BULLETIN 395 BULLETN 395NOVEMBER 1969 Row-crop Machinery Capacity as Influenced by Field Conditions Agricultural Experiment Station A UB U RN UNI VE RS IT Y E. V. Smith, Director Auburn, Alabama CONTENTS Page EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ----------4 ROW-END TURNING-4--- Turning Time Turning Space and Pattern -----Turning Space Needs--------------Turning-Area Surface Conditions-6 -----5 5-------5 Row LENGTH - 7-------8--- Turning Time Per Acre Ro w Sp eed -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Minimum Row Length ---M achine Width ---------- ------- 9 - 9 --- --- --- --- --- --- Terrace and Row Arrangement-9 FIELD SIZE AND SHAPE---------------------------------10 F ield S hape -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -11 Field Machine Efficiency-----------------------------12 Consolidating Fields ------------------------------- 13 SUM M ARY -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ----------------------------------LITERATURE CITED ------------------------------------ 14 15 A PP E ND IX .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 FIRST PRINTING 3M, NOVEMBER 1969 Row-crop Machinery Capacity as Influenced by Field Conditions E. S. RENOLL, Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering HE APPLICATION OF MACHINES to agricultural production has been one of the outstanding developments in American agriculture during the past century (2). Since farm machinery is so vital to agriculture, it is important that it be used to the best possible advantage (4). This is particularly true for new and improved machines currently on the market (2). These machines are faster, more efficient, and larger with greater capacity. Every machine should be used to take advantage of these built-in improvements (9). Farm machinery is seldom engaged in productive work 100 per cent of the field time. Many delays occur that result in lost time (6,7). The amount of time lost in any operation will vary greatly from field to field and farm to farm (10). Time spent in making field adjustments or repairs, adding seed, fertilizer, chemicals, or water, and turning at row ends results in lost time that reduces acres-per-hour capacity of the machine (5,8). Lost time for typical farm machines may range from 10 per cent for an 8-ft. tandem disk harrow to as much as 50 per cent for a 12-ft. combine (1,3). A 3-bottom plow might have 20 per cent lost time, whereas a 4-row planter equipped with a fertilizer and pre-emergence spray attachment may have as much as 60 per cent. Time studies of a 2-row cottonpicker indicate that nonproductive time for this machine can run as high as 35 per cent. At least two items play a very important part in field machine capacity. One is machine management. Management involves such items as machine speed selection, labor force used, when and 4 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION where the machine is used, flow of material to and away from the machine, and state of repair or condition of the machine. The second involves physical condition of the field. This includes field size and shape, topography, row length and arrangement, terrace layout, row-end turning space, and surface condition in the turn area. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE The study was conducted over an 8-year period. The early parts of the study were conducted on the North Auburn Teaching Farm on Piedmont soil. The last 4 years of the study were conducted on the Marvyn Research Farm on Lower Coastal Plain soil. Both of these farms are units of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Machines used for the study included conventional row-crop machines that are available to farmers. These included 1-row, 2-row, and 4-row machines. A 12-row sprayer was used in part of the study. Machine operators were typical of those found on farms in this part of Alabama. Each could operate all of the machines and each also had considerable experience. Various field conditions were available for the study. Fields ranging in size from 1.2 acres to 48 acres with rows from 200 to 1,500 feet in length were used. These fields involved conventional terraces, parallel terraces, and no terraces. The fields had various geometric shapes. Data from the study were obtained by time-record methods. This involved a stopwatch for obtaining short-time records and a clock for long-time records. In some cases a self-recording clock was attached to the tractor or implement to aid in obtaining a time-use record. ROW-END TURNING Machinery time used for turning at row ends is in many cases an important part of the total machine field time. Turning pattern used will influence time needed per turn. The amount of space for the turn will influence time needed and pattern used during the turn. Surface condition of the turn area will also influence turning time. Rocks, ditches, stumps, and other foreign material in the.turn area will increase turning time. ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 5 Turning Time Time spent turning the tractor in row-crop operations may amount to 20 per cent of the total field time, Table 1. Any reduction in this time will increase machine capacity. TABLE 1. FIELD LAYOUT AND CULTIVATOR OPERATION 2-Row CULTIVATOR Field A --- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- ----- --- -- --- -- Machine capacity Acres/hour 2.3 B-- --- -- - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - -- - ---- - -- - --- --- 2 .9 Turning time Pct. 20 3 Time needed to complete a single turn in row-crop work depends mainly on width of available turning space and ground surface condition in the turning area. A narrow space that requires backing the tractor or machine will increase turning time. Turning on rough area will result in a longer time. Examples of turning time are given in Table 2. TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF TURNING TIME FOR SMOOTH AND GROUND CONDITIONS IN FOUR DIFFERENT FIELDS ROUGH Field operation TurnigtmInraen Smooth Rough turning time Sec. Sec. Pct. 14.8 18.0 22 Cultivating Cultivating ------------------- --------18.6 20.8 12 Sidedressing ------------------------------- 29 --------20.4 26.3 Sidedressing------------------26.0 29.0 11 -------- Turning Space and Pattern Width of turning area will usually dictate the type of turning pattern. The least turning time required is usually when turning space is large enough for the tractor to make an easy semicircle turn. A narrow turning space will require a longer time. Some common patterns used to turn tractors doing row-crop work are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The turning space in Figure 1 is wide enough for an easy, normal turn. In Figure 2, the turn space is, too narrow for turning the tractor without backing. This pattern requires 50 per cent more time than the normal turn. The turning pattern in Figure 3 is used in fields having no space at row ends. This type turn may more than double the normal turning time. Turning Space Needs turning Turning space needed for tractor mounted cultivators and planters is somewhat a function of the front wheel arrangement 6 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Rows mCenter of tractor FIG. 1. Normal turning pattern with wide turning space. Forward mmme Reverse - Rows Center of tractor FIG. 2. Turning pattern when turning space is too narrow. of the tractor. Space needed for a semicircle turn for a tricycle tractor is less than for a wide-wheel tractor. Minimum turning space should be 21/2 times the length of the tractor for the tricycle tractor and 31/2 times for the wide-wheel. The minimum turning space suggested for large row-crop machines such as combines and cottonpickers is twice the length of the machine. Turning-Area Surface Condition Rough ground, rocks, ditches, or other obstructions in the turn- ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 7 Edge of field imammagmm Forword mm D Rows Center of tractor Reverse FIG. 3. Turning pattern where no space is available at row ends. ing area will increase turning time. Table 2 shows the influence of smooth and rough turning area on turning time. Table 3 shows typical turning time for five different turning-area conditions. TABLE 3. TYPICAL Row-END TURNING TIME FOR DIFFERENT CONDITIONS Smooth field turn area Sec. 4-row planter__ 13.2 2-row planter__ 12.3 4-row cultivator ...... 12.0 2-row cultivator........ 11.6 Implement 1-row picker -- Rough turn area Sec. 17.6 14.6 16.1 12.9 21.3 Sloping turn area Sec. 14.0 13.2 12.3 12.7 18.3 Terrace turn area Sec. 18.0 15.0 15.4 13.1 18.6 Good road turn Sec. 12.5 12.0 10.2 12.1 17.1 16.2 2-row picker 17.7 23.5 20.0 19.0 18.2 Turning on a smooth field surface or a good field road appears to require minimum turning time. A turning area that is rough, sloping, or involves a terrace requires more time. This increase in turning can be considerable and in the case of the 4-row cultivator in Table 3 represents an increase of 58 per cent. ROW LENGTH Row length will influence capacity of row-crop machines. Row length, per cent turning time, and down-the-row speed are interrelated. A change in any of these will cause a change in machine capacity. The number of terraces and terrace arrangement in a 8 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION field will influence row arrangement. Row arrangement in turn will affect row length. Turning Time Per Acre Turning time at row ends can seriously influence acre-per-hour capacity of machines. The total time used per acre for turning is influenced by the number of rows per acre. As row length increases the time spent in turning decreases and machine capacity increases. Row Speed Down-the-row speed also influences per cent turning time. At 1 m.p.h. in 700-foot rows, a 4-row cultivator using 15 sec. per turn would have 4 per cent turning time while at 5 m.p.h. it would have nearly 13 per cent. As farm machinery becomes larger and operating speeds become faster, time spent turning becomes increasingly important. The relationship of row length, operating speed, and per cent turning time is shown in Figure 4. Turning time per cent 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 1 20 15 10 5 I II I I I I I I I I I (ph) 5 3 I 2I 15 0 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 Row length in feet x 100 FIG. 4. Speed of operation, field row length, and per cent of time spent turning are interrelated. ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 9 Minimum Row Length Field studies of machines indicate that a turning time of less than 5 per cent of the total field time isratherdifficulttoobtain, but that values between 5 and 10 per cent are frequently obtained. If per cent turning time is to be held to a reasonable level, less than 10 per cent, field rows need to have some minimum length. Table 4 shows the minimum row lengths needed for five different operating speeds and two levels of turning time. TABLE 4. MINIMUM Row LENGTH FOR 7 AND 10 PER CENT TURNING TIME A 4-Row MACHINE* WITH Speed Minimum row length needed 7 per cent 10 per cent turning time turning time M.p.h. 1--- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- ----- --- --- --- --- 2 ---- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- ---- --- --4 ------ ------ ------ -----* Ft. 28 0 5 40 ------ Ft. 1 90 360 3 ----- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- -- --- -- --------------- 740 9 20 520 68 0 40 5 ------- --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1,08 0 .8 Turning time of 15 sec. per turn and 40-in, rows. Machine Width Row length and machine width influence per cent of total field time spent turning, Figure 5. A 2-row cultivator operating at 5 m.p.h. in 600-foot rows would have 10 per cent turning time while a 4-row cultivator at the same speed in the same row length would have 14 per cent. In 400-foot rows the turning time would be 14 per cent for the 2-row machine and 21 per cent for the 4-row. For a 2-row cultivator having a turning time of 10 per cent. the (minimum row length is 600 feet. For a 4-row cultivator having the same per cent turning time the minimum row length would be 840 feet. Row length and field size should increase as machines become wider. When changing from 4-row to 6-row machines for example, serious consideration should be given to ways of increasing row length and field size for these wider machines. Terrace and Row Arrangement Field row length is influenced by terraces and other soil-conserving structures. The number of terraces and terrace layout influence row arrangement and length. Terraces also influence acre-per-hour capacity of farm machines. Table 5 presents data for a 4-row cultivator operating in areas without terraces, with parallel terraces, and with nonparallel terraces. Per cent turning 10 Turning time per cent 55 50 45 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 40 35 30254-row 25 20 15 - - - cultivator, 5mph, 15Sec./turn 2- row cultivator, 5mph, IOSec./turn 5 , I I , I I I I , , , I I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 II 12 13 14 15 Row length in feet x 100 FIG. 5. Machine width, field row length, and per cent of time spent turning are interrelated. TABLE 5. FouR-Row CULTIVATOR CAPACITY FOR THREE FIELD CONDITIONS Effective cult. cap.0 Acres/hr. Nonparallel terraces .... Parallel terraces ........ Without terraces....... 5.0 6.4 7.6 Row end turning time Pct. 14.0 8.0 8.0 Field length Ft. 1,250 1,175 1,125 Av. speed M.p.h. 4.0 4.5 5.3 * Capacity determined for actual time spent in the field. Includes all field stops and adjustments. Does not include daily tractor service, changing cultivator sweeps, or lubrication. time is highest for the nonparallel terrace area. This area also has the lowest average speed and lowest effective cultivator capacity. Terracing of row-crop land is a good conservation practice, but from the standpoint of machine capacity, parallel terraces should be used where practical. In fields where conventional terraces must be used, consideration should be given to terrace arrangement and field use to minimize short rows between terraces. FIELD SIZE AND SHAPE Field size and shape will influence machine capacity. Field ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 11 size and shape also determine row length. Small fields are usually less efficient for machinery use than are large fields. Field Shape The geometric shape of the field can influence row length. This is clearly shown in Figure 6. The fields in Figure 6 are the same size, the only difference being the geometric shape. -Row direction Field B FIG. 6. These fields contain the same area but shape determines row length and therefore influences machine efficiency. The importance of field shape is shown in Table 1. The data in Table 1 were obtained from a comparison of the two fields to show the relationship of row layout, row length, field size, field machine efficiency, and machine capacity. All operations on the two fields were identical, including driver, tractor, cultivator, and speed of operation. Neither field had any operation time loss except that used for turning at row ends. Field A was irregular in shape with the longest row being 400 feet. The shortest row was 165 feet long. Field B was long and