Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:26:39.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Various Mechanical Plus Chemical Weed Control Systems in Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Orvin C. Burnside ,
William H. Ahrens ,
Bobby J. Holder ,
Melvin J. Wiens ,
Michelle M. Johnson  and
Eric A. Ristau
Orvin C. Burnside
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul. MN 55108
William H. Ahrens
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Weed Sci., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Bobby J. Holder
Affiliation:
Div. Agric., Univ. Minnesota, Crookston, MN 56716
Melvin J. Wiens
Affiliation:
Irrigation Res. Cen., Staples, MN 56479
Michelle M. Johnson
Affiliation:
Irrigation Res. Cen., Staples, MN 56479
Eric A. Ristau
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron. Plant Genet., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Various mechanical plus chemical weed control systems for dry bean production were evaluated at Carrington, ND and Crookston and Staples, MN during 1991 and 1992. A dozen tillage plus herbicide weed control systems are available to growers that can provide selective and effective weed control in dry beans without reliance on chloramben—a standard herbicide on dry beans that has been lost. Dry bean yields were similar with low or high level tillage treatments because most of the herbicide treatments with one cultivation gave adequate weed control and any additional tillage did not improve weed control. Kidney bean yields and prices were greater than either pinto or navy beans so the net returns (bean market value minus production costs) were much greater for kidney bean production. Dry bean producers in the North Central part of the U.S. have at their disposal dependable mechanical plus chemical weed control systems, and their market value has been sufficient to make dry bean production very economical in this region.

Keywords

Chloramben, 3-amino-2,5-dichlorobenzoic aciddry edible beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L.Net economic returnspreplant and postemergence herbicidesrotary hoerow cultivationweed biomass
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 238 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Anonymous. 1993. Agricultural Statistics, U.S. Dep. of Agric. Supt. of Documents, U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
2. Arnold, R. N., Murray, M. W., Gregory, E. J., and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combinations. Weed Technol. 7:361–364.Google Scholar
3. Blackshaw, R. E. 1991. Hairy nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) interference in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Sci. 39:48–53.Google Scholar
4. Blackshaw, R. E. and Esau, R. 1991. Control of annual broadleaf weeds in pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 5:532–538.Google Scholar
5. Burnside, O. C., Krause, N. H., Wiens, M. J., Johnson, M. M., and Ristau, E. A. 1993. Alternative weed management systems for the production of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Weed Technol. 7:940–945.Google Scholar
6. Dawson, J. H. 1964. Competition between irrigated field beans and annual weeds. Weeds 12:206–208.Google Scholar
7. Durgan, B. R., Gunsolus, J. L., and Becker, R. L. 1993. Cultural and chemical weed control in field crops. AG-BU-3157-S, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 67 p.Google Scholar
8. Fuller, E., Lazurus, B., and Carrigan, L. 1992. Minnesota farm machinery economic cost estimates for 1992. AG-FO-2308-C, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 6 p.Google Scholar
9. Harvey, R. G. and Albright, J. W. 1988. Red kidney bean weed control study. North Cent. Weed Control Conf. Res. Rep. 45:128.Google Scholar
10. Lamey, H. A., Zollinger, R. K., McBride, D. K., Venette, R. C., and Venette, J. R. 1991. Production problems and practices of northarvest dry bean growers in 1989. North Dakota Farm Res. 49(2): 17–24.Google Scholar
11. Lazarus, B. and Fuller, E. 1991. Minnesota farm custom rate survey for 1991. AG-FS-3700-A, Minnesota Ext. Serv., Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul MN. 2 p.Google Scholar
12. Park, S. J. and Hamill, A. S. 1993. Response of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars to metobromuron. Weed Technol. 7:70–75.Google Scholar
13. Renner, K. A. and Powell, G. E. 1992. Response of navy bean (Phaeolus vulgaris) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown in rotation to clomazone, imazethapyr, bentazon, and acifluorfen. Weed Sci. 40:127–133.Google Scholar
14. Wilson, R. G. Jr., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1980. Weed control in field beans (Phaeolus vulgaris) in western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 28:295–299.Google Scholar