Low-Cost Lentil Harvesting Machinery
8.71 - Low-Cost Lentil Harvesting Machinery
Emma Arroyo, University of Guelph, Canada
Suggested citation for this chapter.
Arroyo, E. (2026) Low-Cost Lentil Harvesting Machinery. In Farmpedia, The Encyclopedia for Small Scale Farmers. Editor, M.N. Raizada, University of Guelph, Canada. farmpedia.org
Introduction
Lentils (Lens culinaris), a fast growing crop within the legume family, are an important crop for many communities in the Global South, and Middle East where lentils originate, as well as South Asia, and North and East Africa, because lentils are an affordable source of protein and nutrients. Lentils contain high amounts of complete protein, vitamins such as folate, and minerals including phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, and zinc (Türk, 2020). Lentils belong to the legume family, which associate with symbiotic bacteria to make their own nitrogen fertilizer, facilitating high concentrated levels of proteins in the seeds and straw (Montejano-Ramírez and Valencia-Cantero, 2024). Additionally, lentils are highly adaptable towards different climates and soil types, which increases their value. They are characteristically a drought resistant crop that can grow in marginal soils (Montejano-Ramirez and Valencia-Cantero, 2024). All of this is important, because many small scale farmers suffer from local water scarcity, protein deficiency and limited fertile land (Nalawade et al., 2026).
Lentils in West and North Africa are mainly harvested manually (Zeroual et al., 2024; Gharakhani et al., 2017). Machinery is often expensive and inaccessible, especially for those living and farming in rural areas (Daum & Birner, 2020). Although hand-harvesting is widely practiced, it requires exhausting manual labour, attentive supervision, and applicable time management. An alternative that can mitigate these issues is called partial mechanization. According to Canuedo and Kala (2021), partial mechanization refers to a system in which only certain stages of agricultural production are mechanized while others remain manual. Partial mechanization reflects the increased efficiency for smallholder farmers because it balances productivity, the labour force, and the realities that many smallholder farmers are subjected to (Cauendo and Kala, 2021). With respect to lentil harvesting, partial mechanization refers to technologies that allow farmers to reduce the intensity and time required for harvesting without completely eliminating rural labor. This chapter will evaluate the hand push harvester for lentils, which is a direct example of partial mechanization.
What is the hand push harvester?
An example of the hand push harvester is shown in Figure 1: it is a walk behind machine that the farmer uses to guide along crop rows (Sidahmed and Jaber, 2004):
Figure 1. Example of a walk behind harvester designed for cutting/feeding (Labels A-H). Source: Sidahmed & Jaber, 2004
Figure 1 shows a front cutting unit (A): the blades operate close to the ground to cut the stems at the base of the plant (Gharakhani et al., 2017). Lentil plants are short and have low hanging pods which require precision when cutting (Gharakhani et al., 2017). The crop is then rotated and laid on the ground in rows to allow for drying time (windrowing/swathe) (Erskine et al., 1991). After cutting, the stems and pods are left intact to dry out in the field to prepare to remove the lentil seeds from the pods (threshing) (Nalawade et al., 2026). A proper drying process is important as it allows for pods to break open better during threshing. Once the lentil seeds have been removed, the remaining straw can be used as animal feed which benefits smallholder farmers (Nalawade et al., 2026; Turk, 2020).
Figure 2. Example of a walk behind reaper in use compared to rows that were harvested manually. Source: Sidahmed & Jaber, 2004.
Figure 3. Example of the cutting mechanism within the reaper mechanization and the remaining straw. Source: Diekmann and Al-Saleh, 2009.
Benefits of the hand-push lentil harvester
The hand-push harvester offers a variety of benefits for smallholder farmers. Canuedo and Kalas (2021) argue that labour is low scale in the developing world, requiring high levels of manual labor, and that farms are mainly family operated. Due to businesses often being family operated, they spend many hours managing and supervising hired labor (Canuedo & Kala, 2021). Within this system, families are locked into a cycle of physically exhausting labour and supervising other workers due to the number of workers needed. Labour reduction such as from the hand-push harvester benefits farmers because it reduces workload and allows farmers to allocate their time to potentially plant additional crops, tend to livestock, or seek education or entrepreneurship, all of which can increase household nutrition and income; women in Zambia that have mechanization have more time for off-farm work (Daum and Briner, 2019). By mechanizing one level of production, intensity is reduced while production increases. Harvesting lentils is the most demanding stage of production because it can require extensive labour, for example, by hand approximately 140 hours of work per hectare is required in Syria (Bansal et al., 1994). By contrast, with the help of a reaper machine, the tasks of cutting, gathering the crop and laying it into rows (windrowing), and collecting the crop, equaled only 56 hours (Bansal et al., 1994; Nalawade et al., 2026). The hand-push reaper allows farmers to save time and effort, which is extremely beneficial, because hand harvesting accounts for 30% of total production cost and 57% of harvesting costs (Erskine et al., 1991).
Many smallholder farmers would find the hand-reaper to be a helpful tool because it specifically is designed for small plots of land (Bansal et al., 1994; Nalawade et al., 2026). Field tests show that the hand reaper has an effective field capacity (EFC) rate of approximately 0.10 hectares per hour (Bansal et al., 1994). This finding suggests that the machine is best suited for low-scale agricultural production (Bansal et al., 1994).
Practical Manual
Implementing the hand push harvester requires a smallholder farmer to follow a sequence of steps to be successful.
Step 1: Field preparation. Due to the nature of the hand push harvester, it requires specific field preparation to ensure the success of this technology. The reaper shows the best results on plane soil that has been flattened after planting seeds (sowing) (Nalawade et al., 2026). Flat soil conditions improve yields by maintaining a stable cutting height. During the sowing process, it is required for there to be specific spacing between rows, specifically 50-60 cm apart, which aligns with the crop spacers within the hand-push harvester device (Bansal et al, 1994). This proper spacing is necessary for the hand push reaper because it allows for the reaper to properly move between rows and properly cut the plant (harvesting). Any deviations from the specific distance can decrease performance.
Step 2: Crop management. Farmers are advised to use an animal-drawn plow for weed management because it is specifically designed to skim below the surface of the soil to cut weed roots without turning the soil over (Erksine et al., 1991). This process does not create deep furrows that would otherwise disrupt the hand push reaper by causing excessive shaking, causing the machine to create uneven grooves (Bansal et al., 1994).
Step 3: Harvest timing. The inherent biological characteristics of lentils result in the crop being fragile at the time of harvest; lentils are best harvested when the bottom third of each grain pod turns yellow-brown and begins to rattle when shaken (SaskPulse, n.d). During this stage, farmers can minimize losses because it guarantees that the crop will be cut and windrowed properly.
Step 4: Operating the machine: Operators should use the hand reaper and guide it along the crop rows; the machinery uses cutting blades as shown in Figure 1 to cut the crop close to the base of each plant. Maintaining a low cutting height is important because lentil plants are biologically short and have low pod placement (Gharakhani et al, 2017). As the machine is used along the rows, the crop is directed to the back of the machine ready for collection. The operation is further illustrated within Figure 2.
Step 5: Post-harvest processing:
Critical Analysis
Cost analysis
In the developing world, poverty is a huge barrier that restricts agricultural development, Singh argues that in India, 23% to 45% of the population lives below the poverty line (Singh, 2018). Machinery is highly expensive and out of reach for most smallholder farmers within Africa and South Asia (Daum & Birner, 2020). Equipment such as tractors often cost tens of thousands of dollars. Machinery is often large scale and requires knowledge of technical processes to ensure safety, efficiency and maintenance to prevent costly breakdowns of machinery (Nalawade et al., 2026). Singh argues that for 40% of farmers in India, the farming profession is disliked due to its low profits, high-risk, and lack of social status. Therefore, the adherence of farmers to large scale machinery is highly unrealistic. The economic gap is widening for rural farmers and non-farm income in India: for every dollar a farmer earns, a non-farmer makes around 3.12 cents (Singh, 2018). This widening wealth gap disincentivizes young people from becoming farmers, and instead they migrate to big cities to pursue higher pay, receive less physically demanding jobs, and receive a stable income. Whereas the purchase of large machinery requires large financial investments, smallholder farmers do not need such machinery as they have small plots of land. As a result of these issues, most small scale farmers are not using high levels of mechanization; for example, Canedo and Kalas find that farmers in India use only six hours of mechanization per season.
The advantage of the hand-push lentil harvester is its moderate cost. However, this cost may remain a barrier for many farmers. To reduce this barrier, farmers can access machinery through cooperatives or producer groups, which helps low income farmers share costs and make machinery more affordable (Singh, 2018). Another option is using custom hiring service centers opened by cooperatives, producer companies, or self-help groups, where farmers can rent machinery instead of buying it (Singh, 2018). Farmers benefit from having spaces that allow for renting because it makes mechanization more accessible. Singh also notes that governments and institutions should support interest free-crop loans which means that farmers do not have to take such high risk when buying machinery (Singh, 2018).
However, another approach is a fee-for-service model, where a local entrepreneur purchases this machine and rents it to nearby farmers. Farmers can use rented machinery at a cost of only 4.6% of the machinery purchase price (Canuedo & Kala, 2021). Therefore, smallholder farmers do not need to use their limited income to purchase machinery. Machine rentals have become increasingly available within rural areas in developing nations (Caunedo & Kala, 2021). New markets have emerged for mechanization of rental services that are more suitable for the low-scale farming that smallholder farmers are doing (Caunedo & Kala, 2021; Singh, 2018).
Labour and crop management issues
Agrarian distress is used to describe a situation where farmers face real economic and social pressures that make farming difficult to maintain healthy livelihoods (Kandlur et al., 2022). Indeed, within this chapter, the hand-push reaper has been shown to offer advantages, specifically reducing manual labor and increasing time efficiency (Bansal et al., 1994). However, the reaper requires very specific conditions to maintain, and when they are not achieved, crop losses grow and farmer income is reduced (Bansal et al., 1994). Therefore, the reaper's success is vastly connected to a sensitive approach to crop management which can go wrong. Furthermore, a set of tradeoffs result in higher seed losses from the machine compared to manual harvesting, equaling 8.6%, and a straw loss of 16.6% (Erskine et al., 1991). The reaper under improper conditions can form furrows that negatively affect the performance of the technology (Erskine et al., 1991). Findings show that when the distance of the wheels (wheel track) are 70 cm apart, the plants are cut too high, and losses from pod shattering are very high (Erskine et al., 1991). Uneven crop height due to the factors mentioned earlier, also contributed to high shattering losses (Bansal, 1994). There is also a high loss of straw required for animal feed (Erskine et al., 1991).
When lentils are not harvested at the correct time, because of a lack of labour at that exact time, there can be increased pod shattering (Bansal et al., 1994). When taken together, partial mechanization should not be viewed as a perfect solution but rather as a tool to help farmers manage labor shortages while still maintaining some manual harvesting practices. Therefore, the main benefit to farmers is that the hand-push reaper is not increasing yield, but that it allows the farmer to harvest efficiently. Ultimately, the reaper's net benefit depends entirely upon the farmers' crop management skills. Therefore, it is critical that farmers receive proper training, not only on the equipment, but on the associated crop management skills required; this training will need to be ongoing to detect potential problems, and could be facilitated by farmer groups or cooperatives (often farmer-to-farmer support), an extension officer and toll-free technical support phone support from the machine company.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper we have learned that lentils are very useful for smallholder farmers because they provide high sources of protein and nutrients. However, the most prevalent way that smallholder farmers harvest lentils, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa, is by hand, which is a timely and exhaustive process. Partial mechanization, such as the use of a hand reaper, offers a potential solution that reduces labour intensity and time required to harvest lentils. Research has shown that labour requirements significantly decrease from 122 hours per hectare harvested by hand to 56 hours per hectare with the reaper (Bansal et al., 1994). Although there may be advantages, the technology also has limitations that are particularly relevant to a smallholder farmers. These limitations occur when specific crop management conditions are not met, such as proper crop spacing, field specifications, and knowing the correct biological timing. When suitable conditions have not been met, farmers can face crop losses because of increased pod shattering and the machine cutting too high from the base of the plant. It is important for farmers to know that the hand reaper is not made to increase yields but rather to improve the efficiency of harvesting. When used correctly, this mechanization can help farmers harvest faster and reduce farming labour. Though it may not be perfect, it represents a sign of development for rural smallholder farmers, while maintaining the middle ground of traditional practices. Training is critical to its success.
Helpful links to get started
This link refers to a product listing on Alibaba for hand-push lentil harvesters. Link
How to use a hand-push machine/what it looks like in use. Link
This link refers to a product listing on INDIAMART; the listing shows a small-scale, manually operated harvest machine, used by smallholder farmers. Link
References
Caunedo, J., & Kala, N. (2021). Mechanizing agriculture. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, USA. Link
Daum, T., & Birner, R. (2020). Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Myths, realities and an emerging research agenda. Global Food Security, 26, 100393. Link
Diekmann, J., & Al-Saleh, Y. (2009). Mechanization. The Lentil: Botany, Production and Uses, 248–261. Link
Erskine, W., Diekmann, J., P. Jegatheeswaran, A. Salkini, Saxena, M. C., A. Ghanaim, & Ashkar, F. E. (1991). Evaluation of lentil harvest systems for different sowing methods and cultivars in Syria. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 117(3), 333–338. Link
Gharakhani, H., Alimardani, R., & Jafari, A. (2017). Design a new cutter-bar mechanism with flexible blades and its evaluation on harvesting of lentil. Engineering in Agriculture, Environment and Food, 10(3), 198–207. Link
Kandlur, R., Sardana, S., & Richardson-Vejlgaard, R. (2022). The Agrarian distress: Factors explaining the will to live among rural and distressed family farmers. Psychiatry Research Communications, 2(1), 100019. Link
Lentils Harvest | Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. (2024, May 10). Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. Link
Montejano-Ramírez, V., & Valencia-Cantero, E. (2024). The Importance of Lentils: An Overview. Agriculture, 14(1), 103. Link
Nalawade, R. D., Singh, R., Mahore, A., Arif, M., Meena, A., Ansari, M., & Kumar, S. (2026). Mechanization of Pulse Crops: Engineering Challenges, Technological Advances, and Opportunities for Yield Gap Reduction. Journal of Food Legumes, 39, 115–127. Link
R. K. Bansal, G. E. Monroe, R. Dahan, O. El Gharras, & A. Bahri. (1994). Mechanization of Lentil Harvesting in Morocco. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 10(5), 641–646. Link
Sidahmed, M. M., & Jaber, N. S. (2004). The Design and Testing of a Cutter and Feeder Mechanism for the Mechanical Harvesting of Lentils. Biosystems Engineering, 88(3), 295–304. Link
SINGH, S. (2018). Doubling Farmers' Incomes: Mechanisms and Challenges. Economic and Political Weekly, 53(7), 15–19. JSTOR. Link
Zeroual, A., Baidani, A., Abderemane, B. A., Mitache, M., & Idrissi, O. (2024). Genetic variability and genotype-by-environment interaction for plant architecture and lodging resistance in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.). Euphytica, 220(11). Link