Effect of Conservation Tillage on Yield and Yield Components of

Rainfed Sorghum {Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench}

Ph.D. Agriculture (Agric. Engineering) Thesis

Ayman Hassan Suliman

Abstract: This study was carried out to study the effect of different conservation
tillage techniques viz: (chisel ploughing, offset disc harrowing, cultivation and
chisel ploughing + offset disc harrowing) as compared to the traditional method
(no tillage) on yield and yield components of two sorghum cultivars under rain-fed
conditions in Elfula, South West Kordofan State for two consecutive seasons
(2015/2016 and 2016/2017). The experiment was factorial, laid out in strip-plot
design with three replications each replicate consisted of five treatments which
were chisel plow, cultivator, offset disc harrow, chisel plow + offset disc harrow
and traditional method ( control) as a factor A (main-plot) as well two sorghum
cultivars (wadahmed and zinnary) as a factor B (sub-plots). Also soil physico-
chemical properties were analyzed, soil moisture content was measured a once (a
month after planting) during each season. As well the performance of the tillage
implements was determined, which were included effective field capacity, field
efficiency, slippage and fuel consumption, moreover a computer program was
developed to predict the technical performance of the tillage implements.The data
were analyzed using Statistix 8 program for analysis of variance. Means were
compared by L.S.D tests at p<0.05. The results showed that there were no
significant differences (p<0.05) were observed between conservation tillage
practices and traditional method on the studied parameters (plant height, stem
diameter, number of leaves, plant population, fresh and dry weight and grain yield)
during the first season, where the chisel plow + offset disc harrow recorded the
highest grain yield value about 366.78 kg/ha. In contrast there were significant
difference (p<0.05) on plant population (plant/m2) and grain yield (kg/h) during the
second season. wherethe chisel plow increased sorghum grain yield by 22.1%
followed by chisel plow + offset disc harrow increased yield by 12% followed by
cultivator increased yield by 8.5%. On the other hand there was significant
difference (p<0.05) between two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local
cultivar (zinnary) performed better than the improved (wadahmed) for both
seasons, where the local cultivar increased the grain yield by 9.1 % and 7.4 % as
compared to the improved cultivar during first and second season respectively.
Also the results of analysis showed that soil moisture content had not significantly
influenced (p<0.05) by conservation tillage practices and the traditional method
with regard to the soil sampling depths for both seasons, where the cultivator and
chisel plow + offset disc harrow were recorded the highest moisture content value
about 5.4% and 8.24 % during first and second season respectively. The
differences between tillage implements (chisel plow, cultivator and offset disc
harrow) with regard to the technical performance were found significant (p<0.05).
The cultivator recorded the highest value in effective field capacity and field
efficiency were 2.6 ha/h, 84% and 2.1 ha/h, 86% during first and second season
respectively. While the chisel plow recoded the highest value in slippage
percentage was 12.33% and 14% for first and second season respectively. As well
the technical performance of three tillage implements under sandy loam soil was
successfully calculated by using Microsoft Visual Studio Ultimate 2012 software.
The above findings indicate that the conservation tillage practices perform better
particularly chiseling + harrowing and chiseling alone when compared to the
traditional method therefor such of these tillage practices could be recommended
and adopted for rain-fed sorghum in the sandy loam soil. As well the computer
model program could be applied successfully for improving farm machinery
management. A computer model was developed in C + + programming language
to predict field performance parameters of the plows. It was found that the highest
values of theoretical and effective field capacity were recorded by cultivator with
values of 2.4 ha / h and 1.94 ha / h. Cultivator recorded field efficiency of 79.7 %
as the highest value while offset disc harrow recorded 73.6 % as the lowest value.
The highest rear wheel slippage was 14.6 % and it was shown by chisel plow while
the lowest value of 10.0 % rear wheel slippage was demonstrated by cultivator.
The highest values of draft force, fuel consumption rat and power were 16.0 kN,
11.8 L / h and 22.2 kW and they were recorded by chisel plow while the lowest
values were 9.2 kN, 10.0 L / h and 10.1 kW and they were recorded by cultivator.
The highest power requirements recorded by chisel plow was due to its highest
working depth as compared to other plows.
 ‫تأثير الحراثة الحافظة علي اإلنتاج و مكوناته لمحصول الذرة الرفيعةفي الزراعة المطرية‬

‫أطروحة لنيل درجة دكتواره الزراعة (الهندسة الزراعية)‬

‫أيمن حسن سليمان‬

‫أجريت هذه الدراسة لدراسة تأثير أنواع مختلفة من تقنيا ت الحراثة الحافظة وهي (المح‪t‬راث الحف‪t‬ار‪ ،‬المش‪t‬ط‬
‫القرصي المنحرف‪ ،‬العزاقة والمحراث الحفار ‪ +‬المشط القرصي المنحرف) مقارنة بالطريقة التقليدية ( ع‪tt‬دم‬
‫الحرث) علي اإلنتاجية و مكونات اإلنتاجي‪tt‬ة لص‪tt‬نفين من ال‪tt‬ذرة الرفيع‪tt‬ة تحت ظ‪tt‬روف‪ t‬الزراع‪tt‬ة المطري‪tt‬ة في‬
‫الفولة جنوب غرب والية غرب كردفان لموسمين متت‪tt‬اليين (‪ 2015/2016‬و ‪ .)2016/2017‬التجرب‪tt‬ة ك‪tt‬انت‬
‫عديدة العوامل نف‪t‬ذت بإس‪t‬تخدام‪ t‬نظ‪t‬ام الش‪t‬رائح الطولي‪t‬ة (‪)strip-plot‬بثالث‪t‬ة مك‪t‬ررات ك‪t‬ل مك‪t‬رر مك‪t‬ون من‬
‫خمسة مع‪tt‬امالت وهي المح‪tt‬راث الحف‪tt‬ار‪ ،‬الع‪tt‬زاق‪ ،‬المش‪tt‬ط القرص‪t‬ي‪ t‬المنح‪tt‬رف‪ ،‬المح‪tt‬راث الحف‪tt‬ار ‪ +‬المش‪tt‬ط‬
‫القرصي المنحرف‪ t‬و الطريقة التقليدية (‪ )Control‬كعامل ‪( A‬قطع رئيسية ‪ )main-plots‬باإلضافة لصنفين‬
‫من الذرة ( ود أحمد و الزناري) كعامل ‪( B‬قطع فرعية‪ .)sub-plots‬أيض‪t‬ا ً الخص‪tt‬ائص الفيزيائي‪tt‬ة الكيميائي‪tt‬ة‬
‫للتربة تم تحليلها‪ ،‬المحتوي الرطوبي للترب‪t‬ة تم قياس‪t‬ه م‪t‬رة واح‪t‬دة ( ش‪t‬هر بع‪t‬د الزراع‪t‬ة) خالل ك‪t‬ل موس‪t‬م ‪.‬‬
‫باإلضافة إلي تقدبر أداء آالت الحراثة التي شملت السعة الحقلية الفعلية‪ ،‬الكفاءة الحقلية‪ ،‬األنزالق و إس‪tt‬تهالك‬
‫الوقود‪ t‬و عالوة علي ذلك برنامج كومبيوتر‪ t‬تم تطويره للتنبأ باألداء الف‪tt‬ني آلالت الحراث‪tt‬ة‪ .‬البيان‪tt‬ات تم تحليله‪tt‬ا‬
‫بواس‪tt‬طة إس‪tt‬تخدام برن‪tt‬امج ‪ Statistix 8‬لتحلي‪tt‬ل التب‪tt‬اين ‪ ،‬ق‪tt‬ورنت‪ t‬المتوس‪tt‬طات بإس‪tt‬تخدام‪ t‬أق‪tt‬ل ف‪tt‬رق معن‪tt‬وي‪t‬‬
‫‪ .))p<0.05‬أظهرت النتائج عدم وجود‪ t‬فرق معنوي ‪ ))p<0.05‬بين ممارس‪tt‬ات‪ t‬الحراث‪tt‬ة الحافظ‪tt‬ة و الطريق‪tt‬ة‬
‫التقليدية في القياسات المدروسة ( طول النبات‪ ،‬عدد األوراق‪ ،‬قطر الساق‪ ،‬الكثافة النباتي‪tt‬ة‪ ،‬ال‪tt‬وزن ال‪tt‬رطب و‬
‫الجاف و إنتاجية الحبوب) خالل الموسم األول‪ ،‬حيث س‪tt‬جل المح‪tt‬راث الحف‪tt‬ار ‪ +‬المش‪tt‬ط القرص‪t‬ي‪ t‬المنح‪tt‬رف‬
‫أعلي قيمة إلنتاج الذرة ‪ . kg/ha366 78.‬علي النقيض هناك فرق معنوي‪ t‬في الكثافة النباتية (‪ )plant/m2‬و‬
‫إنتاجية البذور (‪ )kg/h‬خالل الموسم‪ t‬الثاني‪ .‬حيث أن المحراث الحفار زاد انتاجي‪tt‬ة ال‪tt‬ذرة بنس‪tt‬بة ‪ 22 %‬يلي‪tt‬ه‬
‫المحراث الحفار ‪ +‬المش‪tt‬ط القرص‪t‬ي‪ t‬المنح‪tt‬رف بنس‪tt‬بة ‪ 12 %‬ثم يلي‪tt‬ه الع‪tt‬زاق بنس‪tt‬بة ‪ .% 8.5‬علي الط‪tt‬رف‪t‬‬
‫األخر هن‪t‬اك ف‪t‬رق معن‪tt‬وي ‪ ))p<0.05‬بين ص‪t‬نفي ال‪tt‬ذرة خالل الموس‪t‬مين‪ .‬الص‪tt‬نف المحلي (الزن‪tt‬اري) أدي‬
‫أفضل مقارنة بالصنف المحسن (ود أحم‪tt‬د) خالل الموس‪tt‬مين حيث زاد الص‪tt‬نف المحلي إنتاجي‪tt‬ة ال‪tt‬ذرة بنس‪tt‬بة‬
‫‪% 9.1‬و ‪% 7.4‬مقارنة بالصنف‪ t‬المحسن خالل الموسم‪ t‬األول و الث‪tt‬اني علي الت‪tt‬والي‪ .‬أيض‪t‬ا ً أظه‪tt‬رت نت‪tt‬ائج‬
‫التحلي‪t‬ل ان المحت‪tt‬وي الرط‪tt‬وبي للترب‪tt‬ة لم يت‪t‬أثر معنوي‪t‬ا ً ‪ ))p<0.05‬بممارس‪tt‬ات الحراث‪tt‬ة الحافظ‪tt‬ة و الطريق‪t‬ة‬
‫التقليدية بالنسبة ألعماق عين‪tt‬ات الترب‪tt‬ة خالل الموس‪tt‬مين‪ ،‬حيث س‪tt‬جل ك‪tt‬ل من الع‪tt‬زاق و المح‪tt‬راث الحف‪tt‬ار ‪+‬‬
‫المشط القرص‪tt‬ي المنح‪tt‬رف أعلي قيم‪tt‬ة للمحت‪tt‬وي‪ t‬الرط‪tt‬وبي‪ t‬للترب‪tt‬ة ح‪tt‬والي ‪ %5.4‬و ‪ % 8.24‬خالل الموس‪tt‬م‬
‫األول و الث‪tt‬اني علي الت‪tt‬والي‪ .‬الف‪tt‬رق بين آالت الحراث‪tt‬ة (المح‪tt‬راث الحف‪tt‬ار ‪ ،‬الع‪tt‬زاق و المش‪tt‬ط القرص‪tt‬ي‬
‫المنحرف) بالنسبة لألداء الفني كان معنوياً‪ t.‬العزاق س‪t‬جل أعلي قيم‪t‬ة للس‪tt‬عة الحقلي‪t‬ة الفعلي‪t‬ة و الكف‪t‬اءة الحقلية‬
‫‪ ha/h ، 84% 2.6‬و ‪ha/h ، 86% 2.1‬خالل الموسم األول و الثاني علي التوالي‪ .‬بينما سجل المحراث‬
‫الحفار أعلي قيمة لنسبة اإلنزالق كانت ‪ %12.33‬و ‪ %14‬للموسم األول و الثاني علي التوالي‪ .‬باإلض‪tt‬افة إلي‬
‫أن األداء الفني آلالت الحراث‪t‬ة الثالث‪t‬ة في الترب‪t‬ة الرملي‪t‬ة اللومي‪tt‬ة تم حس‪t‬ابه بنج‪t‬اح و ذل‪tt‬ك بإس‪tt‬تخدام برن‪tt‬امج‬
‫‪ . Microsoft Visual Studio Ultimate 2012‬النتائج أعاله تشير إلي أن ممارسات الحراثة الحافظة‬
‫تؤدي أفضل خاصة المحراث الحفار ‪ +‬المشط القرص‪t‬ي‪ t‬المنحرف‪tt‬والمحراث‪ t‬الحف‪tt‬ار لوح‪tt‬ده مقارن‪tt‬ة بالطريق‪tt‬ة‬
‫التقليدية و لذلك مث‪tt‬ل ممارس‪tt‬ات الحراث‪tt‬ة يمكن التوص‪tt‬ية به‪tt‬ا و تبنيه‪tt‬ا لزراع‪tt‬ة ال‪tt‬ذرة المط‪tt‬ري‪ t‬في األراض‪tt‬ي‬
‫الرملية اللومية‪ .‬أيضا ُ برامج نموذج الكمبيوتر يمكن تطبيقه بنج‪tt‬اح لتحس‪tt‬ين إدارة آلي‪tt‬ات المزرع‪tt‬ة‪ .‬تم تط‪tt‬وير‪t‬‬
‫نموذج كمبيوتر في لغة برمجة ‪ ++ C‬للتنبؤ بمتغيرات األداء الحقلى للمحاريث‪ .‬وقد وجد أن أعلى قيم‪tt‬ة س‪tt‬عة‬
‫حقلية نظرية وفعلية تم تسجيلها‪ t‬بواس‪tt‬طة العزاق‪tt‬ة بقيم ‪ 2.4‬هكت‪tt‬ار ‪ /‬س‪tt‬اعة و ‪ 1.94‬هكت‪tt‬ار ‪ /‬س‪tt‬اعة و س‪tt‬جلت‬
‫كفاءة حقلية ‪ % 79.7‬ك‪tt‬أعلى قيم‪tt‬ة بينم‪tt‬ا س‪tt‬جل المش‪tt‬ط المنح‪tt‬رف ‪ % 73.6‬ك‪tt‬أدنى قيم‪tt‬ة‪ .‬ك‪tt‬ان أعلى ان‪tt‬زالق‬
‫للعجالت الخلفية هو ‪ % 14.6‬وقد سُجل بواسطة المحراث الحفار بينما أظهرت العزاقة أدنى قيمة إن‪tt‬زالق‪ t‬و‬
‫كانت ‪ .% 10‬وكانت أعلى قيم قوة جر ‪ ،‬ومعدل استهالك وق‪tt‬ود‪ t‬وق‪tt‬درة هى ‪ 16‬كيل‪tt‬و ني‪tt‬وتن ‪ ،‬و ‪ 11.8‬ل‪tt‬تر ‪/‬‬
‫ساعة و ‪ 22.2‬كيلوواط‪ t‬وسجلت بواسطة المحراث الحفار بينم‪tt‬ا ك‪tt‬انت أدنى القيم هى ‪ 9.2‬كيل‪tt‬و ني‪tt‬وتن ‪10 ،‬‬
‫ل‪tt‬تر ‪ /‬س‪tt‬اعة و ‪ 10.1‬كيل‪tt‬و واط وتم تس‪tt‬جيلها بواس‪tt‬طة العزاق‪tt‬ة‪ .‬أعلى متطلب‪tt‬ات الق‪tt‬درة ال‪tt‬تي س‪tt‬جلها مح‪tt‬راث‬
‫اإلزميلى كانت بسبب عمق تشغيله األكبر بالمقارنة مع المحاريث األخرى‪.‬‬
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1-1 Introduction:

The economy of the Sudan is highly dependent on agriculture and it is the main
source of non-oil contributions to the GDP, ahead of services and construction and
much ahead of industry (CFSAM, 2011).In semi-arid regions, limited rainfall is
received and thus the water use in crop production needs to be optimized.
Agricultural production in the dry semi-arid regions of Sudan is dependent on
rainfall. Amount and distribution of rainfall have a profound effect on crop
production, environmental rehabilitation and economy of the region. Annual food
production shortages in many parts of Sudan are commonly linked to unreliable
seasonal rainfall leading to dry spells or droughts and soil degradation. A key
challenge is how to manage limited rainfall so that surface runoff does not occur,
and hence more water is stored in the root zone and becomes available for plant
growth.

Sorghum {Sorghum bicolor (L.)Moench}is the world’s fifth major cereal crop after
wheat, maize, rice, and barley in feeding human population (Onwueme and Sinha,
1999) and it is the main staple food crop in Sudan. Sorghum is produced under a
wide range of soil and climatic conditions, covering at least one-third of the total
cropped area, producing about 75% of food grains in the country. It is adapted to
dry areas and is a crop of hot, semi-arid tropical environment. Sorghum can be
grown successfully on nearly all soil types, but fertile loamy soils are considered
the best (EARS, 1999). Inappropriate tillage practices can inhibit crop growth and
decrease its yield.
Conventional tillage, such as moldboard ploughing leaves the soil surface bare and
loosens soil particles, making them susceptible to the erosive forces of wind and
water. Conservation tillage is a generic term for the use of tillage techniques to
promote in-situ moisture conservation. It has been defined as any tillage sequence
that reduces the loss of soil or water relative to plough-till; often it is a form of
non-inversion tillage that retains a protective layer of mulch (Lal,
1995).Conservation tillage reduces the number of tillage operations, avoiding
mixing of the soil and maintaining plant residues on the soil surface as mulch
(Moreno etal., 1997).Conservation tillage has been defined by CTIC (2002) as any
tillage and planting system that leaves at least 30% of the soil surface covered by
residue after planting. In consequence, it has potential to slow surface runoff and
reduce operating cost (Huggins, 1991).It also lowers the risk of compaction and
surface structure deterioration, decreases soil water evaporation, increases water
infiltration and water content in the profile (Zahi et al., 1990). There are many
systems and practices, which are often referred to as conservation tillage. The most
important and widely applied systems are no tillage or zero tillage, minimum
tillage and strip tillage (FAO, 1987). Moreover, chisel tillage is also considered as
conservation tillage practice (Jackson and Piper, 1989). The choice of the best
conservation tillage method for fields should be based on the severity of the
erosion problem, soil type, crop rotation, available equipment, and management
skills. Yalcin and Cakir (2006) observed the effect of different tillage methods on
the yield and weeding for second crop silage corn. Samarajeewa et al. (2006)
pointed out that conservation tillage systems could be more productive than
conventional tillage systems as a result of improved soil quality and water use
efficiency of plants. Hemmat and Eskandari (2006) studied the effect of different
tillage systems; namely, conventional tillage (moldboard plough, disc plough),
reduced tillage (chisel plough + disc plough), minimum tillage (sweep plough) and
zero tillage on yield and yield components of wheat on a clay loamy soil. They
reported that conservation tillage and straw mulch management could increase the
potential in dry climates to plant more intensively than with the traditional crop-
fallow system. They also found that tillage treatments had significant effect on
grain and biomass yields of wheat in 2 out of 3 years. Average grain yields with
reduced tillage and no tillage were significantly greater than grain yields using
conventional tillage treatment.

In Sudan, the wide level disc with the seeder box constitutes the only machine used
for sorghum cultivation in all mechanized farming areas. Yousif (2001) stated that
continuous use of wide level disc is believed to have led to the deterioration of the
soil physical properties and to have created a hard pan at the depth of cut. This in
turn results in decreased water infiltration rates, reduced crop root growth, causes
water runoff and decreases the yield of sorghum (Salih and Elamin, 1986). In
sandy clay soil, El Naimet et al.(2012) reported that no tillage treatment gave the
lowest number of panicles, number of seeds per panicle and grain yield as
compared with the tillage at depth of 25cm which gave the largest number of
panicles, greatest number of seeds per panicle and highest grain yield. On the other
hand, Mohammed et al. (2011) found that tillage depth of 15cm is effective in
improving the vegetative growth and productivity of grain sorghum.

