Division of Agricultural Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF
Economics of
MECHANICAL
COTTON
HARVESTING
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL
EXPERIMENT STATION
BULLETIN 743
Machines picked more than 16.2 per cent of California's 1,268,000-bale cotton
crop in 1949. This bulletin presents the findings obtained from interviews with 63
San Joaquin Valley cotton growers, each of whom owned and operated one mechan-
ical cotton picker during that year. The study was undertaken to determine the range
of situations in which mechanized cotton harvesting is economically sound.
Mechanical cotton picking was found to be practicable and profitable when
Acreage is 100 acres or more,
Yield is 1 bale per acre or more, and
Full-season use is made of the machine.
Typical operation was estimated as:
Full season = 60 working days, or 500 hours
Acreage = 200 acres of 1.5-bale cotton
Yield = 300 bales
Total economic costs of machine picking were computed, analyzed, and compared
with the cost of hand picking in a wide variety of situations. Total economic cost
includes :
Labor
Overhead and operating expenses
Field waste
Reduced sale value, due to reduction in quality
In all cases where the basic requirements of acreage, yield, and use of the machine
were met, machine harvesting was advantageous. When total economic costs of the
1949 crop were added up and compared, it was found that
Per bale, hand picking averaged $45.00
machine picking averaged 25.76
Saving $19.24
Mechanical cotton pickers can be operated most efficiently and grade loss kept
at a minimum if cotton is planted and fields are cared for with mechanical harvest-
ing in mind. The grower should
Space rows 40 inches apart
Make the stalk-row ground higher than that between rows
Plant stalks 4 to 8 inches apart
Keep fields clean of weeds and grass
Keep the ground surface smooth and free of clods
The Long-Range View
1949 was a year of prosperous conditions and high employment. The advantage of
machine over hand harvesting, in the average situation, was considerable. To deter-
mine the advantage, if any, when wage costs are lower compared with machine costs,
1938, a year of less prosperous conditions and intermediate employment, was
selected as a basis for comparison. When 1949 machine-harvesting costs were con-
verted to 1938 prices, it was found that savings, while less, would still be real and
substantial.
CONTENTS
Summary 4
Introduction 9
Effectiveness of Man Labor in Cotton Production 12
The Situation prior to 1940 12
Developments 1941-1950 13
The Situation in 1949 17
Use and Performance of Mechanical Harvesters 18
Summary of machine use 18
Summary of performance rates 19
Discussion 19
Effect of Machine Picking on Gin Turnout 20
Machine-Picking Costs 22
Average picking cost per machine 22
Cost per bale, per hour, per acre, and per 100 pounds of seed cotton . . 27
Discussion 28
Effect of Machine Picking on Grade of Lint Cotton 29
How machine picking can affect grades of cotton 29
Comparative grades in the 1949-1950 season 30
Trends in machine-picked cotton grades 1948-1950 33
Picking Efficiency of Mechanical Harvesters 36
Discussion 37
Economic Analysis of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting 38
Summary of economic costs 38
Effect of changing prices on machine- versus hand-harvesting costs . . 40
Effect of acreage harvested on picking costs 42
Effect of yield per acre on picking cost per bale 45
Interrelationship of acreage harvested, yield, and picking cost .... 46
Comparison of cost in first and second picking 46
Later Developments in Mechanical Cotton Harvesters 48
Cost of picking with mechanical picker Number 2 49
Appendix 52
Acknowledgments 53
Literature Cited 53
Appendix Tables 54
THE AUTHORS:
Trimble R. Hedges is Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics, Associate Agricultural
Economist in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, Davis.
Warren R. Bailey is Agricultural Economist, Production Economics, Research Branch, Agricul-
tural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Assistance in collecting the data and in certain phases of the analysis was provided by Chester
O. McCorkle, Jr., Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Assistant Agricultural Economist
in the Experiment Station and on the Giannini Foundation, Davis.
APRIL, 1954
Economics of
MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING
TRIMBLE R. HEDGES
WARREN R. BAILEY
A Report of Studies Made in
the San Joaquin Valley*
SUMMARY
California growers are rapidly mech-
anizing their cotton picking. Between
1946 and 1951 the number of machines
increased from 25 to 3,700, and the por-
tion of the crop picked by machine in-
creased to 54 per cent. With this rapid
development of a new harvesting method
many technical and economic problems
have arisen. The economic costs of har-
vesting cotton mechanically as compared
with those of hand harvest include: 1)
the cost of machine picking; 2) the re-
duction (if any) in grade and value
of the cotton; and 3) the additional
field waste (if any) attributable to the
machine. This study was undertaken to
get information on these factors and to
* Submitted for publication May 25, 1953.
determine the range of situations in
which mechanical cotton harvesting is
economically feasible.
Information on use of machines, cost
of picking, and gin turnout was ob-
tained by interviews with 63 growers
who used machines in 1949. Data on
grade and value of machine- and hand-
picked cotton were obtained from repre-
sentative gins for three seasons, 1948 to
1950. Estimates of field waste from each
method of picking were based on experi-
mental work at the Shafter Cotton Field
Station.
In 1949 machine picking did not begin
in the San Joaquin Valley until mid-
October, when about a fifth of the cotton
crop had already been picked by hand.
The average use and output of the 63
Table 1. Average Use and Output of 63 Mechanical Harvesters
During 1949 Season
First
pick
Second
pick
Total season
pick
Days operated
Hours operated
Acres picked
Bales picked
Hundredweight seed cotton
26
243
145
182
2,482
21
164
139
47
701
47
407
284
229
3,183
[4]
Table 2. Average Performance Rates per Hour and per Day, 1949
Acres picked per hour
Pounds of seed cotton per hour
Bales picked per day
First
pick
0.60
1,021.00
7.00
Second
pick
0.82
429.00
2.30
Total season
pick
0.70
782.00
4.90
mechanical harvesters for that season are
shown in table 1.
Use and therefore output per harvester
varied considerably from farm to farm
because some growers who were using
machines for the first time did not at-
tempt first picking. Others used ma-
chines merely to supplement hand pick-
ing or bought machines after the season
had begun. Thirty-one machines were
used at full season's capacity. They
picked an average of 292 bales on 356
acres of picking in 520 hours of opera-
tion. From this, a grower can expect a
machine to harvest completely 200 acres
(150 acres picked a second time) or
about 300 bales of cotton in a typical
season.
Growers reported they had fewer
breakdowns and kept their machines op-
erating more of the time in 1949 than
in previous years because they under-
stood better the mechanical require-
ments. Some moderate improvement can
be expected in the performance rates
shown in table 2.
Gin turnout of machine-picked cotton
was 36.5 per cent. This was less than one
percentage point below the turnout of
hand-picked cotton. It required 1,370
pounds of machine-picked seed cotton,
compared with 1,348 pounds of hand-
picked, to turn out a 500-pound bale of
lint. Turnout of the machine-picked cot-
ton was relatively low early in the sea-
son; it equaled the hand-picked in mid-
season; and it was actually higher than
the turnout of hand-picked cotton in late-
season picking.
Cost of machine picking (excluding
grade loss and field waste) for the 63
growers in 1949 averaged $14.65 per
bale harvested, $11.72 per acre of pick-
ing, and $8.25 per acre of machine op-
eration. Highest cost per bale, $20.72,
was in the Madera-Merced area where an
average of only 158 bales was picked per
machine. The lowest cost, $11.71, was in
Westside where the average was 292
bales per machine.
Overhead items dominate the cost pic-
ture. Cost per bale included $7.57 for
overhead on harvester and tractor, $4.43
for operating expenses, and $2.64 for
labor. The purchase price of approxi-
mately $9,500 (in 1949) for harvester
and tractor largely explains the high
overhead costs. Annual depreciation
charges were $1,483, and annual interest
on investment was $217 for the equip-
ment.
The average cost of $14.65 a bale was
based on a season pick of 229 bales
(somewhat less than full machine ca-
pacity in the Valley) and a service life
of five years for the harvester (somewhat
less than farmers can reasonably expect
today). Therefore, the cost of picking
was recalculated for a season pick of 300
bales and a service life of six years. On
that basis, the cost of picking would be
$12.29 a bale.
Since overhead is a major item of cost,
full use of the machine is important. The
effect of annual use on cost of picking
per bale (in 1.5-bale cotton) was calcu-
lated as shown in the table at the top of
page 6.
[5]
When annual use is:
Picking cost
acres bales
per bale is :
50 75
$21.55
100 150
$14.94
150 225
$13.04
200 300
$12.29
300 450
$11.91
When season use falls below 100 acres,
the cost rises sharply, but pushing use
beyond 200 acres results in only small
additional savings. One hundred acres
seems to be the minimum for which it
pays a grower to own a harvester. With
less than 100 acres, he can better afford
to hire custom machine picking.
The effect of yield on cost of machine
picking per bale, when a harvester op-
erates 500 hours a season, would be:
When yield per
Picking cost
acre (in bales) is:
per bale is :
0.75
$20.15
1.25
$13.56
1.75
$11.32
2.25
$10.28
The interrelationship of yield and sea-
son use as it affects cost of machine pick-
ing per bale is shown in table 3. If the
yield is high, the picking cost per bale is
reasonable even though the season pick
is only 100 acres. If yield is low, the
cost is comparatively high even though
the season pick is 300 acres.
Second picking, especially near the
end of the season, often is very light.
Whether this "scrapping" should be
picked by hand, by machine, or not at
all is an economic question that faces
many farmers. Hand picking, in this sit-
uation, often costs $4.00 or more per 100
pounds of seed cotton. The cost of ma-
chine picking varies with the pick per
acre as shown in table 4. If the grower
includes overhead in his machine-picking
cost, he would find machine picking less
economical than hand picking when the
pick is 150 pounds or less. If he con-
siders only the direct operating costs,
costs of both methods would be about
equal when the pick is around 100
pounds.
Reduced grades of lint cotton repre-
sent one of the economic costs of ma-
Table 3. Interrelationship of Yield and Season Use as it Affects the
Cost of Machine Picking
Season pick
Cost per bale
1-bale cotton
2-bale cotton
100 acres
$20.96
15.71
$ 12.22
10.39
300 acres
Table 4. Cost of Machine Picking in Relation to Pick of
Seed Cotton per Acre
Pick per acre, in pounds
Machine-picking cost per 100 pounds
Total costs
Operating costs
50
$15.48
7.81
5.21
3.94
$9.64
4.86
3.24
2.46
100
150
200
[6]
chine picking. Machine-picked cotton in
the 1949 season averaged slightly less
than one full grade below hand-picked.
Thus, machine bales were concentrated
in the grade of Strict Low Middling and
hand bales in Middling. Consequently,
the machine-picked cotton averaged
lower in value. The average government
loan value was $132.52 a bale for the
machine-picked and $142.84 for the
hand-picked, a difference of $10.32 a
bale. The difference was $19.75 a bale
in the Madera-Merced area, but only
$8.06 a bale in Westside. This variation
between areas was doubtless due mainly
to differences in cotton, weed conditions,
and experience of machine operators.
The difference in grades and values
also varied widely among gins. Even in
Westside, where machine-picked cotton
more nearly approached the hand-picked
in grade, the difference ranged from
$13.34 a bale at one gin to $1.47 at an-
other. The variation among gins was
probably due to differences in equipment
and experience of the gin operator with
machine-picked cotton.
Grades of machine-picked cotton also
varied widely among growers in each
subarea. But in each, at least one grower
had seasonal average grades of Strict
Low Middling or better. This suggests
that good grades can be obtained with
machine picking in all parts of the Val-
ley, but that more careful operation is
required in some areas.
Seasonal trends in grades of machine-
picked and hand-picked cotton at eight
gins located in various parts of the Val-
ley show that machine-picked cotton
averaged lower in grade throughout the
season. But the spread between grades
Figure 1. Transferring the seed cotton from the picker basket to a cotton trailer. Capacity of th<
basket is about 750 pounds of seed cotton, or the equivalent of about one-half bale.
[7]
tended to narrow in late-season picking,
and the week-to-week fluctuations in
grade were smaller in the hand-picked
than in the machine-picked cotton.
Although experimental results have
shown that mechanical picking was 1.1
percentage point less efficient than hand
picking, it is assumed that under general
farm conditions the disparity would be
3.0 percentage points. Thus, in 1.5-bale
cotton, a mechanical picker would leave
69 pounds more seed cotton per acre.
The field value of that much seed cotton
in 1949 was about $4.73; it amounted
to about $3.15 per harvested bale. This
additional field waste caused by the ma-
chine is an economic cost of mechanical
harvesting when compared with hand
harvesting. Most growers said machines
"now clean the fields" more thoroughly
than in previous years; few were still
concerned about field waste. They re-
ported that field waste was relatively
smaller in rank-growing, high-yielding
cotton.
The economic advantage or disadvan-
tage of machine picking is found by add-
ing together the costs of picking, value
of grade loss, and value of field waste
and comparing the sum with the cost of
hand harvesting. For this purpose, the
recalculated cost of picking, $12.29 per
bale, representing full use and a six-year
service life of the harvester, is used. It is
assumed that cost of hand harvesting is
$45.00 per bale (as in 1949) and that
the average yield is 1.5 bales an acre.
The total economic cost of machine pick-
ing includes $12.29 for picking, $10.32
for grade loss, and $3.15 for field waste,
a total of $25.76 per bale, which repre-
sents a saving of $19.24 over hand har-
vesting. This saving in economic costs
varied among the subareas according to
differences in grade loss (table 5).
Cost of picking with a less widely used,
newer make of machine harvester was
also obtained by interviews with 18
growers for the 1950 season. The infor-
mation obtained was deemed inconclu-
sive because this make of machine had
been used commercially in the Valley for
such a short time. Data suggest, how-
ever, that growers using this machine
also found their picking cost well below
the cost of hand picking.
Table 5. Average Savings of Machine Harvesting in the Five Subareas
of the San Joaquin Valley
Area
Economic cost of
machine harvesting
per bale
Saving over cost
of hand harvesting
per bale
Kern
$ 26.29
30.16
27.12
23.50
35.19
$ 18.71
14.84
17.88
21.50
9.81
Eastside
San Joaquin-Tranquillity
Westside
Madera-Merced
[8]
INTRODUCTION
Mechanical cotton pickers began to
find acceptance in California in 1945,
although a few machines had been used
in field trials as early as 1943 and 1944.
In 1945 Venstrom (1946) noted 20
machines operating in the south and
Westside of the San Joaquin Valley.
Progress was slow at first, and two years
later only 75 machines were being op-
erated. By 1948, however, some 475 har-
vesters were in use, and the possibilities
of mechanizing the harvest looked more
promising. Mechanical picking came of
age in 1949 when more than 16.2 per
cent of a 1,268,000-bale crop was ma-
chine picked. Information for 1951 indi-
cates that an estimated 3,700 machines
picked more than half of the 1,800,000
bales of California cotton (table 6). Al-
though mechanization of the California
cotton harvest is approaching full reali-
zation, many technical and economic
problems remain to be solved.
The 1949 season proved to many grow-
ers that mechanical cotton picking is
practicable and profitable. Improvements
in machines, in operating techniques, and
in growing the cotton crop have made
successful machine harvesting possible.
Individual growers had used mechanical
pickers in previous years with varying
degrees of success. Some said that high
field waste and low grades made machine
harvest economically impracticable ;
others claimed unqualified success. Ob-
viously, the true situation for most grow-
ers would be somewhere between these
two extremes.
The study upon which this report is
based was undertaken to determine the
range of situations in which machine
cotton harvesting is economically feasi-
ble. Information for the study was drawn
from many sources. Following the 1949
harvest season, enumerators interviewed
63 growers selected at random from
among those who owned and operated
one mechanical harvester. The machines
were all one-row spindle type, mounted
on a standard rubber-tired, general-pur-
Table 6. Mechanical Cotton Picking in
California, 1945-
1951
Total harvest*
Mechanical
harvesters
in use!
Machine picking!
Year
Acres
Bales
Average bales
per machine
Total bales
picked
Percentage
of crop
thousands
20 §
150
thousands
1945
317
353
3
0.8
1946
358
458
25
175
4
1.0
1947
534
772
75
200
15
2.2
1948
804
968
475
195
93
9.6
1949
957
1,268
900
229
205
16.2
1950
581
978
1,450
221
310
31.7
1951
1,331
1,800
3,700||
264
975
54.2
* Reported by the California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Sacramento.
f Estimates based on information furnished by ginning companies, data collected in earlier studies (Ven-
strom, 1946; Burlingame and Bailey, 1948), and other information developed by the authors.
t Estimates based on number of machines distributed by dealers and the estimated number purchased
outside and shipped into the state.
§ It is reported that 5 machines were observed operating in 1943.
U Includes about 400 machines shipped into the state for custom harvesting.
[9]
Figure 2. Subareas of the San Joaquin Valley included in studying mechanical cotton harvesting,
1949. (The 63 growers interviewed were located in these five subareas.)
pose tractor. These machines studied in
1949 are identified as Mechanical Har-
vester Number 1. Growers interviewed
were located in five subareas considered
representative of typical production sit-
uations in the San Joaquin Valley. These
[10
subareas, as defined on the map, are
identified by geographic names, which
henceforth are used in this report (fig.
2). Information furnished by the grow-
ers included the number of hours ma-
chines were operated, pertinent costs,
and man-hours. Data were also taken
from growers' gin statements regarding
weight of seed cotton, weight of lint, and
bale numbers. This information helped
to identify the exact grades of each lot
of cotton whether machine- or hand-
picked. It also permitted a comparison
of gin turnout and lint grades of cotton
harvested by the two methods.
Data were collected in 1950 from 18
operators of another kind of mechanical
cotton harvester, here identified as Me-
chanical Harvester Number 2. Twelve
machines were one-row, tractor-mounted,
while six were two-row, self-propelled.
These data were analyzed similarly to
the 1949 data for Mechanical Harvester
Number 1. Two other makes of mechani-
cal cotton pickers were also being used
on a very limited scale in the Valley.
Neither make was included in this study
because fewer than a dozen of either
were in use in 1950.
The effect of machine picking on lint
cotton grades was further studied by
analyzing the grades of machine- and
hand-picked cotton obtained from repre-
sentative gins for each of three seasons,
1948-1950. The 1949 data were consid-
ered in greater detail to ascertain varia-
Table 7. Average Acres of All Land, Irrigated Land, and Principal Crops
on Selected Farms Using Mechanical Cotton Pickers,
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
San
Joaquin
Valley
Subareas
Kern
Eastside
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
Westside
Madera-
Merced
Cotton
Grain*
Number of farms
63
15
15
9
9
15
Average acres per farm
349
210
62
17
22
5
2
11
5
61
25
290
49
44
18
1
7
304
38
70
26
18
17
4
25
242
70
8
26
30
13
645
1,196
38
104
32
1
388
40
340
86
103
13
9
8
3
56
Alfalfa hay
Potatoesf
Ricef
Flax
Sugar beets
Orchard. .
Pasture
Fallow
Miscellaneous §
All irrigated land
769
19
409
3
502
54
389
2,444
19
615
16
Other land in farms ||
Total land in farms
788
412
556
389
2,463
631
* Mostly barley.
t Mostly early potatoes.
X Some acreage planted as first crop in land reclamation.
§ Mostly onions and milo in Kern ; milo in Eastside ; melons in Westside ; vegetables in Madera-Merced.
|| Includes some range pasture.
[11]
tions in grade loss among subareas in
the valley. They were also analyzed at a
few gins to ascertain week-by-week
trends in grades during the season.
Growers interviewed in all subareas
had sizable cotton operations. In 1949
the average acreage of cotton per farm
varied from 242 in San Joaquin-Tran-
quillity to 645 in Westside. The average
for all growers interviewed in the San
Joaquin Valley, where practically all
California cotton was grown in 1949,
was 349 acres (table 7). Total land op-
erated varied from 389 acres in San
Joaquin-Tranquillity to 2,463 in West-
side and averaged 788 per farm for the
Valley. Grain and rice were important
in the farming systems of cotton growers
in Westside, grain occupying almost
twice as much land as cotton. Potatoes
and alfalfa hay were also found on many
farms in Kern and Eastside and alfalfa
in Madera-Merced (table 7).
The proportion of irrigated land in
cotton on these farms varied from one-
fourth in Westside to three-fourths in
Kern and averaged slightly under one-
half for the San Joaquin Valley.
EFFECTIVENESS OF MAN LABOR IN COTTON PRODUCTION
Economic literature concerning cotton
production in the United States abounds
with references to its relatively high
labor requirements. This is not surpris-
ing, inasmuch as cotton annually ranks
first or second in gross value among
cash crops produced in the United States,
is the major field crop requiring most
labor in total and per acre, and consti-
tutes the principal, in many cases the
only, source of cash income for a large
proportion of farmers. Economists and
other research workers have recognized
the entire process of cotton growing as
a heavy user of labor. Harvesting in par-
ticular, however, has received close at-
tention because of both its weight in
total labor requirements and its seasonal
concentration.
The Situation
prior to 1 940
A cross-section evaluation of cotton
labor requirements for harvesting and
for the total production process is avail-
able in Holley and Arnold's report
(1938) .That report is particularly useful
in that it preceded the commercial de-
velopment of the mechanical picker and
the spread of mechanization in cultural
operations throughout the cotton-produc-
* This section constitutes a review of litera-
ture.
ing areas. It also combines the 1938 data
for various areas with a digest of earlier
information.
Data for four selected seasons — 1909,
1919, 1929, and 1936— indicate that
there was serious need to improve the
effectiveness of labor in cotton produc-
tion (table 8). Man-labor requirements,
at 114 to 131 hours per acre, were ex-
tremely high in the older, more humid
sections, and even the semiarid section,
with 27 to 39 hours required, compared
favorably only by contrast. Harvest labor
accounted for approximately 40 to 60
per cent of all labor. Only in the semi-
arid areas was there evidence of a sig-
nificant trend toward decreases in total
labor requirements. There was no evi-
dence of any decrease in harvesting labor
requirements other than in the semiarid
areas, where the practice of "snapping"
rather than picking the crop was largely
responsible. A limited use of "strippers"
was involved as well. Reductions in pre-
harvest labor were also evident only in
the semiarid section. This was attributed
to the joint influence of a level terrain,
which was more favorable to mechaniza-
tion, and limited rainfall, which reduced
the incidence of weeds.
Holley and Arnold summarized the
situation in 1938 and simultaneously
underscored the strategic importance of
12
Table 8. Labor Requirements for Cotton Production by Regions
1909-1936, Selected Survey Data
Region and year
Yield
of lint
per acre
Man-labor per acre
Total
man - labor
per bale
Harvest
labor per
hundred-
weight
of lint
Pre-
harvest
Harvest
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Coastal Plain :
1909
1919
1929
1936
Mississippi Delta :
1909
1919
1929
1936
Western, semiarid :
1909
pounds
hours
231
209
196
239
224
227
252
302
127
163
142
176
66.2
66.8
65.4
65.0
65.3
65.6
63.3
62.1
17.2
15.6
13.1
11.7
53.9
47.7
44.3
53.5
51.5
52.0
57.6
68.7
21.4
17.9
13.9
14.9
120.1
114.5
109.7
118.5
116.8
117.6
120.9
130.8
38.6
33.5
27.0
26.6
252
263
264
237
246
247
229
210
147
97
92
72
23.3
22.8
22.6
22.4
23.0
22.9
22.8
22.7
16.8
11.0
9.8
8.5
1919
1929
1936
Source :
Crop Production — Cotton. W. P. A., National Research Project Report A-7, 1938, Table 28, p. 99.
Column 7: Calculated by the authors of this report.
improved harvesting technology as fol-
lows:
A primary obstacle to the extended mechani-
zation of preharvesting operations is the peak
labor requirements for harvesting operations.
The development of the mechanical cotton
picker raises prospects for overcoming this im-
pediment. It is believed that machines now
under development warrant expectations of
their adoption during the next decade. They are
especially adaptable to use on the relatively
level lands favorable to use of tractors, and
they are likely to be used there first.
Developments 1941-1950
Cotton producers have shared in the
increased productivity of United States
farmers since 1940. Both preharvest and
harvesting labor requirements have been
reduced. The increased labor efficiency
has not been uniform, however, either
among all cotton-producing sections or
among all producers in any given sec-
tion.
The first appreciable reduction in
labor requirements occurred in the semi-
arid regions of Oklahoma and Texas.
Holley and Arnold (1938) recorded the
beginning of this reduction in preharvest
requirements and the associated factors.
The change-over from picking the lint
from the open boll to hand "snapping"
both boll and lint was largely responsible
for the early reduction in harvesting
labor requirements. This change, in turn,
was associated with improved ginning
equipment, which made it possible to
remove the increased amount of dirt and
trash harvested with the lint.
The cotton stripper was the next logi-
[13]
cal development. This is a mechanical
device that removes boll and lint, much
as the hand laborer does in snapping.
Campbell (1948) in Oklahoma, William-
son and Rogers (1949) in Texas, and
Sutherland and James (1948) in North
Carolina have reported on the use of
these machines.
The Oklahoma report is based on in-
terviews in 1948 with a broad cross sec-
tion of cotton growers and their sup-
pliers. A total of 104 tractor-mounted,
factory-built strippers was reported,
chiefly in western Oklahoma. It was also
estimated that 50 to 100 additional
locally made machines were in use.
Campbell found that farmers did not
consider field waste and grade loss seri-
ous but did express concern about the
problems caused by green bolls and
leaves. Bales harvested during the season
ranged from 1 to 75 and averaged 22 per
machine. The author did not attempt a
conclusive financial analysis but indi-
cated that stripping appeared profitable
in 1947. Apparently, harvesting required
about one hour per acre, and stripper
operators were willing to do custom work
at about $1.50 per 100 pounds of seed
cotton, as compared with $2.00 to $2.50
for hand snapping.
The Texas report included data for
64 farms using strippers in 1948. Wil-
liamson and Rogers obtained data on
both dry-land and irrigated farms but
found that use of the stripper on the
latter was limited largely to "scrapping"
after hand harvesting. Dry-land farmers,
in contrast, stripped 45 per cent of their
acreage. Field waste averaged 9 and 14
per cent, respectively, for storm-resistant
and normal boll varieties on dry-land
farms. Comparable figures for irrigated
land were 6 and 13 per cent. Grade loss
also was appreciable. The season's aver-
age value of a bale of cotton was $127
for hand-snapped and $116 for stripped
cotton. Williamson and Rogers also ana-
lyzed operating costs. Their findings for
total cost of harvesting and hauling to
Table 9. Cost of Operating Mechanical Cotton Strippers,
High Plains, Texas, 1948*
Dry land
Irrigated land
Per acre
Per bale
Per acre
Per bale
No hand snapping :
Variable cost
Labor
Other
Fixed cost
$1.55
(0.91)
(0.64)
0.91
$2.46
1.46
(0.83)
(0.63)
0.91
$2.37
$ 7.77
(4.54)
(3.23)
4.55
$12.32
13.18
(7.50)
(5.68)
8.19
$21.37
$ 2.33
(1.15)
(1.18)
0.91
$ 3.10
(1.55)
(1.55)
1.21
Total
After hand snapping :
Variable cost
Labor
Other
Fixed cost
$ 3.24
1.66
(0.91)
(0.75)
0.91
$ 4.31
6.83
(3.75)
(3.08)
3.75
$10.58
Total.
$ 2.57
Source: Williamson, M. N., Jr., and Ralph H. Rogers. Economics of Cotton Harvesting, Texas High Plains,
1948 Season. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Progress Report 1200, 1949.
* Does not include consideration of grade loss and field loss.
[14]
the gin are summarized in table 9. The
cost of hand snapping plus hauling was
estimated at $31.50 and $36.00 per bale,
respectively, on irrigated and dry-land
farms before the first frost of the season.
Costs increased after the first frost. Com-
parative costs for labor are important,
as most of the cost of hand snapping is
for labor.
Grade loss was a major item in total
cost of mechanically stripping cotton in
North Carolina. Sutherland and James
(1948), making comparisons with the
value of hand-picked cotton, found
lowered grade responsible for $29.90 of
the total cost of $38.62 per bale. Here,
as in Texas, however, hand snapping was
more costly. A smaller grade loss, $24.35
per bale, was more than offset by the
higher labor cost, and the total cost of
hand snapping averaged $61.35 per bale.
Mechanical cotton pickers of the spin-
dle type were first released in 1941 when
12 were sold (Archer, 1948). In subse-
quent years sales were as follows: 12 in
1942, 15 in 1943, 25 in 1944, and 75
each year from 1945 through 1947. Vol-
ume production of these machines was
scheduled for 1948. Mechanical pickers
of this type were operating in the major
cotton-producing sections by 1945,
though still in small numbers.
Growers in California and the Missis-
sippi Delta have led in buying and using
the spindle-type mechanical picker. Ven-
strom (1946) reported for California:
"By 1945 some twenty-odd machines
were in operation in the State." Inter-
views with nine operators regarding their
1945 experience led him to conclude that
"operators of the larger cotton acreages
in California have accepted the mechan-
ical cotton picker." (This inference seems
to have been somewhat optimistically
premature, for later studies showed that
many of the larger growers in 1948 and
1949 were still using much hand labor
in the cotton harvest.) Venstrom re-
ported that on a "once-over" basis for
500 acres, the mechanical picker could
pick at a cost of $1.57 per 100 pounds of
seed cotton, or $22.00 per 500-pound
bale of lint. These figures were based on
prices of cotton lint at 22 cents per
pound, 10 per cent field waste, and one
grade loss in quality. They compared
with costs of hand picking at $2.40 to
$2.70 per 100 pounds, or $32.00 to
$37.00 per bale in 1945. Substantially
comparable data were obtained from a
limited number of machines studied
three years later in the San Joaquin
Valley.
A sharp increase in mechanical pick-
ing of California cotton was noted by
Burlingame and Bailey (1950) : "Several
hundred growers have bought machines
and in the 1949 season probably 15 per
cent of the cotton was machine-picked."
The authors based their economic analy-
sis on the 1948 experience of ten growers
in Fresno and Kern counties. These co-
operators owned 23 machines that har-
vested 4,500 bales in 1948. On the aver-
age, each machine picked cotton equiva-
lent to 1,500 man-days of hand picking
at a cost of $2.14 per 100 pounds of seed
cotton. These costs, on a per-bale basis,
included $16.62 for machine overhead
and operation, $5.99 for field waste, and
$7.37 for grade loss— a total of $29.98
as compared with a hand-picking cost of
$45.00. The performance record of the
machines in this study is noteworthy:
"On the average each machine operated
58 working days, picked 244 bales or
3,434 hundredweight of seed cotton, and
covered 313 acres (once over)."
Sutherland and James (1948) in-
cluded data on four mechanical pickers
in their 1948 progress report from North
Carolina. The season's use of the me-
chanical pickers averaged 44 bales har-
vested from 60 acres at a total field-
operating cost of $19.69 per acre and
$26.70 per bale. The authors point out:
"Data on mechanical pickers are not
adequate to draw conclusions but they
appear to have possibilities if 100 or
more bales can be picked per machine
[15]
Table 10. Performance and Costs for Mechanical Cotton Picker in
Mississippi, 1945-1947
Item
1945
1946
1947
Number of pickers studied
27
20
26
bales
Bales harvested
Per picker
111.0
4.0
87.0
2.0
109.0
Per day
3.5
Selected cost items
Variable cost :
Labor
$ 258.74
173.44
114.64
$454.17
477.27
162.35
$ 337.92
Repairs
431.52
Other
187.99
Total
$ 546.82
501.08
128.46
$1,093.79
505.95
129.48
$ 957.43
Fixed cost :
Depreciation, picker
516.31
Other
132.15
Total
Operating cost per bale
Variable cost
$ 629.54
4.92
5.66
$ 635.43
12.51
7.27
$ 648.46
8.81
Fixed cost
5.96
Total
$ 10.58
$ 19.78
$ 14.77
Source: Crowe, Grady B. Mechanical Cotton Picker Operation in the Yazoo-Mississippi
of Agricultural Economics, Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta. Progress Report 1949, Tables 1, 2, and 8
Delta. U. S. Bureau
pp. 6, 7, and 8
during the year." The findings in this
report concerning harvesting costs per
bale are important even though lack of
data prevented a complete analysis in-
cluding field waste and grade loss for the
mechanical picker. Hand picking was
figured at $3.00 and hand snapping at
$2.00 per 100 pounds of seed cotton (and
trash).
Experience with mechanical pickers in
Mississippi is reported by Crowe (1949a,
19496). His data covered the three sea-
sons 1945-1947. It was estimated that by
1948 there were 600 to 650 of the spin-
dle-type mechanical pickers in the Delta
area alone. Some of the salient data con-
cerning strictly field-harvesting opera-
tions that resulted from Crowe's analysis
are listed in table 10.
The influence of increasing the num-
ber of bales picked per machine on re-
ducing costs per bale is emphasized in
his report. Higher prices for the mechan-
ical harvester have the opposite in-
fluence — increasing costs per bale. An
evaluation was also made of the effects
of field loss and grade deterioration ac-
companying machine picking. The aver-
age field loss of 8 per cent in 1947 was
figured at $13.00 and the loss in grade
at $7.90 per bale, a total of $20.90 added
to the cost of machine picking as com-
pared with hand methods. This meant,
at 1947 prices, a total cost of $35.67 per
[16]
bale, or $2.42 per hundredweight of seed
cotton (table 10). Hand-picking rates,
meanwhile, ranged from $2.50 to $4.50
per 100 pounds of seed cotton. Finally,
the Crowe report recognizes problems
concerning defoliation, weeds and grass,
lack of properly equipped gins, and the
need for competent mechanical opera-
tion.
The Situation
in 1949
The present study was undertaken
more than ten years after the Holley and
Arnold report had focused attention on
the inefficiency of labor in cotton pro-
duction in the United States. Meanwhile,
World War II had come and gone, re-
sultant shortages of labor and changing
price relationships demanded the substi-
tution of capital and machines for human
energy, and the postwar world need for
cotton had melted away the cotton sur-
pluses of the 1930's.
The findings of the research studies
reviewed may be summarized in the fol-
lowing key points describing the situa-
tion at the beginning of 1949:
1. Interest in mechanizing the cotton
harvest had resulted from the relatively
low effectiveness of hand labor in the
cotton harvest and the consequent heavy
requirements for both harvest and total
labor.
2. Mechanical strippers had proved
economic at postwar prices in the semi-
arid areas but had not found a place in
California.
3. The spindle-type mechanical cotton
harvester had been used widely in the
Mississippi Delta and in California.
4. Relatively heavy investments and
overhead costs were involved in owning
the current models of mechanical cotton
pickers.
5. Volume of use in terms of total bales
harvested annually was a major factor
affecting harvester operating cost per
bale, largely because of overhead costs.
6. Field waste of seed cotton not re-
covered by the picker was considered an
important cost in mechanical picking.
7. Grade deterioration was also recog-
nized as a major economic cost in me-
chanical picking.
8. More experience was needed before
it would be possible to define precisely
the range of conditions within which it
is economic to own and operate a me-
chanical cotton picker.
It is evident that an appraisal of pro-
gress in mechanizing the cotton harvest
must be comprehensive, that it must con-
cern itself with all economic aspects of
the question. Total cost of mechanical
picking includes overhead and operating
expenses, field waste, reduced sale value
of cotton due to quality reduction, and
any added ginning, hauling, or other in-
cidental expense. All these must be con-
sidered in a complete evaluation. It is
also evident from the literature that scale
of operations, price levels for cotton and
cottonseed, relative prices for labor and
other operating items, yields per acre,
and the probable pattern of weather dur-
ing the harvest period are factors that
must be recognized. So far as possible,
the nature and extent of influence by
these factors should be identified and
measured. It is appropriate and highly
important, finally, to establish certain
guiding principles concerning the use of
mechanical cotton pickers by farmers
operating on various scales.
The present study was timed to as-
semble and evaluate a representative pic-
ture from the experience of California
farmers with the mechanical picker. It is
limited to farmers owning one picker.
[17]
USE AND PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL HARVESTERS
Before 1949 many growers had con-
sidered machine harvesting as merely
supplemental to hand picking. A number
of machines had, therefore, been used
only in second picking when workers
were unavailable, or sometimes in fields
too weedy or too low in yield to attract
workers. The lack of a successful chem-
ical defoliant also tended to discourage
machine picking until after the first
heavy frost.* Thus, there had been no
widespread effort to make maximum use
of harvesting machines. A considerable
number of operators, however, did make
reasonably full use of mechanical pickers
during the 1949 season. The results of
the experience are reported herein for
63 such growers interviewed in early
1950.
Summary of
machine use
A typical grower began machine har-
vesting on October 19 and finished on
January 1. He operated his machine 47
working days during this 75-day period
for a total of 407 machine-hours.f He
covered a total of 284 acres once over,
145 acres of first picking and 139 acres
Figure 3. A rear view of a mechanical cotton
harvester picking cotton.
of second picking. He picked a total of
229 bales, of which 182 bales were first
picking and 47 were second picking. The
average machine picked 3,183 hundred-
weight of seed cotton, equivalent to the
amount 25 hand workers could have
picked in 50 working days.
Mechanical pickers on the average
were operated more hours (479), cov-
ered more acres (317) , and picked more
bales (292) in Westside than in any
other area. Machines were used least in
the northern area where they did the
least first picking.
Amount of use per machine varied
considerably. Total days operated ranged
from 16 to 112, machine-hours from 120
to 766, acres of picking from 80 to 535,
and bales picked from 93 to 613. As
might be expected, some machines oper-
ated less than a full season whereas
others operated at near capacity. Study
of the 63 individual records revealed
that 31 machines operated an average
of 520 hours in 62 working days between
October 11 and January 7. They picked
an average of 292 bales from 356 acres,
182 acres of first picking and 174 acres
of second picking.
All but four of the 63 growers used
their machines in first picking, and all
but two growers did some second pick-
ing. Eleven growers machine picked all
their cotton, averaging 263 bales, of
which 235 were first picking and 28 were
second picking. These growers had, on
the average, 158 acres of cotton, of which
they second picked 110 acres.
* Climate and Man. Yearbook of U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture. The average date of
the first killing frost in the fall is November 25
at Bakersfield, November 14 at Hanford, No-
vember 15 at Coalinga, December 1 at Fresno,
and November 16 at Madera.
t Machine-hours exclude morning, noon, and
evening service time and extended stops for
adjustments or repairs but include stops for
minor adjustments or repairs, for unloading the
basket, and for resting the operator.
[18
Summary of
performance rates
The number of acres the harvester
picks per day depends upon the gear
(speed) used and the time stopped in
the field. The harvesters studied were
one-row, two-gear (speed) machines de-
signed to operate at 2.00 miles per hour
in first gear and 2.75 miles per hour in
second.* This rate would permit cover-
ing 0.77 acre per hour in first gear and
1.06 acres in second on cotton in 38-inch
rows if continuous operating in one di-
rection were possible. Harvesters cannot
maintain these rates, however, because
they must stop for turning, unloading
the basket, and for servicing and adjust-
ment. The harvesters studied picked, on
the average, 0.60 acre per machine-hour
in first picking and 0.85 acre in second
picking, considering time for the stops
just mentioned.
The quantity of cotton a harvester will
pick in a given time is directly related
to yield and to the quantity of open cot-
ton. The harvesters studied picked, on
the average, 1,021 pounds of seed cotton
per machine-hour in first picking and
429 pounds in second picking (table
11) .f One machine operated successfully
in cotton yielding 2.7 bales per acre; it
picked 3,585 pounds of seed cotton per
machine-hour in first picking.
Another measure of performance is
the pick per working day. The harvesters
averaged 7.0 bales per workday in first
picking and 2.3 bales in second picking,
or 4.9 bales over the season. The machine
that operated in 2.7-bale cotton averaged
17.2 bales a day.
Discussion
Many growers made maximum use of
their machines during the 1949 season.
They proceeded with machine first pick-
ing, even though chemical defoliants
generally were ineffective, and found
* As indicated in the 1949 Owner's Manual
furnished with the harvester.
t Second picking was not necessarily on the
same fields as first picking.
Table 11. Average Performance Rates of 63 Mechanical Cotton Pickers,
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item*
San
Joaquin-
Valley
Area
Kern
Eastside
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
Westside
Madera-
Merced
Seed cotton harvested per
machine-hour :
First picking
pounds
1,021
429
783
1,182
521
903
1,016
475
792
1,040
322
856
1,062
408
826
772
584
560
Second picking
All picking
Bales harvested per workday :
First picking
bales
7.0
2.3
4.9
7.0
2.1
4.6
7.6
2.8
5.4
5.8
1.3
4.4
7.6
2.4
5.6
6.9
2.1
4.3
Second picking
All picking
* Other rates, "acres per machine-hour" and "bales per machine-hour," are found in table 13.
[19]
that results were more successful than
they expected. It frequently proved pos-
sible to use machines before the plants
had defoliated if leaves had wilted to a
dull gray-green and if a good percentage
of the bolls were open.* After midseason,
under pressure of a huge harvest, some
machines actually picked beyond their
effective capacity by operating when con-
ditions were unfavorable, during nights
when humidity was unduly high and
days when fog or dew was excessive.
Consequently, growers often found that
in pressing output to the limit they re-
duced output per hour and obtained
lower lint grades.
About half the growers, for various
reasons, did not make full use of their
machines. Some hesitated to use ma-
chines in first picking; others, because
of previous unsatisfactory experience,
used machines merely to supplement
hand picking. Lack of experience handi-
capped those using machines for the first
time, and some bought machines after
the picking season had begun. Nearly all
growers who used machines at less than
capacity in 1949 said they would use
their machines more fully in the 1950
season. This intention was not fully rea-
lized because the acreage of cotton was
sharply reduced in 1950; but apparently
most machines operated at full capacity
in 1951 when the average pick was esti-
mated at 264 bales per machine (table 6,
page 9).
A grower who is considering convert-
ing to mechanized harvesting needs to
know how much a machine will pick in a
normal season. The experience of 31
growers operating a full season in 1949
indicates that growers can expect to op-
erate 60 working days or 500 hours in
a typical season. It can safely be as-
sumed that a machine can harvest com-
pletely 200 acres of cotton and pick 300
bales in a season. All the cotton, as a rule,
would open before first picking was fin-
ished, so perhaps no more than 150 acres
would require a second picking. If so, the
total would be the equivalent of 350 acres
once over. These estimates seem reason-
able enough even though 1949 was some-
what more favorable than an average
season for machine harvesting. It is be-
lieved that improved equipment plus
greater operating skill has increased
seasonal capacity per machine enough
to permit such performance even in sea-
sons of less favorable weather conditions.
EFFECT OF MACHINE PICKING ON GIN TURNOUT
Growers, ginners, and others in the
cotton industry have been concerned
about the effects of machine picking on
gin turnout. Gin turnout is the ratio of
lint to seed cotton and trash. Seed cotton
usually contains moisture and varying
amounts of leaves, stems, sticks, and
other foreign material. Turnout is im-
portant because it is an inverse expres-
sion of the amount of foreign material
termed "trash" in the cotton. f Low trash
* Growers reported that -wilting can be in-
duced by timely removal of irrigation water.
t Turnout may also reflect the thoroughness
with which the gin removes lint from seed, but
that fact is more directly determined by inspec-
tion of seed as it comes from the gin.
content — high turnout — is desired be-
cause the greater the amount of foreign
material, the more difficult it is to gin
out a high-grade sample of lint and be-
cause excess foreign matter increases the
cost of ginning, as ginning charges are
based on the weight of seed cotton.
Mechanical harvesters can reduce gin
turnout by collecting with the seed cot-
ton more trash than hand pickers or by
adding excessive moisture from the
spindle moisteners. But if technical im-
provements or greater operating skill can
decrease the amount of foreign material
gathered with the cotton, mechanical
pickers may actually improve the grade.
The weight of seed cotton and lint was
[20
tabulated from the gin statements for
the interviewed growers and used to com-
pare gin turnout of machine- and hand-
picked cotton according to season aver-
ages and by periods through the season.
Among the 63 interviewed growers,
the season average gin turnout of ma-
chine-picked cotton (36.5 per cent) was
less than one percentage point lower than
that of hand-picked cotton (37.1 per
* Gross weight of bales was used throughout
in calculating gin turnout.
cent,* table 12). On the average, it took
1,370 pounds of machine-picked seed
cotton, as compared with 1,348 pounds
of hand-picked, to make a 500-pound
bale of lint cotton. Gin turnout of ma-
chine-picked cotton was lower, though
not to the same extent, in each of the
subareas except San Joaquin-Tranquil-
lity. In that area, gin turnout of machine-
picked cotton (37.2 per cent) was ac-
tually higher for the season than turn-
out of hand-picked cotton (35.5 per
Table 12. Gin Turnout by Method of Harvest, San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Four-week periods
First
Sept. 11-
Oct. 8
Second
Oct. 9-
Nov. 5
Third
Nov. 6-
Dec. 3
Fourth
Dec. 4-
Dec. 31
Fifth
Jan. 1-
Jan. 28
Season
average t
San Joaquin Valley
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference!
Subareas
Kern:
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference!
Eastside :
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference!
San Joaquin-Tranquillity :
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference:}:
Westside :
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference!
Madera-Merced :
Machine picked
Hand picked
Difference!
36.7
39.1
-2.4
32.4
37.8
-5.4
38.4
39.2
-0.8
37.3
39.3
-2.0
38.4
39.2
-0.8
per cent
37.2
36.8
34.7
32.2
37.9
36.8
35.0
30.7
-0.7
-0.3
+1.5
36.2
35.0
31.9
30.0
37.4
37.1
36.4
29.0
-1.2
-2.1
-4.5
+1.0
36.6
36.5
34.5
33.0
37.9
35.7
33.4
30.8
-1.3
+0.8
+1.1
+ 2.2
37.3
37.8
36.2
33.4
38.0
37.6
35.2
31.5
-0.7
+0.2
+1.0
+1.9
37.8
37.0
35.2
31.0
37.9
37.1
36.6
31.1
-0.1
-0.1
-1.4
-0.1
37.3
36.4
34.5
33.3
38.1
37.1
35.3
27.8
-0.8
-0.7
-0.8
+5.5
36.5
37.1
-0.6
34.4
36.8
-2.4
36.2
36.9
-0.7
37.2
35.5
+1.7
36.9
37.6
-0.7
36.5
37.6
-1.1
■ Data include all machine-picked and hand-picked cotton of 63 growers. Gin turnout is the ratio of lint
to seed cotton and trash.
t Season average of all cotton picked, not a simple average of the five 4-week periods.
t Minus sign indicates machine below hand, plus sign, machine above hand.
[21]
cent) . It may be noted that San Joaquin-
Tranquillity had the highest turnout
from mechanical picking and the lowest
from hand picking of any area.
For the growers interviewed, gin turn-
out of hand-picked cotton followed the
usual pattern, starting high and declin-
ing steadily throughout the season. In
contrast, machine-picked turnout in-
creased from September (36.7 per cent)
to October (37.2 per cent), nearly
equaled hand-picked in midseason, and
was actually higher than hand-picked in
late-season picking (table 12) .* In short,
turnout of machine-picked cotton im-
proved relative to that of hand-picked
throughout the season both for the Val-
ley average and for each of the sub-
areas (table 12).
Gin turnout of machine-picked cot-
ton was remarkably good on the whole.
The concern people felt when machines
first came into use was apparently un-
justified. Machine-picked turnout showed
up less favorably early in the season,
because machines collected more green
leaves and other trash than hand pickers.
After the cotton had defoliated, gin turn-
out performance of machine-picked cot-
ton was comparable with that of hand-
picked. The fact that machine-picked
turnout compared favorably late in the
season may be explained by very poor
hand picking at that time.
MACHINE-PICKING COSTS
The term "picking cost" as used here
includes overhead and operating costs
for the picker and tractor plus cost of
labor. It excludes field waste and grade
loss, both of which are recognized as
"economic costs" in comparisons of me-
chanical with hand harvesting but which
are analyzed in later sections of this
report.
Average picking cost
per machine
Total machine-picking cost during the
1949 season averaged $3,355 per ma-
chine for the 63 growers interviewed.
The component items included an aver-
age of $1,734 for overhead, $1,016 for
operating cost, and $605 for labor.
Overhead thus represented more than
half the total cost for the Valley as a
whole, and this same pattern with minor
variations was repeated in the subareas
(fig. 4 and table 34, page 55).
Overhead costs. Overhead costs in-
clude depreciation, interest on invest-
ment, property taxes, and insurance on
the picker and tractor. Depreciation dur-
ing the life of a machine is the original
* Neither snaps nor hollies were included in
hand picking.
cost minus the ending or salvage value.
Original cost, which obviously is vital
in determining depreciation, averaged
$6,459 for the harvesters and $2,950 for
the tractors used to harvest cotton.
Length of life, the other essential factor
in calculating annual depreciation, was
estimated at five years for harvesters and
seven years for the tractors on which
they were mounted, except that machines
with very high annual use depreciated
more rapidly. Total depreciation aver-
aged $5,490 for the harvesters, and this
amount divided by 5 and corrected for
machines receiving greater than annual
use resulted in an average annual de-
preciation of $1,112.
The estimate of harvester life had to
be somewhat arbitrary. The oldest ma-
chines included in the survey were pur-
chased in 1947, and it was not known
how many years they would operate.
Major modifications and improvements
had already been made at the time of the
interviews, and others were expected to
follow. It was impossible, therefore, to
determine from experience the average
length of life. The five-year estimate ac-
tually used was considered reasonable,
however, and represented the combined
[22]
Cost
(Dollars)
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Acre
Hour
Bale
Labor
Operation
Tractor Over-
Harvester head
Acre
Hour
Bale
EASTSIDE
SAN JOAQUIN-TRANQUILLITY
Acre
Hour
Bale
Acre
Hour
Bale
WESTSIDE
MADERA-MERCED
■
■
■MM
■
1
Acre
Hour
Bale
Acre
Hour
Bale
Figure 4. Mechanical cotton picking costs in the San Joaquin Valley, 1949; costs per acre, per
bale, and per hour; usual overhead, operating and labor expense. (Overhead cost of picker and
tractor accounted for most of the total, with picking operations and labor the other major items.)
Source of data: Tables 14 and 34.
judgment of experienced machine oper-
ators and dealers.
The annual charge for interest on in-
vestment was estimated at $149 per ma-
chine, a sum much smaller than that for
depreciation. Property taxes and insur-
ance averaged $123 and $33, respec-
tively, for each harvester.
Overhead cost for the tractor was
handled differently than for the har-
vester in two respects : 1 ) annual repairs
were included in overhead; and 2) only
a part of the total overhead cost was
charged to cotton harvesting. That was
done because, typically, the tractor was
used for other work at other times of the
23
Dollars
1500 r
1000
HARVESTER
500
E_g
— ~~ ~ 1
•
■H
■1
mi
H
Jim
Hi
San Joaquin
Valley
Kern
East-
side
San Joaquin-
Tranquillity
West-
side
Madera-
Merced
Insurance
Taxes
□
Interest
Ijjl Depreciation
Expense Items
1000r
800
600
400
200
TRACTOR
San Joaquin
Valley
1 Other
Kern
iiiiiiiiii
East
side
\ J Repairs
Expense Items
San Joaquin-
Tranquillity
West-
side
Madera-
Merced
Depreciation
Figure 5. Overhead costs for mechanical cotton picking in the San Joaquin Valley, 1949;
mechanical harvesters and tractors. (Depreciation was the main item of overhead cost, and the
harvester accounted for most of the total.) Source of data: Table 35.
year. Depreciation still accounted for 63
per cent of the overhead cost, while in-
terest on investment accounted for 12
per cent.
Variations among the subareas were
minor, as might be expected in view of
the newness of the mechanical harvester
and the close similarity in age and me-
chanical condition of the machines
studied.
Operating costs. Expenses on the
harvester averaged $869, or more than
half the annual costs (fig. 6). Labor ex-
penses ($605) ranked second, represent-
ing about 40 per cent, and tractor oper-
ating expense ($147) accounted for
slightly less than 10 per cent.*
* The tractor expense is somewhat mislead-
ing inasmuch as repairs were included with
overhead as indicated above.
[24]
Dollars
1000
800
600 h
400
200
HARVESTER
Expense
Items
■ ■
San Joaquin
Valley
Ker
Other
East-
side
San Joaquin
Tranquillity
Seasonal
Repair
West-
side
Madera-
Merced
Preseason
Repair
TRACTOR
200
100
1—
-
San Joaquin
Valley
Kern
East-
side
San Joaquin-
Tranquillity
West-
side
Madera-
Merced
Other
Fuel
LABOR
800
600
-
400
200
San Joaquin
Valley
Kern
East-
side
San Joaquin-
Tranquillity
West-
side
Madera
Mercec
Other
Operating
Figure 6. Operating expenses for mechanical cotton picking in the San Joaquin Valley, 1949;
mechanical harvesters, tractors, and labor. (Major expense items were preseason repair on the
harvester, operating labor, and tractor fuel.) Source of data: Table 36.
The largest item in harvester expense
was preseasonal repair, $505 on the av-
erage, while seasonal repair required an-
other $200. The two items of mainte-
nance together, $705, represented 80 per
cent of the operating expenses for the
harvester. Preseasonal repair was diffi-
cult to estimate because a number of the
machines were new in 1949. The esti-
mate used is based on the average re-
ported by those operators who had used
machines for at least one year before
1949. Costs of mounting and dismount-
ing the harvester unit in order to use the
tractor for other purposes ranked third
among the expense items for the har-
vester. Other items were relatively unim-
portant in total operating costs.
[25]
Table 13. Average Cost of Mechanical Cotton Picking,
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
San Joaquin Valley
(63 growers)
Season
total
Average per
Acre
Hour
Bale
Acres of picking
284
407
229
1.43
0.81
0.69
0.56
1.24
1.78
Machine-hours
Bales harvested
Investment
Harvester
$3,714
1,696
$ 13.08
5.97
$ 19.05
4.99
1.12
$ 9.12
4.17
$ 16.22
7.41
Tractor
Total
$ 5,410
1,417
317
$ 13.29
3.48
0.78
$ 4.26
2.14
0.36
$ 23.63
6.19
1.38
Picking Costs
Overhead :
Harvester
Tractor
Total
$ 1,734
869
147
$ 6.11
3.06
0.52
$ 7.57
3.80
0.64
$ 4.44
2.21
0.37
0.03
0.03
Operating expenses :
Harvester
Tractor
Total
$ 1,016
506
84
8
7
$ 605
$ 3.58
1.78
0.30
0.03
0.02
$ 2.50
1.24
0.21
0.02
0.02
Labor:
Operating*
Service and repair
Farm shop
Compensation
Total
$ 2.13
$ 1.49
$ 2.64
Total picking costs
$3,355
$ 11.82
$ 8.25
$ 14.65
Labor used
Operating
man-hours
407
101
1.43
0.36
1.79
1.00
0.25
1.25
1.78
0.44
2.22
Other
Total
508
subareas: Kern, seven growers, $208; Eastside, two growers, $188; San Joaquin-Tranquillity, two growers,
$247; Westside, one grower, $460; Madera-Merced, one grower, $94.
[26]
Labor costs. Labor for operating the
harvester in the field was responsible for
most of the labor expense, while labor
for services and repair ranked second
(fig. 6) . A few operators were paid wage
bonuses, which were considerable items
of expense for those reporting but which
averaged only $46* for all growers inter-
viewed. Because most of the repairs
were made in dealers' shops, "farm
labor" expense for repairing harvesters
was relatively low.
Cost per bale, per hour, per acre,
and per 100 pounds of seed cotton
The average cost of machine picking
in the Valley was $14.65 per bale for the
growers interviewed (fig. 4 and table
13). More than half the cost was over-
head ($7.57), a third was operating ex-
pense ($4.44), and the remainder was
labor ($2.64). The cost varied widely
* Bonuses were more commonly paid machine
operators in Kern than in other areas. Almost
half of the farmers interviewed in Kern paid
such a bonus, averaging $208 for the season,
and these farmers represented more than half
of all interviewed in the Valley who reported
bonus payments.
among the subareas because a machine
picked more bales in some areas than in
others (table 14). The average cost was
lowest ($11.71 per bale) in Westside
where the season's pick averaged 292
bales per machine. It was highest
($20.72 per bale) in Madera-Merced
where the average pick was only 158
bales. Variations in yield per acre largely
caused the variation in bales picked per
machine and in costs per bale.
Costs per acre for picking one time
over averaged $11.82 for the interviewed
growers in 1949. This figure was highest
in Kern ($12.62) where the smallest
acreage was picked per machine and
lowest in Westside ($10.80) where the
largest acreage was picked. The range in
cost per acre was considerably narrower
than the range in costs per bale.
On an hourly basis, the Valley average
cost of machine picking was $8.25. The
high ($10.04) was in San
Tranquillity where machines
the fewest hours, the low (
Westside where they were used the most.
Per-hour costs also show a much
rower spread than costs per bale.
Joaquin-
operated
7.15)
in
nar-
Table 14. Cost of Mechanical Cotton Picking, by Subareas of the
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
Kern
Eastside
San Joaquin-
Tranquillity
Westside
Madera-
Merced
Acres of picking
263
414
258
309
427
245
273
316
201
317
479
292
265
387
158
Machine-hours
Bales picked
Cost of picking*
Per acre
Per hour
$ 12.62
8.02
12.86
0.68
1.54
0.89
$ 11.22
8.13
14.15
0.80
1.71
1.03
$11.61
10.04
15.77
0.96
3.13
1.17
$ 10.80
7.15
11.71
0.67
1.75
0.86
$ 12.35
8.46
20.72
1.09
2.60
1.51
Per bale
Per 100 pounds of seed
cotton f
First pick
Second pick
All picks
* Costs per acre, per hour, and per bale are averages of all picking both first and second. These costs exclude
field waste and grade loss reported elsewhere in this publication.
t Includes lint, cottonseed, and trash as weighed in the trailer at the gin.
[27]
The average cost of machine picking
per hundred pounds of seed cotton was
$0.81 in first picking and $1.93 in sec-
ond picking. The cost was higher in sec-
ond picking because less seed cotton was
picked per hour. Average costs of pick-
ing in the subareas are summarized in
table 14.
Materials and labor used. Spindle
oil was used in volume by the mechani-
cal pickers. Typically, an initial pur-
chase of wetting agent was made, but
after this had been used, no more was
bought. Some operators reported suc-
cessful use of a popular brand of deter-
gent instead of a special wetting agent.
Fuel and oil were the principal materials
required for tractor operation. The 63
growers reported an average use of 809
gallons of fuel. Most of the labor was
used in operating the picker in the field.
On the average, 407 of the total 517 man-
hours were used in field operations.
Servicing and minor field repairs
amounted to another 75 hours. The
labor reported does not include that used
to operate trailers or trucks in hauling
the seed cotton to the gin. Only a few
operators indicated that added labor was
used to load the trailers or to tramp the
cotton; such labor was not included in
this report.
Discussion
The average cost of $14.65 per bale
for machine harvesting compares with
approximately $45.00 for hand picking.*
Two facts stand out regarding picking
costs: 1) the dollar investment in the
harvester and tractor makes high over-
head costs inevitable in the form of de-
preciation and interest on investment;
and 2) preseasonal and seasonal repair
costs for the harvester dominate operat-
ing costs.
* The cost of hand picking was estimated by
assuming 13.5 hundredweight of seed cotton for
a bale of lint and multiplying by the 1949 pick-
ing cost. The latter figure averaged $3.33 for
first and second hand picking according to the
growers reporting.
The first point emphasizes the impor-
tance of making full use of the mechani-
cal cotton harvester. The impression was
gained during interviews that added ex-
perience in using and servicing the har-
vester would help to reduce breakage and
wear. Many machines were delivered in
1949 and many operators gained their
first experience in that year. In some in-
stances, the operator had no specific
training before taking the machine to the
field. Further experience and definite
preseason training for operators would,
growers believed, help to cut costs.
The quantity of cotton harvested an-
nually greatly affects the cost per bale
of machine picking. Cost per bale was
high in Madera-Merced because fewer
bales were harvested there than in the
other subareas. One machine could har-
vest appreciably more cotton than usu-
ally was reported. Westside growers, for
example, reported 292 bales harvested —
64 bales, or 28 per cent more than the
Valley average. The factors responsible
in 1949 for limiting the number of bales
harvested per machine have been noted.
Thoughtful planning can bring about
more complete use. Experience in the
1951 season, when mechanical pickers in
California averaged 264 bales, demon-
strates that it is feasible to pick 250 or
more bales per machine per year. This
fact is further substantiated by the 1949
average per machine in Westside (292
bales).
Added years of service life beyond the
five or seven years assumed for picker
units and tractors would tend to reduce
harvesting costs by lowering the annual
cost of depreciation. The cost of obso-
lescence should be less important now
that mechanical picking is established
and particularly now that manufacturers
have several years of field experience in
testing and improving their machines.
It is likely, also, that length of service
life will be extended by more effective
operation and maintenance of the ma-
chines.
[28]
EFFECT OF MACHINE PICKING ON GRADE OF LINT COTTON
The effect of machine picking on the
quality of cotton is a matter of prime im-
portance. If machine picking causes
lower grades than hand picking, the cot-
ton will have less value, and this reduc-
tion represents an economic cost of
machine harvesting.
The over-all effect of machine picking
on grades of lint cotton can be shown
by comparing the grades of machine-
picked and hand-picked bales of cotton
grown, harvested, and ginned under sim-
ilar conditions. All three requirements
were met in this study because bales
picked by both methods and coming
from the same gins were analyzed to de-
termine comparative grades.* Almost all
cotton going through a given gin is from
the immediate neighborhood where soils,
weather, and other environmental condi-
tions are similar. Also, all cotton was of
the same Alcala variety. Most of the dif-
ferences in grades, therefore, almost
surely reflect variations in harvesting
methods.!
How machine picking can
affect grades of cotton
Cotton is assigned class grades accord-
ing to leaf content (trash), color, and
preparation of the lint. For classifica-
tion; samples of lint are cut from the
bale. High-grade lint has little trash, is
white, and has "normal preparation."
The variations in leaf (trash) content
are recognized in seven grades which
which range downward from Good
Middling, having the least trash, to Good
Ordinary, having the most. If the trash
consists of grass particles, the cotton
sample is further reduced one or more
* Data on cotton grades supplied by inter-
viewed growers were inadequate for this analy-
sis because the farms were so scattered that
seldom more than one or two were served by
the same gin.
t It was not practicable to collect data ex-
clusively from fields where both machine and
hand picking were done because it is uncom-
mon for growers to use both methods in the
same field at the same time of the season.
Note: All grades analyzed in this section and throughout the report were those assigned in the
U.S.D.A. Classing Office, Bakersfield, California. The official grades and standards for American
Upland Cotton in effect at the time data were collected for this study were superseded on 18
August 1953. Federal Register; 15 August 1952. The new official grades and standards are as
follows :
White Cotton
Good Middling
Strict Middling
Middling
Strict Low Middling
Low Middling
Strict Good Ordinary
Good Ordinary
Spotted Cotton
Good Middling Spotted
Strict Middling Spotted
Middling Spotted
Strict Low Middling Spotted
Low Middling Spotted
The new classification has no effect on
and Extra White Cotton. These colors
cotton in the two top grades that have
Tinged Cotton
Good Middling Tinged
Strict Middling Tinged
Middling Tinged
Strict Low Middling Tinged
Low Middling Tinged
Yellow Stained Cotton
Good Middling Yellow Stained
Strict Middling Yellow Stained
Middling Yellow Stained
Gray Cotton
Good Middling Gray
Strict Middling Gray
Middling Gray
Strict Low Middling Gray
the applicability of findings of this study regarding White
already are combined in this analysis, while there was no
been eliminated — Middling Fair and Strict Good Middling.
[29]
grades below what otherwise would be
assigned. Cotton is also classed accord-
ing to color as white, spotted, tinged,
yellow stained, or gray. Preparation re-
fers to the arrangement of the fibers in
the sample. One showing gin-cut staple,
for example, may be reduced one or more
grades because of this factor alone.
Grades of lint cotton are affected by
the quality of standing cotton, picking
and handling methods, and the ginning.
Immature or weather-stained seed cot-
ton, with consequent discoloration from
spotting, staining, or graying, will not
produce good grades, however excellent
the picking or ginning. Some leaf (trash)
is collected along with the seed cotton
in picking, whether it is done by hand or
by machine. Also, discoloration, espe-
cially green leaf stain, may occur regard-
less of the picking method. Gins are
equipped to remove much of the trash
collected in picking, but they cannot re-
move discoloration. Gins vary in respect
to cleaning equipment, although recently
most gins in California have installed
lint cleaners. The skill with which they
are operated also varies.
Mechanical cotton pickers may reduce
lint grades below those that would have
been attained by hand picking in the
following ways:
1. By introducing more green leaf
stain in early season.
2. By introducing more trash from the
dead cotton plants late in the season.
3. By gathering more foreign matter
from weeds or grass.
4. By adding excess moisture (in
spindle moistening) to the seed cotton,
making trash removal by gin cleaners
more difficult. (Whether moisture also
induces graying or mildewing has not
been definitely proven.)
5. By twisting or tangling lint on the
spindles, thus increasing difficulty of
normal gin preparation.
6. By discoloring the lint with oil or
grease from the machine.
On the other hand, mechanical pickers
may actually improve lint grades by
passing over hard-to-pick immature bolls
late in the season, by adding less trash
than careless hand pickers, and by mak-
ing possible more timely harvesting. The
grade of the crop may actually average
higher if it is picked earlier by machine
than later by hand.
Comparative grades in
the 1949-1950 season
Grades were analyzed at 35 San
Joaquin Valley gins, each of which
ginned 500 bales or more of machine-
picked cotton. These gins reported a
total of 63,000 machine-picked and
238,000 hand-picked bales for the 1949-
1950 season (1949 crop). The data were
also summarized to show geographical
variations (fig. 7 and table 42, page 65) .
Preliminary analysis showed that more
than 90 per cent of the cotton picked by
each method graded White. The percent-
age of off-color bales was slightly higher
among the machine-picked (9.0) than
among the hand-picked (7.9), but this
difference was not statistically signifi-
cant. The evidence is not conclusive
whether machine picking results in more
or less discoloration than hand picking.
Subsequent analyses of grades, there-
fore, disregarded variation in color.
Bales of machine-picked cotton con-
centrated (46 per cent) in Strict Low
Middling, whereas hand-picked bales
were concentrated (41 per cent) in Mid-
dling (table 15). Machine-picked bales
included 27.1 per cent Middling or
higher and 26.9 per cent Low Middling
or lower. Hand-picked bales included
22.9 per cent Strict Low Middling and
only 8.3 per cent Low Middling or be-
low. This same pattern, with minor vari-
ations, was repeated in each of the sub-
areas except in Madera-Merced where
machine-picked bales were concentrated
in Low Middling or lower rather than
in Strict Low Middling as in other areas.
Average grades of both machine- and
hand-picked cotton can be calculated by
[30]
Grades A
White & EW
GM
SM
M
SLM
LM
SGO
GO
Spotted
Gray
Below Grade
White &EW
GM
SM
M
SLM
LM
SGO
GO
Spotted
Gray
Below Grade
White & EW
GM
SM
M L
Hand-picked Machine-picked Hand-picked Machine-picked
Bales Percent Bales Bales Percent &a\es
20 20 40 40 20 20 40
1 1 '
SAN JOAQ
1 i
1
UIN VALL
1
EY
1
1 1 I
KERN
i
i;::=:::::::::;;:;::;::::!::
■
i;;;;::-
|
i
i
* |B f m ■
I-::;::;:;:: ;::-::;;•:::;•;:;!!
1
SAN .
l:::::::::::-:::::::
LLITY
E
C
m
i
EASl
■
1
■
1
SIDE
01
El
IOAQUIN-TRANQU
P :•::•::::!:!:•:::::•:■:
1
: - ::::: " : - : < ::::::::::
1
I:! " ; fe3
te:::::::::i:::::::
r ::::::::::::::::::::
H:
11
i
WEST
■
1
■
1
SIDE
■
I
EH
1
■
■
MERCED
■
_
MADERA
I::::::::::
s
r- ■
|::::::::::
F
■
■
SLM
LM
SGO
GO
Spotted
Gray
Below Grade
4
Uiil-
1
E
I
E
1
i
■
1
■
I
1
i
|
MM;
■
■
i
i
l::::::::::::::i
20 20 4
4
20 20 4
Figure 7. Grades of machine- and hand-picked cotton in the San Joaquin Valley, 1949; dis-
tribution of seasonal ginning. (Machine-picked bales tended to concentrate in Strict Low Middling
White and hand-picked in Middling White grade. Machine-picked cotton averaged slightly less
than one full grade below hand-picked cotton.) Source of data: Table 42.
assigning index numbers to the various „. . 7 ,. . . ,
i * -n • -i i i • A complete list ol index numbers is found
grades. Primary index numbers used in in table 45, page 70 . This scale is the one used
this study were:f ■ by the Production and Marketing Administra-
tion in its reports on cotton quality.
Good Middling 105 f Each index number is multiplied by the
Strict Middling 104 corresponding number of bales in a given lot of
Middling 100 cotton; the totals thus obtained are summed
c • t Vj- ■ j i li* anc * d^i^d D Y tne tota l number of bales to give
btrict Low Middling 94 a weighted average grade index for the lot.
[31]
Table 1 5. Distribution of Cotton by Grades and by Method of Harvest,
San Joaquin Valley, 1949*
Grade f
Machine-picked
bales
Hand- picked
bales
per cent
Good Middling
Strict Middling
Middling
Strict Low Middling.
Low Middling
Strict Good Ordinary
Good Ordinary
Below grade
Total
0.1
4.1
22.9
46.0
21.5
4.2
0.9
0.3
100.0
2.5
25.4
40.9
22.9
6.2
1.4
0.5
0.2
100.0
* Condensed from table 41, page 64, which is based on the ginnings from 35 gins in the Valley.
f Summarized by leaf or trash content only because more than 90 per cent of both machine-picked and
hand-picked graded White or Extra White in color, and the small differences in color and preparation, between
methods of picking, were not significant (see table 42, page 65).
Low Middling 85 ing. Rain and fog contribute to colora-
Strict Good Ordinary 76 tion, and the ratio of trash to seed cot-
Good Ordinary 70 ton is higher because there is less seed
„ , _. „ ill i . cotton to pick. Some growers have said
ror the Valley as a whole, the machine- .i /. -, j
.,,,,/, i • t that machine grades compared more
picked bales had an average grade index x 1 1 - t i i j j j
r m o i-i-i c • t tavorably with, equaled, or exceeded
oi 91.8, which is between strict Low , , , , . . \, rr, ,
,,.,,,. 1T Ti/r- 1 n- / ii i^x hand grades late in the season, lomake
Middling and Low Middling (table 16). .. & ,, ,
TT i • i i ii this comparison, weekly average grade
Hand-picked cotton had an average . i , _ . -, i u j_ j
i.i f n n a i-i-i indexes were obtained lor each method
grade index oi 97.4, which is between , . , . . . , L -. . , .
a/pjji- j c* • * t Tv/r-jji- tu °* Peking at eight selected gins for the
Middling and Strict Low Middling. The lrMn tan j * \. \ ao
j. „ ° . t - i j- r r 1949 season (fig. 8 and table 43, page
dmerence in grade index oi 5.6 repre- ^ n , A/r , . . , , , i
,. , . ? , f „ i 68) .j Machine-picked grades on the av-
sents slightly less than one lull grade. -,-j , , , . , ,
rr,, ! r ,P -. erage did not equal hand-picked at any
lhe average value oi machine- and ,. , . . , ,
i_ j . i i „ t t t time during the season at any ol the
hand-picked cotton can also be compared . -, a . A n . ,
, - i * t^ eight gins. At five gins there was some
in terms oi government loan value, r or . j i v«- .- i
. „- . G . d , r „ , tendency toward narrower differentials
the o5 gins m the Valley, the average
loan value was $132.52 per bale of ma- * In estimating loan values it was assumed
chine-picked and $142.84 per bale of that a11 bales av eraged l^e-inch staple length
hand-picked, a difference of $10.32 a b u ecaui \ e actu A al sta P les were not re Pf * d in
, , / ii 1/r \ r™ tcc these data. A very large proportion of Valley
bale (table 16). The difference was an d subarea bales is IMo-inch staple, so the re-
smallest m Westside ($8.06) and largest suits are not impaired by this assumption.
in the Madera-Merced area ($19.75). There is no evidence whatever that machine
Growers and others are familiar with picking has any effect on staple length.
the downward trend in grades of cotton , t The data include all the machine- and
j - .i i m . i hand-picked bales ginned the same two consecu-
during the harvest season. Ihis trend , , . , , , no i
. -, , i n -,-> tlve "ays m eacri wee k during an 18-week pe-
ls largely attributed to weathering and riod . Wednesday and Thursday were used,
increasing trash content, both of which though any other two days would have served
are particularly evident in second pick- the purpose.
[32]
as the season progressed; otherwise,
machine-picked followed the same down-
ward trend as hand-picked cotton.
Grades of machine-picked varied more
from week to week than the hand-picked
at all eight gins. Machine grades defi-
nitely improved in the first week of No-
vember over the last week in October at
seven out of eight gins after a heavy
frost had defoliated the cotton and im-
proved conditions for picking.
Individually, some growers had high
grades of machine-picked cotton and
others had low grades in all five sub-
areas (table 44, page 69). That some
growers in each area obtained good sea-
sonal average grades indicates that suc-
cessful machine picking is possible in all
areas of the Valley. If grades are to be
maintained, however, cotton must be
grown with mechanical harvesting in
mind. Rows must be properly spaced, the
fields kept clean of weeds and grass, and
the ground surface left smooth and free
of clods. Recent research at the Shafter
Station indicates that the crossrow
ground profile is also important. If the
ground is left higher in the stalk row
than between the rows, the plant lifters
on the machine have more space to feed
low-growing branches into the machine.
Too, dead leaves are more likely to fall
away from the cotton stalk and are less
likely to be picked up by the machine.
Trends in machine-picked
cotton grades, 1948-1950
Data are available from representative
gins in the San Joaquin Valley with
which to compare the average grades of
machine- and hand-picked cotton in each
of the three years 1948-1950 (table 17;
also see table 45, page 70, for a more de-
tailed distribution of bales by grade and
method of picking). Apparently the dif-
ference in grade narrowed during that
period but not in the way most pleasing
to growers. The smaller grade index dif-
Table 16. Average Grade Index and Government Loan Value of Cotton
by Method of Harvest, 35 Gins, San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Hand-picked
Machine-picked
Difference*
San Joaquin Valley
grade index
97.4
98.9
97.2
95.4
97.7
94.4
91.8
92.4
89.6
89.1
93.3
85.8
-5.6
-6.5
-7.6
-6.3
-4.4
-8.6
Subareas :
Kern
Eastside
San Joaquin-Tranquillity
Westside
Madera-Merced
San Joaquin Valley
government loan value (per bale)
$ 142.84
144.79
142.39
139.65
143.96
136.95
$ 132.52
133.94
127.67
127.97
135.90
117.20
- $10.32
- 10.85
- 14.72
- 11.68
- 8.06
- 19.75
Subareas :
Kern
Eastside
San Joaquin-Tranquillity
Westside
Madera-Merced
* Minus sign indicates machine-picked below hand-picked.
[33]
GIN N-l
70b^
t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i \y- 1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Week of Picking Season Week of Picking Season
▲ A ▲ A ▲ A A A_
Sept. October November December Jan. Sept. October November December Jan.
Figure 8. Seasonal trends in grades of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton in the San
Joaquin Valley, 1949; weekly average grade indexes at selected gins. (Grades from the
machined cotton averaged lower than hand-picked in all periods of the season. Grades for both
declined throughout with some tendency for the spread to narrow.) Source of data: Table 43.
ferential of 3.1 in 1950, compared with
7.4 in 1948, resulted from a reduction
in hand grades and not from any aver-
age improvement in machine grades. In
fact, the latter varied only one-half point
during the three years — 91.3 in 1948,
91.8 in 1949, and 91.5 in 1950. Mean-
while, the hand-picked declined from
98.7 to 94.6. This decline is attributed
by most informed observers to progres-
sively poorer hand picking owing to a
larger proportion of inexperienced
workers. (A similar decline has been
noticed in some other cotton states.) The
[34]
Table 17. Grade Index and Loan Value of Cotton from Selected Gins,
by Method of Harvest, San Joaquin Valley, 1 948-1 950
Item
1948
1949
1950
26
Number of gins
22
35
Number of bales :
Hand-picked
thousands
160
17
238
63
199
63
Machine-picked
Hand-picked
grade index*
98.7
91.3
97.4
91.8
94.6
91.5
Machine-picked
Difference
Hand-picked
-7.4f
-5.6
-3.1
government loan value (per bale) %
$ 152.58
142.83
$ 142.84
132.52
$ 137.89
131.05
Machine-picked
Difference
Difference if basic loan rate were
30 cents
- $9.75
- $9.25
- $10.32
- $ 9.99
- $6.84
- $6.83
* See table 43, page 68, for the indexes assigned to the individual grades of cotton from which average
indexes were computed.
t Minus sign indicates machine-picked below hand-picked.
t Loan value per pound of Middling White, 1 1/16-inch staple, by crop years was: 1948 — 31.62 cents;
1949 — 30.98 cents ; and 1950 — 30.03 cents.
average loan value of machine-picked
cotton was $6.84 per bale less than that
of hand-picked cotton in 1950, com-
pared with $10.32 less in 1949, and
$9.75 less in 1948.
It is perhaps safe to say that machine
picking tended to improve from 1948—
1950, even though Valley-wide averages
do not show it. Some growers obtained
much better grades at the end of this
period than when they first started to
use a machine. But the Valley average
was held down, and continued to be
through 1952, because of the fact that
many new growers, inexperienced in
mechanical harvesting, were using ma-
chines for the first time and because
many of these mechanical harvesting
machines were used under less favorable
conditions.
[35
PICKING EFFICIENCY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTERS
To determine the net economic advan-
tage of machine harvesting over hand
picking, comparative field waste must be
evaluated as well as picking costs and
comparative lint grades, discussed earlier.
If field waste is greater in machine than
in hand picking, the field value of the
additional seed cotton left by the ma-
chine also contributes to the total cost
of mechanical harvesting.
Field waste means open seed cotton
left in the field. Thus, field waste, or,
conversely, picking efficiency, is ex-
pressed as a percentage of the total seed
cotton available for picking at the time
of harvesting. Actually there are two
criteria for comparing the efficiency of
machine harvesting. One is an absolute
criterion, the answer to the question,
"What percentage of all the open seed
cotton does the machine pick?" The
other is relative, the answer to the ques-
tion, "How does the percentage of open
seed cotton left by the machine compare
with that left by hand pickers?" Grow-
ers are interested in the answers to both.
They want their machines to be as effi-
cient as possible, but, in terms of eco-
nomic advantage, they must compare ma-
chine with hand picking, the only fea-
sible alternative harvesting method.
A mechanical harvester can contribute
to field waste in numerous ways. Like
any other mechanical device, it is lim-
ited to a strictly repetitive pattern. It
cannot see and therefore does not go
back and pick a stray boll, once missed.
The machine cannot pick cleanly if it is
permitted to wander off the row. It some-
times misses the lower bolls — those six
inches or less from the ground; this is
more noticeable when the picker drums
cannot be operated close to the ground
because of roughness or clods. Another
characteristic of machine-picked fields
is the presence of "tag" — locks or parts
of locks streaming from branches of the
cotton plants. Again, if the machine be-
comes clogged, some cotton is soiled and
must be discarded in the cleaning. In all
these ways machine picking can lead to
excessive field waste.
Field waste is measured accurately in
only one way — by hand gleaning behind
the harvester, a time-consuming job,
which, if it is to provide adequate data,
must include a representative range of
field conditions. This was beyond the
scope of the present study. Very few of
the growers interviewed had actually
measured field waste. Consequently, this
section of the analysis is based on pick-
ing-efficiency studies made at the United
States Cotton Field Station at Shafter
(Hoover, 1949). Measurements of field
waste at the Station were carefully taken
under controlled conditions and repre-
sent the most reliable data available.
Over-all efficiency of machine harvest-
ing was 96.5 per cent at the Shafter
Station in the 1949 season. This means
that at the end of the season, after sec-
ond picking had been completed, the
harvester had left in the field 3.5 per
cent of the seed cotton available for
picking. Efficiency was higher in 1949
than in previous seasons: 93.4 per cent
in 1948 and 92.4 per cent in 1947.
The Shafter experiments included no
hand picking in 1949 or 1947, but the
mechanization project in 1948 measured
the efficiency of hand picking at 97.6
per cent. This figure appears to be about
the maximum efficiency to be expected
in hand picking.
These efficiencies in machine and hand
picking at the Shafter Station are prob-
ably somewhat higher than those at-
tained by the average grower. However,
it is believed that they represent the ap-
proximate relationship between machine-
and hand-picking efficiencies that grow-
ers have experienced. These efficiencies
can serve to indicate the economic im-
[36]
portance of field loss. For the purpose
of this analysis, however, it is assumed
that the mechanical harvester is respon-
sible for 3 per cent more field loss than
hand picking.
The average yield among interviewed
growers (1949) was 2,171 pounds of
seed cotton harvested per acre. If ma-
chine harvesting was 94.6 per cent effi-
cient, the natural yield (amount avail-
able for picking) was 2,295 pounds per
acre. Thus, machines left in the field 124
pounds of seed cotton per acre. In com-
parable cotton it is estimated that hand
pickers picked 2,240 pounds of seed cot-
ton and left in the field 55 pounds per
acre. Thus, machines left about 69
pounds more per acre than hand pickers.
The value of seed cotton in the field be-
fore picking was about $7.28 per 100
pounds in 1949.* The value of 69
pounds was, therefore, about $5.02, and
the average value of field loss per har-
vested bale was about $3.31.
Discussion
Although few growers had systemati-
cally measured the picking efficiency of
their machine harvesters, most growers
said that machines did a more thorough
job of "cleaning the field" in 1949 than
in previous years. Very few were still
concerned about field waste by the end
of the 1949 season. This absence of con-
cern may be partly because field waste
actually was not large, partly because
* Field value of seed cotton equals the value
of 37.1 pounds of lint ($9.83) , plus 58.9 pounds
of cotton seed ($1.40), minus (hand) harvest-
ing costs ($3.25) and ginning costs ($0.70).
growers had learned that machine-
picked fields appear to have more waste
than they do, partly because they had
found that machines gather in second
picking some of the waste from the first,
and, finally, because they were more
fully aware of the extent of waste from
ordinary or poor hand picking.
In general, growers expressed the
opinion that field waste is relatively
lower in rank-growing, high-yielding cot-
ton. In such cotton a smaller percentage
of the bolls are close to the ground where
they are hard to reach. Another general
conclusion is that competent machine
operators are essential to efficient pick-
ing. Some growers limited the hours per
work shift to avoid overfatigue and
lowered efficiency of machine operators.
In actual operation, the two cautions
most frequently cited by growers as es-
sential to high picking efficiency were:
1) keeping the machine on the row; and
2) keeping the machine clean.
Research at the Shafter Station indi-
cates that row spacing of 40 inches, with
cotton stalks 4 to 8 inches apart in the
row, provides optimum conditions for
mechanical harvesting. Other recom-
mendations (Hoover, 1949) are that:
The rows should be uniform in height,
width, and shape.
The rows should be smooth and free of
clods.
The crest should be at the base of the
stalk.
Furrows should be wide enough to per-
mit steering of the picker.
[37]
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING
The analysis in preceding sections has
been concerned primarily with the data
and evidence as found. It is now appro-
priate to see what economic generaliza-
tions may be distilled from those data
interpretations. There are important
questions that cotton producers need
answered. What is the total economic
cost of mechanical harvesting? How do
variations in annual use and in cotton
yields affect picking cost? Under what
situations is mechanical picking feasi-
ble? What are the comparative costs of
first and second picking? Is mechanical
picking economically feasible in very
light picking or in scrapping operations?
Summary of economic costs
Detailed data on machine-picking
costs were presented in an earlier section
of this report, and it was noted that the
cost of picking alone does not represent
the full "economic cost" of mechanical
harvest as compared with hand harvest-
ing. Such a comparison must also con-
sider relative lint grades and field waste
of the two methods. There is evidence
that machine picking results in lower
grades of cotton and causes somewhat
more field waste than hand picking. It is
appropriate, therefore, to evaluate and
summarize all the economic costs of me-
chanical harvesting. The analysis is
based on 1949 data and prices.*
The average cost of machine picking
for all growers interviewed in 1949 was
* Although prices, and therefore costs of
picking, were relatively higher in 1950 and
1951, the 1949 price level is deemed more rep-
resentative of the long-time future average.
t The average pick in 1951 was estimated at
264 bales per machine.
t Much of the 1950 and 1951 crops sold at
prices well above loan value, but volume of
sales of particular grades by specific margins
is not known.
§ The computation of the field value of $7.28
per 100 pounds of seed cotton was shown in
the footnote on page 37.
L65 per bale. That cost was based on
a total season pick of 229 bales (some-
what less than machine capacity) in the
San Joaquin Valley,f and a service life
of five years for the harvester. Further
study revealed that for the present anal-
ysis it would be more reasonable to as-
sume that a machine picks 300 bales per
season and has a service life of six years.
The picking cost adjusted for these as-
sumptions is $12.29 per bale. Although
the 1949 data showed differences in
picking cost among the subareas due to
variation in the season's pick, this anal-
ysis assumes the same pick and the same
picking cost per bale in all subareas.
One measure of grade loss is the gov-
ernment loan value. t The loan value of
machine-picked cotton averaged $10.32
per bale lower than hand-picked cotton
in 1949. Because the loan-value differ-
ential varied among the subareas of the
Valley, it seems reasonable to assign dif-
ferent charges for grade loss in each.
It is recognized that the differences
found in 1949 may become smaller as
the newer areas gain experience in ma-
chine picking. Some differences, never-
theless, are expected to persist because
of cropping and cultural variations in
the subareas.
Machine picking in 1949 resulted in 3
per cent more field waste than hand pick-
ing (see pages 36-37). In 1.5-bale cot-
ton machine picking left 65 more pounds
per acre of seed cotton in the field than
hand picking. The economic cost thus
represented amounted to $4.73 per acre,
or $3.15 per harvested bale.§ No signifi-
cant variations in field waste among the
subareas were noted.
The total economic cost of machine
harvesting averages $25.76 per bale in
the San Joaquin Valley, under the con-
ditions assumed. The cost is highest
($35.19) in Madera-Merced where grade
loss averages highest; it is lowest
[38
($23.50) in Westside where grade loss is
lowest. The net economic advantage of
machine picking over hand picking is
$19.24 a bale in the Valley; it is highest
in Westside and lowest in Madera-
Merced (table 18).
If grade loss continues to diminish,
as the 1948-1949 trends suggest, the total
economic cost of machine picking will
become lower. The net economic advan-
tage of machine picking, therefore, will
tend to increase.
Some might argue that no grade loss
should be charged to mechanical harvest-
ing. Machines picked some 15 per cent
of the 1949 crop, hence the harvest was
completed earlier than if it had been
picked entirely by hand. Even with the
help of machines, about 15 per cent of
the crop was not picked until after De-
cember 13.* Without machines, even
more of the crop (perhaps 15 per cent
more) would have been harvested after
mid-December when the standing cotton
and the ginned lint are of lower grades.
* Computed from Cotton Quality Reports,
Production and Marketing Administration,
Bakersfield, California.
f It is assumed the 900 machines each picked
229 bales, the average found among interviewed
growers.
California cotton ginned between mid-
December and mid-January averaged
Low Middling (grade index of 85.7).
The average grade index for machine-
picked bales for the entire season was
91.8, about three-fourths of a grade
above Low Middling. The difference in
loan value between a Strict Low Middling
and a Low Middling bale was about
$25.00. It might, therefore, be reasonable
to assume that approximately 205,000
bales of cottonf were $18.75 a bale
higher in value, though machine picked,
than they would have been hand picked,
at a later date. That is to say, a machine-
picked bale in October was worth more
than a hand-picked bale in December
The individual grower who uses or con
templates using a machine, however
must consider grade loss as a cost of ma
chine harvesting. Operators, on the aver
age, received lower grades when they
used machines. Individually, they could
have used hand pickers and obtained
higher grades, even though not all of
them could have obtained enough hand
pickers. In a sense, growers who used
machines (and took lower grades) made
it possible for other growers to complete
their harvest with hand pickers (and get
TabSe 18. Total Costs of Machine Picking Compared with Hand Picking
Hand
picking
$ 45.00
Machine picking
Item
San
Joaquin
Valley
Subareas
Kern
Eastside
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
Westside
Madera-
Merced
Picking cost
$ 12.29
3.15
10.32
$ 12.29
3.15
10.85
$ 12.29
3.15
14.72
$ 12.29
3.15
11.68
$ 12.29
3.15
8.06
$ 12.29
Field waste
3.15
Grade loss
19.75
$ 45.00
Total economic
cost*
Difference in favor
of machine picking .
$ 25.76
$ 19.24
$ 26.29
$ 18.71
$30.16
$ 14.84
$27.12
$ 17.88
$ 23.50
$21.50
$35.19
$ 9.81
: Additional ginning costs for machine-picked cotton, averaging about 11 cents per bale, not included.
[39]
higher grades). In this sense, grade loss
seems a real and direct loss to growers
who use machines.
Effect of changing prices on
machine- vs. hand-harvesting costs
Some farmers may question whether
the cost of machine harvesting would
equal or exceed the cost of hand harvest-
ing if picking wage rates again become
relatively low as in times past. This ques-
tion is important to a farmer considering
a shift from hand to machine picking.
The answer turns on the probability of
lower wages relative to prices and costs
of operating farm machinery. As a par-
tial answer, we can first examine those
periods in the past when price relation-
ships (cheap labor) were unfavorable to
mechanization. We can then speculate
about the future.
Between 1935 and 1952, the year 1938
was the one in which farm wage rates
were lowest relative to prices and costs
of operating farm power machinery. In
1938 the index of wage rates for picking
cotton was only two-thirds as high as the
index for machinery prices (table 19).
That means that labor was relatively
cheap. On the other hand, in 1949 the
index of wages was l 1 /^ times the index
of machinery prices. This study has
shown the cost of machine picking for
that year as $2.05 per 100 pounds of
Table 19. Indexes of Prices Paid by Farmers in the United States and
Wage Rates for Picking Cotton in California
(1910-1914=100)
Year
Farm
machinery
Farm
supplies
Farm
wage rates
Wage rate for
picking 100 pounds
of seed cotton*
1934
index
index
144
148
150
153
158
155
153
155
164
170
174
176
182
206
240
270
275
297
308
134
134
136
143
146
142
146
156
172
192
201
204
206
222
236
246
247
264
280
99
107
114
129
130
127
129
151
197
262
318
359
387
419
442
430
432
481
...f
$0.90
0.90
1.00
0.95
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.30
1.90
2.10
2.25
2.25
2.90
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.45
3.70
3.60
123
123
136
130
102
116
130
177
259
286
307
307
396
409
409
409
470
505
491
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
Source : Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
* Average rate paid up to November 1 ; includes rates paid for snapping bolls converted to seed-cotton equiva-
lent. As picking wage rates were not reported before 1934, the index was converted to the 1910-1914 base by
assuming that the relationship between picking rates and all United States farm wage rates was the same in
1910-1914 as in 1935-1939.
f Data not available.
[40]
seed cotton, compared with $3.25 for
hand picking. Since World War II labor
generally has been scarce and wage rates
high, a situation that encourages mech-
anization.
When 1949 machine-harvesting costs,
as determined in this study, are con-
verted to 1938 prices, the resulting cost
of picking 100 pounds of seed cotton is:
Machine-picking cost
Value of grade loss
Value of field waste
Total
).465
.213
.065
1.743
These estimates are for a machine with
full season use on 200 acres of cotton
and 300 bales picked. This cost would
be correspondingly higher if the machine
picked less than 200 acres or 300 bales
of cotton a season. The effect of season
use on harvesting costs is discussed more
fully on pages 42-45.
The estimated cost of hand harvesting
per 100 pounds of seed cotton, at 1938
prices, would be:
Wages of pickers
Supervisory labor
Total
1.75
.08
1.83
The above comparison shows that ma-
chine harvesting of cotton would be more
economical than hand harvesting even at
1938 prices, a year when wage rates
were very low relative to machinery
prices and costs of operation.
Another question is, "How representa-
tive is the relationship between machine-
harvesting and hand-harvesting costs as
found in 1949?" Is that relationship
likely to change in the future, and if so,
by how much? The answer to this ques-
tion might be important to the individual
farmer who has less than a full season's
use for a mechanical picker or whose
cotton yields are below average (the
above costs were estimated for a yield
of 1.5 bales an acre).
For this analysis, two alternative price
levels were assumed. One assumes high
employment and prosperous conditions.
The other assumes intermediate employ-
ment and less prosperous conditions.
The indexes of prices received and prices
paid (1910-1914-100) for each of these
projected levels compared with 1949 are
shown in table 20. Table 21 shows the
estimated cost of picking 100 pounds
of seed cotton (including a charge
for grade loss and field waste in the case
of machine picking) when these price
Table 20. Index of Prices Received and Prices Paid
(1910-1914=100)
Prices received :
All products
Cotton, lint
Prices paid :
Items in production
Farm machinery. . .
Farm supplies
Wage rates
1949
249
245
250
270
246
428
Projected
High
employment
215
185
215
225
210
360
Intermediate
employment
150
126
155
175
175
275
Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
[41]
Table 21. Estimated Cost of Picking 100 Pounds of Seed Cotton When
1949 Machine- and Hand-Harvesting Costs are Converted to
Projected Index Levels
1949
Projections
High
employment
Intermediate
employment
Machine harvest cost per 100 lbs.
Full use (200 acres):
1.5-bale yield
$1.86
2.75
2.05
3.13
3.25
$1.48
2.22
1.64
2.54
2.73
$1.08
1.66
1.20
1.91
1.70
.75-bale yield
Half use (100 acres) :
1.5-bale yield
.75-bale yield
Hand harvest cost per 100 lbs.
Source: Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
levels and price relationships are used to
convert the cost of machine harvesting
and hand harvesting found in the present
study.
These projections indicate that farm-
ers who obtain cotton yields as low as
0.75 bale per acre and who harvest only
100 acres a season would find machine-
picking cost only slightly lower than
hand-picking under the high employ-
ment projection; under the intermediate
projection, machine harvesting would
cost more than hand harvesting. Farmers
who usually obtain average or above-
average cotton yields, even though they
harvest but 100 acres of cotton a season,
can expect considerably lower cost of
harvesting with a machine than with
hand picking. This was true in 1949 and
would be true under either the high or
intermediate employment conditions. It
should be noted that these estimates are
based on cost data in 1949 when machine
harvesting, though well established, was
still relatively new. Improvements in
machine pickers, gins, and methods may
have reduced machine-picking costs still
further. An offsetting factor, of course,
has been the increased prices and over-
head costs of this equipment.
The cost advantage of machine over
hand picking, then, may have been some-
what greater under 1949 price and wage
conditions than it is likely to be under
the prospective longer-term conditions.
Nevertheless, the advantage is likely to
be real and substantial, except for the
farmer who obtains low yields of cotton
and who makes only half-time or less
than half-time use of a machine picker.
Effect of acreage harvested
on picking costs
The machine-picking costs already
presented assume a reasonably full sea-
sonal use of the harvester — picking 200
acres of cotton, of which 150 acres is
picked a second time. Some growers
have more than 200 acres, while others
have much less. This fact raises practical
economic questions. What effect does the
acreage harvested per season have on
picking costs? Does it pay to maximize
harvester use? What minimum acreage
is needed to justify owning a harvester?
The effect of annual use upon picking
cost depends largely upon the treatment
given overhead. Depreciation is the major
item of overhead cost, accounting for 80
per cent of the total. In turn, deprecia-
tion is related to the service life of the
harvester. Service life may be the num-
[42]
<D
in
CD
2
*e3
CO C-
CO
t- l>
t-
00 LO LO LO lO lO
^ m
.O
CO r-J
CO
q 00
8
©
CO CT>
r-4
co* id
■<** CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO
D
C
fc
€0-
C
<
**«
0)
O lO
10 10 10 10 10
U»
5
q 1>
10 10
T-j 00
00 CM CM CM CM CM
D
u
9
Ph
id eo
CM iH
69-
oi t>*
co id
id id id id id id
X
"0
co
c
s
a
H
O
«A
O O
*tf CM
CM
ts
A
O lO
00 q
"*. *°.
M H H rl H H
Li
0)
Pk
id
CO CO
CM* CM*
CM CM* CM* CM* CM* CM*
u
<
4)
Q
u
O
=
+■
*«8
10 00
CM
CM iH
!>©••••
10
S3
CM 00
T-i IO
CO l>
H IO • • • •
>
<
CO CO
t- C-
t- CO
q cq
Li
ee-
s
X
■B
8
ton
3
O O
O O
OOOO
OOOO
8 8 :
s
O 10
t> CD
i-H tH
tH CO
x
H
id 10
id" co"
co" co"
«o" co"
u
€*•
0)
5
8
*4-
O O
• • •
>5
O O
00
c
O IO
eo cq
05 «
0* ">
^
#
*£
8
B
1>
rH t4
to
& i
js ci
u
I I
O
a.
S . •
Q.
bo
•-as °
O
O
«-»-
•J3 to
88
10 q
10 q
m
O CM
10 CO
10
CM O O O O O
CO cq cq cq
43 a ? °
■sis . *
"8
*
i-T
r-T cm
cm" cm"
CM CO CO CO CO CO
C
8
CD
|gS • g
0)
a& © 3 > m.2
3
CD
m
to
3
00 00
00 00
00 c-
* * * *
* * * *
CO cc IO 10 ^ ^
a- b*» ► CD fl^
Ogc8 4) co0.g'
gissrssi
CD
|*i? is:
«/>
"8
+■
8
. to >, • +J
• »a •■§ §g
bo
3V
.5 CO
CM IO
00
CM lO
00 O CM lO 00 O
25
0)
CO <N
00 m
iH t-
CO O CO CM 00 10
£
in
iH
iH CM
CO CO
^ 10 w co t-
co
a*
111
•
I
<
O Spw'C pj «
•gsgsS'sl
a — ^• fl — a °
_o
M
0)
u
lO O
cm m
m
c-
10
CM lO
10 10 10
O O CM lO t- O
9 d ® O J 9 ^
co +2 co in *2 co a
to O o3 P O co O.
3
"91
tH
tH iH
tH CM CM CM CM CO
<!HpqpHtH<!<!
8
* -i—H-tos^e-*
K-
ber of years before a machine becomes
obsolete, or it may be the number of
operating hours required to wear it out.
In the present analysis, maximum service
life is assumed to be eight years, or 3,000
hours of operation, whichever occurs
first. For machines with little annual use,
depreciation is considered a fixed annual
charge to be allocated to the number of
acres or bales actually harvested. For
machines harvesting 200 acres or more
a season, however, depreciation is treated
as a fixed charge per acre harvested. The
results of this approach are shown in an
analysis of harvester use ranging from
25 to 300 acres per year (table 22) .
Total depreciation during service life
is calculated as purchase cost minus sal-
vage or ending value (or trade-in value
on a replacement machine). It was as-
sumed, in the present analysis, that a
machine with very little annual usage
would have a higher salvage value than
one with much use. A machine harvest-
ing only 50 acres a season would have a
total depreciation of $5,500 and an an-
nual depreciation of $688, or $13.75 per
acre (table 22). One harvesting 150
acres a season would have a total de-
preciation of $6,100, or $5.80 per acre.
At 200 acres a season, depreciation be-
comes a uniform charge of $5.25 an
acre, or $3.50 a bale. Other overhead
items, such as interest on investment,
general property taxes, and insurance,
obviously are annual charges, whatever
the acreage harvested.
The combined effects of depreciation
and other overhead costs upon total cost
of picking were also calculated (table
23). When a harvester picks only 50
acres per season, the average picking
cost is $32.33 per acre, or $21.55 per
bale. At 200 acres the cost is $18.43 per
acre, or $12.29 per bale. If 300 acres are
picked, the cost is $17.86 an acre, or
$11.91 a bale.
When acreage harvested per season
falls below 100 acres, or 150 bales at the
assumed yield, the cost of picking per
acre or per bale rises sharply. In con-
trast, when acreage exceeds 200 acres,
the cost per acre falls very little. Thus,
it pays a grower to make reasonably full
Table 23. Relation of Depreciation, Overhead, and Total Picking Cost to
Acres Harvested Annually
Acres
harvested
annually!
Fixed cost per acre
Cost
of using
harvester
per acrel
Total picking cost*
Deprecia-
tion %
Other
fixed costs §
Total
overhead ||
Per
acre**
Per
baleft
50
12 3 4 5 6
$ 13.75
7.50
5.80
5.25
5.25
5.25
$7.15
3.48
2.33
1.75
1.45
1.18
$ 20.90
10.98
8.13
7.00
6.70
6.43
$25.75
15.83
12.98
11.85
11.55
11.28
$ 32.33
22.41
19.56
18.43
18.13
17.86
$21.55
14.94
13.04
12.29
12.09
11.91
100
150
200
250
300
* Picking cost does not include value of grade loss and field waste considered elsewhere in this report.
| Acreage shown is picked once and three-fourths a second time.
% See table 22 for method of calculation.
§ Based on annual sum of interest on investment, general property taxes, insurance, and cost of mounting
and dismounting the picking unit divided by the number of acres harvested per season.
|| Sum of columns 1 and 2.
1 Column 3 plus cost of repairs, spindle oil, grease, and wetting agent, a total of $4.85 per acre.
** Column 4 plus cost of tractor use $2.85 and labor $3.73 per acre.
ft Assumes a yield of 1.5 bales per acre.
[44]
use of his harvester, but there is scant
economic advantage in pressing usage
to the maximum possible.
What acreage is needed to justify
owning a harvester? This question is not
easily answered. The data just presented
would indicate that 100 acres of cotton
per season can be machine harvested at
a reasonable cost per bale. There are
problems in financing, however, as grow-
ers are required to pay fully for machine
harvesters in two harvest seasons. That
means an outlay in each of these years
of $3,500 for the picking unit and $1,475
for the tractor on which it is mounted
(1949 prices). The savings over cost of
hand picking during the first two seasons
will not cover those outlays if only 100
acres are picked annually. Growers in
that situation, therefore, should consider
doing custom harvesting, at least until
the equipment is paid for. Allotments,
however, will reduce the demand for cus-
tom harvesting that existed from 1951 to
1953, seasons of unrestricted acreages.
Effect of yield per acre on
picking cost per bale
Just as annual use of a harvester was
found to affect the cost of picking per
bale, so does the yield. To illustrate this
relationship, costs of picking were esti-
mated for various yields of cotton (table
24). It was assumed the cotton is gath-
ered in two picks, that is, three-fourths
of the acreage is picked a second time.
It was also assumed the harvester is used
a full season, or 500 hours of operation.
The cost of picking is estimated at $7.37
per hour of operation, as derived pre-
viously.
The cost of picking an acre actually
increases with greater yield because more
time is generally required. The machine
is cleaned and the basket emptied more
often. But the cost of picking per acre
does not increase proportionately to the
yield, hence the cost of picking per bale
decreases. These relationships are shown
in table 24. In cotton yielding three-
fourths bale an acre, the cost of picking
Table 24. Relation of Machine-Picking Cost Per Bale to Yield of
Cotton Per Acre
Average yield per acre
in bales f
Cost of picking*
Per acrej
Per bale§
Per hundredweight
of seed cotton ||
0.75
$15.11
16.07
16.95
18.35
19.82
21.67
23.14
24.47
25.06
25.65
$ 20.15
16.07
13.56
12.29
11.32
10.84
10.28
9.79
9.11
8.55
$1.46
1.00
1.16
1.25
0.98
1.50
0.89
1.75
0.82
2.00
0.78
2.25
0.74
2.50
0.71
2.75
0.66
3.00
0.62
* The basic cost is $7.37 per hour when harvester is used a full season or 500 hours of operation. Does not
include value of grade loss and field waste considered elsewhere in this publication.
t Season total, of which, on the average, 80 per cent is gathered in first picking and the other in a second
picking on three-fourths of the acreage.
X Total cost of both first and second picking.
§ Average cost of both picks, a bale of 500 pounds gross weight.
|| Average cost of both picks; assumes 1,380 pounds of seed cotton on the average are required to make a
500-pound gross weight bale.
[45]
Table 25. Effect of Acreage and Yield Combined on Picking Costs*
Acreage harvested annually
Picking cost per balef
1-bale yield
1.5-bale yield
2-bale yield
100
$ 20.96
16.96
15.71
$ 14.95
12.29
11.91
$ 12.22
10.68
10.39
200
300
* First picking on all the acreage and a second picking on three-fourths.
f The number of bales picked per season can readily be determined for each situation by the reader.
is estimated at $20.15 per bale, while in
two-bale cotton it would be $10.84.
Interrelationship of acreage
harvested, yield, and picking cost
There are now two economic questions
to be answered: What are the combined
effects of a small acreage and a high
yield on the cost of picking? What hap-
pens when the acreage is large but the
yield is low?
This joint effect of acreage and yield
on costs is shown in table 25. It is ap-
parent that if the acreage picked by a
machine per season is small (for ex-
ample, half of a full season's work) but
the yield is high, the cost of picking per
bale may still be reasonable. If the yield
per acre is low, however, the picking cost
per bale is high even though a large
acreage is harvested. This analysis indi-
cates that yield per acre has more effect
than does acreage picked on picking cost
per bale within the range considered.
Comparison of cost in
first and second picking
The foregoing analysis raises the ques-
tion of variation in picking cost between
the first and second picks. The cost of
machine picking per hour is about the
same regardless of yield. Second picking
is accomplished somewhat faster, how-
ever, and the cost per acre is, therefore,
somewhat lower than in first picking.
The harvester is typically operated in
low (first) gear in first picking, whereas
in second picking it is normally oper-
ated in high (second) gear.
For the growers interviewed in 1949,
first picking required an average of 1.62
hours of operation to pick an acre; the
average for second picking was 1.18
hours. Available data indicate that the
cost per hour of operation is essentially
the same in both picks and that the aver-
age is $7.37.* For 1.5-bale yield, about
* Second picking requires less wetting agent
but apparently requires slightly more tractor
fuel per hour than first picking. The two are
thought to offset each other.
Table 26. Average Picking Costs in First and Second Pick
Item
First pick. . .
Second pick
Both picks . .
Operating
hours
per acre
1.615
1.180
2.500
Cost per acre
$ 11.90
8.70
18.43
Bales picked
per acre
[46]
1.2
0.4
1.5
Cost per bale
$ 9.91
21.75
12.29
Cost of seed
cotton per
hundredwt.
$0.74
1.45
0.89
Table 27. Effect of Yield on Cost of Picking Cotton, First and Second Pick
Pick
(Bales picked per acre) *
Hours
required
to pick
an acre t
Cost of picking %
per Acre
per Bale*
per 100 lbs. of
seed cotton§
First picking :
2.0
2.44
2.38
2.27
2.17
2.08
1.96
1.85
1.75
1.67
1.59
1.49
1.43
1.37
1.26
1.22
1.18
1.14
1.10
1.08
1.06
$ 17.98
17.54
16.73
15.99
15.33
14.44
13.63
12.90
12.31
11.72
10.98
10.54
10.10
9.29
8.99
8.70
8.40
8.11
7.81
7.74
$ 8.99
9.23
9.29
9.40
9.58
9.63
9.74
9.92
10.26
10.65
10.98
11.71
12.62
13.67
14.98
17.40
21.00
27.03
39.05
77.40
$0.67
0.68
0.69
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.73
0.76
0.79
0.81
0.87
0.93
0.88
1.00
1.16
1.40
1.80
2.60
5.16
1.9.
1.8. .
1.7. .
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9. .
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2. .
0.1
* Bale of 500 pounds gross weight.
t Adapted from survey data; see table 13. Machines were usually operated in low gear in first picking and
in second gear in second picking. In general, stops for cleaning the machine and emptying the basket were
more frequent in higher yields.
X It is assumed the harvester is used a full season or 500 hours of operation. The cost of $7.37 per hour
of operation, based on 1949 price level, was calculated in a previous section beginning on page 44. These costs
do not include value of grade loss and field waste, considered elsewhere in this publication. •
§ It is assumed that 1,350 pounds of seed cotton are required to make a 500-pound gross- weight bale in first
80 per cent of the cotton, or 1.2 bales per
acre, is gathered in the first pick. Three-
fourths of the acreage is picked a second
time and 0.4 bale per acre is harvested
on each acre covered. The average costs
of picking in the first and second pick
are summarized in table 26.
Effect of yield per acre on first
and second picking costs. Approxi-
mately 80 per cent of the cotton is usually
open at the time of the first picking. The
pick itself varies with the yield per acre.
The first pick in 1949 ranged from 0.6
bale to 2.0 bales per acre.* The second
pick ranged from 0.1 to 0.7 bale per acre.
Within those ranges, respectively, costs
of first and second picking were esti-
mated (table 27). The relationship be-
tween picking costs and total yield has
been noted previously (see pages 45-46) .
A similar relationship was found be-
tween picking costs and the amount of
cotton picked in each picking. In first
picking, the cost ranges from $8.99 a
bale when the pick is 2.0 bales per acre
to $12.62 a bale when the pick is 0.8
bale. In second picking, the cost ranges
* One of the interviewed growers picked 2.75
bales (3,585 pounds of seed cotton) per acre of
first picking, but that was exceptional.
[47]
from $13.67 a bale when the pick is 0.7
bale per acre to $77.40 a bale when the
pick is 0.1 bale.
Cost of very light picking or
scrapping. Cost of mechanical harvest-
ing in light picking is of economic im-
portance especially in very late second
picking. The grower needs to know how
much seed cotton per acre he must get
to afford machine picking. An analysis
was made to provide that information.
Costs per 100 pounds of seed cotton were
calculated for picks ranging from 50 to
350 pounds per acre (table 28). Costs
were first calculated using the total pick-
ing cost of $7.37 per hour.
Table 28. Total Cost and Oper-
ating Cost in Machine Picking
Per Hundredweight of Seed
Cotton at Various Picks
Per Acre
Pick of see
d cotton
pounds
Machine picking cost per
100 pounds of seed cotton*
per acre in
Total
cost
Operating
cost
50
$ 15.48
7.81
5.21
3.94
3.16
2.65
2.27
$9.64
4.86
3.24
2.46
100
150
200
250
1.96
300
1.65
350
1.42
* Picking cost does not include value of grade
loss and field waste considered elsewhere in this
report.
For a pick of 150 pounds per acre, the
mechanical picking cost is $5.21 per 100
pounds. With lint at 20 cents a pound
(the approximate value of clean-up cot-
ton in recent years) and cotton seed at
$45 a ton, 100 pounds of seed cotton is
worth about $7.70 after ginning costs of
$0.70 are subtracted. Under these condi-
tions, the value of the seed cotton exceeds
the cost of mechanical picking, but it
would be more economical to employ
hand pickers at any rate under $5.21 per
100 pounds. When the pick is 200 pounds
an acre, the mechanical picking cost is
$3.94 per 100 pounds, which was about
the going rate of hand, second picking
in 1949. Machine picking, in other
words, is more economical than hand
picking when the pick is 250 pounds or
more per acre; hand picking is cheaper
when the pick is less. In these calcula-
tions, the effect of machine picking on
grade and field waste was not considered.
Some may maintain that operating
costs, excluding overhead, should be used
for these calculations. They would say
that overhead costs should be charged
wholly to earlier picking. Accordingly,
costs were recalculated using the oper-
ating cost of $4.59 per hour in second
picking as found in the study. This oper-
ating cost amounted to $3.24 per 100
pounds when the pick was 150 pounds of
seed cotton per acre. On the basis of
operating costs alone, therefore, it is
economically feasible to operate a me-
chanical harvester when the second pick
is only 150 pounds an acre.
LATER DEVELOPMENTS IN MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTERS
The field survey of mechanical har-
vesters operating in California during
1949 was necessarily limited to a sample
of the one-row, drum-spindle make that
had been in the process of development
and industry acceptance before World
War II. During the 1950 harvest three
other makes of pickers were operating
in the state, and one, referred to as
Mechanical Cotton Harvester Number 2,
was in wide enough use to permit the
random selection of a survey sample.*
* Several makes of spindle-type picking ma-
chines became available to California growers
between 1950 and 1953. These various makes of
machines will continue to improve as additional
operating experience is gained, and it is pos-
sible that still further makes, possibly embody-
ing new picking principles, will be developed.
[48]
Table 29. Average Performance Rates of Mechanical Harvester Number
2, Operated by 18 Growers in the San Joaquin Valley, 1950
Item*
One-row
machines
Two-row
machines
pounds
Seed cotton harvested per machine-hour :
First picking
Second picking
All picking
Bales harvested per workday :
First picking
Second picking
All picking
695
226
561
1,152
269
821
bales
2.9
0.8
2.2
6.5
1.1
4.1
* Other rates, "Machine-hours operated," "Acres harvested," and "Bales harvested," are found in table 30.
Therefore, data were collected on the
1950 operations for a representative
sample of that harvester.
As no additional data were collected
from growers using Mechanical Har-
vester Number 1 in 1950, information
on the two makes of pickers is not
strictly comparable. Furthermore, a valid
comparison between the two makes can-
not be made from the data available be-
cause the field performance of Mechan-
ical Harvester Number 1 reflected the
advantage of several years' operation in
increasing numbers under varying con-
ditions. A realistic comparative analysis
of various picking machines must await
several years' field experience and the
expected improvement of the more recent
makes.
A comparison can, however, be made
of the two models, one-row and two-row,
of Harvester Number 2, used in 1950.
Cost of picking with
mechanical picker Number 2
Data were obtained on the 1950 oper-
ations of 12 one-row and 6 two-row
models of Mechanical Harvester Number
2. These machines, particularly the one-
row models, operated considerably less
time and picked fewer bales of cotton
than the average for Mechanical Har-
vester Number 1 in 1949 (tables 29 and
30, and table 34, page 55) . The one-row
machines studied in 1950 averaged 39
days and 216 hours of operation and
picked 88 bales, or 1,211 hundredweight
of seed cotton. Each figure is less than
half the comparable value for the 1949
operation of Mechanical Harvester Num-
ber 1.
Neither model of Mechanical Har-
vester Number 2, operating in 1950, is
considered directly comparable with
make Number 1, operating in 1949; the
one-row harvester has smaller capacity,
the two-row is self-propelled. Data ob-
tained indicate also that the one-row
make Number 2 machines were owned
by smaller-scale operators than those
owning make Number 1. The 1950 oper-
ators in general had fewer acres and
bales of cotton to harvest because of re-
duced acreage under the allotment pro-
gram.
The available data are included to
record the first year's experience in Cali-
fornia with Mechanical Harvester Num-
ber 2 on any appreciable scale. Approxi-
mately 105 of these machines were in
[49
operation in 1950, largely around picking to harvest two rows; instead,
Fresno, Tulare, and Delano. The results
provide a comparison of the two models
within the make. The two-row model
quite commonly is not operated in first
both picking heads operate in tandem on
a single row.
Picking costs per bale for both models
were less than half those of hand picking
Table 30. Average Use and Performance of Mechanical Cotton
Harvester Number 2, Operated by 1 8 Growers in the
San Joaquin Valley, 1950
Item
Number of records .
Operating season :
Beginning date, average
Ending date, average. . .
Total elapsed days . .
Days operated :
First picking . .
Second picking
Total
Machine-hours operated :
First picking
Second picking
Total.
Acres harvested :
First picking . .
Second picking
Total
Bales harvested :
First picking . .
Second picking
Total
Seed cotton harvested (hundredweight ) : :
First picking
Second picking
Total
Average per grower
One-row
12
1,211
Two-row
October 11
December 24
75
October 11
December 24
75
27
12
28
22
39
50
154
62
217
130
216
347
61
39
129
116
100
245
78
10
182
25
88
207
1,071
140
2,499
350
2.849
* Estimated on basis of machine-picked lint turnout in 1949 survey.
[50]
1 I
CO
CO CO
CO OO O ©cN"*^ O
t- 100 10 oteqtNO
O Wri CO rHOOO CO
c
1 OOrH
? ! 1
o
.2
"efl
00 00
rHCD
oi
c
1 COO CI
J rH rH
tt
tHtH
■«*
^ rH
)
in
o
«o-
^-
«o
«r
««■
«/
>
1 j
9 m
0.
•»
bo
X
x c
a, J3
5
"5
H
a
rH C
t- CC
s
d
2 £
en CD
O) 01 en 00 co cn lO (N O)
CO NIO 00 H^HO t-
CO COO CO* riddd rH
u
c
1 OCO c
i rH O r
>
*
a
d :c
CO
CO
«*
«»
««•
tt<
4
c
O
'g
"5
O
CO bo
0"
t*
§ s
a
H
s 1
■*
^
CO lOTt" O) HOIOO CO
a
> co co a
! S
«
CO*
00
00
O CO 00 ^JJ COCOCNC0 w
c
> Tf00 c
1 a> v
■n
O
■<# OC
H
5* °*
o> Tfd id riddd c<i
t-
rH O D
«h 2
1 -s
c
<c
>ic
^
<
«*
t»
te-
«»
<y9-
«/
>•
! 1
</>
H~
co
3
(X
s
s
as OCO CO COOOE- O
rH -^O ■«* Oit-lO <N
if
a
t-o ^
) TjfrH If
> ^ 2
r*
00
a
n
c9
0)
Wt-t-
CO COO
CO
s
CO CO
o~ of
rH
CO rHCO CO COrH
CO ri rH~
CO
^
</
COCO If
1
> a s.
§ .H
Xm
CO
»
w
J3 <=!
eS
° I
E
3
S
Pi V
to
^0
rt
rHCO
t- # co a
^
c
ifjif) c
) ^3 Pi
"H
jg
■«* w
COr-
O CDrH
^
IfJrHCOO O
t>
Tjlf O
1 u °-
z
'co
"3
*"! "*.
85
6 rHrH
co' dc
t-^ Co'rHOd ^'
Co'rH -<j
! a
to
pa
T-ic4
t> rH
rH
O
u
d
«9-
«»
«*
6»
«»
<*
►
O
w
© -a
*■
> c4
> a>
in
O
CO J3
u. >-,
>
2 2
v.
coc-
C
coco
a-
O)''*
CO COCOCOC5
T»<
<£
Or-
1-
s °
5
CD •H
0)0)
t-^
r
coc
O O^rHC
co
a
Ot-
t<
is .g
X
^ .^
HC
OC
tJ«'o
ir:
coc
w . riddc
CT
rHC
r-
s
ffi
d '.c
co
M
"3
u
O
</»
</*
<«-
«<»■
«9-
fe«
y
*E
h
m a
©
0) HH
d
O
•h ix
x
■
cS 4)
u
00 in
M
COO)
5
rH^t
u-
cooocntn
CO*
c
COtJ
C
J ft
©
00c
rHOC
coo
t-'w
CM
COO)
©d
00 t-
idc
ir
<x
COO) coc
CO* © c
C"
rHlT
coV
2 «
<!
:«'o
«*rH
(0
1-1
CN
e»
*»
«9-
«»
««■
<^
►
H-
2 2
.rl 52
*t
"O
<v
c
3
00m
0:
(NO)
rH
rH^*
ic
coooow
■>#
c
COtJ
c
r? -S
oJ i_" a3
■9 8 3.
000
t-W
*j
COO)
CN
S 6 "
ir:
COO) CO
lf3
c-
rHIC
t"
+■
q
ocooc
<3
rH
<x
CO
CO
T"<
C0r-
K
^.2 "
+-
CO
OrHOC
rHCO
TfrH*
CXI
rH
rH
CN
"
§S^
ed
«*
<»
*9-
«»
«^
•3 "C
u
Ui
c
O
CO
g Pi fl
£t3 Pi
bo2^
Pi Pi O
IS
112
III
u
CL
H-
W P1 •-
rt d a
taOd
+■
in
250
•
a
©
b
o«
■t
h
M
bL
l-H
'5
<JJ
1-
T3
a
1
p
d
I
ca cd
g-Ssr
rt 2o5 .
J ^ fl
w2o2
* Sh-*
2
.3 S -
J4o!f
to 'j2 v
© O 1
>* rt —
Ww eg
M
g CO £
lil
3
c
Eh
«• -2*
82£'5
.S2Wh
■So
O
d to j-
O 0)
2 J3 g
"3
H
iSria
■go" 4
U K g r
Oft 05 c3 O
rl
cf w
4S
O
H
s
~-'bo
•0 a
gta ^
fl (-» OC
ft"2
"3
"H
■S
s
rl
3 -S
Table 32. Summary of Picking Costs per 100 Pounds of Seed Cotton for
Mechanical Harvester Number 2, 1950
First picking . .
Second picking
All picking
One-row
machine*
$1.42
4.36
1.76
Two-row
machine f
$1.05
4.48
1.47
* This cost covers overhead, operation of equipment, and labor, a total of $9.86 per operating hour. See
tables 38 and 39, pages 61-62, for detail of items included.
t This cost covers overhead, operation of equipment, and labor, a total of $12.06 per operating hour. See
tables 38 and 39, pages 61-62, for detail of items included.
(table 31) . The costs were $4.00 per bale
cheaper in 1950 for the two-row, larger
capacity machine.
Picking costs per 100 pounds of seed
cotton were $1.47 for the two-row ma-
chine, 16 per cent lower than for the
one-row. A summary of picking costs
per 100 pounds of cotton by first and
second pickings and for the season are
summarized in table 32.
APPENDIX
How farmers were
selected for interview
From information supplied by har-
vester dealers, a list was prepared of all
persons known to own mechanical pick-
ers in the San Joaquin Valley in 1949.
About 400 farmers owned one harvester
each, 75 owned two each, and 50 owned
three or more. Only those farmers who
owned one picker were interviewed, as it
was felt that they represented the most
typical situation and would be better able
to provide complete information about
individual machines. Owners whose op-
erations were mainly custom work for
others were excluded, insofar as possible,
because such farmers are less typical.
The harvester dealers helped edit the list
to exclude such custom operators. Thus,
the original list was limited to farmers
with one mechanical picker used pri-
marily to pick their own cotton.
Owners in the revised list were then
sorted into five geographical subareas
(fig. 2). From the list for each area, a
sample was selected for interview. Selec-
tion was on the basis of every nth name;
in some areas this meant every fourth
name; in others, every sixth. In the
Madera-Merced area, it was necessary
to include all 14 farmers owning ma-
chines to obtain a sufficient sample. The
resulting sample included the following
number of interviews by subareas:
Kern
15
Eastside
16
San Joaquin-Tranquillity
9
Westside
9
Madera-Merced
14
Total
63
Since the sample was designed to rep :
resent the typical situation, it does not
necessarily represent the arithmetical
average. However, it is believed that,
from the standpoint of output per ma-
chine, cost of picking per bale, and re-
lated data, the typical situation would
not differ greatly from the over-all aver-
age.
[52]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Although many people offered helpful suggestions toward planning this study
and preparing the report, only a few can be mentioned here. The authors are
especially grateful for assistance provided in 1949-1950 by J. P. Fairbank, Regional
Director of Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Berkeley; Marvin
Hoover, Extension Cotton Specialist, Shafter; Ray Provost, Producers Cotton Oil
Company; R. V. Jensen, San Joaquin Cotton Oil Company; J. Russell Kennedy,
California Cotton Cooperative Association; W. B. Lanham, Cotton Branch, Produc-
tion and Marketing Administration; the Farm Advisors, Agricultural Extension
Service, in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, and Tulare counties; and the
harvester dealer-distributors in the Valley. The authors are appreciative also of the
helpful cooperation of the cotton growers who furnished records of their mechanical
harvest operation in the 1949 season.
LITERATURE CITED
Archer, R. C.
1948. Progress in the mechanical picking of cotton. Proc, Ind. Ann. Beltwide Cotton Mech.
Conf., Lubbock, Texas.
Burlingame, Burt B., and Warren R. Bailey
1950. Cost of harvesting cotton with mechanical pickers — California — 1948. California Agr.
Ext. Serv. (Mimeo.)
Campbell, John D.
1948. Oklahoma farmers' experience with cotton strippers. Oklahoma Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui.
B-324.
Crowe, Grady B.
1949a. Mechanical cotton picker operation in the Yazoo-Mississippi delta. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.
Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rept.
19496. Mechanical cotton picker operation in the Yazoo-Mississippi delta. Mississippi Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 465.
Holley, William C, and Loyd E. Arnold
1938. Changes in technology and labor requirements in crop production — cotton. Works Prog-
ress Administration, National Research Project, A-7.
Hoover, Marvin
1949. Cotton mechanization. From Project Report by J. P. Fairbank and K. 0. Smith (Project
1361, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering). California Agr. Ext. Serv. (Mimeo.)
Sutherland, J. Gwyn, and H. Brooks James
1948. Mechanical harvesting of cotton in North Carolina, 1947. North Carolina Agr. Exp. Sta.
Agricultural Economics Information, Series 20.
Venstrom, Cruz
1946. Experience in 1945 with mechanical cotton pickers in California. U. S. Bur. Agr. Econ.
(Mimeo.)
Williamson, M. N., Jr., Q. M. Morgan, and Ralpih H. Rogers
1951. Economics of mechanical cotton harvesting in the high plains cotton area of Texas. Texas
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 735.
Williamson, M. N., Jr., and Ralph H. Rogers
1949. Economics of cotton harvesting, Texas high plains, 1948 season. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta.
Prog. Rept. 1200.
'[53]
APPENDIX TABLES
Table 33. Cotton Harvested by 63 Growers in the San Joaquin Valley,
1949, by Method of Harvest
Number
of
growers
Total
har-
vested
Includes machine custom picking for other growers
Area
Both pickings
First picking
Second picking
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
63*
15f
16
9t
9§
14H
bales
San Joaquin Valley. . .
Subareas :
Kern
429
443
428
350
601
357
229
258
245
201
292
158
200
185
183
149
309
199
182
201
185
183
244
116
165
144
156
53
278
170
47
57
60
18
48
42
35
41
Eastside
27
San Joaquin-Tran-
quillity
Westside
96
31
Madera-Merced. .
29
Note: Averages are for all growers interviewed whether or not they all used machines or hand pickers in
first or second picking.
* Eleven growers had no hand picking ; four had no machine first picking ; and two had no machine second
picking.
t Four growers had no hand picking; three had no machine first picking; and one had no machine second
picking.
i Two growers had no hand picking; one had no machine second picking.
§ Four growers had no hand picking.
\ One grower had no hand picking ; one grower had no machine first picking.
[54]
Table 34. Average Cost of Mechanical Cotton Picking with Harvester
Number 1, by Subareas, San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Kern area
(15 growers)
Eastside area
(16 growers)
Item
Season
total
Average
Season
total
Average
per Acre
per Hour
per Bale
per Acre
per Hour
per Bale
Acres of picking
Machine hours
Bales harvested
263
414
258
1.57
0.98
0.64
0.62
1.02
1.60
309
427
245
1.38
0.79
0.72
0.57
1.26
1.74
Investment:
Harvester
Tractor
$3,738
1,620
$5,358
1,471
335
$1,806
778
156
$ 934
499
65
11
6
$14.21
6.16
$20.37
5.59
1.27
$ 6.86
2.96
0.59
$ 3.55
1.90
0.25
0.04
0.02
$ 2.21
$ 9.03
3.91
$12.94
3.55
0.81
$ 4.36
1.88
0.38
$ 2.26
1.20
0.16
0.03
0.01
$14.49
6.28
$20.77
5.70
1.30
$ 7.00
3.02
0.60
$3,709
1,730
$5,439
1,410
306
$1,716
1,005
155
$1,160
495
89
3
7
$ 594
$12.00
5.60
$17.60
4.56
0.99
$ 8.69
4.05
$12.74
3.30
0.72
$15.14
7.06
Total
Picking costs
Overhead :
Harvester
Tractor
$22.20
5.75
1.25
Total
Operat'g expenses:
Harvester
Tractor
$ 5.55
3.25
0.50
$ 3.75
1.60
0.29
0.01
0.02
$ 4.02
2.35
0.36
$ 7.00
4.10
0.63
Total
Labor :
Operating*
Service and
repair
Farm shop
Compensation. . .
$ 3.62
1.93
0.25
0.04
0.02
$ 2.24
$ 2.71
1.16
0.21
0.01
0.02
$ 4.73
2.02
0.36
0.01
0.03
Total
$ 581
$3,321
$ 1.40
$ 1.92
$ 1.40
$ 2.42
Total picking costs .
$12.62
$ 8.02
$12.86
$3,470
$11.22
$ 8.13
$1,415
man-hours
Labor used :
Operating
Other
Total
414
91
505
1.57
0.35
1.92
1.00
0.22
1.22
1.60
0.35
1.95
427
110
537
1.38
0.36
1.74
1.00
0.26
1.26
1.74
0.45
2.19
Continued on next page.
See end of table for footnotes.)
[55]
Table 34. Average Cost of Mechanical Cotton Picking with Harvester
Number 1, by Subareas, San Joaquin Valley, 1949 — {Continued)
San Joaquin- Tranquillity area
(9 growers)
Westside area
(9 growers)
Item
Season
total
Average
Season
total
Average
per Acre
per Hour
per Bale
per Acre
per Hour
per Bale
Acres of picking
Machine hours
Bales harvested
273
316
201
1.16
0.74
0.86
0.64
1.36
1.57
317
479
292
1.51
0.92
0.66
0.61
1.08
1.64
Investment
Harvester
Tractor
$3,729
1,678
$13.66
6.15
$19.81
5.21
0.88
$ 6.09
3.22
0.44
$ 3.66
1.62
0.22
t
0.02
$11.80
5.31
$17.11
4.50
0.76
$ 5.26
2.78
0.38
$ 3.16
1.41
0.19
t
0.02
$ 1.62
$18.55
8.35
$26.90
7.07
1.19
$3,672
1,653
$11.58
5.22
$16.80
4.26
0.98
$ 7.67
3.45
$11.12
2.82
0.65
$12.58
5.66
Total
Picking costs
Overhead :
Harvester
Tractor
$5,407
1,421
239
$5,325
1,349
312
$18.24
4.62
1.07
Total
Operating expenses
Harvester
Tractor
$1,660
879
120
$ 999
444
61
t
6
$ 8.26
4.37
0.60
$ 4.97
2.21
0.30
t
0.03
$ 2.54
$1,661
815
173
$ 988
660
103
t
9
$ 772
$5.24
2.57
0.55
$ 3.12
2.09
0.32
t
0.03
$ 2.44
$ 3.47
1.70
0.36
$ 5.69
2.79
0.59
Total
$ 2.06
1.38
0.22
t
0.02
$ 3.38
Labor :
Operating*
Service and repair .
Farm shop
Compensation.
2.26
0.35
t
0.03
Total
$ 511
$ 1.86
$ 1.62
$ 2.64
Total picking costs
$3,170
$11.61
$10.04
$15.77
$3,421
$10.80
$ 7.15
$11.71
man-hours
Labor used :
Operating
Other
316
66
1.16
0.24
1.00
0.21
1.21
1.57
0.33
479
117
1.51
0.37
1.00
0.24
1.64
0.40
Total
382
1.40
1.90
596
1.88
1.24
2.04
Continued on next page.
(See end of table for footnotes.)
[56]
Table 34. Average Cost of Mechanical Cotton Picking with Harvester
Number 1, by Subareas, San Joaquin Valley, 1949 — (Continued)
Item
Madera-Merced area
(14 growers)
Season
total
Average
per Acre
per Hour
per Bale
Acres of picking
265
387
158
1.46
0.60
0.66
0.40
1.68
2.45
Machine hours
Bales harvested
Investment :
Harvester
Tractor
Total
Picking costs
Overhead :
Harvester
Tractor
Total
Operating expenses :
Harvester
Tractor
$3,712
1,779
$ 14.01
6.71
$ 9.59
4.60
$ 23.49
11.26
$ 5,491
1,410
363
$ 20.72
5.32
1.37
$ 14.19
3.64
0.94
$34.75
8.92
2.30
$ 1,773
782
126
$ 6.69
2.95
0.48
$ 4.58
2.02
0.33
$ 11.22
4.95
0.80
Total
Labor :
Operating*
Service and repair
Farm shop
$ 908
466
100
20
6
$ 3.43
1.75
0.38
0.08
0.02
$ 2.35
1.20
0.26
0.05
0.02
$ 5.75
2.95
0.63
0.13
0.04
Compensation
Total
$ 592
$ 2.23
$ 1.53
$ 3.75
Total costs
$3,273
$ 12.35
$ 8.46
$ 20.72
Labor used :
Operating
Other
Total
man-hours
387
111
1.46
0.42
1.00
0.29
2.45
0.70
498
1.88
1.29
3.15
* Includes bonuses. The following number of growers paid bonuses averaging indicated amounts by sub-
areas: Kern, 7 growers, $208; Eastside, 2 growers, $188; San Joaquin-Tranquillity, 2 growers, $247; West-
side, 1 grower, $460; Madera-Merced, 1 grower, $94.
t Less than one-half cent.
[57]
Table 35. Usual Mechanical Harvester Investments and Overhead Costs
in the San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
Number of records ,
Acres picked*.
Machine hours
Bales picked . .
Investment
Harvester :
Original cost :
Less salvage value
Total depreciation . .
Average investment .
Tractor:
Original cost
Less salvage value
Total depreciation . .
Average investment
Annual overhead costs
Harvester :
Depreciation
Interest on average invest-
ment
General property taxes . . .
Insurance
Total
Tractor :
Depreciation
Interest on average invest-
ment
General property taxes . . .
Insurance
Repairsf
Total
Charged to harvesting cotton :
Per cent of annual
Amount
San
Joaquin
Valley
63
284
407
229
$6,459
969
$ 5,490
3,714
2,950
442
$2,508
1,696
1,112
149
123
33
$1,417
371
68
36
15
100
$ 590
53.7
$317.00
Kern
15
263
414
258
$6,501
975
$ 5,526
3,738
2,817
422
$ 2,395
1,620
1,123
150
165
33
$ 1,471
350
65
45
14
100
$ 574
58.3
$335.00
Subareas
East-
side
16
309
427
245
$6,450
968
$ 5,482
3,709
3,008
451
$ 2,557
1,730
1,133
148
106
23
$ 1,410
393
69
32
11
100
$ 605
50.5
$306.00
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
273
316
201
$ 6,485
973
$5,512
3,729
2,918
437
$2,481
1,678
1,101
149
121
50
$ 1,421
378
67
37
22
100
$ 604
39.5
$239.00
West-
side
9
317
479
292
$ 6,386
958
$ 5,428
3,672
2,874
431
$ 2,443
1,653
1,093
147
72
37
$ 1,349
351
66
20
17
100
$ 554
56.3
$312.00
Madera-
Merced
14
265
387
158
$ 6,455
969
$ 5,486
3,712
3,094
464
$ 2,630
1,779
1,097
149
132
32
$ 1,410
376
71
41
15
100
$ 603
60.2
$363.00
* One acre picked over one time; same acre is counted twice if picked over second time.
t Included in overhead for convenience in allocating proportionate share to cotton harvesting.
Table 36. Usual Mechanical Harvester Operating Expenses in the
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
Number of records
Acres picked once over*. .
Machine hours
Bales harvested
Harvester expense :
Preseason repair
Seasonal repair
Mount, dismount
Spindle oil
Grease
Wetting agent
Total
Tractor expense :f
Fuel
Oil
Oil filter
Gear grease
Total
Labor expense :
Operating
Bonust
Service and repair
Farm shop
Compensation insurance
Total
Total expenses
San
Joaquin
Valley
63
284
407
229
505
196
79
58
6
25
$ 869
133
8
4
2
$ 147
460
46
84
8
7
$ 605
$ 1,621
Subareas
Kern
15
263
414
258
$ 398
230
69
49
6
26
$ 778
143
7
4
2
$ 156
402
97
65
11
6
$ 581
$ 1,515
East-
side
16
309
427
245
583
240
91
63
8
20
$ 1,005
140
9
4
2
$ 155
472
23
89
3
7
$ 594
$ 1,754
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
273
316
201
503
145
119
92
5
15
$ 879
107
7
4
2
$ 120
388
55
61
1
6
$ 511
$ 1,510
West-
side
317
479
292
$ 503
145
63
62
6
36
$ 815
159
8
4
2
$ 173
608
51
103
1
9
$ 772
$ 1,760
Madera-
Merced
14
265
387
158
472
173
61
40
7
29
$ 782
113
7
4
2
$ 126
459
7
100
20
6
$ 592
$ 1,500
* One acre picked over one time; same acre is counted twice if picked over second time.
f Includes only operating costs in harvesting cotton. Repair costs were included in overhead for convenience
in prorating share charged to harvesting cotton.
% The following number of growers paid bonuses averaging the indicated amounts, by subareas: Kern, 7
growers, $208; Eastside, 2 growers, $188; San Joaquin-Tranquillity, 2 growers, $247; Westside, 1 grower,
$460; Merced-Madera, 1 grower, $94.
[59]
Table 37. Materials and Labor Used in Harvesting Cotton Mechanically,
San Joaquin Valley, 1949
Item
San
Joaquin
Valley
Subareas
Kern
East-
side
San
Joaquin-
Tran-
quillity
West-
side
Madera-
Merced
Number of records
63
107
5
42
809
44
4
13
407
75
26
9
517
15
93
5
41
817
39
4
13
414
66
25
11
516
16
126
4
41
836
53
4
13
427
84
27
6
544
9
144
3
35
667
42
4
13
316
48
18
1
383
9
109
6
38
979
47
6
13
479
86
31
1
597
14
75
5
49
750
38
4
13
387
86
25
18
516
Harvester:
Spindle oil, gallons
Wetting agent, gallons
Grease, pounds
Tractor :
Fuel, gallons
Cylinder oil, quarts
Oil niters
Grease, pounds
Labor :
Operating, hours
Service and repair, hours ....
Mount and dismount, * hours
Farm shop, hours
Total labor, hours
^Average for cases reporting.
[60]
Table 38. Investment and Overhead Costs for Mechanical Harvester
Number 2, San Joaquin Valley, 1950
Item
Number of records .
Acres picked*.
Machine hours
Bales picked . .
Investment
Harvester :
Original cost
Less salvage value
Total depreciation . .
Average investment .
Tractor :
Original cost
Less salvage value
Total depreciation . .
Average investment .
Annual overhead costs
Harvester :
Depreciation
Interest on average investment
General property taxes
Insurance
Total
Tractor:
Depreciation
Interest on average investment .
General property taxes
Insurance
Repairsf
Total
Charged to cotton harvesting :
Per cent of annual
Amount
Average per grower
One-row
12
100
216
88
$ 4,738
711
$4,027
2,724
1,505
226
$ 1,279
865
805
1,742
109
236
75
164
33
77
$ 1,022
182
35
(single -unit
24
machine, in-
10
cluded with
69
above)
$ 320
30.9
$99.00
Two-row
6
245
347
207
$ 10,250
1,538
$8,712
5,894
$ 2,219
* One acre picked over one time; same acre is counted twice if picked over second time.
f Included in overhead for convenience in allocating proportionate share to cotton harvesting.
[61
Table 39. Usual Operating Expense for Mechanical Harvester Number
2, San Joaquin Valley, 1950
Item
Number of records
Acres picked*
Machine hours
Bales harvested
Harvester expenses :
Preseason repair
Seasonal repair
Mount and dismount. . .
Graphite and carbon tet.
Grease
Wetting agent
Total
Tractor expense:f
Fuel
Oil
Oil filter
Gear grease
Total
Labor expense :
Operating
Bonus
Service and repair
Farm shop
Compensation insurance
Total
Total expenses
Average per grower
One-row
12
100
216
88
284
153
45
8
3
88
$ 581
74
222
29
5
$ 354
$ 1,009
Two-row
245
347
207
$ 273
607
26
6
228
$1,140
62
199
5
4
3
3
4
$ 206
361
32
170
50
7
$ 620
$ 1,966
* One acre picked over one time; same acre is counted twice if picked over second time.
f Maintenance and repair costs were estimated on an annual basis and included in overhead for convenience
in prorating the share charged to harvesting cotton.
[62]
Table 40. Usual Materials and Labor Used in Harvesting Cotton with
Mechanical Harvester Number 2, San Joaquin Valley, 1950
Item
Average per machine
One-row
Two-row
Number of records
Harvester:
Wetting agent, gallons
Grease, pounds
Tractor
Fuel, gallons
Cylinder oil, quarts
Oil filters
Grease, pounds
Labor :
Operating, hours
Service and repair, hours . . .
Mount and dismount, hours
Farm shop, hours
Total hours
12
14
36
20
47
359
1,104
32
27
3
4
27
216
347
96
162
29
29
48
370
557
[63]
D
w
C
o
cr
o
Is
IS
g" *
c.E
Is
c o
■3
»!
O o
J* £
.SO
* >s
■c -a
c «A
u o
III
O giSb
as
■g.' a
'CO
o
O
« A!
ffi p.
.3 »
«3 o
"2 a>
W'S.
•a ©
•3 0)
.2 2
W3.
"^
T3 4)
KB.
J3M
CO t-I CN 3 <* H
00 * 00 CO * *■<
eot-co
00 CN
incNCDCOOON
WHOHia
C-OW
CO o
CO 00CN
• lot-"
cn ooih
00 © iH CO OS tH CO
CO in CO CO 1-H * rH
lOO*
CO CO'*
*H*CO
i-l CO CM iH W * CO
00 00 CO CO CO r-i
**CDi-l
CO iH in OS
r-IWCN
COCO
co'io
05 CO
Tf CO iH CO CO CO *
MiOININOHt-
CO CN 00 OS CN CN
in
irios
OS CO
t- CO CM t4 * CO
CN CO t-I O g CN
moot-
"tf CN
* CM
t- iH OS CN r-l CN CO
oo os w c- *h oo *
w t- oooco t- CO
io~coifl«*
OS CO CD CO eo
mcN t-cooo
*CDCOCN
HrtOHTf
r-tOOCO tH
"J t-CN
00 OS *
CO i-t
COCOCNCDCN m
os m o m m *
thooococn
CN COCO
^ os'r^
rH 00CN
OOOOCO O COOS
iH CO t- 00 © CO CN
* CN ©in COCO CN
^co'inoo'i-T
OCDCD**
CO*OSCN(N
r-tooeo>-tcN
cnco* t-m^-i'
«J«CN OCOi-n
CN rHCOt-
00 00 C- © OS OS 00
* tH CO OS CD OS 00
mooooeo
CNOSO*
r-f* WO)
CO CO .-I
i-HOOOS"
t-mcNi
ieot-*t-
t- 00 O1H00 CN *H_
lOinuTtNeoeoVr
moomrH
OOOCOOOO
CO CO ■* 00 CD
CNinosoos
eoeo»~r
It-COiHCN
co m eo
CN
CN t-CN* OS
iHCOincD 00
iHOSOOCO CO
t- OS*
CO rH
* * os *h * oo oo
co t- m co oo in co
*m*CNCD w
OOrHf f
CNOOOSt-
cdcocDt-i
cn m meo co
i—l CO OS 00 OS
cn com
* ss
CN OSCO
CO iH
&5 WHO
x
as as
"§!
•5 e9
OS >
f8 c«
as as
bo (to
as as
> >
«
c
-c
• CO t- -^ OS N CC
H NNOSOO
IO • HH
N C0N-*
© C
> ©
el j4
53 p,
. © t- © H N C
H ©COWNi-
N . . OO
O .©■<* i-t
*a c
> ©
M
00
H ...
©
s
u
M
■3 V
(A
OS
T3
NHNOt-C
N NCOC000 OS
. . ..*
i if
> ©
Q
S)
S
J3J4
a*
. O CO t- 00 © Cs
O ONWO 00
: :©
©
> ©
N«H
OS
©
■it
c
<D
u
OS tfi CO <£> W H 0"
N iTJCONCs
Ifi
Nt- 1 ^
CO
• o
o
UTS
OHN^IOHC
CO .oooc
OS
H
.OH©
N
d
©
k
0)
OL
ea
03
i
£
P
HOOMH^lf
^« lOOSOSC
CO
NO©
00 O
©
la
o co m © t- n c
^* : d ih d c
CO
.OH©
H C
> ©
^
N^H
OS
©
t>
s w
■si
Nt-OlO^lOff
CO iHCOCONlT
■<*
•WHO
© r)
o
ea
A*
53 &
OOOtOOCCHr-
HOON
ta ohhoc
W
.Ht-N
© C
H
o
©
^s
H
>■?
la
O C
quin
byS
03
►^ el
ol H
.5 «
• CO -<* t> © © If
^ ■ CO CO CO
OS
Ht-©
t>
©
. O © CO © © c
CO .OHO
00
H
: d © •>*
H
8
s*
"el
H
o
0)
ft
OS CO 00 CO CO CM ^
CO HHIOW^
CO
N00CO
© C>
©
©
ffi'tt
O <# CO CO CO H c
NOON
O ONNOC
OS
tfi !
: © n ©
C
c
8
H
*5
M
• E 3
H
.5 ©
00 H OS 00 C- i-
Tj« N^CO
OS
NNt-
<£
©
c«
AX
.oococowo
H^CO
CO .ooo
OS
d
: © h ©
t>
C
8
o -o
S*
H
t c
o o
U M
- o
"o ©
00NOHNt»lf
iO COt-00N^t
<4< . m ■ ■
if
Nt-^*H
^1
Cn
©
53 o.
OONOt-COHC
CO CO tH
CO OHOOC
OS
co : :d . :
O ©OH©
Cs
c
O
O
H
s
CO
.so
nd-P
s by
M
co h co ■* N ^t< ir
o
iHlAcOtO^
H
HH©N
V
*
o
OC0 00NC-NC
■* ONCOrHC
00*
ONCOH
t-
c
o
S^
TH^rH
00
o
8
1
>>
4?
c **
4)
Tjl \a CO OS 00 <# IT
1-
iHint-^^t
H H • i-
.TjtlTJ©
ic
Cs
©
o
73
53 a
NMCOHIOHC
^
OHHOC
^* :d : : ©
V
c
©
1
>
NOON
OS
• ■ 1
o
H
o
a
c
&
u
o
.5 ©
HTfrtiOOtNNff
c
•OHHK
U5
■t-^H
Cs
M
o
s
a
eS
02
J3M
o o
ON00C0Ht}<C
ff
.HNHC
^"
: © N H
C
o
©
H
H
•cf
10
as
■u
u
ft.
s
el
O
a>
id
OS
o
w
o3
s
1
«■
O
£
a
o
3
s
T3
el
c8
§
S
o
o
c
Eh
s
s
a
1
S
1
S
3
c
&s
s
"3
o
"3
» o
OS
V
02
i-
SOwftwjwO
O O 02 ft CQ J
09
eiOo2ft02Hl
gO02ftO2
pa
c
V
■ io co
r^
^
CO
LO
00
^
00
t- t- t-
CO
-tf
i-l
3
e
: oo to
co
*tf
<N
LO
LO
LO
CO
CO rH 00
**
I>
CO
8"
©
• 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
8
w
■" —
Q
C
8
it
• eo oo
00
CO
CO
CO
00
t>
CO
cT rH 00
CN
CO
CO
o
5-*,
• xtf ^
eo
CO
rH
CN
rH
CD
CD
00 t- 00
CO
LO
fN
o
wa.
C
. o o
o
o
o
O
O
CD
CD
CD CD CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
-C
n
""-"'
s — '
*■
c
•"■
++
c
®—
o
• 00 CN
H
cd
o
00
o
CO
lO
IO ^. ^
CD
CD
CN
tH
*-
.a*
; »d os
l>
00
OS
CO
CO
*tf
LO
KJIOO
tH
r-
CO
CN
+■
u
"8
. cd cd
CD
03
as
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
00
00
00
0)
o
a
u
• io
CO
^
^
^
rr
o
O
CO 00 00
00
CO
LO
tH
•■■
2
: o
CO
t-
c-
t»
CO
CO
CO
LO 00 CO
CO
CN
00
CN
CL
V
iH
1
1
1
1
|
1 1
|
|
1
rH
■
to
1
"0
p
c
8
Z
eo
(A (A
£
O rH
cd
t>
LO
t~
CO
CN
o
lO 00 ^
LO
LO
co
tH
3 C
K-a
: <N -^
CO
CO
CO
CN
<N
CD
CO
lO TP w
LO
(N
LO
00
> T
5
. o o
o
o
o
O
o
CD
CD
CD CD OS
00
00
00
00
■ *-
U
C n-I
C
■S ®
■ CO
CO
CO
H
co
CD
CN
©
CN O CO
l>
CD
oo
o
x .2
«-*
. CO
8
CO
CO
LO
00
CO
a
O CD 00
rH
CD
CO
CO
. . cd
CD
cd
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD 00 00
00
t-
b-
I-
u V)
3"
H
8 4-
s-g,
»- '.T.
»
O
lO
CN
CO
CO
co
o
to CO CO
00
h
0)
CD
r-
CN
CN
o
00
■^ CO CD
CO
3
1
1
i-i
T-i
rH
1
1 1 1
H
8 a
*■ ^
C v
O X
o =
*fc 8
•o ©
AM
e3 O
«-a
fc
• 00 t-
: © o*
iq
d
d
CO
d
CO
00
d
t>
LO
O CD LO
oo id co
oq
CD
rN
CD
d
oq o>
oo eo"
. o o
0)
o
o
CD
CD
CD
CD
00 00 00
oo
00
C*
i> oo
5>
"8
rH rH
rH
rH
C
8
.a <u
CD
H
CO
LO
^
c-
LO CO CN
o
ifl
-C*
CO
CO
LO
t-
LO
CO
on
O
S-S
CD
cd
00
00
oo
00
00 t» t-
co
X
8 W
o
■8
C
■■
■8
8
u
O
X
co
o
>
J*
o
5
<♦-« w
O ci
•
*■
o
-Q
8
W T) X>
pd
,d
J3
A
d
4
•B'B'B
£
56
-t-3
+3
-^»
+*
-u
o
tH (N CO
T*
LO
CO
t- 00
»H CN CO
TT
IO
Ci)
t-
00
CD
H
rH rH tH
tH
r-l
TH
rH rH
TtiNONCOHOHt-OOW^MlOMN
dodi>6o6oc5coo6do6<NiH«oodiHcd
IIIY I,II 7 I V 11111
NONCijiO^MO>0^oq05WO>oqNrl
m to « h n d h d «i i> w od w d to d d
00)0000000)00000000000000
SI
OP
II
ONCOHNOWt-O^rl
(OiO^NNMT)iOO(fiiO«OHtM«
ooooooooooooot-ooc*-t»t""
CO CO O O)
CO
t»(0N05WHt0NOI>C00qMIO
00 Tjl H H t> CO rl M t-' t^ tO ^ H CO
' I I I I I I I I I I I
IOIOOI* CO
^io<Nrjji>Tiitoqq»oto
' od io n
" oo oo
OtNOCOOOtO^COtNr-ItO
ooooooooooooooo
WHiHIONrtOOW^flJNNNrjCq
codrlodNcoNdioco'oJd'Jd^
oooooooooooot-t-tot>i>c-t-
OOtOOfCOCOCO^t-lOOOH • t>-
cd-^tdt>cot>o6oed<NTHo6 . 16
llll^ll^'^Y 1 ' '
63
• to
00
CO
o
<£>
: d
iH
<N
00
o
. o
o
o
o
o
o
T-i
-rH
1-1
1-1
t-t»C-OJt»00^H^tOCOH
00 O tO lO rH
o o o o o
O ^ CO t» o oo to
CO 00 00 t» N t- t-
q to o n ^ ^ ^ io q co to o ^ o> oq i>
W^c4cOWNo6wif5l>CNlO^COCOCO
OOOO00O000000I>t*l>C > -t-b-t»
w'd'OB+S+S^+S+SOHNCO^iOtOt-OO
HMW^lOIOl-COOJHrlHrlHHHHH
9
■ b- -* Oi
^
-^
CM tH
(N
m
o
CD
Oi
i-H
c-
CD
CO CO
a
■ cb* io id
CO
t-
Oi b-
t>
t>
CD
00
00
t>
m
m
CO CM
■c
III
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
0)
W
3
Q
C
4*
M
c
s
c
o
' T3
CO lO O CD
CD
c-
b- b-
co
i-i
o
tH
o
00
CN
o
CO 00
u
T
S-3
00
CN. CM CM CN
T-i
1-1
§8
r^
CD
-*
CO
o
CD
m
m
<N Oi
wa
1
o o o o
©
o
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
00
00
00
00 C~
c
H
*■
*-
u
.5 <u
V
• CO CD b-
CN
CO
m co
CD
CD
O
in
tH
t>
m
**
in cm
x.*
W CO CO
m
^
i-H CO
O
00
00
*tf
H
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi b-
S-|
. oi Oi a
Oi
Oi
Oi Oi
Oi
00
00
00
00
t>
b-
t-
b- b-
"8
*r
u
e
Q.
a
m
^
^
O CO
Oi
to
CO
t>
m
tH
Oi
00
• Oi
i
' w
CD
on
co co
CN
m
c-
H
H
i-H
<r4
o
. tH
T3
C
... I
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
• +
8
Q
X
U)
<N
3
-A"
O CO
IO
Oi
O Oi
CO
m
m
CO
m
t>
CN
m
00 CO
(A
V.
0)
>
i
wa
: tj« <n
CN
H
<N O
CD
m
r^
in
CO
N
CN
Oi
00 CO
. . o O
O
O
O O
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
oo
00
00
C"
b- b-
O
iH i-H
H
H
i-H iH
c
o_,
„ v
E I
T-l
H
LO
O rH
•^
o
CN
CD
o
CO
CO
t>
co m
X
JJ<
. t-
CD
co
>* "^
CO
o
Q
CO
rs]
H
o
00
00 00
u
. Oi
O^
Oi
Oi Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
00
00
00
oo
b-
t- t-
s
s u
©
XI
»^
u
CO o
O
^
Oi O
CO
Oi
CO
CD
m
CO
CN
co
CO 00
9 S?
^a
—
8
In
O
• II
00
1
1
CO CO
1 1
^1
1
CD
1
co
1
1
1
1
co
1
CO
1
<N (N
1 1
C
k
Q
sit
00
CO Oi Oi CJ
^
CO
■<* in
00
^
■^
m
CD
co
CN
CN
O CO
>»j3 efl
CJ«5
a -a
a
3
(N CO CO CO
CN
i-H
i-H o
b«
CD
m
m
CO
CO
CN
y-i
CD <N
3 CBX)
O
o o o o
O
o
o o
Oi
0)
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi
CO CO
i|1
73
C
(A
.3 <u
CO <N
T*
Oi
m m
(N
m
i— 1
Oi
i—l
o
o
Oi
CO i-H
»" a -S
AM
! o6 cd
^1
to
<* "^
CO
Oi
(N
co
r-i
Oi
Oi
b-
oo m
^5a
III
X
. . Oi Oi
Oi
Oi
Oi Oi
Oi
00
Oi
Oi
Oi
00
00
00
00 00
"8
a**
C
•a- 13 E
<D
• 5 o
"8
8
2-° a
&■
fc, 2 w
o
J) C ID
"2x1 a
>N
M
0)
o, a w
t/2 <V v
o
£
tH CO
O eS
©
M w
SI'S
©02
•
©
-sis
• w 'to
©
JQ
^ Bl 4)
sji
8
ESS
h-
■^ ^- ^ ^H
ej
a
X5 Jd
d
+3
43
£
5
■5
43
■B
•B-B
* ■*- ++
M T3 t 4»
u
+3 +3
4*
o
i-H
CM
CO
sjt
m
CD
b- 00
H N CO ^
IO
CD
b- 00
Oi
Table 44. Grade Index of Cotton from 51 Selected Farms, by Method of
Harvest, San Joaquin Valley, 1949 Season
Number
of
farms*
Average
Range in farms
Area
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
Differ-
ence t
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
San Joaquin Valley
Subareas :
Kern
51
9
12
9
9
12
91.8
95.5
89.4
90.2
94.7
88.3
95.4
94.3
96.7
91.7
96.7
95.2
-3.6
+ 1.2
-7.3
-1.4
-2.0
-6.9
83-99
89-99
87-94
88-94
90-98
83-95
82-103
87-103
Eastside
San Joaquin-Tran-
quillity
Westside
Madera-Merced
86-101
88-94
94-100
82-100
* Includes only those interviewed growers for whom the bales could be identified by method of picking.
t Minus sign indicates machine-picked below hand-picked ; plus sign, above hand-picked.
[69]
Table 45. Grades of Machine- and Hand-Picked Cotton in the San
Joaquin Valley, 1948-1950; Percentage Distribution of
Bales by Grades, Selected Gins*
Grade t
1948
1949
1950
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
Machine-
picked
Hand-
picked
White and extra white
GM
per cent of bales
1.8
17.5
45.5
13.1
3.2
1.5
2.4
41.1
29.7
8.1
2.2
1.5
0.5
0.1
2.4
18.4
43.8
21.2
4.2
0.9
2.4
23.5
36.6
21.9
5.8
1.4
0.5
0.1
2.6
24.2
36.6
10.3
3.5
1.4
2.1
23.8
29.3
11.2
4.4
2.8
0.9
SM
M
SLM
LM
SGO
GO
Total
82.6
0.1
1.2
3.4
2.5
1.1
8.3
0.2
3.4
2.7
0.2
85.5
0.3
3.1
2.1
1.4
2.7
91.0
1.0
2.1
1.1
0.3
4.5
0.7
2.4
1.1
4.2
0.3
92.1
0.1
1.5
1.7
0.4
0.4
78.7
0.8
2.9
1.2
0.2
74.5
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.1
2.7
0.6
5.4
12.5
3.8
Spotted
GM
SM
M
SLM
LM
Total
9.6
0.3
2.7
1.4
4.4
0.3
4.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
2.5
0.6
5.1
Tinged
GM
SM
M
SLM
LM
Total
0.1
1.9
8.0
5.2
Gray
GM
SM
M
SLM
Total
6.5
2.6
3.5
0.2
15.2
1.0
22.3
0.4
Below grade
TotalJ
100.0
99.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.9
* Data from 22 gins in 1948, 35 in 1949, and 26 in 1950.
t GM = Good Middling, SM = Strict Middling, M = Middling, SLM = Strict I
t Some columns do not add up to 100.0 because of rounding.
.ow Middling, LM = Low
[70]
Table 46. Grade Indexes Assigned and Government Loan Values of
California Cotton, 1949; 1 1/16-inch Staple Upland Cotton
by Grades and Colors
Grades
Colors
White or
extra white
Spotted
Gray
Tinged
Yellow
stained
Good Middling (GM)'
Indexes*
105
104
100
94
85
76
70
101
99
93
83
75
93
91
84
75
94
91
82
75
68
86
81
73
Strict Good Middling (SGM)
Middling (M)
Strict Low Middling (SLM)
Low Middling (LM)
Strict Good Ordinary (SGO)
Good Ordinary (GO)
(Below grade = 60)
Good Middling (GM)
1949 Loan values (cents per pound) f
30.48
30.33
29.83
27.98
22.88
18.83
16.58
28.33
28.23
26.28
20.58
16.58
26.58
26.23
25.38
20.18
21.58
21.28
18.43
15.58
13.28
17.98
17.48
15.73
Strict Good Middling (SGM)
Middling (M)
Strict Low Middling (SLM)
Low Middling (LM)
Strict Good Ordinary (SGO)
Good Ordinary (GO)
(Below grade) J
* As used by the Cotton Branch, Production and Marketing Administration, Bakersfield, California. These
indexes are used by the Cotton Branch in its periodic quality reports.
t Computed from Cotton Bulletin 1 and amendments, Commodity Credit Corporation, Production and Mar-
keting Administration, August 16, 1949.
| No government loans are made on below-grade bales. In this study, below- grade cotton was assumed to
have an average value of 11.84 cents per pound or 1,685 points below Middling White, 15/16-inch staple length.
10m-3,'54(A8635)BEB
[71]
Consider"^ Future
in Agricultural Economics
Agricultural economics applies SCIENCE to the BUSINESS OF
FARMING ... to the marketing of farm products, to the use of agri-
cultural and range resources.
If agriculture is to continue as an important segment of our na-
tional economy, farmers must be adequately trained in the business
of farming. The University of California's course of study in agricul-
tural economics is a step toward that goal.
The curriculum . . . presented on the Davis campus, places major
emphasis on Farm Management . . . but also provides instruction in
Marketing, Co-operative Marketing, Agricultural Finance, Policy, and
related subjects. Supplementary work may also be taken in such
branches of agriculture as Agronomy, Animal Husbandry, Pomology,
Agricultural Engineering, and the like.
The faculty ... is comprised of trained, experienced economists,
many with national and international reputations in their fields. The
staff is active in service and research work in all of the Western States.
Job opportunities . . . can best be understood by pointing to
positions now occupied by graduates. The largest percentage are
farmers. Other lines of endeavor include:
Farm Managers ' Credit work • Farmer Organizations
Marketing Organizations • Agricultural Extension work
State and Federal Departments of Agriculture work
College teaching and research ■ High school teaching
For more information: Write to the Department of
Agricultural Economics,
University of California, Davis.
or: See your University of California
Farm Advisor for college entrance
requirements.