Next Article in Journal
Development of an Irrigation Method with a Cycle of Wilting–Partial Recovery Using an Image-Based Irrigation System for High-Quality Tomato Production
Previous Article in Journal
Comparison of a Conventional Harvesting Technique in Alfalfa and Red Clover with a Leaf Stripping Technique Regarding Dry Matter Yield, Total Leaf Mass, Leaf Portion, Crude Protein and Amino Acid Contents
Previous Article in Special Issue
Foliar Application of GA3 Stimulates Seed Production in Cauliflower
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy12061409
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Effect of Herbicide and Biostimulants on Production and Economic Results of Edible Potato

by
Agnieszka Ginter
*,
Krystyna Zarzecka
and
Marek Gugała
Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Prusa Street 14, 08-110 Siedlce, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2022, 12(6), 1409; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061409
Submission received: 20 May 2022 / Revised: 3 June 2022 / Accepted: 10 June 2022 / Published: 11 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biostimulants as Physiological Modulators of Crop Performance and Product Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In modern agriculture, preparations qualified as biostimulants are used alongside pesticides. They influence the development of plants and enable a yield-forming effect. An important feature of these preparations is that they are safe for the environment. They can be treated as substitutes for plant protection agents, which is especially important in the era of implementation of the European Green Deal, ordering the reduction of chemicalization of agriculture. The purpose of this paper was to compare the production and economic results of five methods of plantation care in Solanum tuberosum cultivation: on the first object (control), mechanical cultivation was used, and on the second, object the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1), on object three, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and the biostimulant PlonoStart (2.0 dm3·ha−1), on object four, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and biostimulant Aminoplant (1.5 dm3·ha−1), and on object five, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium (4.0 dm3·ha−1). The research was conducted from 2018 to 2020 at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady, central-eastern Poland. The results were analyzed, on average, for two Polish edible potato cultivars (Malaga and Oberon), and three years of study (2018–2020) were taken into consideration. The experiment was established as a two-factor experiment in three replicates on light soil in a spit-plot arrangement. A beneficial effect of herbicides and biostimulants on the yield and profitability of edible potato production was observed. An average increase of 33.2% in marketable yield was obtained. The gross margin increased by an average of 49.3%. The highest total yield, as compared to the control object, was obtained from object 5, where the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC with biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium was applied, such as the greatest economic effect was achieved also in object no. 5. Application of this biostimulant was most beneficial.

1. Introduction

According to the Central Statistical Office, in the year 2020, the area under potato cultivation in Poland is estimated to be about 0.3 million hectares and the harvest is estimated to be about 9.0 million tonnes, which is 40.0% more compared to 2019 [1]. Potatoes are one of the most important crops in the world [2]. In the agriculture of the 21st century, there is a professionalization of potato cultivation technology, which results in an increase in potato yield. The costs of potato protection against weeds are a special kind of direct production cost. Apart from fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, biostimulants are used more and more frequently. It is estimated that the value of the biostimulant market in the next few years will be increasing; therefore, the utilitarian purpose of scientific research using these preparations should be emphasized. In modern plant cultivation, biostimulants are one of the elements of agrotechnology that in addition to fertilization and plant protection, can positively affect the yield and quality [3]. Potatoes require many treatments, carefully selected according to the condition and degree of weeds, which guarantee the profitability of production. It should be reminded or emphasized that Solanum tuberosum tubers are rich in vitamin C [4]. Potatoes are low in calories and have high nutritional, dietary, and health value. Potatoes have a beneficial effect on human health [5]. The key element of agrotechnology affecting high yields of good quality is to provide plants with appropriate development conditions thanks to regulators available on the market that affect plant growth, including biostimulants [6] or bacterial vaccines [7]. These products containing bioactive molecules have a beneficial effect on plants and improve their capability to face adverse environmental conditions [8]. An important element in agrotechnics is the maintenance of plantations against weeds. Chemical methods of weed control are more effective than mechanical [9]. The use of plant biostimulants, such as amido acids and micro-organism, could be of great help to farmers [10]. Biostimulants are among the natural preparations that improve the general health, vitality, and growth of plants and protect them against infections. They can be successfully used in both agri- and horticultural crops [11]. The aim of the conducted studies was to compare the production and economic results of five methods of potato plant care in the example of Polish edible cultivars Malaga and Oberon. On the first object (control), mechanical cultivation was used; on the second object, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC; on object three, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and the biostimulant PlonoStart; on object four, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and biostimulant Aminoplant; on object five, the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium. This paper attempts to highlight the importance of using biostimulants in innovative agricultural agrotechnology by analyzing results, which are very important to potato producers. Both cultivars enjoy exceptionally good and delicate tastes in general culinary types, and for that reason, selection of cultivars for the study should be considered proper from the consumer’s point of view, and different ways of plantation care are important for the producer.

