10 CIRCULAR NO. 123, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY. 



from the cotton around the bulbs, which were 5 feet apart, and two 

 from other places in the inner ])art of the pile. The variation in 

 moisture content was found to be inconsiderable, the four points 

 sampled showing the following i)crcentages: 14.04, 14.88, 14.71, and 

 14.46. 



To avoid loss of moisture, tightly covered tins, such as are used in 

 making soil-moisture determinations, were employed for taking sam- 

 ples, and the moisture was determined immediately. A small t}^e 

 of single-wall, heavy copper drying oven was used in this work. 



On October 15 the cotton in this pile was sampled again, two com- 

 posite samples being taken from the deeper portions and two com- 

 posite samples from the outside of the pile. The former showed a 

 moisture content of 14.72 and 14.38 per cent, respectively, while the 

 two from the outside contained 11.88 and 11.07 per cent. These 

 figures indicate that there is a fairly uniform diffusion of moisture 

 through a large body of cotton. It will be remembered that this bulk 

 contained about 10,000 pounds. 



At the time of sampling, on October 15, the cotton inside the pile 

 felt warm to the touch. On October 1 , before tliis cotton had been 

 moved from bin A to bin B, thermometer bulbs that had been buried 

 in it showed temperatures as high as 111° F. in spots. Wlien moved 

 to bin B it cooled off considerably, but remained between 70° and 80° 

 F. That the moisture conditions in these lots of cotton were not 

 unusual is shown by a comparison with the conditions that prevailed 

 in piles 1 and 2 in bin A. On October 8 the surface cotton in both 

 of these piles showed a moisture content of 1 1 .95 per cent, there being 

 no difference between the tramped and untramped cotton. The 

 cotton at the center of the pile showed a moisture content of 14.45 

 per cent for the tramped cotton and 14.06 per cent for the untramped 

 cotton. 



On November 25 moisture determinations were made again on 

 piles 1 and 2, which had then been in storage for nearly seven weeks, 

 the former having passed through a week of preliminary drying, 

 while the latter was placed directly in the storage bin. The surface 

 cotton of the tramped pile contained 9.1 per cent of moisture, while 

 the surface cotton of the untramped pile contained 9.4 per cent. The 

 deeper cotton within the tramped pile had a moisture content of 13.7 

 per cent, while that similarly located within the untramped pile had 

 12.05 per cent, possibly indicating the more ready loss of moisture 

 from the looser cotton, which would be ex})ected. 



Moisture determinations were made again on this cotton on the 

 day when it was ginned. Both the surface and interior cotton of the 

 untramped lot had lost more moisture than the tramped lot. The 

 interior cotton of the latter maintained a moisture content of 13.4 



[Cir. 123] 



