PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TRACTOR DRAWN CARROT DIGGER

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published Feb 12, 2026
Download
pdf
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Vol. 11 No. 1 (2026): Volume 11 Issue 1

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Milkessa Alemu
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fadis Agricultural Research Center P. O. Box 904, Harar, Ethiopia
Bedasa Woldaho
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Fadis Agricultural Research Center P. O. Box 904, Harar, Ethiopia

Abstract

Performance evaluation of a tractor-drawn carrot harvester was conducted to determine its field efficiency, harvesting capacity, root damage, and suitability for medium-scale carrot production. The study addressed the limitations of manual harvesting, which is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and results in high post-harvest losses. Field experiments were carried out on a farmer’s field at Bate Kebele. The experiment was arranged in a factorial randomized block design with three replications, using forward speed (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5 km h⁻¹) and rake angle (15°, 20°, and 25°) as factors. Performance was evaluated in terms of draft force, digging efficiency, root damage, soil separation efficiency, field capacity, field efficiency, wheel slip, and fuel consumption. The optimum operating condition was a rake angle of 20° at a forward speed of 3.5 km h⁻¹. At this setting, digging efficiency, root damage, effective field capacity, field efficiency, soil separation efficiency, and wheel slip were 91.87%, 3.29%, 0.25 ha h⁻¹, 84.93%, 89.49%, and 17.68%, respectively. Fuel consumption per hectare was 17.56 L, with a maximum draft force of 6111.4 N. The results demonstrate that the harvester improves efficiency and reduces labor demand, making it suitable for commercial carrot production.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
[1]
Milkessa Alemu and Bedasa Woldaho, “PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF TRACTOR DRAWN CARROT DIGGER”, IEJRD - International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 14, Feb. 2026.

References

  1. Kepner, R. A., Bainer, R., & Barger, E. L. (2014). Principles of farm machinery. CBS Publishers.
  2. Raja, R., Senthilkumar, T., & Manian, R. (2017). Mechanized harvesting of root vegetables: challenges and opportunities. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 54(2), 45–52.
  3. Srivastava, A. K., Goering, C. E., & Rohrbach, R. P. (2019). Engineering principles of agricultural machines (2nd ed.). ASABE.
  4. Singh, K., & Sriram, N. (2018). Evaluation of root crop diggers under varying soil conditions. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 49(1), 35–41.
  5. Reddy, P. S., Kumar, P., & Prasad, B. (2020). Impact of mechanization on horticultural crop harvesting efficiency. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 12(4), 112–118.
  6. Kumar, V., Kumar, A., Naresh, N., Rani, V., Mukesh, S., & Poonia, R. (2017). Performance evaluation of tractor-drawn carrot bed loosening implement. Annals of Biology, 33(1), 135–138.
  7. Black, C. A., Evans, D. D., White, J. L., Ensminger, L. E., Clark, F. E., & Dinauer, R. C. (2015). Methods of soil analysis: Part 1—Physical and mineralogical properties, including statistics of measurement and sampling. American Society of Agronomy.
  8. Macmillan, R. H. (2000). The mechanics of tractor–implement performance: Theory and worked examples.
  9. Brown, K., & Wherrett, A. (2014). Bulk density measuring. Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia.
  10. Topakci, M., Unal, I., Canakci, M., Celik, H. K., & Karayel, D. (2010). Design of a horizontal penetrometer for on-the-go soil resistance measurement. Sensors, 10(10), 9337–9348.
  11. Reddy, V. (2016). Design analysis of Kau Pokkali paddy harvester towards the development of its scaled-down prototype.
  12. Mohsenin, N. N. (1986). Physical properties of plant and animal materials: Structure, physical characteristics and mechanical properties. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
  13. Annamalai, S. J. K., & Naik, R. (2012). Performance of power tiller–mounted turmeric harvester at optimized crop and operational parameters. Journal of Plantation Crops, 40(3).
  14. Uzochukwu, F. A., Ani, O., Asoiro, F. U., & Ani, A. O. (2011). Determination of some physical properties of African yam bean. Pacific Journal of Science and Technology, 12(1).
  15. Ajav, E. A., & Ogunlade, C. A. (2014). Physical properties of ginger (Zingiber officinale).
  16. Olaoye, J. O. (2000). Some physical properties of castor nut relevant to the design of processing equipment. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 77(1), 113–118.
  17. Basavaraj. (2020). Investigations on soil, crop and machine parameters towards the development of a root crop harvester (Master’s thesis).
  18. ASAE. (2006). Agricultural machinery management data (ASAE D497.5). American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
  19. Zaied, M. B., El Naim, A. M., Dahab, M. H., & Mahgoub, A. S. (2014). Development of a powered groundnut harvester for small and medium holdings in North Kordofan State, Western Sudan. World Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(3), 119–123.
  20. Tawfik, M. A., & Abdellah, Y. S. (2012). Fabrication of a potato digger prototype suitable for small holdings. Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 29(2), 705–724.
  21. Shirwal, S., & Mani, I. (2014). Study on design parameters affecting mechanical carrot harvester. International Journal of Engineering Sciences and Research Technology, 3(3).
  22. Belay, D. (2021). Design, construction and performance evaluation of potato harvesters: A review. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET).
  23. Er Younus A, and Jayan, P. R. (2016). Modification and testing of a coleus harvester. International Journal Of Advancement in Engineering Technology, Management and Applied Science (IJAETMAS)