Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33-42
ISSN: 2073-9524
eISSN: 2310-8746
33
Effect of Forward Speed and Soil Type in Massey
Ferguson Tractor (Model 290) Performance
Mohammed Ahmed AbdElmowla Ahmed
1
, Abu Bakr Al-Sayed
2
1
Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Nile Valley University,
Atbara, Sudan.
2
Technology Transfer and Agricultural Development Fund, River Nile State, Sudan.
1
Corresponding author: elmowla74@gmail.com
Article history:
Received: 21 July 2022
Accepted: 2 September 2022
Published: 30 December 2022
Abstract
This study was conducted by the faculty of Agriculture - University of Nile
Valley during winter 2018/2019 to study the effect of three tractor forward
speeds (5,7 and 9 km/h) on the performance parameters of the tractor (the draft
force, wheel slippage, fuel consumption, field capacity and field efficiency).
Tractor performance test was carried out when linked to three implements, which
are disc plow, a disc harrow and ridger. The study was carried out on two
different locations, location one has a sandy clay soil while location two has a
clay texture. The results showed that the draft force, wheel slippage, effective
field capacity and fuel consumption increased with an increase in speed. The disc
plow with speed (9 km/hr) recorded the highest values of draft force and wheel
slippage, while the ridger recorded the lowest values of these parameters for the
same speed, except for effective field capacity. The ridger with speed (9km/hr)
recorded the highest values of effective field capacity, while the disc plow
recorded the lowest values of this parameter for the same speed. The Three
implements with speed three (9 km/hr) recorded different values of fuel
consumption. The statistical analysis showed that, the effect of forward speed was
significant at a 1% level, while the effect of the implementing type showed no
significant differences. The experiment was arranged in a completely randomized
block design with three replicates.
Keywords: Forward
Speed, Soil, Tractor
and fuel consumption,
disc harrow, Tractor
Performance.
https://dx.doi.org/10.52951/dasj.22140204
This article is open-access under the CC BY 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Introduction
Agricultural tractors and equipment
play an important role in increasing
production through timeliness of
agricultural operations and increased
cropping intensity. In developing countries,
the number of tractors and modern
agricultural machinery was well increased;
there is also a growing awareness among
the developing nations for the role of
agricultural mechanization in increasing
agricultural productivity and improving
rural life. (Roozbeh, and Khani, 2020).
Farmers can save significant money and
energy if they use field operation plans that
provide adequate crop care with minimum
fuel consumption. Effective application of
research and development in agricultural
machinery can only be realized from
Commercial production, i.e., there should
be transition from technically viable.
Commercial production, i.e., there
should be transition from technically viable
innovations to commercially successful
ventures (Askari, and
Khalifahamzehghasem, 2013; Jokiniemi, et
al., 2012). Moldboard, disc, chisel, rotary
"and subsoiled Plows are used as main
implements for primary tillage operation.
Therefore, an agricultural tractor with
implements has a significant role in the
agricultural sector (Gatea, 2013).
Draft force, energy and fuel
requirements for agricultural implements
mailto:elmowla74@gmail.com
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4315-3173
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4790-0044
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
34
have been recognized as essential when
attempting to correctly match on
agricultural implement and tractor. The
need for tillage implement is one of the
factors, which determine the size of use–
age tractor and determine quantity of usage
of energy in an operation (Jalel et al.,
2021). Proper selection and matching of
agricultural machinery can reduce the
quantity of energy required for each
implement. Other factors are the machine
performance and the time needed for the
machine to accomplish operation.
Therefore, it is important to select the
machine or machines to carry out the
specific operation with minimum cost of
energy and in the required (Kudabo and
Gabdamosi, 2012).
The tillage processes areas considered
one of the most important processes in
agriculture, as it gives suitable conditions
for root growth, which in turn supports the
growth of plants, as it reduces soil
resistance, increases the ventilation process
and eliminates weeds (Gatea, 2013).
Conservation tillage plays an important
role in reducing production costs, reducing
runoff, increasing soil organic matter "and
water infiltration rate. Disc plow play a
prominent role in tillage and under certain
conditions, they are reported to be
advantageous over +other implements used
for the same purpose, as they roll into the
soil instead of sliding (Abdallah et al.,
2014). Disc Plow can be used in adverse
soil condition and because of rolling action,
their unit draft is low if under adverse soil
conditions. Disc Plow as primary tillage
implements is used for the initial major soil
working operations (Adewoyin and Ajav,
2013).
Different speeds affected the soil
aggregation as higher percentage of small
soil aggregates were obtained at lower
forward speeds than higher forward speeds
(Karimiinchebron et al., 2012). Keeping in
view the need to evaluate the existing
tillage tools and the importance of disc
plow as initial soil working operations
implement, it was decided to study the
effects of forward speed on the performance
of the disc plow (Musa et al., 2012).
Slippage is defined as the relative reduction
in movement in the direction of travel at
mutual contact surface of a traction or
transport device and the surface, which
supports it. Slippage can also be considered
as a reduction in actual vehicle travel speed
when compared to the theoretical speed that
should be attained from the speed of the tire
or track surface (Leghari et al., 2016; El-
mowla, el al., 2019).
There are many factors affecting
slippage such as, draft, load, speed, soil
condition"and type, wheel slippage
increases with increasing the load
(Moeinfar el al., 2014). The slippage is
decreasing with increasing speed, also
slippage increasing with increasing draft
and moisture content (Rashidi el al., 2013).
Fuel is the source of energy for every
farm-mechanized operation. It plays a
major role in every tractor’s life. Fuel
Consumption rates increase linearly with
time and area covered for each tillage
operations plowing, harrowing and ridging).
The application of appropriate tillage
pattern during tillage operation reduces fuel
consumption and tilling time (Jokiniemi. et
al., 2012.).
Soil moisture content texture, bulk
density, and shear strength contribute to
energy requirements during tillage
operations. Also, some parameters in tillage
operation affecting fuel consumption of
tractors were type and structure of soil,
climate, tractor type, tractor size, and
tractor-implement relationship. Similarly, in
the literature, factors that fundamentally
affect fuel consumption by tillage
equipment use is the increment in power
used by increasing the speed, width of cut,
soil strength, moisture content"and the
depth of cut (Namdari et.al., 2011).
However, the depth and forward speed have
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
35
more influence on tractor’s fuel
Consumption. The objectives of the study
were to (i) determine the tractor rear wheel
slippage when using three different tillage
implements which are disc plow, disc
harrow and ridger with different speeds, (ii)
to determine the tractor efficiencies for
different speeds and (iii) to measure the fuel
consumption for different speeds
Materials and Methods
The experiment was carried out at two
locations during the winter seasons of 2018
and 2019. At food security Project (5 km
north of Atbara – River Nile state - Sudan)
and at of the Atbara River Project (10 km
southeast Atbara – River Nile state -
Sudan). Both projects at latitude 17.71799 -
N and longitude 34.0024 -E, and were
cultivated in the previous season by fodder
sorghum. Soil samples from the two
locations were taken from depth 0-15, 30 -
15 cm by an auger. The moisture contents
calculated on a dry weight basis were
changed from 20 to 22%. The average of
moisture content was 21%.The soil of the
experiment in the first location (food
security Project - atbra) is generally sandy
clay soil and in the second location (Atbara
River Project) is generally clay soil. Some
physical and chemical characteristics of the
soil in the two locations are shown in
Tables 1 and Fig 1.
Massey Ferguson Tractor (80hp) model
290 for general purpose (Tables 3) was
used in the experiment as a power source
for drafting tillage implements, Disc
plough, Offset disc harro and ridger
implements (Tables 2and Fig 2) Measuring
cylinder of a (1000 ml) was used for
refilling the tractor fuel tank, to determine
fuel consumption rate during each treatment
(MASSEY FERGUSON, 2006).
A completely randomized block design
with three replicates was applied. Three
implements (Disc plow, Offset disc and
Rieger), Three plowing speeds (5, 7 and 9
km/h). The wheel slippage was measured at
all treatments.