1-2 Justification:
Degradation of land under rain-fed farming situation due to continuous erosion by
water and wind, intensive mono cropping systems and bared soil surface has
impoverished the soil resulted in declined soil fertility and crop productivity.
Hence more concentration should be focused to develop sustainable agriculture
production systems for on farm management of soil and natural resource efficiently
without affecting the environment.

Sandy loam soils and sandy clay soils locally known as Gardud, are less arable
despite their better production potential than some other infertile and exhausted
sand soil in western Sudan due to surface physical constraints such as low
infiltration and workability. The climate of Kordofan is generally arid and semi-
arid. In addition, the pattern of rainfall is characterized by uneven distribution
during the season and is fluctuating from year to year in terms of intensity, quantity
and timing. Most farmers practice no-till planting, this is affected by soil moisture
conditions, because planting when the soil is too wet or too dry may result in a
poor crop stand and yield. The potential benefit of conservation tillage is that more
soil moisture is conserved for crop use. There is limited information available
about the effect of conservation tillage techniques on the yield of sorghum,
particularly in the sandy clay soil and sandy loam such as that of South West
Kordofan. Hence, research study in this area it highly needed to determine the
appropriate conservation tillage practice together with the optimum tractor size and
implements.

1-3 Objectives:
The general objective is to study the effect of different conservation tillage
techniques viz: (chisel ploughing, offset disc harrowing, mulching and cultivation)
as compared to the traditional method (no tillage) on yield and yield components of
two sorghum cultivars under Elfula, South West Kordofan State condition.

The specific objectives are as follows:-

1- To determine the best tillage technique or method that can increase yield and
yield components of sorghum,
2- To determine the performance (field capacity, field efficiency, slippage, fuel
consumption and working rate) of the tillage implements used under South
West Kordofan condition, and
3- To develop a computer program to predict the appropriate tillage practice
under South West Kordofan condition.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERTURE REVIEW

2-1 Introduction:

The climate of the Sudan is predominantly tropical and continental. The climatic
zones range from arid and semi-arid in the north to wet monsoon in extreme south.
The mean annual rainfall ranges from less than 50 mm in the north to more than
1200 mm in the south. Rainfall is erratic and the annual variations are very high.
The mean minimum temperature ranges between 18 0Cand 21 0Cin winter while the
mean maximum temperature ranges between 42 0C to 45 0C in summer. The Red
Sea area and its highlands are dominated by Mediterranean climate. The potential
evapotranspiration is higher than the actual precipitation in most parts of the
country (SNAP 2006).

In Sudan, agriculture constitutes to dominate the gross domestic product (GDP),

although since the late 1990s, petroleum production became more important (IMF
2002). Despite the diminishing share in overall export earnings, the agricultural
sector continues to be the backbone of Sudan’s economy in terms of its
contribution to GDP. Accordingly, agriculture represented 39% of the GDP in
2005, of which 25% was from crop production. On the other hand, about 80% of
the labor force employed in agriculture and related activities such as agro-
industries (FAO, 2007).

Most of the main food and cash crops in the Sudan are produced in the rain-fed
areas under both mechanized and traditional farming systems.

Crop production in the Sudan is practiced under two main sectors namely; irrigated
and rain-fed.
2.2 Sudan agricultural sectors:
2-2-1Irrigated sector:
The area under irrigation in the Sudan is estimated at about 1.6 million hectares,
the irrigated sector is the principle user of the country’s imported agricultural
inputs. Nonetheless, crop yields in the federal irrigated schemes remain low by
world standards, largely owing to the poor maintenance and silting up of canals, a
shortage of efficient modern pumps and poor agricultural practices. Irrigation is
mainly from the River Nile and its tributaries by means of gravity or pumps, or
from spate flow from the seasonal rivers. The principle crops of the irrigated sector
include sugarcane, cotton, sorghum, groundnut, wheat, vegetables, fruits and green
fodders (FAO, 2018).

2.2.2 rain-fed sector:

Rain-fed agriculture can be defined as the system of crop production in which
crops depend fully or mainly on direct rain water for their growth. The rain-fed
crop production sector is composed of two sub-sectors: (1) mechanized and (2)
traditional.

2-3 Rain-fed farming systems:

2.3.1 Mechanized rain-fed farming:
Mechanized rain-fed is almost confined to Gedarif, Blue Nile, White Nile, Sinnar
and Southern Kordofan States. It’s mostly consisting of farm units of 1000 or 1500
feddans (1 fed. = 0.42 ha) that are partly mechanized and depend on seasonal labor
(IMF 2002). Historically, this sub-sector has been a source of sorghum exports as
well as meeting internal needs, particularly in urban areas. In general, the
mechanized rain-fed farming is practiced in the heavy clay soils (Vertisoils) in
areas which rainfall between 400 and 800 mm per annum. The area cropped varies
with variation in rainfall. The main crops in this sub-sector are sorghum and
sesame. On average mechanized rain-fed farming accounts for about 18% of the
contribution of crops to the national GDP (Abdalla and Abdel Nour, 2001). The
major constraints in this sub-sector include poor infrastructure, poor untimely
finance, poor services and shortage of drinking water which limits permanent
settlement of farmers (Hassan and Elasha, 2009). 395626

2-3-2 Traditional rain-fed farming:

Traditional rain-fed farming is the most widely practiced and most vulnerable to
crop failure due to insufficient and/or unequal rainfall distribution. This sub-sector
is largely confined to the 350-800mm isohyets for sorghum, cotton, while pearl
millet and groundnut are grown in the sandy soils receiving around 300 mm. the
cropped area varies 5 to 8 million hectares and varies annually with variation in
rainfall. Crop production is labor-intensive with hand tools and characterized by
low productivity. About 75% of the population lives in this sub-sector, its
contributes 90% of pearl millet, 48% of groundnut, 28% of sesame, 11% of
sorghum and 100% of gum Arabic production. Despite its importance, the sub-
sector has been largely neglected (Abdalla and Abdel Nour, 2001).
In general, the major crops grown in the traditional rain-fed sub-sector are pearl
millet, sorghum, maize, cassava, sesame, groundnut, roselle (Karkade), field water
melon, cotton, cowpea and a variety of other minor crops. Local crop varieties are
commonly grown by farmers in the traditional rain-fed sub-sector (Agro-
Biodiversity, 1999). However, several improved crop varieties were recently
introduced and started to spread. The traditional rain-fed sub-sector predominates
in the west of country, in Darfur and in much of Kordofan states, where the main
cereal crops are millet and sorghum.
The farming system in the traditional rain-fed agriculture is characterized by the
following features:
 i- Small farmer’s holdings.
ii- Farming operations are entirely manual and predominantly carried out by
family labor using traditional hand tools.
iii- Little or no external inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and
improved seeds are used.
iv- Farmers have limited resources and poor access to market, credit and
improved production technologies.
v- Low agricultural output.
The productivity of the main crops in the traditional rain-fed sub-sector is very
low. The low yields of crops are attributed to a variety of natural and socio-
economic constraints (Osman and Ali, 2009). The most important ones are the
following:
i. Abiotic factors
- Low amount and poor distribution of rainfall.
- Degradation of ecological and natural resources.
- Low soil fertility
- Lack of appropriate crop sequence or rotation.
- Poor traditional management practices.
- Cultivation of marginal land.
ii. Biotic factors:
- Poor genetic stock and limited cultivar choice.
- Insect pests, diseases and weed.
- Lack of improved seed.
iii. Socio-economic factors:
- Poor rural infrastructure including roads, transportation facilities and
storage structure.
 - Lack of appropriate polices for the traditional rain-fed agriculture in term
of (credit, subsidies, pricing, marketing …, etc.).
- Unavailability of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides …, etc.).
iv. Institutional factors:
- Inadequate funds for research and extension services.

2-4 Sorghum:
Grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor L. (Moench)] ranks first in term of both area and
volume of crop production and is sown all over Sudan in both irrigated and the
rain-fed sectors. At least one third of the total cropped area in Sudan is annually
placed under sorghum, producing about 75% of food grains in the country. About
93% of total sorghum area is in the rain-fed sector, whereas the total production
varies from year to year due to the quantity and distribution of rains. Most of the
crop is consumed locally, with a significant part used for fodder and small part is
used by industry for production of glucose and starch. All excess sorghum is
exported.
Sorghum productivity in Sudan is far below high-yielding countries and even
below the productivity in African and Arab countries yields. Compared to the
irrigated sector, the productivity of sorghum under the rain-fed sector is generally
low and stagnant. The productivity of sorghum under irrigation is almost 4 fold
that under rain-fed (MOAF, 2008)(Table 2-1).
2-4-1 Sorghum in the traditional rain-fed sub-sector:
Sorghum is cultivated in most of the States in western, central and eastern Sudan.
Its cultivation was previously confined between 500 and 800 mm rainfall. As a
result of the repeated failures of pearl millet in Kordofan, the cultivation of
sorghum has been extended to the areas where the annual rainfall is lower than 400
mm. There is a huge diversity of sorghum varieties. The main varieties grown are
GadamElhamam, Kulum, Karamaka red, Kurgi, ZinnaryBaladi, Wad Ahmed,
Gishaish, Yarwasha and Mugud.
Table 2-1 Sorghum yield (tonnes/hectares) by sector

Sorghum yield (tonnes/hectares)

5-yr av. 2011/12 - 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018
Agricultural sector
Irrigated 1.93 1.96 2.29
Mechanized rain-fed 0.50 0.68 0.54
Traditional rain-fed 0.48 0.55 0.49
Total 2.91 3.19 3.32
Source (FAO, 2018)
2-5 West Kordofan State:
West Kordofan State is located in the western part of Sudan, and falls in transition
belt between war-effected in the south and the drought affected in the north areas,
located within latitudes 12 ͦ 0 ՜ N, and longitudes 28 ͦ 9 ՜ E. the state borders are;
North Kordofan, South Kordofan, East Darfur and North Darfur (Fig. 2-1). The
total area covered is estimated to be 111,373 km 2, extending from low rainfall
savanna to high rainfall and hill catena and its vegetation varies greatly (El
tahiretal.,2015).
The region has a varying climate, ranging from desert and semi-desert in the north
to rich savanna in the south. Arid and semi-arid zones cover the largest part of this
region. The average rainfall in the state is 651mm in normal year and ranges from
150 mm in the north to the 700 mm in the south. The soil ranges from sandy in the
north to heavy cracking clay in the south. In between there are called (gardud)
soils (Awadetal., 2010).
The economy of West Kordofan State is predominantly dependent on agriculture
production consisting of rain-fed farming of millet, sorghum, groundnut and water
melon and traditional livestock ranching practiced by nomadic and semi-nomadic
agro pastoral and sedentary groups and some activities of horticulture, beside the
trading and forest activities.

Fig. 2-1 The location of West Kordofan State.

2-6Tillage:
Tillage technology began with the use of stick or metal jab for seeding and with
gradual agricultural development the technology passed through a phase of
ploughinganimal-drawn ploughs, subsequently followed by tractor-drawn
implements and recently with more powerful machinery. Tillage is defined as the
mechanical manipulation of soil for any purpose. Manipulation involves soil
disturbance and this can have great deteriorative consequences if not carefully or
adequately incorporated. Tillage modifies the soil surface where the complex and
crucial partitioning of rainfall into runoff, infiltration and subsequent evaporation.
Tillage modifies soil surface structure, total porosity, macro-porosity, pore
continuity and pore size distribution and therefore has great influence on the
hydrology of an agricultural catchment (Mwendera, 1992).Tillage aims to create a
soil environment favorable to plant growth (Klute, 1982).According to (Lal, 1983)
it is defined as physical, chemical or biological soil manipulation to optimize
conditions for germination, seedling establishment and crop growth. Ahn and
Hintze, (1990), however, defined it as any physical loosening of the soil carried out
in a range of cultivation operations, either by hand or mechanized. Soil
manipulation can change fertility status markedly and the changes may be
manifested in good or poor performance of crops (Ohiri and Ezumah, 1991). In
addition, tillage operations loosen, granulate, crush or compact soil structure,
changing soil properties such as bulk density, pore size distribution and
composition of the soil atmosphere that affect plant growth.The overall goal of
tillage is to increase crop production while conserving resources (soil and water)
and protecting the environment (IBSRAM, 1990). The benefits of tillage are:
i- Proper seedbedpreparation,
ii- Control weeds,
iii- Suppression evaporation,
iv- Enhancement water infiltration, and
v- Controlerosion.
Other potentially undesired effects of tillage include reducing soil organic matter
through oxidation and deleterious effects on soil micro flora and fauna, also
leading to reduced soil structural stability and increased surface runoff and water
or wind erosion.
Factors affecting the choice of tillage practices:
Tillage is a labor-intensive activity in low-resource agriculture practiced by small
land-holders, and a capital and energy-intensive activity in large-scale mechanized
farming (Lal, 1991). For any given location, the choice of a tillage practice will
depend on one or more of the following factors (Lal, 1980; Unger, 1984a):

(1) Soil factors:

Include soil (slope), erodibility, Erosivity, Rooting depth, Texture and structure,
Organic-matter content and Mineralogy.

(2) Crop factors:

Include growing duration, rooting characteristics, Water requirements and Seed.

(3) Climatic factors:

Include rainfall amount and distribution, Water balance, Length of growing season,
Temperature (ambient and soil) and Length of rainless period.

(4) Socio-economic factors:

Include farm size, Availability of a power source, Family structure and

composition and Labor situation.

(5) Other factors:

These include factors such as the government policies.

Appropriate tillage practices are those that avoid the degradation of soil properties
but maintain crop yields as well as ecosystem stability.

2-6-1 Types of tillage systems:

Tillage systems are grouped into two main categories: conventional and
conservation tillage (Fig.2-2).
2-6-1-1 Conventional tillage:

Conventional tillage also grouped into two main categories: mechanized

systemsand traditional tillage.

(1) Traditional system:

In the humid and sub-humid regions of West Africa, and in some parts of South
America, traditional system is practiced mostly by manual labor, using native tools
which are generally few and simple, the most important being the cutlass and hoe
which come in many designs depending on function (Morgan and Pugh, 1969). To
facilitate seedbed preparation and planting, forest undergrowth or grass is cleared
with a cutlass and trees and shrubs left, but pruned. The cut biomass and residues
are disposed of by burning in situ. This type of clearing is non-exhaustive, leaving
both appreciable cover on the soil, and the root system which gives the topsoil
structural stability for one or two years (Ainaet al., 1991).

(2) mechanized systems:

These involve the mechanical soil manipulation of an entire field, by ploughing
followed by one or more harrowing. The degree of soil disturbance depends on the
type of implement used, the number of passes, soil and intended crop type.
Conventionalor full tillage rearranges the entire topsoil. It may require several
passes and then break it down into a friable seedbed prior to sowing.Conventional
tillage usually involves aggressive mechanical inversion of soil that leads to
unintended consequences of high rates of soil organic carbon loss, disruption of the
soil biology, and erosion by wind and rain.

Blanco and Lal, (2008) defined conventional tillage as any tillage systems that
inverts soil and alters the natural soil structure.
 Tillage operations for seedbed preparation are often classified as primary or
secondary, although the distinction is not always clear-cut (Ajitetal., 2006)

I. Primary tillage:

A primary tillage operation constitutes the initial, major soil-working operation

after harvest of the previous crop; it is normally designed to reduce soil strength,
cover plant materials, and rearrange aggregates. Implements used for primary
tillage are moldboard plows, disk plows and tillers, chisel plows, subsoilers,
stubble-mulch plows and tillers, rotary tillers, listers, and bedders.

II. Secondary tillage:

Secondary tillage operations are intended to create refined soil conditions
following primary tillage. The main objective of secondary tillage is to break down
large clods and to prepare an ideal seedbed for planting. An ideal seedbed is the
one that allows for good seed-to-soil contact, conserves moisture needed for
germination, and allows for vigorous and uninhibited root and shoot growth. The
final tillage operation prior to planting a crop is usually secondary tillage. The
equipment’s used for secondary tillage are generally called harrows. The most
common harrow is the disk harrow, spring tine harrows and spike tooth harrows as
well cultivators, rotary hoes andother types

2-6-1-2 Conservation tillage:

Conservation tillage was defined in 1984 by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(currently the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service) as any tillage
system that maintains at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue after
planting primarily where the objective is to reduce water erosion (MWPS 2000;
Owens, 2001). The term conservation tillage broadly encompasses tillage practices
that reduce the volume of soil disturbed (Reicosky, 2002), preserve rather than
incorporate surface residues, and result in the broad protection of soil resources
while crops are grown (Allmaras and Dowdy, 1985). Conservation tillage thushas
been described as a “collective umbrella term” that denotes practices that have a
conservation goal of some nature (Reicosky, 2002). Many different planters,
implements, and general approaches have been used to achieve this goal. Because
of the importance of surface residues to this early definition of CT, the USDA
NRCS now uses the term “crop residue management” (CRM) rather than
“conservation tillage” in their inventories of conservation practices.

Conservation tillage is more appropriate for rain-fed production systems especially

in semi-arid regions, because the rainfall of semi-arid areas has a high rainfall
intensity with high erosive power and poor protective vegetative cover, especially
at the beginning of the rainy season, the soil have poor resistance to erosion and
vulnerable to erosion. Under conservation tillage, the crop residue buffers the
raindrop’s energy, so water has erosive force when it reaches the soil. This
protection and surface roughness provided by crop residue facilitateswater
infiltration and reduces surface runoff and thus conserve water and fertilizers
(Guptaetal., 2007).

Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC) (1995) considers the four

categories no-tillage, strip-tillage, ridge-tillage, and mulch-tillage as types of
conservation tillage.Each method requires different types of specialized or
modified equipment and adaptations in management.

(1) No-tillage:
No-till leaves the soil undisturbed from harvest to planting. Planting is done in a
narrow (usually 6 inches or less) seedbed or slot created by coulters, row cleaners,
disc openers, in row chisels, or roto-tillers. A press-wheel follows to provide firm
soil seed contact. No-till planting can be done successfully in chemically killed
sod, in crop residues from the previous year or when double cropping after a small
grain. Herbicides are the primary method of weed control, although cultivation
may be used for emergency weed control. Soil conservation results from the high
percentage of surface covered by crop residues.
(2) strip-tillage:
The concept of strip or zonal tillage is described by (Lal, 1983). The seedbed is
divided into a seedling zone and a soil management zone. The seedling zone (5 to
10 cm wide) is mechanically tilled to optimize the soil and micro-climate
environment for germination and seedling establishment. The interrow zone is left
undisturbed and protected by mulch. Strip tillage can also be achieved by chiseling
in the row zone to assist water infiltration and root proliferation
(3) ridge-tillage:
In ridge-tillage, the soil is also generally undisturbed from harvest to planting
except for fertilizer injection. Crops are seeded and grown on ridges or shallow
beds that have been formed or built during the prior growing season, generally
during cultivation using implements fitted with sweeps, hilling disks, and
furrowing wings (MWSFS, 2000). Ridge-tillage planters employ sweeps ahead of
theseed or planter shoe that effectively shear off soil and residues from the surface
of the ridge, creating a clean seed row. Weed control is accomplished by
herbicides, cultivation, or both.Ridge-tillage systems leave residues on the surface
between ridges. Soil conservation depends on the amount of residue and the row
direction. Planting on the contour and increased surface coverage greatly reduce
soil loss.
(4) Mulch-tillage:
Mulch-tillage uses conventional broadcast tillage implements such as disks, chisel
plows, rod weeders, or cultivators, but with limited passes across a field so as to
maintain plant residue on the soil surface year-round (ASAE, 2005).Weed control
is accomplished by herbicides, cultivation, or both. The effectiveness of mulch-till
systems in reducing erosion depends on surface roughness, amount of residue and
tillage direction.

2-6-1-2-1 Minimum Tillage:

The term “minimum tillage” has been adopted by the Conservation Tillage (CT)
Workgroup as a subcategory of conservation tillage (CT) (Reicosky, 2002). It
refers to systems that reduce tillage passes and thereby conserve fuel for a given
crop by at least 40 percent relative to what was conventionally done.This term
defines a standard that is based on achieving the 40 percent or more reduction in
the number of tillage or soil-disturbing passes.

2-6-1-2-2 Reduced Tillage:

The term “reduced tillage” has generally referred to any tillage system that is less
intensive and that employs fewer trips across a field than traditional tillage.
Reduced tillage is a category used in Conservation Technology Information Center
(CTIC) surveys for systems that maintain at least 15 percent but less than 30
percent coverage by surface residue after planting.

