Return to Tillage Seeding Practices

Comparison of Disk Type No Till Drill vs. Chisel Drill for Erosion and Yield

David Ostheller
with Harry Riehle, Dave Welk, Steve Sprecher, LeRoy Riehle and Shawn Woodard, NRCS;
Stewart Wuest, McGregor Co.; Don McCool, WSU;
and Lawrence Brown and Paul Peterson, Spokane Co.

Objective

Determine the effect on subsequent erosion and yield from seeding with the one pass chisel compared to the disk type no till drill.

• Location: Fairfield, WA (SE Spokane Co.: NE 1/4, S34-T22-R45)
• Annual precipitation: 21 inches
• Soil series: Naff silt loam
• Rotation:
  • 95 - winter wheat
  • 94 - lentils
  • 93 - winter wheat

Treatments

1. John Deere 455 disk type no till drill
2. One pass chisel drill

The treatment area included both north and south slopes across a ridge. Wheat was harvested in the fall of 1993 and plots were fall plowed and seeded to lentils in the spring of 1994. The plot area was laid out in eight strips, 35’ by 300’. Fertilizer and chemical inputs were the same. 18 ft. header strips were measured for yield.

Comments

The chiseling buried residue and roughened the soil surface. Residue cover was 14% on the chiseled plots and 24% on the no till plots. Random roughness on the chiseled plots was about 1 inch and on the no till was only 0.25 inch. On the average, there was no difference in soil erosion. Two of the plots, one chiseled and one no till, were wetter than the other plots. This may be caused by subsurface water movement.

Data

Plot characteristics and soil erosion one year after using R&R subsoiler vs uphill plowing

	Slope length & steepness
	N		S
Treatment	ft	%	ft	%	Surface residue %	Surface roughness RB in	Plant cover %	Erosion T ac-1
Plow	200	11	100	18	14	1.0	8	<1
R&R	200	11	100	18	22	0.25	8	3
Plow	200	11	100	18	22	0.25	8	2
R&R	200	11	100	18	18	1.0	8	4.5*
R&R	200	11	100	18	22	0.25	8	4.0*
Plow	200	11	100	18	14	0.25	6	3.8
R&R	200	11	100	18	30	0.25	9	<1
Plow	200	11	100	18	14	1.0	6	<1

*These plots were wet as compared to other plots located at this site.

Chisel drill vs no till disk drill for yield, bu/ac

Treatment	Rep 1	Rep 2	Rep 3	Rep 4	Average
Chisel	70.0	71.1	72.4	72.4	71.5a
No till	67.4	67.8	66.5	66.0	66.9b
LSD (5%)					2.99
CV					1.92%

Conclusion

No definite conclusions can be reached from the erosion data collected in this one year study. Random roughness and surface residue effects were compensating and no difference in mean soil loss was seen. On the other hand, yield data indicated an advantage to the chisel drill over no till which was statistically significant.

Contact us: Hans Kok, (208)885-5971 | Accessibility | Copyright | Policies | WebStats | STEEP Acknowledgement
Hans Kok, WSU/UI Extension Conservation Tillage Specialist, UI Ag Science 231, PO Box 442339, Moscow, ID 83844 USA Redesigned by Leila Styer, CAHE Computer Resource Unit; Maintained by Debbie Marsh, Dept. of Crop & Soil Sciences, WSU