Summary
The first year of a two year study was conducted in 1995 to compare the agronomic performance of five side banding bolt on openers under direct seeding conditions at five locations. With spring wheat there were only small emergence differences due to opener type or fertilizer rate. In contrast, reduced canola emergence occurred with some of the openers at higher fertilizer rates. Reduced canola emergence was likely due to incomplete separation of seed and fertilizer resulting in seedling mortality or the deep placement of seeds resulting from extensive soil disturbance with some openers.
Opener type did not affect canola or wheat yield. Yield
response to N fertilizer rate with both wheat and canola was
classic with increased yields at each incremental fertilizer
rate. The results also indicated that the succcess with an opener
may be associated more with the operator than the opener
itself.
Introduction
The development of high capacity air seeders for minimum and
no till seeding with side banding fertilizer capability has
resulted in a high level of producer interest in side banding
openers for these machines. Unfortunately, many early generation
bolt-on openers performed poorly, with numerous problems
including lack of seed/fertilizer separation, poor seedbed
quality, poor durability and excessive soil disturbance. Over the
past two years extensive research and development has resulted in
side banding openers that offer improved performance. Independent
agronomic testing is required to assess the performance of side
banding openers under a wide range of soil types and geographic
areas. This paper will present preliminary emergence and yield
data from the first year of a two year study.
Objectives
The objective of the project is to evaluate and demonstrate
the agronomic performance of side banding openers under a variety
of soil types and conditions using wheat and canola and different
rates of nitrogen fertilizer.
Description of Study
Five side banding bolt-on openers were compared under direct seeding conditions using side banded nitrogen rates of 0, 35, 70, and 105 lb/ac N using urea (46-0-0) as the nitrogen source. In addition all plots received 25 lb P2O5, 10 lb K2O and 10 lb S. The first year of a two year study was completed in 1995 at five locations including Watrous (Elsow clay loam), Tisdale (Tisdale clay), Melfort (Melfort clay loam), Indian Head (Indian Head heavy clay) and Yorkton (loam). A 10 ft wide 4 rank air seeder using 12 in row spaces and on row packing was used for seeding all plots.
The plot air seeder used Flexi-coil cultivator components including 550 lb spring trips and shanks. Fertilizer and seed was contained in four custom made boxes metered thorough Amazone seed/fertilizer cups using one cup on each box for each opener. Following metering the seed/fertilizer gravity dropped into a Valmar venturi type pneumatic system for delivery to the openers. Ground driven Valmar 60 speed gearboxes were used for seed and fertilizer rate settings. K-Hart packers were mounted on the rear of the machine and were adjusted to pack directly over the centre of the seed row.
Bolt-on side banding openers used in the project were: Flexi-coil Stealth, Dutch Vern Eaglebuster, Swede SW470, GEN 200, and Morris Edge On Mount. A non side banding knife was also used as a check. All openers except the knife check placed the fertilizer below and to the side of the seed row. All of the side banding openers except the Swede placed the seed to the side and the fertilizer in the centre of the shank. In contrast, the Swede opener placed the seed in the centre of the shank and the fertilizer to the side. A Dutch seed brake was used to reduce seed velocity on all openers except the GEN.
Crop type was Maverick Polish canola and Pasqua hard red spring wheat at respective seed rates of 6 and 120 lb/ac. The Canola was treated with VitavaxRS and blended with Furadan 5 G.
Plot size was 10 x 30 ft with 4 replicates for a total of 84 canola and 84 wheat plots at each location.
Seeding dates were as follows:
Watrous May 15 - May 19
Tisdale May 21 - May 23
Melfort May 24 - May 26
Indian Head May 30 - June 1
Yorkton June 2 - June 4
Data collected for the study included:
Wheat
Canola
Results and DiscussionAll of the sites were direct seeded into standing stubble with the PAMI plot drill using all five openers and four fertilizer rates at the seeding dates described previously.The seed brake was not used on the GEN opener as this opener plugged with wheat when used with the seed brake.Moisture conditions at seeding were very dry at Tisdale, moderate moisture at Watrous, Melfort, and Yorkton, and wet at the Indian Head site.Due to soil texture and moisture conditions, large lumps of soil were brought up by all of the openers at Tisdale, Watrous, and Indian Head, leaving the plots very rough. The poor seed bed conditions combined with dry soil moisture at Tisdale and Watrous resulted in uneven emergence with some of the openers; especially with the canola plots. At Melfort and Yorkton soil conditions were much better and soil flowed around the openers and no large soil lumps were left on the soil surface. Although Melfort and Yorkton did not have problems with soil lumps, the soil surface was still rough with all side banding openers, compared to the knife check.Herbicide application included pre seed burnoff with Roundup and post-emergent herbicides as required. Weed and volunteer crop control was very good at all sites.Spring WheatWhen the data from the five 1995 sites were combined, there were no large differences in emergence due to opener type or fertilizer application rate (FIGURE 1)
FIGURE 1. Emergence of spring wheat. Mean of five locations
1995.
Emergence differences among the openers ranged from a maximum of 11% above and 4% below the knife check. These results indicate that all of the side banding openers produced satisfactory spring wheat germination and emergence at all fertilizer rates.
When the yield data from the five sites were combined there was a classic yield response to fertilizer rate with all of the openers (FIGURE 2).
FIGURE 2. Yield of spring wheat. Mean of five locations
1995.
Yield differences among the openers were small with yield
increases for each opener at each incremental nitrogen fertilizer
rate. The exception was the yield of the Swede opener which had a
slightly lower yield at the 105 lb/ac N rate compared to the 70
lb/ac rate. Yield response of the GEN opener was also flat at the
70 and 105 lb/ac N rates.
Canola
When the data from the five 1995 sites were combined, emergence for most openers and fertilizer rates was equal or higher than the knife check (FIGURE 3).
FIGURE 3. Emergence of canola. Mean of five locations
1995.
The Dutch, Morris and Swede openers had emergence lower the knife check at either the 70 or 105 lb/ac N rate with the maximum reduction in stand of 16%. The reduction in emergence was likely due to incomplete separation of seed and fertilizer with these openers. As a 15% reduction in stand, due to fertilizer damage, is considered acceptable, all of the openers provided acceptable emergence except for two treatments who exceeded the standard by 1%.
When the yield data from the five canola sites were combined there was a classic yield response to fertilizer rate with all of the openers (FIGURE 4).
FIGURE 4. Yield of Polish canola. Mean of five locations
1995.
Yield differences among the openers were very small with yield increases for each opener at each incremental nitrogen fertilizer rate. All of the side banding openers resulted in equivalent canola yields in 1995.
Conclusions
The results from the first year of the two year study indicated that there only small emergence differences due to opener type or fertilizer rate with spring wheat. In contrast, reduced Polish canola emergence occurred with some of the openers at higher fertilizer rates. Reduced canola emergence was likely due to incomplete separation of seed and fertilizer resulting in seedling mortality.
There were no differences in canola or wheat yield due to opener type. Yield response due to fertilizer rate was classic with increased yields at each incremental fertilizer rate.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by funding from the Canada - Saskatchewan Agricultural Green Plan, the Saskatchewan Canola Development Commission and by in kind support from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.