Evaluation of lentil harvest systems for different sowing methods and cultivars in Syria

Abstract

S U M M A R YHand harvesting is a major constraint to lentil production in North Africa and West Asia. This study, in north Syria, compared hand harvesting, cutting by mower (double-knife) and cutting with angled blades on two lentil cultivars differing in standing ability and using two sowing methods (broadcast and drilled) both with and without the use of a heavy bar for field levelling in the 1984/85 season. Seven treatments were selected for testing in five locations in the 1985/86 season; and in the 1986/87 and 1987/88 seasons, agronomic comparisons of mowing v. hand harvesting were conducted on five farmers' fields.Both machine methods of harvesting resulted in significant harvest losses compared with hand harvesting. The angled blades performed well on a ridged broadcast crop, but tended to mix soil with the harvested crop. The loss of straw associated with harvesting by mower was reduced by levelling the seedbed after sowing. The superiority in seed yield of cultivar 78S26002 over the local cultivar increased from 9% when hand harvested to 39% with mowing because of its lower likelihood of lodging. In the 1986/87 and 1987/88 seasons, the seed yield from a hand harvest was 1650 kg/ha compared with 1508 kg/ha following harvest by mower, representing a loss of 8-6% from mechanization. The corresponding straw loss was 16-6% of the mean from a hand harvest of 2140 kg straw/ha. However, the harvest losses from mechanical harvesting by mower were compensated for by the reduced labour costs compared with hand harvesting.

Lodging in Lentil as Affected by Plant Population, Soil Moisture and Genotype

“…Season 1986-87 1987-88 1986-87 1987-88 1986-87 1987- Harvest losses due to the use of mechanical rather than hand harvesting increased with increasing soil moisture levels (Table 3), but plant population had no significant effect on harvest losses. Losses from the mechanical harvest of lodged crops were relatively small compared with those observed in farmers' fields and previous results of harvesting with a cutter bar (Erskine et al, 1991), possibly because the seedbed in our experimental area was more uniformly levelled than farmers' fields. The genotype X treatment interactions were not significant.…”

“…al., 1991). Genotypes with good resistance to lodging are desirable for these systems because lodging results in yield losses if it occurs early in the development of the crop (Penaloza and Mera, 1988) or if a lodged crop is mechanically harvested (Erskine et al, 1991). Lentil genotypes vary in their resistance to lodging, those with thick stems generally being most resistant (Erskine and Goodrich, 1988).…”

Recent progress in the ancient lentil

“…Such cultivars include Idlib-2, Idlib-3 and Idlib-4 in Syria, Hala and Rachayya in Lebanon, IPA-98 in Iraq, Saliana and Kef in Tunisia, and Firat-87 and Sayran-96 in Turkey. On-farm trials and demonstrations have verified the value of the mechanization package (Erskine et al 1991). On average, mechanical harvesting combined with improved cultivars having good standing ability reduces harvest costs by 17-20 % (ICARDA 2001).…”

Current and future strategies in breeding lentil for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses

“…It is increasingly uneconomic for farmers in West Asia and North Africa to harvest the crop by hand due to the rising cost of labor and research has identified optimum systems for mechanical harvest of the crop (Snobar et al ., 1985 ;Erskine et al ., 1991) . Genotypes with a high degree of standing ability are desirable in these systems because lodging results in yield losses if it occurs early in the development of the crop (Penaloza & Mera, 1988) or if a lodged crop is machine harvested .…”