Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T11:21:22.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Efficacy and Economics of Summer Fallow Conventional and Reduced-Tillage Programs for Sugarcane

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Luke M. Etheredge Jr. ,
James L. Griffin  and
Michael E. Salassi
Luke M. Etheredge Jr.
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, 104 Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
Michael E. Salassi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the summer fallow period of the sugarcane production cycle, glyphosate in conjunction with frequent tillage is used to destroy sugarcane regrowth and reduce perennial weed infestations. For tillage to be reduced or eliminated in fallowed fields, weed control must be maintained and sugarcane must be completely destroyed so as not to interfere with the subsequent planting operation. Field studies were conducted to evaluate glyphosate rates and formulations for control of sugarcane, bermudagrass, and johnsongrass. Glyphosate (isopropylamine salt) applied in April at 1.68, 2.24, and 2.80 kg ai/ha controlled 15-cm sugarcane at least 95% 42 d after treatment (DAT). Control of 25- and 40-cm sugarcane was maximized at 1.68 kg/ha (91 and 86% control, respectively). In another study, 25-cm sugarcane was controlled equally with isopropyl amine and potassium salt glyphosate formulations. Bermudagrass control 40 d after glyphosate was applied at 1.12 kg/ha was 86% and increased to 98% when the same rate was applied sequentially. In fallowed sugarcane fields, conventional-tillage, reduced-tillage, and no-tillage programs were implemented from mid-April through mid-August to evaluate weed control and economics. When a glyphosate application was substituted for a tillage operation, bermudagrass and johnsongrass control was increased compared with the conventional tillage alone program, but differences in sugarcane and sugar yield among the various programs the following year were not observed. Based on 2006 costs, elimination of a single tillage operation reduced cost $18.49/ha and addition of glyphosate (2.8 kg/ha plus application cost) increased cost $43.47/ha. Total cost for the conventional tillage–alone fallow program was $110.94/ha; where herbicide was used in the reduced-tillage and no-tillage programs, total cost was $19.47 to $77.38/ha more.

Keywords

Diuronglyphosatehexazinonebermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon L. Pers. CYNDAjohnsongrass, Sorghum halepense L. Pers. SORHAsugarcane, Saccharum spp. hybrids ‘LCP 85-384’Economic analysisherbicide formulationsno tillage
Type
Weed Management—Other Crops/Areas
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 274 - 279
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous 1991. Minimum tillage. Pages 32. in. Power Farming. North Melborne, Australia: Diverse Publishing Co. Pty. Ltd.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2001. Sugarcane Production Handbook. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Pub. 2859. 52 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2002. CTIC National Crop Residue Management Survey. http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/. Accessed February 2004.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005a. Farm Bill 2002. Conservation Security Program (CSP), Program Description. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/pdf/CSP_PrDes100605.pdf. Accessed November 2006.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2005b. Louisiana Agricultural Summary. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Pub. SP2005-02. 19–21.Google Scholar
Anonymous 2007. Louisiana Suggested Chemical Weed Control Guide. Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Pub. 1565. 93–94.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.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. and Chou, C. 1993. Cane Sugar Handbook. 12th ed. New York: J. Wiley. 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.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. L., Miller, D. K., and Salassi, M. E. 2006. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halpense) control and economics of using glyphosate resistant soybean in fallow sugarcane fields. Weed Technol 20:980–985.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
Judice, W. E., Griffin, J. L., Jones, C. A., Etheredge, L. M. Jr., and Salassi, M. E. 2006. Weed control and economics using reduced tillage programs in sugarcane. Weed Technol 20:319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C. W. and Hutchinson, R. L. 2001. Cotton growth and development under different tillage systems. Crop Sci 41:1162–1168.Google Scholar
Lal, R., Eckert, D. J., Fausey, N. R., and Edwards, W. M. 1990. Conservation tillage in sustainable agriculture. Pages 203–225. In Edwards, C. A. Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.Google Scholar
Miller, D. K., Griffin, J. L., and Richard, E. P. Jr. 1999. Summer fallow and after-planting bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control programs for sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol 13:127–131.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. 1995. Bermudagrass interference during a three year sugarcane crop cycle. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol 21:31–39.Google Scholar
Richard, E. P. Jr. 1997. Effects of fallow bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control programs on newly planted sugarcane (Saccharum spp. hybrids). Weed Technol 11:677–682.Google Scholar
Salassi, M. E. and Breaux, J. 2006. Projected Costs and Returns—Sugarcane, Louisiana A.E.A. Information Series No. 237. http://www.agecon.lsu.edu/FarmManagement.htm. Accessed November 2006.Google Scholar
Saxton, A. M. 1998. A macro for converting mean separation output to letter groupings in Proc. Mixed. Pages 1243–1246. in. Proceedings of the 23rd SAS Users Group Ino-tillageage. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
Triplett, G. B. and Van Doren, D. M. Jr. 1977. Agriculture without tillage. Sci. Am 236:28–33.CrossRefGoogle 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
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.Google 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.Google Scholar