Society for Range Management

A Versatile Flail-Type Forage Plot Harvester

Author(s): J. Stubbendieck and Charles R. Fenster
Source: Journal of Range Management, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Mar., 1981), pp. 90-91
Published by: Society for Range Management
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3898118
Accessed: 16-11-2018 07:25 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3898118?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Society for Range Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Range Management

This content downloaded from 41.203.72.13 on Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:25:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Versatile Flail-Type Forage Plot Harvester
J. STUBBENDIECK AND CHARLES R. FENSTER

Abstract

A flail-type plot harvester was developed using commercially tion direction of the rotor was reversed (tactory option). This
manufactured components and a specifically designed and con- causes the harvested forage to be moved forward and lifted toward
structed forage collection box. This forage plot harvester has been the top of the mower. The mower must be equipped with a remova-
used successfully on experimental rangeland and seeded forage ble top cover (factory option). The top cover is removed and a piece
plots. The equipment is more versatile and less expensive than of sheet metal (9 X 96 cm) and a 900 bend is attached to the lower
commercially manufactured plot harvesters. lip of the opening. This sheet metal deflector (Fig. IA) forces the
harvested forage into the collection box.
Forage research is dependent on the successful quantification of
The collection box is 132 cm wide and is constructed of angle
vegetative response. Several different characteristics have been
iron and sheet metal. Its lid (Fig. I B) latches in a closed position
evaluated to measure vegetative response. However, the most uni-
and hinges back over the hood of the tractor in the open position.
versally accepted criterion is yield. Weight of herbage produced per
The ends of the collection box, as well as two areas in the lid, have
unit area (yield) is one of the most important characteristics of
inserts of hardware cloth (Fig. IC), which allows air to escape
range plants, and it is probably the best single measure of growth
causing an even distribution of forage in the collection box.
(Hanson 1950). Yield is also one of the most labor intensive and
Cutting height is set by raising or lowering the gauge wheel (Fig.
time consuming vegetative characteristics to quantify, particularly
1 D) by adding or removing spacers (Fig. 1 E) on the wheel bracket
when the historical technique of hand clipping is employed. The
shaft. The flail roller (Fig. I F) levels the mower. The level may be
recognized importance of yield data to forage research has
altered by changing the flail roller adjustment (Fig. 1G).
emphasized the need for more efficient, economical methods of
This harvester has been used on irrigated and dryland grasses,
experimental plot harvesting.
legumes, and grass-legume mixtures, as well as on rangeland.
Brown (1954) and Mannetje (1978) have discussed the many
Cutting speed was approximately 1 in/sec. Cutting heights have
techniques and types of plot harvesting equipment which include
varied from 2.5 to 15.0 cm. At the lower cutting heights, a trace of
hand and electric clippers, sickle and rotary mowers, and flail
soil has been detected in the samples. At the higher cutting heights,
choppers. Each harvesting technique has its advantages and disad-
a small portion of the plant material is deposited on the soil
vantages. Hand and electric clippers are relatively inexpensive, but
surface.
plot size may be limited due to labor requirements. Numerous
The collection box will hold up to 15 kg of harvested forage. This
researchers have used rotary mowers, but many found that tall
capacity makes it possible to harvest forage plots of sufficient size,
plant material was difficult to harvest (Howell 1956; Fortmann
even those that are irrigated. Forage is removed from the collection
1956; McGinnies 1959). Several self propelled flail-type forage
harvesters have been developed and tested (Kemp and Kalbfleisch
box and weighed separately. Representative subsamples are rela-
1957; Hubbard and Willis 1962; Thompson and Heinrichs 1963; tively simple to obtain because harvested plant material is coarsely
ground and mixed. Subsamples are dried to determine moisture
Buker 1967; Swallow 1967; Allen et al. 1968; Collins et al. 1969).
Flail-type plot harvesters were more labor efficient, but they were
content and may be ground and analyzed for various quality
expensive and could be used for only one purpose, because the parameters. Advantages
mower was permanently attached to the tractor, allowing no versa-
tility in tractor use. This paper describes a rather simple, efficient, This harvester has several advantages over commercially
relatively economical, and versatile forage plot harvester that has
been used successfully on experimental rangeland and seeded for-
age plots.

Harvester Design and Operation

The harvester is a combination of three main components: (1) a

garden tractor, (2) a commercially manufactured front-mounted
flail mower, and (3) a specifically designed and custom constructed
forage collection box. Garden tractors in a 12 to 16h.p. range with
both standard and hydrostatic transmissions were evaluated. The
larger tractor (John Deere 316)' with the hydrostatic transmission
has been the most satisfactory combination. The hydrostatic trans- I ~~~~~
mission eliminates the problem of clutch slippage at reduced speed.
The Haban 512' flail mower has a cutting width of 91 cm. It is belt
driven by an electric p.t.o. at 1,800 to 2,200 rpm. Normal revolu-
Authors are associate professor of Agronomy (Range Management), University of
Nebraska, Lincoln 68583; and professor of agronomy, University of Nebraska Pan-
handle Station, Scottsbluff 69361.
This paper is published as Paper Number 5807, Journal Series, Nebraska Agricultu-
ral Experiment Station.
Manuscript received June 18, 1979.
Fig. 1. Versatile plot h
' Mention of a proprietory name does not constitute endorsement by the University collection box lid, (C)
of Nebraska. wheel spacers, (F)flail

90 JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT 34(2), March 1981

This content downloaded from 41.203.72.13 on Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:25:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
factured flail-type harvesters. One advantage is lower cost. The
cost of our harvester in 1978 was approximately $3,100: (1) 16 h.p.
hydrostatic tractor, $2,350; (2) flail mower, $600; and (3) custom
constructed collection box, $150. This compared to an approxi-
mate cost of $7,000 for a commercial flail-type harvester.
The harvester is easily transported. It can be hauled in a 1/2 T
pickup. We constructed a tilt-bed trailer, but a snowmobile trailer
would work equally well. Another advantage is versatility. The
collection box can be easily removed and the mower top cover
replaced in a few minutes. The machine may then be used for
cutting plot alleys and other routine mowing. The entire flail
mower assembly may also be removed from the garden tractor in
approximately 15 minutes. The garden tractor may then be used as
the power source for numerous small implements.
Literature Cited
Allen, R.J., T.W. Casselmann, and F.H. Thomas. 1968. An improved
forage harvester for experimental plots. Agron. J. 60: 584-585.
Brown, Dorothy. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation.
Bull. 42. Commonwealth Agr. Bur. Hurley, Berkshire, England. 223 p.
Response of Muhienbergia porteri Scrbn. to
Season of Defoliation
RICHARD F. MILLER AND GARY B. DONART
Abstract
Removing 65% of the leaf area of bush muhly in three consecu-
tive years during the growing season reduced plant vigor regardless
of season of clipping. Late or continuous season defoliation had
the greatest impact on food reserves, production, crown diameter
and number of stem internodes. Defoliation during the vegetative
stage had the least effect of the clipping treatments.
Bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porteri) is a perennial grass charac-
terized by numerous wiry, much-branched culms, growing on dry
mesas and rocky slopes throughout the Southwest (Gould 1951).
Historically forming extensive stands in parts of its range, bush
muhly now is generally restricted to growing under the protection
of shrubs and sub-shrubs. This grass species has been reported as
being highly palatable (Gardner 1951). However, Welsh and Beck
(1976) observed that the palatability of the species was only aver-
age and that it was sensitive to grazing because of its branching and
nodal disarticulation characteristics.
Bush muhly can become established in badly deteriorated sites
occupied primarily by creosotebush (Larrea tridentata) where their
geographic ranges overlap. As bush muhly gains in stature, it can
outcompete creosotebush, leading to a decrease in shrub vigor and,
in numerous instances, mortality (Welsh and Beck 1976). The
ability of bush muhly to revegetate these areas naturally makes it a
highly desirable plant to maintain or increase in abundance. We
need more information on the growth characteristics of this species
Authors are assistant professor, Rangeland Resources Program, Oregon State
University, Corvallis; and professor, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New
Mexico State University, Las Cruces, respectively. Miller was formerly graduate
research assistant, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces.
This was submitted as Journal Article 747, New Mexico Agricultural Experiment
Station, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 88003. It reports on work supported in part by
Bureau of Land Management Contract YA-512-CT6-205.
Manuscript received November 11, 1979.
JOURNAL OF RANGE MANAGEMENT
This content downloaded from 41.203.72.13 on Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:25:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Buker, R.J. 1967. Forage plot harvester. Agron. J. 59:203-204.
Collins, K.L., C.L. Rhykerd, and C.H. Noller. 1969. A self-propelled
experimental plot forage harvester. Agron. J. 61:338-339.
Fortmann, H.R. 1956. Harvester for experimental forage plots. Agron. J.
48:241-242.
Hanson, Herbert C. 1950. Ecology of the grassland II. Bot. Rev. 16:283-
360.
Howell, H.B. 1956. A new experimental plot harvester. Agron. J. 48:240-
241.
Hubbard, W.A., and T.G. Willis. 1962. Note on a self-propelled flail-type
forage plot harvester. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 42:739-741.
Kemp, J.G., and William Kalbfleisch. 1957. A crop harvester for forage
plots. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 37:418-422.
Mannetje, L. 't. 1978. Measurement of grassland vegetation and animal
production. Bull. 52. Commonwealth Agri. Bur. Hurley, Berkshire,
England. 260 p.
McGinnies, W.J. 1959. A rotary lawn mower for sampling range herbage.
J. Range Manage. 12:203-204.
Swallow, Clarence. 1967. Self-propelled plot forage harvester. Agron. J.
59:609-610.
Thompson, J.L., and D.H. Heinrichs. 1963. Note on the Swift Current
Forage Plot Harvester II. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 43:602-604.
if effective management is to be implemented.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of season of
defoliation on (1) total nonstructural carbohydrates, (2) number of
elongated internodes, (3) production and (4) crown diameter.
Study Area
The study area was located on the New Mexico State University
College Ranch, 32 km north of Las Cruces in Dona Ana County,
New Mexico. The arid climate is characterized by low precipita-
tion, low humidity, high temperatures, high evaporation potential,
and periodic strong winds. Average annual rainfall is 22 cm.
Approximately 55% of the annual precipitation falls during the
growing season from July through September (Agr. Res. Serv.
1975). Most summer precipitation comes from high intensity con-
vectional thunderstorms (Paulsen and Ares 1962). Annual rainfall
is highly variable with drought commonly occurring throughout
the desert grasslands. Drought (75% or less of average rainfall)
occurs 20 to 40% of the time (Campbell and Crafts 1939). Potential
annual evaporation rate averages 229 cm (Herbel et al. 1974). The
frost-free period lasts approximately 200 days with maximum air
temperatures reaching 360 C in June.
The growing season generally ranges between 90 and 100 days
depending primarily on rainfall distribution. Mean air tempera-
tures range from 160 C to 330 C during this period with approxi-
mately 4 cm of rain falling per month.
Precipitation during the growing season was 207% of the mean
in 1974, 126% of the mean in 1975 and 72% of the mean in 1976
(Fig. 1). Production during the 1974 growing season was lush.
However, in 1975 over half of the rainfall came at the end of the
growing season, losing much of its effectiveness.
The study site was located within a 5.6-ha cattle exclosure at an
34(2), March 1981 91