Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:12:00.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed-Control Systems for Peanut Grown as a Biofuel Feedstock

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wilson H. Faircloth ,
Jason A. Ferrell  and
Christopher L. Main
Wilson H. Faircloth*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, National Peanut Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 509, Dawson, GA 39842
Jason A. Ferrell
Affiliation:
Extension Weed Specialist, University of Florida, 301-A Newell Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611
Christopher L. Main
Affiliation:
Clemson University, Florence SC 29506
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Peanuts are not often used as a true oilseed crop, especially for the production of fuel. However, peanut could be a feedstock for biodiesel, especially in on-farm or small cooperative businesses, where producers can dictate the cost of making their own fuel. Field studies were conducted in 2005 and 2006 to assess low-cost weed-control systems for peanuts that would facilitate the economic viability of peanut biodiesel. Four preselected herbicide costs ranging from $25 to $62/ha and two application timings were compared with nontreated ($0/ha) and typical ($115/ha) herbicide programs for weed control and peanut oil yield. A peanut oil yield goal of 930 L/ha was exceeded with multiple low-cost herbicide systems in 3 of 4 site–yr. The main effect of application timing was only significant for a single site–year in which oil yield increased linearly with cost of the PRE and POST weed-control system. An herbicide cost of $50/ha, using PRE and POST applications, was consistently among the highest in oil yield, regardless of site–year, exceeding the typical (high value) programs in 3 of 4 site–yr. Use of reduced rates of imazapic (0.5× or 0.035 kg ai/ha) was detrimental in 2 of 4 site–yr. Weed control, and thus oil yields, were most dependent on species present at each location and not on input price. Data from this series of studies will allow researchers and entrepreneurs to more accurately assess the viability and sustainability of peanut biodiesel.

Keywords

Imazapicpeanut, Arachis hypogaea L.Biodieselconservation tillageherbicidelow-costlow-inputreduced ratessustainable agriculturealternative fuels
Type
Weed Management—Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 584 - 590
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

Adeeko, K. A. and Ajibola, O. O. 1990. Processing factors affecting yield and quality of mechanically expressed groundnut oil. J. Ag. Eng. Res 45:31–43.Google Scholar
Brecke, B. J. and Stephenson, D. O. IV. 2006. Weed management in single- vs. twin-row peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol 20:368–376.Google Scholar
Burke, I. C., Price, A. J., Wilcut, J. W., Jordan, D. L., Culpepper, A. S., and Tredaway-Ducar, J. 2004. Annual grass control in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) with clethodim and imazapic. Weed Technol 18:88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantonwine, E. G., Culbreath, A. K., Stevenson, K. L., Kemerait, R. C. Jr., Brenneman, T. B., Smith, N. B., and Mullinax, B. G. Jr. 2006. Integrated disease management of leaf spot and spotted wilt of peanut. Plant Dis 90:493–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cardina, J., Mixon, A. C., and Wehtje, G. R. 1987. Low-cost weed control systems for close-row peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Sci 35:700–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clewis, S. B., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2002. Economic assessment of diclosulam and flumioxazin in strip- and conventional-tillage peanut. Weed Sci 50:378–385.Google Scholar
Colvin, D. L., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., Wehtje, G., and McGuire, J. A. 1985. Row pattern and weed management effects on peanut production. Peanut Sci 12:22–27.Google Scholar
Culbreath, A. K., Todd, J. W., and Brown, S. L. 2003. Epidemiology and management of tomato spotted wilt in peanut. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol 41:53–73.Google Scholar
Culpepper, A. S., Grey, T. L., Vencill, W. K., Kichler, J. M., Webster, T. M., Brown, S. M., York, A. C., Davis, J. W., and Hanna, W. W. 2006. Glyphosate-resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) confirmed in Georgia. Weed Sci 54:620–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. P., Geller, D., Faircloth, W. H., and Sanders, T. H. 2007. Comparisons of biodiesel produced from oils of various peanut cultivars. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc 39:3.Google Scholar
Faircloth, W. H., Rowland, D. L., Lamb, M. C., and Davis, J. P. 2007. Evaluation of peanut cultivars for suitability in biodiesel production system. Proc. Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc 39:4.Google Scholar
Grey, T. L. and Wehtje, G. R. 2005. Residual herbicide weed control systems in peanut. Weed Technol 19:560–567.Google Scholar
Grichar, W. J., Besler, B. A., Lemon, R. G., and Brewer, K. D. 2005. Weed management and net returns using soil-applied and postemergence herbicide programs in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci 32:25–31.Google Scholar
Hauser, E. W. and Buchanan, G. A. 1981. Influence of row spacing, seeding rates, and herbicide systems on the competitiveness and yield of peanuts. Peanut Sci 8:74–81.Google Scholar
Khan, L. M. and Hanna, M. A. 1983. Expression of oil from oilseeds—a review. J. Ag. Eng. Res 28:495–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurki, A., Hill, A., and Morris, M. Biodiesel: The sustainability dimensions. National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/biodiesel_sustainable.pdf. Accessed: November 12, 2007.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Reeves, D. W., and Patterson, M. G. 2006. Evaluation of weed control provided by three winter cereals in conservation tillage soybean. Renew. Agric. Food Syst 21:159–164.Google Scholar
Price, A. J., Reeves, D. W., Patterson, M. G., Gamble, B. E., Balkcom, K. S., Arriaga, F. J., and Monks, C. D. 2007. Weed control in peanut grown in a high-residue conservation tillage system. Peanut Sci 34:59–64.Google Scholar
Reddy, K. N., Locke, M. A., and Howard, K. D. 1995. Bentazon spray retention, activity, and foliar washoff in weed species. Weed Technol 9:773–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubel, G. 1994. Simultaneous determination of oil and water contents in different oilseeds by pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance. J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc 71:1057–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS 2002. SAS User's Guide. Version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute. 1028.Google Scholar
Scott, G. H., Askew, S. D., Wilcut, J. W., and Bennett, A. C. 2002. Economic evaluation of HADSS™ computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci 50:91–100.Google Scholar
Sivakumaran, K., Goodrum, J. W., and Bradley, R. A. 1985. Expeller optimization for peanut oil production. Trans. ASAE (Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.) 28/1:316–320.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J. and Wright, T. R. 2002. Resistance of weeds to ALS-inhibiting herbicides: What have we learned. Weed Sci 50:700–712.Google Scholar
Troxler, S. C., Treadaway, J. A., Jordan, D. L., Brecke, B. J., Askew, S. D., and Wilcut, J. W. 2001. Weed management in peanuts with reduced rates of diclosulam, flumioxazin, and imazapic. Proc. South. Weed Sci. Soc 54:36.Google Scholar
[UGA] University of Georgia 2007. Crop Enterprise Budgets. UGA Cooperative Extension System. http://www.ces.uga.edu/Agriculture/agecon/budgets/printed/Irr%20Peanut%202007.pdf. Accessed: December 10, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 1993. Milled Peanuts: Inspection Instructions. Washington, DC: Agricultural Marketing Service, Fruit and Vegetable Division.Google Scholar
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture 2007a. Peanut Statistics. http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp. Accessed: December 7, 2007.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2007b. Agricultural prices. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriPric/AgriPric-11-30-2007.pdf. Accessed: December 7, 2007.Google Scholar
Vencill, W. K., Grey, T. L., Culpepper, A. C., Gaines, C., and Westra, P. 2008. Herbicide-resistance in the Amaranthaceae. J. Plant Dis. Prot 21:41–44.Google Scholar
Wehtje, G. R., Walker, R. H., Patterson, M. G., and McGuire, J. A. 1984. Influence of twin rows on yield and weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci 11:88–91.Google Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991a. Economic yield response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) to postemergence herbicides. Weed Technol 5:416–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W. 1991b. Efficacy and economics of common bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) control in peanuts (Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci 18:106–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcut, J. W., York, A. C., Grichar, W. J., and Wehtje, G. R. 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Pages 207–244. in. H. E. Pattee and H. T. Stalker, eds. Advances in Peanut Science. Stillwater, OK: American Peanut Research Education Society.Google Scholar