Performance of machinery in potato production in one growing season

Kun Zhou, Allan L. Jensen, Dionysis D. Bochtis, Claus G. Sørensen

Abstract


Statistics on the machinery performance are essential for farm managers to make better decisions. In this paper, the performance of all machineries in five sequential operations, namely bed forming, stone separation, planting, spraying and harvesting in the potato production system, were investigated during one growing season. In order to analyse and decompose the recorded GPS data into various time and distance elements for estimation of the machinery performance, an automatic GPS analysis tool was developed. The field efficiency and field capacity were estimated for each operation. Specifically, the measured average field efficiency was 71.3% for bed forming, 68.5% for stone separation, 40.3% for planting, 69.7% for spraying, and 67.4% for harvesting. The measured average field capacities were 1.46 ha/h, 0.53 ha/h, 0.47 ha/h, 10.21 ha/h, 0.51 ha/h, for the bed forming, stone separation, planting, spraying, and harvesting operations, respectively. These results deviate from the corresponding estimations calculated based on norm data from the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE). The deviations indicate that norms provided by ASABE cannot be used directly for the prediction of performance of the machinery used in this work. Moreover, the measured data of bed forming and stone separation could be used as supplementary data for the ASABE which does not provide performance norms for these two operations. The gained results can help farm managers to make better management and operational decisions that result in potential improvement in productivity and profitability as well as in potential environmental benefits.


Keywords


GPS data analysis; operation management; machinery management; field efficiency; field capacity; Solanum tuberosum L.

Full Text:

PDF HTML XML

References


Adamchuk VI, Grisso R, Kocher MF, 2011. Spatial variability of field machinery use and efficiency. In: GIS applications in agriculture. Vol 2. Nutrient management for energy efficiency, Chapter 8, pp: 135-146; Clay DE & Shanahan JF (eds). CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10600-9

ASABE, 2011. Agricultural machinery management data. In: ASABE Standard 2011. Am Soc Agr Biol Eng, St. Joseph, MI, USA.

Bochtis DD, Vougioukas SG, 2008. Minimising the non-working distance travelled by machines operating in a headland field pattern. Biosyst Eng 101(1): 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2008.06.008

Bochtis DD, Sorensen CG, 2009. The vehicle routing problem in field logistics part I. Biosyst Eng 104(4): 447-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.09.003

Bochtis DD, Sorensen CG, Green O, Moshou D, Olesen J, 2010. Effect of controlled traffic on field efficiency. Biosyst Eng 106(1): 14-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.10.009

Castillo-Ruiz FJ, Pérez-Ruiz M, Blanco-Roldán GL, Gil-Ribes JA, Agüera J, 2015. Development of a telemetry and yield-mapping system of olive harvester. Sensors 15(2): 4001-4018. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s150204001

Grisso RD, Jasa PJ, Rolofson DE, 2002. Analysis of traffic patterns and yield monitor data for field efficiency determination. Appl Eng Agric 18(2): 171-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.7782

Hanna M, 2002. Estimating the field capacity of farm machines. Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA, USA. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/crops/pdf/a3-24.pdf.

Harrigan TM, 2003. Time-motion analysis of corn silage harvest systems. Appl Eng Agric 19(4): 389-395. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.14917

Holpp M, Kroulik M, Kviz Z, Anken T, Sauter M, Hensel O, 2013. Large-scale field evaluation of driving performance and ergonomic effects of satellite-based guidance systems. Biosyst Eng 116(2): 190-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.07.018

Hunt D, 2008. Farm power and machinery management. Waveland Press, USA. 5 pp.

Jensen MAF, Bochtis DD, 2013. Automatic recognition of operation modes of combines and transport units based on GNSS trajectories. IFAC Workshop Series, Vol. 4., No. 1., pp: 213-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.3182/20130828-2-SF-3019.00059.

Moser D, Zechmeister HG, Plutzar C, Sauberer N, Wrbka T, Grabherr G, 2002. Landscape patch shape complexity as an effective measure for plant species richness in rural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 17(7): 657-669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021513729205

Ntogkoulis PA, Bochtis DD, Fountas S, Berruto R, Gemtos TA, 2014. Performance of cotton residue collection machinery. Biosyst Eng 119: 25-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.01.001

Oksanen T, 2013. Shape-describing indices for agricultural field plots and their relationship to operational efficiency. Comput Electron Agric 98: 252-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2013.08.014

Renoll E, 1981. Predicting machine field-capacity for specific field and operating conditions. T ASAE 24(1): 45-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.34195

Sørensen CG, Nielsen V, 2005. Operational analyses and model comparison of machinery systems for reduced tillage. Biosyst Eng 92(2): 143-155. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2005.06.014

Sørensen CG, Møller HB, 2006. Operational and economic modeling and optimization of mobile slurry separation. Appl Eng Agric 22(2): 185-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.13031/2013.20280

Taylor RK, Schrock MD, Staggenborg SA, 2002. Extracting machinery management information from GPS data. ASABE, St. Joseph, MI, USA.

Witney B, 1996. Choosing and using farm machines. Land Technology Ltd, Scotland, UK.

Zhou K, Jensen AL, Bochtis DD, Sørensen CG, 2015. Simulation model for the sequential in-field machinery operations in a potato production system. Comput Electron Agric 116: 173-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.06.018




DOI: 10.5424/sjar/2015134-7448