waaawmm 2H H w?“ w ma“ w 2a www. w www. w Hwo. H Q9. w oHw. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eezmtww mfiammww m2 H m8. oH www HH www www. M. www. w owo. H www. w owo. HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hmmwmm>ama HmamHH uwomom aoHomaHmoan Hmaom. www mam w www. w wwm www. H m8. w 8w www. H www. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hmmwmgams maHsmmw/H www www > oww. w www www. w wow. w www SN. w. www. N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aawwmzaw H.amH.H . "waHaaHw Hmam waHwmm>awwH wow ME w www. w wow m2. w www. w wow m3. w www. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wmmkawflm . . . mmwmom aoBmaHmoanH www. w wow. wH wwH. wH is“ w m8“ HH $2 wH at» w www. ~.H wHH. mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hmmwwm>ams maHammw/H owH w www wH ma. ow www w Hwo wH wt wH www. w 5.. wH wwo. ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wmwmfizza Hawa "Hmmw Hmam ma: 59a waaawma mmoaU "aofiom HmmomwHaaH www. w www. w wwo. w www www. H www. w www. w m5. w S”. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hapmzraw maEmmw/H wow. w wHw. w wHw. w wwH. H Eb. H www. w wS. w www. w www. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..wm..m..:2 Hmamfl awfiqfim Him ammzms rwoam m>onm waaawmm www ME. w wwo. w woH www. H Hww. H www Hww. w www. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hz._m.>.aw wsfiwa www Hwo. w www. w woH wow. w wHw. w wow wHw. w 5H. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hapmm>a£ HEmHH. "mmwom aoHwmaHmoaa HmporH. www mow. H www. H woH m5 Hww www HHH. H www. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . awfimmkaw mazowfi www HHw. w www. w woH Em. H Nfi. H wow www. w :5. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w8$>sw 22a "waHaaHm was waHawm>ammH . . . . .............................@m@>h.flg@km v mwwmom aoBmaHmoam w?“ w ma“ w owH. HH wwo. H wwH. w www. w 2... w wHH. w Hww. oH .......... . . . . . . . . . . Hapwm>$w .5232 HwH w www w wow. wH wow. H www. w 31w www. w S... w www. HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H.8wm>.2 Him "Hmmmm Hmam ma: 89a waaawma wwoaw "aofiom HvamHlwanH EEEQ mSSmQ mhfimfi HZoH panama. aofifimmo HZoH oamamH aowmamao H52 oamamk aoamamao éamq aamaéO HEQH JamEsO éamq JamaBO 50H; wwoH wwwH $2 mound Qmn Mi o! P:- C-b wfiu .56 Siam, mmibwma .553 a. ... ._, v.2... ... .. w... r , . 26 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION from unpublished data obtained by the Texas Station on repre- sentative irrigated farms 0n the High Plains during 1947-49, Table 10. Gross returns and harvesting and ginning costs in Table 11 are the same as in Table 9, with the exception that in Table 11, charges for operator’s labor have been omitted from all produc- tion costs so that the residual may be presented as a return for labor, management, general overhead and rent. Returns to a tenant and landlord are based on the customary division of ex- penses and receipts on rented farms in the area. One-fourth of the lint and seed is usually paid as rent, with ginning expenses being shared accordingly. All other operating costs are borne by the tenant. These returns on a per-bale basis are shown in Table 12 where, in addition, the payments made to migrant labor crews for hand harvesting are presented. Under the stated circumstances, re- turns to a landlord were $3 to $4 lower When cotton was har- vested by machine as contrasted with hand harvesting. No esti- mate was made of the expense incurred, usually by the land- lord, in housing migrant laborers. This cost would be eliminated under mechanized harvesting operations. Severe drouth affected many farms in 1950, especially in the northwestern part of the area. Some farmers did not attempt to harvest their dry-land cotton. A few ginners in Bailey, Hock- ley and Lamb counties did not operate as they Were in localities where the drouth was most severe. Observation and discussions with farmers and ginners in other parts of the area, however, indicated an average of 196 pounds of lint per acre on the dry- land farms in the study Where harvesting was done by hand. Hand-harvested cotton on the irrigated farms averaged 390 pounds per acre. Prices for lint of comparable grades in 1950 were about 50 percent above those in 1949 during the early part of the season when harvesting was entirely by hand. Later in the season, prices were almost 70 percent higher than in 1949. Moreover, seed prices received by farmers were more than double the 1949 figures. With these assumptions and the appli- cation of production, harvesting and ginning costs, as used in presenting the 1947-49 data in Table 11, comparable returns in 1950 are shown in Table 13. MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 42w 3 3:22 wfiom wax .622 59K“: .8“ psmcfi .8 .~opw.$QoLwcBo an “an? Aucwhv mm: v5: .69." scwfiwmwcwfi was wawshgo 3pm.com .322 mbcwcwp .8’? asofiwmwsufi was wmoskwi. 122s“ .822 wlopfiwmo .3: v2.2 .89 N8“ N3 m5.“ mam ¢$ 2% 6O . . . . . . . . . . dofiou @525: gm 2m 2: o: 3N 1mm wwfiom . . . . . . . . . . dofiou “BE-EC 3.8a 8m pa: 6E; . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. Avg ............mE.H.N%.@QP@.MTH-H% NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wHNZOQ . . . . . . . . . . .MEMN% tgfiélxmhm ‘Comm: “auburn o» pnwfimum MN .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w MO GM O $ Hm 5 B 8 E 6% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wamfip. o% mm 5 3 Nw m2 $ 6Q . . . . . . . ...Hofi~.6Qo-.~wn8o on. "c033 wwpmwtfi EN Aug . . . . . . . . . . . . . JUMO~UQN~ OE ¢@ -OQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NPHM.NAHQP OE Hm g 5 $ >2 v2 323D . . . . . . . . .Lopw.~mQc|.6cBo on. "cofioo unwTCQ wmpmfiiws wwumgbws wmuwmzfiws wwpmmzimn wwpwwiws wwpmwiwn wfisomz 98E wfisumg wcmm @2532 95m flab 83H $2 £2 $2 s2 ufiuuuck- ckzwafi ca.» 25:3 diagona- mvl>va~ 5:38 .3 mohuw kozko 3 :83» .3 Ban $.- wchzfl! wank?!» wofizfiamo .3 acmtaaioO .2 Baum. 28 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION EFFECT OF MECHANIZATION ON THE COMPETITIVE POSITION OF COTTON It is estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the cropland acreage in the High plains cotton area is devoted to the cash crops of cotton and grain sorghums. Cotton acreage decreased from 1,- 072,000 in 1943 to about 400,000 in 1945 and 651,000 in 1946, as reported in USDA publications. In 1947 and 1948, the acreage increased to over 1,800,000 during each year, and reached a peak of about 2,384,000 acres in 1949. The acreage devoted to grain sorghum, the competing cash crop, greatly increased during the war years. According to esti- mates prepared by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, acreage of grain sorghum in the area increased from 1,036,000 in 1941 to 2,568,000 in 1945 and to 2,317,000 in 1946. Acreage decreased to about 1,100,000 in 1947. Estimates are not avail- able for the acreages of grain sorghum grown during 1948 and 1949, but it is known that they decreased with an increase in cotton acreage. Probably the most important reason for the increase in grain sorghum acreage and the decrease in cotton acreage during World War II was the complete mechanization of the grain sorghum crop. This occurred with the introduction of combine- type sorghum during the early War years and was accompanied by an increase in both the demand for and the price of feed grains. Furthermore, the labor supply on farms decreased be- cause many people left the farms for military service or indus- trial employment. As both cotton and grain sorghum are well adapted to the area, many farmers turned to the crop that had the lower labor requirements. After the war, the farm labor situation improved, grain sorghum prices declined, use of irri- gation expanded and farmers greatly increased their cotton acreage. With the introduction of combine-type sorghum, only slightly more than 4 hours of labor are expended per acre in producing the crop with 4-row tractor equipment on dry-land farms and 6 hours on irrigated farms. For cotton, the total labor require- ments amount to about 23 hours on dry-land and 46 hours on irrigated land when hoeing and harvesting are done by hand. Table 13. Comparison of estimated average returns to owner-operator, tenant and landlord producing 150 acres of cotton, 1950 Dry-land cotton Irrigated cotton Item Owner- Land- Owner- Land- operator Tenant lord operator Tenant lord Hand harvested . . . . . . . . . . $ 8 ,461 $ 5 ,452 $ 3 ,009 $ 16 ,279 $ 10,896 $ 5,383 Machine harvested . . . . . . . 9 ,896 7 ,015 2 ,881 18 ,921,, 13 ,842 5 ,079 r MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 29 These labor requirements for cotton are based on a dry-land yield of 200 pounds of lint per acre and an irrigated yield of 420 pounds. Such a difference in labor required places cotton at a disadvantage during periods of labor scarcity. Although hand hoeing in the foregoing requirements accounts for 3.8 hours of labor per acre on dry-land cotton and 4.7 hours on irrigated cotton, hand harvesting requires about 75 percent of the total labor on dry-land and 70 percent on irrigated cotton. No hoeing is required for combine sorghum and harvesting re- quires only 27 percent of the total labor per acre on dry-land and 21 percent on irrigated land. The use of the mechanical stripper for cotton harvesting can materially reduce the labor requirements for cotton production and greatly increase its competitive position with respect to grain sorghum in the farming systems of the area. Although there is some field waste and grade loss when harvesting cotton mechanically, man hour requirements may be reduced from about 17 hours per acre on dry-land and 33 hours on irrigated cotton to approximately 1.5 hours and 2 hours, respectively, assuming the yields previously mentioned. The hoe labor requirements for cotton may be greatly reduced or eliminated in the future through the use of some of the fol- lowing: rotary hoes, machine choppers, chemicals and improved seedbed preparation. Planting storm-resistant cotton along with the use of a successful defoliant would reduce waste and grade loss when harvesting mechanically. Assuming that the hand hoeing operation may be eliminated by two additional cultivations and that mechanical harvesting becomes general through the use of a satisfactory defoliant, man labor requirements for cotton could be reduced to about 4.5 hours per acre on dry-land and 11 hours on irrigated land. Such a reduction in man hour requirements would materially improve the competitive position of cotton, particularly during periods of labor scarcity. POSSIBILITIES FOR EXPANDING THE USE OF MACHINE HARVESTERS There can be little doubt about the possibilities of greater use being made of mechanical harvesters by cotton growers on the High Plains of Texas. Ginners have invested in special equipment to handle machine-harvested cotton. Manufacturers continue to improve the design and operation of strippers. Ma- chinery dealers have enlarged their inventory to assist in repair and maintenance of harvesters. Plant breeders are improving varieties so that farmers can plant storm-resistant cotton that is betted adapted to machine harvesting. Growers each year are becoming more experienced in stripper operation and as a result, machine-harvested cotton arrives at the gin looking as 30 BULLETIN 735, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 14. Usual hand harvesting charges compared with those necessary to compete with mechanical harvesting Dollars per 100 pounds of snapped cotton 1947 1948 1949 Item Competi- Competi- Competi- Usual tive Usual tive Usual tive Dry-land cotton: First-time over... 2.25 1 22 2.00 2 05 2.35 1.28 Scrapping . . . . . .. 2.50 1 31 2.25 2 31 2.00 1.08 Irrigated cotton: First-time over... 2.25 1 04 1.75 1 48 2.35 1.17 Scrapping....... 2.50 1 15 2.00 1 69 2.00 1.00 l well or better than hand-harvested cotton, insofar as trash and dirt are concerned, when the harvesting is done at the same time. Some field loss and perhaps a reduction in grade due to weath- ering in the field may be expected when harvesting is done ex- clusively by machine. Often additional costs are involved for ginning because of heavier loads of seed cotton required per bale of lint. However, under average conditions prevailing in 1947-49, harvesting by machine proved to be profitable. Com- parisons are shown in Table 14 between the usual rates charged per hundred pounds of seed cotton for hand harvesting and the rates that would have been necessary to equalize the returns contrasted with machine harvested cotton. The figures in Table 14 are based on data shown in Table 8' for 150 acres of cotton. In 1947 and 1949, reduction in wage rates of between 45 and 50 percent would have been required on dry-land cotton and be- tween 50 and 55 percent on irrigated cotton for hand harvesting to have been as economical as mechanical harvesting. As pre- viously explained, the customary hand harvesting rates as used in this report on dry-land farms in 1948 were lower than the rates that a number of growers had to pay. In fact, many dry- land growers were unable to hire hands because of the excep- tionally low yield. The usual wage rates paid by dry-land cotton growers included in this study in 1948 were slightly below the competitive rates that would have made returns comparable with mechanical harvesting. Harvesting labor rates for irri- gated cotton in 1948 were lower than those for the other two seasons. The usual rates would have required a reduction of about 15 percent to provide comparable returns. During periods of labor scarcity and relatively high labor rates, the operator and his family may do essentially all of the work involved in harvesting cotton mechanically on many farms. This provides good use for such labor and reduces the cash costs involved in harvesting. The operator also may dispense with MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE HIGH PLAINS 31 the costs incident to recruiting and housing harvest labor crews. On the other hand, if the labor supply is plentiful and Wages are relatively low, some of the production risk may be avoided by hand harvesting the open cotton before frost and relying upon machines for scrapping after frost. The migrant labor problem was further complicated in 1950 by restrictions on the use of child labor. Under the 1949 child- labor amendment to the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, children under 16 years of age cannot legally be employed in agriculture during school hours. Difficulties were experienced by labor families, cotton producers and school officials in their attempt to comply with provisions of the new law. The avail- able field labor force from a given number of migrant labor families may be reduced and wage rates may rise as a result of this legislation. All the factors cited in this section emphasize the probabil- ities of an expanded use of mechanical harvesters under present conditions. Should a satisfactory defoliant be developed, a great- er expansion of mechanical harvesting may be expected and hand harvesting would be eliminated on many farms in the area. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of C. A. Bon- nen, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, and E. L. Langs- ford, U. S. Department of Agriculture, in organizing the study and in reviewing the manuscript. Appreciation also is expressed for helpful suggestions given by Don L. Jones, superintendent of TAES Substation No. 8, and L. O. Buchanan, in charge of the USDA Cotton Classing Office, both at Lubbock, Texas. This study would not have been possible without the cooperation of the many cotton growers, ginners, implement dealers and coun- ty agents in the High Plains cotton area who gave freely of their time in furnishing information. This report is a part of a larger study of the economic aspects of mechanized production and their implications in Texas. The research is conducted cooperatively by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture. It is supported in part by funds appropriated under the Research and Marketing Act of 1946.