Using the power take-off in economic mode
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| Rémy Ballot | INRA | remy.ballot(at)grignon.inra.fr | Grignon (78) |
Fight against spam: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
For work requiring little power (fertilizer spreading, spraying, rotary harrow…), use the power take-off in economic mode (540 eco or 1000 eco).
Example of implementation:
When reworking ploughing with a 3-meter rotary harrow attached to a 120 HP tractor, using the 540 eco power take-off allows a saving of 2.3 liters per hectare compared to the 540 power take-off.
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Plot
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Easily generalizable
All soil types: Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
Regulation
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
acidification: DECREASE
GHG emissions: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Decreasing
fossil energy consumption: DECREASE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phytosanitary ...): no effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phytosanitary ...): Decrease
Using the power take-off in economic mode reduces fuel consumption and related sulfur dioxide emissions.
Fossil energy consumption: Decrease
Using the power take-off in economic mode reduces fuel consumption.
GHG emissions: Decrease
Using the power take-off in economic mode reduces fuel consumption and related carbon dioxide emissions.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: No effect (neutral)
Soil fertility: No effect (neutral)
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional Biodiversity: No effect (neutral)
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: No effect (neutral)
Mechanization costs: Decreasing
Using the power take-off in economic mode reduces fuel/lubricant costs.
Margin: Increasing
Using the power take-off in economic mode improves profitability by reducing fuel/lubricant costs.
"Social" criteria
Working time: No effect (neutral)
Observation time: No effect (neutral)
4. Organisms favored or disadvantaged
Favored Pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored Auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged auxiliaries
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. For further information
- Fuel savings
- -Guillot C. (FRCUMA Rhônes-Alpes)
Technical brochure, 2009
- Save fuel!
- -Savary C. (CA 50)
Technical brochure
- Control your energy consumption - Your range of fuel solutions
- -CRA Picardie
Technical brochure
6. Keywords
Method of pest control:
Mode of action:
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:
