Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025)

Design and performance of mini tractor-operated onion detopping and harvesting unit

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7594
Submitted
4 February 2025
Published
10-05-2025 — Updated on 26-07-2025
Versions

Abstract

Onion (Allium cepa var. Aggregatum) is a widely cultivated crop in Tamil Nadu, India, for domestic and export purposes. It is used as an essential ingredient in all food preparations. Onion, as an indispensable vegetable, the demand for its bulbs has remained relatively consistent irrespective of wide fluctuations in the market prices. Manual onion harvesting is a tiresome, time-consuming, labour- and cost-intensive operation that necessitates mechanized harvesting. Mechanization, which is adopted presently in onion harvesting, is a traditional practice performed with a hand shovel (khurpa). This process alone consumes 21.4 % of the total cost of onion cultivation. Developing a power-operated detopper that can detop the onions after uprooting the onion leaves is essential. Hence, a research study has been taken up for the "Development and evaluation of mini tractor operated onion harvester with detopping unit" to perform both detopping and harvesting simultaneously. The onion harvester attached to the detopping unit was evaluated for harvesting CO (On)5 variety at farmers fields. The performance of the developed prototype onion harvester and detopping unit was evaluated for detopping and harvesting of onion crops in the farmer's field at Nahar village and cost economics was worked out. The cost of the onion harvester, along with the detopping unit, was Rs. 22300. The adequate field capacity of the onion harvester with a detopping unit was found to be 0.052 ha/h. The cost of harvesting and detopping with an onion harvester was 8337 Rs./ha. The savings in cost and time were 81.4 and 92.2 %, respectively. The onion harvester's break-even point (BEP) with the detopping unit was found to be 25.12 h per annum and the payback period was determined to be 1 year and 5 days.

References

  1. 1. Jadhav RV, Turbatmath PA, Gharte LV. Design, development and performance evaluation of onion digger windrower. AMA-Agric Mech Asia, Africa Latin America, 1995;26(3):35–38.
  2. 2. Maw BW, Hung YO, Tollner EW, Smittle DA,Mullinese BG. Physical and mechanical properties of fresh and stored sweet onion. Trans ASAE, 1996; 39(2):633–37. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27545
  3. 3. Rani V, Srivastava AP, Design and development of onion de-topper, AMA-Agric Mech Asia, Africa Latin America, 2012;43(3):69.
  4. 4. Bhanage G, Deshmukh VD, Thokale PJ, Wandka SV. Development of Power Operated Onion Detopper, Bioved J. 2016;27(1):73–78.
  5. 5. Saraswathi T, Sathiyamurthy VA, Tamilselvi NA, Harish S. Review on Aggregatum Onion (Allium cepa L. var. aggregatum Don.), Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017; 6(4):1649–67. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.604.201
  6. 6. Pandiselvam R, MM Pragalyaashree, R Kailappan, V Thirupathi, P Krishnakumar. Moisture dependent engineering properties of onion seeds, J Agric Eng, 2014; 51(2):36–43.
  7. 7. Chittappa B. Design and development of motorized onion detopper cum grader. [Thesis] Bengaluru: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2016.
  8. 8. Kamaraj P. Design, Development and evaluation of self-propelled onion digger [Thesis] Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 2002.
  9. 9. Bahnasawy AH, El-Haddad ZA, El-Ansary MY, Sorour HM. Physical and mechanical properties of some Egyptian onion cultivars, J Food Eng, 2004;62(3):255–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0260-8774(03)00238-3
  10. 10. Dauda SM, Ahmad D, Khalina A, Jamarei O. Effect of cutting speed on cutting torque and cutting power of varying kenaf stem diameters at different moisture contents, Trop Agric Sci. 2015;38(4):54961. https://doi.org/10.5555/20153366460
  11. 11. Randal DM, Mcnulty PB. Impact cutting behaviour of forage crops-I Mathematical model and laboratory tests. J Agr Eng Res., 1978;23:816–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(78)90104-X
  12. 12. Anon. Test code and procedures for harvesting machines, ESCAPE-RNAM, Pasay City, Philippines; 1983.
  13. 13. Randal DM, McNulty PB. Cutting behaviour of forage crops. The British Society Res Agric Engg 1978;23(8634):329–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8634(78)90105-1
  14. 14. Dange AR, Thakare SK, Bhaskarrao I. Cutting energy and force as required for pigeon pea stems, J Agric Tech. 2012;7(6):1485–93.
  15. 15. Jyothi B. Development and evaluation of cassava stem harvester as influenced by machine and operational parameters, [thesis]. Coimbatore: Tamil Nadu Agricultural University; 2013.
  16. 16. Budhale KC, Patil AG, Shirole VS, Patil SS, Desai RS, Salavi SB. Design and development of digging and conveying system for self-propelled onion Harvester, Int Res J Eng Tech. 2019; 6(4):3304–07.
  17. 17. Chattopadhyay P, Pandey KP. Effect of knife and operational parameters on energy requirement in flail forage harvesting, J Agr Eng Res. 1999;73:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0395
  18. 18. Yiljep YD, Mohammed US. Effect of knife velocity on cutting energy and efficiency during impact cutting of sorghum stalk, Agric Eng Int CIGR J. 2005;1–7.
  19. 19. Bello RS, Baruwa A, Orisamuko. Development and performance evaluation of a prototype electrically powered brush cutter, Int Lett Chem Phy Astron 2015; 58:26–32. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILCPA.58.26
  20. 20. Langton MI. Design of brush cutter and its Integration into a semi-mechanised sugarcane harvesting machine, [thesis], School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, South Africa: University of KwaZulu-Natal; 2007.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.