Skip to main content
ARS Home » Pacific West Area » Pendleton, Oregon » Columbia Plateau Conservation Research Center » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #125487
Title: EVALUATION OF A RESIDUE MANAGEMENT WHEEL FOR HOE-TYPE NO-TILL DRILLS

Author
item Siemens, Mark
item Wilkins, Dale
item Correa, Robert

Submitted to: Columbia Basin Agricultural Research Annual Report
Publication Type: Experiment Station
Publication Acceptance Date: 4/1/2001
Publication Date: 5/1/2001
Citation: SIEMENS, M.C., WILKINS, D.E., CORREA, R.F. EVALUATION OF A RESIDUE MANAGEMENT WHEEL FOR HOE-TYPE NO-TILL DRILLS. COLUMBIA BASIN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH ANNUAL REPORT. 2001.

Interpretive Summary: Adoption of conservation tillage systems in the Pacific Northwest lags behind that of the United States, due in part to the lack of trouble-free seeding equipment for planting into heavy crop residue. Commercial shank- and disc- type no-till drills were developed for low residue conditions and for crops planted in wide rows. In heavy crop residue or when row spacing is narrow, shank-type drills tend to rake the residue and cause drill plugging. Disc-type openers are prone to pushing the crop residue into the seed zone or they may ride over the crop residue and deposit seed on the soil surface which results in poor stand establishment. To overcome this problem, a residue management wheel was developed to allow a hoe-type no-till drill to handle large amounts of crop residue and improve drill performance. The patent pending device is designed to attach to hoe- type drills and is positioned next to the furrow opening shank. When seeding, the ground driven rubber fingered wheel pins crop residue to the soil surface, preventing it from building up on the shank and seed tube. The invention was evaluated in Northeastern Oregon and found to increase seedling stand establishment of winter canola by 44-53%, spring barley by 24%, mustard by 41, lupin by 9%, spring wheat by 15-16%, and winter wheat by 17-20% as compared to the standard drill without residue management wheels. Use of the residue management wheel also increased the yield of winter canola by 8-11%, spring barley by 3%, mustard by 5%, lupin by 8%, spring wheat by 1-6%, and winter wheat by up to 8%. By increasing yield, utilizing the device should increase the profitability and adoption of soil and water conservation farming practices.

Technical Abstract: Adoption of conservation tillage in the Pacific Northwest lags that of the United States, due not only to economic and agronomic concerns, but also to the lack of trouble free seeding equipment for planting into heavy crop residue. To overcome this problem, an attachment was developed to allow a hoe-type no-till drill to handle large amounts of residue and improve drill performance. The prototype device (patent pending) consists of a fingered rubber wheel, a rubber inner ring, and a spring-loaded arm, which pivots about vertical and horizontal axis. The unit is designed to attach to the tool bar of hoe-type no-till drills and positioned next to the furrow opening shank. When seeding, the ground driven rubber fingered wheel and inner ring hold down and "walk" through crop residue, preventing it from building up on the shank. The present invention was evaluated in the 2000 crop year at various locations in Northeastern Oregon. Test site locations varied in the amount and condition of residue and were planted to a variety of crops. Depending on residue management, the residue management wheel was found to increase seedling stand establishment of winter canola by 44-53%, spring barley by 24%, mustard by 41%, lupin by 9%, spring wheat by 15-16%, and winter wheat by 17-20% as compared to the standard drill. These differences were statistically significant at 90% level of confidence or greater. Use of the residue management wheel also increased the yield of winter canola by 8-11%, spring barley by 3%, mustard by 5%, lupin by 8%, spring wheat by 1-6%, and winter wheat by up to 8%. Although increased yields were observed in all but one trial, these differences were not always statistically significant. Further testing and analysis is needed to determine if the device is economically justifiable.