Modification of grain drill openers to place fertilizer below the seed
by John Thomas Palmer
A thesis submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science I n
Agricultural Engineering
Montana State University
© Copyright by John Thomas Palmer (1985)
Abstract:
Field experiments were conducted to evaluate the effect of different furrow opener designs on small,
grain stand and yield. Modified hoe-type grain drill openers that band fertilizer below the seed at
planting time were used on a conventional grain drill under no-till and summer fallow conditions. Two
sets of grain drill, openers that band fertilizer below the seed were designed and constructed In the
Agricultural Engineering Research shop. Two sets of commercial grain drill openers that band fertllIzer
below the seed were purchased from the manufacturers of the openers. The four fertll Izer-band I ng
openers were of significantly different design.
RandomIzed complete block experiments were used to evaluate the performance of the openers.
Banding fertilizer below the seed using the fertilizer-banding openers was compared to conventional
fertilizer placements using standard openers.
Montana test results concur with other test results in that banding fertilizer below the seed with
fertilizer-banding hoe-type openers sometimes Increases yields and never reduces yields. Weather and
Insects were the major contributing factors to the low yields observed during tests and to the I ack of
significant dlfferences In the results. One conclusion that concurs with farmers' observations Is that
good stand establishment does not necessarily result In high yIelds.
WDSFICATiON OF GSRASN DRILL OPENERS TO
PLACE FERTILIZER BELOW TOE SEED
by
John Thomas Palmer
A t h e s i s submi tted In p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t
of t h e r e qui re me nt s f o r the degree
of
Master of Sci ence
In
Agricultural
E n g i ne er i n g
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
,Bozeman, Montana
F ebr uar y,
1985
APPROVAL
o f a t h e s i s sub m it te d by
John Thomas Palmer
T h i s t h e s i s has been read by each member of the t h e s i s com mittee
and has been f o u n d t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y r e g a r d i n g c o n t e n t , E n g l i s h
usage, f o r m a t , c i t a t i o n s , b i b l i o g r a p h i c s t y l e , and c o n s i s te n c y , and Is
ready f o r s ubmission t o th e Co ll ege o f Graduate Studies.
Date
Ch airperson, Graduate CommItee
Approved f o r the Major Department
Date
Head, Major Department
Approved f o r the College o f Graduate S tu di es
Date
Graduate Dean
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
p re se n tin g
th is
th e s is
In
p a rtia l
fu lfillm e n t
of
the
r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a m a s t e r ' s d e g r e e a t Mont ana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
agree t h a t the L ib r a r y sh all
r u l e s of t h e L i b r a r y .
without
source
speci al
make I t a v a i l a b l e t o b o r r o w e r s under
B r i e f q u o t a t i o n s from t h i s t h e s i s a r e a l l o w a b l e
p e r mi ss i on ,
provided t h a t a cc u ra t e acknowledgment of
I s made.
Per mi ssi on
for
extensive quotation
from or
t h e s i s may be granted by my major p r o f e s s o r ,
D i r e c t o r of L i b r a r i e s when.
of t he m a t e r i a l
m aterial
th e s is
for
w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n per missi on.
Signature
____
/
r e p r o d u c t i o n of t h i s
or In hi s absence,
In t he o p i n i o n of e i t h e r ,
I s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes.
In t h i s
I
fin an cial
by the
t h e proposed use
Any copying or use of the
gain
shall
not
be a l l o w e d
,Iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The a s s i s t a n c e provi ded by t h e f o l l o w i n g Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
fa c u lty
Is g r a t e f u l l y
Er ickson o f
acknowledged:
Dr. W. E. L a r s e n and Dr. L. R.
t he De par tment of A g r i c u l t u r a l
of t he Centr al
Agricultural
E ngi neer ing,
Research Ce n te r In Moccasin,
Mr.
and Dr.
Jones o f t h e W e s t e r n T r i a n g l e R e s e a r c h C e n t e r I n Conr ad.
a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d by Al L i e n was e s s e n t i a l
test
A.
Dubbs
A.
J.
The shop
f o r de ve lopm e nt of the
devices.
Data anal ys es f o r
by Dr.
R i c h a r d E. Lund.
this
project u t i l i z e d
The p a r t i c u l a r
MSUSTAT (1983) developed
pr ogr ams used w e r e M u l t i -
F a c t o r ANOVA (AVMF) and P a i r w i s e M u l t i p l e and C o n t r a s t C o m p a r i s o n s .
(COMPARE).
Financial
Agricultural
a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h i s p r o j e c t was provided by t h e Montana
E xpe ri men t S t a t i o n and by a g r a n t from the Montana Wheat
Research and M a r k e t i n g Committee.
■TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL
............................................................ ....
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE . . . .
II
..................................... ....
11 I
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.................................................................
.
. . ........................
LI ST OF TABLES ................................................... .... ......................................... ....
. .
LIST OF F I G U R E S ............................ .... ....................................................... ....
ABSTRACT .................................
1.
LITERATURE REVIEW
.................................
,MATERIALS AND METHODS
...................
. ...................
Opener Design C r i t e r i a ............................
D r i l l T e s t Frame . . . . . . . . . .
Openers Used In t h e F i e l d T e st s . . .
Experimental F i e l d T e s t Design
. . .
Data Col l e c t i o n .......................................... ....
Data A n a l y s i s .......................................... .... .
No-TI I I P l o t s . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.
. . . . . . .
I
. . . . . . . .
I
3
5
7
11
11
13
.......................................... ....
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
........................
. . ' ......................................
.
13
13
14
19
21
22
23
...............................
24
. ............................ ....
. . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS ANDDISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . .
v 11
x
Introduction
........................................................ . . . . . . . . . .
F e r t I I I z e r Placement ...................................................................... ....
F e r t i l i z e r Banding and P l a n t i n g Equipment ................... . . . .
Conventional Equipment M o d i f i c a t i o n s
. ..........................................
ProbJ em S ta tement . ..........................................................................
Objectives
................... . . . . . . . . . .
................... . . . .
2.
v
Ix
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Iv
Opener C o n s t r u c t i o n ...........................
G ra in D r i l l Performance . . . . .
................................. . . . . .
Precipitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Moccasi .........................................................
Conrad ............................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Col umbus ..........................................................................
24
24
25
26
35
42
Vl
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
4.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
...........................................
. . . . . . . .
44
Opener Performance
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F u t u r e Work . . .
...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
48
REFERENCES C I T E D ............................................... ....
APPENDIX
...................................................
50
................................................... .... .....................................
53
VlI
L I S T OF TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Y i e l d R e s u lt s From 1983 Opener T r i a l s .......................
2.
Summary o f Furrow Opener T e s t E v a l u a t i o n P l o t s E s t a b l i s h e d .
Summer 1984 ...................... .... . ; ...................................................................
I
Orthogonal Comparisons Used I n A n a l y s i s ..........................
23
Growing Season R a i n f a l l f o r 1984 and t he Average R a i n f a l l
f o r t he Ce nt ra l A g r i c u l t u r a l Expe ri men t S t a t i o n , Moccasin
and t h e W e s t e r n T r i a n g l e R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , Conrad . . . . .
25
S t a nd E s t a b l I s h m e n t of S p r i n g G r a i n Cropping Systems f o r
S i x G r ai n D r i l l Opener Tr eat ment s, Moccasin.
Summer 1984 .
27
S tand E s t a b l I s h m e n t of S p r i n g G r a i n Cropping Systems f o r
G r a i n D r i l l O pe n er O r t h o g o n a l C o m p a r i s o n s ,
Moccasin.
Summer 1984 ..........................................................................................................
28
Y i e l d o f Spring Gr ai n Cropping Systems f o r Si x G r a i n D r i l l
Opener T r e a t m e n t s I n c l u s i v e of V o l u n t e e r Gr ai n, Moccasin.
Summer 1984 ......................................................
31
Y i e l d of Spring G r a i n Cropping Systems f o r S i x G r a i n D r i l l
Opener T r e at m en t s Adjusted f o r V o l u n t e e r G r a i n , M o c c a s i n .
Summer 1984 . . .............................................. ....
32
Y i e l d o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p I ng Sy st e ms f o r G r a i n D r i l l
Opener Orthogonal Comparisons A dj us te d f o r V o l u n t e e r G r ai n ,
Moccasin.
Summer 1984
33
S t a nd E s t a b l I s h m e n t o f S p r i n g G r a i n Cropping Systems f o r
S i x G r a i n D r i l l Opener Tr eat ment s, Conrad.
Summer 1984 . .
37
S ta nd E s t a b l I s h m e n t o f S p r i n g G r a i n Cropping Systems f o r
G ra in D r i l l Opener Orthogonal Comparisons, Conrad.
Summer
1984
38
Y i e l d o f Spr ing G ra in Cropping Systems f o r S ix G r ai n D r i l l
Opener Tr e at me nt s , Conrad.
Summer 1984 ............................ .... . .
40
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
. . . . .
10
17
Vli
I
L I S T OF TABLE S - Continued
Page
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
2 0.
Y i e l d o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p i n g Sy st e ms f o r G r a i n D r i l l
Opener Orthogonal Comparisons, Conrad.
Summer 1984 . . . .
41
P l a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data, Moccasin T r i a l , Spri ng Wheat In
Summer F a l l o w .
Summer 1984 . ...........................................................
54
P l a n t S t an d and Y i e l d D a t a , M o c c a s i n T r i a l ,
Barley
Stubble.
Summer 1984 ..................... ....
55
B arley
In
P l a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data, Moccasin T r i a l , Wheat In B a r l e y
.
S t ub bl e .
Summer 1984 ............................... 6 . . . . . . . . .
P l a n t S t a nd and Y i e l d D a t a , M o c c a s i n T r i a l , B a r l e y In
Spri ng Wheat S t u b b l e .
Summer 1984
. . . . . . . . . . . .
57
P l a n t S ta nd and Y i e l d D a t a , Conr ad T r i a l , B a r l e y
In
Summer
Fa I l ow.
Summer 1984
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
P l a n t Stand Data, Conrad T r i a l ,
Barley
In Spr ing
Wheat
Stubble.
Summer 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
P l a n t Stand
Summer 1984
60
Data,
Conrad T r i a l , . S p l i t
Plot
Analysis.
.......................................... ............................................................
21.
Y i e l d Data,
2 2.
P l a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data,
Columbus
Trial,
B a r l ey
In
W i n t e r Wheat S tubbl e.
Summer 1984
. . . . . . . . . . . .
23.
56
Conrad T r i a l ,
S p l i t P l o t Anal ysi s.
Summer 1984
V o l u n t e e r G r a i n Data,
Moccasin T r i a l s ,
Wheat
In B a rl ey
St ubbl e and B a r l e y in Spring Wheat Stubble.
Summer 1984 .
61 .
62
63
Ix
L I S T OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1.
G r ai n D r i l l
Openers Used In t h e E x p e r i m e n t ...........
2.
Ty pi ca l
3.
Land Resources S i m i l a r t o t he Moccasin S t a t i o n
4.
P l o t Layout w i t h Ty p ic al
Randomization Scheme
15
. . .
21
. . . . . . .
46
Land Resources S i m i l a r t o t h e Conrad S t a t i o n . . . . . . . .
47
\
X
ABSTRACT
F i e l d e x p e r i m e n t s were conducted t o e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t o f
d i f f e r e n t f u r r o w o p e n e r d e s i g n s on smal l, g r a i n s t a n d and y i e l d .
M o d i f i e d hoe-type g r a i n d r i l l openers t h a t band f e r t i l i z e r below t he
seed a t pi a n t i ng 11 me w e r e used on a c o n v e n t i o n a l g r a I n d r i l l unde r
n o - t i l l and summer f a l l o w c o n d i t i o n s .
Two s et s of g r a i n d r i l l , openers
t h a t band f e r t i l i z e r below t h e seed were designed and c o n st r u c t ed In
t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l E ng i ne er i ng Re sea rch shop.
Two s e t s o f c o m m e r c i a l
g r a i n d r i l l openers t h a t band f e r t l l I z e r below t he seed were purchased
from t he ma n uf a ct u re rs of the o p e n e r s .
The f o u r f e r t 1 1 J z e r - b a h d I ng
openers were of s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t design.
RandomIzed compl ete bl ock e x p er i m en t s were used t o e v a l u a t e t h e
performance of t h e openers.
Banding f e r t i l i z e r below t h e seed using
t h e f e r t i l i z e r - b a n d i n g openers was compared t o conventi onal f e r t i l i z e r
pl acements using s tandar d openers.
Mont ana t e s t r e s u l t s c o n c u r w i t h o t h e r t e s t r e s u l t s i n t h a t
banding f e r t i l i z e r below t he seed w i t h
f e r t l l I z e r - b a n d I ng h o e - t y p e
openers sometimes I ncreases y i e l d s and never reduces y i e l d s .
Weather
and I n s e c t s w e r e t h e m a j o r c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r s t o t h e low y i e l d s
o b s e r v e d d u r i n g t e s t s and t o t h e l a c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in
the re s u lts .
One c oncl usi on t h a t concurs w i t h f a r m e r s ' o b s e r v a t i o n s
I s t h a t good stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t does not n e c e s s a r i l y r e s u l t In high
y I e l ds.
I
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction:
The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s on f e r t l l I z e r p l a c e m e n t ,
grain d r i l l s ,
and d r i l l
openers have been conducted w i t h
conservatio n t i l l a g e
practices.
Tests
In c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l
are
being
performed
of
d iffe re n t
p r a c t I c e s and e q u i p m e n t f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n t i l l age.
broadly
classed
as n o - t 11 I and r e d u c e d
Increased I n t e r e s t
fe rtilize r
pr oducti on (Ba u de r ,
One
tilla g e
tilla g e
management
Th e se t e s t s a r e
operatio ns.
tilla g e
In re s e a r c h
placement equipment,
studies
The
on f e r t i l i z e r
or o t h e r aspects of crop
1984).
In f o u r f a r m e r s t o d a y p r a c t i c e some f o r m o f c o n s e r v a t i o n
(Bauder,
19 8 4 ) .
In 1 9 8 3 , 35 m i l l i o n
h e c t a r e s (87 m i l l i o n
a c r e s ) r e p r e s e n t i n g 31 p e r c e n t o f t h e 1983 c r o p l a n d
S t a t e s was In some form of
p e rce nt of
the
management
In c o n s e r v a t i o n t i l I age shows t h e I m p o r t a n c e o f
Including conservation
placement,
some'form of
c o n se r v a t i o n t i l l a g e .
Montana’ s f a r m e r s use some n o - t 11 I ,
national
average.
T h irty -fo u r
p r a c t i c e some form of reduced t i l l a g e ,
a v e r a g e o f 24 p e r c e n t .
It
In th e U n ite d
Ap pr ox i ma t el y
which
percent of
nine
I s t h e same as
Montana’ s fa rm ers
which Is more than t h e nati onal
Is e s tim a te d
(Bauder,
19 8 4 ) t h a t by t h e
y e a r 2 00 0 o v e r 90$ o f t h e c r o p p r o d u c i n g a r e a s I n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
w ill
be under some t y pe o f c o n se r v at i o n t i l l a g e .
2
Conservation
tilla g e
Is
not
a
new
Idea.
In
19 48
publ ished a brochure e n t i t l e d S t u b b l e Mu l ch T i l l a g e
This
the
(Bauder,
USDA
1 98 4 ).
p r a c t i c e was recommended when people began t o r e a l i z e t h a t soil
was one o f t h e n a t i o n ' s m o s t f r a g i l e r e s o u r c e s and t h a t t o n s o f so 11
w e r e b e i n g washed o r b l o w n away each y e a r .
produc ti on economics were of
e th ic
secondary.
conservation
pr i mar y
R e c e n tly ,
tilla g e
Is
However,
trad itio n al
Importance and the c o n se r v at i o n
w ith
becom ing
Increased
more
production
e c o n o m ic a l,
costs,
w ith
so il
c o n s e r v a t i o n an I m p o r t a n t secondary b e n e f i t .
T e s t s were made In d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of Montana (Jackson and Kral I ,
I 9 8 0 ) t o c om pa re t i l I - p i a n t w I t h n o - t l I I t e c h n i q u e s .
The d a t a w e r e
a v e r a g e d f o r t h e E a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f Mont ana and f o r
the F o o t h il l s
re g io n (Western P l a i n s ) .
were p r a c t i c a l l y
Y i e l d of small
a lik e with
I b/ a c) o b t a i n e d on t i l l e d
grains
I n E a s t e r n Mont ana
1621 kg/ ha and 1624 kg/ ha (1446 and 1449
and n o - t i I I
land,
respectively.
However,
In
t h e F o ot h I l l s r e g i o n a 2 0 - p e r c e n t I n c r e a s e I n y i e l d was a c h i e v e d by
n o -tillin g .
N o - t i I I Is p r o b a b l y s u p e r i o r In t h e W e s t e r n p o r t i o n o f
the p l a i n s due t o d i f f e r e n c e s
and d i f f e r i n g
cultural
In weed s p ec ie s,
usually
at.,
1 97 9 )
to
c om pa re
the
commercial I y - a v a l I a b l e and e xp e r i me n t a l
of
soil
and
fe rtiliz e r
di s k openers
residue
banding
m oi s t ur e,
r e q u i r e s m o d i f i c a t i o n of e x i s t i n g
equipment or the purchase of new equipment.
et
types,
practices.
Conservation t i l l a g e
(Payton,
soil
conditions.
c a p a b ility .
p e n e t r a t e d poorl y
The
Te st s have been conducted
performance
no-til I d r ills
d rills
R esults
In heavy straw
of
both
new
under a v a r i e t y
tested
Indicated
did
not
that
have
double
and tended t o " h a i r p i n "
3
t h e straw
down i n t o t h e s oi l
fur r ow.
Coulters
In f r o n t of t he double
d i s k o p e n e r s a p p e a r e d t o I m p ro ve o p e n e r p e r f o r m a n c e , e s p e c i a l Iy In
heavy s t r a w r e s i d u e .
t he r e s i d u e
John D e e r e HZ o p e n e r s o p e r a t e d wel I I n a l l
c o n d i t i o n s encountered,
but t r a s h
c l e a r a n c e was
s o m ew h at when c o u l t e r s w e r e used: In heavy r e s i d u e ,
of
Improved
No s i g n i f i c a n t
y i e l d d i f f e r e n c e s between commercial and r ese ar ch d r i l l s were observed
In t h e t e s t s .
F e r t i l i z e r Placranents
Research s t u d i e s comparing t h e e f f e c t of f e r t i l i z e r
t h e seed w i t h
higher
broadcast f e r t i l i z e r
g ra in y ie ld s
banding a p p l i c a t i o n .
a p p lic a tio n s
and more e f f i c i e n t
use o f
banded below
have r e s u l t e d
fe rtiliz e r
for
G r ee n ho us e s t u d i e s ( B a b o w l c z and Hyde,
have shown no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
In
the
1983)
In stand est abl Ishment and e a r l y
p l a n t g r o w t h w hen f e r t 11 I z e r was pi aced 50 mm (2 I n ) o r 75 mm (3 In),
below t he seed.
However,
when t h e f e r t i l i z e r was placed 25 mm ( I
below the seed I t was found t h a t stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t and e a r l y
were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
Canadian
growth
reduced.
scien tists
under v a r y i n g f i e l d
5.40
in)
( Toma r and S o p e r ,
trash conditions,
Mg/ha (55.9 t o 80.3 bushels
198 1)
have
f ound t h a t
wheat y i e l d s ranged from 3.76 t o
per a cr e )
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 mm (2 I n ) bel ow t h e seed.
when f e r t i l i z e r
was banded
T h i s c om pa re d t o y i e l d s
r a n g i n g f r o m 3 . 2 6 t o 4 . 5 3 M g / h a ( 4 8 . 5 t o 6 7. 4 b u s h e l s pe r a c r e ) when
the
same
fe rtiliz e r
rates
were
surface
broadcast.
These
y ie ld
J
differences
conditions.
were o bt a ine d w i t h
Soi l
banding under d i f f e r e n t
field
s c i e n t i s t s w i t h t he Montana A g r i c u l t u r a l
r e si due
Exper iment
4
S ta tio n
( SkogIe y ,
1984) have o b ta in e d s i m i l a r r e s u l t s
farm f e r t i l i z e r t r i a l s
A dditional
fe rtiliz e r
through out Montana.
studies
(S mith
placement f o r
and
n o -till
LU lard,
1976)
soil
had
high
d is trib u ted .
fe rtility
showed
c o r n grown on c h e m i c a l l y
v e g e t a t i v e mulch cover gave comparable y i e l d s w i t h
the
in numerous on-
and
ra in fa ll
was
all
that
k ille d
treatments
adequate
and
If
w ell
H o w e v e r , d u r i n g y e a r s when f r e q u e n t p e r i o d s o f w a t e r ,
d e f i c i e n c y e x i s t e d , some I n c r e a se
banding o f a l l
In y i e l d
o c c u rre d w I th s u b s u rfa c e
or p a r t of t he f e r t i l i z e r .
F e r t i l i z e r placed d i r e c t l y be low
t h e seed was a d v a n t a g e o u s f o r
both s p r i n g wheat and w i n t e r wheat when grown w i t h a s t u b b l e r e si due
mul ch ( P a y t o n , e t a l . , 1 9 7 9 ) .
seed t h e r e
was a l s o a
decrease
s t u d i e s showed t h a t p l a c i n g
seed r e s u l t e d
When f e r t l l I z e r was p l a c e d below t h e
in
of
Additional
l i q u i d and anhydrous f e r t i l i z e r
in I ncreased y i e l d s
Placement
w i l d o a t popul at ions .
(Hyde,
fe rtiliz e r
s e e d l i n g s and r e d u c e s t a n d s
et aI.,
1982).
too c lo se to the
(Klepper,
f e r t i l i z e r a re s epar ated a d eq u a t e l y ,
e t a l.,
fe rtilizers
below t he
seed can
1983).
If
In ju re
seed and
banded below or below
and t o one s i d e o f t h e seed can e f f i c i e n t l y p r o v i d e n u t r i e n t s t o t h e
s e e d l i n g and not damage the r oots.
centimeters
(I
to 2
Placing f e r t i l i z e r
three to f i v e
In) below the seed or t h r e e c e n t i m e t e r s below and
up. t o 5 c e n t i m e t e r s t o one s i d e is s u f f i c i e n t s e p a r a t i o n between seed
and f e r t i l i z e r
In a s i l t
loam soi l
(W ilkins,
E f f i c i e n c y o f f e r t l l I z e r use i s
f e r t i IIze r
1982).
I m p r o ve d w i t h b a n d i n g be ca u se ■
r e m a i ns a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p l a n t
season when I t
e t al.,
Is placed deeper In t h e s o i l
Ionger
I n t o t h e grow I ng
where t h e r e
Is a v a ila b le
5
m o i s t u r e (Larsen,
1984).
Placing the f e r t i l i z e r
reduces th e tendency of th e s o i l
to t i e
more
to the
n u trients
to
be a v a i l a b l e
banded deep In the s o i l
eith er
In a narrow band a ls o
up t h e f e r t l I I z e r ,
plant.
a I low Ing
F e rtiliz e rs
p r i o r t o p l a n t i n g or a t
can be
p l a n t i n g t im e.
The optimum banding d i s t a n c e between t h e seed and f e r t l I I z e r w i l l
v ar y w i t h
different fie ld
m oisture,
applied,
small
and t he
to f e r t i l i z e r
It
conditions.
grain v a r ie ty ,
I n i t i a l , soil
F act or s such as s o i l
t h e amount and k i n d o f
conditions a ll
fe rtiliz e r
placement.
is u s u a l l y
impractical
on t h e machinery.
t o a t t e m p t t o band f e r t l I I z e r 75 mm (3
d rills
Under d r yl and c o n d i t i o n s
t h e seed in c o n t a c t w i t h f i r m ,
lift
c le a ra nc e .
The p r o p e r d ept h f o r seed p l a c e m e n t w i l l
conditions.
because of space
The l onger openers r e q u i r e d would not
high enough f o r adequate t r a v e l
field
soil
a f f e c t the crop response
I n) or deeper below the seed w i t h c onventi onal
lim its
type,
vary w ith
it
Is d e s i r a b l e
d iffe re n t
to
pl ace
m oi st s o i l .
F e r t i l i z e r Banding and P l a n t i n g Equipment:
Farmers
and equipment
m a nuf act ur er s
realize
g a i n e d f r o m b a n d i n g f e r t l I I z e r bel ow t h e seed.
d rills
Company
Include
of
cap ab ilities
manufactured
fe rtiliz e r
Mont ana
sim ilar
makes
to
the
banding c a p a b i l i t y .
a
n o -till
Yielder
d rill
(form erly
i n Spokane, W a s h i n g t o n .
Haybuster M anufacturing,
benefits
to
be
Some n e we r n o - t i l I
The M y e r s D i t c h e r
which
P i on ee r )
Bot h d r i l l s
banding c a p a b i l i t i e s which pl ace t h e f e r t i l i z e r
t h e seed r ow.
the
has
planting
n o -till
d rill
have f e r t i l i z e r
a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from
I n c o r p o r a t e d makes n d - t l l l
6
d r i l l s w i t h f e r t i l i z e r banding c a p a b i l i t y
type opener models.
New f e r t i l i z e r
In both double di sk and hoe-
banding n o - t i l I d r i l l s
much as $ 2 6 , 0 0 0 p e r m e t e r w i d t h o f d r 11 I .
these
new d r i l l s
affordable
Some f a r m e r s a r e f i n d i n g
(H olm berg,
1984).
openers developed f o r banding f e r t i l i z e r
can c o st as
However,
low c o s t
using e x i s t i n g d r i l l s
have a
much g r e a t e r c h a n c e f o r w i d e s p r e a d g r o w e r a c c e p t a n c e t h a n does t h e
purchase of expensi ve new equipment.
Anh y dr ou s ammonia a p p l I c a t I o n e q u i p m e n t I s o f t e n used t o band
fe rtilize r
a I.,
p r io r to planting.
Chisel
shanks have been used ( A l l e n ,
1976) t o pl ace anhydrous ammonia In f e r t i l i z e r
Some f a r m e r s a r e
now u s i n g
th is
type of
et
placement s tudi es.
equipment
In a c ombi ned
operatio n a t planting time.
Equipment
I s on t h e
market t h a t
fe rtiliz e r.
Th e se m a c h i n e s can
com bination
w ith
nitrogen
planting
and phos phor ous
be
allo w s
used
equipment.
(N-P)
deep b a n d i n g o f
p rior
to
G ranular
fe rtiliz e rs
planting
nitrogen
are o ften
or
In
(N)
or
banded.w ith
p n e u m a t i c o r g r a v i t y del I v e r y s y s t e m s mounted on, o r I n t e g r a l
heavy-duty
or
Intermediate-duty
cultivators.
Air
dr y
seeders o f
w ith
various
t ypes a r e commonly used f o r banding dry f e r t i l i z e r b e f o r e p l a n t i n g .
F a r m e r s have m o d i f i e d c o n v e n t i o n a l
chisel
plows,
fe rtiliz e r
harrows,
swe eps ,
etc.) to
c u l t i v a t i n g e q u i p m e n t ( I e.
p l a c e both
10 cm (4 I n ) deep o r more I n t o t h e s o i l .
l i q u i d and dry
Chisel
pc I n t s
have been r e p l a c e d w i t h banding k ni ve s t o reduce soi l
d i s t u r b a n c e and
t o l o w e r powe r r e q u i r e m e n t s (Dorn I e r , e t a l . ,
T h is equipment
1 98 3 ) .
could a l s o be used In c ombi nat ion w i t h p l a n t i n g equipment.
.7
Conventi onal
Equipment M o d i f i c a t i o n s :
<
There Is a recogni ze d need f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of c onve nt iona l
d rill
openers
equipment
for
m anufacturers,
m anufacturers are
focused
banding
fe rtiliz e r
farm ers,
Involved
the
seed.
and some s m a l l
In such d e v e l o p m e n t .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n s on t h e g r a i n
m o d i f i c a t i o n s o f c onventi onal
bel ow
d rill
grain d r i l l s
grain
O riginal
farm
equipment
S cie n tis ts
have
o p e n e r when e v a l u a t i n g
to
pl ace f e r t i l i z e r
below
t h e seed ( S ch a f f , e t a l . , 1 9 7 9 ) .
The o p e n e r a c t s as a t i l I age t o o l
t o p r e p a r e t h e seed bed.
r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d from t h i s t i l l a g e o p e r a t i o n depend
soil
fa ctors.
The d e s i r e d seed bed I s
f i r m and
r a p i d t r a n s f e r o f m o i s t u r e t o t h e seed.
The s o i l
on many tool
moist,
resulting
In
The g e n e r a l i z e d
t i l l a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e ma themati cal Iy r epr esented ( G i l l
1967)
and
c o v e r i n g t h e seed
should p r e se n t a s u r f a c e t h a t Is r e s i s t a n t t o drying.
Berg,
The
and Vanden
In t h e f o l l o w i n g e quat ions:
F
= F ( T ^ V S 1)
(1.1)
Sf = g ( T s, T m, S , )
(1.2)
where:
F = f o r c es on t h e tool t o cause movement
T s = t ool shape
Tm = manner of tool movement
Sj = I n i t i a l s o i l c o n d i t i o n
f = f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n between F, Ts, Tm, Sj
Sf = f i n a l s o i l c o n d i t i o n
g = f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n between Sf , Ts, Tm, Sj
The o n l y f a c t o r t h e d e s i g n e r can c o n t r o l
t h e tool
simple
shape (Ts ),
mathemati cal
i n E q u a t i o n s 1.1 and 1.2 I s
which may be mathemati cal Iy descr ibed.
e q ua t ions o f t e n
cannot
be used t o
However,
represent the
8
complex
surfaces
developed
a n alysis
Involved.
by c u t - a n d - t r y
(Kepner,
Influenced
e t al.
Mo s t
methods
1980).
by t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n
d ire c tio n of tra v el
of the t o o l ,
tilla g e -to o l
or
Manner o f
of
The user may v ar y the depth of
which
Influence
condition (S|)
manner
tool
tool
SI ope
2.
Structure
3.
Densit y
4.
Strength
5.
Texture
6.
M I neral
7.
Chemical
8.
Moi s tur e c o n t e n t .
of
have
been
q u a lita tiv e
movement ( T m)
a c t i n g on t h e t o o l ,
of tr a v e l
is
the
of th e
p l a n t i n g and speed of o p e r a t i o n
movement.
Is I n fl u e n c e d by t h e f o l l o w i n g s o i l
1.
The t o o l
of
forces
basis
and t h e v e l o c i t y
tool.
the
on t h e
s hapes
The
in itia l
soil
properties:
content
composi tion
may be o p e r a t e d t h r o u g h a w i d e r a n g e o f s o i l c o n d i t i o n s In
any p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d o p e r a t i o n ,
s i g n i f i c a n t l y com plicating attempts a t
q u a n t i f y i n g performance.
In p r e v i o u s l y mentioned s t u d i e s
(Hyde,
John Deere HZ opener was used f o r f e r t i l i z e r
e t al.,
1982),
placement.
a p p l led through t h e r e a r p o r t i o n o f t h e opener
a m od i fi e d
The seed was
or
through a t r a i l Ing
double di s k opener w i t h an a t t a c h e d f i r m i n g wheel.
