00173
1980
OCLC20363160
1980
CONSERVATION TILLAGE
TEST RESULTS
ALLEN COUNTY,
OHIO
ALLEN SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
ALLEN COUNTY COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERVICE, OSU
-------
& I
219 W. Northern Am. limn, Ohio 45801 Phone
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SCS STAFF
_ _ , STEVE DAVIS, District Conservatiofi
RALPH FISCHER, Oomnon dtotU^^Lg''*^-- *°°* ^^ Coina*mf redbfci
GREGORY KRIICER, Tre^rer BENMS ^SS^,
CALVIN I&RACOFE, Member %z Qy| m^ ^ gy| §||£|Sg||| = ^ARY VEHLIKC, District Techniciai
COOKIE ARTHUR, Office Secretary DON YIGH, District Technician
To Allen SWCD Landowners :
The Allen SWCD proudly presents you these 1980 Conservation Tillage Test Results,
This information is compiled from many of your neighbors* farms and represents our
third year of testing conservation tillage systems*
Conservation tillage is continuously proving itsalf against the moldboard plow.
The age is here where the improved minimum tillage tools and no-till planters
belong on your farm* The chisel plow, the offset disc and the no-till planter
can save you time* fuel and soil, without sacrificing yields.
This year's program was made possible through a grant supplied by the U.S. EPA.
It was a cooperative effort of the Allen Soil and Water Conservation District,
the Soil Conservation Service and the Allen County Cooperative Extension Service.
A special thanks is extended to all the participating farmers in this program.
Without donation of their time and land$ this program would not even been possible
Thanks is also extended to The Chevron Company for their assistance with the
no- till corn contest and to all the Agricultural Chemical Companies who donated
materials for the herbicide plots.
The data in this publication does not intend to represent research but rather
observations and judgements on what we've seen in Allen County. We attempt
to present the information unbiased and include all participants in the
program. Understand that our tests are field size and many are not replicated.
Finally the use of certain products or brand names is not meant to be an
endorsement of their use by the Allen SWCD but only given to document the
experiences of our demonstrations?
1980 marked the introduction of minimum tillage soybeans and no- till corn in bean
stubble into our program. Both of these tillage systems seem very promising but
of course need more testing. With these additions however you now have the
option of producing all your crops with conservation tillage methods.
The Allen SWCD is very appreciative of the funds received from the U.S. EPA to
sponsor our conservation tillage program. The grant has enabled us to make
much more equipment and manpower available to you than we could have with our
own resources. We would hope ,that after reviewing this publication you are
motivated to try a test on your farm. Our goal is for all cropland to be
farmed using the best conservation methods available. Will you help us reach it?
incerely,
Balph Fischer, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Demonstration Project 1
Soil Erosion 2
1980 Growing Season 3
II. 1980 TILLAGE TEST
Tillage Test Guidelines 4
Plot Treatments 5
Results and Observations 10
No-Till Corn in Soybean Stubble 13
III. 1980 ECONOMIC COMPARISONS
Guidelines and Costs 15
Production Cost Summaries 17
Results and Observations 21
IV. 1980 NO-TILL HYBRID TEST
Guidelines 26
Hybrid Yield Data 27
Three Year Summaries 31
Observations 34
V. NO-TILL SOYBEAN TEST PLOTS
Cultural Data 35
Yield and Observations 38
VI. NO-TILL HERBICIDE TEST PLOTS
Guidelines 39
Observations 40
Plot Data 41
VII. NO-TILL MANAGEMENT GUIDE
Field Selection 43
Fertilization 44
Getting a Stand 45
Equipment 46
Controlling Weeds 47
Controlling Insects 51
No-Till Soybeans 52
VIII. CONSERVATION TILLAGE MANAGEMENT
Equipment Guidelines 53
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
-------
THE ALLEN SWCD DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
This report on conservation tillage is the first of a series which will be forthcoming
from the Allen SWCD through its water quality demonstration project. The water quality
project is funded through a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencv and
administered by the local District.
Initial grant monies received totaled $254,501 and are funding the project through
September 30, 1981. Additional funding is expected to extend the project four years
beyond that date. Of the $254,501, $131,220 will be used by the SWCD for conservation
tillage promotion, and $123,281 will be used by the Allen County Health District to
demonstrate how up-grading sewage systems improve water quality. The District's
portion of the grant money will be used to promote conservation tillage by:
1. Providing conservation tillage equipment for farmers use.
2. Employing personnel to give farmers detailed technical assistance.
3. Conducting tours, training meetings, and field days.
4. Recording and publicizing and set-backs of those involved in the project.
A key element of the project is that participation from farmers will be sought on a
voluntary basis. Incentives used will be equipment and technical help rather than
financial payments to carry out the practice. In order to determine the workability of
this approach both current and future conservation tillage acreages within the county
will be monitored, to determine changes over the life of the program.
Plans have already been made for the 1981 year. Equipment available for farmers use will
be:
1. Two "soil savers" and two "offset discs" for fall tillage work
2. Four no-till planters for corn and soybeans
3. One no-till grain drill for soybeans and wheat
4. Three weigh wagons for plot checks
Farmers interested in using this equipment should discuss their plans with the SWCD office
staff.
-------
SOIL EROSION AND WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
Conservation tillage benefits water quality by reducing soil erosion. Control of soil
erosion leads to a reduction of sediment entering streams and the associated pollutants
which attach to sediment, including phosphorous and herbicides.
The complex relationship between erosion of soil particles and delivery to a stream is
not yet fully understood and quantified. However, it is known that before a particle
can be transported it must be eroded or detached from the soil colloidal structure.
And it is well established that maintenance of residue cover deters the detachment
process. Thus the Allen SWCD demonstration project is concentrating on ways to promote
tillage systems which retain a greater degree of residue cover on our county's fields
throughout the growing season. The following table lists the erosion predicted by the
Universal Soil Loss Equation for each of the 1980 tillage comparison farms. Values are
given for an assumed fall plowing as well as for the particular treatment in each
test plot. On the average, 3 ton/acre per year is an acceptable soil loss from a
productivity standpoint. The data readily shows the effectiveness of no-till and
conservation tillage in reducing soil erosion.
TREATMENT
Fall Plow
Disc/Chisel
No- Till
% Reduction
for No-Till
1
u
5.7
1.6
72
DAVIS
2.1
.6
71
TABLE
SUTER
10.2
4.0
1.5
85
PREDICTED SOIL
W
9
< PH
U H
W J
13 I-H
H H
£ S
3.3 1.1
.7 .2
79 81
c£
VANDEMA
1.2
.2
75
EROSION VALUES
a W
EH c/3 J H
W S H W
w O O S fn
2 0 O u
K W K S
w PQ m w g
3.0 3.0 3.6 2.3 2.7
1.4
.6 .5 .7 .3 .4
80 83 87 87 96
LUGIBIHI
5.1
2.5
.8
84
WE RAGE
3.0
1.9
.67
78%
In addition to predicting soil losses on participating farms the Allen SWCD project will
also be measuring current and future acres under conservation tillage within Allen County,
Information and data on this aspect of our program will be available in later reports.
Concern has been increased about the increased use of pesticides in no-till. Table 27
page 47 compares herbicide rates for both no-till and conventional plots. The data does
show a slight increase in the amounts of herbicides used. It is the opinion of the SWCD
however, that these increases are off-set by the improved soil erosion capability of the
no-till system. It should further be noted that the major herbicide which increases
with no-till, Paraquat, is readily affixed to soil particles.
-------
THE 1980 GROWING SEASON
The 1980 growing season again proved there is no such thing as an "average" year.
Allen County was spared the drought which gripped the nation' s heartland and
actually received above normal rainfall for the growing season. The 1980 growing
season was recorded as warm and wet. This contrasts with 1979 which was cool and
wet and the 1978 season which was hot and dry. When put together these past three
distinctly different types of seasons have allowed observation of conservation
tillage systems over a wide range of conditions. Specific observations made
during 1980 are as follows:
Spring planting conditions were wet and late in April but warm, dry and ideal in
early May. Little corn was planted in April, but 75% of the corn in the county
was planted May 1st through May 10th. The 10 days of nearly ideal conditions
allowed much of the corn to be planted quickly and timely. Rainfall in the latter
part of May was adequate to allow germination and activation of herbicides.
Table 2 shows rainfall recorded in various areas of the county. The total for
1980 was high, for being 35% above normal. This compares with 26% above normal
for 1979. Heavy rains in early June seriously flooded, compacted and stressed
many fields in the county. Some areas recorded as much as 5 inches in a 24 hour
period. Standing water required several fields to be replanted. Hail damage in
July was severe in a few isolated areas of the county. This affected final
yields of a few of the plots.
TABLE 2. 1980
May
June
July
August
LIMA
3.20
5.83
5.44
3.53
18.00
PANDORA
3.27
5.51
4.79
6.63
20.31
ALLEN COUNTY RAINFALL
HUME
2.8
8.2
5.1
3.6
19.7
AVERAGE
3.09
6.51
5.11
4.59
19.34
NORMAL
3.45
4.02
3.44
3.37
14.28
% OF NORMAL
90%
162%
149%
136%
135%
Growing degree days were recorded to be 3134 degree-days at the Findlay station of
the Ohio Crop Reporting Service. This was 132 degree-days (5%) above normal for
that location. The above normal rainfall and the above normal heat units produced
ample fodder but hot and dry weather at pollination reduced ear fill and yields.
First killing frost did not occur until the first week of November, much later
than normal. The late frost did allow maturity of the late planted full season
corn and good corn dry-down.
In summary, the 1980 growing season was wetter and warmer than normal. The late
Spring was countered by ideal May planting conditions and by a late fall which
allowed the corn to reach full maturity. A hot and dry July and early August,
coupled with high winds resulted in stressed and poor pollination of corn causing
ears not to be fully filled out. Heavy rains in June and July adversely effected
the yields of crops, especially in poorly drained soils. These facts should be
kept in mind when evaluating data contained in this report.
-------
1980 ALLEN COUNTY CONSERVATION TILLAGE TEST GUIDELINES
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This field trial program was developed to help Allen County farmers
evaluate the performance of conservation tillage on their farms. It was
designed to help farmers collect data necessary to judge their success
at using conservation tillage methods.
The tillage field trials compared two or more of the following tillage
practices: fall or spring chisel plowing, fall or spring discing, no-till
planting, spring plowing (done after March 1), and fall plowing (check
strip).
GUIDELINES
Procedures were followed to insure that tillage was the only variable.
Both agency personnel and farmers made observations and kept records
throughout the growing season. Responsibility of each was as follows:
FARMERS:
1. Used one or more conservation tillage systems adjacent to a
check plot. Established plots wide enough to allow normal
operations for tillage, planting and harvesting.
2. Selected trial locations that were reasonably similar in soils,
fertility, drainage, and productivity.
3. Kept reliable records on rainfall, planting dates, tillage
operations and fertilizer and pesticides used.
4. Harvested and weighed plots with help from sponsors.
AGENCY PERSONNEL:
1. Measured field area, population at emergence, barren stalks,
and final harvest population.
2. Determined amount of surface residue retained and estimated
annual soil erosion for each system.
3. Provided a weigh wagon, moisture tester, and scale operator
to assist at harvest.
4. Calculated yields, expenses, and profitability of the various
systems. Published the information.
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1. All check and test strips had same prior year residue before
primary tillage. No-till plantings were made directly into
residue without seedbed preparation.
2. Corn hybrid and total N, P, K was same across all tillage plots.
3. Residual type herbicides and soil insecticides were the same across
all plots. Contact type herbicides were used or omitted depending
upon vegetation existing at planting time. Rates were adjusted
according to Residue.
4. Cultivators, rotary hoes, and or post-emergent herbicides were
used as necessary to prevent crusting and weed infestations.
5. Each strip was machine harvested for grain with a minimum of
one pass across entire field.
-------
PLOT TREATMENTS
William Begg - home farm
Treatment Hybrid Population Moisture Yield Value
1.
2.
3.
Spring Plow Pioneer 3518
Spring Offset Disc Pioneer 3518
No-Till Test Hybrid Mix.
19,100
20,500
22,000
22.5%
23.4%
24.2%
107.9
109.8
132.8
$285.94
285.48
379.87
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Field cultivated once, disc once, harrowed, planted.
Cultivated twice and rotary hoed once.
2. Spring Offset Disc twice, planted with harrow on planter, cultivated
twice, rotary hoed once.
3. No-till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted no-till May 2 in orchard grass sod with 30 inch rows at a seed drop of
27,100. Planted spring plow and disc on May 10 in 30 inch rows at a seed drop
of 27,100. 1979 crop in tilled plots were corn. Sprayed no-till with 1 qt.
Paraquat, 2h Ibs. Atrazine SOW and 2h Ibs. Princep SOW. Tilled plots received
3 qts. of Bicep. Fertilizer included 260 Ibs. of 18-46-0 and 300 Ibs. of
0-0-60 broadcast ahead of planting, 160 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row and 482 Ibs.
at 28-0-0 for a total of 196-158-218. Plowed plots received 100 Ibs. 18-46-0
and 200 Ibs. 0-060 broadcast ahead of planting, 160 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row
and 260 Ibs. of 28-0-0 for a total of 284-84-158. Ih Ibs. Dulox SOW sprayed in
mid June for armyworm in no-till.
William Begg - Barnett Farm
Treatment Hybrid Population Moisture Yield Value
1.
2.
Spring
No-Till
Plow
Pioneer
Pioneer
3518
3518
24
22
,400
,900
19.3%
20.9%
117.
90.
9
7
$345
264
.90
.42
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Field cultivated, harrowed, planted
2. No-Till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 3 in 30 inch rows at a seed drop of 27,100. 1979 crop was wheat.
Sprayed no-till with 5 Ibs. Aatrex and ~Lh qt. Prowl. Spring plow received
5 pts. Bladex and 1 Ib. Atrazine. Fertilizer included 150 Ibs. 18-46-0, 250
Ibs. 0-0-60 and 511 Ibs. 45-0-0 (urea) for a total of 257-69-150. No
insecticide applied.
Gerald Brooks
Treatment Hybrid Population Moisture Yield Value
L.
2.
Fall Plow
No-Till
Pioneer
Pioneer
3780
3780
22
23
,500
,700
19.
21.
1%
5%
142
135
.8
.0
$417
392
.80
.99
Tillage
1. Fall Plowed - Field cultivated twice, planted
2. No-till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted Plow Treatment on May 5 and no-till on May 7 in 30 inch rows at a seed drop
of 24,400. 1979 crop was corn. Sprayed no-till with 1 pt. Paraquat. All
treatments received 3 Ibs. Bladex SOW and 2 pts. Dual 8E. Fertilizer included 200
Ibs. 0-0-60 broadcast at planting, 170 Ibs. 8-32-16 in the row and 642 Ibs. 28%
applied with herbicides for a total of 194-146-147. 13.5 Ibs. Furadan used for
insect control.
-------
Donald Davis
Treatment Hybrid Population Moisture Yield Value
1.
2.
Fall Offset
No-Till
Disc
Test
Test
Hybrid
Hybrid
Mix.
Mix.
20,
23,
900
000
18.0%
19.0%
94
117
.2
.0
$227.02
345.00
Tillage
1. Fall Offset Disc, Spring Disc, Cultimulched
2. No-Till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 5 in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 25,800. 1979 crop was corn.
Sprayed no-till with 1.75 pt. Paraquat with 1 pt. Surfactant. Both treatments
received 1.75 Ibs. Aatrex 9-0 and 2 qt. Dual 8E with 60 gal. of 28% as a carrier.
