Abstract
Fuel consumption of various forage harvesting methods was assessed with a theoretical calculation model, which was validated with field measurements. The examined harvesting methods were tractor-powered forage harvester (TPFH), self-propelled forage harvester (SPFH), self-loading forage wagon (SLFW), and combined baling and wrapping (CBW). The results from the field measurements indicated that the model was working either well or satisfactorily with the examined methods, apart from the CBW method, which would require redefining the model coefficients. Model sensitivity analysis indicated that variables such as yield level, working width, and transportation distance have a significant effect on fuel consumption. When the working width was increased from 3 m to 9 m, the fuel consumption of the examined methods decreased ca. 54–61%. Increasing the working width by windrowing was found recommended for all examined methods. In all, the most energy-efficient method was SLFW, but it was also most sensitive to transportation distance. With a transportation distance of 10 km, the fuel consumption of the SLFW method was already 9–11 % higher compared to that of TPFH and SPFH methods. The strong effect of these variables may cause a wide variation in the fuel consumption of the examined methods, but the model can be used to standardize this effect. The results from this study can thus be used for approximate estimations of average fuel consumption of the examined forage harvesting methods.
Highlights
Energy consumption and energy efficiency have become essential topics in all industry sectors during the recent decades
The results indicate that the model was working well for the TPFH method, and satisfactorily for the SLFW method
According to the results from this study, it seems that no crucial differences between the fuel consumption of the examined methods existed, when the variables such as working width and yield level were equal
Summary
Energy consumption and energy efficiency have become essential topics in all industry sectors during the recent decades. European Union has set the “Energy Efficiency Directive” 2012/27/EU, which obligates the member states to reduce the primary energy consumption by 20% by the year 2020, compared to projections made in 2007 (European Union 2012). Modern agriculture is strongly dependent on external energy inputs. The emissions from combustion of fossil fuels comprise about 7–10% of total GHG emissions in commercial dairy farms (Chianese et al 2009, Kristensen et al 2011, Shortalla and Barnes 2013). In Finland, authorities have pursued to improve the energy efficiency of agriculture for example with voluntary energy programmes (Motiva 2015). In order to reduce the energy consumption and improve the sustainability of a production system, the energy consumption within the alternative subsystems must examined
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
