Progress report on losses associated with corn harvesting in Iowa

Waelti, Henry; Buchele, Wesley F.; Farrell, Molly

doi:10.1016/0021-8634(69)90087-0

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One is the loss caused by the dropping of ears and kernels before harvesting caused by planting and management factors-for example, the ear and grain dropping caused by stalks and panicles being drilled and eaten by maize borer and the ear dropping caused by stalk lodging; this loss is referred to as pre-harvest loss and is not caused by the operation of harvesting machinery. The second type is the loss from falling ears and kernels, which is also known as the harvest loss [7] . Ayres et al [8] classified the harvest loss into visible loss and invisible loss according to whether the fallen grains and ears can be observed in the field after mechanical grain harvesting: the visible loss refers to the ears and kernels that are dropped in the field after the harvester completes the harvesting operation, while the invisible loss refers to the materials that are broken into fragments and powder during the process of threshing, including the imperfect kernels that are not shelled from the top of the cobs during the threshing process.…”

Section: Classification Of Harvest Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 1970s, mechanical harvesting technology began to be widely used for the harvesting of maize grain in Europe and North America [6] . Much research had been carried out on the components of harvest loss [7,8] , the causes of harvest loss [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] , and measures to reduce harvest loss [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] , thus providing technical support for the continuous improvement of maize varieties and the continuous improvement of the performance of harvesting machines. Consequently, maize grain harvesting technology has matured.…”

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors

Wang

Xie

Ming

et al. 2021

International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The high harvest losses associated with the mechanical harvesting of maize in China are currently a major barrier to the adoption of this technology. This paper summarizes works of literature regarding harvest losses from the combine harvesting of maize in China and abroad. The main findings are as follows: (1) In 2012-2019, 2987 samples data obtained from the major maize production areas of China showed that the average harvest loss was 345.2 kg/hm 2 (3.5% of the average yield), with losses ranging from 0 to 9288.5 kg/hm 2 ; (2) The harvest losses from combine harvesting are mainly caused by the dropping of ears. The ear losses include the pre-harvest loss caused by ear abscission, damage caused by maize borer, lodging, and the ear loss during combine harvesting, and the main pre-harvest loss is caused by lodging; (3) Harvest losses are affected by maize variety, planting mode, cultivation management, pests and diseases, weather conditions during harvesting, harvest date, combine harvester type, harvester adjustment, operator proficiency, and the terrain conditions of the maize field; (4) The harvest losses from combine harvesting are also related to the type of header, feeding and threshing methods, the adjustment of header stripping clearance, feeding amount, forward speed, cylinder or rotor speed, and the clearance between the cylinder and the concave of the harvester. However, the combine losses mainly come from header losses. In order to reduce the harvest losses, the following solutions were proposed: (1) Breed and select maize varieties which are resistant to lodging, especially during the field drying of mature grains, as well as those resistant to maize borer and stalk rot; (2) Select varieties suitable for grain harvest-which requires matching the accumulated-temperature demand of the maize hybrids, optimal plant density, row spacing, and irrigation and fertilizer management with the light and heat conditions of the production area while cultivating uniform populations and healthy plants-as well as preventing and controlling damage from maize borer, stalk rot, and ear rot, harvesting at the appropriate time; (3) Develop and select advanced maize combine harvesters, formulate standardized operating procedures for harvesting machinery, and standardize field operation; (4) select appropriate agricultural machinery and agronomic practices, and improve the training of maize producers and harvester operators.

show abstract

Section: Classification Of Harvest Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors

Wang

Xie

Ming

et al. 2021

International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the Chinese national standard of "Technical Conditions for Maize Harvesting Machinery" [7] , the harvest loss rate should be less than or equal to 5% of the yield. In the 1970s, technology for the mechanical harvesting of maize grain began to be widely applied in Europe and North America [8] , and a large amount of research was carried out on the form of harvest loss [9,10] , the causes of harvest loss [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] , and measures to reduce this loss [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] , which has provided technical support for the breeding progress of maize varieties and the improvement of mechanical grain harvesting technology. Previous research has shown that the in-field harvest loss mainly came from the loss of ear-falling before harvest-which can be caused by intrinsic properties of maize varieties, damage from maize borer, stalk lodging during harvesting, as well as the loss from fallen ears and fallen grain during mechanical harvesting [30,31] .…”

Section: Introduction mentioning

confidence: 99%

In-field harvest loss of mechanically-harvested maize grain and affecting factors in China

Hou¹,

Wang²,

Wang³

et al. 2021

International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field harvest loss is a common problem of maize grain mechanical harvesting in China and abroad. From 2012 to 2019, 2987 groups of samples for the quality of mechanical grain harvesting in field were obtained in 21 major maize-producing provinces, cities, and regions of China. The analysis performed in this study showed that the average harvest loss of fallen ears was equivalent to 76.5% of the total harvest loss, indicating that the harvest loss in the mechanical harvesting of maize grain mainly came from the loss of fallen ears. Meanwhile, statistical analysis of the harvest loss in different ranges of grain moisture contents showed that, when the grain moisture content fell below 20%, the harvest loss rate of fallen ears and the total harvest loss rate both increased sharply, and the harvest loss of fallen ears increased faster than the harvest loss of fallen grain with a decreasing grain moisture content. Moreover, the results of multi-point experiments and harvest experiments in different periods showed that, during harvesting time, the harvest loss of fallen ears caused by lodging was the main reason for in-field harvest losses in the mechanical harvesting of maize grain. Apart from the above mentioned, the test results of 35 groups of harvesters for the in-field mechanical harvesting of maize grain showed that the harvester types and their operating parameters were important factors affecting the harvest loss in the mechanical harvesting of maize grain. Therefore, the principal paths to reduce harvest loss in the mechanical harvesting of maize grain are to breed lodging-resistant maize varieties, adopt reasonable planting densities, cultivate healthy plants, develop harvesters with low harvesting loss, intensify the training of operators, and harvest at an appropriate time.

show abstract

“…Leford et al [7] showed that breakage resistant grain tended to be smaller and denser, and was higher in shear strength. Waelti et al [8] showed that moisture content and kernel size (thickness and area) were positively related to kernel damage; kernel damage increased with increasing kernel size and moisture content. Plant density, harvest moisture content, and drying temperature also influence grain breakage susceptibility [8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Waelti et al [8] showed that moisture content and kernel size (thickness and area) were positively related to kernel damage; kernel damage increased with increasing kernel size and moisture content. Plant density, harvest moisture content, and drying temperature also influence grain breakage susceptibility [8]. Martin et al [9] concluded that mechanical breakage at harvest was influenced primarily by kernel shape, size, and structural characteristics and then by kernel hardness properties.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural parameters for X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) and their relationship with the breakage rate of maize varieties

Hou

Zhang²,

Jin

et al. 2019

Plant Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHigh grain breakage rate is the main limiting factor encountered in the mechanical harvest of maize grain. X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) scanning technology could be used to obtain the three-dimensional structure of maize grain. Currently, the effect of maize grain structure on the grain breakage rate, determined using X-ray μCT scanning technology, has not been reported. Therefore, the objectives of this study are: (i) to obtain the shape, geometry, and structural parameters related to the breakage rate using X-ray μCT scanning technology; (ii) to explore relationships between these parameters and grain breakage rate.ResultIn this study, 28 parameters were determined using X-ray μCT scanning technology. The maize breakage rate was mainly influenced by the grain specific surface area, subcutaneous cavity volume, sphericity, and density. In particular, the breakage rate was directly affected by the subcutaneous cavity volume and density. The maize variety with high density and low subcutaneous cavity volume had a low breakage rate. The specific surface area (r = 0.758*), embryo specific surface area (r = 0.927**), subcutaneous cavity volume ratio (0.581*), and subcutaneous cavity volume (0.589*) of maize grain significantly and positively correlated with breakage rate. The cavity specific surface area (− 0.628*) and grain density (− 0.934**) of maize grain significantly and negatively correlated with grain breakage rates. Grain shape (length, width, thickness, and aspect ratio) positively correlated with grain breakage rate but the correlation did not reach statistical significance. The susceptibility of grain breakage increased when kernel weight decreased (− 0.371), but the effect was not significant.ConclusionsThe results indicate that X-ray μCT scanning technology could be effectively used to evaluate maize grain breakage rate. X-ray μCT scanning technology provided a more precise and comprehensive acquisition method to evaluate the shape, geometry, and structure of maize grain. Thus, data gained by X-ray μCT can be used as a guideline for breeding resistant breakage maize varieties. Grain density and subcutaneous cavity volume are two of the most important factors affecting grain breakage rate. Grain density, in particular, plays a vital role in grain breakage and this parameter can be used to predict the breakage rate of maize varieties.

show abstract

Progress report on losses associated with corn harvesting in Iowa

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors

Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors

In-field harvest loss of mechanically-harvested maize grain and affecting factors in China

Structural parameters for X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) and their relationship with the breakage rate of maize varieties

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About