Cotton Farming

One would have to look far and wide to find businessmen in America's free enterprise system who embrace competition more readily than do the Hargetts of Alamo, Tenn. Between them, father Jimmy and son Stoney produce almost 7,000 acres of cotton annually.

That's what they want to keep on doing. Husbanding the soil and growing profitable crops from it is in their blood, and has been for generations. But even producers as successful and efficient as the Hargetts cannot compete on a playing field slanted in favor of foreign producers unless they can sell their one and only product for at least 70 cents a pound.

Staying in the cotton game at current market levels is out of the question. Risk and fair competition are challenges these hard-working Tennessee producers willingly accept; what they will not accept is jeopardizing the sum total of their life's work on remote possibilities that cotton's current economically dismal situation will become equitable on its own.

Mechanical wizardry is a Hargett trademark, and it is to this capability that Jimmy and Stoney have turned to level the playing field.

Harvesting Hits Hardest

Several years ago, Jimmy analyzed his entire production methodology and re-confirmed what all cotton producers have known only too well throughout their careers: gathering the crop requires the greatest expenditures.

"When cotton farmers start harvesting, they are behind the eight ball from day one," Jimmy says. "They must wait until the dew dries to pick, and must stop when dew falls at dusk. They play meteorological roulette with potential adverse fall weather that can delay harvest and reduce their only product's value which declines in value the longer it's left unpicked, regardless of weather. Or, bad fall weather can wipe out a whole year's work. And there's more labor on the payroll, more expensive equipment pickers, boll buggies, module builders and tractors running at harvest time, causing fuel and maintenance bills to soar."

Pick, Module Same Time

Hargett realized that not merely profitability but survival hinged on a radical streamlining of his production strategy, especially the harvesting part of it. His answer: eliminate labor, boll buggies, module builders, tractors to run them and pull them, and create a system whereby one man and one machine can accomplish the harvesting of 2,000 acres of cotton in a reasonable period of time.

For anyone else, such a goal might have bordered on the ludicrous, but not so for the Hargetts. They realized that one power unit would always be needed the one running the cotton picker. It would also have to do the work of all equipment that normally supports the picker in a conventional cotton harvest system. The idea of a picker with an onboard module builder (OBMB) was born.

Running The Numbers

While Jimmy has no doubts about his ability to design and build this avant-garde harvester, he deferred to his friend, Dr. Dave Parvin, an economist at Mississippi State University, to run the numbers and provide a realistic grip on the costs and returns associated with a machine that not only gathers cotton but compresses it into units that can be hauled in conventional module-hauling trucks.

"Economists can solve any problem," Parvin chuckles. "All we need is a few minutes to come up with assumptions. When Jimmy asked me to analyze his plan, I used the Mississippi State Budget Generator to develop a few assumptions about the economic implications of a cotton picker with onboard module building capabilities."

Parvin first examined the performance rate of a modern six-row cotton picker, set on 40-inch rows, with the attendant boll buggy and module builder. On average, during first pick this machine takes 0.148 hours (approximately nine minutes) to harvest an acre of cotton; for second pick the figure is 0.124 hours (approximately 7.5 minutes).

In comparing performance rates of the two harvesting systems (a standard picker with module builder and boll buggy versus a new picker with OBMB), Parvin assumes the performance rate and the annual hours of usage for both systems will be the same. He also assumes that, while a standard six-row picker may cost in the vicinity of $292,000, the onboard system will increase the cost of this same harvester by $40,000, boosting the total cost to $332,000.

While harvesting, both systems consume equal amounts of diesel fuel, which Parvin estimates to cost $1.05 per gallon. Labor costs, $8.76 per man-hour, are also the same for both systems. He set purchase prices of the boll buggy at $17,340 and the module builder at $19,890.

Continuing with his "assumptions," Parvin envisions that while in the process of harvesting, the OBMB picker will make a rectangular bale of seed cotton equivalent to six or seven bales of lint cotton and that it will have a "reserve" area so that harvest can continue between the time a module has been completed and the point at which the machine reaches a turnrow where it can unload the completed module. Hargett adds that a simple warning light in the cab will notify the operator that the module has been completed.

Direct, Fixed Inputs

In a comparison of direct and fixed costs for the two systems, the OBMB picker costs a little more per acre because it costs more in total. Adding first- and second-pick direct costs for the conventional system renders a total of $36.63; for the OBMB picker the figure is $40.98, an increase of $4.35. Adding first- and second-pick fixed costs for the conventional system renders a total of $60.96; for the OBMB picker the figure is $69.28, an increase of $8.32. The overall increase for the OBMB, combining both fixed and direct costs, totals $12.67 per acre.

Parvin's data show that, on a per-acre basis, boll buggies and module builders are more expensive in terms of fixed costs than direct costs. For first and second pick, a boll buggy's direct and fixed costs are $1.17 and $3.53, respectively. For the module builder, those numbers are $1.40 and $4.04. Combined, the total fixed and direct costs per acre for the boll buggy and the module builder amount to $10.14.

Comparing Totals

Cotton producers will no doubt be keenly interested in a comparison of total costs for the two systems, and Parvin has computed them on a per-acre basis derived from 2001 harvest-cost data in the state of Mississippi.

The first time over with a standard six-row picker costs $75.52: $55.70 for the picker, $9.21 for the boll buggy and $10.61 for the module builder. The second time over for this system costs $15.81: $11.66 for the picker, $1.93 for the boll buggy and 2.22 for the module builder. Altogether the two harvesting phases for the conventional system total $91.33. The budget generator factors in $5.01 for unallocated labor, bringing the total of specified costs to $96.34, or just $3.66 shy of an even $100 per acre.

Since boll buggy and module builder inputs do not apply to the OBMB picker, there are significant overall cost differences. Combining this system's first-pick costs ($62.59) and second pick costs ($13.11) amounts to $75.70. Adding labor ($2.50) renders a total of $78.20, or $18.14 less per acre than the conventional system.

"The savings in direct costs is $11.74," Parvin points out, "which doesn't sound like much, but because it means a 26 percent savings in direct costs, it will definitely get a cotton producer's attention. The savings in total costs is $18.14, or a little over 18 percent, given that total costs for the standard system approximated $100.

"At the same time, we're getting rid of a boll buggy and a module builder, amounting to a reduction of about $37,000 in equipment for each picker unit. Also, we can drop two tractors per picker unit, for an additional reduction of almost $200,000. We can add to these savings the reduction in labor force of two employees who normally receive between $25,000 and $30,000 in annual wages."

Technology Maximizes Technologies

One limitation of the OBMB picker that Parvin is quick to point out is its sensitive relationship to the cost of the system. At $40,000 over the cost of a standard picker, the OBMB picker has the potential to save the producer $18.14 an acre, but were the increased cost to soar above a conventional cotton picker's costs by $85,000 that per-acre savings would vanish.

Still, the Hargetts and Parvin are confident this is the direction cotton harvesting will take in the future. As Parvin points out, this technology will allow cotton producers to take maximum advantage of other cost-reducing technologies, such as Roundup-Ready, Bt varieties and no-till production.

"The new system will make cotton harvesting a one-man operation, dramatically impacting the organizational structure of cotton farms as we know them today, and the cost savings will be tremendous," Parvin concludes. "Cotton farms will begin to resemble Mid-West wheat farms with much less equipment and virtually no labor except the producer himself. It is either going to be this way, or our producers are not going to be able to continue growing cotton in the United States, and certainly not in the Mid-South."

System For All Seasons

But the Hargetts' long-term strategy doesn't stop with this radical modification in cotton harvesting methodology. They've already begun visualizing the same sort of massive reductions in equipment and manpower for all other phases of cotton production.

"Why not uncouple the cotton picker power unit from the headers and the basket after harvest and use it for all other phases of cotton production?" Jimmy asks. "Then one man using one machine can handle all field activity for 2,000 acres and can perform every phase of crop production single-handedly."

A standard six-row cotton picker's basket is about 10-feet wide and 16-feet long. In its place Hargett visualizes a multi-purpose onboard area totaling 160 square feet, which could be increased to 200 square feet with a short extension added to the rear. This much space could be compartmentalized to carry everything needed for any field activity.

