1 / 17

Comparison of Conventional, Roundup Ready, and Liberty-Link Cotton Weed Management Programs in Two Tillage Systems

Comparison of Conventional, Roundup Ready, and Liberty-Link Cotton Weed Management Programs in Two Tillage Systems . Michael Patterson, Bob Goodman and Dale Monks Auburn University Wilson Faircloth USDA-ARS, Dawson Ga. Alabama Cotton.

nenet
Download Presentation

Comparison of Conventional, Roundup Ready, and Liberty-Link Cotton Weed Management Programs in Two Tillage Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Conventional, Roundup Ready, and Liberty-Link Cotton Weed Management Programs in Two Tillage Systems Michael Patterson, Bob Goodman and Dale Monks Auburn University Wilson Faircloth USDA-ARS, Dawson Ga.

  2. Alabama Cotton • In Alabama and most of the southeast, Roundup Ready Cotton comprises 90% to 95% of the acreage. • The remainder of cotton acreage is planted in conventional (non-transgenic) or Liberty-Link varieties. • Over 75% of Alabama cotton is grown in some form of reduced tillage.

  3. Research Objectives • Evaluate cotton production in tilled and reduced till systems using Roundup Ready, Liberty Link, and conventional weed management programs. • Evaluate the economic viability of each tillage/weed management system. • Philosophize on the implications of the data.

  4. Materials and MethodsLocations Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center Belle Mina (Decatur clay loam) Wiregrass Research and Extension Center Headland (Dothan sandy loam)

  5. Materials and MethodsExperimental Particulars Time frame: 2005, 2006 Varieties: FM 966, FM 960 RR, FM 966 LL Conventional and reduced tillage. Six Treatments Replicated four times Plot Dimensions: both north and south AL = four rows by 40’ long, each plot separated by four border rows

  6. Materials and MethodsExperimental Particulars Tractor mounted sprayer used: 15 GPA. Conventional tillage: north AL = disk 2X, roterra. south AL = subsoil, disk, roterra. Reduced tillage: north AL = notill into wheat, south AL = strip till into wheat. Soil types: north AL = clay loam. south AL = sandy loam

  7. Tillage/Herbicide Treatments

  8. Costs of Tillage/Weed Systems($ per acre)

  9. Effect of Herbicide System Fiber Strength and Percent Lint (north Alabama)

  10. Effect of Tillage on Broadleaf Weed Control (north Alabama)

  11. Effect of Tillage on Cotton Yield and Economic Return (south Alabama)

  12. Effect of Herbicide System on Weed Control and Cotton Yield (south Alabama)

  13. SUMMARY (north Alabama) No yield differences due to herbicide/tillage system in. Decrease in late season broadleaf weed control for Conventional till in 2006. Slight and inconsequential differences in strength and turnout between varieties.

  14. Summary (south Alabama) Greater yield in strip till than in conventional till in both years. Greater yield in RR and LL systems than in conventional herbicide systems in both years. Strip till returned $75.00 per acre more than conventional on average. RR and LL returned $108.00 and $71.00 more per acre respectively than conventional herbicide system.

  15. Implications of data Probable reduction in economic return if south AL cotton growers return to conventional tillage and conventional herbicide technology. New post-emergent herbicide technology with activity on pigweed is needed in light of the recent discovery of glyphosate and ALS resistant pigweed biotypes.

  16. Support • Researchers gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of Cotton Incorporated and Alabama cotton growers in conduction of this research. • Reseachers also gratefully acknowledge the support of Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station personnel at the Tennessee Valley and Wiregrass Research and Extension Centers.

  17. Questions? Q

More Related