Measurement Measurement of Wheel
Slippage (Travel Reduction %)
The travel reduction (Slippage) of the
tested Tractor was determined by marking
the wheel at a portion tangent to the ground
surface. Then distance travel in 10
revolutions with load and without load was
marked and measured. (Kudabo and
Gabdamosi, 2012). The travel reduction
was calculated using the formula (1):
Slippage% =
1 −
actual distance traveled (without loaded) (m)
theoretical distance traveled (with load) (m)
...1
Machine Draft and Drawbar Power
Requirements (kW)
Draft requirement of the plow was
measured with a hydraulic dynamometer
was attached to a horizontal chain between
two tractors to measure the draft. Two
wheel drive tractor (Massy Ferguson model
290), of 80 hp was used as a rear (towed)
on which the implement was mounted ;
whereas the front tractor (Massy Ferguson
(4x4), 120 hp was used to pull the towed
tractor with the attached implement through
the strain gauge dynamometer. The towed
tractor was working on the neutral gear but
the implementation in the operating
position; Dynamometer readings were
averaged over a distance of 200 to 300
meters (two runs across the field). On the
same field, the implementation was lifted
from the soil and the rear tractor was pulled
to record and save the idle draft. The
difference between the two measurements
was the net drawbar power for the
implement under study conditions.
(Ranjbarian et al., 2017). The power could
be estimated according to the following
formula (2):
Drawbar power (kW)
=
Draft (kN)x plowing Speed (
km
hr
)
3.6
… .2
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
36
Fuel Consumption Measurement (L/hr)
The fuel tank of the MF-290 tractor was
filled up to its top level before field testing.
After field testing, the tractor engine was
stopped and the fuel tank was refilled up to
the same level as the graduate cylinder to
determine the quantity of diesel fuel needed
to refill the tractor tank up to the same
level. (Dahab et al., 2021), Fuel
consumption per hectare in each plot was
calculated by the method described and
calculated as follows formulas (3) and (4).
The fuel consumption rate (
L
hr
)
=
(Reading cylinder
ml
1000
)
Area of plot
m2
4200
… (3)
The fuel consumption rate (
L
hr
)
=
(Reading cylinder
ml
1000
)
time requried to cover plot (hr)
. . . (4)
Measurement of Field Capacity (ha/hr)
a) Field capacity includes the following;
Actual field capacity Is defined as the
actual rate of coverage by the machine
based upon the total field time, expressed as
ha/hr. Actual Field capacity in ha/hr was
calculated as following a formula (5):
Actual Field capacity (
ha
hr
)
=
Area covered (ha)
Time taken (hr)
… (5)
b) Theoretical field capacity (Kepner,
1982): Theoretical Field capacity in ha/hr
was calculated as follows:
Theoretical Field capacity(
ha
hr
) =
working width (m) ∗ Speed (
km
hr
) ∗ 1000 (m)
4200 (m2)
(6)
Measurement of Field Efficiency
Field efficiency is defined as the rate of
actual field capacity to the theoretical field
capacity expressed as percentage. Field
efficiency was calculated as a follows
formula (7):
Field efficiency %
=
Actual Field Capacity
Theoretical Field Capacity
𝑥 100 … (7)
Table 1. Some physio-chemical characteristics of the soil
Soil type Depths cm EcE Caco CoMg Na pH Sand Silt Clay Textural class
Soil 1
0-15 0.397 7.53 3.03 0.13 6.7 0.1 0.67 1.003 Silty clay
15-30 0.97 7.5 3.13 0.1 6.7 0.1 1 1.004
Soil 2
0-15 0.6 8.9 9 2.5 8.57 9 26 60 clay
15-30 3.5 9.3 8 6.2 8.2 38 16 41
Soil 1: Food security - Atbara project
Soil 2: Atbara river project
Figure 1. Test location, Food security - Atbara project
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
37
Table 2. Some specifications of implements
Specifications Disc plow Offset disc harrow Rider
Mark Super - AF GIAD GIAD
Make Brazil GIAD GIAD
Width of cut 97cm 150cm 210cm
Number of units 3 2x7 4
Hitching 3point linkage 3- point linkage 3point linkage
Tractor power requirement 50 kw 50 kw 50 kw
Figure 2. Disc plow and Rider implements
Table 3. Technical specifications of the tractor
name Massey Ferguson
Model number of cylinder 8480 Dyna VT, 6
Engine cubic capacity 8.4 L
Normal engine power at 2000 rpm 213 kW
Maximum engine power at 2200 rpm 231 kW
Maximum engine torque 1280 Nm
Idle speed 800 rpm
Maximum engine speed rate at no load 2250 rpm
Cooling system Water-cooled
Rear tire and inflation pressure Michelin 650/85 R 38 and 1.2 bar
Front tire and inflation pressure Michelin 600/70 R 28 and 1.4 bar
Weight with full tank 8500–9200 Kg
Length and width 5.068 M, 2.550 M
Height at roof 3.197 M
Maximum and minimum clearance from
axel
0.335 M, 0.477 M
Source: Massey Ferguson (2006)
Results and Discussions
Effect of Forward Speeds, Draft force
(KN)
Table 4 and Figure 3 show that the
average draft force of the different
implements (disc plow, disc harro and
ridger) in soil 1 (Sandy clay) the food
security Atbara Project) and soil 2 (clay soil
- Atbara river Project) with a used tractor
(80 hp).
