Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities (EJPAU) founded by all Polish Agriculture Universities presents original papers and review articles relevant to all aspects of agricultural sciences. It is target for persons working both in science and industry,regulatory agencies or teaching in agricultural sector. Covered by IFIS Publishing (Food Science and Technology Abstracts), ELSEVIER Science - Food Science and Technology Program, CAS USA (Chemical Abstracts), CABI Publishing UK and ALPSP (Association of Learned and Professional Society Publisher - full membership). Presented in the Master List of Thomson ISI.
2012
Volume 15
Issue 1
Topic:
Agricultural Engineering
ELECTRONIC
JOURNAL OF
POLISH
AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITIES
Mirnezami S. , Chegini G. 2012. ECONOMICAL EVALUATION IN TWO HARVESTING METHODS WITH STRIPPER HEADER AND CONVENTIONAL HEADER, EJPAU 15(1), #01.
Available Online: http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume15/issue1/art-01.html

ECONOMICAL EVALUATION IN TWO HARVESTING METHODS WITH STRIPPER HEADER AND CONVENTIONAL HEADER

Seyyed Vahid Mirnezami, Gholam Reza Chegini
Department of Agrotechnology, College of Aboureihan, University of Tehran, Iran

 

ABSTRACT

Two common harvesting methods, stripper header and conventional header were studied economically. Wheat harvest operations, cutting residual stems on the field, Rake then packing for stripper field and wheat harvest, rake operations and also without rake then packing for conventional header were compared. To obtain harvest costs, all parameters affecting on harvesting was measured and calculated. Results showed that residual straw on the stripper field was so minimal and next tillage operations can be done easily. Harvest speed with stripper header was 41% more than conventional. Fuel consumption in wheat harvest with stripper header 5.68 l·ha-1 has decreased and for collecting straw has increased 23.53 l·ha-1 than conventional header. Net income from conventional harvesting with rake operations has increased 30% and 35% without rake operation. Totally harvesting income with stripper header 307 000 tom (1100 tom = 1$) and 344 000 tom per hectare was more than conventional header with rake and without rake operation.

Key words: harvesting income, collecting straw, rake, stripper header, combines.

INTRODUCTION

Use of any technology and new methods at first level require economically justification and then cultural and social promotion. Stripper header on extensive research which been done in the entire world has been evaluated for grain and technically. The main goal is answering reflection and effects of technology on economic development and cultural and social needs. Remaining straw was one of the issues and problems that this header left for farmer. Using stripper header has been promoted commensurate with Europe particular conditions by Shelbourne Company and for more than thirty countries has been evaluated and studied [4, 5, 10]. Comments of farmers and researchers show that in same conditions, benefits of stripper header were more than conventional header [9]. Research shows that British farmers with using stripper header since 1987 have increased rate of wheat and barley harvest between 40% to 100% without any yield loss and between 80% and 90% straw and stem of crop are remained on the ground. In Italy the minimum loss for harvesting rice with this type of header has been reported 0.4% [1, 2]. Assessment done on this header in Italy and U.S. shows that stripper header, without increasing yield loss can be increased harvesting capacity between 50% and 100% compared with conventional heads. Also, this type of header for harvesting cereals and other crops with average stem diameter and height has had an effective efficiency [2, 6, 7]. In 1991 stripper header and conventional header has been evaluated and compared in America. The result of this research showed that the use of stripper header with 4.2 m cut width, harvesting capacity in comparison with conventional header with 4.5 m width cut has increased 60%. The most important result in this research increasing Combine capacity as well as grain loss was reduced. This header was tested in more than thirty countries, including: in Germany, for barley and wheat 70–90% increasing efficiency, 30% less straw than conventional headers and was highly dependent on operator skill. In Sweden: in harvesting pea increasing speed up to 11 km·h-1 and increasing efficiency up to 50% have been reported. In America, wheat harvest was done with 25 combine and results indicate that increasing speed 5–8 km·h-1, over speed of header cause to make it more cargo for harping. In Thailand, using stripper header instead of conventional for rice cause to decreasing loss until 4% and the efficiency was 74% [6, 9, 10]. Although in the world, residual straw is good for increasing nutritional value and preventing soil erosion. In Iran are used straw for livestock different applications to simplify digestive system and also in other industries. Another point is that residual straw cause delaying for next planting operations. In harvesting cost, calculations just for rice harvest have been done [3]. So conventional header was compared with stripper header method and harvesting costs from wheat crop until packing straw were measured and calculated

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Stripper header and combine. In this survey used John Deere 955 combine Model 75 was that a combine had worked for 10 years. The stripper header was Shelburne Reynolds; model SR4200, 4 m harvesting width, rotor speed 450–860 rpm and 8 row teeth. After installing stripper on the head, rotor speed settings and other setting was carried out on it. Header used for combine model 955 is suitable. Figure 1 shows combine and stripper header installed on it for setting.

Fig. 1. John Deere 955 Combine with headers installed on it

Tractor and equipments. For harvesting straw remained in both conventional and stripper header methods used John Deere tractor model 3140, two plates Mower, four rows of solar rake, Class Baler and also equipment were behind tractor (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. John Deere tractor with mower, baler and solar rake implements

Field and crop. Wheat field with the center pivot irrigation system was located in Shiraz. Conditions for stripper header according to combine 10-year-old and rough field were stringent. Type of soil was City clay and varieties of wheat were “Cross Azadi”. All of properties of field and crop were measured.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Economic evaluation, harvesting cost and value of two common or traditional types of harvesting methods with stripper header were studied. Harvesting costs, including fuel consumption, machine rental costs, operation and value of harvested crop like wheat and straw were calculated. In this comparison, efficiency hours of each machine are measured per hectare. Also, fuel consumption in two separate processes is obtained, one for wheat harvest and another for straw harvest until packing.

Stem remained on the field is the main problem with two type of harvesting method. Figure 3 shows condition of field in both types. In harvesting with stripper header, clusters are picked up from stem and then moved into combine and stems and 80% of substances remained on the field [8, 11].

Fig. 3. Residual stems conditions on the field: a) harvesting with conventional header, b) harvesting with stripper header

However in harvesting with conventional header only stems with 30–50 cm height remained on the field.

Straw harvesting and removing straw from the field is very serious for our country. It is used for livestock and other industrial expenditure. On the other hand harvesting straw quickly, prepare field for next cultivation. Therefore this issue can be viewed from two sides, one collecting straw and other firing field which addition of environmental pollution, microorganisms and nutrients are damaged in the soil seriously (Fig. 4). While in harvested field with common methods, minimum height of residual straw in the field is between 30 up to 50 cm which Even with harvesting straw, cultivation problems and firing straw remained still.

Fig. 4. Straw conditions after harvesting with common methods: a) rake then gathering, b) firing

Ready condition and clean field for next operation in comparison with conventional header was remarkable point obtained from stripper field. In this method the amount of straw remained on the stripper field is minimal and in addition to starting next operation fast, cultivation can be performed easily. So costs due to operations such as preparing field like handling discs, removed in this way and can be said even energy used for tillage is reduced. So for harvesting with stripper method can be used utilization management and field timing optimally.

Harvesting costs, including wheat harvest, fuel consumption, harvesting straw from cut stems until packaging and crop net income of wheat and straw were obtained in three steps. Table 1 shows harvesting costs with stripper header from the wheat harvest until collecting and packing straw.

As shown in Table 1 total of harvesting cost had been 101 756 tom·h-1 and the value of harvested crop including wheat and straw 1 429 900 tom and net income from harvesting in a hectare was 1 328 135 tom. Fuel consumption in harvesting with stripper header for wheat and straw was obtained 51.57 l·ha-1 totally

Table 1. Harvesting costs with stripper header (with rake)

Fees

Value

Unit Price

Prices

Combine

1.13 h·ha-1

35 000 tom·h-1

39 550

Fuel consumption

11.36 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

182

Mower

1.25 h·ha-1

15 000 tom·h-1

18 750

Rake

1.27 h·ha-1

12 000 tom·h-1

15 240

Baler

1.37 h·ha-1

20 000 tom·h-1

27 400

Fuel consumption of collecting straw

40.20 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

643

Total of harvesting costs Of harvested crop

 

 

101 765

Wheat

4.310 t·ha-1

250 000 tom·t-1

1 077 500

Straw

3.12 t·ha-1

120 000 tom·t-1

374 400

Loss

88 kg·ha-1

250 tom·kg-1

-22 000

Total crop income

 

 

1 429 900

Net income

 

 

1 328 135

Total fuel consumption

51.57 l·ha-1

 

 

To calculate costs and harvest income with stripper header was conducted two measuring and computing. One without rake operations similar to common methods and the other with rake operations.

Table 2 and table 3 show harvesting costs with conventional header from wheat harvest time until gathering and packing straw with rake and without rake operations respectively.

Table 2. Harvesting costs with conventional header (with rake operation)

Fees

Value

Unit Price

Prices

Combine

1.92 h·ha-1

35 000 tom·h-1

67 200

Fuel consumption

17.04 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

273

Mower

-

-

-

Rake

1 h·ha-1

12 000 tom·h-1

12 000

Baler

0.83 h·ha-1

20 000 tom·h-1

16 666

Fuel consumption of collecting straw

16.67 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

267

Total of harvesting costs of harvested crop

 

 

96 406

Wheat

4.06 t·ha-1

250 000 tom·t-1

1 015 000

Straw

1.5 t·ha-1

120 000 tom·t-1

180 000

Loss

308 kg·ha-1

250 tom·kg-1

- 77 000

Total crop income

 

 

1 118 000

Net income

 

 

1 021 594

Total fuel consumption

33.71 l·ha-1

 

 


Table 3. Comparing of harvesting final costs with conventional header (without rake operation)

Fees

Value

Unit Price

Prices

Combine

1.92 h·ha-1

35 000 tom·h-1

67 200

Fuel consumption

17.04 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

273

Mower

-

-

-

Rake

-

-

-

Baler

0.78 h·ha-1

20 000 tom·h-1

15 556

Fuel consumption of collecting straw

16.67 l·ha-1

16 tom·l-1

267

Total of harvesting costs of  harvested crop

 

 

96 406

Wheat

4.06 t·ha-1

250 000 tom·t-1

1 015 000

straw

1.08 t·ha-1

120 000 tom·t-1

129 600

Loss

308 kg·ha-1

250 tom·kg-1

- 77 000

Total crop income

 

 

1 067 600

Net income

 

 

984 304

Total fuel consumption

33.71 l·ha-1

 

 

Figure 5a shows result of machine efficiency comparison and Figure 5b shows fuel consumption in two type of harvesting methods.

Fig. 5. Comparing of two harvesting methods: a) machine efficiency, b) fuel consumption

As shown in Figure 5a, wheat harvest efficiency in conventional header was 1.92 h·ha-1 and 1.13 h·ha-1 for stripper header. So we can conclude that harvesting time with stripper header has been 0.79 h·ha-1 less than conventional and this shows harvesting speed with stripper header has been 41% higher than conventional. With comparing collecting straw machines efficiency can be said that stems cutting operation until packing them with stripper header was 53% more conventional header totally. Of course it should be considered that in cutting process, 32% of harvesting operations, has been removed with conventional header.

With checking fuel consumption in two methods, Figure 5b, fuel consumption rate in harvesting wheat with stripper header has been decreased 5.68 l·ha-1. This expenditure for collecting straw in stripper header ratio to conventional, 23.53 l·ha-1 has increased. This fuel consumption growth is due to increasing operations and much straw in harvesting with stripper header.

With comparing Table 1 and 3, net income from harvesting wheat and straw with rake operations per hectare 1 021 594 tom and 934 304 tom for no raking. Increasing crop income in stripper header method was due to decreasing loss and increasing straw harvest. Table 4 shows results of this comparison. Also figure 6 shows comparing between consumed cost and net income of harvesting in three methods.

Table 4.Comparing of harvesting final costs with conventional and stripper header

Harvest method

Total harvest costs
(Toman)

Harvest net income
(Toman)

Harvest efficiency

Total fuel consumption l·ha-1

Wheat
t·ha-1

Straw
t·ha-1

Harvesting costs with two headers per hectare

Stripper header

101 000

1 328 000

13.1
(1 328 000/101 000 = 13.1)

51.57

4.310

3.12

Conventional header
with rake

96 000

1 021 000

10.6
(1 021 000/96 000 = 10.6)

33.71

4.06

1.5

Conventional header without rake

83 000

984 000

11.8
(984 000/83 000 = 11.8)

33.71

4.06

1.08

Margin difference
with rake

307 000 tom·ha-1

Margin difference
without rake

344 000 tom·ha-1


Fig. 6. Consumed cost and net income of harvesting with stripper header, conventional header with rake and without rake

Figure 6 shows cost per harvest 21% and 5% stripper header comparison with conventional with and without rake, net income from harvesting in common methods 30% and 35% respectively with rake and without rake operations has increased. According to the calculations in Table 4 can be said that harvesting with stripper header 307 000 tom and 344 000 tom has more income per hectare than conventional header respectively with and without rake. In a 50-hectare field, the amount of extra income is 17 200 000 tom. This increasing of income compared with conventional header due to low header loss and gathering further straw.

Table 5, separately total income of harvesting straw, wheat for two headers has been compared. Table 5 shows economic evaluation of the overall harvest with two headers to separate wheat and straw per hectare. Table 5 shows that net income for wheat harvest with stripper header is 145 000 tom·h-1. Income of harvesting straw per hectare with stripper header is 200 000 tom more than conventional header. This is a remarkable number for harvesting per hectare.

Table 5. Economic evaluation with two headers for wheat and straw separately per hectare generally

Harvest method

Net income of wheat harvest
tom·ha-1

Net income of straw harvest
tom·ha-1

Net income of total harvest
tom·ha-1

Stripper header

1 015 768

312 367

1 328 135

Conventional header with rake

870 527

151 067

1 021 594

Conventional header without rake

870 527

113 777

984 304

Margin difference with rake

145 241

161 300

306 541

Margin difference without rake

145 241

198 590

343 831

Stripper header influence on market of combine, Baler and Mower. Stripper header can be introduced a convenient substitute for customers initially. This header after using by farmers in different areas in water and field and different crops and moisture as a new crop can be considered. Considering that straw didn't pass through internal parts of combine, on the reduction of part depreciation these which with passing time this significant effect is identified for the consumer. So it can have a positive influence on optimum internal parts of combine designing like stubble systems and cleaning system. Therefore has direct effect on combine Sales. Also selling stripper header can be considered as objectivity and independent crop, and can be said does not have another direct effect on combine sales. Direct effect of stripper header is more on the Baler and mower that according to studies and data noted in report, for harvesting straw either with stripper header or conventional header, need is to collect straw.

Stripper header sales affect on production market and national income. Cereals sale and national income is based on two principles. One, productive crop quality and other net income of production. Crop quality apart from of seed type, refer to true harvesting and post harvesting process. Because of stripper header didn't import straw with wheat or cereals into pounding parts and separation and cleaning units, so wheat grains had a smaller fracture and quickly passes different parts. So there will be half-pounded and fractured grains and less straw eventually. Also according to high altitude of stripper header harvesting and cutting seeds, low weeds will enter to reservoir which has remarkable affect on crop quality and ultimately the next crop (especially for cereals seeds). All of these cases have been studied in diagram form and wheat in reservoir in two headers.

Another principle in selling cereals and national income is net income of harvesting. Net income of harvest depends on harvesting cost and total income. Whatever with less cost can earn more income, national income raise due to increasing net income of harvest. In this research net income of harvest in two methods has been compared separately. But significant points in harvesting with stripper headers which have affect on national income and has not been considered are : reduction of crop loss, fuel consumption reduction, reducing of combine parts depreciation, harvesting straw fired by farmer, increasing of harvest speed, harvest period reduction according to stripper header capability in harvesting crop up to 35% moisture, field preparation for tillage operation : means that less costs for preparing field after harvesting with conventional header and harvest more straw in comparison with conventional header.

CONCLUSIONS

Two common harvesting methods (conventional header and stripper header) were studied economically. To obtain harvest costs, all parameters affecting on harvesting was measured and calculated. Results showed that harvesting with stripper header could be replaced with conventional header because: residual straw on the stripped field was so minimal and next operations can be started faster and also tillage operations are performed easily. Harvest speed with stripper header was 41% more than conventional. Fuel consumption in wheat harvest with stripper header 5.68 l·ha-1 has decreased. This consumption for collecting straw in stripper method has increased 23.53 l·ha-1 than conventional header. Net income from harvesting has increased 30% ratio to harvesting with rake operation and 35% with conventional header and without rake operation. Harvesting with stripper header 307 000 tom and 344 000 tom dollars had more income per hectare ratio to conventional header with rake and without rake operation

REFERENCES

  1. Glancey J.L., 1997. Analysis of Header Loss from Pod Stripper Combines in Green Peas. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 68, 1–10.
  2. Hobson R.N., Metianu A.A., 1989. Further trials with the 1·5 m wide stripper harvesting rig in Italian rice during. Silsoe Research Institute Confidential 1991, Contract Report No. CR/433/91/8611.
  3. Kalsirislip R., Singh G., 2001. Adaptation of a stripper header for a Thai-made rice combine harvester. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 80, 163–172.
  4. Klinner W.E., Neale M.A., Arnold R.E., Geikie A.A., Hobson R.N., 1986. Development and first evaluations of an experimental grain stripping header for combine harvesters. National Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Silsoe, Divisional Note 1316.
  5. Klinner W.E., Neale M.A., Arnold R.E., Geikie A.A., Hobson R.N., 1987. A new concept in combine harvester headers. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 38, 37–45.
  6. Klinner W.E., Neale M.A., Arnold R.E., 1987. A new stripping header for combine harvesters. Agric. Eng., 42, 9–14.
  7. Li Y., Chen S., Zhang J., 1998. Experimental Research on Header Losses for Stripping Combine. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Machinery, 29, 51–54.
  8. Srivastava A.K., Goering C.E., Rohrbach R.P., Buckmaster D.R., 2006. Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. (ASAE), St Joseph, MI, USA.
  9. Tado, C.J., Wacher M.P., Kutzbach H.D., Suministrado D.C., 1998. Development of stripper harvesters: A review. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 71, 103–112.
  10. Wilkins D.E., Douglas C.L., Pikul J.L., 1996. Header loss for Shelburne Reynolds stripper-header harvesting wheat. Appl. Eng. Agric., 12, 159–162.
  11. Yuan J., Li X., Zhang X., Shi L., Chen N., 1998. Researches of the Theory for Stripping Harvester Design. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Machinery, 29, 37–43.

Accepted for print: 2.02.2012


Seyyed Vahid Mirnezami
Department of Agrotechnology, College of Aboureihan, University of Tehran, Iran
Pakdasht, 339163775, Iran
phone: +98 292 30 210 43, fax: +98 292 30 254 11
email: s.v.mirnezami@ut.ac.ir

Gholam Reza Chegini
Department of Agrotechnology, College of Aboureihan, University of Tehran, Iran
Pakdasht, 339163775, Iran
phone: +98 292 30 406 14, fax: +98 292 30 407 46
email: chegini@ut.ac.ir

Responses to this article, comments are invited and should be submitted within three months of the publication of the article. If accepted for publication, they will be published in the chapter headed 'Discussions' and hyperlinked to the article.