se1-hequet

Brasilia, 3-6 Setembro 2013

Sala Especializada 1:Incidência da colheita e do beneficiamento na preservação 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 1Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute – Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas ([email protected])

2AgriLife Research, Lubbock, Texas

3Oklahoma State University, Altus, Oklahoma

4USDA-ARS, Lubbock, Texas

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.

Table 1. Location codes

Year Producer Code

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

B M V V M H VJD VC

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

mailto:[email protected]


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).

Figure 1. HVI micronaire

Figure 2. HVI Upper Half Mean Length

Figure 3. HVI Uniformity Index

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

HV

I M

icro

na

ire

Picker StripperHarv. ***

Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

1.15

1.17

1.19

1.21

1.23

1.25

1.27

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

HV

I U

HM

L,

inch

Picker StripperHarv. **

Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. NS

80

81

82

83

84

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

HV

I U

I, %


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. NS


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).

Figure 4. HVI Reflectance

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).

Figure 6. AFIS Nep count

7778798081828384

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

HV

I R

efle

cta

nce

, %

Picker StripperHarv. **

Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. **

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

HV

I +

b


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. *

250

350

450

550

650

750

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Nep

s, c

ou

nt/

g


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***


Figure 7. AFIS Mean Length by number

Figure 8. AFIS Visible Foreign Matter Content

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

Figure 9. AFIS Fineness

0.68

0.73

0.78

0.83

0.88

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

L(n

), i

nch


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

VF

M,

%


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

140

145

150

155

160

165

170

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Fin

enes

s, m

tex


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. *


Figure 10. AFIS Immature Fiber Content

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

7

8

9

10

11

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

IFC

, %


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. **

0.79

0.81

0.83

0.85

0.87

0.89

0.91

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Ma

turi

ty r

ati

o


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. NS


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.

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

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

4

5

6

7

8

9

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

To

tal

wa

ste,

%


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

CV

m,

%

Picker Stripper Uster 50%Harv. ***

Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***


Figure 14. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Thin places

Figure 15. RS yarn 30Ne carded: Thick places

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

510152025303540

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Th

in p

lace

s, c

ou

nt/

km


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. **

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Th

ick

pla

ces,

co

un

t/k

m


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Nep

s 2

00

%,

cou

nt/

km


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***


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.

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

09B

09M

09V

10V

11M

11H

11V

JD

11V

C

Location

Ha

irin

ess


Loc. ***

Harv. * Loc. ***

se1-hequet

Documents