Optimizing Field Machinery System
Energy Consumption
H. Erdal Ozkan, James C. Frisby
ASSOC. MEMBER
ASAE
ABSTRACT
N this study, the optimum power level and matching
I implements were determined in order to maximize the
overall energy efficiency of a specific multi-crop farm. A
70 kW tractor and matching implements produced the
highest overall energy efficiency. Increasing the power
level beyond 70 kW decreased the overall net food energy
return per unit of fuel energy input.
INTRODUCTION
Selecting the correct implement size for a given power
source is not a new concept. It has been investigated by
Link (1967), Chancellor (1968), Frisby and Bockhop
(1968), Hunt (1972), Burrows and Siemans (1974), Zoz
(1974), Hughes and Holtman (1976), Singh and Holtman
(1977), and Krutz et al. (1977). This study deals with the
same concept from a different perspective. The optimum
power level and matching implements are selected to
maximize the overall energy efficiency of a multi-crop
farm. The effects of power level changes on net energy
return and overall energy efficiency of the farm are also
examined.
PROCEDURE
Energy efficiency is the ratio of energy output per unit
of energy input. It is probably the most straightforward
criterion for evaluating production systems from the
energy point of view. By calculating energy efficiencies,
one can easily compare the utilization of energy to produce
various crops. However, energy efficiency alone can be
misleading. A system with low energy efficiency may be
more desirable than one with higher energy efficiency if
the second system requires large quantities of a scarce
resource. Nalewaja (1975) indicated that we cannot de-
pend on hand tillage for weed control although it returned
the highest energy efficiency among several chemical and
mechanical methods. Scarcity of hand labor eliminated
this very energy efficient method from the list of alter-
natives. In order to eliminate undesirable results (such as
decreased yield), the entire production system must be
analyzed to improve the net energy return.
The mathematical model developed by Ozkan (1979)
deals with the efficient allocation of limited resources for
production of corn, soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa to op-
timize energy consumption. The model is a typical linear
Article was submitted for publication in February 1980; reviewed
and approved for publication by the Power and Machinery Division of
ASAE in May 1980.
Contribution from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station.
Journal Series No. 8460. Approved 1-10-80.
The authors are: H. ERDAL OZKAN, Assistant Professor,
Agricultural Engineering Dept., Iowa State University, Ames; JAMES
C. FRISBY, Professor, Agricultural Engineering Dept., University of
Missouri, Columbia.
296 © 1981 American Society of Agricultural Engineers 0001-2351/81/2402-0296S02.00
SENIOR MEMBER
ASAE
programming model. An MPS/360 package computer
program (IBM, 1971; and Sowell et al., 1975), was used
on an IBM/370 computer. Additional programs were
developed to generate necessary input data to modify
MPS/360.
The objective function used in the model was in the
following form:
802
Z = 2 CiXi , i =1 802
i=l
where:
X, = The area allocated to the ith crop in hectares
c, = The net energy return of the ith crop in kilocalor-
ies per hectare
The model selected crops so that the total net energy
return of the farm (Z) would be maximum. Production
resources in this model include available machinery,
fuel, fertilizer, total and irrigated land, labor, time for
field operations, and working capital. The model in-
cludes a total of 48 constraints. Each constraint is con-
cerned with utilization of one of the production resources
and expressed by a linear equation. A general flow
diagram of the model is shown in Fig. 1.
In addition to energy information, the model also in-
cludes information concerning fixed and operating costs
and farm net income. Cost analysis was not emphasized
although the model does have this capability.
The model was also used to perform a sensitivity
analysis to test the effect of selected parameters on the
model's performance (Ozkan and Frisby, 1980).
The constraints related to time of field operation
werelargely responsible for determining the optimum
size of machines. Fig. 2 illustrates the selected optimum
starting and ending dates of field operations for Central
Missouri and the probable number of good working days
in each week throughout the period March 22 to July 13.
In order to investigate the effect of timeliness of field
operations on net energy return, the crop production
season was partitioned into small periods. The opera-
tions that should be performed during each period are
shown in Fig. 2. A 10-h workday was assumed for all
operations except harvesting which was limited to eight
hours. For example, in Fig. 2, Period 8 starts on June 28,
ends on July 4, and contains 5.1 good working days. For
cultivation of corn, 51 h would be available. For
harvesting wheat or alfalfa, only 41 h would be available.
Net energy return from production of the selected
crops depends directly on utilizing scarce resources. Any
reduction in resources may lower crop yield and, in turn,
decrease net energy return. In some cases, there is a
point beyond which addition of a scarce resource is not
justified. In order to isolate the influence of addition or
reduction of resources on the optimum solution, corn,
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE-1981
 (START) MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY 1
22 29 5 12 19 26 3 IO 17 24- 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 UJ
NUMBER OF GOOD DAYS 2.0 | 2.1 | 3.4 3.8] 4.2 4.6 1 4.8 4.7 4.81 4.51 4.7 | 4.7 | 5.0 [ 5.21 5.1 5.5 | 5 3
1 TIME AVAILABLE (HR» —» 75 T 80 T 92 47 48 < 139 102 J 51 ' 108
DEFINE THE INTIAL CONDITIONS OF THE FARM
COLLECT AND GENERATE DATA
CORN PLOW DISK PLANT j CULTIVATE

