Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Agriculture (Pol'nohospodárstvo)

The Journal of National Agricultural and Food Centre

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.59

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.196
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.360

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Effect of Tillage System and Soil Conditioner Application on Soybean (Glycine Max (L.) Merrill.) and Its Crop Management Economic Indicators

Ladislav Kováč / Jana Jakubová / Danica Šariková
Published Online: 2014-07-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/agri-2014-0007


Experiments with soybean on heavy soils of East Slovak Lowlands were established in the years 2010–2012. The effect of mineral fertilisers and soil conditioner application on soybean’s yield using three tillage systems (minimum tillage (MT), conventional tillage (CT) and no tillage (NT)) was studied. Production costs and economic efficiency of crop management practices were evaluated. The influence of production year on soybean crop was significant in the order of 2011, 2010 and 2012. Statistical evaluation confirmed that the effects of CT and MT systems were more significant compared with NT system. No significant differences were found between the variants of the mineral fertiliser and conditioner application. Differences in the total cost of soybean cultivation, as measured between years, were not significant. Fertilisation variants with application of HUMAC agro and NPK generated the highest costs. On the other hand, the lowest costs were achieved at fertilisation variants with application of NPK alone. Comparing tillage variants, the CT system had the highest costs each year. Significant savings were achieved on MT and NT variants. During the experimental period, a profit was reached on all variants. Applying NPK alone, the highest profit was achieved in 2010 and 2012 using MT system and in 2011 with CT tillage. The variant b2 with PRP sol in the years 2010 and 2011 was the most profitable using NT system and in 2012 using MT. Variant with HUMAC agro was the most profitable in each year using MT. The lowest income threshold for zero profitability was calculated in 2012. Using CT farming techniques at NPK fertilisation variant b1 in 2012, the income threshold was 1.85 t/ha, at variant b2 PRP sol it was 2.10 t/ha and at variant b3 HUMAC agro it was 2.42 t/ha. At MT and NT systems, the income threshold values for zero profitability were lower.

Keywords: soybean; fertilisation; soil tillage; costs; economic effectiveness


  • ABRHAM, Z. – KOVÁŘOVÁ, M. – KOCÁNOVÁ, V. – HEROUT, M. – SCHEUFLER, V. 2007. Technické a technologické normativy pro zemědělskou výrobu [Technical and technological norms for agricultural production]. Praha: VUZT, no. 5, 29 p. ISBN 978- 86884-26-4.Google Scholar

  • ANTHONY, P. – MALZER, G. – SPARROW, S. – ZHANG, M. 2012. Soybean yield and quality in relation to soil properties. In Agronomy Journal, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 1443-1458.Google Scholar

  • ARCHER, D.W. – REICOSKY, D.C. 2008. Economic performance of alternative tillage systems in the Northern Corn Belt. In Agronomy Journal, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 296-304.Google Scholar

  • BALLA, P. – HECL, J. – KOTOROVÁ, D. – KOVÁČ, L. – a šOLTYSOVA, B. 2012. Vplyv spôsobov využívania pôdy na kolobeh živín na ťažkých pôdach [Effect of soil utilization modes on the mater circulation in Gleyic Luvisol]. In Hadházy – Henzsel: Examination of the effect of land utilization systems on water- and nutrient circulation of soils. Debrecen, pp. 26-45. ISBN 978-963-473-594-6.Google Scholar

  • BOTTA, G.F. – POZZOLO, O. – BOMBEN, M. -ROSATTO, H. – RIVERO, D. – RESSIA, M. -TOURN, M. – SOZA, E. – VAZQUEZ, J. 2007. Traffic alternatives for harvesting soybean (Glycine max L.): Effect on yields and soil under a direct sowing system. In Soil and Tillage Research, vol. 96, no. 1-2, pp. 145-154.Google Scholar

  • DUSEJA, D.R. – DENNIS, S. 2010. Long-term effects of two tillage systems on soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) (var. Forrest) production, soil properties and plant nutrient uptake. In 19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Brisbane, Australia. Published on DVD.Google Scholar

  • FECÁK, P. – ŠARIKOVÁ, D. – ČERNÝ, I. 2009. Formation of soybean yields in dependence on conventional and reduce system of soil tillage. In Acta fytotechnica et zootechnica, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 24-28.Google Scholar

  • FECÁK, P. – ŠARIKOVÁ, D. – ČERNÝ, I. 2010. Influence of tillage system and starting N fertilization on seed yield and quality of soybean Glycine max (L.) Merrill. In Plant, Soil and Environment, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 105-110.Google Scholar

  • GROFÍK, R. – FĽAK, P. 1990. Statistical methods for agriculture. 1. ed. Bratislava: Príroda, 344 pp. ISBN 80-07-00018-6.Google Scholar

