Hasat Kaybı Ölçüm Yöntemlerinin Karşılaştırılması

Çalışmanın amacı, bazı tarla bitkilerinde hasat kayıplarının ölçülmesinde kullanılan farklı yöntemlerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda, gerçek tarla şartlarında biçerdöver operatörü ve üretici inisiyatifi altında yapılan hasatlarda 3 farklı kayıp ölçme yöntemi kullanılarak elde edilen sonuçlar değerlendirilmiştir. Mısır ve soyanın biçerdöverle hasadında, ekim sırasına paralel 1 m2 çerçeve (1. yöntem) , ekim sırasına dik 1 m2 çerçeve (2. yöntem) ve üççeyrek m2 (3. yöntem), pamuğun ise pamuk toplama makinası ile hasadında ise 1. ve 2. yöntemler kullanılarak hasat kayıpları hesaplanmıştır. Ölçümlerde 3 yöntem için aynı tarlada 50m x 50m ebatlarında oluşturulan 5 grit kullanılmıştır. Çalışma sonunda, mısır için ölçülen kayıplar 1, 2, 3. yöntemlere göre sırasıyla %2.8, %3.4 ve %4.7, soyada %1.5, 2. %2.1 ve %4.4 ve pamukta %4.7 ve %4.6 olarak gerçekleşmiştir. 1. Yöntemden 3. Yönteme doğru hesaplanan kayıpların arttığı ve mısırda 1 ve 3. yöntemler arasında %59,6 oranında, soyada ise %33.5 oranında hesaplanan kayıplarda farklılık olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Pamuk hasat kayıpları ölçümünde ise 1. ve 2. Yöntemler arasında bir farklılık tespit edilememiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

ürün kayıpları, hasat makinaları, dökülme kayıpları, mısır, pamuk, soya

A Comparison of Harvest Loss Measurement Methods

The aim of the study is to compare the 3 different methods that used to measure harvest losses under real field conditions for corn, soybean and cotton. A 1 m2 frame parallel to the planting row spacing (Method 1: M1), 1 m2 frame perpendicular to the planting row spacing (Method 2: M2) and three quarter m2 (Method 3: M3) were used to calculate harvest losses. This M1, M2, and M3 methods were used to calculate the losses in the harvest of corn and soybean with combine harvester. Then the M1 and M2 methods were used to calculate the losses when harvesting cotton with a cotton picker. 5 grids were established in the same field measuring 50mx50m for the M1, M2 and M3. The losses measured for corn at the end of the study were 2.8%, 3.4% and 4.7%; 1.5%, 2.1% and 4.4% for soybean respectively, according to M1, M2, and M3 methods. The losses measured for cotton 4.7% and 4.6%, respectively, according to M1, M2 methods. It was determined that losses calculated from the M1 to the M3 increased and that there was a difference in the calculated losses by 59.6% between the M1 and M3 for corn and 33.5% for soybean. There was no difference between the M1 and M2 for cotton.

Keywords:

crop losses, harvest machinery, shatter losses, corn, cotton, soybean,

PDF

___

Alizadeh, M. R., and A. Allameh. 2013. Evaluating rice losses in various harvesting practices. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sci. 4 (4): 894-901.
Alonso-Amelot M. E., and J. L. Avıla-Núñez. 2011. Comparison of seven methods for stored cereal losses to insects for their application in rural conditions. In Journal of Stored Products Research, 47(2): 82–87.
Andrews S. B., and T. J. Siebenmorgen, D. H. Loewer.1992. Combine test system for determining harvest loss in rice. Trans. ASAE 8 (6). 759–763.
Anonymous. 2007. Registration instruction: Cotton (Gossypium Sp.) agricultural values measurement trials. Retrieved in May 13, 2022 from tarimorman.gov.tr/BUGEM/ TTSM/Belgeler/Tescil/Teknik%20 Talimatlar/Endüstri %20 Bitkileri/pamuk-tdo-talimati-2007son.pdf?Mobile= 1&Source=%2FBUGEM%2FTTSM%2F_layouts%2F15%2Fmobile%2Fviewa%2Easpx%3FList%3De9e3a72 -7c3e-4acd-9cd7-7292c8a6463f%26View%3D29b0dad 4-04d1-4b8b-bb2452e7d33f9f10%26RootFolder%3D% 252FBUGEM%252FTTSM%252FBelgeler%252FTescil%252FTeknik%2BTalimatlar%252Fend%25u00fcstri%2BBitkileri% 26wdFCCState%3D1 (In Turkish). Date of Access : 01.01.2023
Anonymous. 2011. T.C. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Tarım Teknolojileri; Biçerdöverle Hasat. Ders Kitabı No: 525MT0253. Basım yeri Ankara. http://megep.meb. gov.tr/mte_program_modul/moduller_pdf/ Bi%C3%A7erd%C3 %B6 verle%20Hasat.pdf. (In Turkish). Date of Access: 21.04.2022.
Anonymous. 2012. Grain loss detection methods in maize and sunflower harvest with a combine. lecture notes, TAYEM Adana (In Turkish).
Aulakh J., A. Regmi, J. Fulton, and C. Alexander. 2013. Estimating post-harvest food losses: developing a consistent global estimation framework. In Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting. Washington. DC. USA. 4–6 August 2013.
Bomoi M. I., N. M. Nawi, S. Abd Aziz, and M. S. Mohd Kassim. 2022. Sensing technologies for measuring grain loss during harvest in paddy field: A review. Agri-Engineering 2022. 4. 292–310. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/agriengineering4010020
Camara F. T., R. P. Sılva, A. Lopes, C. E. A. Furlanı, D. C. C. Grotta, G. N. Reıs. 2007. Influência da área de amostragem na determinação de perdas totais na colheita de soja. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. Lavras. v.31. n.3. p.909-913. maio/jun. 2007.
Chaab R. K., S. H. Karparvarfard, H. Rahmanian-Koushkaki, A. Mortezaei and M. Mohammadi. 2020. Predicting header wheat loss in a combine harvester. A new Approach. Sci. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences 19 (2020): 179-184.
Coen T., A. Vanrenterghem, W. Saeys, and J. De Baerdemaeker. 2008. Auto pilot for a combine harvester. In Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 63(1): 57-64.
Gemtos T. A., and E. Mygdakos. 1998. Losses incurring during cotton mechanical harvesting. In Central Greece Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference-2. Athens, Greece. September 6-12. 1998. pp.1133-1136.
Jones A. R., and R. C. Dalal. 2017. Enrichment of natural 15 N abundance during soil N losses under 20 years of continuous cereal cropping. In Science of the Total Environment 574: 282–287.
Kazama E. H., R. P. Silva, F. M. Carneiro, D. B. Teixeira, W. G. Vale , and P. T. Peregia. 2018. Crop Productıon. Acta Sci. Agron. 42. 2020. Retrieved in May 12, 2022 from https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron. v42i1.42587
Kirk K. R., M. T. Plumblee, B. E. Teddy, B. B. Fogle, and L. A. Samenko. 2020. Cotton yield, losses, and quality as a function of harvesting ground speed. Paper and poster presentation at the 2020 Beltwide Cotton Conferences. January 8-10, 2020. Austin, Texas. Retrieved in July 15, 2022 from https://www.cotton. org/beltwide/proceedings/2005-2021/data/conferences/ 2020/paper/20055.pdf#page=1 Date of Access: 20.01.2023
Kutzbach H. D. 2000. Trends in power and machinery. In Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 76 (3): 237–247.
Lian Y., J. Chen, Z. Guan, and J. Song.2021, Development of a monitoring system for grain loss of paddy rice based on a decision tree algorithm. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng., 14: 224–229.
Liang Z., Y. Li, Z. Zhao, and L. Xu. 2015. Structure optimization of a grain impact piezo electric sensor and its application for monitoring separation losses on tangential-axial combine harvesters. Sensors 15: 1496–1517.
Liangyu Hou L., K. Wang, Y. Wang, L. Li, B. Ming, R. Xie, and S. Li. 2021. In-field harvest loss of mechanically-harvested maize grain and affecting factors in China. Int J Agric & Biol Eng., 14 (1): 29
Loureiro Junior A. M., R. P. Silva, M. T. Cassia, A. M. Compagnon, and M. A. Voltarelli. 2014. Influence of the sample area in the variability of losses in the mechanical harvesting of soybeans. Engenharia Agrícola, 34 (1):76-85.
Mairgyhany M., A. Yahya, N. M. Adam, A. Suhaizi, M. Su, and S. Elsoragaby. 2018. Quality of performance and grain losses of two type of rice combine harvesters. Agric. Res. Technol. Open Access J. 2018. 19. 556085.
Paixão C. S. S., A. F. Santos, M. A. Voltarelli, R. P. Silva, and F. M. Carneiro. 2017. Times of efficiency and quality of soybean crop mechanical operation in geometry functions of plots. Engenharia Agrícola, 37(1): 106-115.
Say S. M., A. Ince, S. Uğurluay, and A Soysal. 2010. Comparing the performance of conventional and stripping headers in wheat harvest. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 16(4): 242-253 (In Turkish).
Sessiz A., and İ. Demirel. 2021. Determination of grain losses in corn harvest with combine-harvester. Journal of Agricultural Machinery Science 17(1): 34-41 (In Turkish).
Siebenmorgen T. J., S. B. Andrews, E. D. Vories, and D. H. Loewer. 1994. Comparison of combine grain loss measurement techniques. T. ASAE 10(3): 311–315.
Sotnar M., J.Pospíšıl, J.Mareček, T.Dokukılová, and V. Novotný. 2018. Influence of the combine harvester parameter settings on harvest losses. Acta Technologica Agriculturae 3: 105–108; DOI: 10.2478/ata-2018-0019
Srivastava A. K., C. E Goering., R. P. Rohrbach, and D. R. Buckmaster. 2006. Engineering principles of agricultural machines. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Retrieved in July 18, 2022. https://tripleis.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/epdf. pub_engineering-principles-of-agricultural-machines.pdf
Suismono M. 2012. Method of paddy losses measurement for post-harvest In Madagascar. Fınal Report. On Project for Productivity Improvement in Central High land in The Republic of Madagascar. Third Country Expert /TCE Post-Harvest Technologies. August 2012. Retrieved in April 20, 2022 from https://www.jica. go.jp/project/madagascar/0700698/materials/ku57pq0 001ynw1c-att/postharvestPADDYLOSSESen.pdf Date of Access : 18.01.2023
TUIK. 2022. Production amount and harvest losses for some selected plant products. Retrieved in October 15, 2022 from https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori? p=tarim-111&dil=1 15.01.2023
Wang K., R. Xie, B. Ming, P. Hou, J. Xue, and S. Li. 2021. Review of combine harvester losses for maize and in fluencing factors. Int. J Agric & BiolEng., 14(1): 1-10.
Zhao Z., Y. Li, J. Chen, J. Xu. 2011. Grain separation loss monitoring system in combine harvester. Computer Electron. Agric. 76: 183–188