An Apparatus and Method for Evaluating Particle-Size Distribution of Small Grain Crop Residues
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Apparatus Development
2.2. Experiments Conducted
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hobbs, P.R. Conservation agriculture: What is it and why is it important for future sustainable food production? J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 14, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Derpsh, R.; Fridrich, T.; Kassam, A.; Hongwen, L. Current status of adoption of no-till farming in the world and some of its main benefits. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2010, 3, 1–26. [Google Scholar]
- Henriksen, T.M.; Breland, T.A. Carbon mineralization, fungal and bacterial growth, and enzyme activities as affected by contact between crop residues and soil. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 35, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giacomini, S.J.; Recous, S.; Mary, B.; Aita, C. Simulating the effects of N availability, straw particle size and location in soil on C and N mineralization. Plant Soil 2007, 301, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Travis, A.J.; Murison, S.D.; Hirst, D.J.; Walker, K.C.; Chesson, A. Comparison of the anatomy and degradability of straw from varieties of wheat and barley that differ in susceptibility to lodging. J. Agric. Sci. 1996, 127, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, M.; Chen, J.; Shi, Y.; Li, Y.; Yin, Y.; Yang, D.; Luo, Y.; Pang, D.; Xu, X.; Li, W.; et al. Manipulation of lignin metabolism by plant densities and its relationship with lodging resistance in wheat. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, K.; Goh, K.M. Crop residues and management practices: Effects on soil quality, soil nitrogen dynamics, crop yield, and nitrogen recovery. Adv. Agron. 1999, 68, 197–319. [Google Scholar]
- Flower, K.C.; Ward, P.R.; Passaris, N.; Cordingley, N. Uneven crop residue distribution influences soil chemical composition and crop yield under long-term no-tillage. Soil Tillage Res. 2022, 223, 105498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jokiniemi, H.T. Effect of cereal stubble management on the combine harvester performance and energy requirements. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR J. 2015, 17, 64–72. [Google Scholar]
- Douglas, C.L.; Rasmussen, P.E.; Allmaras, R.R. Cutting height, yield level, and equipment modification effects on residue distribution by combines. Trans. ASAE 1989, 32, 1258–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carter, M.R. A review of conservation tillage strategies for humid temperate regions. Soil Till. Res. 1994, 31, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Tessier, S.; Irvine, B. Drill and crop performances as affected by different drill configurations for no-till seeding. Soil Till. Res. 2003, 77, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruan, H.; Ahuja, L.R.; Green, T.R.; Benjamin, J.G. Residue cover and surface-sealing effects on infiltration: Numerical simulations for field applications. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siemens, M.C.; Wilkins, D.E. Effect of residue management methods on no-till drill performance. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2006, 22, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASABE. S424.1: Method of Determining and Expressing Particle Size of Chopped Forage Materials by Screening; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Schwarz, M.; von Chappuis, A. DLG evaluation scheme for the work quality of combine straw choppers. Agric. Eng. 2007, 62, 26–27. [Google Scholar]
- Vosshenrich, H.-H. Straw distribution and chop quality in the field. Agric. Eng. 1999, 54, 306–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DLG Prüfbericht 5445F: Häckselqualität John Deere 9880i STS. DLG Testzentrum, DLG Verlag. 2005. Available online: http://www.dlg-test.de/pbdocs/5445F.pdf (accessed on 14 October 2022).
- Miu, P. Combine Harvesters: Theory, Modeling, and Design; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Savoie, P.; Audy-Dubé, M.A.; Pilon, G.; Morissette, R. Chopped forage particle-size analysis in one, two, and three dimensions. Trans. ASABE 2014, 57, 1549–1555. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, Y. Image and Sieve Analysis of Biomass Particle Sizes and Separation after Size Reduction. Master’s Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Belal, E.; Okinda, C.; Qishuo, D.; Talha, Z. Mass-based image analysis for evaluating straw cover under high-residue farming conditions in rice–wheat cropping system. Agric. Res. 2017, 6, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, A.G.; Lisboa, I.P.; Cherubin, M.R.; Cerri, C.E. How much sugarcane straw is needed for covering the soil? BioEnergy Res. 2019, 12, 858–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumhála, F.; Kvíz, Z.; Mašek, J.; Procházka, P. The measurement of plant residues distribution quality after harvest by conventional and axial combine harvesters. Plant Soil Environ. 2005, 51, 249–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paulsen, D. Sorting out screening performance: Consider particle characteristics when selecting screening media and machine configuration. Chem. Eng. 2004, 111, 33–37. [Google Scholar]
- Igathinathane, C.; Pordesimo, L.O.; Columbus, E.P.; Batchelor, W.D.; Sokhansanj, S. Sieveless particle size distribution analysis of particulate materials through computer vision. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2009, 66, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Finner, M.F.; Hardzinski, J.E.; Pagel, L.L. Measuring particle length of chopped forage. In Proceedings of the Int’l. Grain & Forage Harvesting Conference, Ames, IA, USA, 25–29 September 1977; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 1978; pp. 265–269. [Google Scholar]
- Gale, G.E.; O’Dogherty, M.J. An apparatus for the assessment of the length distribution of chopped forage. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1982, 27, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nigon, C.M. Methods for Analyzing the Performance of Combine Harvester Residue Management Systems. Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- ASABE. S343.4: Terminology for Combines and Grain Harvesting; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kenney, K.L.; Wright, C.T.; Hoskinson, R.L.; Hess, J.R.; Muth, D.J. Engineering High-Fidelity Residue Separations for Selective Harvest; ASABE Technical Paper No. 066171; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- ASABE. S352.2: Moisture Measurement—Unground Grain and Seeds; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- ASABE. S358.3: Moisture Measurement—Forages; ASABE: St. Joseph, MI, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Lundin, G. Chop length capability and wearing qualities for two types of straw chopper knives at combine harvesting. J. Agric. Mach. Sci. 2008, 4, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
- El-Hanfy, E.H.; Shalby, S.A. Performance evaluation and modification of the Japanese combine chopping unit. MISR J. Agric. Eng. 2009, 26, 1021–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stubbe, A.K.M. Development of Systems to Spatially Quantify Grain Flow from the Threshing and Separating Systems of a Combine Harvester. Master’s Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kattenstroth, R.; Harms, H.H.; Frerichs, L. Influence of the straw alignment on the cutting quality of a combine’s straw chopper. Landtechnik 2012, 67, 244–246. [Google Scholar]
- ISO 9276-1:1998(E); Representation of Results of Particle Size Analyses—Part I: Graphical Representation. International Standards Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008.
Screen | Screen Length [b] | Hole Diameter | Hole Location | Screen Thickness | Total Screen Area | Screen Open Area | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
f [c] | X [c] | Y [c] | |||||
Position [a] | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (m2) | (%) |
C | 1000 | 19.0 | 44 | 25 | 5.0 | 0.55 | 51 |
D | 990 | 12.7 | 30 | 17 | 2.7 | 0.54 | 48 |
E | 810 | 7.9 | 16 | 9 | 1.9 | 0.45 | 63 |
Experiment Number | Stationary Knife Engagement [a] | Residue Chopper Speed | Ground Speed | Replicate Samples per Experimental Condition | Moisture Content | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(mm) | (rpm) | (km × h−1) | (% w.b.) | |||
Grain | Residue | |||||
1 [b] | 0.90 | 1600, 2500 | 3.2 | 9 | 15 | 29 |
2 [c] | 0.90 | 1600, 2500 | 3.2 | 3 | 14 | 24 |
Residue Chopper Speed (rpm) | Stationary Knife Engagement [a] (mm) | Average Particle Length [b] (mm) | Proportion of Total Sample Mass [d] (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Straw & Chaff [c] | Straw [c] | |||||
<50 mm | 50–125 mm | >125 mm | ||||
1600 | 0 | 84a | 96ab | 23c | 35c | 42a |
1600 | 90 | 69b | 87ab | 26bc | 40b | 34b |
2500 | 0 | 72b | 101a | 27b | 39b | 34b |
2500 | 90 | 55c | 80b | 32a | 44a | 24c |
SEM [e] | 1.5 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 0.6 | |
p-value | 0.525 | 0.007 | 0.235 | 0.390 | 0.707 | |
Averaged by knife engagement | ||||||
0 | 77a | 98a | 24b | 38b | 38a | |
90 | 64b | 84b | 29a | 42a | 29b | |
SEM [e] | 1.04 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | |
p-value | <0.001 | 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Averaged by chopper speed | ||||||
1600 | 78a | 92a | 25b | 37b | 38a | |
2500 | 62b | 91a | 29a | 42a | 29b | |
SEM [e] | 1.04 | 2.9 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | |
p-value | <0.001 | 0.801 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Residue | Stationary | Average Particle Length [b] (mm) | Proportion of Total Sample Mass [d] (%) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chopper | Knife | |||||
Speed | Engagement [a] | Straw & Chaff [c] | Straw [c] | |||
(rpm) | (mm) | <50 mm | 50–125 mm | >125 mm | ||
[e] | [e] | 133a | 249a | 34b | 7b | 59a |
1600 | 0 | 77b | 233a | 40b | 9b | 52a |
2500 | 90 | 42c | 110b | 54a | 28a | 18b |
SEM [f] | 5.7 | 6.6 | 1.2 | 2.2 | 2.9 | |
p-value | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nigon, C.M.; Shinners, K.J.; Friede, J.C. An Apparatus and Method for Evaluating Particle-Size Distribution of Small Grain Crop Residues. AgriEngineering 2022, 4, 1016-1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering4040064
Nigon CM, Shinners KJ, Friede JC. An Apparatus and Method for Evaluating Particle-Size Distribution of Small Grain Crop Residues. AgriEngineering. 2022; 4(4):1016-1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering4040064
Chicago/Turabian StyleNigon, Cyrus M., Kevin J. Shinners, and Joshua C. Friede. 2022. "An Apparatus and Method for Evaluating Particle-Size Distribution of Small Grain Crop Residues" AgriEngineering 4, no. 4: 1016-1029. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering4040064