Author
Listed:
- Charles Webber III
- Paul White Jr.
- Caleb Dalley
- Eric Petrie
- Ryan Viator
- James Shrefler
Abstract
A Louisiana sugarcane field is typically replanted every four years due to declining yields, and, although, it is a costly process, it is both necessary and an opportunity to maximize the financial return during the next four year cropping cycle. Fallow planting systems (FPS) during the fallow period prior to replanting sugarcane have the potential to influence not only the following sugarcane crop, but the economics of the production system as a whole. A 2 year experiment was conducted at the USDA, ARS, Sugarcane Research Unit at Houma, LA to determine the impact of unique FPS on sugarcane production. The experiment included seven treatments; two cover crops, kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), three FPS harvest treatments for each FPS crop, and a control. The experiment had four replications. Kenaf was selected as a potential cover crop due to interest in its commercial by-products and cowpea was selected due to its potential to facilitate climate friendly soils. The kenaf and cowpeas were planted on 8 May 2013. The three FPS harvest treatments included the removal of the FPS crop at 50 days after planting (DAP), the removal of the harvested FPS crop at 100 DAP, and lastly, cutting the FPS crop at 100 DAP and incorporating the plant material into the soil prior to sugarcane planting. The control treatment did not have a cover crop. Unlike kenaf, the cowpea leaf, fresh and dry weight yields (50 DAP), 19.4 and 2.5 mt/ha, respectively, decreased to 17.0 and 2.4 mt/ha (100 DAP). Although the sugarcane total recoverable sucrose (TRS) (kg/mt) was greater with the kenaf cover-crop treatment 50 DAP (120 kg/mt) compared to the cowpea treatment 50 DAP (111 kg/mt) and the cowpea 100 DAP with the residue incorporated (112 kg/ha), none of the FPS crop treatments were significantly better or worse than the control (no cover crop). The average values for the sugarcane production factors across all treatments were 95,700 stalks/ha (millable stalks), 112 mt/ha (sugarcane yield), 114 kg/mt (sugar yield per metric ton of sugarcane), and 12,841 kg/ha (sugar yield per hectare). The results demonstrate the potential use of these alternative cover crops during the fallow period prior to planting sugarcane without adversely affecting the plant cane yields.
Suggested Citation
Charles Webber III & Paul White Jr. & Caleb Dalley & Eric Petrie & Ryan Viator & James Shrefler, 2016.
"Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus) and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) as Sugarcane Cover Crops,"
Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(8), pages 1-13, July.
Handle:
RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:8:p:13
Download full text from publisher
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.
More about this item
JEL classification:
- R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
- Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General
Statistics
Access and download statistics
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:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:8:p:13. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.