Technical, Field, Economic and Energy Comparison of Cutter Bar Maize Header With Snap Roll Maize Header

In India, most of the maize combine harvester currently being used employs snap roll type header. This type of header is costly, dependent on row spacing of maize crop and causes losses at headlands during turning. Moreover owing to its heavy weight its frequent lifting and downing during harvesting season causes hydraulic leakages in certain sections of combine. Therefore to overcome these problems a new light weight cutter bar Maize header is developed and evaluated for maize crop. The performance evaluation of the cutter bar type maize header is done in a dislodged and a partially lodged (30-40%) maize crop. For lodged crops, the header losses varied from 19.18-26.71% and for dislodged crops it was varied from 5.29-10.15% respectively. The cylinder losses for dislodged crop varied from 2.70-2.86% and for lodged crop it varied from 0.85-2.04%. The mean cleaning efficiency for lodged and dislodged maize crop was found as 88.87% and 90.58% respectively. The grain damage for lodged and dislodged crop was observed as 8.31% and 5.94% respectively. The trash content for lodged and dislodged crop was 2.75 and 3.45% respectively. The performance of snap roll and cutter bar was also done. Total losses with snap roll header were higher as 15.06% and lower for cutter bar as 10.85%. The brokens were higher for cutter bar as 5.94 and lower for snap roll as 3.45%. The trash content was 3.45% for cutter bar header and 2.24% for snap roll header. The total energy input in snap roll header, cutter bar maize header and maize dehusker cum sheller were 2360.05, 1970.90 and 3770.48 MJ/ha respectively.The cost of operatin with cutter bar maize header, snap roll maize header and maize dehusker cum sheller were 53.62 $/ha, 68.73$/ha 187.32 $/ha respectively.

