An ASABE Meeting Presentation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.201900727
Paper Number: 1900727

Losses of Paddy in Harvesting Practices in Bangladesh

Md. Rostom Ali1* Md. Kamrul Hasan2, Chayan Kumer Saha1, Md. Monjurul Alam1
Professor1, PhD Fellow2, Department of Farm Power and Machinery,
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh-2202, Bangladesh.
*
Corresponding Author: rostomfpm@bau.edu.bd

Written for presentation at the

2019 ASABE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASABE
Boston, Massachusetts
July 7–10, 2019

ABSTRACT. Harvesting practices of paddy is now a major issue among farmers of Bangladesh for minimizing harvesting
loss, cost of labor, and cost of production. Significant amount of loss of paddy is occurred due to natural calamities,
timeliness of harvesting and harvesting practices. A study was conducted to evaluate the loss of paddy among the
harvesting practices in Bangladesh. Mechanical harvesting of paddy was performed using an ACI reaper and a KYM mini-
combine harvester during Aman-2016, Aman-2017, Boro-2017 and Boro-2018 sessions at Dumuria, Wazirpur,
Subarnachar and Kalapara Upazilas of Khulna, Barisal, Noakhali and Patuakhali districts, respectively for estimating
harvesting loss. Manual harvesting losses were also determined alongside of the mechanical harvesting in the above
mentioned sessions and locations. Total losses of manual harvesting, carrying, threshing and cleaning were found 6.14%,
6.04%, 5.94% and 6.36%, respectively during Aman-2016, Aman-2017, Boro-2017 and Boro-2018, in contrast, total
losses of mechanical harvesting by mini combine harvester (harvesting, threshing and cleaning in a single operation) and
reaper (reaping, threshing by power thresher and cleaning) were found i) 1.17%, 4.08%; ii) 1.21%, 4.15%; iii) 1.24%,
4.22% and iv) 1.28%, 4.29%, respectively. Therefore, the total harvesting loss save would be about 1.77 and 0.74 million
metric ton per year for using mini combine and reaper, respectively. On the other hand, mini-combine harvester and reaper
saved labor 65% and 52%, respectively over manual harvesting. These savings could mean an additional investment
opportunity in crop, livestock and fisheries sub-sector in rural Bangladesh that would lead to national growth in GDP and
the livelihoods of the rural population.

Keywords. Paddy, losses, Manual harvesting, Mechanical harvesting, Reaper, Mini-combine.

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this meeting presentation. The presentation does not necessarily reflect the official position of the
American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an endorsement of views
which may be expressed. Meeting presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASABE editorial committees; therefore, they are
not to be presented as refereed publications. Publish your paper in our journal after successfully completing the peer review process. See
www.asabe.org/JournalSubmission for details. Citation of this work should state that it is from an ASABE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author’s Last
Name, Initials. 2019. Title of presentation. ASABE Paper No. ---. St. Joseph, MI.: ASABE. For information about securing permission to reprint or
reproduce a meeting presentation, please contact ASABE at www.asabe.org/permissions (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).1
1. Introduction
Bangladesh is standing on the agrarian economy in which paddy is the dominant crop. The nutritional
demand of the majority of people is met with paddy. Over its long history, paddy production in
Bangladesh has gradually changed in terms of yield potentials, cultivation techniques, and cropping
patterns. World Bank (2016) reported that more than 70 percent of Bangladesh’s population and 77
percent of its workforce lives in rural areas. Nearly half of all of Bangladesh’s workers and two-thirds
in rural areas are directly employed by agriculture, and about 87 percent of rural households rely on
agriculture for at least part of their income. Timely harvesting of paddy is very important to reduce
losses affecting the total yield. Due to unavailability of mechanical harvesting system, significant
amount of field losses of paddy in every year has been occurred due to natural calamities and shortage
of time during harvesting period (Noby et. al. 2018). Timely harvesting of paddy is big challenge due
to shortage of labour and high cost of labour. Yet evidence indicates a progressive shrinking of rural
labor availability, as workers migrate to cities or abroad to engage in more remunerative employment,
particularly in the garments and construction sectors (Zhang et al., 2014). Projections also indicate
that paddy and wheat production will need to increase by 0.4 and 2.17% year-1, to keep pace with the
additional two million population added annually (Mainuddin and Kirby, 2015). However, the two
conditions cannot be fulfilled due to the shortage of manpower at that particular time. At the same
time, there is little scope to extend the agricultural land frontier: crop land availability in Bangladesh
has declined by 68,760 ha year-1 (0.73%) since 1976 (Hasan et al., 2013). In other words, Bangladesh
needs to produce more food from the same land, while at the same time easing farm labour
requirements resulting from the country’s increasingly profitable alternative forms of employment
(Zhang et al., 2014).
Minimize the post-harvest losses is an important work. Bala et al. (2010) reported that post-harvest
losses of paddy at farm level were 9.49%, 10.51% and 10.59% for Aman, Boro and Aus seasons,
respectively. In that case suitable harvesting machinery is crying need to use and introduce
agricultural mechanization system to increase production with less drudgery and reducing harvesting
losses. Appropriate farm mechanization has been emphasized as an important policy and
development goal in Bangladesh (Mandal, 2002, 2014; Zhang et al., 2014). Mechanical harvester like
mini-combine harvester and reaper for harvesting of paddy has a positive impact on livelihood status.
Hossain et al. (2015) showed that average time, cost and grain saving by using combine harvester
over manual methods were found to be 97.50, 35.00 and 2.75%, respectively. So, considering the
above matters, adoption of mechanical harvesting practices like using mini-combine harvester and
reaper is urgently needed to reduce the human drudgery, labor involvement, production cost,
harvesting losses and increase the cropping intensity, crop productivity. Also mechanical harvesting of
paddy could be a great opportunity to intensify the percentage of GDP in Bangladesh which will assist
to strengthen livelihood status of Bangladesh. Under this situation, the main objectives of the study
were to evaluate the harvesting losses of paddy among the different harvesting practices in
Bangladesh.

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 1

2. Methodology
2.1 Experimental Locations and Farm Households
The experiment on both mechanical and manual harvesting of paddy were conducted at Dumuria,
Wazirpur, Subarnachar and Kalapara Upazilas of Khulna, Barisal, Noakhali and Patuakhali districts,
respectively of Southern Delta region of Bangladesh as shown in Fig.1. Two villages in each upazila
were selected for the research. Six (6) farm households for mechanical harvesting and three (3) farm
households for manual harvesting in each villages were considered during Aman-2016, Boro-2017,
Aman-2017 and Boro-2018.

Dumuria upazila Subarnachar upazila

(Located in between 22°43' (Located in between 22°28'
and 22°56' N latitudes and in and 22°44' N latitudes and in
between 90°01' and 90°18' E between 90°59' and 91°20' E
longitudes) longitudes)

Wazirpur upazila Kalapara upazila

(Located in between 22°43' (Located in between 21°48'
and 22°56' N latitudes and in and 22°05' N latitudes and in
between 90°01' and 90°18' E between 90°05' and 90°20' E
longitudes) longitudes)

Fig.1 Four experimental locations in Bangladesh map

2.2 Manual Harvesting System

Harvesting is the process of collecting the mature paddy crop from the field. Harvesting of paddy
includes cutting, stacking, handling, threshing, cleaning and hauling of paddy. The goal of appropriate
harvesting methods is to maximize grain yield and to minimize grain damage or losses and quality
deterioration. Traditional harvesting uses sickles and knives as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Traditional manual paddy harvesting system

2.2.1 Determination of Manual Harvesting Losses

For determination of manual harvesting losses plots were selected at the experimental areas and all
plots were harvested by manually. From harvesting to cleaning, all operations were done by manually.
Manual harvesting losses were considered as a) Shatter loss, b) Cutting loss, c) Gathering loss, d)

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 2

Carrying loss, e) Threshing loss and f) Cleaning loss. All losses were calculated carefully which is
described detail in the below.

2.2.1.1 Shatter Loss

Matured grains drop from the panicle caused by birds, wind, rats, and handling operations. For most
manual harvesting operations, shatter losses are of main concern. Lodging can be a severe problem in
specific situations such as tall varieties, or high wind. Before harvesting, the amount of plants fallen
on the ground were collected carefully and kept on the polythene sheet as shown in Fig. 3(a).

2.2.1.2 Cutting Loss

The paddy crop is cut by simple hand tools including sickles cutting 15-25 cm above ground level and
simple hand-held knives to cut just below the panicle. The manual system of harvesting is very
effective in lodged crop conditions. After completion of harvesting of particular area by labor, some
amounts of plants were remained on the ground. These were collected carefully and kept on the
polythene sheet for estimating cutting loss as shown in 3(b).

2.2.1.3 Gathering Loss

The large size polythene was put on the ground and harvested paddy was gathered on it as shown in
Fig. 3(c). Grain falls on the polythene during handling was collected in a poly bag for analysis.

2.2.1.4 Carrying Loss

Head and shoulder carrying methods are common practice in the study area for transport the harvested
paddy to the threshing floor. To determine the carrying loss, polythene sheet was used to cover the
harvested paddy as shown in Fig. 3(d) for head and shoulder carrying to collect the fallen grain during
transportation.

2.2.1.5 Threshing Loss

The common method for threshing by hand, was separated the grain from the panicle. This can be
done by hand beating as shown in Fig. 3(e). Hand beating methods are normally used for threshing
paddy that easily shatters. Plastic sheet was laid down on the threshing floor for collecting scattered
paddy from outside of the threshing range. Mature grains attached to the panicle of the straw after
beating were also collected. A high threshing efficiency will lead to low threshing loss and vice versa.

2.2.1.6 Cleaning Loss

Traditional Kula is used to clean harvested paddy. In the study kula was used to clean the paddy and
then cleaning loss was estimated. Initially, weight of threshed paddy (un-cleaned) were recorded and
cleaned by kula as shown in Fig. 3(f). Finally, the weight of cleaned paddy was measured to estimate
the cleaning loss. Scattered paddy was collected from outside the winnowing range.

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 3

 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Fig. 3 Pictorial views on the determination of manual harvesting losses from harvesting to cleaning. (a)
collection paddy for estimating shatter loss, (b) collection paddy for estimating cutter loss, (c)
gathering loss collection in the field, (d) manually carrying after covering by polythene, (e)
manual threshing and (f) manual cleaning.

2.2.1.7 Total Loss

Total manual harvesting losses were calculated by summation of all losses. The following equation
was used to determine total loss.
Total loss (gm) = Shutter loss (gm) + Cutting loss (gm) + Gathering loss (gm) + Carrying loss (gm)
+ Threshing loss (gm) + Cleaning loss(gm) ………..(i)
Loss (%) = × 100 ………………………………………(ii)

2.3 Losses for using Mini-combine Harvester and Reaper

To estimate mechanical harvesting losses, selected plots were harvested by using mini-combine and
reaper. From harvesting to cleaning, all operations were done in a single operation using mini-
combine harvester as shown in Fig.4. On the other hand, after harvesting with reaper, remaining
operations like threshing was done by power thresher (Fig.5) and carrying, winnowing & cleaning
were done manually.

(a) (b)
Fig.4 Harvesting using mini-combine Fig.5 (a) Harvesting using reaper and (b) Threshing by power thresher

2.3.1 Determination of Mechanical Harvesting Losses

In general there are four types of losses were considered during mechanical harvesting using a mini-
combine harvester. These are shatter loss, cutter bar loss, cylinder loss and separating loss. On the
other hand, during reaping using a reaper, two types of losses were considered i.e. shatter loss and
cutter bar loss. In addition to these losses during reaping using a reaper gathering, carrying, threshing
and cleaning losses were also considered for manual carrying and threshing using a power thresher. In
the experiment following procedures were considered for measurement of mechanical harvesting
losses.

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 4

2.3.1.1 Shatter Loss
Shatter losses in direct combining include heads, pods, or ears, and free seed, lost during cutting and
conveying operations. The following equation was used to determine shatter loss (Hunt, 1995).
Average weight of droppedgrain on the
ground during cutting & conveying,kg ....……………..…(iii)
Shatter loss, kg/ha 
Area covered,ha
2.3.1.2 Cutter Bar Loss
Cutter bar loss indicates grains those are lost due to rough handling by the cutter bar. Following
equation was used to determine cutter bar loss (Hunt, 1995).

Average weight of grain lost due

to rough handling of cutter bar, kg ...……………..…(iv)
Cutter bar loss, kg/ha 
Area covered,ha
2.3.1.3 Cylinder Loss
Grains lost out the rear of the mini-combine in the form of threshed heads indicate cylinder loss.
Following equation was used to determine cylinder loss (Hunt, 1995).
Average weight of unthreshedheads
lost out therear of min - combine,kg
Cylinder loss, kg/ha  ....……………..…(v)
Area covered,ha
2.3.1.4 Separating Loss
Separating loss means the grains lost out the rear of the min-combine in the form of threshed grain.
The following equation was used to determine separating loss (Hunt, 1995).

Average weight of threshedheads

lost out therear of min - combine,kg
Separatingloss, kg/ha  ....……………(vi)
Area covered,ha
2.4 Labor Requirement and Saving in Harvesting Practices
To estimate labor requirement, selected plots were harvested using mini-combine, reaper and
manually. Total labor requirement from harvesting to cleaning operations were determined during
paddy harvesting. Labor requirement is expressed in man-day/ha. The following equation was used to
determine labor saving percentage.

(Labor for manual harvesting - Labor for mechanical harvesting ), (man - day/ha)
Labor saving, %   100
Labor for manual harvesting , (man - day/ha)

2.5 Grain Weight

After manual and mechanical harvesting of paddy, all losses were
collected in a polythene bag and weight measured using digital balance
and also recorded for analysis as shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6 Weight measurement of collected grain

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 5
3. Results and Discussions
3.1 Manual Harvesting Losses from Harvesting to Cleaning Operations
Detail paddy harvesting losses (harvesting to cleaning) were determined during manual harvesting.
All losses during Aman-2016, Boro-2017, Aman-2017 and Boro-2018 were summarized and presented
in Table 1. Average total manual harvesting loss was found 6.12%.

Table 1 Average manual harvesting losses

Percentage, %
Activities
Aman-16 Boro-17 Aman-17 Boro-18 Average
Shatter loss 0.79 0.66 0.73 0.89 0.77
Cutting loss 0.77 0.57 0.62 0.71 0.67
Gathering loss 0.17 0.20 0.39 0.14 0.23
Carrying loss 0.14 0.20 0.38 0.19 0.23
Threshing loss 3.89 4.04 2.51 4.21 3.66
Cleaning loss 0.38 0.26 1.41 0.22 0.57
Total loss 6.14 5.94 6.04 6.36 6.12

3.2 Mechanical Harvesting Losses from Harvesting to Cleaning Operations

Estimated values of total mechanical paddy harvesting losses (harvesting to cleaning operation) are
presented in Table 2. Average total paddy harvesting losses were found 4.19% and 1.22%,
respectively using a reaper and a mini-combine harvester. Harvesting loss of using a mini-combine
harvester is comparatively less than using a reaper.

Table 2 Grain losses during harvesting by mechanical harvesters

Harvesting loss %
Seasons
Reaper Mini-combine
Aman/2017 4.08 1.17
Boro/2018 4.15 1.21
Aman/2017 4.22 1.24
Boro/2018 4.29 1.27
Average 4.19 1.22

3.3 Loss Saved in Mechanical Paddy Harvesting Systems

Loss saved during paddy harvesting by mini-combine harvester or reaper over manual system is
presented in Table 3. Loss could be saved 4.90% and 1.93% for using mini-combine harvester and

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 6

reaper, respectively over manual harvesting. Farmers can invest the financial benefit through loss
savings to the other agricultural sub-sectors like poultry, fishery, vegetable and fruits production. As a
result, total agricultural production might be increased which will assist to GDP growth.

Table 3 Loss saved during mechanical harvesting over manual harvesting of paddy

Harvesting method Total loss, % Loss saved, %

(From harvesting to cleaning operation)
Manual harvesting 6.12
Reaper 4.19 1.93
Mini-combine harvester 1.22 4.90

3.4 Labor Requirement in Paddy Harvesting Practices

Total labor requirement from harvesting to cleaning were determined during paddy harvesting by
mini-combine harvester, reaper and manual system which is presented in Table 4. Total required labor
was found 21 man-day/ha, 29 man-day/ha and 61 man-day/ha, respectively for using mini-combine
harvester, reaper and manual system.

Table 4 Required labors for harvesting by mini-combine, reaper and manual system
Labors involvement (man-day/ha)
Item
Manually Reaper Mini-Combine
Harvesting 23 1 5
Paddy bag carry from field to home 8
Threshed straw binding and transfer from 8
field to home
Straw with paddy transfer from field to 15 15
home after reaping by reaper or manually
Threshing using power thresher 5
Threshing manually 15
Cleaning 8 8
Total labor (from harvesting to cleaning) 61 29 21

3.5 Labor Saved in Mechanical Paddy Harvesting Systems

Labor saved during paddy harvesting by mini-combine harvester or reaper over manual system is
presented in Table 5. Labor could be saved 65% and 52% for using mini-combine harvester and
reaper, respectively over manual harvesting. Save labor from mechanical harvesting can be engaged
non-farm activities in urban areas which will meet-up the industrial labor crisis and will assist to GDP
growth of Bangladesh.

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 7

Table 5 Labor saved in mechanical harvesting over manual harvesting of paddy
Labors saved,
Harvesting method Total labor involvement (man-day/ha)
(From harvesting to cleaning operation) %
Manual harvesting 61
Reaper 29 52
Mini-combine harvester 21 65

3.6 Production Increases for using Mechanical Harvesting System

Total possible production increase due to mechanical harvesting through reducing harvesting losses
was calculated and presented in Table 6. This estimation was done on the basis of total annual yield of
paddy in Bangladesh and using reduced harvesting losses through mechanical harvesting. Estimated
total production might be increased as 1.69 MMT/year and 0.67 MMT/yr, respectively for using mini
combine harvester and reaper in Bangladesh (if these machines use whole the country).

Table 6 Estimated possible production

Total production, Loss reduction, % Total production increases, MMT/yr

MMT*/yr (BBS/2016) Reaper Mini-combine Reaper Mini-combine
34.5 1.93 4.9 0.67 1.69
* MMT*/yr = Million Metric Ton per Year

4. Conclusions
Loss saved during mechanical paddy harvesting using mini-combine harvester and reaper over
manual system was found 4.90% and 1.93%, respectively over manual harvesting. On the other hand,
labor saved with mechanical harvesting was found 65% and 52% for using mini-combine harvester
and reaper, respectively over manual harvesting. From reducing harvesting losses, estimated total
production might be increased as 1.69 MMT/yr and 0.67 MMT/yr, respectively for using mini
combine harvester and reaper in Bangladesh (if these machines use in whole the country). Farmers
can invest the financial benefit of mechanical harvesting system to other agricultural sub-sectors like
poultry, fishery, vegetable and fruits production. As a result, total agricultural production might be
increased and also saved labor can be engaged non-farm activities in urban areas and meet-up the
industrial labor crisis which will assist to GDP growth of Bangladesh and will ultimately help to
development of livelihood status of Bangladesh.

5. Acknowledgement
This paper as part of Appropriate Scale Mechanization Consortium (ASMC) project ‘‘Appropriate
Scale Mechanization Innovation Hub (ASMIH) - Bangladesh’’ is made possible by the support of the
American People provided to the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Sustainable Intensification
through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, USA (Subaward Number: 2015 -06391 -06, Grant code: AB078). The contents
ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 8
are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the
United States Government.

6. References
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics), 2016. Statistical Pocket book of Bangladesh. Bangladesh
Bureau of statistics. Ministry of Planning, Bangladesh.
Bala BK, MA Hoque, MA Hossain and S Majumdar (2010). Post-harvest loss and technical efficiency
of paddy, wheat and maize production system: assessment and measures for strengthening food
security. Final Report (CF # 6/08) submitted to the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening
Programme (NFPCSP), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Hasan MNM, Hossain SM, Islam RM, Bari MA (2013). Trends in the Availability of Agricultural
Land in Bangladesh. Soil Resource Development Institute (SERDI), Ministry of Agriculture,
Bangladesh, Dhaka. Available from URL: http://
www.nfpcsp.org/agridrupal/sites/default/files/Trends-in-the-availability-ofagricultural-land-in-
Bangladesh-SRDI-Supported-by-NFPCSP-FAO.pdf (accessed 17.05.15.)
Hunt D (1995).Farm power and machinery management- 9th edition.Iowa State University Press,
Ames, Iowa, USA.
Hossain, M. A. M. A. Hoque, M. A. Wohab M. A. M. Miah and M. S. Hassan. 2015. Technical and
Economic Performance of Combined Harvester in Farmers’ Field. ISSN 0258-7122. Bangladesh
J. Agril. Res. 40(2): 291-304, June 2015.
Mainuddin M and Kirby M (2015). National food security in Bangladesh to 2050. Food Secure. 7 (3),
633-646.
Mandal, M. A. S. (2002). Agricultural machinery manufacturing and farm mechanization: a case of
rural non-farm economic development in Bangladesh. In: Paper Presented at International
Workshop on Fostering Rural Economic Development through Agriculture-based Enterprises
and Services. November 19-22, GTZ-Haus, Berlin, Germany.
Noby, M. M., M. K. Hasan, M. R. Ali, C. K. Saha, M. M. Alam and M. M. Hossain. 2018.
Performance evaluation of modified BAU self-propelled reaper for paddy. Journal of
Bangladesh Agricultural University, 16(2): 171-177.
World Bank, 2016. Bangladesh: Growing the Economy through Advances in Agriculture. October 9,
2016. www.worldbank.org/.../bangladesh-growing-economy-through-advances-in-agriculture.
Zhang, X., S. Rashid, K. Ahmad, A. Ahmed. 2014. Escalation of real wages in Bangladesh: is it the
beginning of structural transformation? World Dev. 64, 273-285.

ASABE 2019Annual International Meeting Page 9