| Introduction | Results | Discussion and conclusion | Acknowledgements
Abstract
Direct seeding into high amounts of residue is a problem for most types of seeding equipment. Disk type openers hair pin residue and hoe type openers cause plugging or accumulations of residue. This results in decreased crop emergence and yields. Residue managers or wheels are designed to either push residue away from the opener or hold straw and chaff in place so the hoe or disc opener can better slice through it, allowing for proper seed and fertilizer placement. A study was conducted to determine the effect on emergence and yield of barley, canola, peas and wheat when using residue managers and wheels with a disk and hoe opener.
Overall the trend shows increased crop emergence with the use of residue managers and wheels. Crop emergence was higher at 14 of 18 crop sites when using residue managers and wheels. Crop yields were erratic and showed no specific trends. The study should be continued to further investigate the effect of residue managers and wheels on crop emergence and yield. Sites with higher residue levels should be used in the future.
Introduction
Direct seeding into high amounts of residue is a problem for most types of seeding equipment. Disk type openers hair pin residue and hoe type openers cause plugging or accumulations of residue. This results in decreased crop emergence and yields. Residue managers or wheels are designed to either push residue away from the opener or hold straw and chaff in place so the hoe or disc opener can better slice through it, allowing for proper seed and fertilizer placement. Residue managers are commonly used in the United States to clear residue for precision planters seeding high value crops. Manufacturers recently have developed residue managers more suited to cereal and oilseed seeding equipment. The price of managers has been reduced over the years. The systems are also narrower so they can be used with narrow row spacings. Residue wheels are new and in the prototype stage. The USDA (Siemens, Wilkins and Correa) have developed a residue management wheel for hoe-type no-till drills. A study was conducted to determine the effect on emergence and yield of barley, canola, peas and wheat when using residue managers and wheels with a disk and hoe opener. The project also demonstrated the use of residue managers and wheels.
Materials and methods
Three sites were used for the study in 2003. Table 1 summarizes the study sites and operations. All sites were direct seeded and sprayed with glyphosate prior to seeding. Granular chemical was also used at the Lethbridge canola site prior to seeding.
Table 1. Summary of project sites and operations.
Site | Crop | Variety | Seeding Date | Plant Count Date | Harvest Date |
| Lethbridge | Peas | Espace | 21-May-03 | 16-Jun-03 | 24-Sep-03 |
| Lethbridge | Wheat | AC Barrie | 21-May-03 | 16-Jun-03 | 15-Sep-03 |
| Lethbridge | Canola | LG 3455 | 21-May-03 | 16-Jun-03 | 15-Sep-03 |
| Lacombe | Barley | AC Lacombe | 27-May-03 | 24-Jun-03 | 29-Sep-03 |
| Lacombe | Canola | LG 3455 | 27-May-03 | 24-Jun-03 | 29-Sep-03 |
| CACDI Farm | Peas | Yellow Field | 20-21 May 2003 | 24-Jun-03 | 30-Sep-03 |
.
The study was divided into two parts. Each part of the study was set up as a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots were 2.4 x 15.2 m (8 x 50 ft). A 12.2 m (40 ft) strip was used between the ends of replication blocks. Border effects were controlled through winter crops on the sides of each plot. The AgTech Centre plot seeder was used to seed the plots. Travel speed in the plots was 6.4 km/h (4 mph). The treatments in the two parts of the study are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Treatments used in study.
Part 1 | Prototype Residue Wheel from Mark Siemens (USDA) with Flexi-coil Stealth opener |
| Flexi-coil Stealth Opener (hoe check) |
| |
Part 2 | Yetter Narrow row Single Wheel Residue Manager with Barton Double Shoot Disk Opener |
| K-Hart Residue Wheel with Barton Double Shoot Disk Opener |
| Barton Double Shoot Disk Opener (disk check) |
.
Phosphate in the form of 11-52-0 was placed with the barley, canola and wheat and banded with the peas. Nitrogen in the form of urea (46-0-0) was banded with barley, canola and wheat. The rates of the various materials are listed in Table 3. Plot yields were obtained with a self-propelled plot harvester. One plant count was taken for each row of every plot.
Table 3. Material application rates.
Site | Crop | Seed Rate | Phosphate Rate
Actual P | Nitrogen Rate
Actual N |
kg/ha | lb/ac | kg/ha | lb/ac | kg/ha | lb/ac |
| Lethbridge | Peas | 134.0 | 120 | 34 | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| Lethbridge | Wheat | 101.0 | 90 | 34 | 30 | 90 | 80 |
| Lethbridge | Canola | 6.7 | 6 | 34 | 30 | 90 | 80 |
| Lacombe | Barley | 101.0 | 90 | 34 | 30 | 90 | 80 |
| Lacombe | Canola | 6.7 | 6 | 34 | 30 | 90 | 80 |
| CACDI Farm | Peas | 240.0 | 214 | 34 | 30 | 0 | 0 |
.
Figure 1 through 3 show the various residue managers and wheels used in the project.
Figure 1. K-Hart
Figure 2. Siemens
Figure 3. Yetter
Results
The residue managers and wheels assisted the flow of residue through the seeder while seeding the plots. No plugging occurred with the seeder while seeding.
An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the results. Crop mean plant counts for part one is presented in Table 4. Differences in crop emergence were not significantly different between the hoe check and Siemens prototype residue wheel except at the ATC canola site where the emergence of canola was significantly higher with the Siemens prototype residue wheel. Crop emergence was higher with the Siemens Prototype Residue Wheel at 5 of the 6 crop sites.
Table 4: Part One Crop Emergence.
Site | Hoe Check | Siemens Prototype Residue Wheel |
Plants/m2 | Plants/ft2 | Plants/m2 | Plants/ft2 |
| ATC Peas | 53 | 4.9 | 54 | 5.0 |
| ATC Wheat | 254 | 23.6 | 280 | 26.0 |
| ATC Canola | b 43 | b 4.0 | a 68 | a 6.3 |
| CACDI Peas | 92 | 8.6 | 85 | 7.9 |
| Lacombe Barley | 148 | 13.8 | 150 | 13.9 |
| Lacombe Canola | 77 | 7.2 | 83 | 7.7 |
.
Crop mean plant counts for part two is presented in Table 5. Differences in crop emergence were not significantly different between the disk check and the Yetter and K-Hart residue managers. Crop emergence was higher with the K-Hart residue manager at all six sites and with the Yetter residue manager at 3 of 6 sites.
Table 5: Part Two Crop Emergence.
Site | Disk Check | K-Hart | Yetter |
Plants/m2 | Plants/ft2 | Plants/m2 | Plants/ft2 | Plants/m2 | Plants/ft2 |
| ATC Peas | 39 | 3.6 | 40 | 3.7 | 40 | 3.7 |
| ATC Wheat | 222 | 20.6 | 230 | 21.4 | 199 | 18.5 |
| ATC Canola | 68 | 6.3 | 70 | 6.5 | 69 | 6.4 |
| CACDI Peas | 74 | 6.9 | 80 | 7.4 | 75 | 7.0 |
| Lacombe Barley | 150 | 13.9 | 155 | 14.4 | 140 | 13.0 |
| Lacombe Canola | 87 | 8.1 | 93 | 8.6 | 83 | 7.7 |
.
Crop mean yields for part one are presented in Table 6. Differences in crop yield were not significantly different between the hoe check and Siemens prototype residue wheel. Crop yield was higher with the Siemens Prototype Residue Wheel at 4 of the 6 crop sites.
Table 6: Part One Crop Yield.
Site | Hoe Check | Siemens Prototype Residue Wheel |
tonne/ha | lb/ac | tonne/ha | lb/ac |
| ATC Peas | 3.0 | 2678 | 2.8 | 2499 |
| ATC Wheat | 3.7 | 3302 | 3.8 | 3392 |
| ATC Canola | 1.8 | 1607 | 2.0 | 1785 |
| CACDI Peas | 2.0 | 1785 | 2.3 | 2053 |
| Lacombe Barley | 4.6 | 4106 | 4.4 | 3927 |
| Lacombe Canola | 1.0 | 893 | 1.1 | 982 |
.
Crop mean yields for part two is presented in Table 7. Differences in crop yield were not significantly different between the disk check, the Yetter and K-Hart residue managers except at the Lacombe canola site where use of the Yetter residue manager yielded significantly higher than the K-Hart residue manager and the Disk check. Crop yield was higher with the K-Hart residue manager at 2 of 6 crop sites. Crop yield was higher with the Yetter residue manager at 3 of 6 crop sites.
Table 7: Part Two Crop Yield.
Site | Disk Check | K-Hart | Yetter |
tonne/ha | lb/ac | tonne/ha | lb/ac | tonne/ha | lb/ac |
| ATC Peas | 2.1 | 1874 | 2.2 | 1964 | 2.3 | 2053 |
| ATC Wheat | 3.6 | 3213 | 3.0 | 2678 | 2.9 | 2588 |
| ATC Canola | 2.1 | 1874 | 1.8 | 1607 | 2.1 | 1874 |
| CACDI Peas | 2.0 | 1785 | 2.0 | 1785 | 2.7 | 2410 |
| Lacombe Barley | 4.2 | 3749 | 4.8 | 4284 | 4.6 | 4106 |
| Lacombe Canola | a 1.3 | a 1160 | b 1.1 | b 982 | a 1.3 | a 1160 |
.
Discussion and Conclusion
Plant emergence was increased at 5 of the 6 crop sites with the Siemens prototype residue wheel, at 3 of 6 sites with the Yetter manager and at all six sites with the K-Hart manager. The only significant difference in crop emergence was with the Siemens prototype residue wheel seeding canola at the AgTech farm. Crop yields were erratic and showed no specific trends. Crop yields were increased at 4 of the 6 crop sites with the prototype residue wheel, at 3 of 6 sites with the Yetter manager and at 2 of 6 sites with the K-Hart manager. The only significant difference in crop yield was seeding canola at Lacombe where the yield with the K-Hart was significantly lower than the disk check and the Yetter residue manager.
Overall the trend shows increased crop emergence with the use of residue managers and wheels. The study should be continued to further investigate the effect of residue managers and wheels on crop emergence and yield. Sites with higher residue levels should be used in the future.
Acknowledgements
The Agricultural Technology Centre thanks the Alberta Reduced Tillage Linkages for funding the project and the CACDI farm for hosting a site for the study. The Centre would also like to thank K-Hart Industries and Siemens, Wilkins and Correa of the USDA for supplying equipment for the project.
References:
Siemens, M.C., Wilkins, D.E., Correa, R.F. 2004. Development and Evaluation of a Residue Management Wheel for Hoe-Type No-Till Drills. Transactions of the ASAE.
Vol.47(2):397-404 |