Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 284 items for :

  • "hand-weeding" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Sanjeev K. Bangarwa, Jason K. Norsworthy, Ronald L. Rainey, and Edward E. Gbur

weed control methods such as hand-weeding, cultivation, solarization, and grass and legume cover crops, whereas others evaluated the economics with herbicidal weed control methods ( Bell et al., 2000 ; Lanini and Strange, 1994 ; Ogbuchiekwe and

Free access

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.

Full access

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).

Free access

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).

Free access

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.

Free access

Milton J. Haar, Steven A. Fennimore, and Cheryl L. Lambert

Field studies were conducted to determine the potential economic impact of the loss of pronamide herbicide to artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) growers, and to evaluate pendimethalin as an alternative herbicide during establishment of artichoke. Two rates of pronamide and one rate of pendimethalin were applied to perennial and annual artichokes. With the exception of wild oat (Avena fatua L.), pendimethalin controlled weeds as well as or better than pronamide. Financial analysis of treatment effects was based on weed management expenses and value of yield. The financial effect of using pronamide in perennial artichoke ranged from a loss of $247 to a gain of $326 per ha, whereas its use in annual artichoke increased revenue $542 to $5499 per ha. The effects on revenue of using pendimethalin varied with weed species composition and density. For three sites, revenue increased from $267 to $5056 per ha, while a loss of $1034 per ha occurred at a site with a heavy infestation of wild oat. We conclude that pendimethalin has potential as a pronamide replacement, or as a complement to pronamide. Chemical names used: 3,5-dichloro (N-1,1-dimethyl-2-propynyl)benzamide (pronamide); N-(1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine (pendimethalin).

Full access

Lara Abou Chehade, Marco Fontanelli, Luisa Martelloni, Christian Frasconi, Michele Raffaelli, and Andrea Peruzzi

challenging crop management practices ( Liebman and Davis, 2009 ). In organic farming, synthetic herbicides are not permitted and weed control is often limited to physical means where hand weeding and cultivation are the most popular ( Datta and Knezevic, 2013

Free access

Renee H. Harkins, Bernadine C. Strik, and David R. Bryla

be injected through microsprinkler, drip, and drip-tape irrigation systems with minimal clogging. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of three different organic weed management strategies, including weed mat, hand-weeding

Full access

Mary Jo Kelly, Marvin P. Pritts, and Robin R. Bellinder

prevents runner rooting in matted rows. Herbicides suppress weeds, but few are labeled for use in the establishment year. Manual labor needed for hand weeding and hoeing is typically scarce and expensive. Because these standard techniques of managing weeds

Free access

Emily K. Dixon, Bernadine C. Strik, and David R. Bryla

continue the work by Harkins et al. (2013 , 2014 ) and Dixon et al. (2015a , 2015b ) and examine the effects of cultivar (Black Diamond and Marion), postharvest irrigation, weed management (weed mat, hand-weeded, and nonweeded), and primocane training