Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Sustainability-assessment for farm-machinery

  • Original article
  • Published:
International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Most of the commercially existing harvesters used in present day agricultural applications are costly that the small-scale farmers cannot afford because of financial-constraints. Moreover, due to the non-availability of these harvesters in most of the rural-areas, the farmers find difficulties in accessing or utilizing these machines in their farming purposes. The aim of this study was to fabricate and evaluate a modified smaller, economic, more accessible and effective crop harvester. This research was carried out by an in-depth review of literature followed by discussion with the local-farmers, manufacturers of agricultural tools and machines, which was further followed by consultation with experts from various areas of expertise in order to get information regarding the availability as well as features of existing equipment, and finally a modified harvester was fabricated based on these data. Then, the cutting-efficiency for existing and modified harvester in agricultural field was calculated followed by ergonomic postural analysis of farmers while operating that equipment. The “strength, weaknesses, opportunities as well as threats” analysis was done by considering the existing as well as the modified harvester, which was further followed with the sustainability evaluation of modified harvester by using a designed “Sustainability-Assessment Questionnaire for Farm-Machinery” in view of its environmental, economical and social implications in agriculture in addition to the ergonomic-aspects. The average cutting-efficiency of ‘99.24% and 99.81%’ were obtained by considering three consecutive operations with the existing and modified harvester, respectively.The modified harvester was further found to be suitable with ergonomic aspects and also, more sustainable based on the farmers’ responses. The sustainability of any agriculture related tools and equipment can be achieved through adequate attention on the ergonomic aspects of comfortable-working.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aare AK, Lund S, Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2021) Exploring transitions towards sustainable farming practices through participatory research—the case of Danish farmers’ use of species mixtures. Agric Syst 189:103053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abele E, Sielaff T, Schiffler A, Rothenbücher S (2011) Analyzing energy consumption of machine tool spindle units and identification of potential for improvements of efficiency. Globalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 280–285

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Akadiri PO, Chinyio EA, Olomolaiye PO (2012) Design of a sustainable building: a conceptual framework for implementing sustainability in the building sector. Buildings 2:126–152. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings2020126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriantiatsaholiniaina LA, Kouikoglou VS, Phillis YA (2004) Evaluating strategies for sustainable development: fuzzy logic reasoning and sensitivity analysis. Ecol Econ 48:149–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aung NN, Myo PP, Moe HZ (2014) Field performance evaluation of a power reaper for rice Harvesting. Int J Sci Eng Technol Res 12(3):2631–2636

    Google Scholar 

  • Azkarate A, Ricondo I, PãRez A, Martã Nez P (2011) An assessment method and design support system for designing sustainable machine tools. J Eng Des 22:165–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bappy MM, Ali SM, Kabir G, Paul SK (2019) Supply chain sustainability assessment with Dempster-Shafer evidence theory: Implications in cleaner production. J Clean Prod 237:117771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benos L, Tsaopoulos D, Bochtis D (2020) A review on ergonomics in agriculture. Part I: Manual Op Appl Sci 10:1905

    Google Scholar 

  • Benos L, Tsaopoulos D, Bochtis D (2020) A review on ergonomics in agriculture. Part II: Mech Op Appl Sci 10:3484. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10103484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bochtis DD, Sørensen CGC, Busato P (2014) Advances in agricultural machinery management: a review. Biosyst Eng 126:69–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bordin A, Sartori S, Bruschi S, Ghiotti A (2017) Experimental investigation on the feasibility of dry and cryogenic machining as sustainable strategies when turning ti6al4v produced by additive manufacturing. J Clean Prod 142:4142–4151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bull JW, Jobstvogt N, Böhnke-Henrichs A, Mascarenhas A, Sitas N, Baulcomb C, Lambini CK, Rawlins M, Baral H, Zähringer J, Carter-Silk E, Balzan MV, Kenter JO, Häyhä T, Petz K, Koss R (2016) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats: a SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework. Ecosyst Serv 17:99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chavan PB, Patil DK, Dhondge DS (2015) Design and development of manually operated reaper. IOSR J Mech Civil Eng 12(3):15–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetan GS, Rao PV (2019) Comparison between sustainable cryogenic techniques and nano-MQL cooling mode in turning of nickel-based alloy. J Clean Prod 231:1036–1039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • da Costa LG, Ferreira JCE, Kumar V, Garza-Reyes JA (2020) Benchmarking of sustainability to assess practices and performances of the management of the end of life cycle of electronic products: a study of Brazilian manufacturing companies. Clean Technol Environ Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-01947-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daum T, Adegbola YP, Kamau G et al (2020) Perceived effects of farm tractors in four African countries, highlighted by participatory impact diagrams. Agron Sustain Dev 40(47):2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00651-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DFID, Department for International Development-UK (2003) Sustainable agriculture. Key sheet. Retrieved on March 16 2018 from http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odiassets/publications-opinion-files/3143.pdf

  • Drexhage J, Murphy D (2010) Sustainable development: from Brundtland to Rio 2012. Background Paper for the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability, United Nations, New York. Retrieved on April 10 2018 from http://www.un.org/wcm/webdav/site/climatechange/shared/gsp/docs/GSP1-6_Background%20on%20Sustainable%20Devt.pdf

  • Eisele C, Schrems S, Abele E (2011) Energy-efficient machine tools through simulation in the design process. globalized solutions for sustainability in manufacturing. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 258–262

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Farouk SM, Ziauddin ATM, Ahmed S (2007) Agricultural mechanization policies and strategies for employment generation and poverty alleviation in rural areas of Bangladesh. Proceedings of the national workshop on strengthening agricultural mechanization: policies and implementation strategies in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council, Framgate, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

  • Fathallah FA (2010) Musculoskeletal disorders in labor-intensive agriculture. Appl Erg 41:738–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng C, Huang S (2020) The analysis of key technologies for sustainable machine tools design. Appl Sci 10:731. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiksel J, Eason T, Frederickson H (2012) A framework for sustainability indicators at EPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, USA.

  • Gasso V, Oudshoorn FW, De Olde E, Sørensen CAG (2015) Generic sustainability assessment themes and the role of context: the case of Danish maize for German biogas. Ecol Indic 49:143–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaviglio A, Bertocchi M, Demartini E (2017) A tool for the sustainability assessment of farms: selection, adaptation and use of indicators for an italian case study. Resources 6:60. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6040060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giasin K, Ayvar-Soberanis S, Hodzic A (2016) Evaluation of cryogenic cooling and minimum quantity lubrication effects on machining GLARE laminates using design of experiments. J Clean Prod 135:533–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grguraš D, Sterle L, Krajnik P, Pušavec P (2019) A novel cryogenic machining concept based on a lubricated liquid carbon dioxide. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 145:103456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati A, Juneja R (2020) Farm mechanization in Indian agriculture with focus on tractors, ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy, No. 297, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF), Bonn.