Fertilizer included on the no-till treatment 135 Ibs. 18-46-0 in the row, 200 Ibs.
0-0-60 of 28-0-0 for a total of 212-113-120. Fertilizer on offset disc treatment
was 135 Ibs. 18-46-0 in the row, 200 Ibs. 0-0-60, 225 Ibs. 45-0-0, 120 Ibs. 0-44-0
and 200 Ibs. 28-0-0 for a total of 182-115-120. 8 Ibs. Furadan used for insect
control.
Ross Glum
Treatment
1.
2.
Spring Plow
No-Till
Hybrid
Pioneer
Pioneer
Population
3780
3780
15,
20,
900
200
Moisture
15
15
.5%
.5%
Yield
108.
115.
9
5
Value
$326
346
.70
.50
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Disc and harrowed twice, planted, cultivated once
2. No-Till - Planted with a fluted coulter planter
Planted no-till on May 6 in 30 inch rows and planted plow on May 7 in 35 inch rows,
both at an expected population of 22,000. Sprayed no-till with 1 pt. Paraquat with
Surfacant, 4 Ibs. Bladex SOW and 3 qts. Lasso with 40 gal. 28% carrier. Sprayed
plow with 2 Ibs. Atrazine. Fertilizer for both treatments was 446 Ibs. 28-0-0 and
300 Ibs. 6-24-24 for a total of 143-72-72. 16 Ibs. Furadan on no-till for insect
control.
Luke Lugibihl
Treatment Hybrid Population Moisture Yield Value
1. Spring Disc Pioneer 3535 23,800 17.8% 143.1 $422.88
2. No-Till Pioneer 3535 24,800 16.9% 166.1 491.89
Tillage
1. Spring Disc - Spring Miller Disc twice, planted
2. No-till planted with fluted coulter planter.
Planted no-till April 30 with White planter at a seed drop of 27,900 and John Deere
planter at 27,700. Planted spring disc on May 1 at an expected population of
27,700. 1979 crop was alfalfa. Sprayed no-till with 1 qt. Paraquat. All
treatments received 2.5 Ibs. Aatrex SOW and 2.5 Ibs. Princep SOW with 70 gal.
28% as carrier. Fertilizer included 250 Ibs. 6-24-24, 150 Ibs. 18-46-0 and 300 Ibs.
of 0-0-60 for a total of 42-152-324. 13 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control.
Sprayed no-till in mid June with 2 Ibs./ac. Toxaphene (actual). Sprayed for
armyworm control.
-------
Larry Vandemark
Treatment
Hybrid
Moisture Yield
i.
2.
Fall Plow
No- Till
Super
Super
Cross
Cross
2350
2350
25,
24,
500
800
17
18
.9%
.2%
164
159
.0
.6
$471.50
454.86
Tillage
1. Fall Plowed - Spring Disc, cultimulched, planted, cultivated once
2. No-till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 7 in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 27,000. 1979 crop was wheat
with clover. Sprayed no-till with 1 qt. Paraquat. Both treatments received
3 Ibs. Bladex SOW and 1% Ibs. Princep SOW. Fertilizer included 115 Ibs. of
33-0-0 and 115# 0-0-62 broadcast, 190 Ibs. 10-34-0 in row, 590 Ibs. 28-0-0, 1 qt.
Zinc for a total of 222-65-71. 16 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control, split
between row and band.
Kenny Miller
Treatment
Hybrid
Population
Moisture Yield
Value
A.I) Spring Plow
- Oat Stubble
2) No-Till
- Oat Stubble
MICRO 2018X
MICRO 2018X
26,400
25,300
18.0%
16.3%
133.3
136.7
$394.74
406.36
B.I)Fall Plow
- Stalks
2)No-Till
- Stalks
MICRO 2018X
MICRO 2018X
24,300 16.1% 135.6
24,900 15.9% 121.9
402.67
363.64
Tillage
A.I) Spring Plowed, cultimulched, disc twice, planted, cultivated once
2) No-Till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
B,l) Fall Plowed - Field cultivated twice, planted
2) No-till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 10 in 30 inch rows at an expected population of 25,500. Sprayed no-
till with 3 Ibs. Bladex SOW and Ih Ibs. Princep. No-till stubble received
Paraquat at 1 qt./ac. but no-till stalks received no contact herbicides. Plowed
fields received 1 qt. Aatrex and h pt. Banvel. The stubble plots received 335
Ibs. of 4-10-10, and 12 gal. 10-34-0 in the row. The no-till stubble was sprayed
with 60 gal. 28% nitrogen (180 Ibs. N) while the plowed stubble received 160 Ibs.
as 82-0-0 preplant. Total nutrients for the no-till stubble was 205-74-34 and
the plowed stubble was 185-74-34.
The stalk plots received 330 Ibs. of 4-10-10 and 18 gal. 4-10-10 in the row. The
no-till stalks were sprayed with 60 gal. 28% nitrogen (180 Ibs. N) while the
plowed stalks received 200 Ibs. 82% preplant (160 Ibs. N). Total nutrients for
the no-till stalks was 200-94-33 and for the plowed stalks was 180-94-33. All
plots received Counter at 10 Ibs./ac. except the spring plow stubble which
received Lorsbar at 10 Ibs./ac.
-------
Sam Hager
Treatment
A.
B.
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Chisel
No-Till
Spring
Chisel
No-Till
Plow
Plow
Plow
Hybrid
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
Population
3518
3518
3518
3518
3518
22,
17,
22,
21,
20,
100
800
200
500
500
Moisture Yield
16%
16%
16%
16%
16%
94
68
130
118
65
.9
.9
.5
.0
.7
Value
$281.85
204.63
387.59
353.43
195.13
Tillage
A.
B.
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Spring Chiseled - Disc and harrowed three times, planted
No-Till - Planted with a fluted coulter planter
Spring Plowed - Disc and harrowed twice, planted
Spring Chiseled - Disc and harrowed twice, planted
No-Till - planted with a fluted coulter planter
Planted plot A May 15 in 30 inch rows at a seed drop of 25,800. 1979 crop was
sorghum. Sprayed no-till with 1 pt. Paraquat with Surfactant, lh Ibs. Princep
SOW, 1 qt. Dual 8E and "2h Ibs. Bladex SOW. Chisel treatment received 3 pts.
Bicep. Fertilizer for no-till was 300 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row and 322 Ibs.
28-0-0 for a total of 108-72-72. Fertilizer for the chisel treatment was 200 Ibs.
9-23-30, 200 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row and 116 Ibs. 82-0-0 for a total of 125-94-108.
No insecticide applied.
Planted plot B May 6 and 7 in 30 inch rows with seed drop in no-till at 25,800
and other treatments at 25,000. 1979 crop was wheat with a thin stand of clover.
Sprayed chisel and no-till treatments with 1.5 Ibs. Attrex SOW, 1.5 Ibs. Princep
SOW and 1 qt. Dual 8E. Plowed treatment received 2 pt. Bicep. Fertilizer for
no-till included 300 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row and 322 Ibs. 28-0-0 for a total of
108-72-72. Fertilizer for chisel treatment included 200 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row,
322 Ibs. 28-0-0 and 116 Ibs. 82-0-0 for a total of 197-48-48. Fertilizer for
plowed treatment included 200 Ibs. 6-24-24 and 116 Ibs. 82-0-0 for a total of
107-48-48. No insecticide applied.
David Ernest
Treatment
Hybrid
Population Moisture Yield
Value
1.
2. a)
b)
Spring
No- Till
No-Till
Plow
DeKalb 72aa
DeXalb 72aa
Test Hybrid
Mix.
25,300
22,600
22,700
25.
24.
23.
8%
4%
5%
152
133
141
.1
.8
.4
$428
381
405
.74
.77
.68
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Field cultivated once, disc once and planted.
once and rotary hoed once.
2. No-Till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
Cultivated
Planted no-till hybrid plots on May 2 in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 27,100.
1979 crop was alfalfa. Planted spring plow on May 6 in 30 inch rows with a seed
drop of 31,000. 1979 hybrid plot with 2 pt. Paraquat with 1 pt. Surfactant, 4
pt. Aatrex 4-L, 2 pt. Lasso plus 1 pt. Banamine when corn was knee-high. Banded
12 Ibs. Lasso II granular on the Spring Plow Treatment. Fertilization for no-till
treatment included 100 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row, 250 Ibs. 0-0-60 broadcast and
379 Ibs. 28-0-0 for a total of 112-36-189. Fertilization for spring plow was
100 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row, 250 Ibs. 0-0-60 broadcasted, 200 Ibs. 46-0-0
broadcast and 50 Ibs. of actual N sidedressed as anhydrous for a total of 148-24-
177.
-------
Dwight Suter
Treatment
Hybrid
Population Moisture Yield
Value
1.
2.
3.
4.
Chisel
No-Till (High Pop.)
No-Till (Hillside)
No-Till (Manured)
Average of 3
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
Pioneer
3518
3518
3518
3518
24,
43,
21,
21,
214
311
500
500
18
20
18
18
19
.7%
.4%
.6%
.6%
.2%.
127
133
93
120
115
.0
.3
.0
.2
.5
$371
389
272
354
338
.89
.57
.41
.82
.93
Tillage
1. Spring Chisel Twice
2. No-Till - Planted with a fluted coulter planter
Planted May 5 in 30 inch rows with an average seed drop of 28,600 except for high
population treatment having a seed drop of unknown due to planter malfunction.
1979 crop was corn. Sprayed no-till with 1 pt. Paraquat with 1 pt. Surfactant,
2h pt. Dual and 2^ qt. Bladex 4-L. Chisel treatment received 1.6 qt. Atrazine
4-L and 2 qt. Lasso. Fertilization included a total of 45-115-150 plus 375 Ibs.
28-0-0 for a total of 150-115-150. 8 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control.
Kurt Winegardner
Treatment
Hybrid
Population Moisture Yield
Value
1.
2.
Spring Plow
No- Till
ACCO
ACCO
4660
4660
24
25
,000
,100
23
22
.1%
.8%
144
107
.1
.6
$411
308
,87
.91
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Field cultivated once, disc and cultipacked four times,
cultivated once, planted.
2. No-Till - Planted with a fluted coulter planter
Planted May 15 in 3o inch rows with a seed drop of 25,800. 1979 crop was corn.
Field was in 4th year of corn, 3rd year of no-till. Sprayed no-till with 1 qt.
Paraquat plus Surfacant. All treatments received 2 Ibs. Bladex SOW and 1.25 qt.
Dual. Fertilizer included 200 Ibs. 10-26-26 broadcast ahead of planting, 200
Ibs. 8-25-3 in the row and 500 Ibs. of 28-0-0 for a total of 176-102-58. 13 Ibs.
Furadan used for insect control.
Jim Miller
Treatment
Hybrid
Population Moisture Yield
Value
1. Spring Plow
2. No-Till
DeKalb 25A
DeKalb 25A
20,800
23,900
17.2%
16.6%
126.0
130.1
$372.44
384.03
Tillage
1. Spring Plowed - Field cultivated twice, rotary hoed, planted, cultivated once
2. No-Till - Planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 8 in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 26,800. 1979 crop was alfalfa
for the no-till treatment and soybeans for the plowed treatment. Bean stubble
received 6 ton manure. Sprayed no-till with 1 qt. Paraquat. Both treatments
received 2 Ibs. Attrex SOW with 1 qt. Dual 8E on plow, Ih qt. on no-till.
Fertilizer for no-till included 300 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row, 300 Ibs. 0-0-60
and 190 Ibs. 28-0-0 for a total of 71-72-252 fertilizer. For the plowed treatment
was 170 Ibs. 82-0-0, preplant 225 Ibs. 10-34-0 at planting and 70 Ibs. at 28-0-0
for a total of 182-77-0. 141 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control.
-------
TABLE 3.
Planting
Date
1980 Apr 30
May 2
May 3
May 5
May 5
May 5
May 5
May 6
May 7
May 8
May 10
May 10
May 10
May 15
May 24
1980 Average
Number of
Observations
Times High
1979 May 7
May 8
May 10
May 11
May 17
1979 Average
Number of
Observations
Times High
1978 May 1
May 4
May 8
May 10
May 11
May 22
May 29
1978 Average
Number of
Observations
Times High
Three Year Average
Number of
Observations
Times High
COMPARISON OF HARVEST MOISTURE AND TILLAGE SYSTEMS
% Moisture
No-Till
16.9
24.4
20.9
19.0
19.2
21.5
20.6
15.5
18.2
16.6
16.3
15.9
22.8
17.2
17.7
14
6
22.5
25.6
23.8
30.5
21.5
24.8
5
5
26.7
28.1
23.9
20.5
23.2
22.9
24.2
6
4
20.6
25
19
Plow
25.8
19.3
18.0
19.1
15.5
17.9
17.2
18.0
22.5
16.1
23.1
18.3
19.2
12
6
21.8
21.5
29.7
19.5
23.1
5
0
25.0
20.1
28.2
21.5
23.7
4
0
20.9
21
6
Disc/Chisel
17.8
18.6
19.3
23.4
19.9
4
2
24.3
24.3
1
0
30.5
28.2
22.7
19.9
30.9
26.4
5
3
23.6
10
5
Highest
System
Disc
Plow
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
Plow
Plow
Disc
Plow
Plow
Plow
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
Disc
Disc
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
Disc
No-Till
Difference
.9
1.4
1.6
1.0
.6
2.4
1.3
.3
.6
1.7
.9
.2
.3
1.1
1.0
.7
1.3
2.3
.8
2.0
1.4
3.8
3.1
1.2
.6
3.1
1.1
1.4
2.0
10
-------
TABLE 4. THREE YEAR TILLAGE COMPARISON YIELD SUMMARIES
YEAR LANDOWNER
1978 Bassett
Begg
Fricke
Kiracofe
Mayer
Pohlman
Rumbaugh
Whetstone
Winegardner
1978 Average
1979 Mayer
Begg
Kiracofe
Rumbaugh
Winegardner
Davis
K. Miller
1979 Average
1980 Begg Plot A
Begg Plot B
K. Miller Plot A
K. Miller Plot B
Brooks
Lugibihl
J. Miller
Biery
Vandemark
Clum
Suter
Ernest
Davis
Hager Plot A
Hager Plot B
Winegardner
Whetstone
1980 Average
3 Year Average
Number of Observations
Ranked First
NO-TILL
27
62
145
112
117
107
128
108
103
107.5
132.4
113.2
137.8
131.0
120.2
145.6
126.8
132.8
90.7
136.7
121.9
135.0
166.1
130.0
101.9
159.6
115.5
115.5
138.4
117..0
68.9
65.7
107.6
133.0
119.8
116.6
13/32
FALL
PLOW
135
43
82
95
112
94
112.4
112.4
135.6
142.8
164.0
147.8
113.5
6/9
SPRING
PLOW
33
115
108
85
111.6
141.7
123.5
109.4
121.5
107.9
117.9
133.3
126.0
124.6
108.9
152.1
130.5
144.1
127.3
118.0
7/16
FALL
DISC
132
138
135
114.7
120.5
117.6
94.2
94.2
119.9
3/5
SPRING
DISC
50
132
98
107
137
105
114.1
114.1
109.8
143.1
140.6
131.2
114.6
3/9
CHISEL
129
129
130.6
130.6
127.0
94.9
119.0
113.6
120.1
3/5
11
-------
TABLE 5. GENERALIZED COMPARISON OF NO-TILL AND CONVENTIONAL TILLAGE
Hybrid
Cargill 921
Migro 2018X
Pioneer 3780
Rupp 1625
Sohigro 57
Average
NO-TILL PLOTS
# Farms Population
5 24,080
5 22,540
5 23,240
7 21,700
4 21,325
22,577
Yield
136.0
126.9
127.9
130.6
135.7
131.4
YIELDS
COUNTY HYBRID PLOTS
# Farms Population
5
5
5
25
5
22,640
21,980
22,920
21,280
21,840
22,132
Yield
156.0
138.2
134.6
133.3
140.2
140.5
TILLAGE COMPARISON OBSERVATIONS
The results of the 1980 tillage tests were both encouraging and disappointing for the
conservationist. Plowed plots yielded better than no-till in more cases than not.
However, when one considers the seasons above normal rainfall, the no-till plots did a
respectable job of staying even. Specific observations made are:
1. In 17 1980 comparisons, plow yielded highest 8 times, no-till 6 times and
disc 3 times. (Table 4. )
2. In 33 tests over 3 years, no-till has been highest 11 times, plow 13 times
and disc/chisel 7 times, with two ties. (Table 4. )
3. Stands and weed control were acceptable across almost all plots this year.
This major factor limiting no-till yields was drainage.
4. Urea was used on the Begg "B" plot and is thought to account for the no-till
yield reduction. Stand and weed control were equal in both no-till and plow
treatments.
5. The no-till yield reduction in the Ernest plow-no-till plot is attributed
to delay in spraying alfalfa-dandelion regrowth.
6. Poor drainage was the factor limiting the no-till yield in the Hager plot.
7. Table 5 . compares yield averages for 5 hybrids grown no-till in the SWCD
plots and conventionally tilled in the county plots. The data represents
averages of several farms and not side by side comparisons.
8. In good harvest years there was little difference in harvest moisture
between plow and no-till plots (Table 3. 1980). In wet years (Table
3. 1978-1979) no-till was usually 1-1.5 points wetter. In three
years of testing no-till was wettest in 76% of its trials as opposed
to plow being wettest in 30% of its trials.
12
-------
NO-TILL CORN IN SOYBEAN STUBBLE
1980 marked the first year that the Allen SWCD plots included corn planted no-till into
soybean stubble. Doubts have existed as to the suitability of this practice, with the
question being whether bean stubble provided enough mulch to hold moisture and prevent
crusting. Recommendations of researchers and this years experience seem to indicate
this question is not a problem and this practice may have potential for widespread
adoption.
Table 6. gives yield data from four farms. No conventional tillage plots were included
in these fields, but the data does give the results experienced.
TABLE 6. NO-TILL CORN PLANTED IN
LANDOWNER
Bow die
Creeger
D. Lehman
Rumbaugh
HYBRID
Sohigro 39
Dekalb XL55A
Dekalb Hybrids - Avg. 5
Trojan 115
POPULATION
23,000
21,400
24,950
22,000
BEAN STUBBLE
% MOISTURE
17.2
28.5
21.8
21.8
YIELD
140.0
96.7
141.5
130.7
VALUE
$414.00
267.00
410. 8C
378.46
CULTURAL PRACTICES
Bowdle
Creeger
Lehman
Planted May 8th in 36 inch rows with a seed drop of 26,000. Sprayed with
1 pt. Paraquat, 1 gal. Bicep with 50 gal. of 28% as a carrier. Fertilize
tion included 500 Ibs. 6-15-40 broadcast in the fall, 150 Ibs. 18-46-0
in the row plus 80 Ibs. actual N from anhyrous and 500 Ibs. of 28% for
a total of 277-144-200 10 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control. Spot
sprayed with 2-4D. A fall plowed plot beside this yielded approximately
the same, but was not weighed.
Planted May 6th in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 25,800. Sprayed with
1 pt. Paraquat, 2,5 pts. Dual and 2.5 Ibs. Atrazine. Fertilization
included 300 Ibs. 6-24-24 and 160 Ibs. anhydrous sidedressed for a total
of 149-73-73. No insecticide applied.
Planted April 26 in 36 inch rows with a seed drop of 27 600. Sprayed
with 1 pt. Paraquat, 2h qt. Lasso, h pt. Banvel, h pt. 2-4D and 2 Ibs.
Atrazine SOW. Fertilization included 160 Ibs. 18-46-0 and 200 Ibs.
0-0-60 plus 270 Ibs. actual N from anhydrous sidedress for a total of
300-73-120. 10 Ibs. Furadan used for insecticide.
Rumbaugh
Planted May 7th in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 23,400. Sprayed
with 1 pt. Paraquat, 2.5 pts. Dual, 1.5 Ibs. Atrazine SOW with 50 gal.
of 28% as a carrier. Fertilization included 1]5 Ibs. of 8-25-3, 200
Ibs. 0-0-60 and 500 Ibs. 28% for a total of 149-29-124. Spot sprayed
with 2-4D and Banvel.
13
-------
OBSERVATION - NO-TILL CORN IN BEAN STUBBLE
1. Use of this practice allows sidedressing anhydrous ammonia with a conventional applicator,
lowering nitrogen costs.
2. Soybean stubble dries quicker in the spring than heavier residues and allows for better
planting conditions. This makes for easier stands. Weed control is also easier. Thus
bean stubble is an ideal place for the "first time" no-tiller to try.
3. Rye or wheat aerial seeded into the beans in the fall shows promise as a means to provide
addition cover on rolling or thin ground. More experience with this practice is
expected in 1981. It appears the proper time to seed will be right before soybean
leafdrop.
1. At present this practice is best suited to level ground. Additional experience is
needed before a recommendation can be made on sloping soils. Caution should be used
on slopes as bean stubble without a cover could erode easily.
14
-------
ECONOMIC COMPARISON GUIDELINES
The costs of production were compared for each no-till plot as well as each
tillage comparison plot. Participants reported the quantities of materials
used such as fertilizer, herbicides, and insecticides and listed the number
and type of machine operation performed on the field. Tables 7 and 8 list
the unit prices and custom machine rate charges used to determine production
costs. Corn value was determined by dividing wet weights per acre by 56 and
multiplying by $3.00/bushel less 2.5% price discount for each half point of
moisture over 15.5% (local elevator schedule). Soybeans were valued at a
straight $7.50/bu. Return to land and management was then calculated as
the difference between crop value and production costs. Prices used for
materials were local elevator prices in season and rates for custom machine
work were Cooperative Extension Service figures. No land charge was
included in calculations. Estimated fuel useage and time for tillage are
also given. These rates are adopted from OSU Bulletin "Selecting a Tillage
System" by J. E. Bierlein and S. W. Bone, Extension Agronomists, OSU.
TABLE 7. MACHINE CUSTOM RATES
Operation Implement
Primary Tillage Plow
Offset Disc
Chisel Plow
Secondary Tillage Tandem Disc
Field Cultivator
Harrogator
Cultimulcher
Lely Roterra
Planting Conventional
No-Till
Cultivate Row Crops
Rotary Hoe
Spray Liquids
Spread Dry Fertilizer
Apply Anhydrous Ammonia
Aerial Application
Harvest Corn
Harvest Soybeans
JTruck Grain
Custom Rate
$11.00/Ac.
8.25
8.25
5.50
6.00
5.00
4.50
5.00
8.00
11.00
4.50
2.50
3.00
3.00
6.00
4.00
19.50
17.50
.09/bu.
Fuel Used
(gal/ac)
1.85
1.15
1.15
.65
.65
.45
.45
.65
.75
.45
.30
Time Spent
(min/ac)
19
15
15
8
8
6
6
10
15
11
6
TABLE 8. UNIT PRICES
Fertilizer
Anhydrous Ammonia (82%) ........
Nitrogen Solution (28%)
Urea (46%)
Ammonia Nitrate. ............
0-44-0
O-Q-60
18-46-0
Seed-Lime-Misc . . .
OF MATERIALS
16/lb. actual N
24/lb. actual N
2535/lb. actual N
26^/lb. actual N
28/lb. actual P
ll^/lb. actual N
$295.00/ton
$ 40.00/Ac.
15
-------
TABLE 8. UNIT PRICES OF MATERIALS CONT'D.
Herbicides
Atrazine SOW
Atrazine 4L
Atrazine 9-0
Roundup
Paraquat
Princep SOW
Princep 4L
Blazer
Bas agram
Hoe Ion
Treflan
Insecticides
Furadan 10 G
Furadan Liquid
Counter 15G
Isotox
$ 1.90/lb.
9.50/gal.
2.19/lb.
65.00/gal.
43.00/gal.
3.20/lb.
17.50/gal.
72.00/gal.
71.75/gal.
45.30/gal.
3.50/gal.
. 80/lb .
39.00/gal.
1.11/lb.
.65/ac.
X-77 Spreader
Bladex SOW
Bladex 4L
Lasso
Lasso
Dual 8E
Banvel
2-4D Amine
Bicep
Prowl
Sencor 4L
Sen cor SOW
Toxhphene
Dylox SOW
Sevin SOW
Lorsban
$13.00/gal.
2 . 80/lb .
15.75/gal.
.62/lb.
16.50/gal.
40.00/gal.
36.50/gal.
11.00/gal.
17.10/gal.
25.82/gal.
75.00/gal.
9.60/gal.
9.20/gal.
4.40/lb.
2.35/lb.
1.05/lb.
TABLE 9- TIME AND FUEL FOR TILLAGE SUMMARY (per acre)
Begg Plot A
Begg Plot B
K. Miller Plot A
K. Miller Plot B
Brooks
Lugibihl
J. Miller
Biery
Vandemark
Clum
Suter
Ernest
Davis
Hager Plot A
Hager Plot B
Winegardner
Average
NO-TILL
TIME
15 min.
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 min.
FUEL
.8 gal.
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8
.8 gal.
PLOW
TIME
83 min.
60
55
37
45
53
51
54
54
62
57
93
59 min.
FUEL
5.7 gal.
4.4
4.5
3.2
3.8
4.5
4.3
4.1
4.1
4.6
4.7
7.6
4.6 gal.
DISC/CHISEL
TIME
78 min.
40
40
42
67
53
53 min.
FUEL
4.9 gal.
3.0
::
3.0
3.4
5.1
4.0
3.9 gal.
16
-------
TABLE 10. TILLAGE COMPARISON PRODUCTION COSTS
Farm
Tillage System
Yield (bu/ac)
Value
Seed , other
Fertilizer N
P
K
Contact Herb.
Residual Herb.
Insecticide
TOTAL Material
Primary Tillage
Secondary Till.
Planting
Cultivation
Spraying, ect.
Apply NH3
Harvesting
Trucking
TOTAL Machine
TOTAL Costs
Cost/Bushel
Return to
land, mgt.
Time for Tillage
Fuel for Tillage
Begg (A)
Spring
Plow
107.8
$285.48
40.00
24.71
44.24
25.07
0
12.82
9.66
$156.50
11.00
11.50
8.00
11.50
3.00
0
19.50
9.71
$ 74.21
$230.71
2.14
$ 54.77
83 min
5.7 gal
Spring
Plow
109.8
$285.48
40.00
24.71
44.24
25.07
0
12.82
9.66
$156.50
16.50
0
8.00
11.50
3.00
0
19.50
9.88
$ 68.38
$224.88
2.05
$ 60.60
78 min
4.9 gal
No-Till
132.8
$379.81
40.00
24.71
44.24
25.07
10.75
0
9.66
$154.43
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
8.16
$ 41.66
$196.09
1.48
$183.72
15 min
.8 gal
Begg (B)
Spring
Plow
117.9
$345.90
40.00
33.68
19.32
17.25
0
15.90
0
$126.15
11.00
11.00
8.00
7.00
3.00
0
19.50
10.61
$ 70.11
$196.26
1.66
$149.64
60 min
4.4 gal
No-Till
90.7
$264.42
40.00
33.68
19.32
17.25
0
19.18
0
$129.43
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
8.16
$ 41.66
$171.09
1.89
$ 93.33
15 min
.8 gal
J. Miller
Spring
Plow
125.9
$372.44
40.00
23.13
21.56
0
0
18.80
11.20
$114.69
11.00
17.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
6.00
19.50
11.33
$ 80.33
$195.02
1.54
$177.42
53 min
4.5 gal
No-Till
130.1
$384.03
40.00
19.61
20.16
28.98
10.75
0
11.20
$130.70
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
11.71
$ 45.21
$175.91
1.35
$208.12
15 min
.8 gal
Winegardner
Spring
Plow
144.1
$411.87
40.00
43.14
28.56
6.67
0
11.85
10.40
$140.62
11.00
46.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.97
$110.97
$251.59
1.75
$160.28
93 min
7.6 gal
No-Till
107.6
$308.91
40.00
43.14
28.56
6.67
10.75
11.85
10.40
$151.37
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
9.68
$ 43.18
$194.55
1.81
$114.36
15 min
.8 gal
Brooks
Fall
Plow
142.8
$417.80
40.00
46.91
40.88
16.91
0
20.90
10.80
$176.40
11.00
12.00
8.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.85
$ 72.35
$248.75
1.74
$169.05
45 min
3.8 gal
No-Till
.135.0
$392.99
40.00
46.91
40.88
16.91
5.38
20.90
10.80
$181.78
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
12.15
$ 45.65
$227.43
1.68
$165.56
15 min
.8 gal
-------
TABLE 10. TILLAGE COMPARISON PRODUCTION COSTS CONT'D.
Farm
Tillage System
Yield (bu/ac)
Value
Seed, other
Fertilizer N
P
K
Contact Herb.
Residual Herb .
Insecticide
TOTAL Material
Primary Tillage
Secondary Till.
Planting
Cultivation
Spraying, etc.
Applying NH«
Harvesting
Trucking
TOTAL Machine
TOTAL Costs
Cost/Bushel
Return to
Time for Tillage
Fuel for Tillage
Davis
Spring
Plow
94.2
$227.02
40.00
45.55
32.20
13.80
0
23.32
6.50
$161.27
16.50
4.50
8.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
8.47
$ 59.97
$221.24
2.34
$ 5.78
42 min
3.4 gal
No- Till
117.0
$345.00
40.00
51.98
31.36
13.80
9.46
23.32
6.40
$176.32
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
10.53
$ 44.03
$220.35
1.88
$124.65
15 min
.8 gal
Hager (B)
Spring
Plow
130.5
$387.59
40.00
18.38
13.44
5.52
0
4.28
0
$ 81.62
11.00
21.00
8.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
11.74
$ 80.24
$161.86
1.24
$225.73
57 min
4.7 gal
Spring
Chisel
119.0
$353.43
40.00
40.02
13.44
5.52
0
17.65
0
$116.63
8.25
21.00
8.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
10.71
$ 76.46
$193.09
1.62
$160.34
53 min
4 gal
No-Till
65.7
$195.13
40.00
.26.41
20.16
8.28
0
17.65
0
$112.50
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
5.91
$ 39.41
$151.91
2.31
$ 43.22
15 min
.8 gal
Clum
Spring
Plow
108.9
$326.70
40.00
35.58
20.16
8.28
0
3.80
12.80
$120.62
11.00
15.50
8.00
4.50
3.00
0
19.50
9.80
$ 71.30
$191.92
- 1.76
$134.78
54 min
4.1 gal
No-Till
115.5
$346.50
40.00
35.58
20.16
8.28
5.37
23.56
12.80
$145.75
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
10.40
$ 43.90
$189.65
1.64
$156.85
15 min
.8 gal
Suter
Chisel
127.0
$371.89
40.00
37.12
32.20
17.25
0
12.03
6.40
$145.00
16.50
0
8.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
11.43
$ 58.43
$203.43
1.60
$168.46
40 min
3.0 gal
No-Till
115.5
$338.93
40.00
37.12
32.20
17.25
5.37
22.32
6.40
$160.66
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
10.40
$ 43.90
$204.56
1.77
$134.37
15 min
.8 gal
Ernest
Spring No-Till
Plow
152.1 138.4
$428.74 $393.77
40.00 40.00
33.05 32.07
6.72 10.08
20.01 21.39
0 21.50
7.44 10.26
0 0
$107.22 $135.30
11.00 0
11.50 0
8.00 11.00
7.00 0
3.00 3.00
6.00 0
19.50 19.50
13.69 12.46
$ 79.69 $ 45.96
$186.91 $181.26
1.23 1.31
$241.83 $212.51
62 min 15 min
4.6 gal .8 gal
-------
TABLE 10. TILLAGE COMPARISON PRODUCTION COSTS CONT'D.
