It is generally accepted that harvesting and storing of seed cotton above a moisture content of 12% prior to ginning will compromise fiber quality. This advice stems from research conducted on harvesting seed cotton with the conventional basket and separate module building system, which produces large rectangular modules. It is hypothesized that the 12% moisture content limit will also hold true for harvesting seed cotton in a high-production system using alternative harvesters. The latest generation of harvesters, such as the John Deere (JD) 7760 spindle harvester with on-board module building capacity producing smaller round modules, have greater horsepower, traction and fan capacity, which enables them to harvest cotton when field conditions would have made harvesting difficult with conventional systems. This study examined the fiber quality of saw ginned Upland cotton, harvested from one field using a JD 7760 at two moisture levels, <12% and >12%, and storing the harvested modules for 12 weeks prior to ginning. There was a significant difference between the two moisture levels for fiber color, with seed cotton harvested at >12% resulting in fiber that was yellower, with lower reflectance and a color grade of 52, compared to a 51 grade for seed cotton harvested at <12% treatment. The seed cotton harvested at >12% had more trash with a leaf grade of 3, compared to a leaf grade of 2 for the seed cotton harvested at the <12% level. There was no significant difference between the two moisture levels in terms of fiber length and strength, but fiber micronaire was higher for the higher moisture content. There was no significant difference between the moisture levels for total nep count, but the seed cotton harvested at >12% had larger neps and more seed coat neps.
MortonWEHearleJWS. Physical properties of textile fibres, Woodhead Publishing in Textiles: Number 68. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited in association with The Textile Institute, 2008.
2.
SavilleBP. Physical testing of textiles, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited in association with The Textile Institute, 1999.
3.
ChildersREBakerR. Effect of moisture conditioning on ginning performance and fiber quality of high plains cotton. Trans ASAE1978; 21: 379–384.
4.
HawkinsRSThomasWMI. The effect of moisture content, field exposure, and processing on the spinning value of Arizona upland cotton, Technical Bulletin No. 115. University of Arizona, 1948. , 249–292.
5.
AnthonyWSBylerRK. Measurement of moisture content during harvesting and moduling. In: beltwide cotton conference, San Diego, CA, 1998, pp. 431–435.
6.
BarkerGLLairdJWPelletierMG. Relative velocity, density and temperature effects on cotton moisture transfer rates. J Cotton Sci2001; 5: 243–251.
7.
SandersonKW. A review of the effects of ginning practices on cotton fibre and yarn properties and processing performance, Port Elizabeth, Eastern Cape: SAWTRI Special Publication, 1985, pp. 48.
8.
Anon. Cotton production practices, Washington, DC: The International Cotton Advisory Committee, 2011, pp. 164.
9.
AbernathyGHWilliamsJM. Baling Seed Cotton for Storage and Handling. Trans ASAE1961; 4: 182–184.
10.
DoraiswamyIChellamaniPPavendhanA. Cotton ginning. Text Progr1993; 24: 28.
11.
International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC). Picking of cotton. Int Cotton Advis Committ Record2004; 24: 4–9.
12.
HughsSEValcoTDWillifordJR. 100 years of cotton production, harvesting, and ginning systems engineering: 1907-2007. Trans ASABE2008; 51(4): 1187–1198.
13.
WilliamsonEBRileyJA. Interrelated effects of defoliation, weather and mechanical picking on cotton quality. Trans ASAE1961; 4: 164–165 & 169.
14.
International Cotton Advisory Committee (ICAC). Report of an expert panel on ginning methods. The International Cotton Advisory Committee Washington, DC, 2001, p.30.
15.
MygdakosE. Factors affecting picker capacity, area harvested and harvesting cost of cotton. Int J Food Agric Environ2009; 7: 214–223.
16.
AshleyHValcoTD. Gin industry update and discussion. In: beltwide cotton conference, New Orleans, LA, 2014, pp. 566–567.
17.
Hamann MT. Impact of cotton harvesting and storage methods of seed and fiber quality. MSc Thesis, Texas A&M University, 2011, p.70.
18.
Hamann MT, Parnell CB, Russell PE, et al. Prediction of fiber quality for long-term storage of seed cotton. In: beltwide cotton conference, New Orleans, LA, 2010, pp.570-579.
McNealX. Covers for field-stored cotton. Arkansas Farm Res1969; 18: 3.
21.
Osias D, Curley RG, Brooks CR, et al. New approaches to measuring seed cotton moisture content. In: beltwide cotton conference, Dallas, TX, 1987, pp.506-510.
22.
ParishRLShelbyKR. The effect of seedcotton storage on seed and lint quality. Trans ASAE1974; 17: 1078–1079 &1084.
23.
AnthonyWS. The harvesting and ginning of cotton. Cotton Sci Technol2007; 59: 176–202.
24.
AndersonFBWaddleBA. Quality and value of lint from seedcotton stored in bulk lots. Arkansas Farm Res1963; 12: 2.
25.
AnthonyWS. Performance characteristics of cotton ginning machinery. Trans ASAE1990; 33: 1089–1098.
26.
Chun DTW and McAlister DD. Cotton module storage: microbial effects, a preparatory study. In: beltwide cotton conference, Anaheim, CA, 2001, 1288–1290.
27.
Curley RG, Roberts B, Kerby T, et al. Effect of moisture on moduled seed cotton. In: International Summer Meeting of the ASAE, Rapid City, SD, 1988, p.15.
28.
JaimeRJMcKameyJCottyPJ. Module storage time, leaf grade and seed moisture influence fiber quality and aflatoxin contamination of cotton in South Texas. J Cotton Sci2013; 17: 60–68.
29.
LalorWFWilcuttMHCurleyRGSeed cotton storage and handling. In: AnthonyWSMayfieldWD (eds). Cotton ginners handbook, Washington, DC: USDA-ARS: Agricultural Handbook 503, 1994, pp. 16–25.
30.
MontgomeryRAWootenOB. Lint quality and moisture relationships in cotton through harvesting and ginning, ARS 42-114. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 1958, pp. 19.
31.
Wilcutt MH, Valco TD, Ruscoe J, et al. The effect of level of defoliation on storability and quality of seed cotton. In: beltwide cotton conference, New Orleans, LA, 1997, pp.1613–1615.
32.
Curley RG, Roberts B and Kerby T. Effect of seed cotton moisture level and storage time on the quality of lint in stored modules. In: beltwide cotton conference, Dallas, TX, 1987, pp.504-510.
33.
Anthony WS. Preserving fiber quality, increasing gin turnout and fiber profits, drying cotton, and disposing of gin trash. In: 8th Australian cotton conference, Broadbeach, Gold Coast, 1996, pp.525-549.
34.
MayfieldWDAnthonyWSBakerRVEffects of gin machinery on cotton quality. In: AnthonyWSMayfieldWD (eds). Cotton ginners handbook, Agricultural Handbook 503. Washington, DC: USDA-ARS, 1994, pp. 237–240.
35.
BylerRK. Historical review on the effect of moisture content and the addition of moisture to seed cotton before ginning on fiber length. J Cotton Sci2006; 10: 300–310.
36.
AnthonyWS. Ginning technology: the next frontier. Aust Cotton Grow2005; 26: 48–52.
37.
BoykinJC. The effects of dryer temperature and moisture addition on ginning energy and cotton properties. J Cotton Sci2005; 9: 155–165.
GordonSGBagshawKMHorneFA. The effect of lint cleaner elements, settings and fiber moisture content on fiber quality. Trans ASABE2011; 54: 2267–2278.
40.
MetzerRBSupakJRChildersRE. Keys to high quality lint and seed with a cotton module builder, Texas, College Station, TX: Agricultural Extension Service, 1983, pp. 3.
41.
KaronMLAltschulAM. Effect of moisture of treatments with acid and alkali rate of formation of free fatty acids in stored cottonseed. Plant Physiol1944; 19: 310–325.
42.
RobertsonFRCampbellJG. Some observations on the increase of free fatty acid in cottonseed. Oil Soap1933; 10: 146–147.
43.
ColumbusEPMangialardiGJ. Cottonseed moisture and seed damage at gins. Trans ASAE1996; 39: 1617–1621.
44.
van der SluijsMHJHarvesting & delivering uncontaminated cotton. In: MaasS (ed). Australian cotton production manual- 2015, Narrabri, NSW: Cotton Research and Development Corporation, 2015, pp. 119–125.
45.
MayfieldWDLalorWFHuitinkG. Harvesting: Spindle pickers and cotton quality, Raleigh, North Carolina: Cotton Incorporated, 1998, pp. 4.
46.
WilcuttMHBuschermohleMJHuitinkGW. The spindle-type cotton harvester, Raleigh, NC: Cotton Incorporated, 2010, pp. 38.
47.
DancerGMcClementIPykeB. Module moisture and cotton quality. Aust Cotton Grow1987; 8: 36–37 & 39.
48.
ParkerREWootenOB. Sources of moisture in mechanically harvested seed cotton and its effects on cotton quality, Wahington, DC: Technical Bulletin 1313, United States Department of Agriculture, 1964, pp. 25.
49.
SorensonJWWikesLH. Seed quality and moisture relationships in harvesting and storing seed cotton, Raleigh, NC: Cotton Incorporated, 1971, pp. 36.
50.
RileyJA. Moisture and cotton at harvest time in the Mississippi Delta. Mon Weather Rev1961; 89: 341–353.
Bange MP, Constable GA, Long RL, et al. FIBREpak - a guide to Improving Australian cotton fibre quality. In: cotton catchment and communities CRC, Narrabri, 2009, p.105.
58.
WilcuttMHBuschermohleMJBarnesEM. In field time in motion comparisons of conventional, John Deere 7760 and Case 625 module express cotton pickers. In: beltwide cotton conference, San Antonio, TX, 2009, pp. 462–476.
59.
HardinRGSearcySW. Viscoelastic properties of seed cotton. Trans ASABE2008; 51: 803–810.
60.
van der SluijsMHJ. Research needs and requirements of the Australian ginning industry, Geelong, Vic: CSIRO Manufacturing Flagship, 2015, pp. 24.
61.
StillerW. Sicot 75BRF. Plant Var J2011; 24: 148–151.
