Effects of Harvesting Method on Foreign Matter Content

Effects of Harvesting Method on Foreign Matter Content, Fiber Quality, and Yarn Quality from Irrigated Cotton on the High Plains Brock Faulkner, Bryan Shaw, and Eric Hequet 11 January 2008

The High Plains of Texas n Large cotton producing region n Harsh weather conditions n Traditionally n Substantial a stripper harvested region growth in yields

Pickers versus Strippers

Fiber Quality Staple Tenacity Micronaire UI% Color Leaf S, M, UI, & L US Base Lbk. 2006 34 95. 5% 26 3. 5 -4. 9 NR 60. 0% 80 -82 41 60. 5% 4 US=36. 3% 96. 9% 35. 6% Premiums/Discounts (2006 -2007) West Texas -61 SJV -9 International Base Lbk. 2006 35 28 87. 4% NR 3. 8 -4. 6 82 -83 38. 9% 17. 7% 31 3 US=8. 8% 422 1125 78. 1% 8. 4%

Objectives Determining differences in: – Foreign matter, – Fiber quality, and – Yarn quality between picker- and stripper-based systems

Fiber Quality Previous Research Field Cleaners § Bennett et al (1995) § Baker and Brashears (2000) Picker vs. Stipper § § § § Kerby et al. (1986) Brashears and Hake (1995) Vories and Bonner (1995) Brashears and Baker (2000) Willcutt et al (2002) Faircloth et al (2004) Mc. Alister and Rogers (2005) Yates et al (2007) In most cases, picked cotton was of higher quality than stripped cotton, particularly under adverse conditions.

Previous Research Yarn Quality – Baker and Brashears (2000) – Mc. Alister and Rogers (2005) No data has been published comparing yarn quality from traditional picker and stripper systems.

Data Collection 2006 n ST 4554 B 2 RF n One location n Three treatments – Picked – Stripped w/ FC – Stripped w/o FC 2007 n Four varieties – – FM 9058 F FM 9063 B 2 RF PHY 485 WF ST 4554 B 2 RF n Two locations n Two treatments – Picked – Stripped w/ FC

2007 Sampling Locations Muleshoe Plains

Data Collection

2006 Data Collection

2006 Data Collection

2006 Data Collection

2006 Data Collection

2006 Data Collection

Foreign Matter Content - 2006 Picked Stripped w/ FC Stripped w/o FC Lint and seeds 94. 0 x 82. 6 y 73. 1 z Foreign Matter 5. 2 x 16. 0 y 25. 8 z Hulls 2. 1 x 10. 4 y 19. 9 z Sticks 0. 5 x 1. 5 y 2. 0 y Leaf 2. 2 x 3. 8 y 3. 6 y Pin Trash 0. 3 x Motes 0. 09 x 0. 05 x, y 0. 02 y

Effects of Foreign Matter Treatment Turnout Electrical Consumption[a] (%) Gas Consumption[b] (k. W-h/bale) ($/bale) (MCF/bale) ($/bale) Cost to Producer[c] ($/bale) Picked 35. 63 44. 6 5. 95 0. 130 1. 49 33. 68 Burr Extracted 30. 20 47. 6 6. 35 0. 148 1. 69 39. 74 Non-burr Extracted 26. 62 59. 4 7. 94 0. 158 1. 81 45. 08 [a] Electricity costs based on a price of 13. 35¢/k. W-h [b] Natural gas costs based on a price of $11. 44/MCF [c] Based on ginning rate schedule of $2. 50/cwt seed cotton with no bagging and tie charges

HVI Results - 2006 Picked Stripped w/ FC Stripped w/o FC Micronaire 3. 5 x 3. 2 y Length (in. ) 1. 11 x 1. 09 y 1. 10 x, y Uniformity (%) 80. 4 x 79. 4 y 79. 2 y Strength (g/tex) 27. 1 x 26. 2 x 26. 6 x Elongation (%) 8. 4 x 8. 7 x 8. 5 x Reflectance (%) 81. 6 x 81. 1 x, y 80. 9 y Yellowness 8. 1 x 8. 5 x, y 8. 7 y Leaf 2. 0 x 2. 5 x 2. 3 x 0. 572 x 0. 542 y 0. 527 z Loan Value ($/lb)

AFIS Results - 2006 Picked Stripped w/ FC Stripped w/o FC Nep count (neps/g) 561 x 661 x, y 702 y SFCw (%) 16. 1 x 17. 3 x 17. 7 x VFM (%) 1. 06 x 1. 18 x 1. 15 x IFC (%) 12. 8 x 13. 7 x 13. 8 x Maturity Ratio 0. 78 x 0. 77 x

Length Distribution by Number

Carded Yarn Tests Picked Stripped w/ FC Stripped w/o FC Value Quality[a] (%) 1786. 3 x >95 1759. 5 x >95 1741. 5 x >95 Elongation (%) 7. 80 x <5 7. 91 x <5 7. 87 x <5 Tenacity (c. N/tex) 11. 89 x >95 11. 86 x >95 11. 94 x >95 CV (%) 22. 67 x >95 23. 43 y >95 23. 32 x, y >95 Thin Places 597 x >95 742 x >95 736 x >95 Thick Places 1641 x >95 1837 x >95 1808 x >95 Neps +200% 1542 x >95 1787 x >95 1785 x >95 Hairiness 4. 75 x 53 5. 08 y 74 5. 16 y 78 CSP (lb. Ne) [a] Quality percentile is based on global yarn quality statistics (USTER, 2001).

Carded and Combed Yarn Tests Picked Stripped w/ FC Stripped w/o FC Value Quality[a] (%) Noils (%) 17. 05 x N/A 17. 65 x N/A 18. 52 y N/A CSP (lb. Ne) 2058. 0 x >95 2050. 1 x >95 2037. 5 x >95 Elongation (%) 7. 98 x <5 8. 00 x <5 8. 01 x <5 Tenacity (c. N/tex) 13. 42 x >95 13. 40 x >95 13. 26 x >95 CV (%) 16. 81 x >95 17. 24 y >95 17. 37 y >95 Thin Places 47 x 89 58 y 92 55 x, y 92 Thick Places 290 x 85 348 y 87 360 y 87 Neps +200% 1030 x >95 1260 y >95 1320 y >95 Hairiness 4. 22 x 24 4. 41 y 45 4. 49 y 52 [a] Quality percentile is based on global yarn quality statistics (USTER, 2001).

Conclusions n Foreign matter content differed significantly between all treatments n Mic, length, and UI were better for picked cotton than for stripped cotton, leading to a higher loan value n Little difference in yarn quality between harvest treatments for selected samples

Thanks to… - Cotton Incorporated - Texas Dept. of Agriculture Food and Fibers Research Council - USDA-ARS Cotton Production and Processing Research Unit - Texas Agricultural Experiment Station