Studies on performance parameters and residue management of maize crop by maize-cob harvester

Introduction

Maize is a native crop of America. Portuguese traders brought it to India in the 17 th century. In different regions of the nation, it is grown all year round. In northern India, the kharif (monsoon) season is the primary growing season. However, as the climate is consistently warm, maize can be sown there at any time between April and October. 21°C is the best temperature for germination, and 32°C is the best temperature for growth. It ascends to a height of 3000 meters above sea level. It may also be grown in a range of climates. A staple food in many developed nations, maize (Zea mays L.) is a coarse cereal. Additionally, it is a crucial component of numerous industrial items. In India, 9.705 million hectares are planted with maize, yielding 28-29 million tons of output (Anonymous, 2025-26) [1] . In Chhattisgarh during the Kharif season, the area and yield of maize come right behind that of paddy. In Kharif 2020-2021, it generated 5.76 t/ha on 0.206 million hectares of land. [Anonymous, 2022]. The Baster plateau region (Baster, Bijapur, Dantewada, Sukma, Kondagaon, and Kanker districts), the central portion of the Chhattisgarh plain (Durg, Rajnangoen, and Gariyaband districts), and the northern hilly regions of the state (Korea, Korba, Surajpur, Balrampur, and Sarguja districts) are the main areas in Chhattisgarh where maize is grown. A small-sized maize cob harvester is a crucial piece of equipment for lowering harvesting costs and labor-intensive tasks. To assist small-scale farmers in cutting their crops faster, a portable harvester with low power consumption was created. The maize harvesting machine is a small type of corn cob harvester; it can harvest corn in a single row; it can be used with a tiller and walk tractor to support the collection of the full bucket; we can remove the filling beg; it has an adjustable height of stay; the tension clutch operates safely; and it has a small turning radius. The corn harvesting machine is capable of simultaneously crushing straws and gathering maize. To fertilize the field, the corn straws are directly ground. Additionally, the designed harvester will help reduce time consumption, expenses, and drudgery.

Material and Methods

The maize cob harvester's performance evaluation studies were carried out in the field at various forward speeds. In April and May of 2023, the assessment was carried out in Agronomy Field, IGKV, Raipur. Three distinct factors were chosen: the type of maize crop, the forward speed of operation, and the snipper speed (rolling speed), represented by the letters V, F, and S, respectively, with three levels of each factor. Table 1 presented the specifics of the independent and dependent parameters for the research. A factorial randomized block design was used to analyze the observed data.

Forward speed

The three forward speeds 1.7, 1.9, and 2.1 km/h that the machine could achieve when operating in the field at low and high gears with various throttle positions were chosen for the investigation.

Snipper speed

Snapping roller speed rises as the machine moves forward. Snapping roller peripheral speeds were found to be 55, 62, and 68 m/min for the corresponding forward speeds of 1.7, 1.9, and 2.1 km/h.

Dependent parameters 2.2.1 Stripping loss

The number of maize cobs that are lost or damaged during harvesting is known as the stripping loss. The entire number of cobs in a single row of the plant prior to harvesting divided by the total number of cobs following harvesting yields the stripping loss.

Stripping loss(%) = S 1 -S 2 S 1 × 100

Where, S 1 = Number of cobs in plant in one row before harvesting. S 2 = Number of cobs after harvesting.

Length of stem before and after harvesting

The distance between the tassel branches and the base of the plant on the ground is the length of the maize stem prior to harvesting, and the distance between the top of the cut edge of the stem and the base of the plant on the ground is the length of the maize stem following harvest.

Number of cobs per hour

The total number of cobs is the amount of maize that can be collected in an hour.

Weight of cobs per hour

The weight of the cobs is the total weight of the cobs harvested in an hour. The average values were noted after measuring the maize cobs.

Length of cut (stalk)

After harvesting, the length of a randomly chosen maize stalk is measured, and the average results are noted.

Actual field capacity

By calculating the time spent on actual labor and the time lost on additional tasks like turning, filling up the fuel tank, and emptying the cobs from the collection bin, the effective/actual field capacity was ascertained.

Actual feild capacity, ( ha h ) = Actual area coverd Total time required to coverd area

Field efficiency

The ratio of theoretical field capacity to effective field capacity is known as field efficiency.

Where, FE = Field efficiency,%; EFC = Effective field capacity, ha/h; and TFC = Theoretical field capacity, ha/h.

Fuel consumption

The self-propelled maize harvester's fuel consumption at various forward speeds was computed using the fuel tank top filling method.

Results and Discussion

The following part provided a detailed presentation and discussion of the experiment results. There was also discussion of how different independent parameters affected the maize cob harvester's performance metrics.

Effect of forward speed, snipper speed and different variety, on stripping loss by maize cob harvester

Table 2 showed how stripping losses were affected by forward and snipper speeds for various maize crop varieties. It was shown that none of the three had a significant impact on stripping loss (p < 0.05). It has little bearing on the stripping losses and could be caused by a range of different sizes of maize cobs. Additionally, at forward speeds of 2.1 km/h, snipper speeds of 68 m/min, and variety Dhania-9965, stripping loss was found to be significantly higher (0.342%). It was found that the stripping loss increased with forward speed. increased forward speed could be the cause of the increased stripping losses at higher snipper speeds.

Effect of forward speed, snipper speed and different variety, on length of stem before and after harvesting by maize cob harvester

Table 2 shows how forward speed and snipper speed at various maize crop varieties affect stem length after harvest. All three were found to have a substantial impact on stem length following harvesting (p = 0.05). The length of the stem after harvesting may be affected by the diversity of different sizes of maize crops. Additionally, at 2.1 km/h forward speed, 68 m/min snipper speed, and variety D-9081, the length of stem after harvesting was found to be significantly highest (217 mm). The effect of stem length after harvesting was shown to be greater at higher forward speeds. The longer stem after harvesting at a faster snipper speed could be the result of a higher forward speed.

Effect of forward speed, snipper speed and different variety, on actual field capacity by maize cob harvester

The effect of forward speed and snipper speed at different maize crop variety, on actual field capacity was given in Table 3. All three were shown to have a substantial impact on the actual field capacity (p = 0.05). The actual field capacity may be impacted by the varying sizes of maize cobs, forward speed, and snipper speed. Additionally, at forward speeds of 1.7 km/h, snipper speeds of 62 m/min, and variety D-9081, actual field capacity was found to be much maximum (1.072 ha/h). The real field capacity was found to be greater at higher forward speeds. It could be because a faster forward speed increases the real field capacity at a faster snipper speed. 3 shows how forward speed and snipper speed at various maize crop varieties affect field efficiency. All three were shown to have a substantial impact on field efficiency (p = 0.05). It has an impact on field efficiency and could be caused by a range of different sizes of maize cobs, forward speed, and snipper speed. Additionally, field effectiveness was shown to be much higher (95.613%) at forward speeds of 1.9 km/h, snipper speeds of 68 m/min, and variety D-9081. The field efficiency was found to be higher at lower forward speeds. It might be because different sizes of maize crops have required faster snipper speeds than slower forward speeds. Table 2 shows that the stripping loss, length of stem before and after harvesting and actual field capacity, field efficiency are presented in Table 3. Table 4, shows that Effects of performance parameters. The stripping loss and fuel consumption were observed no significant difference at 5% level of all three independent parameters. The length of stem before and after harvesting, number of cobs per hours, weight of cobs per hours, length of cut(stalk) and actual field capacity, field efficiency, fuel consumption was observed significant difference at 5% level with CD value of 16.406, 2.873, 4.055, 4.542, 3.749, 0.026, 0.272, respectively. At forward speeds of 1.9 km/h and snipper speeds of 62 m/min, the machine operates satisfactorily. Crop parameters include stripping losses of 0.197%, stem length before and after harvesting of 825 mm and 113.33 mm, respectively, number of cobs per hour of 2965 cobs, weight of cobs per hour of 565 kg, length of cut (stalk) of 13 mm, and machine parameters such as actual field capacity of 0.081 ha/h, field efficiency of 75.7%, and fuel consumption of 1.22 l/h. The machine produces 75 q/ha in total.

Conclusion

It was discovered that the crop and machine parameters chosen had an impact on the maize cob harvester's performance. Additionally, the machines were found to operate satisfactorily at forward speeds of 1.9 km/h and snipper speeds of 62 m/min. In summary, the maize cob harvester is capable of covering a single row at a time, harvesting the entire cob, chopping the stem into small pieces, and spreading mulch on the ground. To fertilize the field, the corn straws are directly ground. The findings of the result suggest that crop residues can partially (if not fully) compensate for the low fertility status of the agricultural soils caused due to high cost of chemical fertilizer. A combination of chemical fertilizer and crop residues is be termed as an ideal technique to maintain the fertility of soil in both short and long terms. Although chemical fertilizer resulted in best results, it seems logical to conclude that a combination of crop residues with it will have more benefits in the long run due to slow decomposition of residues which will ensure nutrients availability in the following years. A small-scale maize cob harvester is a device that lowers harvesting expenses and labor-intensive tasks. The machine's operating costs, breakeven point, and payback period were determined to be approximately Rs. 337.65 per hour, 149.64 hours, and 2.5 years, respectively.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsAuthors are thankful to All India Coordinated Research Project on Farm Implement and Machinery (AICRP-FIM) to provide financial support for research. Authors are also thankful to department of farm machinery and power engineering, SV College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology and Research Station Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur India for providing essential facility for testing of the machine and helpful to performance evaluation of the maize cob harvester such as required field condition.

References

1. Anonymous. Crop-wise area, production and yield of maize in India. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2025.
2. Amer AH, Gomaa AH, Baiomy MH. Physical and mechanical characteristics for some agricultural residues. Agricultural Engineering. 2008;25:121-146.
3. Azadbakht M, Rezaei AA, Zahedi AT. Energy requirement for cutting corn stalks. International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering. 2014;8:479-482.
4. Bainer R, Kepner RA, Barger EL. Principles of farm machinery. 1st ed. Westport (CT): AVI Publishing Company Inc.; 1956. p. 155-158.
5. Gang W, Honglei J, Tang L, Zhuang J, Xinming J. Design of variable screw pitch rib snapping roller and residue cutter for corn harvesters. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2016;9:27-34.
6. Garudik S, Naik RK, Thakur K, Patel G. Performance evaluation of maize cob harvester in Chhattisgarh, India. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2023;35(24):191-201.
7. Kongre UV, Shahare L, Mutkule A, Komawar A. Fabrication of multi crop cutter. International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Engineering and Technology. 2016;3:1878-1883.
8. Shravani M, Mehta AK. Prototype development of a single row self-propelled maize cob picker cum stalk cutting machine. Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 2022;28(4):1738-1742.
9. Singh A, Bhullar KS. Harvesting and threshing of maize with a combined harvester. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 2016;9:249-251.
10. Thakur SS, Chandel R, Singh M. Technical, field and energy comparison of cutter bar maize header with snap roll maize header. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2021;3(4):1-10.
11. Wang KR, Xie RZ, Ming B, Hou P, Xue J, Li SK. Review of combine harvester losses for maize and influencing factors. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2021;14:1-10.
12. Yang R, Chen D, Zha X, Pan Z, Shang S. Optimization design and experiment of ear-picking and threshing devices of corn plot kernel harvester. Agriculture. 2021;11:904:1-22.
13. Zhang Z, Chi RJ, Du YF, Pan X, Dong NX, Xie B. Experiments and modelling of mechanism analysis of maize picking loss. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. 2021;14:11-19.