Comparison Study between the Field Performance of a Movable Boards and Conventional Ditch Openers in Cultivated and Uncultivated Soils, Part 3: The Specific Resistance
Keywords:Conventional ditch opener, Movable boards ditch opener, Specific resistance, Operating depth, Angle between movable boards
The field performance of movable boards ditch opener (MB) and conventional ditch opener (CD) was contrasted by using a specific resistance to determine the optimum performance of either one of them. The comparison was conducted using three operating depths (30, 40 and 50cm), three angles between the boards of MB (45, 60 and 750), one angle for CD (650) because its boards were fixed, three wings width of the foot of MB whereas, for CD, one share width (35cm) and two soil types (cultivated and uncultivated). CD could not penetrate the uncultivated soil more than 25cm so that there was one operating depth. The results of the experiments showed that SR for MB decreased as the operating depth, the angle between the boards and the width of the wings of the foot in both soil types were increased. Specific resistance (SR) for CD also decreased as the operating depth increased in the cultivated soil, but in the uncultivated soil, CD could not penetrate the soil more than 25cm. SR for MB was lower than that for CD for all operating depths, the angle between the boards, the width of the wings of the foot in both soil types. SR for MB and CD in the cultivated soil was low compared to uncultivated soil. The soil type decreased SR for MB more than the operating depth, the angle between its boards and the width of its wings. On the other hand, the angle between its boards reduced SR more than the width of the wings and the operating depth. MB surpassed CD in giving lower SR and that means the field performance of MB was higher than that for CD.
Aday, S.H. (2015). Theory of agriculture machines. Alghadeer Co. for Printing and Publishing Ltd. Basrah, Iraq. 154pp.
Aday, S.H. & Al-Haliphy, A.R. (2001). The disturbed area and the specific resistance of a modified subsoiler in heavy soil. Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 14 (3): 73-98.
Aday, S.H. & Al-Muthafar, Y.W. (2018).Comparison between the performance of a movable boards ditch opener and the conventional ditch opener in cultivated and uncultivated soil. Part (1): The draft force. Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 31(1): 85-92.
Aday, S.H. & Hilal, Y.Y. (2004). The effect of lifting angle of the subsoiler foot wings on its field performance in heavy soils. The draft force and the disturbed area. Iraq J. Agric., 9(3): 195-207.
Aday, S.H. & Hilal, Y.Y. (2001). The effect of wings width on the field performance in heavy soils. The specific resistance and energy utilization efficiency. Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 14(1): 51-66.
Aday, S.H. & Hmood, M.S. (1995). The field performance of the subsoiler when provided with wings and shallow tines in heavy soils. Mesopotamia J., 7(4): 16-20.
Aday, S.H.; Abdul-Nabi, M.A. & Ndawii, D.R. (2011). The effect of the lateral distance between the shallow tines on the disturbed area and the specific resistance of the subsoiler. Part (2).
Aday, S.H.; Ramdhan, M. & Ali, H. (2016). Evaluation of the field performance of partially swerved double tines subsoiler in two different soil textures and two levels of moisture contents. Part 2: Specific resistance and energy utilization efficiency. 2nd national conference on mechanization and new technology, Ramin University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources. Ahvaz, Khuzestan, Iran, June.: 1-14.
Ahmed, M.H. and Godwin, R.J. (1983) The influence of wing position on subsoiler penetration and soil disturbance. J. Agric. Engng. Res. 28: 489-492.
Black, C.; White, J.L.; Ensminger, J.E & Clark, F.E. (1983). Method of soil analysis. 6th edition. Am. Soc. Agron, Madison. Wisconsin: 770pp.
Gill, W.R. & Vandenberg, G. E. (1968). Soil dynamic in tillage and traction. Agriculture handbook, No. 316 Agric. Res. Service, U.S.D.A.
Godwin, R.J. & Spoor, G. (1977). Soil failure with narrow tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 22: 213-228.
Godwin, R.J; Spoor, G. & Soomro, M.S. (1984). The effect of tine arrangement on soil forces and disturbance. J Agric. Eng. Res; 30; 47-56.
Mckyes, E. & Masware, J. (1997). Effect of design parameters of flat tillage tools on loosening of clay soil. J. Soil & Tillage Res., 43: 195-204.
Owen, G.T. (1988). Soil disturbance associated with deep subsoiling in compact soils. Can. Agric. Eng., 30 (1): 33-37.
Ramadan, M.N. (2011). Evaluation of the mechanical performance of the double tines longitudinally arranged subsoiler and its effect on some growth characteristic of barley crop. M. Sc. Thesis. Coll. Agriculture, Univ. Basrah: 174pp.
Reeder, R.L.; Wood, R.K. and Finck, C.L. (1993). Five subsoiler designs and their effects on soil properties and crop yields. Trans ASAE, 36 (6): 1525-1531.
Spoor, G. & Godwin, R.G. (1978). An experimental investigation into the deep loosening of soil by rigid tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 23 (3): 243-258.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2019 Shaker H. Aday & Yarub Al-muthafar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.