000			01648nab a22003857a 4500
001			G28835
003			MX-TxCIM
008			121211b |||p||p||||||| |z||| |
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041	0		_aEn
043			_aUS
072		0	_aE14
072		0	_aP36
090			_aREP-4078
100	1		_aDickey, E.C.
245	0	0	_aConservation tillage: _b perceived and actual use
260			_c1987
340			_aPrinted
500			_aTables, references p. 434
520			_aA mail survey of farmers in Nebraska showed their perceived use of conservation tillage was about 55%. However, using the 30% residue cover criterion that the Conservation Tillage Information Center uses to define conservation tillage, a field survey of seven counties in 1984 showed that actual use of conservation tillage was less than 5%. Fewer than 20% of the producers surveyed had more than 20% residue cover remaining after tillage and planting. The field survey also showed disk tillage systems were used by almost 70% of the producers. The moldboard plow was used by only 15% of the producers, thus creating an impression that conservation tillage had
546			_aEnglish
595			_aRPC
650	1	0	_aEquipment
650	1	0	_aErosion control
650	1	0	_aEvaluation
650	1	7	_aInnovation adoption _gAGROVOC _2 _91160
650	1	0	_aSoil conservation _92273
650	1	0	_91832 _aTillage _gAGROVOC
700	1		_aBrown, L.A., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aDolesh, B.J., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aJasa, P.J., _ecoaut.
700	1		_aRockwell, S.K., _ecoaut.
773	0		_tJournal of Soil and Water Conservation _n615060 _gv. 42, no. 6, p. 431-434
942			_cJA
999			_c11959 _d11959