[DETERMINE THE SIZE OF EQUIPMENT I

1 ... . !
| PERIOD •» 1 2 : 3 : 4 5 ! 6 ! 7 | 8 9 ]

l | i 1 1
| DETERMINE NET INCOME PER HECTARE FOR CROP? 1 j 1
SOYBEANS PLOW I DISK PLANT CULTIVATE
1

DETERMINE ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN : *

!
i
:
i
1 ! J
A. FIELD OPERATIONS t i r i
B. PROO. a APPL. OF FERTILIZERS i
C. PROO. ft APPL. OF PESTICIDES WHEAT 1
HARVEST
0. IRRIGATION
E. TRANSPORTATION 1 ' 1
F. ORYINO
38 III 41 36 |
ALFALFA CUT | BALE CUT BALE
DETERMINE THE COEFFICIENT OF VARIABLES
TO BE TRANSFERRED TO M P S / 3 6 0 PACK. PROG.

OBTAIN RESULTS:
A. CROPS SELECTED FOR PRODUCTION
B. NET ENERGY RETURN OF THE FARM
C. RESOURCES DEPLETED
FIG. 2 Boundary dates for field operations and available time for each
operation.
and irrigation. The whole process of partitioning in-
creased the number of variables in the model from 4 to
802.

APPLICATION OF THE MODEL AND RESULTS

To investigate the influence of large tractors on net
energy output, a synthetic farm was developed using data
from previous studies. Only 150 ha of the total cropland
(350 ha) was irrigated—using sprinkler irrigation. Pum-
(START)

JT DATA :
UNIT DRAFT, FIELD EFFICIENCY, \

\ AVAILABLE POWER (PTO), TRACTIVE \

ANO TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT ( T T C ) \
\ POWER NECESSARY PER UNIT W I O T H ]

FIG. 1 General description of model's operation.

soybeans, wheat, and alfalfa were partitioned into sub-

categories.
Variables associated with unirrigated and irrigated
corn were further subdivided based on time of field
operations and application levels of nitrogen fertilizers.
The field work periods for the various operations needed
for corn were: two plowing periods (1 and 16), four
cultivation periods (5, 6, 7, and 8), and four harvesting
periods (12, 13, 14, and 15). There were eight applica-
tion levels of nitrogen fertilizers for unirrigated corn (0,
25, 50, 75, . . . , 176 kg/ha), and ten for irrigated corn |COMPUTE TOTAL DRAFT ON PLOW|
(0, 25, 50, 75, . . . , 200 kg/ha). The result of this parti-
tioning was 546 new variables all associated with corn.
Variables representing irrigated and unirrigated soy- REDUCE PLOW
beans were subdivided depending on whether or not they SIZE TO NEXT
SMALLER SIZE
AVAILABLE
were treated with fertilizers. As explained for corn (and
COMPUTE FUEL
indicated in Fig.2), variables associated with soybeans CONV. FACTOR (FCF)
FCF • 0.32 (ALOAO) 0 4 W
were further subdivided based on four plowing periods,
two disking periods, three cultivating periods and two COMPUTE FUEL CONV. FACTOR (FCF)
F C F ' 1.13 ( A L O A D ) 0 1 "
harvesting periods. This partitioning resulted in 192 in-
dependent variables. COMPUTE FUEL CONSUMPTION
PER HOUR (FUELCO)
FUELCO»PTQ POWER / FCF
Variables representing wheat were subdivided based
on combinations of the following conditions: three plow- COMPUTE FUEL CONSUMPTION
PER HECTARE ( F P H A )
ing periods, two harvesting periods and five different FPHA » FUELCO / AFC

levels of nitrogen application (0, 28, 56, 84, and 112 COMPUTE ENERGY CONSUMPTION
kg/ha). This partitioning produced 30 variables PER HECTARE ( E N C O )
ENCO" 9 3 2 0 ( F P H A )

associated with wheat.

(CONTINUE)
The last four variables represent alfalfa with various
conditions involving application of fertilizer, pesticides FIG. 3 Strategy to determine plow size and fuel consumed to plow.

1981—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 297


FIG. 4 Diesel fuel conversion factors for vary-
ing load.
ping depth of underground water was 20 m. The irriga-
tion pump was powered by a diesel engine, and liquified
petroleum gas was used to dry corn. Detailed informa-
tion about the initial conditions of the farm and methods
used to calculate the energy input for various resources
and activities are given by Ozkan (1979).
During the first run, one part of the model selected
machines compatible with the initial power level, 50 kW.
Only machines powered by the tractor were selected by
the model. Fig. 3 indicates the steps required in the
selection process for a moldboard plow. It was assumed
that the maximum plow width could not exceed 3.66 m
(8-45.7 cm plow) and that the plow could have widths of
0.81, 1.22, 1.62, 2.03, 2.44, 2.83, or 3.25 m correspond-
ing to 2-40.6, 3-40.6, 4-40.6, 5-40.6, 6-40.6, 7-40.6,
8-40.6, and 8-45.7 cm plows, respectively. If the
generated width fell between two sizes, the smaller was
chosen. If the previously specified tractor could not pull
the plow because of draft requirement, the power level
was automatically increased and a new plow width deter-
mined.
After determining effective field capacity, total draft,
drawbar power, and PTO (power-take-off) power,
another test was made to evaluate tractor loading in
terms of maximum PTO power. If the load exceeded 85
percent of maximum PTO power, the plow size was
reduced to the next smaller size to avoid overloading the
tractor, and new values for effective field capacity and
total draft were determined. Next, energy consumed for
plowing was calculated. After computing percent
loading, the fuel conversion factor (kW-h/L) required to
calculate diesel fuel consumption was taken from tables
prepared by Hunt (1977) and Kepner et al. (1978). In
these tables, fuel conversion factor (FCF) values are
given for 20, 30, 60, 80, and 100 percent of maximum
available PTO power. To avoid interpolation for in-
termediate values, two equations were developed. Curves
representing FCF values given by Hunt (1977) and
Kepner et al. (1978), and an average of the two, are given
in Fig. 4. When the average FCF values were graphed on
logarithmic graph paper, they accumulated along two
straight lines as shown in Fig. 5. Equations representing
these two lines were used to determine diesel fuel con-
sumption for field equipment. The first equation, FCF
= 0.32 (Percent Loading) ° 488 , is used for loading of 60
298
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K> 20 30 40 30 6O70809OI0O
LOADING, PERCENT OF MAXIMUM PTO POWER (X)
FIG. 5 Basis for equations used in model to calculate fuel consump-
tion.
percent or less. The second equation, FCF = 1 . 1 3 (Per-
cent Loading) ° 181 , is used when loading exceeds 60 per-
cent of the maximum available PTO power.
The process for determining the optimum implement
width and fuel consumption was repeated for other
tillage implements. Table 1 contains information con-
cerning the optimum width, effective field capacity, and
fuel and energy consumption to operate the equipment
selected by the model for the initial 50 kW power level.
The next step is to determine the power level at which
the farm will carry the highest "overall energy
efficiency." In this study, the overall energy efficiency is
defined as the ratio of the total food energy output of the
farm in terms of kilocalories to total fuel energy input for
production of selected crops. For the 50 kW tractor in-
itially selected, the overall energy efficiency of the
representative farm was 5.51. When the power level was
increased to 60 kW in the second run and no other
changes were made, the model indicated net energy
return and overall efficiency slightly lower than those of
the first run (Table 2). In the first run, time available for
plowing was depleted. This was one of the factors
preventing further improvements that might increase the
net energy return of the farm. Although tractor power
was increased to 60 kW in the second run, it was not suf-
ficient to warrant increasing the plow size. The increase
in power level was sufficient to increase only the disk
size. However, since time available for disking was not
depleted in the first run, the increase in disk size did not
have a significant effect on the new output of the second
run generated by the model. Increasing power level to 60
kW increased diesel fuel consumption in tillage opera-
tions for corn and soybeans from 38.5 to 40 L/ha. Fuel
consumption for planting wheat increased by 0.64 L/ha
from 6.88 to 7.52. This raised the total diesel fuel con-
sumption for field operations by 289 L (from 28,908 to
29,197). Overall energy efficiency dropped slightly from
5.51 to 5.49. The net energy return was reduced by about
34.5 million kcal. The drop in net energy return was
caused by the 36 million kcal decrease in gross energy
output—not an increase in total energy input. Interest-
ingly enough, the total energy input was down by 1.5
million kcal in spite of the increase in power level of the
tractor. The decrease in gross energy output was caused
primarily by the decrease in utilization of cropland from
285.66 ha to 283.76 ha. Apparently, so much of the
available operating capital was used for the tractor and
fuel that 1.9 hectare of cropland was not planted.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1981
 T A B L E 1. OPTIMUM SIZE O F M A C H I N E S A N D E N E R G Y C O N S U M E D IN R E L A T E D F I E L D O P E R A T I O N S .

