E34-832-8M-L18O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIUN A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 452 AUGUST, 1932 DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING The Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFT Administration : A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Jr., Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: . S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist . Asbury, M. S., Chemist . Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist . Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist . Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist . . Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Pounders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture: S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief “L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader Entomology: >fiEPWQ wrofim F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist . K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist . L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist . W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector if eeééwwwssaw Veterinary Science: *M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian l. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian **F. P. Mathews, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist Farm and Ranch Economics: ~ L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief r W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management **W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management “A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management Rural Home Research: " Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition Soil Survey: **W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist Swine Husbandry: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief Dairy Husbandry: O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandman Poultry Husbandry: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Hsbdman Agricultural Engineering: H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief Main Station Farm: G. T. McNess, Superintendent Apiculture (San Antonio): H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief James Sullivan, Asst. Chief Agronomy: S D. Pearce, Secretary B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief J. H. Rogers, Feed Inspector R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector Publications z A. D. Jackson, Chief SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "R. W. Baird, M. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer N0. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: ‘ R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Jr., Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist "H. V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent “I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent VNo. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. I-I. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd **O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. l5, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent **L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry "‘Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, B. S., Horti W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., J. H. Knox, M. lture enetics S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry iAs of March 1, 1932. *""In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS Page Introduction 5 History of the Development of Cotton Harvesters __________________________________ __ 5 Picker Type 6 Thresher Type 11 Pneumatic Type . 11 Electrical Type 12 Stripper Type 13 Object of Experiment 15 Construction of First Cotton Stripper ______ __ 16 Testing of Various Types of Cotton Harvesters 17 Finger-Type 17 Modified Finger-Type 18 Slot or Rafter Type ' _ 19 Machine Equipped with Short Rubber Stripping Rolls ____________________ _- 20 Installation of Long Stripping Rolls 23 The Texas Station Cotton Harvester _______ -_ 24 Construction of the Machine 24 Operation of the Machine - 26 Remodeling the Machine and Its Operation 27 Operation of Texas Station Cotton Harvester in Northwest Texasm- 28 Comparison, of the Cost of Harvesting Cotton by the Station Machine and by Hand 30 Cleaning and Ginning of Cotton Harvested Mechanically ...................... 41 31 Cleaning 31 Ginning 3'5 Quality of Cotton Harvested by Hand and by Machinery ..................... -- 37 Grade of the Cotton ...... 1 37 Staple of the Cotton 41 Relation of'Varietal Characteristics to the Efficiency of Mechanical Harvesters _ 41 Slot or Rafter Type Machine 41 Efficiency of Stripper Equipped with Short Rubber Stripping Rolls 45 Efficiency of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester .......................... -- 47 Developing Varieties of Cotton to Meet the Needs of Mechanical Har- vesting ____________________________ _, , 54 Acknowledgments ___________________________________________________________________ __ _ _______________________ 1' 58 Summary , 58 List of Patents Cotton Harvesters __________________ ______________________________________ .. 60 This Bulletin reviews the history and development of cotton, harvesting machinery and reports progress of the Texas Station in the development of a cotton harvester as a tractor attachment equipped! with smooth rubber revolving stripping rolls. ' The study of cotton harvesting machinery was begun by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station several years ago, when sledding was first practiced by the farmers of Northwest Texas. The wide use of the waste- ful home-made sleds in 1926 showed the need of a more improved mechanic- al cotton harvester. The results show that the slot-type stripper (sled) harvested in 1928 an average of 73.4 per cent of the cotton from 12 varieties tested. In 1929 when smooth revolving rubber stripping rolls were used, an average of 77.9 per cent of the cotton was harvested from silx varieties tested‘. The tractor-mounted cotton harvester, developed by the Station, which was equipped with rubber stripping rolls, one of which was yielding, har- vested in 1930 an average of 88.6 per cent but when improved in 1931, it harvested 91.1 per cent of the total yield of cotton from three varieties tested for the two years. Improvements made in cotton harvesting machinery resulted in a con- siderable reduction of trash collected with the machine-harvested cotton. The home-made, slot-type stripper, used in 1928 collected 42.8 per cent of trash, while the Texas Station Cotton Harvester collected in 1931. 34.7 per cent trash for the same three varieties. Several of the more commonly grown varieties of cotton have been tested as to their suitability to mechanical harvesting. These varieties were found lacking in storm-resistance and had numerous long vegetative branches and an excessive amount of leaves, which interfered with the ease of operation of machinery. To overcome these undesirable character- istics, an attempt is being made by the Station to develop a type of plant to meet the requirements of mechanical harvesting. This plant is fully described. Cleaning of the mechanically harvested cotton in 1930 and 1931 re- moved an average of 32.1 per cent waste, including invisible loss. This consisted of burs, stems, dirt, and leaf trash, leaving an average of 67.9 per cent seed cotton, from which the ginning equipment removed an ad- ditional 4.7 per cent trash. A comparison of the grade and staple for each of the four years showed that in 1928 the lint from the stripped cotton was four full grades below the hand-picked cotton with 1/ 16 inch shorter staple. In 1929 there was a difference of two and one-half grades in favor of hand- picked cotton, the stripped cotton having 1/32 inch shorter staple; The stripped cotton harvested in 1930 was one and one-half grades lower than hand-picked cotton with no significant difference in the length of staple. In 1931, the stripped cotton averaged only one-half grade below hand-picked cotton, with no difference in the length of staple. The average total cost of harvesting, cleaning, and ginning a bale of cotton by machinery in Northwest Texas was $14.08 as compared with $26.25 for hand snapping, showing a difference of $12.17 in favor of machine harvesting. ’ BULLETIN No. 452 ' AUGUST, 1932 THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON H. P. SMITH, D. T. KILLOUGH, M. H. BYROM, D. SCOATES, AND D. L. JONES The cultivation of cotton was begun in the United States about 1621. Since that time, for more than three hundred years, the crop has been harvested by hand. Men, women, and children, of both the white and colored races have found employment for a considerable period of each year picking cotton. When cotton began to be produced on a large scale, men began to consider mechanical means for harvesting the crop. The first patent on a mechanical cotton picker, was apparently taken out in the year 1850. The development of a successful mechanical cotton harvester has been slow, due not only to the mechanical problems en- countered in handling the fiber, but also to the belief of cotton growers that any machine could not gather practically all of the cotton from the plant. However, with the spread of cotton culture into West Texas, where few laborers are required to produce large crops, and help for the harvest is sometimes hard to secure, many- farmers, rather than lose most of the crop produced, began using mechanical devices, such as sleds of their own make to harvest as much of it as they could. On acount of their apparent success in western Texas, interest in mechanical devices for harvesting the cotton crop has gradually spread to practically all sections of the Cotton Belt. In order to determine if it were possible to employ mechanical means in harvesting cotton in the older cotton-growing sections of the state, the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station began studying the problem not only from the stand- point of mechanical devices but also from the standpoint of the suitability of the existing varieties of cotton to mechanical harvesting. The data presented in this Bulletin report the results of five year’s work in developing a cotton harvester and in developing a type of cotton- more suitable to harvesting by machinery than the varieties now commonly grown. It is believed, however, that the reader will better understand the nature and scope of the problem of harvesting cotton with machinery, if a brief review is given of the many attempts to develop a s'uccess- ful cotton harvester. HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF COTTON HARVESTERS Mechanical devices that have been patented for the harvesting of cotton consist of almost every conceivable contrivance that man can invent. These can be divided into five distinct classes: 1. The picker type, including those machines designed to pick the open cotton from the bolls by means of spindles, fingers, or prongs, at any time during the season without material injury to the foliage and unopen bolls. 2. The thresher-type cotton harvester severs the stalk near the surface of the ground and takes the entire plant, together with No. 7,631. BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the cotton, into the machine, where the vegetative material and cotton are separated. ~ A The pneumatic cotton harvester removes the cotton from the bolls either by suction or by blasts of air. Electrical cotton harvesters depend on attracting the cotton fiber to a statically charged belt or finger, to remove the cotton from the boll. The stripper type of cotton harvester removes the cotton from the plant by combing the plant either with teeth or by drawing it between stationary slots or revolving rolls. Picker Type As nearly as can be deter- mined, the first‘ attempt to de- velop a mechanical cotton pick- er was made by S. S. Rembert and J. Prescott, of Memphis, Tennessee, September 10, 1850, when patent No. 7,631 in Sub- class 48* was issued to them. Their machine (Fig. 1) was equipped with both picking cylinders and picking discs, the cylinders being placed upon vertical shafts, and the discs on horizontal shafts. They had a clear vision regarding the fu- ture development of cotton cul- ture in mind, since they stated in their patent claims: “Our cotton picking machine may be multiplied and extended to such a width as to embrace several rows of cotton plants at once.” The International Harvester Pickers: August Campbell was 2 Sheets-Sheet 2 S. S. REMBBRT 8t J. PRESCOTT. FIELD COTTON PICKER. Patented Sept. 10, 1850. Figure 1 . granted his first patent (No. 542,794—Subclass 43) on a cot- ton picker (Fig. 2) July 16, Rembert and Prescott Cotton Picker patented in 1850. 1895. He applied for and was granted several other patents on cotton harvesters and one covering a cotton picker spindle. They were assigned to the American Cotton Picker Company, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. On November 19, 1912 patent No. 1,004,611 (Subclass 43) was granted to B. C. White and A. Campbell, of Woonsockét, Rhode Island, which was assigned to the Price-Campbell Cotton Picker Corporation, of Wil- mington, Delaware. T. H. Price was granted a patent on a cotton harvester as far back as 1904 (No. 770,653-Subclass 41), which was assigned to *A classified list of patents that have been granted on cotton harvesters is given in Table 12. The patents 1n each sub-class are arranged numerically and chronologically. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 7 the Utility Cotton Picker Company, of New York. It appears that Price and Campbell joined in forming the Price-Campbell Cotton Picker Cor- poration a short time prior to the granting of the patent of 1912. They interested the late J. A. Kemp, of Wichita Falls, Texas, and formed the Mechanico-Agricultural Company for the purpose of manufacturing the Price-Campbell Cotton Picker. One of the machines this organization m. 5:15.440 Patented on 2s. rem made was O11 display at thfi A cuwszu. , conon iunnsnn Texas State Fall‘ at Dallas '~---~-~~ H ~~~~ ~—*~~~~= about 1920. Several years later the International Harvester Company acquired the patent rights held by this organization _ Il/ . _ and have developed several cot- ton picker units that are mount- lllllllil, I mll 1N ed on their Farmall tractor e. ' (Fig. 3). They have tried out several types of spindles on both double-cyl.inder and single- cylinder machine. When two vertical cylinders are used, the spindles project horizontally in- to the cotton plant from both sides, but with the single-cylin- der machine, the plant is com- pressed and folded into a throat three or four inches wide so ‘that the spindles which are on- Illlllllllllll? p, f _ . ---- 1y on one side can Project through the whole plant, and ,,,,,,,,,,. pick the cotton from the burs. .y/_;,,.,.,(;...,oaa. Appleby’s Picker: J. F. Ap- aw >'"*"~°""¢"""V"' Pleby, who won fame by invent- ‘flaw’ ing and perfecting a knotter for Figure 2. Campbell’_s 1901 Spindle Cotton grain binders, also attempted to Picker perfect a cotton picking spin- dle, upon which he was granted patent No. 762,606 (Sub-class 50). Then on September 5, 1905, he was granted patent N0. 798,651 (Subclass 47)“ on a cotton harvesting machine - which had a drum of spindles mounted on a horizontal shaft in such a way that the spin- dles would ‘project downward through the cotton plants as the machine passed. Over them. IPigure 3. International 1931 Two-row Cotton Picker with Cleaner Attachment. 8 BULLETIN NO. 452. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Other patents were taken out from 1906 to 1913 as improvements on this first machine. Then, onNovember 11, 1913, he was granted patent N0. 1,078,328 (Subclass 47) on a cotton harvester which he describes as follows: “A cotton picking machine including two picking mechanisms mounted on the same vehicle and adapted together to pass between adjacent rows of J. F APPLEBY. (‘OTTOH PICKING IAOHINE. AIPLIOATIOI nun no. a 1m nuns» mu u. m: 1 £78,328. Patented Nov. ll, 1913 I IIIBTI4IIIZY\ “i” s Ebgeaaea. ~ Irv/Info?‘ = yéflw/‘amd- ~E$n2T§9nkég JHQJY/rvrw-r 1y Figure 4. App1eby’s Two-row Cotton Picking Machine. nanced by several different in- H cotton plants. Apparently this was the first patent granted upon a two-row, cotton harves- ter, since he mentions in his patent that it was Well-known by those skilled in the art that no cotton picking machines had hitherto been devised employ- ing two picking mechanisms with fingers attached to move in horizontal planes. Each set of picking fingers in both pick- ing mechanisms operate upon the cotton plants of a single row (see Fig. 4). Appleby states: “In the device of my in- vention, the picking fingers of a single picking mechanism, pick the cotton from the plants of one row and the picking fin- gers of the companion picking mechanism pick the cotton from the plants of an adjacent roW.” Berry’s Picker: The cotton picker which was designed and patented by H. N. Berry, of Greenville, Miss., has been fi- dividuals during its develop- ment. The two picking cylin- ders are suspended from a chassis to which are attached wheels fitted with pneumatic tires (Fig. 5). An automobile engine furnishes power for both the forward travel and for the picking units. The picking spin- dles radiate horizontally from the cylinders and project into the cotton plant from both sides. The cotton is pushed ofl’ the spindles with a sliding sleeve operated by an eccentric track. Figure 5. Berry’s 1931 Models Cotton Picking Machine. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 9 Smith-Johnson Picker: B. Johnson, of Temple, Texas, was granted the following patents on a cotton picker: N0. 1,022,142 (Subclass 14), on April 2, 1912; No. 1,230,168 (Subclass 50) on June 19, 1917; No. 1,215,660 (Sub- class 14) on Feb. 13, 1917; and No. 1,252,578 (Subclass 50) on March 18, 1918. His machine used rotary spindles like many other machines but the action while picking cotton is quite different. The action is described as having three motions in the picking process, as follows: (1) The needle or spindleis projected into the cotton plant; the thrust motion engages the teeth in the fiber of the cotton. (2) The rotary motion twists or picks the fiber out of the bur. (3) The return motion of the needle or spindle, passing through a rotary sleeve, sheds and drops the cotton into a pan where a suction of air draws it into the receptacle on the rear of the machine. This picker has been taken over by the General Cotton Harvester Company, Fort Worth, Texas. Haring Picker: P. P. Haring, of Goliad, Texas, received his first patent (No. 587,201—Sub- class 44) on a cotton picker July 27, 1897. His picker, which is horse-drawn, consists of two traveling elliptical belts of ver- tical shafts from each of which project five cylindrical picker arms equipped with nine pick- Figure 6. Picking Unit of the Haring Machine ' ' ’ ‘ showing picking arm and fingers attached. 