Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine Harvesters

Research Article Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J Volume 19 Issue 2 - December 2018 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Modather Mairghany DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085 Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine Harvesters

Modather Mairghany1*, Azmi Yahya1, Nor Maria Adam2, Ahmad Suhaizi Mat Su3 and Suha Elsoragaby1 1Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia 3Department of Agricultural Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Submission: December 03, 2018, Published: December 17, 2018 *Corresponding author: Modather Mairghany, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University Putra Malaysia, (18-18) A Skyvillas Serdang Perdana Street No SP 3/5 43300 Seri Kembangan Selangor, Malaysia.

Abstract Harvesting quality of the conventional and mid-size combines was evaluated on the basis of the grain quality collected in the clean grain

Qualitytank of theof threshed combine, mass the grainhas been loss expressed in the field through after harvesting the percentage and the and extent weight of contentdamages of of a runninghealthy (whole)the combines grain, onbroken the field or damaged plot. Harvesting kernels, foreignoperation materials, was conducted and empty on farmers’grain. The field collected lots with thresh a total grains area from of 30.104 the mid-combine ha for conventional harvester combine showed and 0.49% 16.95 more ha for mean the wholemid-size and combine. healthy grain content (96.47 vs 87.32%) and 69.63% lesser mean broken grain (0.72 vs 2.37%) and 89.96% lesser mean foreign materials in the outlet mixture of grain (2.18 vs 4.05%) and 46.23% lesser mean empty grain of rice (0.63 vs 6.28%). In terms of grain losses, the result found that the mid-size combine harvester showed 67.3% lesser mean total grain loss (17.10 vs 52.29 g/m2), 74.67% lesser mean cleaning grain losses (9.08 versus 16.13g/m2), 50.8% lesser mean unthreshed grains loss (7.94 vs. 16.15g/m2) than the conventional combine harvester.

Keywords: Wetland Rice Cultivation; Rice Combine; Grain Quality; Harvesting Losses; Food Security; Qualitative and Quantitative Losses

Introduction capacities [7]. Food losses have a direct and negative impact on Food security is the basis for our way of life, rice is a major food the income of both farmers and consumers. Food and Agriculture crop for the people of the world in general and Asians in particular; Organization of U.N. predicts that about 1.3 billion tons of food nearly 90% of the world’s rice is produced and consumed in this are globally wasted or lost per year [8]. Reduction in these region. Furthermore, rice is a staple food for nearly 2.4 billion losses would increase the amount of food available for human people in Asia, rice provides two-thirds of the calories for most consumption and enhance global food security [8]. Asians with rice-based diets. Current world population is 7.6 billion [1] and expected to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 [2], this increase translates into 28.02% more human mouths to feed, with the greatest demand growth in the poor communities of the world. According to [3], food supplies would need to increase by 60% (estimated at 2005 food production levels) in order to meet the food demand in 2050 increasing productivity and reductions of contribute to ensuring a reasonable diet for a growing population losses the cereals in general and rice in special could significantly over the next 50 years [4]. Thus, reduction of harvesting and postharvest food losses is a critical component of ensuring future global food security [5]. Volumes of food losses and food waste arising globally each year Figure 1-4 [6]. Food losses refer to a decrease in food quantity or quality in the early stages of the food supply chain, reducing the amount of food suitable for human Figure 1: World rice area harvested, production and losses from consumption. The concept of food losses is thereby often related 1962 to 2013 [6]. to harvesting activities with the lacking system or infrastructural

Agri Res & Tech: Open Access J 19(2): ARTOAJ.MS.ID.556085 (2018) 0054 Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

Reducing food losses offers an important way of increasing food availability without requiring additional production resources, and in less developed countries it can contribute to rural development and poverty reduction by improving agribusiness livelihoods. Reducing harvesting losses may effectively and sustainably increase the volume and quality of available food.

Rice is one of the main substances in the world people’s diets and considers as a strategic crop. Moreover, the consumption is increasing due to a sharp population, noticeable losses of agricultural crops, and improvements in nutrition qualitatively and quantitatively. Therefore, any kind of effort to increase production through waste and loss reduction is important [9]. Harvesting is the most important activity to sustain the productivity and quality of rice. Nowadays, combine harvesters have been playing an Figure 2: World wheat area harvested, production and losses increasingly important role in modern agricultural production in from 1962 to 2013 [6]. recent years, they are being employed massively and continuously in harvesting rice in the world.

The performance of combine harvester should work in trend to reduced grain losses in order to produce the highest quality and quantity of rice. Grain losses during harvest represent a direct

reductions could have toward sustainably contributing to global loss of income for the farmer. Given the significant role food loss food security, it is important to have reliable measures of these losses [10]. In some countries, it is perceived that the reasonable small grain loss should reach a maximum of 3% of the total crop yield [11]. It is very important to determine total losses qualitative and quantitative and the quality of harvested mass in the rice harvest combines, not only in terms of economic calculation and determination of total yield and the effects of the harvester but also for global food security concern because any small grain losses could affect the world population feeding [12]. The post- Figure 3: Malaysia rice area harvested and rice production from 1983 to 2013 [6]. harvest system should perform with minimum loss, maximum

efficiencyLiterature and review maximum return for all involved. There have been many studies and researches about performance of harvester machines such as [13], who determined the patterns for grain for barely passing through the concave and

separating grates of an axial-flow combine, and the grain damaged by threshing and separating, [14] studied the threshing efficiency and power consumption for two threshing units; axial flow grain, broken grain, damaged grain, skinned grain, and power threshing and tangential flow threshing. In this study, unthreshed consumption were investigated, To know the exact status of grain breakage and other losses for basmati rice cultivar, a tangential

cylinder for threshing basmati rice Axial Flow Cylinder The axial flow threshing cylinder was compared with fully axial flow thresher cylinder, Tangential Axial Flow, [15] studied the effects of Figure 4: Malaysia production rice imported rice quantity and losses from 2003 to 2013 [6]. breakage, [16] found in their study that the grain moisture content operating factors of an axial flow rice combine harvester on grain and the rotor speed affect the amount of grain breakage, [17] To sustainably achieve the goals of food security, food compared the threshing mechanism of combine harvesters affects availability needs to be increased through reductions in the damage on the Winter wheat and spring barley grains including post-harvest process at the farm, retail and consumer levels [5]. tangential and axial threshing mechanisms. It was found, that

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0055 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal the axial threshing system of grain harvesters damaged the grain 1165 combine harvester equipped with variable pulley and belt mechanism has tested. mechanism. [18] studied the behavior of grain separation in a Thai significantly lower in comparison with the tangential threshing The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of two types of combine harvesters, conventional combine, and factors of Thai axial rice combine harvesters pertaining to thresh transverse axial flow threshing unit, [19] studied about operating mid-size combine harvesters in terms of reducing grain losses, unit losses concerning, [20] conducted a study on a transverse increasing grain quality and reducing qualitative losses in wet axial rice thresher and found that the rotor speeds, feed rates, paddy cultivation in Malaysia. and guide vane inclinations all affected threshing unit losses, and that rotor speed affects grain breakage, the feed rates and guide Materials and Methods vane inclinations did not cause any grain breakage, [21] observed The study was conducted for quality evaluation of crop – in their study about the transverse axial thresher for rice- that harvesting and grain losses for combine harvesters during the increase in rotor speed directly reduced threshing losses harvesting rice were performed in Tanjong Karang Kuala Selangor and increased grain breakage due to higher impact forces, and Malaysia in 60 plots for two seasons during the years 2017-2018, yet an increase in feed rate raised the threshing loss, but did not statistically affect grain breakage. [22] reported that in Thai axial from January till June 2018. Investigations included two type of thresher increasing guide vane inclination and decreasing grain first season from June to November 2017 and the second season harvesters, the conventional 5m cutting width NEW HOLLAND moisture content tended to reduce corn shelling losses, whereas CLAYSON 8080, 82 Kw@2500rpm combines are equipped with a rotor speed, feed rate and grain to the material other than grain cylindrical-concave threshing drum system with a total machine weight of 14500kg at its full payload. The new mid-size 2.2m ratio, [23] did notinvestigated significantly unthreshed affect such grain, losses. broken grain, damaged cutting width WORLD STAR WS7.0, 65.62kW@2700rpm combine grain, skinned grain and energy consumption in two threshing is equipped with an axial type threshing system with a total units; peg-tooth and rasp-bar, using different drum peripheral machine weight of 4600kg at its full payload. Relative humidity speeds, different feeding rate, and two moisture levels were used and temperature were collected during harvesting using handheld for comparative performance and determine the appropriate ANEMOMETER. working parameters in trials depending on these parameters. Determination of crop parameters unit affecting losses and power consumption, [25] examined The Crop Parameters consist of plant density per meter [24] studied the design factors of the axial-flow corn shelling square, normal plants height, abnormal plant height, the degree of maturity, grain moisture content, plant standing angle, panicle the effects of threshing drum speed of an axial-flow thresher broken and cracked grains. The results revealed that the most length and extent of weed per m2. All these were measurements at five levels and paddy moisture content at three levels on the broken grains were recorded at highest drum speed and lowest were taken before harvesting using a square wooden frame of paddy moisture contents, [26] evaluated the suitability and 0.5m × 0.5m size in 12 different locations in each farm with a determine wheat losses using combine “NEW HOLLAND TC56”. [27] Investigated the causes of low head rice recovery in combine- second season. For plant density, all the plant inside the square total of 60 farms; 30 farms in the first season and 30 farms in the harvested evaluating four types of conventional and four types of wooden frame was counted and plant per square meter was head-feeding combine harvesters. They found that conventional determined [33]. For determining the plant height, height from combine harvesters gave the lowest head rice recovery, [28] the base of the plant to the top of the latest spikelet on the panicle evaluated effects of four threshing methods namely power tiller- [34], measurement ten normal plant height and ten abnormal plant height were made in the square wooden frame. Similarly, harvester as a thresher on unthreshed grain, shattering loss, the length of the plant stalk attached to the ground was measured operated, axial-flow thresher, tractor-type thresher and combine damaged grain, and broken rice at milling stage. [29] Investigated made in the square wooden frame. Similarly, the length of the the header grain losses and quality of the paddy grains with respect plant stalk attached to the ground was measured immediately to three different levels of cutter bar heights and forward speeds. after harvesting to determine the cutting height. The degree of [23], studied the effects of combine and crop parameters on wheat crop maturity percentage was measured by selecting ten panicles recovery, three levels of each parameter i.e. moisture content, randomly from each frame and measured moisture content using concave clearance, and feed rate were examined [30] determined handheld SMART SENSOR AR991 Digital grain moisture meter the effect of different forward speed and different cutting height vochtmeter. Mature grain moisture content ideally is between of header, threshing cylinder, separation and cleaning, total losses between the teeth and 80 to 85% of the grains are yellow-colored 20 to 25%, grains should be firm but not brittle when squeezed [35]. To determine plant standing angle degree, ten plants inside and combine harvester efficiency.[31] evaluated the impact of losses and milling quality of rough rice. Four popular harvesters the wooden frame was chosen and the angle between the plant harvester header, harvester type, and weather conditions on-field base and the ground was measured using a protractor. Ten of rice were evaluated for each harvester under regular, rainy panicles from each wooden frame were selected randomly and the equipped with different headers: The header and total field losses and windy weather conditions [32], investigated the losses of JD length of them was measured using a measuring tape, measured