  • Haslam R, Waterson P (2013) Ergonomics and sustainability. Ergonomics 56(3):343–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2013.786555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatefi SM (2018) Strategic planning of urban transportation system based on sustainable development dimensions using an integrated SWOT and fuzzy COPRAS approach. Global J Environ Sci Manag 4(1):99–112. https://doi.org/10.22034/gjesm.2018.04.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hondo H (2005) Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy 30:2042–2056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain MA, Hoque MA, Wohab MA, Miah MAM, Hassan MS (2015) Technical and economic performance of combined harvester in farmers’ field. Bangladesh J Agril Res 40(2):291–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu S, Liu F, He Y, Peng B (2010) Characteristics of additional load losses of spindle system of machine tools. J Adv Mech Des Syst Manuf. 4:1221–1233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt D (1995) Farm power and machinery management, cost determination, 9th edn. Iowa State University Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Irfan M, Hassan M, Hassan N (2018) Unravelling the fuzzy effect of economic, social and environmental sustainability on the corporate reputation of public-sector organizations: a case study of Pakistan. Sustainability 10:769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John G, Clements-Croome D, Jeronimidis G (2005) Sustainable building solutions: a review of lessons from natural world. Build Environ 40:319–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joshi SK, Phil M (2002) Rice field work and the occupational hazards. Occup Med 4:111–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Kar SK, Dhara PC (2007) An evaluation of musculoskeletal disorder and socioeconomic status of farmers in West Bengal India. Nepal Med Coll J 9:245–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirkhorn SR, Earle-Richardson G, Banks RJ (2010) Ergonomic risks and musculoskeletal disorders in production agriculture: Recommendations for effective research to practice. J Agromed 15:281–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CJ, Belis TT, Kuo TC (2019) Ergonomics-based factors or criteria for the evaluation of sustainable product manufacturing. Sustainability 11:4955. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mia M, Gupta MK, Lozano JA, Carou D, Pimenov DY, Królczyk G, Khan AM, Dhar NR (2019) Multi-objective optimization and life cycle assessment of eco-friendly cryogenic n2 assisted turning of Ti–6Al–4V. J. Clean Prod 210:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller BJ, Fathallah FA (2006) The effects of a stooped work task on the muscle activity and kinematics of the lower back. Proc Hum Factors Erg Soc Annu Meet 50:1284–1288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Chauhan H, Sahoo AK (2021) An analysis of safety practices of farmers in Odisha (India) for sustainable agriculture. Int J Syst Dyn Appl 10(1):48–64. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJSDA.2021010104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Satapathy S (2019) An integrated mcdm and ergonomic approach for agricultural sectors of Odisha in India: a critical analysis for farming sustainability. In: Chatterjee P, Yazdani M, Chakraborty S, Panchal D, Bhattacharyya S (eds) Advanced multi-criteria decision making for addressing complex sustainability issues. IGI Global, USA, pp 181–221

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Satapathy S (2019) An assessment and analysis of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) of Odisha farmers in India. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10(4):644–660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00793-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Satapathy S (2019) Ergonomic risk assessment of farmers in Odisha (India). Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 10(5):1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-019-00842-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra D, Satapathy S (2021) Technology adoption to reduce the harvesting losses and wastes in agriculture. Clean Techn Environ Policy 23(7):1947–1963. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02075-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra R, Singh YP, Mishra YD, Singh S, Singh H (2013) Dissemination of improved sickles for female agriculture workers for crop harvesting. J Multidiscip Adv Res 2(1):118–123

    Google Scholar 

  • MoA (2009) National agriculture policy (Draft-5). Ministry of Agriculture, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Shegun Bagicha, Dhaka-1000.

  • Morgan LJ, Mansfield NJ (2014) A survey of expert opinion on the effects of occupational exposures to trunk rotation and whole-body vibration. Ergonomics 57:563–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulyana T, Rahim EA, Md Yahaya SN (2017) The influence of cryogenic supercritical carbon dioxide cooling on tool wear during machining high thermal conductivity steel. J Clean Prod 164:950–962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naeini HS (2020) Ergonomics on the context of sustainability: a new approach on quality of life. Int J Architect Eng Urban Plan 30(2):265–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Noby MdM, Hasan MdK, Ali MdR, Saha CK, Alam MdM, Hossain MdM (2018) Performance evaluation of modified BAU self-propelled reaper for paddy. J Bangladesh Agril Univ 16(2):171–177. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbau.v16i2.37956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz O, Castells F, Sonnemann G (2009) Sustainability in the construction industry: a review of recent developments based on LCA. Constr Build Mater 23:28–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz O, Pasqualino JC, Castells F (2010) Environmental performance of construction waste: comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia Spain. Waste Manag 30:646–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radjiyev A, Qiu H, Xiong S, Nam K (2015) Ergonomics and sustainable development in the past two decades (1992–2011): research trends and how ergonomics can contribute to sustainable development. Appl Ergon 46:67–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satyasai KJS, Balanarayana M (2018) Can mechanization in agriculture help achieving sustainable development goals? Agric Econ Res Rev 31:147–156. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0279.2018.00030.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sev A (2009) How can the construction industry contribute to sustainable development? A conceptual framework. Sustain Dev 17:161–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharghi T, Sedighi H, Eftekhari AR (2010) Effective factors in achieving sustainable agriculture. Am J Agri Biol Sci 5(2):235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shefat SHT, Rahman A, Chowdhury MdA, Uddin MdN (2018) Strength, weakness, opportunities and threat analysis of integrated aqua-farming in Bangladesh. Acta Sci Agric 2(12):112–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims B, Kienzle J (2017) Sustainable agricultural mechanization for smallholders: What is it and how can we implement it? Agriculture 7:50. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture7060050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh G, Gill SS, Dogra M (2017) Techno-economic analysis of blanking punch life improvement by environment friendly cryogenic treatment. J Clean Prod 143:1060–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh G, Tewari VK, Hota S, Gupta C (2019) Ergonomic assessment of self-propelled machinery seats for agricultural workers. J Ergonomics 9:251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soheili-Fard F, Rahbar A, Marzban A (2017) Ergonomic investigation of workers in tea factories using REBA and OWAS methods-case study: (Langroud region, Guilan, Iran). Agric Eng Int: CIGR J 19(3):112–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Sulewski P, Kłoczko-Gajewska A, Sroka W (2018) Relations between agri-environmental, economic and social dimensions of farms’ sustainability. Sustainability 10:4629. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taha Z, Rostam S (2012) A hybrid fuzzy AHP-PROMETHEE decision support system for machine tool selection in flexible manufacturing cell. J Intell Manuf 23:2137–2149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao Y, Li H, Wen Z, Chen H, Xu W, Evans S (2019) A hybrid scenario analysis for the selection of future greenhouse gas emissions reduction technologies in China’s oil and gas industry. J Clean Prod 223:14–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tugrul B, Cimen S (2016) Importance of corporate governance for energy in sustainable development and evaluation with quantitative SWOT analysis. Acta Phys Polon A 130(1):87–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlmann E, Lang KD, Prasol L, Thom S, Peukert B (2017) Sustainable solutions for machine tools. In: Stark R, Seliger G, Bonvoisin J (eds) Sustainable manufacturing. Springer International Publishing, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Verma S, Gupta S, Pachauri CP (2016) Superiority of the Naveen serrated sickle over the traditional sickle for wheat harvesting. Int J Farm Sci 6(1):214–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Smith C (1998) Dimensions of Sustainability. Discussion Paper, International Institute of Ecological Economics: Solomons, MD, USA.

  • Wang PJ, Liu Y, Ong SK, Nee AYC (2014) Modular design of machine tools to facilitate design for disassembly and remanufacturing. Proced CIRP 15:443–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wei Y, Hua Z, Zhi-Gang J, Hon KKB (2018) A new multi-source and dynamic energy modeling method for machine tools. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95:4485–4495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wustenberghs H, Coteur I, Debruyne L, Marchand F (2015) Survey of sustainability assessment methods. TempAg Pilot Activity 1.1.1. Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Merelbeke, Belgium.

  • Yoon HS, Kim ES, Kim MS, Lee JY, Lee GB, Ahn SH (2015) Towards greener machine tools—A review on energy saving strategies and technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 48:870–891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2014) Energy efficiency techniques in machining process: a review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:1123–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the farmers who participated in this survey.

Funding

There was no funding for carrying out this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sage University, Indore, Madhyapradesh, India

    Debesh Mishra

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

    Suchismita Satapathy

Authors
  1. Debesh Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suchismita Satapathy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

DM collected, analyzed and interpreted all the data related to this study, and Dr. SS performed a major contribution in writing the manuscript. Both the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suchismita Satapathy.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare of having no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All studies were conducted in accordance with principles for human experimentation as defined in the declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent after explaining the nature of investigation was obtained from each participant in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mishra, D., Satapathy, S. Sustainability-assessment for farm-machinery. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 13, 2165–2174 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-022-01622-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-022-01622-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation