_——__—
—
._____—
”'—
__'_____‘

WI

 

4N4
I014
CDU'I—i

A STUDY OF PRiNClPLES
AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE.
OF MECHANICAL SUGAR BEST

SEED PL—ANTERS

”Shoe-is for the Degree of M. S.
WCHIGAN S'E‘ATE COLLEGE

Herbert Ernesi Hentsche?

15346

 

,

tin-I OI «-

 

 

n

M495

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
"A STUDY OF PRINCIPLES AFFECTING THE PERFORI‘IIAIICE
0F MECHANICAL SUGAR FEET SLED FLANTERS."

presented bg

HERPRRT ERNEST PENTSCHLL

has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

_I'_' ’_-_S_'_-___degree in

Agriculture

 

nam229flz€r 3» 1946

 

f. Ltltlvll: .. hi... ... .I........HV 1. . . Nu (Sui rial

A STUDY OF PRINCIPLES AFFECTING

THE PERFORMANCE OF MECHANICAL

SUGAR BEET SEED PLANTIBS

.A

S T‘U D Y O F P R I N C I P L E S .A F F E C T I N G
T H E P D R F O R M.A.N C E O I M‘B C H A,N I C A.L

S U'G-A.R B E E T S E E D IP L A.N T E R S

By

Herbert Ernest Hentechel

m

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of
Michigan State College of Agriculture and
Applied Science in the partial ful-
fillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1946

THESlS

ACKNO‘.‘:‘"I.EDGl.’E HTS

The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to the Farmers and
manufactures Beet Sugar Association who provided the funds for the Fellow~
ship under which this work was conducted.

Acknowledgment is also due Professor A. W. Farrell and mr. C. M.
Hansen of the Agricultural Engineering Department, and Dr. N. S. Hall,
Soil Science Department, Nfichigan State College, for their assistance

and guidance in planning and carrying out this work.

Q“
at
J

4 ”Ajax-0'; a
Luv 5 ‘3.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION - ...... - ..............
HISTORY OF SUGAR BEET PLANTING EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES -
THE EXPERIMENTAL PLANTER - - - - - - - - .. ...... ."
Development 23 the Experimental Planter - - - - ..
Description _o_f_ Planter in General - ----- -
Description 2;: Individual Units - - - - - - .. - -
Rotary Tillage Unit - - - .. - - - ......
CompactingUnit -—-------------
Furrow Opening and Metering Unit ..... -
The Farrow Closing Units ..........
The Check or Standard Unit ..........
FIELD PROCEDURE IN PLANTING ..............
Germinator Test - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - -
Planting Procedure ............. .. -
WEATHER ------ - .................
TEST PLOT ------- .. ......... .. .....
DETERMINATION OF EMERGENCE RATE - - .- - ........
PRESENTATION OF DATA ............ .. .. .. .. -
GROUPING OF TREATMENT RESULTS .............

DISCUSSION OF RE

CONCLUSION - -

LITERATURE CITED

SIILTS ----- - - - II D ------ -

14

14

19

19

19

21

21

22

22

24

26

31

31
53

INTRODUCTION:

The combined work of industry, experiment stations, and private research
organizations have produced an amazing amount of modern equipment and machines
to help the farmer perform his duties better and easier. Machines eliminate
a large amount of hand labor that has always been a part of agricultural
production. many crops have already been completely mechanized, while others
are only in the beginning phase of mechanization.

Up to about 10 years ago mechanization had had very little effect upon
the sugar beet crop. It has always required a great amount of hand labor
in planting, blocking, thinning, weeding, and harvesting.

Actual mechanization of the raising of sugar beets has been in effect
since before 1879 when mechanical planters were used in the best fields of
Europe (10). The planters were inefficient, but did serve to place enough
whole seed, containing three to five germs per seedball, in the ground to
produce a solid row of plants that could be blocked and thinned to the
desired stand. Labor was plentiful up to 1940 and could be obtained to
do the extra work of blocking and thinning at‘a very low wage.

In the present day, with labor a critical factor, it is imperative
that mechanical equipment be developed that will all but eliminate the
necessity of much hand labor in blocking and thinning. To accomplish this
end it is necessary to attempt to develop planters and planting techniques
that will produce a seedling for every germ.placed in the seed bed.

Buschlen (2) reports, from.preliminary greenhouse and small plot tests,
that the emergence of uncoated segmented seed is, on the average, only
39% of the potential plants; while Bainer (1) reports that in general,

under average-conditions, field germination is less than 50%.

-2-

One of the main prdblems in the mechanization of sugar beets, therefore,
is to develop equipment to determine the effects of various methods of
mechanical seed bed preparation with reference to tillage, placing of seed,
seed coverage, and soil compactness over the seed, in an effort to increase

the emergence rate.

HISTORY OF SUGAR BEET PLANTING, EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUES:

The placing of the sugar beet seed in the ground by mechanical means
was given very little attention until the early 19303. Up to then, and to
some extent even now, the seed was planted with a grain drill by closing
off several of the seed chutes to produce the desired row'widths. thle
seed was sown at the rate of 20 to 30 lbs. per acre. During world war I
a four row beet drill, with a common seed box, was in use in the beet field.
It varied very little from the grain drill in principle (4).

About 15 years ago a beet and bean drill was developed as a four row
planter with individual seed and fertilizer hoppers for each row. The seed
was still metered to the ground by a fluted or double run feed as was
commonly used in the grain drill.

In 1933 an interrupted-feed drill was developed and tested the next
four years with excellent results reported in 1938 (6). The machine was
designed to drop seed for 3 inches in the row and then skip 6 inches, plant-
ing at the rate of four pounds of seed per acre. It reduced hand thinning
considerably and caused the remaining plants to be disturbed less in thinning
and weeding.

In 1938, Garner and Sanders (3) concluded four years of experiments

at the School of Agriculture at Cambridge, on the optimum spacing of sugar

-3-
beets with the idea of reducing hand-labor and increasing horse-hoeing.

In 1939 Nervine and NbBirney (7) reported on the amount of research
work'being carried on to develop single seed type planters so that uniformly
spaced planting could be obtained. The results, however, were not very
encouraging.

All these developments in sugar beet planters did tend to eliminate
considerable of the hand or "steep labor." "The sugar beet seedball,
however, contains on the average, more than one germ each. Regardless of
method of planting, each seedball may produce from none to several seedlings,
making finger thinning imperative if a uniform.distribution of single seed-
lings is to be obtained. A reduction in the number of germs per seedball
will materially reduce the hand labor of thinning. Mereover, if the beets
are to be thinned mechanically, or with a long handled hoe, the percentage
of potential singles are greatly increased"(1).

Attempts have been made to produce a single germ seedball through
plant breeding. Thez'esults have not been satisfactory. "Dr.'W. Knolle
of the Institute of Land machines at Bella, Germany, developed a process
prior to 1940 for cracking sugar beet seed in an endeavor to reduce the
number of germs per seedball. This process was at once commercialized and
a limited amount of seed was made available that year. Correspondence
with the director of the experiment station at Holle yielded no technical
information about the process"(l).

The University of California started an investigation in 1940 in an
effort to PPOduGe a single germ unit by mechanical means. In 1941 a labora-
tory machine was built for breaking the seedball into segments of approxi-

mately one germ. The shearing process proved a great success in 1942.

-4-

Bainer (3) reports that experience resulting from the use of sheared seed
on several thousand acres in 1942 indicates that seeding rates of four to
seven pounds per acre produce sufficient seedlings to give satisfactory
final stands.

The use of segmented or sheared seed increased rapidly since 1942.

The Sugar Beet Journal (8) reports that 70% of all the beets planted in
the Eastern area in 1946 were planted with segmented seed.

In 1945 Buschlen (2) reported that the effect of the introduction of
segmented seed may be the turning point in the history of the sugar beet
industry.

The rapid expansion of the use of segmented seed necessitated the
development of seed metering units to handle the smaller single germ cells.
A number of metering units were developed and modified since 1943. A
satisfactory modified seed metering unit was developed for the internal-run
type of feed mechanism. The external fluted-feed mechanism was also modified
satisfactorily for the smaller seeds.

