Optimizing Field Machinery System

Energy Consumption

H. Erdal Ozkan, James C. Frisby

ASSOC. MEMBER SENIOR MEMBER
ASAE ASAE

ABSTRACT programming model. An MPS/360 package computer

program (IBM, 1971; and Sowell et al., 1975), was used
N this study, the optimum power level and matching
I implements were determined in order to maximize the
overall energy efficiency of a specific multi-crop farm. A
on an IBM/370 computer. Additional programs were
developed to generate necessary input data to modify
MPS/360.
70 kW tractor and matching implements produced the
The objective function used in the model was in the
highest overall energy efficiency. Increasing the power
following form:
level beyond 70 kW decreased the overall net food energy
return per unit of fuel energy input.
802
Z = 2 CiXi , i =1 802
INTRODUCTION i=l
Selecting the correct implement size for a given power
source is not a new concept. It has been investigated by where:
Link (1967), Chancellor (1968), Frisby and Bockhop X, = The area allocated to the ith crop in hectares
(1968), Hunt (1972), Burrows and Siemans (1974), Zoz c, = The net energy return of the ith crop in kilocalor-
(1974), Hughes and Holtman (1976), Singh and Holtman ies per hectare
(1977), and Krutz et al. (1977). This study deals with the The model selected crops so that the total net energy
same concept from a different perspective. The optimum return of the farm (Z) would be maximum. Production
power level and matching implements are selected to resources in this model include available machinery,
maximize the overall energy efficiency of a multi-crop fuel, fertilizer, total and irrigated land, labor, time for
farm. The effects of power level changes on net energy field operations, and working capital. The model in-
return and overall energy efficiency of the farm are also cludes a total of 48 constraints. Each constraint is con-
examined. cerned with utilization of one of the production resources
and expressed by a linear equation. A general flow
PROCEDURE diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 1.
Energy efficiency is the ratio of energy output per unit In addition to energy information, the model also in-
of energy input. It is probably the most straightforward cludes information concerning fixed and operating costs
criterion for evaluating production systems from the and farm net income. Cost analysis was not emphasized
energy point of view. By calculating energy efficiencies, although the model does have this capability.
one can easily compare the utilization of energy to produce The model was also used to perform a sensitivity
various crops. However, energy efficiency alone can be analysis to test the effect of selected parameters on the
misleading. A system with low energy efficiency may be model's performance (Ozkan and Frisby, 1980).
more desirable than one with higher energy efficiency if The constraints related to time of field operation
the second system requires large quantities of a scarce werelargely responsible for determining the optimum
resource. Nalewaja (1975) indicated that we cannot de- size of machines. Fig. 2 illustrates the selected optimum
pend on hand tillage for weed control although it returned starting and ending dates of field operations for Central
the highest energy efficiency among several chemical and Missouri and the probable number of good working days
mechanical methods. Scarcity of hand labor eliminated in each week throughout the period March 22 to July 13.
this very energy efficient method from the list of alter- In order to investigate the effect of timeliness of field
natives. In order to eliminate undesirable results (such as operations on net energy return, the crop production
decreased yield), the entire production system must be season was partitioned into small periods. The opera-
analyzed to improve the net energy return. tions that should be performed during each period are
The mathematical model developed by Ozkan (1979) shown in Fig. 2. A 10-h workday was assumed for all
deals with the efficient allocation of limited resources for operations except harvesting which was limited to eight
production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa to op- hours. For example, in Fig. 2, Period 8 starts on June 28,
timize energy consumption. The model is a typical linear ends on July 4, and contains 5.1 good working days. For
cultivation of corn, 51 h would be available. For
Article was submitted for publication in February 1980; reviewed harvesting wheat or alfalfa, only 41 h would be available.
and approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Division of Net energy return from production of the selected
ASAE in May 1980. crops depends directly on utilizing scarce resources. Any
Contribution from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. reduction in resources may lower crop yield and, in turn,
Journal Series No. 8460. Approved 1-10-80.
The authors are: H. ERDAL OZKAN, Assistant Professor, decrease net energy return. In some cases, there is a
Agricultural Engineering Dept., Iowa State University, Ames; JAMES point beyond which addition of a scarce resource is not
C. FRISBY, Professor, Agricultural Engineering Dept., University of justified. In order to isolate the influence of addition or
Missouri, Columbia. reduction of resources on the optimum solution, corn,

296 © 1981 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0001-2351/81/2402-0296S02.00 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE-1981
 (START) MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY 1
22 29 5 12 19 26 3 IO 17 24- 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 UJ
NUMBER OF GOOD DAYS 2.0 | 2.1 | 3.4 3.8] 4.2 4.6 1 4.8 4.7 4.81 4.51 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 [ 5.21 5.1 5.5 | 5 3
1 TIME AVAILABLE (HR» —» 75 T 80 T 92 47 48 < 139 102 J 51 ' 108
DEFINE THE INTIAL CONDITIONS OF THE FARM
COLLECT AND GENERATE DATA
CORN PLOW DISK PLANT j CULTIVATE

[DETERMINE THE SIZE OF EQUIPMENT I

1 ... . !
| PERIOD •» 1 2 : 3 : 4 5 ! 6 ! 7 | 8 9 ]

l | i 1 1
| DETERMINE NET INCOME PER HECTARE FOR CROP? 1 j 1
SOYBEANS PLOW I DISK PLANT CULTIVATE
1

DETERMINE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN : *

!
i
:
i
1 ! J
A. FIELD OPERATIONS t i r i
B. PROO. a APPL. OF FERTILIZERS i
C. PROO. ft APPL. OF PESTICIDES WHEAT 1
HARVEST
0. IRRIGATION
E. TRANSPORTATION 1 ' 1
F. ORYINO
38 III 41 36 |
ALFALFA CUT | BALE CUT BALE
DETERMINE THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIABLES
TO BE TRANSFERRED TO M P S / 3 6 0 PACK. PROG.

FIG. 2 Boundary dates for field operations and available time for each
OBTAIN RESULTS: operation.
A. CROPS SELECTED FOR PRODUCTION
B. NET ENERGY RETURN OF THE FARM
C. RESOURCES DEPLETED
and irrigation. The whole process of partitioning in-
creased the number of variables in the model from 4 to
802.

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL AND RESULTS

To investigate the influence of large tractors on net
energy output, a synthetic farm was developed using data
from previous studies. Only 150 ha of the total cropland
(350 ha) was irrigated—using sprinkler irrigation. Pum-
(START)

JT DATA :
UNIT DRAFT, FIELD EFFICIENCY, \

\ AVAILABLE POWER (PTO), TRACTIVE \

ANO TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT ( T T C ) \
\ POWER NECESSARY PER UNIT W I O T H ]

FIG. 1 General description of model's operation.

soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa were partitioned into sub-

categories.
Variables associated with unirrigated and irrigated
corn were further subdivided based on time of field
operations and application levels of nitrogen fertilizers.
The field work periods for the various operations needed
for corn were: two plowing periods (1 and 16), four
cultivation periods (5, 6, 7, and 8), and four harvesting
periods (12, 13, 14, and 15). There were eight applica-
tion levels of nitrogen fertilizers for unirrigated corn (0,
25, 50, 75, . . . , 176 kg/ha), and ten for irrigated corn |COMPUTE TOTAL DRAFT ON PLOW|
(0, 25, 50, 75, . . . , 200 kg/ha). The result of this parti-
tioning was 546 new variables all associated with corn.
Variables representing irrigated and unirrigated soy- REDUCE PLOW
beans were subdivided depending on whether or not they SIZE TO NEXT
SMALLER SIZE
AVAILABLE
were treated with fertilizers. As explained for corn (and
COMPUTE FUEL
indicated in Fig.2), variables associated with soybeans CONV. FACTOR (FCF)
FCF • 0.32 (ALOAO) 0 4 W
were further subdivided based on four plowing periods,
two disking periods, three cultivating periods and two COMPUTE FUEL CONV. FACTOR (FCF)
F C F ' 1.13 ( A L O A D ) 0 1 "
harvesting periods. This partitioning resulted in 192 in-
dependent variables. COMPUTE FUEL CONSUMPTION
PER HOUR (FUELCO)
FUELCO»PTQ POWER / FCF
Variables representing wheat were subdivided based
on combinations of the following conditions: three plow- COMPUTE FUEL CONSUMPTION
PER HECTARE ( F P H A )
ing periods, two harvesting periods and five different FPHA » FUELCO / AFC

levels of nitrogen application (0, 28, 56, 84, and 112 COMPUTE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
kg/ha). This partitioning produced 30 variables PER HECTARE ( E N C O )
ENCO" 9 3 2 0 ( F P H A )

associated with wheat.

(CONTINUE)
The last four variables represent alfalfa with various
conditions involving application of fertilizer, pesticides FIG. 3 Strategy to determine plow size and fuel consumed to plow.

1981—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 297

 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K> 20 30 40 30 6O70809OI0O
LOADING, PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PTO POWER (X)

FIG. 5 Basis for equations used in model to calculate fuel consump-

tion.

percent or less. The second equation, FCF = 1 . 1 3 (Per-

FIG. 4 Diesel fuel conversion factors for vary-
cent Loading) ° 181 , is used when loading exceeds 60 per-
ing load.
cent of the maximum available PTO power.
ping depth of underground water was 20 m. The irriga- The process for determining the optimum implement
tion pump was powered by a diesel engine, and liquified width and fuel consumption was repeated for other
petroleum gas was used to dry corn. Detailed informa- tillage implements. Table 1 contains information con-
tion about the initial conditions of the farm and methods cerning the optimum width, effective field capacity, and
used to calculate the energy input for various resources fuel and energy consumption to operate the equipment
and activities are given by Ozkan (1979). selected by the model for the initial 50 kW power level.
During the first run, one part of the model selected The next step is to determine the power level at which
machines compatible with the initial power level, 50 kW. the farm will carry the highest "overall energy
Only machines powered by the tractor were selected by efficiency." In this study, the overall energy efficiency is
the model. Fig. 3 indicates the steps required in the defined as the ratio of the total food energy output of the
selection process for a moldboard plow. It was assumed farm in terms of kilocalories to total fuel energy input for
that the maximum plow width could not exceed 3.66 m production of selected crops. For the 50 kW tractor in-
(8-45.7 cm plow) and that the plow could have widths of itially selected, the overall energy efficiency of the
0.81, 1.22, 1.62, 2.03, 2.44, 2.83, or 3.25 m correspond- representative farm was 5.51. When the power level was
ing to 2-40.6, 3-40.6, 4-40.6, 5-40.6, 6-40.6, 7-40.6, increased to 60 kW in the second run and no other
8-40.6, and 8-45.7 cm plows, respectively. If the changes were made, the model indicated net energy
generated width fell between two sizes, the smaller was return and overall efficiency slightly lower than those of
chosen. If the previously specified tractor could not pull the first run (Table 2). In the first run, time available for
the plow because of draft requirement, the power level plowing was depleted. This was one of the factors
was automatically increased and a new plow width deter- preventing further improvements that might increase the
mined. net energy return of the farm. Although tractor power
After determining effective field capacity, total draft, was increased to 60 kW in the second run, it was not suf-
drawbar power, and PTO (power-take-off) power, ficient to warrant increasing the plow size. The increase
another test was made to evaluate tractor loading in in power level was sufficient to increase only the disk
terms of maximum PTO power. If the load exceeded 85 size. However, since time available for disking was not
percent of maximum PTO power, the plow size was depleted in the first run, the increase in disk size did not
reduced to the next smaller size to avoid overloading the have a significant effect on the new output of the second
tractor, and new values for effective field capacity and run generated by the model. Increasing power level to 60
total draft were determined. Next, energy consumed for kW increased diesel fuel consumption in tillage opera-
plowing was calculated. After computing percent tions for corn and soybeans from 38.5 to 40 L/ha. Fuel
loading, the fuel conversion factor (kW-h/L) required to consumption for planting wheat increased by 0.64 L/ha
calculate diesel fuel consumption was taken from tables from 6.88 to 7.52. This raised the total diesel fuel con-
prepared by Hunt (1977) and Kepner et al. (1978). In sumption for field operations by 289 L (from 28,908 to
these tables, fuel conversion factor (FCF) values are 29,197). Overall energy efficiency dropped slightly from
given for 20, 30, 60, 80, and 100 percent of maximum 5.51 to 5.49. The net energy return was reduced by about
available PTO power. To avoid interpolation for in- 34.5 million kcal. The drop in net energy return was
termediate values, two equations were developed. Curves caused by the 36 million kcal decrease in gross energy
representing FCF values given by Hunt (1977) and output—not an increase in total energy input. Interest-
Kepner et al. (1978), and an average of the two, are given ingly enough, the total energy input was down by 1.5
in Fig. 4. When the average FCF values were graphed on million kcal in spite of the increase in power level of the
logarithmic graph paper, they accumulated along two tractor. The decrease in gross energy output was caused
straight lines as shown in Fig. 5. Equations representing primarily by the decrease in utilization of cropland from
these two lines were used to determine diesel fuel con- 285.66 ha to 283.76 ha. Apparently, so much of the
sumption for field equipment. The first equation, FCF available operating capital was used for the tractor and
= 0.32 (Percent Loading) ° 488 , is used for loading of 60 fuel that 1.9 hectare of cropland was not planted.

