Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag and No-till Machinery
The Cross slot vs 750a trial
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SilliamWhale" data-source="post: 1756906" data-attributes="member: 1232"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SilliamWhale, post: 1756906, member: 1232"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Regenerative Agriculture and Direct Drilling
Regen Ag and No-till Machinery
The Cross slot vs 750a trial
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top