PHOTO: AGCO
PHOTO: AGCO
SOIL COMPACTION ▶▶▶
Measuring soil compaction during planting
BY MATT MCINTOSH A
GCO researchers are investigating the impacts, or otherwise, of the compaction-reducing technology built into Fendt’s new Momentum
brand planter. This is a centre-fill seeding sys- tem equipped with weight distribution and tire inflation technology, as well as an in-line wheel design. Thus far, observations suggest that investments in compaction reduction at planting are worth it – although yield data needs to be gathered before more definitive conclusions can be drawn.
Wet soils a bigger issue in spring While the heaviest equipment may not pass through the field before harvest, frequently wetter conditions during planting substantial- ly increase the risk of compaction, says Jason Lee, agronomy and farm solutions specialist with AGCO. Combined with the general move towards more operationally efficient centre-fill seeding systems – which concentrate load weight more than traditional box seeders – the issue of planting-related compaction has be- come a big concern. “There are known issues
Compaction damage when seeding is costing you money. But is it enough to warrant investing in new equipment? To find out, AGCO researches the effectiveness and potential return on investment of compaction-prevention technology.
with yield reductions in the middle of those planters,” says Lee. “Also you have tires on both sides of some of the rows. We’ve known that this is an issue for years.” AGCO began by taking penetrometer meas- urements up to two feet (61 centimetres) in three different locations behind a Momentum planter – in rows where the tractor tire drove, rows where both a tractor and planter tire drove, and rows experiencing no tire traffic. This was done with the planter’s compac- tion-prevention systems engaged, as well as without. Initial penetrometer results indicated that the planter’s weight distribution, automatic tire pressure and in-line wheel design all contrib- uted to minimal additional compaction after that already caused by the tractor. Later the company reported findings linking differences in corn height to weight and tire pressure. In the rows on either side of the in-line tandem
center transport tires of the Fendt Momentum planter, a near three-inch height advantage was found in corn planted with very high flex- ion (VF) tires auto adjusted to maintain a low psi (approx. 17 psi), as opposed to the same tires kept at a constant 55 psi (common for use on the road).
Is the impact significant enough? For Alex Barrie, a farmer, soil management en- gineer, and compaction researcher working with the provincial ministry of agriculture in Ontario, Canada, some of the data presented by AGCO appears overstated – though not necessarily misleading. Testing the top 14 inches does not account for what may be hap- pening in deeper soil layers, for example. “Ide- ally you should measure where you’re going to drive, then again after you do the driving,” says Barrie. Variations in soil profile, water filtration levels, and the ability of soil types to handle and recover from compaction are other rele- vant factors – as are the traffic levels in past seasons. “I don’t know if I need a lot of data to say compacting your soil is bad. It’s when you start to really pick apart whether one tire does better than another. It’s hard to nail down, but
The Momentum planter is equipped with VF, or “very high flexation,” tires that have a large footprint and carry 40% more weight at the same inflation as conventional radial tires.
58 ▶ FUTURE FARMING | 20 November 2020
Footprints made by very high flexion planter tires inflated at 55 psi (left) and 15 psi (right). Note that the longer footprint at lower infla- tion pressure covers a larger surface area and reduces pressure applied to the ground.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
