Cotton Fitter and Their Force on Loam Fecundity - Research Paper Example

Cotton Pickers and their Effect on Soil Productivity Name Instructor Course Course Number Date Cotton Pickers and their Effect on Soil Productivity One of the most important components in the growth of any plant is the presence of soil. From the ground, the plants can absorb essential elements such as nutrients and water. Any activity that affects the soil negatively also affects the production of crops planted in that ground (Passioura, 2002, p311). The society should, therefore, carefully strategize so as to conserve the soil. One of the community activities that affect the soil is the use of heavy machines such as cotton pickers. These machines are preferred to human workers because not only are they fast but they also reduce production costs (Willcutt, et al., 2009, p462). Since the inception of machine- based cotton pickers having on-board module building, the time required to pick a bale of cotton (weight range: 2-2.5 Mg) decreased from approximately 50 to 70 man-hours (hand-picking) down to eight minutes. Adoption of spindle-type pickers in the United States (U.S.) occurred progressively from the west to the east of the cotton belt, which responded to the absence of an effective and well-established manual labor harvesting system that was originally in place in the southeast. In the western cotton belt, where yields were relatively higher, the potential to grow cotton was limited by availability of labor (Musoke and Olmstead, 1982). Hence, the industry was smaller and less developed compared with the east. However, the introduction of cotton-picking machines in 1948 enabled this limitation to be overcome and resulted in rapid adoption of cotton pickers (approximately 10% and 75% by 1951 and 1959, respectively), which drove the industry forward (Musoke and Olmstead, 1982). Soil compaction refers to the formation of dense layers of well packed soil, often at the bottom of the cultivated layer but also deeper. Soil compaction primarily affects soil properties, such as reducing pore space between the soil particles and increasing soil bulk density and penetration resistance. In compacted soil the infiltration of rainwater decreases and the risk of surface runoff increases, which lead to erosion due to low aggregate stability and reduced pore space. The main problems in compacted soil are poor aeration when wet, and high penetration resistance to root growth when dry. Yield losses of cereals due to soil compaction by heavy vehicles, of 5% from one pass to 90% from several passes, have been reported. However, before adapting the machines, farmers should be aware of the long-run effects of the use of heavy machines in their plantations so that they can make informed decisions. Literature Review Cotton Pickers According to Dhokne et al. (2017, p1907), cotton pickers are machines designed with the intention of making the process of harvesting cotton easy. Traditionally, cotton was picked by use of hands, which is slow and expensive to cotton farmers. The shortcomings of the traditional methods created a need for the creation of a machine that would help farmers overcome these shortcomings. The farmers wanted to increase the profits gained from the plantations. This led to the farmers increasing the land they used to grow cotton and the introduction of machinery such as cotton pickers in the operations of the farms (Fite, 2015, p151). This made work easier for the farmers and the work was done at a faster pace as compared to when they did not use the machines. Cotton Pickers’ Collection Methods The cotton picker can use one of two existing methods of picking cotton. One of these two approaches is stripping. In the stripping system, the cotton picker has rollers that are used to collect the cotton. It strips the plants since it does not pick the cotton bolls alone. Instead, the machine collects all the cotton bolls, leaves, branches and burr (Dhokne et al., 2017, p1907). Certipik (2015) continues to explain that the machine used in stripping is appropriate for plantations that are short. This helps minimise the quantity of leaves and branches in the harvest and thereby decrease time spent separating them from the cotton. The machine collects both the fully-grown cotton and the green cotton (Boman, et al., 2011, p1). It has a mechanism that it uses to separate the fully-grown cotton from the leaves, branches and green cotton thereby ensuring that the cotton blown to the receiving basket is of desirable quality. The second method of cotton picking using a cotton picker is spindling. Unlike the stripping method, in this method, the machine collects just the cotton bolls that are open and thus mature (Dhokne et al., 2017, p1907). They are therefore appropriate in plantations where all cotton plants are mature. They are also