An experimental distributed hill plate was developed for use on the
low drOp or low can planter in 1943. "A seeding rate of two pounds per acre
was used with an average of 4.5 seeds per hill. The center distance of
the hills was approximately 10 inches. Since the field germination amounts
to less than 50%, it was anticipated that the likelihood of obtaining one
or two plants per hill was possible. This condition would eliminate hand
thinning entirely. Extra plants in the hill could be treated as weeds
during the normal hoeing operation" (1). Data on further tests of this

planter are not now available.

-5-

Some planters have been modified in the last year to reduce the
seeding rate to one and a half to two pounds per acre. One company at
present is testing a very low drop planter. The purpose of this type of
planter is to give gravity less time to work on the single germ cells
to cause bunching orbouncing of the seeds in the furrOW.

In the spring of 1945, Higgins, McKinley, Vfitherspoon, and thkel (5)
started experimental work on a vacuum planter, using a new principle of
vacumm selection of seed. Some encouraging results in grease-board trials
and actual field plantings were obtained.

In 1945 the Dow Chemical Company (2) started research and experimental
work on pelleting the segmented seed to produce a seed thd: is uniformly
round and of a size that is easier to work with in designing planters.

Good results were reported in the development of the coating process,
but a uniform stand, as was anticipated, was not obtained the first year.
Further tests are being made on seed pelleting and increasing emergence
by adding plant nutrients, insecticides and fungicides to the coating

material.

TEE EXPERIMENTAL PLANTER:

Development 22 the Experimental Planter

 

The construction of a planting machine incorporating a number of
variable units to test various planting methods, techniques, and equipment
was the first problem. In order to determine the various components of the
machine, the points to be investigated were outlined as follows:

1. To study the effects of varying degrees of soil fineness.

2. To study the effects of soil compactness prior to planting.

3. To study the effects of various degrees of soil-seed contact.

4. To study the effects of soil compactness over the seed.

5. To study the effects of various types of furrow openers.

6. To study the effects of various methods of seed covering.

The drawing, Fig. 1, was considered as containing the essential units
to aid in carrying out the above studies. It was made as the preliminary
work was accomplished in establishing the need for the studies. A means
at checking the experimental trials with that of present planters was also
determined as essential. A standard planting unit was added to the machine
for this purpose. This necessitated changing the preliminary design to
include the standard planting unit. The completed planter is shown in

Figure 2.

Description 23 the Planter in General:

 

 

The planter was constructed in the research laboratories of the
Agricultural Engineering Department at Michigan State College. It in-
corporated the use of a rotary-tillage unit for better fitting of the
seed bed; two interchangeable compacting units in the form of a section of
a unltipacker and a heavy flat roller, to test the effects of soil compact-
ness prior to planting; two interchangeable furrow openers; and a furrow
closing unit and press wheel to test the various degrees of soil-seed
contact, soil compactness over seed, and seed covering.

The planter was designed to plant two rows at a time; an experimental
row, and a check row or standard row. The standard planter was attached

to the machine so that it would Operate in much the same manner as the

. .89an poem new-am Havoc-nanomxm maiden hgaaaoam .a .wfl.

 

 

—--_. _.-....

-76-

 

 

 

 

2050mm uF<§§<me£o .16
avg my .0uoa

cupto L019 “09+ .BCOQO 8300
fl .0025 Human.) wcwuuQRn-Ou a £095» Iver-DEG .uuom w. “005.; woman“
n ., A

    

 

.II n l‘ t

‘ AP _

Jule/(E l0 ZOHUNRHO

 

34.60 wcvcnwu
Dame gunmen“...

' no... 0.) \I
‘.

cLM‘U’HL‘.‘ ‘-
01.. an

(it

33‘.)
”OHJJO‘U Unl(hfl Z‘OHr-UH}
Lac-1.3900. m... tour .3“ “9.... 3.an

Nut/.440
nmmm bmmnm fix..ij

JJFXMENMQXN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-8-

aopnsam room How-6 Handbags-HRH

 

0N ewfim

 

 

 

-9-
present machines in the field. The two rows of the planter were fed seed
from two separate Cobley metering units. Both units were driven at the
same speed by a common shaft that was driven by a spiked wheel rolling
on the ground. Seed was metered to each row at the same rate.
The entire planting mechanism.was designed to attach to the hydraulic
lifts of the Ford Ferguson.tractor to facilitate moving around in a small

field.

