2000

EVALUATION OF 38 INCH SKIP ROW VERSES

CONVENTIONAL 38 INCH ROW COTTON

Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator

Joe D. Janak, C.E.A.

Sam Womble, C.E.A.
Victoria, Texas Victoria County Pct.#3



SUMMARY:

Machine harvest of 38 inch skip row compared to 38 inch row cotton in 1999 and 2000 showed mixed results in yield advantages, but potentially savings of $6.61 - $20.05 per acre due to reduced fertilizer, seed, technology fee and banded chemical savings. Hand harvests in 2000 showed numeric yield increases but they were not significant.



PROBLEM:

An accidental planter malfunction in 1999 caused a skip row effect in conventional 38 inch row planted cotton. This happening allowed the producer to harvest the two separately resulting in 49 lbs/ac loss of yield for the skip row cotton. Normally written off as a losing proposition, after figuring potential savings of seed, fertilizer and chemicals for the skipped row, there was an additional profit of $6.61/acre. Traditional practices haven't supported this type of data.



OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate if 38 inch skip row cotton is more economical than conventional 38 inch row cotton.



MATERIALS/METHODS:

Delta Pine 422 BR was planted on March 26, 2000 with 24 acres planted in a skip row layout and 136 acres planted in the conventional 38 inch row layout. The skip row layout is one row skipped and two planted repeated throughout the field. The planting rate was 34,848 seeds/acre for the 38 inch skip row and 52,273 seeds/acre for the 38 inch row.



Fertilizer consisted of 472 lbs/ac of 18-9-3-2Zn knifed in the planting bed on November 20, 1999 to all rows except the skip rows. The total 160 acre field was treated as a unit when broadcast applications were made but several treatments such as fertilizer, seed and chemicals were not applied to the skip row when band applications were made.

Harvest was accomplished three different ways on August 14-16, 2000. First, by hand harvesting five one-thousandth of an acre plots for each, skip row (9'2") and 38 inch row (13'9") cotton. A second harvest was accomplished by harvesting 9 rows (6 rows planted, 3 skipped) of skip row cotton and 8 rows of 38 inch row cotton and adjusting accordingly to get per acre results. A third comparison of results was obtained using all the harvest yield and data from the 24 acres of 38 inch skip row and 136 acres of 38 inch row cotton.

Hand harvest samples were collected and sent to the Corpus Christi Research Center for ginning on a 10-saw Eagle Laboratory gin. Lint samples were then sen to the International Center for Textile Research and Development Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas for fiber analysis. Machine harvest data was collected and analyzed by the Delta Pine Seed Company. Total field data comes form the ginner's reports.



RESULTS/DISCUSSIONS:

The cotton grew well during the early season with ample moisture but was dry after June in the late season. After a spring season with ample moisture, it was noted that the skip row cotton did not shed as many fruit after the June 5 - 11, 2000 rains (See Table 1). There was a 56 percent retention of bolls in the skip row plot compared to a 40 percent retention rate in the 38 inch row plot.

Table 1. Cotton early growth results affected by skip row compared to conventional 38 inch row cotton, Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 2000.
# Days after 1st Square a 38" Row Skip Row
# Squares/Ac # Bolls/Ac # Squares/Ac # Bolls/Ac
5 41 28 37 30
11 193 151 183 138
18 481 193 376 211
% Retention 40 % 56 %

a First square was on May 1, 2000



Hand harvest results showed differences in many factors evaluated (See Table 2), but only two were significantly different (See Tables 3 and 4). Although there was a trend for micronaire to be lower and the yield to be higher in the hand harvested skip row plots, and they were both approaching significant level, they were not. Significant levels were only reported in the plants/acre (understandably one-third less plants) and the number of green immature bolls after harvest.

Table 2. Cotton plant results and yields on hand harvested skip row compared to conventional 38 inch row cotton, Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 2000.
Treatment #/1000th Acre Mic Staple Uni-formity Strength Elong. % Turn- out Yield Lbs/Ac
Plants Bolls Green Bolls Total Bolls
SKIP ROW 34 335 13 348 3.94 1.05 82.8 28.5 7.4 34.06 1035
38 " ROW 48 329 31 360 4.16 1.05 82.9 28.5 7.4 35.82 937



Table 3. Cotton production characteristics from 38-inch compared with 38-inch skip row spacing (2 in and 1 out), Victoria County, 2000.



Treatment		 1000's/acre Yield lb/lint/acre
Plants Green bolls Harvested bolls
Skip row 34.0 b 13.0 b 335 a 1035 a
38" row 48.0 a 31.0 a 329 a 937 a
LSD (P = 0.05) 8.66 15.82 NS NS
P > F .0104 .0309 .2635 .0868


Table 4. Cotton fiber characteristics from 38-inch compared with 38-inch skip row spacing (2 in and 1 out), Victoria County, 2000.
Treatment Mic Length Uniformity Strength Elong.
Skip row 3.9 a 1.05 a 82.8 a 28.5 a 7.4 a
38" row 4.2 a 1.05 a 82.9 a 28.5 a 7.4 a
LSD (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS NS
P > F .0514 .9128 .7398 .9336 1.000



Machine harvest plot data showed similar results with a 26 lb/ac yield increase for the skip row treatment (See Table 5). The color grade was somewhat affected in the skip row plot as was strength resulting in a lower loan premium. The skip row cotton did show an increase in lint value of $12.48 per acre.