The John Deere HZ
g ra in
band
dr 11 I o p e n e r was f u r t h e r m o d i f i e d
fe rtiliz e r
approxim ately
two
(W ilkin s,
Inches
bel ow
e t a l.,
the
19 8 2 ) t o
seed.
This
9
modified
d eep- f ur r ow
opener
was e v e n t u a l l y
developed
I n t o t h e USDA
o p e n e r and I s now m a n u f a c t u r e d by G a r r i s o n F a b r i c a t i o n
In Ma u pI n ,
Oregon.
Haybuster M a n u f a c t u r i n g o f Jamestown,
different f e r t iliz e r
till
d rill.
To
banding openers f o r use on t h e Haybuster 8000 no­
date,
no t e s t s
have
performance of Haybuster 8000 f e r t i l i z e r
fe rtilize r
North Dakota has developed
been
performed
to
compar e
banding openers w i t h
other
banding openers.
An e v a l u a t i o n was conducted f o r
types
(W ilk in s,
d i sk ,
and s ever al
m oisture
was
sig n ifican tly
e t a I.,
1983).
hoe types.
lim itin g .
The o p e n e r s
Included
opener
deep f u r r o w ,
F i e l d t e s t s were conducted where seedbed
R e s u lts
In d icated
a f f e c t e d seed d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
b u l k d e n s i t y In t h e seed bed.
emergence.
s ix d i f f e r e n t grain d r i l l
soil
th at
opener
m oi s t u r e c o nt ent ,
type
and
T h i s I n t u r n a f f e c t e d w h e a t seed I I ng
The best emergence was produced w i t h t h e USDA deep furrow
o p e n e r t h a t p l a c e d o v e r 70 p e r c e n t o f t h e seed In c o n t a c t w i t h s o i l
t h a t c ont ai ned more than t h e l i m i t i n g m o i s t u r e cont ent .
In these
studies
showed t h a t deep placement of
Improved y i e l d s f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n t i l l a g e
Yield results
fe rtilize r
sometimes
systems.
In 1983 f i e l d t e s t s were conducted a t Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y t o
compare t h r e e types of
b a n d i n g o p e n e r was
openers (Larsen and Dubbs,
designed
and c o n s t r u c t e d
In
1983).
the
A m od i fi e d
A gricultural
E n g i ne er i n g r ese ar ch shop and compared w i t h A c r a - pi a n t and s h o v e l - t y p e
openers.
t h e f ur row
The m o d i f i e d opener
and s l i g h t l y
placed t h e f e r t i l i z e r
deeper than t h e
b a r l e y and Newana s p r i n g wheat
Indicated
seed.
In t he c e n t e r of
Stand counts of C l a r k
t h a t the d e s i r e d
separation
10
of
the
seed
s ig n ific a n t
and
fe rtiliz e r
d iffe re n c e s
A c r a - p la n t openers,
we re
In
Table
I,
obtained.
and t h e s t a n d a r d s hov el
and
T h e re
we re
no
In y i e l d f o r t h e m o d i f i e d b a n d i n g o p e n e r ,
am oun ts o f f e r t I I I z e r we re used.
shown
not
In d ic a te
o p e n e r s when t h e same
The r e s u l t s f r o m t h e s e t e s t s a r e
that
there
was
a response
to
Increased r a t e s o f f e r t i l i z e r .
Table I .
Y i e l d R e s u l t s From 1983 Opener T r i a l s
1983).
Crop and Opener
F e r t l I Ize r a p p l led
KG/Ha ( I b / a c )
( L a r s e n and Dubbs,
MG/Ha
Yield*
(B u /Acre)
Cl ark B a r l ey
Regu I a r
0 -0 -0
2.58 (47.9)abc
ModIf led
A cra-plant
Regular
28-34-0 ( 25 -3 0- 0)
28-34-0 ( 25- 30- 0)
28-34-0 (25-30-0)
2.30 (42 .8 )a b
2.22 ( 41 .2)a
2.37 (44. 0)a bc
Mod I f l e d
A cra-plant
Regular
56-34-0 ( 50- 30- 0)
56-34-0 ( 50 -3 0- 0)
56-34-0 ( 50- 30- 0)
2.43 ( 4 5 . 1 )abc
2.75 ( 5 1 . I ) be
2.81 ( 5 2 . 3 )c
Newana Sprin g Wheat
Regular
0 -0 -0
1.30 (19 .3)a
Mod I f I e d
Acra -pl ant
Regular
28-34-0 ( 25 -3 0- 0)
28-34-0 ( 25- 30- 0)
28-34-0 ( 25 -3 0- 0)
1.52 ( 2 2 . 6 )a
1.43 ( 21 .3)a
1.67 (2 4.8)ab
Mod I f l e d
A cra-plant
Regular
56-34-0 ( 50- 30- 0)
56-34-0 (5 0- 3 0 - 0 )
56-34-0 (50 -30 -0)
2.06 (3 0.6)bc
2. 20 ( 3 2 . 8 ) c
2.28 ( 3 3 . 9 )c
^Numbers w i t h i n each g r a i n typ e f o l l o w e d by th e same l e t t e r are not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
11
Very
few t e s t s
have been p e r f o r m e d t o c om pa re p e r f o r m a n c e of
m odified f e r t l I Izer-band lng grain d r i l l
f e r t 1 1 I z e r appl I c a t I o n me thods.
been q u i t e v a r i a b l e .
sometimes r e s u l t e d
openers w i t h c o n v e n tio n a l
R e s u l t s f r o m a v a i l a b l e t e s t s have
T e s t s In c e n t r a l Oregon w I t h mod I f I e d o p e n e r s
In I ncreased
g r a i n y i e l d s r e l a t i v e t o conventi onal
openers and never reduced y i e l d s ( W i l k i n s ,
To date,
e t a I.,
1982).
no t e s t s have been performed t o compare performance of
modified f e r t l I Izer-bandlng grain d r i l l
openers w i t h the newer n o - t i l I
dr 11 I s t h a t have f e r t l I I z e r b a n d l n g c a p a b l I I t y .
conventional
hoe o p e n e r
d rills
w ith
a commercial
( Y I e I d e r ) was c o n s i d e r e d f o r t h e s e s t u d i e s .
fo r renting a Y IeId er t e s t plot d r i l l
purchase
price
was $ 5 2 , 0 0 0
p r o h i b i t i v e t o use In t h i s
A t e s t comparIng
n o - t 11 I
d rill
H o we ve r , t h e I 984 c o s t
f o r t wo weeks was $5,000 and the
(Swanson,
1983)
ma ki ng
It
fin a n c ia lly
project.
Problem S t a t em en t ;
T he I n t e n t o f t h i s
m o d ified
g ra in
conve nt iona l
d rill
openers.
must Improve f e r t i l i z e r
research
openers
project
th a t
was t o d e v e l o p and t e s t
could
In o r d e r t o be s u cc e s s f u l ,
be
used
to
re p la c e
t h e m o d i f i e d openers
use e f f i c i e n c y .
Objectives:
The
purpose
of
th is
m o d i f i c a t i o n s of c onventi onal
below t h e seed.
1.
research
p ro je c t
grain d r i l l
was t o
Investigate
openers t o p l ac e f e r t i l i z e r
The s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s were:
Devel op g r a i n d r i l l o p e n e r s w I t h t h e c a p a b i l i t y o f band I ng
f e r t i l i z e r below t he seed t o r e p l a c e openers on conventi onal
grain d r i l l s .
12
2.
Conduct f i e l d t e s t s t o e v a l u a t e d i f f e r e n t openers on f i e l d s
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Montana c o n d i t i o n s .
3.
Test the p o te n tia l
c onventi onal d r i l l s
of using th e s e
m odified
under n o - t l 11 c o n d i t i o n s .
openers
on
13
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Opener Design C r i t e r i a ;
O bjective
c rite ria
I
was p a r t i a l l y
met by d e s i g n i n g
new o p e n e r s .
The
used f o r devel opi ng new openers and f o r s e l e c t i n g commercial
openers f o r t e s t s were:
1.
The opener must pl ace t h e f e r t i l i z e r In a c o n ce n t r a t e d band
below t he seed w i t h adequate s e p a r a t i o n between the seed and
fe r tlI Izer.
2.
The opener must pl ace t h e seed a t t h e proper depth, g e n e r a l l y
In c o n t a c t w i t h f i r m , m o i s t s o i l .
3.
The o p e n e r must p r o v i d e a p r o p e r seed bed t o e n c o u r a g e good
m o i s t u r e t r a n s f e r t o the seed and f o r proper g e r m i n a t i o n f o r
e s t a b l i s h m e n t of good stands.
Based on a v a i l a b l e
1983),
openers
were designed t o p l ac e f e r t i l i z e r 50 mm (2 I n) below t he seed.
Longer
openers r e q u i r e d t o
I n f o r m a t i o n (Babowlcz and Hyde,
band f e r t i l i z e r
high enough f o r adequate t r a v e l
a t greater
depths would not
lift
c l e a r a n c e w i t h t he a v a i l a b l e hoe-type
dr 11 I .
D rill
T e s t Frame;
The o p e n e r s used I n t h i s p r o j e c t w e r e d e s i g n e d t o f i t on a John
Deere LZ d r i l l ,
as I t
in t h e s t a t e .
A conventional
model
for
Is typical
of many c o m m e r c i a l l y
available
units
o p e n e r f r o m t h i s dr 11 I was used as a
t h e m o u n t i n g g e o m e t r y and f o r
the opener
length
In t h e
14
design of t h e m o d i f i e d openers.
Mounting components f o r
the openers
developed
had t o ma tc h e q u i v a l e n t c ompone nt s on t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l
openers.
Op e ne rs
developed
could
e a s ily
be
adapted
to
other
The maximum amount o f g r a n u l a r f e r t i I I z e r t h e LZ d r i l l
could
commercially a v a i l a b l e d r i l l s .
del I v e r was 168 Kg / Ha ( T50 I b / a c ) .
f e r t i I I z e r d r i v e me chani sm
k g/ ha (174
New s p r o c k e t s w e r e added t o t h e
In o r d e r t o del I v e r t h e h i g h r a t e s (195
I b /ac)) of granular f e r t i l i z e r
used In these
studies.
Openers Used I n t h e F i e l d T e s t s :
F ie ld
experim ents
were conducted
d i f f e r e n t fur r ow opener designs on small
USDA opener,
, the c h i s e l
(EgeI and,
to
evaluate
grain
the
effect
stand and y i e l d .
c o n s t r u c t e d by G a rr i so n F a b r i c a t i o n ( Ga r r i s o n ,
1984),
of
The
and
b a n d i n g o p e n e r used on t h e H a y b u s t e r 8 0 0 0 n o - t 11 I d r i l l
1 98 4 ) w e r e p u r c h a s e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n
in t h e o p e n e r t e s t s .
The se o p e n e r s w e r e s e l e c t e d b eca us e t h e y w e r e t h e o n l y c h i s e l
type
o p e n e r s a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e s t u d y t h a t banded f e r t i I I z e r
below the seed.
These openers had t o be m o d i f i e d f o r mounting on t he
John Deere LZ d r i l l
used i n
t h e study.
The e x p e r i m e n t a l ,
commer ci al ,
and c o n v e n t i o n a l o p e n e r s used f o r f i e l d t e s t s a r e shown i n F i g u r e I
and a r e
described
below.
The number a s s o c i a t e d w i t h
each o pe ne r
corresponds t o t he number shown in F i g u r e I .
1.
A c r a - p I a n t openers a r e commercial openers t h a t a r e commonly
used in Montana.
They a r e a narrow c h i s e l - t y p e opener t h a t
p l ac e t he seed (and f e r t i l i z e r when used) in a narrow band.
2.
The s t a n d a r d John D e e r e o p e n e r s a r e a 75 mm (3 i n ) shove l
t h a t p l a c e , t h e seed (and f e r t i I I z e r when used) in a band 50
t o 75 mm (2 t o 3 I n ) w i d e .
Figure I.
Grain Drill Openers Used in the Experiment
16
3.
The Haybuster 8000 banding openers a r e c o m m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e
u n i t s t h a t p l a c e f e r t i l i z e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 mm (2 In) below
t h e seed.
The f i r m i n g p l a t e above t he f e r t l l I z e r Is designed
t o p u l l s o i l o v e r t h e f e r t l l I z e r s l o t and f o r m t w o nar row
grooves 75 mm (3 In) a p a r t f o r t h e seed.
4.
The USDA b a n d i n g o p e n e r s a r e c o m m e r c i a l Iy a v a i l a b l e u n i t s
t h a t p l a c e f e r t l l I z e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 mm ( 2 I n ) be low t h e
seed. T h i s d e s i g n depends on f r e e f l o w i n g s o i l t o f l o w I n t o
t h e f e r t i l i z e r groove p r i o r t o t h e seed drop.
5.
The k n i f e - t y p e b a n d i n g o p e n e r s w e r e d e s i g n e d by t h e a u t h o r
and c o n s t r u c t e d I n t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g R e s ea r ch
shop. The k n i f e - t y p e o p e n e r c om bi n ed a 75 mm (3 I n ) s hovel
opener f o l l o w e d by a k n i f e bl ade t h a t s l i c e d through t he seed
l a y e r t o pl ace t h e f e r t i l i z e r 50 mm (2 I n) below the seed.
6.
The w i n g - t y p e banding openers were designed by t h e author and
c o n s t r u c t e d In t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g R e s e a r c h shop.
The w i n g - t y p e opener c uts a narrow s l o t f o r t h e f e r t i l i z e r .
S h o r t b l a d e s 50 mm (2 I n ) above t h e o p e n e r p o i n t f o r m a
n a r r o w g r o o v e on each s i d e o f t h e f e r t i l i z e r s l o t f o r t h e
seed.
T e s t p l o t s were l i m i t e d t o dry la nd
of the small
planted
grain
u n de r
p roduc ti on ar eas o f
dryland
conditions
ar eas t y p i c a l
Montana.
be ca u se
the
of t h e m a j o r i t y
The t e s t
effects
f e r t l l I z e r a r e more a p p a r e n t under t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s .
typical
of t h e m a j o r i t y o f t he small
F ie ld
conditions
varied
at
p l o t s were
of
banding
This
Is a lso
g r a i n acreage In t h e s t a t e .
eac h
location
and
one
to
four
d i f f e r e n t preplant soil
treatments
were used a t each s i t e .
The d i f f e r e n t cr oppi ng systems used are shown
In T a b l e 2.
(commonly c a l l e d c r oppi ng systems)
The f e r t l l Jzer r a t e s used a t each l o c a t i o n wer e t h e r a t e s
r ecommended by t h e r e s e a r c h a g r o n o m i s t a t t h a t l o c a t i o n . They w e r e
s e l e c t e d t o g i v e maximum y i e l d under good growing c o n d i t i o n s .
17
Table 2.
• Summary of Furrow Opener T e s t E v a l u a t i o n P l o t s E st a b l i s h ed .
Summer 1984.
Location
Soil
Moccas In
Judith
c I ay I oam
(earbonatlc
Typl c
CaIcIboroI Is)
Moccas In
Moccas In
Moccas In
Judith
c l a y Ioam
(earbonatlc
TypI c
CaIcIboroI Is)
Judith
c l a y Ioam
(earbonatlc
TypI c
C a I c I boroI Is)
Judith
c l a y Ioam
(earbonatlc
Ty pI c
CaIcIboroI Is)
Cropping
System
Summer
Fal low .
No-til I,
B a r l ey
S tubbl e
No-til I,
Barl ey
S tubbl e
No-til I,
Spri ng
Wheat
Stubbl e
C uItIvar
Opener
Newana
Spri ng
Wheat
I
195 k g/ ha 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
pl aced w i t h t he
seed
2
None
Cl a r k
Barl ey
Newana
Spri ng
Wheat
Cl ark
Barl ey
F e rtilize r
3 ,4 ,5 ,6
195 k g/ h a 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
placed below t he
seed
I
195 k g/ h a 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
placed w i t h the
seed
2
None
3 ,4,5,6
195 k g/ ha 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
pl aced below the
seed
I
195 k g/ ha 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
pl aced w i t h the
seed
2
None
3,4 ,5 ,6
195 k g/ ha 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
pl aced below the
seed
I
195 k g/ h a 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
p i aced w i t h the
seed
2
None
3,4 ,5 ,6
195 k g/ h a 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
placed below t he
seed
18
T a b l e 2— Cont inu ed.
Summary of Furrow Opener T e s t
Established.
Summer 1984.
L o c at i on
Soi l
Conrad
Scobey
s i l t Ioam
(montmor11Ion ItIc
ArIdIc
A rgI bor oI I s )
Cropping
System
Summer
Fal low
Scobey
s i l t I oam
( montmor11 Io n ItIc
ArIdIc
A r gI b or oI I s )
N o -tlI I,
Spri ng
Wheat
Stubbl e
Opener
Cl ark
Bar Iey
I
123 k g / h a 0 - 4 5 - 0
p i aced w i t h the
seed and 90 k g/ ha
3 4 - 0 - 0 s u rf ace
br oa dca st
2
123 k g/ h a 0 - 4 5 - 0
and 90 kg/ha
3 4 - 0 - 0 s u rf ace
b r oa dc as t
Clark
B a r l ey
Al I t r e a t m e n t s r e c e i v e d 28 kg/ha
potash, and an a d d i t i o n a l 206 kg/ ha
3 4 - 0 - 0 s u r f a c e broadcast b e fo r e
pi a n t i n g .
Columbus
TorrIorthents
and
Camborth Ids
a r e common
No- TI I I ,
WI n t e r
Wheat
Stubble
Al I t r e a t m e n t s r e c e i v e d 1.2 I I t e r s
( I p I n t / a c ) Roundup f o r c o n t r o l o f
Cheatgrass b e f or e p l a n t i n g .
Plots
CuItIvar
Al I t r e a t m e n t s r e c e i v e d 28 kg/ ha
potash, and an a d d i t i o n a l 75 k g/ ha
3 4 - 0 - 0 s u r f a c e broadcast before
pi a n t i n g .
Conrad
Evaluation
3 ,4,5,6
233 k g/ ha 1 4 - 2 4 - 0
pl aced below the
seed
I
123 k g / h a 0 - 4 5 - 0
pl aced w i t h the
seed and 90 k g/ ha
3 4 -0 -0 surface
br oadcast
2
123 k g/ h a 0 - 4 5 - 0
and 90 kg/ha
3 4 - 0 - 0 s u r f ac e
b r oa dc as t
3,4 ,5 ,6
Cl ark
Barl ey
F e rtilize r
233 k g / h a 1 4 - 2 4 - 0
placed below the
seed
I
65 k g / h a 11 - 5 2 - 0
pl aced w i t h the
seed and 131
kg/ha 46-0-0
surface
b r oa dc as t
2
None
3 ,4,5,6
195 k g/ ha 3 4 - 1 7 - 0
placed below the
seed
19
Experi mental
The
F i e l d T e s t Designs
e x p e r im e n t a l . design
used
for
th e -opener
tria ls
was
random I z e d c o m p l e t e b l o c k w i t h s i x b l o c k s and s i x t r e a t m e n t s .
a
The
number a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each t r e a t m e n t corresponds t o t h e numbers used
I n T a b l e 2 and F i g u r e I .
The s i x t r e a t m e n t s w e r e as f o l l o w s
(s e e
Table 2 ):
1.
Acr a- pl a nt opener - F e r t i l i z e r
s u r f a c e br oa dc as t .
2.
C o n v e n t i o n a l s h ov el o p e n e r - ' A c h ec k t r e a t m e n t u s i n g no
f e r t i l i z e r or f e r t i l i z e r was s u r f a c e br oadcast.
3.
Haybuster 8000 f e r t l l I z e r banding opener placed below the seed.
4.
USDA ( G a r r i s o n F a b r i c a t i o n ) f e r t i l i z e r
F e r t i l i z e r was placed b e l ow t he seed.
5.
A g ricu ltu ral
Engineering k n if e - t y p e f e r t i l i z e r
opener - F e r t i l i z e r was placed below the seed.
banding
6.
Agricultural
E n gi nee ri ng
wing-type
fe rtilize r
opener - F e r t i l i z e r was placed below the seed.
banding
The number of
f o l l o w i n g e q uat i on
bl ocks
(replications)
(Cochran and Cox,
r > 2 ( 6 / a ) 2 ( t 1+ t 2 ) 2
was
placed w i t h
t h e seed or
F e r t i I I z e r was
banding opener -
was deter mined by using t he
1950):
( 2 . 1)
where:
6 = tr ue, d i f f e r e n c e t h a t i t Is de si r ed t o d e t e c t
a = t r u e standard e r r o r per u n i t
+1 = s i g n i f i c a n t v a l u e of t In t h e t e s t of s i g n i f i c a n c e
t 2 = v a l u e of t corr espondi ng t o 2 U - P ) where P Is the
p r o b a b i l i t y of o b t a i n i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t .
A t r u e standard e r r o r per u n i t o f 295 was used In Equati on 2.1 and was
t a k e n f r o m e a r l I e r Mo nt a na S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y o p e n e r t r i a l s
and Dubbs,
1983).
(Larsen
The o t h e r v al ue s a r e dependent upon one a nothe r,
so
20
a tria l
and e r r o r
re p lic a tio n s
v a l u e s of t
error
solution
required to
was
used t o
detect
a true
used were based on a f i v e
determ ine
the
d ifferen ce
number
In y i e l d .
p e r ce n t p r o b a b i l i t y
of
The
of a Type I
and a 90 p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y o f o b t a i n i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t .
The se
are
common
agronomic
p ro b a b ilitie s
m u ltip le
comparison
( C o ch r a n
tests.
and
Cox,
Solution
1950)
of
used
Equation
In
2.1
r e s u l t e d In a compromise w i t h s i x r e p l i c a t i o n s and a d i f f e r e n c e o f 578
Kg/ Ha
needed t o make s i g n i f i c a n t
differences
between t r e a t m e n t s .
I n cr e a s i n g t he number of r e p l i c a t i o n s would decrease t he d i f f e r e n c e
y ie ld
needed
to
detect
a
s ig n ific a n t
experiment p r o h i b i t i v e l y large.
re su lt
but
would
In
make t h e
Decreasi ng t he number of r e p l i c a t i o n s
would make t h e e x p e r i m e n t less e f f e c t i v e w i t h po s si b ly no s i g n i f i c a n t
differences
The
In y i e l d .
p lo t
layo u t
Is
s ho w n
In
F ig u re
2.
The
area
fo r
the
e x p e r i m e n t was 15 s q u a r e m e t e r s ( 1 6 0 s q u a r e f e e t ) pe r t r e a t m e n t , 89
s q u a r e m e t e r s ( 9 6 0 s q u a r e f e e t ) p e r b l o c k w i t h 12 m e t e r s (40 f e e t )
betw een
blocks
fo r
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 803
eq u ip m en t
m aneuverin g.
square meters (8,640
square f e e t )
A to tal
area
of
was r e q u i r e d f o r
each p I o t .
Two t r e a t m e n t s (one and t w o ,
t h r e e and f o u r ,
and f i v e and s i x )
a r e p a i r e d t o g e t h e r I n each b l o c k b e ca u s e o f t h e l a b o r r e q u i r e d t o
change openers.
per l o c a t i o n .
T h i s p a i r i n g reduced t h e opener changes t o two t i m e s
Complete r a n d o m i z a t i o n would have r e q u i r e d changing the
openers up t o t e n t i m e s a t each l o c a t i o n .
a d ditional
T h i s would have r e q u i r e d an
t w e l v e w o r k i n g h our s f o r t w o men a t each l o c a t i o n .
same r a n d o m i z a t i o n
scheme was used In each t e s t p l o t .
The
Each a n a l y s i s
21
Figure 2.
T y pi ca l
P l o t Layout w i t h Ty pi ca l
Randomization Scheme.
r
I
— •Jim I* —
I
I
12 m
Bl ock 4
Block 5
Block 6
I2 m
12 m
I
2
5
6
3
4
5
treated
randomization
3
4
I
2
3
4
as
a
com pletely
I
2
5
6
Block 3
Block 2
Block I
was
6
random I z e d
block
design
w ith
no
restrictions.
Data C o l l e c t i o n :
Stand count data were c o l l e c t e d using a standard c o u n ti n g rod one
m e t e r l on g.
T h r e e l o c a t i o n s w e r e c o u n t e d In each row t o d e t e r m i n e
number o f p l a n t s per m e t e r .
D a ta was col I e c t e d f r o m t h e t w o I n n e r
r ows o f each t r e a t m e n t and t h e d a t a f o r
the s i x
sta nd counts
per
t r e a t m e n t were averaged.
Y i e l d s wer e de te rmi ne d by h a r v e s t i n g 4.9 meters o u t of t he mi ddl e
o f each t r e a t m e n t .
combine.
Al I f o u r r ows w e r e h a r v e s t e d u s i n g a Hege p l o t
Each s a m p l e was c l e a n e d ,
weighed,
and t h e d a t a r e c o r d e d .
22
Stands o f v o l u n t e e r g r a i n were not a n t i c i p a t e d but were observed
In some c a s e s .
The amount o f v o l u n t e e r
grain
In t h e
s a m p l e s was
de t er mi ne d In t h e f o l l owi ng manner:
1.
Three subsamples were taken from each y i e l d sample.
2.
The t o t a l
3.
The crop was s epar ated manual ly from t he v o l u n t e e r g r a i n and
weighed.
4.
The p e rce nt v o l u n t e e r was determined on a w e i g h t b a s i s .
Yield
data
yields
of
subsample was weighed.
In p l o t s w i t h v o l u n t e e r g r a i n were a d j u s t e d t o o b t a i n
t h e crop p l ant e d.
the p e rce nt crop,
The t o t a l
g r a i n y i e l d was m u l t i p l i e d
ta ken from t h e v o l u n t e e r
a d ju s te d crop y i e l d .
grain
da t a,
to obtain
t he
by
the
A d j u s t e d c r o p y i e l d I s used I n t h e a n a l y s e s o f
t he t e s t p l o t s
Involving volunteer grain
discussed
data c o l l e c t e d
I s shown by block and l o c a t i o n
In Cha pt er 3.
Al I
In t h e Appendix.
Data A n a l y s i s :
The s t a t i s t i c a l
analyze a l l
package c a l l e d
data c o l l e c t e d .
Table
MSUSTAT (Lund,
3
1983)
shows o r t h o g o n a l
was used t o
comparisons
t h a t w e r e d e v i s e d I n t h e p l a n n i n g s t a g e s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t and w e r e
made In t he data
below.
a nal yses.
The orthogonal
comparisons a r e descri bed
The number o f each c o m p a r i s o n c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h t h e number
g Iven In T a b l e 3 .
1.
C o n v e n t i o n a l o p e n e r (no f e r t i l i z e r ) vs. a l l o t h e r s (2 vs.
1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) - T h i s c o m p a r i s o n I n d i c a t e s a ny f e r t i l i z e r
response.
2.
Ac r a- p l a n t o p e n e r vs. b a n d i n g o p e n e r s (1 vs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ) - T h i s
c o m p a r i s o n c o m p ar e s f e r t i l i z e r p l a c e d w i t h t h e seed or
s u r f a c e b r o a d c a s t t o banding f e r t l l I z e r w i t h t h e mo d i f i e d
openers.
23
3.
C o m m e r c i a l vs.
A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g Research openers
( 3 , 4 v s. 5 , 6 ) - T h i s c o m p a r i s o n c om pa re s t h e c o m m e r c i a l
openers t o t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g Research m o d i f i e d
openers.
4.
USDA vs. Haybuster 8000 (3 vs. 4) - T h i s comparison compares
the two c o m m e r c i a l l y a v a i l a b l e openers t o each o t he r .
5.
K n i f e - t y p e vs.
W ing-type
compares the two A g r i c u l t u r a l
each o t h e r .
Table 3 .
Orthogonal
Comparison
Comparisons Used In A n a l y s i s .
Tr eat ment
Check vs. a I I o t h e r s
2 v s . 1, 3 , 4 , 5 ,6
A c r a - p l a n t openers vs.
band Ing openers
I v s . 3 , 4 , 5 ,6
Commercial vs. A g r i c u l t u r a l
E n g i ne er i n g Research openers
3 , 4 v s. 5 , 6
G a r r i s o n vs. Haybuster
3 v s. 4
K n I f e - t ype vs.
WI ng-type
5 vs. 6
I
2
3
4
5
(5 vs. 6 ) - T h i s c o m p a r i s o n
E ng i ne er i ng Research openers t o
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
-5
I
I
I
I
-4
0
I
I
I
I
0
0
-I
-I
I
I
0
0
-I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
-I
I
N o -T I11 P lo ts:
S ix
of
the
e ig h t
te s t
p lo ts
were
plan ted
under
( r e c r o p ) c o n d i t i o n s f o r p u r p o s e s o f a s s e s s i n g O b j e c t i v e 3.
observation
grain
d rill,
dur i ng
planting
equipped
performed s a t i s f a c t o r i l y
w ith
was used t o
m odified
de te rmi ne
fe rtiliz e r
under n o - t l I I c o n d i t i o n s .
If
n o - 11 I I
Visual
a conventional
banding
openers,
The openers were
s e t a t 30 cm (12 I n) spaci ng w i t h 41 cm (16 In) between f r o n t and r e a r
gangs
In a l l
the t e s t plots.
24
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AMD DISCUSSION
Opener C o n s t r u c t i o n :
The A g r i c u l t u r a l
E n g i ne er i n g Research ( w i n g - t y p e
openers were c o n s t r u c t e d
fro m mM d s t e e l .
and k n i f e - t y p e )
T h i s was a d e q u a t e f o r
d e t e r m i n i n g opener c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t would meet t h e I n i t i a l
design
c r i t e r i a gi ven In Chapter 2. , A s i m i l a r
opener
design In a commercial
would need t o be har dfaced or made from more wear r e s i s t a n t m a t e r i a l s .
Grain D r i l l
Performance:
The John D e e r e LZ g r a i n
d rill
used
In the s e
studies
did not
supply adequate down pr essure t o enabl e t h e w i n g - t y p e and k n i f e - t y p e
openers t o operate, proper Iy.
seeding depth
pressure.
I t was d i f f i c u l t t o m a i n t a i n p r o p e r
even when t h e d r i l l
was a d j u s t e d f o r maximum down
Problems w i t h seed tube pl uggi ng were a ls o encountered w i t h
t he w I n g - type and k n i f e - t y p e openers
In t h e Moccasin t e s t
plots.
The
p i t c h a ngl e on t h e Haybuster 8000 opener was not a d j u st e d p r o pe r l y f o r
t he f i r s t two t e s t p l o t s a t Moccasin.
the r e s t of the t e s t p lo ts .
However,
t h i s was c o r r e c t e d f o r
These p r o b l e m s a r e 11 l u s t r a t e d
data a n a l y s i s and a re discussed In more d e t a i l
A fte r con sid e ra b le f i e l d
below.
a d j u s t m e n t , the grain d r i l l
s a t i s f a c t o r i l y w i t h t h e Standard, A c r a - p l a n t ,
In t h e
performed
Haybuster 8000, and t he
USDA o p e n e r s under n o - t i l I and summer f a l low c o n d i t i o n s .
Travel
25
c l e a r a n c e was adequate f o r a l l
the openers used In the study.
I t was
necessary t o modify t h e f e r t l I I z e r d r i v e mechanism t o del I v e r t he high
ra te s of f e r t i l i z e r
needed f o r
used, a f t e r w h i c h no o t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s w e r e
these s t ud i e s.
Precipitations
Grow I ng c o n d i t i o n s w e r e I ess t h a n o p t i m u m , w i t h r a i n f a l l
t h a n normal
ra in fall
4.
I n M o c c a s i n and I n Conr ad.
g r o w i n g season
Is compared t o t h e average growi ng season r a i n f a l l
The low y i e l d s I n a l l
dry growi ng season.
In T a b l e
o f t h e t r e a t m e n t s can be a t t r I b u t ed t o t h e
The l ess than normal
t o t he lack of s i g n i f i c a n t y i e l d
Tabl e 4 .
The a c t u a l
less
rain fall
may a l s o c o n t r i b u t e
differences.
Grow I ng Season R a i n f a l l f o r 1984 and t h e A v e r a g e R a I n f a I I
f o r t he Ce nt ra l A g r i c u l t u r a l E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , M o c c a s i n
and t h e Western T r i a n g l e Research Center, Conrad.
Average*
Station
Month
Amount (1984)
Moccasin
May
J une
July
1.47
5.49
0.66
6.58
8.33
4.11
T ot a l
7.62
19.02
May
J une
J ul y
2.89
3.12
0.00
4.85
8.33
3.99
Total
6.01
17.17
RaIn fa lI
Conrad
* Average In Moccasin based on 7 4 - y e a r mean.
on 3 0 - y e a r mean. ■
(cm)
Average In Conrad based
26
Moccas I n:
The s t a n d e s t a b l i s h e d
r a n g e d f r o m 4 t o 16 p l a n t s
f o r t h e w i n g - t y p e and k n i f e - t y p e openers
pe r m e t e r o f row ( T a b l e 5 ) ,
Orthogonal
com pa r I son 5 o f o p e n e r s 5 vs. 6 In T a b l e 6 I n d l c a t e t h a t I n t h r e e o f
t h e f o u r c r o p p I n g s y s t e m s t h e w I n g - t y p e o p e n e r had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r stand count th a n t h e k n i f e - t y p e opener.
This d iffe r e n c e
Is
probabl y due t o Inadequate p e n e t r a t i o n due t o Inadequate down pressure
for
the
kn ife-typ e
opener.
Inadequate
problem f o r th e w I n g - t y p e opener;
down p r e s s u r e was a l s o a
however.
I t was n o t as s e v e r e .
Some p l u g g i n g was o b s e r v e d I n t h e seed dr op t u b e s f o r b o t h o f t h e s e
openers which r e s u l t e d
In
poor seed d i s t r i b u t i o n
The o b s e r v e d p r o b l e m s r e s u l t e d
thr ou gh o ut t he
row.
In lo w e r stand counts f o r th ese two
openers as compared t o stand counts r angi ng from 13 t o 26 p l a n t s
m e t e r o f row o b t a i n e d w i t h t h e c o m m e r c i a l
T a b l e 5),
This
Is also evident
In orthogonal
banding o peners (3,4
per
In
comparison 3 o f openers
3^4 vs. 5 , 6 (T a bl e 6 ) f o r 3 o f t h e 4 c r o p p I ng s y s te m s.
Orthogonal
c o m p a r i s o n 4 o f o p e n e r s 3 v s. 4 ( T a b l e 6 ) I n d i c a t e s
t h a t t h e USDA opener
had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
higher stand count than t h e
Haybuster 8000 opener In 2 of t h e 4 c r oppi ng systems.
This d iffe re n c e
was probably caused by t h e poorl y a d j u s t e d p i t c h of t h e Haybuster 8000
o p e n e r I n t h e f i r s t t w o t e s t p l o t s sown ( c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s 2 and 4 I n
T a b l e s 5 and 6 ) and press wheels t h a t were narrower than de si re d f o r
t he Haybuster 8000 opener.
Stands f o r
t he conventi onal
opener where no f e r t I l I z e r was used
ranged from 17 t o 32 p l a n t s per meter of row (Ta bl e 5).
Stand counts
Tl
T a b le 5 .
Stand E s ta b lis h m e n t o f S pring G rain Cropping Systems f o r S ix
G ra in D r i l l Opener T reatm ents, Moccasin.
Summer 1984.
O pe ner **
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A c r a - pI a n t
Conventional
Haybuster 8000
USDA
Kn I f e - t ype
WIng-type
I
—------- Cropping System*---------- 2
3
4
14c
32a
25b
26b
9cd
5d
Pl a nts per meter of r o w * * *
11b
6c
17a
22a
13b
23a
17a
24a
4c
6c
16a
12b
8c
18ab
10c
21a
8c
16b
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - Newana S p r i n g W h e a t I n Summer F a l l o w
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In B a r l e y S tubbl e
3 - Newana Spr ing Wheat In B a r l e y S tu b b l e
4 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spr ing Wheat S tu b b l e
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - F e r t I I I z e r banded w i t h t he seed
2 - No f e r t l I I z e r
3 - F e r t I I I z e r banded below t he seed
4 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - F e r t I I I z e r banded below t h e seed
6 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
* * * N u m b e r s w i t h i n each colum n f o l l o w e d by t h e same l e t t e r a r e no t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
28
T a b le 6.
S tand E s ta b I Is h m e n t o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p in g S ystem s f o r
G r a I n D r I I I Opener Orthogonal Comparisons, Moccasin.
Summer
1984.
Compar I son
O pener**
I
---------- C ropping System*---------2
3
4
Pl a n ts per meter o f ro w * * *
17a
22 a
12b
14b
17a
13b
I
2 vs.
1, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6
32a
16b
2
1 vs.
3 ,4 ,5 ,6
14a
16a
Ila
13a
6b
16a
8b
14a
3
3 ,4 v s .
5 ,6
26 a
7b
15a
10a
24 a
9b
16a
12b
4
3 vs.
4
25 a
26 a
13b
17a
23a
24a
IOb
21a
5
5 vs.
6
9a
5a
4b
16a
6b
12a
8b
16a
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - New ana S p r i n g W h ea t I n Summer F a l l o w
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In B a r l e y Stubbl e
3 - Newana Spri ng Wheat In B a r l e y S tubbl e
4 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spri ng Wheat S tu bb l e
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - A c r a - pI ant opener - f e r t l I I z e r banded w i t h t he seed
2 - Conventional opener - no f e r t i l i z e r
3 - Haybuster 8000 opener - f e r t l I I z e r banded below t h e seed
4 - USDA opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - K n i f e - t y p e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
6 - W in g- t yp e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
*** Number s w i t h i n each croppi ng system and comparison f o l l o w e d by t he
same l e t t e r are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
29
f o r t h i s opener were s t a t i s t i c a l l y
counts
for
all
t h e o t h e r openers.
equal
This
Is
to o or h i g h e r than stand
Illustrated
1, 3 , 4 , 5 ,6 g i v e n
com parison I of openers 2 vs.
a ls o In d ic a te s t h a t the conventional
s i g n i f i c a n t l y hi gher stand c o u n t s
In orthogonal
In T a b l e 6 .
Table 5
o p e n e r w i t h no f e r t 1 1 I z e r had
In a l l
f o u r c r o p p in g systems than
t h e A c r a - p l a n t o p e n e r w h e r e h i g h r a t e s o f n i t r o g e n f e r t 11 I z e r w e r e
placed w i t h
the seed.
However,
I t was not s i g n i f i c a n t l y
t h e USDA o p e n e r I n 3 o f t h e 4 c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s .
the on l y f e r t i l i z e r
all
hi gher than
The USDA o p e n e r was
banding opener t h a t ope rat ed w i t h o u t
problems
In
f o u r croppi ng systems a t t h e Moccasin s t a t i o n .
In c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s 1 and 2 In T a b l e 6 , o r t h o g o n a l c o m p a r i s o n 2
o f o p e n e r s I vs. 3 , 4 , 5 ,6 does n o t I n d i c a t e any d i f f e r e n c e s
e s t a b l i s h m e n t between t h e f e r t i l i z e r
rates
This
of
nitrogen
fe rtilize r
with
In s t a n d
banding openers and p l a c i ng high
t h e seed using A c r a - p l a n t openers.
I s p r o b a b l y due t o t h e d e p t h and
plugging
problems w ith
the
k n i f e - t y p e and w i n g - t y p e openers and t h e p i t c h angl e problem w i t h t he
H a y b u s t e r 8 00 0 o p e n e r .
fe rtilize r
However,
banding opener
Table 5
had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
Indicates
hi gher
that
t h e USDA
stand counts than
th e A c r a - p l a n t opener In a l l
f o u r c r o p p in g systems.
8000 opener had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
hi gher stand counts than t h e Acra-pl a nt
opener
In t h e t w o c r o p p i n g
systems
(1,3)
Haybuster 8000 opener was a d j u s t e d p r o p e r l y .
sig n ifican tly
(2 ,3,4)
of
the
where
the
The H a y b u s t e r
pitch
on t h e
The w i n g - t y p e opener had
hi gher stand counts than t h e A c r a - p l a n t opener In t h r e e
four
cr oppi ng systems.
These o b s e r v a t i o n s would seem
t o I n d i c a t e t h a t p l a c i n g hi gh r a t e s o f n i t r o g e n f e r t 11 I z e r w i t h t h e
seed had a d e t r i m e n t a l
e f f e c t on stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t In t h i s study.
30
Y i e l d data were v a r i a b l e In t h e Moccasin t r i a l s .
p a r t i a l Iy due t o t he I n f l u e n c e o f v o l u n t e e r g r a i n
(recrop)
test
plots.
between t h e rows,
volunteer grain
Mos t o f
having l i t t l e
the
In the t h r e e n o - t i l I
wheat or
e f f e c t on stand counts.
influenced y i e l d
The g e n e r a l
volunteer
V a r i a b i l i t y was
barley
was
However,
the
data.
mean c o m p a r i s o n s
In T a b l e 7 show t h e t o t a l
seeded
pi us v o I u n t e e r g r a i n y i e l d f o r t h e n o - t 11 I t e s t pi o t s ( t h e r e was no
volunte er
grain
In cr oppi ng system 1).
I n Ta b l e 8 and t h e o r t h o g o n a l
yield
after
The general
c om pa r I sons I n Tabl e 9 show t h e g r a l n
a d j us t me n t t o remove v o l u n t e e r
Is not included
gr ai n.
I n T a b l e s 8 and 9 b e c a u s e
separate the volunteer
barley
mean• comparisons
It
Cropping system 2
was
not
possible to
from t h e harvested b a r l e y
sample.
The
f o l l o w i n g d i scus si on Is based on t h e a d j u s t e d data.
The d i f f e r e n c e s
not
necessarily
n a t u r e of
In
re su lt
stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t
In y i e l d
wheat and b a r l e y
k e r n e l s p e r head,
co m p etitio n
plants.
other
discussed did
This
Is
due t o
The number of t i l l e r s
the
per p l a n t ,
and t e s t w e i g h t a r e I n f l u e n c e d by
plants.
e s t a b l i s h m e n t the se f a c t o r s w i l l
the
d ifferences.
kernel w eight,
between
previously
In a f i e l d
allow
t he
low p l a n t d e n s i t y and p ro d u c e y i e l d s
w i t h a much h i g h e r p l a n t d e n s i t y .
Th is Is
w ith
plants t o
a low
compensate f o r
p o s s i b l y e qu al
Illu s tra te d
s ys t e m I b e t w e e n t h e USDA and w i n g - t y p e o p e n e r .
stand
to a f i e l d
In c ropping
Table 5 Indicates
t h a t t h e s t a n d e s t a b l I s h m e n t f o r t h e USDA and t h e w i n g - t y p e o p e n e r
were 26 and 5 p l a n t s per meter of row r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Tabl e 8 I n d i c a t e s
t h a t t h e y i e l d s f o r t h e USDA and t h e w I n g - type opener wer e 1.6 and 1.2
MG/ha r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Even t ho ug h t h e USDA o p e n e r had s i g n i f i c a n t l y
31
T a b le 7 .
Y i e l d of S pring G rain Cropping Systems f o r S ix G rain D r i l l
Opener T r e a t m e n t s I n c l u s l v e o f Vol u n t e e r G r a i n , Moccas I n.
Summer 1984.
Opener**
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A c r a - pI a n t
Conventional
Haybuster 8000
USDA
K n I f e - ty p e
WIng-type
I
1 . 1b
1 . 7a
1. 6 a
1. 6a
.94b
1. 2 b
2
Yield,
1. 2 a
. 5 4c
.39c
. 4 6c
.94b
1 . 4a
3
Mg/ h a * * *
. 88 b
. 47 c
1. 2 a
1. 2 a
.78b
1. 2 a
4
1 .5ab
• 66 d
1 . 0c
1 . 7a
1.3b
1 .5ab
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - New ana S p r i n g Wh e a t I n Summer F a l l o w
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In B a r l e y S tubbl e
3 - Newana Spri ng Wheat In B a r l e y S tubbl e
4 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spring Wheat S t ub bl e
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r
I - F e r t i l i z e r banded w i t h t he seed
2 - No f e r t l I I z e r
3 - F e r t I I I z e r banded be I ow the seed
4 - F e r t I I I z e r banded bel ow the seed
5 - F e r t I I I z e r banded below the seed
6 - F e r t l I I z e r banded bel ow the seed
treatm ent.
* * * N u m b e r s w i t h i n each c ol umn f o l l o w e d by t h e same l e t t e r a r e not
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
32
T a b le S .
Y ie ld o f S p rin g G rain C ropping Systems f o r S ix G rain D r i l l
Opener T r e a t m e n t s AdJ li s t e d f o r Vol u n t e e r G r a i n , Moccas I n.
Summer 1984.
O peners**
I
2
Y ie ld ,
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A c r a - p la n t
Conventional
Haybuster 8000
USDA
K n ife -ty p e
W Ing-typ e
1.1b
1.7a
1.6a
1.6a
0.9b
1.2b
—
3
Mg/h a * * *
.26c
.34c
.96a
.79ab
.22c
.73b
4
.70b
.46b
.63b
I .Oa
.68b
1.1a
♦ Numbe rs r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - Newana S p r i n g W h ea t I n Summer F a l l o w
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In B a r l e y Stubbl e
3 - Newana Spr ing Wheat In B a r l e y S tubbl e
4 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spr ing Wheat S t ub bl e
♦♦Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r
1 - F e r t l I I z e r banded w i t h t he seed
2 - No f e r t 11 I z e r
3 - F e r t I I I z e r banded below the seed
4 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
6 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
treatm ent.
♦ ♦ ♦ N u m b e rs w i t h i n each colum n f o l l o w e d by t h e same l e t t e r a r e not
s ig n if ic a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0 .0 5 .
33
T ab le 9.
Y i e l d o f S p r i n g G r a in C r o p p in g S yste m s f o r G r a i n D r i l l
Opener O rthogonal Comparisons A d ju s te d f o r V o lu n te e r G ra in ,
Moccasin.
Summer 1984.
Compart son
O pener**
I
2 vs.
1, 3 , 4 , 5 , 6
1.7a
1.3b
1 vs.
3 ,4 ,5 ,6
1.1a
1.3a
—
3 ,4 v s .
5,6
1.6a
1.1b
-
3 vs.
4
1 .6a
1.6a
-
vs.
0 .9a
1.2a
—
2
Y i e ld ,
I
2
3
4
5
5
6
-
-
—
-
3
4
Mg/h a * * *
.34b
.59a
.46b
.82a
.26b
.67 a
.70b
.85a
.87a
.47b
.81 a
.89a
.96a
.79a
.63b
1.0a
.22b
.73a
.68b
1.1a
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - Newana S p r i n g W h ea t I n Summer F a l l o w
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In B a r l e y Stubbl e
3 - Newana Spri ng Wheat In B a r l e y S tubbl e
4 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spri ng Wheat S tubbl e
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - A c r a - pI ant opener - f e r t l I I z e r banded w i t h t he seed
2 - Conventional opener - no f e r t i l i z e r
3 - Haybuster 8000 opener - f e r t l I I z e r banded below t h e seed
4 - USDA opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - K n i f e - t y p e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
6 - Wi n g- t yp e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
***Number s w i t h i n each c roppi ng system and comparison f o l l o w e d by t he
same l e t t e r a re not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
34
hi gher stand counts and y i e l d than t h e w i n g - t y p e opener.
th at
the
plants
c o n s id e ra b ly
Illu s tra te d
p r o du c e d
fo r
the
by
l ow
the
stand
w ing-type
It
opener
e stab lis h m en t.
Is e v i d e n t
c o m pe ns a te d
Th is
Is
In c r o p p in g system 3 f o r the s e two openers.
als o
The USDA
o p e n e r had t w I c e t h e number o f pi a n t s p e r m e t e r , b u t y i e l d s b e t w e e n
t h e openers were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y
In the summer f a l l o w
conve nt iona l
8 ).
p l o t ( croppi ng system I )
opener where no f e r t i l i z e r
Th I s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
openers
where
comparison
th at
different.
f e r t 11 I z e r
In the
the y ie ld s
n o - t l 11
for
was
used ( T a b l e 9 ) .
plots
the
same
Indicates
t h e o p e n e r s w h e r e f e r t 1 1 I z e r was used r a n g ed
from
.34
to
.46
Mg/ha
banding openers ranged
hi gher
However,
( croppi ng systems 3 and 4)
opener
sig n ifican tly
t he
h i g h e r t h a n t h e 1.3 M g / h a y i e l d f o r t h e
M g / h a as c ompar ed t o y i e l d s
fe rtiliz e r
for
was used was 1.7 Mg/ha ( Ta bl e
f r o m . 59 t o . 8 2
ranging
the y i e l d
for
the
(Table 9).
Y ields
f r o m , 67 t o . 85
In y i e l d than t h e conventi onal
conventional
for
the
M g / h a and w e r e
opener in both no-
t l I I plots.
T h i s w o u l d seem t o s u p p o r t t h e common o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t
"you need t o
fe rtilize
for
no-tl I I
Y i e l d s f o r t h e A c r a - pi a nt opener where f e r t l I I z e r was placed w i t h
the
seed r a n g e d
f r o m . 26 t o
1.1
M g / ha
( T a b l e 8 ).
Y ields
b a n d i n g o p e n e r s r a n g e d f r o m . 67 t o 1.3 M g / h a ( T a b l e 9 ) .
three
orthogonal
fe rtilize r
comparisons
given
In
Table 9
banding openers had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
A c r a - p l a n t opener.
for
the
Two o f t h e
Indicate
hi gher y i e l d
th at
the
than t h e
In c roppi ng system 4 a d i f f e r e n c e o f 150 kg/ ha was
enough t o show a s t a t i s t i c a l
d ifference
In y i e l d betw een t h e A c ra -
pl a n t and f e r t l I I z e r b a n d i n g o p e n e r s w h i l e
In c r o p p i n g s ys t e m I
a
35
d I f f e r e n c e o f 200 k g / h a r e s u l t e d
case,
the
fe rtilize r
resu lts,
numbers
used
to
represent
banding openers In a l l
along w i t h
In s t a t i s t i c a l
y ie ld
eq u ality.
were
t h r e e orthogonal
higher
In any
for
comparisons.
the
These
th e o b s e r v a t i o n s discussed In t h e p l a n t stand
a n a l y s i s I n d i c a t e t h a t adequate s e p a r a t i o n between seed and f e r t i l i z e r
was o c c u r Ing w i t h a l l
of t h e f e r t i l i z e r banding openers.
Y i e l d s f o r the commercial
M g / ha ( T a b l e 9 ) .
Y ield s
ranged from .47 t o L I
f o r th e commercial
orthogonal
banding openers ranged from .81 t o
1.6
f o r t h e w i n g - t y p e and k n i f e - t y p e o p e n e r s
,Mg/ha (Ta bl e 9).
The hi gher y i e l d s a r e e v i d e n t
o p e n e r s in t w o o f t h e t h r e e c r o p p i n g s y s t e m s in
c o m p a r i s o n 3 f o r o p e n e r s 3 , 4 v s.
5,6
given
I n T a b l e 9.
Th e se r e s u l t s a r e p r o b a b l y due t o t h e I n a d e q u a t e down p r e s s u r e and
seed t u b e p l u g g i n g p r o b l e m s d i s c u s s e d In t h e p l a n t s t a n d a n a l y s i s .
Any d i f f e r e n c e s between banding openers (orthogonal
5) a r e p r o b a b l y
comparisons 4 and
due t o t h e s e same p r o b l e m s and t h e
pitch
p ro b l e m
encountered w i t h t h e Haybuster 8000 opener.
Conrads
The Haybuster 8000 opener p i t c h problems t h a t were encountered in
Moccasin were e l i m i n a t e d p r i o r t o the t e s t s a t Conrad.
adjusted t o
supply
maximum down pressure f o r
The d r i l l
was
adequate depth c o n t r o l .
The seed dr op t u b e s w e r e s h o r t e n e d , e l I m I n a t I n g seed t u b e p l u g g i n g ,
and t h e p r o p e r p i t c h f o r each o p e n e r had a l r e a d y been d e t e r m i n e d by
the t e s t s a t Moccasin.
to
The w i n g - t y p e opener was m o d i f i e d
Improve p e n e t r a t io n .
In an e f f o r t
For some u n d e t e r m i n e d r e a s o n , t h e r e w e r e
c o n s i d e r a b l e problems w i t h plugging of t he seed t u b e openings on t h i s
36
unit.
The p r o c e s s o f s h o r t e n i n g t h e w i n g s t o r e d u c e t h e amount o f
down pressure r e q u i r e d f o r adequate p e n e t r a t i o n could have c o n t r i b u t e d
to th is
problem.
showed
no
signs
P l u g g i n g was n o t a n t i c i p a t e d
of
plugging
In
e x c e p t i o n of t he w i n g - t y p e opener,
n o t changed f o r t h e Conrad p l o t s .
the
Moccasin
since
this
tria ls .
the openers used
opener
With
In Moccasin were
H ow e v e r , r e v i e w o f T a b l e 2 shows
t h a t t he method of a p p l i c a t i o n , amount, and type of f e r t i l i z e r
Conrad d i f f e r
from t h e f e r t i l i z e r
was no v o l u n t e e r g r a i n
the
used In
t r e a t m e n t s used In Moccasin.
There
In t h e Conrad p l o t s .
Stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t ranged from 9 t o 21 p l a n t s per meter of
for a ll
t r e a t m e n t s I n Conrad ( T a b l e 1 0) .
differen ces
of only 3 p la n ts
s i g n i f i c a n t a t p = 0.05.
1, 3 , 4 , 5 ,6
In
differences
Table
between
11
row
V a r I a b 11 I t y was such t h a t
per m e t e r o f
row w e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y
O r t h o g o n a l c o m p a r i s o n 1 f o r o p e n e r s 2 v s.
Indicate
the
that
conventional
there
were
opener
no
s ig n ific a n t
where
a ll
of
the
f e r t 11 I z e r
was s u r f a c e
b r o a d c a s t and t h e o t h e r o p e n e r s w h e r e t h e
fe rtiliz e r
was a p p l i e d
d iffe re n tly .
o p e n e r s I vs. 3 , 4 , 5 ,6
per meter of
row f o r
Indicate th a t
Orthogonal
comparison 2 f o r
In t h e n o - t i l l
p lo t,
t h e A c r a - p l a n t opener was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
t h a n 14 p l a n t s pe r m e t e r o f row f o r t h e b a n d i n g o p e n e r s .
for this
17 p l a n t s
Is probably due t o the seed o u t l e t
w i n g - t y p e opener which r e s u l t e d
hi gher
The r e a s o n
plugging problem w i t h t he
In' low s t a n d c o u n t s (9 p l a n t s pe r
!
meter of row) f o r t h a t u n i t .
Orthogonal
comparison 3 fo r
openers
3,4
vs.
5,6
i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e commercial openers had s t a t i s t i c a l l y
counts
than th e
k n ife-ty p e
and w i n g - t y p e o p e n e r s .
In T a b l e
higher
However,
11
stand
th is
37
T a b le 10.
Stand E s ta b lis h m e n t o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p in g S ystem s f o r
S ix G ra in D r i l l Opener T re a tm e n ts , Conrad.
Summer 1984.
Ope ner **
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A c r a - pI a n t
Conventional
Haybuster 8000
USDA
K n I f e - type
Wi ng- type
I
19ab
17 be
21a
18bc
17bc
15c
2
3
Pl ants per meter of r o w * * *
17a
18ab
13bc
15c
16a
19a
13bc
16c
15ab
16bc
9c
12d
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Summer F a ll ow
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spr i ng Wheat S tu bb l e .
3 - S p l i t P lo t analysis
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - PoOi5 banded w I t h t h e seed,
n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r s u r f a c e broadcast
2 - N i t r o g e n plus PgOg s u r f a c e br oadcast
3 - F e r t i I I z e r banded below t he seed
4 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below t he seed
5 - F e r t I I I z e r banded below t he seed
6 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
* * * N u m b e r s w i t h i n each colum n f o l l owed by t h e same l e t t e r a r e no t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
38
T a b le 11.
Stand E s ta b lis h m e n t o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p in g System s f o r
G ra in D r i l l Opener Orthogonal Comparisons, Conrad.
Summer
1984.
O pener**
I
-------Cropping System*--------2
3
I
2 vs.
1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6
17a
18a
Pl a n ts per meter ro w * * *
13a
14a
15a
16a
2
I vs.
3 ,4 ,5 ,6
19a
18a
17a
14b
18a
16b
3
3 ,4 v s .
5 ,6
20 a
16b
15a
12b
17a
14b
4
3 vs.
4
21a
18b
16a
13a
18a
16b
5
5 vs.
6
17a
15a
15a
9b
16a
12b
Comparison
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - C l a r k B a r le y In Summer Fa ll ow
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spri ng Wheat S tubbl e
3 - S p l i t P lo t analysis
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - Ac ra- pl a nt opener - P^O5 banded w i t h t h e seed,
n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r s u rf ace broadcast
2 - Conventional opener - n i t r o g e n and P 2 ® 5 s u r f ac e broadcast
3 - Haybuster 8000 opener - f e r t l I I z e r banded below the seed
4 - USDA opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - K n i f e - t y p e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below t he seed
6 - W I n g - type opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
* **Numbers w i t h i n each croppi ng system and comparison f o l l o w e d by t he
same l e t t e r are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
39
d ifferen ce
was o n l y 4 p l a n t s
d iffe re n ce s
per m e te r of
r ow.
count needed f o r a s t a t i s t i c a l
The small
small
for all
s ig n ific a n t
In b a n d i n g o p e n e r c o m p ar i s o ns (orthogonal comparisons 4
and 5) a l s o a r e q u e s t i o n a b l e because of t he small
the
Any
differences
In stand
difference.
d i f f e r e n c e s In stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
differences
In y i e l d
w ithin
each croppi ng system.
Yields
the Openers e xc e p t t he w I n g - type opener ranged fr om 2.4 t o 2.6
M g / ha In t h e summer f a l l o w
p l o t and were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y
( T a b l e 1 2) .
the openers e x c e p t the k n i f e - t y p e opener
Y ield s fo r a ll
different
ranged from .31 t o .38 Mg/ha In t h e n o - t i I I (r ec ro p) p l o t and were not
sig n ifican tly
In y i e l d
different
data a r e
( Ta bl e 12).
Illu strated
The on l y s i g n i f i c a n t
In T a b l e 13
In orthogonal
differences
comparison 5
f o r o p e n e rs 5 vs. 6.
The w i n g - t y p e o p e n e r had y i e l d s c o m p a r a b l e t o t h e r e s t o f t h e
t r e a t m e n t s even though the stand e s t a b l i s h e d by t h i s opener was lower
than t h e o t h e r openers.
This
Is e s p e c i a l Iy e v i d e n t In t h e n o - t i I I
p l o t w h e r e t h e w i n g - t y p e o p e n e r had a s t a n d c o u n t o f 9 p l a n t s
meter of row,
per
as compared t o stand counts rangi ng from 13 t o 17 p l a n t s
p e r m e t e r o f row f o r t h e r e s t o f t h e o p e n e r s , y e t y i e l d e d .31 Mg / ha
which was s t a t i s t i c a l l y
In the n o - t l I I p l o t .
the n o -ti I I p lo t,
summer f a l l o w
to yields
rangi ng from .32 t o .38 Mg/ha
The k n i f e - t y p e o p e n e r had t h e h i g h e s t y i e l d
y i e l d s equal
w ith a ll
In both p l o t s .
the tim e of p la n t in g ,
In
the other tre a tm e n ts I n the
p l o t , and had stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t s comparable t o a l l
other treatm ents
opener f o r
equal
the
T h i s r e s u l t was unexpected because a t
t h e r e was I n a d e q u a t e down p r e s s u r e f o r t h i s
p r o p e r seed p l a c e m e n t eve n t houg h t h e d r i l l
was s e t f o r
40
T a b le 12.
Y i e l d o f S p r in g -G r a in Cropping Systems f o r S ix G rain D r i l l
Opener T re a tm e n ts , Conrad. Summer 1984.
- C r op pi ng System*—
Ope ner **
I.
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
6.
A c r a - pI a n t
Conventional
Haybuster 8000
USDA
K n I f e - type
Wi ng- type
2
I
2.5a
2.4ab
2 . 6a
2.4ab
2.4ab
2 . 1b
3
Y i e l d , Mg/ h a * * *
.35ab
• 38ab
.34b
.32b
. 46a '
.31b
1 .4a
1 .4a
1 . 4a
1 .3ab
1 .4a
1. 2 b
^Numbers r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Summer F a l lo w
2 -- C l a r k B a r l e y In Spr ing Wheat S t ub bl e
3 - S p l i t P lo t analysis
**Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 banded w i t h t h e seed,
n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r s u r f a c e broadcast
2 - N i t r o g e n and P0O5 s u r f a c e broadcast
3 - F e r t i I I z e r banded below t he seed
4 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below t he seed1
5 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below t he seed
6 - F e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
***Num bers
w i t h i n each cropping system fo llo w e d
are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
by th e
same l e t t e r
41
T a b le 13.
Y i e l d o f S p r i n g G r a i n C r o p p in g S ystem s f o r G r a i n
Opener Orthogonal Comparisons, Conrad.
Summer 1984.
Drill
Opener**
I
— Cropp Ing Sy stem *----2
3
I
2 vs.
1 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6
2 .4 a
2 .4a
Y i e ld , M g /h a ***
.38a
.36a
1 .4a
1.4a
2
I vs.
3 ,4 ,5 ,6
2 .4 a
2 .4a
.34a
.36a
1.4a
1.4a
3
3 ,4 v s .
5,6
2 .5 a
2 .3a
.33a
.38a
1.4a
1.3a
4
3 vs.
4
2 .6 a
2 .4a
.34a
.32a
I .4a
1.4a
5
5 vs.
6
2 .4 a
2.1b
.46a
.31b
I .4a
1.2b
Comparison
♦Number s r e p r e s e n t c r o p p i n g systems.
1 - C l a r k B a r le y In Summer F a ll ow
2 - C l a r k B a r l e y In Spr ing Wheat S tu bb l e
3 - S p l i t P lo t analysis
♦♦Numbers r e p r e s e n t openers t e s t e d and f e r t i l i z e r t r e a t m e n t .
1 - Ac r a- p l ant opener - P7O5 banded w i t h t h e seed,
n i t r o g e n f e r t i l i z e r s u rf ace broadcast
2 - Conventional opener - n i t r o g e n and P2 ®5 s u r f ac e broadcast
3 - Haybuster 8000 opener - f e r t i I I z e r banded below t he seed
4 - USDA opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
5 - K n i f e - t y p e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below t he seed
6 - W i n g- t y p e opener - f e r t i l i z e r banded below the seed
♦♦♦Numbers w i t h i n each croppi ng system and comparison f o l l o w e d by t he
same l e t t e r a re not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t p = 0.05.
42
maximum down p r e s s u r e .
Visual
In s p ec tio n a t the tim e of p la n tin g
showed t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y o f f e r t i l i z e r
was placed 37 mm t o 75 mm
1 / 2 t o 2 I n) below the seed f o r t h i s opener.
on t op of t h e s o i l
However,
(It
seed was found
I n t e r m i t t e n t l y thr ou gh o ut t h e row.
The Cl a r k b a r l e y p l a n t e d In t h e n o - t 11 I w h e a t s t u b b l e p l o t was
o n l y 12 m e t e r s (40 f t )
fallow
plot.
f r o m t h e C l a r k b a r l e y p l a n t e d I n t h e summer
Due t o t h e
proxim ity
of
the
p lots,
consi de re d as one e x p e r i m e n t In a s p l i t p l o t a n a l y s i s .
both
plots
were
The r e s u l t s of
t h i s a n a l y s i s are summarized under c roppi ng system 3 In Ta b le s 10,
12, and 13.
11,
Stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t ranged fr om 15 t o 21 p l a n t s per meter
o f row I n t h e summer f a l l o w
I n t h e n o - t 11 I p l o t .
pi o t and 9 t o 17 pi a n t s p e r m e t e r o f row
Y i e l d s g i v e n I n T a b l e 12 r a n ge d f r o m 2.1 t o 2 .6
M g / ha In t h e summer f al I ow p l o t and f r o m .31 t o . 46 M g / ha In t h e not!I I
plot.
The reason f o r
the large d iffe r e n c e
l ess than
normal
t he d i f f e r e n c e
In stand e s t a b l i s h m e n t and
In y i e l d between the two croppi ng systems Is the
ra in fall.
p e r ce n t l ess than normal
( T a bl e 4).
p l a n t stand and y i e l d data
I f an opener worked w e l l
Growing season r a i n f a l l
The s p l i t
In Conrad was 50
plot analysis
I n d i c a t e d no t r e a t m e n t by p l o t
In summer f a l l o w
for
both
Interaction.
I t a l s o worked w e l l
In no-
t l I I wheat s t ubbl e .
Columbuss
One t e s t
Montana.
p l o t was p l a n t e d on t h e Mike Davey ranch near Columbus,
The same openers t h a t were used In Moccasin and Conrad were
used In t h i s t e s t
plot.
F e rtilize r
t r e a t m e n t s a r e shown In
T h i s was t h e l a s t t e s t p l o t t o be p l a n t e d .
Ta b le 2.
I t was sown on May 11,
43
19 8 4 ,
a b o u t t h r e e w ee ks
caused t h e seeding de lay
planting,
resulting
I ate fo r
this
growing area.
In Columbus and was a f a c t o r a t t h e t i m e of
In e r r a t i c opener a c t i o n f o r a l l
t h e t i m e t h e openers r o l l e d t h e s oi l
openers.
Most of
over In clods and pl aced t h e seed
and f e r t 1 1 I z e r t o g e t h e r In t h e same s l o t .
planting
We t w e a t h e r
Visual
In s p ec tio n during
I n d i c a t e d t h a t s e p a r a t i o n between t h e seed and f e r t l l I z e r was
not a d e q u a t e .
Inadequate
Columbus.
down
pressure
W i t h the d r i l l
problems
were
also
encountered
at
a d j u s t e d f o r maximum down pr ess ur e, the down
pr essure push rods were e x t endi ng a p p r o x i m a t e l y 10 cm (4 In) above t he
d rill
pressure
arm
sw iv e ls .
The
o perator's
manual
recommends
e x t e n s i o n above t he pr essure arm s w i v e l s t o be between 2.5 t o 5 cm ( I
t o 2 In) dur i ng o p e r a t i o n t o
A djusting
elim inate
t he
the
pitch
seed o u t l e t
I n sur e adequate seed depth.
of
the
pluggi ng problem.
a d e q u a t e t o g e t t h e seed o u t l e t s
outlets s t i l l
w in g -ty p e
opener
did
not
help
When down pr essur e was
b e lo w t h e s o i l
surface,
t h e seed
had a pl uggi ng problem.
D u r I ng t h e summer t w o o f t h e pi a n t e d bl ocks w e r e I o s t when t h e
cooperator a c c id e n tly
tille d
p a rt of
the
plot
w h ile
working
the
a d j a c e n t f i e l d . The p l o t m a t u r e d and was h a r v e s t e d t w o weeks l a t e r
than th e a d j a c e n t c rops.
As a r e s u l t ,
p l o t f o r an a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l o s s ,
data.
r e s u l t i n g I n no m e a n i n g f u l
y ie ld
In summary, no c o n c l u s i v e o b s e r v a t i o n s can be made f r om t h e
stand and y i e l d data (gi ven
tria l
g r a s s h o p p e r s moved I n t o t h e
due t o t he s o i l
In t h e Appendix) c o l l e c t e d a t t h e Columbus
m o i s t u r e and grasshopper problems.
44
QiAPTER 4
SUMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Opener Performances
Four
d iffe re n t
fe rtiliz e r
banding
a d a p t e d t o a John D e e r e LZ g r a i n d r i l l .
this d r ill
drill
w i t h a minimum amount of
hoe-type
openers
were
T e s t pi o t s w e r e sow n w i t h
m odifications t o the d r i l l .
The
f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e a dequate down p r e s s u r e f o r t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l
E n g I n e e r I n g R e s e a r c h ( w I n g - t y p e and k n I f e - t y p e ) o p e n e r s t o o p e r a t e
properly.
b ot h
No problems were encountered
summer
openers.
fallow
However,
Field
tests
and
n o -tlI I
the d r i l l
with
fie ld
this
conditions
differen t
grain d r i l l s
fe rtilize r
visual
separation
the
I n s p e c t i o n and y i e l d
between t h e
fe rtiliz e r
conditions
data
seed and f e r t i l i z e r
banding
openers
were a c c e p ta b le .
w ith
drill
under
a ll
other
banding hoe-type
have shown t h a t t h e USDA and the
H a y b u s t e r 8 0 0 0 o p e n e r s can be used e f f e c t i v e l y .
C o nr a d ,
grain
was not t e s t e d over a l a r g e acreage.
the four
openers f o r conve nt iona l
with
when
Indicated
t h a t adequate
was o b t a i n e d w i t h
down
pressure
The t w o c o m m e r c i a l
performed b e t t e r than t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l
In M o c c a s i n and
and
all
of
seeding
banding openers
E n gi nee ri ng Research w I ng-t ype
and k n i f e - t y p e openers which shows t h e need f o r t h e Increased t i m e and
resour ces
process.
provided
by t h e m a n u fa ct u re r
In the
trla l-an d -erro r
design
45
Yields
f o r +he USDA ( G a rr is o n F a b r i c a t i o n ) banding opener and t h e
Haybuster 8000 (Haybuster
were
not
opener.
M a n uf a ct ur i n g,
s ig n ific a n tly
d iffe re n t
I n c o rp or at e d)
than
y ie ld s
for
banding opener
the A cra-p lan t
S t a r t e r f e r t i l i z e r was pl aced w i t h the seed and high n i t r o g e n
f e r + I I I z e r was s u r f a c e broadcast w i t h t h e Acra-pl a n t openers w h i l e t he
same
amount
commercial
of
fe rtiliz e r
openers.
was
banded
bel ow
seed
w ith
These r e s u l t s s uppor t previ ous work ( W i l k i n s ,
a l . . 19 82) c oncl udi ng t h a t
banding f e r t i l i z e r
never
Al I
reduces
the
y ie ld s .
banding
sometimes
openers
had
I ncreases
Improved
the
et
but
stand
e s + a b l I s h m e n t and y i e l d as c ompar ed t o p l a c i n g t h e same amount o f
fe rtilize r
w i t h t h e seed using t h e A c r a - p l a n t openers.
In Moccasin,
yields
In the summer f a l l o w
p l o t ranged from .90 t o
1.7 M g / h a as compar ed t o y I e l ds r a n g i n g f r o m . 2 2 t o 1.1 M g / h a In t h e
n o - t I I l p l o+s.
summer f a l l o w
Y i e l d s I n Conrad r a n g e d f r o m 2.1 t o 2 . 6 M g / ha In t h e
p l o t and from .31 t o .46 Mg/ha In t h e n o - t i l l
plot.
The
major reason f o r t he d i f f e r e n c e In y i e l d between the summer f a l l o w and
n o - t 11 I
(recrop) t e s t
plots
Is t h a t both Moccasin and Conrad had less
than 50 p e rce nt of t he normal
There
were
conditions.
no
growi ng season r a i n f a l l
plugging
problems
due
The openers were s e t a t 30 cm (12
(16 I n ) b e t w e e n f r o n t and r e a r gangs.
to
( T ab l e 4).
trash
In
no-+! I I
In) spaci ng w i t h 41 cm
Crop r e s i d u e s e n c o u n t e r e d a t
each l o c a t i o n were l i g h t .
F ig u re
3
p recip ita tio n ,
shows
the
In
Montana
where
the
and l e n g t h o f g r o w i n g season a r e s i m i l a r
encountered a t th e C entral
M o nt a n a.
areas
Figure
A gricultural
4 shows t h e a r e a s
In
Research C e n t e r ,
Mont ana
where
to
s o ils ,
those
Moccasin,
the
s o ils .
I OO -115 Days.
Figure 3.
Land Resources S i m i l a r t o t he Moccasin S t a t i o n .
Figure 4.
Land Resources S i m i l a r t o t he Conrad S t a t i o n .
48
p recip ita tio n ,
and l e n g t h o f g r o w i n g season a r e s i m i l a r
encountered a t t h e Western T r i a n g l e Reseach Center ,
Conrad,
to
those
Montana.
R e s ul ts s i m i l a r t o those from f i e l d t r i a l s a t t he Conrad and Moccasin
S t a t i o n s could be expected
(Irw in,
e t al.,
openers,
1984).
worked w e l l
In t h e shaded areas on t h e a p p r o p r i a t e map
The same openers,
particularly
t he commercial
In both l o c a t i o n s and probably w i l l
work w e l l
In
other l o c a tio n s .
F u t u r e Horks
i
F e r t i l i z e r can be banded w i t h
conventional
ap p ro p riate
openers.
but
d rills .
fe rtiliz e r
rates
Banding should
additional
effect.
A d d itio n al
It
rates with
for
hoe t y p e g r a i n d r i l l
o p e n e r s on
work
d e te rm in e
Is
use w i t h
needed
to
the s e ty p e s o f banding
Increase t he e f f i c i e n c y of use of
fe rtilizer
I o n g - t e r m t e s t s woul d be r e q u i r e d t o document t h I s
Is p o s s i b l e t h a t
fe rtilize r
using l ower
than recommended f e r t i l i z e r
banding openers mi ght r e s u l t In equal
or hi gher
y i e l d s thjan s u r f a c e b r o a d c a s t i n g h i g h a mounts o f f e r t i l i z e r .
re la tio n s h ip
between
fe rtiliz e r
l e v e l s and y i e l d
responses using
m o d i f i e d openers f o r f e r t i l i z e r pl acement are not known.
reported
has
shown
that
a d eq u at e l y band f e r t i l i z e r
In
these
additional
studies
are
a ll
below
now
r e se ar ch s t u d i e s
of
the
t he seed.
being
openers
Some of
used on n o - t i l l
Drawbar power r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r
Is needed.
The research
tested
can
t h e openers used
p lo t
by Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
Expe ri men t S t a t i o n agronomi st s and s o i l
a r ea where f u r t h e r study
banding
The
d rills
for
Agricultural
scientists.
fe rtilize r
banding openers
Is an
These s t u d i e s could be conducted
49
at
Mo nt a na
currently
State
U n iversity
available.
w ith
the
fa c ilitie s
t h a t th e major v a r i a b l e w i l l
described
In
d is trib u tio n .
m oisture
terms
of
engineering
content.
soil
The e f f e c t
ft
of
Opener
disturbance
opener
data
to
evaluate
performance
seed
t y p e on s o i l
and
a llow
be
fe rtiliz e r
t e m p e r a t u r e and
Using th e s e
opener
t hr oughout t he e n t i r e summer In l o c a t i o n s c lo s e t o t h e
University
bulk
perform ance could
and
would
Depth
such as s o i l
m o i s t u r e c ha ng e In t h e seed zo ne w o u l d a l s o be u s e f u l .
parameters
Is a n tic ip a te d
be d e p th o f o p e n e r p e n e t r a t i o n .
c o u l d a l s o be c o r r e l a t e d w i t h
and s o i l
equipment
S t r a i n gauge f o r c e t r a n s d uc er s could be used t o
d e t e r m i n e t he d r a f t r e q u i r e d f o r d i f f e r e n t openers,
density
and
testin g
Montana S t a t e
Campus.
E n g i ne er i n g s t u d i e s should be done t o d e te rm ine t h e n o - t i l I f i e l d
conditions
t h a t can be handled by conve nt iona l
f i t t e d w i t h t h e hoe - ty pe ,
c onventi onal
fallow
w ill
d rills
grain
f e r t i l i z e r banding openers.
d rills
t h a t a re
M o d i f i c a t i o n of
f o r o p e r a t i o n under n o - t l 11 c o n d i t i o n s as w el l
as
have major v a l u e f o r Montana.
Phone c a l l s and o t h e r
I n q u i r i e s t o t h e a uthor show t h a t
Interest
I n new g r a i n d r i l l
o p e n e r s I s c o n t i n u i n g and has n o t been m et by t h e
commercial
L a r r y G ar r i s o n who c u r r e n t l y manufact ur es t he USDA
openers
s ec t or .
believes
th a t a m a jo rity
of the conventional
e v e n t u a l l y be a b I e t o h a n d l e n o - t I I I .
some f a r m e r ' s
Additional
opinions t h a t the d r i l l s
d rills
w ill
T h i s seems t o c o n f l i c t w i t h
j u s t a r e n ' t s t u r d y enough.
r ese ar ch should be conducted t o e v a l u a t e t he performance o f
c onve nt iona l
d rills
In n o - t 11 I using m o d i f i e d openers.
REFERENCES CI i ED
51
A l l e n , R. R., J. T. M u s t e k , and A. F. W i e s e .
1976 .
Limited t illa g e
o f f u r r o w I r r i g a t e d w i n t e r w h e a t.
T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE
19 ( 2 ) ; 2 3 4 - 2 3 6 , 2 4 1 .
Babow I c z , R. J., G. M. Hyde, and J. B. Simpson.
1983.
F e rtiliz e r
e f f e c t s under s i m u l a t e d n o - t i l I c o n d i t i o n s .
ASAE Paper No. 8 3 1026. American S o c i e t y of A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineers, St. Joseph, Ml.
Bauder, J. W.
1984.
Conser vati on t i l l a g e
U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, MT.
C o c h r a n , W. G., and G. M. Cox.
19 5 0 .
W i l e y and Sons, Inc., New York.
seminar.
Experim ental
Montana
Sta te
designs.
John
D o m l e r , K. W., J. A. R o b e r t s o n , and J. J. Mayko.
19 8 3 .
F e rtiliz e r
pl acement: agronomic and e n g i n e e r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s .
ASAE P a pe r
No. 8 3 - 1 0 1 .
A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y , o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r s , St .
Joseph, Ml.
Egel and, S.
1984.
Personal
Inc., Jamestown, ND.
communication.
Haybuster M a nuf a ct ur i ng,
G a r r i s o n , L. 1983. Personal communication, l e t t e r
1983.
G a r r i s o n F a b r i c a t i o n , Maup I n, OR.
G ill,
dated November 17,
W. R., and G. E. Vanden B e rg .
1967.
S o i l d y n a m i c s In t i l l a g e
and t r a c t I on.
A g r i c u l t u r a l Handbook No. 3 16 , U. S. G o v e r n m e n t
P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, D. C.
H o l m b e r g , M.
19 84 .
F e r t i l i z e r p l a c e m e n t key s a s u r g e
wheat.
Successful Farming, 8 2( 1 0 ) : 2 4 .
In n o - t i l l
Hyde, G. M., J. B. S i mp son, and R. E. Hermanson.
1982.
Subsurface
l i q u i d and anhydrous f e r t i l i z e r placement In n o - t l I I wheat. ASAE
Paper No. 8 2- 10 20. American S o c i e t y o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r s ,
S t . J os ep h, Ml .
I r w i n , R., W, S c h a f e r , and G. F o r d .
19 8 4 .
P lan t and,Soil
Department, Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, MT.
Science
Jackson,
G. D., and J. C. K r a l I .
1 98 0 .
N o - t i I I s e e d i n g when
r e c r o p p I n g w h e a t and b a r l e y .
Cooperative Extension Service,
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , C i r c u l a r 1225.
K e p n e r , R. A., R. Ba I n e r , and E. L. B a r g e r .
19 80 .
P r i n c i p l e s of farm
machinery. AVI P u b l i s h i n g Company, Inc., Westpor t, Connecti cut.
K l e p p e r , B., R. E. Rasmussen, and R. W. Ri c km an .
p la c e m e n t f o r c e r e a l r o o t access.
Journal
C ons er va ti on, 3 8 ( 3 ) : 2 5 0 - 2 5 2 .
1983.
F e rtiliz e r
o f SoI I and W a t e r
52
L a r s e n , W. E.
University,
19 8 4 .
Personal
Bozeman, MT.
Larsen, W. E., and A. Dubbs.
1983.
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman, MT.
Lund,
com m unication,
Personal
Montana
communication.
S tate
Montana
R. E. 1 9 8 3 .
A u s e r ' s g u i d e t o MSUSTAT — An I n t e r a c t i v e
s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is package.
Montana S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
D e p a r t m e n t o f M a t h e m a t i c a l S c i e n c e s Technical Report, Bozeman,
MT.
P a y t o n , D. M., G. M. Hyde, and J. B. Si mpson.
1 97 9 .
E q u i p m e n t and
me thods f o r n o - t 11 I w h e a t p l a n t i n g .
ASAE P a p e r No. 7 9 - 1 0 2 2 .
American S o c i e t y o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Engi neers, St. Joseph, Ml.
S c h a a f , D. E., S. Hann, and B. R o ge r s .
1979.
The d e v e l o p m e n t o f
p e r f o r m a n c e d a t a on seed d r i l l f u r r o w o p e n e r s .
ASAE Paper No.
79-1016.
American S o c i e t y o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E ngi neer s, St. Joseph,
Ml.
Skogl e y,
E. 0.
19 8 4 .
U n i v e r s i t y , Bozeman,
Personal
MT.
communication.
S m i t h , E. S., and J. H. L i ! l a r d .
19 7 6 .
c r o p p i n g s ys te m s In V i r g i n i a .
19(2):262-265.
Swanson, G.
1983.
1983.
YIeIder
Mo.ntana
State
D e v e l o p m e n t o f n o - t l I I age
T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e ASAE
Personal communication, l e t t e r
N o - T l l I D r i l l , Spokane, WA.
dated November 9,
T o m a r , J. S., and R. J. S ope r.
1 9 8 1.
F a t e o f t a g g e d u r e a N in t h e
f i e l d w i t h d i f f e r e n t methods o f N and o rga ni c m a t t e r placement.
Agronomy Journal 7 3: 9 91 - 99 5.
W i l k i n s , D. E., G. A. Mu 11 e n b u r g , R. R. Al I m a r as , and C. E. Johnson.
1983.
G rain d r i l l
o p e n e r e f f e c t s on w h e a t e m e r g e n c e .
T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e ASAE, 26(3):651 - 6 5 5 , 660.
W i l k i n s , D. E„, P. E. Rasmussen, B. L. K l e p p e r , and D. A. Haasch.
1982.
G r ai n d r i l l opener design f o r f e r t i l i z e r placement.
ASAE
Paper No. 82- 15 16. American S o c i e t y o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E n g i n e e r s ,
S t . J ose ph, Ml .
53
APPEWDI X
54
Ta bl e 14.
P l a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data,
Fallow.
Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
Moccasin T r i a l ,
pi a n t s / m e t e r of row
Data
BI ock
20. 97
40.66
2 2. 9 7
25. 71
6.746
8 .9 3 4
15.13
36.47
31 . 00
2 5. 5 3
17.50
5.470
14.04
35.01
30.45
31.36
6.746
7.840
14.95
28.63
28.44
29.54
1.641
4.376
10.03
2 6. 8 0
20.79
2 4. 07
8.934
4.558
7.685
23.89
1 8. 42
18. 60
12. 40
0.729
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Yield,
Wheat In Summer
Mg/ ha
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
I
0.748
1 .835
1 .865
1.701
0.540
0 .6 0 4
0 .7 57
1.233
1. 33 2
1.213
1.199
1. 31 2
1 .088
1.658
1.088
1.398
1 .107
1.048
1.103
I .613
1 .658
1.687
0.143
0.829
1.258
1.823
1.748
1 .9 3 9
1 . 092
1.531
1. 45 2
I .874
1 .869
1 .7 3 9
1 .5 44
1. 74 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Treat ment
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
55
T a b l e 15.
P l a n + S t a nd and
Y i e l d Data,
B a r l e y Stubbl e. Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
Data
7.840
18. 23
9.299
18. 78
6. 01 7
14. 40
Moccasin T r i a l ,
p l a n t s / m e t e r of row
Block
I
I
I
I
I
I
Tr eat ment
I
2
3
4
5
6
11.12
2
I
15. 86
1 0. 03
14. 04
4.923
14.77
14. 40
14.77
1 3. 4 9
1 5. 3 2
5.652
14. 04
9.664
16.41
1 0. 7 6
17.14
3.282
12. 58
9.481
18. 23
20.42
17.69
4.741
23.16
10. 94
20.24
14. 77
20.06
2.735
19.51
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
Yield,
Data
1.423
0.696
0.560
0.611
1.092
I .484
I . 669
0.552
0.521
0.622
I .051
1.517
1.428
0.441
0. 08 4
0.412
I .361
1.584
0 . 76 5
0.599
0.569
0.478
0.654
1.473
1.039
0.404
0.380
0.412
0.871
I .305
1.023
0.550
0.247
0.249
0 .5 8 9
0.880
Mg/ha
Block
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
Barley
Tr eat ment
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
In
56
T a b l e 16.
P l a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data, Moccasin T r i a l ,
Stubble.
Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
Data
10.57
18. 60
20.24
16.41
I .094
5.288
6.199
28.44
27.90
29.36
10.94
16.04
5.105
20.79
2 6. 2 6
2 5 .5 3
2.917
18. 96
6.382
19. 33
19.51
25.89
5.288
9.481
2 .9 1 7
20.06
19. 33
2 6. 4 4
5.652
13. 49
4.376
25.34
24.80
23.34
8.023
1 1. 3 0
p l a n t s / m e t e r of row
Yield,
Wheat In B a r l ey
Mg/ ha
Block
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
Treat ment
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
1.326
0.624
1 .2 52
I .483
1 .1 60
1.259
0. 77 7
0.512
I .067
1.042
0.605
1.016
0.576
0.322
1.113
1.111
0.529
1.190
0.848
0.436
I .366
1.314
0.833
1.241
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
57
T a b l e 17.
P l a n t S t a nd and Y i e l d D a t a , M o c c a s i n
Spri ng Wheat Stubbl e.
Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
p l a n t s / m e t e r of row
T ria l,
Yield,
Barley
Mg/ ha
Data
Block
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
Treat ment
15. 86
21.51
7.111
17.14
6.746
17.69
8.752
18. 42
5.652
19.33
7.111
15.86
6.929
13.86
7.658
16.04
6.564
10.94
5.652
18. 60
1 0. 3 9
29.72
8.752
20.42
6.929
14.95
14. 04
21.33
12. 95
15.68
6.199
20.06
16. 77
25.53
4.194
16.41
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
1. 67 6
0.854
1.175
1 .610
1.365
I .664
1.582
0.574
0 .5 2 6
1.497
1 .2 2 0
0.960
1.636
0.691
1.165
1.786
I .703
1 .708
0. 95 5
0.433
0.700
I .286
1 .3 5 9
I .532
I .487
0 .6 6 7
1 .089
1.821
I . 376
1.531
1.422
0.738
1.418
I .950
I . 058
1. 36 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
in
58
Ta bl e 18.
Pl an+ Stand and Y i e l d Da+a,
Fallow .
Summer 1984.
Plan+ Stand,
Conrad T r i a l ,
pi an+s/me+er of row
Yield,
Barley
In Summer
Mg/ha
Da+a
Block
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
Treat ment
21.51
14. 04
20.60
15. 86
19.33
1 6 .5 9
19. 14
1 7. 32
20.06
1 7. 6 9
15.13
1 4 .5 9
20.24
17. 14
19.14
14.95
13. 13
12. 03
19. 14
12. 40
2 0. 9 7
20.79
18. 23
16. 59
15. 50
20.24
22.61
18. 78
18. 60
1 7. 69
20.24
1 9. 6 9
24.80
19.87
16. 59
15.13
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
2.422
2.436
2.602
2.446
2.727
2 .5 1 7
2.275
2.145
2.606
1 . 960
1 .606
1.308
1.827
2.062
1.803
1 .955
1.781
1.705
2.588
2.506
2.713
2.400
2.629
2.099
2.635
2.768
3.129
2.612
2.833
2.491
2.969
2.419
2.563
2.965
3.010
2 .7 5 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
59
Ta bl e 19.
Pl a n t Stand and Y i e l d Data, Conrad T r i a l ,
Wheat S tu b b l e .
Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
p l a n t s / m e t e r of row
Yield,
B a r l ey
In Spring
Mg/ ha
Data
Block
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
Treatment
16. 04
9.846
20.97
16.04
14.95
7.658
21.51
18. 60
17. 87
12. 40
13. 13
11. 30
15. 86
15. 32
1 5. 3 2
15.68
13.31
12. 76
15. 13
10. 39
17. 32
14.95
20.06
11.67
18. 96
15. 86
16. 04
12. 95
17. 14
4.741
12. 34
6.564
11. 49
7.840
14. 22
8.023
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
0.620
0.609
0.415
0.342
0.511
0 .3 7 8
0.298
0.338
0.274
0.273
0.345
0.268
0 .3 27
0.353
0.314
0.311
0.329
0.345
0 .5 5 3
0.413
0.405
0.460
0.567
0.458
0.393
0.460
0.508
0.433
0.497
0.248
0. 17 7
0 .1 2 0
0.134
0.131
0 .4 9 2
0.183
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
60
Tabl e 2 0 .
Pl a n t S t a nd
Summer 1984.
Data,
Conrad
T ria l,
Spl I t
Pl O t
Ana l y s i s .
Data*
Block
Treat ment
Plot
Data*
BI ock
Tr eat ment
Pl o t
21.51
16. 04
14.04
9.846
20.60
2 0. 9 7
15.86
16. 04
19.33
14.95
16. 59
7.658
19.14
21.51
17.32
18. 60
20.06
17.87
17.69
12. 40
15.13
13. 13
14.59
11. 30
20.24
15. 86
17.14
15. 32
19. 14
15. 32
14.95
15. 68
13.13
13.31
12. 03
12. 76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
19. 14
15. 13
1 2. 40
1 0 .3 9
20.97
1 7. 3 2
20.79
14. 95
18. 23
20.06
16. 59
11. 67
15. 50
18. 96
20.24
15. 86
22.61
16. 04
18. 78
12. 95
18. 60
17. 14
17. 69
4.741
20.24
1 2. 3 4
1 9. 69
6.564
24.80
1 1. 49
19.87
7.840
16. 59
1 4. 22
15. 13
8 .0 2 3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
*Da+a In p la n ts /m e te r o f row
61
Tabl e 21.
Y ield
1984.
Data,
Conrad T r i a l ,
Spl I t
P lot
Analysis.
Summer
Data*
Block
Tr eat ment
Plot
Data*
Block
Treat ment
Plot
2.422
0.620
2.436
0.609
2.602
0 .4 15
2.446
0.342
2.727
0.511
2.517
0.378
2.275
0.298
2.145
0.338
2.606
0.274
I .960
0 .2 7 3
I .606
0 .3 4 5
I .308
0.268
1.827
0. 32 7
2.062
0.353
1 .803
0. 31 4
1 .955
0.311
1.781
0.329
1 .705
0. 34 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
2.588
0 .5 5 3
2.506
0 .4 1 3
2.713
0.405
2.400
0.460
2.629
0 .5 6 7
2.099
0.458
2.635
0.393
2.768
0.460
3.129
0.508
2.612
0.433
2.833
0.497
2.491
0.248
2.969
0 . 17 7
2.419
0 .1 2 0
2.563
0.134
2.965
0.131
3.010
0.492
2.753
0.183
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
I
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
I
2
*D a ta
In M g/ha
62
Ta b le 22.
P l a n t S ta nd and Y i e l d D a ta , , Columbus T r i a l ,
WI n t e r Wheat S t u b b l e .
Summer 1984.
P l a n t Stand,
p l a n t s / m e t e r of row
Yield,
Barley
Mg/ ha
Data
Block
Tr eat ment
Data
Block
Tr eat ment
9.299
12.58
2.370
4.923
0.365
2.553
9.481
10.21
2.553
3.282
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
0.000
0.000
0.000
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
0.000
0.729
2 0. 0 6
12. 03
1 1 .1 2
10. 94
0.912
1 . 094
22.79
6.382
1.641
8.023
0.000
3.464
0 .0 6 4
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.594
0.138
0.575
0.594
0.156
0.648
0.617
0.000
0.333
0 . 23 4
0.000
0.585
In
63
T a b l e 23.
V o l u n t e e r G r a i n D a t a , M o c c a s i n T r i a l s , Wh e at I n B a r l e y
S tubbl e and B a r l e y In Spr ing Wheat Stubble.
Summer 1984.
Wheat In Bar Iey S tubbl e
Barley
In Spri ng Wheat Stubbl e
Data*
Block
Tr eat ment
Data*
Block
Tr eat ment
0.722
0.483
0 .1 9 0
0.438
0.754
0 .6 2 3
0.713
0.247
0 .1 6 7
0.282
0.837
0.254
0. 65 3
0.245
0.193
0.242
0.679
0.288
0.774
0.267
0.258
0.403
0.646
0. 41 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
0.271
0 .1 57
0.299
0.331
0.419
0.224
0.493
0.464
0 .3 6 4
0.334
0.486
0.204
0.769
0.735
0.499
0.522
0.833
0.429
0.160
0.117
0.471
0.039
0.146
0.043
0.762
0 .5 7 7
0.239
0.499
0.336
0.279
0.744
0 .0 3 7
0.328
0.576
0.649
0.448
I
I
I
I
I
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
I
2
3
4
5
6
*D a ta
In p e rc e n t v o lu n te e r /1 0 0 .
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES
MAIN
N3T8
Pl82
cop. 2
pT a m c l t L
of grain a r il:
openers to place
MAIN
N378
P182
cop. 2