Description 2f Individual Units:

 

 

Rotary Tillage Unit:

The rotary-tiller (Fig. 3 and 4) was of the rigid type having two
fourbinch square plates welded two inches apart on a three-quarter inch
shaft. Eight sthaped teeth, with the foot of the L three quarters of
an inch long, were bolted to each square plate in a staggered manner. The
cut of the rotor was four and one-half inches and the maximum.depth four
and a half inches. Power to drive the rotor was supplied by the power

take off of the tractor through a drive shaft, V-belts, and a roller chain.

Compacting Unit:

A three wheel section of a cultipacker (Fig. 5 and 6) was assembled
inumuch the same manner as the commercial cultipacker, to supply approxi-
mately the same pressure as each section of the commercial machine.

The compacting unit was attached to the planter to follow the rotary
tiller. It was suspended in a manner that would permit varying of the
pressure from nothing to as much as desired. It can also be easily removed

from the machine so that other types of compacting units can.be tested.

 

-1o-

 

Fig. 3. Rotary Tillage Unit - Side View

 

-1]_-

 

 

Fig. 4. Rotary Tillage Unit - Bottom. View

 

-12-

 

 

Fig. 5. Cultipacker Compacting Unit - Side View

 

-13-

 

.... -,_,-_.-.____ .7, _ .__7A.

Fig. 6. Cultipacker Compacting Unit - Bottom View

-14-
A flat roller-type compacting unit (Fig. 7) was also assembled for
various tests. This unit was eight inches in diamter, four inches wide,

and weighed forty-seven pounds. It was used in place of the cultipacker.

The Furrow Openers and metering Units:

The furrow opener and metering unit followed the compacting unit.
The metering unit was the commercial Cobley unit asedeveloped by the
Utah-Idaho Sugar Company. It was bolted in place 20 inches above the
ground level with provisions for'the furrow Opener to be suspended below
it in a manner that would facilitate changing from one type to another.
Adjustments for changing the depth of planting were also included.

Two types of furrow openers were used (Fig. 8 and 9): the standard
shoe-type, as used in older model beet drills, and a laboratory designed
furrow opener known as the boat-type opener. It was made to resemble the
prow of a boat that would open a furrow by pushing the soil aside and down,
giving a rather firm bottom to the furrow. It was expected that a rather
firm compact furrow bottom would provide better soil-to-seed contact and
would allow the soil moisture more freedom of movement in the vicinity of

the seed to improve germination in dry soil.

The Furrow Closing Units:

The furrow closing equipment (Fig. 10) consisted of two separate units
to test the effect of soil-seed contact, soil compactness over the seed,
and seed covering methods.

One unit consisted of a narrow rubber tired-wheel, as used on the
lawn mowers, to follow in the furrow to press the seed into the firm furrow

bottom before the seed was covered with soil and also to follow after a

 

 

 

Fig. 7. Compacting Wheel - 47 pounds

 

 

 

Boat Type Sh
as Type

Fig. 8.
Furrow Openers - Side Vie
r w

-17-

 

 

 

Boat Type Shoe Type

Fig. 9. Furrow Openers - Bottom View

-18-

 

 

 

Fig. 10. Furrow Closing Units

-19-
closing unit to press the soil on the seed.
The furrow closing unit was a reversed V-type plow, Open at both ends,
to carry loose soil into the furrow.
The press wheel and the closing unit were made interchangeable so

that tests could be planted with the units in either of the two positions.

The Check or Standard Unit:

The standard planter (Fig. 11) was attached to the planter frame 28
inches to the left of the experimental planter. It contained a disc furrow
opener with the covering and compacting wheels attached. A Cobley metering
unit was used to feed seed to the furrow opener. The check row planter,

as used in these trials, was the best of the commercial units now in use.

FIELD PROCEDURE IN PLANTING:

Germinator Test:

 

At the beginning of the field tests, several samples of seed were
obtained from the planter for germinator tests. In order to obtain re-
presentative samples, the tractor with the planter was driven down a row
one hundred feet long, as in actual planting, with sacks tied over the
seed spouts to catch the seed as itvvas metered to the row. Several runs
of thfil'type were made. The seeds thus obtained were taken to the labora-
tory, accurately sampled with the Boerner Sampler and placed in the moist
blotter germinator .

According to the germinator count the seed used in the tests should

have produced an average of 475 plants per hundred feet.

~20-

 

 

 

 

Standard Planter

Fig. 110

-21-

Planting Procedure:

Plantings were made in only one direction, so that each experimental
row had a standard row, or check row, on each side of it. The various
units for the treatment were placed in the preper position with the
furrow opener set at one-half inch depth. Then for the next.planting the
furrow cpener was set at one-inch depth, than rows one and one-half inches
deep, and two inches deep were planted. In the next treatment the other
type furrow-opener was used with the same prodedure repeated.

The next treatments were accomplished by interchanging the covering
shoe and press wheel. The same planting procedure was followed again for
each furrow cpener and for each of the four depths.

This procedure was carried through for the entire test. Test plantings
were made with the rotary-tiller running at approximately 240 R.P.M. at a
depth of three and one half inches, followed by the cultipacker, without
a compacting unit, and with a flat 47 pound compacting wheel. Other tests
were made with the rotary-tiller running at 240 R.P.M. at a depth of one
and one-half inches, with the cultipacker, and without a compacting unit.
Tests were also made using the cultipacker without the rotary-tiller and
without the rotary-tiller or compacting unit. All tests were made using

segmented seed.

WEATHER:

The field testing was carried on from June 24th to August 31, 1946.
The period was marked by an extreme drought. The rainfall for July was
.05 inches and for August .73 inches. The normal rainfall taken from a

40éyear average, 1901 to 1940, is 2.67 inches for July and 2.65 inches

-22-
for August.*

The soil moisture content was very low throughout the trials.
Moisture determination of an adjacent area indicated 4.63% moisture on
July 1, 6.7 % on July 6, 10.1% on July 19, 9.3% on July 27 and 6.46%
on August 3. The field moisture capacity of a Hillsdale sandy loam is
approximately 15% (9). Rainfall, soil temperature and soil moisture are

given on the chart - Figure 12.

THE TEST PLOT:

The emergence test plot was a rectangular field 160 feet wide and
350 feet long. It was located on the experimental farm of the Farm Crops
Department of the college. The soil was a Hillsdale medium sandy loam
with areas which appeared to be of a heavier soil type, Sugar beet experi-
ments were carried out on the plot the preceding year.

The emergence rate, as a whole, in this test, was somewhat distorted
through the presence of black root disease and possible other pre-emergence

diseases that were quite predominate in the field.

DETERMINATION OF EMERGENCE RATE:
Due to the unusual dry weather conditions a definite schedule for
counting the seedlings could not be followed. Counts were made when it

was thought that most of the seeds had produced seedlings. The actual

 

*Precipitation data by courtesy of R. C. White, Project Supervisor,
Michigan Hydrologic Research Project, U. S. D. A., S. C. S., of East
Lansing, Nfichigan.

-23-

ms dnaeaou bofinnm

. may
9 G. W

m
fl

Omfimq

1%

 

as» no; flammcwmp

 

_ ,iLfi __._._._._..L

.Hfiq

 

 

 

.u5«

 

cam .cusumnoQEMQ Hwom

.mamwnu amusnEwuvmsm on»
.pzmumoo mudpchE HMOw acdaosm gamma an nonuuam

mHSh. mach

 

N IIILWFI-

 

 

 

 

Itsgutez seqout

 

U———

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

elnielednez [:05

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eanstom e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-24-
counting was accomplished by stretching a cord across one end of the
field and another one 100 feet down the row. All the seedlings in the
measured area were counted and tabulated. Several counts were made of
some rows at various lengths of time after planting to determine the
emergence rate. In most cases it was found that the count at the later
dates was less than the earlier counts, indicating a loss of plants

thrOugh disease, drouth, or other causes.

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA:

The data obtained in the trials was tabulated and combined into
Table I.

The units as listed across the tap of the table give the order of
operation of the units in the experimental planter. The crosses in the
columns headed by the units indicate which of the units were used in
each treatment. The figures in the depth of planting columns denote the
percent emergence, or the emergence rate of the experimental planter as
compared to that of the standard planter.

The emergence rates of the standard rows were grouped by planting
dates. The average emergence of the standard rows of each planting date
was used to determine the percent emergence of the experimental rows of
those planting dates. Exceptions to this method exist in a few treatments
where it was determined that a more representative emergence rate could
be gotten using the average of the two standard rows on each side of the

experimental row.

Table I. Summary Table Showing Results of All Planter Tests

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“U H
s. s 5} m 33
a, a, Furrow 8 0.:
I}. Z 5 so openers '3 fi '5 3
0H 9-. H M g C 0 0) ‘0
+3 0) +304 0 or! Q4 Q4 .E hp hum
>5“qu :58 3 43H j? 4;? .513; S ,
Date Treat- :_ 3rd 3 a3 é 4', :3 5' $94 Depth of
planted ments 4255'}: +23 H a as o p bro planting
as as 3 SE a a. as as in 1" 1;; 2"
June 1 X X X X 71 75 57 65
25
2 X X X X 99 95 99 65
June 3 X X, X X 82 80 71 44
26
4 X X. X X 57 66 68 49
July 5 x x x x 38 58 71 55
1
X X X X 45 82 99 78
7 X X X X 41 92 87 79
8 X X. X X 34 52 75 52
9 X X X 37 80 72 52
July 10 X X X 90 25 91 86
2
11 X X X. 34 74 75 50
12 X X X 40 101 75 32
13 X X X 9 51 93 54
14 X X X 56 129 99 106
15 X X X 45 101 111 125
July 16 X X X 34 61 71 68
3
17 X X 81 94 67 4O
18 X X 117 98 99 68
19 X X 162 159 130 119
July 20 x x 64 119 77 64.-
18
21 X X X X 14 6O 75 109
22 X X X X 13 57 115 125

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-25-

GROUPING OF TREATMENT RESULTS:

All of the data were tabulated into major groups according to
depth of planting. The major groups were then broken into minor groups
according to the percentage of emergence. Groupings were made as follows:
major groups:

Group A - Treatments planted at the half inch depth (Table II.)

Grpup B - " " " " one inch depth (Table III.)

Group C - " " " " one and one half inch depth

(Table IV.)

Group D - " " " " two inch depth (Table V.)
Liner groups:

Low emergence group - Treatments from.which the emergence rate was

less than 85% of the standard emergence rate.

Average emergence group - Treatments from.which the emergence rate

was 85% to 115% of the standard emergence rate.

High emergence group - Treatments from which the emergence rate

was more than 115% of the standard emergence rate.

.uonomo Seneca omhpnvsop one cons msouw oonowaoso swag one a“ Hash page apnoevsohp on» one

 

.mpHSch pnofipwoap oi» exp 2H moonshommwe stwnspmnzu heave on ones

muons .msoaw oosowaofie cmeaobs can cw HHom page upsospsoap neon ow com: ms3.uoeomo schema omhpnpcop one

 

: a a z a page weaposdaoo on = = : : : Rma
a = = z = page weaposmedo d : a a : a Rem
. ... 2 .. .. .. page 03:3 aspen on = .. .. = .. awn
m .. .. .. a .. pg seed? 532 .. .. .. .. .. ems
: z z z : genome Bouncy omhpupsop : = a = : Ram
: a = a z become Boahsm omhpnoonm : a a a : KOCH
: a a c : Hoes? mecca an eoBOHHom cone wswacbob : a z a : Ros

msoaw ooqowuofio Boa ea one? comm mafiaoboo an coBoHHcm Hoes? among we on: wnfixcfi upmop mo xom

