Abstract is available at

http://beleanavoidcancer.wordpress.com/portfolio/ under article

abstract

Janani Thapa

Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics

Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas

1

(000) bales

Global demand --

ring spinning

applications

Market prefers

highly uniform

fibers with less

neps

Figure 1: Average production and export of cotton

Source: www.nass.usda.gov 2

• Texas is the largest producer of cotton in US. • Traditional use of West Texas cotton is rotor spinning.

• Due to introduction of long staple varieties.

Figure 2: US cotton belt

Figure 3: Yield lbs/planted acre in Texas

Source: www.nass.usda.gov

Figure 4: Yield share by states

US cotton belt

3

New varieties improved returns to West Texas

cotton farmers by $ 1 million a year

Dr. Carl Anderson

……….But are West Texas cotton farmers receiving

potential returns with using traditional

stripper harvesting methods4

Using varieties with strong genetic potential

Irrigated production Harvesting costs evaluated Ginned with appropriate sequence to maintain fiber quality

5

Will shifting to picker harvest be financially rewarding for farmers:

Determine quality differences Determine cost and yield differences

Determine if improved markets served is possible

6

Yield and quality data of fibers

from actual field (irrigated, variety

Fiber Max) for three cotton marketing

years - 2009, 2010 and 2011 under

picker harvest-picker ginning and

stripper harvest-stripper ginning

sequence.7

8

Year Cost ($/acre)

2009 271

2010 1632011 216Average 217

Picker

Higher cost from stripper

Stripper Year Cost

($/acre)

2009 336

2010 210

2011 248Average 265

Year Cost ($/acre)

2009 65

2010 47

2011 32

Average 48

9

Picker

Higher seed cotton yield from stripper

Stripper

YearYield

(lbs/acre)

2009 4898

2010 2938

2011 3908

Average 3915

YearYield

(lbs/acre)2009 62512010 39092011 4621Average 4927

YearYield

(lbs/acre)

2009 1353

2010 971

2011 713

Average 1012

10

Picker

Higher lint yield from stripper

Stripper

YearYield

(lbs/acre)2009 17342010 10402011 1383Average 1386

YearYield

(lbs/acre)2009 18572010 11612011 1371Average 1463

YearYield

(lbs/acre)

2009 123

2010 121

2011 -11

Average 78

11

Picker

Higher revenue from stripper

Stripper

YearRevenue ($/acre)

2009 1718

2010 1041

2011 1396

Average 1385

YearRevenue ($/acre)

2009 1833

2010 1132

2011 1382

Average 1449

YearRevenue ($/acre)

2009 114

2010 91

2011 -14

Average 64

12

Picker

Little difference in overall profit

Stripper

YearProfit($/acre)

2009 14472010 8782011 1179Average 1168

YearProfit($/acre)

2009 14972010 9222011 1133Average 1184

YearProfit($/acre)

2009 49

2010 44

2011 -46

Average 16

13

SJVSouth Texas

E/M 1

E/M 2

Traditional

Higher return Higher quality specification

Market Segments Spinning Quality Strength (GPT) Quality Rewards Color-Leaf-LengthSan Joaquin Valley Ring 21-2-36 31 1180-1600 South Texas Ring 31-3-36 29 270-540

East/Memphis 1 Ring 31-3-36 28 170-450

South

East/Memphis 2 Rotor 41-3-34 28 0-80

South West Rotor 41-4-33 25 -(80-290)14

Year Picker Stripper 2009 E/M2 Traditional 2010 E/M2 Traditional 2011 South Texas E/M1

Hence, picker harvested cotton fibers can at least meet the quality standards of market segment E/M 2 (average premium 40).

15

Little difference in returns from picker and

stripper harvesting methods in traditional

markets

Picker harvested West Texas cotton meets

higher segment market quality including short

fiber content, neps

A focused effort to produce irrigated, picker

harvested cotton appears to be promising

16

You should select your venue before hand

Do enough literature search Make sure you have your concept clear

Make sure your data set is appropriate

17