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0056 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal from the base of the lowest spikelet to the tip of the latest spikelet Where, on the panicle as in [34,35]. To determine the extent of weed S = Forward speed, km/h; per meter square, all plants and weed except the paddy inside the wooden frame were calculated and the average per square D = Distance, km and meter was recorded. Average grain moisture content at the time T = Time, h. of harvesting was recorded by taking grain samples from twelve Pre-harvest losses were determined by placing the 0.5m×0.5m SMART SENSOR AR991 Digital grain moisture meter vochtmeter, wooden frame randomly inside the standing plants at twelves different locations in the test field using handheld moisture meter and grain moisture content after harvesting was measured by the different locations in each farm before the combine entered same device and by taking 30 readings in the combine grain tank. the plots. Loose grains and panicles fell on the ground were collected within the 0.5m×0.5m quadrate and weighed [37], and Harvester performance parameters the percentage of pre-harvest losses was calculated by using the The cutting width of every combine was measured by using following equation; Mass of collected grains , kg locations in each farm. When the machine work in the middle Preharvest losses% = ×100 a measuring tape for the first two working rows at five random Total mass of grains , kg mentioned above, the stubble of the plant cut after harvesting the of the field ten random measures in every farm was taken. As The harvest losses (threshing and cleaning losses) were height at which the rice crop is cut at harvest was determined in determined, at twelve different places randomly selected within twelve different locations with the 0.5m×0.5m wooden frame and the harvested area. The area from where the sample was collected ten stubbles height inside each wooden frame were measured. was 0.5m in the direction of combine travel using the 0.5m × 0.5m wooden frame. Threshed and unthreshed grain fallen in the metal equation [36]. The cutting efficiency (Ec%) was calculated using the following frame after the machine has run over it was picked up manually, − HH all grains and panicles inside it gathered and weighted [38]. E = ab c H The percentage of harvesting losses computed by the following a equation [37,38]. Where, To determine percentage the of whole healthy grain, broken, H = height of stand plant above the soil surface before cutting, a cracked, husked grains, and the impurities, ten samples of 100g cm. and rough rice was taken from the tank of rice combine harvester from

Hb = height of the stubble after cutting, cm. each farm and then broken and husked grains and any material The forward speed was calculated as given below: other than grain (MOG) were collected and separated manually and weighted, then the whole healthy grains were determined [38,39]. The broken grains, husked grains were determined for D S = quality losses, weed seed, straw or any other material were taken T out manually and weighed employing an electric digital balance. Results and Discussion

Table 1-3 Shows the basic data on the state of the crops of rice on experimental farmer’s paddy fields on which the test of the quality of harvesting of combines NEW HOLLAND CLAYSON and WS 7.0 PLUS has been performed. Crops were upright, without a significant presenceTable 1: Technical of weeds, specification which significantly of combines. facilitate the work of the combine. Parameter Conventional Combine Mid-Size Combine Model CLAYSON 8080 WS 7.O PLUS Cutting bar length m 5 2.2 Grain tank capacity m3 4.5 1.6 Threshing type Conventional concave

Engine size, Kw 82 Axial75 flow Engine rated speed, rpm 2500 2600 Gear position operation 3 3 Combine theoretical speed km/hr. 16 20 Total weight, kg 10000 3400 Traction type Semi-track Fully-track

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0057 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

Track ground contact area, m2 2.031 1.7 Track ground pressure, MPa 48.303

Table 2: Crop parameters of harvesting plots. ≤20Kpa Parameter Conventional Combine Mid-Size Combine Model CLAYSON 8080 WS 7.O PLUS Cutting bar length m 5 2.2 Grain tank capacity m3 4.5 1.6 Threshing type Conventional concave

Engine size, Kw 82 Axial75 flow Engine rated speed, rpm 2500 2600 Gear position operation 3 3 Combine theoretical speed km/hr. 16 20 Total weight, kg 10000 3400 Traction type Semi-track Fully-track Track ground contact area, m2 2.031 1.7 Track ground pressure, MPa 48.303

***significant at α = 0.001, **significant at α = 0.01, *significant at α = 0.05 and ns = not significant. ≤20Kpa Table 3: Harvesting performances of combines. Parameter Conventional Combine Mid-Size Combine P Value % Differences Total harvested area ha 42.78 16.95 - -60.39 Working speed, km/h 3.24±0.19 4.10±0.28 2.26E-08*** 26.54 Effective cutting width, m 4.40±0.08 1.81±0.05 3.09E-47*** -58.86 Cutting row length, m 179.20 ±2.52 180± 3.60 0.727ns ns Cutting height, m 55.58±1.00 45.09±0.72 1.91E-23*** -18.87 50.03 58.79 3.39E-11*** 8.76

***significantCutting efficiency at α = 0.001, % **significant at α = 0.01, *significant at α = 0.05 and ns = not significant. Combine harvesting pattern to performing the harvesting without delaying in the harvesting The two types of combines were operated in circuitous round operating two machines in the field at the same time which lead operation time. Cutting height corner patterns around field border begins at the edge of the field middle area for all plots. and works toward the center of the field to finish harvesting of the Cutting height was at the highest level in conventional Cutting width combine harvester with the mean of 55.58cm (44-65.25cm) The combine harvesters were consistently operated at the the mean of 45.09cm (32-48cm). Mean cutting height of the mid- cutting width ranging from 3.8m to 4.8m with an average of 4.40m while in the axial flow combine harvester it was the least with size combines harvester is 18.87% less than that of conventional for the conventional combine, while mid-size cut the plant through combine harvester Table 3. Cutting height of harvesting operation width range from 1.7m to 2.2m with an average of 1.81m (Table 3). The conventional combine has a maximum cutting width concern for the farmers to reduce grain losses, the cutting height is the main criterion of efficient harvesting which is a main of the rice crop at harvesting plays a major role in determining equal to 4.8m and it performed that in the first two rows going the grain yield, which ensures optimum performance in terms of combine harvester was operated at a greater cutting width which and coming, harvesting the two edges of the field. The mid-size minimizing grain losses and optimizing grain quality [29], Cutting equals to the cutter bar 2.2m at the beginning of the harvesting operation along the boundaries rows and at the lower cutting that of a conventional combine harvester (58.79 versus 50.03%). width as the combine harvester began harvesting in a headland efficiency of the mid-size combine harvester was 8.76% lesser than performed 59.55% mean cutting width less than the conventional [29] Found in their field study in Sri Lanka, when the cutter bar pattern in the middle of the field. The mid-size combine harvester completely. Hence, some parts of panicle remain in the plant itself combine harvester, this gave the conventional combine advantage height is increased, it is difficult to cut the panicle from the plant which is also considered as losses. Also cutting height should be optimized and that for very low cutting height affecting the in term of the field capacity and time-consuming to harvest the field, but the mid-size combine could overcome this problem by How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0058 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

(whole) grain, as well as partially broken or damaged kernels and cutting height is set primarily to avoid excessive shattering and mechanical impurities. Data on harvesting quality of conventional efficiency of harvesting performance, [40] reported that combine and mid-size combines are shown in Table 4. The percentage combine harvester that, the feed rate does not have any effect on of average whole and healthy grain content of paddy that has unharvested grain. [41] Found in their study of an axial flow rice been measured in a harvested mixture grain in the conventional harvester, the feed rate does not cause any breakage to grain. combine was 87.32%, while, for the mid-size combine was 96.47% grain quality. Also, [20] showed that in an axial flow rice combine (Figure 5). The collected whole grains from the mid-size combine Harvesting quality harvester showed 10.49% more mean healthy whole grain than Whole and healthy grains: Quality of threshed mass has been the conventional combine harvester. expressed through the percentage and weight content of a healthy Table 4: Quality of collected grains in grain tank of combines. Conventional Parameter Mid-Size Combine P-Value % Differences Combine Weight, gm % Total Weight, gm % Total Whole grain 87.32±1.168 87.32 96.470±0.771 96.47 1.22E-19*** 10.49 Damaged grain 2.37±0.358 2.37 0.720±0.168 0.72 3.38E-11*** -69.63 Empty grain 4.05±0.569 4.05 2.183±0.542 2.18 1.08E-06*** -46.23 Foreign materials 6.28±0.619 6.28 0.631±0.110 0.63 1.01E-20*** -89.96 ***significant at α = 0.001, **significant at α = 0.01, *significant at α = 0.05 and ns = not significant

Figure 5: Whole healthy grain for the conventional combine and mid-size combine harvesters.

Damage and broken grain: (Table 4 & Figure 5). Demonstrates (1.10% vs. 2.5%), (1.48% vs 2.2%), (0.15 % vs1.97%), (0.27% vs that the average visible broken grain in the conventional combine 1.79%) and (0.25% vs. 2.18% in green gram, black gram, soybean, was 2.37% while in the mid-size combine was 0.72%. The mid- size combine harvester showed 69.63% less mean broken grain chickpeaVarious and studiessunflower have crop shown respectively. that rotary threshing and than the conventional combine harvester. This result agreed with separating combine perform better than the conventional cylinder was lesser than tangential threshing system cylinder. The the findings of [16,42], they found that grain breakage in axial flow with rotary type thresher which became popular, [44] reported combine. Axial flow combines harvester WS 7.0 PLUS equipped that, rotary type threshing mechanisms have been widely study that the conventional combine was damaging the grain result of our study also confirmed by [17], who found in their adopted since the 1980s on corn, soybean, and rice, crops that more than the axial combine harvester. [16] Found in their study are susceptible the grain damage and may be less affected across a somewhat wider range of rotor speeds [45,46]. [47] reported about axial flow rice combine harvester that the grain breakage that an axial threshing unit, which eliminates the straw walkers machines result in minimum seed damage with higher output and was from 0.06 to 0.820 percent. [43] Reported that the axial flow damages the grain to a certain extent; however, an axial threshing unit offers the advantage of a threefold feed rate increase. [17] seed damage of axial thresher against conventional thresher was threshing efficiency. They found in their study that the minimum Reported that the tangential threshing system is more aggressive

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0059 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal and it causes a higher level of mechanical damaging of grains while outlet mixture grain than the conventional combine harvester. The the axial system works more gently and grain is less mechanically percentage of average empty grain of rice that has been measured destroyed. The rotor speed is less and the concave gap is higher in a harvested mixture grain in the conventional combine harvester, than in conventional combines; that results in more thorough was 4.05% (mean of 4.05g, compared to a sample of mean of 100g, threshing with less damage under most harvesting conditions which has been taken from the grain yield), while for the mid-size [39]. combine harvester the minimum average content of empty grains of rice was 2.18% (2.18g compared to 100g sample from the Grain damage by rotary separators may be acceptable over bunker harvester) Table 4. In the mid-size combine harvester, the a wider range of speeds and separation forces are greater [44]. percentage of a mean empty grain of rice was 46.23% lesser than Compared with straw walkers, rotary separators have high that in the conventional combine harvester. separation capacity within a smaller machine chassis, reduced moving parts and drives, lower vibration, and lower combine Threshing performance weight [48]. [15] showed that there is an opinion regarding the Threshing efficiency: of the threshed grains calculated on the basis of the total grains Threshing efficiency is the percentage performance of the axial flow machines that the breakage of grain entering the threshing mechanism. The maximum threshing Consequently, there is much to be gained from evaluating axial- is less than that of the cross-flow machine as decided by [49]. was designed and developed to maintain the seed quality of efficiency of 98.92% was observed by the mid-size combine flow technology [13]. [43] Reported that an axial flow thresher combine harvester was 97.73% for threshing of paddy grain major oilseed and pulse crops. Major features of the thresher harvester, while the threshing efficiency of the conventional are a minimum injury to seed, higher seed recovery, and good Figure 7. The axial flow type combines harvester showed 1.23% seed quality, easy feeding. Harvesting operations being done combine harvester. Similarly, [43] found in their study that by conventional threshers and combine resulting in high seed threshing efficiency performance more than the conventional damage and threshing losses [50]. [43] Reported that a recent improvement in grain harvesting technology is the incorporation threshing efficiency of 99.43 99.60, 99.40. 99.20 And 98.90% were observed by axial flow thresher for threshing of green gram, black gram, soybean, chickpea, and sunflower crop. [13] Reported of the axial flow system in combines and threshers. In the axial stage threshing and grain straw separation, resulting in a high drum and concave and thus threshed for a longer duration by that the principle of axial flow combine harvester permits multi- flow machines, the crop moves spirally between the threshing repeated impact of the threshing pegs at low speed [13]. It results threshing units with rasp bars, the higher cylinder peripheral output and cleaning efficiency. [51] reported that in tangential in minimum seed damage with higher output and threshing speeds threshing losses decrease, but grain damage increases. the broken grain at recommended speed whereas percentage efficiency. [42] evaluated an axial flow thresher for paddy crop; varied from 2.21-2.51 %. [43] Reported that the axial flow machines result in minimum seedSeparation damage with efficiency: higher output The and mid-size threshing combine efficiency. harvester

conventional combine harvester has the lowest mean separation has the height mean separation efficiency 97.98% while the

efficiency was 92.64%. The mid-size combine harvester showed tangential combine harvester Figure 7. [44] Reported that rotary 5.45% mean separation efficiency performance more than the separation forces can be 50-100 g or more, orders of magnitude higher than for straw walkers.

Figure 6: Empty, damage grain and impurities in the conventional and mid-size combine harvesters.

Purity degree: Table 4 shows that the highest average content of impurities (dockage and rubbish) in grain was found in conventional combine harvester and amounted to 6.28% 6.28g in every 100g taken from the grain tank, and the lowest average impurities were found in mid-size combine 0.63% 0.63g in every Figure 7:Threshing, separation and cleaning efficiency of 100g from the bunker harvester Figure 6. The mid-size combine conventional and mid-size combine harvesters. harvester performed 89.96% less mean foreign materials in the

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0060 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

Cleaning efficiency combine harvester. While the maximum cleaning grain losses 5.38% (36.14g/m2) were obtained under conventional combine The mid-size combine harvester has higher mean cleaning harvester. The mid-size combine harvester showed 74.67% less mean cleaning grain losses than that of the conventional combine efficiency than the conventional combine harvester has the lowest harvester (9.08 versus 16.13g/m2). Similarly, [15] found that mean separation efficiency (98.75 vs 94.79%). The mid-size performance more than the conventional combine harvester combine harvester showed 4.17% mean separation efficiency rice varieties were 0.92% and 1.81%. The performance of the Figure 7. threshed grains losses in axial flow threshing cylinder for two conventional straw walker showed that the problem lies in its Harvesting losses Cleaning losses: Table 5 & Figure 8 shows that the minimum is separating residual grains (free or unthreshed) from straw [47]. mechanism performance. the most difficult task of straw walkers grain loss of 1.25% (9.16g/m2) were obtained by the mid-size

Figure 8: Cleaning losses of the conventional combine and mid-size combine harvesters.

The performance of the conventional straw walker showed the way along the walkers. that the problem lies on the straw walker mechanism performance. [53] Reported that with rotary separators, the principle separating force is the centrifugal action, compared to gravity separating residual grains (free or unthreshed) from straw. Most [47] showed that the most difficult task of straw walkers is separation is taking place about a third of the way along the rotation of the straw mat together with the rotor can be 50 to 100 walkers. Separation at the front end of the walkers is very poor. only with straw walkers. The centrifugal force field caused by the times that of gravity. [52] reported that most separation is taking place about a third of

Figure 9: Threshing losses of the conventional combine and mid-size combine harvesters

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0061 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

Table 5: Harvesting losses of combine harvesters. Parameter Conventional Combine Mid-Size Combine P-Value % Differences Weight, gm % Total Weight, gm % Total Whole grain 87.32±1.168 87.32 96.470±0.771 96.47 1.22E-19*** 10.49 Damaged grain 2.37±0.358 2.37 0.720±0.168 0.72 3.38E-11*** -69.63 Empty grain 4.05±0.569 4.05 2.183±0.542 2.18 1.08E-06*** -46.23 Foreign materials 6.28±0.619 6.28 0.631±0.110 0.63 1.01E-20*** -89.96 ***significant at α = 0.001, **significant at α = 0.01, and *significant at α = 0.05 Threshing losses: The mid-size combine harvester has harvesters gave 5-12% shattering losses and 3-7% threshing the lowest threshing losses equal to 1.08% (7.94g/m2) and the losses. Our result revealed that the mid-size combine harvester largest obtained by a conventional combine harvester, reaching to has a lower percentage of grain losses which agreed with [55] who 2.40% (16.15g/m2) Table 5 and Figure 9. The mid-size combine harvester showed 50.8% lesser mean unthreshed grains losses countries have substantially reduced crop losses an estimated 2 to reported that use of axial-flow threshers in tropical producing than conventional combine harvester (7.94 versus 16.15g/m2). 5% grain has been saved. [47] Reported that in comparison with tangential threshing units, the axial ones have lower grain losses. The conventional combine combine (92.79 vs 97.72%) this led to limit grain separation and harvester has lower separation efficiency than the mid-size throughput of straw walkers in conventional combines and this one of the main reasons that led to the integral transfer of their function to the axial threshing units [47].

Figure 11: Mid-size combine harvester WORLD STAR WS7.0

Figure 10:Total losses of the conventional combine and mid-size combine harvesters.

Total grain losses: For the total grain losses, the mid-size combine harvester has 2.37% (17.1g/m2) mean total grain losses, while the conventional combine harvester has 7.78% (51.29g/m2) Figure 12: Conventional combine harvester NEW HOLLAND mean total grain losses (Table 5 & Figure 10-12). In our study, the CLAYSON 8080. mid-size combine harvester showed 67.3% less mean total grain losses than the conventional combine harvester (17.10 vs 52.29g/ [56] Reported that desirable performance of grain harvesting equipment is usually evaluated in terms of least machine losses, that the total grain loss in fully axial threshing cylinder was less lowest grain damage, maximizing crop throughput, and optimal m2), our findings supported by the result of [13] who found economy. Optimal machine performance involves trading off (5.79–6.46%). Similarly [54], found that the total grain loss in fully acceptable machine grain loss levels in the adjustment of threshing (2.58–4.38%) as compared to tangential flow threshing cylinder axial threshing cylinder was less (0.4-2.4 %) as compared to the and separating equipment while maintaining grain quality for tangential threshing cylinder (5.79-6.46 %), also [42] evaluated Conclusioncustomer specifications. grain loss ranged from 1.53-2.71 % at the recommended speed. an axial flow thresher for the paddy crop, they found that the [27] Found in their study in Pakistan that, conventional combine Nowadays, the combine harvesters are being employed massively and continuously in harvesting rice in Malaysia. All the

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0062 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal conventional combine harvesters operated in Malaysian paddy c. Less grain damages

d. Smaller size countries and USA. These combine harvesters were designed for fields were originally imported from overseas such as European harvesting wheat, the structure of rice stem harder than that of e. Less vibration [14] the wheat which had reduced the efficiency of combine harvester threshing unit to be evaluated for rice at different crop conditions Therefore, it is very necessary that an axial flow thresher and when Rice it operates crop is too in Malaysian sensitive to paddy harvest fields operation [57]. due to the high in a wide range in the world. Based on the results of the investigated combines harvested mass quality parameters, we can see that the harvesting and its quality of work are the main concern for the mid-size combines separation devices doing better compared to percentage of grain losses affecting total yield. Hence, efficient the conventional combine harvester. The highest average content the grain quality, the mid-size has the ability to achieve this. [58] of whole grain weight was recorded in the harvested mass of farmers and first customer to reduce grain losses and increase Reported in their survey about harvesters in Malaysia that the mid-size combines and the smallest in the harvested mass of the farmer complained about the amount of harvested grain losses and conventional combine harvester. quality of harvested grain of the conventional combine harvester. By 2025, more than 5 billion of the world’s anticipated 10 A reasonable balance between capacity and grain loss has to be billion people will depend on rice as their principal food. Recent maintained. To sustainably achieve the goals of food security, food projections indicate that the world will need about 880 million availability needs to be increased through reductions in the post- tons of rice in 2025 - 92 percent more rice than was consumed harvest process at farm level [10]. Reduction of postharvest losses in 1992 [10]. The introduction of advanced combine harvesters into the system which would enable deep cutting will help save benefits farmers, consumers, and the environment; and can have the losses during harvesting and threshing. Care should be strength of those who live in developing countries [59-60]. a high impact in improving the nutritional status and financial taken to operate the combines to minimize losses because the Desirable performance of grain harvesting equipment is conventional combine harvesters encounter problems with grain usually evaluated in terms of least machine losses, lower grain losses and frequent breakdowns. The factors affect directly on the damage, and maximizing crop throughput. Unfortunately, these

crop quantity and quality losses and efficiency, which in return, trading off acceptable machine grain loss levels in the adjustment are conflicting goals. Optimal machine performance involves influence In contrast crop yield, to conventional and the total combine,operational the cost. mid-size combine of threshing and separating equipment while maintaining grain has the ideal threshing unit which produces a perfect threshing of maximum crop throughput, with optimum grain separation and there is often a “sweet spot” of combine throughput, with enough quality for customer specifications. For specific crop conditions, preserving the natural shape and quality of grains and minimizing crop material being processed by the combine so that crop-on- grain loss. crop threshing minimizes grain damage, but not so much material In summary, and based on these results, that the WS 7.0 PLUS Grain damage contains visible grain damage and invisible grain combine harvester worked better than the combine harvester that separation efficiency is sacrificed, and the crop is lost [43]. damage that is reducing the quality of grain as it leads to a NEW HOLLAND CLAYSON, with lower losses of rice grain, higher reduction in the percentage of germination [29]. Broken grain means that organisms can easily penetrate the broken grains so of impurities and less damage to the grain kernel in relation to a content of whole healthy grain with a significantly lower share conventional combine harvester. It is concluded that the mid-size factor affecting grain quality. combine harvester is more suitable for rice harvesting than the that breakage can lead to difficulties in the storage of the grain, a conventional combine harvester. The mid-size combine produced the highest cleanliness and healthy grain which are primary concerns for the market. The Author Contributions mid-size combine made less damage to rice grain as a minimum Conceptualization, MODATHER. Methodology, MODATHER content of damaged grains was noted in the harvested mass of and SUHA. Software, MODATHER. Validation, MODATHER. AZMI combine harvesters which cannot be said for working elements YAHYA, and SUHA. Formal analysis, MODATHER. Investigation, of conventional combine harvester because it recorded the most MODATHER. Resources, AZMI YAHYA.; data curation, MODATHER. damaged grain. Writing—original draft preparation, MODATHER. Writing— Because of their advantages compared to the conventional review and editing, MODATHER. AZMI YAHYA, and SUHA; visualization, MODATHER and SUHA. Supervision, AZMI YAHYA, been introduced into the consumer market by New Holland, NOR MARIA and AHMAD. Project administration AZMI YAHYA.; tangential flow combines, axial flow combines have recently International Harvester, White Equipment, and Allis-Chalmers funding acquisition, AZMI YAHYA. companies. The advantages are: Funding a. High capacity This research was funded by UNIVESTITY PUTRA MALAYSIA, grant number (96333100) and the APC was funded by UNIVESTITY PUTRA MALAYSIA. b. High efficiency of threshing and separation How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0063 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

Acknowledgement 17. system design on grain damage. Engineering for Rural Development, The authors are very grateful to University Putra Malaysia pp.Masek 756-761. J, Kumhala F, Novak P, Fic T (2016) Influence of different treshing providing us with the research grant and both the Department 18. Chuan-Udom S (2015) Behaviour of grain separation in Thai transverse of Agriculture (DOA) and Integrated Agricultural Development axial threshing units for Chainat 1 rice variety. Engineering Journal Authority (IADA) Rice Granary Area from the Ministry of 19(5): 155-165. Agriculture, Malaysia for providing us with the technical 19. Chuan-Udom S, Chinsuwan W (2009) Threshing unit losses prediction

in Asia, Africa & Latin America 40(1): 50-90. in Kuala Selangor, Selangor. for Thai axial flow rice combine harvester. Agricultural Mechanization assistances throughout our field engagement at the paddy fields 20. Gummert M, Kutzbach HD, Muhlbauer W, Wacker P, Quick GR (1992) Conflict of Interest Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America (AMA) 23(3):Performance 47-58. Evaluation of An IRRI Axial-flow Paddy Thresher. Declare conflicts of interest or state. The authors declare no 21. Kradangnga P, Sukchareon A, Suwatanakul N, Kobayashi K, Goto Y study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. Science Supply 25: 140-148. (1991) Study on paddy grain from axial flow rice thresher. Nature References 22. Chuan-Udom S (2013) Operating factors of Thai threshers affecting corn shelling losses. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol 35(1): 63-67. 1. FAOSTAT (2018a) Annual population. FAOSTAT statistics database. 23. 2. FAOSTAT (2018b) Crop Production. FAOSTAT statistics database. crop parameters on kernel damage and threshability of wheat. Pak J 3. Alexandratos N, Bruinsma J (2012) World agriculture towards AgriSabir Sci MS, 42(3-4): Igbal M, 112–116. Yasin M (2005) Influence of selected combine and 2030/2050: the 2012 revision (No. 12-03), ESA Working paper, p. 4. 24. Srison W, Chuan-Udom S, Saengprachatanarak K (2016) Effects of 4. to fork: curbing losses and wastage in the food chain. Stockholm power consumption. Agriculture and Natural Resources 50(5): 421– InternationalLundqvist J, de Water Fraiture Institute C, Molden Stockholm. D (2008) Saving water: from field 425.operating factors for an axial-flow corn shelling unit on losses and 5. Osunde ZD, Orhevba BA (2009) Effects of storage conditions and 25. Alizadeh MR, Khodabakhshipour M (2010) Effect of Threshing Drum storage period on nutritional and other qualities of stored yam Speed and Crop Moisture Content on the Paddy Grain Damage in Axial- (Dioscorea spp) tubers. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition Flow Thresher. Cercetari Agronomice in Moldova XLIII(4): 1-8. and Development 9(2): 678-692. 26. Davoodi MJS, Houshyar E (2010) Evaluation of Wheat Losses Using 6. FAOSTAT (2018c) Food Balance Sheets. FAOSTAT statistics database. New Holland Combine Harvester in Iran. American-Eurasian J Agric & Environ Sci 8(1): 104-108. 7. Gustafsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U, Emanuelsson A (2013) The methodology of the FAO study: Global Food Losses and Food Waste- 27. Ahmad T, Mahmood HS, Ali Z, Khan MA, Zia S (2017) Design and extent, causes and prevention-FAO, 2011. SIK Institutet för livsmedel Development of a Portable Sisal Decorticator. Pakistan Journal of och bioteknik, pp. 1-70. Agricultural Research 30(3): 209-309. 8. Eyring V, Waugh DW, Bodeker GE, Cordero E, Akiyoshi H, et al. (2007) 28. Alizadeh MR, Bagheri I (2009) Field Performance Evaluation of Multimodel projections of stratospheric ozone in the 21st century. Different Rice Threshing Methods. International Journal of Natural & Journal of Geophysical Research 112(D16). Engineering Sciences 3(3): 155-159. 9. Kin YY, Jamuar SS, Yahya A (2011) Combine harvester instrumentation 29. system for use in precision agriculture. Instrumentation Science & Cutting Height and Forward Speed on Header Losses in Rice Harvesting. Technology 39(4): 374-393. InternationalBawatharani R,Journal Bandara of Agriculture, MHMA, Senevirathne Forestry and DIE Plantation (2016) Influence 4: 1-9. of 10. Aulakh J, Regmi A (2013) Post-harvest food losses estimation- 30. development of consistent methodology. In Selected Poster Prepared Quantitative and Qualitative Losses of Bread Wheat. The Iraqi Journal for Presentation at the Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s ofRamadhan Agricultural MN Sciences(2013) Influence 44(2): 264-273. of Selected Harvester Parameters on 2013 AAEA & CAES Joint Annual Meeting, p. 34. 31. 11. Hofman V, Wiersma J, Allrich T (2005) Grain Harvest Losses. p. 1-4. Conditions on Field Loss and Milling Quality of Rough Rice. Int J Agric &Khir Biol R, Eng Atungulu 10(4): G,216-223. Pan Z (2013) Influence of Harvester and Weather 12. Qualitative analysis of wheat combine harvester work effects in rye 32. Hassani HS, Jafari A, Mohtasebi SS, Setayesh AM (2011) Investigation harvest.Barać S, ResearchVuković A, Journal Milenković of Agricultural B, Biberdžić Science M, Dimitrijević 43(1): 273-282. A (2011) on grain losses of the JD 1165 combine harvester equipped with variable pulley and belt for forward travel. American Journal of Food 13. Harrison H (1992) Grain Separation and Damage of an Axial-Flow Technology 6(4): 314-321. Combine. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 34(1): 49-53. 33. Kumar A, Kumar A, Khan K, Kumar D (2017) Performance Evaluation 14. Sessiz A, Esgci R, Güzel E, Özcan MT (2011) Performance evaluation of of Harvesting and Threshing Methods for Wheat Crop. Int J Pure App th International Biosci 5(2): 604-611. Congress on Mechanization and Energy in Agriculture, pp. 183-188. axial-flow and tangential flow threshing units for rice. 11 34. Ranawake AL, Amarasingha UGS, Dahanayake N (2013) Agronomic 15. Manes GS, Dixit A, Singh A, Singh M, Singh BP (2015) Comparative characters of some traditional rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars in Sri Performance Evaluation of Axial Flow and Tangential Axial Flow Lanka. Journal of the University of Ruhuna 1(1): 3-9. Threshing System for Basmati Rice (Oryza sativa). Agricultural Research 4(3): 303-308. 35. IRRI (2013) Standard Evaluation System for Rice. International Rice Research Instiitute (1): 56. 16. Chuan-Udom S, Chinsuwan W (2011) Effects of operating factors of an 36. Shreen FAM, Badawy ME, AbO El-naga MHM (2014) Comparision Sci Technol 33(2): 221-225. Between the Most Common Mechanical Methods and Rice Combein axial flow rice combine harvester on grain breakage. Songklanakarin J

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0064 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085. Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal

50. Sessiz A, Ülger P (2003) Determination of threshing losses with Agric Res 92(2): 675-692. Modified for Harvesting Wheat Crop in the Egyptain Fields. Egypt J Engineering 40(4): 1-8. 37. Bawatharani R, Jayatissa DN, Dharmasena DAN, Bandara M (2015) a raspbar type axial flow threshing unit. Journal of Agricultural Field Performance of a Conventional Combine Harvester in Harvesting 51. Kitani O (1999) CIGR handbook of agricultural engineering. Energy Bg-300 Paddy Variety in Batticaloa, Srilanka. International Journal of and biomass engineering (Vol. 5). Engineering Research 4(1): 33-35. 52. Boyce BH, Pringle RT, Wills BMD (1974) The separation characteristics 38. Alizadeh MR, Allameh A (2013) Evaluating rice losses in various of a combine harvester and a comparison of straw walker performance. harvesting practices. International Research Journal of Applied and Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 19(1): 77-84. Basic Sciences 4(4): 894-901. 53. Kutzbach HD, Quick GR (1999) Harvesters and threshers grain. CIGR 39. Srivastava AK, Goering CE, Rohrbach RP, Buckmaster DR (2006) Handbook of Agricultural Engineering 3: 311-347. Engineering principles of agricultural machines (2nd edn). American Society of Agricultural Engineers, USA, p. 559. 54. Sinha JP, Manes GS, Anoop Dixit, Arshdeep Singh, Manpreet Singh, et al. (2014) Performance Evaluation of Axial Flow and Tangential Axial 40. Dalgleish GD, Corredig M (2007) The Structure of the Casein Micelle Flow Threshing System for Basmati Rice (Oryza Sativa). International of Milk and Its Changes During Processing. Annual Review of Food Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry 4(3): 44-49. Science and Technology 3: 449-467. 55. 41. Chinsuwan W, Pongjan N, Chuan-Udom S, Phayom W (2003) Effects Equipment for Developing Countries: Proceedings of the International of Feedrate and Threshing Speed on Performance of Axial Flow Rice ConferenceKhan AU (1986) on Small The Farm Asian Equipment axial-flow for Developing threshers. InCountries: Small Farm Past Thresher. TSAE Journal 10(1): 9-14. Experiences and Future Priorities, pp. 373. 42. Ahuja SS, Dhaliwal IS, Sharma VK (1986) Performance evaluation of 56. Quick GR, Hanna HM (2004) Correlating combine harvested yield with grain damage and losses. In: International Quality Grains Conference 18-23. Proceedings. p. 22. IRRI-PAK axial flow thresher on wheat and paddy. J Agric Eng 23(1): 43. 57. Adam NS, El Pebrian D (2017) Factors affecting farmers’ satisfactions thresher for seed crops. Journal of Agricultural Engineering 46(1): 1-8. Bansal NK, Lohan SK (2009) Design and development of an axial flow of hiring custom operators. Agricultural Engineering International: 44. Hanna HM, Quick GR (2007) Grain Harvesting Machinery Design. CIGRwith mechanized Journal 19(2): rice 120-128. harvesting in Malaysian paddy fields: A case study Handbook of Farm Dairy and Food Machinery, 93-111. 58. Bourne MC (2014) Food Security: Postharvest Losses. Encyclopedia of 45. Newbery RS, Paulsen MR, Nave WR (1980) Soybean quality with rotary Agriculture and Food Systems. and conventional threshing. Transactions of the ASAE 23(2): 303-308. 59. Surajit K, Datta D (1981) Principles and Practice of Rice Production. 46. Paulsen MR, Nave WR (1980) Corn Damage from Conventional and New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 618. Rotary Combines. Transactions of the ASAE 23(5): 1100-1116. 60. st 47. Miu P (2015) Combine Harvesters Theory, Modeling, and Design (1 International Rice Research Inst., Los Banos, Laguna (Philippines). edn). CRC Press, USA, pp. 494. InternationalKhan AU (1985) Conference Asian axial-flow on Small treshers Farm (No.Equipment 88-038271. for Developing CIMMYT.). 48. Gafar NA, Eyre BD, Schulz KG (2018) A conceptual model for projecting Countries: Past Experiences and Future Priorities. Los Banos, Laguna (Philippines). pp. 2-7.

coccolithophorid growth, calcification and photosynthetic carbon 49. fixationMajumdar rates KL in (1985) response Design, to global development ocean change. and Front evaluation Mar Sci of 4: CIAE433. multicrop thresher. In Proc. Silver jubilee convention of ISAE, pp. 28- 32.

This work is licensed under Creative Your next submission with Juniper Publishers Commons Attribution 4.0 License DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085 will reach you the below assets • Quality Editorial service • Swift Peer Review • Reprints availability • E-prints Service • Manuscript Podcast for convenient understanding • Global attainment for your research • Manuscript accessibility in different formats ( Pdf, E-pub, Full Text, Audio) • Unceasing customer service

Track the below URL for one-step submission https://juniperpublishers.com/online-submission.php

How to cite this article: Modather M, Azmi Y, Nor M A, Ahmad S M S, Suha E. Quality of Performance and Grain Losses of Two Type of Rice Combine 0065 Harvesters. Agri Res& Tech: Open Access J. 2018; 19(2): 556085. DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.19.556085.