Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:17:21.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control and Economics Using Reduced Tillage Programs in Sugarcane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wilson E. Judice,
James L. Griffin,
Curtis A. Jones,
Luke M. Etheredge JR. and
Michael E. Salassi
Wilson E. Judice
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Curtis A. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Luke M. Etheredge JR.
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Environmental Management, LSU AgCenter, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Michael E. Salassi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, LSU AgCenter, 101 Agricultural Administration Building, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jgriffin@agcenter.lsu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tillage is used in sugarcane to control weeds, eliminate ruts caused by harvest, destroy residue from the previous crop, and incorporate fertilizer. The effect of weed control and tillage programs on sugarcane growth and yield and on economics was evaluated over two growing seasons. In the first study, weeds were effectively controlled with a March application of hexazinone at 0.59 kg ai/ha plus diuron at 2.10 kg ai/ha either banded or broadcast. When tillage of row shoulders and middles in March was eliminated, soil temperature in the sugarcane drill early in the season was equal to that where March tillage was performed. Sugarcane early and late season stalk population and sugarcane and sugar yield were each equivalent for the full season tillage (tillage of row shoulders and middles in March and in May) and the no-till programs. Elimination of a single tillage operation reduced cost $16.28/ha, and herbicide applied as a band rather than broadcast reduced cost $30.49/ ha. For the no-till program, with herbicide banded in March, net return was increased $32.56/ha. In a subsequent study conducted at five locations, weed control was excellent when either pendimethalin at 2.77 kg ai/ha plus metribuzin at 1.26 kg ai/ha or hexazinone plus diuron at 0.59 kg/ha and 2.10 kg/ha was used. When the March tillage was eliminated, sugar yield was increased 8.6% (620 kg/ ha), and net return was increased $152.68/ha compared with March tillage. When the May tillage was eliminated sugar yield was increased 8% (580 kg/ha), and net return was increased $143.88/ha compared with May tillage. A reduction in tillage cost accounted for only $16.28 of the increase in net return per hectare, with the remainder due to increased yield with the elimination of the tillage operation.

Keywords

Diuron, hexazinone, metribuzin, pendimethalinsugarcane, Saccharum spp. hybrids ‘HoCP 85–845’ and ‘LCP 85–384’Conservation tillagecrop residuenet returnno-tillproduction costsoil temperature

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2006, pp. 319 - 325
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1991. Minimum tillage. Power farming. North Melbourne, Australia: Diverse Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd. 101:32.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2002. CTIC National Crop Residue Management Survey; West Lafayette. IN: Conservation Technology Information Center: Web page:http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/. Accessed: February 2004.Google Scholar
Baker, J. L. and Johnson, H. P. 1983. Evaluating the effectiveness of BMP's from field studies. in Schaller, F. W. and Baily, G. W., eds. Agricultural Management and Water Quality. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, R. L., Smith, M. S., Thomas, G. W., and Frye, W. W. 1983. Influence of conservation tillage on soil properties. J. Soil Water Conserv. 38:301–307.Google Scholar
Breaux, J. B. and Salassi, M. E. 2005. Projected Costs and Returns—Sugarcane, Louisiana A.E.A. Information Series No. 229: Web page: http://www.agecon.lsu.edu/FarmManagement.htm. Accessed March 2005.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G., Nyquist, W. E., and Walker, W. M. 1989. Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- and three-factor treatment designs. Agron. J. 81:665–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook. 12th ed. New York: J. Wiley. Pp. 852–867.Google Scholar
Coats, W. E. and Thacker, G. 1997. Reduced tillage systems for irrigated cotton: Energy requirements and crop response. Appl. Eng. Agric. 13/1:31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dao, T. H. 1993. Tillage and winter wheat residue management effects on water infiltration and storage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 57:1586–1595.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. 1983. Organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations and pH in soil profiles as affected by tillage intensity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 47:102–107.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A. and Van Doren, D. M. Jr. 1985. Continuous tillage and rotation combination effects on corn, soybean, and oat yield. Agron. J. 77:459–465.Google Scholar
Dick, W. A., McCoy, E. L., Edwards, W. M., and Lal, R. 1991. Continuous application of no-till to Ohio soils. Agron. J. 83:65–73.Google Scholar
Doran, J. W. 1980. Soil microbial and biochemical changes associated with reduced tillage. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 44:765–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farahani, H. J., Peterson, G. A., and Westfall, D. G. 1998. Dryland cropping intensification: a fundamental solution to efficient use of precipitation. Adv. Agron. 64:197–223.Google Scholar
Glanville, T. J., Titmarsh, G., Sallaway, M. M., and Mason, F. 1997. Soil erosion in caneland tillage systems. Proc. 1997 conf. Aust. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. Pp. 254–262.Google Scholar
Griffith, D. R., Mannering, J. V., and Box, J. E. 1986. Soil and moisture management with reduced tillage. in Sprague, M. A. and Triplett, G. B., eds. No-tillage and Surface Tillage Agriculture: The Tillage Revolution. New York: Wiley. Pp. 19–57.Google Scholar
Hager, A. G., Wax, L. M., Bollero, G. A., and Stoller, E. W. 2003. Influence of diphenylether herbicide application rate and timing on common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) control in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 17:14–20.Google Scholar
Halvorson, A. D., Peterson, G. A., and Reule, C. A. 2002. Tillage system and crop rotation effects on dryland crop yield and soil carbon in the central Great Plains. Agron. J. 94:1429–1436.Google Scholar
Hurle, K. and Walker, A. 1980. Persistence and its prediction. in Hance, R. J., ed. Interactions between Herbicides and the Soil. London: Academic. Pp. 83–122.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. W. and Hutchinson, R. L. 2001. Cotton growth and development under different tillage systems. Crop Sci. 41:1162–1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, W. C. and McWhorter, C. G. 1986. Weed control in conservation tillage. J. Soil Water Conserv. 41:365–370.Google Scholar
Lal, R., Eckert, D. J., Fausey, N. R., and Edwards, W. M. 1990. Conservation tillage in sustainable agriculture. in Edwards, C. A., ed. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conserv. Soc. Pp. 203–225.Google Scholar
Lamb, J. A., Peterson, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1985. Wheat–fallow tillage systems' effect on a newly cultivated grassland soils' nitrogen budget. Soil Sci. Am. J. 49:352–356.Google Scholar
Pear, E., Bounza, H., Morales, M., Lopez, N., Hernandez, S., and Martinez, I. 1992. Influence of two soil technologies on the nutrient absorption, radical development and sugarcane yield. Ciencias del Suelo, Riego Y Mechanizacion 2:25–35.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1999. Management of chopper harvester-generated green cane trash blankets: a new concern for Louisiana. Proc. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 23/2:52–62.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc. Mixed. in Proceeding of the 23rd SAS Users Group Intl., Cary, NC: SAS Institute. Pp. 1243–1246.Google Scholar
Tiessen, H., Stewart, J. W. B., and Bettany, J. R. 1982. Cultivation effects on the amounts and concentration of carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorous in grassland soils. Agron. J. 74:831–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Triplett, G. B. and Van Doren, D. M. Jr. 1977. Agriculture without tillage. Sci. Am. 236:28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unger, P. W. and Fulton, L. J. 1989. Conventional and no-tillage effects on upper root zone soil conditions. Soil Till. Res. 16:337–344.Google Scholar
Unger, P. W. and Cassel, D. K. 1991. Tillage implement disturbance effects on soil properties related to soil and water conservation: a literature review. Soil Till. Res. 19:363–382.Google Scholar
Vetsch, J. A. and Randall, G. W. 2002. Corn production as affected by tillage system and starter fertilizer. Agron. J. 94:532–540.Google Scholar
Vyn, T. J., Opoku, G., and Swanton, C. J. 1998. Residue management and minimum tillage systems for soybeans following wheat. Agron. J. 90:131–138.Google Scholar
Wauchope, R. D., Buttler, T. M., Hornsby, A. G., Augustijn-Beckers, P. W. M., and Burt, J. P. 1992. The SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database for environmental decision-making. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 123:1–164.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagger, M. G. and Denton, H. P. 1992. Crop and tillage rotations: grain yield, residue cover and soil water. Soil Sci. Am. J. 56:1233–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, D. A. and Stobbe, E. H. 1984. The effect of tillage on soil temperature and corn (Zea mays L.) growth in Manitoba. Can. J. Plant Sci. 64:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar