International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry

Volume 2, Issue 6, June 2015, PP 20-26

ISSN 2394-5907 (Print) & ISSN 2394-5915 (Online)

Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and

Threshing Techniques
Muhammad Sattar1, Mueen-u-Din1, Mushtaq Ali1, Liaqat Ali1, Masood Qadir Waqar2,
Muhammad Anjum Ali3, Laila Khalid4
1
Adaptive Research Farm, Vehari, Pakistan
2
Director of Agriculture (Adaptive Research), Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
3
Director General of Agriculture (Ext.&AR), Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan
4
Adaptive Research Station Bahawalnagar, Pakistan

ABSTRACT
Grain losses of wheat as affected by different harvesting and threshing techniques were studied at Adaptive
Research Farm, Vehari during 2010-11. Three methods of harvesting and threshing i.e. i) manual plus thresher
ii) reaper plus thresher and iii) combine harvester were used in the study. The data revealed that different
harvesting and threshing techniques had considerable impact on grain losses of wheat. The harvesting losses
with manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher at the field level were observed to be 164.37kg ha-1and
142.93 kg ha-1accounting for 3.16% and 2.76%, respectively of wheat grain yield. Total grain losses during
harvesting and threshing processes with manual plus thresher, reaper plus thresher and combine harvester were
222.63kg ha-1, 199.41kg ha-1and 149.87kg ha-1which were 4.28%, 3.85% and 2.92% of the total yield,
respectively. The minimum amount of waste belonged to reaper plus thresher (0.82%) by providing 42.58 kg ha-
1
broken grains and inert material in the produce. The cleaning efficiency of combine was a bit poorer (98.90%)
as compared to other harvesting and threshing techniques.
Keywords: Wheat, grain, harvesting, threshing, losses, quality, cleaning efficiency

INTRODUCTION
Wheat is preferred food amongst all the cereals in the world. Concerted efforts are needed to enhance
food grain production in the world and to investigate problems that stand in the way of meeting food
needs of humanity so as to avoid peace upsetting and famine occurrence in the world. Wheat is the
leading food grain of Pakistan, and being the staple diet of the people, it occupies a central position on
agricultural policies. It is the largest grown crop over an area of 8666 thousand hectares in 2011-12,
showing a decrease of 2.6 percent over last year’s area of 8901 thousand hectares. Wheat contributes
12.5 percent to the value added in agriculture and 2.6 percent to GDP (Anonymous 2011-12). Despite
the introduction of improved varieties of wheat, better chemical and hydrological inputs, the
production is still not enough to feed the present population. Pakistan’s present problem is the
augmentation of food supplies to masses in order to meet the country’s needs. It could be
accomplished either by bringing more area under wheat cultivation or by increasing yield per unit
area. Acreage increase has limitations like scarcity of water and precariously established balance in
land allocation between equally important cash crops. Any disturbance in this balance may cause
another crisis, more or less of equal severity. Hence, productivity enhancement along with pre and
post harvest losses management are the onlyalternativebecause of the existing differences between the
national average and the potential. According to a most conservative estimate, about 10% of the
cereals harvested in developing countries are lost annually (Chaudhry, 1982). Most of the Pakistani
scientists strongly believe that 10% post-harvest losses of wheat are not at all uncommon in our
country (Ahmad et al., 1992). The wheat grain losses are classified as i) pre-harvest grain loss due to
the birds, rodents and environmental; ii) harvest grain loss during harvesting of the crop; and iii) post-
harvest grain loss due to bundling, transporting, threshing and winnowing.

