Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:47:16.894Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of direct drilling, reduced cultivation and ploughing on the growth of cereals

1. Spring barley on a sandy loam soil: introduction, aerial growth and agronomic aspects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. G. Elliott ,
F. B. Ellis  and
F. Pollard
J. G. Elliott
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Weed Research Organization, Begbroke Hill, Oxford 0X5 1PF
F. B. Ellis
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Letcombe Laboratory, Wantage 0X12 9JT
F. Pollard
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council, Weed Research Organization, Begbroke Hill, Oxford 0X5 1PF
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An experiment on spring barley (cvs Impala and Julia) on sandy loam soil near Oxford was made from 1969 to 1973 to compare mouldboard ploughing, deep and shallow tined cultivation followed by conventional seed-bed preparation, and direct-drilling.

In 1969 fewer barley plants on the direct-drilled plots than on cultivated plots gave fewer fertile ears/m2 and significantly less grain. In 1970, 1972 and 1973 yields did not differ between treatments. In 1971 there were more ears/m2 and more grain was obtained from direct-drilled than from ploughed plots. Mean grain yields over 5 years did not differ significantly between cultivation treatments. Ploughing and deep tine cultivation resulted in better shoot growth early in the season, more straw and more dicotyledonous weeds than direct-drilling. In comparable tillage operations on the same farm considerably less energy was needed for direct-drilling than for mouldboard ploughing and conventional seed-bed preparation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 89 , Issue 3 , December 1977 , pp. 621 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, F. & Elliott, J. G. (1970). A system for the control of grass weeds after cereal harvest which prepares the land for resowing. Proceedings 10th British Weed Control Conference 1, 98–104.Google Scholar
Cannell, B. Q. & Ellis, F. B. (1971). Reduced cultivation for cereal crops. Annual Beport ARC Letcombe Laboratory, 43–9.Google Scholar
Davies, D. B. & Cannell, R. Q. (1975). Review of experiments on reduced cultivation and direct drilling in the United Kingdom. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 216–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, F. B., Elliott, J. G., Barnes, B. T. & Howse, K. R. (1977). Comparison of direct drilling, reduced cultivation and ploughing on the growth of cereals. 2. Spring barley on a sandy loam soil: soil physical conditions and root growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 631–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, J. G. (1973). Reflections on the trend to minimum cultivation. ADAS Quarterly Review no. 10, 85–91.Google Scholar
Elliott, J. G. (1975). Reduced cultivation and directdrilling in farming systems. Outlook on Agriculture 8, 250–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, B. A. & Russell, E. W. (1937). Are cultivation standards wastefully high? Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 98, 53–60.Google Scholar
Koronka, P. (1973). Machinery development for direct-drilling. Outlook on Agriculture 7, 190–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, H. C. (1941). Crop response to inter-row tillage. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 9, 29–42.Google Scholar
Rowell, J. G. & Walters, D. E. (1976). Analysing data with repeated observations on each experimental unit. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83, 423–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar