Straw Throwing Method and Tractors Forward Speed Impacts on the Straw Picking Up and Chopping Machine's Performance

Affan O. Hussein

doi:10.21271/ZJPAS.32.6.12

Authors

Affan O. Hussein Department of Plant Protection, Khabat Technical Institute, Erbil Polytechnic University, Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21271/ZJPAS.32.6.12

Keywords:

straw chopping machine, straw heaps, wheat straw, windrow.

Abstract

Wheat straw is a valuable by-product of grain harvesting in Kurdistan region basically for livestock feeding. It is thrown behind the harvester on the ground in different forms like heaps, windrows or spread in the field. Straw collecting in the field needs a lot of labor; it is also a costly and time-consuming operation. Recently, there has been a new operation in the field of straw chopping machines which picks up the straw from the ground, cuts and blows it to a trolley and all of this in one operation. This study was conducted to find the effect of some operational factors on the machines performance. The results show that collecting the straw as windrows in the field by the straw chopping machine gives better performance than the heaps. A tractor with 72 HP is sufficient for operating the straw picking-up and chopping machine with a trolley behind. Five different forward speeds (S1=3.12, S2=4.22, S3=5.21, S4=6.31 and S5=7.51) km/h were examined for straw picking-up and chopping as windrows to find their effects on the performance of the machine, it was found that with S3 or S4, the machine shows the best performance in terms of fuel and time consumption, throughput capacity, straw recovery, throughput efficiency and acceptable slippage percentage.

References

Afify, M. T., A. H. Bahnasawy and S. A. Ali. 2002. Effect of rice straw picking up method on the performance of a rectangular baler. AIC 2002 meeting CSAE/SCGR program. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. July 14-17, 2002. Paper No. 02-217.

Al-Auobi T.H.M and Taha S.Y. 2009. Effect of baler type and tractor speed on slippage percentage, baler productivity and baler field efficiency. Raffidain. J. Agr. sci 1(4): 183-188.

Al-Banna, A. R. 1990. Tillage Equipment. Dar alkutub for press and publishing. Mosul University.

Anjum A., Ghafoor A., Munir A., Iqbal M. and Ahmed M. 2015. Design modification of conventional wheat straw chopper. CIGR Journal 17(1): 50-58.

Ankit Kr. U., Singh V. and Moses S. C. 2018. To study of effective speeds for harvesting of wheat straw by straw combine. International Journal of Agriculture Engineering 11(1): 54-59.

ASABE Standard. 2008. S358.2: Moisture measurement – forages. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.

Chandrasekaran, B., K. Annadurai and E. Somasundaram. 2010. A textbook of agronomy. New age international publishers. New Delhi.

Farias M. S., J. F. Schlosser, P. Linares, J. P. Barbieri, G. M. Negri, L. F. V. Oliveira and I. I. P. Rüdell. 2017. Fuel consumption efficiency of an agricultural tractor equipped with continuously variable transmission. Ciência Rural, 47:(6). 1-7.

Field H. L and John B. So. 2007. Introduction to Agricultural Engineering Technology. A Problem Solving Approach. Springer. Third edition. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC.

Grisso R.B., Perumpral J.V., Vaughan D., Roberson G.T. and Pitman R. 2010. Predicting tractor diesel fuel consumption. Virginia cooperative extension. Publication 442-073.

Gummert, Martin, NguyenVan Hung, Pauline Chivenge and Boru Douthwaite. 2020. Sustainable rice straw management [e-book]. Springer Open. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Accessed date 21/3/2020. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-32373-8.pdf

Gursoy S., Kolay B., Avsar O. and Sessiz A. 2015. Evaluation of wheat stubble management practices in terms of the fuel consumption and field capacity. Res. Agr. Eng. 61(3): 116-121.

Jain S. C. and Philip G. 2003. Farm machinery – an approach. First edition. A.k. Jain for standard publishers distributors. Delhi. India.

Jasim A.A and H.A. Jebur. 2015. Impact of primary tillage system on fuel consumption, management and total tractor costs. The Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Science. 46(1): 31-35.

Kumar A. N., Kumar V., Rani V., Mukesh S. and Poonia R. 2017. Comparative performance of paddy straw chopper-cum-spreader of different designs. Annals of Agri-Bio Research 22(1): 60-63.

Mahmood H. S., Ahmed T., Zulfiqar A., Ahmed M. and Amjed N. 2016. Field evaluation of a wheat straw chopper. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 29(3): 301-314.

Ministry of planning report, 2017. A survey of winter planted crops in Kurdistan region, (area , yield , production and cost). Kurdistan region government, Ministry of planning, Foundation of statistics of Kurdistan region.

SAS, 2009. SAS/STAT 9.2 user’s guide. 2nd edn, SAS Institute Inc., SAS Campus Drive, Cary, North Carolina 27513.

Suradi A., Stefanoni W., Alfano V., Bergonznli S. and Pari L. 2020. Equipping a Combine Harvester with Turbine Technology Increases the Recovery of Residual Biomass from Cereal Crops via the Collection of Chaff. Energies. 13(7): 1572 . Available online. . Accessed date. 10/5/2020; https://doi.org/ 0.3390/en13071572

Thakur S. S., Chandel R. and Narang M. K. 2018. Studies on straw management techniques using paddy-straw chopper cum spreader along with various tillage practices and subsequent effect of various sowing techniques on wheat yield and economics. AMA 49(2): 52-67.

Vink A. 2015. Crop residues for animal feed. Netherlands. CTA. Publications Distribution Service.