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.

Harvesting of Arachis hypogaea L. in an Italian Area: Synergy between Cultural Techniques and Mechanization

“…Losses during the separation phase (SL), which are defined as pods left on the ground and not intercepted by the separating machine, were significantly higher in sub-plots with higher planting density (D 2 ) compared to sub-plots with lower planting density (D 1 ), specifically 15.7 ± 1.6 g m −2 versus 5.3 ± 1.4 g m −2 . The SL results obtained in this study are in line with the range (6.38-18.51 g m −2 ) of separation losses reported in another study [15]. Furthermore, the SL (separation losses) were significantly lower than the DTL (digging losses) for both densities, with a reduction of 42% for density D 1 and 55% for density D 2 .…”

“…The initial soil preparation tasks, including plowing and harrowing, took place in both October and March, and the seeding was carried out in April for all two years. These operations aimed to create favorable conditions for germination [15]. To manage weeds during the crop cycle, two rounds of mechanical weeding were conducted by a spring weeder/interrow.…”

“…The second harvesting phase, which involves separating the pods, was carried out using the MIAC Colombo Double Master II Harvester machine (Figure 1b), specifically designed for this crop. The choice of this type of separator machine was based on study [15], which states that axial combine harvesters have less losses during the separation phase compared to tangential ones. Table 1 shows the technical features of the operating machine.…”

“…The estimated yield, the water content in the pods, total losses during the digging phase, total losses during the separation phase, net yield, speed, effective field capacity and hourly harvest efficiency, harvest quality, and effective fuel consumption were assessed. After the passage of the digger, the plants were left to dry in ridges (1.50 m × 204 m) on the ground until reaching a suitable moisture content for the second harvesting phase [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Moisture during the digging phase and the separation phase was measured using the Moisture Meter (Smart Sensor AR991 by Shenzhen Handsome Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China).…”

“…where: C a = area capacity (ha h −1 ) s = field speed (km h −1 ) w = implement working width (m) E f = field efficiency, decimal To assess the entire harvesting cycle, 5 samples of pods were collected directly at the exit of the conveyor belt of the separating machine for each sub-plot [15], for a total of 30 samples weighing 1 kg each. The samples were collected using a 1000 mL container, bagged, and labeled.…”