Investigation on Field Performance of Plowing and Harvesting Potatoes in Southern Baghdad

Q4 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences Pub Date : 2024-05-19 DOI:10.37077/25200860.2024.37.1.15
Ahmed A. A. Hamid
{"title":"Investigation on Field Performance of Plowing and Harvesting Potatoes in Southern Baghdad","authors":"Ahmed A. A. Hamid","doi":"10.37077/25200860.2024.37.1.15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This field experiment, was conducted to investigate a comparison of two methods for harvesting potatoes: mechanical and handy when using moldboard and chisel plow for primary tillage and three different distances for planting tubers in the rows 15, 25, and 35 cm in silt clay loam soil south of Baghdad. The factorial experiment followed a randomized complete block design with three replications using L.S.D. 5 % and 1 %. Mechanical harvest recorded the best valid potato tubers at 88.78 %, marketable yield of 31.74 ton. ha-1, efficiency lifted 95.68 %, tubers damage index 28.41, speeding up the harvesting process and reducing time and effort. Handy harvest gave the least damage to potato tubers, 6.02 %, and unlifted potato tubers, 4.32 %. However, this method requires effort and more specialized labor, whether from men or young women, and leaded to delays in the harvesting process. Regarding planting distance of 15 cm between one tuber and another gave the highest total productivity, 46.92 ton. ha-1 and the greatest number of plants, but most of the tubers were small in size. A planting distance 25 cm produced good quality in size of potatoes with yield of 36.19 ton. ha-1, 90.99 % best valid tubers, 5.43 % least total damage tubers, 3.57 % least unlifted potato, 96.42 % best efficiency lifting, and least tuber damage index 22.39. Most interaction among the treatments was significant. The most influential factor in the experiment traits was the planting distances of potatoes in the rows. The shape of the potatoes was Spheroid. Mechanical potato harvesting saves effort saves effort, time, harvest speed, reduce the labors and increasing efficiency.","PeriodicalId":8700,"journal":{"name":"Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37077/25200860.2024.37.1.15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This field experiment, was conducted to investigate a comparison of two methods for harvesting potatoes: mechanical and handy when using moldboard and chisel plow for primary tillage and three different distances for planting tubers in the rows 15, 25, and 35 cm in silt clay loam soil south of Baghdad. The factorial experiment followed a randomized complete block design with three replications using L.S.D. 5 % and 1 %. Mechanical harvest recorded the best valid potato tubers at 88.78 %, marketable yield of 31.74 ton. ha-1, efficiency lifted 95.68 %, tubers damage index 28.41, speeding up the harvesting process and reducing time and effort. Handy harvest gave the least damage to potato tubers, 6.02 %, and unlifted potato tubers, 4.32 %. However, this method requires effort and more specialized labor, whether from men or young women, and leaded to delays in the harvesting process. Regarding planting distance of 15 cm between one tuber and another gave the highest total productivity, 46.92 ton. ha-1 and the greatest number of plants, but most of the tubers were small in size. A planting distance 25 cm produced good quality in size of potatoes with yield of 36.19 ton. ha-1, 90.99 % best valid tubers, 5.43 % least total damage tubers, 3.57 % least unlifted potato, 96.42 % best efficiency lifting, and least tuber damage index 22.39. Most interaction among the treatments was significant. The most influential factor in the experiment traits was the planting distances of potatoes in the rows. The shape of the potatoes was Spheroid. Mechanical potato harvesting saves effort saves effort, time, harvest speed, reduce the labors and increasing efficiency.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于巴格达南部马铃薯耕种和收获田间表现的调查
该田间试验旨在研究两种马铃薯收获方法的比较:在巴格达南部淤泥质粘壤土中,使用模板犁和凿形犁进行主要耕作时的机械收获法和手工收获法,以及在行距为 15、25 和 35 厘米的淤泥质粘壤土中种植块茎的三种不同距离。因子试验采用随机完全区组设计,三次重复,使用 L.S.D. 5 % 和 1 %。机械收获的马铃薯块茎有效率为 88.78%,可销售产量为 31.74 吨/公顷,效率提高了 95.68%,块茎损伤指数为 28.41,加快了收获过程,减少了时间和精力。手工收获对马铃薯块茎的损害最小,为 6.02%,未收获的马铃薯块茎为 4.32%。不过,这种方法需要男性或年轻女性的努力和更专业的劳动力,导致收获过程延迟。一个块茎与另一个块茎之间的种植距离为 15 厘米,总产量最高,为 46.92 吨/公顷,植株数量也最多,但大多数块茎的尺寸较小。种植距离为 25 厘米时,马铃薯的大小质量较好,产量为 36.19 吨/公顷,有效块茎率为 90.99%,总损伤块茎率为 5.43%,未移栽马铃薯率为 3.57%,移栽效率为 96.42%,块茎损伤指数为 22.39。各处理间的交互作用大多显著。对试验性状影响最大的因素是马铃薯的行间距。马铃薯的形状为球形。马铃薯机械收获省力、省时、收获速度快,减少了劳动力,提高了效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences
Basrah Journal of Agricultural Sciences Environmental Science-Pollution
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
期刊最新文献
Investigation on Field Performance of Plowing and Harvesting Potatoes in Southern Baghdad Productive Performance, Hatching Egg Quality and Health Indices of Hisex Brown Laying Hens Fed Extruded Grain Amaranth Evaluating Land Suitability for Wheat Cultivation Criteria Analysis Fuzzy-AHP and Geospatial Techniques in Northern Basrah Governorate. Study of the Physical, Chemical, and Biologically Active Properties of Avocado Pulp (Persea americana), and Its Use in the Preparation of Some Functional Dairy Products Inhibitor Properties of Rue (Ruta graveolens L.) on Spermatogenesis in Guppy Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1859
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1