298 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1981

 T A B L E 1. OPTIMUM SIZE O F M A C H I N E S A N D E N E R G Y C O N S U M E D IN R E L A T E D F I E L D O P E R A T I O N S .

S u m m a r y of t h e results.
Power level (kW): 5 0
Fuel Energy
consumption, consumption
Machines r e q u i r e d Width, m EFC, ha/h L/ha kcal/ha

Plow 1.22 0.59 28.26 263,347.56

Disk 6.63 3.18 5.11 47,632.54
Planter 12.19 3.84 2.30 21,431.85
Cultivator 12.19 4.08 2.78 25,929.94
Grain Drill 3.02 0.99 6.88 64,151.53
C o r n Harvester 3.66 0.95 14.95 139,333.94
Small Grain Harvester 3.66 1.24 10.28 95,809.56
Windrower 2.74 1.44 5.60 52,192.00
Baler 2.74 0.89 4.20 39,144.00

T o t a l purchase price of all t h e e q u i p m e n t ( $ ) : 96,514.69

Average fixed cost of owning machines ( $ ) : 17,372.64
Real estate taxes, insurance, interest ( $ / h a ) : 200.00
T o t a l cost of repair a n d m a i n t e n a n c e ( $ ) : 4,642.37
Repair a n d m a i n t e n a n c e cost per h e c t a r e ( $ / h a ) : 16.29

Corn Soybeans Alfalfa Wheat

Fuel cons, in field o p e r a t i o n s , L / h a 64.23 59.56 64.62 60.42

Energy cons, in field o p e r a t i o n s , k c a l / h a 598,575.75 555,051.37 602,094.94 563,080.31
Fuel c o n s u m p t i o n for irrigation, L / h a 70.32 53.72 83.09
Energy c o n s u m p . for irrigation, k c a l / h a 655,366.50 500,674.62 774,435.31
Irrigation energy cost, $/ha 14.06 10.74 16.62
Cost of herbicides, p r o d , a n d appl. $/ha 63.94 93.19 20.19
Fuel for applying herbicides, L / h a 0.93 0.93 0.93
Energy for p r o d u c t i o n a n d applic. of h e r b . , kcal/ha 81,454.87 81,454.87 32,954.88

Fuel for drying 1 kilogram of c o r n , liter 0.021

Energy for drying 1 kilogram of corn, kcal 129.86
Energy cost for drying 1 kilogram of c o r n , $ 0.00227

The results associated with using 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, Changes in energy input, energy input per hectare,
100, 110, 130, and 150 kW tractors are given in Table 2. fuel consumption in field operations for the total
Net energy return increased from 6,455 X 106 kcal to cropland and per hectare of cropland at different power
6,866 X 106 kcal when the power level was increased levels are indicated in Table 2. The effect of power level
from 50 kW to 70 kW. However, this increase did not on overall energy efficiency is illustrated in Fig. 7. By
continue to other power levels. It decreased gradually looking at the relationship between the power level and
after each increment in power level beyond 70 kW. total energy input in Fig. 7, one should not conclude that
Nevertheless, the net energy return from using a 150 kW increasing power level always reduces the energy input.
tractor was higher than when a 50 kW tractor was used. TOTAL CULTIVATED CROPLAMO
NET ENERGY RETURN
Since the total cropland put into production decreased NET ENERGY RETURN PER HECTARE

gradually after each increment in power level, energy

return per hectare of cropland should be a better com-
parison. The energy return per hectare kept increasing
after each power level increase beyond 70 kW, but only
slightly. The effect of increasing the power level (with all
other operating resources kept constant) on net energy
return, net energy return per hectare and total cropland
put in production is illustrated in Fig. 6. It is obvious
TRACTOR POWER LEVEL UV)
from this figure that the 70 kW tractor is the optimum FIG. 6 Effects of increasing tractor power
tractor for this farm under the given conditions. level on food energy output.

TABLE 2. EFFECTS OF VARIOUS TRACTOR POWER LEVELS ON FARM ENERGY INPUT AND OUTPUT.
Tractor power lev el (kW)
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 130 150
Net energy return, 6,445.0 6,410.0 6,866.0 6,840.0 6,825.0 6,809.0 6,709.0 6,757.0 6.725.0
10 6 kcal
Energy input, 10 6 kcal 1,429.0 1,427.0 1,414.0 1,412.0 1,409.0 1,406.0 1,405.0 1,402.0 1,396.0
Energy efficiency 5.509 5.489 5.850 5.842 5.843 5.842 5.831 5.820 5.816
Fuel consumption in 18,369.0 18,650.0 18,213.0 18,455.0 18,373.0 18,374.0 18,618.0 18,804.0 18,826.0
field operations, L
Area cultivated, ha 285.7 283.8 274.7 273.4 272.6 271.8 271.0 269.4 267.8
Energy return, 10 6 kcal/ha 22.56 22.59 25.00 25.02 25.04 25.05 25.06 25.08 25.11
Energy input, 10 6 kcal/ha 5.001 5.028 5.146 5.165 5.169 5.173 5.815 5.204 5.213
Fuel consumption, L/ha 64.29 65.72 66.30 67.50 67.40 67.60 68.70 69.80 70.30
Selected crops,
Unirrigated corn 81.8 80.0 142.7 123.4 122.6 121.8 121.0 119.4 117.8
Irrigated corn 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0
Soybeans 19.2 17.5 — — — — — —
Wheat 33.8 36.3 — — — — — — —
Alfalfa — — — — — — ~~

1981—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 299

 3 82

3 78

3 74

5.70

-ENERGY INPUT 366

- E N E R 6 * WIPUT PER HECTARE
- FUEL CONSUMPTION IN FIELD OP 364
- FUEL CONSUMPTION PER HECTARE
> 3.601
SO 60 70 «0 »0 IOO IK) 120 130 140 ISO
TRACTOR POWER LEVEL, U V ) g 5*6
U.
FIG. 7 Effects of increasing tractor power
level on various aspects of energy input. >- 3 4 8

This negative relationship occurs because each time the r 5.40

power level increased, more cropland was forced out of
the production due to insufficient operating capital. 532

Energy input and fuel consumption evaluated on the 328

basis of area however, shows the true relationship. In-

creasing the power level increased energy consumption. SO 60 70 80 90 IOO 110
For example, a 150 kW tractor consumed about 4 L POWER LEVEL, (*V)

