METHODS OF SEEDING CEREAL CROPS

ON STUBBLE LAND IN MANITOBA

AND SASKATCHEWAN

R. D. DrydenResearch Station

Research Branch, Canada AgricultureMelfort, Saskatchewan

byK. E. Bowren

Research Station

Research Branch, Canada AgricultureBrandon, Manitoba

INTRODUCTION

In the more humid regions of theprairies, increased use of intensivecropping systems with less summer-fallow has shown the need for evaluating methods of seeding cereal cropson stubble land. An acceptablemethod of seeding should protect thesoil, conserve moisture, provide weedcontrol and effect good seed placement. The importance of maintaininga trash cover to prevent soil erosionhas long been recognized. However,this often interferes with the placement of seed into firm moist soil andfrequently farmers plow or burn theirfields to remove this obstacle. Theconservation of soil moisture in thespring is also necessary to ensure adequate germination and emergence ofthe crop. Weeds, a major problem onmost farm fields, use moisture unlessremoved by tillage or herbicide applications.

In the drier regions of the brownand dark-brown soil zones the discer-seeder gave good yields of wheat andcontrol of weeds. In Alberta, Anderson and Smith (1) found the discer-seeder was satisfactory when the trashcover varied from 1,500 to 4,000 lb/A(representing residues from wheatcrops varying from 15 to 40 bu/A).Also, at Swift Current (5, 7), goodresults were obtained with the discer-seeder when the importance of correct adjustment for depth of seedingwas emphasized. There was no advantage in using disc and hoe drillswhich required an additional culturaltreatment before seeding. Yields withthe wide-blade cultivator-seeder werelower than those from other methods

(i).On summerfallow in the black soil

zone of Manitoba and Saskatchewan,the discer-seeder gave good resultsparticularly on clay loam and siltyclay soils (2).

The experiments reported herewere conducted at Melfort and Bran

74

don Research Stations to determinethe effect on crops and soils of anumber of methods of seeding wheat,barley and oats on stubble land underdifferent soil and straw conditions.The treatments were evaluated oncereal crops in terms of their effecton yield, protein content and weightper bushel. In addition, the treatmenteffects on erosion factors such as soilaggregation and trash cover were determined.

Seeding Treatments

Pre - planting treatments includedthe disc and cultivator which maintain trash cover and the plow whichburies all crop residue. The discer-seeder and the heavy-duty cultivator-seeder represented combined tillageand seeding while other methods re

quired two separate operations. Thecultivator-seeder was equipped with16 - inch shovels, spaced 12 inchesapart. Seed attachments on theshovels gave a row spacing of 7inches.

METHODS

Methods of planting, including tillage and seeding machines (table 1),were compared with and withoutfertilizer. The experiments were conducted in a randomized split-plot design with methods as main plots andfertilizer versus no fertilizer as sub-treatments. The treatments were re

plicated four times in plots 12 x 120feet at Melfort and 10 x 20 feet atBrandon.

Seeders were calibrated to seed 1.5bushels of wheat and barley and 2.0

TABLE 1. METHODS OF SEEDING (TILLAGE AND SEEDING MACHINES)COMPARED AT BRANDON, MANITOBA, AND MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN.

Pre-seeding tillage Seeding machineRow

spacinginches

Post-seedingtillage

Brandon, Manitoba

1. Moldboard plow Single discpress drill 7 None

2, Cultivator and Single discharrow press drill 7 None

3. Cultivator and Hoe press drill 7 None

harrow

4, Cultivator and Double disc drill 6 Pack

harrow5, None6. None

Discer-seeder 7 PackCultivator-seeder 7 Pack

Melfort• Saskatchewan

!• Moldboard plow, Double discharrow and pack press drill 6 Harrow

2. Cultivator and Double disc

harrow press drill 6 Harrow

3« Cultivator and Hoe press drill 7 Harrow

harrow

4, Cultivator and Double disc drill 7 Pack and

harrow harrow

5* None Discer-seeder 7 Pack

7. Discer and harrow Double disc

press drill 6 Harrow

Note: Harrows - Spike tooth drag harrows and spike tooth oscillatingharrows were used at Brandon and Melfort, respectively.

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 11, No. 2, NOVEMBER 1969

bushels of oats per acre. Fertilizedplots received 80 pounds of 23-23-0and 70 pounds of 27-14-0 per acrewith the seed at Melfort and Brandon, respectively. At Brandon, an area3 feet by 10 feet in the centre of eachplot was harvested with a mower,while at Melfort a swath 10 x 100 feetwas obtained with a swather andcombine. These harvested samplesprovided yield and grain data forevaluation of the treatments.

The rotary sieve method (3, 4) wasused to determine the percentage ofsurface soil aggregates less than 0.84mm in size. This fraction is the mostsusceptible to erosion. Soil aggregation was measured before and afterseeding. Crop residue was determinedafter harvest in the fall and afterseeding in the spring. Long straw wasadded to the plots at Brandon to buildup the residue to 3250 lb/A. At Melfort, treatments were based on 2065lb/A of stubble and chopped combinestraw from the harvested crop.

At Brandon, Selkirk wheat wasgrown from 1960 to 1965 on two soils(Miniota sandy loam and Assiniboineclay loam). At Melfort, on Melfortsilty clay soil, Selkirk wheat and Parkland barley were grown from 1960 to1967 and Rodney oats were includedfrom 1965 to 1967. Annual grassweeds such as wild oats and greenfoxtail were not a problem in theseexperiments. Broadleaved weeds inthe crop were sprayed with MCPA or2,4-D. i.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Yields of Wheat, Oats and Barley 2.On clay loam and silty clay soils

once-over seeding with the discer-seeder and packer gave yields equalor superior to those from all othermethods. On sandy loam soils discerseeding did not equal seeding on aplowed seedbed (tables 2, 3).

The double disc drill and packerafter cultivating gave the lowest yieldat Melfort and only fair returns atBrandon. Results were better whenthis drill was equipped with a pressattachment. As reported earlier, difficulty in obtaining good seed placement in moist soil, particidarlythrough trash cover of more than2,000 lb/A, was encountered with thismethod (1).

The other combined tillage andseeding machine, the cultivator-seeder and packer, gave the poorest re-

TABLE 2. THE EFFECT OF METHOD OF SEEDING ON YIELDS OF WHEATAT BRANDON, MANITOBA.

Yield bu/A

Pre-seeding tillageand seeding machines

1. Plow and single discpress drill

Sandy loam soilI960, 1962-1965

24.4 a

2. Cultivator, harrowand single disc pressdrill 20.3 b

3. Cultivator, harrowand hoe press drill 19.3 be

4. Cultivator, harrow,double disc drilland packer 19.8 b

5. Discer-seeder andpacker 20,9 b

6. Cultivator-seederand packer 17.5 c

Meain (treatments x years)

Fertilized 23.3 a

Unfertilized 17.5 b

Clay loam soil1960-1965

29.1 ab

27.8 be

26.9 bed

26.0 cd

30.4 a

25.1 d

29.1 a

26.0 b

Note: Means followed by the same letter are not significantlydifferent at the % level of probability.

TABLE 3. THE EFFECT OF METHOD OF SEEDING ON YIELDS OF WHEAT,BARLEY AND OATS AT MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN.

Yield bu/A

Pre-seeding tillageand seeding machines

Silty clay loam soilwheat Barley Oats

1960-1967 1960-1967 1965-1967

3.

4.

5.

7.

Plow, harrow, packer,double disc press drilland harrow 28.7 ab 37.3 ab 93.0 a

Cultivator, harrow,double disc pressdrill and harrow 30.0 a 39.6 a 93.8 a

Cultivator, harrow,hoe press drill andharrow 29.5 ab 41.2 a 95.9 a

Cultivator, harrow,double disc drill,packer and harrow 27.2 b 34.0 b 84.8 b

Discer-seeder and packer 30.6 a 39.1 a 97.6 a

Discer, harrow,double disc press drilland harrow 30.8 a 37.5 ab 95.3 a

Mean (treatments x years)

Fertilized 30.1 a 39.4 a 94.5 a

Unfertilized 28.8 b 36.8 b 92.3 b

Note: Means followed by the same letter are not significantlydifferent at the % level of probability.

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 11, No. 2, NOVEMBER 1969 75

suits on both soils at Brandon. Standsof wheat lacked uniformity, probablybecause of poor depth control withthis implement.

On sandy loam soil, the press drillafter plowing gave higher yields ofwheat than the discer-seeder or thecultivator and disc press drill. Burying the trash by plowing may havepermitted better packing of the soilafter seeding. However, the differences between the plow and discerand plow and cultivator methodswere less on fertilized (2.0 and 3.3bu/A) than on unfertilized plots (5.1and 5.0 bu/A).

Fertilizer significantly increasedyields of wheat, barley and oats(tables 2, 3). Fertilizer responseswere above average on sandy loamand clay loam soils when the discer-seeder was used but were below average with the double disc drill.

The discer-seeder required carefuladjustment to obtain a satisfactorydepth of seeding. Modifications in design of equipment to improve theplacement of seed would be beneficial.

Bushel Weight and Percent ProteinBushel weight and percent protein

measurements on wheat were similarunder the different methods of seeding. Fertilizer increased the weightper bushel slightly. Although therewere some significant effects on barley and oats, these differences werenot large.

Trash Cover and Soil Aggregation

The plow press drill significantlyreduced trash cover (table 4). This isimportant on the sandy loam soilwhere protection from erosion is usually needed. Other methods retainedadequate trash cover (6). While theplow caused a serious depletion ofcrop residue, a significant reductionin erodible soil also occurred (table5.) However, on the sandy soil therestill remained a relatively high(63.4%) fraction of soil particlessusceptible to erosion. In this experiment, the discer-seeder and cultivator-seeder also improved soil structure,significantly. Effects of the differentimplements on aggregation were similar to those presented in other reports (2, 6, 8).

76

TABLE 4. THE EFFECT OF METHOD OF SEEDING ON TRASH COVER ATBRANDON, MANITOBA AND MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN.

Crop residue cwt/A (1)

-seeding tillageseeding machines

Bra idon MelfortPre

andSandy loam

soil

1962-1965

Clay loamsoil

1962-1965

Silty clayloam soil1960-1965

1. Plow and discpress drill (2) 0.68 c 2.06 c 2.30 c

2. Cultivator, harrowand disc press drill (2) 13.72 ab 10.04 b 7.43 ab

3. Cultivator, harrowand hoe press drill 12.66 b 11.31 ab 6.92 b

4. Cultivator, harrow,double disc drilland packer 13.55 ab 12.48 ab 8.16 a

5. Discer-seeder andpacker 12.42 b 11.22 ab 8.09 a

6. Cultivator-seederand packer 14.66 a 13.06 a -

7. Discer, harrow anddouble disc pressdrill and harrow 6.62 b

Mean (before seeding)(3) 32.50 32.50 20.65

Not e: (1) Crop residue after seeding.(2) Single disc press drill at Brandon, double disc press

drill at Melfortj (for further details of methods seetable 1).

(3) Crop residue after harvest in the fall, before springseeding,

(4) Means followed by the same letter are not significantlydifferent at the 5% level of probability.

CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

On stubble land the discer-seederand packer gave good yields of wheat,oats and barley on medium and heavytextured soils. There were no significant advantages in using othermethods which required two machines and two field operations fortillage and seeding, rather than onewith this implement.

On sandy loam soil, the plow andsingle disc press drill produced morewheat than the discer-seeder. However, fertilizer reduced this difference,so that the discer-seeder with fertilizer would be the preferred methodwhen economy of operation, conservation of trash cover and control oferosion are considered.

An above average response fromfertilizer was obtained with thediscer-seeder. Trash cover, soil aggregation, bushel weight and percentprotein results were satisfactory.Changes in design of the machine forbetter placement of seed and packingof soil should further improve the results obtained with this method.

1. Anderson, D. T. and A. D. Smith,1966. Seeding mechanisms for trashcover farming. Can. Agr. Eng.8:33-36.

2. Bowren, K. E. and R. D. Dryden,1967. Methods of seeding springwheat on summerfallow in theblack soil area of Manitoba andSaskatchewan. Can. Agr. Eng.9:101-103.

3. Chepil, W. S. and F. Bisal, 1943. Arotary sieve method for determining the size distribution of soilclods. Soil Sci. 56:95-100.

4. Chepil, W. S. 1952. Improvedrotary sieve for measuring stateand stability of dry soil structure.Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 16:113-117.

5. Research Report 1959-1960. Can.Dept. of Agr. Dominion Experimental Farm, Swift Current, Saskatchewan.

6. Siddoway, F. H. 1963. Effects ofcropping and tillage methods on

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 11, No. 2, NOVEMBER 1969

TABLE 5. THE EFFECT OF METHOD OF SEEDING ON SOIL AGGREGATIONAT BRANDON, MANITOBA AND MELFORT, SASKATCHEWAN.

Percent of surface soil less than 0,84 mm in size (1)

Brandon Melfort

Pre-seeding tillageand seeding machines

Sandy loamsoil

1963, 1965

Clay loamsoil

1961,1963-1965

Silty clayloam soil

1960-1967

1. Plow and discpress drill (2) 63.4 c 23.5 b 27.0 c

2. Cultivator, harrowand disc pressdrill (2) 73.4 a 30.4 a 40.7 ab

3, Cultivator, harrowand hoe press drill 71.2 a 34.2 a 40.5 ab

4, Cultivator, harrow,double disc drilland packer 75.0 a 30.5 a 39.3 b

5« Discer-seeder andpacker 65.6 be 29,5 a 43.1 a

6, Cultivator-seederand packer 68.2 b 31.0 a _

7« Discer, harrow,double disc pressdrill and harrow - -

41.5 ab

Mean (before seeding) (1) 71.0 47.9 30.0

Note: (1)

(2)

(3)

Soil fraction most susceptible to erosion by wind(before and after seeding).Single disc press drill at Brandon, double discpress drill at Melfort; (for further details ofmethods see table 1).Means followed by the same letter are not significantlydifferent at the 5% level of probability.

dry aggregate soil structure. SoilSci. Soc. of Amer. Proc. 27:452-454.

7. Thompson, J. L. and J. G. Kemp,1958. Analyzing disk cuts graphically. Agr. Eng. 39:285-287.

8. Wenhardt, A. 1962. Surface clodproduction characteristics of sometillage machines on a clay loamsoil. Can. Agr. Eng. 4:33-36.

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING INcontinued from page 49ability of experienced staff. Sometraining centres operate in rural areasbut these serve only a small part ofthe population. Several special training projects by non - governmentorganizations have met with goodsuccess, partly because of flexibilityin programming to suit particularneeds, not being restricted by established wage and salary scales, andthe motivation of private initiative.The private sector can and does provide an effective medium for initiating many development and extension

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The assistance of Mr. A. L. Laglerand Mr. Harold Moen, ComputerSystems Programmers, Research Stations, Lethbridge, Alberta, and SwiftCurrent, Saskatchewan, for analyzingthe data for this report is hereby acknowledged.

type programs by circumventing thecomplications introduced by operating through government agencies.

Elements of agricultural engineering have only recently come to beappreciated as part of the agriculturalproduction input, along with soil andplant science. The influence of engineering must be included in programsof the major institutions servicingagriculture. This will come aboutgradually as the formal scientificgroups extend their interests to thebroader aspects of agricultural enterprises. The private sector includingmachinery and equipment manufacturers, product processors and service

CANADIAN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING, VOL. 11, No. 2, NOVEMBER 1969

industries will probably provide thebroadest medium for introducingengineering principles to improve agrowing agricultural industry.

The magnitude of inputs for theagricultural revolution that must takeplace in India seems to dwarf anyeffect a Canadian contribution inagricultural engineering might have.There is, however, a substantial number of well educated engineers inIndia who, with a reasonable amountof guidance in applied technology,can provide leadership in this field.The major problem is one of changing philosophies and breaking traditions, both of which may be resistedby political expediency.

In general these engineers have nothad the opportunity to experience thewestern concept of engineering inagriculture. This they might acquirefrom Canadian specialists on assignments or by a term of conscientiousstudy and experience in Canadian institutions and in agricultural operations.

A few Canadian engineers in influential positions in universities,training programs and developmentprojects can do a great deal to motivate change. Those nationals whohave the opportunity to spend sometime in Canada or U.S.A. can assimil-at new ideas which can be modifiedto fit their home situation. Theirgreatest contribution, and probablythat of Canadians working in India,will be in introducing systematicmanagement into present and proposed programs, encouraging theprinciple of demonstrating recommended practices and placing greateremphasis on delegation of responsibility and authority to those who areimplementing new programs.

The progress of Indian agriculturerequires the combined efforts of allelements of scientific agriculture.Agricultural engineering is an essential ingredient which must be tn-cluded in any development program.At present its significance may not beconsidered of major consequence, butwith continued practical applicationof engineering principles wherever anopportunity presents itself the benefits v^ill receive increased recognition.One of the major contributions here,as in many other countries, will bethe capability of agricultural engineers to bring other disciplines together in a joint effort to solve thecomplex problems associated withcommercial agriculture.

77