COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL HARVESTING OF TEA

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author KANTHI, G.M.P.
dc.date.accessioned 2021-08-17T06:51:54Z
dc.date.available 2021-08-17T06:51:54Z
dc.date.issued 2013
dc.identifier.other UWU/TEA/09/0021
dc.identifier.uri http://www.erepo.lib.uwu.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/123456789/6936/UWULD%20TEA%2009%200021-03052019131946.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
dc.description.abstract The purpose of this study was focused on the evaluation,of mechanical tea harvesting strategies versus manual tea harvesting strategies to provide sensible information for early management decisions concerning mechanical harvesting. This was accomplished through an economic comparison of mechanical and manual harvesting of tea in the Uva region. Consideration was given to the economic and quality aspects of mechanical tea harvesting upon both growers and processors. Two types of mechanical harvesters (TRI Selective tea harvester-shear, Battery charged machine harvester) were evaluated in contrast to the manual harvesting. Experimental design was the RCBD design that followed 3 treatments, 3 replicates and 3blocks.Independent variable was the method of harvesting. Profitability of each method was reviewed by concerning the various aspects of output including the indicators for productivity and quality. Those dependent variables are the yield (Kg Ha-iRound-1), Acceptable flush (%), Harvesting capacity (Ha Day-lLabour-1), Productivity (Kg Day-lLabour-1), Cost component 01 (Cost Ha-iRound-1), Cost component 02(Cost GUI). Quality of harvested green leaves was monitored by concentrating on harvesting policies and shoot growth pattern. Result of General Linier Model was indicated that, productivity and harvesting capacity were much higher at machine harvesting' in compare to other two approaches where acceptable flush% was much lower at machine harvesting. Manual harvesting and shear harvesting had an approximately equal and greater yield component where it was much lower in machine harvesting. And also continuous machine harvesting was leading a continuous decline of yield at the later part of plucking rounds. Cost component 02 was much lower in shear harvesting where cost component 01 was much lower at machine harvesting. Machine harvesting was lead the lack of maintenance in plucking policies, extended plucking rounds and low growth rate of shoots where it was comparatively in a superior level at shear but not more than manual harvesting. Therefore the shear harvesting shows more benefits which concentrating on quality output and economic sustainability towards the better harvesting approach that critically addressed the current scenario in tea plantations. Key words: Plucking round, Harvesting, Shoot, Yield, Cost en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher Uva Wellassa University of Sri Lanka en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries ;UWU/TEA/09/0021
dc.subject Tea Technology and Value Addition Degree Programme ( TEA) en_US
dc.title COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MECHANICAL AND MANUAL HARVESTING OF TEA en_US
dc.title.alternative Research Article – TEA 2013 en_US
dc.type Thesis en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search UWU eRepository


Browse

My Account