Click on “Download PDF” for the PDF version or on the title for the HTML version.

If you are not an ASABE member or if your employer has not arranged for access to the full-text, Click here for options.

Comparison of Saw Ginning and High-Speed Roller Ginning with Different Lint Cleaners of Mid-South Grown Cotton

Published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan

Citation:  Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 28(4): 475-482. (doi: 10.13031/2013.42076) @2012
Authors:   R. K. Byler, C. D. Delhom
Keywords:   AFIS, Cotton, Gin, HVI, Lint cleaner, Roller, Saw

Four cotton cultivars were ginned with a saw gin equipment line and also with a high-speed roller-gin line. The saw gin line using an air-jet and controlled-batt saw-type lint cleaner was compared to the high-speed roller-gin line including one of three designs of lint cleaner; either of two versions of an experimental lint cleaner, of a basic design not used with commercial roller ginning, one design with a lint reclaimer and the other without the lint reclaimer or a commercially available mill-type lint cleaner. The high-speed roller-gin processed the seed cotton at the same rate as the saw gin stand per m of machine width; however, the roller-gin stand is narrower than the saw gin stand. The roller-gin line produced lint with better fiber length properties than the saw gin line. The roller-gin stand did less damage to the fiber than the saw gin stand and each of the three lint cleaners following the roller gin stand did less damage to the lint than the controlled-batt saw-type lint cleaner. Fewer neps were created in the roller-gin line than the saw gin line. The experimental lint cleaner did not remove as much non-lint material as the traditional controlled-batt lint cleaner but the measurements of the negative effects of the experimental lint cleaner were significantly lower than for the controlled-batt lint cleaner. The mill-type cleaner removed even less material but added still fewer neps than the experimental lint cleaner and did little damage to the lint. The fiber processed with the lint cleaner with the reclaimer had lower quality than the fiber processed with the same lint cleaner without the reclaimer; also, the lint cleaner with the reclaimer removed nearly as much material as without the reclaimer. Therefore, the reclaimer will not be included in further testing.

(Download PDF)    (Export to EndNotes)