Mechanization Assessment of Field Operations for Production of Sugar Cane in the White Nile Area-Sudan
Mohamed Hassan Dahab
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Shambat, Sudan.
Salma Ishag S. Bakheit
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Shambat, Sudan.
Omer A. Abdallah
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Khartoum, Shambat, Sudan.
Salih F. E. Hamad
Faculty of Natural Resources, University of West Kordofan, Sudan.
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
There are many types of machines and implements used for field operations and production of field crops such as sugar cane in the White Nile area of Sudan. Therefore the main objective of this study is to assess the mechanization used in the field operations for production of sugar cane crop. This study was based on data collected from the field operations and recorded information from the two sugar companies in the area. The field operations included, the up-rooting, harrowing, reharowing, leveling, ridging, planting, fertilization, spraying and harvesting. The measured parameters were the work rate of machinery, power requirement and the cost of mechanization of field operations. The actual field data was compared with the calculated ones. Some correjation regression analysis was carried out. The results showed that the calculated rate of work was positively correlated to the actual rate of work, speed and width of cut (r = 0.99). The highest calculated rate of work was for spraying operation as 36.2 fed/hr, while the lowest was for harvesting as 2.1 fed/hr. Most of the calculated rates of work were lower than the actual ones. Power requirements were found to increase with the weight of machines. Generally the calculated power requirements were lower than actual ones and the correlation between the machine weight (KN) and the actual power (kW) used for field operation was positive (r = 0.83). The highest calculated power requirement was recorded for the harvester as 350 kW whereas the lowest was for the fertilizer as 32.7 kW. The highest mechanization cost was for harvesting field operation as 253.4 $/hr and was mainly due to the higher cost of power requirement, while the lowest was for leveling operation as 25.8 $/hr. It was concluded that although most of the field operations are well mechanized, yet the power source and requirements for some operations to be reviewed to match the size and type of machinery used, to reduce costs of field operations and production and to protect the enviroment.
Keywords: Kenana, asslaya, sugar cane, mechanization, power, costs
How to Cite
Downloads
References
Emami M, Almassi M, Bakhoda H, Kalantari I. Agricultural mechanization, a key to food security in developing countries: Strategy formulating for Iran, Agric. Food Secur. 2018;7(2018):1–12. Available:https://doi.org/10.1186/S40066-018-0176-2
Adamade CA, Jackson BA. Agricultural mechanization: A strategy for food sufficiency. Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science. 2014;(3),152-156.
Ranjbarian S, Askari M, Jannatkhah J. Performance of a tractor and tillage implements in a clay soil. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2017;16:154–16.
FMO (Fundamental of Machine Operation). Power requirement. Deere and Company. Moline, Illinois, John Deere service publications. Dept. F., John Deere Road, Moline, Illinois, 61265, U.S.A; 1987.
Edwards W. Estimating farm machinery costs- Ag. decision maker- PM 710. November. Iowa State University. U.S.A; 2008.
Hunt, D. Farm power and machinery management (9" Ed.). Iowa State University, Press Ames, Iowa 50014, U.S.A. 1995
ASAE. Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships. Agricultural Engineers Year Book. 1983:219- 228.
Witney B. Choosing and using farm machines. Longman. Scottish Cent. Agric. Engineering, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, UK; 1988.
Yousif LA, Dahab MH, El Ramlawi HR. Crop-machinery management system for farm cost analysis. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2013;2(11):9-16.
Bowers W. Cost of owning operating farm machinery cooperative extension work, Oklahoma State University, still water Oklahoma, USA; 1983.
Abdalla AA, Abdel Nour HO. The agricultural potentials of Sudan. Exclusive Intelligence Review. 2004;34-42.
FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization: development of sugar industry in Sudan: An analysis of the factors affecting sugar production, marketing and consumption; 2008.
Abda AE, Osman MM. The Competitiveness of sugar cane production: A study of Kenana sugar company, Sudan. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2011;(3)3: 202–210
Obied A, Salih H. “Cane and sugar production at the Sudanese sugar company” paper for cane Breeding workshop, La Romana, Dominican; 2003.
Baiyegunhi LJS, Arnold CA. Economics of sugarcane production on large scale farms in the Eshowe/Entumeni areas of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2011;6(21):4960-4967.
Javed A. Mechanization of sugarcane cultivation. Available:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282978399. 2015
Sumner HR, Hellwing RE, Monroe GE. Measuring implement. Power requirements from tractor fuel consumption Trans of ASAE. 1986;29(1):85-89.
Abdalla OA, et al. Effect of tillage implement type and depth of ploughing on field performance parameters in vertisol clay soil of Gezira scheme (Sudan). Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. 2021;8(1):1-7.
Dahab MH, Al-Hashim HAE. Study on the effect of tractor power and speed on some field performance parameters working on a clay loam soil. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 2002;27(1):573-582
Dahab MH, Habiel EA. Field performance of some tillage implements as affected by soil type and forward speed. Sud. J. Stnds. Metrol. 2007;1(1):41-52
Dahab MH, Osman A Abuelgasem, Omer A Abdallah. Field performance evaluation of some agricultural tractors as affected by implement type and forward speed in Gezira area (Sudan). International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Management (IJAEM). 2022;4(8):1783-1791
Kumar R, Kumar M. Upgradation of energy production and preservation technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;96:167-180.
Austin RB, Kingston G, Longden PC, Donovan PA. Gross energy yields and the support energy requirements for the production of sugar from beet and cane; A study of four production areas. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 1978;91(3):667-675.
Dahab MH, Ahmed OA. Energy requirements for two tillage implements as affected by soil condition and depth of ploughing in clay soils. Albuhuth. 2007; 11(1):79-91.
Rahul M, Badar E, Mukesh A, Ashwani J. A review of cost analysis study of farm tractor. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2020;9(3):2914-2921.