Claim · model-written summary
The runner opener had the least variation in planting depth.
- Taxon
- sugar beet
Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgarise0 - Treatment
- runner openere0
- Outcome
- variation ¡n planting depthe0
- Direction
- leaste0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“runner opener is generally satisfactory for sugar beet sowing due to their least variation ¡n planting depth, highest plant emergence, and fastest rate of emergence”
t0“AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.”
e1“Also, the root yield and costs of using the machine were estimated and compared with manual planting method.”
Title
AN ENGINEERING STUDY TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF A LOCALLY PUSHING PLANTER FOR SUGAR BEET CROP.
I. M. Abd EI-Tawwab; M. E. Badawy; N. M. Awad Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering /Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering 2005. doi:10.21608/jssae.2005.225267
Other claims from this paper (13)
- Method / resource The runner opener had the highest plant emergence and fastest rate of emergence.
- Association Pushing force increased with planting depth, ranging from 70 to 120 N.
- Method / resource Linked and side wheels gave the best depth control, while the rear wheel gave the poorest.
- Method / resource Rubber wheels had minimum slip of 5.3 %.
- Method / resource Rubber wheels had rolling resistance of 30.2 N.
- Method / resource Steel wheels had maximum slip of 15.6 %.
- Method / resource Steel wheels had rolling resistance of 57.6 N.
- Intervention effect The hand planter increased beet root yield by 30% relative to manual planting.
- Intervention effect The hand planter increased sugar yield by 26% relative to manual planting.
- Method / resource The hand planter reduced labor requirement by 83.3 %.
- Method / resource The hand planter reduced seed use by about 67.5 %.
- Method / resource The hand planter reduced planting cost per feddan by 72.7 %.
- Method / resource The hand planter reduced planting energy requirement by about 83.7 %.