On-Farm Rice Drying Energy Use
Lalit R. Verma, Lyle Jacobsen
MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
A N on-farm rice drying facility in southwest Louisiana
was monitored for six years to determine the total
energy used in 63 rice drying tests. Gas and electric
meters were installed on four 8.23 m diameter bins with
11.2 kW centrifugal fans and natural gas burners. About
90% of the total energy was required in heating the
ambient air to 38°C during drying. No adverse effect on
rice quality was observed at this drying temperature.
INTRODUCTION
Large amounts of energy are used to dry rice on
Louisiana farms. Louisiana produces about 15 % of the
U . S . rice crop and a third of the rice farmers in the state
use on-farm drying. Drying accounts for 7.7 % of the
total energy required for rice production in Louisiana
(Rutger and Grant, 1979).
Drying rough rice is different from drying some other
crops as the rice kernel is covered with husk during
drying. The weather conditions in rice growing areas are
also different and it is critical not to overheat the rice
grain during drying to preserve milling quality.
Determining the energy used in drying rice and
investigating ways to reduce the energy input could
benefit the rice industry and farmers.
The energy requirements in fixed bed and crossflow
rice driers were 3.96 MJ and 5.31 MJ/kg of water
removed, respectively (Singh et al., 1981). High air
temperature and low air flow increased the energy
efficiency of a concurrent flow rice drying simulation
whereas the grain flow had only a marginal effect
(Walker and Bakker-Arkema, 1978).
A study by Velupillai (1977) reported that a kerosene
powered LSU type commercial dryer used 7.9 MJ/kg of
water removed. The energy used in a LSU type model lab
dryer for rice was 16.5 MJ/kg of water removed (Verma
and Thomas, 1981).
Unheated air is recommended by Kunze and
Calderwood (1979) for on-farm rice drying in a storage
bin except during prolonged periods of high humidity.
They suggest heating the air by no more than 7°C. Rice
was dried using solar heated air in round bins by
Calderwood (1979). Drying time and energy
consumption were reduced compared with unheated air
drying with almost no difference in the milling yields of
rice samples.
Article was submitted for publication in November, 1985; reviewed
and approved for publication by the Electrical and Electronic Systems
Div. of ASAE in October, 1986.
The authors are: LALIT R. VERMA, Professor, and LYLE A.
JACOBSEN, Research Associate, Agricultural Engineering Dept.,
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge.
Vol. 3(l):May, 1987 © 1987 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0883-8542/87/0301-0079$02.00
ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE
A study was conducted with the following objectives:
1. To determine the energy used in on-farm drying of
medium and long grain rice.
2. To evaluate the quality of the rice samples dried
on the farm and compare with rice dried in the
laboratory.
3. To evaluate an energy saving device to reduce the
gas heating energy during drying.
PROCEDURE
Energy used in a large on-farm drying operation in
southwest Louisiana was monitored for the 1980 through
1985 drying seasons. The facility is comprised of six large
storage bins four of which were monitored for this study.
Each 8.23 m diameter bin had a perforated floor with an
11.2 kW centrifugal blower (Aerovant model CCD-270-
15XL*), and a natural gas burner to heat the drying air.
Three phase electric utility meters and household gas
meters were used to monitor energy use of the blowers
and burners. An additional electric meter was installed
on the stirring device used in one bin primarily to level
the rice. Stirring was not used during drying.
Operation of the drying facility was not influenced
because of this study. Cooperation of the farmer was
sought in obtaining the necessary information. Gas and
electric meter readings were recorded as soon as the
drying operation began, usually just after a truckload of
rice was emptied into the bin. The date and time when
drying began were recorded as well as the weight and
moisture content of each load to compute the weighted
average moisture and total rice in the bin. Depth of rice
in the bin, airflow and static pressure were calculated
from the amount of rice in the bin and the blower fan
data. Ambient temperature range was recorded for each
drying test.
Drying air was maintained at about 38°C as far as
possible by the farmer. On a typical August day, gas flow
was manually increased at night and cut back when the
sun came out and ambient temperature approached
32.2°C. Whenever a prolonged daytime rain shower
occurred, gas flow was manually increased accordingly to
heat the air in the plenum. A dial type temperature
probe was present in the plenum of each bin.
In 1982, temperature and relative humidity of the
ambient air and the exhaust air from one of the bins were
recorded. This was to determine the drying potential of
the system. Drying potential is defined here as the actual
water removal during drying as compared to the
*Trade names are used solely to provide specific information.
Mention of a trade name does not constitute a warranty by the
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station of the LSU Agricultural
Center of the product nor an endorsement to the exclusion of other
products mentioned.
79
maximum possible, determined from the data and TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF RICE DRYING ENERGY
psychrometric chart. USING GAS MODULATING CONTROL WITH
CONVENTIONAL GAS BURNERS
A gas modulating control valve was installed on the
gas line of one of the drying bins in 1984. This valve Modulating
regulated the gas flow into the burner by monitoring the control
drying demands and ambient conditions and adjusting kj/kg H2O Conventional burners
Year removed kj/kg H2O removed
accordingly. The other drying units were either on or off
and regulated by the operator. 1984 1980 3808 3120 3830
When drying was completed (moisture of 14 to 12% as 2914 4069 3976 2575
determined by the farmer using a Motomco moisture 1866 2291 2529
meter), the final moisture content, date, time, and meter 4510
readings were recorded. A Motomco moisture meter was Averages 2253 3389 3534 3202
also used in the laboratory. A sample of the dried rice
was taken with a probe from the bin for lab analysis of 1985 3495 3912 9850 7976
dockage, test weight, mill yield (total milled white rice) 2369 4411 2989
3056 5644 4242
and head yield (whole rice grains). In 1982, 1983, and
2629
1985 samples of rice were taken from the top and bottom
of the bin to observe the effect on quality of overdrying in Averages 2887 4656 5694 7976
the lower portion of the rice batch. Samples of rice before
drying were obtained in the 1981 through 1983 and 1985
seasons. These were dried in the lab at room (C.V. = 0.255) in 1984 and 2.89 MJ/kg water removed
temperature. These samples were analyzed to determine (C.V. = 0.171) in 1985. All the other bins had average
if bin drying caused any change in rice quality. Natural energy consumptions of 3.41 (C.V. = 0.234) and 5.57
gas energy used was computed at 33.525 MJ/m 3 (900 (C.V. = 0.443) MJ/kg water removed for the same
Btu/ft 3 ) and electricity at 3.6 MJ/kWh. The total energy years, respectively (Table 2). The control valve resulted
used was the sum of these two and was calculated per kg in energy use one-third to one-half less than the
of water removed during drying. consumption without the valve in 1984 and 1985
respectively. The difference was statistically significant
RESULTS at the 0.1 % level. Two tests in 1985 with the
conventional burners resulted in abnormally high energy
The energy used to remove excess moisture from the consumption, possibly due to hurricanes. The energy use
rice is shown in Table 1. The six year average for drying
long and medium grain rice was 3.63 MJ/kg of water
TABLE 3. AVERAGE MILL AND HEAD YIELDS OF
removed. However, large variations were observed from ON-FARM RICE DRYING
year to year. A low energy input of 2.4 MJ/kg water
removed for medium grain rice in 1981 and a high of 4.9 Mill Head Test
Year Tests % M.C. yield yield Dockage weight
MJ/kg water removed for long grain rice in 1985 were (w.b.) (C.V.) (C.V.) kg/m 3
observed. The energy required to heat the ambient air 1980/b 5 12.08 70.4 56.6 3.34 575.8
ranged from 86.5 to 94.8 % of the total energy. (0.018) (0.140)
The drying potential for the system was generally in 1981/1 7 11.1 75.0 66.4 2.4 579.5
(0.012) (0.047)
the range of 40 to 80 % depending on the time of day and 1981/b 9 11.1 74.5 69.4 2.5 591.6
weather conditions. Higher drying potential was (0.011) (0.037)
1982/1 11 12.3 73.9 62.07 2.13 588.7
oberserved for lower ambient temperatures, typically in (0.033) (0.068)
the morning, when the air was higher in humidity but 1982/b 13 11.7 71.74 64.46 2.58 596.3
(0.011) (0.067)
was heated. The average potential was 63 % (C.V. = top 12.12 71.74 62.70 2.03 597.9
0.148). (0.021) (0.113)
bottom 11.47 71.82 65.94 3.09 596.6
Average energy consumption for the bin with the gas (0.017) (0.040)
modulating control was 2.25 MJ/kg water removed 1983/1 10 N.A. 72.15 66.23 2.11 590.7
(0.012) (0.036)
1983/b 11 12.13 72.19 65.39 2.27 586.6
(0.017) (0.054)
top 12.56 71.92 65.68 2.50 586.0
TABLE 1. AVERAGE ENERGY USED TO DRY LONG AND MEDIUM (0.076)
(0.023)
GRAIN RICE. bottom 12.01 72.30 65.91 1.89 592.4
(0.019) (0.073)
Year Grain Tests kj/kg H 2 0 (C.V.) Heating 1984/b 12 12.19 72.98 67.96 2.12 582.4
removed % (0.027) (0.058)
1985/1 9 N.A. 62.55 54.80 3.09 603.7
1980 long 3 2513 (0.158) 92.0 (0.089) (0.103)
medium 3123 94.8 1985/b 13 13.50 70.86 64.80 2.53 599.0
1 — (0.076) (0.105)
1981 long 1 3364 - 91.4
top 14.38 69.85 63.17 2.62 601.7
medium 8 2370 (0.393) 89.0
(0.088) (0.121)
1982 long 4 4120 (0.134) 92.6 bottom 12.61 71.86 66.43 2.44 595.9
medium 9 3996 (0.161) 91.7 (0.062) (0.084)
1983 long 1 3672 - 92.5
medium 10 3956 (0.159) 90.6 Average
1984 long 7 3385 (0.224) 88.3 lab 11.83 70.87 62.54 2.41 591.1
medium 5 2754 (0.371) 86.5 in-bin 12.18 72.16 65.44 2.48 590.2
1985 long 6 4947 (0.532) 88.9 top 13.08 71.13 63.75 2.38 592.7
medium 5 4178 (0.528) 87.1 bottom 12.03 71.98 66.10 2.50 595.1

