See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/291974316

Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for Threshing of Rice

Article · February 2015

DOI: 10.11648/j.ajma.20150304.11

CITATION READS

1 562

3 authors, including:

Dagninet Amare
Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute
19 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

currently I am working on a project entitled Willingness and Participation of Local Communities to Manage Communal Grazing lands in the Lake Tana Biosphere,
Ethiopia View project

webPub Journal of Agricultural Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dagninet Amare on 27 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

American Journal of Mechanics and Applications
2015; 3(4): 27-32
Published online January 25, 2016 (http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajma)
doi: 10.11648/j.ajma.20150304.11
ISSN: 2376-6115 (Print); ISSN: 2376-6131 (Online)

Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for

Threshing of Rice
Dagninet Amare1, Negese Yayu2, Asmamaw Endeblihatu1
1
Bahir Dar Agricultural Mechanization and Food Science Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
2
Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

Email address:
[email protected] (D. Amare)

To cite this article:

Dagninet Amare, Negese Yayu, Asmamaw Endeblihatu. Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for Threshing of Rice. American
Journal of Mechanics and Applications. Vol. 3, No. 4, 2015, pp. 27-32. doi: 10.11648/j.ajma.20150304.11

Abstract: Rice is becoming increasingly an important crop in Ethiopia. Owed to the post harvest losses, evaluation and
demonstration of an imported pedal thresher was conducted. In addition, a proto type was developed using reverse engineering.
Data was collected using structured data sheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics and parametric tests. Duncan and Tukey
mean tests showed the absence of significant mean threshing output difference between the pedal type (127.5kg/hr) and the
modified (120kg/hr) one. The result showed statistically different threshing output using these technologies as compared to the
traditional method (92kg/hr). The financial analysis showed that an average Fogera farmer (0.35ha rice land) could thresh his
annual rice yield within 9.25hrs and 8.68hrs using modified and pedal threshers with a cost reduction of ETB 320.58 compared
to the traditional system. The low awareness of the farmers on the consequences and advantages of threshing on quality of rice
and subsequently on preference and marketing resulted in low priority for adoption. Hence, large scale awareness creation
activities should be done and the technology ought to be promoted widely in order to contribute for the government’s aim as a
millennium crop and benefit from the market opportunity reassuring in the country.
Keywords: Pedal Rice Thresher, Modified Thresher, Traditional Threshing, Duncan, Tukey Test

farmers. Rice is also considered as an optional crop by

1. Introduction private investors who frequently request for improved
The discovery of wild rice in the Fogera plain in the early varieties for different ecosystems [6].
1970s was the basis for rice introduction in Ethiopia [1]. Rice National demands are not currently being satisfied by local
is becoming one of the important staple foods and its production even if the trend is increasing. Even the local rice
production area has been increasing over the years in Fogera produce is low quality. The poor quality is due to fracturing
and other parts of Ethiopia [1] [2] [3]. The Fogera plain alone and stickiness attributed to poor agronomic practices, post-
contributes 32% of the national rice production [4] [5]. harvest handling [7] and low standard rice processing. In
Rice production and consumption is increasing owe to consequence, the government is spending large amounts of
various reasons. The compatibility of rice for various money on importing rice [8] [9]. In order minimize imports
traditional food recipes is one that surged its demand. wise utilization of available produce is critical. Proper post
Farmers use rice to prepare injera, bread and alcoholic drinks harvest handling and avoidance of premature harvesting [1]
like Tela and Arekie. It is used as cash crop, source of feed are potential interventions. Pre mature harvesting and low
(rice straw and bran) and house construction [1]. The country quality production may continue at least in the short run owe
has vast suitable ecologies for rice production of about 30 to the production system in the areas that mostly follow
million ha [6] in the rain fed system. The comparative double cropping systems. Hence, it is decisive to increase the
advantage of producing rice due to the availability of huge production and improve market competitiveness’ by proper
and cheap rural labor is another opportunity for producing post harvest management. Such initiatives if successful will
rice. The importance of rice as a food security crop, source of contribute to achievement of national food security [9] and
income and employment opportunity due to its relative high increase household income.
productivity as compared to other cereals is recognized by Rice has one of the highest post harvest losses among
28 Dagninet Amare et al.: Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for Threshing of Rice

cereals. The issue of rice post-harvest management is 2.3. Treatments

nationally recognized [10]. Qualitative post harvest loss of
rice could reach as much as 50% of the production [11]. 2.3.1. Traditional Rice Threshing
The quantitative post harvest loss is between 10% and 22% Threshing rice in Fogera is done traditionally. The
in sub-Saharan Africa. Threshing losses account for 30% of traditional threshing methods are beating by stick (Table 1)
rice post harvest loss in Ghana [8]. The post harvest loss of and animal trampling. Beating involves pounding shelves of
rice in Fogera reaches 12.4% (12462 tones) of total rice crop on hard surface or beating the ear of the crop with
production [12]. stick. Animal trampling is treading a layer of 15 to 20 cm
Reducing postharvest losses, among others, could help in thick harvested crop by a team of animals followed by
reducing rice imports with its accompanied economic losses manual refining, depending upon capacity, lot size and
[8]. Traditional threshing methods trampling with animals situation. Threshing by animal treading is practiced on large
and humans incur huge loss [7]. Increased rice production, scale in the country but it is also time consuming and
inefficiency of manual threshing, seasonal drudgeries of involves drudgery. Animal trampling (hereafter referred as
women and children and subsequent losses require the traditional) on average takes two human labor and 5 oxen for
introduction of improved threshing machines [13]. In the 10 hrs to produce 1 tone output of fairly dried rice. However,
study area, promotion of this kind of technology is it incurs huge loss due to spreading, fracture and mix up with
rationalized due to the need to lighten workloads owe to soil impurities. Absence of sufficient livestock for trampling
multiple cropping. Hence, demonstration and promotion of forces prolonging threshing period thereby increasing loss
harvesting technologies is recommended in Fogera [1]. due to shattering, pests and rotting of grains. If threshing
Concomitantly, Selection and promotion of rice threshers animals are not available, the farmers will thresh by stick
should consider threshing rate (reduce labor requirement beating little by little thereby exaggerating the loss.
and overall output), threshing loss (scattering, threshing and 2.3.2. Pedal Rice Thresher
breakage losses), versatility (operating conditions like The pedal thresher (Figure 1) consists of an open rotating
moisture content), power source, output quality, portability, drum with wire loops. The drum strips the grains from the
ease of use (if it can be used most members like women), panicles when fed by hand. The Pedal Rice thresher was
safety and purchase and running costs [14]. Based on this, a simple to operate with leg muscle, doesn’t consume fuel and
manual (human operated) rice thresher (hereafter referred it is used for threshing paddy rice easily. It can also be
as pedal) was imported from Japan for demonstration. A operated by women and can be used in hilly or terraced areas
prototype (hereafter referred as modified) was also because of its portability [15].
developed in the centre using reverse engineering. Hence, Specification.
these two technologies were demonstrated along with the Power: human labor (chain drive mechanism).
traditional system. The research activity thus aimed at Labor requirement: 2 persons.
evaluating, demonstrating and creating awareness on these Weight: 35 Kg-40 Kg.
threshers and collecting feedbacks on future promotion Dimension (L*W*H): 62*65*63 cm.
activities. Capacity: 110-120 Kg/hr.
Threshing drum: peg type.
2. Materials and Methods Peg diameter: 46cm.
Peg length: 44.5cm.
2.1. Study Site Description Construction material: steel metal.
This study was conducted in Fogera woreda of Amhara
region, Ethiopia. Fogera is situated at 11º46 to 11º59 latitude
north and 37º33 to 37º52 longitudes East with altitude ranges
from 1774 to 2410 meters above sea level [1].
2.2. Demonstration Sites

Demonstration sites were selected purposively in the

project area with Woreda agriculture offices. The
demonstration sites Abua-kokit and Diba-Sefatra kebeles
from Fogera Woreda. The technologies were also
demonstrated in Shina Tsion kebele of Libo-Kemkem Woreda.
Two (2) farmers research extension groups (FREGs) were
established as a means for evaluation and promotion of the
technologies though lateral extension system and feed backs
collection. The pedal and modified rice threshers were
demonstrated at the first and second years of the project
respectively. Figure 1. Imported thresher drum.
 American Journal of Mechanics and Applications 2015; 3(4): 27-32 29

practice. Sample was collected from 5 trainees for pedal

type and from 3 trainees for modified one in Shina-Tsion
Kebele.
2.4.2. Data Analysis
Data was analyzed using SPSS, Stata 12 and Microsoft
Excel softwares. Mean tests for the three type of threshers
(traditional, pedal and modified) using Duncan and Tukey
tests were conducted (Table 3).

