Performance Evaluation of a Tractor Mounted Mechanical Cotton Picker
Keywords:
cotton, harvest, mechanical picking, pickerAbstract
Mechanical cotton harvesting showed significant progress in Turkey for last decade. The most common cotton harvesters
are self‑propelled, high capacity, horizontal spindle type pickers. These types of pickers need to be run in more than 150‑200
ha per season to reach an economical picking in Turkish conditions. However, agricultural lands are in Turkey are mostly small
(avg. 6 ha) and fragmented. This structure has led the small-scale farmers to seek alternative ways. One of them was tractormounted
pickers that suitable for small-scale farms. The objective of this study was to determine the qualitative and quantitative
performance of two narrow row (0.76 m) tractor mounted with vertical spindle prototype cotton picker manufactured
in Turkey. Field trials were held at four locations with three different varieties (Stoneville 393; Stoneville 457 and Carmen
- Fibermax) at 0.76 m inter-row spacing. Results revealed that plant and field conditions and defoliation were effective on the
quantitative performances results. In general, the prototype picker showed a successful performance and can pick with average
3% ground loss if suitable conditions are provided. No significant effect was observed between the treatments (hand and mechanical
picking) and fiber quality values. The prototype picker used in the study was found suitable for small-scale farms.
References
Akis, A., and A. Akkus, 2003. Effect of the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) to the migration in Sanliurfa. Selcuk University. Journal of Social Sciences, 10: 529–542 (Tr).
Anonymous, 2006a. Product Catalog. Uzel CottonCraft. 90 pp. İstanbul. Turkey.
Anonymous, 2006b. Test principles and methods for farm machineries. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affair of Turkey. Available at: http://www.tarim.gov.tr/Files/sanal_kutuphane3/Tarim_Makinalari_Deneyilke_Metodlari.pdf (Tr).
Anonymous, 2012. Republic of Turkey. Ministry of Development. Southeastern Anatolia Project. Regional Development Administration. Available at: http://www.gap.gov.tr/projects-and-activities/agriculture
ASABE, 2006. Standards. Agricultural Machinery Management Data. ASAE D497.5 FEB2006. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 9pp.
Bange, M. P., G. A. Constable, S. G. Gordon, R. L. Long, G. R. S. Naylor and M. H. J. van der Sluijs, 2009. A guide to improving Australian cotton fibre quality. FIBREpak: from seeds to good shirts. 108 pp.
Baker, K. D., S. E. Hughs and J. Mackey, 2003. Quality of spindle harvested cotton. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Las Vegas. Nevada. USA. Paper No. 31148.
Baker, K. D. and E. Hughs, 2008. Cotton quality as affected by changes in the spindle picker. Proceedings of the 4th World Cotton Research Conference. Lubbock. Texas. USA. Paper No. 2240.
Behery, H. M., 1993. Short fiber content and uniformity index in cotton. ICAC Review Articles on Cotton Production Research. No. 4. CAB International. Wallingford, UK.
Bradow, J. M. and G. H. Davidonis, 2000. Quantitation of fiber quality and the cotton production-processing interface: A physiologist’s perspective. The Journal of Cotton Science, 4: 34–64.
Braden, C. A., 2005. Inheritance of Cotton Fiber Length and Distribution. PhD Dissertation. Texas A&M University. USA. 284 pp.
Budak, F. and D. B. Budak, 2006. Farm level analysis of pesticide use in cotton production in East Mediterranean region of Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology, 27 (2): 299–303.
Demirtas, M. and T. Dogan, 2006. Making economic analysis of the cotton-harvesting machine attachable to a tractor by determine the performance on some cotton varieties. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science, 2 (1): 49–56.
Evcim, H. U., 2000a. Mechanical cotton picking and production methods for mechanical harvesting. Current situation of cotton production in the Aegean region: problems and solutions. Ege University. Scientific Research Project Report. Project No: 1998/ZRF-019/1. p. 297–299. Izmir. Turkey (Tr).
Evcim, H. U., 2000b. Procedure for checking field losses. John Deere Cotton Systems School (Unpublished Training Manual: Field Session (Cotton Picker). p.11–17/20. Dallas Training Center. Rio Grande Valley. USA.
Evcim, H. U. and E. Oz, 1997. Determination of the quantitative performance of machine picking on different cotton varieties. Proceedings of the 17th National Agricultural Mechanization Congress. Tokat. Turkey. 2: 790–797 (Tr).
Evcim, H. U. and E. Oz, 1998. Comparison of mechanical and hand harvesting of cotton regarding lint quality factors under Turkish conditions. Proceedings of the 2nd World Cotton Research Conference. Athens. Greece. 2: 1106–1108.
Faostat, 2012. Production Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org
Faulkner, W. B, D. P. Whitelock, D. D. McAlister and B. W. Shaw, 2006. Formation of neps in Pima cotton during mechanical harvesting. ASABE Annual Meeting. Portland. Oregon. USA. Paper No. 061080.
Faulkner, W. B, J. D. Wanjura, B. W. Shaw and E. F. Hequet, 2007. Effect of harvesting methods on foreign matter content, fiber quality and yarn quality from irrigated cotton on the high plains. ASABE Annual International Meeting. Minneapolis. Minnesota. USA. Paper No. 071113.
Gul, M., B. Koc, E. Dagistan, M. G. Akpinar and O. Parlakay, 2009. Determination of technical efficiency in cotton growing farms in Turkey: A case study of Cukurova region. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 4 (10): 944–949.
Hake, K, K. Bragg, J. Mauney and B. Metzer, 1990. Causes of high and low micronaire. Cotton Physiology Today. 1:12. Newsletter of the Cotton Physiology Education Program. National Cotton Council. 4 pp.
Hill, J., 2010. Preparing your crop for harvest. Australian Cotton Production Manual. Chapter 14. pp. 75–79.
ICAC , 2001. Impact of ginning on fiber quality: The best ginning practices. Report of an Expert Panel on Ginning Methods. International Cotton Advisory Committee. Washington DC. USA. 30 pp.
Isin, F., S. Isin, and A. Uzmay, 2009. Economic analysis of cotton production and adoption of harvest mechanization: a case study of the Aegean region of Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 7 (2): 387–393.
ITC, 2011. Cotton Exporter’s Guide. Release Date: April. 2008. ISBN 13: 9789291373529. 364 pp. Publisher: International Trade Centre
Jordan, A. G., 2001. Producing for quality. Cotton Physiology Today. 12:1. Newsletter of the Cotton Physiology Education Program. National Cotton Council. 7 pp.
Kalaycioglu, S., 2001. Social, cultural and economic change expectations in different sections in GAP region. Urfa, Harran and Diyarbakir. Presented at 2nd GAP and Industry Congress. UCTEA. The Chamber of Mechanical Engineers. Diyarbakır Branch. 19 pp. (Tr).
Krieg, D. R., 2002. Fiber quality, genetic and environmental affectors. Presented at 15th Annual EFS® System Conference, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Lewis, H., 2002. Structure and dimensions of fiber quality. Cotton Farming. Available at: http://www.cottonfarming.com
Montalvo, J. G., 2005. Relationships between micronaire, fineness, and maturity. Part 1. Fundamentals. The Journal of Cotton Science, 9: 81–88.
Oz, E., 2005. Determination of the efficiency of a tractor mounted, PTO driven mechanical cotton picker. Actes du Congres International sur L’Efficacite de la Mecanisation Agricole et son Impact Environnemental. Hammamet-Tunusia. Proceedings. pp. 247–252.
Oz, E., and H. U. Evcim, 2002. Determination of the quantitative performance of mechanical cotton picking on the Ege region conditions. The Journal of Agricultural Faculty of Ege University, 39 (2): 127-134 (Tr).
Powell, J., 2010. Classing. Australian Cotton Production Manual. Chapter 19. pp. 94–96.
Saglam, R., and B. Akyol, 2002. A study on determination of crop losses in mechanical cotton picking at State Farm of Ceylanpinar. Proceedings of the 5th Cotton Congress. Agricultural Economics Research Institute and Diyarbakır City Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Diyarbakır, Turkey, pp. 198–209 (Tr).
Silvertooth, J. C., A. Galadimo and R. Tronstad, 2003. Evaluation of crop management effects on fiber micronaire 2000–2002. 2003 Cotton Report. The University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. Available at: http://cals.arizona.edu/pubs/crops/az1312/az13121h.pdf
Simsek, M. K. and I. Ozkan, 2005a. Determination of machine harvest appropriateness of fiber quality characteristics of some cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties in Aegean region. Proceedings of the 6th Field Crops Congress of Turkey. Antalya. Turkey. 1: 297–302 (Tr).
Simsek, M. K. and I. Ozkan, 2005b. Determination of machine harvest appropriateness of morphological characteristics of some cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) varieties in Aegean region. Proceedings of the 6th Field Crops Congress of Turkey. Antalya. Turkey. 1: 303-308 (Tr).
TurkStat, 2012a. Crop production statistics. Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr
TurkStat, 2012b. Number of agricultural equipment and machinery. Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr
TurkStat, 2012c. General agricultural census agricultural holdings (household) survey results. Turkish Statistical Institute. Available at: http://www.turkstat.gov.tr
USDA, 1995. The Classification of Cotton. Agricultural Handbook 566. United States Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Marketing Service. USA. 23 pp.
Valco, T. D, 2007. Fiber quality aspects of cotton ginning in Eastern region. Cotton Resource CD Available at: http://lubbock.tamu.edu/cottoncd/east/docs/harvest.html
Yilmaz, I., H. Akcaoz, and B. Ozkan, 2005. An analysis of energy use and input costs for cotton production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 30: 145–155.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
