Effect of Operation Variables of Potato Digger with Double Chain Conveyors on Crop Handling and Machine Performance

Authors: Abdalla N. O.Kheiry; Amgad Elssir; Abbas E. Rahma; Mysara Ahmed Mohamed; Elnogomi A. Omer; Hu Jian Dong; Yuan Liwei
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.1302337
DIN
IJOEAR-APR-2018-6
Abstract

The experiments were conducted at Al- Gimma Agricultural Scheme  in the Tragma area- Shendi locality, River Nile State during April – 2017,  to study the effect of some operational factors related to harvesting machine such as tractor forward speed (4.4, 5.6 and 6.7km/hr, harvesting depth (16, 18 and 21cm) and the conveyer inclination (15° and 20°) on some of potato crop handling such as lifting potatoes, cut of potatoes, Bruised and Total bruised (Damage) index potato and some of machine performance such as travel reduction (wheel slippage), effective field capacity and fuel consumption. The results showed that, there were significant influences of forward speed, harvesting depth and conveyer inclination on tubers lifting, cut of potatoes while the effect of different forward speed showed no significant effect on potatoes damage, further no significant on the percentage of scuffed damage tubers, peeler damage tubers, severe damage tubers, total damage index as effecting by conveyer inclination. As the digging depth of digger increased from 16 to 18, the lifting potatoes increased from 93.42 to 94.42%, while decreased from 94.42% to 87.72% when the digging depth decreased from 21cm to 18cm. Significant and consistent increase in tubers lifting percentage was recorded due to increase in conveyer inclination. Less percentage of scuffed, peeler, severe damage tubers and total damage index of 0.2%, 0.0%, 1.6% and 21.9, respectively were recorded at speed of 6.7km/hr, while the highest percentage of scuffed, peeler and severe damage tubers of 2.1%, 0.3% and 2.7% respectively were recorded at Speed of 4.3km/hr.

Statistical analysis (P<0.05) showed that increasing the forward speed, increased effective field capacity and fuel consumption significantly while there was no significance effect on wheel slippage. Furthermore, increasing the digging depth increased the wheel slippage and fuel consumption significantly where the effective field capacity significantly decreased. The conveyer inclination showed no significant effect on machine performance.

Keywords
potato digger machine lifting potatoes cut of potatoes bruised potato and Total Damage index and machine performance
Download Options
Download Full PDF
Share Article
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Introduction

The tropical root and tuber crops are comprised of crops covering several genera. They are staple foods in many parts of the tropics, being the source of most of the daily carbohydrate intake for large populations. These carbohydrates are mostly starches found in storage organs, which may be enlarged roots, corms, rhizomes, or tubers. Many root and tuber crops are grown as traditional foods or are adapted to unique ecosystems and are of little importance to world food production. Others such as cassava (ManihotesculentaCrantz) and white-fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) are known worldwide. [1].

The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), Solanaceae, is the most important oleracea culture around the world. It is considered the fourth largest source of human food, standing after rice, wheat and corn. The global annual production of potato is around 321 million tons, being cultivated in about 125 countries. More than a billion people eat potatoes every day around the world [2]; [3].

Potato is one of the main human alimentary resources. It was the sixth alimentary product in the world after sugar cane, maze, rice and paddy, wheat and milk [4]. Among the processes that make up the production system of potato cultivation, harvesting is presented as a crucial step, and one of the most expensive in the production process [5]. In Sudan There are problems regarding potato cultivation and storage. The collection of these problems cause the cut of product yield and rise of wastage value as the mean of potato production is 24 tons/ha but this number amounts to 50 tons/ha at developed countries [6].

