«1 : s. 1‘21?” I 1 ." '2: my” Unn- L...“ \ “LL ‘Cm ‘\ ‘11:“ L use \c “:3“ . . .1. v~ N .3... a] Q.“ ‘ .Q (‘SE‘CL’E‘qEz-s‘k‘ . \.‘.:\a. ‘~ ‘M . ~\..\...\.4\.L:‘f"- 3-: 33-. E111: LG :hyuxt. Q .; Q1" 7, . :Ls<\.’~.n “ ‘11:? 39mm.» 1»... ”u. . Q53L L». .Li , ‘ t.“ ‘ “\LW‘ .1. n C‘...'1"'L‘\ $33. ”3“ \- u- v R. .v.-. 5 A. mil: ‘2: ~ICL',».2z‘ }L- ”Li. .. .1 "It w. ~ '. . w . 1.: . ;. ‘M .63.? W. I; .1312 yiffiéfi :. «Mum; fitfizwwn: f . \. ‘..“:"1 51“ 5.3;}:1‘ 2% 3 . “L :r $:\"_ . ‘ ‘_ - ~ n. \< ,. 33;. .2. “$3ng . ' *5»: ~ “33.,“ :23; 1:3 (:13? cf’ifiw‘r unfi- ‘- 1 ‘ vii. \‘k - ~ "E‘fiwfifikx a x. ‘ m 4: m ~ ~. m... 3:2. ~- “1‘2?- ‘Baif‘fii‘qu . ' 5333:: Limit ‘31.: \JJL‘FL“ 1‘, . . . A . h I \ I. \- . U:| . v ..~ ~ 23% W“ {44. .wzr‘tu- ‘L ”I511? ‘ “K {it .ch ‘x ~¢~~7~ "04“ "a W“ . :2me ~ If?“ $3911.; v‘ I N i. L‘J‘q‘? Qflwa‘t. (:33: Ix“ K1122$21§§Lfi0§€¢§3 g. . 51.1“- “Air. nH-N‘ . IL“); MG ’ it *1... n. WNW M" «w; $1133 ”.3911“ P931; ‘ . $3! .158. mp 13.: 0'3; L. a; 3.3% $13.“, i; “avail {‘ ‘v. «a. 1 > A... .fiL‘ f. a. v. ..&.L.~;~.,-.§'~ {w v... ‘ - ‘ 315% + “‘11:: "2?..wa “ " Ht“ ‘hs‘ ‘ 3}; M a "t A I 151;“? (”1 ‘1“: 41“ “V. “N. fin. . 31,. ,5 ,. . z. . ~ .2 ‘ , I. _._ . . g L NQB.‘ ‘. “we? ‘ a 3:2. “w 1“ 5:33.;‘1 ~21.“ “xii: \f.‘ 1 ‘m‘: .“~\(}"U ""wL ' *3 WT air} ‘ h. r: J53‘$hgj “‘4\\ ~25“; . m 1“ ‘ :‘k : 191$; ‘ «[4 I . I - .. w .. .m‘ “WE“? q . ‘ ~., \ ‘31:: :cm Iur‘k ‘Q'fikjb :41 “I”? ~.~‘I‘1~L...~S‘ W r331», Luz); "“- ‘. a. wg‘g‘}. H3313; "H“ ‘ -v\-\Vfl.‘V zzria‘csva; . w. \ <3; ‘3’ mw‘i": . x I: ““6. 'LL‘C» , h -. ‘33? RE {3% 1%:in LP. . 13'“ 11%.? ‘1 2% iv}; Lia} ,: .sz {m LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PEANU'l' HARVEST LOSSES IN SUDAN presented by _l_(l_lOGALI MOHAMED ELAMI EN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 1211.9. degreein Ag Eng Tech. R. H. Wilkinson Major professor i Robert H. Wilkinson Date 8 . 10 . s4 MSU is an Affirmalive Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 MSU LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. PEANUT HARVEST LOSSES IN SUDAN BY Khogali Mohamed Elamien a Dissertation submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Engineering 1984 ABSTRACT PEANUT HARVEST LOSSES AND THE LABOR SKILL IN SUDAN BY Mohammed Khogali Peanut harvest losses may in part be due to the physio- logical state of the plant at harvest time, but losses are also dependent upon the skill of handling the harvesting equipment. Peanut harvesting is aa complex operation re- quiring timely and precise practices. As the harvest becomes more highly mechanized in Sudan, more sophisticated machinery is imported to the country, creating a need for skilled labor. Good peanut production practices can often be negated by improper harvesting practices. The harvesting operation has a direct impact on the final quality and quantity of tflua crop produced. A very high percentage of the crop is lost annually in kind and quality in Sudan, largely due to mishandling of harvesting equipment. The present study deals with an investigation into the causes of high percentage (30-50) of peanut losses in the mechanized schemes in Sudan. The study was conducted by investigating the problem in the field and surveying a representative sample of the skilled labor. Two main pro— cedures were followed to collect data: 1. Field experiments. 2. Questionnaires. The two methods are described in the study and the data for both was statistically tested and conclusions were formu- lated. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that peanut harvest losses are mainly contributed to by two main factors: 1. The humans who are responsible for the management and handling of farm machinery. 2. The field conditions where the crop is grown. The questionnaire survey and field data were conducted at the Rahad since it is one of the fully mechanized schemes in Sudan. The justification of this project was based on the potential to improve the skills of those who handle peanut harvesting machinery. The intent was to focus on the spe- cific competencies needed by persons in direct supervision of equipment in the field. The results lead to the conclusion that a training program is needed to improve the laborers' understanding of certain subjects and procedures. .A training program guide is presented with primary focus on agricultural mechanics, crop science and management subjects. APPROVED: Major Professor Department Chairman Dedication This work is dedicated to my wife who gave me all the support and moral encour- agement I needed through the years. Thanks, Nafisa. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. Robert Wilkin- son, Associate Professor, Department. of' Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University, for his counsel and valued suggestions and guidance. Without his enthusiasm and constant encouragement as a chairman of the guidance com- mittee, the task would have been more arduous and the results less appropriate. Special thanks and gratitude to Dr. Galen Brown, who has given me enthusiastic thoughts and most generously of his valued time, exploring with me new avenues of inquiry and critically assessing my work along the way. To each of the members of the guidance committee, Dr. Merle L. Esmay, Dr. Warren Vincent, Dr. Frank Bobbit, I owe a very large debt of gratitude for their wisdom and support over the years. Their encouragement has enabled me to pur- sue a variety of scholarly interests. Always they afforded me a nurturing climate of stimulation, respect and personal and professional association. To each I express my respect and gratitude. Special thanks is also given to Liliston Corporation of Albani, Georgia and Openhimer Corporation of Mobile, Alabama for furnishing an air ticket to Sudan for data collection. Special thanks to my close personal friends for their moral and financial support which made this study a reality. They have my silent thanks here but know they were at the heart of it all. Finally I wish to express my thanks to my friends at the Rahad Corporation and researchers who gave me the back-up support for data collection. I hope that in some way this research serves in) heighten consideration of their persons toward the prosperity of Sudan. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .......... . ......... . ......... . ......... List of Figures .... ................................... Chapter I — INTRODUCTION .............................. 1.1 Agricultural Mechanization ........................ 1.2 Economic Importance of Peanuts ......... ....... .... 1.3 Production for Export ....... ..... .... ............. 1.4 Ecology ........................................... 1.5 The Need for the Study ... ......... .... ...... . ..... 1.5.1 The Purpose ............. .. ...... . ....... .... 1.5.2 Justification ............................... 1.5.3 Objectives O..........OIOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOO Chapter II - LITERATURE REVIEW - PART ONE ............. 2.1 Factors Affecting Peanut Harvesting ............... 2.2 Peanut Harvest Methods ............................ 2.2.1 Conventional Harvesting System .............. 2.2.2 Direct Harvesting ........................... 2.2.3 Limitations to Conventional Harvest ... ...... 2.3 Factors Affecting Losses ...................... .... 2.3.1 Sowing Date . ....... . ........ ................ 2.3.2 Digging Date ................................ 2.4 Peanut Maturity ................. .................. 2.4.1 The Seed Hull Maturity Index (SHMI) ......... 2.4.2 Pre and Post-Harvest Effects ................ 2.4.3 The Effect of the Digging Loss .............. 2.4.4 Lateral Fruit Distribution .......... . ....... 2.5 Harvesting, Curing and Mold Damage .. .............. 2.5.1 The Effect of Cylinder Impact and Cylinder Speeds ......................... 2.5.2 The Effect of Mechanical Injury to Seeds .... 2.6 Windrow Orientation and Harvesting Damage to Peanuts ........................................ 2.7 Aflatoxin Contamination ........................... Chapter II — 2.2.l(a) 2.2.2(a) LITERATURE REVIEW - PART TWO .... ......... Agricultural Engineering Technician Training ................................. The Effect of Mechanized Cropping on Training Needs ............... ......... Training and Training Facilities . ........ The Need for Training .................... Facts Relating to Training Needs ...... ... -1- 34 34 35 36 38 39 NNNNNN (a) The Cost-Benefit Effects (b) The Technical Pro ram's Characteristics .. 9 (c) Farm Mechanization Basic Training (d) Factors to Be Considered 00...... (e) Training by Private and Semi-Private Groups Farm Equipment Training Centers Adeption of Innovations .................. Development through Training (f) (g) (h) Investment in Human Resources (1) (3) Training and Benefits and Costs (a) Mechanization to Upgrade Production ...... Chapter III - METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION FOR THE PEANUT HARVEST LOSSES IN THE 1982-83 www .0 (”ND-1 a O l 2 3 SEASON Instrumentation 3.3.1 . PI. 0 tax. 00 Q. o o \lmmmO‘UlUlUl’O bebmwww wwawwwwmwwwI-quw h pter IV Data Methodology Methodology of Survey The Design of the Study ..........OOOOOOOOO0.0.000......... Questionnaire Design Assumptions Reliability Measures The Questionnaire Survey ......OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO Peanut Harvest Loss Survey Combine Peanut Loss Assessment ded Field Loss Survey Evaluation of Digging and Shaking Losses .... Evaluation Design ......OOOOOOOO.......OOOOO. Tractor Forward Speed (Digging Speed) Digging Speed Versus Soil Moisture Content .. Combine Losses Versus Curing Time Combine Losses Versus Combine Cylinder Speeds ification of Training Areas and TOpics .1 Procedure Followed for Areas and Topic Selection Results and Discussion Strategy for the Analysis Design of Statistical Analysis .................... Experiment One 4.3.1 Data Analysis 4.3.2 The Analysis of Variance Experiment Two 4.4.1 Data Analysis 4.4.2 Hypothesis Tested 4.4.3 The Soil Moisture Factor Experiment Three 4.5.1 Effect of Curing Time and Combine Cylinder on Peanut Losses ......OOOOOOOOOOOOO00......000...... ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page 43 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 53 53 55 56 57 58 58 6O 60 61 62 64 64 65 65 65 66 66 67 67 69 69 69 69 7O 7O 71 80 81 82 86 89 89 Page 4 5.2 The Variables of the Test ..... ....... ....... 89 4 5.3 The Analysis of the Test ... ..... ............ 89 4.5.4 The Combine Cylinder Speed .................. 93 Q e 4 6 4.6 ustionnaire Resu1ts ......OOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOO 94 . .1 The Skilled Labor Response .................. 96 4.6.2 The Supervisors' Response . ..... ... ..... ..... 97 Chapter V - TRAINING GUIDE ............................ 99 5.1 The Mechanized Farming Approach to Inservice Education in Agricultural Mechanics ............... 99 5.1.2 Characteristics of a Well-Planned Occupational Experience Program ............. 99 5.2 Selecting the Course Material ..................... 100 5.2.1 Training Program ............................ 100 5.3 Training Outlines ................................. 100 5.3.1 Training Lessons ............................ 101 5.4 Lesson Plans ...................................... 102 Chapter VI - SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............. 121 6.1 Conclusions ....................................... 121 6.2 Summary of Conclusions ............................ 122 6.2.1 Soil Moisture ............................... 123 6.2.2 The Combine Losses .......................... 124 6.2.3 Field Curing ................................ 124 6.3 Recommendations ................................... 125 Bibliography ...... ........... ......................... 127 Appendix Questionnaire ..................................... 135 Table l - Results ................................. 144 Table 2 ........................................... 148 Table 3 ........................................... 152 -iii- .b W #45 ubfisb bu ¢>b4> ubfish WWW ansb O U! UlU'lU'I 0 mm Oxbtp 0 NH Table N H Q)NFH btuh) LIST OF TABLES The analysis of variance for losses by speed and moisture ........................................ The average loss per factor level ............... The speed and moisture interaction .............. The multiple regression summary for speed and moisture ........................................ ANOVA for number of days and soil moisture ...... The average loas by number of days .............. The average percent losses per soil moisture level ..........OOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOO ANOVA for curing period and combine cylinder speed The average losses per curing period in percent . LOSSES as affected by combine cylinder speed .... The average losses as affected by cylinder speed and curing period ............................... Selected skill labor response ................... The supervisors percentage rating for selected topics ..iv- Page 71 72 76 83 84 86 9O 9O 93 94 96 98 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Agricultural Mechanization Sudan is an Agricultural Country with wide areas of high potential for agricultural expansion and mass production of various crops. Land deve10pment for agriculture is the general policy guide for the Sudanese economy. This agricultural development leads 13> more specialization, and more specifically to the intensive use of farm machinery. Intensification of agricultural practices generally requires either major concentrations of labor, or capital required for intensive machinery use, or both. Sudan lacks the sheer numbers necessary for a labor intensive strategy and thus must pursue a capital intensive mechanized approach to its agricultural projects. Large numbers of tractors, with the necessary implements and other farm machinery, have been imported by the Sudan government, private enterprises, and various foreign tech- nical assistance programs. These machines are mainly used in large government projects and schemes under government supervision. The private sector is actively involved in large mechanized farms. -2- Mechanized peanut production started late in the 70s in Sudan and surveys have reported that mechanization of agri- culture needs special attention in order to become effici- ent. The life span of the imported farm machinery is very short and the cost of operation is high. Mishandling of peanut machinery is considered a major problem that results in heavy crop harvest losses. In a report to the World Bank, Duke (1975) reported "...A training program is urgently needed to train an adequate number of technicians and tractor operators..." It was noted that the losses in peanut production often are significant and reduce the efficiencies of production. Some of the factors that affect this are machine design, soil types, variety of peanuts and environmental conditions. One of the main conditions contributing to the losses results from the lack of the necessary skills and knowledge on the part of labor, concerning the production machinery, and its proper use» 'The peanut harvesting machinery can easily be destroyed if not properly handled. Once a machine is dis- abled, it is a subject of cannibalism and adds to a pile of junk. There is a constant flow of machinery imported to sat- isfy the need of the progressive land development. The machinery flow is far ahead of the available skills that are needed to operate and maintain these machines. Farm machinery manufacturers are not very aware of the need for these skilLs. However, in some instances, they sponsor a -3- special training school or regional training facilities. Other manufacturers send a training team out occasionally to train their dealers, personnel, maintenance people and service people. Even so, little has been accomplished. Although there are some training centers in Sudan for tractor drivers, they have limited purpose and meager facil- ities. The on-the-job service training is lacking and there is a big gap of know-how between the operators of the peanut machinery and their supervisors. The technical and scien- tific know-how is shallow, and there is a great need to fill this gap to accomplish the production goal. The introduction and operation of foreign agricultural machinery into developing countries creates a specific need for trained skillful supervisors and farm machinery opera- tors. Dealers are scarce, generally too far away, and often indifferent to the needs of the machinery owners and users. This is Vflnf the Sudan government has its own training schools, although in most cases for only a limited number of operators. This situation leads to an acute need to assess the skills necessary for machinery handling personnel. It was reported by Beasley (1963), that peanut harvest— ing losses in North Carolina average 3-5 percent of the total yieLd. By contrast, it was reported by Abdien (un- dated), of the agricultural engineering section of the ministry of agriculture, Sudan, that peanut harvesting losses in Sudan average 20-30 percent of the total yield. These serious yield losses could be reduced if the machinery -4- was handled efficiently' during the harvesting operation. This is one example of many malfunctioning production opera- tions. There are no available statistics to verify the efficiencies of other major mechanized crops such as cotton, sorghum, and sesame. 1.2 Economic Importance of Peanuts Mangelsdorf, (1961) reported that among crop plants in the world standing between mankind and starvation, peanuts rank thirteenth in importance. Peanut production now ranks in the top 10 crOps of the United States, and rank second in Sudan. McGill (1961) reported that world trade in peanuts was not very active until oil mills were developed. Peanuts are used locally for food in areas of production and are an important crop for local trade. Peanut importance in world trade has increased substantially due to its high content of digestible proteins. Peanut use as an edible food crop is expected to increase significantly because of an increased awareness of the protein shortage existing in the world. The United States is one of the few countries of the world where peanuts are grown and used extensively for domestic food use. The increase of peanut production was associated with the increase of population and the recent development of various industrial uses. McGill (1972) reported that peanut farmers, manufac- turers, and users were working diligently to stimulate -5- interest in the worldwide utilization of peanuts. Scien- tists around the world are becoming increasingly aware that "peanuts," which in the past have been relished by many forms of animal life and used mainly by man for oil, are now destined to make a greater contribution toward solving the nutritional deficiencies of mankind. Ishag (1982) reported that, in Sudan, peanuts are a major factor in the local trade. The peanut industry is ex- panding, and the increased production has gone into crushing for oil and the subsequent use of the vines and oil pro— cessing byproducts for animal feed. Recently, however, Sudan is moving toward more export as a cash crop. 1.3 Production for Export To compete in the world trade a high quality product is required. Peanuts must be produced economically to achieve this goal. A developing nation that relies on revenues from agricultural products marketing must practice the basics of agricultural production. One of the objectives of this study is to define the common technical skills related to scientific crop production a technician in the field should be aware of to enable him to produce high quality. Peanut production in Sudan has increased rapidly in the last decade. Substantial, increases in horizontal and vertical production have been noted. The total area of peanut production is approximately 1.03 million hectares, Ishag (1982). Sudan has become a major peanut producer, now ranking fifth among the peanut-producing countries. -6- Sudan accounted for 25 percent of the world's crop export in 1974, World Bank (1975). In terms of area planted, the three leading regions in Sudan are: North Kordofan with 41 percent: South Darfur with 16 percent: Gezira and Managil with 13 percent. With respect to production, the four leading regions are: Gezira and Managil 40 percent North Kordofan 15 percent Rahad Project 12 percent 'South Darfur 11 percent The balance is widely distributed throughout the country. Peanuts have become increasingly important in the irrigated areas of Sudan. Ishag (1981) reported that the large areas of irrigated peanuts provide a stabilizing effect on peanut production which is not present in many other peanut pro- ducing areas of the world. This factor tends to make Sudan a more dependable supplier of peanuts for world trade. Sudan should capitalize on this. The quality of peanuts produced in irrigated areas should be more uniform than is the case fer other areas, such as India where lack of de- pendable monsoon rainfall makes the size and quality of the peanut crop more variable. 1.4 Ecology Ishag (1981) reported that peanuts are grown to 400 North and South of the equator. They require abundant sunshine and warmth for normal develOpment. For high yields and good quality, a growing period of four to five months is required. Dry weather should prevail during ripening and harvesting. When grown as a rainfed crOp, peanuts need an evenly-distributed summer rainfall of at least 550 mm. The most suitable soils are well-drained, loose, fri- able, sandy loams, well-supplied with calcium. Peanuts can be grown on heavier soils (like Gezira soils), but this makes the harvesting more difficult as the soil adheres to the nuts, and may stain them. 1.5 The Need for the Study It was reported by FAO 1973, and Tyson 1982 that mech- anized agriculture has a most important part to play in the economy and future develOpment of Sudan. The expansion of mechanized projects is the general trend in Sudan. The introduction of a variety of power machinery with the necessary equipment was noteworthy after 1970. For example, in 1975 the Agricultural Bank alone bought a consignment of 2,500 Massey-Ferguson tractors for mechanized production projects. Due to the heavy investment in farm machinery, which is all imported, there is a need for training programs to insure the effective use of these machines. —8— The World Bank (1978) reported regarding the ”potential for yield improvement ... the main constraint in practice is the harvesting operation. By hand it is tedious work re- quiring much labor: while mechanical Operations have shown great losses of pods left in the soil. Losses of 10 to 20 percent are not uncommon but much depends on the soil moisture at time of harvest. However for large scale pro- duction mechanical harvesting is essential. Based on the available information, a yield projection for all irrigated peanuts of 2,500 to 3,000 kg/ha appears to be feasible." The success of peanut mechanization in Sudan may depend on develOping a set of recommended mechanized farming skills and on developing a training program to improve farm machinery handling in general. The world Bank (1978) con- cluded, "The mechanization of the harvest needs further research on types of machinery and efficency of operation." As the institutions and agricultural projects stepped into the phase of heavy mechanization, they overlooked the proper training of technicians for agricultural moderniza- tion. The need for agricultural production technicians was not clear to the agricultural planners. Vocational agri- cultural research and teaching experienced some increase in general, but emphasis on farm supervision of agricultural machine operation is lacking. In an age of food shortage, it is true that peanut pro- duction will continue to be very important to the Sudanese economy. To grow and to harvest quality peanuts, skillful operators are needed. -9- Training is probably the most important factor in developing a sound and efficient mechanization program. Traditionally, on-the-job training may be adequate but most Of the time it is costly and slow. Technology is changing. The difference between success and failure of mechanized farming will depend on the ability to handle and manage machines in such a way that will allow the Sudanese to compete in the world production. Large-scale farming projects will be the general way Of agricultural develOpment in Sudan for some time. The Rahad project, involving 1,200,000 ha in phase one, is one example Of these projects, World Bank (1978). Even the Older traditional schemes designed for family labor are now totally dependent on tractor power for most Of the agricultural operations. When management provides agricultural machinery services to the farmer in large development projects, skilled and knowl- edgeable Operators and technicians must be available. This is especially true when the farmers themselves have very little training and experience and are often being re- settled. The employment potential in these projects is high. The increased Opportunities for technicians, middle managers and professionals on certain types of large and commercial farming enterprises is the basis for the present concern about the level, content and type Of education that will be needed in the years ahead. -10- The immigration of large numbers of skilled labor and trained personnel to the neighboring rich oil countries is another serious concern. 1.5.1 The Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of peanut losses in the Rhad irrigated fields and to project ways to reduce these losses. 1.5.2 Justification The justification of this project was based on the need to improve and upgrade the skills Of technicians and Operators who handle peanut harvesting machinery. The intent was to focus on the specific competences needed by persons in direct supervision of peanut harvesting equipment Operations in the field. It was hypothesized that through proper management of the peanut harvesting Operation, a high percentage of peanut losses could be avoided. This loss might either reduce total yield or quality of nuts. Proper handling of machinery will save time and money. Many tech- nicians and Operators in agricultural projects in Sudan do not possess basic knowledge of peanut harvesting machinery. Therefore, they end up with high losses at harvest and machinery misuse. 1.5.3 Objectives The main Objective Of this study is to identify and determine the occupational competencies and machine Opera- tion characteristics which will be necessary for use as a -11- guide to train peanut production machinery supervisors and Operators. The specific Objectives: 1. To determine skills needed by supervisors of peanut machinery and machinery operators with special attention to: a)‘ Technical knowledge Of machines. b) Scientific knowledge of plant and soil. to determine the present needs Of training on the basis of peanut farming for quality production with emphasis on improving the harvesting techniques. tO determine the effect of digging shaking speeds on peanut losses. to determine the effect Of soil moisture content at harvest time on peanut losses. to determine the effect Of different levels of plant curing and different combine cylinder speeds on peanut losses. to determine the competence areas needed by tech- nicians in peanut production: in addition to mech— anical knowledge. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW - PART ONE 2.1 Factors Affecting Peanut Harvesting Influence Of row spacing and seed rates: Hull and Carver (1936) stated that one of the difficul- ties in testing yields of experimental peanut lines with the commercial types is to obtain Optimum spacing for each kind. Optimum yields were obtained for three varieties. The upright Spanish type produced Optimum yields when spaced 10 to 20 cm apart, the runner growth habit produced higher yields from spacing of 15 to 25 cm, and a hybrid variety with intermediate growth habit produced the highest yields at 10 to 25 cm within row spacing. Shear and Miller (1960) studied the influence Of plant spacing of Jumbo Runner peanuts on fruit development, yield and border effect at the Tidewater Research Station in Virginia. They found that spacing as close as 15 cm between plants resulted in highest yields but retarded the rate of fruit development. Ishag (1970) studied the optimum yield Of two varieties at the Gezira Research Station (Sudan). He concluded in his studies that the largest pod yield of Ashford (Runner) was Obtained at 60 cm between rows and 15 cm spacing between plants (220,000 pdants/ha). While 1J1 Barberton (upright) -12- -13- the Optimum yield was found at 40 cm between rows and 15 cm between plants (332,000 plants/ha). Duke and Alexander (1964) found that yield of large seeded Virginia bunch-type were Often higher in close rows than in standard width rows. Norden and Lipscomb (1969) reported 115 percent higher yields with bunch type peanuts planted in 46 cm rows rather than 91 cm rows. From North Carolina, Cox and Reid (1962) reported that increasing populations Of peanut plants, either by increas- ing the seeding rate in the rows or by decreasing the row width, led to higher yields of peanuts. They further re- ported that the responses tO the use of close rows were Often negligible at high yield levels (4,300 kg/ha or high— er). 2.2 Peanut Harvest Methods Peanuts are harvested by several methods as the situa- tion and the crop dictates. In Sudan most Of the mechanized peanut areas are harvested by the windrow method. The win— drow method is best described by Duke (1960) and Ogburn, et al. (undated). In this harvesting method peanuts are dug with a digger-shaker-windrower when pods are ripe and at approximately 50 percent (wet basis) moisture content. The harvested peanuts are left in the windrow to cure for a few days depending cum the weather» After partial field curing from 50 tn) 25 percent moisture they are combined and arti- ficially dried in wagons to an Optimum storage moisture content. In Sudan the peanuts are left in the field to dry -14- since there is no risk of rainy weather at harvest time and the temperature is advantageously high for field curing. In peanut producing areas similar to the United States the crop is subjected to damages and losses due to inclement weather factors, birds, and rodents during the curing period. If it rains heavily, a total loss of the crop is possible. On the other hand, if it is too dry, the crOp will be very brittle at harvest and high combine losses will occur. Duke (1975) reported that "... in the United States, combine harvested peanuts that are cwerdried (below 8 percent moisture) are generally of poor quality with reduced flavor and increased skin slippage. If overdrying becomes ea quality factor in Sudan, it may be advisable to provide a type of storage that prevents overdrying ..." 2.2.1 Conventional Harvesting System In the conventional harvesting system described by Duke (1960) and Ogburn, et a1. (undated), the plant and peanuts are first dug or separated from the soil and two rows of plants are placed in an inverted windrow to expose the peanuts tx> the sun. The peanuts are left in the windrow until they have partially dried to a moisture content in the range of 10—25 percent. This usually takes 4-7 days. After this interval of time, risk of loss from adverse weather greatly increases, and the rate of drying in the windrow decreases. In the digging Operation, Duke (1972) found peanut losses are affected by the timing of the operation, physical -15- conditions of the vines, soil moisture, peanut cultivar, and equipment condition and Operation. Peanut losses on normal digging dates may range from 6-20 percent. Conventional combines all employ the cylinder picking principle. Even though the pick-up mechanisms and cylinder diameters vary among models, the threshing action of shred- ding the vines for peanut plant separation is similar. Depending on capacity and vine conditions, the combines are pulled through the field at 2.4 to 6.4 km/h. One windrow is picked up, and the peanuts are separated from the plant material and placed ixiea bulk container. The plant material is returned to the soil surface in a shredded condition. From the bulk containers the peanuts are dumped into drying trailers or trucks and are moved tO the drying facilities. (On Sudan farms, tine peanuts are dumped at a chosen site in the field where they are sacked and then transported to storage facilities, usually in the open.) 2.2.2 Direct Harvesting Mills (1961) initiated research on the concept of green harvesting Virginia bunch peanuts, i.e., digging and picking in one pass through the field. Coffelt, et a1. (1973) experimented on a new method of harvesting and curing breeding seed peanuts. The objectives of research on direct harvesting have been to: 1. reduce the labor requirement: 2. maintain a high level of germination: 3. maintain varietal purity at 100 percent: -16- 4. minimize peanut exposure to adverse weather condi- tions after digging: 5. eliminate the risk of pod losses or degradation as the result of adverse (too slow, rapid, etc.) windrow drying conditions: 6. reduce the potential for contamination by fungi and insects during artificial drying and storage by reducing mechanical damage during harvest: and 7. harvest under wetter field conditions than is possible using a conventional combine. 2.2.3 Limitations to Conventional Harvest The present conventional peanut harvesting method is subject to many variables that determine its degree of successful use. Duke (1951) summarized the factors that contribute to combine efficiency' as related to Ibosses, capacity, loose shelled kernels, and foreign material as follows: 1. General condition of peanuts and vines at harvest time depending upon: a) Moisture of the vines and nuts. b) Type of windrow, whether tight or loose. c) Amount of foreign material: particularly dirt, weeds and grass. d) Degree of brittleness of the vines. e) Quality Of the peanuts. 2. Speed or rate of combining the windrow. 3. Method of feeding, whether uniform or intermittent. -17- 4. Speed of the picker mechanisms. 5. Adjustments of the picking, separation, and clean- ing units. 6. Type of picking principles employed. 7. Type of machine as related to make and model. 2.3 Factors Affecting Losses 2.3.1 Sowing Date Fadda (1962) found that losses in peanut yield due to delaying sowing from June to July were high. A delay Of one month in sowing resulted in a loss of more than 40 percent in pod yield, and about 50 percent loss in straw yield. Ishag (1962) studied the effect of sowing date in two varieties Of peanuts, Barberton and Ashford. The results obtained showed that the earliest sowing dates in June gave the highest yield of pods and hay. July sowing reduced the pod yield of Ashford by 42 percent and that of Barberton by 27 percent. He added further that pod yield was reduced by 70.2 percent when sowing was delayed till September. Nur' (1966) found that sowing in June produced 53.6 percent more flowers than late sowing in August. Late sowing also reduced the number of mature pods per plant by 38.2 percent. El Ahmadi (1966-69) found that yield decreased linearly with delayed planting, and differences due to sowing dates were highly significant. E1 Amin (1975) reported that sowing peanuts later than the end of June prolongs the growing season and subjects the plants to heavy attack of aphids (Aphis craccivora). -13- A major requirement for Obtaining a high peanut yield is the attainment of good field stands. This has been a major problem for growers in Sudan over the years and becomes even more critical as the control of other production factors is improved. 2.3.2 Digging Date Young, et a1. (1979) stated that field emergence is affected by quality, physical environment, and biological environment of the seed. They evaluated the maturity in- dices and determined the correlation between, germination results and maturity index-values. They found: 1. Seed quality as evaluated by all testing methods decreased with delay in digging. 2. A high correlation between field emergence percen- tages and the lowest temperature to which the pea— nuts were subjected during the period covering three days prior to digging and the day Of combin- ing. 3. Significant interactions of digging dates with harvest methods, storage conditions, storage forms, and planting dates were found for field emergence percentages. Seed from later digging dates were more adversely affected by unfavorable treatments during other production processes. Moore (1969) stated that: l) the seed itself may be changed chemically or physically in such a manner that germination is either inhibited or prohibited entirely: and -19- 2) a second possible manner in which seed quality might be adversely affected by latter digging dates is by a physical deterioration of the hull resulting in more mechanical damage to kernels during combining and subsequent proces- sing. The studies Of Wright and Mozingo (1971) indicated that the hull damage did indeed increase at the later dig- ging dates. This might indicate more adverse reaction Of seeds to mechanical injuries at later diggings. The preceding discussions reflect the indeterminate fruiting pattern of peanuts, which produces its fruits below the ground where pod formulation and development cannot be easily observed. Consequently, to determine the exact time for digging is rather difficult. Butler et a1. (1972) recommended that for maximum recovery yield, harvest should not be delayed. Also, peanuts left in the soil after ma- turity are more susceptible to invasion of fungi, including A. Flavus, which may produce toxins. Digging too early reduces yields, and the nuts are generally lower in quality. Duke (1970) stated that peanuts combined the same day as they are dug contain more immatures than those combined after 6—8 days in the windrow. He added that immature peanuts have no economic value, increase the cost Of drying, lower the quality and grade, and are first to mold under unfavorable drying conditions. If green harvesting of peanuts becomes an alternative harvesting method, it will be desirable to remove the immatures before drying. Duke (1970) further stated that in the lots Of peanuts combined -20- the same day as they were dug: 54 percent, graded NO. 1: 6.1 percent, No. 2: 17.1 percent, No. 3: and 22.8 percent were immature. This further indicates the indeterminate fruiting pattern of peanuts. Butler et a1. (1972) reported that perhaps the primary method Of determining when to dig is based on Observation of the color of the interior of the hull and the skin of the kernel. The Spanish-type peanut shows a pmonounced dark- ening and veining Of the interior Of the pod as the fruit matures. It is generally accepted that the peanuts should be dug when 80 percent of the hulls become dark. The runner-type peanut has a: less pronounced darkening of the interior of the hull and the Virginia-type even less. As a result, these are judged more on the basis of the color of the skin. For these, it is recommended that they be dug when about 67 percent of the kernels have a red skin. One of the Obvious problems with this method lies in determining how dark is dark enough, and how pink is pink enough. Consequently, in practice, many producers dig when they Observe their neighbors digging. The development Of a simple, objective measure Of deter- mining the Optimum time to dig would allow the producer to harvest the maximum yield of top quality peanuts. The AERD and MQRD Of the ARS-USDA, undertook cooperative studies with the Georgia Coastal Plain Experimental Station in 1970 to address this issue. This study put some light on the effect of peanut maturity on light transmittance through a blended -21- extract Of the examined peanut sample and methanol. This showed that as peanuts become more mature, the transmittance decreased. From the producer point of view, in order for a method to be useful, it should: 1. be relatively inexpensive. 2. be simple to use. 3. give results in a short time. 4. be reliable. For the farmer in the field, the color of the darkening of the hull and kernel skin color is an accepted judgment, which could be refined through experience and practice. Sanders (1978) stated that for many years the shell-out method (SO) has been the standard for determining harvest time. By this method, all the pods, excluding those that are Obviously immature, are cracked Open: then, their ma— turities, subjectively evaluated on the basis Of seed coat and internal pericarp color, are used to determine overall crOp maturity. He added that some producers still erroneously use age Of the peanut plant as the sole basis for determining har- vest date. A method such as the shell-out method, that indicates whether or not the crop is ready to be harvested immediately is of immense value. However, a method enabling the producer to predict the date of optimum yield would be even more useful. The producer could then manage labor and equipment with maximum efficiency at harvest. There are, of -22- course, conditions of weather and disease that might over- ride any prediction. 2.4 Peanut Maturity Peanut maturity is closely related to grade, yield and money return per hectare. Woodrof (1973) reported that maturity is important to the producer because peanuts con- tinue to grow and gain weight until fully mature. Optimum maturity is an important factor to the shellers and pro- cessor because quality grades are dependent upon maturity factors: and it is important tO the consumer because kernel size, texture and color are affected by kernel maturity. Miller and Burns (1971) have developed a maturity index based on the color Of the internal shell which was found to be feasible as a good index Of quality and maturity. Kernel density and light transmittance of the Oil at 480 nm were confirmed as good indices Of quality. However, the internal hull color, kernel density and light transmittance of peanut Oil were found to be significantly related. Sanders et al., (1978) reported that the Optimum time to harvest peanuts is complicated by the pmesence of seed at various stages of maturity on the plant at any given time, and the subteranean fruiting habit. Because Of the increas- ing close profit margins, peanut producers must harvest the crop when the greatest proportion Of high quality, sound, mature fruit are on the plant. -23- 2.4.1 The Seed Hull Maturity Index (SHMI) Mozingo and Ashburn (1977) have shown that the seed hull maturity index is a low cost maturity estimation method that is correlated to yield and value per hectare for selected cultivars. Barr, et a1. (1976) published a similar method which uses average kernel mass as an indicator of time to harvest peanuts. Pattee, et a1. (1967) tested and equated the correlation coefficient of the seed hull maturity index as an indicator of yield and value for Virginia-type peanuts. They found a correlation of 93 percent existed. They also concluded that a significant correlation of 98 percent between the seed hull maturity index and price per kg indicates that the peanut grower can use SHMI to estimate the price per kg he will receive at the buying station. Mason et a1. (1969) found that the changes in free ariginine were very dramatic and that its concentration was inversely correlated with maturity of peanut seed. From measurements of free ariginine content, Young (1972) devel- oped the ariginine maturity index (AMI) to estimate the maturity level of peanut fruit and to predict the Optimal digging date. Young and Hammons (1974) came to the con- clusion that cultivar and harvesting time affect AMI. Hammons, et‘ a1. (1978) found that the ariginine maturity index is a better method for determining the quality of peanuts. They concluded that AMI gives a better estimation -24- of the level of percent total sound and mature kernels (TSMK) than of pod yield. Because market value is predicted on percent TSMK, this attribute has considerable economic implications. 2.4.2 Pre- and Post-Harvest Effects Holley and Young (1963), who used a methanol extraction procedure to remove peanut oil and read the color of centri- fugal extracts at 435 nm, showed color loss to be highly correlated with peanut maturity. They also found that slowly cured peanuts produced lighter colored oil than rapidly cured peanuts. Woodruf (1973) reported that the problem of "off- flavors" in raw and processed peanuts and peanut products has been of increasing concern to various segments of the industry. Extraneous and objectionable flavors can arise from many sources. There is a type of off-flavor which has been shown to occur whenever uncured peanuts are subjected to high temperatures. Pattee et a1. (1965) found that the level of off-flavor is a function of curing temperatures, time of exposure to the temperature, moisture content, and maturity stage of the kernels. 2.4.3 The Effect of the Digging Loss The initial peanut harvesting operation consists of digging the roots and peanuts, dislodging the soil, and depositing the inverted plants in a windrow to partially field-cure and dry before combining. Duke (1971) studied x -25- the peanut losses that consist of pods which have separated in the uprooting, lifting and windrowing operation. Further losses may occur during the combining and curing Operation. Dukes findings, after three years of experimentation, were that 80 percent Of the pods lost were below the soil sur- face. Peanuts are indeterminate plants, and mature seed may have a long period until the crop is killed or dug out. As each peanut matures the gynophore (peg) connecting it to the plant deteriorates due to age, disease, insect damage or other causes. The quantity of peanuts lost is influenced greatLy by time of digging and physical conditions of the peg and plant. Duke (1971) describes the optimum digging date as that date when the crop should be dug to give the maximum recovery yield and highest quality. Digging too early is one way to avoid high field losses but may end up with low yield and quality. Digging later than the optimum date results in higher field losses and lower recovery yield due to additional shedding of the mature peanuts. Troeger et a1. (1974) identified the factors affecting peanut peg attachment force (PAF) as: l. variety. 2. moisture content. 3. peg dimensions. 4. maturity. They concluded that PAF is an extremely variable charac- teristic. Their results indicated that variety has a sig- nificant effect on PAF. The PAF along with the size of the -26- pod can provide a guide as to losses to be expected at harvesting. He found that peanut moisture content and maturity have an effect on PAF. The results of his tests suggest that losses will be least for less mature, high moisture peanuts. Conversely, however, these peanuts would be difficult to separate from the vines and thus may be subject to more damage because of the higher energy require- ments during combining. 2.4.4 Lateral Fruit Distribution Quantitative information about the fruiting distribution of peanuts is important. This information is very important in the degree of harvesting machinery and placement of chemical fertilizers. Wright and Steel (1971) examined the distribution histogram of a Virginia runner-type peanut versus lateral distance from the plant's tap root. They found that 36.6 percent of the fruits were produced in the center section, 20.1 and 22.1 percent were produced in the two adjacent sections, and 8.4 and 9.7 percent were produced in the next two sections from the row center. Thus 96.6 percent of the peanuts were produced within a lateral dis- tance of 33 cm, or a bandwidth of 66 cm. In contrast to the fruit distribution, they found that the moisture content of the fruit varied across each section with lateral distance from the plant's tap root. The peanut fruit moisture content during the first week of curing averaged about 8 percentage points higher than the peanut fruit moisture content during the fifth week. They -27- found that average peanut moisture content increased from about 49 percent in the center to about 67 percent in the outer sections. The meat relationship was inverse to that of moisture content. These results illustrate quantitatively the maturity pattern of peanuts. That is, on a group basis parallel to the row the peanuts have a higher moisture content and less meat content with increase in distance perpendicular to the row center. Less than 4 percent of the total peanuts were produced outside a (“5 cm bandwidth centered over the plant's tap root. Fruiting pattern infor- mation of selected varieties would be very valuable to the producer. Agricultural chemicals and granular insecticides can then be applied to a bandwidth to cover an area in which a specified percentage of peanuts is produced. They Observed that the long vine growth of runner-type peanuts tends to wrap around the plow shank of most diggers during the digging operation. This wrap retards the flow Of plants through the digger and increases the possibility of peanuts being stripped off the plants. Decreasing the bandwidth from 91.4 cm (row width) to 66 cm may decrease the overall losses (stripping losses) by more than the amount being lost outside the 66 cm bandwidth. 2.5 Harvesting, Curing and the Mold Damage Mill and Dickens (1958) reported peanuts left in the windrow to dry may be exposed to prolonged periods of ad- verse weather conditions that can cause heavy mold damage and high field losses. -28- Allcroft and Carnaghan (1963) added that mold damage has become a major concern to the peanut industry since the discovery of aflatoxin, a metabolite of Aspergillus Flavus and some other mold, which has been shown to be highly toxic to many animals. Dickens (1966) and McDonald and Harkness (1964) general- ly agree that invasion Of peanut pods and kernels by A. Flavus and other fungi usually occurs during curing when the variety has been dug near maturity. After lifting, peanuts are most rapidly invaded by A. Flavus during drying in windrows or stacks at 14-30 percent kernel moisture content. Austwick and Ayerst (1963) also reported that when peanuts being cured are in the general range of 15—30 percent kernel moisture content, an interruption or retardation of the field drying cycle by showers or overcast humid weather, or even prolonged contact with moisture after picking and storage, will usually result in the development of A. Flavus with subsequent toxin formation. The surge of present-day interest in uwcotoxins resulted from the death of 100,000 turkey pullets on 500 farms in England in 1960. Investiga- tion revealed the presence of a toxic fungal metabolite (aflatoxin) of A. Flavus in the Brazilian peanut meal frac- tion of the feed, Lancaster, et a1. (1961). Mechanical damage to peanuts that are picked by cylinder-type combines is a considerable economic importance to the peanut industry. The hull brusing and breakage exposes the kernels to mold damage and insect attack during curing and storage, McDonald and Harkness (1963). -29- Turner, et a1. (1965) concluded that impact on peanuts reduces milling quality, by increasing broken and skinned kernels during subsequent shelling, and reduces the germ— ination of the seed. 2.5.1 The Effect of Cylinder Impact and Cylinder Speeds A laboratory study conducted by Turner (1963) indicated that the percentage of hull damage and loose shelled kernels (LSK) was directly proportional to the impact velocity and inversely proportional to the moisture content of the pea- nuts when subjected to the impact forces. Khalsa (1965) showed that peanut moisture content at harvest affected the percent of loose shelled kernels, hull damage, subsequent shelling damage, and seed germination. This indicates that as far as the hull condition is concerned, it is desirable to subject peanuts to mechanical processes involving impact forces only when they have moisture content in the vicinity of 20 percent, and to avoid such processes when moisture contents are in the vicinity of 10 or 40 percent. Khalsa (1965) found that damage to kernels, as indicated by the tetrazolium staining technique, increased with an increase in moisture content at impact. The kernel in the end Of the hull opposite the peg attachment (root kernel) was considerably more susceptible to impact injury than was the kernel at the peg attachment end (peg kernel). If considerimg the embryo damage only, then for all orienta— tions and all moisture levels the damage was greater in the root kernel. It might be concluded that to avoid kernel injury, -30- peanuts should be at low moisture levels when sub- jected to mechanical processes involving impact forces. This would be true if it were not for the fact that the kernels tend to split at lower velocities when the moisture level of peanuts is lxwu The magnitude of the velocities involved wouLd be a factor in deciding the ideal moisture level. Wright (1968) tested the effect of combine cylinder speeds and feed rate on peanut damage and combining effi- ciency. 1. He concluded that: The total losses for the slow cylinder speed were lower than the losses for medium and fast cylinder speed. Losses for the one-half normal feed rate were less than the losses for the normal feed rate. The peanut losses decreased with an increase in exposure time in the windrow. Damage increased with an increase in the cylinder speed and remained fairly uniform with a change in the moisture content. Therefore, a reduction in the visible hull damage can be made by reducing the cylinder speed Of the combine. In general, the percentage of loose shelled kernels (LSK) increased with a decrease in the moisture content. Likewise, the percentage of LSK increased with an increase in the cylinder speed. -31... 2.5.2 Effect of Mechanical Injury to Seeds Mechanical injury to the seeds causes an increase in the percentage of plants with an abnormally-developed root system. Turner et al. (1963) demonstrated similar effects when the hull of a peanut was subjected to various_impact velocities. Damage in terms of percent germination and abnormal root development was most prevalent with the Opical kernel when the hull was stuck on the Opical end. Sullivan and Parry (1976) examined the performance of normal and abnormal seedlings in the field. They classified abnormal seedlings as those that emerged 7-10 days later than the field average, and stated that 95 percent of the abnormal seedlings had abnormal root development. Further, they reported the reduction in field yield of plants with abnormal root systems was mainly due to decreased pod set and that a high percentage of those plants in the field pOpulation could considerably reduce final yield, even though some compensation from adjacent normal plants was likely. They finally hypothesized that the amount of yield reduction associated with plants with abnormal root systems would be inversely related to plant population. 2.6 Windrow Orientation and Harvesting Damage to Peanuts Dickens and Khalsa (1967) examined the effects of plant orientation on the drying of peanuts in windrows and the effects of windrow orientation and moisture content at time of combining on the following factors: -32- 1. Loose shelled kernels (LSK) and pod damage caused by combining. 2. Milling quality. 3. Germination of seed. 4. Aflatoxin contamination of peanuts. They found that the amount of LSK caused by combining de- creased with an increase in moisture content at time of combining. Moisture content at time of combining or hand- picking had a significant effect on the amount of kernel damage caused by subsequent mechanical shelling. However, early work by Bailey et a1. (1952) found that curing treat- ments had no effect either on the percentage of Oil in peanuts or fatty acids and peroxide values for the oil. For milling and processing quality, windrow orientation is a very important step to enhance the peanut quality, both for processing and for seed. Peanuts have 30-60 percent moisture when they are dug which must be reduced to 10 percent for safe storage. Windrow orientation is the first step in the process of proper curing. The methods used to dry the seed to the safe storage level have a significant effect on flavor and quality. 2.7 Aflatoxin Contamination Kulik and Holaday (1967) defined aflatoxin as a meta- bolic product of several fungi. Certain isolates of Asper- gilliss flavus, A. niger, A. parasiticus, A. ruber, A. Wenkii, Penicillium citrinum, and A. variabile produced aflatoxin. Jackson and Bell (1969) proposed the common name -33- "yellow mold." It is pathogenic to emerging peanut seed- lings. Aflatoxin is also noticed as a dry rot and sometimes yellow-green spores are produced on infected cotyledons. Decay is most rapid when infested seed are planted where the fungus becomes active as the seed hydrate. Cotyledons of germinating seed are usually invaded first and, under favor- able conditions, the emerging radicle and hypocotyle are decayed rapidly. During harvest, when the mature plants are brought above ground, the fruit becomes highly susceptible to infection by the fungi. Harvesting procedures which damage the pod or seeds, or both, greatly increase the chances of seed infection, Sargeant et a1. (1961). Con- cealed damage caused by fungi is a serious damage and does extensive damage to farmers' crops if not carefully con- trolled. Dickens and Khalasa (1967) have found less aflatoxin contamination when peanuts were combined from inverted windrows than from a random orientation. The percent ger- mination decreased with an increase in moisture content of the pods and seed when combined. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW - PART TWO 2.2.l(a) Agricultural Engineering Technician Training The importance of technicians for the success of any mechanized agricultural farming cannot be overlooked. The technical skills learned through the training programs in agricultural engineering are aimed at preparing workers to be employed in agriculture and its related services and industries. The agricultural, overall economic, and social. development of Sudan will all benefit by this preparation, where benefits are part of the goal of, and in keeping with, the national develOpment plan, Bashir et a1. (1975). Training technicians in the disciplines Of agricultural engineering to serve production agriculture will be a big step forward in meeting the needs of the developing Sudan, Bashir et al. (1975). Wilson (1968) emphasized the importance of skilled technicians by stating that it would be difficult to over- estimate the importance of the intermediate-level agricul- tural technician to agricultural programs in the developing countries. The technician is the key individual through whose work the results of research and technological pro- gress are conveyed to the skilled labor and farmers and henceforth incorporated in the agricultural enterprises of -34.. -35- every kind. If intermediate level staff are inadequate in number, or of low competence, then the agricultural services are wasted, Bashir et al., (1975). Depending on the stage of development and the principle types of agricultural prac- tices, there is probably a need in developing countries for 5-10 times as many agricultural technicians as agricultural scientists. The technician training is fundamentally one of practical application. Not only must they be able to effi- ciently perform a number of skilled techniques associated with the various aspects of modern agricultural production, they must also understand the basic principles which under- lie them. 2.2.2(a) 'The Effect of Mechanized Cropping on Training 593.92 The extensive expansion of mechanized agricultural pro- jects creates an urgent need for trained technicians and skilled labor to back up this important develOpment change. Training programs have been started through. sparcely' fi- nanced facilities and inadequately programmed formats. This is the case in most of the developing countries. In West Africa, Coulthard (1968) reports that, trained operators with mechanical "sense" are in short supply for the operation of tractors and machinery on present State and Research Farms. Training schools will need to be es- tablished for operators and servicemen prior to any large-scale mechanization program ... Education at all levels is one of the basic needs in all developing countries ... The elementary and secondary schooling requires considerable expansion and there is a great need for qualified teachers at this level ... there is a great need for technical scientific —36- supplies and educational aids at the advanced level of education. There is a great need for skilled technicians and university trained scientists ... At the present time the great- est need is for technicians to operate the current scientific equipment, and that which is about in) be introduced. Research scien- tists find much of their valuable time is consumed in performing routine tasks which could be carried out by skilled technicians, if they were available ... one could frequent- ly note the lack of technical training in farm mechanization, and industry. Many schools offering science training at the secondary level and vocational or technical institutes at the advanced level are required. In Sudan there has been a general accepted trend to introduce fairly complex and technically advanced mechanical devices in agriculture. This includes cotton pickers, peanut harvesters, and self-propelled combines. It could never be overstated that the success of such machines depends on the availability of technicians and skilled labor who will put them to an economically productive operation. Bashir et a1 (1975) reported that the area of technical education, should, however, be given more and special atten- tion and empahsis if it is to play its legitimate role in development. Practically, the changes must include the curricula. 2.2.2(b) Training and Training Facilities Kline et a1. (1969) recommended the development of facilities and training in the use of farm machinery and supportive power units. They stated that the adoption of improved farming practices, including the new forms of farm power generally depends upon trained and careful operators. -37- Such training also plays an important role in reducing repair and maintenance costs. It is recommended, therefore, that extension services be regarded as the most appropriate training medium for small farmers, and that extension agents be provided with adequate training in agricultural mechani- zation. The training facilities can then be made available to farmers with adequate background to benefit from the experience. In Sudan, facilities for training both farmers and farm operators are generally inadequate. Moreover, very few training programs are designed with due recognition of the farmer's traditional background or level of literacy, their lack of disciplined organization, or their lack of training in mechanical arts. Often extension workers are inade- quately familiar with the farmer's way of life and have, themselves, insufficient knowledge about, or prOper training on, improved mechanization tools and techniques. Again it should be emphasized that training facilities in these areas can be efficiently grafted onto the Opera- tional organization of already established institutions. The burden of expensive adminstration can be avoided wher- ever an appropriate institution already is functioning. Operational organizations, and/or agricultural projects now under full swing or production can be utilized for training and updating the required skills. It is also recognized that some projects are in a better position than others, and their advantage could be conveyed to other -38- agricultural projects through training, E.L. Hassan et al. (1975). 2.2.3(a) The Need for Training In summary, training in mechanical skills programs and agricultural machinery operation is needed because: 1. Sudan is an agricultural country and its devel- opment is based on agricultural production. There is a growing demand for qualified, experienced technicians and skilled machinery operators. 2. Technically advanced machinery was introduced in the country to backup the expanding agricultural production units. However, there are only a few. schools organized to teach vocational technical skills. 3. Intermediate education is based on academic sub- jects and further schooling, and away from practi- cal and occupational training. 4. Agricultural projects select their machinery opera- tors from trainee drivers or truck drivers. 5. All machinery is imported and the cost of operation and maintenance of these machines is high because Of under qualified operators, which results in frequent repairs, long delays and low productivity. 6. The life eXpectancy of machinery in Sudan is low because of neglect, indifference, and human defi— ciency in mechanical background. The lack Of dealer support, scarcity Of services, low Operating 2.2.3(b) -39- capital, plus a lack of understanding of the need and purpose of and preventive maintenance also contribute to this problem. The availability of supplies and parts is low, and they are costly. Emergency shipments are very ex- pensive because many must be imported. TurnOver is slow, so low volume makes the cost of doing busi— ness high even though salaries and wages are low. Government licenses and regulations impede trade and discourage anything but minimal investment in sales and service facilities, and staff, to service the agricultural industry. Facts Relating to Training Needs Few people in Sudan have a mechanical background which prepares them for working with or understanding mechanical devices, machines, or gadgets so common in the life of people in the more develOped countries. Lack of Opportunity has prevented most people from develOping mechanical skills and aptitudes taken for granted in developed countries. Lack of training and experience has kept people from learning the need for prOper care and the value Of preventive maintenance Of machines. Judgment and innate abilities regarding the use, selection, application, capability, and capacity of machines or devices have not yet developed. -40- Few skilled and qualified people are available to teach technicians the practical metal arts. Very few skilled laborers are available who can service and repair agricultural machinery, engines and motorized equipment. The inadequately trained mechanics do extensive damage when they perform major technical repair work, like engine overhaul. Sometimes it happens that they misfit a new part that will result in more damage and consequently more demand for parts: hence, frequent down time and the repair costs go up. Supporting service groups such as service stations, petroleum distributors, electrical services and credit organizations are Often very limited and few Offer any kind of education or in-service training programs for agricultural workers. Bartlet, former director of training for the experiment station Of the Sugar Association of South Africa, in answer to specific: questions, made» the following comments, Kline (1970): a) What types of training are needed? If it is illiterate peasant type labor which has had run previous contact with mechanized society, then the training should teach the operator only the basic elements and proce- dures of operating the machine. -41- b) What training should manufacturers or importers provide? The local dealers should be able to have both their sales and service staff properly trained by the supply company. They, in turn, should be in a position to pass the information down the line. This training should follow the normal maintenance, Operational, and service manuals provided by the manufacturers. Training on peanut machinery should aim to improve the skills of labor, acquaint labor with the fundamentals of machinery Operation, and show them how to adjust the ma- chinery for efficient Operation. Generally, the purpose of the training program should be to educate technicians and labor of limited skill so they can attain high levels of agricultural machinery operation with minimum crOp losses. TO farm more intensively and extensively the Sudan needs increased power and modern farming techniques. The key in such projects is the operator trained to use machines in ways that improve the final product. The major. problem faced by the Sudan as a developing country is that Of modifying and adopting the general educa- tional system to meet the aspirations, needs and local con- ditions. Sudan is mainly an agricultural country Of very limited sCOpe, and attention has not been given to educating technicians to participate in the changes which accompany mechanized agriculture. -42- There is a great need for intermediate technical train- ing in agriculture. Wilson (1968) urged that skilled training be accompanied with adequate recognition for those who are qualified. Intermediate technical training in agriculture is meant to develop real skills in farm man- agement, and the modern techniques of crOp and animal production, etc. Let us aim to produce the skilled technician who stands in his own right as one of the indispensable elements Of the agricultural profession and is not someone who is inferior to the graduate in agricultur- al science. Likewise, vocations training for the farmer, for rural women, for village craftsmen, and others needs to be accorded into distinctive character and dignity. Mechanization Of peanuts is fairly new to Sudan, but it is receiving more attention and high expenditures for equip— ment and machinery. Adequate manpower to cope with expan- sion is a limiting factor. The significance of this fact is clear when the efficiency of the usage and utilization of these machines is addressed. The harvest loss is high and very significant if compared to the United States, having in mind that both countries use the same type of farm machinery and most probably other similar factors prevail. Probably the main difference is the standard of skilled labor (in both countries) handling the machines. In 1975 a World Bank team of experts visited the Sudan as an advisory committee for the purchase of peanut production machinery. The fol- lowing comment was made by the group leader, G.B Duke, ... the second greatest satisfaction I have on leaving Khartum, the capital of Sudan, was knowing that someone within the Rahad Corpora- tion had full knowledge as to the weak link and what should be done to strengthen it. He -43- and I are in full agreement that an intensive training program must be initiated to train tractor operators, peanut digger and combine operators, and maintenance personnel. If this weak link is not fully developed, there will be limited profit realized from the peanut program because tractor and machinery costs will absorb the profit. There is no documented data for the qualitative require- rmun: of peanut production machinery training need for the future in Sudan. But, Mackson et al. (1967) describes the purpose of training as —- The greatest problem in intelligently utiliz- ing and applying farm machinery is adequately educating the operator. This means not only imparting knowledge and certain skills to him, but developing in him a proper attitude toward work and responsibility. He must have some understanding of why he should do certain things and why they must be done in a certain way. 2.2.4(a) The Cost-Benefit Effects Mackson et a1. (1970) reported that the cost and effi- ciency of a training program affects its ultimate adoption and its influence upon machinery operators. If trainees must be trained on an individual 1:1 basis, very few will receive training and the cost will be exorbitant. Training on-the-job adds to the cost of the production programs, but it is essential when that is the only way in which to reach an efficient standard of production. 2.2.4(b) The Technical Program's Characteristics Graney (1967) pointed to five main points that charac- terize the nature of technical programs: 1. It is post-secondary. -44- 2. It is essentially terminal. 3. It is related to the field of science and tech- nology. 4. If offers intensive training in brief periods. 5. It relies heavily upon application. 2.2.4(c) Farm Mechanization Basic Training It is suggested by many scholars and curriculum instruc- tors, that for any practical courses it is important to limit classroom instruction to the minimum. In a special report for FAO, Boshoff and Corbett (1965) advised that instructional media and blackboard instruction Do a novice operator should be kept minimal. They empha- sized more practical work, in the workshop and in the field, and to be spent in the most useful way. Learn-by-doing should be the main theme of the course work. This stresses the fact that the trainees carry out the operations them- selves, rather than watching it be done. Evaluation and assessment of each trainee's progress can be obtained by proper tests. As :3 conclusion for their report, Boshoff and Corbett (1965) stated that: More emphasis should be given to supervisor and instructor training ... and machinery manufacturers should be encouraged to assist in instructor training and to provide relevant instructional aids in the local language. More attention should be paid to training local instructors who give ad hoc and regular courses in machinery Operation at the Farmer Training Centers and Farm Institutes. -45- 2.2.4(d) Factors to Be Considered l. 10. All farm machinery is imported and cost hard cur- rency. Most of the spare parts and attachments are im- ported. Proper upkeep and maintenance of the agricultural machinery is the basic rule to reduce the running cost. The breakdown of agricultural machinery will de— crease the production of agricultural projects. Farmer and technician training is needed in ma- chinery application, operation, maintenance and simple repair. Facilities for technician and skilled labor train- ing are both lacking and deficient. The most efficient way 1x) reduce maintenance and repair costs is to use well-trained and careful operators. Very few training programs start at the laborer's or trainee's level and consider his traditional non-mechanical background and lack Of disciplined training. Present extension workers need practical in-service training (Hi the selection, application and execu- tion of planting through harvesting of crops. Courses in vocational and technical schools are sometimes theoretical and have to be altered to fit the practical nature of the man in the field. -45- 11. Established local training centers are needed fOr dealing with the problems Of crop production and the practical aspects of using, managing, and caring for production farm machinery. 12. A comprehensive training program on the use and Operation of farm machinery used to produce com- mercial crOps should be required by project manage- ment as a basis for profitable production. 13. Farm machinery importers should be encouraged to conduct training sessions to promote the perform- ance of their products. 14. The technician on the mechanized farms of Sudan, especially those farms that run on the tenancy basis, sometimes makes management decisions, especially during peanut digging and combining. This is due to the limited knowledge Of the farmer and his frequent absence during harvest time. 15. Full mechanization of peanut production is a new technique that has been develOped to reduce pro- duction expenses and overcome the bottleneck needs for hand-labor at peak of harvest. 2.2.4(e) Training by Private and Semi-Private Groups Besides the official training school and vocational centers, the private sector is encouraged to have their own training centers. An example to be followed is that of the Gezira scheme in Sudan. In a special report, Pothecary (1967) states that: -47- The Agricultural Engineer in collaboration with other authorities, should plan and direct specialist training facilities for managerial staff, supervisors, agricultural mechanics and tractor drivers. This training is of funda- mental and vital importance to any mechaniza- tion program. Although there are many born operators, the complexity Of the tractor driv- er's job soon reaches the stage where formal training pays Off. Properly trained agricul- tural mechanics are equally essential ... As mentioned earlier, properly trained supervisors and managerial staff are a basic necessity and the relative absence of training facilities for this class of personnel is a feature not only of Sudan, but of many other countries. It may be argued that training facilities exist in advanced countries for this class Of personnel, but quite often the prevailing conditions there are very different from those encountered in the trainee's country of origin. 2.2.4(f) Farm Equipment Training Centers An example of this method Of training is the South American Farm Mechanization Training Center. Kline (1970) reported that in 1967 the South American Farm Mechanization Training Center (SAFMTC) was established at Buga, Colombia, under an agreement between a Colombia Government Agency, Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaji (SENA), the Massey Ferguson Company (MF) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). SENA assumed overall responsi- biilty for the Center, while MF consigned instructional staff and equipment to FAO's "Freedom from Hunger" campaign. The project was designed to help Latin America overcome major problems in the shortage of skilled agricultural mechanization technicians. -48- In Sudan the facilities for training farm equipment are limited and training centers are few. Bashir (1977) re- ported that the centers for training Of the middle level technicians and skilled labor are limited. Private and public institutions should be able to establish their own training and retraining and apprenticeship programs. This is especially needed when it is recognized that there is a continuing and rapid change in technology and systems of work. .At present there are 23 training institutions, schools and centers which cater for training in public and private sectors. These institutes provide training for all levels and specialization like industrial trades, banking, account- ing, etc. IBut when the focus is restricted to just those involved with farm equipment, there is only one center that specializes in this trade and recently it was temporarily closed for funding reasons. This focuses more emphasis on local training efforts to be organized to solve the need for technicians and skilled labor. 2.2.4(g) Adoption of Innovations Sudan is 'a develOping country. New ideas and innova- tions are easy to accept for the management of agricultural schemes and project planners. The rate of adOption of agricultural technology is linked with progressiveness and the assurance for high returns and farm income. The aspira- tion of a nation for progress is a high motivation for adop- tion of innovations. The adoption theory conceptualizes -49- that the use of new technology occurs in natural stages in the population depending (N1 the new system of technology, values and other important traits of the farm population. 2.2.4(h) Investment in Human Resources Interest in the subject of investment in human resour— ces, particularly in the form of education and training, has become widespread within the past few years as a result of growth studies. Physical capital is usually defined to include structures, durable equipment, and commodity stocks. Robert Baldwin (1972) added that: "one can broaden the concept of capital by also treating expenditures for education, job training, and health as investment outlays. Where education or health expenditures raise future earnings of the recipient, they repre- sent investment outlays in the same sense as outlays for capital equipment. Schooling is an investment in human capital in the form of acquiring greater earning abilities. The main question that rises in treating edu- cation as an investment is whether there is a proper balance between investment in material capital -- farm machinery —- and investment in human capital -- (skilled labor and techni- cians). The rate of return to schooling and training can be measured in much the same way that the rate Of return on a piece of capital equipment is determined. The rate of return to any schooling level can be computed by applying standard discounting procedures to the relevant cost and benefit figures. If the percentage rate of return on training is sub- stantially higher than the percentage return earned on material capital business, then there is underinvestment in schooling and training. Training in a developing country is the only way of improv- ing the productivity of agricultural machinery. Mill (1948) stated that: -50- the superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no in- herent advantage on one part, or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has the skill and experience yet to acquire, may in other respects, be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field. Currently, investment in human capital in the form of expenditures on general education, vocational training, and health is being stressed as a specially important require- ment. This emphasis is particularly true because more and more developing countries are gradually breaking through the traditional barrier of very low rates Of capital accumula- tion. As they do this, they are finding that a lack of trained personnel is one key issue that slows down their growth rate, Baldwin (1972). 2.2.4(i) Development through Training Mackson (1973) described the education and training for agricultural mechanization in developing countries. He stated that 'Hflue effective mechanization of agriculture is closely related to the economic growth of a develOping nation. Economic development of the agricultural sector will be slow and indeed limited without progressive improve- ment of mechanization for agriculture." Mackson stressed the fact that effective education and training programs are essential parts of any successful mechanization of agri— culture. Personnel must be trained for all positions, from that of machine Operator to the supervising engineer. -51- 2.2.4(j) Training Benefits and Costs Social Economic Benefits Hardin and Barus (1969) stated that society may under- take training activities in order to achieve a wide range of economic and noneconomic Objectives. One important economic Objective, which also means to broaden less clearly economic goals, is to increase the aggregate output of the nation. It is proper that training should be evaluated, at least in part, according to the contribution which it makes to this Objective. If training is successful in meeting its goal objective, it will, as a minimum, increase the annual national product. Accordingly it could be defined that the social economic benefits are the increase in product attainable from train- ing, Hardin (1969). Training activities use up resources which otherwise will, or at least can, be used in producing other goods and services. The Learning Process Proctor et a1. (1961) stated that the chief function Of technical training is to affect change -- change in people who subsequently bring about improvement in their own per- formance so that the organization's capability of attaining its goals is enhanced. The measure of any training program then is the amount of "change for the better that takes place as a result of that training." -52- 2.2.5(a) Mechanization to Upgrade Production In Sudan, mechanization is accepted as a major policy issue. Eicher (1982) commented on mechanization in Sudan as a country with only 18 million people, two- thirds the land area of India (with 670 million people) and few problems of unemploy— ment. Since the clay soil throughout the country can be tilled by hand only with great difficulty, there is a technical case for tractor land preparation... Mechanized farming' was highly subsidized in 1981 and the financial returns to farmers were reported to be high For a few countries such as the Sudan, tractor mechanization of all major tasks ... will probably be desirable from a national policy perspective in the 19803 and 19905. It is generally agreed, however, that the relative scarcity of hand labor represented an inducement to adopt more capital-intensive methods in Sudan especially in the heavy clay soils. Mechanization is the path of technical devel— Opment in Sudanese Agriculture. The entire sequence of mechanization in peanut harvest- ing was to increase labor productivity. To the extent that any impact on land productivity was involved, it was a factor contributing to the extension of peanut production into the irrigated heavy clay soil where yields were lower than the western rain-fed sandy peanut producing regions. Mechanization of peanuts is taken as an acceptable production function for quality, specially the harvesting of peanuts. The bottleneck of this production function is the skilled labor that operates these machines. The capabili- ties Of labor are actually a produced means of production. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION FOR THE PEANUT HARVEST LOSSES IN THE 1982-83 SEASON 3.1 Methodology of Survey Data was collected from a random sample of tenancies carried out in the harvest season of 1982-83. Samples were collected using a random sampling method to determine the existence and magnitude of the problem. The Rahad project was chosen as the area that represents the mechanized farming trend typical of areas with irrigated heavy clay soils in Sudan (a stratified locality). The Rahad project is completely mechanized for the production of cotton and peanuts. The project management provided funds and facilities for use in data collection, i.e., transportation, accomodation, enumerators and equip- ment. The Rahad Research Station provided peanut fields, labs, and equipment to be used for the data collection. 3.2 The Design of the Study The study was designed to obtain and use data from two kinds of sources -- Figure 3.1: l. Questionnaires 2. Field data The design of this study is supportive of the assumption -53- -54- 'l - ESE-5.: 63m m5 no 558 m5 .- .- .m $52.1. wDHDu UZHZHmmm3m F mDhUmoouooozhwz -55- that peanut harvest loss is contributed to by two main factors. 1. the humans who are responsible for the management and handling of farm machinery. 2. the field where the crop is grown. (Soil, weather, moisture, cultivars and maturity of the crop.) The characteristics Of the Rahad farms do compare closely to commerical farms. It is worth mentioning here that almost all the irrigated agricultural production schemes in Sudan are either government owned or semi- government owned -u- i.e., corporations, and boards. This leads to the fact that all project technicians and skilled labor are government Officials and are listed under the permanent staff of that project. The findings of these studies will be used to construct the background for justification and recommendations in Chapter IV. 3.3 Instrumentation For the first part of the study, (human factor) the instrument used was a delivered questionnaire (see Appendix A). There were special circumstances involved in this study which determined the type of data needed (see limitations Of study, page 4). This data required the development of an instrument designed to obtain both factual information about the respondents and their judgment about the competency needs Of individuals in their position. -55- The main base of the questionnaires was develOped from readings and agricultural engineering textbooks. There were also contributions to those questions from personal inter- views the author conducted with one major U.S. peanut har- vesting equipment manufacturer, The Lilliston Corporation, and one international agricultural machinery dealer, Open- heimer Corporation. The competency statements were revised and condensed and suggestions offered by the guidance committee. They are presented in Format A in Appendix A. 3.3.1 Questionnaire Design l. The first part of the questionnaire dealt with the level of skill possessed by the respondent, and how the skill was obtained. 1) have not Observed the skill ii) have observed the skill iii) have not performed the skill iv) have performed the skill by training v) have performed the skill by experience (variables four and five will be grouped later *on to justify the technician as a leader and instructor for that skill.) 