University of California College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station Berkeley, California ECONOMICS OT^ MECHANICAL COTTON HARVESTING IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALISY - 1949 by Warren R. Bailey, and Trimble R, Hedges January, 1951 Results of a cooperative invevstigation conducted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the California Agricultural Experiment Station Contribution from the Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics Mimeographed Report No. Ill WIVERSnrY OF CAIJKO? ' Pickinr Efficiency of !:echanical Harvesters . . . Discussion Effect of !Tachjne Pickinf on Gin Turnout Attached Tables 32 33 35 37 37 Uo s # ■ • * i EcoKai.iic3 OF I;IEC!li>t:cal cotton HAR\'ESTDIG IK THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 19h9 by ?/iarren R. Bailey and Trimble R. Hedges i/ INTRODUCTION Mechanical cotton harvesters have operated commercially six years in the San Joaquin Valley. Used first in the south and on the I'l'est-side, their use quickly spread to other areas until in 19h9, nearly 900 machines harvested some l5 percent of a record 1,3 million-bale cotton crop. Some growers have converted completely from hand to machine picking j others use machines merely to supplement hand picking. In general, the 19li9 season proved to many gravers that mechanical harvest is both practical and economically feasible for them, Inprovements in machines, in operating techniques, and in growing the cotton crop have made successful mechanical harvest possible. Growers, individually, have used mechanical harvesters with varying degrees of success. Some have said that machine picking results in such high field waste and such low grades as to be economically impracticable while others merely reported disappointing results. On the other hand some growers reported resounding success. Obviously, the true situation had to be somewhere between these two extremes . I This study was undertaken to assemble information available and to fill_ in the gaDS ^vith new information necessary to evaluate the economic feasibility of machine harvesting. In earlier years, most of the harvesters were bought by the larger growers who were financially able to experiment i-irith mechanization. Henceforth, more and more of the smaller growers will consider conversion to machine harvest, either by purchasing a machine or employing a custom harvester. They need systematic information to decide whether such a shift is practicable for them individually. Again, the grower who already has a machine will be interested in comparing his results with some average or standard. The results reported will indicate whether his operation is good or poor compared to the experience of grovrers surveyed in 19U9. Following the 19U9 harvest season enumerators interviewed 9,S00 for harvester and tractor largely explains the high overhead costs. Annual depreciation charges vrere 0l,l|83 and annual in terest-on-in vestment were $217 for the equipment. Optimum harvesting costs can be obtained only by maximum use of the mech- anical harvester. Many growers did not get full use of their machines in 19h9» Added experience, definite training for operators, and improved cultural practices favoring machine picking ivill reduce maintenance and repair costs and contribute to more hours of operation, thus lowering costs per bale. It is probable too, that the same factors will extend effective life of the picker, thus further reducing annual and per-bale overhead costs. The economic advantage of machine picking embraces more than just the costs of machine-versus-hand picking. Because the grades of the machine-picked cotton were lovrer than those for hand-picked, the returns from a crop that was picked by machine were lower than they were for equal field cotton that was hand picked. I'lachine-picked cotton averaged, for the season, slightly less than one full grade below hand-picked cotton. The average grade-index of machine bales was 91.8, and of hand bales, 97.14-. Thus, machine bales were concentrated in the grade of Strict Low Middling and hand bales, in Middling. Machine-picked cotton also averaged lower in value than hand-picked cotton. As an indication, the government loan value of hand-picked bales averaged $lii2.8U and of machine-picked bales -!^132.52, a difference of |10,32 per bale. In the northern area machine bales averaged ^19.75 per bale below hand bales | ' on the West-side the difference was only 08 .06 per bale. Seasonal trends of the grades of machine-picked and of hand-picked cotton were studied at eight gins located in different parts of the valley. At each gin, grades from the machined cotton averaged lower than the grades of the hand-picked in all periods of the season. But there was some tendency for the spread between grades of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton to narrow in late season picking. Another observation was that week-to-week fluctuations in grade were smaller in hand-picked cotton than in the machine-picked. Difference between grades of machine and hand-picked cotton varied widely among gins. Variation is indicated by the range in spread of grade- indexes from 1.2 to 11,8, and in differences in loan value from S1.1|7 to $28. 2^. Even on the Yfest-side, where machined cotton more nearly approached hand-picked cotton in the matter of grades, the range in differences was from ^l.U7 to I13.3U per bale. The study also revealed wide variations among the 63 growers in the grades of their machine-picked cotton. The range in season-average, machine grade- - 6 - indexes was from 82.7 to 98.8, or from less than Low Fiddling to Middling.' It is significant however, that some growers in each area had high grades of machine-picked cotton. At least one grower intervieived in each sub-area had season-average grades of Strict Low Middling or better. These data suggest that cotton of good grades can be obtained by machine picking in all paJrts of the valley, but ';dth more difficulty in some parts than in others.: [ Experimental results have shown that the over-all efficiency of machine picking was 96.5 percent and hand picking under similar conditions was 97.6 percent. These efficiencies indicate that in 1,5-bale cotton a mechanical harvester leaves 79 pounds of seed cotton per acre, vfhereas hand pickers leave 5h pounds, 25 pounds less than the machine.. The field value of 25 pounds of seed cotton, in 19ib9, vias about ;!^1.82j this amounts to about $1.20 per harvested bale. Most growers said that machines did a more thorough job of "cleaning the field" than in previous years, and very few were any longer concerned about field waste. Growers also reported that field waste was relatively smaller in rank growing, high yielding cotton. The economic advantage of machine picking is found by adding together costs of picking, value of grade-loss, and value of field waste, and comparing the sum with the total cost of hand picking. For the average grower, these may be summarized as follows: i Harvesting Costs Per Bale Machine Picking Hand San Picking Joaquin East- West- Valley South side Central side North Picking costs Field waste Grade-loss 1.20 10.32 $12.86 ?^,ia.l5 ??1S,77' $11.71 ?;20.72 1.20 1.20^ 1.20 1.20 1.20 10.65 lh.72 11.68 8.06 19.75 Total economic costsi/ ^^1^5.00 ^26.17. $2ii.91 $^30.07 $28,65 ' §20.97 $iil. 67 Difference in favor of machine picking S18.83 $20.09 $lii.93 $16.35 $2lt.03 $ 3.33' 1/ Additional ginning costs, for machine-picked cotton, averaging about 11 cents per bale, not included. The economic advantage of machine picking was smallest ($3.33) in the northern area because both harvesting costs and grade-loss were higher here than in the other areas. Economic advantage was largest ($21^.03) on the ?:est-side because both harvesting costs and grade-loss were below the average. A practical economic question facing the grower is how much seed cotton per acre must he get to afford machine picking. For example, can he afford to pick cotton yielding l50 pounds of seed cotton (l/lO-bale in case of second picking) per acre? In 19li9, his total picking cost with the machine would have ! been $6^17 per hundredT«reight of seed cotton worth $7.70 above ginning costs. 3/ A grower who considered only the direct costs (excluding overhead) of mechanical picking could operate when the yield was only 75 pounds, his direct costs would have been $6.25 per hundredweight. In both of these examples, hand picking even at going rates for second picking (about $h per hundredweight) would have been more economical. 3/ With lint at 20 cents a pound and cottonseed at f>U$ a ton - 8 - USE AND PERFCei'MCE OF MCHANICAL HARVESTERS Before 19h9 , many growers had considered their machine harvesting as merely supplemental to hand picking. Many machines therefore had been used only in second picking or when hand workers were unavailable . Machines had been used to some extent in fields too weedy or too low in yield to attract hand workers. The lack of a successful chemical defoliant also had kept many growers from using machines until after the first heavy frost. Thus there had been no widespread effort to make maximum use of harvesting machines. But growers in general made a fuller use of mechanical harvesters during the 19h9 season. The extent of use is indicated by data from the 63 growers interviev/ed. Summa ry of I lachine Use j A typical grower began machine harvest on October nineteenth and finished January first. He operated his machine hi working days during this 75-day period, a total of hOJ machine-hours .U/ He covered a total of 28k acres once over J IkS acres of first picking and 139 acres of second picking. He picked a total of 229 bales, of which 182 bales were first picking and hi were second picking. Each machine, on the average, picked 3,183 hundredweight of seed cotton, equivalent to the amount 2$ hand workers would have picked in 5o working tiays . Mechanical harvesters on the average were operated more machine-ho'jrs (ii79), covered more acres (317), and picked more bales (292) on the West-side than in any other area. Machines were used least in the northei-n area where they did the least first picking. | There was considerable variation in amomt of use per machine. The range in total days operated was from I6 to 112, in machine-hours from 120 to 766, in acres of picking from 80 to $3$, and in bales picked from 93 to 613. Some machines operated less than a full season, as might be expected, whereas others operated at near capacity. Study of the 63 individual records revealed that . 31 machines operated more than UOO hours, or approximately a full season's picking. These 31 machines, on the average, operated 520 hours in 62 working days between October 11 and January 7. They picked an average of 292 bales from 356 acres of picking (182 acres of first picking and I7I1 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 picking. Eleven growers picked all their cotton with machines. They picked an average of 263 bales of which 235 bales were first picking and 28 bales second picking. These growers had, on the average, l58 acres of cotton of which they second-picked 110 acres. h/ Machine-hours exclude morning, noon, and night 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. - 9 - Table 1.- Operating season, days and machine-hours operated, and acres, bales and seed cotton mechanically harvested by 63 growers^ San Joaquin Valley, IShS (Average per grower ) Item No, of records Operating season Beginning date, ay. Ending date, av. Total elapsed days Days operated ist picking 2nd picking Total Machine - hours operated 1st picking ~" 2nd picking Total Acres ha rvested 1st p.'