TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS, Director, College Station. Texas ' 765 Storing offered Cotton _ as an Aid to More Efficient Ginning and Marketing is I953 The TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM GIBB GILCHRIST. Chancellor [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] PREFACE This project was initiated t0 determine the effects 0f mechani- j - of hand harvesting has frequently been inadequate to keep up i | the rate 0f harvesting. a As the shift from hand to mechanical harvesting increases, ;- length of the harvesting season will inevitably be shortened. _' length of the ginning period for currently harvested cotton will shortened in like proportion. Thus, the balance which has been blished over the years between the size of the cotton crop and rate of harvesting and ginning capacity will be disturbed. 4 Three solutions seem to present themselves, singly or in com- Ftion, as the means of fitting the pattern of ginning to the pat- a of mechanical harvesting: (1) increase the ginning capacity mpensate for the shortening of the harvesting period; (2) in- - the number of days of full-run 24-hour ginning; and (3) the ‘ 'ng of seed cotton for ginning after the close of the harvesting ‘.~ n, or after the peak of the harvest. This bulletin gives information on three methods of storing n the rate of harvesting exceeds current gin capacity. These : (1) storage in seed-cotton houses at gins, (2) storage in the W on farms and (3) storage in farm buildings. The study was confined largely to the High Plains since me- f‘ 'cal stripping has been adopted extensively in this area. Field f age studies were in this area. j Storage in seed-cotton houses was studied in the Gulf Coast _ Records for 3 years covering a large gin seed-cotton house _ - available. - A mail survey of ginners over the State early in 1950 indica- f that 50 percent have had no experience in ginning mechanical- rvested cotton. The problem of adjusting ginning capacity to f rate of mechanical picking and stripping at peak periods is still state of flux except in the High Plains area where field storage :- d cotton has been a satisfactory method of adapting ginning w city to mechanical stripping. harvesting on the ginning business. Ginning capacity at the If Preface ........................................................................................................................... -- q Introduction .................................................................................................................. -- t Fitting Pattern of Ginning to Pattern of Mechanical Harvesting ------------------- -- Views of Ginners Regarding Effects of Mechanical Harvesting g on the Ginning Business ..................................................................................... --:1 Uses of the Seed-cotton House ................................................................................ -- Early Use ..................................................................................................... -- A CONTENTS Controls of Seed-cotton House Recent Use .................................................................................................... -- 1 Rate of Ginning from the Cotton House ................................................. -- Cost of Cotton-house Operation .............................................................. --gjb Use to Lengthen the Ginning Season................_..._.....,....... Results of Seed-cotton House Operations ............................................. ..; Harvesting and Storage on the High Plains, 1949-50 ......................................... Use of Trailers ............................................................................................ .. Gin Capacity on the High Area of Mechanical Stripping ............................. Q .................................... .. Farm Storage of Seed Cotton ............................................................. Labor Requirement of Farm Storing ...................................................... Requirements in Reloading Seed Climatic Factors ........................................................................................... Weather on the High Plains 1949, 1950 and Seasonal Operations of l Results of Storage, 1949 ........................................................................... .. Growing Season and Gin Capacity, “' Factors Related to Quality, Results of Storage, 1950 ......................................................................... .. Results of Storage, 1951 .......................................................................... .. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. .. Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... .. 1 Storing of Seed Cotton a: an Aid tolMore Efficient Ginning and Marketing J. M. Ward, W. E. Paulson and D. L. Jones* g FORE the invention of the saw gin, cotton production in the ted States was limited by the amount of lint and seed that could parated on the roller gin and by hand. Whitney’s gin and equent improvements largely removed this limitation. How- I, for a while, cotton production increased more rapidly than the cfng capacity. The planters soon established a balance between production and ginning of cotton. The use of slave labor per- ed continuous picking of the crop until all the cotton was re- sped from the fields, and its ginning became a task for the winter ‘i: when the slave would have otherwise been idle. f, After the Civil War, the small planters, tenants and share crop- ;; found it to be more economical to gin at commercial gins er than to try to operate a gin of their own. Many cotton pro- ‘_rs had small seed cotton storage houses in the fields in which P cotton was stored and then hauled to the gin at convenient At the same time, planters found it reduced the labor cost 'n the cotton as the picking progressed. ,With the advent of the modern gin, a balance was established een the rate of harvesting and the rate of ginning. The cotton ' ginned at about the same rate that it was harvested. A [Stripping of cotton was tried on the High Plains as early as j The first animal-drawn commercial strippers were intro- '0 to help with the harvest of the