UTILISATION OF THU PRINCIPLE OF EXTIRPATION
IN THU HAhVESTINO OF SUGAR BEETS

By
Stephanus Johannes Paulus Kruger
van Heerden

A THESIS
ubmitted to the School of Graduate Studies of M i chigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for

the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Agricultural Engineering
1951

I

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Historical Review
A.
B.

Early Developments
The Commercializing Era

1
15

Principles of Operation of Some PresentDay Machines
A.
B.

A m e r i c a n Machines
E u r o p e a n Machines

33

Purpose of Investigation

51

42

procedure
A.
E.
C.
D.
E.

Preliminary Design
Mathema t ic al Aspects
Co ns tr uc ti on
Preparation of Test Crops
Tes ti ng and Results

Suggestions for Future

Investigations

54
58
65
79
82
98

Ac kno\. lo dgmon ts

106

Literature Cited

107

References

109

II

LIST OF II>LUS T H A TIOICS
Pag©
A.

Review of Machines
Pla te I

Johnson ( U . S . A .

Plate II

Greyhound

(U.S.A.

192.'3)

5

Plate III

L’Aevenir

(Prance

1926)

6

Plate IV

Prires a n d

Pla te V

Scott-Ursciiel

Plate VI

Borley ( E n g l a n d

Plate VII

C&tchpole

Plate VIII

International
western A r e a ,

Plate IX

le

1907)

IIain t ( B e l g i u m 1926)
(U*S.A.

(Midwestern

8
11
13

1933)

Harvester
U.S.A.)

14
(Mid­
34

Area,
36

Plate X

I.:&rbeet ( 7 / e s t e r n

Plate XI

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

Plate XII

1932)

1937)

(England

John D e e r e
U.S.A.)

3

Scott-Ursclnel
U.S.A.)

Area,

U.S. A. )

38

('..estern Area,
39
(Rastern

A rea,
41

Plate XIII

Catchpole

(England)

Plato XIV

Koreau ( F r a n c e )

44

Plate XV

Peter S t a n t o n

46

Plate XVI

Rational

Plate XVII

Ruhlmann ( F r a n c e )

(England)

(Denmark)

42

48
50

Ill
Pag#
D e s i g n Drawings
Figure 1

Isometric Views of Preliminary
Design

55

Figure 2

Details of Some Ideas

56

Figure 3

Design Views and Sections

57

FIgure 4 (a) Mathenatlcal Analysis

59

Figure 4 (b) Dynamical Diagrams

61

Figure 4 (c) Selected Diagram

64

Figure 5 (a) and (b) Redesign Sketches

99

Figure 5 (c) and (d) Redesign Sketches

100

Figure 6

Isometric View of Hydraulic
Prescure-Lifter

104

Experimental Model
Plate 1

Left-Side View

68

Plate 2

Right-Side View

69

Plate 3

Plowing Unit

70

Plate 4

Pulling and Lifting Unit

72

Plate 5

Cutting Mechanism

75

Plate 6

Cut ti n g Units and Front Guides

77

Plate 7

Front Guides

78

Plate 8

Sect io n of Vegetable Land

81

Plate 9

Hydraulic Pressure Lifter

103

I.

A.

Historical Review

Ear ly Developments
The problem of providing better machinery for sugar

beet production has be e n recognized as meritorious since
the early stages of the development of the sugar beet
Industry, due to the vital concern of both the producer
and the processor of this farm crop.

Progress, however,

was almost stagnant during the period prior to 1930,
in spite of numerous attempts made b y Inventors,
companies,

sugar

and experiment stations to mechanize the

planting, blocking, and harvesting of sugar beets.
The harvesting problem w h i c h is the only o o n c e m
of this investigation has received the most attention
and has proved to be extremely difficult to conquer.
Evidence of the objectionable factors encountered
during the first and most elementary step in the m e c h a ­
nization of the harvesting process was given by L, S,
Ware

(12) who wrote in 1380 the following:

"The extrac­

tion of sugar beets m a y be accomplished by hands or b y
machines;

the latter being done by ploughs of various

descriptions.

The machine frequently adopted in Germany

consists of several coupled curved prongs, penetrating
the soil m u c h beneath the maximum depth attained by the
roots;

the whole is drawn by horses or cattle.

The o b ­

jection to this or any other similar method is the trac­
tion made use of,

the feet of the animals greatly

2

bruising the roots.

-- But some device different from

anything up to the present adopted,

such as s team

plowing, etc., could alone be used in the U . S . A . "
One of the earliest attempts to Improve on the
hand handling of sugar beets was made b y Gra tt on (2) of
Lincolnshire, England.

A topping device was constructed

b y him which consisted of a semicircular foot w h i c h was
placed on the root at the place where it was desired to
cut off the tops, a knife which was pressed d o w n b y a
handle at the side of a light piece of w ood

to w h i o h

the elements were attached, and a spring w h i c h pulled the
knife back.
Although the m a i n concern of inventors up to 1925
was w i t h the design of lifters alone, as is indicated
b y the numerous variations of this type of implement
w h i c h were at this

time on the American and Eu ropean

markets, designs, w i t h the a i m of total mechanisation,
appeared as early as during the turn of the century.
Plate I shows a machine w h i c h was already in opera­
tion in 1907.

Myrick (7) described the performance of

it as follows:

"This Invention of the Johnson Harvester

Company, Batavia, New York has now been so perfected as
to do its w or k most satisfactorily.

It digs and lifts

the beets, cuts off the tops and delivers the topped
beets at the side of the row ready for factory or silo,"

3

Plate I. -- Sugar Beet Harvester Built
by

the Johnson Harvester Company,

Batavia, Hew York, U.S.A.
tion in 1907.)

(In opera­

4

No further Information on the principle of operation was
given.
An invention which was received w i th a considerable
amount of enthusiasm appeared during the early twenties.
This machine

(Plate II) was known as the "Grey­

hound” sugar beet harvester and was developed by The
Banting Manufacturing Company,

Toledo, Ohio.

The main features of this machine consisted of two
elements.

The one was the topper w h i c h consisted of a

pov.er driven tread belt and a power driven revolving bell
disk cutting unit.

This unit severed the crown from the

beets while the roots remained in the ground.
was

The other

the lifter wh i c h raised the beets after they had

been topped, cleaned them of dirt and carried them to a
conveyor belt at the rear, whence they were dumped on
the ground in heaps.
Contemporaries of the "Greyhound” harvester were the
"L*Aevenir” and the "Priris le Hant."
Hie "L*Aevenir"

(Plate III) was developed in Prance

by Monsieur Jean Moreau and operated as follows.

The

topping mechanism consisted of a drum which rude vertically
on

a horizontal cutting disk,

the height of the latter

being adjustable In relation to the working position of
the drum.
The topper was brought in position for cutting by

Plate II. -- The Greyhound Sugar
Beet Harvester.

(U.S.A. 1925).

6

Plate

III. -- The L' Aevenir Sugar

Beet Harvester.

(France 1926.)

7

the d ru m which rode over the root.

An adjustment was

available for changing the relative height between drum
and topper.

The leaves subsequent to cut were received

b y two endless metal bands and deposited at the side.
'Hie lifting of the roots was accomplished by the wedge
pressure

from the prongs

Landrlan

Frires and

placed behind the bands.
Fexhe le Hant of Clocher, B e l ­

gium were the inventors of the other machine

(Plate IV.)

They accomplished the topping in a rather unusual fashion.
A sheet of metal shield or foot was held b y springs and
weights at a predetermined tension.
drawn along the row,

As the machine was

the leaves were pressed down due to

the tension mentioned above, and were then severed by a
following knife.

The knife was set obliquely to the

axis of the machine.
The"Greyhound"
and

was

introduced in England in 1926

took part in the annual sugar beet machinery d emon­

stration contest of that year.

Wil di ng (13) wrote

the

following about its p e r f o r m a n c e : "Of all the combined
machines w h i ch we have seen for dealing with the topping
and lifting of sugar beets,

this is by far the most

effective one."
However,

the performances of the harvesting machines

of that time did not Justify a commercial production of
any of them, especially from an economical viewpoint.

8

Plate

IV. -- i’ll© i rires tut’ 1© Hant

Sugar leet Harvester.

(Eelgium 1926.)

9

V.ith the

e x c e p t i o n of Germany and Holland the har­

vesting p r o b l e m

seems

to have received leas attention

In the U . S . A .

t h a n In the European countries during the

following t e n

years.

these three

c o u n t r i e s because of the relatively cheap

and a b u n d a n t
Among

hand

the

Europe were:

the

the

"Premier" (1929 - English),
- French),

the

the "Sledersleben" (1930 -

" H o l l a n d ” (1931 - Dutch),

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

labor that was available.

m o r e popular machines which appeared in

f,l!arliereM ( 1 9 3 0
German),

Mechanization was less urgent in

the "Desbonnet"

the "Rosens tend Thacht" (1935 - Danish),

like

the "Greyhound” and " L ’Aevenir" were

improved.
The

v a s t m a j o r i t y of the new models showed no

radical d e v i a t i o n ,
composed of
1.

the

The

in principle, from one general method

f o l l o wi ng parts.

ground

topper which consisted of a finder

for the p u r p o s e

o f locating the crown of the beet for

proper t o p p i n g ,

a n d the knife which was actuated for the

correct c u t t i n g

p o s i t i o n by the finder.

2.

The

lifters of
3.

l i f t e r w h i c h was similar to the conventional

that

The

time.

e l e v a t o r for the loading of the beet on

trucks •
Finders

t h a t showed the most promise were

10

of two types -- one a track-type enc the other a serrated
wheel.
Knives were either power driven or stationary and
were still experimented w i t h for better performance.
The separation of beets fr o m dirt was by far the
most difficult problem.

Many devices for mechanical sep­

aration such as shaking or bumping of conveyors, piercing
pickup wheels,

and conveyors w i t h a rubbing or rolling

action were experimented with, but
factory solution.

they offered no satis­

This resulted in the anticipation of

other methods of harvesting w h i c h was basically different.
One system which received more attention in Europe
consisted of lifting the beets w i t h the conventional
lifter plows, loading them on a w a g on by hand, and driving
them to a conveyor table where the topping was done by a
mechanical stationary topper.

A topper of this kind was

developed by Morto n and Standen (England).
Another and more radically different method of op­
eration was proposed in 1952.

It suggested a machine

w i t h w h i c h the beets would be pulled out by the tops,
thus reducing the amount of dirt to be handled b y the
machine.
A n early experimental machine

that was constructed

on this principle is shown in Plate V.

This method did

not gain much popularity during the first few years of

11

Pl . ' . t t j

V.

-:

1. 32

Lfii'ly

In ven tion
>'i{i *
* iVv

—

'i

J-/ _A»

on

(United

t.h<
St?: tec

.)

i

12

experimentation.
above

Irregularity in height of the roots

the ground contributed m ue h to its Ineffective per­

formance •
Thompson (U.S.A. 1934) invented a machine
lated to the new principle.

The roots

that r e ­

together w ith their

immediately surrounding soil were first lifted as one
body,

and then, as the implement moved forward,

travelled

rearwardly through the machine still as a body and with
the roots upward.

The roots were then subjected to an

adjusting action whereby
common level.

the tops were caused to take a

After this adjustment a cutter bar re­

moved the tops, w h i c h were finally discarded.
An invention (Plate VI) b y Borley (England 1937)
had the following new feature.

Following the lifter was

a pair of disks so inclined that the foremost points on
their peripheries were wider apart than the rearmost
points.

A plurality of fingers composed of spring steel

rods extended in a redial-like manner from these disks.
The free ends of these rods bore idly upon the ground and
consequently the two disks with their rods were brought
almost into contact with each other.

The beets after

being lifted were engaged by the rotating radial rods,
picked up and gripped firmly between the resilient rods
while

they were conveyed backwards.

13

Plate VI, -- The Eorley Sugar Beet
Harvester.

(England 1937).

14

Plate VII,

—

The Catchpole Sugar

Beet Harvester.

(England 1938).

15

The m o s t promising E u r o p e a n invention of that time
was the "Catchpole"

(1938) w h i c h was developed b y W. M.

Catchpole of Stanon, England (Plate VII.)
A p a ir of vertical disks cleaned away soil and r u b ­
b i s h fr o m the p a t h of the topping m e c h a n i s m w h i c h f o l ­
lowed immediately behind.

A pair of disks was a u t o ma ti ­

cally guided into position for cutting b y a chain or
spiked track u n it w h i c h rode on top of the crowns of the
beets.

Spider spinners

thrust the severed tops out of

the way and shallow shares set at an angle lifted the
beets onto a slatted conveyor.
Studies conducted in 1938 at the California A g r i ­
cultural Experim en t Station on American machines such
as the Davis

Thompson,

Great Western,

and Scott Viner,

showed that the perforrnances of these machines were still
far f r o m effective.

The machines delivered

trash and dirt with the beets and
was unsatisfactory.

too m u c h

the topping quality

None of the machines was capable of

combatting the irregularities in height above

the ground

and the varying thicknesses of the beets.
£•

The C o m me rc ia li zi ng Era
(1) R e s e a r c h at the University of California.
The year 1938 m a r k e d the beginning of a new phase in

the ev ol ut io n of the mechanization of sugar beet produc-

16

tion.
Research or a more basic and scientific nature4 and
with special concern tov.crd the development of a new type
of sugar beet harvester, was commenced at the University
of California during this year.

A Joint project was

established between the U.S.D.A. and the University of
California for the purpose of investigating the possible
fields of mechanization in beet growing and of encour­
aging and assisting Implement manufacturers in the
design of sugar beet machinery.
A compendium of this work (8) can best be made
under the following four more or less Independent sec­
tions:

topping, plowing, root elevation, and root dis­

posal.
Topping:

The common practice up to the beginning

of the project was to divide

the beets into two size

groups -- those less than three and three-quarters inches
in greatest diameter, and those of greater diameter.

The

smallest beets were then trimmed by hand to the level of
the lowest leaf soar, and the larger ones three-quarters
of an inch higher.
It was then reasoned by the California investigators
that, because of this Importance of the location of the
lowest leaf scar, it was necessary that, for the purpose
of mechanization, some dimension of a beet be indicative

17

of the location of the lowest soar leaf*
Data accumulated at harvest time in California,
Colorado, Idaho, and Utah indicated approximate linear
relationships between beet height above the ground,
greatest diameter, and crown thickness (distance from the
top of a beet to its lower scar leaf.)
From these relationships arose two obvious angles of
approach for the design of experimental machines:

the

height-crown thickness relation and the diameter-crown
thickness relation*

Difficulties in connection with the

utilization of these relations are: (1) Machines which
top beets in their growing position are restricted to
the height-crown relationship because the greatest di­
ameters occur often below ground level, and (2) Machines
that top after lifting are limited to the diameter-crown
thickness since the height-crown thickness relationship
is usually sacrificed during the plowing operation.
The investigation was henceforth concerned only with
the topping before lifting method which was believed to
be showing greater promise for precise work.
Several kinematic, kinetic,and mechanical features
involved in the operation of a topping mechanism were in­
vestigated.

A modified curve was derived for the finder-

knife relationship by which the spacing between finder
and knife was kept constant when the finder falls below

18

a certain value*

This modification resulted In an appre-

ciable reduction of the top tare on small beets while the
topping loss remained low.
Special attention was given to the knife design and
position in an attempt to correct the slant topping of
large beets.

Other kinetic requirements considered were

the horizontal force and weight of the topping mechanism.
A non-oscillating knife and a finder equipped with
a cleated chain was found to be more effective in mini­
mizing breakage of the roots than other methods used.
The frame of the topper v.as carried on shoes which
slid along the ground adjacent to the beet row.

Tso

rotating drur.13 equipped with flexible fingers gathered
and windrowed the tops.
Plowing:

An effort was made to improve on the

traditional type of plow for mechanical harvesting which
proved to be unsultable in many
The form which was finally

ways.
evolved consisted of

two

pieces of strip steel twisted about their outer edges as
axes,

to form a right hand and left hand helicoid.

A

final selection of the helical pitch, size, angles, etc.
was made after various tests on
It was found that the plow

different soils.
was less sensitive to

off-row operation than older types but the layer of soil
whioh lay above the plow points seriously interfered with

19

beet recovery.
Root elevations

The versatility of commercial h a r ­

vesters in operation under different soil conditions was
found to be an inverse function of the soil contacted by
the root grasping mechanism,
attempt was made

ttith this in mind an

to devise a machine w h i ch would grasp

the roots at points removed from the soil mass.

This

was accomplished by the utilization of two pairs of
gathering chains.

One pair was mounted slightly below

the plow surface extending backwards in a slanted direc­
tion.

The other pair of chains was similarly mounted

slightly above

the ground surface.

The beets were

trapped between each pair of chains around the taproot
and cr own respectively, and carried to an elevator at the
rear of the machine.
This system did not seem to have been successful in
reducing to an appreciable extent the amount of soil
lifted along w ith the beets.

A further ineffectiveness

of the principle was its inability to trap small beets
when the chains were spread b y adjacent large beets.
R oot disposal:
disposal then were:

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

plaoed in a single row to be picked up later by a s ep a ­
rate machine,

(2) The lifted beets disposed of directly

on a truck w hich followed the maohlne,

(3) A topper towed

20

behind the harvester In which the beets were deposited.
The beets were later transferred to trucks along side
the field.
A combination of hopper and loader which was mounted
on the tractor, was used during the California investi­
gation.

This resulted in an Increase of traction avail­

able to operate

the harvester unlike the situation with

a trailed hopper.
The overall performance of the machine seemed to
have been promising in spite of some problems incident
to the chain performance.
Due to the work done under Powers by the University
of California through subsidized research,

Inventors, and

a few commercial companies, became interested and devel­
oped, among others, such units as the Braden, Alvos and
Dewey Publo,

the \7alz machine of Avondale, Colorado,

which eventually became the John Deere, and the Oliver.
Rimple at the California Station developed a finger
pickup unit with a special plow.

Tramoti at the same

station worked on a vibrating lifter and Armer made pre­
liminary studies on beet pickups by spikes.

Armer also

devised a variable cut disk topper based on beet size
relationships determined by Powers.
These investigations resulted in much progress in
the topping problems but the clod problem remained un­

21

solved.

The pressure f o r some kind of labor saving

equipment brought loaders, cross conveyor harvester
units,

and disk toppers into the picture.

were the Alvos, Rapetti,

Hansen,

Among those

and Hunt Brothers.

All of these units proved to be cumbersome and r elative­
ly expensive

to operate,

even though some labor was

saved.
(2) Progress on a Commercial Basis.
Industry started to show great interest by 1942.
The John Deere Company placed approximately 15 of its new
experimental machines In the field during this year and
programmed 100 for the following year.

The variable

disk-type topper as developed earlier b y Armer, was
adopted by the International Harvester Company, while
the Blackwelder Company constructed a harvester after
the design by Schmidt, Jongeneel and Associates.

Ex­

perimentation was also done b y the Allis-Chalmers M a n u ­
facturing Company and the Sawtooth Company.
In September 1944 Vlalker (11) described the status
of mechanical harvesting units as follows:

"The work on

harvesting m ac hinery has continued w i th varying success
... Machines now commercially available are operating in
the field w i t h sufficient success

to keep them going: but

these are also sufficiently faulty to create a desire for
improvements.

Topping,

top recovery, and removal of

roots wit h ou t excessive dirt and b r e a k a g e , appear to be the
bottlenecks T or a m o re satisfactory product at the dumps
(factory).
caused us

The problems of these coranerclal units have
(California Station)

to direct our studies t o ­

ward obt ai ni ng a better harvested product."
Progress made by Powers during the 1945-1947 seasons
seems

to have b e e n of considerable significance.

single row

His

tractor mounted harvester unit, consisting

of a variable cut top, er, helical plow, chain lift c on ­
veyor, cleaning e levator and overhead bln,enabled him in
1947 to obtain 9 6 # recovery of well
relatively low dirt tare,
to moist and sticky.

topped beets, w i t h

in soils ranging f rom hard dry

In the meantime

the Implement in­

dustry has p rovided new types of harvesterc, and it was
estimated (9)

that nearly 4000 hsrvester units were in

operation in the U.S.A.

in 1947 to harvest 3 0 # of the

nation*s sugar beet crop.
In the same year,

according to Cannon (1), approxi­

mately 3000 m ec hanical beet harvesters operated in the
sugar b ee t grow in g sections of Washington,
Dakota, N o r t h Dakota, Minnesota,
Wyoming, Montana,

Oregon, South

Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado,

Idaho, and Utah.

A n analysis of these

machines showed that approximately 55# were John Deere,
3 1 # International,

3 # Scott Urschel,

and 3# Kelst.

remaining 8 # was an assortment of various makes.

The
About

2 1 # of the sugar b e e t growing areas in these states was

23

h ar vested mechanically*
The output per machine varied greatly in different
areas and v/lth different makes of machines.

The use of

various types of machines has been dependent o n soil c o n ­
ditions and other v a r i a b l e s , with one machine finding
Greater favor un der one

type of c on dition and another

fitting in better somewhere else*
It was found

(1)

that the John Deere performed more

satisfactorily in the lighter soil types while

the Inter­

national topper,which was introduced for large scale use
in the fall of 1946,operated fa vorably in areas where the
John Deere was not suitable.

The Scott Urschel was more

successful in the inter-mountain area, especially on
heavy soil, and was noted for its h i g h capacity*
The Roto-Beater developed b y the Olson M a n u f a ct ur i ng
Company of Boise was introduced for commercial d istribu­
tion In the '.Vestern area in 1947*

It was equipped wi t h

the b e a t e r topping unit w h i c h was developed during the
previous year*

For the most part the harvesting systems,

involving beate r topping

vere confined to the lighter

soil type areas and to areas where beet tops have not
b e e n fully utilized for livestock feed.
The Kelst harvester w h i c h was Introduced in the
intor-raountain area had a great deal of mechanical trouble
(8) during its operations*
Commercial sugar b eet harvesters were introduced in

24

the Eas te rn sugar beet growing area in the fall of 1943^
and have experienced increased aoceptance during the
following years.
In 1946, 130 mechanical harvesters operated in the
sugar beet producing parts of Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin,
Illinois,

and Ontario, Canada,

per cent of the 240,000 acres.

and harvested about 3.4
Hie most popular machine

in these areas was the Scott Urschel w h ic h harvested about
3.3 per cent of the total area.
Harvesting dala,accumulated during the 1946 season in
these areas by Michi .an State College and the U. S. D e ­
partment of Agriculture in a combined proJect,showed that
the average percentage of tare figures for mechanical
harvesting was about 2.28 per cent greater than for hand
harvesting and that the dirt per ton of clean beets was
about 48 pounds less in the case of hand harvesting.
Mechanization of the harvesting operation across the
country expanded more rapidly during the 1947-1948 period
than during previous years.

Surveys made by the Su^ar

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

soil conditions in 1949 had as a result an increase of
less than one per cent in total area during tills season.

25

A total of about 9000 sugar best harvesters were in opera­
tion during the 1949 season*

Adequate supplies of hand

labor were available in many sections.
(3) Classification of Machines.
The following is a list of some of the numerous
American inventions classified according to their princi­
ples of operation.
I.

Topping before lifting (Combined operation)
Name

Manufacturer or Inventor

Diethelm Sugar Beet
Harvester

Mahl Equipment Company
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Granasen Sugar Beet
Harves ter

--- Edinville, Michigan

Great Western

Great Western Sugar Company

Grew Experimental
Sugar Beet Harvester
International Sugar
Beet Harvester
II. Topping before lifting

Bay City, Michigan
International Harvester
C ompany
(Separate units)

Ashley Sugar Beet
Harvester

U.S. Farm Equipment C om ­
pany, San Franc 1soo,
California

Carl Oppel Harvester

- — Fort Collins, 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
D ig g e r and Lifter
John Deere Beater Topper
ILiest W;o-Row Topper

Olsen Mfg# Company

Kiect Two-Rov/ Digger
King ..yse Two-Row
Harvester
Killer Harvester

--- Y.aterville, Ohio

Olsen Rotobeater

Olsen Mfg. Company
Boise, Idaho

John Deere Two-Row
(1343)

John Deere Company

Persons Sugar Beet
Harvester
Ropke Harvester

III#

Saginaw, Michigan

—

K e rr 11, Michigan
Elmore,

Ohio

Sam Spencer Harvester

--- Fort Collins, Colorado

Sichs Sugar Beet
IZarves tor

Julius Sichs & Company
Torrlngton, Wyoming

Two-Row Kiest
Harvester

Kiort lect K.'.rvos tor Co.

University of Cali­
fornia Sugar Beet
Harvester

University of California

Yuel Harvester

Swartz Creek, Michigan

Topping after lifting
Flintjer Sugar Beet
Harvester

H. Flintjer, Cheyenne,
Wyoming

Flora Engineering Co.
Sugar Beet Harvester

Flora Engineering Company
Cheyenne, Wyoming

27

Flo-Walk Harvester

B. J. Florrette
Saginaw, Mlohlgan

Harval Sugar Beet
Harvester

Sterling Machine Co*
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Marbeet Harvester

Schmidt Brothers
Rio Vista, California

Marbeet Midget
Scott-Urschel

Scott Vlner Company
Columbus, Ohio

Scott-Urschel Stub Bar

Mechanization progressed at a relatively much slower
pace in Europe during the period after 1938, and the conti­
nental developments

tended in the direction of machines

that lift and clean the beets after they have already
been topped b y hand or by separate machines*
Demonstrations held in England in the fall of 1946
revealed only a few contributions in the line of new
harvesting machinery*

The Catchpole was at that time

still the only British machine

in commercial production.

In 1947 only about 1*4 percent of Briton's sugar
beet crop was harvested mechanically*

A British Mission

appointed by the British Minister of Agriculture was sent
to the U.S.A.

to investigate the harvesting developments

in this country at that time.
The nature of their findings was summarized by
Wilding

(5) as follows:

"But the inescapable impression

created by the report is that it is a case of "making do"

28

w it h what is available*

'Although at the present time'

it was concluded in the report,

'the machines are far

from perfect and may not be capable of doing the work as
efficiently as average casual labor,

they are being used

on a rapidly-increasing scale in an endeavour, firstly,
to overcome the acute labor shortage and secondly,

to d e ­

crease the cost of beet harvesting'•n
Soviet Russia also showed interest in the American
machines and imported a few John Deere harvesters and
tried 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 little 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, after experimenta­
tion w ith 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 this principle was
known as the S.K.T.S.K..

Kerenkov and Yeremeyev (4) des­

cribe Its operation as follows:

"A chain puller 'clutches'

the leaves of the beet just as the worker's hand grasps
hold of them, the root is dug out b y a one-sided digger and

29

the heads of the plants are evened up according to length.
The tops are cut off b y 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 at the
noment of topping.
Later on another m a c h i n e , the S.K. 3, was designed
by Pvlov and Gerasimov on the same principle as the
S.K.T.S.K. but of lighter construction and with a simpli­
fied pulling unit.
The Russians also Investigated the possibility of
multiple row harvesters and claimed

(11) that they were

the first 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 1 2 - ton
lifter topper was developed (3).

Tills machine was self-

propelled by a 90 H.P. diesel engine wh ich drove the
machine through chains to 16 pneumatic

tired rear wheels.

The lifting was accomplished b y five "sticker” or "picker”
wheels, one for each row of beets.

The beets were removed

from the wheels by metal bars w h ic h passed between the
sharp spikes on the wheels.

The economical applicability

of this type of maohlne was extremely limited and re-

30

8 trioted to large size farms.
A more recent machine of this nature was developed
In France.

It v.as designed by Ruhlmann to handle three

rows simultaneously.

The machine participated for the

first time In demonstrations held in France in 1947.

A

description of this invention is given later 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 c o m­
pletely carried out by the small growers during recent
years, which was largely to be accounted for by the advent
of the lower priced unit machines.
A

survey (10) of the Northern European beet producing

area,..hich v.as carried out during September and October
1S4C,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
Engl 1ah:

Name

Birtley-Sick
Catohpole
Minns Model S-SL
Minns Model HW
Murray

Manufao turer
Birtley Co., Durham, England
Catchpole Engineering Co.,
Suffolk, England
Minns Manufacturing Co.,
Oxford, England
Minns Manufacturing Co.,
Oxford, England
Elstree Engineering Co.,
London, England

31

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

Manufacturer
Transplanters, Ltd.
Herts, England
John Salmon Engineering
Company, Essex, England
National Institute of Agri­
cultural Engineering,
Bedfordshire, England

Frenoh:
Caby
G.S.
LaGerbe
Moreau
Ruhlmenn
Ferte
Verbyst
Loiseau
Cappelle
Tuscher
!'unc h

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

Danish:
Hes;.e La^er
Hern -2
Roerslev
Madsamby

Flemstofte Maskinfabrik,
Fuglebjerg, Denmark
Dameco, Aalborg, Denmark
Rasm Holbeok & Son,
Odense, Denmark
lladsamby, Aalborg, Denmark

Belgian:
Vandemelr
Vassart
Simples-de Saint
Haubert

G. Vandemelr, Battice, Belgium
Fonderies et Ateliers de
Construction, Max Vassart,
Ligny
Etablissements Industriels et
Conmerciaux, Orp-Le-Grand,
Belgium

Dutch:
Zeeland

Firma \Y. Schlpper & Soon
Goes, Holland

32

Name

Manufacturer

Swedish:
Hllleshog

Curt Iloweller, Lands krona,
Sweden

Several American machines were also exlilbited, In­
cluding the International, John Deere, Scott-Urschel, and
Marbeet•
Ihe John Deere gave the best performance, under
Frenoh conditions,

of any of the machines, while the

International harvester was favoured under soil conditions
in Holland.
abls

Job

None of the American machines did a pres en t-

due to local conditions of the demonstration farm

during the demonstration in England.
M achines

of 24 different types were operated in E n g ­

land during 1940 among which were 12 British,
three French, five Danish, and

two Dutch makes.

These machines totaled 1922 as compared
1946 and harvested 1 0 . 8
compared

two American,

to 1 1 8

in

percent of the total acreage as

to *98 percent in 1 9 4 6 .

A large variation of machines took part in the 1950
demonstration contest, most of w h ic h were in the field for
quite a number of years.

There were no machines with e n ­

tirely new principles, but various attempts, most of wh ich
were of little significance, were made to improve on the
older models.

A new entry In the lifter section that per­

formed very favorably was the Rational combined potato and

33

sugar beet lifters.

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 selection of sugar beet harvesting
machines

that represent the popular principles of operation

during recent years in the United States and Europe.

A

brief description of the general principle 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 Machines

The International Harvester.

Topping and lifting by this

machine are accomplished in the following manner.

A

fully-floated or balanced topping unit has a drag type
"finder" or "feeler" to slide over the beet and gauge the
amount of crown for removal, and, in this manner register
the cutting for the Immediately following rotating disk
which does the topping.

At this Instant a transversely

revolving finger device sweeps the tops from the dished
topping disk and places them in a row at the side.

34

Following the topping unit are
coulters

two notched rolling

that cut the trash and reduce the sizes of the

clods.

The beets, after being lifted in the regular

manner,

are

wheels.

then passed

to a cleaning trough with kicker

This unit Is supplemented by what are known as

canvas retarders placed transversely to the travel of

the

beot so that they slow up the rearward travel of the beets.

Plate VIII,

The International Harvester
Sugar Beet Harvesting
tfachineT
(Midwestern Area,
ijnite^ Sta tes ,)

35

The beets

then travel up the steeply angled elevator

for either direct discharge Into the

trailer cart or onto

a special endless rubberized canvas bel t, f ro m which the
beets are removed b y hand while

the unwanted material is

discarded b y the belt.
The John Deere.

There are several

types of machines in

the field, most of w h i c h are still in experimental stage.
The general principles of operation are, however, more
or less the same.
A two-unit outfit is shown on Plate IX.

The topping

and lifting In this system are done in separate operations.
The topper (upper picture)
and has

is mounted on a tractor

In addition a rubber spiked rotor mounted at the

rear of the tractor to clean the portion of the beets
above

the ground.

wheels,

A curved knife, gauged by driven finder

tops the beets In the ground.

The

tops are picked

up b y fingers mounted on a d ru m Immediately behind the
knife.

They are disposed of in windrows of three or four

rows each, by moans of a conveyor.
The lifter

(lower picture)

Is pulled behind

tor and is driven from the power take-off.

the trac­

The beets are

lifted by two spiral bars, pitched into an elevator by a
pair of kicke? wheels.

The elevator delivers

conveyor belt for dirt removal.

them on a

Another elevator delivers

the b e e t s onto a truck driven alongside the machine.

36

xlat.e

T’x

!.'f,rbeet.

IX.

T h is m achine

u v.ld© r i r . c o n t a i n i n g
at

two

f reir.e.

The J o h n I ' e o r e S u g a r L:o c t
H a r v e s t e r . ( )\ i c v;e s t e r n A r e a . )
con sists

five

I n d ie s fror. c e n te r

rows
to

T h i s f r s r es u p p o r t s

of

center,
the

of

large

g

curved

Sp ikes,

mounted

liftin g

wheel

plow s

on

a

w ith

sp-aced
sw ing

w hich

cut

the

37

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

The

topping kniver, nounted between the rows of spikes at the
top of the whtjl,sever the roots f r om the tops as the
wheel is turned.

The roots then tumble over a series of

filter rolls, slightly retarded by spring loaded belt
curtains, and then fall into a hopper from which they
are carried by a potato chain-type elevator into a vehicle
running alongside.
by a

series

of

The

tops are cleaned from the wheel

strippers mounted below the topping knives,

allowing them to fall on a cross conveyor, which discharges
them into a windrow.

38

The

ih rb eet

T T-inch

P late

X.

V'idpet

is

The M a r b e e t S u ^ a r F e e t
Carves ta r .
(V ostern
i.roa, U n ited I t a te s . )
a

tractor

i i u K-tar v*heel w i t h

on a

sp rln ;

loucea

side

of

tractor.

the

^j-uitao

foar

sv, lap; f r a m e

ro..a

mounted

vwo o v e r l a p p i n g

m achine.

of

sp ikes

on t h e

A
is

r l ’ht

pov.or-drLven

mounted
hand
disks

3j

are

used

bad::

for

topp ing,

e l o n * the

1 opd?
placed

then
on

into

sid e
l

a crocs

j-lute

of

t rue' - :

ihe

roots

the

tractor

behind

conveyor

and

are

the

to

loosened
an

anc; c a r r i e d

elev a to r,

tractor.

The

wtudrov/od.

Tno : arise t Vic :o t b u p a r
I-ee t "Ifarvos t'er."" ( ..hs tern

:;rea, r n i ’t o ' c r - r t a t o s . )

w hich

tops

ere

40

The Scott-Urschel Is a trailed power-driven machine and
operates on the principle of topping the beets w h e n they
are out of

the ground,

A pair of conventional gathering

points w h i ch straddles along down the row lifts the leaves.
Just behind

these points,

a pair of chain elevators (In the

later models replaced by V-belts)
the same

the beet tops at

time that the roots are loosened b y small shares

runninr b e n e a t h the row.
tops

grasps

The beets are elevated b y their

to a set of horizontal roller bars w h i c h position

for topping.

them

The height of topping can be adjusted to suit

the operator*s desire.
The tops are removed by power-driven circular discs
end are then discharged at the rear of the machine.

The

beets can either be loaded directly into a truck, or, w i t h
the aid of a special wlndrowing attachment,

they c a n 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 w h l o h Is the replacement of the roller bars
by a pair of spring cushioned rods.

41

42
E.

Kuropean I'achines.

ib.e

detchpole

; '"Cr

is

take-off

an i n d o p a n d e n t l y - s t e a r e d

criven

•*

by

a nod

i rsed

one-row

tractor.

m

W

" ' i- v*

i

;

■% L r
'p» >. '/C t

Plate

*■&

Mill.

\ *•
*>

.

The

CaL?hpole

liiirves t e r .

Suyar

Eoet

( -Jrip fa . i d ).

nachln^j

45

The mein characteristic is its topping mechanism.
This includes a small tracklaying type of "feeler" o p
height finding unit to bring the topping elements to the
position for uniform action.

It receives its power from

the tractor through gears and chain drives.

The discs

are horizontally carried on spring-mounted brackets.

The

topping unit is suspended in the frame by means of a
parallel linkage.
After topping the severed crowns and leaves are
swept to one side b y a spinner unit having flexible rubber
beaters and the beets are raised by shares and conveyed
to knocking rolls via a rod link conveyor.

The beets

travel up the knockers w hich have spring tines, and after
the loose soil has been removed they arrive at a woodenslatted conveyor to be disposed of.
The latest new feature of the machine is the device
for collecting the tops immediately after cutting in
order to minimize

the soiling thereof.

Harvesting and

topping are accomplished by a combined performance.
The "Moreau11 is a combined topper and lifter.
track-type feeler unit brings
the roots.

The

A chain or

the rotary cutting disc to

tops and crowns are swept aside,

two

following di s c 3 pare off more rubbish after which lifting
Is done by plowing type fittings.
a rotating grid,

The beets are urged on

Jolted upwardly to remove adhering soil

44

and u l t i m a t e l y
nl.,% , 1 s

lin e

windrow .
m ultiple
off

that

T nls
row

driven

pass

by

can

a

traverse

accomrnodate

m achine

patterns

is

d elivery
six

av ailab le

w hich

are

all

to
in

ten

b elt
rows

sin gle

tractor

Maraa«‘« U imi Gambia** Machiaa

XIV

The X o r e c u T u r a r P o e t
Ilarvoster.
(franco. J

a

in a

as w e ll

power

u n its.

pita te

into

as

take­

45

The Peter Stanton consists of a front and rear assembly•
The front assembly is mounted on a tractor and is composed
of a feeler device comprising a multiple series of wheels
which have serrated gripping edges.

These wheels are

spaced and flexibly mounted with a strong spring in the
assembly.

They are free to ride up and down the tops so

as to bring the single fixed cutting blade into correct
relation for topping.

The serrated edges are to prevent

the beets from being pushed over.
Passing between the feeler wheels as they rotate
are a corresponding series of rods which register w i t h
the feeler wheel interstices in such a manner that they
clear away trash and rubbish in order to keep the feeler
device clean.
The rear assembly is carried by two pneumatic- tired
wheels and is a more or less conventional type of lifter.

r l a to
"

XV.

The P e t e r « t e n t o n S u ^ o r
Eeui H crvester.
THngTano. )

47

The Rational la available In three different models
operating on the same principle.

Topping has

to be done

previously by a special machine.

The special feature of

this machine is the lifter which consists of a power
driven spinner w i t h spiral steel bars.

The >splnner r o ­

tates just above ground level, and the beets are engaged
and pulled out by the rods.

They are discarded at the

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

A soil scraper levels the ground where

are to be laid.

the beets

The beets are loosened by two specially

shaped shares, one for each row, and front guide runners
are used to direct

the beets to the shares.

These machines can be changed to potato diggers by
supplying them with speoial double digging shares.

49

The Ruhlmann is a three row topping unit which consists
or a stem or standard affixed to the frame of the m a ­
chine.

This carries on its lower part two small bars

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

At the other extreme they

are connected by an arched or curved member, w h i c h also
carries the topper itself and the feeler.

The topper is

a diagonal or slanting horizontal knife.

The feeler unit

is in the form of an open adjustable p a n so as to bring
the knife in correct relationship with the beet.
After topping,
a single row.

the leaves and crowns are formed into

The beets are lifted by a pair of plow-

type lifting units, after w hich they are caught b y what
are variously desoribed as articulated forks and fork
wheels in pairs for a row.

These direct the beets onto

a shaking device to w h i ch a Jerking motion is imparted.
The beets are then discarded in collective rows.

48

Plate X V I

The R a t i o n a l Surer I eet
Lll1ter"
(D e r m a r k , ;

50

Tto Mwlllpll >»w "UltMa" T mppmr u < Ufttr

Plate XVII,

The huhlma.iii £ u^~a r leet
Harves ter. (m n n e . J

51

III.

Purpose or I nv e s t i g a t i o n

A c r i t i c a l r e v i e w of the status of the more
s u cc essful s u ga r b e e t h a r v e s t i n g m a c h i n e s of today
reveals

the f ol lowing:

1.

S u g a r b e e t h a r v e s t i n g m a c h i n e r y has made c o n ­

siderable p r o g r e s s during the last e i g ht y e ar s In c o m ­
parison w i t h
2*

the p e r i o d p r i o r to 1942*

The de ve lo pm en t a n d p er f o r m a n c e s of the various

m a chines h av e b e e n s t r o n g l y In f lu en ce d b y the local c l i ­
matic and soil co n d i t i o n s

of the various s u g ar b ee t

gro wi n g areas.
3.

The a v a i l a bi li ty of hand l a bo r In the various

areas d ur i n g the h a r v e s t i n g sea so n has b e e n a p r e d o m i ­
n ate con tr ol

in the e x p a n s i o n toward total m e c h a n i z a t i o n

in the r e s p e c t i v e areas.
4.

The e c o n o m i c a l

J u s t i fi ca ti on of m e c h a n i c a l h a r ­

v e s t in g has been lar ge ly r e s t r i c t e d

to large growers, e s ­

p e c i a l l y In the case of complete h a r v e s t i n g units.
5.

K o s t of the m a c hi ne s are of re l a t i v e l y h e a v y

construetion,and

the m a j o r i t y of them u t i l i z e separate

units for the topping,

lifting,

cleaning,

and loading

operations•
6.

C o n s i d e r a b l e amounts of dirt are hand le d b y

the various m ac hi n e s du ri n g
ations.

the p l o w i n g and lifting o p e r ­

The e f f e ct iv e se pa ra ti on of the dirt f r o m the

62

beets la atill a major problem.
7.

The majority of machine a do not make uae of the

tops as a medium of lifting the beets out of the ground.
8.

The effective saving and loading of the tops

for use as forage, which is of vital importance in many
areas, is not provided for In moat of the machines.
It was mainly in view of the preceding factors con*
cernlng the status of sugar beet harvesters that this
work was commenced.
The purpose was to investigate the possibilities
of a new principle for the harvesting of sugar b e e t s ,
w ith regard to its capability of improving on the con­
ventional machines in the following respects:
1.

Reducing and simplifying the units required to

accomplish the removal of the tops from the beets, and
the lifting and loading of both the tops and the beets
at the same time.
2.

Reducing the drawbar requirements by diminishing

the amount of soil handled, and the depth of plowing
during the lifting operation, and b y utilizing the tops
to assist in the lifting of the beets.
3.

More effective proportional removal of the

crown by utilizing the diameter-crown thickness relation,
revealed by Powers in the results of an Investigation (8).
The basic principle of this invention is based on
the utilization of two large wheels

to lift the beets

53

wlillo they are loosened by a plowing unit, and to convey
them to the cutting unit where the tops are removed*

The

wheels have flexible rims and, when in position, are pressed
against one another in such a way that they are compressed
along the rear half of their circumferences and are sepa­
rated along the front half of their circumferences•
The tops are gripped at the lowest point on the
circumferences, and are released at the highest point after
being sliced off from the beets.

54

IV.
A.

Preliminary Design.

Procedure
The design of the experimental

machine, which was started during the beginning of the
winter term of 1950, was continued and completed during
the following spring term.

An isometric drawing of the

component parts of the experimental machine and several
detail 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 unit and the beet and tops receiver chutes.

This

framework mounts on the m ain framework and over the prin­
cipal wheels shown in Pig. 1 (b).
Fig. 2 (a) and (b) show ideas envisioned for the
construction of the principal wheels and Pig. 2 (c),
(d), and

(e) some of the details.

In Pig. 3 (a) are shown ideas envisioned for the
plowing as well as the topping units.

Fig. 3 (b) is a

plan view of the main framework and

Fig. 3 (c) is

the

section X Y through this framework.

Pig. 3 (d) shows a

section X ^ 1 indicated on Fig. 3 (a).
These drawings are not described in detail here b e ­
cause many changes and additions were made during the

actu­

al construction of the machine.
A more complete description of

the principle of oper­

ation and of the various elements is given later.

55

Figure 1,

56

Figure 2.

57

Figure 5

58

B.

M a t h e m a t i c a l Aspects,

k i n e m a t i c a l features
fore

A m a t h e m a t i c a l analysis of the

of the p r i n c i p a l wheels w a s made b e ­

the a c t u a l c o n s t r u c t i o n was

facilitate

the s e l e c t i o n of the

started,

In o r de r

to

speed r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n

the forward m o v e m e n t of the mac hi ne

and

the r o t a t i o n of

the p r i n c i p a l wheels.
The e q u a t i o n of the locus of e a c h point on the p e r i ­
m e t e r of the p r i n c i p a l wheels r e l a t i v e

to the ground

c a n be d e r i v e d as follows.
Consider motion

In the p lane X O Y and w i t h OX and OY

as re ference axes as shown in Fig,
Let

the m a c hi ne

4

(a).

travel w i t h u n i f o r m linear v e l o c i t y

v p a r a l l e l to OX w h i l e the circle w i t h radius AB rotates
v.ith u n i f o r m a n g u l a r velocity w, and l e t 0 be
p o i n t o f E.

the Initial

Let A* be the p o s i t i o n of point A and B*

p o s i t i o n of p o i n t B
Then f r o m

Fig,

after* a time

the

"t" has elapsed.

4 (a):

x 1 • vt

(1)

x

*r / vt

/ r cos 0

(2)

x

«r / vt

/ r cos

(2a)

y

=r s i n wt,

t

s1 sin
w

(180° - wt)

(3)
£
r

(4)

59

Figure 4 (a ).

60

Prom equations

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

x * r / v sin "1 £ - r cos(w 1 sin
w
r
~~ w

x = r / v sin -1 £ w
r

£)
r

/ r2 - y^

(5)

which is the equation Tor the locus of point B in terms
of the coordinates x and y.
The relation between x and y is dependent only of the
variables v and w.
It can further be deduced f r o m equation 3 that point
B performs a periodic motion around the x-axis, with
period T * 2 / /
“w

and amplitude L * 2a*

The linear distance

through w h i c h point B travels

along the x-axis per revolution is obtained by substitu­
ting e »

2

7 7 " and t ■ 2 //
w
x * r / v 2 //

into equation (2).

/ r cos 2 7 7 ^
(5)

■ S(r 7 7 7 " V)
W

On Pin* 4 (b) is shown the effect on the locus of
point B when
change

tho relation between v and w is varied*

The

in the form of the loop$ whieh is formed below the

x - ax i s, is of great importance,

because it reveals

the fun­

damental principle on w h i c h the idea of this invention is
based*

61

4 (b ) .

62

The r a t i o o f v * .9rw was f i n a l l y s e l e c t e d to be used
In the

transmission

ing to this
enables

of the m a c h i n e .

relation

an e l e m e n t

of the w h ee l,
approximate

is s h o w n o n Fig.

The locus of B accord­
4 (c).

(of s m a l l d i m e n s i o n )

to p e r f o r m the

This ratio

on the perimeter

l i f t i n g o p e r a t i o n In an

vertical direction,

while

the machine

travels

t h r o u g h a d i s t a n c e f r o m p o i n t 4 to p o i n t 8, w h i c h is l/3
of the d i s t a n c e

travelled during

lifting wheels.
lift of

one r e v o l u t i o n of the

This consequently results

the be^ ts out o f

the g r o u n d w i t h o n l y a slight

to-and-fro notion parallel

to

the line of

The w i d t h of the l o o p b e t w e e n p o i n t s
curve,
motion,

for c o n s t a n t
c a n be

x components

in a vertical

travel.
5 and 7 on the

l i n e a r s p e e d and c o n s t a n t angular

d e t e r m i n e d b y c a l c u l a t i o n of the respective

f o r E g and B^.

From equation

(2)

x * r / vt / r cos 6
er

- -e r r

t5

= £S ZZ~
W
x

* r / v x 5 77
s w~

• *
e7

»

7 7

" /

7T

=

7

7T ~

f r

c°s(-77~)
IT

(7)

63

fc7 = 7 77"
6 w

.

x7 8 r / v x 7 2Z~ / r cos (-2

"ro:: equat.
x. - x
°

"gp

(S)

(7) and (6)
s v (5 7 7 “ - 7 77") / r(ccc 2 2 7 W
IT
$
O

COS

F7

x 5 - X 7 5 “1 v //

/ r( /g~

7 w

- 1)

2
(9)

• .

x 5 * x7 s

*7i?r ■ i I 77"
2
3 v/

The ratio o f v. and v for a desired value of (xg - x 7 )
can

therefore be calculated.
From equat.
v a 3
v;

(3)
( ,36r -

77“

A minimum value of
approximate

(xn - x 7 )» for a maximum amount of

vertical lift during that interval, guided the

s e l e c t i o n of the relation between n, v;, end r.

64

Fie Lt)
x -m T f £

V •

s'*\

-9 Y u

*.-jure 4 ( ? ) .

65

C,

Construction.
A d ecision was finally made to build a one-third

scale model instead of a f u l l size machine,
vestigate the performance of this

and to in­

nodel on the various

types of vegetables w h i ch resemble sugar beets on an
approximate o n e - t hi rd scale*
The main reasons for the above decision were the
following:
1.

It w h s

doubtful w h e t h e r the time available until

the coming s ugar beet harvesting season w o u l d be s u f f i ­
c ient for the co m pletion of a full size machine.
seas on was available for this
2,

It v.as anticipated

Only one

investigation,

that more tests could be

p e r f or me d on different kinds of vegetables at convenient
Intervals, due
3*
project

A c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the economical aspects of the
indicated an appreciable di mi nution in the

expenditures
4,

to their variation In groy/ing seasons,

total

In favor of a one-third scale model,

It was expected that the performance of the model

w o ul d provide worthwhile information,

and a reliable indi­

cation, of the pract ic a bi li ty of the essential features of
the new principle,

and that the adaptability

thereof on a

full size machine, wo uld be sufficiently exposed,
5,

An antici pa te d Idea,

to simplify

the construction

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

66

of flexibility,

lacked Information on the required

characteristics of such a rubber material.

The m a n u ­

facturing cost of the proposed rubber construction would
have been relatively hi g h and uneconomical, especially
where

the rubber was still

was w i t h this in mind

to be experimented with.

It

that the finger syst em was designed

as a temporary substitute, by w h i c h a variation In the
peripheral pressure of the principal wheels could be
accomplished.

The d ecision on a smaller scale had another

advantage hero,

In that It would make

the construction of

the f in g e r system more easily feasible, by allowing the use
of readily procurable material and equipment.
6.

More direct Information on the applicability of

the principle in the harvesting of sugar beets could be
obtained from a specially designed hydraulic pulling
mechanism.
(1)

This design provides

the m a x i m u m amount of pull that can be exerted on the

tops of Individual sugar beets;
lift

the registration of:

(2) the required pull

to

the beets for various depths of plowing or loosening

of the soli;

(3)

the required side

thrust on the leaves

in e a c h of the above cases.
7.

It was, however,

duly realized

that some of the

features of the performance of a full size machine would
be forfeited; but it was improbable
any significant defective

that these would cause

influence on the performance of

67

the model as a reliable source of Information on the prin­
ciple uncer investigation.
The final product of the model Is shown on Plates 1
and 2.
The machine consists of the five principal units in­
dicated by the letters A , B, C, D, and E.

Each unit will

be described separately.
The plowing unit (A) was designed to provide a system
which would allow for the adjustment of the soil loosening
mechanisms, over a range of depths and forward and rear­
ward positions, 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.

It v.as furthermore endeavored to cause the

breaking up of the soil with this system, in such a manner,
that the loose soil would follow the curvature of the
principal wheels for a brief distance, during which time
little or no relative motion between the gripped vege­
tables and the rubber rims would occur.
Some of the elements of this unit that were used
during the tests, are shown on Plate 3,

68

c
B

^late 1.

(Left-side V±ev.)

69

rlfate 2.

(hlrht-side VIev. )

Plate

5.

( Pl o r .ln:-- T;n It.)

71

The pul 11 nr and lifting unit (E) consists of a pair
of principal 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 circular bands of flat steel reinforcement,
a flexible perimeter of rubber tubing with a steel core,
end a finger system which combines the perimeter and the
internal framework.

The wheels are mounted in such a way

that they are pressed against one another along the rear
half of their circumferonces and are separated in front.
The bearings of the axles of these wheels are provided
with set screws by whSeh the shafts can be tilted.

This

enables a variation in the relative initial points of con­
tact of tlie wheels.
A variation of the position of the rubber bands on
the fingers, relative to the pivoting points, causes a
change in the peripheral stiffness of the rubber rims.
This consequently provides a control on the pressure
existing between the two rims when the wheels are mounted
in their proper position.

This variation enables a study

of the optimum pressure required for the effective lifting
of the vegetables.
Two types of rims, the descriptions of which follow,
were finally selected after some experimentation with
v&rious rubber tubes and steel cores.

72

lete 4.

(Pulltnj* arn:
. L i f t i n g Unit.)

73

1.

A spring steel wire core c o n s i s t i n g of two five-

sixteenths
one

i nch rods

inch O.D.

is push ed through a rubber

and a q u a rt er o f an inch I.D.

tube of

The rods

are fixe d to the steel fingertips w i t h "thimbles", which,
at the sane time,

keep one o f

cle of the o t h e r rod.

der

to slide

to c om p ensate for

2.

two rims,

through the holes

v.-hen the wheels

the inside c i r ­

This co ns tr uc ti on provides a flat

thrust surface b e t w e e n the
rocs

the rods on

in

and permits

the steel

the "thimbles",

in o r ­

the v a r i a t i o n in the circumference

are p r e ss ed

It was re alized

into position,

that some d i f f ic ul ty mi ght be

experienced w i t h the rot at in g of the r u b b e r around the
wire core

in co n s t r u c t i o n No.

1.

A

probably have been nore effective,

thin flat bar would
but w o u l d require

special m a n u f a c t u r i n g if spring steel w e r e
was

therefore decided to su b stitute cold

the spring steel,and

to find out whether

the req ui re d flexibility in the specific

to be used.

rolled steel i'or
it w o ul d provide
construction.

The letter co ns tr uc ti o n was finally used
m achine

It

in the

as is shown on Plate 4.

The c u t ti n g m e c h a n i s m (C) is carried

on a separate

framework w h i c h Is mounted o v e r

the principal wheels and

is bolted onto

It consists of:

the m a i n frame.

(1) a pair

of sprinr cushioned steel bars w i t h pivoting units at one
end close

to the c ir cu mferences

of the p r i n c i p a l wheels;

74

of the bars;

(Z>) a p a i r of r ub b e r disc feeders, one of

w h i c h is p o w e r - d r i v e n f r o m a ground wheel.
T h ose units

are shown o n Plate

s y s t e m is held at an angle above
p r i n c i p a l wh ee l s b y
frame,

5.

Hie steel b a r

the p e r i m et er s of the

two springs e x t e n d i n g f r o m the upper

and w h i c h are b a l a n c e d b y a piece of flat rubber.

The o t he r end of the

tube is fi xed

to the chute.

The o b j e c t of the s l a n te d p o s i t i o n of the bars

is to

c o m p e n s a t e for the v a r i a t i o n in d is ta n c e of the crowns of
the b e e t s

to the r u b b e r rims

each be-t

to the c u t t e r discs,

ation.

Eeets

the crown.

the c u t t e r m e c h a n i s m gui d es

the

distance

ir respective

of this v a r i ­

that are h i g h out o f the g r o un d are likely

to be g r i p p e d close to

r u b b e r rims.

and to guide the c r ow n of

S u c h beet s wo uld press

downward

to c o n f o r m w i t h the

The amount of downward p ressing depends on
of the c r o wn of

the beet from the rubber rims.

The v a r i a t i o n in this di stance

is d i r e ct ly related

i r r e g u l a r i t y of beet hei g ht s

above

p e r i m e n t a l unit was d e s i gn e d

to cope w i t h a range o f

inches

the ground.

to the

The e x ­
two

in c r ow n height.

The h a n d l i n g of the roots
is a c c o m p l i s h e d by

and

tops after separat i on

two chutes, which,

m achine,

would deliver

trailers

or trucks.

the products

in the full size

onto side-drawn

The chutes on the model are provided

o nl y to p r e v e n t the m a t e r i a l fro3.; interfering w i t h

the

75

i

late

.

76

operation of the machine, because the loading operation
was considered as of minor importance in the present in­
vestigation,

Details of the cutter units are shown on

Plate 6 (A :< B)«
The power wheels

(D) are shown on Plates 1 and 2,

The wheels are ten inches in diameter and have solid
rubber rims.

Trie belt pulleys are fixed to the hubs of

tne wheels and rotate with the wheels on stationary
shafts.

The wheel shown on Plate 1 drives the principal

wheels which are connected by means of a universal joint.
The other power wheel (Plate 2) drives one of the disc
feeders of the cutting unit.
This specific design of the power unit was decided
upon to secure

the power wheels as close as possible to

the principal wheels so that:
1.

Tne principal wheels, guided by the power wheels,

v/ould follow

the profile of the soli down the row, with a

minimum amount of deviation from it.
2.

Transmission would be possible for various posi­

tions of the power wheels when adjusted

to bring about

different heights of the principal wheals relative to the
ground,
3.

The effect of the front wheels on the relative

height of the principal wheels would be minimized.
The front guides (E) are the ones that were finally
constructed as a result of experimentation with guides

77

A

B

D

# #

••

A If A

• *s

# ••
• •
Plato

6,

Details
and of

of C u t t i n g U n i t s
I'ront Guides

(C

(A
D).

L)

78

Plate

7.

(Front Guiees.)

79

shown on Plate 6 (D).
The latter consist of conventional duck-foot shov­
els, with one of the wings removed, and spring steel rods*
These rods, when the guides are mounted, extend to the
inside of the flexible 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 final construction.
D.

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

under construction and carrots,
were planted at intervals.

red beets, and turnips

The soil varied from a clay

loam to a sandy clay and was heavily disked in order to
break do^n

the clods to a fine seedbed structure.

The vegetables were planted in rows, 23 inches apart,
w it h a hand-push garden seeder.

The total crop oonsisted

of 30 rows of carrots, 30 rows of beets,
turnips, each 80 feet long.

and 20 rows of

An alternative sequence of 10

rows of carrots and beets was used to compensate for the
variation in soil structure.

The turnips were planted

later in the season.
Excessive rain caused heavy and rapid vegetable
growth, and also of weeds which were present in an exten­
sive assortment.
stones

The plot

y.gs

cultivated

and large clods were removed.

two times, and

80

The construction of the model was completed toward
the end of August,

at w h ic h tine the first section of

carrots and beets were ready for harvesting.

However,

the wet condition of the soil delayed the first trial f o r
a f e w weeks.

It also became apparent that a highly impervious
sub-soil was present.

This resulted in the drowning of

the turnips wh ich were planted in the lowest section of
the area.
The growing of the beets was very irregular;

the

sizes varied from two inches in diameter to five inches
In diameter at the

time the first test was performed.

The vegetables were
f i v e -inch spacing

thinned by hand to an approximate

in the row, and the largest ones were

r e m o v e d at intervals.

The first trial was finally run w ith the condition
of the soil

still relatively wet.

The condition of the

vegetables was the main factor against further postpone­
ment.

A section of the land Just before

commenced

is shown on F l a t e 8.

the tests v.ere

81

-A /*■
-

r
Ly>

“
V,

* “ ^ -.•
*^X‘j> ' ^

,
,rv ”:• ^ A -

v'
%

^

xl&te

8.

*'

-

( S e c t i o n of V e g e t a b l e

Land.)

82

E.

Testing and Results.
Ihe 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*

Huskey Road Master tractor (used in all tests.)

2.

Experimental machine w it h only the front guides, plow­
ing mechanism, and pulling supports assembled.

Procedure:
1.

The

single shovel system was first tried out on soil

w i t h no vegetation.

A conventional goose-foot type of

cultivator shovel was set ai two inches depth and the
front guides were spaced three Inches at the points.
2.

The

pulling supports were removed and the shovels were

adjusted to a plowing depth of
3.

The

three inches.

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 trial on carrots was finally run after the

shovels were readjusted to a depth of three Inches and
shifted to a more rearward position.
3.

The

front guides wore adjusted

to a four inch spacing

for the trial on the red beets which followed the test

83

on the c arrota•
Resultsi

The hard cruet of the soli caused the forma­

tion of clods which started to accumulate against the
pulling supports and the shovel beams.

This was slightly

improved by the removal of the pulling supports.

Wet

soil was brought to the surface with the shovel setting
at three inches depth.
The double shovel system
wet

brought a large slice of

clay to the surface when plowing at a depth of five

inches and the machine travelled only a few feet before
the v.heols of the tractor started to spin.

This indica­

ted that the frame construction was strong enough to
stand maximum pull without the aid of the pulling sup­
ports.
The trial on the carrots
combined action of the front

showed the following:

guides and the leaves facili­

tated the steering of the machine considerably.
machine 'vcr, 1

The

The

on the row with almost no difficulty,

The p e r f o r m a n c e of tfce front guides as far as gathering,

lifting,

and guiding of the tops were concerned shov.ed

g r e a t promise.

The tops were released by the guides in

a narrow strip, bent slightly forward.
Hie soil v.as well broken up on each side of the carrot
row by the shovels.

Some carrots wore lifted along with

the soil and v.ure removed by hand.

The others that re­

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

two fingers.

Difficulty with the blocking up of the

soil was again encountered even though the plowing was
done at a dept h of three inches.
The

trial on the red beets again showed a satisfac­

tory performance of the front guides but blocking up
occurred more rapidly.
Remarks;
1*

It was easily perceptible during this test that the

effect of the soil characteristics 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 variation In size of the vegetables
which v.as not of a one-third dimension.
2.

The rotational action of the power wheels promoted

tr.e accumulation of the soil.

This could be improved by

providing the wheels wi t h guards.
3.

The width of the shovels could be reduced consider­

ably.
4.

Tne double shovels system appeared to be more suitable

for the lifting of carrots.
5.

No soil looseners are required for the lifting of the

beets•
The shovel b eam system should be changed to enable
more rearward adjustment.

85

Test No. 2.
Object:

To investigate the performance of the pulling

wheels, cutting mechanism, and guides on red beets.
Equipment:

Complete machine except for the soil loosen-

Inf, mechanism.
Procedure:
1.

Guides were set for maximum front clearance.

2,

Operatinf height of pulling wheels was adjusted to
two inches above ground level.

Z,

Speed ratio v s .9rw (Approximately).

4.

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

third hole from the rear.

r>. Knifo feeders set at half-an-inch to the rear and
half-an-inch above tne knives when in their upper
position.

Feeding speed of driver v/as the same as

the circumference speed of the large wheels.
6.

Knives, later in the test, were readjusted

to the

most rearward position.
7.

Tests were run at various speeds of the tractor.

8.

A test was performed on the carrots with no changes
made on the model.

Observations:
1.

The condition of the soil was such that the power
wheels of the machine caused a subsidence of the ground
of approximately one inch.

Wet clay stuck to the car­

rots when pulled out by hand.

Age of vegetables at

86

the time thla test was made was 98 days.
2.

The machine appeared to be slightly top-heavy in the
absence of the plow in g mechanism,

3.

The power wheels had no difficulty in driving the
pulling wheels as long as the machine was not rocking
sideway8•

4.

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

5.

The downward action of the perimeters of the large
wheels, with no horizontal movement,
the leaves down as soon as
other.

6.

too rapid.

forced some of

they made contact w i t h e ac h

The guides did not offer enough protection.

"ost of the tops w er e dragged forward b y the guides,
slipped

through them,

and were pressed down by the

pulling wheels.
7.

Some beets were properly gripped by the wheels

and no

difficulty was encountered w i t h the extirpation of
same.
8.

The beets kept their position perpendicular to the
perimeters of the wheels while elevated but all but
two stopped at the ent ra nc e of the knife guides.
two that passed through w ere well handled,

The

the tops

being sliced off very effectively.
9.

The presence of the tops between
the pulling wheels

the perimeters of

advanced the separation of

these

87

whee ls two to three Inches.

This had the result that

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

the

Hie Initial grip

of the wheels was effective and could occur at a
later moment.
10. No time was available for adjustments for the test on
the carrots.

The guides performed better in this

test and m o s t of the

tops were pulled off while the

roots renalned In the ground.
Test No. 3.
Ihe following changes were made due to observations
during the second run:
1.

The shaft bearings
w i t h set screws

;f the large wheels were furnished

so that the inclination of the shafts

to the horizontal plane could be varied.
2.

The set screws were adjusted,
were mounted,
mately

so that whese wheels separates approxi­

two Inches later at the top and made contact

two inches
3.

after the main wheels

later at the bottom.

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
conceived,
nated.

required angle of the shovels was

so that the adjustable brackets were e limi­

The shovels were solidly mounted onto the beams

and were chanced In form In order to provide minin u n obstruction to the loosened soli.
The height of the nain wheels relative to the ground
..as decreased due to the tilting of their shafts.
seemed advisable during the previous

It

test to have the

nai n wheels operating approximately half-an-inch
higher than was the case at that tine,

Wooden stops

for the power shafts were installed to obtain this
height.
The position of the flat piece of rubber tubing that
counteracted the spring tension on the cutting m e c h ­
anism was changed wh ich resulted in a freer action of
the knife guides.
The rubber bands on the main wheel construction were
replaced by heavier ones.
Tne front guides fcr the gathering of the tops were
replaced by solid r.ctal strips
sliding through,
struction,

to prevent tops from

as was experienced with the rod c o n ­

and to eliminate early contact between the

leaves and the perimeters of the m ain wheels.
The

two-beam system of soil 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 b y a
shorter one without a leaf catcher In an effort to
eliminate choking up of cut-off leaves.
R e s u l t s : (Trial on carrots).
1.

The water content of the soli was higher than during
the prevLous

trials 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 test.
The extra clearance provided seemed

to have no ef ­

fect on this problem.
3.

A few carrots were lifted before the blocking of the
soil developed and moat of them were handled satis­
factorily by the guides and 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 ar&ln the first few carrots were
pulled out, lifted and the tops cut off.

But blocking-

up started eventurlly again at both places.
4.

The clodding up of the soli was partly overcome by
the removal of one of the plow beams.
maining shovel, operating alongside

But the r e ­

the row, did not

sufficiently break up the soli in the row.

Conse­

quently most of the leaves were now pulled off by the

90

wheels while the roots remained in the g r o u nd •

A

few carrots were pulled out, but nost of there ob­
tained a backward position with respect to the
perimeter.
to grasp

It was not possible for the feeding disks

these carrots and they blocked up when they

made contact with the knives.
5.

The new rubber bands developed enough pressure in
the perimeters of the main wheels for a f irm grip on
the leaves.

Conelu s lo ns :
1.

A three-inch clearance between shovels is not suf­
ficient to prevent clodding up of a soil of this
condition or to permit free passing b y of the soil.

2.

The pulling action of the wheels on the carrots a s ­
sists

the upward movement of the whole slice of

soil, w h i ch eventually results
3.

in blocking up.

The backward adjustment of two inches of the beams
did not make any appreciable difference In the b l o c k ­
ing up of the soil.

4.

The feeding disks of the cutting mechanism should be
advanced away from the knives

to make an earlier grip

p os si b l e •
5.

The performance of the altered chute was satisfactory.

6.

It appeared as if longer fingers on the disks would
improve the cutting process.

91

7.

The performance of the front leaf guides was very
satisfactory on carrots.
showed, however,

A trial on red beets

that these guides were still not

capable of elevating the leaves close to the ground
high enough to enable the wheels to grip them.
Another observation during this trial was that the
wheels had no difficulty in lifting beets, properly
gripped, without the aid of a soil loosener.
8.

It was decided that it 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 it still
further to the rear.

9.

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

It would be advisable

to change

the bar in

order to cope w it h these extremities in length.
Test No. 4.
The following changes and adjustments were made for
this test.
1.

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

f.

A single, center plowing sy Etuu was mounted onto the
frame.

*5.

A new set of rubber disks with longer fingers was

92

mounted.
4.

Die w o o d e n stops were removed to investigate

the p e r ­

formance of the wheels at a still lower level.
5.

The rubber disks were advanoed three-eighths of an
inch away from the knives.

Results;
1.

The mo is tu re condition of the soil did not seem to
have

2.

improved appreciably.

The performance
proved

of the single-beam plowing system

to be less favorable

in spite of the

than the two-beam system

increased clearance.

Rapid blocking-

up occurred.
3.

The first few carrots were pulled out and elevated,
b u t 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, b u t the carrots

fell back against the

disks.
ConclusIons:
1.

It was more obvious during

this trial that the rapid

blo ck ln g- u p of the soil against the suspended beam
members was mainly due
wheels and

the shovel.

to the combined action of the
The soil was loosened by the

shovel more or less instantaneously with the commence­

93

m e n t of the u pw a r d movement of the carrot, caused b y
the pull on the leaves.
lift of

This resulted In a higher

the soil before It started to break up and

fall down, w i t h the result

that most of the soli was

carried along up against the beam until It hit
a gainst the suspended brackets.

The wet condition

of the soil en c o u r a g e d this action.

This Indicates

that the loosening of the soil should be applied In
such a w a y that It w i l l allow a m i n im um amount of
lifting action.

