Thesis

A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELF PROPELLED CUTTER BAR

TYPE FODDER HARVESTER FOR BERSEEM (Trifolium alexandrinum)
AND SUDAN (Sorghum vulgare) CROPS IN AllAHABAD
In the partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of the degree of
Master of Technology
In
Farm Machinery and Power Engineering
Submitted By:
VIKRAM SINGH
13MTAEFMP016
Department of Farm Machinery Power & Engineering

Vaugh School of Agricultural Engineering and Technology
Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences
(Deemed-to-be-University)
Allahabad - 211007, U.P., India
2015
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGNAL WORK
This is to certify that the project titled “PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELF

PROPELLED CUTTER BAR TYPE FODDER HARVESTER FOR BERSEEM (Trifolium
alexandrium) AND SUDAN (Sorghum vulgare) CROPS IN ALLAHABAD” submitted to Sam
Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (Formerly Allahabad Agriculture
Institute) (Deemed-to-be-University), Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh in partial fulfillment of the
requirement for award of degree of Master of Technology in Farm Machinery and Power
Engineering, is bonafide record of research carried out by Mr. Vikram Singh under my
supervision and guidance. The project is recommended for acceptance.
DATE : Dr. RANA NOOR AALAM

PLACE: ALLAHABAD Research Engineer
AICRP on FIM
Department of Farm Machinery and Power
Engineering
VSAET, SHIATS, Allahabad
SELF ATTESTATION
This is to certify that I have personally worked on project entitled “PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION OF SELF PROPELLED CUTTER BAR TYPE FODDER HARVESTER
FOR BERSEEM (Trifolium alexandrinum) AND SUDAN (Sorghum vulgare) CROPS IN
ALLAHABAD”. The data mentioned in this report is the result of extensive work carried out by
me. Any data collected sources or borrowed from outside agency or some other report, has duly
been acknowledged. This project has not been submitted for the award of Degree/Diploma in any
other university.
PLACE: ALLAHABAD VIKRAM SINGH
DATE: ………………. 13MTAEFMP016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I am thankful to God almighty that made me able and complete enough to pursue
M.Tech. (Farm Machinery and Power Engineering) and provide me an opportunity to carry out
my dissertation work successfully.
Without the confidence and support of many people, I would not have had the courage to under
this research project. I would like to thank Dr. Rana Noor Aalam Research Engineer, AICRP on
FIM for his good advice, confidence in me and his enthusiasm in my research. He was my primary
resource for getting our science questions answered and was instrumental in helping me complete
this thesis. He provided insightful discussions about the research and helped me to become a better
engineer.
I would also like to express my reverence to Prof. Dr. Anshuka Srivastva, Head of Department
of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering and Prof. Dr. ir. D. M. Denis, Dean, Vaugh School
of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, were always there with valuable suggestion and who
made available every facility required during the course of my study.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation to technical staff Mr. Kuldeep, Mr. Rodney and Mr
Satish for helping and changing assembly from reaper binder to fodder cutter bar harvester and
assistance in field.
I convey my heart full thanks to Mr. Shubhendu Shyam, and Khileshwar, for their support and
guidance made me to work hard for successful completion of this dissertation
Above all I am thankful for the kind support and co-operation expended by my parents. I express
my deep sense of indebtedness to them for without their blessings and affections this report could
never have materialized.
VIKRAM SINGH
13MTAEFMP016
ABSTRACT
Harvesting of most popularly grown fodder crop is most commonly carried manually. It is a highly
expensive and high labor consuming method of harvesting. Harvesting is a highly time constrained
job resulting in heavy economic losses to the farmers, if it is delayed due to unavailability of labor.
With this view a Self-Propelled Fodder Cutter Bar type Harvester was tested in the local conditions
of Allahabad region. These tests were carried out to evaluate the performance of the machine and
show its effectiveness over the prevailing harvesting techniques.
The performance evaluation was done on the research farm region of Sam Higginbottom Institute
of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Allahabad at varying speed of harvester and different
type of fodder (Berseem and Sudan). The performance evaluation was done on the basis of field
capacity, field efficiency, and fuel consumption, and cost of operation. The comparison of
economics of operation of harvester with manual method of harvesting to prove its effectiveness
over the manual method.
The result showed an increase in the field capacity with the increase in the speed of operation. The
highest field capacity was obtained at the maximum speed i.e. 2.5 kmph. In case of berseem and
Sudan the highest field efficiency was obtained at highest speed i.e. 2.5 kmph and the lowest field
efficiency was found at highest speed i.e. 1.5 kmph respectively. The operating speed of harvester
also effects the harvesting as well as in this context, I had obtained the uncut plants (on % basis)
in this way that I had observed that the percentage of uncut plants was less at the minimum speed
of harvester i.e. 1.5 kmph and it was high at the highest speed of harvester i.e. 2.5 kmph which is
.80 % which is very less while seeing other profits. The cost of operation by harvester was found
to be ₹995.58 to ₹1754 at different speeds in case of berseem but in case of Sudan it was slightly
higher because of increased price of diesel i.e. ₹1002.54 to ₹1798.68 at different speed and with
manual method, this cost was ₹ 8160.00. Thus the manual method was 6.04 and 5.90 times costlier
as compared to harvesting by self-propelled fodder harvester for berseem and Sudan respectively.
The total labor requirement was very less which varies from 17.3 to 30.4 man-h/ha and 17.3 to 32
man-h/ha at different speeds of harvester for berseem and Sudan respectively which is very less as
compared to manual method of harvesting. Hence, the harvesting with self-propelled fodder
harvester was found to be more efficient as compared to the conventional method of harvesting.
ABBREVIATIONS
% Percent
₹ Rupees
Ƞ Efficiency
Ag. Agriculture
Ag. Engg. Agricultural Engineering
AMA Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America
Dept. Department
e.g. For Example
et al. And others
Fcal F Calculated
H Hour
ha Hectare
HP Horse Power
i.e. That is
M Meter
cm Centimeter
No. Number
SHIATS Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences.
Ftab F tabulated
USA United State of America
SV Source of variance
DF Degree of Freedom
SS Sum of Squares
MSS Mean sum of squares
R Results
S Significant
NS Non-significant
TFC Theoretical field Capacity
AFC Actual Field Capacity

LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
3.6 Material used in project 24
A1 Field performance data of the self – propelled fodder harvester 41

for berseem
A2 Field performance data of the self – propelled fodder harvester 42

for sudan
B1 Cost of operation with self-propelled fodder harvester for 43

harvesting Berseem
B2 Variable cost (per hour) at 1.5 Km/h for berseem 43
B5 Variable cost (per hour) at 1.5 Km/h for sudan 45
C1 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Efficiency 47
C2 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for actual field capacity 47
C3 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Fuel consumption 48
C4 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Efficiency 48
C5 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Actual field capacity 49
C6 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Fuel Consumption 49
D1 Specifications of serrated sickle 50
D2 Specifications of the Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 50-52

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page no.
3.1 Schematic diagram of Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 15
3.2 Side view of Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 15
3.3 Tools used in research work 24
4.1 Effect of forward speed and different crop on uncut plant 30
4.2 Effect of forward speed and different crop on fuel consumption 30
4.3 Effect of forward speed and different crop on actual field capacity 31
4.4 Effect of forward speed and different crop on theoretical field capacity 31
4.5 Effect of forward speed and different crop on efficiency 32
Effect of forward speed and different crop on cost of operation

4.6 32
4.7 Observing forward speed of travel 33
4.8 Measuring fuel consumption 33
4.9 Manual harvesting 34
4.10 Measuring width of cut 34

CONTENT
S. No. TITLE PAGE No.
Acknowledgment I
Abstract II
Abbreviations III-IV
List of Tables V-VI
List of figures VII
1 Introduction 1-3
2 Review of Literature 4-13
3 Materials and Method 14-24
3.1 Operational principle of the harvester: 14
3.2 Serrated sickle 16
3.3 Field performance 16-17
3.4 Measurements 17-21
3.5 Procedure for calculating cost of operation 21-24
4 Results and Discussions 25-34
4.1 Performance 25-28
4.2 Cost of Operation 28-29
4.3 Farmer Reaction 29
5 Summary and Conclusions 35
6 Suggestions 36
7 References 37-40
8 Appendices 41-52
A Appendix 41-42
B Appendix 43-46
C Appendix 47-49
D Appendix 50-52
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
It has been pointed out in the past that the ultimate goal of a farm business is to maximize its profit
return (Hunt, 1995). The use of agricultural machinery represents a major cost in the production
of agricultural crops (Buckmaster, 2003). If farm managers are going to accurately plan and budget
both time and money for the completion of farm operations, they must have access to appropriate
machine performance data to determine machinery related costs (Hassan & Larson, 1978) and
machine performance characteristics.
India is predominantly an agricultural country with 69.38% of its population engaged in it. The
production of grain has increased after independence due to high yielding varieties such as
increments in irrigation facilities, use of chemical fertilizers and use of improved agricultural
machinery. With the use of software programs such as ArcGIS™, CropWat 8.0, AquaCrop 4.0 etc
we can easily estimate the things related to agriculture.
Many of the recent advancements in agricultural machinery related technology have been in the
areas of electronics and information technologies (Schueller, 2002). These technologies have
created a major shift in the agricultural equipment sector towards mechatronics and precision
agriculture technologies (Srivastava, Goering, Rohbach, & Buckmaster, 2006). Farm machinery
includes a hues variety of devices with a wide range of complexity; from simple hand – held
implements used since prehistoric times to the complex harvesters of modern mechanized
agriculture.
Berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) is important winter forage, which plays a very vital role in
stabilizing the fodder crop production in country from past many of the years. Berseem is a fast
growing, high quality forage that is mainly cut and fed as green chopped forage. It is often
compared to alfalfa, due to its comparable feed value. However, unlike alfalfa, it has never been
reported to cause bloat. It is slightly less drought-resistant but does better on high moisture and
alkalinic soils. Moreover, berseem can be sown in early autumn and can thus provide feed before
and during the colder months It is quite nutritive and succulent. It has 20% crude protein and 70%
dry matter digestibility. Forage is also rich in calcium a phosphorous. Berseem cultivation also
changes chemical and physical characteristics of soil. Among the chemical changes is seen in the
quantity of total nitrogen, organic carbon and available phosphorous. The constituents generally,
are found to be increased by growing berseem. The physical changes are, it loosens compact soil,
makes better soil aggregation and decreases the bulk density of the soil. There is increase in
microbial population, this helps plant growth. Due to its smothering effects on weeds, the crop
also minimizes intensity of weed flora. Generally 600 – 1000 Quintals of green fodder per hectare
is obtained from berseem crop. Berseem gives green fodder from December to May, if it is shown
at the right time. Because of its family (Fabaceae) nature it fixes Nitrogen in the soil. By the many
of the research it is proved in which field Berseem is used to grow the productivity of that particular
field increases
Sudan Grass (Sorghum vulgare var. sudanense) is an annual forage grass native to areas thoughout
Africa and southern Asia. This is a valuable forage plant. The thick, erect stems usually arise in
groups from a single clump. The leaves are long and narrow and are arranged at the ends of the
stems on loose-bending branches. Because of its tolerance to long, hot, dry periods of weather,
Sudan grass is well adapted to the drier areas of the country. Sudan grass grows from 4 - 7 feet
tall, has leaves about 1/2 inch wide and stems about 1/4 inch in diameter. It can be harvested as
pasture, green chop, hay, or silage. Yields have ranges from 3 - 5 tons/acre dry matter. It can be
ready for harvest about 45 days after planting. The smaller stems give it better drying
characteristics than other sorghums for hay making. Hybrids are available that are slightly larger
and higher yielding.
Sorghum-Sudan grass Hybrids are intermediate in plant size between sorghum and Sudan grass.
Yield is generally less than for forage sorghums but similar to slightly higher than Sudan grass. It
can be used for hay, haulage, green-chop, and pasture. Larger stems make drying for hay more
difficult than for Sudan grasses.
The harvesting of above crop is done by fodder harvester is better than other harvesters due to vary
good response of self-propelled fodder harvester. This machine is highly accepted by the farmers
owing in its extremely low operating as well as minimize the cost.
Due to above qualities of this machine, it is very much adopted in few states like Punjab, Haryana
& Madhya Pradesh. It is estimated that harvesting and harvesting of crops consume about 1/3rd of
the total requirement of complete crop production system.
In addition to self- propelled fodder harvester and the tractor front mounted fodder also gives the
highly satisfactory performance and easily adopted by the formers in the states of Punjab and
Haryana. For the benefits of small farmers self-propelled fodder harvester has been also developed
at Department of Farm Power & Machinery, PAU, and Ludhiana.
In the past twenty years many organizations and projects in developing countries have invested
time and money in trying to achieve these goals. Most initiatives have failed. In some cases the
mechanism was simply not effective; in others the implements worked perfectly on research
centers, but could not cope with the variable fodder crop harvesting. Finally there were those that
met all the technical requirements, but which were not cost – effective in prevailing farming
system. Besides the above facts; in the figure the self-propelled fodder harvester can be used for
making silage, feed blocks, feed pallets etc.
Hence, considering the above facts, it has been realized that performance evaluation of the fodder
harvester gives highly beneficial to generate the information on the performance in local conditions
in the various regions and educate the farmers about its usefulness.
Therefore, keeping this in mind this project for the performance evaluation of a Self-Propelled
cutter bar type Fodder Harvester in the local conditions has been taken.
OBJECTIVES
1. To conduct field performance evaluation of Self Propelled Fodder Harvester for Berseem
and Sudan crops
2. To calculate the cost economics of Self Propelled Fodder Harvester for berseem and Sudan
crop.
3. To compare the cost of operation of Self Propelled Fodder Harvester with traditional
method.
CHAPTER - II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter is devoted to the brief review in connection with development of various kinds of
harvester, their operational detail, and field testing and performance evaluation in different fodder
crops. The sickle or scythe was the only toll in olden days that was used for harvesting instead of
pulling the plants, resulting in their uprooting. Now a days harvesters came as an ersatz to sickle
or scythe.
Wright (1800) made an unsuccessful attempt to design harvester scythes which was pulled
forward by horses. Boyce was granted a patent for harvesting machine in the year 1800. The nest
patent was granted to Mares in the same year for another machine.
Plumcknett (1805) use circular steel for cutting blade and made them very sharp at the edge and
notched at the upper side like a sickle. It the works parallel to the ground.
Balman (1811) developed a harvester with a clipping mechanism and devices for collecting and
delivering the cut fodder. Smith (1811) designed a machine with rotary cutter bar and had
arrangement fir the delivering of cut crop. It was a prototype machine having reel for gathering
and holding the crop.
Henery ogle (1822) developed a machine with reel for gathering the fodder over knife. Patrick
bell in 1876 made a practical machine with reciprocating knife.
Miller (1902) reported that the development of the mower for cutting fodder was closely
associated with the development of harvester. The first machine is used to cut grass.
Varghese and kurup (1946) developed a side mounted power tiller fodder harvester and they
observed that the harvester was working quite satisfactorily under the existing crop and field
condition. The quality of cut was very good as the machine left on uncut plant in the width of
coverage. Also the machine did not have any vibration problem while harvesting on the level land.
Saran and Ojha (1967) designed a hand operated grain harvester which covered 0.12acres per
hour but power for the operation was great limitation.
The Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi (1968) started the research work
on animal – drawn harvester. This research effort was similar to the work done at PAU, Ludhiana
excepting the introduction of horizontally operated belt conveying windrower behind the cutter
bar.
Anon (1969) developed a tractor mounted harvester suitable for tractors of 30hp pr above and
capable of harvesting 3 hectares per day at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The
performance of machine was reported to be satisfactory.
Verma and bhatnagar (1970) made considerable efforts to develop bullock drawn harvester
suitable for Indian situations. The machine developed by them was similar to the McCormick
reaper in design but weight was reduced. The design was commercialized. Because of high draft
and more labor requirement while working, this design could not become popular.
Dube (1978) develop and tested a manually operated harvester. The performance of the machine
was found satisfactory. The fodder losses were less as compare to the conventional method of
harvester.
Ali and Gupta (1979) reported the design of a harvester having its cutter bar operated by a petrol
engine. They found the laboratory performance of the harvester satisfactory.
Aneja and Newton (1979) A prototype berseem harvester was designed and developed at
National. Dairy Research institute. Kamal in 1972 to harvest berseem which is a main toddler crop
grown for feeding animals. The significant feature of the design is that the harvesting losses,
manual labor and the cost of operation are reduced to “minimum. Several comparative trials were
made with reciprocating mower, manual labor and the' newly designed harvester to make certain
modifications in it thereby improving the performance of the harvester.
Singh (1981) carried out some work on design and development of animal drawn harvester at G.B
Pant University of agriculture and technology. He found that relationship between power
requirement and plant density at different speed of operation. The power requirement for the
machine increased with the increase in plant density and speed of operation.
Misha (1983) conducted field trial on two design of Fodder harvester, P.T.O operated and the
other, self-propelled machine, were conducted. The self-propelled unit provided much better
maneuverability and other better visibility and control by the operated in comparison to P.T.O
operated machine.
Yadav & Yadav (1985) developed a tractor drawn soybean harvester. The basic design of the
machine was to cut the crop green and from crop bunches. They tested the implement and founded
losses were directly related to stage of crop maturity and speed of operation and gathering
components.
Stickney et al. (1985) reported that initially during this development of Fodder harvester, some
person were concern that the machine performance was so ordinary that acceptance should be wide
spread, thereby causing serious and unemployed land less laborers. But, later on saw that the fodder
harvester was not so extra ordinary. That it would be widely accepted in area where labor was
cheap (Roughly $1.50/day) and under employed. On other hand; they believed that the fodder
harvester would gain increasing acceptance in the Philippines when the economy recovered and
labor cost begin to rise.
Devnani & Pandey (1987) designed and developed the module of Fodder harvester for harvesting
Fodder crops such as Berseem, Lucern, Mentha etc. and evaluate. The 1.22m cutting width was
selected for harvesting. The operation performed by the fodder harvester including gathering and
cutting of crops and laying it on the ground. Performance studies showed that the cost of operation
and labor requirement for Fodder harvester were lower than the conventional harvesting method.
The values of capacity were higher than so for achieved by other harvester developed in India.
Yadav et al. (1992) designed and developed a simple and rugged oxen drawn harvester for
harvesting. It was light weight machine that required less draft as compared to others. The crops
harvested was delivered in the uniform bunches behind the cutter bar. The special feature of the
machine was transformation of low soil thust developed from traction wheel into higher force for
cutting crops though crank and lever mechanism at the cutter bar.
Chauhan et al. (1994) conducted a study on adoption of behavior of farmers toward the tractor
front mounted fodder harvester for harvesting Fodder crops. The harvester owner was selected on
random basis. Data was collected though personal interviews of the farmers. They noticed decline
in the purchase because farmers were not satisfied with the height of cut and lack of after sale
services as there were frequent breakdowns in harvester. These breakdowns were due to higher
bunds present in fields as well as poor materials used in manufacturing. Unavailability of labor for
collection of crops was also major problem.
Witney (1995). The number of turns can be reduced by using wider implements or creating longer
fields. However, turns cannot be fully suppressed. With an increase in the field area, the number
of turn’s decreases; the field efficiency of machinery increases and higher operational speeds can
be achieved. Proved that the proportion of time spent in productive operations considerably
increased with an increase in the field size. Furthermore, this increase became more significant
with an increase in the working width of the machine
Chattopadhyay and Pandey (1996). An investigation was undertaken in the laboratory to

