xt7n028pdv52 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7n028pdv52/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1963 journals 129 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.129 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.129 1963 2014 true xt7n028pdv52 section xt7n028pdv52 O I O I
With Special Consideration for Hand versus
> I l
Mac/une Methods and Scaffolding
By Joe E. Fuqua, William O. Atkinson cmd George B. Byers
..__   ·§6_“`1·$*“?!*?*·`?`; »    Y___   ’— ` .~ · "`°·.;·§¤¤. _ f C-qi-}; ° _ -·
A _ A I ` _ A   V,     ,» l {    
) I pn ·'   _, 3  _`  py g wjz  M   N ea Q U _ /_
- _ - 4r,_   -»   M?     25 3  ,...I;»;»"':v _ ‘ »’ ‘•
      I       `   ,,V< . I .»~ ·  " "i“  
      A   `   I      
~         I         <—,V     _   V   fc.
!‘=    `_   it `..` ` _ 2 ‘, V L   -     _   ·i·1‘ ’·' {_   I
I       `iii  4 I *   ·· .      u»~` J `  ‘ ‘ ?i
ll? hav       J?   ’-J`;       ·\ . , 4; _   V- · .
  j ,7  ·   V:   ‘ ;,f Qi
3 ~ j%r
"7 I - V,.. »> ' 5   I .' I
PRIMING SAVES VALUABLE LEAVES. THE BURLEY PLANT ON THE LEFT WAS PRIMED TWICE
THE MIDDLE PLANT WAS PRIMED ONCE 'I'HE PLANT ON THE· RIGHT WAS NOT PRIMED.
PROGRESS REPORT 129 (Filing Code 7)
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
LEXINGTON

 SUMMARY _
Additional yield of burley tobacco resulting from priming exceeded 300 pounds per V _
acre each year in 1961 and 1962. Two primings increased the total value of the tobacco
per acre a range of $193 to $205 in 1961 and from $230 to $282 in 1962. Most of the in- l
creased value resulted from additional yield; however, in 1962 the stalk-cut portion of I
the primed tobacco averaged $1. 70 more per 100 pounds than the unprimed stalk—cut
tobacco. The increased quality was made possible by harvesting the stalk—cut portion A l
of the plants at a riper stage.
Returns per hour of additional labor to prime an acre of tobacco ranged from $1. 07
to $1.53 in 1961 and from $1. 41 to $2. 34 in 1962, depending on the methods of priming .
and curing. included in the methods of priming were variations in the number of leaves -
tied in a bunch in both machine and hand priming. Curing methods included housing the
leaves the day of priming and hanging leaves on a scaffold in the field for 3 to 4 days
. before housing.
Additional labor required to prime an acre of tobacco two times varied from 115 V
to 170 hours in 1961, and 103 to 164 hours in 1962, depending on the methods of priming
and curing. The hand method of priming and tying two leaves in a bunch I‘€qui1"€dl3h€ most
additional labor and machine priming, with four leaves per bunch requiring the least ad-
ditional labor.
Hanging primed leaves on a scaffold in the field for three to four days before housing ‘ i
increased the value of the cured leaf by an average of $3. 76 per 100 pounds or $28 per acre
in 1962. Additional labor required to scaffold two primings averaged 5. 2 hours per acre
(labor to erect the scaffold not included).
A comparison of machine and hand priming methods with equal numbers of leaves tied
in a bimch shows that the labor saved with the machine generally offsets the additional costs l
when one acre is primed annually. When three acres are primed in one year, returns per
hour of labor are slightly higher for machine priming.
Machine costs per acre (not including costs of string or labor) decreased from $30
for one acre to $8 when four acres were primed in 1962. String costs per acre were about
two and one—half times greater for machine priming than for comparable hand methods
owing to the need for stronger string for the machine. ln 1962 on two primings, when three
leaves were tied in a bunch, string costs per acre for machine and hand priming were $10
and $4, respectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Photographs for Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were furnished by John W. Bell, Jr.
-2-

 -3-
RETURNS TO PRIMING BURLEY TOBACCO — WITH SPECIAL
CONSIDERATION FOR HAND VERSUS MACHINE METHODS
AND SCAFFOLDING
by
Joe E. Fuqua, William O. Atkinson and George B. Byers
Methods of increasing income from burley tobacco, Kentucky's main cash crop, are
continually being sought. Increased fertilization, use of higher—yielding and disease—re—
sistant varieties, and application of sucker deterrents have made contributions to yields,
but have not always increased quality.
Priming is a method some farmers are using to increase both yields and quality.
Priming is the process of removing the lower leaves of the burley plants when these leaves
are mature (usually lemon yellow). The leaves are strung in some manner and allowed to
cure. Generally, priming saves about four to five leaves that are otherwise lost. In some
seasons, the number of leaves that could be saved is much greater.
PREVIOUS STUDIES ON PRIMING
Priming experiments were originally started in 1945 at the Agricultural Experiment
ll Station in Lexington. Results for two years (1945, 1946) showed that maximum yield, price
" and income were obtained from the tobacco crops which were primed two times.l/ In 1947
maximum income and yield were obtained with three primings; however, the third priming
returned only $0. 60 per hour to the additional labor. The returns per hour of labor for two
primings each in 1945, 1946 and 1947 averaged $1. 32, $1. 66 and $2. 33, respectively.
Even with proven relatively high labor returns, priming has been practiced by only
few farmers. A partial answer can be found in the "disadvantages of priming" as learned
in the 1945-46 study. (1) greater care required in curing primed leaves, (2) the uncertainty
of good curing weather for late—harvested tobacco. (3) shortage of labor. and (4) competi—
tion of other farm enterprises with tobacco for use of farm labor.&/
An additional reason for farmers not priming is the stoop labor that is involved when
done by hand. The hand method of priming is hard work that occurs when temperatures
are high — generally the last of July or the first of August. The worker must either bend
over or crawl to pull the leaves — in either case, an uncomf`ortable position.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The objectives of this study were to determine (1) the profitableness of priming burley
tobacco, (2) comparative labor requirements, costs and labor returns cf priming by a hand
method and by using a small. one—man. manually—operated machine and (3) the effect of
placing the primed leaves on a scaffold in the field for three or four days before housing in
order to remove the moisture more rapidly and expose the leaves to sunlight and increased
air movement to aid in reducing "house burning. "§/
if George B, Byers, Charles E. Bortnergd Willlidan B Back, _lZffcct of Magirity andljgj£o_LBurlev 'Ql@;g>_£[ig_d,
Quality and Labor Regugcments of the Cie]; Kentucky Agr., Exp., Station Bulletin 552, May 1950
2/ ibid, page 22.
if The third objective was included in the 1962 experiment only.

 -4-
The first objective may seem to be redundant of the previous published work of 1945-
47 and subsequent tests carried on through 1954. However, several changes have occurred ' ·
since the original priming work, such as, improved varieties (both larger in size and higher _
yielding). increased fertilization, greater use of artificial heat in curing tobacco, and a higher _ V
price level. _
PROCEDURES USED
In 1961, 10 plots, each consisting of 2 rows 150 feet long and 42 inches apart, were
included in the priming test. Five harvesting methods were used, allotting two plots for
each method. In three methods a one-man priming machine was used, and two, three or
four leaves were tied in a bunch.£/ In another method the tobacco was primed and tied by ‘
hand placing two leaves in a bunch. All these plots were primed two times. In the remain- V
ing method the tobacco was notprimed but harvested as stalk-cut tobacco to serve as a check.
A similar priming test was conducted in 1962. The number of harvesting methods was
increased to seven, and two curing methods were tested. Twenty—eight plots were used:
each plot was two rows wide (rows 42 inches apart) and 100 feet long. The leaves from one f
half of the primed plots were taken to the barn the day of priming. Leaves from the other _
half of the primed plots were hung on a scaffold in the field and left to cure for three to V
four days before housing.
Seven harvesting methods (six primed and one not primed) of two plots each were dupli-  
cated in both the scaffolded and unscaffolded curing methods. In three harvesting methods, i I
the tobacco was primed two times. using the priming machine. tying two, three or four leaves
in a bunch Another three methods consisted of hand priming two times with two or three
leaves placed in a bunch and hand priming once with two leaves to a bunch. In the remaining
method the tobacco was not primed.
About four leaves per plant were pulled in each priming for both years. However, the
method of determining the number of leaves to be primed was different. In 1961, the worker
decided which leaves were mature and ready to prime from each plant. This method resulted
in an average of almost four leaves per plant but created a large variance among the plots,. ·
To decrease this variability in 1962, four leaves were removed per plant in each priming.
Taking a fixed number of leaves was used only to facilitate the experiment and is not neces-
sarily recommended for the farmer. Leaves should be removed on the basis of their ma-
turity, and the number will vary among plants and seasons.
In both years, the unscaffolded primed leaves were hung in the barn and allowed to
yellow for 24 hours before any supplemental heat was used. ln 1962 the scaffolded primed
leaves. after hanging in the field for three or four days, were placed in the barn and heat
was applied immediately. The heat, supplied by small gas curing stoves, was kept low
initially. When the leaves were nearly cured, the temperature was raised in order to dry
the midribs completely.
All plots were fertilized at the rate of one ton of 5-10-15 per acre. In 1961, Kentucky
9 was the variety grown and in 1962 Kentucky 12 was grown. All plots were topped at the
same time and suckered once just before cutting. The unprimed plots in 1961 were cut one
week before the primed plots. ln 1962 the unprimed plots and primed—cnce plots were cut f
five days before the plots that were primed twice.
EV "Btmch" as used in this publicition refsrs to die leaves held by one loop in the string by either machine or hand methods,

 i Time records were kept on all operations where priming and the methods of priming
might affect the amount of labor used. The operations timed for the primed plots were:
(1) priming (removing leaves from plants), (2) carrying out, (3) loading and unloading,
(4) putting leaves on stick, (5) hanging on the scaffold (when applicable), (6) hanging in
the barn, (7) taking down from rails, (8) bringing into stripping room, (9) tying leaves
in hands, and (10) pressing. The operations timed on the stalk—cut for both primed and
` unprimed plots were: (1) suckering, (2) dropping sticks, (3) cutting, (4) bringing into
stripping room, (5) stripping and (6) pressing.
HAND VERSUS MACHINE METHODS
Description of the Machine Methods
The worker pulled the leaves by hand as he sat on and pushed the machine backwards
between the two rows of tobacco (Fig. 1). The leaves were placed on a stitching (looping)
I      .    E »t e ~   »   .i     »e¢ e   ..3 \~ ’ii'” ~   kg. *T*§ I\ "» ti }»%.=·‘e.i {  
-. . . .       .   ‘ f a ?#"» `   `   "\,. JF ”   i4’¢<"~ L
, ~   .#ij¤?;;$,  · ' 1. F *_ 3* t, _ ‘) yy . :,» ./·?   _ * 8 Ak. ;
  ( "··· if?i,a·?" /   ·   ‘  ·   ' `   I # ··        .  { "¥' .  rr
  ; ff.!)     A   `-::-,.1.   "             j   "  QJV  Eg V; I a 
` I ’ "   ` yéhhtkl   T;}   ff .     ) I" rm. f;)ii¤;_‘»‘ ;i ·. \  
3 V , c5 `” ‘   * K; , 1 .   ” _!·`f _ *  .,_, _  
:`   fi Ig   .;-   _ . I     ( jr     ‘   / `V`; ¢
fc  A fl       V I o A   M; l I? wr at —:_·,`—_ ` _ V   r" ‘p·;
FIG. 1. - (LEFT) ONE—MAN MANUALLY OPERATED PRIMING MACHINE WITH STITCHING (LOOPING)
ATTACHMENT AND DUMPING LEAF RACK. (RIGHT) OPERATION OF THE PRIMING MACHINE
attachment in front of the worker. A lever-was pushed forward and a needle threaded with
string was activated, looping the string around the bunch of leaves. After the leaves were
stitched, they moved into a holding rack in front of the stitching attachment.
When 25 bunches, the number put on one stick, had been stitched, the string was cut. §/
The rack holds enough for three to four sticks. The machine used in 1961 had a stationary
rack and when the rack was full the worker had to get off the machine and unload the stitched
leaves. The machine used in 1962 had a dumping lever in front of the worker's seat which
lowered the loaded rack. When the rack was full, the lever was pushed forward and the
stitched leaves slid to the ground as the machine moved away from the leaves.
5-/ In 1962, the number of bunches per stick was varied on the first priming in the following manner: two leaves per
bunch - 35 bunches per stick; three leaves per bunch — 30 bunches per stick; and four leaves per bunch — 25 bunches
per stick. However, when more than 25 bunches were put on a stick, the string of leaves was too long to be con-
veniently tied and handled on the stick.

 -6-
The machine—stitched leaves were tied to the stick by placing the string into notches ·
cut in each end of the stick with a hack saw (Fig. 2). The string was wrapped aroimd the ·
/"`I~¥  "  
·  JF  I. AVQVA-   *':°   ‘ ; . _ . »--;I? . IQ 'T}1=»  I iyii  
  .,,~     ·-·is.— `· ‘ 4 ¤~  -=*   "¢$—>° fi)?-·— '  I ~
    :  < `~  :··~» K JQ,  ·:l,L_t_ . _)   if *;i‘,-_. I ‘·• ~
      ._ _        E         A
  Q     1          ’ ·t  ’   ·~ I  
    ~ { `   » _  $i¤»£’?Z.· 13 ··`` E "   . Y ‘ -
A _ Va.   2, .       W I Xg?.   _    
. ·   11.;*   »— ..4 —»¤.»·` -— ~v·’¤¢ * __ .·r‘ V .
FIG. 2. - (LEFT) CUTTING A NOTCH IN THE TOBACCO STICK FOR ATTACHING MACHINE TIED LEAVES.
(PHOTO ON THE RIGHT) ATTACHING A STRING OF MACHINE TIED LEAVES TO THE STICK.
stick two times and the second wrap placed into the notch. Then the first wrap was placed -
into the notch, thereby causing the weight of the leaves to make the string secure. Q ‘
I.
After curing, the machine-stitched leaves were removed from the stick to tie into
hands by detaching the string from the stick and pulling one end of the string to free the
leaves (Fig. 3). (The string unravels in a similar way to the string in a feed sack.)
l It { ` '- `  
` _/I R U ‘ .
A  = ;·`· _· ». *“   .   '_  
- . _. q Q `“_`_'_ `$`$.   ‘_\\ 2. °~¤\`· V
.,_   i  `- , _ E I " · .
(fly'}; x   `» { ’ I. ` - }¤ A
Ae ··.    , _   ~ l
wg xr     gif ‘ ` ·
R ._k`  Y_   , "
·_¤y   ~ _ · ·
V · · _.:,éf‘ . I _ » I I
°'I W4   . ‘ . `- ·   _
I £ .» ·  ;.__   ` I  
FIG. 3. - REMOVINC THE STRING FROM THE STICK AND CURED LEAVES.

 . Description of Hand Methods
The hand methods were similar to those described in previous publications.§/ The
worker moved backwards between the two rows to be primed, pulling a burlap sack on the
{ ground in front of him (Fig. 4). Wire (preferably) or string was tied to the corners at
each end of the sack to make a convenient handle for carrying the leaves.
4 , Yi? yl ; _ »   . w "`}‘¤\.{’. ` - .  i  42- A-
V, ;   j   ‘\_ ‘iy~.>_  ·.€»>_·___T__ . ,,;-4;
" _ A =; ef e       " .     2] ` X ;$f§ >?‘ ``’'  
·   2 ;» r   A ·`=   ~ \?§i;i=#”
, 5   pi"`   A ` V .. ' _ \.,      
·¤   .     1 —r     .   és. ·     .~ ’ -
. '   V J  . ·n*‘2=: · · .·   · . —·¤4 ra Tr: »
»     ·     ‘ . ‘’‘`     ’     :~=‘     t .       .     ·   .
‘ QW;     .i;  ly ,   · · yi     _     .2} . r,     __." ·‘
li          Ul _   Val ` t· °   V g , H "il L .   `/
—    .   —).·       »·     .;;»· • __ . ~ ——._`~ —f-·       -   ~  
i '``` ;‘ >·        ( .       `   {*2 1* X5"`.,   A- yr/A i
      *`3¢ '— l ‘;rA`WI"' ,. E     V J V AV I ud" 4
`     . »»{.-(     g.
  t~(#    -               (  
'* l T '4;_' ` / an
¢
FIG. 4. - HAND METHOD OF PRIMING. IN SET SI—IOWS BURLAP SACK ON Wl·HCH THE PRIMED LEAVES
ARE PLACED. NOTE THE WIRE HANDLES.
Two workers were necessary in tying the leaves on the stick (Fig. 5). One worker
handed the leaves in the desired number to the second worker who looped the string around
- the leaves on the stick.
     ·,V     §*g— . :"  ;= _V   _3{`;;.;&—'r;·.  ‘
              T   W,  
. _   EF" ‘   ;ZV’f .§ a» ";&a,`     . es;.  . Q. J
. { Q" ~+· . . . .(E‘·   . . " .."*i*  - Ya ‘ " ' . . .
     ‘‘’· `fi       E· » .  . .  . . A T · . . ; . ~. . ·   ‘
A  .V »·   ·* .~;   ·     .. ’vV V ,~  * '   V ‘     ( · v
 ~,  *~ .r·»£i•· ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ~·,.   ..  i . A ‘·   · ·~·>T.’· . r
 ,.,.(,%:9_ _w_  _ _ ·~ i Y. I t. I ,4 ‘. i   •y' }"~!l'%,   _
.   (   ‘ , ’   W;   Z ‘ f      ,   __ ‘ . ?¢g£,~* ‘‘‘‘‘ '
I       s " ` _i.‘ . `   iz`.  
‘ V ·   ’ Vii’ _ ;  = g ·> A ·'" V
 . ?,_ ":f€;,_   ._ V   " V ‘ .°· '
  _V f   V     V V 1 »
J V \" V._·:.`{’; . {  __ . • ' ‘ ..V
\ ___ , V_’ _ V l Q, ._ ·· . ‘
    A, i~‘ ** J *
V __V ,;.i;;*j¢,.*    A   . ·
V: ‘       A 4 V , V.
    wv .’ .-.:
FIG. S. - HAND TYING OF PRIMED LEAVES. INSEI` SHOWS THE LOOP MADE AROUND EACH BUNCH.
Q George B. Byers, Charles E. Bormer and Earl R. Yoimg, How to Save Time in Priming Burley Tobacco, Agicultural
Extension Service, University of Kentucky, Leailet 92 (revised), May 1955.

 -.8- '
Machine Costs
The purchase pri.ce of the machine used in 1961 (with stationary leaf—holding rack) was ‘ U
$265. The machine used in 1962 (with dumping—leat` rack) oost $287. » ‘
Included in fixed (overhead) costs are depreciation, interest. on investment, taxes, in=·
surance and housing (Table 1). Depreciation was calculated on an estimated life of 15 years
with no salvage value {purchase divided by 15 years Z depreci.ation§¤. Interest on investment i
was calculated as 5 percent of one--half the purchase price. Taxes. insurance and housing
TABLE 1. — FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS FOR THE ONE—MAN MACHINE
IN 1961 AND 1962 A
Fixed Costs ___ Variable Costs A
ltem Annual Cost Item Cost Per Acre
1961 1962 1961 1962 ·
Depreciation@/ $17.. 67 $19. 13 Repairs $1.00 $1. O0
lnterestpj 6. 62 7. 18   `
Other Costs9/ 2.. 65 2. 87 tif
$26. 94 $29.18 A
2/ Depreciation was based on purchase pri.ces of $265 in 1961 and $287 in 1962. Esti— i
mated life was 15 years and no salvage value was included.
l3/ Interest wa.s computed as 5 percent of one—half (average value) the purchase price.