Conclusion
  1. The percentage of lifting potatoes, cut of potatoes, Bruised and Total Damage index potato and some of machine performance such as travel reduction (wheel slippage), effective field capacity and fuel consumption as affecting by different forward speed, harvesting (digging) depth and conveyer inclination were measured and evaluated.
  2. Forward speed Sp2 of (5.6km/hr) was having the highest tubers lifting percentage of 93% which was nearly 0.2% and 3.5% more than that at (Sp1 of 4.4km/hr) and (Sp3 of 6.7km/hr). furthermore, as the forward speed increased from Sp1 to Sp3 the cut potatoes increased from 2.3% to 2.5%, on the other hand, less percentage of scuffed, peeler, severe damage tubers and total damage index of 0.2%, 0.0%, 1.6% and 21.9 were recorded at high speed of 6.7km/hr, while the highest percentage of scuffed, peeler and severe damage tubers of 2.1%, 0.3% and 2.7% was recorded at lower of 4.3km/hr.
  3. the  treatment of Sp2 + harvesting depth2 + conveyer inclination 1, may be  considered as  best  optimized value  for  potato lifting percentage (97.6%) of  the potato crop.
  4. The best optimized values of speed-inclination combination with respect to total damage index were Sp1 + harvesting depth3 + conveyer inclination 2, Sp2 + harvesting depth3 + conveyer inclination 2 and Sp3 + harvesting depth3 + conveyer inclination 1.
  5. The best optimized values of fuel consumption of (7.95lit/ha) may obtained from the combination of the following treatments Sp1, Depth 2and Inclination2 and the better EFC value of (1.56fed/hr) could be obtained under the following treatments of Sp1 + harvesting depth3+ conveyer inclination 1.
  6. With increase in harvesting (digging) depth, the tubers’ lifting goes on increasing, while the cut of potatoes was decreased from to 5.9% to 1.2% and from 1.2% to 0.2% as the harvesting depth increased from 16cm to 18cm and from 18cm to 21cm, respectively. The depth of 21cm produced higher scuffed, peeler and severe damage tubers and total bruised (damage) index of 2.2%, 0.5%, 5.1% and 43.6 respectively.
  7. Consistent increase in tubers lifting percentage, the mean values of percentage of scuffed damage tubers, peeler damage tubers, severe damage tubers, total  damage index were recorded due to change in conveyer inclination from inclination 1 to inclination 2, while decreased from 2.6% to 2.3% as the inclination changed from inclination1 to inclination 2.
References
  1. Younus.A and  P.R.jayan. Performance Evaluation of Root Crop Harvesters. International Journal of Engineering Research and Development.2015, 11(06): 38-52.
  2. Mullins, E.; Milbourne, D.; Petti, C.; Doyleprestwich, B.M.; Meade, C..Potato in the age of biotechnology. Trends in Plant Science, Amsterdam, 2006, 11(5): 254-260.
  3. Streck, N.A.; Lago, I.; Alberto, C.M.; Bisognin, D.A. Simulação do desenvolvimento da batata cultivar Asterixemcincocenários de mudançasclimáticasem Santa Maria - RS. Bragantia, Campinas, 2006, 65(4): 693-702.
  4. FAO, 2011. Retrievied 12 29, 2013 from FAO: http://faostat.fao.org/.
  5. MILNE, F. 2007. The canon of potato science: potato harvesting. Potato Research, Wageningen, 50(3): 347-349.
  6. Tarkesh S. 2005. Potato operation comparison of American and European variety with use of molecular indicator of AFLP. M. SC. thesis, Iran, Shahrekord University, Agriculture Faculty (In Persian).
  7. NasreIsfahani M.,.Poato wastage in Freidan storehouse.Isfhan agriculture research center, Sapling and seed. 2003, 19 (2): 191-208 (In paersian).
  8. Muhammad Y., Mehmood A. M., Rehman.,. Design development  and performance evaluation of rotary potato digger. AMA, 2003, 34(2): 43-46.
  9. Misener G.C.,. A tractor –mounted mechanized potato harvest. Part third, post harvest, Sonboleh magazine, 1985, 88(1): 37-43. (In paersian).
  10. Sharma A.P., Verma S.R., Bansal A. S.,. Design, development and field testing of multi purpose potato digger. Potato Journal , 33(3-4): 134-138.
  11. Saqib G. S., Wright M. E., 1986. Vibratory digger for harvesting sweet potatoes in cloddy soils. J. Agr. Eng. Res., 1986, 34 (1): 53-61.
  12.  Kang. W. S., J. L. halderson |J. L., A vibratory, two-row, potato digger. Applied engineering in agriculture, 1991, 7(6): 683-687.
  13. FILGUEIRA, F.A.R.. Novo manual de olericultura: agrotecnologiamodernanaprodução e comercialização de hortaliças. 2.ed. Viçosa: UFV, 2003, 412 p.
  14. Gomes, J.A. 2002. Desempenhooperacional de colhedoras de batata (Solanum tuberosum L.). f. Dissertação (MestradoemMáquinasAgrícolas) - UniversidadeEstadual de Campinas, Campinas.
  15. Dias, V.O.; Souza, R.; Alonço, A.S. Viabilidadeeconômica do investimentoemplataformas de colhedoras de milhoemespaçamentoreduzido. EngenhariaAgrícola, Jaboticabal, 2007, 27(.2).
  16. Baio, F.H.R.; Antuniassi, U.R.; Balastreire, L.A.; Caixetafilho, J.V. Modelo..deprogramação linear para seleção de pulverizadoresagrícolas de barras. EngenhariaAgrícola, Jaboticabal, 2004, 24 (2): 355-363.
  17. Md. Akhir, H., &Desa Ahmad. Mechanization of sweetpotato production in Bris soil.National Conference on Agriculture Production in Bris soil, 6-7 Sept 2005, Kota Bharu Kelantan.
  18. Md.Akhir, H., & Tan, S. L. Mechanisation possibilities for sweetpotato production, International Symposium on Machinery and Mechatronics for Agricultural and Bioproduction Systems (ISMAB), Nov. 3-7, 2002. TAIWAN.
  19. Mady, M. A. A. 1991. Mechanization of potato harvesting.P. hD.Agri. Eng. Al-Azhar Univ.
  20. Naji, M. N. 2005.  Effect of operating variable of potato harvester on potato tubers damage. M. SC. thesis, Agriculture Faculty - King Saud University KSA.
  21. Nareder, 2012. Performance evaluation of root crop digger. M. SC. thesis. Department of farm machinery and power engineering college of agricultural engineering and technology ccs haryana agricultural university.
  22. Sharma, A.  P. and   Verma, S.  R..  Performance and vibration of tractor   mounted oscillatory potato digger, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia Africa and La tin America, (1986), 17 (1): 47-51.
  23. Ibrahim, M. M., Amin, E. and  Farag, A. Developing a multipurpose digger   for harvesting root crop digger. Misr  J . A g. Eng, (2008), 25 (4): 1225-1239.
  24. Murugesan, R. and Tajuddin, A. Digger for   turmeric harvesting-   A field experience. Agricultural Engineering Today. (1995), 19 (1-2): 51-56.
  25. Arfa G. K..The effect of harvesting operation on potato crop handling.Misr J. Ag. Eng., 2007, 24(3): 492-503.
  26. Kheiry, A. N. O and Dong xing, Z.. Work rate, wheel slippage and Some Soil proprtis as affected by Staggered reciprocating sub-soiler and tractor forward speed. Int. J. of Eng, Studies and technical Approach (IJESTA). (2016), 2 (8): 1-11.
  27. Kheiry, A. N. O and Dahab, M. H..Comparative of field performance Evaluation of Two row planters as affected by soil condition and forward speed.Int. J. of contemporary applied sciences (IJCAS). (2017), 4 (3): 43-49.
  28. Kheiry, A. N. O; Mohamed, M. A; Rahma, A E and Albahi, A.. Performance evaluation of GIAD chisel plow CP007 under different type of soils. Int. J. of Sci. & Eng. Research (IJSER). (2017), 8(3): 1273-1283.
  29. Kepner, R. A; Bainer, R and Barger, E. L. (1982).Principle of farm machinery.4th ed. AVI publishing Comp. INC, west port.
  30. Baloch, M. J., B.A. Mirani, and S. Bukhari. Prediction of field performance of wheel tractor . AMA, (1991), 22(4):21-24.
  31. Al-suhaibani, S. A and Abdulrahman Al-Janobi. Draught reqirements of tillage implements operating on sandy loam soil. J. agric. Eng. Res.. (1997), 66(3): 177-182.
Article Preview
Quick Actions
Download PDF View References
Article Info
Pages
87-101