PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 4, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Evaluation of Different Mechanized Wheat Harvesting Systems in Egypt: Case Study Within the EU KAFI Programme

View Full Paper
GAGalal AboelasaadLPLuigi PariMBMassimo Brambilla

Key Points

  • This research aims to assess different mechanized wheat harvesting systems in Egypt to improve food security and economic outcomes.
  • Evaluated four harvesting systems for 'Sakha 95' wheat variety in the Nile Delta.
  • Employed the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) for ranking.
  • Utilized a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replicates for testing various systems.
  • Field King combine was the top ranked system with the lowest harvesting cost (3386.66 EGP ha−1) and minimal grain loss (0.05%).
  • Claas combine achieved the highest effective field capacity (1.18 ha h−1) but had a high initial cost and fuel consumption.
  • Reaper-binder system ranked third, justifying its use for crop-livestock integration despite higher operational costs (7371.42 EGP ha−1).

Abstract

The mechanization of wheat harvesting in Egypt is a critical step towards enhancing food security. This study evaluated the operational performance, grain loss, and economic viability of four wheat harvesting systems for the ‘Sakha 95’ variety in the Nile Delta. To evaluate and rank the different systems based on multiple criteria, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was employed. A Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replicates was used to test three self-propelled combine harvesters (Claas 4.2 m, Field-King 2.0 m, Daedong 1.4 m) alongside one semi-mechanized system (reaper–binder + stationary thresher). The TOPSIS analysis identified the Field King combine as the most recommended system (Rank 1), providing the optimal balance between operational efficiency and cost. It achieved the lowest direct harvesting cost (3386.66 EGP ha−1) with a minimal grain loss of only 0.05%. The Claas combine secured Rank 2. While it reached the highest effective field capacity (1.18 ha h−1) and near-total grain recovery (0.005% loss), its ranking was influenced by its high initial purchase price and fuel consumption. The reaper–binder system (Rank 3) and Daedong combine (Rank 4) followed. Despite having the highest operational cost (7371.42 EGP ha−1) and higher grain losses (0.72%), the reaper–binder remains a scientifically justified choice for integrated crop-livestock systems, as its ability to produce ready-to-use “soft straw” provides a net economic advantage for smallholders. The study concludes that while large combines are ideal for the “New Lands,” mid-sized units like the Field King are best suited for scaling through cooperatives in fragmented landscapes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Aboelasaad et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69a7cd5ed48f933b5eed9a3fhttps://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering8030087
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1On-Farm Evaluation and Verification of Engine Driven Harvester2025
  2. 2Farm Machinery Cost and Size Management and Optimization for Wheat Production in Dongola Area, Northern State, Sudan2025
  3. 3Comprehensive evaluation of modern combine harvester performance in Southern Russia2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4Investigation on environmentally friendly wheat harvest technology2024
  5. 5Performance Evaluation of Half-Feed Rice Combine Harvester2024