Managing (collectively) piles of plant waste
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
Spam control: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Waste piles, and more precisely the regrowth that develops on them, are in many cases the main source of contamination of crops by late blight (but not the only one). To avoid this contamination, it is first necessary to avoid storing waste near plots, ditches, and watercourses. Secondly, and before planting the following year, it is necessary to destroy this waste. For this, they can be covered with a black plastic tarp (silage tarp) if the pile contains a lot of soil and there is no juice runoff. Otherwise, they must be covered with quicklime. It is also possible to valorize non-marketable tubers as animal feed (except soil and rotten tubers). A final option is to spread the tubers in a thin layer so that they are destroyed by winter frost (sometimes risky). It is often noted that this technique is more effective if implemented in a coordinated manner over a territory, without specifying how to proceed.
Implementation period
On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation
Territory
This measure is more effective at the territorial scale.
Application of the technique to...
All crops:
Not generalizable
Management of waste piles is important in vegetable production to combat the spread of certain bio-aggressors by airborne transmission. The risk is higher in potato with the emission of shoots on the pile.
All soil types:
Easily generalizable
All climatic contexts:
Easily generalizable
Regulation
In the Netherlands, producers must cover waste piles with black plastic before April 15.
Mandatory orders to combat vegetation present on waste piles have been issued in Nord and Pas-de-Calais.
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality:
Increasing
phytosanitary emissions: DECREASE
GHG emissions: UNKNOWN
Effect on water quality:
Increasing
pesticides: DECREASE
Other:
No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
As this technique avoids treatments. The effect depends on the physico-chemical characteristics of the molecules.
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, phyto ...): Decrease
As this technique avoids treatments. The effect depends on the physico-chemical characteristics of the molecules.
Fossil energy consumption: No knowledge on impact
No knowledge on impact. There may be a reduction in the number of sprayer passes. In the case of lime use, a material is mobilized whose manufacture requires energy that may come from fossil resources.
GHG emissions: No knowledge on impact
No knowledge on impact. There may be a reduction in the number of sprayer passes. In the case of lime use, a material is mobilized whose manufacture emits CO2.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity:
No effect (neutral)
Soil fertility:
No effect (neutral)
No effect, unless after appropriate management the waste is used as amendment.
Water stress:
No effect (neutral)
Functional biodiversity:
No effect (neutral)
Other agronomic criteria:
Variable
Active substance durability: Increase
Reducing selection pressure linked to treatments increases the lifespan of effective molecules.
"Economic" criteria
Operational costs:
Variable
The evolution depends on the balance of treatment savings and the cost of waste pile management (low for tarping, cost of lime or spreading).
Mechanization costs:
Variable
Reduction for covering or liming waste piles, variable for spreading.
Margin:
No knowledge on impact
Other economic criteria:
Variable
Fuel consumption: variable
Reduction for covering or liming waste piles due to fewer sprayer passes, variable for spreading.
"Social" criteria
Working time:
Decreasing
Reduction if tarping or liming.
Effect on farmer health:
No effect (neutral)
Need for cooperation between neighboring farmers:
Increase
These practices are especially effective if collective and coordinated over the same territory.
Observation time:
No effect (neutral)
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored bio-aggressors
Disadvantaged bio-aggressors
Favored auxiliaries
Disadvantaged auxiliaries
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
5. For more information
- Limiting sources of primary inoculum of late blight
- -Andrivon D. (INRA); Evenhuis B. and Schepers H. (WUR); Gaucher D. (ACTA); Kapsa J. and Lebecka R. (IHAR); Nielsen B. (AU); Ruocco A. (CNR) ENDURE, From theory to practice. Case study on potato - Guide number 1. October 2010, Technical brochure, 2010 link to the brochure
- Potato late blight. The method to protect against it
- -Gaucher D. ([[:Category:Arvalis|Arvalis]); Vacher C. (Arvalis) Perspectives Agricoles no. 343, March 2008, Press article, 2008 link to the article
6. Keywords
Bio-aggressor control method:
Cultural control
Mode of action:
Action on initial stock
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use:
Redesign
Annexes
S'applique aux cultures suivantes
Défavorise les bioagresseurs suivants
