Comparative Study of Performance and Economics of Self Propelled Combine Harvester with Other Harvesting and Threshing Methods on Paddy Rice

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 6(6): 377-382 Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2015 (ISSN: 2141-7016) jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.com Journal of Emerging Trends Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 6(6):377-382 (ISSN: 2141-7016) Comparative Study of Performance and Economics of Self Propelled Combine Harvester with Other Harvesting and Threshing Methods on Paddy Rice Harerimana Leonce 1, and D.C Saraswat 2 1 Department of Agricultural Mechanization, University of Rwanda. P.O. Box 210 Musanze, Rwanda 2 Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Science. Allahabad, India Corresponding Author: Harerimana Leonce Abstract This research study was conducted in order to determine and compare the performance and economic characteristics of combinations of harvesting and threshing methods on paddy crop. This combinations characteristics elucidate theirs choose specific to scale of use and efficiency. The experiments were conducted in the farm of Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHIATS) in India. The treatments under the study were manual harvesting and threshing (T1), manual harvesting and power thresher (T2), tractor front mounted reaper for harvesting and power thresher (T3) and the combine harvesting (T4). The study has shown that there is significant different among the treatments with respect to grain loss, and cleaning efficiency. There is no significant difference in grain breakage and the threshing efficiency among the treatment. The economics of the harvesting and threshing was found to vary mainly with the methods, the intensity of the manpower and the annual scale of use of the machineries and the use of the byproducts and their ease in collection. The economics characteristics and the prevailing conditions should be considered to choose any methods. This is prescribed in the results of this study. It was concluded that there is an inherent advantage of harvesting machinery over the manual operation provided the area is above the breakeven point. It is necessary to maximize the use the machine. This research has shown that each method under investigation has specified application conditions where it is economically rational. It is believed that the rational choose is backed by technical performance efficiency and economics as transpired in this paper. Keywords: combine harvester, harvesting, threshing, reaper, grain straw ratio, cleaning efficiency INTRODUCTION Studies show that harvesting and post harvesting losses of rice are still high in developing countries (GOI, 2004). The results in yields increase achieved in these last decades through green revolution and governments efforts are to be supported by the continuous researches in various domains and among others is agricultural machinery. During the time of harvesting weather condition is uncertain and there are chances of rains, storms etc., which cause great damages to the crop if not cut and threshed in due time. Moreover since the harvesting and threshing are performed during the periods of peak labour demand, it is desirable that labour saving devices on farm should be introduced to spare the labour to a great extend (Chand and Kumar, 2004). A number of machinery can be used for timely and efficiently harvesting and threshing of paddy. Power threshers have feeding chutes designed to avoid hazards to operators. Reaping with vertical conveyor reaper (VCR) and power threshing optimizes harvesting, threshing, residue management, and feed recovery system. Combine harvester is also becoming popular in some parts of the country for harvesting and threshing of rice and wheat (Anwar Alam, 2005). According to Ojha and Michael (2008) harvesting crop is constrained by a number of limitations such as: Farmer constraints, farm constraint ranging from small farm to large farm holding; crop constraint, equipment constraint, time constraint, labour constraint. PROBLEM STATEMENT The use of agricultural machinery lead to a better utilization of input na improvement of operations. Each machine has the appropriate scale of annual utilization in crop production (Padmavati and Mahoswata, 2011).There a large number harvesting machinery coming on the market continuously. The user of farm equipment needs to be aware of the time when he has to opt for a given harvesting machines and method among the available option(nakra, 2009). Parida, 2008found thattheretrend of going for incoming new machine on the market. The myopia of going directly to new machine or sticking to obsolete way of performingpaddy 377

harvesting and threshing operations while it is not economically rational needs attention. Any choose should be economically justified. This research attempt to blend the performance efficiency of harvesting and threshing methods or machines and the economics OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY The study has been undertaken with the following objectives: 1. To evaluate the performance of different combinations of harvesting and threshing methods on paddy crop. 2. To study the economics associated with each methods of harvesting and threshing of paddy crop. 3. To compare the performance of different parameters and economics of the different methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS In that perspective this study is being undertaken. The study is taken in the condition of Allahabad, in SHIATS farm. The study was carried out to compare the performance and the economics of machineries used in harvesting and threshing of paddy. It was undertaken in the condition of Allahabad. The manual paddy cutting was done using a serrated sickle; the manual threshing was carried out by manpower hitting the crop on the stone or tree. The tractor front mounted vertical conveyor reaper was used for harvesting. The paddy thresher operated by a 12 hp diesel engine was used for threshing. The combine harvester was used for cutting the crop and threshing it at the same time. Four combinations of harvesting and threshing were compared throughout the study. These are: T1: Manual harvesting + manual threshing, T2: Manual harvesting + power thresher T3: Tractor operated vertical conveyor reaper + power thresher T4: Combine harvester operations. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY The study consists of the comparison of different combinations of harvesting and threshing methods vis àvis different performance and economic parameters. The experiment design is Completely Randomized Design (CRD) with three replications. The harvesting and threshing operations were performed in the farm of S.H.I.A.T.S. The twenty meter length and implement width area to be harvested was initially sampled to know the average grain loss before harvesting and later reinvestigated to know the head losses. The material from sieve outlet was also collected at that particular area. While carrying out the reading in the field, the samples were taken from standing crop, grains outlet, chaff, sieve outlet, grains after threshing. These samples are separated into different components and weighed in the laboratory. For each treatment the sampling was done three times i.e. three replications were considered. The variables under study are a. Grain-Straw ratio Grain-straw ratio was determined by selected samples of crop from the field to be harvested. A sample was made of ten crops. The grains were removed manually and weighed then the straw is also weighed separately. The same process was done on the three separate samples taken at different location throughout the field and their average was calculated. The grain straw ration was found as Grain-straw ratio = Weight of grain in sample/ weight of straw in sample b. Performance parameters The performance parameters that were taken into consideration are Field capacity in ha/h, total grain losses in percentage, grain breakage in percentage, presence of foreign material in percentage, threshing efficiency in percentage and fuel consumption in l/ha, c. Economic parameters To study the economics of different treatment under consideration we looked upon these parameters: labour requirement, Rs/ha, harvesting cost and Threshing cost, Rs/ha, cost of grain losses, Rs/ha, cost of straw loss, Rs/ha and cost of fuel consumed, Rs/ha RESULTS AND DISCUSION Crop characteristics The paddy crop on which the experiment was conducted was in S.H.I.A.T.S farm and all the data for T1, T2, T3 and T4 were taken. The crop characteristics in that paddy field from where the study was conducted are presented in the table 1below Table1 Crop characteristics of paddy Particulars and units Observation a) Appearance Standing b) Average height of plant, mm 900 c) Average number of plant per m 2 16 d) Average quantity of grain per crop, g 75 e) Average straw quantity per crop, g 63 f) Moisture content of grains, % 18.5 g) Moisture content of straw, % 21.8 h) Grain-Straw ratio, % 1:1.8 i) Average yield, q/ha 40 THE RESULTS ON THE PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS The table 2 summarizes the results of performance parameter for the treatments under the study. 378

Table 2 Performance results of harvesting and threshing of paddy by different methods Particular T1 T2 T3 Cutting Threshing Cutting Threshing Cutting Threshing Average forward speed, km/h NA NA NA NA 3 NA 2.6 Average width of cutter bar, m NA NA NA NA 2 NA 2.7 Average Field efficiency, % NA NA NA NA 64.38 NA 60.7 Effective field capacity, ha/h NA NA NA NA 0.386 NA 0.488 Average height of cut, mm 40 NA 40 NA 67 NA 240 Labor requirement, manhour/ha 120 160 120 8 9 18 4 Total throughput, q/h NA NA NA 30 NA 30 73.85 Pre-harvesting loss, % 0.81 NA 0.81 NA 0.81 NA 0.81 Cutter bar and header losses, % 1.3 NA 1.3 NA 1.98 NA 1.028 Sieve loss, % NA NA NA 1.68 1.68 0.306 Cylinder and straw walker loss, % NA NA NA 1.59 NA 1.59 0.103 Grain breakage losses, % NA 0.01 NA 1.32 NA 1.32 0.373 Total grain losses, % NA 8.44 NA 6.7 NA 5.32 2.62 Total unthreshed grain, % NA 5.14 NA 0.88 NA 0.88 0.588 Threshing efficiency, % NA 94.86 NA 99.12 NA 99.12 99.402 Foreign material, % NA 4.2 NA 1.74 NA 1.74 0.68 Cleaning efficiency, % NA 95.8 NA 98.26 NA 98.26 99.32 Fuel consumption, l/h 0 0 0 2 3 2 6.8 T4 The Results of the Economic Parameters of the Treatments To achieve the second objective, the economic parameters were also considered on the harvesting and threshing methods under the study. The results are presented in the table 3 for the annual covered area of at least 600 ha. The cost are expressed in Indian Rupees per hectare (Rs/ha). While the quantities are expressed in quintals per ha (q/ha). TABLE3. ECONOMICS OF DIFFERENT METHODS Particular T1 T2 T3 T4 Harvesting and threshing cost,rs/ha 4200 2232 744 1236 Labour requirement, manhour/ha 280 128 27 4 Cost of grain loss, Rs/ha 3376 2680 2128 1048 Cost collected grain,rs/ha 36624 37320 37872 38952 Quantity of straw harvested, q/ha 33.6 31.9 31.9 10.16 Cost of collectable straw,rs/ha 6720 6380 6380 4200 Cost of straw loss,rs/ha NA 340 340 2520 Fuel consumption,rs /ha NA 107 547 558 Comparison and Statistical Analysis of the Results This study is comparative and this part forms the core heart of the project reports and the discussion will focus on the analysis and interpretation of the experimental data obtained during the course of study. The statistical analysis was also done and the results are also described in this section. Comparison of Performance Parameters among the Treatments The performance characteristics which are described and compared in this section are, grain losses, grain breakage, threshing efficiency, cleaning efficiency, labour requirement and field capacity. Grain Losses and Grain Breakage The average total grain losses are of 8.44%, 6.7%, 5.32% and2.62% for T1, T2, T3 and T4 respectively as shown on figure 1. More grain loss was observed on the manual harvesting and less losses on combine harvesting. The statistical analysis of data collected from all replications shows that there is a significant difference in the loss of grain at the level of significance of 5%. Each of the treatment forms a separate group. It is necessary to adopt mechanical harvesting and threshing so as to minimize the loss of grain at that stage. The grain breakage is shown on table 2 as 0.01%, 1.32%, 1.32%, and 0.373% for T1, T2, T3 and T4 respectively. These are shown on figure 1. The loss due to breakage is more on the power thresher and less on manual threshing, the statistical analysis 379

shows that there is no significant difference between the treatments Figure 1. Grain losses and grain breakage Performance of Different Treatments on Threshing and Cleaning Efficiency The statistical analysis shows that there is no significant (NS) difference between treatments with respect to threshing efficiency. The presence of foreign material was found to at the average rate of 4.2% for T1, 1.74% for T2 and T3 and 0.68% for T4.The statistical analysis showed that there are three groups and T4 is the best treatment while T1 is the poorest treatment. This aspect is very important because it influence the value of the grain. The cleaner grains are more competitive on the market. This is a strong point of mechanical methods of harvesting and threshing which have shown higher performance with respect to grain cleaning. Labour Requirement and Field Capacity The manual harvesting and threshing is more labour intensive as compared to the other methods. By order of the labour requirement T1 is number one then follows T2, T3 and T4. This is the reverse while considering the size of field capacity. These aspects are of great consideration in harvesting periods when the time is running faster before the sowing of next season crop or in order to prevent the harvest from weather damage like rain, wind etc. During the periods in which there is a shortage of labour in the area, it becomes necessary to choose the methods which save time and manpower Figure 3. Labour requirement Comparison of the Treatments Economics Harvesting and threshing methods have economic characteristics driven by many factors such as possibility of economies of scales, extensive use of labour, availability of machines, etc. The cost is estimated on the basis of the annual area worked. For the methods other than manual the cost becomes lower as the annual area increase; this is due to the economies of scales. Cost of Harvesting and Threshing The figure 4 shows the cost of each harvesting and threshing method with respect to annual coverage of the machine. It is observed that the increase in the area covered per year results in the sensible reduction of the per unit operating cost. The same thing is observed on the treatment T3 corresponding tractor operated reaper and power thresher as well as T2 Manual harvesting and power thresher. This is due to the fixed cost per unit area that becomes low once it is distributed to more units. However the T1 which is the manual harvesting and manual threshing the unit cost per ha stays unchanged and is estimated to be Rs 4200/ha irrespective of the area covered annually. The choice of any methods should be dictated by the area available. 380

Any grain which could not be collected by the farmer due to the inconveniency of the harvesting method is considered as a borne cost whose value is equal to the value of the lost grain. The combine harvester has more advantage to save grains (Gadge, 2004) and in this regard it becomes more economic as compared to all the other methods. In comparison to manual operations the sum of Rs 696, Rs 1248 and Rs 2328 /ha can be saved by T2, T3, and T4 respectively. Figure 4. Variation of unit operating cost with annual area As shown by the curves on figure 4 the use of combine harvester is justified only when working on an area of more than 100ha per year. Otherwise even the manual harvesting and threshing become economically more rational than the combine harvester. On the other hand the combine harvesting and threshing presents a cost advantage over the power thresher at a scale larger than 250ha per year. There was saving of 6.9%, 45.11%, 57.84%, 64.21%, 68.03% and 70.57% as compared to manual operations for the combine harvester working 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 ha per year respectively. This is shown by the breakeven points of the curves. It has been observed that at some point the combine harvester is much more advantageous on the other methods when we consider the value of grain losses which are lower for the combine as compared to the other methods (Anon, 2003). This is illustrated in the figure5. Another strong point for the combine harvester worthy to be mentioned is the time for harvesting which is much less and the availability of the manpower in the time of harvesting. Operating Cost and Cost of Grain and Straw Lost In this context the straw which is taken as a byproduct obtained after the collection of the main product (grains) have also been considered. Its monetary value matters as well as that of the grain. The average value of the straw is considered on each ha of crop. The facility by which straw can be collected plays an important role to farmer in choosing one or other method of harvesting and threshing. This cost characteristics is illustrated on the Figure 6 below Operating Cost and Cost of Grain Losses This cost component is made of the cost of the average total grain losses added to the cost harvesting and threshing. This is also considered because the aim is to minimize as far as possible the losses of grain. Figure 5. Combination of operating cost and cost of grain losses 381 Figure 6. Combination of operating cost, cost of grain losses and cost of straw losses It was found that the combine harvesting present a disadvantage in straw collectability (Anwar Alam (2005). In fact the combine harvester was cutting the crop higher leaving a big straw component on the ground. In this study it was observed that the combine harvester cut the crop at an average height of 24cm against 6.7cm and 4cm for reaper and manual cutting respectively. Also the other reason behind is that for the combine harvester the threshing

is done along the whole field thus some straw is finely chopped spread on the entire field and becomes practically uncollectable. This leads to the loss of around 37.5% of the strawyield which is lost. The provision of straw combine along with the combine harvester would be the solution to the facility in the collection of straw and would attract more farmers who are reluctant to use combine harvester simply due to fear of losing the valuable straw. However in some case where the straw is to be used as green manure and buried after harvesting, the combine harvester would present the advantage of chopping it then favoring a quick decomposition. CONCLUSION The study consisted of the comparison of manual harvesting and threshing with the other methods which use machineries. After the study, it was found that the use of harvesting and threshing machinery has more advantages over the manual harvesting and threshing in term of efficiency, labour saving, time saving and economics. It was found that the annual scale should be considered in before opting for buying harvesting and threshing machinery. Moreover the choice of any harvesting and threshing combinations should also consider the value and intended use of straw. The limitation of this is that it was entailed to the India especially in Allahabad conditions, costs and local considerations. These might be different in some location where the labour cost, machinery servicing and maintenance costs, use of byproducts are different. This implies that the decision making in other conditions will actually consider the same parameters but the exact limit value derived specifically. It is believed that with time the study condition may (Change of the technology cost) change and the results findings will need to be adjusted. Government of India, GOI (2004). Annual Report 2001-02 and 2002-2003, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture. Korte, W. (1953). Spiral threshing- A new development in the construction of threshing machines. Land techniques, 8:376 (extracted from abstract of Agricultural and Horticultural Engineering). Nakra, C.P. (2009). Farm machineries and equipments. Reprint 2009 by DhanpatRai Publishing Copmany (P) Ltd.New Delhi-110 002. Ojha, T.P. and Michael A.M. (2008). Principles of agriculture engineering, Volume I, Sixth Edition 2008, Jain Brothers( New Delhi) Padmavati, M. and Mahoswata S. (2011). Agricultural machinery in India: IPR perspective, Journal of intellectual property rights Vol 16, March2011, PP163-169. Parida, B.C. (2008). Adoption Behaviours of Farmer on tractor Operated Reaper in Panjab. AMA, 25(1):34-39. Saha, J. (2008). Element of agricultural engineering (Farm power, farm machinery, Farm processing, Farm electricity), 4 th edition, reprint 2008;,1705-B NaiSarak, Delhi-110 006. REFERENCE Anon, (2003). Marketable Surplus and Post-Harvest Losses of Paddy in India-2002.Directorate of Marketing & Inspection, Nagpur Anwar, A. (2005). Future Requirements of Agricultural Machines for Mechanizing Agriculture, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi Chand, R. and Kumar, P. (2002). Long-term changes in course cereal consumption in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 57, No. 3, July-Sept. Gadge, S.B. (2004). Estimation of field losses of combine harvester for wheat crop. Paper presented on 38 th Annual Consortium of ISAE held at Dapoli (Maharastra). Jan 16-18, 2004. 382