Dyck, F.B.

Tessier, S.

Zentner, R.P.

English

eCommons@USASK

A comparison of seeding equipment for wheat production in southwest Saskatchewan

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive

A COMPARISON OF SEEDING EQUIPMENT FOR WHEAT PRODUCTION IN SOUTHWEST SASKATCHEWAN F.B. Dyck, S. Tessier and R.P. Zentner Agriculture Canada, Research Station, Swift Current, Saskatchewan. S9H 3X2 A 6-year study was conducted to compare the airseeder, the discer, both followed by a harrow packer, with a hoe drill with preseeding tillage for fallow and stubble seedbeds in the Brown soil zone of southwest Saskatchewan. The discer and the hoe drill are consistently good performers, while the airseeder yields are somewhat lower, but reasonable. The airseeder and the discer offer lower cost seeding than the hoe drill for the minimum till farmer. The airseeder, when the cultivator is used for other tillage opera-tions, offers the lowest equipment investment for a straight grain operation. INTRODUCTION Three of the most common pieces of seeding equipment for cereal grains are the discer, the airseeder and the hoe press drill. The popularity of discers is declining, except in areas of heavy clay soils, while the populari-ty of the hoe drill and of airseeders is increasing. This is probably due to the dead furrows and ridges left in the field by discers. On the other hand, airseeders are readily transported from field to field, clear heavy trash in stubble seeding, and have the convenience of central hopper filling of seed and fertilizer and provide greater utilization of the cultivator, a common farm machine. This may provide an opportunity to minimize equipment invest-ment somewhat. The main attraction of the hoe press drill is the capability of precise seed placement and adequate packing in the seed zone. Many producers have enquired as to which machine to purchase. Two of the machines had been tested previously (Anderson 1969, 1975), but no data was available for the airseeder. To help answer this question an experiment was set up at the Swift Current Research Station to compare these machines for seeding wheat in both fallow and stubble seedbeds. Experimental Procedure A randomized plot design of 3 treatments and 4 replicates was used for the experiment. Fertilizer was applied in accordance with soil test recom-mendations in the form of 11-51-0 and 34-0-0, both of which were broadcast, except for 1986 and 1987 the 11-51-0 was placed with the seed. Treatments (fallow and stubble): 1. Hoe press drill with preseeding tillage by a heavy duty cultivator. 2. Discer, direct seeded with harrow packer after seeding. 3. Airseeder with sweeps and mounted harrows, direct seeded with harrow packer after seeding. The fallow plots were seeded on conventional tilled fallow with the exception of 1986 when the plots were on chemical fallow. The plot size was 145 15 by 30 m for 1982-85 and 9 by 15 m for 1986 and 1987. Herbicides were applied as necessary for weed control. The machines were calibrated to oper-ate at a seed rate of 67 kg/ha using Leader hard red spring wheat. For the years 1982-1984 the plots were located on the Research Station south farm, which has very level topography. For 1986 and 1987 the plots were on City property directly south of the Research Station building site which is slight-ly rolling and not as uniform. However, plot sites were selected to provide good operating conditions for all three machines. Plant counts were taken after emergence was complete and depth of seeding was determined by measuring the length of the subcoronal internodes. OBSERVATIONS AND RESULTS A cost analysis of the various treatments is shown in Tables 1 and 2. When 75% of the cultivator fixed cost are attributed to other tillage opera-tions on the farm the costs for treatment one are the lowest. Treatment two is only slightly higher. If a post-seeding operation of just harrowing was practiced in place of harrow packing, the costs would be very similar to treatment one. This is a very common procedure for many producers. Table 1. Summary of economic assumptions Implement Hoe Press Drill Discer/w packers Airseeder/w harrows Heavy Duty Cultivator/ w harrows Harrow packer Replace-ment Cost ($) 38120 22500 27800* 17000 14400 15300 Fixed Cost Variable Implement Tractor Cost Total Cost ----------- ($/ha) --------6. 35 3.08 8.43 17.75 3. 75 3.08 8.43 15.25 2e83 3.08 7. 85 13.75 2.40 3.08 4.52 10.00 0.08 1.13 2.39 3.60 $/ac 7.25 6.20 5.60 4.00 1.45 + Replacement costs are for 9 m equipment, except for the harrow packer which is 18 m. * Only 25% of the cultivator cost is attributed to the seeding operation. Table 2. Treatment costs Total cost Treatment $/ha $/ac 1. Airseeder + HP 17.35 7.00 2. Discer + packers + HP 18.85 7.60 3. Hoe press + preseeding till 27.75 11.25 146 Costs for treatment three are significantly higher and are not warranted by yields (Tables 3 and 4) obtained in this test under our conditions. Per-formance for the hoe drill may show better on rolling fields with side hills and gullies which result in varying depth of seed placement for many air-seeders and discers. The hoe drill has the capability of being used for zero till seeding of winter wheat and other crops, which may make it attractive to many producers. Table 3. Seeding implement test on fallow Year Treatment 1982 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded June 6 1983 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 18 1984 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 15 1985 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 7 1986 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded April 24 1987 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded April 30 1982- Airseeder 1987 Discer Hoe drill Seed Plants/ depth sq m (em) 124.9a 135.0a 132.1a 123. 