.J ‘ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to rem ‘ TO AVOID FINES W\\\M\\\M\\T|\\\\\fl\m\\ 3 1293 01 70 3399 L |C IG N TAT NIVER I LB A IES WWWmm ave this checkout from your record. m on or before date due. if i DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUEJ 7*: NM u H A COKPARISON OF PROCEDT?ES USED IN HARVESTIfiG ALFALPA AED ALSIKE CLOVER SEED by CARL J. EAN§ON A BESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Micnigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of tne requirements for tne degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Crepe 1949 warns A CC‘I-‘I’EJLISON OF PROCEDURES USED IH'HABVESTIEG ALFALFA AND ALSIKE CLOVER SEED ACRKOULEDFEXEI The writer wishes to acknowledge his inéebtedncss to Dr. C.M. Harrison for his guidance and aid in raking this stu y. Gratitude is also expresses to Mr. CaSper Blumer and to Mr. A.J. Sober for their willing c00peration and helpful advice and criticism. TAiLE OF CO? ‘NTS e F GE Intl‘Oé-uction .OOOOOOOOOICOOCCCOOUDOOOCOO...0.00.... l H Review of Literature ........ 0] Method of Procedure ............................... Experimental Results .............................. 5 Discussion......................................... 15 Summary............................................ 22 Conclusions........................................ 25 Literatwjre Cited- OOOOOIOIOOOOIOOOOOO0.0000000000000 26 IUTRODUCTION The actual harvest of small legumes is accomplisned bv several differ- -b t ent methods, or a combination of methons. It has been apparent tnat con- siderable seed is lost in tne harvesting process but tne degree of loss associated with different methods has been mostly conjecture. Experiments carried on in.Europe indicate tn1t freeucn tly the losses during harvesting and threshing amount to a considerable portion of the total possible yield. Lack of similar information for hicnigan and tne surrounding area prompted the present investigation. REVILVH “ EVICYS LIZERATZrE Renorov (7) found that losses in red clover seed harvestinr and C) ricking frequently ran as high as 74.65 of tne biolOgically possible '- yield. he found the stage of maturity to be very important. The greater the percentage of brown needs tne more shattering during harveSt. Seroaceva (Cd ) in a si11i le.r experiment found tnat when 50% of tne heads of red clover were brown that seed germinated normally and 108 s tnrougn snotoerin was small. Increasing tne percentage of brown heads did not increase the germination, or reduce tne numuer of stunted seeds. However increased browning did increase tne snattering When 50 to 60 g of the heads were brown tne she ttering; loss during harvesting was 8%. Vhen 80% of tne heads rm” .. -' . - were brown, s}1atteri ng loss was lap. when 1003 of tne heads were brown, shattering loss was over 4Qo. Dryda (2) found that the time of d: 3 when the field was cut influenced- the amount of shattering. The shattering was least early in the morning, hm her in the evening and grea1test at noon. Delay in he rvest increased the loss which frequently ran as high as 75fo of th e potential yield. The more the crop was handled after it was cut, the higher tlie loss of seed. 1nese workers found loss of seed during loading and carting greatly increased when dried in ricks instead of sheaves. The possible losses mentioned so far occur in harvesting and handling the cut material. Gr: ndin (3) conducted sevei al experiments checking tlie seed lost during threshing. Under carefully controlled con tions he cut the loss down to 3p; however he concludes that under ordinary farm practices 10% or more of the seed is lost in threshing. In one inst: nce at Michisan q State College (5) a field of ladino clover was threshed twice. The second threshing recovered about half'as much seed as the first threshing. With the develOpment and wideSpread distribution of the small combine many farmers began using it to harvest small seeded legwnes. This gave rise alfalfa seed iJe to new proolens in h1rvesting. Cook (1) discovered n checkin 3ields from different fertilizer treatments, that he could get a greater difference in yield by turning tee combine into the wind and beer to the wind than he could get by any change in cul ural treatment. In work ca1rried on by Pederson (4) he could in direct conning of alfalfa from the stand that he could increase seed recovery from 53% to 79% by harvesting only in one (irection. That is witn the wind blowing into the back of tne combine q instead of harvestin s around the field as is the us1al practice. (J S eldon and Dexter (9) while condu.cting an eiperiment on h1rvesting ‘ ladino clover seed with a vacuum harvester came up with some rather interest- Q u...( ,- ing results. When combining from the swath, a recommended method in some 1 areas, the yield was sixty pounds per acre. This is considered a fair yield (6). When a portion of the same field was picked up with the vaccuum harvester the yield was one hundred and sixty pounds per acre. I-ETIZOD OF PRO CED'J’PE The present experiment was started in the summer of 1947, and the trials were duplicated as nearly as possible in 1948. All fields Checked are located in Alcona County, Micnivsn. The amount of seed actually present on the field was determined by the quadrat system of sampling and converted into pounds of seed per field. Hereafter, the yield determined by this method will be referred to as the "actual yield." Samples one yard square were taken at random over the field at the rate of six per acre on one acre plots, four per acre on five acre plots, and tnree per acre on plOts of ten acres or more. It would have been desirable to take a greater number of samples per acre, eSpecially in fields where the stand was irregular, but because of the snort harvest season, and wisning to cneck as many fields as possible, this rate was chosen as the most praCtical. The samples were collected by hand and immediately placed n individual cloth bags. Samples were taken just prior to the time the farmer planned to harvest. This practice was followed so as to reduce the differences between sampling and harvesting which might be expeCted by further ripening, wind shattering. etc. In a few cases unfavorable weather, or machinery break down, intervened so there was a considerable lapse of time between the date of sampling and actual harveSt date. The samples were stored in a dry place free from rats and mice. The actual acreage of each field harvested was measured in order to establish the exact yield per acre. After all the samples were collected tne material was brought to East Lansing and carefully tnreshed and cleaned to determine tne actual yield from the field. Each sample was put through tne tnresning machine four times and the remaining chaff was rubbed out by hand to get any seeds still remaining. Great care was taLen that no seed was lost in the sweep- ings, screenings, or ouner Steps in handling. The total weignt of clean seed from tnese samples was converted to sounds per acre and compared to the amount of clean seed tne frrmer'aCtuLily recovered. The amcunt of seed left after being cleaned at an elevator was taken as the harvested yield from tne field. The time and method of narVQSt for eacn field was decided by the in- dividual farmer. E0 attempt was made to influence any farmer to harvest in any particular wfy, inasmucn as the purpose of tnis experiment was to de- termine tne percentage of seed recovered by farmers wnen present day harvest procedures were followed. The mocnine used to thresh out the samples was designed similar to a comoine oglinder and concave. The tnreshing was accomplisned by raSp bars attacned to a cylinder, and concave raSp bars attached to a stationary con- cave. The chaff and dirt was removed by running tne tnresned material tnrougn a Clipper fanning mill. A few extra amples had seen collected to be used in adjusting tne macnine. After tne macnine was set tne remaining samples were tnresned several times to see how much seed was tnreshed out each time through the macnine, see tables 7 and 8. Data: Fields of alfalfa and alsike clover were the only small seeded legumes found in sufficient numbers in the area to get several representatives of each of the various methods of harvest commonly used. HARVEST MJTHODS USED 1. Combined from Stand 2. Combined from windrow 3. Combined from swath 4. Cured in windrow, picked up with hayloader and stored in barn until threshed. 5. Cured in cocks, threshed or stored in barn when dry. 0. Cut with binder, cured in long shocks, thresned when dry. In 1947 the alsike harvest was started on July 28 and completed on August 14. It rained on two occasions during this period, .02 inches on August 2 and .03 inches on August 5, see figure 1. The rest of the time the weather was clear and conditions ideal for harvesting seed. Any differ- ence between actual recovered yield at harvest and potential yield calculated from samples was attributed to losses durinj harvesting, threshing and clean- ing. See table 1. -he 1948 alsike narvest was started on July 20 and completed on August 0 16. It rained on twelve occasions during this period, see figure 2. Table 2 shows a ma ked decrease in the percentage of seed recovered in 1948 as compared to 1947. This decrease was probably due to the unfavoranle weather conditions encountered in 1948. The 1947 alfalfa harvest was started on August 28 and completed on September 30. See Table 3. The 1948 harvest was started on August 19 end FIGUR : i I.5 L4. i.3 . i£. H> S bgbo Roinfullininchos in l i n 1 l I V'V‘V‘ vvvvyVVfVTvyvvv'rfT'I' ' IVY VIVYVV I'V'VUUV I V'UV" I‘ 25 i is 1| is July A09- Sept. Ddily precipitation i94 7 FIGURE 2 LS . L4. Ll _ in? in inchos. u. b g, m 30 v V V V ‘- .Roiploll A Iv VJ vvvvvvv vv 3L .2? .l . n! l: l i July A“. I It A i'5 Daily pncipilOlion Vt! IVVVVVV'IVI'IFVV'VV'T" i 80pm l948 ""'I V -5- 1 Table 1 - A comparison between seed produced and that actually harvested by various harvesting methods from alsike seed fields in 1947. Field Yield in lbs. Percentage Ho. 4Acres Dates from field Harvested Actually Sampled Harvested Threshed Actual Harvested (e) 1 5.28 7/28 7/28 8/1 879 490 55.78 (b) 2 4.42 7/29 7/29 8/1 1180 824 53.78 (e) 3 10.53 7/30 8/1 8/14 1157 284 24.37 (b) 4 7.05 7/31 8/1 8/5 925 240 25.94 (b) 5 8.01 8/1 8/1 8/8 1701 1188 89.85 (1‘)) 8 8.52 8/1 8/1 8/9 2180 1277 58.57 (b 7 8.10 8/4 8/4 8/7 27 201 38.13 (b) 8 11.50 8/5 8/5 8/11 2589 879 88.23 * The letters in parenthesis refer to methods of narvest which are listed following table 4 on pg. 10. Table 2 - A comparison between seed produced and that actually harvested by various harveSting methods from alsike seed fields in 1348. Field Yield in lbs. Percentage To. Acres Dates from field Harvested Actually H ’3) 10 11 13 * The letters in parenthesis refer to UGDhOLS of harvest which are listed following table 4 on page 10. * Sampled Harvested Threshed 7/20 7/20 7/20 7/23 7/23 7/23 7/24 7/28 7/24 7/27 7/28 7/28 7/29 7/20 7/20 I 7/22 Actual Harvested 1517 782 127 280 548 4 -. Ave. 48.06 61.11 41.16 66.85 19.92 41.56 84.65 42.14 41.11 fable 3 - A comparison between seed produced and thrt actually q harvested by various harvesting methane from alfalfa seed fields in 1847.. Field Yield in lbs. Percenttg I0. Acres Dates from field Harvested * Actually Sampled Harvested T reshed Actual Harvested 1 5.85 8/?7 8/28 9/5(£) 1989 898 54.98 7 7.90 8 “8 8/28 9’lC(f 2557 944 35.99 3 4.21 8/30 8/50 9/17(e) 583 349 25.80 .I‘. (D o C.) H C) \ ()1 0 £0 \ H KO \ 01 A p. v f 1 01 O ) UT 1530 42.90 01 o 2 15 9/1 9/14 9/14(a) 808 207 24.43 8 5.98 9/2 9/15 9/15(a) 1332 407 30.55 7 8.84 9/18 9/17 9/17(:) 1489 802 48.48 8 3.51 9 2 9/9 9/151b 1202 940 77.84 KL) 10.40 9/3 9/3 9/1715 2958 825 27.89 10 2.39 9/4 9/4 9/17(c) 1033 489 42.48 11 7.21 9.4 9/5 9/15 b 2148 521 47.39 9/8 9/30(e) 1099 540 49.19 [.1 (J ‘ 3 O (O C) (O \ \ 01 H 03 IO 0 }.1 O) (O i'-' CD to \ }_l \1 9/17(p) 437 '13 U1 DJ 57.61 Ave. 41.86 * The letters in parenthesis refer to methods of harvest which are listed following taule 4 on page 10. Table 4 - A comparison between seed produced end tget ec harvested by various harvesting method? from alfalfa seed fields in 1948. Field field in lbs. Percentage 10. Acres Dates fro'1 field Earvested * Actlally Semnled Eervested Threshed Actual Harvested 1 5.00 8/17 8/19 8/21(b) 725 121 18.87 2 4.21 8/25 8/50 9/3 Kb) 1187 217 18.50 5 14.03 8/24 9/8-15 8/8—15) 5781 1158 50.09 4 1.85 9/25 8/25 9/6(f) 729 500 41.21 5 7.07 8/25 8/28 9/ll(f) 592 158 59.05 8 5.44 8/25 8/28 9/ll(f) 1585 528 38.12 7 5.50 8/30 8/51 9/11(£) 1159 450 58.82 8 1.85 8/50 8/50 12/9(g) 412 194 47.09 9 7.51 3/31 8/31 9/4zb 1878 888 47.24 10 9.50 8/51 8/31 9/18(e) 1495 585 39.18 11 2.93 9/8 9/9 9/14(c) 510 143 48.28 12 5.:4 9/8 9/9 9/14(c) 04 101 49.51 15 8.01 9/10 9/10 9/10(p) 1209 512 42.54 14 9.44 9/10 9/13 9/15(e) 1132 750 22.09 15 5.42 9/14 9/14 9 14(5) 402 101 25.07 18 8.18 9/13 9/13 9/20(8) 585 144 57.58 17 5.88 9/14 9/14 9/19 b 407 229 58.15 Ave. 37.34 * The letters in parenthesis refer to the metdoe of harvest listed on tee following page. 8.. ~10— Conbined from stand. Combined from windrow. Combined from swath Cured in wincrow, gicked up vith heyloe thresned. Cured in cocks, Out with binder, cured in shocks, Cut wit: binder, tireshed, or stored in der and stored in barn until q earn when dry. threshed when dry. stored immediately in brrn. Table 5 - A comparison of tne average ejficien y of the various methods used in harvesting alsike clover seed. Harvest method used Percentage Harvested 1947 1948 Ave. for both years Combined from windrow 45.42 30.88 37.11 Cured in cocks 40.06 57.47 57 V (1. Average 44.08 41.11 L? 24 .0 I.' Table 6 - A comparison 01 b 5 ic metnods used in harvesting alfalfa sred. .- 9 A " .u I: - 1 , j J- (\ ’w . o'- harvest method used Percentape harvested Comoine. direct from stznd 39.77 29.89 34.88 (Ts Q 0 r O h?) Cr] :b O (,1 U.) 'F) H o I“?- ()1 Combined from uinerow J‘— CO “’3 (D 15 \1 C0 LO lb 0) O O (1 Combined from swath Cured in wiiaror, yicked up vitn haylorcer as: stored ' n .. «49' ~ ~ ‘ '1 75" in be r11 1111 811 tnré s iecz. 4:53.51) —- -- C4 LO 0 H CD ('21 ,5 O O“; 01 Cured in cocks 31.08 Cut V13; binder, cured in 1013 shocks 43.39 38.95 39.49 ut with oinder, immediately hut in barn _--_ é7OQ§ __ It» H O (J C) C] .Q ('1 15 f'3 ' ) ") (O Averaje Table 7 ~ Pcrcentoee of "t: of alsike clover. seed r’f' H 0 (0 I) H. I recoverei from successive T \ 'I .r ax ,. ."T 11-1 e 81.1..-~ ..0 . .J Pereentrfie of seed TCCSVGIQL -14— Table 8 - Percentage of seed recovere: from successive thresWings of alfalfa. Thresginé Percent of seed recovered 1 65.79 2 2:0. 69 Z ..?9 4 5.59 5 1.45 \I 0 C51 (.71 10 .19 Rubbed out of chaff .11 100.00 :1- completed on September 30. See Table 4. I rained frequently during the alfalfa seed harvest season during 1947 and 1948, see figures 1 and 2. DISCUSSION A study of the tables 1-4 shows that the losses inherent in the various harvesting methods ranges from 28% to 84fi, with an average loss of 60%. These losses are considerable and any possible means of reducing them should be inveStigate , and used if practical. The 1947 alsike harvest was carried out under almost ideal conditions. The weather remained clear and dry through out the harvest period, except for the two light rains mentioned previously. Under these conditions any difference between harvested yield and actual yield should be due to losses during the processes of harvesting, threshing and cleaning. Two methods of harvest were practiced by the farmers when harvesting alsike clover seed. The method most frequently used was to mow the crop witn a windrowing attachment on the mower. The material was cured in the windrow for several dais; or until dry. When the material was dry, and the weather clear, the seed vas combined directly from the windrow. One of the greatest hazards frequently encountered in this method is unfavorable weather. when the weather is cloudy, or partly cloudy, the material may never get dry enough to thresh out well. Freouently a farmer will combine his field uring such weather. His reason being that he has time to do it now and -ay not later; or he is afraid the weather in the near future may be worse. Combining under such conditions results in very poor seed re- covery. However, the material tnat is too tough to combine may_be dry enough to be stacked or placed in a barn to continue drying until fit to »‘ - ’1 — n- The second harvest :neth a used was to new with n windrowinq attachment and immediately put up in cocks. The magerial is cured in these cocks and thrashed, or put in barns when dry. TLese cocks will stand light showers without much less of seed due to shatterin: and discolorins The most im— portant point in tnis procedure is to put up th e coc PCS immediately after cutting. If one man is working alone he sh é uld mow one or two rounds at a time and stop to cock this much up. Even a one or two hour delay between cutting and cocaing on a good drying day will result in considerable loss due to Shattering when the cocks are being made. Two frrmers cocked the seed crop during 1947, one putting up the c chs immediately on cutting, the other waiting until the next day to finish cocking. Only 24.875 of the pot ttlal yield was recovered when the entire field was mowed one afternoon a c Q ‘ ' r- 1, u and put up in cocrs the next dry, wdereas 35.763 was recovered where two men followed immediately after the mower putting us the cocks, table 1. When th man operating the mower got more than t IO win rows ahead he stopped mow ng and helped the ether two eaten up. =3 the ideal weatier of the 1947 harvest season the recovery when 0 n5 from the windrow was higher than when cured in cocks. However, 0 0 L3 (3" *Jo {3 Ho his is not significant. lne r nge within each method was far greater than any difference between methods. In 1948 the same two methods of harvest were employed. It rained on twelve occasions during the harvest season. Under these con ditioz- s combin- ing from t :e win row resulted in a ma med decrease in seed recovery This was undoubtedly due to the fact that tne material in the windrows never got ‘ H - 0 . a o o o o r" I! tnrougnly dry. whe difference for this year was quite lynificm it; (0.88p (,0 recovery when cured in the windr w and 57. 47: when cured in cocks; see -17... -table 2. The average for both years slightly favors curing in cocks, 53.50 to 3F.47§ recovery, however the variability is so great for the nui er of samples taken that these results can not be considered as conclusive evidence. One field sampled in 1948, table 2 number 5, was lirst checked on Julv 71. It rained heavily during the afternoon so tne field was resempled on July 23. The second set of samples were taken adjacent t the Spots the first samples were collected from. The seconl sampling contained 48.793 less seed than the samples collected before the rain. F1"o's is a very good illustration of the amount of shatterinn r.) caused by a rrin storm when al- sike clover is ripe. the farmer recovered 70% of the remaining seed. Alsike shatters badly when dead ripe and for this reason it should be cut before all of tne heads become brown. Field Ho. 10, table F, was left until it became dead ripe, shattering resulted and only 19.9% of the seed was recovered. The alfalfa seed harvest season, in Alcona County, comes in lat August and September. The fall rains start during this period, figure 1, so the curing of alfalfa seed presents more hazards tran are encountered 1,. in harvestina alsike seed. It may be impossible to get the material throughly dry in the field. A.portion of the alfalfa seed requires no 3.3.: after ripening period so if the weather is warm an humid considerable Sprouting may occur in the windrow or cook. Also the fall rains may cause new growth from the crowns which complicates the curing process and tal:i ng more time. {L The methods of harvesting alfalfa see are more diversified than for alsike clover. hethods commonly used were; combining from the Stand, com- bining from the windrow, combining from the swath, curing in cocks, and harvesting with a binder, curing in shocks and threshing. Here again no one method is definitely superior to the others. The variation between fields within a method is greater than between methods. Cur1n5 in cocks st nds at the bottom of the list with an average re- covery of 54.65. This is probably due to the feet tnat the Ma'eriel is handled more after it is cut tlsn in any other method. Combining from the stand follows next with 34.83% recovery. If the field ripens evenly. and the weather is clear on th e day of harvest, combining from the st: nd can be expected to recover about 50; of the potential yield. Unfortunately this is tne exception ra tne r than the rule. Generally alfalfa ripens un- evenly alld q ite frequently the second growth gets so high that this green materie 1 goes tnru tr re combine causing the mixture to be quite tough. At best gen its a few of the pods are too tou5 h to tn resh, even though they con- tain mature seed. Extra care must be taken in storing the seed when it has been harvested direct from the stand. he moisture content is frequently high enough to result in heating and molding 1n the ba5 or bin. Many farmers favor harvesting with a binder and curing in long shocks, contending tn at in case of rain the pods do not get as wet or take as long to dry out when tne weather clears. This is because the air can pass through the top of the sneaves and dry out the pods quickly, cutting down on loss due to sprouting. In a windrow a large portion of the pods are inside tie roll and will remain damp consideraolv longer tn an the outside and top of the windrow. Tnis is particularly true if the ground is quite .L -19.. moist. The same is true for material in cocks, however a well made cock , will stand a shower of short duration without soaking througl. A rain of several days duration will soak into even a well made cock however, and then it is necessa y to tear the cock apart so the air can get through to dry it out. Combining from the windrow appears to be slightly more efficient than cutting with a binder; 41.40% for the combine compared to 89.49% for the binder, table 6; in spite of the theoretical advantage of having a better method of drying.‘ Here again it is probably due to more handling. The sheaves are dry when taken from the field, and it has been observed that the seed shattered badly in handling the bundles. A tight bottom rack on the wagon and careful handling of the bundles will save a lot of seed that otherwise sifts down throush the load and on to the ground. Combining from tne swath rather than from the windrow has some ad- vantage. When cured in the swath the bushy nature of the alfalfa stems will hold the pods up off the ground so the air can pass readily through the entire layer. This has a distinct advantage over a windrow in case of a rain. However, if rainy humid weather should continue for a week or more, then the second growth will push up through tne swath and make it difficult to pick up the swath with a combine. It may be necessary to rake the swaths up into windrows if this occurs. That was the case with one field sampled in 1947; table 3, field number 10. Even so 42.433 of the seed was recovered, which is above average. In 1948, table 6, combining from the swath recovered 47.89; of tne seed as compared to 34.58% recovery when combined from the windrow. When planning to combine from the swath the crop should be cut with a mower whicn cuts a swath of the same width as the combine to be used. A tractor with wide Spaced ront wheels Should be used in mowing so thrt the ,swath is not matted down by the wheel runnine over it. Two othe1 m tbods of rarvest were checked, but only one representative of each method was sampled so these methods were not included in the analy- sis. These two methods were; cured in windrow and picked up with a loader, table 3, 42.905 recovery; and reaped wit; binder ena immediately stored in a barn, table 4, 47.095 recovery. Loss due to rain on a ripe stand is not as severe in alfalfa as 1n (0 clsike clover. On one of tl;e fm1rns checked in 1047; table 8, fiel 5 5, 8, end 7, two of the fields were sampled before the rain and one just prior to c 11-n1n» direct from the strnd. The recovery from the fields which were rained on was 24. 4‘5 and 30. 59 while the fields ampled jdst be fore it ( *0 a ,' ~ 1, n 7 was como1ned returned 46.55. In otner words it appears tnet 55.5; of the seed was lost during the combining operation and 22.15 was lost due to the The results obt ined in tqres ing samples of alsike several times are shown in tecle 7. then threshed on HIV once, aprror instelv 505 of the seed would have been lost, as is the case with a combine; or 185 of the seed lost if tareshed with a clover huller, whicn has a double cylinder. It appee rs that most threshi 1ng eqwipment is no more efficient the n a rain storm in whicr 505 of the seed was loste as a result of t11e storm. However, several scmples were run and the results were tne same in all cases. The $9 ne procedure was followed with several samples of elfd fa. The results were similer, table 8, evcopt tzst the first tircskine recovered 65.’r95 of t1m seed as compered to 505 of the alsike. These results help to explain why less seed is recovered from a field than the farmer expects. Tnese samples were dry and tie nec1ine was adjust- ed to do the best possible job of threshing. 'Under field conditons the moisture content of the material is variable 21d in tn— case of the cousine‘ the wind is variable. With these conditions existing it is understandable 1 I O I Q .(I' why the evernge eff1c1ency 1s erounc 405. SUMXARY During tn summers of 1947 and 1948 various methods of harvesting elsike clover and alfalfa seed were Checked. The fields were SFWplefl bv the quadrat method of s? moling. The actual yield was esta the quadrat samples and compsred with the harvested yield secured by the farmer. The ezficiencv of each method is based on the average percentage of seed recovered in trials for both years. Each method studied nad strong supporters among the farmers. In fact, some farmers would use only one method and in case hie weat 1er, or some other facoor, made their procedure irnpract ical for that season they will lose the entire crop rather than resort to a different practice. In Spite of various personal preferences it is difficult to obtrin act‘.e 1 experimental proof of the superior harvestinge Pb ficiency of any given method. Tie methods of harvesting alfalfa seed, renking from best to least efficient, fell in the following order. 1. Combined from the swath. s. C muined from the windrow. n fin 0. he aped with binder; cured in long shocks. 4. Combined from the stand. 5. Cured in cocks. The variability within the method Checked is so areat that these results can not be considered significant. e average efficiency in harvesting alsike clover seed is 43.243. .- ,(1' The average for harvesting alfalfa seed is 39. 5. In ot11er words, Michigan farmers are losing 60% of heir seed in harvesting small seeded lefvues. / J (0 Losses run as high a 84. 4 in some cases. Gen eral recommer ndat ions for the Larvest methods Chechen. l. Combining direct from stand. If the field is ripening uniformily {“1 all the po or heads ca; oe allowed to get ripe and then combine direct from the stand. This is the Cheapest method; however, seeds in any tough pods or heads will be lost. Birmination of these tough pods, r heads, often revealed that the seed was nature; so good seed was being tdrown away. In St) case of a re.i:1y snell tie second growth may grow tall enoug to interfere with conoine Operations. This causes th.e seed to be very damp and Special care in drying must be observed. 11 the plants are not me. titrin5 evenly, whicn is generally the case, then tie crop must no out and cured before it is dry enon:h to be threshed by eit er a com‘oine or threshing machine. In this case one of the following methods may be used. a. Mowing with i 1drowin5 attecnment a.d combine from the wi indrow when dry. Chis may take two days to a week or more depending on the weather and the amount of green matter present. b. Mowing and curing in the swath, and com ining from the swath when -ry. c. Mowing with windrowing attachment and cocking immediately. Vhen cured, the seed crop may be threshed or stored in the barn. d. Cuttin5 1i 1: a grain, or corn binder, and set up immediately in long shocks. 1.1en cared tne meterirl me" be threshed or stored in a dry place. This method is confined to upright ste nds. In all of the above methods, the ooserv'nce of a few si .ple rules can A mean the difference between recovering most 0: the acturl vield, or loss of G most of the seed. 1. ut crOp while it is tough, in early morning, late eveni humid days. 3. Handle materials as little and as carefully as possible has started curing. 3. Do not try to thresh or combine while material is tough. 4. ChecL adjustment of machine frequently; to be sure that operating at tOp efficiency. 5. If the combine or threshing machine is not on hand when is dry then store it in a stack, barn, or shed. fith 60% of he seed being lost the question is not whether 18 better than another, but ratner one of how can any or all of be improved. Hg. or on after it it is the material one method the metnods ‘3 (I. The various methods and techniques now used by fa mers in harvesting alsike and alfalfa seed fields were studied finder field conditions to determine seed losses occurring during harvest. There is a large loss of alsike and alfalfa seed during harvest by the various methods of seed harvest now in use. These losses ranged from 235 to 84%, with an average loss of 60%. None of the methods of seed harvest resulted in significantly higher recovery of seed from seed fields. The wide range in percent of seed lost indicates a need for further study to determine the causes of these losses. l h" LITERATURE CIICE1 1. Cook, R.L. UnpubliShed data on the production of alfalfa seed in Micni an. East Lansing, Hi higdn, Michigan State College Soils Department, 1947. 2. Dyrda, V.I. Loss in Red clover seed at harvesting and tiresning in tne Kungur district, Sverdlov region. Selek Lemenovod, No. 3, pp 45-47, 1936, Heroage Abstracts Vol. 7, pp 68, 1937. a. Grandin, H. Losses during tnres Lantmannen Svenskt Land. 27 Vol. 14, 1944. ning of small seeded legumes. 982 1948, Herbage Abstracts, 4. Pederson, 0.3. Insecticides Increase Legume Seed. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. V01. 30, No. 5 pp 298-308, Feb. 1948. 5. Pettigrove, H.R. Unpublished data on harvesting Ladino clover seed. East Lansing. Michigan, Micnigan State College Farm Crops Dept., 1946. 6. Production of Herbage and Forage Cree Seed in U.S.A. Herbag Reviews, Vol. 7, pp 151-169, 1939. 7. Remorov, A.I. Mechanization of cultivating clover for seed. Selek. Semenov d, No. 3, pp 23-39, 1936, Herbage Abstracts. Vol. 7, pp 63, 1957. 8. Serbaceva, V.D. Determination of harvest ripeness of seed clover. Heroage Reviews, Vol. 8, pp 101, 1940. 9. Sheldon, U.E., and Dexter, 8.9. Harvesting Ladino clover seed with a vacuum harvester, Micnigan ACr. Exp. Sta. Quar. Dul., Vol. 31, No. 2, pp 215-218, Novemoer, 1948. a“? “o 3 '9‘“ ”8‘52! ROOM USE om "111111111111111111111“