MISCELLANEOUS REPORT No. 36 ISSN 0253-6749

TRACfORS AND FARM MACHINES

IN CYPRUS

I. Photiades, Chr. Papayiannis and W.L. Kjelgaard

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

NICOSIA CYPRUS

March, 1989

TRACTORS AND FARM MACHINES IN CYPRUS

I. Photiades, Chr. Papayiannis and W.L. Kjelgaard

SUMMARY Farmers make deliberate choices of machines and practices for performing their farm work.

How they exercise the process of machinery selection and management has a greater impact on work time than on fuel use. when evaluation is made on a land area basis. The results given in this report indicate average values of fixed costs, variable costs. machine work time and tractor fuel use for 2-wheel and 4-wheel tractors. over a power' range from 6 to 60 kW. The results apply directly to tractors and farm machines used in Cyprus. They are probably applicable to other regions. where farm size. crops grown and farm mechanization practices are similar.

Although this report emphasizes mechanization input factors of work time, fuel consumption, and fixed and variable costs, it must be recognized that farm tractors and machines also have productive outputs. When properly selected and utilized. they make farming systems capable of profitable returns and efficient timely production. Farm mechanization is flexible and adaptable to a wide variety of farm sizes and conditions, This report identifies and quantifies many of the essential inputs of farm mechanization in Cyprus and provides important background information for planning and evaluating farm mechanization systems,

I1EPIAHlIJH H nccouco ~}.ttTl oVOq>tp&Tat KuplwC; OTOUC; ouvn:A&OTtc; ~l1xovono(I1Ol1C; tTlC; KaAAltPV&lOC;

6nwc; dvat 0 xp6voc; &KTtA&Ol1C; TWV KaA.\!&PVI1nKcilv cppovltlSwv, 11 KOTovcilArtOl1 KOUOijJWV Kat TO K6OTOC; XPI1I~ono!rlOl1C; TWV V&WPVlKcilv Uxuon')pwv. Av Kat TO OnOT&}.t~OTO ovOq>tPOVTOI one OUV9fJK&C; lTlC; KunplOKfJc; V&Wpyloc; dVOI lSuvOT6 VO IOXUOUV Kat VIO 6M&C; Xcilp&c; ~&" nap6~0l&C;

OUV9fJK&C;. npOO&KnKfJ &nlAoyfJ TOU KOTOMI1Aou YlO Ka9& n&p(nT(a)Ol1 V&WPYlKoU ~l1xovi)~oToc;

KaV&1 rn XPfJOl1 TOU mo napovwyu<:f) Kat rnv &lqJ&T6M&UOTJ rno npooolSocp6po. 0 xp6voC; &KTt­A&0l1C; ISlOcp6pwv ouvlSua~cilv KaA.\!&PVI1nKcilv cppovltlSwv ova ~ovalSo tKToOl1C; ISlOcptp&l ovaAovo ~ rnv tnnolSUv~11 TOU &MUon')pa voo~tvou 6n oUT6C; OUVISUl1l;&TOI ~& rn XPf)Ol1 ovaA6vwv &PVw(wv KOI ~l1xoV'1~aTwv. 0 xp6voC; nou OnOIT&(Tat VIO tTlv &KTtA&Ol1 1S&lSo~tvou ouvlSua~ou