Table 5. Cotton yields, quality data and value of machine picked skip row compared to conventional 38 inch row cotton, Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 2000.
Treatment Seed Cotton Lbs/Ac % Turn- out Lint Yield Lbs/Ac Color Grade/Leaf Grade Mic Staple Uni-formity Strength Loan Pre-mium Net Loan Price (.5170 base) Lint Value $/Ac
SKIP ROW 2562 32.7 838 31-3 4.0 34 82 26.5 1.60 53.30 446.50
38 " ROW 2381 34.1 812 21-3 4.0 34 82 27.6 1.75 53.45 434.02



There appeared to be more cotton left on the ground after machine harvest, so hand collection of cotton on the ground and left on the plant took place. Non-replicated collections on two-thousandths of an acre plots were made with results listed in Table 6. There was basically no difference in cotton left on the ground but there was more than twice the cotton left on the plant in the 38 inch row cotton than on the skip cotton. This could be due to non-replicated data or other unknown factors.

Table 6. Cotton left on the ground or left on the plant after machine picking on skip row compared to conventional 38 inch row cotton, Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 2000.
Evaluation Treatment Lint Yield Lbs/Ac
Cotton left on ground after machine picking Skip Row 85
38 " Row 90
Cotton left on plant after machine picking Skip Row 32
38 " Row 69



In a final comparison of the entire 160 acre field, 24 acres skip row and 136 acres 38 inch row cotton, field data from the ginner's reports were analyzed (See Table 7). The skip row cotton, although yielding 74 lbs/ac less than the 38 inch row cotton, was worth $3.13 per pound more due to quality. Savings from reduction in picking, ginning, fertilizer, seed, technology fees and chemicals banded offset reduced income from yield and LDP losses for a net change in return of $20.05 per acre, favoring skip row cotton.

Table 7. Changes in average per acre returns and costs between 24 acres of skip row cotton compared to 136 acres conventional 38 inch row cotton, both machine picked. Dr. Tom Moscatelli, Cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 2000.
Treatment/Result Conventional 38 " Row Skip Row Change in Return $/Ac
Value Value
Yield ($51.70/cwt. base loan) a 762 @ $49.66 $378.41 688 @ $52.79 $363.20 $-15.21
Machine Picking @ $0.09/lb 762 68.58 688 61.92 6.66
Ginning @ $0.0443/lb 762 33.76 688 30.48 3.26
LDP @ $0.046/lb 762 35.05 688 31.65 -3.40
Fertilizer b 1/3 less 10.10 10.10
Seed b 1/3 less 4.18 4.18
Technology fee b 1/3 less 9.10 9.10
Chemical (banded) b 1/3 less 5.36 5.36
Net change in $/acre returns for Skip Row vs. 38 " Row cotton $20.05

a Reduction in average gross returns per acre for cotton lint.

Average cotton fiber length of skip row (33 bales): 34.12

Average cotton fiber length of 38 " row (210 bales): 33.20

b Reduction in costs per treated acre



In comparison with 1999, the 38 inch row skip cotton also produced less lint per acre (See Table 8), but the producer states that he experienced a $6.61 added return on the skip row cotton due to a $29.64 savings on fertilizer, seed technology fees and chemicals.

Table 8. Yield of 38 inch skip row compared with conventional 38 inch row cotton. Dr. Tom Moscatelli, cooperator, Victoria County, Texas, 1999.



Treatment		 1999 YIELD IN POUNDS PER ACRE
1st Picking 2nd Picking Total
38 " Row 933 122 1055
Skip Row 875 131 1006
Difference 58 -9 49


ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND IMPACT:

There was an economic advantage of 38 inch skip row verses 38 inch row cotton with a net change in return of $20.05 per acre favoring the 38 inch skip row cotton.



CONCLUSION:

Although there was a positive net change favoring the 38 inch skip row cotton over the 38 inch row cotton in the years 1999 and 2000, further evaluations need to be made to see if these results are consistent year after year.

A discrepancy arises with the hand harvested and machine harvested plots as compared to the 160 acre field results. Although the first two appear similar with increased yields for the 38 inch skip row plots, the field results show otherwise. This could be due to the vast field size and variation within the field.



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Tom Moscatelli, cooperator and to Teresa Moorman, cotton scout who collected data to support the demonstration. Also to the District 11 Extension Specialists Dr. Roy Parker for statistical analysis, Dr. Larry Falconer for economical analysis and Rudy Alaniz and others who assisted in hand picking and ginned and processed the samples to get the quality data.