  • KATSVAIRO, T.W. – COX, W.J. 2000. Economics of Cropping Systems Featuring Different Rotations, Tillage, and Management. In Agronomy Journal, vol. 92, no. 3, pp. 485-493.Google Scholar

  • KAVKA, M. 2006. Normativy zemědělských výrobních technologií [Limits of agricultural production technologies]. Praha: ÚZPI, 376 p. ISBN 80-7271-164-4.Google Scholar

  • KOTOROVÁ, D. 2012. Vplyv pôdnych stimulátorov na fyzikálne vlastnosti ťažkých pôd [The effect of soil amendments on physical properties of heavy soils]. In Využívanie pôd v prihraničnej oblasti Slovensko-Maďarsko [Use of land in the border region Slovakia-Hungary]: proceedings of scientific conference with international participation in the project of cross-border cooperation]. Michalovce: PPRC -Research Institute of Agroecology, pp. 22-27. ISBN 978-80-89417.Google Scholar

  • LANÇA RODRÍGUES, J.G. – GAMERO, C.A. – COSTA FERNANDES, J. ‒ MIRÁS-AVALOS, J. M. 2009. Effects of different soil tillage systems and coverages on soybean crop in the Botucatu Region in Brazil. In Spanish Journal Agricultural Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 173-180.Google Scholar

  • POLÁČKOVÁ, J. – BOUDNÝ, J. – JANOTOVÁ, B. – NOVÁK, J. 2010. Metodika kalkulacínákladů a výnosů v zemědělství [Methodics for costing of costs and returns in agriculture]. Praha: ÚZEI, 58 p. ISBN 978-80-86671-75-8.Google Scholar

  • ROZBORILOVÁ, E. 2012. Definitívne údaje o úrode poľnohospodárskych plodín a zeleniny v SR za rok 2011 [Final data on crops and vegetables in the Slovak Republic in 2011]. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. 26 p. ISBN 978-80-8121-162-1.Google Scholar

  • STANGER, T.F. – LAUER, J.G. – CHAVAS, J.P. 2006. The profitability and risk of long-term cropping systems featuring different rotations and nitrogen rates. In Agronomy Journal, vol. 100, no. 1, pp. 105-113.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC. 2011. Definitívne údaje o úrode poľnohospodárskych plodín a zeleniny v SR za rok 2010 [Final data on crops and vegetables in Slovakia in 2010]. Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic. 29 p. ISBN 978-80-8121-099-0.Google Scholar

  • ŠARIKOVÁ, D. – FECÁK, P. 2007. Vplyv hnojenia a obrábania pôdy na úrodu a kvalitu sóje fazuľovej [Effect of different tillage and fertilization on soybean yield and seed quality]. In Zborník vedeckých prác [Proceeding of scientific works] 23. Michalovce: SCPV – ÚA, pp. 161-169. ISBN 978-80-88872-70-2.Google Scholar

  • ŠOLTYSOVA, B. 2012. Vplyv aplikácie pôdneho kondi-cionéra na zmeny vybraných chemických vlastnostíťažkej fluvizeme glejovej [Effect of application of soil conditioner for changes selected chemical properties of heavy gleyic flivisol]. In Využívanie pôd v prihraničnej oblasti Slovensko-Maďarsko [Use of land in the border region Slovakia-Hungary]: proceedings of scientific conference with international participation in the project of cross-border cooperation. Michalovce: PPRC – Research Institute of Agroecology, pp. 34-41. ISBN 978-80-89417Google Scholar

  • TÓTH, Š. 2012. Úrodové výsledky realizátorského testo-vania prípravku HUMAC agro v poľných poloprevádz-kových podmienkach [The HUMAC agro yield effect at field testing]. In Využívanie pôd v prihraničnej oblasti Slovensko-Maďarsko [Use of land in the border region Slovakia-Hungary]: proceedings of scientific conference with international participation in the project of cross-border cooperation). Michalovce: PPRC – Research Institute of Agroecology, pp. 42-49. ISBN 978-80-89417.Google Scholar

  • TRIPLETT, G.B. – DICK, W.A. 2007. No-Tillage crop production: A Revolution in agriculture! In Agronomy Journal, vol. 100, Supplement 3, pp. 153-165.Google Scholar

  • VYN, R.J. 2012. The effectiveness of alternative marketing strategies for Ontario corn and soybean producers. In Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/ Revue canadienne d’agroeconomie, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 427-449.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

* National Agricultural and Food Centre, Research Institute of Agroecology, 071 01 Michalovce, Špitálska 1273, Slovak Republic.

Received: 2013-04-17

Published Online: 2014-07-29

Citation Information: Agriculture (Polnohospodárstvo), Volume 60, Issue 2, Pages 60–69, ISSN (Online) 1338-4376, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/agri-2014-0007.

Export Citation

© 2014 Ladislav Kováč et. al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in