Khadr, K., El-Bakhshwan, M., Aboul-nour, H. (2009). EVALUATION OF THE JAPANESE RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS USED AFTER RECOMMENDED SALVAGE LIFE. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 34(2), 1513-1525. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2009.90277
K. A. A. Khadr; M. K. El-Bakhshwan; H. M. Aboul-nour. "EVALUATION OF THE JAPANESE RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS USED AFTER RECOMMENDED SALVAGE LIFE". Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 34, 2, 2009, 1513-1525. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2009.90277
Khadr, K., El-Bakhshwan, M., Aboul-nour, H. (2009). 'EVALUATION OF THE JAPANESE RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS USED AFTER RECOMMENDED SALVAGE LIFE', Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 34(2), pp. 1513-1525. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2009.90277
Khadr, K., El-Bakhshwan, M., Aboul-nour, H. EVALUATION OF THE JAPANESE RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS USED AFTER RECOMMENDED SALVAGE LIFE. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 2009; 34(2): 1513-1525. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2009.90277
EVALUATION OF THE JAPANESE RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS USED AFTER RECOMMENDED SALVAGE LIFE
Agric. Eng. Res. Inst., Agric.Res. Center, Giza, Egypt.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the anticipated performance and costs of Yanmar, C-385EG and Kubota, R2-48 rice combine harvesters, when used after their recommended salvage life (the first five operating years). The study includes the operating conditions throughout the second five years of combine's life (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and the average Ta) compared with the average values of the first five operating years (T0). The obtained results indicated that the total harvested area, actual field capacity, field efficiency, revenues and total costs decreased in average by 45.3, 37.6, 37.5, 45.9 and 58.3% respectively, for Yanmar combine and by 36.8, 24.3, 24.1, 28.2, and 56.7% respectively, for Kubota combine. While the operating costs and net gain increased with the average of 25.2 and 18.5% for Yanmar combine and 23.1 and 30.4% for Kubota combine. The Kubota combine gave the higher values of harvested area, actual field capacity, field efficiency, revenues, operating costs, net gain, and lower value of total costs as compared with the Yanmar combine. The statistical analysis revealed no significant effect of T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 on the harvested area, actual field capacity, field efficiency, revenues, operating costs and net gain, while there is a low effect of the same treatments on the total costs with Kubota combine. On the other hand, there is a high significant effect of the treatments on harvested area, actual field capacity, and field efficiency and simple effect on the total costs while there is no significant effect on the revenues, operating costs and net gain of Yanmar combine.
Top