i

EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION OF A SWING TYPE HAMMER COCONUT DECORTICATOR FOR SORGHUM THRESHING

A PROJECT REPORT

Arthur Fajardo Ruel Peneyra Xyza Fei Asuncion Anthony Tapla

Students

Arsenio N. Resurreccion, Ph.D.

Faculty in charge

AENG 265 Design of Harvesting and Threshing Machinery 2nd Semester, SY 2010-2011 AMD, IAE, CEAT, UPLB

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................3 General Objective ....................................................................................................3 Specific Objectives ..................................................................................................3 Scope and Limitation ...................................................................................................3 Time and Place ............................................................................................................4 Review of Related Literature ...........................................................................................5 Sorghum ......................................................................................................................5 Sorghum Harvesting and Threshing .............................................................................6 Threshing .................................................................................................................7 Axial Flow Thresher for Sorghum Threshing ...........................................................8 Swing Type Coconut Decorticator ...........................................................................9 Materials and Methods .................................................................................................. 11 Equipment and Materials ........................................................................................... 11 Sample Material Collection, Preparation and Characterization ................................... 11 Machine Specification ............................................................................................... 12 Design of Experiment ................................................................................................ 12 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 13 Evaluation of the Machine at As-Is Condition and Speed ........................................... 13 Modifications............................................................................................................. 13 The Sorghum Sample................................................................................................. 14 Grain to Straw Ratio .................................................................................................. 15 Threshing Capacity .................................................................................................... 16 Threshing Efficiency.................................................................................................. 16 Unthreshed Grains ..................................................................................................... 17 Purity......................................................................................................................... 18 Scattering Loss .......................................................................................................... 19

iii

Threshing Recovery ................................................................................................... 20 Other Observations .................................................................................................... 21 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................... 22 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 23 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 24 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 25

iv

ABSTRACT

A coconut fiber decorticating machine was studied for its possible adaptation for sorghum threshing. The swing-type hammer decorticating drum was modified to include three successive layers of offset oriented fixed pegs to eliminate the identified problems of using the original drum in sorghum threshing. The offset oriented pegs effects the necessary material flow and eliminate the dead spots or gaps/clearances in between pegs that usually causes samples to be immovable and unthreshed. A peripheral threshing drum speed average of 25 m/s or about 1100 rpm was adapted and analyzed, conforming to the prevalent rice axial flow thresher speed usually used in sorghum threshing. Evaluation of the sorghum thresher based on its threshing capacity resulted to the highest capacity of 692.61 kg/hr at 1300 rpm and the lowest at 900 rpm with only 465.24 kg/hr. In terms of threshing efficiency, the machine shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95.98% and 94.71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm, respectively, while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest efficiency of 89.77 %. Purity of the output, scattering losses and threshing recovery, however, are statistically comparable at 900, 1100 and 1300 rpm, with a mean values of 85.96% for purity, 11.83% for the scattering loss and 81.63% for the threshing recovery. The machine was subjected for evaluation using sorghum sample with average moisture content of 18% wet basis and grain to straw ratio of 0.86.

EVALUATION AND ADAPTATION OF A SWING TYPE HAMMER COCONUT DECORTICATOR FOR SORGHUM THRESHING

INTRODUCTION

Sorghum, Sorghum bicolor(L) Moench, is the fifth most important cereal after rice, wheat, maize, and barley. It constitutes the main food grain for over 750 million people who live in the semi-arid tropics of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The largest group of producers are small-scale subsistence farmers with minimal access to production inputs such as fertilizer(s), pesticides, improved seeds (hybrids or varieties), good soil and water and improved credit facilities for their purchase. (Compendium on Post-harvest Operations, FAO, 1999). Not only that it provides a staple food resource, other parts of the plant are used as sources of ethanol, alcohol (roots and stalk), building materials, mat, hat, broom and (stalks, peduncle and threshed spikes) In the Philippines, farming of sorghum started around three decades ago but proved unsuccessful. In a report by Pamplona, et.al. (1987), various sectors received different reasons for the cause of the failure of the sorghum industry. There are common perceptions among these sectors, however, and these include high cost of seeds, prevalence of pests and diseases especially among hybrids, lack of price support, unstable market outlet, lack of financial support from the government and lack of available technology particularly in the aspect of postproduction and processing. Interestingly, while the feed millers perceived the low production which does not guarantee steady supplies for them, the farmers perceived the absence of ready outlet for their products as the major problem of the industry. A renewed initiative had taken its toll anew in 2007 from which it became a popular source of biofuel and feedstock. Across varieties, the most popular of which was the Sweet Sorghum, which has received a lot of advocacy and promotion from the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Further consideration as an alternative source of farmers income is due to the indirect result of the advocacy campaign of local and international agencies (DA, US Grain Council, ICRISAT and DOST) to produce sorghum as source of food, feed and fuel. Pilot sites for sweet sorghum production include MMSU, UPLB and PAC, where studies are being

conducted for variety selection and breeding, farming mechanization, and, processing of biofuel, feedstocks and its by-products. Sorghum is usually planted all throughout the year. After the growing season, when grains are ripe, harvesting and threshing follows. Manual harvesting cuts sorghum with a sickle. Cutting is usually made on the stalk with the heads on or cutting the heads first and later the stalks. Both methods require that sorghum be dried first in the field before threshing to facilitate easy separation of the grains from its panicles. After being fully dried in the sun, sorghum needs to be threshed. The threshing methods can be divided into artificial threshing, animal threshing and mechanical threshing. (FAO, 1999). In artificial threshing, sorghum heads are spread in the threshing field, dried in the sun for half day before beating it with a flail. After most of grains have been threshed, sorghum heads are turned over before beating it again. The steps are repeated until all the grains are threshed. The method is inefficient and labor intensive. Animal threshing requires spreading the dry sorghum heads on the threshing field (about 25-35 cm thick). A livestock animal then pulls the stone roller (rolling and pressing) passing on the heads. When most of grains are threshed, sorghum heads are turned over before rolling on it again. The procedure is repeated again and again, until all of grains are shelled. Mechanical threshing paved a new way of separating the grains from sorghum heads. Sorghum heads are placed into a thresher that effects separation using a rotating drum equipped by a brush like comb employing a hold-on method or with a peg tooth employing an axial flow principle. Frequent inspection of the heads is usually made to make sure that all grains have been threshed. The advantages of the method are high efficiency, clean threshing and less laborious compared to the first two methods. Rice axial flow threshers have found its way to be used in sorghum threshing. Minimal modification such as the replacement of the oscillating sieves is made prior to the operation. Interview with the local farmers in Cabiao, Nueva Ecija reveals that faster rotation of the drum coupled with the correct oscillating tray results to highly accepted method of threshing using existing axial flow threshers primarily designed for rice. In the University of the Philippines Los Banos, a swing type hammer coconut decorticator was designed, fabricated and evaluated for its performance in coconut fiber extraction. The device was proven effective for its defined functionality. The operation is based

on impact shredding of coconut husk by a series of fixed and hammer like swing bars at high speed (about 1500-2000 rpm) (Santiago, R.P 2010). Though the device was proven successful in terms of its technical and functional requirements, the proponents of this study have seen another added feature to increase the productivity and justify the practicality and economics of owning one, and that is to evaluate and adapt the swing type decorticator for sorghum threshing. Such idea was conceived to address the needs of small farmers who, in terms of financial feasibility, cant justify the ownership of a costly rice axial flow thresher.

Objectives

General Objective

The study aimed to evaluate the performance swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing.

Specific Objectives

Specifically, this undertaking aimed to: 1. evaluate the effects of threshing drum design and speed of the swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing; 2. make minimal modification if necessary to adapt the swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing; and, 3. evaluate the performance of the modified decorticator for soghum threshing in terms of its threshing capacity and efficiency.

Scope and Limitation

The scope of this study was limited to the evaluation and adaptation of a swing type hammer coconut decorticator for sorghum threshing. Sorghum materials for threshing evaluation were regular cut heads without the stalk. The performance evaluation of the device was based on

its threshing capacity and efficiency. Only grain separation from the heads (threshing only) was evaluated in this study.

Time and Place

The study was conducted from February to March 2011 at the AMDP workshop building, IAE, UPLB, Laguna.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Sorghum (extracted from the Compendium on Post-harvest Operations, FAO, 1999)

Sorghum, Sorghum bicolor(L) Moench, is the fifth most important cereal after rice, wheat, maize, and barley. It constitutes the main food grain for over 750 million people who live in the semi-arid tropics of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The largest group of producers are small-scale subsistence farmers with minimal access to production inputs such as fertilizer(s), pesticides, improved seeds (hybrids or varieties), good soil and water and improved credit facilities for their purchase. Sorghums have a structure which is broadly similar to that of other cereals (Figure 1). The major components of the grain are the pericarp (outer covering), the testa between pericarp and endosperm (which may or may not be present), the endosperm, and the embryo.