2. Materials and Methods

The material for the study consisted of tubers of Polish Solanum tuberosum cultivars (Malaga and Oberon). Malaga was included in the Polish National List of Agricultural Plant Varieties on 5 March 2013 and Oberon on 9 February 2012 [12]. The field experiment was conducted from 2018 to 2020 at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady of the Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities. The study was conducted in triplicate using the method of randomized sub-blocks (split-plot). In the calculations, the average values for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020) were taken into account. The forecrop was winter × Triticale rimpaui. The soil was analyzed in each year of the study. Differences were recorded in soil pH 5.25–5.42 (in KCl), in organic matter content 20.9–22.3 g⋅kg−1 and in assimilability in macronutrients in the following mg·kg−1: phosphorus-35.2–71.0, potassium-102.1–149.0, and magnesium-36.6–61.0. The applied fertilization level in all plots did not differ. Manure fertilization was applied in the autumn at a rate of 25.0 t·ha−1. Mineral fertilizers were applied at the following rates: phosphorus-44.0 kg·ha−1 and potassium-124.5 kg·ha−1 and plowed in the autumn, and nitrogen-100.0 kg·ha−1 was applied in the spring. Tubers were planted in the third decade of April. Different mechanical-chemical treatments against weeds were applied in the field experiment and compared with the control where only mechanical treatment was applied. Both before and after potato emergence on the control object (1), double edging was performed. Moreover, this treatment in combination with harrowing was performed once before emergence. Herbicide and biostimulants were applied to the remaining objects weeded mechanically and chemically (2–5). Before potato emergence, double harrowing was performed, and immediately after the second one, about 7 days before plant emergence (phase BBCH 00–08), Avatar 293 ZC herbicide was applied (clomazone and metribuzine are active substances of the preparation) at a dose of 1.5 dm3·ha−1. On plots 3–5, after emergence, different methods of weed control were applied, including three biostimulants applied at two time intervals. On the object 3. apart from the herbicide, PlonoStart 2.0 dm3·ha−1 was applied, the first dose of 1.0 dm3·ha−1 at full emergence (phase BBCH 13–19), and the second 1.0 dm3·ha−1 at the time of 10–50% row cover (phase BBCH 31–35). On the object 4. biostimulant Aminoplant 1.5 dm3·ha−1 was applied, the first dose of 1.0 dm3·ha−1 at the full end of emergence (phase BBCH 13–19), and the second one of 0.5 dm3·ha−1 at the time of covering the rows in 10–50% (phase BBCH 31–35). On the last research object (object 5), Avatar 293 ZC was also applied, and the biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium 4.0 dm3·ha−1. The first and the second dose were applied in the same amounts, i.e., 2.0 dm3·ha−1 each, at the same plant development stages as in objects 3. and 4. It should be added that the herbicide and the biostimulants were dissolved in 300 dm3 of water per area unit (per 1 hectare). When selecting the herbicide for the research, the recommendations of the Institute of Plant Protection–National Research Institute were taken into account, and the herbicide was adjusted to the weed infestation status of the plantation. Biostimulant Aminoplant is as follows: contained 9.48% nitrogen, 9.2% amide nitrogen, 11.57% free amino acids, and 87.7% organic matter. Agro-Sorb Folium 2.2% nitrogen, 0.02% manganese, 0.09% zinc, 13.11% total amino acids, of which free 10.66%. PlonoStart is a compilation of minerals with the addition of urea and microorganisms in the form of lactic acidifying bacteria and actinomycetes (Table 1).
During the vegetation period the following insecticides were used: Actara 25 WG (htiametoxam)—0.08 kg·ha−1, Decis Mega 50 EW (deltamethrin) 0.15 dm3·ha−1, Karate Zeon 050 CS (lambda-cyhalothrin) 0.25 dm3·ha−1, Proteus 110 OD-0.4 dm3·ha−1 (thiachloprid, deltamethrin) and fungicides: Ridomil Gold MZ 68 WG (metalaxyl-M and mencozeb-2.0 kg·ha−1) and Dithane Neo Tec 75 WG (mencozeb)-2.5 kg·ha−1. In the first decade of September tubers were harvested and their weight from each plot was determined, and then the yield per 1 hectare was calculated. Moreover, the sample of tubers was taken (10 kilos) to determine the yield structure. Just before potato harvest, each plot was randomly sampled (10 potato plants were dug). Tubers with diameters ≥35 mm and without external and internal defects were considered marketable yield. Marketable quality traits important in the preparation of goods for trade (packaging) include tuber size [13]. Defective tubers with visible external defects, potatoes with internal defects, and tubers below 35 mm were qualified as by-product yield. The cost and production values were calculated based on current prices from each year of the study. The group of production effects included the total, marketable, and by-product yield, while the gross margin was the economic effect according to the methodology presented in the paper by Ziętara [14]. Gross margin (without subsidies) is the value of production less direct costs. Production value is the sum of primary and secondary production and direct costs are those which are incurred for its production. The income category chosen is of fundamental importance in cost accounting on European Union farms.
The results of the three-year study were subjected to analysis of variance and the significance of differences between the means was determined by the Tukey test at the significance level of p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Production Results

