Peanut harvest quality: Relationship between soil tillage management and threshing systems
Abstract
Aim of study: The objective was evaluating the peanut combining process quality in three soil tillage systems associated with threshing and separation systems efficiency of peanut combine available on market.
Area of study: Brazil.
Material and methods: The treatments were three soil tillage systems (conventional, reduced and strip) and two harvesters with different threshing systems. The losses were collected (subdivided in internal mechanisms, pickup platform, and total losses) in fifteen points for each treatment, as impurity samples, following the statistical process control.
Main results: The soil tillage only in sowing line reduced the peanut combining quality (30.4% more mineral impurities and 37.7% more vegetal impurities). The machine with tangential flow presented lower capacity of mineral impurity removal, regardless the soil tillage system.
Research highlights: The losses were similar for conventional and reduced soil tillages, which indicates that it would be possible to reduce the number of agricultural operations before peanut sowing, consequently lessening costs without loss in process quality.
Downloads
References
Alizadeh MR, Bagheri I, 2009. Field performance evaluation of different rice threshing methods. Int J Nat Eng Sci 3: 155-159.
Balkcom KS, Tubbs RS, Balkcom KB, 2018. Strip tillage implements for single and twin row peanut. Agron J 110: 1136-1146. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2017.09.0565
Bernache L, Tedesco-Oliveira D, de Oliveira LP, Corrêa LN, da Silva RP, 2020. Can basal cutting blade wear affect sugarcane regrowht? Eng Agríc 40: 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v40n1p53-60/2020
Bocianowski J, Nowosad K, Szulc P, 2019. Soil tillage methods by years interaction for harvest index of maize (Zea mays L.) using additive main effects and multiplicative interaction model. Acta Agric Scand 69: 75-81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2018.1502343
Camolese HS, Baio FHR, Alves CZ, 2015. Perdas quantitativas e qualitativas de colhedoras com trila radial e axial em função da umidade do grão. Braz J Bios Eng 9: 21-29. https://doi.org/10.18011/bioeng2015v9n1p21-29
Cassia MT, Voltarelli MA, da Silva RP, Zerbato C, de Lima PH, 2015. Monitoramento da operação de colheita mecanizada de sementes de soja. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Amb 19: 1209-1214. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-1929/agriambi.v19n12p1209-1214
Compagnon AM, Silva RP, Cassia MT, Graat D, Voltarelli MA, 2012. Comparação entre métodos de perdas na colheita mecanizada de soja. Sci Agrop 3: 215-223. https://doi.org/10.17268/sci.agropecu.2012.03.03
CONAB, 2020. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira de grãos, Safra 2019/20, oitavo levantamento. Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos/boletim-da-safra-de-graos.
Cortez JW, Syrio MG, Rodrigues AS, 2019. Types of header, operating speed, and geometry of collection frames on the total losses of soybean harvest. Eng Agric 39: 482-489. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v39n4p482-489/2019
CTIC, 2015. National crop residue management survey. Conservation Tillage Information Center, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Cunha JPAR, Zandbergen HP, 2007. Perdas na colheita mecanizada da soja na região do Triângulo Mineiro e Alto Paranaíba, Brasil. Biosc J 23: 61-66.
EMBRAPA, 2013. Sistema Brasileiro de Classificação de Solos. Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, Brasília.
FAO, 2020. FAOSTAT - CROPS. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualize.
Ferrari Neto J, Costa CHM, Castro GSA, 2012. Ecofisiologia do amendoim. Sci Agr Paranaensis 11: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.18188/1983-1471/sap.v11n4p1-13
Fu J, Chen Z, Han L, Ren L, 2018. Review of grain threshing theory and technology. Int J Agr Biol Eng 11: 12-20. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20181103.3432
Furlani CEA, Carneiro FM, Girio LAS, Ormond ATS, Kazama EH, Alcântara AS, Zerbato C, 2015. Rip Strip. Cultivar Máquinas 153: 28-29.
Galindo FS, Zocoler JL, Teixeira Filho MCM, Buzetti S, Santini JMK, Boleta EHM, Ludkiewicz MGZ, 2019. Losses incurred in soybean dependeding on the water content at grains harvest. Braz J Agric 94: 37-47. https://doi.org/10.37856/bja.v94i1.3211
Gurgacz F, Renosto LD, Bettio CS, Fey E, 2019. Avaliação de perdas e quebra de grãos em função da velocidade de colheita mecânica da cultura da soja. Rev Téc-Cient do CREA-PR 2-12.
