DOCTORAL DISSERTATION SERIES
HUE UtUUtNM tf

rut ttoHtm if

twium ut m mmm a sum
M IS
AUTHOR WWAMAAMLMmJASmLMJMm
DATE / & /

UNIVERSITY AICH, S U T t C6LL

wsmJLk

PUBLICATION NO.

AVI

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS
T M I 1MVE
/ m

aum

a

■bad

_

kJIfUtAAM

UTILISATION OF THU PRINCIPLE OF EXTIRPATION
IN THE HAHVESTING OF SUGAR BESTS

By
Stephanus

Johannes Paulus Kruger
van Heerden

A THESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of A griculture and Applied Science
in p a r t i a l

f u l f i l l m e n t o f the requirements
for

bhe degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineering

1951

TABLE OP CONTENTS

H i s t o r i c a l Review
A.
B.

Early Developments
The Commercializing Era

15

P r i n c i p le s of Operation of Some Present
Day Machines
A.
B.

American Machines
European Machines

33
42

Purpose of I n v e s t i g a t i o n

51

Procedure
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Preliminary Design
Mathematical Aspects
Construction
P re p a r a tio n of Test Crops
Testing and Results

Suggestions f o r Future

I n v e s tig a tio n s

54
58
65
79
82
98

Acknov, 1e dgmen t s

106

L iterature

107

References

Cited

109

IX

LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS
Page
Review of Machines
Plate I

Johnson

Plate II

Greyhound ( U . S . A .

1925)

5

Plate III

L’Aevenir

1926)

6

Plate IV

Prires

Plate V

Scott-U rschel

Plate VI

Borley

Plate VII

Catchpole

Plate VIII

In tern atio n al
western A r e a ,

Plate IX

(U .S .A .

(F ranco

and 1©

Hant

1932)

1937)

(E ng lan d

John Deer©
U.S.A. )

3

(Belgium 1926)

(U .S.A .

(E ngland

H arv ester
U .S .A .)

8
11
13

1938)

(M id v /e stern

14
(Mid­
34

Area,
36

Plate X

Marbeet

Plate XI

Marbeet M i d g e t
U.S.A. )

Plate XII

1907)

(V /e ste rn

Scott-Urschel
U.S.A. )

A re a ,

U.S.A.)

38

(Y.©stern Area,
39
(E astern

Area,
41

Plate XIII

Catchpole

(E ngland)

Plate XIV

Moreau ( F r a n c © )

44

Plate XV

Peter S t a n t o n

46

Plate XVI

Rational

(Denmark)

48

Plate XVII

Ruhlmann

(F ra n c e )

50

(E ngland)

42

Ill
Page
Design Drawings
Figure

1

Isom etric Views of P r e lim in a r y
Design

55
56

Figure

2

D etails

of Some Ideas

Figure

3

Design Views and Sections

57

Figure

4

(a)

Mathematlcal Analysis

59

Figure

4

( b ) Dynamical Diagrams

Figure

4

(c)

Figure

5

( a ) and (b)

Redesign Sketches

99

Figure

5 ( c ) and (d)

Redesign Sketches

100

Figure

6

61

S e le c te d Diagram

64

Isometric View of Hydraulic
P ressure-L ifter

104

Experim ental Model
Plate

1

L e f t-S id e

Plate

2

R ig ht-Side View

69

Plate 3

Plowing U nit

70

Plate

4

P u llin g and L i f t i n g Unit

72

Plate

5

Cutting Mechanism

75

Plate

6

Cutting U n i t s

77

Plate

7

Front Guides

78

Plate 8

S ection of Vegetable Land

81

Plate

Hydraulic

9

View

68

and Front Guides

Pressure

L ifter

103

I*

A*

H is to r ic a l Review

E arly Developments
The problem of* providing b e tte r maehlnery fo r sugar

b eet production has been reoognlzed as m eritorious slnoe
the e a rly stag es of the development of the sugar beet
In d u stry , due to the v i t a l conoern of both the producer
and the p ro cesso r of th is

farm crop.

Progress, however,

was almost stagnant during the period p r io r to 1930,
In s p ite

of numerous attem pts made by In v en to rs, sugar

companies,

and experiment s ta tio n s

to meohanlze the

p la n tin g , blocking, and h arv estin g of sugar b eets.
The h arv estin g problem which Is the only oonoern
of th is

In v e s tig a tio n has received the most a tte n tio n

and has proved to be extremely d i f f i c u l t

to conquer.

Evidence of the objectionable f a c t o r * .encountered
during the f i r s t

and most elementary ste p

In the mecha­

n iz a tio n of the harv estin g process was given by L. S.
Ware (12) who wrote In 1880 the follow ing:

"The e x tra c ­

tio n of sugar b e e ts may be accomplished by hands or by
machines;

the l a t t e r being done by ploughs of various

d e s c rip tio n s .

The machine fre q u e n tly adopted in Germany

c o n s is ts of se v e ra l coupled curved prongs, pen etratin g
the s o i l muoh beneath the maximum depth a tta in e d by the
r o o ts ;

the whole is drawn by horses or c a t t l e .

The ob­

je c tio n to th is or any o th er sim ila r method is the tr a o tio n made use o f,

the f e e t of the animals g re a tly

2

b ru is in g the r o o ts .

- - But some device d if f e r e n t from

anything up to

the present adopted* such as steam

plowing* e t c . ,

oould alone be used in the U.S.A."

One of th e e a r l i e s t attempts to Improve on the
hand handling of sugar b ee ts was made by O ratton (2) of
Lincolnshire * England.

A topping device was constructed

by him which co n sisted of a sem iclroular fo o t which wee
placed on the ro o t a t the place where i t was d e s ire d to
c u t o ff the tops* a knife which was pressed down by a
handle a t the side of a l i g h t piece of wood to which
the elements were attached*

and a sp rin g which p u lle d the

k n ife back.
Although the main concern of Inventors up to 1925
was w ith the design of l i f t e r s

alone* as is in d ic a te d

by the numerous v a ria tio n s of th is type of implement
which were a t

th i s

time on the American and European

markets* designs* with the aim of t o t a l mechanisation*
appeared as e a r ly as during the tu rn of the cen tu ry .
Plate I shows a machine which was already in opera­
tio n in 1907.

Myrick (7) described the performance of

it

"This invention of the Johnson Harvester

as follows:

Company* Batavia* New York has now been so p e rfe c te d as
to do i t s work most s a t i s f a c t o r i l y .

I t digs and l i f t s

the beets* c u ts off the tops and d e liv e rs the topped
b e e ts a t the side of the row ready f o r fao to ry or silo ."

s

Plate I ,

- - Sugar Beet Harvester B uilt

by the Johnson Harvester Company,
Batavia, New York, U.S.A.
tio n in 1907.)

(In opera­

4

No fu rth e r information on the p rin cip le of operation was
given.
An Invention whleh was received with a considerable
amount of enthusiasm appeared during the e a rly tw enties.
This machine (P late I I ) was known as the "Grey­
hound” sugar beet h arv ester and was developed by The
Banting Manufacturing Company, Toledo, Ohio.
The main fe a tu re s of t h i s machine consisted of two
elements.

Hie one was the topper which consisted of a

power driven tread b e l t and a power driven revolving b e ll
disk c u ttin g u n it.

This u n it severed the crown from the

beets while the roo ts remained In the ground.

The other

was the l i f t e r which raised the beets a f t e r they had
been topped, cleaned them of d i r t and c a rrie d them to a
conveyor b e l t a t the r e a r , whence they were dumped on
the ground In heaps.
Contemporaries of the "Greyhound" h arv ester were the
"L'Aevenir" and the " P r ir is le Hant."
The "L'Aevenir" (P late I I I ) was developed In Prance
by Monsieur Jean Moreau and operated as follow s.

The

topping mechanism consisted of a drum which rode v e rtic a lly
on a h o rizo n tal c u ttin g d isk,

the height of the l a t t e r

being ad ju stable in r e la tio n to the working p osition of
the drum.
The topper was brought In p o sitio n f o r cu ttin g by

P late

II,

- - The Greyhound Sugar

Beet Harvester.

(U.S.A. 1925).

6

P late

I I I . — The L’Aevenir Sugar

Beet Harvester,

(France 1926.)

7

the drum which rode over the root.

An adjustment was

available fo r changing the re la tiv e height between drum
and topper.

The leaves subsequent to cut were received

by two endless metal bands and deposited a t the side.
The l i f t i n g of the roots was accomplished by the wedge
pressure

fromthe prongs placed behind

Landrlan F rires

the bands.

and Fexhe le Hant of Clocher, Bel­

gium were the inventors of the other machine (Plate IV.)
They accomplished the topping in a ra th e r unusual fashion.
A sheet of metal sh ield or foot was held by springs and
weights a t a predetermined tension.

As the machine was

drawn along the row, the leaves were pressed down due to
the tension mentioned above, and were then severed by a
following knife.

The knife was s e t obliquely to the

axis of the machine.

and

The"Greyhound”

was introduced in England in 1926

tookp art in the

annual sugar beet machinery demon­

s tra tio n contest of th a t year.
following about i t s performance:

Wilding (13) wrote the
"Of a l l the combined

machines which we have seen fo r dealing with the topping
and l i f t i n g of sugar b eets, th is is by f a r the most
effective one.1
1
However, the performances of the harvesting machines
of that time did not ju s tif y a commercial production of
any of them, esp ecially from an economical viewpoint.

8

P l a te

IV.

--

The F r i r e s

Sugar Beet Harvester.

and l e

Hant

(Belgium 1926.)

9

W it h t h e
vesting
in the

p ro b le m
U .S .A .
te n

fo llo w in g
these

e x c e p tio n of Germany and Holland the har­

th re e

the European countries during the

y ears.

Mechanization was less urgent in

German) ,

more popular machines which appeared in
th e

(1 9 3 0

"Premier" (1929 —English),
- French),

th e "Holland**

(1934 — F r e n c h ) ,
while o t h e r s

because of the r e la tiv e ly cheap

hand lab o r th at was a v a ila b le .

Among t h e
Europe w ere s

to have received lees atte n tio n

th a n in

covin t r i e s

and a b u n d a n t

"Marlier*©**

seems

the

the "Sledersleben" (1930 -

(1931 - Dutch),

the "Desbonnet*’

the M
Rosenstand Thacht*' (1935 - Danish),

lik e

the

"Greyhound** and *'L*Aevenir** were

improve d •

The
radical

v a s t m a jo r ity of the new models showed no
d e v ia tio n ,

composed, of
1.
for th e
proper
correct

2.
lifte rs
3.

th e

in p rin c ip le , from one general method

follow ing p a r ts .

The ground topper which co n sisted of a finder
p u rp o se
to p p in g ,
c u ttin g

of lo c a tin g the crown of the beet fo r
and the knife which was actuated fo r the
p o s itio n by the f in d e r .

The l i f t e r which was s im ila r to the conventional
of

th a t

time.

The e le v a to r fo r the loading of the beet on

trucks •

p in d e rs

t h a t showed the most promise were

10

of two types - - one a track-type and the o ther a serrated
wheel.
Knives were e ith e r power driven or statio n ary and
were s t i l l experimented with fo r b e t t e r performance.
The separatio n of beets from d i r t was by f a r the
most d i f f i c u l t problem.

Many devices fo r mechanical sep­

a ra tio n such as shaking or bumping of conveyors, piercing
pickup wheels,

and conveyors with a rubbing or ro llin g

action were experimented with, but they offered no s a t i s ­
factory s o lu tio n .

This resulted in the a n tic ip a tio n of

other methods of harvesting which was b a s ic a lly d ifferen t.
One system which received more a tte n tio n in Europe
consisted of l i f t i n g

the beets with the conventional

l i f t e r plows, loading them on a wagon by hand, and driving
them to a conveyor table where the topping was done by a
mechanical s ta tio n a ry topper.

A topper o f th is kind was

developed by Morton and Standen (England).
Another and more ra d ic a lly d if f e r e n t method of op­
e ra tio n was proposed in 1932.

I t suggested a machine

with which the beets would be pulled out by the tops,
thus reducing the amount of d i r t to be handled by the
machine.
An early experimental machine th a t was constructed
on th is p rin c ip le is shown in Plate V.

This method did

not gain much popularity during the f i r s t few years of

11

P la t e

V.

- - Early Invention on the

Scott-U rschel P r i n c i p l e

1932.)

(United S ta te s

12

experimentation.

Irre g u la rity In height of the roots

above the ground contributed much to I ts Ineffective per­
formance •
Thompson (U.S.A. 1934) invented a machine th at r e ­
lated to the new p rin c ip le .

The roots together with th e ir

Immediately surrounding s o il were f i r s t l i f t e d as one
body, and then, as the implement moved forward, travelled
rearwardly through the machine s t i l l as a body and with
the roots upward.

The roots were then subjected to an

adjusting action whereby the tops were caused to take a
common lev e l.