determine the impact cutting energy while cutting single stems of forage sorghum by the knife of
a flail harvesting machine. The minimum cutting speed required for complete cutting is fairly
insensitive to the knife rake angle. The minimum cutting speed increased from 12·9 to 18·0 m/s
for a knife rake angle range of 20–60° as the knife bevel angle was increased from 30 to 70°. Such
low cutting speeds would not be capable of conveying the chopped forage successfully into the
accompanying forage wagon. When the cutting speed was increased from 20–60 m/s, the cutting
energy per unit cross-sectional area (specific cutting energy) for direct impact decreased by a factor
of about thee for bevel angles from 30 to 70°. When cutting was performed against a shear bar, the
specific cutting energy drastically reduced to between one-fifth and one-fifteenth of that required
for direct impact. Forward speed of the machine did not have any significant effect on specific
cutting energy. The specific cutting energy is not greatly sensitive to knife rake angle, but the
minimum energy requirement was observed at 40° rake angle for the experimental ranges of
cutting speed and bevel angle.
Tuteja et al. (1997) studied the constraints in adoption of Fodder harvester by interviewing 51
responds spreading over 37 villages in Hisar and Sirsa districts of Haryana (India). The interviews
were categorized as machine owners, custom hirers and other and their response were recorded in
Yes and No. the various constraints were divided into thee category viz. economical, operational
and infrastructural constraints. The major operational constraints were requirements of accessories
(100 %), requirements of manual harvesting on corners of field (100%), inability to harvest lodged
crop (97.35%), and problems in harvesting at high moisture content (96.04%), too many
adjustments requirement before operation (98.2 %). The infrastructural constraint were inadequate
repair facilities (100%) and non-availability of machine locally (90.21%). The economic constraint
were high cost Fodder harvester (75.83%), difficulty to collect the crop as compared to manual
harvesting (24.16%).
Khar and Ahuja (1999) Has evaluated self-propelled Fodder harvester with crop gathering
mechanism, two guiding shields were employed on two sides behind the cutter bar to make a
windrow of the cut fodder. The harvester was operated at forward speed of 1.5-2 km/h. the
effective cutting width was1, 250mm. the height of cut and fuel consumption varied from 35-50
mm and 0.5-0.6 l/h respectively. The field capacity varied from 0.12-0.15 ha/h with field efficiency
from 55-62%.
Earl et al. (2000) Developed a telemetry and vehicle location system for self-propelled forage
harvesters that allowed for the acquisition of data of working time, idle time or location for
different harvesters. Because the field data collected were position and time-related, the use of a
Geographic Information System (GIS) provided a method for integrating data collected from
different sources and for processing data for a further decision-making process.
Landers (2000) Carried out a study in fields of 10 ha each and different in shape. The author used
a 3 m-wide machine and observed that the best efficiencies were obtained in rectangular fields
when field operations were conducted parallel to the longest sides of the field. The differences
became more marked when field size decreased and tended to disappear in large fields.
Taylor et al. (2001) conducted tests with different maize planters and suggested that field
efficiency was not affected by field size. Yet, the smallest fields were larger than 0.5 ha, and most
test fields had an area between 2 and 20 ha.
Schuler (2006). Stated that with higher fuel prices, the proper operation and maintenance of
Forage Harvesters (Choppers) becomes more important to ensure maximum forage production
profitability. Some simple maintenance steps can have a significant impact on the fuel usage in
harvesting Alfalfa or grass silage and the machine’s capacity. A well-adjusted Forage harvester
will require an estimated 1.5 gallon of fuel per acre. Using a fuel price of $ 3.00 per gallon, the
fuel cost is $4.50 per acre.
Buckmaster (2006). Identified power, thoughput capacity, speed and drive as factors that
determine the field capacity of a harvester. However, the author pointed out that speed and soil
traffic ability are not limiting factors for the operation of the harvester. In Northwest Spain, the
small size of the fields and the relief of the area, sometimes abrupt with steep slopes, bring about
the need to consider new variables that better characterize effective field capacity. Under these
conditions, the effective field capacity of machinery operations is affected by field area and shape.
Srivastava et al. (2006) mention increasing machine capacity as one way to decrease timeliness
costs, as larger machines with greater capacity can accomplish more timely work. In addition,
optimal work organization and machinery utilization are important in achieving cost reductions.
Matin and Ahmmed (2006). Power tiller mounted reaper has some limitations foe harvester in
the field. Due to its heavy weight and length, its maneuverability is not easy. It is very difficult to
turn in headlands during operation and not suitable for wet lands. Soil compaction is more than a
power tiller unit. It is not possible to cross fields or ditches by hanging to overcome these
limitations, BARI power tiller operated reaper was modified into a BARI self –propelled reaper.
The field performance of the reaper was satisfactory. It is light weight and 5-6 people can carry
the reaper over fields, ditches or levees/bunds by hanging. It can be operated both in dry and wet
land, except in clay soil as in Gazipur. Turning in headlands is easy. It has an average field capacity
of 0.18ha/h foe paddy and for wheat 0.27ha/h. operational costs of harvesting were Tk. 245/ha for
paddy and Tk. 157/ha foe wheat (fuel and labor). Total costs of harvesting paddy and wheat were
Tk. 392/ha and Tk. 261/ha (fixed and variable cost), respectively. The reaper has a break-even use
of 3.5 ha/year and 3.4ha/year for paddy and wheat, respectively.
Amiama and Bueno (2007) Data for the effective field capacity of two self-propelled forage
harvesters were collected from 163 fields located in Galicia, Northwest Spain, during the silage
maize-harvesting season by using a telemetry system. The values obtained from the study were
related to crop yield, field area, field longitudinal slope and cross slope, and to attributes of field
shape: number of total vertices, number of acute vertices and shape index. Because of the lack of
a shape index that reliably reflects the impact of field shape on the effective field capacity of
harvesters, two new shape indices are proposed in this study. The results obtained using these two
indices are analyzed and compared with the results obtained using the conventional shape index
(area/perimeter squared).
The results of the analysis suggest a strong correlation between effective field capacity and both
crop yield and field area. In addition, significant but weak correlations were found between
effective field capacity and both longitudinal slope and shape index. The results obtained by
considering all fields and just the largest fields (of more than 1 ha) were similar.
Fields smaller than 1ha showed a worse fit of the regression line to the data, which suggests the
need to include new variables in the model. The results of the shape indices developed in this study
were slightly better than the results obtained using the conventional index.
Sahay (2007) A 26.1kW capacity tractor operated, hydraulically controlled, PTO operated, offset
running, cutter bar type forage harvester having overall length, width and height of 3.2×0.7×1.4 m
was evaluated for harvesting soft foliage crop berseem. The cutter was operated at 730+15 strokes
per minute corresponding to PTO speed of 540+10 rpm. The machine was able to harvest and
leave the cut berseem on its place effectively (cutting efficiency 94 to 98%). The machine was
operated in 1st (low) gear of forward speed of operation having forward speed of .09 to 1.0m/s. The
effective width of cut was found to be 1.8+0.1 m with 2.0 m long cutter bar, giving field capacity
in the range of 0.41 to 0.45ha/h. the field efficiency was found to be in the range to 70 to 82%.
The minimum height of cut crop was found to be10cm. The machine was also able to operate on
the bunds of 20 height. However, on the bunds, soil dragging was observed. Harvesting operation
was possible only in the fields where irrigation was provided five days before operation, having
moisture content in the range of 8.9 to 14.8% (w.b), observation of plants crushed under the tired
revealed that one m2 area from where tractor tires had run, consisted of 148 to 192 plants, of which
26 to 42% came under the tires. The plants that came i=under tire started growing like other plants
after four days of operation and twelve days after operation, there was absolutely no difference
among the plants that came under tires and the plants that did not come under the tire.
Pakkala (2008). Has evaluated self –propelled forage harvester machinery systems. The test data
collected consisted of the spans of field work, silage transportations and work in the clamp silo.
Every load was weighted and the fuel consumption was measured. These results, combined with
machine details, were the main material in cost calculations of the harvesting. The final results
included only the effective working time. Troubles at loading, load weight measurement and other
delays were removed from the results so that the comparison between these two machinery systems
would be possible. The final results indicated that a self-propelled forage harvester machinery
system is quicker than self-loading forage wagon system. The harvester, two trailer units and a
compacting machine harvested an area of 13, 66 hectares in 2,0 hours. The self-loading forage
wagon machinery system (wagon and compacting machine) spent 3,8 hours to the same work
which is twice as much. The labor requirements, fuel consumption (l/ha) and machine costs (€/ha)
are all about fifty percent less than in the self-loading forage wagon machinery system.
Reddy and Joshi (2008). A feasibility study was undertaken on reducing the cost of cultivation
in paddy though mechanizing harvesting operations at Agricultural Research Station, Gangavathi
during kharif, 2002 to rabi/summer, 2004-05 and also in the farmer's field. A vertical conveyor
power reaper (KAMCO Model KR 120) was used for the purpose. The overall performance of the
vertical conveyor reaper was quite satisfactory. The actual field capacity of the power reaper was
0.3 ha/h with a field efficiency of 73 % at an average operating speed of 3.2 kmph. The fuel
consumption was 5.5 l/ha. The cost of cultivation of paddy crop could be reduced though
mechanization of harvesting operations. Cost of mechanical harvesting was Rs.420/ha as
compared Rs 800/ha in the case of manual harvesting provided the machines are used for their
maximum usage of 144 hectares in a year. As the usage of the machine in terms of number of
hectare per year decreases, the cost of operation increases.
To breakeven with the cost of manual operation, the power reaper should be used at least on 35
hectares per year. Hence, the mechanical harvesting would be economical provided they are used
on an area of 35 hectare per year and above only.
Adisa et al. (2009), There was need to develop a mechanical harvester for Nigeria small rice fields
which are usually inter-planted with other crops. A study of field performance evaluation of a
30cm width prototype self-propelled pedestrian controlled grain stripper header which was
developed in Nigeria was carried out. In evaluating the harvester’s field performance, Randomized
Complete Block design (RCB) was adopted to study the harvester performance at various forward
speeds, stripper rotor speeds, stripper rotor heights, harvested grain purity, field capacity and
harvester efficiency. It was tested on faro 44 rice variety at Basawa, Zaria. The computed mean
value of crop purity was 89.70%, effective harvester mean field capacity was 0.40ha/day, harvester
mean field efficiency was 56.68% and harvester mean efficiency was 78.00%.
Ojomo and Ale (2010). A cowpea harvester was designed, constructed and evaluated for its
performance. The machine was fabricated with high carbon steel with an output capacity of
120kg/h. The performance of the harvester was evaluated at two crop moisture content 15.17%
and 17.47% and two main shaft speeds of 540 rpm and 1000 rpm. At moisture content of 15.17%
and machine speed 540rpm, the machine exhibits the highest functional efficiency of 93.75%,
quality performance efficiency of 81.21%, field loss of 3.4% and shattered loss of 6.66%. The
machine is statically and dynamically stable hence able to withstand vibration.
Koegel and Pritzl (2011). An alternative forage harvester was developed to reduce machine
energy requirements by utilizing an upward cutting cut-and-thow configuration. The cutter head
was inverted from its conventional orientation so that the knives entered the mat of uncut material
from below. This upward cutting concept allowed the chopped material to be thown directly out
of the cutter head without the subsequent friction loss of sliding the chopped material one-half
revolution around the cutter head housing as typical with conventional cut-and-thow
configurations. This upward cutting configuration reduced specific energy requirements by 30 and
34% compared to conventional cut-and-thow and cut-and-blow configurations, respectively. The
machine's thowing and blowing capabilities were considered adequate to convey chopped forage
to a trailing wagon, although thowing distance was only about 60% as great as a cut-and-blow
harvester
Reddy (2013) As the sweet sorghum wastaller (around 320-350 cm) than the normal sorghum
with girth ranging from 16-30mm, it was found very difficult to use the commercial self-propelled
reapers which were available in the market. Apart from the problems of cutting, conveying the
stalk to the side was found very difficult because of its size and weight. To solve this problem, a
new machine was conceptualized and developed at CRIDA workshop. It is mainly powered by 6.5
h.p. petrol engine which reduced the normal vibrations. A 3 tier conveying system with chain
mechanism was developed by anchoring with mild steel mesh panels on two sides. A horizontal
3- blade cutting disc was used to cut the stems as the machine moved forward (Fig. 3). The rpm of
the blade was adjusted to 850. The conveying speed was adjusted to synchonize with walking
speed (3-3.5 km/hour). Iinitial trials showed promising results and the design is under final
refinement before commercializing it. It wasalso planned to develop a tractor drawn harvester to
make it suitable for 2- 3 rows.
Aung and Win (2014) 4GL-120A power reaper was described to save time constraints and reduce
the cost of harvesting operation of rice by mechanization. This reaper was studied to recommend
the appropriate system for rice harvesting. The system was evaluated according to the technical
parameters: knife speed, operating speed, actual field capacity, and theoretical field capacity, field
efficiency, cutting efficiency, cost economics and percentage of grain losses. The actual cutting
width of the reaper was 1.2 m. In this study, performance of power reaper used for rice harvesting
was assessed and compared with manual harvesting using sickle. The results showed that the actual
field capacity of the reaper was 0.24 ha/h compared to 0.05 ha/h for manual harvesting. Labor
requirements for reaper and manual harvesting were 4 and 28 man-h/ha, respectively. The fuel
consumption, knife speed, field efficiency and cutting efficiency were 1.89 l/h, 1.223 m/s, 92%
and 98% respectively. The cutting cost of power reaper was 67% less as compared with manual
harvesting. The grain loss was less than 0.5% and was admissible. The overall performance of
power reaper for rice harvesting was found satisfactory.
Murumkar and Dongarwar (2014). The study was conducted on mechanized harvesting of
paddy for minimizing the cost of cultivation of paddy. A self-propelled vertical conveyor reaper
(KAMCO Model KR 120) was used for harvesting of paddy crop. The overall performance of the
self-propelled vertical conveyor reaper was quite satisfactory. The actual field capacity of the
power reaper was found to be 0.29 ha/h with a field efficiency of 70% at an average operating
speed of 3.00 km/h. The fuel consumption was 0.8 l/h. the cost of cultivation of paddy crop could
be reduced though mechanization of harvesting operations. Cost of mechanical harvesting was
690 Rs./ha compared to 2500 Rs./ha as in case of traditional method i.e. manual harvesting using
local sickle. The overall cost of harvesting was found to be decreased in case of mechanized
harvesting by self-propelled vertical conveyor reaper. Hence, the mechanical harvesting would be
feasible and economical compared to traditional method in terms of time, labor requirement and
money.
CHAPTER -III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
It deals with the functional details of the machine; procedure followed for field performance
evaluation and various measurements conducted on the field. The content of materials and methods
are explained under the following heads:
1. Operational principal of the harvester.