1mg flngers (F1g' 6)’ The plcker arms project into the cotton plant from both sides (Fig. 7), and move backward at the same speed as the machine travels forward. The picking fingers radiate from the picking arm and each finger is composed of two curved, corkscrew-like prongs. These rotate while in contact with the plant to catch, tnlst, and pull the cotton from the burs. After the arms have been withdrawn from the plant, they pass around to- the oppo- site side, where the rotation of the fingers is reversed, thereby releasing the cotton and allow- ing it to fall upon a conveyor belt which delivers to a hopper. Figure 7. Rear view of Haring’s Cotton Picker- Meyercord Picker: Another machine using a type of picking finger similar to that used by Haring, is the Meyercord picker being developed '10 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION by George R. Meyercord, of Chicago, Illinois. This machine (Fig. 8), however,~has two vertically mounted drums which have about 800 picking units per drum, a section of which is shown in Fig. 9. The fingers are driven by a frictional unit inside the drum, thus eliminating the possi- bility of oil getting on the cotton fiber. Their action, however, is similar ‘ - to that of the Haring machine; that is, the curved cork-screw- like fingers rotate catching the cotton while in contact with the plant, and when reversed releasing the cotton on the op- posite side of the drum. The plants pass between the drums, which are spaced about one inch apart. After the cotton has been released from the fingers, it is sucked up and blown against a grate on top of the hopper as a cleaning process (Fig. 8). There are two drums suspended under a self-pro- pelled chassis. The rotation of these drums is synchronized so that the side of the drum in li‘igurei8. Meyercord’s 1931 model Cotton Picker. contact with the plant moves back at approximately the same rate of speed that the machine moves forward along the row. American Picker: The fore- runner of this machine was a small, hand-operated device de- veloped and patented by L. C. Stukenborg, of Memphis, Ten- nessee, December 13, 1910, No. 978,341 (Subclass 39). This hand machine was operated by two Vmen. One of the men held the rear end of the ma- illlidtl’. ‘Iliilveatlliiollifi iii. Fmzsti. Siiili‘; also turned a crank which revolved two endless belts fitted with brushes. The other man held the front end of the machine and directed it- to the cotton bolls, allowing the brushes on the belt to brush the cotton out of the bolls and convey it through the machine and deposit it in the bag. In 1915 a picking head was devised so that brushes revolving in this head would kick the cotton, back upon a conveyor belt which would carry it to the container. Then, in 1922 brushes were mounted in a picker THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 11 head on the end of a flexible hose so that when the cotton was brushed out of the boll and kicked back into the hose, it would be drawn by a suction, of air back into a bag. Later, wipers were substituted for the brushes to kick the cotton back into the hose, through which it was drawn and blown against a grate which partially cleaned it. The latest machine is equipped with a small engine which furnishes power for the operation of the fan and wipers (Fig. 10). To operate this machine, it is necessary that the picker head be held in one hand and directed to each individual boll, which must be partially guided with the other hand to the picker head. The machine itself is pulled along the rows by hand. . Thresher Type The idea has been advanced from time to time that the whole cotton plant could be taken into a machine and the cotton, sep- arated ‘from the burs, leaves, and stalk by a threshing process. At least half a dozen patents have been granted embodying this principle. The first was ob- tained by Charles E. Wright, of Vicksburg, Mississippi, April 13, 1886, and numbered 339,725 (Subclass 28). He stated: “The general object of the invention is to provide a machine which will, as it advances along a row of cotton plants, sever the stalks at a point a short distance above the ground and below its branches, and receive the severed portions of the plant and cut, break, disintegrate, and separate the branches, twigs and bolls from each other .......... -..” Such a machine if successful would be rather complicated and‘ probably could be used, in the larger and more level fields. There is no record of the kind of work this type of machine performed. Figure 10. The American cotton picking machine. Pneumatic Type The suction or vacuum principle for harvesting cotton has been tried by many men for many years without a great deal of success. The first patent on this type of cotton picker was granted to John Griffin, of Louisville, Kentucky, November 22, 1859 and numbered 26,180 (Sub- class 31). - Suction Type: Almost every conceivable method of applying suction to the cotton plant has been tried. The tight fitting of the locks of cotton in the bur makes it difficult to suck out the cotton. The most outstanding vacuum-type machine constructed in recent years is the Thurman vacuum cotton' harvester, (Fig. 11), manufactured by the Vacuum Cotton, Har- vester Company, St. Louis, Missouri. Several long hose having picking 12 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION nozzles on their ends, are attached to two large tanks from which the air has been pumped to create a vacuum. Cotton is picked by placing the nozzles close to the cotton boll and opening a valve; the in- rushing air draws the cotton out of the bur, through the hose, and into the tank. Several suction or vacuum types of cot- ton harvesters have been demon- strated from time to time, but when it is necessary to depend on individual and manual direc- tion to each individual boll, very little is gained over hand-pick- ing of cotton. It is also rather difficult in the more storm-proof varieties, by air suction, to draw Figure 1 l . Harvester. and Bennet Vandecar obtained patent No. 74,242 (Subclass 30) on a cotton picker, February 11, 1868. They described their ma- chine as follows: “This inven- tion consists in. gathering cotton by use of blasts or currents of air, which are directed against the bolls in such a manner as to separate the cotton from the stalks, and propel them into a suitable receptacle.” Several other patents, using this prin- ciple, have been granted. A blast of air strong enough to blow cot- ton out of the bolls would, very likely, also carry with it a high percentage of trash. Electrical Type In this modern age when elec- trical devices are being used to perform various and sundry tasks, the thought may arise in the minds of many individ- uals as to why cotton could not be pulled from the cotton bur by an electrically charged belt or finger. The Thurman Vacuum Type Cotton all of the cotton out of the bolls. Blast Type: Charles Payne Z. B. SIMS. Improvement in Cotton-Pickers. No. |3|'124_ Patented Sop- 3. i872. We? Figure 12. The in 1872. Sims cotton stripper patented THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 13 Robert F. Cook, of Brooklyn, New York, was granted a patent on an electrical cotton picking machine as far back as 1868. In another patent (No. 103,986-Subclass 11) granted June 7, 1870 he describes his machine as: “The arrangement and application of belts or bands at each side of the machine, charged with electricity, for the purpose of attracting and collecting the loosened fibers of the cotton bolls; and carrying the same into a receiving-box.” ' Other patents on electrical cotton pickers were granted to A. A. Hamerschlag and T. H. Price, in 1898; R. H. Purnell, of Rosedale, Missis- sippi in 1905; and to W. T. Hoofnagle, of Glen Ridge, New Jersey in 1925, all of which are listed in Subclass 11 of Table 12. The electrical machines have not been successful, because the cotton fiber is not sufficiently attracted to the electrically charged belt or finger to be pulled from the boll. - Stripper Type Many people are of the opinion that cotton stripping devices were constructed and used for the first time about the year 1914. A search of patents covering cotton harvesting equipment shows that patent No. 113,170 (Subclass 35) was granted to John Hughes, of New Berne, North Carolina, on March 28, 1871. 2 $l1Ccl$"§'|eHl w. u. Pzoalcx. The construction and operation °°"°"'""'°"“"~ ofoothe machine was described as N . . n an ' 0 l46,945 zéte led] .27.l874 (l ______ be constructed and adapted to a single or double team, and to gathering or picking of one row or more at a time, or be adapted to be used in connec- tion with an ordinary cart or wagon. This machine strips from the plants the unopen as well as the open bolls or cups, and loose cotton, which can afterward be separated by another machine for that pur- pose!’ Z. B. Sims, of Bonham, Tex- as, received patent No. 131,124 (Subclass 34), September 3, 1872, on a finger-type cotton xnvenion stripper, by means of which the bolls were severed or pulled p, mdiflwm from the plant and raked by __ p _ hand back into a bag or recep- Figure 13. The Pedrick cotton stripper equipped tacle suspended from hooks spiked revolving rolls and patented 1n (Fig. 12). W. H‘ Pedrick, of 14 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Richmond, Indiana, on January 27, 1874 received a patent (No. 146,945- Subclass 35), on a cotton stripper which used revolving rolls provided with teeth to strip the “ripe” cotton from the plants without material injury to the plants or to the “unripe” bolls (Fig. 13). A Even though the stripper type of cotton harvester was invented sixty years ago, the method was not put into practice until about 1914. For the next ten years a few farmers, scattered throughout Northwest Texas and Oklahoma, probably stripped some of their cotton. In the fall of 1926, the farmers of Northwest Texas were confronted _with a scarcity of labor, high charges for picking and hand snapping, low prices for cotton, weather conditions adverse to harvesting by hand, and an unusually large crop. These conditions forced the farmers to adopt more rapid and economical methods of harvesting in order to save the crop and show a profit. Cotton sleds, or strippers, similar to the one shown in Fig. 14 were used extensively; and several thousand bales of cotton were harvested by this method almost entirely, with machines built by the _ farmers themselves and by local blacksmiths. These machines are fully described in Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Circular Number 52, and Bulletin Number 364. The extensive use of home- made machines in 1926 caused several implement manufactur- ers to become interested in the development of cotton stripping machinery. As a result, com- mercial machines have been per- are considered by the manufac- turers as past the experimental stage. Deere and Company Strippers: Deere and Company has devel- oped a horse-drawn, single-row i stripper and a two-row machine mounted on a general-purpose tractor (Fig. 15). The stripping unit consists of metal rolls stud- ed with short pins to strip up- ward on the plant as the mach- a ine moves forward along the Figure 14. One-row finger-type cotton sled or stripper used in Northwest Texas. row‘ AS the cotton 1S removed fected to the point where they . I THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON t 15 from the rolls by stationary plates, it falls into a conveyor " trough where it is conveyed back to a hopper mounted on the rear of the single-row ma- chine and into a cleaner on the two-row tractor machines. Smith-Conrad Cotton Stripper: The General Cotton Harvester Company, of Fort Worth Texas, has developed a stripper which Figure 15. Deere and Companfs 1931 two-row 1S “termed by _ t1}? c9m»pany tractor mounted cotton stripper. _ a cotton comblne (Flg- 16)- The stripping unit resembles very closely that of the fin- ger-type, home-made sled, since it consists of several metal fin- gers, approximately 3% feet long and spaced ~"*/r inch apart, to strip the cotton from the plant. In addition, it has a carrier chain with lugs extend- q , ing outward from both sides 4.‘ over the fingers to drag the /// \ cotton back into the cleaning unit which is mounted to the rear. This machine not only harvests the cotton, but also extracts the burs and cleans the cotton at the same time. p International Harvester Strippers: The International Harvester Company has developed a stripper that can be attached to an ordinary corn binder frame and used as a horse-drawn, single-row affair, or it can be mounted on the Farmall tractor, one unit on either side, so that two rows can be stripped at the same time. Their stripping device con- sists of a chain having lugs or fingers made mostly of rubber, the tips of which over-lap each other in the throat between two divider boards. As the machine moves forward, the plants are stripped between i these fingers, which retain the cotton bolls and carry them back, and deposit them in a box at the rear. To prevent plants from being pulled 'up and.sections of branches from being pulled off, two rubber rolls "have been mounted below the rubber fingers and revolve in such a way that they pull the stalk or branches on through, should they be pulled up or broken off the stalk. OBJECT OF EXPERIMENT To determinesome of the essential principles involved in the construction and operation of a successful cotton harvester, and the relationship of 16 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the type of cotton best suited to mechanical harvesting, the Texas Agri- cultural Experiment Station began a study of this problem in 1927. In order to obtain information on the efficiency of various mechanical principles used in the different types of cotton harvesters, a careful study was made of the commercial machines now being developed. In addition, studies were made of the most widely used home-made types of‘ strip- pers. Information thus secured gave the basis for the design, and con- struction of a mechanical cotton harvester along new and original lines. A study was also made of the varietal characteristics of several of the better varieties of cotton commonly grown in Texas, to determine the influence of their characteristics on the efficiency of mechanical‘ cotton harvesters. The results of I comparative tests with the various varieties indicated the need of a distinctly different type of cotton. Consequently, breeding work was begun to develop a type, through hybridization, having characteristics that would meet the requirements of mechanical harvesting. Since cotton harvested mechanically usually has more trash in it than cotton picked or snapped by hand, it is necessary that the former be cleaned before ginning, to eliminate as much of the trash as possible so that the grade of the lint obtained may not be appreciably lower than that of hand-picked or hand-snapped cotton. Various types of cleaners have been studied to determine the effects which they have on the grade and staple of mechanically harvested cotton. This study included both cleaners at the gin and in the field. No data, however, are re- ported on the cleaning equip- ment attached to the harvest- ing machines operating in the field. CONSTRUCTION OF FIRST COTTON STRIPPER The first machine constructed was tested in the late fall of 1927 in cotton growing on the alluvial soils along the Brazos River near College Station and which had been killed by frost. The plants were tall and brittle and the leaves had shed. This machine was built on an old row-binder frame, as» shown in Fig. 17. The divider sills were set apart to provide a throat about 22 inches wide. Metal F's»; 17. Ctt .t' t t - - - - Lugfnder fraimffinilfglyrfer “ms n” ed °n r°w teeth or stripping fingers 1 THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON “ 11 inch Wide and 18 inches long were bolted to the frame and spaced about 3/; inch apart. The raising, lowering, and tilting devices were left on the machine. This machine was built on the principle of the finger-type used in northwestern Texas at that time. It wasdrawn by two mules and harvested one row at a time. This type of machine stripped the bolls from the plant by the stripping fingers combing through the plant as it was drawn forward along the row. A box to receive the harvested cotton was attached to the rear, being constructed on the front trucks of an old silage cutter. ~ When this machine was tried out on cotton grown on the alluvial soils along the Brazos River, it failed to function satisfactorily. This was due primarily to the large branching plants, which would bend over and lap on the plants ahead, creating an interlocking mass of branches; consequently the stripper teeth immediately became choked in the tangled mass and would pull up the plants rather than comb through them to strip off the cotton. / TESTING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF COTTON HARVESTERS To test out the relative merits of different types of home-made machines, such as used in West Texas, finger, modified-finger, and slot‘ types of strippers were constructed in 1928. These machines were used to strip 1/16 of an acre of twelve different varieties of cotton being grown at College Station to determine their adaptability to machine harvesting. Harvesting was done about the middle of September after the plants were fully matured and were two to three feet high, and after practi- cally all the cotton had opened. The plants were in full foliage and the leaves were still green. Finger-Type Construction: Fig. 18 shows the finger-type stripper (sled) constructed and used. It con- sisted of 11 fingers made of 1 lit-inch Tee-bar steel, 2 feet long, spaced 5%; inch apart. All the fingers were welded to a steel plate and the ensemble fastened by hinges in an 18- inch throat on the front of a box 7 feet and 9 inches long, deep, mounted on 2x8-inch runners. The fingers were turn- ed up at their points so they would slide along the ground and under the low, hanging FigufgzslS. Finger-type cotton stripper tested in branches and bolls of cotton. A 42 inches wide, and 42 inches 18 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION lever was fastened to the fingers so they could be raised and lowered to suit the conditions. Operation: As the sled was pulled along the row by two mules, the fingers combed the plants, stripping off the cotton (entire boll) which was dragged off the fingers with a rake. To use the rake, a man had to stand in the box. These tests showed that the finger-type stripper would choke up because of the size of the plants, which had numerous vegetative branches, and considerable foliage. Since the fingers were only 2 feet long and were fastened to the front end of a box mounted on skids, or runners, the plants were bent over in passing under the box, which was only a few inches off the ground. Naturally when one plant was pushed over against the plant ahead, there would be an over- lapping of stalks and branches, creating a mass of vegetative material which the teeth of the stripper could not readily comb through; conse- __ quently, the finger-type stripper was discarded as unsatisfactory and unsuited to the large plants with heavy foliage. This type of stripper, however, is the most popular home-made type used in western Texas, where the cotton plants are relatively small and harvesting is generally done after they have been defoliated by frost. Modified Finger-Type Construction: This type of stripper (sled) was developed at the Lubbock Substation. The machine patterned after this type, was built and used at College Station in 1928, is shown in Fig. 19. There were six fingers, 63 inches long and spaced % inch apart, made of llll-inch Tee-bar steel. They were bolted to a piece of strap iron, attached by hinges to a central and rear part of the box about the same size as the one used with the finger-type stripper. The fingers were bluntly pointed and slightly turned up at the front end, and could be raised and lowered. Operation: When two mules pulled the stripper along the row, the long fingers were set so’ that the pointed ends barely touched the ground. These fin- gers slipped under the low branches, folded them up be- side the plant, and stripped the cotton from the plant, as the machine moved forward. Since the rear_ end of the fingers was about 18 inches high, the plant remained in almost an upright position until it reached the rear end or base of the fingers. Tests with this type of machine showed that the long fingers Figugételginllliogisfied finger-type cotton stripper were too pliable and would THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 19 spread apart so easily that frequently only two of the six fingers were effective in stripping the bolls from the plants. It also collected consider- able quantities of leaves and small stems. This condition was observed in operation because the cotton leaves and stems would collect on the rear part of the fingers, even though a man was trying to keep the stripped material cleaned off. The choking at the rear end of the fingers caused a wedging effect which spread the front ends apart, thus preventing their catching and removing cotton from the lower part of the plant. For ‘the above reasons the results secured with this machine were not considered g satisfactory. Slot or Rafter Type Construction: The slot-type stripper or sled, shown in Fig 20, consisted of a box, mounted on 2 x 8-inch runners, 8 feet long, 3% feet wide and 34 inches deep, divided into 2 sections but joined together to form a single, narrow slot about one inch wide at the front and % inch wide at the rear. The front end of the slot was flared out, V-shaped for about 18 inches to form a throat 15 inches wide to guide the plants into the. slot. Two 2 x 4’s, about 2 inches apart, one on each side of the slot, were fastened to the floor just back of the throat and extended in a parallel position, to the top of the box at the rear, which was about 30 inches high. The opening between the 2 x 4’s was sufficient to allow cotton plants