cover
Contact Name
Fani Ardiani
Contact Email
editor.joa.itscience@gmail.com
Phone
+628177776163
Journal Mail Official
intanmaulina1509@gmail.com
Editorial Address
https://jurnal.itscience.org/index.php/joa/contactus
Location
Unknown,
Unknown
INDONESIA
Journal of Agriculture (JoA)
ISSN : -     EISSN : 28292421     DOI : 10.47709/joa
Core Subject : Agriculture,
JoA aims publish primary research articles of current research topics from all over the world, not simultaneously submitted to nor previously published in other scientific or technical journals. General review and short communication articles will not be accepted. The journal maintains strict standards of content, presentation, and reviewing. SCOPE The journal will consider primary research papers from any source if they make an original contribution to the experimental or theoretical understanding and application of theories and methodologies of some aspects of agricultural science including: Soil science; Climate science; Agronomy; Agroforestry; Plant breeding; Biotechnology; Plant disease and protection; Farming system; Postharvest technology; Socio-economics of agriculture; Human research of agriculture JoA is published by Information Technology and Science (ITScience), a Research Institute in Medan, North Sumatra, Indonesia.
Articles 231 Documents
Technical Performance Evaluation of the TEP25 Young Coconut Peeling Machine Imelda Lumiu; Dedie Tooy; Ireine A Longdong; David P Rumambi; Daniel P. M Ludong; Herry F Pinatik
Journal of Agriculture Vol. 5 No. 02 (2026): Call for Papers July 2026
Publisher : ITScience (Information Technology and Science)

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.47709/joa.v5i02.9332

Abstract

This study evaluated the technical performance of the TEP25 young coconut peeling machine for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and compared its performance with conventional manual peeling. The evaluation involved six hybrid young coconuts and three respondents, focusing on peeling time, theoretical capacity, operational efficiency, machine rotational speed, product cleanliness, and user perception. The results demonstrated that the TEP25 performed better than the manual peeling method. The machine achieved an average peeling time of 41.67 s fruit?¹ and a theoretical capacity of 86.39 fruits h?¹, whereas manual peeling required 49.60 s fruit?¹ with a theoretical capacity of 72.58 fruits h?¹. Thus, the TEP25 increased peeling capacity by approximately 19% compared with the manual method. The machine achieved an operational efficiency of 91.67%, assuming approximately 5 min of non-productive time during each hour of operation. Its rotational speed decreased from 1479.2 rpm under no-load conditions to approximately 776 rpm under load, indicating the mechanical response of the system during peeling. In terms of product quality, the TEP25 achieved a coconut-water cleanliness score of 5.00/5.00, compared with 3.33/5.00 for manual peeling. Respondents also rated the machine more favorably for comfort, safety, and ease of operation. Overall, the TEP25 demonstrates promising potential to improve peeling productivity, product cleanliness, and workplace safety in MSMEs, although further evaluation using larger sample sizes is recommended.