Quantitative losses in mechanized harvesting corn crop in small footprint and conventional
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2012v33n2p565Keywords:
Harvester, Agricultural machinery, Zea mays L.Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the quantitative losses occurred in the mechanical harvesting of the corn grown in conventional and reduced gaps. The experimental design was randomized blocks with three replications and treatments distributed in a factorial (2 x 3 x 3), and two spacings (0.45 m and 0.90 m), three speeds of the combine (1.8 km.h-1 3.5 km.h-1 and 4.1 km.h-1) and three openings of the concave (25 mm, 30 mm and 35 mm). For treatments where the spacing was 0.45 m, the harvester worked with a power of two lines dividing line between the platform crop while in treatments where the spacing was 0.90 m, the harvester worked with a power dividing line between a line of platform. The plant population was the same for the two spacings used in the experiment. The natural losses were higher in the conventional spacing, but the header losses of harvest had the lowest use this space at a speed of 3.5 km.h-1. As maiores perdas ocorreram nos mecanismos internos da colhedora ocorreu quando se utiliza a abertura côncava de 30 mm a uma velocidade de 3,5 km.h-1. Total losses accounted for 8.2% and 7.3% of the average productivity in the gaps of 0.45 m 0.9 m respectively.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2012 Semina: Ciências Agrárias
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Semina: Ciências Agrárias adopts the CC-BY-NC license for its publications, the copyright being held by the author, in cases of republication we recommend that authors indicate first publication in this journal.
This license allows you to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format, remix, transform and develop the material, as long as it is not for commercial purposes. And due credit must be given to the creator.
The opinions expressed by the authors of the articles are their sole responsibility.
The magazine reserves the right to make normative, orthographic and grammatical changes to the originals in order to maintain the cultured standard of the language and the credibility of the vehicle. However, it will respect the writing style of the authors. Changes, corrections or suggestions of a conceptual nature will be sent to the authors when necessary.