Poor root color is a recurring problem in carrot (Daucus carota L.) production. Consumers prefer dark orange carrots that are high in carotene. However, unfavorable environmental conditions and certain production practices can lead to light orange roots with low carotene content. Growers sometimes refer to this as “white root.” No one has clearly established the causes or cures for this disorder. Several environmental factors are known to affect the color of carrots, but to date there is no practical treatment. High-density planting often reduces carotene content. Field studies were conducted in the 1995-96 and 1996-97 winter growing seasons to determine if foliar applications of ethephon would improve carrot color, carotene content, and yield. Carotene content and root color increased as the number of applications or the amount of ethephon applied with each application increased. Root weight was not significantly affected.
Milton E. McGiffen Jr. and Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe
Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe and Milton E. McGiffen Jr.
Economic analyses compared the returns of weed control methods for drip and sprinkler irrigated celery (Apium graveolens L. `Sonora'). The nine treatments included an untreated control, cultivation as needed for weed control, a pre-emergent herbicide (trifluralin), and six post-emergent herbicides. The effect of each treatment on weed control, yield, crop value, cost of control, costs for additional hand-weeding, net return, and dollar investment (marginal rate of return) was determined. The treatments that reduced weed populations under drip and sprinkler irrigation also increased yield, net returns, and rate of returns. Effective weed control reduced the additional costs of hand-hoeing the weeds not killed by herbicides, resulting in greater net return. The net returns of weed control were even greater when celery was drip irrigated than when sprinklers were used. In 1998, the sprinkler irrigated field returned $1148 to $3921/ha, compared with -$5984 for the untreated control. Net returns for drip irrigation were much higher, ranging from $3904 to $9187/ha compared with -$8320 for the untreated control. Net returns were also higher in 1999, ranging from $2466 to $5389 when weeds were controlled compared with a net loss of $5710 for the untreated control in the sprinkler irrigated field. The returns on the drip-irrigated field were much higher, from $6481 to $8920 when weeds were controlled, compared with -$8046 for the untreated control. The associated returns for every dollar invested (marginal rate of return) in the non-dominated treatment (more return and lower cost) ranged from 52% to 156% for sprinkler irrigation, and 59% to 144% for drip irrigation in 1998. In 1999, the rate of return for each dollar invested ranged from 104% to 324% for sprinkler and 2.4% to 321% for drip irrigated fields.
Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe, Milton E. McGiffen Jr. and Mathieu Ngouajio
Economic analysis compared the returns of cropping systems and management practices for production of fall lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and spring cantaloupe (Cucumis melo) following summer cover crops. The cover crop treatments included: cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] incorporated into the soil in the fall, cowpea used as mulch in the fall, sorghum sudangrass [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] incorporated into the soil in the fall, and a bare ground control. Lettuce and cantaloupe were managed using conventional, integrated, and organic practices. The effect of each cropping system and management practice on crop yield, cost of production and net return was determined. In 1999 and 2000, yield and net return were greatest for cantaloupe and lettuce when the cowpea cover crop was incorporated into the soil before planting. The effect of crop management practice varied with type of cover crop. When lettuce was planted into cowpea-incorporated treatment in 1999, conventional management had the highest cash return followed by integrated crop management. In 2000, organically-grown lettuce after cowpea incorporated had the highest net return followed by integrated crop management grown under cowpea incorporated treatments. In 1999 and 2000, integrated cantaloupe following cowpea-incorporated treatment had the highest yield and cash-return. A 20% price premium for organic produce increased the net returns for the organic-grown lettuce and cantaloupe. Organic lettuce following cowpea-incorporated treatments produced a high net of $2,516/ha in 1999 and $5,971/ha in 2000. The net returns due to 20% organic premium price varied between 1999 and 2000 in cantaloupe production. They were highest for organic cantaloupe after bareground with a net return of $4,395 in 1999 and $3,148 in 2000 for organic cantaloupe after sudangrass.
Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe, Mathieu Ngouajio and Milton E. McGiffen
Field experiments were established at the University of California Desert Station in Coachella Valley from 1998 to 2000. The main plot treatments included: 1) summer cowpea used as mulch in the fall; 2) summer cowpea incorporated into soil in the fall; 3) summer sudangrass incorporated into the soil in the fall; and 4) summer fallow (bare-ground). An economic comparison of cover crop treatments and crop management programs vs. the effect on yield, crop value, value of hand weeding, costs of production and net return, and dollar investment from each treatment was determined. Among the cropping systems tested in 1999, lettuce following the incorporation of a cowpea cover crop produced the highest yield (1082.43 boxes/ha), with a net return of $883.04/ha. The return for each dollar invested in the cowpea-incorporated system was an additional $0.65 if cowpea-incorporated was chosen over cowpea mulch. In 2000, the net return from lettuce following cowpea-incorporated was much higher with 1294.23 boxes/ha and a net return of $1698.46/ha. In 1999, cantaloupe grown in the cowpea-incorporated system had the highest net return of $973.34/ha, with 874.58 boxes. An additional $0.93 was made for choosing cowpea-incorporated over sudangrass. In 2000, cantaloupe grown in the cowpea-incorporated system had even higher yields than in 1999, producing 1522.89 boxes/ha and returning over $3000.00. And an additional $0.93 was made for choosing cowpea-incorporated over sudangrass cover crop. Overall, the rate of return on investment favored cowpea-incorporated over all cover crops.
Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe, Milton E. McGiffen Jr., Joe Nunez and Steven A. Fennimore
Preemergent and postemergent herbicides were evaluated in the Mediterranean climate of the southern San Joaquin Valley and the desert climate of the Imperial Valley from 1998 through 2000. Sixteen herbicide treatments were applied both as preemergence (PRE) and postemergence (POST) applications to carrot (Daucus carota L.). Carrot was generally more tolerant to PRE herbicide applications than to POST applications. Carrot was tolerant to PRE and POST imazamox and triflusulfuron at both locations. Carrot root losses due to herbicide were consistent with visual ratings. Treatments that injured carrot tops early in the growing season did not always reduce yield at the end of the season. PRE applications of imazamox and triflusulfuron did not affect carrot tops or the number or weight of marketable carrots. Carrots grown in the Imperial Valley and in the San Joaquin Valley were tolerant to PRE applications of carfentrazone, sulfentrazone, and imazamox. Results were similar for POST applications, although carfentrazone slightly injured carrot roots. PRE application of herbicides increased forked roots more than POST. Chemical names used: α, 2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1, 2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic acid (carfentrazone); N-[2,4-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]phenyl]me thanesulfonamide (sulfentrazone); N-(2 carbomethoxy-6-chlorophenyl)-5-ethoxy-7-fluoro (1,2,4) triazolo-[1, 5-c] pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide (cloransulam-methyl); 2-chloro-N-[(1-methyl-2-methoxy)ethyl]-N-(2,4-dimethyl-thein-3-yl)-acetamide (dimethenamid); (2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-(methoxymethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid) (imazamox); 3-chloro-5-[[[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl) amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl]-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxylic acid (halosulfuron); N-[[(4,6-dimethoxy-2-pyrimidinyl)amino]carbonyl]-3-(ethylsulfonyl)-2-pyridinesulfonamide (rimsulfuron); (methyl 2[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-[2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl] amino] carbonyl] amino] sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate) (triflusulfuron).
Carl E. Bell, Brent E. Boutwell, Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe and Milton E. McGiffen Jr.
Application of linuron was compared with hand-weeding and a nontreated control (= control) for weed control in carrots. Linuron, applied pre- or postemergent, was slightly less effective than the 100% weed control obtained by hand-weeding. Carrot yields were similar for all treatments, and were at least six times as great as in the control. In 1996, linuron treatments returned net profits ranging from $980 to $1887 per ha, compared to $740 for hand-weeding and - $2975 for the control. In 1997, return on linuron treatments was greater, ranging from $5326 to $6426, compared with $2852 for hand-weeding. Marginal rates of return ranged from 21% to 86% in 1996. In 1997, rates of return for every dollar invested in linuron were over 59%. Chemical name used: N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea (linuron).
Carl E. Bell, Brent E. Boutwell, Edmund J. Ogbuchiekwe and Milton E. McGiffen Jr.
Application of linuron was compared with hand-weeding and a nontreated control (= control) for weed control in carrots. Linuron, applied pre- or postemergent, was slightly less effective than the 100% weed control obtained by hand-weeding. Carrot yields were similar for all treatments, and were at least six times as great as in the control. In 1996, linuron treatments returned net profits ranging from $980 to $1887 per ha, compared to $740 for hand-weeding and -$2975 for the control. In 1997, return on linuron treatments was greater, ranging from $5326 to $6426, compared with $2852 for hand-weeding. Marginal rates of return ranged from 21% to 86% in 1996. In 1997, rates of return for every dollar invested in linuron were over 59%. Chemical name used: N′-(3,4-dichlorophenyl)-N-methoxy-N-methylurea (linuron).