Comparison of the technical and economic performances of two different shredders on pomegranate pruning residues
Abstract
Aim of study: The study aimed to examine the technical and economic performances of two different shredders for three windrow densities of pomegranate residues.
Area of study: The study was conducted in the Serik District of Antalya Province, Turkey.
Material and methods: Two different pruning residue shredders driven by tractor power take off (PTO) were used. Machine‑I has pick‑up, shredding, screen units. Machine‑II only has a shredding unit. The experiment was conducted at windrow densities of 1.49, 2.10, and 2.41 kg/m2 in a pomegranate orchard; the study used a completely randomized split‐plot design with two treatments and three replications.
Main results: The power values for the increasing windrow densities were 8.00, 11.73, and 18.47 kW/m for Machine-I and 5.08, 5.68, and 6.48 kW/m for Machine-II. Moreover, the average particle length of 68.6 mm shredded by Machine‑I was approximately 20 mm smaller than that of Machine‑II. The minimum unit energy value of Machine-II was 2.53 kWh/t at the maximum windrow density of 2.41 kg/m2. This value for Machine-I was 5.58 kWh/t at the medium windrow density of 2.10 kg/m2. The lowest unit cost for Machine-I and Machine-II was calculated as 27.2-7.1 US$/t (at medium density) and 16.8-3.5 US$/t (at maximum density), respectively.
Research highlights: The appropriate windrow densities for Machine-I and Machine-II were different in terms of energy requirements and total unit cost. Machine-I is more effective at consistently chopping the residues than Machine-II, but it requires more energy and a higher unit cost.
Downloads
References
Adamchuk V, Bulgakov V, Skorikov N, Yezekyan T, Olt J, 2016. Developing a new design of wood chopper for grape vine and fruit tree pruning and the results of field testing. Agron Res 14 (5): 1519-1529.
ASABE, 2015. Agricultural machinery management data. Am Soc Agr Biol Eng Standards, ASAE D 497.7 MAR 2011 (R2015).
Calatrava J, Franco JA, 2011. Using pruning residues as mulch: Analysis of its adoption and process of diffusion in Southern Spain olive orchards. J Environ Manage 92: 620-629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.09.023
Çanakcı M, Topakcı M, Ağsaran B, Karayel D, 2010. Determination of basic machinery management data for PTO driven pruning residue chopper. J Agr Sci 16: 46-54 [in Turkish].
Çanakcı M, 2014. Shredding of pruning residues and its mechanization. Harvest Journal - Plant Production. Hasad Dergisi - Bitkisel Üretim 29 (344):70-78. [in Turkish].
Damour L, Lavoie F, 2010. Anderson introduces a new biomass baler. CIGR XVIIth World Congress, CSBE101656, Jun 13-17. Québec, Canada.
Demir O, 2007. The determination of performance values of stubble chopper. MSc, Selçuk University, Graduate School, Nat Appl Sci Dept Agr Machin, Konya, Turkey, 55 p. [in Turkish].
Dereli İ, Çakır E, 2014. Development and determination of the field performance of stalk choppers equipped with different blade configurations. Bulg J Agr Sci 20 (5): 1273-1276.
Do Canto JL, Klepac J, Rummer B, Savoie P, Seixas F, 2011. Evaluation of two round baling systems for harvesting understory biomass. Biomass Bioenergy 35: 2163-2170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.02.006
Evcim HÜ, 1990. Database on agricultural mechanization management and its planning. Ege Univ., Fac. of Agric., Publ. 495, İzmir, Turkey. [in Turkish].
Fedrizzi M, Sperandio G, Pagano M, Pochi D, Fanigliulo R, Recchi P, 2012. A prototype machine for harvesting and chipping of pruning residues: first test on hazelnut plantation (Corylus avellana L.). Int Conf of Agr Eng, CIGR-Ageng, July 8-12, Valencia, Spain.
Fernandez-Sarria A, Lopez-Cortes I, Estornell J, Velazquez-Marti B, Salazar D, 2019. Estimating residual biomass of olive tree crops using terrestrial laser scanning. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinformation 75:163-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2018.10.019
Ghaffariyan MR, Spinelli R, Brown M, Mirowski L, 2013. Chipping model: a tool to predict the productivity and cost of chipping operations. AFORA (Australian Forest Operations Research Alliance). Indust Bull 4. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/208c/93ccd96ddb5214b7a555b5aa20eba0751011.pdf [13 Feb 2020].
Goldstein N, Diaz LF, 2005. Size reduction equipment review. BioCycle January. https://www.biocycle.net/2005/01/21/size-reduction-equipment-review/ [13 Feb 2020].
Goncalves C, Evtyugina M, Alves C, Monteiro C, Pio C, Tome M, 2011. Organic particulate emissions from field burning of garden and agriculture residues. Atmosph Res 101: 666-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.04.017
Holtz BA, Caesar-TonThat T, McKenry MV, 2005. Wood chipping almond brunch and its effect on soil and petiole nutrients, soil aggregation, water infiltration, and nematode and basidiomycete population. Opt Méditerr Sér A 63: 247-254.
Işık A, Sabancı A, Ağanoğlu V, 1988. Evaluation of the efficient factors for purchasing and renting prices of the agricultural machinery in the Çukurova Region. Proc Nat Congr on Agric Mechaniz, pp: 114-123, Erzurum; Turkey. [in Turkish].
Jiménez-Jiménez F, Blanco-Roldán GL, Márquez-García M, Castro-García S, Agüera-Vega J, 2013. Estimation of soil coverage of chopped pruning residues in olive orchards by image analysis. Span J Agric Res 11 (3): 626-634. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2013113-3742
Kaplan F, 2007. A research based on the cutting of cotton stalk and mixed to eart. MSc, Harran Univ, Graduate School of Nat Appl Sci, Dept Agr Machin, Şanlıurfa, Turkey, 60 pp. [in Turkish].
Magagnotti N, Pari L, Picchi P, Spinelli R, 2013. Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource. Bioresour Technol 128: 697-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.10.149
Manzanares P, Ruiz E, Ballesteros M, Negro NJ, Gallego FJ, López-Linares JC, Castro E, 2017. Residual biomass potential in olive tree cultivation and olive oil industry in Spain: valorization proposal in a biorefinery context. Span J Agric Res 15 (3): e0206. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017153-10868
Manzone M, 2016. A bundler prototype for forestry and agricultural residue management for energy production. Int J Forest Eng 7 (2): 103-108.
Ntalos GA, Grigoriou AH, 2002. Characterization and utilisation of vine prunings as a wood substitute for particleboard production. Ind Crops Prod 16: 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(02)00008-0
Recchia L, Daou M, Rimediotti M, Cini E, Vieri M, 2009. New shredding machine for recycling pruning residuals. Biomass Bioenergy 33: 149-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.05.003
Repullo MA, Carbonell R, Hidalgo J, Rodriguez-Lizana A, Ordonez R, 2012. Using olive pruning residues to cover soil and improve fertility. Soil Till Res 124: 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2012.04.003
Savoie P, Lavoie F, Damours L, 2008. Modified round baler to harvest small-diameter woody biomas. J Agric Machin Sci 4 (4): 365-370.
Sayın S, Özgüven F, 1995. A study on calculation of the manufacturing ond operating costs of agricultural machines that are widely used in Turkey. Proc Nat Congr Agric Mechan, pp: 585-594, Bursa, Turkey. [in Turkish].
Şeflek Y, Çarman K, Özbek O, 2006. Investigation of the performance values of machine using in chopping of pruning redisues, J Agric Machin Sci 2 (3): 219-224 [in Turkish].
Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, 2010. A tool for productivity and cost forecasting of decentralised wood chipping. For Policy Econ 12: 194-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.002
Spinelli R, Picchi G, 2010. Industrial harvesting of olive tree pruning residue for energy biomass. Bioresour Technol 101: 730-735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.08.039
Spinelli R, Magagnotti N, Nati, C, 2010. Harvesting vineyard pruning residues for energy use. Biosyst Eng 105: 316-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2009.11.011
Spinelli R, Nati, C, Pari L, Mescalchin E, Magagnotti N, 2012. Production and quality of biomass fuels from mechanized collection and processing of vineyard pruning residues. Appl Energ 89: 374-379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.07.049
Spinelli R, Lombardini C, Pari L, Sadauskiene L, 2014. An alternative to field burning of pruning residues in mountainvineyards. Ecol Eng 70: 212-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.023
Velázquez-Martí B, Fernández-González E, López-Cortés I, Salazar-Hernández, DM, 2011. Quantification of the residual biomass obtained from pruning of trees in Mediterranean olive groves. Biomass Bioenergy 35: 3208-3217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.04.042
Velázquez-Martí B, Fernández-González E, Callejón-Ferre AJ, Cremades JE, 2012. Mechanized methods for harvesting residual biomass from mediterranean fruit tree cultivations. Sci Agric 69 (3): 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162012000300002
Witney B, 1996. Choosing and using farm machines. Land Technology Ltd. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 411 pp.
Yılmaz E, Çanakcı M, Topakcı M, Sönmez S, Agsaran B, Alagöz Z, 2017. The effects of application of vine pruning residue on soil properties and productivity under mediterranean climate conditions in Turkey. Fresenius Environ Bull 26: 5447-5457.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
