IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i2p572-d477396.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Organic Corn Production with the Use of Flame Weeding as the Most Sustainable Economical Solution

Author

Listed:
  • Miloš Rajković

    (Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Maksima Gorkog 30, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Goran Malidža

    (Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Maksima Gorkog 30, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Mirela Tomaš Simin

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Dragan Milić

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Danica Glavaš-Trbić

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Maja Meseldžija

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Sava Vrbničanin

    (Faculty of Agriculture, University of Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Belgrade, Serbia)

Abstract

Flame weeding is an alternative method of weed control. Essentially, it is a supplement to other physical and mechanical processes used in organic production. Weed control costs have a large share of the total cost of crop production. This study aimed to investigate hand weed hoeing’s cost-effectiveness, accompanied by inter-row cultivation and flame weeding applied in organic maize production using two different machines to determine the economically best solution. For this purpose, the prototype flame weeder and commercial flame-weeding machinery were used. Designed primarily for smaller fields, the prototype flame weeder was equipped with a cultivator and a 70 kg propane bottle. Commercial Red Dragon flame weeder, fitted with an 800 kg propane tank and featuring no cultivation implements, is designed for larger areas. The analysis has shown that hand hoeing produced a higher yield (8.3 t/ha in total), but it contributed significantly to the production costs. The costs per hectare decreased when the prototype flame weeder and the commercial Red Dragon flame weeder were used compared to hand hoeing. More beneficial economic impacts were recorded when the prototype flame weeder was used (489.39 €/ha) than in applying the Red Dragon flame weeder (456.47 €/ha). The efficacy of flame weeding is somewhat limited and could be enhanced by additional hand hoeing, if the effect of the machine in terms of weeding is observed. However, the analysis has shown that, in this case, investments in additional hand hoeing are not economically justified because the operating costs incurred therein (168 €/ha) were not met by a yield increase of 500 kg/ha, i.e., a surplus revenue of 100 €/ha. Moreover, the economic impacts of flame weeding would be considerably more significant in larger fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Miloš Rajković & Goran Malidža & Mirela Tomaš Simin & Dragan Milić & Danica Glavaš-Trbić & Maja Meseldžija & Sava Vrbničanin, 2021. "Sustainable Organic Corn Production with the Use of Flame Weeding as the Most Sustainable Economical Solution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-12, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:572-:d:477396
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/572/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/572/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Ika Darnhofer & Walter Schneeberger & Bernhard Freyer, 2005. "Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria:Farmer types and their rationale," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 22(1), pages 39-52, March.
    3. Brenes-Muñoz, Thelma & Lakner, Sebastian & Brümmer, Bernhard, 2016. "What Influenses the Growth of Organic Farms? Evidence from a Panel of Organic Farms in Germany," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 65(01), March.
    4. Tomaš Simin, Mirela & Janković, Dejan, 2014. "Applicability Of Diffusion Of Innovation Theory In Organic Agriculture," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(2), pages 1-13, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nikola Puvača & Vincenzo Tufarelli, 2022. "Sustainable Organic Agriculture for Developing Agribusiness Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-3, August.
    2. Radovan Begović & Milica Dudić & Maja Meseldžija & Milica Vranešević & Aleksandar Jurišić, 2023. "Rationalizing Herbicide Use in Maize within the Framework of Climatic Change and Extreme Hydrometeorological Phenomena," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-17, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Solfanelli, Francesco & Ozturk, Emel & Pugliese, Patrizia & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2021. "Potential outcomes and impacts of organic group certification in Italy: An evaluative case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    2. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    3. Laura Siepmann & Kimberly A. Nicholas, 2018. "German Winegrowers’ Motives and Barriers to Convert to Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Anna Mazurek-Kusiak & Bogusław Sawicki & Agata Kobyłka, 2021. "Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Charalampos Konstantinidis, 2013. "Assessing the Socio-Economic Consequences of the Rise of Organic Farming in the European Union," Working Papers 2013_05, University of Massachusetts Boston, Economics Department.
    6. Andow, D.A. & Resende Filho, M.A. & Carneiro, R.G. & Lorena, D.R. & Sujii, E.R. & Alves, R.T., 2017. "Heterogeneity in Intention to Adopt Organic Strawberry Production Practices Among Producers in the Federal District, Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 177-189.
    7. repec:mab:wpaper:18 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Philippos Karipidis & Sotiria Karypidou, 2021. "Factors that Impact Farmers’ Organic Conversion Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    9. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis, 2017. "Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 234-245.
    10. Irwa Issa & Ulrich Hamm, 2017. "Adoption of Organic Farming as an Opportunity for Syrian Farmers of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Structural Equation Modelling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-22, November.
    11. Kuhmonen, Irene, 2017. "Adoption of the agri-environmental measures: The role of motivations and perceived effectiveness," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 261108, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Władysława Łuczka & Sławomir Kalinowski, 2020. "Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming: A Polish Case Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.
    13. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    14. Charalampos Konstantinidis, 2018. "Capitalism in Green Disguise: The Political Economy of Organic Farming in the European Union," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 50(4), pages 830-852, December.
    15. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Revoyron, Eva & Le Bail, Marianne & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Gunnarsson, Anita & Seghetti, Marco & Colombo, Luca, 2022. "Diversity and drivers of crop diversification pathways of European farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    17. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "It’s not all about the money: understanding farmers’ labor allocation choices," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 261-271, June.
    18. Dru Montri & Kimberly Chung & Bridget Behe, 2021. "Farmer perspectives on farmers markets in low-income urban areas: a case study in three Michigan cities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 1-14, February.
    19. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    20. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    21. Bourceret, Amélie & Accatino, Francesco & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "A modeling framework of a territorial socio-ecosystem to study the trajectories of change in agricultural phytosanitary practices," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 494(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:572-:d:477396. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.