bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops.

14 March, 2014 International Agricultural Engineering Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops V. P. Khambalkar 1, N. N. Waghmare 2*, A. V. Gajakos 3, D. S. Karale 1, U. S. Kankal 4 (1. Assistant Professor, Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola 444 104, Maharashtra, India; 2. Ph. D. Scholar, Department of Farm Machinery and Power, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajastan, India; 3. Associate Professor, Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola 444 104, Maharashtra, India; 4. Senior Technical Assistant, Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola 444 104, Maharashtra, India) Abstract: The feasibility study of developed tractor operated broad bed-furrow (BBF) planter was carried out for sowing of winter crops in dryland. The planter was tested in laboratory and in field as per Regional Network for Agricultural Machinery (RNAM) test code for JAKI 9218, AKS-207 and AFLR variety of chickpea, safflower and onion, The planter was used for preparing broad bed and furrows and simultaneously sowing seed on beds. The performance of the BBF planter was satisfactory for the preparation of the broad bed furrow and sowing operation. The field efficiency of planter was 72%, 74% and 71% at working width of 1.40, 1.70 and 1.40 m and at speed of 3.38, 3.20 and 4.03 km/h for chickpea, safflower and onion, The cost of operation of the planter was Rs.1140, Rs.1000 and Rs.975 respectively, for selected crops. Row spacing, plant spacing, visible damage, ground wheel slip, number of plants per hill, depth of placement of seed and missing hill percentage was determined in the field sown by BBF planter. Seed rate of 77, 13.5 and 5.5 kg/ha for chickpea, safflower and onion crop respectively, was obtained during the test. The moisture conservation on broad beds was higher than traditional method of sowing. Energy requirement for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion by BBF planter was 146, 130 and 121 kwh/ha. Cost of energy is Rs.7.80/-, Rs.7.70/- and Rs.8/- respectively for selected crops. There was saving in energy in BBF planting method. Also, there was an increase in yield 12.50% and 10.71% in chickpea and safflower, respectively using BBF planting method compared with the traditional flat bed method of sowing. The BBF method was more feasible than the traditional method of sowing for selected crops. Keywords: BBF Planter, feasibility, cost of operation Citation: Khambalkar, V. P., N. N. Waghmare, A. V. Gajakos, D. S. Karale, and U. S. Kankal. 2014. Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops. International Agricultural Engineering Journal, 23(1): 14-22. 1 Introduction The productivity of rainfed farming is low as compared to the irrigated crop production. The crop yield in the Received date: 2013-09-01 Accepted date: 2014-02-10 * Corresponding Author: N. N. Waghmare, Ph. D. Scholar, Department of Farm Machinery and Power, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajastan, India. Mobile: +91 95495 86020. Email: nilesh9372@gmail.com. rainfed farming is often reduced due to the lack of soil moisture. It is necessary to adopt suitable technology to conserve the rain water in-situ to ensure adequate moisture during the various growing stages of the crop in rainfed farming. Animal drawn broad bed-furrow former are available but their efficiency is very less therefore it is necessary to develop suitable tractor operated BBF planter to overcome this problem (Srinivas, 2005).

March, 2013 Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops Vol. 23, No. 1 15 At present various types of BBF former are available in which only the ridger is used for formation of broad bed. If the field is not well prepared, then this will result in the formation of cloddy seed-bed so sowing becomes difficult. Available BBF markers are used only for BBF formation and sowing is done separately which is costly. BBF farming has many advantages in regard to water saving, mechanical weeding, fertilizer placement, available moisture conservation, less lodging and better crop stand (Astatke et al., 2002). In-situ water conservation makes the moisture available for the sown crop. Use of BBF can have several benefits depending on its use. Raised beds are primarily a field drainage tool aimed at decreasing water logging and increasing crop yield. Crops like cereals, pulses and oil seeds are the main crops in dryland farming. There is scope to cultivate such crops using BBF. BBF farming is a new idea developed for conservation of water for dry land farming. The placement of seed at correct depth is very important for proper germination and for obtaining optimum plant population per unit area of the crop especially under dry land farming where soil moisture is at greater depth (Khambalkar et al., 2010). 2 Materials and methods The BBF planter was tested in the laboratory as well as in the field to evaluate its overall performance. The laboratory tests were conducted in the workshop of Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. PDKV, Akola, during rabi season. The field trials of BBF planter were carried out at the field of Western Block of Central Research Station for chickpea and safflower and at Agronomy Farm for onion of Dr. PDKV, Akola. Experiments were conducted for the crops like chick pea, safflower and onion in one ha plot using recommended crop spacing (Afzalina et al., 2006). 2.1 Broad bed furrow planter The broad bed furrow planter was used for the preparation of the broad bed furrow and sowing operation simultaneously. The metering mechanism for BBF planter was edge drop cell feed inclined plate. The seed and fertilizer box to carry seed and fertilizer during sowing operation were trapezoidal in shape. Ridger or bed shaper was used to convey the loose soil and shift it on top of the bed. Ridgers were mounted just side to the planting units. The dimensions and complete design are given in Figure 1. 2.2 Planting technique The planning of crop as per suitable recommendation has importance in sowing practices. In this research study, two planting techniques, that is traditional and BBF method of planting for chickpeas, safflowers and onions crops had been carried. When sowing chickpeas, row spacing and plant spacing were 30 and 10 cm, respectively, in the traditional method. In BBF method of planting the same row spacing and plant spacing were kept with 30 cm furrow width, 25 cm furrow depth and 10 cm protection distance for chickpea. During the sowing of safflower, row spacing and plant spacing were 45 and 20 cm respectively in traditional method. In BBF method of planting the same safflower, row spacing and plant spacing were kept with 30 cm furrow width, 25 cm furrow depth and 10 cm protection distance. During the sowing of onions, row spacing and plant spacing were kept 10 and 10 cm, respectively, in traditional method and spacing between rows and plants were 20 and 10 cm, respectively with 30 cm furrow width and 25 cm furrow depth and 10 cm protection distance in BBF method. 2.3 Performance evaluation of BBF planter The performance of BBF planter was evaluated by taking the laboratory tests and field tests, as per standard, i.e., Regional Network for Agricultural Machinery (RNAM) test code. 2.4 Laboratory testing of tractor operated BBF planter Laboratory testing of the tractor operated BBF planter was carried out in the workshop of Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. PDKV, Akola in order to study the viz, i) the number of seeds per meter and per hectare observed, ii) calibration of seed drill, and iii) visible damage caused to the metered seed (Ahmed and Gupta, 1994; Goswami, 2001).

16 March, 2014 International Agricultural Engineering Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 Figure 1 Plane of broad bed furrow planter 2.5 Field testing of BBF planter Field performance tests were carried out to obtain actual data on overall performance of planter and working capacity in field condition. The performance evaluation of BBF planter was evaluated in the experimental field. The observations regarding moisture content, various field capacities of implements, fuel requirement were noted during field test. The costs of operation of the BBF planter have been determined over the traditional farming practices (Tekwa et al., 2010). 2.6 Energy analysis Energy analysis attempts to take into account all forms of energy inputs to system and energy output from the system, to establish their energy relationship for understanding the energy requirement in the sowing operation. For quantification of energy for performing sowing operation of selected crops mechanical, human, embodied energy of planter and bullock power were taken into consideration. First mechanical energy used by mechanical devices in sowing operation was documented. The consumption of fuel was collected for the sowing operation of selected crops. The total estimated quantity of energy was determined in kwh/ha (multiplied by diesel equivalent energy (kwh/l). Similarly, the energy used in the sowing operation for the selected crops for traditional sowing practices considering the number of labourers and bullocks and the time to sow the crop. Also from the values of cost of sowing and energy analysis, the cost of energy was calculated (Centin and Vardar, 2008; Shahan et al., 2008). 3 Results and discussion The BBF planter was tested in the laboratory as well as in the field to evaluate its overall performance. This section presents the performance evaluation tests of the tractor operated BBF planter for chickpea, safflower and

March, 2013 Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops Vol. 23, No. 1 17 onion crops The performance of mechanized and traditional method of sowing was evaluated and cost of operations incurred in both methods was estimated. Percentage saving in cost of operation per hour, per hectare and time required over traditional method were also computed. 3.1 Laboratory testing of BBF planter The BBF planter was tested in laboratory to determine seed spacing and the number of plants per meter and per hectare of selected crops. During these tests, the planter was set to 30, 45 and 20 cm rows spacing for chickpea, safflower and onion crop, A total of three replications were taken. The average number of plants per meter calculated for chickpea, safflower and onion varied from 9 to 11, 5 to 10, and 10 to 11. Total average plants per meter observed were 10, 5, 10 and the average plant population which could achieved for given 30, 45 and 20 cm spacing was found 327666, 109556 and 509000 plants per hectare All the furrow openers treatments did not differ much from each other, as these treatments were found to be statistically similar for chickpea, safflower and onion, 3.1.1 Calibration of planter The BBF planter was calibrated in the workshop of Department of Farm Power and Machinery, Dr. PDKV, Akola for determining seed rate of planter for selected crops. Metering plate having 12, 12 and 24 cells on its periphery was used for chickpea, safflower and onion, In calibration of planter for chickpea, safflower and onion, respectively total three replications were taken. The weight of seeds of chickpea, safflower and onion collected from respective furrow openers varied from 228 to 234 g, 585 to 615 g and 9 to 13 g corresponding to 106 revolutions of ground wheel of the planter to cover 100 m area under test theoretically. The seed rate obtained in the calibration test was in the range of 76 to 77 kg/ha, 13 to 13.5 kg/ha, and 5 to 6 kg/ha. Average seed rate was 77, 13.5 and 5.5 kg/ha It was within the recommended seed rate of 75-85 kg/ha, 12-15 kg/ha and 5-7 kg/ha for the JAKI-9218 variety of chickpea, AKS-207 variety of safflower and AFLR variety of onion It was observed that the recommended seed rate 75-85 kg/ha of chickpea, 12-15 kg/ha of safflower and 5-7 kg/ha of onion are achieved and the planter has acceptable accuracy of the metering mechanism. Non-significant differences were recorded among all furrow opener treatments of chickpea, safflower and onion, Therefore, it can be inferred that all the furrow openers performed at equal precision under laboratory condition (Jayan and Kumar, 2004; Karayel et al., 2006). 3.1.2 Visible damage caused to metered seeds of chickpea, safflower and onion The visible damage caused to metered seeds of chickpea, safflower and onion was checked by passing 100 seeds through each metering unit and the number of crushed seeds was counted; such three replications were taken. It is found that seed crushing percentage of chickpea, safflower and onion varies from 1.33% to 2%, 3% to 4% and 6% to 7.25% and average seed crushing percentage was found to be 1.66%, be 3.33% and 6.50% respectively, which is negligible. 3.2 Field testing of tractor operated BBF planter The planter was tested in 0.4 ha of chickpea, 0.4 ha of safflower and 0.2 ha of onion field The field was prepared for sowing by performing preparatory tillage operations like ploughing and harrowing. All the settings and adjustments were done before performing the tests. The observations recorded during field testing and results obtained are discussed. 3.2.1 Moisture content of soil Moisture content of soil during field testing was determined by gravimetric method. The observations were taken after interval of 10 days from the date of sowing up to one month at 15 and 30 cm depth At the time of sowing the moisture content of traditional and BBF fields of chickpea, safflower and onion was the same. After 10 days from sowing the moisture content of broad beds at 15 and 30 cm depth was 5.30% and 5.62%, 5.42% and 5.70%, and 5.02% and 5.16% higher than traditional method. After 20 days from sowing the moisture content of broad beds at 15 and 30 cm depth was 11.33% and 11.77%, 12.82% and 13.05%, and 11.54% and 11.69% higher than traditional method. After 30 days from sowing the moisture content of broad beds at 15 and 30 cm depth was 18.67%

18 March, 2014 International Agricultural Engineering Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 and 18.27%, 17.38% and 17.71%, and 18.53% and 18.82% higher than traditional method. At the time of sowing non-significant differences in moisture content were recorded among traditional and BBF sowing methods of chickpea, safflower and onion crop respectively (Khamssi et al., 2010). After 10, 20 and 30 days sowing significant differences in moisture content were recorded in both methods. Statistically, maximum moisture content was observed in BBF method than traditional method of sowing. BBF method was statistically superior to traditional method of sowing (Akbar et al., 2007; Allolli et al., 2008). 3.2.2 Effective field capacity, theoretical field capacity and field efficiency The effective field capacity (EFC) was calculated by considering the productive as well as non-productive time required during the field operation of the planter. The theoretical field capacity (TFC) depends upon the speed of operation and theoretical width covered by the implement. The field efficiency (FE) was calculated from the values of theoretical field capacity and effective field capacity. The field efficiency for tractor operated rotary BBF planter for chickpea, safflower and onion were presented in Table 1. Table 1 Theoretical field capacity (TFC), Effective field capacity (EFC) and Field efficiency (FE) of chickpea, safflower and onion for BBF method of sowing Crops TFC/ha h -1 EFC/ha h -1 FE/% Speed/km h -1 Chickpea 0.473 0.342 72.30 3.38 Safflower 0.544 0.400 73.53 3.20 Onion 0.564 0.400 70.92 4.03 3.2.3 Fuel consumption The fuel consumption of tractor operated BBF planter were found 9, 8 and 7.5 L/ha for chickpea, safflower and onion respectively while working in operation. 3.2.4 Ground wheel slip for BBF planter for sowing of chickpea The theoretical and actual number of revolutions of ground wheel was counted while operating planter in the field of chickpea, safflower and onion, respectively, for a 20 m length along a row. It can be found in the range of 1.03% to 5.74% for these three crops. Average wheel slip in chickpea, safflower and onion was 3.39%, 3.86% and 3.86% at 36.13%, 37.00% and 36.40% moisture content of soil at the time of sowing and at 3.38, 3.20 and 4.03 km/h speed of operation. Significant differences were recorded in theoretical and field trials of ground wheel slip while operating the planter in the field of chickpea, safflower and onion Actual number of revolutions of ground wheel was less than theoretical due to higher moisture content in field at the sowing time of crops (Boydas and Turgut, 2007). 3.2.5 Dimensions of broad bed and furrow after operation The observations of top width and bottom width of the broad beds laid by the planter in the field of chickpea, safflower and onion were taken. Top width can be found in the range of 75 to 85 cm, 116 to 115 cm and 76 to 84 cm and average was 79.7, 110.4 and 79.9 cm Bottom width can be found in the range of 105 to 115 cm, 136 to 144 cm and 108 to 114 cm and average was 109.8, 139.4 and 110.7 cm These broad beds were separated from each other by the furrows having width in the range of 28 to 31.5 cm, 27.9 to 31.2 cm and 27.9 to 31.2 cm and average width of furrow was 29.64, 29.61and 29.61 cm The depth of furrow was found in the range of 22 to 26 cm, 23.6 to 26 cm and 23.6 to 26 cm and average was 24.57, 24.76 and 24.76 cm 3.2.6 Depth of placement of seed The depth of placement of chickpea, safflower and onion, seed respectively during the sowing was measured by taking randomly 10 observations. Observed depth of seed placement on different beds of chickpea, safflower and onion was varied from 7.2 to 9.4 cm, 5.0 to 7.0 cm and 4.0 to 5.9 cm and average depth was 8.1, 6.2 and 4.88 cm against the expected depth of 8, 6 and 5 cm The calculated average depth of seed placement of chickpea and safflower was slightly greater and in onion it is less than the expected depth of seed placement in furrow. The observed values of depth are deviated from -0.8 to 1.4, -0.3 to 1 and -0.8 to 0.9 cm and average was found 0.1, 0.2 and -0.12 cm for chickpea, safflower and onion The Chi-square values of observations were 0.048, 0.061 and 0.086. The table value of chi-square at 5% level of significance and at nine degree of freedom was 3.325. Calculated

March, 2013 Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops Vol. 23, No. 1 19 value of observation was less than the table value at 5% level. Hence, depth of placement of seed was acceptable for selected crops. 3.2.7 Hill to hill, Row to row spacing and the number of plants observed on each hill The hill to hill spacing and row to row spacing were measured in the field after emergence of seed by taking 10 observations of chickpea, safflower and onion crop, and the average hill to hill spacing of chickpea, safflower and onion were 10.2, 19.96 and 8.3 cm, average row to row spacing were 30.27, 44.88 and 20.2 cm and average numbers of plants was 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 approximately 1 plant per hill The hill to hill spacing shows deviation from expected value of 10, 20 and 10 cm that may due to ground wheel slippage. Little deviations were observed in row to row spacing values against expected row to row spacing of 30, 45 and 20 cm. It was observed that the number of plants observed per hill was 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 for chickpea, safflower and onion crop It was deviated from expected one value. It was due to the different sizes of seeds of respective crops. The Chi-square values of observations for chickpea, safflower and onion were 0.066, 0.025 and 0.3; 0.021, 0.013 and 0.4; 0.53, 0.06 and 0.8 for hill to hill spacing, row to row spacing and the number of plants per hill The table value of chi-square at 5% level of significance and at nine degree of freedom was 3.325. Calculated value of observation was less than the table value at 5% level. Hence, hill to hill spacing, row to row spacing and the number of plants per hill were acceptable for selected crops. 3.2.8 Emergence percentage of seed The emergence plant count of chickpea, safflower and onion crop was measured after 21 days of sowing. The observations of the number of plants of selected crops were taken from five randomly selected 1 1 m plots from the field. The emergence percentage of chickpea, safflower and onion were found in the range of 84.08% to 90.09%, 81.00% to 99.00% and 78.00% to 92.00% and average emergence was observed 87.08%, 88.20%, and 84.4% The statistically significant differences were observed in theoretical and actual number of plants of chickpea, safflower and onion crop Actual in field, the number of plants was less than theoretical due to decomposition of seed, physical damage to seed or unfavourable environmental conditions to emergence of seeds. 3.2.9 Missing hill percentage The actual number of plants or hills observed in randomly selected five rows of chickpea, safflower and onion crop of 20 m was counted in test field. The actual number of hills noted in each row of 20 m length of chickpea, safflower and onion varied from 172 to 180, 84 to 90 and 170 to 175 instead of 200, 100 and 200 hills The missing hill percentage ranges from 10 to 14, 10 to 16 and 12.50 to 17.50 and average missing hill percentage of overall field of chickpea, safflower and onion was 12%, 12.6% and 14.3% Statistically significant differences were observed in theoretical and actual number of hills of chickpea, safflower and onion crop Actual in the field of chickpea, safflower and onion missing hills were more than theoretical due to non emergence of all the seeds. 3.3 Economic of operation The total cost of operation of tractor operated BBF planter for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion per hour is the addition of cost of operation of tractor and planter per hour upon fixed costs and operating costs. Cost estimation depends Cost of operation of tractor and planter including fixed and variable costs per hour is presented in Table 2. It is seen that total cost of operation for tractor is Rs.328, Rs.339 and Rs.328 per hour and for planter is Rs.62 per hour for chickpea, safflower and onion The total cost of operation of sowing by using BBF planter on broad bed furrow was computed to be Rs.390, Rs.400 and Rs.390 per hour The cost of operation per hectare of tractor operated BBF planter for chickpea, safflower and onion depends upon cost of operation per hour and field capacity in ha/h of planter The cost of operation per hectare of planter was estimated to be Rs.1139, Rs.1001 and Rs.974 The costs incurred for calculating cost of operation per hour and per hectare were considered according to prevailing rates. The higher cost of operation of sowing of chickpea and

20 March, 2014 International Agricultural Engineering Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 onion in traditional method may be due to use of more labors in that treatment. The cost of operation for traditional method of sowing was computed as per the actual expenditure incurred for labour, animal etc. (Khambalkar et al., 2010). Table 2 Cost of operation of tractor and BBF planter per hour and per hectare for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion by BBF planter Sr. No. Particulars Cost for tractor Cost of planter Chickpea Safflower Onion Chickpea Safflower Onion (A) Fixed costs 1 Depreciation (10%), Rs./h 45 45 45 16.88 16.88 16.88 2 Interest (15%), Rs./h 41.25 41.25 41.25 15.47 15.47 15.47 3 Insurance (1% of PP), Rs./h 5 5 5 Nil Nil Nil 4 Tax (1% of PP), Rs./h 5 5 5 Nil Nil Nil 5 Housing cost (1% of PP), Rs./h 5 5 5 1.88 1.88 1.88 Total fixed cost, Rs./h 101.25 101.25 101.25 34.23 34.23 34.23 (B) Operating costs 1 Fuel cost, Rs./h 129 137.6 129 Nil Nil Nil 2 Lubricants cost (30% of FC), Rs./h 38.7 41.28 38.7 Nil Nil Nil 3 Repairs and maintenance cost, (8% of PP) Rs./h 40 40 40 15 15 15 4 Operators (labor) wages, Rs./h 18.75 18.75 18.75 12.5 12.5 12.5 Total variable cost, Rs./h 226.45 237.63 226.45 27.5 27.5 27.5 (C) Cost of operation 1 Total cost of operation (Rs/h) = Fixed cost (Rs./h) + operating cost (Rs./h) 328/- 339/- 328/- 62/- 62/- 62/- (D) Cost of operation of tractor 390/- 400/- 390/- - - - operated BBF planter (Rs./h) (E) Cost of operation per hectare (Rs./ha) 1140/- 1000/- 975/- - - - Sowing cost of chickpea, safflower and onion by traditional method was Rs.1350, Rs.562 and Rs.9000 It can be observed that cost of sowing by traditional method is more than the BBF method of sowing. It was found 15.55%, 89.17% saving in cost of sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion, by BBF method The sowing cost of chickpea, safflower and onion in BBF method was Rs.1140, Rs.1000 and Rs.975 and by traditional method was Rs.1350, Rs.563 and Rs.9000 per hectare It can be inferred that cost of sowing by BBF method was minimum as compared to traditional sowing method of chickpea, safflower and onion, respectively (Table 3). 3.4 Energy requirement for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion The energy requirement for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion were presented in Table 4 respectively in both methods of sowing. In BBF method of sowing energy consume was observed to be 146, 130 and 121 kwh/ha and in traditional sowing operation 29, 15 and 174 kwh/ha respectively for chickpea, safflower and onion. The amount of energy is required in BBF planting method as compared to traditional method of planting is more (Kalbande and More, 2008). It is due to BBF planter which is operated by tractor and in traditional method bullock power was used (Table 4). Table 3 Cost of sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion Method (cost) BBF Traditional % saving in cost in BBF planting method over traditional Crop Chickpea Safflower Onion (Rs./h) 390 400 390 (Rs./ha) 1140 1000 975 (Rs./h) 150 150 900 (Rs./ha) 1350 563 9000 (Rs./ha) 15.55-89.17

