EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS COMBINATION ON FUEL CONSUMPTION

Project Report

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS COMBINATION ON FUEL CONSUMPTION

Submitted By:-

Vipin Kumar Oad (G.L) 2K10-AE-162

Ali Ahmed Khuwaja (A.G.L) 2K10-AE-28

Abid Ali Manjhoo 2K10-AE-22 Adeeb Ahmed Mallah 2K10-AE-23

Amjad Ali Saryo 2K10-AE-33 Asif Ali Bhambhro 2K10-AE-40

Asif Nawaz Magsi 2K10-AE-42 Azad Ahmed Mahar 2K10-AE-46

Hamid Ali Channa 2K10-AE-61 Mehran Khan Gopang 2K10-AE-95

Mir Iqbal Talpur 2K10-AE-96

DEPARTMENT OF FARM POWER & MACHINERYFACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

SINDH AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY,TANDOJAM

2015

III

DEDICATION

This Humble effort is dedicated to our

“BELOVED PARENTS”

AND

TEACHERS

Who encouraged us to work hard until to get height of an ideal life with love and co-operation.

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTE

RPARTICULARS PAGE

Dedication III

List of Content IV

List of Tables VI

Research Certificate VII

Acknowledgement VIII

Abstract IX

I Introduction 10

II Review of Literature 14

III Materials & Method 19

IV Results & Discussions 40

VConclusion &

Suggestions58

VI References 60

VI

LIST OF TABLESTABLE PARTICULARS PAGE

1. Soil texture 41

2. Soil moisture content ratio before tillage.

42

3. Soil moisture content ratio after tillage

43

4. Soil Bulk density before tillage 45

5. Soil bulk density after tillage. 46

6. Soil Infiltration 48

7. Effective width & depth 49

8. Actual plowing speed 50

9. Wheel slippage of disk plow 51

Wheel slippage of disk plow + disk harrowWheel slippage of disk harrow 52

Wheel slippage of disk harrow twice

10.......... Soil Aggregate 53

11.......... Effective field capacity of disk plow

54

12. Effective field capacity of disk harrow

54

13. Soil volume disturbed by disk plow & disk harrow

55

14. Fuel consumption of Disk plow +Disk harrow

56

15. Fuel consumption of Disk harrow Twice

57

VII

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PARTICULARS PAGE

1. Disk Plow Diagram 21

2. Disk harrow Diagram 22

3. Field Preparation 23

4. Field layout 24

5. Single plot layout 25

6. Plow operation 27

7.Obtaining soil Samples for Moisture content

29

8.Obtaining soil Samples for Bulk Density

30

9.Cutting width & depth of implement

32

10. Measuring wheel slippage 34

11.

Determining no: of turns with load for wheel slippage ratio

35Determining no: of turns without load for wheel slippage ratio

12. Soil Aggregation by sieve analysis 36

13. Using graduated Cylinder 38

14. Soil textural triangle 41

VIII

DEPARTMENT OF FARM POWER AND MACHINERYFACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

SINDH AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY TANDOJAM

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the present research work entitled

“EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS

COMBINATION ON FUEL CONSUMPTION” in the department of farm

power and machinery embodied in this project report has been carried out by a

group of ELEVEN students, of final Professional B.E (Agri), under my

guidance and supervision for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Agriculture Engineering and I confirm that the work is

original and satisfactory.

RESEARCH SUPERVISOR

Dr. NAIMTULLAH LEGHARI

Department of Farm Power & Machinery Faculty of Agricultural Engineering

Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam

IX

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors offer most humble gratitude to Almighty

ALLAH, The propitious, The Benevolent and Sovereign whose

blessing and glory flourished us to complete this work of long

and stress full day and hours.

After that authors would like to extend heartiest gratitude

to

Dr. Naimtullah Leghari (Assistant Professor, Department of

Farm Power and Machinery) Sindh Agriculture University

Tandojam, supervisor, under his supervision this exertion

became possible, his keen interest, constructive criticism

throughout work made us able to fulfill such work.

As a matter of fact without such kind assistance and help

it would have been difficult for authors to perform such job.

We are thank full for such kind support. He gave us the chance

to finish the study and with his guidance, the study can finish

smoothly, besides that his patience and encouragement leads

us to complete this study in time.

Not forgetting our Parents, Sisters, brothers and

colleagues of their full support and assistance throughout the

research work.

Authors

X

ABSTRACT

The field research study entitled “EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE IMPLEMENTS COMBINATION ON FUEL CONSUMPTION” was carried out, in this study the fuel efficiency of disk plow + disk harrow and disk harrow (twice) were tested on a clay loam soil having moisture content 12.5 % and bulk density 1.32 g/cm3.

This field operation was conducted at Latif Farm of Sindh Agriculture University Tandojam, for field research purpose one acres of soil was allotted by farm incharge.

To find out the more efficient implement with respect to fuel Consumption two treatments T1 (disk plow + disk harrow), T2 (disk harrow) were evaluated in three replicated randomized complete block design plots. Six plots of same measurement (15m x 25m) were prepared & required field operations were carried out, different soil properties and implement parameters like (Bulk Density, Soil Texture, Soil Infiltration rate, soil moisture percentage, wheel slippage, width and cut of furrow) were also conducted during field work.

Fuel consumption of set of treatments Disk plow + disk harrow and Disk harrow (twice) has been studied and compared. Time taken and number of tractor trips needed for performing tillage operations were used for comparison. The fuel consumption per hour of T1 (disk plow + disk harrow) was assessed and found to be 6.97 lit/hr and 41.3 lit/hectare, and for T2 (Disk harrow twice) was 6.03 lit/hr and 35.73 lit/ hectare.

The research study revealed that the fuel consumption was influenced by actual width of cut, plowing speed, efficiency of plowing operation and bulk density and moisture content.

The main purpose for performing this research was to bring up the more effective implement between Disk plow and disk harrow on fuel consumption base.

IX

CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION

Tillage may be defined as the mechanical manipulation of soil for the purpose of enhancing the growth of crops.

The first iron plows were used more than 2000 years ago in northern Honan province in China. Water buffaloes were used to pull V-shaped tools for primary tillage. In India, bullocks were used to pull hardwood wedges to break up soil followed by rectangular wooden beams to break up clods. This was perhaps the earliest application of primary and secondary tillage used to prepare a seedbed. As civilization progressed technologically, innovations in tillage gradually occurred. The Romans used iron plow shares, coulter knives and teams of draft oxen over 2000 years ago. Perhaps the first plows were equipped with wheels in the first century A.D. in northern Italy.

By the 1860's animal power began to un-noticed with the introduction of steam power. By the turn of the century, smaller and more powerful internal combustion engines were replacing steam power. Now a day’s tractor is the main unit of farm machinery and ensures better quality of farm operations, timely completion of farm activities, better management supervision and dignity of labour

Soil tillage is carried out with the objectives of changing the soil physical properties and to enable the plants to show their full potential. Soil tillage techniques are used in order to provide a good

P a g e | 12

seedbed for root development, to control weeds to manage crop residues, to reduce erosion and provide the surface for planting, irrigation, drainage, and cultural tasks, incorporation of fertilizer or pesticides and harvest operations. Tillage practices facilitate water penetration into the soil and enhance the quantity of water retained for the longer use by crop. Sub soil tillage improves water infiltration; decreases bulk density, penetration resistance and increase water holding capacity as compared to no-tillage treatments. Inappropriate tillage causes subsoil compaction. Soil compaction reduces the water and nutrient use efficiencies of crops.

One of the basic and important components of agricultural production technology is soil tillage. Various forms of tillage are practiced throughout the world, ranging from the use of simple stick or jab to the sophisticated Para-plough. The practices developed, with whatever equipment used, can be broadly classified into no tillage, minimum tillage, conservation tillage and conventional tillage. Energy plays a key role in the various tillage systems.

The best management practices usually entail the least amount of tillage necessary to grow the desired crop. This not only involves a substantial saving in energy costs, but also ensures that a resource base, namely the soil, is maintained to produce on a sustainable basis.

P a g e | 13

Tillage Effect on Soil Properties

Tillage affects soil physical, chemical and biological properties. Research results have been widely reported on the effects of tillage on soil aggregation, temperature, water infiltration and retention as the main physical parameters affected. The magnitude of the changes depends on soil types as well as soil composition. Changes in chemical properties are dependent mainly on the organic matter content of the soils. Tillage affects aeration and thus the rate of organic matter decomposition. Biological activities in the soil are vital to soil productivity through the activities of earthworms, termites and the many other living creatures in the soil. These influence water infiltration rates by their burrowing in the soil and their mucilage promotes soil aggregation.

Selection of Tillage ImplementWhen selecting a tillage system, it is very

important to establish the priorities for the goals to be achieved and the consequences that may occur in case of change in climatic conditions and properties of plant residues and soil.

The Disk plow and Disk harrow are the common disk tolls used by farming community, Heavy duty harrows are used for primary tillage for controlling weeds and for cutting up and mixing stubbles or cover

P a g e | 14

crops in the soil. Lighter units are often used in secondary preparation to plowing.

Disk plow has concave type plates and disk harrows have notch type disks usually representing section of hallow sphere. The action of concave disk blades is somewhat similar in the action of a mould board plow bottom in that the soil is lifted, pulverized, partially inverted and displaced to one side. The disk harrows have opposing gangs that move the soil in opposite direction. Disk implement can cut through crop residues, will roll over roots and other obstructions and can be operated in no scouring soils by using scrapers. The disk do not provide complete converge of trash which may be either an advantage or a disadvantage depending upon the tillage objectives.

The use of disk tillage tools has become the outstanding features for modern farming. A farmer, landlord or a tenant would like to use operate the farm implements to achieve maximum economic and overall profit.

Recent escalation of custom hiring rates, fuel prices and reduction of farm income has awakened the interest to determine the fuel of tractor implement system, with a view to fix or opt the hiring charges and also to assess the overall cost benefit ratio of the farm enterprise. Fuel consumption of tractor for implement field operations at predetermined tractor speed, time of operation, accumulated fuel consumption and machine forward speed determines the cost of implement field operation.

The steep rises in the price of tractors and other farm machines have lowered the purchasing power for

P a g e | 15

farm machines by rural farmers and this trend is calling for management planning tool.

To achieve the maximum and overall profit from the farm business the performance of implement- tractor system need to be evaluated. Among the tillage implements, the Disk plow & Disk harrow being the most conventional, popular primary & secondary tillage tools and widely used on farms: thus the evaluation of their field performance is of vital importance to determine its effects in cost benefit ratio of the farm business. For this purpose the Present study entitled “EFFECT OF DIFFERENT TILLAGE IMPLEMENT’S COMBINATION ON FUEL CONSUMPTION” was set up and selected.

Thus the study was conducted with the following objectives:

1. To find out the fuel utilization of tillage implements.

2. Find out the more effective implement on fuel basis.

3. To determine the best tillage implement for required soil texture.

4. To determine the effect of tillage implements on soil properties.

P a g e | 16

CHAPTER - II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The tillage implements are commonly used for seedbed preparation. The different types of implements are used at different soil conditions. The disk harrow and disk plow are mostly used in the preparation of seedbed.

Browing (1950) paid stress that all type implements like disk harrow and disk plow prepare the seedbed with a cutting action and if used excessively will cut and destroy soil aggregates.

Barnes, et al (1959) has reported that field efficiencies of agricultural machines decreased with increase in the theoretical capacity. They also performed the tests on the wider implements and found the time consumed per turn by the wider implements was greater.

Renoll (1969) investigated the effect of field conditions on the crop machinery. In 8-year study it was found that turning time was typically 12-18 seconds per turn when the turning areas were

P a g e | 17

smooth, but were 10-13 % greater when the turning areas were rough.

Kepner, et al. (1978) realized that the field travel across the field ends represents the loss of time that was often unavoidable and was particularly important where wide lands laid out in short fields. They studies and analyzed the amount of idle travel by considering that if W were the total width of land, then the average theoretical idle travel distance across each end would be W/2.

Kepner, et al. (1978) observed that the turns at the end of the corners of the field represented a considerable loss of time, especially for short fields; regardless of whether the field was worked back and forth, laid out in lands or worked around the perimeter. The number of turns per unit of areas with given width of implements was inversely proportional to the length of field.

Kepner, et al. (1978) reported that the time losses due to rest stops, adjusting and checking of the machine was proportional to the effective operating time for total field time, as the operating speed or implements width was increased. Idle travel across the ends tends to be proportional to effective operating time if normal operating speed was maintained across ends.

Shaikh, et al, (1978) conducted a comparative field study of harrow, sub-soiler, disk plow, mold board plow, and field cultivator to assess their performance on the soil and crop. The researchers found that different tillage implements had different effect on the emergence and yield of wheat. Effects on soil physical

P a g e | 18

properties were studies with different tillage operations. The results indicated disk harrow a suitable type of implement that increased the yield and lowered emergence force and shear strength of soil.

Mansoor K Khattak (2006) conducted economic evaluation of deep tillage and shallow tillage practices during wheat crop production, Research studies were conducted to determine the economic assessment of various tillage practices during the wheat growing seasons during 1996-99. Tillage practices were managed with seven treatments cultivator (2 times, 4times, 8times) Mould board plow and rotavator once mould board plow and disk harrow once. The conclusion were derived from the study, on average the highest cost of tillage practices plus variables inputs of 12664 Rs/ha & lowest total cost of tillage practices plus variable inputs was observed 12115Rs/ha in the tillage treatment during wheat growing seasons.

2. Deep tillage by mould board plow gave the highest gross revenue and net income approximately 20% higher as compared to shallow tillage by cultivator.

3. For obtaining maximum net income deep tillage implements such as moldboard plow with disk harrow should be used.

Mansoor K. Khattak & M. Ramzan (1995) investigated Effect of different tillage implements combination on fuel consumption and yield of Maize. The four treatments comprises of cultivator (2) +cultivator (2) +plank; mould board plow + rotavtor; mold board plow + cultivator (2) + plank and mold

P a g e | 19

board plow + disk harrow. From the result of this research we may recommended that combination of mold board plow + rotavator will provide better result in reducing fuel consumption and increasing grain yield per hectare, in comparison with cultivator(2) + cultivator (2) + plank. Therefore, mold board plow + rotavator plank is recommended for especially in silty clay loam soil for maize crop seedbed preparation.

M. Jamal khan & Mansoor K.Khattak (2006) reported research study, was conducted with the objectives to evaluate the effect of various tillage practices on selected soil parameters including soil moisture content, bulk density and soil strength of sandy loam soil under rainfed area. The conclusion are drawn from the study was, tillage implements had significant effect in soil moisture content, bulk density and soil average, field prepared by chisel plow and cultivator twice followed by moldboard plow and cultivator two times gave higher soil moisture content & lower bulk density as compared to shallow tillage & no-till treatments.

ii. Deep tillage by chisel or moldboard plow gave lower value of soil penetration resistance up to 0-30cm soil plowing depth as compared to shallow tillage e No-till treatments.

iii. For high soil moisture conservation, low bulk density and least soil penetration resistance deep tillage implements such as mold board plow and chisel plow should be used for sandy type of soil.

A. Akbarnia, F. Farhani (2014) Fuel consumption per hectare of tilled land for the conventional or maximum tillage, reduced tillage using a multi-task

P a g e | 20

machine, and no-tillage using a direct drill planter has been studied and compared. Time taken and number of tractor trips needed for performing tillage operations were used for comparison. Yield of crop per hectare was also used for the study. This report concludes that In addition to having higher fuel consumption, the max, tillage operations result in formation of hard pan due to an increased number of tractor trips, soil erosion due to an increase in tillage operations, and rapid dissociation of soil humus due to the increased soil agitation.

Egidijus Sarauskis (2012) (Akdeniz University, Turkey) presented the article economic assessment of the working time, fuel consumption, and cost. Substantiation of conventional, reduced, zero tillage, and crop sowing systems for 2, 10, and 20 ha farms. The economic analysis of the working time, fuel consumption, and costs under Lithuanian conditions was performed for six different tillage and sowing systems. The research concluded that “The costs of the conventional tillage and sowing system are by 5 to 50 % higher than those of various reduced systems and by up to 3.5 times higher than the costs of direct sowing.

ii. In the case of application of the zero tillage system (NT), the fuel consumption is more than 2.5- 4.8 times lower.

iii. The biggest consumption of the working time is in the case of application of conventional tillage and sowing systems (CT1 and CT2).

P a g e | 21

D. Stajnko1 , M. Lakota (University of Maribor, Faculty of Agriculture) (2009) presented Effects of Different Tillage Systems

On Fuel Savings and Reduction of CO2 Emissions, field experiments with different tillage systems and their influence on fuel consumption and CO2 emissions were carried out at two locations in Eastern Slovenia. Three tillage methods were researched.

The research concluded that the fuel consumption for basic soil tillage shows that the CT system in eastern Slovenia was the main reason for large quantities of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere,

This varied from 225.03 kg ha-1 on the silty clay loam texture soil to 188.06 kg ha-1 on the silty loam texture soil for growing of corn silage.

A.Q Mughal, Mansoor K. Khattak (2004) reported the effect of various tillage practices on selected physical properties in clay loam soil under wheat- maize rotation. Five implements (moldboard plow, disk plow, cultivator, disk harrow and rotavator) were used. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with replication and the study concluded that,

i. The tillage treatments had significant effects on soil bulk density at both depths. On average field prepared by moldboard plow + rotavator once followed by disk plow + cultivator to times gave lower bulk density as compared to other tillage treatments.

ii. Deep tillage by moldboard plow or disk plow gave lowest value penetration resistance up to their depth

P a g e | 22

(i.e. 13% less) as compared to shallow tillage treatments.

iii. For maintaining low bulk density and least soil penetration resistance deep tillage implements such as moldboard and disk plow should be used.

CHAPTER - III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research study was carried out to evaluate the “effect of different tillage implement’s combination on fuel consumption” the research work was carried out during summer season at Latif farm of Sindh Agriculture University.For this purpose the following procedure, material and method was adopted.

MATERIAL

MF-375 tractor, 65 hp with 3-linkage arrangement was used as a prime mover to pull the (3-disk) Disk

P a g e | 23

plow & (mounted double action regular) Disk harrow, fitted with rear wheel, having 60cm diameter of each disk and overall rated width of 150 cm was tested. Tailed type disk harrow having 2-disk gangs, 12 disks of 60cm dia in front gang & 12 disks of 60cm dia in rear gang and the overall rated width of 175 cm was also tested during the present research work.

The instruments and other material used in the research study as under;

Disk plow Disk harrow Ranging poles Measuring Tape (100 meter) Steel Tape (16 meter) Stop watch Meter scale Half meter square frame Soil Sampler, Sample Container Graduate Cylinder (1000ml) Camera Chalks and permanent Marker Polythene Bags Physical balance Field Book Vernier Calliper Infiltrometer Sieves Lime powder

Experimental Details:-Experimental design Randomized complete block design (RCBD)

P a g e | 24

Replications Three

Block size 96m x 25m

Sub-plot size 15m x 25m

Total no: of plots 6

Tillage Treatments Two

Spacing 2 m between fields 1 m between each plot

Detail of treatmentsThe following tillage treatments were carried out

to study and determine the effects of tillage implement’s combination on fuel consumption.

T1 Disk plow + Disk harrow T2 Disk harrow twice

TILLAGE IMPLEMENTSThe specification and description of tillage

implements used in the research study are described as under,The implements were powered by MF-375 diesel tractor. The specifications of the tillage implements used in research study are as follows.

SPECIFICATIONS

P a g e | 25

Implement Specification

Disk Plow

Number of disk 3Disc size 60 cmDisk Spacing 25 cmWidth of cut 169 cmDepth of cut 20.4 cmAdjustable working width 60cm-120cmTractor Compatibility 50 to 85 HP

1. Used for deep plowing in root-infested, sticky, stony, and hard soils.

2. Mixes remains of crops and weeds throughout the depth of plowing.

3. Angle adjustable to vary the penetration with varying soil conditions.

Fig-(1): Disk plow Diagram

Disk Harrow No. of Discs. 24 Discs Disc Size 60 cm (24”) Length 198cm -226cm Width of cut 214cm Depth of cut 11.5 cm Weight 330-490 kg Tractor Compatibility. 60-85 HP.

1. Disc Harrow has the penetration ability to break down large clods normally left after

P a g e | 26

disc plowing or Chisel Plowing in hard grounds.2. This implement can also be used as primary tillage implement.3. The mounted position can be converted into trailed position and vice versa.

Fig-(2): Diagram of Disk harrow

LAND FOR FIELD WORK The land measuring One hectare was allotted for

field experiment at Latif Farm Experimental Farm, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. Out of which 96 x 25m dimension was selected for field experiment purpose. Before the conduct of field work the land was

P a g e | 27

visited to examine the topographical conditions and showed that the land was fairly leveled and the scheduled pattern crop was already obtained. The main field was divided into two sections (A & B) and further 3 sub parts of each section was prepared of equal measurements (25m x 15m), total 06 plots were prepared for field work, that are R1, RII, RIII of Section A and R1, RII, RIII of Section B.Field (A) was allotted for Disk plow followed by disk harrow treatment, and field (B) for twice Disk harrow treatment.

The headlands measuring 2 m between both fields & 1m between each plot were demarcated marked and for turning of tractor.

Fig-(3): Preparing Field.

LAYOUT PLAN OF EXPERIMENT N

P a g e | 28

96m x 25m S

25m

15m

1m

15m

15m

2m

25m

15m

15m

15m

*T1 = Disk Plow + Disk Harrow

*T2 = Disk harrow twice

P a g e | 29

R III

R II

R I

R III

R II

R I T1

T1

T1

T2

T2

T2

Fig-(4): the field layout.

The ranging poles were fixed at the four ends of plot and the plot was clearly manifested by lining all four sides with lime powder, so that it can be easily visible to tractor operator.

CHOICE OF PLOWINGThe method of plowing is the important factor

affects the field capacity of the farm implements to

great extent. The choice and method of plowing being

workable with the size and shape of the field. Thus in

view of the experiment field being rectangular in

shape it was decided to adopt the ordinary pattern

from boundaries of the field. The layout of field and

the plowing pattern selected for this study was

prepared and sketched which is shown in fig (3).

25m

15m

25m

P a g e | 30

Start

Fig-(5): single plot layout.

FIELD TEST PROCEDUREPrior to conduct experiment, the Disk plow & Disk

harrow were properly set and adjusted. Field capacity and fuel consumption of the disk harrow and disk plow were determined by plowing the test fields completely. For each implement, the test was replicated on same field allotted for respective operation.

Leading with field procedure the marked fields of both implements were tilled with their respective implements according to procedure, field (A) of 375m2

x 3 plots were first plowed by disk plow solitary on its three replications and required parameters were obtained, after that same field was treated with disk harrow, and all parameters were obtained.Similarly the Field B was first treated with disk harrow solitary on all its replications and then followed by disk harrow twice (T2), and all parameters were obtained, the parameters of soil properties and implement factors of both fields were compared and the efficient implement on fuel consumption origin was determined.

For obtaining precise results of fuel consumption field properties and implements parameters are studied,

P a g e | 31

At first the tractor within measured plots was operated without load to conduct the fuel consumption and wheel slippage values, the fuel consumed in such operation is purely the result of the tractor engine requirements for its normal operations without load consideration, the wheel slippage is noted by marking downward part of tractor drive wheel toward earth with a chalk, and the total number of wheel rotations are noted, one rotation is completed when the marked part of tractor wheel be again at the same position as of the starting point. The time taken to complete one rotation was obtained with the help of stopwatch.

After this the field was tilled with given set of implements, same procedure of obtaining the wheel slippage and fuel consumption is carried out, with load. To find fuel consumption statistics we use graduated cylinder* for refueling of tractor fuel tank.*(A graduated cylinder is a piece of laboratory equipment used to measure the volume of a liquid more accurate and precise than laboratory flasks and beakers).The field factors and tractor implement parameters which were considered to influence the result were identified. The following field factors & implement parameters were considered:

1. Soil Texture2. Soil Moisture Content3. Soil Bulk Density4. Infiltration Rate5. Width and Depth6. Operating Speed

P a g e | 32

7. Wheel Slippage8. Soil Aggregation 9. Fuel Consumption

Figure-(6): Plow operation in progress.

SOIL TEXTURESoil Samples were collected randomly at depths

of 10, 20, 30 cm to determine the soil texture by using hydrometer in the laboratory. Calculate the oven-dry weight of your soil sample first, and then fifty grams of air dried soil was put into a dispersion cup. The dispersion cup was filled 1/3rd with water and to 10 ml of 1N. Na2CO3 were added to the cup. The material was dispersed for 5-10 minutes with the help of dispersion machine. Reading with hydrometer was taken after 40 seconds for first reading and 2 hours

P a g e | 33

for final reading. Then the percent silt, clay and sand were calculated.

Using hydrometer readings and the oven-dry weight of the soil sample calculate the percent sand, silt and clay.

Grams of sand = oven-dry wt. - corrected 40 sec. reading.Grams of silt + clay = corrected 40 sec. reading.Grams of clay = corrected 2 hr. reading.Grams of silt = corrected 40 sec. reading - corrected 2 hr. reading.

% sand = (grams sand/oven-dry wt.) x 100% silt = (grams, silt/oven-dry wt.) x 100% clay = (grams clay/oven-dry wt. x 100Use the texture triangle to determine the texture of your soil sample.

SOIL MOISTURE CONTENTTo determine the moisture content, samples from

the test fields were taken randomly at the depths of 10, 20, 30 cm, before and after tillage operations, the wet soil samples were weighed and weight of the samples was recorded. The soil samples were then placed in electric oven for 24 hours. The temperature of oven was maintained at the 105oC. After 24 hours samples were taken out from oven, and cooled in the desicator then the dry weight of samples were determined and recorded. The moisture content of the samples was calculated on the wet basis by using the formula given below:

P a g e | 34

Ww - Wd

M.C (%) = -------------------------- x 100 WwWhere, M.C = Moisture content in (%) Wd = Weight of oven dry soil sample (grams) Ww = Weight of wet soil sample (grams)

Fig-(7): obtaining soil samples for moisture content determination.

SOIL BULK DENSITY

For determination of bulk density (gm/cm3), samples were taken from different locations on field selected randomly.To get soil samples core Sampler of 2.54 cm dia was used. For obtaining soil samples for bulk density, first site was selected to bore core sampler, the selected

P a g e | 35

area must be clean and free from residue. Then Core Sampler was driven by force into soils at about required depths (10, 20, 30cm). Core sampler must be driven manually not by stroking with hammer of by any other object; as it will disturb the soil and ultimately differ in results. Soil samples taken at required depths were maintained in plastic bags and bags were tightly sealed so that open atmosphere may not affect the sample, these samples were taken to laboratory where the samples were dried in oven at 105oC & dry weight of soil sample was recorded.Bulk density was obtained before and after tillage. The bulk density of the soil was determined by using the following formula: Wd Bulk density of the soil (gm/cm3) = ------------------------ Volume 4 Wd = -------------------- 3.14 D2LWhere, Wd = Weight of oven dry soil (g) V = Volume of core sampler (m3) D = Diameter of core sampler (cm)

P a g e | 36

L =

Length core sampler (cm).

Figure-(8): Obtaining soil samples for bulk density

INFILTRATION RATEThe infiltration rate of soil was determined by

using the method described in Agriculture Hand Book

P a g e | 37

no. 60(U.S Salinity 2004). Infiltration rate was measured before and after tillage practices, according to this method 2 infiltrometer rings (iron cylinder) each 35.56 & 27.94 cm in diameter and 40.64cm long were used. First outer ring diameter was driven in the soil by hammering up to the depth of 20.32cm & the other inner ring having 27.94cm dia was also driven in the centre of the first ring at the same depth. A staff gauge was exerted in the center second ring & water was filled up to the depth of 15.24 cm in (inner) ring. To avoid evaporation losses, few drops of oil were put on the surface of water filled in ring, reading were recorded after 5 min, 15 min, and (20, 30, 60, 120, & 200 min). Average readings divided by average time made calculation. The infiltration rate is expressed as centimeter per hour (cm/h).

ΣIRi Infiltration rate =IR ------------------ n

Where,ΣIRi = Average infiltration rate (cm/hr) I = Infiltration rate (cm/hr) n = Total number of reading.

P a g e | 38

WIDTH AND DEPTH OF FURROWBefore taking the observations, the furrow walls

and bottom were exposed by removing the furrow slice ensuring that the furrow walls and bottom are not damaged & scattered. After the exposure of the furrows the width of each implement was determined by using a steel tape measuring the width of total passes of tilled area and was dividing it by number of passes and got the average effective working width from test plots. The depth reading was measured from the bottom of furrow to the surface level of the soil at selected places with metric scale from test plot.

P a g e | 39

Fig-(9): Measuring effective plowing width & depth of cut.

OPERATING SPEED

Rectangle shaped plots of (15m x 25m), were prepared by inserting ranging rods at all four sides of plot, and the plot was made clearly evident by lining all four sides with lime powder. The speed of tractor was determined by time required by tractor to cover a distance of 25 meters between the assumed lines. The stop watch was used to record the time taken by tractor to cover required distance.

The operating speed of tractor is also been considered by the number of rotations made by rear wheel of tractor to travel measured distance, The result shows at maintained speed the number of rotations of tractor rear wheel are constant.

WHEEL SLIPPAGETo determine the tractor wheel slippage a mark

with white chalk is marked on the rear wheel of tractor, the mark is made adjacent to ground surface side of wheel this will clearly show the complete revolution of tractor wheel the tractor wheel should be at right position above the marked lines and parallel to ranging pole. A distance of 5 revolutions of rear wheel of tractor, were driven with no load and distance is measured, this result is pure without load effect, which is denoted by A.

Once again the distance of 5 revolutions is driven by tractor with the load i.e.; tractor operating and pulling the test implements (Disk Plow & Disk Harrow) the distances are noted these results are with load

P a g e | 40

application, and the slippage occurred within pulling operations is calculated. To obtain the effect of wheel slippage on the performance of the disk tillage tools selected for the present study, the wheel slippage was measured. The difference in total distances travelled with and without load is calculated with the help of given formula;

A - B Wheel slippage % = ------------------------------- x 100 AWhere,

A = Distance travelled with no loadB = Distance travelled with load

P a g e | 41

Fig-(10): Measuring wheel slippage

P a g e | 42

Figure-(11 a): determining no: of turns without load for wheel slippage ratio.

Figure-(11 b): determining no: of turns with load for wheel slippage ratio.

P a g e | 43

SOIL AGGREGATION Soil aggregation was evaluated by using a set of

ten sieves, having mesh of 75mm (3inches), 63mm (2.48inches), 50mm (2 inches), 37.5mm (1.47inches), 31.5mm (1.24inches), 25mm (0.984 inches), 15.8 mm (0.62 inch), 12.5 mm (0.492 inch), 8 mm (0.314 inch) and 2mm (0.078 inch). Three random samples of soil were taken for determination of aggregation on the basis of mean weight diameter of soil clods. The soil was collected from an area of 500mm x 500m by randomly placing a half meter frame over plowed plots. The soil samples were passed through a set of above sieves. The soil was weighed retained on the largest aperture sieve, passed through each sieve and retained on the next sieve and passed through smallest aperture sieve. The percentage retained on each sieve was calculated by using the formula, Wt. of soil retained Soil retained on sieve (%) = -------------------------------- Total soil wt

Figure-(12): Determining Soil Aggregation.

P a g e | 44

FUEL CONSUMPTION Plowing operation is the mechanical

manipulation of the soil aimed at improving soil conditions for crop production. It represents the most costly single item in the budget of an arable farmer. High levels of energy is required to cut and invert the soil, and the draft force required to plow also needs relatively high weight to give traction The depth of plowing depends on the crop to be cultivated, soil characteristics and also on the source of power available. There are many parameters in tillage operation affecting fuel consumption of tractors, such as type and structure of soil, climate, relative humidity, tractor type, and tractor size and tractor-implement relationship. . Therefore, efficient use of farm tractors and implement, and their contribution to a producer’s relative cost of production is increasingly important.

To determine the fuel consumption, the fuel tank of MF-375 Tractor was filled upto full capacity before testing the proposed implement in the test plot. After land preparation, the fuel tank of the tractor was refilled upto the same fuel capacity with 1000 ml graduated cylinder marked with milliliters and liters. The total quantity of fuel needed to refill the tractor tank upto the same mark was record. The fuel consumption was measured for each replication and means were calculated for each treatment in hectares. The fuel

P a g e | 45

consumption per hour and per hectare was calculated from the observed data.

For Lit/hectare,

Fuel consumption (lit) F.C = ---------------------------------------------------- x 10000 Area of plot (m2)

For Lit/hour, Fuel Consumption (lit) F.C= ------------------------------------------------------ x 3600 Time of operation

Figure-(13): using graduated cylinder for refuling tractor fuel box.

SOIL VOLUME DISTURDEDP a g e | 46

The soil volume disturbed in cubic meter per hour was calculated by multiplying the field capacity with depth of cut. It was assumed that the implement disturbed the soil upto its recorded depth and undisturbed patch of land was not left. V = 10000 CD

Where,V = Soil Volume disturbed (m3/hr)C = Field capacity (ha\hr)D = depth of cut (m)

EFFECTIVE FIELD CAPACITY

The effective field capacity is the measure of a machines ability to do a job under actual field conditions.In this parameter the actual time consumed during work & time lost for other events such as turning and implement adjustments were recorded. The effective field capacity was calculated by using the formula: A C= --------------- Tp + Tt Where,

C = Effective field capacity (ha/hr)A = Area tilled (ha)Tp = Productive time (hr) Tt = Non productive time or idle time (hr).

P a g e | 47

CHAPTER – IV

RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

The results highlighted and discussed in this chapter are regarding the determination of actual fuel consumption on combination of tillage implements, (disk plow + disk harrow & disk harrow twice). To access fuel consumption the effect of soil properties, tractor implement parameter and plowing operation variables were combined and incorporated. The soil parameters considered were soil texture, soil moisture and soil bulk density, soil infiltration rate, soil aggregation, whereas the tractor implement and plowing operation parameters studied and combined were Effective width and depth of implement cut, Actual plowing Speed, Wheel slippage of implements, operating speed, productive and idle time of plowing operation, field capacity, and fuel consumption.

P a g e | 48

The field data of above mentioned variables was recorded, tabulated, analyzed and discussed as under;Examination and measurement of disk plow & disk harrow were taken according to RNAM test codes and procedures for farm machinery, Technical series No.12, 1983, Bukhari et al. 1981, Bukhari et al. 1990 and Agricultural Engineer’s yearbook 1981-82 as under:

Field Characteristics Performance of Disk plow & Disk Harrow

FIELD CHARACTERISTICSThe observations and experiments carried out in

the experimental field at three moisture levels (10, 20, 30cm) were,

General characteristics of experimental plots Textural analysis of the soil of experimental plots Soil moisture content of the experimental plots Bulk Density of soil of experimental plots

The research experiment to evaluate the performance of disk plow and disk harrow was conducted at Latif experimental farm, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam during 2015. The field characteristics are given as:

Depth-I (10cm) ----- Clay loam Depth -II (20cm) ----- Clay loam Depth -III (30cm) ----- Clay loam

Previous Crop ----- Cotton

Textural Analysis of soil

Soil Depth(cm)

Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%)Textural

Class

P a g e | 49

0-10 cm 30.2 31.3 38.5

Clay Loam10-20 cm 33.1 30.6 36.3

20-30 cm 34.7 32.8 32.5

Average 32.6 31.56 35.76

Table-(I): showing soil texture at variable depths

Fig-(14): soil textural triangle

SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

T1

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

Soil Moisture Content Before Tillage

Depths

Wet Sample weight

(g)

Dry Sample weight

(g)

M.C (%)

Mean Average M.C (%)

FIELD A

R1

0-10 cm

137 122 10.94 12.58%

10-20 cm

167 146 12.57

20-30 cm

197 170 13.70

P a g e | 50

Average 12.40

R1

I

0-10 cm

134 119 11.19

10-20 cm

170 148 12.94

20-30 cm

200 173 13.5

Average

12.54R

1II

0-10 cm

126 111 11.90

10-20 cm

166 144 13.25

20-30 cm

195 169 13.33

Average

12.82

T2 T

REA

TM

EN

T

FIELD B 12.44%

R1

0-10 cm

144 129 10.41

10-20 cm

159 139 12.57

20-30 cm

186 160 13.97

Average

12.31

R1

I

0-10 cm

134 119 11.19

10-20 cm

155 136 12.25

20-30 cm

188 162 13.82

Average

12.42

R1

II

0-10 cm

141 126 1.063

10-20 cm

158 137 13.29

20-30 cm

187 161 13.90

Averag 12.60

P a g e | 51

e

The soil moisture content in percentage on weight basis was calculated from the soil samples taken at a depth of 10cm, 20cm, 30cm (before tillage & after tillage) from the test plots of three soil moisture regimes is given in table-ii & table-iii.

Table-(II): the soil moisture content ratio of soil before tillage.

T1 T

REA

TM

EN

T

Soil Moisture Content After Tillage

Depths

Wet Sample weight

(g)

Dry Sample weight

(g)

M.C (%)

Mean Average M.C (%)

FIELD A

R1

0-10 cm

148 131 11.48

14.28%

10-20 cm

185 158 14.59

20-30 cm

204 171 16.17

Average 14.08

R1

I

0-10 cm

154 137 11.03

10-20 cm

190 163 14.21

20-30 cm

215 180 16.27

Average

13.83

R1

II

0-10 cm

140 122 12.85

10-20 cm

178 150 15.73

20-30 cm

210 176 16.19

Average

14.92

T2

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

FIELD B 14.20%

R1

0-10 cm

160 143 10.62

10-20 172 147 14.53

P a g e | 52

cm20-30

cm202 168 16.83

Average

13.99

R1

I

0-10 cm

162 144 11.11

10-20 cm

175 147 16.00

20-30 cm

210 177 15.71

Average

14.27

R1

II

0-10 cm

152 135 11.18

10-20 cm

180 153 15.00

20-30 cm

213 178 16.43

Average

14.20

Table-(III): showing the soil moisture content ratio of soil at given depths after tillage.

