Wesley M. Porter Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

Transcription

1 Wesley M. Porter Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

2 More producers are growing row crops such as milo and sunflowers in Northwest Oklahoma. These crops are harvested using a typical combine and usually whichever header already owned by the grower. This study and its results focus around the efficacy of typical headers and specific attachments that can be used to harvest these row crops.

3 Milo was harvested on November 4, Sunflowers were harvested on November 12, Headers Row Crop Header Rigid Platform Header (w/pickup reel) Conventional Header w/ Downer Milo Guards Flex Header (w/pickup reel) Corn Header with SunStar Sunflower plates (sunflower only)

4 Samples were collected within an area from the back of the header on the combine to in front of the rear wheels. This area was used to prevent counting other losses.

5 Six areas were sampled per header. A 60 ft 2 area was chosen to collect crop heads. The heads were threshed and the seeds were weighed. These weights were converted to a lb/ac loss in yield. Four 1 ft 2 areas were randomly selected within the 60 ft 2 area to count the number of seeds lost.

6

7 The four headers used during the milo harvest were: Row Crop Header Conventional Platform Header (Wheat) Conventional Header w/ Downer Milo Fingers Flex Header (Soybeans)

8

9

10

11 The milo used for this trial was irrigated, high yielding (130 bu/ac), and very uniform. This helped with the crop feeding into the header and reduced the differences between headers. Even though not statistically different in seed loss there still were differences in total header yield losses.

12 As for head loss the flex and conventional headers performed statistically the same with a higher number of head losses, while the row crop header and the milo guards aided in retaining a higher number of heads where as the conventional header also fell in this category. Total header loss was very similar with only the milo guards and flex header being statistically different from each other.

13 Header Head loss (lb/ac) Seed loss (lb/ac) Total Header Loss (lb/ac) Row Crop 0 B 54.8 A 54.8 AB Flex 72.6 A 33.1 A A Conventional 30.9 AB 31.0 A 61.9 AB Milo Guards 5.1 B 38.2 A 43.3 B Means followed by different letters are statistically different at p<0.10

14 We were able to obtain the yield from the strips harvested during the milo harvest using a weigh wagon. This gave us an idea of the loss as a percentage of total yield: Row Crop: 0.8% Flex Head: 1.5% Conventional Header: 0.8% Milo Guards: 0.6%

15 The five headers used during the milo harvest were: Row Crop Header Conventional Platform Header (Wheat) Conventional Header w/ Downer Milo Guards Flex Header (Soybeans) Corn Header with SunStar Sunflower plates

16

17

18 The sunflowers were not as uniform and high yielding as the milo thus larger loss differences were seen among the headers used. We were not able to obtain total yield for the sunflowers.

19 The conventional header had significantly more loss than other headers. For head loss, the milo guards and flex head were similar. For head loss, the flex head was also similar to the row crop header and sunflower plates. Seed loss the row crop header and corn header with the sunflower plates were statistically the same with a higher number of losses when compared to the other three headers.

20 In the case of seed loss the row crop header and corn header with the sunflower plates were statistically the same with a higher number of losses when compared to the other three headers. Similar to the milo results the headers that had individual row units had higher seed losses.

21 In the case of head losses three statistical performance groups were seen. The conventional header was in a class all alone for performing the worst. The middle group consisted of the milo guards which did not work well in sunflowers and the flex header. The flex head also fell into the highest performing group along with the row crop header and sunflower plates.

22 In the case of total header loss all headers performed statistically similar except for the conventional header which fell far below the performance level of the rest.

23 Header Head Loss (lb/ac) Seed Loss (lb/ac) Total Header Loss (lb/ac) Row Crop 90.7 C 72.8 AB B Conventional A 45.3 B A Sunflower C A B Flex BC 38.4 B B Milo Guards B 42.1 B B Means followed by different letters are statistically different at p<0.10

24 In non-uniform crop scenarios headers such as the row crop header and special attachments such as the milo guards and sunflower plates helped to reduce header losses over conventional and flex combine headers. Even in uniform high yielding crops higher header retentions were observed when using the specialty crop attachments in their designated crop.