Sala Especializada 1:Incidncia da colheita e do beneficiamento na preservao da qualidade da

fibra
EFFECT OF HARVESTING METHODS ON FIBER AND YARN QUALITY
Eric F. Hequet 1,2; Randal K. Boman 3; John Wanjura 4
1

Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas (eric.hequet@ttu.edu)
AgriLife Research, Lubbock, Texas
3
Oklahoma State University, Altus, Oklahoma
4
USDA-ARS, Lubbock, Texas
2

Large-scale tests undertaken by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service in Lubbock were the
basis for our investigations. The tests were conducted at eight locations in the Southern High Plains
over a three-year period. Each test consisted of 4 large plots. Each large plot was divided into two
blocks. Each block corresponded to one module. Half of the blocks were harvested with a brush-roll
stripper with field cleaner and half with a spindle picker. The stripped cotton was commercially
ginned with the usual industrial sequence for stripper harvested cotton. The commercial gins used
a less aggressive ginning sequence for the picker harvested cotton (bypassing some seedcotton
cleaners and one lint cleaner). A total of 64 modules were generated across all sites and years.
From each module, one bale was purchased. Then, the lint was processed through our short staple
ring spinning facility according to the protocol delineated in Faulkner et al. (2011). Prior to
processing, the lint was tested on both High Volume Instrument (HVI - 4 micronaire readings 4
colors 10 length/strength) and Advanced Fiber Information System (AFIS - 5 replications of 3,000
fibers). The yarns produced (RS 30Ne carded with a knitting twist) was tested on the Scott Tester
(10 bobbins tested), the UT3 (400 meters per bobbin and 10 bobbins), and the UTR3 (10 breaks per
bobbin and 10 bobbins).
The location codes are shown Table 1.

Year
2008-09

2009-10
2010-11

Table 1. Location codes

Producer
B
M
V
V
M
H
VJD
VC

Code
09B
09M
09V
10V
11M
11H*
11VJD
11VC

*2 lint cleaners were used for all modules

1-Fiber results
Figures 1 shows a significant improvement in micronaire for picker harvested cottons when
the micronaire is relatively low, while for higher micronaires the differences between harvesting
methods tend to be negligible. For HVI Upper Half Mean Length (UHML), picker harvested cottons
show improved length compared to stripper harvested cottons (Figure 2). Nevertheless, the
improvement in length is quite small (about one hundredth of an inch on average). This slight

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

3.0

09
B

HVI Micronaire

length improvement goes together with a better length uniformity index (Figure 3) revealing a
better fiber length distribution for picker harvested cottons (+0.5% UI). HVI tensile properties
(strength and elongation) are about the same for picker and stripper harvested cottons (data not
shown).

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

1.27
1.25
1.23
1.21
1.19
1.17
1.15

09
B

HVI UHML, inch

Figure 1. HVI micronaire

Location
Harv.
**
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. NS

Picker

Stripper

Figure 2. HVI Upper Half Mean Length

HVI UI, %

84
83
82
81

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. NS

Picker

Stripper

Figure 3. HVI Uniformity Index

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

09
B

80

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
M

09
V

84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77

09
B

HVI Reflectance, %

Cotton lint color (Figures 4 and 5) also tends to be better for picker harvested cottons with
higher reflectance and lower yellowness (+0.6 and -0.3 respectively).

Location
Harv.
**
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. **

Picker

Stripper

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5

09
B

HVI +b

Figure 4. HVI Reflectance

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. *

Picker

Stripper

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Figure 6. AFIS Nep count

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

750
650
550
450
350
250

09
B

Neps, count/g

Figure 5. HVI Yellowness

For HVI fiber properties, picker harvested cottons tend to have slightly better fiber quality
than stripper harvested cottons especially for lower micronaire cottons. However, this
improvement is relatively small. The situation is quite different with AFIS fiber properties. The
number of neps for picker harvested cottons is drastically reduced (-130 neps/gram, Figure 6) and
the mean length by number is significantly improved (+0.03 inch, Figure 7) especially for lower
micronaire cottons. As expected, this goes together with a significant decrease in visible foreign
matter content (-0.8%, Figure 8).

