Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 355 Download : 197

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The draft force of the movable boards ditch opener (MB) was compared with that of the conventional ditch opener (CD). The parameters of the experiments were three operating depths (30, 40 and 50 cm), three angles between the boards of MB (45, 60 and 75º), the angle of the boards of CD was constant (65º), three wings widths  of the foot of MB whereas, one share width (35cm) for CD and two soil types (cultivated and uncultivated soils). The texture of soils was silty clay. The  results showed that MB can penetrate the soil to the required depth easily and its draft force requirements were lower than that for CD for all operating depths, angle between the boards and in the cultivated and in uncultivated soils. Whereas, CD could not penetrate the soil more than 25cm in the uncultivated soil that its draft force higher than that for MB for operating depth of 30 and 40 cm and for all angles between the boards but the contrary occurred with operating depth of 50cm. The draft force requirement of MB increased slightly with the angle between the boards but it MB increased considerably with increasing wings width of the foot. However, the wings of MB required less draft force than the share of CD which its width was 35 cm (constant width). MB surpassed CD in the field performance, it required less draft force and it could penetrate the soils easily.

Keywords

Draft force Operating depth Ditch opener Soil

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Aday, S. H. ., & Al-Muthafar, Y. W. . (2018). Comparison between the performance of a movable boards ditch opener and conventional ditch opener in cultivated and uncultivated soils Part 1: The draft force. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2018.81
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aday, S.H. & Hilal, Y.Y. (2001a). The effect of wings width on the field performance of the subsoiler in heavy soil. (A): The draft force and disturbed area. (Part1). Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 14(2): 79-94.
  2. Aday, S.H. & Hilal, Y.Y. (2001b). The effect of wings width on the field performance of the subsoiler in heavy soil. (B): The specific resistance and energy utilization efficiency. Part (2): Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 14(1): 51-66.
  3. Aday, S.H. & Hmood, M.S. (1995). The field performance of the subsoiler when provided with wings and shallow tines in heavy soil. Mesopotamia J. Agric., 27(4): 16-20.
  4. Aday, S.H. & Ramadhan, M.N. (2018). Comparison between the draft force requirements and the disturbed area of a single tine, parallel double tines and partially swerved double tines subsoilers.J. Soil & Till. Res., (In press).
  5. Aday, S.H.; Abdul-Nabi, M.A. & Ndawii, D.R. (2011). The effect of the lateral distance between the shallow tines of the subsoiler on its draft requirement in a silty clay soil (part 1). Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 24(1): 374-387.
  6. Aday, S.H.; Al-Haliphy, R. & Majeed, H.R. (2004). Field study for a modified subsoiler draft requirement in heavy soil. Iraqi J. Agric., 9(2): 155-166.
  7. Aday, S.H.; Muhsin, S.J. & Hameed, F.M. (2008). Design and manufacture subsoil manure laying implement and studying its field performance. Basrah J. Agric. Sci., 21(special issue): 443-459.
  8. 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 (1): The draft force requirement and disturbed area. 2nd national conference on mechanization and new technology, Ramin University of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources. Ahvaz Khuzestan, Iran, 11-12 June, 2016.
  9. Ahmed, M.H. & Godwin, R.J. (1983). The influence of wing position on subsoiler penetration and soil disturbance. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 28: 489-492.
  10. Black, C.A; Evans, D.D.; White, J.L.; Ensminger, L.E. & Clark, F.E. (1965). Methods of Soil analysis. Part 1, No.9, Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin, 770pp.
  11. Gill, W.R. & Vanderberg, G.E. (1968). Soil dynamic in tillage and traction agriculture. Hanbook No. 316, Washington, D. C., A Agricultural Research Service. .511pp.
  12. 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.
  13. Mckyes, E. (1984). Prediction and field measurements of tillage tool draft forces and efficiency in cohesive soils. J. Soil & Till. Res., 4: 459-470.
  14. Mckyes, E. & Maswaure, J. (1997). Effect of design parameters of flat tillage tools on loosening of a clay soil. Soil & Till. Res., 43: 195-204.
  15. Mielke, L.N.; Grisso, R.D.; Bashford, L.L. & Parkhurst, A.M. (1994). Bi-level subsoiler performance using tandem shanks. App. Eng. In. Agric., 10(3): 345-349.
  16. Owen, G.T. (1988). Soil disturbance associated with deep subsoiling in compact soils. Can. Agric. Eng., 30(1): 33-37.
  17. Reeder, R.L.; Woodand, R.K. & Finck, C.L. (1993). Five subsoiler designs and their effects on soil properties and crop yields. Trans. ASAE, 36(6): 1525-1531.
  18. Spoor, G. & Godwin, R.J. (1978). Experimental investigation into the deep loosening of soil by rigid tines. J. Agric. Eng. Res., 23(3): 243-258.