*Address for correspondence

[email protected]
International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015 20
 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
Harvesting losses with manual wheat harvesting varied from 3 to 7% after ripening of the crop
(Iqbalet al., 1980). Similarly Ibupotoet al. (1991) investigated that average grain losses for traditional
methods during pre-harvest, harvest and post harvest stages were 10.9, 29 and 122.9 kg ha-1 or 0.28%,
0.77% and 3.28%, respectively whereas, Zafarullah (1985) observed 2.1% total manual harvesting
losses. Singh et al. (1988) tested three tractor front mounted reapers, manufactured locally by FMI,
AMRI and Ittefaq on wheat crop in Pakistan. The wheat grain losses with these reapers were 1.19,
2.63 and 2.76%, respectively. Sukhbiret al. (2007) compared the performance of reaper with
conventional method of manual harvesting of wheat crop with sickle to see the feasibility. They
recorded 5.8% to 11.8% harvesting losses with reaper. Basavarajaet al. (2007) concluded that grain
losses during harvesting and threshing activity of wheat were 0.36 kg/q and 0.44 kg/q, respectively.
Bukhariet al. (1983) found that the average grain losses during conventional harvesting, bundling,
transporting, threshing, winnowing and cleaning were 3.67, 3.98, 0.24, 1.18, 2.46, and 4.53%,
respectively.
Harvesting of wheat crop in a short possible time after maturity is necessary in order to reduce
shattering losses and delay in sowing the next crop. Further, the natural calamities like rain, hailstorm
and windstorm during harvesting season result in enhancing these losses. The use of reaper plus
thresher or combine can solve the problems of labor shortage as these machines can reap and thresh
the crop simultaneously, economically and timely. Chaudhry (1979) estimated 2.01 and 1.2% grain
losses on account of tractor threshing and combine, respectively. The combine harvester not only
minimizes the post-harvest losses but also helps in shortening the harvesting period. Shamabadi
(2012) while evaluating the performance of eight combines observed that time of harvesting, seed
moisture content, relative humidity, field topography and varietal characteristics are the major factors
affecting harvest losses. He concluded that mean total loss by different combines was 6.88% at wheat
harvesting stage. Mirasi et al. (2013) measured grain losses of different wheat varieties with different
models of combine during harvest stage. They observed that average pre harvest losses in all fields of
study were 31.4 kg ha-1 accounting for 12.71 percent of total losses. Bala et al. (1980) also reported
4.09% grain losses of wheat by traditional methods of harvesting and threshing. AMRI (1987) found
2.2% wheat losses for combine as compared to 4.65% for reapers and about 7.5% for manual
harvesting. Begum et al. (2012) found 0.51 kg/quintal grain losses of wheat during the threshing
activity. They concluded that threshing losses were mainly in the form of broken grains. They
observed 2.35 kg/quintal post-harvest losses at farm level. The harvesting losses have added up to
about 40.85 per cent.
The comparative economic benefits of manual harvesting plus mechanical threshing and combine
harvester were also investigated by Razzaq et al. (1992). They established that combine harvester
gave higher wheat yields than manual harvesting plus mechanical threshing. Combine harvester
proved more economical than manual harvesting plus mechanical threshing currently practised in the
country. Studies indicated that combine harvester was an efficient, economical, and less labor
demanding machine. It increased grain recovery by minimizing harvesting and threshing losses.
Similarly field losses and economics of combine harvester and combination of reaper with thresher
were also determined by Pawar et al.(2008). They observed that total field loss of combine harvester
(4.20%) was less than the combination of reaper with thresher (10.57%). The cost of operation for
combine harvester was (Rs. 817.84 ha-1) less than the combination of reaper with thresher (Rs.
1816.79 ha-1). They concluded that combine harvester and combination of reaper with thresher were
more suitable for large fields and small fields, respectively.
Keeping in view the benefits of combine harvester vis-a-vis manual harvesting plus thresher and
reaper harvesting plus thresher the present study was designed with the following specific objectives:
Compare grain losses of wheat under different harvesting and threshing techniques.
Compare the profitability of different harvesting and threshing techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present study was carried out to measure grain losses of wheat with different harvesting and
threshing techniques at Adaptive Research Farm, Vehari during 2010-11. The wheat variety Sehar-
2006 was sown with automatic rabi drill on November 12, 2010. Three methods of harvesting and
threshing i.e. i) manual plus thresher ii) reaper plus thresher and iii) combine harvester were used in
21 International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015
 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
the study. The specifications of reaper, thresher and combine used in the study are given in Table-
1.Agronomic observations were recorded on ten plant basis from each randomly selected 1m2 plot.
The crop was harvested in last week of April from an area of one hectare under each harvesting
technique.
Table1. Specifications of reaper, thresher and combine
Machines Items Reaper Thresher Combine
Model Tractor Mounted Tractor Mounted NH 8060
Working width 2285mm 1700 mm 15 feet
Length 660mm 4100 --
Height 660mm 1900 --
Weight 260 kg 1500 --
Source of power Tractor PTO shaft Tractor PTO shaft 6 cylinder engine
Source of manufacture Jamal Industries Jamal Industries Belgium
Maxi. Power output -- -- 130 hp
Pre-harvest losses:For pre-harvest losses, prior to harvest the crop a steel frame of 4 m2was placed in
standing crop at ten differentlocationsin each experimental unit. Loose grains and spikes fallen on
theground and enclosed in the steel frame were picked up. Theweight of loose grains and of the spikes
was noted torepresent grain loss in 4 m2area which were later convertedto kg ha-1.
Harvesting losses: In the manual harvesting technique wheat was harvested manually with hand
sickle. While in the reaper harvesting technique reaper was used to harvest wheat crop. After sun
drying, the harvested crop was bundled and heaped on tarpaulin in the centre of the field separately
from both the experimental units. After transportation of bundles from the field harvesting losses were
studied from the harvested area. The fallen ear heads, shattered grains, and unharvested plants from
ten randomly selected 4 m2 area were collected. The samples were threshed, winnowed, cleaned,
weighed and data recorded.
Threshing losses: For threshing losses the harvested wheat of 1 ha from both the experimental units
was threshed using thresher machine. Ten samples of 5 kg wheat straw were randomly takenat
different places from the heap of straw. The wheat straw was, re winnowed, cleaned and weighed for
grains and data recorded.
Harvesting and threshing losses:To measure harvesting and threshing lossesof grains under combine
harvesting technique combine harvester was used to harvest the crop from an area of 1 ha. After the
combine has passed, the 4 m2steel frame was placed at ten different locations in the field. The
shattered grains and exited material from combine end was gathered from enclosed area of the
frame.The samples so gathered were threshed, winnowed, cleaned, weighed and recorded as
harvesting and threshing losses by combine.The harvesting and threshing losses under manual plus
thresher and reaper plus thresher techniques were calculated as total of harvesting losses occurred by
the respective technique plus threshing losses recorded during threshing of wheat.
Quality losses: For quality losses wheat grain sample of 5 kg was taken at different randomly
selected places from each heap of different harvesting techniques. Three samples of 100 gram each
were recollected from 5 kg sample. The broken grains, weed seed, straw or any other material were
taken out manually and weighed employing an electric balance. The quality losses were calculated as
explained below.
Wi
QL = x 100
Ws
Where;
QL = Quality loss (%),
Wi = Weight of inert matter, and
Ws = Weight of the sample
Cleaning efficiency: For calculating the cleaning efficiency of different harvesting techniqueswheat
grain sample of 100 gram analysed for quality losses of grains was utilized. The cleaning efficiency
was calculated as:

