I have a copy of the PAMI report as well as PAMI's video. The tests were done with a clean field of dry swathed wheat, probably the easiest crop to combine. The combine capacity under these circumstances was limited by the open area of the concave, which was stated in PAMI's report. The Stueckle modifications of covering the first 4 concave slots with filler bars reduce the open area of the concave, and the combine's capacity is proportionately reduced. Stueckle also has modifications to reduce losses of the reel, as well as improve feeding of the auger and feederhouse. These modifications would not be used in a swathed crop. The vast majority of combines performs well under ideal conditions, such as those in the PAMI test. The point of Stueckle's modifications was to improve performance under tough conditions that cause problems with some combines but not others. In my experience, Stueckle's recommendations do wonders in difficult harvesting conditions, by reducing reel and cutterbar losses, improving the smoothness of the feed into the cylinder, feeding green material in larger pieces through the concave so it doesn't get into the grain tank, and greatly improving the cleaning action and capacity of the shoe, IN ADVERSE CONDITIONS. The idea is not to get hung up on the 4 filler plates for the concave. They're easy enough to pop out if things are ideal, and put back in under tough conditions. Massey Ferguson highly recommends the use of filler bars in tough conditions. In one of their combine operator's manuals they recommend omitting concave filler bars only under ideal conditions. Stueckle's other recommendations for reels, table augers, feederhouse feeder chains, fans, shoe hangers, chaffers, sieves, air dams in front of and below chaffer extensions all increase capacity, reduce losses, and improve quality. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
