A significant difference in the efficiency of using combine harvesters for soybean harvesting is an objective reality. And it is important for the consumer to know this efficiency rating for each combine. Existing standards for economic assessment require specially organized, expensive tests and the collection of a large amount of initial information. The paper proposes a method for assessing efficiency, which is based on the final results of combine harvesters during the harvesting season. The main indicator used is efficiency loss. A combine harvester with minimal efficiency losses operates at soybean harvesting with maximum efficiency. The use of the proposed method for assessing efficiency is shown using the example of combines harvesting soybeans at an agricultural enterprise in the Tambov region. The efficiency loss indicator for the ACROS 595 Plus combine was 4954 rubles/t, for the RSM 161 combine – 5147 rubles/t, for the ACROS 530 combine – 4619 rubles/t, ACROS 550 – 7215 rubles/t. The ACROS 595 Plus combine turned out to be more efficient than the others, as it has minimal efficiency losses. The economic effect of the combine turned out to be maximum and amounted to more than 316 thousand rubles. It was found that operating costs account for 33...50% of efficiency losses, respectively, technological losses - 50...67%. Technological losses of ACROS 530 and ACROS 550 combines were 2 times higher than operating costs. The proposed method for assessing the efficiency of combine harvesters for soybean harvesting assumes as input data the actual final performance indicators of the combines (hours, quality indicators, etc.). Along with this, it is proposed to determine fuel costs, maintenance and repair costs using statistical dependencies obtained as a result of monitoring the operation of combines in real operation. This approach makes it possible to reduce the complexity of collecting initial data and increase the accuracy of performance assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Erokhin et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: