2.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In view of the objectives of the present investigation, it was necessary to review the literature
on the methods that were used in the past as well as that are presently in use for shelling of
maize. The literature reviewed on methods of threshing by different equipment is presented in
the following paragraphs of this chapter.

1. Different shelling methods

2. Performance of shellers
3. Cost economics of shellers

2.1. Different shelling methods

Sachin Pathak (2005) reported about a shelling machine consisting of shelling unit, reduction
unit (worm and worm gear type) and singlephase 1-hp electric motor. The power from lectric
motor was transmitted to the worm shaft and then from gear shaft to the shelling unit shaft.
The developed power operated maize sheller was tested in laboratory as well as operations at
load for short durations. The analysis of data collected during the short duration tests revealed
that the machine was stable and strong and its speed of operation of 60 rpm was quite
satisfactory. The shelling capacity of the machine was 100.25 kg grains/h with shelling
efficiency of 99.95 % and cleaning efficiency of 99.37%. The breakage percentage was 0.406
which was well within the prescribed limit for such machines. The labour requirement was
reduced by 89.60 % using this machine.

Jiang Tiandi et al. (2006) reported the use of the pedal-in rural thresher drive mechanism for
the study, presented the best form of drive mechanism and the design requirements, made
with the conventional design theory analysis and design calculations, and optimized design,
and achieved satisfactory results. This method is also applicable to human pedal power as the
driving force of any kind of mechanical power transfer.
Nkakini et al. (2007) reported that, the sheller used abrasion between a rotating shelling-disc
and stationary concave compartment to achieve the stripping. A manually-operated handle
was used to rotate two shafts, one of which translated rotational motion to linear motion of
a slider crank. The slider pushed the maize cobs into the sheller continually one after another.
Though manually operated, the sheller provided a continuous flow, the kernels being
collected via a chute.
Anon (2008) reported that no hand operated maize dehuskersheller was available that could
be successfully operated by farm women. This hand operated maize dehusker-sheller would
also suffice the need of such farmers having less area under maize cultivation in plain and
hilly regions.
Danfulani (2009) carried out an investigation on the basic design of a maize shelling
machine. He used a rotating shaft with threshing tooth on the surface to provide the shelling
forces required. The machine was designed to shell 5000 kg of maize per day. The prime
mover selected was a diesel engine with a capacity of 5.0 hp which could easily be operated
by rural dwellers. The machine was constructed using readily available materials coupled
with minimum cost without affecting the quality of its output.
Hassan et al. (2009) fabricated maize sheller from locally available materials and its cost was
very low and affordable. This machine was constructed to shell maize and separate the cobs
from the grains. Its threshing efficiency was 99.2% and breakage losses were very
insignificant.
Tastra (2009) reported about the development of a new power sheller that could reduce grain
damage and broken corncobs. The basic principle of this new mchine was the reduction of the
normal stress during the shelling process by developing a concave system that could vibrate
without causing great impact on the maize grain.

Lee Sum-ping et al. (2010) reported about the design of a differential-type maize seed
thresher to reduce mechanical damage during threshing. The aircraft broke the previous
traditional method of combat-style threshing that using differential principle, to have ordered
the composite ear movement to ensure orderly grain off to achieve the low-impact, high
results threshing, crushing rate, not off the net rate and corncob intact conducted a
performance test on the whole, the results show that the threshing machine to meet during the
course of maize seeds breakage, is not off the net rate of technical specifications.

2.2. Performance of shellers

Olaoye (2002) reported that some crop parameters and machine variables are known to
influence the performance of threshers. Each or combination of these parameters has
influencing effects on the threshability and grain damage. He noted that the influence of both
threshability and grain damage translate to measurable grain losses if not properly managed.
Mady (2004) reported that, A power–operate corn sheller was constructed to investigate the
effect of corn moisture content, concave clearance and cylinder rotating speed on the broken
and whole corn kernels percentages, total losses percentage as well as shelling efficiency
and sheller productivity (kg/h).
Agrawal and Satapathy (2006) reported that, the outer cover of the conventional metallic
maize sheller was replaced by its plastic equivalent without changing the inside fins. This
replacement reduced its weight by 50.5%. Experiments were carried out on four subjects (2
male and 2 female) agricultural workers of Meghalaya for ergonomically performance
evaluation of the two different types of maize shellers.

Swapan et al. (2007) compared manual shelling with power operated maize sheller. The
results indicated that power operated maize shellers look like a wise investment (5-8 acres for
25% internal rate of return or IRR). However, it makes economic sense to operate shellers at
higher capacities, and along with the high capital cost (Tk1 18,000 – 22,000) to save large
numbers of labours to farmers and maize traders. Therefore, power operated maize sheller
can able to overcome the shortage of expensive labour during peak harvesting season.
Nkakini et al. (2007) reported that manually operated sheller can provide a continuous flow
at a speed of 60 rpm. A shelling effectiveness of 67% was achieved, with a low kernel-
breakage factor of 0.090 and a throughput of 6.82 kg/h.
Singh (2008) developed a 5.5 kW motor operated whole crop maize thresher using spike
tooth cylinder at MPUAT, Udaipur. This machine performed dehusking-shelling the maize
cob and simultaneously stalk was converted to chaff.
He Xiaopeng LIU and Master Jian (2008) in order to solve our longstanding existence of
large amount of seed corn threshing loss issues, the paper introduces a principle of using
squeeze twist, wide plate gear, low speed threshing cylinder, concave plate grid format, the
design method of the corn sheller. The series is characterized by thresher off the net rate, low
breakage; adapt corn grain moisture content of 13% to 20% range, both for normal corn
threshing, but also for seed corn threshing. The paper also describes the design of the corn
sheller during the initial summarize some of the laws and awareness.
Shu-guo CHE Gang WAN Lin (2009) as observed that 5TY-10A is a type of corn seed
thresher and corn seed processing technology supporting sets of key equipment. The machine
uses screw gear drum threshing device, cob throwing device and the early spring aspirated
winnowing device, can be completed corn kinds of core separation, crushing rate and
entrainment losses were lower than the national standard. Production experiments showed
that the most suitable for maize ear moisture content of 17% to 20% of the threshing,
threshing corn ear drum should be used for low speed, the most appropriate roller
speed 540rpm, the grain crushing rate was controlled at 1%, the indicators fully meet the
technical requirements of maize grain threshing.
Lee Sum-ping and Ma Ful (2009) Seed threshing in order to reduce mechanical damage
during the design of a differential-type maize seed thresher. The aircraft broke the previous
traditional method of combatstyle threshing, threshing using differential principle, to have
ordered the combined movement of the ear to ensure the orderly grain off, to achieve
a low-impact, high effect of threshing, crushing rate, not off .
Singh et al. (2010) conducted an experiment to minimize the drudgery of farm women in
maize shelling. A tubular maize sheller was introduced and tested on farm women. The
results revealed that the shelling efficiency of tubular maize sheller was 26 kg/h as compared
to hand shelling by which they only could shell 13 kg/h. and about 43% saving in cardiac cost
of workers per unit of output in comparison to the hand shelling

3 Cost economics of shellers

Akubuo (2002) reported that, manual shelling of maize is a timeconsuming and tedious
operation. The few existing mechanized shellers on Nigerian farms are imported and out of
reach of the rural peasant farmers that are characterized by small holdings and low income.
The power requirement of such shellers is high and hence, the prime mover is very
expensive. The work reported here is on the performance evaluation of a locally fabricated
maize sheller. Cob breakup, shelling efficiency, kernel damage and separation loss were
measured.
Basappa et al. (2003) conducted study during in Karnataka for estimating post-harvest loss in
maize at different stages at farm level. It is selected based on maximum area under maize
crop that is grown largely in Davanagere and Belgaum. The post harvest loss at farm level
was estimated to be 3.02 kg per quintal. The share of harvesting loss was maximum. About
0.68 kg of maize was lost per quintal at the storage level. About 0.49 kg per quintal was lost
at the drayage level. Where as at transportation, threshing, packaging and cleaning was 0.44
kg per quintal, 0.34 kg per quintal, 0.15 kg per quintal, and 0.10 kg per quintal respectively.
Olaoye (2004) found that in appropriate threshing conditions in a manual threshing process
reduces the grain output with respect to excessive and high energy input. In a mechanical
threshing process the effect of the inappropriate operating conditions does not only affect the
effective recovery of the grains from the other plant materials but it also leads to high grain
loss. Grains loss is measured in term of the damage to the grain kernel, loss to the mechanical
elements and non germinability of the seeds.

Hussain et al. (2009) reported that the horizontal maize cob sheller, very usefull to the
farmers of hilly region, was evaluated for three varities, namely, local collection Kashmir,
north decota pop-1 and composite almora to study the different parameters like shelling
capacity (kg/h), labour requirement (manhours), shelling efficiency (%), grain recovery (%)
and grain damage (%), the results were compared with traditional methods of maize cob
shelling (beating by sticks and hand rubbing). When the shelling capacity and labour
requirement were concerned, the horizontal maize cob sheller was significantly superior
over both traditional methods. Regarding shelling efficiency, the difference between
mechanical maize cob shelling and shelling by hand rubbing was found to be non-significant.