Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:04:52.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical weed control in processing tomatoes in Central Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2011

Michele Raffaelli ,
Marco Fontanelli ,
Christian Frasconi ,
Francesca Sorelli ,
Marco Ginanni  and
Andrea Peruzzi
Michele Raffaelli*
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Marco Fontanelli
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Christian Frasconi
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Francesca Sorelli
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
Marco Ginanni
Affiliation:
CIRAA ‘Enrico Avanzi’, University of Pisa, via Vecchia di Marina 6, 56010 S. Piero a Grado, Pisa, Italy.
Andrea Peruzzi
Affiliation:
DAGA, University of Pisa, via san Michele degli Scalzi, 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Tomato is a very important vegetable crop in Italy. Improving the means of production for processing organic tomatoes could help guarantee better profits for farmers and, at the same time, enhance environmental management and safeguard consumers’ health. Weed control, in particular within crop rows, is one of the main problems in organic farming, and thus also for the organic cultivation of tomato. The aim of this study was to develop innovative strategies and equipment for effective physical weed control in processing tomatoes. A conventional weed management system incorporating herbicides was compared with an alternative system relying exclusively on physical control during three growing seasons (2006–2008) on a farm located near Pisa, Italy. The crop was transplanted mechanically onto paired rows. The conventional strategy consisted of three different chemical treatments, two post-transplanting PTO-powered rotary hoe passes and several hand-weeding treatments on the paired rows. The alternative system included a stale seedbed technique (performed by a rolling harrow pass and one flaming treatment), two post-transplanting precision hoeing treatments and several hand-weeding treatments. All the machines for the alternative system were adjusted and set up for processing tomatoes transplanted in paired rows. Each physical treatment (mechanical and thermal) within the alternative system allowed an ‘instantaneous’ (just before/just after) weed control from 50 to 100%, while the alternative strategy as a whole achieved values of weed dry biomass at harvest ranging from 22 to 126 g m−2. However, the alternative system required a total labor input that averaged 50% higher than the conventional strategy. The conventional system had on average more effective weed control than the alternative system, but both strategies controlled weeds effectively. Weed biomass at harvest averaged 36 and 68 g m−2 for conventional and alternative strategies, respectively. On the other hand, the alternative system generally led to a significant increase in fresh crop yield (+13% average yield for the 3 years).

Keywords

flaming machinerolling harrowprecision hoestale seedbed technique
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 95 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

