TIMELINESS COSTS IN WHEAT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS | ||
| Misr Journal of Agricultural Engineering | ||
| Article 5, Volume 27, Issue 1, January 2010, Pages 75-89 PDF (542.87 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/mjae.2010.106857 | ||
| Authors | ||
| Z.E. Ismail1; A.E. Abou-Elmagd2; A.E. Abdel-Mageed3 | ||
| 1Prof. of Power technology and farm machinery, Ag. Eng., Dept., Mansoura Un., Egypt. | ||
| 2Prof. of Ag. Eng., Ag. Eng. Dept. Mansoura Univ., Egypt. | ||
| 3Assis. Res. Ag. Eng., Ag. Eng. Res. Inst. (AEnRI) Ag. Res. Center, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| The present study was carried out to design a simulation program based on timeliness of the operations performance for wheat production. Wheat is the most unique of all grain crops in its adaptability to planting in different methods (sowing or drilling, broadcasting and transplanting). The time of harvesting also is changed relative to planting methods consequentially; the quality and the quantity of wheat production may be differ through a harvesting season of bout 30 days. Optimum planting and harvesting operations as well as good timing are needed to minimize the time penalty cost and obtain maximum profits. Timeliness losses due to yield losses are typically expressed as timeliness factors for quantity reduction, in kg ha-1. The results cleared that the correlation coefficients between the mean yield losses and operation starting of the late sowing period ranged from 0.95 to 0.985, compared with 0.92 to 0.97 for the early period. The average time penalty loss for the planting operation were about 411.26± 176.60 LE/fed and 427.35± 234.17 LE/fed due to a crop being established too early and too late respectively. The best planting date that relating to the highest wheat crop is ranged from 14 to 21 November. | ||
| References | ||
|
ASABE (2006b). Agricultural Machinery Management Data. St. Joseph, Michigan, USA: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASAE D497.5 FEB2006).
Witney B (1995). Choosing and using farm machines. Land Technology Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
Lund M (1996). Mekanisering i ekologiskt lantbruk. En Genomg (ang av problemen och for slag till lo sningar. [Mechanisation in organic farming. A review of problems and suggestions on solutions.] Norsk senter for o¨ kologisk landbruk, Tingvoll Gard, Norway
De Toro A., A. (2004). Assessment of Field Machinery Performance in Variable Weather Conditions Using Discrete Event Simulation. Diss. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala.
De Toro A; Hansson P-A (2004a). Machinery co-operatives-a case study in Sweden. Biosystems Engineering, 87(1), 13–25.
Gunnarsson, C. (2008). Timeliness Costs in Grain and Forage Production Systems. Doctoral Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
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., Goering, C.E., Rohrbach, R.P. & Buckmaster, D.R. (2006). Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines. 2nd edition. St. Joseph, Michigan, USA: American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Nilsson, B. (1987). Planering av arbets- och maskinsystem- resultat och erfarenheter. Uppsala: Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. (Institutionsmed de lande 87:03).
De Toro A., A. & Hansson, P.-A. (2004b). Analysis of field machinery performance based on daily soil workability status using discrete event simulation or on average workday probability. Agricultural Systems 79, 109-129.
Witney, B. (1995). Choosing and Using Farm Machines. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Land Technology Ltd. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 130 PDF Download: 211 |
||
