Technical Evaluation of Three Methods of Manual, Semi-mechanized, and Mechanized Peanut Harvesting in Moghan

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• J. Taghinazhad ¹
• S. Rahmani ²

¹ Department of Agricultural Engineering Research, Ardabil Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, AREEO, Ardabil, Iran

² Department of Agricultural Engineering Research, AREEO, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.2022.74048.1079

Abstract

Introduction
The harvesting stage is the most crucial phase in peanut production. In other words, one of the critical stages in producing this product is the harvest stage. Although it has its difficulties, this stage is associated with significant losses, which experts attribute to the high economic value of peanuts. In recent years, farmers in the Moghan Plain have also started considering this product due to the special conditions of the Iranian economy. In 2020, this study investigated three methods of peanut harvesting in two stages: manual, tractor-mounted thresher (semi-mechanized), and harvesting with a pull-type combine. The first stage involves the complete removal of the plants from the soil, while the second stage involves drying and separating the peanut pod from the plant in Moghan.
Methods and Materials
The experiment followed a split-plot design in the form of randomized complete blocks with four replications. The main plot consisted of soil moisture levels at harvest time, which were tested at three different levels: a1- 21%, a2- 18%, and a3- 15%. The sub-plot involved testing the separation of peanut pods from the plant using three different methods: b1- combine harvesting, b2- harvesting with a tractor-mounted thresher, and b3- manual harvesting. The study evaluated important harvest indicators such as quantitative loss (first and second-stage losses), actual field capacity, harvest time, and the number of required laborers. The results led to the identification of the best harvesting system.
Results and Discussion
The study revealed that the optimal soil moisture content for the initial stage of harvest was 18%. For most parameters, there was a significant difference observed among treatments at the 1% level. The pull-type combine method had the highest farm capacity with a maximum of 0.46 ha per hour, while the manual harvesting method had the lowest capacity with a minimum of 0.006 ha per hour. The total losses ranged between 5.95% and 10.58%, with the manual harvesting method exhibiting the lowest loss and the pull-type combine method showing the highest loss. Furthermore, the manual harvesting method required more labor compared to the other methods.
Conclusion
Based on the obtained results, it is recommended to use a pull-type combine for the early harvesting of peanuts and a manual method for obtaining high-quality peanuts in the Moghan region.

Keywords

• Combine
• Harvesting method
• Peanut losses
• Yield

20.1001.1.22286829.1402.13.2.10.9

Main Subjects

• The relationship between machine and soil

©2023 The author(s). This article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source.

References

1. Almassi, M., Kiani, Sh., & Loveimi, N. (2001). Principles of agricultural mechanization, Hazrat Masumeh Press, 2, 248.
2. Azmoudeh Mishamandani, A., Navid, H., Abdollahpour, Sh., & Moghaddam Vahed, M. (2013). Comparison of peanut harvest losses in both machine and manual methods. 8^th National Congress of Agricultural Machinery Engineering (Biosystems) and Mechanization of Iran, Mashhad, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian).
3. Behroozi-Lar, M. (2000). Principles of Design of Agricultural Machinery. Scientific Publish Center of Islamic Azad University. Tehran, Iran. (in Persian).
4. Blum, A. (1999). Towards standard assay of drought resistance in crop plants. In: J. M. Ribaut & D. Poland. Molecular approaches for the genetic improvement of cereals for stable production in water- limited environments (final report). A strategic planning workshop, 21-25 June 1999. CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico.
5. Emadi, B., Nikkhah, A., Khojastehpour, M., & Peyman, S. H. (2014). The effect of farm size on energy consumption and input costs of peanut production in Guilan province. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 5(1), 217-227. (in Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v5i1.24894
6. FAO, (2015). Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/i4068e/i4068e.pdf
7. FAO. (2018). Food loss analysis: causes and solutions; Case study on the groundnut value chain in the Republic of Malawi. Rome. 50 pp. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
8. Gulluoghlu, L., Bakal, H., Onat, B., Kurt, J., & Arioglu, H. (2016). The Effect of Harvesting on Some Agronomic and Quality Characteristics of Peanut Grown in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 21(2), 224-232. https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.20186
9. IBM (2016). SPSS for Windows, version 24. IBM Corp Armonk (NY).
10. Jordan, D., Beasley, J., & Calhoun, S. (2008). Agricultural practices for peanut growing and harvesting. American Peanut Council Good Management Practices.
11. Padasht Dehgahei, M. N. (2016). Study of agronomic and morphological characteristics of peanut genotypes in Guilan province. Research Report, Oilseeds Research Department, Seed and Plant Breeding Research Institute, Karaj, Iran. (in Persian).
12. Rahmati, M. H., Sohrabondi, G., Khodadadi, M., & Razdadi, A. M. (2014). Technical and economic study of rice harvesting methods in Shirvan Chardavol region. Journal of Agricultural Machinery, 4(2), 378-386. https://doi.org/10.22067/jam.v4i2.34821
13. Reddy, T. Y., Reddy, V. R., & Anbumozhi, V. (2003). Physiological response of groundnut to drought stress and its amelioration: a critical review. Plant Growth Regulation, 41, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027353430164
14. Reshad Sedghi, A., & Zabolestani, M. (2003). Comparison of two methods mechanized and conventional of direct rice cultivation in terms of product performance and production costs, East Azarbaijan Research Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources Publications.
15. Safarzadeh Vishkaei, M. N. (2006). The effect of methanol on the growth and yield of peanuts. PhD Thesis Islamic Azad University, Research Sciences Branch, Tehran. (in Persian).
16. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52, 591-611.
17. Sharifi, Gh. J., Abbasi, M. R. & Fallah, S. N. (2015). Importance of peanut cultivation and its properties. Entesharate Noruzi. 1st Edition: 44-46.
18. Taghinezhad, J. (2019). Mechanization of peanuts in Moghan plain. Technical Journal. Publishing Committee of the Institute of Technical Research and Agricultural Engineering. Registration number 56307. (in Persian).
19. Zou, Sh., Tseng, Y. C., Zare, A., Rowland, D. L., Tillman, B. L., & Yoon, S. Ch. (2019). Peanut maturity classification using hyperspectral imagery. Biosystems Engineering, 188, 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2019.10.019