8
J. agric. Engng Res. (1987) 37, 171-178 A Precision Punch Planter for Use in Tilled and Untilled Soils L. O. ADEKOYA*,W. F. BUCHELE~" A rolling punch planter with a cam-actuated opening mechanism was developed to plant maize (and other similarly sized grains) in tilled and untilled soils. Field tests showed that satisfactory planting of the seeds was achieved in an untilled field with up to 75~ residue cover (at about 5500 kg/ha). The within-the-row spacing of the punched holes and the depth of planting of the seeds were independent of the travel speed. The percentage of the punched holes containing a single seed decreased as the travel speed increased. 1. Introduction A punch planter is one that plants seeds in punched holes, instead of furrows as in conventional grain planters. It employs some form of ground-engaging part to punch a hole in the soil and then drops a seed in the hole as (or after) the soil-engaging part leaves the hole it has just made in the soil. A well-designed precision planter will plant seeds in tilled and untilled soils equidistantly and singly, penetrate residue to drop the seeds at the appropriate depth, and also remain unclogged by residue and soil. Plant residue, hard soil or sod, usually prevent conventional furrow openers from functioning properly on non- conventionally tilled soils) Planting depth and seed coverage are often erratic, resulting in non-uniform emergence, growth, and maturity, harvesting delays and yield reductions, z Conservation tillage methods are those in which the number and degree of soil manipulations for crop production are reduced or completely eliminated. These concepts include minimum tillage, mulch tillage and zero tillage. Some previous attempts to plant on non-conventionally tilled soils involved the use of modified conventional (or clean tillage) planters. Basically, the modification was the mounting of a rolling coulter in front of the furrow opener and many attempts 3-e have been made along this line. Improvement to this modification has been through driving the coulter7 "8 Generally, none of these methods performed very satisfactorily mainly because, with time, the coulters become dull, and pressed the residue into the soil instead of cutting through it. Eventually, the residue clogged the furrow openers. Srivastava and Anibal g designed and tested a punch planter consisting of hollow cones, radially mounted on a punch wheel. The cones were shaped in the form of an involute at the leading edge. The punch wheel was powered by an electric motor. The problem of plugging of the hollow cones was, however, not completely solved. Loose and dry soils were also a problem because the hole walls collapsed, prior to seed placement, causing the seed to lie on top. Laboratory tests of this punch wheel with plastic balls achieved 98~, 93~ and 75~ seed cell fill at 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 m/s planter velocity respectively. Jafari and Fornstrom 1~ worked on a precision planter that punched holes and metered seeds in different operations. First, a cone on a wheel punched a hole in the soil, and after the cone was withdrawn a seed was dropped from a height of 50 mm to 76 mm above the hole. Test results showed that 98~, 96~ and 94~o seed placement in the holes was achieved * Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria t Agricultural Engineering Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA Received 30 January 1986; accepted in revised form 17 August 1986 171 0021-8634/87/070171+08 $03.00/0 1987The British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering

A precision punch planter for use in tilled and untilled soils

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

J. agric. Engng Res. (1987) 37, 171-178

A Precision Punch Planter for Use in Tilled and Untilled Soils

L. O. ADEKOYA*, W. F. BUCHELE~"

A rolling punch planter with a cam-actuated opening mechanism was developed to plant maize (and other similarly sized grains) in tilled and untilled soils. Field tests showed that satisfactory planting of the seeds was achieved in an untilled field with up to 75~ residue cover (at about 5500 kg/ha). The within-the-row spacing of the punched holes and the depth of planting of the seeds were independent of the travel speed. The percentage of the punched holes containing a single seed decreased as the travel speed increased.

1. Introduction

A punch planter is one that plants seeds in punched holes, instead of furrows as in conventional grain planters. It employs some form of ground-engaging part to punch a hole in the soil and then drops a seed in the hole as (or after) the soil-engaging part leaves the hole it has just made in the soil. A well-designed precision planter will plant seeds in tilled and untilled soils equidistantly and singly, penetrate residue to drop the seeds at the appropriate depth, and also remain unclogged by residue and soil. Plant residue, hard soil or sod, usually prevent conventional furrow openers from functioning properly on non- conventionally tilled soils) Planting depth and seed coverage are often erratic, resulting in non-uniform emergence, growth, and maturity, harvesting delays and yield reductions, z

Conservation tillage methods are those in which the number and degree of soil manipulations for crop production are reduced or completely eliminated. These concepts include minimum tillage, mulch tillage and zero tillage. Some previous attempts to plant on non-conventionally tilled soils involved the use of modified conventional (or clean tillage) planters. Basically, the modification was the mounting of a rolling coulter in front of the furrow opener and many attempts 3-e have been made along this line. Improvement to this modification has been through driving the coulter7 "8 Generally, none of these methods performed very satisfactorily mainly because, with time, the coulters become dull, and pressed the residue into the soil instead of cutting through it. Eventually, the residue clogged the furrow openers.

Srivastava and Anibal g designed and tested a punch planter consisting of hollow cones, radially mounted on a punch wheel. The cones were shaped in the form of an involute at the leading edge. The punch wheel was powered by an electric motor. The problem of plugging of the hollow cones was, however, not completely solved. Loose and dry soils were also a problem because the hole walls collapsed, prior to seed placement, causing the seed to lie on top. Laboratory tests of this punch wheel with plastic balls achieved 98~, 93~ and 75~ seed cell fill at 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 m/s planter velocity respectively.

Jafari and Fornstrom 1~ worked on a precision planter that punched holes and metered seeds in different operations. First, a cone on a wheel punched a hole in the soil, and after the cone was withdrawn a seed was dropped from a height of 50 mm to 76 mm above the hole. Test results showed that 98~, 96~ and 94~o seed placement in the holes was achieved

* Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria t Agricultural Engineering Department, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA

Received 30 January 1986; accepted in revised form 17 August 1986

171 0021-8634/87/070171 +08 $03.00/0 �9 1987 The British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering

172 A P R E C I S I O N P U N C H P L A N T E R

at 1-3, 1.8, and 2.2 m/s respectively. The tests were carried out on a conventionally tilled plot, so it is likely that the percentage of seeds correctly placed would be less on a residue- covered plot.

Other previous related work include those of Heineman et al., 11 Wilkins et al., ~2 Wijewardene is and Garman et al. ~* Wijewardene's work was with a manually pulled rolling injection planter. This planter comprised a series of injection points around the periphery of a wheel, each point having its own (gravity-activated) closing and (ground-activated) opening mechanism. A simple metering device transferred seed from the hopper into each point as it descended into the soil. The planter attained a planting speed of three "hills" per second. At a spacing of 0.25 m within the row, this corresponded to 0.5 m/s. Garman et al. ~4 did further work on a six-row tool-bar mounted version of the rolling injection planter. Test results showed an 82~ emergence for the planter in "good" field conditions. Generally, rolling injection planters with ground-activated opening mechanism are prone to blockage by soil, and sometimes do not open to drop the seeds. Non-opening of the injectors takes place whenever the (ground-activated) opening mechanism sinks into loose or wet soil.

The rolling punch planter reported in this paper was developed for planting maize (and other similarly sized grains) in both tilled and untilled soils.

2. Experimental punch planter 2.1. Description o f the machine

The planter consists of 12 radially-mounted punches A on a wheel made up of three discs B, C and D (Figs 1 and 2). B and D are continuous discs while C is an annular disc. B and C are coupled together by bolts (not shown). The wheel is mounted on a horizontal shaft E

i

i3 tB /

t?, ,3

Fig. 1. Side view o f the planter

L. O . A D E K O Y A ; W . F. B U C H E L E 173

W I

Fig. 2. Rear end view of the planter (only two punches and two castors are shown for clarity)

through a hub F. The shaft rotates in bearings G and H. The disc D is fixed so that it does not revolve with discs B and C.