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
38
The result illustrates that, the average draft
of the disc plow in soil 1 was 11.4 kN,
while in soil 2 was 11.9 kN as shown in
(Table 4) The average draft of disc harrow
in soil 1 was 10.9, but in soil 2, 11.1 kN
(Table 4). The mean draft of ridger in soil 1
was 9.98 kN, while in soil 2 was 10.16 kN.
Table 4. Effect of different forward speeds and soil on Implement draft force (kN) at the different soils
Implements
Soil 1 Soil 2
Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean
Disc plow 10.3 11.6 12.3 11.4 a 11.3 12 12.5 11.9
Disc harrow 10.3 11.3 10.5 10.9 a 10.3 12 11 11.1 a
Ridger 9.8 9.76 10.4 9.98 9.8 10.2 10.5 10.16a
Means with the same letters are not significantly different
Soil 1: Food security Project.
Soil 2 :Atbara River Project.
Sp1 :Speed one (5 km/hr).
Sp2: Speed two (7 km/hr).
Sp3: Speed three (9 km/hr).
Figure 3. Effect of different forward speeds and soil on implementing draft force (KN) at the different
soils
Effect of Forward Speeds and Two
Different Soils on Wheel Slippage (%)
Table 5 presented the values of rear
wheel slippage for different implements
(disc plow, disc harrow and ridger) in soil 1
and soil 2 when using tractor power of 80
hp. The result illustrated that the mean
values of slippage of disc plow in soil 1 was
11.56%, while in soil 2 was 11.9%. (Table
5). The average value of slippage of disc
harrow in soil 1 was 9.93, while in soil 2
was 11.13. The mean value of slippage of
ridger in soil 1 was 10.8while in soil 2 was
11.06 (Table 5).
It was clear that, the disc plow recorded
significant difference in average wheel
slippage of the three implements in both
soil 2 and soil 1. The ridger recorded the
lowest values of slippage. This may be due
to the higher draft forces exerted by the
weight of the implement. These results in
agreement with (Gatea, 2013).
The forward speed three )Sp3) recorded
the highest average slippage followed by
speed two (Sp2) and speed one )SP1) in
both soil 2 and soil 1 except the ridger in
soil 2 Figure 3. This result confirmed the
findings (Gatea, 2013).
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
39
Table 5. Effect of different forward speeds and two different soils on wheel slippage as a percentage (%)
Implements
Soil 1 Soil 2
Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean
Disc plow 10.2 11 13.5 11.56 a 10.2 12.5 13 11.9 a
Disc harrow 10.4 10.8 11.2 9.93 a 10.1 11.8 11.5 11.13 a
Ridger 9.3 10 10.5 10.8 10.4 11 11.8 11.06 a
Means with the same letters are not significantly different.
Soil 1: Food security Project.
Soil 2 :Atbara River Project.
Sp1 :Speed one (5 km/hr).
Sp2: Speed two (7 km/hr).
Sp3: Speed three (9 km/hr).
Effect of Forward Speed and Tractors
Power on Effective Field Capacity
(ha/hr) at Two Different Soils
Table 6 presented that the values of
effective field capacity of different
implements (disc plow, disc harrow"and
ridger) in soil 2 and soil 1. The result
showed that, the mean values of effective
field capacity of disc plough in soil 1 was
0.45 ha/hr. and ha/hr. while in soil 2 it was
0.4 ha/hr The average values of effective
field capacity of disc harrow in Soil 2was
0.78 ha/hr, while in soil 1 it was 0.85 ha/hr.
The average values of effective field
capacity of ridger showed that in soil 1 it
was 1.2 ha/hr, while in soil 2 it was 1.23
ha/hr. (Table 8).
It was clear that the ridger implement
resulted in the highest average effective
field capacity in both soils, followed by disc
harrow and disc plow. These results may be
attributed to utilize its full width of the
machine and time according to lost time is
the most difficult variable to evaluate in
relation to field capacity (Moeinfar et al.,
2014).
Effect of Forward Speeds and Soils
Types on Fuel Consumption (l/hr.)
Table 7 and Figure 4 showed the
average fuel consumption (L/hr) of the
implements (disc plow, disc harrow"and
ridger) in soil 1and soil 2 The results
showed that, the mean values of fuel
consumption (l/hr) of disc plough in soil 2
was 3.95 l/hr while in soil 1 was 3.45 l/hr.
The average of fuel consumption value of
disc harrow in soil 2 was 7.19 l/hr, while in
soil 1 was 7.64 l/hr (Table 7). The mean
valueof fuel consumption of ridger in soil 1
was 7.86 l/hr, while in soil 2 was 8.18 l/hr.
It can be observed that the ridger was
resulted in the highest mean values of fuel
consumption in both soil 2 and soil 1 (Table
7). This may be due to accelerated engine
speed. The disc harrow, required more fuel
per hour due to accelerated engine speed.
It can be observed that, speed three Sp3
recorded the highest values of fuel
consumption followed by speed two (Sp2 (
and speed one (Sp1) in both soil types
Table7 and Figure 6 This is an agreement,
an increase in speed was accompanied by
an increase in fuel consumption
(Ranjbarian et al., 2017).
Table 6. Effect of different forward speeds and two different soils on Effective field capacity (ha/hr)
Implements
Soil 1 Soil 2
Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean
Disc plough 0.54 0.45 0.37 0.45 a 0.44 0.39 0.37 0.4 a
Disc harrow 0.77 0.86 0.81 0.85a 0.81 0.76 0.79 0.78a
Ridger 1.2 1.2 1,2 1.2 a 1.2 1.4 1,1 1.23a
Means with the same letters are not significantly different
Soil 1: Food security Project.
Soil 2: Atbara River Project.
Sp1: Speed one (5 km/hr).
Sp2: Speed one (7 km/hr).
Sp3: Speed one (9 km/hr).
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
40
Table 7. Effect of different forward speeds on fuel Consumption (L/hr)
Implements
Soil 1 Soil 2
Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean Sp1 Sp2 Sp3 Mean
Disc plow 2.54 3.45 4.34 3.45a 3.54 4.15 4.17 3.95a
Disc harrow 4.17 9.06 9.71 7.64a 3.11 8.76 9.71 7.19a
Ridger 4.17 9.56 9.81 7.86a 5.18 9.56 9.81 8.18a
Means with the same letters are not significantly different.
Soil 1: Food security Project.
Soil 2: Atbara River Project.
Sp1: Speed one (5 km/hr).
Sp2: Speed two (7 km/hr).
Figure 4. Effect of different forward speeds and tractors power on fuel Consumption (l/hr) at two
different soils
Conclusions
Draft force, slippage, and effective field
capacity and fuel consumption. Increased
with an increase in forward speed. The disc
plow recorded the highest average draft and
slippage in both soils compared to the disc
harrow and ridger. The ridger recorded the
highest average effective field capacity
compared to the disc plow and disc harrow.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no
competitor or conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Nile Valley
University, College of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture engineering, for
their assistance.
References
Abdallah, O. A., E. A. Mohamed, A. M. El
Naim, M. A. El Shiekh and M. B.
Zaied. (2014). Effect of disc and tilt
angles of disc plough on tractor
performance under clay soil. Current
Research in Agricultural Sciences, 1
(3), 83-94.
Adewoyin, A. O. and E. Ajav. (2013). Fuel
consumption of some tractor models
for ploughing operations in the sandy-
loam soil of Nigeria at various speeds
and ploughing depths. Agricultural
Engineering International: CIGR
Journal, 15 (3), 67-74.
Askari, M., and Khalifahamzehghasem, S.
(2013). Draft force inputs for primary
and secondary tillage implements in a
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
41
clay loam soil. World Applied Sciences
Journal, 21(12), 1789-1794.
Dahab, M.H., Mohamed H. Numan and
Omer A. Abdalla. (2021). Field
Performance Evaluation of a Combined
Cultivator Developed at Kenana Sugar
Company- Sudan.
El-mowla, M.A. and Dahab. , M.A. (2019).
Development and performance
evaluation of air compressor on
agricultural tractor. Shendi University
Journal of Applied Science, 2019(1),
42−50.
Gatea, A. A. (2013). Influence of tillage
pattern and forward speed of the tractor
in the efficiency tillage. Int. J. Agric.
Sci. Res, 3(4), 109-119.
Jalel, R., Elaoud, A., Ben Salah, N.,
Chehaibi, S., and Ben Hassen, H.
(2021). Modeling of soil tillage
techniques using Fruchterman–
Reingold Algorithm. International
Journal of Environmental Science and
Technology, 18(10), 2987-2996.
Jokiniemi, T., Rossner, H., and Ahokas, J.
(2012). Simple and cost effective
method for fuel consumption
measurements of agricultural
machinery. Agronomy research, 10
(Special Issue 1), 97-107.
Karimiinchebron, A., M. S. R. Seyedi and
R. T. Koloor. (2012). Investigating the
effect of soil moisture content and
depth on the draught, specific draught
and drawbar power of a light tractor.
Int. Res. J. Appl. Basic. Sci. 3 (11),
2289-2293.
Kepner RA, Roy Bainer, Barger EL.
(1982). Principle of farm machinery
3rd edt. Avi Publishing Company. Inc.
West port Connecticut.
Kudabo, E. and L. Gabdamosi. (2012).
Effects of forward speed on the
performance of a disc plough. J. Sci.
Multidiscip. Res. 4: 25-32.
Leghari, N., Oad, V. K., Shaikh, A. A., and
Soomro, A. A., (2016). Analysis of
Different Tillage Implements with
Respect to Reduced Fuel Consumption,
Tractor Operating Speed and Its Wheel
Slippage. Sindh University Resources
Journal, (Science Series) 48(1), 37-40.
Massey Ferguson. (2006). Operator
Instruction Book. Issue 2. 8400 EAME.
Massey Ferguson, Turkey.
Moeinfar, A., S. R. Mousavi-Seyedi and D.
Kalantari. (2014). Influence of tillage
depth, penetration angle and forward
speed on the soil/ thin-blade interaction
force. Agric. Eng. Int. CIGR. J. 16 (1),
69-74.
Musa, D. S., J. Musa and D. Ahmad.
(2012). Mechanization effect on farm
practices in Kwara State, North central
Nigeria. IOSR. J. Eng. 2 (10), 79-84.
Namdari, M., S. Rafiee and A. Jafari.
(2011). Using the FMEA method to
Optimize fuel consumption in tillage
by moldboard plow. Int. J. Appl. Eng.
Res. 1 (4), 734-742.
Ranjbarian, S., Askari, M., and Jannatkhah,
J. (2017). Performance of tractor and
tillage implements in clay soil. Journal
of the Saudi Society of Agricultural
Sciences, 16(2), 154-162.
Rashidi, M., I. Najjarzadeh, B. Jaberinasab,
S. M. Emadi and M. Fayyazi. (2013).
Effect of soil moisture content, tillage
Diyala Agricultural Sciences Journal 2022, Vol (14) No 2: 33 - 42
42
depth and operation speed on draft
force of moldboard plow. Middle East
J. Sci. Res. 16 (2): 245-249.
Roozbeh, M. (2020). Evaluation of no-till
drill performance under various residue
management methods in wheat
cropping in the south of
Iran. Agricultural Engineering
International: CIGR Journal, 22(1),
92-99.