International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015 22

 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
Wc
CE = x 100
Ws
Where;
CE = Cleaning efficiency (%),
Wc = Weight of clean grains, and
Ws = Weight of sample
Economics Analysis: An economic analysis of three methods of harvesting and threshing wasmade
using cost and income figures of 2010-11 crop seasons. Prevailing cost of harvesting wheat manually
and market rate for renting of reaper, thresher and combine was used to calculate harvesting and
threshing cost. The combine harvester does not make bhoosa directly which is a byproduct of other
two methods of harvesting. Prevailing cost of chopping wheat straw with rented wheat straw chopper
and an income of 70% bhoosa was used to calculate expenditure and income of combine.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Normally grain losses vary considerably depending on the variety, ripening stage, condition of crop,
harvest time, sowing method and harvesting technique.The data regarding agronomical characteristics
of wheat variety Sehar-2006 are presented in Table-1. Results indicated that plant height, number of
tillersm-2, grains spike-1, 1000 grain weight, grain and straw yields and other characteristics were
found normal.
Table1. Growth and yield characteristics of wheat variety Sehar-2006

Characters Units
Number of plants (m-2) 286.20
Plant height (cm) 104.30
Number of tillers (m-2) 323.90
Number of grains spike-1 40.60
1000 grain weight (g) 41.15
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 4974.00
Straw yield (kg ha-1) 4974.00
Grain losses of wheat by different methods of harvesting and threshing i.e. i) manual plus thresher ii)
reaper plus thresher and iii) combine harvester were evaluated by measuring different losses during
harvesting and threshing processes of selected field. Major grain losses of wheat which were
measured during the study are discussed as under:
Pre-harvest losses: The pre-harvest losses occurred in standing crop due to shattering of grains by
insects, birds, animals, windetc. The average pre-harvest losses in all the fields of study were 4.25 kg
ha-1. Data showed that there were minor differences in pre-harvest grain losses percentage among
different harvesting and threshing techniques. The total calculated pre-harvest losses for different
harvesting and threshing techniques were 0.08percent.
Harvesting losses: The harvesting losses represent the percent of grains lost in the harvested field.
These losses mostly occur due to fallen ear heads, shattered grains during harvesting, bundling and
transportation, and un harvested plants. Factors such as time of harvest, crop moisture, humidity,
variety, topography, sowing method and lodging plays a major role to assess these losses. The data
given in Table-2 demonstrated that more grain losses were found in the field where wheat was
harvested manually as compared to the plot where reaper was used to harvest wheat crop. Data
showed that harvesting losses of grains for manual and reaper harvesting were 164.37 and 142.93 kg
ha-1 which were 3.16% and 2.76% of wheat yield, respectively. The results are in accordance with the
findings of Iqbal et al., 1980 who also reported 3 to 7% harvesting losses with manual harvesting of
wheat. Similar results are also reported by Zafarullah (1985) who observed 2.1% total manual
harvesting losses. The results regarding harvesting losses by reaper are also in good agreement with
the findings of Singh et al. (1988).
23 International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015
 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
Table2. Grain losses of wheat as affected by different harvesting and threshing techniques
Grain losses (kg ha-1) Grain losses (%)
Harvesting
Harvesting/ Harvesting/ Inc./
Technique Harvesting Threshing Harvesting Threshing
Threshing Threshing Dec.
Manual plus 164.37 58.26 222.63 3.16 1.12 4.28 48.55
thresher
Reaper plus 142.93 56.48 199.41 2.76 1.09 3.85 33.06
thresher
Combine - - 149.87 - - 2.92 -
harvester
Threshing losses: The data regarding threshing losses of wheat grains are presented in Table-2. The
data showed that threshing losses were not influenced by threshing under various harvesting
techniques. Less threshing losses were observed where wheat was harvested with reaper than manual
harvesting. Un threshed grains found from the wheat straw for manual and reaper harvesting were
58.26 and 56.48 kg ha-1 (1.12 and 1.09% of wheat yield), respectively. The results are in line with the
findings of Basavaraja et al. (2007) who concluded that grain losses during threshing activity of wheat
were 0.44 kg/q.
Harvesting and threshing losses: The shattered grains and threshed or un threshed spikes collected
behind the combine harvester represent the harvesting and threshing losses of the combine. The data
given in Table-2 and Fig. I showed that the minimum harvesting and threshing losses of wheat grains
by the combine recorded from the field were 149.87 kg ha-1 (2.92% of wheat yield) as compared to the
harvesting and threshing losses for manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher i.e. 222.63 kg ha-
1
and 199.41 kg ha-1 (4.28 and 3.85% of wheat yield), respectively. The results are in good agreement
with the findings of Bala et al. (1980) who also reported 4.09% grain losses of wheat by traditional
methods of harvesting and threshing. The highest total harvesting and threshing losses were happened
with manual harvesting and threshing wheat with thresher. From the perusal of data it was observed
that higher grain losses of 48.55 and 33.06% were recorded by manual plus thresher and reaper plus
thresher, respectively as compared to combine harvester. Similar results were also demonstrated by
AMRI (1987) who found 2.2% wheat losses for combine as compared to 4.65% for reapers and about
7.5% for manual harvesting.

