The Cross slot vs 750a trial

So why are you such a big fan of seed firming wheels if they make no difference?

Because I know every seed I plant has a good chance of growing especislly with such low disturbance. And I don't roll after much. But I don't know for certain that every plant planted is needed for yield, lots of field factors at play too.

I would however not be so arrogant to claim that if I used a drill without a firming wheel then I would get a lower yield because as I say I think they are all capable of doing a good job and achieving the same yields. I'm totally aware that some dandy could turn up in the field with an a co3 and get just as good a yield as a 750.
 
Last edited:
Location
Cambridge
Because I know every seed I plant has a good chance of growing especislly with such low disturbance. And I don't roll after much. But I don't know for certain that every plant planted is needed for yield, lots of field factors at play too.

I would however not be so arrogant to claim that if I used a drill without a firming wheel then I would get a lower yield because as I say I think they are all capable of doing a good job and achieving the same yields. I'm totally aware that some dandy could turn up in the field with an a co3 and get just as good a yield as a 750.
Honestly, you just sound like someone trying to argue for the sake of it to me, I don't see your differing viewpoints as being consistent with each other. Perhaps it's because Cross Slot is involved, I don't know. Either way, I'm done for now.
 
I agree..... Perhaps Silliam would grasp the concept better if rather than thinking about it in terms of the weird and wonderful 'yield enhancing features', I think in terms of a given field having a certain 'yield potential', and we try to eliminate all possible limiting factors, be it agronomically by making educated decisions, or soil and weather factors by drainage as one example, and I think a drill can sometimes be a limiting factor.

I have never read one paragraph of 'the book', and you might notice I hardly ever mention CS, so there is no need to assume my comments always imply it is holier than thou.

..... We're boring the popcorn brigade now, I'm off to look up priggish and then get some counselling.
 

Jim Bullock

Never Forgotten
Honorary Member
This is not a drill argument... its a matter of your soils ability to drain away excess water and enable root growth (which in turn allows nutrient uptake). I have seen so many direct drilled crops (winter wheat and OSR) which have looked great for up to two months after drilling then come mid winter look awful, turning various shades of blue, purple and red due to poor rooting and waterlogging. If your drill and your soils can avoid this situation then you have nailed the system and should go to the top of the class..! Over the last 15 years I have had some spectacular successes direct drilling and equally I have some (fortunately fewer) equally spectacular failures. Unfortunately some of these failures have come in the last two to three years which is worrying having thought I knew what I was doing. Just don't get too complacent and be prepared to adapt to what nature (and the weather) throws at you.
 
I think @SilliamWhale should take the firming wheel and closing wheel off his drill as it obviously won't make any difference to the yield

It might it might not. It increases the reliability of the stand but it doesn't mean it gives me extra yield over other drills.

Which direct drill manufacturers produce drills which produce low yielding crops? No one has told me yet.

Just saying:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167198703002502
 

Badshot

Member
Location
Kent
This is not a drill argument... its a matter of your soils ability to drain away excess water and enable root growth (which in turn allows nutrient uptake). I have seen so many direct drilled crops (winter wheat and OSR) which have looked great for up to two months after drilling then come mid winter look awful, turning various shades of blue, purple and red due to poor rooting and waterlogging. If your drill and your soils can avoid this situation then you have nailed the system and should go to the top of the class..! Over the last 15 years I have had some spectacular successes direct drilling and equally I have some (fortunately fewer) equally spectacular failures. Unfortunately some of these failures have come in the last two to three years which is worrying having thought I knew what I was doing. Just don't get too complacent and be prepared to adapt to what nature (and the weather) throws at you.
The last three years have been extreme though, if we were to get that weather every year then I think I'd go spring cropping completely, but this year so far is a lot better, even after so much rain in August and September.
 
Honestly, you just sound like someone trying to argue for the sake of it to me, I don't see your differing viewpoints as being consistent with each other. Perhaps it's because Cross Slot is involved, I don't know. Either way, I'm done for now.

You mean because I don't agree with you view I'm arguing for sake of it? Especially as a few pages back you even said you didn't think drills make a yield difference and since then have made a remarkable reverse flounce.

It's not to do with cross slot one way or another. If any drill is marketed as a drill that can get you higher yields then be suspicious.

I used to believe that drills made a yield difference, and argued such on Clive's old drill trial thread. Then the results came out, and I had to eat my words. Partly as a result of that trial, I'm now more aligned with the thinking that as long as the establishment is satisfactory, which on our land should be fairly easy most of the time, there will be no significant differences.

(Copyright D Walston's twin brother)
 
Last edited:
Location
Cambridge
You mean because I don't agree with you view I'm arguing for sake of it?

No, because it does not match up with our attitude elsewhere. For example, these are some of thing things I can recall you saying in the past, off the top of my head:

  • Triple disc drills are no good
  • Double disc drills are not as good as single
  • Spiked closing wheels are better than smooth
  • Seed firming is more important than slot closing
  • It is better to have depth control and slot closing as separate operations
For someone who believes drills have no influence on the quality of crops, you certainly have a lot of opinions on what makes a good drill...!

I used to believe that drills made a yield difference, and argued such on Clive's old drill trial thread. Then the results came out, and I had to eat my words. Partly as a result of that trial, I'm now more aligned with the thinking that as long as the establishment is satisfactory, which on our land should be fairly easy most of the time, there will be no significant differences.

(Copyright D Walston's twin brother)

I've already covered that yesterday, ignore it if you want, I'm not typing it out again. [maybe take a look at post 649]
 
No, because it does not match up with our attitude elsewhere. For example, these are some of thing things I can recall you saying in the past, off the top of my head:

  • Triple disc drills are no good
  • Double disc drills are not as good as single
  • Spiked closing wheels are better than smooth
  • Seed firming is more important than slot closing
  • It is better to have depth control and slot closing as separate operations
For someone who believes drills have no influence on the quality of crops, you certainly have a lot of opinions on what makes a good drill...!



I've already covered that yesterday, ignore it if you want, I'm not typing it out again. [maybe take a look at post 649]


Triple discs are capable of getting seed in the ground like any other. There are thousands of them in the world, they disturb more soil than to get them to work but they will yield a crop like any other. I find them unwieldy and less compact - a worn triple disc is no fun either. I think triple discs are basically about getting a double disc coulter without any downpressure to work better.

Double discs same. Some good double disc drills about.

For a 750 spiked closing wheels are better than smooth but not sure its the case for other drills especially if they move more soil anyway making it easier to get the seed to soil contact with the fractured soil that coulters have moved. Especially if rolled after.

For very low disturbance drills seed firming is more important than slot closing but luckily you can do both. Where you are doing more disturbance (triple disc, tines) I doubt the advantage is as great as you have fractured soil to put on top to ensure seed to soil contact.

None of these factors will make a better or poorer yield providing you have the plants you want/need and so no direct drill manufacturer is able to say that their drill is the one that gives a higher yield than others. And by and large they are all capable of seeding enough of the plants you want (none of them are probably sub 85-90% in terms of seed establishment nowadays which is enough). If they weren't capable the drills wouldn't be sold or purchased.

If you get the plant stand you need then that is enough you won't always know the right amount to seed or the right time to seed unless hindsight, all drills can do this now and the obsession with blogging on trials is mildly interesting but it won't demonstrate much really.

I like low disturbance because of the other benefits it brings to the soil and system but that doesn't mean my drill is high yielding drill, it means it makes my soil better and more resilient for each year which is from where yield comes, not the colour of the metal in the field.

Anyway to stop this all getting to narky I suggest we leave this all where it is, we disagree strongly but there is no point getting too excited about it.
 
Last edited:
Triple discs are capable of getting seed in the ground like any other. There are thousands of them in the world, they disturb more soil than to get them to work but they will yield a crop like any other. I find them unwieldy and less compact - a worn triple disc is no fun either. I think triple discs are basically about getting a double disc coulter without any downpressure to work better.

Double discs same. Some good double disc drills about.

For a 750 spiked closing wheels are better than smooth but not sure its the case for other drills especially if they move more soil anyway making it easier to get the seed to soil contact with the fractured soil that coulters have moved. Especially if rolled after.

For very low disturbance drills seed firming is more important than slot closing but luckily you can do both. Where you are doing more disturbance (triple disc, tines) I doubt the advantage is as great as you have fractured soil to put on top to ensure seed to soil contact.

None of these factors will make a better or poorer yield providing you have the plants you want/need and so no direct drill manufacturer is able to say that their drill is the one that gives a higher yield than others. And by and large they are all capable of seeding enough of the plants you want (none of them are probably sub 85-90% in terms of seed establishment nowadays which is enough). If they weren't capable the drills wouldn't be sold or purchased.

If you get the plant stand you need then that is enough you won't always know the right amount to seed or the right time to seed unless hindsight, all drills can do this now and the obsession with blogging on trials is mildly interesting but it won't demonstrate much really.

I like low disturbance because of the other benefits it brings to the soil and system but that doesn't mean my drill is high yielding drill, it means it makes my soil better and more resilient for each year which is from where yield comes, not the colour of the metal in the field.

Anyway to stop this all getting to narky I suggest we leave this all where it is, we disagree strongly but there is no point getting too excited about it.

I find it curious you keep peddling you own view of the world like it is set in stone fact..... I think it makes it look like you don't know much outside your own farm.
 
I find it curious you keep peddling you own view of the world like it is set in stone fact..... I think it makes it look like you don't know much outside your own farm.

My view is my opinion I still stand by it, I've been about enough plenty to be able to feel this opinion is a fair one. Sounds to me like because you think your drill is higher yielding one you are upset that I don't hold the same view.

Til you can point me in the direction of a drill that regularly yield enhances more than the others I'll hold this view. If you want to talk facts then feel free to present the facts of drills that inherently yield more than others
 
Last edited:
My view is my opinion I still stand by it, I've been about enough plenty to be able to feel this opinion is a fair one. Sounds to me like because you think your drill is higher yielding one you are upset that I don't hold the same view.

Til you can point me in the direction of a drill that regularly yield enhances more than the others I'll hold this view. If you want to talk facts then feel free to present the facts of drills that inherently yield more than others

Your opinion?.... Yeah right, more like Silliams laws on crop establishment, I wouldn't be posting anything if it came across as just an opinion.

Your reading and comprehension isn't too flash is it? I'm not going to keep repeating myself except to say one of the last things I said the other day was I think it's not about some magical yield enhancement ability, but more about eliminating the times when the seed drill does a less than satisfactory job for one reason or another and therefore causes the crops yield potential to reduce. I think that's a very valid point and has nothing to do with CS spin, I think it applies to any comparison between two machines and explains why there is often no difference..... both machines were able to do the basics satisfactorily. Doesn't aways happen though..... I'm not going to reiterate potential differences yet again.

One more thing just to be clear, you have said I have been completely hooked in by the CS BS..... Pull your head in, the only time I have mentioned CS in ANY threads, let alone this one is in response to questions or when I felt I could add to a discussion that was already happening about the CS.

As I said the other day don't assume that all my comments are some vailed attempt to imply CS is better than all others...... that's pretty rich, look in the mirror if you want to see a cheerleader. You're the one who gets waxy lyrical about your 750 on numerous threads.... that's fine you can get away with it because it's a mainstream machine, I realised a long time ago (20 years) that its best not to talk things (CS) up too much as it can be very polarising.
 
Your reading and comprehension isn't too flash is it? I'm not going to keep repeating myself except to say one of the last things I said the other day was I think it's not about some magical yield enhancement ability, but more about eliminating the times when the seed drill does a less than satisfactory job for one reason or another and therefore causes the crops yield potential to reduce. I think that's a very valid point and has nothing to do with CS spin, I think it applies to any comparison between two machines and explains why there is often no difference..... both machines were able to do the basics satisfactorily. Doesn't aways happen though..... I'm not going to reiterate potential differences yet again.

One more thing just to be clear, you have said I have been completely hooked in by the CS BS..... Pull your head in, the only time I have mentioned CS in ANY threads, let alone this one is in response to questions or when I felt I could add to a discussion that was already happening about the CS.

As I said the other day don't assume that all my comments are some vailed attempt to imply CS is better than all others...... that's pretty rich, look in the mirror if you want to see a cheerleader. You're the one who gets waxy lyrical about your 750 on numerous threads.... that's fine you can get away with it because it's a mainstream machine, I realised a long time ago (20 years) that its best not to talk things (CS) up too much as it can be very polarising.

I think all the direct drills on the market in the UK can do the basics satisfactorily. I think they are all capable of getting the plant populations needed for an excellent basis for yield, an awful lot also depends on the user experience and skills. I hear your point that you want to eliminate the times that the drill does a less than satisfactory job but I'm saying that all the direct drills on the market are totally capable of doing that satisfactory job of getting the plant populations desired, therefore I don't put one above the other in terms of producing consistent and obvious yield benefits. I think you could do trial after trial after trial in the UK on all soil types and by and large most the evidence would point to all yields being pretty similar in drill trials. You will get differences and the "winners" will alter but I think you'd struggle to put a definite yield enhancer defined year on year.

I would agree if you have a field of low fertility then of course the drill with the fert placement is going to do a better job than the drill without. I don't see the drill as being a yield enhancer here, anymore than the tractor pulling it is a yield enhancer. The issue is fertility not drill design.

I know you have a lot of trouble understanding this but it really is very simple. The 750 is a good drill, depreciates very little, puts the seed in the right place, easy to pull and is low disturbance but it doesn't mean it will produce a better yield than a Claydon or a Weaving or a Cross Slot. Now if you don't agree and know different fine I'm waiting to hear you tell me which drills are consistently less satisfactory in their design which doesn't enable them to establish enough plants. If you are unwilling to I suggest you get the sand out of your knickers and move on.

You can carry on talking up the Cross Slot however you want. I'm not against it at all, I'm just scrutinising the scientific basis behind some aspects of its design and I personally find the link I put up about establishment disingenuous which I felt was worth pointing out.
 
Last edited:
I think all the direct drills on the market in the UK can do the basics satisfactorily. I think they are all capable of getting the plant populations needed for an excellent basis for yield, an awful lot also depends on the user experience and skills. I hear your point that you want to eliminate the times that the drill does a less than satisfactory job but I'm saying that all the direct drills on the market are totally capable of doing that satisfactory job of getting the plant populations desired, therefore I don't put one above the other in terms of producing consistent and obvious yield benefits. I think you could do trial after trial after trial in the UK on all soil types and by and large most the evidence would point to all yields being pretty similar in drill trials. You will get differences and the "winners" will alter but I think you'd struggle to put a definite yield enhancer defined year on year.

I would agree if you have a field of low fertility then of course the drill with the fert placement is going to do a better job than the drill without. I don't see the drill as being a yield enhancer here, anymore than the tractor pulling it is a yield enhancer. The issue is fertility not drill design.

I know you have a lot of trouble understanding this but it really is very simple. The 750 is a good drill, depreciates very little, puts the seed in the right place, easy to pull and is low disturbance but it doesn't mean it will produce a better yield than a Claydon or a Weaving or a Cross Slot. Now if you don't agree and know different fine I'm waiting to hear you tell me which drills are consistently less satisfactory in their design which doesn't enable them to establish enough plants. If you are unwilling to I suggest you get the sand out of your knickers and move on.

You can carry on talking up the Cross Slot however you want. I'm not against it at all, I'm just scrutinising the scientific basis behind some aspects of its design and I personally find the link I put up about establishment disingenuous which I felt was worth pointing out.

Are you having a laugh while on a different forum in a parallel universe?..... Where is all this talk about CS you speak of?... There is none, it's in your imagination.

I won't be giving a diatribe of the so called good and bad drills. I have never done that either on here or around my own region, I m not starting now. All machines have limitations so it follows that variability will arise.

Tbh I can't believe I let myself get involved in this crap.
 
Are you having a laugh while on a different forum in a parallel universe?..... Where is all this talk about CS you speak of?... There is none, it's in your imagination.

I won't be giving a diatribe of the so called good and bad drills. I have never done that either on here or around my own region, I m not starting now. All machines have limitations so it follows that variability will arise.

Tbh I can't believe I let myself get involved in this crap.

All direct drill machines on the market have limitations yes, but they are all capable of doing the job nowadays. This is my point, they are all as capable of getting the desired plant stand as each other which is why you see a variety of drills on a variety of farms all broadly getting the same/similar yield potential. I think beyond this it is a soil/fertility influence. This is why I wouldn't say they enhance yield beyond plant count. Sure a tine drill may not work well in trash and a disc will struggle in another situation but it doesn't make them drills which inherently enhance yield more than any other. Your not going to agree with me, so as I've said let it lie.

Is this you?

"You just go from one condition to the other and do not have to change anything. You wonder why everybody doesn't have one of these drills." (Douglas Giles, Contractor, NZ)
 
Last edited:

marco

Member
The sole advantage of the crosslot is its ability to put fert separate from the seed, the one thing I never hear is running cost. How much per acre in wearing metal etc. As far as the UK version with just the seeding boot is concerned I can't see the point. Just buy a John Deere.
 

Clive

Staff Member
Arable Farmer
Location
Lichfield
The sole advantage of the crosslot is its ability to put fert separate from the seed, the one thing I never hear is running cost. How much per acre in wearing metal etc. As far as the UK version with just the seeding boot is concerned I can't see the point. Just buy a John Deere.

I would agree that's its unique feature but not sure its an advantage ? I have never found anything that suggests or proves that fert separation is advantageous

coulter travel is a big feature of it but totally OTT for UK conditions so no advantage unless seeding welsh hills is your thing !

I guess other than that the ability to close the slot has to be considered, a CS does that well but so does the 750a !
 

CHAP Webinar - Innovative tools to overcome the challenges of Regen Ag

  • 392
  • 1
https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.evbuc.com%2Fimages%2F186160299%2F486662465563%2F1%2Foriginal.20211115-160823


Applying principles of regen ag can incur a range of on-farm challenges. Learn how innovative tools & machinery can help with these hurdles.

This event will be held online from 1pm to 2pm on Thursday 2nd December 2021 so please block it out in your diary.

About this event​

Intro
This...
Top