BULLETIN 366, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF 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- 
Flat strippings 
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.S5 
5.61 
Cylinder and doffer strippings 
.51 
1. S5 
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 
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 
discarded 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 the 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 
22.65 
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 