2. Serrated sickle.
3. Measurement.
4. Cost of operation
3.1 Operational principle of the harvester:
The self - propelled fodder harvester under study was a riding type. It is a self – propelled machine
with a 10.2 HP diesel engine as the source of power which is air cooled. Fodder harvester mainly
consist of a cutter bar, power unit, power transmission unit. The detailed specification of the
harvester has been given in table D2. In the transmission unit; the crop gathering mechanism was
available and two guiding shields are employed on both sides behind the cutter bar to make a
windrow of the harvested fodder which can easily be picked up the farm labors. The crop was cut
by 1.22m (4 feet) long cutter bar.
The main part and their functions are described as below:
1. Cutter bar assembly.

2. Power transmission.
3.1.1 Cutter bar assembly:
The cutter bar used in the harvester under study was a conventional reciprocating type cutter bar.
The knife sections were mounted on a mild steel flat bar and two guiding shields are employed on
both sides behind the cutter bar to make a windrow of the cut fodder. The cutter bar was driven by
the crank mechanism from the gear box provided on the harvester.
(1) Handle (2) Gears (3) Engine (4) Front wheel
(5) Inner shoe (6) Cutter bar (7) Outer shoe (8) Rear wheel
Fig. 3.1 Schematic diagram of self-propelled fodder harvester
Fig. 3.2 Side view of self-propelled fodder harvester

3.1.2 Power transmission:
The power unit in this harvester is a 10.2hp diesel engine which is air cooled. This engine is the
conventional diesel engine. The speed of the harvester is controlled by gear mechanism.
3.2 Serrated sickle:
The serrated sickle blade, unit predominantly follows the friction and shear principles to the plant.
The detailed specification has been given in table D1. The cutting forces was drastically reduced
compared to traditional sickle which uses impact principle. It consists of serrated blade, ferrule
and wooden handle. The unit was suitable for harvesting the Fodder crops like Berseem and other
green grasses.
3.3 Field performance:
The field performance of the self-propelled fodder harvester was undertaken in the month of
December, January and April. The harvester from SHIATS Allahabad was taken to the field. The
land chosen for the field performance had a standing crop of Berseem and Sudan. The performance
was done at full maturity of the crop.
3.3.1 Field preparations:
For the preparation; first of all, the different experiment plots were selected. For this purpose; I
had selected 4 plots of same area (i.e. 600m2) for berseem and 4 plots for Sudan of same area.
These plots were named as A1, A2, A3, and A4 at speed 1.5 kmph, B1, B2, B3, and B4 at speed 2.0
kmph, C1, C2, C3, and C4 at speed 2.5 kmph. one row of crop was harvested manually along the
length of the field so that the crops could fall down properly on the ground.
3.3.2 Machine preparation:
On the day of field performance, the machine was operated before in the field. The crop was
harvested only on two sides along the length of the plot. Harvesting was not done at high speeds
i.e. at more than 2.5kmph of speed because at high speed the machine had been become
uncontrolled and more quantity of uncut crops were found. Data on various performance
parameters were collected after the machine has harvested two rows on each side. During this
period; the operator got accustomed with the operation of the machine.
3.4 Measurements
To evaluate the performance of the self – propelled fodder harvester, the different parameters were
measured as Independent and dependent parameters are as follows:
3.4.1 Independent parameters
Independent parameters are such parameters which become vary. In this context, the following
independent parameters were measured;
1. Crop
a. Berseem fodder
b. Sudan fodder
2. Forward speed of travel.
a. 1.5 km/h.
b. 2 km/h.
c. 2.5 km/h.
3.4.1.1 Crops
For evaluating the performance evaluation of self-propelled Fodder harvester, we had selected two
crops Berseem and Sudan.
Berseem was originated in Syria. Berseem has a shallow taproot. Its stems are hollow, branching
at the base, with alternate leaves bearing 4-5 cm long x 2-3 cm broad leaflets. Flowers are
yellowish white and form dense, elliptical clustered heads about 2 cm in diameter.
Sudan grass grows from 4 - 7 feet tall, has leaves about 1/2 inch wide and stems about 1/4 inch in
diameter. It can be harvested as pasture, green chop, hay, or silage. Yields have ranges from 3 - 5
tons/acre dry matter. It can be ready for harvest about 45 days after planting.
3.4.1.2 Forward speed of travel
Forward speed of travel of the fodder harvester was measured after operating the machine for some
time when the speed has stabilized shown in Fig. 4.7. A 20.0 distance was marked by two poles
on each side of the plot in the center. Sufficient distance was left on each side of the pole to allow
the machine to come in actual working condition before the measurement of the speed. As the
front of the fodder harvester came in line with the two opposite poles, the stopwatch was started
and it was stopped at the end of 20.0 m distance. Knowing the time taken to cover 20.0 m distance
by the fodder harvester, the forward speed was calculated as given below:
Distance (m)
𝐅orward speed (m/s) =
time (s)
3.4.2 Dependent parameters:
Dependent parameters are such parameters which do not become vary. In this context; the
following dependent parameters were measured;
1. Fuel consumption.
2. Height of cut.
3. Width of cut
4. Uncut plants.
5. Effective field capacity.
6. Field efficiency.
7. Cost of operation.
8. Time.
9. Labor requirement.
3.4.2.1 Fuel Consumption
Fuel consumption is a very important factor regarding the economics of operation of the machine.
To find out the fuel consumption of the fodder harvester; it was stationed on a level ground outside
the field in the level position. The tank was then filled up to the top shown in Fig. 4.8 with constant
stirring of the fuel with the wooden stick to remove any air bubbles present in the fuel tank. The
machine was taken for operation in the field. After operation, the machine was again brought to
the same location where the tank was filled and the fuel tank was again topped up with measured
amount of the fuel with machine stationed in the level condition using measuring cylinder. The
amount of fuel needed for topping up the fuel tank gave were also measured.
3.4.2.2 Height of cut
The height of cut of plant is measure to find out the closeness with which the implement cut the
plant above the ground level. To measure the height of cut; a metallic scale was used. The height
of cut for both machine and manually harvested crops was measured from the tip of the cut to the
ground level. This process was replicated 25 times.
3.4.2.3 Uncut plants (on % basis):
The no. of uncut plants (on % basis) is determined as the ratio of no. uncut plants after harvesting
multiplied by 100 which is given as:
No. of uncut plants after harvesting

Uncut plant (on % basis) = ×100
No. of plants before harvesting
3.4.2.4 Field Capacity:
The field capacity of a farm machine or implement is the rate at which it performs its primary
function i.e, the no. of hectares that can be disked per hour. The field capacity of a farm machine
or implement has been divided into two categories which are as follows:
a. Effective or actual field capacity

b. Theoretical field capacity.
Effective or actual field capacity:
The effective or actual field capacity of a farm machine or implement is defined as the actual area
covered by the machine or implement per hour when the machine or implement is actual working
in the field which is given as follows:
Area Covered (ha)

Effective or actual field capacity (ha/h) = Time Taken (h)
Theoretical field capacity:
The theoretical field capacity of a farm machine or implement is defined as the area covered per
unit time based on 100 percent of time at 100 percent rated width. It is an important measure of
performance of any field machine or implement. On the basis of data of rated working width and
rated speed and the actual width of the harvester recorded during the test in the field, the theoretical
field capacity was calculated at below:
Actual width of cut (m) ×Speed (km/h)

Theoretical field capacity (ha/h) =
10
The theoretical field capacity of a machine depends only on the full operating width of the machine and
average travel speed in the field. It represents the maximum possible field capacity that can be obtained at
the given field speed when the full operating width of the machine is being used.
3.4.2.5 Field efficiency:
The field efficiency is defined as the ration of effective or actual field capacity to the theoretical field
capacity. It takes into account the time losses encountered in the field due to various reasons. The field
efficiency was calculated as below:
Effective or actual field capacity

Field efficiency (%) = × 100
Theoretical field capacity
3.4.2.6 Actual working time:
The actual working time was measured in the field using a stop watch. The stop watch was started
at the instant when the implement was started harvesting and the time was recorded for the period
when the implement was actually operating in the field. As a result of the above actions; we had
found the actual working time of the machine or implement in the field which is the combination
of the time losses due to turnings and the time lost in breakdowns.
3.4.2.7 Labor requirement
The number of labors required for harvesting, collection and bundling and time taken for these operations
were recorded. The data on labor requirement was not recorded as the harvesting was done on contract
basis. Only rate of harvesting per unit area was collected.
3.4.2.8 Cost of operation
Cost of operation is the very important factor to judge the performing the same operation. Thus in
order to compare the economics of the harvester over manual harvesting, the cost of operation was
calculated.
The following assumption were made for calculating the cost of operation of the harvester.
Initial cost of the harvester Rs. 2, 30,000
Life of harvester = 10years
Number of useful working hours= 500hs/year
Rate of interest = 16 percent/annum
3.5 Procedure for calculating cost of operation
3.5.1 Fixed Cost
Defined as expenses that do not change as a function of the activity of a business, within the
relevant period.
3.5.1.1 Depreciation
Depreciation is a cost resulting from wear, obsolescence, and age of a machine. The degree of
mechanical wear may cause the value of a particular machine to be somewhat above or below the
average value for similar machines when it is traded or sold. The introduction of new technology
or a major design change may make an older machine suddenly obsolete, causing a sharp decline
in its remaining value. But age and accumulated hours of use usually are the most important factors
in determining the remaining value of a machine. Before an estimate of annual depreciation can
be calculated, an economic life for the machine and a salvage value at the end of the economic life
must be specified. The economic life of a machine is the number of years for which costs are to be
estimated. It often is less than the machine’s service life because most farmers trade a machine for
a different one before it is completely worn out. Salvage value is 10 % of initial cost of the machine.
Depreciation is calculated by Straight line method given below:
C−S
Depreciation (₹)=
L×H
Where C= initial cost of machine
S= salvage value (Rs) = 0.1C
L= life (year)
H= number of useful working hours (h/year)
3.5.1.2 Interest
Interest of investment in a farm is a legitimate cost, since the money spent in buying a machine
can’t be used for other productive purpose. The rate of interest (Ir) was taken as 16 percent / annum
as prevalent in the market.
(C + S) × Ir
I=
2 × 100 × H
Where Ir = the rate of interest (%)
3.5.1.3 Taxes and insurance
This cost usually is much smaller than depreciation and interest, but they need to be considered. A
cost estimate equal to 3.0 percent of the purchase price often is used.
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐢𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 = 𝐃𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 + 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 + 𝐓𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
3.5.2 Variable costs
3.5.2.1 Fuel Cost
Fuel costs was estimated by using average fuel consumption for field operations in liters per hour.
Those value was multiplied by the fuel cost per liter to calculate the average fuel cost per
hour/hectare. Cost of fuel was taken @ Rs. 55.56/liter during harvesting of berseem and
₹57.39/liter during harvesting of sudan.
3.5.2.2 Lubrication Cost

As suggested by Kepner it was assumed 15 percent of the fuel cost.
3.5.2.3 Repair and Maintenance charges

Repair costs occur because of routine maintenance, wear and tear, and accidents. Repair costs for
a particular type of machine vary widely from one geographic region to another because of soil
type, rocks, terrain, climate, and other conditions. Within a local area, repair costs vary from farm
to farm because of different management policies and operator skill.
Repair costs was 6% percent of purchase price of machine per year.
3.5.2.4 Labor charges
Because different size machines require different quantities of labor to accomplish such tasks as
harvesting and bundling shown in Fig. 4.10, it is important to consider labor costs in machinery
analysis. Labor cost also is an important consideration in comparing ownership to custom hiring.
Actual hours of labor usually exceed field machine time by 10 to 20 percent, because of travel
time and the time required to lubricate and service machines.
Consider the working hours as 8 hours per day. It was taken as follows:
Labor charges for skilled labor = Rs. 450/day
For unskilled labor= Rs 240/day
Total variable cost =Fuel cost + Lubrication Cost + Repair and Maintenance Cost + Labor Charges
CostofOperation (₹/h)
Total Cost of Operation (₹/ha) =
EffectiveFieldCapacity (ha/h)
Table 3.6: Tools and instruments used during the experiment Shown
in Fig
S.No. Name of instrument/tool Purpose Least count Capacity
1 Measuring cylinder It was used for measurement of fuel 1 ml 250ml

consumption of reaper binder at
different speed of operation.
2 Stop watch It was used to measure the total time 0.1 sec 30 min
taken for harvesting of different plot size
area.
3 Measuring tapes It was used for measurement of plot size, 1cm 50m
height of cut width of cut etc.
4 Metallic scale It was used for measurement of height of 1mm 64cm

cut of crop.
1. Measuring cylinder 2. Stop watch 3.Measuring tape
Fig. 3.3 Tools and Instruments

