Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 236 Download : 145

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of a locally manufactured combined tillage machine on the draft force, fuel consumption, field efficiency, power loss, and soil pulverization index. The combined tillage machine accomplished the primary, secondary, and deep tillage in a single pass. The combined tillage machine types were compared to individual tillage machines. The combined tillage machine accomplished the primary, secondary, and deep tillage in a single pass. A randomized complete block (RCBD) experiment was the statistical method used for the investigation with three replicates. The field experiments were conducted in silty loam soil. The combined tillage machines were used in three types. The first configuration (T1) consists of a subsoiler+ chisel plow + disk harrow + roller, the second configuration (T2) consists of a subsoiler + chisel plow, and the third configuration (T3) consists of chisel plow + disc harrow at two operating speeds (1.5 and 3 km.h-1). Individual tillage machines were used in three conventional tillage systems M1, M2, and M3. M1. Conventional tillage systems M1, M2, and M3 perform similar tasks to combined tillage machine types T1, T2, and T3 respectively. The results showed that T3 reduced draft force by 40 and 34.35%, saved fuel by 19.88 and 25.89%, and reduced power loss by 54.25 and 37.22%, while increasing field efficiency by 13.64 and 5.63 and the soil pulverization index by 26.67 and 66.24% compared with T1 and T2 respectively. The combined tillage machinesT1, T2, and T3 reduced the draft force and power loss while increasing the field efficiency by 19.05, 22.41, and 53.49%, respectively, compared with conventional tillage systems M1, M2, and M3. The combined tillage machinesT1, T2, and T3 achieved the lowest values of the soil pulverization index, with values of 19.91, 41.93, and 33.10 mm, and saved fuel by 58.68, 41.61, and 26.86% respectively, compared with conventional tillage systems M1, M2, and M3. The results also revealed that operating speed and its interaction with the combined tillage machine types had a significant effect on all of the studied characteristics (p<0.05). 

Keywords

Combined tillage machine Draft force Fuel consumption Field efficiency Soil pulverization Index