For each agricultural producer, one of the most important production effects of cultivated crops is the yield level achieved. Field experiments have shown that edible potato protection methods significantly affected the total, marketable, and by-product yields of edible potato tubers (Table 2).
The highest total yield, as compared to the control object, was obtained from object 5, where the herbicide Avatar 293 ZC with biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium was applied. The analysis of variance showed that it was significantly higher than in objects 2 and 4 and did not differ significantly from object 3. The total yield from objects 2, 3, and 4 was smaller but totally differentiated. The highest marketable yield from object 5 differed significantly from the yield from the control object as well as from the yields of the other objects. The lowest by-product yield was obtained after herbicide application with Agro-Sorb Folium (object 5). Its differences were found to be significant as compared with the yields obtained on objects 1 and 2. The by-product yields from objects 2–4 did not differ significantly. Obtaining an increasing share of marketable yield in the total yield that meets the requirements of consumers is a desirable production effect for any market-oriented producer (Figure 1).
The positive effect of biostimulants in plant breeding is the subject of scientific studies. Biostimulant BrownBio Gold significantly increased the total yield and proportion of large tubers of edible potatoes compared to the control object [15]. Under the influence of the tested biostimulators Krzemian and Naturamin Plus, a significant increase in potato yield was obtained [16]. Biostimulators positively influence the increase in the yield of oilseed rape [17]. Biostimulants allow increasing the efficiency of the use of production factors and reducing the negative impact on the environment [18]. Aminoacidic biostimulants are one of the new proposals for increasing yield efficiency [19]. In spite of the fact that plant protection is not a yield-creating factor but only limits the negative impact of agrophages, the results of experiments allow confirming that in combination with biostimulants it is possible to obtain a positive production effect. Application of biostimulants increased potato shoot [20]. Biostimulants play an important role in modern agricultural management [21]. Agronomic practices should be improved. For example, nutrient management and foliar application of plant growth regulators can be used during prolonged droughts [22]. Bearing in mind that droughts in Poland have been recurring more and more frequently in recent years, research using preparations that mitigate the negative impact on their development under such weather conditions is of particular importance.