more diesel fuel per hectare than a 70 kW tractor. This is FIG. 8 Effects of various power levels on
overall energy efficiency.
approximately a six percent increase in fuel consump-
tion. However, the percent increase in net energy return Not much emphasis was given to cost analysis
per hectare (less than 0.5) is much less than the percent although the model does have this capability and its out-
increase in fuel consumption. put includes information concerning fixed and operating
Overall energy efficiency of the farm also showed costs, and net income per hectare, for production of each
variation with changes in power level. This is illustrated crop.
in Fig. 8. The farm reached the highest overall energy ef-
ficiency with the 70 kW tractor. Overall energy efficiency References
1 ASAE. 1979. Agricultural Machinery Management. ASAE
decreased gradually beyond this power level following the EP391, Agricultural Engineers Yearbook, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI
same pattern as net energy return. 49085.
The area allocated for each crop selected by the model 2 Burrows, W. C. and J. C. Siemans. 1974. Determination of op-
for the case farm is given in Table 2. The model in- timum machinery for corn-soybean farms. TRANSACTIONS of the
dicated that a combination of corn, soybeans, and wheat ASAE 17(6):1130-1135.
3 Chancellor, W. C. 1968. Selecting optimum sized tractors for
production would yield maximum energy return when developmental agricultural mechanization. TRANSACTIONS of the
the tractor available had power levels of 50 or 60 kW. ASAE 11(1):508-514.
The model indicates a shift in production policy from a 4 Frisby, J. C. and C. W. Bockhop. 1968. Weather and economics
combination of these crops to corn alone when the trac- determine corn-production machinery systems. TRANSACTIONS of
the ASAE ll(l):61-64.
tor power level is equal to or greater than 70 kW. Ir- 5 Hughes, H. A. and J. B . Holtman. 1976. Machinery comple-
rigated corn was given a high priority in the selection ment selection based on time constraints. TRANSACTIONS of the
process of crops because it had the highest net energy ASAE 19(5):812-814.
return of all crops. 6 Hunt, D. R. 1972. Selecting and economic power level for the
big tractor. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 15(3):414-416.
These results are valid only if none of the operating 7 Hunt, D. R. 1977. Farm Power and Machinery Management.
resources are changed as tractor power level is increased. Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
If some of the operating resources, such as the operating 8 IBM. 1971. Mathematical Programming System/360, Version
capital, were allowed to increase along with the power 2, Linear and Separable Programming—User's Manual, No.
level, a different set of results would be produced by the 6H2O-0476-2.
9 Kepner, R. A., R. Bainer, and E. L. Barger. 1978. Principles of
model. This case is discussed in Ozkan and Frisby (1980) Farm Machinery. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT.
in more detail. 10 Krutz, G. W., R. F. Combs, and S. D. Parsons. 1977. Analyz-
ing equipment size and its effects on farming decisions. ASAE Paper
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS No. 77-1509, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
11 Link, D. A. 1967. Activity network techniques applied to a farm
In this study, the optimum power level and matching machinery selection problem. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
implements were determined in order to maximize the 10(3):310-317.
overall energy efficiency of a multi-crop farm. Corn, soy- 12 Nalewaja, J. D. 1975. Herbicidal weed control uses energy effi-
beans, wheat, and alfalfa (with different production con- ciently. Weeds Today (Fall, 1975):10-12.
13 Ozkan, H. E. 1979. Optimizing energy consumption of
ditions) were considered. The model which included 802 machinery systems in crop production. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
variables subjected to 48 operating constraints, was used tion. Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Missouri-
to determine the best selection of crops for different Columbia.
power levels and equipment size. When a 50 or 60 kW 14 Ozkan, H. E. and J. C. Frisby. 1980. Determining the effects of
forced decreases of production resources on the net energy return.
tractor was used, corn, soybeans, and wheat were ASAE Paper No. 80-1020, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
selected to maximize the net energy return of the farm. 15 Singh, D. and J. B. Holtman. 1977. An heuristic agricultural
For power levels of 70 kW to 150 kW, only corn was field machinery selection algorithm. ASAE Paper No. 77-5018, ASAE,
selected for production. St. Joseph, MI 49085.
A 70 kW tractor and matching equipment produced 16 Sowell, R. S., T. J. Corcoran, and W. A. Anderson. 1975.
Mathematical programming system (MPS/360)—concept and applica-
the highest overall energy efficiency. Increasing power tions. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 18(3):591-595.
level beyond 70 kW did not increase net energy return. 17 Zoz, F. M. 1974. Optimum width and speed for least cost
Moreover, overall energy efficiency decreased slightly. tillage. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 17(5):845-849.

300 TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1981