.uking 2nd picking Total Bal es ha rvested Ist pKking 2nd picking Total Seed co t ton harvested 1st pYcking 2nd picking Total San Joaquin Valley 63 Oct ,19 Jan, 1 75 Day 21 HT Hour WT l6k m Acre iHT 139 mi ■ Bale Jd 229 Cwt, 2l"82" 701 3IHJ : East- South : side IS 79 Day 26 Hour 239" 175 HUT Acre 1^ Bale 57 25F Cwt, 2H3I 911 37li2 A r e a i ¥/est- : Central ; side j North 16 Oct .19 Oct .21 Oct, 25 Jan. 5 Dec, 28 Jan. 9 69 Day 21 Hour 2Fo~ 177 II2T Acre 152- 157 309 Bale TW 60 2I3" Cwt . BIIo sill 33BT 77 Day ~3T llx Hour 235" 81 31^ A cre rso~ 93 273 Bale T3T" 18 201 C-vjt. miE 260 270^ Oct .12 Dec, 27 77 Day 20 Hour 307 172 Il79 Acre lliS 317 Bale _M. 292 Cwt. 32:- J _7C)2 395B' 111 Oct .15 Dec. 31 78 Day T7 20 57 Hour 203 18U 3F7 Acre 25T Bale TIS~ h2 i5F 598 2T5F OS -if 01- -» .'X i...' Suinirary of Performance Rates The niomber of acres the harvester picks depends upon the gjsar speed and the time stopT)ed in the field. The harvesters studied were one-row, two-gear speed machines designed to operate at 2,00 miles per hour in first gear and 2,75 miles per hour in second,^/ On cotton in 38-inch rows, this rate would cover 0.77 acre per hour in first gear and I.06 acres in second. Harvesters cannot maintain these rates because they must stop for turning, unloading the basket, and for servicing and adjustment. The harvesters studied picked, on tl:e average, 0,60 acre per machine-hour in first picking, 0,85 acre in second picking. A machine-hour includes time for the stops just mentioned. The amount of cotton a harvester will pick in a given time is directly related to yield, the amoiant of open seed cotton. The harvesters studied picked, on the average, 1,021 po^jinds of seed cotton per machine-hour in first picking, and h29 pounds in second picking. 6/ One machine successfully operated in 2.7-bale first picking, and picked 3^585 pounds of seed cotton per machine-hour. Table 2.- Average performance rates of 63 mechanical harvesters, San Joaquin Valley, 19h9 ~ • San ! Area Item 1/ s Joaquin : : East- j : r.est- t • Valley i South ; side ; Central ; side ; North Seed cotton harvested per mac hine hour FirsT picking Second picking All picking Bales harvested perworkday First pickin g Second picking All picking Pound h29 783 Bale 2.3 h.9 Found $21 . 903 Bale 2.1 U.6 Fo und T7OIF U75 792 Bale 2.R 5.U Po und 322 856 Bale 3^ 1.3 pound U08 826 Bale ITS 2,k 5.6 Pound '77?" 58U 560 Bale 2.1 ii.3 1/ other rates, "Acres per machine-hour", and "Bales per machine-hour" are found in table 3« Another measure of performance is the pick per working day. The harvest- ers picked on the average, 7.0 bales per workday in first picking and 2.3 bales in second picking. For the season they averaged U.9 bales per day operated. The machine that operated in 2.-7-bale cotton, averaged 17.2 bales a day. Variations among the sub-areas are shoTO in table 2. 5/ As indicated in the 19ii9 O^TOer's ISinual furnished with the harvester, 6/ Second picking was not necessarily on same acreage as first picking. - CI - •v:. •» : « • • - ' ». v->»V- '••S. * • • * 8SW r Discussion Many growers made maximum use of their machines during the 19^9 season. Even ivithout chemical defoliants many went ahead with machine ^irst picking. The record large cotton crop made this necessary. Hachine first picking surprised many growers because the result was more successful than expected. Growers found they could use machines in some cases even before the plants had defoliated, if leaves had vdlted to a dull grey green and a good percentage of the bolls were open,?/ After mid-season, under pressiure of a huge harvest, some machines actually operated beyond their effective capacity. At times they were operated when conditions were unfavorable 3 nights when humidity was too high, days v^hen there was too much fog or dew. But in pressing output to the limit, gro'.vers often sacrificed grade of lint. I-Toreover, the rate of output was reduced when picking conditions were unfavorable. About half the grovrers did not make full use of their machines, for various reasons. Some were hesitant about using machines in first picking. Some, either because their experience with machine picking has been unsatis- factory or for other reasons, still were using machines merely to supplement hand-picking. Some growers were using machines for the first time, and some bought machines after the pickinf season had begun. Vast of these growers said they •'Arill use their machines more fully in the 1950 season. l!hen considering whether to convert to mechanized harvest, growers need to know how much a machine vrill do in a normal season. The experience of 31 growers vrho operated machines approximately a full season is an indication. They averaged 3$6 acres of picking by operating 62 working days or ^20 machine- hours. These data indicate that growers can expect to operate 60 working days or 500 hours in a typical season. ¥e can safely say a machine can harvest completely 200 acres of cotton in a season. As a rule, all of the cotton bolls would open before first-picking was finished, so perhaps no more than 1^0 acres would need a second-picking. If so, in total there would be 3^0 acres of picking, once over. These estimates appear reasonable, even though 19h9 was somewhat more favorable for machine harvesting than an average season would be. Improved technology may offset any disadvantages of less favorable weather conditions . COST OF lffi.CHINE PICKING The cost of picking is one of the important factors affecting the over-all economics of harvesting cotton mechanically. This is true when considering machine picking costs as such or when conparing them with costs of hand picking. Picking costs include the total of all costs of machine picking, including overhead, but excluding consideration of field vraste and grade loss. Information on picking costs was obtained by interviewing 63 grovfers, each of whom operated one mechanical harvester in 19k9, Those interviewed were located in the' five suB^reas of the San Joaquin Valley. (See figure 1.) | The three main classes of costs that concern these operators using mechanical harvesters are (a) overhead, (b) operat ion, and (c) labor. 7/ Growers reported that wilting is induced by timely removal of irrigation water . .•rr.t km 1'-'-. i - 12 - Cost Per Bale, Per Hour, per Acre, and Per Hundredweight of Seed Cotton The total cost per bale xvas $lh»6^ for 229 bales harvested (Figure 2.) Over half this cost was overhead, one-third was annual operating cost, and one- fifth was labor. The harvester proper accounted for $6.19, and the tractor |;1.38 out of the total overhead cost of $7.57. The machines studied harvested, on the average, slightly over one-half bale per hour and the cost per hour of operation averaged ^8.25. The cost per acre averaged $11.82. The average figure of four-fifths of a bale per acre harvested is a resultant of averaging together both first and second picking. The pick per hour typically was much greater the first time over than in later pickings. The range covering the five sub-areas in total picking cost per bale was from $11.71 in V.'est-side to |'>20.72 in the north. The range, omitting the northern group, ^^^as from $11.71 to $15.77 (in central). The relatively small number of bales machine-picked in the northern area largely explains its high cost per bale. The figures are l58 as compared with the average of 229 for the valley. ^ The average cost of machine picking per hundredweight of seed cotton was $0.81 in first picking and $1.93 in second picking. Cost per hundredweight was higher in second picking because less seed cotton was picked per hour. Variations in cost per hundredweight among the sub-areas are summarized as foil ows : j Direct cost of machine picking per hvmdredweight of seed cotton San Joaquin Valley South East- side Central ¥:est- side North First picking 1 .81 $ .68 $ .80 $ .96 $ .67 $1.09 Second picking 1.93 1.5U 1.71 3.13 1,75 2.60 Average, all picking $1.05 $ .89 ^ $1.03 $1.17 $ .86 $1.51 These costs are exclusive of the field waste and grade loss, reported elsewhere . Cost Per TIachine Surveye d Total cost of operating mechanical cotton harvesters surveyed by the growers averaged $3,355 in the San Joaquin Valley in 19ii9 (Table 3.) Ovevhe^.d costs were of major importance, as they were responsible for over half of this total. Operating expenses, including materials and services plus labor, accounted for the remainder. Actually, labor was the least expensive item involved in machine picking. The amount invested in the mechanical harvester and the tractor on which it is mounted explains the dominance of overhead cost. lepreciation and interest on investment in these machines account for the bulk of overhead. The average annual value during the assumed life of these machines was used in calculating depreciation and interest on investment. The total average annual value was $3,711i for the harvester and $1,696 for the tractor. 1+,'.'". • .. 2.51;. Total Costs : ! 3,U70 11.22 8.13 IU.15 • 3,170 11.61 10 .01 ; 15.77. Labor used Jfen -hours Man -hours ^ 1.57- Operating ! U27 1.3B. 1.00 1.7U 1 316 l.i6 i.a Other t 110 .36 .26 .h5 : 66 .2U .2] .33- Total 1.71. 1.26 2.19 : W2 l.ilO 1.2] L- 1.90. i 1/ Includes bonuses. The following number of growers paid bonuses averaging " indicated amounts by sub-areas: South, 7 growers, fs208j East-side, 2 growers, $188, Central, 2 growers, $2U7 5 West-side, 1 grower, 1!;1|60, North, 1 grower, %9 2/ Less than one-half cent. Continued •••• t . •. r'^■='■ - 16 - Table 3.- Usual investment, costs and labor used in mechanical harvesting of cotton by 63 San Joaquin Valley growers, 19119 - Continued J Vfest-side Area : Northern Area ! (9 Growers) (li; Groovers) Item : Season { Average per ; Season : , Average p^r ! Total : Acre : Hour : Bale ! Total : Acre : Koui ' : Bale Acres of picking 317 .66 1.08 • 265 .6^ ) . 1.68 , Machine Hours ii79 1.51 1.61i 387 1.1;6 - 2.1;5 . Bales harvested 292 .92 .61 ■158 .60 .he ) Investment j Dollars Dollrrs Harvester ' 3,672 11. po 12.58 - 3,712 9.5^ > 23,13 Tractor ; 1,653 5.22 3.1^5 5.66 ■ 1,779 6.71 1;.6C ) 11.26 Total 16. ao 11 .12 18.21; ' 5,U91 20.72 lii.lS ' 3li.75 Picking Costs j bverhea.d: ! Harvester < It.26 2.82 1;.62 \ 1,1;10 5.32 3.61 V 8.92 Tractor ; 312 .98 .65 i .0 f ; 1.37 .91 t 2.30 i OT.ax ! 1,661 5.2I1 3.1i7 5.69 : 1,773 IiT58 .11.22 Operation; : naive Suer ; 815 2.57 1.70 2.79 ! 782 2.95 2.02 i;.95 Tractor 1 173 .55 .36 .59 i 126 .1;8 .33 .80 Total J 9BB 3.12 . 2.06 3.38 . 908 3.1i3 2.3^ 5T7^ Labor: : Operating l/ ; 660 2.09 . 1.38 2.26 . i;66 1.75 1.20 2.95 Service & repair ; • 103 .32 o22 .35 . 100 .38 .26 . .63 Farm shop ; 2/ 2/ 2/ 2/ 20 .08 .05 .13 Compensation ; 9 .02 .03 : 6 .02 .02 .01; Total : 772 2,hh 1.62 2.61; ' 2.23 i 3.75 Total Costs ; 3,ii21 10.80 7.15 11.71 ' - 3,273 12.35 . 8.1;^ ) 20.72 Labor used j ) . 2.1;5 Operating j U79 1.51 1,00 1.61; ! 387 1.1;6 . l.OC Other ! 117 .37 .2U .1;0 111 .1;2 .2< ? .70 . Total 1.88 1.21; - 2.0i; ! 1;98 1.88 1.2^ ? 3.1^ 1/ Includes bonuses. The following number of growers paid bonuses averaging ~ indicated amounts by sub-areas: South, 7 grovrers, $208j East-side, 2 growers, $188} Central, 2 growers, %2hl i West-side, 1 grower, fil460j North, 1 grower, t9h.. 2/ Less than one-half cent. . • - 17 - Costs of labor used in operating the machine in the field, at $^06, account for over 80 percent of the total labor expense. Service and repair labor is responsible for most of the remainder. Farm shop and cost of compensation insurance were responsible for minor amounts. Such bonuses as were paid^ were averaged in with other costs for operating labor. Only thirteen of the operators paid a bonus and the total amount was of minor importance Tnhen included in the averages for the entire group. There was a narrow range of variation in total costs of harvesting cotton mechanically among the five sub-areas studied. The central area v^ith an average total cost of !!o3,170 had the lorrest costs, while the East-side with a figure of '"jSjIiTO had the highest. Thus the difference was *.300 (yigurc 2.). Total labor cost varied the widest among the major classes of cost in the several sub-areas. The '^•511 figure for the central area v/as just two-thirds of the figure for rest-side. The mdest difference in operating cost was f;252, between the northern area (C^908) arii East-side (Ol,l60). The range for overhead cost was from a lo-.'; of f,l,660 (central) to a high of *,1,806 (south). Obviously, cost of labor and cost of machine operation are closely, related to .the total tLme the machines are used. This point vrill be developed further in later sections • . j Overhead Costs. Overhead costs, as indicated above, represented over half of We total cost for operating mechanical harvesters in the San Joaquin Valley in 19k9» More than eighty percent of this total was charged against the harvester proper, mth the tractor responsible for the remainder. Depreciation and interest on investment \fere responsible for most of the total overhead cost for both machines. About three-fourths of the total harvester overhead cost TOS depreciation *dle interest on investment accounted for another tenth of the total '^Figure 3 • ) • | Overhead costs for the tractor were handled differently than those for the harvester in tiTO respects, (a) annual repairs were included in overhead and (b) a percentcage of total overhead cost ivas charged to the cotton harvesting operation. This w^.s done because, typically, the tractor used vdth the cotton harvester tos used for other work as well. Depreciation still accounted for two-thirds of total overhead cost, hoTOver, even after including repair costs. Interest on investment accounted for nearly another 12 percent of the total for the tractor. Original cost and average annual investment obviously are vitally influential in determining the annual costs for depreciation and interest on investment. The original cost averaged *'^6,169 for harvesters and C^2,950 for tractors owned by the growers surveyed. Annual depreciation was calculated by (a) establishing ending value, or salvage value, (b) subtracting this value from original cost to obta.in total depreciation, and (c) dividing the latter figure by estimated annual life. The tot^al depreciation averaged •:5,ii90 for the sixty- three harvesters studied, or an annual average of 01,112. The total depreciation for the tractors averaged ■')2,SoQ and the annual depreciation was 0371. I - 18 - FIGURE 3. Overhead costs,* mechanical harvesters and tractors, 19k9 Dollars 1500 r Exoenses 1000 500 Harvester Insurance Taxes Depreciatior 1000 r 800 600 liOO 200 t 0 ' Tractor y/7A other '7//JL.. ~SS-WA ^^P^ 'Jul-. Depreciatior Sub Areas San Joaquin Valley South East-Side Central West-Side North Depreciation was the main item of overhead cost, and the harvester accounted for most of the total. Based on Table 11 . - ■ ■ ■ ■■ -5 - - ■ ■ ■ •- . . .. '19 - Length of life used in these calciilations r/as five years for harvesters and soTOn years for tractors, except machines with very high annual use vrere depreciated more rapidly. The decision regarding length of life was arbitrary for the harvester in particular-. The oldest machine included in the study 7/s.s purchased in 19liJ * As this is a newly developed machine, major modifications and improvements have naturally occurred since. It is impossible, therefore, on the basis of experience to establish an average length of life but it is considered that the figures actually used are reasonable. They represent the combined judgment of experienced operators and dealers. Variations among sub-areas in overhead costs vfero of minor scale as might be expected in view of the nevmess of the mechanical harvester and the close similarity in age and operating condition of the machines studied-. | Operating Expenses. The harvester accoixnted for '^1869 annual operating expense, oveFTialf of the combined total (Figure li). Labor exT)ense ranked in second place, representing about hO percent of the total, with the tractor operating expense accounting for slightly less than 10 percent. The tractor expense figure is somewhat misleading inasmuch as repairs were included -with overhead, as indicated previously. The largest item in harvester expenses v/as pre-season repair, *^60^ on the average, while seasonal repair was responsible for almost $200 more. The total figure, v;700, represents 8O percent of operating expenses for the harvester. The figure for pro-season repair t/t.s particularly difficult to learn because a large proportion of the growers operated harvesters that were new in 19lt9. The pre-season repair fifrure is Vjased on an average of expenses reported by those operators i^^io had used machines for at least one sea-son prior to 19h9* Costs of mounting and dismounting the harvester in order to use the tractor for other purposes ranked third ainorg harvester expense items. Other items were relatively unimportant in affecting total cost. Fuel necessarily accounted for most of the tractor expense (due to the procedure used in analyzing repairs)-, j The actu,il cost of field operation T^as responsible for most of the labor expense, with service and repair costs ranking second (Figure U)» ^ ^^"^ operators paid bonuses which 7rere considerable items of cost for those reporting. The average amount of bonus paid, however, for all oper-^tors interviewed amounted to only !|^i;6, A relatively large proportion of the repairs on the harvesters were made in dealers' shops or by their repairman. That explains why most of the farm labor cost is for operating the harvesters. It was noted previously that pre-season plus seasonal repair costs accounted for 80 percent of total operations expense. j The range in the year's operating expense for the harvesters was from a low of 5^778 in the southern area to a high of $1,00^ on the East-side. It was more common to pay a bonus to laborers in the southern area than in any other area. Almost half of the operators there paid such a bonus, averaging 1?208, and these operators represented over half of all paying a bonus in the entire Valley area studied, Lfeterials and Labor Used Spindle oil was the material used in largest volume by the mechanical pickers. Typically an initial purchase of wetting agent was made, but no more was bought after this had been used. Some operators reported that they had used - 20 - FIGURE k' Usual operating expenses} raachanical harvesters , tractors and labor, 1919- Dollars 1000 800 600 llOO - 200 - 0 Harvester Expense Expenses — i- I m other Seasonal Repair Pre-season Repair 200 100 0 Tractor Expense T ft/xi, other Fuel 800 600 IiOO 200 0 Labor Expense Other Operating Sub-areas San Joaquin Valley South East-Side Central West-Side North I5ajor expense items were pre-season repair on the harvester, operating labor and tractor fuel . Based on Table 10, ■ i ■•■ - 21 - successfully one of the popular brands of detergents instead of the special Tret ting agent. Fuel and oil, of course, vere the principal materials required for tractor operation. An average total of 809 gallons of fuel was used by the 63 growers reporting. The labor used was mostly for operating the mechanical picker in the field. Of the total 5l7 man-hours the average indicated U07 used in field operations, and another 75 in servicing and minor field repairs. This labor reported does not include labor used to operate trailers or trucks to haul the' seed cotton to the gin. Only a few operators indicated that added labor was used to load the trailers or to tramp the cottonj this labor was not included in the report. Discussion The cost per bale for machine-harvesting cotton averaged $lii.65 according to 63 growers furnishing data for the 19)49 season. This cost compares with approximately for hand picking. Two facts stand out regarding operating costs? (a) the dollar investment in the harvester and tractor makes high overhead costs inevitable because of depreciation and interest on investment, and (b) pre-season and seasonal repair costs for the harvester dominate operating costs. The first point largely explains how important it is to make full use of the mechanical cotton harvester. The impression was gained during interviews that added experience in using and servicing the harvester will help reduce the costs of repairs. It is pertinent that many machines vrere delivered in 19h9 , and that many operators gained^their first experience that year. In some instances the operator had no specific training before taking the machine to the field. Further experience and definite pre-season training for operators undoubtedly will help cut the costs. The amount of cotton harvested is highly influential in governing cost per bale for machine picking. It to.s largely the smaller number of bales harvested that caused cost per bale to be high in the northern sub-area. The study indicated that it is possible for one machine to harvest considerably more cotton than usually was reported, Yfest-side growers, for example, reported 292 bales harvested~6U bales or 28 percent more than the average. Factors responsible for reducing the average number of bales harvested per machine in 19U9 have been discussed previously. This problem of incomplete use of the mechanical harvester can be corrected by earlier planning and by using specific correctives for the reasons associated with limited use. Added years of use beyond the five and seven years assumed for harvesters and tractors would operate to reduce harvesting costs. Longer life would be accompanied by lov-er annual cost of depreciation and interest, already indicated to be dominant in harvesting costs. Certainly, cost of obsolescence should be of diminishing imoortance now tha,t mechanical picking is established. It is likely, also, "that length of effective life will be extended by more effective operations and maintenance , 8/ Hand picking cost was estimated by assuming 13,!j hundredweight of seed cotton ~ for a bale of lint and multiplying by 19U9 picking cost. The latter figure averaged t;3.33 for first and second hand picking according to the growers reporting. -ac- cost of mechanical harvest in light picking is of economic importance, especially in very late, second picking* Gvo^,mrs have questioned, for example, ivhether it paid then to operate a mechanical harvester for the second picking in l/lO-bale cotton, a pick of but l50 pounds of seed cotton ner acre. Costs per hundred-Areight of seed cotton were calculated for picks ranging from $0 pounds to 350 pounds per acre (Table U)» Costs first were calculated using the total cost (including overhead) of |9.70 per acre of second picking, as found in the study. | A practical econonic question facing the grower is how much seed cotton per acre must he get to afford machine picking. For a pick of 1^0 pounds per acre, the mechanical harvesting cost is ^^6.h7 per hundredweight. ITith lint at 20 cents per pound, and cottonseed at ^.kS per ton, 100 pounds of seed cotton is worth about 'r.f ^fO (,^;8,liO, less $.70 ginning costs). Under these conditions it is economically feasible to employ mechanical harvest, but it vrould be more economical to employ hand pickers at any charges under i56,ii7 per hundredweight. i')hen the pick is 2$0 pounds per acre, the mechanical harvesting cost is f)3.88 per hundredweight, which tos about the going rate of hand second picking in I9U9. In other words, machine picking is more economical than hand picking when the pick is 250 pounds or more per acre. Vihen the pick is less, hand pick3.ng is cheaper. Some may raainta.in that direct picking costs (excluding overhead and, of course, field waste and grade~loss) should be used for these calculations. They would say that overhead costs should be wholly charged to earlier picking, as though the harvester '/rere not to be used for late season scrapping operations. Accordingly, costs also were calculated using the direct cost (excluding over- head) of >fh»69 per acre in second nicking, as found in the study. Direct operating costs vfere 33.13 per hundredvreight , when the pick ms 1^0 pounds of seed cotton oer acre. On the basis of direct costs only, it is economically feasible to operate a mechanical harvester where the second pick is but 1^0 pounds per acre . | Table U.- Tot?.! and direct costs of machine picking per hundredweight of seed cotton, at Vc^rious picks, per acre 1 Pick, in pounds of ! Kachine picking cost per hundredweight of seed c otton seed cotton . Total Costs i Direct Costs per acre * ! Collar lollar 50 100 1^0 200 250 30 a 350 19.ii0 9.70 6.h7 U.8$ 3.88 3.23 2.77 9.38 U.69 3.13 2.3U 1.88 1.56 1.31; - 23 - EFFECT OF laCHBIE PICKING ON GRADES OF LINT COTTON The economic advantages of machine picking would be great if the only fact considered were the costs of machine versus hand picking. But relative grades of lint and field waste are also important. Field v/aste is discussed in a later section of this report. If a mechanical harvester produces lower "vades of lint cotton than hand picking woirLd, the value of the harvested crop will be lower than if it vrere hand-picked. Any reduction in returns from the crop, obviously, is a part of the economic cost of machine harvesting. Total economic cost of harvesting, therefore, includes total picking: costs, including overhead, plus the value of field waste and the value of frade loss to the extent they exceed comparable values for hand picking. How ilachine Pi cking Can Affect Grades of Cotton Cotton is graded according to trash (foreign matter) content, color, and preparation. High grade lint has little trash, is white in color, and has "normal" preparation. Kind as well as amount of trash is considered. Thus, if the trash" consists of rrass particles, the sample is further reduced one or more grades. Color is described by the terms white (or extra virhite), spotted, tinged, yellow-stained, or gray. Preparation refers to the arrangement or appearance of fibres in the sample^ one showing "rough" preparation may be further reduced one or m.ore grades , j The grades of cotton lint are the result of the quality of the standing cotton, of the pickjjig, and of the ginning. Immature or weathered standing cotton mil not result in lint of rood grades — _hov:ever excellent the picking and ginning. In picking (either hand or machine), some trash is collected along with the seed cotton, and discoloration may be introduced (especially green leaf stain). Gins are equipped to remove a substantial amount of the trash in picked seed cotton, as well as to separate the lint from the seed but they are not equipped to remove discoloration. Mechanical cotton harvesters can affect the grades of the lint by affecting the amount of trash or discoloration introduced into the seed cotton during picking and by the degree of tvfisting or tangling of the lint. The various ways in which machines m.ay reduce grades of the lint (belovr the grades that would have been attained by hand picking) may be summarized as by: | (1) Introducing excessive discoloration from green plant leaves early in the season, | (2) Introducing more trash from the dead cotton plants late in the season , (3) Gathering more foreign matter from weeds or grass in the field, (li) Adding excess moisture (in spindle moistening) to the lint (and trash) maldng trash reipoval by gin cleaners more difCicult, and inducing graying or mildew if ginning is delayed, (5) Tvdsting or tangling the lint on the spindles thus increasing the difficulty of normal gin preparation, (6) Discoloring the lint with oil or grease from the machine. ■ -2U - On the other hand, mechanical harvesters may iinprove the grades of the lint by passing over "hard-to-pick" immature bolls late in the season, by adding less trash than careless hand pickers, and by "timeliness" of harvesting the crop. The grade of the crop may average higher if harvested earlier by machine than if harvested later by slower hand picking. Hot"" Mea sure Effect of Machine Picking on C?rades of Lint Cotton The present study was not designed to measure separately the effect of each influence of machine picking on the grades of the lint. Instead, it was designed to measure the net or combined effects of all factors entering into machine picking o The effect of machine picking on grades is shown in this case by comparing the grades of macliine-ioicked bales yrxth the n^'^'^es of hand-picked bales. £/ For the comparison to be valid it is essential that cotton picked by both methods be grown and ginned under similar conditions. Bales of machine-picked and bales of hand-picked from the same gins were used as the bulk of the evidence in this study .10/ Such choice of data insured comparable ginning conditions. It was practicable to collect ds.ta exclusively from fields where both machine and hand picking vias done because it is uncommon for grovrers to use both methods in the same field, Hovrever, data from the same gins, should represent fairly well common gi'omng conditions (weather, soil and weed conditions) and harvesting conditions (especially vreather) , Almost all cotton going through one of these gins is from the immediate neighborhood, and is ginned within a few days after the picking. Thus, most of the differences found in grades would almost surely directly reflect variation in the harvesting method rather than differences in the standing cotton or in the ginning. Three suitable devices are available for comparing grades, (1) the distribution of grades, (2) the average grade-index, and (3) the average govern- ment loan value. Number 1 is a simple array of the number of bales in each grade. Number 2, the grade-index, is a device for combining different grades into one niamerical measure. The scale of index numbers used by the Production and Marketing Administration in its reports on cotton quality vras used for this purpose. In this scale, riddling YThite cotton is 100, Strict Low Middling is 9h,'etc, (see Table I6 for the index numbers used). Loan values for bales of various grades were computed from Cotton Bulletin 1, and amendments, issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation, | Grades at 35 gins in the San Joaquin Valley, each gin having at least ^00 bales of machine-picked cotton, 'vere analyzed. Altogether these gins reported 62,623 machine-picked bales and 237,811 hand-picked bales in the 19h9-SO ginning season (191x9 crop). These data are summarized by (five) sub- areas in the Valley to show geographical variations, (The number of machine and hand bales reported in each area are shoYvn in Table I3.) Seasonal average 9/ All grades analyzed in this section and throughout the report were those ~ assigned in the U.S.D.A. Classing Office, Bakersfield, California. I 10/ The exception ivas data given by the growers viho were intervievred, who were so scattered that seldom more than one or t.vo were served by the sam.e gin in each area,. j I L comparisons are not neaningful at a gin if machine picking is concentrated in one part of the season and hand picking at some other period. The reason is that the cotton is usually of lower grades toxvard the end of the season- — whatever the method of picking. However, these data are useful in shomng the over-all results of machine picking in the 19h9 season. j At eight gins, comparisons of grades were made, week, vreek-by-week, throughout the I9I49 season., The data used include all the machine- and hand- picked bales ginned the same two consecutive days in each week during an l8-week period, ll/ a total of ^,Ii31 machine bales and 17,52i; hand bales. The purpose of this phase of the study was to see whether machine picking affected grades more in one part of the season than another. Some people have maintained that grades of machine-picked cotton compare more favorably with grades from the hand-picked late in the season.. | Grades of cotton in the bales of both machine-picked and hand-picked, from the farms of the 63 growers interviewed, also mre analyzed. Both season- average and T/eek-by-vreek comparisons were made. Summary of Gra des of ira c hine-Picked Cotton Considering the over-all average at the 35 gins in the valley, we found that more than 90 percent of both machine-picked and hand-picked bales graded white or extra white (Figure $ and Table <) , Of the bales of machine-picked percent were spotted, U.2 percenls vrere gray and 0.3 percent were "below grade." 1£/ Of the bales of hand-picked, l|.l percent were spotted, 0.1 percent were tinged, 3.5 percent were gray and 0,2 percent vfere below grade. Thus bales of machine-picked included a slightly higher percentage of off -color bales. (For brevity in the remainder of this report, the term "off-color" is used to include "spotted, tinged, and gray,") Among the whites, bales of machine-picked were concentrated (hh percent) in the grade Strict Low Middling, whereas the bales of hand-picked were concentrated (62.5 percent) in the grades of I'iddling or better (Figure 5 and Table 5). Of the machine bales 20 percent were L'iddling or better and 25 percent vrere Low I'Jidciling or lower. The bales of hand-picked included 22 percent Strict Low Middling and only 8 percent Low l'iddling or lower. This same pattern, with minor variations (to be discussed later) was repeated in each of the five sub-areas of the valley. In terras of grade-index, which is a nmnerical average of grades, the machine-picked bales had an average index of 91,8, whereas hand-picked bales averaged 97.1;. Thus, the machine-picked cotton averaged between Strict Low middling and Low Middling, whereas hand cotton averaged between liiddling and Strict Low IJiddling, The difference in grade- index of 5.6 was slightly less than one full grade. Bales of machine-picked had an average loan ^-alue of ^.132 .52 per bale and bales of hand-picked averaged 11/ Wednesday and Thursday vrere used, though any other two days would have as -.'.-ell. 12/ Below Grade includes grades below those recognized by the U.S.D»A. Cla — Office. It does not include all the grassy bales. - 26 - FIGURE ^. IJachine- and hand-picked cottonj distribution at 35 pins in the San Joaquin Valley, 19h9 Grades White ■"~GII ■ 31.: M SLM ; LK I 3G0 i GO Spotted Tinged Gray- Below Grade i White & EW GL! 3IJ if SLM LM SGO GO Spotted Tinged Gray Below Grade ViTiite & E^: GIT SI! M SLM LM SGO GO Spotted Tinged Gray Below Grade Hand-p i c ke d Ma c nine -pic ke d Bales Percent Bales ho 20 0 20 iiO 3. J« Vall ey; — r ' Li ; wniMiii niiiriiini'iJi //////////wn East-^Tile zMniMmnnninMA r \'///^/// 7^V77r777Ti West^aide r f///^///^/m 77J7777 7TT7TI777'/f//////K fTTTTTTTTrr, ry ////////// (2 Uo 20 3 0 20 Kand-picked Bales UO 20 Percent 0 JIachine-picked Bales 20 llO Southern Area i -TtTrm rrmiiiiiiniiiiinm vrnrm Wa Central mi yn7// /////// //. '777777)1 03 vmnunA 5ZZZ3 WIMa Northern Area 1 WMHIM m 7//// //// /////777777m a 'A ho ho 20 20 UO Machine-picked bales tended to concentrate in Strict Lo7r I'iddling YHiite and hand- picked in "iddlinp vmite gi-ade. Machine-picked cotton averaged slightly less than one l\ill grade below hand-picked cotton. Based on Table lit. Table 5. - Distribution of bales of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton at 35 gins, San Joaquin Valley, 19h9 crop Grade San :_ Joaquin : Valley : pet . Tlhite and Ex. Tlhite Middling & higher Strict Low l/Iiddling LoTY Middling^, lower Total Spotted, tinged, gray k bel oi fj grade Middljjig & higher Strict Low Middling Low Middling & lower Total Total machine-picked llhite & Extra Y.Tiite Middling & higher Strict Low Iliddling Low Iliddling l-- lov/er Total Spotted, tinged, gray t bel ow grade Fiddling & higtier Strict Low saddling Low Middling & lower Total Total hand-picked 62.5 21.9 7.7 92.1 Sub-Areas i East- South ; side pet, pet , Central pet . 20.9 21.7 10.9 U3.8 12, h U3.9 26.3 20.1 iil.6 91.0 81i.2 96 .U 6.2 12.3 2.0 2,2 2.7 1.0 _^ .8 ,6 9.0 15.8 3.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Machine-Picked Bales 10.0 U3.7 29.7 83. U 11. h 5.2 16.6 100.0 Hand-picked Bales 71.0 17.1 JA 93.5 59.3 23.3 _6.0 90.6 55.8 20.0 9»8 85.6 pet 28.1 U6.3 20.0 61;. 7 2ix.6 6.9 7;est- : side { North pet, 3.3 27.2 59.7 9a oU 90.2 3.6 2.8 1.5 5.7 .5 1.3 5.6 9.8 100.0 100.0 17.0 19 .U IU.7 96.2 81.1 6.3 1.0 .6 5.6 .3 .6 7.7 1.1 .6 11.3 2.2 .9 3.0 .6 .2 L3.8 3.5 1,6 7.9 6.5 9.U 3.8 L8.9 100,0 100,0 100.0 100,0 100,0 100.0 - 28 - Table 6c- Average grade-index and loan value of bales of raachine-picked and hand-picked cotton at 35 gins in San Joaquin Valley, 19h9 crop : San Picking method j Joaquin I Valley Areas South East- : : 'Yest- side f Central t side North Grade - Index Hand-picked Machine-picked Differencei/ 97 .U 98.9 97.2 9S,h 97.7 9h.h 91c8 92 .h 89.6 89 ol 93.3 85.8 -5.6 -6.5 -7.6 -6.3 -8.6 Hand-picked I,fechine-pic ked Differencei/ 1U2 .Bii 132'i2 -10*32 Loan Value (dollars per bale) I.U4.79 lh2.39 139.65 1U3. 96 136.95 I21*jk 127.67 127.97 135.90 117.20 -10.85 -11;. 72 -11.68 -8,06 -19.75 1/ Ilinus sign indicates machine picked below hand picked* - 29 - fflh.2,6k, a difference of *>10.32 a bale .12/ The Southern Area. Bales of machine-picked averaged higher in grade in the .30utT.era"are"?r~lh£in in other sub-areas, except the Tfest-side. Of 16,721 niachine bales, 22 percent graded I'lddlinr; Yj'hite or better, h2 percent vrere Strict Low riddling and 20 percent vrere Low Middling or below. In conparison, 71 percent of the ?0,329 bales of hand-picked were Middling 7/hite or better, 17 percent '.-rere Strict Lovv- Mddling and only 5 percent vrere Low ITiddling or lower. A relatively high percent (16%) of the bales of machine-picked were off-colored. The average grade-index of machine bales was 92 .U conpared to 98.9 for hand bales. The average loan value of machine bales vras ^>133*9k and of hand bales ^!illU;.79, a difference of flO.85 per bale. The variation among gins is indic?.ted by the range in differences of machine versus hand grade- indexes. The range r^s from 3.6 to 8,9. The r-^.nge in machine versus hand difference in loan value was from $6 .16 to ''^>13«26. | The East-Side Area. Bales of machine-picked on the East-side averaged higher in ^tp^adlT^ tKan Tn^the northern area but lower than on the V/est-side, Only 11 percent of the ll,lj.21 machine bales graded Middling l.'Vhite or better, hh percent graded Strict Lovr ITiddling and i;2 percent were Low I'addling or lower. Only U percent were off -color bales, a smaller proportion than in any other sub-area. In comparison, the 68,203 hand-picked bales averaged 59 percent Middling Vmite or better, 23 percent Strict Low ?lddling and 8 percent Low Middling or lower. Hand-picked bales ran 9 percent off -color. The average grade-index of m.achine bales was 89.6 compared to 97.2 in the case of hand bales, a difference of 7.6. Loan value of machine bales averaged ^,lh»12 below hand bales. Variation among the 9 East-side gins is indicated by differences in grade- index (hand versus machine bales) ranging from h.8 to 9.0 and differences in average loan value ranging from "^7.77 to ^it.l8.17 per bale J The Fest-Side Area. Grades of machine-picked cotton on the ¥'est-side were not ofnryTir3ier~?}{ah~in~any other sub-area but they were more nearly equ.al to the grades for hand-picked. At the 12 West-side gins, 28 percent of the 27,332 machine bales graded Middling IThite or better (compared to the Valley average of 20 percent) U6 percent vrere Strict Low and 20 percent were Low Middling or lower. Of the Vfest-side bales of hand-picked, two-thirds (65 percent) were Middling Faite or better, a fourth (25 percent) were Strict Low and only 7 percent were Low ^fiddling or lower. This sub-area ha;d relatively fewer off- colored machine-picked bales than the Valley average. The average grade-index of Y;est-side machine bales was 93.3 compared to 97.7 for hand-picked. The difference of h,h was equivalent to about two- thirds of one full grade, hand over machine. Average loan value of machine-picked bales was ta35.90, and of hand-picked bales *.lli3.96, a difference of fs8.06. There vras, however, considerable variation between gins on the Trest-side, For example, the difference in grade-index (hand versus machine bales) ranged from 1,2 to 7.1, and the difference in loan value ranged from ssl.U7 to ,'''13.31; per bale. 13/ In estimating loan values it was assumed that all bales were 1 l/l6-inch staple length, because actual staples vrere not reported in these data, A very large proportion of valley and area bales are 1 l/l6-inch, so the results are not impaired by our assumption. As yet, there is no evidence whatever that machine picking has any effect on staple length. r>[. i - 30 - The Nor thern Area. In the northern sub-area, machine-picked bales vrere not only lovfer~irr'?xa"di' than in an;r other sub-area,, but the difference between them and hand-picked bales ^vas ndder than else-,There in the Valley* At the four northern gins, only 3 percent of the 2,636 machine bales graded Middling Tihite or better, 27 percent graded Strict Loit itlddling Vfhite and 60 percent vrere Low Iliddling or below. In comparison, hi percent of the 19,6^5 hand-picked bales graded Middling T.liite or better. Northern gins had about the same proportion (9 percent) of off-color, machine-picked bales but more than tT,cLce as many (19 percent) off-color hand bales as the Valley average. The average grade-index of machine bales vras 85.8 and of hand bales 9hth at northern gins. The avera[:e loan value of the machine bales was |117.20 and of hand bales fpl36.95, a difference of !r;19.75 per bale. Among the four gins reporting, the difference in machine and hand grade-indexes ranged from -pdt to -11.8, the difference in loan value from !!^^-10.97 to 1-26.25 per tale. The Central Area. I'schine-picked cotton in this area compares closely Yv-ith tEe~Eas?^iHe in percent of ''a.ddling TJhite or better and in percent of Strict Low Middling bales. But it had a relatively high percent (17 percent) of off -col or bales, a situation similar to the northern area. The central area ■mas similar to the East-side in the grades of hand-picked cotton. The average grade-index of machine bales \ia.s 89.1 and of hand bales, 95.1;. I.^chine-picksd bales averaged <';ll.68 lower in loan value than hand-picked bales. Seasonal Trends in Grades of I'^.chine and Hand-picked Cotton Growers and the cotton industry are f.amiliar with the dovmward trend in grades of cotton during the harvest season. This Soasonal decline is largely attributed to "'veathering" and an increasing trash content. These factors are particularly evident in second-pick cotton. After mid-November occasional rains and fog contribute to staining,* spotting and graying. These problems usually become aggravated as the season advances. Lat>e season, second picking cotton usually has a higher trash content because, as there is less seed cotton to pick, the ratio of trash to seed cotton I'dll be hirher than in the first picking. The data already presented indicated that season-average grades of machine- picked cotton ware lower than the grades of hand-picked. It is of interest to see whether the grades of the machine-picked followed the same dcrmvr^.rd trend as the grades of hand-picked. Growers and others have said that "machine grades" compared more favorably with "hand grades" late in the season. Some said machine grades at that" time eoualed or exceeded hand grades from equal standing cotton. Weekly s^rado-indoxes are available for each method of picking at ei^t gjjis for the 19it9 season. (Figure 6 and Table 15.) These data are useful in studying trends of grades in either machine or hand cotton over the season, and in comparing the grades of raachirie and nand-picked cotton at various stages of the season. [ A study of the data in Figure 6 and Table l5, leads to the follo\ving general conclusions and comments. | 1. Grades of hand-picked cotton at all gins averaged Middling White or better until the first iveek in November. During this period the grades of the hand-picked had a slight doTm^Arard trend. - 31 - FIGURE 6. ITeekly grade-indexes of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton at eipht selected San Joaquin Valley rins, 19ii9 crop, seasonal trends iGrade-index '77; j 90 ! 8o- 70 GIN V/-3 io4- // //rnrry^' ^^"^ 100- 90- I 80(- GIN C-2 I'achine > Hand ! 70: I 1 0 ilOO 90 80 70 0 GIN lY-U A ]fe.chine A/ GIM S-7 GIN N-1 I^achine V//7>. GIN 3-8 Machine I I I I I I I I _L_I L_J I 5 7 9 n 3 3 15 17 1 vjeek of Picking Season ^ 1 9 n 13 15 17 Tfeek of Picking Season Sept. October November December Jan, Sept.- Octo ber November December Jan, 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.. Based on Table 1$ . i - 32 - 2. After November 1, grades of hand-picked cotton declined more rapidly at gins in some areas than in others. Grades declined more at the northern gin (N-1), one ^"est-side gin (^-3), one East-side gin (E-6), and one southern gin (S-7). 3. Grades of hand-picked show less week-to-Treek variation than grades of liiachine-pickedj tliis apparentljr was true at all gins. h. Grades of machine-oicked generally followed the same downward trend as l-rades of hand-picked, but there rra.s considerable variation among gins, "Machine grades" definitely improved in the first week of November over the grades of the last week in October, at seven out of eight gins. A heavy frost had defoliated the cotton so conditions for machine picking were much improved, | <, Ilachine-nicked grades on the average definitely did not equal hand- nicked grades at any time daring the 19h9 season. They were more nearly eaiial at one Vfest-side [an (v,-h) ?Jid one southern gin (S-8). 6. Sosne tendency toward smaller differences between the grades of machine and hand cotton appeared near the end of the season, but this tendency was not so pronounced as some had believed to be true. ?.■ The pattern of differences in grades of machine versus hand cotton varied widelv among gins.- At one Test-side gin (W-U) the spread between them' was uniformly about 5 grade-index points throughout the season. At the other West-side gin (?;-3) the spread was much wider until the last of October, after which it was sijnilar to gin At one East-side sin (E-6) the spread in grades widened between machine and hand-picked cotton until the l^th week of the season, and it narrowed during the last three weeks, ^ G rades of Ifachine Versus Hand-Picked Cotton For Interviewed Growers Information on grades of cotton of the groovers i^^no were interviewed is valuable chieflv to demonstrate (though not to measure accurately) the variation among growers in results from mach-ine picking. These data were not entirely suitable t-or com^.^aring results from machine and hand picking in tne Valley or in sub-areas. The intervie-red grov/ers were so scattered that seldom more than one or two were in the same neighborhood or served by the same gin. Again, grovrers seldom used both machines and hand pickers in the same field, and many did not use both methods during the same period of the harvest season, Ho^^rever, the data do show s^ome interesting variations as among growers. Some growers had high grades of machine -pi eked cotton and others had low grades in all five sub-areas of the Valley (Table 7). The gro'.