Farm
Tillage System
Yield (bu/ac)
Value
Seed, other
Fertilizer N
P
K
Contact Herb.
Residual Herb.
Insecticide
TOTAL Material
Primary Tillage
Secondary Till.
Planting
Cultivation
Spraying, etc.
Apply NH3
Harvesting
Trucking
TOTAL Machine
TOTAL Costs
Cost/Bushel
Return to
land, mgt.
Time for Tillage
Fuel for Tillage
Vandemark
Spring
Plow
164.0
$471.50
40.00
54.71
18.20
8.17
0
13.20
12.80
$147.08
11.00
10.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
0
19.50
14.76
$ 70.76
$217.84
1.33
$253.66
54 min
4.1 gal
No- Till
159.6
$454.86
40.00
54.71
18.20
8.17
10.75
13.20
12.80
$157.83
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
14.36
$ 47.86
$205.69
1.28
$249.17
15 min
.8 gal
Biery
Spring
Plow
124.6
$367.23
40.00
25.00
0
17.00
0
13.17
0
$ 95.17
11.00
15.50
8.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
6.96
$ 63.96
$159.13
1.28
$208.10
51 min
4.3 gal
No-Till
101.9
$301.23
40.00
25.00
0
17.00
8.06
6.46
0
$ 96.52
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
5.61
$ 39.11
$135.63
1.33
$165.60
15 min
.8 gal
Lugibihl
Spring
Plow
143.1
$422.88
40.00
17.97
36.12
27.60
0
12.75
10.40
$144.84
24.75
0
8.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.88
$ 74.13
$218.97
1.53
$203.91
40 min
3.0 gal
No-Till
171.4
$509.16
40.00
17.97
36.12
27.60
10.75
12.75
10.40
$155.59
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
15.43
$118.93
$204.52
1.19
$304.64
15 min
.8 gal
K Miller (A)
Spring
Plow
133.3
$394.74
40.00
32.97
20.72
15.41
0
15.48
10.50
$135.08
11.00
11.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.00
$ 75.00
$210.00
1.58
$184.66
55 min
4.5 gal
No-Till
136.7
$406 . 36
40.00
18.83
20.72
15.41
10.75
0
11.10
$116.81
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
0
19.50
12.30
$ 45.80
$162.61
1.19
$243.75
15 min
.8 gal
K Miller (B)
Spring No-Till
Plow
135.6 121.9
$402.67 $363.64
40.00 40.00
34.45 51.41
26.32 26.32
3.80 3.80
0 0
4.66 13.20
11.11 11.10
$120.33 $145.83
11.00 0
12.00 0
8.00 11.00
4.50 0
3.00 3.00
6.00 0
19.50 19.50
12.30 10.97
$ 76.30 $ 44.47
$196.63 $190.30
1.45 1.56
$206.04 $173.34
37 min 15 min
3.2 gal .8 gal
-------
TABLE 11. 1980 TILLAGE COMPARISON ECONOMIC SUMMARY (IN DOLLARS)
//^A/+/*/?/ /*//////+///*
j
NO- TILL
Value
Materials
Machine
TOTAL COST
Returns
PLOW
Value
Materials
Machine
TOTAL COST
Returns
DISC/CHISEL
Value
Materials
Machine
TOTAL COST
Returns
'v ^°
3*
364
146
44
190
174
403
120
76
196
207
\ ^
393
182
46
228
165
418
176
72
248
170
' J?
^
509
149
49
198
311
423
138
74
212
211
V
384
117
46
163
222
372
115
80
195
177
r *'"y
O
301
97
39
136
165
367
95
64
159
208
-------
TABLE 12 . THREE YEAR COMPARISON OF RETURNS BY TILLAGE SYSTEMS
Year Landowner
1978 Bassett
Begg
Fricke
Kiracofe
Mayer
Pohlman
Rumba ugh
Whetstone
Winegardner
1978 Average
1979 Mayer
Begg
Kiracofe
Ruitibaugh
Winegardner
Davis
K. Miller
1979 Average
1980 Begg Plot A
Begg Plot B
K. Miller Plot A
K. Miller Plot B
Brooks
Lugibihl
J. Miller
Biery
Vandemark
Clum
Suter
Ernest
Davis
Hager Plot A
Hager Plot B
Winegardner
1980 Average
NO- TILL
A
$ /ac .
-90.00
-33.00
117.00
28.00
45.00
52.00
57.00
11.00
$23.00
$-64.00
83.00
51.00
147.00
42.00
87.00
124.00
$ 67.00
B
-116.11
- 10.50
217.85
97.62
75.92
114.57
140.63
76.67
$ 74.58
$ 5.12
162.84
107.68
228.40
110.04
148.18
195.25
$136.79
$184.00
93.00
244.00
173.00
166.00
311.00
244.00
166.00
249.00
157.00
134.00
213.00
125.00
43.00
43.00
114.00
$166.00
PLOW
A
$43.00
-81.00
-31.00
28.00
15.00
21.00
$ -1.00
$-82.00
28.00
147.00
13.00
40.00
$29.00
B
$126.79
-85.65
36.58
90.69
47.38
83.04
$ 49.80
$ 10.74
90.04
226.49
65.66
81.80
$ 90.65
$ 55.00
150.00
185.00
206.00
169.00
177.00
208.00
254.00
134.00
241.00
226.00
160.00
$180.00
DISC/CHISEL
A
$29.00
-56.00
78.00
3.00
48.00
94.00
$ 32.00
$-34.00
30.00
107.00
87.00
$ 47.00
B
$ 82.20
-62.79
170.45
23.10
110.49
198.14
$ 86.93
$ 24.93
98.12
157.85
143.12
$106.00
$ 61.00
211.00
--
168.00
6.00
99.00
160.00
$117.00
MOST PROP
A
Plow
Disc
Plow
No-Till
Ne-Till/Plow
No -Till
No-Till
Disc
Plow
Disc
No- Till
Chisel
No-Till/Plow
No-Till
No-Till/Disc
No-Till
[TABLE
B
Plow
Disc
Plow
No -Till
No-Till
No -Till
No-Till
Disc
Plow
Disc
No-Till
Chisel
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
No-Till
Plow
No -Till
Plow
Plow
No -Till
No-Till
Plow
Plow
No-Till
Disc
Plow
No-Till
Disc
Plow
Plow
-------
TABLE 12. THREE YEAR COMPARISON OF RETURNS BY TILLAGE SYSTEMS CONT'D.
1978-79-80 Average
Number of Observations
Number of Times High
NO-TILL
A
$106.96
31
15
B
$135.90
31
15
PLOW
A
$100.26
23
13
B
$126.83
23
11
DISC/CHISEL
A
$68.19
16
7
B
$103.16
16
6
Column A is the return for 1978-1979 based on the price for that particular year.
Column B is the returns for each year adjusted to the same price (1980).
OBSERVATIONS OF ECONOMIC DATA
1. Returns were more influenced by variation in value of the crop produced than by
differences in costs of production.
2. No-till required only 27% of the time needed for conventional tillage on the
average and only 18% of the fuel needed for conventional tillage. No-till was
lowest cost production system in 9 of 15 comparisons. Table 10.
3. Table 12 , page 21 gives two returns for 1978 and 1979 plots. Column A gives
the actual return experienced for that year. Column B gives the return
recomputed using 1980 corn prices.
4. In 1980 plow was most profitable in 75% of the tests it was in, no-till best
in 38% and disc in 32%. Over three years of testing plow was best in 48% of
the tests it entered, no-till best in 48% and disc 38% .
5. Side-by-side comparisons on each farm are more reliable than the averages in the
last column of Table 11 , page 20 , since all tillage systems were not compared
on all farms.
6. Herbicide selection and nitrogen sources had the biggest effects on costs of
no-till production. When "clean" fields allowed the use of minimum rates of
herbicides and anhydrous was side dressed production costs were lowest.
7. With experience, the average farmer can develop the management skills necessary
to make conservation tillage as profitable as conventional plow based tillage
systems and save more soil, time, and fuel in the process.
22
-------
RAY WHETSTONE COMPARISON PLOTS
Seven plots on the Ray Whestone Farm (Route 4, Cridersville) compared the effects of
No-Till to Spring Tillage. The plot also incorporated a test of two hybrids and a test
of 28% and anhydrous ammonia (82%) as sources of nitrogen. The no-till also
incorporated, a test of the effect of population on yield.
The plot was planted in Sloan Digby soil May 5th in 30 inch rows at an expected
population of 24,200 in plots A thru E, - plot F 27,700 - plot G 20,000. The 1979 crop
was wheat with timothy cover crop. All plots were sprayed with 2h Ibs./ac. of Aatrex 90,
2 qt. of Lasso broadcast and 1^ qt. Lasso banded. The no-till also had 1 qt. Paraquat/
ac. The no-till was also sprayed a second time with 1 pt./ac. Paraquat and 1 Ib./ac.
Aatrex 90. Fertilizer on A, B, C, F, and G included 60# 5-5-5 - 136 Ibs. 10-34-0 210 Ibs.
of 28% and 35 Ibs. anhydrous for a total of 265-49-3. Plots D & E received 60 Ibs.
5-5-5 136 Ibs. 10-34-0 - 60 Ibs. 28% and 135 Ibs. anhydrous for a total of 169-49-3.
Plot Tillage Practices
A,E,F,G,H. No-Till
B. Spring Offset Disc (2) - Harrogated, not cultivated
C. Spring Offset Disc (2) - Harrogated, cultivated
D. Spring Offset Disc (2)
Results and Observations
1.
Anhydrous ammonia applications produced 31.9 bushels more corn in the plots where
the form of nitrogen was the only variable (Plots C and D). The effect could
result from more efficient use of the form of nitrogen, timing of application, or
the loosening of the soil by the applicator knife. "Yield and Value Figures were".
Plot
N Source
% Moisture
Yield
Value
Return
D
C
82%
28%
20.6
22.6
152.5 bu/ac.
131.0 bu/ac.
$446.52
380.99
$267.68
204.09
Advantage for Anhydrous (82%)
21.5 bu/ac.
$ 97.35
2.
The factor most influencing yield was the selection of hybrids. When seven plots of
Bayless 637 were compared to seven plots of Pioneer 3541 the average difference was
21.3 bu/ac in yield and $53.52 in value in favor of the Bayless SX637.
Plot
A,B,C,D,E,F,G
A,B,C,D,E,F, G
Hybrid
Bayless SX637
Pioneer 3541
% Moisture
22.2
18.1
Yield
144.4 bu/ac
123.1 bu/ac
Value
$416.81
363.29
Advantage for Bayless SX637
21.3 bu/ac
$ 53.52
3. In plot A,F, and G population was the only variable. The chart below shows that in
this comparison plot A at 24,000 produced more corn than plot F at a higher
population or plot G at the lower population.
Plot
% Moisture
Yield
Value
A
F
G
24,200
27,700
20,000
21,400
23,000
18,000
20.1
21.0
21.2
137.0 bu/ac
133.7 bu/ac
115.1 bu/ac
$399.67
387.79
336.98
4. In the tillage comparison the offset disc plots (B-C-D) produced 7.6 more bushels per
acre and $24.80 in value than the no-till plots (A-E-F). Comparing the difference in
value of the crop to the cost of operation, the Disc returned $41.13/ac more than No-Till
Plot
Tillage
% Moisture
Yield
Value
Return
B, C, D
A, E, F
Offset Disc
No- Till
19.3
20.6
140.6 bu/ac
133.0 bu/ac
$411.30
386.50
$224.91
183.78
Advantage for Offset Disc
7.6 bu/ac
$+24.80
$ 41.13
23
-------
Plot
RAY WHETSTONE COMPARISON PLOTS
Hybrid
Seed Drop
Tillage
N Source Moisture
Yield
* Bayless SX637 used in all plots
** Pioneer 3541 used in all plots
SECONDARY TILLAGE COMPARISONS
Value
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
*Bayless
**Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
Bayless
Pioneer
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
24,
27,
27,
20,
20,
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
700
700
600
600
No- Till
No-Till
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
No- Till
No-Till
No- Till
No-Till
No- Till
No- Till
Offset
Offset
Offset
Offset
Offset
Offset
Disc
Disc
Disc
Disc
Disc
Disc
28%
28%
28%
28%
28%
28%
82%
82%
82%
82%
28%
28%
28%
28%
22.4%
17.8
21.0
17.2
22.6
17.2
20.6
17.4
22.8
18.6
23.4
18.6
22.4
20.0
147
126
153
123
137
123
169
135
142
114
138
128
121
108
.2
.7
.2
.7
.9
.9
.8
.1
.1
.6
.7
.7
.4
.8
$424.99
374.36
447.04
365.71
395.44
366.54
492.79
400.25
408.37
335.72
398.49
377.09
350.56
323.39
Treatment
A
D
Yield
Value
Seed, other
Fertilizer N
P
K
Contact Herbicide
Residual Herb.
Insecticide
TOTAL Materials
Primary Tillage
Secondary Tillage
Planting
Cultivation
Spraying, etc.
Apply NH^
Harvesting
Trucking
TOTAL Machine
TOTAL Costs
Cost/Bushel,
Returns to
land, mgt.
137.0
$399.68
40.00
60.51
13.72
.35
16.13
20.54
0
$151.25
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.33
$ 51.83
$203.08
1.48
$196.60
138.5
$406.37
40.00
60.51
13.72
.35
0
18.35
0
$132.93
16.50
5.00
8.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.47
$ 70.47
$203.40
1.47
$202.97
131.0
$380.99
40.00
30.19
13.72
.35
0
18.35
0
$102.61
16.50
5.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
6.00
19.50
11.79
$ 74.29
$176.90
1.35
$204.09
152.5
$446.52
40.00
30.19
13.72
.35
0
18.35
0
$102.61
16.50
5.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
6.00
19.50
13.73
$ 76.23
$178.84
1.17
$267.68
128.4
$372.05
40.00
60.51
13.72
.35
16.13
20.54
0
$151.25
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
11.56
$ 51.06
$202.31
1.58
$169.74
133.7
$387.79
40.00
60.51
13.72
.35
16.13
20.54
0
$151.25
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
12.03
$ 51.53
$202.78
1.52
$185.01
115.1
$336.98
40.00
60.51
13.72
.35
16.13
20.54
0
$151.25
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
6.00
19.50
10.36
$ 49.86
$201.11
1.75
$135.87
Time for Tillage
Fuel for Tillage
15 rrdn
.8 gal
31
3.
min
4 gal
42
3.9
min
gal
42
3.9
min
gal
15
.8
min
gal
15
.8
min
gal
15 min
.8 gal
24
-------
NOTES
25
-------
1980 ALLEN COUNTY NO-TILL CORN HYBRID TEST GUIDELINES
GENERAL CONDITIONS
This hybrid trial program was developed to help Allen County farmers
evaluate the performance of selected corn hybrids when used in a no-till
farming operation.
