Hubbry Logo
SubsoilerSubsoilerMain
Open search
Subsoiler
Community hub
Subsoiler
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Subsoiler
Subsoiler
Subsoiler
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Subsoiler with a tooth packer roller

A subsoiler or flat lifter is a piece of agricultural equipment used for deep tillage, loosening and breaking up soil at depths below the levels worked by moldboard ploughs, disc harrows, or rototillers. Most such tools will break up and turn over surface soil to a depth of 15–20 cm (6–8 in), whereas a subsoiler will break up and loosen soil to twice those depths.[1]

A subsoiler should not be confused with a mole plough: an agricultural implement used to create underground drainage channels, a technique known as mole drainage. The subsoiler is a tillage tool which will improve growth in all crops where soil compaction is a problem. In agriculture angled wings are used to lift and shatter the hardpan that builds up due to compaction. The design provides deep tillage, loosening soil deeper than a tiller or plough is capable of reaching. Agricultural subsoilers, according to the Unverferth Company, can disrupt hardpan ground down to 60 cm (24 in) depths.[2][3] When a field is optimally subsoiled, crops will perform well during hot and dry seasons because roots penetrate soil layers deeper to reach moisture and nutrients.[4] In wet conditions, the water passes more easily through the shattered areas, reducing the possibility of crops drowning.

Agricultural implements that are not powered by human labor typically come in three types: self-propelled, trailed, or mounted. A self-propelled implement has its own drive system. Trailed and mounted implements, on the other hand, require an external power unit, such as a tractor. A trailed implement has its own chassis, while a mounted implement does not and is therefore lifted and lowered by the tractor's hydraulic system. Subsoilers are most commonly found in a mounted configuration. In countries where fields are generally larger, trailed subsoilers are also common. In both cases, a tractor is used as the power source.[citation needed]

  • Mounted subsoiler
    Mounted subsoiler
  • Trailed subsoiler
    Trailed subsoiler

Construction, Operation, and Characteristics

[edit]

The subsoiler consists of three or more heavy vertical shanks (standards) mounted on a toolbar or frame with shear bolts. They can be operated at depths of 45–75 cm (18–30 in) or more. A ripper normally runs 35–45 cm (14–18 in) deep. Shanks are curved and have replaceable tips. Each shank is fitted with a replaceable point or foot, similar to a chisel plough, to break through the impervious layer, shattering the sub-soil to a depth of 45–75 cm (18–30 in). Subsoiling is a slow operation and requires high power input: 60 to 100 horsepower (45 to 75 kW) to pull a single subsoil point through a hard soil. Typically, a subsoiler mounted on a compact utility tractor will reach depths of about 30 cm (12 in) and have only one thin blade with a sharpened tip. The shanks should be inclined to the vertical at an angle greater than 25-30 degrees, preferably 45 degrees, and it is advisable that the height be adjustable. The points of the shanks are normally about 30 cm (12 in) wide and should be easy to replace. The condition of the points is very important: often the subsoiler fails to give good results due to the condition of its points. Points can be fitted with horizontal wings, about 30 cm (12 in) wide, which considerably increases the width of soil below ploughing depth loosened by the subsoiler. The subsoilers are raised and lowered hydraulically. Some models feature power-take-off (PTO)-driven vibrating devices. The typical spacing is 76–100 cm (30–39 in) between shanks. Shanks should be able to reach 2.5–5 cm (1–2 in) below the deepest compacted layer. Shank spacing and height should be adjustable in the field. Towed subsoilers should have gauge wheels to control the shank's depth. Shanks usually are from 2–4 cm (0.8–1.6 in) thick. Thinner shanks are suited for agricultural use. Thicker shanks hold up better in rocky conditions, but require larger, more powerful equipment to pull them and disturb the surface more. Agricultural subsoiler implements will have multiple deeper-reaching blades; each blade is called a scarifier or shank. Purdue University's Department of Agriculture indicates that common subsoilers for agricultural use are available with three, five or seven shanks. Subsoilers can be up to 15 feet (4.6 m) wide.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Subsoiler

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A subsoiler is a deep implement designed to fracture and loosen compacted layers below the typical plow depth of 100–200 without inverting the or disturbing surface residue. Developed as a solution to issues in , the modern subsoiler traces its key innovations to the 1970s, notably the parabolic subsoiler invented by agricultural engineer Dr. Gordon Tupper in 1972, which featured a curved shank to reduce required horsepower by up to 30% while enhancing fracturing and yields. Subsoiling addresses compaction caused by heavy machinery traffic, livestock, or natural processes, which restricts root growth, water infiltration, and nutrient uptake in crops. Typically performed to depths of 14–20 inches using narrow shanks or winged points, the tool creates vertical fractures and larger pores in the soil profile, promoting deeper rooting and improved drainage without the erosion risks associated with inversion tillage. Benefits include increased crop yields—such as higher grain production in irrigated systems—and enhanced soil health, though effects may diminish after 1–2 years without ongoing management like controlled traffic. In practice, subsoilers are often used in fall on dry soils for optimal fracturing, with equipment like the Paratill requiring approximately 50 horsepower per shank and preserving for . Research from institutions like the Soil Dynamics Lab highlights their efficiency in minimizing power use and residue disturbance compared to traditional methods. Widely adopted in , subsoilers support sustainable practices by maintaining structure and vitality across various types and cropping systems.

History

Early Development

In the early 1700s, English agriculturist Jethro Tull advanced concepts of deep tillage through his innovations, as detailed in his 1731 treatise Horse-Hoeing Husbandry, which promoted repeated deep plowing and hoeing to pulverize and loosen subsoil layers, believing it supplied nutrients more effectively than traditional manuring, thereby laying foundational principles for mechanized subsoiling. The 19th century marked significant advancements with the development of iron-tine subsoilers in Europe and the United States during the mid-1800s, driven by expanding farmlands where conventional plows caused increasing soil compaction. These early mechanical versions, featuring durable iron shanks for deeper penetration, addressed plow-induced hardpans that restricted root development, enabling more efficient cultivation on heavier soils. This period's innovations set the stage for further evolution into tractor-powered models in the 20th century.

Modern Evolution

Following , the widespread adoption of more powerful tractors facilitated the shift to tractor-mounted subsoilers in the and , allowing for deeper penetration reaching up to 60 cm without inverting the upper layers. This mechanization improved efficiency in breaking hardpans on compacted s, particularly in regions like the U.S. Southeast, where deep addressed limitations from traffic and natural compaction. In the 1970s, conservation tillage subsoilers emerged to preserve on the surface for , aligning with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) initiatives promoting reduced-till practices. A key innovation was the parabolic subsoiler invented by agricultural engineer Dr. Gordon Tupper in 1972, featuring a curved shank that reduced required horsepower by up to 30% while enhancing fracturing. Innovations such as in-row subsoiling implements, developed by farmers like Jerrell Harden, enabled targeted loosening while minimizing residue disturbance, supporting the early growth of no-till systems. During the and , subsoiler designs advanced with parabolic shanks—curved for reduced draft—and adjustable depth mechanisms to optimize fuel consumption and limit disturbance. These features, building on earlier parabolic concepts from the , allowed variable penetration based on conditions, promoting in intensive cropping. From the 2000s to 2025, subsoilers integrated GPS guidance for , enabling site-specific subsoiling to target compaction zones and reduce unnecessary passes. Eco-friendly adaptations, such as no-till optimized shanks with enhanced residue flow, further minimized compaction in continuous cropping systems while supporting .

Design and Components

Core Elements

The shank, also known as the tine, serves as the primary penetrating element of a subsoiler, constructed from to withstand the stresses of deep penetration. These shanks typically measure around 0.66 meters in and are engineered to fracture subsoil at depths of 30-60 centimeters, alleviating compaction without excessive surface disturbance. At the base of the shank, the foot or features a replaceable point often equipped with angled wings set at 15-30 degrees to optimize soil lift and shatter compacted layers such as hardpan. This design, typically beveled for efficient entry, fractures the subsoil vertically while minimizing inversion, promoting better root penetration and water flow. The wings enhance fracturing efficiency by increasing the disturbed area without significantly raising draft requirements. The frame and hitch system provide the structural backbone for tractor attachment, commonly utilizing a compatible with Category I or II standards to ensure stability and precise depth control during operation. Built from robust , the frame distributes loads across multiple shanks, supporting in compacted fields while allowing adjustments for even terrain contact. Optional features include shear bolts, which protect against overload by shearing at forces up to approximately 650 kilograms per shank, preventing damage from rocks or . Coulter wheels may also be incorporated ahead of the shank to cut , reducing drag and facilitating smoother penetration in high-residue conditions.

Types and Variations

Subsoilers are categorized into several types based on shank configuration, operational depth, and adaptation to specific conditions, allowing farmers to select designs suited to their field's needs. Ripper-style subsoilers, featuring straight shanks, are particularly effective for breaking up hardpan in heavy clay soils, where they can achieve working depths of 45-90 cm to promote deep penetration and infiltration in large-scale farming operations. Parabolic or curved-shank subsoilers offer an alternative design that minimizes draft force, requiring up to 30% less power than straight-shank models, making them well-suited for lighter sandy or loamy s where reduced input enhances without excessive soil disturbance. These shanks, often constructed from high-strength for durability, curve gradually to lift and fracture soil layers progressively. In-row subsoilers are specialized for no-till systems, incorporating narrow points typically 3-12 cm wide to precisely target compacted zones between crop rows while minimizing disruption to surface residue and maintaining soil cover. This configuration supports conservation practices by preserving and reducing risks in row-crop fields. Vibrating or hydraulic subsoilers, developed since the mid-20th century with advancements in the , utilize mechanisms to shatter compacted layers, achieving 20-40% energy savings over traditional rigid designs and proving ideal for targeted applications in compacted orchards or vineyards. These models employ hydraulic systems to induce vibrations, effectively loosening restrictive layers in perennial crop settings without broad surface inversion. Recent models as of may integrate GPS for precision depth control.

Operation and Mechanism

Working Principles

The subsoiler operates by using tractor-generated traction to pull a rigid shank or into the , typically at forward speeds of 4 to 8 km/h, which applies to compacted layers along natural cleavage planes without significant soil inversion. This penetration mechanism relies on the shank's narrow profile and angled design, such as a 45-degree bent in parabolic or Paratill models, to slice through the subsurface while minimizing surface disruption and allowing the soil to lift and separate under tension. The process induces vertical fractures directly above the shank and horizontal tension cracks extending toward the surface, creating a network of fissures that alleviate compaction. During soil shattering, the angled foot or winged point at the shank's base exerts upward pressure, propagating cracks that increase pore space by approximately 18-22% in the subsoil while preserving the integrity of upper soil layers. This fracturing enhances drainage and root penetration without mixing horizons, as the shank's motion focuses energy on tensile failure rather than inversion or pulverization. Optimal performance occurs at depths of 40-50 cm below the surface, where the tool targets hardpans or traffic pans, but this requires tractors with 50-100 horsepower to overcome draft forces, particularly in heavier soils. Soil moisture levels of 20-30% by weight facilitate minimal resistance during operation, as drier conditions reduce cohesion and allow easier shank entry, though excessive dryness can increase power demands. The subsoiler's design inherently supports residue management by disturbing less than 10-30% of surface cover, thereby preserving 70-90% of crop residues to foster microbial activity, retain soil moisture, and curb evaporation losses. Narrow shanks and optional attachments like rolling baskets further minimize residue displacement, aligning with conservation tillage principles that maintain organic matter on the surface for erosion control and soil health.

Implementation Techniques

Pre-operation setup for subsoiling begins with thorough to identify compaction zones. Farmers typically use a to measure resistance, where readings exceeding 2 MPa indicate significant compaction requiring intervention. Once compaction is confirmed, shank spacing is adjusted based on and row configuration, commonly set between 75 and 150 cm to ensure adequate fracture coverage without excessive overlap or gaps. Optimal timing for subsoiling occurs in the fall or immediately before planting to allow winter and exploration in the fractured zone. Ideal soil conditions include cool temperatures typical of fall, which facilitate shank penetration without freezing risks, and moisture levels of 15-25% to promote clean fracturing. Operations should avoid frozen soils, which resist breakage, and overly wet conditions exceeding , as these can lead to soil smearing and clod formation. During operation, a single pass at 6-8 km/h suffices for most moderately compacted soils, minimizing fuel use and surface disruption while achieving effective shatter. For severe compaction, multiple passes at angled orientations—such as 45 degrees to the previous run—enhance fracture completeness, often requiring 75-80% success in breaking the pan. In modern , subsoilers may incorporate GPS and on-the-go sensors for real-time variable depth adjustment based on mapping. Post-operation verification involves root penetration tests, such as digging trenches or profile pits to observe unrestricted root growth into the subsoil layer, confirming reduced resistance below 2 MPa. Maintenance practices are essential for reliability and . Blades and points should be sharpened annually or after 100-200 hours of use to maintain cutting efficiency, while shanks are inspected for wear and replaced if deformed. Hitches and pivot points require regular with grease fittings before each use and repacking of bearings yearly to prevent and binding. With consistent upkeep, subsoilers can achieve a 5-10 year operational lifespan under typical field conditions.

Agricultural Applications

Crop-Specific Uses

In row crops such as corn and , in-row subsoiling is commonly employed in compacted soils of the Midwest U.S. to alleviate restrictive layers, allowing roots to penetrate deeper into the subsoil. This practice typically boosts root depth by 20-30 cm by fracturing hardpans formed at those levels, enabling better access to and nutrients during critical growth stages. In compacted fields, such subsoiling has been shown to increase corn and yields by 10-15%, with responses varying based on compaction severity and . For and in the Southern U.S., deep subsoiling to approximately 50 cm targets hardpan layers that impede drainage and development, particularly in sandy soils. This depth allows the shank to penetrate and shatter the restrictive zone, improving and water movement to reduce waterlogging and associated s. By enhancing drainage, subsoiling lowers disease incidence, such as from fungal pathogens thriving in poorly aerated conditions, while supporting higher pod and boll set. Yield improvements for both crops have been documented, often exceeding 20% in trials on compacted sites. In small grains like and , pre-seeding subsoiling is a key practice in arid and semiarid regions, where it fractures compacted layers to promote greater entry into the profile. This enhances infiltration rates, crucial for capturing limited rainfall and storing for crop establishment in water-limited environments. Such improvements are particularly vital in regions with erratic , supporting uniform and tillering without relying on supplemental . For perennial crops like , periodic subsoiling every 3-5 years addresses traffic-induced compaction from heavy machinery used in planting, cultivation, and harvesting. This interval aligns with ratoon cycles in mechanized systems, where compaction builds over multiple harvests, restricting expansion and uptake in the expansive zone. Subsoiling at this frequency reduces in the subsoil, alleviating restrictions that limit cane stool development and ratoon vigor, thereby sustaining productivity across harvest cycles.

Soil Health Integration

Subsoiling plays a key role in conservation systems, such as no-till or , by alleviating deep while preserving surface residue cover to sustain long-term . When combined with no-till practices, subsoiling helps maintain elevated levels of by minimizing disturbance and promoting aggregate stability, which in turn supports microbial activity and nutrient cycling. This integration fosters populations, as reduced enhances their abundance and burrowing, contributing to improved and organic matter . Integrating subsoiling with cover crops further advances by creating fracture zones that facilitate root proliferation and . Performing subsoiling prior to planting like or allows these cover crops to penetrate compacted layers more effectively, enhancing root growth into deeper profiles and boosting overall soil biological diversity through increased for microorganisms and . This approach not only improves nutrient uptake and but also strengthens resilience against environmental stresses. In , subsoiling aligns with sustainable practices by preserving cover on the surface, which significantly reduces runoff and sediment loss. Maintaining at least 30% residue cover through conservation tillage can decrease by up to 70%, while no-till systems integrated with subsoiling further limit runoff volumes, in line with USDA NRCS guidelines for minimizing on sloping lands. Effective monitoring and rotation practices ensure the sustained benefits of subsoiling for . Annual soil tests following subsoiling operations track reductions in , aiming for targets below 1.4 g/cm³ in many agricultural s to support optimal growth and . Rotating subsoiling with aerators helps maintain balanced profiles by addressing both deep and surface compaction without overworking the .

Benefits and Limitations

Key Advantages

Subsoiling significantly enhances growth by fracturing compacted subsurface layers, allowing to penetrate deeper and access greater volumes for and . This results in improved , as deeper can draw from lower moisture reserves during dry periods, and better overall plant stability. Research indicates that subsoiling can reduce soil penetration resistance to 14 inches in fragipan soils, promoting healthier systems compared to untreated compacted fields. In addition, by alleviating compaction, subsoiling improves uptake efficiency, such as , through enhanced soil aeration and reduced , potentially leading to more effective fertilizer utilization. The practice also improves water dynamics in agricultural soils by increasing infiltration rates and reducing surface . Compacted soils often exhibit low infiltration, but subsoiling creates channels that boost water entry, with studies showing rates doubling from approximately 0.33 cm/hour to 0.66 cm/hour in treated areas. This enhancement minimizes runoff and while increasing the soil's available water-holding capacity, particularly beneficial in rainfed systems where efficient water capture is critical for survival. Overall, these changes contribute to more resilient soil profiles. Recent studies as of 2025 highlight subsoiling's role in enhancing resilience to , such as , by improving distribution and dynamics in rainfed systems. In terms of yield and economic gains, subsoiling delivers notable increases in compacted fields, with average improvements of 5-25% depending on and . For instance, corn yields have risen by 11% (about 14 bushels per acre) on fragipan soils through better access and water availability, with even higher gains in years. Environmentally, subsoiling offers positives by promoting through minimal disturbance, which preserves and enhances soil organic carbon accumulation in deeper layers. Unlike intensive plowing, it supports undisturbed surface residues that aid in long-term carbon storage, as demonstrated in rainfed systems on the . Additionally, as part of conservation tillage, subsoiling can lower fuel consumption by 20-30% compared to conventional moldboard plowing in full systems, due to fewer passes and targeted deep loosening, thereby reducing from farm operations.

Potential Drawbacks

Subsoilers require significant upfront investment, with new typically costing between $2,000 and $10,000 for standard models suitable for mid-sized operations as of 2024, though larger multi-shank units can exceed $20,000 and prices may have increased. These implements demand with sufficient horsepower, often 50-100 HP depending on the model and number of shanks, which may pose challenges for very small operations. Fuel demands are high during operation, ranging from 1.2 to 3.5 gallons per acre depending on soil resistance, depth, and implement design, which can substantially increase operational expenses. In wet conditions, subsoiling slows field preparation and planting timelines by 1-2 days per session, as moist s resist penetration and require careful timing to avoid further delays. Soil-specific risks include temporary smearing and short-term density increases in wet clay soils, where improper moisture levels can exacerbate compaction rather than alleviate it. Subsoiling proves ineffective or counterproductive in non-compacted soils, offering no yield benefits, and in rocky terrains, where it heightens damage without improving structure. Maintenance challenges arise from abrasive wear on shanks, which can degrade by 10-20% per season in sandy or gritty soils, leading to annual repair costs of $500 to $1,000 for replacements and adjustments.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/subsoiler
  2. https://drec.msstate.edu/content/early-mechanical-inventions
  3. https://www.sare.org/publications/conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast/chapter-6-in-row-subsoiling-to-disrupt-soil-compaction/subsoiling/
  4. https://extension.psu.edu/subsoiling-in-fall-to-alleviate-compaction/
  5. https://www.bitesizedgardening.co.uk/jethro-tull-the-father-of-modern-agriculture/how-to-dig-for-victory/
  6. https://www.asme.org/topics-resources/content/jethro-tull
  7. https://www.britannica.com/technology/subsoil-plow
  8. https://www.britannica.com/technology/plow
  9. https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farming-in-the-1940s/machines/
  10. https://www.cotton.org/foundation/reference-books/weeds/upload/WOC_Chapter6.pdf
  11. https://www.kuhn.com/en/news/new-dt-kuhn-subsoiler-deep-restructuring-intensive-mixing
  12. https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/309328/files/aib461.pdf
  13. https://www.sare.org/publications/conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast/chapter-2-conservation-tillage-systems-history-the-future-and-benefits/a-historical-perspective/
  14. https://nwdistrict.ifas.ufl.edu/phag/2022/01/07/history-of-conservation-tillage-and-cover-crop-use-in-florida/
  15. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60820000/Manuscripts/1985-1990/Man202.pdf
  16. https://mejast.com/data/uploads/98003.pdf
  17. https://saskwheat.ca/research-projects/precision-subsoiling-of-fields-to-improve-soil-physical-conditions-plant-growth-and-economic-return/
  18. https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/11839-great-plains-announces-sub-soiler-optimized-for-no-till
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329972623_Subsoiler_Development_Trend_in_the_Alleviation_of_Soil_Compaction_for_Sustainable_Agricultural_Production
  20. https://bushhog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/50072474-SS1-Subsoiler-OPS-PUB-09-20.pdf
  21. https://bushhog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/BHSubSoilerhdsssubsoilerOM-13.pdf
  22. https://www.agriexpo.online/agricultural-manufacturer/fixed-subsoiler-1643-_2.html
  23. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/raper/raper_05c.pdf
  24. https://www.bighamag.com/parabolic-ripper
  25. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/raper/raper_07d.pdf
  26. https://cetab.bio/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/weill_2015._guide_to_successful_subsoiling._cetab.pdf
  27. https://www.sare.org/publications/conservation-tillage-systems-in-the-southeast/chapter-9-planting-in-cover-crop-residue/in-row-subsoiling-combined-with-planting/
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341683181_Modeling_the_interaction_of_soil_and_a_vibrating_subsoiler_using_the_discrete_element_method
  29. https://www.vedafarming.com/farm-implement/ripper-vibrasoil
  30. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/11/1/68
  31. https://www.precisionag.com/
  32. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/raper/raper_07g.pdf
  33. https://fieldreport.caes.uga.edu/publications/B1190/southern-small-grains-resource-management-handbook/
  34. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/pubs_journals/2021/rmrs_2021_nash_m001.pdf
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12388414/
  36. https://extension.psu.edu/dry-fall-gives-a-window-to-alleviate-soil-compaction/
  37. https://extension.umn.edu/soil-management-and-health/soil-compaction
  38. https://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/smp/solo/InfoPath/documents/Davis.pdf
  39. https://extension.psu.edu/subsoiling-benefits-yields-on-soils-with-shallow-fragipans/
  40. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2134/agronj2003.5260
  41. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm08342828/page03.htm
  42. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60100500/csr/ResearchPubs/raper/raper_02a.pdf
  43. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf08342828/pdf08342828dpi72.pdf
  44. https://agroland.pro/en/subsoiling/
  45. https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3904&context=all_theses
  46. https://www.boehmtractor.com/blog/how-to-maintain-tillage-equipment--76656
  47. https://www.uky.edu/Ag/CornSoy/cornsoy3_3.htm
  48. https://www.clemson.edu/extension/agronomy/_files/soybean-production-guide.pdf
  49. https://open.clemson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5036&context=all_theses
  50. http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/nsdl/scasc/Proceedings/2007/posters/Rui-Simoes.pdf
  51. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-10/Effects_of_Implementation_of_Soil_Health_Management_Practices_on_Infiltration_Ksat_and_Runoff.pdf
  52. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1014&context=psc_stures
  53. https://thescipub.com/pdf/ajabssp.2011.418.422.pdf
  54. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328026874_Effect_of_sub-soiling_on_sugarcane_productivity_and_physical_properties_of_the_soil
  55. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351374546_Subsoiling_Affecting_Soil_Quality_Parameters_and_Sugarcane_Yield_in_Multiratooning_System_in_Subtropical_India
  56. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46028943_Soil_Compaction_Due_to_Sugarcane_Saccharum_officinarum_Mechanical_Harvesting_and_the_Effects_of_Subsoiling_on_the_Improvement_of_Soil_Physical_Properties
  57. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/nrcs142p2_053258.pdf
  58. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/88439
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374262674_Conservation_tillage_influences_soil_structure_earthworm_communities_and_wheat_root_traits_in_a_long-term_organic_cropping_experiment
  60. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/soil/soil-health
  61. https://www.sare.org/publications/building-soils-for-better-crops/reducing-runoff-and-erosion/
  62. https://extension.sdstate.edu/bulk-density-indicator-soil-health
  63. https://extension.psu.edu/subsoiling-benefits-yields-on-soils-with-shallow-fragipans
  64. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/6112/rotarySubsoilingNewlyPlanted.pdf
  65. https://pubs.nmsu.edu/_circulars/CR672/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901514/
  67. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7840036/
  68. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/5478/Sudduth_Compaction_CMC07.pdf
  69. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2024-07/tillage-tools-and-practices-in-organic-farming-systems-nrcs-ofrf-guide.pdf
  70. https://www.agricultural-engineering.eu/landtechnik/article/download/2008-63-1-018-019/2008-63-1-018-019-en-pdf/1113
  71. https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/images/resources/pdf_documents/tillage_module.pdf
  72. https://nrcs.usda.gov/plantmaterials/njpmctn12652.pdf
  73. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230281325_Alleviation_of_soil_compaction_Requirements_equipment_and_techniques
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301679X16302663
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.