2b 78.4a 97.3ab 63.6a 81.4a 210.8b 172.0ab 194.3bc 199.3c 189.8a 189.0a 192.3a 1.34.7a 135.6a 166.4b 7.3b 5.0a 3.9a 7.5b 6.5a 6. 2a 4.9a 4.0a 4.0a 5.6b 5.8b 3.8a 5.3b 5.9ab 6.7a 5.9a 5.4b. 4.9c Stnd dev of seed depth 1.30c 1.12b .88a 1.46a 1.47a 1.lla 1.07a 1. 21a .93a 1.17a 1. 07a 1.23a 1.09a 1.08a 1.28a 1.22a 1. 19a 1.09b 45 kg/ha of 11-51-0 was applied on all treatments. Yield kg/ha bu/acre 2617.50 2692.50 2679.31 2674.17 2600.83 2263.79 1435.83 1399.17 1573.22 1236.67 1222.08 1264.28 2456.70 3009.10 2581.10 2682.50 2878.30 3032.30 2183.96 2300.30 2232.90 38.91a 40. 04a 39.83a 39. 77a 38.67a 33.67a 21.35a 20.84a 23.38a 18.80a 18.12a 18.45a 36.50b 44.70a 38.40ab 39.90b 42.80ab 45.00a 32.40c 34.20a 33.10b Note: plants/sq m, mean seed depth, standard deviation mean from 1983-1987. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (5% significance level). 147 Table 4. Seeding implement test on stubble Stnd dev of Yield Year Treatment Plants/ sq m Seed depth (em) seed depth kg/ha bu/acre 1982 Airseeder 2297.67 2630.00 2667.50 34.15a 39.09a 39.84a 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1982-1987 Note: Discer Hoe drill Seeded June 6 45 kg/ha 11-51-0 and 170 kg/ha 34-0-0 were broadcast Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 18 45 kg/ha 11-51-0 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 15 45 kg/ha 11-51-0 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded May 7 160 kg/ha 26-13-0 Airseeder Discer Hoe drill Seeded April 24 91.1a 111. 9a 121.2a 7.2b 2.4a 5.1b 1.58b • 85a 1. 46b 1892.50 1851.67 1899. 77 and 170 kg/ha 34-0-0 were broadcast 160.3a 178.1a 162.Sa 5.7c 3.1a 4.3b 1.07a 1. 03a 1.20a 490.21 449.17 612.42 and 145 kg/ha 34-0-0 were broadcast 73.8a 4.6a 122. 2b 3. 9a 217.0c 4.0a was broadcast 136.0a 188. Sbc 212.Sc 5.0c 3.8b 2.6a • 99a 1.08a 1. 02a 1.38b • 77a • 79a 770.41 807.08 938.97 2496.70 2341.70 2416.60 28.14a 27.33a 28.2Sa 7.28a 6.67a 9.10a 11. 45a 12.00a 13.97a 37.10a 34.80a 36.00a 45 kg/ha 11-51-0 with seed and 56 kg/ha 34-0-0 were broadcast Airseeder 103.1b 3.9a 1.36a 1182o50 17.57a Discer 121.0ab 2. 7b .BOa 1135.83 16.89a Hoe drill 145.5a 3.0b .84a 1107. 68 16.47a Seeded April 30 45 kg/ha 11-51-0 with seed and 85 kg/ha 34-0-0 were broadcast Airseeder 112. 9b 5.3a 1.28a 1521.67 22.60a Discer 144.3c 3.1c .91b 1535.90 22. 80a Hoe drill 171.7a 3.8b 1.06b 1607.87 23.90b plant/sq m, mean seed depth, standard deviation mean from 1983-1986. Means with the same letter are not significantly different (5% significance level). Plant counts for the hoe drill were consistently highest for both fallow and stubble conditions, whereas both the discer and airseeder occasionally had low plant densities, the airseeder being the lowest. The lower density 148 f1gures did not generally result in significantly lower yields. Seeding depth is the greatest and the deviation of seed depth is also the greatest for the airseeder (Tables 3 and 4) indicating it is the least precise of the three machines. We have also had the gr,eatest problem in setting and adjusting and getting consistent operation from the airseeder. Many producers have also complained of poor stands. Despite this, while the yields for the airseeder are the lowest, the differences are not great. The discer shows the highest yield for fallow conditions and the hoe drill the highest for stubble conditions, although the differences are signif-icant, they are not large. Anderson (1969, 1975) found essentially the same yield for a variety of seeding equipment, including the discer and hoe drill, in earlier tests at Swift Current. CONCLUSIONS The discer and the hoe drill are consistently good performers for seeding wheat in the Brown soil zone. Airseeder performance, while lower, is reason-able. The discer and airseeder offer lower cost seeding than the hoe drill for the conventional or minimum till farmer. The airseeder, when the cultivator is used for other tillage operations, offers the lowest possible equipment inventory for a straight grain operation in the Brown soil zone. REFERENCES Anderson, C.H. 1975. Comparison of preseeding tillage with total and minimal tillage by various seeding machines on spring wheat production in south-ern Saskatchewan. Can. J. Plant Sci. 55: 59-67. Anderson, C.H. 1969. Zero tillage and combined tillage and seeding for wheat. Proc. 15th .Annual Meeting Canadian Society of Agronomy, Saskatoon, Sask., August 24-28, 1969, p. 2-6. 149 

https://harvest.usask.ca/bitstream/10388/10809/1/F.B.%20Dyck%20and%20S.%20Tessier%2c%201988a.pdf

A comparison of seeding equipment for wheat production in southwest Saskatchewan

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

eCommons@USASK

University of Saskatchewan Research Archive