<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v2.2 20060430//EN" "nlm-dtd2.2/archivearticle.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.2" xml:lang="EN">
	<front>
		<journal-meta>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">pnut</journal-id>
			<journal-id journal-id-type="allenpress-id">pnut</journal-id>
			<journal-title>Peanut Science</journal-title>
			<issn pub-type="ppub">0095-3679</issn>
			<issn pub-type="active">0095-3679</issn>
			<publisher>
				<publisher-name>American Peanut Research and Education Society</publisher-name>
			</publisher>
		</journal-meta>
		<article-meta>
			<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3146/i0095-3679-22-2-9</article-id>
			<article-categories>
				<subj-group subj-group-type="heading">
					<subject>Articles</subject>
				</subj-group>
			</article-categories>
			<title-group>
				<article-title>Conservational Tillage and Cultivar Influence on Peanut Production<xref ref-type="fn" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref></article-title>
			</title-group>
			<contrib-group>
				<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
					<name name-style="western">
						<given-names>F. S.</given-names><x xml:space="preserve"> </x>
						<surname>Wright</surname>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1">&ast;</xref><x xml:space="preserve"> and </x>
				</contrib>
				<contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple">
					<name name-style="western">
						<given-names>D. M.</given-names><x xml:space="preserve"> </x>
						<surname>Porter</surname>
					</name>
					<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref>
				</contrib>
				
					<aff id="aff2">
					<label><sup>2</sup></label>Res. Agric. Eng., USDA, ARS, National Peanut Research Laboratory, Dawson, GA 31742 and Supervisory Plant Pathol., USDA, ARS, New England Plant Soil and Water Laboratory, Univ. of Maine, Orono, ME 04469 (both formerly located with Tidewater Agric. Res. and Ext. Center, Suffolk, VA)
				</aff>
			</contrib-group>
			<author-notes>
				<fn fn-type="fn" id="fn1">
					<p><sup>1</sup>Mention of firm names or trade products in this paper does not constitute a recommendation by the USDA nor does it imply registration under FIFRA.</p>
				</fn>
				<corresp id="cor1">&ast;Corresponding author.</corresp>
			</author-notes>
			<pub-date pub-type="ppub">
				<month>7</month>
				<year>1995</year>
			</pub-date>
			<volume>22</volume>
			<issue>2</issue>
			<fpage>120</fpage>
			<lpage>124</lpage>
			<history>
				<date date-type="accepted">
					<day>19</day>
					<month>10</month>
					<year>1995</year>
				</date>
			</history>
			<permissions>
				<copyright-statement>Copyright &copy; 1995 American Peanut Research and Education Society</copyright-statement>
				<copyright-year>1995</copyright-year>
				<copyright-holder>American Peanut Research and Education Society</copyright-holder>
			</permissions>
			<related-article related-article-type="pdf" xlink:href="i0095-3679-22-2-9.pdf" xlink:type="simple"></related-article>
			<abstract>
				<title>Abstract</title>
				<p>The influence of conservational tillage and cultivar on pod yield, crop value, and market grade factors was evaluated as a means to increase the production efficiency of peanut (<italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L.). Two conservational tillage systems, in-row and band tillage, and one conventional tillage system were compared over a 4-yr period using the cultivars Florigiant, NC 6, and VA 81B. For all three cultivars, pod yields averaged 15% less and crop values averaged 21% less under the conservational tillage systems as compared to the conventional tillage system. The cultivar NC 6 performed slightly better than Florigiant and VA 81B. The percentage of extra large kernels for NC 6 was significantly higher than for the other two cultivars. There were no significant differences in the percentage of sound mature kernels and total meat content between the three cultivars. Tillage systems did not have a consistent effect on grade factors over the 4-yr period.</p>
			</abstract>
			<kwd-group>
				<title>Key Words</title>
				<kwd>Market grade</kwd><x xml:space="preserve">; </x><x xml:space="preserve">, </x>
				<kwd>groundnut</kwd><x xml:space="preserve">; </x><x xml:space="preserve">, </x>
				<kwd><italic>Arachis hypogaea</italic> L</kwd><x xml:space="preserve">; </x><x xml:space="preserve">, </x>
				<kwd>yield</kwd><x xml:space="preserve">; </x><x xml:space="preserve">, </x>
				<kwd>conventional tillage</kwd>
			</kwd-group>
			<counts>
				<page-count count="5"></page-count>
			</counts>
		</article-meta>
	</front>
</article>
