Analyzing the Current Returns and Potential Market by Harvesting Method for West Texas Cotton

1. Analyzing the Current Returns and Potential Market by Harvesting Method for West Texas Cotton Janani R. Thapa, Conrad P. Lyford, Eric Hequet, Jeff JohnsonDepartment of Agriculture And Applied EconomicsCollege of Agriculture Science and Natural Resources International Cotton Research Center Abstract Product Flow from Field to Market by Harvest Method Objectives 1. Determine quality differences between by harvesting method. 2. Compare profits based on the CCC loan rate and AMS prices. 3. Determine if improved markets served is possible. Cotton field ready to harvest Stripper Harvest System Picker Harvest System Choice of harvest method in cotton production surprisingly has many economic consequences by altering economic returns and quality of final product. In particular, picker harvest and ginning practices Picker Stripper may be useful to preserve and enhance the fiber quality of long staple varieties used in West Texas. This article looks at differences in cost and price premium for sample drawn from cotton bales produced at commercial quantities that were ginned based on harvest method, and evaluated in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Results suggest cotton farmers may want to reconsider typical stripper harvesting and ginning practices for irrigated cotton because there seems to be potential for reaching higher market segments. Comparatively, picker harvesting Methods • Cotton is a natural fiber with substantial quality variability • P= f (Micronaire, Length, Length Uniformity, Strength, Leaf, Color grade) • where, P is the base price adjusting for quality premium (or discount). • Using varieties with strong genetic potential • Irrigated production • Harvesting costs evaluated • Ginned with appropriate sequence to maintain fiber quality • Seed cotton yield with • Less Trash • More fiber per unit volume to be transported to the gin • Seed cotton yield with • More Trash • Less fiber per unit volume to be transported to the gin The two systems differ in: Harvest Cost Volume Ginning sequence with two stick machine and two lint cleaner Ginning sequence with one stick machine and one lint cleaner Ginning Cost • Lint yield with • Lower Micronaire • Higher short fiber content • Lint yield with • Higher Micronaire • Lower short fiber content Quality Premium Yield lbs/planted acre in Texas Market Pricing is costly but provides the quality of yield in demand by higher end market segments, especially in demand for ring spinning purposes. Producer Potential Market Segment Is the quality difference recognized by current market ? Yield share by states Market Higher quality specification Higher return Quality Difference by Harvest Method Introduction • Global demand - fibers for ring spinning applications. • Texas - largest producer of cotton in US but is producing for rotor spinning. • Some cotton producers in Neps per Gram Short Fiber Content by No.(%X10) • Short fiber content by number was low overall for picker harvest system. • Trash content was significantly lower for picker harvesting and ginning method for all three years. • Nep size and Nep count were significantly lower for the picker harvest system for all three years. Trash Content (Cnt/g) Yield and Profit by Harvest Method Seed Cotton Yield (lbs/acre) • West Texas have begun to use picker harvesters1. • But, a key question is if doing this will be more profitable. • Currently available economic analysis 2,3 does not take into consideration the changes in ginning cost associated with harvest method. • On average, the picker system yielded 63.94 lbs/acre lint and 910.69 lbs/acre seed cotton less than the stripper harvest system. • The profit is not much different in the current market. • Potential market analysis is important as the current market premium is certainly not rewarding the quality differential of picker harvested cotton. Hence, picker harvested cotton fibers can at least meet the quality standards of market segment East/Memphis 2 (average premium 40). Lint Yield (lbs/acre) Current Profit ($/acre) • “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 traditional stripper harvesting methods ? Rationale Conclusion References • Wanjura J. D., W. B. Faulkner, G. A. Holt, M.G. Pelletier, 2011. Influence of Seed Cotton Extractor Cleaners and Cleaning Rate on Gin Turnout and Fiber Quality, American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, 2011 Louisville, Kentucky, August 7-10, 2011, 1111287. • 2. Faulkner, W.B., Wanjura, J.D., Shaw, B.W., Hequet, E.F. 2009. Effect of harvesting methods on fiber and yarn quality from irrigated cotton on the High Plains. Proceedings of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers International (ASABE)Meeting. June 29-July 2, 2008, Providence, RI. Paper No. 083283. • 3. Bowmen, R., and Kelly, M. 2010. “Picker Vs Stripper Harvest or Comparisons.” System Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in the Texas High Plains, 2010 Final Report: 20-40. • Little difference in return by harvest system in traditional markets. • Picker harvested West Texas cotton quality meets higher segment. • Increased market needs to be met with sufficient volume . • Production of irrigated, picker harvested cotton appears promising.