Figure 4.28: Selected minimum-cost ridger width (A) and annual ridger machinery cost per hectare (B) under different small farm machinery use arrangements
The sum of the widths selected for the small farms based on independent machinery use were in comparison higher than that selected for the. annual cost per hectare for the 25 ha total Aq
as the machinery annual fixed cost must be recovered from only the small farm size processed. This again demonstrates the economic non-viability of mechanizing very small farms.
Table 4.33. The basal field capacity evaluated for the pool farm size on the basis of available hours (CeQ) is also presented in the same Table 4.33. The corresponding annual machinery cost per hectare, and the machinery and transport cost per hectare for these implement sizes are also shown in Table 4.33.
The adjusted plough field capacity based on the L- model, Z- model, and the H- model was 0.6537 ha/hr, 0.4526 ha/hr and 0.5239 ha/hr respectively. These correspond to 1.8975 m, 1.3139 m and 1.5207 m, respectively. Based on the available field processing hours of 1060 hrs, evaluated from Figure 3.9 a plough field capacity of 0.4033 ha/hr was considered basic for processing of the 430 ha equivalent pool farm. This translates to a plough width of 1.1706 m. However, if the pool farm size to be processed were to be evaluated on the basis of the nominal 675 ha, the adequate plough capacity needed will increase to 0.6360 ha/hr; and its width to 1.8975 m.
From the foregoing, the 0.6533 ha/hr predicted plough field capacity and its adjusted 0.6537 ha/hr selected with the L- model were considered adequate, for completing the field’s ploughing within the available time. The Z- model 0.4527 ha/hr adjusted capacity was seen as inadequate for processing the field timely. Similarly, the H- model 0.5239 ha/hr adjusted capacity appears adequate for the 430 ha equivalent farm size processing. It will however be more liable to failure in completing the field processing due to shocks (ie delays) in the system. The highest corresponding unadjusted annual plough machinery cost per hectare was recorded for the developed Z- model, and was N4,741.27.
Table 4.33: Recommended minimum-cost plough sizes for 430 ha equivalent farm size (ie 675 ha nominal farm size)
Implement /Model Parameter Implement Size
L Z H
Plain Model Size Selected Capacity Ce (ha/hr) 0.6533 0.4525 0.5238
Width w (m) 1.8964 1.3135 1.5203
Adjusted Size^ Capacity CeR (ha/hr) 0.6537 0.4526 0.5239
Width w (m) 1.8975 1.3139 1.5207
Corresponding Costs per Hectare (N/ha)
Plain Model Machinery Cost per Hectare (N/ha) 4651.20 4741.27 4718.15 Plain Model Machinery and Transport Cost per Hectare (N/
ha) 4991.13 5089.39 5866.19 Implement Size for Adequacy Comparism
Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.6360
156
Nominal Farm Size’s
Basal Implement Size# Width w (m) 1.8461
Equivalent Farm Size’s
Basal Implement Size# Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.4033
Width w (m) 1.1707
Selected Implement
Implement Size Capacity (ha/hr) 0.6550
Width w (m) 1.8975
Corresponding Cost per Hectare (N/ha)
Machinery 4488.73
Machinery & Transport
4828.68
^With Machinery Transport Hours Loss Considered
#for Available Working Hours
On the other the H- model had the highest machinery and transport cost per hectare:-N5,866.19. The developed Aq model corresponding annual plough machinery cost per hectare and its machinery and transport cost per hectare were the lowest; with values as N4,651.20 and N4,991.13 respectively. The adjusted L- model plough field capacity of 0.6537 ha/hr (ie 1.8974 m width), was thus chosen as the plough field capacity needed. This corresponded to a plough annual machinery cost per hectare of N4,651.20 and machinery and transport cost per hectare of N4,828.68.
4.5.2 Harrow machinery capacity recommended
The unadjusted harrow machinery capacities (Ce) recommended for the studied total 430 ha equivalent (ie 675 ha nominal), pool farm with the studied models are shown in Table 4.34.
Table 4.34: Recommended minimum-cost harrow sizes for 430 ha equivalent farm size (675 ha nominal farm size)
Implement /Model Parameter Implement Size
L Z H
Model Size Selected Capacity Ce (ha/hr) 0.7518 0.4955 0.8953
Width w (m) 1.7025 1.1220 2.0275
Adjusted Size^ Capacity CeR (ha/hr) 0.7523 0.4957 0.8960
Width w (m) 1.7036 1.1225 2.0290
Corresponding Costs per Hectare (N/ha)
Model Machinery Cost per Hectare (N/ha) 3234.82 3308.21 3292.72 Model Machinery and Transport Cost per Hectare
(N/ha) 3680.81 3759.52 4483.69 Implement Size for Adequacy Comparison
Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.6360
Nominal Farm Size’s
Basal Implement Size# Width w (m) 1.4402
Equivalent Farm Size’s Basal Implement Size#
Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.4033
Width w (m) 0.9132
SelectedImplement
Implement Size Capacity (ha/hr) 0.7523
Width w (m) 1.7036
Corresponding Cost per Hectare (N/ha)
Machinery 3129.23
Machinery and Transport
3596.52
^With Machinery Transport Hours Loss Considered
#for Available Working Hours
The adjusted harrow capacities for transport hours loss (CeR) for the various models are also shown in Table 4.34. The basal harrow field capacity that processes the pool farm size based on the available hours (CeQ) is also presented in the same Table 4.34. The corresponding annual machinery cost per hectare, and the machinery and transport cost per hectare for these implement sizes are also shown in Table 4.34. The selected plain harrow field capacity based on the L- model, Z- model, and the H- model was 0.7518 ha/hr, 0.4955 ha/hr and 0.8953 ha/hr respectively. These correspond to 1.7025 m, 1.122 m and 2.0275 m harrow widths respectively. Based on the available field processing hours of 1060 hrs a basal harrow capacity of 0.6835 ha/hr was considered adequate for timely processing of the 430 ha equivalent pool farm. This translates to a harrow width of 1.5478 m.
However, if the pool farm size to be processed were evaluated as the nominal 675 ha-pool farm size, the adequate harrow capacity needed will increase to 0.6360 ha/hr; and its width to 1.4402 ha/hr. The highest corresponding annual harrow machinery cost per hectare was recorded for the developed Z- model, and was N3,308.21. On the other the H- model had the highest harrow machinery and transport cost per hectare, with a value of N4,483.69. The developed L- model corresponding annual plough machinery cost per hectare and its machinery and transport cost per hectare were the lowest; with values as N3,234.82 and N3,680.81 respectively.
From the foregoing, the 0.7518 ha/hr basic harrow field capacity and its adjusted 0.7523 ha/hr selected with the L- model were both considered adequate, for completing the harrowing operation within the available time. The 0.4955 ha/hr plain harrow capacity selected by the Z- model and its adjusted capacity of 0.4957 ha/hr appear inadequate for processing the field timely but very susceptible to failure from shocks in the system. On the
158
other hand, the H- model 0.8953 ha/hr plain harrow capacity and its, 0.8960 ha/hr- adjusted capacity appear oversized for the 430 ha equivalent pool farm size. If the pool farm size was based on nominal size, all the 3 models selected basic harrow capacity and their adjusted version appear adequate to meet the 1.0779 ha/hr field capacity considered big enough.
The corresponding plain annual harrow machinery cost per hectare was highest for the Z-model with N3,308.21 as the value. The machinery and transport cost per hectare were highest for the H- model, with value as N4,483.69. The annual harrow machinery cost per hectare and the machinery and transport cost per hectare corresponding to the L- model capacity; with values N3,234.82 and N3,680.81, respectively were the lowest. The adjusted 0.7523 ha/hr harrow field capacity selected with the L- model was finally chosen as the harrow field capacity needed. This corresponded to a harrow width of 1.7687 m, and an annual machinery cost per hectare of N3,234.82 and a harrow machinery and transport cost of N3,680.81.
4.5.3 Ridger machinery capacity recommended
The plain ridger machinery capacities (Ce) recommended for the studied total 430 ha equivalent (ie 675 ha nominal), pool farm with the studied models are shown in Table 4.35.
The adjusted ridger capacities for transport hours loss (CeR) for the various models are also shown in Table 4.35. The basal ridger field capacity based on the available hours (CeQ) is also shown in Table 4.35. The corresponding annual ridger machinery cost per hectare, and the Table 4.35: Recommended minimum-cost ridger sizes for 430 ha equivalent farm size (ie 675 ha nominal farm size)
Implement /Model Parameter Implement Size
L Z H
Model Size Selected Capacity Ce (ha/hr) 0.5054 0.2466 0.6247
Width w (m) 1.7018 0.8304 2.1035
Adjusted Size^ Capacity CeR (ha/hr) 0.5056 0.2467 0.6247
Width w (m) 1.7025 0.8306 2.1046
Corresponding Costs per Hectare (N/ha)
Model Machinery Cost per Hectare (N/ha) 4522.59 5199.95 4472.52 Model Machinery and Transport Cost per Hectare
(N/ha) 4966.58 5656.99 5664.90 Implement Size for Adequacy Comparism
Nominal Farm Size’s Basal Implement Size#
Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.6560
Width w (m) 2.1413
Equivalent Farm Size’s Basal Implement Size#
Capacity CeQ (ha/hr) 0.4033
Width w (m) 1.3579
Selected Implement
Implement Size Capacity (ha/hr) 0.5056
Width w (m) 1.7025
Corresponding Cost per Hectare (N/ha)
Machinery 4499.53
Machinery & Transport
4965.97
^With Machinery Transport Hours Loss Considered
#for Available Working Hours
machinery and transport cost per hectare for these ridger sizes are also shown in the table.
The selected plain ridger field capacity based on the L- model, operation labor cost-excluded model, and the H- model was 0.5054 ha/hr, 0.2466 ha/hr and 0.6247 ha/hr respectively. These corresponded to 1.7018 m, 0.8304 m and 2.1035 m ridger widths, respectively.
Based on the available field processing hours of 1060 hrs a basal ridger capacity of 0.6835 ha/hr was considered adequate for timely processing of the 430 ha equivalent pool farm. This translates to a ridger width of 1.3579 m. However, if the pool farm size to be processed were evaluated on the nominal 675 ha-pool farm size basis, the adequate ridger capacity needed will be 0.6560 ha/hr; and its width 2.1413 ha/hr. From the foregoing, the L- model and the Hunt-Wilson model selected capacities and their adjusted capacities versions appear capable of completing the ridging of the equivalent pool farms within the available time. The Hunt-Wilson model capacities appear less susceptible to failure from shocks in the system. On the other hand, the operation labour cost-excluded model plain harrow capacity and its adjusted capacity appear inadequate for the 430 ha equivalent pool farm size processing.
The highest corresponding plain annual ridger machinery cost per hectare was recorded for the developed operation labour cost-excluded model, and was N5,199.95. On the other the Hunt-Wilson model had the highest machinery and transport cost per hectare:- N5,664.90.
The developed L- model corresponding annual harrow machinery cost per hectare and its machinery and transport cost per hectare were the lowest; with values as N4,522.59 and N4,966.58 respectively. The L- model adjusted capacity of 0.5056 ha/hr was chosen for processing the equivalent pool farm ridging. This corresponded to a ridger width of 1.7025 m and an annual ridger machinery cost of N4,499.53 and a ridger machinery and transport cost of N4,965.95. 0.6835 ha/hr was chosen as the ridger field capacity. This corresponds to a ridger machinery width of 2.1577 m and a ridger machinery cost per hectare and machinery and transport costs per hectare of N4886.39 and N4911.85, respectively. This shows the
160
machinery size savings that equivalent farm size basis affords the in machine selection, when compared to nominal farm size basis.