No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Minimizing Farm-to-Mill Cotton Cleaning Cost
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Abstract
This study focuses on least-cost farm-to-mill cotton cleaning configurations employing survey, regression, and simulation techniques. The resulting least-cost cotton cleaning configurations, employing standard textile technology, included the use of one lint cleaning in the ginning stage. The use of a field cleaner in the harvesting stage was also found to be optimal with some variation based on the desired yarn quality. Results of the study indicated that the optimal cleaning configurations were distinctly different from currently used practices, such that appropriate changes could save the cotton industry between $0.30 and $0.60 per bale of cotton, depending on the desired yarn quality.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1998
References
Anthony, W.S. “Evaluation of an Optimization Model of Cotton Ginning Systems.” Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. 28(1985):411-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R.V. “Ginning Recommendations for Processing Machine-Stripper Cotton.” In Cotton Ginners Handbook, eds., Anthony, W.S. and Mayfield, W.D., pp. 242-43. Agr. Handbook No. 503, USDA/Agricultural Research Service, Cotton Division, Washington DC, 1994.Google Scholar
Barker, G.L., Baker, R.V., and Laird, J.W.. “GIN-QUAL: A Cotton Processing Quality Model.” Agr. Systems
35(1990):1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, B.K. “Efficient Cotton Cleaning in a System Framework.” Unpublished M.S. thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, 1995.Google Scholar
Chen, C. “U.S. Textile Mill Manufacturers' Valuation of Cotton Quality Attributes.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, August 1995.Google Scholar
Childers, R. Extension ginning engineer, Texas Agr. Ext. Ser., Texas A&M University System, College Station. Personal communication, 27 March 1995.Google Scholar
Ethridge, D.E., Barker, G.L., and Bergan, D.L.. “Maximizing Net Returns to Gin Lint Cleaning of Stripper-Harvested Cotton.” Appl. Engineering in Agr. 7(1995):7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gannaway, J.R., Owen, D.F., Moore, J., Supak, J.R., Stickler, C., Dever, J.K., Murphy, M., and Schoenhals, L.. “Cotton Performance Tests in the Texas High Plains and Trans-Pecos Areas of Texas, 1992.” Tech. Rep. No. 93-1, Texas A&M University Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Lubbock and Halfway, 1993.Google Scholar
Gillis, M., Fuller, S., Childers, R., Parnell, C. Jr., and Yarlagadda, S.. “Cotton Gin Plant Compliance with Air Pollution Regulations in Texas: Effect on Plant Costs and Returns.” In Proceedings of the 1995 Beltwide Cotton Economics and Marketing Conference, pp. 399–406. Memphis TN: National Cotton Council, 1995.Google Scholar
Hudson, D., Ethridge, D., and Brown, J.. “Producer Prices in Cotton Markets: An Evaluation of Reported Price Information Accuracy.” Agribus.: An Internal. J. 12(1996):353-62.3.0.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. Assistant Director, International Textile Center, Lubbock TX. Personal interview, May 1995.Google Scholar
Trutzschler GMBH & Co. Textile machinery manufacturing company, Monchengladbach, Germany. Telephone interview, 23 March 1995.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Classification of Cotton. Agr. Handbook No. 688, USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service, Cotton Division, Washington DC, April 1993.Google Scholar