large 1926 crop. These strip- ;: were made by local blacksmiths and farmers. A few one and _row tractor-mounted strippers were built in 1930. At that labor was plentiful and cheap. There was little incentive to these rather crude strippers. They stripped off the entire boll fragments of the stalk. Thus, the task of separating the lint y‘ the foreign matter was forced on the gin. Tractor-mounted pers began to be used on a fairly large scale in 1944, after a od of almost no interest in strippers on the part of both the ‘ er and industry during the depression years of the 1930's. i’ Today, the ginning industry is faced with a situation which atens this balance. Two men and a tractor-mounted strlpper pectively, assistant professor and professor, Department of Agricultural nomics and Sociology, College Station, Texas; and superintendent, Sub- ion No. 8, Lubbock, Texas. _6_ can harvest as many as 10 bales of cotton a day. Thus, as mu cotton can be harvested with a stripper as 47 men can harvest ~ hand. (Based on one man snapping 400 pounds of cotton a d and a 500-pound bale of lint requiring 1,900 pounds of seed cotto On the High Plains, where the stripper is now used extensive mechanical stripping usually is delayed until after frost. Gins‘ this area nearly always have a surplus of seed cotton on their ya ; during the peak of harvesting. With fair weather, the cotton c f can be stripped within a 30-day period. A gin, having a 24-h capacity of 120 bales and a volume for the season of 6,000 bal could gin only 3,600 bales during the harvesting season and woo be faced with a surplus of 2,400 bales over its harvesting peri capacity. These 2,400 bales of seed cotton would have to be left on gin yard, or stored in the seed-cotton house or on the farm, or , ginning facilities would have to be increased to enable the gin _ of the entire volume during the 30-day harvesting period. ‘ As the use of mechanical pickers in other areas increases, v gins in such areas will be» faced with a surplus of seed cotton,‘ their gin yard throughout the peak of the harvesting season. i situation however, is not expected to be as acute as it will be in » areas where the tractor-mounte-d strippers are used. Fitting Pattern of Ginning to Pattern of Mechanical Harves Three solutions seem to present themselves, singly or in c‘ bination, as a means of fitting the pattern of ginning to the y tern of mechanical harvesting: (1) increase the ginning capa to compensate for the shortening of the harvesting period; (2)0 crease the number of days of full-run 24-hour ginning; and (3) h storing of seed cotton for ginning after the close of the harvest season. Ginners already in the business are having to add r drying and. cleaning equipment to their plants to give good se . on mechanically-harvested cotton. The addition of new gin p 1 would materially increase the investment in the ginning busi and would greatly increase fixed costs of the Texas ginning l; ness as a Whole. ‘ The proportionate shortening of the harvesting season the adoption of mechanical harvesting will not call for a propo »= ate increase in gin capacity. For Texas as a whole, gin cap‘ has been adjusted so that the entire crop could be ginned, n average, in about 24 days of full-run 12-hour day operations. i ing years of normal cotton yields, or less, the days of full-cap ginning are relatively few. Full-capacity ginning during the l; harvesting period would compensate in large measure for the If ened period because of mechanical harvesting. The questio fitting ginning to harvesting is as much a matter of insuring run 24-hour ginning during the harvesting season as it is of inc _ ing ginning capacity or of storing seed cotton for ginning after close of harvesting. . _7_ Views of Ginners Regarding Effects of Mechanical Harvesting 0n the Ginning Business . A schedule was mailed to all Texas ginners early in 1950. This jhedule sought information on such matters as: experiences in ‘ning mechanically harvested cotton; number of patrons with pechanical harvesters; listing of patrons with facilities for the ‘ring of seed cotton on their farms; capacity of seed-cotton ‘uses on the gin lots; the use made of the cotton houses during e 1948-49 and 1949-50 seasons; and the nature of the controls ercised over the movement of seed cotton into the cotton house ji the selection -of the time of ginning out of the cotton house. g Schedules were returned by 340 ginners, or 15 percent of all Tex- ginners. The analysis made of the schedules returned should be ken to represent the reporting gins and not all gins. Half of the iporting gins had no experience in the ginning of mechanically ‘rvested cotton. A summary by areas of the 1951 survey follows: Lower Rio Grande Valley: Very few ginners have seed-cotton houses. Increased gin capacity, more trailers and maximum use of present gin-capacity were suggested by the ginners to counter the effect of the increased use of mechanical pickers. Coastal Bend and Gulf Coast: Only a few ginners favored the use of seed-cotton houses; the high operating expense was mentioned. Several ginners said mechan- ically-picked seed cotton should be dried before storing in a gin seed-cotton house. A few suggested storage of seed cotton on the farm. Blackland Prairie: Full-run 24-hour capacity was adequate over most of the area. More trailers and storage on the farm would assist in solving the problem as mechan- ical harvesting increases. A few ginners advocated sheds for trailers and seed-cotton houses. El Paso Valley: This area had no mechanical pickers and no seed-cotton houses at the gins. Rolling Plains: Gin capacity is ample in years of nor- mal production. Thirty percent of the reporting ginners suggested storage of seed cotton on the farm prior to a ginning. One ginner with a 100-bale seed-cotton house ~ expressed intentions to increase the capacity to 400 bales. High Plains: Ginners suggested farm storage of seed cotton and an increase in gin capacity. l Very few ginners favor the use of the seed-cotton house at - gin to facilitate the handling of daily harvesting in excess of i capacity. The most common objection is the fire hazard and ~ unavailability or prohibitive cost of insurance. The retarded, __3__ more costly rate of ginning out of the house is also- a factor. Gro ers clamor for bin space in the house in order to unload and retu . trailers to the-field when cotton on the gin yard exceeds immedia gin capacity. Those unable to obtain cotton-house space usua, feel that available storage is allotted to favorites. Several ginne contend there is no profit on cotton ginned out of the house. l. High Plains ginner with a 200-bale house rarely uses it. Th1 gin is a cooperative. The directors and patrons believe that gif ning off the yard is more rapid and less costly. a Uses 0f Seed-cotton House There are several distinct uses of the see-d-cotton house. The are to: (1) permit farmers to save planting seed, (2) enable " ners to buy and accumulate “remnants” in the seed, (3) pe v farmers to unload their see-d cotton in the house and return ..= ers to the fields more promptly when the rate of harvesting exc - i’ ginning capacity, (4) enable ginners to accumulate a backlog of s :1 cotton to be ginned when the rate of harvesting is below ginni capacity and (5) permit the storage of seed cotton to be ginn after the close of the harvesting period, thereby lengthening t _ season. ~ Early Use The first seed-cotton houses were constructed by ginners f permit the accumulation of several bales of seed cotton by farme wishing to catch the seed for planting purposes. At this time, t.‘ animal-drawn wagons used for hauling seed cotton to the gins J ually had a capacity of only one bale. Generally, growers own) only one or two wagons. ‘ When seed cotton is to be ginned to obtain seed for planti‘ purposes, it is necessary to clean the seed rolls of the gin befoi . ginning. If this is not done, the grower saving seed will have s , of the preceding bale mixed with his seed. When ginning cot =; off the yard, ginners do not clean the seed rolls between each gro“ er’s seed cotton but stop the operation of each stand as the cotton ceases dropping from the feeder-cleaners. The use of =‘ seed-cotton house permits the ginning of several bales for play ing seed with one cleaning of the seed rolls. Thus, the seed-cot i, house was important to facilitate saving of seed for planting d it ing the period when farmers had low capacity wagons. At the end of the season, growers frequently bring less th bale lots of seed cotton to be ginned. This cotton dribbles in 0v a period of several weeks. For several days, there-may be no i ceipts. If the ginner gave immediate service, it would necessita the availability of a full crew. Ginners usually buy such cot i in the seed and operate the gin when a sufficient volume is acc mulated or the gin is to be closed for the season. Thus, the ginn __9___ islaved the expense of ginning small lots and the farmer makes " isfactory disposition of his lint and seed. y In many areas, trailer capacity is now two to six bales. Grow- having several trailers of this kind can gin three or more loads La time. If the seed from the first bale of such a lot is not saved _, planting purposes, the seed from the following bal-es do not tain enough foreign seed to be objectionable. A seed-cotton A se at the gin is not needed in such instances. Controls of Seed-cotton House Operations f: The controls exercised by ginners and patrons over the move- nt of seed cotton into and out of the storage houses determine , efficiency of operation. One form of grower control appears ~> the maneuvering of some patrons to obtain exclusive use of eral bins by unloading small amounts of seed cotton in each bin t not enough to fill them to capacity. As a consequence, cotton se capacity is poorly utilized. A ginner may discourage this tice by reserving the right to throw a tarpaulin over the seed ' on already in the bin. This permits putting another grower’s t cotton in the same bin when the demand for storage is urgent. ‘the grower decides the time of ginning,‘ the ginner is hindered lginning out of the cotton house whenever slack periods develop. en when the ginner has control of ginning out of the house, it (‘difficult to exercise it on seed cotton stored for the purpose of "Vng planting seed. Usually in such cases, ginning can take place y when the growers are present and prepared to catch the seed. jis not easy for the ginner to exercise complete control of move- int into and out of the seed-cotton house and still have the good of all his patrons. Recent Use f‘ The cotton house has been used in recent years to permit wers to unload trailers and trucks in order that they might be t rned more promptly to the fields. The stored seed cott-on is ned when the gin yard is cleared. Ginners having houses of e capacity make use of them to accumulate cotton for lat-er ing when the gin is temporarily closed for emergency repairs. eas where 24-hour ginning for a period of several days or weeks ssible, ginning off the yard in order of arrival is given pre- Eence to ginning out of the house. Seed cotton stored at the be- _ ing of such a period frequently remains for several weeks be- e it is ginned. Price changes during the storage period result ains on advances in the market and losses during declines. Rate of Ginning from the Cotton House i One additional handling is involved when ginning out of the ‘-cotton house. The cotton must be put in the house with the ventional suction system. In ginning from the cotton house, r man can direct the flow of seed cotton to the gin more rapidly when‘ __1()_ the seed cotton is forked t0 an opening in the floor from which it is.‘ drawn into the suction pipe which delivers the seed cotton to thei gin. Two or three men. are usually required in this operation. One ginning from a truck or trailer. When ginning from the house, it the rate of flow to the gin is frequently uneven. This often results { in inadequate seed cotton for three or four stands and an insuffi- a cient or no supply for the fourth or fifth stand. Thus, the gin is ; not operating at maximum efficiency at all times. The caking or I formation of large masses of seed cotton while in storage may con-j tribute to the retarded feeding rate. These masses must be broken-T into smaller pieces before they can enter the opening to the suction; line. ‘ Cost 0f Cotton-house Operation Very few ginners separate the cost of the seed-cotton house operation from gin costs. For this reason, it is not possible to. determine the cost of storing seed cotton in the house with an degree of accuracy. The following data illustrate the difference in labor costs between ginning off the yard and out of the house, based on one modern 6-80 plant on the High Plains. The ginner stated that when ginning off the yard he could gin 80 bales in a 12- hour run, but when ginning out of the house he could gin only 70. bales. The labor cost of ginning 80 bales from the yard is $75, or 94. cents per bale. (Twelve-hour shift; 2 ginners, 1 at $1.25 per hour? and 1 at $1.00; 2 press men, 1 suction and 1 yardman, all at $1.009 per hour.) The cost of labor to gin 70 bales from the house in the same time is $99, or $1.41 per bale. (Twelve-hour shift; 2 gini ners, 1 at $1.25 per hour and 1 at $1.00; 2 press men, 1 suction ma‘ at time seed cotton went in house and 8 men to regulate the flow, out of the house, all at $1.00 per hour.) The increased labor cos in ginning from the house is 47 cents per bale. The seed cotto flows through the suction line a greater distance at a less rapid rat; Thi(s1 involves increased power requirements over ginning off th yar . Y Another cost to be considered is insurnace on seed cotto; stored in the house.’ Insurance companies do not quote rates bu bargain with each ginner. For many gins the cost is prohibitive. Of the seed-cotton houses observed, the ginner with the larges? storage space had two houses with a total capacity of 760 bale This gin is in the Gulf Coast area. A record of seed-cotton hou operations for 3 years was available. One house had a capacity o 360 bales and the other 400 bales. A summary of storage holdin l in the two houses during the 1949 season, from July 5 throug November 29, is shown in Table 1. The maximum storage attain , was 394 bales. The larger house is adequate for this volume. The ¢ were only 25 days when storage exceeded 350 bales and 37 da ‘i _11_ Table 1. Pattern of storage, 1949 crop, of a 760-bale capac- ity seed-cotton house in the Gulf Coast area Storage in seed-cotton house N0. of No. of days bales in storage 0 - 24 20 25 - 49 28 50 - 74 17 75 - 99 8 100 - 124 6 125 - 149 5 150 - 174 2 175 - 199 4 200 - 224 3 225 - 249 1 250 - 274 2 275 - 299 3 300 - 324 6 325 - 349 6 350 - 374 17 375 - 399 8 n it exceeded 300 bales. House capacity, therefore, was almost able maximum use. The cost of these two buildings was about $30,000. During J1949 ginning season, 1,709 bales were ginned from cotton stored _hese houses. These houses are used as a basis for approximating greciation and investment costs. Depreciation at the rate of jpercent per annum on the investment is. $750, or 44 cents per i Interest on investment computed at 6 percent totals $1,800, or 7V5 per bale. The foregoing costs of cotton house operation total $1.96 a bale fkusive of insurance. This increases the bale cost of ginning pf. the house and is burdensome to most ginners. Few ginners F. a charge for the use and services of the house. Only two of ‘ginners contacted made a charge for cotton house services. One ,ived 50 cents per bale and the other $1.00. Use to Lengthen the Ginning Season Jj Should the seed-cotton house be used to store cotton in order engthen the ginning season as much as 4 weeks, four houses l in capacity to the two 7 60-bale houses would be required. The has a capacity of 110 bales every 24 hours. The cost of these rses approaches that of a second gin plant. lHouse capacity Lluate for continuous ginning for 4 weeks would require the use ‘nsiderable gin yard space. The seed cotton would be moved Auch greater distance to the gin. Ginning would be at a slower ” with greater power costs. Another gin would probably be more "ble than a single gin with seed cotton storage capacity of 2,000 ,000 bales. _12_ Results 0f Seed-cotton House Operations There is no evidence to support the assumption that by sto 'i in the seed-cotton house, when there is a surplus of seed cottonj the gin yard, the ginner is able to increase the efficiency of gin by adjusting the pattern of ginning more advantageously to Ff pattern of harvesting. The size of the house and the rate of turnover determine , amount of seed cotton that can. be stored in the house. The i ning records of the two largest seed-cotton houses studied indi that the turnover of seed cotton in the house is low even when "hf is a surplus of seed cotton on the gin yard. Therefore, the us the seed-cotton house is primarily limited to its capacity, and» efficiency of operating the gin is not improved to any extent storing3 in the seed-cotton house, due to the fact that the seed #_ ton could be ginned as conveniently off the yard as out of the ho in The cost of operating the seed-cotton house is an additional c0 that of ginning the cotton directly -off the yard. a As farmers have pointed out, the advantage of the seed-co i house during peak ginning periods is that seed cotton can be 1' loaded immediately and trailers and trucks can be returned to‘ field. However, this does not improve the efficiency of ginnin Harvesting and Storage on the High Plains, 1949-50 _ A survey was made in the spring of 1951 to obtain informa on the harvesting and storage of the 1949 and 1950 crops. It were obtained on acreage and production, harvesting methods, ;: nings, length of stripping season, storage of seed cotton, tr capacity and capacity per stripper. The counties surveyed l shown in Table 2. f’ The survey data were expanded and adjusted on the basi 1950 Census data of the number of cotton farms and the ginnvv Tabl-e 2. Cotton ginned November 14 to end of season, ginnings during s, ping period, storage in trailers and number 0f bales in storah end of stripping period, eight High Plains counties, 1949 crop " Ginned Stnppmg. Perm‘? In stor County Nov. 14 to _ _ Posslbl? awaiti ' end of season Gmnmgs Storalge 1n ginnin trailers ; Bales j Cochran 44,329 7,821 2,213 34,295 Crosby 66,881 26,154 4,545 36,182 Dawson 109,948 38,556 4,444 66,94. Hale 81,631 20,655 8,963 52,01 Hockley 109,447 37,944 8,020 63,483 Lamb 130,023 45,198 12,918 71,90 .1 Lubbock 160,416 61,236 11,330 87,85, Lynn 101,813 39,150 5,188 57,475 ___i- Total 804,488 