Sgroi, F. and Testa, R. 2010. Il pomodoro seccagno conviene solo con prezzi di vendita alti. L'Informatore Agrario 10:33–35.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union. 2007. Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007. Official Journal of the European Union:L273/1L273/30. Available at Web site http://www.fsai.ie/uploadedFiles/Reg1182_2007.pdf (accessed December 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Bazzana, L. 2008. Superfici a pomodoro da programmare meglio. L'Informatore Agrario 40:12–18.Google Scholar
Turrini, L. 2009. Speciale pomodoro da industria. Terra e Vita 2:66–82.Google Scholar
Barrett, D.M., Weakley, C., Diaz, J.V., and Watnik, M. 2007. Qualitative and nutritional differences in processing tomatoes grown under commercial organic and conventional production systems. Journal of Food Science (IFT) 72(9):441–451.Google ScholarPubMed
Bazzana, L. 2010. Mondo e Mercato la Normativa comunitaria. In Angelini, R. (ed.). Il Pomodoro. Bayer Crop Science, Perugia, Italy. p. 530–535.Google Scholar
Kazimierczak, R., Hallmann, E., Rusaraczonek, A., and Rembialkowska, E. 2008. Antioxidant content in black currants from organic and conventional cultivation. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural Universities 11(2). Available at Web site http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume11/issue2/art-28.html (accessed December 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Worthington, V. 1998. Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: a comparison of organic with conventional crops. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 4(1):281–293.Google ScholarPubMed
Woese, K., Lange, D., Boess, C., and Bogel, K.W. 1997. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods – results of the relevant literature. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 74:58–69.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaton, H. (ed.). 2001. Organic farming, food quality and human health: a review of the evidence. Soil Association-Organic Standard, Bristol, UK. Available at Web site http://www.soilassociation.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=cY8kfP3Q%2BgA%3D&tabid=388 (accessed December 18, 2010).Google Scholar
Chassay, A., Bui, L., Renaud, E.N.C., Van Horn, M., and Mitchell, A. 2006. Three-year comparison of the content of antioxidant microconstituents and several quality characteristics in organic and conventionally managed tomatoes and bell peppers. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 54(21):8244–8252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, J., Kirk, S.F.L., and Cade, J.E. 2002. Factors affecting food choice in relation to fruit and vegetable intake: a review. Nutrition Research Reviews 15:373–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Der Weide, R.Y., Bleeker, P.O., Achten, V.T.J.M., Lotz, L.A.P., Fogelberg, F., and Melander, B. 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Research 48:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirujeda, A., Aibar, J., Fernàndez-Cavada, S., Zuriaga, P., Anzalone, A., and Zaragoza, C. 2009. The use of flex-tine harrow, torsion weeder and finger weeder in Mediterranean crops. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of 8th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Zaragoza, Spain, March 9–11, 2009. p. 33.Google Scholar
Anzalone, A., Cirujeda, A., Aibar, J., Pardo, G., and Zaragoza, C. 2009. Effect of biodegradable mulch materials on weed control in processing tomato. Weed Technology 24:369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirujeda, A., Anzalone, A., Pardo, G., Leon, M., and Zaragoza, C. 2007. Mechanical weed control in processing tomato. In Cloutier, D.C. (ed.). Proceedings of 7th EWRS Workshop on Physical and Cultural Weed Control, Salem, Germany, March 11–14. p. 105–111.Google Scholar
Tei, F., Natalini, G., and Bruni, R. 2008. Manuale di corretta prassi per la produzione intergrata del pomodoro da industria. In Bufacchi, M., Lucaccioni, A., Motta, A., Marcelli, M., and Casagrande, C. (eds.). Manuali di corretta prassi per la produzione integrata-Progetto per la Valorizzazione delle Produzioni Agroalimentari Umbre. 3A-PTA, Regione Umbria, Perugia, Italy. p. 1–29.Google Scholar
Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Fontanelli, M., Ginanni, M., Lulli, L., and Frasconi, C. 2008. The rolling harrow: a new operative machine for physical weed control. In Proceedings of AgEng2008 International Conference on Agricultural Engineering, Crete, Greece, June 23–25, paper 1177932.Google Scholar
Cloutier, D.C., van Der Weide, R.Y., Peruzzi, A., and Leblanc, M.L. 2007. Mechanical weed management. In Upadhyaya, M.K. and Blackshaw, R.E. (eds.). Non-chemical Weed Management, Principles, Concepts and Technology. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. p. 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peruzzi, A., Raffaelli, M., Ginanni, M., Lulli, L., Frasconi, C., and Fontanelli, M. 2008. Innovative operative machines for physical weed control on processing tomato in the Serchio Valley (Central Italy). In Failla, S. (ed.). Proceedings of International Conference Innovation Technology to Empower Safety, Health and Welfare in Agriculture and Agro-food Systems. Ragusa - Ibla Campus, September 15–17, Italy. p. 71.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, M., and Peruzzi, A. 2002. Sviluppo di una nuova macchina per il pirodiserbo: risultati di un biennio di sperimentazione su girasole. Rivista di Ingegneria Agraria 2:39–46.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, M., Barberi, P., Peruzzi, A., and Ginanni, M. 2004. Options for mechanical weed control in string bean. Agricoltura Mediterranea 134(2):92–100.Google Scholar
Raffaelli, M., Bàrberi, P., Peruzzi, A., and Ginanni, M. 2005. Mechanical weed control in maize: evaluation of weed harrowing and hoeing systems. Agricoltura Mediterranea 135(1):33–43.Google Scholar
Buckingham, F. 1984. Tillage. In Buckingam, F., Espenschied, R.F., Hoerner, T.A., and Carlson, K.R. (eds.). Fundamentals of Machine Operation. 2nd edn. American Deere and Company, Moline, IL, USA. p. 360.Google Scholar
Cloutier, D., and Leblanc, M.L. 2001. Mechanical weed control in agriculture. In Vincent, C., Panneton, B., and Fleurat-Lessard, F. (eds.). Physical Control in Plant Protection. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany and INRA, Paris, France. p. 191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar