J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.

1 (8):895 - 919, 2010

DEVELOPMENT PLANTING AND HARVESTING SUGAR

BEET CROP MACHINE.
Elbanna E.B. ; Z. I. Ismail and A. E. Abou El-Magd
Agric. Engng Dept., Fac. of Agric., Mansoura Un.v.

ABSTRACT
The main goal of the present research is to develop a rationalized power, and
operation cost combined machine suitable for sugar beet planting and harvesting
operations, and to be suitable for the Egyptian agricultural conditions. The developing
machine components can be summarized in two parts:
First component is planting unit: is planted two sugar seeds' rows with suitable
depth at top of the middle center of the two row furrows, in the same time formed
three cultivable rows. The formed three shares are seated after the two planting rows.
Each formed row share is a consisted from a double mouldboard bottoms, at end of it
whereas, the drop seeds is covered by the sliding soils path.
Second Component is sugar beet pulling unit: is involved three main sugar beet
harvester components namely, two appropriate shares for loosing the ridge structure
around the roots, pulling out belt mechanism with its proper power transmission
system, and a proper disk knife as a topping mechanism.
The machine id performed 60-70 cm riders during planting two rows. Also
harvester one sugar beet row through pulling out and topping mechanisms. Three
proper ridges in shape of a double mouldboard were constructed one was fixed on
the front machine frame and the other two ridges were fixed on the back frame. Also
two proper shares form for loosing the ridge structure around the roots.

INTRODUCTION
The second major root crop grown in Egypt is sugar beet not only for
sugar production, but also for producing animal fodder, and organic matter for
fertilizing the soil. Over 40% of the world sugar production is produced from
sugar beet. In Egypt the important of this crop as a source of sugar was
increased to meet the increasing consumption of sugar by Egyptian
population. Therefore cultivated area of sugar beet increased from 190,000 to
200,000 Feddans, within 2003 to 2004, (Anon, 2004) .
In the recent time various types of machines are available for planting
and harvesting sugar beet crop. They are operated on entirely different
principles to each other's. There are many planting machines on the market
all over the world, started from early years with mechanical metric wheel
devices to pneumatic metric devices. In this research a comparative studies
took place between using peripheral metric wheel a brush disk for planting
sugar beet crop. On the other hand, the range of the available harvesters all
over the world may be included in three main harvester techniques namely:-
bulk, vibrating, and pulling, harvester techniques. Whatever the harvester
classification, it has to lift the sugar beet crop, out of the ridge and by passing
them through different sections of the implement to separate them from loose
soil, soil clods, tops and any other rubbish. Also whatever type of harvester is
used, the same general principles apply when it comes to setting and using it.
Whereas, the harvester should directed so that it lines up correctly with the
Elbanna E.B. et al.

row of sugar beet crop to be lifted. This will normally be when the center point
of any lifting unit is positioned in the ridge center.
In fact harvesting sugar beet crop in the developing countries
especially in Egypt are often performed by using simple diggers and manual
tools. So harvesting operation can be an expensive labor-consuming if not
proper mechanized, (El–Sherief 1996). Hence, application of a developed
sugar beet harvesters becomes one of the most essential target for
minimizing both, production cost, and root damage. Subsequently, increasing
the net income for sugar beet growers in Egypt.
Over the last two decades a number of pullers have been developed
for harvesting beet-crops. Many authors (Lebicki, 1987 and Srivastava et al.,
1995) reported that, puller mechanism is suitable method to be used for
harvesting sugar beets. In fact there are different types of puller mechanisms
that are harvested by engaging and holding the above ground plant portions
that is to be harvested. Hence the plants with both above ground and the root
portions are lifting together by the pulling action.
In general the sugar beet pullers are favorable if the soil conditions are
dry and weak. Then the front end of the harvester will easily fracture that soil
and the sugar beet crop is extracted free or nearly so of soil. But
unfortunately, most of the available pulling beet harvesters are not developed
to suit the wet and cohesive soil conditions.
Finally confiding that rationalized power requirement, and minimizing
both operation cost and beet damage are the umpires goals of developing
sugar beet seeder and harvester in Egypt. Hence the aim of the present
study is to develop an economical drilling and pulling out sugar beet machine.
The suggested seeder and harvester was planned to perform these
subsequence functions: planting two rows and harvesting one row of sugar
beet crop throughout :(1) losing the ridge around the growing roots, (2) pulling
the bulk of leave cervixes to lift the roots from the ridge with its leaves and
vines, (3) Topping the leaves, and then (4) Directing the roots back to the
ground surface to be picked up by hand.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Sugar Beet Physical and Mechanical Properties

Buyanov and Voronyuk (1985) found that the forces required to shear
the topes of sugar beet were determined by using the dynamometer cutting
0
speed 0.1 m/s, a knife thickness of 1.5 mm, a blade angle of 0.17 rad (10 ),
0
and knife set at 1.57 rad (90 ), relative to the line motion of the root, the

Table (1): Shearing force of topping sugar beet.

Thickness of the Diameter of Diameter of sheared Shearing
shearing layer (mm) root, (mm) section, (mm) force(N)
5 78 41 101.03
10 74 48 113.39
20 80 56 141.26

896
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

The tenacity force (S) of the lower beet leaves bunch (sheaf) section
(at average height of 22 cm above ground surface) may be considered as
1900- 2200 N. That force magnitude did not cause leafs sheaf cutting and it is
four times approximately higher than the required uprooting force (P=560-720
N) for an individual beet plant. {That value is in accordance to the statements
of Klenin et al. (1984)}. The friction angle of a sheaf of beet leaves and a
beet root against a rubber belt surface depends on the respective leaf sheaf
beet properties, and also on the smoothness of the surface over belt sides.
But, it can be considered {according to Bernacki et al (1987)} that the
coefficient of friction of the leave bunch against smooth rubber belt was about
0.4-0.5. While, coefficient of friction of the leave bunch against belt covered
with sackcloth was 0.5-0.6 (Hence , the average of friction angle of beet leaf
sheaf against smooth rubber belt may be about 25°, and against belt
covered with sackcloth may be considered about 27°
Ismail et al. (1989) reported that the most important factor affecting the
design of a digger for beet is the root length (L). The less important factor is
the minimum diameter of beet (Min. diam.). The maximum diameter of beet
(Max. diam.) effect was found to be in a middle position. An exponentially
relationship between correlated roots of beet mass (m), length and diameter
are as indicated: M= 0.118 kg; L= 1.11 cm; max. Diam = 11.0 cm and min.
Diam. = 8.52cm they also concluded that, the optimum parameter for digging
blade are tilt angle, t ranged from 15 to 25°, lifting angle d= 35 to 40° and
inclination angle & = 52.5 to 58.75° when operating in different types of soil
with "u" ranging from 0.55 to 0.79.
Gorzelany and Bakalury (1999) measured the force necessary for
extracting sugar beet roots from the soil. The effect of selected geometric
characteristics of the roots (length, diameter) and their depth in the soil on the
force necessary for removal of roots from the soil was determined. The
variation of force necessary for root extracting was analyzed with reference to
beet variety, soil compactness and soil moisture content. Irrespective of the
root size, variety and field (plantation), the recorded average values of force
were found to vary widely in the range of 297.9-669.0 N. In some cases
forces up to 1000 N were recorded.
Sugar Beet Harvesting Machines:
Bernacki and Karwowski (1976) stated that the first step towards sugar
beet harvest mechanization was done to ease the manual drudgery of lifting
the roots by the leaves and cutting the tops. After that in (1961) the Sieder
Leben Company constructed a two-Row beet harvester. This implement had
two curved chisels lifters. The spaces between them could be adapted to the
width of adjacent inter-row, The chisels were attached by hinges to a main
frame supported on a four- wheel cart.
Shippen et al. (1980) illustrated that the most of the beet harvesters
available to the farmer are P.T.O driven types, which all operate in basically
the same way, but self-propelled types are also available. The latter
machines have built-in self-unloading tanks, which can eliminate the use of
an additional tractor and trailer for carting the sugar beet. The complete
operation is done by a beet harvester as follows.

