Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T02:50:20.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feasibility of Organic Weed Management in Sweet Corn and Snap Bean for Processing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Heidi J. Johnson ,
Jed B. Colquhoun ,
Alvin J. Bussan  and
Richard A. Rittmeyer
Heidi J. Johnson*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706
Jed B. Colquhoun
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706
Alvin J. Bussan
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706
Richard A. Rittmeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, University of Wisconsin, 1575 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is significant interest from processors in producing organic sweet corn and snap bean. However, large-scale production is necessary for this to be a practical and economical venture for processors. This study focused on the feasibility of managing weeds in organic sweet corn and snap bean, utilizing methods that are practical in large hectarage. Tactics such as rotary hoe, interrow cultivation, and a stale seedbed were evaluated alone or in combination. Hand-weeded and herbicide-based treatments were included for each crop for comparison. Percentage weed control, weed biomass, and crop yield were quantified, and net profit was calculated for each treatment. Organic weed management was feasible in snap bean, with yields similar among several of the organic treatments and the herbicide treatment in all 3 yr of the study. Interrow cultivation was the most effective means of organic weed control in snap bean. Organic weed management was possible in snap bean because it is a short-season crop and an effective competitor with weeds in the crop row. Organic weed management was more difficult in sweet corn because of the longer crop season and poor competition with weeds in the crop row. In sweet corn, the organic treatment involving three interrow cultivations was the only one consistently similar in yield to the herbicide treatments. Higher net profits were attained for most of the organic treatments in both crops because of the organic premium. Market saturation and organic premium adjustments are factors for grower consideration in this potential industry, particularly for sweet corn production.

Existe un interés significativo entre los procesadores en la producción orgánica de elote dulce (Zea mays L.) y de habichuelas (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Sin embargo, la producción en gran escala es necesaria para que esta sea una actividad práctica y económica. Este estudio se enfocó en la factibilidad del manejo de malezas en el cultivo de Zea mays L y de Phaseolus vulgaris L orgánicos, utilizando métodos que sean prácticos en grandes superficies. Las estrategias tales como el uso de rotocultivador, cultivación interlineal y semilleros añejos fueron evaluadas individualmente o en combinación. El deshierbe manual y tratamientos con herbicidas se incluyeron para cada cultivo y así poder compararlos. El porcentaje de control de maleza, la biomasa de la misma y el rendimiento del cultivo se cuantificaron y el beneficio neto se calculó para cada tratamiento. El manejo orgánico de malezas fue factible en las Phaseolus vulgaris L, con rendimientos similares entre varios de los tratamientos orgánicos y el tratamiento con herbicidas en todos los tres años del estudio. El cultivo inter-lineal en las Phaseolus vulgaris L fue el medio más efectivo de control orgánico de malezas. El manejo orgánico de malezas fue posible en el cultivo de Phaseolus vulgaris L debido a que es un cultivo de corta duración y es un competidor efectivo de las malezas. El control antes mencionado fue más difícil en la producción de Zea mays L. debido a que es un cultivo de más larga duración y no compite bien con las malezas. En lo relativo al cultivo de Zea mays L., el tratamiento orgánico que incluyó tres cultivaciones inter-lineales, fue el único consistentemente similar en rendimiento en comparación a los tratamientos con herbicida. Se lograron mayores beneficios netos para la mayoría de los tratamientos orgánicos en ambos cultivos debido al mejor precio obtenido para este tipo de productos. La saturación del mercado y los ajustes en la diferencia de precio son factores que los agricultores deberían de considerar en esta industria potencial, particularmente para la producción de Zea mays L.

Keywords

Snap bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L.sweet corn, Zea mays L.Cultivationorganicrotary hoestale seedbedmechanical weed managementtillage
Type
Weed Management—Techniques
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , December 2010 , pp. 544 - 550
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

Boerboom, C., Cullen, E. M., Esker, P., Flashinski, R., Jensen, B., and Renz, M. 2009. Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops. University of Wisconsin Extension Publication A3646. 260 p.Google Scholar
Brainard, D. C., Bellinder, R. R., Hahn, R. R., and Shah, D. A. 2008. Crop rotation, cover crop and weed management effects on weed seedbanks and yields in snap bean, sweet corn, and cabbage. Weed Sci. 56:434–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquhoun, J. B., Bellinder, R. B., and Kirkwyland, J. J. 1999. Efficacy of mechanical cultivation with and without herbicides in broccoli (Brassica oleracea), snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), and sweet corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 13:244–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. and Mullinix, B. G. 1998. Stale seedbed weed control in cucumber. Weed Sci. 46:698–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, W. C. and Mullinix, B. G. 2000. Evaluation of tillage implement for stale seedbed tillage in peanut (Arachis hypogaea). Weed Technol. 14:519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laboski, C. A. M., Peters, J. B., and Bundy, L. B. 2006. Nutrient Application Guidelines for Field, Vegetable, and Fruit Crops in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Extension Publication A2809. 76 p.Google Scholar
Leblanc, M. L., Cloutier, D. C., and Stewart, K. A. 2006. Rotary hoe cultivation in sweet corn. HortTechnol. 16:583–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melander, B., Rasmussen, I. A., and Bárberi, P. 2005. Integrating physical and cultural methods of weed control—examples from European research. Weed Sci. 53:369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and Pleasant, J. Mt. 1997. Evaluation of mechanical weed management programs for corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 21:106–109.Google Scholar
[OTA] Organic Trade Association 2007. Industry Statistics and Projected Growth. http://www.ota.com/organic/mt/business.html. Accessed: December 12, 2008.Google Scholar
Posner, J. L., Baldock, J. O., and Hedtcke, J. L. 2008. Organic and conventional production systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trial: I. Productivity 1999–2002. Agron. J. 100:255–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[PU] Purdue University 2009. Produce Quality and Safety Information for Growers: Commodities/Snap Bean. http://www.hort.purdue.edu/prod_quality/. Accessed: May 7, 2009.Google Scholar
Riemens, M. M., Van Der Weide, R. Y., Bleeker, P. O., and Lotz, L. 2006. Effect of stale seedbed preparations and subsequent weed control in lettuce (cv. Iceboll) on weed densities. Weed Res. 47:149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[UM Extension] University of Minnesota Extension 2008. Machinery Cost Estimates. http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/businessmanagement/DF6696.pdf. Accessed: December 1, 2008.Google Scholar
[USDA] United States Department of Agriculture 2002. Census of Agriculture. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_035_035.pdf. Accessed: December 22, 2008.Google Scholar
[USDL] United States Department of Labor 2008. Wage and Hour Division: Fair Labor Standards Act. http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/. Accessed: December 1, 2008.Google Scholar
Van Der Weide, R. Y., Bleeker, P. O., Achten, V. T. J. M., and Lotz, L. A. P. 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows. Weed Res. 48:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walz, E. 1999. Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA. http://ofrf.org/publications/pubs/4thsurvey_results.pdf. Accessed: May 7, 2009.Google Scholar
Williams, M. M. and Lindquist, J. L. 2008. Differential tolerance in sweet corn to wild-proso millet (Panicum miliaceum) interference. Weed Sci. 56:91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar