Harvesting Methods on Direct Solid Seeded Upright Edible Beans

Transcription

1 Pumphouse N Durum 1 Canola 2 Wheat Agronomy Trials Canola Triticale Yellow Peas 6 35 Barley 8 9 Potatoes Spring Triticale Parking Pond, Canal, Pipeline & Wetland Oats Barley/ Clover Corn Hard White 12 Wheat Sugar 7 beets Barley/ Durum Chickpeas Beans Winter Wheat Wheat Barley/ Winter Wheat Harvesting Methods on Direct Solid Seeded Upright Edible Beans Harvesting Methods on Direct Solid Seeded Upright Edible Beans Research conducted by Lawrence Papworth (P. Eng), Blaine Metzger (P. Tech.) and Dave Rea (Tech.) Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development Lethbridge AgTech Centre Edible beans are a very popular irrigated crop in southern Alberta. The conventional method of growing edible beans is in hilled rows. This requires specialized management, seeding, and harvesting equipment. Hilled beans are undercut prior to harvest, to stop the plant from growing and to detach the root system from the soil. The undercut bean plants are then easily lifted out of the soil with a special pickup and directed into a conventional harvester. Older varieties of edible beans grow as vine-like plants, with a tendency to fall over when mature. This places the bean pods very close to ground level and makes them difficult to harvest. Recently, newer varieties of edible beans have been developed that grow more upright, as small bushes rather than as vines. These upright beans can be seeded in narrow rows with conventional equipment. Spraying and harvesting can also be done with the same equipment as is used on traditional cereal, pulse and oilseed crops. The new bean varieties allow for straight-cut harvesting, which lowers harvest losses. Using conventional equipment and practices also reduces the need for expensive specialized equipment and management. In the fall of 2002 and 2003, a study was undertaken at the CACDI farm on the direct solid seeding of two upright edible bean varieties, and the harvesting with a conventional harvester. The study tested several headers and different lifter and reel attachments. Bean losses at harvest were measured for each header combination setup. Results after two years of testing showed that some of the attachments did reduce bean losses during harvesting, but the data was inconsistent and inconclusive. Observations led to the conclusion that climatic and crop conditions had more to do with the bean harvest losses than the header attachments alone. Method In 2003, AC Red Bond, an upright edible bean, was seeded on 3.5 ha at the CACDI demo farm, under half of a pivot irrigation system. The seed was treated with Maxim, Apron and Agristep, and the fields were pre-sprayed on May 15 with Glyphosate chemical at a rate of 1.8 L/ha. Edge was applied (17.6 kg/ha) and incorporated twice with a heavy harrow on May 21. The beans were direct solid seeded into corn stubble on May 30, at a rate of 112 kg/ha, using a double shoot air drill, set on 23 cm spacings. A blend of fertilizer was side banded with the seed and the field was rolled on May 31. The beans were sprayed with Basagran and Assure II, using a conventional sprayer. 22

2 Four weeks after general emergence, the stand looked average, but there was a very large amount of volunteer alfalfa. Though a swather was run through the crop to cut the tops of the alfalfa plants, the alfalfa eventually began growing again. A 1.2 ha area of the field was clear of alfalfa and this is where all the harvest loss measurements were made. Due to snowy weather, the beans were harvested on five separate dates in October, using different bean lifters and reel systems. Bean plant and pod counts, number of seeds on the ground, and average number of seeds per pod were measured randomly across the selected area just prior to harvesting. Bean pods and seed losses were measured for each lifter and reel combination used during the harvest. The pre-harvest bean counts and post-harvest loss measurements were taken in 0.5 square metre blocks. Lifter # Lifter Type Reel # Reel Type 1 Edwards/Keho Bean Sweep Lifter A Keho Air-reel 2 Gaterman Pickup Guard B Pickup-reel with Standard Tines 3 Primary Platform Extender Finger C Pickup-reel with HCC Paddle Tines 4 Primary 21mm Adapt-A-Gap Crop Finger 5 Harvestaire Crop Lifter 6 Standard Case 960 Combine Guard (check) 7 Gleaner Flex Header Configuration Number 1A 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B 5B, 6B, 7B 1C, 3C, 4C, 5C, 6C, Test Description Setup The sweeps were mounted on every other Case 960 guard finger for a 1.2 m area of the header during all tests. The Gaterman lifters were mounted on every other Case 960 guard finger for a 1.2 m area of the header during all tests. These extender fingers required the special Primary guards, with 1 extender finger mounted on 2 guard fingers. Extenders were mounted on every guard finger for a 1.2 m area of the header. The fingers were run in position #2 during all tests. Special Primary 4 finger guards are required with these crop fingers. The fingers were placed on every finger for a 1.1 m area during all tests. A lifter was placed on every Case 960 guard finger for a 1.5 m area of the straight cut header during all tests. A 1.5 m area of the straight cut header was left unadjusted. The standard Case 960 combine guards were used as the check in this area during all tests. All the same lifter setups mentioned above were used with the Pickup-reel with the standard single finger tines. Only the Gleaner Flex Header was used with this type reel because the header was a completely built setup. All the same lifter setups mentioned above were used with the Pickup-reel with Paddle tines, except for the Gaterman lifters (due to clearance of the Paddles.) 23

3 Primary Platform Extender Finger Setting #2 used in 2003 tests Gaterman Pickup Guard set to ride just above or on the ground Case 960 Combine Header Guard used for the standard control HCC Paddle Tine Results In general, results showed that several of the attachments did improve bean losses during harvesting, but the data was inconsistent and inconclusive. Climatic and crop conditions seem to have had more to do with the bean harvest losses than the header attachments. The soil surface was scattered with corn stalk bases and not rolled after seeding in 2002, which inhibited the performance of the bean lifters. The bean plant stand was very thin in 2002, and there weren't enough plants to help push other plants continuously and smoothly through the lifters into the header. A denser stand would have held the plant stems and their pods upright and higher off the ground, enabling the header and lifters to retrieve more pods and seeds. The crop stand was better in 2003, with increases of 2 plants per 0.5 sq m, 1.6 pods per plant, and 1.3 seeds per pod, compared to An average of 5.3 seeds per pod was measured prior to harvest, resulting in an approximate yield of 0.95 cubic metres per hectare, almost double the yield of However, the 2003 crop was over-mature at harvest time, with heavy pre-harvest losses, and it dried more as the harvest progressed. Thus, very heavy losses from pod shattering were suffered during the 2003 testing. This indicated that plant stand is not a significant factor in reducing losses, since testing was in more desirable plant stand conditions in 2003 and losses were higher. The timing of harvest and co-operative weather seem more important factors for reducing these losses. Bean losses were measured for each configuration of lifter and reel combinations, using an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) program on the loss measurement data. Some configurations significantly decreased losses compared to others. Single bean seed losses, full pod losses and total seed losses (single seeds plus the average seeds per lost pod) were analyzed separately, showing significant differences in losses among the three measurements. All the lifter losses were compared to the Case 960 combine guard losses, which were used as the control. Because the plant stand was much better and the field was rolled after seeding in 2003, the lifters all worked well, without becoming plugged with debris. There were more pods per plant, but there were also more pods lying near or on the ground, making pod retrieval with all the lifters difficult. The beans shelled out easily, with lots of seeds on the ground, and losses were unacceptably high with all the lifters and reels. Due to the overly dry beans and the fact that the Pickup-reel had to lift the plants up over the flexible cutter bar, there were very high shattering losses. Many of the pods shelled on the cutter bar deflector and the seeds then fell down the ramp and back onto the ground. 24

4 Overall, the Primary 21mm and Extender Fingers had consistently fewer losses with each reel type, when looking at seed alone, pod or total seed losses, probably because they are mounted very close together and have a gradual climb into the cutter bar. Also, due to their wider flat surfaces, loose seeds are more frequently caught and then pushed by the reel or subsequent plants into the header. The Gaterman lifters are not recommended for use in beans, but we included them in this test due to their wide-ranging availability. They caused few problems and did decrease bean losses in some cases. The Bean Sweeps need some modifications to help reduce losses. The bristles on them were too firm and pushed some plants over before lifting the pods up. As a result, the plant stalk was cut, resulting in lost pods. The angle of the Bean Sweeps also appeared to need modification to allow a more gradual flow of plants and pods up and over the bristles. In general, all the lifter and reel combinations decreased losses during harvest, though the type of loss reduction varied. For example, one lifter and reel combination decreased losses of seed (compared to the Case 960 guard), whereas another reduced only the pod losses. Some equipment combinations significantly reduced both seed and pod losses. In several tests, however, the Case 960 guards resulted in the lowest measured losses, thus rendering any conclusions problematic. The harvest results generally showed that the Pickup-reel with straight tines, used in conjunction with all the lifter configurations, was the greatest help in reducing seed losses, compared to the lifters with the Pickup-reel with Paddles, or the Air-reel. The Pickup-reel with Paddles, in conjunction with all the lifter configurations, helped the most to reduce pod losses compared to the other to reel and lifter configurations. In terms of total seed loss measurements, there was no significant difference between any of the reel and lifter configurations, other than the standard Case 960 guard, which had significantly higher losses with the Pickup-reel with straight tines compared to any other lifters. Testing in 2002 indicated that the Air-reel was less damaging physically, compared to use of the Pickup-reel, as the air did not cause the pods to shell as readily during cutting. This was indicated by there being fewer seeds on the ground after a harvest pass. In 2003, because of the exceptionally dry beans, the Pickup-reel with straight tines had significantly fewer losses than the Paddles, Air-reel and Flex Header. The Bean Sweeps are still in the development stage and they were used in these tests to determine what modifications could be made to help them work better and reduce losses. 21mm Primary Adapt-A-Gap Crop Finger Harvestaire Crop Lifter Primary 4-Finger Guard Keho Bean Sweep Lifter mounted on every other Case 960 guard finger 25

5 Harvest losses measured for lifter and reel configurations (Total bean seed losses calculated using an average of 5.3 seeds per pod) Average less Total Average Total Yield Average gain % of Yield Material pre-harvest seed Yield Losses over the Gained Reel Type Count losses losses Losses Beans + Pods check % Over The Lifter Setup Setup Type /28" sq /sq m /sq m ft 3 /ha bus/ac ft 3 /ha bus/ac ft 3 /ha bus/ac Loss Check Case 960 Guard Pickup Beans (Standard Check) -straight tines Pods Primary 21mm on Pickup Beans every guard finger -straight tines Pods Primary 21mm on Pickup Beans every other guard finger -straight tines Pods Gaterman on every Pickup Beans other guard finger -straight tines Pods Primary Extender Pickup Beans fingers- setting #2 -straight tines Pods Harvestaire Pickup Beans Lifters -straight tines Pods Bean Sweeps on Pickup Beans every other guard finger -straight tines Pods Case 960 Guard Pickup Beans Paddle tines Pods Primary 21mm on Pickup Beans every guard finger -Paddle tines Pods Primary Extender Pickup Beans fingers- setting #2 -Paddle tines Pods Harvestaire Pickup Beans Lifters -Paddle tines Pods Bean Sweeps on Pickup Beans every other guard finger -Paddle tines Pods Case 960 Guard Air-Reel Beans Pods Primary 21mm on Air-Reel Beans every guard finger Pods Gaterman on every Air-Reel Beans other guard finger Pods Primary Extender Air-Reel Beans fingers- setting #2 Pods Harvestaire Air-Reel Beans Lifters Pods Bean Sweeps on Air-Reel Beans every other guard finger Pods Gleaner Flex Header Pickup-reel Beans Pods

6 Bean Losses Comparing 960 Guard Alone to Lifters With Each Reel Type Losses (Bushels/acre) Seed Losses Pod Losses Total Seed Losses Type of Losses Measured Lifters with pickup reel and tines Lifters with pickup reel and paddles Lifters with air reel 960 gaurds with pickup reel and tines 960 gaurds with pickup reel and paddles 960 gaurds with air reel Flex Header-Pickup Reel Bean Losses for Each Reel Type Losses (seeds/sq m) Seed Losses Pod Losses Total Seed Losses Pickup Reel with Tines Air Reel Type of Losses Measured Pickup Reel with Paddles Flex Header-Pickup Reel For more information, or to obtain a copy of the research report, contact Lawrence Papworth Telephone or lawrence.papworth@gov.ab.ca 27