Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Determination of Work Efficiency of Harvesting Machinery

Bidhan Chandra Nath
Senior Scientific Officer
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Dr. Muhammad Abdur Rahman
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Dr. Md. Durrul Huda
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Dr. AKM Saiful Islam
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Md. Anwar Hossain
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Subrata Paul
Farm Machinery and Postharvest Technology Division, Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Gazipur-1701

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

The theoretical field capacity (ha/h) and field efficiency of combine harvester was 0.64 and 60.12 respectively. The labor requirement per unit area, mh/ha was 278.0, 238.1 and 9.87 for method 1, method 2 and method 3 respectively. Here, method 1 requires 28.2 times more labor and method 2 requires 24.1 times more labor compared to method 3. So the use of combine harvester was more effective than traditional reaping, transportation and threshing. The overall harvesting (cutting, transport, threshing, winnowing) cost of method 2 was 10480.6 Tk/ha and method 1 was 10965.4 Tk/ha. The operating cost for method 1, method 2 and combine harvester was 10,965.4, 10,480.6 and 11,592.1 Tk/ha respectively. In study area the plot size was small. For a better and more reliable result, the experiment should be carried out in a big field.

Keywords: Field capacity, Work efficiency, Field efficiency, Fuel consumption, Forward Speed, Rice

Location: Gazipur

Start Date: 01-07-2012

End Date: 30-06-2013

Program Area: Farm Mechanization

Commodity: Farm machineries, Harvester

Objectives:

To determine the cost of operation, saving and work efficiency of combine harvester.

Methodology:

Site selection The study was implemented in the Gazipur district, which can easily be accessed from BRRI headquarters, and where it was possible to secure the cooperation of farmers. Field operation techniques There were many variations in the harvesting, threshing and cleaning practices being followed by the farmers. The following three methods in combination with traditional and modern harvesting, threshing and cleaning were evaluated to determine work efficiency and economics Procedure to determine the work efficiency The efficiency of a machine is defined as the ratio of the useful work done by the machine to the actual work put into the machine. Here, the work efficiency measures are compared to the traditional practice. For this activity the open drum thresher, close drum thresher, winnower and combine harvester were considered. To ensure greater accuracy, the field size or sample size was necessarily large. Before the final test, pre test was arranged to minimize the error. Photo 1 depicts the work efficiency test activity for method 1 and method 2. For calculating work efficiency and economic analysis, some empirical equations were considered. Calculation of work efficiency Field efficiency/work efficiency is the ratio between the productivity of a machine under field conditions and the theoretical maximum productivity. Field efficiency accounts for failure to utilize the theoretical operating width of the machine; time lost because of operator capability and habits and operating policy; and field characteristics. Travel to and from a field, major repairs, preventive maintenance, and daily service activities are not included in field time or field efficiency. Field efficiency is not a constant for a particular machine, but varies with the size and shape of the field, pattern of field operation, crop yield, moisture, and crop conditions.

Source of Information: BRRI-KOICA Report, 2012-2013

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

1.	Budget:
2. Government	Budget:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

Work efficiency Method 1 and method 2 Methods 1 and 2 employ a different threshing system, using open drum thresher and closed drum thresher, respectively, while all other operations (cutting, bundling, transport and cleaning system) were the same. The total manpower requirement of method 1 was comparatively higher than method 2 (238.1 mh/ha). Method 1 and method 2 also show a difference in the reaping capacity by hand, as capacity of hand reaping depends on planting intensity, height of the cutting plant, and the capacity and skill of labor. Transportation also showed this trend. The threshing capacity of an open drum thresher is lower than a close drum thresher, so the labor requirement for threshing is in an inverse relationship to capacity.. Cleaning the paddies threshed with an open drum thresher requires low manpower because when threshing is done the straw remains unbroken, so the threshed paddy is comparatively clean. On the other hand, in a closed drum thresher the straw is destroyed/broken, and for this reason some straw and chaff is mixed with paddy, so more time/labour (16.8mh/ha) was required for cleaned, threshed paddy through this method. Method 3 The working width and theoretical field capacity were the same but total working time was different. The analysis result was higher than the combine test result, because the analysis considered the time required for the machine to enter and leave the field. So, actual (analysis result) field efficiency, field capacity and coverage were higher than the combine result. The labor requirement for a combine (6.37mh/ha) was lower the analysis result (9.87mh/ha).

Knowledge Management: Report/Proceedings