3.2. Economic Results

The use of these preparations generates higher production costs, which directly affect the profitability of agricultural production. The highest cost of plantation protection in comparison with other objects was recorded in the case of the 5th object (Figure 2). They amounted to almost 427 euros per hectare.
The costs of plantation protection against weeds are the basic type of direct cost of plant production, including potato production. In agricultural economics, direct costs are distinguished by a criterion referred to as the place where the costs arise. Cost accounting is a system providing information about costs [23]. It is indispensable in every farming unit [24]. Production costs belong to the basic economic categories in an agricultural holding [25]. Their level should be the subject of analysis, but also of planning and control.
The cost of plantation protection was determined mainly by the cost of applied biostimulants, herbicides, and treatments [26]. The cost of potato protection against weeds depends mainly on the number of mechanical and chemical means as well as on the prices of herbicides and biostimulants.
Analyzing the direct costs (Table 3) of edible potato production, it was found that the purchase of certified seed potatoes accounted for the largest share, ranging from 32.8% (object 5) to 34.7% (object 2). Seeds and fertilizers were the main part of edible potato production costs [27]. The use of qualified seed material in agriculture determines the obtaining of a higher yield with better quality parameters [28]. In the structure of the costs incurred, the costs of seed potatoes had the largest share (34.5%), natural fertilizers (11.9%), then the costs of plant pesticides (6.1%), and mineral fertilizers (5.6%) [29]. A characteristic feature of root crop cultivation is its high labor intensity, which, however, largely depends on applied technologies [30]. The major cost was labor cost [31].
Direct costs are the costs that can be precisely assigned to the produced output. The highest value of potato production, constituting the sum of the main and side production, was found in object 5. (Table 4). In comparison with the control object, it was higher by about 30.0%.
The calculated gross margin showed the profitability of edible potato production. The obtained values from particular ways of herbicide and herbicide application with biostimulants, as compared to the control object, reflected the economic justification of their use. The greatest economic effect was achieved in object no. 5—the application of Avatar 293 ZC herbicide with Agro-Sorb Folium biostimulant. A smaller gross margin (by 12.0%) was obtained as a result of the application of Avatar 293 ZC with the biostimulant PlonoStart (object 3). Application of herbicide with Aminoplant biostimulant (object 4) generated production profitability at the level of 2809 Euro ha−1. The profitability of edible potato production is analyzed in scientific works. Despite relatively high costs incurred for potato protection against weeds, the combination of herbicide with biostimulants was profitable [26]. The profitability of edible potato production was generally high [32]. The calculated gross margin indicates that Bellarosa edible potato cultivation in 2015–2016 was profitable [33]. Proper allocation of inputs and available resources increased the profitability of potato cultivation [34]. Studies of edible potatoes prove that their cultivation is profitable; it is at a relatively high level [35]. The profitability analysis of potato cultivation indicated that potatoes were an attractive crop [36]. The field experiment conducted is an incentive for agricultural producers to produce edible potatoes. As research shows, it is a profitable crop, and combining chemical control with biostimulants is conducive to increasing it.

4. Conclusions

Research conducted at the Agricultural Experimental Station in Zawady at the Siedlce University of Life Sciences and Humanities on the effectiveness of plant protection inputs allowed for the following conclusions: Herbicide application with biostimulants had a positive effect on the production results of edible potatoes. It was observed that the total yield increased from 31.2 t to 40.7 t·ha−1 and the share of marketable yield in the total yield increased from 78.3% to 89.6%. The cost of edible potato protection, depending on the method of herbicide application with biostimulants varied. The highest costs were incurred on object no. 5, where Avatar 293 ZC was applied with biostimulant Agro-Sorb Folium. The calculated gross margin indicated that the application of Avatar 293 ZC herbicide with biostimulants was cost-effective, and the combination with Agro-Sorb Folium was the most economical. Along with fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides, biostimulants should be a permanent part of agricultural crop technology and can be viewed as a yield-enhancing agent. In a food potato plantation, their combination with weed control should be recommended.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.Z. and A.G.; methodology, K.Z. and M.G.; software A.G.; validation, K.Z. and M.G.; resources, K.Z. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.G.; writing—review and editing, K.Z. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

It does not apply to the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

This research in this paper is the authors’ own research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. GUS. Resulting Estimate of Main Agricultural and Horticultural Crops in 2020—Wynikowy Szacunek Głównych Ziemiopłodów Rolnych i Ogrodniczych w 2020 r; GUS: Warszawa, Poland, 2020. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  2. Lenartowicz, T.; Piepho, H.P.; Przystalski, M. Stability analysis of tuber yield and starch yield in mid-late and late maturing starch cullivars of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Potato Res. 2020, 63, 179–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Mystkowska, I.; Sikorska, A. Economic efficiency of using different methods of potato plant care and nutrition with biostimulants—Efektywność ekonomiczna stosowania różnych metod pielęgnacji i odżywiania roślin ziemniaka przy pomocy biostymulatorów. Prog. Plant Prot. 2022, 62, 11–16. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zarzecka, K.; Grużewska, A.; Gugała, M.; Yatsyshyn, A. Production and quality of edible potato in consumers opinion in Poland and Ukraine—Produkcja i jakość ziemniaka jadalnego w opinii konsumentów w Polsce i na Ukrainie. Probl. Rol. Swiat. 2017, 17, 308–318. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ezekiel, R.; Singh, N.; Sharma, S.; Kaur, A. Beneficial phytochemicals in potato—A review. Food Res. Int. 2013, 50, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maciejewski, T.; Szukała, J.; Jarosz, A. Wpływ biostymulatora Asahi SL i Atonik SL na cechy jakościowe bulw ziemniaków. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2007, 52, 109–112. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  7. Emitazi, G.; Nader, A.; Etemadifar, Z. Effect of nitrogen fixing bacteria on growth of potato tubers. Adn. Food Sci. 2004, 26, 56–58. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bulgari, R.; Franzoni, G.; Fernante, A. Biostimulants Application in Horticultural Crops under Abiotic Stress Conditions. In Toward a Sustainable Agriculture through Plant Biostimulant; from Experimental Data to Practical Application, 2nd ed.; Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., Eds.; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 143–172. [Google Scholar]
  9. Barbaś, P.; Sawicka, B.; Krochmal-Marczak, B.; Pszczółkowski, P. Effect of mechanical and herbicide treatment on weed dentisties and biomass in two potato cultivar. Agriculture 2020, 10, 455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Caradonia, F.; Ronga, D.; Tava, A.; Francia, E. Plant biostimulants in sustainable potato production: An overview. Eur. Potatoe J. 2021, 65, 83–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Drobek, M.; Frąc, M.; Gybulska, J. Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the Quality and Yield of Horticultural Crops and the Improvement of Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress—A Review. In Toward a Sustainable Agriculture through Plant Biostimulant; from Experimental Data to Practical Application, 2nd ed.; Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., Eds.; MDPI: Basel, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 171–190. [Google Scholar]
  12. Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych. Polish National List of Agricultural Plants Varieties—Lista odmian roślin rolniczych wpisanych do krajowego rejestru w Polsce, Official List of Varieties; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2020; pp. 1–89, COBO 25/2020 n. 550; ISSN 1231-8299. (In Polish)
  13. Nowacki, W. Share of marketable yield in total yield edible potato cultivars—Udział plonu handlowego w plonie ogólnym jadalnych odmian ziemniaka. Zesz. Probl. Postępów Nauk. Rol. 2006, 511, 429–439. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  14. Ziętara, W. Cost accounting in agricultural enterprises in theory and practice—Rachunek kosztów w przedsiębiorstwach rolniczych w teorii i praktyce. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2009, 2, 303–309. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  15. Mystkowska, I. Biostimulants as the effect factor on edible potato yield—Biostymulatory jako czynnik wpływający na plon ziemniaka jadalnego. Acta Agroph 2018, 25, 307–315. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Trawczyński, C. Effect of biostimulants on the yield and quality of potato tubers grown under drought and high temperature conditions—Wpływ biostymulatorów na plon i jakość bulw ziemniaka uprawianego w warunkach suszy i wysokiej temperatury. Bull. Plant Breed. Acclim. Inst. 2020, 289, 11–19. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gugała, M.; Sikorska, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Krasnodębska, E.; Kapela, K.; Mystkowska, I. Profitability of using biostimulants in the winter rape cultivation—Opłacalność stosowania biostymulatorów wzrostu w uprawie rzepaku ozimego. Rocz. Nauk. SERiA 2017, 19, 93–95. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  18. Pecio, A. Innovation products using in plant production—Innowacyjne produkty stosowane w produkcji roślinnej. Studia I Rap. IUNG-PIB 2020, 63, 163–178. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  19. Knapik, M. Using of biostimulants in modern agriculture—Zastosowanie biostymulatorów we współczesnym rolnictwie. FASCICLES Stud. Sci. Mov. Jan Kochanowski Univ. Kielc. 2018, 27, 79–84. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  20. Arafa, A.A.; Farouk, S.; Mahomed, H.S. Effect of potasium fertilizer, biostimulants and effective microorganisms as well as their interaction on potato growth, photosynthetic pigments and stem anatomy. J. Plant Prod. 2011, 2, 1017–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lakshmi, P.K.; Meenakshi, S. Chapter 5-Micro and macroalgae: Apotential biostimulants for abiotic stress management and crop production. In New and Future Development in Micribial Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Sustainable Agriculture: Microorganisms and Biostimulants, 1st ed.; Sings, H., Vaishnav, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 63–82. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nasir, M.W.; Toth, Z. Effect of droughts stress on potato production; a reviwe. Agronomy 2022, 12, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Łapińska, A. Cost accounting in farms—Rachunek kosztów w gospodarstwach rolniczych. Pr. Nauk. Uniw. Ekon. We Wrocławiu 2011, 182, 259–266. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  24. Skarżyńska, A. Costs and profitability—Koszty i dochodowość. Probl. Agric. Econ. 2018, 2, 137–162. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ginter, A. Small Farms Facing the Challenges of Sustainability and the Green Deal—Małe Gospodarstwa Rolne Wobec Wyzwań Zrównoważonego Rozwoju i Zielonego Ładu; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytet Przyrodniczo-Humanistyczny w Siedlcach: Siedlcach, Poland, 2021; pp. 1–174. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  26. Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M.; Grzywacz, K.; Sikorska, A. Agricultural and economic effects of the use of biostimulants and herbicides in cultivation of the table potato cultivar Gawin. Acta Scientarum. Polonorum. Agric. 2020, 19, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sujan, H.K.; Islam, F.; Kazal, M.M.H.; Mondal, R.K. Profitability and resurces use efficiency of potato cultivation in Munshiganj district of Bangladesh. Journal of Agriculture 2017, 15, 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chotkowski, J. Factors influencing use of certifited seed in agriculture (potato as an example)—Czynniki kształtujące zużycie kwalifikowanego materiału nasiennego w rolnictwie (na przykładzie ziemniaka). Studia I Rap. IUNG-PIB 2009, 17, 129–137. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  29. Baranowska, A. Profitability of edible potato production—analysis on the plantation level. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2018, 2018, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gołaś, Z. Economics, organization and income situation of farms in European Union countries targeted at root plant production—Ekonomika, organizacja i sytuacja dochodowa gospodarstw rolnych krajów UE ukierunkowanych na produkcję roślin okopowych. Rocz. Nauk. Ekon. Rol. I Obsz. Wiej. 2016, 103, 35–45. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  31. Sinha, A.K.; Sing, S.K. Economics of potato production in Northen Hills of Chhattisgarh. Econ. Aff. 2019, 64, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Nowacki, W. Edible potato market–current status and development prospects—Rynek ziemniaków jadalnych w Polsce-stan obecny i perspektywy rozwoju. Rocz. Nauk. Stowarzyszenia Ekon. Rol. I Agrobiz. 2016, 18, 196–201. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  33. Baranowska, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Mystkowska, I.; Gugała, M. Profitability of edible potato Bellarosa cultivar—Opłacalność uprawy ziemniaków jadalnych odmiany Bellarosa. Rocz. Nauk. SERiA 2017, 2017, 14–18. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bajracharya, M.; Sapkota, M. Profitability and productivity of potato (Solanum tuberosum) in Baglung District, Nepal. Agric. Food Secur. 2017, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Skarżyńska, A. Selling season of edible potato and profitability of potato production—Sezon sprzedaży ziemniaków jadalnych a opłacalność ich produkcji. J. Agribus. Rural. Dev. 2010, 2, 111–123. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  36. Rana, R.K.; Arya, S.; Kadian, M.S.; Singh, B.P.; Quiroz, R.; Monneveux, P. Socio-economic feasibility of potato cultivation in Andhra Pradesh, India. Potato Res. 2016, 59, 167–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 12 01409 g001 550
Figure 1. Share (%) of the marketable yield in the total yield on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Figure 1. Share (%) of the marketable yield in the total yield on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Agronomy 12 01409 g001