narrow. The row length averaged 1,050 feet, the longest and the shortest rows being 1,060 and 1,000 feet. Machine capacity in field B was 0.6 acre per hour greater than in field A. The long rows in field B account for the increase in capacity from 2.3 to 2.9 acres per hour. The importance of field shape is shown in a study of the operating time and capacity of a 4-row cultivator operating on two fields. Each field contained 10 acres. One field was square and had rows 660 feet long. The cultivator operating at 4 m.p.h. in this field had a capacity of 5.7 acres per hour. The other field was rectangular 12 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in shape and had rows 1,300 feet in length. The 4-row cultivator operating in this field at 4 m.p.h. had a capacity of 6.2 acres per hour. Field Machine Efficiency Field machine efficiency is a term used to indicate how well a field is adapted for machinery use. The term "field machine efficiency" is used to show the relationship between turning time and productive field time. Productive field time for a planting operation would include only the actual time spent planting; time for filling hoppers, adjustments, and other like items is not included. It is expressed as a percentage. A field with a field machine efficiency of 90 per cent would have 10 minutes of turning time and 90 minutes of productive field time. The influence of row length on field machine efficiency is shown in Table 6. TABLE 6. FIELD MACHINE EFFICIENCY OperationRow length Field machine efficiency Cultivating Cultivating Insect spraying Insect spraying Ft. 500 850 500 850 Pct. 90 95 82 85 If field machine efficiency values for field operations are to be useful in future planning of field size, it is necessary that one field machine efficiency study be made for each field on the farm. This would involve keeping a time record for all activities associated with this one specific field operation. Such a time record might look like the following: EXAMPLE OF A TIME RECORD FOR PLANTING A 10-ACRE FIELD Item A. B. T otal field tim e --------------------------------------------Support functions time (Not including turning) -83 Time Min. 175 Adding fertilizer and seed Adding chemicals and water C. Adjustment time Other down timeTurning time -38 29 12 4 12 Total field time in the above example includes all of the time, from start to finish, required to plant the 10-acre field. ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 13 Field machine efficiency (FME) for the field in the example can be calculated from the following formula. A-B-C FME =X 100 A-B Items A, B, and C in the formula are the same as the three parts listed in the sample time record. For the planting example used, field machine efficiency is obtained by substitution: X 100 = 87% 175 - 83 After values for each field have been determined, comparisons of field machine efficiency for the fields can be made. Fields with the lowest efficiencies should be considered for changes to increase row length or reduce turning time. The field machine efficiency values obtained in this study indicate that a field which has a high machine efficiency value for one machine will also tend to have high values for other machines. Consolidating Fields Combining several small fields into a large one can result in increased machine efficiency. As an example, fields 1 and 2 were originally operated as small separate fields with short rows. Time records were kept for machine operations on these fields. The fields were later consolidated into a large field which resulted in an increase in row length. Fields 1 and 2 had field machine efficiency values for insect control of 83 and 84 per cent, respectively, when operated as separate fields. When combined into one large field the efficiency increased to 91 per cent. For cultivation, the field machine efficiency for the two separate fields was 84 and 80 per cent and increased to 90 per cent when the two were combined into a single field. This increase in efficiency is directly related to row length increase. SUMMARY Time spent in turning at row ends for materially influence machine capacity. results when the turn area is smooth and easy semicircle turn. Rough or narrow row-crop operations will Minimum turning time wide enough to allow an turn areas can increase FME = 175 83 12 14 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION turning time as much as 50 per cent. For a 4-row cultivator this could mean a decrease of .3 acre per hour. Fields with long rows are more efficient for machinery use than fields with short rows. Row lengths should be long enough to have field machine efficiencies of 90 per cent or better. Terraces tend to reduce efficiency of machine operations. Fields without terraces are more efficient for machine use than fields with terraces. Parallel terrace fields are more efficient than conventional terrace fields. Recommended minimum average row length is influenced by machine width and ground speed. For example, a 4-row cultivator operating in 40-inch rows at 4 m.p.h. should have minimum row length