Hedge trimmer for weeding in grain legumes

From Triple Performance


Feedback from Robert Melix, as part of the Aglae project, on the use of the topper to reduce the seed production of weeds.

Motivations

Following the transition of the farm to organic farming in 2016, I had to modify my strategy for managing flora in my cropping systems.

I started by integrating mechanical weeding and adapting technical itineraries. Having introduced seed legumes into my rotation, I faced some difficulties. No approved product exists in organic farming to effectively manage weeds on this type of legumes. For some delicate crops, such as lentil for example, it is also not possible to mechanically intervene to eliminate weeds during the cycle because the crop is too fragile and cannot withstand machinery passage.

I therefore had to find catch-up weeding solutions to avoid not only seed set, and consequently the contamination of plots, but also the pollution of harvested batches.

The use of the topper then appeared as the most effective technique to meet these objectives. This technique now allows me to limit the renewal of weed seed stocks in my plots, particularly in crops of chickpea and soybean (regrowth of sunflower, thistles, amaranths, goosefoot) and lentil/camelina (wild oat, thistles, ryegrass, mayweed).


Practical implementation

Focus: The topper my way

Topper


  • Allows cutting weeds that exceed the crop height
  • No air displacement with this machine so weeds do not lie down in front of the tool during its passage: increased efficiency
  • Speed 10 ha/h
  • Width 12m*
  • 20 decks

Front lifting system

Front lifting
  • Cutting height from 20cm to 1.2m
  • 2 hydraulic distributors at the front

Traction

Narrow wheel
  • 110 horsepower tractor
  • Narrow tires, 25cm wide: to crush the main crop as little as possible
  • Reinforced front wheels to support the load of the topper

Cost

  • Topper costs: between €20,000 and €25,000 (between €30,000 and €35,000 fully equipped + tractor adaptations)


Topping

Combined with the use of the topper, I sow my lentil/camelina at a high density (400 and 200 gr/m² respectively), which helps to smother small weeds at the beginning of their development. The topper then complements this to eliminate other weeds such as wild oat, ryegrass and thistles that have managed to develop through the biomass of the lentil/camelina. Meanwhile, the stems of these weeds have served as support for the crop throughout its development.

Benefits and points of caution

Benefits

  • Prevents the spread of weed seeds, especially those resistant to herbicides
  • Very effective on thistle and wild-oat
  • Interesting complementary weeding in cereals seed production
  • Facilitates harvest
  • Adaptable to any crop

Points of caution

  • Effective only on weeds taller than the crop
  • Financial investment
  • Less effective on too woody weeds

My tips for success

  • Work on leveled soil
  • Work on well-drained soil
  • Do not operate in strong wind
  • Choose the date of passage based on weather retrospectively (a few dry days after mowing to avoid regrowth)
  • Avoid too early mowing to prevent the weed from setting seed at a lower height.
  • Avoid too late mowing on wild oat because when lignified they coil around the tool and become very difficult to destroy
  • Combine this technique with other levers for more effectiveness

My perspectives

Robert Melix
  • Improve on the intervention stages of weeds in certain crops upstream
  • Implement more intercropping
  • Increase sowing densities
  • Install deflectors on the topper to be more effective on too woody weeds (such as wild oat)

Leviers évoqués dans ce système

My results

Agri-environmental

  • Positif Decrease in weed pressure
  • Neutre Stability of pest pressure
  • Neutre Stability of disease pressure

Social

  • Négatif Increase in mechanization time
  • Neutre Stability regarding periods of work overload
  • Neutre Stability of observation time

Economic

  • Négatif Increase in mechanization costs
  • Neutre Stability of net margin
  • Négatif Increase in implementation cost

Expert committee opinion

Evaluation according to the ESR analysis grid.

Substitution

Implementation of alternative control methods replacing chemical means.


Evaluation selon la grille d'analyse ESR : Substitution
Evaluation selon la grille d'analyse ESR : Substitution


Farmer member of the DEPHY Farm network, led by the Chambre d’Agriculture de l’Aude.


Author of the sheet: Loïc Doussat.

Date of edition: 2019.

Appendices and links


Matériel évoqué dans ce retour d'expérience

Template:Cultures concernées

Bioagresseurs évoqués dans ce retour d'expérience