|
||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
 |
2008 TOMATO AND PEPPER VARIETY TRIALS
|
|||||||||||||||
|
(Read our previous article about Tillage Trials) Click here for Arnold Caylor's recipe for no-till, organic tomatoes and peppers. Effects of tillage and fertilizer treatments on Tomato and Pepper Yield November 2009
Summary: In 2009 at Cullman (North Alabama Horticulture Research Center), the number and weight of tomatoes in the conventional tillage (CT) treatment were significantly greater than in the no till (NT) treatment. The peppers produced significantly more pounds in the CT than in the NT treatments. There was no difference between pre-plant fertilizer levels in the number or weight of the tomato yield or in the pounds of peppers produced. Tillage trials: 2009 At Cullman the tomatoes in the CT treatment produced significantly more marketable tomatoes in number and weight than those in the NT plots and the survival of the tomato plants throughout the season was higher in the CT than in the NT plots. The peppers also produced significantly more in the CT plots than in the NT plots. Fertilizer trials: 2009 There was no difference in tomato number or weight between fertilizer treatments. There was no difference in pepper yield between fertilizer treatments.
2008 Amelia tomatoes and Hungarian hot wax peppers were grown organically at three research locations in AL: E.V. Smith, Cullman, and Aabama A&M. At each location there were 2 tillage treatments: no-till and a second tillage treatment, which was strip tillage at E.V. Smith, spade-tillage followed by roto-tillage at Cullman, and raised beds at A&M. Also, three pre-plant fertilizer rates were applied (NatureSafe 8-5-5) to both tillage treatments. Compost mulch was applied to the surface of all beds or planting rows prior to planting the crop, and all beds or planting rows received weekly applications of liquid fertilizer (Multibloom) through the drip irrigation system. There were no differences between tillage treatments or fertilizer treatments in tomato or pepper yield at any of the locations with the exception of an increase in pepper yield in the raised beds at A&M as compared to no-till. Additionally, there was no difference in tomato or pepper yield with increasing amounts of pre-plant fertilizer with the exception of an increase in pepper yield observed at A&M with the ½ rate of pre-plant fertilizer as compared to the full rate or 0 rate. The overall conclusion was that using the system described (compost mulch, liquid fertilizer, and manual weed control) crop yields can be maintained with organic no-till methods and that pre-plant fertilizer may be unnecessary when compost and liquid fertilizer are used. Introduction: The field experiments for the CSREES (Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service) Integrated Organic Program Grant for the summer of 2008 consisted of comparing the effects of tillage treatments and pre-plant fertilizer rates on tomato and pepper yield. Amelia was the tomato variety planted due to its tomato spotted wilt virus resistance and Hungarian hot wax was the pepper variety chosen due to its success in former variety trials. The research was conducted at three locations: North Alabama Horticultural Research Station in Cullman, AL, E.V. Smith Agricultural Research Station near Shorter, AL, and Winfred Thomas Agricultural Research Station, affiliated with Alabama A&M University near Normal, AL. Methods: Two tillage treatments were implemented at each research station: no-till and a tillage treatment of choice, which was slightly different for each research station and soil type. Raised beds were used at A&M where the soil contains more clay, at Cullman the beds were prepared with a spader followed by a roto-tiller, and at E.V. Smith where the soils are sandy, the crop rows were prepared with a four foot wide tiller, which mixed the top few inches of the soil. At all locations three different rates of pre-plant fertilizer (NatureSafe 8-5-5) were applied to the planting rows prior to planting. The fertilizer treatments were full rate (60#N/acre), half-rate (30#N/acre), and no pre-plant fertilizer. These rates were based on the AU Soil Testing Lab recommendation of 120 pounds of nitrogen per acre for tomatoes and peppers. Half of the recommended amount of nitrogen was to be applied at the beginning of the season as pre-plant fertilizer and the other half of the recommended amount of nitrogen was applied during the growing season by liquid fertilizer through the drip irrigation system. The pre-plant fertilizer was mixed into the tilled rows, and left on the surface of the no-till rows. The surface of all of the planting rows or beds was covered with a layer of compost, 4-6” deep and 2-3’ wide and the tomatoes and peppers were directly planted into the compost mulch. The crops were watered with drip irrigation and fertilized weekly with Multibloom liquid fertilizer. The crop plants were sprayed as needed with a Bacillus thuringiensis product for tomato fruit worms. The planting rows were mulched with wheat straw at E.V. Smith in order to help control weeds. There were 6 treatments and 6 replications: Treatments: A. Two tillage treatments: 1. No-till 2 Spade-Till (Cullman), Strip Till (EVS), Raised Beds (A&M) B. Three fertilizer treatments 1. pre-plant fertilizer applied at 60#N/acre (full rate) 2. pre-plant fertilizer at 30#N/acre (½ rate) 3. no pre-plant fertilizer
Weeds: The crop rows were weeded by hand, weed-eater, and mower as needed. The aisles (between the crop rows) were kept mowed. Weed sampling: Weeds were sampled in each treatment at E.V. Smith. A .5 square meter plot was randomly located around a pepper plant in each row. The plots were weeded twice during the season, once in early June and again in mid July. The weeds were placed in paper bags and dried and dried weights recorded. By August the pepper plants had developed a canopy that covered the weed plots and prevented weed growth so a third sample was not taken.
Results: Tillage trials: 2009 At Cullman the tomatoes in the conventional tillage (CT) treatment produced significantly more marketable tomatoes in number and weight than those in the no till (NT)plots and the survival of the tomato plants throughout the season was higher in the NT than in the CT plots. The peppers also produced significantly more in the CT plots than in the NT plots. 2008 There was no difference in tomato yield between tillage treatments at any location. There was no difference in total number of tomatoes, pounds of tomatoes, number of marketable tomatoes, or pounds of marketable tomatoes. At A&M there was a higher yield of peppers in the raised bed treatment as compared to the no-till treatment. At the other two locations, there was no difference in pepper yield, total number of peppers, weight of peppers, number or weight of marketable or unmarketable peppers between tillage treatments.
Fertilizer trials: 2009 There was no difference in tomato number or weight between fertilizer treatments. There was no difference in pepper yield between fertilizer treatments. 2008 There was no difference in tomato yield between fertilizer treatments. There was no difference in total number of tomatoes, total pounds of tomatoes, pounds of marketable tomatoes, or number of marketable tomatoes produced at any location, except that there were more small tomatoes with the ½ fertilizer rate than with the 0 rate at Cullman. There was no difference between fertilizer treatments in the total number of peppers, total weight of peppers, or number or weight of marketable or unmarketable peppers at any location, except that at A&M there was a greater yield of peppers with the ½ rate of pre-plant fertilizer than with the other two rates. Weeds At E.V. Smith where weeds were measured, there was no difference in weed populations among the fertilizer or tillage treatments. Discussion With the exception of pepper yield at A&M, there was no difference in crop yield between the tillage treatments. It is commonly reported that yields are lower the first few years after switching to no till; weeds are often cited as the limiting factor. However, there was no difference in weed populations between the two tillage treatments at E.V. Smith. The compost mulch that was used in both tillage treatments at all locations may have had an equalizing effect. It helped to smother weeds and provided the crop with readily available nutrients. The lack of response in crop yield to differing amounts of pre-plant fertilizer indicates that the plants had their nutrient requirements met by other means. The compost mulch and liquid fertilizer that was applied through the drip irrigation probably supplied enough nutrients so that the pre-plant fertilizer was unnecessary. The research plots have also been planted to summer and fall cover crops the past two seasons, which might have improved soil fertility such that pre-plant fertilizer was not needed The increase in pepper yield at the one location with the half fertilizer rate, as compared to the full rate, was probably an anomaly; the only logical explanation for obtaining these results would be that the full rate was in excess and actually decreased pepper yield. Conclusions The results indicate that the techniques used in this experiment would allow a farmer to transition to organic no till without suffering crop loss. In the initial transition to organic no till, farmers may need to spend some extra money and/or effort to acquire sufficient organic material to cover their planting rows with 5-6” of compost. This would help to smother the weeds and would supply the plants with enough nutrients to help them through the period of time when nutrients may be tied up in the plant residues that were left to decompose slowly on the no till soil surface. Farmers will need to manually remove weeds a couple of times during the growing season regardless of which tillage treatment is used. Mulching with organic material, such as hay or straw would also aid in weed control. The results of this research suggest that by using compost mulch and liquid fertilizer through the drip irrigation system, farmers could omit the use of pre-plant fertilizer. These other sources of soil fertility substituted for ½ of the recommended amount of nitrogen. Further research is needed in order to determine if the compost and cover crop residues can adequately substitute for the liquid fertilizer as well. Fertilizer is often one of the most expensive inputs that must be purchased. However, the amount of compost that was required in order to cover the soil surface 5-6” deep and 2-3’ wide also represents a substantial investment of money so that the cost-effectiveness of this method would depend upon the farmers’ sources of organic material and their means of managing it. For our experiment, cotton gin trash, dairy waste, sawdust, and chicken litter were used. Some of these materials were expensive and hard to locate. Additionally, specialized pieces of machinery, such as a compost turner, front end loader, and spreader, were used to manage this amount of compost. For some farmers pre-plant fertilizer, along with cover crop residues, may be more cost effective for supplying necessary plant nutrients. It is expected that the need for pre-plant fertilizer, as well as the need for large quantities of imported compost, will diminish with the increase in soil organic matter content that occurs through time with no till. These experiments will be repeated again next summer. Arnold Caylor’s Recipe for Organic No-till Tomatoes and Peppers
*This year because the cover crop was not mature at crop planting time, the planting rows were strip-mowed and the cover crop left standing in the inter-row areas (aisles) until they had matured and seeded.
**For best results, have soil and compost samples analyzed. We used some pelletized, composted chicken litter that we purchased and had shipped from Georgia. If the soil test indicates an additional need for phosphorus beyond what is supplied by the compost, soft phosphate rock could be used, or bone meal would be a faster-acting source; if additional potassium is needed greensand could be used, or potassium sulfate would be a faster-acting source. Check with the NOP or OMRI list to make sure the amendments you plan to use are allowed for certified organic production.
***Compost must be prepared a few months in advance of planting. Refer to NOP standards.
This system has worked nicely for us for 2 years now. We had a few cover crop problems that need further refinement. Due to the late mow-down of the cover crops between the rows this year, we had re-sprouting of the canola, rye, and crimson clover. We also had white clover to invade the aisles of the fallow plot, essentially turning it into a white clover plot. The re-sprouting rye and crimson clover have not been a problem for the cash crop. In fact, they may prove to be beneficial for keeping the ground between the planting rows covered with vegetation and helping to suppress more noxious weeds. The heat and drought have suppressed these cool season cover crops enough to prevent them from growing excessively and competing with the cash crop. The canola, on the other hand, has been a problem. It has out-grown the cash crop and robbed it of essential water and nutrients. Canola also harbors an abundant aphid population. Austrian winter pea and hairy vetch died back with the summer heat and have not re-sprouted, though vetch might re-sprout with cooler temperatures and more rain
We will be experimenting with different fall cover crops and living mulches in this system next year and we will plan to hold a field day and report our results next spring.
The key to success with Arnold’s method is to have abundant compost available for use. For our approximately one acre research plot, it takes about 10-12 large dump truck loads, or about 6 semi-trailer loads of cotton gin trash to make enough compost. It cooks down a great deal during the composting process. It might take a slightly less amount of chicken litter or manure, but you would still need enough to cover the planting zones 4-6” thick to suppress weeds. We will keep you posted on the progress of our cover crop and living mulch trials.
|
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