Agronomy 12 01409 g002 550
Figure 2. Potato protection costs (Euro·ha−1) on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Figure 2. Potato protection costs (Euro·ha−1) on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Agronomy 12 01409 g002
Table
Table 1. Herbicide and herbicide with biostimulants–description.
Table 1. Herbicide and herbicide with biostimulants–description.
Trade NameActive Substance/Chemical CombinationDoseUsage
1. Control objectMechanical care--
2. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC Clomazone and metribuzine1.5 dm3·ha−1BBCCH 00-08
3. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and PlonoStartClomazone and metribuzune and Ntotal-16.4%, K2O-0.75%, Cao-0.07%, MnO-0.02%, S-941 mg·kg−1, lactic acid bacteria, actinomycetes1.5 dm3·ha−1 and 2.0 dm3·ha−1BBCCH 13-19 and BBCCH 31-35
4. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and Aminoplant Clomazone and metribuzine and Ntotal-9.48%, N-9.2%, N_NH4-0.88%, Corganic-25%, free amino acids-11.57%, organic matter-87.7%1.5 dm3·ha−1 and 1.5 dm3·ha−1BBCCH 13-19 and BBCCH 31-35
5. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC and Agro-Sorb FoliumClomazone and mteribuzine and Ntotal-2.2%, B-0.02%, Mn-0.05%, Zn-0.09%, tatal aminoacids-13.11%, free amino acids-10.66%1.5 dm3·ha−1 and 4.0 dm3·ha−1BBCCH 13-19 and BBCCH 31-35
Table
Table 2. Potato yield on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Table 2. Potato yield on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Methods of Application Herbicide with BiostimulantsYield Potato (t·ha−1)
TotalMarketableBy-Product
1. Control object—mechanical weeding 31.2c24.4d6.8a
2. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1)34.7b29.3c5.4b
3. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and PlonoStart (2.0 dm3·ha−1)37.8ab33.2b4.6bc
4. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Aminoplant (1.5 dm3·ha−1)36.1b31.0bc5.1bc
5. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Agro-Sorb Folium (4.0 dm3·ha−1)40.7a36.5a4.2c
Average for objects 2–537.332.54.8
NIR statistic p ≤ 0.053.22.80.9
Means (standard error) followed by different letters are significantly different within the analysed variable (p ≤ 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Direct cost structure (%) of potato production on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Table 3. Direct cost structure (%) of potato production on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Cost TypeMethods of Application Herbicide with Biostimulants
1. Control Object2. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1)3. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and PlonoStart (2.0 dm3·ha−1)4. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Aminoplant (1.5 dm3·ha−1)5. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Agro-Sorb Folium (4.0 dm3·ha−1)
Seed potatoes33.534.733.633.732.8
Natural fertilizer–manure12.512.912.612.612.3
Mineral feritilzers8.89.18.98.98.7
Plant protecion products and biostimulants4.96.76.96.99.1
Human work9.28.78.78.88.0
Equipment operation31.127.929.229.129.1
Total direct costs100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
Table
Table 4. Potato production value and gross margin (Euro·ha−1) on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
Table 4. Potato production value and gross margin (Euro·ha−1) on average for two cultivars (Malaga and Oberon) and three study years (2018–2020).
SpecificationMethods of Application Herbicide with Biostimulants
1. Control Object2. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1)3. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and PlonoStart (2.0 dm3·ha−1)4. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Aminoplant (1.5 dm3·ha−1)5. Herbicide Avatar 293 ZC (1.5 dm3·ha−1) and Agro-Sorb Folium (4.0 dm3·ha−1)
Marketable yield value38934672529449475811
By-product yield value1079856730808674
Total production value49725528602457556485
Gross margin20132671307528093467
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ginter, A.; Zarzecka, K.; Gugała, M. Effect of Herbicide and Biostimulants on Production and Economic Results of Edible Potato. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061409

AMA Style

Ginter A, Zarzecka K, Gugała M. Effect of Herbicide and Biostimulants on Production and Economic Results of Edible Potato. Agronomy. 2022; 12(6):1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061409

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ginter, Agnieszka, Krystyna Zarzecka, and Marek Gugała. 2022. "Effect of Herbicide and Biostimulants on Production and Economic Results of Edible Potato" Agronomy 12, no. 6: 1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061409

APA Style

Ginter, A., Zarzecka, K., & Gugała, M. (2022). Effect of Herbicide and Biostimulants on Production and Economic Results of Edible Potato. Agronomy, 12(6), 1409. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061409

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop