development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter

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


of chickpea


of green gram


of pigeon pea


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


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


Seed rate (kg/ha) for ground nut crop with exposure scale for


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


chick pea


green gram


pigeon pea


ground nut


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


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.

xiv

”

) ”

)

) ”

)

” ( )

)

”

”

”

” X X

,

mailto:[email protected]

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

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153751100290053X

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


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 =𝑏𝑕2

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


= 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.


chickpea




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


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.


Green gram




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.


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.


pigeon pea



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


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


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


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



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


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




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


Scale


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




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


Scale


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


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


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


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


Full

3/4th

1/2th

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

7 6 5

Seed

rat

e, k

g/h

a


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


v. Desired Seed rate of ground nut was obtained as 98.58 kg/ha with


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


= 3 x 300

= 900 Rs.

c) Machine charges

It was taken Rs.@150/day

= 3 x 150

= 450 Rs.

d) Workshop expenditure


= 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

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

development of light weight five row animal drawn multi crop planter