Graeme R. Quick

Reducing Combine Gathering Losses in Soybeans

The soybean was first harvested by combine in 1924 in Illinois. This crop was, in fact, the reason for first introducing the combine East of the Mississippi. Disciplines Agriculture | Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Comments This article is from Transactions of the ASAE 17, no. 6 (1974): 1123–1129. This article is available at Iowa State University Digital Repository: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/218 Reducing Combine Gathering Losses in Soybeans Graeme R. Quick, Wesley F. Buchele MEMBER ASAE MEMBER ASAE T HE soybean (Glycine Max, Merrill) was first harvested by combine in 1924 in Illinois. This crop was, in fact, the reason for first introducing the combine East of the Mississippi (Baker 1961). The engineers who had advanced the use of the combine in soybeans also conducted field loss surveys subsequent to those first successful trials. A review of soybean losses published in the U.S. since 1925 showed that harvesting loss has averaged 9 percent of total yield and has declined very little (Quick 1972). About 85 percent of this combine loss was found to be at the header, primarily due to the action of the reciprocating cutterbar. Cutterbar-induced losses accounted for around 80 percent of gathering, or header loss (Quick 1970 and Dunn 1972). The results of five seasons of field testing and header research at Iowa State University 1967-1972 are summarized in this paper in four divisions: 1 Crop management. 2 Combine operation. 3 Header attachments and modifications. 4 Pertinent crop characteristics. Field test procedures used are outlined in the appendix. Header loss categories are defined under Fig. 1. The primary response variable in the combine tests was defined as HEADER LOSS (HL) PERCENT _ Total header loss x 100 Net potential yield Sum of individual header losses YLDNP ~~ where Net potential yield Article was submitted for publication in May 1974; reviewed and approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Division of ASAE in August 1974. Presented as ASAE Paper No. 72-625. Journal Paper No. J-7671 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa; Project No. 1685. The authors are: GRAEME R. QUICK, White Farm Equipment, Brantford, Ontario, Canada (formerly Research Associate, Iowa S t a t e Unive r s i ty ) ; and WESLEY F . BUCHELE, Professor, Agricultural Engineering Dept., Iowa State University, Ames. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors acknowledge with gratitude the assistance of Donald Erbach and Dale Wilkins, USDA-ARS and James Mellon, ISU Statistical Services. = Weight of all seed potentially available to the machine, lb/acre. = (Bin yield + Header Loss •+ Through-Combine Losses), lb/ acre. i. e. YLDNP = BINPA + THLPA + TRUCOL A computer program that enabled raw field data to be transformed into a form useful in statistical analyses is appended. CROP MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AFFECTING HEADER LOSS Planter To reduce header loss in soybeans,

A Quantitative Shatter Index for Soybeans

The object of the study was to find whether loss during combine harvesting was correlated with pod shattering propensity of soybeans. Mechanical pod shattering methods tested included vibration, impact, centrifugation, pod traction and compression. The influence of variety and moisture content on mechanically-induced pod shatter and on header losses was studied. The pod suture compression method was simplest to perform and, with respect to crop moisture, gave results indicative of machine harvest shatter levels. Such a standardized mechanical shatter index may prove a useful criterion in soybean breeding selection for harvest shatter resistance.

Grain Residuals and Time Requirements for Combine Cleaning

Emerging identity-preserved grain markets depend on avoidance of commingling grain at harvest. Knowledge of where grain resides in a combine, cleaning labor requirements, and resulting purity levels would assist producers. Measurements were made of grain and other material residing in different areas of rotary- and cylinder-type combines in replicated clean-outs during corn and soybean harvest and also in preliminary clean-outs during oat harvest. Concentration of the prior (i.e. commingled) grain was measured in the first grain harvested of the subsequent crop. Total material remaining in the combine ranged from 84 to 186 lb, 61% of which was whole grain. The greatest amounts of corn and soybean material (17 to 74 lb) were found in the grain tank and rock trap. Intermediate amounts were found in the head or feederhouse, elevators, and at times the cylinder/rotor (soybeans), the unloading auger (soybeans, oats), and rear axle/chopper area. The least amounts were found in the cleaning shoe and straw walkers (cylinder-type machine). Time spent to clean the combine varied from about two hours to seven hours. Cleaning the head, grain tank, threshing rotor/cylinder, and cleaning shoe required more time than other areas. Immediately after cleaning, small amounts of prior (commingled) grain and foreign material, 0.2 to 2.5 lb, were found in the first bushel of subsequent grain harvested. Following clean-outs, commingled grain levels dropped below 0.5% after 20 bu were harvested. Over 14 lb of wheat were found during the first clean-out of a combine following 50 ac of oat harvest (no physical clean-out prior to oat harvest).

Chapter 6 – Grain Harvesting Machinery

Abstract This chapter covers the components of grain harvesting machines, including crop gathering systems, conveyors, thresher, separator (often integrated) to separate threshed grain from stems and stalks, cleaning shoe to remove small/light material, storage bin to hold clean grain until it is unloaded onto a transport vehicle to be moved from the field, and material handling equipment (conveyors) required to move crop material throughout the machines.

High Capacity Narrow-Pitch Soybean Cutterbar

ABSTRACT Anew guard and sickle design using narrow-pitched knife sections, multi-prong guards, and new float-ing cutterbar support and drive systems were developed to the commercial preproduction stage for soybean harvesting. Field testing indicated that losses could be reduced to 1 percent and forward speed can be considerably increased over the regular cutterbar without increasing knife speed. Combine productivity was enhanced so that the header is no longer the limiting factor in soy-bean harvest. Bolted-on knife sections were introduced for the first time in the industry. Field test data from three seasons is presented.