Comparative analysis of the chopping length of a forage chopper on three named forages

Transcription

1 Academia Journal of Agricultural Research 4(): 99-3, May 16 DOI: /ajar ISSN: Academia Publishing Research Paper Comparative analysis of the chopping length of a forage chopper on three named forages Accepted 8 th February, 16 ABSTRACT Babatunde Yinusa Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Technology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. *Corresponding author yinusa_babatunde@yahoo.com In testing forage chopper, one of the most important parameters usually measure along with chopping efficiency and chopping capacity is the chopping length. In this work, a comparative analysis of the chopping length of a paddlethrown forage chopper was examined. The forages chopped were Guinea grass, Siam weed (Odorata) and Maize Stover s. Chopping length was determined using Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standard (PAES) at Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering in September, 14. The Comparative analysis was done using MATLAB R13a model. The average moisture contents for the chopped forages were.6, 17.1 and 31.66% (wb) for Guinea grass, Siam weed (Odorata) and Maize Stover s respectively. Moisture contents were determined using oven-drying method. Results showed that, chopping length varies with samples of grasses chopped because Guinea grass has an average chopping length of 3.7 mm; Siam weed has.98 mm, while Maize Stover has mm. And this showed that Siam weed has the best chopping length (.98 mm) as compared to other forages tested. However, all other average chopping length obtained were within the international standard ( to 4 mm) for forage choppers. The results of the statistical analysis showed that, there was no significant difference in the chopping length examined among the three forages at % significant level. Therefore, it may be said that the forage chopper used to carry out this experiment is adequate for all type of forages because all the length of cut obtained were within the international standard for chopping length. Key words: Paddle-thrown forage chopper, chopping length, comparative analysis, MATLAB. INTRODUCTION Forage crops are used as feeds for animals when their sizes are reduced as much as possible (Ajav and Yinusa, 1). This reduction of forage sizes support proper feeding and palatability which in turn, aid digestion in farm animals. In dry season, green grasses are hardly available for cattle; however, crop residues like maize stovers, sorghum stovers, pearl millet stovers etc may be used to feed the cattle. Khope and Modak (13) reported that crop residue can be feed to cattle but cattle may not be able to consume whole stovers and thereby causing -3% wastage. They added that in India most farmers have -3 cattle to meet their milk requirement as well as to earn some money for daily expenses. These farmers used to collect crop residues to feed animals directly or cut manually by crude methods using machetes into 3-4 pieces for easy intake by the cattle. But they did not report the various chopping length for forages tested. Akanji (13) examined the performance evaluation of a bicycle driven forage chopper he also reported the chopping efficiency and chopping

2 Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa. 3 Figure 1a. Sample materials. capacity but he did not report the chopping length from the forages chopped. Adgidzi (7) reported that a chopping length of mm made chopped forages suitable for feeding ruminant animals directly, or used as major components for animal feeds preparation, with enriched constituents like protein, vitamins and minerals. But he did not report the chopping length of the forage chopper on the forages tested. Therefore, the objective of this research was to examine the various chopping length of a paddlethrown forage chopper on Guinea grass, Siam weed and Maize Stover. MATERIALS AND METHODS The sample materials The sample materials used for this research include Guinea grass, Siam weed and Maize Stover. These forages were obtained within the University of Ibadan, Ibadan premises and chopped at Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering in September, 14. The machine used to carry out this experiment was designed by Yinusa and Ajav (1). The data analyzed were obtained from the experimental trials carried out on the sample forages (materials) as showed in Tables 1 and. Some of the sample materials chopped was as showed in Figure 1a. Chopping Length The chopping length was determined using Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standard (PAES). Three replicate trials were collected for each sample as showed in Tables 1 and but samples were randomly taking for each trials as against 3 samples as given by PAES 19 (4). Moisture content Moisture content of each samples were determined as showed in Equation (1) and as given by PAES 19 (4): Mc wb = 1 (1) Where: Mc wb = Moisture content, wet basis % W 1 = Initial mass of the sample, g W = Final mass of the sample, g Coefficient of variation The coefficient of variation of each sample was determined as given by PAES 19 (4) in Equation (): C V = () Where: C V = coefficient of variation, % X = Value of observation n = Number of observations RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The behavioral variations of length of cut in the first trial of each sample The three samples of forages tested in this research are shown in Tables 1 and as Guinea grass, Siam weed and Maize Stover s. Figure 1b showed how the chopping length for guinea grass varies in length in each of the sample cut

3 Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa. 31 Table 1. Chopping length of each sample between moisture content of 13.3 to 4% (wb). Chopping Length, cm (Guinea Grass) Chopping Length, cm (Siam weed) Chopping Length, cm (maize Stover s) 1 st nd 3 rd 1 st nd 3 rd 1 st nd 3 rd Table. Chopping length of each sample between moisture content 6-6% (wb). Chopping Length, cm (Guinea Grass) Chopping Length, cm (Odorata) Chopping Length, cm (maize Stover s) 1 st nd 3 rd 1 st nd 3 rd 1 st nd 3 rd in the first trial. Most of the lengths of cut were below 3 mm while few were above 4 mm. This variations may be as a result of the feeding rate and the cutting parameters such as cutting knife angle and knife edge thickness that dictate the performance of a forage chopper as reported by Ajav and Yinusa (1). While the chopping lengths variations in each of the first trial for Siam weed and Maize Stover s were shown in Figure a and b. The comparative length of cut among the sample forages The average length of cut for each of the sample forages are shown in Figure 3 using grouped bar chart. In each of the groups in Figure 3, Siam weed has the lowest average length of cut (chopping length) of 8.,.67, 9.6 mm for the 1 st, nd and 3 rd trials respectively as showed in

4 Length of cut (cm) per Trial Number of cut per Trial Length of cut, cm Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa. 3 1 Length of cut of Guinea grass Number of cut per Trial 1st Trial Figure 1b. Chopping length Variations for Guinea grass. Length of cut of Siam weed 1 1 Length of cut, cm 4 6 1st Trial Figure a. Chopping length Variations for Siam weed. 1 9 length of cut for Maize stover Number of cut per Trial Figure b. Chopping length Variations for Maize Stover.