to pass through. The stripping action was secured by‘fasten- ing adjustable iron straps on top of the 2 x 4’s to form a stripping edge for the slot. The iron straps were adjustable and were set so that the upper sides sloped away from the slot to allow the cotton to slide off into the box on each side. Operation: This stripper (sled) was also pulled by two mules. As the stripper was pulled forward, the plants were guided into the nar- row slot by the flaring edges of the throat. If the machine moved very far to one side, the plants would be pushed over and fail to enter the slot. Con- sequently, it was necessary to drive very carefully and keep the slot as nearly as possible in line with the row of plants. Since the rear end of theslot was about 21/2 feet higher than the front end, it permitted the stripping of the cotton.all along the slot, and particularly the cotton from the upper part of the plant. The pressure of the ‘v Figure 20. Slot or rafter type of cotton stripper used in harvesting cotton from 12 varieties in 1928. a 20 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION stripping edges would bend the plant over slightly until it was almost perpendicular to the slope of the stripping slot. This type of stripper gave the most satisfactory results for the conditions, because the plants remain- ed more erect while passing through the slot than was the case with the other two machines, and the material removed from the plants fell over each side of the slot into the box better than on the other types. There were, however, some objectionable features to it. It was difficult to drive so that all of the plants would be in line with the narrow slot. The metal strips on each side of the slot would occasionally strip off the fibrous bark, which was impossible to remove from the cotton lint once it became mixed with it. It was found that the speed at which the machine was pulled for- ward materially influenced the amount of leaves and trash collected with ' the cotton. A slow, steady speed of about one mile per hour seemed to give best results. Since mules could not be made to travel at a steady speed so slowly, a truck was used to pull the machine. Machine Equipped With Short Rubber Stripping Rolls Tests with Deere & Company’s Stripper: In November 1928, after all tests with the home-made strippers had been completed, Deere & Com- pany brought one of their early experimental horse-drawn cotton strip- pers to the College. The machine, shown in Fig. 21, had been designed and built to meet conditions prevailing in western Texas, but they were desirous of learning how it would perform under Central Texas conditions. The stripping unit consisted of two parallel metal rolls studded with short metal pins. These rollers revolved in opposite directions so that the inner sides stripped upward on the cotton plant as the machine moved forward along the row. The cotton was removed from the rollers and deflected into conveyor troughs by stationary stripper plates placed on the outer sides of the rollers. The cotton was then dragged back an.d dropped into a cleaner, which removed the trash and burs, dropping the cleaned cotton into a canvas hopper. The machine was tried out late in November 1928 on Tom Goodwin’s farm in the Brazos Bottom, near the College. The cotton plants were dead, brittle, and devoid of foliage. The plants, however, were overgrown with tie vines in many cases, which pre- vented a satisfactory test of this machine. The machine was tested further in another field on Ward Templeman’s farm in the Navasota River Bottom, near the city of Navasota, Texas. One thousand and seventy pounds of cotton was stripped, from which was secured 213 pounds of lint. More satisfactory results were secured in this test because the plants were smaller and fewer tie vines were present than on the Goodwin farm. In both tests, however, the efficient operation of the machine was hindered by the tendency of the cotton fiber to cling to the surface of the metal rolls and to catch and hang around the pins. When this occurred, the cotton would be pulled under the edge of the stripper plate and into the spaces left for the pins. This caused the cotton to drop on the ground and fiber to be partially pulled from the seed, which could THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 21 Figure 21. Deere and Company’s Experimental Cotton Stripper used in 1928. rolls, in the Deere machine indi- cated that rubber rolls might be better. It was decided to use rub- ber rolls with the permission of Deere and Company. This was granted and a set of stripping rolls was constructed by slipping different sizes of ordinary radi- ator hose one upon another on a 1-inch shaft until the roll was 27/8 inches in diameter. These rolls were 31% inches long, the same as the spiked metal rolls. A smooth-edged stripper plate was installed on the lower outer sides of the rubber rolls, to de- flect the harvested cotton over into the conveyor troughs. Fig. 22 shows the rubber rolls instal- led in the chassis of Deere and Company’s stripper. Operation of Machine: Pre- liminary trials with the mach- ine, early in September 1929, showed that the front and lower ends of the stripping not pass between the roll and the stripper plate. When tie vines growing over the cotton plants were encountered, they had a tendency to wrap around the roll and build up around the surface so tightly that there was considerable friction be- tween the rolls and the stripper plates. The cotton harvested in these tests was cleaned and gin- ned on a Murray Gin equipped with the Hancock bur extractor, at Snook, Texas. Later improve- ments on the Deere machine have eliminated most of these troubles. Rubber Stripping Rolls Sub- stituted for Spiked Rolls: The results obtained with the metal Figure 22. Deere and Company’s Experimental Cotton Stripper with short rubber rolls sub- stituted for the metal stripping rolls. 22 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION rolls were too high to get under the low branches. A set of pick-up fingers were made and installed similar to those shown in Fig. 23. Pulling the machine with a tractor attached to a hitch designed for horses, caused’ considerable side-draft, and made it difficult to keep the space between the stripping rolls lined up with the plants. The hitch, including the tongue truck, was moved over in front of the rolls, which gave a more direct pull, and eliminated most of the side-draft. But with the tractor there was no way of getting a quick movement of the machine sidewise in order to follow the row of plants. To remedy this, a steering arrange- -ment was devised which permitted the stripper to be steered independently of the tractor. After completing the preliminary trials with the rubber rolls, the machine was used to harvest 10 rows, 765 feet long, of each of six varieties of cotton at College Station. The plants at this time were in full foliage and practically all of the bolls were open. The tests covered a period of nine days, September 13 to 21, 1929. Cotton was harvested on only three of these nine days, September 13, 19, and 21. The remainder of the time during the period was consumed in making changes and develop- ing a more satisfactory set of pick-up fingers. Rates of travel ranging from 100 to 195 feet per minute were tried, and it was found with this machine that the best results were secured when traveling anywhere from 100 to 160 feet per minute, or from 11/4 to 1% miles per hour. It was found also that the rolls were neither long enough nor high enough at the rear. With the short, low rolls, the large tall plants would form a mass of vegetative material on the rear six or eight inches of the strip- ping rolls, causing an excessive amount of vegetative material to be squeezed off the plants. Other observations made on the operation of the machine were: 1. That it was necessary to have the front of the machine low enough that the pick-up fingers would slide on the surface of the ground so that they could get under the branches of the cotton plants that were resting on the ground, and lift them up high enough for the front end of the stripping rolls to catch them. 2. That any bulky bearing construction at the lower end of the stripping rolls would have to be eliminated. 3. That the stripping rolls should be long enough to permit the plant to remain in almost an upright position while passing between the stripping rolls. 4. That the stripper plate along the stripping roll, worked better when placed at about a 45 degree angle under and on the outerside of the rolls. 5. That considerable dirt and fine trash was separated out through the grate-like bottom of the conveyor trough as the cotton was dragged over it. 6. That considerable cotton was knocked off the plants by the tractor as it passed over them, before the stripping device came in contact with the plants. 7. That excessive vegetative growth would fold up around bolls and prevent their being stripped off. 8. That instead of the rolls being rigidly installed, at least one roll should have a yielding effect so that the space between the stripping rolls would be automatically adjusted to suit the different sizes of plants. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING ‘OF COTTON 23 Installation of Long Stripping Rolls After the six varieties had been harvested, it was found desirable to make a number of changes in the machine. These are shown in Fig. 23 and enumerated as follows: 1. Rubber rolls 55 inches long were installed in place of» the 31%- inch rolls used earlier in the season. 2. Provision was made by which the _vertical angle of the rolls could be changed. This was accomplished by making long slotted holes in the plate supporting the rear end of the rolls. 3. The bearing supports of the right roll (standing at the rear) was constructed so that it would yield auto- matically as the size of the plant and the mass of vege- tative material varied. 4. The stripper plates along beside the stripping rolls were hinged and held a- gainst the roll by spring tension. 5. Smaller bearings at the low- er end of the rolls were con- structed. 6. Better pick-up fingers were made. 7. The ends of the conveyor troughs were partially cov- ered with sheet metal. 8. The tongue truck of the horse hitch was discarded and the stripper connected directly to the elevated Figure 23. Front view of chassis of Deere and dralwbar of the tractor. The Company's Cotton Stripper equipped with stripper was steered Wlth long rubber rolls and power take-off. a lever. 9. A power take-off drive was installed, having a safety snap clutch (Fig. 23). Field Tests with the Remodeled Machine: By the time all the various changes, enumerated above, had been completed in late October 1929, practically all the cotton in the fields had been harvested. The machine was used, however, to salvage what cotton had opened after the second picking. The leaves on the plants were still green, and there were numerous empty bolls from which cotton had been picked earlier in the season . by hand. Two men operated the outfit; one drove the tractor, while the other steered the cotton stripper. All the cotton on the. lower part of the plant had been picked, but the machine harvested on an average approxi- 24 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mately 96 per cent of the cotton on the plants at that time. At least 75 per cent of the cotton harvested consisted of empty bolls and trash. While the conditions were not favorable for a thorough test, it was felt that the machine functioned satisfactorily. THE TEXAS STATION COTTON HARVESTER Results secured in testing the various home-made strippers and the John Deere stripper equipped with metal spiked rolls and smooth rubber n rolls, lead to the development by the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station of a new machine, as a tractor attach- ment. See Fig. 24. I | Construction of the Machine§ Frame: The frame was con- structed out of 11A, inch angle iron and was well braced to in- sure rigidity. Conveyor troughs were provided on each side of the stripping roll to catch the cotton as it dropped from them. Pick-up Fingers: Several sets of pick-up fingers were made in 1929, but these were not well suited to the 1930 machine. Therefore, a new set for the 1930 machine was de- signed so that they could slide on or closely to the surface of the soil, slipping under the low branches and bolls, lifting them up, and guiding them into the narrow slot between the rolls. Rolls: A new set of rubber I'ez.4. "nemlxas btatiozrinltCotton IiIarvester at rolls 35 inches long was made the beginning of the 1931 cotton harvest. of radiator hose of the follow- ing sizes: 11A, 1%, 2, 2% inches in diameter. The front or lower bearings were placed about 17 inches back from the tip end of these rolls so that there would not be any bulky obstructions which would prevent the plant from entering the slot between the rolls. The bearing supports of the right roll were so constructed that they would permit the roll to yield automatically and move in and out as the size and volume of the vegetative material varied. The mechanism for trans- mitting the power to the rolls was so designed that when they revolved, the surface would travel at a speed approximately the same as that of TTHE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 25 Figure 25. The Texas Station Cotton Harvester equipped with pick-up fingers developed for conditions in Northwest Texas. - the machine moving along the row. Brushes: The brushes did good work, but trouble was encountered with the stripper plates on the lower 17 inches of stripping rolls on account of cotton wedging in between the stripper plates and the roll. 26 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Conveyors: As the cotton was removed from the rolls by the revolving i brushes and the stripper plates, it dropped into a conveyor trough on the bottom of which were strips of iron placed about % inch apart. Metal paddles, fastened to chains, dragged the cotton over the grate-like bottom of the conveyor trough, resulting in considerable dirt and trash being lost. Transmission of Power: In 1930 power for driving rolls, brushes, and conveyor chains was transmitted from the power take-off by a shaft upon which was inserted a safety clutch.‘ In 1931 the drive was changed so that the power for driving the machine was transmitted by sprocket and chain from the pulley shaft. l Hopper: A good-size hopper, or box, was built in 1930 out of sheet steel fastened to a wooden frame work and attached to supports extending about 2 feet back of the drawbar on the tractor. The front end of the hopper extended under the rear end of the conveyor troughs so that the harvested cotton would drop directly into the box. When the box was filled, it could be tipped back and the cotton easily removed. The con- struction of the hopper was later strengthened by substituting angle iron for the wooden frame. Operation of the Machine After making a few preliminary tests to see how the Texas Harvester would perform under field conditions, it was used, on September 16 and 17, to strip four rows of each of three varieties of cotton at College Station in 1930 selected from six varieties tested in 1929. The tractor was operated in low gear at a speed which required an average of five minutes to travel the length of a 750-foot row, or about 1% miles per hour. Condition of Cotton: The cotton had fully matured and most of the bolls had opened. There were no green leaves on the plants because the leaf-worms had eaten them all off. Some of. the cotton that had opened early was slightly strung out of the bolls and was quite fluffy. When this kind of cotton was stripped, there was a greater tendency for the lint to hang to the plants and be pulled between the stripping rolls by the plants and dropped on the ground. This fluffiness also caused the lint to cling slightly to the surface of the rubber roll and wedge in between the stationary stripper plate on the lower 17 inches of the rollers, making it necessary to occasionally stop and remove this cotton. Action of Pick-up Fingers: Many cotton bolls were touching the ground, or the locks of cotton had strung out to where they were in contact with the ground, a condition which made it difficult for the pick-up fingers to get under them and lift them up and guide them in between the stripping rolls. It was observed that if the pick-up fingers struck the base of the plant a rather sharp blow, there was a tendency to jar some of the bolls loose from the plant. In most cases these bolls were lost, but in a few instances some of them would slide up the fingers onto the stripping rolls, on account of the low hanging branches brushing them up over the fingers. The flat area of the sheet metal, just back of THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 27 the pick-up fingers, tended to catch bolls of cotton and allow them to be carried back into the machine as other plants passed between the stripping rolls. Action of the Stripping Rolls: The smooth, rubber, resilient rolls did not skin or strip the bark from the plant and few limbs were. pulled off in harvesting. The guides for the bearings on the yielding roll did not always work smoothly and as a result, a plant was occasionally pulled up because the rolls would not open up sufficiently to permit the larger plants to pass between the stripping rolls. Even though the yielding rolls did not work perfectly, it was the first time they had functioned at all. Remodeling the Machine and its Operation After stripping about 20 acres of cotton, including the varieties being tested for their suitability to mechanical harvesting, with the first model of the Texas Harvester, and observing how the various parts performed, it was decided that a number of changes could be made advantageously. The first model was dismantled and the machine completely re-designed and rebuilt in October 1930. The rebuilt Texas Station Cotton Harvester was completed and tested in the field on November 7, 1930. A small field of cotton had been left un- picked so that a trial could be given the new model. The machine operated satisfactorily from the mechanical standpoint. The stripping rolls did a good job of snapping off the bolls and carry- ing the cotton onto the cylindrical brushes. The lifting fingers lifted the low branches up and guided them and the stalks in between the stripping rolls. The perforated sheet metal in the bottom of the con- veyor trough permitted dirt and trash to drop through on the ground. The cylindrical brushes caused considerable cotton to be dropped on the ground because the cotton fiber became entangled in the bristles of the brush. After making the additional tests in February, 1931, the entire machine was gone over and the functions of the various parts analyzed, to determine if any improvements could be made before the 1931 harvest. This analysis brought out several changes that, if made, would improve not only the design and workmanship but ‘also the working qualities of the machine. Tests made in late August and early September of 1931 with the Texas Cotton Harvester, indicated that better results could be expected with it than were secured with the 1930 model. The first public demon- stration was given at College Station on September 10, 1931 to a group of approximately 60 men and women, representing the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station, the Extension Service, and a number of the teaching staff of A. & M. College of Texas. On October 3rd, 4th, and 5th, 18 rows of each of three varieties‘ were harvested with the machine. Six rows of each of the varieties were harvested in low gear, six rows in second gear, and six rows in high gear. 28 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Condition of Cotton: Some bolls of cotton on each of the three vari- eties had opened up in late August but there were a considerable number of green bolls that did not open until after the middle of September. Just as the cotton was ready to be harvested, the field became infested with leaf-worms. Poison was applied, however, to all of the Lone Star and to part of the Cliett plants in order to save the leaves so that tests could be made on the plants in full foliage. This delayed stripping for about two weeks. As a result of this delay, some of the cotton had begun to string out of the bolls and was more fluffy than it would have been if harvesting had been done earlier. Action of the Yielding Roll: The sliding guides for the bearings on the right roll were reconstructed and it was observed in the field that as the size of the plant and mass of vegetative material varied, this roll would work in and out letting large quantitles of vegetative material pass between the rolls, which would otherwise have been squeezed off with the cotton bolls. Fig. 34 shows full-foliaged plants after the cotton had been stripped from them with most of the leaves remaining on the plant. Operation of Texas Station Cotton Harvester in Northwest Texas After harvesting approximately nine bales of cotton at College Station, during the first two weeks of October 1931, the Texas Cotton Harvester was tested under conditions in northwestern Texas, where mechanical harvesting of cotton had been practiced by some farmers for several years. The cultural practices, size of the plant, and yield of cotton at Lubbock were unlike those at College Station and a new set of pick-up fingers, as shown in Fig. 25, had to be constructed in order to pick up some of the cotton that had fallen on the ground, and to get under the low branches and bolls which were in a shallow lister furrow or depres- sion at the base of the plant. Condition of the Cotton: The cotton was fully matured 1nd practically all the bolls had opened, but the leaves were still green A large part. of the cotton, which was yielding approximately a bale to the acre, had opened earlier than usual and, as a consequence, mur-l‘. of it had fallen out of the bolls on the ground. The plants averqged about 20 inches in height, with-numerous short fruiting branches that were either resting on the ground or almost in contact with it. Cultivation of the plants had not filled up the lister furrow in which the cotton had been planted. Therefore, the row of plants stood in a slight depression. 