suitable for farms with tall stalks since it helps the spindles reach the cotton bolls fast and thereby work quickly. The collected cotton is blown into the receiving basket while the unrequired part of the boll remains behind (Certipik, 2015). The quality of the harvested cotton is, however, lower than the quality of cotton collected by a stripper (Dhokne et al., 2017, p1907). This is because the machine reduces the strength of the collected cotton. In its quest to separate the cotton boll from the stalk breaks the cotton fibre thus weakening its strength. Parts of a Cotton Picker One of the parts of a cotton picking machine is a handler. This section of a cotton picker is in charge of carrying the round module. Without the handler, therefore, the cotton picker would not have the round module. The handler has slots in which the rear of the module builder rests during transportation. This helps prevent the module builder from rolling especially if the roads are rough. The handler can also be adjusted to ensure that the module builder is at an acceptable shipping height during transportation and that it is at a height acceptable in the field during harvesting (Wattonville, 2008, p6). The handler is further responsible for allowing the module builder to be removed from the cotton picker. The removal could be for maintenance purposes or to remove the harvested cotton from the machine. A cotton picking machine also has a part known as the feeder. It is responsible for transferring the cotton ejected from the accumulator to the round module builder. It is made of a rubber belt and a roller. The cotton being transported to the builder is compressed between the roller and the belt. This process helps the cotton be in a uniform thin ribbon upon reaching the builder thereby making it easy for the creation of consistent modules (Wattonville, 2008, p6). The operation of the feeder is deactivated and activated by the sensors in the accumulator (Forest Laws, 2007). They therefore only work when the accumulator is full and requires to transfer the harvested cotton to the module builder. When the accumulator does not have enough cotton to transfer, the feeder does not move thereby reducing its movements considerably and consequently its wear and tear. The machine further has an accumulator. This part is a chamber that is used hold the harvested cotton temporarily during the wrap process. This part is necessary if the machine is to work non-stop (Wattonville, 2008, p5). The chamber has a lid that has a perforated screen. Through the use of the screen, the machine separates the cotton from the trash so that only the right material is accumulated in the final collection. The accumulated cotton is transferred to the round module builder when the chamber is full. The accumulator, therefore, has sensors that are used to monitor the volume of cotton accumulated in the chamber. When the sensors detect that the chamber is full, they stop the process of receiving the cotton and start the process of feeding the round module builder. Round Module Builder is another part of the cotton picking machine. It is in charge of ejecting the harvested modules depending on the directions given to the machine. It ascertains that the ejected cotton is uniform and consistent by wrapping the cotton into modules of the requested sizes. This process helps simplify the packaging process (John Deere, 2017). The builder is capable of ejecting the cotton while still receiving the cotton from the feeder. This ability to multitask serves to ensure that during ejection, the machine does not stop but rather continues to harvest regardless of what is going on in the builder. The size of the cotton that the builder can eject varies depending on the settings set by the operator. However, the maximum diameter is 90 inches while the maximum length is 94 inches (Wattonville, 2008, p6). The cotton picker also has a wrap mechanism. The wrapping mechanism has two parts which are the portioned wrap system and the wrap system. The portioned wrap system is made of LLDPE material to ensure that the cotton is not contaminated during the harvesting process. It is a replacement of the cutting system and aims at preventing the cotton from being cut into small pieces. The wrap system, on the other hand, wraps the portions created by the portioned wrap system. This helps ascertain that the final product is one roll and not in small portions. The big wrap produced by the wrap system has around 22 portions and weighs approximately 100 kilograms. The cotton pickers have space for five rolls of cotton, which can be harvested in about 12 hours. It is therefore sufficient to hold cotton harvested throughout a day in the field (Wattonville, 2008, p6). Effects of the Cotton Picker on Soil One of the most common effects of the use of cotton pickers on the soil is the increase in soil strength. Braunack & Johnston (2014, p35) state that the soil strength increases in the uppermost part of the ground at approximately 0-0.5 meters depth in the ground. The heavier the cotton picker the higher the level of soil strength after a cotton picker passes. The increased soil strength leads to an increased ability to support the heavy cotton pickers. The ground is not compressed as much as it would be compressed if the soil strength were much lower. Therefore, as the cotton pickers continue to be used, the rate at which soil strength increases, decreases. The dependency on cotton pickers affects soil by causing soil compaction. According to Reintam et al. (2009, p265), soil compaction is the process in which dense layers of soil particles are formed. This is mostly at the layer below the cultivated part of the land. When the cotton pickers move on the land of a cotton plantation, it compresses the soil particles together. The weight of the machines used is a major contributor to the soil compactness. They are heavier that human beings are. The rate of soil compaction is, therefore, higher in plantations that use machines to harvest cotton (Bennett, et al., 2015, p231). This affects the yield of cotton that the plantation produces over the years. The intensity of soil compaction increases over the years as plantations continue to use the cotton pickers. Hence, the effect on the yield increases over time. Compactness in soil affects different aspects of the soil. One of the affected features is soil density. The movement of the cotton pickers on a land pushes the soil particles together, which makes the soil occupy a smaller space than it originally did. The volume of the soil of the land therefore decreases. The mass of the soil, however, remains the same, thus the increased density of the soil. The compression of the soil particles further involves the removal of the air spaces in the soil composition (Bennett, et al., 2015, p231). Most of the air in the ground is pushed out of the soil component thereby making it possible for the soil particles to be pressed together and create a smaller volume. Soil compaction further causes an increase in the soil’s penetration resistance (Reintam, et al., 2009, p265). This makes it difficult for water to penetrate the surface of the ground for use by the plants on the farm. When the air in the soil escapes, the pores in the soil are thereby lost, which makes the process of water flowing over the ground much easier than it is for it to seep into the ground (Bennett, et al., 2015, p231). Therefore, when it rains, the amount of water that the land retains is much lower than the amount of water that flows away. This reduces the benefits that the crops enjoy from the rains or from being watered. The plants therefore hardly get enough water to support their growth as compared to when the plantation does not use machines in the cotton harvesting process. Soil compactness also affects the rates of soil erosion on a land (Reintam, et al., 2009, p265). In this case, soil erosion occurs when rainwater carries away the top part of the soil composition on a piece of land. The resistance of the soil in the lands where cotton pickers are used makes it impossible for rainwater to seep through. This leads to the occurrence of surface runoffs whenever it rains. While the land is being tilled, the soil particles in the topmost layer of the soil become loose. The fact that the top layer of the soil is loose makes it easy for the rain water to carry it away. This continues happening consistently thereby affecting the content and fertility of the soil on that particular plantation. Bennett, et al. (2015, p231) explain that in cases where the land is flat, soil erosion does not occur when it rains. Instead waterlogging occurs. The water cannot seep into the ground due to the induced poor drainage property of the soil (Morales-Olmedo, Ortiz & Selles, 2015, p45). The water is also unable to flow away from the land thereby causing flooding on the land. This makes it impossible for planting to be done on the land if it had not already been done. In case the cotton seeds had already been planted, it creates an environment that is not conducive for the growth of most plants, for example, cotton. Waterlogged lands hardly have enough air in the soil as the water replaces it. In cases where the soil has NO3--N components, the water flooding the land react with the components to form nitrogen dioxide (Bennett, et al. 2015, p231). The plants in the soil that are meant to form manure do not do so properly since their nitrate nitrogen components are converted to nitrogen dioxide. Factors that increase Cotton Pickers’ effect on Soil Compactness and how to avoid them According to Bennett, et al. (2015, p232), one of the major contributors to high levels of effects