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the results of performance evaluation of the self-propelled fodder harvester
obtained during the field performance. The details of various observations recorded in different
plots are given in Appendices. The results obtained have been analyzed and discussed under the
following headings.
1. Performance results.
2. Cost of operations.
3. Farmer’s Reactions.
4.1 Performance
This section of the chapter deals with the performance of the self-propelled Fodder harvester. The
parameters upon which the performance evaluation of the harvester was based were field
efficiency, field capacity, fuel consumption and the loss occurring due to uncut in the field while
harvesting.
The performance evaluation of the fodder harvester has been explained under the following heads:
1. Height of cut
2. Speed of operation
3. Width of cut
4. Uncut plant
5. Fuel consumption
6. Field capacity
7. Field efficiency
8. Labor requirement
9. Cost of operation.
4.1.1 Height of cut
The height of cut with the harvester varied from 3.5 to 5.0 cm for berseem and for Sudan 3 to
4.5cm cm whereas for the manual harvesting the variation was 1.9 to 3.1cm for berseem and Sudan
there was not much variation in height of cut when the machine was operated at different speeds
and different crops. The height of cut with manual method was much smaller as compare to the
height of cut by machine. While harvesting with the sickle the workers try to cut the plants as near
to the ground as possible. In case of harvester: the cutter bar has to be operated a little over the
ground to avoid stones and pebbles which could damage the cutting knives. Also the closeness of
cut depends on the skill of the operator.
4.1.2 Speed of operation
The speed of operation was taken as an independent variable to see its effect on various performance
parameters like height of cut, field capacity and efficiency etc. of the harvester for both crop. The speed of
operation was varied from 1.5 kmph to 2.5 kmph (table A 1 and A2). The minimum speed of 1.5 kmph was
obtained at minimum thottle setting of the machine. However the maximum speed could have been obtained
to more than 2.5 kmph but beyond the speed the control of harvester becomes difficult.
4.1.3 Width of cut
It can be observed that actual width of cut varies from 118 to 121cm shown in Fig. no. 4.11 against
the rated width of 122cm. from this data, it is clear that the width of cut was almost constant with
the variation in the speed of operation. Though there was not much variation in the width of cut
with change in speed and height of cut, still it shows that width of cut was maximum at lower and
moderate forward speed. May be this is the optimum speed at which the harvester should be
operated in the field. At this speed the operation of harvester was more stable as compared to
higher speeds
4.1.4 Uncut Plants
The uncut plants at different operating speeds of harvester and height of cut are shown in table A1
and A2 and Fig. no.4.1. The number of uncut plants during the evaluation of self-propelled fodder
harvester is taken as dependent parameter. It is calculated as on the percentage basis. During the
operation; we obtained that the percentage of uncut plants varied as 0.77 to .80% in berseem and
for sudan it was .782% to .787%. it has been observed that the no. of uncut plants are less at lower
speed as compared to that of percentage of uncut plants at higher speed.
4.1.5 Fuel consumption
The fuel consumption at different operating speeds of harvester and for different crops are shown
in the table A1 and A2 and Fig. no. 4.2 for berseem and Sudan respectively fuel consumption
varied from 0.35 l/h to 0.48 l/h. and .36 l/h to 0.49 l/h respectively the minimum fuel consumption
was recorded at minimum operating speed however; the maximum fuel consumption was recorded
at highest operating speed.
From the ANOVA table C3 and C6 it is evident that the calculated value of F due to treatment is
greater than the tabulated value (Ftab) at 5 percent significance level for both Berseem and Sudan
respectively. Therefore it can be concluded that significant effect of treatment on fuel consumption
was observed at various speed.
For berseem Fcal is 52.45 > F (2, 6) i.e. 5.143253
For Sudan Fcal is 93> F (2, 6) i.e. 5.143253
4.1.6 Actual field capacity
The actual field capacity was obtained in different plots and at various forward speeds and various
crop which is given in Table A1 and A2 and Fig. no. 4.3 from this table and Fig. it was observed
that the actual field capacity varies from 0.13 to 0.24 ha/h for berseem and for Sudan it varies from
.129 to .23 ha/h. The actual field capacity increases with the forward speed of travelling. The
maximum field capacity was at maximum speed.
respectively. Therefore it can be concluded that significant effect of treatment on actual field
capacity was observed at various speed.
For Sudan Fcal is 224.401> F (2, 6) i.e. 5.143253
4.1.7 Field efficiency
The various field efficiencies obtained are shown in table A1 and A2 for berseem and sudan
respectively and Fig. no. 4.5. The minimum field efficiency is 73% and 72% was found at 1.5kmph
speed for harvesting berseem and sudan respectively. The best efficiency was found at 2.5kmph
speed for both crop. The main reason of low field efficiency is due to time lost in turning losses.
respectively. Therefore it can be concluded that significant effect of treatment on efficiency of
Speed was observed at various speed.
For Sudan Fcal is 5.47> F (2, 6) i.e. 5.143253
4.1.8 Labor requirement

The skilled and the unskilled labor requirement for harvesting, collection and bundling are shown
in table no. A1 and A2 for berseem and sudan respectively. Only one skilled labor was required to
operate the harvester whereas thee unskilled labors were required for manual harvesting, collection
and bundling. The minimum man-h/ha was required at maximum speed of operating. Whereas the
maximum man-h/ha was required at minimum speed of operating.
4.2 Cost of operation
The complete cost analysis of the machine is shown in table B1 to B7 for berseem and sudan and
Fig. 4.6. The total cost of operation of self-propelled fodder harvester was found ₹ 1754, ₹ 1302.55,
₹ 995.58 per hectare at the speed of 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 kmph respectively for berseem and total cost of
operation for Sudan was found ₹1798.68, ₹1341.14, ₹1002.54 per hectare at the speed of 1.5, 2.0,
2.5kmph. It has been assumed that the harvester would be used for about 500 hours.
The cost of operation of manual harvesting, rope making, bundle making and collection of
Berseem and Sudan crop is given in this way that as labor wages differ from place to place and so
also the cost of manual harvesting per hectare in UP normally labor wages during Berseem and
Sudan harvesting season was ₹ 240/day per labor. Normally, 34 workers are required for
harvesting the crop of one hectare area in a single day and tying it into bundles.
Hence, the cost of harvesting, rope making, tying it into bundles and collection is ₹ 8160 (34×240) for per
hectare area. This is the rate, which is paid by the farmer for one hectare area only.
Thus we have seen that the cost of harvesting with manual method for Berseem and sudan is 6.04
and 5.90 times respectively costlier than the fodder harvester harvesting.
It is clear from the table that manual harvesting was costlier than mechanical, which is about
₹8160. This is clearly showing to the fact that a higher labor input is required in case of manual
harvesting.
Thus a lower cost of operation which is beneficial with reference to the total output of the
agricultural process. As every farmer would like to lower the cost of unit operations so that he
could harvest the maximum benefit from the whole process and thus the results definitely
encourage the use of mechanical harvester over the conventional manual harvesting.
4.3 Farmer’s Reaction
The reaction of the local village people about the operation of self-propelled cutter bar type
fodder harvester were as follows:
The local people felt that the harvester reduces the labor requirement of harvesting.
The locale people appreciated the tremendous reduction in the loss at uncut plants by using the
harvester.
The local people appreciated the fact that the use of harvester would make harvesting of crop
timely
0.805
0.8
0.795
Uncut plant (% bases)
0.79
0.785
Berseem
0.78 Sudan
0.775
0.77
0.765
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
Speed of travel (km/h)
Fig. 4.1 Effect of forward speed on uncut plants for berseem and Sudan
0.55
0.5
Fuel consumption( l/h)
0.45
0.4
Berseem
0.35
Sudan
0.3
0.25
0.2
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
Fig. 4.2 Effect of forward speed on fuel consumption

0.3
0.25
Actual field capacity ha/h
0.2
0.15
Berseem
Sudan
0.1
0.05
0
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
Forward speed of travel (km/h)
Fig. 4.3 Effect of forward speed and different crop on Actual Field Capacity
T.F.C at different Speed for berseem and Sudan

0.35
0.3
T.F.C ha/h
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
Fig. 4.4 Effect of forward speed and different crop on theoretical field
capacity
80.0%
79.0%
78.0%
77.0%
Field efficency
76.0%
75.0% Berseem
Sudan
74.0%
73.0%
72.0%
71.0%
1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
Fig. 4.5 Effect of forward speed and different crop on efficiency
₹ 1,900
₹ 1,700
₹ 1,500
of operation (Rs)
₹ 1,300 Berseem
Cost
Sudan
₹ 1,100
₹ 900
₹ 700
1.0 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.8
Fig 4.6 Effect of speed on cost of operation for berseem and sudan
Fig. 4.7 observing Forward Speed of travel
Fig. 4.8 Measurement of fuel consumption for berseem harvesting

Fig. 4.10 manual harvesting
Fig. 4.11 Measuring Width of cut

CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A self- propelled Fodder harvester of 1.22 meter length cutter bar was tested for its performance
in month of December 2014, January and May 2015 at SHIATS farm. The performance of the
harvester with respect to field capacity, field efficiency and fuel consumption, loss as uncut plant,
labor requirement and cost of operation were studied and compared to manual harvesting method.
On the basis of the results obtained as discussed in chapter –IV, the following conclusions were
drawn:
1. The operating speed of harvester could be varied from to 1.5 to 2.5 kmph, working of
harvester found to be optimum at the speed of 2.5kmph.
2. The average operation width of the harvester was found to be 119.5cm.
3. The height of cut varied from 3.5 to 5.0cm, which was acceptable to the farmers
4. The loss as uncut plants on percentage basis was found to be 0.77 to .80 and .78 to .785
percent for berseem and Sudan respectively which was not very significant.
5. The fuel consumption with fodder harvester harvesting varied from 0.36 liters per hour to
0.49 and .35 to .48 liters per hour for Sudan and Berseem respectively at different operating
speeds.
6. The field efficiency of the harvester varied from 73% to 79% and 72% to 78% for berseem
and Sudan respectively. This field efficiency is the higher side as compared to the results
of other research workers
7. As compared to 272 man-hours per hectare requirement with manual harvesting, the total
labor requirement with fodder harvester harvesting was 30.4, 22, 17.3 man-hours per
hectare at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 kmph speeds respectively for berseem.
For Sudan, the total labor requirement with fodder harvester harvesting was 32, 23.48, 17.3
man-hours per hectare at 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 kmph speeds respectively
For Berseem, the cost of harvesting with fodder harvester was only ₹ 995.58 to ₹ 1754 at
different speeds and with manual method, this cost was ₹ 8160.
For Sudan, the cost of harvesting with fodder harvester was only ₹ 1002.54to ₹ 1798.68 at
different speeds and with manual method, this cost was ₹ 8160
CHAPTER-VI
SUGGESTIONS
1. The machine should be made lighter in weight to increase its maneuverability in the field
because during operation in the field, clods and stones are there in field which will damage
the cutter bar of harvester so to avoid clods and stones operator has to push down the to
lift cutter bar slightly above the ground.
2. Adjustments should be given for the protruding lugs so that they do not damage the uncut
crops.
3. The performance evaluation should be carried out on the field for other fodder crops also.
REFERENCES
A. Celik (2009) “Design and Operating Characteristics of a Push Type Cutter Bar Mower”,
Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Machinery, 25240
Erzurum, Turkey.
Alvi S S A; Pandya A C (1968). “Testing of walking type tractor”. Indian Institute of Technology,
Kharagpur, India, 10(1), 51–61.
Amiama C; Bueno J; A´ lvarez C J (2008). “Design and field test of an automatic data acquisition system
in a self-propelled forage harvester”. Journal of Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 61(2), P192–
200.
Anonymous (2002). Power Tiller Performance Data. The Red Data Book. Government of India, Ministry
of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Central Farm Machinery Training and Testing
Institute, Budni, Madhya Pradesh, India. 8–9.
Anonymous. Lecture Report “Estimating farm power and machinery costs” Agri. Engg. 243, lecture 10.
Atul R. Dange (2010), “Development and Performance Evaluation of Tractor Front Mounted
Pigeon Pea Stem Cutter”, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad-500059
(A.P.), India.
B.C.Parida (2004), “Evaluation, Constraints and Acceptability of Different Types of Vertical

Conveyer Reaper for Harvesting Rice in Coastal Orissa, India”, Agricultural Engineering Division,
Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Orissa, India.
Buckmaster D R (2006). A systems approach to forage harvest operations. Proceedings of the ASABE
Annual International Meeting, Portland, Oregon, 9–12 July 2006. ASAE Paper No. 061087, 2950 Niles
Rd., St Joseph, MI 49085-9659, USA
Chauhan, A.M., B.S. Bhatia and H.S. Dhingra (1994). “Adoption behaviors of farmers on tractor
operated harvester in Punjab”. AMA, 25 (1); 34-39.
Cauffman, G. R. (2002). “Design and fabrication of a hydraulic variable-speed forage shedding harvester
and achieving field performance of the prototype machine” M. Agr. Paper in agricultural mechanization.
University Park, Pennsylvania State University.
Devnani, R.S. and M.M. Pandey (1979). “Evaluation of field performance of fodder harvester for
harvesting of fodder crops”. Journals of Agri. Engg., Vol.17: No. 1.
Devnani, R.S. and M.M. Pandey (1987). “Design development and field evaluation of self-propelled
fodder harvester”. AMA, 16 (2): 41-51.
Devnani, R.S. and M.M. Pandey (1984). “Development and field evaluation of fodder harvester” Journals
of Agri. Engg. ISAE, Vol.21:No.4.
Dubey, Pradeep (1978). “Development and testing of manual-cum entire Operated Harvester” MSc. Ag.
Engg. Thesis. AAI; Allahabad.
K.G. Kumar and M.Chowde Gowda (2012), “Power Tiller Front Mounted Reaper for Finger
Millet Harvesting”, Division of Agricultural Engineering, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore-560 065.
Kumar Sanshit, Pankaj Kumar and Bimal Kumar Singh (2012). “Performance Evaluation of Self –
Propelled Fodder Harvester for various crops”, B.tech Agri Engineering thesis SHIATS, Allahabad.
Matthew R. Harper (2014). “Benchmarking of off-road machinery operations with the use of geo-
referenced data”, Journal, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 45-46
Miller, H.P. (1902). “Evaluation of harvesting machinery and experiment” Station Bulletin, 103.
Misha, R. S. (1983). “Field trail on fodder harvester”, Journals of Agri. Engg. Vol. 17, No.2.
M.R. Alizadeh, I. Bagheri and M. H Payman (2007), “Evaluation of a Rice Reaper Used for
Rapeseed Harvesting”, Rice Research Institute of Iran.
M.V.Manjunatha, B.G.Masthana Reddy,S. D. Shashidhar And V. R. Joshi (2008), “Field
Performance Evaluation of Vertical Conveyor Paddy Reaper”, Department of Agricultural
Engineering, University of Agricultural Sciences, India.
N. Aung and Win Pa Pa (2014). “Field Performance Evaluation of a Power Reaper for Rice
Harvesting”, international Journal of scientific Engineering and Technology Research, Vol.03,
Issue.12, 2631-2636.
Ogle, H. B. Patrick (1954). “Harvesting small grasses and legume seeds”. Journal of Agri. Engg. 21 (8):
65-69.
Ojha, T. P. and A. M. Michael (1976): “Principles of agricultural engineering” volume-1 Published by

Jain Brothers in 2012, New-Delhi.
Operation Manual of 4GL-120A Power Reaper (2004), China Jinwa Group Nanjing Dajinshan
Industrial Co.,Ltd. Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standard P 213:, Agricultural Machinery
– Rice Reaper – Methods of Test.
Palmer R J, Wild D, Runtz K (2003). “Improving the efficiency of field operations”. Journal of Bio
systems engineering, 84(3), 283–288.
Pullen D. & Cowell P. (1997) An evaluation of the performance of mechanical Weeding mechanisms for
use in high speed inter-row weeding for Arable Crops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 67,
27-34.
Roberge, M., P. Savoie, and E. R. Norris. (1998). “Evaluation of a crop processor in a pull-type forage
harvester”. ASAE. 41(4): 967-972
Saran. C. and T.P. Ojha (1967) “Design and fabrication of hand operated fodder harvester” Unpublished
M. Tech Thesis IIT Kharagpur.
Shinners, K. J., R. G., Koegel, and P. J. Pritzl. (1991). “An upward cutting cut-and-thow forage harvester
to reduce machine energy requirements”. ASAE 34(6): 2287-2290.
Stickney et al. (1985) – IRRI mechanical harvester experience in Philippines in small farm equipment for
developing countries. Proceeding of the International conference on small farm equipment for developing
countries. Past experience and future properties, 341 – 356.
Terry Kastens (2006). “Farm machinery operation cost calculations”, Report, Kansas State University. 11-
13.
T.Guruswamy, S.R. Desai, M. Veeranagouda and R.D. Barker (2005), “Performance

Evaluation of Vertical Conveyor Reaper Windrower”, College of Agricultural Engineering,
Raichur.
Victoria Robert (2011), “Study on the Performance and Economics of Binder and Reaper at
Different Cutting Heights”, Department of Agriculture Sabah, Malaysia.
APPENDIX A 1
Table A1: FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA OF THE SELF –
PROPELLED FODDER HARVESTER FOR BERSEEM
Speed Area TFC AFC Ƞ Fuel Uncut Labor
Consumption Plants Requirement
(Km/h) (m2) (ha/h) (ha/h) (%)
l/h l/ha (%) (man-h/ha)
Skilled Unskilled
A1 0.18 0.14 78 0.35 0.80

A2 0.18 0.13 72 0.38 0.75 7.6 22.8
1.5 2.66
A3 0.18 0.126 70 0.34 0.76
A4 0.18 0.13 72 0.36 0.78
B1 0.24 0.18 75 0.40 0.82

B2 0.24 0.175 73 0.44 0.80 5.5 16.5
2.0 2.22
B3 0.24 0.19 79 0.41 0.79
B4 0.24 0.182 76 0.42 0.77
C1 0.30 0.25 83 0.48 0.80

C2 0.30 0.23 77 0.47 0.79 4.3 13.0
2.5 2.08
C3 0.30 0.23 77 0.50 0.80
C4 0.30 0.24 80 0.48 0.81
APPENDIX A2
Table A2: FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA OF THE SELF –
PROPELLED FODDER HARVESTER FOR SUDAN
Speed Area TFC AFC Ƞ Fuel Uncut Labor
Consumption Plants Requirement
(Km/h) (m2) (ha/h) (ha/h) (%)
l/h l/ha (%) (man-h/ha)
Skilled Unskilled
A1 0.18 0.13 72.2 0.35 0.83

A2 0.18 0.12 67 0.36 0.75 8.0 24.0
1.5 2.88
A3 0.18 0.11 61 0.37 0.76
A4 0.18 0.14 78 0.36 0.79
B1 0.24 0.16 66.6 0.39 0.82

B2 0.24 0.17 71 0.42 0.76 5.88 17.6
2.0 2.39
B3 0.24 0.18 75 0.41 0.79
B4 0.24 0.17 71 0.41 0.77
C1 0.30 0.22 73 0.50 0.80

C2 0.30 0.23 77 0.48 0.78 4.3 13.0
2.5 2.13
C3 0.30 0.24 80 0.51 0.76
C4 0.30 0.24 80 0.47 0.81
APPENDIX B
Table B1. Cost of operation with self-propelled fodder harvester for harvesting
Berseem
Assumption
a) Initial cost ( C ) ₹ 2,30,000

b) Salvage cost (10% of C) ₹ 23,000
c) Life of harvester (L) 10 years
d) No. of useful working hours (H) 500 h/ year
e) Interest rate per year (I) 16%
f) Cost of Diesel ₹ 55.56
Fixed cost Fc (per hour)
a) Depreciation (D) ₹ 41.40

b) Interest (I) ₹ 40.48
c) Insurance and taxes, housing @ 3% of C ₹ 13.8
Total fixed cost ₹ 95.68
Calculation of Variable cost for berseem harvesting
Table B2. Variable cost (per hour) at 1.5 Km/h
a) Fuel cost ₹19.46
b) Lubrication cost ₹ 2.91
c) Repair and maintenance (6% of C) ₹ 27.6
d) Operator’s wages ₹ 55
e) Unskilled labor ₹ 30
f) Total variable cost (Vc) ₹ 134.97

g) Total cost of operation (Vc + Fc) ₹ 230.65
h) Total cost operation per hectare ₹ 1754

h) Total cost operation per hectare ₹1302.55

h) Total cost operation per hectare ₹ 995.58
Cost of operation for harvesting Sudan
Only variable costs was changed. Price of Diesel= ₹57.39

h) Total cost of operation per hectare ₹1798.68

h) Total cost of operation per hectare ₹ 1341.14

h) Total cost of operation per hectare ₹ 1002.54
APPENDIX C
Table C1. ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Efficiency at 5% level of

significance
SV df SS MSS Fcal Ftab Result
Speed 2 0.00785 0.003925 5.252788 5.143253 S
Area 3 0.003467 0.001156 1.546468 4.757063 NS
ERROR 6 0.004483 0.000747
TOTAL 11 0.0158
Table C2. ANOVA of berseem harvesting for actual field capacity at 5% level
of significance
SV Df SS MSS Fcal Ftab Result
Area 3 0.001034 0.000345 1.635824 4.757063 NS
Speed 2 0.018445 0.009223 43.76157 5.143253 S
ERROR 6 0.001265 0.000211
TOTAL 11 0.020744
Table C3. ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Fuel consumption at 5% level of
significance
SV Df SS MSS Fcal Ftab Result
Speed 2 0.030017 0.015008 52.45631 5.143253 S
Area 3 0.000633 0.000211 0.737864 4.757063 NS
ERROR 6 0.001717 0.000286
TOTAL 11 0.032367
Table C4. ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Efficiency at 5% level of

significance
SV df SS MSS Fcal Ftab Results
Speed 2 0.009517 0.004758 5.472843 5.143253 S
Area 3 0.003933 0.001311 1.507987 4.757063 NS
ERROR 6 0.005217 0.000869
TOTAL 11 0.018667
Table C5. ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Actual field capacity at 5%
level of significance
Speed 2 0.021505 0.010753 224.4017 5.143253 S
Area 3 0.000282 9.41E-05 1.963478 4.757063 NS
ERROR 6 0.000287 4.79E-05
TOTAL 11 0.022075
Table C6. ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Fuel Consumption at 5% level of

significance
Speed 2 0.034617 0.017308 93 5.143253 S
Area 3 0.000558 0.000186 1 4.757063 NS
ERROR 6 0.001117 0.000186
TOTAL 11 0.036292
APPENDIX D 1
Table D1. Specifications of Serrated sickle

Sl. No. Particulars Specifications
1. Overall dimensions (mm) 465×55×40
2. Weight (kg) 0.257
3. Cutting edge length (mm) 255
4. Radius of curvature (mm) 260
5. No. of teeth (per cm) 5
Table D2. Specifications of the Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester
S No. Particulars Specifications
1 Make BCS
2 Manufactured by BCS-S.P.A. Viale Mazzini, 161 20081

AABBIATEGRASSO, Milano, Italy
3 Assembled by BCS India Pvt. Ltd.
4 Model 3LD-450S
5 Country of origin Italy
6 Functions Gathering and Cutting of fodder crops/green grasses
7 Crops Berseem, Mentha, Lucern and other Fodder crops
8 Working Capacity 0.4 ha/h (1 acre/h)
9 Gear 4 Forward and 1 Reverse
10 Height of Cut 2 to 5 cm
11 Weight 300kg
12 Length 310cm
13 Width 150cm
14 Engine Air Cooled single cylinder, Diesel engine
15 Power(hp/Kw) 10.2/8
16 CC Capacity(cm2) 454
17 Injection pressure (kg/cm2) 200
18 Bore(mm) 85
19 Stroke(mm) 80
20 RPM:
Low 1150
High 3000
21 Dynamo(amp) 10
22 Air Cleaner Oil bath type
23 Wheels Pneumatic tyres
24 Inflation Pressure:
Front(kg/cm2) 1
Rear(kg/cm2) 1.25
25 Wheel thead(mm) 1225
26 Wheel base(mm) 1610
27 Working width of cutter bar (mm) 1200
28 No. and Spacing of Knife 16/75

Guard(no/mm)
29 No. and type of knife (blade no.) 17, Serrated
30 Detail of knife drive End of cutter bar is connected with pitman shaft and
oscillated by crank
31 Knife Stroke(mm) 75
32 Stroke per minute(2000 rpm) 775
33 Height of cutter bar in transport 260

position(mm)
34 Type of crop divider Shoe type
35 Type of crop conveyance Gathering forks provided

Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Thesis

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELF PROPELLED CUTTER BAR

In the partial fulfillment of requirement for the award of the degree of

Department of Farm Machinery Power & Engineering

This is to certify that the project titled “PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELF

DATE : Dr. RANA NOOR AALAM

This is to certify that I have personally worked on project entitled “PERFORMANCE

PLACE: ALLAHABAD VIKRAM SINGH

DATE: ………………. 13MTAEFMP016

Ag. Engg. Agricultural Engineering

AMA Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America

e.g. For Example

et al. And others

SHIATS Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture Technology and Sciences.

USA United State of America

MSS Mean sum of squares

TFC Theoretical field Capacity

AFC Actual Field Capacity

Table No. Title Page No.

3.6 Material used in project 24

A1 Field performance data of the self – propelled fodder harvester 41

A2 Field performance data of the self – propelled fodder harvester 42

B1 Cost of operation with self-propelled fodder harvester for 43

B2 Variable cost (per hour) at 1.5 Km/h for berseem 43

B3 Variable cost (per hour) at 2.0 Km/h for berseem 44

B4 Variable cost (per hour) at 2.5 Km/h for berseem 44

B5 Variable cost (per hour) at 1.5 Km/h for sudan 45

B6 Variable cost (per hour) at 2.0 Km/h for sudan 45

B7 Variable cost (per hour) at 2.5 Km/h for sudan 46

C1 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Efficiency 47

C2 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for actual field capacity 47

C3 ANOVA of berseem harvesting for Fuel consumption 48

C4 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Efficiency 48

C5 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Actual field capacity 49

C6 ANOVA of Sudan harvesting for Fuel Consumption 49

D1 Specifications of serrated sickle 50

D2 Specifications of the Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 50-52

Figure Title Page no.

3.1 Schematic diagram of Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 15

3.2 Side view of Self-Propelled Fodder Harvester 15

3.3 Tools used in research work 24

4.1 Effect of forward speed and different crop on uncut plant 30

4.2 Effect of forward speed and different crop on fuel consumption 30

4.5 Effect of forward speed and different crop on efficiency 32

Effect of forward speed and different crop on cost of operation

4.7 Observing forward speed of travel 33

4.8 Measuring fuel consumption 33

4.9 Manual harvesting 34

4.10 Measuring width of cut 34

List of Tables V-VI

List of figures VII

2 Review of Literature 4-13

3 Materials and Method 14-24

3.1 Operational principle of the harvester: 14

3.2 Serrated sickle 16

3.3 Field performance 16-17

3.4 Measurements 17-21

3.5 Procedure for calculating cost of operation 21-24

4 Results and Discussions 25-34

4.1 Performance 25-28

4.2 Cost of Operation 28-29

4.3 Farmer Reaction 29

5 Summary and Conclusions 35

Chattopadhyay and Pandey (1996). An investigation was undertaken in the laboratory to