L(n), inch

0.88
0.83
0.78
0.73

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
B

09
M

0.68

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Figure 7. AFIS Mean Length by number

VFM, %

4.5
3.5
2.5
1.5

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

09
B

0.5

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Figure 8. AFIS Visible Foreign Matter Content

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. *

Picker

Stripper

Figure 9. AFIS Fineness

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

170
165
160
155
150
145
140

09
B

Fineness, mtex

Finally, AFIS fineness, immature fiber content, and maturity ratio are all improved with
picker harvesting (Figure 9 through 11).

IFC, %

11
10
9
8

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

09
B

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. **

Picker

Stripper

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

0.91
0.89
0.87
0.85
0.83
0.81
0.79

09
B

Maturity ratio

Figure 10. AFIS Immature Fiber Content

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. NS

Picker

Stripper

Figure 11. AFIS Maturity Ratio

These findings could be summarized as follows: Picker harvested cottons have on average
better fiber properties especially for AFIS fiber properties:

Micronaire: +0.17 (+4.3%)*

UHML: +0.01 inch (+0.7%)

UI: +0.5 % (+0.6%)

Reflectance: 0.6 % (+0.8%) and Yellowness: -0.3 (-3.2%)

Neps: -130 count/g (-29.0%)

UQL: +0.01 inch (+1.4%)

L(n): +0.03 inch (+3.3%)

L(n)CV: -2.3 % (-4.3%)

SFC(n): -2.5% (-8.6%)

VFM: -0.8% (-35.9%)

Fineness: +2.9 mtex (+1.9%)

IFC: -0.7 % (-7.3%)

MR: +0.01 (+1.2%)

*100 x (picker Stripper)/Stripper

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

9
8
7
6
5
4

09
B

Total waste, %

2- Carded yarn results

As anticipated, the amount of waste during opening and carding (Figure 12) is lower for
picker harvested cottons. For yarn evenness, carded ring spun yarn quality also shows a clear
advantage for picker harvested cottons (Figures 13 through 17). For yarn tensile properties (data
not shown) there is no advantage for picker harvesting.

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

17.5
17.0
16.5
16.0
15.5
15.0
14.5

09
B

CVm, %

Figure 12. Total waste (opening waste + card waste)

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Uster 50%

Figure 13. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Coefficient of variation (CVm)

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

09
B

Thin places, count/km

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. **

Picker

Stripper

Uster 50%

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

400
350
300
250
200
150
100

09
B

Thick places, count/km

Figure 14. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Thin places

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Uster 50%

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

700
600
500
400
300
200
100

09
B

Neps 200%, count/km

Figure 15. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Thick places

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Uster 50%

Figure 16. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Neps (200%)

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

C
11
V

JD
11
V

11
H

11
M

10
V

09
V

09
M

09
B

Hairiness

6.0
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8

Location
Harv.
***
Loc.
***
Harv. * Loc. ***

Picker

Stripper

Uster 50%

Figure 17. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Hairiness

These findings could be summarized as follows: Picker harvested cottons have on average
better yarn quality:

Opening waste: -0.5% (-15.5%)

Card waste: -0.7% (-16.5%)

CVm: -0.39% (-2.4%)

Thin places: -4 count/km (-18.8%)

Thick places: -49 count/km (-18.4%)

Neps 200%: -99 count/km (-24.4%)

Total yarn imperfections (IPI): -151 count/km (-21.9%)

Hairiness: -0.16 (-2.9%)

In conclusion, for lower micronaire cottons, picker harvesting is clearly beneficial. It results
in better fiber quality; more importantly, it results in better yarn quality for all evenness-related
parameters. However, in 2010-11 micronaire readings ( 4.0) were much higher than in 2008-09
and 2009-10. In these conditions, it appears that picker harvesting benefits only marginally yarn
quality.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge support of this work by the Plains Cotton Improvement Committee,
Cotton Incorporated, the Texas Department of Agriculture, and the International Cotton Research
Center
Literature
Faulkner W.B., J.D. Wanjura, E.F. Hequet, R.K. Boman, B.W. Shaw, and C.B. Parnell. 2011. Evaluation
of Modern Cotton Harvest Systems on Irrigated Cotton: Yarn Quality. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture. 27(4) 523-532.

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013