cutter bar; also, cutting height should be lower than lowest size of crop; furthermore, the reel speed should be adjusted about 1.25-1.50 of ground speed. Mansouri and Minaei (2003) studied the effect of forward speed on header loss and indicated that header loss intensified with an increase in ground speed. A study, using regression analysis model, was performed to estimate and predict the combine header loss at different adjustments of combine header. Three factors were considered as input variables and combine header losses were regarded as output variables. Model showed that the coefficient of determination (r 2 ) is equal to 0.6292 (Abdi & Jalali, 2013). Qarnar-uz-Zaman et al. (1992) showed that the losses increase with an increase in ground speed. Mostofi et al. (2011) found that the best ground speed for JD 995 was 1.32 km/h. Optimum operating condition of stripper header was obtained with a hood height of 75 cm, header height of 60 cm and rotor speed of 760 rpm. In this condition, the average amount of unstripped loss (header and straw walker) and total loss respectively was 0.54, 1.17 and 1.94% of yield, which indicated considerable decrease of grain losses according to conventional cutter-bar header loss. In all the experiments grain losses decreased with an increase in combine speed.
The results showed that power model was the best model to describe the dependence of the independent variables and the dependent variables. The optimum conditions for the minimum combine header loss (103 kg/ha), reel index, cutting height of crop and horizontal and vertical distances of reel from cutter bar were obtained 1.2 cm, 25 cm, 5 cm, 5 cm respectively (Zareei & Abdollahpour, 2016). Relevant parameters and indicators were established according to the results of the investigations. Fuel consumption was obtained 14.04 l/ha, and 58.97 l/ha for maintaining an efficiency of 24.2 ha/h and an average working of speed 8.0 km/h. The utilization range of investigated harvesters was 70%, with a considerable potential for improvement through better harmonizing of the working regime and the working conditions (Miodragovic & Djevic, 2006). Sensitivity analysis revealed that cylinder speed was the most significant parameter in seed corn harvesting losses (Pishgar-Komleh et al., 2012). Though, harvesting losses cannot be eliminated, yet they can be decreased. Each kilogram of corn (or any other crops) that is saved by careful use of combine, adds to the profit derived from a cultivated hectare (Hanna & Fossen, 1990). Some factors in combine harvester that can reduce corn losses are ground speed, header height, concave, cylinder or rotor speed and cleaning unit (Digman, 2009). So, achieving proper combine setting (ground speed, cylinder speed, cleaning airflow, snapping rolls and spacing between plates) (Hanna, 2008) can help increase combine efficiency, increase grain quality and minimize field losses. Although harvesting losses cannot be removed, they can be reduced to 63 kg ha -1 in corn (Hanna & Fossen, 1990). Several studies in this area, such as by Quick (2003) have established a hyperbolic relationship between grain damage and harvested yield for corn combines. He found a certain "sweet spot" where the harvested or bin yield was optimal under the given crop conditions. Corn picker field tests showed that ground speed and snapping roll adjustment are the most important factors determining picking losses (King et al., 1955). Morvaridi et al. (2008) analyzed the effect of ground speed and cylinder speed on corn harvester losses. Results indicated that the effect of cylinder speed was more significant on thresher loss as compared to the ground speed. The maximum total loss (5%) was calculated at ground speed of 2.23 km h -1 with the cylinder speed of 550 rpm. The experimental research has substantiated that a variable radius concave with a working plane tilt angle of the oblique concave crossbar equal to 45° would be the rational option for corn ear threshing. In this case, the threshing losses of the grains were minimal (0.03±0.01%), and the maximum share of grains damaged in the threshing unit do not exceed 4% (Pužauskas et al., 2016). Harvest losses were determined for combines harvesting soybean and corn in Brazil. Total soybean combine losses ranged from 47.4 to 260.5 kg/ha (1.2% to 5.5% of yield). The headers were the largest contributors to losses with 31 to 247 kg/ha. Total corn combine losses ranged from 36.2 to 320.6 kg/ha (0.3% to 3.6% of yield). Of this loss, header ear loss accounted for the largest portion with 0 to 237 kg/ha. Shatter losses were the primary cause of losses in the headers. Also, they increased markedly as harvest moistures decreased below 13%. Lodged corn can increase header ear losses as compared with any other source of loss (Paulsen et al., 2014). Threshing, separating and cleaning losses for well-trained combine operators can be very low, rice 0.3%, maize 0.4%, soybeans 0.75-1%, and wheat 1% of yield or less. Losses will go higher when the header is included but in general, rice should be less than 1.25-2.2%, maize less than 1.8%, soybeans less than 3%, and wheat less than 2% of yield in good standing crop (Paulsen et al., 2015). Till present from all the review cited, header plays an important role in minimizing shattering and cutterbar (i.e., header) losses. In most maize predominant areas, only snap roll headers are used in maize harvesting, which is highly dependent on row to row spacing of maize crop leading to higher losses during turnings, improper snap roll spacing and due to operator skill also. Moreover higher cost of snap roll header makes it unfeasible for small and marginal farmers. Therefore a new type of cutter bar type maize header was designed and developed for harvesting of maize crop which cuts the maize plant from a certain height (adjustable) and feeds plant along with cob to the threshing unit of the combine. The maize header was capable of cutting the maize crop, irrespective of the width of the row. The present study was focused to design develop a low cost
( 3) where, T 0 : theoretical time per hectare (per acre); T e : effective operating time = T 0 × 100/K; K: percent of implement width actually utilized; T h : time lost per acre due to interruptions that are not proportional to area. At least part of T h usually tends to be proportional to T e ; T a : time lost per acre due to interruptions that tend to be proportional to area.

Estimation of Fuel Consumption
Before starting the test, the engine's fuel tank was completely filled. The quantity of fuel required to fill the tank after harvesting the test field was measured using a 1 l graduated cylinder. Thus, the fuel consumed during the test was determined.
where, F is the fuel consumption in l ha -1 ; A is the area harvested in ha; and L is the quantity of fuel required to fill the tank after harvesting the test field in l.

Caluclulations of Various Losses and Grain Quality Parameters in Combine Operation
(1) Header Ear Loss For measuring header losses, data for fallen cobs and kernels in front of machine where the separator had not yet passed. The combine was backed off by a distance equal to length of combine. Loose kernels, broken and whole cobs were gathered from this front area (w × l). These were gathered to calculate the header losses. The header ear losses were calculated as (5) (

2) Cylinder Loss and Grain Quality Parameters
For measuring cylinder loss kernels still attached to the threshed cobs were collected from 1/100 acre area and weighed. The small kernels at the butt and tip end of cobs were not taken.
The loss of grains and ears which are left unthreshed by the combine over a unit area.
After the operation, samples weighing 200 g of grains were collected from the grain tank of the combine. These samples were then cleaned to get the trash content, broken grains and clean grains. (8)

Energy Calculations
Following equations were used for energy calculations in maize combine harvester with various headers:

Econom
The econo maize head

Statisti
The softw present stu experimen

Results
The maize are shown maize crop mean grai operation i    Vol. 13, No. 4;2021 The performance of snap roll header was compared with cutter bar header and operational parameters were measured for both and are shown in Table 10. The performance of snap roll and cutter bar header with maize combine was also done and are shown in Tables  11 and 12. Total losses with snap roll header were higher as 15.06% and lower for cutter bar as 10.85%. The brokens were higher for cutter bar as 5.94 and lower for snap roll as 3.45%. The trash content was 3.45% for cutter bar header and 2.24% for snap roll header. The higher trash and broken for cutter bar may be attributed to higher non grain portion as compared to cutter bar header. The economic analysis of cutter bar header was done with snap roll type maize header and conventional maize dehusker cum sheller, which is shown in Table 13. The saving in cost and time with cutter bar type header was 77.77% and 85.42% as compared to maize dehusker cum sheller. The saving in cost and time with snap roll maize header was 71.72% and 83.68% as compared to maize dehusker cum sheller. The performance of snap roll and cutter bar header with maize combine was also done. Total losses with snap roll header were higher as 15.06% and lower for cutter bar as 10.85%. The brokens were higher for cutter bar as 5.94 and lower for snap roll as 3.45%. The trash content was 3.45% for cutter bar header and 2.24% for snap roll header ( Figure 14). Figure 14. Graphical representation of field losses with combine harvester with cutter bar maize header and snap roll maize header Undoubtedly header was more effective during turning at headlands as compared to snap roll type header owing to its independence from plant row spacings lacking of which in case of snap roll header causes a lot of gathering losses during turnings at headlands. Similar results were reported by Paulsen et al. (2014) in lodged maize crop.
In the present study, 30-40% maize crop was lodged. Though the cutter bar type maize header was adjusted to nearly horizontal position yet the lodged crop was not picked completely. Cutter bar header passed over fully lodged crop without picking the cobs which lead to higher gathering losses for this header. Cutter bar header managed to pick cobs from those plants which though lodged but having cobs positioned at some height from ground. The lodged crop affects badly the working of any header mechanism during combine harvesting. The operator driving skill, header adjustment during field operation, combine forward speed with respect to reel speed, optimum maize crop moisture content (not too wet nor to dry) are the key factors which are needed to be given due importance before starting harvesting with combine so as to minimize various losses during field operation and better combine harvester performance. Particularly in case of lodged crop the field layout (from where to start) also plays an important role so that driver has an overview in mind how to operate effectively and adjust combine, reel and thresher speed during various sections of field so as to minimize field losses and maximizing the clean grain output. The developed cutter bar header cuts the maize plant from a certain height (adjustable) with minimum losses and feeds plant along with cob to the threshing unit of the combine. The maize header was capable of cutting the maize crop, irrespective of the width of the row and has higher field capacity as compared to snap roll header.
Thus a low cost effective cutter bar maize header was developed which is in the range of small and marginal farmers also and can be operated on custom hiring basis also. Moreover this header owing to its low weight can be operated with low HP combines with low repair and maintenance cost.

Conclusions
The performance of snap roll and cutter bar header with maize combine was also done. Total losses with snap roll header were higher as 15.06% and lower for cutter bar as 10.85%. The brokens were higher for cutter bar as 5.94 and lower for snap roll as 3.45%. The trash content was 3.45% for cutter bar header and 2.24% for snap roll header. This new type of developed cutter bar header can be used for harvesting maize crop efficiently and with minimum of losses as compared to snap roll header and maize dehusker cum sheller. Undoubtedly, the header was more effective during turning at headlands as compared to snap roll type header. Since, the header is independent of the width of the row, the gathering losses at the turning are much lower than those acquired in case of snap roll header. Though the cutter bar type maize header was adjusted to nearly horizontal position yet the lodged crop was not picked completely. Cutter bar header passed over fully lodged crop without picking the cobs which lead to higher gathering losses. Cutter bar header managed to pick cobs from those plants which though lodged but had cobs positioned at some height from ground. The operator driving skill, header adjustment during field operation, combine forward speed with respect to reel speed, optimum maize crop moisture content (not too wet nor to dry) are the key factors which are needed to be given due importance during combine harvesting. For minimizing various losses during field operation and better performance, particularly in case of lodged crop, the field layout (from where to start) also plays an important role. Therefore, the operator must have an overview in mind about how to effectively operate and adjust combine, reel and thresher speed during various sections of field thereby ensuring minimum field losses and maximum output.