The hybrid trials consisted of 2 groups of 5 test hybrids plus the
county tester plus DeKalb XL-72aa which was in the 1978 and 1979 tests.
Each participant furnished 150 pounds of a 110 to 115 day hybrid
obtained from the same lot of seed. Seed sizes were recommended by company
to fit IHC, Cl-X or JD B-l plate. Normally this was medium rounds.
Sponsors collected seed, divided it into equal lots, marked with code
identification, and delivered to producers.
GUIDELINES
Procedures were followed to insure that variety was the only variable.
Both agency personnel and farmers made observations and kept records
throughout the growing season. Responsibility of each was as follows:
FARMER:
1. Provided 150 Ibs. of a 110-115 day test hybrid.
2. Planted each test hybrid in adjacent strips using normal
no-till practices.
3. Planted test hybrids on soils similar in fertility, drainage
and productivity.
4. Harvested and weighed each test hybrid with help of sponsors.
5. Kept reliable records on rainfall, planting dates, fertilizer
and pesticides used.
AGENCY PERSONNEL:
1. Assisted during planting in changing hybrids, emptying planter
boxes and marking plots with stakes.
2. Measured field area, population at emergence, barren stalks,
and final harvest population.
3. Determined amount of surface residue retained and estimated
annual soil erosion losses.
4. Provided a weigh wagon, moisture tester, and scale operator to
assist at harvest.
5. Calculated and published yields, expenses, and profitability of
the various systems. (See Tillage Comparison and Economic
Section)
MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
1. All test hybrids were planted in same residue within each test.
2. Total N, P, K was the same for all hybrids within each test.
3. Residual, contact herbicide, and soil insecticide was the same
within each test.
4. Post-emergent or "clean up" herbicides were used as necessary
to control weeds.
5. Each hybrid was harvested for grain with minimum of one pass
across the field.
26
-------
1980 NO-TILL CORN HYBRID YIELD DATA -GROUP F
William Begg
1. Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Migro 2018X
4. Northrup King PX69
5. *Cargill 921
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Pioneer 3541
Gerald Brooks
1. *Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Migro 2018X
4. Northrup King PX69
5. Cargill 921
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Pioneer 3541
Donald Davis
1. Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Migro 2018X
4. *Northrup King PX69
5. Cargill 921
6.**DeKalb 72 AA
7. Pioneer 3541
Calvin Kiracofe
1. Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. *Migro 2018X
4. Northrup King PX69
5. Cargill 921
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Pioneer 3541
Harold Pohlman
1. Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Migro 2018X
4. Northrup King PX69
5, Cargill 921
6. **DeKalb 72AA
7. *Pioneer 3541
Average Group F
1. Pioneer 3780
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Migro 2018X
4. Northrup King PX69
5. Cargill 921
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Pioneer 3541
Population %Barren
23,000
21,900
22,800
23,900
22,600
19,500
20,300
23,900 8
22,800 0
22,800 8
24,000 12
24,900 8
24,100 12
25,300 4
24,000
22,000
22,600
24,500
24,400
19 , 800
23,400
24,200
21,600
23,400
25,300
25,100
22,000
23,600
21,100 4
20,300 2
21,100 6
29,300 32
23,400 16
21,400 4
21,400 12
23,240
21,720
22,540
25,400
24,080
21,360
22,800
%Moisture
19.8
22.9
21.1
23.7
25.3
26.9
23.7
20.0
22.0
22.1
25.1
24.0
25.4
24.1
16.2
16.8
17.1
18.3
19.5
20.7
18.8
30.5
29.4
28.3
32.9
34.7
29.3
32.4
18.2
20.8
21.1
23.6
25.0
26.6
22.2
20.9
22.4
21.9
24.7
25.7
25.8
24.2
Yield
121.4
131.7
118.2
132.2
143.5
139.2
133.3
145.4
142.5
143.9
157.5
156.9
144.1
156.3
115.1
107.5
107.9
106.9
122.1
115.9
126.4
105.3
113.1
117.2
105.4
111.6
120.6
108.6
152.2
156.8
147.3
126.9
145.8
141.1
143.9
127.9
130.3
126.9
125.8
136.0
129.7
133.7
$Value
$355.10
378.75
342.12
381.23
408.39
388.82
380.59
426.17
412.80
414.01
444.87
449.61
407.90
444.24
341.94
319.08
318.69
314.92
358.80
336.63
371.64
290.36
314.07
326.22
277.44
278.18
298.66
290.25
447.56
456.49
425.98
361.86
415.28
393.84
414.06
372.27
376.24
365.40
356.06
382.05
365.17
380.16
*Hybrid furnished by participant
**Testers in all no-till plots
27
-------
CULTURAL PRACTICES
Begg
Planted May 2 in 30 inch rows at an expected population
of 27,100. 1979 crop was alfalfa orchardgrass sod. Sprayed
with 1 qt. Paraquat, 2\ Ibs. Princep SOW, 2h Ibs. Atrazine
SOW with 45 gal. of 28% as a carrier. Fertilizer included
160 Ibs. 6-24-24 in the row, 260 Ibs. of 18-46-0 and 300 Ibs,
of 0-0-60 broadcast ahead of planter, and 135 Ibs. of 28%
for a total of 201-158-218. No insecticide applied.
Sprayed Dylox at 1^ Ibs. 50W/acre for armyworm control.
Brooks
Planted April 25 in 30 inch rows at an expected population
of 27,900. 1979 crop was soybeans seeded to rye cover.
Sprayed with 1 pt. Paraquat, 2 pts. Dual 8E and 3 Ibs.
Bladex 8W with water as a carrier. Spot sprayed with
Banvel and 2,4-D. Fertilizer included 250 Ibs. of 6-24-24
in the row and 200 Ibs. of 82% anhydrous ammonia for a
total of 179-61-61. 13 Ibs. Furadan used for insect
control. Anhydrous was sidedressed using conventional
"backsweep knife" applicator.
Davis
Planted May 5 in 30 inch rows with an expected population
of 25,800. 1979 crop was corn. Sprayed with .88 qt.
Paraquat with 1 pt. Aquagen Surfactant, 2 qt. Dual 8E,
1,75 Ibs. Aatrex 9-0 with 60 gal. of 28% Nitrogen as a
carrier. Sprayed ^ pt. Banvel when corn 14"-16" high.
Fertilizer included 135 Ibs. of 18-46-0 in row, and 200
Ibs. of 0-0-60, 110 Ibs. of 18-46-0 the day after planting
and 600 Ibs. of 28% for a total of 212-112-120. 8 Ibs.
Furadan used for insect control.
Kiracofe
Planted May 3 in 30 inch rows at an expected population of
28,600. 1979 crop was corn. Field was in its third year
of continuous no-till corn. Sprayed uniformally across
all plots with various combinations of herbicides. (see
herbicide test section) With water as a carrier.
Fertilizer included 300 Ibs. of 6-24-24 in row and 200#
N applied as 28-0-0 pre-emergence for a total of 218-72-72.
13 Ibs. Furadan used for insect control. Field received
extensive hail damage in mid summer. Harvested early
for silage. Yields hand checked.
Pohlman
Planted May 7 in 30 inch rows at an expected population of
24,000. 1979 crop was wheat with little plowdown clover.
Sprayed with 1 qt. Paraquat and Surfactant, 1.5 Ibs.
Princep SOW, 2.85 Ibs. Bladex SOW with 64 gal. of 28% as a
carrier. Spot sprayed with Banvel and 2,4-D. Fertilizer
included 100 Ibs. of 21-0-0, 120 Ibs. of 0-46-0, 200 Ibs.
of 0-0-62, 5 Ibs. of Boron all broadcast in the fall, and
200 Ibs. of 12-32-18 in the row for a total of 224-119-160.
13 Ibs. of Furadan used for insect control.
28
-------
1980 NO-TILL CORN HYBRID YIELD DATA - GROUP G
Gerald Brooks
1. Gutwein 2610
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Voris 2532
4. Walton 40
5. Trojan 115
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. *Sohigro 57
Dave Ernest
1. *Gutwein 2610
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Voris 2532
4. Walton 40
5. Trojan 115
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Sohigro 57
Robert Mayer
1. Gutwein 2610
2.**Rupp 1625
3. *Voris 2532
4. Walton 40
5. Trojan 115
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Sohigro 57
Harold Pohlman
1. Gutwein 2610
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Voris 2532
4. *Walton 40
5. Trojan 115
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Sohigro 57
Average Group G
1. Gutwein 2610
2.**Rupp 1625
3. Voris 2532
4. Walton 40
5. Trojan 115
6.**DeKalb 72AA
7. Sohigro 57
Population
22,000
22,800
25,100
24,200
23,700
24,100
22,700
20,800
24,000
22,100
23,300
23,000
22,600
23,100
19,800
19,300
21,100
17,500
17,200
17,100
20,600
18,400
20,300
19,200
16,600
18,900
21,400
18,900
20,250
21,600
21,875
20,400
20,700
21,300
21,325
%Barren
8
0
4
0
4
12
16
8
2
6
8
2
4
8
%Moisture
27.4
22.0
26.4
24.9
25.6
25.4
26.0
23.1
19.4
24.7
23.7
25.0
24.4
24.2
20.8
18.3
23.1
24.2
24.5
25.2
24.4
25.2
20.8
26.8
29.4
26.6
26.6
25.5
24.1
20.1
25.3
25.6
25.5
25.4
25.0
Yield
156.0
142.5
155.7
149.9
153.3
144.1
154.6
141.7
135.5
150.3
148.0
138.8
133.8
148.9
115.8
89.0
113.1
91.9
75.6
68.4
82.8
142.2
156.8
154.6
137.3
161.6
141.1
156.3
138.9
131.0
143.4
131.8
132.3
121.9
135.7
$ Value
$439.83
412.80
437.85
431.54
431.00
407.90
436.66
404.16
397.80
426.36
422.48
395.03
381.77
412.14
337.16
252.89
322.78
261.48
215.31
193.33
236.10
401.77
456.49
432.52
388.28
450.95
393.84
443.07
395.73
380.00
404.88
374.70
373.07
344.21
381.99
*Hybrid furnished by participant
**Testers in all no-till plots
29
-------
CULTURAL PRACTICES
Brooks
See Group F
Ernest
Planted May 2 in 30 inch rows with an expected population
of 27,100. 1979 crop"was alfalfa. Sprayed with 1 qt.
Paraquat with h qt. Surfactant, 2 qt. Attrax 4L, and 1 qt.
Lasso with approximately 40 gal. of 28% as a carrier.
Sprayed with 1 pt. Banamine when corn was knee high.
Fertilizer included 150 Ibs. of 6-24-24 in the row, 250
Ibs. of 0-0-60 broadcast before planting and 379 Ibs. of
28% for a total of 115-36-186. No insecticide applied.
Pohlman
Planted May 10 in 30 inch rows at an expected population
of 26,100. 1979 crop was corn. Field is in its 6th
year of continuous no-till corn. Sprayed with 3 qt.
Lasso and 4 Ibs. Aatrex SOW with 20 gal. of water as
a carrier. Fertilizer included 300 Ibs. of 0-0-60
broadcast in the fall, 125 Ibs. of 10-34-0 broadcast
ahead of planting, and sidedress of 200 Ibs. of 82%
anhydrous ammonia for a total of 177-43-180. 1 qt.
Furadan liquid was used for insect control. Field
was flooded in May and received severe hail damage
in mid summer.
See Group F
HYBRID
Voris 2532
Gutwein 2610
Sohigro 57
Cargill 921
Rupp
Pioneer 3541
Walton 40
Trojan 115
Pioneer 3780
Migro 2018X
DeKalb 72AA
Northrup King PX69
Average
TABLE 13. ADJUSTED
POPULATION
21,920
20,290
21,370
24,030
21,660
22,750
20,440
20,750
23,190
22,490
21,330
23,350
21,975
1980 NO-TILL CORN
% MOISTURE
26.0
24.8
25.7
25.0
21.3
23.5
26.3
26.2
20.3
21.3
25.6
24.0
24.2
HYBRID DATA
YIELD
BU/AC .
145.4
140.9
137.6
134.2
130.7
131.9
133.7
134.2
125.4
125.2
126.8
124.1
132.5
VALUE
409.66
400.40
386.50
381.40
380.04
379.51
379.12
377.47
371.64
364.78
356.41
355.46
378.53
30
-------
TABLE 14. THREE YEAR NO-TILL HYBRID AVERAGE YIELDS
HYBRID
Voris 2532
Gutwein 2610
Sohigro 57
Trojan 115
Walton 40
Cargill 921
Rupp 1625
Pioneer 3541
Pioneer 3780
DeKalb 72aa
Migro 2018X
Northrup King PX69
Funks G4323
Robinson 3225
Northrup King 74
Northrup King 49
EAG 424
ACCO 4201
Bayless 447
Funks 4321
Trojan 108
Jacques JX180
Robinson 3827
Pioneer 3529
U.S.S. Seeds 1010
YEARLY AVERAGE
1980
MOISTURE
26.0
24.8
25.7
26.2
26.3
25.0
21.3
23.5
20.3
25.6
21.3
24.0
24.2
YIELD
145.4
140.9
137.6
134.2
133.7
134.2
130.7
131.9
125.4
126.8
125.2
124.1
132.5
1979
MOISTURE
27.2
27.1
24.8
21.9
19.8
26.8
21.3
25.6
27.4
21.2
24.1
25.9
24.5
YIELD
131.6
130.2
140.7
116.3
117.6
124.9
114.4
119.4
122.5
111.5
107.5
108.7
120.4
1978
MOISTURE
27.7
25.9
22.2
22.7
28.0
27.8
25.3
28.9
26.1
YIED
104. ?
98.4
95.7
89.8
90.9
100.6
95.1
94.4
96.2
NOTE: Summary of years weather
1980 - Warm and wet characterized this year. Ideal planting and harvesting
conditions but hot and dry weather during pollination.
1979 - Cool and wet with a late spring and late fall, no moisture stress in
corn
1978-Cold, wet spring and hot dry early summer. A late frost plus good
harvesting conditions, corn stressed for moisture
31
-------
TABLE
HYBRID
* Gutwein 2610
*# Cargil 921
*# Pioneer 3780
* Pioneer 3541
*# Voris V2532
* Sohigro 57
*# Rupp XR-1625
* Migro 2018
* Walton 40
*# Trojan TXS115A
# Funks G4323
* Northrup King PX69
+Funks G4321A
*#+DeKalb XL-72aa
# Northrup King PX49
# Robinson R3225
+Bayless SX-447
# Northrup King PX74
+Robinson 3827
+Pioneer 3529
+Trojan TXS108A
# PAG 424
# ACCO 4201
+U.S.S. Seeds 1010
+Jacques JX180
* Indicates Hybrid
# Indicates Hybrid
+ Indicates Hybrid
/I Value computed
15. THREE YEAR ADJUSTED
PERCENT YIELD
MOISTURE (Bu/Ac)
25.9
25.4
20.5
24.5
27.1
26.8
22.0
22.2
27.4
27.2
21.2
25.0
21.4
26.7
21.1
25.5
25.0
27.3
26.8
24.4
21.9
24.0
25.8
27.9
27.0
was in 1980
was in 1979
was in 1978
132.1
129.9
114.8
123.7
130.8
129.0
116.7
117.4
125.4
124.9
108.9
116.4
108.5
118.9
106.1
113.7
111.5
116.6
114.0
107.8
101.8
102.3
103.5
107.0
103.0
test
test
test
NO- TILL CORN HYBRID DATA
VALUE RANK
($l/Ac)/l IN VALUE
326.95
324.75
315.70
315.44
313.92
312.83
312.17
311.11
300.96
299.76
294.03
293.91
292.95
288.33
286.47
284.25
281.54
279.84
276.45
274.89
272.32
263.42
256.16
254.13
249.78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at $3.00 per bushel at 15.5% moisture, with dock
RANK
IN YIELD
1
3
13
7
2
4
10
9
5
6
17
12
18
8
21
15
16
11
14
19
25
24
22
20
23
charge of
MATURITY
RANGE/ 2
Medium
Medium
Early
Medium
Late
Late
Early
Early
Late
Late
Early
Medium
Early
Late
Early
Medium
Medium
Late
Late
Medium
Early
Medium
Medium
Late
Late
2^ for each h
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF ADJUSTED HYBRID YIELD AVERAGE
UNDER TILLED AND NO-TILL CONDITIONS
HYBRID
1980
Cargill 921
Sohigro 57
Pioneer 3780
Rupp 1625*
Migro 2018
1979
Trojan 115
Voris 2532
DeKalb 72 aa
Rupp
Northrup King 49
TILLED PLOTS
COUNTY TESTS
ADJUSTED
YIELD
154.9
139.2
138.4
133.5
129.7
149.1
144.2
143.7
135.3
131.8
#FARMS
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
(6)
NO-TILL PLOTS
SWCD TESTS
ADJUSTED
YIELD
139.3
138.0
131.0
133.5
130.0
152.3
154.4
143.8
135.3
136.0
# FARMS
(5)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(3)
NOTE: Each years data was adjusted to the common tester (Rupp 1625)
used in both tilled and no- tilled trials for that year.
TABLE 17 RANK
HYBRID
Voris
Gutwein
Sohigro
Cargill
Tro j an
Walton
Pioneer 3541
Rupp
DeKalb
Pioneer 3780
Migro
Northrup King
IN YIELD COMPARED TO
YIELD
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
PERCENT EMERGENCE
%
EMERGENCE
82%
76%
80%
90%
78%
77%
85%
81%
80%
87%
84%
88%
33
-------
NO-TILL HYBRID TEST OBSERVATIONS
1. Value was computed using a $3.00/bushel corn price and a dry ing/ shrinkage charge of
per bushel per each .5 percent moisture above 15.5 percent.
2. Table 13 summarizes the 1980 hybrid test results. Tables 14 and 15 summarizes
three years of hybrid testing. Table 14 gives actual average yields for each
season while table 15 gives yields adjusted to the DeKalb tester used all three
years. Remember, these tables are more useful for spotting general trends rather
than selecting individual hybrids. The more years a hybrid was tested, the more
reliable the figures are.
3. No direct relationship was observed between maturity of the hybrids tested in 1980
and their rank in value. This lack of pattern was similar to trends in the 1978 and
1979 test, (See Table 15 ) .
4. Differences in seedling vigor and rates of emergence could not be detected by
observing hybrids side by side in the same field. None of the hybrids were
consistently high or low in population within each farm. And no correlation
could be- developed between ranking of the hybrid yield and percent emergence.
(Table 17 )
5. Five hybrids that were grown under tilled conditions in the county plots and no-tilled
conditions in the SWCD plots are compared in Table 16 . A common tester was used to
adjust the yields to reflect common growing conditions. The data for both years shows
the hybrid yields ranked in nearly the same order, whether grown under tilled or no-till
conditions. In 1980 two hybrids averaged the same under tilled and no-tilled
conditions, while two showed a noticeable increase under tilled conditions. The data
from the 1979 plots indicated that all five hybrids yielded better under no-till
conditions when both trials were adjusted to the tester.
6. Observation of the no- till hybrid tests over the last three years and table 15.
indicates that a combination of yield potential and rate of dry down are the factors
that have most affected hybrid performance. In these tests we have not been able
to document any direct relationship between performance and maturity, percent
emergence, or tendency to double-ear. Our limited experience indicates a hybrid
proven under conventional systems should perform equally well in no-till.
7. Hail damaged the Kiracofe and Mayer hybrid plots and caused yield reductions.
34
-------
CONSERVATION TILLAGE FOR SOYBEANS
The 1980 growing season saw minimun and No-Till soybeans included in the SWCD plot
program for the first time. No-Till comparison plots were planted on three farms, and
a minimun till comparison on one farm. A No-Till demonstration without a comparison
was also planted on one farm. Table 18 lists results of the soybean plots, while
36 explains tillage and cultural practices used.
TABLE 18. SOYBEAN TILLAGE COMPARISON RESULTS
Farm
Hershberger
Fischer
Kiracofe
Rumbaugh
Gooderding
Treatment
Fall Plow
Fall Disc
Fall Plow
No-Till
it
it
Fall Disc
Spring Disc
No-Till
No-Till (30")
No-Till (15")
No-Till
Variety
Shawnee
Shawnee
SRF 305
SRF 305
Callahan
NK 1492
Williams
it
ii
Williams
M
Williams
Population
130,000
106,000
98,000
196,000
5302 152,000
164,000
79,000
131,000
94,000
79 55,300
103,750
79
Moisture
13.0%
13.0
13.0
13.0
14.0
13.0
18.0
16.5
18.6
14.3
i3.9
13.3
Yield
52.2
48.7
49.7
48.8
44.5
48.8
42.2
54.1
43.8
51.8
52.3
51.3
Value
$391.50
365.25
372.75
366.00
327.08
366.00
284.85
377.35
289.08
376.85
384.41
384.75
35
-------
1980 SOYBEAN CULTURAL DATA
Hershberger
Fall plowed, field cultivated, harrogated, planted, cultivated
Fall Disc, spring disc, field cultivated, harrogated, planted, cultivated
Planted May 7 in 30 inch rows at a seed drop of 150,000. 1979 crop was corn.
Herbicides included 2 qt. Lasso and 0.5 pt. Sencor. Fertilizer was 200 Ib of 0-0-60
broadcast in the fall. Weed control was good.
Fischer
Fall plowed, Field cultivated twice, cultimulched, planted, cultivated twice
No-Till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted No-Till in 15 inch rows at a seed drop of 175,000. Planted Fall Plow in
30 inch rows at a seed drop of 156,000. 1979 crop was corn. No-Till received a split
application of 1 qt. Paraquat, plus 1 Ib. Sencor and 2.5 pts. Dual. Plow received 2 pts.
Treflan and 0.75 Ibs. Sencor. Fertilization for No-Till was 150 Ibs. 6-24-24 for a
total of 9-36-36, and plowed received 100 Ibs. 3-12-12. No-Till also received 2 qt.
Blazer, (two quart applied by mistake as opposed to one quart label rate, economics
figured at one quart rate). Weed control good on both plow and No-Till.
Kiracofe
Fall disc twice, no spring tillage
Fall disc once, spring disc twice
No-Till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted May 15 in 15 inch rows with Fall Disc and No-Till having a seed drop of
174,000 and Spring Disc a drop of 150,000. 1979 crop was corn. Half of No-Till plot
received a split application of 1 qt. Paraquat plus 3 pts. Dual and 1 Ib. Sencor.
The other half of No-Till received 1 qt. Round-up, 3 qts. Lasso and 1 Ib. Sencor.
Fall Disc received 1 qt. Paraquat, 1 Ib. Sencor and 3 pts. Dual, while Spring Disc
recieved 2.5 pts. Dual and 0.75 Ibs. Sencor. Weed control explained on page 42.
Rumbaugh
No-Till planted in 30 inch rows using a Allis Chamlers planter
No-Till <15 inch) used White planter, doubled back
Planted May 22 with a seed drop in 30 inch rows of 87,500 and 15 inch rows of
175,000. No fertilizer applied. Both treatments received 1 pt. Paraquat, 0.75 Ib
Sencor and 2 pts. Dual. Spot sprayed with Basagram. Weed control good. Some
volunteer corn
Meadowbrook Farms (Gooderding)
No-Till planted with fluted coulter planter
Planted No-Till on May 10 in 30 inch rows with a seed drop of 133,000. 1979
crop was No-Till corn. Applied 2.5 pts. Dual and 0.5 Ibs. Lexone for weed control.
No fertilizer applied. Weed control good, except for White-top.
36
-------
TABLE 19. SOYBEAN TILLAGE COMPARISON PRODUCTION COSTS
Farm
Tillage System
Yield (bu/ac)
Value
Seed, other
Contact Herb.
Residual Herb.
TOTAL Material
Primary Tillage
Secondary Till.
Planting
Cultivation
Spraying , ect .
Harvesting
Trucking
TOTAL Machine
TOTAL Costs
Cost /Bushel
Return to
land, mgt.
Time for Tillage
Fuel for Tillage
Hershberger
Fall
Plow
52.2
$391.50
9. .75
0
12.94
$ 22.69
11.00
11.00
8.00
4.50
3.00
17.50
4.70
$ 59.70
$ 82.39
1.84
$309.11
54 min
4.1 gal
Fall
Disc
48.7
$365.25
8.06
0
12.94
$ 22.69
5.50
16.50
8.00
4. 0
3.00
17.50
4.38
$ 59.38
$ 82.39
1.93
$284.87
51 min
3.5 gal
Fischer
Fall
Plow
49.7
$372.75
6.75
0
20.43
$ 27.18
11.00
10.50
8.00
4.50
3.00
17.50
4.47
$ 59.38
$ 86.56
1.83
$286.19
54 min
4.5 gal
No-Till
44.5
$333.75
13.50
10.75
31.10
$ 55.35
0
0
22.00*
0
3.00
17.50
4.39
$ 46.89
$102.24
2.29
$231.51
15 min
.8 gal
Kiracof e
Fall
Disc
42.2
$316.50
5.81
10.75
24.60
$ 41.16
5.50
5.50
16.00*
0
3.00
17.50
3.80
$ 51.30
$ 92.46
2.19
$224.04
16 min
1.3 gal
Spring
Disc
54.1
$405.75
9.75
0
19.70
$ 29.45
5.50
11.00
16.00*
0
3.00
17.50
4.87
$ 57.87
$ 87.32
1.61
$318.43
24 min
2.0 gal
No-Till
43.8
$328.05
6.94
13.50
23.49
$ 43.93
0
0
22.00*
0
3.00
17.50
3.94
$ 46.44
$ 90.37
2.06
$237.68
15 min
.8 gal
Rumbaugh
No-Till
(30")
51.8
$388.50
3.94
5.38
17.20
$ 26.52
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
17.50
4.66
$ 36.16
$ 62.68
1.21
$325.82
15 min
.8 gal
No-Till
(15")
52.3
$392.25
7.31
5.38
17.20
$ 29.89
0
0
22.00*
0
3.00
17.50
4.71
$ 47.21
$ 77.10
1.47
$315.15
30 min
1.6 gal
*additional cost due to doubling back with 30" planter
Sooderding
No-Till
51.3
$384.75
9.38
0
17.30
$ 26.68
0
0
11.00
0
3.00
17.50
4.62
$ 36.12
$ 62.80
1.22
$321.95
15 min
.8 gal
-------
SOYBEAN TILLAGE OBSERVATIONS
1. In three side by side comparisons, plow/disc systems had higher return than
No-Till. However, the highest returns obtained were in the No-VTill plots which
had no plow comparisons beside them (Gooderding & Rumbaugh).
2. The average of five No-Till yields checked was 48.1 bu/ac, compared to an average
of 44.3 bu/ac for 144 soybean plots in the county conventional test plots.
3. The sums of herbicide and tillage costs for the Fischer No-Till and plow plots
were less than $1 different. Increase in cost in the Fischer plot was due to
seed costs and doubling back in 15" rows. In the Kiracofe plot the difference
of the herbicide added to the tillage costs was less than $4/ac.
TABLE 2 0. 1980
Landowner
Hershberger
Fischer
Kiracofe
Rumbaugh
Gooderding
Average
No-Till
30" rows
$325.82
384.75
$355.29
COMPARISON OF SOYBEAN RETURNS BY TILLAGE SYSTEMS
No-Till
15" rows
$231.51
237.68
315.15
$261.44
Plow
$309.11
286.19
$297.65
Fall
Disc
$284.87
224.04
$254.46
Spring
Disc
$318.43
$318.43
Most
Profitable
Plow
Plow
Spring Disc
No-Till (30")
TABLE 21. 1980
Landowner
Hershberger
Fischer
Kiracofe
Rumbaugh
Gooderding
Average
No-Till
30" rows
51.8
51.3
51.6
COMPARISON OF SOYBEAN YIELDS BY TILLAGE SYSTEMS
No-Till
15" rows Plow
52.2
44.5 49.7
43.8
52.3
46.9 51.0
Fall Spring
Disc Disc
48.7
42.2 54.1
45.5 54.7
Average
50.5
47.1
46.7
52.1
51.3
49.5
38
-------
NO-TILL HERBICIDE TEST PLOTS
Seventeen no-till herbicide demonstration plots were established on the Calvin Kiracofe
farm. The plots consisted of both corn and soybean treatments. All herbicides used were
donated by the manufacturers, and the spraying was done by Cairo Elevator with the
assistance of agency personnel and the herbicide representatives.
The corn treatments were made by spraying a continuous pass across two fields. Field one
was second year no-till corn with clumps of heavy orchard grass present at spraying.
Field two was fourth year corn. The last two of the three years previous the corn had
also been planted no-till. Field two was relatively clean at planting. The 1979
herbicide treatments on both fields had been 4 Ibs. Atrazine SOW. Spraying was done on
May 6, 3 days after planting. Plots A-F were sprayed with 20 gal. water/ac. using flat
fan nozzles at a 20 inch spacing. Plots G-K were sprayed with same nozzles and spacing
but using 40 gal. water/ac. Corn stands were reasonably uniform over all plots.
The soybean plots consisted of five treatments on both no-till and minimum till soybeans.
The field treated consisted of soybeans following corn. Plot was planned to have a
split application of Paraquat. However rain was received immediately after the first
application. Thus the Paraquat rate was increased during the second spraying. Heavy
rains were also received between planting and spraying on all the plots. Consequently
some of the beans were cracking the ground when the spraying was done. This may have
influenced stands, particularly in the plots with contact herbicides. Stands in the
no-till plots were lower than in the disc plots. ' (See page 38 )
Both the corn and soybean demonstrations received extensive hail damage during a
mid season storm. This defoliated the crops and the increased sunlight resulted in
severe weed pressure late in the growing season. As a result overall weed control was
low, and variation between different treatments was high.
Table 22 lists the corn treatments, rates, costs and degree of control. Table 23
gives the same information for soybeans. Ratings were classified as poor, fair, good
or excellent control. They were made by SWCD and SCS personnel who walked the plots
before and after harvest. Harvest of the corn fields for silage in early September
made it easy to view the entire plot to make the rating. Corn field #1 was rated
for control of orchard grass, fall panicum, and other weeds. Corn field #2 was rated
only for fall panicum and other weed control since no orchard grass was present.
The ratings assigned are only records of our observations and do not constitute
recommendations or endorsements of any particular products.
39
-------
NO-TILL HERBICIDE PLOTS OBSERVATIONS
CORN
1. Overall control (especially panicum) was better in the fourth year
corn than the second year corn. This was attributed to a poorer
stand and more hail damage in the second year corn field. Panicum
control was affected as much by stand and hail damage as it was by
selection of herbicides.
2. The amount of water used had a striking affect on orchardgrass
control. The 20 gal./acre plots had much poorer control than the
40 gallon plots. THE AMOUNT OF CARRIER USED AFFECTED CONTROL
MORE THAN DID THE SELECTION OF A CONTACT HERBICIDE.
3. When high volumes of carrier (40 gal./ac.) was used there was
no difference between Paraquat and Round-up in controlling
orchardgrass. When the low volume was used, (20 gal./ac.)
Round-up consistently rated one level higher than Paraquat.
4. Dual provided better panicum control than Lasso when used along
with Atrazine. However, no difference was seen between the
two in combinations with Princep or Bladex. The three-way
combinations did not show any better panicum control than did the
two-way.
SOYBEANS
1. Grass control was good across all plots.
2. Broadleaf control was good early, with ragweed pressure late in the
season. Pressure was heaviest in the no-till plot with lower stands.
3. Volunteer corn was a major problem in the spring disc plots,
but was not a problem in the no-till and stale seedbed plots. Hoelon
controlled volunteer corn where applied.
4. No difference in control was observed between the Round-up - Lasso
and Paraquat - Dual no-till plot.
5. No Sencor injury was observed in the no-till soybeans at the
1 Ib./ac. rate.
40
-------
TABLE 22. NO-TILL CORN HERBICIDE PLOT DATA
Plot Rate/Chemical
A 1.0 qt Paraquat
3.0 pt Dual 8E
3.0 Ib Bladex
1.5 Ib Atrazine
B 2.0 qt Round-up
3.0 pt Dual
3.0 Ib Bladex
1.5 Ib Atrazine
C 1.0 qt Paraquat
3.0 qt Lasso
3.0 Ib Bladex
1.3 Ib Princep
D 2.0 qt Round-up
3.0 qt Lasso
3.0 Ib Bladex
1.5 Ib Princep
E 1.0 qt Paraquat
2.2 Ib Aatrex
3.0 pt Dual
F 2.0 qt Round-up
2.2 Ib Atrazine
3.0 pt Dual
G 1.0 qt Paraquat
5.0 Ib Bladex
3.0 pt Dual
H 2.0 qt Round-up
5.0 Ib Bladex
3.0 pt Dual
I 1.0 qt Paraquat
1.0 gal Bicep
Cost
$10.75
15.00
8.40
2.85
$37.00
$32.50
15.00
8.40
2.85
$58.75
$10.75
12.38
8.40
4.16
$35.69
$32.50
12.38
8.40
4.80
$58.08
$10.75
4.82
15.00
$30.57
$32.50
4.82
15.00
$52.32
$10.75
14.00
15.00
$39.75
$32.50
14.00
15.00
$61.50
$10.75
19.75
$30.50
Field #1 - 2nd yr Corn
Orchard Other
Grass Panicum Weeds
Poor Fair Good
Fair Poor Good
Poor Fair Good
Fair Fair Good
Fair Good Good
Good Fair Good
Fair Fair Good
Good Fair Good
Good Fair Good
Field #2 - 4th yr Corn
Other
Panicum Weeds
Poor Good
Good Fair
(some
nightshade)
Poor Good
Poor Good
Good Good
Fair Good
Good Good
Fair Good
Poor Good
41
-------
Plot Rate /Chemical
TABLE 22.CONT. NO-TILL CORN
Cost
J 2.0 qt Round-up
2.5 Ib Atrazine
3.0 qt Lasso
K 1.0 qt Paraquat
3.75 Ib Bladex
3.0 qt Lasso
$32.50
4.75
12.38
$49.63
$10.75
10.50
12.38
$33.63
HERBICIDE PLOT DATA
Field #1 - 2nd yr Corn
Orchard
Grass Panicum
Other
Weeds
Good Poor
Good Fair
Good
Good
Field #2 - 4th yr Corn
Other
Panicum Weeds
Poor Good
Fair Good
TABLE
Plot Tillage
1 Fall Disc(2)
No Spring Tillage
2 No-Till
3 No-Till
4 Fall Disc Once
Spring Disc Twice
5 Fall Disc Once
Spring Disc Twice
2 3. SOYBEAN HERBICIDE
Rate/Chemical
1.0 qt Paraquat
1.0 Ib Sencor
3.0 pt Dual
1.0 qt Round-up
3.0 qt Lasso
1.0 Ib Sencor
1.0 qt Paraquat
3.0 pt Dual
1.0 Ib Sencor
2.5 pt Dual
0.75 Ib Sencor
2.5 pt Dual
0.75 Ib Sencor
0.3 gal Hoelon
PLOT DATA
Control
Cost Rating
$10.75 Fair
9.60
15.00
$35.35
$16.25 Good
12.38
9.60
$38.23
$10.75 Good
15.00
9.60
$35.35
$12.50 Fair
7.20
$19.70
$12.50 Good
7.20
13.60
$33.30
Problems
Ragweed
Ragweed
Ragweed
Volunteer
Corn
42
-------
NO-TILL MANAGEMENT
Three years experience with test plots in Allen County has shown that successful adoption
of no-till systems requires careful management decisions. Our experience has shown
however, that this management is within the capability of the average farmer, once he's
had some experience with the method, and that he can adopt these systems and maintain
current yields. Beginning farmers should accept that they will make a mistake or two and
"grow" into the system by starting first with a small area. Careful attention to the
following management items will help to increase chances of a "first time" success:
FIELD SELECTION
The ideal no-till field is drained; covered with "residue" and has weed problems that
are "manageable".
Drainage
"Well drained" means the surface water runs off and the soil is naturally porus or has
been tile drained. The heavier the soil the more helpful tile is and the closer the
lines should be spaced. Drainage is most important in getting the soil dry enough to
plant. Cover crops of rye, wheat, or clover also help to do this by removing water in
the spring. A year or two of experience will give a feel for the way these items
interact better than anything we can say in words.
Residue
Residue amount is directly related to drainage soil type and residue distribution. The
most ideal situation is excellent drainage and lots of residue. Blount or light colored
soils should have at least 60% of the ground covered to hold moisture and prevent crusting.
A little residue well distributed is better than a lot bunched up because the soil drys
more evenly. Pewamo or dark soils can tolerate less residue because they do not crust.
Aim for as much residue as can be tolerated and still allow the field to dry for timely
planting. The more residue you can stand the more moisture you conserve in the summer.
Cornstalks, bean stubble, and wheat stubble all works. A cover crop growing in any of
these cover , is icing on the cake, as is planting in sod.
Weed Problems
Weed problems are manageable if they don't include Johnson grass and you can grow a
decent crop conventionally. If it is hard to control weeds in a field conventionally,
it will usually but not always be harder and more expensive to do it no-till. Different
kinds of weed problems are also encountered in no-till. The tough weeds can be controlled
no-till with experience, but farmers should pick an easy field to start with.
Cover Crops
Cover crops, help to counteract the above listed field defficiencies to some extent.
A growing cover can pull moisture in the spring and help to dry fields. Also some
cover crops provide competition to help reduce weed pressures. For example, it is
believed that rye inhibits the growth of fall panicum. Cover crops also control
erosion and add tilth and organic matter to the soil. The following chart gives methods
and rates commonly used to establish rye cover.
43
-------
TABLE 24. COVER CROP ESTABLISHMENT
EXISTING
CROP
Corn
Soybeans
Wheat
Oats
COVER TO
SEED
Rye
Rye
Wheat
Timothy
Legumes
Legumes
RATE/AC .
AIR OR
BROADCAST
2 bu.
2 bu.
2h bu.
Varies
Varies
GROUND
(DRILL)
1 bu.
1 bu.
I3? bu.
3 Ibs.
Varies
Varies
WHEN TO SEED
AIR
Late August
25% Leaf Drop
25% Leaf Drop
Feb. - March
At planting
GROUND
At harvest
At harvest
At harvest
Fall with wheat
Feb. - March
July - After straw
removal
At planting or after
straw removal
FERTILIZATION
Phosphorous and Potassium
If soil test levels are low, phosphorous and potassium should be banded through the
planter. If levels are high, all the P and K can be broadcast on top. Its been done
and it works. Most farmers in Allen County use a combination of both broadcast and
row fertilizer.
Nitrogen
Nitrogen is one of the very important aspects of no-till.
represent the current thinking for no-till production:
The following recommendations
tlrea - Leave it in the bag! Its been tried and it doesn't work. Don't learn
the hard way like others have. Urea volatilizes on the surface and nitrogen
is lost to the atmosphere.
Ammonia Nitrate or Sulfate - These work excellent if you have a local source
available. The cost is usually higher than some of the other forms. Ammonia
Nitrate is hard to handle and thus often hard to locate. You don't have to
worry about loosing this nitrogen form when put on top.
28% Solution - 28% solution is the most common form currently used. Losses
will be more than the ammonia forms but less than urea. Convenience is a
major factor and one trip across the field can take care of both nitrogen
and weed control. The material cost is higher than anhydrous but application
costs, time demands, availability of custom applicators and method of
herbicide application should also be weighed.
Anhydrous Ammonia is the cheapest and most stable nitrogen form. Generally it
should not be used preplant no-till. If soils are dry enough to permit
application farmer should be planting the corn. Preplanting also makes it
44
-------
difficult to follow rows or markers when planting. Side-dress works best but
timing is critical and the period is short to do a large number of acres. A
conventional applicator with "backsweep" knives and the cover boards removed
can often be used depending on the cover. A coulter in front of the knife and
a packer wheel behind works best. If anhydrous is used side-dressed, 50 Ibs.
N should be applied in the row or on top at planting.
pH of the surface is important, especially if 28% nitrogen is applied on top several years
in a row. The top 2" layer becomes too acid for certain herbicide to work. Frequent
applications of small amounts of lime or rotational tillage will remedy this. To find
out if a problem is developing soil sample the top ~Lh inch for pH only. Keep it at
6.2 or above.
GETTING A STAND
Obtaining a satisfactory stand is the factor which most influences no-till success.
Getting a stand depends on soil conditions at planting, seed drop, seed treatment and
planter type and operation.
Soil Conditions at Planting
The soil must be dry enough to allow proper planting and warm enough to germinate the seed
"Dry enough" can only be determined through experience and judgement. If it's dry enough
to plow it'snot always dry enough to plant, as used to be the recommendation. Sometimes
one or two more days makes all the difference. The best guide is when the soil crumbles
and the planter slot closes. The planting operation must provide coverage of the seed.
Also if planted too wet when the soil will not crumble, the trench will sometimes close,
but will crack open when the soil drys exposing the seed to birds and drying from the
sun. This cracking is especially a problem when a field is planted to wet and no rain
is received after planting.
Soil Temperature
The safest time to plant is when soil temperature reaches 50 , with the reading taken
2 inches deep at 9:00 a.m. The reason for the 9:00 a.m. reading is that past studies
have shown wide fluctuations in surface temperature throughout the day. If the
temperature does not reach 50° by May 1 and soils are dry go ahead and begin planting.
Seed Drop
Seed drop should first be determined by hybrid recommendations, then adjusted according
to planting conditions. Table 25 gives seed drop and emergence data for several
hundred stand counts in test plots over the last three years. The data indicates
consistently 3-5% less emergence with no-till systems. It also shows that increasing
seed drop can compensate for this within a reasonable range so that the same harvest
populations may be obtained. The data further shows emergence varies according to
residue cover with growing cover being the highest, stalks in the middle, and wheat
stubble lowest. This pattern corresponds to the effect of cover on drying of the
soil. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS:
Increase seed drop slightly over your conventional planting rate. Vary increase
according to soil conditions at time of planting. Under ideal conditions
no increase should be needed. If conditions are adverse an increase of up to
5% is justified.
45
-------
TABLE 25. THREE YEAR CORN EMERGENCE DATA
Year
1978
1979
1980
1980
3 year
avg.
Average
Seeddrop
24,100
24,200
26,500
(Tillage
NO-TILL
Average
Population
20,800
20,800
23,500
Tests)
26,400 22,000
(SWCD Hybrids)
Weighted
25,300
Avg. - all plots
21,700
Average
Emergence
86%
85%
88.1%
83.2%
86.3%
85 . 7%
CONVENTIONAL
Average Average
Seeddrop Population
22,800 20,300
23,400 21,100
26,800 23,900
(Tillage Tests)
24,600 21,900
(County Hybrids)
Weighted Avg. - all plots
23,000 20,500
Average
Emergence
89%
90%
85.7%
89.0%
88.3%
89.1%
TABLE 26. NO-TILL EMERGENCE BY RESIDUE
Year
1978
1979
1980
Average
Cornstalks
85.0%
87.0%
87.9%
86.6%
Wheat/Oat
Stubble
85 . 0%
82 . 0%
86.3%
84.4%
Bean
Stubble
87.9%
87.9%
Growing Cover
Rye /Alfalfa
89.0%
92.0%
85.7%
88.9%
Seed Treatment
A planter box seed treatment is recommended under all conditions, but it is especially
important with early planting when soils are cold or wet. Very little planter box treat-
ment is currently used among county no-tillers, and we feel there should be more.
Planting Equipment and Planting
Many planters on the market will do an acceptable job of no-till planting. Key components
needed include ripple or fluted coulter, double disc seed openers, gauge depth wheels
beside the openers, down pressure springs on the parallel unit linkage and spring loaded
packer wheels. Wide coulters will work more loose dirt, narrow coulters throw less soil
at higher speeds.
The secret to succesful planting is consistent depth. The secret to consistent depth
is to follow the "4D's", - slow down, set down, tighten down and weight down:
Slow Down - Plant slow enough that the coulters don't throw the loose dirt
away from the planting slot. Run several different speeds at
first to get a comparison. Four (4) mph is about right.
Remember you only have to get over the field once.
46
-------
Set Down - Aim to plant Ih inch deep. Too deep is better than not covering.
The corn will get out of the ground. If you see much corn on top
set that row down, using trial and error to get it right. Run the
coulter % inch deeper than you're putting the seed.
Tighten Down -
Weight Down -
Tighten hold down springs and packer wheel springs more than
you would in conventional planting. This helps push through
the heavy trash. On the John Deere put heavy duty linkage springs
on, on the White put two pairs of standard springs on the
parallel unit linkage. The depth wheels are to hold the
unit up in soft going.
Add weight so the spring pressure doesn't lift drive wheels
off the ground. The harder the conditions the more that's
necessary. Fertilizer works but you have to watch and not
run too low. Permanent or easily changed weights eliminate
this worry.
CONTROLLING WEEDS
Successful weed control is a function of proper herbicide selection, application and
timing.
Herbicide Selection
Table 29 lists herbicide combinations used in the 1980 no-till plots, along with costs
and control received. Experience has shown that grasses are the major problem in no-till
corn, especially, fall pancium, foxtail and nutsedge in that order. For this reason
Bladex, Princep, and Dual seem to be more popular residual herbicides than Aatrex or
Lasso. Post-emergent spot treatment with Banvel 2-4D is also a popular practice.
