Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production: Its Main Causes, Effects and Management

*Songül Gürsoy*

## **Abstract**

In modern agriculture, most of the field operations from sowing to harvesting are done mechanically by using heavy agriculture machines. However, the loads from these heavy machines may induce stresses exceeding soil strength causing soil compaction. Nowadays, soil compaction is considered as a serious form of soil degradation, which may have serious economics and environmental consequences in world agriculture because of its effects on soil structure, plant growth and environmental events. Vehicle load, inflation pressure, number of passes, stress on the soil, and soil properties (e.g. soil water content, soil texture, soil strength, soil bulk density) play an important role on soil compaction. This chapter reviews the works related to soil compaction in agricultural areas. Also, it discusses the nature and causes of soil compaction, the effects of the compaction on soil properties, environment and plant growth, and the possible solutions suggested in the literature.

**Keywords:** soil compaction, soil degradation, soil properties, plant growth, controlled traffic

## **1. Introduction**

In recent years, soil compaction has been considered as one of the most destructive environmental issues because it affects soil water dynamics, erosion, soil nitrogen and carbon cycling, cultivation energy requirement and effectiveness, pesticide leaching, and crop growth [1]. For example, the European Union has identified soil compaction as one of the main threats to soil that may cause the degradation of soils [2].

In simple terms, soil compaction can be described as the increase of bulk density or decrease in porosity of soil due to externally or internally applied loads. In agricultural production, soil compaction is considered as a complex problem in which soil, crops, weather and machinery interactions have an important role and which may result in dramatic economic and environmental problems. Wheel traffic from the use of heavy machinery and inappropriate soil management can cause the compaction of soil, creating impermeable layers within the soil that restrict water and nutrient cycles. This situation can result in reduced crop growth, yield and quality as well as a decline in the physical, chemical and biological indicators of soil quality such as destroyed soil structure, increased surface water run-off, soil erosion,

greenhouse gas emissions, decreased hydraulic conductivity, reduced groundwater recharge and a loss of biodiversity [3, 4].

Mainly, there are two types of soil compaction defined as surface soil compaction and subsurface compaction. Surface soil compaction is also called as soil crusting. This type of soil compaction happens when the surface soil aggregates are broken down through the impact of falling raindrops, runoff, standing water during irrigation, or tillage. Therefore, it restricts water and air entry into soil by causing runoff and erosion of soil and impedes seedling emergence. The subsurface compaction can defined as tillage-induced compaction and wheel traffic-induced compaction depending on where it occurs. Tillage implements such as discs, moldboard plows and sweep type tools cause the tillage-induced compaction. This soil compaction type is mostly called as "hardpan," or "plow pan" and occurs in the layer of soil just below the depth of tillage when soils are cultivated repeatedly at the same depth. Wheel traffic-induced compaction lies beneath the tillage zone and is caused by axle weight load to the soil. This type of soil compaction is the most difficult to eliminate, so prevention is important [4–7].

Until today, many scientists [3, 4, 8–13] have discussed the potential causes of compaction, its main consequences, and strategies to prevent and reduce soil compaction. Also, many field and laboratory studies have been conducted to better understand the mechanics of soil compaction, the factors affecting it and its effects on soil properties and crop growth in many parts of the world. Nawaz et al. [13] reviewed the main causes of the soil compaction, and its effects on soil physical, chemical, biogeochemical processes and biodiversity properties at both macro- and microscales. The authors also discussed the existing models for the soil compaction and proposed new directions for modeling the effects of the compaction on the soil properties. They emphasized that soil productivity was very important for human survival but any form of soil degradation can reduce the soil fertility and ultimately, it lowers the soil productivity. Also, it was underlined in the paper that in spite of hundreds of articles appearing during the last 10 years on the soil compaction, there was an urgent need to apply multidisciplinary approach in the soil compaction studies, addressing diverse effects in different soil compartments. Soane and van Ouwerkerk [14] summarized the studies carried out the impacts of soil compaction on the environment, including its effects on soil water dynamics, erosion, soil nitrogen and carbon cycling, cultivation energy requirement and effectiveness, pesticide leaching, and crop growth. They reported that compactioninduced changes could lead to soil degradation, pollution of the atmosphere and of ground and surface waters, and might increase the mechanical resistance of the soil, resulting in an increase in soil cutting force, fuel consumption, working hours, and abrasion of agricultural instruments. Also, several researchers [15–18] reported that soil compaction negatively influenced the water dynamics, pesticide diffusion, soil erosion, carbon and nitrogen cycle, plant growth, and mechanical operations cost. Although overall effect of the soil compaction on environment, soil properties and the plant yield is mostly reported as negative, moderate compaction can sometimes result in yield increase by increasing the contact between the roots and soil particles which may lead to the rapid exchange of ions between the soil matrix and roots [13]. Batey and McKenzie [19] stated that the effects of soil compaction on crops and soil properties are very complex and should be well documented. Therefore, it is very important to understand what is the causes and harmful level of soil compaction, how soil compaction affects soil properties and plant growth, and to know how to avoid soil compaction as much as possible in agricultural production.

This chapter includes identification of compaction, the main causes of soil compaction in agricultural fields, its effects on soil properties, environment and plant growth, and strategies for preventing compaction in agricultural production.

## **2. Soil compaction and the main causes of soil compaction in agricultural fields**

Soil compaction is defined as the increase of bulk density or decrease in porosity of soil due to externally or internally applied loads. Soil compaction can be identified either in the field, the laboratory or via remote sensing. In field, soil compaction can be detected by observing or measuring the changes in soil structure, soil moisture and soil color, penetrometer resistance, permeability to air or water, waterlogging on the surface or in subsurface layers, and crop or root growth properties [20]. In Laboratory, soil bulk density, pore-size distribution, water permeability and the relative apparent gas diffusion coefficient is measured to determine the permeability of soils to air and water and therefore on the degree of compaction. Also, remote sensing techniques helps to recognize alterations of soil structure, root growth, water storage capacities and biological activity [21].

Soil compaction in agricultural fields is commonly known to be caused by several forces (natural and man-induced) such as raindrop or tillage equipment during soil cultivation, or trampling of livestock animal or from the heavy weight of field equipment such as mostly tractors, heavy cultivation machinery, harvesting equipment [3, 18]. In this case, we can say that high mechanical load, less crop diversification, intensive grazing, low organic matter and tillage at high moisture contents can lead to soil compaction. Shah et al. [12] summarized the main causes of soil compaction as shown in **Figure 1**. Similarly, Ziyaee and Roshan [22] conducted a survey to study the causes of soil compaction problems. They defined common causes of soil compaction as natural processes, earlier planting schedules, overgrazing and animal trampling which directly affect the penetration resistance, besides, increased machinery weight and intensity, and especially excessive tillage at high soil moisture content.

Raindrop is one of the natural causes of surface compaction, and it causes a soil crust (usually less than 1/2 inch thick at the soil surface) that may prevent seedling emergence. This soil crusts reduces water infiltration and increases surface runoff, and thereby sediment and nutrient losses [6, 23].

Using tillage implements at the same depth can cause serious tillage pans or hardpans just below the depth of tillage. This tillage pan, which is generally relatively thin (2,5 to 5 cm), can reduce yield potential by restricting root growth and nutrient uptake of plant in soil [24].

Trafficking by the tyres of heavy farm machines is known to be the major cause of soil compaction in agricultural fields. Soil compaction by wheels is characterized by a decrease in soil porosity localized in the zone beneath the wheel and rut formation at the soil surface [18]. The degree of soil compaction by farm machines depends on not only the characteristics of the agricultural machinery but also the soil properties such as soil moisture, soil type, texture, structure, and moisture [3, 8, 25]. Several researchers [26–28] showed that the compaction rate depended on the soil characteristics, and the weight, the pressure and the vibrations of the agricultural machinery. Different machines, or even the same machines with different tyres, differ in their loading and pressure on the soil [25, 26]. Nawaz et al. [13] reported that the soil compaction by a machine depended on the soil strength which is influenced by the organic matter, water content, soil structure, and texture, and machine properties expressed by axle load, number of tyres, tyre dimensions, tyre velocity, and soil-tyre interaction. Botta et al. [29] reported that tyre sizes and rut depth/tyre width ratio had significant effect on soil compaction. The researchers emphasized that the farmer should pay attention to the axle load, the tyre size and the soil water content at the traffic moment. Also, the size, the inflation and the shape of tire in addition of the tyre's load have significant effects on the ground pressure, indicating traffic-induced soil compaction [30, 31]. Håkansson and Reeder [32] found that the

#### **Figure 1.** *A summary of the main causes of soil compaction in agriculture fields [12].*

vehicles with high axle loads generally caused deep subsoil compaction when trafficked on soils with high moisture contents, and this deep subsoil compaction caused persistent and possibly permanent reductions in crop yields. Soil moisture and axle load causes soil compaction at various depth as shown in **Figure 2**. It is seen in **Figure 2** that high axle load could result in soil compaction to deeper depth. Also, at a given load and tire size, increasing soil moisture content causes much deeper compaction than dry [33]. Da Silva et al. [34] stated that high contact pressures applied to soil, which is described as the ratio of mass of each machine's axle and the contact area of the run, resulted in a greater degree of compaction, in addition to promoting other negative effects. The researchers underlined that it was possible to minimize the effects of soil compaction through the appropriate contact pressure of agricultural machines. They suggested that the use of new technologies and suitable management practices should develop and adopt to characterize machine size and solve the machine-soil problems, especially about the distribution of pressures caused by the wheels in the soil, thus avoiding the negative effects of compression. Similarly, Porterfield and Carpenter [35] stated that high-pressure tire-ground contact caused an increase in the density of the soil. so, the researchers recommended to keep contact pressure low to avoid compaction. The intensity of trafficking, also referred to as the number of passes of agricultural machinery on the soil throughout the life of the crop in addition to the wheel ground contact pressure and absolute wheel load, has a significate effect on the degree of compaction and the depth to which wheel pressure affects the soil [36]. Zhang et al. [37] stated that the increased frequency of passes associated with the small four-wheel tractors, which is smaller mass and lower ground pressure than the medium power tractor, potentially was more detrimental

*Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

**Figure 2.**

*(A) The effect of axle load on soil compaction depth, (B) The effect of soil moisture content on compaction depth [33].*

than those associated with the medium power tractor. Rusanov [38], who reported official standard values of maximum permissible normal stress at a depth of 0.5 m, observed traffic intensity mostly resulted in higher soil stress than the allowable stress in subsoil. Similarly, Botta et al. [39] observed that high traffic frequency (10 and 12 tractor passes in the same tracks) of a light tractor on typical Argiudol soil produced a significant increase in cone index and dry bulk density in the topsoil and subsoil levels. However, Hamza and Anderson [18] reported that the first pass of a wheel was known to cause a major portion of the total soil compaction and subsoil compaction may be induced by repeated traffic with low axle load and the effects can persist for a very long time. In summary, we can say that repeated passes of agricultural machinery at the same locations will increase soil compaction. Also, Shah et al. [12] emphasized that in intensive agriculture, high axle load of heavy tractors and field machines resulted in compacted soil layer, damaging the structure of tilled soil and subsoil and reducing crop and soil productivity. Keller et al. [40], who analyzed the effect of the increase in weight of agricultural vehicles on soil stress and soil bulk density, showed that the increase in machinery weight has resulted in an increase in subsoil compaction levels, and highlighted that future agricultural operations should consider the inherent mechanical limit of soil.

Soil properties (soil texture, soil aggregate properties, moisture content, organic matter content) and frequent use of chemical fertilizers has significant effect on soil compaction [8, 18]. It is mostly stated that the depth to which compressive forces are transmitted depends on the moisture content in soil profile. Batey [3] described the relationship between soil moisture content and compressibility as following: When the soil was dry and firm throughout the profile, there might be no significant compaction effect. However, when the surface layers were moist and soft lying over dry soil, the upper layers might be strongly compressed, and when the surface layers were dry and firm with moist soil below, the compression might be transmitted some way downwards to compress the moister vulnerable soil. Gysi et al. [41] determined that soil moisture content and wheel load significantly influenced the bulk density at a depth of 0.12–0.17 m. The researchers stated that a soil with very low moisture content was less vulnerable to compaction than a soil with high moisture content. The texture, organic matter content, aggregation stability and mineralogy of the soil also have a significant effect on compressibility of a soil by agricultural vehicles. Several researchers [13, 18] stated that soil texture was one of the most important factors in determining the susceptibility of a soil to compaction. Horn and Lebert [42] reported

that coarse-textured soils were less susceptible to compaction than those with a fine texture. Moreover, Horn et al. [15] found that the silt loam soils with low colloid contents were more susceptible than medium or fine textured loamy and clayey soils at low water contents while the sandy soils were slightly susceptible to the soil compaction. Soil aggregation and organic matter content are also the most influencing factors that makes soil resistance to compaction [13, 43]. Ellies Sch et al. [44] reported that soils with poor structure and aggregation were extremely vulnerable to the impacts of wheel traffic, while susceptibility to compaction could be reduced with an increase in soil aggregation. Also, soil organic matter is a very important soil property, which can determine the magnitude of soil compaction. The amount of organic matter in soil significantly influence the compressibility degree under axle load of vehicles [13]. Previous works [45–47] has shown that increasing organic matter in soil may reduce compatibility by increasing resistance to deformation and/or by increasing elasticity.

## **3. The effects of soil compaction on soil properties, environment and plant growth**

Soil compaction alters the soil structure and hydrology by changing many aspects of the soil such as strength, gas, water and heat, which affect chemical and biological balances. In turns, all these alterations in the soil influence root and shoot growth and consequently crop production and environmental quality **Table 1** [58]. presents a summary of studies related to the effects of soil compaction on soil, environment and plant growth. In most of these studies, the subsoil compaction negatively affected soil physical conditions, which substantially decreased crop yield. However, some studies [50, 56] showed that moderate compaction had no effect on crop yield or can increase yield. Also, Gürsoy and Türk [59] stated that moderate soil compaction in agriculture production was needed to get good seed/ root-soil contact, suitable soil density, timely emergence of seed, root growth and the ability of the plant to absorb the moisture and nutrients from soil.

In Global Land Outlook Working Paper expressed by [60], the consequences regarding the effects of soil compaction on soil properties, environment and crop plant's morphological and physiological growth have been presented as seen in **Figure 3**. Also, Horn et al. [15], who summarize the works carried out about effects of soil compaction on the structure of arable soils, stated that soil compaction caused by traffic of heavy vehicles and machinery resulted in soil structure deterioration, both in the topsoil and in the subsoil. They reported that owing to dynamic loading, soil physical properties such as pore size distribution and pore continuity were negatively affected, which entails decrease in air and water permeability and resulted in increased soil strength. The researchers emphasized that these changes in soil structure may have a negative effect on the soil biota, on physical–chemical equilibria and redox potential, on the soil's filtering and buffering capacity, on ground water recharge and, finally, on crop yield.

The major effect of soil compaction on soil properties is known as increase in soil bulk density and decrease in total porosity as soil aggregates are pressed closer together, resulting in a greater mass per unit volume and less space for air and water in the soil [15]. Changes in the soil pore system due to compaction can adversely affect key soil hydraulic properties and aeration such as saturated hydraulic conductivity and air movement in soil [58]. Ziyaee and Roshan [22] stated that pore space provided a room for air and water to circulate around the mineral particles, providing a healthy environment for plant roots and beneficial microorganisms, however, in compacted soils, the particles were pressed together so tightly that the space for air and water was greatly reduced. The researchers emphasized that lack of pore space resulted in


*Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

#### **Table 1.**

*Effects of soil compaction on soil, environment and plant growth.*

#### **Figure 3.**

*The consequences of soil compaction regarded with soil, environment and plant growth [60].*

the lack of oxygen, which is very important for plant growth, decomposing organic matter, recycling nutrients and aerating the soil. In addition to soil bulk density and porosity, penetration resistance significantly affects plant root growth and crop yield. The previous works [61–64] showed that plant root growth could be slowed down or completely impeded at penetration resistance values of 2 and 3 MPa, respectively. Also, the soil physical properties changed due to soil compaction can alter elements mobility, change nitrogen and carbon cycles and soil biodiversity [13].

Effects of soil compaction on plant growth are complex and depended on many factors. Mainly, it is known that high soil penetration resistance and low oxygen concentration in a compacted soil can reduce crop yield due to decreased root elongation rates and thus limited accessibility to water and nutrients [65]. Also, plants in compacted soils can also suffer from water stress due to reducing water infiltration and increasing runoff [15]. Keller et al. [40] discussed in detail how soil compaction changed soil properties, and how the soil properties changed by soil compaction affected plant growth and environment. They heighted that soil compaction was one of the main causes of the yield decrease observed for major crops in many European countries. In an experiment with barley, Willatt [61] observed that root length density in the upper 0.30 m of soil and rooting depth decreased as the number of tractor passes increased from zero to six. Ishaq et al. [66], who study subsoil compaction effects on root growth, nutrient uptake and chemical composition of wheat and sorghum, determined that root length density of wheat below 0.15 m depth was significantly reduced with increased soil bulk density. They recommended that appropriate measures such as periodic chiseling, controlled traffic, conservation tillage, and incorporating of crops with deep tap root system in rotation cycle should be applied to minimize the risks of subsoil compaction. de Moraes [56], who study the impact of soil compaction on soybean root growth, investigated three soil compaction levels (no-tillage system, areas trafficked by a tractor, and trafficked by a harvester) and soil chiseling management (performed in an area previously cultivated under no-tillage) on soil properties and plant root growth. The researchers observed that root growth was influenced by soil physical conditions during the cropping season and soybean grain yield was reduced due to both compaction (caused by harvester traffic) and excessive loosening (promoted by chiseling)

#### *Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

compared the no-tillage system. Obour and Ugarte [67] used a meta-analytical approach to summarize the results from 51 published articles on the impacts of soil compaction attributed to machinery axle load, wheel passes, compaction events and tire inflation pressure on soil bulk density, degree of compactness, penetration resistance, volume of water filled pores at field capacity, air permeability at field capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and grain yield of corn, wheat, barley and soybean. Results from this meta-analysis showed that compaction increased the soil mechanical strength affected by increased soil bulk density, degree of compactness, penetration resistance. Also, compaction decreased hydraulic conductivity characterized by air permeability and saturated hydraulic conductivity from the topsoil down to the subsoil (>40 cm depth), and grain yield of corn, wheat, barley, and soybean. The researchers suggested that soil hydraulic properties might be more sensitive indicators to reflect the impact of soil compaction on soil structure and pore system functions in the soil profile. Also, negative effects of soil compaction on plant root growth and crop yield have been recognized by several researchers [26, 38, 64].

Soil compaction can affect crop yield depending on soil texture and growing season precipitation. Voorhees [5], who presents relative barley grain yield as a function of the degree of compactness of a clay soil in Sweden, reported the effect of soil compaction on grain yield depending on climate change as fallowing: 1) During relatively dry climatic conditions, grain yields were increased by almost 40% with the initial increases in degree of compactness. However, when the degree of compactness approached 90, yields decreased significantly. 2) Similar results were obtained during a normal year but less pronounced. 3) During a wet year, yields decreased with any increase in degree of compactness above 75. The researcher stated that plants could tolerate (might even need) a more highly compacted soil during dry conditions than during wet conditions.

In summary, soil compaction can significantly change the physical, chemical and biological properties of soil depending on climate and initial soil properties such as soil texture, structure, moisture content, organic matter content. These changes in soil properties can have significant effect on the penetration of plant roots, their growth, soil–plant-water relations, the ability of plants to take up nutrients from soil and consciously crop yield. In another sense, the effect of the same compaction degree on plant root growth and yield depends on the crop grown, soil structure, and weather conditions. All literature data shows that the effects of soil compaction on root and plant growth have a complex interaction including many soil, climate and plant properties. This complex interaction requires complex hypotheses to explain the effects of soil, climate and plant properties on root and plant growth.

## **4. Strategies for avoiding and reducing soil compaction**

Many strategies have been used to avoid soil compaction in agricultural fields and to ameliorate compacted soil or alleviate its associated stresses. Strategies can be roughly divided into three groups: measurements to avoid further compaction, remedial treatments, and methods to alleviate soil compaction [33, 68].

The best way to manage soil compaction is to prevent it from happening. This includes reducing axle load, proper inflation and size of tires, minimizing soil tillage, increasing stability of soil structure and conducting field operations at appropriate soil moisture content [6]. The capacity of the soil to resist stress (i.e. the strength against compression) and loading of machine is considered to be the major factors affecting the soil compaction by farm machineries [11]. The soil strength against compression is influenced by the organic matter, water content, soil structure, and texture. Therefore, improving soil structural stability and

aggregate can reduce the risk of soil compaction [13]. Soil structural stability and aggregate can improved by increasing soil organic matter content and reducing stress on the soil due to machinery traffic. This can be achieved by using conservation tillage systems [11]. Similarly, several researchers reported that long-term use of conservation tillage systems resulted in lower soil compaction threat because it increased surface organic matter contents, more stable soil structure, and increased hydraulic conductivity due to worm holes and stable biochannels [63, 69]. Loading of machine on soil is expressed by axle load, number of tyres, tyre dimensions, tyre velocity, and soil tyre interaction [13]. The axles load and the contact pressure of tires is known to be the most important parameters affecting soil compaction. A high wheel load may lead to compaction of soil in both the top and deep sublayers, whereas low axle loads will cause compaction in the topsoil and the upper part of the subsoil only. An axle loads or wheel loads describe the weight distribution of machines, depending on the degree of the loading of tank or weight transfer during plowing. Therefore, the weight distribution may vary markedly between wheels on the same axle. In their literature review, Alakkuku et al. [11] recommended single axle load of 4–6 Mg for moist mineral soils to avoid soil compaction below normal primary tillage depth (0.2–0.3 m) and a limit of 8–10 Mg for tandem axle loads on moist soils. The researchers stated that to reduce axle loads, machine weight may be reduced by using new, lighter materials or multiple axles can be used to spread the load. Also, they reported that wheel load should be linked with soil contact pressure recommendations because the wheel load alone does not give any information about the stress level transferred to the soil and the corresponding stress distribution in the soil. Contact area between the wheel and soil and the basic dimensions of wheel such as width and length has significant effect on soil contact pressure of wheel [11]. Also, ten Damme et al. [70] stated that the stress distribution in the contact area between the tyre and the soil is of primary importance for the propagation of stress in the soil. The researchers indicated that tyre design might further help reduce the risk of soil compaction at a specific load if it allows for further reductions of the tyre inflation pressure. This literature findings shows that soil compaction can be avoided by adjusting tire size and tire inflation pressure, or using rubber-belt tracks [11, 71]. Alakkuku et al. [11] stated that low tyre inflation pressure usually provided low ground contact pressure and allowed even pressure distribution, which are advantageous to both soil compaction caused by wheel traffic and to wheel tractive efficiency.

According to our review conclusion, we can say that the wheel load and the soil contact pressure is the major engineering tools for the control of subsoil compaction and to avoid permanent subsoil compaction, the machines and equipment used on the critical field conditions should not be cause higher stress than the bearing capacity (strength) of soils. Also, the compaction risk in given vehicle–soil interactions might be quantitatively estimated by using pre-consolidation stress as an indicator of the bearing capacity of a soil. Alakkuku et al. [11], who reviewed technical choices to minimize the risk of subsoil compaction, presented a framework of machinery–soil system in connection with subsoil compaction as shown in **Figure 4**. The researchers stated that to prevent subsoil compaction, recommendations for wheel load–ground contact pressure combinations should be made available for different soil conditions. Chamen et al. [69], who discussed the machinery usage during field practices to avoid subsoil compaction, stated that the bearing capacity of soils would be improved by increasing their structural stability, such as may be achieved with reduced or no tillage systems. The researchers summarized the preventative strategies suggested for the avoidance of subsoil compaction as follows: (1) no repeated soil loosening as a routine cultivation technique, (2) increased *Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

**Figure 4.**

*A framework of machinery–soil system in connection with subsoil compaction [11].*

soil stability and reduced soil stress, (3) the selection of machines and field practices with a low risk potential, (4) the assimilation of new, low risk technologies. Also, Kumar et al. [72] stated that the management of soil compaction might be achieved through suitable application of some or all of the following techniques: (1) decreasing the pressure on soil either by reducing axle load or increasing the contact area of wheels, (2) conducting field operations at optimal soil moisture content, (3) decreasing the number of passes of farm machinery and the intensity, (4) restraining traffic to certain areas of the field or controlled traffic, (5) improving soil organic matter through retaining of crop and pasture residues, (6) eliminating soil compaction by deep ripping in the presence of an aggregating agent, (7) including the plants with deep, strong taproots in crop rotations.

In this case, we can suggest the following solutions to prevent and alleviate soil compaction and its detrimental effects:


## **5. Conclusions**

In recent years, the structural and technological development of modern agriculture caused a significant increase in the power, size and the weight of vehicles and machinery used on agricultural fields. This dramatic increase in the weight of agricultural machinery and the necessity to use heavy machines in unfavorable soil conditions have caused a significant increase in the subsoil compaction, which is considered as a serious form of soil degradation and may have serious economics and environmental consequences in world agriculture. The main results of our literature evaluation showed that severe soil compaction might result in a decreased root growth and plant development, and consequently, a reduction in crop yield because it adversely affect key soil hydraulic and aeration properties such as saturated hydraulic conductivity and air movement in soil. Soil compaction is also an environmental problem because it is one of the causes of erosion and flooding. In addition, it directly or indirectly increases nutrient and pesticide leaching to the groundwater and nitrous oxide emissions to the atmosphere. Therefore, prevention of soil compaction and alleviation of existing compaction is one of the most important issues in agricultural production in order to sustain or improve soil fertility and productivity.

*Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

## **Author details**

Songül Gürsoy Department of Agricultural Machinery and Technology Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Dicle University, Sur, Diyarbakir, Turkey

\*Address all correspondence to: songulgursoy@hotmail.com

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

## **References**

[1] O'Sullivana MF, Simota C. Modelling the environmental impacts of soil compaction: A review. Soil and Tillage Research. 1995;35:69-84

[2] COM (Commission of the European Communities). Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Towards a Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection [Internet]. 2002. Available from: https://eur-lex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?u ri=COM:2002:0179:FIN:EN:PDF [Accessed: 1921-05-09]

[3] Batey T. Soil compaction and soil management – a review. Soil Use and Management. 2009;25:335-345.

[4] Raghavan GSV, Alvo P, McKyes E. Soil Compaction in Agriculture: A View Toward Managing the Problem. In: Lal R, Stewart BA, editors. Advances in Soil Science. Advances in Soil Science. New York: Springer; 1990. P.1-32.

[5] Voorhees WB. The Effect of soil compaction on crop yield. SAE Transactions, 1986;95(3):1078-1084.

[6] Idowu J, Angadi S. Understanding and Managing Soil Compaction in Agricultural Fields [Internet]. 2013. Available from: https://aces.nmsu.edu/ pubs/\_circulars/CR672.pdf [Accessed: 2021-05-09]

[7] Light S. Strategies to Avoid and Manage Soil Compaction [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://ucanr.edu/ blogs/blogcore/postdetail. cfm?postnum=27421 [Accessed: 2021-05-09]

[8] Bennie ATP, Krynauw GN. Causes, adverse effects and control of soil compaction. South African Journal of Plant and Soil. 1985;2:109-114.

[9] Petelakau H, Dannowski M. Effect of repeated vehicle traffic in traffic lanes on soil physical properties, nutrient uptake and yield oats. Soil and Tillage Research. 1990;15:217-225.

[10] Soane BD, Van Ouwerkerk C. Soil compaction problems in world agriculture. In: Soane BD, van Ouwerkerk C, editors. Soil Compaction in Crop Production. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994. p. 1-26.

[11] Alakkuku L, Weisskopf P, Chamen WCT, Tijink FGJ, Van der Linden JP, Pires S, Sommer C, Spoor G. Prevention strategies for field trafficinduced subsoil compaction: A review. Part 1. Machine/soil interactions. Soil and Tillage Research. 2003;73:145-160.

[12] Shah AN, Tanveer M, Shahzad B,Yang G, Fahad S, Ali S, Bukhari MA, Tung SA, Hafeez A, Souliyanonh B. Soil compaction effects on soil health and crop productivity: an overview. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2017;24: 10056-10067.

[13] Nawaz MF, Bourrié G, Trolard F. Soil compaction impact and modelling. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2013;33:291-309.

[14] Soane BD, van Ouwerkerk C. The global problem of soil compaction in crop production and its implications for the quality of the environment. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Protection of the Soil Environment by Avoidance of Compaction and Proper Soil Tillage; 23-27 August 1993; Melitopol. Ukraine: Vol. 2; 1993. p. 3-8.

[15] Horn R, Doma H, Sowiska-Jurkiewicz A, Van Ouwerkerk C. Soil compaction processes and their effects on the structure of arable soils and the

*Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

environment. Soil and Tillage Research. 1995;35:23-36.

[16] Ishaq M, Hassan A, Saeed M, Ibrahim M, Lal R. Subsoil compaction effects on crops in Punjab. Pakistan I. Soil physical properties and crop yield. Soil and Tillage Research. 2001;59: 57-65.

[17] Saqib M, Akhtar J, Qureshi R. Pot study on wheat growth in saline and waterlogged compacted soil I. Grain yield and yield components. Soil and Tillage Research. 2004;77:169-177.

[18] Hamza M, Anderson W. Soil compaction in cropping systems A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil and Tillage Research. 2005;82:121-145.

[19] Batey T, McKenzie DC. Letter to the editor 'Deep subsoil compaction'. Soil Use and Management, 1999;15:136.

[20] Batey T, McKenzie DC. Soil compaction: identification directly in the field. Soil Use and Management. 2006;22(4):414-414.

[21] Tekin Y, Kul B, Okursoy R. Sensing and 3D Mapping of Soil Compaction. Sensors (Basel). 2008;8(5):3447-3459.

[22] Ziyaee A, Roshan MRA. Survey study on soil compaction problems for new methods in agriculture. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. 2012;3(9): 1787-1801.

[23] Bilbro JD, Wanjura DF. Soil crusts and cotton emergence relationships. Transactions of the ASAE. 1982;25(6):1484-1487.

[24] Raper RL, Schwab EB, Dabney SM. Measurements and variation of sitespecific hardpans for silty upland soils in the Southeastern United States. Soil and Tillage Research. 2005;84:7-17.

[25] Biriș SȘt, Ungureanu N, Cujbescu D. Modelling of soil compaction under heavy duty tractors. INMATEH – Agricultural Engineering. 2019;57(1): 261-270.

[26] Silva S, Barros N, Costa L, Leite F. Soil compaction and eucalyptus growth in response to forwarder traffic intensity and load. The Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo. 2008;32:921-932.

[27] Sakai H, Nordfjell T, Suadicani K, Talbot B, Bøllehuus E. Soil compaction on forest soils from different kinds of tires and tracks and possibility of accurate estimate. Croatian Journal of Forest Engineering. 2008;29:15-27.

[28] Jimenez KJ, Rolim MM, Gomes IF, de Lima RP, Berrío LLA, Ortiz PFS. Numerical analysis applied to the study of soil stress and compaction due to mechanised sugarcane harvest. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021;206:104847.

[29] Botta GF, Becerra T, Tourn B. Effect of the number of tractor passes on soil rut depth and compaction in two tillage regimes. Soil and Tillage Research. 2009;103:381-386.

[30] Smith H, Dickson L. The contributions of vehicle weight and ground pressure to soil compaction. Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 1992;46:13-29.

[31] Raper L, Bailey A, Burt E, Way T, Liberati P. Inflation pressure and dynamic load effects on soil deformation and soil tyre interface stress. Transactions of ASAE. 1994;38(3):685-689.

[32] Håkansson I, Reeder RC. Subsoil compaction by vehicles with high axle load—extent, persistence and crop response. Soil and Tillage Research. 1994;29(2-3 ):277-304

[33] DeJong-Hughes J, Moncrief JF. Voorhees WB, Swan JB. Soil

Compaction: Causes, Effects and Control [Internet]. 2001. Available from: https://conservancy.umn.edu/ handle/11299/55483 [Accessed: 2021-05-08]

[34] Da Silva RB, Iori Pi, de Souza ZM, Pereira DMG, Filho OJV, de Melo Silva FA. Contact pressures and the impact of farm equipment on Latosol with the presence and absence of sugarcane straw. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 2016;40(3):265-278.

[35] Porterfield JW, Carpenter TG. Soil compaction: an index of potential compaction for agricultural tires. Transactions of ASAE. 1986;29: 917-922.

[36] Chehaibi S, Khelifi M, Boujelban A, Abrougui K. Effects of tire inflation pressure and field traffic on compaction of a sandy clay soil as measured by cone index and permeability. Canadian Biosystems Engineering. 2012;54: 2.9-2.15.

[37] Zhang XY, Cruse RM, Sui YY, Jhao Z. Soil compaction ınduced by small tractor traffic in Northeast China. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 2006;70:613-619.

[38] Rusanov VA. USSR standards for agricultural mobile machinery: permissible influences on soils and methods to estimate contact pressure and stress at a depth of 0.5 m. Soil and Tillage Research. 1994;29:249-252.

[39] Botta G, Jorajuria D, Rosatto H. Light tractor frequency on soil compaction in the rolling Pampa region of Argentina. Soil and Tillage Research. 2006;86:14-19.

[40] Keller T, Sandin M, Colombi T, Horn R, Or D. Historical increase in agricultural machinery weights enhanced soil stress levels and adversely affected soil functioning. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019;194:104293

[41] Gysi M, Ott A, Flühler H. Influence of single passes with high wheel load on a structured, unploughed sandy loam soil. Soil and Tillage Research. 1999;52:141-151.

[42] Horn R, Lebert M. Soil compactability and compressibility. In: Soane BD, van Ouwerkerk C, editors. Soil Compaction in Crop Production. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994. p. 45-69.

[43] Baumgartl Th, Horn R. Effect of aggregate stability on soil compaction. Soil and Tillage Research. 1991;19:203-213

[44] Ellies Sch A, Smith RR, Jose Dorner FJ, Proschle TA. Effect of moisture and transit frequency on stress distribution on different soils. Agro Sur. 2000;28:60-68.

[45] Ekwue EI, Stone RJ. Organic matter effects on the strength properties of compacted agricultural soils. Transaction of the ASAE. 1995;38(2): 358-365.

[46] Barzegar AR, Assodar MA, Ansari M. Effectiveness of sugarcane residue incorporation at different water contents and the Proctor compaction loads in reducing soil compactilibility. Soil and Tillage Research. 2000;57:167-172.

[47] Mosaddeghi MR, Hajabbasi MA, Hemmat A, Afyuni M. Soil compactibility as affected by soil moisture content and farmyard manure in central Iran. Soil and Tillage Research. 2000. 55, 87-97.

[48] Balbuena R, MacDonagh P, Marquina J, Jorajuria D, Terminiello A, Claverie J. Wheel traffic influence on poplar regeneration and grass yield. Biosystems Engineering. 2002;81: 379-384.

[49] Hargreaves PR, Baker KL, Graceson A, Bonnett S, Ball BC, *Soil Compaction Due to Increased Machinery Intensity in Agricultural Production… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98564*

Cloy JM. Soil compaction effects on grassland silage yields and soil structure under different levels of compaction over three years. European Journal of Agronomy. 2019;109:125916.

[50] Sivarajan S, Maharlooei M, Bajwa SG, Nowatzki J. Impact of soil compaction due to wheel traffic on corn and soybean growth, development and yield. Soil and Tillage Research. 2018;175:234-243.

[51] Patel SK, Mani I, Sundaram PK. Effect of subsoil compaction on rooting behavior and yields of wheat. Journal of Terramechanics. 2020;92:43-50.

[52] Pulido-Moncada M, Munkholm LJ, Schjønning P. Wheel load, repeated wheeling, and traction effects on subsoil compaction in northern Europe. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019;186: 300-309.

[53] Arvidsson J. Subsoil compaction caused by heavy sugarbeet harvesters in southern Sweden. I. Soil physical properties and crop yield in six field experiments. Soil and Tillage Research. 2001;60:67-78.

[54] Hassan FU, Ahmad M, Ahmad N, Kaleem Abbasi M. Effects of subsoil compaction on yield and yield attributes of wheat in the sub-humid region of Pakistan. Soil and Tillage Research. 2007;96(1-2):361-366.

[55] Abu-Hamdeh NH. Effect of compaction and deep tillage on soil hydraulic and aeration properties and wheat yield. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2003;34:2277-2290.

[56] de Moraes MT, Debiasi H , Franchini JC, Mastroberti AA, Levien R, Leitner D, Schnepf A. Soil compaction impacts soybean root growth in an Oxisol from subtropical Brazil. Soil and Tillage Research. 2020;200:104611.

[57] Botta GF, Tolón-Becerra A, Rivero D, Laureda D, Ramírez-Roman M, Lastra-Bravo X, Agnes D, Flores-Parra IM, Pelizzari F, Martiren V. Compactión produced by combine harvest traffic: Effect on soil and soybean (*Glycine max* l.) yields under direct sowing in Argentinean Pampas. European Journal of Agronomy. 2016;74:155-163.

[58] Lipiec J, Hatano R. Quantification of compaction effects on soil physical properties and crop growth. Geoderma. 2003;116:107-136.

[59] Gürsoy S, Türk Z. Effects of land rolling on soil properties and plant growth in chickpea production. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019:195;104425.

[60] United Nations. Threats to soils: global trends and perspectives. A Contribution from the Intergovern mental Technical Panel on Soils, Global Soil Partnership Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https:// knowledge.unccd.int/sites/default/ files/201806/17.%20Threats%2Bto% 2BSoils\_\_Pierzynski\_Brajendra.pdf [Accessed: 2021-05-08]

[61] Willatt ST. Root growth of winter barley in a soil compacted by the passage of tractors. Soil and Tillage Research. 1986;7:41-50.

[62] Dexter AR. Soil physical quality - Part I. Theory, effects of soil texture, density, and organic matter, and effects on root growth. Geoderma, 2004;120:201-214.

[63] Bengough AG, McKenzie BM, Hallett PD, Valentine TA. Root elongation, water stress, and mechanical impedance: a review of limiting stresses and beneficial root tip traits. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2011;62:59-68

[64] Schjønning P, Lamandé M, Munkholm LJ, Lyngvig HS, Nielsen JA.

#### *Technology in Agriculture*

Soil precompression stress, penetration resistance and crop yields in relation to differently-trafficked, temperate-region sandy loam soils. Soil and Tillage Research. 2016;163:298-308.

[65] Colombi T, Keller T. Developing strategies to recover crop productivity after soil compaction – a plant ecophysiological perspective. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019;191:156-161.

[66] Ishaq M, Ibrahim M, Hassan A, Saeed M, Lal R. Subsoil compaction effects on crops in Punjab, Pakistan: II. Root growth and nutrient uptake of wheat and sorghum. Soil and Tillage Research. 2001;60(3-4):153-161.

[67] Obour PB, Ugarte CM. A metaanalysis of the impact of traffic-induced compaction on soil physical properties and grain yield. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021;211:105019.

[68] Day SD, Bassuk NL. A revıew of the effects of soıl compactıon and amelıoratıon treatments on landscape trees. Journal of Arboriculture. 1994;20(1):9-17.

[69] Chamen WCT, Alakukku L, Pires S, Sommer C, Spoor G, Tijink F, Weisskopf P. Prevention strategies for field traffic-induced subsoil compaction. Part 2. Equipment and field practices. Soil and Tillage Research. 2003;73:161-174.

[70] ten Damme L, Stettler M, Pinet F, Vervaet P, Kellerd T, Munkholm LJ, Lamandé M. The contribution of tyre evolution to the reduction of soil compaction risks. Soil and Tillage Research. 2019;194:104283

[71] Van den Akker, JJH. SOCOMO: A soil compaction model to calculate soil stresses and the subsoil carrying capacity. Soil and Tillage Research. 2004;79(1):113-127.

[72] Kumar V, Butter TS, Samanta A, Singh G, Kumar M, Dhotra B, Yadav NK, Choudhary RS. Soil compaction and their management in farming systems: A review. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(3):2302-2313.

[73] Tullberg JN, Yule DF, McGarry D. Controlled traffic farming – from research to adoption in Australia. Soil and Tillage Research. 2007;97:272-281.

[74] Thomas GW, Haszler GR, Blevins RL. The effects of organic matter and tillage on maximum compactability of soils using the Proctor test. Soil Science. 1996;161:502- 508.

[75] Raper RL, Reeves DW, Burt EC. Using in-row subsoiling to minimize soil compaction caused by traffic. Journal of Cotton Science. 1998;2:130-135.

## **Chapter 6**

Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute Materials for Fabricating Affordable Agricultural Equipment and Processing Machines in Africa

*Abel Olajide Olorunnisola*

## **Abstract**

Modern agriculture depends heavily on technology. Land clearing, irrigation, drainage, crop storage and processing all require technological input. By modernising her agriculture, through wise application of science and technology, Africa can make significant headway in economic growth. However, an agricultural technology that is too sophisticated for a particular country/region is beyond its absorptive capacity. Hence, to achieve the objectives of agricultural mechanisation in Africa, it is imperative to take into account prevailing socio-economic conditions and the level of mechanisation necessary for optimal productivity. One major constraint to agricultural mechanisation in sub-Saharan Africa is the relatively high cost of imported metallic machine and equipment fabrication materials. Taking full advantage of substitute nonmetallic materials may lower the cost of production and concomitantly empower rural fabricators with limited access to electricity and welding facilities to engage in local manufacturing of sundry agricultural machines and equipment. This Chapter presents illustrative examples of full and partial substitution of metallic with non-metallic materials in the fabrication of affordable machines and equipment for agricultural production, agro-processing, irrigation and drainage, crop drying and storage. Ways of addressing identified critical challenges of technology diffusion are also discussed.

**Keywords:** Wood, Bamboo, Fibre-reinforced composites, Agricultural machinery, Modern agriculture

## **1. Introduction**

Africa covers about 6% of the earth's total surface and about 20.4% of the land area. It is the second most populous continent after Asia constituting around 14.72% of the world's total population. All the countries in Africa can at best be referred to as developing countries, with the exception of South Africa, Egypt,

#### *Technology in Agriculture*

Tunisia, Libya and Algeria that take the lead in the stated order as the top five developed countries on the continent. A developing country or less-developed country **(**LDC) is, in this context, defined as a nation with a low standard of living, underdeveloped industrial base as contrasted with a "More Developed Country" (MDC) that has more a highly developed economy and advanced technological infrastructure [1].

The main engine of economic growth is agriculture. Agricultural development led to the rise of human civilization and a rapidly modernising agriculture produces food without which an economy cannot possibly grow. It also creates demands for many new industries, from fertilisers to farm equipment, from repair shops to farm credit, from transportation and roads to food processing. In the last fifty years, technological developments in agriculture have dramatically changed the performance of farming. For instance, irrigation and drainage have ensured the use of otherwise unusable land for agriculture, while mechanisation has minimised drudgery, improved productivity and decreased farm labour requirement significantly in the more developed countries.

Agriculture has a massive social and economic footprint in Africa where it is practised both for subsistence as well as commercial reasons. It is by far the single most important economic activity, providing employment for about two-thirds of the continent's working population, contributing an average of 30–60% of gross domestic product and about 30% of the value of exports for many African countries. In the last 30 years, Africa's population has doubled overall and tripled in urban areas. The most direct consequence of this exponential population growth rate is that the continent now has more mouths to feed. However, moving from being self-sufficient in the 1960s, Africa has become a net importer of many food items. Indeed, African agricultural exports have fallen by half since the mid-1990s with imports accounting for 1.7 times the value of exports. This is partly due to the fact that over 80% of all farms in Africa are rather small which makes large-scale mechanisation unrealistic [2, 3].

For the foreseeable future, heavy dependence on agriculture is likely to continue being the norm rather than the exception in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). By modernising her agriculture through wise application of science and technology, the region can make significant headway in economic growth. The modernised agricultural sector can contribute towards major regional and continental priorities, including poverty alleviation, a boost in intra-African trade and investments, rapid industrialisation and economic diversification, sustainable resource and environmental management, job creation, human security, and shared prosperity. The region in particular and the continent in general can thus fulfil the enormous potential of becoming a major player in the global food market.

It is obvious that mechanisation is a necessity in modernising agriculture. To mechanise means to use machines to accomplish tasks, reduce human efforts, and improve timelines and quality of various farm operations. A machine may be as simple as a wedge or as complex as a combine harvester. Hence, there are presently three levels of mechanisation distinguished in agricultural engineering literature: *Hand Tool Technology* (HTT), *Draught Animal Technology* (DAT), and *Engine Power Technology* (EPT) [4]. Agricultural mechanisation cannot, therefore, be restricted to the use of motorised equipment alone. Rather, the term covers the development, maintenance, repair, management, and utilisation of agricultural hand tools, implements, and machines and also applies to agricultural land development, crop production, water control, harvesting, material handling and preparation for storage, on-farm processing and rural transport.

Attempts at agricultural mechanisation in many African countries over the years seem to have failed because of the false notion that mechanisation only implies

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

tractorisation- the use of tractors in agricultural activities which is a mere aspect and level of mechanisation. The performance history of imported tractors and other agricultural machinery has been largely characterised by a chronic chorus of lack of spare parts, repair facilities, capital, skilled operators and mechanics, as well as incompatibility with fragile local soil conditions and farmers' cropping techniques. Adoption of '*appropriate selective mechanisation*', a situation in which HTT, DAT AND EPT are appropriately combined, has therefore been recommended. For example, ploughing may be done with an appropriate type of tractor or draught animal power, while seeding, weeding and harvesting are accomplished with hand or simple mechanical tools [5]. Appropriate selective mechanisation is considered a workable strategy because multiple factors play a role in mechanisation patterns adopted in different countries over time. These include farming systems; agro-climatic conditions, such as soil, terrain and rainfall; institutional environments; and social objectives of societies, such as nation building and modernisation. Since each of these factors differs within and between countries, it is difficult to specify a blueprint of technological change, for all African countries to follow [6]. Other scholars have also recommended the promotion of (i) the use of locally available materials as substitution to high-carbon steel in the manufacture of agricultural machines and equipment and (ii) village level manufacturing of affordable agricultural machines and equipment by blacksmiths, tinsmiths and carpenters [4, 7–10].

In implementing some of the foregoing recommendations, numerous researchers have, over the years, engaged in innovative research culminating in the development of different agricultural equipment and machines.The aim of this chapter, therefore, is to highlight some of the research outputs on the uses of wood, bamboo and natural fibre-reinforced composites as substitute materials in the local fabrication of affordable agricultural machines and equipment in sub-Saharan Africa. However, research results, inventions and innovations have value only when they serve useful purposes in the society. The diffusion of technological improvements, within a country and across international borders, is critical for long run growth. It is most unfortunate that most of the equipment and machines to be discussed are yet to be in common use. Hence, this chapter also discusses ways of addressing the critical challenges of technology diffusion Africa.

## **2. Rationale for the use of agro-forestry materials and fibre-reinforced composites in agricultural machine and equipment fabrication**

The benefits of using agro-forestry materials and fibre-reinforced composites for agricultural machine and equipment fabrication are many and varied. They include the following:

**Wood Products**: The major wood products used in machine and equipment fabrication include lumber, plywood, particleboard and fibreboard. Wood remains one of the most versatile materials whose natural structure can be retained, as in lumber and plywood, or can be reduced to its basic fibres and reconstituted to a more uniform product such as fibreboard and particleboard. Besides, wood is renewable, available in various sizes, shapes and colours, affordable, easy to machine and join, durable (depending on the species), and aesthetically appealing [10, 11]. Other advantages derivable from the use of wood and wood products in machine and equipment fabrication include easy replacement of damaged machine/equipment parts and reduction in the weight to enhance portability.

**Bamboos**: Bamboos grow and reach maturity more rapidly than trees and start to yield within three or four years of planting. Unlike most timbers, bamboo is self-regenerating; new shoots that appear annually ensure future raw material after mature culms are harvested. The ease with which bamboo can be worked, its versatility, strength, and availability recommend it for industrial utilisation. Besides, laminated bamboo products do not retain the characteristic shapes of the bamboo raw material, thus offering more versatility to the machine/equipment designer [12]. The cylindrical hollow structure of many bamboo species with the rigid cross walls gives it resistance to collapse from bending. The jointed culm typically has a very hard external surface which contributes to its strength and impermeability to water - characteristics that satisfy many of the requirements of irrigation and drainage pipes.

**Cement-bonded fibre-reinforced composites**: These are low-cost materials made from a mixture of cement, water, particles of different sizes (strands, flakes, chips, fibres) obtained from agricultural and forestry products. The incorporation of fibrous materials in the composite improves the fracture toughness of the cement [10, 13]. Some of the admirable properties of cement-bonded composites of significant advantage in equipment fabrication include relatively high strength to weight ratio, durability; high resistance to moisture uptake; ease of sawing; excellent insulation against noise and heat; ability to absorb and dissipate mechanical energy, and high resistance against fire, insect and fungus attack [14]. Being environment friendly, natural fibre-reinforced composite pipes are beginning to attract great attention as substitutes to synthetic fibre-reinforced composite irrigation pipes which are difficult to recycle after their designed service life.

## **3. Selective examples on the of the use of substitute non-metallic materials in agricultural machine and equipment fabrication**

Some of the various aspects of agricultural production in which the foregoing materials have been experimentally used for fabricating affordable machines and equipment are the following:

#### **3.1 Tillage and crop production equipment**

Tillage and crop production activities performed on a farm include ploughing, harrowing, seed bed preparation, cultivation, weeding, and harvesting. All these activities require power sources, which on large scale farms are derived from tractors of different sizes. However, the average level of tractorisation in SSA is about 28 tractors per 1 000 ha in contrast to 241 tractors per 1000 ha in other regions [3]. While relevant data are scarce and at times out-dated, there is a general consensus that the level of tractorisation in particular and farm mechanisation in general is still very low in Africa. This is in spite of the efforts made by governments in many SSA countries over the years to promote tractorisation in particular and farm mechanisation in general. Such recent interventions include importation and provision of tractors and farm machinery at subsidised rates to farmers as shown in **Table 1**, and setting up state- owned tractor assembly plants and tractor hiring schemes, e.g., the *Nigerian Tractor Hiring Units*, the *Ghanaian Agricultural Mechanisation Service Centres* and the *Mozambican Agricultural Service Centres* [15]. Again, as earlier mentioned, the failure of many of these interventions is largely attributable to a strong focus on machinery importation and the neglect of knowledge and skills development at the local level, among other factors. Hence, the principal power source for 50 to 80% of the land area under cultivation in the region is still human power.

For centuries, wood has played a prominent role in land clearing, tillage and crop production equipment manufacture in SSA, where it is used as handles for hand tools such as hoes, axes and cutlasses (**Figure 1**). Over the years, a number of other

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*


#### **Table 1.**

*State-led mechanisation and training in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa.*

#### **Figure 1.**

*Hoes, cutlasses and axes fabricated with wooden handles.*

simple tillage tools made up of metals and wooden handles have been locally developed. Examples include weeders with wooden boards fitted with sharp metal blades, harrows (made of wooden plank to which wood/iron pegs, handle and bamboo shaft are fitted, typically used for breaking soil crust after rain and also for uprooting weeds), mallots (wooden blocks with attached handles, used for the breaking of clods), and levellers with shafts generally made of bamboo sticks used for land levelling. These and numerous other hand tools are typically inexpensive, easy to manufacture, use, maintain and repair. Besides, they are often times multi-purpose tools employed in several crop production operations and are culturally accepted.

Hand hoes, in particular, are still extensively used for land clearing, ridging, weeding and root crop harvesting across sub-Saharan Africa. It has been noted that '*the peasant farmer and his hoe and cutlass are efficient companions in crop production at the subsistence level where he operates*' [4]. At such subsistence level, the farm sizes are usually about 1.0–3.0 hectares, the farmer's income is typically low, and the farmers practice intercropping which discourages the use of tractors but encourages

**Figure 2.** *A planter in which wood is used for fabricating selected machine parts.*

the use of hand tools, which can reduce drudgery, if not area of cultivated land. Researchers have worked on improving the performance efficiency of hand hoes, focusing attention on the angle of inclination of the metal blade (the soil shearing member) to the handle, length of the handle and the weight ratio between the handle and the blade. These efforts have shown potential improvements in its scooping efficiency and field capacity [2, 5–7]. Introducing improved hand hoes can, therefore, be of tremendous benefit to peasant farmers.

However, wood is also relevant in the production of modern crop production equipment, especially, seed planters. Metering mechanism is the heart of every planter. Its function is to distribute seeds uniformly at the desired application rate and control seed spacing in a row. Wood products including lumber and plywood are suitable and very highly recommended for the fabrication of not only metering mechanisms but also handles, hoppers of manually operated seed planters. **Figure 2** shows a planter in which lumber and plywood were used for the fabrication of the handle and the metering device with the associated advantages of portability, low cost, and ease of fabrication, while **Figure 3** shows a maize planter with a wooden roller type seed metering device. A rough estimation showed that substitution of steel with wood in the fabrication of the component parts of the planters shown in **Figures 2** and **3** could reduce the cost of fabrication (i.e., material and labour costs) by 30–45%.

#### **3.2 Crop processing machines**

Africa produces numerous crops including legumes and cereals. Groundnut is one of such important leguminous cash crops and a major raw material for several industries especially in the food processing and poultry sectors. It is also processed at small- to-medium scale levels for domestic consumption as snacks in roasted and fried forms. Traditionally, groundnut shelling is a manual operation, a slow process with a maximum throughput per person of 2 Kg/hr. and a shelling capacity 15–20 Kg/day [17]. Groundnut shellers are typically fabricated using steel [18]. In a departure from this norm, a wood-steel manually operated groundnut sheller was developed. The hopper, main frame and collection tray of *Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

**Figure 3.** *Component parts of the maize planter. Source: [16].*

the sheller were fabricated with the sawn wood of *Cordia platythrsa*. The shelling unit was made up of a combination of a lumber casing, metallic pipe and wooden rasp bars, while the turning handle was made of a hollow steel pipe [19]. Wood was selected for fabricating the casing for the shelling unit in particular because of its exceptionally good acoustic properties, i.e., wood absorbs large amounts sound energy before it resonates. Hence, minimal noise would be experienced during machine operation. When tested, the sheller (**Figure 4**) gave a maximum

**Figure 4.** *Wooden/metallic Sheller. Source: [19].*

#### *Technology in Agriculture*

throughput capacity of 11 Kg/hr., more than five times the shelling capacity of a person, shelling efficiency of 98.6% and kernel damage of 16.6%.

To upgrade the sheller performance, an improved version (**Figure 5**) was developed that incorporated a cleaning device for separating shelled nuts from the chaffs [20]. The cleaner had a wooden housing and a steel sieve cleaner that gave a maximum cleaning efficiency of 84%. In another improvement of the sheller (**Figure 6**)**,** wood products were used in fabricating all the machine component parts [21]. It is apposite to note that the costs of fabricating one-off units of the three versions of the groundnut sheller decreased with increase in metal substitution with wood from approximately 55% (for version one) to 35% (for version two) of the cost of producing an equivalent metallic sheller.

Another major crop produced and consumed in Africa is maize (corn). *Maize* occupies approximately 24% of farmland in *Africa* and the average *yield* is around 2 tons/hectare/year. The largest *African* producer is Nigeria with over 33 million tons, followed by South *Africa*, Egypt, and Ethiopia [22]. The steps involved in maize processing include harvesting, drying, de-husking, shelling, and (often times) milling. Many of these processes, particularly shelling which is the separation of the grains from the cobs, are labour-intensive and time-consuming for rural farmers who engage in hand shelling. The easiest hand shelling method is to press the thumbs on the grains in order to detach them from the ears. Another simple shelling method is to rub two ears of maize against each other. Other methods include beating with stick, crushing with mortar and pestle, et c. Small tools are also sometimes used.. A worker can hand-shell about 2 kg of maize per hour [19, 23]. With the use of hand tools, the output per worker increases to between 8 and 15 kg/hr. [24].

**Figure 5.** *Modified wooden/metallic Sheller. Source: [20].*

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

#### **Figure 6.** *A completely wooden groundnut Sheller. Source: [21].*

#### **Figure 7.** *Wood-metal hybrid maize Sheller. Source: [27].*

Different types of mechanical maize shellers are in existence in forms of handheld, portable, motorised and large commercial sized units and are almost invariably fabricated using metals including mild steel, stainless steel and cast iron for the various components [24–26]. However, a low-cost wood-steel hybrid motorised maize sheller shown in **Figure 7** was developed [27]. The wooden components of the

sheller fabricated with the sawn wood of *Cordia millenni* included the hopper, the main frame, the shelling drum housing, and the cleaning unit housing. The cost of a one-off version of the sheller, driven by a 5 hp. electric motor was US \$150 compared to the market price of about US \$400 - US \$500 for the metallic version in Nigeria. The performance of the sheller was evaluated using yellow maize (*Zea saccharata*) variety at 13% moisture content. Its output capacity (118.9 Kg/hr), shelling efficiency, cleaning efficiency, grain recovery, and total grain losses of about 79%, 96%, 91% and 2.8% respectively at a shelling speed of 536 rpm are comparable to similar shellers made entirely of metallic parts. The findings confirmed that wood is an acceptable and relatively cheaper substitute material in the fabrication of critical parts of a maize sheller.

Cassava is another major crop produced in many Sub-Saharan African countries, with Nigeria being the largest producer in the world. It is a consumed as a major source of carbohydrates in human diet and as starch for industrial applications. The tubers of cassava cannot be stored for long after harvest hence processing tends to follow immediately after harvesting. Cassava processing activities include peeling, grating (i.e., transformation of cassava tubers into pulp), dehydrating, milling and sieving. The traditional method of grating involves placing the grater, typically made of perforated metal sheet on the table where it is convenient for effective use and brushes sheet metal. The cassava turns into pulp and drops into container that is being used to collect the grated pulp cassava. It has been shown that cassava graters can be fabricated with wood products. For example, a cassava grater was fabricated with the use of hardwood for constructing the frame, grating chamber, hopper, grating roller and the outlet [28]. The grater had grating capacity of 102.9 kg/h and a grating efficiency of 90.91%. The cost saving associated with substituting metal with wooden component parts was estimated at about 30%.

#### **3.3 Poultry production equipment**

There are two options for poultry development in Africa. One option is to attempt to increase large scale intensive poultry production in order to respond to the urban demand. The other option is to explore new channels for developing small and medium scale semi-intensive poultry production to serve both the urban and rural populations. Where possible, the two options should be pursued simultaneously. One of the core aspects of poultry production is egg incubation- the management of fertilised eggs to ensure satisfactory development of embryos into normal chicks. For very small number of eggs, say 6–12, the easiest and usual way of hatching chicks is the natural method, whereby the broody hen sits on the nest to provide the required warmth. However, for larger quantities of eggs, the most cost effective practice is to use artificial incubators- closed heat-insulated chambers in which temperature and relative humidity are strictly monitored and controlled.

Most small-scale poultry farmers in sub-Saharan Africa still are unable to produce day old chicks by artificial incubation due to the relatively high cost of procuring imported incubators. To demonstrate the use of wood in poultry equipment production, a flat-type wooden incubator was developed (**Figure 8**) which was used to successfully hatch chicken eggs [29]. The component parts of the incubator included a cabinet, fabricated using 6.4 mm thick interior grade plywood for the floor, side walls and the lid; and the sawn wood of *Terminalia superba* for the beams and columns; a transparent glass inspection panel; improvised heaters and humidifiers required to achieve mean ambient incubator temperature of 37-39°C and relative humidity of 58%, vents, instrumentation and egg trays. The choice of wood for fabricating the various component parts was based not only on local availability and relatively low cost, but more importantly on effectiveness in performing the desired functions of insulation and structural stability.

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

## **Figure 8.**

#### **Figure 9.**

*Temperature and relative humidity variations in the wooden egg incubator. Source: [29].*

When tested with 30 chicken eggs, the expected mean internal temperature and relative of 37°C and 58% respectively were achieved by the incubator. It was able to hatch chicks in 20 days with 76% hatchability and 18.5% mortality rates. The temperature and relative humidity variations observed during the incubator loading test are shown in **Figure 9**. The incubation duration was in conformity with observations of Ref. [30] who reported a range of 20 to 21 days for hatching chickens naturally and in artificial incubators. The percentage hatchability and mortality rates were also within acceptable limits. The current cost of producing the incubator is approximately N20,000–25,000 (in Nigerian currency), which is equivalent to US\$ 40 – US\$ 50.

## **3.4 Farm irrigation and drainage equipment**

Crop production requires large quantities of water. African agriculture, characterised by low levels of productivity relative to population growth, and frequently accompanied by human induced degradation and drought presents special

challenges not encountered in other regions. There is draught in many arid or semiarid parts of Africa, many of which cannot support rain-fed agriculture and hence require irrigation.

Efficient use of water in African farms does not necessary require large scale, energy-intensive irrigation schemes. Small pumps have had an important beneficial effect on irrigation in small-scale farms in a number of African countries. Where surface water is available, this technology represents a well-distributed and energy efficient option. Also, in recent times, the concept of "affordable micro-irrigation" systems has been identified as a corresponding drip irrigation technology for lowincome farmers [31, 32]. Bamboo drip irrigation system (**Figure 10**) is a very old but relevant system of tapping stream and spring water by using bamboo pipe and transporting water from higher to lower regions. The advantages of using bamboo are two-fold: it prevents leakage, increasing crop yield with less water, and makes use of natural, local, and inexpensive material.

It has now been scientifically proven that bamboo pipe can be used in both gravity and pressurised conditions for irrigation and drainage pipes provided the transmission pressure do not exceed 13.5 x 105 , 13.1 x 105 and 12.9 × 105 N/m2 for base, middle and top portions respectively. Values of head losses obtained are generally high for a bamboo pipe length of 6 meters. However, head losses can be reduced by proper node removal, increasing velocity of flow; and increasing the pressure head among others. It has also been recommended that node removal mechanism be improved upon so as to reduce the overall roughness size of the bamboo pipe [33].

Some of the hydraulic properties of *Oxytenanthera abyssinica* bamboo species have been investigated with a view to determining its potentials as irrigation piping material [34]. The properties tested included burst strength, head loss and friction factor. These properties were found to vary, some of them significantly, along the culm height. The bursting pressure was found to be about 13 x 105 N/m2 , which is higher than that of PVC pipes (11.2 x 105 N/m2 ) which are currently in common use as irrigation and drainage pipes. The mean friction factor, determined within the turbulent range (NRe <2000) in a 6 m length, 2.6 mm internal diameter bamboo pipe discharging at about 5.3 x 10−4 m3 /s was 0.020 giving a mean head loss of

**Figure 10.** *Bamboo drip irrigation system.*

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

**Figure 11.** *Bamboo winding composite pipes.*

0.14 m/m. However, bamboo has a few limitations to its use in micro irrigation water piping. These include its non-straightness, roughness, existence of the nodal plates that make water flow naturally impossible, non-uniformity of the stalk diameter, jointing problems, strength and durability. These are problem areas requiring further studies.

In a recent development, bamboo winding composite pipe, i.e., ordinary bamboo cut into thin bamboo strips winded by machines and turned into a strong composite pipe, has been developed in China for water conveyance as a green alternative to traditional pipeline materials. Such pipes shown in **Figure 11** have characteristic lightweight, high axial tensile strength and good flexibility which make them suitable for application for urban water supply, farm irrigation and drainage, etc.

Cement-bonded composite pipes are another potential alternative. A study was reported on the possibility of using 6 mm and 8 mm thick cement-bonded sawdustreinforced composite pipes for water conveyance [35]. The maximum burst strength of the composite pipes, 1.0 × 105 N/m2 , was, however, lower than those of polyvinyl chloride (8.6–13.8 × 105 N/m2 ) and aluminium pipes (13.8 and 32.4 × 105 N/m2 ). The composite pipes shown in **Figure 12** were, therefore, recommended for use in low pressure water drainage.

**Figure 12.** *Cement-bonded composite pipes. Source: [35].*

#### **3.5 Drying equipment**

Drying which is an important preservation process for many agricultural crops and food products. It is the phase of the post-harvest system during which an agricultural product is rapidly dried until it reaches the safe-moisture level to guarantee conditions favourable for storage or for further processing of the product. Traditional methods of drying as practised in many SSA countries include direct exposure of agricultural products to sun radiation by spreading the products on ground, polythene sheets, mats, tarred surfaces including roads, cement courts or hanging on eaves. These methods suffer from numerous inadequacies such as infestation by insects, contamination by dirt, loss through rodent attack, and spoilage due to exposure to rain, among others. Modern artificial dryers are generally relatively costly and un-affordable to small-scale farmers. The use indirect solar dryers, where practicable, would be comparatively cheaper and equally efficient.

In a typical indirect solar dryer, a black surface heats the incoming air instead of directly heating the substance to be dried. The heated air is then passed over the substance to be dried and exits upwards often through a chimney, taking moisture released from the substance with it. Indirect solar dryers can enhance the effect of insolation and minimise loss of collected energy to the surroundings. They can also generate higher temperatures and lower air relative humidity than in direct sun drying, both of which are conducive to improved drying rates and lower final moisture contents of dried products. This reduces the risk of spoilage during the drying process and in storage. The higher the temperatures attainable in these devices are deterrent to insects, and microbiological infestation. Also protection against dust, insects and animals are enhanced by drying in an enclosed structure. The use of lumber and other wood products for fabricating solar dryers has been explored by the author, culminating in the development of an indirect solar dryer for seeds, fruits and vegetables shown in **Figure 13**. It is an absorber-type collector device that comprises a double-walled wooden box with a double-glazed tight-fitting glass lid.

**Figure 13.** *A passive solar dryer for seeds, fruits and vegetables developed by the author.*

#### *Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

The gap between the walls of the box was stuffed with dry sawdust. A soot-coated, metal plate was attached to the bottom of the box as the heat absorber.

Another type of solar device that can serve dual purpose of drying and cooking has been developed [36]. For the dying test, beef samples initially at 73% moisture content dried to 17% in 5 hours and cassava samples at 56% moisture content dried to 14% in 5 hours all in bright sunshine.

## **3.6 Grain storage equipment**

Despite the fact that many African countries are blessed with arable land and suitable climate for the production of a myriad of food and cash crops, the major problems with food supply involve not only relatively low agricultural production but also considerable poor storage-induced post-harvest losses incurred in the food supply chain from the farm gate to the final consumer. The major food crops– maize, millet, sorghum, cowpea, et c- are seasonal and require storage if they will be available all year round or as seed until the next planting season. Grain losses of up to 50% have been reported in some sub-Saharan African countries where farmers store their farm produce in rhombus, local cribs, bags, pots, calabashes, baskets, or earthen pots [37, 38].

In reducing the considerable losses associated with traditional grain storage techniques, grain silos are indispensable. However, metallic silos, the most common type of silo employed today, are unsuitable for long-term grain storage in sub-Saharan Africa for several reasons including cost of acquisition and maintenance as well as over-sized capacities [38, 39]. Besides, metallic silos tend to promote moisture condensation, caking and insect infestation of stored grains, as well as the development of hot spots under the prevailing warm and humid climatic conditions in the region [40–42]. The heat flow into the silo may in some cases be sufficiently high to roast the grains directly in contact with the silo wall

**Figure 14.** *A 1.4 m3 capacity wooden grain silo. Source [43].*

surfaces [39]. To address the afore-mentioned challenges of affordability, inappropriate capacity and material suitability, several interventions have been made by various researchers. For example, a double-walled metallic silo was developed using wood sawdust as insulating material which lowered the interior temperature of the silo [43]. In another series of interventions, 1.4–7 m3 capacity grain silos that are more efficient in reducing moisture condensation and hot spots and suitable for small-and medium-scale farmers were fabricated with wooden beams and columns and plywood sheathing [43, 44].

An example of the grain silo, shown in **Figure 14**, and erected in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria, retained its structural integrity after four years of erection except for mild peelings of sheathing materials, nail slip and colour change [43]. Nutritional quality of the maize (*Zea mays*) stored in the silo for a period of nine months was also preserved with minimal reduction in crude protein, crude fibre and lipid contents. The use of wood products in grain silo construction has the potential of reducing construction cost by at least 40%. The simplicity of construction and maintenance, and the possibility of small unit capacity recommend such wooden silos for small- and medium-scale farmers in Africa.

## **4. Addressing the factors militating against agricultural technology diffusion in Africa**

The factors responsible for non-adoption of a wide variety of innovative agricultural technologies such as those discussed above are many and varied. Some of the factors and ways of mitigating them are highlighted below:


*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*


## **5. Conclusion**

Africa has all it takes to develop its agriculture and achieve self-sufficiency in food and agro-industrial raw material production. The missing link in sub-Saharan Africa in particular is the non-adoption of appropriate technologies that are compatible with multiple farming systems in use, the environment, socioeconomic status of the proposed users, level of maintenance skill available, as well as construction materials and facilities available for fabrication. Many African countries will for some time to come continue to have a mixture of small, medium and large scale farmers, with perhaps small-scale farmers constituting the majority. While

prices have dropped due to the entrance of companies from China and India in the African market, a wide range of agricultural machinery still remains expensive relative to the incomes earned in African agriculture [6].

The use of locally available non-metallic materials as partial or full substitution in manufacturing is, therefore, advocated as a means of making available to smalland medium- scale farmers, suitable and affordable machines for crop production, irrigation systems to supplement natural rainfall, drying and storage facilities to minimise post-harvest losses. This is imperative because smallholder farmers, in particular, are not only key to agricultural development in Africa, excluding them from mechanisation would also result in unequal land and wealth distribution [6, 48, 49]. It is instructive to note also that while '*small farms are typical of the rural landscape in the Global South, small-scale farming continues to exist –and even thrive—in the Global North, including Europe. Small farms are crucial for global food security, producing between 50% and 75% of food calories consumed globally. Smallscale farming also provides key opportunities for employment and livelihoods, is a crucial part of rural communities and landscapes and plays an important role in environmental sustainability and supporting agricultural biodiversity*' [46]. To promote widespread adoption of appropriate agricultural mechanisation, the critical factors militating against technology diffusion have to be addressed. Technology development has to be participatory and coupled with extension efforts that recognise agro-ecological and socio-economic contexts and incorporates knowledge from various sources (e.g., sociologists, economists, historians, etc), rather than from scientists or researchers alone. An enabling environment that supports and/or rewards technology adoption by farmers is also an important prerequisite for success.

## **Conflict of interest**

The author declares no conflict of interest.

## **Author details**

Abel Olajide Olorunnisola University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

\*Address all correspondence to: abelolorunnisola@yahoo.com; ao.olorunnisola@ui.edu.ng

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

*Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

## **References**

[1] Anonymous. Africa [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Africa *,* [Accessed: 2021-01-02]

[2] Okatahi S.S, Yusuf D.D.: Development and performance evaluation of selected tillage tools for farmers in the middle belt zone of Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Conference on the challenges facing Agricultural Engineering in a depressed economy; 19-22 November 1996; Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria; 1996. p. 77-86

[3] Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T: The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide. World Development. 2016:87, 16-29.

[4] Odigbo EU. Level of agricultural mechanization in Nigeria. In: Ajav EA, Raji AO, Ewemoje TE, editors. Agricultural Engineering in Nigeria: 30 Years of University of Ibadan Experience. 2nd ed. Aluelemhegbe Publishers; 2002. p. 42-56.

[5] Igbeka JC. Agricultural Engineering and the society. In: Ajav EA, Raji AO, Ewemoje TE, editors. Agricultural Engineering in Nigeria: 30 Years of University of Ibadan Experience. 2nd ed. Aluelemhegbe Publishers; 2002. p. 34-41.

[6] Daum T, Birner R. Agricultural mechanization in Africa: Myths, realities and an emerging research agenda. Elsevier Journal of Global Food Security. 2020: 26: 1-10.

[7] Ige MT. Indigenous machinery development: the challenges before the Agricultural Engineers. In: Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Conference on Mechanized agricultural production for sustainable development; 9-11 September 1998; Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria; 1998. p. 50-56

[8] Odigbo EU. Confronting the challenges of agricultural mechanization in Nigeria in the next decade: some notes, some options. In: Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Conference on The challenges of Nigerian Agricultural Engineers towards Vision 2010; 2-6 September 1997; Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria; 1997. p. 7-17

[9] Igbeka JC. Review of the indigenous machinery manufacturing industry in Nigeria. In: Proceedings of the Nigerian Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Conference on Mechanized agricultural production for sustainable development; 9-11 September 1998; Lagos Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria; 1998. p. 37-49

[10] Olorunnisola AO. Harnessing the forester's harvest for sustainable development. An Inaugural Lecture published by the University of Ibadan Publishing House, Ibadan, Nigeria; 2013, 102 p.

[11] Forest Products Society, Wood Handbook. 2010 ed., Forest Products Society; 2011. 600 p.

[12] Anonymous*.* Transfer of technology model, laminated bamboo furniture manufacturing. International Network For Bamboo And Rattan [Internet]. 2013. Available from: www.anancy.net/ documents/file\_en/BambooFurniture. ppt*,* [Accessed: 2013-04-05]

[13] Wolf RW, Gjinolli A. Durability and strength of cement-bonded wood particle made from construction waste. Forest Prod. J. 1999; 4924):24-31

[14] Ramirez-Coretti AC, Eckelman CC, Wolf RW. Inorganic bonded composite

wood panel systems for low-cost housing: A Central American perspective. Forest Prod. J. 1998: 48(4):62-68

[15] FAO. Agricultural mechanization:a key input for sub-Saharan Africa small holders.Int.Crop Manag. 2016:23.

[16] Ikechukwu IB, Gbabo A, Ugwuoke IC. Design and fabrication of a single row maize planter for garden use. J. of Advancement in Engineering and Technology. 2014: 1(2):1-7

[17] Musa HL Peanut Sheller Design Parameters*.* [Thesis] Department of Agricultural Engineering, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, USA, 1975

[18] Ademiluyi YS. Performance test for improving of IAR groundnut sheller/ decorticator [Thesis], Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1997

[19] Olorunnisola AO, Hamilton OA. Performance evaluation of a manually operated groundnut decorticator. International Journal of Applied Tropical Agriculture.1998:3(2): 109 – 113**.**

[20] Olorunnisola AO. Improvement of an existing low cost wooden groundnut sheller Journal of Applied Science, Engineering & Technology. 2005: 5(1 & 2): 71 – 74

[21] Kharashy A. Design modification and evaluation of a manual groundnut sheller [Thesis] Department of Wood Products Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 2021

[22] IITA. Maize. 2013. Available from: iita.org/cropsnew/maize/*,* [Internet] 2021. [Accessed: 2021-01-02]

[23] Aremu AK, Olorunnisola AO. Ergonomic evaluation of a maize sheller. Ife Journal of Technology. 2001: 10(1): 25 – 31**.**

[24] Nwakaire JN, Ugwuishiwu BO, Ohagwu CJ. Design, construction and performance analysis of a maize thresher for rural dweller. Nigerian Journal of Technology. 2011: 30(2):49-54

[25] Ghadi, AJ, Arunkumar P. Design, Development and fabrication of a low cost corn deseeding machine. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology. 2014: 3(8):242-248

[26] Aremu DO, Adewumi IO, Ijadunola JA. Design, fabrication and performance evaluation of a motorized maize shelling machine. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. 2015: 5(5): 154-164

[27] Olorunnisola AO, Ogbu BE. Development and performance evaluation of a low-cost motorised wooden maize sheller. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering & Technology. 2017: 17: (1):1-6**.**

[28] Yusuf KO, Akpenpuun TD, Iyanda MO. Design and fabrication of a simple pedal operated cassava grater suitable for rural dwellers. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manage. 2019: 23 (6) 1007-1011

[29] Olorunnisola AO, Ewemoje TA. The development and evaluation of a flat-type wooden incubator. International Journal of Applied Tropical Agriculture. 1998: 3(2): 14 – 19.

[30] Oluyemi JA, Roberts FA. Poultry production in warm wet climates. Macmillan Publishers Limited, London; 1988. 300p.

[31] Masinbe B. Drip irrigation helps small holders. In: Phelan J. editor. African Farming and Food Processing. Alain Charles Publishing Ltd., London. July/August 2003 ed.

[32] Mofoke ALE, Adewumi JK, Mudiare OJ, Ramalan AA. Design, *Potentials of Wood, Bamboo and Natural Fibre-Reinforced Composite Products as Substitute… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98265*

construction and evaluation of an affordable continuous-flow drip irrigation system. J. Applied Irrig. Sci. 2004: 39:253-269

[33] Baqui MA, Angeles HL. Construction, operation and test of a Bamboo Drip Irrigation System. Journal of Agric. Mech. in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 1994: **2**: 41-44.

[34] Umara BG, Audu I, Ogedengbe K, Omobowale MO. Development of bamboo (*oxytenanthera abyssinica)* stem as irrigation pipe. Journal of Applied Science, Engineering & Technology. 2010: 10: 18 – 24

[35] Nta SA, Olorunnisola AO. Experimental production and evaluation of cement-bonded composite pipes for water conveyance. International Journal of Composite Materials. 2016: 6 (1):9-14.

[36] Akinoso R. The development of a solar device for crop drying and cooking. LAUTECH Journal of Engineering and Technology. 2009: 5(1):75-79.

[37] Alabadan BA. Housing and food security: Now and in the future. Lessons from termites. An Inaugural Lecture, published by the Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria; 2013, 64 p.

[38] Mijinyawa Y. Farm structures and environment: The bedrock of food security. An Inaugural Lecture published by the Publishing House, University of Ibadan; 2019, 81 p.

[39] FAO. Technical cooperation programme: Assistance to the strategic grain reserve scheme in Nigeria. United Nations, Rome, Italy. 1995. 9p.

[40] FAO. Rome declaration on food security and world food summit plan of action. November 13-17, 1996. United Nations, Rome, Italy.

[41] Talabi AE. Implementation of national food security programme: experience so far. In: Proceedings of the National Workshop on strategic grain reserve storge programme: Nucleus for national food security; 19-22 November 1996; Abuja, Nigeria; 1996. p. 67-73

[42] Adejumo BA, Ola FA, Odubiyi AA, Oyefeso AO, Aje JO. The potential of sawdust as an insulator in a double walled metallic silo. J. Agric. Engrg. & Technology. 2010: 18(2):1-6

[43] Alabadan BA. Modelling the performance of a hexagonal wooden silo during storage of maize ( *Zea mays*). [Thesis], Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 2002

[44] Mijinyawa Y. The use of wood products in the design and construction of a grain silo for the humid tropics. [Thesis], Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1989.

[45] Balehegn B, Duncan A, Tolera A, Ayantunde AA, Issa S, Karimou M, Zampaligré N, André K, Gnanda I, Varijakshapanicker P, Kebreab E, Dubeux J, Boote K, Minta M, Feyissa F, Adesogan, AT. Improving adoption of technologies and interventions for increasing supply of quality livestock feed in low- and middle-income countries. Elsevier Journal of Global Food Security 2020:26:1-11.

[46] Guarín A, Rivera M, Pinto-Correia T, Guiomar N, Šūmane S, Moreno-Pérez OM. A new typology of small farms in Europe. Elsevier Journal of Global Food Security 2020:26:1-9.

[47] Olorunnisola AO. Challenges of commercialising engineering research outputs from Nigerian universities. Acta Academica Supplementum 2011: (2): 217 - 238.

[48] Birner R, Resnick D. The political economy of policies for smallholder

agriculture. Elsevier Journal of World Development 2010:38(10):1442-1452.

[49] Hazell P, Poultton C, Wiggins S, Dorward A. The future of small farms: Trajectories and policy priorities. Elsevier Journal of World Development 2010:38(10):1349-1361.

## **Chapter 7**