^er with the highest average grade-index of machine-picked cotton ^ras in the soutnern area. Sir average of 98.8 compares with the highest, 98,2, air.ong interviewed growers on the Y-est-side, 9h.l in the northern area, 9h.l on the East-side and 93.6 in the central area. The grower mth the lo^rest season-average machine grades in the northern area haH an index of 82.7, on the Fast-side, 87.I5 in the central area, 87«9/ in the southern area, 88.9j and, on the VIest-side, 90.U. - 33 - Table 7.- Average prade-index of machine-picked and hand- picked bales, $1 San Joaquin groivers, 19U9 crop :i«unioer : : of : Average Range in Grade Indexes Area : Growers :Mach : Hand- ;Dif f er- ! l/ :picked;picked:ence2/ Mach.- • Hand- picked : picked :Dif ference2/ Index Index Ihde'j: Index Index Index South ! 9 9U.3 *-1.2 88.9-98.8 86 ,9-103.1 East-side ! 12 Q9.h 96.7 -7.3 87.1-9ii.l 66.U-101.1 Central < ' 9 90.2 91.7 -l.h 87.9-93.6 88.5-93.6 Tfest-side • ' 9 9li.7 96.7 -2.0 90 .h-98 ,2 9U. 5-100. 5 North • 12 88.3 95.2 -6.9 82.7-9.U.7 82.3-100.3 San Joaquin Valley • SI 91.8 95.U -3.6 82.7-98.8 82. 3-103. Ii 0 to -2.3 .5 to -10,0 + .7 to -10.0 1/ Includes only those inter^riewed gvamrs for -.".tion it was possible to ~ identify bales by method of picking. 2/ Minus sign indicates difference in favcr of handj plus sign, in favor ~ of machine. The groTrer in the southern area who had high grades, had machine picked 221 bales averaging middling or better during October, lLi5 bales averaging between liddling and Strict Low Middling during November, 135 bales averaging Strict Low I'iddling during December. The gror/er who had low grades in the northern area started with Low I'^iddling grades in November and finished with Good Ordinarj-- grades in early December. As a general rule, growers "'dth hiph season-average machine grades were those who maintp.ined hiejh grades throughout the picking season. Those with average season-grades started with high grades at the beginning of the season but their cotton declined in grade throughout the season. Growers with low season-average grades started with low grades and their grades declined further during the season. Gro-rers who had abnormal picking seasons, either unusually early ^or unusually late, were excluded in these comparisons. Discussion Picking in the 19U9 season ^ip.s probably not wholly representative of the quality of future machine picking. I&ny new machines were used for the first t-^me by inexperienced growers mth inexperienced machine o^ierators. Also tne crop ras very large, about 30 percent larger than 19h8 and U8 percent larger than 1950. l^i/ In the effort to get this large crop harvested, mechanical Ih/ As indicated by the October 1, 1950 crop report. - 3)^ - harvesters worked at times in unfavorable weather and field conditions . Representative observers in the ginning industr^^ reported that the croD strained the capacity of rins so that, in general, ginning was done too fast .15/ Better grades from machine-picked cotton should prevail in the 19^0 season vdth com-narable weather. The crop mil be smaller and both machine operators and ginners will have had more experience with requirements of machine pickingj more gins will be better equipped with machinery* | The somewhat lower machine-picked grades in the northern part of the Valley were to be expected in 19ii9 because that area had had less experience with machine picking and ginning. Grassy fields also were a coriimon difficulty, perhaps of more influence than lack of experience. Growers commonly attempted to machine pick .frassy fields because they were under pressure to get the crop harvested, and hand pickers were scarce or unavailable. Good machine-picked grades on the ^Test-side were to be expected because growers there had used machines longer and because fields there generally have less weeds and grass. Variation among gins within tlie same sub-area were also to be expected for several reasons. Some gins were better equipped with cleaning and drying machinery. Some ginners had had more exnerience ■.■Jlth machine-picked cotton. Some gins were operated above normal (or rated) capacity a longer part of the season. At this vnriting the results at individual gins have not been fully analyzed or explained in terms of variation in the gin situation. It is exi^ected that that will be dons in a more complete report to follow. Variation among gins in week-by-^veek pattern of grades of machine-picked versus hand-nicked cotton likewise has not been thoroughly analyzed or explained. It is not certain that patterns at the selected gins are representative of the respective areas. Taking the patterns of the eight gins together, however, they suggest that the spread betvieen the grades of machine and hand cotton does gradually narrow as the season advances, but not so sharply as some have supposed, I Numerous reasons may be cited for the great variation in grade of machine- picked cotton among growers. The fact that some gro/rers in every sub-area vrere kble to obtain good season-average grades indicates that successful machine picking is possible in all areas. Successful machine picking demands that the cotton be groTO with mechanical harvest in mind. The rows must be properly spaced, the fields kept clean of vreeds and grass, and the ground surface left smooth and free of clods. Recent research at the Shafter Station indicates that the cross-row, ground profile is also mportant. 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 grovang branches into the machine. Dead leaves are more likely to ^all armrf from the cotton stalk, so the machine is less likely to pick up dead leaves. | In regard to erade-loss as a cost of machine harvest, machine-picked bales averaged ?,10,32 a bale lower In loan value than hand-picked bales. Because the loan value differential was different in the various areas of the Valley it seems reasonable to assign different charges for grade-loss. The difference in loan value amounted to ^'10,8$ in the southern area, ftl]!..72 on the East-side, 'm,68 irj the central area, ^,8.06 on the West-side, and a9,7$ in the northern area. These are the charges for grade-loss to be added to the cost of machine picking , ^ _ — 1^/ Some estimates place the 19U9 crop at 10 percent above optimum ginning capacity. I I I i I - 35 - Some might argne that no "grade loss" should be charged tc mechanical harvesting. Machines picked some 1$ percent of the 19ii9 crop, hence the whole harvest vras completed earlier than if picked entirely by hand. Even -Yith the help of machines, about 1$ percent of the crop was not picked until after lieceTTiber thirteenth Without machines, even more of the crop (perhaps 1$ percent more) would have been harvested after mid-December, when the standing cotton and the ginned lint are of lower grades . California cotton ginned between mid-December and mid-January averaged Low Fiddling (grade-index of 8$,7)« Machine-picked bales for the entire season averaged about one-fourth of a grade below Strict Low l!iddling (grade~index 91.8). The difference in loan value of a Strict Low Middling and a Low Middling bale iras about $2$, Therefore, it might be reasonable to assume that (some) 20$, 000 17/ bales of cotton were $18.75 a bale higher in value, though machine-picked, than they would have been hand-picked, at a l at er date . That is to say, a machine-picked bale in October was worth more tharriT hand-picked bale in December. But the individual grower vrho uses or contemplates using a machine, must ccnsider grade-loss as a cost of machine harvesting'. Individual growers, on the average, received lovrer grades vrhen they used machines. They could have used hand pickers and obtained higher grades, but not all of them could have obtained enough hand pickers. In a sense, grovrers ^vho used machines (and took lower grades) made it possible for other growers to com.plete their harvest with hand pickers (and get higher grades). In this sense, grade-loss seems a real and direct loss to growers v*o use machines. The average grovrer has been willing, however, to accept his loss in grade in vie^v of his saving in direct costs in machine harvesting. PICKIKG EFFICIENCY OF IJECHANICAL HARVESTERS As previously stated, the net economic advantage of machine harvesting, compared with hand picking, must consider not only the (a) cost of picking but also (b) comparative lint grades, and (c) comparative field waste. Picking^ costs and lint grades of machine-versus-hand picking were discussed in earlier sections. If field waste is greater in machine than in hand picking, the field value of the additional seed.cotton left by the machine, must be charged as part of the cost of mechanical harvesting. Field waste means open seed cotton left in the field unpicked. Thus, field waste, or conversely, picking efficiency, is expressed as a percentage of the total seed cotton available for picking at the time of harvesting. Actually there are two criteria for comparing ma chine-narve sting efficiency. One is an absolute criterion answering the question, "Does the machine pick all the seed cotton?" The other is the efficiency of hand picking. Growers are, of course, interested in both comparisons. They v.rant their m.achines to be as efficient as possible, but, in terms of economic advantage, they must con^'.are machine with hand picking, the only alternative harvesting method available,. 16/ Computed from Cotton Quality Reports, Production and I.larketing Administration, Bakersfield. 17/ It is assum.ed the 900 machines each picked 228 bales, the average found among interviewed growers. Ht Si-"- O -a. .. - 36 - A mechanical harvester can contribute to field waste in numerous ways. Like any other mechanical device, it is limited to a strict mechanical pattern* It cannot see and therefore does not go back and pick a stray boll, once missed. The machine cannot pick cleanly if permitted to wander off the row. It some- times mis'^es the lower bolls — ^those six inches or less from the groundj this is more noticeable ^ihen the drums cannot be operated close to the ground oiTing to roucrhness or clods. Another characteristic of m.achine-picked fields is the presence of "tags" — ^locks or parts of locks streaming from branches of the cotton plants* Again, if the machine becomes clogged, some cotton usually is soiled and must be discarded in the cleaning. In these ways machine picking can lead to excessive field waste. | Field waste is measured by hand gleaning behind the harvester, a time- consuming job that, if representative, must include many field conditions. This was beyond the scope of the present study. Verv few of the growers interviewed had made any actual measurements of field waste. Consequently we have relied on efficiency studies made at the United States Cotton Field Station at Shafter for information. 18/ Ifeasurements of field waste at the Station were carefully done, under controlled conditions j these results are the most reliable data available . Over-all efficiency of machine harvesting was 96.5 percent at the Shafter Station in the 19h9 season* This means that at the end of the season, after second picking had been completed, the harvester had left in the field 3»S per- cent of the seed cotton available for picking. Efficiency was higher in 19U9 than in previous seasons: 93. U percent in 19^8, and 9'2 M percent in 19ii7. How do these efficiencies compare with hand picking? The Shafter experi- ments included no hand picking in 19h9, or 19l.i7. But the mechanization project in 19ii8 measured hand picking efficiency at 97.6 percent. This figure appears to be about the maximum efficiency to be expected in hand picking. These efficiencies in ;T!S.chine and hand picking at the Shafter S'ba.tion probably are correspondingly higher than those attained by the average grower. However, it is believed they represent the approximate relationship between machine and hand picking efficiencies that gro'vvers have experienced^ that is, hand picking is about 1.1 percent more efficient than machine picking. These efficiencies can serve to indicate the economic importance of field-loss* The average yield among interviewed growers (19U9) was 2,171 pounds of seed cotton harvested per acre* If machine harvesting was 96;5 percent efficient, the natural yield (amount available for picking) was 2>250 pounds per acre. Thus, machines left in the field 79 pounds of seed cotton per acre. In compar- able cotton it is estimated that hand pickers picked 2,196 pounds of seed cotton, and left in the field $h pounds per acre. Thus, machines left about 25 pounds more than hand pickers per acre* Vfhat was the value of the loss? The value of seed cotton in the field, before it w3.s picked, in 19i;9 was about $7.28 per 18/ Hoover, Marvin, COTTON I'!ECHANI^ATION, Agricultural Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of California, from Project Report, Project No. 1361, Fairbanks, J. P., and Smith, K.O* Agricultural Engineering Division, page 3. - 37 - The value of 2$ pounds if/as therefore about $1.82, The average value of field loss per harvested bale was about :'!;1.20, Discussio n Although few growers had measured the picking efficiency of their machine harvesters, most gro^TOrs said that machines did a more thorough job of "cleaning the field" in 19h9 than in previous years. Very few gro-vers vrere any longer concerned about field waste by the end of the 19ii9 season. This absence of concern may be partly because field ■".'aste actually vias not large, partly because gro\Ter3 have learned machine-picked fields appear to have more waste than turns out to be true, partly because they have found that machines gather in second picking some of the waste from first picking, and finally, because they now realize more fiolly the extent of v/aste from ordinary or poor hand picking. In general, groTOrs reported the opinion that field waste is lov/er relatively in rank-gro-v/ing, high-yielding cotton. In such cotton a smaller percentage of the bolls are close to the ground surface where the:/ are hard to reach. Another general conclusion is that competent skilled machine operators are essential to efficient picking. Some growers limited the hours per work- shift to avoid over-fatigue and lowered efficiency of machine operators . VJhen in actual operation, the two most frequently cited cautions by growers v/as (1) to keep the machine on the row, and (2) to keep the machine clean. Research at the Shafter Station indicates that row-spacing of IiO inches, with cotton stalks U to 8 inches apart in the row, provides the bast conditions for mechanical harvesting. It also indicates that, "Consideration should be given the following points in laying cotton by: ' The rov/s 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 permit steering of the picker, "f£/ EFFECT OF MACHINE PICKING ON GIN TURNOUT | Gin turnout of machine-picked cotton has been of interest to groiTOrs, ginners and the cotton industry. Gin txarnout is tho ratio, in pounds, of lint to seed cotton j turnout percent is this ratio expressed as a percentage. Seed cotton usually contains some leaves, stems, sticks and moisture. The reason turnout is important is that it is an inverse e>T>rossion of the amount, of foreign matter (trash, moisture, etc.) in a trailer-load of cotton ,££/ ^lien 19/ Field value of seed cotton equals; the value of 37.1 pounds of lint (^?9,83), plus 58..9 pounds of cotton seed {%l,hO), minus (hand) harvesting costs ($3.25), and ginning costs ($.70). 20/ Ibid, page 3. ' 21/ Turnout may also reflect thoroughness with which the gin removes lint from seed, but that fact is more directly determined by inspection of seed as it comes from the gin.. ,' - 38 - turnout is high, foreign matter is lo^-;. Lot; foreign matter (high turnout) is desired because foreign ma-tter makes it more difficult to produce good gr-.des of cotton and because excess foreign matter increases the cost of ginning, inasmuch as charges for ginning and drying are based on the weight^of seed cotton. Although high turnout percentage is not as vit?.lly important to the grovrer as good grades, a low turnout may indicate to him the reason for poor grades — the presence of too much trash, | Uechanical harvesters can redu ce gin turnout by collecting with the seed cotton more trash than hand pickers'^o, or by adding moisture from the spindle- moisteners. On the other hand, mechanical harvesters can improve turnout if they collect less trash than hand pickers do. ~ The -tvBi^t of seed cotton and weight of bales produced were tabulated from the gin statements for the interviewed growers. These data were used to compare gin turnout of machine- and hand-picked cotton by season-average and by periods through the season. Among the 63 inte-rvievred growers, the season-average gin turnout of machine- picked cotton (36.5 percent) waa less than one percenta.ge point lower than hand- picked cotton (37.1 percent). £2/ (Table 8). On the average it required 1,370 pounds of machine-picked seed cotton compared to l,3l;8 pounds of hand-picked seed cotton, to make a 500-pound bale of lint cotton. Gin turnout of machLne- picked cotton 'vas also leaver, but not to the same extent, in each of the sub- areas — except the central area. In that sub-area, gin turnout of machine- picked cotton (37.2 percent) was actually higher for the season than turnout of hand-picked cotton (3^.5 percent). It may be noted that the central area had the highest machine turnout and the lowest hand turnout of any area. By sub- areas, machine turnout was 2»h percentage points lower than hand in the southern area, 0,? points lower on the East-side and the Yfest-side, l.,l points lower in the northern area, and- 1,7 points higher in the central area. For the growers interviewed, gin turnout of hand-picked cotton followed the usual pattern, starting high and declining steadily throughout the season. In contrast, machine-picked turnout increased from September (36.7 percent) 'to October (37.1 percent), it nearly equaled hand-picked turnout in raid-season, and was actually higher than hand-picked turnout in late season picking (Table 6). (Neither snaps nor bollies v/ero included in hand picking.) In short, turnout of machine-picked cotton improved relative to the turnout of hand-picked thi^ough- out the season, a relationship that was repeated in each of the sub-areas, Y-rith some variations (Table 8). On the whole, gin turnout of machine-picked cotton '»vas remarkably good. Apparently the concern people had when machines first came into use tos unjusti- fied. The reason machine-picked turnout showed up less favorably early in the season, apparently, was that machines collected more green leaves and other trash than the hand pickers did. After the cotton had defoliated, machine performance was comparable to hand picking. The reason that machine-picked turnout compared favorably late in the season may have been due to very poor hand picking at that time . 22/ Gross weight of bales was used throughout in calculating gin turnout. •■■ t-.- ! -^i? ■ 5'- r -IT" f> ' ■J"' tJy. ■ ■ ..' - , • ' ■ ■ . F - 39 - Table 8,-- Gin turnout percent of raachine and hand-picked cotton of survey grcfcrers, by four-TOek periods j 19h9 crop Four-Tfreek period : 3c .n Joaquin : Valley : Area s South ijast-sid e :Mach.-:Hand- :D5-ffer-: ,picked:picked:ence V : Ua c h . - ; Hand- :D if f er~ ; Ma ch .- : Ha nd- picked:picked:ence V :picked;picked : Differ :ence 1 1st (Septill-Oct.8) ! % i of ■ % '5' % a' /'•' ' 36.7 39.1 -2,U 32. h 37.8 -5.U 33 .U 39. 2 2nd (Oct, 9 -Nov. 5) 37.2 37.9 - .7 36.2 37. U -1.2 36 .-6 37. 9 -1.3 3rd (Nov. 6 -Dec. 3) - 36.8 36.8 35.0 37.1 -2.1 36.5 35. 7 + .6 hth (Dec. li - 31) t 3U.7 35.0 - .3 31.9 36 .U -U.5 3h.5 33. U +1.1 5th (Jan. 1 - 28) 32.2 30.7 -1.5 30.0 29.0 +1.0 33.0 30. 8 +2.2 Season-average 2/ j • 36.5 37.1 - .6 3h,h 36.8 -2.1; 36.2 36, 9 - .7 Four-week period 1st (3ept.ll-0ct.8) 2nd (Oct. 9 -Nov .5) 3rd (Nov. 6 -Dec. 3) Uth (Dec 4 li - 31) 5th (Jan. 1-28) Season-average 2/ "Central Areas West-side" North Mach.-:Hand- :Dif fer-:Mach.-:Hand- :Dif fer-:iv]ach.-:Hand- :Dlffer- picked:picked:ence £/ :picked:picked:ence 1/ ;picked:picked:ence 1/ % 37.3 37*8 36.2 33 38.0 37.6 35*2 31.5 - .7 + .2 +1.-0 +1.9 37.3 37.8 37.0 35.-2 31.0 39.3 37.9 37.1 36.6 31.1 % -2.0 - a - .1 -1.U -0,1 % 38 .ii 37.3 36,1; 3li.5 33.3 39.2 38.1 37 .1 35.3 27.8 /■^ - .8 - .8 - .7 - .8 +5.5 37.2 35.5 +1.7 36.9 37.6 - .7 36.5 37.6 -1.1 1/ IJinus sign indicates machine below hand, plus sign, machine above hand, 2/ Season-average of all cotton picked, not a simple average of the five "~ four-week periods. - l0 - ATTACKED TilBLES Table 9.- Average number of machine-picked and hand-picked bales harvested by 63 growers in the San Joaquin Vallev, 19h9 (Includes machine custom picking for othe r g'rowers) J I-Fumber • Total 1 ' . 7 ~ : of : Harvestt Both picks t Ist pick j 2nd pick • Growers : ed : Mach.- ; Hand- . Mach.- : Hand- : Mach.- ; Hand- • J picked ; picked : picked ! picked : picked : picked Bales Bales Bales Balp*? Ra"] pa Too South hh3 258 185 201 57 la. East-side i 16 h2Q 2ii5 183 185 156 60 27 Central ; ^/ 350 201 lh9 183 53 18 96 7fest-side 601 292 309 2hh 278 hs 31 North 357 158 199 116 170 h2 29 San Joaquin ; Valley j 63^/ U28 229 200 182 165 35 Note: Averages are for all grovrers intervierred whether or not they all used machines or hand pickers in first or second picking. j 1/ Four groTr-ers had no hand picking, three had no machine first picking, and one had no machine second picking. | 2/ Ttto growers had no hand picking, and one had no machine second picking. 3/ Four grovjers had no hand picking. I h/ One groYrer had no hand picking, one grower had no machine first picking. 5/ Eleven growers had no hand picking, four had no machine first picking, and two had no machine second picking. ■^■.7^ -^.v'^" . i '. • J ■ * — VS ■ » on. ' jii -la- Table 10,- Usual operating expenses for mechanical harvesters, tractors and labor by 63 San Joaquin Valley growers, 19h9 Sub-Areas Item i San z fToamH n • iLcl ST/** • : Vrest- * — — — — _ ' Vail pv • 0 w U. 01 i I Sid© joenbrajL I side : North Number of records 63 15 16 9 9 111 Acres, once over \ 28!i 263 309 273 317 265 Machine hours : hOl lak ii27 316 ii79 387 tjcLxco ficirvesoeQ : 229 250 2U5 201 292 15 8 Harvester Expense D 0 1 1 a r s Pre— season repair i 505 398 583 503 503 172 Seasonal repair : 196 230 2liO lii5 1L5 I'^ount, dismount ! 79 69 91 119 63 61 Spindle oil 58 li9 63 92 62 ho Grease 6 6 0 0 5 6 7 Wetting agent 25 26 20 1 r-' 15 36 29 Total w 778 I005 W9 815 782 Tractor Expense, l/ Fuel • 133 11^3 ll;0 107 159 113 Oil « 8 7 9 7 8 7 Oil filter ' h ii 1, h Gear grease ' 2 2 2 2 2 2 Total ' IH7 335- Labor Expense ' Operating ' i;60 U02 li72 388 608 li59 Bonus 2/ ' he 97 23 55 51 7 Service ^ repair ' 8I^ 65 89 61 103 100 Farm shop * 8 11 3 1 1 20 Compensation ins, ' 7 6 7 6 9 6 Total ; 505" 511 112 592 Total Expenses * 1,621 1,515 l,751i 1,510 1,760 1,500 1/ Includes only operating costs in harvesting cotton. Repair costs were included in overhead for co'-ivenience in prorating the share charged to harvesting cotton. 2/ The follo\ving number of grovrers paid bonuses averaging the indicated amounts, *~ by sub-areas: South, 7 growers, f>208j East-side, 2 grovrers, $1885 Central, 2 growers, $2i;7j West-side, 1 grower, !'^U60j North, 1 grower, \9h» I - hZ - Table 11,- Usual investment in mechaxnical harvesters and tractors, and overhead costs for 63 San Joaquin Valley growers, 19h9 Sub-Areas Item : San : Joaquin : East • West— * ■ : Valley ! South J side : Central : side i North i Number of records ! 63 : 15 16 9 9 lU Acres, once over : 28U ' 263 309 273 317 265 Machine hours ; ii07 lt27 316 U79 387 Bales picked : 229 201 292 15 0 • Investment D 0 1 1 a 1 " s * uri{5J-n75 968 973 958 969 Total depreciation : b,h9(i 5,iiy^ b,ii2« 5,iiB6 ' 1 71 )i ', 3,738 3,709 3,729 3,672 3,712 Tractor: [ ! Original cost ! 2,950 2,817 3,008 2,918 2,87U 3,09U Less salvage value h22 )45l Ii37 h31 Total depreciation 2,395 2,b5y 2, mi 2,63U Average investment . 1,696 . 1,620 1,730 1,678 1,653 1,779 Annual Overhead Costs : Karve 3 ter : s Depreciation : 1,112 : 1,123 1,133 1,101 1,093 1,097 Interest on av. invest* s lii9 J i5o litS lii9 lii7 ll9 General property taxes : 123 J 165 106 121 72 132 Insurance ! 33 : 33 23 50 37 32 Total ! 1,1|17 : l,3ii$ l,iilC) Tractor: s Depreciation 371 \ 350 393 378 351 376 Interest on Av. .invest. .: 68 : 69 67 00 71 General Property Taxes : 36 : h5 32 37 20 la Insurance : 15 : li; 11 22 17 15 Repairs l/ : ICO J ■ 100 100 100 100 100 Total ~ : W5 : 5517 Charged to harvesting : cotton : Percent of annual : 53.7 \ 58.3 50.5. 39.5 56.3 60.2 Amount, dollars s 317 J 335 306 239 312 363 1/ Included in overhead for convenience in allocating proportionate share to *" cotton harvesting,- Table 12,- Materials and labor used in harvesting cotton mechanically by 63 San Joaquin Valley growers, 19k9 Number of records H arvester Spindle oil Tetting agent Grease Tractor Fuel Cylinder oil Oil filter Grease Labor Operating Service & repair Fount & dismount!/ Farm shop Total labor Sub-Areas East- • ■ : West- side J Central - side North • 63 1^ 16 9 9 lii gal. 107 93 126 Ihh 109 75 gal. h 3 6 5 lb. . . la la hi 35 38 h9 gal.- 809 817 836 667 979 750 qt, • hh 39 53 h2 hi 38 no, • h h h h 6 h lb-. ■: 13 13 13 13 13 13 hr. : ao7 Ulii h21 316 I479 387 hr. J 75 66 8ii U8 86 86 hr.. . 26 25 27 18 31 25 hr.. : 9 11 6 1 1 18 hr. : 517 3H3 5l^ 1/ Average for cases reporting. -=t Table 13.- Number of machine-picked and hand-picked bales by grade at 35 San Joaquin Valley Gins, 19k9 crop Grade 35 Gins : Sa n Joaquin Valley ; Sub-Area {Machine jPicked White (g: Ex.VJh .: Number GM : 6U SM t l,hlh M : 11,559 SDi J 27,U31 m 1 13,28a SGO t 2,658 GO : 538 Spotted } GM t 25 SM t 600 M : 1,301 SD.f , : 69h LM : 177 Tinged j GM : . SM : M I SW. i LM J Gray » GM i 12 SM 1 i;35 M t l,h9S sm i 683 Below Grade ; 193 ■ — — — — ( t Total : 62,623 ? Av, Grade-Index: 91.8 Av. Loan Value; 132,52 Hand- Picked South (8 Gins) J'ach.- : Kand- Picked : Picked Number j Number i ^fumber 5,771 55,858 86,929 52,13li 13,87li 3,2kh 1,171; 268 3,530 3,9U3 1,080 968 1 7 J J 263 J i 51 : 32 « t 112 ! 967 : 5,852 : l,361i 389 i : 237,811 i 97, h t t : lii2.8U i h8 518 J 3,067 ! 7,090 J 2,869 : 399 t 88 : i 25 : li22 t 605 255 65 16,230 15,078 8,583 1,600 868 229 130 8U6 396 121; 22li t ! X : 2l;2 • ! : : 23 1 1 • : h J 12 t 107 ! t 3h9 J 365 ! 26 • 650 t 711 J 136 : I9li ! 61; i 83 s 65 ! 95 : 73 t 16,721 -, > 50,329 J • 11,121 i 92,h 'i 98.9 ■! 89.6 : 133.91; 'i ll;l;.79 i 127.67 j East (9 -side Gins) IJach.- Picked Hand- Picked Central (2 Gins) f.'Iach .- Picked Hand- Pic ked Vfest-side (12 Gins) Ifach .- : Hand- Picked : Picked "Nor^E (1; Gins) Mach.- J Hand- picked ; Picked Number : Number : N umber t Number s Number : Number : Number : Number J 93 : 1,153 : 5,002 : 3,856 : 652 s 21;5 : — i 22 51 29 587 16,791 23,059 15,872 1;,311 782 3l;3 59 l,li26 1,676 363 283 1 5 20 11 h 168 1,888 399 155 97.2 27 i;33 2,012 901 hhh 23 31; 2,653 5,221 2,826 903 213 271; 16 831 6,821; 12,611 li,655 61;5 130 : 12 16 ; 182 : 131; 62 ! 185 ! 511; 15 ! 27 : 256 : 77 : 91 ! 1 t ! 5 ¥ * • • 1 t 5 i 211 J 55 ii;8 ! 1,008 J 261 227 : 28ii i 168 63 : Ul li,6l3 i 11;, 178 J 27,232 89.1 : 95.1; 'i 93.3 { 127.97 :J 139.65 1 135.90 738 : 18,350 ; 36,161 : 21,033 : 1;,719 : 9l;l i 216 8 • 27 i 1;51; ! 530 i 176 : l5l t — I 5 82 716 1,003 518 52 6 69 139 21 2 1,831; 7,iao 3,820 2,3l;l kho 112 1;0 622 1,156 390 233 t ft « « • • 1 2 1 • « 1 • • 15 i ? : 19 h : 4 160 * "63 1;30 • • 817 3l;l; • 11 « 273 10 i Ih 66 2,636 t 19,655 85.8 I 91; .1; 117.20 I 136.95 iS :. i-i '■, • 5; .'J 'i W?--'* 5H-*>'H Jri"-(?^e' • * * ^ 'i ■ *, .... I . -f « ', • ; X ' - f ■" ■ ir »; -t-- 0"^ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ' V: r ' > ■ - • ■ "^y* '"^r ■ Jfi,","" • . ■ J^. - • ' • . I ' • • 4» • ■■ ' ; "• ' ■" " 1. Table lU.- Percentage distribution of machine-picked and hand-picked bales at 35 gins, San Joaquin Valley, 19h9 crop : San Joaauin Areas s Valley ! South : East- -side ; Central ! ^lest- -side J North Grade tl'lachine- rP^ eked :Hand- : Picked fach,- : Pi eked : Eand- ! Picked ;IJach .- : Picked : tiana- : Picked rtJach.- : Picked ! liand- • Picked :rach.- : Picked ! Hand- ! Picked :iiach,- ! Picked i h"and- ; i Picked: 'Miite^, 7x.-^'Jh. GH SM IT Slii LM SGO GO (?-liite) • /J } .1 :• 2,k !• 18. jl ! 1x3.3 :■ 21.2 ! It .2 ! .9 ! (91.0) ! 2.h : 23 .5 3606 • : 21.9 : 5.8 l.h : .5 : (92.1) i .3 : 3.1 r 18.3 ! [i2.1i : 17.2 t •(8I1.2) i 8,8 ! 32,2 • 30 »0 ' : 17.1 : 3.2 1.7 > ! .5 : (93.5) \ .8 : 10 „1 ! ii3o9 ! 33.8 ! 5.7 ! 2.1 !(96.ii) » : .9 ; 214.6 ! 33.6 ! 23.3 ! 6.3 ! 1.2 • (90«6) '• H \ .6 . : 9,h ! )i^.7 ; : 19.6 ! 1 9.6 ' I .5 ' !(83.1i): r ! ! .2 < ! 16.7 : 36.9 ! 20.0 6. it 1.5 ' ' 1,9 ' (85 .6) J ! .1 • 3.0 25.0 ! ii6.3 • ■ 17.1. • 2.1; ! .5 ' i .9 ' ! 21.5 ! U2.3 . 21-. 6 > J 0^ < \ 1.1 ! .3 • (96.2)- /' ! .2 ! 3.1 ! ' 27.2 ' 38.0 ! ' 19.7 ' > 2.0 ! •(90,2): d 9,3 37.7 19.I4 ' 11.9 2.2 .6 ^ (81.1) Spotted GM SH M 3LIJ (Spotted) . 1 1,0 t 2.1 ! 1.1 ? .3 ' (lu5) 5 .1 • i lo5 : 1.7 • : .a I (lul). ! . .1 ! 2.5 . 3.6 1.5 • .h . (8.1) ! .3 ! 1»7 : .8 • .2 ' • (3.U)- ! »2 ' ' .3 .1 2..1 r 2.5 .5 ! ! eh ■ (5.6)- 't »3 ! 1.3 • 0 J * (1T9) .1 • . 1.3 . ! 1.3 ' .2 • <— f .5 - (3»li); ' ^ i • 1.9 ! ! .9 ' ! <>3 . (3.6)! i .5 ' .6 .2 ' ! .2 (1»5)< .2 . ! 2.6 ] , t 0 . ► ^ ! .8 i ; (8.9) • .2 3^2 5.9 2.0 i 1.2 1 (12.5) Tinged GM SM ! 1 — M ; LM s (Tinged) ; II ! — ; .1 ! — 1 (.1): — ] .5 J (.5)i — _ — ! — — — - — . > — . — . — ! .1 • (.2) Gray : GM s SM J M J SLK ! (Gray) j .7 i 2.U ! 1.1 J (h.2) s — : .it : 2.5 : .6 : (3.5): .1 i 2.1 ! 3.9 i 1.2 ! (7.3): .2 \ .7 ! l.U : .1 ! (2.)4)! .2 ! 1.2 ! .7 i (2.1): .2 2.8 < .6 • (3.6) ! .1 ! • 9.7 ! I1.9 (lU.7)i io5 7.1 . ! 2oO (10„6) r .2 1.0 .6 , • (lc8) 1 ! .2 ! 1.7 ! (2.3) ! t ! i - .u 1 i ! o3 t It. 2 ! l.)4 ! (5.9) Below Grade : .3 'i .2 i .1; \ .2 ! .6 ; o2 , ■ , « .2 • .5 1 .3 Total : 100.0 ! 100,0 : 100.0 s 100.0 ! 100,0 : 100.0 . ilOO.O ! 100.0 ' [100.0 1 100.0 :100.0 5 100.0 U'3 Table l5.- T.'eekly grade-indexes of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton at eight selected San Joaquin Valley cins, 19h9 crop T'eek of ! Gin F-1 Gin ■Vf-3 _ harvest I LacHo-': Hand- :riffer- -J Jfach,.- ; Hand— •Differ-: 9 f I-fech .— ; Hand- j Differ- J encB 2/ ; season l/ * picked; picked;ence 2/: picked J picker picked; picKSu.; — I'^"- - Xo u — * _^ — — — ?nrl - 100 „8 — — JlVC tV 95.6 IOJ4 .3 JJ- 100.7 — 93.6 99,2 IOI4.8 -1=; 6 99.5 100.6 — J.J 97.1 103,8 A 7 —0 . ( 93.6 100 .1 - 6.5 9'o.3 in'). 7 - 7 ), 98,9 103.3 — Z4 014 93.1 100.3 - 7.2 96,1 ~ 7 )i 99 cO 101.3 7th . fit; Q Op .3 97.6 -12.3 95,3 1 n? 7 o-^, ft yo «o 5 eth • 87.5 99.8 -12.3 98,9 102,3 - 3.I4 96.0 101.8 -5.8 9th : 85.14 95.7 -10.3 93.2 99.2 - 6.0 9ii.3 99.7 -5,ii ICth i 86.7 91;. 7 - 6„0 90.0 96.0 - 6,0 95.5 99.3 -3o8 11th : 83.5 83.0 - Iu5 90.2 95.5 - 5.3 (95.5) (98.2) -<2.7) 12th i 79.3 85.9 - 6.6 86,0 91: .8 - 8.8 95 .14 97.1 -1.7 13th ! (7)u2) 83.5 - 9.3 88 o6 95 .U - 6.8 90.1 98.8 -8.7 liith ! 68.0 8U.8 -16.8 81 „7 85.5 - 3.8 91.9 96.2 -I4.3 I5th ! 82.9 79.9 82.5 - 2.6 87.9 95.3 -7.U 16th ! 79.9 76.8 65 »3 - 8,5 86.2 92.3 -6.1 17 th ! 78. .8 76.0 88.1 -12.1 82.1 (90.0) I8th ! 83.9 Heek cf Gin S ~j 2 Gin E-6 G: .n S-7 harvest , I'ach,-; Hand- jUifl^r -: I'ach,- J Hand- ;Difrpr-t i'ach.-; Hand- ; Differ- season l/ , picked: picked J ence 2 /: picked; picked;ence 2/\ picked; picked: ence 2/ 1st 2nd 100.6 102 „5 103.2 3rd 95.0 101 - 6.8 100.5 96.1; 96.0 - .1; iith 97.6 102 .2 - ii.6 93.3 102 ,0 - 8.7 95.0 103.2 -8.2 5th 92.0 98.9 - 6.9 96.1 100.7 - I1.6 91;. 2 101.2 -7.0 6th ' 93.2 100.6 - 7.1; 91.1 102,3 -11.2 92.3 102.5 - ■10,2 7 th 85 .U 98.7 -13.3 86.5 100 .li -11.9 92.1 100 J; -8.3 8th 92 .14 99,7 - 7.3 92.2 99.5 - 7.3 93.2 101.3 -8.1 9th ! 88.it 96.7 - 8.3 83.1 96.2 -13.1 9hoO 100,9 -6,9 10th 85.5 95.9 -10. 14 62.8 9il.l4 -11.6 88„5 96.6 -8.1 nth • 85.0 91.7 - 6.7 80.5 93.7 -13.2 86.7 97.1; - ■10,7 12 th 77.3 89.8 -12.5 75.1; 92.1; -17.0 85.0 93.3 - - 8.8 13th 72.6 eii.i -11.8 73.9 91.6 -17.7 76.1; 88.9 - ■12.5 lUth ! 75.0 83.1 - 8.1 69.2 86.0 -16.8 81.1 82.5 - ■ lei; I5th ! (7ii.ii) 77. U 70.2 88.0 -17.8 71;. 6 80,9 - - 6.3 I6th J 73.9 79.6 - 5.7 71;. 2 85.5 -11.3 78.3 86.3 - ■ 6.,5 17 th ! (73.8) 76.3 79,1 82.6 - 3.5 78.9 80,2 - • 1.3 18th ! 73.7 7 < "> - 2.1i 7U.8 73.9 80,1 - - 6.2 1/ First week begin'^ Sept. 11? eighteenth week ends Jan. lit, 2/ Minus si.c^ indicates machine belo-.v hand. Figrores in parenthesis interpolated. Continued - ii7 - Table l5.- T'eekly rrade-inderes of machine-picked and hand-picked cotton at eip:ht selected San Joaouin Valley gins, 19/^9 crop _ Continued T'eek of harvest season l/ Gin Gin C-2 TotalT" Gins Fach«-j Hand- sDiffer-: Jfech.-}" picked; pickedrence 2/; picked: Hand- jDiffer-:' pickedjence 2/; I"jach.-j picked; Hand- :DilTer- picked;ence 2/ 1st ir? -"^ 1 HP "5 X'Jc »J) 2nd —0. f 3rd 1 98,6 10^ »9 5«'3 -t; 1, — ? .u hth i 96.2 103 .2 7.0 97 .1 102.6 5.5 96.7 102.6 -5.9 5th ! 9U.U 102 .li 8.0 96,1 102.5 6.h 95.2 101.6 6th ' 95.9 101.3 5oU 93.5 101.9 e,h 9I4.3 101,7 n 1, 7th : 9lu5 101 .li 6.9 9h.O 102.0 8.0 91.5 100.7 -9.2 6th : 9ii.5 100.5 6.0 9ii.l 100.9 6.8 93.6 100.7 -7.1 9th ! 93.2 97.8 k.6 93 .li 96.3 2.9 90.6 97.8 -7.2 10th ! 89.5 96 .U 6.9 90.0 95 .5 5.5 88.6 96.1 -7.5 11th ! 92.1 95 .h 3.3 90.2 o-:' < .■ i »^ 7.3 88,0 9/4.7 -6.7 12th : 93.9 95.5 1.6 83.6 95.3 -11.7 61.5 93.1 -8.6 13th : 91.1 93.6 2.5 82.0 83.'^ 1.5 81.1 90.0 -8.9 lltth 89.0 93.3 h.3 61.6 82.7 1.1 79.7 86.8 -7.1 l5th J 69,0 92.2 3-2 80.3 82,2 1.9 79.5 85.2 -5.7 16th 87.9 91.2 3.3 78.7 79.5 .8 79.1i 85.0 -5.6 17th ! 66.3 86.0 2.3 (73.6) 78.8 79o5 82.8 -3.3 I8th i 65 .1 82.3 2.8 78.5 76.6 + 1.9 77.2 79.8 -2.6 1/ First week begins Sept, 11; eighteenth week ends Jan. lli. 2/ Finus sirn indicates niachine below handj plus sifxi indicates hand belovr machine. Fipiires in parenthesis internolated. - U8 - Table 16.- Grade-^index numbers and 19k9 government loan V3.1ues of 1 l/l6-inch upland cotton, 19k9 crop, California Grades Good Middling (GM) Strict Good I'iddling (SG!!) Fiddling (M) Strict Lov.' T.'iddling (SLM) Lo'.T I.^iddling (LIl) Strict Good Ordinary (SGO) Good Ordinary (GO) Good Middling (GM) Strict Good Ifiddling (SGIi) Fiddling (F) Strict Lovr Middling (SLF) Low Middling (LM) Strict Good Ordinary (SGO) Good Ordinary (GO) Colors 'white or ] j Extra White; Spotted Gray • J Tell 07V J Tinged : stained I n d e X e s 1/ 105 101 93 9h 86 lOii 99 91 91 81 100 93 Qh 82 73 9h 83 75 75 85 75 68 76 70 — (Below grades=60) 19h9 loan values (cents ner pound 30 .U8 30.23 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 .113 15.58 13.28 17.98 17.ii8 15 .73 (Below grade 3/) 1/ 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 . 2/ Computed from Cotton Bulletin 1, and amendments. Commodity Credit Corporation, " Production and I'arketing Administration, August l6, 19U9. 3/ No government loans are made on below-grade bales. In thj.s study, below-grade ~ cotton vj-as assumed to have an average value of 11.8ii cents per pound or 1685 points below Hidd].ing Ifhite , l5/l6-inch staple length.