AGRICULTURAL AND ECONOMICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME METHODS OF WEED AND DISEASE CONTROL OF WINTER WHEAT

MAREK TAŃSKI, WOJCIECH BUDZYŃSKI

Varmia-Masurian University in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Management

Summary

In the paper agricultural and economical effectiveness expressed in obtained yield and in Polish currency (PLN), in relation to some methods of disease and weed control of winter wheat. It was found that the best results in terms of yield protection gave weed control in the autumn and the best methods of disease control is application of fungicides three times. Limitation of input for management practices increased cost consumption of grain production.

Introduction

Mean yield of fodder spring wheat is still low in area of Poland (37 dt per ha). Among other factors it may be results of low inputs for all links of proper agronomical practices and especially for means bought from industry. Low levels of input for fertilisers, as for weed and diseases control results in quite low utilisation of yielding potential by wheat cultivars and in increase of unit cost [1,3,4,7,8].

The aim of presented studies was to compare of some methods of weed and disease control in terms of yield and income obtained from the production of fodder spring wheat.

Material and methods

In the paper selected results of studies focused on productivity and cost cosumption of some methods of weed and fungal disease control of wheat cv. Elena. The following methods of weed control were compared:

Experiment was made in four replications on plots of area 17,5 m2 each. In the other strict experiment the following methods of weed control were compared:

* description in methods

Two described experiments were performed on Luvisols originated from light-textured soil classified to good wheat complex and showing high availability in P, K and Mg of pH 6.2 (KCl) on plots of Experimental Station in Bałcyny near Ostróda.

Wheat seeds were sown at optimal date and at proper density in row space 10 cm after rape. Fertilisers were applied at the rate of 360 kg NPKMg (120 + 70 + 135 + 35) calculated as optimal. Nitrogen was applied during wheat growth in split rate (80 + 40), and other nutrients were given before sowing. Grain yield was presented with 15% humidity. Direct cost of: fuel, energy and means of production are given in as market prices from first three months of 1999. Cost of labour force is presented according to the income of Polish farmers (5.70 PLN per 1 h). Cost of maintenance of machinery and tractors are given according to Polish Institute of Agricultural Mechanisation effectiveness and consumption of energy were measured by authors in the field of area 1 ha 1 ha [2,5,6]. Value of 1 t of grain was given as stock price of 430 PLN.

Results

Effects of weed control methods on yield

The best effects in terms of yield protection was obtained for autumn weed control treatment (Table 1) It was expressed by higher yield compared to all method of spring herbicide application. It is worth to mention that harrowing made early in the spring before herbicide application did not result in better stand density and higher yield. For treatment with spring harrowing only without chemical control obtained the same yield as for unprotected control.

Table 1. Agricultural estimation of the methods of weed control in winter wheat

Yield protection effects of applied fungicides did not exceed 10% and was not variable (Table 2). Even though that intensity of stem base and leaves spot diseases was low the highest yield was obtained for treatment A and B. The favourable effects of growth retardant was not observed because no lodging was occur. Early as well as late one-measure control (treatments C and D) resulted in obtaining grain yield by 300 kg lower than for two-measures control (treatments A and B) but this difference was not proven. When only seed dressing (treatment E) was applied the lowest grain yield was obtained (Table 2).

Cost of weed and diseases control

Cost of autumn weeding was the highest (Table 3) what was caused by high price of herbicide. Cost of harrowing (treatment d) was equal to the price of 64 kg of wheat grain and it amounted only to 45% of spring chemical protection (treatment b). Unit cost of production of grain in treatment with autumn weeding (treatment a) was lower compared to others experimental treatments. It is revealed by the most favourable value of profitability index. In economical terms rather unfavourable appeared to be treatments c and d with mechanical and chemico-mechanical methods of weeding (Table 4)

Table 3. Direct cost of weeding wheat

Table 4. Economical estimation of grain production using different methods of weeding

The total cost of seed dressing, protection of stem base and protection of foliage and ear amounted to 168 PLN what was equal to value of 390 kg grain (Table 5). Cost of grain dressing consisted only 13% of full control. Data from Table 6 show that increase of inputs for fungicides application in relation to treatment E (grain dressing) was compensated by the value of yield increase. It is a reason why unit cost of grain production and effectiveness of financial input was similar for all treatments under study.

Results presented herein indicate that for technology of fodder wheat production which could guarantee yield of 70 dt input of 1442 PLN per ha should be spent. The highest per cent of total input covers fertilisation and harvesting cost (Fig. 1). Cost of weeding and disease control amounted to 16.1% of the total cost what is equivalent to 539 kg of grain.

Conclusions

1. The best method of weed control appeared to be methyl trifensulfurone. Saved yield amounted to 8.5 dt and cost of weeding was equivalent to 2.4 dt of grain. Percentage of weeding cost in total cost of grain production amounted to 7%. Limitation of input for weeding did not enhance unit cost consumption.

2. The best method of disease control in the terms of yield protection appeared to be full disease control which consisted of the following measures: grain dressing (trizolimenole + imazalile + fuberidazole), diseases of stem base control (S+ carbendazyme) and control of leaves and ears spot diseases (flusilazole + carbendazyme). This control contributed to save of 5.8 dt of grain and cost of its application were equal to value of 3.3 dt of grain. In total direct cost of grain production cost of fungal disease control amounted to 11.7%. Limitation of inputs for plant protection did not reduce unit cost consumption.

1 EURO = 4.37 PLN; 1 KC = 0.13 PLN.

References

1. Adamczewski K., Praczyk T., 1999. Pam. Puł., Materiały Konferencyjne,zesz. 114, s. 7 - 13

2. Anuszewski R., 1987. Zagadnienia Ekonomiki Rolnej , 4, s. 16 - 26

3. Budzyński W., Szempliński W., 1996. Rocz. Nauk Rol., Seria AT 112, z 1-2, s.93 - 101

4. Budzyński W., Dubis B., Wróbel E., 1999. Fol. Univ. Agric. Stetin. Agricultura w druku

5. Goć E., Muzalewski A., 1997. Koszty eksploatacji maszyn IBMER, Warszawa

6. Mierzejewska W., 1985. Post. Nauk. Rol., 5, s. 77-90

7. Szempliński W., Budzyński W., 1994. Zesz. Nauk. AR Szczecin, roln., 162, s. 253 -256

8. Szempliński W., Kisiel R., 1998. Pam. Puł., zesz 112, s. 237 - 243