http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/individuo/prodotto/ID282767

Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource (Articolo in rivista)

Type

Label

Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource (Articolo in rivista) (literal)

Anno

Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#doi

Alternative label

Magagnotti N.; Pari L.; Picchi G.; Spinelli R. (2013)
Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource
in Bioresource technology
(literal)

Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#autori

Pagina inizio

Pagina fine

Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#url

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84870894926&partnerID=q2rCbXpz (literal)

Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#numeroVolume

Rivista

Note

Http://www.cnr.it/ontology/cnr/pubblicazioni.owl#affiliazioni

CNR IVALSA, Via Madonna del Piano 10, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy; CRA ING, Via della Pascolare 16, Monterotondo Scalo (Roma), Italy (literal)

Titolo

Abstract

Four commercial harvesters were compared with respect to recovery of pruning residues for energy conversion. These harvesters were tested side-by-side on 17 test fields, totaling 15. ha. The test fields consisted of vineyards and apple and pear orchards. The residue yield was between 0.7 and 9 green tonne per hectare, at a moisture content from 37% to 48%. Yield was highest for the orchards, and lowest for vineyards. Harvesters collected the residues and moved them to the roadside at a cost of between 11 and 60EUR per green tonne, depending on field conditions and technology choice. Single-pass harvesting was the cheapest, especially if applied through a dedicated tractor and a towed unit with a large integral container. Two-pass harvesting was the most flexible, but also the most expensive: it should be favored only when space, weather or other management constraints limit the application of the other systems. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. (literal)

Prodotto di