BULLETIN 366, U. S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. 

 Table I.- — Waste percentages — Continued. 





Lot No. 1. 



Lot No. 2. 



Lot No. 3. 



Lot No. 4. 



Kind of waste. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Cards: 



Visible- 



3.26 



.93 



1.72 



3.49 

 1.02 

 1.01 



4.59 

 1.33 

 1.01 



4.44 

 1.36 

 1.22 



6.44 

 1.05 

 3.26 



5.92 



.90 



2.25 



3.67 

 .26 



1.85 



5 61 



Cylinder and dolier strippings 

 Motes and fly 



.51 

 1.85 







Total visible 



5.91 

 1.09 



5.52 

 2.03 



6.93 

 .50 



7.02 

 .27 



10.75 

 .91 



9.07 

 2.22 



5.78 

 .09 



7.97 



Invisible 



.19 







Total visible and invisible . . 



7.00 



7.55 



.7. 43 



7.29 



11.66 



11.29 



5.87 



8.16 



Comber: 



Visible 



11.68 



12.21 



13.55 

 .31 



13.62 



19.48 

 1.27 



18.88 

 .10 



16.10 

 .15 



15.28 



Invisible 



1.66 











Total visible and invisible 



11.68 



12.21 



13.86 



13.62 



20.75 



18.98 



16.25 



16.94 



The figures given in Table I are based on the net weight of stock 

 fed into each machine. It will be observed that there is no de- 

 cided indication of the superiority of either the fumigated or non- 

 fumigated cotton. The percentages of waste fluctuate considerably, 

 without being consistently in favor of either the fumigated or the 

 nonfumigated stock. Similar differences would be expected to exist 

 in the comparisons of any two bales of cotton selected for equal 

 value. 



Table II gives the total percentages of visible and invisible waste 

 discai*ded by the respective waste-cleaning machines. The percent- 

 ages here given are based on the net weight of cotton fed into the 

 opener picker. 



Table II. — Visible, invisible, and total ivaste percentages. 

 [Based on net weight of cotton fed into tbe opener picker.] 





Lot No. 1 



Lot No. 2. 



Lot No. 3. 



Lot No. 4. 



Kind of waste. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Fumi- 

 gated. 



Non- 

 fumi- 

 gated. 



Total visible and invisible waste 



5.62 

 6.61 

 10. 25 



4.69 



7.20 



10.76 



2.61 



7.23 



12.50 



2.39 



7.12 



12.32 



3.39 

 11.28 

 10.62 



2.31 

 11.03 

 16.46 



2.00 



5.75 



14.97 



2 00 



Total visible and invisible waste 



8.00 



Total visible and invisible waste 



15.25 







Grand total visible and invisi- 



22.48 



22.05 



22.34 



21.83 



25.29 



29.80 



22.72 



25.25 







There is no evidence of injury to the cotton indicated by the re- 

 sults of the visible and invisible percentages of waste discarded. In 

 fact, Table II shows that in every case, except lot No. 3, the grand 

 total waste discarded from the fumigated cotton was less than that 

 discarded from the nonfumigated cotton. Should the results have 

 been the reverse — that is, in favor of the nonfumigated cotton to the 