897
Elbanna E.B. et al.

A pair of lifting shares or wheels lift a previously topped row of beet on

to a chain elevator which carries the beet to a cross elevator which in turn
delivers the beet into a trailer running alongside the harvester. Where a self-
propelled tanker machine is used, this elevating arrangement is modified.
Whilst the lifting of one row of beet is taking place, another row is clear for the
lifting share on the next time round.
Ibrahim et al. (1989) developed a two-row tractor drawn sugar beet
digger and used a sweep share with a fork shape including two wings with a
flat cutter. There is no need to increase blade width more than 20 cm
because there is no corresponding increase in lifting efficiency or decrease in
roots damage. Root damage reached its minimum value at till angle of 20°.
the optimum parameters which achieved maximum lifting efficiency and
minimum damage are : φ=20°, w=20 cm and S= 3.5 km/h. The cost of lift
sugar beet roots using the developed blades was compared with manual
methods. The results showed that the blade was more economic and reduce
the cost from 90 to 6 LE/Fadden.
Sugar beet crop harvesting machines Features.
The recent sugar beet crop harvesting machines are operated on
entirely different principles to each other. In fact they are differing in these
mechanisms which are working in the area of lifting the crops from the ridge
and separating them from foreign materials. Hence according to the lifting
principles the range of sugar beet crop harvesters which are available allover
the world may be classified under the three following headings: (a- Bulk
harvesting, b- Vibrating harvesting and c- Pulling harvesting).
The bulk harvesting machinery.
Kepner et al. (1982) noted that most harvesting of sugar beet crop is
commercially achieved by bulk harvesting machinery techniques. Whatever
machine classification it has carry out a number of tasks, which are common
to all harvester types. All types aim to lift the roots out of the ridge then
passing them either through different sections of the harvester itself or
through an individual separating mechanisms to carry out the separation from
soil, tops and any other rubbish.
Nasr (1992) showed that there are many more components on the
digger as compared to the spinner. These components come in contact with
the soil and this inevitably means that more wear can take place. He added
that one main advantage of the elevator digger over the spinner is that it
deposits the crop in a narrow row on the field and this eases considerably the
work of the hand pickers. The complete harvester digs, separates and
delivers into sacks, boxes or trailers during one pass of the machine over the
field.
Sharobeem et al. (2003) developed and manufactured suitable
equipment for lifting sugar beet roots. The experiments were carried out to
evaluate the performance of the constructed lifter compared with the
traditional chisel plow. Three traveling speeds (2, 3, and 3.8 km/h.) were
used. The results showed that, for the developed lifter, the maximum a lifting
efficiency was about 84% at 2 km/h forward speed and the minimum damage
roots was about 4.5 % at the same speed. The maximum percentage of lifted
roots was about 88.5 % with the developed lifter, while that obtained with
898
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

chiseling was 76.4 %. The actual field capacities were 0.6, 0.9 and 1.14 fed/h
at forward speeds of 2, 3 and 3.8 km/h respectively for the developed lifter. In
case of using the developed lifter, the minimum power required was 13.16
kW at forward speed of 2 km/h. while the maximum power required was
about 25.96 kW at 3.8 km/h forward speed. The energy requirement for the
developed lifter was about 22.77 kW.h/Fed.
Vibratory harvesters' machines:
Kang and Halderson (1991) designed a two-row, three-point-hitch
vibrating. Each row was composed of a pair of four-bar linkages to which two
side plates are attached. A bottom plate for each row was composed of a
soil-cutting blade with points (0) followed by soil-sieving bars. Those bars
were rigidly attached to the bottom of each pair of side plates to cut and lift
the soil and also allow for soil separation. The motion of the bottom plate was
also designed to assist with soil flow. The oscillating assemblies were PTO
driven by a cam through by roller chain drive such that one moved forward,
while the other moved backward.
They tested the vibratory digger for the effects of amplitude of vibration,
frequency of vibration and travel speed on root crop damage, uncovered root
crop, and draft requirements. they showed that the greatest amount (24.9%)
of root damage was observed at highest frequency (1227 rpm), and slowest
travel speed (1.7 km/h). They added that the unrecovered root crop
significantly increased (7.2-24.0%) as the travel speed increased from 1.7-3.3
km/h. They indicated that the average draft requirements per unit area of the
furrow were 3.3 and 4.2 N/cm2 for 1.7 and 3.3 km/h. operation speed
respectively. They concluded that draft/area is about 35-80% of that required
for commercial non-vibrated harvesters, they added that the blacks pot
increased as frequency increased. The greatest amount of blacks pot
(24.9%) was observed at high frequency (1227 rpm) and slowest travel speed
[1.7 km/h (1.05 mph)]. Un recovered sugar beet significantly increased (7.2-
24.0%), as travel speed increased from 1.7-3.3 km/h. draft force decreased
as vibrational frequency increased and travel speed decreased. draft varied
from about 7.9-12.2 kN over the range of combinations of frequency and
travel speed levels.
Pulling harvesters machine:
Srivastava et al. (1995) cleared that the pulling mechanism in Fig. (1B)
is the common for harvesting the sugar beet crop. They showed that it has
two important implemented functions. Top removal is desired at the lowest
point on the plant with respect to the top of the harvested roots. They added
that interior surface (2) of the elevating part (1) grasp and continues to
elevate the crop until the top portion of the sugar beet crop engages the
counter-rotating toppers (3). This counter-rotation of the topper elements
further ensures that the top of the plant is pulled up to the desired height.
Lebicki (1987) reported that the pulling techniques are suitable method
to be used for harvesting beets for sugar. He mentioned that introducing the
puller mechanism that shown in Fig. (1B) started the movement towards that
technique. He showed that the number of picking units on the shown
mechanism is depending on the distance between the plants and the
operated speed of the driven. The pulling units are traveled in a circular path
899
Elbanna E.B. et al.

opposite to the machine travel. As a pulling unit is passed over the plant
potion the two grips engages around the beet to pick it. Then they grasp and
elevate it by the continual rotating action. With further movement the crop
tuber passes the pulling mechanism until the grippers is opened. Hence the
beet crop is either thrown on the ground surface or ejected to a transport
mean. The gripping spring mechanism must be opened and closed in the
proper time.

Fig. (1): Three pullers mechanism versions for harvesting root-crops A)

for Carrot harvesting B) for beet harvesting C) for the
potherbs harvesting (Srivastava et al. (1995)
Abou-Elmagd (2002) reported that the efficiency of pulling harvesting
machinery during operation is directly related to the time of engaging, and
releasing the harvested object. Hence the spring of the gripping mechanism
must be calibrated to open and close in the proper time. From that point of
view the recognizing process of a mechanical mechanism is not so easy to
do. That is may be due to the wide variations of shape, size, and location in
field of the sugar beet crop. In addition the need to exchange of the shape of
gripping mechanism to suit each product properties is required a numerous of
trails and research efforts to be developed. Worthwhile under certain
conditions particularly where gripping part (the stem) is not strongly attached
to the object, that part can not draw object into the grippers or the rollers
causing law pulling efficiency.
Sugar beet topping
Lebicki (1987) reported that most topping mechanisms can be operated
as individual topping machine or mounted on its own harvester. Most of such
machines in use now are tractor-mounted or semi- mounted and operated by
the power take-off (P.T.O.) as shown in Fig (2a). These types are suitable for
row widths from 650 mm to 900 mm. They are made to fit cut the contours of
the bed row as shown in Fig (2b). The flail toppers Fig. (2C), often has flail
vertical type knives, and full width adjustable gage roller located at
immediately behind the rotor to provide cutting heights control.

900
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

Smith and Wikers (1994) reported that over the recent years a number
of toppers and under root cutters have been designed and developed on the
same design principles of the rotary beaters, or flail of forage harvesters.
They concluded that the machine which is equipped with pair of rotary cutters
reduces the overall labor requirements to a great extent. That is because pair
of rotary cutters rotates opposite each others. Thus it deposits the vegetative
in a narrow rowan the field. Fig (3) shows the available features of topping
mechanisms.

Fig (2): The operating principles of the toppers (Lebicki (1987)

It can be seen that most of them are rotary toppers, which have high-
speed disc, and lower drum. They added that, the rotary cutters or pasture
clipper equipped with gage wheels does a good job of shaving off the tops of
the bed row. But the success in performing topping is depending on the
matching between of the vegetative properties, and each of number,
diameter, and revolution speed of topping mechanism.

Fig (3): The Essential features of the available topping mechanisms

(Smith and Wikers (1994)

Ridge geometric
Determinations of the shape and dimensions of the sugar beet crop
ridge at time of harvesting allow for tractors and harvesting machines to
securely travel between the rows to harvest without causing damage for the
901
Elbanna E.B. et al.

crop. Abou Elmagd (2001) indicated that to detect of the geometric of the
root crop ridge, the measurements should be run in the two perpendicular
directions of the ridge. The lateral direction is considered as X-axis, and the
ridge height as Y-axis. That measure should be done for hilled and non- hilled
zones.
From that point of view the locally made, ridge drawing profile-meter
which is shown in Fig (4) can be used as a proper instrumentation for
Egyptian conditions.

Fig. (4): The locally made ridge drawing profile-meter (Abou-Elmagd

2002)

However, Elbanna (2001) found a general relationship between, cone

index, proctor needle and vane shear reading as:
Cone index = 10* vane shear readings and Proctor needle = 1.5 * cone
index

The three readings of these instruments can

be calculated using the cone penetrometer
equation (Elbanna, 2001 and 2002) as in
the form:
0.01θ.01Cr) γ πtanφ
CI  [3.62Cr.e  0.0066 ]e
(1  2Cr)
where = soil moisture content, %;
= soil internal friction angle; =soil specific
3
weight, kN/m ;
Cr=%clay/(%silt+sand).and tan-1= 1/*1+2Cr).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The main goal of the present research is to develop a rationalized
power, and operation cost combined machine suitable for sugar beet planting
and harvesting operations, and to be suitable for the Egyptian agricultural
conditions. and study the possibility of utilizing it under Egyptian conditions to
replace the traditional methods in both planting harvesting operations. The
developing machine components can be summarized in two parts:

902
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

First component is planting unit: this unit is planted two sugar seeds' rows
with suitable depth at top of the middle center of the two furrows, in the same
time formed three cultivable rows. The formed three shares are seated after
the two planting rows. Each formed row share is a consisted from a double
mouldboard bottoms, at end of it whereas, the drop seeds is covered by the
sliding soils path.
Second Component is sugar beet pulling unit: this unit is involved three
main sugar beet harvester components namely, two appropriate shares for
loosing the ridge structure around the roots, pulling out belt mechanism with
its proper power transmission system, and a proper disk knife topping
mechanism.
Planting and Harvesting/ Date: The planting season begins in September
and continues until mid-October. Harvest starts roughly April 15 and ideally
ends by the 1st of August. Late-planted fields tend to be more expensive due
to additional costs for irrigation, additional pest control, and for losses due to
root rots and sugar beet cyst nematode. However, sometimes the greater
expenses on late fields are often offset by higher beet yields.
Seeding rate: Sugar beets are grown single line on 75 cm rows. Some early
season fields are planted at a 5 to 7.5 cm spacing; later fields are precision
planted with seed spaced 10 to 15 cm apart. Seed is now sold in units of
100,000 seed. Seed prices depend upon fungicide and insecticide
treatments, seed size, seed quality, variety and quick prime treatment.
Precision planting improves the overall stand by reducing the need for
thinning and increases overall plant uniformity and population.
Field observations indicate that yield is reduced more by too few
plants than too many plants per Fed. Planting depth is normally 0.6 to 1.25
cm. Many kinds of planters are used including vacuum planters. Early
plantings during extremely hot weather will require a higher seeding rate to
achieve the proper stand. Planting when soil temperatures are high greatly
increases the incidence of seed rot, damping-off and insect injury. However,
new seed treatments have reduced the problem significantly.
The main technical components (planting and harvesting units), and
each unit parts can be described, in general parts e.g. Frame, hitching
system and transpiration power unit, and two machine components (e.g.
Seeding and harvesting mechanisms), as are explained by:

General Parts
Main Frame: Machine frame was constructed and manufacturing as U shape
from steal iron (5*10*0.5 cm) with dimensions 160 cm of length and 162 cm
width, other machine parts were fixed and fitted on it and the machine frame
was carried on two tyres (Fig. 5). It was provided with some special bearings
for the transmission system elements. The hitching system, gearbox,
rarefaction mechanism, the pulling mechanism, and two there tracing wheels
Hitching system: The front end of the frame has three points. The hitching
system was constructed locally from steel bars of 10 mm thickness and width
of 5 cm. The hitching system was built according to the ASAE (1992). The
dimension of the system is hitching point diameter of 25 mm, max height of
60 cm, and lower hitch point spread of 65 cm, by means of using three bins to
903
Elbanna E.B. et al.

fix or carrying the machine by the three beams of the tractor hydraulic
system.
Power transmission unit: In fact a two power transmission systems were
being used:
1-Indirect transmission system was designed to supply the metric seeding
system from machine ground wheel throughout a chain and a group of
gears, as shown in Fig (5).
2-Direct transmission system consists of a gear box which is transfers the
suitable speed of the tractor PTO shaft to pulling machine unit, as shown in
Fig. (5).
Tracing wheels. Two wheels with diameter of 50 cm were used for machine
to control of the rarefaction depth and it should be remembered that the width
of tires on land wheels is usually restricted by the width of inter-rows. Only in
one-row and self-propelled harvesters the wheels of which travel over the
field from which beets have been lifted, the problem of the width of tires may
not be really important, but when the tracing wheels run even between rows
of topped beets, widths of their tires cannot exceed the value defined by
inequality
w ≤ Sm – (db + 2Co)
where:-
w=Width of the tracing wheels (cm); Sm= width of interrows;
Co=admissible deflection of roots from the row's axis; d b = diameter of roots
in the thickest place.

Planting units
Seeds tank
This unit is consisted from two seed boxes each 25 kg capacity,
constructed from 1.5 mm a sheet of steel (Fig. 6) and fitted by 1.5 cm steel
bars on top of the planting unit. At the bottom of each box there is a sliding
control gate, to allowable the right seeds output to the metric device.
Metric devices
Two metric devices system were developed to be tested in the present
study which can be explained as:
1-The brush-type metering device, Figs. 3.3a and 3.3b.
2-The type of repelled wheel, Figs. 3.4a and 3.4b

1-The brush-type metering device: Figs. 7 and 8

904
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

1-Hitching point
2-Machine P.T.O.
3-Coupling
4-Gear- box
5-Coupling
6-Main hoop
7-Puling belt
8-Topping disc
9-Pulling unit
9-lightener
a-Elevation shows a combined planting and10-Main frame
harvesting units
11- beam
12-Ararefaction
shear
13-Pulling unit
14-frame
15-belt lightener
16-Tracing wheel

b- PLAN (Planting mechanism) Dimension , cm

c-Plan shows harvester mechanism

Fig. (5): Sketched of elevation and plan views of the developed planting
and harvester sugar beet machine.

905
Elbanna E.B. et al.

1-brush roller; 2-siding plate for

adjusting the rate of seeding;
3-openings releasing seeds
Fig. 7a: A brush-type device
for sowing small
Fig. (6):Constructed seeds box seeds:
Fig. 3.3a is shown diagrammatically a brush-type sowing device. It
embodies a revolving shaft on which are fitted at regular intervals wooden
rollers having on their periphery rigid cylindrical brushes. The sheet-iron
bottom of the box has rectangular openings, and underneath is a strip with
round orifices which can be manually shifted along the box axis and which
serves to control the rate of seeding. The strip orifices are so arranged that
under the rectangular openings there can be found from one to six of such in
sowing grass seeds, a mixture of different types and sorts of such is
commonly employed and, it is required that the appropriate quantitative
proportion between the individual components be possibly maintained during
sowing. Grass seeds differ considerably, however, from one another as
regards dimensions, weight and the type of cuticle.
Seeds may have a smooth and polished or a coarse and pily surface.
For this reason, in a mixture of different seeds set in a rotary motion by
revolving brushes, smooth and small seeds are a bit quickly to get to the
bottom, while the larger and pily grains remain on the top. In consequence, a
mixture of a considerably changed composition is sown. The use of some
other types of elements revolving inside the box (such as, for example a
"butterfly" rotor) exhibits a similar disadvantage.
2-The type of repelled wheel, Figs.
3.4a and 3.4b

Fig. 8a: A repeller wheel of

Fig. 7b: A Complete installation of metering device of sowing
brush metering device small seeds

906
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

Instead of the baffle can he used a repelled wheel revolving in the

opposite direction to the vertical rotor's revolutions (Fig. 8). Underneath are
situated two electors which thrust out seeds from cells. The ejectors tapering
ends, enter into the grooves in between the cells. The vertical rotor with cells
is similarly as in the previously described types, driven by the pressing wheel
through a V-belt transmission and a toothed gear. At the back of the opener
is, as usual, placed a pressing wheel together with a furrow coverer. The axle
of this wheel is connected with that of the supporting wheel by means of two
flat bars forming together a frame. Inside this frame is placed the sowing unit,
the manner in which this unit is connected with the frame enabling the
alteration of the level of setting of the opener and, thus, of the depth of
sowing (20-55 mm).
3 Seed tubes
A telescopic plastic tubes 2.5 cm
inner diameter and 45 cm length
were used to drop seeds from
metric devices into the top of opener
furrows, the end of bottom tube
fitted in a device which is formed
from a two 6 cm lateral iron plates
and a 7.5 cylinder to prevent seed
scatters.

Fig. 8b: Seed cells on repeller

wheel
Forming furrows shares
A three forming shares were constructed from a double a small
mouldborad bodies. Each wide share has 3 cm at its top end and 15 cm wide
ends has formed from two mouldboard. The formed share dimension is suited
to make 3 furrows with 60 cm spacing in between. Whereas, each share
ridged the furrows bottom and both its moulboard moves the soil 20 cm in
each side of that furrows to form a wide furrows. At the end of each
mouldboard path whereas seeds dropped in the top center of that furrows,
where a little of the moving soil is covered the sugar beet seeds
Harvesting Unit
The developed harvester unit was constructed according to the
theoretical relationship and its implement includes four main units namely:
pulling unit, rarefaction unit, topping unit, and transmission systems. It also
includes three secondary units such as the main frame, the hitching system,
and the tracing wheel system, which were explained before first part, since
these devices are used to serve the whole machine components (Fig. 5).
Pulling unit.
The puling unit was built and constructed locally according to the
theoretical relationship and fitted to the developed harvester. It made from
steel sheet and fixed on the machine frame. The pulling unit consists of three
main parts fixed by especial frame used to contain these units and it as
follows :
907
Elbanna E.B. et al.

Fig. 9: Illustrates schematic of the main

parts and operations consecution of
developed pulling mechanism. It
shows that the pulling belts are sat at
a certain small angle (α) with respect
to the horizontal, and at a certain
aperture angle (2β°) in relation to the
direction of machine travel. Fig. (9): Pulling belt.
a-Pulling belt: Uprooting sugar beet in the present research is performed by
picking up plant leaves in small gap between two parallel arranged gripping
belts. The using pulling belt consists of two wings (Fig. (9) Each wing is of
250 cm length, and of 15 cm width. The belt constructed as (V) shape and
covered with especial material to increase coefficient of friction between
leaves and belt.
b- Hoops group: The hoops group was used to revolving the pulling belt,
and it consists of four hoops, two with diameter of 17.5 cm and height of 20
cm fixed on shaft of 2.5 cm diameter and 40 cm length. The right shaft
connected with gear-box by coupling. The other two hoops with diameter of
12.5 cm and height of 20 cm fixed on the back. The distance between the
axis of the front and back hoops is 90 cm. When the universal joint is
engaged between tractor P.T.O. shaft and gearbox shaft the motion transmit
from gearbox to the right front hoop and consequently to the wing of right belt
and by using gear fixed on the top shaft of the back hoop the motion can
transmit to the lift belt wing.
c- Pulling tightened deliver: The tightened unit was used to control of
pulling belt tightness. It consists from 8 hoops with lengths of 15 cm and
diameter of 5 cm contact with the belt and two cases steel U shape 10 x 10 x
0.4 cm and with length of 80 cm contend springs and its shaft as shown in
Fig. (10).

1-Shaft spring; 2-Spring; 3-Case steel; 4-Hoop bearer; 5-Hoop

Fig. 10: Pulling tightened.
Due to the combination of belt peripheral (Vb) motion and the forward
speed (Vm) of the harvester, the punches of plant leaves are directed to the
zone where the two belts are closely pressed together on them by means of
two clamp spring sets, each consists of eight springs.
The previous parts are assembled on both puller belt mechanism sides
and behind the belts along a distance of 80, cm each spring was 10 cm

908
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

length and 3 cm diameter and having stiffness coefficient of about 0.4 N/cm.
These clamp spring sets are used to keep the two belts at the desired tension
and gap clearances required for pulling up the plant. The desired tension and
gap clearances between the two belts were adjusted by means of tighten box
and guide, as illustrated in Figs (11 to 13).