2.4.3. Financial Analysis

For financial analysis (Table 4) a price tag of Ethiopian
Birr (ETB) 4576.8 is assumed, including 10% labor cost and
10% profits for both the modified and the pedal threshers. A
service life of 10 years with constant depreciation, 5000
working hours and maintenance cost of 7% [16] is
considered for the threshers. Thus, annually the thresher can
be used for 500hrs and annual investment cost of ETB
457.68. A monthly interest rate of 5.5% is taken for the
Figure 2. Modified thresher drum.
opportunity cost of cash of the farmers as most likely they
will save it in the formal Banks, considered as the next best
2.3.3. Modified Thresher opportunity. Average farm gate price of Fogera rice is
This thresher (Figure 2) was fabricated at the center using assumed ETB 12. Although equal price is set for both rice
reverse engineering. After fabrication, the modified thresher threshed by traditional and pedal threshers, in reality the
was tested. Some modifications were introduced on the price for rice threshed by either the pedal or the modified is
threshing drum and driving mechanism. The imported expected to fetch better price due to better quality.
thresher was gear driven while the newly fabricated one was
chain driven. This is because of unavailability of raw 3. Results and Discussion
material to fabricate gear at the center. The threshing drum of
the imported one was fabricated from thin sheet steel by 3.1. Threshing Capacity
special machine but the modified ones threshing drum was
The threshing capacity (Table-1) of the thresher depends
peg type fabricated from deformed iron because it was not
on Paddy rice holding capacity of the operator at once with
possible to manufacture the imported threshing drum type by
hand, feeding rate of the operator, threshing unit /drum rpm
the existing machines in the metal work shop. All the other
[14] and the variety of the rice and other factors. In
specifications are similar to the pedal type except the weight,
addition, driving mechanism may influence the threshing
which is slightly heavier.
capacity. Gear drive is more efficient than chain drive. The
2.4. Data Collection and Analysis efficiency of gear drive was 99% while chain drive was
95%. This difference in driving mechanism efficiency
2.4.1. Data Collection comes up to different rpm on the threshing drum. This
Samples were taken on the two threshers to measure their enters influence the capacity of their threshing per hour. In
threshing efficiency and capacity. Opinions, views and this evaluation, beating rice heads with a stick /locally
response of the participants about the technology as named as ‘dula’ has an average output of 92.04 Kg/hr
compared with the traditional practice were collected. (Table 1). The pedal operated has slightly higher output
Threshing by the pedal type, the modified (Figure 3) and than the modified thresher.
traditional methods were conducted using X-Jigina rice
variety. The threshing was done for 10 minutes on each
Table 1. Pedal and traditional threshing performance (1st year).

Pedal operated Rice thresher Traditional threshing by beating with stick/Dulla/

Test trial Testing time Threshing amount Threshing capacity Testing time Threshing amount Threshing capacity
(min) (Kg) (Kg/hr) (min) (Kg) (Kg/hr)
1 10 24.25 145.5 10 17.40 104.40
2 10 20.5 123.0 10 15.25 91.50
3 10 20.0 120.0 10 14.25 85.50
4 10 22.5 135.0 10 16.30 97.80
5 10 19.00 114.0 10 13.50 81.00
30 Dagninet Amare et al.: Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for Threshing of Rice

absence of significant threshing capacity difference

between the pedal and the modified thresher. However, the
capacity was significantly higher for both technologies
compared to the traditional system at 1% level of
significance.
3.3. Farmers’ Feedback

Most of the farmers research extension group (FREG)

Figure 3. Threshing capacity for modified thresher (2nd year). member farmers thought that the pedal rice thresher is
important because it does not break the straw into pieces.
3.2. Threshing Efficiency This helps to use the straw for house roof cover since grass is
not available in the near place for this purpose. Farmers
Spreading the rice panicles over the drum was essential for
appreciated the easiness of the machine to transport by one
threshing efficiency. The person should seize a manageable
person, to do threshing for daily consumption before
size for accessing the beaters or else should turn the sides of
threshing the whole harvest and easiness to operate by
the panicles and rotate to thresh. There is no paddy rice left
women and children. Farmers indicated that the modified is
over with the rice straw in the pedal as well as the modified
heavier than the pedal type. Transportation of both threshers
one. Then in these scenarios, the threshing efficiency of the
by a single person was considered as an opportunity for
machine was 100% (Table 2).
utilization by the larger population, making it available to the
Table 2. Average threshing capacity (kg/hr). inaccessible areas [15]. The threshing capacity of the
modified was relatively less than the pedal one. Even though
Mean Std.
Thresher type Max Min the thresher was better as compared to the traditional practice
Actual At sensitivity * Err
and has the above listed advantages; farmers showed less
Traditional 92.04 82.8 4.19 104.4 81
interest on it. This is due to priority of farmers problems.
Modified 119.6 107.64 2.12 123.6 116.4
Paddy threshing is not a priority in the area. Natural
Pedal operated 127.5 114.75 5.65 145.5 114
shattering property of the crop is considered as an
*The sensitivity is considered at 10% down performance of individuals opportunity for not considering threshing a major issue. The
recognizing that humans are liable to fatigue and tiresome after working farmers also indicated tediousness to work on it full day
some length of time leading to a lower average performance per individual.
bases as a defect of the technology. However, with all family
Breakage: samples taken from threshed paddy showed no members capable of working it, it will not be a problem to
broken seeds. In addition to experts, the farmers confirmed work on it as there will be replacement when tired. On the
the absence of breakage. There was no paddy broken during other hand, farmers appreciated the technology for enabling
threshing in both threshers. Therefore, paddy rice breakage threshing during peak working times and for small amounts
was nil by both the machines. in case of immediate household consumption needs by any
member of the household.
Table 3. Statistical comparison of mean threshing capacity.
Table 4. Financial analysis.
Thresher Group# Thresher
Contrast t-value Stick
mean Tukey Duncan types Parameter Traditional Pedal Modified
beating
Pedal Vs
Traditional 7.9 1.07 Output for 500hrs
modified 46 50 63.75 59.8
(tons/yr)
Modified Vs
Modified A A 27.56 3.74*** Income (ETB/yr) 55200 60000 76500 71760
traditional
Labor cost
Pedal Vs 2500 17500 5000 5000
Pedal A A 35.46 5.56*** (ETB/yr)
traditional
Cost of machine * - - 870.15 870.15
#means sharing the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level; Maintenance cost
- - 32 32
*** significant at 1% level of significance. (7%)
Total cost (ETB) 2500 17500 5902.15 5902.15
Overall analysis of the comparative evaluation of the Net benefit (ETB) 52700 42500 70597.9 65857.9
technologies (Table-2) resulted in significant difference on *It includes opportunity cost of investment within a year.
the average output between the traditional method and the
technologies demonstrated. The two most common three But threshing has its own effect on hulling [7] and the rice
population group test statistics showed the absence of mean quality and hence requires proper threshing methods [8].
threshing difference between the pedal and the modified Extensive work to create awareness of the farmers on
threshers. However, significant difference was observed on consequences of different threshing methods may enable
traditional thresher output compared to both modern adoption of the technologies.
technologies. Further a two group mean test showed the Thus, a farmer having 0.35ha of rice land with a
 American Journal of Mechanics and Applications 2015; 3(4): 27-32 31

productivity of 3.16tons/ha [17] can thresh his/her rice in Growth and Yield of Rain fed Lowland Rice. Wudpecker
9.25hrs and 8.68hrs using the modified and the pedal threshers Journal of Agricultural Research, 2 (4): 108–114.
respectively. The cost of threshing will be less than ETB 100 in [3] Yayeh Bitew and Fekremariam Asargew, 2014. Rice (Oryza
both of the threshers. If traditional threshing was used, it would Sativa) and Chickpea (Cicer aritinum L) Relay Intercropping
have taken 12hrs and a cost of ETB 420.58, without including Systems in an Additive Series Experiment in Rain Fed
the physical and quality losses incurred. Thus, for the rest of Lowland Ecosystem of Fogera Vertisols. Journal of Science
Research, 2 (6): 179-184.
the season the farmer could use the thresher in the form of
custom hiring. If 2ETB is levied on 1hr period of threshing, the [4] Tilahun T., Alemayehu A., Minale L., and Zelalem T. 2008.
custom hiring could help a farmer to recover the investment Effect of Seed Soaking and Incubation on the emergence,
within only 4 harvesting seasons or years. The problems of Growth and Yield of Rice. In: Ermias A., Akalu T., Alemayehu
A. G., Melaku W., Tilahun T., and Wondimu B. (eds). 2008.
threshing loss resulting in quantitative and qualitative loss that Procceedings of the 2nd Annual Regional Conference on
will be reflected in the market makes use of the traditional and Completed Crop Research Activities, 18-21 Sep. 2007.
stick beating threshing methods not preferable even without Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute. B. D.,
considering the financial benefits. Adoption of the threshers is Ethiopia. Pp. 36-40.
a crucial fact that smallholder should consider for increasing [5] Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural (EIAR), 2011. Empowering
their benefits and marketable yields. Farmers' Innovation, Series No. 2: Challenges and
Opportunities of Rice in Ethiopian Agricultural Development,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
4. Conclusions
[6] Kebebew Assefa, Dawit Alemu, Kiyoshi Shiratori and Abebe
The financial analysis showed that utilisation of pedal and Kirub, 2011. Challenges and Opportunities of Rice in
modified rice threshers have a net benefit margin of ETB Ethiopian Agricultural Development. FRG II Project
28098 and ETB 23358 in the first year of investment. Fogera Empowering Farmers' Innovation. Series No. 2. EIAR – JICA
Woreda is one the most intensive agricultural production Cooperation.
system where three to four crop productions are undertaken. [7] Zewdu Ayalew, Abebe Fanta and Solomon Abera, 2013. Effect
The promotion and utilization of the modified rice thresher of Parboiling Treatment on the Milling Quality of Selected
reduces the threshing labour demand of an average Fogera Rice Varieties. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 01 (01):
farmer by 77.08%. Besides, farmers appreciated for home 060-068.
consumption and the avoidance of hay breakage used for [8] Appiah F, Guisse R. and Dartey P. K., 2011. Post Harvest
thatching. However, they considered it as a low priority where Losses of Rice from Harvesting to Milling in Ghana. Journal
weeding and planting are recently considered as major of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 2 (4): 64-71.
bottlenecks. However, inappropriate post harvest handling [9] Yemane Asmelash, 2014. Determinants of adoption of upland
including threshing results in physical loss of produce and the rice varieties in Fogera district, South Gondar, Ethiopia.
produce becomes low quality resulting in low market Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 8
competitiveness and low income for farmers. The feedbacks (12): 332-338.
collected reflect none of this idea. This is due to low awareness [10] Teshome Negussie and Dawit Alemu, 2011. An Overview of
by farmers that necessitates for awareness creation and the National Rice Research and Development Strategy and its
subsequent promotion of the technology for wider adoption. Implementation. In the Challenges and Opportunities of Rice
Hence, wider scale promotion of the technology is paramount in Ethiopian Agricultural Development. FRG II Project
importance to increase adoption and subsequently enlarge Empowering Farmers' Innovation Series No. 2.
households’ income, marketable yield and hence increase [11] Manful J, Fofana M (2010). Postharvest practices and the
national food availability and accessibility. This study lacks quality of rice in West Africa. CORAF/WECARD. 2nd
data on quality of rice by using the different threshing methods Science Week. 24-29 May, 2010, Cotounou, Benin.
and the resulting market price to specific qualities. Hence, [12] African Post Harvest Losses Information Systems (APHLIS),
future promotions should consider these limitations and 2015. Rice Loss Tables Ethiopia: Estimated post harvest
incorporate the physical and quality loss to bring to light the losses for 2003-2014. Accessed at
opportunities for adoption. Further, it could be advisable to see www.aphlis.net/?form=losses_estimates&co_id=19&c_id=32
longer period experiments on the thresher as fatigue may 7 on 24/07/2015.
decrease optimum threshing capacity of individuals. [13] Azouma, Y., Porosi M., and Yamaguchi K., 2009. Design of
Throw-In Type Rice Thresher for Small Scale Farmers. Indian
Journal of Science and Technology, 2 (9): 10-14.
References [14] Selco Foundation, 2013. Testing of Small Scale Threshing
Machines in Rural Karnataka. Accessed at
[1] Gebey, T., Berhe, K., Hoekstra, D. and Alemu, B. 2012. Rice www.selcofoundation.org/wp.../05/Threshing-Testing-Final-
Value chain development in Fogera Woreda based on the Report.pdf on 24/07/2015.
IPMS Experience. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.
[15] Abdul Shakoor Khan and M. Salin, 2005. Rice Harvesting and
[2] Tilahun Tadesse, Nigussie Dechassa, Wondimu Bayu, Setegn Threshing. Pakistan Journal of Food Science, 15 (1-2): 45-52.
Gebeyehu, 2013. Impact of Rainwater Management on
32 Dagninet Amare et al.: Development and Evaluation of Pedal Thresher for Threshing of Rice

[16] FAO, 2015. Grain Storage Techniques: Evolution and Trends [17] Astewul Takele, 2010. Analysis of Rice Profitability and
in Developing Countries. Accessed at Marketing Chain: The Case of Fogera Woreda, South Gondar
www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E0r.htm on 8/11/2015. Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. An MSC
Thesis Submitted To Haramaya University.

View publication stats