9/ Other costs included insurance, taxes and housing and were estimated as 1 percent
of the purchase price. `
were grouped together in other costs and were estimated as 1 percent of the purchase price. A
Total fixed costs per year were $26. 94 in 1961 and $29.18 in 1962. (The higher fixed costs
in 1962 resulted from a greater purchase price due to the addition of the dumping—leaf rack.)
Variable costs occur when the machine is used. Repair. labor and string costs are the
variable costs involved in using the priming machine. Repair cost is estimated at $1.00 per
acre of priming (Table 1). 1/ The amount of labor and string varies with t.he number of leaves
put in zi bunch, therefore, the labor and string costs are presented in other tables.
ZJ, Cmt of repairs is based on the n1 (DI-I
I-• I=•C;•,§)>,_, www ww
¤'V
  M2 °* GH
U I
QI II I
m II ·
5** 'Iy, . I
*' I·¤ I: www cow I-I
-1 ,¤ ·6·3.,.I www 0m w _
‘I,j.\g ···* f' . . . . . .
Bw 5 _Q  www mm cn
F V53 QII In ,_I www ww w I
I-4 P, OI I Q4  
Ez I·¤;·
In IIiI I
  I5
QIO IZIII I I
wm I¤>I
-*-17
{E r* IUI .
W: IIE E.
W II I
QU 'IQ · VI www 00
;/Iz II?. ‘,¤:¤ www mm I
- I; I_L_I IIS E . . . . . I
”‘ I '.I CO€.\]YI‘* 0 II O
QQ II U
’€—··· ' cu
gm   “ cn
 ·°* ' ~ ¤ 2%% EES Q ¤ I
·Z> ¤¤‘* .   1 . .
Ly· I   I-I0c0 ww 00 g
II I   www LOQO LO ,,_,
I II I °* W  
IO Il ‘**I
;.I , W °¤
)_I II gi) fi
M II ·~ .¤ s¤ .¤ =~
r r—¢ »-·4 Q vc
.... II C C) _,_‘ . CI CI q)
~ I =—• gsm EI gz   § Igsp
I :1I .¤ cs .0
¤ - . I
I I E sz IAQ C 42 LI Q Q 5
I I Q Eg; Z Eg QI E Q
II I »-·-< Q) A
I! I · §$ III 5 j$ 5 Q g
II I U   cu? <1> *-‘
I QJ >®..d I >gD I > J1
II U 5 rs- 5, U cs- U mi 39
II Q 'Q 2 glu)? g 23 qé 2 g
I -— »·-4
II EI 2 $553 ·; $2 I: E \
II 2* E E—*E—·k· QI E-•E-I g, P cul I
II .¤
I. <> E E
.· Q =· I1
2, I z : E

 _ -15-
‘ The weights of primed leaves from all plots within each priming were averaged. ln
V other words, the weights from the first primings on all plots were averaged and all the second
primings were averaged. To obtain total yield the applicable averages were added. For
example, in 1962, yield of the tobacco primed twice equalled 326 pounds first priming plus
419 pounds second priming plus 2, 236 pounds stalk—cut tobacco, or a total of 2, 981 pounds
l per acre. Total yield for tobacco primed once was 326 pounds for one priming plus 2, 624
pounds of stalk—cut tobacco, or 2, 950 pounds per acre. The unprimed plots averaged 2, 639
pounds per acre in 1962. In 1961, plots primed two times averaged 2, 487 pounds per ac