4 mbomw .mequmm

 

.HH canoe

 

.oonm mafiaoboo on» an oosoaaom Hoons mmoan one town ooanp one uoqomo

Boapou omhpupson one vows.fionu.mo oonnp .mooaw oonowaoao :wfin on» a“ wawHHoM mvsospoopp seem on» mo

 

.mpcofipoouv New one a“ woonoaoMMfio HofipnoprSu nonvc on ouo: chose

.uonomo Reagan omhplpoon one toms macaw oosowaoao owsaobo on» :w wnwflasm apnoepoouv New onu.mo Mach

 

3

2

8

a.

3

8

msouw oesownoao Sea a“ ones

pan: wnfivosmeOo on
pace wsfipoomaoo a
pen: owsaafip hpspoa on
was: owsfiafip mauve» o =
posomo Banach omhplpson

genome rehash omhvnoogm

Hooga mmonm hanoBoHHom ooze wcwuopoc z

=

2

8

3

8

ooam wnwuoboo he eoBOHHom Hoogs mmoam no one wnwxofi mpmov mo

Ran

m mDOmc .mequmm

 

.HHH oHpoH

.oosm mnwaoboo hp cosoHHom Hoons
mooam new? genome keuhsm omhpupson wean: owes no? macaw oonowaofio swan one a“ wnHHHsm Poop haco one

 

Home: wmoum one he eokoHHom ooze mqwao>oo : = z a a = Ree
oonm wcfiuoboo one he pogoaaom Hooes.mmoam : z .: a a : Rom
pens mnfiposmsoo on s z a a a : Rom

vans wquchEEO o a z a a z : wee

was: owsHHHv zhopoa on a z = a z : Rafi

page owafifiap shapes 6 g a a = g g sow

genome Benson omhv ooze : a z = = : VHH

genome Bounsm omhvupoon coo: macaw oonowaoSo owoaobo aw ovoov Mo Ime

 

= = c a : panolmchpoomaoo on c a a a : Rom
mow .. = = = : pens we «voomaoo s = a . a z : Koo
a g a a g pens owsflflap stapes on a g a g a Rom
: : a a = pans owsflawv heaven : = = a = Rom
: = = a : nocomo_soaasm omhpnvson a a a z = Rwa
z = z a a hoeomo_soausm omhpnoogm a a z a : Ram
: = a : c Hooni among he eosonaom ooze wswnoboo a a a = = Ram

macaw oodowuoao_soa nfi one? come mafiaoboo he uoseflaom Hoes; umoam me on: wnwxoa memo» mo mam

o macaw mmmupmmm
.sH sflpsa

~50-

 

.Hooas among on» an oosoflaon ooze wannoboo one .pqu manpooQEoo s .pwn: owsaanp hnopcn on

come poop one made .nonomo Bonnsn omhpuvoop on» to»: moonw oonownofio awn; ogv Ha memo» oonnp HH¢

 

.Hoont mmonm onv hp negoaaon oonm qunoboo one .nonomo Bonnsn omzpuocem .pnne wnfipooQSOo on» eons

poop one hano one .pwc: oonHfip hnspon one eons anon» oonownoao owonobo on» n“ snoop conga one

 

8

8

8

8

8

8

pen: wnwpoomaoo on
and: manpoomaoo

ewe: owsaafip hnspon on
pwn: oonan mnsnon
nonomo Bonnsn omhvlpooe
nonomo Bonnsn omhploosm

HoonB among an vosoaaom oogm wnnnoboo

8

8

8

new
as
ex)

tub

was

msenw oonewnofio sea on one? ooze mannoboo he eoSOHHon Hoes: omonm no one magmas upmov no Raw

9 mbomu

“maqumm

 

.> one: _.

-31..

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS;

At all four depths of planting, the use of rotary-tiller, compacting
unit and shoe-type furrow opener, did not appreciably effect the rate
of emergence as compared with the rate obtained with the standard planter.
Interchanging the position of the seed press wheel and covering shoe did
not effect the emergence rate appreciably.

At all depths the boat-type furrOW'0pener appeared to have some merit.
over the shoe-type, in its use as an integral part of the planter. Twenty-
five of the 30 trials falling in the average and high emergence groups

used the boat-type furrow opener.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. When the method of metering seed is kept constant in planting
sugar beets at the deeper levels, under conditions prevailing during
these trials, the depth of planting generally had a greater effect upon
emergence than did the method of fitting the seed bed and planting the
seed. The trials at the one inch depth gave better results than those
at the other depths.

2. Under the conditions prevailing during these trials, the use of
the rotary tiller and compacting units in fitting and compacting the
seed bed is of no value as a part of the planting procedure. The normal
preparation of the seed bed evidently breaks the soil up into particles
that are small enough to promote good germination.

The use of the rotary-tillage unit may have some value as a part

of the planter under planting conditions when the seed bed has not been

-32...

normally prepared, or when the soil has been.packed excessively by heavy
rains prior to planting. Trials were not made using the rotary-tiller
under conditions of that kind.

3. In most of the trials, the use of the boat-type furrow opener
proved superior to the conventional shoe-type opener. The opening of a
furrow by pushing the soil aside and down, leaving a firm furrow bottom
for the seed, is evidently the reason for an emergence rate greater than
that obtained with the standard planter.

4. Under conditions prevailing in these tests, the addition of
supplemental tillage and furrow closing units to the planter did not
improve the rate of emergence over that obtained by the use of present

day planters.

-33-

LITERATURE C ITED :

1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Bainer, Roy
1943. NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION. Ag. Eng. Jour.
V01. 24, N0. 8, pp. 255-2580

Buschlen, M. J.
1945. SUGAR BEET JOURNAL. Vol. 10, pp. 55-56

Garner, F. H., Sanders, H. G.
1939. SPACING OF SUGAR BRET. Jour. of Min. of Ag. pp. 1198-1201.

Harris, F. So
1918. THE SUGAR BEET IN AMERICA. 13. 114.

Higgins, F. H.
1945. VACUUM PLANTER NEWEST DEVELOPMENT FOR CONTROLLED SUGAR
BEET SEEDING. Implement record. Sept. pp 25 and 64.

International Sugar Journal.
1940. AN'IMPROVED BEET DRILL. pp 23-24.

mervine, E. M. and NbBirney, S. W.
1939. MECHANIZATION OF SUGAR BRET PRODUCTION. Ag. Eng. Jour.
Vol. 20, No. 10, pp. 389-392 and 394.

Sugar Beet Journal.
1946. SUGAR BRET CROP NOTEWORTHY THIS YEAR. V01. 12, No. 1.,
pp. 4 and 50

Veatch, J. 0., Tyson, J., Biebesheimer, P. P., Moon, J. W.
1928- SOIL SURVEY HILLSDALE COUNTY, MICHIGAN. Bureau of Chemistry
and Soils. U.S.D.A., No. 10, pp. 13-14.

Ware, L. S.
1879. THE SUGAR BEET. p. 171.

ROOM USE ONLY . = " . '

 

 

I
\
l
' l
u . '
‘ V
I ‘ I . R
. I ' I . . p ‘ \-
I ‘ ,~ . ‘
I . 0 " I ' v ' x
\ . . -
. -5 ' ' J '
A h ' ‘ .
- -a J .I. .
4
v
u
I .
I
\
' /
U
.
'\
f.
l
a
.
, n
»
. .
' a
u
1
n
A
' .
l
' ,
| o
‘ .
v. .
‘ I
5‘ }‘
t a
. u
I V
I
' .
,
' Y v—wv “Vi
. r. —
7
I l ‘
o ‘ ‘
i \
r I
- 1 .
| x, .
.' ' ‘
v
I .
. l
. \
I " l
: . I
‘ I
’ I
\ ‘
Y‘ . '
u ‘ 5
I .
' l
I I \
. l
V .
I y ‘ - I ' ‘ ‘
I I I
. .
J
\
A I I '
I
I
' .
I ' ' . I
‘ r
‘ ' '
' .

 

IaésaliIII . .

7-1.1.