The type o f loosener should therefore

be red uc e d in w i d t h to per fo rm a mere cutting action
through the soil.

The

two-beam system ought

to be

used and more clearance should be allowed.
2.

No

trouble was experienced

in guiding the tops to

the main wheels

as long as the

b u t some of the

leaves on the ground could not be

picked up.

tops were standing up,

It might be advisable

rods In front o f

the guides

to use

two extra

to take care of the fallen

d own leaves.
3.

The height of the m a i n wheels should not be lower than
two inches above the ground

4.

level.

The disks used In trial No. 2 did a bet te r Job and
were closer to
In trial No. 4.

the right pos it i on than the type used

94

Tost No. 5.
Object:
1.

To investigate

the relative position of the soil-

loosening mechanism to the m ai n wheels and frame
that would eliminate clogging and blocking up of the
soil u n d e r the prevailing conditions.
2.

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

Procedure:

The cutting m e c h a n i s m was

taken apart and

the c r o s m e m b e r behind the knives was changed to allow
for m a x i m u m clearance for the leaves.
The side springs were shortened to decrease

the side

stiffness of the guides.
Two rubber uisks o f camel-back rubber were inserted.
Four soil looseners were made from flat iron bars of
different thickness and were supplied wi t h spacers
would permit the looseners

that

to be mounted up to ten inches

behi nd the main wheels.
The first run was started w i t h the looseners in the
above position.

The rubber bands appeared to have lost

some of their tension and wore shifted to the position of
m a x i mu m pressure between the perimeters.

The soil was

b r o k e n up fairly well although a few of the carrots w hich
remained in the ground,
be lifted.

required some pulling in order to

Only a few carrots, however, were lifted b y

95

the wheels.

It wa3 evident that the soli was broken up

too late to be of any help to the lifting by the wheels.
The wheels were performing very w e l l and most of the
leaves were pulled off whil e
ground.

the carrots remained in the

Some slipping occurred,

were strong enough, before

in cases where the leaves

the carrots were pulled out.

These carrots were hanging down and could not be grasped
by

the feeders.
The soil looseners w e r e

then adjusted to an eight-

inch clearance but this position had the same results
on the lifting.
enced so far.

No blocking up of the soil was experi­
I.'ore adjustments o f closer and narrower

positions were tried out,

from which it was found that the

best performance for the present construction o f the
machine, w h e n equipped with
out during

the looseners

that were

tried

thi3 trial, was with a six-inch clearance b e ­

tween the main wheels
tween looseners.
this position.

and looseners and three inches b e ­

Blocking-up Just started to occur in
Some carrots were

still left 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.

It was

clear that the p r o b l e m was mainly due to the limited
height of the small-scale machine above the ground.
test was performed under severe c o l d conditions.

This

96

ConeluaIona:
1.

It w a s

c l e a r f r o m the o bservatlona

that a r e - d e s i g n

of the rear part o f the framework, that supporta
looaening mechanism,
a llow f o r

la essential*

the shovel bea ms

the

This deai gn should

to go down along each side

of the pa i r of m a i n v/heels in s uch a position,

and

they sho ul d be of s uch a fo r m y that the loosener.' .
attached

to then, would

start

to b r eak up the soil

a l mo st v e r t i c a l l y u n d e r the center of
m ai n w h e e l s
ches*

The

and at an a pproximate d e p th of four in­
shape of the looseners should also be of

s u c h a f o r m that it will
soil follow
few
2.

the p ai r of

the curvature

tend
of

tc make

the br o ke n- up

ike main wheels for a

inches.

This w i l l require

a w i d e r spacing of the p o w e r wheels

w h i c h s h o u l d have no apprec ia bl e influence on the
ove ra l l p e r f o r m a n c e

of the machine*

This statement

ia b a a e d on observ at io ns made on the Influence of
the v a r i a t i o n in heig ht of the main wheels on the
p e r f o r m a n c e of same*
The m a i n idea for

the present deaign was

m a i n whee ls f o l l o w the profile

to havo the

of the ground as c l o s e ­

ly as possible*
The r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n of the wheels along t h e length
of the m a ch in e should be maintained*

97

3.

The slipping of the power w h e e l s
and

then w h e n the machine

othery due to

4.

that occurred now

tilted over

the un e v e n n e s s

to one side or

of the s o l ^ w i l l b e e l i m i ­

nated by

the w i d e r spacing of these wheels and

increase

in wei g h t of a larger size machine.

It seems

to be necessary,

as far as

the performance

o f the cutting m e c h a n i s m is concerned,
should be gra s p e d a few Inches before
knives
off.

and be car r i e d along u n til
It nay be possible

the

that the roots
they r e a c h the

the tops are sliced

to a c c o m p l i s h this b y the

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

It seems also advisable

that b o t h sides

should be power-driven.
5.

It was observed before

the last

test was commenced

that the carrot leaves had flattened out much more,
due to their age.
of the front guides
that

This h a n d i c a p p e d

to a c ertain extent,and indicated

it w o u l d not be worthwhile

tests.

the performance

to perform any later

The carrots were already over 90 days old.

The limitations of

the small-scale machine was

f a c t o r that supported the d e c i s i o n
of very little b e n e f i t
and changes.

another

that it w o u l d be

to spend any more

time on trials

98

A l t h o u g h u n f a v o r a b l e w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s were a great
handicap

to the experiment

theless felt that valuable
p r i n c i p l e of

as a whole,

it was n e v e r ­

i n f o r m a t i o n about the

the m a c h i n e was o b t a i n e d , a n d that the

s m a l l - s c a l e m o d e l s e r v e d its purpose
e s p e c i a l l y f r o m an economic

satis f a c t orily

viewpoint*

The e x p e r i e n c e gained d u r i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n and
trials w i l l be of g r eat value

in the d e s i g n and c o n ­

s t r u c t i o n of a full-size machine*

V*

S u g g e s t i o n s for Future

Investigations

The C u t t i n g Mechanism:
The c r o w n - d i a m e t e r relation, w h i c h w a s found to
e x i s t by Powers
and

the

(8), b e t w e e n

thickness

of the c r own was not made use of in

the e x p e r i m e n t a l model.
tried on carrots

the d i a m e t e r of sugar b e ets

This e x p e r i m e n t a l machine was

and red beets

so that the above

infor­

m a t i o n was n o t applicable.
A m e t h o d by w h i c h this r e l a t i o n can b e u t ilized is
shown in Fig.

5 (A) and Fig.

o f this c u t t e r unit

is

5 (E).

the same as

The basic principle
that used in the e x ­

p e r i m e n t a l m a chine.
The guides, B, w h i c h prevent
from s l i di n g

the c r own of the beet

through, and w h i c h guide

the beet

to the knife

99

g-S M

Ft

£

O

I
r1^,.

5 (A fend

T)

100

I
<D

Flr,«

5

(g and D)

101

are mounted in the a a mo manner as In the model*

Two

additional g u i d e s , C, are used in this construction to
change the height of cut relative

to the guides, B, in

accordance w i t h the diameter of the beets*

These gauge

rods, C, run parallel to the guides, B, and about two
inches above them.

They pivot around shafts, D, which

are floating w i t h the guides, B*

The rods, C, are held

in position of smallest clearance between them by springs
b elow the cutter disks, A.

Hie rods, C, are forced open

w hen the beets enter between them and slide up along the
guides, B*

The rods, v.rhen pushed open,

the cutter disks.

in turn activate

The diameter of the beet at its point

of contact w i t h rods, C, will therefore be Indicative of
the amount of crown that the cutter disks will remove*
These sketches were drawn only to demonstrate
principle*

the

Supervision should be made in the actual

construction for the adjustment of various relative p o s i ­
tions of the members concerned*
Principal Wheel Slmpllficatlon;
The envisioned simplification of the large wheels,
which was mentioned during the discussion of the reasons
for the choice of a one-third scale model,is demonstrated
in Fig.

5(C).

The flexible finger systems In the experimental model
are replaced by endless rubber strips, C, of special c r o s s ­

102

section.

These rubber strips fit firmly over endless

rnctal tubes, D, of semi-circular cross-section.
is hel d in p o s i t i o n bj' four or six spokes

E a c h tube

(of angle or

T-iron cross-section), m ounted on a central b u s h as was
done

in the experi m e n t a l machine.
Fig,

5 (D) is a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of the perimeters,

at the p o i n t of m a x i m u m compre s s i o n along the rear half
of the circumferences, w h i c h would provide

the same amount

of front clearance as was accomplished b y the c o n s truc­
tion usee

in the experimental machine.

Hydraulic Pressure Lifter:
A special instrument w h i c h was designed to obtain
more

information o n the characteristics of the rubber

required,

that was

to be used in the simplified c o n s t r u c ­

tion of the principal wheels,

is shown on Plate

A consi s t s of a hydraulic cylinder,
cator w i t h accessories.
c onnected

(9),

and a pressure

Unit

indi­

The piston of the cylinder is

to the U nit B by a steel rod w h i c h runs inside

the pipe and r a c k of Unit C,
the pipe and can be

The cyl i n d e r rests o n top at

lifted by the gear s y s t e m In U nit C,

Unit B consists of two lever arms held together by
a h e a v y spring.

The free ends of the arms are provided

with r u bbe r pads as shown,
parallel to

A calibrated ruler runs

the h e a v y spring and enables

the d e t e r mina­

tion of the pressure, b e t w e e n the rubber pads, exerted by
the crank system.

103

Plate

9.

104

105

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

The amount of vertical pull required to lift sugar

beets out of the ground when the leaves ere engaged b e ­
tween rubber rims

by which the pulling is accomplished;

(2) The variation

Inthe pull required

alongside

of beets is loosened up to depths of

I.e.,

the row

three, six,

side pressures

and nine Inches;

when the soil

(5) The horizontal

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 w h i c h the hydraulic unit was
mounted.
It was not possible to obtain any data during the
1950 season due

to early snow that fell before the con­

struction v.as comple ted 9 and because of the wet condition
of the soil at that ti e •
l,*o information concerning u n Investigation of this
nature was found in the bibliographical review of this
subject.

It Is felt that valuable

information could be

obtained with this instrument; especially in connection
w i t h the economical aspects of the power requirements of
pre 3 ent-day sugar beet harvesting machinery.

106

VI.

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express his appreciation to
the following:
Professor H. P. IlcColly under w h o m this investl-'
gation was commenced, and Dr. Vk. fc. Carleton for his
guidance and help In carrying out the project.
Messrs. G. «7. French, C. M. Hansen, and other
members of the staff for their interest and suggestions.
Mr.

E. Splinter for his assistance during the

field tests.
I.:r. J. E. Cawood and assistants for their coopera­
tion in the Research Laboratory and advice during the
construction of the model.

LITERATURE CITED

Cannon, R. M.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting In the Intermountaln
Area.

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

Farm Implement and Machinery Review.
1926

Vol. VII.

Grattonfs Sugar Beet Topper.

June.

Pg. 190.
Vol. 66.
1940

The Complete Harvester In Sight.

Nov.

Pg. 610.
Vol. 72.
1946

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

Sept.

Pg. 433.
_____
1947

Vol. 73.
Can Sugar Beet Harvesters be Fully Mecha­
nized.

Oct.

Pg. 581.

McBirney, S. W.
1947

Sugar Beet Harvester Development in 1947.
Annual Report Sugar Beet Mach. Inv.
U. S. Department of Agriculture.

17 pages.

Myriek, Herbert.
1907

The American Sugar Industry.
Company, Springfield, Mass.

Orang Judd
Pg. 100.

109

8.

Powers,
1940

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

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

Pg. 266.
9.

Smith, Dudley
1948

Sugar Beet Mechanization and Implements
for Puerto Rico.

Association or Sugar

Producers or Puerto Rico.
10.

Smith, P. B.
1948

Report oT 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 or Sixteen Years or Research in
Sugar Beet Mech.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 29.

Pg. 425.
12.

Y.are, L. S.
1880

Ihe Sugar Beet.
Philadelphia.

13.

H. C. Baird Tc Company,
323 pga.

Wilding, R.
1926

Farm I m p . & Mach. Rev.
Pg. 625.

Vol. L I I .

October.

109

REFERENCES

1.

Agricultural E n g i n e e r i n g . Vol.
1932

2.

13. Pg. 120.

Sugar Beet Machinery Development.

Armer, Austin A.
1942

Cost of Harvesting Beets w i t h a Manual
Sorting Lifter Machine.

American Society

of Sugar Beet Technologlats Proceedings.
Pg. 260.
3.
1946

Some Aspects of Commercial Scale Sugar
Beet Harvesting.
Tech. P r o c .

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet

Pg. 495.

4.
1948

The 1947 Mechanical Harvesting of Sugar
Beets.

Agrlcultural Engineering. Vol. 29,

Pg. 482.
5.

Bainer, Roy.
1940

Sugar Beet Harvester Tests, 1938-1939.
Am. S o c . of Sug. Beet Tech. P r o c .,
Pg. 274.

6.

Blackwelder, £• F.
1948

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

Agrlcultural Engineering. Vol.

B u a chl e n
1943

M. J.
Results of Y«ork w i t h Sugar Beet Harvesters
In the West,

Am. S o c . of Sugar Beet Tech.

Pg. 76.
Cannon,
1948

. M.
Sugar Beet Harvesting in the Intermountain
Area.

Agricultural Engineering. Vol. 29,

Pg. 482.
Chaney,
1943

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

Am. S o c . Sug.

Tech.

P r o c . , Pg. 79.

French,
1947

r., and Hansen, C. M.
Investigations of Sugar B e e t Production
Mechanization.

Annual Report Sugar Beet

Machinery Investigatlons, U. S. Department
of Agriculture.

French,
1948

15 pgs.

r•

Experimental Sugar Eeet Harvesters
1948.

in

Annual Report Sugar Beet Machinery

Investlgatlons, U. S. Department of
Agriculture.

1949

4 pgs.

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

Investlga-

Ill

t l o n e t U. S. Department of A g r i c ulture•
14 pge.

13.

Far m Implement and Machinery Review, Vol. VII.
1926

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

14.

_____
1926

_____
1926

Pg. 190.

Vol. LII.
The Greyhound Sugar Beet Harvester.
Sept.

15.

June.

Gratton's Sugar

F g • 513.

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

Oct.

Pg. 625.

Vol. LII.

16.
1926

Demonstration of Sugar Beet Topping and
Lifting Equipment at Sohom.

17.

______
1928

______
1929

L 1Avenir Kotor Driven Sugar Beet Topper and

•
1930

Pg. 1196.

Cook's Sugar Eeet Topper and Lifter.
Pg. 690.

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

20.

March.

Vol. LV

Nov.
19.

Pg. 714.

Vol. VIII.

Lifter.
18.

Nov.

Vol. LVII

Oct.

112

1931

A New Sugar Beet Topping and Lifting
Machine.

21.

Pg. 76.

Vol. LX.
1934

A Test of the Desbonnet Sugar Beet Har­
vester.

22

May.

.

Nov.

Pg.

590.

Vol. LXI.
1935

A Test of the Midland Lifter.

Nov.

Pg. 616.
Vol. LXII.

23.
1936

Two Danish Sugar Beet Harvesters.

Oct.

P g . 560.
24.

Vol. LXIII.
1938

Sugar Eeet Harvesters.

Feb.

Pg. 970.

Vol. LXIII.

25.
1938

A Sugar B e e t Harvester with Hovel Features.
Feb.

Pg. 975.

Vol. LXIV.

26.
1938

The Catchpole Sugar Beet Harvester.

July.

Pg. 285.
Vol. LXIV.

27.
1939

Demonstrating the Catchpole Sugar Beet Har­
vester.

Jan.

Pg. 905.

Vol. LXV.

28.
1939

Sugar Beet Harvesting Machinery Tests.
P g • 535•

Sept.

113

29.

Vol. LXV.
1940

Now Construetlvo Details of the Catchpole.
Sugar Beet Harvester.

30.

April.

Pg. 1143.

Vol. LXV.
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
vester.

Pg. 313.

Vol. LXX.

35.
1944

Martin*s New Tractor Sugar Beet Lifter.
Aug.

37.

Aug.

Pg. 302.

Vol. LXX.

114

1944

Institute Activities.
Nov.

38.

Per. 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 ,vay Plowing and Root
Collection.

Sept.

Pg. 440.

Vol. LXXII.

40.
1946

Record Demonstration of Sugar Beet Har­
vesters.

Nov.

Pg. 635.

Vol. LXXIII.

41.
1947

Can Sugar Beet Harvesting be Fully
Mechanized.

Oct.

Pg.

581.

Vol. LXXIII.

42.
1947

The Newest Developments
Harvesting Machinery.

in Sugar Beet
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 .

April.

Pg. 1181.

Vol. LXXIV.

45.
1948

Two 1948 Model Sugar Beet Harvesters.

115

May.

Pg. 51.

Vol. LXXIV.

46.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvesting Machinery Progress.
Oct.

Pg* 593.

Vol. LXXIV.

47.
1948

How Mechanized Sugar Beet Harvesting Can
Be Assisted.

Oct.

Pg. 594.

Vol. LXXIV.

43.
1948

Sugar Beet Demonstration Entries.

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 Lifting.
Nov.

Pg. 911.

Vol. LXXV.

52.
1949

Sugar Beet Harvesting is Now Fully M e c h a­
nized.
Vol.

55.
1950

Deo.

Pg.

1041.

LXXV.

The Peter Stanton Sugar Beet Top Collector.
Feb.

54.

Nov.

Pg. 1367.

Vol. LXXVI.

116

1950

Over One-Tenth of Sugar Beet Harvesting
is Now Mechanized.

55.

Pg. 770.

Vol. LXXVI.
1950

A Convincing Stanton Sugar Beet Harvester
Test.

56.

Nov.

Pg. 1078.

Vol. LXXVI.
1950

Machines Can Now Take Charge of the Sugar
Beet Harvest.

57.

Sept.

____
1943

Galland,

Nov.

Pg. 1107.

J. Vi.

Sugar Beet Loaders Used in Indiana.
Am. S o c . Sug. Beet Tech. Proc.

53.

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

Michigan State College Sugar Beet Har­
vester Studies.
Proc.

59.

Pg. 85.

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet Tech.

P g . 88.

Hippie, J. L.
1948

The International Sugar Beet Harvester.
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 29, Pg. 480.

60.

Holkesvig, 0. A.
1940

Experiments v.ith Non-Thinning of Sugar
Beets,

also Harvesting and Loading of the

Beet Crop in Iowa, Southern and North­
western Minnesota, and Eastern Dakota.
Am. S o c . Sug. Beets Tech. Proc.
61.

Howard, G. V.’.

Pg. 259.

117

1946

Results of Survey of Sugar Beet Harvester
Performance.
Proo.

Am. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech.

Pg. 507.

62.
1947

Future Requirements of Sugar Beet Har­
vesters.

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet Tech. Proc♦

Pg. 82.
63.

McBirney, S. «Y.
1947

Sugar Beet Harvester Development in 1947.
Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach. Inv.
Department of Agriculture.

U.S.

17 pgs.

64.
1948

Sugar Beet Harvester Development in 1948.
Annual Report Sug. Beet Mach. Inv.
Department of Agriculture.

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 for Beet Production.
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 12, Pg. 49.

57

.

and McBirney, S. W.
1936

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

118

68

.

Michigan State College Ag. 2xp. Station Quarterly
Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 1, Aug.
1945

Pg. 52.

Sugar Beet Harvester Trials in Michigan
1943 and 1944.

69.
1946

Sugar Beet Harvester Trials in Michigan in
1945.

70.

No. 215.
1949

71.

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

Reducing Sugar Beet Costs.

Myrlck, Herber.
1907

The American Sugar Indus try.
Company, Springfield, Mass.

72.

The Seott-Urschel Beet Combine.
Sug. Beet Tech. P roc.

Am. S o c .

Pg. 77.

Nicholy, ’
.Y. E.
1941

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

74.

Pg. 100.

Nicholy, R. V/.
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 Eeet
Topper.
Pg. 266.

Am. S o c ♦ Sug. Beet Tech. P roc.

119

75.
1942

A Mechanical Topper.
Tech.

Proc.

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet

Pg. 252.

76.
1946

Progress In Harvesting Development at the
University of California.
Beet Tech. P r o c .

Pg.

Am. S o c . Sug.

502.

77.
1948

The Development of a New Sugar Beet Har­
vester.

Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 29,

Pg. 347.
78.

Rasmussen, C. T. and Bozeman,
1941

V. P.

Recent Developments in Beet Harvesting.
Am. S o c . Sug. Peet Tech. P r o c .

79.

Rasmussen, C. T.
1943

The John Deere Harvester.
Beet Tech. P r o c .

80.

Pg. 67.

Reeve,
1948

Am. S o c . Sug.

Pg. 83.

P. A.
Sugar Eeet Harvesting in the Eastern Area.
Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 29, Pg. 484.

81

.
1949

Summary of 1949 Mechanical Harvesting R e ­
sults.

Am. S o c . S u g . Beet Tech. P r o c .

Pg. 54.
82.

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

120

1942

Effect of Production Costs on Returns
front Sugar Beets.

Ag. Eng. Vol. 23,

Pg. 380.
03.

Sauve, E. C.
1943

performance and Features of a Practical
Field Loader.
Proc.

34.

Art. Soc. Sug. Beet Tech.

Pg. 84.

Smith, Dudley
1948

Sugar Beet Mechanization and Implications
for Puerto Rico.

Association of Sugar

Producers of Puerto Rico.
85.

Smith, P. B.
1948

Report of Survey of Northern European
Beet Producing Areas.

The Eeet Sugar

Development Foundation.
Colorado.
06.

Fort Collins,

Pg. 23.

Sugar Eeet Machinery Investigations
1944 and 1945

Annual Report of the Sugar Beet

Production and Harvesting Machinery In­
vestigations in Michigan.

1943-44.

Annual F.eport U. S. D. A.

37 pgs.

07.
1944 and 1945

Sugar Beet Harvesting Investi­

gations in California and Colorado.
1944.

Annual Report.

U. S. D. A.

20 pgs.

121

68.
1944 and 1945

Annual Report of Investigations or

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

Annual Report

49 pgs.

69.
1944 and 1945

Sugar Beet Harvesting Investigations

in California and Colorado,
Report U. S. D. A.

1945.

Annual

30 pgs.

90.
1946

Sugar Beet Harvesting Investigations in
1946.

91.

Annual Report.

Turner, A. \Y. and Johnson, E.
1946

U. S. D. A.

29 pgs.

J.

Machines for the Farm Range and Planta­
tion.

New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Pg. 399.
92.

Urschel, V/. E.
1946

A Sugar Beet Combine.

Ag. ring. Vol. 27,

Pg. 551.
93.

Walker, H. B.
1938

Looking Forward to Eetter Sugar Eeet
Production Machinery.
Tech. P r o c .

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet

Pg. 6.

94.
1942

Trends in Sugar Beet Field Machinery
Development.

Am. S o c . Sug. Beet Tech.

122

Proc.

1948

Pg. 242.

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

Ag. Eng. Vol.

29, Pg. 425.
Y.'alz, C
1946

W.
The Mechanization of Sugar Beet Harvesting.
Ag. Eng. Vol 27, Pg. 549.

Ware, L
1880

S.
The Sugar Beet.
Philadelphia.

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