COMPARISON OF HIGH AND LOW INPUTS TECHNOLOGIES OF HYBRID AND POPULATION CULTIVARS RYE PRODUCTION

Srovnání high a low input technologií u různých odrůd žita

Janusz Szulc, Wojciech Budzyński, Michał Szczebiot

University Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Enviromental Menagement and Agriculture, Poland

Souhrn, klíčová slova

Výzkum byl zaměřen na výnosový potenciál odrůd hybridního žita. Pokus byl založen na velkých parcelách v podmínkách low input (126 kg NPK, bez ničení plevelů a ochrany proti chorobám) a high input technologie (258 kg NPK, plná ochrana proti plevelům a chorobám). Zjistili jsme, že u dvou sledovaných odrůd klesla v technologii s vysokými vstupy ziskovost. V technologii low input byly hybridní odrůdy méně ziskové než tradiční odrůdy. V intenzivní technologii měly lepší výsledky hybridní odrůdy.

Summary, keywords

Studies were performed on yielding capacity of population and hybrid rye cultivars trial was carried out on big plots in the conditions of low inputs (126 kg NPK, no weed and disease control) and high inputs (258 kg NPK, full weed and disease control). It was found that in the high inputs profitability of two studied cultivars decreased. In low inputs conditions hybrid was less profitable than traditional cultivars. In intensive technology hybrid growing gave better results.

Introduction

In common farmers opinion rye is treated as extensive cereal of low of response to the level of agronomic factors (Kuś and Jończyk 1998, Liszewski 1994). Therefore it is grown after other cereals in crop rotations, using not certified sowing material, farmers do not perform any weeding treatments and low rates of mineral fertilisers cover just 30-40 per cent of crop demands (Budzyński 2001, Szempliński 2001). It results in low level of rye yield, which amounts only to 2.2 t · ha-1. On the other hand results of field trials performed by Central Station of Research on Crops Cultivars have shown that in the conditions of optimal level of all factors, yield of population forms of rye ranged from 5.8 to 6.2 t · ha-1 whereas hybrids were able to give yield of 3 - 17 per cent higher. Demands for means of production of hybrid forms are considered as higher comparing to population rye cultivars (Maciorowski et al. 2000, Maciorowski et al. 2001, Grabiński 1999).

The aim of our studies was to compare the efficiency and cost of production of grain obtained from population and hybrid rye cultivars by extensive and intensive technology.

Materials and methods

Results of studies were obtained from two factorial trial established as large area plots (total area of the trial = 3 ha).The first factor was rye cultivar: Warko (population) or Ursus (F1).Second factor was intensity of inputs presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of used technologies

Sowing was performed on September 22nd, on soil classified to good rye complex (according to Polish Society of Soil Sciences). Only standard equipment was used i.e.: U1014 (tractor) + AtlasU103/1 (plough), U1014 + U248 (shallow plough), U1014 + S043/3C (sowing), U1014 + U216 (harrow), U1014 + U429 (tillage unit), U4512 + P1018 (sprayer), U1014 + N039 (fertilisers application) and Bizon Z058 (combine harvester), seed dresser P 211 Redło.

Dates for calculation of production cost (labour, tractors, machinery, operation efficiency and fuel consumption) were directly registered on production field. To estimate operation cost of agricultural machinery methods elaborated by Institute of Mechanisation and Electrification of Agriculture (Polish abbreviation IBMER) (Goć and Muzalewski 1997). All cost were calculated according to prices level from the period July - November 2001. Price of 1 ton of rye were taken on the level of 420 PLN = 116 EUR (according to the Agency of Agricultural Market; 1 EUR = 3.69 PLN).

Results and discussion

High variation of yields was found (Table 2) and interaction of cultivars input level was observed. On an average yield for treatments of high input was by 10 per cent higher than for low input technology. Interaction was seen for cv. Ursus as yield increase by 1.7 t · ha-1 (43 %) under effect of input increase. However, cv. Warko responded to increase of input by yield reduction by 0.7 ·ha-1. It was determined by higher number of grains per head of cv. Ursus for high input treatment (B). For cv. Warko higher rates of fertilisers and applying of plant protection treatments increased lodging intensity what resulted in decrease of 1000 kernels weight and uniformity index.

Table 2. Grain yield and yield components

Table 3. Direct costs of growing of 1 ha rye (EUR)

Treatment B (high inputs) revealed to be more cost demanding (by 5 per cent). It resulted from higher costs of fertilisers and pesticides. Costs of sowing materials were less variable (despite of price difference of sowing grains for two studied rye forms) because of the fact that total amount of sowing material for cv. Ursus was considerably lower. It should be mentioned that cost of production in low input technology (A) of one hectare of rye were equivalent to 2.6 tons of grains and cost of high input technology were equivalent to 3.9 tons of grains.

High level of grain yield obtained on field with low inputs for fertilisation and plant protection resulted in cost reduction by 25 per cent (Table 4).

Table 4. Some economical indices

It is worth to note that in conditions of treatment B cost of grains production of cv. Ursus was lower than for cv. Warko. However for the low inputs technology cost per unit of population rye was significantly (by 25 per cent) lower than for hybrid. Similar pattern was observed for profitability and income.

Conclusion

In the conditions of 126 kg NPK application and without plant protection treatment higher yield gave population cultivar Warko. For treatment with full control and higher level of NPK rate (to 258 kg · ha-1) higher yield was noted for hybrid cv. Ursus. Costs of high inputs technology were equivalent to the value of 3.9 t · ha-1. Better profitability and higher income were found for hybrid. In conditions of low inputs for production growing of hybrid was less profitable than traditional cultivars.

Literature

Budzyński W., Szulc J., Szempliński W. (in print). Porażenie przez choroby i plonowanie żyta populacyjnego i mieszańcowego w warunkach zróżnicowanej ochrony przed chorobami. Pam. Puł.

Goć E., Muzelewska A. 1997. Koszty eksploatacji maszyn. IMBER. Warszawa.

Grabiński J. Technologia uprawy zbóż. Materiały konferencji naukowej. Puławy. 114: 403-414.

Kaczyński L. 2000. Żyto ozime. W: Zboża ozime. syntezy wyników doświadczeń rejestracyjnych COBORU i PDO. Słupia Wielka.

Kuś J., Jończyk K. 1998. Oddziaływanie wybranych czynników agrotechnicznych na plonowanie żyta. Pam. Puł. 113: 61- 71.

Liszewski M. 1994. Nawożenie azotem, a wysokość i jakość plonów kilku odmian żyta ozimego. Zesz. Nauk. AR Wroc. Rol. LX. 238:111-119.

Maciorowski R., Piech M., Stankowski S. 2000. Reakcja odmian żyta mieszańcowego i populacyjnego na nawożenie azotem i regulator wzrostu. Hod. Rośl. Aklim. 215: 109-128.

Maciorowski R., Stankowski S., Piech M., Ułasik S., Czałczyńska E. 2000. Wpływ ilości wysiewu na produkcyjność odmian żyta mieszańcowego i populacyjnego. Frag. Agrom. z XVII, nr 1 165: 33-37.

Rynek zbóż. IBERiGŻ. VI/ 2001.

Szempliński W., Szulc J., Budzyński W. (in print). Reakcja żyta na czynniki agrotechniczne. Pam. Puł.