1
2002 Temple, Texas USA
TWO-PASS, STRIP-TILL FARMING FOR ROW CROPS
on CLAY SOILS
John Morrison, USDA-ARS, Temple,TX
Jerry Lemunyon, USDA-NRCS, Ft. Worth, TX
Tom Gerik, TAES-BRC, Temple, TX
Wyatte Harman, TAES-BRC, Temple, TX
Mike Chandler, TX A&M Univ.-TAES, College Station, TX
Joaquin Sanabria, TAES-BRC, Temple, TX
Disclaimer: Materials and illustrations vary in format as taken from referenced published
manuscripts. This is a technical summary; readers should go to referenced literature for details
of research methods and extended discussion of results and conclusions.
______________________________________________________________________________
“Strip-till” is one of the newest twists on conservation tillage for the production of row crops,
such as corn, sorghum, cotton, soybeans, tomatoes, cabbage, and possibly many more. Its appeal
is that the use of Strip-till is immediately adopted and does not require the long learning curve
often associated with No-till production techniques and management. Strip-till requires minimal
planter modifications, using conventional row crop planters. Planting and disease and insect
control are similar to conventional tillage practices. Weed control is similar to that for No-till.
Strip-till adds an additional option for fertilizer application. Residue management, controlled
traffic, soil conservation, erosion control, and other environmentally-friendly management
options are all compatible with Strip-till. Strip-till appears to be a major improvement in
conservation agriculture.
Strip-till Today
The fundamental basis of Strip-till is the preparation of a seedbed in tilled strip zones in
undisturbed soil and residue cover, where future rows will be located (fig. 1). According to the
Conservation Technology Information Center (CTIC, 1995), the tilled strips should be no more
than 25% of the field area. That means that for typical 30-inch row spacings, the strips should be
no wider than 7½-inches wide. The strips provide tilled soil, which has been loosened [warmed
and dried seed zone in cold spring conditions] to resemble tilled soil in conventional tillage
systems.
The intervening 75% of the field surface will be at partially covered by residues and the soil will
be undisturbed (fig.2). These residue-covered zones between the tilled strips provide areas for
support of wheel traffic, water infiltration, water storage, erosion control and other benefits
associated with No-till.
2
Why use Strip-till ?
If No-till can be successfully used for row crop production and there are no problems with plant
stands, troublesome soil conditions, need for exotic planters, etc., then there is little reason to
switch to Strip-till. But, if No-till management and problems are elusively difficult, then Striptill may be the technology that you have needed all of the time. Please consider the following:
▪If you have cold, wet, sticky soils for spring planting, then Strip-till can warm and dry the seed
zone and make it possible to get your crops planted on schedule.
▪If you want to apply your fertilizer materials ahead of planting or in bands below where the seed
row will be located, then Strip-till could be the best system.
▪If you want to plant back into the same crop rows, year after year to keep tractor track lanes
between the softer soil of crop rows, then Strip-till may be your answer.
▪If you require incorporation of herbicides or insecticides for pest controls, then Strip-till can
include these applications.
▪If you are about to give up on No-till, but still want to do conservation farming, then the use of
Strip-till may provide the type of management system better suited for you.
▪If you have tried five or more different types of “No-till attachments” on your planter and still
have problems, then Strip-till may be just the thing for you.
Appropriate Soils for Strip Tillage
Strip tillage is a potential management practice for all mineral soils, even poorly drained, "hardsetting", high clay, and other problem soils. It should be noted that appropriate tillage is
conducted in the narrow strips, while the untilled interrow zones remain protected with crop
residues. Our work in Central Texas has been conducted on the clays and silty clays of the
Texas Blackland Prairie. These are self-mulching, non-scouring, shrink-swell clays which form
large clods when tilled dry and smear when tilled wet. The local opinion is: “that if a machine
system will work in these soils, it will work anywhere”.
The Role of Residue Cover
Protective crop residues are either cleared from the narrow tilled strips and accumulated in the
interrow areas or incorporated into the soil where the Strip-till procedures are conducted.
Residues in the interrow areas support the loads of wheel traffic to reduce rutting and make
equipment mobility possible under wetter soil conditions (Bashford et al., 1987). This is
especially important on clay soils that have only one-third to one-forth the wet bearing strength
of sandy soils (Dao et al., 1994). Residues reduce water runoff by microimpoundment of surface
3
water, by providing raindrop energy dissipation to reduce surface sealing, and by allowing more
time for water infiltration (Mutchler and Young, 1975).
Clearing Strips Through Residues for Crop Rows
For spring planting of annual row crops, the residues from previous crops are usually partially
deteriorated, brittle, fragile, easily cut, and reduced in volume from their original condition.
Also, over-wintered stubble is usually only slightly anchored due to deterioration of the roots.
Therefore, strip clearing in the spring is successfully accomplished with the use of rolling coulter
blades and/or one of the many brands of row clearing residue rakes, which are available as
planter attachments. Some type of path clearing is necessary unless the residue and stubble has
been cut or shredded into short pieces to flow around the in-row Strip-till equipment.
Row clearing is more difficult and critical in fresh residues with anchored stubble. Farmers
usually operate the Strip-till units beside old stubble rows to avoid having to cut and uproot
anchored stubble. Long pieces of fresh, tough residue, such as corn, sorghum, or cotton stalks,
will require pre-cutting with a flail, rotary, or other type of residue cutter/shredder, because
currently manufacturers are not offering powered residue cutters on Strip-till implements.
Strip-Till “Alternatives” for Implement Systems
Width of tilled strips may range in width from as narrow as 4 inches to as wide as 10 inches for
row spacings of 16 inches to 40 inches, respectively. The tillage conducted in these strips is
most easily characterized by depth of the operation.
Typical depth alternatives are:
a). Planting-depth at 1½ to 2½ inches;
b). Cultivation-depth at 3 to 4 inches;
c). Chiseling-depth at 6 to 10 inches;
d). Subsoiling-depth at > 10 inches.
Intensity of Strip-till can vary:
1). Soil loosening with a shallow sweep (fig. 4);
2). Shallow soil loosening with a thin shank tool or knife;
3). Deeper soil loosening and lifting with a shank tool (fig. 3);
4). Surface soil loosening and residue cutting with multiple fluted coulters;
5). Powered rotary-tiller soil pulverization and residue incorporation.
Depth, width, and intensity alternatives affect soil tilth, structure changes, and mixing which may
vary among soils and soil conditions, as well as among different tillage tools and speeds of
operation (M'Hedhbi, 1989).
One-Pass Strip-Till, Two-Pass Strip-Till, and No-Till Systems
One-pass Strip-till systems typically utilize one of the above “Alternative” procedures integral
with the combined seeding and fertilizer and/or pesticide application operations, to accomplish
significant in-row tillage of a strip ahead of a planter furrow opener. Two-pass Strip-till systems
separate the first, Strip-till, operation from the second, seeding, operation, but may also include
4
the application of fertilizers and/or pesticides into the tilled strips prior to seeding. No-till
systems cut or clear a path through residues ahead of seed furrow opening, but do not till a strip.
When to do Strip-till ?
Two-pass Strip-till systems may include additional management alternatives, including the
timing of field operations to take advantage of changing soil and residue properties during the
period between crops. Many farmers who wish to apply part or all of their fertilizer with the
Strip-till operation, must consider decisions on depth, intensity, and timing. Another
consideration on appropriate timing of different Strip-till depths is that subsurface soil can have
elevated soil water contents for extended periods during the fall-winter-spring seasons, which
almost eliminates deep tillage operations, especially for clay soils.
Chisel-depth Strip-till is generally recommended for use in dry soils which will shatter. For this
reason the operation is conducted in the early fall, before the onset of rains and slow-drying
weather. This operation can produce sizeable clods in the tilled strips, but over-winter
weathering reduces the clods to friable soil conducive for spring planting. If chisel-depth
operations are conducted when the subsurface soil is too wet, the implement will produce
undesirable smeared channels. If the spring soil condition is dry enough for chisel-depth
operation, the resulting cloddy soil condition may not have sufficient time to be appropriately
weather for quality seeding. Although Strip-till was originally developed as deep, in-row
chiseling/subsoiling in the Southeast and more recently for fall strip-chiseling of Corn Belt soils,
some Texas Blackland Prairie farmers are successfully learning how to use chisel-depth Striptill.
We have conducted field-size research and demonstrations of sweep-tool Strip-till operations up
to 3 months to as little as 4 hours ahead of the planting operation. The 3-month operation was to
test the effects of operation depth and long time periods and the 4-hour shallow operation was
tried when the soil was so wet that it was the first opportunity to get into the field to loosen and
dry the seed zone before planting. Both extremes worked well and proved to be better than Notill in sticky clay soils.
A Look at Strip-till Implements
Strip-till implements are multipurpose machines which can have tools attached to perform
Alternative (a), (b), (c), or (d) mentioned above. Features of individual row-units are:
a). Individual row-unit flotation,
b). Individual depth control,
c). Mechanism for clearing of a path through residues,
d). Adjustable or controllable vertical force for soil penetration,
e). A rolling coulter blade to cut residue and soil,
f). Strip-tillage tool with applicator tube(s) for fertilizer, manure, or other material,
e). Hilling discs to form a ridge of loosened soil in the strip.
Commercial strip tillage implements are available with many of these features, and innovative
farmers are fabricating their own versions from old cultivator or tool bar implements.
5
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH ON TEXAS BLACKLANDS
1995-1998 Experimental Plot Strip-till Trials, Temple, TX
A. Cotton
In 1995, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) studies compared cotton growth between conventional
chisel tillage, Strip-till, and No-till systems. Strip-till treatments used a thin knife-chisel in each
row strip to prepare soil for planting. Research treatments were: 1) conventional fall chisel
plowing and tandem discing; 2) fall Strip-till knife-chiseling; 3) spring Strip-till knife-chiseling;
and 4) No-till. Planting was done with experimental triple-disc row units on a Case-IH #800
Cyclo Planter as described by Morrison and Gerik (1983) and Morrison (1988). Strip-till knifechiseling consisted of a smooth, rolling coulter followed by a thin 7/16-inch thick fertilizer
applicator knife (Wiese, #CO-50), operated at a depth of 8 inches. Cotton plant growth and yield
performance were monitored on Houston Black clay (fine, montmorillonitic, thermic Udic
Pellusert). Cotton treatments in 1996 were a repeat of the 1995 treatments, but conducted in
undisturbed corn stubble residue.
RESULTS (Cotton)
Cotton plant stands were higher in both the 1995 chisel-till and spring Strip-till chisel-knifing
than for No-till, indicating superior seedbed conditions (table 1) (Jost, 1996; Morrison et al.,
1996). Due to sufficient summer rainfall in 1995, there were no differences among tillage
treatments for cotton plant height, biomass development, or yields (not shown). Cotton studies
in 1996 were comparisons between sets of treatments on two different tillage histories. There
were similar plant emergences, growth heights, and biomass between tillage treatments (table 2).
Although 1996 was a dry season, the results were essentially the same as for the wet season in
1995, but not enough data was available to form conclusions. There were (non-significant)
trends for no-till to produce the lowest plant emergence and for spring Strip-till to produce the
highest plant biomass measured 8-9 weeks after planting.
B. Corn
Corn tests in 1996 were conducted in shredded corn residue from a 1995 conventional tillage
corn crop. Two soils were used: Houston Black clay and Austin silty clay (fine-silty, carbonatic,
thermic Entic Haplustolls). Plots were 3, 30-inch spaced rows, each 300-feet long. Tillage
treatments were:
1) conventional fall chisel plowing and tandem discing;
2) fall Strip-till knife-chiseling (fig. 3);
3) spring Strip-till knife-chiseling;
4) winter shallow-depth sweep Strip-till (fig. 4);
5) spring shallow-depth sweep Strip-till.
Strip-till knife-chiseling was with a 7/16-inch thick fertilizer applicator knife (Wiese, #CO-50),
operated at a depth of 8 inches. Shallow-depth Strip-till was with a 8-inch wide, flat style, low-
6
disturbance sweep (Nichols Tillage Tools, Inc., #SF-8), operating at a depth of 2 inches. All
treatments were planted with a conventional John Deere #7100 MaxEmerge planter without any
special attachments, and without any planter adjustment among tillage treatments. Counter-CR
insecticide (American Cyanamid Co.) was applied as a 6-inch band over the planted rows. Corn
tests in 1997 duplicated the 1996 tests and treatments were placed on the same plots.
RESULTS (Corn)
In 1996, corn final emergence was similar for all treatments (table 3), except for lower
emergence from winter than from spring shallow Strip-till in the Houston Black soil (Morrison
1999; Morrison, 2002a). Plant growth was statistically higher for shallow Strip-till treatments
over deep knifing, and for all Strip-till treatments over conventional chisel plowing on both soils.
The deep knife-chisel treatments dried the soil prior to planting and thus reduced growth in the
drought conditions of 1996. Yields were very low because of drought, but seven of the eight
conservation Strip-till treatments produced higher yields than the conventional chisel-plowed
tillage treatments. A drought-induced crop failure occurred on the conventionally-tilled plots on
Houston Black soil.
Repetition of the corn experiments in 1997 produced similar final emergence responses to tillage
treatments on both soil types (table 4). Plant height at 53 days was superior over conventional
tillage for both sweep Strip-till treatments on Austin soil, and for all knife and sweep Strip-till
treatments on Houston soil. An infestation of corn root worms (Diabrotica virgifera zeae,
Krysan and Smith) influenced the yields to an unknown extent. Yield trends in the Austin soil
did not follow emergence and growth trends, resulting in the conventional tillage and two
shallow Strip-till tillage treatments producing the highest yields (table 5). Yields in the Houston
Black soil generally agreed with the earlier growth rates, where the two sweep Strip-till
treatments increased yield as much as 1300 lb/acre over conventional tillage.
In a companion study on the compatibility between tillage system, planter presswheels and
planter openers, it was concluded that for Strip-till we can expect adequate planting performance
with conventional double-disc planter openers. This was true when the planters were equipped
with either standard dual rubber, dual cast iron, or dual spoked presswheels (Morrison, 2002b).
In summary, Strip-till is an improvement in terms of corn growth and yield over strict No-till for
the soil types in this experiment. The experimental Strip-till practices used conventional doubledisc-opener planters without available row-cleaning attachments. Both deep and shallow types
of Strip-till increased corn growth and yield in most cases over conventional chisel plowing and
tandem disking tillage. There was no advantage to the use of the deeper knife-chisel tools over
shallow sweep tools in the soils tested. The data were inconclusive for cotton, but did not
include shallow-sweep-type treatments, so more study is needed. For the conditions tested, use
of Strip-till procedures provided more management options than strict No-till and higher yields
than with conventional tillage in drought years.
7
1997-1998 On-Farm Strip-till Trials
On-farm corn tillage trials were conducted in 1997 and 1998 at Rosebud, Texas (Morrison, 1999;
Morrison, 2002). These were replicated field-scale tests with 12-row (30-inch rows) machines
used in a continuous corn cropping system. Eight tillage treatments were applied in mid-winter
and tested the use of applying additional phosphate fertilizer in conjunction with the winter
tillage and Strip-till. All treatments received solution in-furrow starter-fertilizer at 100 lb/acre of
10-34-0 (N-P-K) plus 0.6 gal/acre of chelated zinc when planted, and 130 lb/acre of N sidedressed between crop rows after crop emergence. Treatments were:
1. Strip-till, deep knife-chisel (6-inch depth and 12-inch knife spacing) w/o fertilizer.
2. Strip-till, deep knife-chisel w/ 34 lb/acre of P2O5 fertilizer in 100 lb/acre of 10-34-0
(N-P-K) (same for all treatments w/ fertilizer).
3. Strip-till shallow sweeps (2½-inch depth with 8-inch wide sweeps) w/o fertilizer.
4. Strip-till shallow sweeps w/ fertilizer.
5. No-till, only, w/o fertilizer.
6. Winter tandem disked + Strip-till deep knifing w/o fertilizer.
7. Winter tandem disked + Strip-till deep knifing w/ fertilizer
8. Winter tandem disked, only, w/o fertilizer
Planting was done with a 12-row John Deere MaxEmerge #7100 planter with Yetter Residue
Manager row cleaners. Planted rows followed in old-crop stubble rows, spaced at 30 inches.
Plant emergence, plant growth, and yields were measured for three replications. The crop was
machine harvested with a 6-row combine and the total yield weighed with a weigh-wagon in
1997 and detailed yields recorded with a yield monitor (Ag Leader Technology #PF3000) in
1998.
RESULTS (On-Farm Corn Tests)
The 1997 large farm-scale plot trials produced final plant emergence for all other tillage
treatments greater than for No-till (table 6). The winter fertilizer application did not produce a
trend in plant emergence. Plant height at 76 days ranged from 82 to 87 inches and was not
conclusive for a particular type of tillage or fertilizer treatment. Yields (table 7) were similar for
all treatments with and without the winter fertilizer application, except for lower yield from strict
No-till, which corresponds with the lower plant emergence results.
In 1998, a cold and late spring was followed by below average precipitation causing both late
planting and a summer drought. The two Strip-till treatments produced higher final plant
emergence than the two tandem disked treatments, and winter fertilizer application did not affect
emergence (table 8). Plant height at 40 days was greater for both Strip-till treatments than for the
tandem discing treatments. Winter phosphorus fertilizer applications improved plant height at
40 days for the two Strip-till treatments. No-till plant final emergence and 40-day height fell
numerically between tandem disking and Strip-till. Yields for all treatments (table 9) were
limited by insufficient seasonal precipitation, but three of the Strip-till treatments yielded more
than two of the tandem disked and the No-till treatment. Winter applications of phosphorus
fertilizer with the Strip-till treatments did not consistently improve corn emergence or plant
growth, and the one case of small yield improvement may not be enough to justify the fertilizer
8
input cost. Based upon the results of this trial, the farmer was advised that the winter
phosphorus fertilizer applications were not cost effective, but that Strip-till techniques could
improve plant stands and yields over his current No-till practice.
1999-2000 Comparison of Eight Systems
A two-year field study compared eight tillage/planting systems during four planting dates, two
years, on two soils, and for both corn and grain sorghum (Morrison, 2000; Morrison and
Sanabria, 2002). The systems compared were two variations of one-pass No-till, four variations
of one-pass Strip-till (more soil disturbance than No-till), and two variations of two-pass Striptill systems. The planter units were John Deere #7100 MaxEmerge (systems 1, 2, 3, and 4) and
Case-IH #800 Early Riser (systems 5, 6, 7, and 8). No-till systems were commercial planter
units with commercial row cleaner attachments to clear paths. It should be noted that 312 lbs. of
ballast was attached to the MaxEmerge planter unit (system 3) to cut residue and penetrate soil to
achieve the same planting depth as the other seven planter units, in the traditional undisturbedsoil No-till system. The addition of this extreme amount of ballast made that No-till system
work, but we forced it to work in a manner that would not be recommended to farmers. Onepass Strip-till systems (systems 1, 4, 5, and 8) were experimental variations of No-till systems,
utilizing row cleaners and shallow sweeps to clear paths and loosen the soil in conjunction with
the planting operation. Two-pass Strip-till was conducted one day before planting with an
experimental implement with row cleaners and shallow sweeps to clear paths and till strips only
about 2-inches deep and 8-inches wide (systems 2 and 6).
RESULTS (Corn and Sorghum)
Similar yields of corn in year 2000 suggest that a farmer that has plentiful rainfall or available
irrigation could use any of the eight tillage system treatments tested in this study without concern
about the planting date. Likewise, similar sorghum yields during year 2000 indicate that any
treatment is good under plentiful rainfall or irrigation, but the best planting date for that year was
between Julian day 61 and 66.
In answer to the research objective of identifying Strip-till alternatives that are appropriate for
the local conditions of adhesive, shrink-swell vertisol clay soils and annual cropping, the results
were consistent across the wide range of field conditions produced by 16 combinations of year,
planting date, and soil type. The same response patterns occurred for seedling emergence and
grain yield of both corn and sorghum in both soil types (fig. 5 and 6).
Highly variable results were produced by the experimental one-pass Strip-till treatments 1, 4, 5,
and 8 for corn, and treatment 1 for sorghum (fig. 5 and 6). These one-pass Strip-till system
treatments were done with shallow sweeps as the main soil-engaging tool. The sweep loosened a
strip of soil, bringing moist adhesive soil to the surface, which adhered to planter furrow openers,
depth gauge wheels, and presswheels and caused functional problems in the field. Apparently,
those functional problems were reflected in more variable crop performance, that would
eliminate further consideration of the four experimental one-pass Strip-till treatments and select
either the standard one-pass No-till systems (treatments 3 and 7) or the two–pass Strip-till
systems (treatments 2 and 6) for these crops and soil conditions. Recommendation of Strip-till
9
over No-Till is stronger if additional operations such as application of fertilizers or insecticides
can be accomplished with the Strip-till operation to justify the additional machine ownership and
field operation. A positive field observation: seeding operations were less management-intensive
with Strip-till, because planters did not require the addition and adjustment of ballast to achieve
adequate seeding depth with changing soil conditions.
2002 Design for a Strip-till Implement
The experimental Strip-till implement was designed and developed by the USDA-ARS
Grassland Soil & Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX as field-scale 8-row implement for
general field use (fig. 7). It consists of a 7x7-inch toolbar having row markers, manifold and
tubing for the application of liquid fertilizer solution, and eight independent Strip-till row units.
Each row unit is suspended on parallel linkage for flotation. Automotive air-shocks provide
easily adjustable downforce on the units, but compression springs could be used. The units each
have a pair of opposing Great Plains TerraTine® row cleaner tine-wheels to clear paths and
control depth, a smooth rolling coulter blade equipped with modified Bowerman rotary scrapers
for operation in adhesive clay soils, a low-disturbance modified Smith-fin® 8-inch wide sweep
with fertilizer tube (other shallow or deep knives or tools could be used), and dual floating CaseDMI covering discs to deflect loosened soil into a low ridge. The units are designed for shallow
Strip-till and would need to be of a heavier construction if deep tools, like chisels, were to be
used. This machine was used to Strip-till about 200 acres in the spring of 2002, on field sites
across five Central Texas Blackland counties as part of a on-farm tillage study organized by the
Blackland Conservation Technology Alliance (BCTA).
FARMER EXPERIENCE
Several local farmers are using No-till and Strip-till for their row crop production. Those using
No-till are using conventional row crop planters with staggered double disc openers, modified
with residue clearing attachments ahead of each planter unit. They plant spring crops close
beside old stubble rows without the cutting/shredding of residues. Wheel traffic is maintained in
the same row middles, year after year.
Strip-till farmers started into the system by using ½-inch thick vertical fertilizer applicator knives
in or beside old crop stubble rows. Some of them cut/shred their stalks while others do no active
residue management. If the stubble is well anchored, the farmer will plant close beside old
stubble rows. They have successfully operated directly in the old rows, for years when the
stubble is easily dislodged,. Rolling coulter blades and row cleaner rakes were added to these
on-farm developed rigs. Commercial Strip-till implements are now replacing some of these
initial implements. The farmers apply fertilizers with their Strip-till operations. The fertilizers
have been solutions of phosphorus, with small amounts of nitrogen and trace nutrients. Some
farmers also apply starter fertilizer with their planters, while others apply all of their phosphate
10
and starter fertilizers with the Strip-till. Wheel traffic is maintained in the same row middles,
year after year.
All of these farmers apply liquid nitrogen fertilizer with side-dress operations after the crop is
established. Applicator implements are equipped with either thin knives or coulter-nozzle units
to place fertilizers beside crop rows or in the middles between rows. Fertilizers are placed in
shallow bands beneath residues and the soil surface. Farmers desire minimal reside and soil
disturbance. Individual row-unit depth control is used by most farmers to insure that the knives
or coulters do not disturb too much soil by cutting too deeply.
Recommendations
If one-pass No-till is being successfully used, it should continue to be used, because No-till
requires the minimum in implement inventories and field trips.
If there is a difficulty or risk with the use of No-till, Strip-till systems will provide an ease of
management as well as benefits to conservation and environmental protection.
Publications Cited
Bashford, L.L., A.J. Jones, and L.N. Mielke. 1987. Bulk density beneath a belt track and tire on
an agricultural tractor. ASAE Paper No. 78-1054. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA.
CTIC. 1995. Survey Guide; Your Guide to Local Participation, Uses, and Benefits of the
National Crop Residue Management Survey. W. Lafayette, IN: Conservation Technology
Information Center.
Dao, T.H., J.E. Morrison, Jr., and P.W. Unger. 1994. Soil compaction and bearing strength. In
Crop Residue Management to Reduce Erosion and Improve Soil Quality: Southern Great Plains,
ed. B.A. Stewart and W.C. Moldenhauer. pg 40-44. USDA, ARS, Conser. Res. Rep. No. 37.
Jost, P.H. 1996. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) production and Thiazopyr efficacy in reduced and
no-tillage systems in the Blackland Prairie of Texas. MS Thesis, Texas A&M Univ., College
Station, TX USA, May 1996.
M'Hedhbi, K. 1989. Tillage effects on residue change. MS Thesis, Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock,
TX, December 1989.
Morrison, J.E. Jr. 1988. Interactive planter depth control and pneumatic downpressure system.
Transactions of the ASAE 31(1):14-18.
11
Morrison, J.E., Jr. and T.J. Gerik. 1983. Flexible mounted double-discs for conservation
planters. Transactions of the ASAE 26(4):1044-1045.
Morrison, J.E., Jr., T.J. Gerik, F.W. Chichester, J.R. Martin, and J.M. Chandler. 1990. A notillage farming system for clay soils.
J. Prod. Agric. 3(2): 219-227.
Morrison, J. E., Jr., Jost, Philip H., and Chandler, James M. Row-Zone tillage systems and
implements. 1996. In Proc. International Conference on Agricultural Machinery Engineering.
Seoul, Korea. pp. 413-422.
Morrison, J. E., Jr. 1999. Row-zone alternative to no-till row crop production. ASAE Paper
No. 99-1089. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI.
Morrison, J. E., Jr. Row-zone strip tillage machines for conservation crop production. 2000. In
Proceedings of XIV Memorial CIGR World Congress, Tsukuba, Japan.
Morrison, J. E., Jr. 2002a. Strip tillage for “No-Till” row crop production. Applied Engineering
in Agriculture 18(3):277-284.
Morrison, J. E., Jr. 2002b. Compatibility among three tillage systems and types of planter
presswheels and furrow openers for vertisol clay soils. Applied Engineering in Agriculture
18(3):293-295.
Morrison, J. E., Jr. and J. Sanabria. 2002. One-pass and two-pass strip tillage machines for
conservation row-crop production. (Manuscript accepted for ASAE publication in 2002).
Mutchler, C.K. and R.A. Young. 1975. Soil detachment by raindrops. In Present and Prospective
Technology for Predicting Sediment Yields and Sources. ARS-S-40, Agr. Res. Ser., U.S. Dept. of
Agr., Washington DC, pg 113.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
12
TABLES
Table 1. Cotton emergence, growth, and biomass development in response to tillage
treatments and a wet summer season at Temple, TX, 1995 (Josh, 1996).
Treatment H
Conventional
S-T fall knife-chisel
S-T spring knife-chisel
No-till
Final
Collar height
Collar height
Biomass
emergence
at 53 d
at 72 d
at 59 d
(plants/acre)
(inch)
(inch)
(lb/acre)
101,000ab*
7.9a
24a
700a
97,100bc
7.1a
24a
720a
109,000a
8.3a
25a
830a
89,000c
7.5a
24a
630a
* Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by the LSD test.
H AS-T@ is strip tillage.
13
Table 2. Cotton emergence, growth, and biomass development in response to
tillage treatments and a summer drought season at Temple, TX, 1996 (Josh, 1996).
Treatment H
AChisel-till@ Plot
Final
Collar height
Collar height
Biomass
emergence
at 55 d
at 62 d
at 62 d
(plants/acre)
(inch)
(inch)
(lb/acre)
194,000a*
9.7a
13.1a
810a
S-T spring knife-chisel
188,000a
10.2a
13.8a
930a
ANo-till@ Plot
196,000a
8.7b
12.4a
810a
178,000a
10.2a
13.5a
820a
Conventional
S-T fall knife-chisel
No-till
* Means in a column and in the AChisel-till@ Plot or ANo-till@ Plot followed by the same letter
are not statistically different at the 5% level of significance by the LSD test.
H AS-T@ is strip tillage.
14
Table 3. Small-plot corn final emergence (24 d) and leaf collar height growth (51 d) responses
to five tillage treatments and two different soils at Temple,TX, 1996.
Treatment HH
Austin silty
Houston clay,
Austin silty
Houston clay,
clay,
emergence
clay,
collar height
emergence
(plants/acre)
collar height
(inch) H
(plants/acre)
(inch)
Conventional
17,900a*
18,400ab
10.2d
6.9d
S-T fall deep
19,400a
18,900ab
12.4c
13.4b
19,100a
18,300ab
13.3c
11.8c
18,400a
17,400b
15.5a
14.4a
19,100a
19,500a
14.3b
13.0b
knife-chisel
S-T spring deep
knife-chisel
S-T winter
shallow sweep
S-T spring
shallow sweep
*Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H Height of collar of highest developed leaf on day 51 after planting.
HH AS-T@ is strip tillage.
15
Table 4. Small-plot corn final emergence (16 d) and leaf collar height growth (53 d) responses
to tillage for two soils at Temple, TX, 1997.
Treatment H
Austin silty
Houston clay,
clay,
emergence
(plants/acre)
Austin silty
clay,
emergence
collar
height
(plants/acre)
Houston clay,
collar height
(inch)
(inch)
Conventional
47,700a*
49,400a
10.7b
11.4b
S-T fall knife-chisel
45,900a
53,800a
11.4b
15.7a
S-T spring knife-chisel
50,300a
51,600a
12.1ab
15.0a
S-T winter shallow sweep
45,100a
54,700a
13.6a
16.8a
S-T spring shallow sweep
51,600a
52,100a
13.7a
16.8a
*Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range=s test.
H AS-T@ is strip tillage.
16
Table 5. Small-plot corn grain yield responses to tillage on
two soils at Temple, TX, 1997.
Treatment HH
Austin silty
Houston clay,
clay,
yield
yield
(lb/acre)
(lb/acre)
Conventional
3411a*
2778c H
S-T fall knife-chisel
2944b H
33384abc H
S-T spring knife-chisel
2933b H
1991bc H
S-T winter shallow sweep
3354ab
3652ab
S-T spring shallow sweep
3085ab
4148a H
* Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H A late-season infestation of corn root worms affected plant stands
and yields to a visually-noticeable degree in one or more replication
of these treatments.
HH AS-T@ is strip tillage.
17
Table 6. Farm-scale plot corn final emergence (39 d) and leaf collar height (76 d)
responses to six tillage treatments, w/ and w/o P2O5 fertilizer applied in winter,
Rosebud, TX, 1997.
Treatment HH
Emergence
Emergence
Collar height
Collar height
w/o fertilizer
w/ fertilizer
w/o fertilizer
w/ fertilizer
(plants/acre)
(plants/acre)
(inch)
(inch)
S-T deep knife-chisel
20,900a*
20,900a
83.1b
83.1b
Tandem disc only
21,100a
-na- H
83.1b
-na-
Tandem disc &
19,700b
21,600a
86.2ab
87.4a
S-T shallow sweeps
21,000a
20,900a
82.7b
83.9ab
No-till only
18,400c
-na-
85.4ab
-na-
fertilizer knife-chisel
*Means within emergence or height followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H A-na-@ indicates treatment not conducted.
HH AS-T@ is strip tillage.
18
Table 7. Farm-scale plot corn grain yield responses to six tillage treatments,
Rosebud, TX, 1997
Treatment HH
Yield w/o fertilizer
Yield w/ fertilizer
(lb/acre)
(lb/acre)
S-T deep knife-chisel
6125a*
6335a
Tandem disc only
6146a
-na- H
Tandem disc &
6460a
6031a
S-T shallow sweeps
6238a
5991ab
No-till only
5655b
-na- H
fertilizer knives
* Treatment means followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H A-na-@ indicates treatment not conducted.
HH AS-T@ is Strip-till.
19
Table 8. Farm-scale plot corn final emergence (24 d) and leaf collar height (40 d) responses to
six tillage treatments during drought season, Rosebud, TX, 1998.
Treatment HH
Emergence
Emergence w/
Collar height
Collar height
w/o fertilizer
fertilizer
w/o fertilizer
w/ fertilizer
(plants/acre)
(plants/acre)
(inch)
(inch)
S-T deep knife-chisel
20,700 a*
19,300 ab
15.1 bc
16.4 a
Tandem disc only
15,600 c
-na- H
12.6 d
Tandem disc &
15,700 c
18,400 abc
10.9 e
11.7 e
S-T shallow sweeps
20,200 ab
20,000 ab
14.7 c
15.9 ab
No-till only
17,400 bc
-na- H
14.6 c
-na- H
-na- H
fertilizer knives
*Means in a column followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H A-na-@ indicates treatment not conducted
HH AS-T@ is strip tillage.
20
Table 9. Farm-scale plot corn grain yield responses to six tillage
treatments in a drought season, Rosebud, TX, 1998.
Treatment HH
Yield w/o fertilizer
(lb/acre)
Yield w/ fertilizer
(lb/acre)
S-T deep knife-chisel
2624 b*
2630 b
Tandem disc only
2579 bc
-na- H
Tandem disc &
2521 c
2446 d
S-T shallow sweeps
2531 c
2703 a
No-till only
2513 c
-na- H
fertilizer knives
* Treatment means followed by the same letter are not statistically different
at the 5% level of significance by Duncan=s Multiple Range test.
H A-na-@ indicates treatment not conducted.
HH AS-T@ is strip tillage.
21
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Strip tillage systems are conservation cropping systems wherein at least 2/3 of the field
area is interrow surface, which is not tilled and remains covered with protective residues, while
the row is strip tilled.
22
Figure 2. Shallow-depth sweep strip tillage in shredded stubble, prior to planting
23
Figure 3. Experimental strip tillage unit with knife-chisel attachment, as used in 1995-1997
studies.
24
.
Figure 4. Experimental strip tillage unit with row cleaners, smooth coulter blade, and
shallow-depth sweep attachment, as used in 1996-1998 corn small-plot and on-farm studies.
25
Corn yield from eight tillage treatments, ordered from left to right; two
years and four planting dates
Trt 1
8000
Trt 3
Trt 4
Trt 5
Trt 6
Trt 7
Trt 8
LSD=863
7000
Yield (Kg/Ha)
Trt 2
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
62
1999
A
75
1999
82
1999
97
1999
53
2000
61
2000
66
2000
73
2000
Grain Sorghum yield from eight tillage treatments, two years and four planting
dates
6000
Yield (Kg/Ha)
5000
LSD=522
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
62
1999
75
1999
B
82
1999
97
1999
53
2000
61
2000
66
2000
73
2000
Planting Date (day of the year) / Year
Yield from eight tillage treatments in two soil types
7000
LSD=863
LSD=522
Yield (Kg / Ha)
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
C
Houston
Corn
Austin
Corn
Houston
Sorghum
Austin
Sorghum
Soil / Crop
Figure 5. Yield as affected by eight tillage systems (Trt 1 - Trt 8), year, and planting date in corn
(A), and sorghum (B); and corn and sorghum yield as affected by eight tillage systems and two
soils (C).
26
Corn emergence from eight tillage treatments, ordered from left to right
two years and four planting dates
Emergence (%)
Trt 1
Trt 2
Trt 3
Trt 4
Trt 5
Trt 6
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
A
Trt 7
Trt 8
LSD=13
62
1999
75
1999
82
1999
97
1999
53
2000
61
2000
66
2000
73
2000
Planting Dates (Day of the Year) / Year
Emergence (%)
Grain sorghum emergence from eight tillage treatments, ordered from left to right,
two years and four planting dates
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
B
LSD=9
62
1999
75
1999
82
1999
97
1999
53
2000
61
2000
66
2000
73
2000
Planting Dates (Day of the year) / Year
Emergence (%)
Emergence from eight tillage treatment, ordered from left to right, and two soil types
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
C
LSD=9
LSD=13
Houston
Corn
Austin
Corn
Soil / Crop
Houston
Sorghum
Austin
Sorghum
Figure 6. Plant emergence as affected by eight tillage systems (Trt 1 – Trt 8), year, and planting
date in corn (A) and sorghum (B); and corn and sorghum yield as affected by eight tillage
systems and two soils (C).
Figure 7. 2002 model of the USDA-ARS experimental Strip-till field machine.
Other Sources of Information
“Partners” Magazine
CTIC, Conservation Technology Information Center
1220 Potter Drive, Room 170
W. Lafayette, Indiana 47906-1383
Tel: (795) 494-9555
E-mail: ctic@ctic.purdue.edu
Web: www.ctic.purdue.edu
“Strip-Till Instructional Video – 8/20/00”. 1). Grower Segment. TRT: 18:38
Monsanto Company
North America Division
“No-Till Farmer” Magazine
Lessiter Publications, Inc.
P.O. Box 624
Brookfield, WI 53008-0624
Tel: (262) 782-1252
28
E-mail: info@lesspub.com
Web: www.no-tillfarmer.com
Bolton, F.E. and D.E. Booster. 1981. Strip-till planting in dryland cereal production.
Trans. of ASAE 24(1): 59-62.
Edwards, J.H., D.L. Thurlow, and J.T. Eason. 1988. Influence of tillage and crop rotation
on yields of corn, soybean, and wheat. Agron J. 80(1): 76-80.
Halvorson, A.D. and G.P. Hartman. 1984. Reduced seedbed tillage effects on irrigated
sugarbeet yield and quality. Agron. J. 76(4): 603-606.
Hares, M.A. and M.D. Novak. 1992. Simulation of surface energy balance and soil
temperature under strip tillage: II. Field test. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 56(1): 29-36.
Iqbal, M., S.J. Marley, D.C. Erbach, and T.C. Kaspar. 1995. Effects of coulter treatments
on seed furrow smearing and early crop response. ASAE Paper No. 95-1322, ASAE, St.
Joseph MI 49085-9659 USA.
Karlen, D.L., W.J. Busscher, S.A. Hale, R.B. Dodd, E.E. Strickland, And T.H. Garner.
1991. Drought condition energy requirement and subsoiling effectiveness for selected
deep tillage implements. Trans. of ASAE 34(5): 1967-1972.
Kaspar, T.C., D.C. Erbach, and R.M. Cruse. 1990. Corn response to seed-row residue
removal. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54(4): 1112-1117.
Kaspar, T.C. and D.C. Erbach. 1998. Improving stand establishment in no-till with
residue-clearing planter attachments. Transaction of the ASAE 41(2):301-306.
Morrison, J.E., Jr. and F.W. Chichester. 1988. Subsurface fertilizer applicator for
conservation-tillage research. Applied Engr. In Aagr. 4(2):130-134.
Raimbault, B.A., T.J. Vyn and M. Tollenaar. 1991. Maize response to rye cover crop,
tillage methods, and planter options. Agron. J. 83(2): 287-290.
Sallinas-Garcia, J. R., Cabrera-Sixto, J. M., Morrison, J. E., Jr., LePori, W. A., and
Morales-Martinez, A. R. 2000. Tillage system criteria for high surface residue
conditions. In Proc. 4th Int. Conf. on Soil Dynamics, 26-30 March 2000, Adelaide,
Australia.
Smith, J.A., C.D. Yonts, D.A. Biere and M.D. Rath. 1995. Field operation energy use for
a maize-dry edible bean-sugarbeet rotation. App. Engr. in Agr. 11(2): 219-224.
________________________________________________________________________