2. The second part of the questionnaire was based upon 66 statements describing occupational competency areas. These areas were categorized under four main functional groupings: -57- 1) Agricultural mechanics, 2) CrOp production, 3) Farm management, 4) Soils. An Open ended response was allowed at the end. A precoded response grid accompanying each of the four competency dimensions was another feature of this ques- tionnaire. An example of the questionnaire format is in Appendix A. Respondents were instructed to circle N for No or Y for Yes describing their best judgments or ideas. 3.3.2 Assumptions 1. It is assumed that the data for evaluation and build-up of a training prOposal for farm machinery tech- nicians would be meaningful if it were gathered to test the level of the farm skills taught. Consequently, it would add to the success in reducing the peanut harvest losses (ac- cumulative effect). 2. It is assumed that the supervisor's reaction to the questionnaires will be the best indicator of the importance of the questions and goals. 3. It is assumed that the technicians in the peanut production areas are the best judges in this area to lead to improvement of training and consequently to better handling of farm machinery. 4. It is assumed that the technicians will be on-the- job trainers for other subordinate skilled labor. They are -58- the respondents representing the population who are knowl- edgeable in the use of farm machinery for peanut production. 5. It is assumed that the technicians are aware of the needed skills that should be incorporated in the training program. 6. It is assumed that the pooled judgment of a quali- fied Sudanese technician is a satisfactory and valid form of evaluation for farm machinery managment programs. 3.3.3 Reliability Measures To measure the stability of the instrument, the consis- tency of the questions, and subsequent reliabilty of data, a second separate survey was conducted. This survey included the agricultural engineers who manage the applied engineer- ing departments. They were mailed the same questions but in a different format. They were asked to rate the technicians in their blocks and estimate the percentage of those who know or perform the skill. Also, they were asked to judge and comment on the questions in general. Question Format B is presented in Appendix A. 3.3.5 The Questionnaire Survey The technicians: Fifty respondents were selected for this study from the total labor foree of the Rahad project. They were recom- mended by the project management as above average in their management ability. -59- In a second meeting between the researcher and the enu- merators of the nine sections, where the survey was con- ducted, it was agreed that the questions should be handled in a formal manner. The agricultural enumerators were to be given the questionnaire forms and they should distribute them to the assigned technicians in their location (an average of six technicians in each section). In most cases, they would have to read and translate the questions to Arabic (the native language) for the respond- ents. On Emcember 3, 1982, the questionnaires were given to the technicans and all answers were collected on the 5th. The questionnaires were given in a formal setting due to the nature and organization of routine agricultural operations. It was advantageous to use this manner because it saved time, effort, and guaranteed 100 percent response. The first study was intended to identify the skills and competencies needed by supervisors and technicians producing peanuts in Sudan. The hypothesis and questions used were carefully planned in such a way as to relate these needs to the practical procedures used at the production site. The first study was fact finding, whereas, the second study was intended to define practical competency areas needed at the field site. The correlation between the two results should assist in reaching a useful outcome. It will reflect the priorities that need to be established as to which instruc- tional materials and methods are more important than others. -50- Table 3.4 SUMMARY OF SAMPLE GROUPING INCLUDED IN THE STUDY Group No. Blocks Respondents 1 5 l 2 5 3 6 4 5 2 5 6 6 6 7 6 3 8 5 9 6 TOTAL 3 9 50 3.4 Field Data 3.4.1‘Methodology In this part the author conducted practical investiga- tory findings in the field. These findings were carried out in two steps. 1. The first step was to determine the existence of the harvest loss problem. It was based on a gen- eral survey. This will be explained in detail in Section 3.4.2. 2. 'The second step was carried out in four field ex- periments to determine how peanut harvest losses are affected by: a) soil moisture content. b) digging and shaking speed. c) curing time and combining. d) combine cylinder speeds and curing time. -51- These four field experiments were conducted at the Rahad Research Station's experimental fields, and were conducted using a randomized block design. The layout and description are discussed in Section 3.5.2. 3.4.2 Peanut Harvest Loss Survey The survey location was selected according to the strat- ified sampling method. Des Raj (1972) described stratifica- tion as the units in the population are allocated to groups or strata on the basis Of information on a unit (peanut fields or tenancies.) An attempt is made to make the strata internally homogeneous by placing in the same stratum units which appear to be similar. By selecting a sample Of a suitable size from each stratum it is possible to produce an estimate for the pOpulation characteristic (peanut mech- anized fields of Sudan) which is considerably better than that given by a simple random sample from the entire popu- lation. The Rahad area (120,000 hectares) was divided into three groups, each made up Of three blocks. Group 2 was chosen randomly to be the survey site. Six tenancies (stratum) of 4 hectares each in Group 2 were chosen randomly, two from each block (the group is made up of three blocks). The peanut crop in the six tenancies was dug by a digger-shaker- windrower, and left in rows to dry for an estimated period of 7-21 days before it was combined. Six combine samples were collected from each tenancy area, according to the procedure outlined below. They were then averaged together. -52- 3.4.2 Combine Peanut Loss Assessment This method was adOpted from the Lilliston Corporation where it is used to evaluate the losses at their test areas in Albany, Georgia. (The author visited the Lilliston Corporation in November 1982). .A windrow was chosen at random. The sampling and re- covery techniques were designed to classify the loss into one of two categories associated with the harvesting Opera- tion, as follows: 1. Digging Loss a) Cut off -- peanuts left in the ground because the digger was run too shallow. Vb) Shaken -- peanuts shaken off during shaking -- found on soil surface. 2. Combine Losses a) Header losses -— peanuts pulled Off as the combine picked up the windrow. b) Tail loss -- peanuts blown out of combine with the trash. The area from which losses were recovered consisted of a rectangle of 4.8 m2 area (two rows, each 0.8m x 3m) centered over the windrow and extending across the original two rows from which the windrow was formed. (Cut Off and shaking losses were collected ahead of the combine by removing a section of the windrow. Header losses were collected by placing a plastic sheet under the windrow and combining over it at normal speed. After the combine -63- rear wheels passed over the sheet a second sheet was spread behind the combine to collect the tail loss from the rear of the combine (for an equal area Of distance -- 4.8 m). The results from the six randomly chosen windrows were averaged to represent the final result for that particular tenancy. Findings Of the survey are presented in Table 3.4.2.(c). Table 3.4.2(c) Average Combine Location Loss, % Tenancy (1) Block One 30.5 Tenancy (2) Block One 45.4 Tenancy (3) Block Two 32.9 Tenancy (4) Block Two 33.6 Tenancy (5) Block Three 39.6 Tenancy (6) Block Three 35.4 Overall 36.2 The total yield for the tenancy was estimated by samples from the windrow picked up by hand, to give an approximate yield per hectare. The result of the survey indicated the serious loss problem as shown in Table No. 3.4.2(c). The high percent loss shown supported the aim and the ultimate goal Of this research -- the reduction of peanut -54- harvest losses. The documented magnitude of losses also laid the foundation for the next expanded field loss in- vestigation, undertaken in the harvest of 1982-83 at the Rahad Experiment Station. The goal of the expanded field loss survey was to iden- tify the factors responsible for high peanut loss. The possibility of minimizing these losses then could be ex- amined by linking them to the proficiency Of skilled labor and proper handling Of harvesting machinery. 3.5 Expanded Field Loss Survey Note: All results and field findings were based on tests conducted during the normal harvest season. All tests were conducted either 7 days, 14 days, or 21 days after the last crop irrigation. 3.5.1 Evaluation of Digging and Shaking Losses The parameters that affect the performance of the digger shaker: a) Depth of digging. b) The layout of field —- flat or on ridges and the shape of ridge at time of digging. c) Chain speed. d) Conveyor inclination. e) Number and spacing of pick—up fingers. f) Overall mechanical condition of digger shaker. The digging loss was the dependent variable and all data was converted to percent of the total production. -65- 3.5.2 Evaluation Desigg A randomized block design experiment with four treat- ments and four replications was used. The plot size con- sisted of two ridges, each 0.80 m wide (the standard ridge at Rahad) and 40 m long. Samples were Obtained at the time of digging to obtain soil moisture content and digging losses. A soil auger was used to collect four samples, 10 m apart along the block, from the bottom of the ridge. The soil samples were oven dried at 100°C fOr 24 in. The moisture content was calcu— lated on a dry basis. Data for soil moisture and digging losses are given in Table 1, Appendix A. 3.5.3 Tractor Forward Speed (Digging Speed) The tractor speed was checked on-site over a 100 m distance. The range was determined for the gears, first high, third low, and third high to Obtain approximate speeds of 4.0, 4.8, 5.6 km/h (Massey Ferguson Tractor). Total yield data was collected for each experiment. A sampling frame was used to Obtain this data. The sampling frame was a 0.7 m x 0.6 m rectangular form of NO. 10 gauge wire, having a total area of 0.42 m2. This frame was thrown along the tested area four times and the average was calcu- lated for the total yield per hectare. 3.6.1 Digging Speed Versus Soil Moisture Content A randomized block design experiment with four treat- ments and four replications was carried out. The field ~66- setup was laid out in a plot that was scheduled for three irrigation intervals: 7 days, 14 days, and 21 days from the last irrigation. This was intentionally done to allow for a gradient of moisture content of different levels. The depth of digging was considered constant at a range of 10-15 cm. The soil samples were oven dried and percen- tages were calculated on a dry basis. 3.6.2 Combine Losses Versus Curing Time To determine the most suitable curing time, five field surveys were carried out. 1. DH) curing: The combining of peanuts was done di- rectly after digging. 2. Three days curing. 3. Seven days curing. 4. Ten days curing. 5. Fourteen days curing. The loss samples for the combine were collected, according to the method used in loss assessment in Table 3.4.2. All combine samples were sun dried for three days and weighed. Percent loss was calculated and data is presented in Appendix A. 3.6.3 Combine Losses Versus Combine Cylinder Speeds Two cylinder speeds were selected, 68 rpm and 80 rpm. This experiment was intended to demonstrate the impor- tance of varying the cylinder speeds with changes in windrow moisture. -67- A randomized block design experiment with four treat- ments and four samples was conducted. The combine cylinder speed tests were carried out in the curing time fields to obtain the necessary gradient of windrow moisture content. The set up and tables are shown in Table 3, Appendix A. The losses collected from the combine were collected according to the method outlined in 3.4.2. 3.7 Identification of Training Areas and Topics The results Of the three needs assessment procedures which were followed in this study are presented as: A. The field experimental findings. B. The supervisors questionnaire results. C. The skilled labor questionnaire results The field experimental findings indicated the main areas and factors that significantly contribute to the peanut har- vest losses. These factors are given 100 percent rank in the list of tOpics to be considered in the training pro- grams. If the need assessment in the supervisors and skilled labor indicated that: then, the correlation between the three results determine the selection of and inclusion of that particular tOpic in the curriculum. Tables 1-3 in Appendix B show the ranking Of question- naires and the results. 3.7.1 Procedure Followed for Areas and Topic Selection The questionnaires were ranked to portray the results of the experimental findings. The factors that influenced the -68- peanut losses were determined from the conclusions Of the findings. Accordingly, the areas that contribute to these factors were identified, selected and given a 100 percent rank to be sure that they are included in the list to be ranked against the supervisors' list. The supervisors' list was used as a base for area selec- tion being the management judgment. Those areas marked or graded low (higher priority) by supervisors will be included in the curriculum as areas to receive special attention. CHAPTER IV 4.0 Results and Discussion In this chapter the data, results of the eXperimental findings, and questionnaire survey are analyzed and dis- cussed in light of the six main Objectives outlined on page 10. 4.1 Strategy for the Analysis The field data which was designed to follow the field plot experimentation, demanded the use of statistical analy- sis. TO examine the nature of the statistical relations, the strategy followed was to employ an analysis of variance. First, to study the effect of the independent variables on the dependent without restrictive assumptions on the nature Of the statistical relation, and then to use regression analysis to exploit the quantitative character of the inde- pendent variables. 4.2 Design of—Statistical Analysis The three experimental set ups were analyzed by statis- tical models. The hypotheses in the study were organized to reflect the objective of this study -- the areas that should be investigated to minimize the peanut harvest losses. -69- -70- 4.3 Experiment One TO determine the effect of soil moisture and the digging speed on peanut losses (digging losses). Digging losses are influenced by several agronomic fac- tors and conditions, such as soil moisture, plant maturity, weeds, and plant disease. However, this experiment was planned to evaluate peanut digging losses as affected by digging speeds and soil moisture. The experiment was set up as described in Chapter III, Section 3.6.1. 4.3.1 Data Analysis The experimental design required the analysis of the data to follow a two factor analysis of variance. A. The soil moisture gradiant factor. This factor contains seven levels that cover the soil moisture gradiant (wet basis) from low through high recorded during the dig- ging period. The levels were categorized in percentages as follows: 1. 5.01 to 10.00 2. 10.01 to 15.00 3. 15.01 to 20.00 4. 20.01 to 25.00 5. 25.01 to 30.00 6. 30.01 to 35.00 7. 35.01 to 40.00 Samples from soils with more than 40 percent moisture were excluded, being too wet to dig in heavy soils. -71- B. The digging speed factor. Digging speed equals the tractor forward speed. 'This factor has three levels, low, medium and high, to represent the range of trafficability in the heavy soil conditions. The three speed levels were as follows: 1. high = 5.6 km/h. 2. medium = 4.8 km/h. 3. low = 4.0 km/h. C. The digging losses were treated as the dependent variable. 4.3.2 The Analysis Of Variance Table for losses by speed and moisture. Source Of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Sguares DF Square F of F. Main Effects 6195.520 8 774.440 64.772 .001 Speed 729.919 2 364.960 30.524 .001 Moist 5526.585 6 921.098 77.038 .001 2-Way Interaction Speed/Moist 705.859 12 58.822 4.920 .001 Explained ' 6901.379 20 345.069 28.860 .001 Residual 2044.552 171 11.956 Total 8945.932 191 46.837 1. Reference to the Anova Table 4.3.2. The factor speed was highly significant with an F value of 30.524 and a -72- significant level of .001. This result shows the direct association of the speed factor to the total percentage of digging losses. This leads to the conclusion that any changes in digging speed will have a direct response in the percentage Of peanut losses in the field. 2. The Soil Moisture Factor level. From Table 4.3.2, the soil moisture factor was significant with an F value of 77.038 and a significant level Of .001. This result re- flects the absolute association Of soil moisture to the digging losses. 3. The interaction effect which expresses the joint effect of speed and moisture is shown to be highly sig- nificant with an F value of 4.920 and a significant value of .001. This result rejects the null hypothesis and supports the fact that soil moisture and digging speeds are associ- ated and have a direct effect on the percentage Of peanut losses. Table 4.3.3 The Average Loss per Factor Level a) Loss vs Speed Speed 5.6 4.8 4.0 Average Loss 19.68 15.90 15.55 b) Loss vs Soil Moisture Content Moisture (5-1o)(10-15)(15-20)(20-25)(25-3o)(3o-35)(35-4o) Average Loss 30.55 22.74 14.96 10.25 15.58 15.90 16.77 -73- From Table 4.3.3 (a), the average peanut losses in- creases as the speed increases. This result reflects the direct effect Of speed on losses, and supports the fact that the higher the speed the more losses to expect, as repre- sented in Figure 4.3.3 This is true since excessive ground speed tends to strip the pods from the pdant, however, soil will not flow prOp- erly if speed is low. excessive speed in combination with excessive shaking will tend to shatter the pods, 4.3.3 (a). From Table 4.3.3 (b) it is noticed that the peanut digging losses are affected by the soil moisture. The response is quadratic in this case. The average losses were high at low soil moisture (5.01-10.00 percent), and low at medimn soil moisture (20-25 percent). This result shows that peanut losses will increase as soil moisture decreases below 20 percent. this argument agrees with the conclusions of many researchers. the lowest percentage of losses were noticed at level 4 (20-25 percent soil moisture content). The losses from level 4 through level 7 (35-40 percent), increase as soil moisture increases, the increase was at a decreasing rate. This could be attributed to the clay soil effect and the high digging-shaking speeds. (Figure 4.3.4). .mommoH mcwmmflc co comma mcwomwc mo avenue 0:9 :\:x 2H nmwmw oznouua c.v m.m .m.m.s mesons -74- (X) 835801 lflNVBd -75- 978 «033 so 2330. :on ecu >50 no seats 05. 5%... 0.53m . d5.- Emun! dam 8.8 8,8 mun-n... swim“ m?! Sum -75- Table 4.3.4 The Speed and Moisture Interaction Speed/Moist 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 30.11 26.65 18.05 12.63 16.93 16.15 16.73 2 29.59 25.54 12.61 9.26 14.58 15.51 17.49 3 24.23 17.23 14.61 6.13 15.91 15.98 16.36 From the figures in Table 4.3.4 and Figure 4.3.5 a, b, c, respectively, it is clear that level 4 (20-25 percent soil moisture) is the best level of moisture to minimize losses in all three speeds. A low Of 6.13 percent was achieved for the slowest speed Of 4 km/h. However, in all speed and moisture combination levels it is also clear there is a quadratic decrease in losses from high at level 1 to a minimum at 4, then an increase in losses from level 4 to 7, but at a decreasing rate. However, the overall result shows that within the different levels of moisture and speed there is a certain minimum percentage of digging losses that could be achieved. This is quite noticeable in the plotting of the three levels of speeds through the seven levels of moisture gradiant, figures 4.3.5 a, b, c. This argument leads to the conclusion that by adjusting the speed to fit the moisture trend in the field, an Opera- tor can minimize the digging losses in a wide range of soil moisture conditions. In summary, it is evident that we must reject the null hypothesis, that losses are not affected by speed or soil -77.. Acooan «gunman nausv noaao~ co crusade: ado» uo goouuo can 8 d5,— wshmug. 48m uvnmm mmrnm unrmw mwrum calm— 3 .m.m.- 0.53..- mTu— 97m -73- \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\ \\\\9 x\\\\\\ ‘ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\X\\ \ a: 5 i3 5 E Q J» . (2) 535501 lnNVSd 'AV 10-15 lS-ZB 20-25 25-39 33-35 35-40 . S-lfl SOIL MOISTURE LEVEL (1) Figure 4.3.5.(b) The effect of soil Ioisture on losses (lediun digging speed) -73- \\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\j \\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\-\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ‘ 53 L 8 L In a In a 10 n .. ... (I) 335501 lnNVBd 'AV lS-Zl Zl~25 25-33 30-35 35~4fl . SOIL MOISTURE LEVEL (2) Figure 4.3.5.(b) The effect of soil Ioisture on losses (Iediun digging speed) 10-15 5-13 -79- ,eeoeoeooeeeeooooeeeeq 0.0.0..........O0.0.0.........0.........O.l v.v.....000...9.9.v.9...v...v.o.o.v.v.v.v‘ b.6.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0‘ DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv ’33’3‘3’3’3’3’?3'3:3????34'3’}: L.-....0.0_0.0-0-....O-.-.-.....-..0.0.0 §§§§§§§fi ;.;.;.:.;.:.;.;.;.;.;.:.;.;.:.;.;.;.;. .A.A.A.A.A.A.A’A.A.A.‘.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A‘ oeeeoeoeoeeeeeooeeoeeo fifififififififififififififififififififififii A.A.a.......A...Q.0.0.....A...A.0.0.0.0.A.¢. 1.3::otototéotrtfié???1°:02::40364403030???20:03:I A 1 a 3 (I) 535501 lflNVBd “AV 10 P 5 I 35-35 35nd! 25-3l it 10-15 lS-Zl S-lfl SOIL MOISTURE LEVEL (1) Figure 4.3.5.(c) The effect of soil Ioisture on losses (slow digging speed) -30- moisture, and accept the alternative, that both speed and soil moisture affect digging losses. Additional factors that may contribute to losses are imprOper pitch of the digging blades, use of dull blades, and the improper peri- pheral speed of the shaking chain. The combination of these factors cause excessive loose kernels. When speeds are slow and the digger Operated deep, excessive amounts of soil and vines are moved that hinder prOper shaking, inversion and windrowing. Consequently, the curing of crOp will be affected. However, when excessive speed is combined with deep digging, there is more strain on the blades and digger frame, i.e., a pdowing action, and consequently, increased cost of the digging Operation. 4.4 Experiment Two To find the suitable harvest period in days following the last irrigation. The peanut digging operation is a very important step in the harvest of peanuts. The quality and quantity of the pods depend on the success of digging a mature crop at the right time and following prOper procedures to preserve the quality of the harvested pods. The general problem Of when to dig is to be answered through the analysis of this ex- periment. The data for this experiment is presented in Table 2 of Appendix A. The field data designed to follow the field plot analy- sis and were analyzed by statistical procedures. The ~81— statistical package for social sciences was used to Obtain the results for the analysis Of variance and the extended regression and plotting. 4.4.1 Data Analysis The experimental data was analyzed by a two-factor analysis of variance. Two independent variables were used: 1. The number of days in the harvest period. 2. The soil moisture. A. The number of days factor (NOD): four harvesting periods. This is the period from the last irrigation date. The four periods were as follows: Period One = 7 days Period Two = 10 days Period Three = 14 days Period Four = 21 days The extended period over 21 days from the last irriga- tion date was excluded as being too dry to dig. B. The Soil Moisture Gradiant Factor (Moist). This factor is made up Of seven levels of soil moisture percentages during the extended period Of 21 days. The soil moisture levels were categorized in percentages as follows: 1. 5.01 through 10.00 2. 10.01 through 15.00 3. 15.01 through 20.00 4. 20.01 through 25.00 5. 25.01 through 30.00 -32- 6. 30.01 through 35.00 7. 35.01 through 40.00 Samples from soil with less than 5 percent moisture were excluded as being too dry to dig: and samples from soils with more than 40 percent moisture were excluded as being too wet to dig. C. Peanut Losses in Percent at Time Of Digging: Taken as the Dependent Variable. The soil moisture gradiant is an important pattern to consider to determine the best period to dig the peanut crop. The soil moisture gradiant is a function of the weather pattern (temperature and relative humidity of the environment), soil type, soil cover and time. The number of days following the last irrigation is an easy method for a farmer and machinery Operators to use to determine a reasonable time to dig the peanut crop. This experiment was intended to select the best time period for digging schedules. 4.4.2 Hypothesis Tested 1. There is no relation in harvest period following last irrigatiOn date and the percentage of peanut losses. 2. There is no relation between the soil moisture and the number of days following the last irrigation date. ...83— Table 4.4.1 The Analysis of Variance Table Source of Sum Of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F. Within Cell 8956.805 9 995.201 66.713 .001 N0. of Days 331.834 3 110.611 7.415 ' .001 Moisture 618.005 6 103.001 6.905 .001 2-Way Interaction NOD/Moisture 48.796 2 24.398 1.636 .197 Explained 9005.601 11 818.691 54.881 .001 Residual 3624.601 243 14.918 Total 12630.570 254 49.727 From the figures in the Anova Table: the number of days (NOD) factor with four levels proved statistically to have a significant effect on the percentage of peanut digging losses, with an F value of 7.415 and a highly significant level of .001. Table 4.4.2 shows the direct relationship of higher losses as the period was extended from 10 days onward. This showed that minimum digging losses occurred during the second period, which was 10 days from the last irrigation date. The losses averaged 7.83 percent. The highest aver- age losses Of 23.89 percent was seen to occur in the fourth period, i.e., 21 days after the last irrigation date. This general rule rejects the null in this respect and accepts the alternative hypothesis with a 99.9 percent confidence -84- that the lowest digging losses occur during the period 10 days following the last irrigation date. Table 4.4.2 The Average Losses by Number of Days Period in Days 7 10 14 ’ 21 Average Loss in Percent 14.43 7.83 15.10 23.89 According to the average percent losses in Table 4.4.2 it is seen that the losses increased with time from period two onward. This is clearly indicated in Figure 4.4.1 that a direct relationship exists between the average loss and the number of days following the irrigation date. this result is in agreement with many researchers. the average losses will vary with different structures but generally will increase with an elapse of time. the weather is a variable that may also affect the NOD factor. In Table 4.4.2 the 14.43 percent losses encountered in the first period (7 days) was higher than the average loss in the second period (7.83), and lower than the average loss in the third period (15.10). It was considered as a feature to fit the lOsses in clay soils. The peanut crop in this experiment was dug with a constant 4.8 km/h speed and a constant shaking speed. The reason for getting high losses in the first period of 14.43 may be due to digging on a wet clay soil with higher digging and shaking speeds. This mass of soil when shaken with the vines causes excessive pod .333 so season 953:. we boots OE. ...-.... one»: 93 2” 83w.- 9:88 "N 3 2 h -85.. 3 K3 in 33 (1) 333501 9418910 'AV -86- loss. It is noticeable in Table 4.4.2 that the percentage Of losses decreased from a high of 14.43 in the first period to a low of 7.83 in the second. This was a 54 percent decrease. This result supports the results Of Experiment One where digging speed and soil moisture were shown to be determining factors in peanut losses. Digging during the 7-day period will generally affect the curing and combine losses. 4.4.3 The Soil Moisture Factor The soil moisture factor (moist) with seven levels proved to have an F value of 6.905 and a high significant level Of .001, (Table 4.4.1). Table 4.4.3 The Average Percent Losses per Soil Moisture Level Moist Levels 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35 35-40 Average Percentage Loss 29.19 22.75 15.57 8.34 10.86 14.82 14.86 According to the figures in the above table and Figure 4.4.2, there is a relationship between soil moisture and the percentage of peanut digging losses. There is an inverse relation between soil moisture and digging losses from level 1 (5-10 percent soil moisture) through level 4 (20-25 per- cent soil moisture). -87- 35~4l S\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 3l+35 R\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ i \\\\\\\\ The effect of soil Ioisture on digging losses. 154a! ZIHZS EIJIL.IIJISHIIHE lJEVEl. (I) m\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ llFiS 'Figure 4.4.2. i J ‘1 1 8 8 K! a (I) SEBSEITl lflflhid 'VUV L5 F MI E 5 I -88- The average losses dropped from 29.19 percent to 8.34 percent in a soil moisture change from 5 to 25 percent. This result supports the results in Experiment One -- the lower the moisture level the higher the losses. But, there was a positive correlation between soil moisture and digging losses from level 4 (20-25 percent soil moisture) through level 7 (35-40 percent soil moisture). The percent of losses increased from a low of 8.34 at level 4 to a high of 14.84 at level 7. This was attributed to the digging and shaking speed which was held constant and considered high for these levels of moisture. This finding supported the results of the digging speed experiment. Table 4.4.3 shows that the lowest percent of losses occur at level 4 with soil moisture from 20 to 25 percent. This result rejected the null hypothesis and supported the alternative that soil moisture can be used to indicate the best digging period. It can be concluded that the best soil moisture range to dig peanuts was within the range of 20 to 25 percent soil moisture, and this range occurred on the average at 10 days from the last irrigation date. The analysis of Variance Table 4.4.1 of the two-way interaction, for the number of days and soil moisture, had an F value of 1.63 with a level Of significance of .197. This low level of significance for the interaction was assumed to be a resultant Of digging wet soil in the first period with the wrong digging and shaking speed. -39- 4.5 Experiment Three 4.5.1 Effect of Curing Time and Combine Cylinder on Peanut Losses Hypothesis tested: Curing period and combine cylinder speeds have no effect on peanut harvest losses in clay soils. Peanuts, when dug, have a high moisture content ranging from 60-50 moisture, Wright (1968). They are left on the windrow to dry to improve the threshing and quality of the pods. The effect of the curing period and the variation Of cylinder speeds on pod losses was tested in this section. 4.5.2 The Variables Of the Test The independent variables in the test were: 1. The curing period in days with four levels: 0, 3, 7, 10 days following the digging date. 2. The peanut combine cylinder speeds, with two levels 68, 80 RPM. The combine forward speed (the feed rate) was maintained constant, approximately 2 km/h to eliminate the effect of this variable. 4.5.3 The Analysis of the Test The SPSS package was used for the statistical analysis and the multivariate results are given in Table 4.5.1. -90- Table 4.5.1 Analysis of Variance Table Source of Sum of Mean Signif. Variation Squares DF Square F of F. Main Effects 6130.512 4 1532.628 277.193 .001 Curing Days 5599.998 3 1866.666 337.608 ' .001 Cylinder Speed 537.917 1 537.917 97.289 .001 2-Way Interactions Curing/Speed 93.184 3 31.061 5.618 .001 Explained 6223.696 7 889.099 160.804 .001 Residual 2781.134 503 5.529 Total 9004.831 510 17.657 The curing period indicates a high association with losses, having an F value of 337.608 and a high significance level of .001. This result reflects the direct relationship of curing time and its effect on influencing the combine losses. Table 4.5.2 Average Losses per Curing Period in Percent Period in Days 0 3 7 10 Average Loss in Percent 12.31 7.59 3.97 4.53 From Table 4.5.2, the minimum average losses of 3.97 percent were shown to occur during the third period (7 days from the digging date). The highest losses in this range -91- 12.31 were shown to occur in the first period (0 days from the digging date). This result contradicts some results Obtained at Tidewater Research Center, Virginia, Wright (1979), when the results for 0 curing days resulted in minimum windrow losses and resulted in some researchers recommending the direct harvesting procedure. In the heavy soils a high loss was found in the first 0 day period. This was attributed to the high percentage of heavy clods attached to the vines and adhering to the pods at time of digging. The excessive soil clods, when fed in the combine, caused heavy shelling and probably seed damage. It was also noticed that some of the heavy soiled vines were not picked up by the pick-up springs, and were eventually left in the field and counted as losses. Figure 4.5.1 shows the plotting of the average losses. There was a noticeable decrease of 32.25 percent losses from the first period of 0 days to the third period (Table 4.5.2). The extended curing time causes higher losses as seen in period 4 (10 days from digging date). Curing is a field drying process. If the peanuts are exposed to an environment for which the equilibrium moisture content Of the peanuts and vines is less than the surround- ing moisture content, then moistue will be transferred away from the peanuts to the environment. The magnitude of the difference between the peanut moisture content and the equilibrium moisture content affects the rate of moisture transfer. This rate is high in Sudan at the time of harvest (dry weather). .oemu mcmusu Lon mommoH momuo>e one m>: >= (DC) 2: a: In :3-9 N Y 1 2 3 4 Z 1< ...i N b.) i\ ~136— HAVE HAVE PERFORMED OBSERVED m so 2 .5 .3 *3 .fi 33 .3 B a Q* o a -H.4 -p 0 94-4 c: >. >. ‘SZS NO YES 2 m m U) m AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS N Y 1. Operation and adjustment of land plane 1 2 3 4 N Y 2. Field plowing 1 2 3 4 N Y 3. Field ridging 1 2 3 4 N Y 4. Measurement of area in acres (fedans) 1 2 3 4 N Y 5. Use of field level 1 2 3 4 N Y 6. Tillage with a one way plow 1 2 3 4 N Y 7. Operation of a ridger 1 2 3 4 N Y 8. Planting with a planter 1 2 3 4 N Y 9. Marker setting for precise planting, ridging, etc. 1 2 3 4 N Y 10. Calibration of a planter and seed drill 1 2 3 4 N Y 11. Operation of peanut digger 1 2 3 4 N Y 12. Assembly of a planter 1 2 3 4 N Y 13. Operation and adjustment of a row crOp cultivator 1 2 3 4 N Y 14. Operation and adjustment of a peanut combine 1 2 3 4 N Y 15. Assembly of a peanut combine 1 2 3 4 N Y 16. Checking and calculation of losses 1 2 3 4 N Y 17. Checking of combine Speed 1 2 3 4 N Y 18. Checking and installation of prOper belts in combine 1 2 3 4 instruct —137- HAVE HAVE PERFORMED OBSERVED 8 on s .5 .93. *3 .51 t .53 S m g. c) a -H.A -p o ceri <3 >. >. (3:3 NO YES 2: cm cn co m N Y 19. Checking and identification of after effects of combine cylinder speeds 1 2 3 4 N Y 20. Checking and identifying the after effect of pick-up and header auger Speeds 1 2 3 4 N Y 21. Identify causes of losses 1 2 3 4 N Y 22. The selection of the best depth of digging 1 2 3 4 N Y 23. Identification of the prOper digging Speeds 1 2 3 4 N Y 24. Identification of prOper digging depth 1 2 3 4 N Y 25. Estimation of digging Speeds/hr 1 2 3 4 N Y 26. Identification of prOper soil moisture for digging 1 2 3 4 N Y 27. Calculation of production/hr 1 2 3 4 N Y 28. Estimation Of combine Speed/hr 1 2 3 4 N Y 29. Tractor hydraulic lift Operation 1 2 3 4 N Y 30. Self unloading wagon Operation 1 2 3 4 N Y 31. Operator manual use (combine) 1 2 3 4 N Y 32. farts ordering for equipment 1 2 3 4 N Y 33. Electric arc welding Operation 1 2 3 4 N Y 34. Acetyline welding Operation 1 2 3 4 N Y 35. Service and maintenance of engine 1 2 3 4 instruct ~138- HAVE PERFORMED instruct OBSERVED 8 no 5: .fi .3 ‘2’: .E E .3 8 w E? o a ~Hra +> o «4-4 (H-H m NO YES 2 .5” 3’ a ti .5: SOILS N Y 53. Identification of common soil type (clay, sand, sandy clay) 1 2 3 4 N Y 54. Identification of water logging 1 2 3 4 N Y 55. Identification of type of erosion 1 2 3 4 N Y 56. Determination of approximate percent of moisture 1 2 3 4 N Y 57. Determination of land lepe with land level 1 2 3 4 FARM MANAGEMENT N Y 58. The reading of a farm map 1 2 3 4 N Y 59. TranSposing notes to farm map 1 2 3 4 N Y 60. Planning working pattern or plan 1 2 3 4 N Y 61. Scheduling Of Operation in the field 1 2 3 4 N Y 62. Identification of mechanical damage (peanuts) 1 2 3 4 N Y 63. Identification of peanut mold 1 2 3 4 N Y 64. Usage of card inventory 1 2 3 4 N Y 65. Ordering of fuel 1 2 3 4 N Y 66. Determination of distance by use of farm level, pacing, chain and taping 1 2 3 4 -140- TO THE SUPERVISORS IN BLOCKS:- AGRICULTURAL MECHANISATION PEANUT HARVEST SKILL INVENTORY DIRECTIONS:- This inventory contains skills or competancy statements selected to represent the range of performance activities a farm mechanisation technician should be familiar with. Your practical experience and background in your block will be the basic criteria to write the percent of skilled labor. Feel free to comment at the back of the questionnaire pages. Thank you. -l41- NUMBER OF SKILLED LABOR: - ( 4) PLEASE GIVE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SKILLED LABOR IN YOUR BLOCK WHO KNOW OR CAN PERFORM THE SKILL IN QUESTION. THANKS. LAND PREPARATION . Operate and adjust land plane Plow field Ridge field Measure area (in acres) Use field level mature-A CROP PRODUCTION 6. Identify common seeds and plants 7. Identify maturity of cotton 8. Identify maturity of peanuts 9. Identify common insect damage 10. Know how to estimate soil moisture 11. Apply chemicals 12. Calculate harvest losses for peanut combine 13. Count plant pOpulation per acre 14. Make yield checks of peanuts 15. Know the shellout method (combine damage) 16. Know the use of the shell-out method AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS 17. Operate one way plow 18. Operate a ridger 19. Operate a planter 20. Can set marker for precise planting, ridging, etc. 21. Calibrate planter and seed drill 22. Operate peanut digger 23. Know how to put together a planter 24. Operate a grain drill -142- 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Operate and adjust a row crOp cultivator Operate a peanut combine Check and calculate losses Check for Speed of combine Can select'and install prOper belt in combine Can make combine adjustments Identify causes of losses Can tell the best depth of digging Identify prOper digging speed Identify proper digging depth Can estimate Speed/hr of digging Identify-prOper moisture for digging Can estimate Speed/hr for tractor Can measure production/hr Can estimate Speed Of combine per hour Familiar with tractor hydraulic lift adjustment Operate combine standing (threshing) Operate self unloading wagon Perform combine adjustments Read Operator manual Order parts for equipment Operate electric arc welder Can service and maintain engine Can prime fuel pump (diesel engine) Install and adjust belts and chains Install and adjust bearing and seals Service slip clutch (safety clutch) Know safety rules for combine Operation Know curing time Know why cure peanuts Know why dry peanuts before storage Attended a combine dealer demonstration PLEASE GIVE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SKILLED LABOR IN YOUR BLOCK WHO KNOW OR CAN PERFORM THE SKILL IN QUESTION. THANKS. -143- PLEASE GIVE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE SKILLED LABOR IN YOUR BLOCK WHO KNOW OR CAN PERFORM THE SKILL IN QUESTION. THANKS. FARM MANAGEMENT 57. Can read the farm map 58. TranSpose field notes to farm map 59. Use card inventory 60. Order fuel 61. Can identify termites damage 62. Know peanut mold 63. Know the effect of nematodes 64. Plan working pattern or plan 65. Can schedule Operations in the field 66. Can calculate cost/hr 67. Can figure cost/acre 68. Can calculate cost/man-hr 69. Identify mechanical damage (peanuts) 70. Identify insect damage SOIL 71. Identify soil type (clay, sand, sandy loam) 72. Identify water logging 73. Identify type of erosion 74. Determine roughly percentage of soil moisture 75. Determine land SIOpe with land level 76. Determine distance by use of farm level, pacing chain and taping 77. These are useful questions -144- TABLE 1 The skilled labor survey results presented in over all percentage Those who performed by AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS . . . experience & training 1. Operation and adjustment of land plane 64 2. Field plowing 46 3. Field ridging 100 4. Measurement of area in acres (fedans) 30 5. Use Of field level 32 6. Tillage with a one-way plow 64 7. Operation of a ridger 100 8. Planting with a planter 100 9. Marker setting for precise planting, ridging, etc. 32 10. Calibration of a planter and seed drill 56 11. Operation of peanut digger 70 12. Assembly of a planter 30 13. Operation and adjustment of a row crOp cultivator 32 14. Operation and adjustment of a peanut combine 66 15. Assembly of a peanut combine 34 16. Checking and calculation of losses 32 17. Checking of combine Speed 34 18. Checking and installation of prOper belts in combine 76 19. Checking and identification of after effects of combine cylinder Speeds 32 20. Checking and identifying the after effect of pick-up and header augger Speeds 38 21. Identify causes of losses 32 -14s- Those who performed by experience & training 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. The selection of the best depth Of digging 98 Identification of the prOper digging Speeds 86 Identification of prOper digging depth 62 Estimation of digging Speeds/hr 42 Identification of prOper soil moisture for digging 26 Calculation of production/hr 14 Estimation of combine Speed/hr 44 Tractor hydraulic lift Operation 42 Self unloading wagon Operation 26 Operator manual use (combine) 24 Parts ordering for equipment 30 Electric arc welding Operation 24 Acetyline welding Operation 28 Service and maintenance of engine 44 Fuel pump priming (diesel engine) 58 Installation and adjustment of belts and chains 68 Installation and adjustment of bearings and seals 56 Service of slip clutch (safety clutch) 16 Safety rules for combine Operation 18 Curing of peanuts 76 Combine dealer demonstration 2 Calibration of Sprayer (insecticide & herbicide) 8 -146- Those who performed by Cr0p Production experience & training 44. Identification of common weeds 50 45. Identification of common insect damage 88 46. Identification of common pests damage 76 47. Chemical application 52 48. Plant pOpulation count per acre (fedan) 4 49. Yield checks of peanuts 1O 50. Identification of peanut maturity 32 51. Identification of cotton maturity 84 52. The shellout method to determine maturity 92 53. Identification of common soil type (clay, sand, sandy clay) 10 54. Identification of water lOgging 6O 55. Identification of type of erosion 28 56. Determination of approx. percent of moisture 2O 57. Determination of land SlOpe with land level 16 Farm Management 58. The reading of a farm map 60 59. TranSposing notes to farm map 66 60. Planning working pattern or plan 46 61. Scheduling of Operation in the field 2 62. Identification of mechanical damage (peanut) 32 -147- Those who performed by experience & training 63. 64. 65. 66. Identification of peanut mold 62 Usage of card inventory 6 Ordering of fuel 58 Determination of distance by use of farm level, pacing, chain and taping 52 -148- TABLE 2 NUMBER OF SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE: - (7) This reSponse represents (70%) Percent rating of each superintendent and over all average rating of competencies LAND PREPARATICW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVG 1. Operate Pn- adjust land plane 100 18 - 9O - 50 36 42 2. Plow fieli 100 100 - 92 - 8O 54 6O 3. Ridge fivL 100 100 - — — 70 54 46 4. Measure orri :in acres) 100 5 - - - 1O 36 21 5. Use field level 80 - - - - 2O - 14.2 CROP PRODUCTION 6. Identify common seeds and plants 100 45 - 8O - 1O 54 41.2 7. Identify maturity of cotton 100 18 - 95 - 7O 54 48.1 8. Identify maturity of peanuts 100 9 - 7O - 8O 54 44.7 9. Identify common insect damage 80 4O - 7O - - - 27.1 10. Know how to estimate soil moisture 7O 18 - 3O - 1O 9 19.5 11. Apply chemicals 3O 0 - 9O - O 18 26.8 12. Calculate harvest losses for peanut combine 50 O - 56 - 15 - 17.2 13. Count plant pOpulation per acre 60 9 - - - 5 45 17 14. Make yield checks Of peanuts 8O 14 - 2O - 1O - 17.7 15. Know the shellout method (combine damage) 80 14 - 1O - 0 - 14.8 16. Know the use of the shell-out method 80 9 - O - O - 12.7 AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS 17. Operate one-way plow 80 50 - 100 - 40 18 41.1 18. Operate a ridger 100 75 - 100 - 6O 54 55.6 19. Operate a planter 100 70 - 9O - 75 54 55.6 20. Can set marker for precise planting, ridging, etc. 100 70 - 7O - 5O 36 39.4 -149- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVG. 21. Calibrate planter and seed drill 100 9 - 14 - 4O 36 22 22. Operate peanut digger 100 91 - 1OO - 65 36 56 23. Know how to put tOgether a planter 6O 75 - 4 - 5O 54 34.7 24. operate a grain drill 100 70 - 6O - 1O 18 36.9 25. Operate and adjust a row crOp cultivator ' 75 18 - 5O - 2O 36 28.4 26. Operate a peanut combine 100 70 - 100 - 7O 36 54.7 27. Check and calculate losses 6O 9 2O - 4O 5 36 24.3 28. Check for Speed Of combine 100 30 2 80 1O 18 34.9 29. Can select and install prOper belt in combine 100 54 7O 6O 5 18 44.1 30. Can make combine adjustments 80 27 9O 80 2O 18 45.3 31. Identify causes of losses 6O 18 85 6O 10 36 38.7 32. Can tell the best depth of digging 90 45 95 - 6O 15 36 48.7 33. Identify prOper digging Speed 100 18 9O - 8O 1O 36 47.7 34. Identify prOper digging depth 80 18 85 - 6O 2O 18 40.1 35. Can estimate Speed/hr of digging 80 27 9o - 80 30 54 51.6 36. Identify prOper moisture for digging 7O 45 85 - 6O 2O 54 48 37. Can estimate Speed/hr for tractor 80 36 7O - 8O 30 43.6 38. Can measure production/hr 8O 9 2 - 4O 30 24.3 39. Can estimate Speed of combine per hour 80 45 8O 4 80 10 54 50.4 40. Familiar with tractor hydraulic lift adjustment 100 91 9O 7O 80 8O 36 78.1 41. Operate combine standing (threshing) 100 72 95 — 60 7o - 56.7 42. Operate self unloading wagon 9O 9 90 60 8O 6O 18 58.1 43. Perform combine adjustments 9O 18 85 - 80 4O 5 45.4 44. Read Operator manual 80 5 5 20 80 10 5 29.3 45. Order parts for equipments 80 27 5 8O 5 5 29.1 46. Operate electric arc welder 90 18 8O 4O 10 18 36.7 47. Can serrice and maintain engine 95 14 20 95 4O 25 18 43.9 -1SO- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AVG. 48. Can prime fuel pump (diesel engine) 95 4 4O 9O 6O 4O 9 48.3 49. Install and adjust belts and chains 100 54 95 O 100 30 9 55 50. Install and adjust bearing and seals 100 45 93 7O 80 20 5' 59 51. Service slip clutch (safety clutch) 9O 9 97 9O 4O 2O 18 52 52. Know safety rules for combine Operation 95 100 98 70 100 15 5 69 53. Know curing time 80 27 60 75 8O - 47 54. Know why cure peanuts 90 18 10 95 100 — 5 45 55. Know why dry peanuts before storage 95 9 97 0 6O - 5 38 56. Attended a combine dealer demonstration 100 72 - 7O 8O - - 46 FARM MANAGEMENT 57. Can read the farm map 100 27 - 15 100 10 - 36 58. TranSpose field notes to farm map 80 18 - - 100 5 - 29 59. Use card inventory 7O 9 2 8O - - 23.8 60. Order fuel 80 18 2 80 5 - 27.3 61. Can identify termites damage 90 9 6O 4O - - 29.4 62. Know peanut mold 60 4.5 20 4O - - - 17.8 63. Know the effect of nematodes 6O 0 6O 6 - - - 18 64. Plan working pattern or plan 80 9 2 6O - - 22 65. Can schedule Operations in the field 5 9O 9 3 6 6O 1O - 25.4 66. Can calculate cost/hr 6O - - 20 2O - - 14.2 67. Can figure cost/acre 60 - - 10 20 - - 12.8 68. Can calculate cost/man-hr. 6O - - 2 2O - - 11.7 69. Identify mechanical damage (peanuts) 80 8 9O 90 60 5 - 47.6 70. Identify insect damage 75 45 93 6 - - - 25,5 -1Sl- SOIL 1 2 3 4 5 6 AVG. 71. Identify soil type (clay, sand, sandy loam) 90 72 100 100 20 90 69.4 72. Identify water lOgging 60 27 60 75 - 60 40.3 73. Identify type of erosion 9O 9 20 6O - 5 26.3 74. Determine roughly percentage of soil moisture 70 4.5 10 - - 20 14.9 75. Determine land SlOpe with land level 90 9 - - - - 14.1 76. Determine distance by use of farm level, pacing, chain and taping 100 36 - 90 100 - 46.6 77. These are useful questions 100 100 70 90 100 50 72.9 -152- TABLE 3 AREAS FOUND TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON PEANUT HARVEST LOSS AND THE RATINGS 0F:- 1. The Experimental findings--significance in percents. 2. The Management overall average rating. 3. The skill labor overall self-rating. Experiment Manage- Skill AGRICULTURAL MECHANICS Result ment Labor 1. Operation and adjustment of land plane 2. Field plowing 3. Field ridging 4. Measurement of area in acres (fedans) 5. Use of field level 6. Tillage with a one-way plow 7. Operation of a ridger 8. Planting with a planter 100 55.6 46 9. Marker setting for precise planting, ridging, etc. 10. Calibration of a planter and seed drill 100 22 56 11. Operation of a-peanut digger 100 56.8 70 12. Assembly of a planter 100 55.6 30 13. Operation and adjustment of a row crOp cultivator 14. Operation and adjustment of a peanut combine 100 54.7 66 15. Assembly of a peanut combine 100 59 34 16. Checking and calculation of losses 100 24.3 32 -153- Experiment Manage- Skill Result ment Labor 17. Checking of combine Speed 100 34.9 34 18. Checking and installation of prOper belts in combine 100 44.1 76 19. Checking and identification of after effects Of combine cylinder Speeds 100 45.3 46 20. Checking and identifying the after effect of pick-up and header auger Speeds 100 24.3 38 21. Identify causes of losses 100 45.3 32 22. The selection of the best depth of digging 100 48.7 98 23. Identification of the prOper digging Speeds 100 47.7 86 24. Identification of prOper digging depth 25. Estimation of digging Speeds/hr 26. Identification of prOper soil moisture for digging 100 48.0 26 27. Calculation of production/hr 28. Estimation of combine speed/hr 100 50.4 44 29. Tractor hydraulic lift Operation 30. Self unloading wagon Operation 31. Operator manual use (combine) 100 29.3 24 32. Parts ordering for equipment 33. Electric arc welding Operation 34. Acetyline welding Operation 35. Service and maintenance of engine ~154- Experiment Manage- Skill Result ment Labor 36. Fuel pump priming (diesel engine) 37. Installation and adjustment of belts and chains 100 55.1 - 58 38. Installation and adjustment of bearings and seals 39. Service of slip clutch (safety clutch) 40. Safety rules for combine Operation 41. Curing of peanuts 100 45 76 42. Combine dealer demonstration 100 46 2 43. Calibration of Sprayer (insecticide & herbicide) 100 51 37 CrOngroduction 44. Identification of common weeds 45. Identification of common insect damage 46. Identification of common pests damage 47. Chemical application 48. Plant pOpulation count per acre (fedan) . 100 45 31 49. Yield checks of peanuts 50. Identification of peanut maturity 51. Identification of cotton maturity 52. The shellout method to determine maturity 100 14.8 92 -155- E82838“ “am:- it: 53. Identification of common soil type (clay, sand, sandy clay) 54. Identification of water lOgging 55. Identification of type of erosion 56. Determination of approx. percent of moisture 100 14.9 20 57. Determination of land SlOpe with land level Farm Management 58. The reading of a farm map 59. TranSposing notes to farm map 60. Planning working pattern or plan 61. Scheduling of Operation in the field 100 64 49 62. Identification of mechanical damage (peanuts) 100 47.6 32 63. Identification of peanut mold 100 51 46 64. Usage of card inventory 65. Ordering of fuel 66. Determination of distance by use Of farm level, pacing, chain and taping “'1WWW(14111311111111ES