Aquacultural Engineering 4 (1985) 247-255

A Preliminary Report on a Mechanical Crawfish Harvesting Unit

R o b e r t J. E d l i n g a n d T h o m a s B. L a w s o n Agricultural Engineering Department, Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA

ABSTRACT The commercial crawfish industry in Louisiana is rapidly expanding. Because current harvesting methods are labor intensive and expensive, an automated mechanical harvester was developed. The automated harvester is based on high density trapping with frequent trap movements. A linear move irrigator, which is adapted to large areas, was used as a chassis. Movement o f the harvester was controlled automatically. The machine lowered traps for a preset trapping time, lifted and emptied the traps and moved a programmed distance before resetting the traps. In a comparison test, the machine equaled or exceeded the efficiency o f standard trapping methods. Little mechanical difficulty was experienced with the harvester.

INTRODUCTION Louisiana produces over 90% o f the crawfish cultured in the United States. There are an estimated 40 500 ha devoted to crawfish farming in Louisiana, and the industry is expanding rapidly (de la Bretonne, 1983). Although over 90% o f the crawfish produced are consumed locally, more widespread markets are expected to develop, and crawfish farming appears to have a bright future in Louisiana and other southern states. The largest expense in crawfish farming is harvesting. From 40 to 60% o f the gross receipts are associated with harvesting. Crawfish are currently harvested using baited wire traps manually placed into ponds 247 Aquacultural Engineering 0144-8609/85/$03.30- Elsevier Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1985. Printed in Great Britain

248

R. J. Eclling, T. B. Lawson

at densities of 2 5 - 1 0 0 traps ha -1. The most popular trap is cylindrically shaped and has two entrance funnels at the b o t t o m . The traps are approximately 45 cm in diameter, 91 cm tall and are made o f 1.9 cm hexagonal mesh rubber-coated chicken wire. Other configurations are also used (Lawson and Wheaton, 1982). The traps are baited with approximately 200 g of cut fish, usually gizzard shad (Derosoma c e p e d i a n u m ) . The catch is normally emptied and the trap rebaited once a day. The most efficient harvesting methods employing boats, are capable o f emptying 200 traps or more per hour (Huner and Barr, 1980). Research has shown that production can be increased b y harvesting 7 5 - 1 0 0 traps ha -1 three times daily (Pfister, 1982). However, the labor requirements associated with such frequent, high density trapping is excessive. Therefore, a mechanical harvesting system requiring only limited labor would be o f value to the crawfish farming industry.

H A R V E S T E R DESIGN The automatic harvester design is based upon high density trapping with frequent trap movements and set times of short duration. The trapping m e t h o d uses a trap density o f 4 3 5 - 1 0 0 0 traps ha -1 with a 6-60 min set time. Conventional trapping methods use a trap density o f 2 5 - 1 0 0 traps ha -1 with a 24 h set time. After each set of the automatic harvester the crawfish in the traps are dumped mechanically. As the crawfish are being dumped, the entire machine moves to a new programmed position, and the traps are reset on the pond bottom. The machine trapping mechanism will be described first, followed by a description o f the machine control and chassis that carries the multitrap harvesting mechanism. Figure 1 is a schematic of a partially raised trap. At the end of a programmed set time 0-75 kW electric m o t o r rotates a shaft to which the lift cables are connected. The trap travels up the telescoping arms and rotates on a horizontal shaft at the top o f the trap support that is connected to the side of the funnel. Rotation continues until the trap is in an inclined position, at which time the crawfish easily tumble out o f the trap and fall through the funnel into the transport pipe. Approximately 151 liter o f water min -1 continually flushes the pipe, conveying the crawfish to a holding area at the end of the pipe. The machine then moves a pre-determined distance before the traps are lowered. The

A preliminary report on a mechanical crawfish harvesting unit

249

Fig. 1. Schematic of a partially raised trap, showing: trap entrance (A), trap support with telescoping arms (B), lift cables (C), funnel (D) and pipe that transports the crawfish (E).

electric m o t o r connected to the lift cables is reversed, and the traps are lowered, returning to a vertical position and onto the pond bottom. The traps used with the harvester were cylindrically shaped, 53 cm in diameter and 122 cm tall with an open top. They were designed to allow the crawfish easy entrance into the trap from virtually any direction. The entrance opening on each trap was a 5 cm wide slit extending 270 degrees around the circumference of the trap at the base. The quarter of the trap nearest the pipe was left as wire mesh to create a slide area for the crawfish to aid in dumping. The bait was impaled on a large pin clipped to the trap b o t t o m . It was possible to program the machine to lift the traps at set time intervals ranging from 2 min to 4 h and move a distance o f up to 12 m during the 4 min allowed for crawfish to e m p t y from the traps. Data from an earlier model indicated that 4 min was sufficient time for the traps to empty. A 2-span Valmont Ranger linear move irrigator was used to support the traps and other necessary harvesting equipment. One span measured 33 m and the other 39 m. The irrigator spanned a 0.8 ha pond measuring 72 m by 134 m. A levee for the center tower wheels of the

250

R. J. Edling, T. B. Lawson

irrigator was constructed in the center of the pond, thus dividing the pond into 2 cells approximately equal in size. Eighteen traps were suspended 3 m apart beneath the irrigator: 10 traps on the 39 m span and 8 traps on the 33 m span. Irrigators with as many as 20 spans are produced, therefore the machine concept is adaptable to much larger ponds. The irrigator was electrically controlled by a 10 kW generator powered with a 4 cylinder air-cooled diesel engine. The drive motors operated on a 3-phase 480 volt system; controls and safety circuits were 110 volts. The speed of the irrigator was controlled by a percentage timer. Since linear movement is at a constant speed (approximately 2 m rain-l), the percentage of each minute that the motors operate control the speed. The crawfish harvesting system was operated by the electrical system of the irrigator and was designed to be easily attached to and detached from the irrigator. Figure 2 shows the machine with the traps in the set position and Fig. 3 shows the traps in the raised position.

Fig. 2.

Machinewith traps in the set position.

A preliminary report on a mechanical crawfish harvesting unit

251

Fig. 3.

Machine with traps in the raised position.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Initial testing of the machine began in mid-March, 1982 (Morgan, 1982). The objective o f the tests was to determine if the machine could attain harvests comparable to conventional harvesting methods. The machineharvested pond and a pond similar in characteristics to the machineharvested pond were located at the LSU Ben Hur Aquaculture Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Fifty traps were installed in a grid pattern in the non-machine-harvested pond for comparison, representing a relatively dense trap concentration o f 75 traps ha -1. The standard traps and the machine traps b o t h were baited with cut fish. Standard traps were emptied and rebaited each morning; the machine was run for about 6 h each day. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen were recorded daily in the machine-harvested pond. Twenty crawfish were removed daily from each side of the machine-harvested pond and weighed. The test was run for a 10 day period. Results are shown in Table 1.

252

R. J. Edling, T. B. Lawson

A paired t-test was used to analyze and compare the total daily machine catch with the control catch. There was no significant difference b e t w e e n the total daily weights o f machine catch and control catch - however, the control catch crawfish were larger. The 10 trap side of the pond yielded 2.5 times more than the 8 trap side, even though it was only 1.2 times larger. The average daily weight of 20 crawfish was also greater from the 10 trap side (0.43 kg) than the 8 trap side (0.28 kg). These differences may be related to water quality effects - however, the specific reason for the differences has not been determined because water quality measurements other than dissolved oxygen and water temperature were not made. To estimate the potential o f the machine, an economical analysis was made (Morgan et al., 1982). Because assumptions made were subject to question, the results of the analysis can only be considered preliminary and provide a first estimate concerning the economical feasibility o f the machine. A reasonable payback period o f 5-9 years was indicated by the analysis. However, the analysis was based on annual production levels of 1680 kg and 2020 kg ha -1 and on an average movement speed of 0.3 m rain -1. The 0.3 m min -1 average movement speed was obtained b y assuming a 6.0 m move with a set time of 20 min. Using this movement distance and set time the machine t o o k about 6 h to harvest the test ponds. Without the above two conditions the feasibility of the machine is questionable. Therefore, the primary objective of further tests conducted was to determine the validity of these assumptions. Following crawfish pond management recommendations, the twocell research pond was drained in June o f 1982 and hand-seeded with pre-soaked rice at a rate of approximately 112 kg ha -1. A good stand was obtained, and the pond was flooded in October when cooler fall weather began. Dip net samples in November indicated a good population of small crawfish. Dissolved oxygen below 1-0 mg liter -~ was experienced on 1 November and the machine was used to aerate. Harvest began in mid-January. Early yields were small due to the small number of large crawfish and the low activity o f the crawfish in water below 13C. Because of the inactivity a set time o f 1 h was used instead of the 20 min set time. The larger set time meant increased time to harvest the test pond, from 6 to 18 h. Frequency of harvesting was also altered to maintain the 0.3 m min -1 average long term movement speed. By the