S u m m a r y of t h e results.
Power level (kW): 5 0
Fuel Energy
consumption, consumption
Machines r e q u i r e d Width, m EFC, ha/h L/ha kcal/ha

Plow 1.22 0.59 28.26 263,347.56

Disk 6.63 3.18 5.11 47,632.54
Planter 12.19 3.84 2.30 21,431.85
Cultivator 12.19 4.08 2.78 25,929.94
Grain Drill 3.02 0.99 6.88 64,151.53
C o r n Harvester 3.66 0.95 14.95 139,333.94
Small Grain Harvester 3.66 1.24 10.28 95,809.56
Windrower 2.74 1.44 5.60 52,192.00
Baler 2.74 0.89 4.20 39,144.00

T o t a l purchase price of all t h e e q u i p m e n t ( $ ) : 96,514.69

Average fixed cost of owning machines ( $ ) : 17,372.64
Real estate taxes, insurance, interest ( $ / h a ) : 200.00
T o t a l cost of repair a n d m a i n t e n a n c e ( $ ) : 4,642.37
Repair a n d m a i n t e n a n c e cost per h e c t a r e ( $ / h a ) : 16.29

Corn Soybeans Alfalfa Wheat

Fuel cons, in field o p e r a t i o n s , L / h a 64.23 59.56 64.62 60.42

Energy cons, in field o p e r a t i o n s , k c a l / h a 598,575.75 555,051.37 602,094.94 563,080.31
Fuel c o n s u m p t i o n for irrigation, L / h a 70.32 53.72 83.09
Energy c o n s u m p . for irrigation, k c a l / h a 655,366.50 500,674.62 774,435.31
Irrigation energy cost, $/ha 14.06 10.74 16.62
Cost of herbicides, p r o d , a n d appl. $/ha 63.94 93.19 20.19
Fuel for applying herbicides, L / h a 0.93 0.93 0.93
Energy for p r o d u c t i o n a n d applic. of h e r b . , kcal/ha 81,454.87 81,454.87 32,954.88

Fuel for drying 1 kilogram of c o r n , liter 0.021

Energy for drying 1 kilogram of corn, kcal 129.86
Energy cost for drying 1 kilogram of c o r n , $ 0.00227

The results associated with using 50, 60, 70, 80, 90,
100, 110, 130, and 150 kW tractors are given in Table 2.
Net energy return increased from 6,455 X 106 kcal to
6,866 X 106 kcal when the power level was increased
from 50 kW to 70 kW. However, this increase did not
continue to other power levels. It decreased gradually
after each increment in power level beyond 70 kW.
Nevertheless, the net energy return from using a 150 kW
tractor was higher than when a 50 kW tractor was used.
Since the total cropland put into production decreased
Changes in energy input, energy input per hectare,
fuel consumption in field operations for the total
cropland and per hectare of cropland at different power
levels are indicated in Table 2. The effect of power level
on overall energy efficiency is illustrated in Fig. 7. By
looking at the relationship between the power level and
total energy input in Fig. 7, one should not conclude that
increasing power level always reduces the energy input.
TOTAL CULTIVATED CROPLAMO
NET ENERGY RETURN
NET ENERGY RETURN PER HECTARE

gradually after each increment in power level, energy

return per hectare of cropland should be a better com-
parison. The energy return per hectare kept increasing
after each power level increase beyond 70 kW, but only
slightly. The effect of increasing the power level (with all
other operating resources kept constant) on net energy
return, net energy return per hectare and total cropland
put in production is illustrated in Fig. 6. It is obvious
TRACTOR POWER LEVEL UV)
from this figure that the 70 kW tractor is the optimum FIG. 6 Effects of increasing tractor power
tractor for this farm under the given conditions. level on food energy output.

TABLE 2. EFFECTS OF VARIOUS TRACTOR POWER LEVELS ON FARM ENERGY INPUT AND OUTPUT.
Tractor power lev el (kW)
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 130 150
Net energy return, 6,445.0 6,410.0 6,866.0 6,840.0 6,825.0 6,809.0 6,709.0 6,757.0 6.725.0
10 6 kcal
Energy input, 10 6 kcal 1,429.0 1,427.0 1,414.0 1,412.0 1,409.0 1,406.0 1,405.0 1,402.0 1,396.0
Energy efficiency 5.509 5.489 5.850 5.842 5.843 5.842 5.831 5.820 5.816
Fuel consumption in 18,369.0 18,650.0 18,213.0 18,455.0 18,373.0 18,374.0 18,618.0 18,804.0 18,826.0
field operations, L
Area cultivated, ha 285.7 283.8 274.7 273.4 272.6 271.8 271.0 269.4 267.8
Energy return, 10 6 kcal/ha 22.56 22.59 25.00 25.02 25.04 25.05 25.06 25.08 25.11
Energy input, 10 6 kcal/ha 5.001 5.028 5.146 5.165 5.169 5.173 5.815 5.204 5.213
Fuel consumption, L/ha 64.29 65.72 66.30 67.50 67.40 67.60 68.70 69.80 70.30
Selected crops,
Unirrigated corn 81.8 80.0 142.7 123.4 122.6 121.8 121.0 119.4 117.8
Irrigated corn 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0
Soybeans 19.2 17.5 — — — — — —
Wheat 33.8 36.3 — — — — — — —
Alfalfa — — — — — — ~~

1981—TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 299


-ENERGY INPUT
- E N E R 6 * WIPUT PER HECTARE
- FUEL CONSUMPTION IN FIELD OP
- FUEL CONSUMPTION PER HECTARE
SO 60 70 «0 »0 IOO IK) 120 130
TRACTOR POWER LEVEL, U V )
FIG. 7 Effects of increasing tractor power
level on various aspects of energy input.
This negative relationship occurs because each time the
power level increased, more cropland was forced out of
the production due to insufficient operating capital.
Energy input and fuel consumption evaluated on the
basis of area however, shows the true relationship. In-
creasing the power level increased energy consumption.
For example, a 150 kW tractor consumed about 4 L
more diesel fuel per hectare than a 70 kW tractor. This is
approximately a six percent increase in fuel consump-
tion. However, the percent increase in net energy return
per hectare (less than 0.5) is much less than the percent
increase in fuel consumption.
Overall energy efficiency of the farm also showed
variation with changes in power level. This is illustrated
in Fig. 8. The farm reached the highest overall energy ef-
ficiency with the 70 kW tractor. Overall energy efficiency
decreased gradually beyond this power level following the
same pattern as net energy return.
The area allocated for each crop selected by the model
for the case farm is given in Table 2. The model in-
dicated that a combination of corn, soybeans, and wheat
production would yield maximum energy return when
the tractor available had power levels of 50 or 60 kW.
The model indicates a shift in production policy from a
combination of these crops to corn alone when the trac-
tor power level is equal to or greater than 70 kW. Ir-
rigated corn was given a high priority in the selection
process of crops because it had the highest net energy
return of all crops.
These results are valid only if none of the operating
resources are changed as tractor power level is increased.
If some of the operating resources, such as the operating
capital, were allowed to increase along with the power
level, a different set of results would be produced by the
model. This case is discussed in Ozkan and Frisby (1980)
in more detail.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this study, the optimum power level and matching
implements were determined in order to maximize the
overall energy efficiency of a multi-crop farm. Corn, soy-
beans, wheat, and alfalfa (with different production con-
ditions) were considered. The model which included 802
variables subjected to 48 operating constraints, was used
to determine the best selection of crops for different
power levels and equipment size. When a 50 or 60 kW
tractor was used, corn, soybeans, and wheat were
selected to maximize the net energy return of the farm.
For power levels of 70 kW to 150 kW, only corn was
selected for production.
A 70 kW tractor and matching equipment produced
the highest overall energy efficiency. Increasing power
level beyond 70 kW did not increase net energy return.
Moreover, overall energy efficiency decreased slightly.
300
3 82
3 78
3 74
5.70
366
364
> 3.601
140 ISO
g 5*6
U.
>- 3 4 8
r 5.40
532
328
SO 60 70 80 90 IOO 110
POWER LEVEL, (*V)
FIG. 8 Effects of various power levels on
overall energy efficiency.
Not much emphasis was given to cost analysis
although the model does have this capability and its out-
put includes information concerning fixed and operating
costs, and net income per hectare, for production of each
crop.
References
1 ASAE. 1979. Agricultural Machinery Management. ASAE
EP391, Agricultural Engineers Yearbook, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI
49085.
2 Burrows, W. C. and J. C. Siemans. 1974. Determination of op-
timum machinery for corn-soybean farms. TRANSACTIONS of the
ASAE 17(6):1130-1135.
3 Chancellor, W. C. 1968. Selecting optimum sized tractors for
developmental agricultural mechanization. TRANSACTIONS of the
ASAE 11(1):508-514.
4 Frisby, J. C. and C. W. Bockhop. 1968. Weather and economics
determine corn-production machinery systems. TRANSACTIONS of
the ASAE ll(l):61-64.
5 Hughes, H. A. and J. B . Holtman. 1976. Machinery comple-
ment selection based on time constraints. TRANSACTIONS of the
ASAE 19(5):812-814.
6 Hunt, D. R. 1972. Selecting and economic power level for the
big tractor. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 15(3):414-416.
7 Hunt, D. R. 1977. Farm Power and Machinery Management.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA.
8 IBM. 1971. Mathematical Programming System/360, Version
2, Linear and Separable Programming—User's Manual, No.
6H2O-0476-2.
9 Kepner, R. A., R. Bainer, and E. L. Barger. 1978. Principles of
Farm Machinery. AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, CT.
10 Krutz, G. W., R. F. Combs, and S. D. Parsons. 1977. Analyz-
ing equipment size and its effects on farming decisions. ASAE Paper
No. 77-1509, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
11 Link, D. A. 1967. Activity network techniques applied to a farm
machinery selection problem. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE
10(3):310-317.
12 Nalewaja, J. D. 1975. Herbicidal weed control uses energy effi-
ciently. Weeds Today (Fall, 1975):10-12.
13 Ozkan, H. E. 1979. Optimizing energy consumption of
machinery systems in crop production. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion. Agricultural Engineering Department, University of Missouri-
Columbia.
14 Ozkan, H. E. and J. C. Frisby. 1980. Determining the effects of
forced decreases of production resources on the net energy return.
ASAE Paper No. 80-1020, ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085.
15 Singh, D. and J. B. Holtman. 1977. An heuristic agricultural
field machinery selection algorithm. ASAE Paper No. 77-5018, ASAE,
St. Joseph, MI 49085.
16 Sowell, R. S., T. J. Corcoran, and W. A. Anderson. 1975.
Mathematical programming system (MPS/360)—concept and applica-
tions. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 18(3):591-595.
17 Zoz, F. M. 1974. Optimum width and speed for least cost
tillage. TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE 17(5):845-849.
TRANSACTIONS of the ASAE—1981