Fig. I Grain losses of wheat as Fig. II Quality losses of wheat as

affected by different harvesting affected by different harvesting
and threshing techniques (%) and threshing techniques
5 1.2
4 1
3 0.8
0.6
2 0.4
1 0.2
0 0
Manual Reaper plus Combine Manual Reaper Combine
plus thresher harvester plus plus harvester
thresher thresher thresher

Quality losses: Quality losses of wheat include broken grains, weeds seed or any other material found
in the produce. The wheat field under experiment was weed free and upright stand. Based on field
conditions, more broken grains and less weeds seed were found in the produce. Data presented in
Table-3and Fig. II depicted that 44.23, 42.58 and 54.46 kg ha-1 inert material were found under
manual plus thresher, reaper plus thresher and combine harvester techniques. The quality losses were
mainly in the form of broken grains, which were slightly higher, when the produce was threshed by
combine as compared to manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher. The data revealed that wheat
harvested and threshed with combine had 1.06% inert matter whereas 0.85% and 0.82% inert material
International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015 24
 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
was found with manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher, respectively. Grain losses observed
during threshing activity of wheat are in accordance with the findings of Begum et al. (2012).
Table3. Quality losses of wheat as affected by different harvesting and threshing techniques
Quality losses Cleaning efficiency
Harvesting Technique
(kg ha-1) (%) (%)
Manual plus thresher 44.23 0.85 99.11
Reaper plus thresher 42.58 0.82 99.14
Combine harvester 54.46 1.06 98.90
Cleaning efficiency: The cleaning efficiency of different harvesting techniques reflect the amount of
inert material present in the grain sample. The data given in Table-3 revealed that the cleaning
efficiency of the combine was a bit poorer (98.90%) than manual plus thresher (99.11%) and reaper
plus thresher (99.14%). The cleaning efficiency of all the harvesting techniques weresatisfactory that
might be due to unweedy wheat field and upright crop stand. The quality losses are quite consistent
with prevalent conditions.
ECONOMICS ANALYSIS
An economicanalysis of three methods of harvesting and threshing i.e. manual plus thresher, reaper
plus thresher and combine harvester was made (Table-4) using cost figures of 2010-11. Data showed
that cost of manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher was Rs. 18315 ha-1and Rs. 17206 ha-1 while
combine harvester costs Rs. 11590 ha-1only.A benefit of about Rs. 6725 ha-1may be realized by using
combine harvester when compared to manual harvesting of wheat. From the results of the study it was
concluded that minimum benefit ofRs.2867 ha-1 and Rs. 1196 ha-1 were obtained by using combine
harvester over manual plus thresher and reaper plus thresher, respectively. This cost analysis and the
results of preceding section showed that the use of combine harvester is economical and technically
feasible. The results of the study are quite in line with the findings of Razzaq et al. (1992) who
concluded that combine harvester is an efficient, economical, and less labor demanding machine.
Similarly field losses and economics of combine harvester and combination of reaper with thresher
were also determined by Pawar et al. (2008) who concluded that cost of operation for combine
harvester was (Rs. 817.84 ha-1) less than the combination of reaper with thresher (Rs. 1816.79 ha-1).
Table4. Comparison of different harvesting and threshing techniques
Manual plus Reaper plus Combine
Charges
thresher thresher harvester
Expenditures
Harvesting/bundling/heaping 7030 5866 -
Threshing with thresher 11285 11340 -
Harvesting/ threshing with combine - - 4916
Wheat straw chopper - - 6674
Total expenditures 18315 17206 11590
Income
Wheat grains 112845 113397 114573
Wheat straw 18653 18653 13057
Total income 131498 132050 127630
Net income 113173 114844 116040
Additional benefit of combine over manual plus thresher - - +2867
Additional benefit of combine over reaper plus thresher - - +1196
Manual harvesting/bundling/heaping 296 kg ha-1
Reaper harvesting/bundling/heaping 247 kg ha-1
Threshing with thresher 4 kg/40 kg wheat
Harvesting/threshing with combine 207 kg ha-1
Straw chopper 281 kg ha-1
Price of wheat grains Rs. 23.75 kg-1
Price of wheat straw Rs. 3.75 kg-1

25 International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015

 Muhammad Sattar et al. “Grain Losses of Wheat as Affected by Different Harvesting and Threshing
Techniques”
REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad, F., M.R. Khan and M. Ahmad, 1992. Post-harvest food grain losses and their
containment. Pak. Entomol. 14(1-2):104-112.
[2] AMRI, 1987. Comparative study of different methods of wheat harvesting and threshing in the
Punjab Province. Report.
[3] Anonymous, 2011-12. Economic Survey of Pakistan, Government of Pakistan, Finance Division,
Economic Wing, Islamabad.
[4] Bala, B.K., M.D. Hussain, S.M. Saif and M.I. H,ussain, 1980. Effect of moisture content on
quantitative and qualitative losses in wheat. Agri. Mech. In Asia, Africa and Latin
America.11(2):69-71.
[5] Basavaraja, H., S.B. Mahajanashetti and N.C. Udagatti, 2007. Economic analysis of post-harvest
losses in food grains in India: A case study of Karnatka. Agri. Eco. Res. Rev. 20(1):117-126.
[6] Begum, E.A., M.I. Hossain and E. Papanagiotou, 2012. Economic analysis of post-harvest losses
in food grains for strengthening food security in northern regions of Bangladesh. IJAR-BAE.
1(3):56-65.
[7] Bukhari, S.J., J.M. Baloch and F.M. Rattar, 1983. Losses in wheat harvesting and threshing.
Agri. Mech. In Asia, Africa and Latin America. 14(4):61-67.
[8] Chaudhry, M.A., 1979. Wheat losses at the threshing and winnowing stages. J. Agri. Mech. In
Asia, Africa and Latin America. 10(4): 67-70.
[9] Chaudhry, M.A., 1982. Food grain losses at farm level in Pakistan. Vol. I. Department of
Agricultural Marketing. Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad.
[10] Ibupoto, K.A., S.B. Bukhari, G.H. Jamro and F.M. Rattar, 1991. Field grain losses to wheat by
conventional harvest and post-harvest methods. Pak. J. Agric. Res. 12(3):153-157.
[11] Iqbal, M., G.S. Sheikh and J.K. Sial, 1980. Harvesting and threshing losses of wheat with
mechanical and conventional methods. Agri. Mech. In Asia (Japan). 11(3):66-70.
[12] Mirasi, A., M.A., Asoodar and A. Abdeshahi, 2013. The effects of combine type and wheat
variety on losses harvesting in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province (Iran). Int. J. Agri. Crop Sci.
5(1):63-68.
[13] Pawar, C.S., N.A. Shirsat and S.V. Pathak, 2008. Performance evaluation of combine harvester
and combination of self propelled vertical conveyor reaper with thresher for wheat
harvesting.Ag. Update, 3(1&2):123-126.
[14] Razzaq, A., B.C. Ahmad and C.B.A. Sabir, 1992.A comparative study of partial vs complete
mechanized harvesting and threshing of wheat. Agri. Mech. In Asia, Africa and Latin America.
23(1):42-44.
[15] Shamabadi, Z., 2012. Measurement the wheat losses in harvesting stage. Int. J. Agri. Crop Sci.
4(23):1797-1802.
[16] Singh, G., D.G. Clough and A.P. Chaudhry, 1988. Performance evaluation of mechanical reapers
in Pakistan. Agri. Mech. In Asia, Africa and Latin America. 19(3):47-52.
[17] Sukhbir, S., D.K. Vatsa and M.K. Verma, 2007. Feasibility and performance evaluation of power
tiller operated reaper in hills of Himachal Pradesh. Agri. Engg. Today. 31(2):6-10.
[18] Zafarullah, M., 1985. Feasibility report of Kubota power reaper AR-120. Test report FMI/TSQ-
2/85, Agricultural Farm Machinery Institute Testing Sub-Station, Agri. Engg. Deptt., Quetta,
Balochistan.

International Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry V2 ● I6 ● June 2015 26