30120130406026

International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology (IJMET), ISSN 0976 –
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
6340(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6359(Online) Volume 4, Issue 6, November - December (2013) © IAEME

AND TECHNOLOGY (IJMET)

ISSN 0976 – 6340 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6359 (Online)
Volume 4, Issue 6, November - December (2013), pp. 249-257
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2013): 5.7731 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com

IJMET
©IAEME

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF FEED PROCESSING UNIT TO REDUCE
THE COST OF PRODUCTION
Dr. R. Dillibabu1,

M. Mareeswaran2

2

1

Research Scholar, DoIE, UCE, Anna University, Chennai, India
Associate Professor, DoIE, UCE, Anna University, Chennai, India

ABSTRACT
The success of livestock farming is largely dependent on the continuous supply of good
quality nutritious feeds at competitive price. Feed alone constitute about 60-70 per cent of total cost
of production of livestock products. Therefore, it needs more attention though other factors are also
important for remunerative return from livestock enterprises. The farmers used to feed the crop
residues to the cattle and buffaloes, however, sheep and goat are normally maintained on
grazing/browsing with supplementary feeding of broken grains/other byproducts. Therefore, feeding
of balanced concentrate feed to these animals was not common, because of low productivity and unremunerative prices for the livestock products. The improved poultry is fed only with concentrated
feed. The requirement of food of animal origin like milk, meat and eggs is increasing at a faster rate
due to increased awareness about the significance of protective proteins for the maintenance of
human health. The farmers realized the importance and started rearing good quality and high
productive animals/birds under stall-fed conditions.
With the increased demand for livestock products for domestic consumption as well as
export, the farmers realized maintaining of quality animals with proper feeding and management.
The proportion of crossbred animals or improved strains of birds increased over the years. This has
necessitated higher demand for balanced concentrate feed. Presently, various milk unions, poultry
corporations/ federations and private companies are supplying both cattle and poultry feed of
different qualities and forms (mash/ pellets/ crumbles) to the farmers. Large size poultry farm/dairy
farm owners, hatcheries and cooperative poultry units are normally manufacturing their own feed by
installing the necessary plant and machinery on the farm. Some of the farmers are still feeding
broken grains, cakes, guar, salt, etc. to dairy animals by mixing at home.
This cost analysis investigates the problems in the Feed Processing Machinery for its efficiency by
Energy Audit.
Keywords: Feed Processing, Energy Audit, Productivity, Livestock.
249


1.0 INTRODUCTION
Feed is produced for a number of animal types such as livestock (including poultry, swine,
and ruminants), domestic animals (such as pets), and fish (for aquaculture). Feed mills manufacture
pellets or mash (e.g., mixed feed), and these products are shipped in bulk or bagged form. Feed
milling facilities may be dedicated to producing feed for either single or multiple species. In the
United States, feed mills tend to focus on a single species at a given mill; in other countries, such as
India, it is more common to have multiple species feed mills. To operate a feed mill effectively,
ingredient storage, conveyance, and proportioning are of utmost importance, and in larger facilities,
it is not uncommon for dozens of ingredients to be used in the production of various feed blends.
This ultimately leads to challenging process-engineering undertakings.
1.1 Components in Feed Mill
Each feed mill facility is unique. No two are identical, because the components, which
comprise each, can be assembled in an infinite variety of configurations, and species types can vary,
which will affect equipment and processed used. Even so, each feed mill typically consists of nine
common major, or primary, operations (which are outlined in Figure 1), and include raw ingredient
receiving, distribution, and storage, grinding of whole grain, batching and mixing of the various
ingredients, pelleting, final product storage, and load out.
1.1.1 Raw Ingredient Receiving
Feed mills typically receive incoming ingredients by both rail and truck (including hopper
bottom, bulk solids, and liquids trailers). Rail receiving hoppers, on the other hand, should be
designed to provide maximum capacity, but are typically relatively shallow, which will constrain
retention volume. Rail and truck hoppers between 1000 to 1200 bu in capacity are common. Because
feed mill receiving pits are generally shallow, incoming material, (either from rail or truck) will
typically exhibit choke-fed flow into the receiving hopper, which actually is an effective mechanism
for controlling dust. Feed mills also commonly utilize truck and rail scales with flow through floors,
with the hopper pit and at least one screw conveyor underneath; these systems are typically housed
within the same receiving structure, which can be of either steel or concrete construction. Typically,
major (such as grain and soybean meal) and minor ingredients (such as lime, brewer’s grains, etc.)
will be received via these systems.
Micro-ingredients, such as minerals, are commonly delivered via bulk truck and then
pneumatically conveyed to the appropriate storage bins. This type of system requires blowers,
delivery lines, receivers, filters, and airlocks; typically one system for each ingredient to be received.
It is essential to consider the terminal velocity of each ingredient to adequately size the components
of the system. Generally, pneumatic transfer of ingredients requires air velocities between 4000 and
5000 ft/min. additionally; ingredients will sometimes be delivered via bulk bags, which will require a
freight elevator (i.e., pallet hoist) in the mill structure in order to transport them to the batching
operation.
1.1.2 Raw Ingredient Distribution
Ingredients can be transported within the facility via multiple pieces of equipment, including
bucket elevators, distributors and gravity-flow spouting, belt conveyors, and paddle and drag chain
conveyors.
The most common type of conveyor in feed mills, however, is the screw conveyor, because it
offers the potential for not only transporting materials, but also offers the potential to accurately
meter the various ingredients, which is a functionality that the other conveyor types do not offer.

250


1.1.3 Raw Ingredient Storage
The two major materials of construction are used for feed mills are concrete and steel.
Concrete feed mills are typically slip formed, and most prevalently used for large-scale facilities.
Steel feed mills are especially common for smaller-scale facilities, and typically assembled from
bolted bin construction, because they are sold as modular units, but they may occasionally be
welded. Welded bins are usually shop fabricated due to the economics of shop techniques compared
to field fabrication. Regardless of the type of construction, no two facilities are identical; the
combinations for the layout of feed milling structures are vast, and are predominantly influenced by
client preferences, more than any other single factor.
1.1.4 Grinding
Prior to utilization in feed formulations, whole grain must be ground to reduce particle size.
Grinding systems are generally located directly under whole grain storage bins, in a separate room
within the mill facility, or in a separate grinding building adjacent to the mill structure.
Hammer mills are the most common type of milling equipment, and can have diameters as
large as 750 in, screen areas as large as 7000 in2, operating speeds up to 3600 rpm, effectively
producing hammer tip speeds up to 21,000 ft/min, and require up to 600 hp. Most hammer mills are
typically installed with an air system, which includes air inlets (to control dust from the process)
integral to the hammer mill, a plenum under the grinder for airflow, and a filter, located outside of
the grinder building, for dust collection. These systems typically require 1 to 2 cfm/in2 of screen
area.
1.1.5 Batching
In order to produce particular feed mixtures, appropriate quantities of specific ingredients
must be transferred out of storage and transported to the mixer. This is the function of the batching
system. For all major and minor ingredients, the equipment used to accomplish this includes screw
feeders (e.g., screw conveyors), which provide excellent proportioning control, and are thus the
conveyor of choice for this operation, and scale hoppers, which are hoppers mounted on load cells
above the mixer. These hoppers range in size from one ton up to 5 tons, and must be designed with
slopes greater than 60o, to prevent ingredient build-up. For ingredients that require precise quantities
(e.g., minerals, antibiotics, etc.), micro-ingredient systems are used. These are very small stainless or
mild steel bin clusters with small feeder screws. Bulk bag and hand dump stations are also frequently
used to add ingredients to the feed mixture. All of these components must work in concert to provide
the necessary quantities of various ingredients for specific feed mixtures. To avoid pressure
differentials between the mixer and the scale hoppers during operation, which can prevent proper
flow of material into the mixer, venting must be provided between them. Venting ductwork should
be installed with a slope greater than 60o (to prevent dust build-up), and should provide an air
velocity less than 500 ft/min (to prevent ingredient entrainment).
1.1.6 Mixing
To produce specified feed mixtures, most modern feed mills utilize horizontal batch ribbon
mixers, which have bottom gates that dump directly into a conveyor (typically a paddle drag) that
transfers the mixed feed (e.g., mash) to a bucket elevator, where it is elevated and distributed to
appropriate storage bins. Mash resides in storage until needed for pelleting, bagging, or direct bulk
load out. Ribbon mixers vary in size, but can be constructed as large as 700 ft3 in capacity. Most
operate at a speed of approximately 40 rpm. Key to mixing operations is mixer cycle time, which
includes time required to fill (from the batching scales), to mix, to discharge, and to wait for another
batch to begin (i.e., dead time). Most mixers can achieve a cycle time between five and 10 min,
depending on mixer efficiency, which thus amounts to a mixing capacity of 6 to 12 ton/h.
251


1.1.7 Pelleting
Pelleting is a process intended to densify feed ingredients, which will improve storage,
handling, and shipping behavior, and to improve the feed nutritionally by increasing the palatability
and feed efficiency in the livestock. Typically mixed feed (e.g., mash) is transported from the mash
storage bins to a pre-conditioner, where it is mixed with steam so that it is more amenable to the
pelleting process. Residence time in a conditioner of 20 sec is recommended, but various plants often
use longer times. After conditioning the feed particles, they are then introduced into the pellet mill,
where a rotating roller forces the ingredients through circular die openings, which typically have
diameters smaller than ¾ in. Modern pellet mills can have die diameters up to 42 in, with effective
pelleting surfaces of 1600 in2, can produce pelleted feed at a rate of up to 50 ton/h, and can consume
up to 800 hp. After processing, the pellets are then cooled (horizontal or counter flow coolers are
generally used), so that pellet temperature is reduced to ambient (in order to avoid spoilage
problems), screened to removed fines and broken pellets, and then conveyed to storage, after which
they will either be bagged or loaded out in bulk.
1.1.8 Final Product Storage
Bulk feed materials are typically stored in bins, which are adjacent to, and similar to, those
used for whole grain and other raw bulk ingredients, so the previous discussion regarding bulk
storage is germane. Load out bins are clustered within a load out bay, which is typically a separate
section of the mill tower. Bagged feed, on the other hand, will require warehouse storage space.
Commonly located adjacent to the mill structure, a warehouse is generally constructed of either
concrete (precast, tilt-up, or slip formed) or steel. When designing warehouse systems, it is important
to provide adequate space, both for material storage, as well as maneuvering room for forklift trucks.
The amount of required storage will depend on many factors, including production capacity,
frequency of inventory turnover, number of individual products, space required for bagged feed
ingredients versus final product storage, space required for empty pallets or other materials, and, not
of least importance, client preference. As a general rule of thumb, for each one ton of bagged
product, which is the approximate capacity of one pallet, the designer should provide approximately
16 ft2 of floor space, as a minimum. Additionally, in practice, aisles are typically 8 ft wide for
forklift travel only, and 12 ft wide for forklift working space (i.e., turning, stacking, etc.).
1.1.9 Load out
Load out systems for feed mills are generally different from those used in grain elevators.
The two most common options for feed mills include reversible screw conveyors and weigh lorry
systems. Collection screw conveyors can have either multiple discharges, or an additional translating
shuttle screw conveyor, in order to fill multiple locations in feed delivery trucks. These systems
require a truckload out scale to achieve proper truck fill. Capacities can often exceed 300 ton/h for
large facilities. Weigh lorry systems, which have rail-mounted traveling scales in order to fill
multiple feed truck locations, often have hopper volumes between two and six tons, and can achieve
load out capacities greater than 100 ton/h. Whichever system is implemented, however, it is essential
to provide adequate clearance and access platforms so that the load out equipment can be serviced
and repaired.

252


Fig. 1: Layout of Feed Processing Unit
2.0 RESULTS

Comparative Production Day vs Night Shift
60

Production in M.T.

50
40
30
Day Shipt
20

Night Shift

10
0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Day

Fig.2: Comparative Production Day shift vs Night Shift

253

35


Diesel cost/M.T.

Maintenance cost/M.T.

E.B.Cost/M.T.(pellet/Crumbs)

E.B.Cost/M.T.(Mash)
Actual
Standard
Cost/M.T. in Boiler

Units consumption/M.T.(Pellet)

Units consumption/M.T.(Mash)

0

50

100

150

200

Cost in Rs.

Fig.3: Comparative cost between Actual and Standard

Table 1: Cost of E.B. Units in Agro Industry
Sl.No Time

Cost/Unit

1 6AM to 6PM

Rs.3.70/MT

2 6PM to 10PM

Rs.5.55/MT

3 10PM to 6AM

Rs.2.55/MT

Table 2: Production Shift Timings
Sl.No Description

Timings

1 Day shift

9AM to 6PM

2 Night Shift

8PM to 5AM

254

250


Table 3: Production Report
Average Production in M.T
Mash
Pellet
Total
Plant Running hours
Pellet Mill
Hammer Mill
Productivity of P.M
Productivity of H.M.
E.B.Consumption
Total Units consumed
Units consumption/M.T.
Units consumption/Hour
Diesel Consumption in Lts
Boiler
Generator
Total
Rate of Consn in Boiler
Cost/M.T. in Boiler
Cost of Production in Rs.
E.B.Cost
E.B.Cost/M.T.
Maintenance cost
Spares consumption
D.G.Spares consumption
Total
Maintenance cost/M.T.
Diesel cost
For boiler
For D.G.
Total
Diesel cost/M.T.
Processing Charges
Processing Charges/M.T.
Total cost
Total cost/M.T.

136.081
1024.331
1160.412
221.000
246.000
4.635
4.717
36940.000
31.834
150.163
4750.000
1500.000
6250.000
4.637
153.212
200260.000
172.577
40025.000
0.000
40025.000
34.492
156940.000
49560.000
206500.000
177.954
494461.800
426.109
941246.800
811.132

3.0 CONCLUSION
It is observed that the production in the night shift is low comparing with the Day shift from
Fig.2. The table 1 gives the cost of Electricity unit is less between 10PM to 6AM the suggestion is
given to the Manager to change the shift timings of night shift from 10PM to 7AM to reduce the cost
of Electricity. The performance is less compared with the standards from Fig.3. Table 3 gives the
performance of the plant.

255


4.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors gratefully acknowledge the Management and the Employees of Godrej Agrovet
Limited for allowing us to take readings and providing facility for completing the analysis.
REFERENCES
Conference Proceeding
[1]

Kurt A. Rosentrater, Gregory D. Williams, “Design Considerations for the Construction and
operation of Feed Milling Facilities”, ASAE/CSAE Aicultnnual International Meeting, Paper
No: 044144, Aug2004.

Journals/Periodicals
[1]

Wilabja Ghosu, B.S. Bhandari, Supria Sharmal, “The Extent of Processing of Agricultural
Products: Towards creating a Statistical database in India”, The Journal of Industrial
Statistics (2013), 2(1), 24-36.
[2] Purushottam Nayak, “Problems and Prospects of Rice Mill modernization A case Study”,
Journal of Assam University, Vol.1, No.1, pp 22-28, 1996.
[3] P. Nalini, “Problems and Prospects of Rice Mill Entrepreneurs-The concept frame work,
Namex International Journal of Management Research, Vol.1, Issue No.1, Dec 2011.
[4] Ioan Cucu, Ciprian Cucu, “Modern Management Methods for Equipment Maintenance”,
Annales Universities Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 11(2), 2009.
[5] Pawan Kumar Dhiman, Amita rani, “Problems and Prospectus of small scale Agro based
Industries An analysis of Patiala District”, International Journal of Multidisciplinary
Research, Vol.1, Issue 4, Aug 2011.
[6] Renuka Mahadevan, “Productivity Growth in Indian Agriculture: The role of Globalization
and Economic Reform”, Asia-Pacific Development Journal, Vol.10, No.2, Dec 2003.
[7] David A. Fairfield, “Preventive Maintenance programs that work”, National Grain and Feed
association plant operations Bulletin, Vol.10, No.2, Nov 2008.
[8] Omo Bowale Mobolaji O, “Problems Facing local Manufactures in the Nigerian Agro Allied
Machine Fabrication Industry”, ATDF Journal, Vol.7, Issue ¾, 2010.
[9] Oladejo, Joana Adefemi, “Economic Analysis of Feed Mill Industry in Lagos State, Nigeria”,
IJRME, Vol.2, Issue 4, Apr 2012.
[10] Aslam Chinarong and Dr.B.Yamuna Krishna, “Trends and Progress of Aqua Feed Industry
in Asia a Study with Special Reference to Indian Aqua Feed Industry”, International
Journal of Management (IJM), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 59 - 64, ISSN Print: 0976-6502,
ISSN Online: 0976-6510.
[11] Elpidio Oscar Benitez Nara, Samuel Koch, Jorge André Ribas Moraes and André Luiz
Emmel Silva, “Technical Maintenance of World Class Increase the Availability of
Equipment”, International Journal of Mechanical Engineering & Technology (IJMET),
Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 319 - 326, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6340, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6359.
[12] Ravi Terkar, Dr. Hari Vasudevan and Dr. Vilas Kalamkar, “Enhancing Productivity Through
Cost and Lead Time Reduction in Remanufacturing”, International Journal of Mechanical
Engineering & Technology (IJMET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 286 - 297, ISSN Print:
0976 – 6340, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6359.

256


Books
[1]

Charles E. Ebeling, “An Introduction to Reliability and Maintainability Engineering”, First
Edn, Mc Graw-Hill, 1997.

Technical Reports
[1]
[2]
[3]

[4]
[5]

Fred Fairchild, “Preventive Maintenance for Feed Processing Facilities and Equipment”,
Department of Grain Size and Industry.
Keith C. Bennke, “Feed Manufacturing Technology: Current Issues and Challenges”, Kansa
State University.
Pilar Santacoloma, Alaxandra Rottger, Florence Tartance, “Business Management for Small
Scale Agro-Industres”, Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations, Rome,
2009.
R.P.Kachru, “Agro-Processing Industries in India-Growth, Status and Prospects”, Indian
Council of Agricultural Research.
Mark D. La Grange, “Feed Mill Production Feasibility Study for Southern Afghanistan”,
Chemonics International Inc, 2005.

257

30120130406026

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (14)

Destaque

Destaque (9)

Semelhante a 30120130406026

Semelhante a 30120130406026 (20)

Mais de IAEME Publication

Mais de IAEME Publication (20)

Último

Último (20)

30120130406026