Economic Analysis of the Harvest-Aid Decision for Cotton in West Tennessee

Economic tradeoffs influence producers' decisions in applying a harvest-aid before a once-over or twice-over harvest for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). This decision may be affected by responses of first harvest yield and quality to the harvest-aid, cotton prices, harvest-aid treatment costs, cotton harvesting and handling costs, and weather between harvests. The objective of this study was to evaluate how these factors influence net revenues (NR) to alternative harvest-aids. Yields and fiber quality data were from a (1992 to (1994 harvest-aid study at Jackson, TN. The study evaluated 12 treatments including commercial defoliants (Folex [S,S,S,tributyl phosphorotrithioate], Dropp [thidiazuron], Harvade [2,3 Dihydro-5 6-Dimethyyl 1,4-Dithiin], and Defol [sodium chlorate]) with and without a boll opener (Prep [ethephon]). Net revenues for the treatments were estimated using North Delta price quotations, harvest-aid costs, harvesting costs, and handling costs. Dropp (0.05 lb a.i./acre) and Prep (1.0 lb a.i./acre) produced the largest positive influence on effective lint price and NR for farmers interested in once-over or twice-over harvest systems. First harvest NR was significantly higher than for no harvest-aid treatment. However, a once-over harvest using this treatment would have to be delayed from the times in this experiment to allow more bolls to open to minimize second harvest NR foregone. Dropp and Prep also produced the largest two harvest NR The most important factors influencing NR for Dropp and Prep were a low lint trash content, which resulted in a better LEAF and lower price discounts, and higher first harvest yields. Research QuestionEconomic tradeoffs influence cotton producers' decisions whether to apply a harvest-aid before a once-over or twice-over harvest. The objective of this study was to evaluate the factors that influence net returns to alternative harvest-aids. Literature SummaryPrevious studies have evaluated the timing of application and the subsequent impact of harvest-aid chemicals on yields and fiber characteristics but not on net revenues (NR). Harvest-aids may enhance NR by reducing trash, preserving fiber quality, and increasing the proportion of total yield picked at the first harvest—thus avoiding revenue losses due to weathering. The harvest-aid decision is also influenced by price differences for variation in fiber quality, harvest-aid costs, and the change in variable and fixed cost from conducting a once-over instead of a twice-over harvest. Study DescriptionYield and fiber quality data were from a (1992 to (1994 harvest-aid study at the West Tennessee Experiment Station in Jackson. The study evaluated 12 treatments including commercial defoliants with and without a boll opener (Prep [ethephon]) and an untreated check. Defoliants examined in the study were Folex, Dropp, Harvade, and Defol. Partial budgeting and break-even analysis were used to evaluate treatments. Gross revenues for each treatment were calculated using North Delta price quotations. The cost of harvesting cotton once or twice was modeled as a function of hours of operation per year. The twice-over operation cost $14.54/acre more than the once-over operation. Ginning and other costs before sale were estimated as a function of harvested lint yields. Harvest-aid costs varied from $0 for the check to $23.04/acre for Folex and Prep applied at higher rates. Applied QuestionsWhat effects did harvest aids have on lint yields and fiber quality? Harvest-aids did not significantly affect total (two harvest) yields. Treatments using the boll opener, Prep, significantly increased first harvest yields. The most important impact that certain harvest-aids had on lint fiber quality was in reducing high volume instrument (HVI) trash content. Leaf grade (LEAF) price discounts related to trash content have become more important in cotton pricing. How did harvest-aids influence effective lint prices? Effective lint prices were significantly affected by harvest-aids (Fig. 1). The primary factor influencing effective lint price was the ability of the harvest-aid to reduce discounts for LEAF. Certain harvest-aids were more effective than others in reducing price discounts. Ignoring these price effects would lead to erroneous conclusions about which harvest-aid to use. Fig. 1Harvest-aid treatment influences on effective lint price for first harvest fiber quality assuming a base price of $0.75/lb and North Delta price differences, November (1993 to May (1995. What impact do harvest-aids have on net revenues? First harvest NR for all harvest-aid treatments were higher than the NR for the untreated check (Fig. 2). The primary factor that influenced NR for the non-Prep treatments was a lower price discount for LEAF. Dropp (0.05 lb a.i./acre) and Prep (1.0 lb a.i./acre) produced the largest first harvest NR. Dropp and Prep also produced the largest total NR. Harvade applied at 0.30 lb a.i./acre produced the largest total NR among non-Prep treatments. The most important factors influencing NR for Dropp and Prep were a consistently low trash content in lint, resulting in a better LEAF, and higher first harvest yields. Fig. 2Harvest-aid treatment influences on first, second, and total harvest net revenues assuming a base price of $0.75/lb and North Delta price differences, November 1993 to May 1995. RecommendationsThe harvest-aid using Dropp (0.05 lb a.i./acre) and Prep (1.0 lb a.i./acre) appears to have the greatest potential to increase NR for farmers interested in once-over or twice-over harvest systems. Farmers who want to use Dropp and Prep and a once-over harvest would have to delay harvest from the first harvest dates conducted in this experiment. The reason is to allow more bolls to open, thus minimizing second harvest NR foregone. However, the risk of rainfall before harvesting should be considered in choosing when to harvest because price discounts due to weathering may offset the additional gains in lint yield.