KaMl£PVI1nKcilv cppovnlSwv ~lcilv&TOI Ol1~ovnKa ~ rnv OU~I1Ol1 tTlC; lOXUWC; TOU &MUOTfJpa XCIlP(C; TOUT6xpovo vo unapxouv Ol1~oVnKtC; &ntnTcilo&lC; OlTlV KOTovQA(a)Ol1 KOUoijJWV. )(PI1Oij,lOno!rlOl1 &vaMOKnKcilv KaAAl&PVI1nKcilv ~96/5(a)v YlO TO OllTlpa &(VOI lSuvOT6 VO ~lcilO&l TO xp6vo ~I1Xovo­KaAAttPV&IOC; ~tXPl Kat 55% rnv 15& KOTovQA(a)Ol1 KOUoijJWV ~tXPl Kat 30%. EVaMOKnKtC; KaA­N.&PVI1nKtC; ~eolSOl YlO nc nOTaT&C;. ~&lcilvouv TO xp6vo Kat TO KOUOij,lO ova ~ovalSo tKToOl1C; KOTa 60%. 0 ~tooc; xp6voC; XPI1Oij,lono!rlOl1C; TWV V&wPVlKcilv &MUon')pWV &(VOI YlO ~tv TOUC; X&l­POKlV'1TOUC; &KAu<m'\P&C;. 6-11KW. 152 cilP&C;/tTOC; Ylo &: roue T&TpaTpOXouc; &MUon')P&C;. 12­40KW Kat 41oS0KW. 311 KOl 526 cilP&C;/tToc;. OvnOToIXO. To ~oo ~&To13ArtT6 Kat ouvoAlK6 K6­OTOC; ova cilpa nOlKlM&I. ovaAovo ~ rnv lOXU TOO &KMuon')po. To ouvoAlK6 K6oTOC; ovo cilpo dvat neotnou lSu61Jlou cpoptc; ~VaAUT&po on6 TO ~Taj3ArtT6. OV&~aptTlTO on6 TO ~tV&eOC; TOU &AAUon')pa.

INTRODUCTION

Tractors are the major power source for farm work in Cyprus as in many other countries. They are used to perform a wide range of farm operations. The pattern of their use in influenced by many factors. Engine displacement and associated rated power is one of the main differences between farm tractor sizes and models. Tractors are essential in the world's food production systems and they should be used efficiently and economically.

The report examines the major family characteristics and employment pattern of tractor owners, and includes land ownership and tenure and the economics ot tractors according to power rating. The report also examines how tractor work time and fuel use varies with tractor power and type of farm operation. The results may be useful for estimating the performance and cost of farm mechanization in Cyprus.

METHODOLOGY

The technical and economic data were obtained in 1987 from personal interviews with 230 tractor owners, in various regions of Cyprus. These data were supplemented with fuel consumption results from tractor tests performed in the United States.

Data for 2-wheel tractors (rated power 6 to 11 kW) were collected from 94 farmers in the mountainous regions, where vines and deciduous fruit trees prevail. Data for 4-wheel tractors (12 to 60 kW) were obtained from 136 farmers in the coastal and central plain regions. Four-wheel tractors were grouped into two power categories consisting of 68 tractors each. Tractors classified as medium power (12 to 40 kW) are used m~inl~ in the coastal regions for the cultivation of vegetables and citrus. Tractors classified as high power (41 to 60 kW), are used in the central plains for the cultivation of cereals and other rainfed crops. Data were also obtained on 10 self-propelled combine harvesters for cereals.

2

I

GENERAL FARM DATA

Family structure and employment

The tractor-using farm family was composed of the farmer, his wife and 3 to 4 children. Although there was no significant difference in the family size of farmers using tractors of dif­ferent power, analysis of data showed that fa­mily size on farms using 2-wheel tractors was significantly smaller.

The average age of farmers using 2 wheel tractors. was 53 years compared to 47 and 50 years for farmers using medium and high power tractors. All tractor users had received formal (elementary) education (Table 1).

Table 1. Family structure.

Tractor power (kW)

6-11 12-40 41-60

Observations 94 68 68

Farmer's age (years) 52.8 46.9 SO.5

Farmer's education (years) 6.4 6.7 6.4

Number of children 3.6 3.5 3.8

Chilqren on farm 1.6 2.2 1.9

Total Family Members 5.6 5.5 5.8

Farmers using 2-wheel tractors were emplo­yed on their farms for about 21 weeks/year, compared to 37 and 43 weekslyear for far­mers using medium and high power tractors, respectively (Table 2). On-farm employment of farmer's wife has higher (20.4 weeks/year) in the case of 2-wheel tractor users than for 4­wheel tractor users (11 weekslyear).The total labour provided by the tarrner and his wife was 11 weeks/year per hectare of operated land for 2-wheel tractor users, compared to 6 weekslyear per hectare for users of medium tractors and 1.8 weeks/year per hectare for users of high power tractors. These discrep­ancies are not necessarily due to tractor type

but to a combination of factors such as crops grown, landscape, socioeconomic conditions etc. which themselves influence the tractor types used.

Table 2. Employment (weeks/year) of the family.

Tractor power (kW)

6-11 12-40 41-60

Farmer's on-farm employment 20.9 37.3 43.5 Wife's on-farm employment 20.4 11.5 10.6 Total on-farm employment 41.3 48.8 54.1 Farmer's off-farm employment 25.7 9.8 3.2 Wife's off-farm employment 0.6 1.1 Total off-farm employment 26.3 9.8 4.3

Total Employment{weekslyears) 67.6 58.6 58.4

Land use and ownership

The average farm size of 2-wheel tractor users was 3.7 ha, about 10% of which was rented-in land. About 73% of the farm's area was under rainfed permanent crops, mainly vi­nes, the remaining being under irrigated fruit trees (8%) , rainfed annual (16%) and irrigated annual crops (3%). Medium power tractors (12 to 40 kW) were used on farms with an ave­rage size of about 8 ha, 25% of Which was rented-in land. Rainfed annual crops (47%), mostly cereals and fodders, and irrigated an­nual crops (47%), mainly potatoes, were the main crops cultivated. The average farm size where tractors over 40 kW are used was 29 hectares, 60% of which was rented-in land. These farms were mostly under rainfed ce­reals (Table 3).

Tractor size was related to farm size, type of crops grown and farm location. High power tractors were used in dry areas, where less labour-intensive crops prevailed, whereas, low power 2-wheel tractors were the exclusive power source in the mountainous regions.

TRACTOR FUEL REQUIREMENTS

Engine displacement is a major factor in de­termining the rated power and fuel consump­tion of tractors. There is a direct reiationship­between engine displacement, power and fuel use. For a fixed engine displacement, fuel use varies with engine load. A particular engine under 1/2 load consumes less fuel than for full load, but the difference is not proportional.

Pacey (1982). developed a general fuel-use model for diesel tractor engines. The following equation estimates fuel conversion to mecha­nical energy for a particular tractor engine based on the ratio of power required to rated tractor power.

E= 8.24R - 8.41 R2 + 3.12R3 Where E= Energy conversion per unit of fuel (kWh/L) R= Load ratio of actual power required to tractor rated power.

From Pacey's equation, a tractor with a rated power of 30 kW and an actual power requl­rement of 15 kW (112 load, i.e. R=0.5), has an energy conversion of 2.4 kWh/L. Since the power required is 15 kW, the estimated fuel use would be 6.25 lJh.

Table 3. Land use and ownership.

Tractor power (kW)

6-11 12-40 41-60

ONn land (ha) 3.3 6.0 11.5 Rented-in land (ha) 0.4 2.1 17.9 Total operated land (ha) 3.7 8.1 29.4

Annual crops (ha) 0.7 7.6 29.0 Rainfed 0.6 3.8 26.9 Irrigated 0.1 3.8 2.1 Permanent crops (ha) 3.0 0.5 0.4 Rainfed 2.7 0.1 0.2 Irrigated 0.3 0.4 0.2

3

The above fuel-use model was developed from data covering a wide range of tractor rated-power. For Cyprus conditions, it was considered practical to limit the tractor rated­power range from 6 to 60 kW. which includes most of the 13,000 farm tractors used on the island (Census of Agriculture, 1985). Observa­tions and survey results of typical tractor use in Cyprus indicated that part loads are the normal engine conditions, often at reduced engine speeds. It has long been recognized that fuel use values in Cyprus were lower than those estimated for similar farm opera­tions in other countries. To compensate for tractor size and operating conditions in Cyp­rus, Pacey's 'model was modified for engine loads of 1/4 and 112 rated power. This cha­nge adjusted the Pacey fuel consumption esti­mated for a 30 kW tractor under 1/2 load from 6.25 LIh to 5.9 LIh. Fuel use at 1/4 engine load was adjusted accordingly. The modified Pacey model was then used to rep­resent tractor fuel use in Cyprus.

Fuel consumption for farm tractors between 6 and 60 kW rated power is shown in Fig. 1. Engine load conditions are shown for 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 loads. The overall mean engine load in Cyprus is estimated to be less than 1/2. Given the tractor rated power and the average engine load. the fuel use (LIh) can be estimated using figure1.

18

16

14

12

~ 10

:5 Q) 8 :)

U.

6

4

o 10 20 30 40 50 60

Rated tractor power (KW)

Fig. 1. Relationship between rated tractor power (KW) and fuel consumption (LJh) for 1/4 (1\). 1/2 (x), and 314 (0), engine load.

4

WORK TIME AND FUEL USE BY MACHINE OPERATION

Ploughing

Ploughing using a moldboard or a chisel-type plough is distinguished from rotavating. For moldboard and chisel ploughs, the width of the plough may increase as the tractor power increases. The combination of plough width and field speed, and the number of repeated ploughings determines the actual field work time. For the values given below only one pl­oughing .was involved.

So~ type and moisture conditions have a ma­jor influence on soil resistance to ploughing. The dryer the soil is, the higher the resistance to ploughing and the power requirement and fuel consumption. Heavy clay soils have grea­ter ploughing resistance than loam or silt soils. Ideally, tractor power and plough width should be matched for each soil condition. Such matching is impractical because the farmer usually owns _one plough of fixed width. Pl­ough width was selected from equations, rela­ting optimum width and tractor power, for soils of high and medium ploughing resistance. The equations, as taken .from Wu ~ (1986), were: High soil resistance: Y = 0.019X + 0.064 (clay so~s)

Med. soil resistance : Y =0.036X + 0.087 (loam soDs) Where: Y = plough width (meters) X = tractor rated power (kW)

If plough width and field speed were both ma­ximum, then actual ploughing time would be minimum. Combinations of plough width, field speed and tractor power established the ave­rage ploughing time and fuel use per hectare shown in Table 4.

Time for ploughing included time lost due to turning at field ends. Other time losses, cau­sed by delays for plough adjustment or repairs were not included. nor was time of travel to and from the field. Losses due to turning time were estimated to be 15 to 20010.

Two-wheel tractors (6 to 11 kW) required longer time and more fuel, mainly because of

1 ___________J I

limitations on width and field speed. For 4­wheel tractors (12 to 60 kW), fuel use per ha changed only slightly as power increased. A fixed soil resistance and ploughing depth requires uniform amount of tillage energy re­gardless of tractor power. Therefore fuel consumption for tillage alone should be the same. Any increase in fuel consumption with tractor power reflects mainly tractor weight, as more energy is needed to move a heavier vehicle. Ploughing time gradually decreased as power increased.

Table 4. Average time and fuel use for ploughing

RatedpoWer(kW) lime (mirVha) Fuel (l.Ala)

6 to 11 490 10

12 to 40 110 7

41 to 60 ED 8

Rotary tillage

Rototilling is the most common application for the 2-wheel tractor in Cyprus. The power­take-off driven rotavator is the machine used with larger tractors. Under certain soil condi­tions, rotary tillage can prepare a seedbed in a single operation. Because of field speed li­mitations, rotary tillage usually requires more time and fuel per unit land area than moldboard or chisel ploughing (Table 5). However, when multiple trips for ploughing and harrowing are compared to one trip for rotary tillage, inputs become similar. In gene­ral, rotary tillage required about twice as much time and fuel as traditional ploughing.

Table 5. Average time and fuel for rotary tillage machines.

Tractorpawer (kW) lime (mintha) Fuel (LIha)

6 to 11 1040 35

12to40 170 12

41 to 60 120 14

Harrowing

Harrowing, as defined in this section, covers the application of poly-disks, chisels and

toothed implements used after initial ploughing for seed-bed preparation and weed control. Harrowing is _often repeated to achieve the desired seedbed. Data in Table 6 represent single harrowing; for repeated harrowings ~

data should be multiplied by the number of repetitions.

Work time tended to decrease as tractor po­wer increased but fuel use was uniform over the 4-wheel tractor power range.

Table 6. Average time and fuel use for harrowing

Tractor power (kW) lime (mintha) Fuel (l/ha)

6 to 11 370 8 12 to 40 iU 4

41 to 60 :D 4

Ridging

Ridgers in Cyprus are used for the furrowing and lifting of row crops, such as potatoes, carrots and peanuts. Work time and fuel use for the ridger were obtained from 24 farmers (Table 7). The rather long work time and high fuel· use of the ridger resulted from' the narrow width and the careful operation, which are typical for this implement.

Table 7. Average time and fuel use for ridgers.

Tractor power (kW) lime (mirVha) Fuel (l.Ala)

25 to 60 170 13

Planting

Planters are used for planting cereals, beans, peanuts and other row crops. Seed drills and row planters are used for concurrent fertilizer application with planting. Three types of pla­nters are considered : The local tine seed drills, normally used for cereal sowing, the hand-assist row planter, used for planting po­tatoes, and the centrifugal broadcast seeder, used for cereals and forage crops. Tractor power requirements for planters are usually in

5

the medium to low range. For precision row and hand-assist planting, mechanical and ma­nual limitations often restrict the field speed.

Seed drills: For tractors above 30 kW rated power, the drill width was limited to 3.5 me­ters. The time and fuel-use information in Ta­ble 8 includes a field time loss of 10% due to turning, frequent material level checks and row alignment- care.

Table 8. Average time and fuel use for seed drills and row planters.

Trader power(kW) TlIT1e (minlha) Fuel(LJha)

61011 170 4

121040 «> 3

411060 :D 3

recommended for centrifugal seeders, becau­se the weight and location of the implement tends to unbalance smaller tractors. Time and fuel values given in Table 10 also apply when centrifugal seeders are used to broadcast fertilizers.

Table 10. Average time and fuel use for centrifugar seeders.

Tractorpower(kW) TIIT1e (mirVha) Fuel(LAla)

2510 60 3

Spraying·

Hand-assist planters: These planting machines require one or more workers to either position seed pieces or regulate their flow. If the mac­hine is a multiple row planter then a worker may be required for each row. Field speeds for hand-assist planters are very low because of worker involvement and safety. The results shown in Table 9 were obtained from the tractors' survey.

Field work time per ha was high for the hand­assist planter and required at least two ope­rators. The results show that labour require­ments for hand-assist planting will be in ex­cess of 11 man-hours per ha.

Table 9. Average time and fuel use for hand-assist planters.

Tractorpower (kW) TllTle (minhla) Fuel (lA1a)

Field crop sprayers may be either boom or blower type, while fruit tree sprayers are ge­nerally the blower type. Both sprayer types have wide effective widths, up to 10 meters per pass, and a usually low to medium field speed. A large part of the total work time of sprayers of either type is occupied by tank fill­up, solution mixing and clean up. Preparation and clean-up time is apprcxmately equal to actual spraying time. Although power reqUire­ments for sprayers are -generally low, large tractors are recommended for stability and sa­fety. Values for sprayer work time and fuel use are given in Table 11.

Table 11. Average time and fuel use for spraying machines.

Sprayer type TIIT1e (miMla) Fuel(LJha)

Boom Field crops :D 2

Blower Fruit trees 200 8

Blower sprayers used more time and fuel than boom sprayers. This difference is mainly due

25 to 60 350 15 to the difficultie~ and conditions associated

Centrifugal broadcast seeders: This planting implement is used for broadcasting seeds or fertilizer or a mixture of both. Seeding rate and distribution are loosely regulated. Repea­ted seeder passes from another direction are often used to improve uniformity of distri­bution. Seeds are broadcast on the soH surfa­ce and a second implement, such as poly-disk or tine cultivator, may be used in a follow-up trip over the seeded area. Large tractors are

6

with spraying fruit trees.

COMBINED TILLAGE, PLANTING AND SPRAYING

Typical farming systems involving ploughing, harrowing, planting and spraying for three dif­ferent tractor power ratings are shown in Ta­ble 12. Machine time and fuel use vary with tractor power when field tasks are the same.

I

Table 12. Average time and fuel for machine systems

Time (min/ha) Fuel (lhla) Machine system Tractor rated power Tractor rated power

25kW 4fit<W 55kW 25kW 40kW 55kW

Plough, harrow twice, seed drill, one spray 410 240 180 19· 21 22

Rototill, seed drill, two sprays 2BO 260 210 18 19 22

Plough, harrow, seed broadcast, cover seed, one spray 420 270 210 2) 21 21

Plough, harrow twice, hand-assist plant, four spray 800 650 590 ~ 34 :I}

For a given machine system, the selection of higher tractor power and corresponding wider machines, has a greater impact on work time than on fuel use. In all systems above work­time decreased as power increased. When the hand-assist planter was used, both time and fuel increased. The combined inputs for mechanized talage, planting and spraying, for the first three systems (Table 12) reqUired 180 to 420 minutes and about 20 liters of fuel per ha.

CROP HARVESTING MACHINES

Time and fuel reqUirements for harvesting machines, such as mechanical lifters, mowers, rakes and balers, are presented in Table They include actual field work time and estimate of time loss for normal machine lays.

13. an

de­

Table 13. Average time and fuel for mechanical lifters, mowers, rakes and balers.

Machine type Tune(miMia) Fuel(Uha)

Mechanical lifter 340 15

Mower 140 9

Rake 100 4

Baler 130 10

Mechanical Lifters

Mechanical lifters are primarily used in harve­sting potatoes. They are also used for carrots and peanuts. Generally tractors in excess of 30 kW rated power are recommended for mechanical lifters.

Work time ·and· fuel use for mechanical lifters exceed that of many other farm machines (Ta­ble 13). These high input values reflect the care and precautions necessary for quality control and efficient use of this eqUipment, especially when harvesting early spring potat- . oes.

Mowers. Rakes and Balers

MOWing, raking and baling is a sequence of machine applications in harvesting forage or straw as animal feed. Tractor power of over 25 kW is usually requred for mowing and ba­ling, while for raking power can be less.

The end of baling or mechanical lifting does not complete the harvesting operation becau­se the crop is left i1 the' field and must be handled and transported.

TRACTORS USED IN TRANSPORTATION

The fragmented dispersed pattern of Cyprus farms (Census of Agriculture, 1985), necessita­tes the use of farm tractors as transportation means. Tractors excel in off-road travel, and can manage transport under conditions impos­sible for conventional vehicles. For best fuel efficiency during transport the tractor tran­smission should be in one of the higher gear selections and the engine rpm's reduced. However, safety is a major concern for tractor transport especially on pUblic high­ways.

Tractor drawn trailer transport

Time and fuel required for trailer transport mainly depends on the distance travelled, size of tractor and trailer and the number of trips.

I

7

Since factors are different from farm to farm transport time and fuel inputs are highly varia­ble. For Cyprus conditions the average yearly values are given in Table 14.

Table 14. Yearly time and fuel for tractor drawn trailers

Tractor power (kW) Time (htyear) Fuel (Uyear)

6 to 11 66 60

12 to 40 93 150

41 to 60 160 590

Tractors used as transport vehicles

Tractors can also be used as transport vehi­cles alone, to and from the field. The distance travelled and the number of trips are highly variable from farm to farm. Yearly values are given in Table 15.

Table 15. Yearly time and fuel for tractor only transport.

Tractor power (kW) Time (tvyear) Fuel (Uyear)

12 t040 53 83

41 to 60 106 297

The above information clearly identifies the extent of tractor use for transport in Cyprus. For many conditions they are the only reliable vehicle available, which accounts for extensi­ve transport use.

The average annual tractor transport for Cyp­rus farms was 50 hours of time per ha per year and fuel use was 30, 60 and 120 Iitres per ha per year for 2-wheel, medium and high power tractors, respectively.

AVERAGE FARM MECHANIZATION INPUTS

Machine time and fuel use, given in Table 16, are average inputs for a single machine appli­cation per ha. Where field operations are fully mechanized, such as ploughing, harrowing, mowing and raking, machine time equals the labour time. For other operations such as mechanical lifting or hand-assist planting, which are partially mechanized, total labour time exceeds machine time.

8

Table 16. Summary of time and fuel lor machine operations. (when tractorratedpower= 40 kW)

Machineoperation Time (mintha) Fuel (l..Ala)

Plough (MB or Chisel) 110 7

Rotavate 170 12

Horrow, Disk or Tooth iU 4

Ridger 170 13

Plant, seed drills «> 3

Plant, hand-assist 350 15

Boom spray field crops 3) 2

Blow spray trees & vines 200 8

Mechanical lifter 340 15

Mower 140 9

Rake 100 4

Baler 130 10

Combine (for cereals) a> 14

Input values in Table 16 are modified mainly by extensive changes in either farming practi­ces or machine design. For tractor power lower than 40 kW work time increases slightly, but fuel use remains about the same. The lower these input values the lower the direct operating costs of mechanization.

MECHANIZATION ALTERNATIVES FOR SELECTED CROPS

The folloWing tables show alternative methods of mechanization to accomplish crop produc­tion. Different combinations of machines affect time and fuel requirements and number of trips over the land. Tables 17 and 18 show alternative methods for cereal and Table 19 for potato production.

Method E represents minimum tillage and method F direct drilling. Method F has the lowest input values. Savings in time and fuel compared to method A, which is the traditio­nal practice, range from 30 to 50 percent. The methods for cereal grain production re­quired 4 to 7 machine trips over the land, transport excluded. Combine harvesting alone accounted for about 50% of the total fuel and 25% of the total machine time.

Table 18. Machine inputs (per hal for cereals harvested asbalecJ forage.(an extension of Table 17)

Methods

A B c o E F

7 9 7 6No. of machines passes 8

640 680 540 470Total time (min.) 690

42 42 34 33Total fuel (L) 43

When cereals were used for hay making, then mowing, raking and baling machines were ad­ded to those already listed in Table 17, with combine harvesting removed.

Cereal use for hay making requires more time and fuel inputs than for grain production. Transport of bulky baled forage further increa­

. sed time and fuel use. When cereals are har­vested for grain and straw is baled, the ove­rall machine inputs rise only slightly, because the combine harvester usually performs mowi­ng and windrowing.

The time, fuel and field passes for potatoes does not include transport nor extra labour for picking-up the crop. Time and fuel inputs were similar for machine methods (Table 19) . Extensive tillage and machine passes during potato production may damage the physical structure and stability of soils. Crop rotations are recommended to alleviate the problem.

Table 19. Potato production on 1 ha with various machines.

Machine methods

A B C

Ploughing 2 0

Rotavating 0 0 1

Harrowing 2 1 0

Planting (hand-assist) 1 1 1

Spraying 7 7 7

Ridging 1 1 1

Mechanical lifting 1 1 1

No. of passes 13 13 11

Total time (min.) 1320 1360 1240

Total fuel (L) 72 75 69

9

l - • _

COST OF TRACTOR OWNERSHIP

Capital and annual costs of tractors

The average purchase price of 2-wheel tractors, most of which (85%) were bought new, was C£ 500. The mean purchase price of medium power tractors was C£ 1803, and that of high power C£ 4454. Differences in purchase price reflect differences in size and the fact that 66% of the high power tractors were purchased new compared to 45% for medium power. All other capital and annual cost items included in the calculation of

tractor costs are presented in Table 20. Va­riable and fixed costs of tractors are prese­nted in Table 21.

Variable costs

Variable costs included fuel and lubncant costs, annual cost of repairs and tyre change, cost of maintenance, and interest on variable expenses. Fuel was the major cost item in all three tractor groups and accounted for 37%, 44% and 55% of the variable cost of 2-wheel,

+ Numbers in parenthesis denote the value of actually performed major repairs and lyre changes.

11 Annual depreciation =(Initial value - 10"10) 1 tractor age

21 Total depreciation = Annual depreciation X tractor age

'J! Present value =Initial value - Total depreciation

10

medium and high power tractors, respectively. The average fuel consumption was 1.3 LIh for 2-wheel tractors, 2.2 Llha for medium, and 4.6 Llha for high power tractors. Motor oil cost accounted for about 10% of the va­riable cost of 2-wheel tractors and 7% of the variable cost of 4-wheel tractors.

Oil was changed after 66 hours of operation for 2-wheel tractors and 125 hours of opera­tion for 4-wheel tractors. Cost of maintenance of 2-wheel tractors was relatively high, accou­nting for about 37% of the total variable costs, compared to 17% for 4-wheel tractors.

The annual cost of major repairs was estima­ted at C£5 for 2-wheel tractors, C£25 for me­dium and C£32 for high power tractors: Repa­ir costs were estimated by spreading the actual major repair costs over the time period between repairs. Considering that only 40% to 50% of the tractors required major repairs, repair costs for the actually repaired tractors were higher. The average annual cost of ma­jor repairs for those tractors requiring it are included in parenthesis in Table 20.

Average annual tyre change cost was negligi­ble for 2-wheel tractors, and accounted for about 10% of the variable cost of 4-wheel tractors. Tyres were changed on only 20% of the small tractors and on 66% of the large tractors. The annual cost for an actual tyre change was C£4 for 2-wheel, C£23 for me­dium and C£60 for high power 4-wheel tractors. Interest on variable costs included 9% of all variable expenses incurred during the year over 6 months, i.e. 4.5% on total va­riable expenses. The cost of operation was

. C£0.35/h for 2-wheel tractors, C£O.51th for medium and C£0.82th for high power tractors.

Fixed costs

Fixed costs included depreciation, interest on fixed capital, insurance and cost of own labor used for maintenance (Table 21). Annual dep­reciation was the most important fixed cost item, accounting for about 60 to 70% of the fixed costs. Interest on faxed capital was cal­culated as a 9% interest on the midyear value of the tractor and accounted for 20 to 25%

of total fixed costs. Insurance was the actually paid premium for coverage, which was relati­vely low, because not all tractors were cove­red in each group. Own labour cost included the imputed wages for labour provided by the' farmer for maintenance of the tractor.

Table 21. Tractor costs per year

Tractor power (kW)

6-11 12-40 4HO

Number of observations 68 68

Variable costs (C£)

Fuel (C£O.101l) 19.8 71.2 241.0

Oil (Cto.75JL) 5.6 12.2 30.2

Repairs 5.1 25.0 32.5

Tyres 0.7 15.3 40.6

Maintenance 20.1 27.9 70.1

Interest on variable expenses 2.3 6.8 18.6

TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS (CE) 53.6 158.4 433.0

Fixed costs (CE)

Annual depreciation 45.0 162.2 400.9

Interest on fixed capital 11 20.7 47.8 176.2

Insurance 0.3 5.5 7.9

Own labour for maintenance (C£1.0Ih) 9.8 16.5 40.9

TOTAL FIXED COSTS (C£) 75.8 232.0 625.9

TOTAL COST (CE) 129.4 390.4 1058.9

Time of operation (hlyear) 152.4 311.3 526.0

Variable cost per h of operation (C£) 0.35 0.51 0.82

Total cost per h of operation (CE) 0.85 1.25 2.01

jJ Interest on fixed capital =Present value - 1/2 annual depreciation X 9%

11

•

Combined fixed and variable costs

The total annual combined fixed and variable costs Were C£126 for 2-wheel tractors, C£382 for medium and C'1037 for high power 4­wheel tractors. The combined hourly cost of operation was C·O.83, C·1.23 and C·1.97 for 2-wheel, medium and high power 4-wheel tractors, respectively (Table21).

REFERENCES

Department: of statistics and Research, 1985. C.n.... or Agrlcultur.. Ministry of Finance. Nicosia, Cyprus.

Pacey, D.A. 1982. Modeling of Tractor Fuel Use. Am.rlcan Socl.ty of Agricultural Engln••r.. St. Joseph, MI. USA.

Wu, Zhengping, W.L. Kielgaard and S.P.E. Persson. 1986.

Machine Width for TIme and Fuel Efficiency. Tran­.actlon. or ASAE. 29: 1508-1513.

·1

12

l

Issued by the Press and Information Office, Ministry to the President. Nicosia

Printed hy M. S Zevlaris & Sons Ltd.. Tel. 31IHIH. Strovolos - Nicosia

P. LO. 5/89 - 600

._­