Figure 1. Structure of sorghum grain (after Sautier and O'Deye, 1989)

The endosperm may be corneous (vitreous) or floury, and the testa may contain tannins which affect the nutritional quality of the grain. Tannins are high molecular weight polyphenols (phenolics) which are found in grains with a brown pericarp and pigmented testa. Certain tannins known as condensed tannins, form complexes with proteins and reduce their digestibility. They can also form complexes with the alimentary tract proteases, reducing the digestibility of the proteins in the grain. Despite this negative nutritional effect, high tannin varieties continue to be grown due to their bird and insect resistance, and higher malting potential than white grain varieties. In some traditional foods and beverages, the phenolics of red sorghum give a desired flavor and color. The negative effects of tannins on nutritional value can partially be overcome by removal of the testa by mechanical dehulling, or by alkaline treatment at the village level (traditionally by using wood ash) (Chantereau and Nicou, 1994). There are many varieties of sorghum ranging in color from white through red to brown. Traditional varieties are open pollinated from which rural farmers retain seed for planting in the next season. Yields tend to be lower than the modern hybrids which are slowly being introduced. However hybrids are only cost effective when grown with supporting inputs of fertilizer, weed and pest control, and good water management. Commercial production of hybrid seed is a problem in many developing countries, and some rural farmers do not appreciate that harvested hybrid grain cannot be retained for planting the next season. Therefore they find sorghum production from hybrid seed expensive, even though the yields are higher than the land races.

Sorghum Harvesting and Threshing

All around the world, there exist two methods of harvesting, manual cutting and using mechanical machines such as reaper and mechanical harvesters (FAO, 1999). Using appropriate methods to harvest, thresh, dry and store at right moment, are the best guarantee of getting a high yield and good quality. In China and the Philippines, the predominant method is still manual harvesting using sickle or any appropriate tool. Such is a reflection of the following:

a. The harvest tradition of the Chinese and Filipinos; b. Reflects the economic situation, as many Chinese and Filipino farmers are still poor;

c. Most of planting fields for sorghum are on hillsides and fields are too small to harvest with machines; d. Too many sorghum cultivars are planted, and sometimes plants are not in good condition; e. There are not enough satisfied harvesters.

Manual harvesting cuts sorghum with a sickle. The first method is harvesting the plants with their heads on. The method is to cut plants first, then bind 20-30 plants together. After binding all the plants, a vertical rafter is made using 25 bundles for drying the sorghum in the field. If rainfall is not too great, the farmers put sorghum bundles on the ridge of the field for drying. The height of stubble is diverse. If the stubble is used as fuel, the stubble height will be 30 cm, otherwise, it will be 10 cm. After drying about 10 days, the heads are cut (about 50 cm long) and bound. Then the heads are sent to threshing site. This method can clear the fields allowing farmers to prepare fields for the next season. It is the most popular production method. In the second method the sorghum heads are cut first tied up and dried. The straws are cut last. The method is primarily used in the coastland, low-lying land and southern China. Sometimes, the method is also used to harvest the short-stalked variety. Two kinds of mechanical harvesters are used in China. One is designed for short-stalked sorghum, the other for long-stalked sorghum. The advantages of mechanical harvest are efficiency and fewer losses.

Threshing

After being fully dried in the sun, sorghum needs to be threshed. The threshing methods can be divided into artificial threshing, animal threshing and mechanical threshing. Along with the rise of mechanization, more and more farmers use mechanical threshing machines. Table 1 details the different threshing methods.

Table 1. Different threshing methods for sorghum Method Tools Procedure Output kg/person

Artificial Method

Animal Method

Mechanical Method

Spread sorghum heads in the threshing field, dry in the sun for half a day, then beat sorghum heads with flail. After most of flail grains have been threshed, turn over sorghum wooden fork heads, beat sorghum heads again. Repeat these steps until all the grains are threshed. The method is inefficient and labor intensive, so it is seldom used now. Spread sorghum heads on threshing field (about 25-35 cm thick). Then let livestock livestock pull the stone roller (rolling and pressing). stone roller When most of grains are threshed, turn over wooden fork sorghum heads. Roll stone roller again, until all of grains are shelled. This is the most popular method in China. Place sorghum heads into thresher. Inspect drum thresher the heads frequently to see if all the grains have been threshed. Monitor if there are large cereal- crushed grains. The advantages of the method thresher are high efficiency, clean threshing and low glumaceous rate.

