This document discusses different tillage practices and their effects. Conventional tillage destroys soil structure and is more costly due to rising fuel prices, leading to recommendations to change to minimum tillage. Minimum tillage aims to reduce tillage to the minimum needed for seedbeds while improving soil conditions. Studies show minimum tillage increases yields compared to conventional tillage and improves soil properties like structure and infiltration. No-till and stubble mulch tillage practices, which leave crop residues on the soil surface, provide further benefits like increased nutrient availability and moisture conservation.

2. Tillage
Preparatory
cultivation
Primary
Tillage
Deep
Tillage
Subsoiling
Year round
Tillage
Secondary
Tillage
Lay out of
seed bed
After
cultivation

3. TILLAGE
CONVENTIONAL
TILLAGE
CONSERVATION
TILLAGE
MINIMUM
TILLAGE
ZERO TILLAGE
STUBBLE
MULCH TILLAGE

5. Why is it recommended to change from
conventional Tillage to minimum tillage?

6.  Due to repeated conventional tillage soil structure is
destroyed and more soil is eroded
 High cost of tillage due to Steep rise in oil
prices

7. Minimum Tillage
Definition
Minimum Tillage is aimed at reducing Tillage to the
minimum necessary for ensuring a good seedbed, rapid
germination, a satisfactory stand and favourable
growing conditions

8. Advantages
 Improved soil condition
 Higher infiltration rate
 Less resistance to root growth due to improved
structure
 Less soil compaction

9. Disadvantages
 Seed germination is lower with minimum tillage
 In minimum tillage more Nitrogen has to be applied
 Nodulation is effected in some leguminous crops like
peas and broad beans
 Sowing operations are difficult with ordinary
implements
 Continuous use of herbicides cause pollution problems

10. How tillage can be reduced
 By omitting the tillage operations which do
not give much benefit when compared to
cost
 By combining operations like seeding and
fertilizer application

11. Minimum
tillage
Row zone
tillage
Plough-
plant tillage
Wheel track
planting

12. Row zone tillage

13. Plough-Planter

14. Wheel track planting

16. Effect of Tillage and Mulching on
Yield of Corn in the
Submontaneous Rainfed Region
of Punjab, India

17. Soil characteristics values
pH 8.0
EC (d S m-1) 0.3
Organic carbon (g kg-1) 21
Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.4
Texture Sandy loam
Available N (kg ha-1) 132
Available P (kg ha-1) 16.4
Available K (kg ha-1) 198
Available Zn (mg kg-1) 0.44
Physical and chemical characteristics of
experimental site

18. Mode of mulch
application
Tillage Mean
Tm Tc
Mw 294.2 212.8 253.5
M1/3rd 201.5 193.0 197.2
Ms 185.4 117.0 151.2
Mv 114.8 100.1 107.1
Mo 109.9 96.1 99.0
Mean 117.8 145.5
EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH
APPLICATION ON DRY MATTER YIELD OF CORN
(g Plant-1)
Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on the
whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms= Strip
mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots
BHATT et al. (2004)
Tillage (T) = 23.1;
Mulching (M)= 10.7;
T x M = 15.2
CD (5%)

19. Mode of mulch
application
Tillage Mean
Tm Tc
Mw 41.4 39.1 40.3
M1/3rd 33.1 32.0 32.6
Ms 33.0 31.6 32.3
Mv 25.6 25.0 25.3
Mo 25.5 24.6 25.1
Mean 31.7 30.5
EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH APPLICATION
ON GRAIN YIELD OF CORN(q ha-1)
Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on
the whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot, Ms=
Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots
BHATT et al. (2004)
Tillage (T) = NS
Mulching (M) = 1.04
T x M = NS
CD (5%)

20. EFFECT OF TILLAGE AND MODE OF MULCH
APPLICATION ON STRAW YIELD OF CORN (q ha-1)
Mode of mulch
application
Tillage Mean
Tm Tc
Mw 56.9 55.0 55.9
M1/3rd 52.4 53.5 53.0
Ms 51.9 51.0 51.5
Mv 45.7 43.5 44.6
Mo 44.1 40.7 42.4
Mean 50.2 48.7
Tm = Minimum tillage, Tc = Conventional tillage, Mw= Mulch on
the whole plot, M1/3rd= Mulch on the lower 1/3rd of the plot,
Ms= Strip mulching, Mv= Vertical mulching, Mo= Control bare plots
BHATT et al. (2004)
Tillage (T) = NS
Mulching (M) = 1.04
T x M = NS
CD (5%)

21. Manjith Kumar at al. (2014)

22. GROWTH AND YIELD PARAMETERS OF MAIZE AS
INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE AND MULCHING
Treatment Plant
height(cm)
LAI at 60
DAS
Cob
weight(g)
100-Seed
weight (g)
Tillage
T1 182.3 4.18 170.60 27.92
T2 169.1 3.58 155.42 26.22
T3 176.9 3.90 163.90 27.16
SEm± 1.3 0.02 2.02 0.26
CD(p=0.05) 5.2 0.09 7.93 1.02
Mulching
Mo 172..7 3.74 160.51 26.67
M1 179.5 4.03 166.10 27.52
SEm ± 1.6 0.02 1.55 0.34
CD (P=0.05) 5.7 0.07 5.36 NS
T1: Conventional tillage; T2 :Zero tillage ; T3 :Minimum tillage; Mo :without mulch; M1:With
mulch

23. Yield and economics of maize as influenced by tillage and
mulch practices
Treatm
ent
Grain yield (t/ha) Harvest index(%) Net returns (rupees/ha)
2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 Pooled 2010 2011 pooled
Tillage
T1 5.96 5.86 5.91 42.4 42.2 42.3 30175 36495 33335
T2 5.41 5.23 5.32 41.8 41.9 41.8 28625 33417 31021
T3 5.68 5.61 5.64 42.2 42.1 42.2 30928 37673 34301
SEm± 0.10 0.09 0.06 0.3 0.2 0.2 915 1037 633
CD(P=0.0
5)
0.40 0.37 0.25 NS NS NS NS 4073 2485
Mulchi
ng
Mo 5.56 5.44 5.50 41.8 42.1 41.9 30098 35733 32916
M1 5.80 5.69 5.75 42.5 42.0 42.3 29721 35990 32855
Sem ± 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.3 0.2 0.2 1000 821 752
CD(P=0.0
5)
NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

24. Sonune et al. (2012)

25. Treatm
ents
Seed Cotton (q/ha) Cotton stalk (q/ha)
2005
-06
2006
-07
2007-
08
Pooled
Mean
2005
-06
2006
-07
2006-
07
Pooled
Mean
Tillage
Conventional
Tillage
12.82 12.18 13.72 12.91 26.14 30.51 32.91 29.85
Minimum
tillage
13.81 12.92 13.98 13.57 27.65 31.72 33.41 30.93
SE (m) ± 0.628 0.538 0.183 0.34 0.51 0.360 0.354 0.30
CD at 5 % NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.89
SEED AND STALK YIELD OF COTTON AS
INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE
Sonune et al. (2012)

26. PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF SOIL AFTER
HARVEST OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY
TILLAGE (2007-08)
Tillage BD (Mg m-3) HC (cm hr-1) Infiltration
rate (cm hr-1)
Percent water
stable
aggregates
MWD
Conventional
tillage
1.31 0.68 2.63 36.96 0.65
Minimum
tillage
1.32 0.66 2.45 37.33 0.66
SE(m) ± 0.004 0.01 0.054 0.88 0.003
CD(P=0.05) NS NS 0.158 NS NS
Initial value
(2005-06)
1.35 0.62 2.1 3.34 -
Sonune et al. (2012)

27. MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES OF SOIL AS
INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE
Tillage Bacteria (cfu g-1soil) Actinomycetes (cfu g-1soil) Fungi (cfu g-1soil)
Conventional
tillage
34.50 25.66 19.05
Minimum tillage 34.77 26.77 19.77
SE(m) ± 0.46 0.56 0.40
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS
Sonune et al. (2012)