On the inside of the disc C are welded compartments or cells I, the lower end of each of which is joined to an opener or punch A. Each punch is made up of two parts, namely a fixed member J made from square hollow steel bar and a movable member K made from steel channel (Fig. 3). The hollow bar provides the space within each punch through which the seed travels from the seed cell to its temporary resting place at the bottom of the punch. A wedge-shaped block L inside the hollow bar deflects the seed to the appropriate location. The channel shrouds the hollow bar, thus preventing the seed from dropping out of the punch before it is time. It also prevents soil from entering the hollow space within each punch from the sides. The external dimensions of the hollow bar are the same as the inside dimensions of the channel bar. By filing the surface of the hollow bar before assembly, just enough clearance is created to allow the free movement of the channel bar around it. The wedge L has the same width as the internal dimension of the hollow bar. Therefore soil cannot enter the hollow bar from the bottom. In order to prevent soil from entering the punch while passing into the soil, a plate M is welded to the channel bar such that the tip of L is protected. Sheet metal N covers the entire circumference of the wheel, so preventing residue from entering the space between the discs. Each punch passes through equally sized rectangular holes O in this sheet metal. The holes appear to be unequal in size in Fig. 2 because they are located on a curved surface.

The opening mechanism is that subassembly of the planter which enables the movable member of each punch to be swung open to release the seed at the appropriate time. This particular design allows the consistent opening (and closing) of each punch irrespective of the soil conditions. The opening mechanism is made up of an inclined fiat-plate cam (not

174 A P R E C I S I O N P U N C H P L A N T E R

[3 8

r

L ' - - - - 7 ~ - ~ I~

~ M

Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of a punch and the opening mechanism

shown) on which rides a castor P joined to a short rod Q which slides in a bearing R. The other end of the rod actuates a spring-loaded lever S connected to the channel section of the punch. The sprocket and chain subassemblies T, U, and V transmit power from the planter wheel to the metering unit W. Other subassemblies of the planter are existing components from manufacturer's machines, for example, closing wheels, and gauge wheels with appropriate arrangements for depth adjustment.

2.2. Operation of the machine

The rotation of the planter wheel (made up of discs B and C) drives the metering unit W through the shaft E and the sprocket and chain subassemblies T, U and V resulting in seed dropping into the seed cell I through the seed tube X. The seed tube discharges a seed into a cell when the punch is about one-eighth of a wheel revolution from the intended planting point. The seed travels from the seed cell to the bottom of the hollow space within the punch during the interval that the wheel travels a theoretical distance of one-eighth of the wheel circumference. Each punch enters the soil in the dosed mode. As soon as the punch starts to withdraw from the hole, the castor P comes in contact with the cam surface (not shown), pushing the actuator rod Q against the lever S. Member K is swung to the right (Fig. 3). It is pertinent to note that the swinging of the member K is in a plane parallel to the page while the travel of the planter is into the plane of the page. Hence, the punch opens to the side with respect to the direction of travel. A seed (already in the punch) is dropped into the hole made by the punch. After the punch comes out of the soil, the castor P leaves the cam surface, and the spring Y (which was compressed during the actuation of the lever) closes the punch. The closing wheel then closes the hole.

3. Field tests

The planter was tested on soil of the Clarion-Nicollet-Webster association. The Clarion family has a loam texture in the surface horizon and in the subsoil. The clay content

L. O. ADEKOYA; W. F. BU CH E L E 175

increases from approximately 20% in the surface horizon to 22 to 24% in the subsoil. The sand content increases from 35% at the surface to 50% in the subsoil. The plot had a slope of about 4%. The plot supported a crop of maize during the previous season. Fertilizer (N, P, K) in the ratio 0:50:100 was applied during the previous autumn and anhydrous ammonia was applied at the rate of 179.3 kg/ha in spring preceding the tests. A mixture of Bladex, Lasso and Roundup herbicides was applied to the plot. The plot was subdivided into four blocks and each block was made up of eight rows. Blocking was based on the assumption of variations in the plot characteristics in the direction south to north. Rows were spaced 0.75 m apart with lengths varying from 65 m to 110 m. The difference in row lengths was due to the shape of the test plot.

The planter was tested by driving the tractor, with the planter, down the row at speeds of 0.8, 1-4, 1.8 and 2.2 m/s. Each treatment was replicated twice in a randomized complete block design. This resulted in eight planted rows at each speed. Immediately after all the planting had been completed, randomly selected 12.80 m lengths of each row were staked out. These lengths contained about 50 punched holes. Soil samples were taken for determination of moisture content and bulk density. Three soil samples per block were taken with a soil core sampler. The mass of residue cover was estimated by collecting and weighing the amount of residue within a 0.25 m x 1.50 m frame. Three readings were taken per block. The percentage of the soil surface covered by residue (after planting) was estimated by the photographic method, is

Two weeks after planting, the depth of planting, the spacing between adjacent germinated maize, and the percentage of holes with only one seed were determined for each row. The depth of planting was measured by digging up the soil around a maize seedling and carefully pulling the seedling out of the soil. A ring was always formed on a stem of the seedling at the boundary of the soil and the atmosphere. The distance between this ring and the seed represented the depth of planting. The within-the-row spacing was determined by measuring the distance between adjacent germinating seedlings with a metre rule. The number of holes with one seed (or seedling) was determined by digging up all the punched holes within a staked row length and counting the number with either one seedling (implying that germination took place) or one seed (implying that germination did not take place).

4. Results and discussions

Table 1 shows a summary of the data for the experimental plot. It was 75% covered by residue whose mass was estimated at about 5500 kg/ha. Statistical analysis of the data for soil moisture content, bulk density, mass of residue and percentage of soil surface covered by residue showed no significant effect due to blocking. The effect of the travel speed on the depth of planting is shown in Table 2 where statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the treatment means. Therefore, for the range of speeds used for the tests, the depth of planting was independent of travel speed. The expected depth of planting

Table 1

Summary of data for the experimental plot

Soil type Clay loam

Bulk density at planting Moisture content at planting

Residue cover Percentage of surface covered

by residue

0.59-0.92 Mg/m 2 11.34-19.16~

(0-0.20 m depth) About 5500 kg/ha

75

176 A P R E C I S I O N P U N C H P L A N T E R

Table 2

Depth of planting* at different speeds

Block

I

2

3

4

M e a n t

Standard deviation

Depth, cm

Speed, m )

0.8 1.4 1.8 2.2

4-6 4.9 3.6 4.1 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.8 3.9 4.7 3.4 3-6 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.2 4-2 4.8 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.7 4-0 4.3 4.7 3.8 4.6

4.3 4.4 4.2 4.2

0-2 0.5 0.6 0.2

* Each value is the mean of 20 observations per row t Not significant at 5~o level

was 0-05 m. The effect of travel speed on the within-the-row spacing is shown in Table 3. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the treatment means at the 95~ confidence level. Therefore, the within-the-row spacing was independent of the travel speed for the range used in the experiment. The theoretical spacing was 0.255 m. Since the openers were at fixed angular distances from each other, the within-the-row spacing was expected to be the same.

Table 3

Within-the-row spacing* at different speeds

Block

1

2

3

4

M e a n t

Standard deviation

Spacing, cm

Speed, m/s

0.8 1.4 1.8 2.2

25.3 25.3 2.52 26.1 25.5 25.5 25.8 25.7 25.6 25.2 25.7 25.0 25.7 26.4 25-4 26.0 25.7 26.3 26-I 24.7 26.0 25.9 25.5 25.8 25-8 26.0 25.7 25.8 26.8 25.4 26.4 25.8

25-8 25.8 25.7 25.6

0.4 0"5 0.4 0.5

* Each value is the mean of 20 observations per row t Not significant at 5~0 level

L. O. ADEKOYA, W. F. BUCHELE 177

Table 4 Percentage of punched holes with only one seed at

different speeds

Block

1

2

3

4

Meant Standard

deviation

0.8

90 92 91 89 92 94 90 90 91

1.6

Number with one seed, %

Speed, m~

1.4 1"8 2.2

79 70 55 78 65 58 77 68 60 80 65 59 81 65 60 79 70 65 78 65 56 82 62 55 79 66 59

1.7 3.0 2.3

t Significant at 5~ level

The percentage of holes with only one seed was defined as

Number of holes with only one seed or seedling x 100~.

Number of holes punched within a staked length

Table 4 shows the data for this statistic as a function of travel speed. Statistical analysis of the data showed a highly significant difference between the treatment means at the 95~ confidence level. The table shows that the percentage of holes with only one seed decreased with increases in travel speed. This data could be explained by the fact that at high speeds, the seeds had less time to travel from the seed cells to the holes. Further work is planned to remove this deficiency.

5. Observations during field tests

The experimental planter punched a hole and dropped a seed in each hole. Soil punching and seed dropping took place simultaneously. Seeds that were not dropped in a hole fell on the ground. These resulted in holes adjacent to these seeds being empty. More than one seed were found in some holes. This could have resulted from inaccurate metering or retention, by the punch, of a previously supplied single seed or a combination of both factors. The protective plate on each punch effectively prevented soil and residue from clogging them and the residue cover on the wheels prevented the spaces between the wheels from being clogged by soil and residue. Because of the way the cam-actuated opening mechanism was designed, the performance was independent of soil conditions.

6. Conclusions

The following conclusions may be drawn from the tests:

(1) The mean depth of planting and the within-the-row spacing were 0.043 m and 0.257 m respectively and were independent of the travel speed. The theoretical depth of planting, and within-the-row spacing were 0.050 m and 0.254 m respectively.

178 A PRECISION PUNCH PLANTER

(2) The percentage of punched holes containing only one seed decreased as the planter travel speed increased. Experimental values fell from 91% at 0.8 m/s to 59% at 2.2 m/s.

References

1 Erbaeh, D. C.; Lovely, W. G. Machinery adaptations for multiple cropping. Multiple Cropping: Special Publication No. 27, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1976, pp. 337-346

2 Erbach, D. C.; Lovely, W. G.; Ayers, G. E. Conservation and conventional systems for continuous corn. Iowa Agricultural and Home Economics Experimental Station Miscellaneous Bulletin No. 14, 1980

3 Klocke, N. L. No-till drills for fall seeding small grains. Paper No. 79-1023, Joint meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers and Canadian Society of Agricultural Engineers, Winnipeg, Canada, 1979

4 Gard, L. E.; McKibben, G. E. "No-tilr crop production providing a most promising conservation measure. Outlook on Agriculture 1973, 7(4): 149-154

s Allen, R. R.; Musiek, J. T.; Wood, F. O.; Dusek, D. A. No-till seeding of irrigated sorghum double cropped after wheat. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1975, 18(6): 1109-1113

6 Morrison, J. E. No-tillage experimental planter performance and depth regulation evaluation. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1978, 21(4): 602-604, 609

7 Buchele, W. F. Is mouldboard ploughing a recreational activity? Paper No. MC 79-303, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1979

a Erbach, D. C. Residue cutting furrow opener for no-tillage planting. Paper No. 78-1014. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, USA, 1978

9 Srivastava, A. K.; Anibal, M. E. A punch planter for conservation tillage. Paper No. 81-1020, Summer meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Orlando, Florida, USA, 1981

lo Jafari, J. V.; Fornstrom, K. J. A precision punch planter for sugar beets. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1972, 15(3): 569-571

11 Heineman, W. H. Jr; Cary, J. W.; Dilworth, A. E. Experimental machine for autodible planting. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1973, 16(3): 656-659

12 Wilkins, D. E.; Adrian, P. A.; Conley, W. S. Punch planting of vegetable seeds, a progress report. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 1979, 22(4): 746-749

13 Wijewardene, E. Systems and energy in tropical farming. Paper No. 78-1511. Winter meeting of American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 1978

14 Garman, C. F.; Ngambeki, D. S.; Navesero, N. C. Appropriate mechanization for no-tillage in the tropics. Paper No. 82-5002. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Summer meeting, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, 1982

is Laflen, J. M.; Amemiya, M.; Hintz, E. A. Measuring crop residue. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 1981, 36(6): 341-343