After th is adjustment a c u tte r bar re ­

moved the tops, which were f in a lly discarded.
An invention (Plate VI) by Borley (England 1937)
had the following new fe a tu re .

Following the l i f t e r was

a p a ir of disks so inclined th at the foremost points on
th eir peripheries were wider apart than the rearmost
points.

A p lu ra lity of fingers composed of spring s te e l

rods extended In a ra d ia l-lik e manner from these disks.
The free ends of these rods bore idly upon the ground and
consequently the two disks with th e ir rods were brought
almost Into contact with each other.

The beets a fte r

being l i f t e d were engaged by the ro tatin g ra d ia l rods,
picked up and gripped firmly between the r e s ili e n t rods
while they were conveyed backwards.

A

13

Plate VI. - - The Borley Sugar Beet
Harvester,

(England 1937).

14

P late VII.

— The Catchpole Sugar

Beet Harvester.

(England 1938).

15

The most promising European invention o r th a t time
was the "Catchpole" (1938) whioh was developed by

W. H.

Catchpole of Stanon, England (P late V II.)
A p a ir or v e r tic a l disks cleaned away s o i l and rub­
b ish from the p ath

or

the topping mechanism which f o l-

lowed immediately behind.

A p a ir or disks was automati­

c a lly guided in to p o sitio n f o r c u ttin g by a chain or
spiked track u n it which rode on top
b e e ts.

or

the crowns

or

the

Spider spinners th ru s t the severed tops out or

the way and shallow shares s e t a t an angle l i f t e d

the

beets onto a s la t te d conveyor.
Studies conducted in 1938 a t the C alifo rn ia Agri­
c u ltu r a l Experiment S ta tio n on American machines such
as the Davis Hiompson, Great Western, and Scott Viner,
showed th a t the performances of these machines were s t i l l
f a r from e f f e c tiv e .

The machines delivered too much

tra s h and d i r t with the beets and the topping q u ality
was u n s a tisfa c to ry .

None of the machines was capable of

combatting the i r r e g u l a r i t i e s

in height above the ground

and the varying thicknesses of the b e e ts .
B.

The Commercializing Era
(1) Research a t the U niversity of C a lifo rn ia .
The year 1938 marked the beginning of a new phase in

the evolution of the mechanization of sugar beet produo-

16

tlo n .
Research or a more basic and s c ie n tif ic nature, and
with sp ecial concern toward the development of a new type
of sugar beet harvester, was commenced a t the University
of C alifo rn ia during th is year*

A jo in t p ro je ct was

estab lish ed between the U*S*D*A* and the U niversity of
C alifo rn ia f o r the purpose of in v e stig atin g the possible
f ie ld s of mechanization in beet growing and of encour­
aging and a s s is tin g implement manufacturers in the
design of sugar beet machinery.
A compendium of th is work (8) can best be made
under the following four more or le ss Independent sec­
tio n s:

topping, plowing, root ele v atio n , and root d is ­

posal.
Topping:

Hie common p ra c tic e up to the beginning

of the p ro je c t was to divide the beets into two size
groups - - those le ss

than three and th ree-qu arters Inches

in g re a te st diameter, and those of g reate r diameter.

The

sm allest beets were then trimmed by hand to the le v e l of
the lowest le a f soar,

and the la rg e r ones th ree-q uarters

of an inch higher.
I t was then reasoned by the C alifo rn ia in v estig ato rs
th a t, because of th is importance of the looation of the
lowest le a f soar, i t was necessary th a t,

fo r the purpose

of mechanization, some dimension of a beet be in d icativ e

17

of the location of the lowest soar leaf*
Data accumulated a t harvest time In C alifornia,
Colorado, Idaho, and Utah Indicated approximate lin e a r
relation sh ip s between beet height above the ground,
g re a te st diameter, and crown thickness (distance from the
top of a beet to i t s lower scar le a f .)
From these relationships arose two obvious angles of
approach fo r the design of experimental machines: the
height-crown thickness re la tio n and the dlameter-crown
thickness re la tio n .

D iffic u ltie s in connection with the

u tiliz a tio n of these relatio n s are:

(1) Machines which

top beets in th e ir growing position are r e s tr ic te d to
the helght-crown relatio nsh ip because the g re a te st d i­
ameters occur often below ground lev el, and (2) Machines
th at top a f te r l i f t i n g are lim ited to the dlameter-crown
thickness s*nce the helght-crown thickness relatio n sh ip
is usually sacrific ed during the plowing operation.
Hie investigation was henceforth concerned only with
the topping before l i f t i n g method which was believed to
be showing greater promise fo r precise work*
Several kinematic, kinetic,and mechanical features
involved in the operation of a topping mechanism were in ­
vestigated.

A modified curve was derived fo r the fin d er-

knlfe relatio n sh ip by which the spacing between finder
and knife was kept constant when the finder f a l l s below

18

a c erta in value*

This modification resulted In an appre-

clable reduction of the top tare on small beets while the
topping loss remained low.
Special a tte n tio n was given to the knife design and
position in an attempt to correct the s la n t topping of
large beets*

Other kinetic requirements considered were

the horizontal force and weight of the topping mechanism*
A n o n -o scillating knife and a finder equipped with
a cleated chain was found to be more effectiv e in mini­
mizing breakage of the roots than other methods used*
The frame of the topper was carried on shoes which
s lid along the ground adjacent to the beet row.

Tvo

ro ta tin g drums equipped with fle x ib le fingers gathered
and windrowed the tops*
Plowing;

An e f f o r t was made to improve on the

tra d itio n a l type of plow for mechanical harvesting which
proved to be unsuitable in many ways.
The form which was f in a lly
pieces of s t r i p
axes,

evolved consisted of

two

s te e l twisted about th e ir outer edges as

to form a rig h t hand and l e f t hand helicoid*

A

f in a l selectio n of the h e lic a l p itc h , siz e , angles, e tc .
was made a f te r various te s ts on d iffe re n t soils*
I t was found th at the plow was less sen sitiv e to
off-row operation than older types but the layer of s o il
which lay above the plow points seriously in terfered with

19

beet recovery*
Root elevations

The v e r s a t i l i t y of commercial har­

vesters in operation under d if f e r e n t s o il conditions was
found to be an inverse function of the s o il contacted by
the ro o t grasping mechanism*

With th is in mind an

attempt was made to devise a machine which would grasp
the roots a t points removed from the s o il mass*

This

was accomplished by the u t i l i z a t i o n of two p airs of
gathering chains.

One p a ir was mounted s lig h tly below

the plow surface extending backwards in a slanted d irec­
tio n .

The other p a ir of chains was sim ilarly mounted

s lig h tly above the ground surface.

The beets were

trapped between each p a ir of chains around the taproot
and crown re sp e c tiv e ly ,

and c a rrie d to an elev ato r a t the

re a r of the machine.
This system did not seem to have been successful in
reducing to an appreciable extent the amount of s o il
lifte d

along with the beets*

of the p rin c ip le was i t s

A fu rth e r ineffectiveness

in a b ility

to trap small beets

when the chains were spread by adjacent large beets*
Root d isp o sal:
disposal then were:

The three popular systems of root
(1) Harvested beets from several rows

placed in a single row to be picked up la t e r by a sepa­
ra te machine,

(2) The l i f t e d beets disposed of d ire c tly

on a truck which followed the maohlne,

(3) A topper towed

20

behind the h arv ester In which the beets were deposited.
The beets were l a t e r tra n sfe rre d to truoks along side
the f i e l d .
A combination of hopper and loader which was mounted
on the tra c to r, was used during the C alifo rn ia in v e s ti­
gatio n.

This re su lte d in an Increase of tra c tio n a v a il­

able to operate the harv ester unlike the s itu a tio n with
a tr a i le d hopper.
The o v erall performance of the machine seemed to
have been promising in sp ite of some problems Incident
to the chain performance.
Due to the work done under Powers, by the University
of C alifo rnia through subsidized research, inventors, and
a few commercial companies, became in te re s te d and devel­
oped, among others, such u n its as the Braden, Alvos and
Dewey Publo, the Walz machine of Avondale, Colorado,
which eventually became the John Deere, and the O liver.
Rimple a t the C alifo rn ia S tatio n developed a finger
pickup u n it with a sp ecial plow.

Tramotl a t the same

s ta tio n worked on a v ib ratin g l i f t e r and Armer made pre­
lim inary studies on beet pickups by spikes.

Armer also

devised a variable cut disk topper based on beet size
re la tio n sh ip s determined by Powers.
These in vestigation s re s u lte d in much progress in
the topping problems but the olod problem remained un­

21

solved.

The pressure Tor some kind of labor saving

equipment brought loaders, cross conveyor harvester
u n i t s , and disk toppers into the p ic tu re .

Among those

were the Alvos, R apettl, Hansen, and Hunt Brothers.
All of these u n its proved to be cumbersome and r e l a t i v e ­
ly expensive to operate, even though some labor was
saved.
(2) Frogress on a Commercial Basis.
Industry s ta r te d to show g reat i n t e r e s t by 1942.
The John Deere Company placed approximately 15 of I t s new
experimental machines in the f i e l d

during th is year and

programmed 100 f o r the following year.

Ihe variable

disk-type topper as developed e a r l i e r by Armer, was
adopted by the In tern a tio n a l Harvester Company, while
the Blackwelder Company constructed a harvester a f te r
the design by Schmidt,

Jongeneel and Associates.

Ex­

perimentation was also done by the Allis-Chalmers Manu­
factu rin g Company and the Sawtooth Company.
In September 1944 Walker (11) described the status
of mechanical harvesting u n its as follows:

"The work on

harvesting machinery has continued with varying success
...

Machines now commercially availab le are operating in

the f i e l d with s u f fic ie n t success to keep them going; but
these are also s u f f ic ie n tly f a u lty to create a desire fo r
improvements.

Topping,

top recovery, and removal of

22

roots without exoessive d ir t and breakage, appear to be the
bottlenecks for a more sa tisfa c to ry product a t the dumps
(factory).

The problems of these conmercial units have

caused us (California Station) to d ir e c t our studies to ­
ward obtaining a b etter harvested produot.w
Progress made by Powers during the 1945-1947 seasons
seems to have been of considerable significance.

His

single row tracto r mounted harvester u n it, consisting
of a variable cut topper, h e lic a l plow, chain l i f t con­
veyor, cleaning elevator and overhead bin*enabled him in
1947 to obtain 96# recovery of well topped beets, with
re la tiv e ly low d i r t tare, in so ils ranging from hard dry
to moist and sticky.

In the meantime the implement in­

dustry has provided new types of harvesters* and i t was
estimated (9) that nearly 4000 harvester units were in
operation in the U.S.A. in 1947 to harvest 30# of the
n a tio n 's sugar beet crop.
In the same year, according to Cannon (1), approxi­
mately 3000 mechanical beet harvesters operated in the
sugar beet growing sections of Washington, Oregon, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado,
Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Utah.

An analysis of these

machines showed that approximately 55# were John Deere,
31# International, 3# Scott Ursohel, and 3# Kelst.
remaining 8# was an assortment of various makes.

The
About

21# of the sugar beet growing areas in these sta te s was

23

harvested mechanically.
The output per machine varied greatly in different
areas and with d ifferen t makes of machines.

The use of

various types of machines has been dependent on s o il con­
ditions and other v ariables, with one maohine finding
greater favor under one type of condition and another
f i t t i n g in b e tte r somewhere e lse .
I t was found (1) that the John Deere performed more
s a t i s f a c t o r ily in the lig h te r s o il types while the In ter­
national topper,which was introduced for large scale use
in the f a l l of 1946,operated favorably in areas where the
John Deere was not su itab le.

The Scott Urschel was more

successful in the inter-mountain area, especially on
heavy s o i l , and was noted for i t s

high capacity.

The Roto-Beater developed by the Olson Manufacturing
Company of Boise was introduced for commercial d is trib u ­
tion in the Western area in 1947.

I t was equipped with

the beater topping unit which was developed during the
previous year.

For the most part the harvesting systems,

involving beater topping were confined to the lig h te r
s o il type areas and to areas where beet tops have not
been f u lly u tiliz e d for livestock feed.
The Keist harvester which was introduced in the
inter-mountain area had a great deal of mechanical trouble
(8) during i t s operations.
Commercial sugar beet harvesters were introduced in

24

the Eastern sugar beet growing area In the f a l l of 1945»
and have experienced increased acceptance during the
following years.
In 1946, 150 mechanical harvesters operated In the
sugar beet producing p arts of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin,
Illin o is,

and Ontario, Canada, and harvested about 5.4

per cent of the 240,000 acres,

Hie most popular machine

in these are&s was the Scott Urschel which harvested about
3,3 per cent of the t o t a l area.
Harvesting data,accumulated during the 1946 season in
these areas by Michigan State College and the U, S, De­
partment of Agriculture in a combined proJectyshowed th a t
the average percentage of tare figures f o r mechanical
harvesting was about 2,28 per cent greater than f o r hand
harvesting and th a t the d i r t per ton of clean beets was
about 48 pounds less in the case of hand h arvesting.
Mechanization of the harvesting operation across the
country expanded more rapidly during the 1947-1948 period
than during previous years.

Surveys made by the Sugar

Beet Development Foundation,as given by McBirney (6), in ­
dicated that the percentage of sugar beet acreage which
was machine harvested increased from 27 per cent to 53
per cent in 1948,

However, less favorable weather and

s o i l conditions in 1949 had as a r e s u l t an increase of
less

than one per cent in t o t a l area during th is season.

25

A t o t a l or about 9000 sugar beat harvesters were in opera­
tion during the 1949 season*

Adequate supplies of* hand

labor were available In many sections*
(3) C la ss ific a tio n of Machines.
The following is a l i s t of some of the numerous
American inventions c l a s s if i e d according to th e ir p r in c i­
ples of operation*
I.

Topping before l i f t i n g
Name
Diethelm Sugar Beet
Harvester
Grandsen Sugar Beet
Harves t e r
Great Western
Grew Experimental
Sugar Beet Harvester
International Sugar
Beet Harvester

II.

Topping before l i f t i n g

(Combined operation)
Manufacturer or Inventor
Mahl Equipment Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota
E d ln v ille, Michigan
Great Western Sugar Company
- Bay City, Michigan
In te rn a tio n a l Harvester
Company
(Separate u n its)

Ashley Sugar Beet
Harvester

U.S. Farm Equipment Com­
pany, San Francisco,
C alifornia

Carl Oppel Harvester

---F o rt C ollins, Colorado

Ford-Ferguson Two-Row
Topper

Ford-Ferguson Company

Harry Ferguson Sugar
Beet Harvester

Harry Ferguson, Inc*

26

John Deere Two-Row
Topper

John Deere Company

John Deere Two-Row
Digger and L ifte r
John Deere Beater Topper
Kiest Two-Row Topper

Olsen Mfg. Company

Kiest Two-Row Digger
King V.'yse Two-Row
Harves te r

III.

Saginaw, Michigan

M iller Harvester

- - - V.aterville, Ohio

Olsen Rotobeater

Olsen Mfg. Company
Boise, Idaho

John Deere Two-Row
(1943)

John Deere Company

Persons Sugar Beet
Harvester

Merril, Michigan

Ropke Harvester

Elmore, Ohio

Sam Spenoer Harvester

—

Port Collins, Colorado

Sichs Sugar Beet
Harvester

Julius Sichs 2c Company
Torrlngton, Wyoming

Two-Row Kiest
Harvester

Kiest Beet Harvester Co.

University of C ali­
fo rn ia Sugar Beet
Harvester

University of California

Yuel Harvester

Swartz Creek, Michigan

Topping a f te r l i f t i n g
F l i n t j e r Sugar Beet
Harvester

H. F l i n t j e r , Cheyenne,
Wyoming

Flora Engineering Co.
Sugar Beet Harvester

Flora Engineering Company
Cheyenne, Wyoming

27

Flo-Walk Harvester

E. J. Florrette
Saginaw, Michigan

Harval Sugar Beet
Harvester

Sterling Machine Co.
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Marbeet Harvester

Schmidt Brothers
Rio Vista, California

Marbeet Midget
Scott-Ursohel

Scott Viner Company
Columbus, Ohio

Scott-Urschel Stub Bar

Mechanization progressed a t a relativ ely much slower
pace in Europe during the period a f te r 1938, and the conti­
nental developments tended in the direction of machines
that l i f t and clean the beets a f te r they have already
been topped by hand or by separate machines.
Demonstrations held in England in the f a l l of 1946
revealed only a few contributions in the line of new
harvesting machinery.

The Catchpole was at that time

s t i l l the only B ritish machine in commercial production.
In 1947 only about 1.4 percent of Briton's sugar
beet crop was harvested mechanically.

A B ritish Mission

appointed by the B ritish Minister of Agriculture was sent
to the U.S.A. to Investigate the harvesting developments
in th is country at th at time.
The nature of th e ir findings was summarized by
Wilding (5) as follows:

"But the inescapable Impression

created by the report Is that i t is a case of "making do"

28

with what Is available,

'Although a t the present time'

i t was concluded in the report,

'the machines are far

from perfect and may not be capable of doing the work as
e ffic ie n tly as average casual labor, they are being used
on a rapidly-increasing scale in an endeavour, f i r s t l y ,
to overcome the acute labor shortage and secondly, to de­
crease the cost of beet harvesting'."
Soviet Russia also showed in te re s t in the American
machines and imported a few John Deere harvesters and
trie d them out in 1945,

However, Kerenkov and Yeremeyev

(4) stated that the performance of the John Deere was
inferior to that of the U.S.S.R. under Russian conditions.
Very l i t t l e

information on the early developments

in Russia could be found.

Russia did not participate in

any of the International Demonstration shows which were
regularly held on the continent and in England.
Kerenkov and Yeremeyev (4) stated that mechanization
of the crop started in 1930 and that, a f te r experimenta­
tion with conventional types,they developed a method much
of the same order of operation as are followed when the
beets are harvested by hand.
The machine that operated on th is principle was
known as the S.K.T.S.K..

Kerenkov and Yeremeyev (4) des­

cribe i t s operation as follows: "A chain puller 'clutches'
the leaves of the beet ju s t as the worker's hand grasps
hold of them, the root is dug out by a one-sided digger and

29

the heads of the plants are evened up according to length.
The tops are cut off by a revolving disk knife and the
roots are cleaned and thrown into a hopper."
The chief defect of the topping apparatus according
to Kerenkov and Yeremeyev was the slanting characteristic
of the cuts due to the weak clutch of the root a t the
moment of topping.
Later on another machine, the S.K. 3, was designed
by Pvlov and Gerasimov on the same principle as the
S.K.T.S.K. but of lig h te r construction and with a simpli­
fied pulling unit.
The Russians also investigated the po ssib ility of
multiple row harvesters and claimed (11) that they were
the f i r s t to build a multiple row harvester.

When this

was achieved was not indicated.
Trends in the direction of increased capacity in the
United States appeared as early as 1940 when a 12-ton
l i f t e r topper was developed (3).

This machine was se lf-

propelled by a 90 H.P. diesel engine which drove the
machine through chains to 16 pneumatic tired rear wheels.
The li f tin g was accomplished by five "sticker" or "picker"
wheels, one for each row of beets.

The beets were removed

from the wheels by metal bars which passed between the
sharp spikes on the wheels.

The economical applicability

of this type of machine was extremely limited and re-

30

strlo ted to large size farms.
A more recent machine of th is nature was developed
In France.

I t was designed by Ruhlmann to handle three

rows simultaneously.
firs t

The machine participated for the

time in demonstrations held in France in 1947.

A

description of this invention is given l a t e r on.
The trend in England remained toward small units
of simple construction.

An analysis concerning this trend

indicated that mechanization seemed to have been more com­
pletely carried out by the small growers during reoent
years, which was largely to be accounted for by the advent
of the lower priced unit machines.
A survey (10) of the Northern

E u ro p e a n

beet producing

area,v.hich was carried out during September and October
1948,revealed that about 30 different types of machines
participated in demonstrations in England, France, Belgium,
and The Netherlands.
The names of those machines appear in the following
list:
English:

Name

Birtley-Sick
Catohpole
Minns Model S-SL
Minns Model H
W
Murray

Manufaoturer
Birtley Co., Durham, England
Catohpole Engineering Co.,
Suffolk, England
Minns Manufacturing Co.,
Oxford, England
Minns Manufacturing Co.,
Oxford, England
Elstree Engineering Co.,
London, England

31

Name
Robot-Hilleshog
Salmon
N.A.I.E. Prototype

Manufao turer
Transplanters, Ltd.
Herts, England
John Salmon Engineering
Company, Essex, England
National In s titu te of Agri­
cu ltu ral Engineering,
Bedfordshire, England

Frenoh:
Caby
G.S.
LaGerbe
Moreau
Ruhlmann
Ferte
Verbyst
Lolseau
Cappelle
Tuscher
Munch

J. Caby, Nord, France
Ateliers de Construction,
G.S., Seine, Franoe
M. de Guillebon, Nord, France
S.E.M.A.M., Nord, France
A. Ruhlmann, Paris, France
A. Ferte, Solssons, France
(France)
(France)
(Franc e )
(France)
(France)

Danish;
Hesse Lager

Mern -2
Roerslev
Madsamby

Flemstofte Maskinfabrik,
Fuglebjerg, Denmark
Dameoo, Aalborg, Denmark
Rasm Holbeck & Son,
Odense, Denmark
Madsamby, Aalborg, Denmark

Belgian:
Vandemelr
Vassart
Simples-de Saint
Haubert

G. Vandemelr, Battlce, Belgium
Fonderies et Ateliers de
Construction, Max Vassart,
Ligny
Etablissements Industrials et
Commerciaux, Orp-Le-Grand,
Belgium

Dutch:
Zeeland

Firma W. Sehipper & Soon
Goes, Holland

I

32

Name

Manufacturer

Swedish:

■

Hilleshog

Curt Howeller, Landskrona,
Sweden

Several American machines were also exhibited,In­
cluding the International, John Deere, Scott-Urschel, and
Marbeet•
The John Deere gave the best performance, under
French conditions,

of any of the machines, while the

International harvester was favoured under so li conditions
in Holland*

None of the American machines did a present­

able job due to local conditions of the demonstration farm
during the demonstration in England.
Machines of 24 d ifferen t types were operated in Eng­
land during 1949 among which were 12 B ritish , two American,
three French, five Danish, and two Dutch makes.
These machines totaled 1922 as compared to 118 in
1946 and harvested 10.8 percent of the to ta l acreage as
compared to *98 percent in 1946.
A large variation of machines took part in the 1950
demonstration contest, most of which were in the fie ld for
quite a number of years*

There were no machines with en­

t i r e l y new principles, but various attempts, most of which
were of l i t t l e

significance, were made to improve on the

older models.

A new entry in the l i f t e r section that per­

formed very favorably was the Rational combined potato and

33

sugar b a st l i f t e r s ,

a

discussion of these implements is

given under the next section*

II.

Principles of Operation of Some
Principal Present-Day Machines

The following is a selectio n of sugar beet harvesting
machines th at represent the popular p rin cip les of operation
during recent years in the United States and Europe.

A

b r i e f description of the general p rin c ip le of operation of
each machine accompanies the photo.

Most of the machines

are in experimental stage and are subject to frequent
changes.

They were selected in accordance with the various

areas under which conditions they give favorable perform­
ances.
A.

American Maohines

The In tern atio n al Harvester.

Topping and l i f t i n g by this

machine are accomplished in the following manner.

A

f u lly -f lo a te d or balanced topping u n it has a drag type
"finder" or "feeler" to slide over the beet and gauge the
amount of crown for removal, and, in th is manner r e g is te r
the cutting for the immediately following ro ta tin g disk
which does the topping.

At th i s in s ta n t a transversely

revolving fin g er device sweeps the tops from the dished
topping disk and plaoes them in a row a t the side.

34

Following the topping u n it are two notched r o llin g
coulters th a t cut the trash and reduce the sizes of the
clods*

The b e e ts , a f t e r being l i f t e d in the regular

manner, are
wheels*

then passed to a cleaning trough with kicker

This u n it is supplemented by what are known as

canvas re ta rd e rs placed transversely to the trav el of the
beet so th at they slow up the rearward trav el of the beets*

Plate VIII.

The International Harvester
sugar beet Harvesting
Machine*
(Midwestern Area,
United s t a t e s •)

35

Tine be eta then travel up the steep ly angled elevator
f o r e ith e r d ire c t discharge Into the

t r a i l e r c a rt or onto

a special endless rubberized canvas belt^from which the
beets are removed by hand while the unwanted m aterial Is
discarded by the belt*
The John Deere*
the f i e l d ,

There are several types of machines

mostof which are s t i l l

in

in experimental stage*

The general principles of operation are, however, more
or less the same*
A two-unit o u t f i t is shown on Plate IX*

The topping

and l i f t i n g in th is system are done in separate operations.
The topper (upper p icture)

Is mounted on a tra c to r

and has In addition a rubber spiked rotor, mounted a t the
rear of the tra c to r
above the ground.
wheels,

to clean the portion of the beets
A curved kn ife,

gauged by driven finder

tops the beets in the ground*

The tops are picked

up by fingers mounted on a drum immediately behind the
knife.

They are disposed of in windrows of three or four

rows each, by moans of a conveyor.
The l i f t e r

(lower picture)

is pulled behind the

to r and is driven from the power tak e -o ff.

tra c ­

The beets are

l i f t e d by two s p ir a l b ars, pitched into an elevator by a
p a ir of kickey wheels*

The elevator delivers

conveyor b e lt for d i r t removal.

them on a

Another elevator delivers

the beets onto a truok driven alongside the machine*

36

Plate

The Karbeet.

IX.

The John Deere Sugar Eeet
harv ester. (Kldwestern Area.)

This machine consists or a large wheel with

a wide rim containing rive

rows or curved iplk es,

spaced

a t two Inches from oenter to center, mounted on a swing
rrame.

This frame supports the l i r t l n g plows which cut the

37

top root off and then engage the beets on the spikes.

The

topping knives, mounted between the rows or spikes a t the
top or the wheel,sever the roots from the tops as the
wheel Is turned.
f i l t e r ro lls,

The roots

then tumble over a series or

s lig h tly retarded by spring loaded b e lt

curtains, and then f a l l

Into a hopper from which they

are carried by a potato chain-type elevator Into a vehicle
running alongside.

The tops are cleaned rrom the wheel

by a series of strip p ers mounted below the topping knives,
allowing them to f a l l on a cross conveyor, which discharges
them into a windrow.

38

Plate X.

The Marbeet Sugar Beet
harvester.
(Western
Area, United S tates.)

The Marbeet Kldget Is a tr a c to r mounted machine.

A

30-inch diameter wheel with four rows of spikes Is mounted
on a spring loaded swing frame mounted on the rig h t hand
side of the

tra c to r.

Two overlapping power-driven disks

39

are used for topping.

The roots are loosened and carried

back along the side of the t r a c t o r to an elevator, which
loads them in to a truck behind the tr a c to r .

The tops are

placed on a cross conveyor and windrowed.

Plate XI.

The Marbeet Midget Sugar
beet Harvester.
(western
Area, ^United sta te s •)

40

The Scott-Urschel Is a t r a i l e d power-driven machine and
operates on the principle of topping the beets when they
are out of the ground,

A p a ir of conventional gathering

points which straddles along down the row l i f t s
Just behind these points,

the leaves.

a p a ir of chain elevators

l a t e r models replaced by V-belts)

(in the

grasps the beet tops a t

the same time th a t the roots are loosened by small shares
running beneath the row.

The beets are elevated by t h e i r

tops to a s e t of horizontal r o l l e r bars which position them
for topping.

The height of topping can be adjusted to s u it

the operator’s d e sire .
The tops are removed by power-driven c ir c u l a r discs
and are then discharged a t the re a r of the machine.

The

beets can e it h e r be loaded d ir e c t ly into a truck, or, with
the aid of a special windrowlng attachment,

they can be

placed in windrows.
Considerable changes and additions had been made in
the models that followed the one shown on Plate XII,

the

most recent of which Is the replacement of the r o l l e r bars
by a p a ir of spring cushioned rods.

41

P la te XII.

The Sc o tt-U rs ch el Sugar Beet
(Eastern Area,
United S t a t e s •)

KarvesterT

42

B.

European Machines.

The Catohpole

Is an Independently-steered one-row machine,

power t a k e - o f f driven by a medium-sized t r a c t o r .

Plate XIII.

The Catchpole Sugar Beet
harvester.
Qgngland).

43

The main o h a ra o te ris tic

la I t s

topping mechanism.

This Includes a small tracklaylng type of "feeler" or
height finding u n it to bring the topping elements to the
p osition f o r uniform action.

I t receives I t s power from

the tr a c t o r through gears and chain drives.

The discs

are h o riz o n ta lly c arried on spring-mounted brackets.

The

topping u n it Is suspended in the frame by means of a
p a r a l l e l linkage.
After topping the severed crowns and leaves are
swept to one side by a spinner u n it having fle x ib le rubber
beaters and the beets are raised by shares and conveyed
to knocking r o l l s

via a rod lin k conveyor.

The beets

tra v e l up the knockers which have spring t i n e s , and a f t e r
the loose s o i l has been removed they arrive at a woodens la t te d conveyor to be disposed of.
The l a t e s t new featu re of the machine is the device
for c o lle c tin g the tops immediately a f t e r cutting in
order to minimize the so ilin g th ereof.

Harvesting and

topping are accomplished by a combined performance.
The "Moreau" Is a combined topper and l i f t e r .
track-type f e e l e r u n it brings
the ro o ts .

A chain or

the rotary cutting diso to

The tops and crowns are swept aside,

two

following discs pare o ff more rubbish a f te r which l i f t i n g
is done by plowing type f i t t i n g s .
a ro ta tin g g rid ,

The beets are urged on

Jolted upwardly to remove adhering s o il

44

and u l t i m a t e l y pass by a t r a v e r s e
s i n g le

line

windrow.
m u l tip l e

delivery b e l t

Into a

t h a t can accommodate s i x to t e n rows In a

This machine

Is a v a i l a b l e

row p a t t e r n s which are a l l

in s i n g l e

t r a c t o r power ta k e ­

o f f d riv e n u n i t s .

MarMra’s L au u CamMaad Mm U m

P la te XIV.

as w e ll as

The I.Ioreau Sugar Beet
H a rv e s ter .
(France• J

45

The Peter Stanton co n sists of a fro n t and rear assembly*
The front assembly is mounted on a tr a c to r and is composed
of a f e e l e r device comprising a multiple s e rie s of wheels
which have serrated gripping edges*

These wheels are

spaced and f le x ib ly mounted with a strong spring in the
assembly*

They are fre e

to rid e up and down the tops so

as to bring the single fixed outting blade into correct
r e la tio n f o r topping*

The s e rra te d edges are to prevent

the beets from being pushed over*
Passing between the f e e l e r wheels as they ro ta te
are a corresponding se rie s of rods which r e g i s t e r with
the f e e le r wheel i n t e r s t i c e s

in such a manner th a t they

c le a r away tra s h and rubbish in order to keep the f e e le r
device clean*
The re a r assembly is c a rrie d by two pneumatic-tired
wheals and Is a more or less conventional type of l i f t e r .

46

Plate XV.
-----

The Peter Stanton Sugar
%
BeeE Harvester.
(England.)

47

The Rational is available In three d iffe re n t models
operating on the same p rin c ip le .

Topping has to be done

previously by a special machine.

The special feature of

th is machine Is the l i f t e r which consists of a power
driven spinner with s p ir a l s te e l b ars.
ta te s

The *splnner ro­

ju s t above ground level, and the beets are engaged

and pulled out by the rods.

They are dlsoarded a t the

rear of the spinner, where guide screens windrow the
beets.

A s o il scraper levels

are to be l a i d .

the ground where the beets

The beets are loosened by two specially

shaped shares, one for each row, and fro n t guide runners
are used to d ire c t the beets to the shares.
These machines can be changed to potato diggers by
supplying them with special double digging shares.

48

Plate XVI.

The Rational Sugar Beet
Lifter.
tDenmark . j

49

The Ruhlmann is a three row topping u n it which consists
or a stem or standard affixed to the frame of the ma­
chine,

This c a r rie s on i t s

lower p a rt two small bars

or connecting rods running h orizontally backwards in
the form of a parallelogram.

At the other extreme they

are connected by an arched or curved member, which also
c a rrie s the topper i t s e l f and the f e e l e r .

The topper is

a diagonal or slan tin g horizontal k n ife.

The f e e l e r u n it

is

in the form of an open adjustable pan so as to bring

the knife in c o rrect relatio n sh ip with the b eet.
After topping,
a single row.

the leaves and crowns are formed into

The beets are l i f t e d by a p a ir of plow-

type l i f t i n g u n i t s ,

a f t e r which they are caught by what

are variously described as a r tic u la te d forks and fork
wheels in p a irs f o r a row.

These d ir e c t the beets onto

a shaking device to which a jerking motion is imparted.
The beets are then discarded in c o lle c tiv e rows.

1 W M M lHfto-ltow “ U I m h ” T »w «t mm4 L ifter

Plate XVII.

The Ruhlmann Sugar Beet
Harvester.
(France.)

51

III.

Purpose or Investigation

A c r i t i c a l review or the s ta tu s of the more
successful sugar beet harvesting machines of today
reveals

the following:

1.

Sugar beet harvesting machinery has made con­

siderable progress during the l a s t eigh t years In com­
parison with the period p rio r to 1942.
2.

Hie development and performances of the various

machines have been strongly Influenced by the local c l i ­
matic and s o il conditions of the various sugar beet
growing areas.
3.

The a v a i la b il ity of hand labor in the various

areas during the harvesting season has been a predomi­
nate control in the expansion toward t o t a l mechanization
in the respective areas.
4.

The economical j u s t i f i c a t i o n of mechanical har­

vesting has been largely r e s t r i c t e d

to large growers, es­

p e c ia lly in the case of complete harvesting u n its .
»

5.

Most of the machines are of r e l a t iv e l y heavy

construction.and the majority of them u t i l i z e
units fo r the topping, l i f t i n g ,

separate

cleaning, and loading

operations.
6.

Considerable amounts of d i r t are handled by

the various machines during the plowing and l i f t i n g oper­
a tio n s .

The e ffe c tiv e separation of the d i r t from the

52

beats i s s t i l l
7.

s major problem.

The majority or machines do not make use or the

tops as a medium or l i r t l n g the beets out of the ground.
8.

The e rre c tlv e saving and loading or the tops

ro r use as forage* which i s or v i t a l Importance in many
areas* i s not provided r o r in most or the machines.
I t was mainly in view
cerning the sta tu s

or

or

the preceding

r actors

con­

sugar beet harvesters th a t th is

work was commenced.
The purpose was to in v estig ate the p o s s i b i l i t i e s
of a new p rin ciple for the harvesting or sugar beets*
with regard to i t s c a p a b ility of improving on the con­
ventional machines in the rollowlng resp ects:
1.

Reducing and simplifying the u n its required to

accomplish the removal of the tops from the beets* and
the l i f t i n g and loading of both the tops and the beets
at the same time.
2.

Reducing the drawbar requirements by diminishing

the amount of s o i l handled* and the depth of plowing
during the l i f t i n g operation* and by u t i l i z i n g

the tops

to a s s i s t in the l i f t i n g of the b e e ts.
3.

More effectiv e proportional removal of the

crown by u t i l i z i n g

the diameter-crown thickness relation*

revealed by Powers in the r e s u lts
The basic prlnolple of t h i s

of an investigation (8).
invention is based on

the u t i l i z a t i o n of two large wheels to l i f t

the beets

53

while they are loosened by a plowing unit, and to convey
them to the c u ttin g u n it where the tops are removed.

The

wheels have f le x ib le rims and, when in position, are pressed
against one another in such a way th a t they are compressed
along the r e a r h a lf of th e ir circumferences and are sepa­
rated along the f r o n t h alf of th e i r circumferences•
The tops are gripped a t the lowest point on the
circumferences, and are released at the highest point a f t e r
being s lic e d off from the b eets.

54

IV.
A.

Preliminary Design.

Procedure
The design of the experimental

machine, which was s ta r te d during the beginning of the
winter term of 1950, was continued and completed during
the following spring term.

An Isometric drawing of the

component p arts of the experimental machine and several
d e t a i l drawings were made to be used as guidance during the
construction of the machine.
Pig.

1 (a) shows the framework which was to carry the

topping u n it and the beet and tops receiv er chutes.

This

framework mounts on the main framework and over the p rin ­
cip al wheels shown in Fig. 1 (b).
Fig. 2 (a) and (b) show ideas envisioned fo r the
construction of the p rin c ip a l wheels and Fig. 2 (c ),
(d),

and (e) some of the d e t a i l s .
In Fig. 5 (a) are shown ideas envisioned fo r the

plowing as well as the topping u n its .

Fig. 3 (b) is a

plan view of the main framework and Fig.

3 (c)

is

section XY through

3 (d)

shows a

th is framework. Fig.

the

section X*Y*, indicated on Fig. 3 (a ).
These drawings are not described in d e t a i l here be­
cause many changes

and additions were madeduring the

a l construction of

the machine.

actu­

A more complete description of the principle of oper­
ation and of the various elements is given l a t e r .

55

Figure 1.

56

57

Figure 3,

jm

58

B.

Mathematical Aspects.

A mathematical analysis or the

kinematical features of the p rin cipal wheels was made be­
fore the actual construction was s ta r te d ,
fa c ilita te

in order to

the selection of the speed re la tio n between

the forward movement of the machine

and the ro ta tio n of

the principal wheels.
The equation of the locus of each point on the p e ri­
meter of the principal wheels re la tiv e to the ground
can be derived as follows.
Consider motion in the plane XOY and with OX and OY
as reference axes as shown in Fig. 4 (a).
Let the machine travel with uniform lin e a r velocity
v p a r a ll e l to OX while the c irc le with radius AB rotates
v.ith uniform angular velocity w, and l e t 0 be the i n i t i a l
point of B.

Let A* be the position of point A and B* the

position of point B a fte r a time "t" has elapsed.
Then from

Fig. 4

(a):

xx •

vt

(1)

x

s

r / vt / r cos

x

*

r / vt / r cos(180° - wt)

y

= r sin wt,

t

= 1 sin
w

r

0

(2)
(2a)
(3)

59

Fie Lin)

Figure 4 (a).

60

Prom equations

(1) and (2a) and (4):

x =

r / v sin
w

jr - r cos(w
1sin
r
“ w

x 8

r / v 8ln
w

j - r / r2
- y2
r
r

x * r / v sin
w
which is

2.)
r

2 “ / r 2 - y2
r

(5)

the equation fo r the locus of point B in terms

of the coordinates x and y*
The r e la tio n between x and y is dependent only of the
variables v and w*
I t can fu rth e r be deduced from equation 3 that point
B performs a periodic motion around the x - a x is , with
period

T s 2 7T

and amplitude L

*

2a,

w
The lin e a r distance through which point B travels
along the x-axis per revolution is obtained by su b stitu ­
ting © * 2 / /

and t * 2 / /

into equation (2),

w

x * r /

v 2 //
~w

/ r cos 2 / / .

= 2(r / 77* v)
w

(6)

On Pig* 4 (b) Is shown the effect on the locus of
point B when the re la tio n between v and w is varied*

The

change in the fora of the loop, which is formed below the
x-axis,

is of great importance, because i t reveals

the fun­

damental principle on which the idea of th is invention is
based*

61

m

*0

Figure 4 (b).

62

The r a t i o of v * .9rw was f i n a l l y selected to be used
in the transmission of the machine.

The locus of B accord­

ing to this re la tio n is shown on Pig. 4 (c).

This ratio

enables an element (of small dimension) on the perimeter
of the wheel,

to perform the l i f t i n g

operation in an

approximate v e r ti c a l d ire c tio n , while the machine travels
through a distance from point 4 to point 8
of the distance

which is l/3

travelled during one revolution of the

l i f t i n g wheels.
lift

,

This consequently re s u lts in a vertical

of the beets out of the ground with only a slight

to-and-fro motion p a r a lle l to theline
The width of the loop betweenpoints
curve,

of travel.
5 and 7 on the

for constant lin e a r speed and constant angular

motion, can be determined by calcu latio n of the respective
x components for Bg and B^.
Prom equation (2)
x = r /v t/r c o s 0

• --# T
5

■

• •
®7 -

7

■ ’

°

r / v x 5 J T
T
>W -

77- / jZ " - 7 77-

/ r cos ( - I T )
T"

(7)

63

tr7 =

/ .

Z
ZZ~
6 w

x7 s r

From equat.

/

VX 7

ZZ”

/

r cos (-2

(7) and (8)

x_ - x = v (5 77“ - 7 77“ ) /
°
7
w £
S’

x 5

X7

-

(S)

"1

=

V

77" / r( / i "

3* w
xr - x„ =

r (ccs 2 7 / - cos
o

-

2

1 )

7

73r - 1 v 77“

(9)

The r a tio of v. and v for a desired value of (x5 - x7)
can

therefore be calculated.
From equat.
1=3
*

(9)
( . 36r - X
~5

X7)

77"

A minimum value of (xr - x7)* for a maximum amount of
approximate v e r tic a l l i f t

during th a t in te rv a l, guided the

s e l e c t i o n of the re la tio n between n, w, and r .

64

V-

*f YU

F ig u r e 4 ( c ).

65

C.

Construction.
A decision was f in a l ly made to build a one-third

scale model instead of a f u l l size machine, and to in ­
vestigate the performance of th is

nodel on the various

types of vegetables which resemble sugar beets on an
approximate one-third scale.
The main reasons for the above decision were the
following:
1.

I t was doubtful whether the time available u n t i l

the coming sugar beet harvesting season would be s u f f i ­
c ie n t for the completion of a f u l l size machine.
season was available for th is
2.

Only one

in v estig a tio n .

I t was anticipated that more t e s t s could be

performed on d iffe re n t kinds of vegetables a t convenient
in te r v a ls ,
3.

due to th e ir v ariatio n In growing seasons.

A consideration of the economical aspects of the

p roject Indicated an appreciable diminution In the to ta l
expenditures in favor of a one-third scale model.
4.

I t was expected that the performance of the model

would provide worthwhile information,

and a r e lia b le in d i­

cation, of the p r a c t i c a b i l i t y of the e s s e n tia l features of
the nev; p rin c ip le ,

and th a t the a d a p ta b ility thereof on a

f u l l size machine, would be s u f f ic ie n tly exposed.
5.

An anticipated idea,

to simplify the construction

of the principal wheels by u t i l i z i n g rubber for the creation

66

of f l e x i b i l i t y ,

lacked information on the required

c h a r a c te r is tic s

of such a rubber m aterial.

The manu­

facturing cost of the proposed rubber construction would
have been r e l a t i v e l y high and uneconomical, especially
where the rubber was s t i l l
was with th is

to be experimented with*

It

in mind that the finger system was designed

as a temporary s u b s titu te , by which a v ariatio n in the
peripheral pressure of the p rin cip al wheels could be
accomplished.

The decision on a smaller scale had another

advantage here,

In that I t would make the construction of

the finger system more e a sily fe a s ib le , by allowing the use
of readily procurable m aterial and equipment*
6.

More d ir e c t information on the a p p lic a b ility of

the prin cip le in the harvesting of sugar beets could be
obtained from a specially designed hydraulic pulling
mechanism.

This design provides the r e g is tr a tio n of:

(1) the maximum amount of p u ll

that can be exerted on the

tops of individual sugar b eets;

(2) the required p u ll to

lift

the beets f o r various depths of plowing or loosening

of the 8o i l ;

(3)

the required side

th ru st on the leaves

In each of the above cases*
7,

I t was, however, duly re a lise d that some of the

features of the performance of a f u l l sise machine would
be f o r f e ite d ;

but i t was improbable th at these would cause

any s ig n if ic a n t defective

influence on the performance of

67

the model as a re lia b le source of information on the p rin ­
ciple under in vestigation.
The f in a l product of the model is shown on Plates 1
and 2.
The machine consists of the five principal units in­
dicated by the l e t t e r s A, B, C, D, and E.

Each u n it w ill

be described separately.
The plowing u n it (A) was designed to provide a system
which would allow for the adjustment of the s o il loosening
mechanisms, over a range of depths and forward and r e a r ­
ward po sitions, below, and to the rear of the principal
wheels.

The linkage system also enables more clearance of

the machine above ground level when the machine is not
operating.

I t was furthermore endeavored to cause the

breaking up of the s o il with th i s system, in such a manner,
that the loose s o il would follow the curvature of the
principal wheels for a b r ie f distance, during which time
little

or no r e la tiv e motion between the gripped vege­

tables and the rubber rims would occur.
Some of the elements of this u n it that were used
during the t e s t s ,

are shown on Plate 3.

68

Plate 1.

(L eft-sid e

v iew )

69

Plate 2.

(Right-side View).

70

P la te

5.

(Plowing Unit.)

71

The pulling: and l i f t i n g unit (B) consists of a pair

of p r in c ip a l wheels by which the pulling and elevation of
the vegetables are accomplished•

Each of these wheels

consists of a hub to which six spokes of angle Iron are

welded, two c i r c u l a r bands of f l a t s te e l reinforcement,
a f l e x i b l e perimeter of rubber tubing with a s t e e l core,

and a finger system which combines the perimeter and the
in te r n a l framework.

The wheels are mounted in such a way

that they are pressed against one another along the rear

half of t h e i r circumferences and are separated in f r o n t.
The bearings of the axles of these wheels are provided
with set screws by which the shafts can be t i l t e d .

This

enables a v a r ia tio n in the relativ e i n i t i a l points of con­
tact of the wheels.
A v a ria tio n of the position of the rubber bands on
the f in g e r s , r e l a t i v e

to the pivoting points, causes a

change in the peripheral s tif f n e s s of the rubber rims.
This consequently provides a control on the pressure
ex is tin g between the two rims when the wheels are mounted
in t h e i r proper position.

This variation enables a study

of the optimum pressure required for the effective l i f t i n g
of the vegetables.
Two types of rime, the descriptions of which follow,

were f i n a l l y selected a f t e r some experimentation with
various rubber tubes and s te e l cores.

72

Plate 4.

(Pulling and Liftine Unit.)

73

1.

A spring s t e e l wire core consisting of two fiv e-

sixteenths

inch rods is pushed through a rubber tube of

one inch O.D, and a quarter of an inch I.D,

The rods

are fixed to the s t e e l fin g e rtip s with "thimbles", which,
at the same time, keep one of the rods on the inside c i r ­
cle of the other rod.

This construction provides a f l a t

thrust surface between the two rims,

and permits the s te e l

rods to s lid e through the holes in the " thirablesw, in or­
der to compensate for the variation in the circumference
when the wheels are pressed into position,
2,

I t was realized that some d i f f ic u l t y might be

experienced with the rotating of the rubber around the
wire core in construction No, 1,

A thin f l a t bar would

probably have been more e f f e c tiv e, but would require
special manufacturing i f spring s te e l were to be used.

It

was therefore decided to substitute cold rolled s te e l for
the spring steel,and

to find out whether i t would provide

the required f l e x i b i l i t y

in the specific construction.

The l a t t e r construction was f i n a l ly used in the
machine as i s shown on Plate 4,
The cutting mechanism (C) is carried on a separate
framework which Is mounted over the principal wheels and
i s bolted onto the main frame.

I t consists of:

(1) a pair

of spring cushioned s t e e l bars with pivoting units at one
end close
(2)

to the circumferences of the principal wheels;

two c i r c u l a r floating discs mounted on the free ends

74

of the bars;

(3) a pair of rubber disc feeders, one of

which Is power-driven from a ground wheel.
These units are shown on Plate 5.

Hie s te e l bar

system Is held a t an angle above the perimeters of the
principal wheels by two springs extending from the upper
frame, and which are balanced by a piece of f l a t rubber.
The other end of the tube is fixed to the chute.
The object of the slanted position of the bars is

to

compensate for the variation in distance of the crowns of
the beets

to the rubber rims and to guide the crown of

each beet to the cutter discs, irrespective of this v a r i ­
ation.

Beets that are high out of the ground are lik e ly

to be gripped close to the crown.

Such beets would press

the cutter mechanism guides downward to conform with the
rubber rims.

The amount of downward pressing depends on

the distance of the crown of the beet from the rubber rims.
The variation in this distance is d ire ctly related to the
i r r e g u la r ity of beet heights above the ground.

The ex­

perimental unit was designed to cope with a range of two
inches in crown height.
The handling of the roots and tops a f t e r separation
is accomplished by two chutes, which, in the f u l l size
machine, would deliver the products onto side-drawn
trailers

or trucks.

The chutes on the model are provided

only to prevent the material from interfering with the

75

Plate 5.

(Cutting Mechanism.)

76

operation of the machine, because the loading operation
was considered as of minor Importance in the present in ­
v estigatio n.

Details of the c u t t e r units are shown on

Plate 6 (A Sc B).
The power wheels (D) are shown on Plates 1 and 2.
The wheels are ten Inches in diameter and have solid
rubber rims.

The b e lt pulleys are fixed to the hubs of

the wheels and r o ta te with the wheels on stationary
s h afts .

The wheel shown on Plate 1 drives the principal

wheels which are connected by means of a universal j o i n t .
The other power wheel (Plate 2) drives one of the disc
feeders of the cutting u n it.
This specific design of the power u n i t was decided
upon to secure the power wheels as close as possible to
the prin c ipa l wheels so that:
1.

Ihe principal wheels, guided by the power wheels,

would follow the p ro file of the s o i l down the row, with a
minimum amount of deviation from i t .
2.

Transmission would be possible f o r various posi­

tions of the power wheels when adjusted to bring about
d i f f e r e n t heights of the principal wheels r e l a t iv e to the
ground.
3.

The e f f e c t of the front wheels on the re la tiv e

height of the principal wheels would be minimized.
The fro n t guides (E) are the ones that were f i n a l l y
constructed as a r e s u l t of experimentation with guides

77

#

A

B

#

• #

D

# ••
• •
Plate 6«

Details of Cutting Units

(A 2c B)

and of Front Guides (C 2c D)»

78

Plate 7,

(Front Guides.)

79

shown on Plate 6 (D).
The l a t t e r consist of conventional duck-foot shov­
e l s , with one of the wings removed, and spring s t e e l rods.
These rods, when the guides are mounted, extend to the
inside of the f le x i b le rims.
members,

Specially-shaped sheet iron

(Plate 6 (C) and Plate 7), which cover the rubber

rims along the entering passage of the leaves, replaced •
the rods in the f i n a l construction.
D.

Preparation of Test Crops.
An area of land was prepared while the machine was

under construction and c a r r o ts ,
were planted a t i n t e r v a l s .

red beets,

and turnips

The s o i l varied from a clay

loam to a sandy clay and was heavily disked in order to
break doiyn the clods to a fine seedbed str u ctu re .
The vegetables were planted in rows, 28 inches apart,
with a hand-push garden seeder.
of 30 rov/s of c a r r o ts ,

The t o t a l crop consisted

30 rows of beets,

turnips, each 80 f e e t long.

and 20 rows of

An altern ativ e sequence of 10

rows of carrots and beets was used to compensate f o r the
v ariatio n in s o i l s tr u c tu re .

The turnips were planted

l a t e r in the season.
Excessive ra in caused heavy and rapid vegetable
growth, and also of weeds which were present in an exten­
sive assortment.

The plot was cultivated

stones and large clods were removed.

two times, and

80

The construction of the model was completed toward
the end of August, a t which tine the f i r s t section of
carrots and beets were ready for harvesting.

However,

the wet condition of the s o i l delayed the f i r s t

t r i a l for

a few weeks.
I t also became apparent that a highly impervious
sub-soil was present.

This resu lte d in the drowning of

the turnips which were planted in the lowest section of
the area.
The growing of the beets was very ir r e g u l a r ;

the

sizes varied from two inches in diameter to five inches
In diameter at the time the f i r s t

t e s t was performed.

The vegetables were thinned by hand to an approximate
fiv e-in ch spacing In the row, and the la rg e s t ones were
removed a t I n te rv a l s .
The f i r s t

t r i a l was f i n a l l y run with the condition

of the s o i l s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y wet.

The condition of the

vegetables was the main fa c to r against fu rth er postpone­
ment.

A section of the land j u s t before the t e s t s were

commenced is shown on Plate 8.

Plate 8«

(Section or Vegetable Land.)

82

E*

Testing and Results*
Hie following is a description of each of the tests

that were performed*
Test No* 1*
Object:

To investigate the performance of the front guides

and the single and double system shovels*
Equipment:
1.

Bolens* Kuskey Road Master tra c to r (used in a l l tests*)

2.

Experimental machine with only the front guides, plow­
ing mechanism, and pulling supports assembled*

Procedure:
1.

The

single shovel system was f i r s t

with no vegetation*

tried out on so il

A conventional goose-foot type of

c u ltiv a to r shovel was set ai

two inches depth and the

f r o n t guides were spaced three inches a t the points*
2*

The

pulling supports were removed and the shovels were

adjusted to a plowing depth of three inches*
3.

The

single shovel system was replaced by the double

shovel system.

Goose-foot type shovels with the wings

removed were set to plow at a depth of five inches*
4*

The

first

t r i a l on carrots was f i n a l l y run a f te r the

shovels were readjusted to a depth of three inches and
shifted to a more rearward position.
5.

The

front guides were adjusted to a four inch spacing

for the t r i a l on the red beets whioh followed the test

83

on the c arro t s •
Results:

The hard crust

or

the s o i l caused the forma­

tion of clods which s ta r te d to accumulate against the
pulling supports and the shovel beams.

This was s l ig h t l y

Improved by the removal of the pulling supports.

Wet

s o i l was brought to the surface with the shovel s e ttin g
a t three Inches depth.
The double shovel system brought a large s lic e of

wet clay to the surface when plowing at a depth of five
inches and the machine travelled only a few f e et before

the wheels of the t r a c t o r s tarte d to spin.
ted that

This indica­

the frame construction was strong enough to

stand maximum p u ll without the aid of the pulling sup­
ports •
The t r i a l on the carrots showed the following:

The

combined action of the front guides and the leaves f a c i l i ­
tated the steering of the machine considerably.
machine

The

vcs kept on the row with almost no d i f f i c u l t y .

The performance of tfce front guides as f a r as gathering,
liftin g ,

and guiding of the tops were concerned showed

great promise.

The tops were released by the guides in

a narrow s t r i p , bent s li g h t l y forward.
Hie s o i l was well broken up on each side of the carrot
row by the shovels.

Some carrots were l i f t e d along with

the s o i l end were removed by hand.

The others

that r e ­

mained in the ground were loose enough to be pulled out by

two f in g e r s .

D if f ic u lty with the blocking up of the

s o i l was again encountered even though the plowing was
done a t a depth of three inches.
The t r i a l on the red beets again showed a s a t i s f a c ­
tory performance of the front guides but blocking up
occurred more rapidly.
Remarks;
1.

I t was easily perceptible during th i s t e s t that the

e ffe c t of the s o i l c h a r a c t e r is t i c s on the performance of
a machine of this nature, makes the use of a one-third
scale model undesirable for actual

tests.

This was true

also in regard to the v ariatio n in size of the vegetables
which was not of a one-third dimension.
2.

The r o t a t io n a l action of the power wheels promoted

the accumulation of the s o i l .

This could be Improved by

providing the wheels with guards.
3.

The width of the shovels could be reduced consider­

ably.
4.

The double shovels system appeared to be more suitable

for the l i f t i n g
5.

of c a r r o ts .

No s o i l looseners are required fo r the l i f t i n g of the

beets•
6.

The shovel beam system should be changed to enable

more rearward adjustment.

85

Test No. 2.
Object}

To Investigate

the performance of the pulling

wheels, c u ttin g mechanism, and guides on red beets.
Equipment:

Complete machine except fo r the s o i l loosen­

ing mechanism.
Procedure:
1.

Guides were s e t for maximum fro nt clearance.

2.

Operating height of pulling wheels was adjusted to
two inches above ground leve l.

5.

Speed r a t i o v = .9rw (Approximately).

4.

Half-an-inch clearance between knife guides, and the
shafts in the

5.

third hole from the rear.

Knife feeders set a t half-an-inch to the rear and
h alf-an-inch above the knives when in th e ir upper
p o sitio n .

Feeding speed of driver was the same as

the circumference speed of the large wheels.
6.

Knives, l a t e r in the t e s t , were readjusted to the
most rearward position.

7.
8

.

Tests were run at various speeds of the tr a c t o r .
A t e s t was performed on the carrots with no changes
made on the model.

Observations:
1.

The condition of the s o i l was such th at the power
wheels of the machine caused a subsidence of the ground
of approximately one inch.

«Yet clay stuck to the c a r ­

ro ts when pulled out by hand.

Age of vegetables at

86

the time this te s t was made was 98 days.
2.

The machine appeared to be slightly top-heavy in the
absence of the plowing mechanism.

3.

The power wheels had no d ifficulty in driving the
pulling wheels as long as the machine was not rocking
sideways•

4.

The front shovels appeared to be set too wide apart
and the narrowing of the guides was too rapid.

5.

The downward action of the perimeters of the large
wheels, with no horizontal movement, forced some of
the leaves down as soon as they made contact with each
other.

6.

The guides did not offer enough protection.

yost of the tops were dragged forward by the guides,
slipped through them, and were pressed down by the
pulling wheels.

7.

Some beets were properly gripped by the wheels and no
d if f ic u lty was encountered with the extirpation of
same.

8.

The beets kept their position perpendicular to the
perimeters of the wheels while elevated but a ll but
two stopped at the entrance of the knife guides.

The

two that passed through were well handled, the tops
being sliced off very effectively.
9.

The presence of the tops between the perimeters of
the pulling wheels advanced the separation of these

87

wheels two to three Inches.

This had the result that

the wheels lost their grip on the tops before the
beets were fed through the knives.

The i n i t i a l grip

of the wheels was effective and could occur at a
la te r moment.
10. No time was available for adjustments for the te st on
the carrots.

The guides performed better in this

t e s t and most of the tops were pulled off while the
roots remained in the ground.
Tos t No. 3.
The following changes were made due to observations
during the second run:
1.

The shaft bearings of the large wheels were furnished
with set screws so that the inclination of the shafts
to the horizontal plane could be varied.

2.

The set screws were adjusted, after the main wheels
were mounted, so that these wheels separatee approxi­
mately two inches l a t e r at the top and made contact
two inches la te r at the bottom.

3.

The central link of the universal Joint was also
shortened to accomplish the above required departure
and contact points of the outer rims.

4.

A good idea of the required angle of the shovels was
conceived, so that the adjustable brackets were elimi­
nated*

The shovels were solidly mounted onto the beams

68

and were chanced in form in order to provide rainimum obstruction to the loosened s o il.
5.

The height of the main wheels relative to the ground
..as decreased due to the t i l t i n g of their shafts.

It

seemed advisable during the previous test to have the
nain wheels operating approximately half-an-inch
higher than was the case at that time,

Wooden stops

for the power shafts were installed to obtain this
height.
5.

The position of the f l a t piece of rubber tubing that
counteracted the spring tension on the cutting mech­
anism was changed which resulted in a freer action of
the knife guides.

7.

The rubber bands on the main wheel construction were
replaced by heavier ones.

3.

The front guides fcr the gathering of the tops were
replaced by solid metal strips

to prevent tops from

sliding through, as was experienced with the rod con­
struction,

and to eliminate early contact between the

leaves and the perimeters of the main wheels.
3.

The two-beam system of so il loosening mechanism was
mounted onto the machine.
three-inch depth and the a
behind the a

The shovels were set at a
section members were fixed

frame pieces to provide two inches of

extra clearance between the shovels and the main

89

wheels•
10* The chute for the cut-off leaves was replaced by a
shorter one without a leaf catcher In an e f f o r t to
eliminate choking up of cut-off leaves.
Results: (Trial on carrots).
1.

The water content of the soil was higher than during
the previous t r i a l s due to rain during the week when
the adjustments were made.

2.

This resulted in an approximately similar amount of
clodding as was experienced during the second te s t .
The extra clearance provided seemed to have no ef­
f e c t on this problem.

3.

A few carrots were l i f t e d before the blocking of the
soil developed and most of them were handled s a t i s ­
factorily by the guides anc the knives.

The leaves,

however, blocked up against a sharp point member below
the cutting disks.

The leaves and the blocked-up soil

were removed and again the f i r s t few carrots were
pulled out, l i f t e d and the tops cut off.

Eut blocking-

up started eventually again at both places.
4.

The clodding up of the s o il was partly overcome by
the removal of one of the plow beams.

But the r e ­

maining shovel, operating alongside the row, did not
sufficiently break up the soil in the row.

Conse­

quently most of the leaves were now pulled off by the

90

wheels while the roots remained in the ground.

A

few carrots were pulled out, but most of them ob­
tained a backward position with respect to the
perimeter.

I t was not possible for the feeding disks

to grasp these carrots and they blocked up when they
made contact with the knives.
5.

Hie new rubber bands developed enough pressure in
the perimeters of the main wheels for a firm grip on
the leaves.

Conclusions:
1.

A three-inch clearance between shovels is not suf­
f i c i e n t to prevent clodding up of a soil of this
condition or to permit free passing by of the s o il.

2.

The pulling action of the wheels on the carrots as­
sists

the upward movement of the whole slice of

s o i l , which eventually results in blocking up.
3.

The backward adjustment of two inches of the beams
did not make any appreciable difference in the block­
ing up of the s o i l .

4.

The feeding disks of the cutting mechanism should be
advanced away from the knives to make an e a r l i e r grip
possible•

5.

The performance of the altered chute was satisfactory.

6.

I t appeared as I f longer fingers on the disks would
improve the cutting process.

91

7•

The performance of the front leaf guides was very
s atisfacto ry on carrots.

A t r i a l on red beets

showed, however, that these guides were s t i l l not
capable of elevating the leaves close to the ground
high enough to enable the wheels to grip them.
Another observation during th is t r i a l was that the
wheels had no d if f ic u l ty in l i f t i n g beets, properly
gripped, without the aid of a soil loosener.
a.

I t was decided that i t might be worthwhile to re­
place the two-beam plowing system by a single-beam
system in the center of the row and to move i t

still

further to the rear.
9.

The lengths of some carrots were over seven inches
and caused trouole at the cross-bar of the feeding
disks.

I t would be advisable to change the bar In

order to cope with these extremities in length.
Test No. 4.
The following changes and adjustments were made for
this t e s t .
1.

The concerned member of the cutting mechanism was
changed to allow more clearance for the leaves after
being cut off.

2.

A

single, center plowing system was mounted onto the

frame•
3.

A new set of rubber disks with longer fingers was

92

mounted,
4.

The wooden stops were removed to Investigate the per­
formance of the wheels a t a s t i l l lower level.

5.

The rubber disks were advanced three-eighths of an
Inch away from the knives.

Results:
1.

'Ihe moisture condition of the s o i l did not seem to
have improved appreciably.

2.

The performance of the single-beam plowing system
proved to be less favorable than the two-beam system
in spite of the increased clearance.

Rapid blocking-

up occurred.
3.

Ihe f i r s t few carrots were pulled out and elevated,
but some of them were grabbed so close to the roots
that they could not enter the opening between the
knife guides.

4.

A few went through between the disks and the leaves
were cut off, but the carrots f e l l back against the
disks•

Conclusions:

1.

I t was more obvious during this t r i a l

that the rapid

blocking-up of the s o i l against the suspended beam
members was mainly due to the combined action of the
wheels and the shovel.

Ihe s o i l was loosened by the

shovel more or less instantaneously with the commence-

ment of the upward movement of the carrot, caused by
the pull on the leaves.

This resulted in a higher

l i f t of the s o il before i t

starte d to break up and

f a l l down, with the r e s u lt that most of the soil was
carried along up against the beam u n t i l i t h i t
against the suspended brackets.

The wet condition

of the s o il encouraged this action.

This indicates

that the loosening of the s o il should be applied in
such a way that i t w ill allow a minimum amount of
l i f t i n g action.

The type of loosener should therefore

be reduced in width to perform a mere cutting action
through the s o il.

The two-beam system ought to be

used and more clearance should be allowed.
No trouble was experienced in guiding the tops to
the main wheels as long as the tops were standing up,
but some of the leaves on the ground could not be
picked up.

I t night be advisable to use two extra

rods in front of the guides to take care of the fallen
down leaves.
The height of the main wheels should not be lower than
two inches above the ground level.
The disks used in t r i a l No. 2 did a b e tte r job and
were closer to the right position than the type used
in t r i a l No. 4.

94

To8 1 No• 5«

Objec t >
1.

To Investigate

the r e la tiv e position of the s o i l -

loosening mechanism to the main wheels and frame
t h a t would eliminate clogging and blocking up of the
s o i l under the prevailing conditions.
2.

To observe the performance of other types of disk
feeders a t the cutting mechanism.

Procedure:

The cutting mechanism was taken apart and

the crossnember behind the knives was changed to allow
for maximum clearance f o r the leaves.
The side springs were shortened to decrease the side
stiffness

of the guides.

Two rubber disks o f camel-back rubber were inserted.
Four s o i l looseners were made from f l a t iron bars of
d i f f e r e n t thickness and were supplied with spacers that
would permit the looseners to be mounted up to ten inches
behind the main wheels.
The f i r s t
above p o siti o n .

run was started with the looseners in the
The rubber bands appeared to have lo s t

some of t h e i r tension and were shifted to the position of
maximum pressure between the perimeters.

The s o i l was

broken up f a i r l y well although a few of the carrots which
remained in the ground, required some pulling in order to
be l i f t e d .

Only a few c a r r o ts , however, were l i f t e d by

95

the wheels*
too l a t e

I t was evident t h a t the s o i l was broken up

to be of any help to the l i f t i n g by the wheels.

The wheels were performing very well and most of the
leaves W9re pulled off while the carrots remained in the
ground.

Some slipping occurred,

in cases where the leaves

were strong enough, before the carrots were pulled out.
These carrots were hanging down and could not be grasped
by the feeders.
The s o i l looseners were then adjusted to an eightinch clearance but this position had the same r e s u lts
on the l i f t i n g .
enced so f a r .

No blocking up of the s o i l was experi­
More adjustments of closer and narrower

positions were tr ie d out,

from which i t was found th at the

best performance for the present construction of the
machine, when equipped with the looseners that were tried
out during this

trial,

was with a six-inch clearance be­

tween the main wheels and looseners and three inches be­
tween looseners.
this p o sition .

Blocking-up j u s t s ta r te d to occur in
Some carrots were s t i l l

l e f t behind by

the wheels but not so many as in the previous runs.
Heavy clogging against the framework occurred when
the looseners were moved closer to the wheels.

I t was

cle a r th at the problem was mainly due to the limited
height of the small-scale machine above the ground.
t e s t was performed under severe cold conditions.

This

96

Conelualons:
1.

I t was cle ar from the observations

that a re-design

of the re a r p a rt of the framework,that supports the
loosening mechanism,
allow fo r

is e s s e n tia l.

This design should

the shovel beams to go down along each side

of the p a ir of main wheels in such a p o sitio n ,

and

they should be of such a form; that the looseners .
attached to them, would s t a r t

to break up the s o il

almost v e r t i c a l l y under the center of the p a ir of
main v/heels and a t an approximate depth of four in­
ches,

The shape of the looseners should also be of

such a form th a t i t w ill tend to make the broken-up
s o i l follov. the curvature

of the main wheels fo r a

few inches.
2.

This w ill require a wider spacing of the power wheels
which should have no appreciable influence on the
o v erall performance of the machine.

This statement

is based on observations made on the influence of
the v a ria tio n in height of the main wheels on the
performance of same.
The main idea fo r the present design was to havo the
main wheels follow the p ro file

of the ground as close­

ly as possible.
The r e l a t i v e p osition of the wheels along the length
of the machine should be maintained.

97

3.

The slipping of the power wheels that occurred now
and than when the machine t i l t e d over to one side or
other, due to

the unevenness of the s o il,w ill be elimi­

nated by the wider spacing of these wheels and the
increase in weight of a larger size machine.
4.

I t seems

to be necessary, as far as the performance

of the cutting mechanism is concerned, that the roots
shoulc be grasped a few inches before they reach the
knives and be carried along u n ti l the tops are sliced
o ff.

I t may be possible to accomplish this by the

use of two small V-belts or larger and cone-shaped
rubber disks.

I t seems also advisable that both sides

should be power-driven.
5.

I t was observed before the l a s t te s t was commenced
that the carrot leaves had flattened out much more,
due to th e ir age.

This handicapped the performance

of the front guides to a certain extent,and indicated
that i t would not be worthwhile to perform any l a t e r
te s ts.

The carrots were already over 90 days old.

The lim itations of the small-scale machine was another
facto r that supported the decision that I t would be
of very l i t t l e
and changes.

benefit to spend any more time on t r i a l s

98

Although unfavorable weather conditions wore a great
handicap to the experiment as a whole, i t was never­
theless f e l t that valuable Information about the
principle of the machine was obtained^and th a t the
small-scale model served i t s purpose s a tis f a c to r ily
especially from an economic viewpoint.
The experience gained during the construction and
t r i a l s w ill be of great value in the design and con­
struction of a fu ll-s iz e machine.

V.

Suggestions for Future Investigations

The Cutting Mechanism:
The crown-diameter relatio n , which was found to
ex ist by Powers (8), between the diameter of sugar beets
and the thickness of the crown was not made use of in
the experimental model.

This experimental machine was

trie d on carrots and red beets so that the above infor­
mation was not applicable.
A method by which this r e la tio n can be u tiliz e d is
shown in Fig. 5 (A) and Fig. 5 (B).
of th is cu tter unit is

The basic principle

the same as that used in the ex­

perimental machine.
The guides, B, which prevent the crown of the beet
from sliding through, and which guide the beet to the knife

99

Fia

f it .xm

Fife.,

5 (A and B)

oox

101

are mounted In the same manner as in the model.

Two

add itional guides, C, are used in this construction to
change the height of cut re la tiv e

to the guides, B, in

accordance with the diameter of the beets.

These gauge

rods, C, run p a r a ll e l to the guides, B, and about two
inches above them.

They pivot around s h a fts, D, which

are flo a tin g with the guides, B.

The rods, C, are held

in position of smallest clearance between them by springs
below the c u t t e r disks, A.

Hie rods, C, are forced open

when the beets enter between them and slide up along the
guides, B.

The rods, when pushed open, in turn activate

the c u tte r disks.

The diameter of the beet a t i t s point

of contact with rods, C, w ill therefore be indicative of
the amount of crown th at the c u tte r disks w ill remove.
These sketches were drawn only to demonstrate the
p r in c ip le .

Supervision should be made in the actual

construction fo r the adjustment of various re la tiv e posi­
tions of the members concerned.
P rincipal Wheel Simplification:
The envisioned sim plification of the large wheels,
which was mentioned during the discussion of the reasons
f o r the choice of a one-third scale model,is demonstrated
in Fig.

5(C).

The f le x ib le finger systems in the experimental model
are replaced by endless rubber s t r i p s , C, of special cross­

102

section*

These rubber s tr i p s f i t firmly over endless

metal tubes, B, of sem i-circular cross-section*

Each tube

is held in position by four or six spokes (of angle or
T-iron c ro s s -s e c tio n ), mounted on a cen tral bush as was
done in the experimental machine*
Pig. 5 (D) is a cross-section of the perimeters,
a t the point of maximum compression along the rear half
of the circumferences, which would provide the same amount
of front clearance as was accomplished by the construc­
tion used in the experimental machine*
Hydraulic Pressure L if te r :
A special Instrument which was designed to obtain
more information on the c h a ra c te ris tic s of the rubber
required,

that was to be used in the simplified construc­

tion of the p rincipal wheels, is shown on Plate (9).
A consists of a hydraulic cylinder,
cator with accessories*

Unit

and a pressure indi­

The piston of the cylinder is

connected to the Unit B by a s te e l rod which runs inside
the pipe and rack of Unit C*

The cylinder r e s ts on top of

the pipe and can be l i f t e d by the gear system in Unit C.
Unit B consists of two lever arms held together by
a heavy spring*

The free ends of the arms are provided

with rubber pads as shown*

A calibrated ru le r runs

p a r a lle l to the heavy spring and enables the determina­
tion of the pressure, between the rubber pads, exerted by
the crank system*

103

104

Fig,

6.

The purpose of this design was to investigate:
(1)

The amount of vertical pull required to l i f t sugar

beets out of the ground when the leaves are engaged be­
tween rubber rims

by which the pulling i s accomplished;

(2) The variation

inthe pull required

alongside the row

of beets is loosened up to depths of

i.e .,

and nine inches;

three, six,

when the s o il

(3) The horizontal

side pressures that must be exerted on the rubber rims
to accomplish extirpation under the various conditions
previously mentioned.
Fig. 6 shows an isometric drawing of the framework
that was constructed and on which the hydraulic unit was
mounted.
I t was not possible to obtain any data during the
1950 season due to early snow that f e l l before the con­
struction was completed,and because of the wet condition
of the s o il at th at time.
No information concerning an investigation of this
nature was found in the bibliographical review of this
subject.

I t is f e l t that valuable information could be

obtained with th is instrument; especially in connection
with the economical aspects of the power requirements of
present-day sugar beet harvesting machinery.

106

VI.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express his appreciation to
the followings
Professor H. P. McColly under whom this

ln v e s ti-'

gation was commenced, and Dr. W. M. Carleton fo r his
guidance and help in carrying out the pro ject.
Messrs. G. W• French, C. M. Hansen, and other
members of the s t a f f fo r th e ir Interest and suggestions.
Mr. Y7. E. S plinter fo r his assistance during the
f ie l d

te sts.
Mr. J . B. Cawood and a ssistan ts fo r th e ir coopera­

tio n in the Research Laboratory and advice during the
construction of the model.

107

LITERATURE CITED

1.

Cannon, R. M.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting In the Intermountain
Area.

2.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 29, pg. 482.

Farm Implement and Machinery Review.
1926

Vol. VII.

Gratton's Sugar Beet Topper.

June.

Pg. 190.
3.

Vol. 66.
1940

The Complete Harvester In Sight.

Nov.

Pg. 610.
4.

Vol. 72.
1946

How Russia Has Tackled the Design of a
Combined Sugar Beet Harvester.

Sept.

Pg. 433.
5.

Vol. 73.
1947

Can Sugar Beet Harvesters be Fully Mecha­
nized.

6.

Oct.

Pg. 581.

McBlrney, S. W.
1947

Sugar Beet Harvester Development In 1947.
Annual Report Sugar Beet Mach. Inv.
U. S. Department or Agriculture.

7.

17 pages.

Myrick, Herbert.
1907

The American Sugar Industry.
Company, S p ring field, Mass.

Orang Judd
Pg. 100.

108

8.

Powers* J . B.
1940

Basic Principles Used in the Development
of an In Place Variable Cut Sugar Beet
Topper.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

Pg. 2 6 6 .
9•

Smith* Dudley
1948

Sugar Beet mechanization and Implements
f o r Puerto Rico.

Association of Sugar

Producers of Puerto Rico.

10.

Sraith , F . B.
1948

Report of Survey of Northern European Beet
Producing Areas.

The Beet Sugar Develop­

ment Foundation.

Fort Collins* Colorado.

Pg. 23.
11.

Walker,
1948

H. B.
A Resume of Sixteen Years of Research in
Sugar Beet Mech.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 29.

Pg. 425.
12.

Ware, L. S.
1880

TCie Sugar Beet.
Philadelphia.

13.

H. C. Baird & Company*
323 pgs.

Wilding, R.
1926

Farm Imp. & Mach. Rev.
Pg. 625.

Vol. LII.

October.

109

REFERENCES

1*

A gricultural Engineering. Vol. 13, Pg. 120.
1932

2.

Sugar Beet Machinery Development.

Armer, Austin A.
1942

Cost or Harvesting Beets with a Manual
Sorting L if te r Machine.

American Society

of Sugar Beet Technologicts Proceedings.
Pg. 260.
3.

_______
1946

Some Aspects of Commercial Scale Sugar
Beet Harvesting.
Tech. Proc.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet

Pg. 495.

4.
1948

The 1947 Mechanical Harvesting of Sugar
Beets.

Agrlcultural Engineering. Vol. 29,

Pg. 482.
5.

Balner, Roy.
1940

Sugar Beet Harvester Tests, 1938-1939.
Am. Soc. of Sug. Beet Tech. Proc. .
Pg. 274.

6.

Blackwelder, E. F.
1948

Development of the Marbeet Sugar Beet
Harvester.
29, Pg. 481.

