The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Sugar cane production requires a number of operations to be carried out in the field through number of implements and machines. Therefore, time consuming and required large amount of energy. A combined field cultivator was designed in Kenana agricultural implements factory (KAIF) to carry out at one time multi operations (cultivation, furrow-reforming and Fertilizer placement). This is to increase field productivity, reduce farm power and lower operation time and cost. The combined implement was evaluated in Kenana cultivation fields and compared with three individual implements, rigid tine cultivator, furrow-reformer and fertilizer applicator. The measured parameters were drawbar pull, power requirements, field capacity, fuel consumption and total time in the field. The results showed highly significant differences at 1% level between the different implements for the field capacity, fuel consumption and significant differences at 5% for the drawbar pull. A power requirement in (kW) for the combined cultivator was 77% of those individual implements. Total time per feddan to accomplish the required operations by the combined cultivator was 57% of that required by the individual implements. Fuel consumption was reduced to 57% when combined implement was used compared to that consumed by individual implements. It was concluded that the combined cultivator was effective in increasing field productivity and reducing power and cost of operation.
Farm machinery management deals with the optimization of the equipment used for agricultural production. It is concerned with efficient selection, operation, maintenance, and replacement of machinery. Farm machinery selection is a fundamental in achieving the concept of sustainable agriculture, which becomes a global issue in agricultural sector development
Sugar industry in Sudan, started in the sixties and reached its present size in the eighties. Sugar industry has a significant contribution to the national income and the economy of the country. Sugar cane in Sudan is now grown in the central clay plains and the expansion in this region depends in the suitable soil, availability of irrigation water and machinery. The production of sugar cane involves many operations from planting to harvesting. It is produced either by planting stalks of cane or by ratoon.
The concept of combined implement was found to be of great importance to carry out more than one operation at the same time and to conserve energy and time and to save labour cost. Some pioneer studies were carried out to combine tillage implements with planting machines as a minimum tillage combined systems
Carried out an experiment to study the performance of a primary and secondary tillage implements combined into one machine and was evaluated in the field and compared with the individual implements, chisel and ridger for unit draft, power, slippage, fuel consumption and time.
The main objective of the present study was to develop and evaluate a combined machine formed from three implements, rigid tine cultivator, furrow reformer and fertilizer applicator to increase field productively, reduce farm power and lower operational costs and time. Therefore, the specific objectives are: To evaluate the field performance of the combined machine compared to the individual implements. The parameters investigated and measured were field capacity and efficiency, fuel consumption and power requirement.
The experiment was carried out at Kenana cane fields (heavy clay soil). The soil is 15% sand, 22% silt, 63% clay (Kenana research department). Kenana Latitude is 13°8'16"N and Long 33°0'31"E.
An experimental plot consalmaisting of four treatments and three replicates was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD). The treatments consisted of four implements
Two Massey Ferguson tractors (MF440) were used for the experimental measurements. The specifications of the tractors are given in
|
|
---|---|
Model | Perkins |
No. of cylinders | 7 |
HP | 82(61.6KW) |
Rev/m | 2200 |
Injection | Direct |
Capacity | 1.4 lit |
Aspiration | Natural |
Steering | Hydrostatic |
Max. engine torque | 288NM |
Weight | 2665kg |
Length | 3.98m |
Width | 2.06m |
The implements used in this study were rigid tine cultivator, furrow reformer, fertilizer applicator and the combined field cultivator which developed as a two row cultivator. The specifications of these implements are shown in
|
|
||
---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Type | Tractor mounted | Tractor mounted | Tractor mounted |
Lifting | By Tractor hydraulic | By Tractor hydraulic | By Tractor hydraulic |
Height | 1550 mm | 365mm | 800mm |
Length | 1110mm | 980mm | 1200 |
Width | 2480mm | 1000mm | 1800mm |
Components | Mild steel frame, hoppers(4), transmission system. | Two wings v shape frame, cutting edges | Eight shanks, two raw u shape frame. |
The cultivator consists of six rigid tynes, equipped with replaceable chisel points, staggered on a rugged tool bar in twos, for each furrow there were three tynes, two in the front row, and third in the second row, at the center of the two front tynes. The front tynes were to loosen the sides of the furrows and to provide grooves for placement of fertilizers. The center tynes were to loosen the middle of the furrows to provide more loose soil for coverage of fertilizers and reshaping of the ridges and furrows. The fertilizer applicator consists of fertilizer hoper, metering devices, and delivery tubes. There were two main hopers one for each row. Capacities of the compartment were 300kg of fertilizer.
The metering devices were tractor-PTO driven mechanism specially designed for the machine. Fertilizer displacement (flow) was controllable through the setting of the drive linkages. Delivery tubes attached to the outlets of the metering devices and clamped to the backs of the front times. The furrowing unit was a set of two moldboards, in addition to ridge and furrow reformation, furrowers were to cover fertilizer.
The combined field cultivator was developed as a two row cultivator, tractor mounted machine. It was designed to comprise functional components of a chisel cultivator, furrower and a fertilizer applicator. (The specifications of this machine is shown in
|
|
---|---|
Type | Mounted two raw |
Lifting | By tractor hydraulic |
Overall height | 1460mm |
Length | 1665mm |
Width | 2480mm |
Hoper capacity | 400kg of Fertilizer |
Components | Fertilizer applicator Rigid tine Ridger |
The time lost in the field such as turning, adjustment and change of gear was recorded and time used for real work also recorded. The theoretical, effective field capacity and field efficiency were calculated as follows
For measuring the fuel consumption of tractor, the fuel tank was filled up to neck of the fuel tank before and after the planting operation in each plot. The amount of refilling measured after the test was the fuel consumption for planting operation in each plot and it was expressed as liter per hour and calculated as follows:
The auxiliary tractor (MF) and the tested tractor (MF) were linked together through the dynamometer using steel chain.
The auxiliary tractor was first used to pull the tested tractor alone.
The reading of the dynamometer was recorded
The tested tractor then loaded with the implement operated at constant depth controlled with manual hydraulic lever of the tractor
The reading was repeated and taken the average
Implement draft was calculated as follows
The power exerted by the tractor on the implement was calculated using the following equation:
Dbp = Draw bar power (KW)
D = Implement draft (KN)
S = Forward speed (Km/hr)
The time lost in the field such as turning, adjustment and change of gear was recorded and time used for real work also recorded. The theoretical, effective field capacity and field efficiency were calculated as follows
For measuring the fuel consumption of tractor, the fuel tank was filled up to neck of the fuel tank before and after the planting operation in each plot. The amount of refilling measured after the test was the fuel consumption for planting operation in each plot and it was expressed as liter per hour and calculated as follows
Implement | FC(Fad/hr) | Fuel C (lit/Fed) | Draw bar pull (KN) | D b power (KW) | U d (KN/m) |
Combined | 2.57 | 2.41 | 7.51 | 12.51 | 3.02 |
Ridger | 2.54 | 2.05 | 3.40 | 5.6 | 5.3 |
Fertilizer App. | 8.43 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 0.17 |
Rigid tine | 2.5 | 1.75 | 5.90 | 9.8 | 4.5 |
FC = Field Capacity, Fuel C = Fuel Consumption, D b = Draw Bar, U d = Unit Draft
Adding the power required for ridger, rigid tine and fertilizer applicator all together and comparing them with power required by the combined implement showed that the power required was less by 3.7 KW, this saved about (23%) of power when using combined implement. This is in line with Paterno, (1994)
Statistical analysis shows significant differences between treatments at 5% level, (
From
Statistical analysis shows highly significant differences between treatments at 1% level (
Parameters | F value | ||
f-cal. | F-tab. | ||
5% | 1% | ||
Field capacity | **44.5 | 8.62 | 26.5 |
Fuel consumption | **1584 | 8.62 | 26.5 |
Drawbar pull | *15.9 | 8.62 | 26.5 |
Field capacity (fed/h) shown in
Statistical analysis shows highly significant differences between treatments at 1% level, (
|
|
---|---|
Combined machine | 0.39 |
Ridger | 0.40 |
Fertilizer applicator | 0.11 |
Rigid tyne | 0.40 |
The combined machine compared with individual implements (ridger, fertilizer app., rigid tine) was found reduced the power required by (23%), total time by (57%), fuel consumption by (57%) and operate the same area done by the three implements together in the same period of time.