Machine and manual working actions for different manure removing technologies
Resumo
Technologies for the removal of manure from cowsheds and paddocks have been investigated by video recording with the following timing and estimation of absolute and specific costs of working actions, time and resources. The comparative estimation of different technologies for manure removing was performed: by delta-scraper equipment from a manure passage; by wheeled tractor with a bulldozer attachment from a manure passage; by bulldozer from a cowshed for housing on deep litter; by wheeled tractor with frontal loader attachment from a cowshed for housing on deep litter; by perimeter gutter cleaner in tie-stall cowshed; by bulldozer from the big paddock outdoor; manually from small paddock with replaceable litter in a cowshed on a pile near the feed passage. It was established that the influences of the method of manure removing on the specific costs of working actions, time and resources per 1 centner of removed manure are significant (p<0.001 for the vast majority of these final characteristics) The measures of influence η2 are within the range from 0.279 to 0.789. The mechanized removing of manure from the manure passage using a delta-scraper in the cowshed with free-stall housing is the most ergonomical among the methods studied. This equipment works at least semi-automatic and performs on average only 0.92 working actions with a duration of 155.1 s for the removing of 1 centner of manure, which worth around 1.08 UAH. Its functioning is characterized by a complete lack of working actions of adaptive type, while the remaining methods of manure removing require at least a quarter of such hard-to-perform and long actions. The accompanying manual labor actions of the personnel for cleaning of boxes from manure at manure removing by a delta scraper or a tractor with a bulldozer attachment are 10.33 labor actions with a total duration of 12.44 s per 1 cow per day. The removal of manure by the perimeter gutter cleaner has the worst (except the fully manual method) ratio between the number of mechanized and manual working actions – 558 manual actions per each machine action.
Referências
AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL HEALTH AND SAFETY. Ergonomics and Manual Handling on Farms. Sydney: AgHealth, 2019. n.6. https://sydney.edu.au/medicine/aghealth/uploaded/fs_docs/guidance/6.%20Ergonomics.pdf
BENTLEY J.; TRANEL. L. Calculating manure's price tag. Hoard's Dairyman. Cropsand Forages, v. 7, 2015. https://hoards.com/article-16269-calculating-manures-price-tag.html
GOLUB, G.; LUKACH V.; IKALCHYK M.; TESLIUK V.; CHUBA V. Experimental study into energy consumption of the manure removal processes using scraper units. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies. v. 4, 2018. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.139490
GROBORZ A.; JULISZEWSKI T. Comparison of farmers workload by manual and mechanical tasks on family farms. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, v. 20, p. 356-360, 2013. http://www.aaem.pl/pdf-71942-9169?filename=Comparison%20of%20farmers.pdf
LÄPPLE, D.; HENNESSY T.; O'DONOVAN M. Extended grazing: A detailed analysis of Irish dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science, v.95, p. 188-195, 2012. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4512
LENDELOVÁ, J.; ŽITŇÁK, M.; BOŠANSKÝ, M.; ŠIMKO, M.; PITERKA, P. Testing of property changes in recycled bedding for dairy cows. Research in Agricultural Engineering, v.62, p.44-52, 2016. https://doi.org/10.17221/45/2016-RAE
MALOMO, G.A.; MADUGU, A. S.; BOLU, S.A. Sustainable animal manure management strategies and practices. Agricultural Waste and Residues, (Chapter 8), 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.78645
MANYI-LOH, C.E.; MAMPHWELI, S.N.; MEYER, E.L.; MAKAKA, G.; SIMON, M.; OKOH, A.I. An Overview of the Control of Bacterial Pathogens in Cattle Manure. International journal of environmental research and public health, v.13, 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13090843
MOUDRÝ, J. JR.; MOUDRÝ, J. Environmental aspects of organic farming. Organic Agriculture Towards Sustainability, InTech, p.05-07, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5772/58298
NIU, S.; KOGI, K. Ergonomic checkpoints in agriculture: Practical and easy-to-implement solutions for improving safety, health and working conditions in agriculture. 2 ed. Geneva: International Labour Office, International Ergonomics Association, 2014. 262 p. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_protect/---protrav/---safework/documents/instructionalmaterial/wcms_176923.pdf
PISKUN, V.I. Udaleniye i obrabotka stokov pri promyshlennom proizvodstve produktov zhivotnovodstva. Kharkov: Novoye slovo, 2007. 292 p.
SHABLIA, V.P. Comparative assessment of feed preparation technologies for Ukrainian breeds of dairy cows. Boletim de Indústria Animal, v. 75, p.1-10, 2018. https://doi.org/10.17523/bia.2018.v75.e1424
SHABLIA, V.P. Erhonomichni ta etolohichni metody otsinky tekhnolohiy pryhotuvannya ta rozdachi kormiv. Naukovo-tekhnichnyy byuleten' Instytutu tvarynnytstva NAAN Ukrayiny, v.109, p.170-181, 2013. http://www.irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/Ntb_2013_109(2)__38.pdf
SHABLIA, V.P. Osoblyvosti erhonomichnoyi y etolohichnoyi otsinky tekhnolohichnykh protsesiv vydalennya hnoyu ta vnesennya pidstylky. Visnyk Sumskoho natsionalnoho ahrarnoho universytetu, v.2/1. Sumy, p. 187-192, 2014. http://visnyk.snau.edu.ua/sample/files/snau_2014_2_1_24_tvar/JRN/47.pdf
SINDHÖJ, E.; RODHE, L. Examples of Implementing Manure Processing Technology at Farm Level. JTI Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering: Uppsala, Sweden, Report 412, 2013. http://www.ecsab.com/BM_ManureProcessingReport.pdf
SMOLYAR, V. Kompleksno oblashtovana tvarynnytsʹka ferma. Molochnoe delo, v.4, p. 14-17, 2013. https://lib.dsau.dp.ua/book/106449
RUBAN, S.Y.; PEREKRESTOVA, A.V.; SHABLIA, V.P.; BOCHKOV, V.M. Feed conversion efficiency in different groups of dairy cows. Ukrainian Journal of Ecology, v.8, p.124-129, 2018. https://doi.org/10.15421/2018_196
Copyright (c) 2020 Boletim de Indústria Animal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Os autores não serão remunerados pela publicação de trabalhos, pois devem abrir mão de seus direitos autorais em favor deste periódico. Por outro lado, os autores ficam autorizados a publicar seus artigos, simultaneamente, em repositórios da instituição de sua origem, desde que citada a fonte da publicação original seja Boletim de Indústria Animal. A revista se reserva o direito de efetuar, nos originais, alterações de ordem normativa, ortográfica e gramatical, com vistas a manter o padrão culto da língua e a credibilidade do veículo. Respeitará, no entanto, o estilo de escrever dos autores. Alterações, correções ou sugestões de ordem conceitual serão encaminhadas aos autores, quando necessário. Nesses casos, os artigos, depois de adequados, deverão ser submetidos a nova apreciação. As opiniões emitidas pelos autores dos artigos são de sua exclusiva responsabilidade. Todo o conteúdo deste periódico, exceto onde está identificado, está licenciado sob a Licença Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY-NC). A condição BY implica que os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados com base em que só se dão o autor ou licenciante os créditos na forma especificada por estes. A cláusula NC significa que os licenciados podem copiar, distribuir, exibir e executar a obra e fazer trabalhos derivados com base apenas para fins não comerciais.