Hawkins GL, Kelton J, Smith N, Balkcom K, 2016. A note on comparing rate of soil moisture loss for conventional and conservation tillage production methods for peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci 43: 168-172. https://doi.org/10.3146/PS16-4.1
Holtz V, Grellmann DH, Azevedo RO, Koester BEG, Jardim CCS, Massola MP, Reis RGE, 2019. Perdas na colheita mecanizada de soja utilizando diferentes mecanismos na plataforma de corte. Pubvet 13: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.31533/pubvet.v13n2a261.1-6
Köppen W, 1923. Die klimate der Erde. Guyter, Berlin. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111491530
Kuotsu K, Das A, Lal R, Munda GC, Ghosh PK, Ngachan SV, 2014. Land forming and tillage effects on soil properties and productivity of rainfed groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) - rapeseed (Brassica campestris L.) cropping system in northeastern India. Soil Till Res 142: 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2014.04.008
Li YM, Wang XR, Xu LZ, 2007. Thresing injury to rice grain based on thre energy conservation. Chin J Mecl Eng 43: 160-164. https://doi.org/10.3901/JME.2007.03.160
Marcondes MC, Miglioranza E, Fonseca ICB, 2010. Qualidade de sementes de soja em função do horário de colheita e do sistema de trilha de fluxo radial e axial. Eng Agric 30: 315-321. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162010000200014
Mesquita CM, Hanna MA, Costa NP, 2006. Crop and harvesting operation characteristics affecting field losses and physical qualities of soybeans - Part I. Ap Eng Agric 22: 325-333. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20449
Montgomery DC, 2009. Introduction to statistical quality control. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Mulvaney MJ, Balkcom KS, Wes Wood C, Jordan D, 2017. Peanut residue carbon and nitrogen mineralization under simulated conventional and conservation tillage. Agron J 109: 696-705. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2016.04.0190
Olaye ARIB, Moreira J, Hounhouigan J, Amponsah SK, 2016. Effect of threshing drum speed and crop weight on paddy grain quality in axial-flow thresher (Asi). J Mult Eng Sci Tech 3: 3716-3721.
Paixão CSS, Voltarelli MA, de Oliveira LP, Bernache L, da Silva RP, 2019. Wear quantification of basal cutting knives in sugarcane harvesting. Eng Agríc 39: 498-503. https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-eng.agric.v39n4p498-503/2019
Pereira J, Rezende PM, Malfitano SC, Lima RK, Corrêa LVT, Carvalho ER, 2010. Efeito de doses de silício sobre a produtividade e características agronômicas da soja (Glycine max L.). Ciênc Agrotecnol 34: 908-913. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542010000400016
Pimentel-Gomes F, 2009. Curso de estatística experimental. Piracicaba, Fealq.
Roca BR, Tavares TO, Oliveira LP, Silva RP, Chicone LCG, 2020. Technical-economic viability of mechanized picking coffee (Coffea arabica L.) in up to three annual operations. Span J Agric Res 20: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2020181-14885
Rocha RS, Silva JAL, Neves JA, Sediyama T, Teixeira RC, 2012. Desempenho agronômico de variedades e linhagens de soja em condições de baixa latitude em Teresina - PI. Rev Ciênc Agron 43: 154-162. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-66902012000100019
Samohyl RW, 2009. Controle estatístico de qualidade. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro.
Sangwijit P, Chinsuwan W, 2011. Prediction equations for losses from Thai axial flow rice combine harvesters. Thai J Agric Sci 44: 23-31.
Shen P, Wu Z, Wang C, Luo S, Zheng Y, Yu T et al., 2016. Contributions of rational soil tillage to compaction stress in main peanut producing areas of China. Sci Reports 6: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38629
Souza CMA, Queiroz DM, Cecon PR, Mantovani EC, 2001. Avaliação de perdas em uma colhedora de fluxo axial para feijão. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Amb 5: 530-537. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662001000300027
Souza GS, Souza ZM, Cooper M, Tormena CA, 2015. Controlled traffic and soil physical quality of an Oxisol under sugarcane cultivation. Sci Agric 72: 270-277. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2014-0078
Spokas L, Steponavicius D, Petkevicius S, 2008. Impact of technological parameters of threshing apparatus on grain damage. Agron Res 6: 367-376.
Taha SY, 2019. Evaluation of some technical indicators for New Holland TC 5050 harvester on harvesting losses of rice crop. Kufa J Agric Sci 11: 49-57.
USDA, 2020a. Crop production practices. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/production-practices-0.
USDA, 2020b. Crop Production, 2019 Summary. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_Subject/result.php?22E5CD7F-2BA4-3718-B2C4C5F5DF6B2A0E§or=CROPS&group=FIELD%20CROPS&comm=PEANUTS.
Valadão Júnior DD, Bergamin AC, Venturoso LR, Schlindwein JA, Caron BO, Schmidt D, 2008. Adubação fosfatada na cultura da soja em Rondônia. Sci Agrar 9: 369-375. https://doi.org/10.5380/rsa.v9i3.11537
Wang XR, Shi QX, Ni CN, 2011. Study on the impact numbers of threshing tooth on rice grain for semi feeding unit. J Agric Mec Res 4: 17-20.
Zhang H, Zhang Y, Yan C, Liu E, Chen B, 2016. Soil nitrogen and its fractions between long-term conventional and no-tillage systems with straw retention in dryland farming in northern China. Geoderma 269: 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.02.001
Copyright (c) 2022 Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© 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.
