CONSTRUCTION OF “WAMTLISH” PROGRAM TO INTEGRATE MACHINES FOR WHEAT PRODUCTION | ||||
| Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||||
| Article 1, Volume 31, Issue 1, January 2014, Page 1-18 PDF (1.12 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2014.99682 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Z. E Ismail1; W.T. Ismail2 | ||||
| 1Prof. of Power Technology and Machinery, Agric. Eng. Dept., Mansoura Univ., Egypt. | ||||
| 2Engineer in Fac. of Agric., Mansoura Univ. , Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| The present research aimed to select the suitable integrated machines for wheat production depending on the field area and available time for each operation. A Visual Basic program “WAMTLISH” is used to calculate the information from the wheat operating systems. This program is divided into three main subroutines to be worked on the main wheat production processes including; manure spreaders, tillage, leveling, irrigation, seeding, and harvesting to select machine number and specifications that recognized to give obtain the minimum operating time and cost. The program has been tested in a case study where machines width, field area and field shapes. The research established that the increases in machine width by 60 % for square and rectangle field shape the operating time decreased by 65.60 and 59.92% and the operating cost decreased by 66.48 and 60.99% respectively. The program is easy to give quake and fit information about the numbers and operating width for all needed wheat production machines. For example, the numbers of required machines to plant 25 feddan per two days (16 h) are three chisel plows for first and two for second tillage, two levelers, one seeder, two manure spreader and two combine harvester with operating width of 1.25m; 1.25m; 2.5m; 1.5m; 2.4 and 1.5 and with 3.6 km/h; 4.5 km/h 4.0km/h; 5.0km/h; 5.0km/h and 7.0km/h respectively. Furthermore, the total operating costs is 2881.1 L.E. The program can be applied at service stations to determine the best automation system at the lowest cost and in the available time for the farmer. | ||||
| References | ||||
|
Abd El-Mageed, H.N.; M.H. Ramadan and M.M. Ibrahim (1987). A mathematical model for predicting optimum power and machinery sizes in a three year crop rotation in Egypt. Misr, J. Agric. Eng. 4 (2): 134-148.
ASAE (2006). American Society of Agricultural Engineers. ASABE D497.5 Feb. 2006, published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), PP: 390-398.
Batte, M.T. (2005). Changing computer use in agriculture: evidence from Ohio. Journal of Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Vol. 47: 1-13. Elsevier Science B.V.
Boehm, M. and S. Burton (1997). Socio-economics in soil-conserving agricultural systems: implications for soil quality. In: Gregorich, E.G. and M.R. Carter (Eds.). Soil quality for crop production and ecosystem health. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 293-312.
Central Agency for Public. Mobilization and Statistics (2012). Statistical year book, Egypt.
Hunt, D. (2002). Farm power and machinery management. 11th edition, Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
Ismail, Z.E.; M.M. Ibrahim and S.A. Embaby (2009). Economic evaluation and selection of farm machinery. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 26(4): 746-757
Soerensen, C.G. (2003). Workability and machinery sizing for combine harvesting. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Journal of Scientific Research and Development. Manuscript PM 03 003 Vol. V.
Srivastava, A.K.; C.E. Goering; R.P. Rohrbach and D.R. Buckmaster (2006). Engineering principles of agricultural machines. 2nd edition. St. Joseph, Michigan, USA: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
William, L. (2001). Minnesota farm machinery economic cost estimates for 2000. Extension economist. Farm Management. Dept. of Applied Economics, Univ. of Minnesota. | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 98 PDF Download: 147 |
||||