2-6-1-2-3 Benefits of conservation tillage:-

A number of well documented benefits, (Baker et al., 2005) have been associated
with the practices of conservation tillage production systems which aim to
maintain at least 30% of the soil surface covered by residue and reduce primary,
intercrop tillage operations such as ploughing, disking, ripping and chiseling, using
fewer tractor operations. They include the following:

i- Reduces labor, saves time,

ii- Saves fuel and improves farm profitability,

iii- Reduces machinery wear,

iv- Improves soil tilth,

v- Increases organic matter and soil biological diversity,

vi- Traps soil moisture to improve water availability and water use efficiency,

vii- Reduces soil erosion,

viii- Improves water quality,

ix- Improves wildlife habitat,

x- Improves water and air quality, and

xi- Sequesters carbon in soil,

2-6-1-2-4 Conservation tillage and soil properties:-

Tillage impact is noticeable on soil physical, chemical and biological properties

though in different magnitudes. Tillage impact also includes the effect on the soil
environment in the form of runoff and soil erosion (Bhatt andKhera 2006).

2-6-1-2-4-1 Soil physical properties:-

Effects of conservation tillage on soil properties vary, and these variations depend
on the particular system chosen. No-till (NT) systems, which maintain high surface
soil coverage, have resulted in significant change in soil properties, especially in
the upper few centimeters (Anikwe and Ubochi, 2007). According to Lal (1997a),
soil physical properties are generally more favorable with no-till than tillage-based
systems. Many researchers have found that no till significantly improved saturated
and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity owing to either continuity of pores
(Benjamin, 1993) or flow of water through very few large pores (Allmarasetal.,
1977). It has been reported that well-drained soils, light to medium in texture with
low humus content, respond best to conservation tillage (Butorac, 1994) especially
to no-tillage.

Zida (2011) found soil bulk density to increase under zero tillage and ripping while
it decreased under conventional tillage systems. They ascribed the differences to be
due to the change in soil structure after tilling. Higher bulk density under no-
tillagehas been reported by Xu and Mermoud (2001).In terms of water
conservation, no-tillage has been found to be more effective in humid and sub-
humid tropics. Kargasetal., (2012) observed that untilled plots retain more water
than tilled plots. In comparison with conventional ploughing, Pagliaietal., (2004)
reported that minimum tillage improved the soil pore system by increasing the
storage pores (0.5–50 mm) and the amount of the elongated transmission pores
(50–500 mm). They related the higher micro-porosity in minimum tillage soils to
increase of water content in soil and consequently, to an increase of available water
for plants. Higher water holding capacity or moisture content has been found in the
topsoil (0–10 cm) under NT than after ploughing (McVay et al., 2006). Therefore,
to improve soil water storage and increase water use efficiency most researchers
have proposed replacement of traditional tillage with conservation tillage
(Fabrizzi,et al., 2005 and Silburnet al., 2007). Water use efficiency has also been
reported to be greater in soils under reduced tillage (McVayet al., 2006) and no till
(Li etal., 2005) systems as compared with conventional tillage.

2-6-1-2-4-2 Soil chemical properties:

Chemistry of soil, defined as the content and availability of certain substances may
also be modified as a result of various ways and systems of tillage.
(1) Soil pH:
One of the important factors determining soil fertility is pH, which may however,
be influenced strongly by cultivation and crop residue management. Nutrients and
organic matter are accumulated near the soil surface after no tillage and in the long
run soil reaction (pH) declined (Rasmussen, 1999). In study, Kumar and Yadav
(2005) observed slight decrease in the soil pH than initial values in conventional
tillage. One possible way of protecting soil from acidification is by returning the
crop residues to the soil (Miyazawa et al., 1993) and pH increased significantly
with crop residue application (Karlen et al., 1994), thus, there are contrasting
views about soil pH.
(2) Soil organic carbon content:
The soil organic carbon content is an important factor affecting soil quality, and is
an important source of plant nutrients, especially in subsistence agriculture. The
important effect of soil organic carbon on productivity and environmental quality
is through its role in supplying nutrients, capacity, and stabilizing soil structure
(Doran et al., 1994). The soil organic carbon content is a function of soil
management, and change in management can alter soil organic carbon content.
Accumulation of organic carbon in the upper soil layer was evident under
longtermno-till conditions and had also been identified by others (Blevins et al.,
1993; Singh et al., 1994). The organic matter stratification differs between
conventional andno tillage soil, mainly due to the remaining plant residue
cover on the soil surface which favors the accumulation of organic matter near the
soil surface (Tebrugge and During, 1999). The conversion efficiency of residue
carbon on soil organic carbon was lower for plough till (8%) than for no-till (10%)
(Duiker et al.,1999). Higher soil organic carbon sequestration was observed by
adopting zero tillage (Dick et al., 1991 and Panday et al., 2008).
(3) Soil organic matter content:
Organic matter consists of dead plant parts and animal and microbial waste
products in various stages of decomposition. Eventually, these things break down
into humus, which is relatively stable in the soil. Organic matter has strong impact
on the structure. Accumulation of organic matter and nutrients near the soil
surface under no-tillage and reduced tillage were favorable consequences of not
inverting the soil and by maintaining a mulch layer on the surface (Tebrugge and
During, 1999). With annual plough less tillage, plant residues will be left on the
soil surface, resulting in increased organic matter in the top soil (Rasmussen,
1999). Thestudy by (Gosai et al., 2009) revealed higher concentration of soil
organic matter in the no-till and shallow-tilled plots compared to other
conventionally tilled plots. Surface residues tend to decompose more slowly than
soil-incorporated residues, because of greater fluctuations in surface temperature
and moisture and reduced availability of nutrients to microbes colonizing the
surface residue (Schomberg et al., 1994).
2-6-1-2-5Soil biological properties:
Activity of soil fauna is important in the formation of organomineral complexes
and aggregation, thus enhancing and diversifying soil fauna helps in improving soil
structure. The intensity of soil tillage strongly influences earthworm populations
and, by their activity, the amount of bio pores. Earthworms support decomposition
and incorporation of straw. Zero tillage proved to be more efficient than the other
tillage systems (reduced and conventional tillage) in the conservation of organic
carbon and microbial biomass carbon at the soil surface depth (0-5cm) as reported
by ( Costantini et al., 1996). The tillage systems impact on the respiration was due
to the variations caused in the microbial biomass. No changes were found in
carbon use efficiency by micro-organisms as a consequence of the tillage system
employed. Increased number of beneficial soil fauna with zero till has been
reportedrelative to traditional tillage (McGarry et al., 2000).( Radford et al., 1995)
also showed there was a fourfold increase in earthworm numbers with zero tillage
as compared to conventional tillage. Increased earthworm activity in no-till
treatments was also reported by Rasmussen, (1999).

2-6-1-2-6 Conservation tillage and crop performance:-

Tillage impact on crop yield is related to its effects on root growth (Boone and
Veen, 1994), water and nutrient use efficiencies (Davis, 1994) and ultimately the
agronomic yield (Lal, 1993). An increase in root length density has been found
only in the upper soil layers of no tillage (NT) (Martınez et al., 2008) and reduced
tillage (Lal, 1989) systems compared to the conventional tillage system because
soil compaction of deeper soil layers under no tillage(NT) may impede proper
development of roots.
According to Busari and Salako (2013), maize yield under a minimum tillage
system is likely to be more sustainable compared with conventional tillage. They
added that best crop yield under minimum tillage(MT) than other tillage methods
could be linked with poor root development that is usually associated with low
yield under zero tillage(ZT) and rapid structural deterioration caused by slaking
and dispersion under conventional tillage (Guzha, 2004) which were possibly not
the case under minimum tillage(MT).
The growth and yield of sorghum have been found to be affected by tillage
practice(Zougmoreet al., 2003; Zida, 2011). Crop under no tillage practice are
usually stunted and show water stress and nutrient deficiency symptoms compared
to those under conventional tillage whose growth and yield are favorable due to
increase porosity, water infiltration storage and better root development.Ohiri and
Ezumah (1990) reported that tillage did not affect total bio-mass yields of maize,
soybean, sorghum and groundnut in the first year, but in the second year significant
differences were obtained in the yield of tops but not of fresh roots. No-till and
minimum tillage yielded 40% and 23% more tops than conventional tillage.
In Sudan Mohamed et al., (2012) stated that conservation tillage techniques
improved soil moisture stored within the root zone as compared to the
conventional harrowing using the wide level disc, resulting in higher dry matter
and grain yield of sorghum.

2-6-1-2-7 Conservation tillage and the environment:

Conservation tillage is important from the viewpoint of environmental farming for
a number of reasons. The cover of crop residue helps prevent soil erosion by water
and air, thus conserving valuable top soil. Soil structure improves, because heavy
machinery which causes soil compaction is not used. Earthworms, not routinely
disturbed by deep tillage, increase in number, bringing with them the
accompanying benefits of bettersoil aeration and improved soil fertility. Microbial
activity in the soil also increases for the same reason. Another important
environmental effect of reduced tillage is the reduction in use of fossil fuels on the
farm (FAO 2006).
 Fig.2-1 Conventional and conservation tillage systems
Source (FAO, 2003)

2-7 Conservation tillage in Sudan:

In Sudan zero-tillage introduced as a form of conservation tillage, more than the
other types of conservation tillage.
Sudan over the years 2000 to 2005, adopted this system in the Arab Sudanese Blue
Nile Agricultural Company. The site of this company (Blue Nile area – Agady)
was the nucleus for introducing the zero-tillage farming system in Sudan. The
average yield of cotton increased from 150 kg/fed under the traditional system to
850 kg/fed under the zero tillage farming system. The average yield of sorghum
increased from 175 kg/fed to 1100 kg/fed. The average yield of sesame increased
from 70 kg/fed to 240 kg/fed, (Rasheed et al., 2004).
In Gadarif State zero tillage was introduced for first time in 2000, also led to the
increasing in the yield.
Recently many stateswere adopted the use of a chisel plow instead of other tillage
implements in land preparation particularly in rain-fed sector in Kordofan and
Darfur states.

2-8 Farm machinery field performance:

Each piece of machinery must perform reliably under a variety of field conditions
or it is a poor investment regardless of its cost.
Hunt (1979) stated measures of agricultural machinery performance are the rate
and quality at which the operation is accomplished. Faidley etal., (1975) stated that
the choice of power units and their machinery complements for farming operations
is very important. He added that in order to operate farms efficiently, the size and
number of tractors and equipment’s should match the power required by various
sequences of cropping operations, which must be performed within specific period
of time during the year.
The performance of tillage tools is determined by their draft and power
requirements and the quality of work. The definition of quality of work depends
upon the type of tillage tool. For a plow it is the degree of soil inversion and
pulverization while for a harrow it is the level of clod break-up Ajit etal., (2006).
The performance of a machine often depends on the skill of the operator or on
weather and soil conditions.

2-8-1 Farm machinery field capacity:

Hanna, (2002), defined field capacity as the rate at which a machine performs its
primary function. He added, measurements or estimates of machine capacities are
used to schedule field operations, power units, and labor, and to estimate machine
operating costs. The most common measure of field capacity for agricultural
machines is expressed in area covered per hour of operation. Field capacity can be
expressed on a material or area basis.
Siemens and Bowers (1999) mentioned that, when the field capacity measured in
area per hour, it’s determined by three factors: speed, width and efficiency. The
field capacity is an important parameter to determine the machine selection and
cost evaluation.

2-8-1-1 Theoretical field capacity (TFC):

Theoretical field capacity is achieved when the machine is using 100% of its width
without interruption for turns or other idle time. It represents the maximum
possible field capacity that can be obtained at the given field speed when the full
operating width of the machine is being used.
Siemens and Bowers (1999) mentioned that the theoretical field capacity is the
maximum positive capacity obtained at a given speed, assuming the machine using
its full width. In the same way Theoretical field capacity cannot be sustained for
long period of time.
The Theoretical field capacity can be determined using the following equation
(ASABE Standards, 2006).
S∗W
TFC = C

W ×S
TFC= .......................2.1
C
Where:
TFC = Theoretical field capacity,(ha/hr).
S = Speed, (km/hr).
W = Width of implement,(m).
C = Constant, (10).

2-8-1-2 Effective field capacity (EFC):

Effective field capacity is a function of field speed, machine working width, field
efficiency, and unit yield of the field.
Kepneretal., (1982) defined the effective field capacity as the actual average rate of
coverage by the machine, based upon the total field time. Hunt (1979) stated that,
it’s impossible to operate machines continuously at their rate width of action;
therefore their actual capacity is substantially less than the theoretical capacity.
The effective field capacity can be calculated using the following equation
(ASABE Standards, 2006).
A
TFC= .......................2.2
T
Where:
EFC = effective field capacity, (ha/hr).
A = Field area, (ha).
T = total field time, (hr).
Hanna, (2000) mentioned that, the effective field capacity of a machine in the field
can be easily calculated by dividing the area completed (covered) by the hours of
actual field time.

2-8-2 Farm machinery field efficiency (FE):

The field efficiency is one of an important factor to evaluate performance of the
tillage implements. Field efficiency is the actual field capacity that can be achieved
as a percentage of the maximum theoretical capacity without overlapping, slowing
for turning or stopping to adjust machinery, fill containers, empty hoppers and
make minor repairs. It accounts for failure to utilize the full operating width of the
machine (overlapping) and many other time delays (Hanna, 2000).
Kepner etal., (1982), hunt (1979) and Siemens and Bowers (1999) defined
machine field efficiency as the ratio of effective field capacity to theoretical field
capacity. Accordingly they were agreed in calculating field efficiency as follows:
EFC
TFC= ×100.......................2.3
TFC
Alnahas, (2007) reported that the field efficiency affected by soil type and
implements tillage type.
Field efficiency is not a constant for a particular machine, but varies with the size
and shape of the field, pattern of field operation, crop yield, moisture, and crop
conditions.Field efficiency can be improved by reducing lost time during operation
Table 2.2 provides a range of field efficiencies and operating speeds and typical
field efficiency and operating speeds for a different tillage and planting machines.
Table 2.2 field efficiencies and operating speeds and typical field efficiency and
operating speeds for a different tillage and planting machines.

Machine Efficiency Typicalefficiency Speed Typical speed

(Tillage & range % range range
planting) % Km/h Km/h
Moldboard plow 70–90 85 5.0-10.0 7
Heavy-duty disc 70–90 85 5.0-10.0 7
Tandem disk 70–90 80 6.5-11.0 10
harrow
Chisel plow 70–90 85 6.5-10.5 8
Field cultivator 70–90 85 8.0-13.0 11
Spring tooth 70–90 85 8.0-13.0 11
harrow
Roller-packer 70–90 85 7.0-12.0 10
Mulcher-packer 70–90 80 6.5-11.0 8
Rotary hoe 70–85 80 13-22.5 19
Row crop 70–90 80 5.0-11.0 8
cultivator
Rotary tiller 70–90 85 2.0-7.0 5
Row crop planter 50–75 65 6.5-11.0 9
Grain drill 55–80 70 6.5-11.0 8
Source Ajit etal., (2006)

2-8-3 Farm machinery power performance:

The most important effect on crop production economy is the energy requirement
Power source in agriculture is one the determining factors for the level of
agricultural development and stage of mechanization (Bola and Igbal, 1976).
Draft and power requirements are an important in selecting tractors and
implements because tractors must be large enough to meet the implement draft
requirements. Also, the engine in tractors or self-propelled machines must be large
enough to supply thepower requirements of the field operations Ajit etal., (2006)
Singh, (1983) mentioned that tillage is a major operation for seedbed preparation
and is one of the largest material handling operations. It is one of the major items
of energy and cost expenditure in crop production.
For tillage implements the size of the machine that can be used is often limited by
the size of the available tractor. The horsepower needed to pull a certain implement
depends on the width of the implement, the ground speed, draft requirement, and
soil condition Edwards, (2009).
Baloch et al., (1991) stated that, the best criterion for the suitable tillage implement
is power requirement which determines the size of the tractor.

2-8-3-1 Draft of implement:

Draft is the total force parallel to the direction of travel required to propel the
implement. It is the sum of soil and crop resistance and the implement motion
resistance.
Tillage depth, working depth, geometry and stability arrangement of implements
and forward speed are parameters that may effect on draft. In most tillage
implement, increasing forward speed increases the value of draft depend on type
and design of implements and soil conditions ( kepneretal., 1982).
Al-Suhaibani and Al-Janobi (1997) evaluated the effect of tillage depth and
forward speed on draft of primary tillage implements on sandy loam soil, the
results showed that draft increased with increase of forward speed and tillage
depth.
Siemens and Bowers (1999) suggested the following equation to calculate the
draft:
P×S
D= .......................2.4
3.6
 Drawbar power (kw )∗3.6
Draft (kN) = km
Speed ( )
hr
There is a simplified draft prediction equation proposed by Harrigan and Rotz,
(1994) as follows:

D = Fі (A + B× S + C × S2) W × d……………2.5
Where:
D = implement draft, kN.
Fi= dimensionless texture adjustment factor.
i = 1 for fine, 2 for medium, or 3 for coarse textured soils.
A, B, and C = implement-specific constants.
W = Width of implement, (m).
d = tillage depth, cm.

2-8-3-2 Power requirements estimation:

Power requirements can vary due to topography, soil and crop conditions, and
integral tractor equipmentsuch as hydraulic systems, air conditioning, etc.
Drawbar power is the power transferred through the drive wheels or tracks to move
the tractor and implement.
The tillage operation requires the most energy and power spent on farms; therefore
power requirement is an important in order to determine the size of the tractor that
could be used for specific implement.
The general formula for estimating the required horsepower measured at the power
take-off (PTO) as suggested by Edwards, (2009) is:

PTO p =
Width ( m )∗Speed ( kmhr )∗Draft ( kN )∗Soil factor … … … … … ..3.6
3.6
Table (2-3)the value of soil factor for different types of soil and tractor.

Soil type Tractor type

2WD MFWD 4WD

Firm soil 1.64 1.54 1.52

Tilled soil 1.75 1.61 1.56
Sandy or soft soil 2.13 1.82 1.67
Source Edwards, (2009)
2-8-4 Tillage and slippage:
An important criterion of farm tractor performance is the amount of travel
reduction or slip of the drive wheels for a given drawbar load. Wheel slip is a good
measure of how well tractor is setup for tillage conditions. Optimal wheel slip
range from 10 to 15% depending on soil conditions Goering and Hansen, (2004).
The optimal slip is on the low end of that range for firm soils and higher for tilled
and sandy soils.The tractive efficiency drops when slip is greater than 15% and the
fuel consumed is wasted by unnecessary soil disturbance.
Vilde, (2004) reported that increasing the plowing depth and traction power causes
both the wheel slip and fuel consumption to increase. Al-Jubory and Al-Neama,
(2011) reported that increasing in the operating speed lead to increase in slippage.
In study conducted by Aday, (1997) in which he explained that when adding
weight to the wheels of the tractor this leads to a decrease in the power losses by
slipping.
The slippage can be estimated using equation suggested by Zoz and Grisso, (2003)
as follows:
 Vp
S % = 1- Vt × 100………………..2.7

Where:
S = slippage, %.
Vp = practical velocity, km/hr.
Vt = theoretical velocity, km/h.
2-8-5 Fuel consumption:
Fuel consumption plays a significant role in the selection and management of
tractors and equipment used in agriculture. Reducing fuel consumption in cropland
agriculture is a complex and multi factorial process, where farm management plays
a key role (Safa et al., 2010).
Tillage is one of the least fuel-efficient field operations. Conventional tillage with
ploughs is one of the most energy-consuming processes in plant production.
Compared to conventional tillage systems, fuel consumption can be significantly
reduced with conservation tillage systems (Mileusnic et al., 2010). The fuel
consumption of soil tillage operations varies widely and can be reduced through
proper matching of tractor size, operating parameters, tillage implement.
According to Hanna, (2001) fuel consumption is affected by a numbers of factors
such as soil types and moisture, the users, tractor design (two wheels or four
wheels), tractor size, equipment width, working depth and speed of operation.
Key points to save fuel during tractor field use are keeping a current maintenance,
proper ballasting and tire inflation, selecting a fuel saving gear and throttle setting.
Fuel consumption is measured by the amount of fuel used during a specific time
period.
Siemens and Bowers, (1999) used the following equation to determine the average
fuel consumption for a diesel tractor:
 Qavg= 0.223 × Ppto……………….2.8

Where:
Qavg = average fuel consumption of a diesel tractor, L/h;
Ppto= maximum PTO power, kW.

2-9 computer systems for machinery performance:

The main aim of agricultural machinery management is to complete a certain field

operation effectively, during a specific period of time, and at a minimum total cost.
Management can more or less control machine capacity (machine width, speed,
and field efficiency), as well as selection of implement, operation and crop.
Computer systems can facilitate the examination of these relationships. Many
computer systems were developed elsewhere to analyze the factors that affect field
operations and machinery performance. The purposes of these systems varied from
power selection and implement matching (Dahab and Mohamed, 2006; Alam et
al., 2001; Bol et al., 2006; Yousif and Dahab, 2010), to systems incorporate farm
size, cropping patterns, soil properties and climatic conditions to calculate tractor
power, machine width and estimating costs (Isik and Sabanci, 1993; Ismail and
Burkhardt, 1994). Other systems deal with special crops. Some computer programs
in field of agriculture engineering were conducted to calculate and predict the
performance parameters including field efficiency, field capacity, selection of
optimum equipment, draft power required to operate machines and power at take-
off shaft for given equipment soil resistance, predict the performance parameters
including field efficiency, field capacity, selection of optimum equipment, draft
power required to operate machines and power at take-off shaft for a given
equipment soil resistance, (Mohamed et al., 2011).

CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS

3-1 The experimental site

3-1-1 Location
The experiment was carried out in the Demonstration Farm of the Faculty of
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, Peace University, Elfula, West
Kordofan State (latitude10˚:5̀0 -12˚:30̀ N and longitudes 27˚: 40̀ -29˚ E ) for two
consecutive seasons (2015/2016 and 2016/2017) (Fig 3-1).
 Figure 3.1: Map of the experimental site location.

3-1-2 Climate
The climate is semi-arid with relatively cool in winter and hot in summer, and the
annual mean rainfall is 400 mm, most of it occurs from July to October. The
rainfall distribution is erratic within the year and from year to year (Fig 3.2).

3-1-3 Soil
The soil type is ranging from sandy clay to sandy loam characterized relatively by
high content of sand with an average PH of 6.

3-2 The experimental treatments and layout

The treatments consisted of four types of conservation tillage techniques (chisel
ploughing, offset disc harrowing, cultivator, chisel ploughing + offset disc
harrowing) and traditional method or no tillage ( control) as a factor A (main
plots), and two sorghum cultivars (wad ahmed and zinnary) as a factor B (sub-
plots) were used as indicators.
The experiment was factorial, laid out in strip-plot and arranged in a randomized
complete block design with three replications (Fig 3-3). An experimental block of
30 m long and 3 m wide was used for each treatment with 4 rows and 50 cm
spacing between rows. The total area used for the study was 1800 m2.

3-3 The performance of tillage implements:

The field was cleared manually and laid out before implementing the different
tillage operations. Different types of tractors were used in this study namely ;
Foton (82hp) Foton (125hp) and New Holland TT75 (75 hp) during the first
season. Two tractors New Holland TT75 (75hp) and Tafe (80 hp) were used during
the second season (Table 3-1).
As well as a set of tillage implements included chisel plow, offset disc harrowand
cultivator were used in this experiment.
*No need to this figure, so, it can be removed
 1000

900

800

700

600
Total rainfall (mm)

500

400

300

200

100

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Figure 3.2 Annual rainfalls in EL Fula from 2000 to 2015

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5
1m
 15 m V1 V2 V1 V2 V1

15 m V2 V1 V2 V1 V2

3m
Fig. 3-3 Experimental field layout

T1 = no-tillage (control); T2 = chisel ploughing; T3 = offset disc harrowing;T4 = cultivator;T5 =

mulch tillage;V1= local cultivar; and V2 = Wadahmed cultivar

Table 3-1 the specifications of the tractors used in the study.

Tractor Name
New Holland Tafe Foton 904 Foton 1254
Specification
 TT75
No. of cylinder 4 4 4 6
Engine power (hp) 75 80.5 82 125
PTO Rated (hp) 59 71 73.8 105
Fuel type Diesel Diesel Diesel Diesel
Rated RPM 2500 2200 2200 2200
Fuel capacity (gallon) 23.5 18.5 40 84
Steering type power power hydraulic Hydraulic
Total weight (Ib) 5470 2770 8795 13670

Tillage implements made only one pass during the tillage operation and implement
width, working depth and operating speed were shown in Table 3-2.
Table 3-1 the implement width, average depth and operating speed

Implement Width (m) Average Depth (cm) operating speed (km/hr)

Chisel plow 1.9 25 5.65
Cultivator 1.89 10 9
Offset disc harrow 2 15 6.45

The performance parameters which were measured include:

3-3-1 Forward speed:

The speed was calculated as the ratio of the distance (m) to the time required by
the machine to travel the distance. The distance travelled (m) determined using
measuring tape.
The time taken (s) to distance travelled (m) during operation was determined using
stopwatch. The forward speed of tractor (km / hr) was calculated by following
equation:
DT
×3.6................................3.1
S= t

Where,
S = speed (km /h).
DT = travelled distance (m).
t = time (sec).
3-3-2 Theoretical field capacity:
The width of implement was measured using the measuring tape. The Theoretical
field capacity (ha / hr) was calculated using the following equation (ASABE
Standards, 2006).

W ×S
................................3.2
TFC = C

Where:
TFC = Theoretical field capacity, (ha / hr).
S = Speed, (km / hr).
W = Width of implement, (m).
C = Constant, (10).
3-3-3 Effective field capacity:
The effective field capacity (ha / hr) was calculated using the following equation
(ASABE Standards, 2006).

A×3600
................................3.3
EFC = T×10000
Where:
EFC = effective field capacity, (ha / hr).
A = plot area, (m2).
T = total plot time, (sec).

3-3-4 Field efficiency:

Field efficiency defined as the ratio ofective field capacity to theoretical field
capacity.it was calculated using the following equation suggested by Kepner etal.,
(1982):
EFC
×100................................3.4
FE = TFC

Where:
FE = field efficiency, %.
EFC = effective field capacity, ha / hr.
TFC = theoretical field capacity, ha / hr.

3-3-5 Tillage depth:

The depth was obtained by means of hydraulic system. Depth of tillage was
measured in centimeters immediately after each tillage operation. A hand scale
(ruler) made to penetrate tilled soil was used to measure ploughing depth. The
readings were taken randomly at three locations in each experimental unit, and
then theaverage depth of tillage (cm) was calculated.
3-3-6 Slippage percentage:
Wheel slip was calculated as a percentage loss of forward speed of the tractor as
suggested by Zoz and Grisso, (2003) as follows:

VP
(1− )×100. ................... ........ ....3.5
S%= Vt

Where:
S = slippage, %.
Vp = practical velocity, km/hr.
Vt = theoretical velocity, km/h.
The theoretical speed (km/hr)was measured using stop watch to record the time
taken (s) by the tractor to travel a specific distance (30 m) with the specific tillage
implement raised up slightly from the soil. Then the theoretical speed was
calculated using the following equation:

L
Vt = Tt × 3.6 … … … … .3.6

Where:
Vt = theoretical velocity, km / hr.
L = distance, m.
Tt = theoretical time (without tilling), sec/
The practical speed (km / hr) was measured using stop watch to record the time
taken (s) by the tractor to travel a specific distance (30 m) with the specific tillage
implement in operation case. Then practical speed (km / hr) was calculated using
the following equation:
L
Vp = Tp ×3.6 … … … …..3. 7

Where:
Vp = practical velocity, km/hr.
Tp = practical time (with tilling), s.

3-3-7 Fuel consumption:

Fuel consumption (l/ha), was determined by using the following formula (Siemens
and Bowers, 1999):
Qavg = 0.223 × Ppto…………3.8

Where:
Qavg = average fuel consumption of a diesel tractor, L/h;
Ppto = maximum PTO power, kW.
3-3-8 Implement draft requirement:
The draft (kN) was estimated using equation proposed by Harrigan and Rotz,
(1994) as follows:

D = Fі (A + B × S + C × S2) W× d…3.9
Where:
D = implement draft, kN.
Fi= dimensionless texture adjustment factor.
i = 1 for fine, 2 for medium, or 3 for coarse textured soils.
A, B, and C = implement-specific constants.
W = Width of implement, (m).
d = tillage depth, cm.

3-3-9 Drawbar power:

Drawbar power was computed using the relation between draft and travel speed.
The drawbar power (kw) required for the implement wascomputed using equation
suggested by ASAE, (2000) as follows:

D× S
Pdb= 3.6 … … … … … … … ..3.1 0

Where:
Pdb = drawbar power required for the implement, kw.
D = implement draft, kN.
S = travel speed, km/hr.

3-4Soil properties:
Soil samples were collected from three different locations at depths 0 – 15 cm and
15 – 30 cm before the tillage operations. Anauger was used for taking soil samples.
Soil samples were analyzed to determine some soil physico-chemical
characteristics of the experimental site.
3-4-1 Soil moisture content:
Moisture content of the soil was measured once for both seasons, after a month
from the planting date,in each experimental unit at depths 0 - 15 cm, 15 - 30 cm
and 30 - 45 cm. An auger was used for taking soil samples, the soil samples were
put in paper bags.Then the soil samples were weighted in weighing balance to
obtain the wet weight, and then soil samples were dried in oven at 105C⁰ and time
period24 hour to obtain the dry weight. The moisture content of each sample was
calculated on a percent dry weight basis. The following formula was used to
calculate the moisture content of soil(black etal., 1993):

w wet −w dr y
M.C% = w dry
∗100………………..3.11

Where:
M.C% = Moisture content, (%).
Wwet = Weight of the wet soil sample, (g).
Wdry= Weight of the dried soil sample, (g).
3-5 Sowing:
Two cultivars of sorghum (Wad Ahmed and Zinnary) were planted manually by
using traditional hoes. The crop was sown on the 22nd of July 2016 in the first
season, and on the 10th of August 2017 in the second season. Five to sex seeds
were sown per hole at 50cm – 50cm spacing. Seedlings were thinned to three
plants per hole,three weeks after germination. The crop was manually weeded a
month after sowing.
A measurement of growth attributes such as plant height (cm), number of leaf per
plant and stem diameter (mm) were taken twice during the season (first reading
after month of the germination, and second reading at the late season), while plant
population and Fresh and dry matter yields (kg/m2)were taken once during the
season (at the late season) . These measurements of growth attributes and yield
were as follows:

3-5-1 Plant height (cm):

Three plants were chosen at random from each plot. Plant height for each plant was
taken from the base of the plant to the top by using a metering device. The mean
height of the three plants was recorded.

3-5-2 Number of leaves per plant:

Three plants were randomly selected from each plot and number of leaves in each
selected plant was counted. The mean number of leaves per plant was obtained.

3-5-3 Stem diameter (mm):

Three plants were randomly selected and the stem diameter of each plant was
measured using a vernia at the middle of the stem. The mean stem diameter of the
three plants was recorded.

3-5-4 Plant population (plant/m2):

At each plot the number of plants in a square meter which randomly selected was
counted three times, and the mean number for plant population in a square meter
was obtained.

3-5-5 Fresh and dry matter yields (kg/m2):

At each plot three different locations in square meter were selected. The plants
were cutat the ground level, tied in bundlesand weighed in the field to obtain the
fresh weight (kg/m2).Then plants left to dry for 10 days under the sun and then
weighed to give the air-dry dry matter yield.

3-5-6 Grain yield (kg/ha):

At each plot a specific area in (m 2) was selected, the plants heads were cut and the
grains were threshed and weighed, and yield per square meter was recorded to
have grain yield, then the yield converted to kg/ha.

3-6 Rainfall measurement:

A simple rainfall gauge was installed near the site to record theamount of rainfall
in the experimental site for two seasons.
3-7 Statistical analysis:
The data were analyzed using Statistix 8 program for analysis of variance. Means
separation performed using the least significant difference test at 5 % of
probability.
3-8 Computer modeling:
Microsoft visual studio ultimate 2012 C + + programming language was used to
build a program for predicting implement performance variables. The field
measurements of tillage implements were used as inputs in the program.
Performance parameters such as theoretical field capacity, effective field capacity,
field efficiency, slippage, fuel consumption and implement draft were calculated
when the program was executed and the flowchart of the program is shown in Fig
3.4 and the model codes were demonstrated in Appendix 1.

Start

Enter: plot dimensions (dims)

implement operating parameters (p)
 Fig.3-4 Program FOUR
CHAPTE flowchart

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4-1 Soil properties:

The soil physico-chemical properties of the experimental site were determined at
depth 0 – 15cm and 15 – 30cm with three different positions before tillage
operation. The results are presented in Table 4-1. The soil had low organic carbon,
nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus contents.Standard textural soil classifications
include three inorganic constituents’ clay, silt and sand, the relative percentage of
these three constituents determine the textural classification. According to the soil
texture triangle diagram, the soil can be classified asa sandy loam consisting of
more than 60 % sand.
As can be seen from the Table 4-1, the fertility status of the soil was low indicating
the need for appropriate measures of soil management and soilfertility
improvement.

4-1-1 soil moisture content:

A month after planting the soil moisture contentwas measured under different
conservation tillage practices and depth of 0 – 15cm, 15 – 30cm and 30 –
45cm.The results of analysis showed that soil moisture content had not
significantly influenced (p<0.05) by conservation tillage practices and the
traditional method with regard to the sampling depths for both seasons(Table 4-2).
In the first season the cultivator was recorded the highest value of moisture content
about5.3667% as compared to the other conservation tillage practices, in contrast
chisel plow was recorded the lowest moisture content about 4.7111 %.
As can be seen from Table 4-2 there was no significant differences (p<0.05)
among sampling depths.The soil moisture content was increased when the
sampling depth was increased. The depth 30 – 45cm recorded the highest value of
moisture content about 5.7467 %, whilethe lowest value of moisture content
recorded at depth 0 – 15cm was about 4.2067 %.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and sampling depths was not
significant Fig. 4-1. The cultivator when compared with other tillage methods had
the highest moisture content about6.1667 % at depth 15 – 30cm. while chisel plow
had the lowest moisture content about3.7000 % at depth 0 – 15 cm.
However during the second seasonthe (chisel plow +offset disc harrow) recorded
the highest moisture content about8.2422%, while the lowest moisture content
value recorded by offset disc harrow about7.7411%(Table 4-2). Aswell the depth
30 – 45cm recorded the highest value of moisture content when compared to the
other depths 8.465 %, while the lowest moisture content value obtained was
7.3107% at depth 0 – 15 cm.
Also during the second season the interaction between tillage methods and
sampling depths was not significant Fig. 4-2.The chisel plow when compared with
other conservation tillage practices had the highest moisture content about8.9767
% at depth 30 – 45 cm, at the same time it was obtained the lowest moisture
content about6.79% at depth 0 – 15 cm. it was observed that the chisel plow gave
the lowest soil moisture content at depth 0 – 15 cm for both seasons.These results
obtained from both seasons can be attributed to the texture of soil (macrospores)
which allow more water flow into deeper layers(permeability), or may be due to
the time of measuring soil moisture content. These results were in agreement with
Dangolani and Narob, (2013).

4-2 Amount of rainfall:

The amounts of monthly rainfall of the experimental site were measured for two
seasons, are presented in Fig.4-3. The total amounts of annual rainfall were 505
mm and 700 mm for first and second seasons respectively. The rainy season started
in May and ended in October for both seasons. Most of rain occurred in July 116
mm and 234 mm for first and second seasons respectively. The number of rainy
days ranged between 35 and 31 days for first and second seasons respectively.
Table 4-1 the soil physico-chemical properties of the experimental site.

Soil sample depth (cm) 0 – 15 15 – 30

Saturation percent (%) 26 25.2
Ph 6.50 6.54
Ec(ds/m) 0.23 0.18
Na (m eq/l) 0.323 0.23
K (m eq/l) 0.16 0.123
N (%) 0.017 0.02
P (ppm) 2.5 2.7
Organic carbon(%) 0.05 0.055
SAR 0.32 0.46
Bulk density (cm3/g) 1.42 1.47
Particle density(cm3/g) 2.64 2.67
Porosity(%) 46.21 44.94
Clay(%) 19.85 19.71
Silt(%) 14.98 14.61
Sand (%) 65.16 65.68

Table 4-2 Effect of different tillage methods and depths of sampling on soil
moisture content (%).

Treatments Moisture content (%)month after

planting
First season
Cultivator 5.3667a
Chisel plow 4.7111a
Chisel plow + offset disc harrow 4.8556a
Offset disc harrow 5.2556a
Manual 5.3222a
LSD 0.05 1.0235
Depth 0 – 15cm 4.2067 a
Depth 15 – 30cm 5.3533 a
Depth 30 – 45cm 5.7467 a
LSD 0.05 1.8205
 Second season
Cultivator 7.8344a
Chisel plow 8.0333a
Chisel plow + offset disc harrow 8.2422a
Off set disc harrow 7.7411a
Manual 7.9100a
LSD 0.05 1.9866
Depth 0 – 15cm 7.3107 a
Depth 15 – 30cm 8.0807 a
Depth 30 – 45cm 8.4653 a
LSD 0.05 1.2167
Means share same superscript letter are not significantly different as separated by LSD
Test at 0.05 level of significance..

6
0 - 15 cm

5
moisture content (%)

15 - 30 cm

4 30 - 45 cm

0
cultivator chisel chisel + harrow harrow manual

Fig. 4-1 Effect of tillage implements and sampling depths on soil moisture
content at first season.
 9

7
m oisture conte nt (%)

5 0 - 15 cm
15 - 30 cm
4
30 - 45 cm
3

0
cultivator chisel chisel + harrow manual
harrow

Fig. 4-2 Effect of tillage implements and sampling depths on soil moisture
content at second season.

250

200
Total rainfall (mm)

150
Rainfall 2016
Rainfall 2017
100

50

0
May June July August September October
 Fig. 4-2 monthly rainfall of the experimental site for two seasons

4-3 impact of conservation tillage techniques and two sorghum cultivars and
their interaction on two sorghum cultivars yield and yield components.
The effect of conservation tillage techniques on yield and yield components of two
sorghum cultivars were investigated during the first season and the second season.
Parameters which studied included stem diameter, number of leaves, plant height,
plant population, Fresh and dry matter yields and grain yield. Table 4-3 represents
the means of the effects of these treatments on these parameters. The obtained
results of these parameters showed that no significant difference (p<0.05)between
conservation tillage techniques and traditional methodduring the first season. In
contrast there is significant difference (p<0.05)between two sorghum cultivars at
all of thestudied parameters.
As can be seen in Table 4-3 there is no significant difference (p<0.05) during the
second season between conservation tillage techniques and traditional method
except for plant population and grain yield. As well there is no significant
difference (p<0.05) between two sorghum cultivars on the studied parameters
 except for stem diameter at lately season, number of leaves at early season, plant
population and wet weight.
It was observed that the stem diameter, plant height, number of leaves, plant
population and grain yield in the first season were higher than that in the second
season.

Table 4-3 effect of conservation tillage on growth and yield attributes of two sorghum
cultivars.

