Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32586
Investigation of Boll Properties on Cotton Picker Machine Performance

Authors: Shahram Nowrouzieh, Abbas Rezaei Asl, Mohamad Ali Jafari


Cotton, as a strategic crop, plays an important role in providing human food and clothing need, because of its oil, protein, and fiber. Iran has been one of the largest cotton producers in the world in the past, but unfortunately, for economic reasons, its production is reduced now. One of the ways to reduce the cost of cotton production is to expand the mechanization of cotton harvesting. Iranian farmers do not accept the function of cotton harvesters. One reason for this lack of acceptance of cotton harvesting machines is the number of field losses on these machines. So, the majority of cotton fields are harvested by hand. Although the correct setting of the harvesting machine is very important in the cotton losses, the morphological properties of the cotton plant also affect the performance of cotton harvesters. In this study, the effect of some cotton morphological properties such as the height of the cotton plant, number, and length of sympodial and monopodial branches, boll dimensions, boll weight, number of carpels and bracts angle were evaluated on the performance of cotton picker. In this research, the efficiency of John Deere 9920 spindle Cotton picker is investigated on five different Iranian cotton cultivars. The results indicate that there was a significant difference between the five cultivars in terms of machine harvest efficiency. Golestan cultivar showed the best cotton harvester performance with an average of 87.6% of total harvestable seed cotton and Khorshid cultivar had the least cotton harvester performance. The principal component analysis showed that, at 50.76% probability, the cotton picker efficiency is affected by the bracts angle positively and by boll dimensions, the number of carpels and the height of cotton plants negatively. The seed cotton remains (in the plant and on the ground) after harvester in PCA scatter plot were in the same zone with boll dimensions and several carpels.

Keywords: Cotton, bract, harvester, carpel.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 587


[1] J.F. Wendel, C.L. Brubaker, J.P. Alvarez, R.C. Cronn, J.M. Stewart. "Evolution and natural history of the cotton genus". 2009. Paterson, editor, Genetics and genomics of cotton. Springer, New York. p. 3–22.
[2] N. Asiabani, M. Hosseinzadeh, A. Dourandish, O. Karami. "A Study in trend of Cotton lint production and trade and the global market Structure of Cotton lint". 2012. First International Conference on Science, Industry and Trade Cotton Gorgan, Iran.
[3] Anonymous, "Cotton production Report in Golestan province". 2019. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture. Jihad- Agriculture Org. of Golesatn province. Iran.
[4] M. Barzegar, H. Salimikochi, "Introduction and Comparison of cotton picker and cotton stripper and select the most appropriate cotton harvesting machine" The First National Conference on New Technologies for Harvesting and Post-Harvest Agricultural Products. 2011. Mashahad, Iran.
[5] S. Nowrouzieh, H. Mobli, M. Ghanadha, H. Oghabi."An investigation of the effect of forward speed and cutting height on quantity and quality of harvested lint by cotton picker in varamin cultivar" journal of agricultural science (university of tabriz). 2003. No.1; Vol.13. 63-71.
[6] A.S. Deshmukh, A. Mohanty."Cotton Mechanisation in India and Across Globe" a Review. International Journal of Advance Research in Engineering Science & Technology.2016. 3, 2393–9877.
[7] R. E. Colwick. Technical Committee Members. 1965. Cotton mechanization project. Mechanized harvesting of cotton. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin (No. 100, March). Mississippi State: Southern Association of Agricultural Experiment Station Directors (SAAESD), Mississippi State University.
[8] H. B. Brown, J. O. Ware. "Cotton (3rd ed.)". 1958. New York: McGraw Hill.
[9] E. B. Jr. Hudspeth, "Status of once-over harvest machinery development". Summary Proceedings Western Cotton Production Conference, 1977, 58-59.
[10] R. M. Sutton, "The importance of multi-stage lint cleaning in the cotton ginning industry". Company Handout. 1984. Lubbock, TX: Horn & Gladden Lint Cleaner Co.
[11] O. E. Tekin, A.B. Evcim, H.U. Degirmencioglu." Effect of variety and rowspacing on the performance of a cotton picker". J. Food Agric. Environ. 2011. 9 (1), 236–242.
[12] O. Erdal, "Performance evaluation of a tractor mounted mechanical cotton picker". Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 2014. 20: 487-496.
[13] K.D. Baker, E. Hughs, J. Foulk. "Cotton quality as affected by changes in spindle speed" Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 2010. 26, 363–369.
[14] D. Kevin, S. Baker, S. E. Hughs, "Spindle Speed Effects on Cotton Quality" American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. 2006. 61–79. doi:10.13031/2013.20602
[15] Y.G. Limbasiya, "Mechanism design of cotton picking gripper". 2015. 2, 1–8.
[16] M. B. Cofikun. “Determination of Relationships between Various Aerodynamics, Physio-Mechanical and Fiber Properties in Cotton". Turk J Agric For. 2002. 26. 363-368.
[17] A. Rene, "Optimising spindle harvester operation". Spotlight in cotton. 2019. 18-19.
[18] D. Comis, "Cotton ginner’s handbook revised" Agricultural research. 1994. 22 ST - Cotton ginner’s handbook revised.
[19] F. Ayala, J.C. Silvertooth. "Physiology of cotton defoliation".2001.
[20] A. Showler, P. Funk, and C. Armijo. "Effect of thermal defoliation on cotton leaf desiccation, senescence, post-harvest regrowth, and lint quality". J. Cotton Sci. 2006. 10(1): 39-45.