Related Links
Evaluation of Conventional Sprayers in Wheat Farms | ||
| تحقیقات مهندسی صنایع غذایی | ||
| Article 1, Volume 10, Issue 4, January 0, Pages 1-12 PDF (288.32 K) | ||
| Document Type: Research Paper | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Research on the performance of conventional sprayers in on-farm conditions is essential to the development of effective usage techniques. In this study, conventional sprayers were surveyed and evaluated for the removal of pests, weeds and crop diseases in wheat crops in the Karaj, Urumieh, Khuzestan and Khorasan provinces of Iran. The sprayers used were tractor boom, tractor lance, Turboliner, Micronair and atomizer sprayers. The experimental design was a randomized completed design and data was collected using 179 surveys from farmers during spraying. Additional data was collected on the farms. Results show that 39.7% of the sprayers were lance, 29.6% were boom, 14% were Turboliner and 8.4% were Micronair. There was a significant difference between sprayers in poison solution consumption per hectare at the 5% and 1% levels. The maximum and minimum solution consumption was for the lance (854.2lit/ha) and Micronair (35.4 lit/ha) sprayers, respectively. The Turboliner sprayer had the most theoretical and effective capacities (11.4 and 7.1ha/h); atomizer and Micronair sprayers had the lowest capacities (1.02 and 1.3 ha/h, respectively). Spraying homogeneity for lance, boom and atomizer sprayers were not evaluated because the surface of the sensitive papers were completely soaked. VMD for Micronair and Turboliner sprayers was 398 and 441 micrometers; NMD was 189 and 123.2 micrometers; spraying quality was 2.1and 3.57, respectively. It was found that Micronair sprayers performed better than Turboliner sprayers and these two sprayers performed better than the remaining types with respect to spraying homogeneity. The greatest percentage of crop loss was recorded for the boom sprayer (10.3%). | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Micronair Sprayer; Tractor Boom Sprayer; Tractor Lance Sprayer; Turboliner Sprayer; Wheat | ||
| References | ||
|
Amirshaghaghi, F. 1998. Study on the distribution of spraying in tractor boom sprayers. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture. Tarbiat Modares University. Tehran. Iran. (in Farsi)
Anon. 1983. Test code and procedure for sprayers. RNAM. No. 12, 169-191.
Anon. 1998. How can we reduce spraying damages? Zaytoon. Agricultural Ministry. No: 6, 10-15.
Anon. 2000. Construction and application of conventional sprayers. Training Technology Center.
Cayley, G. R, Etheridge, P., Grifiths, D. C., Philips, F. T., Pye, B. J. and Scott, G. C. 1984. A review on the performance of electrostatically charged rotary atomizers on different crops. Annual Appl. Biology. 105(2): 379-386. (in Farsi)
Gerami, K. 2005. A study on the three types of sprayers against of wheat weeds in Ardebil area. Brench of Science and Research of Azad Eslamic University. Tehran. Iran. (in Farsi)
Ghaemmaghami. A., Khademolhosaini. N. and Lovaimi, N. 2008. Evaluation of four mechanisms in wheat spraying. The 5th National Conference on Agriculture Machinary Engineering and Mehanization. Aug. 27-28. Mashhad. Iran. (in Farsi)
Gupta, C. P., Alamban, R. B. and Dante, E. T. 1996. Development of knapsack electrostatic spinning-disc sprayer for herbicide application in rice. AMA. 25(4): 31-34.
Imanmehr, A. and Ghobadian, B. 2002. Evaluation of a boom bike sprayer. M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture. Tarbiat Modares University. Tehran. Iran. (in Farsi)
Morel, M. 1985. Field trails with the Girojet. BCPC Monograph. 28, 107-112.
Shaikhye Gorgan, A. and Zand, S. 2006. Application of Pesticides to Crops. Plant Pests and Diseases Research Institute Pub. (in Farsi)
Srivastava. A. K., Goering, C. E. and Rohrbach, R. P. 1993. Engineerig Principles of Agricultural Machines. | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 1,329 PDF Download: 2,071 |
||
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb