Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Abstract

The most important limiting factors in reduction of mechanization degree of cotton harvesting are access to suitable harvester for a specific planting pattern and lack of suitable varieties. In order to evaluate the performance of cotton picking combines in conventional planting patterns, three cotton picking combines (self-power three-row cotton picker that was designed and built in Khorasan Razavi Agricultural Research Center, self-propelled two-row cotton picker and tractor-mounted two-row cotton picker) were studied. In this context , the effects of type of cotton picker (three levels),  forward speed (2.1, 3.4 and 4.8 km/h) and cotton variety ( Khordad and Varamin) were investigated and the effect on parameters such as weight percentage of  cotton losses at first and second picking stages, weight percentage of cotton waste, efficiency, effective field capacity and fuel consumption were recorded. The results showed that self-propelled three-row cotton picker had the highest effective field capacity (0.48 ha/hr.) and the lowest efficiency percent (64.9%) as compared to the other cotton pickers. The highest efficiency (74.68%) belonged to self-propelled two-row cotton picker. The lowest weight percentage of cotton losses (7.87%) was obtained at 1.2 km/hr. forward speed. The economic analysis and comparison of cotton pickers showed that the self-propelled three-row cotton picker, due to lower initial cost as compared to others cotton pickers, had the lowest period of initial cast return (3.29 years).

Keywords

Adebija, J. A. and Jackson, B. A. 2013. Performance evaluation of a manually operated cotton picker. Afr. J. Agr. Res. 8(29): 3883-3887.
 
Anon. 2013. Agricultural statistical bulletin. Ministry of Jihad-Agriculture. (in Persian) 
 
Baniani, A., Sqalmani, A., Hakimi, M. and Alaeei, M. 2006. Principles of cotton cultivation. Ministry of Jihad-Agriculture. General Office of Cotton and Oil Seed. (in Persian)
 
Chaudhry, R. 1997. Harvesting and ginning of cotton in the world. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conferences, National Cotton Council. Memphis, Tennessee.
 
Faircloth, J. C., Hutchinson, R., Barnett, J., Paxson, K., A., Coco and Price, P. 2004. An evaluation of alternative Cotton harvesting methods in northest Louisiana: A comparison of the brush stripper and spindle harvester. J. Cotton Sci. 8(2): 55-61.
 
Faulkner, W. B., Wanjura, J. D., Hequet, E. F. and Boman, R. 2011. Harvest systems on irrigated cotton: Fiber quality. Appl. Eng. Agric. 27(4): 507-513
 
Erdal, O., Behic, T., Unal-Evcim, H. and Degirmencioglu, A. 2011. Effect of variety and row spacing on the performance of a cotton picker. J. Food. Agric. Environ. 9(1): 236-242.
 
Kevin, D. and Hughs, S. E. 2006. Spindle speed effects on cotton quality. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Meeting Presentation. Paper Number: 061079.
 
Noroozieh, Sh., Mobli, H., Ghannadha, M. and Oghabi, H. 2002. Effect of speed and height of the nose on the amount and quality of lint cotton picked by picker combine for Varamin variety. J. Agric. Knowl. 13(1): 63-69. (in Persian)   
 
Prasad, J., Kapur, T., Sandhar, N., Majumdar, S., Patil, P., Shukla, S. K., Jaiswal, B. N. and Patil, A. B. 2007. Performance evaluation of spindle type cotton picker. J. Agric Eng. 44(1): 38-42.
 
Williford, J. R., Brashears, A. D.  and Barker, G. L. 1994. Harvesting in Cotton Ginners Handbook. USDA Agriculural Research Service. Washington, DC.
 
Yates, J., Boman, R., Kelly, M. and Brashears, A. 2007. Comparison of costs and returns for alternative cotton harvest methods in the Texas high plains. Proceedings of the Beltwide Cotton Conference. National Cotton Council. Memphis, Tennessee.