Average long 22 3780 90.2 Remarks: The / l and /b indicate whether the sample was dried in the laboratory
medium 38 3481 89.6 or on the farm in the bin.
N.A. indicates data not available.

80 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

without these values was 32% lower for the modulating
valve. The large Coefficient of Variation (C.V.) noted
here and in Table 1 reflects the deviation from the mean
of each batch and is due in part to operator decisions
regulating the gas heating and to abnormal ambient
conditions such as extended rain showers and periods of
high humidity.
The results of the milling quality analysis of the rice
samples are given in Table 3. Samples taken from the top
and bottom in 1982, 1983, and 1985 gave the following
average results, respectively: mill yield, 71.13 and 71.98
%; head yield, 63.75 and 66.10 %; dockage, 2.38 and
2.50 %; and test weight, 592.7 and 595.1 kg/m 3 . The
average moisture content for the top and bottom samples
were 13.08 and 12.03 %, respectively. The assumed
overdrying effect due to the depth of the rice in the bin
did not significantly affect the resulting rice milling
quality (p<0.05).
Over the time of the study, the laboratory and on-farm
bin drying showed the following averages, respectively:
mill yield, 70.87 and 72.16 %; head yield, 62.54 and
65.44 %; dockage, 2.41 and 2.48 %; test weight, 591.1
and 590.2 kg/m 3 ; and average moisture content, 11.83
and 12.18 %. The in-bin drying operation did not
adversely affect the rice milling quality and no significant
difference was noted when compared to the samples
dried in the lab (p<0.10). Detailed data on individual
drying tests are presented in Tables 4 through 9 for 1980
to 1985, respectively. These include moisture values, rice
depth, airflow, static pressure, range of ambient
temperatures during each test, quality results and energy
use breakdown.
In drying a tonne of rough rice from 22 % (w.b.) to
13.5 % (w.b.), 98.3 kg of water must be removed. At an
average of 3.75 MJ/kg of water removed for on-farm
drying, it will take 368.63 MJ of energy. If 90 % of this
(331.76 MJ) is from natural gas and 10 % (36.87 MJ)
from electricity, each tonne will require 9.90 m3 of
natural gas and 10.24 kWh of electricity. Considering
gas at $0.21/m 3 ($0.60/100 ft3) and electricity at 8 cents
per kWh, the cost of gas is $2.08 and electricity is $0.82,
a total of $2.90, per tonne of wet rice. Or the energy cost
of drying 1 kg of wet rice from 22 to 13.5% moisture is
0.29 cents.
CONCLUSIONS
The low temperature in-bin drying operation of this
study was an efficient one requiring less than 4.0 MJ/kg
of water removed on the average though variation was
observed from test to test and year to year. A gas
modulating control saved 34% in 1984 and 48% in 1985
of the total rice drying energy. Generally 90% of the total
energy input was used to heat the ambient air. The rice
milling quality was not adversely affected by the in-bin
drying operation nor was there any significant quality
effect due to over dying of rice sampled from the bottom
of a bin. At the prices assumed, the average cost of
drying a tonne of rice from 22 to 13.5% moisture was
$2.90.

