Paper · 2014 · http://www.ijesrt.com/issues%20pdf%20file/Archives-2014/September-2014/7.pdf

Performance Evaluation of Manually Operated Single Row Cotton Planter

Rangapara Dineshkumar; Pandya Jaimin; M. Tech

7
claims
11
verbatim quotes
4
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Cotton plays a major role in Indian economy and offers employment for more than 60 million people. The yield of cotton in Gujarat state about 758 lakh bales. In Gujarat the sowing of cotton is labour intensive as its plating requires 12-15 hr/ha. The single row cotton planter was tested and calibrated in laboratory as well as in field as per Indian Standard Test Code No. 6316:1993. The field evaluation of manually operated cotton planter was done by pulling the cotton planter in which, speed of planter was 1.62 km/h, actual operating time in 4.53 minute was required to cover area of 0.01 ha with actual field capacity of 0.132 ha/hr and field efficiency was 79.52%. The percentage damage in cotton seed is 1.236 % more by planter compared to conventionally manual dibbling. The average time requirement by manually operated cotton planter was 7.57 hr/ha while manually sowing around 11.12 hr/ha. The average seed rate in manual cotton planter was 3.031 kg/ha. The cost of planting cotton by manually method is approximately 209 Rs/ha, where as the cost by this machine is 168 Rs/ha.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter operated at 1.62 km/h.

Outcome
speed of plantere0
Value
1.62 km/he0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“speed of planter was 1.62 km/h”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 491–521 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter had field capacity of 0.132 ha/hr and efficiency of 79.52%.

Outcome
actual field capacitye0
Value
0.132 ha/hre0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“actual field capacity of 0.132 ha/hr and field efficiency was 79.52%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 603–671 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter had field efficiency of 79.52%.

Outcome
field efficiencye0
Value
79.52%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“field efficiency was 79.52%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 644–671 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cotton seed damage was 1.236% greater with the planter than manual dibbling.

Outcome
percentage damage in cotton seede0
Direction
moree0
Value
1.236 %e0
Comparator
conventionally manual dibblinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“percentage damage in cotton seed is 1.236 % more by planter compared to conventionally manual dibbling”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–779 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter required 7.57 hr/ha versus 11.12 hr/ha manually.

Outcome
average time requiremente0
Value
7.57 hr/hae0
Qualifier
11.12 hr/hae0
Comparator
manually sowinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“average time requirement by manually operated cotton planter was 7.57 hr/ha while manually sowing around 11.12 hr/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 785–901 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cotton”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 55–61 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The planter seed rate averaged 3.031 kg/ha.

Outcome
average seed ratee0
Value
3.031 kg/hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“average seed rate in manual cotton planter was 3.031 kg/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 907–965 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Machine planting cost 168 Rs/ha versus approximately 209 Rs/ha manually.

Outcome
cost of planting cottone0
Value
168 Rs/hae0
Qualifier
209 Rs/hae0
Comparator
manually methode0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cost of planting cotton by manually method is approximately 209 Rs/ha, where as the cost by this machine is 168 Rs/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 971–1088 · show in text ↑