05/09/2016 15:00

It is possible to produce soy reducing the use of agrochemicals.

A producer of Santa Fe Parana, share with producers through UNISOL, the experience gained using the acid Pyro ligneous in soybean cultivation.

It is possible to produce soy reducing the use of agrochemicals

By Ildefonso Horita

Extension of UNISOL

A producer of Santa Fe Parana, share with producers through UNISOL, the experience gained using the acid Pyro ligneous in soybean cultivation.

The use of selective pesticides, which act on pests without eliminating its natural enemies, reduce the need for pesticides.

Many knowledge currently available, allow producers access tools to control pests without resorting to products that lead to the need for pesticides.

Within the Good Agricultural Practices promoted by the UNISOL project, we have promoted the use of tools such friendly to the environment and effective as agricultural defensive. Among several alternatives currently available, it highlights the Pyro ligneous acid (hereinafter AP) or also known as liquid smoke.

The AP is a natural product obtained by the condensation of smoke of dry wood burned in oven for making charcoal. It is normally used for seed treatment, foliar treatment for inductive activation of defense mechanisms of the plant and thus acts as an assistant to control viruses, bacteria, fungi and insects among others. You can also mention the effect on the ground helping to improve the infiltration of rainwater.

Next, we share the experience gained by Mr. Hedo Geib (partner COPAFEL cooperative) in the use and management of AP, with all producers who, like him, does not expect only improving the climate and the price of grain, but they strive to reduce the cost through a process of sustainable production.

Mr. Hedo has compared the results observed in two plots of soybean, located in Santa Fe Parana, during the 2015/6 harvest.; where the largest area received conventional chemical treatment (hereinafter QC) and a smaller area of ​​15 hectares was treated with the AP. Both plots received the same treatments as for soybean variety, fertilization and management, varying only in the use of pesticides.

Overall, weather conditions during the harvest 2015/6 were favorable for soybean cultivation, thus, the incidence of pests and diseases particularly in this case were not severe. They were applied different chemical inputs commonly used in the cooperative according to recommended dosages. The first application was to AP soil treatment with 10 ℓ / ha, and foliar application following were 2 ℓ / ha.

In Table 1, one can see the schedule of the applications made. Planting was done on 2/10/15. The 13/10/15 was applied glyphosate + B + abamectin QC Lambdacilotrina in the plot. However, in the plot AP, it was applied Glyphosate + AP + B abamectina only on 10.25.15, and when the plants were 23 days after sowing, which has depressed the normal growth of soybean plants. Then, this plot AP, until mid-January has received no insecticide treatment.

Thus, at 49 days after planting the land QC had received Fungicides and insecticides while in the plot AP, it was applied a fungicide just 75 days.

On 12 January, the AP was applied in order to control the attack of bedbugs observed in large quantities. It was also found starting rust attacks, so the next day a mixture of tebuconazole and acephate was applied. The latter to strengthen control of bedbugs. But throughout the operation of this application it was not found a single bug in the plot so he realized that acephate was applied in vain.

As shown in Table 2, fewer seen in the total of active ingredient used. This close to 3%, difference has resulted in US $ 94 in lower cost for treatment against US $ 115 AP treatment QC, meaning greater than 22% difference.

The number of applications were 6 in the plot QC and 7 in the AP. In performance it has been observed a higher production in plot with treatment QC with 3,890 kg / ha and lower in the AP plot with 3,800 kg / ha. This difference of 2.3% was not significant when considered less use of chemical inputs and the cost thereof.

Conclusions.

1. The first application of herbicide to the AP plot on October 25, with over 15 days of growth of soybean plants has delayed the overall development of plants. It is estimated this influenced to achieve higher performance.

2. Applications for the AP, as number and time were not appropriate to activate defense mechanisms of the plant, which has allowed achieve greater decrease in the use of insecticides and fungicides.

3. This preliminary result shows, even with mistakes in handling the AP, the possibility of reducing the use of chemical inputs, reduce production costs obtaining similar to conventional chemical treatment satisfactory performance.

Comments