Cargando…

Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production

Measurement of human energy expenditure during crop production helps in the optimization of production operations and costs by identifying steps which that can benefit from the use of appropriate mechanization technologies. This study measures human energy expenditure associated with all 6 major ric...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elsoragaby, Suha, Yahya, Azmi, Nawi, Nazmi Mat, Mahadi, Muhammad Razif, Mairghany, Modather, Muazu, A., Shukery, Mohamad Firdza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33294651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05332
_version_ 1783613780608942080
author Elsoragaby, Suha
Yahya, Azmi
Nawi, Nazmi Mat
Mahadi, Muhammad Razif
Mairghany, Modather
Muazu, A.
Shukery, Mohamad Firdza
author_facet Elsoragaby, Suha
Yahya, Azmi
Nawi, Nazmi Mat
Mahadi, Muhammad Razif
Mairghany, Modather
Muazu, A.
Shukery, Mohamad Firdza
author_sort Elsoragaby, Suha
collection PubMed
description Measurement of human energy expenditure during crop production helps in the optimization of production operations and costs by identifying steps which that can benefit from the use of appropriate mechanization technologies. This study measures human energy expenditure associated with all 6 major rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation operations using two measurement methods-i.e. conventional human energy expenditure method and direct measurement with a Garmin forerunner 35 body media. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed comparison of these two methods and document the human energy costs in a manner that will identify steps to be taken to help optimize agricultural practices. Results (mean + 95%CL) revealed that the total human energy expenditure obtained through the conventional method was 25.5% higher (33.3 ± 1 versus 26.6 ± 1.3) in transplanting and 26.1% higher (30.3 ± 1.9 versus 24.0 ± 2.1) than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method in broadcast seeding method. Similarly, during the harvesting operation, the conventional measurement and Garmin measurement methods differed significantly, with the conventional method the human energy expenditure was 89.9% higher (3.2 ± 0.4 versus 1.68 ± 0.2) in the fields using the transplanting and 88.7% higher (3.3 ± 0.5 versus 1.8 ± 0.3) in the fields using the broadcast seeding than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method. When using Garmin method, the human energy expenditure in the case of using the midsize combine harvester was 13.49% lesser (592.4 ± 67.2 versus 522.0 ± 75.1) than the case of using conventional one. Results based on heart rate also indicated that operations such as tillage were less intensive (72 ± 3.3 bpm) compared with operations such as chemicals spraying (135 ± 4 bpm). Although we did not have a criterion measure available to determine which method was the most accurate, the Garmin measurement gives an estimate of actual physical human energy expended in performing a specific task with consider all conditions and thus more information to aid in identifying critical operations that could be optimized and mechanized.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7689046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76890462020-12-07 Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production Elsoragaby, Suha Yahya, Azmi Nawi, Nazmi Mat Mahadi, Muhammad Razif Mairghany, Modather Muazu, A. Shukery, Mohamad Firdza Heliyon Research Article Measurement of human energy expenditure during crop production helps in the optimization of production operations and costs by identifying steps which that can benefit from the use of appropriate mechanization technologies. This study measures human energy expenditure associated with all 6 major rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivation operations using two measurement methods-i.e. conventional human energy expenditure method and direct measurement with a Garmin forerunner 35 body media. The aim of this study was to provide a detailed comparison of these two methods and document the human energy costs in a manner that will identify steps to be taken to help optimize agricultural practices. Results (mean + 95%CL) revealed that the total human energy expenditure obtained through the conventional method was 25.5% higher (33.3 ± 1 versus 26.6 ± 1.3) in transplanting and 26.1% higher (30.3 ± 1.9 versus 24.0 ± 2.1) than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method in broadcast seeding method. Similarly, during the harvesting operation, the conventional measurement and Garmin measurement methods differed significantly, with the conventional method the human energy expenditure was 89.9% higher (3.2 ± 0.4 versus 1.68 ± 0.2) in the fields using the transplanting and 88.7% higher (3.3 ± 0.5 versus 1.8 ± 0.3) in the fields using the broadcast seeding than the human energy expenditure recorded using the Garmin method. When using Garmin method, the human energy expenditure in the case of using the midsize combine harvester was 13.49% lesser (592.4 ± 67.2 versus 522.0 ± 75.1) than the case of using conventional one. Results based on heart rate also indicated that operations such as tillage were less intensive (72 ± 3.3 bpm) compared with operations such as chemicals spraying (135 ± 4 bpm). Although we did not have a criterion measure available to determine which method was the most accurate, the Garmin measurement gives an estimate of actual physical human energy expended in performing a specific task with consider all conditions and thus more information to aid in identifying critical operations that could be optimized and mechanized. Elsevier 2020-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC7689046/ /pubmed/33294651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05332 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Article
Elsoragaby, Suha
Yahya, Azmi
Nawi, Nazmi Mat
Mahadi, Muhammad Razif
Mairghany, Modather
Muazu, A.
Shukery, Mohamad Firdza
Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title_full Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title_fullStr Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title_short Comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
title_sort comparison between conventional human energy measurement and physical human energy measurement methods in wetland rice production
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7689046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33294651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05332
work_keys_str_mv AT elsoragabysuha comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT yahyaazmi comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT nawinazmimat comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT mahadimuhammadrazif comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT mairghanymodather comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT muazua comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction
AT shukerymohamadfirdza comparisonbetweenconventionalhumanenergymeasurementandphysicalhumanenergymeasurementmethodsinwetlandriceproduction