Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:31:09.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Some effects of primary cultivations on crop yields in a four-course rotation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. G. Barker
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge

Extract

A long-term experiment designed to study the effects on crop yields of different basic methods of cultivation used in the preparation of seedbeds is described and the results of the first completed cycle of 4 years are discussed. Four basic methods of cultivation were compared, namely, ploughing, rotary cultivating, cultivating and discing. Each one of these was done, early and late, for each crop in two four-course rotations which differed only in the cropping of 1 of the 4 years when potatoes were used in one case and a 1-year ley in the other. Each crop in the rotation (winter wheat, sugar beet, barley, ley or potatoes) was grown at two levels of fertilizer application and provision was made in the design of the experiment for two different weed control régimes. The soil was fairly easy to work, being of the Milton series of river gravels.

As a result of the work described, the following conclusions have been drawn:

1. Ploughing was the most consistent method of providing a satisfactory basis for the final seedbed preparation but in some circumstances other methods were equally good. On average, ploughing led to the highest yields and discing the lowest, with rotary cultivating second and cultivating third in order of merit.

2. The yields of cereals grown after root crops were not dependent on the method of basic cultivation used.

3. The effects of the cultivations on the yield of winter wheat after the ley appeared to be due to the extent to which the regrowth of rye-grass was controlled, the plough being most effective in this respect.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

REFERENCES

Browning, G. M. & Norton, R. A. (1946). Rep. Ia agric. Exp. Sta. 11, 5.Google Scholar
Browning, G. M. & Norton, R. A. (1947). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 12, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, R. L., Turk, L. M. & McColly, H. F. (1953). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 17, 491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpin, C. (1937). Second Oxford Fmg Conf. p. 35.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1931). J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye, 28, 284.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1932 a). J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye, 30, 97.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1932 b). J. S.-E. Agric. Coll. Wye, 29, 55.Google Scholar
De Boodt, M. F., Englehorn, A. J. & Kirkham, D. (1953). Agron. J. 45, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, R. S. (1958). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 26, 323.Google Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 407.Google Scholar
Hanley, F., Ridgman, W. J. & Barker, M. G. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 49, 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, F., Jarvis, R. H. & Whitear, J. D. (1961). J. Agric. Sci. 56, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. H. & Buchele, W. F. (1961). Trans. Amer. Soc. Agric. Engrs, 4, 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, B. A. and the staff of the Soil Physics Dept. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1945). J. Instn Brit. Agric. Engrs, 3, 99.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1949). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. p. 137.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. & Keen, B. A. (1941). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, E. W., Keen, B. A. & Mann, H. H. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, K. (1952). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 3, 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G. S. & Johnson, W. H. (1956). Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 20, 275.Google Scholar