DETERMINATION OF HARVESTING LOSSES, FIELD CAPACITY AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR DIFFERENT RICE COMBINE HARVESTERS | ||||
| Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||||
| Article 2, Volume 32, Issue 1, January 2015, Page 19-40 PDF (1.3 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2015.98673 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Author | ||||
| R. A. Hegazy | ||||
| Assistant Professor, Agric. Eng. Dept., Faculty of Agric., Kafrelsheikh University, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| According to the type and specification of each combine harvester, losses, field capacities and energy required may vary. Hence, studying different parameters which may cause losses and affect combine performance are important. So, field evaluation to measure combine losses, fuel consumption and field capacity was conducted at International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines during dry season 2014. Four different rice combine harvesters with different threshing systems and configurations including one head-feed combine (Kubota ER 232) and three whole-crop combines [Wintersteiger, CLAAS Crop Tiger: axial-tangential flow (TAF) and Thai combine] were assessed on split-split two level randomized block design with four replications. Each combine operated under two levels of forward speeds (lower and higher) to harvest two different rice varieties (NSIC RC222 and NSIC RC238). Measurements for each combine included major components of losses [shattering losses, blower/screen losses (rear-end losses) and unstrapped losses] and field capacity. Fuel consumption was recorded for Kubota and CLAAS combine. All combine Harvesters run under same harvesting condition. Results revealed that average values of shattering and unstrapped losses ranged from 1 to 24.11 and from 0.12 to 7.22 % of yield respectively. All combine harvesters lead up to cause higher shattering losses when operated at lower speeds compared to higher speeds. Maximum blower/screen losses (rear-end losses) recorded was 2.26 % of yield by using CLAAS to harvest NSIC RC238, while minimum value was 0.24 % of yield and obtained when Kubota harvested NSIC RC238 variety. The maximum averages of blower/screen losses (rear-end losses) value recorded with Wintersteiger and Thai combines were 1.04 and 1.58 % of yield respectively. Average harvesting capacity were 0.473, 0.424, 0.400 and 0.380 ha h-1 for Kubota, Thai, Wintersteiger and Class combine respectively when operated at higher forward speed to harvest both varieties. For CLAAS combine, fuel consumption varied from 52.481 to 100.191 l ha-1, while for Kubota, fuel consumption varied from 7.396 to 29.586 l ha-1. Minimum engine power required to run Kubota and its consumed energy were 7.94 hp and 23.37 kW.h ha-1 respectively when harvested NSIC RC238, maximum engine power required was 23.66 when Kubota used to harvest NSIC RC222 with 93.49 kW.h ha-1 consumed energy. For CLAAS, minimum engine power required was 27.66 hp to harvest NSIC RC238 at higher speed with 165.84 kW.h ha-1 consumed energy, while the maximum engine power required was 45.32 hp to harvest NSIC RC222 at lower speed with 316.6 kW.h ha-1 consumed energy. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Combine harvesters; harvesting losses; rice crop; field capacity; energy required | ||||
| References | ||||
|
Abdelmotaleb, I. A., H. A. El-Gendy and M. A. Hassan (2009). Combine header control. Misr J. of Ag. Eng., 26 (3): 1478-1500.
Abdul-Wohab, M. D. (2011). Current Status of Agricultural Mechanization in Bangladesh. Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization Roundtable: Moving Forward on the Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture, 8-9 December 2011. Available at: http://www.unapcaem.org/PPT/bd-index.htm.
Ahmed, N. U. and M. A. Matin (2008). Farm Mechanization for Smallholder Agriculture in Bangladesh. Proceed Ings of the Regional Workshop on Farm Mechanization for Small Holder Agriculture in SAARC Countries. Organized by SAARC Agriculture Centre and CIAE, 22-24 September 2008, SAARC, Dhaka.
Badr, M. M. (2005). Comparative study between some different combine sizes in respect to unit plot area. M.Sc. Thesis. Agric. Eng. Dept., Faculty of Agric., Zagazig Univ. Egypt.
Chang, S.F. (1986). The development and design of small rice combines. Proceedings of the International Conference on Postharvest Prevention of paddy/Rice Loss. Taipeh, Republic of China. 51-61.
CLAAS Vision (1998). CLAAS KGaA Marketing Newsletter No. 5, P: 24.
Dawe D., S. Pandey, and A. Nelson (2010). Emerging trends and spatial patterns of rice production. In: Pandey S, Byerlee D, Dawe D, Dobermann A, Mohanty S, Rozelle S, Hardy B, editors. Rice in the global economy: strategic research and policy issues for food security. Los Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute. P: 15-35.
El-Nakib, A. A, Z. Y. Abdel-Lateef, A. A. El-Messery and A. Khattab (2003): Mechanical harvesting losses in rice crop using combine harvester. Misr J. Agr. Eng., 20 (4): 889-907.
El-Sharabasy, M. M. A. (2006). Construction and manufacture a self-propelled machine suits for cutting some grain crops to minimize losses and maximize efficiency. Misr J. Ag. Eng.,
Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. Machinery stock (combine harvesters). Statistics Division, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/I/RM/E.
Fouad, H. A., S. A. Tayel, Z. EI-Hadad , and H. Abdel-Mawla (1990). Performance of two different types of combines in harvesting rice in Egypt. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America (AMA). 21(3): 17-22.
Gummert, M. and P.H. Hien (2013). Combine harvesting in South and Southeast Asia: Current status and trends. Proceedings of the VDI-MEG Agricultural Engineering Conference on Combine Harvesters. University of Hohenheim, Germany, 12-13 September. Vol. 40, 103-122.
Hunt, D. (1983). Farm power and machinery management. 8th Ed. Iowa state Univ., Press Ames, USA. Ames, Iowa, USA: 364-368.
Kalsirisilp, R. and G. Singh (1998). Performance evaluation of a Thai-made rice combine harvester. Proceedings of the International Agricultural Engineering Conference. Bangkok, Thailand, 7-10 December. 296-309.
MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries) (2013). The Mechanization of Cambodian Agriculture. Notes in meeting, provided by Agricultural Minister of Cambodia.
Mariano, M. J., R.Villano, and E. Fleming (2012). Factors influencing farmers’ adoption of modern rice technologies and good management practices in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems 110 (2012) 41–53.
NSO (National Statistical Office) (2010). The 2008 Agriculture Intercensal Survey: Whole Kingdom, national statistical office. Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Thailand.
Pandey S., T, Paris, and H. Bhandari (2010). Household income dynamics and changes in gender roles in rice farming. In: Pandey S, Byerlee D, Dawe D, Dobermann A, Mohanty S, Rozelle S, Hardy B, editors. Rice in the global economy: strategic research and policy issues for food security. Los Baños (Philippines): International Rice Research Institute. P: 93-111.
Saruth, Chan (2011). Cambodia Perspective on Rice Production and Mechanization in Cambodia. The Regional Seminar on Rice Production & Mechanization, 12- 13 December, 2011 Sanya, China.
Soil Survey Staff (2010). Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 11th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC, USA.
Viet, N. Q. (2012). Current Status of Agricultural Mechanization in Vietnam. Roundtable on Developing Environmentally Sustainable Agricultural Mechanization Strategies (SAMS) for Countries in the Asia-Pacific Region 8 - 9 December 2011. Bangkok, Thailand, P: 95-97. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 294 PDF Download: 434 |
||||