250

1000

4000

Axial Flow Thresher for Sorghum Threshing In a publication of the Cooperative Extension Service of the University of Arkansas (FSA1017), threshing should be vigorous enough to remove mature kernels from the heads. If possible, use a combine with a rasp-bar cylinder or a threshing rotor for grain sorghum. Threshing rotors and rasp-bar cylinders thresh well without tearing leaves and stems into small pieces. With the proper threshing and separating adjustments, they provide cleaner samples, less grain damage and lower field grain loss. In fact, leaving 1 or 2 percent unthreshed heads may reduce total combine loss by improving separation. With this principle, it was observed that threshing rotors and rasp-bar cylinders are better threshing options for grain sorghum. Operating in this principle was the axial flow thresher made primarily for rice (IRRI). The National Cooperative Testing Guidelines for Corn and Sorghum specify the use of throw-in type rice thresher for samples to be tested (BPI, 2002). It was found out in two studies that using rasp-bar at 10.5 m/s peripheral speed resulted to 98.3% threshing efficiency (Desta and Mishra,

1990) while peg-tooth at the same peripheral speed resulted to 99% threshing efficiency (Joshi, 1981). In an informal interview conducted to local farmers of sorghum in Cabiao, Nueva Ecija reveals some interesting information that can be used in the design of an appropriate threshing or adaptation of an existing rice axial flow thresher. To these farmers, the faster the speed of the drum coupled with the appropriate oscillating sieve tray, the higher the threshing and cleaning efficiency. Results of the study of Chimchana et al., 2008 shows that the optimum speed of threshing rice using axial flow is 600 rpm using a 0.8 m diameter drum. Same result was obtained by several other studies. Swing Type Coconut Decorticator A swing type hammer coconut decorticator was designed by Santiago (2010) at the Department of Agricultural Machinery, Institute of Agricultural Engineering, CEAT,University of the Philippines Los Banos. The said machine was designed based on the principle of a corn sheller and a hammer like swinging pegs to effect decortication and separations of the coconut fibers. It was built based on the criterion of low power requirement, transportability, low cost and ease of repair and maintenance. The machine is composed of the following major components: 1. decorticating cylinder, which enclosed the cutting drum and hammer blades; 2. feeding tray, which received the husk materials before they entered the cylinder; 3. lower concave or sieve bars corrugated steel bar which served as a filter for fiber while the coir dust passed through 4. discharge chute, passage for decorticated materials (fiber and dust) from the cylinder; 5. blade assembly, cut and reduced the husk materials into fibers and dust; and 6. main frame, held and supported the entire machine.

The evaluation of the decorticator was made for unretted and retted coconut husks where the factors studied were: clearance (7 mm, 13 mm and 19 mm), number of louver (3, 4 and 5) and speed (1600, 1800 and 2100 rpm). The response variables considered were loading capacity,

10

decorticating capacity, fiber recovery, decorticating efficiency, decorticating power, length of fiber and tensile strength of fiber. Though most of the factors studied significantly affect the overall performance of the machine, the decorticating efficiency of the prototype was not able to reach the minimum requirement of the draft national standards of AMTEC (PAES 251:2010) by a slim margin of 8%. Figure 2 shows the prototype swing-type hammer coconut decorticator drum while Figure 3 shows the other main components.

Figure 2. Swing-type hammer decorticator drum

Figure 3. The prototype swing-type hammer decorticator showing the major components

11

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Equipment and Materials

To address the specific objectives, the following materials were used in the study:

1. Tachometer 2. Weighing scale 3. Measuring Tape 4. Timer/Stop Watch 5. Moisture Meter 6. Camera 7. Canvas Sheet (4m x 8m) 0.5m) 8. Nylon Net (1.5m x 1.5m) 9. Sample Bags a. Labeling Tags which include b. Date of test c. Machine on test d. Sample source e. Variety f. Trial number

Sample Material Collection, Preparation and Characterization

Sample materials (sorghum) were collected in the field following an approved method of sampling (Annex D of PAES 205:2000). Sorghums were reaped or harvested using the traditional or custom techniques. The volume of the samples was decided based on the approved design of experiment. The cut sorghums for pretesting and threshing evaluation were characterized following the items recommended under Annex B of PAES 205:2000. These include:

12

1. Variety 2. Moisture Content 3. Straw Length 4. Grain to Straw Ratio

Machine Specification

The modified decorticator used in the study was inspected for specification verification and establishment following Annex C of PAES 205:2000.

Design of Experiment

Simple one-way analysis of variance in completely randomized design was used to evaluate the performance of the thresher-decorticator in sorghum threshing. Only the speed of the threshing drum was considered for testing and analysis with three (3) replicates per treatment trial. Speeds of rotation used in the study were 900 rpm, 1100 rpm and 1300 rpm. Performance parameters to characterize the decorticator-thresher include: 1. Capacity 2. Purity 3. Threshing cylinder efficiency 4. Threshing recovery 5. Unthreshed loss 6. Scattering loss Computation of the data follows the Annex H of PAES 205:2000. Analysis for significant effects of the main effects was made using ANOVA and mean comparison by Duncan Multiple Range Test.

13

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Evaluation of the Machine at As-Is Condition and Speed

A preliminary test and evaluation of the machine at as-is condition was made to evaluate its potential for sorghum threshing. Sorghum samples were secured for the preliminary test at speed setting of 1900 rpm and 2000 rpm. No changes were made on the device to objectively establish its performance and evaluate its behavior during sorghum threshing operation. The following were observed during the preliminary test: a. Sorghum stalks were confined and remains stationary in between plates causing unthreshed stalks inside and in between the raspbar and the drum. b. High impact beating at high speed causes the grains to scatter and go ballistic at all direction causing too much scattered grain loss c. High quantity of cracked grains is probable due to the impact action of both the peg and swinging hammer at high speed d. Fixed peg at the raspbar at the inside left side of the stalk entrance effects blocking on the material flow inside the drum assembly. With these observations, modifications were made in order to address the need for a properly operating sorghum thresher at minimal mechanical damage to the grains.

Modifications

The coconut fiber decorticator operating in swing type hammer principle imposed in an axial flow threshing drum was adapted for sorghum threshing. A minimal modification of the threshing drum was made to address the observed problem of non-flowing grain stalks along the drum cylinder towards the stalk outlet. Coupled with this minimal modification was a change in the drum speed to properly effect threshing of sorghum at minimal damages to the grains. The original peg-tooths of the decorticating machine in the first three layers were oriented perpendicular to the shaft axis of the drum. During operation, these pegs offer no residual action to push the stalks to move and follow the cylinder drum towards the straw outlet.

14

Instead, the clearance between the two pegs creates a space ample enough for the stalk to keep it unharm or unthreshed. To effect threshing and movement along the cylinders during threshing of the stalk materials, the 2 inch wide pegs were re-oriented to about 45 deg with respect to the shaft axis. These cover and close the gap and clearance cause by the original peg orientation (see Figure 4).

a)

swinging peg and the stalk paddle

b) modified fixed pegs

Figure 4. The swing-type peg and the modified fixed pegs of the threshing drum

The speed of rotation of the drum was based on the peripheral speed of an axial flow thresher, i.e around 25 m/s (from the result of a study that the best rpm for axial flow threshing is 600 rpm for a 0.8 m diameter drum). With a diameter of 0.45 m, the average computed rpm falls at around 1100 rpm . Hence, a 900 rpm - representing the lower limit, 1100 rpm average, and 1300 rpm the upper limit, were chosen for analysis and evaluation.

The Sorghum Sample

The sorghum samples were of the Sweet Sorghum variety secured from Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. A total of 120 kg samples harvested from the field were used for this study. Samples were allowed to air dry until it reaches about 16% - 20 % wet basis moisture content. This is equivalent to the drying practice made in the farm prior to threshing operation using a rice axial flow thresher. Stalks were cut at around 30 cm from the tip of the crown.

15

Figure 5. Sweet sorghum samples dried at 16% - 20% MC wet basis.

Grain to Straw Ratio

The grain to straw ratio represents the fractional share of grain to the total sample composition that comprises both by the straw and grains in general. Table 2 shows the results of evaluating the grain to straw ratio of all the sample replicates. ANOVA (Appendix Table 2) on the measured grain to straw ratio revealed no significant differences on samples used in three varying drum speed test of the sorghum thresher. Highest ratio was observed with a value of 0.88 while the lowest measured was 0.82. An average of 0.86 grain to straw ratio value represents all the measured value with a coefficient of variation of only 1.901.

Table 2. Grain to straw ratio of the samples used for varying drum speed test. SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average (%) GRAIN - STRAW RATIO (%) R1 R2 R3 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.85 0.86 AVERAGE (%) 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.86

16

Threshing Capacity

The threshing capacity was evaluated based on the weight of the threshing output per unit time. Table 3 shows the observed threshing capacity of the sorghum thresher based on a swing type hammer decorticating machine for coconut fiber. ANOVA (Appendix Table 3) of the threshing capacity as influenced by varying speeds of rotation of the threshing drum reveals highly significant differences on the resulting measurements. Comparison among means using Duncan Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 1% level of probability shows that 1300 rpm resulted to the highest capacity of 692.61 kg/hr, followed by the result of 1100 rpm (537.98 kg/hr). Threshing capacity was recorded lowest at 900 rpm with only 465.24 kg/hr. The result is in conformity with other findings in axial flow threshers that an increase in speed will eventually result in an increase capacity due to faster material flow inside the drum.

Table 3. Threshing capacity (kg/hr) of the sorghum thresher at different drum speeds SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 CAPACITY (kg/hr) R1 R2 R3 470.20 466.41 459.12 574.86 474.19 564.90 673.80 679.53 724.50 AVERAGE SIDESCORING kg/hr 465.24 c 537.98 b 692.61 a

Threshing Efficiency

Threshing efficiency was evaluated by taking the percentage of the total grains separated from the panicle to the total grain input (separated from the panicle and grains still attached in the panicle). Table 4 shows the observed threshing efficiency of the sorghum thresher cum coconut decorticator. ANOVA (Appendix Table 4) reveals highly significant differences on the threshing capacity as influenced by various drum rotation. Comparison among means at 1% probability level using DMRT shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95.98% and 94.71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm, respectively, while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest threshing efficiency of 89.77 %. This can be attributed to the less impact force caused by the swing arm in hammering or battering the samples at lower speed, hence more grains remain intact or in the panicles.

17

Lower speed results to less centrifugal force to extend the swing arms and less number of impact hits to the samples per unit time, that eventually results to lower threshing efficiency.

Table 4. Threshing efficiency (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 THRESHING EFFICIENCY (%) AVERAGE SIDESCORING R1 R2 R3 (%) 89.69 90.69 88.93 89.77 b 96.77 93.91 93.14 94.61 a 96.04 94.61 97.29 95.98 a

Unthreshed Grains

Percent unthreshed grains represent the amount of kernels that the thresher failed to remove or separate from the panicles. Unthreshed grains were evaluated from both the straw and main grain outlet of the thresher. Table 5 shows the percent unthreshed grains at various speed of the threshing drum. ANOVA (Appendix Table 5) reveals highly significant differences on the percent unthreshed grain values as affected by various speeds of the rotating drum. Comparison among means at 1% probability level shows low comparable percent unthreshed grains at 1100 rpm (5.39%) and 1300 rpm (4.02 %), while 900 rpm resulted to the highest loss of 10.23 %. Owing to the effect of the speed of rotation in threshing efficiency, the lower the speed of rotation, the lower the threshing efficiency, and the higher the percentage of unthreshed grains. Figure 6 show a sample of threshed and unthreshed sorghum grains.

Table 5. Unthreshed grains (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 UNTHRESHED GRAINS (%) R1 R2 R3 10.31 9.31 11.07 3.23 6.09 6.86 3.96 5.39 2.71 AVERAGE SIDESCORING (%) 10.23 a 5.39 b 4.02 b

18

Figure 6. Threshed and unthreshed sorghum grains from the thresher

Purity

Percent purity was evaluated by taking the ratio between the clean and uncleaned grains at the main grain outlet of the thresher. Table 6 shows the observed purity of the grain output at various speed level of the threshing drum. ANOVA (Appendix Table 6) reveals no significant differences on the resulting percent purity of the samples taken at the main grain outlet at various speed of the threshing drum. The highest observed value was 87.14% at 1100 rpm while the lowest value of 84.24% was observed at 900 rpm. However, such values were statistically the same at 95% level of significance. Since the device was modified for threshing only, the low percentage of purity can be attributed to the absence of blower, closely spaced raspbars and other sieve mechanism that could have resulted to a higher quantity of clean grains compared to the quantity of impurities. Figure 7 shows a sample output of the thresher at the main discharge output component.

Table 6. Purity (%) of the threshed sorghum using the thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average R1 85.03 88.16 84.62 PURITY (%) R2 85.08 86.63 85.16 R3 82.60 86.64 89.75 AVERAGE (%) 84.24 87.14 86.51 85.96

19

Figure 7. Sample output of the thresher used to evaluate purity at the main discharge output

Scattering Loss Scattering loss represent the quantity of grains that were threshed but didnt come out of the main grain outlet. It was evaluated based on the ratio of the clean scattered grains to the total grain input to the device during operation. Table 7 shows the scattering loss expressed in percent of the total grain input. ANOVA (Appendix Table 7) reveals no significant differences on the resulting percent scattering loss as affected by various speed levels of the threshing drum. The highest observed was 12.61% at 1300 rpm while the lowest was at 900 rpm (10.55%). The values are relatively high compared to rice threshing using axial flow threshers. This result can be attributed to the hammer or battering like action of the swinging peg to the samples. Such action will inevitably results to blast off like scattering of the grains when hit. Figure 8 shows the scattering at the floor during operation.

Table 7. Scattering loss (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average R1 8.37 10.08 6.21 SCATTERING (%) R2 13.41 15.51 16.08 R3 9.86 11.40 15.53 AVERAGE (%) 10.55 12.33 12.61 11.83

20

Figure 8. Scattering of sorghum grains during operation

Threshing Recovery

Threshing recovery is the percentage ratio of the clean grains at the main grain outlet to the total grain input (clean grain output plus all losses). Table 8 shows the resulting threshing recovery of the sorghum thresher. ANOVA (Appendix Table 8) reveals no significant differences on the resulting threshing recovery as affected by various speed levels of the threshing drum. Highest observed threshing recovery value was 83.41% at 1300 rpm while the lowest was 79.21% at 900 rpm. Average threshing recovery was determined to be 81.63%.

Table 8. Threshing recovery (%) of the sorghum thresher at various drum speed SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 Average THRESHING RECOVERY (%) R1 R2 R3 81.32 77.28 79.03 86.67 78.39 81.75 89.93 78.53 81.76 AVERAGE (%) 79.21 82.27 83.41 81.63

21

Other Observations

Clogging inside the threshing drum was observed at 900 rpm rotation of the threshing drum. Stalks squashed in between the louver and the stalk paddle at the stalk outlet gave the primemover a hard time to rotate the drum assembly. However, such problem was not observed at 1100 rpm and 1300 rpm drum speed of rotation. Impurities at the main grain discharge output were mostly small bunch of panicles with unthreshed sorghum with it. This can be attributed to the wide opening of the raspbar, allowing small bunches of panicles to pass through unthreshed. Sorghum grains were also observed to blast off at the feeding chute when the grains were hit by the rotating pegs. Due to the almost horizontal alignment of the chute to the bottom part of the louver of the raspbar, the grains tend to bounce back to the operator during feeding. Scattered sorghum grains were also observed to splatter in all directions. Such is a direct effect of the hammering impact of the swinging pegs to the grains. Losses due to unthreshed grains were also evaluated. Low comparable percent unthreshed grains at 1100 rpm (5.39%) and 1300 rpm (4.02 %) were observed, while 900 rpm resulted to the highest loss of 10.23%.

22

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

A coconut fiber decorticating machine was studied for its possible adaptation for sorghum threshing. The swing-type hammer decorticating drum was modified to include three successive layers of offset oriented fixed pegs to eliminate the identified problems of using the original drum in sorghum threshing. The offset oriented pegs effects the necessary material flow and eliminate the dead spots or gaps/clearances in between pegs that usually causes samples to be immovable and unthreshed. A peripheral threshing drum speed average of 25 m/s or about 1100 rpm was adapted and analyzed, conforming to the prevalent rice axial flow thresher speed usually used in sorghum threshing. Evaluation of the sorghum thresher based on its threshing capacity resulted to the highest capacity of 692.61 kg/hr at 1300 rpm and the lowest at 900 rpm with only 465.24 kg/hr. In terms of threshing efficiency, the machine shows comparably higher efficiencies of 95.98% and 94.71% at 1100 and 1300 rpm, respectively, while 900 rpm resulted to the lowest efficiency of 89.77 %. Purity of the output, scattering losses and threshing recovery, however, are statistically comparable at 900, 1100 and 1300 rpm, with a mean values of 85.96% for purity, 11.83% for the scattering loss and 81.63% for the threshing recovery. The machine was subjected for evaluation using sorghum sample with average moisture content of 18% wet basis and grain to straw ratio of 0.86. In conclusion, the modifications made on the threshing drum proved to be effective in its own right. Though the machine failed in comparison with the minimum requirements for rice axial thresher, the use of which can still be considered feasible and can still be considered a good alternative to expensive axial flow thresher for small sorghum farm holders. It is however recommended that the machine be operated at 1100 rpm to 1300 rpm to reap the maximum benefits in terms of efficiency and capacity.

23

RECOMMENDATIONS

The modified decorticator to adapt for sorghum threshing can still accommodate several improvements to increase its performance. These include: 1. closer raspbar clearance to maximize the threshing exposure of the panicle and small bunches 2. addition of a blower and other sieving mechanism to effect cleaning of threshed grains 3. extension of the discharge chute to prevent too much splattering 4. tilting of the feeding chute to prevent back scattering of grains 5. optimization study of the drum.

With these recommendations, there is still a big avenue for improvement. Increasing awareness of the farmers on the benefits of sorghum production will mean an increase in demand of this type of machinery.

24

REFERENCES

BPI, 2002. Policies and guidelines in conducting the national cooperative testing of conventionally bred and genetically modified varieties of corn and sorghum prepared by the corn and sorghum techinical group Chantereau J, Nicou R 1994. Sorghum. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. in Co-operation with CTA. Chimchana, D., Salokhe, V.M. and Soni, P., 2008 - Development of an unequal speed co-axial split-rotor thresher for rice. The CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript PM08017, 1-11 Desta K, Mishra T N. Development and performance evaluation of a Sorghum thresher. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America (AMA), 1990; 21(3): 3337. FAO, 1999. Compendium on Post-harvest Operations, Rome, Italy Joshi H C. Design and selection of thresher parameter and componments. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America (AMA), 1981; 21(3): 2932. PAES 205:2000. Philippine agricultural engineering standard Agricultural Machinery Mechanical Rice Thresher Methods of Test, AMTEC, UPLB Oliva, L.P.; Pamplona, P.P. , 1987. Causes of the failure of the sorghum industry in the Philippines, Philippine Journal of Crop Science (May 1987), v. 12(1) p. 27, College, Laguna Sautier, D. and O'Deye, M. (1989). Mil, Mais, Sorgho - Techniques et alimentation au Sahel. pp. 171. Harmattan. Paris, France. Soriano, H.M., NG de Jesus, EC Zabala, et.al. 2010, The amazing sweet sorghum: Pampanga Agricultural Colleges initiatives in promoting and commercializing its utilization as human food, animal feed and bio-fuel, J. ISSAAS Vol. 16, No. 1:8-16 (2010)

25

APPENDICES

26

Appendix Table 1. Summary table of observations

SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 SPEED rpm 900 1100 1300 GRAIN - STRAW RATIO (decimal) R1 R2 R3 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.86 0.82 0.85 0.86 CAPACITY (kg/hr) R2 466.41 474.19 679.53 PURITY (%) R2 85.08 86.63 85.16 UNTHRESHED (%) R2 9.31 6.09 5.39 AVERAGE (%) 0.87 0.87 0.84 AVERAGE (%) 465.24 537.98 692.61 AVERAGE (%) 84.24 87.14 86.51 AVERAGE (%) 10.23 5.39 4.02 AVERAGE (%) 10.55 12.33 12.61 AVERAGE (%) 89.77 94.61 95.98 AVERAGE (%) 79.21 82.27 83.41

R1 470.20 574.86 673.80

R3 459.12 564.90 724.50

R1 85.03 88.16 84.62

R3 82.60 86.64 89.75

R1 10.31 3.23 3.96

R3 11.07 6.86 2.71

SCATTERING LOSS (%) R1 R2 R3 8.37 13.41 9.86 10.08 15.51 11.40 6.21 16.08 15.53 THRESHING EFFICIENCY (%) R1 R2 R3 89.69 90.69 88.93 96.77 93.91 93.14 96.04 94.61 97.29 THRESHING RECOVERY (%) R1 R2 R3 81.32 77.28 79.03 86.67 78.39 81.75 89.93 78.53 81.76

27

Appendix Table 2. ANOVA and comparison among means of the grain-straw ratio

28

Appendix Table 3. ANOVA and comparison among means of the thresher capacity

29

Appendix Table 4. ANOVA and comparison among means of the threshing efficiency

30

Appendix Table 5. ANOVA and comparison among means of the unthreshed grains

31

Appendix Table 6. ANOVA and comparison among means of the percent purity.

32

Appendix Table 7. ANOVA and comparison among means of the scattering loss.

33

Appendix Table 8. ANOVA and comparison among means of the threshing recovery.