Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCoates, Wayne E.
dc.contributor.authorThacker, Gary W.
dc.contributor.editorSilvertooth, Jeffen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-02-06T17:49:29Z
dc.date.available2012-02-06T17:49:29Z
dc.date.issued1993-03
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/209583
dc.description.abstractTwo reduced cotton tillage systems, both of which utilize controlled traffic farming techniques, are being compared to a conventional tillage system in terms of energy requirements, field work time requirements, crop yield, and operating costs. Four seasons of testing show the Sundance system to have the lowest energy requirement of 28.2 HpHr /Ac, the Uprooter-Shredder-Mulcher (USM) the second lowest at 40.5 HpHr /Ac, and conventional tillage the highest at 54.4 HpHr /Ac. Field work times of the two reduced tillage systems are about one-half that of conventional tillage. Costs of the two reduced tillage systems are lower than for conventional tillage. We have never measured a significantly lower lint yield with either of the two reduced tillage systems, relative to conventional tillage.
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherCollege of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ)en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries370094en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSeries P-94en_US
dc.subjectAgriculture -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectCotton -- Arizonaen_US
dc.subjectCotton -- Soil fertilityen_US
dc.subjectCotton -- Managementen_US
dc.titleA Comparison of Three Cotton Tillage Systemsen_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.journalCotton: A College of Agriculture Reporten_US
refterms.dateFOA2018-06-17T22:37:57Z
html.description.abstractTwo reduced cotton tillage systems, both of which utilize controlled traffic farming techniques, are being compared to a conventional tillage system in terms of energy requirements, field work time requirements, crop yield, and operating costs. Four seasons of testing show the Sundance system to have the lowest energy requirement of 28.2 HpHr /Ac, the Uprooter-Shredder-Mulcher (USM) the second lowest at 40.5 HpHr /Ac, and conventional tillage the highest at 54.4 HpHr /Ac. Field work times of the two reduced tillage systems are about one-half that of conventional tillage. Costs of the two reduced tillage systems are lower than for conventional tillage. We have never measured a significantly lower lint yield with either of the two reduced tillage systems, relative to conventional tillage.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
370094-340-344.pdf
Size:
83.73Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record