Rarefaction unit, (Fig. 11)

The rarefaction unit were manufactured for
loosen the bonds between soil and beet root
surface (at front of the frame) by pulverizing both
ridge sides. These units consists of two shears as
shown in Fig. 8 of 10 cm height with base of 33
cm and top of 23 cm and it fixed in the two beam
which move on a pare of 5x5 cm to control of the
rarefaction distance (dr ) between the two shears.
While, the control of the rarefaction depth was
done by using two tracing wheels (with diameter of Fig. (11): A rarefaction
30 cm) fixed with two guides,. shear
by these guides, it can be controlled the rarefaction depth by increasing or
decreasing the guide height. The lower ends of two shares are shaped in a
certain wedge form and assembled on the machine frame to help in guiding
the up ground plant portion to enter the gripping zone
Topping unit.
Topping of sugar beets in the present
research was selected to be performed to the
picked up whole plant (after pulling). The topper
mechanism is mainly consists of two topping
disks each of the same diameter (D'). These
disks are mounted below the rear idler belt
pulleys as shown in Fig. (12). These disks are
rotated opposite to each other, in a plane that isThe used topping unit.
perpendicular to the plane of the belt motion.
To ensure proper topping (cut of the upper plant
portion), it was regarded that the two disks is
transmitted its motion from the same power
source of the belts by means of pulleys and
belts. Whereas, the linear speed of these disks
was regarded to be 1.25 times the belt speed.
This pair of discs were used to topping sugar
beet plant one pair is smooth disc, whilst the
other is toothed disc. These units made from
iron steel with thickness of 5 mm and serrated
diameter of 230 mm the clearance (H) between1- Shaft; 2- Gear; 3- Hoop;
4- disc; 5- disc clearance;
the two discs ranged from 1 to 2 cm. The6- disc move direction
rotational speed of these units is changed with Fig. 12: Topping unit
the change of belt speed. The disc speed was
1.25, 1.6 and 1.9 m/s.

909
Elbanna E.B. et al.

Power transmission system

The developed harvester is a semi-mounted machine. Its transmission
system was designed to give the same ratios from tractor to the pulling belt.
The designed transmission system is shown in Fig. (13). It consists of gear-
box, main hoops, rear hoop, two gears, and puling belts

1-Tractor P.T.O. 5-Gear 9-Motion direction

2-A universal joint 6-Rear hoop 10-Griping zone
3-Gear- box 7-Hoop shaft 11-Tractor motion direction
4-Main hoop 8-Pulling belts 12-Shift coupling
Fig. 13: Transmission system of the developed harvester.

The transmission mechanism has four main shafts for hoops. The shaft
fixed on the right front hoop takes its motion from gear box by coupling. The
motion was transmitted from the right belt wing to the left belt wing by using
two gears fixed over the rear hoops.

a-View of application points and b-View of ply rolling and Pulling

3 forming furrows' spacing belt (harvester unit)
Fig. 14: Photo of (planting and harvesting) sugar beet machine

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Sugar Beet Seeds Technical Properties

The specific sugar beet seeds dimension is very importance for
designing and manufacturer seed metric devices. Tables 21 and 3.2 explain
the overall average seeds' dimension of three seed verities, which are grown
in Egypt for the present two years. The mean overall average mean of five
randomize replication samples each 20 seeds.

910
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

Table (2): Mean dimension of sugar beet 100 seeds of

three crop verities
Mean 1000 grain, Thickness, Width, Length, Variety
gm mm mm mm
22.65 6.00 6.45 7.11 Voro
22.50 5.95 6.80 7.65 Ospar Poly
22.05 5.90 6.84 6.43 Raspoly

Table 3 shows the planting seed rate of these verities, metric spacing
in furrow, furrow width, and soil cover layer for each variety. It can be seen
the physical properties such as angle of repose, bulk density and number
grains in1 cm3.

Table (3): Physical properties of sugar beet seeds, rate of planting and
planting spaces
Sowing space in furrow Planting Number of Angle of Bulk density, Crop
(cover layer), cm rate,kg/Fed. seeds in 1 cm3 repose, deg gm/cm3 variety
40-45 (1.5-4) 4 6-8 45 0.70 Voro
40-45 (1.5-3.5) 4 6-9 45 0.66 Ospar Poly
40-45 (1.5-3.0) 4 6-10 45 0.63 Raspoly

In three experimental laboratory and field trails at 75-Village, Kafr El-

Sheikh Governorate, 2008/2009 season, planting one Fed. with the above
three varieties (Voro, Ospar poly and Raspoly. In Laboratory from all
adjustments and testes seeding metric (gears and chain) the distance was 8
cm between seeds on the row with 91, 88 and 93 uniformity, whilst the
percent planting seeds scatter were 2-5 cm from the meddle of the row 25, 28
and 24% of the above three varieties. In longitude distance of 5 meters, in
laboratory, peripheral wheel cells and brush disk metric planting devices were
tested. The peripheral wheel cells and brush disk gave an average of five
replications of 18 and 49 seeds/ 5m that is means and average spaces of
28.8cm and 10.20 cm using peripheral wheel cells and brush disk,
respectively. Because of the peripheral cells was rejected to be used in field
trails, hence, seeds are being compacted inside the cells and closed its
opened. The brush metric device was tested in three field trails and give high
uniformity in plating and recommended seed rate required.
The fabricated formed share dimension is suited to make 3 furrows with
60 cm spacing in between. Whereas, each share ridged the furrows bottom
and both its moulboard moves the soil 20 cm in each side of that furrows to
form a wide furrow. At the end of each mouldboard path whereas seeds
dropped in the top center of both furrow sides before the back two furrow
completed formed furrows shape whereas a little of the moving soil is
covered the sugar beet seeds.
Using the brush metric device, two rows of seeding can be achieved
with suitable depth at top of the middle center of the two furrows, in the same
time formed three cultivable rows. The formed three shares are seated after
the two planting rows. Each formed row share is a consisted from a double
mouldboard bottoms, at end of it whereas, the drop seeds is covered by the
sliding soils path. Lots of farmers preferred the planting unit since formed
good furrows and gave high uniformity of planting sugar beet crop. With 3
911
Elbanna E.B. et al.

km/h forward speed; this machine productivity was 0.8-0.85 Fed./hr. with cost
of 70 LE/Fed

Physical properties of sugar beet roots.

Determining the dimensions of sugar beet plants:-
The dimension of root length, (L), leaves width,
(W) and root maximum and medium diameter
(dM), (dm), height of leaves (H) were measured
and recorded for random samples of sugar beet
plant before harvesting operating as shown in
Fig (15). The length and height of leaves were
measured by a steel tap with accuracy of 0.5
cm. while the diameter of root and diameter of
leaf cluster were measured by digital venire
caliper with accuracy of 0.01 mm. volume of
sugar beet root was calculated from the
difference between the two measured volumes Fig. (15): dimensions of
of water. sugar beet plant
Technical length of root measured from the
place where its diameter >10 mm, height and
number of leaves, height of the cervixes, the
force needing for cut the cervixes
Determine the actual volume of sugar beet roots
The actual volume of sugar beet crop was measure by using 20-liter
capacity rectangular glass, the rectangular glass was file with water to a
defined level, and then the sugar beet root was completely immersed in it.
The actual volume of sugar beet root was calculated from the difference
between the two calculated volume of water.
Determine the surface area of sugar beet roots
The reference method described by (Merriam, 1976) was used to
determine the total lateral area of sugar beet crop. After determine the
dimension of root lateral length (L), diameter (D), and height (H) the next
equation was used to determine the lateral area of sugar beet crop.
L  D2  H 2
2
Lateral area (cm ) = π. D. L whereas
D = radius (cm) ‫ ؛‬L = lateral length (cm) ‫ ؛‬H = root height, cm.
A 10 randomized samples (each average of 5 replications) of two sites
were carried out for measuring of mean dimensions' of sugar beet plants.
The pre-tests results showed the mean dimensions' of sugar beet plants as
represented in Table (4)
Table 3: The mean dimension of sugar beet plants, cm
Dimension Average value, cm S.d, cm
Lk 28 ±3
L1 44.80 ±4.4
dm 11.86 ±0.84
H 3.93 ±0.70
ha 2.41 ±0.33
D1 2.43 ±0.33

