Harvest Efficiency Trials

Texas Agricultural Extension

The Texas A&M University System

Texas A&M Agricultural Research & Extension Center at Lubbock
Route 3 Box 213AA, Lubbock, TX 7940 1-9746

Phone: 806/746-4044; FAX: 806/746-4057; E-mail: c-trostle@tamu.edu

8 NOVEMBER 1999

TO: KLINT FORBES, WEST TEXAS GUAR CONTRACTOR

FROM: CALVIN TROSTLE, TAEX-LUBBOCK

RE: GUAR HARVEST EFFICIENCY

Klint,

Attached is a sheet of the data used to calculate the data from last Friday's harvest on Joel's guar. By using replications of each method we achieve the ability to detect differences "within" the replications (passes through the field) of each method vs. the differences between" the methods. It is the latter difference, between methods, that we are most interested in, and it helps us evaluate whether differences in the overall average yields is due to random variability in the field or to the harvest method itself.

The average guar yield per acre for the three methods was:

Method Yield (lb./A) Significance?*
Row Crop Header 1323 A
Flex Header 1082 B
Pickup Attachment (after knifing)/td> 977 B
?*Numbers followed by the same letter are not statistically significantly different.

Statistically there was a strong significant difference between the row crop header and the other two methods for the conditions tested which was for a very dry guar crop. I would expect that a crop not as dry might not see as much difference for the methods where shattering would occur less. Based on the numbers that we measured, any average difference in yield per acre that was more than 137 lb./ A was significant mathematically. I would guess that the test with the knife & pickup attachment was not a good comparison as the area was further to the east where the guar did not appear to be as good and there was more grass in the area harvested.

If you have any questions let me know. Thanks for the opportunity to help out.

Calvin Trostle

Extension Agronomy

Extension programs serve people of all ages regardless of socioeconomic level, race, color, sex, religion, disability or national origin.
The Texas A&M University System, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and the County Commissioners Courts of Texas Cooperating



Guar Harvesting Trial
Joel Farm, Brownfield, Texas
5-Nov-99


Pickup Attachment (1480 IH)
  Weights Pounds Row Length Number Missing Yield
Trial Hitch W. Wheel E. Wheel Total Mile feet Rows Row ft. lb./A
1 190 0 240 430 0.25 1320 5 321 895
2 -60 330 340 610 0.251 1325 6 0 1002
3 80 90 320 490 0.252 1331 5 462 1034
  Average 977
Crop Header (12388 IH)
  Weights Pounds Row Length Number Missing Yield
Trial Hitch W. Wheel E. Wheel Total Mile feet Rows Row ft. lb./A
1 270 340 470 1080 0.255 1346 8 0 1310
2 0 520 380 1100 0.26 1373 8 0 1309
3 530 200 430 1160 0.266 1404 8 0 1349
  Average 1323
Flex Header (2388 IH)
  Weights Pounds Row Length Number Missing Yield
Trial Hitch W. Wheel E. Wheel Total Mile feet Rows Row ft. lb./A
1 330 260 390 980 0.257 1357 8 0 1180
2 480 0 370 610 0.263 1389 8 0 1000
3 590 50 290 930 0.27 1426 8 462 1066
  Average 1082
From StatView 512 (on Mac)
source DF SS Mean Sq. F-test
Between Gro 2 188431 94215 20.03
Within Gro 6 28223 4704 P=0.0022
Total 8 213354  
Fisher's Protected Least Significant Difference (PLSD) 137 lb./A

Back to Crop Production