Research Article

Comparison of Performance Characteristics of Different Types of Hazelnut Harvesting Machines

Volume: 10 Number: 2 August 25, 2024
EN TR

Comparison of Performance Characteristics of Different Types of Hazelnut Harvesting Machines

Abstract

In this study, the possibilities of using the hazelnut harvesting machine with pneumatic effective harvesting unit produced by local manufacturers and the prototype manufactured hazelnut harvesting machine with mechanical effective harvesting unit in the mechanical harvesting of hazelnuts grown in flat and near flat land conditions were examined, some performance values (harvesting efficiency, labor requirement, machine+human labor requirement, field productivity, machine+human field productivity and kernel productivity) of hazelnut harvesting machines with mechanically operated harvesting units were determined under different orchard yield conditions. According to the results of the experiment, the hazelnut harvesting machine with a mechanical effective harvesting unit had a harvesting efficiency of 92.54-96.03% and; a labor requirement of 6.349-9.839 MİGh ha-1; machine+human labor requirement of 46.228-62.531 BİİGh ha-1; field productivity 0.158-0.102 ha MİGh-1; machine+human field productivity: 0.022-0.016 ha BİİGh-1; kernel productivity: 124.83-1322.08 kg h-1. The hazelnut harvesting machine with a pneumatic effective harvesting unit has a harvesting efficiency of 97.68-99.36%; labor requirement 70.349-105.647 BİİGh ha-1; machine+human labor requirement 108.509-147.481 BİİGh ha-1; field productivity 0.014-0.009 ha MİGh-1; machine+human field productivity 0.009-0.007 ha BİİGh-1; kernel productivity 18.90-67.18 kg h-1. As a result, when the characteristics of harvesting efficiency, field productivity, and kernel productivity of the machines are compared, the mass production of hazelnut harvesting machines with mechanically effective harvesting units can provide benefits for hazelnut producers in terms of reducing harvesting costs and demand for labor.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi

Project Number

OMU ZRT.1904.11.021

Thanks

Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi Proje Yönetim Ofisine teşekkür ederiz

References

  1. Beyhan, M. A. (1992). Ülkemiz koşullarına uygun aspiratörlü bir fındık hasat makinasının tasarım ve imalatı. [Doktora Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
  2. Beyhan, M. A., & Yıldız, T. (1996, Ocak 10-11). Fındık ve diğer sert kabuklu meyvelerde uygulanan mekanik hasat yöntemleri. Fındık ve Diğer Sert Kabuklu Meyveler Sempozyumu, Samsun.
  3. Beyhan, M. A., & Sauk, H. (2018). Türkiye’de fındık tarımında mekanizasyon durumu. TÜRKTOB Dergisi, 27, 22-27.
  4. Biondi, P., Monarca, D., & Zoppello, G. (1992). La Meccanizzaione Della Coltura del Nocciolo. Estratto da Macchine & Motori Agricoli-il Trattorista, 50(4), 29-48.
  5. Caran, D. (1994). Zeytinde mekanik hasat olanaklarının araştırılması. [Doktora Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi], https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
  6. Fanigliulo, R., & Tomasone, R. (2009, October 31). Operative performance and work quality of a hazelnut pick-up machine. ISHS Acta Horticulture 845: VII International Congress on Hazelnut. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.845.66
  7. Ghiotti, G. (1989). Self-propelled machine for harvesting hazelnuts. Journal of Agricultural Engineeing. 20(3), 174-183.
  8. İlkyaz, H. (1986). Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesi’nde çay ve fındığın üretim girdi ve maliyetleri. Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Köy Hizmetleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü Yayınları, Genel Yayın, (38).

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Agricultural Machines

Journal Section

Research Article

Early Pub Date

August 24, 2024

Publication Date

August 25, 2024

Submission Date

January 17, 2024

Acceptance Date

April 17, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 10 Number: 2

APA
Sauk, H., & Beyhan, M. A. (2024). Comparison of Performance Characteristics of Different Types of Hazelnut Harvesting Machines. Uluslararası Tarım Ve Yaban Hayatı Bilimleri Dergisi, 10(2), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.1421481

17365       17368               17366