DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHT WEIGHT FIVE ROW
ANIMAL DRAWN MULTI CROP PLANTER
M.Tech. (Agril. Engg.) Thesis
by
Navneet Kumar Dhruwe
DEPARTMENT OF FARM MACHINERY AND
POWER ENGINEERING
SWAMI VIVEKANAND COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
AND RESEARCH STATION
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2016
DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHT WEIGHT FIVE ROW
ANIMAL DRAWN MULTI CROP PLANTER
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
Navneet Kumar Dhruwe
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF
Master of Technology
in
Agricultural Engineering
(Farm Machinery and Power Engineering)
Roll No. 220114017 ID No. 20141520475
JULY, 2016
CERTIFICATE – I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Development of light weight five
row animal drawn multi crop planter” submitted in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Technology of the Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by
Navneet Kumar Dhruwe under my/our guidance and supervision. The subject of
the thesis has been approved by the Student’s Advisory Committee and the
Director of Instructions.
No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma or
has been published/published part has been fully acknowledged. All the assistance
and help received during the course of the investigations have been duly
acknowledged by him/her.
Chairman
Date:
THESIS APPROVED BY THE STUDENT’S ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman (Dr. V. M. Victor) ________________________
Member (Dr. A. K. Verma) ________________________
Member (Dr. R. K. Naik) ________________________
Member (Er. N. K. Mishra) ________________________
Member (Dr. H. L. Sonboir) ________________________
CERTIFICATE – II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Development of light weight five
row animal drawn multi crop planter” submitted by Navneet Kumar Dhruwe to
the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, in partial fulfilment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in the Department of Farm
Machinery and Power Engineering been approved by the external examiner and
Student's Advisory Committee after oral examination.
Signature External Examiner
(Name )
Date:
Major Advisor : ________________________
Head of Department : ________________________
Faculty Dean : ________________________
Approved/Not approved
Director of Instructions : ________________________
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I feel great pleasure in expressing my sincere and deep sense of gratitude
to Dr. V.M. Victor, Major Advisor and Chairman of my advisory committee,
Assistant Professor, Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering,
SVCAET&RS, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, I.G.K.V., Raipur, for his
valuable, talented, inspiring, constructive criticism, and ceaseless encouragement
provided during the entire project work.
I am very thankful to Dr. Vinay. K. Pandey, Dean, Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering, IGKV, Raipur for his constant encouragement during project
completion.
It is beyond my means and capacity to put in words my sincere gratitude to
my advisory committee members Dr. A.K. Verma, Department of Farm Machinery
and Power Engineering, SVCAET&RS, Er. N.K. Mishra, Department of
Agricultural Processing and Food Engineering, Dr. R.K. Naik, Department of
Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, SVCAET&RS, and Dr. H.L. Sonboir for
their continuous advice, guidance and encouragement throughout the course of
investigations.
I like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. B.P. Mishra, Head of Department
of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Dr. S. Patel, Head of Department of
Agricultural Processing and Food Engineering and Dr. M.P. Tripathi Head of
Department of Soil and Water Engineering, SVCAET&RS for their kind support
and help at various stages of the study.
I am also thankful to faculty members, Dr. V.P. Verma (Prof.), Er. A.P.
Mukharjee (Associate Prof.), Er. M. Quasim (Asst. Prof.), Dr. S.V. Jogdand
(Prof.), Dr. J. Sinha (Asst. Prof.), Dr. N. Kerketta (Asst. Prof.), Er. D. Khalkho
(Asst. Prof.), Er. P.K. Katre (Asst. Prof.), Er. P.S. Pisalkar (Asst. Prof.) and Er.
A.K. Chandrakar for their timely co-operation during the course of study.
I am also thankful to all the technical and clerical staff members of
SVCAET&RS, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering and staff members for their
kind support and help during entire study.
I am thankful to Mr. Derha Das Baghel, Mr. Komal Singh Verma and all
staff of the workshop who helped me during the fabrication of this planter.
I avail this pleasant opportunity to express my sincere thanks to all of my
seniors and friends Amit Namdeo, Manoj Kumar Baghel, Pravin Pritam, Md.
Tahsin Asraf, Raghuvendra sachan, Priya Sinha, Bhumika Salam, Mansingh
Banjare, Manisha Sahu, Phagu Ram Sahu, Devendra Kumar, Rahul Dev Kurre,
Praween Nishad, Amaldeep Minz, Niraj Kurrey and all of my other friends for
their love, contribution and timely help during course of study. Also I express
special thanks to all those who helped directly or indirectly during this study.
My literacy power is too less to express my gratitude to Dr. S. K. Patil,
Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, Dr. S.S. Shaw, Director of Instructions and Dr. J.S.
Urkurkar, Director Research Services, IGKV, Raipur for their administrative and
technical help which facilitated my research work.
ii
Last but not least, words run short to express my heartfelt gratitude to my
beloved parents, Father Mr. Taman Singh Dhruwe and Mother Mrs. Asha Dhruwe,
my Brother Pramod Dhruwe & my sister Pooja Dhruwe and my other family
members, whose filial affection, environment, love and blessings have been a
beacon of light for the successful completion of this achievement.
Above all, my humble and whole heartily prostration to the Almighty for his
Blessings.
Place Raipur
Date : (Navneet Kumar Dhruwe)
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
ACHNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF NOTATIONS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABSTRACT
i
iii
vii
ix
x
xi
I INTRODUCTION 1
1II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Physical properties of seeds
2.2 Bullock drawn seed drill
2.3 Bullock drawn seed planter
2.4 Metering mechanism for planter
2.5 Placement of seed and fertilizer
2.6 Furrow opener
2.7 Draught power of bullocks
2.8 Attachment of seed planter
5
5
7
9
10
13
14
15
17
III MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Geographical Situation
3.2 Climatic Conditions
3.3 Design Considerations
3.3.1 Design steps
3.3.2 General design consideration
3.3.2.1 Functional requirements
3.3.2.2 Agronomical requirements
3.3.2.3 Economical consideration
3.3.2.4 Ergonomic consideration
19
19
19
19
20
21
21
22
22
23
iv
3.3.2.4.1 Criteria for ergonomic design
3.4 Constructional Details of Light Weight Five Row Animal
Drawn Multi Crop Planter
3.4.1 Frame
3.4.1.1 Design of frame
3.4.2 Furrow openers and boot
3.4.2.1 Design of furrow openers
3.4.3 Ground drive wheel
3.4.4 Power transmission system
3.4.4.1 Design of chain drive
3.4.4.1.1 Length of chain
3.4.5 Seed box and fertilizer box
3.4.6 Cup feed roller type seed metering device
3.4.7 Seed and fertilizer delivery tubes
3.4.8 Hitching system
3.4.9 Handle and beam
3.5 Fabrication of the Machine
3.6 Testing of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
3.6.1 Facilities, machinery, equipment and apparatus etc
used for testing
3.6.2 Procedure for testing measurement
3.6.3 Laboratory Test
3.6.3.1 Calibration of Light weight five row animal
drawn multi crop planter
3.6.3.2 Effect of quantity of seed in hopper on seed
rate
3.6.3.3 Mechanical damage to the seed by
metering mechanism
3.6.4 Field test
3.6.4.1 Measurement and calculation
3.6.4.1.1 Diameter of the seed
23
23
24
24
26
27
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
36
37
37
41
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
v
3.6.4.1.2 Sphericity
3.6.4.1.3 Operating speed
3.6.4.1.4 Measuring of pull
3.6.4.1.5 Power requirement
3.6.4.1.6 Moisture content
3.6.4.1.7 Bulk density
3.6.4.1.8 Measurement of time lost in
turning
3.6.4.1.9 Width and depth of operation
3.6.4.1.10 Field capacity
3.6.4.1.11 Actual field capacity
3.6.4.1.12 Field efficiency
3.6.4.2 Cost Economics
3.6.4.2.1 Calculation of operational cost
of five row animal drawn multi
crop planter
3.6.4.2.2 Operational energy
3.6.3 Seed and fertilizer placement uniformity
3.6.4 Miss Index (M)
3.6.5 Multiple Index (D)
3.7 Statistical Analysis
3.7.1 Standard deviation (S.D.)
3.7.2 Coefficient of variation (C.V.)
44
45
45
46
46
46
47
47
47
47
48
49
49
50
51
51
51
51
52
52
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Physical properties of Seeds
4.1.1 Moisture content of seeds
4.1.2 Bulk density of seeds
4.1.3 1000 grain weight of seeds
4.1.4 Sphericity of seeds
4.2 Physical properties of soil
4.2.1 Moisture content and bulk density of soil
4.3 Laboratory test of light weight five row animal drawn
53
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
vi
multi crop planter
4.3.1 Calibration of light weight five row animal drawn
multi crop planter
4.3.2 Selection of metering roller
4.3.3 Effect of hopper filling on seed delivery rate
4.3.4 Effect on seed delivery between rows
4.3.5 Mechanical damage to seed by metering mechanism
4.3.6 Selection of metering unit for fertilizer
4.4 Field performance result
4.4.1 Moisture content of soil
4.4.2 Bulk density of soil sample
4.4.3 Depth of seed placement
4.4.4 Measurement of drought
4.4.5 Speed of operation
4.4.6 Power requirement
4.4.7 Field efficiency
4.4.8 Seed to seed spacing achieved
4.4.9 Missing and multiple index
4.5 Operational energy
4.6 Cost estimation and cost of operation
55
55
55
59
60
62
63
69
69
69
69
70
71
71
71
72
73
73
73
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 75
REFERENCES 78
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
RESUME
84
84
85
86
88
92
93
95
98
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
Agronomical requirement of selected seed
Metering rollers specification
Calibration in the laboratory for metering desired quantity of seed
Moisture content, 1000 grain weight and bulk density of selected
crops
Moisture content and bulk density of soil
Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing
of wheat
Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing
of chickpea
Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing
of green gram
Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing
of pigeon pea
Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing
of ground nut
Selection of metering roller for selected seeds
Effect of hopper filling on seed rate (kg/ha) of wheat crop with
different exposure scale at selected roller no. 5
Effect of hopper filling on seed rate (kg/ha) of chick pea crop
with different exposure scale at selected roller no. 2
Seed rate (kg/ha) for wheat crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no.5.
Seed rate (kg/ha) for chick pea crop with exposure scale for
different furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 3
Seed rate (kg/ha) for green gram crop with exposure scale for
different furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 4
Seed rate (kg/ha) for pigeon pea crop with exposure scale for
22
35
43
54
54
55
56
56
57
58
58
59
59
60
61
61
62
viii
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24
4.25
4.26
4.27
different furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 4
Seed rate (kg/ha) for ground nut crop with exposure scale for
different furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 2
Mechanical damage to seeds by planter
Fertilizer application rate (kg/ha) for selected crops for different
furrow openers
Calibration of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter for different crops, exposed lengths and hopper capacity.
Moisture content and bulk density of soil
Depth of seed placement
Draught required for light weight five row animal drawn multi
crop planter
Speed of operation
Power requirement for the planter
Field efficiency of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
Seed to seed spacing achieved
Missing and multiple index for different crops
Calculation of cost of animal drawn multi crop planter per hour
and per ha
62
63
63
64
69
70
70
71
71
72
72
73
74
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Isometric view of frame
Detail of furrow opener
Isometric view of furrow opener
Isometric view of ground wheel drive
Power transmission system
Isometric view of chain sprocket
Isometric view of seed and fertilizer box
Isometric view of cup feed type seed metering device
Fabrication of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
Isometric view of five row animal drawn multi crop planter
Components of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
Planter
View of developed planter
Measurement of depth of seed placement and seed to seed
spacing
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
wheat
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
chick pea
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
green gram
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
pigeon pea
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
ground nut
Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of
fertilizer
26
28
28
30
31
34
34
36
38
39
40
40
47
66
66
67
67
68
68
x
LIST OF NOTATIONS/SYMBOLS
% Per cent
< Less then
@ At the rate of
°C Degree centigrade
cm Centimetre
Avg. Average
db Dry basis
dia. Diameter
eqn. Equation
g Gram
h Hour
ha Hectare
ha/h Hectare per hour
h/ha Hours per hectare
i.e. That is
kg Kilogram
kg/h Kilogram per hour
kg/ha Kilogram per hectare
kPa Kilo Pascal
kg/s Kilogram per second
L Litre
LHS Left Hand Side
m Meter
mg Milligram
mg/ha Milligram per hectare
m/s Meter per second
mm Millimetre
min. Minute
η Field efficiency
m2 Square meter
psi Pound per square inch
RHS Right Hand Side
rpm Revolution per minute
Rs Rupees
t/ha Tons per hectare
viz. Namely
wb Wet basis
wt Weight
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Agri. Agriculture
Agril. Agricultural
C.G. Chhattisgarh
CV Coefficient of Variation
C/N Carbon/Nitrogen
DAP Di-Ammonium Phosphate
Engg. Engineering
et al. et alibi etc. Etcetera
FAE Faculty of Agricultural Engineering
Fig. Figure
ICAR Indian Council of Agricultural Research
IGKV Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya
K Potassium
M.Tech Master of Technology
MS Mild Steel
N Nitrogen
NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium
P Phosphorous
SD Standard Deviation
SF Synthetic Fertilizer
SVCAET&RS Swami Vivekanand College of Agricultural Engineering and
Technology & Research Station
xii
THESIS ABSTRACT
a) Title of the Thesis : Development of Light Weight Five Row Animal
Drawn Multi Crop Planter
b) Full Name of Student : Navneet Kumar Dhruwe
c) Major Subject : Farm Machinery and Power Engineering
d) Name and Address of the : Dr. V.M. Victor
Major Advisor Assistant Professor,
Deptt. of Farm Machinery and Power Engg.
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering,
SVCAET and RS, IGKV, Raipur
e) Degree to be Awarded : Master of Technology in Agricultural
Engineering
Signature of the Student
Signature of the Major Advisor
Date:__________ Signature of Head of the Department
ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken to design, fabricate and evaluate the performance of a
prototype animal drawn planter capable of planting chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea,
ground nut and wheat seeds at predetermined spacing and depths. Physical properties of seeds
involved in the study were investigated to optimize the design of the planter’s components.
The prototype light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter, consisting of a frame,
seed hopper, seed metering devices, seed tube/spout, drive wheels and 'T' type furrow opener.
The row spacing is adjustable. It has been kept 20, 25 and 30 cm. The light weight five row
animal drawn multi crop planter have overall dimension 1600 mm x 1000 mm x 1240 mm,
height of hopper from ground level was 900 mm and total weight of the machine was 56 kg.
Calibration of planter for chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea, ground nut, wheat seeds and
granular fertilizer (DAP) was carried out. The average seed rate under laboratory testing of
xiii
developed planter for chick pea (JG74), green gram (BM4), pigeon pea (PUSA855), ground
nut (GG3), wheat (GW273) and fertilizer (DAP) were found to be 81.84, 17.92, 19.85,
98.58, 115.68 and 103.77 kg/ha respectively. The desired opening exposure scale was
identified 5, 7, 7, 2, 4 and 6 with metering roller No. 3, 4, 4, 2, 5 and 3 respectively for above
mentioned crops. The light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter was tested for
planting of chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea, wheat and ground nut crop in the kharif
season. The performances were evaluated in terms of percent seed miss index (MISI, % seed
skip), per cent seed multiple index (MULI, % redundancy), seed rate of the selected seed,
depth of planting, plant count/stand, field capacity, field efficiency, labour cost and
economics owning and operating. The investigation revealed that the sphericity of chick pea,
green gram, pigeon pea, wheat and ground nut were 59%, 75%, 84%, 82% and 69%
respectively. Per cents of visible mechanically seed damaged by the planter were 0.03, 0.03,
0.04, 0.01 and 0.07 for wheat, chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea and ground nut,
respectively. The developed planter sowed acceptable plant population within the row of 2 m.
According to roller design, the desired number of plant for wheat, chick pea, green gram,
pigeon pea and ground nut crops were obtained 18, 18, 18, 12 and 12 respectively. The plant
population was found to be 17, 16, 14, 14 and 12 plants within rows of 2 m length for wheat,
chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea and ground nut, respectively, compared to desired number
of plant population are 18, 18, 18, 12 and 12 plants for wheat, chick pea, green gram, pigeon
pea and ground nut, respectively. The mean field capacity, field efficiency was found to be
0.22 ha/h (4.5 h/ha) and 79.78% respectively. The speed of operation was 1.75 km/h and the
average draft required to pull the multi crop planter was 43.21 kgf. The only cost of the
machine was determined as Rs 10940/-. The cost of operation was found to be Rs 321.78 per
ha. Based on the performance evaluation results, it was concluded that the prototype planter
can be efficiently, effectively and economically used by the majority of farmers.
xv
” ( )
” ( ), ( ), ( ), (
) ( ) ”
” ”
”
” ”
”
” ”
” ”
”
” ”
( ) ” ”
”
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural work in India is carried out by using manual, animal and
mechanical power sources. Animal power contribution in the total power used in
agriculture is about 33 per cent (Mishra, 1986). 84 million draught animals are
used for crop production and transportation purposes (Cartman, 1994). Sixty per
cent of farmers have less than 4 ha of land and therefore tractor ownership is not
economically viable for these farmers leaving draught animal power as the only
source.
In Chhattisgarh state, the situation is not different. The state is far behind in
mechanization of farm operations with only 32,000 tractors in the state. About 75
per cent farmers are dependent on animal power for farm operations with 8 million
draught animals. In this region, bullocks and he buffaloes are the major power
sources. The land holdings patterns of Chhattisgarh in general are small and
marginal. The farmers of this state have traditional animal drawn implements,
which in most of the cases have low capacity, do not match with the draught
animal power source and ultimately affect the agricultural operations. Hence
development of animal drawn implements has a vital role to play in partial
mechanization of the farms in the state to increase the efficiency and better
utilization of draught animals. The “AICRP on Utilization of Animal Energy with
Enhanced System Efficiency” IGKV, Raipur center and “Farm Implement
Manufacturing” revolving fund scheme being run at the IGKV, Raipur have
contributed to develop several animal drawn implements suitable for the draught
animals as per the soil conditions of the state. These implements were
developed/adapted on the basis of draughtability of local animals, feedback from
the farmers and various experiments conducted at the center.
Chhattisgarh is agricultural chief land and due to large production of rice
Chhattisgarh is known as the "rice bowl". Chhattisgarh used to produce over 70
2
per cent of the total paddy production in the state. Apart from paddy cereals like
maize, kodo-kutki and other small millets, pulses like tur and kulthi and oilseeds
like groundnut, soyabean, niger and sunflower are also grown. Chhattisgarh
produced nearly half of all food grains, and one third of all major crops grown in
the undivided Madhya Pradesh during the kharif season. The main rabi crops of
Chhattisgarh are jowar, gram, urad, mong and moth. Chhattisgarh produces 45 per
cent of the jowar and over eighty percent of the gram produced in undivided
Madhya Pradesh. Chhattisgarh produces very little wheat. In pulses, a quarter of all
produce in Madhya Pradesh during the rabi season comes from Chhattisgarh. The
chief rabbi crops are wheat, barley, gram, pulses, pigeon pea, linseed and mustard.
These crops are garneted in spring season.
The basic objective of sowing operation is to put the seed and fertilizer in
rows at desired depth and seed to seed spacing, cover the seeds with soil and
provide proper compaction over the seed. The recommended row to row spacing,
seed rate, seed to seed spacing and depth of seed placement vary from crop to crop
and for different agro-climatic conditions to achieve optimum yields. Seed sowing
devices plays a wide role in agriculture field.
Agricultural development is usually regards as a requirement of
development. It is fact that economic growth in current times has to be associated
with industrialization, nevertheless, it is generally accepted that industrialization be
capable of follow only on the sound heels of agriculture. Agriculture is the
foundation on which the entire superstructure of the growth of industrial sector and
other sectors of the economy has to stand. Indian economy still displays explicit
character typical of the most underdeveloped countries of the world.
India has a large population of draught animals and bullocks are main
draught animals in the country followed by he-buffaloes. Generally draught
animals are used for tillage, seeding, intercultural and transportation. Bullock is
one of the cheapest sources of draught power for all kinds of agricultural
operations in villages of Chhattisgarh because large agricultural machines like
tractor and power tiller are neither feasible nor economically viable due to poor
financial condition of farmers and fragmented land holdings.
3
Under intensive cropping, timeliness of operations is one of the most
important factors which can only be achieved if appropriate use of agricultural
machines is advocated. Manual method of seed planting, results in low seed
placement, low spacing efficiencies and serious back ache for the farmer which
limits the size of field that can be seeding. To achieve the best performance from a
seeding machine, the above limits are to be optimized by proper design and
selection of the components required on the machine to suit the needs of crops.
A planter is a device that precisely place seeds in the soil and then covers
them. Before the planter, seeds were planted by hand. Planting seeds by hand lead
to low productivity. The use of a planter can improve the timely sowing of crops
and allows massive areas to be seeded.
Importance of animal drawn multi crop planter
Due to fragmented and small land holdings and variable farmer typology, it
is neither affordable nor advisable to purchase many machines for the planting of
different crops by the same farmer. The multi-crop planter can plant different crops
with variable seed size, seed rate, depth, spacing etc., effectively and economically.
The multi-crop planters have precise seed metering system using cup feed type
seed metering devices roller with variable grove number and size for different seed
size and spacing for various crops. This provides flexibility for use of these
planters for direct drilling of different crops with precise rate and spacing using the
same planter which does not exist in flutted roller metering drills. Hence, the same
multi-crop planter can be used for planting different crops by simply changing the
roller. The planter has the provision of drilling both seed and fertilizer in one go.
Also, as seed priming is very important for good germination and optimum plant
population, the multi-crop planters provides opportunity to use primed seeds which
is not possible in flutted roller metering drills.
4
This study will increase the versatility of the machine and will reduce the
operational time. Thus to promote the mechanization on animal farms, a project
entitled “Development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter” is taken up with the following objectives.
Objectives
1. To develop light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter.
2. To evaluate performance of the developed machine for selected crops.
3. Economic analysis of the developed planter.
5
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter presents a brief review of work done in past on design,
development and evaluation of different planter. The function of maize planter is,
to meter the desired number of seeds, placement of seeds at its optimum depth and
spacing as per the requirement of different type of seeds for proper emergence
which will ultimately enhance the crop yield by many folds.
The design and development of maize planter has been the subject of
interest for many researchers from the beginning of the twentieth century for
various seed crops. This chapter is further described in the following sub headings:
1. Physical properties of seeds
2. Bullock drawn seed drill
3. Bullock drawn seed planter
4. Metering mechanism for planter
5. Placement of seed and fertilizer
6. Furrow opener
7. Draught power of bullocks
8. Attachment of seed planter
2.1 Physical properties of seeds
Davies (2009) stated that investigation of physical and mechanical
properties of groundnut is essential for design of equipment for harvesting,
processing, transportation, cleaning, sorting, separation and packaging. He
evaluated physical properties like axial dimensions, geometric mean diameter,
thousand grain mass, true and bulk density and grain volume at moisture content
7.6% db of groundnut grains. He found sphericity, aspect ratio, surface area and
porosity as 0.69, 56%, 120.82mm2, 36.4% respectively. Static coefficient of
friction for glass, plywood, galvanized steel and concrete structural surfaces were
0.11, 0.13, 0.14 and 0.16, respectively and angle of repose 28̊.
Obi et al. (2014) studied that the effects of different moisture contents of
10, 15, 20 and 25% (wet basis) on the physical properties of pigeon pea (Cajanus
cajan L.) grown in Nigeria. The axial dimensions, mean diameters, sphericity,
6
surface area, porosity, true and bulk density, angle of repose and the coefficient of
friction of pigeon pea were determined using standard methods. The physical
properties of pigeon pea grains were significantly dependent on the moisture
content with high correlation coefficients (p<0.05). The average length, width,
thickness, arithmetic and geometric mean diameters, surface area, volume,
thousand grain mass and angles of repose increased as the moisture content
increased from 10% to 25%. Whereas the bulk density, true density and the
porosity were found to decrease from 685.16 to 640.55 kg/m3, 1361.11 3 to 755.56
kg/m3 and 43.40% to 13.55% respectively, as the moisture content increased from
10% to 25%. The static coefficient of friction of pigeon pea increased linearly over
the three material surfaces – plywood, aluminium and galvanized sheet – with
increasing moisture content. The aluminium surface had the lowest static
coefficient of friction whereas the plywood gave the highest value at all moisture
content levels.
Nimkar and Chattopadhyaya (2001) reported the green gram seeds are high
in carbohydrates (>45%) and proteins (>21%); fair source of calcium, iron,
vitamins A and B, but deficient in vitamin C. Sprouted mung beans are a good
source of vitamin B. Raw green gram contains trypsin inhibitor, which gets
destroyed on cooking. Various physical properties of green gram were evaluated as
a function of moisture content in the range of 8·39 to 33·40% d.b. The average
length, width, thickness and thousand grain mass were 4·21 mm, 3·17 mm, 3·08
mm and 28·19 g at moisture content of 8·39% db. The geometric mean diameter
increased from 3·45 to 3·77 mm, whereas sphericity decreased from 0·840 to
0·815.
Gopalan et al. (2007) reported that wheat flour based products, such as the
bread (chapati) is part of the staple diet in most of the parts of India - particularly
in northern India. Wheat products are used to prepare different food items, like
breads, biscuits, cookies, cakes, breakfast-cereal, pasta, noodles, couscous etc.
Wheat by way of its fermentation is also used for items like beer, alcohol, vodka,
bio-fuel etc. Wheat, in its natural unrefined state, features a host of important
nutrients. Indian Wheat (whole grain) contains in every 100 grams of it, 71.2
7
grams of carbohydrates, 11.8 grams of proteins, 1.5 grams of total fat, 12.8 grams
of moisture, 1.2 grams of crude fiber and 1.5 grams of minerals.
Konak et al. (2002) reported several physical properties of chick pea seeds
as functions of moisture content. The average length, width, thickness, the
geometric mean diameter, unit mass and volume of seed were 9·342 mm, 7·722
mm, 7·752 mm, 8·358 mm, 0·324 g and 0·238 cm3, respectively, at a moisture
content of 5·2% d.b. Studies on rewetted seed showed that as moisture content
increased from 5·2 to 16·5% db, bulk and kernel density decreased from 800 to
741·4 kgm−3
and from 1428 to 1368 kgm−3
, respectively. With increasing moisture
content, porosity increased from 43·97 to 45·8%, projected area from 1·16 to 1·42
cm2, angle of repose from 24·5 to 27·9° and terminal velocity from 8·3 to 9·8
ms−1
. The rupture strength decreased as the moisture content increased and the
highest rupture strength occurred while loading along the Z-axis. The static and
dynamic coefficients of friction of chick pea seed against galvanized sheet metal,
plywood and rubber surfaces increased with moisture content in the range from 5·2
to 16·5% db. The highest coefficient of friction was against a rubber surface,
ranging from 0·44 to 0·76.
2.2 Bullock drawn seed drill
Sharma et al. (1983) designed and developed a single row seed cum
fertilizer drill with frame of 40 x 40 x 3 mm mild steel angle iron. A 30 cm
diameter lugged wheel was made from 30 x 5 mm mild steel flat with 25 mm long
lugs welded on it. The rectangular boxes, one for seed and other for fertilizer (5 kg
capacity) were fabricated from 20-gauge mild steel sheet. Separate fluted roller
assemblies were provided to ensure uniform dropping of both seed and fertilizer on
the front side of the frame, arrangement for hitching the machine with the wooden
beam was provided.
Behera et al. (1995) stated that Naveen seed cum fertilizer drill of CIAE,
Bhopal gave the best performance in terms of highest return of Rs. 4693.75/ha,
benefit cost ratio of 1.35 and seed distribution efficiency of 91.38 per cent
compared to five other seed cum fertilizer drills tested. Further they found that the
overall performance index was highest (0.88) in case of Naveen seed cum fertilizer
drill. They recommended that Naveen seed cum fertilizer drill might be used for
8
sowing of wheat, gram, soybean and sunflower besides rice by changing the
exposed length of the fluted roller with minor adjustments.
HAU developed animal drawn seed cum fertilizer drill, three row bullock
drawn equipment was shoes type furrows open and fluted roller seed metering
mechanism. The machine shows 66% labour and time saving which results 60%
economical in operation. It also enhance 8% yield as compared to the conventional
method of sowing (Anon: 1997).
Dhruw (2003) developed two row bullocks drawn seed cum fertilizer drill.
The major components of the machine were frame, ground wheel, power
transmission unit, seed and fertilizer metering devices and inverted “T” type
furrow opener. There was a provision to adjustment of row. It has been kept 20, 25
and 30 cm. The average seed rate under laboratory test of paddy, wheat, arhar,
soybean and fertilizer were found to be 80.06, 98.16, 29.57, 99.56 and 7 mm for
above mentioned crops. The bullocks- drawn zero till seed drill was tested for
paddy crop in Kharif season. The effective field capacity of machine was found to
be 0.052 ha/h and field efficiency was 75.36 %. The speed of operation was 1.72
km/h & the avg. Draught required to pull the zero till seed drill was 62.51 kgf. The
cost of operation was found to be, Rs 406 /ha.
Qasim and Verma (1995) studied on Indira seed drill and resulted with
information that Indira seed drill cover 0.8-1.0 ha/day with draft required was 25-
30 kg. In this study it is found that Indira seed drill perform better for line sowing
in loam clay soil.
Jesudass et. al. (1996) reported that sowing dry paddy in dry tilled soil, a
simple bullock-drawn seed drill was developed with orifice flow seed metering
device and runner type furrow opener. The performance of the orifice flow
metering device was tested by varying the orifice diameter agitator disc diameter
clearance between bottom of agitator and top of the orifice plate and speed of the
agitator disc. The germination of paddy seed drill was 49 per cent, 33 per cent
higher than that of manual broadcasting and mechanical broadcasting.
9
2.3 Bullock drawn seed planter
AICRP on FIM at Pune Center developed a 3-row animal drawn planter for
planting various crops at AICRP on FIM Pune Center. Different rotors were
provided for different crops (Anon: 1982).
Halderson (1983) Studied to control the seed rate four commercial row crop
planter. The units were evaluated for their seed metering ability in selecting single
edible bean seed and plant spacing. Five varieties of un-graded edible beans were
used for evaluation. None of the units could maintain plant spacing accuracy
within 5 % for the speeds tested. Spacing of seed in the furrow was primarily
random.
Baloch and Mughal (1985) modified and tested a conventional bullock
drawn corn-planter as it did not fulfill the uniform spacing between the plants
which is an essential requirement of cross cultivation. The planter was modified by
mounting the metering device (wooden roller) in between the bowl and tube to
give uniform spacing between seeds. The modified implement was then tested on
corn and was reported to be useful as compared with a conventional one.
Khan et al. (1990) Stated that there is need to mechanize the sowing
operation in view of technical considerations. There should be provision of
changing seed rate from 6-300 kg/ha. Metering of the required seeding and
fertilizer application rate should be reliable and early to adjust. There should be
provision of changing row spacing between seeds and fertilizer deposition. Seeds
should not be damaged by the seed metering and placement device. The inverted
'T' furrow openers are best suited for better seed germination. This drill can be
used in both tilled and no-tilled filed conditions and for direct seeding of wheat on
rice stubble fields
Gupta et al. (1999) developed a single row, multi-crop planter for use in
hilly areas. It could sow a number of crops, such as maize and wheat, combined
with fertilizer. Field trials were conducted to determine performance. The effective
field capacity of the machine was regarded as 0.157 ha/h for maize and 0.064 ha/h
for wheat, with average field efficiency about 76%. The machine was efficient and
economical compared with traditional sowing methods.
10
Panning et al. (2000) evaluated sugar beet planting performance for a
precision planter designed for shallow planting of small seeds, a general purpose
planter designed for row crops, and a vacuum metering general purpose planter
designed for row crops that was equipped with three seed tube designs. In their
field study, the most uniform seed spacing for each planter configuration occurred
at the lowest speed, which was 3.2 km/h. For all planter configurations, the seed
spacing uniformity decreased as the forward speed increased from 3.2 to 8.0 km/h.
Seed spacing uniformity determined in laboratory tests was greater than, or equal
to, seed spacing uniformity determined in field tests
Pradhan and Das (2006) were developed manually operated paddy-cum
groundnut planter and its performance was evaluated both in laboratory and field
for paddy and groundnut. Laboratory studies include percentage variation of seed
discharge among the rows and mechanical damage of seeds. Field studies include
actual seed rate, depth of placement of seeds, seed distribution efficiency, effective
field capacity, field efficiency, labor requirement and field machine index. The
field efficiency and field machine index of the planter were found to be more than
78 and 80 per cent respectively. Net savings of Rs.901.00 and Rs.466.00 per
hectare were obtained as compared to local practice of sowing. The cost of the
planter is estimated to be Rs. 965.00, which is well within the investment capacity
of small farmer’s of the state.
Douglas et al. (2011) developed a punch planter to sow corn seeds in no
tillage system. The machine was evaluated on field and observed that the increased
in velocity and the number of punches in the punch wheel decrease the number of
multiples and increased the number of missing seeds.
2.4 Metering mechanism for planter
Kirschmann (1966) have studied on feeding mechanism for seed apparatus
for evenly distributing seed from a seed or grain hopper of a planting machine
comprising a plurality of guide cups disposed under spaced apart discharge
apparatus in the bottom of the seed hopper, the guide cups being contoured to
house rotatable supported metering wheels and cooperating therewith to form
outwardly converging seed metering passages through which seeds are conveyed
by transverse pockets formed in the periphery of the metering wheels. The
11
metering wheels are mounted on a drive shaft which is adjustable relative to curved
bottom portions of the guide cups, whereby the size of the seed metering
passageway between the periphery of the metering wheels and said curved bottom
portions may be varied to accommodate different sizes of seeds.
Kumar et al. (1986) designed and developed animal drawn cultivator with
seeding attachment having seed metering mechanism of fluted roller type. The
capacity of M.S. seed box was 25 kg. Seed tubes were of polythene material
having 2 cm diameter. The seed drops were 149,114, 76 and 36 kg/ha at full, 3/4
and 1/4 exposed length of the fluted roller respectively with average breakage of
seeds 1.8 per cent.
Shafii and Holmes (1990) investigated that metering of seeds by an air- jet
flowing through a conical. Pressure distribution and forces exerted on the ball were
measured for different cone configuration, orifice diameters, and cone ball
clearances. Cone angle of 90° developed the highest retaining force. Two
mathematical models were derived for the prediction of pressure distribution and
forces on the ball. Model derived from stagnation point flow and boundary-layer
theory accurately predicted the pressures and forces on the ball for the 1.59 mm
orifice over the range of coneball clearance yielding high retaining forces.
Shearer and Holmes (1991) developed and tested a precision seed metering
device consisting of a submerged turbulent air-jet. Form testing, metering accuracy
was found to be sensitive to nozzle supply pressures. Over the range of rotational
speeds of 30 to 50 rpm, the metering device should be operated at nozzle supply
pressures (gage) of 25 to 40 kpa (3.6 to 5.8 psi) for corn and 20 to 25 kPa (2.9 and
3.6 psi) for soybeans.
Devnani (1991) suggested the box capacity for animal drawn seed drill
should be 10-16 liters. He stated that fluted roller mechanism was suitable for all
types of seed, which would control seed rate properly. He reported that the
inclination of the seed delivery tube from vertical was kept smaller than 20 degree.
He found that draught for each of shoe type furrow openers was 20 kg for light soil
and 30-35 kg for heavy soils.
Rahama and Hussein (1993) designed, developed and tested an animal
drawn implement to perform both ploughing and seeding on clay soils. A seeder
12
with a simple metering mechanism and a gauge wheel provided a system for the
seeds to be placed at spacing as required by the crop. Experimental work proved its
significant labor saving capacity, which could be made of use in the peak times to
meet timely requirements of land preparation.
Chang Cheu et al. (1999) developed an economic precision seeder for small
mechanization. They used two rotating rings, which delivers the seeds at proper
spacing. The inner ring is separated into two parts, one for the intake of seeds and
other with load cells which disc large at a predetermined position due to a rolling
rubber wheel which works as an ejector. Three different rings for soybeans, red
beans and maize were tested in a special soil box. It was recorded an average
precision of up to 95% for soybean, 89% for red beans and 78% for maize.
Ivancan et al. (2002) conducted a study to determine the percentage of
damage on different seeds (bean, lettuce and cabbage) during sowing at different
speeds. It was found that the highest proportion of damage (3.5 %) was recorded in
bean sowing at a speed of 6.0 km/h. Seed damage was lower in cabbage sowing
than in lettuce sowing. They were also observed that the faster the drill speeds, the
higher is the percentage of damaged seeds.
Masoumi (2004) developed a roller-type metering device for a laboratory
prototype single row planter consisting of a seed hopper, a vertical roller-type seed
plate driven by an electric motor and a seed counter for garlic. He conducted some
laboratory tests to investigate the effects of roller speed and size of seed cavities
(cells) on the percentage of seed simulation and cell filling performance.
Indra Mani et al. (2006) designed and developed a single row maize
planter. The groove-on-roller type metering mechanism was provided in the
planter. The material used for making roller was nylon rod. It was possible to make
grooves of accurate dimension using nylon rod. The seed spacing and seed rate
was optimized with suitable combination of number of grooves on the roller,
dimension of ground wheel and forward speed of the machine. A wooden roller
was provided to measure the fertilizer.
Singh and Sharma (2006) fabricated four different types of rollers and
evaluated under laboratory condition in terms of quantity of seed metered,
volumetric cell fill, seed germination and seed damage at three seed column height
13
in hopper and four different speeds. Uniformly shaped triangular small cell type
roller gave optimum performance between 17-40 rpm of its operation. A prototype
of single row manually operated sunflower planter was developed by using
optimum roller and evaluated at University and farmer’s field. The average field
capacity of the planter was 0.1030 ha/h. The seed germination was 22.66 plants/m2
and 14.66 plants/m2 for MYCO-8 and HS-l varieties respectively. The sowing of
sunflower by planter resulted in net saving 57.16 man-hours and 1.50 tractor-hours
per hectare over broad casting and 57.91 man-hours and 2.25 tractor-hours per
hectare over dibbling method.
Ghosal and Pradhan (2013) conducted an experiment on low cost manually
operated multi crop seed drill with suitable dimensions of cup, in cup feed
metering mechanism for a particular crop. The drill has been developed and
evaluated in the field condition to study its seed pattern characteristics and
economic viability for small and marginal farmers in the state of Odisha. The seed
drill developed was evaluated with the prevailing green gram variety “PDM-54” in
the Central farm of OUAT, Bhubaneswar in the year 2008. From the experiments it
was found that the dimensions of cup i.e. 6 mm x 2.89 mm was found to be best
and was used successfully up to a peripheral speed of 18.84 m/min. Considering
seed rate deviation, seed distribution and seed damage. The actual field capacity of
the seed drill was 0.063 ha/h with a field efficiency of 78.75 per cent and there was
a net savings of Rs. 1780.00 per hectare for green gram in comparison to the local
traditional practice. This seed drill was costing of Rs. 1850 and total operating cost
of Rs. 13.85 per hour may solve the problem of line sowing of seeds particularly
for the small and marginal farmers to enhance production and productivity as a
whole.
2.5 Placement of seed and fertilizer
Tondon et al. (1984) reported that the speed ratio of ground drive wheel to
seed metering shaft was 2 to 2.5:1 and that to fertilizer shaft was 3:1.
Tessier et al. (1991) conducted a study on the influence of zero tillage
openers on some soil physical properties of the soil-seed environment. Furrow
opener design has direct consequences on soil surface disturbance, furrow
compaction levels, and post-seeding soil water requirements in the seed row. While
14
soil temperature and wheat cultivar differed between two distinct field trials,
furrow opener designs conducive to adequate compaction of seed furrow with
press wheels consistently resulted in better wheat emergence, when soil water
potentials were not limiting.
Karayel and Ozmerzi (2002) stated that the best sowing uniformity, the
most uniform sowing depth, and maximum emergence percentage occurred when a
precision seeder was used after preparing the soil with a moldboard plow, disc
harrow, and roller. Different tilling conditions had no effect on the multiple index,
the miss index and the quality of feed index.
Celik et al. (2007) were evaluated four different type seeders for seed
spacing, depth uniformity, and plant emergence at three forward speeds (3.6, 5.4
and 7.2 km/h). The planter types were: no-till planter, precision vacuum planter,
universal planter, and semi-automatic potato planter. Uniformity of planting depth
of seeds was described using the mean, standard deviation and the coefficient of
variation of the sample methods. Plant emergence ratios were evaluated by mean
emergence time, emergence rate indexes, and emergence percentage.
2.6 Furrow opener
Dransfield et al. (1964) reported that rake angle of furrow opener was
proportional to the force on it. They found that both the horizontal and vertical
forces increased with increase in rake angle.
Siemens et al. (1965) concluded analytically as well as from experimental
result that rake angle of furrow opener of 25° gave minimum draught.
Abernathy and porterfield (1969) found that furrow depth was greater for
furrow opener with large rake angles and large horizontal included angles (wedge
angle).
Mathur and Pandey (1992) reported that 28° rake angle of the furrow
opener gave minimum draft in lateritic sandy clay loam soil.
Iqbal et al. (1994) reported that draft requirement of tillage implements has
a great influence in design of tillage implements and deciding suitable tractor size
and also concluded that draft of implement increases with increase in depth of
ploughing.
15
Mathur and Singh (1998) conducted an experiment in an indoor soil bin
filled with lateritic sandy loam soil (23% clay, 20% silt and 63% sand) at four
levels of rake angle (20°, 25°, 30°, 35°) four working depths (50, 75, 99, 125mm)
and three forward speed (0.36,0.77 and 0.9 m/s). An octagonal ring transducer is
used to measure the draught force experienced by the reversible shovel type furrow
opener. Based on the heuristic approach, the optimum values of rake angle,
working depth, and forward speed to have minimum specific draught for the
reversible hoe type furrow opener are found to be 28°, 90 mm an 0.52 m/s,
respectively.
2.7 Draught power of bullocks
Vaugh (1947) reported that the Haryana bullocks developed draught power
ranging from 16-20 % of their body weight.
Mukherjee et al. (1961) observed by the draught capacity of 24 Haryana
bullocks for maximum load during six hours of drawing cart in different seasons
and reported that the maximum load drawn during rainy season was less than those
drawn in winter and the pulse rate and respiration rate increased rapidly during
initial period of work and thereafter the increase became steady.
Yusuf (1963) reviewed that animals could pull 1/10th their body weight
working continuously for several hours. Further he reported that the force exerted
at the time of emergency was three times of the normal force.
Singh et al. (1968) studied the power of Haryana bullocks during disc
ploughing, harrowing and cultivating operations. The power output recorded was
found to be 0.803, 0.974, 0.743 hp, respectively.
Swamy Rao (1968) studied on draught power in Haryana Brown Swiss
crossbred bullocks and concluded that draught power varied from 14.5 to 24.5 %
of body weight.
FAO (1972) reported that the draught animal can produce tractive effort
equal to 1/10th of its body weight for a period of 10 hours in a day, for short
duration of time, more pull could be developed at lower speed too.
Devanani (1981) reported the work of Mason Vough (1947) who found that
the bullocks developed draught equivalent to 1/5 to 1/6 of their body weight and
16
maximum draft which the bullocks could exert varied from 49.5 to 60.5 % of the
body weight.
Premi (1981) reported that the Holiker bullocks could pull maximum of 13
% to 16 % of their body weight for continues working of 6 hour with rest of 5
minute at the end of each hour of work. Bullocks could continuously work under
different condition of load and climate.
Rautaray (1985) reported that the local non-descriptive bread of bullock
developed draught equivalent to 9 per cent of their body weight at moisture content
of soil ranging from 11.62 to 14.28 per cent.
ILO (1986) found that most of the animals could exert a draught of 10- 14
per cent of their body weight while working at a speed of 2.5 to 4.0 km per hour.
The duration of work that an animal would sustain their normal tractive effort was
considered important in determining the effectiveness as power source for
transport.
Yadav (1990) studies on draught capacity of Malvi and local breeds of
bullocks and he has concluded that the weight of bullock was directly responsible
for their draught capacity. It was also concluded that Malvi pairs could exert more
draught as compared to local breeds of bullocks due to their heavy weight. The
maximum output from bullocks could be produced during winter season due to
comfortable ambient condition. Animal could work up to a 14 % load for six hours
a rest pause of one hour in between. It was also concluded that on the basis of
average energy output of the whole day, working a load equivalent to 10 % of
body weight with a rest pause of one hour in two session of working was found
better.
Inns (1998) reported that the draught (H) of a cultivation implement varied
directly with the effective vertical force (V) acting on it and inversely with the
tangent of the angle (a) at which it pulled. The relationship could be expressed in
the form of tillage Implement Draught equation: H = V/tan a. He conducted field
experiments at Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine (CVTM) Edinburgh, UK
using a 15 cm mould board plough weighing 18 kg and confirmed the predicated
relationship. He states that plough draft was half when the angle of pull was
increased from 20° to 30°.
17
2.8 Attachment of seed planter
Siemens et al. (1965) concluded analytically as well as from experimental
result that rake angle of furrow opener of 25° gave minimum draught.
Abernathy and porterfield (1969) found that furrow depth was greater for
furrow opener with large rake angles and large horizontal included angles (wedge
angle).
Short and Huber (1970) designed, fabricated and tested a planetary in
laboratory for motion device. Test showed that the per cent of theoretical drop was
almost independent of operating speed. Orifice velocity was a critical factor in
picking up one seed at a time. In one placement of the better tests, the nozzles,
delivering seeds at rates from 1 to 6 seeds per sec. had one seed attached 80 per
cent of the time and two seeds attached 20 per cent of time.
Sharma el al. (1983) designed and developed a single row seed cum
fertilizer drill with frame of 40 x 40 x 3 mm mild steel angle iron. A 30 cm
diameter lugged wheel was made from 30 x 5 mm mild steel flat with 25 mm long
lugs welded on it. The rectangular boxes, one for seed and other for fertilizer (5 kg
capacity) were fabricated from 20-gauge mild steel sheet. Separate fluted roller
assemblies were provided to ensure uniform dropping of both seed and fertilizer on
the front side of the frame, arrangement for hitching the machine with the wooden
beam was provided.
Shukla et al. (1984) stated that the coulter attachment fitted to the seedcum-
fertilizer drill worked satisfactory in light and medium soil. The result of study
shows that in all cases the germination and yield of the crop (wheat) was almost
equal or even sometimes higher in no tillage system as compared to conventional
tillage system.
Kumar et al. (1986) reported performance of the seeding device for
attachment with a three–tyne or a five-tyne animal drawn cultivator. The power
transmission system from the ground wheel was eliminated to reduce the cost. It
was provided with a manually operated single-fluted feed roller and a seed
distributor for equal distribution of seeds in furrows. The machine was tested and
found that the performance was good for wheat and barley.
18
Devnani (1991) suggested the box capacity for animal drawn seed drill
should be 10-16 kg. He stated that fluted roller mechanism was suitable for all
types of seed, which would control seed rate properly. He reported that the
inclination of the seed delivery tube from vertical was kept smaller than 20 degree.
He found that draught for each of shoe type furrow openers was 20 kgf for light
soil and 30-35 kgf for heavy soils.
Kumar et al. (1995) tested manually operated multicrop planter with
varying lugged drive wheels for three lug heights viz. 20 mm, 35 mm, and 50 mm.
Since the 35 mm lug height drive wheels experienced minimum skid. The planter
with lugged wheels shows improved performance with respect to the seed spacing,
seed rate, fertilizer rate and effective field capacity due to less skidding.
Dhaliwal and Shukla (2002) investigated and reported the performance of a
tractor drawn seed-cum-fertilizer drill for oil seeds. Standard shovel type furrow
opener and fluted roller type seed metering device were used in the machine. It was
also observed that uniformity in sowing of seed by this system increased the yield
by 56 % as compared to traditional method.
Selvan et al. (2002) developed a basin lister-cum seeder as an attachment to
tractor drawn cultivator for cotton to perform tilling, basin forming and sowing
simultaneously. The unit consists of common cultivator attached with a three
bottom basin lister and mounted with a cup feed type seeder as attachments. The
unit was evaluated for its performance in dry land for cotton crop. The basin lister
cum- seeder registered the highest seed cotton yield of 796 kg/ha, which is 41.64
% higher than control treatment. The basin lister-cum-seeder offered 31.41%,
96.30% and 17.73% saving in cost, time and energy, respectively.
19
CHAPTER- III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This chapter deals with the materials and methods employed for
development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter at the
Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Swami Vivekananda
College of Agricultural Engineering & Technology and Research Station, Faculty
of Agricultural Engineering, IGKV, Raipur. The laboratory and workshop facilities
of the faculty were used for fabrication and testing of the machine.
3.1 Geographical Situation
The project research work was carried out at Swami Vivekananda College
of Agricultural engineering & Technology and Research Station, Faculty of
Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur which is
situated on national highway no. 6 in eastern part of Raipur city and located
between 20º4´ North latitude and 81º39´ East longitude with an altitude of 293 m
above mean sea level.
3.2 Climatic Conditions
The general climate of this region is dry moist, sub humid and the region
receives 1200-1400 mm rainfall annually, out of which about 88 per cent is
received during rainy season (June to September) and 8 per cent during winter
season (October to February). May is the hottest and December is the coolest
month of the year. The rainfall pattern has great variations during rainy season
from year to year. The temperature during the summer months reaches as high as
48°C and drop to 6°C during December to January.
3.3 Design Considerations
The Development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
was designed as a functional and experimental unit. The design of machine
components was based on the principles of operations and lab tests. It was
compared with the conventional method, to give a correct shape in form of
20
prototype. The mechanical design details were also given with due attention so that
it gave adequate functional rigidity for the design of machine.
3.3.1 Design steps
The Development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
consists of several steps and would require basic information about the following:
a) Crops species and seed characteristics.
b) Soil and climatic conditions during planting seasons.
c) Agronomic requirements of the crops.
d) Source of power available.
e) Labour requirements for seeding.
f) Socio-economic conditions of farmers.
g) Size of land holding.
h) Level of manufacturing skill at small finished components.
i) Ease of operation, calibration and maintenance.
j) Safety in operation and operator’s comfort.
k) Expected level of cost of machine and cost of operation.
l) Net benefit expected at farmer’s level.
m) Make design of the machine in computer aided software (i.e. solid works).
n) Predict the performance of machine at the recommended operational
speeds.
o) The economic justification could be based upon its long usage or related to
the overcoming the timeliness constraints and effect on yield in conjunction
with other essential inputs.
p) Fabricate the prototype, according to the design specifications.
q) Determine the performance of the prototype in laboratory as well as under
actual field conditions with respect to seed placement, seed to seed
distance, depth of sowing, seed damage, field capacity, field efficiency etc.
r) Modify the machine, if changes are required to achieve expected level of
performance.
s) Finalize the design.
21
3.3.2 General design consideration
3.3.2.1 Functional requirements
The planter developed should fulfil the following functional requirements:
1. To meter the seeds properly i.e. seed rate.
2. To place the seeds in the soil to a specified position i.e. maintain the
spacing of plant to plant and depth.
3. To cover the seed.
The mechanical functional requirements of different individual units of machines
are given below:
A. Seed hopper
1) It should hold sufficient quantity of seeds.
2) The shape of the hopper should be such as it allows free passing of seeds
into the seed metering device without bridging.
3) It should be easily accessible and visible to the operator.
4) The shape of the hopper should be along the length of the beam of the
plough by which the load could be distributed uniformly.
5) There must be an arrangement for controlling the seed rate.
6) It should be easy to clean.
B. Fertilizer hopper
a) It should hold sufficient quantity of fertilizer.
b) There must be an arrangement for controlling the rate of application of
fertilizer.
c) There should be provision in the hopper for de-clogging the fertilizer.
d) It should be easily cleanable.
C. Seed feeding device
1) It should be able to passes seeds from hopper and drop into the dropping
unit uniformly.
2) There should not be any internal or external damage to the seeds.
3) There should be continuous flow of seeds.
4) It should maintain the proper seed to seed distance.
22
D. Seed dropping device
(1) It should place the seeds on the furrow bed at a specified distance.
(2) It should not cause any injury to the seeds.
(3) Height of fall of the seeds should be minimized.
3.3.2.2 Agronomical requirements
Following agronomical requirements were also considered for design of
machine:
Table 3.1: Agronomical requirement of selected seed
Crop Seed rate (kg/ha) Row to row
distance (cm)
Plant to plant
distance (cm)
Wheat 100-125 20 8-20
Chick pea 75-80 30 10-12
Green gram 15-20 30 8-10
Pigeon pea 18-20 60-90 15-20
Ground nut 100 30-45 15-20
A. Fertilizer Requirement
1. Farm yard manure - 200 q/ha
2. Nitrogen - 50 kg/ha
3. Phosphorus -60 kg/ha
4. Potash - 100 kg/ha
B. Placement of Fertilizer
1. Below the seed - 5 cm
2. One side of the seed - 5 cm
3.3.2.3 Economical consideration
1. The cost of the planter should be as low as possible so, that small farmers
can afford to purchase the machine.
2. The material of construction of different components should be easily and
locally available. Use of standard sizes of steel section, fasteners and chains
would help in easy inter-changeability and replacement of any part as per
requirement.
23
3.3.2.4 Ergonomic consideration
Murrel (1979) stated that ergonomics is the scientific study of the
relationship between man and its working environment. The goal of ergonomics is
to design the task so that its demand stays within the capacities of workers. Its
object is to increase the efficiency of human activity by removing those features of
design which are likely to cause inefficiency or physical disability in the long term
and thus to minimize the cost of operation. The author further stated that, to
achieve maximum efficiency a man machine system must be designed as a whole.
3.3.2.4.1Criteria for ergonomic design
1. Design within the capability to pull by the pair of bullock power.
2. Use of proper posture of the operator for efficient performance of the
Machine/planter at a lesser fatigue.
3. Suitability of the Machine/planter for workers for varying age and body
dimension.
3.4 Constructional Details of Light Weight Five Row Animal
Drawn Multi Crop Planter
The Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter consists of
following parts.
1. Frame
2. Furrow openers and boot
3. Ground drive wheel
4. Power transmission system
5. Seed and fertilizer box
6. Cup feed roller type seed metering device
7. Seed and fertilizer delivery tubes
8. Hitching system
9. Handle and beam
The constructional details of the Light weight five row animal drawn multi
crop planter are discussed below.
24
3.4.1 Frame
Frame of planter has to be rigid and strong as all parts are mounted on it.
As per design square shaped pipe of mild steel size 50 x 50 x 5 mm was used for
frame (fig.3.1). The furrow openers, driving wheel unit, handle, hitch attachment
and hopper were attached to the frame. The length of bar was kept 1420 mm made
up of mild steel and 12 mm holes (25 Nos.) at 10, 30, 40 and 60 mm of equal
spacing were drilled on the bar. For attaching furrow openers by nut and bolt at
desired spacing (20, 25 and 30 cm).
3.4.1.1 Design of frame
Frame was subjected to torsion and bending due to induced draft. Design
was based on the stresses produced in the frame.
Assumption,
Width of furrow opener = 2.5 cm
Depth of furrow opener = 6 cm
Soil resistance = 0.8 kg/cm2
Cross- section of furrow = 2.5 x 6 cm2
Cross -sectional area = 15 cm2
Draft = soil resistance (kg/ cm2 x cross- sectional area of furrow (cm) (3.1)
= 0.8x15 = 12 kg
Five furrow openers are to be arranged in a single bar. The design is based on the
total stress produced in the bar.
Draft per furrow opener = 12 kg
Total draft = 12x5 = 60 kg
= 60 x (factor of safety)
= 60 x 3 (Factor of safety for MS = 3)
= 180 kg
Torque on the square bar = draft x ground clearance (3.2)
Ground clearance = 30 cm
T = 180 x 30 = 5400 kg-cm
In addition to the torque, bending moment would also be produced. The bar
was considered as simple supported beam on the frame in between the five Furrow
openers.
25
MMax = WI (3.3)
Where,
W = Total draft = total weight on frame = 180 kg
I = Total length of frame = 138 cm
MMax = Maximum bending moment =180𝑘𝑔 × 138𝑐𝑚 =24840 kg-cm
Equivalent torque due to torsion and bending moment (Khurmi and Gupta. 1995)
𝑇𝑒 = (𝑀𝑚𝑎𝑥2 + 𝑇2)
12 (3.4)
Where,
Te= Equivalent torque, kg-cm = (248402+ 5400
2)1/2
= 646185600
T = Torque on the bar, kg –cm = 25420.18 kg-cm
MMax = Maximum bending moment
The maximum shear stress developed at the centre of the tool frame was
Obtained by well-known relationship (Khurmi and Gupta. 1995)
𝑓𝑠 × 𝑅
𝑑 × 4=
𝑇𝑒𝐼
(3.5)
Where,
fs = Shear stress at any section
R = Distance of the section from neutral axis
𝑇𝑒= Torque produced
I = Polar moment of inertia
t = 9.6
The maximum working stress of 1120 kg/cm was occurred at the centre of
the frame. For square section having each side measuring d,
I = Polar moment of inertia = d4/9.6
The factor of safety was taken as 4, fs is 1120 kg/cm.
1120𝑋5
𝑑𝑋4=
25420.18 × 9.6
𝑑4
𝑑 3 =25420.18 × 9.6 × 4
1120 × 5
d3 = 174.30
26
d = 5.59 cm = taken the width of section = 5 cm
Therefore considering availability of next higher section the square bar
Section 50 x 50 x 5 mm was selected.
Fig.3.1: Isometric view of frame
3.4.2 Furrow openers and boot
Furrow openers (Fig 3.2) were attached to the lower portion of tynes which
are used to open the soil for seed placement. As the furrow openers open the soil,
the seeds and fertilizers come into the furrow opener through seed and fertilizer
delivery tubes and drop the seed and fertilizer in the soil through boots. There were
various types of furrow openers. The inverted T-type furrow openers were used in
developed planters. The spacing between two furrow openers was adjusted as per
27
the desired row spacing of crops. The cutting portion of furrow openers (point of
share) was made of 8 mm thick high carbon bit welded to a mild steel plate with
rake angle of 28° to make narrow slit, without much soil disturbance. The
developed machine does not have separate drive wheel for power transmission to
the metering mechanism. Power was transmitted through ground wheel. There
were very less space for adjusting marking depth. To increase the depth of
operation, the rake angle and relief angle were kept at 28° and 5°, respectively. The
working front edge of the furrow opener attached with a piece of carbon steel
welded all rounds the nose, tip and sides to reduce wear and tear.
A 4 cm wide, 5 cm thick and 6 cm long stiffener plate was provided at back
bottom of the inverted T-type furrow opener (5.0 × 1.2 cm) which was attached to
the frame with nuts and bolts or directly with clamps. The furrow opener was
welded to the mild flat steel shank (straight leg standard mounted with T-type
furrow opener). Knock down type furrow opener were used in developed machine
.This facilitate to adjusted depth of seeding operation. The quality of material used
to make the furrow openers will ultimately decide the operational quality and
durability of the planter. Double boot was provided behind each furrow opener to
receive a tube (steel ribbon or polyethylene tube with a minimum diameter of 25
mm) each to host seed and fertilizer delivery tubes. (Fig.3.3)
3.4.2.1 Design of furrow openers
Considering the available draft of 60 kgf from a medium pair of bullocks as
exerted on the tip of the furrow openers of 30 cm length (Bosai, 1987 and Singh,
1989). (fig.3.3)
Bending moment = draft x length of shank (3.6)
= 60 (kg) x 30 cm = 1800 kg-cm
28
Fig 3.2: Detail of furrow opener
Fig.3.3: Isometric view of furrow opener
29
f =MXc
I (3.7)
Where,
f = Bending stress, kg/cm2
I = Moment of inertia, cm4
M = Bending moment, kg-cm
c = Distance from neutral axis to the point at which stress is determined, cm
The section modulus axis is computed by using formulae
Z=M/c (3.8)
From (3.5) and (3.6)
Assuming the bending stress is equal to 1120 kg/cm2
Z = 1800/1120 = 1.607 cm3
Section modulus of the furrow
Z =𝑏2
6 (3.9)
Width of shank was considered as 1:4 i.e. (h: 4b)
𝑍 =𝑏 × (4𝑏)2
6
1.607 =16 𝑏3
6
b3
= 0.6026
b = 0.84 cm = 8.4 mm
Considering the factor of safety and availability of material is standard size.
The thickness of shank furrow opener was selected =10 mm
Therefore the width of the shank = 4 x 10 = 40 mm.
3.4.3 Ground drive wheel
The ground wheel (Fig 3.4) was made up of 25x4 mm MS flat having
length 153 cm by bending in circular shape and 19 pentagonal pegs (20 mm) were
welded at the periphery of the wheel for better griping with soil. The ground wheel
was fitted on the both side of the frame with the help of supports.
30
Fig. 3.4: Isometric view of ground wheel drive
3.4.4 Power transmission system
The power transmission unit has the following main components-
1. Drive wheel
2. Shaft
3. Idler
4. Sprocket
5. Roller chain
The function of power transmission unit (Figure3.5) was to provide drive
from drive wheel to all parts of the planter for example seed box rollers, fertilizer
box rollers. First of all a chain set connects the drive wheel to the driving shaft.
This shaft was connected to fertilizer and seed metering shafts with the help of
another chain set which provide drive to the seed box roller and fertilizer box
roller. The idler gear was used to tighten or loosen the chain for its smooth
operation.
31
Fig.3.5: Power transmission system
3.4.4.1 Design of chain drive
A power equivalence of 1 hp for a bullock pair was considered, at 22 rpm
of bullock drawn seed cum fertilizer drill to a metering shaft at 17 rpm.
kW rating of the chain =𝑘𝑊 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑
𝑘1 × 𝑘2× 𝑘𝑠 (3.10)
=0.746 × 1.0
1.25 × 0.85= 0.702
Where,
𝑘𝑠 = Service factor = 1.0
𝑘1= Multiple strand factor = 1.25
𝑘2 = Tooth correction factor = 0.85
The sprocket was selected as 12 teeth. It was further assumed that the chain is a
simple roller chain with only two strands.
The power rating of the chain 08B at 22 rpm is 0.702 kw.
Therefore, the chain number 08B was selected. Dimension of this chain
were given by
Pitch =10 mm
Roller diameter = 50 mm
Width= 40mm
32
For 12 teeth
Pitch circle diameter =10
𝑠𝑖𝑛18012
(3.11)
= 38.63 mm
The centre distance between the sprocket wheels should be between (30 p)
to (50 p). Approximately centre distance was given by (G1, G2 and G3)
For gear G1 and G2
a = 50 p = 50x10 = 500 (Correct centre distance x = 496)
For gear G2 and G3
b = 30x10 =300 (Correct centre distance x = 296)
The number of links in the chain was determined by the following
approximately relationship (Khurmi and Gupta. 1995)
We know that the number of chain link
K =T1 + T2
2+
2x
P+
T1 − T2
2 × π
2
×P
x (3.12)
For gear G1 and G2
K =12 + 12
2+
2 × 496
10+
12 − 12
2 × π
2
×10
x
K = 111.2
For gear G2 and G3
K =12 + 12
2+
2 × 296
10+
12 − 12
2 × π
2
×10
x
K = 71
Where,
a = centre distance between axes of driving and driven sprockets, (mm)
T1 = Number of teeth on the first sprocket
T2 = Number of teeth on the second sprocket
T3 = Number of teeth on the third sprocket
K1 =111 links, K2 = 71 links
The centre to centre distance between the axes of the two sprockets was calculated
as:
33
𝑎 =𝑃
4 𝐾 −
𝑇1 + 𝑇2
2+ 𝐾 −
𝑇1 + 𝑇2
2
2
− 8 𝑇2 − 𝑇1
2 × 𝜋
2
(3.13)
=10
4 111 −
12 + 12
2+ 111 −
12 + 12
2
2
− 8 12 − 12
2 × 𝜋
2
= 2.5 × 99 + 99
a = 495 mm, b=295 mm
To provide a small sag, for allowing the chain links to take the best position
on the sprocket teeth the centre distance is reduced by (0.002a). Therefore the
correct centre distance was calculate by
a = 0.998x495
a = 494 mm, b = 294
3.4.4.1.1 Length of chain
Length of chain in mm can be closely approximately (Khurmi and Gupta. 1995)
L=2× 𝑎 + 𝑇1+𝑇2
2
2
+ 𝑇2−𝑇1
4
2
(3.14)
Where,
L = Length of chain in mm
N = Number of teeth on sprockets
C = Centre distance, mm
P = Pitch, mm
Length of chain
l1 =2× 494 + 12+12
2
2
+ 12−12
4
2
l1 =988+144
l1 = 1132 mm, l2=732mm
Total length of the chain
L= l1 + l2
L =1132+732
L =1864 mm
34
Considering, the length of chain adopted was 1864 mm. (For ground wheel
Sprocket to another Sprocket)
Fig.3.6: Isometric view of chain sprocket
3.4.5 Seed and fertilizer box
A well fabricated readymade seed and fertilizer box was used in the
machine available in the market as per our design requirement. (Fig. 3.7) A
rectangle box with separate compartments for seed and fertilizer was made.
Fig.3.7: Isometric view of seed and fertilizer box
Dimension of the box top was 290 x 270 mm and the bottom was 105 mm.
It shape was like trapezoidal with a height of 315 mm. The box was made up of
35
M.S. sheet 18 gauges and plastic plate. The overall dimension of box was 290
x270 x 315 mm. The upper portion of box was made rectangular. The depth of box
was kept 315 mm. The lower portion was made trapezoidal shape with 210 mm
depth. The rectangular boxes, one for the seed (capacity 14 kg) and other for
fertilizer (14 kg), fabricated from 18 gauge mild steel sheet and plastic plate were
mounted on the frame with the help of support.
3.4.6 Cup feed roller type seed metering device
The cup feed metering device (Fig.3.8) was used for metering different size
and shapes of seeds. The enable give continuous flow of seed at any working
speed. The metering mechanism for seed consisted of standard plastic cup feed
seed metering unit of 7 different type of roller. Seed metering rollers were attached
or fixed on mild steel solid square shaft size 20 X 20 mm rod and length of 400
mm. The shaft attached inside the rollers through which the rotating action of roller
occurs. Rotation of roller in housing, filled with seeds causes the seeds to flow out
from roller housing in a continuous stream. The seed rate can be adjusted by
adjusting scale controlling exposed length of flutes, depends on the scale which is
in contact with seed; fairly accurate seed rate can be achieved for a variety of
different size seeds like chickpea, wheat, green gram, pigeon pea and ground nut.
The metering rollers specifications were given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.2: Metering rollers specification
Metering unit roller
Number
Roller Thickness
(mm) Number of Grooves
1 33 6
2 25 10
3 15 10
4 07 10
5 10 10
6 13 3
7 07 2
36
Fig.3.8: Isometric view of cup feed type seed metering device
3.4.7 Seed and fertilizer delivery tubes
The seed tubes were made of transparent plastic tube according to 8020
mm distance between different rollers and furrow opener boot pipes. Each seed
tube was attached to the seed distributor at one end and the other end was attached
to the boot at the furrow opener. The time of fall of a seed through a tube is
affected by the size and type of tube and by the striking and bouncing of seeds
against the wall of the seed tube. Transparent plastic tubes of 30 mm diameter and
2 mm thick were selected.
3.4.8 Hitching system
As the sowing implement was to put in the field and would have to operate
parallel to the ground level by a bullock pair of any height, a circular MS pipe (60
mm dia.) of 3000 mm length beam was hinged at its end by two nuts and bolts in
the angled MS flats. The height of yoke point would be adjusted with the help of
nuts and bolts provided to change their position on the holes drilled on MS flats by
changing the pitch angle of the frame with respect to beam.
The hitch was made of two MS flat (40 x 5 mm) of 420 mm in length. The
hitch was welded on the front side of the main frame. The MS flats were drilled
two holes of 10 mm diameter at 190 mm, centre to centre distance. Two MS flats
(40 x 5 mm) were welded on the tip of MS flats of length 160 mm. They were
angled to provide pitch of 190 mm continuously.
37
3.4.9 Handle and beam
The handle considered the main component and determines the working
position of the operator. The height of handle was kept little more so that pressure
can be applied on the grip of handle at the applied forces and the height of handle
remains within the reach of operator (Gite and Yadav, 1985). The design of handle
such that shape, size and cross section of grip are based on anthropometric data
related to Chhattisgarh.
The handle was made of MS flat (40 x 5 mm) of 60 mm length and MS
pipe (25 mm dia.) of 150 mm length. The MS pipe was welded on the upper end of
MS flat and lower end were welded on the main frame.
3.5 Fabrication of the Machine
Solid works design and drawing (fig.3.10) was used for the design,
development and fabrication of the Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter (fig.3.9). The different component of the planter mentioned in previously
described subheadings was fabricated and assembled in the workshop of Swami
Vivekananda College of Agricultural engineering & Technology and Research
Station, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, I.G.K.V., Raipur. Assembled view of
light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter is shown in Fig 3.11. The
details of specification of developed machine is given in Appendix- A
38
Fig.3.9: Fabrication of developed Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
39
Fig.3.10: Isometric view of five row animal drawn multi crop planter
40
1. Frame, 2. Furrow openers, 3. Seed box, 4. Fertilizer box, 5. Fertilizer delivery
tube, 6. Chain and gear drives, 7. Drive wheel, 8. Seed delivery tube, 9. Fertilizer
rate adjusting nut, 10. Metering roller mechanism.
Fig.3.11: Components of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
Fig.3.12: View of developed planter
41
3.6 Testing Of Light Weight Five Row Animal Drawn Multi Crop
Planter
A new light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter developed
and fabricated at the Swami Vivekananda College of Agricultural engineering &
Technology and Research Station, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, I.G.K.V.,
Raipur, was tested for different crop seed at research field of college to generate
test data. For testing of the machine standard methodology was adopted as per BIS
test code IS: 9855:1981 for cereal sowing machine.
3.6.1 Facilities, machinery, equipment and apparatus etc used for testing
1. Clean and graded selected seeds
2. Dry granular fertilizer
3. Polythene bags
4. Weighing balance
5. Meter scale
6. 30 m measuring tap
7. Measuring cylinder
8. Load cell (dynamometer)
9. Stop watch
10. Core cutter
11. Core sampler
12. Electric oven
13. Data sheet
3.6.2 Procedure for testing measurement
In this section, the techniques and procedure for measurement of various
parameters associated with evaluation of the machine under laboratory and field
condition have been presented. The parameter and methodology for their
measurement are given below:
1. For testing of developed Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter, plots size of 40x25 m2 was selected at research farm of
SVCAET&RS, FAE, IGKV, Raipur.
2. The soil bed was prepared with one pass of cultivator and one pass of
rotavator.
42
3. Soil moisture per cent (db.), (wb.) and bulk density were measured for each
plot of the experimented field .The soil moister per cent and bulk density
were measured by the taking the sample from the field.
4. The field capacity of the machine was measured for planting of each crop.
From the actual & and theoretical field capacity, the field efficiency was
determined.
3.6.3 Laboratory Test
Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter was tested and
evaluated for sowing of different seeds under controlled lab condition at Faculty of
Agricultural Engineering, IGKV Raipur. The tests conducted as per BIS test code
for sowing equipment- planter (IS 9855-1981).The seeds were firstly lab tested for
physical properties and developed planter was tested in laboratory for its
calibration. For the selection of the suitable metering mechanism, unit calibration
was done with all the 7 types of roller with different seeds, seed-box exposure
length starting from 8 cm to 1 cm. The suitable metering cups for the selected
seeds were tested by sand bed method.
An artificial levelled bed of 25 cm depth from fine sand and of a length of 5
m and the width 2.0 m was prepared. The planter was allowed to travel over this
bed with furrow openers or seed tubes were lowered as near to the bed as possible.
The number of seeds dropped and the average distance between two seeds for each
metre of bed length were observed this procedure was repeated for three times and
during laboratory testing following work were carried out.
1. Calibration of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
2. Effect of quantity of seed in hopper on seed rate
3. Mechanical damage to seed by metering mechanism.
3.6.3.1 Calibration of Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
Calibration of developed machine was conducted in the laboratory for
metering desired quantity of different seeds and fertilizer. Calibration of developed
machine for wheat seed is given in Appendix-B. During test following parameters
were observed for different seeds.
43
Table 3.3: Calibration in the laboratory for metering desired quantity of seed
Crop Effective
Width, m
Perimeter,
M
Required
revolution
for 1 hector
Seed collected
in 1 revolution
Seed
rate,
kg/ha
Wheat 1 1.57 6370 12.82 81.67
Chick pea 1.5 1.57 4256 17.28 72.54
Green gram 1.5 1.57 4256 4.59 19.54
Pigeon pea 1.5 1.57 4256 4.61 19.62
Ground nut 1.5 1.57 4256 21.14 90.00
3.6.3.2 Effect of quantity of seed in hopper on seed rate
Seed and fertilizer box was completely filled by seed and the seed rate was
checked. The process was repeated by filling the hopper for 3/4, 1/2, 1/4
capacity and the corresponding seed rate (s) were measured for comparison.
3.6.3.3 Mechanical damage to the seed by metering mechanism
During calibration, the seeds were collected from furrow putting a bag
below the furrow openers and visually broken seeds were counted. The broken
seeds were weighed and percentage of damaged seeds was determined, using given
formula.
3.6.4 Field test
For the seed bed preparation tillage operation was conducted with one pass
of MB plough, one pass of cultivator and one pass of rotavator. Soil sample was
collected before and after the tillage operation. After initial setup sowing was done
with the help of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter using roller
no.4 for both the seeds. In first plot of green gram seed were sown with different
ratio with row to row spacing of 30 cm and plant to plant distance 10-15 cm. In
second plot of pigeon pea seed were sown with different ratio with row to row
spacing of 30 cm plant to plant distance 10-15 cm. In third plot of chick pea seed
were sown with different ratio with row to row spacing of 30 cm plant to plant
distance 10-15 cm. In fourth plot of ground nut seed were sown with different ratio
with row to row spacing of 30 cm plant to plant distance 15-20 cm. In fifth plot of
wheat seed were sown with different ratio with row to row spacing of 20 cm plant
to plant distance 8-10 cm. For more accuracy and precision result three replications
44
for each crop was taken. The planter was operated with the draught animal at an
operating speed of 1.75 ± 0.3 km/h. The sowing with the modified planter is sown
in Plate 3.6 and 3.7. The field performance was conducted in order to obtain actual
data for overall machine performance, operating accuracy, work capacity, and field
efficiency.
Following observations were recorded during the field tests.
i. Operating speed
ii. Measuring of pull
iii. Power requirement
iv. Moisture content of the soil
v. Bulk density of the soil
vi. Measurement of time lost in turning
vii. Width and depth of operation
viii. Field capacity
ix. Actual field capacity
x. Field efficiency
From above observations effective field capacity, field efficiency and draft were
determined.
3.6.4.1 Measurement and calculation
3.6.4.1.1 Diameter of the seed
The measurement of diameter of the selected seeds was done with the help
of screw gauge having the least count of 0.001 mm. Randomly 50 seeds were
selected from each lot for the determination of diameter.
3.6.4.1.2 Sphericity
Dimensions like length, breadth and thickness of 20 grains were measured.
The shape of the grains was expressed in terms of its sphericity and calculated as:
Sphericity =Geo metric mean diameter
Major diameter (3.29)
=(abc)
13
a
In which, geometric mean diameter or size = 3
1
)(abc mm
45
Where,
a = longest intercept, mm
b = longest intercept normal to 'a', mm
c = longest intercept normal to 'a' and 'b', mm
3.6.4.1.3 Operating speed
The speed of operation of planter was determined in test plots by putting
two marks 30 m apart (A & B). The time was recorded with the help of stop watch
to travel the distance of 30 m. The speed of operation was calculated in km/h as
given below
𝑆 =72
𝑇 (3.15)
Where,
S = Speed of operation, km/h
T = time needed to cover 30 m distance, sec
3.6.4.1.4 Measuring of pull
The pull was measured by spring dynamometer. The spring dynamometer
(capacity=100 kgf) was tied between the planter and handle with the help of rope.
One hook of the dynamometer was tied to the rope which is tied with the handle
and other end with hitch of planter such the pull is exerted through dynamometer.
The observation of pull was recorded during each pass of the planter for 5
replications after calculating the angle of pull the draft was determined.
D = Pcosθ (3.16)
Where,
θ = Angle between line of pull and horizontal, degree
P = Pull. Kgf
D = Draft, kgf
46
3.6.4.1.5 Power requirement
Calculation of power is needed to determine the efficient use of animal
power. A man can produce power equal to 0.1 hp. It was the power required to
operate the machine pair of bullock with an average pulling force and speed. It was
calculated by using the formula.
power, hp =pulling forcs (kg )×speed (m s )
75 (3.17)
3.6.4.1.6 Moisture content
Moisture content (%) on dry basis of soil was measured by oven dry
method. The soil samples from different locations within a plot were taken using
core sampler 80 mm diameter and 120 mm in length and a soil auger. The
collected soil samples from each location were weighed initially and then kept in
an oven for 24 hours at 105°c for obtaining dry weight of soil and moisture content
was calculated as follows:
1002
)21((%)
W
WWMcd (3.18)
Where,
Mcd = Moisture content of soil on dry weight basis,
W1 = Weight of wet soil and
W2 = Weight of dry soil
3.6.4.1.7 Bulk density
Bulk density of the soil is the oven dry mass per unit volume of the soil.
The bulk density of soil was measured by core sampler. The core sample of soil of
known volume was collected and weighed. The bulk density was calculated by
using formula
Bulk density, g cm2 = (BD) =M
V (3.19)
Where,
BD = Bulk density of soil, g/cm2
M = Oven dry mass of soil contained in core sampler, g
V = Volume of core sampler, cm3
47
3.6.4.1.8 Measurement of time lost in turning
The Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter was operated
length wise from one end to other. Time required to travel and turning at headland
was measured. The time loss in h/ha was also calculated.
3.6.4.1.9 Width and depth of operation
The depth of sowing was measured at (Fig.3.13) different locations with
the help of depth scale by putting a tip of depth scale in ploughed sole and average
was taken, the width of operation was calculated by dividing the total width of
field by the number of passes.
Fig: 3.13 Measurement of depth of seed placement and seed to seed spacing
3.6.4.1.10 Field capacity
Theoretical field capacity was measured as per following formula. (Bainer,
et al., 1987),
Theoretical Field capacity, (ha h ) =W × S
10 (3.20)
Where,
W = Effective width of implement, m; and
S = Speed of operation, km/h.
3.6.4.1.11 Actual field capacity
Actual field capacity was measured by taking an area of 45x25 square
meter i.e. 0.112 ha and measuring the time in actual field condition. It includes
turning loss, filling time and break down time also. There was continuously
48
operated in the field for 0.112 ha to assess its actual coverage. The time required
for complete application was recorded and effective field capacity was calculated.
Actual Field capacity (ha/h) = A
T (3.21)
Where,
A = Actual area covered, ha
T = Time required to cover the area, h
3.6.4.1.12 Field efficiency
From the actual and theoretical field capacity, the field efficiency was
calculated. (Bainer, et al., 1987),
Field efficiency, % =AFC
TFC× 100 (3.22)
Where,
FE= Field efficiency (%);
AFC=Actual field capacity (ha/h); and
TFC=Theoretical field capacity (ha/h).
The data were recorded for all three planting methods under actual field
conditions and also compared. The yield was not taken in account due to limitation
of time. The planting depth, fertilizer placement depth and gape between fertilizer
and seed were also measured. The economics of machine were also calculated as
per standard procedure (Michael and Ojha, 2003)
3.6.4.2 Cost Economics
The cost of operation for sowing was worked out by calculating the
fabrication, fixed and variable costs. The fixed cost was calculated by assuming the
rates prevailing in the market for mild steels. The variable cost was worked out by
taking the hire charges prevailing in this region for operator. The area covered per
hour of operation was calculated based on the area covered by the implement with
each number of furrow openers hitched during the field operation. The cost of
operation by traditional method of sowing was also calculated for economic
evaluation with the developed planter.
49
3.6.4.2.1 Calculation of operational cost of five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
The cost of operation for developed planter was calculated by following
procedure. The operating cost includes fixed and variable cost.
1) Fabrication cost
Total weight of implement in, kg
a) Material cost
Material cost was taken as @ 40 Rs./kg.
Cost of Material = Total weight x 40 Rs.
b) Black smith charge
It was taken @Rs. 300/day
= No. of day x 300.
c) Machine charges
It was taken Rs.@150/day
= No. of days x 150
d) Workshop expenditure
It was taken @Rs. 150/day
= No. of days x 150
e) Supervision charges
It was taken 10% of the fabrication cost, Rs
= (a + b + c + d) x 10%
Total fabrication cost, Rs = a + b + c + d + e
2) Analysis of economics of use
To do the analysis, the following assumption were made
i. Expected life of the machine 5 years
ii. Annual use of machine 30 days per year
Total annual use = 30 × 8 h/year
= 240 h/year
iii. Scrap value of the planter 10 percent of initial cost
3) Over head cost
i. Annual depreciation ( by straight method)
50
D =𝐶−𝑆
L (3.23)
Where,
D = Depreciation/year
C = Initial cost
S = Scrap value = 𝐶10 , and
L = Life of machine in years.
ii. Interest investment at 12 percent per annum
I =𝐶+𝑆
2× i (3.24)
Total over head cost Rs = Annual depreciation + Interest investment per year.
Hence, total cost (over head) per hour
4) Variable cost
i. Repair and maintenance cost at 10 percent of initial cost
ii. Wage of operator in Rs for working 8 hours therefore
iii. Hiring charges of bullock in Rs for working of 4 hours
Total cost of sowing , Rs/h = Over head cost + Variable cost (3.25)
3.6.4.2.2 Operational Energy
The energy requirement for planting operation per hectare was calculated
for developed machine.
The energy was calculated by using the following formula reported by
Binning et al, 1984
Implement usage for ridging MJ
ha =
TIW
LH XHOU X EE (3.26)
Where,
TIW = Total weight of implement, kg
LH = Total useful working life of implement, h
HOU = Hours of useful life of implement h/ha
EE = Energy equivalent (MJ/kg)
51
3.6.3 Seed and fertilizer placement uniformity
Uniformity testing of developed machine for seed and fertilizer placement
was conducted in the field under good seed bed condition with average depth
setting of furrow openers. The soil of 3m of planted row length was carefully
removed without disturbing seed and fertilizer. Depth of seed placement, seed to
seed distance and vertical spacing of the fertilizer with respect to the seed was
measured the test was conducted with selected metering roller and optimum
exposure scale opening.
3.6.4 Missing Index (M)
Missing Index (M) is an indicator of how often a seed skips the desired
spacing. It is the percentage of spacing greater than 1.5 times the theoretical
spacing (Yadachi et al., 2013). Smaller values of M indicate better performance:
M = 𝑛3
𝑁 (3.27)
Where,
N = Total number of observations, and
n3 = Number of spacing’s in the region > 1.5 times of the theoretical spacing
3.6.5 Multiple Index (D)
Multiple Index (D) is an indicator of more than one seed dropped within a
desired spacing. It is the percentage of spacing that are less than or equal to half of
the theoretical spacing (Yadachi et al., 2013). Smaller values of D indicate better
performance:
D = 𝑛1
𝑁 (3.28)
Where,
N = Total number of observations, and
n1 = Number of spacing’s in the region less than or equal to 0.5 times of the
theoretical spacing
52
3.7 Statistical Analysis
The data were subjected to analysis of variances test was performed for the mean
values of actual seed spacing, seed miss index, seed multiple index, quality of feed
index and precision spacing in relation to seed type, forward speed and hopper
level of filling.
3.7.1 Standard Deviation (S.D.)
It is defined as the square root of the mean of the squares of the deviations
taken from Arithmetic mean. (Basic Statistics; Agarwal, 2006).
𝑆. 𝐷. = ∈ 𝑥2 −
∈ 𝑥 2
𝑛𝑛 − 1
(3.29)
or 𝜎 = ∈ 𝑥1−𝑥 2
2
𝑛−1 , 𝜎 =
∈𝑓 𝑥1−𝑥 2
𝑛−1
Where,
σ = Standard deviation
Σx= Sum of all observation
n = Number of observation
x= Observation
∈ 𝑥1 − 𝑥 = Sum of the difference of the observe variation and the
arithmetic
f = Frequency
3.7.2 Coefficient of Variation (C.V.)
Coefficient of variation of a series of variable values is the ratio of the
standard deviation to the mean multiplied by 100. (Basic Statistics; Agarwal,
2006).
C.V. = 𝜎
𝑋 (3.30)
Where,
σ = Standard deviation
𝑋 = Mean of set of values
53
CHAPTER –IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter deals with the results of experiments in order to full fill the
objectives of the project work. The experiments were conducted for light weight
five row animal drawn multi crop planter in the laboratory as well as in the field.
The performance of this machine was evaluated at the field of Faculty of
Agricultural Engineering, IGKV, Raipur, considering seed rate, effective field
capacity, field efficiency, cost of operation and energy requirement. The physical
properties of seeds and soil condition were measured under laboratory.
4.1 Physical properties of Seeds
Wheat, Chickpea, Pigeon pea, Green gram and Ground nut
The most popular varieties of Chhattisgarh region of Wheat (GW 273),
Chick Pea (JG 74), Pigeon pea (PUSA 855), Green gram (BM 4) and Ground nut
(GG 3, JE2) were selected for the study. Their observed physical properties were
presented in Table 4.1.
4.1.1 Moisture content of seeds
Various physical properties of seeds and their fractions are dependent on
moisture content and appear to be important in the design of seed metering
mechanism. The moisture content of selected Wheat seed was determined as
10.9% on wet/dry basis. Similarly moisture content of chick pea, pigeon pea, green
gram and ground nut was observed as 11.2, 15.66, 18.39 and 19.01% respectively
on dry/wet basis.
4.1.2 Bulk density of seeds
The bulk density of seeds is an important parameter for designing of box
capacity and for optimizes the seed rate of the crop. The observed values of bulk
density for different seeds are presented in table 4.1. The average value of bulk
density for wheat, chick pea, pigeon pea, green gram and ground nut determined as
768 kg/m3, 711 kg/m
3, 792 kg/m
3, 757 kg/m
3 and 745 kg/m
3 respectively.
54
4.1.3 1000 grain weight of seeds
The 1000 grain weight is an important parameter which affects the seed
rate, so it is very necessary to calculate the 1000 grain weight for precision sowing.
The1000 grain weight of wheat, chick pea, pigeon pea, green gram and ground nut
was observed as 35g, 160g, 93g, 42.5 and 650g respectively.
4.1.4 Sphericity of seeds
On the basis of observed dimensions viz. length, breadth and thickness of
different seeds a given in Appendix-C sphericity was determined. The shape of the
grains wheat, chick pea, pigeon pea, green gram and ground nut was expressed in
terms of its sphericity and were determined as 59%, 75%, 84%, 82% and 69%
respectively.
Table 4.1: Moisture content, 1000 grain weight and bulk density of selected crops
Crop Variety Sphericity 1000 grain
weight
Moisture
content
Bulk
density
(percent) (g) (percent) (kg/m³)
Wheat GW 273 59 35 10.90 768
Chick Pea JG 74 75 160 11.20 711
Pigeon pea PUSA 855 84 93 15.66 792
Green gram BM 4 82 42.5 18.39 757
Ground nut GG 3(JE2) 69 650 19.01 745
4.2 Physical properties of soil
4.2.1 Moisture content and bulk density of soil
Moisture content on dry basis of soil was measured by oven dry method
five soil samples were taken randomly at 5 different depths from surface of soil
using core sampler of 8.0 cm diameter and 12 cm height.
Table 4.2: Moisture content and bulk density of soil
Observations Weight
of soil
Weight of
soil after
oven dried
Moisture content Bulk
density,
kg/m3
% (w.b.) % (d.b.)
1 851 720 15.39 18.19 1410.84
2 844 715 15.28 18.04 1399.24
3
4
5
854
858
849
725
724
730
15.11
15.62
14.02
17.79
18.51
16.30
1415.82
1422.45
1407.53
Average 851.2 722.8 15.08 17.77 1411.18
SD 5.26 5.63 0.62 0.86 8.73
CV 0.62 0.78 4.14 4.84 0.62
55
Moisture content at 5 different places was found to be 18.19%, 18.04%,
17.79%, 18.51% and 16.30% on dry basis respectively. Bulk density of soil was
measured by core sampler. Bulk density of soil was found to be 1410.84,
kg/m3,1399.24 kg/m
3 ,1415.82 kg/m
3 ,1422.45 kg/m
3 and 1407.53 kg/m
3 at
respectively (Table 4.2). Average value of moisture content and bulk density of
experimented plot was found 17.77% (db) and 1411.18 kg/m3 respectively.
4.3 Laboratory test of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
4.3.1 Calibration of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
The planter was calibrated in the laboratory for desired seed rate by using
the different size rollers, different exposure length of metering scale and different
hopper filling. The available metering rollers numbers (2, 3, 4, 5 and 7) were used
for the study.
4.3.2 Selection of metering roller
Looking to the observed values of seed size and cup size of metering roller,
roller no.5 was selected for calibration of developed planter for wheat table 4.3
shows the calibration result of wheat seed with metering roller 5 and different
metering exposure scale from 7 to 1. Data revealed that with metering roller no.5
and scale exposure of 4 gave nearest values of seed rate in the range of 115-117
kg/ha. Average value of 115.68 kg/ha was obtained which is nearest to the
minimum recommended seed rate of 100 kg/ha of wheat.
Table 4.3: Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing of
Wheat
Scale Seed rate kg/ha
Exposure Metering roller 5
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Average
8 - - - - - -
7 99.6 100.88 98.24 97.5 97.6 98.76
6 100.28 101.87 101.44 97.56 99.12 100.05
5 109.56 111.44 112.82 112.56 107.02 110.68
4 117.26 116.94 115.1 116.26 112.86 115.68
3 120.62 122.04 124.86 120.58 124.62 122.54
2 130.82 132.16 135.02 132.16 136.02 133.24
1 140.38 143.86 145.82 140.66 144.28 143.00
56
Metering roller no.3 was selected for calibration of developed planter for
chick pea seeds the data presented in table 4.4 shows the different observed values
of seed rate for different metering exposure scale from 1-7 data presented in table
revealed that nearest recommended seed rate of chick pea was obtained with
exposure scale no.5 as 81.84 kg/ha.
Table 4.4: Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing of
chickpea
Scale Seed rate kg/ha
Exposure Metering roller 3
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Average
8 - - - - - -
7 58.92 59.41 56.91 58.01 58.54 58.36
6 68.44 67.48 70.30 70.34 69.28 69.17
5 80.46 83.04 82.48 84.02 79.18 81.84
4 94.48 92.64 95.08 92.56 97.04 94.36
3 95.53 99.21 96.81 96.47 98.99 95.53
2 101.12 103.84 105.92 101.62 103.46 103.19
1 108.53 109.82 110.98 112.52 105 109.37
Metering roller no.4 was selected for calibration of developed planter for
green gram seeds. The data presented in table 4.5 shows the calibration result of
green gram seeds with, metering roller no. 4 and exposure scale from 7-1.
Table 4.5: Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing of
Green gram
Scale Seed rate kg/ha
Exposure Metering roller 4
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Average
8 - - - - - -
7 17.64 18.3 17.98 17.68 18.02 17.92
6 21.64 22.02 21.46 21.02 21.76 21.58
5 39.4 36.7 37.46 38.16 36.1 37.56
4 47.5 45.86 43.66 45.3 47.7 46.00
3 58.64 61.64 60.88 57.94 57.82 59.38
2 71.5 75.6 72.42 73.9 71.12 72.91
1 84.8 86.02 85.26 83.58 87.96 85.52
57
The recommended seed rate of green gram is 15-20 kg/ha, which was
obtained with exposure scale no. 7. The nearest average value of seed rate 17.92
kg/ha was obtained for green gram with metering roller no.4 and exposure scale
no.7during calibration.
Metering roller no.4 was selected for calibration of developed planter for
pigeon pea seeds. The data presented in table 4.6 shows the calibration result of
green gram seeds with, metering roller no. 4 and exposure scale from 7-1. The
recommended seed rate of pigeon pea is 18-20 kg/ha, which was obtained with
exposure scale no. 7. The nearest average value of seed rate 19.85 kg/ha was
obtained for pigeon pea with metering roller no.4 and exposure scale no.7during
calibration.
Table 4.6: Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing of
pigeon pea
Scale Seed rate kg/ha
Exposure Metering roller 4
No F1 F3 F5 Average
8 - - - -
7 19.74 19.81 20.01 19.85
6 22.93 23.78 23.47 23.39
5 25.32 25.99 26.58 25.96
4 28.81 28.02 29.24 28.69
3 30.81 30.67 30.61 30.70
2 34.74 35.04 36.01 35.26
1 38.4 39.32 38.99 38.90
Metering roller no.2 was selected for calibration of developed planter for
green gram seeds. The data presented in table 4.7 shows the calibration result of
ground nut seeds with, metering roller no. 2 and exposure scale from 7-1. The
recommended seed rate of ground nut is 100 kg/ha, which was obtained with
exposure scale no. 7. The nearest average value of seed rate 98.58 kg/ha was
obtained for ground nut with metering roller no.2 and exposure scale no.2 during
calibration.
58
Table 4.7: Calibration of planter for selection of metering roller for sowing of
ground nut
Scale
Seed rate kg/ha
Exposure
No
Metering roller 2
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Average
8 - - - - - -
7 - - - - - -
6 79.71 80.22 81.02 80.91 81.56 80.68
5 83.31 82.56 84.01 83.01 85.07 83.59
4 85.78 88.35 87.89 87.15 89.71 87.78
3 90.39 91.65 91.99 96.99 93.88 92.98
2 98.01 96.88 99.48 98.54 99.97 98.58
1 101.09 103.98 104.67 102.98 105.01 103.55
From Table 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 it was concluded that the metering
roller no. 5 with exposure scale no. 4 was found suitable for wheat seed which
gave nearest value of recommended seed rate. Similarly for chick pea metering
roller no. 3 with exposure scale no. 5, green gram metering roller no. 4 with
exposure scale no. 7, pigeon pea was metering roller no. 4 with exposure scale no.
7 and ground nut metering roller no. 2 with exposure scale no. 2 were
recommended for sowing of seeds as nearest revealed value of seed rate was
obtained with above seed adjustment.
Table 4.8: Selection of metering roller for selected seeds
Crops
Recommended
seed rate,
kg/ha
Row to
Row
spacing,
cm
Plant to
plant
spacing,
cm
Seed
rate
selected,
kg/ha
Selected
metering
roller
Selected
Metering
exposure
scale no.
Wheat 100-125 20 8-20 115 5 4
Chick pea 75-80 30 10 81 3 5
Green gram 15-20 30 8-10 17 4 7
Pigeon pea 18-20 60-90 15-20 19 4 7
Ground nut 100 30-45 15-16 98 2 2
59
Data presented in Table 4.8 show the value of recommended seed rate
seeding geometry and obtained seed rate with selection metering roller and
metering exposure scale no. for different crop seed.
4.3.3 Effect of hopper filling on seed delivery rate
Table 4.9 indicates the seed rate of wheat for different exposure scale
varied with the hopper filling (Full, 3/4th and half). It was observed that the entire
sample collected for same exposure scale were nearly same and there was very
little deviation among the sample i.e. (<2.0). The CV was also very less about in
range of 0.79-5.07on average.
Table 4.9: Effect of hopper filling on seed rate (kg/ha) of wheat crop with different
exposure scale at selected roller no. 5
Seed rate kg/ha
scale exposure no. full 3/4th
half Mean SD CV
8 - - - - - -
7 97.49 99.51 102.02 99.67 2.27 2.28
6 99.32 100.93 100.01 100.09 0.81 0.81
5 104.19 105.48 105.75 105.14 0.83 0.79
4 107.18 108.98 109.48 108.55 1.21 1.11
3 112.33 114.53 117.67 114.84 2.68 2.34
2 115.43 117.01 125.87 119.44 5.63 4.71
1 119.13 121.43 130.98 123.85 6.28 5.07
Table 4.10: Effect of hopper filling on seed rate (kg/ha) of chick pea crop with
different exposure scale at selected roller no. 2
Seed rate kg/ha
scale exposure no. full 3/4th
half Mean SD CV
8 - - - - - -
7 60.21 60.46 63.42 184.09 1.79 0.97
6 72.75 73.38 75.17 221.30 1.26 0.57
5 95.94 96.41 100.46 292.81 2.49 0.85
4 99.65 105.68 110.51 315.84 5.44 1.72
3 105.52 111.24 118.27 335.03 6.39 1.91
2 111.24 119.89 126.32 357.45 7.57 2.12
1 116.59 127.23 135.24 379.06 9.36 2.47
60
Table 4.10 indicates the seed rate of Chick pea for different exposure scale
varied with the hopper filling (Full, 3/4th and half). It was observed that the entire
samples collected for same exposure scale were nearly same and there was some
deviation among the sample i.e. (1.26-9.36). The CV was about (0.57-2.47) on
average. Up to scale exposure of 5 the seed delivery CV is under limit (<2) but
when exposure scale is increased from 5 to 1 the CV is also increased. So exposure
scale from 7 to 5 was recommended for the experiment.
4.3.4 Effect on seed delivery between rows
Table 4.11 indicates the variation in seed rate of wheat among the rows
(Furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for same
exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the sample
i.e. (1.30-2.42). The CV was about (1.31-2.18) in range. Exposure scale 4 is best
suited for the recommended seed of wheat crop (average 115.68 kg/ha).
Table 4.11: Seed rate (kg/ha) for wheat crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no.5.
Scale Furrow opener
Mean SD CV
exposure
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
8 - - - - - - - -
7 99.6 100.88 98.24 97.5 97.6 98.76 1.30 1.31
6 100.28 101.87 101.44 97.56 99.12 100.05 1.76 1.76
5 109.56 111.44 112.82 112.56 107.02 110.68 2.42 2.18
4 117.26 116.94 115.1 116.26 112.86 115.68 1.78 1.54
3 120.62 122.04 124.86 120.58 124.62 122.54 2.09 1.71
2 130.82 132.16 135.02 132.16 136.02 133.24 2.18 1.64
1 140.38 143.86 145.82 140.66 144.28 143.00 2.38 1.66
Table 4.12 indicates the variation in seed rate of chickpea among the rows
(furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for same
exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the sample
i.e. (0.96-2.85). The CV was up to in range (1.64-2.61). Exposure scale 5 is best
suited for the recommended seed of chick pea crop.(average 81.84 kg/ha)
61
Table 4.12: Seed rate (kg/ha) for chick pea crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 3
Scale Furrow opener
Mean SD CV
exposure
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
8 - - - - - - - - 7 58.92 59.41 56.91 58.01 58.54 58.36 0.96 1.64
6 68.44 67.48 70.3 70.34 69.28 69.17 1.23 1.78
5 80.46 83.04 82.48 84.02 79.18 81.84 1.97 2.41
4 94.48 92.64 95.08 92.56 97.04 94.36 1.87 1.98
3 95.53 99.21 96.81 96.47 98.99 95.53 1.62 1.70
2 101.12 103.84 105.92 101.62 103.46 103.19 1.92 1.86
1 108.53 109.82 110.98 112.52 105 109.37 2.85 2.61
Table 4.13 indicates the variation in seed rate of green gram among the
rows (furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for same
exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the sample
i.e. (0.27-1.85). The CV was up to in range (1.51-3.63). Exposure scale 7 is best
suited for the recommended seed of green gram crop.(average 17.92 kg/ha)
Table 4.13: Seed rate (kg/ha) for green gram crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 4
Scale
exposure Furrow opener Mean SD CV
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
8
7
-
17.64
-
18.3
-
17.98
-
17.68
-
18.02
-
17.92
-
0.27
-
1.51
6 21.64 22.02 21.46 21.02 21.76 21.58 0.37 1.73
5 39.4 36.7 37.46 38.16 36.1 37.56 1.29 3.43
4 47.5 45.86 43.66 45.3 47.7 46.00 1.67 3.63
3 58.64 61.64 60.88 57.94 57.82 59.38 1.76 2.97
2 71.5 75.6 72.42 73.9 71.12 72.91 1.85 2.53
1 84.8 86.02 85.26 83.58 87.96 85.52 1.62 1.90
Table 4.14 indicates the variation in seed rate of pigeon pea among the rows
(furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for same
exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the sample
i.e. (0.10-0.66). The CV was up to in range (0.33-2.43). Exposure scale 7 is best
suited for the recommended seed of pigeon pea crop.(average 19.85 kg/ha)
62
Table 4.14: Seed rate (kg/ha) for pigeon pea crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 4
Scale
exposure Furrow opener Mean SD CV
No F1 F3 F5
8 - - - - - -
7 19.74 19.81 20.01 19.85 0.14 0.71
6 22.93 23.78 23.47 23.39 0.43 1.84
5 25.32 25.99 26.58 25.96 0.63 2.43
4 28.81 28.02 29.24 28.69 0.62 2.16
3 30.81 30.67 30.61 30.70 0.10 0.33
2 34.74 35.04 36.01 35.26 0.66 1.88
1 38.4 39.32 38.99 38.90 0.47 1.20
Table 4.15 indicates the variation in seed rate of ground nut among the rows
(furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for same
exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the sample
i.e. (0.72-2.57). The CV was up to in range (0.90-2.76). Exposure scale 2 is best
suited for the recommended seed of ground nut crop.(average 98.58 kg/ha)
Table 4.15: Seed rate (kg/ha) for ground nut crop with exposure scale for different
furrow openers at selected metering roller no. 2
Scale
exposure Furrow opener Mean SD CV
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
8 - - - - - - - -
7 - - - - - - - -
6 79.71 80.22 81.02 80.91 81.56 80.68 0.72 0.90
5 83.31 82.56 84.01 83.01 85.07 83.59 0.98 1.17
4 85.78 88.35 87.89 87.15 89.71 87.78 1.45 1.66
3 90.39 91.65 91.99 96.99 93.88 92.98 2.57 2.76
2 98.01 96.88 99.48 98.54 99.97 98.58 1.22 1.24
1 101.09 103.98 104.67 102.98 105.01 103.55 1.58 1.52
4.3.5 Mechanical damage to seed by metering mechanism
Visual observations for mechanical damage due to metering mechanism
were recorded and it was found that there was no visual damage to the seeds of
wheat, chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea and ground nut. However the internal
63
damage of seeds was measured by sowing of seeds in steel trays and found that the
seed damage for wheat, chick pea, green pea, pigeon pea and ground nut was not
significant at one per cent level of significance. The results are shown in Table
4.16.
Table 4.16: Mechanical damage to seeds by planter
Sr. No Crop Weight of broken
seeds, g
Total weight of
sample, g
Damaged
seeds %
1 Wheat 3.4 1000 0.03
2 Chick pea 3.5 1000 0.03
3 Green gram 4.6 1000 0.04
4 Pigeon pea 1.5 1000 0.01
5 Ground nut 7.4 1000 0.07
Seed collected in 10 revolutions
4.3.6 Selection of metering unit for fertilizer
The planter was calibrated with 3 available fertilizer metering rollers and the
optimum application rate (91.29 kg/ha) was found with roller number 5 at exposure
scale 6. Table 4.17 indicates the observed fertilizer application rate of seeds among
the rows (Furrow openers). It was observed that the entire samples collected for
same exposure scale were nearly same and there was little deviation among the
rows i.e. (0.55-1.43). The CV was about in the range of (0.66-1.44). (Exposure
scale 5 is best suited for the recommended fertilizer application rate of selected
crops (average 99.47 kg/ha).
Table 4.17: Fertilizer application rate (kg/ha) for selected crops for different
furrow openers
Scale Furrow opener
Mean SD CV
exposure
No F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
8 - - - - - - - -
7 80.51 80.59 81.07 79.56 80.37 80.42 0.55 0.68
6 90.58 91.55 92.01 90.75 91.54 91.29 0.60 0.66
5 99.47 99.21 96.81 96.47 98.99 99.47 1.43 1.44
4 105.84 107.43 105.28 106.88 107.04 106.49 0.90 0.84
3 107.04 108.5 109.01 107.55 108.95 108.21 0.88 0.81
2 109.87 108.84 106.92 107.62 108.46 108.34 1.13 1.05
1 118.82 119.82 117.98 118.52 120.01 119.03 0.86 0.73
64
The planter machine was calibrated in the laboratory for the desired seed rate by
adjusting the exposed length of the opening. Detailed shape and size of seed and
fertilizer is given in Appendix E.
Wide ranges of quantity of seeds dropped through the opening exposure
were collected during the calibration of the planter.
Data depicted in Table 4.18 shows that, for wheat seeds the highest seed
rate 105.75 kg/ha was found with 5 opening exposure length and half filled hopper
whereas, the minimum seed rate 97.49 kg/ha was observed with 7 opening
exposures scale and hopper filled completely.
The optimum seed rate close to the recommended seed rate was found
105.75 kg/ha (for line sowing) when the planter was half filled and opening
exposure scale was 5.
Table 4.18: Calibration of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
for different crops, exposed lengths and hopper capacity.
S.
No
.
Crop/
Fertilizer
Scale
Exposur
e
Roller
No
Seed rate, kg/ha for different hopper
capacity
Full 3/4th
1/2th
7
97.49 97.53 98.43
1 Wheat 6 5 99.32 100.93 100.50
5
105.00 105.48 105.75
7
57.21 58.46 57.12
2 Chick pea 6 3 70.75 70.38 71.00
5
88.94 87.00 88.10
7
15.42 15.78 16.48
3 Green
gram 6 4 18.76 19.00 18.46
5
25.37 25.68 26.12
7
15.01 15.65 15.94
4 Pigeon
pea 6 4 15.03 15.24 16.25
5
16.24 16.78 16.78
4
85.00 85.54 86.14
5 Ground
nut 3 2 88.00 88.14 89.21
2
92.25 93.51 94.03
7
83.87 85.56 85.00
6 Fertilizer 6 3 94.00 95.71 94.78
5
103.77 104.28 104.00
65
From Fig. 4.1 it is also revealed that, for all the capacities of hopper, half,
three fourth and full with 5 opening exposure scale of the seed rate was close to the
recommended seed rate. The observed seed rates for 5 opening exposure scale
were 105.00 kg/ha, 105.48 kg/ha, kg/ha and 105.75 kg/ha, for full, three fourth,
and half and one fourth hopper capacity respectively.
For the chick pea seeds the highest seed rate 88.94 kg/ha was found with 5
opening exposure scale and full hopper filled, where as the minimum seed rate
57.21 kg/ha at 7 opening exposure scale and one half hopper filled.
The optimum seed rate close to the recommended seed rate was found
70.75 kg/ha (for line sowing) when the planter was full hoppers filled and opening
exposure scale no was 6 (Fig. 4.2)
For the green gram seeds, the optimum seed rate close to the recommended
seed rate was found 16.78 kg/ha (for line sowing) when the planter was half
hoppers filled and opening exposure scale was 7 (Fig. 4.3).
For the pigeon pea seeds, the optimum seed rate close to the recommended
seed rate was found 15.94 kg/ha (for line sowing) when the planter was half
hoppers filled and opening exposure scale was 7 (Fig. 4.4).
For the ground nut seeds, the maximum seed rate 94.03 kg/ha found at the
2 opening scale no and half filled, where as the minimum seed rate 85.00 kg/ha
was with 4 opening scale exposure and the hopper completely filled. Optimum
seed rate close to the recommended seed rate was found 94.03 kg/ha (for line
sowing) when the three half of the hopper was filled and opening exposed scale no
2 (Fig.4.5).
For the fertilizer (DAP), the highest application rate 104.28 kg/ha was
found with 5 opening scale exposure and three fourth filled hopper whereas, the
minimum fertilizer rate 83.87 kg/ha was observed with 7 opening exposure scale
and hopper completely filled. The optimum fertilizer application rate close to the
recommended rate was found 104.00 kg/ha when the planter was half filled and
opening exposure scale was 5 (Fig. 4.6).
66
Fig 4.1: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of wheat
Fig 4.2: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of chick pea
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
108
7 6 5
See
d r
ate,
kg/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
7 6 5
See
d r
ate,
kg/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
67
Fig 4.3: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of green gram
Fig 4.4: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of pigeon pea
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
7 6 5
See
d r
ate,
kg/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
7 6 5
See
d r
ate,
kg/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
68
Fig 4.5: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on seed rate of ground nut
Fig 4.6: Effect of variation of opening exposure scale on application rate of
fertilizer.
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
7 6 5
See
d r
ate,
kg/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
7 6 5
Seed
rat
e, k
g/h
a
Opening exposer scale
Full
3/4th
1/2th
69
4.4 Field performance result
The planter was field tested for its mechanical and functional performances
in research field area of 40x25 m2 at Swami Vivekananda College of Agricultural
Engineering & Technology and Research Station, Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, and Raipur (C.G.). The
sowing of different crops in field was done with 30 cm row to row spacing.
4.4.1 Moisture content of soil
Five soil samples were taken randomly at different location of the field at
20 cm depth from the surface of soil. The average moisture content at 20 cm depth
was found 18.19% on dry basis and 15.39% on wet basis. Observed data are
presented in Table 4.19.
4.19: Moisture content and bulk density of soil
Observations Weight of
soil
Weight of
soil after
oven dried
Moisture content Bulk
density,
kg/m3
% (w.b.) % (d.b.)
1 851 720 15.39 18.19 1410.84
2 844 715 15.28 18.04 1399.24
3 854 725 15.11 17.79 1415.82
4 858 724 15.62 18.51 1422.45
5 849 730 14.02 16.30 1407.53
Average 851.2 722.8 15.08 17.77 1411.18
SD 5.26 5.63 0.62 0.86 8.73
CV 0.62 0.78 4.14 4.84 0.62
4.4.2 Bulk density of soil sample
The bulk density of soil sample was measured by core cutter method and
the size of core cutter having its inner diameter 8 cm and length is 12 cm. The soil
samples were collected at depth levels of 12 cm before operation of planter. The
sample initially weighted before placing into an oven for 24 hours at 105 °C. After
drying the weight of sample was again measured. Average values of bulk density
were observed as 1411 kg/m3
for experimental field.
4.4.3 Depth of seed placement
The average depth of placement achieved of seeds in the field was 4.4 cm.
The depth of placement of seeds was adjusted raising or lowering the furrow
opener by hitching angle of weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter.
70
Table 4.20: Depth of seed placement
S.No. Depth of seed placemen
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
1 4.9 5 4.1 4.2 5.1
2 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5
3 4.6 4.4 4.8 4.5 4.3
4 3.9 4.8 3.8 4.1 4.2
5 5 5.1 4.2 5.1 4.3
Average 4.56 4.70 4.24 4.44 4.48
SD 0.44 0.39 0.36 0.40 0.36
CV 9.63 8.24 8.60 8.95 8.11
4.4.4 Measurement of draught
The spring dynamometer was hitched between the yoke and the planter
beam during the operation. The pulling force varied from minimum 52.63 to
maximum 54.83 kg at 36.68° angle of inclination. The draught accordingly
computed varied from 42.20 kgf (413 N) to 43.97 kgf (431.34N).
The average draught recorded was 43.21 kgf for developed planter which
was considered to be very well within the pulling capacity of small/medium pair of
bullocks (Table 4.21).
Table 4.21: Drought required for light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
S.No. Pull,(kgf) Angle of inclination
Degree
Draught kgf
1 53.94 36.68 43.25
2 54.28 36.68 43.53
3 52.63 36.68 42.20
4 53.76 36.68 43.11
5 54.83 36.68 43.97
Average 43.21
SD Ϭ 0.65
CV% 1.51
71
4.4.5 Speed of operation
The speed of operation was found to vary from 1.74 to 1.77 km/h (Table
4.22).The average speed of operation of developed planter for sowing of selected
seeds was found to be 1.75 km/h, respectively, for a distance of 30m.
Table 4.22: Speed of operation
S. No. Distance, m Time, s Speed, km/h
1 30 62 1.74
2 30 61 1.77
3 30 62 1.74
4 30 63 1.71
5 30 61 1.77
Average
1.75
4.4.6 Power requirement
The average power required for 5-row animal drawn multi crop planter was
found to be 0.20 kW (0.27hp) which may be operated by a pair of bullocks with
average output of 0.5 hp.
Table 4.23: Power requirement for the planter
S. No. Draught, kgf Speed of operation, km/h Power kW
1 43.25 1.74 0.20
2 43.53 1.77 0.21
3 42.20 1.74 0.19
4 43.11 1.71 0.19
5 43.97 1.77 0.21
Average 43.21 1.75 0.20
SD Ϭ 0.65 0.03 0.01
CV% 1.51 1.44 5.00
4.4.7 Field efficiency
The field capacity and field efficiency was calculated for planter using
standard methodology described earlier and results are presented in Table 4.24.
The theoretical field capacity was determined as 0.27 ha/h, where as the actual
field capacity of planter was found to be 0.22 ha/h. From the actual and theoretical
field capacity the field efficiency of the light weight animal drawn multi crop
planter was found to be 79.78%.
72
Table4.24: Field efficiency of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop
planter
S.No. Operating Speed km/h TFC, ha/h EFC, ha/h Field efficiency, %
1 1.74 0.27 0.21 78.07
2 1.77 0.27 0.22 78.65
3 1.74 0.27 0.22 81.77
4 1.71 0.27 0.22 78.13
5 1.77 0.27 0.22 82.29
Average 1.75 0.27 0.22 79.78
SD Ϭ 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.07
CV% 1.44 0.00 2.05 2.60
4.4.8 Seed to seed spacing achieved
The seed to seed spacing of different crops was observed during field test.
The average seed to seed spacing different crop seeds are presented in Table 4.25.
Table 4.25: Seed to seed spacing achieved
Crops Sample no. Seed to seed
spacing, cm
Avg. seed to seed
spacing
1 10
2 8
Wheat 3 8 9
4 10
5 9
1 14
2 15
Chick pea 3 15 15
4 16
5 15
1 11
2 9
Green gram 3 12 12.2
4 14
5 15
1 12
2 9
pigeon pea 3 11 10.4
4 11
5 9
1 17
2 20
Ground nut 3 14 16.8
4 16
5 17
73
The obtained seed spacing of different seed was with the recommended spacing as
per agronomical requirement.
4.4.9 Missing and multiple index
Misses created when seed dropping cell fail to drop seed to the opening.
These where counted along randomly selected 2 m length. Multiples where created
when more than 1 seed is delivered by seed dropping cell. These were also counted
along the randomly selected 2 m length (as given in appendix-D).
Table 4.26: Missing and multiple index for different crops
Crops Wheat, % Chickpea,
%
Green
gram, %
Pigeon pea,
%
Groundnut,
%
Missing
index 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.33 5.00
Multiple
index 6.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 5.00
4.5 Operational energy
Operational energy for planting of different seeds by developed machine
was determined (as given in appendix-E) as 59.63 MJ/ha.
4.6 Cost estimation and cost of operation
The unit cost of the developed light weight five row animal drawn multi
crop planter was determined by calculating the cost of different components and
their fabrication cost as given in appendix-F and G. The estimated cost of the one
unit of developed of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter was
determined as 10940/-.
The detailed estimation of cost of operation is given in Table 4.27. The cost
of operation of the developed machine was found to be Rs 70.79/h and Rs
321.78/ha.
74
Table 4.27: Calculation of cost of animal drawn multi crop planter/hour and per ha.
S. No.
Particulars
Developed
Planter
(Animal drawn)
1 Cost of machine Rs 10940
10
300
3.28
2.00
1.09
1.09
1.09
2 Life machine year
3 Annual use, h/year
4 Annual deprecation, Rs h
5 Annual interest @ 10% per annum Rs/h
6 Insurance 1%of the initial cost of machine
7 Taxes 1% of the initial cost of machine
8 Housing 1% of the initial cost of machine
Total fixed cost (Rs/year)annual use 300* h and
100** h
1586
A. Fixed cost (Rs/h) 5.29
B. Operational cost
1 Repair and maintenance cost of @ 6% of
capital cost per annum, Rs/h
3.00
62.5
2 Wages of 1 operator (Rs 200/day***)
C Sum of operational cost, Rs/h 65.5
Total of
(A+C)
Machinery cost,(Rs/h) 70.79
a Cost of operation, Rs/ha 321.78
* and ** Annual use hours of developed light weight multi crop planter
***Wages of operator including bullock with planter
75
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Due to fragmented and small land holdings and variable farmer typology, it
is neither affordable not advisable to purchase many machines for the planting of
different crops by the same farmer. The light weight multi-crop planter can plant
different crops with variable seed size, seed rate, depth, spacing etc., providing
simple solution to this. In addition to adjustments for row spacing, depth, gears for
power transition to seed and fertilizer metering systems, the light weight multi-
crop planters have precise seed metering system using cup feed type seed metering
devices roller with variable grove number and size for different seed size and
spacing for various crops. This provides flexibility for use of these planters for
direct drilling of different crops with precise rate and spacing using the same
planter which does not exist in flutted roller metering drills. Hence, the same multi-
crop planter can be used for planting different crops by simply changing the roller.
The planter has the provision of drilling both seed and fertilizer in one go. Also, as
seed priming is very important for good germination and optimum plant
population, the multi-crop planters provides opportunity to use primed seeds which
is not possible in flutted roller metering drills.
Since the majority of farmers are small and marginal using animal as a
source of power, an effort he has been made to developed light weight five row
animal drawn multi crop planter. The developed animal drawn multi crop planter
was fabricated for sowing of seeds. The objectives of the research are as follows:
1. To develop light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter.
2. To evaluate performance of the developed machine for selected crops.
3. Economic analysis of the developed planter
The drawings of the light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
were developed through design software Solid Works. The machine was fabricated
in the workshop of SVCAET & RS, FAE, IGKV, Raipur. The machine consists of
power transmission system, seed and fertilizer hopper stand, metering mechanism
for seed as well as fertilizer, delivery tubes and hand lever. Power was transmitted
76
from ground wheel through chain-sprocket drive system to the gear and finally to
the metering roller mechanism. The construction of the machine was made sturdy
and light weight matching to the pulling capacity of local bullocks. The weight of
the developed machine is only 56 kg and its unit price 10940/-.
The light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter was tested for its lab
and field performances. Based on the investigation conducted following results
were obtained.
1. The observed average values of sphericity of different seeds of wheat,
chick pea, green gram, pigeon pea and ground nut was recorded as 59.71,
76.48, 91.86, 90.39 and 87.60 %, respectively which may helpful to select
proper metering rollers.
2. The light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter have overall
dimension of 1600 mm x 1000 mm x 1240 mm, height of hopper from
ground level was 900 mm and total weight of the machine was recorded 56
kg.
3. Seed rate of selected crops and fertilizers:-
i. Desired seed rate of wheat was obtained as 115.68 kg/ha with
exposure scale 4 and roller no 5.
ii. Required seed rate of chick pea was obtained as 81.84 kg/ha with
exposure scale 5 and roller no. 3.
iii. Desired Seed rate of pigeon pea was obtained as 19.85 kg/ha with
exposure scale 7 and roller no.4.
iv. Required Seed rate of green gram was obtained as 17.92 kg/ha with
exposure scale 7 and roller no. 4.
v. Desired Seed rate of ground nut was obtained as 98.58 kg/ha with
exposure scale 2 and roller no. 2.
vi. Required fertilizer rate was obtained as 103.77 kg/ha with exposure
scale 6 and roller no. 3.
4. At actual field condition, missing index, multiple index, mechanical
damage, planting depth and plant to plant spacing was observed as 6%,
6%, 0.03%, 4.3 cm, and 9cm, respectively for wheat; 6%, 7%, 0.03%, 4.5
cm and 15cm, respectively for chick pea; 6%, 6%, 0.04%, 4.4cm and 12.2
77
cm, respectively, for green gram; 3.33%, 5%, 0.01, 4.4cm and 10.4cm
respectively, for pigeon pea; 5%, 5%, 0.07%, 4.8cm and 16.8cm,
respectively, for ground nut.
5. The speed of operation, draft, power, actual field capacity and field
efficiency were recorded as 1.75 km/h, 43.21 kgf, 0.20 kW, 0.22ha/h and
79.78% for developed machine with five furrow opener at 300mm spacing.
6. The estimated cost and cost of operation of the developed light weight five
row animal drawn planter was estimated Rs. 10940/- and Rs. 70.79 /h.
7. Operational energy for planting of different seeds by developed machine
was determined as 59.63 MJ/ha.
As per concerned of the objectives of the present study and results
obtained, following conclusion could be drawn.
1. The developed five row animal drawn multi crop planter worked
satisfactory in actual field condition for planting of different crop seeds.
2. The draft requirement of developed machine was within the pulling
capacity of local draft animal.
3. The cost of planting operation by developed light weight five row animal
drawn multi crop planter was found as 321.78 Rs/ha.
Suggestions for future research work
The following suggestions are given for future research related to present
study:
1. The light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter may be tested
for sowing of several other different crops at different row spacing.
2. Ergonomic evaluation of developed machine may be conducted for
increasing comfort level of both operator and animal and their safety.
78
REFERENCE
Agarwal, B.L., 2013. Basic statistics. New Age International (P) Publishers, s
sixth edition.
Abdul, Khan; Tabbasum, M. Afzal and Jandal, Khan. 1990. Selection of seed cum
fertilizer drill: Technical Consideration. AMA, 21(1): 35-39.
Abernathy, G. H. and Porterfield J. G. 1969 Effect of planter openers share on
furrow characteristics. Transaction of ASAE. 12(1): 16-19.
Anonymous 1982, Annual report of AICRP on FIM, Pune Center.
Anonymous 1997, Annual report of AICRP on Utilization of Animal Energy,
Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar.
Anonymous 2006, Annual report of AICRP on Utilization of Animal Energy,
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, I.G.K.V., Raipur (C.G.)
Bainer, R., Kepner, R.A. and Barger,E.L. 1987 Principles of Farm Machinery.
C.S.B. Publishers and distributor, New Delhi.
Baloch, J. N. and Mughal, A. Q. A., 1985. Modification and testing of bullock-
drawn, single-row corn planter. Asian Mechanization of Agriculture,16(3):
31-34.
Bosai, E. S.; O. Verniov, Simmov and Sultanshal. 1987. Theory, construction and
calculation of agricultural machines. Vol. I , Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt.
Ltd. New Delhi.
Behera, B. K., Swain, S., Sahoo, P.K. and Behera, D. 1995. Evalution of seeding
devices for dry land paddy. /1M4.26(4): 17-21.
BIS:IS:9855:1981, Indian Standard Test Code for glossary of terms relating to
sowing, planting, fertilizers and manure application equipment, Bureau of
Indian Standard, New Delhi.
Cartman (1994). National conference on policies and programmes for
modernisation of draught animal power system. New Delhi, 4 - 5 March.
Celik, A., Ozturk, A., and Way, T.R., 2007. Effects of various planters on
emergence and seed distribution uniformity of sunflower. Applied
Engineering in Agriculture, 23(1): 57-61.
79
Chang Cheu Shang, Ferraz, A. C. O. Vieira, J. C., 1999. A new seeder of rotating
inner ring with high precision seeding rate. Agril. Engg. Abs. 24(1): 26.
Davies, R. M., 2009. Some physical properties of groundnut grains. Research
Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 1(2): 10-13.
Devanani, R. S., 1981. Design considerations for harnesses and yokes for drought
animals. Technical Bulletin No. CIAE/ 81/30. CIAE, Bhopal, 18-21.
Devnani, R. S. 1991. Agricultural machinery design and data handbook: RNAM
ESCAP.
Dhaliwal, I. S. and Sukla, L. N., 2002. Tractor drawn seed-cum-fertilizer drill for
oil seeds.Farm Equipment for Panjab Agriculture, 49-51.
Dhruw, U. K., 2003. Design and fabrication of bullock drawn zero till seed cum
fertilizer drill. M. Tech. (Agril. Engg.) Unpublished Thesis. IGKVV,
Raipur,C.G.
Douglas, R., Resende, Ricardo, C., Queiroz, Daniel, M., Fernandes, Haroldo,
C.,Solza, C aetano, M., 2011. Development and evaluation performance of a
punch planter for direct sowing of corn. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia
Agrícolae Ambiental, 15(2), 199-204.
Dransfield, P., Willatt, S. T. and Willis, A. H. 1964. Soil to implement reaction
experienced with simple tines at various angle attack. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Research. 9(3): 220-224.
FAO, 1972. The employment of drought animal in agriculture. Issued by
Arrangement with Center D’Etudes et D’Experimentation du Mechanism
Agricola Tropical. FAO, Rome.
Ghosal M.K.,and Pradhan S.C., 2013 Performance study of a low cost manually
Operated cup feed metering seed drill for sowing green gram Bhubaneswar.
International Journal of Agriculture Engineering Vol. 5 No. 1 pp. 6-11.
Gite L. P. And yadav B. G. 1986 Instrumentation for measurement of human
effert, energy expending and instrument for testing of agricultural machinery.
Technical Bulletin NO. CIAE/IDP/86/1 C.I.A.E. Bhopal.
Gopalan, C., Sastri, S. B. V. and Balasubramanian, S., 2007 Nutritive value of
Indian food s, National Institute of Nutrition (NN), ICMR, Ind.
80
Gowda, I. K. and Devaraja, K., 1999. Development of bullock-drawn seed-
cumfertilizer drill for soybean. Agril. Engg. Abs, 24(6): 413.
Gupta, M. L., Vatsa, D. K. and Verma, M.K., 1999. Development and evaluation
of multicrop planter for hill regions. AMA, 30(1): 17-19.
Halderson, J. L., 1983. Planter selection accuracy for edible beans. ASAE.26 (2):
367- 371.
Indra Mani, Srivastava, A. P., Panwar, J. S., 2006. Design and development of
single row maize planter. 40th ISAE, Annual convention & symposium,
January. TNAU, Coimbatore.
Ivancan, S. Sito, S. and Fabijianic, G., 2002. Seed damage at various drill
speeds.Agril. Engg. Abstracts, 27(5): 385.
ILO, 1986. The design and manufacture of animal drawn carts. Intermediate,
Technology Publication, London, UK, 69.
Inns, F. M. 1998. High-lift harness and light weight plough; an efficient low
draught ploughing system. Landwords. 53(1):12-16.
Jesudass, M. D., Kumar, V. J. F. and Balasubramanian. M. 1996. Performance of
bullock drawn upland direct paddy seeder. Agricultural Mechanization in
Asia, Africa and Latin America. 27(1): 21-24.
Karayel, D., and Ozmerzi, A., 2002. Effect of tillage methods on sowing
uniformity of maize. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 44: 2.23-2.26.
Khan, A.S., M.A. Tabassum and J. Khan. 1990. Selection of seed-cum-fertilizer
drill: technical consideration. Agri. Mech. Asia. 21: 35-39.
Khurmi, R. S. and Gupta, J. K. Reprint. 1995. A text book of machine design
(M.K.S. and S.I. units). Eurasia publication House (Pvt.) LTD. New Delhi.
Kirschmann John D.,(1966) Feeding Mechanism for seed Serial No. 538846
int.cl.- B67d 5162, G01F 11/00 pp. 222-268.
Konak, M., Carman, K. and Aydin, C. 2002 Physical properties of chick pea
seeds,Bio system Engineering, 82(1), 73-78.
Kumar, A., Yadav, B. K. and Kumar, V., 1995. Effect of lug heights on
performance of manually operated planter. IE (I) Journal, 75: 60-61.
81
Kumar, K., Naresh, N.K., Ojha, T. P., 1986. Design, construction and performance
of manually operated seeding attachment for an animal-drawn cultivator.
AMA, 17(2): 35-38.
Mathur, S. M. and Singh, P. 1988. An empirical model to predict the specific draft
requirement for reversible hoe type furrow opener. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering.
Masoumi, A., 2004. Determination of physical properties, design and fabrication
of precision planters and development of mathematical model for garlic
clove. Unpublished Thesis, Department of Agricultural Machinery, Faculty
of Agriculture, Tehran University, Karaj, Iran
Mathur, S. M. and Pandey, K. P. 1992. Influence of system parameter on
performance of reversible hoe type furrow opener for animal drawn seed and
fertilizer drill.
Mishra, T.N. (1986) “Energy analysis of major crops of Tarai region of Uttar
Pradesh” Unpublish Ph.D.Thesis G.B. Pant University of Agricultural and
Technology Pantnagar.
Mukherjee, D. P., Dutta S. and Bhattacharyya P., 1961. Studies on the draught
capacity of Haryana bullocks. Indian Journal of Veterinary Science, 5 (2):
31-39.
Murrel K.H.F., (1979) Ergonomics- Man in his working environment. Chapman
and Hall, Londan.
Nimkar, P.M., Chattopadhyay, P.K., 2001 Some physical properties of green
gram. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research, 80(2), 183-189, doi:
10.1006/jaer.2000.0664.
Obi, O. F., Anyadike, C. C. and Onyeke, C. O., 2014. Moisture-dependent physical
properties of pigeon pea grown in nigeria. World Applied Sciences Journal
31 (8): 1396-1405.
Ojha, T. P. and A. M. Michel 2003. Principles of agricultural engineering, Vol – I,
Jain Brothers, New Delhi.
Panning, J. W. Kocher, M. F. Smith, J. A. Kachman, S. D. 2000. Laboratory and
FieldTesting of Seed Spacing Uniformity for Sugarbeet Planters. Biological
Systems Engineering: Papers and Publications. Paper 152.
82
Pradhan, S. C. and Das, D. K., 2006. Development and evaluation of a manually
operated paddy–cum groundnut planter for small farmers of the state of
Orissa. 40th ISAE, Annual convention & symposium, January. TNAU,
Coimbatore.
Premi, S. C. L., 1981. Power from bullocks, paper presented in the XVIII Annual
convention. ISAE in CSSRI, Karnal-132001.
Quasim, M. and Verma, V.P. (1995) “Indira seed drill for rainfed upland paddy
cultivation” Central Rice Research Institute. ICAR, Orissa, India.
Rahama, O. A. and Md. N. Hussein., 1993. Design, development and evaluation of
animal–drawn plough-seeder for the traditional farmer in Sudan. AMA, 24
(2):21-23.
Rautaray. S. K. 1985. Output of a pair of bullock during tillage operation in
summer. In: Proceeding of silver Jubilee Convention, ISAE, 29-31. Oct.
1985, held at CIAE, Bhopal India: P.P. 122-128.
Searcy, Stephen W. and Roth, Lawrence O. 1982. Precision metering of fluid
drilled seeds.SAE: 1563-1566.
Selvan, M., Kathirvel, K, and Manian, R., 2002. Performance evaluation of basin
lister cum-seeder attachment to tractor-drawn cultivator. AMA, 33(1):15-19.
Shafii, S. and Holmes, R. G.I990. Air jet meteing , a theoretical and experimental
study. Transaction of the ASAE. : 1432-1438.
Sharma, D. N., Bansal, N. K. and Jain, M. L. 1983. Design, development and
testing of a bullock-drawn, single-row seed-cum-fertilizer drill. AMA. 14
(2): 37-40.
Shearer, S. A. and Holmes, R. G. 1991. Precision seed metering with a submerged
turbulent air jet. Transactions of the ASAE. : 781-786.
Short, Ted H., Harber, Samuel, G. 1970. The development of a planetary-vacuum
seed metering device. Transactions of the ASAE. 803-805.
Shukla, L. N. and Verma, S. R. 1984. Development and field evaluation of coulter
attachment for direct drilling. AMA. 15(3): 19-21.
Singh S. P., Soni, B. K. and Bhattacharya N. K., 1968. Hematological changes
evolved by exercise in working bullocks. Indian Vet. J., 45: 212.
Singh, Gyanendra.1989. Ergonomic consideration in development and fabrication
83
of manual wheel hoe weeder. Indian Journal of Agricultural Engineering.
2(4):234-243.
Singh, S. and Sharma, D.N., 2006. Technical feasibility of mechanical planting of
sunflower seeds. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 43 (2): 62-67.
Siemens, J. G., Weher J.A. and Thornborn.1965. Mechanics of soil influenced by
tillage. Transaction of ASAE. 8(1): 1-7.
Swamy Rao, A. P., 1964. Report of research project, Allahabad. Agricultural
University, Allahabad.
Tabassum, M. A. and Khan, A. S., 1992. Development of a test rig for
performance evaluation of seed metering devices. AMA, 23(4): 53-56.
Tessier, S., Saxton, K.E., Papendick, R.I. and Hyde, G.M., 1991. Zero-tillage
furrow opener effects on seed environment and wheat emergence. Soil
Tillage Res.,21: 347-360.
Tondon, S. K., Shukla, J. N. and Verma. S. R. 1984. Seed cum fertilizer drills and
planters use in Punjab. Agricultural Engineering Today. 8(5): 4-14.
Varshney, A. C., Bohra, C. P. and Narang, S. 1991. Design, development and
evaluation of power tiller-drawn seed-cum-fertilizer drill. AMA. 22(1):39-
41.
Vaugh, M., 1947. Method of yoking bullocks for agricultural works. Indian Journal
of Vet. Sci. and AH, 5:180.
Yadachi, S., Mani, I, Kalra, M. S., Kumar, A., Sahoo, P. K., 2013. Development
and evaluation of inclined plate metering mechanism for carrot seed.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 50 (2): 10-16.
Yadhav, B. G., 1990. Potentional bullock cart transport in Orissa- a case study.
AMA, 9(4): 73-76.
Yusuf, M., 1963. Increased power from domestic animals. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering,20(8):89.
84
APPENDIX-A
Table A-1: Specification of Developed light weight five row animal drawn multi
crop planter
S. No. Particulars Specification
1. Overall dimension
Length (mm) 1600
Width (mm) 1000
Height (mm) 1240
2. Depth of sowing (mm) 30-40
3. Row to Row spacing (mm) 200,250 and 300 adjustable
4. Working width (mm) 150, adjustable
5. No. of tines 5
6. Types of metering device Cup feed Mechanism
7. Ground wheel diameter (mm) 500
8. Type of tyne’s T –inverted type
9. Fertilizer Metering Mechanism Cup feed Mechanism
10. Power transmission Chain and sprocket
11. Source of power A pair of bullock
12. Cost of the machine (prototype),Rs 10940
13. Weight (kg) 56
14. Labour requirement 1
85
APPENDIX – B
Calibration of Light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
It was calibrated in the laboratory for metering desired quantity of wheat
seed and fertilizer. During test following parameters observed.
1. Spacing between two furrow openers-
D = 30 cm or 0.30 m
2. Width of area covered by planter
𝑊 = 𝑁 × 𝐷 = 5 × 0.30 = 1.5 m
3. De=effective diameter of ground wheel,
De = 0.5 m
4. Circumference of driving wheel
L = π × De =3.14 × 0.5 = 1.57
5. Area covered by ground wheel by one revolution
𝐴 = 𝑊 × 𝐿 = 1.5 × 1.57 = 2.35 m2
6. Number of revolution of driving wheel for one hectare
𝑅 =10000
𝐴 =
10000
2.35 = 4255.32 say 4256 (approx)
7. Number of revolutions actually required to cover one hectare
M = R × 0.9 = 3830.4 = 3830 (approx)
(Assuming 10% slippage during operations)
8. Seed rate (Q) to be shown per hectare
q = (1) Wheat seeds delivered in 10 revolution (n=10) of ground wheel 236.2 g
= 0.236 kg
Seed rate (Q) to be shown per hectare.
Q =q ×10,000
π × De ×n ×W =
0.236×10000
𝜋×0.5×10×1.5 = 100.21 kg ha .
86
APPENDIX-C
Table C-1: Dimension of wheat seed
A (length),mm B (width), mm C (height), mm
6.42 3.09 2.84
6.26 3.41 2.79
6.22 3.40 2.81
6.24 3.18 2.78
6.28 3.23 2.72
Table C-2: Dimension of chick pea seed
A (length), mm B (width), mm C (height), mm
9.92 6.40 6.88
10.25 6.86 7.22
9.92 6.60 7.21
9.93 6.52 7.22
9.94 6.46 7.20
Table C-3: Dimension of pigeon pea seed
A (length), mm B (width), mm C (height), mm
6.42 5.81 5.21
6.27 5.25 4.88
6.48 4.99 4.86
6.15 5.57 5.46
6.51 5.43 5.06
Table C-4: Dimension of green gram seed
A (length), mm B (width), mm C (height), mm
5.01 4.89 3.98
5.97 4.90 3.99
5.63 4.56 3.78
5.26 4.73 3.55
5.46 4.24 3.23
87
Table C-4: Dimension of ground nut seed
A (length), mm B (width), mm C (height), mm
10.24 8.98 7.85
12.51 9.25 7.87
11.64 9.52 8.01
10.21 8.57 7.85
11.82 9.88 8.98
88
APPENDIX-D
Table D1: Missing Index and coefficient of variation for wheat
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 8 12 8 12 10 10
2 10 11 10 9 8 9.6
3 10 8 11 8 10 9.4
4 16 10 18 10 9 12.6
5 11 10 11 10 10 10.4
6 10 8 10 9 11 9.6
7 11 16 15 12 10 12.8
8 10 9 10 11 16 11.2
9 10 9 10 14 11 10.8
10 9 10 8 10 12 9.8
11 10 11 10 11 10 10.4
12 10 10 11 12 10 10.6
13 8 11 10 18 10 11.4
14 10 8 10 11 12 10.2
15 11 14 11 12 12 12
16 10 11 12 8 10 10.2
17 11 11 8 10 15 11
18 10 10 16 10 11 11.4
19 10 11 12 11 14 11.6
20 11 10 12 10 8 10.2
Mean 10.3 10.5 11.15 10.9 10.95 10.76
SD 1.59 1.93 2.58 2.22 2.09 2.08
CV% 15.46 18.41 23.15 20.38 19.08 19.30
Miss hill 1 1 2 1 1 1.2
missing index 5 5 10 5 5 6
Table D2: Missing Index and coefficient of variation for green gram
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 12 11 14 15 15 13.4
2 15 15 16 16 16 15.6
3 15 15 16 24 20 18
4 15 17 15 16 14 15.4
5 23 15 16 15 16 17
6 15 15 15 16 24 17
7 16 15 16 15 26 17.6
8 15 15 15 16 18 15.8
9 16 16 16 16 16 16
10 15 16 16 20 15 16.4
89
11 14 14 14 15 15 14.4
12 12 15 14 15 18 14.8
13 12 17 14 15 15 14.6
14 15 16 18 15 17 16.2
15 14 12 15 15 15 14.2
16 15 16 17 17 15 16
17 16 25 15 15 15 17.2
18 15 12 19 15 14 15
19 16 15 25 15 15 17.2
20 16 12 15 19 14 15.2
Mean 15.1 15.2 16.05 16.25 16.65 15.85
SD 2.27 2.86 2.48 2.29 3.25 2.62
CV% 15.03 18.80 15.46 14.10 19.51 16.57
Miss hill 1 1 1 1 2 1.2
Missing index 5 5 5 5 10 6
Table D3: Missing Index and coefficient of variation for chick pea
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 15 17 18 15 22 17.4
2 15 18 16 15 16 16
3 16 15 20 17 24 18.4
4 24 15 18 15 16 17.6
5 15 15 14 18 16 15.6
6 15 24 18 15 20 18.4
7 16 15 16 15 16 15.6
8 15 15 18 15 16 15.8
9 15 15 25 15 16 17.2
10 16 15 18 24 16 17.8
11 15 15 16 15 16 15.4
12 15 16 18 15 16 16
13 15 15 18 15 16 15.8
14 15 14 16 24 15 16.8
15 15 15 18 15 16 15.8
16 16 15 18 15 16 16
17 17 15 17 15 16 16
18 15 16 18 17 15 16.2
19 16 15 18 15 16 16
20 15 16 15 16 20 16.4
Mean 15.8 15.8 17.65 16.3 17 16.51
SD 2.02 2.12 2.21 2.77 2.45 0.95
CV% 12.76 13.40 12.50 17.02 14.41 0.93
Miss hill 1 1 1 2 1 3.59
Missing index 5 5 5 10 5 6.00
90
Table D4: Missing Index and coefficient of variation for ground nut
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 18 17 25 15 15 18
2 15 18 16 15 15 15.8
3 16 15 24 17 16 17.6
4 18 15 16 15 24 17.6
5 14 15 16 18 15 15.6
6 18 24 15 15 15 17.4
7 16 15 16 15 16 15.6
8 18 15 16 15 15 15.8
9 25 15 16 15 15 17.2
10 18 15 16 24 16 17.8
11 16 15 16 15 15 15.4
12 18 16 16 15 16 16.2
13 20 15 16 15 15 16.2
14 16 14 15 18 17 16
15 18 15 16 15 15 15.8
16 18 15 16 15 16 16
17 16 15 16 15 17 15.8
18 18 16 15 17 15 16.2
19 18 15 16 15 16 16
20 15 16 17 16 15 15.8
Mean 17.45 15.8 16.75 16 15.95 16.39
SD 2.31 2.12 2.69 2.15 2.01 0.85
CV% 13.21 13.40 16.08 13.45 12.62 5.18
Miss hill 1 1 1 1 1 1.00
Missing index 5 5 5 5 5 5.00
Table D5: Missing Index and coefficient of variation for pigeon pea
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 20
25
20 22.50
2 15
16
15 15.50
3 16 15
16 15.50
4 18
16
17 16.50
5 16
16
15 15.50
6 17
15
15 15.00
7 16
16
16 16.00
8 18
16
17 16.50
9 17
15
15 15.00
10 18
16
16 16.00
11 16
15
15 15.00
12 15
15
16 15.50
91
13 20
16
15 15.50
14 18
15
17 16.00
15 15
17
24 20.50
16 18
16
16 16.00
17 18
17
17 17.00
18 15
15
15 15.00
19 18
16
16 16.00
20 17
20
18 19.00
Mean 17.05
16.4
16.55 16.48
SD 1.54
2.33
2.16 2.24
CV% 9.02
14.18
13.07 13.63
Miss hill 0
1
1 2.00
Missing index 0
5
5 3.33
Table D-6: Multiple Index and coefficient of variation for chick pea
S.No. R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 Average
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 1 1 1 1 1.2
6 1 2 1 1 1 1.2
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 2 1 1 1.2
9 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 2 1 1.2
11 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 1 1 1 1
13 1 1 1 1 2 1.2
14 1 1 1 1 1 1
15 1 2 1 1 1 1.2
16 1 1 1 1 1 1
17 1 1 1 1 2 1.2
18 1 1 1 1 1 1
19 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 1 1 1 1 1 1
Mean 1.05 1.1 1.05 1.05 1.1 1.07
SD 0.22 0.31 0.22 0.22 0.31 0.26
CV% 21.30 27.98 21.30 21.30 27.98 23.97
Multiple hill 1 2 1 1 2 1.4
Multiple index 5 10 5 5 10 7.00
92
APPENDIX – E
Calculation of energy
The energy was calculated by using the following formula
Machine energy =W
L× N × EE
Where,
W = Total weight machine, kg
L = Total useful working life of machine, h
N = Hours of operation of machine, h/ha
EE = Energy equivalent. MJ/kg
Calculation
Fabrication of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter
Total weight = 56 kg
Material used = Mild steel
Energy equivalent forms = 62.7 MJ/kg
Total operating hours = 10 x 300 = 3000 h
Machine energy = 56
3000× 4.5 × 62.7
= 5.26 MJ/ha
Operational energy
Human = 1 x 4.5 x 1.96 = 8.82 MJ/ha
Bullock Pair = 1 x 4.5 x 10.10 = 45.45 MJ/ha
Total energy required = Machine energy + Operational energy
= 5.26 + 8.82 + 45.45 = 59.53 MJ/ha
93
APPENDIX – F
Table F-1 Cost of estimation of development of light weight five row animal
drawn multi crop planter
S.
No.
Parts Material
Specification
Weight,
kg or
piece
Rate, Rs/kg or
feet of piece
Cost
Rs
1. Readymade Seed
hopper box,
Fertilizer hopper
box, Metering
mechanism unit
and Tubes
M.S plate and
plastic
6500
2. Square pipe
(Frame)
M.S. pipe 5.48 60 kg 328
3. Main shaft Cold rolled
M.S. round
shaft
5 kg 90/feet 450
4. Ground wheel M.S. flat 7.8 kg 40/kg 312
5. Tynes M.S flat 15 kg 40/kg 600
6. Handle M.S. flat and
welded with
round pipe at
the end
1 kg 40/kg 40
7. Idler adjuster M.S. flat and
welded with
round pipe at
the end
0.5 kg 40/kg 20
8. Hopper stand 3x3 M.S. angle 4.27 kg 40/kg 170
9. Standard finished
item
Split pins, head
bolts and nuts
etc are as per
1 kg 40/kg 40
94
standard, used
in light
engineering
industry.
10. Fabrication cost 2500
Total cast of developed planter
10940/-
95
APPENDIX – G
Calculation of operational cost of light weight five row animal drown multi
crop planter
The cost of operation for developed of light weight five row animal drown
multi crop planter was calculated by following procedure. The operating cost
includes fixed and variable cost.
1) Fabrication cost
Weight of implement with all components
N =56 kg.
a) Material cost
Material cost was taken as @ 40 Rs./kg.
Cost of Material = Total weight x 40 Rs.
= 56 x 40
= 2240 Rs.
b) Black smith charge
It was taken @Rs. 300/day
= 3 x 300
= 900 Rs.
c) Machine charges
It was taken Rs.@150/day
= 3 x 150
= 450 Rs.
d) Workshop expenditure
It was taken @Rs. 150/day
= 3 x 150
= 450 Rs.
e) Supervision charges
It was taken 10% of the fabrication cost.
= (a + b + c + d) x 10%
= (4040) X0.1
= 404 Rs.
96
Total fabrication cost = a + b + c + d + e
= 4444 Rs.
2) Analysis of economics of use
To do the analysis, the following assumption were made
iii. Expected life of the machine 10 years
iv. Annual use of machine 30 days per year
Total annual used = 300 h/year
v. Scrap value of the planter 10 percent of initial cost
vi. Over head cost
iii. Annual depreciation ( by straight method)
D =𝐶−𝑆
L
Where,
D = Depreciation/year
C = Initial cost
S = Scrap value = 𝐶 10
L = Life of machine in years
D =10940 − 1094
10 = Rs 984.6 per year
=Rs 3.28 per hour
iv. Interest investment at 10 percent per annum
I =𝐶 + 𝑆
2× i
I =10940+1094
2×
10
100
= Rs 601.7 per year
=2.00
Total over head cost Rs = 984.6+ 601.7= Rs 1586.3 per year.
Hence, total cost (over head) per hour
= 1586.3
300
= Rs 5.29 per hour
3) Variable cost
97
iv. Repair and maintenance cost at 6 percent of initial cost
= Rs 656 per year
= Rs 3 per hour
v. Wage of operator Rs 200.00 for 8 hours therefore
vi. hence, cost of one operator to operate the implement Rs 25.00 per hour
vii. Hiring charges of the bullock Rs 300.00 per day
viii. Hence hiring charges of bullock Rs 37.5 hr
Therefore total variable cost = 3 + 25+37.5 = Rs 65.5 per hour.
Therefore total cost of sowing
= Over head cost + Variable cost
= 5.29 +65.5
= Rs 70.79 per hour
Average effective field capacity of the developed planter was taken from
the experimental data. 0.22 ha/h for sowing operation.
Hence,
The operational cost per hectare for sowing operation
=70.79
0.22 = Rs 321.78 per ha
98
RESUME
Name : Navneet Kumar Dhruwe
Date of birth : 26 March 1989
Present Address : Snajay Nagar Dondi Lohara,
Post-Dondi Lohara (Chhattisgarh)
Pin - 491771
Phone No. : 099981012645
E-mail : [email protected]
Permanent Address : Vill. and Post – Surdonger,
Block – Dondi,
Distt. – Balod, (Chhattisgarh)
Pin - 491228
Academic Qualification :
Degree Year University/Institute
B. Tech 2014 I.G.K.V. Raipur (C.G.)
M. Tech 2016 I.G.K.V. Raipur (C.G.)
Signature
Top Related