"To plant, you would have to adapt a tool bar arrangement to attach to the planter from the rear in order to push it instead of pulling it in the conventional manner," Stoney says. "The weight of a 12-row planter wouldn't amount to more than the weight of the six removed headers. Water, seed, starter fertilizer, chemicals and anything else needed would be carried in the space where the basket was. Instead of hoppers above each row, the seed could be metered from a seed hopper where the basket was through tubes to the row units."

Since the Hargetts farm their land in reduced or no-till systems and do no cultivating, they would use the picker power unit to push their hooded sprayer through the field once the cotton is up to a stand. Over-the-top applications further along in the growing season might present a challenge, not because of problems having to do with boom height, which could easily be adjusted from the cab, but because a cotton picker's ground clearance is rather low, thus creating a situation where fruiting limbs and terminal growth could be damaged as the machine travels down the rows.

"One way to deal with this problem would be to use taller tires," Jimmy explains. "If taller tires don't provide the needed clearance, I'm certain some sort of drop axle arrangement could be devised to allow for whatever height is needed. Admittedly, at this point in our preliminary design of this one-man, one-machine system, the spray boom a producer uses during the growing season and at defoliation is the most limiting factor."

Minimize Men, Machines

Sound far-fetched? Maybe so... but then maybe not, especially when skeptics consider that the one-man, one-machine system doesn't require investing additional dollars in planters, fertilizer applicators, hooded sprayers, over-the-top booms and harvesting equipment. In a no-till system, these tools are already part of the required equipment inventory. And, as for the aggregate of compartmentalized components in place where the picker's basket was, they are merely replacing those same components now mounted on tractors and implements.

But the system's real attraction has to do with the massive reduction in equipment and labor. As Parvin pointed out, tractors capable of performing a variety of tasks during the growing season now cost about $100,000, and competent farm employees expect annual salaries in the range of $25,000 to $30,000. If the one-man, one-machine system eliminated five tractors and five employees, the producer would realize savings that might total as high as $650,000. Factor in other costs associated with labor and equipment, such as insurance, fuel and maintenance, and that figure might approach one million dollars.

"There's no need to complicate the arithmetic," Jimmy says. "It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2: One man, one machine, 2000 acres."

One Man, One Machine, 2,000 Acres
By Jimmy Reed Senior Writer
One would have to look far and wide to find businessmen in America's free enterprise system who embrace competition more readily than do the Hargetts of Alamo, Tenn. Between them, father Jimmy and son Stoney produce almost 7,000 acres of cotton annually. That's what they want to keep on doing. Husbanding the soil and growing profitable crops from it is in their blood, and has been for generations. But even producers as successful and efficient as the Hargetts cannot compete on a playing field slanted in favor of foreign producers unless they can sell their one and only product for at least 70 cents a pound. Staying in the cotton game at current market levels is out of the question. Risk and fair competition are challenges these hard-working Tennessee producers willingly accept; what they will not accept is jeopardizing the sum total of their life's work on remote possibilities that cotton's current economically dismal situation will become equitable on its own. Mechanical wizardry is a Hargett trademark, and it is to this capability that Jimmy and Stoney have turned to level the playing field. Harvesting Hits Hardest Several years ago, Jimmy analyzed his entire production methodology and re-confirmed what all cotton producers have known only too well throughout their careers: gathering the crop requires the greatest expenditures. "When cotton farmers start harvesting, they are behind the eight ball from day one," Jimmy says. "They must wait until the dew dries to pick, and must stop when dew falls at dusk. They play meteorological roulette with potential adverse fall weather that can delay harvest and reduce their only product's value which declines in value the longer it's left unpicked, regardless of weather. Or, bad fall weather can wipe out a whole year's work. And there's more labor on the payroll, more expensive equipment pickers, boll buggies, module builders and tractors running at harvest time, causing fuel and maintenance bills to soar." Pick, Module Same Time Hargett realized that not merely profitability but survival hinged on a radical streamlining of his production strategy, especially the harvesting part of it. His answer: eliminate labor, boll buggies, module builders, tractors to run them and pull them, and create a system whereby one man and one machine can accomplish the harvesting of 2,000 acres of cotton in a reasonable period of time. For anyone else, such a goal might have bordered on the ludicrous, but not so for the Hargetts. They realized that one power unit would always be needed the one running the cotton picker. It would also have to do the work of all equipment that normally supports the picker in a conventional cotton harvest system. The idea of a picker with an onboard module builder (OBMB) was born. Running The Numbers While Jimmy has no doubts about his ability to design and build this avant-garde harvester, he deferred to his friend, Dr. Dave Parvin, an economist at Mississippi State University, to run the numbers and provide a realistic grip on the costs and returns associated with a machine that not only gathers cotton but compresses it into units that can be hauled in conventional module-hauling trucks. "Economists can solve any problem," Parvin chuckles. "All we need is a few minutes to come up with assumptions. When Jimmy asked me to analyze his plan, I used the Mississippi State Budget Generator to develop a few assumptions about the economic implications of a cotton picker with onboard module building capabilities." Parvin first examined the performance rate of a modern six-row cotton picker, set on 40-inch rows, with the attendant boll buggy and module builder. On average, during first pick this machine takes 0.148 hours (approximately nine minutes) to harvest an acre of cotton; for second pick the figure is 0.124 hours (approximately 7.5 minutes). In comparing performance rates of the two harvesting systems (a standard picker with module builder and boll buggy versus a new picker with OBMB), Parvin assumes the performance rate and the annual hours of usage for both systems will be the same. He also assumes that, while a standard six-row picker may cost in the vicinity of $292,000, the onboard system will increase the cost of this same harvester by $40,000, boosting the total cost to $332,000. While harvesting, both systems consume equal amounts of diesel fuel, which Parvin estimates to cost $1.05 per gallon. Labor costs, $8.76 per man-hour, are also the same for both systems. He set purchase prices of the boll buggy at $17,340 and the module builder at $19,890. Continuing with his "assumptions," Parvin envisions that while in the process of harvesting, the OBMB picker will make a rectangular bale of seed cotton equivalent to six or seven bales of lint cotton and that it will have a "reserve" area so that harvest can continue between the time a module has been completed and the point at which the machine reaches a turnrow where it can unload the completed module. Hargett adds that a simple warning light in the cab will notify the operator that the module has been completed. Direct, Fixed Inputs In a comparison of direct and fixed costs for the two systems, the OBMB picker costs a little more per acre because it costs more in total. Adding first- and second-pick direct costs for the conventional system renders a total of $36.63; for the OBMB picker the figure is $40.98, an increase of $4.35. Adding first- and second-pick fixed costs for the conventional system renders a total of $60.96; for the OBMB picker the figure is $69.28, an increase of $8.32. The overall increase for the OBMB, combining both fixed and direct costs, totals $12.67 per acre. Parvin's data show that, on a per-acre basis, boll buggies and module builders are more expensive in terms of fixed costs than direct costs. For first and second pick, a boll buggy's direct and fixed costs are $1.17 and $3.53, respectively. For the module builder, those numbers are $1.40 and $4.04. Combined, the total fixed and direct costs per acre for the boll buggy and the module builder amount to $10.14. Comparing Totals Cotton producers will no doubt be keenly interested in a comparison of total costs for the two systems, and Parvin has computed them on a per-acre basis derived from 2001 harvest-cost data in the state of Mississippi. The first time over with a standard six-row picker costs $75.52: $55.70 for the picker, $9.21 for the boll buggy and $10.61 for the module builder. The second time over for this system costs $15.81: $11.66 for the picker, $1.93 for the boll buggy and 2.22 for the module builder. Altogether the two harvesting phases for the conventional system total $91.33. The budget generator factors in $5.01 for unallocated labor, bringing the total of specified costs to $96.34, or just $3.66 shy of an even $100 per acre. Since boll buggy and module builder inputs do not apply to the OBMB picker, there are significant overall cost differences. Combining this system's first-pick costs ($62.59) and second pick costs ($13.11) amounts to $75.70. Adding labor ($2.50) renders a total of $78.20, or $18.14 less per acre than the conventional system. "The savings in direct costs is $11.74," Parvin points out, "which doesn't sound like much, but because it means a 26 percent savings in direct costs, it will definitely get a cotton producer's attention. The savings in total costs is $18.14, or a little over 18 percent, given that total costs for the standard system approximated $100. "At the same time, we're getting rid of a boll buggy and a module builder, amounting to a reduction of about $37,000 in equipment for each picker unit. Also, we can drop two tractors per picker unit, for an additional reduction of almost $200,000. We can add to these savings the reduction in labor force of two employees who normally receive between $25,000 and $30,000 in annual wages." Technology Maximizes Technologies One limitation of the OBMB picker that Parvin is quick to point out is its sensitive relationship to the cost of the system. At $40,000 over the cost of a standard picker, the OBMB picker has the potential to save the producer $18.14 an acre, but were the increased cost to soar above a conventional cotton picker's costs by $85,000 that per-acre savings would vanish. Still, the Hargetts and Parvin are confident this is the direction cotton harvesting will take in the future. As Parvin points out, this technology will allow cotton producers to take maximum advantage of other cost-reducing technologies, such as Roundup-Ready, Bt varieties and no-till production. "The new system will make cotton harvesting a one-man operation, dramatically impacting the organizational structure of cotton farms as we know them today, and the cost savings will be tremendous," Parvin concludes. "Cotton farms will begin to resemble Mid-West wheat farms with much less equipment and virtually no labor except the producer himself. It is either going to be this way, or our producers are not going to be able to continue growing cotton in the United States, and certainly not in the Mid-South." System For All Seasons But the Hargetts' long-term strategy doesn't stop with this radical modification in cotton harvesting methodology. They've already begun visualizing the same sort of massive reductions in equipment and manpower for all other phases of cotton production. "Why not uncouple the cotton picker power unit from the headers and the basket after harvest and use it for all other phases of cotton production?" Jimmy asks. "Then one man using one machine can handle all field activity for 2,000 acres and can perform every phase of crop production single-handedly." A standard six-row cotton picker's basket is about 10-feet wide and 16-feet long. In its place Hargett visualizes a multi-purpose onboard area totaling 160 square feet, which could be increased to 200 square feet with a short extension added to the rear. This much space could be compartmentalized to carry everything needed for any field activity. "To plant, you would have to adapt a tool bar arrangement to attach to the planter from the rear in order to push it instead of pulling it in the conventional manner," Stoney says. "The weight of a 12-row planter wouldn't amount to more than the weight of the six removed headers. Water, seed, starter fertilizer, chemicals and anything else needed would be carried in the space where the basket was. Instead of hoppers above each row, the seed could be metered from a seed hopper where the basket was through tubes to the row units." Since the Hargetts farm their land in reduced or no-till systems and do no cultivating, they would use the picker power unit to push their hooded sprayer through the field once the cotton is up to a stand. Over-the-top applications further along in the growing season might present a challenge, not because of problems having to do with boom height, which could easily be adjusted from the cab, but because a cotton picker's ground clearance is rather low, thus creating a situation where fruiting limbs and terminal growth could be damaged as the machine travels down the rows. "One way to deal with this problem would be to use taller tires," Jimmy explains. "If taller tires don't provide the needed clearance, I'm certain some sort of drop axle arrangement could be devised to allow for whatever height is needed. Admittedly, at this point in our preliminary design of this one-man, one-machine system, the spray boom a producer uses during the growing season and at defoliation is the most limiting factor." Minimize Men, Machines Sound far-fetched? Maybe so... but then maybe not, especially when skeptics consider that the one-man, one-machine system doesn't require investing additional dollars in planters, fertilizer applicators, hooded sprayers, over-the-top booms and harvesting equipment. In a no-till system, these tools are already part of the required equipment inventory. And, as for the aggregate of compartmentalized components in place where the picker's basket was, they are merely replacing those same components now mounted on tractors and implements. But the system's real attraction has to do with the massive reduction in equipment and labor. As Parvin pointed out, tractors capable of performing a variety of tasks during the growing season now cost about $100,000, and competent farm employees expect annual salaries in the range of $25,000 to $30,000. If the one-man, one-machine system eliminated five tractors and five employees, the producer would realize savings that might total as high as $650,000. Factor in other costs associated with labor and equipment, such as insurance, fuel and maintenance, and that figure might approach one million dollars. "There's no need to complicate the arithmetic," Jimmy says. "It's as simple as 1 + 1 = 2: One man, one machine, 2000 acres."

Return To Top