1978
DOI: 10.13031/2013.35353
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Nature of Corn Kernel Damage Inflicted in the Shelling Crescent of Grain Combines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…8). This supports the argument generated by earlier studies; namely that grain damage can potentially be reduced when the shelled grains are expelled from the threshing crescent immediately after threshing [23]. The study results support the use of a rational 62.5 mm clearance between the crossbars in the experimental concave, ensuring that the portion of damaged grain does not exceed the acceptable limit of 3%.…”
Section: Loss Of Grain Separation Through Concavesupporting
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…8). This supports the argument generated by earlier studies; namely that grain damage can potentially be reduced when the shelled grains are expelled from the threshing crescent immediately after threshing [23]. The study results support the use of a rational 62.5 mm clearance between the crossbars in the experimental concave, ensuring that the portion of damaged grain does not exceed the acceptable limit of 3%.…”
Section: Loss Of Grain Separation Through Concavesupporting
confidence: 89%
“…Grain damage can possibly be reduced by redesigning the threshing mechanism, which includes both the cylinder and the concave, so that the shelled grains can leave the threshing crescent immediately after shelling [23]. Previous research has demonstrated that an increase in concave rod spacing tends to reduce the threshing unit loss [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Hall et al, (1970), the yield breakage rate was the lowest when the grain water content was 20%-23%. Chowdhury et al (1978), believed that the mechanical damage rate was the lowest when the moisture content was 23%. Li Lulu et al, (2017) pointed out that when the moisture content was lower than 26.92%, the grain breakage rate was less than 8%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%