1h )St of the cotton that had fallen from the plants was. in this depression, as were the bolls on the lower part of the stalk. Such a condition made it difficult for the pick-up fingers to collect the loose cotton in the depression and to pass under and lift up the low branches and_ open bolls resting on the ground. Percentage of Cotton Harvested: In constructing the pick-up fingers. to get the cotton off the ground and off the low branches, it was necessary that they be curved to fit into the depression, so they would THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 29 Figure 26. Field scene at Lubbock showing type of work done by Texas Station Cotton Harvester on November 3, 1931. ' skim the surface of tho ground and slip under the cotton. The efficiency of the machine was measured largely by the performance of the pick-up fingers. That is, if the fingers did not get some of the cotton off the 30 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ground and most of the low bolls, the percentage of cotton harvested would be considerably lower. Tests showed that when the total yield was consider- ed (including cotton on the plant and on the ground) 85 per cent of the cotton was harvested, while if only the cotton on the plant at the time of harvest was considered, the machine harvested 98 per cent. Fig. 26 shows the type of work done and the amount of cotton left on the ground. Approximately five bales of cotton were harvested in about 12 hours. Comparison of the Cost of Harvesting Cotton by the Station Machine and by Hand Data were kept on the cost of harvesting cotton from 6.82 acres with the one-row Texas Station Cotton Harvester, from which approximately 11,782 pounds of stripped cotton was harvested. When this cotton was cleaned, about 7,022 pounds of seed cotton was secured. The time re- quired to harvest the 6.82 acres of cotton was 12 hours, or 1.75 hours per acre. Figuring the use of the tractor at 50 cents per hour (cost includes ' gas, oil, and depreciation) and one operator at 20 cents per hour, the per acre cost was $1.23. When cotton yielding 4/10 bale per acre, which is probably the average yield for Northwest Texas, was harvested with the Texas Harvester, the cost was $3.08 per bale. The average price paid for snapping cotton by hand for the past several years, which is the common way of harvesting cotton in Northwest Texas in the vicinity of Lubbock, has been 75 cents per hundred pounds. It requires on the average 2,100 pounds of snapped cotton to make a 500-pound bale of lint. At this rate it would cost an average of $15.75 per bale to harvest the cotton by hand-snapping as compared with $3.08 with the one-row Texas Harvester. The cost of ginning a bale of hand-snapped cotton will average $10.50 making the total cost of harvesting and gin- ning hand-snapped cotton $26.25 per bale. The mechanically harvested cotton required on the average 2,200 pounds to make a 500-pound bale of lint, which cost $11.00 to gin. Harvesting and ginning a bale of mechanical- ly harvested cotton cost $14.08 per bale, as compared with $26.25 for hand-snapped cotton. This leaves a net difference of $12.17 per bale Table 1. The Average Approximate Cost of Harvesting and Ginning Hand-Snapped and Mechanically Harvested Cotton in Northwest Texas Pounds Re_ Harvesting Cost Ginning Cost quired to Make a Method of Harvesting EGO-pound Per 100 Per Bale Per 100 Per Bale Total Cost Bale of lbs. lbs. Cotton Hand-Snapped _____________ 1 2100 $0.75 $15.75 $0.50 $10.50 $26.25 Machine (Texas Har-v vester) .................... __ 2200 ______ ,. 3.08 0.50 11.00 14.08 Difference in Favor of Machine Harvesting _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ , . _ . _ _ __i . . _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. 12.17 THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 31 in favor of machine harvesting (Table 1). Under comparable conditions the cleaning charges and penalty for slightly lower grade as compared with hand-picked cotton are practically the same for hand-snapped and machine-harvested cotton. CLEANING AND GINNING OF COTTON HARVESTED MECHANICALLY Cleaning There has been a tendency in recent years, on the part of the labor employed to harvest the cotton crop, to be careless and gather more trash with the seed cotton. As a result, many gins have installed special cleaning machinery to remove the trash collected with the picked cotton. All gins in Northwest Texas, where most of the cotton is pulled or snapped by hand, are equipped with such machinery. Cotton harvested by mechanic- al strippers is similar to hand-pulled and snapped cotton, and must be cleaned before ginning. When cotton was harvested with the Texas Harvester in 1930, after the leaf worms had eaten all the leaves on the plants and practically all the remaining leaf stems had fallen off, it required approximately 2000 pounds of the machine-harvested cotton to produce a 500-pound bale of lint. In 1931, however, it required an average of 2,176 pounds of machine~ harvested cotton to produce 500 pounds of lint. This difference was probably due to the larger number of leaves on the Lone Star and to there being larger plants for all the varieties of cotton. Cotton Harvested with S'lot-Type Sled: A total of 847 pounds of cotton was harvested from the 12 varieties grown in 1928 by the slot-type stripper (sled). This cotton was carried to Dallas, Texas to be cleaned and ginned. The stripped cotton was first run through the extractor, and then through a cleaner, after which it passed through the gin clean- ing equipment and was ginned. From the 847 pounds of stripped cotton, 466 pounds of seed cotton, or 55.02 per cent, was secured. A total of 381 pounds, or 44.98 per cent, of trash, dirt, and foreign material was removed from the 847 pounds of stripped cotton. It is noted that the percentage of foreign matter was rather high. This, however, was due to the type of machine used to harvest the cotton and to the large-size plants which were in full foliage at the time of harvest. Cotton Harvested with the Rigidly Mounted Rubber Rolls: A total of 1,930 pounds of cotton was harvested with the reconstructed Deere & Com- pany’s stripper, from sixvarieties grown in 1929. This cotton was also car- ried to Dallas, Texas to be cleaned and ginned. The machine-harvested cotton was run directly into the cleaners and bur extractors mounted on the» gin stands. Consequently, all the trash, in addition to the burs, was removed by these machines. The total amount of trash removed was 892 pounds, or 46.2 per cent. This left 1,038 pounds, or 53.8 per cent, of seed cotton. The lint from this quantity of seed cotton weighed 453 pounds. It is noted that the percentage of trash in the cotton harvested 32 BULLETIN NO. 452. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in 1929 is 1.22 per cent more than that for 1928. The average efficiency of the machine in 1928 was 83.8 per cent, while that for 1929 was 77.9 per cent in harvesting the same six varieties of cotton. Cotton Harvested by Texas Harvester: The 1980 Texas Harvester was used to strip 202.44, 210.56, and 221.81 pounds, respectively, of Lone Star, C1iett’s Superior, and Wacona, as shown in Table 2, or an average of 211.6 pounds. From this quantity of machine-harvested cotton, 145.6 pounds, or 68.79 per cent, of cleaned seed cotton was secured. The average percentage of total waste, obtained from the 211.6 pounds of stripped cotton, was 27.57, which was composed of 24.94 per cent burs removed by the bur extractor, 1.65 per cent waste from the Quad cleaner, 0.92 per cent from the separator cleaner, and 0.06 per cent from the carding cloth. During the cleaning of the machine-harvested cotton, there was an average loss of 7.68 pounds, or 3.63 per cent, of waste which could not be accounted for. This was termed invisible loss because in the cleaning process some dirt, dust, and very fine trash drifted off in the air. The difference in the original weight of the machine-harvested cotton and the total weights of the seed cotton, plus the weights of various kinds of trash, represents the invisible loss. Fig. 27 shows the condition of machine-harvested Lone Star cotton before cleaning, while Fig. 28 shows cleaned seed cot- ton after having passed through the separator cleaner, the bur extractor, and the Big 6 Quad cleaner. Small quantities of leaf trash, bract trash, stems, and an occasional bur, remained in the seed cotton after it was clean- ed, most of which was removed in the process of ginning. Fig. Figure 27. Typical machine-harvested (stripped) 29 Shgwg a typical sample of cotton before being cleaned. . hand-picked cotton. The waste from the quad cleaner consisted mostly of dirt and particles of leaves. Most- ly leaf trash and some dirt were removed by the separator- clean- er and carding cloth. The amounts and percentages of the seed cotton and the vari- ous kinds of waste did not vary greatly for each of the three varieties. The percentage of burs for the Lone Star was the high- Figure 28. Machine-harvested cotton after clean- est, being 25.90 per cent, while mg, 33 THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON _ _ m 3N mm.» fidm 5% 2.. 0N. 2: 31m 34m 2am 2E0 wmfi. .250 _ wo.03_ 2040a .......... ; 0w§6>< _ _ . _ . _ _ _ mg $4. mwdw $62 8. mm. mm; 3.0. 3a m0.» 21$ NW; $.50 _ mwai bwammzoiwnsm 00.3020 Now 3a 0W3 20.2. 3. 5. £0 3.0 3a B; 3.3 NW8 09$ _ bwdw: 0.0.0.05 .......... .. 0:000? i; 3E 3S Si” fi. om. 3N £3 3.0 5.2 50.4w 20.3 100$ __ 8%; @330’ ..... .. saw wcoQ E3 Z0 waqbwmm .23 m5. SEN 1.33 8. .1. 2. 23 j m3 i mg 23w ¥_ mwfi 2.06 0 09m: 3.3m .......... z 0u0uw>< 2.0. 20.3 0.0.3 $.00 8. NH. :4 $4“ 2A 8.0. £3 3.3 3% i $0.3; $.05 0.00695 F3020 S.» 00.0 3.5 $.00 w? i. 2.. $4 3.4 3a wqmw $5 @050 $.03 8.5m .......... .. @0033 S.» 3.0 flxwm 3S 8. NM. mm. _ 5.4 5A 3.x 20.5 3.2 3% f $02 3S3 ....... 5am 000% _ 040000.00 munsPi vwwwmmv wwcsom awwnwv mwnsom imoumwu mccsom aamwmv $550k wwowmv $550M afiwomv Twcnom $500k 0mg Z0 mBADwNQ £020 M50500 aopdawmww A2230 @000 130m. . wnsm =0 c0080 z wmod 030235 .300 06m 0w» 000.33% “E000 swank. 0cm 95g 000.020 wwm$wmmww~ 20m 000000.03 c0 000.020 mewfs 000020 005G 1:0 0000000060 c055 hfiwgpwm c0500 00x09 3 wwimzffiwm c0300 59G v0 >0E0M 00mm; .00 owwwcwouwm 00w 000054 d. 05s? 34 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION for Wacona and Cliett’s Superior, there was 25.08 and 23.83 per cent, respectively (see Table 2). In harvesting the Wacona cotton, it was observed that there were a large number of burs which had not fully matured, which perhaps accounts for its having a higher percentage of burs than Cliett’s Superior. The Lone Star cotton, however, has a large, thick, heavy bur in comparison with the other varieties and this may account for the greater percentage in weight of burs in this variety. I In 1931, 258.65, 259.56, and 356.87 pounds, respectively, of Lone Star, Wacona, and Cliett’s Superior cotton was harvested with the Texas Cotton Harvester. Table 2 shows that an average of 196.08 pounds, or 67.13 per cent, of seed cotton was secured from an average of 291.69 pounds of ma- chine-harvested cotton. The average total waste from this amount of machine-harvested cotton was 30.24 per cent, which consisted of 25.08 per cent burs removed by the bur extractor; 3.11 per cent trash removed by Quad cleaner; 1.95 per cent by separator cleaner; and .09 per cent col- lected from the carding cloth of the bur extractor. There was an average of 2.63 per cent invisible loss. It is noted that for the in- dividual varieties the total per- centage of waste for the Lone Star was slightly higher than that for Wacona or Cliett’s Superior. It is also true for the invisible loss. This was pro- bably due to the fact that there were more leaves harvested with the Lone Star cotton than for either of the other varie- Figure 29. Typical sample of hand-picked cotton. ties“ The total waste removed in cleaning the cotton including the invisible loss, averaged, for the two years, 32.0 per cent. Large Quantities of Machine-Harvested Cotton: In both 1930 and 1931, after harvesting two or three hundred pounds of each of the three varieties, which were being studied to determine their suitability to mechanical harvesting, the machine was used to harvest several thousand pounds of cotton on which cleaning data were collected. Of the 9,550 pounds of cotton harvested mechanically in 1930, an average of 6,738 pounds of _ cleaned seed cotton, or 70.55 per cent, was obtained. The total waste removed was 26.64 per cent, and consisted of 22.99 per cent of burs, 1.82 per cent of waste from the Quad cleaner, 1.65 per cent from the separa- tor cleaner, and 0.18 per cent from the carding cloth. The percentage of invisible loss was 2.81. . In 1931, a total of 15,232 pounds of mechanically harvested cotton was cleaned, from which was secured 10,553 pounds, or 69.28 per cent, of cleaned seed cotton. The per cent of total waste removed was 27.72, which consisted of 22.77, 2.93, 1.94, and 0.08 per cent, respectively, of burs, Quad cleaner waste, separator cleaner Waste, and carding cloth waste. The THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON as invisible loss amounted to 3.00 per cent. Ginning After most of the burs, leaves, dirt, and trash from the machine-har- vested cotton had been removed by the bur extractor and cleaners, the cleaned seed cotton was passed through the regular gin cleaning equip- ment, which consisted of an airline cleaner, super- and feeder-cleaners and huller breast aprons. Each cleaning device removed some trash. The trash removed by the airline cleaner contained a few motes, fine stems, fine leaf and bract trash, and a small amount of sand. The super-cleaners removed about the same type of trash as the airline cleaner, with perhaps slightly larger amounts of small stems but smaller amounts of sand. Some fine trash and small stems were thrown out with the motes. The material, removed by the huller breasts of the gin stands, consisted mostly of broken burs, leaf and boll stems, a few motes, and some seed, with an occasional lock of cotton. Cotton Harvested by Texas Station Cotton Harvester: Table 3 shows that for 1930 the average total amount of waste removed from an average of 145.6 pounds of seed cotton by the ginning equipment was 4.48 pounds, or 3.07 per cent. Considering the individual varieties, it is seen that the percentage of waste removed from Cliett’s Superior cotton was slightly higher than for Lone Star or Wacona, being 3.78, 2.52, and 2.91 per cent, respectively. This probably was the result of more dirt being collected with the cotton by the machine at the time of harvesting. The average total waste removed from an average of 196.08 pounds of cleaned seed cotton in 1931, as shown in Table 3, was 9.29 pounds, or 4.75 per cent. This is slightly higher than for 1930, and can probably be attributed to there being larger plants and more leaves. There was not much difference in the total per cent of trash for each of the 3 varieties; Lone Star had 4.03 per cent, Wacona 5.84 per cent, and Cliett’s Superior 4.39 per cent. The total waste removed in ginning the cotton, including the invisible loss, averaged, for the two years, 4.7 per cent. Large Quantities of Mechanically Harvested Cotton: In 1930, a total of 267.01 pounds, or 3.96 per cent waste, was removed in ginning 6,738 pounds of cleaned machine-harvested cotton. The percentages of waste removed by the airline cleaner, super-cleaners, mote auger, and breast aprons, was 0.81, 0.76, 0.81, and 1.58 per cent, respectively. There was also 1.77 per cent invisible loss. In 1931, 10,553 pounds of cleaned mechanically harvested cotton was ginned, from which a total of 508.83 pounds of waste, or 4.82 per cent, was removed. Of this, the airline cleaner removed 1.0 per cent, the super-cleaners 0.88 per cent, the breast aprons 2.15 per cent, and the mote auger brought out 0.79 per cent. There was 1.67 per cent invisible loss. 36 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ‘STATION _ S. 24.4 5.4. 444 444 $4 24. 4444 4.4.4 444 4.44.4 4.0.4 44.44 444.3 44.3 4.4.444 44.4444 ........ .. 544243.. . . _ 44. 2.. 44.4. 43.4 4444 4.444 4.4. 444 44. 4.4.4 _ $4 _ 40.4. _ 234 _ 4444 _ 44.2 _ $44.4: 44.444_.4o442444w 4.4426 444.4 244 4.4.... $4.4 £4 444 4.4. £4 44.4 $4 $4 2.4 2.44 4.4.3 2.444 44444 44.¢44,....s.s 4:44.448 44. 3. 40.4. 444$ 44... 444 mm. 8. 44.4 S4 44.4 444 44.4.4 3.5 44.8 44.84 444.42 ,,,, .. 44.4w @464 44444 Z4 94.445544 4.4.4 44.4 S4 44.4. 4.44.4 4.44 4.... B. 3. 8.4 44. 44.4 4.4.44 4444.4... 44.3 4.4.44 2.44.4 ........ .. 44433.. _ _ _ 44. 3. 444 4.4..» 4.44.4 $4 44.. 44. 4s. 244 _ 444 _ 444 _ 444444 _ 4444 _ 34... _ 4.4.4.4 _ 4444445444445 4.4426 4.4.. 4a. 444 2.4.4. 44.4 £4 S. 5. 44. 4.44. 44.. 44. 4.444 44.44 44.44 44.2.. 4.4.3.4 4.44.243 444 4444 444 $4 24. 44.4 4.4. S. 44. 84 44. 4.4.. 44.4.4 $44. $3 2.4.4 444.444 444w @464 @450 @450 @450 4.450 44450 p450 i450 44450 5m mwfifiom 5m wwiflom 5m wwcflom 5m wwisom 5m mwnnom 5m mwcsom 5m wwnflom 5m mwcflom wwisom 4.444 Z4 5.4.4455 444.448 4.... 4.... _ 44444.4. .4... .4444.4..% 444444.... .5 4... 4.... 4...; Bnmwt/cm . . . $555M 534445 44D. w5>o4445fl 55>? $444M 54$ we 30E 55:45 $455540 @5440 @445 xooocwm 54$ 44o $545540 3w444om>94m ma? 4.40300 4555.255 >243 IMGGSOQE 05F ..5»w5>.4.wmm c0300 £35m. 54S .3 fiwwww>hflm 440300 $0.4m M54450 c4 4.524445% 544mm? we 5M4345o5m @4444 444454.444 .4” 534a THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 37 It is noted that the percentages of waste removed, in cleaning large quantities of mechanically harvested cotton and in ginning the cleaned cotton, compare well with those, for the machine-harvested an,d the cleaned cotton of the individual varieties as is shown in Tables 2 and 3. QUALITY OF COTTON HARVESTED BY HAND AND BY MACHINERY To determine what effect mechanical harvesting would have on the grade and staple of cotton, samples of lint were collected from each lot ginned. The classing of the cotton was done by Mr. J. G. Powers, an official and licensed cotton classer of the Department of Textile Engineer- ing, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. The data on grade and staple presented are based entirely upon his classifications. The nine official American grades of cotton were used in classifying the samples of cotton and these grades are designated as follows: Middling fair (M F) Strict good middling (S G M) Good middling (G M) Strict middling (S M) Middling (M) Strict low middling (S L M) Low middling (L M) . Strict good ordinary (S G O) Good ordinary (G O) 99°99‘$”!“9°!°!