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Nassir, A. J. ., Muhsin, S. J. ., & Ndawi, D. R. . (2022). The Technical Evaluation of Three Different Types of Tillage Combined Machines and compared them with Individual Tillage Machines. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 35(2), 341–361. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2022.35.2.26
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Almaliki, S. A., Himoud, M. S., & Muhsin, S. J. (2021). Mathematical model for evaluating slippage of tractor under various field conditions. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 34(1), 49-59.
  2. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2021.34.1.05
  3. Almaliki, S., Alimardani, R., & Omid, M. (2016). Artificial neural network based modeling of tractor performance at different field conditions. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 4, 262-274.
  4. https://cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/3880
  5. Balsari, P., Biglia, A., Comba, L., Sacco, D., Alcatrao, L. E., Varani, M., & Aimonino, D. R. (2021). Performance analysis of a tractor-power harrow system under different working conditions. Biosystems Engineering, 202, 28-41.
  6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2020.11.009
  7. Black, C.A.; Evans, D.D., White, J.L., Ensminger, L.E. and Clarck, F.E. (1965). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical properties. American Society of Agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, 770pp.
  8. Choudhary, S., Upadhyay, G., Patel, B., & Jain, M. (2021). Energy requirements and tillage performance under different active tillage treatments in sandy loam soil. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 46, 353-364.
  9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-021-00112-y
  10. Dahab, M. H., Numan, M. H., & Abdalla, O. A. (2021). Field performance evaluation of a combined ciltivator developed at kenana sugar company- Sudan. International Journal of Scientific Advances (IJSCIA), 2, 241-245.
  11. https://doi.org/10.51542/ijscia.v2i3.3
  12. Himoud, M. S. (2018). Evaluation some performance indicators for tractor (Case JX75T). Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 49, 609-621
  13. https://jcoagri.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/intro/article/view/53
  14. Inthiyaz, M., Tejaswini, C., Sivakumar, P. & Srigiri, D. (2020). Development of mini tractor operated combination tillage machine. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 9, 1894-1903.
  15. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.909.239
  16. Jabro, J. D., Stevens, W. B., Iversen, W. M., Sainju, U. M., & Allen, B. L. (2021). Soil cone index and bulk density of a sandy loam under no-till and conventional tillage in a corn-soybean rotation. Soil and Tillage Research, 206, 104842.
  17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104842
  18. Lohr, S.L. (2021). Sampling: Design and Analysis (3rd. Edition). Chapman and Hall/CRC. New York. 674pp.
  19. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429298899
  20. Martins, M. B., Bortolheiro, F. P., Testa, J. V., Sartori, M. M., Crusciol, C. C., & Lanças, K. P. (2021). Fuel consumption between two soil tillage systems for planting sugarcane. Sugar Tech, 23(1), 219-224.
  21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-020-00873-4
  22. Md-Tahir, H., Zhang, J., Xia, J., Zhou, Y., Zhou, H., Du, J., & Mamona, H. (2021). Experimental investigation of traction power transfer indices of farm-tractors for efficient energy utilization in soil tillage and cultivation operations. Agronomy, 11(1),168.
  23. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010168
  24. Mileusnic, Z. I., Petrovic, D. V., & Đevic, M. S. (2010). Comparison of tillage systems according to fuel consumption. Energy, 35, 221-228.
  25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.09.012
  26. Mileusnic, Z. I., Saljnikov, E., Radojević, R. L., & Petrović, D. V. (2022). Soil compaction due to agricultural machinery impact. Journal of Terramechanics, 100, 51-60.
  27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jterra.2021.12.002
  28. Moitzi, G., Weingartmann, H., Refenner, K., Weingartmann, H., Piringer, G., Boxberger, J., & Gronauer, A. (2014). Effects of working depth and wheel slip on fuel consumption of selected tillage machines. Agricultural Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 1, 182-190.
  29. https://cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/2661
  30. Muhsin, S. J. (2017a). Performance study of moldboard plow with two types of disc harrows and their effect on some soil properties under different operating conditions. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(2), 1-15.
  31. https://bjas.bajas.edu.iq/index.php/bjas/article/view/19
  32. Muhsin, S. J. (2017b). Determination of energy requirements, plowed soil volume rate and soil pulverization ratio of chisel plow under various operating conditions. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 30(1), 73-84.
  33. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2017.24
  34. Nassir, A. J. (2018). Effect of moldboard plow types on soil physical properties under different soil moisture content and tractor speed. Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 31(1), 48-58.
  35. https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2018.75
  36. Nassir, A. J., Ramadhan M. N., &. Muhsin, S. D. (2016). Studying draft requirements and plowing specifications for chisel plow in silty clay soil. Muthanna Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4, 100-119. (In Arabic).
  37. https://muthjas.mu.edu.iq/?p=613
  38. Noor, R. S., Hussain, F., Farooq, M. U., Abbas, I., Umair, M., Islam, M. A., & Sheraz, M. (2020). Yield and economic analysis of peanut production under different soil tillage systems in north-east region. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 33, 490-497.
  39. http://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjar/2020/33.3.490.497
  40. Osma, T. O., Zaied, M. B., & El Naim, A. M. (2014). Field performance of a modified chisel plow. International Journal of Natural Sciences Research, 2, 85-96.
  41. https://archive.conscientiabeam.com/index.php/63/article/view/2320
  42. Prem, M., Prem, R., Dabhi, K., Baria, A., & Lepcha, P. (2017). Use of different tillage tools for minimizing number of passes in secondary tillage operations International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences (IJCMAS), 12, 3109-3116.
  43. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.612.363
  44. Prem, M., Swarnkar, R., Vyas, D.K., Pargi, S. J., & Khodifad, B. C. (2016). Combined tillage tools-a review. Current Agriculture Research Journal, 2, 179-185.
  45. http://doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.4.2.07
  46. Ramadhan, M. N. (2014). Development and performance evaluation of the double tines subsoiler in silty clay soil part 1: draft force, disturbed area and specific resistance. Mesopotamia Journal of Agricultural, 1, 293-313.
  47. https://www.iasj.net/iasj/article/89363
  48. Ranjbarian, S., Askari, M., & Jannatkhah, J. (2017). Performance of tractor and tillage machinesin clay soil. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 2, 154-162.
  49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2015.05.003
  50. Safa, M., Samarasinghe, S., & Mohssen, M. (2010). Determination of fuel consumption and indirect factors affecting it in wheat production in Canterbury, New Zealand. Energy, 35, 5400-5405.
  51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2010.07.015
  52. Salar, M., Karparvarfard, S. H., Askari, M., & Kargarpour, H. (2021). Forces and loosening characteristics of a new winged chisel plough. Research in Agricultural Engineering, 1, 17-25.
  53. https://doi.org/10.17221/71/2020-RAE
  54. Sven, P. (2019). Effect of Ploughing Depth, Tractor forward speed, and plough types on the fuel consumption and tractor performance. Polytechnic Journal, 1, 43-49.
  55. https://doi.org/10.25156/ptj.v9n1y2019.pp43-49
  56. Taha, F. J., & Taha, S. Y. (2019). Evaluation the effect of tractor speeds and tillage depths on some technical indicators for plow locally manufactured. The Iraqi Journal of Agricultural Science, 50(2), 721-726.‏
  57. https://jcoagri.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/intro/article/view/672
  58. Usaborisut, P., & Prasertkan, K. (2019). Specific energy requirements and soil pulverization of a combined tillage machine. Heliyon, 5, 1-10.
  59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02757
  60. Usaborisut, P., Sukcharoenvipharat, W., & Choedkiatphon, S. (2020). Tilling tests of rotary tiller and power harrow after subsoiling. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 6, 391-400.‏
  61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2020.05.002
  62. Zhao, J., Lu, Y., Guo, M., Fu, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Design and experiment of bionic stubble breaking-deep loosening combined tillage machine. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, 14(4), 123-134.
  63. http://www.ijabe.org/index.php/ijabe/article/view/6473
  64. Zheng, K., Cheng, J., Xia, J., Liu, G., & Xu, L. (2021). Effects of soil bulk density and moisture content on the physico-mechanical properties of paddy soil in plough layer. Water, 13, 1-13.
  65. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/16/2290