6 
BULLETIN 359, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Table V. — Total visible and invisible waste. 
[Percentages based on the original amount of cotton fed into the opener.] 
Arizona-E gy ptian . 
Sea Island. 
Sakellaridis Egyptian. 
Machines. 
Extra. 
Choice. 
Stand- 
ard. 
Me- 
dium. 
Fancy. 
Extra 
choice. 
Good. 
Fully 
good Fair. 
fair. 
Pickers 
3.05 
5.22 
9.42 
1.27 
6.32 
10.97 
2.99 
5.47 
11.54 
2.95 
6.83 
11.12 
3.86 
6.65 
12.91 
3.04 
7.12 
12.89 
4.17 
7.72 
13.47 
4.29 
7.22 
14.87 
3 69 
9 06 
Combers 
15 22 
Total 
17.69 
18.56 
20.00 
20. 90 
23.42 
23.05 
25. 36 
26.38 
27 97 
Judging from the general appearance and grade of Arizona-Egyp- 
tian cotton against similar grades of the other cottons (see comparisons 
on p. 4) the spinning values, as shown by the amount of waste dis- 
carded in the manufacturing processes, apparently, are not evident in 
the raw cotton. The grades, as previously arranged for comparison, 
seem to be equal in value, but when subjected to the manufacturing 
processes, the cottons prove to be decidedly unequal, the difference 
being in favor of the Arizona-Egyptian cotton as follows : 
Extra Arizona-Egyptian shows 5.73 per cent less waste than Fancy Sea Island. 
Choice Arizona-Egyptian shows 4.49 per cent less waste than extia choice Sea Island . 
Choice Arizona-Egyptian shows 6.80 per cent less waste than good Sakellaridis 
Egyptian. 
Standard Arizona-Egyptian shows 6.38 per cent less waste than fully good fair 
Sakellaridis Egyptian. 
Medium Arizona-Egyptian shows 7.07 per cent less waste than fair Sakellaridis 
Egyptian. 
Choice Arizona-Egyptian is the only individual bale of cotton that 
is compared with both Sea Island and Sakellaridis cotton. The Ari- 
zona-Egyptian shows 4.49 per cent less waste than the Sea Island, 
and the Sea Island shows 2.31 per cent less waste than the Sakellari- 
dis. These figures indicate very clearly that of the three lots tested 
the Arizona-Egyptian was considerably less wasty than Sea Island, 
and Sea Island considerably less than the Sakellaridis. Figure 1 rep- 
resents graphically these waste percentages. 
By referring again to the relative prices of these different cottons, 
as given in Table III, it will be seen that there was a relation between 
the prices and the grades, but there was no relation whatever between 
the prices of the different lots of cotton and the percentages of waste 
discarded from each lot in the manufacturing processes. 
Rather a reverse condition was demonstrated, that is, the Arizona- 
Egyptian cotton that was represented as being of least value in cents 
per pound was in reality the cotton that discarded the least waste in 
the manufacturing processes. This comparison of equivalent grades 
(see p. 4) will be found in Table VI. 