“ Grade of the Cotton A comparison of the grade of the cotton for both hand-picked and machine-harvested cotton grown at College Station is shown in Table 4 for the four years, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931. Table 4 shows that out of s12 samples of cotton picked by hand in 1928, 8 classed strict middling (S M), and 4 middling (M), averaging strict middling (S M). Out of 12 samples of cotton harvested by the slot-type stripper (sled), four classed good ordinary (G O), three strict good ordinary (S G O), and five low middlng (L M). The average for these 12 samples was strict good ordinary (S G O), or four full grades below that of hand-picked cotton. In 1929 all of the six samples of hand-picked cotton, shown in Table 4, classed strict middling (S M), while out of six samples of cotton stripped with the rigidly mounted rubber rolls in the “Deere” machine, three classed low middling (L M), two strict low middling (S L M), and one strict low middling minus (S L M-), averaging strict low middling minus (S L M-), which was two and one-half grades below that of the hand-picked cotton for the same varieties harvested on the same dates. In 1930, two of the three samples of hand-picked cotton classed mid- dling plus (M+), and one middling (M), averaging middling plus (M+) (see Table 4). Out of the nine samples of cotton harvested with the 1930 Texas Harvester, three classed strict low middling plus (S L M +), 38 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION swan» via 309w mo #25093 2o +Eflm A3 E wwmaaospo nwwaa mo “E5025 no +E_Hm A»; E wwmBawsao swan» mo wisooou co EEm Amy Em wwwBnospo Awwfi mo QEEOUOQ no E AC +EAm 22w IEAm A 0.0m E +E Em 2w -- ww§w>< _ . EA 2w .......... .. wwwézasa $332226 EQ Em ......................... ; cfiaom >52 ouw 2w m3 262.952 EA E ; ‘ wiifiwcwm EA 2m ........... 1 53C. OU E wofiwfl 0U Em .......................... .. 254 CU EM l \ w 95x53 122w oww Em Em .................................. z xwufifim EA 22 2w 2 ................................ .. @5232 E . uomaomsm P336 E .... : nomawnsm wbbwzO Amv +E.Hm - A Lflomfiisw Mfiwzo €+2qw .... .. §$Q=w @326 §+22w hotwgzw wfifio €+2qw Srsgw wmsmfio §+EAm EAm .............. ,. .~o€@.§m wmnwco AQEAw Eqw E ........... .. 22.82am P225 52.2w +Eflm Ewhm OG +E +E Em E 2223mm Pfiwao |2Aw 295E €+2Aw +EQm ucoow? 5 +Eflm |2qw Ed cow E +E Em Em , ‘ \ ‘ ‘ . . 1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ., wcoow? 5 +EAm 23m wcoq 522w Eflm E fifim wcoq ACE +E.Hm ITE awwm vied +E Eflm Eflm EQ +E E 2w Em 2.3m wcoQ $2 32 $2 £2 $3 2x: $3 $2 >Qbiu> c.5200 wopwwzwflécmsowE sofiov wwxomm-wcwm 500300 wouwokiwmm zfiwomnwsomE MO OAQNQW USN owwuw, U339. HQEMU 39 THL MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON H $33 _ H35 ww3w H _ H333 $33 wQHw . Qwfiwi . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w? 33H w 3956633. wwHwaoHHwo . . . . . w . . . . . . . . .. .. w? 33H w . cfihom .52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . .. w? w? .w .. 33 cowswpwm . . . \ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w? 33H w. . wHHHHHwaHHw w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w .. w? 33H s23. . . . w . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33H ww} 1H . .835 . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . w . . . . . . .. 33H 33 |H . .. . @164 . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w? 33H 3.31:5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w? w? w? 33H fiéssm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w. w? 33H 33H H wcwpwsH H ...... w. . w ...... .. ............................................................. .. woiwasw M336 ww>| H . . . . . . . . . w . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w .. BEwHHHHw 53:0 wwl: H . . . . . w . . . . . . . . .- .. . w w . . . . . . w . w . . . . . . . . . . . .. . hoiwasw $320 H . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . w . . . . . . . . .. hoiwasw .3326 H . . . w w . w . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . .. 32.63am 930:0 wwiw . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ...... w . .8H.§HHHw 3.36:0 33H 33H . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . .. 32.83am 330:0 33H 33H . . . . w . . . w . . . . .. H . . . w w w . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . w koionsm P325 H ww3w w? w? 33H w? w? 33H @8135 3.38:0 ...... .. 33H .. .. HEovw? ww\H| H H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w. . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wcaow? H H 33H 33H 3\H|H wwbw H wwh 1H .............................................................. ., 2.525 33H . . . . . . . . . . . . w . wwwwwww w. .w.. .. wwpw 26A H 33w . . . w . . . . . w . . w w w. 33H . w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . .. .w 3.3m 25A wwDw w? ...... ww w H . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w uwpw wHHoQ H ww3w w? 33H ww\H.-H ww3w 33H H .... w 38w 25H HmmH wwwH £3 wwwH HmwH wwwH 33 wwwH 3wiw> COuvOU uwuwowvumm-wcHsuns GOuuOO woxumm-wcwm Hqmfifim AUQQCSQOUvIIGOQQOU vwumo>uwmm zHHwomHHasuwHfi mo 293m was wwwfiw é Baum. 40 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION four classed strict low middling (S L M), and two classed strict low middling minus (S L M-). These nine samples averaged strict low midd- ling (S L M), or one and one-half grades below that of hand-picked cotton harvested on the same date. Six samples of lint of hand-picked cotton were collected in 1931.. Three of these classed middling plus (M+), and three middling (M), making the average grade middling (M) (see Table 4). A total of 15 samples of lint were collected from cotton harvested with the 1931 Texas Harvester. Table 4 shows that one of these classed middling plus (M+), three classed middling (M), eight classed strict low middling plus (S L M+), and three classed strict low middling (S L M). The average for the 15 samples was strict low middling plus (S L M+), which was only one-half grade below that of the hand-picked cotton, harvested on the same dates. It will be noted that there was a gradual improvement in the grade of the cotton harvested by machinery from 1928 to 1931, ranging from strict good ordinary (S G O) in 1928 to strict low middling plus (S L M+) in 1931. This represents a net improvement of three and one-half grades, which may be attributed largely to improvements made in the machine from year to year. The cotton harvested with the strippers in 1928 and 1929 contained large amounts of leaf and stem trash. This trash interfered with the proper ginning of the cotton, causing the lint to be gin-cut in a number of in- stances. As a result of this, the stripped cotton, when classed showed a slightly shorter staple than the hand-picked cotton. In 1930 and 1931, with the improvement of the Texas Cotton Harvester equipped with the yielding roll, less trash was collected in harvesting the cotton. It should be pointed out, however, that leaf-worms had de- stroyed all of the leaves on the plants of the three varieties grown in 1930 and on two of the three varieties grown in 1931, so that very little leaf trash was collected in harvesting with the machine. It was noted, however, that slightly higher grades of cotton were secured where the plants had been poisoned and were practically in full foliage at the time of harvest. No dif- ficulty was experienced in the cleaning and ginning of the me- chanically harvested cotton dur- ing these two years and the lint did not appear to be gin- cut or damaged to any notice- able extent. Fig. 30 shows a sample of lint from 1931 hand- picked cotton, while Fig. 31 shows a sample of lint from cotton harvested by the Texas Figugaxfglt.‘ lSégrple of lint from hand-picked cot- Cotton IIarVester in 1931. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 41 Staple of the Cotton Table 4 shows that in 1928 the length of staple for the hand-picked cotton averaged 31/ 32 inch and for the machine harvested cotton 29/32 inch, or a difference of 1/16 inch in favor of hand-picked cotton. In 1929 the hand-picked cotton averaged 59/64 inch while the machine- h a r v e s t e d cotton averaged 57/64 inch, or 1/32 of an inch difference in favor of hand- picked cotton. This small differ- ence, however, is not considered significant. There was no appreciable dif- ference in the length of staple for hand-picked and machine- harvested cotton in 1930, the difference averaging only 1/ 64 inch (see Table 4.) In 1931 the lint of the hand- picked and machine-harvested Figure 31. Sample of lint from cotton harvested t e n ‘ by Texas Cotton Harvester in 1931. cot on both averag d 0 e Inch (see Table 4). RELATION OF VARIETAL CHARACTERISTICS TO THE EFFICIENCY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTERS Slot or Rafter Type Machine Results showed that the single-slot machine did the best work of the three types tested in 1928 and this type was, therefore, used for the 1928 tests to determine the influence which varietal characteristics had on“ the mechanical harvesting of cotton. In this study, 12 varieties of cotton were compared, the results of which are shown in Table 5. Earliness: Considerable variation was exhibited among the varieties in regard to earliness. Delfos was the earliest variety, maturing 53.5 per cent of the total crop at the first picking, while Lankart, the latest-maturing variety, matured only 16.9 per cent ofits total crop at the first picking. Earliness is an important varietal characteristic af- fecting the mechanical harvesting of cotton, since it is desirable to have the crop harvested as early in the season as possible to prevent dam- age from unfavorable weather conditions, which generally prevail later in the fall. It was found in this study that some of the more early-maturing varieties, such as Acala, Delfos, Truitt, Sunshine, Ferguson 406, and New Boykin had rather small bolls which generally lacked storm-resis- tance, and for these reasons were not as well adapted to harvesting by machinery as the larger-boll, storm-resistant varieties. Storm Resistance, Size and Type of Boll: The small-boll varieties had a higher percentage of the cotton left on the ground after harvesting 42 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION .003300 00003030 0A3 500.3 00.5500 000.5 A0003 050 05030 .005A 003.330....» _ .00300>00A 0000 0A3 500.3 0005000 00300 .00 305050 0A3 500.3 003050300 0A0? 0000 0A3 000 .000A 0A 00300>00A 000? A003 030300.» A000 03 0.500 A000>00 .00§000-000000E A333 050000-000: 0000500 03 00000 0w 0.3m m0 3000 000 0 003M 03AM. $000500 wmmv 000A 0A 00x05 00300 0000 .30 30 5050 0A3 0A 000500 N03. 03 300A00A 00 0000 0A3 0m ABA? 50300 0000 00300>00A|003A005 0000030 .30 305050 0A3 0030330 0A 0005000 03 003005 0A3 0A 00300>00A 003300 0000 .30 03030 A0303 00 0003000000 0A0. . A000000 £0 003300 00000030 00 305050 A0303 0A3 .3 $00000 0.000 A0003 .00 30000.0 0A3 00003.00 0A 003000 003 6.03. 003 ABA? .A0003 .30 0003000009 0AM. 000500 0mm “.30 005000.330 0 00 50300 0000 000030 m0 000500 N00. 000 003300 000 -5030 .30 000500 0mm 0003030 300A00A 63050000 000A A0003 .30 0003000000 0A3 00.00 A03A>P .02 0A 002033355 335000 0A3 000 003300 00503030 .30 3AM30B A0303 0A3 0A 000330 03 A0003 .30 000008 0A3 .00AH 00300200 A00 03 .30 300008 0A3 00.00 ABA? 503300 0000 000020 .30 30000.0 0A3 000 003300 00503030 .30 0.00003 0A3 000B30A 000000.330 0A3 00000030 0A 30 003000 03 003300 00503030 0A3 03 00300200 A0003 .30 0003000000 0AM. 03030.3 00 000303900 03 m 0AA0H. .30 m3 000 AH 0055300 03 030A0 0300 0A3 003350500 .30 00A305 0A3 £00000 0A3 00 3000 0A3 00 003050000 030.00 0H... v.8 0.00 N000 0.3. 3v 3.00 Q00 0.0m 0.00 0.0 0.0.0 v.00 v0 v.2. ......... -- 0303M B02 00v 0.50 03 0.3. N00 02.5 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 3.0 0.03. .... 03. 00000090 0.00 00.0 000 0.00. 000 0S0 0.00 0.0m v.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 ......... -- . 00000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.3 80 0.30 v.3 v.v0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0v 0.5. .................... -- 00:00. 0.00 0.00 00.0 0.0.3. wwv 0000 0.00 0.00 wdH 0d 0.0m v.0v am 0.0m 003m 000A 00v 00v 000 0.00 3.0 0000 0.3 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 ....................... -- 000:0 00.0 . 0.00 3.00 0.0.0 S0 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.2.. 0.0m 000 0.00 ......... ... .......... -- 00005 v v0 0.vv 00v v.3. 03 300 0.00 0..v0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 .................... -- 000.030 . 0H2 0.00 0.03 0.0m 0.0m @000 v.00 000 0.00 v.0 9mm mdm m0 3.6m .................. -- 0000005 0.00 0.00 000 0.00. 0v0 0.000 0.3 0.00 0.0.0 0.0 0.5 05v 00 0.00 .................. -- 000002 0.00 0.00 30 0.00 000 Nvw 0.00 0.00 v.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 vv 0.3. . ...................... -- 00.60 a um 0.0m 0mm 0.00. N00. 000 0.00 000 0.00 0.0 0.00 04v 0v 0.00 . .................. -- 300A00A 3000 300D 3000 00A 00A 3000 00A 3000 000 000 000000 00m 00050m 000500“ 00A00H 00A00H -5573 -5573 00A00H 00m -5570 00m A d a L d d m0. V, a H m0. H0... 0m W00. 0 s H m m0 00.0w m N... m Pw WW. mun Wm o D O1. . a a 1 a m. m. mm Wmom. mflq 03S W M%m... 0.0. M03 033 M03 0Z3 m. m. 1.0.. WmTw-a .4 e s 1.0 u .... 0 n02 . w We WM 3350M 000000’ 133500 l030m0> u. e o 0w a 0 n0 00s..“ W00. 0.0.3.1....“ .. u u. a a 0.0 m pm- 00050 0w Fpw 1 1.3 d a 0. D. m. H 9 Mu 0.. O . m... .0. .. p. p... , .. .. 2. 0...... e O . . I c. m m. W. . m W 000 3wmm¢000300 00000.20 000000.00 m. T m m w. 00m a 0 e . m0 A3M00A .30 00A55Z w Pm Pu. M u u I 00300>00H 0003002 w... _ m. d 4 003002 .30 000m. 35-200mm 00 000503m. 0A3 0A wmafi 03 00300>00m 003300 .30 00303003000050 A030300> ‘H 0 0000000500 .0 0AA0H. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 43 than the varieties having large, storm-resistant bolls. The small bolls also appeared to be more brittle and broke apart more readily in harvesting, which resulted in greater loss of cotton. For example, Acala had 30.5 4' per cent of its crop wasted on the ground after harvesting; Delfos, had 36.1; Truitt, 39.0; Sunshine, 45.5; Ferguson 406, 38.5; and New Boykin, 30.2 per cent. On the other hand, the big-boll varieties had less cotton wasted on the ground: Cliett had 21.8 per cent; Lankart, 18.7; Mebane, 17.2; Wacona, 10.0; and Lone Star, 9.4 per cent.~These varieties, with the exception of Wacona, had a higher percentage of five-lock bolls than most of the other varieties studied. The large storm-resis- tant bolls also showed a tendency to remain intact and snap from the peduncle (boll stems) more readily than the small brittle bolls, resulting in a smaller percentage of cotton being lost in harvesting. It should be noted that three varieties, Wacona, Lone Star, and Mebane, which had large storm-resistant bolls, also made high yields of cleaned seed cotton per acre, ranking first, second and fourth in this respect. Relation between the Percentage of Cotton Picked by Machine and the Various Varietal Characteristics: Correlation coefficients were computed to determine the relationship or degree of association existing between the percentage of cotton harvested by the machine and a number of the more important varietal characteristics. If the coefficient has the value of 1.0, the correlation or relationship between any two characters may be said to be perfect, while if the coefficient is below .30, very little, if any, correlation exists. A correlation figure preceded by a minus sign indicates negative relationship between the two characters studied, while in the case of a positive relationship, the sign is omitted. Even though the population from which these coefficients were derived is comparatively small (12 varieties), there was a tendency noted in most cases for certain characters to be associated with the efficient operation of the machine. Correlation between percentage of cotton picked by the machine and the percentage of storm-resistance, or the ability of theplant to retain the cotton. in the boll until all the bolls were open, gave a coefficient of .85: .05, indicating a rather close association in this case. A significant ‘positive correlation was also obtained between the percentage of cotton picked by the machine and the size of the boll. The coefficient .82: .06 was obtained, showing that large bolls were harvested more readily with less loss than were the small brittle bolls. The size of the boll and the degree of storm-resistance were significantly correlated as shown by the correlation coefficient of .691- .10, indi- eating that the large bolls had a tendency to be more storm-resistant. A coefficient of .51 i- .14 was obtained between the percentage of five-lock bolls and storm-resistance, showing a tendency for the five- lock bolls to be more storm-resistant. Negative correlation coefficients were obtained between storm-resistance andprecentage of cotton not har- vested; between the size of the boll and earliness; between storm-resist- ance and earliness; and between percentage of cotton harvested by the machine and earliness. The coefficient was significant, however, only in 44 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 8n 3. o e63 2% 0.0m 3 30w 8w S4 wwtwpw EH. m B mm 3w Hflm 01$ 3 3:. fin mum 23w 520d 2:. 3w . mm Q8 mi w...» .02 is N5 Sm 0:000»? m3. on.“ 3 0W3 m: mum w» is w“: v3 05000095. P5030200 o2. W2 .3 m mm $0 a mm w» H 3 a2 5m Lstwgsw 9.30:0 5H w 3 mm 3w 5H gm 8 in. 2N m? 50055 056m £50 5m M50552“ p.50 5m 052502 £50 5m .5@E5Z p.50 .5..~. awn-fizz uonanZ 3m€0> gw>ofl5m c0300 wméofifiq 303w 095.034 wfifim wwwmv #505?» at? 054.300 wzom 000.25 wzom mfiom %w§%w 0.225 mzam 0002C 23m 500B “BN5? $2 E Hmagmgpm .3 wfiwwsawm 05mm .5030. 23m c0300 m0 005M350 é 030B c0300 050025 50.5 09,005» 5.5? Swamp 0cm mfiwuw 6.50, 050.040." 5;. >3» S.” 3m =8 pd Q2 fifi . d 050.5% HUS. m3 3a fix“ m8 3w .3: v.3 .85 500A c E. 0E New $2 26 3w wéfi Q2 w; 3a 000003. RE. 2n Z...“ 3m mam 93 Q2 3; flu Q3 05.000050. mawasfiw PE. m3 wém 3% m5 QNH 3: v.3 3 ma» govsgsm F3020 w. m0 mum as” m? m3 Y: f: 0.2 w... gm 500052 £50 5m mwfism p000 Mom wucsom mwcsom wosufi 5:03 nwnfisz hwflaflz 5:05 Hxa S Ld m 1 m mwm R s _ w A P s 0 . “w “m m. W. 1E I.U..% nnuuSO n00 M. m mwm m . o mu o1 0% m. n m ms i: we 2i p. o P S u o m o P2 o d Ltnfim um5w0> 025m -358’ _d m H. S9 d 1 0 1. Ia u u u a .l z m.qa Gal-fill i. p. e H WQTMQ> a A Wm, a m W m. m0 W a nlT - T? I. U10 V 3 a w.% m m“ 5.54 5Q 32% wwsoswflm wwnocmpm W Wmwm. P 00.300 wmumw>awmfiocwnumz Q0 SQMGQQ m0 05.0502 o . u I I. wflom M50025. uwnnsfi 0.5mm at? wmnmwfiufl “E3003 an mm? cm wwwmw>umm c0300 m0 wompwmawpomnwsO fimpwimqw wo 20252350 6 200E ‘THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 45 the first case, the value being —.85-_*-0.5, showing that those varieites which lacked storm-resistance had shed a large percentage of the crop on the ground before conditions were favorable for harvesting with the machine. Percentage of Cotton Harvested W~ith Rafter-Type Machine as Affected by Height of Plant, Number, and Length of Vegetative and Fruiting Branches: A study of Table 5 indicates that the efficiency of the stripper was influenced to some extent by the size of the plant.- Where the plants averaged 30 to 34 inches in height and had two or more vegetative branches, 17 to 23 inches long, the stripper harvested 54.6 to 69.8 per cent of the cotton. On the other hand, where the plants averaged 27 to 29 inches high and had an average of 1.3 to 2.0 vegetative branches, the stripper harvested 77.6 to 90.6 per cent of the cotton. The average for all 12 varieties in 1928 was 73.4 per cent. When the larger plants were stripped, the excessive amount of leaves would partially choke up the narrow slot and prevent the cotton from being snapped off over the sloping edges of the slot. This permitted much cotton to be pulled [through the slot by the stems and branches on the stalk. Condition of Leaf: It was noted in the case of some varieties, particu- larly Delfos, that the lint had a tendency to adhere to the under side of the leaf in harvesting, owing to the unusually hairy condition of the leaves. This caused many locks of cotton to be pulled through the slot in stripping the cotton from the plants of this variety. Percentage of Trash in Hand-Picked and Machine-Harvested Cotton: In determining the percentage of trash to stripped cotton, a five-pound sample was secured of each variety harvested. The various kinds of trash including stems, leaves, burs, and dirt were separated by hand. It was found that the percentage of trash to stripped cotton harvested by machine in the 12 varieties studied, ranged from 30.9 per cent with Wacona to 52.1 per cent with Cliett, and averaged 43.7 per cent for all 12 varieties. Efficiency of Stripper Equipped‘ With Short Rubber Stripping Rolls On account of the appearance of the John Deere machine with short spiked rolls previously described in this Bulletin, tests were made with it in the hope of better success than the rafter type had shown, The spikes, however, were unsatisfactory for the conditions present and trials in 1929 were therefore made with the machine after the spiked rolls had been replaced with smooth rubber rolls. The second year’s study (1929) of varietal characteristics included only six varieties of cotton: Mebane, Cliett’s Superior, Galloway’s Thoro- bred, Wacona, Lone Star, and Startex. Results secured with the rafter- type machine in 1928 indicated that these varieties, excepting Galloway’s Thorobred, which was not then tested, had characteristics that were more suitable to mechanical harvesting than the other varieties studied. As shown in Table 6, only the big-boll varieties were planted in 1929. Data on the earliness, size of boll, and percentage of five-lock bolls were not obtained. Data were secured, however, on the height of plants and on the number and length of vegetative and fruiting branches. 