Comparative performance studies on tractor drawn puddling equipments

Introduction

Puddling is the mechanical manipulation of soil in the presence of water to mix fertilizer, manure and plant nutrients with soil uniformly throughout the field to reduce percolation loss of water and to facilitate the transplanting of seedlings by making the soil softer and more level. (Dash and Das, 2006) [2] . Puddling aids in weed control and reduces water loss through percolation. (Sharma and De Datta, 1985) [8] . Puddling is an important operation to minimize soil nutrient leaching and thereby increasing the availability of plant nutrients and achieving reduced soil condition. Good puddle field conditions are needed to create a favorable environment for normal growth of rice plants. However, long-term effects of puddling could lead to forms of large clods in fine textured soils, resulting in negative effect on the soil characteristics, preventing seed-soil contacts, and leading to decline in rice yield. (Asenso et al., 2022) [1] . Rotavator (derived from rotary cultivator) is a tillage machine used to prepare land for seeding by breaking the soil with rotating blades (without overturning the soil). It is also used to eradicate weeds, mix manure or fertilizer into soil, break up and renovate pastures for crushing clods, and so on. Rotavator action involves the direct application of tractor engine power to soil preparation via a rotor and specially designed blades in order to create ideal growth conditions for seedlings and seeds. (Kankal et al., 2016) [3] . Puddling with a cultivator involves using a cultivator implement to compact soil and create a dense, impermeable layer. Typically, this process is carried out in rice cultivation, particularly in paddy fields. The cultivator is used to repeatedly till and mix the soil while simultaneously saturating it with water. This action helps break up soil clods, improve water retention, and create an ideal seedbed for rice planting. Cultivators are versatile implements that can be used as both secondary and primary tillage tools in soft soil conditions and require relatively low power per meter of width in India. (Kepner et al., 1987) [4] . A disc harrow is made up of one, two, or four groups of disc blades. Although disc blades are used in both disc harrows and disc plough, each blade in a disc plough has its own supporting bearing. As a result, disc plough blade angles can be adjusted independently, whereas disc harrow blade angles cannot. Disc harrows can be used for conventional tillage (Kheiralla et al., 2004) [5] , as well as conservation and reduced tillage (Kepner et al., 1987) [4] .

Materials and Method

The experiment was conducted in instructional farm of Swami Vivekananda College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology and Research Station, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), during summer season of 2024.

Design of experiment

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance of different agricultural implements, specifically a cultivator with a cage wheel, a rotavator, and a disc harrow. The study consisted of 7 treatments, with each treatment replicated 3 times to ensure the reliability of the results. The experiment was carried out on a plot of land measuring 84 × 34 meter 2 . An experiment conducted under RBD design. The details of experiment, dependent and independent variable are shown in table 2 and the layout plan is shown in table 1. Fuel consumption, l/h 5.

Depth of puddling, mm

In the experiment, various parameters were calculated to assess both the machine performance and soil conditions. The machine parameters included the average travelling speed, theoretical field capacity, effective field capacity, field efficiency, and fuel consumption. Additionally, soil parameters were measured which included bulk density, moisture content, cone index, puddling index, and the depth of puddling. A cost analysis was also performed.

Machine parameters Average travelling speed

The ratio of distance upon time is called speed of travel, used for calculating the Average travelling speed of implements this formula used.

Speed of travel(km

Fuel Consumption

The fuel consumption of the selected tractor must be measured by the top up method. Measuring fuel consumption of a tractor using the top-up method is a straightforward process that involves tracking the amount of fuel you add to the tank and recording the distance covered.

FC = CF A

Where, FC = Fuel Consumption, lit/ha CF = Consumption of fuel, lit/h A = Covered area, ha/h

Soil parameter Bulk Density

Bulk density of soil is the ratio of mass of soil sample to the volume of core cutter. The bulk density of soil was calculated by following formula.

Where, BD = Bulk density, g/cm 3 ; M = Mass of soil samples contained in the core sample, g; V = Volume of core sample, cm 3 ; r = Radius of cylindrical core sample, cm; and h = Height of cylindrical core sample, cm.

Moisture Content

For soil moisture analysis, the oven drying method was used. Soil samples are collected in an oven set to 105℃.

After 24 hours, the weight of the dry soil sample was measured, and the moisture content on dry basis was calculated using following formula.

Where, MC = Moisture Content (%) W 1 = Initial weight of soil sample, g W 2 = Bone dry weight of soil sample, g

Cone Index

Cone index is used as the measure of soil strength in the traction equations. Cone index is the average force per unit base area required to force a cone-shaped probe into soil at a steady rate. Formula of cone index is calculated as:

Where, F = Force requires to penetrate into the soil (kgf); and A = Area of cross sectional (m 2 )

Puddling Index

The ratio of the volume of settled soil to the total volume of soil was noted for computing the puddling index. Puddling index was determined by following formula.

Where, Vs = Volume of settle soil, and V = Total volume of sample

Depth of Puddling

The depth of puddling was recorded following the standard method suggested. A scale was inserted just after puddling to record the depth of puddling, the depth of standing water, and the depth of the puddle.

Cost analysis

The cost of puddling was calculated using the local prices of different operations and market price of various inputs. It was reported as Rs/ha. To calculate the cost of operation for puddling operation, two costs i.e., fixed cost and variable costs are calculated. Lubricants, fuel, repair and maintenance, and wages are all part of the operational cost.

Results and Discussions

An experiment was conducted to optimize the different parameters.

Machine parameter Average travelling speed

The observed Average travelling speed during experiment was found that disc harrow treatments had the highest speed of 3.7 km/h, while cultivator-only treatments had consistent speed of 2.7 km/h. Rotavator treatments showed lower speed of 2.4 km/h, suggesting different operational efficiencies. Average travelling speed at different treatments is given in Table 3.

Theoretical field capacity

The highest theoretical field capacity (1.08 ha/h) was recorded in T 6 (disc harrow×1) and T 7 (disc harrow×2) followed by T 1 (cultivator with cagewheel ×1) 0.864, T 2 (cultivator with cagewheel ×2) 0.864, T 5 (cultivator with cagewheel + rotavator ×1) 0.711, T 3 (rotavator×1) 0.558 and T 4 (Rotavator × 2) 0.558 and they differ significantly with each other. Theoretical field capacity at different treatments is given in Table 3.

Effective field capacity

The highest effective field capacity (0.870 ha/h) was recorded in T 6 (Disc harrow×1) followed by T 7 (Disc harrow×1) 0.842, T 1 (cultivator with cagewheel ×1) 0.646, T 2 (cultivator with cagewheel ×2) 0.636, T 5 (cultivator with cagewheel + rotavator ×1) 0.546, T 3 (rotavator×1) 0.434 and T 4 (Rotavator × 2) 0.417 and they differ significantly with each other. Effective field capacity at different treatments is given in Table 3.

Field efficiency

The field efficiency was observed higher in treatment T 6 (Disc harrow × 1) 80.61%, followed by T 7 (Disc harrow × 2) 77.98%, T 3 (Rotavator×1) 77.98%, T 4 (Rotavator × 2) 76.79%, T 5 (Cultivator with cagewheel + Rotavator × 1) 74.66%, T 1 (Cultivator with cagewheel × 1) 75.59% and T 2 (Cultivator with cagewheel×2) 73.67% respectively. Field efficiency at different treatments is given in Table 3.

Fuel consumption

Among the treatments, treatment T 6 (Disc harrow×1) exhibited the lowest average fuel requirement of 4.70 litre per hectare, while treatment T 4 (Rotavator×2) recorded the highest at 5.810 litre per hectare.The fuel consumption was about 4.73, 5.59, 5.62, 5.73 and 5.80 litre per hectare in treatment T 7 (rotavator×2), T 1 (cultivator with cagewheel ×1), T 2 (cultivator with cagewheel×2), T 5 (cultivator with cagewheel + rotavator ×1), T 3 (rotavator×1) respectively. Fuel consumption at different treatments is given in Table 3.

References

1. Asenso E, Wang Z, Kai T, Li J, Hu L. Effects of puddling types and rice establishment methods on soil characteristics and productivity of rice in Southern China. Appl Environ Soil Sci. 2022:2-10.
2. Dash SK, Das DK. Performance evaluation of bullock drawn puddlers. Agric Mech Asia Afr Lat Am. 2006;37(2):9.
3. Kankal US, Karale DS, Thakare SH, Khamballkar VP. Land performance evaluation of tractor operated rotavator in dry land and wet field condition. Int J Agric Sci Res. 2016;6(1):137-146.
4. Kheiralla AF, Yahya A, Zohadie M, Ishak W. Modelling of power and energy requirements for tillage implements operating in Serdang sandy clay loam, Malaysia. Soil Tillage Res. 2004;78(1):21-34.
5. Saimbhi VS. Effect of puddling equipment on puddling characteristics under paddy cultivation in Punjab. Int J Agric Sci Res. 2016;2(3):332-338.
6. Sharma PK, De Datta SK. Puddling influence on soil, rice development, and yield. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1985;49(6):1451-1457.
7. Verma AK, Dewangan ML. Efficiency and energy use in puddling of lowland rice grown on Vertisols in Central India. Soil Tillage Res. 2006;90(1-2):100-107.