Examination of the Measurement Methods Used to Determine the Silage Density in Small Farm

Year 2019, Issue: 17, 744 - 749, 31.12.2019

Fulya Tan Mustafa Şahin

https://doi.org/10.31590/ejosat.625909

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the density of the
compacted material in pile-type silo under field conditions and to compare
different measurement methods. Three different methods (core
sampling-M2,M3,M4,M5; penetrometer-M6 and control method-M1) were used for
density measurement. The density measurements of the corn silage were made during
the ensiling (stage-I) and at the feeding (stage-II). The results showed that different results
were obtained in density measurement methods both stages. In all methods,
measurements taken  from 0.40 m-layer
thickness were always denser than at the measurement taken from 1.20 m-layer
thickness by 21.75% in stage-I, 32.96% in stage-II. Linear regression models
were determined between the methods and the M6 method both stages. Methods
were  statically significant. M4 from the core sampling method and M6 are recommended
because they are practical for small farms in field conditions.

Keywords

Density, Penetrometer, Corn, Silage, Pile-type silo

Küçük İşletmelerde Silaj Yoğunluğunu Belirlemek Amacıyla Kullanılan Ölçüm Metotlarının İncelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı saha
koşullarında yığın tip silaj yapımında sıkıştırılan materyalin yoğunluğunu
belirlemek ve farklı ölçüm metotlarını karşılaştırmaktır. Yoğunluk ölçümleri
için üç farklı ölçüm yöntemi ( Örnekleme M2, M3, M4,M5; penetrometre-M6; ve kontrol
yöntemi) kullanılmıştır. Mısır silajında yoğunluk ölçümleri silolama sırasında
(Aşama-I) ve yemleme sırasında (Aşama-II) yapılmıştır. Sonuçlar her iki aşamada
da farklı yoğunluk değerleri göstermiştir. Bütün metotlarda 0.40 m den alınan
ölçümler, 1.20 m kalınlığında alınan örneklere göre; aşama-I de % 21.75,
aşama-II' de ise % 32.96 daha fazla yoğunluk değerine sahip olduğu saptanmıştır.
Her iki aşamada da M6 yöntemi i ile diğer yöntemler arasında lineer olarak bir
regrasyon modeli belirlenmiştir. Yöntemler istatistiki açıdan önemli
bulunmuştur.  Çalışma sonuçlarına göre;
örnekleme metotlarından M4 ve penetrometre ölçüm yöntemi olan-M6  tarla koşullarında ufak işletmeler için pratik
ölçüm tekniği olmaları nedeniyle önerilen yöntemler olmuştur. 

Keywords

Yoğunluk, Penetrometre, Mısır, Silaj, Yığın silo

References

• ASAE Standarts. 2002. Moisture measurement -forages. ASAE S358.2. Standards 2002: 565. St. Joseph, MI.
• Cai J, Huang Z.Z, Lu S.C. 1997. Differential regulation of gamma-glutamylcysleine synthetase heavy and light subunit gene expression. Biochemical Journal. 3326,167-172.
• D'Amours L and Savoie P. 2005. Density profile of corn silage in bunker silos. Canadian Biosystems Engineering. Vol:17;2.21-2.28.
• Hoffmann T , Geyer S 2014. Determination of Silage Density in Bunker Silos Using a Radiometric Method. Agronomy Research 12 (1):65-72.
• Holmes B.J. 2008. Determining silage density. World Dairy Expo, Univ. of Wisconsin Madison, (www.uwex.edu)
• Latsch R. and Sauter J. 2013. Comparison of methods for determining the density of grass silage. Agricultural and Food Science. 22: 189-193.
• Latsch R. 2014. Grass silage compaction in horizontal silos. International Conference of Agricultural Engineering. AnEng 2014. 6-10 July. Zurich.
• Li M, Kerstin H.J, Sun Y, Cheng Q, Maack C, Buescher W, Lin J, Zhou H and Wang Z. 2016. Developing a Penetrometer-Based Mapping System for Visualizing Silage Bulk Density from the Bunker Silo Face. Sensors. 2016 Jul; 16(7): 1038.
• Medvedev V.V, 2009. Soil penetration resistance and penetrographs in studies of tillage technologies. Eurosian Soil Science. March 2009. (42):3,299-309.
• Muck R E and Holmes B J. 2000. Factors Affecting Bunker Silo Densities. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol.16(6):613-619.
• Muck R.E, Savoie P, Holmes B.J. 2004. Laboratory Assessment of Bunker Silo Density, Part I: Alfalfa and Grass. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 20(2): 157-164.
• Norell R.J , Hines S, Chahine M, Fife T , Marti M.D.H, Parkinson S.C. 2013. Comparing Three Different Methods For Assessing Corn Silage Density. Journal of Extension. 51 (5).
• Pitt, R. E. and R. E. Muck. 1993. A diffusion model of aerobic deterioration at the exposed face of bunker silos. J. Agricultural Engineering Research. 55 (11-26).
• Roy MB. Treblay Y. Pomerleau P. Savoie P. 2001. Compaction and Density of Forage in Bunker Silos. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Paper No:01-1089.
• Ruppel K.A. 1993. Bunker Silo Management and İts Effects On Haycrop Quality. In Proceedings From The National Silage Production Conference: 67-82. NRAES Publication, 67, Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY
• Ruppel K.A, Pitt R.E, Chase L.E, Galton D.M. 1995. Bunker Silo Management and Its Relationship to Forage Preservation on Dairy Farms. Journal of Dairy Science. 78:141-153.
• Savoie P. Muck R E and Holmes B J. 2004. Laboratory Assessment of Bunker Silo Density. Part II: Whole-Plant Corn. Applied Engineering In Agriculture. 20(2):165-171.
• Sun Y.R., Buescher W., Lin J.H., Schulze Lammers P., Ross F., Maack C., Cheng Q., Sun W. 2009. An improved penetrometer technique for determining bale density. Biosyst. Eng. 2010;105:273–277. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.09.020.
• Tan F, Kayısoglu B, Okur E. 2018. Effects of Compaction Pressure on The Temperature Distribution in Bunker Type Silage Silo. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 88 (1): 116–120.
• Wang R. 2012. Estimation of Silage Density in Bunker Silos By Drilling. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management, 396. Master Thesis.