46 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Percentage of Cotton Harvested: A study of Table 6 does not show any material influence of the height of the plant or the number and length of the vegetative and fruiting branches on the efficient operation of the machine as measured by the amount of cotton harvested. The per- centage of total yield of seed cotton harvested in 1929 by the machine, varied only 2.6 per cent with the different varieties or from 77.0 ‘per cent . with Wacona to 79.6 per cent with Cliett’s Superior, averaging 77.9 per cent for the six varieties. The six varieties tested in 1929 had large storm-resistant bolls and this characteristic seemed to have more influence on harvesting by the stripper than did the other plant characteristics. The excessive amount of vegetative growth of the plants in all varieties, together with the fact that the rubber rolls recently installed, were found to be neither long enough nor high enough at the rear, and the lack of suitable pick-up fingers,_probably accounted for the slightly lower per- centage of the cotton that was harvested in 1929, as compared with the amount harvested from the same varieties by the slot-type sled in 1928. It was evident, therefore, that certain changes would have to be made in the machine to correct the faults observed in the tests made during Se-p- tember 1929. Intact and Crushed Bolls: The action of the machine on the bolls, and the condition of the bolls after harvesting, was given special attention in 1929. A study of Table 7 shows that the percentage of bolls remaining intact and not crushed when snapped off the plants by the stripping rolls, rangedlfrom 64.1 per cent xvith Cliett’s Superior to 80.0 per cent with Startex. Lone Star ranked second in this respect with 76.6 per cent, and Wacona and Mebane practically tied for third place. The ease with which the bolls were snapped off the plants without crushing seemed to indicate that this varietal characteristic had considerable influence on the per- centage of cotton harvested by the machine. When a high percentage of the bolls were crushed, there was a tendency for the limbs and stems on the plant to catch and pull more_ of the loose cotton, between the smooth stripping rolls, causing the cotton to fall to the ground. “Snapability” of the Bolls: The ability of the bolls to snap off the plant and leave the boll stem or penducle on the plant is very desirable. This feature was ‘noticeable in, Lone Star, where 15.3 per cent of the bolls snapped off leaving the stems on the plants, (Table 7). Startex had the highest percentage of intact bolls but this desirable feature was offs-et by the stems remaining attached to all of these bolls. Thickness of Hull: The thickness of the hull of the bur in some cases seemed to affect the “snapability” of the boll. This is indicated by the weight of the bur, as shown in. Table 7. For example, 25 burs of Lone Star, Mebane, Cliett’s Superior, and Wacona weighed .154, .131, .130, and .129 pound respectively, while those of Galloway’s Thorobred and Startex weighed .112 and .105 pound respectively. Varieties having bolls with thicker hulls as indicated by the weights of 25 burs of each variety, seemed to snap from the plants more readily than the bolls with thinner hulls, and remained intact without the stems attached. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 47 Efficiency of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester The modified John Deere stripper used ‘in the 1929 tests while superior to the rafter-type stripper was still unsatisfactory for the conditions present in. the test at College Station and a new machine was built and mounted on the side of a tractor and in which larger rubber rolls were used. This machine, called the Texas Station Cotton Harvester, has been more fully described previously in this Bulletin. It proved superior to the others tested and was accordingly used in the 1930 tests and in the 1931 tests. Only three of the six varieties of cotton grown in 1929 were planted in 1930. These were Lone Star, Wacona, and Cliett’s Superior, and. were selected after considering the plants’ suitability to mechanical harvest- ing and the efficiency of the machines. The average percentage of cotton harvested by the Texas Station Harvester from these three varieties in 1930 was 88.6 per cent. Effect of Vegetative Growth in 1930: Table 8 shows that the average size of the plant was smaller in 1930 than in 1929 (Table 6). The height of the plant averaged 23.8 inches in 1930 as against 28.1 inches in 1929 for the same varieties. In general, plant characteristics such as height of plant and num— ber and length of the vegeta- tive and fruiting branches, did not appear to influence the a- mount of cotton harvested by the machine. This can probably be attributed to the absence of leaves and leaf stems (petioles). The eating of the leaves by the leaf-worms caused the leaf stems to shed from the plant, leaving the bolls of cotton on the bare stalk (Fig. 32). Figure 32. Type of‘ work done by 1930 Texas Cotton Harvester. ' Height of Branches above Ground: A factor that did appear to influence the percentage of cotton harvested was the height of the vegetative and fruiting branches above the ground. For example, there were three or four inches between the surface of the ground and the first branches on the Wacona plants. The plants of the Cliett variety, however, had branches on them almost from the surface of the ground. The lowest branches on the Lone Star plants were borne higher off the ground than Cliett but lower than Wacona. The height of the branches on the stalk influenced the setting of the pick-up fingers. When harvesting Cliett cotton, it was necessary to set the fingers down to where they would skim the surface of the ground, but with the Lone Star and Wacona, they could be elevated 48 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION £2. m3. . w S» m5 0.3 s. 2a 2a S” . . . Biwmww 5.05:0 Q3... Wm v >55 New “.6 Hm 9mm mom 3m ..................................................... ‘ ‘ 50055? $20 3 2 Q2 NHN 0.: 3 Z5 mum 8N 55w 500d 056m $50 5m 5nEsZ 0.50 5m 5:502 £50 5m a5nE§Z £50 5m 50.502 5:552 Q05>OE5M c0300 @350 05:033.‘ @885 095534 250m 058250 26m 0052i 26m 23m >5€5> 5.5m 0065:» fir.» 130m. mu 5o 00.3.5 26m 550$ 23m $353 .50w5>.5fl 5.35m. ommfi 53$ w5um5>pwi 505m .5004 550m 008.00 we 00300000 d 205B 535.55 wcdon-m a n0 055mm... gm $5 Nam 3Q mmoH kw 0.5“ m.» m4 v.3 5.5 ........................ .- 52.60am 5.35:0 2w 3a W3 3w pa: 3w 0.2 3 N; wdu N5 500053 2a it. Ea as $5 m.» 0.2 Wm NA 9% w? afim 500A £50 5m mwcsom @050 5m mwcsom mwcsom 55:25 5555i 05.00502 50,552 55:05 $50 5m Ad x. mwm m. m. mwowm w m uwvm MM OWWLw c0mw00 c0300 m5 530 ME 5>B m O Wm 3m Ona WWM m m. ~35? ~05narflw $15k n35m5> $30M k35m5> Yaw m w 55mg m m? I. I 0 v.1 *. B U H H0 ~$5w3> u qWo u W 1w. s I. a .A I. 3 m. m%l % % 55< 5Q 357W wmwnucnnm we wosucwnm .00 W W. a Wm. a P c0300 w5pw5>5m|wcmsum§ 505-51." 55€5>< 5253A 5.5.5.53» w. M. u I ~50m5>~wm @5059 5s» 5C5 0mg E ~050w5>~5m c0300 mo m0$£500§~5s0 ~su5mnu> we c0wmu5QE00 .w 535m. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 49 at least an inch above the surface of the soil, resulting in the collection of less dirt in the harvesting of these two varieties. Whole Bolls and Crushed Bolls: The strength of the boll and its ability to remain intact seemed to have some influence on the percentage of cotton harvested by the machine. For example, Table 9 shows that 93.6 per cent of the _Wacona bolls remained intact and the machine collected 89.9 per cent of the cotton (Table 8). Lone Star ranked second with 85.1 per cent of intact bolls and 89.1 per cent of the cotton harvested. Cliett’s Superior was third, having 80.1 per cent of intact bolls and 86.7 per cent of the cotton harvested. It was observed that the bolls on the Wacona plants did not open up as wide as those of Cliett and Lone Star. This characteris- tic probably accounted, to some extent, for the high percentage of Wacona burs. The degree to which the bolls opened up influences considerably the quantity of cotton that can be hand-picked in a given time. For example, it took one hour and 43 minutes to pick 35% pounds of Cliett’s Superior cotton; one hour and 49 minutes to pick 43 pounds of Lone Star; and 2 hours and 20 minutes to pick 43 pounds of Wacona. Fluffiness of the Cotton: The degree that the bolls spread open deter- mined largely the fluffiness of the locks of cotton in them. The locks did not extend very much beyond the tips of the “tight” bur in the Wacona but in Cliett’s Superior, having well-opened bolls, the locks pro- ‘ jected an inch or more. The locks in the Lone Star bolls were fluffed out more than those of Wacona, but they did not have the tendency to string-out as did the locks in the bolls of Cliett’s Superior. Some locks of Cliett’s Superior were barely hanging in the boll and others had fallen out on the ground. Such a condition caused the cotton to be pulled down between the stripping rolls by the rough joints of the limbs and stalks and to be lost. This feature probably accounts, to a large extent, for the lower percentage of Cliett’s Superior cotton that was harvested by the machine. “Snapability” of the Bolls: Table 9 shows that a majority of the bolls in all three varieties snapped off with the‘ stems, or peduncles, attached, Lone Star having 93.0 per cent; Wacona 97.7; and Cliett’s Superior 97.2 per cent of the bolls with stems attached. Table 9 also shows that the bolls on the Lone Star plants were thicker as indicated by the weight of 25 burs, which was 0.156 pound as compared with Wacona and Cliett’s Superior, which weighed 0.109, and 0.125 pound, respectively. Influence of Rate of Travel: To determine what effect different rates of travel would have on the amount of cotton harvested, two rows of Lone Star cotton were stripped in 1930 in low, second, and high gear, at 1.1, 1.7, and 2.2 miles per hour, respectively. The actual amount of cotton picked off the ground when the machine traveled at these rates of speed was 5.2, 5.5, and 9.5 pounds, respectively, indicating that less cotton was lost when operating at slower speeds. It was more difficult to steer the tractor at higher rates of travel. The pick-up fingers hit the base of the stalks so sharply that many bolls of cotton were jarred 50 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 33. Field scene of Cliett cotton plants before (right) and after harvesting. Note the small amount of cotton on the ground along the harvested rows. l loose with such force that they were thrown a foot or more away from the plant.» To further study the suitability of, cotton varieties to mechanical harvest- ing, Lone Star, Wacona, and Cliett’s Superior varieties were grown in 51 THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 635a» wnncQ-n a no wowafln N2 Maw Q3 N2. SS QNN 5w QN @9222 wan N5 9N» N8 w; .5 H6 wN ................ -- SEREm mfiwzo a NNNN 3N $3 $3 3 Nd _...N ................................ .- E83? N9 N3 Nam 8m 5N a» 5w w.N ........................... -- 28w 96A meqbmmm GAwHU-MHUMN NAN >3 5a 2:. S2 QNN 5 N.N ................................ -- ~w2~>< 4N» N3 wNN N2 Ni“ 3 5. NN NQEQFm mfiwzo Q8 $2 Q3 ES 8B wm we 9N anaé? Q8 NE. 3a N5 .33 3 Nd QN ............................ -. 2am 25A maqnwmm mfimvazoomw NA... 3N 3N 5;. $13: QNN N.» NA ................................ -- 3322 QNN NNN NAN :3 N8 3 Na NA HHHHHHHHMHHH.mwfiwmwm Pfiwzo N...» £3 Q3 $3 32 w“ E m." . . . “.883 WNN N? Nam 3m 3N 3 Nd 9N ......................... .. 5m ~55 £50 uwm mucuom £50 now $55M mwcnom @233 MHQDMHM MPOQ Mu“ H nopao awn Hmm m“ . 55% 5 W MW Wm mm ww w...“ Mwmiw Nfio Nwwmww pm 1m w» w u Sew Wlm. owficouuom wocuoa . Jaw mu... d m. 5o€a> mmw a 3 Q m m m. L w w. mp w. w. am H“ mmm M~% v.34 5Q 33M w. m m. m». mm. 1 P c0500 wwumo>awm|ocmsuuufl 4 v P I u I éwawmgnwm mwwwh. 0J0 Sfima Cm wvaflflrudmm GOHHOQ %O momawiouodndéO wdaQT-QF? w . can 1:53P no 03M we commuunfioO .3 Spun. 52 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1931. These were the same as used in 1930. The tests made in 1930 on the Lone Star variety at different rates of travel indicated that the speed of the machine would influence the percentage of cotton harvested. Consequently, tests were made in 1931 on all three varieties to determine to what extent the rate of travel would have on the efficiency of the machine. Fig. 33 shows a field scene of Cliett cotton before and after harvesting. Percentage of Cotton Harvested at Different Rates of Travel: A study of Table 10 shows that slightly less cotton was harvested from plants on all varieties when the machine was operated in high gear. As a general average, the best results were obtained when the tractor was operated in low gear. An average of 91.8 per cent of the cotton was harvested in low gear (1.8 miles per hour); 91.2 per cent in second gear (2.3 miles per hour); and 90.2 per cent in high gear (2.6 miles per hour). The average for the three speeds was 91.1 per cent in 1931. There was only 0.8 of a mile’s difference in the rate of travel for low gear and high gear. A greater range in rate of travel would have probably given a" greater difference in the percentage of cotton harvested. This difference in the percentage of the cotton harvested as the rate of travel varied, was probably due to the difference in, the speed of the stripping rollers in relation to the rate of travel. For example, the average rate of travel in low gear was 1.8 miles per hour. The machine was originally designed so that the surface of the stripping rolls, when operating in low gear, would have about the same rate of movement as that of the machine along the row. The tractor operated at a rate of 2.3 miles per hour in second gear but the speed of the stripping rolls was somewhat reduced. In high gear the tractor traveled at the rate of 2.6 miles per hour. Even though the tractor traveled faster, the revolutions per minute of the engine were slower than when operated in either low or second gear. The slower engine speed in turn slowed down the speed of the stripping rolls and the movement ofthe conveyors. Consequently, cotton was collected more rapidly at the higher rate of travel but it was not conveyed out of the machine as fast. The result was that the cotton piled up over the conveyor chain and hung on the paddles, some of it being thrown out of the machine over the sides of the hopper and lost. _Percentage of Green Leaves Removed from Cotton Plants at Different Rates of Travel: It was observed during the preliminary tests, made in early September 1931, that a relatively small percentage of the leaves on the plant were removed by the stripper. Several tests were made to determine the percentage of leaves left on the plant, when operating in low, second, and high gears. l Table 11 shows that an average of 84.0 per cent of the leaves were left on the plant in low gear; 75.7 per cent in second; and 78.4 per cent in high. In these tests some of the leaves on the plants had. been partially eaten by the leaf-worm. There was, however, a slightly smaller number of plants per 50 feet and a smaller number of leaves on the plants where the tests were made in THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 53 low gear. The table also shows that of the percentage of leaves removed from the plant, 7.3 to 8.9 per cent dropped on the ground. An average of 8.0 per cent of the leaves removed were mixed in with the harvested cotton when the machine was operated in low gear. In second and high gears, the percentage was higher, being 15.4 per cent and 14.3 per cent, respectively. The condition of the leaves materially influenced the percentage removed from the plants. 1t was observed that where cotton was stripped in late August and early September, fewer leaves were removed from the plants (Fig. 34). At that time it was hot and dry and the leaves were limp and leathery. They did not tear so easily and were hard to pull from the branches. In October, however, the leaves were crisp and brittle, and many had fallen on the ground and others would almost drop at the slightest touch. Table 11. Number and Percentage of Green Leaves Removed From Lone Star Cotton Plants, When Harvested With the Texas Cotton Harvester in 1931 v Per Cent of Green Leaves No. of Leaves y No. No. of N0. of Test Plants Leaves \ Number in 50 on Plants Feet Removed Dropped In On On with on Cotton Ground Plant Cotton Ground LOW-GEAR RESULTS 1 22 584 12 32 2.1 5.5 92.5 2 31 910 106 84 11.6 9.2 79.1 3 42 823 57 65 6.9 7.9 85.2 4 29 892 88 67 9.9 7.5 ~ 82.6 5 45 1138 109 108 9.6 9.6 80.8 Average l 33.8 I 869 ’ 74.4 71.2 g 8.0 7.9 84.0 SECOND-GEAR RESULTS l 1 50 1131 109 86 9.6 7.6 82.8 2 33 1344 210 118 15.6 8.8 75.7 3 35 1397 298 131 21.3 9.4 69.3 4 33 1170 178 115 15.2 9.8 75.0 ’ I Average l 37.7 1260 198.7 112.5 15.4 8.9 75.7 HIGH-GEAR RESULTS 1 29 1.080 154 95 14.2 8.8 76.9 2 41 1317 310 88 23.5 6.7 69.8 3 62 1477 132 100 8.9 6.8 84.3 4 45 1198 127 83 10.6 6.9 82.5 Average 44.2 1268 180.7 91.5 14.3 7.3 78.4 Percentage of Trash: Referring to Table 10, it is found that the per- centage of trash collected in the harvested cotton at the three rates of travel, averaged 38.2 per cent for the Lone Star; 33.6 per cent for 54 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Wacona; and 32.4 per cent for Cliett’s Superior. The high percentage of trash in Lone Star was a result of stripping the cotton from the plants. A which still had the greater part of the green leaves on them, soned to keep down leaf worms. The Wacona plants averaged eight inches higher than those of the Lone Star and Cliett’s Superior and this probably ac- counts for there being a slight- ly higher percentage of trash in cotton of this variety than with that of Cliett’s Superior. It is noted, however, that the yield per acre wa s considerably higher for the Wacona cotton Figure 34. Plants that were harvested September than for the other Varieties’ 10, 1931. Note the large amount 0f foliage since was grown on a more remaining on the plants after harvesting when the leaves were wilted and leathery. fertile soil. Effect of Vegetative Growth in 1931: The plants of all varieties were taller in 1931, averaging 32.6 inches high as compared with 28.1 in 1929, and 23.8 inches in 1930 for the same varieties (see Tables 5, 6 and 10). No count was made of the number and length of vegetative and fruiting branches but it appeared that these averaged longer than those for the two previous years. Effect of Plant Juices on Stripping Rolls: When cotton was stripped from plants that had considerable green leaves on them, juice from the crushed, broken and torn leaves and stems collected on the surface of the stripping rolls. Dust and dirt collected on the rolls, forming a hard crust and creating an artificial surface. This artificial covering of smooth, hard dirt did not, however, seem to materially affect the efficiency of the machine-a fact which leads us to believe that smooth rollers made of wood, iron shafting, tubing or pipe may work as efficiently as rubber rolls. These materials, however, have not been tested. DEVELOPING VARIETIES OF COTTON TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING In the foregoing discussion, it has been shown that the more commonly grown varieties of cotton had certain characteristics which caused con- siderable difficulty in harvesting by machinery. Some of the character- istics were: the wide branching habit of the plants, small bolls lacking in storm-resistance, and the long fruiting period causing the late, maturity and opening of the bolls. since this variety had been poi- THE MECHANICAL HARESTING OF COTTON 55 In harvesting cotton with machinery from plants more than three feet _in height and having several long vegetative branches, an excessive amount of leaves and stems were stripped off with the cotton. When several vegetative branches were present on a plant, there was a tendency for these branches to fold up and inclose, between them, bolls of cotton which could not be removed by the machine. Best results were secured with cotton plants of medium height having a minimum of vegetative growth. Varieties which lacked storm-resistance often had brittle burs which broke apart easily, causing much of the cotton to fall to the ground. From information secured by studying the varietal characteristics, it was found that a type of cotton having large storm-resistant bolls, a minimum of vegetative growth, and an early and short fruiting period was necessary to get the highest efficiency from a mechanical harvester. Since there appear to be no varieties that meet these requirements, an attempt is being made to develop such a type through a breeding process. Selection of Parent Plant and Making the Crosses: The first work in breeding a variety of cotton by hybridization having characteristics suit- able to mechanical harvesting was begun in 1927. At that time, several crosses were made using a plant from the progeny of a mutant strain of Durango cotton selected by Mr. R. E. Karper, at the Lubbock Station, on September 7, 1923, as one of the parents in every cross. Fig. 35 shows that the original plant selected had several lateral vegetative branches at the base of the stalk only, and above these there was an abundance of bolls on short axillary fruit- ing limbs clustered around the main stem. The stalk was heavily fruited, having 45 grown bolls-—13 single, 10 sets of dou- bles, and 4 sets of triple bolls. The Durango strain was later found to segregate for limbless types. Although the original mutant strain had certain desirable fea- tures from the standpoint of mechanical harvesting, such as early maturity, prolificness, a tendency to set bolls in clusters, and a minimum of vegetative growth; it also had certain un- desirable characteristics includ- ing small bolls lacking storm- resistance and a tendency to a- bort the blooms on the upper Figure 35 Original mutant plant of Durango portion of the plant. In order cotton; which has been used as a basis for to Qvercome these unde$irabl€ breeding up a type of plant suitable to h ' ' mechanical harvesting c aracteristlcs, the Durango 56 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Figure 36. Desirable type of plant for mechani- cal harvesting. One of the F4 generation plants of the cross Durango x Wacona grown in 1931. strain, grown in 1927, was cros- sed on Mebane, Lankart, Waco- na, Colvin’s Big Boll, and Har- per varieties. These varieties had relatively large storm-re- sistant bolls and did not show the tendency to abort the blooms. Breeding Work During 1928 to 1931: During the past four years, following the initial cros- ses, the breeding work has been continued at both Lubbock and College Station. The more de- sirable segregates have been se- lected and inbred in the succeed- ing hybrid generations, back- crosses having been made to try and fix the type desired. The cluster type of fruiting and the absence of long vegetative branches are recessive charac- ters which have simplified the breeding problem. The vegetative characteristic, however, seems to be affected to some extent by weather con- ditions, showing that in the presence of ample moisture some vegetative spurs develop but these are generally short and do not interfere seriously with the harvesting with mach- inery. Fig. 36 shows a fully matured and desirable type of plant of the F4 generation grown in 1931 and resulting from the crossing of the Durango strain and Wacona. The Durango-Wa- cona cross, although not entire- ly pure for the type of plant shown in Fig. 36, appears to have more desirable character- istics, from the standpoint of mechanical harvesting, than any of the other crosses grown. It matured early; had large storm- l ‘THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON Figure 37. Section of plat of the F4 generation of the Dura was harvested with the Texas Cotton Harvester on Oct 57 ngo-Wacona strain just before ober 21, 1931. 58 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION resistant bolls borne generally in clusters; was relatively pure for the ab- sence of vegetative branches; yielded well; produced a good staple; and the plants were compact in growth. A typical field scene of the Durango-Waco- na cotton, is shown in Fig. 37. While the type of plant developed and tested to date appears to be of considerable promise from the standpointpf efficient harvesting by machinery, additional breeding work is necessary to eliminate the small percentage of off-type plants which continue to appear and to test the strain further in comparison with other varieties in different sections of the State, particularly for yield and uniformity in type of plant. - Harvesting Tests: After the special selections had been picked by hand, in 1931, the Texas Cotton Harvester was used to harvest all the fourth- generation Durango-Wacona strain. The data on the efficiency of the machine in harvesting this strain of cotton, showed that it was able to harvest 93.8 per cent of the cotton on the plants, as compared with 91.1 per cent for the other varieties. There was less trash collected with this strain of cotton to lower the grade as compared with other varieties and strains tested. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are indebted to the following manufacturers: John Deere Plow Co., for the use of an experimental cotton harvester; International Harvesting Company for aFarmall tractor during 1930 and 1931. They also wish to extend thanks to the Continental Gin Co., and the Murray Company for cleaning and ginning mechanically harvested cotton. The authors are indebted to Messrs. M. A. Hartman and R. R. Rylander for mechanical assistance in developing the Texas Cotton Harvester; to Mr. G. T. McNess, Superintendent of the Main Station Farm for his assist- ance; and also to Mr. J. G. Powers for classing the cotton. SUMMARY During the five years, 1927 to 1931 inclusive, several types of cotton harvesters were devised and studied. The results secured with the Finger, Modified Finger, and Slot-Type machines were not satisfactory. They were inefficient and wasteful, as shown by the fact that it was possible to harvest an average of only 73.4 per cent of the total yield of cotton in 1928 from all 12 varieties. With the development of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester mounted on the side of a tractor equipped with smooth revolving rubber stripping rolls, it was possible in 1931 to harvest an average of 91.1 per cent of the crop. In harvesting trials with a number of varieties of cotton, it was found that many of the varieties were not well suited to harvesting by machinery. The Texas Harvester harvested 88.6 per cent of the cotton in 1930 while in 1931 it harvested 91.1 per cent. From the information secured by study- ing varietal characteristics, it was evident that a type of cotton with large storm-resistant bolls, a minimum of vegetative growth, and an \,'>,|»LA,;|, ~ " »‘ :1; Muss... to...“ _,..;_......i.._.n@..l..rha.... - s’ ' i 4A THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 59 early short fruiting period was necessary to get the highest efficiency from a mechanical harvesterf ' Breeding work to develop a variety of cotton to meet the requirements of mechanical harvesters indicates that satisfactory progress has been made. Cotton harvested with the various types of mechanical harvesters was cleaned on special bur-extracting and cleaning equipment. When the machine-harvested cotton was cleaned before ginning, approximately 32.1 per cent of trash was removed. This left 67.9 per cent of cleaned seed cotton, in which a small amount of trash remained. In ginning, 4.7 per cent of trash was removed. The machine- harvested cotton in 1931, after being cleaned and ginned, had the same staple length as hand-picked cot- ton, and was only one-half grade lower than hand-picked cotton. The cost of harvesting a bale of cotton with the one-row Texas Har- vester amounted to $3.08 as compared with $15.75 for hand-snapping. The cleaning and ginning charges on a bale of mechanically harvested cotton were $11.00 and for hand-snapped cotton $10.50. The slightly higher cost of cleaning and ginning the mechanically harvested cotton is due to the fact that an average of 100 pounds more of machine-harvested cotton is required to make a 500-pound bale of lint. The total cost there- fore of harvesting, cleaning, and ginning a bale of mechanically harvested cotton averaged $14.08, while a bale of hand-snapped cotton cost $26.25, showing a difference of $12.17 in favor of machine harvesting. A complete list of the patents that have been granted on various types of cotton-harvesting equipment is given. 60 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION LIST OF PATENTS ON COTTON HARVESTERS A list of all the patents that have been granted on all types of cotton-harvesting equipment is given in Table 12. It includes information not only on the complete machine, but on various attachments and im- provements that have been made from time to time on the original machines. This list is included not only as a bibliography on cotton- harvesting literature, but also for the benefit of those who might be interested in obtaining detailed information in regard to the history and development of cotton-harvesting machinery. Table 12. LIST OF PATENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON COTTON HARVES- TERS AS SHOWN IN CLASS 56-HAR\;)ES'I;I(<]:RS OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT FF E The class definition and the sub-class definitions are taken from the U. S. Patent Office Bulletin No. 42 and are printed without quotation marks. This class includes means for severing crops which grow above the surface of the ground, without disturbing the soil, and means for gathering the same from the field after they are severed. Subclass 11—Motor, Cotton. Peculiarly adapted for harvesting cotton. Patent No. Date Name 103,986 June 7, 1870 R. F Cooke 602,076 April 12, 1898 A. A Hammerschlag T. H. Price 779,965 Jan. 10, 1905 R. H. Purnell 1,636,132 July 19, 1927 W. T. Hoofnagle Subclass 12»—Motor, Cotton, Pneumatic. the cotton from the Having pneumatic means to assist in detaching boll to convey it therefrom. 445,786 Feb. 3, 1891 O. Kretzschmar 490,101 Jan. 17, 1893 H. H. Call A. A. Clough 659,752 Oct. 16, 1900 W. H. Meyers 779,945 Jan. 10, 1905 M. E. Lehmann 830,101 Sept. 4, 1906 G. E. Richmond 841,687 Jan. 22, 1907 N. M. Henderson 946,454 Jan. 11, 1910 D. H. Mays 949,260 Feb. 15, 1910 E. Childs 973,712 Oct. 25, 1910 C B. Sewell 1,036,357 Aug. 20, 1912 H. Skaer 1,041,650 Oct. 15, 1912 W. R. McC0mb 1,095,572 May 5, 1914 W. H. Heffley 1,107,908 Aug. 18, 1914 M. G. Cunningham 1,122,172 Dec. 22, 1914 W. W. Thomas 1,132,102 Mar. 16, 1915 W. J. Lee 1,166,935 Jan. 4, 1916 C Rhodes 1,242,761 Oct. 9, 1917 G. Blohm 1,314,437 Aug. 26, 1919 M. W. Silverthorne 1,342,528 June 8, 1920 W. H. Chancellor 1,378,021 May 17, 1921 A. J. Gibson 1,398,930 Nov. 29, 1921 G. R. Bennett 1,423,472 July 19, 1922 H. W. Taylor 1,501,334 July 15, 1924 H. Hanson 1,610,067 Dec. 7, 1926 E. F. O’Haver 1,687,571 Oct. 16, 1928 A. J. Kieffer 1,711,316 April 30, 1929 N. F. Higgins 1,717,409 June 18, 1929 W. E. Riza 1,722,747 July 30, 1929 T. E. Hentz 1,723,151 Aug. 6, 1929 C. N. Goodwin Subclass 13——Motor, Cotton, Pneumatic, Individually directed. individual boll. Manually directed to each 246,818 Sept. 6, 1881 J. M. Ridley 535,769 Mar. 12, 1895 J. Neighbors 572,611 Dec 8, 189 C. C. Neighbours _ 608,689 Aug 9, 1898 G. S. Lee 644,544 Feb 27, 1900 W. L. Belt 732,681 June 30, 1903 H. Wiswall. Jr. THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 61 Subclass 1 3—— (Continued) Patent No. Date Name 755,059 Mar. 22, 1904 J W Shaw 773,357 Oct. 25, 1904 J W. Webb 812,865 Feb. 20, 1906 J Nlsbet 830,433 Sept. 4, 1906 W. H. Levln 848,967 ADI‘. 2, 1907 B A. Chew 850,700 April 16, 1907 J W. Worswick 851,475 April 23, 1907 A P. Albert 869,703 Oct. 29, 1907 N A. Gaston 869,888 NOV. 5, 1907 S A. Ellis 872,340 Dec. 3, 1907 G F. Greene 872,341 Dec. 3, 1907 G F. Greene 887,178 May 12, 190s H A. Babbitt 901,619 Oct. 20, 1908 G W and J. H. Jackson 923,649 June 1, 1909 L I Hamilton 944,156 Dec. 21, 1909 G Slckel 947,483 Jan. 25, 1910 W. W. Farnsworth 943.619 948,846 Feb. 8, 1910 W. T. Comer 959,603 May 31, 1910 F. Prestwich 969,419 Sept. 6, 1910 H. J. Stoops 988,566 April 4, 1911 A. W. Getchell 999,395 August 1, 1911 W. A. Patterson 1,014,880 Jan. 16, 1912 A. L. Jackson 1,020,838 Mar. 19, 1912 I. E. Neel‘ 1,032,560 July 16, 1912 J. Meier 1,088,361 Feb. 24, 1914 P. E. Pearce 1.091.140 Mar. 24, 1914 E. S. Jones 1.090.325 May 12, 1914 J. K. Stewart 1,107,633 Aug. 18, 1914 S. S. Thomas 1.123.620 Jan. 5, 1915 T. E. Straus 1.139.492 May 18, 1915 L. H. Greekmore 1.223.238 May 29, 1917 J. W. Patterson 1.235.430 July 31, 1917 O. D. Killebrew 1,238,047 Aug. 21, 1917 J J. Ogden 1.239.014 Sept. 11, 1917 J Meier J F. Wallace 1.247.337 Nov. 20, 1917 Wm. L. Fodrea 1.250.433 Feb. 12, 1918 B E. Chaney 1,264,575 Apr. 30, 1918 L C Stukenborg 1.279.933 Sept. 24, 1918 L C Stukenborg 1.297.370 Mar. 18, 1919 S D. McEachern 1.332.530 Mar. 2, 1920 L C. Stukenborg 1,355,787 Oct. 12, 1920 J T. Skillins 1,382,886 June 28, 1921 G. T. Becknell 1.395.044 Nov. 1, 1921 G. S. Knox 1.402.724 Jan. 3, 1922 F. W. Stukenborg 1,448,930 Mar. 20, 1932 J H. McElroy 1.433.343 Feb. 12, 1924 K F. Hand et al 15.355 Re June 3, 1924 L C Stukenborg 1,498,612 June 24, 1924 J M. Collingwood 1.553.710 Oct. 27, 1925 L C. Stukenborg 1.033.312 Oct. 16, 1928 O Onsrud 1,727,774 Sept. 10, 1929 B. C Houghton 1.730.233 Nov. 19, 1929 J. S. Thurman 1,750,541 March 11, 1930 W. A. Preston 1.703.430 June 10, 1930 T E Rice 1.807.751 June 2, 1931 T R Post Subclass 14.—-Motor, Cotton, Pickers. Having means to engage the cotton lint to pull it from the boll. 723,985 777,595 800,628 800,629 817,666 817,667 975.125 975,775 976,084 1,004,835 1 1,022.142 1,041,309 Mar. 31, 1903 Dec. 13, 1904 Oct. 3, 1905 Oct. 3, 1905 April 10, 1906 April 10, 1906 Nov. 8, 1910 Nov. 15, 1910 Nov. 15, 1910 Oct. 3, 1911 Apr. 2, 1912 Oct. 15, 1912 PPFUPPFEBQEQFFPF‘ Cannan Campbell P. Childress P. Childress H. Price . PI Quentell L. Edwards Lispenard Lispenard C. White Johnson Lispenard 62 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 14.—— (Continued) Patent No. Date Name 1,057,236 Mar. 25, 1913 H. S. Greene 1,084,214 Jan. 13, 1914 G. Lispenard 1,088,703 Mar. 3, 1914 R. W. Ivey 1,121,592 Dec. 15, 1914 J. B. Neil 1,153,968 Sept. 21, 1915 W. F. Speck 1,213,529 Jan. 23, 1917 J. B. Neil 1,215,660 Feb. 13, 1917 B. Johnson 1,259,356 Mar. 12, 1918 R. Cannan 1,291,652 Jan. 14, 1919 F. N. McCorkle 1,323,089 Nov. 25, 1919 J. B. Neil 1,451,090 Apr. 10, 1923 J. J. Wilson 1,456,645 May 29, 1923 J. B. Neil 1,458,433 June 12, 1923 J. B. Neil 1,500,324’ July 8, 1924 B. Johnson 1,500,992 July 8, 1924 H. G. Irwin 1,524,290 Jan. 27, 1925 H. S. Colburn et al 1,578,224 Mar. 23, 1926 G. S. West 1,668,247 May 1, 1928 W. Morava 1,727,708 Sept. 10, 1929 E. A. Johnston et a1 1,727,709 Sept. 10, 1929 E. A. Johnston et al 1,728,556 Sept. 17, 1929 G. Lispenard et al 1,731,825 Oct. 15, 1929 W. Morava 1,747,566 Feb. 18, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,755,507 April 22, 1930 H. A Janacek 1,802,021 April 21, 1931 E. A Johnston et a1 1,802,022 April 21, 1931 E. A. Johnston et a1 1,801,996 April 21, 1931 B. R. Benjamin N. F. Higgins 1,805,310 May 12, 1931 A Subclass 28.——Cotton. 1,698,125 Devices used in harvesting cotton not elsewhere classified. Subclass 29.——Cotton, Flail or Whip. Having means f0 and gathering it when 416,407 450,584 464,742 515,031 938,864 1,020,116 1,105,235 1,123,601 1,713,397 Nov. 29, 1859 Feb. 1, 1876 May 31, 1881 Apr. 13, 1886 Sept. 15, 1891 Sept. 15, 1891 Feb. 12, 1907 Jan. 30, 1917 Mar. 27, 1917 Jan. 8, 1929 Dec. 3, 1889 Apr. 14,_ 1891 Dec. 8, 1891 Feb. 20, 1894 Nov. 2, 1909 July 28, 1914 Jan. 5, 1915 May 14, 1929 G. H. Peabody W. J. Lynch F. Cunningham, Sr. E. Wright L. Baker L. Baker . Bashinski, Jr. Donada WWFHFEPF r beating the cotton from the plant alls C. E. Graves J. A. House J. A. House L. R. Turner ~, O. C. Houghton J. F. Appleby E. S. Scheble J. G. Rountree Subclass 30.-——Cotton, Pneumatic. Having means for de conveying it to a receptacle, includin 101,231 101,439 194.854 196.888 284,542 858,466 , 859,724 418,885 482,420 451,589 483,824 492,378 Feb. 11, 1868 May 26, 1868 Mar. 29, 1870 April 15, 1870 September 4, 1 877 Oct. 23, 1877 Sept. 11, 1883 Nov. 30, 1886 Mar. 22, 1887 Dec. 31, 1889 July 15, 1890 May 5, 1891 Oct. 4, 1892 Feb. 21, 1893 taching the cotton from the plant and g a pneumatic device. Payne & Vandecar _ Cooke F. Cooke Davis, Jr. Scott, Jr. Van Dorn . J. Powell D. Leach G. Sears M. Hanks B. Saltenberer H. Masters Baldwin H. Zempter A. Manning W. Overall H. Call FPFP9FPF€P€§?9PF THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 63 Subclass 30.-—--(Continued). Patent No. Date Name A. A. Clough 498,133 May 23, 1893 G. A. Mauermann 545,117 Aug. 27, 1895 G. W. Young 555,439 Feb. 25, 1896 C. W. Edgar 555,691 Mar. 3, 1896 D. W. Gasklll 645,782 Mar. 20, 1900 L. Bilan 685,111 Oct. 22, 1901 F. M. Dannelly 747,760 Dec. 22, 1903 J. M. Philbrick 763,389 June 28, 1904 R. Getzlaff 793,210 June 27, 1905 W. Morava 858,371 July 2, 1907 C. Corley 915,816 Mar. 23, 1909 C. C. Wilson 951,059 Mar. 1, 1910 F. M Dannelly 968,856 Aug. 30, 1910 A. G. Kinyon 1,107,083 Aug. 11, 1914 D. B. Lovejoy 1,137,545 April 27, 1915 W. J. Shaffer 1,169,915 i Feb. 1, 1916 . R. F. Beran 1,177,120 Mar. 28, 1916 T. Manners 1,225,193 May 8, 1917 J. W. Vittetoe 1,346,282 July 13, 1920 J. B. Tibbs 1,371,468 Mar. 15, 1921 A. E. Burges 1,400,522 Dec. 20, ‘1921 B. Cannon 1,713,398 May 14, 1929 J. G. Rountree Subclass 31.-——Cotton, Pneumatic, Individually Directed. Manually directed to each boll in- dividu . 26,180 Nov. 22, 1859 J. Griffin 28,980 . July 3, 1860 J. Griffin 194,855 239,190 March 22, 1881 W. J. Powell 296,449 Apr. 8, 1884 W. J. Powell 463,055 Nov. 10, 1891 T. B. Hyde 477,177 June 14, 1892 W. P. Groom 783,685 Feb. 28, 1905 B. F. Davis 941,055 Nov. 23, 1909 W. W. Bays 1,219,539 Mar. 20, 1917 J. W. Dinsmore 1,241,280 Sept. 25, 1917 H. M. Reese 1,328,385 Jan. 20, 1920 C. S. Matthiessen 1,755,230 April 22, 1930 W. L. Turner Subclass 32.——C0tton, Pneumatic, Nozzles. The invention being limited to a nozzle having means peculiarly adopted to detach the cotton from the boll. 31,165 Jan 22, 1861 J Grlffln 55,283 June 5, 1866 J. Griffin 321,440 July 7, 1885 J. Ledward _ 787,314 Apr 11, 1905 J. Summerfielu 795,394 803,572 a Nov. 7, 1905 W. B. Edrington 848,968 Apr. 2, 1907 B. A. Chew 859,204 July 9, 1907 W. K. Dana 922,647 May 25, 1909 R. S. Wheeler 1,001,720 Aug. 29, 1911 R. S. Wheeler 1,024,455 Apr. 23, 1912 E. Murray 1,027,455 May 28, 1912 L. Willman 1,031,902 July 9, 1912 A. P. Albert 1,067,282 July 15, 1913 T. E. Straus 1,067,283 July 15, 1913 T. E. Straus 1,067,802 July 22, 1913 W. K. Dana 1,083,079 Dec. 30, 1913 E. Gathmann 1,087,872 Feb. 17, 1914 W. K. Dana 1,090,347 Mar. 17, 1914 E. H. Schofield, Dec'd. 1,091,254 Mar. 24, 1914 T. E. Straus B. Worthington 1.109.525 SeDt- 1. 1914 G. H. Hartwell, Jr. 1,110,158 Sept. 8, 1914 T. E. Straus 1,120,980 Dec. 15, 1914 E. H. Schofield, Dec’d. 1,127,482 Feb. 9, 1915 J. Meier 1,174,527 Mar. 7, 1916 T. E. Straus 1,174,528 Mar. 7, 1916 T. E. Straus 1,182,518 May 9, 1916 C. N. Wisner 1,181,572 May 2, 1916 W. Cook, Dec’d. 1,188,700 1,229,121 June 5, 1917 J. Murphy 64 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 32.