276,714 57,621 470,158? _._]_3__ 3. Assumed capacity of operating strippers, estimated trailer capacity " and operating gin capacity, eight High Plains counties,’ 1949 crop Operating Operating strippers Trailers gins Estimated Estimated Daily Daily - Number capacity Number capacity Number Capaclty (24-hr. run) Bales Bales Bales 700 5,600 872 2,213 11 990 575 4,600 1,739 4,545 20 1,800 900 7,200 2,093 4,444 28 2,520 753 6,024 3,549 8,963 17 1,530 1,100 8,800 3,461 8,020 34 3,060 1,000 8,000 6,378 12,918 31 2,790 1,060 8,480 4,815 11,330 36 3,240 850 6,800 2,444 5,188 29 2,610 6,938 55,504 25,351 57,621 206 18,540 iach of the eight counties surveyed. An analysis of these data “-. made to correlate the information with existing ginning capa- ~ and an assumed stripper capacity. Stripping is usually‘ started 8 to 10 days after the first killing _t. For the purpose of comparison, it was assumed that fair ther prevailed and all the 1949 crop in the eight counties was 'ped Without interruption, after November 13. The first column of Table 2 indicate-s the number of bales of Q cotton not ginned as of November 14. Assuming all of this ‘f. harvested by the number of strippers of eight bale daily capac- ‘shown in Table 3, then in Cochran county, for example, 7,821 y Would be ginned during the stripping period, 2,213 bales would in storage in trailers at the end of stripping and 34,295 bales ld be in field or other storage awaiting ginning. ~ Average daily ginnings per gin by ginning periods are shown ; able 4. These data and the stripper, trailer and gin capacities % able 3 were used in computing the data in Table 2. Should the h} ber of strippers indicated in Table 3 be diminished, the length he stripping period would be lengthened and the amount of seed _, n in storage at the completion of stripping would be less; Use of Trailers f Many growers attempt to maintain uninterrupted harvesting having access t-o large trailer capacity. This means that capac- ‘sufficient to maintain harvesting at the peak of the ginning 70d frequently involves ownership or access to trailers having pacity equal to 3 days harvesting. When the gin is closed for ergency repairs such capacity is temporarily inadequate. ,2 Some High Plains growers have a high investment in trailers. “one community, a grower had 30 trailers with a total capacity of Nov. 14 Dec. 1 Dec. 13 County through through through end seas ~ Nov. 30 Dec. 12 Jan. 15 _ (March i‘ _ Bales = Cochran 83 72 44 6 ' Crosby 85 63 41 4 $- Dawson 77 61 30 5 Hale 108 82 49 3 f Hockley 80 82 30 3 j Lamb 101 81 32 2 i Lubbock 105 84 37 3 Lynn 98 70 40 5 > Average 93 76 36 4 y __.14__. 90 bales of machine-stripped seed cotton. This represents an invest-l ment of over $6,000. It is doubtful if this is justified by the pGPiOr of about 30 days in which the trailers are used each year. The grow; er on an adjoining farm had a much smaller investment in trailersi 10 valued at $1,700, with a capacity of 30 bales. He stores pa s of his seed cotton in the field between the time of stripping an ginning. He has $700 invested in a hay-stacker power loader adap ed to seed cotton. His total investment is $2,400, or less than ha‘ that of his neighbor. By rotating 7 or 8 of his 10 trailers betwee the field and the gin he was able to maintain continuous harvesti :1. This was done by using 2 or 3 trailers for stripping and putting t t seed cotton above trailer capacity in field storage. The seed co; ton must be handled twice by the grower but reloading from fiel‘ storage with the hay-stacker requires only 16 man-minutes per bal Table 6. This grower makes his loader and operator available to h neighbors when they are ginning from field storage. They in tu p, loan him their trailers, one pickup-truck and operator to pull t ' trailers to the gin. The grower with the smaller investment 1' trailers and loader, thus, has large trailer capacity available wh“ ginning from field storage and avoids the investment and depreci tion involved in volume facilities. The hay-stacker is also availab for other purposes. I Gin Capacity on the High Plains Mechanical harvesting of cotton in Texas has made its gre, est advance in the High Plains area. A revealing index of :1 capacity in this area is the number of days of full-run ginni required for the entire crop. The Census Bureau in its surveys, “Cotton Ginning Machinery and Equipment in the United State for 1940 and 1945, asked each ginner how many bales he c0 gin in a 12-hour day of full-run. By relating such reported ca ity to the size of gins, the number of days to gin the crops for 0t 1i seasons than 1940 and 1945 can be computed. .- Table 4. Daily ginnings by periods, eight High Plains counties, 1949 c: Daily ginnings Jan. 16 ‘Census ginning data is not published for the period between January 16l March 20. ‘ ;\ _.]_5_ 5. Number of days of full-capacity 24-hour run that, would have been required to gin the whole cotton crop of selected High Plains counties Counties Crosby Dawson Floyd I Hale I Lamb |Lubbockg Lynn lAverage Days 43 46 30 30 33 45 58 43 20 19 17 14 15 18 21 16 13 17 9 13 16 17 22 18 12 17 13 13 20 14 15 15 28 25 10 18 17 26 25 22 18 34 19 14 14 25 38 24 19 22 19 18 20 26 25 22 14 22 12 14 22 30 33 23 6 3 6 5 3 7 3 4 9 13 18 16 14 20 7 14 34 42 28 36 48 55 37 42 19 23 28 36 31 35 18 27 62 62 56 71 61 67 64 64 pl 24 28 19 39 19 35 34 28 1 49 19 74 77 40 46 32 48 age 25 26 24 28 25 31 29 27 Table 5 shows the number of days of full-run 24-hour ginning t would have been required, on an average, for the 1937-51 sea- , to gin the cotton of seven cotton-producing counties of the h Plains area. Of special interest are the abnormally large ‘ps of 1937 and 1949, which would have required 43 and 64 days, ‘pectively, of full-capacity 24-hour day ginning. It seems evident ' tpresent gin capacity in the High Plains counties is adequate to _ dle a normal crop in a greatly shortened harvesting period pro- i ed full-capacity ginning is attained. Area of Mechanical Stripping Most of the mechanical stripping of cotton on the High Plains édone in the area north of the southern boundaries of Cochran, i; kley, Lubbock and Crosby counties. This applies especially to ton harvested entirely by mechanical strippers. In