The average moisture percentage of Field A for (T1) from its replications (RI, RII, RIII) at depths 10, 20 and 30 cm before tillage were calculated as 12.40 %, 12.54 % and 12.82 % respectively, the mean average moisture percentage for whole field A was estimated about 12.58 %.Similarly the average moisture percentage for Field B for (T2) from replications (RI, RII, RIII) at 10, 20, & 30cm were 12.31 %, 14.42 %, & 12.60% respectively, and the mean average moisture percentage for whole field B was calculated as 12.44 %.The moisture percent level after recommended tillage practices in specific fields the moisture percentage increases at same depths (10, 20, 30cm).

P a g e | 53

Soil samples taken from test field after tillage practices shows that the field A from its three replications (RI, RII, RIII), at same depths have an increased moisture levels that are averagely 14.28%, and the moisture percentage for field B with T2 treatment after tillage for all its three replications has an increased moisture percentage as, 14.20 %.

BULK DENSITY OF SOIL

T1

TR

EA

TM

EN

T Soil Bulk Density before tillage

Depths

Weight of Dry Soil

Sample (g)

Dia of Sampler

(cm)

Bulk Density(g/cm3)

Mean Bulk

density

(g/cm3) FIELD A

R 1

0-10 cm

70.6 2.54 1.39 1.34

P a g e | 54

g/cm3

10-20 cm

134 2.54 1.32

20-30 cm

188.6 2.54 1.24

Average 1.31

R II

0-10 cm

72.2 2.54 1.42

10-20 cm

138.5 2.54 1.36

20-30 cm

166.5 2.54 1.09

Average

1.29

R III

0-10 cm

85.4 2.54 1.68

10-20 cm

136.2 2.54 1.34

20-30 cm

185.3 2.54 1.21

Average

1.41

T2

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

FIELD B 1.34g/cm3

R I

0-10 cm

80.7 2.54 1.67

10-20 cm

134.2 2.54 1.36

20-30 cm

172.1 2.54 1.16

Average

1.39

R II

0-10 cm

82.1 2.54 1.62

10-20 cm

130.8 2.54 1.29

20-30 cm

166 2.54 1.09

Average

1.33

R

III 0-10

cm77.1 2.54 1.52

P a g e | 55

10-20 cm

133 2.54 1.31

20-30 cm

170.2 2.54 1.12

Average

1.31

The soil bulk density of experimental plots before and after tillage at depths (10cm), (20cm), and (30cm) is tabulated in table-(IV), & (V).

Table-(IV): Soil bulk density before tillage.

T1

TR

EA

TM

EN

T

Soil Bulk Density After tillage

Depths

Weight of Dry Soil

Sample (g)

Dia of Sampler

(cm)

Bulk Density(g/cm3)

Mean Bulk

density

(%)

FIELD A

R

1

0-10 cm

68.6 2.54 1.35

1.32g/cm3

10-20 cm

133.5 2.54 1.31

20-30 cm

185.6 2.54 1.22

Average 1.29

R II

0-10 cm

71.6 2.54 1.41

10-20 cm

135 2.54 1.33

20-30 cm

164 2.54 1.07

Average

1.27

R III

0-10 cm

85 2.54 1.67

10-20 cm

136 2.54 1.34

20-30 cm

185 2.54 1.21

Average

1.40

P a g e | 56

T2

T

REA

TM

EN

T

FIELD B

1.33g/cm3

R I

0-10 cm

79.5 2.54 1.57

10-20 cm

133 2.54 1.31

20-30 cm

171.6 2.54 1.29

Average

1.39R

II

0-10 cm

82 2.54 1.61

10-20 cm

130 2.54 1.28

20-30 cm

167 2.54 1.09

Average

1.32

R III

0-10 cm

75 2.54 1.48

10-20 cm

133.1 2.54 1.31

20-30 cm

172 2.54 1.13

Average

1.30

Table-(V): Soil bulk density after tillage.

The data replicated that the average soil bulk density of two fields A with three replications at depths (10, 20, 30 cm) before tillage was 1.31 g/cm3, 1.29 g/cm3

and 1.41 g/cm3 for RI RII & RIII. The mean soil bulk density of field A before tillage was calculated 1.34 g/cm3.Similarly the soil bulk density of field B for T2 operation before tillage was calculated as 1.39 g/cm3, 1.33 g/cm3, & 1.31 g/cm3, for RI RII RIII replications respectively. Therefore the mean soil bulk density for B Field was calculated as 1.34 g/cm3.

P a g e | 57

Correspondingly the mean average of soil bulk density after tillage operation for both fields with replications was found slightly decreased as 1.32 g/cm3, for T1 treatment, and soil bulk density of field B with its three replications at same depth after tillage was 1.33 g/cm3, for T2 treatment.

The diameter of core sampler was measured as 2.54 cm, with Vernier caliper.

SOIL INFILTRATION

The average soil infiltration was recorded for different treatments with time intervals of 15, 30, 60,

P a g e | 58

120 and 200 minutes. The infiltration rate is shown in table (VI).

SOIL INFILTRATONTime Interval (minutes)

15 30 60 120 200DISK PLOW (T1)

R I 32 41 54 67 75R II 37 48 59 72 81R III 34 45 57 69 78Mean 32 41 54 67 75

DISK PLOW FOLLWED BYDISK HARROW (T1)R I 35 50 59 73 79R II 37 49 60 74 83R III 39 45 59 72 81Mean 37 48 59 72 81

DISK HARROW (T2)R I 31 51 57 71 77R II 34 48 52 70 84R III 37 33 62 66 73Mean 34 45 57 69 78

DISK HARROW TWICE (T2)R I 34 44 59 64 78R II 35 43 55 67 80R III 39 45 54 64 82Mean 36 44 56 65 80

Table-(VI): Soil infiltration of treatments with replications.

The soil infiltration results show higher infiltration values with increasing time interval, however soil tilled with disk plow followed by disk harrow (T2) has higher soil infiltration values.

EFFECTIVE PLOWING DEPTH & WIDTH

P a g e | 59

The result showing the effective plowing depth & width for tillage practices for whole frame i.e. Disk harrow and disk plow are shown in Table-vii.

Replications

DISK PLOW DISK HARROW

Depth(cm)

Width(cm)

Depth(cm)

Width(cm)

I 18.4 164 10.8 213.3II 20.4 174 12.8 215.2III 22.1 171 11.1 216.1

Average 20.4cm 169 cm 11.5 cm214.8

cm

Table-(VII): Effective width & depth of disk plow & disk harrow in frame

The average effective plowing depth of disk plow was 20.4 cm and for disk harrow it was 11.5 cm. However, the minimum effective plowing depth was recorded as 11.5 cm while the maximum width was found 20.4 for disk plow.

P a g e | 60

ACTUAL PLOWING SPEEDTo determine the actual plowing speed, the time

to plow one trip was recorded. Knowing the length of the furrow and time of plowing one furrow the actual plowing speed was calculated with the help of following formula:

DSp = ------------------

tWhere,

Sp = Plowing Speed (m/sec)D = Distance or length of furrow trip (m)

ACTUAL PLOWING SPEED OF DISK HARROW

Replications

Length of furrow

(m)

Time/ trip(s)

Plowing Speed(m/s)

Plowing Speed(Km/hr)

I 25 31

0.798 2.87II 25 30III 25 33

Average 25 31.3 t = Time/trip (sec)

ACTUAL PLOWING SPEED OF DISK PLOW

Replications

Length of furrow

(m)

Time/ trip(s)

Plowing Speed(m/s)

Plowing Speed(Km/hr)

I 25 42

0.56 2.01II 25 44III 25 46

Average 25 44

Table-(VII): Actual plowing speed of implements

P a g e | 61

WHEEL SLIPPAGEThe data of wheel slippage for disk plow and disk

harrow individual, and disk plow followed by disk harrow and disk harrow twice was calculated and tabulated in table-(VIII). Three replications from each plot were taken for wheel slippage measurement; the total numbers of revolutions are 5.

WHEEL SLIPPAGE

No: of Revolutio

n

Distance Travelled With no

load(A)

Distance Travelled with load

(B)

Wheel Slippage

(%)

DISK PLOW (T1)Rep I 05 24.9 22.6 9.23

Rep II 05 24.9 22.3 10.44

Rep III 05 24.9 22.7 8.83

Average 9.50 %

Table-(VIII A): Wheel Slippage of Disk Plow

WHEEL SLIPPAGE

No: of Revoluti

on

Distance Travelle

d Without

load(m)

Distance Travelled with

load (m)

Wheel Slippage

DISK PLOW FOLLOWED BY DISK HARROW (T1)Rep I 05 24.9 23.9 4.01Rep II 05 24.9 23.6 5.22Rep III 05 24.9 23.5 5.62

P a g e | 62

Average 4.95 %

Table-(VIII B): Wheel Slippage of Disk plow Followed by Disk harrow.

WHEEL SLIPPAGE

No: of Revolutio

n

Distance Travelled Without

load(m)

Distance Travelled with load

(m)

Wheel Slippage

DISK HARROW (T2)Rep I 05 24.9 23.4 6.02

Rep II 05 24.9 23.1 7.22

Rep III 05 24.9 23 7.63

Average 6.95 %

Table-(VIII C): Wheel Slippage of Disk Harrow

WHEEL SLIPPAGE

No: of Revoluti

on

Distance Travelle

d Without

load(m)

Distance Travelled with

load (m)

Wheel Slippage

DISK HARROW TWICE (T2)Rep I 05 24.9 24.0 3.61Rep II 05 24.9 24.3 2.40Rep III 05 24.9 24.2 2.81

Average 2.94 %

Table-(VIII D): Wheel Slippage of Disk harrow Twice

The average wheel slippage for all treatments T1, T2, after making calculations was found to be 9.50 % for Disk Plow, 4.95 % for Disk Harrow, of T1 and Similarly for T2 the wheel slippage of tractor was found as 6.95

P a g e | 63

% for Disk harrow and 2.94 % for Disk harrow twice. The wheel slippage of tractor is mainly associated with the depth and width of implement. The wheel slippage was highest while operating disk plow with load, and minimum wheel slippage was obtained while operating disk harrow.SOIL AGGREGATION

The soil aggregation produced by all set of tillage T1, T2, at three replications is shown in table (IX).

Percentage of clods retained on sieve sizes

Replications

75mm

63mm

50mm

37.5mm

31.5mm

25mm

16mm

12.5mm

8mm

under 8mm

DISK PLOW FOLLWED BY DISK HARROW (T1)

R I 17.31

6.00

2.68

6.73

5.537.05

13.1

6.117.41

28.0

R II 16.91

4.85

4.59

8.15

5.916.21

10.0

6.186.50

30.5

R III 18.49

4.76

3.21

7.28

5.855.26

11.2

6.166.43

31.3

Average

17.55.20

3.49

7.38

5.766.17

11.4

6.156.78

29.9

DISK HARROW TWICE (T2)

R I 4.336.02

5.31

4.03

3.162.98

15.4

9.208.24

41.3

R II 5.195.20

5.51

4.27

3.253.38

16.7

9.337.77

39.3

R III 5.055.38

4.73

4.48

3.222.89

17.2

8.858.12

41.0

Average

4.855.53

5.18

4.26

3.213.08

16.4

9.128.01

40.5

Table-(IX): Soil Aggregation of both Treatments.

P a g e | 64

It is evident that the data of clod percentage by disk plow has higher percentage as compared to all other treatments; similarly disk harrow twice has least soil aggregate ratio.

EFFECTIVE FIELD CAPACITY.........Field capacity is one of the major factors in

determining the performance of all tillage machines. Field capacity of the machine is the rate of performing work per unit time. The data related to field capacity by disk plow and disk harrow is in table-X.

EFFECTIVE FIELD CAPACITY

Dis

k p

low

Rep

licati

on

s Productive time

consumed

to plow field(hr)Tp

Idle time consumed

to plow field(hr)Tt

Total Time(hr)

Total Area Tilled

(A)

(ha)

Field Capacity

(C)A

C=--------------

Tp + Tt(ha/hr)

Average Field Capacit

y

I 0.152 0.040 0.192 0.037 0.192

0.191ha/hr

II 0.153 0.042 0.195 0.037 0.189

III 0.146 0.044 0.190 0.037 0.194

Table-(X a): Effective field capacity of disk plow

EFFECTIVE FIELD CAPACITY

P a g e | 65

Dis

k H

arr

ow

Rep

licati

on

s Productive time

consumed

to plow field(hr)Tp

Idle time consumed

to plow field(hr)Tt

Total Time (hr)

Total Area Tilled

(A)

(ha)

Field Capacity

(C)A

C=--------------

Tp + Tt(ha/hr)

Average Field Capacit

y

I 0.153 0.028 0.181 0.037 0.204

0.202ha/hr

II 0.156 0.026 0.182 0.037 0.203

III 0.159 0.025 0.184 0.037 0.201

Table-(X B): Effective field capacity of disk harrow

The result of effective field capacity show that the field capacity produced by disk harrow was greater than disk plow and the calculated values depicts that the disk plow has average field capacity of 0.191 ha/hr, and the field capacity produced by disk harrow was 0.202 ha/hr.SOIL VOLUME DISTURBED

The soil disturbance is a function of field capacity multiplied by plowing depth of a machine.

Soil Volume Disturbance

Disk Plow

PlotsDepth of

Cut(m)

Field Capacity(hac/hr)

Soil Volume

Disturbed(m3/h)

R1 0.184 0.192 353.28RII 0.204 0.189 385.56RIII 0.229 0.194 444.26

Average 394.36 m3/h

Disk Harr

RI 0.160 0.204 326.4RII 0.162 0.203 321.6RIII 0.166 0.201 333.66

P a g e | 66

ow Average 327.22 m3/h

Table-(XII): Soil volume disturbed by disk plow & disk harrow

The result show that minimum volume disturbance was made by Disk Harrow which was 327.22 m3/hr and the maximum disturbance was produced by Disk plow that was 394.36 m3/hr.

FUEL CONSUMPTION

The fuel consumption by implements for their treatments T1, T2, driven with same speed in all replications is tabulated below. The fuel consumption is dependent on soil physical properties and implements parameters like speed of tractor, tractor’s millage, soil moisture conditions, soil slope and tractor implement relationship and tillage implement depth. The values of fuel consumption of all tillage treatments are tabulated in table-(XII) & (XIII).

P a g e | 67

Table-(XII): fuel consumption of T1 (liter/hour) & (lit/acre).

P a g e | 68

Fuel Consumption

Disk Plow (T1)

Fuel Consume

d liter/sample Field

AverageFuel

Consumption

Area Of

Plot

(m2)

Average

Time of

plow(sec)

Fuel consumpti

on liter/hour

Fuel consumpti

on liter/hecta

re

0.910.92

375800 4.14 24.530.96 375

0.90 375

Disk Plow followed by Disk harrow (T1)

0.610.63

375800 2.83 16.80.65 375

0.64 375Mean Fuel consumption of Disk plow

+Disk harrow6.97Lit/hour

41.3Lit/hec

Fuel Consumption

Disk Harrow (T2)

Fuel Consume

d liter/samp

le Field

AverageFuel

Consumption

Area Of Plot

(m2)

Average Time of plow(sec)

Fuel consumption liter/hour

Fuel consumptio

n liter/hectar

e

0.750.72

375800 3.24 19.20.70 375

0.72 375

Disk harrow twice (T2)

0.600.62

375800 2.79 16.530.63 375

0.64 375Mean Fuel consumption of Disk

Harrow twice6.03

lit/hour35.73lit/hec

Table-(XIII): fuel consumption of T2 in (liter/hour) & (lit/acre).

At same moisture levels and same speed the fuel results shows that the average fuel consumed in T1 treatment of (disk plow + disk harrow) was 6.97 liter/hour and 41.3 liter/hectare, similarly the average fuel consumed by the treatments T2 (Disk harrow twice) after making calculations was found to be 6.03 liter/hour and 35.73 liter/ hectare, in combine.

CHAPTER –V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

The field experiment to investigate the field performance disk plow and disk harrow on fuel consumption was conducted at Latif Experimental Farm, Sindh Agriculture University, Tandojam. The tests were performed in the rectangular piece of land measuring 1 acre. The size of test plot for each replication was 25m x 15m. Massey fergusson (65 Hp) diesel engine tractor was used to operate the implements in field. The performance parameters studied were operating speed, width and depth of

P a g e | 69

implement cut, wheel slippage, field capacity, and the most importantly the fuel consumption.

Following conclusions are made from the research study;

1. The results obtained from this study indicate that the plowing depth has more effect on the fuel consumption of farm tractors than the plowing speed.

2. The fuel consumption of farm tractor varies with changes in plowing speed and depth.

3. Soil bulk density decreased with increasing depth of cut by disk plow as compare to disk harrow.

4. Higher infiltration rate, soil moisture, and effective field capacity were observed by operating disk harrow and lower by disk plow.

5. The fuel consumption of Disk plow + Disk harrow was found greater than disk harrow twice, which were 6.97 lit/hr and 41.3 lit/hectare.

6. The fuel consumption of Disk harrow twice and was found lower as, 6.03 lit/hr and 35.73 lit/hectare.

7. The field Capacity and rate of fuel consumption is influenced by width of implement and efficiency of plowing.

8. There is profound effect of moisture content on wheel slippage.

SUGGESTIONOn the basis of present study that disk plow

followed by Disk harrow was found superior tillage implement as compared to other tillage treatments on

P a g e | 70

fuel consumption and tillage effective operation basis. This treatment improved soil structure, which provided suitable environment for plant growth.

CHAPTER – VI

P a g e | 71

REFERENCES

Akbarnia A., Farhani F., 2014. Study of fuel consumption in three tillage methods. Res. Agr. Eng., 60: 142–147.

Al-Ghazal. 2002 Effects of tractor wheel compaction on Bulk density and infiltration rate of a loamy soil in Saudi Arabia. Emir.J.Agric. Sci.2002 .4: 24-33.

Anonymous, 1979. The tillage contest-mouldboard plow versus chisel. World farming, 21 (7) : 103-108.

Asoodar, MI, M.A & Desbiolles, A.2003. No tillage, sowing performance under farming conditions in the 7th International conference on development of dry land (ICDD). 14-17 September, Tehran, Iran.

Azahr, M.I, M.A. Khan and M. Ashraf. 2001. Effects of tillage implements in combination with gypsum applications on the reclamation of saline sodic soils, International Journal of agriculture and biology, 3(6)301-304.

Baloch, J.M; A.N, Mirani and S. Bukhari,1998. Effect of restrained and unrestrained linkage on implement performance. A.M.A, Japan 19(3): 77-78

P a g e | 72

Bateman, H.P and W. Brower. 1962. Planning a minimum tillage system for corn. iii.coll, of agri, Cir. 846

Battikhi and Suleiman 1999. Effects of tillage systems on soil strength and bulk density of veritsols. J.Agron. Crop: Sci.183-189

Bukhari, S and J.M, Baloch 1982, Fuel consumption of tillage implements, A.M.A, Japan, 13 (3) :2123.

Bukhari, S and M.A Bhutto; J.M, Baloch, A.B, Bhutto and A.N, Mirani 1988. Performance of selected tillage implements, AMA. Japan 19(4): 9-14.

Bukhari, S and J.M, Baloch, A.N, Mirani 1989. Soil manipulation with tillage implements, AMA. Japan, 20 (1); 17-19.

Bukhari, S and J.M, Baloch, A.N, Mirani, A.B, Bhutto, G.R, Mari; 1990. Effects of different speeds on the performance of moldboard plow A.M.A. Japan 21(1); 27-33.

Bukari, S; B.A. Channar; S.A bijarani; S.H Khoso; F.M. Bajkani, M.A Salman, 1999. Comparison of theoretical and actual field capacity of Mould board plow for different plowing patterns. B.E(Agri, project submitted to FPM, FAE. SAU T,jam)

Chancellor, W.J. 1981. Substituting information for energy in agriculture. A.S.A E. Trans, 249(4); 802-807, 813.

P a g e | 73

D. Filipovi, S. Kosuti, Z. Gospodari. Influence of Different Soil Tillage Systems on Fuel Consumption, Labour Requirement. 631.51:633.11+633.15

Dahab, M.H and D.M. Mohammed 2002. Tractor tractive performance as affected by soil moisture content, tyre inflation pressure and implement type , AMA, Agriculture Mechanization is Asia ,Africa And Latin America,33(18) 29-34.

D. Stajnko, M. Lakota1, F. Vuajnk, R. Bernik, University of Maribor, Faculty of Agriculture, 2009. Effects of Different Tillage Systems on Fuel Savings and Reduction of CO2 Emissions. Stud. Vol. 18, No. 4, 711-716.

Engin Ozgoz and Rasin Okursoy,2001. Relation between tractor rubber tire pressure and soil compaction. Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture journal, 7(4), 75-82.

Khan F.U.H, Tahir A.R. And Yule I.J. 1999. Impact of

tillage practices and temporal factor on soil moisture content and soil bulk density. International Journal for Agriculture and Biology. 1 ;23-26.

Khan F.U.H, Tahir A.R. And Yule I.J. 2001. Intrinsic implication of different tillage practices on soil penetration resistance and crop growth. International journal of Agriculture and Biology. 1:23-26.

P a g e | 74

Kepner, R.A, R. Bainer and E.l, Barger, 1982. Principles of farm machinery. Ch5, the AVI publishing company.

Kramer, L.A. And E.E, Albert, 1998. Effects of tillage systems o corn and soya bean growth and grain yield. ASAE paper no. MCR-88-111, St. Joseph, MI.

Kuznetsov, YU.I & Kuznetsov, A.YU, 2000. Studying Soil properties for the development of pre-sowing tillage implements. traktory Sel skokhozya, 301(9); 25-27.

Khalilian, A. and R.R. Hallman, 2005. Energy requirements of conservation tillage tools in coastal plains soils. Department of biological Engineering. Clemson University, Edisto Research and Education Center, Blackville., USA, pp. 1-13.

Khaffaf A. A. Khadr, July 2008. Effects of Some Primary Tillage Implements On Soil Pulverization And Specific Energy. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 25(3): 731-745.

R. Lal, 1997. The potential of U.S cropland to sequester carbon and milligate the greenhouse effects.

M.R Mosadeghi, A.A, Mahboubi And Safadoust. 2009. Short-term effects of tillage and manure on soil physical properties and maize root in sandy loam soil in western Iran soil tillage research,

P a g e | 75

volume 104, issue 1, June 2009, pages 173-179.

Mohammad Askari, and Smail Khalifaha mzehghasem Department of Agricultural Machinery Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Technology and Natural Resources,University of Mohaghegh Ardebili, Iran, 2013. Draft Force Inputs for Primary and Secondary Tillage Implements in a Clay Loam Soil.

SIDONA Buragiene1, KESTUTIS Romaneckas. Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania 2012. Working Time, Fuel Consumption & Economic Analysis of Different Tillage.

Razzaghi Mohammadhossei, waismoradi Amin and Rahmati Hoshang. 2012. Energy Efficiency of Different Tillage Systems in Forage Corn Production. 4-22/1644-1652.

Mansoor K.Khattak, M.Ramzan,(1995). Effect of different tillage implements combination on fuel consumption. Sarhad journal of Agriculture 10(2), 1995.

P a g e | 76