The Combine Forum banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How do you fairly compare the productivity of a 8250 over a 8240, in canola, over two years.

Some might say this is just simple maths …….. but I don’t think so!

Previously, in the 2020 season, with a 8240, it had an average of 2.1t/ha. 14t.2/hr. 7ha/hr.

This season we currently have very good yields in canola …… often well over 3t/ha.
With an 8250 with Feed Rate Control & HarvestCommand - tweaked - its averaging over 19t/hr. However, the average yields (thus far) is 3.1t/ha. 6.06ha/hr. So it’s stands to reason, the more yield there is, the higher the t/hr there’s going to be…… albeit with a slightly less ha/hr.

So simple maths says, 8250 is 32% higher in t/hr. 13% less ha/hr ….. but yield is 54% higher in ‘21!
Now how do you compare them fairly when it’s quite clear that yield has a massive influence on machine productivity?

Surely the MOG ratio has to be accounted for in this equation ……
Is there is some sort of “index” number that used in this total calculation?

I’m all ears …….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Would 2.1t/ha be a roughly average canola crop for you? I ask because would there really be that much difference in MOG ratio on a really good crop compare to an average one?

I try to keep track of my combine's performance each year (I have an 8120). The number I really care about in canola is bushels per hour. From my experience, the cleaning system really is the limiting factor in canola so I try to push my machine up to about 600-700 bu/hr (15 - 17.5 tons/hour) and call it good, any more than that and losses start to go up. That can be hard to do if the crop isn't consistent, but if both last year's and this year's crop were fairly consistent so you could maintain a mostly constant speed I'd say going from 14.2 tons per hour up to 19 tons per hour is a legitimate and real increase in performance due to the newer machine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Would 2.1t/ha be a roughly average canola crop for you? I ask because would there really be that much difference in MOG ratio on a really good crop compare to an average one?

I try to keep track of my combine's performance each year (I have an 8120). The number I really care about in canola is bushels per hour. From my experience, the cleaning system really is the limiting factor in canola so I try to push my machine up to about 600-700 bu/hr (15 - 17.5 tons/hour) and call it good, any more than that and losses start to go up. That can be hard to do if the crop isn't consistent, but if both last year's and this year's crop were fairly consistent so you could maintain a mostly constant speed I'd say going from 14.2 tons per hour up to 19 tons per hour is a legitimate and real increase in performance due to the newer machine.
No, 2.1 t/ha would be above our 5 year average. However, in saying that, the longer term average is slowly increasing due to better management, varieties etc. etc. ........ Oh, & of course ..... climate change! Think we'll tax that problem .... that'll fix it!
Agree that you need good even consistent flow of crop material .... plus yield .... to achieve performance out of these machines.
MOG ..... good point. I'm thinking the MOG ratio would be lower in higher yielding crops, as more pods are filled completely & with (probably) higher grain weight ..... because the oil content is higher. So that raises another computation. If the oil content is say on average, 10% higher the the previous year ...... that's 10% more weight (t/hr) straight off the bat.
I will say, the 8250 is a different machine to the 8240. The feeder house is different with a different angle floor to the rotor ..... & the whole machine is smoother. There's also something different in the cleaning system, which has made a pretty big improvement. I don't know where it is but it's definitely got more capacity than the '40.
I've seen this '50 do over 30t/hr in canola under these ideal conditions. There's no way my '40 would get near that ....... BUT ..... I didn't harvest much 3.5t/ha canola with my '40. I thought 20-22t/hr would pull the '40 up in very good canola.
So the question still remains, is the '50 "a lot better" or is it just the crop that's making it better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
559 Posts
Case did a demo here of a 9250 side by side with a 8230 and cr970 and after spending about 4 hours and 15 pan drops tweaking it there was no capacity advantage in dry 40bpa canola. Would have been good to try in wetter heavier stuff I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,392 Posts
Seed size might be the only difference from last year to this year.I find that if canola is yielding around 35 bushels/acre tsw 3.5 grams
And if it around 45 bushels/acre tsw is around 4.5
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,151 Posts
Now how do you compare them fairly when it’s quite clear that yield has a massive influence on machine productivity?
You simply can't.

I've never quite understood why anyone puts much stock in tonnes per hour as a metric. It only ever means anything in a side-by-side situation. It can't possibly mean anything year to year or even field to field. Even then I question its usefulness. Drive faster and you can increase the tonnes/hour (and your ha per hour of course). But that says nothing about losses. If you measure them in the same field, then of course the machine with more tonnes/hour at the same or better losses wins.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
You simply can't.

I've never quite understood why anyone puts much stock in tonnes per hour as a metric. It only ever means anything in a side-by-side situation. It can't possibly mean anything year to year or even field to field. Even then I question its usefulness. Drive faster and you can increase the tonnes/hour (and your ha per hour of course). But that says nothing about losses. If you measure them in the same field, then of course the machine with more tonnes/hour at the same or better losses wins.
Agree, that if you just drove faster bit …… & I should have said losses are the same or very close to the same.….. & yes, every paddock is different & every year is different however, if you take the average of a machine over a whole year (good & bad) & compare it to the average over a whole year (good & bad) of another like machine in another year ….. albeit a newer machine with more bells & whistles ringing ….. there must be a way to compare them fairly via some sort of index rating.
We‘ve all seen this done via food prices or house prices ……. So why not harvester output?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
@rod , maybe out on a limb here but we have always done "Productivity" in Acres/Gallon Fuel over Wet Yield. That way, we know the Yield is a point of efficiency, and we don't need to Factor Working Width even if Headers don't match to get Cost per Bushel of Operating that machine, which to us in more important than throughput. That said... I understand that is more akin to Efficiency over Productivity and may not be what you are after.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,130 Posts
Hectares or acres per year divided by engine hours per year will tell you something you may not want to know.

My Big M triple discbine used to put on almost twice as many engine hours as cutting hours. The reality of spending half the time unplugging it or driving it to the shop to fix it and running it at reduced capacity forced me to take the mergers off it and buy my wife a rake. The mower is now miraculously efficient and dependable on a complete harvest basis and we also have much higher quality hay dropping it where it stands in no rows whatsoever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
I love crunching numbers as much as anybody, at the end of harvest each year I go back and calculate the bushels per hour, acres per hour, fuel per bushel, and fuel per acre for each field I harvest. I've been doing this for a number of years now. I find the information pretty interesting and I use it to help set my expectations for what kind of performance I should be getting when harvesting and if I'm not getting that I know to look for a reason why.

I looked back over my data for harvesting wheat and canola. I took my top three highest and lowest yielding fields from the last five years, averaged the data and compared it. Here is what I found. When cutting wheat I was able to average 913 bu/hr (24.9 tons/hr) in a 52 bu/acre (3.5 tons/ha) crop, and 1262 bu/hr (34.4 tons/hr) in 92 bu/acre (6.2 tons/ha) crop. So a 76% better crop was able to be harvested at 38% more material per hour.

For canola I averaged 457 bu/hr (10.3 tons/hr) in a 44 bu/ac (2.4 tons/ha) crop and 575 bu/hr (13.0 tons/hr) in a 66 bu/ac (3.7 tons/ha) crop. So that's 26% more crop per hour in a 52% better yielding field.

Just looking at the numbers, if you increase your yield by X% it looks like you can expect to increase your combine throughput by .5X%, roughly. Your mileage may vary, but hopefully this at least gives you something to compare with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Those are interesting numbers and about what I would have expected. Has anyone ever crunched numbers comparing header width and ground speed? I would be curious if a combine that was maxed out at 4 mph with a 30' header also be maxed out at 3 mph with a 40' header for example?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Those are interesting numbers and about what I would have expected. Has anyone ever crunched numbers comparing header width and ground speed? I would be curious if a combine that was maxed out at 4 mph with a 30' header also be maxed out at 3 mph with a 40' header for example?
I think you are right and a combine that is maxed out at 4 MPH with a 30' header would expect to go 3 MPH with a 40' header, but maybe not the other way around.

So for wheat I harvest with a stripper header. I think ground speed is my biggest limitation for throughput more than anything until I get above about 70 bu wheat. My terrain is pretty uneven and that just makes it tough to go fast enough to load my combine to its capacity. I currently have a 32' stripper header and would really like to go up to a 42' just so I can harvest more without increasing my ground speed.

For canola, I'm limited by sieve capacity. I can certainly see where a higher yielding canola crop is going to have a higher grain to MOG ratio and that would explain why the bu/hr is higher in a better yielding crop. I think it really is the quantity of MOG you have going over the sieves the limits you when harvesting canola.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
They are interesting numbers for throughput although not unexpected…. All factors being equal a good yield will make it easier to get more favourable numbers.
And wrt Rods post tho I think it’s going to be difficult to compare due to more than one variable….. I don’t see how a correction factor could take account of that….. combine capacity is so dependent on the colour of the straw….. namely green….. often code for moisture. In my region the weight of straw and grain can be reasonably consistent but add colour in the straw and throughout (at same loss) will vary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
When ever you get a new machine you just simply need to stay convinced it's superior to the old one. Even if it's not otherwise the mental demons will take over and you won't give the new one the care it needs.

Its the same for wives , once you start thinking the old one was better you slowly loose respect for the new one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,091 Posts
Hectares or acres per year divided by engine hours per year will tell you something you may not want to know.
Acres per engine hour has always been my yardstick with my sprayer. Of course a sprayer is not the same as a combine but acres per engine hour is still a relevant measure, just not the only measure. Repair cost and down time factor quite significantly. I've seen may farmers spend MANY thousands of $ to gain a few hundred $' in efficiency. I have also seen guys spend thousands in breakdowns and inefficiency to avoid spending for an upgrade (though this is far less common).
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top