Abstract
This paper aims to test and evaluate a locally fabricated hand planter performance in fieki conditions, and study some engineering factors that affect its performance. Field evaluation included three types of ground wheel (steel, lugged, and rubber), three types of furrow opener (single disc, double disc, and runner), four types of depth control device and three values of planting depth (1, 3, and 5 cm) to select the suitable design components of the machine. Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method. The results demonstrated that the runner opener is generally satisfactory for sugar beet sowing due to their least variation ¡n planting depth, highest plant emergence, and fastest rate of emergence. The pushing force increased by increasing ¡n the seeds depth of planting. It ranged from 70 to 120 N for depth range of 1 — 5 cm. This trend shows that the planter is suitable for average worker. The best depth control was achieved by linked wheels and side wheel, with less control by the front wheel and poorest control by the rear wheel. The minimum slip of 5.3 % and rolling resistance of 30.2 N were recorded with rubber wheel, meanwhile the maximum slip of 15.6 % and rolling resistance of 57.6 N were obtained by using steel wheel type. By using the fabricated hand planter the beet root yield and sugar yield increased by 30 and 26 % respectively as compared with manual method. Hand planter reduced the labor requirement by 83.3 %, (kg of seed I feddan) was reduced by about 67.5 % and total cost of planting I feddan was reduced by 72.7 %. The energy requirement for sugar beet planting decreased by about 83.7 % by using the fabricated hand planter instead of the manual planting.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
The runner opener had the least variation in planting depth.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- runner openere0
- Outcome
- variation ¡n planting depthe0
- Direction
- leaste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“runner opener is generally satisfactory for sugar beet sowing due to their least variation ¡n planting depth, highest plant emergence, and fastest rate of emergence”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The runner opener had the highest plant emergence and fastest rate of emergence.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Treatment
- runner openere0
- Outcome
- plant emergence, and fastest rate of emergencee0
- Direction
- higheste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“runner opener is generally satisfactory for sugar beet sowing due to their least variation ¡n planting depth, highest plant emergence, and fastest rate of emergence”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pushing force increased with planting depth, ranging from 70 to 120 N.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- seeds depth of plantinge0
- Outcome
- pushing forcee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 70 to 120 Ne0
- Qualifier
- 1 — 5 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The pushing force increased by increasing ¡n the seeds depth of planting. It ranged from 70 to 120 N for depth range of 1 — 5 cm”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Linked and side wheels gave the best depth control, while the rear wheel gave the poorest.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- linked wheels and side wheele0
- Outcome
- depth controle0
- Direction
- beste0
- Comparator
- rear wheele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best depth control was achieved by linked wheels and side wheel, with less control by the front wheel and poorest control by the rear wheel”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rubber wheels had minimum slip of 5.3 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- rubber wheele0
- Outcome
- slipe0
- Direction
- minimume0
- Value
- 5.3 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The minimum slip of 5.3 % and rolling resistance of 30.2 N were recorded with rubber wheel”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Rubber wheels had rolling resistance of 30.2 N.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- rubber wheele0
- Outcome
- rolling resistancee0
- Value
- 30.2 Ne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rolling resistance of 30.2 N were recorded with rubber wheel”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Steel wheels had maximum slip of 15.6 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- steel wheel typee0
- Outcome
- slipe0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 15.6 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum slip of 15.6 % and rolling resistance of 57.6 N were obtained by using steel wheel type”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
Steel wheels had rolling resistance of 57.6 N.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Treatment
- steel wheel typee0
- Outcome
- rolling resistancee0
- Value
- 57.6 Ne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“rolling resistance of 57.6 N were obtained by using steel wheel type”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter increased beet root yield by 30% relative to manual planting.
- Taxon
- beet
Beta vulgarise0 - Treatment
- fabricated hand plantere0
- Outcome
- beet root yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 30 and 26 %e0
- Comparator
- manual methode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By using the fabricated hand planter the beet root yield and sugar yield increased by 30 and 26 % respectively as compared with manual method”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter increased sugar yield by 26% relative to manual planting.
- Taxon
- beetBeta vulgarise0
- Treatment
- fabricated hand plantere0
- Outcome
- sugar yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 30 and 26 %e0
- Comparator
- manual methode0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By using the fabricated hand planter the beet root yield and sugar yield increased by 30 and 26 % respectively as compared with manual method”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter reduced labor requirement by 83.3 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- labor requiremente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 83.3 %e0
- Comparator
- manual planting methode1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hand planter reduced the labor requirement by 83.3 %”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter reduced seed use by about 67.5 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- kg of seed I feddane0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 67.5 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(kg of seed I feddan) was reduced by about 67.5 %”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter reduced planting cost per feddan by 72.7 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarist0
- Outcome
- total cost of planting I feddane0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 72.7 %e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total cost of planting I feddan was reduced by 72.7 %”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Claim · model-written summary
The hand planter reduced planting energy requirement by about 83.7 %.
- Taxon
- sugar beetBeta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0
- Outcome
- energy requirement for sugar beet plantinge0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 83.7 %e0
- Comparator
- manual plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The energy requirement for sugar beet planting decreased by about 83.7 % by using the fabricated hand planter instead of the manual planting”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”