TABLE 1 Results from the 1982 Test Comparing Environmental Conditions and Harvest Methods

Date 8 trap side

Mechanical harvesting

Conventional harvesting

2"

10 trap side Catch (kg) Temp (C) DO (rag litre -1) Catch (kg}

c~

Temp (C)

DO (rag litre -1}

Total daily catch (kg)

Check daily catch (kg)

~. ~" ,~ :~ =, ~. 19 14 18 16 10 10 9 11 10 12 129 20 15 18 16 10 10 8 11 11 10 129

24 March 25 March 26 March 27 March 28 March 29 March 30 March 31 March 1 April 2 April Total

20-5 23.3 18.0 14-5 12.0 13.2 18.0 20.0 21,0 24.5

3.0 3.2 7.5 9.0 10.0 9.6 7.2 6.7 5.4 7. l

15 10 13 11 6 7 6 8 7 9 92

20.0 23.0 18-0 14-0 12.4 13.0 18.0 20.0 21.0 25-0

6-0 5-5 7.9 9.0 10.0 10-0 8-2 7.6 6.2 7.6

4 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 37

1"-3

254

R. J. Edling, T. B. Lawson

end of January production increased substantially. The weather turned cool the first week of February and yields decreased due to reduced crawfish activity. The bait was changed from carp (Cyprinus carpio) to shad the fourth week of February due to the unavailability of carp. In addition, low dissolved oxygen conditions (below 1.0 mg liter -1) occurred at that time. Stunting, as indicated by small size, muddy crawfish appearance and reduced crawfish activity occurred at the end of February. Except for infrequent high yields, the production of the ponds never returned to acceptable production levels. Although many explanations have been suggested, it is thought that the low dissolved oxygen conditions gave rise to stunting, reduced yields and lack of a successful harvest with the machine. Plans are being made to provide better aeration in the future. In addition to aeration there was also a problem with maintaining the average assumed speed of 0.3 m min -1. Following the economic analysis assumptions of area covered with the machine (Morgan et al., 1982), the machine on the test pond was to be active only one-fourth of the time; Le. one 6 h trapping period per day or one 18 h trapping period every 3 days. Calculating average production over 120 days at a moderate production level of 1300 kg ha -~ gives a daily production of 10-8 kg or 32.4 kg every 3 days. Data taken were only infrequently above these values, even early in the season before stunting became evident. There were not enough crawfish getting trapped in the allotted time to indicate that the machine was economically feasible. Mechanically, the machine worked fairly well. Some trouble was experienced in correcting damage to the guidance mechanism that occurred when the guidance cable was accidently broken. The lift mechanism also needs to be improved because the pickup cable tends to bind between the pulley and pulley housing when the cable is slack, leading to cable breakage. Originally, each trap had a pickup cable on each side, however, it was difficult to maintain the same tension in each cable. One cable was removed, but problems continued. Finally, a small rope was used, but again difficulties were experienced. Work will continue toward a solution to this minor problem. CONCLUSIONS The prototype crawfish harvesting model shows promise although additional work is needed. It is felt that a mechanical crawfish harvester

A preliminary report on a mechanical crawfish harvesting unit

255

can be developed that will be successful and will be adopted by the commercial crawfish industry. If successful, an automated crawfish harvesting system will save the farmer m a n y dollars which would ordinarily go towards trap materials, bait and labor.

REFERENCES de la Bretonne, L. (1983). Production Statistics and Market Predictions, Crawfish Tales, 2 (3) pp. 8-9. Huner, J. V. & Barr J. E. (1980). Red Swamp Crawfish: Biology and Exploitation, Sea Grant Publication No. LSU-T-80-001, Louisiana State University, Center for Wetland Resources, Baton Rouge, LA. Lawson, T. B. & Wheaton, F. W. (1982). Pond culturing of crawfish in the southern United States. A quacultural Engineering, 1 (4), 311 - 17. Morgan, K. L. (1982). An automated system of harvesting crawfish using a linear move irrigator. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Morgan. K. L., Edling, R. J. & Musick, J. A. (1982). A mechanical crawfish harvester. Louisiana Agriculture, 26 (2), 4-5. Pfister, V. A. (1982). Evaluation of selected crawfish traps and trapping techniques in Louisiana. MS Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA. Roberts, K. J. (1980). Louisiana Crawfish Farming, An Economic View. Cooperative Extension Release, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.