PERFORMANCE OF INNOVATIVE NATIVE SEED HARVESTER

• Sponsoring Institution: National Institute of Food and Agriculture
• Project Status: COMPLETE
• Funding Source: SMALL BUSINESS GRANT
• Reporting Frequency: Annual
• Accession No.: 0200766
• Grant No.: 2004-33610-15076
• Proposal No.: 2004-02635
• Project Start Date: Sep 1, 2004
• Project End Date: Aug 31, 2007
• Grant Year: 2004
• Program Code: [8.13]- (N/A)

Recipient Organization
ARBUCKLE RANCH, INC.
1745 GOLDEN BLVD
BILLINGS,MT 59102

Performing Department
(N/A)

Non Technical Summary
Every year natural and man-caused disturbances (wildfire, construction of highways and facilities, mining, noxious weeds infestation, and overgrazing) damage and destroy millions of hectares of native vegetation. These vast disturbances require restoration and federal entities emphasize the use of native plant materials. Without restorative intervention, land recovery may take decades, leaving ecosystems vulnerable to erosion, invasive plant and insect species, and diseases, and loss of productivity. Long term treatment plans call for reseeding native species, but seeds are unavailable in the required quantities. Restoration is constrained by limited supply and high cost of the seed of many difficult to harvest native grass species. Arbuckle Ranch Inc. proposes to test the commercial feasibility of a machine incorporating Arbuckle's patented technology. Technical feasibility was proven in Phase I by creating machine design features that: 1) improve the percent of seed recovery from desirable yet difficult to harvest native plant species, and 2) harvest seed from species that cannot be satisfactorily harvested by other means.

Animal Health Component

(N/A)

Research Effort Categories

Basic

(N/A)

Applied

(N/A)

Developmental

100%

Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)	Subject of Investigation (SOI)	Field of Science (FOS)	Percent
205	0799	1070	50%
205	2130	1070	15%
205	5240	2020	35%

Knowledge Area
205 - Plant Management Systems;

Subject Of Investigation
5240 - Seeds and other plant propagules; 2130 - Turf; 0799 - Rangelands and grasslands, general;

Field Of Science
2020 - Engineering; 1070 - Ecology;

Keywords

native species

reclamation

restoration

wildfire

grasslands

native plants

weeds

highways

harvesting equipment

seeds

performance testing

equipment design

efficiency

comparative analysis

prototypes

field testing

modeling

weight

statistical analysis

data analysis

optimization

data collection

costs

Goals / Objectives
The goals of the Phase II technical program are to solve the design issues understood in Phase I and to conduct testing of the redesigned harvester. Field trials will be used to obtain new data regarding harvest efficiency and to create comparison tests with commercially available native seed harvesters. Technical objectives for Phase II, with related questions are: 1. Incorporate advances to the design of the pre-production prototype ANS and construct a 3-module field test model a. Are the improvements identified in Phase I incorporated in the design and construction of the pre-production prototype? b. Has premature dislodgement of seeds been effectively resolved?? c. Has simplification of the combing function been achieved without loss of efficiency from the more complex Phase one design? d. Are design features properly represented in drawings for machine shop construction? e. Has the weight of the harvester been reduced to less than 1,000 lb? 2. Implement a full factorial experimental design and efficient field test procedures a. Does the full factorial experimental design result in significant statistical relationships of the identified variables on efficiency of seed recovery? b. Can a suite of suggested operating settings be derived from the statistically significant findings? c. Does the detailed definition of trial plot harvest procedures and staff training lead to achievement of a minimum of 6 plots per hour (10 minute turnaround) in the first set of field trials? d. Do the procedural improvements identified in the first set of field trials lead to a 20% increase in trial plot harvest procedures per hour productivity in the second set? 3. Test and if possible determine the effect of four variables on the ANS harvest efficiency of two morphological categories of native grass seed a. Does statistical analysis of the first set of field trials indicate statistically significant interdependence? b. Does the data indicate significant differences in optimal operating settings between the two species? c. How can significant differences in operating settings between the two species be explained? d. To which variable is seed recovery most sensitive?

Project Methods
Phase II USDA/SBIR resources play an essential role in the intense R & D program. This work plan carries out intensive R&D targeted to make the ANS market-ready in 2006, with operating settings optimized for two categories of native grass species. This will demonstrate adaptability to harvest other species, enhancing commercialization prospects. To accelerate overall product development, year one of the R & D program initiates with an activity funded by Arbuckle Ranch in the interim between Phase I and Phase II activities. The patented cooperating brush and combs technology configured and tested in Phase I was compared to an alternative configuration and a simplified combing process was built and tested. Shop tests will be done on angle of approach and air flow. Observations will be made of the angle of positioning of the machine to optimize seed removal and recovery from the revised configuration. In year one of Phase II SBIR funds will be used to complete one design and field test cycle of the machine: 1) refine the Solidworks CAD design; 2) assemble the redesigned field trial machine; 3) conduct shop tests and other preliminary tests of the machine; 4) carry out field trials and data collection; and 5) analyze and report data. In year two of the R & D program the findings from Year one field trials and analysis of high speed video footage will guide design and assembly of a prototype of the commercial model for Phase III activities. The season will culminate in a comparative harvest test of the commercial prototype ANS with alternative commercial native seed harvesters on the market. With the mature configuration of the seed removal mechanism of cooperating brushes and combs settled in year one, design attention will shift in year two to address the need of a commercial ANS to efficiently handle volumes of seed, minimizing weight of the receptacle, perhaps using a pneumatic system. In year two manufacturing processes will be assessed to establish best practices. On this second iteration, CNC manufacturing working from CAD designs can be normalized. Costs will be identified and managed with more precision, to achieve potential cost savings and quality improvements. Realistic estimates of manufacturing costs are important for business planning.

Progress 09/01/04 to 08/31/07

Outputs
The Phase II goal was achieved to solve design issues understood in Phase I and test the redesigned harvester. Two to three R & D cycles annually in 2004-06 led to rapid evolution of the counter-rotating brush: comb technology. Hundreds of harvest trials tested the effects of brush filament, brush and comb speed, comb shape, and ground speed on diverse difficult-to-harvest native grass seed species. Tests were done to measure inter-relationships of parameters. The Technical Objectives were achieved by addressing the technical questions. a. Incorporate design advances and construct a 3-module wide Arbuckle Native Seedster. i. Combs and brush were inverted placing combs below. Benefits: a) combs positioned stems more positively, b) comb speed and ground speed became independent, and c) the brush treatment span could be calibrated to eliminate premature seed dislodgment. ii. A simple drum with combs attached matched the complex Phase I combing apparatus. b. Implement full factorial experimental design and efficient field test procedures i. The 3 x 3 full factorial design assessed the effect of single factors on seed recovery, as well as interdependence of two subsets of three variables from among brush speed, comb speed, comb shape, and ground speed. ii. Precise Seedster calibration is now easy and seed recovery is very responsive to calibration. iii. The average elapsed time to complete one field plot was reduced to less than 4 minutes. c. Determine the effects of brush rpm, comb rpm, ground speed, and brush comb clearance on percentage of available seed recovered. i. Brush comb clearance, within a wide range, does not have a significant effect. ii. In 2004 comb speed, brush speed, and ground speed were found to be independent variables. In 2005 brush speed, comb speed, and comb shape were found to be independent. This means producers can easily optimize settings, variable by variable. iii. Brush speed most effects seed recovery, followed by comb speed, and comb shape. iv. Changes in ground speed are not statistically significant for seed recovery. Description of Research Carried Out: 1. A 3 x 3 full factorial experimental design for 2004 and 2005 trials, was an efficient tool to achieve technical objectives. The principal finding was there were no significant interrelationships between comb speed, brush speed, ground speed, or comb shape. 2. The 2006 field trials included a side by side comparison of seed recovery efficiency of the Seedster with the Flail-Vac stripper. In one pass the Seedster (with the initial pneumatic conveyance system in place) recovered 48% of potential seed, versus 35 % of potential little bluestem seed collected in two passes by the Flail-Vac. 3. High speed digital video (HSV) sped our understanding of the dynamics of seed dislodgement and seed flight pattern.

Impacts
1. The Seedster revolutionizes the seed harvest of native grass species that are difficult-to-harvest, increasing supply and expanding the species available for reclamation uses. 2. The patented seed dislodgement technology produces the Seedster productivity advantage and will likely produce a competitive response, some incorporating the cooperating brush comb technology. The net result will be more options available to harvest difficult to harvest species. 3. The Seedster advantage is greatest for difficult-to-harvest species with panicle inflorescence. A study done by the Arbuckle team with funding from the Montana Board of Research and Commercialization Technology found that panicle inflorescence species comprise about 80% of native perennial species in the 17 western states. This will help correct the historical imbalance in favor of spike inflorescence species in reclamation and reseeding of grasslands. 4. Other applications: Seedster technology has been tested in preliminary trials on a shatter-prone crop, camelina. It's expected that other significant applications will be found among native forbs and specialty crops. Most of these applications will be discovered by farmers who witness the performance of the Seedster harvesting native grass seed. 5. HSV is a practical technology to accelerate product R & D for rapidly moving equipment in both the shop and field.

Publications

• Carson, Teresa; Inside your Turf, Golf Course Management; March, 2007 (forthcoming)
• Ellig, Tracy; Inventor helps grasslands go native; Montana State University News Service, Bozeman, MT; October 26, 2006
• Innovator Reaps Rewards with Collaborative Support; National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership; 2004
• Nash, Deborah; Innovator Reaps Rewards with SBIR Support, Montana Manufacturing Center, Forward Focus; Winter 2006; p. 3
• Note a better harvester for grass seed; The Kiplinger Agriculture Letter, The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Washington; November 10, 2006; Vol. 77, No. 23; p. 4
• Seedster Vacuums Up Native Grass Seed; Farm Show; Vol. 31, No. 1, 2007