4.3 Article

GIN SAW THICKNESS IMPACT ON LINT TURNOUT, LINT VALUE, AND SEED DAMAGE

Journal

APPLIED ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 645-650

Publisher

AMER SOC AGRICULTURAL & BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.13031/aea.15171

Keywords

Cotton gin; Cottonseed; Fiber quality; Gin saw; Saw gin

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study quantified the effect of saw thickness on post-harvest processing of U.S. cotton. The results showed that saw thickness had no significant impact on fiber value, lint turnout, and seed quality.
Over 95% of U.S. cotton post-harvest processing is done using saw gins. Gin saws have long been supplied in three thicknesses. We quantified the effect of saw thickness on lint turnout, lint value, and seed damage, variables that determine producer returns. Saw cylinders stacked with 0.9144 and 1.143 mm (0.036 and 0.045 in.) thick saws, the thinnest and thickest available, were operated in laboratory conditions on three cotton growths (cultivars and production practices) from Mississippi, New Mexico, and Texas in an experiment with five replicates. Fiber quality from samples obtained after lint cleaning was measured using High Volume Instruments (HVI). HVI results were combined with Commodity Credit Corporation Marketing Assistance Loan premium and discount tables to calculate fiber value. Seed damage was estimated after germination using Association of Official Seed Analysts rules. A backwards regression approach in JMP reduced each response variable's model until only significant controlled and uncontrolled variables remained. Tested variables included: growth and saw thickness and their interaction; processing rate; processing energy; test duration; foreign matter content; moisture content; and ambient humidity and temperature. There was no significant difference in fiber value due to saw thickness. Seed quality differences were insignificant. Differences in lint turnout due to saw thickness also were statistically insignificant. Saw thickness selection may be based on other considerations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available