912
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

From surveying 100 randomized sugar beet 30

25 25
roots it can be concluded that the individual 21
20 20

Frequency %
root mass is ranged from 1000 to 2500 g; 17
o. 15 15
root cone angle (γ) is ranged from 20 to 28 ; 10
the height of the above ground plant 5
4
5

portions (leaves portion) of sugar beet was 0

< 1.25 < 1.5 < 1.7 < 1.9 < 2.2 < 2.45
3.4 < 2.7
ranged between 40 -49 cm.; Root mass Category (kg)
Fig (5.2)Normal distrpution for sugar beet root mass kg.
Figs 3.4 to 3.9 clarified normal distribution of
50
sugar beet mass, diameter, length, leaves 45 45
40
height and and root volume. e.g Fig. 3.4 35

Frequency %
30
clarifying the normal distribution and the 25
20
prevalent category for sugar beet root mass. 15
18 18

10 10
From this figure the prevalent category was 5
9

0 3.5
(1.3-1.5) kg its value was 25 % fold by < 10 < 12 < 14 < 16 < 18
Root diameter category (cm)
category (1.75-1.9 kg) its value was 21 %. Fig (5-3)Normal distrpution for sugar beet root diameter(cm).

While Fig. 3.5 clarifying the normal 40

distribution and the prevalent category for 35

30
sugar beet root diameters from figure the

Frequency %
25

prevalent category was (10-12) cm its value 20

15

was 45 %. However, Fig. 3.6 Clarify the 10

5 3.6
normal distribution and the prevalent 0
<15 <25 < 35 < 45 < 55
category for sugar beet root length (cm). Root length category (cm)
Fig (5.4)Normal distrpution for sugar beet root length(cm)..
From figure the prevalent category was (25- 45

35) cm its value was 38 % followed by 40

35 35
42

category (35-45cm) its value was 19 %. But

Frequency %

30
25
Fig. 3.7 clarify the normal distribution and 20
15 14
the prevalent category for sugar beet leave 10 9
5
number from fig the prevalent category was < 39 < 45 < 50 < 56
Leaf number category (cm)

(40-45) its value was 42 % followed by Fig (5-5)Normal distrpution for sugar beet leave number.

45 3.7
category (30-39) its value was 35 %. 40 40

On the other side Fig 3.8 clarify the normal 35

30
Frequency %

distribution and the prevalent category for 25

20
18
sugar beet leave height (cm). From figure 15
10
14
8 8
the prevalent category was (46-50cm) its 5
0
4 5

value was 37 % followed by category (51- < 100 < 120 < 140 < 160 < 180
Root volume category (cm3)
< 200 < 220

59) its value was 19 %. While Fig. 3.9 3.8

Fig (5-7)Normal distrpution for sugar beet root volume (cm)

clarifying the normal distribution and the 40

35
37

prevalent category for sugar beet root 30

Frequency %

25
volume from figure the prevalent category 20 19
3 18
was (100-120) cm its value was 44 %. 15 15
10 9
Soil properties and ridge profile. 5

Soil strength (cone penetrometer), soil 0

< 39 < 45 < 50 < 59 3.9
< 65
Leaf hight category (cm)
specific weight and moisture content were Fig (5-6)Normal distrpution for sugar beet leaf hight (cm).

measured before the day of planting and

harvesting. All field experimental tests were carried out at 75-village Kafr El-
Sheikh Governorate. whereas, soil textures was clay loam soil. Most of that
areas were grown sugar beet crop yearly, the soil mechanical analysis and its

913
Elbanna E.B. et al.

properties are given by Elbanna et al. (2010). Table 5 showed soil

properties, soil strength forces at the the day before planting and harvesting

Table 5a: 75-Village, El-Hamool soil mechanical analysis

Sand, %
Site Silt, % Clay,% Cr, φ, deg
Coarse Fine total
75-Village 4.95 10.48 15.43 30.77 53.80 1.165 16.70

Table 5b: Average values of soil strength (measured with cone

penetrometer) soil moisture content and specific weight at
the previous day of planting and harvesting (Cr=1.165 clay
loam).
Soil specific Soil moisture content, Cone index, MPa, Before:
Profile weight, % Planting day Planting day
3
depth, cm kN/m Harvesting day Harvesting day
5 14.04 26.02 23.02 1.449 1.955
10 13.99 27.04 22.04 1.487 2.135
15 13.64 27.60 23.60 1.509 2607
20 13.44 28.50 24.50 1.559 2.405
25 14.07 28.54 25.54 1.561 2.514
30 13.84 29.23 25.9 1.513 2.133

14

12

10
Ridge height (cm)

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Constant distance (cm)

Fig. (16a): the general geometry of sugarFig. (16b): sugar beet ridge
beet ridge. profile
Figs 16a and 3.10b clarify the general geometry of sugar beet ridge
and ridge width of 60 cm while ridge height before harvesting,
was approximately 13.7cm. by using local manufacturing ridge profile (after
El-Sheikha, (2000), (Fig. 4-11) to determine ridge rows of planting sugar beet
roots
Tables 6 to 10 reveal the physical and mechanical properties of sugar
beet root leaves before harvesting at clay loam soil. Pulling force required
with and without rarefaction as an average all of 100 randomized samples
with other. Finally, Factor affected ridge refraction performance and topping
and uptopping sugar beet roots and leaves.

914
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

Table 6: Physical and mechanical properties of sugar beet root before

harvesting at clay loam and clay soils

Denisty, g/cm3
Pull force , N
100 Samples

Volume, cm3
Pull force, N

Diam.**, cm
Length, cm
without A*

Adhesion,
Area, cm2
Mass, kg
Decr., %

Surface
with A*

N/cm2

Root

Real
Clay soil
Ave. 701.42 510.6 27.2 1.55 29.5 12.8 592.8 1.18 1104 1.404
s.d. 79.55 61.10 2.32 0.39 3.0 0.84 68.2 0.18 192 0.35
Clay loam soil
Ave. 437.3 329.2 24.8 1.76 24.7 11.7 451.80 0.98 885 1.99
Sd. 45.8 40.5 3.9 0.4 2.8 0.9 43.0 0.2 139 0.4
A* = A rarefaction ‫؛؛؛؛؛‬ **= Maximum diameter

Table 7: Physical and mechanical properties of sugar beet leaves

Before harvesting at loaming clay soil.
100 Leaves cutting cutting Leaves Leaves Knife Leaves
Samples force, N height, cm height, cm number height,cm Weight, N
Clay loam soil
aver 2155 12.0 47.0 29.5 21.7 13.0
Sd. 90.1 1.3 4.8 4.3 2.6 2.5
Silty clay loam
Aver. 2192 11.5 45.5 28.5 29.6 12.9
Sd. 67.4 1.3 4.8 4.3 3.1 2.5

