A Comparison of Yield Monitors versus Weigh Wagons for On-Farm Corn Hybrid Evaluation

Transcription

1

2 A Comparison of Yield Monitors versus Weigh Wagons for On-Farm Corn Hybrid Evaluation

3 Corn Breeding 101: A Lesson in Basic Corn Genetics. Tom Bechman September Dekalb Area Agricultural Heritage Association, Inc.

4

5 grain O vator 8GOV125. Four Star Manufacturing. Lewisburg, Tennessee Grain Weigh GW-150 Par-Kan Company. Silverlake, Indiana

6 Hybrid A Hybrid B Hybrid C Hybrid D Hybrid E Hybrid 800 feet 2500 feet

7 Weigh Wagon Grain Cart Seed Tender

8

9

10 Challenges with Traditional Strip Trials Small plot area harvested Similar weights measurements Wind Non representative grain sampling Measuring wheel error Transcription error Growers losing interest

11

12 The Yield Book Product Yield Moisture % Test Weight $ per Acre Hybrid A $ 870 Hybrid B $ 748 Hybrid C $ 824 Hybrid D $ 756 Hybrid E $ 634

13 The Reality Product Weight Length Width Yield Moisture % Test Weight Hybrid A Hybrid B Hybrid C Hybrid D Hybrid E = 70 pounds or 1.25 bushels The actual harvested area for Hybrid A is acres

14 Hybrid A Hybrid B Hybrid C Hybrid D Hybrid E Hybrid Small Plot Area Harvested

15 Similar Weight Measurements

16 Wind

17 Hybrid A Hybrid B Hybrid C Hybrid D Hybrid E Hybrid Non-Representative Grain Sampling

18 Measuring Wheel Error

19 Transcription Error Measurement Harvest Report Form Computer

20 Today s Farmer

21

22 Grain Cart Scale Tank Camera Global Positioning System ipad Combine Operation Yield Monitor Smart Phone Auto Steer

23 Hypothesis Yield monitors provide a simpler and accurate method for on farm hybrid evaluation that overcomes existing challenges with traditional weigh wagon methods.

24 Literature Review Darr et al. (2011) Distinguishing a 3 to 9 percent difference is possible. Risius (2014) A combine yield monitoring system should be able to provide an adequate representation of actual yield of harvested grain. There is very limited research completed in this area. There are few studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s; however, these are not current with advances in yield monitor accuracy.

25 Objectives Compare corn hybrid testing using yield monitor versus weigh wagons. Statistically analyze the data using the correlation coefficient and regression analysis to determine predictability of yield monitors. Determine if a yield monitor matches a weigh wagon in ranking the top yielding 25% of corn hybrids in a plot.

26 Materials and Methods Combine mounted yield monitor technology, weigh wagon, hand held moisture tester, measuring wheel. Measure and compare weight, moisture content, and yield. Six site years (two plots per year for three years). 195 total comparisons. Excel analysis for correlation coefficient and regression. Compare top 25% of hybrids for yield.

27 Summary of Trials Row Space (inches) Location Year Weigh Method Entries Rows Length (feet) Wessington 2012 Grain Cart Woonsocket 2012 Seed Tender Hitchcock 2013 Grain Cart Wolsey 2013 Seed Tender Hitchcock 2014 Grain Cart Yale 2014 Grain Cart Area Harvested per plot (acres)

28 Results and Discussion Summary Chart of the Correlation Coefficient and Regression Analysis for Weight Location Year Entries Correlation Coefficient Regression Analysis Wessington Y= (1.030*X) Woonsocket Y= (0.952*X) Hitchcock Y= (1.142*X) Wolsey Y= (1.123*X) Hitchcock Y=1.855+(1.034*X) Yale Y= (0.965*X) Weighted Average Y =weight from the yield monitor in pounds X = weight from the weigh wagon pounds

29 Results and Discussion Summary Chart of the Correlation Coefficient and Regression Analysis for Moisture Location Year Entries Correlation Coefficient Regression Analysis Wessington Y= (0.015*X) Woonsocket Y=6.399+(0.510*X) Hitchcock Y=3.776+(0.782*X) Wolsey Y=2.058+(0.761*X) Hitchcock Y=5.899+(0.656*X) Yale Y= (1.116*X) Weighted Average Y = grain moisture percent from yield monitor X = grain moisture percent from traditional tester (GAC2000 or mini GAC Plus)

30 Results and Discussion Summary Chart of the Correlation Coefficient and Regression Analyses for Yield Location Year Entries Correlation Coefficient Regression Analyses Wessington Y=4.152+(0.925*X) Woonsocket Y= (1.029*X) Hitchcock Y= (1.130*X) Wolsey Y= (1.094*X) Hitchcock Y=2.537+(0.975*X) Yale Y=1.195+(0.966*X) Weighted Average Y = grain yield from yield monitor in bushels per acre X = grain yield from traditional calculations in bushels per acre

31 Results and Discussion Top 25% of hybrids Top 25% Weigh Wagon Top 25% Yield Monitor Location Year Entries % Match Wessington % Woonsocket % Hitchcock % Wolsey % Hitchcock % Yale % Average %

32 Conclusions Yield monitors can provide similar data compared to traditional weigh wagon methods. The larger sample size that is attainable with a yield monitor improves confidence in the results and wind is not a factor. Moisture is tested throughout a strip rather than one sample, therefore a more representative measurement is evaluated. GPS measures acres more accurately than a measuring wheel. Data collection occurs immediately and accurately with the computer. Corrections can occur if incorrect calibrations are determined. Growers appreciate the simplicity and accuracy. There is a renewed interest in on farm testing.

33 Conclusions The high correlation coefficient value suggests that yield monitors can be used effectively in on farm evaluation with the following suggestions: Ensure the yield monitor is properly calibrated. Harvest a large plot area for increased accuracy.

34 Conclusions In-Combine Hybrid Evaluation

35 Best Practices

36 Best Practices

37 Best Practices

38 Corrections? Bushels production versus

39

40

41 Acknowledgments Thank you to my cooperators, Sales Agronomists, Dr. Roger Elmore, Dr. Andrew Lenssen, and my managers.