Elkhawaga, S., Sharobeerfl, Y. (2004). STUDY OF SOME ENGrNEERING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FLAX DESEEDING METHODS. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 29(5), 2599-2610. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2004.241911
S.EI. Elkhawaga; Y.F. Sharobeerfl. "STUDY OF SOME ENGrNEERING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FLAX DESEEDING METHODS". Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 29, 5, 2004, 2599-2610. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2004.241911
Elkhawaga, S., Sharobeerfl, Y. (2004). 'STUDY OF SOME ENGrNEERING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FLAX DESEEDING METHODS', Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 29(5), pp. 2599-2610. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2004.241911
Elkhawaga, S., Sharobeerfl, Y. STUDY OF SOME ENGrNEERING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FLAX DESEEDING METHODS. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 2004; 29(5): 2599-2610. doi: 10.21608/jssae.2004.241911
STUDY OF SOME ENGrNEERING FACTORS AFFECTING THE FLAX DESEEDING METHODS
Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Cairo, Egypt
Abstract
Flax deseeding is considered one of the most important operations among the crop processing sequence. Deseeding is still done using manual method especially at the small holdings, through two stages: hacking or capsules stripping followed by capsules threshing, which is time consuming, costly, and accompanied by high losses of seeds and straw (fiber).
Since flax Is grown in Egypt for both seeds and fibers, the main goal of farmers is to obtain the seeds with minimum losses and maintain the heighest fiber quality. The present work was devoted to study the engineering factors affecting deseeding process to obtain the data needed to design and develop the proper deseeding mechanisms either for stationary or combine harvesters. Three commonly system used for flax deseeding were: flax deseeding machine then cleaning using traditional winnowing machine (M1), flax deseeding and winnowing with one machine (M2) and, traditional method using tractor then cleaning with traditional winnowing machine (M3). Results indicated that, The capacity of M1, M2 and M3 were 0.5, 1.5, and 0.2 MgJh, respectively. The minimum seed loss was 2 % for the M2, while the corresponding value for M1 was 5 %. The maximum seed loss was 30 % using M3 s)'$tem.
The cleaning efficiency obtained for M1 and M2 were 92% and gsQ" respecitvely. The cleaning effidency for M3 system was 87 %. Moreover, it decreased the fiber yield by 25%.
The operating cost was found to be120, 100 and 320 LElfeddan for M1, M2 and M3 system respectively.
View on SCiNiTO
Top