Table 8: The mechanical performances as affected by traveling speed

(Vm), and space between the bottom edges of rarefaction
shares (dr) at Clay loam soil.
Studied
Measurements Evaluating Parameters
variables
Vm, m draft draft Slip Total specific
Fuel Traction stability
(dr,cm) force force Slip % effort effort fuel
(L/h) power (kw) factor (K)
(kN) +RR (kN) (kN) (L/kW)
1 (15) 7.43 7.56 18.51 2.86 1.42 8.97 9.47 0.30 2.58
1 (20) 7.26 7.39 17.28 2.73 1.29 8.68 9.17 0.30 2.89
1 (25) 6.57 6.70 16.50 2.52 1.13 7.83 8.34 0.30 3.29
1 (30) 6.33 6.46 15.06 2.38 0.99 7.45 7.90 0.30 3.36
Total 6.90 7.02 16.84 2.62 1.21 8.23 8.72 0.30 3.03

Table 9: The ridge refraction performances as affected by travel speed

(Vm), and space between the bottom edges of rarefaction
shares (dr).
Studied variables Evaluating Parameters ofClay soil
Vm, m Root damge, Manual pulling force
(dr, cm) % pulling force, kN Root mass, kg P/M, kN/kg
1 (15) 16.95 0.4790 2.35 0.205
1 (20) 13.71 0.5347 2,50 0.209
1 (25) 8.43 0.5580 2.50 0.220
1 (30) 6.9 0.61 2.65 0.235

915
Elbanna E.B. et al.

Table 10: The beet uprooting process as affected by speed ratio SR

(between belt speed to tractor speed), and belt inclination
angle (α). Clay loam soil
Studied variables Evaluating parameters
α, degree SR Lifting, % Capacity, (t/h) Fuel ,(L/h) Power (kw)
1 73.84 14.09 1.90 4.67
1.25 77.30 15.72 1.65 4.50
20
1.5 78.59 19.01 1.40 4.10
1.75 80.21 19.24 1.23 3.75
Average 77.48 17.01 1.55 4.25
1 77.57 14.72 1.75 3.77
1.25 79.40 16.42 1.50 3.64
25
1.5 80.74 19.86 1.30 3.31
1.75 83.33 20.10 1.25 3.03
Average 80.26 17.78 1.45 3.44
1 77.32 15.83 1.50 3.20
1.25 79.16 17.66 1.35 3.10
30
1.5 83.5 21.4 1.3 2.8
1.75 82.10 21.61 1.00 2.57
Average 80.52 19.11 1.28 2.92

2. Topping: A level field is the most importance in the topping process. A

well topped beet will have the lower leaf scars visibly remaining. Topping is
done with ridge or wheel. Great losses occur when topping is too deep.
When topping is too shallow problems may occur in sugar extraction at the
refinery.
Losses from topping too deeply
Too deep by: Loss Yield at 60 t/ha
1 cm 8% 4.800 kg/Ha
2 cm 18% 10.800 kg/Ha
3 cm 28% 16.800 kg/Ha

3. Lifting: Three types of lifting equipment are used:

a) disc lifters for light soil b) share lifters, which may be powered, for heavier
soils powered wheel lifters for both types of soils
Losses due to root point breaking
Aver. Loss from Breaking Beet Loss
< 2 cm 0%
2-4 cm 3%
4-6 cm 10%
6-8 cm 21%
> 8 cm 35%

The ease with which beets can be lifted depends on the shape of the
beet, the type of soil and the harvesting conditions. The shape of the beet is
dependent on the variety and can be further optimized by ensuring a uniform
drilling of the crop. An optimal value ratio must be always being found
between minimizing soil tare and root point breaking. On light, dry soils lifting

916
J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010

can take place up to a depth of approximately 6 cm. On heavier soils and

under difficult conditions, lifting must take place from 3-4 cm.

Conclusion
An Economical sugar beet planting and harvesting machine was
developed to a rationalized power, and operation cost combined and to be
suitable for the Egyptian farm to replace the traditional methods in both
planting harvesting operations. The developed machine has two components:
first component is planting unit: which involves two seeder rows with
suitable depth at top of the middle center of the two rows. Three formed
furrows were developed, each is consists from two mouldboard bottoms.
One furrow was fitted on the front frame as primary share moving soil in both
sides and the other two shares seated after the two planting rows at back of
the machine frame to completed the two formed rows and covering the
dropping seeds.
Second Component is sugar beet pulling unit: this unit is involved three
main sugar beet harvester components namely, two appropriate shares for
loosing the ridge structure around the roots, pulling out belt mechanism and a
proper disk knife as a topping mechanism. The machine performed 60-70 cm
riders during planting two rows. Also harvester one sugar beet row through
pulling out and topping mechanisms. Also two proper shares form for loosing
the ridge structure around the roots. These components were equipped on a
proper mounted one–row harvester frame. Field experiments were carried out
to test and evaluate the performance efficiency of the developed planting and
harvesting machine under different operating parameters and conditions.

Aknowledgement
This work represents one of the out comes from the projects financed by
Mansoura University researches unit (title: Development planting and
harvesting sugar beet crop machine).

REFERENCES
Abou Elmagd A.E. (2002) Modern trends in harvesting root crops .State of
art, Supreme council of universities (SCU) Frequent Scientific
committee for Agric, Eng. Ain Shams Univ, Egypt.
Abou Elmagd A.E.(2001) Potato tuber-soil mutual stress under different
machinery treatments. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26(12): 7953-
7967.
ASAE (1992). Agricultural machinery management EP3911, ASAE year book
of standards. Joseph, At. MI 49085.
Bernacki, H.J. and Kanafojski, C.Z (1976). Agricultural machines theory and
constriction . 2(841):1100
Buyanov, A.I. and B.A.Voronyuk (1985). Physical Development of a skew bar
topper for sugar beet. J.Ag.Eng.Res., vol 29 (4) : 329-335

917
Elbanna E.B. et al.

Elbanna, E. B. and Witney, B. D. (1987) Cone penetration resistance

equation as a function of the clay ratio, soil moisture content and soil
specific weight. J. Terramechnics., 24(1): 41-56.
Elbanna, E.B. (1992) Tillage tools draught: (Chisel and Mouldboard
ploughs). Misr J. Agric. Eng. 9(4): 491-510.
Elbanna, E. B. (2001) Comparative studies of three soil strength methods on
sandy soils (Part I). J. Agric. Sci., Mansoura Univ. 26(12): 7929-7942.
Elbanna, E.B. ; M. A. El-Saadany and N. Mansour (2010). Clay and heavy
clay soils improvement water movement by application of sub-soiling
methods. J. of Agric Soil Sci. & Engr. 1(7): 723- 738
El-Sheikha, M.A. (2000). A study on factors affecting traction coefficient of
tractors in Egypt . Misr J. Agric . Eng., 12 (2):283-297.
El-Sherif, R.R. (1996 ). A study on harvesting mechanization of Sugar beet -
Unpubl. Ph.D.Thesis. Fac. of Agric., Kafr EL- Sheikh, Tanta Univ.,
Egypt. 85:90.
Gorzelany-J; and M- Bzowska-Bakalarz (1999) Effect of soil conditions and
mechanical characteristics of sugar beet roots on the value of force
necessary for pulling them out. International-Agrophysics., 13(4): 439-
444
Ibrahim, M.M.; A.E. Abou EL-Magd, Z.E. Ismail and M.A.EL-Soadany (1989)
Estimating the performance of developed digger to harvest sugar
beet, Egyption-German conf. Agric Mech 4-6 October, : 175- 184.
Ismail, Z.E., M.M. Ibrahim and A.E. Abo EL-Magd (1989) Study on physical
and engineering properties affecting performance of sugar beet
harvesting. Misr. J. Agr. Eng., 12-18.
Kang, W.S.; and J.L. Halderson, (1991) " A vibratory, two-row, potato digger
Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 7(6): 683-687.
Kepner, R.A.; R. Baine and E.L Barger (1982) Principles of farm machinery, 2
nd Ed. CBS Publisher, Distributors, India, : 464-468.
Klenin,N.I.; Popove, T.F. and Sokun,V.A (1984). Auricular Machines Amerind
publishing . Co. PVT. LTD.NEW york.
Kanafojski, C.Z. and T. Karawowski (1976) Agricultural machines theory and
construction .Handbook. Published for the U.S. Dep. Agric. and die
Nat. Sc. Found .Wash., D.C.: 899- 905,940-941 .
Lebicki N. U (1987) ''The main parameters affecting root crop harvesters" J.
Ag. Machinery & Tractors No 137. Paper of Belyrussian Institute of
Ag. Mech. (BIMCX), Minisk, BCCR: 48-56 (In Russian).
Merriam (1976). Engeinereing mechanics. Volume one version statics, SI,
:190:195.
Nasr G.E. (1992)." Labor requirements and production cost for sugar beet
harvesting using different type of sugar beet harvester ".Misr J. Agric.
Eng., 9 (2):191-207
Sharobeem Y.F; I.M. Abd El-Tawwab and S. El-Khawaga (2003) Design And
Construction Of A Three Row Lifting Machine For Sugar Beet Misr,
Jou, Agr , Eng , 20. (4), 980-992.
Shippen, J.M.;C.R.E.Hin and C.H.Clover (1980).Basic farm machinery.
(Sugar beet crop machinery.) Handbook. 3rd ed .Pegamon Press.
Oxford, New York:249-266.
918
‫‪J. Soil Sci. and Agric. Engineering, Mansoura Univ., Vol.1 (8),August, 2010‬‬

‫‪Smith A.E. and M. S, Wilkes (1994). Farm machinery and equipment" Pre‬‬
‫‪root harvesting equipment- McGraw-Hili Publication Company, L.T.D.‬‬
‫‪New Delhi.363-377‬‬
‫‪Srivastava A.K.; C. E. Goering; and R P. Rohrbach (1995). "Engineering‬‬
‫‪principles of agricultural machines". American Society of Agric. Eng.‬‬
‫‪Pe,mela DeVore-Hansen, Editor Books & Journals: 452-474.‬‬
‫‪ ( 2004) Annon‬وزارة الزراعةةا الريةةر ا ج ال اةمز الررلةةزئ لواالحصةا وارةيةةما مةرة ا اةةم رةيةةو‬
‫الح ر رر ع رقم ‪.978‬‬

‫تطوير آلة لزراعة وحصاد محصول بنجر السكر‬

‫الشحات بركات البنا ‪ ،‬زكريا إبراهيم إسماعيل وعلى السيد أبو المجد‬
‫قسم الهندسة الزراعية – كلية الزراعة جامعة المنصورة‬

‫‪ -‬تم تطوير آلة لزراعة خطين ببذور محصول بنجر السكر‪ ،‬وفى نفس الوقت لحصاد خطط واحطد مطن‬
‫محصور بنجر السكر فى الجرة الواحدة‪.‬‬
‫‪ -‬بالنسبة لوحدة الزراعة ينصح بإستخدام أقراص البطذر ذات الفراطاح حيطن مطن اإختبطارات أعططت‬
‫نتائج عالية بكفاءة زراعة ‪ %89‬وتاتت ‪ %9‬عن منتصف الخط‪ ،‬بالمقارنة بالعجلطة ذات الخييطا‬
‫المحيطية التى أعطت نتائج منخفضة فى انتظام الزراعة ‪ %59‬وتاتت أكثر من ‪.%9-7‬‬
‫‪ -‬وحططدة تاططكيل الخطططوط قبططل نططزول البططذور مططن أنابي ط البططذر أعط طت تاططكيل خطططوط أكثططر انتظامططا‬
‫بالمقارنة بأى آلة زراعة أخرى‪ ،‬حين يعمل الفجاج المثبت فى منتصف مقدمة اإطارعلى إزاحطة‬
‫األتربة للخارج حين تسقط البذور من أنبوتى البذور على األتربة المزاحة‪ ،‬حين يعمطل الفجاجطان‬
‫المتثبتان على اإطار من الخلف على تكملة تاكيل الخطوط بإزاحة األتربة جزئيا لتغطيطة البطذور‬
‫بطططط الخطين التططططى تططططم زراعتحمططططا وإزاحططططة النصططططف األخططططر للخططططارج للبططططدء فططططى تاططططكيل خطططططان‬
‫جديدان‪...‬وه كذا‪ .‬والفجاجطات الثيثطة كطل منحطا عبطارة عطن فجطاج ماطكل مطن مطرحيتطان لمحطران‬
‫مطرحى مقدمة كل منحا ‪ 3‬سم وعرضه بالمؤخرة ‪ 52‬سم‪.‬‬
‫وحدة الحصاد‪ :‬عبارة سيحان لمحران حفار يستخدمان لخلخلة خط محصول البنجطر لتسطحيل عمليطة‬
‫الملخ (الاد)‪ ،‬سيران عرض ‪ 25‬سم مقويطان بمطادة معامطل إحتكطال عطالى‪ ،‬ينضطغطان علطى بعضطحما‬
‫بمجموعة من السوست والبكرات‪ ،‬يقوم السيران بالقبض (الضطغط علطى المجمطول الخضطرى للنبطات)‬
‫الذى تم خلخلة جذورح‪ ،‬ونتيجة تقدم اآللة يقتلع نبات البنجر وفى نحاية السير يقوم زوج من السطكاكين‬
‫القرصطة ذات الطدوران العكسطى بفصططل المجمطول الخضطرى عطن جططذور البنجطر وبعطدها تسطقط جططذور‬
‫وأوراق محصول بنجر السكر على سطح األرض خلف اآللة‪.‬‬
‫استخدام اآللة‪ :‬اآللة يمكن إستخدامحا لزراعطة محصطول بنجطر السطكر بمعطدل ‪ 2‬فدان‪/‬سطاعة‪ ،‬بسطرعة‬
‫‪ 3-5‬كم‪/‬س‪ ،‬بتكلفة ‪ 02‬جنية لزراعة الفطدان‪ ،‬وحصطاد محصطول بنجطر السطكر بواقطع خطط فطى الجطرة‬
‫الواحدة‪ ،‬حين يتم حصاد الفدان فى ‪ 3‬ساعات بتكلفة ‪ 292‬جنبة‪/‬للفدان وينصح تعمق أسطلحة الخلخطة‬
‫لعمق ‪ 32‬لتفادى خدش الجذور‪ ،‬وضبط مستوى سير الاد وسطكاكين التططويش بعجلتطى اآللطة (ضطبط‬
‫العمق)‪.‬‬

‫قام بتحكيم البحث‬

‫كلية الزراعة – جامعة المنصورة‬ ‫أ‪.‬د ‪ /‬محمد احمد الشيخه‬
‫كلية الزراعة – جامعة المنوفية‬ ‫أ‪.‬د ‪ /‬محمود على محمد‬

‫‪919‬‬