IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5377-d1676433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crop Harvesting Performance Analysis via Telemetry: Fuel and Environmental Insights

Author

Listed:
  • Dainius Savickas

    (Department of Agricultural Engineering and Safety, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų St. 15A, LT-53362 Akademija, Lithuania)

  • Antanas Juostas

    (Department of Agricultural Engineering and Safety, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų St. 15A, LT-53362 Akademija, Lithuania)

  • Eglė Jotautienė

    (Department of Agricultural Engineering and Safety, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų St. 15A, LT-53362 Akademija, Lithuania)

  • Andrius Grigas

    (Department of Agricultural Engineering and Safety, Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Studentų St. 15A, LT-53362 Akademija, Lithuania)

Abstract

Telemetry systems are increasingly finding applications in agriculture for a variety of tasks. These systems assist farmers in optimizing farm processes. By leveraging these technologies, energy resources can be used more efficiently, leading to reduced environmental pollution. The primary objective of this research is to analyze telemetry data and explore ways to enhance the efficiency of combine harvesters (CHs). For this study, data from the Lexion 750 TT CH equipped with a crawler chassis was selected. Harvesting operations were conducted across fields growing popular plant types in Lithuania, including wheat, barley, rapeseed, oats, corn, and beans. The selected CH was also equipped with a remote monitoring system for tracking machine parameters. During the research, the structure of the time distribution of the work and the consumed fuel was analyzed. The highest operational efficiency—defined as the proportion of time spent on productive harvesting tasks—was 78%, observed during the oat harvest, when the unloading while harvesting, unloading while idle, harvesting, and headland turns were 3%, 2%, 64%, and 9%, respectively. The lowest efficiency, 56%, occurred during wheat harvesting. It was found that harvesting 899.32 ha of six different plant species with the tested CH produces 46.11 t of GHG emissions in CO 2eq . The largest part of the emission in CO 2eq was released during direct harvesting, with the engine operating at 1800–1900 min −1 . However, as much as 30% of the time and 11.2% of fuel was consumed by the CH for non-harvesting activities. In conclusion, attention should be paid to reducing the inefficient use of CH time. In this way, technological operations would not only be carried out more rationally, but also environmental pollution would be reduced, and in the case of this study, we could potentially reduce CO 2eq emissions by more than 10%.

Suggested Citation

  • Dainius Savickas & Antanas Juostas & Eglė Jotautienė & Andrius Grigas, 2025. "Crop Harvesting Performance Analysis via Telemetry: Fuel and Environmental Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5377-:d:1676433
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5377/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5377/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Van linden, Veerle & Herman, Lieve, 2014. "A fuel consumption model for off-road use of mobile machinery in agriculture," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 880-889.
    2. Filip Johnsson & Jan Kjärstad & Johan Rootzén, 2019. "The threat to climate change mitigation posed by the abundance of fossil fuels," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(2), pages 258-274, February.
    3. Hoffman, Eric & Cavigelli, Michel A. & Camargo, Gustavo & Ryan, Matthew & Ackroyd, Victoria J. & Richard, Tom L. & Mirsky, Steven, 2018. "Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in organic and conventional grain crop production: Accounting for nutrient inflows," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 89-96.
    4. Garnett, Tara, 2011. "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(S1), pages 23-32.
    5. Garnett, Tara, 2011. "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(Supplemen), pages 23-32, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dorward, Leejiah J., 2012. "Where are the best opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the food system (including the food chain)? A comment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 463-466.
    2. Yue, Shen & Munir, Irfan Ullah & Hyder, Shabir & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Qazi Abro, Muhammad Moinuddin & Zaman, Khalid, 2020. "Sustainable food production, forest biodiversity and mineral pricing: Interconnected global issues," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    3. Maiyar, Lohithaksha M & Thakkar, Jitesh J, 2019. "Environmentally conscious logistics planning for food grain industry considering wastages employing multi objective hybrid particle swarm optimization," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 220-248.
    4. Danilo Bertoni & Daniele Cavicchioli & Franco Donzelli & Giovanni Ferrazzi & Dario G. Frisio & Roberto Pretolani & Elena Claire Ricci & Vera Ventura, 2018. "Recent Contributions of Agricultural Economics Research in the Field of Sustainable Development," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Ujué Fresán & Maximino Alfredo Mejia & Winston J Craig & Karen Jaceldo-Siegl & Joan Sabaté, 2019. "Meat Analogs from Different Protein Sources: A Comparison of Their Sustainability and Nutritional Content," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-10, June.
    6. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Angela Zinnai & Alberto Pardossi, 2018. "A Reflection of the Use of the Life Cycle Assessment Tool for Agri-Food Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    8. Ancuta Isbasoiu & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Stéphane De Cara, 2021. "Increasing food production and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union: impacts of carbon pricing and calorie production targeting," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 409-440, April.
    9. Susana G. Azevedo & Minelle E. Silva & João C. O. Matias & Gustavo P. Dias, 2018. "The Influence of Collaboration Initiatives on the Sustainability of the Cashew Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-29, June.
    10. Tjärnemo, Heléne & Södahl, Liv, 2015. "Swedish food retailers promoting climate smarter food choices—Trapped between visions and reality?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 130-139.
    11. Peter Scarborough & Paul Appleby & Anja Mizdrak & Adam Briggs & Ruth Travis & Kathryn Bradbury & Timothy Key, 2014. "Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 179-192, July.
    12. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Réquillart, Vincent & Treich, Nicolas, 2020. "Viewpoint: Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    13. Nina Repar & Pierrick Jan & Thomas Nemecek & Dunja Dux & Martina Alig Ceesay & Reiner Doluschitz, 2016. "Local versus Global Environmental Performance of Dairying and Their Link to Economic Performance: A Case Study of Swiss Mountain Farms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-19, December.
    14. Panzone, Luca A. & Ulph, Alistair & Zizzo, Daniel John & Hilton, Denis & Clear, Adrian, 2021. "The impact of environmental recall and carbon taxation on the carbon footprint of supermarket shopping," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Rohmer, S.U.K. & Gerdessen, J.C. & Claassen, G.D.H., 2019. "Sustainable supply chain design in the food system with dietary considerations: A multi-objective analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1149-1164.
    16. Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Villanueva-Rey, Pedro & Moreira, Mª Teresa & Feijoo, Gumersindo, 2013. "The role of consumer purchase and post-purchase decision-making in sustainable seafood consumption. A Spanish case study using carbon footprinting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 94-102.
    17. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    18. Halloran, Afton & Clement, Jesper & Kornum, Niels & Bucatariu, Camelia & Magid, Jakob, 2014. "Addressing food waste reduction in Denmark," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 294-301.
    19. Nathalie Gröfke & Valérie Duplat & Christopher Wickert & Brian Tjemkes, 2021. "A Multi-Stakeholder Perspective on Food Labelling for Environmental Sustainability: Attitudes, Perceived Barriers, and Solution Approaches towards the “Traffic Light Index”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-23, January.
    20. Shuai Qin & Hong Chen & Haokun Wang, 2021. "Spatial–Temporal Heterogeneity and Driving Factors of Rural Residents’ Food Consumption Carbon Emissions in China—Based on an ESDA-GWR Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-17, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5377-:d:1676433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.