of soil compactness in cotton plantations is the use of random traffic lanes. The random traffic lanes increase the amount of land that the cotton pickers use thereby increasing the volume of land experiencing soil compactness. Tullberg (2010, p29) agree with this claim and further state that the use of random traffic lanes leads to 85% of the land being affected by soil compactness. Bennett, et al. (2015, p232) give a solution to handle this problem and thereby reduce the land affected by soil compactness. The solution is to create specific traffic lanes in the plantation. Throughout all the harvesting seasons, the cotton pickers, therefore, use specific routes in the plantation, which may eventually lead to the formation of permanent roads in the plantation. This helps preserve most of the land and thereby reduce the effects of soil compaction. High levels of soil compactness is further increased by the use of heavy machinery during the wet seasons (McKenzie, 2010, p5). Therefore, cotton plantations that use cotton pickers during the wet seasons record higher rates of soil compaction. It is easy to displace water from the soil than it is to displace air from the soil. The wet soil hardly has any air. Thus, when a cotton picker is used during a wet season, the soil compaction rates is higher. To reduce the rate of compaction caused by cotton pickers, farmers should use the cotton pickers during the dry season and minimise their usage in the wet season (McKenzie, 2010, p9). The farmers should strategize so that the harvesting season is during the dry season to decrease the effect of the weight of the pickers on the soil. This problem could further be solved by ensuring that the cotton pickers are not used immediately after irrigation has been done. Instead, they should wait for the land to dry first. The weight of the load further contributes to the increased rates of soil compactness. The heavier the weight of the cotton picker, the higher the chances of the lanes it uses recording high soil compactness. The growth of technology used in cotton pickers concentrates on increasing the efficiency of the machines by increasing their volume capacity, which leads to an increase in the overall weight of the cotton pickers. One of the technologies that contribute to the increase in weight is the increase in the diameter or length of the spindle (Bennett, et al. 2015, p233). This increase leads to an increase of harvested cotton that one cotton picker can carry. Most of the times when the size of the spindle is increased, the material is not changed to a lighter material thereby further adding to the weight of the machine. Therefore advancement in technology leads to increased cases of soil compaction in cotton plantations. The growth in technology further contributes to the increase in the distance that one cotton picker can cover while harvesting cotton. The volume of cotton that the cotton pickers can carry at a go is increased to increase the distance covered by a cotton picker. The cotton pickers move around the plantation harvesting to accumulate the maximum volume of cotton that they can carry. The longer the pickers move, the heavier they become. They, therefore, increase the danger that they pose to the soil in the plantation with the increased distance since they cause higher levels of soil compaction with the increased distance. One of the solutions appropriate to handle the challenges posed by growth in technology is the introduction of laws that limit the maximum weight capacity of any cotton picker (Mosaddeghi et al., 2007, p100). The limit would push the manufacturers of cotton picking machines into innovating machines that not only seek to increase the volume of harvested cotton but also seek to reduce the weight of the cotton picker. To achieve this, the manufacturers will have to change the type of material used to make most of the parts of the cotton pickers to material that is light in weight. Therefore, a development in technology will not only aim at increasing the speed of harvesting but also seek to preserve the quality of the soil. The solution for handling the problems posed the technological development could further be handled by increasing the diameter of the tyres of the cotton pickers. Increased diameter solves the problem by decreasing the inflation pressure. The rate at which the cotton picker compresses the soil is much lower when the tyres have a larger diameter (Bennett, et al. 2015, p233). The problem could also be solved by increasing the width of the tyres to increase the point of contact on the ground and thereby reduce the pressure that the ground is exposed to. The use of dual tyres could also solve the problem since they also increase the area of contact thereby distributing the pressure and reducing the pressure experienced at one particular point on the ground. Godwin (2007, p336) gives an alternative solution concerning the tyres used in cotton pickers. The author recommends the use of rubber tyres instead of hard materials. Rubber serves to ensure that the soil layer that becomes compact when the pickers move in the plantation is the upper layer, which can easily be aerated. This is unlike the hard materials that cause the lower soil layers become compact, which are difficult to aerate. Hydrus Software Since the compactness of soil varies depending on the type and intensity of activity undertaken, it is paramount to account for various aspects of soil compaction such as moisture and saturation. One of the methods of accounting for the varying conditions within the soil include the use of software to calculate the numerous variables that contribute to compaction. An example of a useful tool in this regard is the software package, HYDRUS. HYDRUS refers to a software package used to simulate and model flow of water in the soil alongside solute transportation in varying conditions of saturations and groundwater (Simunek et. Al, 2012, p1261). This software package is preferable over others in the market due to the standardization of codes, including review by peers alongside open source code, such as the HYDRUS 1-D and the graphical user interface, which makes interaction with the software simple. As a result, the software is used extensively, with the 1D model attaining over five thousand downloads in the year 2010. The standard modules, 1D, 2D and 3D versions, are used to simulate movement of heat, water and solutes in varying conditions of saturation within the soil. The HYDRUS 1D simulates in a one-dimensional aspect while the 2D and 3D simulate in the two and three dimensions respectively. As stated earlier, the software has varying applications to the medium under study, such as fully saturated, partially saturated, unsaturated or layered medium. In order to account for the equation of saturated-unsaturated floe, the software uses mass-lumped finite element schemes. The programs also incorporate hysteresis based on the assumption that scanning curves for drying are scaled on the major drying curve while scanning curves for wetting are scaled from the major wetting curve (Simunek et al, 2012, p1262). The contaminant and heat transport processes are also accounted for, through the Fickian advection-dispersion equations, which are then solved by use of linear finite schemes. The software also accounts for transportation of other chemicals such as carbon dioxide and major ions (Simunek et al, 2016, p19). HYDRUS also incorporates model calibration alongside estimation of inverse parameters (Simunek et al, 2012, p1262). This enables adjustment and manipulation of input parameters to ensure the observed variables match the simulated results. These parameters include soil hydraulic parameters, solute reaction and transport parameters and heat transport parameters. However, since HYDRUS is a physically based model, minimal calibration is required when all parameters are supplied. Cotton Yield Innovation and automation in cotton picking technology are often regarded as key drivers for a successful and competitive industry. However, mechanization of cotton harvesting brought about contrasting effects; for example, increased picking rates, ability to manage greater land areas, and lower labor requirements, but also resulted in gin downtime and safety issues. In mechanized agriculture, higher capacity machines have contributed to reduce risk associated with climate uncertainty (timeliness), improve harvest rates and overall system efficiency but, often, at the expense of increased weight of farm equipment. Cotton production systems are no exception; cotton pickers feature more design constraints than other systems because of the picking action of the spindle. Maximizing picking efficiency, that is the percent of cotton picked from the crop The use of cotton pickers in the field causes compaction which causes penetration resistance. Therefore, the roots of the cotton plants have difficulty penetrating the soil (Braunack & Johnston, 2014, p34). It is important for the roots of any plant to spread into make the plant stand firmly on the ground. This reduces the chances of the plants being bent over to the ground or being uprooted by strong winds. Maeght, Rewald & Pierret (2013, p1) further explain that deep roots are important in ensuring that the plants get enough supply of the nutrients and water required to support their growth. Difficulty in penetration makes it difficult for the plants to get the required nutrients and water, which affects their growth and their yield. Consequently, the production of cotton decreases over time as the cotton pickers continue being used. The compactness of soil caused by the use of cotton pickers affects the amount of air in the ground. Increased soil compactness leads to a decrease of air in the soil. According to research conducted by Silva et al. (2004, p455) plants that grow in lands with high rates of soil aeration grow stronger and taller than those grown in soil without enough air. Insufficient supply of air in the soil, as is the case after soil compaction, leads to the plants being injured. The roots of the cotton plants are injured, which affects the ability of the plants to spread its roots and to grow properly (Zou, et al., 2001, p110). The fact that the roots of the cotton plants are injured decreases the volume of cotton harvested since most of the plants do not give as much produce as they should while another portion of the plants die before it is harvesting time. Another effect of soil compactness is waterlogging. This condition affects the ability of the soil to support plants and thereby affects the yield of cotton planted in the land. Waterlogged land increases the chances of the cotton plants getting root diseases. Most of the waterlogged soils have fungi such as phytophthora (Morales-Olmedo, Ortiz & Selles, 2015, p53). The fungi affect the plants ability to carry out vital processes such as photosynthesis. Hindering the plants from performing processes that affect their survival makes it difficult for most of the plants to survive even after the water has dried up. Therefore, plants that have these infections die regardless of whether the water dries up or not. This causes a reduction in the volume of cotton harvested on the land. Soil compaction also leads to a decrease in soil moisture. The soil has a high resistance level. Thus, water does not seep through thereby lowering the amount of moisture available in the soil. According to Steudle (2000, p1532), one of the components in soil that is vital to the growth of plants is water. The only way that plants can absorb water into its system is through the roots. This helps ensure that it has enough water to sustain it as well as to transpire when the sun is hot. The absence of water therefore not only affects the ability of the cotton plants to function properly but also leads to the plants withering because they lose the little water they have through transpiration. Although the plants’ stomata may react to slow down the transpiration process, the cotton plants would not yield as much produce as they would with a good supply of soil moisture (Xu & Zhou, 2008, p3317). Consequently, the level of produce reduces over the years as the effects of soil compaction increase. The cotton plants in regions with soil compaction strain to get water that they can use for their survival. Therefore, these plants devise ways to decrease the levels of water loss in the drought. Apart from stomata closure, the plants reduce the size of their leaves as an adaptation method to the change in the availability of water in the soil (Lipiec, et al., 2003, p67). Smaller leaves help the plants reduce the amount of water lost through transpiration. However, smaller leaves affect the yield of the plants since the rate of photosynthesis is lower. The plants therefore make less food than they require to sustain them. They, therefore, produce less cotton than cotton plants produce when they have much bigger leaves. Soil compaction further leads to high rates of soil erosion. When rainwater falls on the ground and is unable to seep into the soil, it flows away carrying the top soil of that land. According to Li et al. (2013, p8), the topmost layer of the soil is the most important soil layer since it has components necessary for the growth of plants. Removal of the topsoil forces the cotton plants to depend on the subsoil which has lower nutrient value. The plantation is, therefore, unable to yield as high levels of produce as it did before the erosion. The occurrence of a surface runoff when the plants are small may lead to most of them being uprooted (Queensland Government, 2016). This further leads to a decrease in the level of yield that the plantation has during harvesting. The absence of soil animals in the soil in cotton plantations is also a result of soil compaction caused by cotton pickers. The productivity of the soil is dependent on the activities of the soil animals (Aislabie & Deslippe, 2013, p144). They help create pores in the soil. For example, when the earthworms move in the soil, they aerate the soil making it more productive and supportive to the growth of cotton. The soil microbes are also in charge if breaking the nutrients in the soil that are not water soluble (Zhang, et al., 2001, p283). This breakdown helps the plants absorb all the nutrients they need to grow well from the soil. The absence of the soil animals, therefore, means that the plants are unable to absorb vital nutrients and that the soil is not well aerated. The stunted