United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service National Soil Dynamics Laboratory

Presented at the 2014 Southern Agricultural Cover Crops Workshop in Jonesboro, AR 72401 October 28-29, 2014

EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT FOR HIGH RESIDUE COVER CROPS

Ted S. Kornecki, Agricultural Engineer

Auburn, AlabamaGulf of Mexico

Location of the USDA-Agricultural Research Service, National Soil Dynamics Laboratory

Alabama soils: Ultisols, sandy soils - coastal plains; Alfisols, the fine-textured soils – PiedmontThese soils are highly weathered, low organic matter (less than 1%)

Presentation Outline

Conservation tillage information

Cover crops benefits

Roller/crimper technology background

Results from testing different rollers/crimpers

Other equipment development

Summary

Important factors in conservation tillage:

1. Minimizing soil disruption(non-inversion tillage), and

2. Maximizing soil coverage using cover crops

Conservation tillage: more than 30% of residue cover

Conservation Agriculture (CA)CA is defined as minimal soil disturbance (no-till) and permanent soil cover(mulch) combined with rotations, as a more sustainable cultivation systemfor the future (FAO).

COUNTRY CA area (ha) %U.S.A. 35,613,000 23.0Brazil 31,811,000 20.6Argentina 27,000,000 17.5Canada 18,313,000 11.8Australia 17,695,000 11.4

Rest of the World: 24,378,000 ha (15.7%). Total CA 154,810,000 100

84.3%

FAO, 2014

Cover crops are a vital part of conservation agriculture and they need to produce optimum biomass to provide most benefits.

Cover crops used in Alabama

Cereal Rye: 4000 to 9000 kg ha-1

Sunn Hemp: 5600 kg ha-1,Nitrogen production: 130 kg ha-1

Hairy Vetch: 4500 to 7800 kg ha-1,Nitrogen production: 100-220 kg ha-1

Crimson Clover: 3900 to 6200 kg ha-1,Nitrogen production: 170 kg ha-1

Trifolium incarnatum L.

Crotalaria junecea L.

Secale cereale L

Vicia villosa L

Benefits from cover crops

Reduced runoff Reduced evaporationIncreased water infiltrationIncreased available moisture

Improved soil quality and plant growth through:

Reduced soil erosion Reduced soil compactionIncreased soil organic C and N Reduced weed pressure (mulch)

Maintain soil sustainability and farm profitability

Better water utilization by plants due to:

Benefits from cover crops are lost through:• Incorporation (no soil protection and CO2 emission)• Mowing (regrowth and competition for resources)• Burning (toxic gases emission, hydrophobic surface)

Hair Pinning

Residue accumulation on planter

General poor stands or yield loss

Planting problems in High Residue Systems

Rollers/crimpers have been used to flatten and mechanically terminate cover crops in the same direction as cash crop planting.Rolling is important for tall cover crops, even if terminated with herbicides (but not rolled down) the residue will interfere with planters.

Rolling/crimping technology

Crimping action injures cover crop by crushing plant’s tissue against a firm soil surface.

Crimping bar

Termination and cover crop growth stageCover crops must be terminated at the appropriate growth stage.

In the Southern U.S. cover crops are terminated three weeks before planting a cash crop to exceed 90% termination rate and to eliminate competition for resources between cover and cash crop (Ashford and Reeves, 2003).

0

20

40

60

80

100R

ye T

erm

inat

ion

Rat

e (%

)

flag leaf anthesis early milk

Recommendedgrowth stage forrye termination(Ashford and Reeves, 2003)

Effectiveness of roller alone three weeks after rolling rye

Mechanicaltermination ata premature growth stage is ineffective.

Ashford, D. L., and D. W. Reeves. 2003. Use of a mechanical roller crimper as an alternative termination method for cover crop.American J. of Alternative Agric. 18(1): 37 45.

Examples of different roller designs

Original design: straight bar roller, which at higher speeds generated excessive

vibration.

Curved bars rollerSmooth roller with crimping arm; Kornecki, U.S. Patent #

7,604,067 B1

Two-section curved bars roller

Roller’s width = 1.8 m

Single-section Roller ExperimentThree roller designs were tested at 1.6 km/h, 3.2 km/h and 8.0 km/h operating speeds to evaluate speed and roller type effects on rye termination one, two and three weeks after rolling, and tractor vibrations

Straight bar roller Curved bar roller Smooth roller with crimper

Developed at the National Soil Dynamics Lab.

Cumulative termination rates

Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J., Raper, R.L. 2006. Performance of different roller designs in terminating cover crops. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 22(5):633-641

Tractor frame vibration

Extremely uncomfortable level (ISO, 1997)Tractor’s frame

Accelerometer

Kornecki, T.S., Price, A.J., Raper, R.L. 2006. Performance of different roller designs in terminating cover crops. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. 22(5):633-641

ON-OFFmicro-switch

Fastactingsolenoidvalve

How to effectively speed-up cover crop termination ?Cold and wet weather in spring can delay the rolling of cover

crop also could delay cash crop planting

Amounts of glyphosate (Roundup) used

Treatment

Roundupsolutionapplied(gal/ac)

% Roundup amount of continuous

spray

Ryetermination

after one week (%)

Continuousspray 14.9 100 100

Spray everyother crimp 4.3 29 98

Spray every 4th crimp 1.9 13 96

T. S. Kornecki, A. J. Price, R. L. Raper, J. S. Bergtold, 2009. Effectiveness of different herbicide applicators mounted on a roller/crimper for accelerated rye cover crop termination. Applied Engineering in Agriculture. Vol. 25(6): 819 826

Transplanting sweet potato into cereal rye residue cover

Roller/crimper for elevated beds

Two-row, three furrows One row, two furrows One row, two furrows

Kornecki, U.S. Patent #7,662,517 B1

Two-stage roller/crimper

Rear view Side View

Two-stage roller for Randle Farms in Auburn, Alabamaas a part of a CIG grant for multiyear on-farm experiment

Kornecki, 2011,U.S. Patent # 7, 987, 917 B1

2008 Results: Rye termination rates

Controlled herbicide discharge for two-stage roller/crimper

Rye and Crimson Clover termination by two-stage roller

Roundup Powermax—325mL/7.5gallons H2O(22 ounces/acre)

VINEGAR—20% No Dilution (15 gallons/acre)

WEED ZAP—Mix 64oz/per 10 gallons H2O

(96 ounces/acre)

Rolling Treatments:Two-stage roller/crimper onlyContinuous spray + rollerSpray every other crimp + rollerSpray every third crimp + roller

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110N

o ro

llR

olle

rC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

No

roll

Rol

ler

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

dN

o ro

llR

olle

rC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Week 1LSD = 4.49

Week 2LSD = 4.19

Week 3LSD = 2.81

Time after rolling

Term

inat

ion

Rat

e (%

)

e

ab

e

bcbcd d

c

b

aaa

cd

abab

d

dcd cdcdbc

abaab abccbccabcabcaa

cdd

2010 termination Rates for Rye

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

No

roll

Rol

ler

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

dN

o ro

llR

olle

rC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

No

roll

Rol

ler

Con

t2n

d3r

dC

ont

2nd

3rd

Con

t2n

d3r

d

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Roundup Vinegar Weed-Zap

Week 1LSD = 7.78

Week 2LSD = 5.60

Week 3LSD = 5.65

Time after rolling

Term

inat

ion

Rat

e (%

)

a

bcd

ef

cd

e

g

f

ed def

a

aaa

c

bcd

abc

f

ab

bbab

b abab

abb

ded

c

dede

ab

g

2010 termination rates for Crimson Clover

Amount of herbicides used

Treatment Herbicide

Herbicidesolutionapplied(L/ha)

% Herbicide amount of continuous

spray and cost

Continuous sprayRoundup 1.6

100$5.00

Vinegar 139.4 $270.00Weed Zap 7.0 $58.00

Spray every 2nd (every other) crimp

Roundup 1.169

$3.45Vinegar 96.2 $186.30

Weed Zap 4.8 $40.00

Spray every 3rd crimp

Roundup 0.958

$2.95Vinegar 80.8 $159.30

Weed Zap 4.0 $34.22

Video of rolling/crimping cover crops

Experiment evaluating rollers/crimpers for walk-behind tractors used on small farms

Two-stage roller/crimper: Kornecki, 2011U.S. Patent #7,987,917 B1 (USDA-NSDL)

Chevron type, curved bar roller from Earth Tools Inc. in Kentucky, USA

Powered roller/crimper, Kornecki 2012, U.S. Patent #8,176,991 B1 (USDA-NSDL)

Rolling Treatments:

• Compare termination effectiveness in terminating cereal rye by three different roller types

• Effect of rolling passes by each roller (from 1 to 3) on cereal rye termination

Rye termination rates for different roller types

For each week, different letters indicate significant differences between roller types and number of passes.

Rye terminated: April 23, 2013

2013(April 30)

(May 07)

(May 14)

Rainfall: 40 mm May 06, 2013

2013 2013

Video of rye termination by rollers/crimpers for walk-behind tractors

Different rolling patterns for rye with respect to cash crop planting direction

Not rolled

Diagonal (45o)

Parallel

Perpendicular

Other equipment development for no-till systems

Modified RJ one-row transplanter: Sub-frame with shank was added to alleviate soil compaction

Transplanting tomatoes into a heavy rye residue cover in Cullman, Alabama

Video of RJ transplanter with coulter and row cleaners

Custom Residue Manager

Cover Crop Residue Manager, Kornecki et. al., 2014, U.S. Patent # 8770,119 B1

Combining field operations experimentTwo dates for terminating rye and planting cotton: 10 days, and 20 days after rye reached early milk growth stage maturity.

Treatments: (1) rolling, spraying rye and planting cotton together (combined operations), (2) rolling rye and planting cotton together without glyphosate (combined operations), (3) rolling and spraying rye together and planting cotton separately, (4) rolling rye (without glyphosate) separately and planting cotton separately, (5) planting cotton without rolling rye (standing rye), (6) Control (rolling + herbicide together), and planting cotton 20 days after rolling.

b

Combining field operations: fuel savings

Fuel usage from combining operations: 9.7 L/hFuel usage from planting cotton separately: 9.3 L/hFuel usage from rolling rye separately: 7.5 L/h

Fuel savings from combining rolling and planting was7.1 L/h compared to total fuel usage (16.8 L/h) fromseparate operations.

Video of combining field operations experiment

New roller/crimper designs effectively terminate dense and tall cover crops without vibrations. Applicable for different tractor sizes/farm scales.

Roller for elevated beds can effectively terminate cover crops grown on elevated bed culture.

Compared to roller alone, termination process can be faster with continuous or reduced supplemental applications of Glyphosate herbicide.

Powered and the two-stage roller/crimper for walk behind tractors gives small farms effective solution to terminate cover crops using limited power source.

Rolling, planting, sub-soiling, transplanting are effective ways to combine operations. Use of cover crop residue managers is effective alternative to a rotary row cleaners.

Summary

Contact information: Ted S. Kornecki, Agricultural EngineerUnited States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service

National Soil Dynamics Laboratory411 South Donahue Drive, Auburn, Alabama 36832

E-mail: ted.kornecki@ars.usda.gov; phone: 1-334-887-8596, extension: 2745

Thank you Questions?Thank you Questions?