An evaluation of machinery systems for harvesting the total corn plant

Ayres, George Elwood

doi:10.31274/rtd-180814-4793

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Combine corn and collect shucklage (consisting of cobs and shucks) in trailing wagon. Approximately 2,241 kg/ha of dry matter (1 ton per acre) is collected (Ayres 1973). Feeding trials show that cattle consume approximately Vi of the shucklage 1,120 kg/ha (Vi ton per acre).…”

Section: Grain and Shucklagementioning

confidence: 99%

Research in Developing More Efficient Harvesting Machinery and Utilization of Crop Residues

Buchele

1976

Transactions of the ASAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Grain and Shucklagementioning

confidence: 99%

Research in Developing More Efficient Harvesting Machinery and Utilization of Crop Residues

Buchele

1976

Transactions of the ASAE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A single-pass harvesting system which combines the harvest of corn grain and stover would further eliminate field operations and reduce costs. Previous research investigated single-pass-harvesting in which the grain and non-grain fractions were separated, processed and transported from the machine in separate streams (Albert and Stephens, 1969;Ayres and Buchele, 1971;Ayres and Buchele, 1976;Burgin, 1941;Buchele, 1976;Hitzhusen et al, 1970;Schroeder and Buchele, 1969). Shinners et al (2003) estimated single-pass harvesting reduced total harvesting costs of grain and stover by 26% compared to conventional grain and stover harvesting systems.…”

Section: Single-and Two-pass Corn Stover Harvesting Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single- and Two-Pass Corn Stover Harvesting Systems

Shinners¹,

Bennett²,

Hoffman³

2009

2009 Reno, Nevada, June 21 - June 24, 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To improve the performance of a single-pass combine used to harvest corn grain and stover, the flail chopper used to process the stover on previous harvester iterations was replaced with forage harvester feedroll and cutterhead components. These precision-cut components improved material flow and combine performance. The change from the flail chopper to the precision-cut stover processor increased area productivity from 1.4 to 2.2 ha/h, decreased specific fuel consumption from 33.4 to 20.9 L/ha and decreased grain lost to the stover from 8.2 to 3.9%. Despite the improvements in combine performance, the single-pass stover system was 39% less productive than the conventional grain harvest system and was challenged by difficulties with handling and transporting grain and stover at the same time. To overcome these problems, an alternative approach was considered where windrows of stover were formed at the time of grain harvest, followed by stover harvest in a second-pass. Modifications were made to a corn head to gather the stalks and leaves and formed them into a windrow. The cob and husk were then placed on top of the windrow as this material was ejected from the rear of the combine. Because the cob was placed on top of the windrow at formation, 94% of the available cob was harvested with this two-pass system, compared to 48% for the conventional system which used shredding and raking stover after grain harvest. Because the two-pass system did not involve forming windrows by displacing stover across the ground, the ash content was 40% less than with conventional stover harvest practices. The area productivity at grain harvest of the two-pass system was 9% less than the conventional harvest system. Total specific fuel use to harvest grain and stover for the single-and two-pass systems was 1.38 and 1.81 L/Mg DM harvested, respectively. This difference may be reduced in the future if larger windrows are formed by merging to better match the capacity of the forage harvester. The particle-size of the stover harvested in a second pass with a forage harvester was 54% smaller than single-pass stover because a shorter length-of-cut could be used. The two-pass system required two fewer operations compared to conventional stover harvest practices. The formation of windrows at grain harvest allows for manipulation of moisture by field curing and may make packaging in dry bales possible compared to the single-pass system.

show abstract

“…Research work was carried out in the 1960's and 1970's looking at the feasibility of harvesting corn grain and stover with the ensiled stover intended for beef animal feed. Some of this research involved single-pass-harvesting in which the grain and non-grain fractions were separated, processed and transported from the machine in separate streams (Albert and Stephens, 1969;Ayres and Buchele, 1971;Ayres and Buchele, 1976;Buchele, 1976;Hitzhusen et al, 1970;Schroeder and Buchele, 1969). These machines typically sizereduced the non-grain fractions using a chopping cylinder and transported the material into a trailing wagon using an impeller-blower.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single-Pass, Split-Stream of Corn Grain and Stover: Characteristic Performance of Three Harvester Configurations

Shinners¹,

Boettcher²,

Munk³

et al. 2006

2006 Portland, Oregon, July 9-12, 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A grain combine was modified to produce single-pass, whole-plant corn harvesting with two crop streams, grain and stover. Three corn heads were used: ear-snapper, stalk-gathering and whole-plant. Capture of potential stover DM was 30, 67 and 90% of DM for a combine harvester configured with an earsnapper, stalk-gathering and whole-plant heads, respectively. Stover aggregate moisture was 51.0 and 52.5% (w.b.) for the whole-plant and stalk-gathering heads (front wagon only), respectively. Aggregate moisture of stover from the ear-snapper and stalk-gathering heads (rear wagon only) was 38.5% (w.b.). When the stalk-gathering or whole-plant heads were used, greater stover feedrate limited ground speed, so area capacity was 3.4, 2.2, and 2.0 ha/h, for the ear-snapper, stalk-gathering and whole-plant heads, respectively. Wet and dry bulk density was 163 and 100; 147 and 70; and 80 and 38 kg/m 3 for the earsnapper, stalk-gathering and whole-plant heads, respectively. Fermentation of single-pass stover in a bag silo was very good with DM losses after eight months of storage of 4.1 and 6.7% for the material harvested with the whole-plant and stalk-gathering heads, respectively.

show abstract

An evaluation of machinery systems for harvesting the total corn plant

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Research in Developing More Efficient Harvesting Machinery and Utilization of Crop Residues

Research in Developing More Efficient Harvesting Machinery and Utilization of Crop Residues

Single- and Two-Pass Corn Stover Harvesting Systems

Single-Pass, Split-Stream of Corn Grain and Stover: Characteristic Performance of Three Harvester Configurations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About