Herbicide rates are normally increased slightly for no-till as seen in Table
TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF HERBICIDE
Combination
AAtrex-Dual
AAtrex-Lasso
Bladex-Lasso
Bladex-Dual
AAtrex-Princep
Bladex-Princep
Bicep
AAtrex
Lasso
Allen
#
Farms
5
4
1
4
3
4
1
1
_
No-Till Plots
Average Rates
2.4 Ib - 2.7 pt
3.3 Ib - 2.4 qt
4.0 Ib - 3.0 qt
2.8 Ib - 2.25 pt
2.1 Ib - 2.2 Ib
2.8 Ib - 1.5 Ib
1.0 gal
2.8 Ib
-
23
County
#
Farms
9
1
1
-
2
-
-
5
1
AMOUNTS USED
Conventional Plots
Average Rates
1.7 Ib - 2.8 pt
1.6 Ib - 1.1 qt
2.5 Ib - 2.0 qt
- -
1.9 Ib - 1.2 Ib
- -
- -
2.2 Ib
3.0 Ib
19
Average Increasi
For No-Till
0.7 Ib - 0.1 pt
1.7 Ib - 1.3 qt
1.5 Ib - 1.0 qt
- -
0.2 Ib - 1.0 Ib
- -
- -
0.6 Ib
- -
47
-------
The data compares 1980 no-till treatments with treatments farmers used in the 1979 county
conventional hybrid test plots. Contact herbicides are also required in no-till and
Round-up or Paraquat are the common ones used. In all cases follow current label and
Extension guidelines when selecting materials and rates to use.
Herbicide Application
Use of the contact herbicides requires complete coverage of any growing plants. Coverage
depends on volume of carrier applied, nozzle spacing pressure and boom height. Follow
the following guides to get the job done right when using Paraquat:
1. Stay within the range of 25-50 Ibs. pressure.
2. Flat fan nozzles" at a 20 inch spacing with 30-40 gallon of carrier will
do the best job.
3. Small floods (less than TK 30) at a 40 inch spacing are acceptable in the
40-60 gallon of carrier range. Floods on a 60 inch spacing are acceptable
if complete overlap and 55-60 gallon of carrier is used.
4. Large flood nozzles and wide spacings (floater type set-up - 120" spacings)
do not do an acceptable job. This set-up should be used only with caution
and more than 70 gallon/ac. carrier.
5. When using floods turn them down and angle forward slightly! !
6. The more the green growth the higher the volume of carrier needed. Even
when growth is small the herbicide has to get down through the trash and
get already germinated small weeds. Don't omit Paraquat because you
"think" a field looks clean.
7. Always use non-ionic surfactant with Paraquat. Double the rate of
surfactant when 28% nitrogen is the carrier. Never use phosphate
fertilizer or dirty water as a carrier.
8. Measure spray pressure at the boom, not at the nozzle.
9. Time.spray as indicated in the following chart.
TABLE 28. SPRAY TIMING
Crop
Cover
When to Spray
Corn-Soybeans
Corn
Soybeans
Corn
Rye
Wheat, barley or oats
*Corn stalks
Permanent pasture,
perrenial sod
If broadleaf weed
problem
If grasses problem
Alfalfa
18-24" Tall
Before heading
At planting
At planting
Use 2-4D Ester
7-10 days prior to planting
and residual herbicide at
planting
Split Paraquat Application
2-4D and Banvel
7-10 days ahead of planting or
Paraquat and residual at
planting
48
-------
TABLE 29. NO-TILL HERBICIDE TREATMENTS
Farm
K. Miller
K. Miller
Rumbaugh
Winegardner
Hager
Hager
Mayer
Clum
Whetstone
Biery
Brooks
Davis
Cover
Oat
Stubble
Stalks
Bean
Stubble
Stalks
4th
year
Wheat
Stubble
Sorgum
Stubble
Wheat
Stubble
Stalks
Timothy
Wheat
Cover
Bean
Stubble/
Rye
Stalks
Rate
1.0 qt
3.0 Ib
1.5 Ib
0.5 pt
3.0 Ib
1.5 Ib
1.0 pt
1.5 Ib
2.5 pt
1.0 qt
2.0 Ib
2.25 pt
1.5 Ib
1.5 Ib
2.0 pt
1.0 qt
1.5 Ib
2.0 pt
2.5 Ib
1.5 Ib
1.0 Ib
3.0 pt
1.0 pt
4.0 Ib
3.0 qt
1.0 qt
2.25 Ib
3.25 qt
0.75 qt
2.8 Ib
0.25 pt
1.0 pt
1.0 pt
3.0 Ib
2.0 pt
0.88 qt
1.75 Ib
2.0 qt
0.5 pt
Material
Paraquat
Bladex
Pricep
Banvel
Bladex
Princep
Paraquat
Atrazine
Dual
Paraquat
Bladex
Dual
AAtrex
Princep
Dual
Paraquat
Princep
Dual
Bladex
AAtrex
Bladex
Dual
Paraquat
Bladex
Lasso
Paraquat
AAtrex
Lasso
Paraquat
AAtrex
Banvel
2,4-D
Paraquat
Bladex
Dual
Paraquat
AAtrex
Dual
Banvel
Cost
$26.23
$13.20
$20.73
$27.60
$26.80
$21.80
$20.65
$28.96
$28.45
$15.90
$23.78
$35.57
Control
Grass
Good
Exc
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Good
Broadleaf
Exc
Exc
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Good
Remarks/
Not Controlled
Minor
Foxtail
Foxtail,
Poor stand
of corn
Foxtail,
Poor stand
of corn
49
-------
TABLE 29. CONT. NO-TILL HERBICIDE TREATMENTS
Farm
Ernest
Ernest
Mayer
H. Pohlman
J. Miller
Brooks
Brooks
Lehman
Bowdle
Creeger
Begg
Begg
Begg
(Barnett
Farm)
Cover
Alfalfa
Rye &
Stalks
Stalks
6th
year
Wheat
Stubble
Alfalfa
Alfalfa
Stalks
Bean
Stubble
Bean
Stubble
Bean
Stubble
Alfalfa
Orchard-
grass
Stalks
2nd yr
NO-Till
Wheat
Stubble
Rate
2.0 pt
4.0 pt
2.0 pt
2.0 pt
3.6 pt
2.5 Ib
1.0 pt
4.0 Ib
3.0 qt
1.0 qt
2.85 Ib
1.5 Ib
1.0 qt
2.0 Ib
1.5 qt
1.5 pt
3.0 Ib
2.0 pt
1.0 pt
3.0 Ib
2.0 pt
1.0 pt
2.5 qt
0.5 pt
2.0 Ib
0.5 pt
1.0 pt
1.0 gal
1.0 pt
2.5 pt
2.5 Ib
1.0 qt
2.5 Ib
2.5 Ib
1.0 pt
1.0 gal
2.5 pt
5.0 Ib
1.5 qt
1.0 qt
Material
Paraquat
AAtrex
Lasso
Paraquat
AAtrex
Princep
Paraquat
AAtrex
Lasso
Paraquat
Bladex
Princep
Paraquat
AAtrex
Dual
Paraquat
Bladex
Dual
Paraquat
Bladex
Dual
Paraquat
Lasso
Banvel
Atrazine
2,4-D
Paraquat
Bicep
Paraquat
Dual
Atrazine
Paraquat
Atrazine
Princep
Paraquat
AAtrex
Dual
AAtrex
Prowl
Paraquat
Cost
$19.64
$23.04
$20.98
$23.53
$29.55
$26.46
$23.77
$22.46
$22.47
$22.63
$23.50
$27.38
$29.91
Control
Grass
Exc
Exc
Poor
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Good
Fair
Exc
Exc
Broadleaf
Good
Good
Good
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Good
Good
Exc
Good
Remarks/
Not Controlled
Dandelions
Early in
season
Minor
Panicum
Panicum and
Foxtail
(Hail Damage)
Orchardgrass
50
-------
Boom Height
Set the boom high enough that the spray pattern will meet over the top of the vegetation.
This will give uniform chemical application. Proper height will vary according to height
of the cover.
CONTROLLING INSECTS
Insect problems do not automatically increase with no-till. Experience has proven this.
In fact some kinds of problems have been shown to decrease. But specific insects may be
problems if not managed properly and armyworm and slug problems can increase. Specific
things to keep in mind are:
Soil Insecticides
Follow current Extension recommendations - that is use a rootworm control compound in corn
after corn. Banding is advised over furrow treatment for rootworm control. If heavy
growing cover is present Furadan is recommended as it also gives some help with suppressior
of armyworms. If no growing cover is present select from any of the rootworm compounds
currently recommended by Extension.
Insect Problems with Increased Potential
1. Armyworm Armyworm problems increase with green growing cover.
The worms can be controlled, but must be caught in
time.
2. Seed Corn Maggot, These can be controlled with use of a planter box
Wireworms & Seed treatment. They will be more of a problem in old
Corn Beetle sod.
3. Slugs Slugs are an infrequent problem. Presently no
control exists. Some experimental ones show
promise.
4. Other Insects The remaining insect problems are the same as
conventional tillage. Follow Extension recommendations .
POST-PLANTING SCOUTING
No-Till corn requires extra attention from the date of planting to lay-by. During
this period it is critical to catch problems as they develop. Specific items to watch for
include stand emergence,, weed control, cutworms, and armyworms. Poor stands can be
replanted, and escaped weeds treated with post-emergent herbicides. Also cutworms and
armyworms can be effectively controlled. In all cases however the success of control
depends on identifying and attacking the problem in time. Watch your no-till fields
closely and get in touch with specialists when a question or problem arises. Or better
yet, enroll in your county's pest management scounting service.
51
-------
FULL SEASON NO-TILL SOYBEANS
Recent experience has shown that no-till systems may be as well adapted to soybeans as to
corn. Soybeans are normally planted later when the soil is warmer and dryer and they do
not have some of the insect pests that corn does. When no-tilling soybeans, critical
management factors include row width, variety selection, and herbicide application.
Row Width
Full season no-till soybeans should be planted in 15 inch or narrower rows. The narrow
rows provided quicker ground cover and reduce weed pressures through shading of the soil.
This "help" given the herbicides is very important.
Variety Selection
A branching type soybean is recommended for no-till. Selection of a branching type
soybean variety is important, both to get the quick ground cover needed for weed control
and to help compensate in areas were stand may not be perfect. Also, any variety selected
must offer good phytophthyra root rot tolerance.
Herbicide Application
The herbicide application program for no-till soybeans should be tailored to the type of
weed problem. If a broadleaf problem exists it is recommended to apply 2-4D (ester
form)7-10 days prior to planting, and to apply paraquat and the residuals at planting.
If a grass problem exists it is recommended to apply h the Paraquat 4-5 days before
planting and the remainder with the residuals at planting.
Dual or Lasso with Sencor/Lexone are the most widely used combinations. Experience has
shown that no-till soybeans can tolerate slightly higher rates of Sencor/Lexone without
injury than can conventional soybeans, due to higher organic matter levels and residue
protection of the surface.
Other Factors
Volunteer corn has not been a serious problem in no-till. This is because any corn left
in the field is not "planted" as it is with other tillage systems. Standing corn stubble
has not caused any trouble harvesting either. The stalks have been rotten enough by
harvest that they "disentegrate" when the cutter bar hits them. Armyworms have not been
a problem in no-till soybeans as they have in corn. It is more important to get the
weeds the first time with soybeans. Clean-up or post-emergent herbicides are available,
but are more costly than in corn.
52
-------
CONSERVATION TILLAGE EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT
A number of minimum tillage systems have gained popularity in recent years. These
systems involve the use of discs and chisels as primary fall tillage tools. These
tools are sold under trade names such as "Glenco Soil-Saver," "Miller Offset Disc",
"Brillion Coulter-Chisel", and VJohn Deere Mulch Tiller", as well as many others. A
key to the increased popularity has been the development of machines that will work
well in corn and wheat stubble as well as soybean residue.
The above systems have been more consistent in maintaining yields during past test
plot observations because they present less management obstacles than does the no-
till system. They do require substantial changes in machinery investment. As
equipment wears out, progressive farmers are switching to these new systems. They
are also finding that they can cover more acres at a lower cost using the same
horsepower tractor. Table 30 lists OSU 1980 cost data for 3 primary tillage tools
sized to match a 140 horsepower tractor.
TABLE 30 TILLAGE TOOL DATA
Operating Acres Covered Operating
Tool Size Cost/Hour Per Hour Cost/Acre
Plow - 6-16's $38.01 3.49 $10.89
Chisel - 13' 29.57 5.67 5.22
Offset Disc - 12' 36.27 5.24 6.92
Note: Cost figures are 1980 Ohio State University Data
Tillage Tools are sized to match a 140 horsepower tractor
Management and use of these new tools involves the process of choosing the right
tool for the conditions of the field.
1. Fall operation of chisel plows and offset discs needs to be matched to soil
type, amount and type of surface residue, and soil moisture conditions. Soy-
bean stubble should not be tilled unless the tillage operation will leave the
surface rougher and at least partially covered with crop residue. an extra-
fine, loose, smooth, unprotected surface such as might be produced by an off-
set disc will erode easily. For this reason offset discs are only recommended
for fall use on fields with heavy cover such as cornstalks and wheat stubble.
2. The Soil-Saver will work best if you travel on an angle in the field and not in
the same direction that you have been plowing. You should operate the Soil-Saver
at a depth of 8 to 12 inches. This helps break up the plow sole and at the same
time mixes the crop residue through-out the top layer of soil and leaves enough
residue on the surface of the soil to help prevent erosion.
3. If you are going to use the Soil-Saver or Offset Disc in fields that are rolling
you should work across the field and not up and down the hills. By working
across the rolling ground you can reduce or slow down erosion by leaving a
ground surface that is rough and containing crop residue. This will slow down
water movement and allow the water to be absorbed in the soil and reduce runoff.
Bean stubble does not work up rough enough or with enough residue to reduce the
erosion hazard. The use of a Soil-Saver up and down the slope on bean stubble
can actually increase erosion problems by concentrating the water in the ridge.
53
-------
4. Cornstalks can be tough to cut in the fall, even with the heaviest offset disc.
Operators may need to "work with the weather" to get desired results. It may
be necessary to wait several days after harvest to allow the stalks to dry, to
work the fields with heaviest stalk cover during the afternoons when the stalks
are not so "tough", or to alter tillage plans. Frozen stalks also cut much
easier.
5. Wheat stubble with heavy clover crop can be expecially hard in early fall.
These fields will work deeper, rougher, and have more erosion resistance if
discing or "mulching" is delayed until the moisture level of the soil increases
later in the fall. The "mulch-tiller" works well in wheat stubble and leaves
an erosion resisting surface.
6. Spring seedbed preparation of disced and chiseled fields should be limited to
the minimum necessary for proper operation of the planter. Cornstalks and wheat
stubble will need to be disced again, preferably with a light tandem disc to
cut and mix the remaining crop residues into the soil surface. Generally field
cultivators and other equipment can be used after the initial spring discing.
7. Chiseled fields with little surface residue need only be leveled by a disc and
harrow or field cultivator so that the planter can function properly.
8. Heavy, deep-working equipment such as the offset disc and chisel should not be
used in the spring unless the soil is very dry. Discs can easily compact the
subsoil and deep chiseling may be working a subsoil that is too wet. Both
pieces of equipment leave a rough surface which can dry fast. Too often all
moisture is lost and the seed will not sprout until it rains.
9. Volunteer corn may be an increased problem since not all crop residues are
covered with soil. A field with heavy harvest losses can be worked early in
the spring allowing volunteer corn to sprout and then worked again at a later
date to destroy the volunteer corn. The use of Round-up herbicide in a wick-
type sprayer appears to be a promising and economical method to rescue problem
fields.
10. In conclusion, conservation tillage equipment needs to be matched to field con-
ditions to achieve maximum erosion benefits. One tool will not work best in
all field conditions.
54
------- |