the area luth of this boundary, most of the c-otton acreage is usually “pulled per” one or two times by hand before stripping the remaining bolls ' machine. The stripping is done after frost has removed the v ves from the plants. - The survey" indicated 36 percent of the 1949 crop and 33 percent the 1950 crop was stripped mechanically. A shortage of ma- 'nes prevented more of the 1949 crop from being machine strip- Acreage restrictions and a more plentiful labor supply ac- zunted for the smaller part of the 1950 crop stripped mechanically. Farm Storage of Seed Cotton The survey data indicated 23 percent of the 1-949 crop was l red in the seed prior to ginning. This varied from 48 percent in ._.16__ Cochran county to 14 percent in Crosby county. Ninety perce of the storage Was in the field, with the remainder in the gin see cotton houses at the gin and in farm buildings. There was no sto i age of consequence in 1950 as most of the seed cotton moved dir from the field to the gin. » Farm storing of mechanically-stripped seed cotton in the Hi Plains area is of three types: storing in ricks on the ground, sto ing in out-door pens and storing in barns. Storing in ricks, or pil involves dumping the seed cotton on a Well-drained and cleared of the field. These ricks are shaped and smoothed for draina Ginning is done When facilities are available and the green b0 q have opened and dried. One disadvantage of field storage occ q in parts of the area having light sandy soils. The drifting of sag against the ricks causes difficulties in loading for movement t0 gin. To prevent this difficulty, growers build the ricks on gray‘ land, or store the seed cotton in pens of picket fence or net It is then possible» to remove the drifted sand from the side of t; pen, and have access to the seed cotton free of drifts after removi of the pens. i Labor Requirement of Farm Storing Farm storing of seed cotton requires additional unloading reloading. The main added cost of storing under practices exi ing on the High Plains is for labor. It was found that unloadi for farm storing required 45 minutes of labor per bale. This Figure 1. Unloading machine-stripped seed cotton for field storage, j Plains, 1949. f ._.17._ .» on one man ricking the 8 to 13 bales of daily output of a two- astripper. Many growers merely dump the seed cotton on the nd. Labor requirements for unloading into barns and outside j were found to be about the same as for ricks. Unloading of ' cotton for outside or barn storing was done from trailers equip- jwith false net-wire bottoms. These bottoms consisted of two ons of hog-wire spliced length-wise the inside width of the er. The length of the spliced section is at least 3 feet longer _' the trailer inside length plus the height of the two endgates. p» pieces of 2 x 6-inch planks are bolted together with the end of ispliced wire between. A bridle of chain or steel cable is bolted is. The false bottom is arranged to cover the bottom and ends he empty trailer with the excess length hanging over each end. in the trailer is ready for unloading, the endgate opposite the forced end of the false bottom is removed, a cable or chain is 5r hed to the bridle and the entire load pulled from the trailer a a tractor. Requirements in Reloading Seed Cotton ' One of four methods is usually followed in loading farm-stored '4 cotton into trailers for delivery to the gin: loading by hand 7. forks, loading with gin-type suction fans, loading with corn or 'n conveyers and loading with hay-stackers adapted to seed cot- ‘l Labor requirements, according to method of loading, are shown i, able 6. Loading with hand forks requires 6O minutes per bale. is based on a loading rate of 2 bales an hour for 2 men, one Jing and the other in the trailer when not assisting in loading “u the rick. Many trucks have sides too high to permit loading this method. Loading with a suction-fan requires 30 minutes fbale. This is based on a 2-man crew and a loading rate of 4 -~ per hour. Fans were equipped with a screen on the outlet ‘, permitting some small trash and dirt to pass over the side of trailer as the seed cotton left the discharge pipe. This was not sible with other type-s of loading methods. Fans are not adapta- ' to the loading of barn-stored seed cotton. Conveyer loading re- es 30 minutes per bale. This is based on a 5-man crew loading {bales an hour. Loading with a hay stacker requires 16 minutes 3 bale. This is based on a 5-man crew and a loading rate of 18 ' _s an hour. This type of equipment is not suitable for loading = -stored seed cotton. Many suction-fan loaders that were p-ur- : sed new and assembled into operating units in machine and sheet Table 6. Man-hour requirements. in loading seed cotton from ricks to trailers Method of I No. of men No. of bales Minutes per loading I in crew per hour bale Hand loading 2 2 60 Suction-fan 2 4 30 Conveyer 5 10 30 Hay-stacker 5 18 16 Figure 2. Loading machine-stripped seed cotton into a trailer from fi storage with a conveyer type loader, High Plains, 1949. f; F. 1 . e’: metal shops represent as much investment as in the hay-stac loaders. With the use of a stripper elevator, the labor required to ll’, seed cotton from the stripper into the trailer is reduced to a m' mum. Most cotton growers prefer to deliver their cotton dir from the stripper to the plant for immediate ginning. This w the extra labor incident to farm storing. With an increasing s; to mechanical stripping and prolonged favorable weather the of stripping may greatly exceed ginning capacity. Growers g can leave the cotton in the field for strpping later than usual; they can store the seed cotton in the field. Some growers prefer field-store the crop and seek ginning service later to avoid the f gestion at the gin during the peak of the stripping period. a Climatic Factors l In the High Plains cotton area of Texas, the growing se varies from 197 days in the northern section to 217 days inwi southern. In the central part, the average date of the first ff is November 4. Census Bureau data show that ginnings by Nov ber 1 account for 40 percent of the crop in the southern section; percent in the central and 28 percent in the northern section. "f; the advent of cold weather, natural defoliation occurs and the of ing of the bolls is hastened. A sudden hard freeze will cause leaves to stick to the plant and not drop off as is possible Whi light frost occurs. Acceleration of boll opening may be obtainedg chemical defoliation before frost. Defoliation by natural or artl ial means leaves the plants in the best condition for stripping. _..19_.. Weather 0n the High Plains, 1949-51 Rainfall in 1949 was 50 percent above average, (29 inches at hock) and there was a mild freeze, 24 degrees at Lubbock, ctober 31. Ideal weather for conditioning the cotton plants stripping and later storage in the field, prevailed until all the k= was ginned. The 1950 growing season was not typical of the High Plains. h of the dryland area did not receive moisture until too late to it a cotton crop. When the rains did start they were much ,.e seasonal averages in parts of the area, with summer temper- ' ‘is below normal. September weather was not conducive to '5 'ty of the cotton crop. The Weather in October was satisfac- [but the retarded growing conditions in August and September f not overcome. The first freeze occurred on November 4. This - Was severe, with 17 degrees at Lubbock and 20 at Lamesa. i. to the growing conditions prevailing prior to the termination e growing season, the cotton plants were not in the proper .’.-»'tion for this severe freeze. A light frost to defoliate the followed by clear and above freezing weather for 10 to 15 would have been ideal. The freeze of November 4 occurred I the bolls on much of the cotton crop were green and had a c: moisture content. §{ Rainfall in 1951 was below average, (14 inches at Lubbock). southern section of the High Plains had conditions more i thy than the northern. In the irrigated parts of the area, a csections had excessive September rainfall. This, with previous ‘ation, adversely affected the yield and quality of the cotton c. The first freeze occurred on November 1, with a temperature degrees at Lubbock. On November 2, the temperature drop- to 21 degrees. As much of the crop was planted late, this type 9 eeze did not condition the plants properly for mechanical strip- When stripping was underway, dust storms and damp periods ‘uently interrupted harvesting. This lowered the grades of the arvested cotton. Seasonal Operation of Strippers i-The 1949 cotton crop of the High Plains exceeded 1,500,000 1950 production was 712,000 bales and that of 1951 was ',000 bales. With the beginning mechanical stripping on a - scale, the daily rate of harvesting in 1949 and 1951 greatly ided the daily capacity -of the gins. When the daily rate of g harvesting is high, the gin plants usually operate on a 24- basis. If ginning capacity is close to the daily rate of strip- Y. the grower can solve the storage problem by owning trailer j ity equal to his daily harvest. In some sections during the ’est of the-1950 crop, the gins were behind as much as 36 to 48 1 . A small volume of seed cotton was field-stored in 1950, but g farmers merely deferred harvest until their cotton was ginned __.2()_. and the trailers were again available. This was possible with, too much risk with the small acreage and crop of 1950. In 1 as many as 300,000 bales of seed cotton were stored in the field one time. In 1951, possibly 75,000 bales were field-stored awai ginning. Results of Storage, 1949 Three hundred and two samples were collected from out-d, farm-stored seed cotton from the L949 crop. Fifty-four of t‘ samples were obtained at the time the seed cotton entered sto , and the remainder at, or near, the time of ginning from sto " stocks. The samples were representative of the counties in i ' machine-stripped cotton was farm-stored prior to ginning. k: were stored as collected and later ginned on a small one-stand 1' The grades of samples of mechanically stripped, storm and open-boll varieties are summarized in Table 7. All the " cotton samples were stored in sacks for a month or more before ning. The storage period prior to sampling was 4 to 9 weeks. rain fell during this period of farm storage. All the cottons sam f in Cochran county were produced under "dryland conditions. Eig eight percent of these samples were of stormproof varieties an percent of them were harvested on or before the end of the season harvesting period, (November 16 to December 5). Sevel nine percent of all samples and 86 percent of the stormproof. tons from this county were in the highest grade group. Th 1. maining samples were lower in grade. The growing season in. county is one of the shortest of any major cotton-producing co i in the area. Table 7. Variety, grades and period of harvest of High Plains cotton, st. 16w mid., mid. 1t. 9 roof Stripped and st. low mid. br; County Samples 8163135117166 before Stormproof All ' Dec‘ 6 varieties varie ' Number Percent Percent Percent Percei Bailey 2 100 100 100 100 Q Cochran 67 88 89 86 79:1 Crosby 6 33 100 a 100 83? Dawson 7 57 100 50 57: - Hale so 47 91 66 45; Hockley 50 44 90 45 a 3 i Lamb 20 50 95 80 50. Lubbock 35 37 80 69 57; Lynn 26 4 96 35; Terry % 100 100? Yoakum 7 86 100 86 86-; Total 302 ‘Percent strict low middling, middling light spotted and strict low bright. a _g1__ Growing Season and Gin Capacity, 1949 » Most 0f the cottons sampled in Hale county were from irrigated J fields. The length 0f the growing season is similar t0 that in Coch- ran county. Sixty-six percent of the stormproof varieties and 45 percent of all varieties were in the highest grade group. Forty- seven percent of all cotton sampled in this county was from storm- proof varieties. Growers in areas with the shortest growing season and the lowest gin capacity practice farm storing of seed cotton to the greatest extent. Farm storage of machine-stripped seed cotton was most prevalent in Cochran and Hale counties following the 1949 harvest. On a representative farm in Cochran county, 700 bales »were machine stripped from October 18 to November 17. A: light a, frost occurred October 10, which removed some of the leaves from ‘the plants. The first severe! frost was on October 31. This crop Mwas stored for 9 weeks in 10 large piles. Samples from this seed cotton at the time of ginning averaged slightly above strict low middlling. This was the highest grade obtained from any farm samp ed. Factors Related to Quality, 1949 Cottons which gave the highest grades were grown on sandy and sand loam soils. Seventy-one percent of the strict low middling bright grades and 49 percent of the strict low middling grades were produced on such soils. p Sixty-three percent of the samples from defoliated fields were [in the highest grade group. The proportion of samples from such fields was low, 6 percent. The use of chemical defoliants was help- ful, but not essential, to effective mechanical stripping of cotton ‘o under conditions prevailing on the High Plains during 1-949. Results of Storage, 1950 p One hundred forty-seven samples of seed cotton were collected . from the crop of 1950; 105 of these were of the stormproof varie- ‘ ties, mechanically stripped. Less than 10 percent was held in stor- -age between the time of stripping and ginning. The remainder was . ginned directly from the field. In. the parts of the area in which the bolls matured adequately during 1950, the grade and character of Tthe lint cotton were satisfactory. In such instances, 78 percent of the field-stored cotton was in the higher grade category (middling light spotted, strict low middling, strict low middling plus). Fifty- four percent of the stormproof cottons of the adequately-matured ‘category not field-stored were in the high grade bracket. This does Tghot imply that field storage resulted in significantly higher grades. It is the only comparison available. All the field-stored cotton was :ifrom one irrigated farm on which the crop was well matured. The ‘ttons not field-stored before ginning were from irrigated and _22__ dry-land farms on which the crops were also well matured. is evidence that the storage of mechanically stripped se-ed c0 s prior to ginning conditions it for more effective ginning. There no precipitation during the period of field storage of the 1950 i." Results of Storage, 1951 One hundred seventy-seven samples of seed cotton were c0 ed from the crop of 14951. Sixty-five of these were from tra at the time of harvest and 104 were from field storage at or g the time of removal from storage. The remainder was stor barns or gin seed-cotton houses. Seventy-six percent of all sa u" from field storage were low middling equivalent or better in 1 Q 69 percent of samples from trailers were in the same group. Q remaining samples were lower in grade. Hale county had a s“ what smaller proportion of the cottons from field storage inj high grade bracket. This is due to most of the field-stored ~-_ originating in the northwest part of the county. The growing son there is not as favorable for the production of desirable g f‘ as in the southern part, from which most of the trailer saf originated. In Lubbock county, a much larger proportion of higher grades came from the field-stored samples. Some of samples from trailers were from farms which had unfavo .4 growing conditions. This produced lower grades. Samples field-stored seed cotton receiving one inch of moisture when in age during the first week in January 1952 were of satisfa grade. They compared favorably with samples from seed c stored under cover at the time of harvest. " In a test conducted at Substation No. 8, Texas Agricul Experiment Station, Lubbock, the results of field storage of; chanically harvested seed cotton under 50 percent above 4 precipitation during December, January and February wer cellent. Two inches of moisture in two artificial applicatio addition to one inch in the form of rain, snow and ice we "g ceived by the test seed cotton between November 28 and Janui Grade was not lowered enough to justify the cost of protection p the weather. Some weather damage to field-stored seed could be expected to occur on the High Plains in an exception Cloudy weather and intermittent rains for a week or more f bring about such damage. The possibility of occurrence is o twice in 10 years, and then only in parts of the area. ’ __23_ Conclusions Year by year, an increasing portion of the cott-on on the High - s is being stripped mechanically. In the large crop year of , 35 to 40 percent of the crop was mechanically stripped. This if ntage is expected to increase. This type of harvest is adapted §¢ climate of the area. A large part of the crop is still unhar- g -» at the time frost kills and removes the leaves from the cot- lplants each fall. At this time each year, when production is normal or above, the p- can be stripped at a daily rate much above the ginning ca- y of the area. Growers have two choices—they can leave the in in the field for harvesting later than usual, or they can store seed cotton in the field. Most of the cotton growers of the High ' V,“ in 1949 and 1951 chose full-scale stripping and farm storage f‘ e surplus. Perhaps as much as 90 percent of the storage was e ground in the cotton fields. _ Field storage of mechanically stripped seed cotton is a satis- l ry method of adapting ginning capacity to mechanical harvest- 1on the High Plains. Field-stored seed cotton received no pre- htion of consequence during the storage of the 1949 and 1950 U: In January 1-952, field-stored seed cotton of the 1951 crop ‘subjected to 1 inch of moisture in a period of less than a week. ‘ cotton stored under similar conditions on the Lubbock Experi- t Station and wet artificially with 2 additional inches of 1nois- ; resulted in no decline in grade. In the Gulf Coast area storage must be under cover. Acknowledgments ».This study was facilitated by the cooperation and assistance ‘a cotton growers of the High Plains. All seed-cotton samples A ted from farmers were obtained free of charge. The ginning e samples was done with the help of the staff of Substation 8, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Lubbock. f The master thesis, “Storing as an Aid to More Efficient Gin- A of Mechanically Harvested Seed Cotton,” by Thomas M. Stub- eld, June 1951, was the main source of information dealing with goperation of seed-cotton houses on gin yards. _ llThe data of the study were processed by the Statistical Lab- pry of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. YThe counsel of T. R. Richmond and H. P. Smith was most help- uring the progress of the study.