——-(Continued) Patent No. Date Name 1,239,343 Sept. 4, 1917 J. H. C. Boig 1,253,774 Jan. 15, 1918 J. H. C. Boig 1,286,165 Nov. 26, 1918 G. H. Waterhouse 1,295,323 Feb. 4, 1919 A. W. Buck 1,305,960 June 3, 1919 J. H. C. Boig 1,322,987 Nov. 25', 1919 C. N. Wisner 1,324,549 Dec. 9, 1919 F. W. Hulse 1,328,386 Jan. 20, 1920 C. S. Matthiessen 1,329,067 Jan. 27, 1920 C. N. Wisner » 1,334,760 Mar. 23, 1920 H. W. Jordan 1,335,035 Mar. 30, 1920 C. E. Taylor 1,336,176 Apr. 6, 1920 C. N. Wisner 1,341,039 May 25, 1920 J. H. C. Boig 1,341,959 June 1, 1920 C. N. Wisner 1,344,205 June 22, 1920 H. H. Holds-Way T. R. Gabel 1,351,398 Aug. 31, 1920 J. Newman 1,355,786 Oct. 12, 1920 J. T Skillins 1,364,670 Jan. 4, 1921 J. V Wofford 1,366,837 Jan. 25, 1921 J. P. Roach 1,426,326 Aug. 15, 1922 L. C. Stukenborg 1,439,270 Dec. 19, 1922 J. T. Skillins 1,483,248 Feb. 12, 1924 L. C. Stukenborg 1,489,552 April 8, 1924 T. J. mith 1,495,817 May 27, 1924 L. C. Stukenborg 1,495,818 May 27, 1924 L. C. Stukenborg 1,527,359 Feb. 24, 1925 G. . Handy 1,529,846 March 17, 1925 C. Oberle 1,530,458 March 17, 1925 W. L. Baker 1,543,547 June 23, 1925 E. B. Carroll 1,558,717 Oct. 27, 1925 L. C. Stukenborg et a1 1,558,718 Oct. 27, 1925 L. C. Stukenborg 1,684,981 Sept. 18. 1928 P. H. White 1,691,146 Nov. 13, 1928 G. E. Boggs 1,702,508 Feb. 19, 1929 K. L. Herrmann 1,707,010 March 26, 1929 K. L. Herrmann 1,714,553 May 28, 1929 J. Ferrier 1,714,595 May 28, 1929 J. Ferrier 1,753,919 April 8, 1930 J. H Cooper, 1,794,243 Feb. 24, 1931 T R Post Subclass 33.—Cotton, Strippers. Having means for stripping the bolls from the plant. 211,522 Jan. 21, 1879 W .T. Read 908,637 Jan. 5, 1909 J. F. Appleby 985,036 Feb. 21, 1911 O. C. Houghton 986,059 Mar. 7, 1911 O. C. Houghton 1,069,997 Aug. 12, 1913 J. F. Appleby 1,373,269 Mar. 29, 1921 J. T. Stanton 1,440,642 Jan. 2, 1923 W, B, Stone 1.712.506 May 14. 1929 J. F. Ferguson 1,716,769 June 11, 1929 F, R, Friend 1,731,717 Oct. 15, 1929 F. R. Friend 1,734,504 NOV. 5, 1929 E, G, Stone 1,767,979 June 24, 1930 B. Hestand 1,769,104 July 1, 1930 B. R. Benjamin 1,776,315 Sept. 23, 1930 F. R. Friend Subclass 34.-—Cotton, Strippers, Comb. Including a comb, bet stalks are drawn, while the teeth strip off ween the teeth of which the the bolls. 44,828 131,124 174,243 242,301 244,887 258,657 300,739 691,762 745,190 940,274 954,382 Sept. 3, 1872 Feb. 29, 1876 May 31, 1881 July 26, 1881 May 30, 1882 June 17, 1884 Jan. 28, 1902 Nov. 24, 1903 Nov. 16, 1909 Apr. 5, I910 B. Sims L. Hill W. Payne Goodwin Goodwin F. Lamb O. Savage P. Haertl P. Haertl Jefferson asgnwwwwssers . F. Campbell Subclass 34.—(Continued). THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 65 Patent N0. ' Date Name 971.513 Oct. 4, 1910 R. M. Ayers 1,065,695 June 24, 1913 E. B. Little 1,105,915 Aug. 4, 1914 R. W. Monk 1,106,019 Aug. 4, 1914 I. P. Wilcoxson 1,138,952 May 11, 1915 D Hewitt 1,237,932 Aug. 21, 1917 M E. Smith 1,403,433 Jan. 10, 1922 A. W. Marmon 1,568,530 Jan. 5, 1926 J. L. Prichard 1,576,904 March 16, 1926 W. J. Francis 1,615,330 Jan. 25, 1927 D. M. Key 1,624,313 April 12, 1927 P. Carlson 1,715,836 June 4, 1929 J. Horn 1,733,211 1,760,312 May 27, 1930 J. E. Mitchell 1,789,803 Jan. 20, 1931 W. R. Boone Subclass 35.——Cotton. Strippers, Comb, Moving. forward travel of the machine. The comb having motion other than the 113,170 March 28, 1871 John Hughes 144,629 Nov. 18, 1873 Wm. H. Pedrick 146,945 Jan. 27, 1874 Wm. H. Pedrick 221,755 Nov 18, 1879 F. F. Trencks 273,035 Feb 27, 1883 B. J. Curry 276,661 May 1, 1883 W. L. Black 364,440 June 7, 1887 W. H. Rohling 480,131 Aug. 2, 1892 A G Perry 869,951 Nov. 5, 1907 E M. Williams 885,606 April 21, 1908 J S Glover 889,968 June 9, 1908 W. E. Rickey 1,006,614 Oct. 24, 1911 T. E. Willis J. W. Rodgers 1,007,504 Oct. 31, 1911 G. W. Tanner 1,217,408 Feb. 27, 1917 C. R. Cashion 1,263,935 Apr. 23, 1918 J. K. Rodocker R. L. Butcher 1,384,265 July 12, 1921 W. F. Lockwood et al 1,638,867 Aug. 16, 1927 P. M. Melton ' 1,673,576 June 12, 1928 W. A. Martin 1,705,225 ' March 12, 1929 P. W. Morrissey 1,740,274 Dec. 17, 1929 W. F. Speck 1,762,045 June 3, 1930 A E. Benson 1,778,587 Oct. 14, 1930 B A. Crumley 1,793,426 Feb. 17, 1931 J. Kent 1,798,883 March 31, 1931 V. E. Hunter et al 1,800,145 Apr. 7, 1931 J. M. King ‘ Subclass 36.———Cotton, Pickers. Having means to pick the lint from the boll, leaving the hull ‘on the cotton plant. 189,396 Apr. 10, 1877 O. R. Smith 106,022 Aug. 2, 1870 W. Apperly 217,993 July 29, 1879 T. C. Craven 391,982 Oct. 30, 1888 J. J. Perkins 649,710 May 15. 1900 W. Warmack 899,835 Sept. 29, 1908 J. T. McDonald 1,080,127 Dec. 2, 1913 E. Dwmdell 1,262,030 Apr. 9, 1918 W. L. Fisher 1,277,851 Sept. 3, 1918 T. W. Campell 1,323,089 Nov. 25, 1919 J. B. Neil Subclass 37._-—Cotton Pickers, Individually directed. Manually operated to each boll individually. 27,348 Mar. 7, 1860 W. B. Cargill 52,303 Jan. 30, 1866 W. D. Ludlow ’64,629 May 14, 1867 J. E. Carver 205,058 June 18, 1878 G. Custer _ 220,607 Oct. 14, 1879 T. W. Ham 241,406 May 10, 1881 A. R. Nixon 242,560 June 7, 1881 D. Ruggles 310,314 Jan. 6, 1885 G. W. Purcell 769,353 Sept. 6, 1904 J. S. Murdock 788,238 Apr. 25, 1905 S. L. Bond 796,145 Aug. 1, 1905 T. H. Price W. P. Quentell 66 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 37.—(Continued) . Patent No. Date Name 815,676 Mar. 20, 1906 L. Blount 828,018 Aug. 7, 1906 H. P. Childress 871,478 Nov. 19, 1907 H. P. Childress 886,236 Apr. 28, 1908 I. A. Murchison . 916,522 Mar. 30, 1909 E. Eckors 927,118 July 6, 1909 M. B. Coe 935,185 Sept. 28, 1909 D. M. Bailey 1,131,804 Mar. 16, 1915 L. C. Stuckenborg 1,196,373 1,233,907 1,234,386 1,172,711 1,481,808 1,556,621 1,675,501 July 3, 1928 N. Lehman 1,832,221 Subclass 38.—Cotton Pickers-Individually directed, endless belt. Having the picking me- chanism mounted on an endless belt. 568,351 Sept. 29, 1926 R. W. Ivy 775,451 Nov. 22, 1904 G. A. Lowery 799,742 Sept. 19, 1905 G. A. Lowery 800,627 Oct. 3, 1905 H. P. Childress 800,630 Oct. 3, 1905 H. P. Childress 835,949 Nov. 13, 1906 R. W. Ivy 923,638 June 1, 1909 H. E. Foucher 1,012,495’ Dec. 19, 1911 B. Worthington 1,020,867 Mar. 19, 1912 B. Worthington 1,054,836 Mar. 4, 1913 H. E. Foucher 1,480,125 Jan. 8, 1924 W. A. Stone 1,518,296 Dec. 9, 1924 M. A. Ball Subclass 39.—Cotton Pickers——lndividually directed, endless belt, manually operated. The j entire operating mechanism driven by manual power. ; 2,137 Re Dec. 2s, 186s G. A. Howe 5 2,138 Re 3 13,877 15,746 Sept. 16, 1865 B. G. Shields 20,066 Apr. 27, 1858 Hosford & Avery 29,435 July 31, 1860 L. Jennings 32 968 July 30, 1861 I. S. Schuyler 53,147 Mar. 13, 1866 G. A. Howe 53,447 Mar. 27, 1866 G. A. Howe 108,461 Oct. 18, 1870 B. I. Dreeson 116,694 July 4, 1871 Dreeson & Buckett 323,702 Aug. 4, 1885 J. T. Martin 430,100 June 10, 1890 ' A. A. Wood 678,406 July 16, 1901 G. Leder 752,272 Feb. 16, 1904 E. B. Vaughan 780,338 Jan. 17, 1905 J. C. Groves 887,958 May 19, 1908 W. H. Niemeyer 923,343 June 1, 1909 J. M. Drake 924,181 June 8, 1909 H. I. McConnell 972,324 Oct. 11, 1910 N. Bowditch 978,341 Dec. 13, 1910 L. C. Stuckenborg 1,111,797 Sept. 29, 1914 H. S. Hopper 1,373,983 Apr. 5, 1921 T. J. Smith 1,403,676 1,404,246 Subclass 40.—Cotton Pickers-Rotary or oscillating, including a rotary picking member. 106,601 Aug. 23, 1870 D. M. McRae 123,704 Feb. 13, 1872 W. H. Irving 124,978 March 26, 1872 N. F. Sandelin 175,491 Mar. 2s, 1876 W. H. Pedrick 200,362 Feb. 12, 1878 J. Tripp 224,221 Feb. 3, 1880 J. B. Parker 279,799 June 19, 1883 C. C. Price 313,276 Mar. 3, 1885 G. Beekman 313,277 Mar. 3, 1885 G. Beekman 313,278 Mar. 3, 1885 G. Beekman 313,421 Mar. 3, 1885 D. B. Haselton THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 67 Subclass 40.-—- (Continued) . Patent No. Date Name 314,365 Mar. 24, 1885 R. K. Charles 326,142 Sept. 15, 1885 E. F. O’Haver 332,865 Dec. 22, 1885 G. Beekman 378,635 Feb. 28, 1888 J. W. Wallis 394,316 Dec. 11, 1888 J. W. Wallis 397,209 Feb. 5, 1889 J. W. Wallis 409,040 Aug. 13, 1889 A. E. Hughes 422,671 Mar. 4, 1890 J. W. Wallis 469,568 Feb. 23, 1892 W. Hodge 508.358 647,818 April 17, 1900 W. J. Dyer 844,331 Feb. 19, 1907 O. H. P. Cornell 898,893 Sept. 15, 1908 T. H. Hollingsworth R. D. Hollingsworth 1,223,328 April 17, 1917 J. B. Neil 1,239,767 Sept. 11, 1917 C. Caldwell W. P. Koppe 1,283,277 Oct. 29, 1918 T. M. Olson 1,239,767 1,312,010 Aug. 5, 1919 A. J. Thrower 1,749,468 Mar 4, 1930 J. Darborne 1,775,890 Sept. 16, 1930 J. P. Cruise 1,524,290 Jan. 27, 1925 H. A. Coburn 1,610,067 Dec. 7, 1926 E. F. O’Haver Subclass 41.—-Cotton Pickers, Rotary _or oscillating spindles comprising long slender mem- bers rotating on their longitudinal axis and provided with means to engage the cotton lint and remove it from the plants. 30,862 Dec. 11, 1860 Apperly & Johnson 243,130 June 21, 1881 J. L. Hastings 243,131 266,884 Oct. 31, 1882 D. Rawl 286,032 Oct. 2, 1883 C. T. Mason 371,960 Oct. 25. 1887 C. T. Mason 372,918 Nov. 8, 1887 W. L. Langley 386,294 July 17, 1888 Bugg & Langley 444,801 Jan. 13, 1891 ‘ F. Van Dorn 510,730 Dec. 12, 1893 G. N. Todd 574,218 Dec. 29, 1897 D. Rawl 585,588 June 29, 1897 L. C. McCarty C. W. Ford 756,394 April 5, 1904 J. T. McDonald 770,653 Sept. 20, 1904 T. H. Price 877,754 Jan. 28, 1908 H. E. Bullock 891,444 June 23, 1908 R. C. Scherling 939,008 Nov. 2, 1909 C. N. Goodwin 972,795 Oct. 18, 1910 J. F. Appleby 999,714 Aug. 1, 1911 T. J. Gray 1,227,223 May 22, 1917 C. Volkmann 1,229,598 June 12, 1917 H. T. Fisher 1,262,030 April 9, 1918 H. T. Fisher 1,401,076 Dec. 20, 1921 E. P. Hayes 1,646,594 Oct. 25, 1927 F. Phelps, et e1 1,745,925 Feb. 4, 1930 C. Goodwin 1,780,497 Nov. 4, 1930 W. E. Mulch R. J. Shinn C. S. Grove Subclass 42.-Cotton Pickers, Rotary or oscillating spindle, belt carried, having the spindles mounted on an endless belt by which they are carried to and from a position to engage the cotton on the plants. 159,109 Jan. 26, 1875 La F. K. Miller 329,810 Nov. 3, 1885 O. T. Bugg 352,458 Nov. 9, 1886 S. H. First 400,700 April 2, 1889 S. D. T. Manning 428,867 May 27, 1889 C. B. Stephenson 468,373 Feb. 9, 1892 G. N. Todd 503,041 Aug. 8, 1893 B. Gause 520,045 May 22, 1894 B. Gause 783,792 Feb. 28, 1905 G. Lispenard 796,421 Aug. 8, 1905 P. P. Haring 992,960 May 23, 1911 P. P. Haring 1,076,573 Oct. 21, 1913 P. P. Haring 68 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 42.~(Continued). Patent No. Date Name 1,176,891 Mar. 28, 1916 P. P. Haring 1,229,599 June 12,1917 H. L. Fisher 1,713,572 May 21, 1929 A. C. Vaughn 1,715,655 June 4, 1929 P. P. Haring Subclass 43.—-Cotton Pickers—-—Rotary or oscillating spindle, belt carried, cam-track guide, 5 having a track or guide which engages a cam connected with the spindles in order to guide the spindles into a proper position to engage the cotton on the plants. 401,268 510,731 542,794 572,493 685,440 685,441 685,442 685,443 722,421 768,400 840,367 853,916 951,652 964,958 966,992 1,003,836 1,003,838 1,008,229 1,041,202 1,044,611 1,079,585 1,208,591 1,212,899 1,287,532 April 9, 1889 Dec. 12, 1893 July 16, 1895 Dec. 1, 1896 Oct. 29, 1901 Oct. 29, 1901 Oct. 29, 1901 Aug. 23, 1904 Jan. 1, 1907 May 14, 1907 Mar. 8, 1910 July 19, 1910 Aug. 9, 1910 Sept. 19, 1911 Nov. 7, 1911 Oct. 15, 1912 Nov. 19, 1912 Nov. 25', 1913 bee. 12, 1916 Jan. 16, 1917 Dec. l0, 1918 J. Gray N. Todd Campbell . A. Turner Campbell , Campbell Campbell i E>?’?’€?PH K. Peper K. Peper Campbell B. Morris C. Elliott J. Briggs C. White C. White {It}??? L. Upshaw B. Lovejoy E. Walton l-if-‘FFPWFW P"??? f" r U5 5 é‘ 3 5' € Subclass 44.—Cotton Pickers—Rotary or oscillating, spindle rotary carrier, the rotary spindles mounted on a rotating drum or like, by which they are carried bodily to and from a position to engage the cotton on the plants. 423,335 430,429 441,717 442,405 453,351 455,173 457,329 453,751 475,979 433,121 520,153 529,430 554,190 587,201 660,531 776,467 796,422 813,170 863,962 Feb. 27, 1866 Jan. 5, 186'.) Aug. 9, 1881 June 9, 1885 Oct. 13, 1885 Mar. 2, 1886 Apr. 6, 1886 July 6, 1886 Feb. 22, 1887 Mar. 15, 1887 June 14, 1887 May 22, 1888 July 23, 1889 Mar. 18, 1890 Mar. 18, 1890 Mar. 18, 1890 June 17, 1890 June 2, 1891 July 21, 1891 Aug. 4, 1891 Sept. 1, 1891 May 31, 1892 Sept. 20, 1892 Sept. 18, 1894 Nov. 20, 1894 Feb. 4, 1896 July 27, 1897 Oct. 23, 1900 Nov. 29, 1904 Aug. 8, 1905 Feb. 20, 1906 Aug. 20, 1907 W. E. Prall A. Pettingill H. P. Dooley D. B. Haselton D. B. Haselton C. T. Mason W. G. Sears C. T. Mason J. C. Johnson O. T. Bugg D. B. Haselton O. T. Bugg S. D. T. Manning G. N. odd G. N. Todd H. P. Dooley W. E. Foote G. N. Todd A. Levedahl G. N. Todd R. J. Roberson C. F. Moore P. P. Haring A. Levedahl W. W. Hoskins P. P. Haring J. K. Peper A. B. Ames THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 69 Subclass 44.—— (Continued) . Patent No. Date Name H. Schwendener 918,902 April 20, 1909 J. E. Pierce 980,596 Jan. 3, 1911 B. B. Byron 1,054,113 Feb. 25, 1913 P. P. Haring 1,067,691 July 15, 1913 R. C. Teel 1,134,158 " April 6, 1915 G. A. Pruser 1,145,174 July 6, 1915 C. Volkman 1,160,446 Nov. 16, 1915 W. E. Pehl 1,184,795 May 30, 1916 C. Volkman 1,184,796 May 30, 1916 C. Volkman 1,219,204 Mar. 13, 1917 G. W. Ward 1,340,577 May 18, 1920 W. Threadgill 1,465,974 1,502,216 July 22, 1924 W. Threadgill 1,530,151 Feb. 28, 1923 H. N. Berry 1,599,313 Sept. 7, 1926 H. N. Berry 1,610,240 Dec. 14, 1926 H. N. Berry 1,635,161 July 5, 1927 H. N. Berry 1,731,826 Oct. 15, 1929 W. Morava 1,742,493 Jan. 7, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,747,567 Feb. 18, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,750,034 May 11, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,750,952 May 18, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,751,389 May 18, 1930 O. F. Bledsoe Jr. 1,759,086 May 20, 1930 H. N. Berry 1,794,293 Feb. 24, 1931 James M. Hood 1,810,386 June 16, 1931 H. N. Berry 1,828,534 Oct. 20, 1931 L. C. Stukenborg Subclass 4'5.——Cotton Pickers-Rotary or oscillating spindles, rotary carrier, flexible spindle, the spindle being flexible so that projecting ends of the same will bend downward by their own weight. 5115,1538 46.~—Cotton Pickers 243,132 427,218 436,770 482,155 482,156 487,509 493,010 495,007 501,669 501,670 501,671 541,062 June 21, 1881 May 6, 1890 Sept. 23, 1890 Sept. 6, 1892 Sept. 6, 1892 Dec. 6, Mar. 7, 1893 Apr. 11, 1893 July 18, 1893 July 18, 1893 July 18, 1893 June 18, 1895 PPPPPPPPPPPP T. Hastings Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Beekman Rotary or oscillating spindle, rotary carrier, reciprocating. The spindle reciprocating longitudinally at the same time 1t is being rotated on its lon- gitudinal axis and being carried around bodily on the rotary carrier. 555,118 659,176 669,046 761,140 806,940 806,941 827,288 976,132 1,119,795 1,119,796 1,119,797 1,334,369 1,454,737 Feb. 25, 1896 Oct. 2, 1900 Feb. 26, 1901 May 31, 1904 Dec. 12, 1905 Dec. 12, 1905 July 31, 1906 Nov. 15, 1910 Dec. 8, 1914 Dec. 8, 1914 Dec. 8, 1914 May 8, 1923 ?Z?§?PP?P§Q W. H. Pickering D. Miles Bowditch Bowditch T. Harris Subclass 47.——Cott0n Pickers——Rotary or oscillating spindle, rotary carrier, cam track or guide which engages a cam connected with the spindles in order to guide the spindles into a proper position to engage the cotton on the plants. Mhmwwmwwwc 593,707 788,812 798,651 828,264 842,162 ' 865,984 952,688 955,594 May 2, 1905 Sept. 5, 1905 Aug. 7, 1906 Jan. 29, 1907 Sept. 17, 1907 Mar. 22, 1910 Apr. 19, 1910 Owl-h“??? F. Appleby F. Appleby F. Appleby F. Appleby F. Appleby C. Scherling C. Houghton 70 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 47.—-(Continued). Patent N0. Date Name 977,155 Nov. 29, 1910 J. F. Appleby 979,859 Dec. 27, 1910 O. C. Houghton 982,676 Jan. 24, 1911 O. C. Houghton 1,006,094 Oct. 17, 1911 O. C. Houghton 1,009,381 Nov. 21, 1911 E. C. Bullock R. C. Scherling 1,035,645 Aug. 13, 1912 R. C. Scherling 1,067,576 July 15, 1913 J. F. Appleby 1,074,622 Oct. 7, 1913 O. C. Houghton 1,078,327 1,078,328 NOV. 11, 1913 J, F, Appleby 1,092,762 Apr. 7, 1914 L. L. Upshaw 1,161,511 NOV- 23, 1915 B. C. Calderwood 1,174,387 Mv-r- 7, 1916 B. C. Calderwood 1,210,958 Jan. 2, 1917 E, Lightfoot 1,387,176 Allg- 9, 1921 T. H. Price et al 1,737,850 Dec. 3, 1929 E. A. Johnston D. B. Baker C. R. Hagen 1,755,825 Apr. 22, 1930 E. A. Johnston D. B. Baker C. R. Hagen 1,786,851 Dec. 30, 1930 E. A. Johnston B. R. Benjamin D. B. Baker C. R. Hagen 1,810,411 June 16, 1931 C. R. Berry Subclass 48.——Cotton Pickers_—Rotary or oscillating drum comprising a drum, cylinder, or the like, rotating or oscillating on its axls and having means to engage and remove the cotton lint from the plants. 7,631 53,901 134,157 136,924 137,506 154,762 183,433 189,815 199,168 212,740 137,949 228.101 243,554 271,160 275,094 1,252,016 1,396,012‘ 1,447,328 1,587,668 1,590,174 1,635,725 Sept. 10, 1850 Apr. 10, 1866 Dec. 14, 1872 Mar. 18, 1873 Apr. 1, 1873 Sept. 8, 1874 Oct. 17, 1876 Apr. 17, 1877 Jan. 15, 1878 Feb. 25, 1879 May 25, 1880 May 25, 1880 June 28, 1881 Jan. 23, 1883 Apr. 3, 1883 Oct. 2, 1883 Mar. 3, 1885 Sept. 8, 1885 Aug. 10, 1886 Sept. 28, 1886 June 11, 1889 Aug. 11, 1891 Aug. 11, 1891 Sept. 15, 1891 Oct. 4, 1892 Mar. 21, 1893 Aug. 29, 1893 Mar. 27, 1894 Mar. 27, 1894 Apr. 3, 1894 Sept. 18, 1894 Dec. 4, 1894 June 11, 1895 Aug. 27, 1895 April 17, 1900 June 4, 1907 Jan. 1, 1918 Nov. 8, 1921 Aug. 29, 1921 June 8, 1926 June 22, 1926 July 12, 1927 Rembert & Prescott Tiensch O. P. Myers J. W. Lehigh E. Taylor J. H. Mitchell W. Stoddard Tripp Ruchenburg . H. Pirtle Beekman P. Moores . B. Haselton . N. Todd H. Todd N. Todd D. B. Haselton L. Walter Platt E. Wright H. Purnell Lispenard Lispenard L. Baker Emerson Ball QUBPWPF Lispenard Cooper Lispenard Lispenard R. Turner Whitney C. Phillips Lispenard Lispenard B. Floyd Neil Neil . Alvin . Rycroft . Mitchell Hall Neil FW9??PP?P@PFFPP?PPFBP9F9SP PP Wwmouww THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 71 Subclass 48.-—(C0ntinued) P81261112 N0. Date Name 1,715,309 May 28, 1929 J. Shelley 1,763,607 June 10, 1930 J. E. Watkins 1,819,242 Aug. 18, 1931 W. S. Hobson Subclass 49.——Cotton Pickers-The picking means carried by an endless belt. 18,363 Oct. 6, 1857 J. W. Thorn 24,609 July 5, 1859 L. Bishop 118,159 Mar. 28, 1871 Goodwin & Niles 193,702 July 31, 1877 C. E. Graves 201,384 Mar. 19, 1878 I. Boone 250,267 Nov. 29, 1881 W, Lee 286,055 Oct. 2, 1883 J. E. Myers 291,438 Jan. 1, 1884 F. L. Warner 295,463 Mar. 18, 1884 G. N. Todd 405,266 July 2, 1889 J. F. Cunningham 414,924 Nov. 12, 1889 W. F. Snowdon 465,879 Dec. 29, 1891 S. B. Patteson 471,074 Mar. 15, 1892 J. F. Cunningham W. W. Dinge 590,090 Sept. 14, 1897 D. S. Deaderick 594,481 Nov. 30, 1897 A. S. Martin 661,383 Nov. 6, 1900 J. A. Peer 770,934 Sept. 27, 1904 C. B. Shreeves 784,899 Mar. 14, 1905 J. M. Searles 794,265 July 11, 1905 J. S. Watson 844,502 Feb. 19, 1907 J. O. Dickinson 993,834 May 30, 1911 N. Keeling 1,038,956 Sept. 17, 1912 M. Prior 1,100,908 June 23, 1914 G. C. Phillips 1,107,627 Aug. 18, 1914 G. C. Phillips 1,147,961 July 27, 1915 T. Matlock 1,195,030 Aug. 15, 1916 N. Keeling 1,197,950 Sept. 12, 1916 G. C. Phillips 1,274,335 July 30, 1918 W. F. Rose 1,300,276 Apr. 15, 1919 F. E. Johnson 1,589,340 June 15, 1926 G. B. Rodgers 1,664,924 Apr. 3, 1928 P. Helton 1,700,926 Mar. 23, 1929 J. A. Dykes 1,721,545 1,750,536 May 11, 1930 A. B. McDonald 1,763,636 June 17, 1930 C. F. Callahan Subclass 50.——Cotton Pickers——Spindles, Elements of long slender form having lint-engaging means and usually rotated on their longitudinal axis to engage the lint in the boll. 293,484 Feb. 12, 1884 C. T. Mason 293,485 Feb. 12, 1884 C. T. Mason 311,344 Jan. 27, 1885 C. T. Mason 312,647 Feb. 24, 1885 C. T. Mason , 313,139 Mar. 3, 1885 M- C- Walling ,1, 331,514 Dec. 1, 1885 C- T. Mason 353,085 Nov. 23, 1886 W. G. Sears 353,167 Nov. 23, 1886 W. G. Sears 364,607 June 7, 1887 R- F- Spangenberg 367,075 July 26. 1887 G- N- Todd 372,919 Nov. 9, 1887 W- L- Langley 375,084 Dec. 20, 1887 C- T- Mason 382,535 May 8, 1888 W- L- Langley 382,536 May 8, 1888 W. L. Langley 423,536 Mar. 18, 1890 G. N. Todd 423,537 Mar. 18, 1890 G. N. Todd 423,538 Mar. 18, 1890 G. N. Todd 423,539 Mar. 18, 1890 G. N. Todd 464,852 Dec. 8, 1891 0- Canuteson 497,462 May 16, 1893 G. N. Todd 502,241 July 25, 1893 G. N. Todd 517,578 Apr. 3, 1894 A. Levendahl 525,911 Sept. 11, 1894 A. Levendahl 685,439 Oct. 29, 1901 A. Campbell 762,606 June 14, 1904 J- F. Appleby 860,142 July 16, 1907 G- Lisnenard 862,373 Aug. a, 1907 J. F. Applebv 902,227 Oct. 27, 1907 T. J. Gray 908,638 72 BULLETIN NO. 452, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Subclass 50.-—(Continued). Patent N0. Date Name 931,926 Aug. 24, 1909 O. C. Houghton 936,236 993,147 May 23, 1911 F. J. Briggs 1,008,230 Nov. 7, 1911 B. C. White 1,059,478 Apr. 22, 1913 G. Lispenard 1,084,508 Jan. 13, 1914 L. L. Upshaw 1,093,973 Apr. 21, 1913 B. C. Calderwood 1,230,168 June 19, 1917 B. Johnson 1,245,246 Nov. 8, 1917 E. Lightfoot 1,252,578 Jan. 8, 1918 B. Johnson 1,262,031 Apr. 9, 1918 H. L. Fisher 14,277,852 Sept. 3, 1918 L. W. Campbell 1,277,853 Sept. 3, 1918 L. W. Campbell 1,543,089 June 23, 1925 J. Bardwell 1,646,594 Oct. 25, 1927 F. Phelps et a1 1,818,444 Aug. 11, 1931 L. E. Wirth 1,818,537 Aug. 11, 1931 A. Cullander 1,834,994 Dec. 8, 1931 J. Bardwell H. G. Prouty 1,838,360 Dec. 29, 1930 John Colling