March, 2013 Performance of broad bed-furrow planter in winter season of dryland crops Vol. 23, No. 1 21 Table 4 Energy requirement for sowing of chickpea, Method safflower and onion Chickpea /kwh ha -1 Crop Safflower /kwh ha -1 Onion /kwh ha -1 BBF 146 130 121 Traditional 29 15 174 % increase in energy in BBF planting method 80.25 88.77-3.5 Cost of operational energy of chickpea, safflower and onion The cost of operational energy for chickpea, safflower and onion was presented in Table 5. In BBF method cost of energy for sowing chickpea, safflower and onion was Rs.7.79/-, Rs.7.70/- and Rs.8.05/- and for traditional method Rs.46.78/-, Rs.38.53/- and Rs.51.59/- From the calculations it was seen that more cost of energy is observed in traditional method as compared to the BBF method of sowing. Percentage saving in cost of energy in BBF planting method was 83.35, 80.01 and 84.40 From that it can be inferred that BBF method is more advantageous than traditional method of sowing. Table 5 Cost of energy for chickpea, safflower and onion Method Chickpea, Rs./kWh Crop Safflower, Rs./kWh Onion, Rs./kWh BBF 07.80 07.70 08.05 Traditional 46.78 38.53 51.59 % saving in energy in BBF planting method 83.32 80.01 84.40 3.7 Yield of chickpea, safflower and onion The observed values of the yield of chickpea, safflower and onion are presented in Table 6. The yield of chickpea, safflower and onion was 12, 14 and 18.50 and 10.50, 12.50 and 20 quintals/ha in BBF and traditional method of sowing It was observed that yield of crop has been increased 12.5% and 10.71% increase in the yield of chickpea and safflower in BBF method of sowing. There is no increase in the yield of onion because of the different row to row spacing in BBF and traditional sowing method of onion (Ahmad and Mahmood, 2005; Khambalkar et al., 2010). Table 6 Yield of chickpea, safflower and onion Method Chickpea, quintals/ha Crop Safflower, quintals/ha Onion, quintals/ha BBF 12.00 14.00 18.50 Traditional 10.50 12.50 20.00 % increase in yield in BBF planting method 4 Conclusions 12.50 10.71 - The planter can be used for preparing the broad beds and simultaneously sowing the seeds on the beds at required row and plant spacing. The moisture conservation on broad beds was higher than traditional method of sowing. The performance of the seed metering device was satisfactory. It gave a desired seed rate of 77, 13.5 and 5.5 kg/ha during the field trials of chickpea, safflower and onion crop, respectively and seed damage was negligible. The average seed emergence percentage of seeds found was 87%, 88% and 84% for chickpea, safflower and onion, The ground wheel slip occurred during operation varied from 1.03% to 5.74% and the average ground wheel slip found was 3.39%, 3.86% and 3.86% at 36.33%, 37.27% and 36.63% moisture content of soil and 3.38, 3.20 and 4.03 km/h traveling speed of planter for chickpea, safflower and onion, The average hill to hill (plant to plant) spacing were found to be 10.2, 19.96 and 8.3 cm against expected values of 10, 20 and 10 cm; row to row spacing were found to be 30.27, 44.88 and 20.2 cm against expected values of 30, 45 and 20 cm. The number of plants per hill were found to be 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 against expected values of 1, 1 and 1 for chickpea, safflower and onion, The theoretical field capacity of BBF planter with one operator, at an average forward speeds of 3.38, 3.20 and 4.03 km/h were found to be 0.473, 0.544 and 0.564 ha/h and effective field capacity was found to be 0.342, 0.400 and 0.400 ha/h for chickpea, safflower and onion, The field efficiency of BBF planter was found to be 72.30%, 73.53% and 70.92% for chickpea, safflower and onion, crop The total cost of operation of BBF planter was computed to be Rs.390, Rs.400 and Rs.390 per hour and Rs.150, Rs.150 and

