Comparison of effects of machine performance parameters and energy indices of soybean production in conservation and conventional tillage systems

ماشین های کشاورزی

Article 21, Volume 6, Issue 2 - Serial Number 12, 2016, Pages 510-523   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jam.v6i2.44870

Authors

A. Sharifi Malvajerdi^{* 1}; H. R. Sadeghnezhad²; A. Faraji²

¹Agricultural Engineering Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran

²Agricultural Engineering Research Department, Seed and Plant Improvement Research Department, Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resource Research and Education Center, AREEO, Golestan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Nowadays, agricultural systems are seeking economic, ecological and bioenvironmental goals for production of agricultural crops with protection and sustainability of the environment. Therefore, there is need to extend sustainable agricultural systems such as conservation agriculture. One of the principles of conservation agriculture is conservation tillage. Conservation tillage is a kind of tillage that retains crop residues on the soil surface or mixes it with soil using related machines. It could also affect on machine performance parameters. Energy consumption for producing one kilogram crop could be studied for conservation tillage. Several researchers have conducted studies on this issue for production of different crops including wheat, sunflower and forage crops. This study conducted to assess machine performance parameters and energy indices of conservation tillage systems for soybean cultivation in Golestan province.
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted to investigate the effects of conservation tillage systems on machine performance and energy indices in soybean production at the Gorgan research station of Golestan Agricultural and Natural Resource Research Center in 2012. The precipitation was 450 mm. Soil texture was silty clay loam. Treatments were four tillage methods, including no-till using row crop direct planter, no-till using grain direct drill, conventional tillage usin a disk harrow with working depth of 10-15 cm and minimum tillage using chisel packer with a working depth of 20 cm. Machine performance parameters and energy indices studied in a farm covered by wheat residues in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four treatments and four replications. Machine performance parameters consisted of field efficiency, field capacity, total field capacity and planting uniformity index were measured. Energy indices such as energy ratio, energy productivity, energy intensity and net energy gain were also calculated.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that no-tillage methods by grain drill and row crop planter had the lowest field efficiency (56% and 58.9%, respectively), but had the highest field capacity (0.76 and 0.71 ha h-1, respectively), as the passage of implements in the field was less than that of conventional tillage. Peruzi et al., (1996) also reported that required time for minimum tillage and no-till was 80% less than conventional tillage. No-till using grain drill with the total field capacity of 0.76 ha h-1 and conventional tillage with 0.33 ha h-1 had the highest and lowest field capacity among the treatments, respectively. Minimum tillage had the best horizontal distribution uniformity for seed placement on the row. No-till using seed drill had the highest energy ratio of 4.5 and yield of 3612 kg ha-1, which were higher than the other treatments. No-till also produced 0.19 kg crop per each MJ energy consumption. It consumed the lowest amount of energy with 5.3 MJ for production of 1 kg soybean and had the highest net energy gain among treatments. Minimum tillage had the lowest consumption of energy with 2030.2 MJ ha-1 among the treatments. It had the lowest amount of net energy gain because of having lowest yield (2794 kg ha-1). Zentner et al., (2004) and Razzaghi et al., (2012) also concluded that conservation tillage systems had the lowest amount of energy consumption compared to the conventional tillage.
Conclusions
The study of energy indices is important for producing agricultural crops to decrease energy consumption. Among the tillage methods, no-till method had the best indices about reducing energy consumption. Although the size of no-till grain drill will increase the weight and energy consumption of machine, but it well penetrates on the soil. Results showed that minimum tillage and no-till methods are proper alternatives for replacement of conventional method for producing soybean, according to the precise of planting and improvement of energy indices. However, the existing planters can be modified for row crops and increasing of planting accuracy indices with correct management of no-till methods at crop protection stages. It can also help to localize conservation tillage implements and speeding up new methods for reaching to sustainable energy and production resources.

Keywords

Conservation tillage; Conventional tillage; Energy indices; Soybean

References

1. Aina, P. O. 2011. Conservation tillage for sustainable agricultural productivity. Nigerian Branch Conference Tillage for Agricultural Productivity and Environmental sustainability 21-24.

2. Almasi, M., Sh. Kiani, and N. Loveimi. 2008. Principles of Agricultural Mechanization. Fourth Edition. Jungle publication. 293p. (In Farsi).

3. Behroozi Lar, M., Z. Khoda Rahm Poor, M. Amini, and M. Nadimi. 2009. Energy coefficient for wheat production in Iran. Internation Commission of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, Section V. Conference “Technology and Management to Increase the Efficiency in Sustainable Agricultural Systems”, Rosario, Argentina.

4. Hobbs, P., R. Gupta, and C. Meisner. 2006. Conservation agriculture and its applications in south Asia. Available from:http://www.betuco. be/CA.

5. Hussain, Z., M. Azam Khan, and M. Irfan. 2010. Water energy and economic analysis of wheat production under raised bed and conventional irrigation systems: A case study from a semi-arid area of Pakistan. Soil and Tillage Research 109: 61-67.

6. Ju, X. T., C. L. Kou, F. S. Zhang, and P. Christie. 2006. Nitrogen balance and groundwater nitrate contamination: Comparison among three intensive cropping systems on the north china plain. Environmental Pollution 143 (1): 117-125.

7. Kaltsas, A. M., A. P. Mamolos, C. A. Tsatsarelis, G. D. Nanos, and K. L. Kalburtji. 2007. Energy budget in organic and conventional olive groves. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 122: 243-251.

8. Kitani, O., T. Jungbluth, R. M. Peart, and A. Ramdani. 1999. CIGR Handbook of Agricultural Engineering. Energy and Biomass Engineering ASAE publication, ST Joseph, MI. Vol 5.

9. Lague, C., and M. Khelifi. 2001. Energy use and time requirements for different weeding strategies in grain corn. Canadian Biosystems Engineering 43: 2.13-2.21.

10. Kiani, S., and E. Houshyar. 2012. Energy consumption of rainfed wheat production in conventional and conservation tillage systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 4-5: 213-219.

11. McGarry, D., U. P. Pillai, and M.V. Braunack. 2000. Optimizing soil structure condition for cropping without tillage. Proceedings of ISTRO 2000 Conference, Texas, USA.

12. Mousavi Avval, S. H., Sh. Rafiee, A. Jafari, and A. Mohammadi. 2011. Econometric modeling and sensitivity analysis of costs of inputs for sunflower production in Iran. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, Dindigul 1: 759-766.

13. Peruzzi, M., M. Raffaelli, and S. D. Cioli. 1996. Evaluation of the performances of a peculiar combined machine for direct drilling and two no-till drills for hard winter wheat and maize cultivation. International conference on Agricultural Engineering, Madrid.

14. Pimentel, D., and M. Burgess. 1980. Energy inputs in corn production. In CRC Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture, editor, D. Pimentel. Boca Raton, CRC Press, Inc.

15. Rathke, G. W., B. J. Wienhold, W. W. Wilhelm, and W. Diepenbrock. 2007. Tillage and rotation on corn-soybean energy balances in eastern Nebraska. Soil and Tillage Research 97: 60-70.

16. Razzaghi. M. H., A. Waismoradi, and H. Rahmati. 2012. Eenrgy efficiency of different tillage systems in forage crop production. International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 4-22: 1644-1652.

17. Senapati, P. C., P. K. Mohapatra, and U. N. Dikshit. 1992. Feed evaluation of seeding devices for finger-millet. Journal of Agricultural Mechanization in Asia 23 (3): 21-24.

18. Shahan, S., A. Jafari, H. Mobli, Sh. 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.

19. Singh, H., D. Mishra, and N. M. Nahar. 2002. Energy use pattern in production agriculture of a typical village in Arid Zone India Part I. Energy Conversion and Management 43 (16): 2275-2286.

20. Tabatabaeefar, A., H. Emamzadeh, M. Ghasemi Varnamkhasti, R. Rahimizadeh, and M. Karimi. 2009. Comparison of energy of tillage systems in wheat production. Energy 34: 41-45.

21. Tabatabaeifar, A., and M. Safari. 2002. Determination of field efficiency and operation cost of moldboard plow and disc in Kermanshah province. Agricultural Engineering Research Journal 2 (6): 33-43.

22. Yalcin, H., E. Cakir, and E. Aykas. 2005. Tillage parameters and economic analysis of direct seeding, minimum and conventional tillage in wheat. Journal of Agronomy 4 (4): 329-332.

23. Zentner, R. P., G. P. Lafond, D. A. Derksen, C. N. Nagy, D. D. Wall, and W. E. May. 2004. Effect of tillage method and crop rotation on non renewable energy use efficiency for a thin Black Chernozem in the Canadian Prairies. Soil and Tillage Research 77: 125-136.