Author
Listed:
- Surinder Singh Thakur
- Rupinder Chandel
- Manjeet Singh
Abstract
In India, most of the maize combine harvester currently being used employs snap roll type header. This type of header is costly, dependent on row spacing of maize crop and causes losses at headlands during turning. Moreover owing to its heavy weight its frequent lifting and downing during harvesting season causes hydraulic leakages in certain sections of combine. Therefore to overcome these problems a new light weight cutter bar Maize header is developed and evaluated for maize crop. The performance evaluation of the cutter bar type maize header is done in a dislodged and a partially lodged (30-40%) maize crop. For lodged crops, the header losses varied from 19.18-26.71% and for dislodged crops it was varied from 5.29-10.15% respectively. The cylinder losses for dislodged crop varied from 2.70-2.86% and for lodged crop it varied from 0.85-2.04%. The mean cleaning efficiency for lodged and dislodged maize crop was found as 88.87% and 90.58% respectively. The grain damage for lodged and dislodged crop was observed as 8.31% and 5.94% respectively. The trash content for lodged and dislodged crop was 2.75 and 3.45% respectively. The performance of snap roll and cutter bar was also done. Total losses with snap roll header were higher as 15.06% and lower for cutter bar as 10.85%. The brokens were higher for cutter bar as 5.94 and lower for snap roll as 3.45%. The trash content was 3.45% for cutter bar header and 2.24% for snap roll header. The total energy input in snap roll header, cutter bar maize header and maize dehusker cum sheller were 2360.05, 1970.90 and 3770.48 MJ/ha respectively.The cost of operatin with cutter bar maize header, snap roll maize header and maize dehusker cum sheller were 53.62 $/ha, 68.73$/ha 187.32 $/ha respectively.
Suggested Citation
Surinder Singh Thakur & Rupinder Chandel & Manjeet Singh, 2024.
"Technical, Field, Economic and Energy Comparison of Cutter Bar Maize Header With Snap Roll Maize Header,"
Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 13(4), pages 155-155, April.
Handle:
RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:155
Download full text from publisher
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:13:y:2024:i:4:p:155. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.