Comparative field performances between conventional combine and mid-size combine in wetland rice cultivation

Abstract

In paddy cultivation, harvesting is the most important operation, which needs suitable machinery. Thus, this study was carried out to compare field performances and energy and environmental effect between the conventional 5 m cutting width NEW HOLLAND CLAYSON 8080, 82 kW@2500 rpm combine harvester running on a total net area of 42.78 ha of plots for two rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation seasons and the new mid-size 2.7 m cutting width WORLD STAR WS7.0, 76 kW@2600 rpm combine harvester running on a total net area of 16.95 ha of plots for two rice cultivation seasons. The conventional combine as compared to mid-size combine showed 14.4% greater mean fuel consumptions (21.13 versus 18.46 l/ha), 31.1% greater mean effective field capacity (0.69 versus 0.53 ha/h), 5.23% greater cornering time (turning time) percentage of total time (8.28% versus 3.05%) and 1.41% greater reversing time percentage of total time (7.2% versus 5.79%) but 20.90% lesser mean operational speed (3.24 versus 4.10 km/h), 11.69% lesser effective time percentage of total time (60.0%versus 71.69%h/ha), 10.8% lesser mean field efficiency (64.3% versus 72.1%). In terms of total energy use the conventional combine showed 24.64% greater mean total energy use in the harvesting operation (1445.81 versus 1160.00 MJ/ha), 14.46% greater mean fuel energy (1010.014 versus 882.39 MJ/ha), 56.47% greater mean machinery energy (431.32 versus 275.65 MJ/ha) and 59.25% greater mean human energy (3.48 and 2.18 MJ/ha), this cause 26.12% greater mean total Green House Gas emission (GHG) than the mid-size combine. The results revealed that the mid-size combine is more suitable in conducting the harvest operation in rice field in Malaysia than the conventional combine.

Comparison of field performances between two typical mini combine harvesters in grain corn production

“…KDC with mean EFC of 0.28 ha/hr contributed to 34.05% higher mean FC than WS. In paddy harvesting with mean EFC of 0.53 ha/hr, the WS consumed 18.46 l/ha (Elsoragaby et al, 2019). The results stated that the grain corn harvesting which consumed 12.57 l/ha of diesel had 31.91% lower fuel consumption than paddy harvesting per hectare with the same model WS (Elsoragaby et al, 2019).…”

“…A recent study showed that WS had also been used in wetland paddy harvesting with mean FE of 72% (Elsoragaby et al, 2019). High EFC can have low FE for instance, KDC which had 12% higher EFC, had 8% lower in FE than WS due to underutilization of working width (Table 3).…”

“…The KDC spent 11.03% lower harvesting time than the WS due to higher of FS and working width. Elsoragaby et al (2019) reported that the mini combine harvester (WS) spent 1.36 hr/ha for harvesting operation in paddy field. Busato et al (2007) mentioned that using combine harvester with 9 m working width combine harvester spent 0.12 hr/ha in wheat harvesting.…”

“…High variation (91.12 to 94.39%) in harvesting time spent between mini combine harvesters (KDC and WS) and conventional combine harvester (9 m working width) as previously stated is due to difference in machinery specifications. For instance, the mini combine harvester working width is 3 times shorter than conventional combine harvester which negatively affects the harvesting time of mini combine harvester (Elsoragaby et al, 2019). Table 3 shows that the mean cornering and reversing time for KDC and WS were 0.35 and 0.5 hr/ha, respectively.…”

“…KDC had 11.03% lower total field time than WS. Elsoragaby et al (2019) revealed that the mean total field time which was derived from Eqs. 3 was equal to 1.9 hr/ha in paddy harvesting when using WS.…”