28. FERTILITY STATUS OF SOIL AFTER HARVEST
OF COTTON AS INFLUENCED BY TILLAGE
Tillage Org . C (g/kg) Avail. N
(kg/ha)
Avail. P
(kg/ha)
Avail. K
(kg/ha)
Conventional
tillage
5.51 211.4 12.69 374.2
Minimum tillage 5.57 216.2 13.02 374.8
SE(m) ± 0.07 2.32 0.135 2.1
CD(P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
Sonune et al. (2012)

29. Tillage Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K
Conventional tillage 211.4 12.69 374.2
Minimum tillage 216.2 13.03 374.8
Initial value 180.2 12.1 365.5
BALANCE SHEET OF AVAILABLE N P AND K
(Kg/ha) AFTER THREE YEARS AS INFLUENCED
BY TILLAGE
Sonune et al. (2012)

31. DEFINITON
It is year round system of
managing plant residue with
implements that undercut
residue, loosen the soil and kill
weeds

32. Advantages:
 Moisture conservation
 Control of soil erosion
 water holding capacity of soil
increases
 Availability of nutrients increases
 Good aeration

33. Disadvantages
 residues left on the surface interfere
with seed bed preparation and sowing
operation
 traditional tillage implements are
not suitable under these situations
 this is practiced in developed
countries where agriculture is highly
mechanised

35. HUANG et al. (2012)

36. Soil chemical and physical properties at the start of
experiment
Depth
(cm)
Bulk
density
(g/cm3)
Org.
Mat.
(g/kg)
Total N
(g/kg)
Total P
(g/kg)
Olsen P
(mg/kg)
Avail. K
(mg/kg)
PH
0-5 1.29 13.15 0.85 0.83 5.81 290.09 8.30
5-10 1.23 12.86 0.87 0.84 5.02 274.00 8.40
HUANG et al. (2012)

37. SOIL AVAILABLE NUTRIENTS AS AFFECTED BY
STUBBLE MANAGEMENT (mg/kg)
Depth(cm) Treatment P-W W-P
Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K
0-5
T 37.37 13.61 211.41 37.31 14.22 192.04
NT 33.94 13.78 247.13 35.63 14.25 227.91
TS 33.97 16.40 263.76 40.64 16.23 265.17
NTS 37.44 18.96 280.66 40.76 18.68 286.98
5-10
T 35.13 12.34 190.74 35.94 14.95 187.41
NT 34.54 13.12 202.43 34.51 15.09 191.90
TS 36.77 14.15 259.75 39.63 16.30 248.04
NTS 34.61 16.04 262.65 37.95 16.11 265.27
T: conventional tillage with stubble removed; NT: No-till with stubble removed;
TS :Conventional tillage with stubble incorporated; NTS: No-till with stubble cover
HUANG et al. (2012)

38. Nitrogen balance under different treatments over 4 years
(kg N /ha)
Rotation Item T NT TS NTS
P-W
Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37
Fixation 4.65 27.12 20.73 26.06
Output 183.45 167.18 139.73 159.25
Balance 90.20 128.94 180.37 166.18
W-P
Input 269.00 269.00 299.37 299.37
Fixation 3.42 25.63 16.90 24.89
Output 144.82 130.34 102.51 139.09
Balance 127.60 164.29 213.76 185.17
HUANG et al. (2012)

39. Potassium balance under different treatments over 5
years(kg/ha)
Rotation Item T NT TS NTS
P-W
Input 4.93 4.65 40.15 49.27
Output 41.88 33.01 52.48 60.52
Balance -36.95 -28.36 -12.32 -11.25
W-P
Input 0.68 0.68 14.68 19.03
Output 27.82 31.38 35.99 39.87
Balance -27.14 -30.70 -21.31 -20.84
HUANG et al. (2012)

40. Grain yield under different treatments(t/ha)
Crop Year T
(pooled yield)
NT
(Pooled yield)
TS
(Pooled
yield)
NTS
(Pooled
yield)
Spring
wheat
2002-09 1.64 1.56 1.79 1.99
Field pea 2002-09 1.12 1.05 1.15 1.35
HUANG et al. (2012)