growth of cotton plants leads to low yield production in the cotton plantations. Conclusion The use of cotton pickers in cotton plantations cause soil compaction, which affects the productivity of the land in the long run. Soil compaction causes a decrease in the soil penetration levels, soil moisture, soil air and soil animals. The decrease in any of these components leads to a decrease in the productivity of that soil, which causes a decrease in the cotton plantation yields. The machines have benefits when used in the cotton plantations. Therefore, they should not be eliminated from use in these plantations. The appropriate move is to strategize on how to avoid the negative results by using strategies to decrease the rates of soil compaction. These strategies include the use of laws to limit the maximum weight of cotton pickers, the development of technology that increases the volume of the load while decreasing the weight of the cotton picker. The implementation of these strategies will help ascertain that the cotton farmers enjoy the benefits of using heavy machines while still preserving the soil in their plantations. Bibliography Aislabie, J. & Deslippe, J. 2013. Soil microbes and their contribution to soil services. Soil Microbial Diversity, 1.12, 143-161. Bennett, J. et al. 2015. Advances in cotton harvesting technology: A review and implications for the John Deere round baler cotton picker. The Journal of Cotton Science, 19, 225-249. Boman, R. et al. 2011. Picker vs Stripper harvesting in the Texas high plains: Agronomic implications. Available http://cotton.tamu.edu/Harvest/2011%20Picker%20vs%20Stripper%20Results.pdf [Accessed May 25, 2017] Braunack, M. & Johnston, D. 2014. Changes in soil cone resistance due to cotton picker traffic during harvest on Australian cotton soils. Soil & Tillage Research, 140, 29-39. Certipik. 2015. Cotton strippers versus cotton picker spindles. Available http://certipik.com/2015/08/cotton-strippers-versus-cotton-picker-spindles/ [Accessed May 25, 2017] Dhonke, A. et al. 2017. Design and fabrication of cotton boll picker machine. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology, 4(2), 1907-1908. Fite, G. 2015. Cotton fields no more: Southern agriculture, 1865-1980. Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky. Forest Laws. 2007. Deere unveils self-propelled round module cotton picker. Available http://www.deltafarmpress.com/deere-unveils-self-propelled-round-module-cotton-picker [Accessed May 25, 2017]. Godwin, R. 2007. A review of the effect of implement geometry on soil failure and implement forces. Soil Till Res, 97(2), 331-340. John Deere. 2017. Round module wrap. Available https://www.deere.com.au/en_AU/parts/parts_by_industry/agricultural_parts/cotton_parts/round_module_wrap/round_module_wrap.page [Accessed May 25, 2017]. Li, Z. et al. 2013. Effect of erosion on productivity in subtropical red soil hilly region: A multi-scale spatio-temporal study by simulated rainfall. PLoS ONE 8(10), 1-10. Lipiec, J. et al. 2003. Effect of soil compaction on root growth and crop yield in Central and Eastern Europe. International Agrophysics, 17, 61-69. Maeght, J., Rewald, B. & Pierret, A. 2013. How to study deep roots and why it matters. Frontiers in Plant Science, 4(299), 1-14. McKenzie, R. 2010. Agricultural soil compaction: causes and management. Agri-Facts, 1-10. Morales-Olmedo, M., Ortiz, M. & Selles, G. 2015. Effects of transient soil waterlogging and its importance for rootstock selection. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 75(Suppl. 1), 45-56. Mosaddeghi, M. et al. 2007. Suitability of pre-compression stress as the real critical stress of unsaturated agricultural soils. Biosystems Eng. 98(1):90–101. Musoke, M.S., and A.L. Olmstead. 1982. The rise of the cotton industry in California: a comparative perspective. J. Econ. Hist. 42(2):385–412. Passioura, J. 2002. Soil conditions and plant growth. Plant, Cell & Environment, 25(2), 311-318. Queensland Government. 2016. Impacts of erosion. Available https://www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/soil/erosion/impacts/ [Accessed May 26, 2017]. Reintam, E. et al. 2009. Soil compaction effects on soil bulk density and penetration resistance and growth of spring barley. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica Section B – Soil and Plant Science, 59, 265-272. Silva, A. et al. (2004. Plant response to mechanical resistance and air filled porosity of soils under conventional and no tillage system. Sci. Agric., 61(4), 451-456. Simunek, J. et al. 2012. HYDRUS: Model use, calibration and validation. ASABE, 55(4), 1261-1274. Simunek, J. et al. 2016. Recent developments and applications of the HYDRUS computer software packages. Vadose Zone Journal, 1-25. Steudle, E. 2000. Water uptake by roots: effects of water deficit. Journal of Experimental Botany, 51(350), 1531-1542. Tullberg, J.N. 2010. Tillage, traffic and sustainability – a challenge for ISTRO. Soil Till. Res. 111(1):26–32. Wattonville, J. 2008. 7760 cotton picker. ASABE Meeting Presentation, 084469, 1-17. Willcutt, M. et al. 2009. In field time in motion comparisons of conventional. John Deere 7760 and Case 625 module express cotton pickers. Beltwide Cotton Conferences, 462-476. Xu, Z. & Zhou, G. 2008. Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59(12), 3317-3325. Zhang, X. et al. 2001. Effects of soil fauna on litter decomposition. Chinese Geographical Science, 11(3), 283-288. Zou, C. et al. 2001. Effects of soil air-filled porosity, matric potential and soil strength on primary root growth of radiata pine seedlings. Plant and Soil, 236, p.105-115. Read More

Literature Review Cotton Pickers According to Dhokne et al. (2017, p1907), cotton pickers are machines designed with the intention of making the process of harvesting cotton easy. Traditionally, cotton was picked by use of hands, which is slow and expensive to cotton farmers. The shortcomings of the traditional methods created a need for the creation of a machine that would help farmers overcome these shortcomings. The farmers wanted to increase the profits gained from the plantations. This led to the farmers increasing the land they used to grow cotton and the introduction of machinery such as cotton pickers in the operations of the farms (Fite, 2015, p151).

This made work easier for the farmers and the work was done at a faster pace as compared to when they did not use the machines. Cotton Pickers’ Collection Methods The cotton picker can use one of two existing methods of picking cotton. One of these two approaches is stripping. In the stripping system, the cotton picker has rollers that are used to collect the cotton. It strips the plants since it does not pick the cotton bolls alone. Instead, the machine collects all the cotton bolls, leaves, branches and burr (Dhokne et al.

, 2017, p1907). Certipik (2015) continues to explain that the machine used in stripping is appropriate for plantations that are short. This helps minimise the quantity of leaves and branches in the harvest and thereby decrease time spent separating them from the cotton. The machine collects both the fully-grown cotton and the green cotton (Boman, et al., 2011, p1). It has a mechanism that it uses to separate the fully-grown cotton from the leaves, branches and green cotton thereby ensuring that the cotton blown to the receiving basket is of desirable quality.

The second method of cotton picking using a cotton picker is spindling. Unlike the stripping method, in this method, the machine collects just the cotton bolls that are open and thus mature (Dhokne et al., 2017, p1907). They are therefore appropriate in plantations where all cotton plants are mature. They are also suitable for farms with tall stalks since it helps the spindles reach the cotton bolls fast and thereby work quickly. The collected cotton is blown into the receiving basket while the unrequired part of the boll remains behind (Certipik, 2015).

The quality of the harvested cotton is, however, lower than the quality of cotton collected by a stripper (Dhokne et al., 2017, p1907). This is because the machine reduces the strength of the collected cotton. In its quest to separate the cotton boll from the stalk breaks the cotton fibre thus weakening its strength. Parts of a Cotton Picker One of the parts of a cotton picking machine is a handler. This section of a cotton picker is in charge of carrying the round module. Without the handler, therefore, the cotton picker would not have the round module.

The handler has slots in which the rear of the module builder rests during transportation. This helps prevent the module builder from rolling especially if the roads are rough. The handler can also be adjusted to ensure that the module builder is at an acceptable shipping height during transportation and that it is at a height acceptable in the field during harvesting (Wattonville, 2008, p6). The handler is further responsible for allowing the module builder to be removed from the cotton picker.

The removal could be for maintenance purposes or to remove the harvested cotton from the machine. A cotton picking machine also has a part known as the feeder. It is responsible for transferring the cotton ejected from the accumulator to the round module builder. It is made of a rubber belt and a roller. The cotton being transported to the builder is compressed between the roller and the belt. This process helps the cotton be in a uniform thin ribbon upon reaching the builder thereby making it easy for the creation of consistent modules (Wattonville, 2008, p6).

The operation of the feeder is deactivated and activated by the sensors in the accumulator (Forest Laws, 2007).

Read More