Stem Stem No. of No. of Plant Plant Plant Fresh Dry Grain
Treatments diam. diam. leavese leavesl height height popu. yield yield yield
early lately arly ately early lately Pln/m2 Kg/m2 Kg/m2 Kg/ha
(mm) (mm) (cm) (cm)
First season
Cultivator 5.37a 11.65a 7.665a 11.55a 9.278a 57.83a 18a 0.28a 0.126a 315.45a
Chisel 5.20a 13.39a 7.83a 12.67a 9.11a 76.50a 22.50a 0.40a 0.193a 318.02a
Harrow 4.69a 12.72a 7.055a 11.61a 8.128a 67.45a 21.50a 0.34a 0.166a 329a
Chis+harro 4.94a 13.35a 7.39a 11.50a 9a 70.17a 23.49a 0.35a 0.153a 366.78a
Manual 5.36a 13.06a 7.945a 11.05a 9.138a 62.61a 22a 0.478a 0.118a 337.08a
LSD 0.05 1.183 2.838 1.09 1.873 1.6669 34.489 6.552 0.446 0.1659 204.48
Wadahmed 3.775b 10.74b 6.245b 9.599b 6.541b 40.65b 11.79b 0.204b 0.05b 65.90b
Zinnary 6.456a 14.92a 8.911a 13.76a 11.32a 93.18a 31.2a 0.534a 0.25a 600.63a
LSD 0.05 1.218 1.478 0.843 1.221 1.4393 22.683 3.73 0.237 0.1003 283.02
Second season
Cultivator 7.695a 9.033a 6.317a 7.53a 14.04a 29.50a 22.2a 0.363a 0.173a 118.3ab
Chisel 6.288a 10.23a 5.833a 8.883a 10.28a 29.53a 16.31b 0.494a 0.188a 308.5a
Harrow 5.522a 6.333a 5a 6.422a 8.968a 18.34a 9.31c 0.265a 0.098a 101.2ab
Chis+harro 7.293a 10.17a 6.222a 8.538a 11.5a 36.68a 15.19b 0.425a 0.148a 167.5ab
Manual 4.380a 7.322a 4.783a 7.917a 7.247a 17.78a 7c 0.198a 0.074a 13.98b
LSD 0.05 5.043 5.7965 1.821 2.868 7.262 32.13 5.642 0.516 0.2125 215.9
a b a
Wadahmed 4.869 6.904 4.860 6.660b 7.834 a
13.33 a
10.01b 0.236b 0.147a 33.75a
Zinnary 7.603a 10.33a 6.402a 9.057a 12.98a 39.40a 17.99a 0.462a 0.176a 250.1a
LSD 0.05 2.945 2.1995 2.385 0.406 5.484 42.10 2.002 0.108 0.080 248.63
Means share same superscript letter are not significantly different as separated by LSD
Test at 0.05 level of significance..
Means with the same letter are not significantly different.
4-3-1 Stem diameter:
Stem diameter of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P<0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons. In the first
season the cultivator and chisel plow when compared with other conservation
tillage practices were recorded the highest value 5.37 mm and 13.39 mm at early
and late season respectively. While the offset disc harrow and the cultivator were
gave the lowest value 4.69 mm and 11.65 mm at early and late first season
respectively (Fig. 4-3).The same trend was observed in the second season (Table 4-
3). The cultivator and chisel plow were gave the highest value 7.695 mm and 10.23
mm at early and late season respectively, while the traditional method and offset
disc harrow were recorded the lowest value 4.380 mm and 6.33 mm at early and
late season (Fig. 4-3). These results indicated that stem diameter is less sensitive to
the tillage practices moreover most of the conservation tillage practices slightly
increased the plant stem diameter when compared to the traditional method this
mainly due to the favorable effect of tillage.The results were in agree with El
Naimetal., (2012).
As can be seen from Table 4-3,there is significant difference (p<0.05)between two
sorghum cultivars at first and second seasons except stem diameter at early season
in the second season. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when compared with the
improved cultivar (Wadahmed) was recorded the highest value 6.456 mm and
14.92 mm for early and late seasons respectively during the first season, and 7.603
mm and 10.33 mm for early and late season respectively during the second season.
This differencecan be attributed to the adaptability of local cultivar with regard to
the type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-4).
14

12 Early season
Lately season
stem diameter (mm)

10

Figure 4-3 effect of tillage practices on stem diameter at both seasons.

S tem d iam eter (m m )
16
14
Zinnary
12
Wadahme
10 d
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 4-4 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on stem
diameter for both seasons.
4-3-2 Number of leaves per plant:
Number of leaves per plant of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.
Analysis of variance showed that no significant difference (P<0.05) was observed
between conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons at
early and late season. The traditional method and chisel plow when compared with
other conservation tillage practices were recorded the highest value 7.94 and 12.67
at early and late first season respectively. While the offset disc harrow and
traditional method were gave the lowest value 7.05 and 11.05 at early and late
season respectively (Fig.4-5). In the second season the cultivator and chisel plow
were recorded the highest value 6.32 and 8.88 at early and late season respectively,
while the traditional method and off set disc harrow gave the lowest value 4.78 and
6.42 at early and late season respectively (Fig.4-5). These results indicated that
number of leaves is less sensitive to the tillage practices under sandy loam soil.
These results were in accord with El Naimetal., (2012).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons except number of leaves at early season
during the second season. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when compared with the
improved cultivar (Wadahmed) was recorded the highest value 8.91 and13.76 at
early and late first season respectively, and 6.40 and 9.05 at early and late second
season respectively. Also this difference can be attributed to the adaptability of
local cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-6).

14
Number of leaves per plant

12 Early season
Lately season
10

Figure 4-5 effect of tillage practices on number of leaves at both seasons.

N u m b e r o f le a v e s p e r p la n t
16
14
12
10 Zinnary
8 Wadahm
6 ed
4
2
0

Figure 4-6 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on number of
leaves per plant for both seasons.

4-3-3 Plant height:

Plant height of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons at early and
lately season. The cultivator and chisel plow when compared with other
conservation tillage practices were recorded the highest value 9.28 cm and 76.50
cm at early and lately first season respectively, while the offset disc harrow and
cultivator were gave the lowest value 8.13 cm and 57.83 cm at early and lately
season respectively (Fig.4-7). In the second season the cultivator and chisel plow +
offset disc harrow were recorded the highest value 14.04 cm and 36.68 cm at early
and lately season respectively, howeverthe traditional method gave the lowest
value 7.25 cm and 17.78 cm at early and lately season respectively (Fig.4-7).The
result indicated that plant height is less sensitive to the tillage practices in sandy
loam soil as well the conservation tillage practices improved the plant height when
compared to the traditional method this can be attributed to the favorable effect of
tillage which led to increased soil moisture content.
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars only in first season at early and lately season. In contrast
two sorghum cultivars did not affect plant height during the second season. The
local cultivar when compared to the improved cultivar recorded the highest value
12.98 cm and 39.40 cmat early and lately second season respectively.This
difference can be attributed to the adaptability of local cultivar with regard to the
type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
The interaction between tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars were not
significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-8).

80

70

60 Early season
Plant Height (cm)

50 Lately season

40

30

20

10

Figure 4-7 effect of tillage practices on plant height at both seasons.

 120

100 Zinnary
Plant Height (cm)

Wadahme
80 d
60

40

20

Figure 4-8 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on plant height
for both seasons
4-3-4 Plant Population:
Plant population of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method during the first season. The
chisel plow + offset disc harrow was recorded the highest value 22.49 plant/m2
while the cultivator was gave the lowest value 18 plant/m 2 (Fig. 4-9). In contrast in
the second season the plant population significantly affected (P < 0.05) by
conservation tillage practices. Plant population was higher under cultivator 22.2
plant/m2 when compared to the other tillage methods, while the least was observed
under traditional method about 7 plant/m2 (Fig. 4-9). The decrease number of plant
population in the traditional method can be attributed to the poor seedbed
preparation or insufficient moisture content. The result was in a disagreeing with
Mohamed,(2012) and Bashir,(2015).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when
compared with the improved cultivar (Wadahmed) was recorded the highest value
31.2 plant/m2 and 17.99 plant/m2 at first and second season respectively. The
improved cultivar recorded the lowest value 11.7(plant/m2) and 10.01(plant/m2)at
first and second season respectively.This difference between two cultivars can be
attributed to the adaptability of local cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the
amount of rainfall.
The interaction between tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars were not
significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-10).

25
P lant P opu lati on (plant/m 2 )

20

15

10

Figure 4-9 effect of tillage practices on plant population

 35
Zinnary
30
Plant Populati on (plant/m 2 )

Wadahmed

25

20

15

10

Figure 4-10 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on plant
population.

4-3-5 Fresh yield:

Plant fresh yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons.The traditional method
and chisel plow when compared with other tillage practices were recorded the
highest value about 0.478 kg/m2and 0.494 kg/m2 at first and second season
respectively. While the least was obtained by the cultivator and traditional method
were 0.28 kg/m2 and 0.198 kg/m2 at first and second season respectively (Fig.4-
11).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when
compared with the improved cultivar (Wadahmed) was recorded the highest value
about 0.534 kg/m2 and 0.462 kg/m2 at first and second season respectively. While
the improved cultivar (Wadahmed)gave 0.204 kg/m2 and 0.236 kg/m2 at first and
second season respectively.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-12).

0.5

0.45

0.4
Fresh W eight (kg/m2)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

Figure 4-11 effect of tillage practices on plant fresh weight

 0.7

0.6 Zinnary
Wadahmed
Fresh W eight (kg/m2)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 4-12 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on fresh
weight.
4-3-6 Dry Matter yield:
Plant dry matter yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis
of variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons. The chisel
plow when compared with other tillage methods was recorded the highest value for
both seasons about 0.19 kg/m2 and 0.18 kg/m2 at first and second season
respectively, while the least was obtained by the traditional method for both
seasons about 0.1 kg/m2 and 0.07 kg/m2 at first and second season respectively
(Fig. 4-13). Generally the conservation tillage practices increased the dry matter
yield when compared to the traditional method. The lower value obtained by the
traditional method may be attributed to low plant density as well inadequate soil
moisture content. The result was in accord with Bashir,(2015).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when
compared with the improved cultivar (Wadahmed) was recorded the highest value
about 0.25 kg/m2 and 0.176 kg/m2at first and second season respectively, while the
improved cultivar (Wadahmed) gave 0.05 kg/m2 and 0.147 kg/m2 at first and
second season respectively.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-14).

0.2

0.18

0.16
Dry W eight (kg/m2)

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

Figure 4-13 effect of tillage practices on plant dry weight

 0.35
0.3
Dry Weight (kg/m2)

0.25 Zinnary
Wadahmed
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Figure 4-14 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on dry weight
4-3-7 Grain yield:
Grain yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.Analysis of variance
showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method during the first season. The
chisel plow + offset disc harrow when compared with other conservation tillage
practices was recorded the highest value 366.78 kg/ha while the least was obtained
by cultivator 315.45 kg/ha (Fig. 4-15). However the grain yieldsignificantly
affected (P < 0.05) by conservation tillage practices during the second season. The
difference is significant between conservation tillage practices and the traditional
method. The chisel plow recorded the highest value about 308.5 kg/ha followed by
chisel plow + offset disc harrow about 167.5 kg/ha, while the lower value obtained
by the traditional method about 13.98 kg/ha (Fig. 4-15).There was 1.1 % increases
in sorghum grain yield under chisel plow + offset disc harrow during the first
season. As well as 22.1 % increase in sorghum grain yield under chisel plow, 12 %
under chisel plow + offset disc harrow, 8.5 % under cultivator and 7.2 % under
offset disc harrow during the second season. The positive impact of conservation
tillage practices particularly during the second as compared to the traditional
method could be due to the favorable effects of tillage on soil. The results were in
agree with (Ahmed etal., 2015) and ElNaimetal., 2012), they found that the use of
chisel plow and disc harrow increased the sorghum grain yield when compared
with traditional method ( no till).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars at firstseason. The difference between two sorghum
cultivars is not significant during the second season. The local cultivar (Zinnary)
was recorded the higher value for both seasons about 600.63 kg/ha and 250.1 kg/ha
during first and second season respectively. The least value was obtained by
improved cultivar (Wadahmed) for both seasons about 65.90 kg/ha and 33.75 kg/ha
during the first and second season respectively. This difference can be attributed to
the adaptability of local cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of
rainfall.
The interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig. 4-16). The chisel plow + offset
disc harrow recorded the higher value under local cultivar (Zinnary) about 726.23
kg/ha followed by offset disc harrow 630.43 kg/ha during the first season. While
the least value obtained by the traditional method about 514.77 kg/ha. On the other
hand the traditional method was recorded the higher value under improved cultivar
(Wadahmed) about 159.40 kg/ha followed by chisel plow about 96.83 kg/ha. And
the lower value obtained by chisel plow + offset disc harrow 7.33 kg/ha.
However during the second season the chisel plow recorded the higher value about
566.67 kg/ha under the local cultivar (Zinnary) followed by chisel plow + offset
disc harrow about 233.33 kg/ha, the least value obtained by the traditional method
about 23.67 kg/ha. On the other hand the higher value obtained by the chisel plow
+ offset disc harrow about 101.73 kg/ha under improved cultivar (Wadahmed)
followed by chisel plow about 50.40 kg/ha, while the least value obtained by offset
disc harrow 1.33 kg/ha.

400

350

300
Yield (kg/ha)

250

200

150

100

50

0
 Figure 4-15 effect of tillage practices on yield of sorghum.

800

700
Zinnary
600
Wadahmed
Yield (kg/ha)

500

400

300

200

100

Figure 4-16 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on yield

4-4 The performance of tillage implements:

The data of the performance of three tillage implements namely chisel plow,
cultivator and offset disc harrow for two consecutive seasons is presented in (Table
4-4). The studied parameters wereincluded effective field capacity, field efficiency,
travel reduction (slippage) and fuel consumption.
Table 4-4 performance of tillage implements

First Season
Implements
Effective field Field efficiency Slippage Fuel consumption
capacity (ha/h) (%) (%) (l/h)
Chisel plow 1.22 b 78.7b 12.33a 11.87b
Cultivator 2.60a 84a 11.93a 10.46c
Offset disc harrow 1.57b 77.27b 8b 17.13a
L.S.D 0.485 1.838 1.066 1.22
Second season
Chisel plow 1b 83 b 14a 11.43a
Cultivator 2.1 a 86 a 12ab 11ab
Offset disc harrow 0.84 b 84 ab 11b 10.33b
L.S.D 0.352 2.267 2.199 0.799
Means share same superscript letter are not significantly different as separated by LSD
Test at 0.05 level of significance..
4-4-1 Effective field capacity:
As can be seen from Table 4-4, there is significant difference (P < 0.05) between
tillage implements for both seasons. The difference is significant between
cultivator and other two tillage implements for both seasons. During the first
season the cultivator was obtained the higher value about 2.60 ha/hr followed by
offset disc harrow about 1.57 ha/hr while the chisel plow gave the lower value
about 1.22 ha/hr (Fig. 4-17). During the second season the cultivator was recorded
the highest value about 2.1 ha/hr followed by chisel plowabout 1ha/hr, while the
least value obtained by offset disc harrow 0.84 ha/hr (Fig. 4-17). The increasing of
effective field capacity under cultivator for both seasons can be attributed to the
increasing of the operating speed about 9 km/hrand decreasing of tillage depth
about 10 cm when compared with others for both seasons, which led to increase
effective field capacity due to positive relation between them. The result in agree
with Muhsin, 2017 and Al-jubory, 2010they found that the effective field capacity
was increased with operating speed increased and decreased depth.
 3
Effective field capacity (ha/hr)

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Figure 4-17 effect of three tillage implements on effective field capacity for two
seasons.
4-4-2 Field efficiency:
As can be seen from Table 4-4, there is significant difference (P < 0.05) between
tillage implements for both seasons. The cultivator when compared with other
tillage implements recorded the highest value about 84% followed by chisel plow
78.7% while the offset disc harrow gave the lower value about 77.27% during the
first season (Fig. 4-18). However during the second season the higher value
obtained by cultivator about 86 % followed by offset disc harrow 84 %,while the
least value was obtained chisel plow about 83 % (Fig. 4-18).The field efficiency of
cultivator increased mainly due to the increasing of effective field capacity for both
seasons when compared with other tillage implements, as well the decreasing of
tillage depth of cultivator about 10 cm when compared with offset disc harrow and
chisel plow about 15 cm and 25 cm respectively, because the increasing of depth
lead to reduce the operating speed moreover the time utilization factor will be
reduced. The result in agree with Gasim and Madlool, (2011).

86
84
Field Efficiency (%)

82
80
78
76
74
72

Figure 4-18 effect of three tillage implements on field efficiency for two seasons
4-4-3 Slippage percentage:
As can be seen from Table 4-4, there is significant difference (P < 0.05) between
tillage implements for both seasons. During the first season the difference is
significant between offset disc harrow and other two tillage implements. The chisel
plow recorded the higher value about 12.33 % followed by cultivator 11.93 %,
while the least value obtained by offset disc harrow about by 8% (Fig. 4-19). The
same trend was observed during the second season, the higher value obtained by
chisel plow about 14 % followed by cultivator about 12 % while the offset disc
harrow recorded the lower value about 11 % (Fig. 4-19). The higher value of
slippage percentage under chisel plow for both seasons can be attributed to the
increasing of depth of tillage about 25 cm as compared with chisel plow and
cultivator were 15 cm and 10 cm respectively, because the wheel slippage is
directly proportional to the depth of implement as well the cut in the soil given by
the tillage implement. The result is agree withMoitzietal., (2014) andLeghari, etal.,
(2016).
 14
12
Percentage slippage (%)

10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 4-19 effect of three tillage implements on percentage slippage for two
seasons

4-4-4 Fuel consumption:

As can be seen from Table 4-4, there is significant difference (P < 0.05) between
tillage implements for both seasons. During the first season the offset disc harrow
when compared with other tillage implements recorded the higher value about
17.13 l/hr followed by the chisel plow about 11.87 l/hr while the lower value
obtained by cultivator about 10.46 l/h (Fig. 4-20). However during the second
season the chisel plow recorded the higher value about 11.43 l/h followed by 11 l/h
while the least value obtained by the offset disc harrow about 10.33 l/h (Fig. 4-20).
The higher fuel consumption under the offset disc harrow during first season may
be attributed to the high power of the tractor used about 120 hp when compared
with other tractors without considering tillage depth, the result was in accord with
Safari and Gazor, (2014). While during the second season the higher fuel
consumption obtained by the chisel plow this mainly due to the increasing of
tillage depth (25 cm)because working depth is one of the factors that affected on
fuel consumption, this was in agree with Moitzietal., (2014).

18
16
14
Fuel consumption (L/ha)

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 4-20 effect of three tillage implements on fuel consumption for two seasons
4-5 Computer modeling program validation:

Validation of a computer model refers to the study of model effectiveness or its

suitability for satisfying the purpose for which it is built. The main purpose of
 building this model isto predict and evaluate the performance of tillage implements
namely; chisel plow, cultivator and offset disc harrow under sandy loam soil. The
plough, soil and field variables were used as inputs in the program and when the
program executed the plough performance variables such as theoretical
andeffective field capacity, field efficiency, slippage, implement draft, drawbar
power and fuel consumption rate were calculated.This will help in determining the
plough performance at virtual level before being operated in the field consequently
the optimum implement will be selected. Predicted plow performance parameters
were demonstrated in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 Plow performance parameters predicted by developed program in C + +
language
Performance parameters
TFC EFC FE Slip Draft FCR Power
Plow type
ha / h ha / h % % kN L/h kW
Chisel 1.3 0.97 76.8 14.6 16.0 11.8 22.2
Cultivator 2.4 1.94 79.7 11.3 9.2 10.0 10.1
Offset disc harrow 1.9 1.47 73.6 11.8 10.2 10.7 10.8

In Table 4-5 it was demonstrated that the lowest values of theoretical field capacity
and effective field capacity were recorded by chisel plow with values of 1.3 ha / h
and 0.97 ha / h respectively while the highest value were recorded by cultivator
with values of 2.4 ha / h and 1.94 ha / h.
Cultivator recorded field efficiency of 79.7 % as the highest value while offset disc
harrow recorded 73.6 % as the lowest value.
The highest rear wheel slippage was 14.6 % and it was shown by chisel plow while
the lowest value of 10.0 % rear wheel slippage was demonstrated by cultivator.
The highest values of draft force, fuel consumption rat and power were 16.0 kN,
11.8 L / h and 22.2 kW and they were recorded by chisel plow while the lowest
values were 9.2 kN, 10.0 L / h and 10.1 kW and they were recorded by cultivator.
The highest power requirements recorded by chisel plow was due to its highest
working depth as compared to other plows.

CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5-1 Conclusions:
From the results obtained from this study the following conclusions can be drawn:
1- Conservation tillage practices and traditional method showed similar effects
on yield and yield components during the first season.
2- Sorghum grain yield was affected by conservation tillage practices it was
found to be significantly during the second season they increased the yield
compared to the traditional method.
3- In sandy loam soil local cultivar (Zinnary) proved to be superior to the
improved cultivar (Wadahmed)as it was reflected in the increase on the
studied growth and yield attributes.
4- The performance of tillage implements was significantly affected under
sandy loam soil; the cultivator had the highest value in effective field
capacity and field efficiency when compared with other two tillage
implements for both seasons, while the chisel plow had the highest value on
slippage for both seasons.
 5- Computer model program was successfully predicted the performance of
tillage implements.

5-2 Recommendations:

1- Adoption of tillage practices that conserve soil and water as result the crop
yield will be increased.
2- A combined use of conservation tillage practices and soil amendments
should be applied in the traditional rain-fed to obtain higher grain yield.
3- The application of organic manure the traditional rain-fed should be
encouraged to provide adequate nitrogen for yield increasing
4- Proper agricultural practices such as crop sequence (rotation) should be
applied to enhance soil fertility.
5- Developing drought resistant, early maturing sorghum varieties
6- The selection of appropriate tillage implements should be based on the
location, soil type, crop being grown and other site-specific factors.
7- Further studies are required for the technical performance of conservation
tillage implements in sandy loam soil, as well the impact of tillage
implements on soil moisture conservation and soil
8- Further studies are recommended alsowith regard to the interaction between
tillage practices and soil amendments on soil water dynamic.
 REFERENCES

Abdalla, A. A. and AbdelNour, H. O. (2001). Executive Intelligence review.In the

Agricultural Potential of Sudan, February 23, 2001.pp.37-45.

Aday, S.H. (1997) .Evaluation of the draught force and soil breaking up ability of a
moldboard plough provided with pulverizer blades. Basrah, J .of
Agric .Sci. 2, 10.

Agro-Biodiversity in Kordofan Region (1999).In Sudan Country Study of

Biodiversity, Biodiversity strategy and Action Plan
(UNDP/SUD/97/G31).

Ahmed, T.E., Omer, M.A., Abdalah, E.A. and Taha, A.A. (2015). Response of
sorghum to urea application under water harvesting techniques in
gardud soils in north Kordofan. University of Kordofan Journal of
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, UKJNRES, 2(2): 01-12.

Ahn, P.M. and Hintze, B. (1990). No tillage, minimum tillage, and their influence
on soil properties. In: Organic-matter Management and Tillage in Humid
and Sub-humid Africa. pp. 341-349. IBSRAM Proceedings No.10.
Bangkok: IBSRAM.
Aina, P.O., Lal, R. and Roose, E.J. (1991).Tillage methods and soil and water
conservation in West Africa. Soil and Tillage Research 20:165-186.

Ajit, K.S, Carroll, E.G, Roger, P.R and Dennis, R.B (2006).Engineering Principles
of Agricultural Machines.2nd Edition.

Alam, M.Hossain, M.M andAwal, M.A (2001).Selection of farm power by using a

computer system.AMA (32)1:65-68.

Al-jubory, R.A. (2010). Effect of two plows, soil moisture and practical speed on
some performance parameters and soil physical properties.Babel
Journal.Vol, 16.

Al-jubory, R.A. and Al- Neama, A.K. (2011).Effects of two plows with different
depths on the performance tractor New Holland TT 75.The 5 th scientific
conference of the agriculture faculty University of Takreet.

Allmaras, R. R., andDowdy, R. H..(1985). Conservation tillage systems and their

adoption in the United States. Soil Tillage Research 5:197–222.

Allmaras,R.R. ,Rickman, R.W., Ekin, L.G., and Kimball, B.A. (1977). Chiseling
influences on soil hydraulic properties soil science society of America
journal, 41, 796-803.

Alnahas, S.M. (2007). Tillage implements performance and their effects on two
types of soil in Khartoum area. M. Sc. Thesis, Coll. Agric. Eng. Univ.
Khartoum. 78pp.

Al-Suhaibani, S. A. and Al-Janobi, A. A. (1997).Draught requirements of tillage

implements operating on sandy loam soil. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Researches 66:177-182.
Anikwe, M.A. andUbochi, J.N. (2007). Short-term changes in soil properties under
tillage systems and their effect on sweet potato (Ipomeabatatas L.)
growth and yield in an Ultisol in south-eastern NigeriaAustralian Journal
of Soil Research, 45, pp. 351–358.

ASABE.(2006). ASABE Standards: Agricultural Machinery Management Data.

ASAE EP496.3 FEB2006. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
http://elibrary.asabe. org/standards.asp.

ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers).(2005).

Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships.
ASAE EP291.3 FEB2005:131–134.

ASAE Standards.(2000). Agricultural machinery management data.ASAE,

D497.4, St. Joseph, USA, 350-357 pp.

Awad, B., Tahir, E. and Eldin, K. (2010). Forest biodiversity in kordofan region,
Sudan: effects of climate change, pests, disease and human activities,
11(3):34-44.

Baker, J B, Southard, R J, and Mitchell, J P (2005) Agricultural dust production

and composition in standard and conservation tillage systems in the
SanJoaquin Valley. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 1260–1269.

Baloch, J.M.; Mirani, A.N. and Bukhari, S.B (1991).Power requirements of tillage
implements. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia 22(1):34-38.

Bashir, M.A, Dawelbeit, M.I., Eltom, M.O. and Tanakamaru, H.

(2015).Performance of different tillage implements and their effects on
sorghum and maize grown in Gezira Vertisols, Sudan. International
Journal of Scientific &Technology Research Volume 4.issn 2277-8616.
Benjamin,J.G. (1993). Tillage effects on near-surface soil hydraulic properties.
Soil and tillage research, 26, 277-288.

Bhatt, K.L and Khera, R. (2006).Effect of Tillage and Mode of Straw Mulch on
Soil Erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India.

Black C.A. Evans, D.D;white, J.L.;Ensminger, J.E. and Clark, F.E.(1993).

Methods of soil analysis 6th ed., Am. SOC. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin,
U.S.A.

Blanco-Canqui, H. and Lal, R. (2008). No-tillage and soil-profile carbon

sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 72(3): 693 - 701.

Blevins, R.L. and Frye, W.F. (1993). Conservation tillage: an ecological approach
to soil management, Adv.Agron. 51, 3477.

Bol, M.B, Mohamed, H.I, and Ali, M.A. (2006).Development of a Computer

Model for Machinery Selection and Management.University of
Khartoum. J. Agric. Sci. 14(2):135-149.

Bola, A.F. and Igbal, J. C. (1976).A source of power for agricultural development
in a developing country.Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and
Latin America 17(4).

Boone, F.R. and Veen, D.E. (1994). Mechanism of crop responses to soil
compaction.In: B.D. Soane, & C. Van Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Soil
compaction in crop production (pp. 237-264). New York: Elsevier.

Busari,M.A.,Salako,F.K. Tuniz,C.,Zuppi,G.M.,Stenni,B.,Adetunji,M.T.
andArowolo, T.A. (2013).Estimation of soil water evaporative loss after
tillage operation using the stable isotope techniqueInt. Agrophys., 27, pp.
257–264.
Butorac, A. (1994). Conservation tillage in Eastern Europe.In: M.R.Carter ( Ed.),
conservation tillage in temperate agroecosystems (pp. 357-374). Poca
Raton: Lewis publisher.

CFSAM (Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission).(2011). Government of

Sudan and FAO/WFP crop and food security assessment mission.

Costantini, A., Cosentino, D.and Segat, A. (1996). Influence of tillage systems on

biological properties of a TypicArgiudoll soil under continuous maize in
central Argentina. Soil Till.Res., 38, 265-271.
CTIC (2002).National crop residue management survey.Conservation Technology
Information Center (CTIC),West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.

Dahab, M.H and Mohamed, O.E (2006).A Computer Model for Selection of Farm
Machinery. U. K. J. Agric. Sci. 14(2):167-181.

Dangolani, S.K and Narob, M.C. (2013).The effect of four types of tillage
operations on soil moisture and morphology and performance of three
varieties of cotton. European Journal of experimental Biology ,3(1): 694-
698.

Davis,J.G. (1994). Managing plant nutrients for optimum water use efficiency and
water conservationAdvances in Agronomy, 53, pp. 85–120.

Dick, W.A., McCoy, E.L., Edwards, W.M., andLal, R. (1991).Continuous

application of no-tillage to Ohio soils.Agron. J. 83, 65–73.

Doran, J.W., Varvel, G.E., andCulley, J.L.B. (1994). Tillage and residue
management effects on soil quality and sustainable land management. In:
Wood, R.C., Dumanski, J. (Eds.), Sustainable land management for the
21st Century Vol. 2, Plenary Papers. Univ.Of Lethbridge, Canada, pp.
59-74.
Duiker, S.W. and Lal, R. (1999).Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon
sequestration in Luvisol in Central Ohio. Soil Till. Res.52,73-81.

EARS (1999).Agro- biodiversity in KordofanRigron. Special Assigning Report of

multiciplinary team from ElobeidAgricultural Research Station
(EARS)submitted to theRANC National Biodiversity Action Plan,SUD
(97)G31(HCFENRS), Khartoum.

Edward, W. (2009).Farm machinery selection.Lowa State University.Ag Decision

Maker. File A3-28.

El Naim, A.M, Baldu, M.M. and Zaied, M.B. (2012).Effect of tillage depth and
pattern on growth and yield of grain sorghum (sorghum bicolor L.
Moench) under rain-fed. Journal of novel applied sciences, 1(3): 68-73.

El Naim, A.M.; Ibrahim, I.M.; Abdel Rahman, M.E. and Ibrahim E.A.
(2012).Evaluation of Some Local Sorghum {Sorghum bicolor
(L).Moench}Genotypes in Rain-fed. International Journal of Plant
Research, 2(1): 15-20.

Eltahir, M.E., EL khalifa, K.F. and Taha, M.E. (2015). Scanty regeneration of
Baobao in west kordofan state, Sudan 3(6):206-212.

Fabrizzi, K.P., Garcia, F.O., Costab, J.L., and Picone, L.I. (2005).Soil water
dynamics, physical properties and corn and wheat responses to reduced
and no tillage systems in the southern pampas of Argentina. Soil and
tillage research , 81, 57-69.

Faidley, L.W., Misener, G. C., and Hughes, H.A. (1975). Computer aided selection
and costing of farm machinery system. AMA, 6 (1):61-68.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(1987).Soil and
water conservation in semi-arid area. FAO soils Bulletin No. 57.
FAO, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2006).

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2018). Special
report , FAO Crop and food supply assessment mission to the Sudan.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2007).

FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Sudan. World
Food Program, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2003). On-farm

trials for adapting and adopting good agricultural practices, ISBN 92-5-
105078-3.

Gasim, A.A. and Madlol, G.M. (2011). Studying the effect of tractor speed and
plowing depth on some indicators of performance of sub surface flow.
Takreet journal, 2 (1).

Goering, C.E and Hansen, A.C. (2004). Engine and tractor power 4 th edition.
Morgan, W.B. and Pugh, I.C. 1969. West Africa. Methuen, London.

Gosai, K., ArunachalamA.andDutta B.K. (2009). Influence of conservation tillage

on soil physicochemical properties in a tropical rainfed agricultural
system of northeast India. Soil Till. Res.105, 63-71.

Gupta, R.; Hobbs, P.R. and Sayre, K. (2007).The role of conservation agriculture
in sustainable agriculture.The Royal Society. Pg. 1-13.
Guzha, A.C. (2004). Effects of tillage on soil microrelief, surface depression
storage and soil water storage. Soil and tillage research, 76, 105-114.

Hanna, M., (2002).Estimating the field capacity of farm machinery.Lowa State

University.Extension service.Machinery management series.PM-696,
File Engineering 3-1, and Economics 1-8.pp: 1-4. Ames, Lowa.

Harrigan, T.M. and Rotz, C.A.(1994).Draft of major tillage and seeding

equipment. ASAE Paper No. 94-1533, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
USA.

Hassan, A. E. and Elasha, E.A. (2009).Crop Production under Mechanized Rain-

fed Agriculture in Sudan. The National Symposium on Sustainable Rain-
fed Agriculture in Sudan.

Hemmat, A. and Eskandari, I. (2006). Conservation tillage practices for winter

wheat-fallow farming in the temperate continental climate of
northwestern Iran. Field Crop Res., 89: 123-133.

Huggins, D.R. (1991). Redesigning No-tillage Cropping Systems: Alternatives for

Increasing Productivity and Nitrogen use Efficiency.Ph.D. Dissertation,
Washington State University, 235 p.

Hunt, D.R (1979). Farm power and machinery management.Lowa State

University.University Press, Ames, Lowa-USA. 7th edition, pp:366.

IBSRAM (International Board for Soil Research and Management).(1990).

Organic-matter management and tillage in humid and sub-humid
Africa.IBSRAM Proceedings No. 10. Bangkok: IBSRAM.

IMF (International Monetary Fund). (2002). Sudan: Country Economic

Memorandum:Vol 11: Appendices and Statistical Annexes.
Isik, A. andSabanci, A. (1993). A Computer model select optimum sizes of
mechanization planning. AMA 24(3):68-72.

Ismail, W.I, and Burkhardt, H. (1994).Expert System for Crop Production

Machinery system.AMA. 25(3):55-62.

Jackson, W. and Piper, J. (1989).The necessary marriage between ecology and

agriculture. Ecology, 70:1591-1593.

Karagas, G., Kerkids, P., and Poulovassilis, A. (2012). Infiltration of rain water in
semi-arid areas under three land surface treatments. Soil and tillage
research, 120, 15-24.

Karlen, D. L., Wollenhaupt, N.C., Erbach, D.C., Berry, E.C., Swan, J.B., Eash,
N.S., and Jordahl, J.L. (1994). Crop residue effects on soil quality
following 10-years of no-till corn.Soil Till.Res.31,149-167.

Kepner, R.A. Bainer, R.., and Barger, E.L., (1982). Principles of farm machinery,
4th edition.AMI.Publishing company, Inc. West port, connection.

Klute, A. (1982). Tillage effects on hydraulic properties of soil. A review. In:

Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes.
P.W. Unger and Van Doren, D.M. (eds.) ASA Special Publication
No.44:29-43.

Kumar, A.and Yadav, D.S. (2005). Effect of zero and minimum tillage in
conjunction with nitrogen management in wheat (Triticumaestivum )
after rice (Oryza sativa.) Indian J. Agron.50(1):54-57.

Lal, R. (1980). Crop residue management in relation to tillage techniques for soil
and water conservation. In: Organic recycling in Africa 74-79. Soils
Bulletin 43. FAO, Rome.
Lal, R. (1983). No-till farming: Soil and water conservation and management in
the humid and sub-humid tropics. IITA Monograph No. 2, Ibadan,
Nigeria.

Lal, R. (1989). Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture: tropics vs.

Temperate environments. Adv.Agron. 42.85-197.

Lal, R. (1991). Tillage and agricultural sustainability. Soil and Tillage Research
20: 133-146.

Lal, R. (1995). Tillage system in the tropics: management option: and

sustainability implications.

Lal, R. (1997). Residue management, conservation tillage and soil restoration for
mitigating greenhouse effect by CO,enrichment. Soil Till.Res.43, 81-
107.

Lal, R. (1997a). long-term tillage and maize monoculture effects on tropical

Alfisoil in Western Nigeria.I. crop yield and soil physical properties. Soil
and tillage research,42, 145-160.

Lal, R., Reicosky, D.C. and Hanson, J.D. (2007).Evolution of plow over 10000
years and the rational for no-till farming. Soil and tillage research, 93, 1-
12.

Leghari.N.,Oad, V.K., Shaikha, 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 Univ. Res. Jour.
(Sci. Ser.) Vol. 48 (1) 37-40.

Li, L.L., Huang, G.B. and Zhang, R.Z. (2005). Effects of conservation tillage on
soil water regimes in rain-fed areas. ActaEcologicaSinica, 25(9), 2326-
2332.
Martı´nez, E., Fuentes, J.P., Silva, P., Valle, S. and Acevedo, E. (2008).Soil
physical properties and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and
conventional tillage systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile.
Soil Till.Res. 99,232244.

Mc Garry, D., Bridge, B.J. and Radford, B.J. (2000).Contrasting soil physical
properties after zero and traditional tillage of an alluvial soil in the semi-
arid subtropics. Soil Till.Res., 53, 105115.

McVay, K.A. Budde, J.A, Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M. and Schlegel, A.J. (2006).
Management effects on soil physical properties in long term tillage
studies in Kansas. Soil science society of America Journal, 70, 434- 438.

Mileusnic, Z.I., Petrovic, D.V. and Devic, M.S. (2010).Comparison of tillage

systems according to fuel consumption. Energy, 35:221-228.

Miyazawa, M., Pawan, M.A. and Calegari, A. (1993).Effect of plant material on

soil acidity.Rev.Bras.Cienc.Solo 17,411416.

MOAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) Administration of Statistics.(2008).

Time series of the main food and oil crops (1990/91 – 2007/08).

Mohamed, E.; El Naim, A.M.; Ebeadallah, B.E. Khalid, A. and Ibrahim, K.A.
(2011).Effect of tillage and farm yard manure in yield and yield
components of sorghum under rain-fed. International Journal of Current
Research, 3(6): 389-392.

Mohamed, H.I, Karrar, A.B., Elramlwai, H.R., Saeed, A.B. and Idris, A.E.
(2012).Performance of soil moisture retention and conservation tillage
techniques as indicated by sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench.) yield
and yield components. Global Journal of Plant Ecophysiology, 2(1): 31-
43.
Mohmed, H.I, Sami, I.M., Mohamed, A.A, and Omran, M.A. (2011).A program
for Predicting Performance of Agricultural Machinery in Visual Basic.
Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 7(1): 32-41.

Moitzi, G. Wagentristt, H., Refenner, K., Weingartmann, H., Piringer, G. and

Groauer, A. (2014). Effects of working depth and wheel slip on fuel
consumption of selected tillage implements. AgricEngInt:CIGR Journal.
Vol. 16, No.1.

Moreno, F.; Pelegrim, F.; Fernaudez, J.E. and Murillo, J.M. (1997). Soil physical
properties, water depletion and crop development under traditional and
tillage in south Spain. Soil Erosion and Conservation Longmans Group
U.K. Limited, pp.12-202.

Muhsin, S.J. (2017). Performance study of moldboard plow with two types of disc
harrows and their effect on some soil properties under different operating
conditions.Basrah J. Agric.sci., 30 (2): 1-15.

Mwendera, E., (1992). Analysis of the effect of tillage on soil water conservation.
Ph.D. Thesis. K.U. Leuven, Belgium, 245.

MWPS (Mid-West Plan Service).(2000). Conservation tillage systems and

management. 2nd ed. Crop residue management with no-till, ridge-till,
mulch-till and strip-till. MWPS-45. Ames: Iowa State University,
MidWest Plan Service.

Ohiri, A.C. and Ezumah, H.C. (1990). Tillage effects on cassava

(Manihotesculenta) production and some soil properties. Soil and Tillage
Research 17:221-231.

Onwueme, I.C. and Sinha, T.D. (1999).Field crop production in tropical Africa.
Published by CTA, Wageningen Nether Lands, pp.176-179.
Osman, A. K. and Ali, M. K. (2009).Crop Production under Traditional Rain-fed
Agriculture.The National Symposium on Sustainable Rain-fed
Agriculture in Sudan.

Owens, H. (2001). Tillage: From plow to chisel and no-tillage, 1930–1999. Ames:
Iowa State University Mid-West Plan Service.

Pagliai, M. Vignozzi, N. and Pellegrini, S. (2004). Soil structure and effect of

management practices. Soil and tillage research, 79, 131-143.

Panday, S.C., Singh, R.D., Saha, S., Singh, K.P., Prakash, V., Kumar, A., Kumar,
M. and Srivastava, A.K. (2008). Effect of tillage and irrigation on yield,
profitability, water productivity and soil health in rice(Oryza sativa)-
wheat(Triticumaestivum) cropping systems in north-west
Himalayas.Indian J. Agri.Sci.78(12)1018-22.

Radford, B.J., Key, A.J., Robertson, L.N. and Thomas, G.A. (1995). Conservation
tillage increases soil water storage, soil animal populations,grain yield
and response to fertilizer in the semi-arid
tropics.Aust.J.Exp.Agric.35,223-232.

Rasheed, N.; Burhan, H.O.; Al-Heeti, A. and Marzoug, o. (2004).Introducing Zero-

tillage farming system to replace the traditional farming systems in the
rain-fed sector in Sudan.Journal of agricultural Investment.

Rasmussen, K.J. (1999). Impact of ploughless soil tillage on yield and soil
quality:A Scandinavian review. Soil Till. Res. 53, 3-14.

Reicosky, D. C. (2002). Tillage and gas exchange. In R. Lal, ed., Encyclopedia of

soil science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. 1333–1335.
Safa,M., Samarasinghe, S. and Mohssen, M. (2010). Determination of fuel
consumption and indirect factors affecting it in wheat production in
Canterbury, New Zealand. Energy, 35:5400-5405.

Safari, M. and Gazor, H.R. (2014).Comparison of conventional tractors

performance during primary tillage in Iran.AgricEngInt:CIGAR Journal.
Vol. 16, No. (1) 61.

Salih, A. and Elamin, M. (1986).Effect of deep ploughing on sorghum grain yields

at Gadambalya area. Gezira Research Station 1985/86 Annual Report,
Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani, Sudan.

Samarajeewa, K.B.; Horiuchi, T. and Oba, S.(2006). Finger millet

(Eleucinecorocana L. Garetn) as a cover crop on weed control, growth
and yield of soybean under different tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res.,
90: 93-99.

Schomberg, H.H., Steiner, J.L., and Unger, P.W. (1994). Decomposition and
nitrogen dynamics of crop residues: residue quality and water effects.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 372–381.

Siemens, J.C and Bowers, W. (1999).Machinery Management.Deere and Company

Litho – USA.5th edition.

Silburn, D.M., Freebairn, D.M. and Rattray, D.J. (2007).Tillage and environment
in sub-tropical Australia – Tradeoffs and challenges. Soil and tillage
research, 97, 306-317.

Singh B. (1983). Optimal energy for tillage tools. Unpublished M Tech Thesis,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.
Singh, B., Chanasyk, D.S., McGill, W.B. andNyborg, M.P.K. (1994).Residue and
tillage management effects on soil properties on a typiccryoboroll under
continuous barley.Soil Till.Res. 32,117-133.

SNAP (Sudan National Action Program). (2006). A Framework of Combating

Desertification in Sudan in the context of the United Nation Convention
to Combat Desertification, pp.1-13.

Tebrugge, F. and During, A.R. (1999).Reducing tillage intensity - a review of

results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil Till.Res., 53, 15-28.

Unger, P.W. (1984a). Tillage systems for soil and water conservation.Soils
Bulletin 54. FAO, Rome.

Vilde, A. (2004). Mechanical and mathematical foundation for modeling the

dynamics of soil tillage machine operating parts In:TEKACommision of
Motorization and power industry in Agriculture, Volume IV. Polish
Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin.Lublin, Poland.pp.228-236.

Xu, D. and Mermoud, A. (2001). Topsoil properties as affected by tillage practices

inNorth China. Soil and Tillage Research 60: 11–19.

Yalcin, H. and Cakir, E. (2006).Tillage effects and energy efficiencies of

subsoiling and direct seeding in light soil on yield of second crop corn
for silage in western Turkey. Soil Tillage Res., 90: 250-255.

Yousif, L.A andDahab, M.H (2010).Computer Programming for Selection of

Boom Width and Tank Capacity of Field Sprayer. U. K. J. Agric. Sci.
18(3):363-1377.

Yousif, L.A. (2001). Evaluation and optimization ofSarwala operation on rain fed
sorghum. M.Sc. Thesis; University of Gazira; Wad Medani, Sudan.
Zahi, R.; Kachanoski, R.G. and Voroney, R.P. (1990). Tillage effects on the
tropical and temporal variations of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
54:186-192.

Zida, Z. (2011). Long-term effects of conservation soil management in Saria,

Burkina Faso, West Africa. PhD thesis.Wageningen University and
Research Centre.pp 157.

Zougmoré, R., Zida, Z.and Kambou, N.F. (2003).Role of nutrient amendments

inthe success of half-moon in soil and water conservation practice in
semi-arid Burkina Faso. Soil Tillage Research 71: 143 – 149.

Zoz, F.M., and Grisso, R.D(2003).Traction and Tractor Performance.ASAE.The

Society for engineering in agricultural, food, and Biological
systems. USA. 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085- 9659.
 Appendices

Appendix 1: Computer Model Codes

// Computer Modelling for Tillage Implements.cpp : Defines the entry point for the
//console application.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
//cout <<" fixed << setprecision(2) "<< endl;
double L;
cout<<"Enter plot length L in meter: "<<endl;
cin>>L;
double W;
cout<<"Enter plot width W in meter: "<<endl;
cin>>W;
double w;
cout<<"Enter plow width w in meter: "<<endl;
cin>>w;
double d;
cout<<"Enter plowing depth d in meter: "<<endl;
cin>>d;
double Tw;
cout<<"Enter time without load Tw taken for one stroke in sec: "<<endl;
cin>>Tw;
double TL;
cout<<"Enter time with load TL taken for one stroke in sec: "<<endl;
cin>>TL;
double Tt;
cout<<"Enter average time of one turn Tt in sec: "<<endl;
cin>>Tt;
double F;
 cout<<"Enter soil texture adjustment parameter: "<<endl;
cin>>F;
double a;
cout<<"Enter a as machine specific parameter: "<<endl;
cin>>a;
double b;
cout<<"Enter b as machine specific parameter: "<<endl;
cin>>b;
double c;
cout<<"Enter c as machine specific parameter: "<<endl;
cin>>c;
double PTO;
cout<<"Enter tractor maximum PTO in kW: "<<endl;
cin>>PTO;
if
((L>0)&&(W>0)&&(w>0)&&(d>0)&&(Tw>0)&&(TL>0)&&(Tt>0)&&(F>0)&&
(a>0)&&(b>0)&&(c>0)&&(PTO>0)) {
double A = L*W/10000;
cout<<"Plot area A in hactare is: "<<A<<endl;
double N = W/w;
cout<<"Number of strokes N to cover the plot is: "<<N<<endl;
double Tp = (W/w)*TL;
cout<<"Productive time Tp to finish the plot in sec is: "<<Tp<<endl;
double Nt = W/w -1;
cout<<"Number of turns Nt per plot is: "<<Nt<<endl;
double T = (Tp + Tt)/3600;
cout<<"Total plot time T in hr is: "<<T<<endl;
//double Vp = (L/t)*3.6;
double TFC = w*(L / TL)*3.6/10;
cout<<"Theoretical field capacity TFC in ha / h is: "<<TFC<<endl;
double EFC = A /T;
cout<<"Effective field capacity EFC in ha / h is: "<<EFC<<endl;
double FE = (EFC/TFC)*100;
cout<<"Field efficiency in percentage is: "<<FE<<endl;
double S = (1 - (L/TL)*3.6/((L/Tw)*3.6))*100;
cout<<"Rear wheel slippage S in % is: "<<S<<endl;
double D = F*(a + b*(L/TL)*3.6 + c*(L/TL)*3.6*(L/TL)*3.6)*w*d;
cout<<"Plow draft D in kN is: "<<D<<endl;
double P = D*(L/TL)*3.6/3.6;
cout<<"Plow power requrement in kW is: "<<D<<endl;
 double Q = 0.223*PTO;
cout<<"Fuel consumption rate Q in L/h is: "<<Q<<endl;
}
else {
cout<<" implement performance variables not realistic"<<endl;
}
return 0;
}
4-3-1 Stem diameter:
The stem diameter of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P<0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons. In the first
season the cultivator and chisel plow when compared with the traditional method
(manual) increased the sorghum stem diameter by 0.19 % and 2.5 % respectively
while the offset disc harrow and the cultivator decreased it by 12.5 % and 10.8 %
respectively at early and late first season respectively (Fig. 4-4).The same trend
was observed in the second season (Table 4-3). There was an increase on sorghum
stem diameter under the cultivator and chisel plow by 75.6 % and 39.7 %
respectively at early and late second season respectively, while the offset disc
harrow decreased it by 13.5 % at late second season (Fig. 4-4). These results
indicated that stem diameter is less sensitive to the tillage practices moreover most
of the conservation tillage practices slightly increased the plant stem diameter
when compared to the traditional method this mainly due to the favorable effect of
tillage. The results were in agree with El Naim etal., (2012).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars at first and second seasons except stem diameter at early
season in the second season. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when compared with the
improved cultivar (Wad ahmed) was increased the stem diameter by 71 % and 39
% at early and late first season respectively and 56 % and 49.6 % at early and late
second season respectively. This difference can be attributed to the adaptability of
local cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
An interaction between conservation tillage and traditional practices and two
sorghum cultivars were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-5).
14

12 Early season
Lately season
stem diameter (mm)

10

Figure 4-4 effect of tillage practices on sorghum stem diameter for both seasons.
S tem d iam eter (m m )
16
14
Zinnary
12
Wadahme
10 d
8
6
4
2
0

Figure 4-5 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on stem
diameter for both seasons.

4-3-2 Number of leaves per plant:

Number of leaves per plant of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.
Analysis of variance showed that no significant difference (P<0.05) was observed
between conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons at
early and late season. The traditional method when compared with other
conservation tillage practices was increased the number of leaves per plant an
increase ranged from 1% to 11% at early first season while at late first season the
chisel plow increased the number of leaves by 14.7 % followed by offset disc
harrow about 5.1 %, cultivator by 4.5 % and chisel plow + offset disc harrow by
4.1 % (Fig.4-6). In the second season the cultivator and chisel plow when
compared with the traditional method increased the number of leaves by 32.1 %
and 12.2 % at early and late season respectively, while the offset disc harrow
decreased the number of leaves by 18.9 % at late season (Fig.4-6). These results
indicated that number of leaves per plant is less sensitive to the tillage practices
under sandy loam soil. These results were in accord with El Naim etal., (2012).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons except number of leaves per plant at early
season during the second season. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when compared with
the improved cultivar (Wad ahmed) increased the number of leaves by 42.7 % and
43.3 % at early and late first season respectively, and 31.7 % and 36 % at early and
late second season respectively. Also this difference can be attributed to the
adaptability of local cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of
rainfall.
An interaction between conservation tillage and traditional practices and two
sorghum cultivars were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-7).

14
Number of leaves per plant

12 Early season
Lately season
10

Figure 4-6 effect of tillage practices on number of leaves per plant of sorghum for
both seasons.
N u m b e r o f le a v e s p e r p la n t
16
14
12
10 Zinnary
8 Wadahm
6 ed
4
2
0

Figure 4-7 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on number of
leaves per plant for both seasons.

4-3-3 Plant height:

Plant height of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.Analysis of
variance shows that no significant difference (P < 0.05) observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons at early and
lately season. The cultivator and chisel plow when compared with the traditional
method increased the sorghum plant height by 1.5 % and 22.2 % respectively at
early and late first season respectively, while the offset disc harrow and cultivator
decreased the sorghum plant height by 1.5 % and 7.6 % respectively at early and
late first season respectively (Fig.4-8). In the second season the cultivator and
chisel plow + offset disc harrow as compared to the traditional method increased
the sorghum height by 93 % and 106.3 % respectively at early and late second
season respectively (Fig.4-8).The result indicated that plant height is less sensitive
to the tillage practices in sandy loam soil as well the conservation tillage practices
improved the plant height when compared to the traditional method this can be
attributed to the favorable effect of tillage which led to increased soil moisture
content.
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars only in first season at early and late season. In contrast two
sorghum cultivars did not effect on the height during the second season. The local
cultivar when compared to the improved cultivar significantly increased the height
by 65.7 % and 49.6 % at early and late second season respectively. This difference
can be attributed to the adaptability of local cultivar with regard to the type of soil
and the amount of rainfall.
An interaction between tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars were not
significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-9).

80

70

60 Early season
Plant Height (cm)

50 Lately season

40

30

20

10

Figure 4-8 effect of tillage practices on sorghum height for both seasons.
 120

100 Zinnary
Plant Height (cm)

Wadahme
80 d
60

40

20

Figure 4-9 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on sorghum
height for both seasons
4-3-4 Plant Population:
Plant population of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method during the first season. The
chisel plow + offset disc harrow when compared with the traditional method
increased the sorghum population by 6.8 % followed by the chisel plow by 2.3 %
while the cultivator and offset disc harrow decreased the sorghum population by
18.2 % and 2.3 % respectively (Fig. 4-10). During the second season the difference
in sorghum population among the chisel plow, cultivator, chisel plow + offset disc
harrow and the traditional method was found significant (P < 0.05), while there
was insignificant difference between offset disc harrow and the traditional method
(Fig. 4-10). The decrease number of plant population in the traditional method can
be attributed to the poor seedbed preparation or insufficient moisture content. The
result was in disagreeing with Mohamed, (2012) and Bashir, (2015).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when
compared with the improved cultivar (Wad ahmed) significantly increased the
population by 75.6 % and 79.7 % at first and second season respectively. This
difference between two cultivars can be attributed to the adaptability of local
cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
An interaction between tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars were not
significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-11).

25
P lant P opu lati on (plant/m 2 )

20

15

10

Figure 4-10 effect of tillage practices on sorghum population

 35
Zinnary
30
Plant Populati on (plant/m 2 )

Wadahmed

25

20

15

10

Figure 4-11 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on sorghum
population.

4-3-5 Fresh yield:

Plant fresh yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis of
variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons. The conservation tillage
practices when compared with the traditional method decreased the fresh yield the
decrease ranged from 16.3 % to 41.4 % at first season. While during the second
season the chisel plow as compared to the traditional method increased the
sorghum fresh yield by 55.5 % followed by the chisel plow + offset disc harrow
about 41.6 %, the cultivator about 33.3 % and the offset disc harrow about 23.8 %
(Fig.4-12).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars for both seasons. The local cultivar (Zinnary) when
compared with the improved cultivar (Wad ahmed) significantly increased the
fresh yield by 96.8 % and 95.8 % at first and second season respectively.
An interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-13).

Abdalla, A. A. and Abdel Nour, H. O. (2001). Executive Intelligence review. In the

Agricultural Potential of Sudan, February 23, 2001.pp.37-45.

Aday, S.H. (1997) .Evaluation of the draught force and soil breaking up ability of a
moldboard plough provided with pulverizer blades. Basrah, J .of
Agric .Sci. 2, 10.

Agro-Biodiversity in Kordofan Region (1999).In Sudan Country Study of

Biodiversity, Biodiversity strategy and Action Plan
(UNDP/SUD/97/G31).

Ahmed, T.E., Omer, M.A., Abdalah, E.A. and Taha, A.A. (2015). Response of
sorghum to urea application under water harvesting techniques in
 gardud soils in north Kordofan. University of Kordofan Journal of
Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, UKJNRES, 2(2): 01-12.

Ahn, P.M. and Hintze, B. (1990). No tillage, minimum tillage, and their influence
on soil properties. In: Organic-matter Management and Tillage in Humid
and Sub-humid Africa. pp. 341-349. IBSRAM Proceedings No.10.
Bangkok: IBSRAM.

Aina, P.O., Lal, R. and Roose, E.J. (1991).Tillage methods and soil and water
conservation in West Africa. Soil and Tillage Research 20:165-186.

Ajit, K.S, Carroll, E.G, Roger, P.R and Dennis, R.B (2006).Engineering Principles
of Agricultural Machines.2nd Edition.

Alam, M.Hossain, M.M andAwal, M.A (2001).Selection of farm power by using a

computer system.AMA (32)1:65-68.

Al-jubory, R.A. (2010). Effect of two plows, soil moisture and practical speed on
some performance parameters and soil physical properties.Babel
Journal.Vol, 16.

Al-jubory, R.A. and Al- Neama, A.K. (2011).Effects of two plows with different
depths on the performance tractor New Holland TT 75.The 5 th scientific
conference of the agriculture faculty University of Takreet.

Allmaras, R. R., and Dowdy, R. H..(1985). Conservation tillage systems and their
adoption in the United States. Soil Tillage Research 5:197–222.

Allmaras,R.R. ,Rickman, R.W., Ekin, L.G., and Kimball, B.A. (1977). Chiseling
influences on soil hydraulic properties soil science society of America
journal, 41, 796-803.
Alnahas, S.M. (2007). Tillage implements performance and their effects on two
types of soil in Khartoum area. M. Sc. Thesis, Coll. Agric. Eng. Univ.
Khartoum. 78pp.

Al-Suhaibani, S. A. and Al-Janobi, A. A. (1997).Draught requirements of tillage

implements operating on sandy loam soil. Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Researches 66:177-182.

Anikwe, M.A. andUbochi, J.N. (2007). Short-term changes in soil properties under
tillage systems and their effect on sweet potato (Ipomeabatatas L.)
growth and yield in an Ultisol in south-eastern NigeriaAustralian Journal
of Soil Research, 45, pp. 351–358.

ASABE.(2006). ASABE Standards: Agricultural Machinery Management Data.

ASAE EP496.3 FEB2006. St. Joseph, Mich.: ASABE.
http://elibrary.asabe. org/standards.asp.

ASABE (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers).(2005).

Terminology and definitions for soil tillage and soil-tool relationships.
ASAE EP291.3 FEB2005:131–134.

ASAE .(2000). Agricultural machinery management data.ASAE, D497.4, St.

Joseph, USA, 350-357 pp.

Awad, B., Tahir, E. and Eldin, K. (2010). Forest biodiversity in kordofan region,
Sudan: effects of climate change, pests, disease and human activities,
11(3):34-44.

Baker, J B, Southard, R J, and Mitchell, J P (2005) Agricultural dust production

and composition in standard and conservation tillage systems in the
SanJoaquin Valley. Journal of Environmental Quality 34, 1260–1269.
Baloch, J.M.; Mirani, A.N. and Bukhari, S.B (1991).Power requirements of tillage
implements. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia 22(1):34-38.

Bashir, M.A, Dawelbeit, M.I., Eltom, M.O. and Tanakamaru, H.

(2015).Performance of different tillage implements and their effects on
sorghum and maize grown in Gezira Vertisols, Sudan. International
Journal of Scientific &Technology Research Volume 4.issn 2277-8616.

Benjamin,J.G. (1993). Tillage effects on near-surface soil hydraulic properties.

Soil and tillage research, 26, 277-288.

Bhatt, K.L and Khera, R. (2006).Effect of Tillage and Mode of Straw Mulch on
Soil Erosion in the submontaneous tract of Punjab, India.

Black C.A. Evans, D.D;white, J.L.;Ensminger, J.E. and Clark, F.E.(1993).

Methods of soil analysis 6th ed., Am. SOC. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin,
U.S.A.

Blanco-Canqui, H. and Lal, R. (2008). No-tillage and soil-profile carbon

sequestration: An on-farm assessment. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 72(3): 693 - 701.

Blevins, R.L. and Frye, W.F. (1993). Conservation tillage: an ecological approach
to soil management, Adv.Agron. 51, 3477.

Bol, M.B, Mohamed, H.I, and Ali, M.A. (2006).Development of a Computer

Model for Machinery Selection and Management.University of
Khartoum. J. Agric. Sci. 14(2):135-149.

Bola, A.F. and Igbal, J. C. (1976).A source of power for agricultural development
in a developing country.Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and
Latin America 17(4).
Boone, F.R. and Veen, D.E. (1994). Mechanism of crop responses to soil
compaction.In: B.D. Soane, & C. Van Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Soil
compaction in crop production (pp. 237-264). New York: Elsevier.

Busari,M.A.,Salako,F.K. Tuniz,C.,Zuppi,G.M.,Stenni,B.,Adetunji,M.T.
andArowolo, T.A. (2013).Estimation of soil water evaporative loss after
tillage operation using the stable isotope techniqueInt. Agrophys., 27, pp.
257–264.

Butorac, A. (1994). Conservation tillage in Eastern Europe.In: M.R.Carter ( Ed.),

conservation tillage in temperate agroecosystems (pp. 357-374). Poca
Raton: Lewis publisher.

CFSAM (Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission).(2011). Government of

Sudan and FAO/WFP crop and food security assessment mission.

Costantini, A., Cosentino, D.and Segat, A. (1996). Influence of tillage systems on

biological properties of a TypicArgiudoll soil under continuous maize in
central Argentina. Soil Till.Res., 38, 265-271.
CTIC (2002).National crop residue management survey.Conservation Technology
Information Center (CTIC),West Lafayette, IN, U.S.A.

Dahab, M.H and Mohamed, O.E (2006).A Computer Model for Selection of Farm
Machinery. U. K. J. Agric. Sci. 14(2):167-181.

Dangolani, S.K and Narob, M.C. (2013).The effect of four types of tillage
operations on soil moisture and morphology and performance of three
varieties of cotton. European Journal of experimental Biology ,3(1): 694-
698.

Davis,J.G. (1994). Managing plant nutrients for optimum water use efficiency and
water conservationAdvances in Agronomy, 53, pp. 85–120.
Dick, W.A., McCoy, E.L., Edwards, W.M., andLal, R. (1991).Continuous
application of no-tillage to Ohio soils.Agron. J. 83, 65–73.

Doran, J.W., Varvel, G.E., andCulley, J.L.B. (1994). Tillage and residue
management effects on soil quality and sustainable land management. In:
Wood, R.C., Dumanski, J. (Eds.), Sustainable land management for the
21st Century Vol. 2, Plenary Papers. Univ.Of Lethbridge, Canada, pp.
59-74.

Duiker, S.W. and Lal, R. (1999).Crop residue and tillage effects on carbon
sequestration in Luvisol in Central Ohio. Soil Till. Res.52,73-81.

EARS (1999).Agro- biodiversity in KordofanRigron. Special Assigning Report of

multiciplinary team from ElobeidAgricultural Research Station
(EARS)submitted to theRANC National Biodiversity Action Plan,SUD
(97)G31(HCFENRS), Khartoum.

Edward, W. (2009).Farm machinery selection.Lowa State University.Ag Decision

Maker. File A3-28.

El Naim, A.M, Baldu, M.M. and Zaied, M.B. (2012).Effect of tillage depth and
pattern on growth and yield of grain sorghum (sorghum bicolor L.
Moench) under rain-fed. Journal of novel applied sciences, 1(3): 68-73.

El Naim, A.M.; Ibrahim, I.M.; Abdel Rahman, M.E. and Ibrahim E.A.
(2012).Evaluation of Some Local Sorghum {Sorghum bicolor
(L).Moench}Genotypes in Rain-fed. International Journal of Plant
Research, 2(1): 15-20.

Eltahir, M.E., EL khalifa, K.F. and Taha, M.E. (2015). Scanty regeneration of
Baobao in west kordofan state, Sudan 3(6):206-212.
Fabrizzi, K.P., Garcia, F.O., Costab, J.L., and Picone, L.I. (2005).Soil water
dynamics, physical properties and corn and wheat responses to reduced
and no tillage systems in the southern pampas of Argentina. Soil and
tillage research , 81, 57-69.

Faidley, L.W., Misener, G. C., and Hughes, H.A. (1975). Computer aided selection
and costing of farm machinery system. AMA, 6 (1):61-68.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(1987).Soil and

water conservation in semi-arid area. FAO soils Bulletin No. 57.
FAO, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2006).

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department. Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2018). Special
report , FAO Crop and food supply assessment mission to the Sudan.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2007).

FAO/WFP Crop and Food Supply Assessment Mission to Sudan. World
Food Program, Rome.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).(2003). On-farm

trials for adapting and adopting good agricultural practices, ISBN 92-5-
105078-3.

Gasim, A.A. and Madlol, G.M. (2011). Studying the effect of tractor speed and
plowing depth on some indicators of performance of sub surface flow.
Takreet journal, 2 (1).

Goering, C.E and Hansen, A.C. (2004). Engine and tractor power 4 th edition.
Morgan, W.B. and Pugh, I.C. 1969. West Africa. Methuen, London.
Gosai, K., ArunachalamA.andDutta B.K. (2009). Influence of conservation tillage
on soil physicochemical properties in a tropical rainfed agricultural
system of northeast India. Soil Till. Res.105, 63-71.

Gupta, R.; Hobbs, P.R. and Sayre, K. (2007).The role of conservation agriculture
in sustainable agriculture.The Royal Society. Pg. 1-13.

Guzha, A.C. (2004). Effects of tillage on soil microrelief, surface depression

storage and soil water storage. Soil and tillage research, 76, 105-114.

Hanna, M., (2002).Estimating the field capacity of farm machinery.Lowa State

University.Extension service.Machinery management series.PM-696,
File Engineering 3-1, and Economics 1-8.pp: 1-4. Ames, Lowa.

Harrigan, T.M. and Rotz, C.A.(1994).Draft of major tillage and seeding

equipment. ASAE Paper No. 94-1533, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
USA.

Hassan, A. E. and Elasha, E.A. (2009).Crop Production under Mechanized Rain-

fed Agriculture in Sudan. The National Symposium on Sustainable Rain-
fed Agriculture in Sudan.

Hemmat, A. and Eskandari, I. (2006). Conservation tillage practices for winter

wheat-fallow farming in the temperate continental climate of
northwestern Iran. Field Crop Res., 89: 123-133.

Huggins, D.R. (1991). Redesigning No-tillage Cropping Systems: Alternatives for

Increasing Productivity and Nitrogen use Efficiency.Ph.D. Dissertation,
Washington State University, 235 p.

Hunt, D.R (1979). Farm power and machinery management.Lowa State

University.University Press, Ames, Lowa-USA. 7th edition, pp:366.
IBSRAM (International Board for Soil Research and Management).(1990).
Organic-matter management and tillage in humid and sub-humid
Africa.IBSRAM Proceedings No. 10. Bangkok: IBSRAM.

IMF (International Monetary Fund). (2002). Sudan: Country Economic

Memorandum:Vol 11: Appendices and Statistical Annexes.

Isik, A. andSabanci, A. (1993). A Computer model select optimum sizes of

mechanization planning. AMA 24(3):68-72.

Ismail, W.I, and Burkhardt, H. (1994).Expert System for Crop Production

Machinery system.AMA. 25(3):55-62.

Jackson, W. and Piper, J. (1989).The necessary marriage between ecology and

agriculture. Ecology, 70:1591-1593.

Karagas, G., Kerkids, P., and Poulovassilis, A. (2012). Infiltration of rain water in
semi-arid areas under three land surface treatments. Soil and tillage
research, 120, 15-24.

Karlen, D. L., Wollenhaupt, N.C., Erbach, D.C., Berry, E.C., Swan, J.B., Eash,
N.S., and Jordahl, J.L. (1994). Crop residue effects on soil quality
following 10-years of no-till corn.Soil Till.Res.31,149-167.

Kepner, R.A. Bainer, R.., and Barger, E.L., (1982). Principles of farm machinery,
4th edition.AMI.Publishing company, Inc. West port, connection.

Klute, A. (1982). Tillage effects on hydraulic properties of soil. A review. In:

Predicting Tillage Effects on Soil Physical Properties and Processes.
P.W. Unger and Van Doren, D.M. (eds.) ASA Special Publication
No.44:29-43.
Kumar, A.and Yadav, D.S. (2005). Effect of zero and minimum tillage in
conjunction with nitrogen management in wheat (Triticumaestivum )
after rice (Oryza sativa.) Indian J. Agron.50(1):54-57.

Lal, R. (1983). No-till farming: Soil and water conservation and management in
the humid and sub-humid tropics. IITA Monograph No. 2, Ibadan,
Nigeria.

Lal, R. (1989). Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture: tropics vs.

Temperate environments. Adv.Agron. 42.85-197.

Lal, R. (1991). Tillage and agricultural sustainability. Soil and Tillage Research
20: 133-146.

Lal, R. (1995). Tillage system in the tropics: management option: and

sustainability implications.

Lal, R. (1997). Residue management, conservation tillage and soil restoration for
mitigating greenhouse effect by CO,enrichment. Soil Till.Res.43, 81-
107.

Lal, R. (1997a). long-term tillage and maize monoculture effects on tropical

Alfisoil in Western Nigeria.I. crop yield and soil physical properties. Soil
and tillage research,42, 145-160.

Lal, R., Reicosky, D.C. and Hanson, J.D. (2007).Evolution of plow over 10000
years and the rational for no-till farming. Soil and tillage research, 93, 1-
12.

Leghari.N.,Oad, V.K., Shaikha, 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 Univ. Res. Jour.
(Sci. Ser.) Vol. 48 (1) 37-40.
Li, L.L., Huang, G.B. and Zhang, R.Z. (2005). Effects of conservation tillage on
soil water regimes in rain-fed areas. ActaEcologicaSinica, 25(9), 2326-
2332.

Martı´nez, E., Fuentes, J.P., Silva, P., Valle, S. and Acevedo, E. (2008).Soil
physical properties and wheat root growth as affected by no-tillage and
conventional tillage systems in a Mediterranean environment of Chile.
Soil Till.Res. 99,232244.

Mc Garry, D., Bridge, B.J. and Radford, B.J. (2000).Contrasting soil physical
properties after zero and traditional tillage of an alluvial soil in the semi-
arid subtropics. Soil Till.Res., 53, 105115.

McVay, K.A. Budde, J.A, Fabrizzi, K., Mikha, M.M. and Schlegel, A.J. (2006).
Management effects on soil physical properties in long term tillage
studies in Kansas. Soil science society of America Journal, 70, 434- 438.

Mileusnic, Z.I., Petrovic, D.V. and Devic, M.S. (2010).Comparison of tillage

systems according to fuel consumption. Energy, 35:221-228.

Miyazawa, M., Pawan, M.A. and Calegari, A. (1993).Effect of plant material on

soil acidity.Rev.Bras.Cienc.Solo 17,411416.

MOAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry) Administration of Statistics.(2008).

Time series of the main food and oil crops (1990/91 – 2007/08).

Mohamed, E.; El Naim, A.M.; Ebeadallah, B.E. Khalid, A. and Ibrahim, K.A.
(2011).Effect of tillage and farm yard manure in yield and yield
components of sorghum under rain-fed. International Journal of Current
Research, 3(6): 389-392.
Mohmed, H.I, Sami, I.M., Mohamed, A.A, and Omran, M.A. (2011).A program
for Predicting Performance of Agricultural Machinery in Visual Basic.
Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 7(1): 32-41.

Mohammed, H.I, Karrar, A.B., Elramlwai, H.R., Saeed, A.B. and Idris, A.E.
(2012).Performance of soil moisture retention and conservation tillage
techniques as indicated by sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench.) yield
and yield components. Global Journal of Plant Ecophysiology, 2(1): 31-
43.

Moitzi, G. Wagentristt, H., Refenner, K., Weingartmann, H., Piringer, G. and

Groauer, A. (2014). Effects of working depth and wheel slip on fuel
consumption of selected tillage implements. AgricEngInt:CIGR Journal.
Vol. 16, No.1.

Moreno, F.; Pelegrim, F.; Fernaudez, J.E. and Murillo, J.M. (1997). Soil physical
properties, water depletion and crop development under traditional and
tillage in south Spain. Soil Erosion and Conservation Longmans Group
U.K. Limited, pp.12-202.

Muhsin, S.J. (2017). Performance study of moldboard plow with two types of disc
harrows and their effect on some soil properties under different operating
conditions.Basrah J. Agric.sci., 30 (2): 1-15.

Mwendera, E., (1992). Analysis of the effect of tillage on soil water conservation.
Ph.D. Thesis. K.U. Leuven, Belgium, 245.

MWPS (Mid-West Plan Service).(2000). Conservation tillage systems and

management. 2nd ed. Crop residue management with no-till, ridge-till,
mulch-till and strip-till. MWPS-45. Ames: Iowa State University,
MidWest Plan Service.
Ohiri, A.C. and Ezumah, H.C. (1991). Tillage effects on cassava
(Manihotesculenta) production and some soil properties. Soil and Tillage
Research 17:221-231.

Onwueme, I.C. and Sinha, T.D. (1999).Field crop production in tropical Africa.
Published by CTA, Wageningen Nether Lands, pp.176-179.

Osman, A. K. and Ali, M. K. (2009).Crop Production under Traditional Rain-fed

Agriculture.The National Symposium on Sustainable Rain-fed
Agriculture in Sudan.

Owens, H. (2001). Tillage: From plow to chisel and no-tillage, 1930–1999. Ames:
Iowa State University Mid-West Plan Service.

Pagliai, M. Vignozzi, N. and Pellegrini, S. (2004). Soil structure and effect of

management practices. Soil and tillage research, 79, 131-143.

Panday, S.C., Singh, R.D., Saha, S., Singh, K.P., Prakash, V., Kumar, A., Kumar,
M. and Srivastava, A.K. (2008). Effect of tillage and irrigation on yield,
profitability, water productivity and soil health in rice(Oryza sativa)-
wheat(Triticumaestivum) cropping systems in north-west
Himalayas.Indian J. Agri.Sci.78(12)1018-22.

Radford, B.J., Key, A.J., Robertson, L.N. and Thomas, G.A. (1995). Conservation
tillage increases soil water storage, soil animal populations,grain yield
and response to fertilizer in the semi-arid
tropics.Aust.J.Exp.Agric.35,223-232.

Rasheed, N.; Burhan, H.O.; Al-Heeti, A. and Marzoug, o. (2004).Introducing Zero-

tillage farming system to replace the traditional farming systems in the
rain-fed sector in Sudan.Journal of agricultural Investment.
Rasmussen, K.J. (1999). Impact of ploughless soil tillage on yield and soil
quality:A Scandinavian review. Soil Till. Res. 53, 3-14.

Reicosky, D. C. (2002). Tillage and gas exchange. In R. Lal, ed., Encyclopedia of

soil science. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis. 1333–1335.

Safa,M., Samarasinghe, S. and Mohssen, M. (2010). Determination of fuel

consumption and indirect factors affecting it in wheat production in
Canterbury, New Zealand. Energy, 35:5400-5405.

Safari, M. and Gazor, H.R. (2014).Comparison of conventional tractors

performance during primary tillage in Iran.AgricEngInt:CIGAR Journal.
Vol. 16, No. (1) 61.

Salih, A. and Elamin, M. (1986).Effect of deep ploughing on sorghum grain yields

at Gadambalya area. Gezira Research Station 1985/86 Annual Report,
Agricultural Research Corporation, Wad Medani, Sudan.

Samarajeewa, K.B.; Horiuchi, T. and Oba, S.(2006). Finger millet

(Eleucinecorocana L. Garetn) as a cover crop on weed control, growth
and yield of soybean under different tillage systems. Soil Tillage Res.,
90: 93-99.

Schomberg, H.H., Steiner, J.L., and Unger, P.W. (1994). Decomposition and
nitrogen dynamics of crop residues: residue quality and water effects.
Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 372–381.

Siemens, J.C and Bowers, W. (1999).Machinery Management.Deere and Company

Litho – USA.5th edition.

Silburn, D.M., Freebairn, D.M. and Rattray, D.J. (2007).Tillage and environment
in sub-tropical Australia – Tradeoffs and challenges. Soil and tillage
research, 97, 306-317.
Singh B. (1983). Optimal energy for tillage tools. Unpublished M Tech Thesis,
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Singh, B., Chanasyk, D.S., McGill, W.B. andNyborg, M.P.K. (1994).Residue and
tillage management effects on soil properties on a typiccryoboroll under
continuous barley.Soil Till.Res. 32,117-133.

SNAP (Sudan National Action Program). (2006). A Framework of Combating

Desertification in Sudan in the context of the United Nation Convention
to Combat Desertification, pp.1-13.

Tebrugge, F. and During, A.R. (1999).Reducing tillage intensity - a review of

results from a long-term study in Germany. Soil Till.Res., 53, 15-28.

Unger, P.W. (1984a). Tillage systems for soil and water conservation.Soils
Bulletin 54. FAO, Rome.

Vilde, A. (2004). Mechanical and mathematical foundation for modeling the

dynamics of soil tillage machine operating parts In:TEKACommision of
Motorization and power industry in Agriculture, Volume IV. Polish
Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin.Lublin, Poland.pp.228-236.

Xu, D. and Mermoud, A. (2001). Topsoil properties as affected by tillage practices

inNorth China. Soil and Tillage Research 60: 11–19.

Yalcin, H. and Cakir, E. (2006).Tillage effects and energy efficiencies of

subsoiling and direct seeding in light soil on yield of second crop corn
for silage in western Turkey. Soil Tillage Res., 90: 250-255.

Yousif, L.A andDahab, M.H (2010).Computer Programming for Selection of

Boom Width and Tank Capacity of Field Sprayer. U. K. J. Agric. Sci.
18(3):363-1377.
Yousif, L.A. (2001). Evaluation and optimization ofSarwala operation on rain fed
sorghum. M.Sc. Thesis; University of Gazira; Wad Medani, Sudan.

Zahi, R.; Kachanoski, R.G. and Voroney, R.P. (1990). Tillage effects on the
tropical and temporal variations of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.,
54:186-192.

Zida, Z. (2011). Long-term effects of conservation soil management in Saria,

Burkina Faso, West Africa. PhD thesis.Wageningen University and
Research Centre.pp 157.

Zougmoré, R., Zida, Z.and Kambou, N.F. (2003).Role of nutrient amendments

inthe success of half-moon in soil and water conservation practice in
semi-arid Burkina Faso. Soil Tillage Research 71: 143 – 149.

Zoz, F.M., and Grisso, R.D (2003).Traction and Tractor Performance.ASAE.The

Society for engineering in agricultural, food, and Biological systems.
USA. 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085- 9659.
 0.5

0.45

0.4
Fresh W eight (kg/m2)

0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

Figure 4-12 effect of tillage practices on sorghum fresh weight

0.7

0.6 Zinnary
Wadahmed
Fresh W eight (kg/m2)

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

Figure 4-13 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on fresh
weight.
4-3-6 Dry Matter yield:
Plant dry matter yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3. Analysis
of variance showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method for both seasons. The chisel
plow when compared with the traditional method increased the dry matter yield by
63.3 % followed by offset disc harrow about 40.7 %, the chisel plow + offset disc
harrow about 29.7 % and the cultivator about 6.8 % during the first season. The
same trend was observed during the second season, the chisel plow increased the
dry matter yield by 154 % followed by the cultivator about 133.8 %, the chisel
plow + offset disc harrow about 100 % and the offset disc harrow about 32 % (Fig.
4-14). Generally the conservation tillage practices increased the dry matter yield
when compared to the traditional method. The lower value obtained by the
traditional method may be attributed to low plant density as well inadequate soil
moisture content. The result was in agreement with Bashir,(2015).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars at the first season. While there is no significant difference
(p<0.05) observed between two sorghum cultivars during the second season. The
local cultivar (Zinnary) when compared with the improved cultivar (Wad ahmed)
significantly increased the dry matter yield by 40 % during the first season while
an increase by 19.7 % during the second season.
An interaction between conservation tillage and traditional practices and two
sorghum cultivars were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig.4-15).
 0.2

0.18

0.16
Dry W eight (kg/m2)

0.14

0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

Figure 4-14 effect of tillage practices on sorghum dry weight

0.35
0.3
Dry Weight (kg/m2)

0.25 Zinnary
Wadahmed
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0

Figure 4-15 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on dry weight
4-3-7 Grain yield:
Grain yield of two sorghum cultivars is presented in Table 4-3.Analysis of variance
showed that no significant difference (P < 0.05) was observed between
conservation tillage practices and traditional method during the first season. The
chisel plow + offset disc harrow when compared with the traditional method
increased the sorghum yield by 8.8 % while the offset disc harrow decreased it by
2.4 % followed by the chisel plow by 5.7 % and the cultivator by 6.4 % (Fig. 4-
16). However the grain yield significantly affected (P < 0.05) by conservation
tillage practices during the second season. The difference is significant between
chisel plow, cultivator and the traditional method. There was 29.7 % an increase in
sorghum grain yield under chisel plow when compared with the traditional method
followed by the cultivator by 22.4 %. However the difference is insignificant
among the chisel plow + offset disc harrow, offset disc harrow and the traditional
method. Whereby the chisel plow + offset disc harrow, offset disc harrow
increased the sorghum grain yield by 8% and 7.9 % respectively (Fig. 4-16).
The positive impact of conservation tillage practices particularly during the second
as compared to the traditional method could be due to the favorable effects of
tillage on soil. The results were in agree with (Ahmed etal., 2015) and El Naim
etal., 2012), they found that the use of chisel plow and disc harrow increased the
sorghum grain yield when compared with traditional method ( manual).
As can be seen from Table 4-3, there is significant difference (p<0.05) between
two sorghum cultivars during the first season. While the difference between two
sorghum cultivars was not observed significant during the second season. The
local cultivar (Zinnary) was significantly increased the grain yield when compared
with improved cultivar (Wad ahmed) by 90 % and 89 % during first and second
season respectively. This difference can be attributed to the adaptability of local
cultivar with regard to the type of soil and the amount of rainfall.
An interaction between conservation tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars
were not significant (p<0.05) for both seasons (Fig. 4-17).

400

350

300
Yield (kg/h a)

250

200

150

100

50

Figure 4-16 effect of tillage practices on yield of sorghum.

 800

700
Zinnary
600
Wadahmed
500
Yield (kg/ha)

400

300

200

100

Figure 4-17 the effect of tillage practices and two sorghum cultivars on yield