Agricultural Engineering. Vol.

110

7.

Buschlen, M. J.
1943

Results of Work with Sugar Beet Harvesters
in the West.

Am. Soc. of Sugar Beet Tech.

Pg. 76.
8.

Cannon, R. M.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting in the Intermountain
Area.

Agricultural Engineering. Vol. 29,

Pg. 482.
9.

Chaney, E.
1943

Field Operations of the Scott-Urschell
and S. B. Machine.

Am. Soc. Sug. Tech.

Proc. . Pg. 79.
10.

French, G., and Hansen, C. M.
1947

Investigations of Sugar Beet Production
Mechanization.

Annual Report Sugar Beet

Machinery Investlgatlons, U. S. Department
of Agriculture.
11.

15 pgs.

French, G.
1948

Experimental Sugar Beet Harvesters in
1948.

Annual Report Sugar Beet Machinery

Investlgatlons, U. S. Department of
Agriculture.

12

4 pgs.

.
1949

Sugar Beet Harvesters -- Eastern Area.
Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach. Investlga-

Ill

tions^ U. S. Department of Agriculture.
14 pga.

13.

Farm Implement and Machinery Review, Vol. VII.
1926

Roger Wilding at 9, The Broadway, Wood Ford
Green, Essex, England.
Beet Topper.

14.

_______
1926

_______
1926

The Greyhound Sugar Beet Harvester.
Pg. 513.

Vol. LII.
A Demonstration of the Greyhound Sugar
Beet Harvester.

16.

_______
1926

Pg. 190.

Vol. LII.

Sept.
15.

June.

Gratton*s Sugar

Oct.

Pg. 625.

Vol. LII.
Demonstration of Sugar Beet Topping and
Lifting Equipment a t Sohom.

17.

_______
1928

_______
1929

L'Avenir Motor Driven Sugar Beet Topper and

'
1930

.

Pg. 1196.

Cook's Sugar Beet Topper and L ifte r.
Pg. 690.

Vol. LVI
Cook's Premier Sugar Beet Harvester.
Pg. 618.

20

March.

Vol. LV

Nov.
19.

Pg. 714.

Vol. VIII.

L ifte r .
18.

Nov.

Vol. LVII

Oct.

112

1931

A Now Sugar Beet Topping and L ifting
Maohine.

Pg. 76.

Vol. LX.

21.
1934

A Teat of the Desbonnet Sugar Beet Har­
v e s te r.

22

May.

.

Nov.

Pg.

590.

Vol. LXI.
1935

A Test of the Midland L i f t e r .

Nov.

Pg. 616.
Vol. LXII.

23.
1936

Two Danish Sugar Beet Harvesters.
Pg.

Oct.

560.

Vol. LXIII.

24.
1938

Sugar Beet Harvesters.

Feb.

Pg. 970.

Vol. LXIII.

25.
1938

A Sugar Beet Harvester with Novel Features.
Feb.

Pg. 975.

Vol. LXIV.

26.
1938

The Catchpole Sugar Beet Harvester.

July.

Pg. 285.
Vol. LXIV.

27.
1939

Demonstrating the Catohpole Sugar Beet Har­
v e s te r.

Jan.

Pg. 905.

Vol. LXV.

28.
1939

Sugar Beet Harvesting Machinery Tests.
Pg. 535.

Sept.

113

Vol. LXV.

29.
1940

New Construetlve D etails of the Catchpole.
Sugar Beet Harvester.

April.

Pg. 1143.

Vol. LXV.

30.
1940

The Moreau Sugar Beet Harvester.

April.

Pg. 1149.
Vol. LXVI.

31.
1940

The Complete Harvester Is In Sight.

Nov.

Pg. 610.
Vol. LXVII.

32.
1941

How the Catchpole Sugar Beet Harvester
has been Improved.

Nov.

Pg. 614.

Vol. LXVIII.

33.
1942

Details of the New Catchpole Combined
Sugar Beet Harvester.

Sept.

Pg. 391.

Vol. LXIX.

34.
1943

U. S. Sugar Beet Mechanization.

May.

Pg. 52.
Vol. LXIX.

35.
1943

Producing the Catchpole Sugar Beet Har­
v e s te r.

Pg. 313.

Vol. LXX.

36.
1944

Martin’s New Tractor Sugar Beet L i f t e r .
Aug•

37.

Aug.

Pg. 302•

Vol. LXX.

114

1944

I n s titu te A c tiv itie s .
Nov.

38

.

Pg. 565.

Vol. LXXII.
1946

How Russia has Tackled the Design of a
Combined Sugar Beet Harvester.

Sept.

Pg. 433.
Vol. LXXII.

39.
1946

New Approach to One Way Plowing and Root
Collection.

Sept.

Pg. 440.

Vol. LXXII.

40.
1946

Record Demonstration of Sugar Beet Har­
v e sters.

Nov.

Pg. 635.

Vol. LXXIII.

41.
1947

Can Sugar Beet Harvesting be Fully
Mechanized.

Oct.

Pg.

581.

Vol. LXXIII.

42.
1947

The Newest Developments in Sugar Beet
Harvesting Machinery.

Nov.

Pg. 674.

Vol. LXXIII.

43.
1948

A Complete Sugar Beet Harvester.

Feb.

Pg. 978.
Vol. LXXIII.

44.
1948

What is New in French Agricultural Engi­
neering.

45

.

April.

Pg. 1181.

Vol. LXXIV.
1948

Two 1948 Model Sugar Beet Harvesters.

115

May.

Pg. 51.

Vol. LXXIV.

46.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting Machinery Progress.
Oc t •

47.

Pg • 593 •

Vol. LXXIV.
1948

How Mechanized Sugar Beet Harvesting Can
Be Assisted.

Oct.

Pg. 594.

Vol. LXXIV.

48.
1948

Sugar Beet Demonstration E ntries.

Oct.

Pg. 600.
Vol. LXXIV.

49.
1948

The International Array of Sugar Beet
Harvesters.

Pg. 707.

Vol. LXXV•

50.
1949

A New Sugar Beet Harvester.

July.

Pg. 348.

Vol. LXXV.

51.
1949

A New Era in Sugar Beet Topping and Liftlxjg.
Nov.

Pg. 911.

Vol. LXXV.

52.
1949

Sugar Beet Harvesting is Now Fully Mecha­
nized.

Deo.

Pg. 1041.

Vol. LXXV.

53.
1950

The Peter Stanton Sugar Beet Top Collector.
Feb.

54.

Nov.

Pg. 1367.

Vol. LXXVI.

116

1960

Over One-Tenth of Sugar Beet Harvesting
Is Nov Mechanized.

56.

Pg. 770.

Vol. LXXVI.
1960

A Convincing Stanton Sugar Beet Harvester
Test.

56.

Nov.

Pg. 1078.

Vol. LXXVI.
1960

Machines Can Now Take Charge of the Sugar
Beet Harvest.

57.

Sept.

_____
1943

Galland,

Nov.

Pg. 1107.

J . Y«.

Sugar Beet Loaders Used In Indiana.
Am. Soc. Sug. Bee t Tech. Proc.

58.

Hansen, C. M., and French, G. W
.
1947

Michigan State College Sugar Beet Har­
vester Studies.
Proc.

59.

Pg. 85.

Hippie, I .
1948

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech.

Pg. 88.

L.

The In te rn a tio n a l Sugar Beet Harvester.
A gricultural Engineering, Vol. 29, Pg. 480.

60.

Holkesvig, 0. A.
1940

Experiments with Non-Thinning of Sugar
Beets, also Harvesting and Loading of the
Beet Crop in Iowa, Southern and North­
western Minnesota, and Eastern Dakota.
Am. Soc. Sug. Beets Tech. Proc.

61.

Howard, G. W.

Pg. 259.

117

1946

Results of Survey of Sugar Beet Harvester
Performance.
Proc.

Am. Soo. Sug. Beet Tech.

Pg. 507.

62.
1947

Future Requirements of Sugar Beet Har­
v e s te rs .

Am. Soe * Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

Pg. 82.
63.

McBlrney, S. W.
1947

Sugar Beet Harvester Development In 1947.
Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach. Inv.
Department of A griculture.

U.S.

17 pgs.

64.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvester Development In 1948.
Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach. Inv.
Department of A griculture.

U.S.

19 pgs.

65.
1949

Progress and Development of Sugar Beet
Harvesting.
Inv.

66

.

Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach.

U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Mervene, E. M.
1931

Developing Machinery f o r Beet Production.
A gricultural Engineering. Vol. 12. Pg. 49.

67.

_______ and McBlrney. S. W.
1936

New Development in Sugar Beet Machinery.
A gricultural Engineering. Vol. 17, Pg. 467.

118

68

.

Michigan State College Ag. Exp. Station Quarterly
B u lle tin , Vol. 28, No. 1, Aug.
1945

Pg. 52.

Sugar Beet Harvester Trials In Michigan
1943 and 1944.

69.
1946

Sugar Beet Harvester T rials in Michigan in
1945.

70.

_______
1949

71.

May, Vol. 28, No. 4, Pg. 338.

No. 215.
Reducing Sugar Beet Costs.

Myrick, Herber.
1907

The American Sugar Indus t r y .
Company, Springfield, Mass.

72.

The Scott-Urschel Beet Combine.
Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

Am. Soc.

Pg. 77.

Nicholy, W. E.
1941

New Development in the Scott-Viner Sugar
Beet Harvester.
Proc.

74.

Pg. 100.

Nicholy, R. W.
1943

73.

Orang Judd

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech.

Pg. 67.

Powers, J.B.
1940

Basic Principles Used in the Development
of an In Place Variable Cut Sugar Beet
Topper.
Pg. 266.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. Prop.

119

75.
1942

A Mechanical Topper.
Tech. Proc.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet

Pg. 252.

76.
1946

Progress In Harvesting Development a t the
University of C alifornia.
Beet Tech. Proc.

Am. Soc. Sug.

Pg. 502.

77.
1948

The Development of a New Sugar Beet Har­
v e s te r .

A gricultural Engineering, Vol. 29,

Pg. 347.
78.

Rasmussen, C. T. and Bozeman, V. F.
1941

Recent Developments in Beet Harvesting.
Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

79.

Rasmussen, C. T.
1943

The John Deere Harvester.
Beet Tech. Proc.

80.

Pg. 67.

Am. Soc. Sug.

Pg. 83.

Reeve, P. A.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting in the Eastern Area.
A gricultural Engineering, Vol. 29, Pg. 484.

81.
1949

Summary of 1948 Mechanical Harvesting Re­
s u lts .

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

Pg. 54.

82.

Ruden, W. L. and Lambrecht, C. H.

120

1942

E ffect of Production Costs on Returns
from Sugar Beets.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 23,

Pg. 388.
83.

Sauve, E. C.
1943

Performance and Features of a P ractical
Field Loader.
Proc.

84.

An. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech..

Pg. 84.

Smith, Dudley
1948

Sugar Beet Mechanization and Implications
f o r Puerto Rico.

Association of Sugar

Producers of Puerto Rico.
85.

Smith, P. B.
1948

Report of Survey of Northern European
Beet Producing Areas.

The Beet Sugar

Development Foundation.
Colorado.
86.

Fort Collins,

Pg. 23.

Sugar Beet Machinery Investigations
1944 and 1945

Annual Report of the Sugar Beet

Production and Harvesting Machinery In­

87.

vestig atio n s in Michigan.

1943-44.

Annual Report U. S. D. A.

37 pgs.

_______
1944 and 1945

Sugar Beet Harvesting In v esti­

gations In California and Colorado.
1944.

Annual Report.

U. S. D. A.

20 pgs

121

1944 and 1945

Annual Report or Investigations or

Sugar Beet Production and Harvesting
Machinery in Michigan 1945.
U. S. D. A*

1944 and 1945

Annual Report

49 pgs.

Sugar Beet Harvesting Investigations

in C alirornla and Colorado, 1945*
Report U. S. D. A.

1946

30 pgs.

Sugar Beet Harvesting Investigations in
1946,

Annual Report,

Turner, A. W. and Johnson, E.
1948

Annual

U, S. D. A.

29 pgs.

J.

Machines for the Farm Range and Planta­
tio n .

New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Pg. 389.
Urschel, W. E.
1946

A Sugar Beet Combine.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 27,

Pg. 551.
Walker, H. B.
1938

Looking Forward to E e tte r Sugar Beet
Production Machinery.
Tech. Proc.

1942

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet

Pg. 6.

Trends in Sugar Beet Field Machinery
Development.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech.

122

Prop.

Pg• 242•

95*
1948

A Resume of Sixteen Years of Research in
Sugar Beet Mechanization.

Ag. Eng. Vol.

29, Pg. 425.
96.

Walz, C. W.
1946

The Mechanization of Sugar Beet Harvesting.
Ag. Eng. Vol 27, Pg.

97.

549.

Ware, L. S.
1880

The Sugar Beet.
Philadelphia.

H. C. Baird & Co.,
323 pgs.