22 March, 2014 International Agricultural Engineering Journal Vol. 23, No. 1 Rs.900 per hour for chickpea, safflower and onion, respectively for traditional method. The cost of operation of BBF planter was estimated to be Rs.1140, Rs.1000 and Rs.975 per hectare and Rs.1350, Rs.563 and Rs.9000 per hectare for traditional method, Thus, saving in total cost of operation per hectare was 15.55% and 89.17% over traditional method of sowing, The energy requirement for sowing of chickpea, safflower and onion was 146, 130 and 121 kwh/ha by BBF and 29, 15 and 174 kwh/ha by traditional method Percent increase in energy in BBF planting method was 80.25 and 88.77 for chickpea and safflower, The cost of energy was Rs.7.80, Rs.7.70 and Rs.8.05 per kilo watt hour in BBF and Rs.46.78, Rs.38.53 and Rs.51.59 per kilo watt hour in traditional sowing method for chickpea, safflower and onion, Percentage saving in energy in BBF planting method was 83.32%, 80.01% and 84.40%, respectively as compared to traditional sowing method. In BBF method of sowing 12, 14 and 18.50 quintals/ha and in traditional method of sowing 10.50, 12.50 and 20 quintals/ha yield of chickpea, safflower and onion was recorded The percentage increase of yield in BBF planting method was 12.50% and 10.71% for chickpea and safflower, [References] [1] Afzalinia, S., M. Shaker, and E. Zare. 2006. Performance evaluation of common grain drills in Iran. Canadian Biosystems Engineering, 48(2): 39-43, 18(2): 51-57. [2] Ahmad, R. N., and N. Mahmood. 2005. Impact of raised bed technology on water productivity and lodging of wheat. Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, 9(2): 29. [3] Ahmed, S., and G. P. Gupta. 1994. A manually operated electrostatic planter for small seeds. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 25(2): 29-34. [4] Akbar, G., G. Hamilton, Z. Hussain, and M. Yasin. 2007. Problems and potentials of permanent raised bed cropping systems in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Water Resources, 11(1): 11-21. [5] Allolli, T. B., U. K. Hulihalli, and S. I. Athani. 2008. Influence of in situ moisture conservation practices on the performance of dryland cluster bean. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(2): 250-252. [6] Astatke, A., M. Jabbar, M.A. Mohamed, and T. Erkossa. 2002. Technical and economical performance of animal drawn implements for minimum tillage-experience on vertisols in Ethopia. Experimental Agriculture, 38(2): 185-196. [7] Boydas, M. G., and N. Turgut. 2007. Effect of vibration, roller design, and seed rates on the seed flow evenness of a studded feed roller. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 23(4): 413-418. [8] Centin, B., and A.Vardar. 2008. An economic analysis of energy requirements and input costs for tomato production in Turkey. Renewable Energy, 33(3): 428-433. [9] Goswami, M. D. 2001. A laboratory set-up for testing planters and seed drills. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 38(4): 69-72. [10] Jayan, P. R., and V. J.F. Kumar. 2004. Planter design in relation to the physical properties of seeds. Journal of Tropical Agriculture, 42(1-2): 69-71. [11] Kalbande, S. R., and G. R. More. 2008. Assessment of energy requirement for cultivation of kharif and rabi sorghum. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21(3): 416-420. [12] Karayel, D., M. Wiesehoff, A. Ozmerzi, and J. Muller. 2006. Laboratory measurement of seed drill seed spacing and velocity of fall of seeds using high-speed camera system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 50(2): 89-96. [13] Khambalkar, V. P., S. M. Nage, C. M. Rathod, A. V. Gajakos, and S. Dahatonde. 2010. Mechanical sowing of safflower on broad bed furrow. Australian Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 1(5): 184-187. [14] Khamssi, N. N., K. G. Golezani, S. Z. Salmasi, and A. Najaphy. 2010. Effects of water deficit stress on field performance of chickpea cultivars. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(15): 1973-1977. [15] Shahan, S., A. Jafari, H. Mobli, S. Rafiee, and M. Karimi. 2008. Energy use and economical analysis of wheat production in Iran: A case study from Ardabil province. Journal of Agricultural Technology, 4(1): 77-88. [16] Srinivas, I. 2005. Mechanization options for alternate land use and resource conservation. Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, 233-38. [17] Tekwa, I. J., M. D. Belel, and A. B. Alhassan. 2010. The effectives of indigenous soil conservation techniques on sustainable crop production. Australian Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 1(3): 74-79.