of 680 feet. If the speed is 5 m.p.h. the length should be 840 feet. The physical shape along with row layout of the field has much to do with machinery efficiency. Long narrow fields with long rows are more efficient than short narrow fields. Field size also is related to field machinery efficiency. Small fields usually have short rows and are inefficient for machine use. Combining small fields into larger fields can materially increase field machine capacity. Field machine efficiency values for a specific operation on a specific field are not very useful in predicting actual values for other machines on that same field. However, if field machine efficiency values are obtained for several fields by using the same machine operation on these fields, then the field machine efficiency values tend to indicate the efficiency of each field for machine use. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to W. T. Dumas and Donald M. Smith of the Department of Agricultural Engineering and to T. E. Corley and J. G. Hendrick formerly of the same department for their assistance in obtaining some of the data presented. Appreciation is expressed also to numerous agricultural engineering students who helped collect data. Thanks are expressed also to the men on the North Auburn Agricultural Engineering Teaching Farm and the Marvyn Agricultural Engineering Research Farm. ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 15 LITERATURE CITED (1) Agricultural Engineers Yearbook. 1967. ASAE. (2) BAINER, ROY et al. 1962. Principles of Farm Machinery. Wiley, New York. (3) HUNT, DONNELL R. 1963. Efficient Field Machinery Selection. Agricultural Engineering. 44, No. 2. (4) LINK, DAVID. 1962. Analyzing Crop Production Systems. Implement and Tractor Magazine. 81, No. 14. (5) RENOLL, E. S. 1960. Field Size and Machinery Efficiency. Highlights of Agr. Res. Vol. 7, No. 3. Auburn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. (6) RENOLL, E. S. 1961. Field Turning Space Needed for Tractor Efficiency. Highlights of Agr. Res. Vol. 8, No. 3. Auburn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. (7) RENOLL, E. S. 1962. Increasing Row Planter Efficiency. Highlights of Agr. Res. Vol. 9, No. 1. Auburn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. (8) RENOLL, E. S. 1965. Row-Crop Machine Capacity in Terraced Fields. Highlights of Agr. Res. Vol. 12, No. 2. Auburn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. (9) SMITH, H. P. 1965. Farm Machinery and Equipment. McGraw-Hill, New York. (10) STAPLETON, H. N. AND K. K. BARNES. 1967. Data Needs for Agricultural Systems Analysis. Transactions of ASAE. 10, No. 3. 16 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION APPENDIX Calculating Machine Capacity The following methods are commonly used to determine machine capacity in acres per hour: Method I. Simple method used to get a quick approximation. C WX S 10 C = Capacity in acres per hour W = Machine width in feet S = Ground speed of machine in m.p.h. This method allows for 17.5 per cent nonproductive and down time. Example: 4-row-cultivator, 40-in. rows Speed - 5 m.p.h. 4 x 40-in. X40-in. = 18.3 feet Machine width = 12 13.3 ft. X 5 m.p.h. = 5.6 acres/hour 10 Method II. A more accurate method of predicting acres per hour. C - C= 5280 XSXWXE E SWE C S W E = = = Example: 825 43,560 X 100 Capacity in acres per hour Ground speed in m.p.h. Width of machine in feet Field efficiency in per cent (Typical values for field efficiency can be found in Appendix Table 1.) 4-row planter, 40-in. rows Speed - 4 m.p.h. Width- 13.3 feet Efficiency - 70 per cent 4 X 13.3 X 70 = 4.6 acres/hour 825 Calculating Speed in Miles Per Hour The following methods can be used to calculate speed of operation in miles per hour: Method I. Use when speed in feet per minute is known. F X 11.4 1000 M = Speed in miles per hour F = Feet traveled in one minute Example: Cultivator travels 264 feet in one minute 264 X 11.4 - 3.0 miles per hour 1000 The values in Appendix Table 4 were compiled in this way. ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 17 ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY 1 Method II. Use when time in seconds to cover a distance of 100 feet is known. 68.5-M T M = Speed in miles per hour T = Time in seconds to travel 100 feet Example: Planter travels 100 feet in 20 seconds 68.5 3.4 miles per hour 20 The values in Appendix Table 5 were compiled in this way. APPENDIX TABLE 1. COMMON FIELD MACHINE EFFICIENCY VALUES FOR Row CROP MACHINES Operation Average values field efficiency* PHarrowing--------------------------------------------------------------low ing -------------------------------- Pct. - 75-85 Harrowing and chemical application657_---5-------Planting (seed and fertilizer) 2-row -----------------------Planting (seed, fertilizer, chemicals) 2-row------------Planting (seed and fertilizer) 4-row----------------------Planting (seed, fertilizer, chemicals) 4-row-----------Cultivating 2-row ---------------------------80-90 Cultivating 4-row --- -- -- ---------- ---- --- - --Picking cotton (spindle machine) 1-row----------------Picking cotton (spindle machine) 2-row----------------Picking corn 2-row----------------------------- 80-90 - 60-70 50-60 55-65 50-60 -- 80-90 65-75 65-75 55-65 Picking corn 4-row ----- -- ----- ------- ----- ---- - 55-65 C om b in in g ----------------------- ---------------------------- lengths of 1,000 feet. Rows longer than 1,000 feet would be more efficient, while rows less than 1,000 feet would be less. efficient. APPENDIX TABLE 2. LENGTHS 60-70 * Values are based on average ground speed for the operation and for row --- -- - Rows AND Row PER ACRE FOR COMMON SPACING Row spacing 44 in. 40 in. 36 in. 32 in. Ft. Rows/acre Rows/acre Rows/acre Rows/acre Rows/acre 400-----------27.3 29.7 32.9 36.3 40.8 Row length 48 in. 600-----------18.2 19.7 21.8 24.2 27.4 800------------1,000-----------1,200-----------1,400------------ 13.6 10.8 9.1 7.8 6.8 14.8 12.0 9.6 8.4 7.4 16.4 13.0 10.6 1,600 ----------- 9.2 8.1 18.2 14.5 12.1 10.3 9.1 20.4 16.4 13.2 11.4 10.1 1,800-----------------2,000------------ 6.0 5.4 6.5 5.9 7.2 6.5 8.0 7.2 9.0 8.2 18 APPENDIX TABLE 3. ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION TYPICAL SPEED FOR SOME Row CROP MACHINES Operation Plowing ------------------------------------------------- Rate M.p.h. 3.5-5.0 3.0-5.0 Disk harrowing3.5-50------------Planting Rotary hoeing --- -- --- -- --Flame cultivating----------------- -- ---- ---- 3.0---50---------------------5.0-8.0 1.5-3.0 Sweep cultivating - - First cultivation --- - - - - - - - - -- - -Later cultivation-- --- -- - -- - -- ---C orn picking----- -------------------------------------C om bining .---------------------------------------------Cotton picking (spindle 1.5-3.0 3.0-5.0 2.5-3.5 1.5-2.5 1. 25 machine)---_------------------------------ Spraying (insect)-------------------------------APPENDIX TABLE 4. 3.0-6.0 CONVERSION TABLE FEET PER MINUTE AND MILES PER HOUR Feet per minute 176 185 194 202 211 220 229 237 246 255 264 273 282 292 299 308 317 325 334 Miles per hour 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Feet per minute 361 Miles per hour 4.1 Feet per minute 535 543 552 561 570 Miles per hour 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 370 379 387 396 405 414 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 578 588 596 605 614 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 422 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.7 7.0 6.8 6.9 7.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 431 440 449 458 468 622 631 640 649 658 666 675 684 693 476 484 493 502 510 519 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 VVI~ -T 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 YV 343 352 YVLl 528 702 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 ROW-CROP MACHINERY CAPACITY CONVERSION TABLE SECONDS PER 100 FEET AND MILES PER HOUR 19 APPENDIX TABLE 5. Seconds per 100 ft. 69.0 62.0 48.6 Miles per hour 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Seconds per 100 ft. 22.7 22.0 21.3 20.6 20.0 19.5 18.9 18.4 17.9 17.5 17.0 16.6 16.2 15.8 15.5 15.1 14.8 14.5 14.2 13.9 Miles per hour 3.0 3.' 3.2 3.3 3.4 56.8 52.5 45.4 42.6 40.1 37.9 35.9 34.1 32.3 31.0 29.6 28.4 27.3 26.2 25.3 24.3 23.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 Seconds Miles per per 100 ft. n, hour 13.6 5.0 5.1 13.3 13.1 5.2 12.9 5.3 12.6 5.4 12.4 5.5 5.6 12.2 12.0 5.7 5.8 11.8 11.6 5.9 6.0 11.4 11.2 6.1 6.2 11.0 10.9 6.3 10.7 6.4 10.5 6.5 4.7 4.8 4.9 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM OF ALABAMA'S LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY \\'itl ani airicultural research un it in ev ery muajor soil area, Auburn Unfiversit', servSes the, nseedis of field crop, live-i stock, forestrx , and~ hor ticultutral 1)1oduers in 1 cacti regioni in Alab~ania. ves citizen of0 cv the State has a stake inl this research progr am i3 since any' advan-tage~ I romn les'v o 40 ® is and more- economlical ans produ~llicts %vavss of (hircctls Research Unit Identification 1Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. 2. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. 3. North Alabamo Horticulture Substation, Cullman. 4. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. 5. Forestry Unit, Foyette County. 6. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. 7. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. 8. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. 9. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. 10. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. 11 Forestry Unit, Autaugo County. 12. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. 13. Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. 14. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. 15. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. 16. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. 17. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. 18B. Wiregrass Substation, Headland. 1 9. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton 20. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. 21. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.