CGSpaceA Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs
    View Item 
    •   CGSpace Home
    • International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
    • IITA Journal Articles
    • View Item
       
    • CGSpace Home
    • International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA)
    • IITA Journal Articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Comparative evaluation of four different cassava peeling devices

    Thumbnail
    Authors
    Kolawole, P.
    Kulakow, Peter
    Samuel, T.M.
    Abass, A.
    Diallo, T.A.
    Date Issued
    2021
    Language
    en
    Type
    Journal Article
    Review status
    Peer Review
    ISI journal
    Accessibility
    Limited Access
    Usage rights
    Copyrighted; all rights reserved
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Share
    
    Citation
    Kolawole, P., Kulakow, P., Samuel, T.M., Abass, A. & Diallo, T.A. (2021). Comparative evaluation of four different cassava peeling devices. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, 52(2), 74-81.
    Permanent link to cite or share this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/116926
    Abstract/Description
    Manual method predominates in the cassava peeling industry in Nigeria as more than 70% of the processed cassava in the market passed through manual process. Mechanical option has come to the forefront since other processing methods are discouraged based on their deficiencies. This work investigates improvements recorded with mechanical method over the manual method, and the inherent challenges of stakeholders in the industry. Three cassava peeling machines namely, BASICON, FATAROY and WAMABCO, were selected under the mechanical method. Manual method was also evaluated under similar test conditions. Performance evaluation was carried out on each cassava peeler to assess their fuel and power utilization, cost and ease of operation. Manual peeling process recorded an average peeling efficiency of 100% and average percentage tuber flesh loss of 5.5%. The BASICON cassava peeler had an average peeling efficiency of 96% and average percentage tuber flesh loss of 75%. The FATAROY cassava peeler had an average peeling efficiency of 72% with 23% average percentage tuber flesh loss. The WAMABCO cassava peeler had an average peeling efficiency of 64% and average percentage tuber flesh loss of 14%. The energy consumption rate obtained for the FATAROY cassava peeler was the best of all. The three cassava peelers evaluated performed 10 times faster than the manual method adopted for cassava peeling operation. The capacity of each of the machines was less than 800 kg/h, which is too small for industrial application. Manual method was the slowest and the most expensive, but offered a superior quality output. Small-scale processors therefore require suitable cassava peelers to aid the peeling operation of cassava in Nigeria’s cassava processing industry.
    CGIAR Author ORCID iDs
    Peter Kulakowhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-7574-2645
    Adebayo Abasshttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-1376-3608
    CGIAR Impact Areas
    Nutrition, health and food security
    Other CGIAR Affiliations
    Agriculture for Nutrition and Health; Roots, Tubers and Bananas
    Contributes to SDGs
    SDG 2 - Zero hunger
    AGROVOC Keywords
    cassava; mechanical peeling; peeling; processing; nigeria
    Subjects
    AGRIBUSINESS; AGRONOMY; CASSAVA; FOOD SECURITY; PLANT BREEDING; PLANT PRODUCTION; SOCIOECONOMY; VALUE CHAINS
    Countries
    Nigeria
    Regions
    Africa; Western Africa
    Organizations Affiliated to the Authors
    International Institute of Tropical Agriculture; Olabisi Onabanjo University
    Collections
    • IITA Journal Articles [4999]

    Show Statistical Information


    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback
     

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Browse

    All of CGSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subjectThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesBy AGROVOC keywordBy ILRI subjectBy RegionBy CountryBy SubregionBy River basinBy Output typeBy CIP subjectBy CGIAR System subjectBy Alliance Bioversity–CIAT subject

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    AboutPrivacy StatementSend Feedback