ارزیابی فنی و اقتصادی سه روش برداشت لوبیای قرمز در استان مرکزی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیئت علمی/ موسسه تحقیقات فنی و مهندسی کشاورزی/ سازمان تحقیقات ،آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی

2 عضو هیات علمی مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی استان مرکزی- ارک- ایران

3 عضو هیات علمی مرکز تحقیقات کشاورزی و منابع طبیعی خراسان رضوی

4 عضو هیات علمی موسسه تحقیقات فنی و مهندسی کشاورزی - سازمان تحقیقات، آموزش و ترویج کشاورزی- کرج -ایران

چکیده

لوبیا (Phaseolus vulgaris) یکی از حبوبات می‌باشد که مصرف‌ زیادی در جهان دارد و حدود 50 درصد آن مستقیماً به مصرف انسان می‌رسد. در حال حاضر برداشت این محصول با دست و هزینه‌های کارگری بالا انجام می‌شود و تا رسیدن رطوبت دانه‌ها به 12 درصد، در سطح مزرعه باقی مانده و سپس در خرمنگاه خرمن‌کوبی می‌شود. در این تحقیق، روش‌های مختلف برداشت لوبیای قرمز در منطقه استان مرکزی (شهرستان خمین)، ازنظر فنی و اقتصادی مورد ارزیابی قرار گرفت. تیمارها شامل: استفاده از ماشین بردارنده محصول (پیک آپ)، ماشین ریشه‌زن، ماشین برداشت مرسوم (استفاده از چرخ‌وفلک و شانه برش شانه‌ای) و روش دستی در قالب طرح بلوک‌‌های کامل تصادفی و در سه تکرار بود. نتایج تحقیق نشان داد استفاده از ماشین بردارنده محصول برای برداشت لوبیای خشک از کارایی لازم برخوردار نیست. بین سایر تیمارها ازنظر ظرفیت و بازده مزرعه‌ای و تلفات برداشت، در سطح 5% اختلاف معنی‌داری مشاهده شد و بر اساس آزمون چند دامنه‌ای دانکن، در ماشین ریشه‌زن، ماشین برداشت مرسوم و روش دستی به ترتیب ظرفیت نظری 63/. ، 37/0 و 15/0 هکتار بر ساعت، ظرفیت مؤثر مزرعه‌ای 56/0 ، 28/0 و 11/0 هکتار بر ساعت، بازده مزرعه‌ای 95/87، 59/76 و 01/76 درصد و تلفات برداشت 48/1، 35/3 و 07/7 درصد (بر اساس وزن‌تر) بود که ماشین ریشه زن دارای ظرفیت و بازده مزرعه‌ای بالاتر و تلفات برداشت کمتری بود. ازنظر اقتصادی بین روش‌ها، اختلاف  معنی‌داری در سطح 5% وجود نداشت و نسبت سود به.هزینه به ترتیب 48/2، 61/2 و 26/2 بود. با توجه به این نتایج، ازنظر فنی و اقتصادی استفاده از ماشین ریشه‌زن قابل توصیه است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات


عنوان مقاله [English]

Technical and economic evaluation of three dry bean harvesting methods in Markazi Province

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahmood Safari 1
  • Abolfazl Hedayatipor 2
  • Saeed Zarifneshat 3
  • Hooman Sharifnasab 4
1 Scientific board member / Agriculture Engineering Research Institute(AERI)
2 Member of scientific of Agricultural Engineering Research Department, Agricultural Research and Natural Resources Center of Markazi
3 Agricultural engineering department, Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and natural resources research and education center, AREEO, Mashhad, Iran
4 Member of scientific board of Agricultural Engineering Research Institute (AERI), Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

       Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is one of the legumes that has high consumption in the world that about 50% of it directly is consumed by humans. Currently, the harvest of this crop is done by hand with high labor cost and after harvesting, it leaves in the field. When the humidity of the seeds reached about 12% (on the wet basis) and the pods became dry, they are transferred to the threshing. In this research, harvesting methods of different red dry been were evaluated in terms of technical and economic terms in Markazi province (Khomein region). The treatments was included: the cutter bar equipped with pick up, rooting machine, conventional harvesting machine, and the manual method in the form of a randomized block design with three replications. The results of the research showed that the use of the cutter bar mechanism along with the pickup unit for harvesting of the dry bean crop did not suitable. There was a significant difference between the other experimental treatments in terms of field capacity, field efficiency and harvesting losses. In the rooting machine, the conventional harvesting machine and the manual method, the theoretical capacity was 0.63, 0.37 and 0.15 hectares per hour, effective field capacity was 0.56, 0.28 and 0.11 hectares per hour, field efficiency was 87.9, 76.59 and 76.01 percent and harvesting losses was 1.48, 3.35 and 7.07 percent respectively. Economically, the difference between the methods was not significant at the 5% level, and the benefit-cost ratio was 2.48, 2.61, and 2.26, respectively. According to these results, the use of a rooting machine was recommended in terms of technical and economic point of view.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Dry been
  • Harvesting machine
  • Legumes
  • Mechanization of harvesting legumes

Technical and economic evaluation of three dry bean harvesting methods in Markazi Province

EXTEND ABSTRACT

Introduction

The area under bean cultivation in Iran is 100 thousands hectares and its production is 200,000 tons with a yield of 2.58tons per hectare. The most important bean-producing provinces are Fars, Lorestan, Marakazi, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Zanjan and East Azerbaijan in Iran. Markazi province with 24.713 thousand hectares of cultivated area and production of 29,900 tons and yield of 2.72 tons per hectare is considered one of the important production areas of this crop. In cultivation of this crop, tillage, planting and cultivating operations are done in mechanized method, but harvesting operations are often done with the manual method, which increases the labor and costs (for each hectare of bean harvesting,20 man-days are needed). During of harvest time, the wage of a seasonal worker has reached 800 thousand tomans per day. If we consider the average worker's wage to be 700 thousand tomans, the cost of one hectare per day of bean harvesting will be 14 million tomans per hectare. This cost is only related to the harvesting, to which the costs of threshing and cleaning should be added to this cost. If a bean harvesting machine is used for rent, the cost of harvesting will be reduced to 3.5 million tomans per hectare (about a quarter of the cost of manual harvesting). Recently, several companies have made bean harvesting machines, and in this research, the performance of these methods has been evaluated compared to the manual method.

Materials and Methods

This study was conducted in 2023 to determine the performance of bean harvester machines in comparison with manual method in Khomain area from Markazi province. The study used two machine harvesters, including Root cutter machine and Conventional machine harvester equipped with cutter bar and reel. These methods compared with manual methods in Randomize Complete Block Design (RCBD) in three replications. The experimental plot dimension was 40m*150 m and the yield and losses were measured by 50cm*50cm frame in four replications to attend 1m2 area. These methods were evaluated and compared based on natural and harvesting losses, field capacity, field efficiency and yield in field conditions in Markazi province.

Results and Discussion

The results of the research showed that the use of the cutting comb mechanism along with the pickup unit for harvesting of the dry bean crop did not suitable. There was a significant difference between the other experimental treatments in terms of field capacity, field efficiency and harvesting losses. In the rooting machine, the conventional harvesting machine and the manual method, the theoretical capacity was 0.63, 0.37 and 0.15 hectares per hour, effective field capacity was 0.56, 0.28 and 0.11 hectares per hour, field efficiency was 87.9, 76.59 and 76.01 percent and harvesting losses was 1.48, 3.35 and 7.07 percent respectively. Economically, the difference between the methods was not significant at the 5% level, and the benefit-cost ratio was 2.48, 2.61, and 2.26, respectively. According to these results, the use of a rooting machine was recommended in terms of technical and economic point of view.

Conclusion

The using of cutter bar equipped with pick up mechanism is not suitable to dry bean harvesting. In this method, there are problems such as crop blocking in front of the machine and high harvesting loss. The root cutter machine is suitable for dry been harvesting and can be effectively used for mechanized harvesting. Theoretical capacity was 0.63, 0.37 and 0.15 ha per hour, effective capacity was 0.56, 0.28 and 0.11 ha per hour, and field efficiency was 87.9, 76.59 and 76.01 percent in root cutter machines, conventional harvesting machine and manual method respectively.

Harvesting losses was 1.48, 3.35 and 7.07%, in root cutter machine, conventional harvesting machine and manual method respectively and the manual method had higher harvesting loss than other methods. The ratio of benefit to cost was 2.48, 2.61 and 2.26 in root cutter machine, conventional harvesting machine and manual method respectively and did not show any significant difference between harvesting methods. According to these results, the use of a root cutter machine is recommended in terms of technical and economic point of view.

Afsahi, K. Mostofi Sarkari, M., Shekari, F and Rastego, M. (2018). Investigating the possibility of    mechanized  harvesting of standing bean lines using a combine. Journal of Iranian Legume Research.  
   2 (1):21-26(in Persian).
Behrouzi Lar, M. (1990). Management of tractors and agricultural machines. Tehran University         Publications, page: 30(in Persian).
Dalvand, A., Masoumi, A. (2015). Design and construction of a bush harvester for two-stage harvesting of beans,10th National Congress of Agricultural Machinery Engineering (Bio system) and Mechanization of Iran, Mashhad, https://civilica.com/doc/563685(in Persian).
Darcozi, M., and Husti, I. (1990). The Characterization of the possibilities for dry bean harvesting in Hungary in 1990. Kertgazdasag 5: 32-43.
Dehghan, A., Afzali, M. J., Alizadeh, M., Salehi, A and Dibaji, A. (2018). Investigating the amount and causes of grain losses in wheat harvesters in Khuzestan province. Final report of Agriculture Engineering         Research Institute. Registration number 947/88(in Persian).
De-Simone, M., Failde, V., Garcia-Medina S., Panadero-Pastrana, C., and De-Simone, M. (1992a) comparative evaluation of two cutter bar designs, two-reel indices and three forward speeds for direct mechanical harvesting of dry bean (Pharsalus vulgaris L.). In: 24th International Conference on Agricultural Mechanization in Latin America: Present and Future, April 1-4, 1992. Zaragoza, Spain. : 455-460.
De-Simone, M., Failde, V., Garcia-Medina, S., Panadero-Pastrana, C. (1992b). A mechanical harvesting of dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) In the Argentine Republic. Rivista-di- Ingegneria-Agraria 23: 65-72.
        Extension, the Pennsylvania State University. Journal of Agcultural Engineering., 24(4): 775-792.
Hedayatipour, A., Ghadiri, A., Kikhaei, F and Sadeghi, S (2017). Comparison of bean cultivation methods using micro tip irrigation method. Agricultural Engineering and Technical Research Institute, Final Report. No: 55473.
Koohi H, AD. (2023). The bean harvesting machine was unveiled in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari. Mehr newspaper, 17 October 1402.
Mahmoud, M.A.A. (2007). Selecting the proper systems for mechanization bean crop in new reclaimed lands. Journal of. Agricultural. Engineering. 24(4): 775-792.  
Roth, S and Heyde, J.(2002). Partial Budgeting for Agricultural Businesses. Produced by Information and Communication Technologies in the College of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Research and Cooperative
Mohammadi Dehaqani, H., Onvani, D., Ebrahimi Dastgardi, M. R and Mokhtari,M.(2023). Legume harvester with plant root cutting blade mechanism and the ability to adjust the working depth. Patent No. 107707.
Simone, M; S. Garcia Medina, C. P. Pastrana and V. Failde. (1992). Comparative evaluation of two cutter bar   design, two reel index and  three forward speeds for direct combining of dry beans. Rgentinean conference on agricultural engineering. Proceedings of a conference held in Villa Maria, Argentina, 23-25 September1992. 1992; 75.
Srivastava, A.J., Goering, C.E., Robrbacb, R.P. (1993). Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines.
Zyla, L. E; R. L. Kushwaha and A. Vandenberg. (2002). Development of a new crop lifter for direct cut harvesting        dry bean. Canadian Bio systems Engineering.44 (2): 9-14.
Zyla, L.E. (1993). Development of direct-cut harvesting attachments for dry bean. Unpublished M.Sc. thesis. Department of Agricultural and Bio resource Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK.