|N 949 _ MARCH 1960

{X

 
 

./;

_ ‘@999, “
<3‘ P‘)
4.
 \_lf>“q<
\' 9-

Economics of Mééihaniéalefpfiotton Stripping

on Blaekla”I1€‘  OFarms

   

     

 

NARTLEV

 

HOWE HUTOHIN- ROBERTS
SON

POTTER CARSON

   
  

GRAY

    
 

ARM-
STRONG

    
 

DONLEY
WORTH

    
       
    
  

PARMER CASTRO SWISHER BRISCOE HALL

    

    

       

   

FLOYD NOTLEV COT TLE WlLBAR-

GER

  

BAILEY LAND HALE

  

VIIONITA

          

 
   

BAVLOR ARI-W!"

MONYAOUE

   
   
    
   

 
  

THIOQ’ you“;

i
8‘-

 

LYNN

     

"W PARKER
PmTO

HOOD

   

UJLOERSON WARD

     
   
   
  
     

CORYELL

REEVES

HARRIS

 
   
   

 

PM!‘
GENO

GANDERA

 
 
 

mutton BRAZORM

 

    
      
   
   

ATASOOSA \6<ARNE$
' GOuAD

   
   

a“ ammo

It
HUI-LEN

JIM WELLO

NIDALGO

a} L

V. I

b_ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

f R.D. LEWIS, DIRECTOR,COLLEGE STATION,TEXAS

IN COOPERATION WITH THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

as " -'-"

CONTENTS

    

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Introduction............_...... .. "
Backgroundlnformationm“..................
Current Situation..................
FarmsStudied........................ 
Successful Stripper Operations . . . . . . . . ..
Preplanting Operations... .. ........ & _
Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Planting............................ 'V
Fertilizing..................
Cultivating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Insect Control . . . . . . . . . . .. 
Desiccation-Deioliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Stripping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Hauling.......................
Ginning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
PlantDisposal................
Postseason Field Preparation. . . . . .
Harvesting Experiences. . . . . . .. 
Changing Cotton Acreage... .......
Evaluation oi Harvesting Methods. . . . . . . . . 
Ownership of Stripper....................
Fiber and Fabric Testing..............
Aclmowledgments.................

Economics 0i Mechanical Cotton Stripping
nn Blacklantl Farms

Ralph H. Rogers and C. A. Bonneni‘

N INCREASING NUMBER or FARMERS in the Blackland
Prairies area of Texas are adding to their farm
turns by harvesting cotton with mechanical strip-
rs. Experience gained over a number of years has
nvinced some stripper users that harvesting all their
tton by machine is satisfactory and economical.
thers rely 0n hired labor for early-season harvest
d use strippers for the rest.

The study reported here was made to permit an
onomic evaluation of machine versus hand harvest-
g of cotton in an area in which machine stripping
relatively new.

An unfavorable growing season in 1952 resulted

low yields on cooperating farms and in the area

t general. Record high yields were obtained the

llowing year. There were no cotton acreage re-

irictions in 1952-53, but allotments in 1954 brought

out a marked reduction in cotton acreage. A hot,
y season in 1954 resulted in very low yields.

Relatively good yields were obtained on the re-
uced cotton acreage in 1955. The 1956 season, how-
t er, was similar to that of 1954. The hot, dry weather
sulted in low yields and low returns from cotton.
etailed production records were not obtained from
operating farmers in 1956 because of the similarity
a 1954 conditions. This report, therefore, is an eval-
tion of mechanical cotton harvesting in 2 “good”
nd 3 “bad” years.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Before World War II, parts or all of the 33 coun-

‘es included in the Blackland Prairies area (as shown
n the cover) produced 33 percent of the Texas cot-
n crop on 32 percent of the Texas cotton acreage.
i ring the 5 years when records were obtained from
operators, the percentages of the States cotton pro-
uction were 2O and 24, respectively. Blackland cotton
rmerly sold at premium prices when longer staple
nd preferred character were recognized by buyers as
pical of many lcipalities in the area. With farm

bor scarcity, caused by wartime conditions, many

; rowers changed from planting open-boll varieties to

Resoectively, agricultural economist, Farm Economics Research
Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture; and professor, Department of Agricultural Eco-
nomics and Sociology. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

tighter, more storm-resistant types to permit harvest
workers to “pull” or “snap” bolls, instead of the slow-
er and more expensive “picking” that was done pre-
viously.

Volume leadership in the area was lost with the
increase in production of irrigated cotton on the
High Plains and in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
The damaging freeze in the Valley in 1951, which
killed most of the citrus trees, combined with the
relatively high prices received for cotton during the
postwar years, initiated the increase in acreage of cot-
ton as a substitute cash crop. The phenomenal in-

crease in the number of irrigation wells, and the ex- ~

panded acreage of irrigated cotton on the High Plains
during 1948-53, established this part of West Texas
as the major cotton-producing area of the State.

CURRENT SITUATION

In the Blackland area, cotton acreage per farm
and total cotton acreage have been reduced under
the acreage allotment programs. Although present
allotments are based on historical records of indivi-
dual farms, the average cotton acreage in the area is
almost a third of the cropland on cotton-producing
farms. A majority of the growers use storm-resistant
varieties more suitable to the rougher harvesting by
hand-pulling or by machine. About a fourth of the
producers in the Blackland counties participated in
the soil bank program in 1953. Cotton acreage on
these farms, as well as on “nonagreement farms,” gen-
erally was on the best cotton land available.

An adequate number of gins in the area have

been modernized to the extent that the rougher-har-
vested cotton can be ginned satisfactorily. However,
even the best gins cannot turn out a high-quality
product unless the seed cotton delivered to them has
been harvested properly.

FARMS STUDIED

In 1952, a number of growers in Hill, Ellis and
Johnson counties planned to harvest cotton with
strippers. Sixty-three of these farmers provided the
information for this study. Of the 3,226 bales of cot-
ton grown on these farms, 2,772 bales, or 86 percent,
were harvested by mechanical strippers. All the cot-
ton on 34 farms was harvested mechanically. In ad-

3

dition, 35 machine owners custom-harvested 1,134
bales for other farmers in the area.

Of the cotton grown on cooperating farms, 74
percent was harvested mechanically in 1953; 91 per-
cent in 1954; and 88 percent in 1955.

Bales harvested per machine on cooperating
farms during the study were:

1952 1953 1954 1955

Own cotton ...... .- 44. 80 23 44
Custom harvested 18 18 6 8

Total ...... -- 62 98 29 52

Of the 63 operators, 39 used strippers for the first
time in 1952. Twenty operators began stripping in
1951; 2 in 1950; and the rest in 1949. It was observed
generally that the growers having more experience
using strippers produced the better grades.

Reports from county agents in the area indicate
a substantial increase in the number of cotton strip-
pers since 1952, while, statewide, stripper numbers
have doubled.

SUCCESSFUL STRIPPER OPERATIONS

The following operations are presented to sum-
marize the experiences of the more successful farm-
ers in the area who have adopted mechanical har-
vesting as a regular part of their cotton production
program.

Preplanting Operations

To be most successful with a stripper, plans
should be made before planting time. Steps should
be taken to assure a relatively weed-free field. Long,
straight rows are desirable. On contoured or terraced
fields, the number of point-rows should be kept to a
minimum. Residue from a preceding crop should
be disposed of to prevent corn, sorghum or cotton
stalks from clogging the gathering units of the strip-
per the following fall.

Varieties

A variety of cotton with storm-resistant charac-
teristics is essential for satisfactory mechanical-strip-
per harvesting. During the study; cooperating farm-
ers used several of the stripper-type varieties available
in the area. Growers and cotton breeders are con-
cerned with the desirability of variety improvement
to obtain seed with higher germination and better-
yielding varieties of longer staple length.

Planting

On most farms, planting was in 38-inch rows, but
40-inch rows are recommended for most strippers.
Planting solid in the rows has become almost a uni-

‘versal practice with stripper operators. Close plant-

4

 
   
 
   
    
  
    
 
  
     
  
   
  
  
    
  
   
  
  
 
   
    
 
 
   
   
   
  

ing makes for the thicker, more uniform sta i
sary for good stripper harvesting. '

Growers have increased the amount ,
planted per acre for machine harvesting. l,
was used by some farmers, but 24 pounds of“
linted seed per acre was the most common rate
cooperators in the study. ‘
Fertilizing V.

Very few cooperators used fertilizer on th
ton. However, most farmers are interested
taining higher yields. Experimental work i
Blackland Experiment Station at Temple sh
tle net returns from the use of commercial f
A few cooperators have tried, or plan to use g,
mentalT, anhydrous ammonia either ahead of '~
i“ 

Cultivating

The number of cultivations and amount c;
ing necessary to control weeds and retain soil
ture depend on the season and field conditions
cessful stripper operators keep in mind that}
easier to do a good job of harvesting on a fiel
tively free of weeds. During the growing seas,
planting beds are worked down so the crop 
laid by with a slight depression between the.
The leaf-trash then will tend to collect betw
rows, thus leaving the rows of plants relatively-
with a minimum of debris in the way of the ;i_
ing units at harvest time. 1

Experiments at Substation No. 23 at Mc
with herbicidal oil applications hold consid
promise for successful weed control under caref a
tural practices, as a preplanting operation an]
ing the growing season. Particular attention is.
to the eradication of Johnsongrass. Reducti
elimination of hand labor and “stoop work” rj
cotton in a better competitive position with syn _
fibers. t

Insect Control

The frequency of application and the kind‘
amount of poison required, depend on the -
and the seriousness of insect infestation. Sever’
operators followed the “early-poisoning p110:
each year, chiefly to control thrips, flea n‘
aphids and overwintering boll weevils. In '
where recommended practices were followed,
erating farmers realized a net increase of $7.6
acre. Controlling insects in the early stages of c
plant development encourages early and dete 
fruiting and more uniform maturity of the crop,‘
mitting early harvest and resulting in better 1 

Cooperators in Hill, Johnson and Ellis co 1
in 1955, who planted cotton before May 15 and t;
controlled insects early in the season, realized;
more per acre than did the growers with late vi

p» little or no insect-control program. Early and
plete destruction of the cotton plants after har-
ting is another step in minimizing insect damage.

_i siccation-Defoliation

At least 8O percent, and preferably 90 percent,
‘the bolls should be open before chemicals are ap-
'ed ahead of stripping. Desiccation or defoliation
fore plant maturity often results in reduced yields
d causes ginning difficulties, with weak and short
rs and a lower price to the grower. Desiccation
'es the leaves on the plant without removing them,
creas defoliation causes the leaves to fall.

Application with a four-row sprayer having two
four nozzles per row was common, although some
9- was made of airplanes on a custom-rate basis. Ex-
rience varied widely, so that no exact “best way”
be stated as to sprayer speed, tank pressure and
ny other items. On farms where good results were
tained, precautions were taken to insure complete
nt coverage. Trying to defoliate when the wind
blowing more than l0 miles an hour makes it diffi-
lt to do a good job.

Desiccation is preferred over defoliation by most
owers. The most common desiccant, pentachlora-
enol (PCP) concentrate, under a variety of trade
mes, was used on the farms in this study. An
erage of a barrel of material was applied to 7 acres

cotton. This chemical mixture consisted of 4 gal-
ns of concentrate in 50 gallons of diesel oil. The
a t averaged $2.50 per acre for spray material alone,
cluding limited use on a few farms of a QA-D addi-
ve to prevent regrowth.

In testing seed produced during the first 3 years

the study, no harmful results were observed in
- d from plants treated with ZA-D. However, tests

seed grown in 1955 showed that germination was
out 50 percent for seed from 2A-D-treated plants
d about 75 percent for seed from plants treated
ith other chemicals in preharvest preparation. Seed-
ngs from 2,4-D-treated seed showed leaf and root
j ptoms typical of Z/l-D damage and poor growth.
veral cooperating farmers in 1953-54 used some
,4-D as a “plant-killer” with no harmful results evi-
ent in the seed, probably because the plants were
ore nearly dormant at harvest time. However, be-
us; of late rains in 1955, many plants were in ac-
‘veé growth when sprayed. This is the only reason
Advanced so far as to why the 1955 seed tests differed
om previous tests. Meal made from cottonseed pro-
uced on defoliated plants showed no toxic effects
om chemical treatment. of the plants.

Thirty to 40 acres may be sprayed at one time,
ith a few days interval before applying chemicals to
nother similar block. This procedure permits strip-
ing under optimum conditions that might not exist
f too many acres were desiccated or defoliated
head of the stripper. Unless a plant-killer is used,

serious regrowth may occur, especially in a harvest
season marked by frequent rains. Most operators
plan to start stripping cotton 7 to l0 days after chem-
ical application. However, considerable variation
may be caused by plant conditions in certain fields,
or by rain that may delay the stripping operation for
several days. Sometimes repeating application on
parts or all of a field may be necessary, thereby in-
creasing harvesting costs. An unusually dry season
at harvest time may permit stripping 3 to 5 days after
applying chemicals.

Some cooperators have applied arsenical sprays,
but the danger of poison to humans and livestock is
an ever-present hazard that demands caution in their
use.

Stripping

The skill of the tractor driver often determines
the amount of cotton lost in the stripping operation.
He must keep the tractor on the rows, drive at the
proper speed, keep the elevator adjusted to put cot-
ton in the trailer, manipulate the tractor carefully
at turn-rows, and so on. When other conditions are
favorable, a good stripper usually has a smaller field
loss than would an average crew of hand-pullers.
Time spent in making proper stripper adjustments
before starting to harvest will help obtain optimum
results. Variations in plant conditions often occur
from one field to another, or even in different parts
of the same field. A good operator will keep rollers,
gathering units and other parts of the stripper ad-
justed to changing plant and field conditions to ob-
tain the best results.

Possibly a tractor driver can harvest cotton alone,
but most operators have someone in the trailer to dis-
tribute the cotton as it comes from the elevator. If
someone is in the trailer, unnecessary tramping
should be avoided to prevent dirt and trash from be-
coming imbedded in the lint. A blower attachment
is commonly used on the elevator. This permits bet-
ter load distribution, eliminates some dirt and trash
and makes it possible to concentrate many of the
green bolls in the front end of the trailer. If there
are many green bolls, they may be ginned after dry-
mg.

Where the cotton stalks meet or overlap in the
middles, wheel shields on the tractor are advisable.
If a field contains “dead cotton” resulting from root
rot or some other reason, roller attachments or “stalk-
walkers” are recommended. These press-wheels, or
rollers, attached at the back end of the gathering
units prevent dead plants from being pulled into the
gathering mechanism.

Hauling

The more experienced operators prefer trailers
holding around 4,500 to 5,000 pounds of seed cotton
(fZ-bale capacity). Using wire on the sides of the

5

trailer has some advantages. It makes the trailer
lighter and some dirt and trash is blown or jostled
out enroute to the gin. Disadvantages of such wire-
side trailers, however, are the destructibility of the
wire and their limited use in hauling other crops.

A good trailer now costs about $400. If long
hauls are contemplated, the tires should be kept in
good condition. Because of the limited use of trail-
ers during the year, the annual cost per acre, or per
bale, is a significant item.

A large crop, such as occurred in 1953, caused
some congestion at most gins at the height of the har-
vest season. Longer than usual hauls were made
often to get more prompt ginning, thus making
empty trailers available more quickly.

' Ginning

i.

Many gins in the area have modern cleaning and
drying equipment. Gin improvement is necessary to
permit handling hand-pulled as well as stripped cot-
ton. Less than 2 percent of the Blackland cotton is
now estimated to be picked by hand.

Good ginning is necessary to get the highest
grade possible from a given load of seed cotton. Ade-
quate cleaning equipment is required. If drying is
needed, too much or too little heat can affect the
quality of the fiber. At the peak of the ginning sea-
son, there is a temptation to gin each bale in the
shortest possible time. This procedure does not pro-
duce the highest possible grade in all instances.
Neither ginners nor growers benefit from the gin-
ning of cotton that is immature, has many green bolls
or is too wet or trashy. Even the best gins cannot
turn out high grade lint from poorly harvested cot-
ton. Growers often urge fast ginning to get their

-.trailers back as soon as possible. In this highly com-

petitive business, ginners try to please their custom-
ers, so farmers and gin operators alike share the re-
sponsibility for the rapid processing which may re-
sult in overdrying, 2-sided bales and other quality re-
ducing effects.

  
   
   
  
   
   
  
 
 
    
 
     
  
   
  
   
  
   
 

Plant Disposal

By cutting or shredding and covering st
mediately after the cotton is harvested,’ more",
allowed for plant decomposition and some in k
trol results. Where the pink bollworm-conti
gram is in effect, plant disposal is required. »

Postseason Field Preparaition

More soil compaction is experienced in st
than in hand-harvesting cotton. In defoliati
stripping, the rows are traveled extra tim
tractor, stripper and trailers. Operators often g{
furrow after harvest to breakup the compac‘
between the rows, thus permitting fall rains t“
trate the subsoil and retard run-off.

Harvesting Experiences

1V ide variations in yield per acre occurred.
area and on the cooperating farms during the”,
Table 1. During a 27-year period (1928-54) ,[
in the area averaged 153 pounds of lint, 
from 106 to 234 pounds per acre, according to?
crop reports. Below-average yields occurred i ej
1954 and 1956. Yields in 1953 and 1955 were],
average, with 1953 a record high year. Ha
vesting costs to cooperating farmers, includini
ing and ginning charges, averaged $57.54 
during 1952-55. Comparable costs for stripp
ton, including defoliation or desiccation, av,‘
$38.33 per bale, Table 2. t

Yields of mechanically harvested cotton i‘
1952-55 averaged 140, 284, 117 and 218 pounds,‘
per acre, respectively. In the part of the Bla
where the study was made, seasonal rainfall i,
was below the average for the whole area. .
situation with respect to season and resulting-r
should be kept in mind in considering the fol”
comparisons and analyses. '

Two ginners in the area, who were pat"
by a number of the cooperating farmers, su
Smith-Doxey grade information, bale weight lg

   
 

TABLE 1. COTTON ACREAGE AND YIELD IN TEXAS AND BLACKLAND AREA AND YIELD ON COOPERATING 
1952-56, AND AVERAGE 1946-55 
COUQII CICIf-Idqe Yield, lint per acre
Year Texas Blaacrkelgnd Texas Blacfrkelgnd Coo! 1
géegg  Pounds Pounds i
1952‘ 11,756 2,630 155 135
1953‘ 9,568 2,466 217 234
1954 8,065 1,901 245 133
1955 7,270 1,668 281 219
1956 6,200 1,583 280 129
Average 1946-55 8,617 2,472 208 163

‘No acreage control program.
2Records not obtained.

6

 

 

 
  
  
  
   
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
   
   
   
 
 
 
  
  
 

ut data 0n all bales ginned during 1953-54 for
h they had knowledge of the harvesting method
. Four gins cooperated in 1955. Grade and staple
rences, as reflected in quotations from a leading
I merchant, were applied to each bale in arriv-
_ rat the value of the cotton. Most of the stripped
‘on was the Lankart-57 variety. The hand-har-
ed cotton consisted of Rowden, Deltapine, Em-
- , Lankart and other varieties common to the

s The harvesting costs per bale for stripped cot-
_ averaged 68, 50, 88 and 58 percent of the costs
hand-harvested cotton during 1952-55, respective-
This variation in relative costs was caused largely
the significant difference in average yields per
. The importance of getting high yields to assure
nomies of machine harvesting is emphasized by
t results of the study. Farmers could not prevent
 unseasonally hot, dry summers in 1952, 1954 and
6, but cultural practices discussed earlier are those
- more successful growers try to follow in achiev-
; higher than average yields. The yield on some
s was so low in 1954 and 1956 that had it not
n for strippers, probably no cotton would have
r harvested from many of the fields. Even with
rkers in plentiful supply, it would have been dif-
“ult to get them to pull cotton when 6 to 8 acres
re needed to provide a bale.

 anging Cotton Acreage
g Cooperating farmers planted 70 percent of their
pland in cotton in 1952 and 66 percent in 1953.

Under the acreage allotment program, cotton was pro-
duced on about half the cropland acreage in 1953,
and was reduced to a little more than 40 percent in
1955.

Participation in the soil bank program in 1956,
in addition to the acreage-allotment program, was ex-
tensive in the area. More than 19,000 farmers put
almost 250,000 acres in the reserve program. A record
of participation was not obtained from farmers co-
operating in this study in 1956, but it may be pre-
sumed that the combination of allotment and reserve
programs resulted in a substantial decrease from the
average of 264 acres in 1952.

About a fourth of the farmers participated in
the acreage-reserve program in 1957. Participants
placed 16.5 acres per farm in the cotton-acreage re-
serve, for which they received an average of $28.35
an acre. The acreage available for cotton production
averaged 25.4 per farm for all cotton farms in the
33-county area.

As cotton acreage decreased under the allotment
and conservation programs, more of the cropland in
the area was planted to corn, sorghums and small
grain, particularly oats. Cotton continues as the chief
money crop, but with decreasing acreage and subse-
quent smaller production per farm, net farm returns
have diminished.

Two items remained relatively steady during the
study. Wage rates for hired labor, both for hoeing
and for snapping cotton, varied little. The local loan
rate for Middling cotton, 15/16-inch staple, was

TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE DATA FOR HAND AND MACHINE-HARVESTED COTTON, 1952-55

Item 1952 1953 1954 1955 Average
st per bale: — - — — —— — — — Dollars -— — — — — — — — —
nd-harvested cotton:

Snapping and hauling 43.05 42.19 42.20 46.76 42.52
Ginning 14.68 15.01 16.37 15.69 15.02
1 Total 57.73 57.20 58.57 62.45 57.54
achine-harvested cotton:
Detoliating, stripping and hauling 18.92 9.61 22.36 12.40 16.15
Overhead, stripper 5.47 3.46 11.70 6.52 6.31
Ginning 15.00 15.35 . 17.60 17.02 15.87
‘ Total 39.39 28.42 51.66 35.94 38.33
and-harvested cotton:
‘aarms, number 29 31 5 9 18
’ creage harvested per iarm 54 75 62 24 60
Bales harvested per farm, number 16 46 16 11 28
Yield per acre, pounds 143 292 122 224 226
‘Average seed cotton required
per 500-pound bale. pounds 2,050 1.875 2.110 e 2,175 1.931
Wage rate per cwt. seed cotton, dollars 2.10 2.25 2.00 2.15 2.12
_ achine-harvested coltoin‘:
Farms, number " 63 51 36 17 42
Farms doing custom work, number 35 29 12 7 21
Acreage harvested per operator 211 166 119 115 168
A Bales harvested per operator, number 62 98 29 52 65
Yield per acre, pounds 140 284 117 218 185
Custom rate charged per cwt.
seed cotton, dollars 1.25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Average seed cotton required
per 500-pound bale, pounds 2,150 2.100 2,150 2.250 2,160

 

TABLE 3. ESTIMATED COST OF HARVESTING 100 ACRES

OF COTTON AT THREE LEVELS OF YIELD, WITH HARVEST-

ING DONE BY HAND AND MECHANICAL STRIPPER, USING
1959 PRICES

Yield, pounds oi lint per acre

Item 12s 25o s75
————Dol1ars————
Mechanical harvesting:
Stripping cost 975 1,100 1,300
Hauling and ginning‘ 806 1,612 2,417
Total harvesting cost 1,781 2,712 3,717
Harvesting cost per bale 68 52 48
Hand harvesting:

Snapping 1,313 2,625 3,938
Hauling and ginning’ 747 1,494 2,241
Total harvesting cost 2,060 4.119 6,179
Harvesting cost per bale 79 79 79

‘Gin charges: 65c per cwt. seed cotton plus $4 per bale tor
bagging and ties = $18.95, plus 25c per cwt. seed cotton
tor hauling to gin = $24.70 total per bale. Assumes 2,300
lb. seed cotton required per 500-lb_ gross-weight bale.

’Gin charges: 65c per cwt. seed cotton plus $4 bale for bag-
ging and ties = $17.65, plus 25c per cwt. seed cotton for
hauling to gin = $22.90 total per bale. Assumes 2,100 lb.
seed cotton required per 500-lb. gross-weight bale.

31.80, 32.57, 33.12, 33.41 and 31.56 cent a pound in
1952-56, respectively.

Over the season, and as an average at the coop-
erating gins, machine-stripped cotton was valued at
about $5 less per bale than hand-pulled cotton. Hand-
pulled Middling 15/16-inch cotton was discounted
by an average of 300 points off the loan basis, while
stripped cotton averaged 400 points off. If these dis-
counts were applied to the average harvesting costs
on the cooperating farms, the return advantage for
stripped cotton would be a little above $14 a bale,
Table 2.

Average harvesting cost per bale,

hand-harvested cotton .............. ..$57.54
Average harvesting cost per bale,

machine-harvested cotton ........ --$38.33
Difference ........................................ .-$l9.2l
Additional discount per bale,

machine-harvested cotton ........ --$ 5.00
Net advantage of

machine harvesting .................. --$l4.2l

TABLE 4. ESTIMATED PREHARVEST COST OF PRODUC-
ING 100 ACRES OF COTTON AT THREE LEVELS OF YIELD,
USING 1959 PRICES

Yield, pounds of lint per acre

“em 12s 25o s75

— — — Dollars — — —

Labor 625 695 775

Tractor and machine use 375 400 430

Seed 330 340 350

Poison material 200 350 500

Total preharvest cost‘ 1,530 1,785 2,055
Preharvest cost per

bale harvested 59 34 26

‘Excluding overhead.
8

  
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
   
  
    
  
  
  
   
    
 

EVALUATION OF HARVESTIN I
METHODS

Economic data obtained from this study I
useful to a Blackland cotton farmer who s‘
cided as to whether to continue harvesting l}?
or to change completely to harvesting with q

per.

It is impractical to illustriate comparati if
and returns for a large number of individual
However, assumed situations may serve as a1
in determining the relative economy of the I
ing method under selected yield and price.
Production methods, as disclosed in the study f.
1959 cost rates, have been used in estimatin
and returns, Tables 3 to 7. ‘

ASSUMPTIONS
Size of farm: 400+ acres
Total cropland: 300 acres
Cotton allotment: 100 acres

Cotton lint, yield per acre:
three levels—l25, 250 and 375 pounds. i

Prices received for lint: two levels-

Hand-harvested cotton, 25 and
30 cents per pound.

Machine-stripped cotton, 24 and
29 cents per pound.

These prices reflect 100 points off for
machine-harvested cotton.

Value of cottonseed: $40 per ton.

Preharvest costs reflect average Blackland ‘-
ations, seeding and poisoning rates, using 2
prices. No fertilizer applications are included. 

Harvesting costs include hauling to thei;
Hand-snapping and defoliation are charges f,
the applicable harvesting method. s‘

Table 7 shows estimated returns to land;
management from cotton. From these estimat
turns from machine harvesting are $5 to $6 =3
bale over hand-harvesting when yields are t,‘
125 pounds of lint per acre. With yields at one
to three-fourth bale per acre, returns are $22
more a bale, respectively. I i

Ownership of Stripper

On a farm with 100 acres of cotton or less, W
yields average a quarter bale per acre, it pro
would not be economical to own a stripper '
custom work could be done each year. If low-
ing cotton on the smaller acreages can be stripp, '
a custom rate of $1 per hundredweight of seed,
ton, delivered to the gin, it probably would 
hire stripping. However, it is not always possibl
hire work at the most opportune time. '

  

Machine harvest

3i 5. ESTIMATED COST OF PRODUCING 100 ACRES OF COTTON AT THREE LEVELS OF YIELD, WITH HARVESTING
DONE BY HAND AND MECHANICAL STRIPPER

Hand harvest

 

  

 
 

Item Pounds of lint per acre Pounds oi lint per acre

125 250 375 125 250 375

—- — — — -— -— — — Dollars — — — — — — -— — -

harvest costs 1.530 1.785 - 2.055 1.530 1.785 2.055

y _ esting costs 1.781 2.712 3.717 2.060 4.119 6.179

otal costs‘ 3.311 4.497 5.772 3.590 5.904 8.234

 per bale 127 86 74 138 114 106
eluding charges for overhead. land and management.

This analysis indicates that if stripping can be importance. Micronaire measurement and often

   
 
  
   
 

ed at $1 per hundredweight, a farmer having
1y 50 acres of cotton with yields averaging one-
rth bale per acre could save $180 by hiring cus-

stripping rather than owning and operating his
n stripper. He could own a stripper, harvest his
tton and arrange to net at least $180 worth of cus-

stripping to break even. With 100 acres of cot-
n yielding only a quarter bale per acre, the ad-
ntage of hiring the harvesting done at the forego-
g rate would be small and could be offset readily
, more timely harvesting, usually resulting in bet-
grades, or by doing some custom stripping for
hers. Where the cotton acreage is more than 50,
'th yields of half a bale per acre or more, it is more
onomical to own a stripper.

  
   
   
  
   
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  

iber and Fabric Testing

Throughout the study, efforts were made to get
mparisons of quality between hand and machine-
rvested cotton. However, it was difficult to do so
vcause identical situations were rare. On the few
I rms where the same variety of cotton was harvest-
.0 by the two methods from the same or similar fields
. d then ginned at the same gin, little difference was
served in either grade or staple, especially when
roper preparations were made and a good job of
ripping was done.

Fiber quality determination as a pricing factor
; now a cotton marketing requirement of increasing

strength determination, as supplements to grade and
staple, are depended on by many firms. The current
loan-evaluating schedules frequently do not permit a
spread among the various classifications that indicates
effective market demands. Therefore, discounts and
premiums based on grade and staple alone cannot
necessarily reflect the real value of cotton as an end-
use product.

An attempt was made in 1955 to learn more
about the end-use value of cotton as related to the
method of harvesting. The following procedures and
findings summarize the results of the study.

Two samples, each containing about 25 pounds
of lint, were obtained from each of four farmers in
different locations in the Blackland. One sample was
hand-pulled cotton, the other defoliated and ma-
chine-stripped cotton. Seed cotton for each sample
on the same farm was of the same variety, produced
under identical conditions, harvested from the same
field and ginned at the same gin on the same day.
The gin speed and heat applications were alike.
Everything but harvesting methods were as much
alike as possible.

The eight samples were tested at the Textile Re-
search Laboratories, Texas Technological College,
Lubbock, Texas. The results are shown in Table 8.

Yarns of 14's count were made from each sample.
At the Brenham Cotton Mills, these yarns were used

  

ABLE 6. ESTIMATED VALUE OF LINT AND SEED PRODUCED ON 100 ACRES OF COTTON AT THREE LEVELS OF YIELD
AND TWO PRICE RELATIONSHIPS. WITH HARVESTING DONE BY HAND AND MECHANICAL STRIPPER

-.~ Machine harvest Hand harvest
Item Pounds of lint per acre Pounds of lint per acre
125 250 375 125 250 375
i1. —-—-———— ——Dol1ars—-———————-—
clue oi lint and seed!‘
At 25c per lb. hand-
harvested cotton 3.555 7.111 10.666 3.686 7.372 11.058
At 30c per lb. hand-
harvested cotton 4.208 8.416 12.624 4.338 8.677 13.015

Assumes 100 points oil ($5 per bale) for machine-stripped cotton as compared with hand-pulled cotton. Cottonseed valued

at $40 per ton.

 

9

TABLE 7. ESTIMATED RETURNS TO LAND AND MANAGEMENT FROM 100 ACRES OF COTTON AT THREE LEVELS if
HARVESTING DONE BY HAND AND MECHANICAL STRIPPER '

AND TWO PRICE RELATIONSHIPS. WITH

Machine harvest

   
 

Hand harvest

 

 

Item Pounds oi lint per acre Pounds of lint per y l
125 250 375 125 250 i’ t
— — — — — — — — — Dollars — — __— — — — — ac
Value of lint and seed at 25c per 1b.,   g
hand-harvested cotton‘ 3,555 7,111 10,666 3,686 " 7,372
Production cost, 1959 prices: 3,311 4,497 5,772 3.590 5.904
Returns to land and management 244 2,614 4.894 96 1,468 S
Return per bale I 9.40 50.27 62.74 3.70 28.23 ]
Value of lint and seed at 30c per 1b.,
hand-harvested cottong 4.208 8,416 12,624 4,338 8,677
Production cost, 1959 prices: 3,311 4.497 5,772 3,590 5,904
Returns to land and management 897 3.919 6,852 748 2,773
Return per bale 34.50 75.36 87.84 28.77 53.32

‘24c per lb. for machine-harvested cotton.
229a per lb. for machine-harvested cotton.

as filler in weaving light-weight twill, which was
given a differential dye at the Southern Regional Re-
search Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana. Each
sample of cloth was subjected to breaking strength
tests at the USDA Cotton Testing Laboratory, Col-
lege Station, Texas. Results of the breaking tests
also are shown in Table 8.

The higher nep count in the stripped cotton ob-
tained on Farms I and II was reflected to some ex-
tent in the cloth appearance after dyeing. Otherwise,
the color absorption in the eight samples appeared
about the same.

No significant difference in breaking strength of
the fabrics was measurable in comparing cloth made

 
   
   
  
  
 

from hand-harvested and cloth made from _
harvested cotton. In this rather detailed test-
end-use product-cotton cloth—little difference
trinsic value was discernible when comparing
woven from cotton part of which was nondef"
and hand-pulled, and part defoliated and l_
stripped. The average penalty, or difference in]
of a 500-pound bale of cotton of $5.33, I?
against the rougher-harvested, stripped cotto
more than offset by the lower cost of harvesti i7
suming the same difference in costs between ha j
machine harvesting on the four sample farms ’
obtained on cooperating farms in the study, 
advantage of about $15 a bale for machine 
ing is evident. I

TABLE 8. LABORATORY TEST OF COTTON FROM FOUR BLACKLAND FARMS, 1955

 

 

Farm I Farm II Farm III Farm s.’
Sample bale
Item Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Harvested by— .
Hand Machine Hand Machine Hand Machine Hand 
Upper-halt mean Inches 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.86 0.88 0.99
Uniformity ratio Percent 75 75 75 76 81 78 78
Pressley strength 1,000 lb. 86.9 85.5 76.7 82.8 82.5 82.1 81.3
Fabric-breaking strength Pounds 112.4 114.4 93.4 92.0 105.4 101.4 103.0
Fineness » Micronaire 3.5 3.4 4.7 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.6 ’
Maturity i Percent 84 80 82 78 76 81 78
Light reflectance Percent g 61 64 69 62 60 62 56 .
Picker-card waste Percent 9.95 10.17 7.79 10.16 9.84 11.0 8.05 1
Shirley analysis Percent 4.2 4.0 2.3 5.2 8.2 4.8 4.0 
Neps per 100 square inch Number 28 48 26 47 22 28 14 ‘g
Equivalent grade and staple‘ Dollars SLM29 LM+29 M+29 SLM29 SLM28 LM+29 SLM+32 S ,
Value per pound oi lint Cents 30.66 29.16 32.26 30.66 29.66 29.16 33.46 '
Value per 500-pound bale Dollars 153.30 145.80 161.30 153.30 148.30 145.80 167.30
Harvesting cost per balei Dollars 56.14 41.75 56.14 41.75 56.14 41.75 56.14
Returns above harvest cost Dollars 97.16 104.05 105.16 111.55 92.16 104.05 111.16
Added returns per bale irom
machine-harvested cotton Dollars i 6.89 i- 6.39 —— 11.89 ———

‘Staple, thirty-seconds of an inch. Classification determined from above analyses.

“Average costs on sample farms in the study, 1955.

l0

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

_This study was made possible through the coop-
'on and assistance ol many people. More than
Blackland farmers provided information basic to
areport. Ginners, farm equipment and supply

rs and local government agency representatives
‘" useful data and suggestions.

..Invaluable work was done by the Textile Re-
h Laboratories, Texas Technological College,
bock, Texas; by the Brenham Cotton Mills, Bren-

.~.a;,§

ham, Texas; by the USDA- Southern Regional Re-
search_Laboratory, New Orleans, Louisiana; and by
the USDA Cotton Testing Laboratory, College Sta-
tion, Texas.

Technical assistance by Wayne C. Hall,  M.
Ward and Elton Cook of the Texas Agricultural, Ex-
periment Station staff is acknowledged.

This study was conducted cooperatively by the
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Farm
Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research
Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

ll

  

i mm STATION
Q ‘nus SUBSTATIONS
I "mas FIELD LABORATORXES

Q COOPERATING STATIONS

Location oi iield research units oi the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating

agencies

ORGANIZATION

OPERATION

Research results are carried to Texas farmers,
ranchmen and homemakers by county agents

and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex-

tension Service

3 ’ :7 ’ 
oclay .4 peziearcA .95   ommorrow A regress 

   

    
   
    
       
  
      
  
  

State-wide Researc 

‘k

The Texas Agricultural Experiment Stati’
is the public agricultural research agen 
' oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi te-l
parts oi the Texas A6¢M College Syste I

IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 16 v
matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory services and»
administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Tex
21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14- cooper
stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T
Forest Service, Came and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison 
U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technolo
College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. a
experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. 

THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projects, gro 
in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. a
these are:
Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle
Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle
Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats
Grain crops Swine
Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys p
Vegetable crops Animal diseases and parasites,
Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game ~_
Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engineering 
Oil seed crops Farm and ranch business
Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural produc’
Brush and weeds Rural home economics 
Insects Rural agricultural economics 1
Plant diseases

Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, the
WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWS oi
hundreds oi problems which coniront operators oi
iarms and ranches, and the many industries depend-
ing on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main
Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to
these problems.