5 Length of Cut (mm) Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa Maize Stovers Siam Weed Guinea Grass 1 1 Sample of forages in Column 3 Figure 3. Comparative sample length of cut of the sample forages. Samples of Forages in Row Table 3. Average chopping length for each of the sample trials. Chopping length, mm (Guinea Grass) Chopping length, mm (Siam weed) chopping length, mm (Maize Stover s) 1 st nd rd Table 4. Average chopping length and moisture content of the sample forages. Sample Average chopping length, mm Average moisture content, % Guinea grass Siam weed Maize Stover s Table 3. And this was traced to the mositure content of Siam weed of 17.1% wet basis as compared to.6 and 31.66% wet basis of Guinea grass and Maize Stover s respectively. This showed that moisture content has a great effect on the chopping length of any forage crop. Because sample with higher moisture content have higher length of cut (chopping length) as shown in Table 4. This was also observed by Ajav and Yinusa (1) that length of cut decreases with decrease in moisture content and operating time. However, the variations among tested sample were not reported. Analysis of variance on the chopping length (Length of cut) The average chopping length of the forage chopper for Guinea grass, Siam weed and Maize Stover s are shown in Table 4. The two way analysis of variance carried out as shown in Table, showed that, there is no significant difference in the chopping length of the forage chopper in rows and columns of the sample data (p>.). Meaning that, there is no significant difference in the chopping length of the forage chopper for Guinea grass, Siam weed

6 Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa. 34 Table. Analysis of variance on the chopping length using MATLAB. Source Sum of Square Df Mean Square F-value Prob > F Columns Not significant Rows Not significant Error Total Table 6. Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Guinea grass. X X = 13.1 = Table 7. Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Siam weed. X X = 6.1 = 14. and Maize Stover s. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Guinea grass Equation () defined the coefficient of variation as given by PAES 19 (4). Therefore, the coefficient of variation of chopping length for Guinea grass was calculated as shown in Table 6. Where: X = Value of observation, therefore, using Equation () and substituting the values in Table 6 into the equation we have: C V = C v = C V =.797% The value.797 was calculated as coefficient of variation from the first three data obtained from the 1 st, nd and 3 rd Trials for Guinea grass in Table. Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Siam weed Equation () defined the coefficient of variation as given by PAES 19 (4). Therefore, the coefficient of variation of chopping length for Siam weed was calculated as shown in Table 7. Substituting the values in Table 7 into Equation () we have: C V = Cv = Cv =.4463% The value.4463 was calculated as coefficient of variation from the first three data obtained from the 1 st, nd and 3 rd Trials for Siam weed in Table. Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Maize Stover Equation () defined the coefficient of variation as given by PAES 19 (4). Therefore, the coefficient of variation

7 Academia Journal of Agricultural Research; Yinusa. 3 Table 8. Coefficient of variation of chopping length for Guinea grass. X X = 16.1 = of chopping length for Maize Stover was calculated as shown in Table 8. Substituting the values in Table 8 into Equation () we have: C V = Akanji S (13). Master of Science Thesis at Department of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria. Khope PB, Modak JP (13). Development and evaluation of a human powered flywheel motor operated forage cutter. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. (3): Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards(4). For Agricultural Machinery -Forage Chopper, published by Philippine National Standard by the Bureau of Product Standards(PAES 19). Yinusa B, Ajav EA (1). Determination of Shear Forces, Reactions and Bending Moments on the Driving Shaft of a Paddle-Thrown Forage Chopper. European J. Mech. Eng. Res. (1): Cv =.63% The value.63 was calculated as coefficient of variation from the first three data obtained from the 1 st, nd and 3 rd Trials for Maize Stover in Table. Conclusions The followings were concluded from this research work: 1. The test results obtained show that, Guinea grass has chopping length of 3.7 mm, Siam weed has.989 mm and Maize Stover has mm.. The forage chopper used to carry out this experiment has the best chopping length when Siam weed was chopped at.989 mm which was within the international standard chopping length for forage choppers ( to 4 mm). 3. The coefficients of variations for the entire test Sample materials were adequate. 4. The analysis of variance carried out showed that, there is no significant difference in the chopping length of the forage chopper in rows and columns of the test sample data (p>.). Meaning that, there is no significant difference in the chopping length of the forage chopper for Guinea grass, Siam weed and Maize Stover s. REFERENCES Adgidzi D (7). Development and performance evaluation of a forage chopper. J. Agric. Eng. Technol. 1: 1-4. Ajav, EA, Yinusa B (1). Factors affecting forage chopper performance. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR Journal Open access at Vol. 17, No. 3. Cite this article as: Yinusa B (16). Comparative analysis of the chopping length of a forage chopper on three named forages. Acad. J. Agric. Res. 4(): Submit your manuscript at