TABLE 4. RESULTS OF THE 1980 DRYING TESTS

Start date of test 8-5 8-9 8-15 8-17 8-28

1. Variety Mars Lebonnet Lebonnet Lebonnet Lebonnet

medium long long long long

2. Initial moisture,
% (w.b.) 19.97 20.77 19.98 20.70 21.14

3. Final moisture,
% (w.b.) 13.50 11.20 11.70 10.90 13.10

4. Weight of rice, kg 81,066 81,719 81,086 27,634 118,925

5. Rice depth in bin,, m 2.64 2.66 2.64 0.90 3.87

m^/min
6. Airflow, x 10-3 4.34 4.30 4.34
kg

7. Static pressure,
cm of H2O 12.85 12.90 12.85 —
8. Ambient temperature
range, °C 21-34 22-33 22-34 22-34 18-34

9. Mill yield, % 69.8 70.9 69.1 70.0 72.4

10. Head yield, % 58.4 56.4 48.0 51.4 68.8

11. Dockage, % 1.6 2.6 3.8 5.0 3.7

12. Test weight, kg/m 3 566.4 561.3 — 599.7

13. Energy in drying, kj/kg 0 f H 2°

-Gas 2960 1923 2393 2618
- Electricity 163 149 232 223 307
- Total 3123 2072 2625 2841

-Data not available.

Vol. 3(l):May, 1987

 TABLE 5. RESULTS OF THE 1981 DRYING TESTS

Start date of test 8-1 8-21 8-21 8-26 9-1 9-5 9-6 9-8 9-8

1. Variety Lebonnet Nato Nato Nato Nato Nato Nato Nato Nato
long medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium

2. Initial moisture,
% (w.b.) 20.53 23.08 20.76 21.81 22.22 20.91 20.00 20.31 20.07

3. Final moisture,
% (w.b.) 13.70 14.10 13.30 11.10 12.15 12.50 12.20 12.50 12.30

4. Weight of rice, kg 89,322 64,461 64,216 70,748 64,461 65,481 68,176 67,114 42,171

5. Rice depth in bin, m 2.91 2.10 2.09 2.31 2.10 2.13 2.22 2.19 1.37

m^/min ~
6. Airflow, x 10"J 3.88 5.72 5.75 5.03 5.72 5.62 5.35 5.46 9.65
kg

7. Static pressure,
cm of H2O 13.21 11.81 11.79 12.19 11.81 11.94 12.06 12.01 8.36

8. Ambient temperature
range, C 22-34 20-34 20-34 19-34 23-32 19-32 18-34 15-34 15-34

9. Mill yield, %
- lab dried sample 76.4 73.5 75.3 75.0 75.5 75.3 74.3
- bin dried sample 74.8 73.0 75.5 73.8 75.1 74.9 75.3 74.1 73.8

10. Head yield, %

- lab dried sample 67.7 66.0 69.9 69.4 63.4 61.4 67.2
- bin dried sample 66.4 64.3 69.0 69.2 71.1 71.8 71.1 69.8 71.6

11. Dockage, %
- lab dried sample 3.3 2.3 3.0 1.1 2.4 2.4 2.2
- bin dried sample 2.7 2.2 3.4 1.8 4.1 2.0 3.3 1.4 2.0

12. Test weight, kg/m3

- lab dried sample 579.2 601.3 594.0 586.9 565.8 565.8 563.2
- bin dried sample 584.3 593.3 600.0 587.6 588.8 590.8 580.5 598.8 593.1

13. Energy in drying, kj/kg of H2O

-Gas 3076 1677 4586 1402 1849 2053 2681 2837 2414
-Electricity 288 223 393 140 205 319 349 372 339
-Total 3364 1900 4979 1542 2054 2372 3030 3209 2753

Data not available.

References
1. Calderwood, D. L. 1979. Rice drying with solar heat.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE. 22(6): 1435-1438.
2. Kunze, O. R., and D. L. Calderwood. 1979. Systems for drying
of rice. In: Drying and storage of agricultural crops. C. W. Hall. AVI
Publishing Co., Westport, CT. p. 230.
3. Rutger, J. N., and W. R. Grant. 1979. Energy use in rice
production. In: Handbook of energy utilization in agriculture, edited
by D. Pimental. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL. Pp. 93-98.
4. Singh, R. P., P. K. Chandra and C. A. Zuritz. 1981. Energy
accounting of a rice dryer. ASAE Paper No. 81-6017, ASAE, St.
Joseph, MI 49085.
5. Velupillai, L. 1977. Report on the rice mill complex at
morkeytiya. RPDC No. Rl/77. Rice Processing Development Center,
Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.
6. Verma, L. R., and M. D. Thomas. 1981. Laboratory
measurement of energy use in rice processing. ASAE Paper No.
SWR-81-402, ASAE., St. Joseph, MI, 49085.
7. Walker, L. P., and F. W. Bakker-Arkema. 1978. Energy
efficiency in concurrent flow rice drying. ASAE Paper No. 78-3540,
ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, 49085.

(Tables 6 through 9 follow.

82 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE

 TABLE 6. RESULTS OF 1982 DRYING TESTS

Start date of test 7-30 8-2 8-4 8-5 8-13 8-12 -14 8-19 8-20 8-21 8-26 8-27 8-28
End date of test 8-5 8-9 8-9 8-17 -18 8-23 8-22 8-24 9-1 9-3 8-31

1. Variety Lebonnet Leah Lebonnet Lebonnet Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars Saturn Saturn Saturn
long long long long medium medium medium mediun medium medium medium medium medium

2. Initial moisture
% (w.b.) 21.19 21.19 16.93 21.64 23.0 17.09 21.36 22.31 20.3 19.12

3. Final moisture
% (w.b.) - 13.21 12.22 - 12.22 10.6 - 11.11 12.22 13.67 12.22 15. 10.55

4. Weight of rice, kg 93,168 86,337 77,528 82,336 92,165 81,746 91,276 83,652 39,902 64,338 83,103 84,649 68,801

5. Rice depth, m 3.02 2.80 2.52 2.67 2.99 2.65 2.96 2.72 1.30 2.09 2.70 2.75 2.23
m min
6. A i r f l o w , '
k
x 10-3 & 3.68 4.00 4.55 4.23 3.70 4.23 3.75 4.16 1.43 5.72 4.23 4.13 5.26

7. Static pressure,
cm o f H 2 O 13.41 13.21 12.83 13.00 13.41 13.00 13.36 13.06 7.67 11.86 12.8 12.95 12.04

8. Ambient temperature
range, °C 22-34 21-34 21-34 21-34 21-33 21-33 22-33 21-34 21-34 21-34 19-36 20-36 22-36

9. Mill yield, %
— lab dried sample 73.89 74.3 73.83 73.09 75.80 77.28 75.8 69.7 76.79 70.65 71.79

T 69.75 71.91 70.18 74.14 71.85 70.67 69.44 72.96 71.98 72.56 71.30 73.86
bin dried sample
B 70.55 72.47 71.7 71.17 72.70 71.30 72.92 71.73 73.64 70.78 73.40 69.72

10. Head yield, %

—lab dried sample 65.31 56.1 66.3 59.94 64.26 70.25 64.07 60.48 65.87 64.32 56.92
T 63.51 47.71 57.97 65.67 52.84 62.46 61.66 68.27 69.76 64.63 64.85 73.11
—bin dried sample
B 64.62 64.51 67.04 66.29 60.20 68.89 63.19 67.23 67.25 64.70 .22 69.19

11. Dockage, %
—lab dried sample 2.0 3.3 1.88 1.8 1.7 1.73 1.6 2.38 2.5 2.36 2.2
T 3.27 0.82 2.12 1.73 3.39 2.25 0.9 1.73 0.65 3.88 1.80 1.87
—bin dried sample
B 3.43 3.62 5.79 4.22 1.79 1.85 1.51 4.65 1.67 3.85 3.20 1.54

12. Test weight, kg/m^

—lab dried 600.7 585.7 589.5 555.4 576.7 593.1 601.1 584.4 571.5 619.8 597.9
T 579.9 611.0 588.6 591.: 606.3 583.1 621.7 600.7
—bin dried
B 588.2 594.7 587.0 602.4 599.8 604.3 598.5

13. Energy in drying KJ/kg of H2O

-Gas 3230 4448 4131 3479 4110 3978 4348 4063 4393 3300 2870 3095 2871
-Electric 301 294 272 327 289 361 277 423 345 212 276 476 279
-Total 3531 4742 4403 3806 4399 4339 4625 4486 4738 3512 3146 3571 3150

-Data not available. T — Top sample. B — Bottom sample.

00
TABLE 7. RESULTS OF THE 1 9 8 3 DRYING TESTS.

Start date of test 8-14 8-15 8-11 8-13 8-16 8-19 8-21 8-21 8-24 8-25 9-3
End date of test 8-20 8-15 8-18 8-18 8-24 8-28 8-28 8-31

1. Variety Mars Mars Lebonnet Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars
medium medium long medium medium medium medium medium medium medium medium

2. Initial moisture
% (w. b.)

3. Final moisture
% (w. b.) - - - - 12.17 12.54 - 13.14 -

4. Weight of rice, kg 80,876 79,161 55,706 74,648 42,025 62,931 96,860 99,219 62,224 52,140 32,241

5. Rice depth in bin, m 2.58 2.50 1.79 2.38 1.35 2.00 3.05 3.08 1.96 1.66 1.05
„ .. ~ mJ/min ,-3
6. Airflow, - ~ x 10 4.38 4.50 6.82 4.82 9.76 5.92 3.57 3.48 6.01 7.36

7. Static pressure
cm of H2O 12.70 12.57 10.90 12.37 8.28 11.48 13.44 13.46 11.38 10.54

8. Ambient temperature
range, °C 22-33 22-33 21-33 22-33 22-33 21-35 21-35 21-35 21-35 21-35 20-35

9. Mill yield, %
—lab dried sample 71.38 71.56 73.01 72.24 72.06 73.19 72.53 72.9 72.13 70.48
72.78 72.3 68.3 71.92 72.5 72.76 73.39 71.45
—bin dried sample
71.81 73.68 70.81 72.73 70.76 74.04

10. Head yield, %

—lab dried sample 67.94 66.74 65.19 66.0 60.63 67.33 68.71 68.91 64.96 65.93
T 68.15 66.65 54.5 69.31 68.01 69.39 62.84 66.56
—bin dried sample
B 59.61 70.55 62.58 71.68 67.76 63.27
>
r 1 1 . Dockage, %
m —lab dried sample 1.8 1.8 1.47 2.59 1.77 1.69 1.36 3.3 2.65 2.63
D T 2.12 1.82 3.24 2.11 2.3 2.28 3.99 2.13
m —bin dried sample
'Z B 3.37 1.84 2.32 1.0 2.0 0.81
o
2
m 12. Test wt
m —lab dried sample 589.5 593.8 584.0 589.1 585.7 592.5 596.4 605.0 596.0 575.0
2
3 T 578.3 566.4 594.3 592.1 582.2 593.8 594.7
o —bin dried sample
B 598.9 586.0 582.2 590.4 603.7 593.0
>
o 13. Energy in drying, KJ/kg of H 2 O
2
o -Gas 3859 3397 3396 3140 4577 3102 3920 3379 3358 3091 3863
a
r —Electricity 214 297 276 301 320 323 220 315 227 335 1321
H -Total 4073 3694 3672 3441 4897 3425 4140 3694 3585 3426 5184
C
*>
— Data n o t available. T — T o p sample. B — B o t t o m sample.
w
 TABLE 8. RESULTS OF 1984 DRYING TESTS.

Start date of test 7-27 7-28 7-30 8-10 8-12 8-13 8-14 8-16 8-17 8-17 8-26 8-27
End date of test 8-1 8-2 8-5 8-14 8-15 8-17 8-23 8-23 8-23 8-30

1. Variety Bond Bond Bond Lemont Lemont Lemont Lemont Mars Mars Mars Mars Mars
long long long long long long long medium medium

2. Initial moisture medium medium medium

% (w. b.) 20.81 21.05 20.79 18.11 13.38 18.37 17.28 21.82 21.19

3. Final moisture 21.16 20.59 21.67

% (w. b.) 12.0 12.5 12.0 12.3 12.3 12.0 12.8 12.2 13.3

64,156 62,682 59,339 62,573 72,769 77,450 12.5 12.4 12.3

4. Weight of rice, kg 71,395 77,020 65,884

5. Rice depth in bin, m 2.33 2.45 21.9 2.12 2.06 1.98 1.98 2.33 2.45 72,928 43,576 76,235
, .. „ m^/min „ _ _a 2.28 1.39 2.44
5.06 4.65 5.55 5.74 5.90 6.28 5.96 4.96 4.62
6. Airflow, x 10 ^
kg 4.97 9.32 4.70
7. Static pressure
12.27 12.47 11.94 11.81 11.66 11.40 11.43 12.27 12.47 12.14 8.64 12.45
cm of H2O
8. Ambient temperature
range, °C 19-34 19-34 19-34 21-34 21-33 21-33 21-34 21-36 22-36 22-36 22-36 21-36

9. Mill yield, % 71.1 70.9 68.3 73.9 72.6 73.8 72.6 74.6 74.5 74.2 74.9 74.3

10. Head yield, % 64.8 62.2 59.1 70.4 68.5 69.2 67.9 71.8 71.1 71.8 68.8 69.9

11. Dockage, %
—bin dried 3.0 3.0 3.36 2.7 2.3 2.7 1.6 1.87 1.8 .73 1.4 1.0
3
12. Test weight, kg/m
—bin dried 575.6 590.2 565.7 569.4 571.2 565.2 593.4 586.7 593.5 600.5 588.9 589.0

13. Energy in drying, KJ/kg of H2O

-Gas 1660 3444 2785 2479 3710 3602 3370 1537 1965 2183 4079 2251
—Electricity 320 364 335 435 359 374 460 329 326 346 431 324
-Total
1980 3808 3120 2914 4069 3976 3830 1866 2291 2529 4510 2575
— Data not available.
 O \ D 00 ^ t
bJD
<N CM* C O O t
t > ON s o
rH °°

O vo
bJD ON
I I I
5.2

"3- CM O CM
CM CM -3"
ON" [>• LO CM
en -sj"

ON \0 O ON ON
' £ * LO 0 0 r H r H CM
! -o i>: ON l > * r H LO \ D
LO LO

oo
Fi 0 0 0 0 NO
r H CO LO
Ctf \o ^t o
0) CM CO
^ S

Fi
2
rt "T3 I ! I
^ £

£ rH 00 o 00 00 r H ON
u £ o
2 CM L O -*
CO ^t- CM ^ LO r H
CM CO
CO LO
r-- CM
CM
00
ON
CM
s LO v D r^ sO vO

•» I 0 0 CM
0 0 CO t > ON
\DO\D
u g ON r-\ CM I s - ON

a ^ a LO SO

O rH rH
LO SO r H
ON T f O 00 O CO ^ 1 -
i O vO \D LO

CO o O NO 0 0 r H ON
H ,-+-
LO CO CO O ^ J * CM s o
CM* \D 00 00 O CO CO
•rt SO LO LO

ON CO CM
1-om
O 00 00

00 ^ t
CO cO CO r H SO
r-i ON 0 0
CM LO LO

LO O LO
o CO O N LO ^ t " ON
£ O CM CO I CO* O 00 o ^t- ^t-
sO LO

03 d u jo
e
§ <u
CD "^
6
OH

S
O-.
U) CL.
a
•T" ^ 00 O
a 00

T3
+-T
r £ nd
w oo
T3
o _ 'o — 2 CM
CO
+J •"U _co r-H CO <o t>D CO co
ou
o
O.I C
CO
13 'C •a .2-C hf) u
-d
"<U " 5 H 5-1
T3
at T3
q3
o o
•£ o
< |1
~-
3a
C0~ • & - *

-H *°
-d
a ^O ^QaJ a ^^^> r£3 C
co aS 3 £^H SOWh
2^ <3 3 £
00 o < $-1
*T5
Si
a> %
3 Q 1 H 1 ^1 w i l l
CM CO "t

86 APPLIED ENGINEERING in AGRICULTURE