No-Pesticide Preliminary Yield Trials in Peanut¹

Authors: W. D. Branch , S. M. Fletcher

  • No-Pesticide Preliminary Yield Trials in Peanut¹


    No-Pesticide Preliminary Yield Trials in Peanut¹

    Authors: ,


Pest-resistant peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars are critically important to reduce the increasing cost of production. Current pesticides used in the U.S. are effective but very expensive. The objective of this study was to evaluate several advanced Georgia breeding lines when grown without nematicides, fungicides, or insecticides. Preliminary yield trials without pesticides were conducted for 3 yr (1996-98) at the Univ. of Georgia, Coastal Plain Exp. Sta. under irrigation. However, preplant and occasionally post-applied herbicides were used for weed control. Thrips damage was noticeably uniform and severe early in the growing season each year, but plants seemingly recovered by midseason. Probably the most endemic diseases in the Southeast are both early and late leaf spots Cercospora arachidicola Hori and [Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & Curt.) Deighton, respectively] and tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). Results from replicated field tests strongly suggest that it would be economically feasible to significantly reduce pesticide cost by growing multiple pest-resistant advanced Georgia breeding lines as compared to the five check cultivars Florunner, GK-7, Southern Runner, Florida MDR 98, and Georgia Browne. However, dollar values were variable and low with no pesticides because of the overall reduction in yield. An alternative approach for greater net returns possibly may be achieved by only reducing currently recommended input costs rather than eliminating pesticides with pest resistant cultivars.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, breeding lines, Cultivars, Disease resistance, economic analyses, Groundnut, production costs

How to Cite:

Branch, W. & Fletcher, S., (2001) “No-Pesticide Preliminary Yield Trials in Peanut¹”, Peanut Science 28(1), p.21-24. doi:



Published on
01 Jan 2001
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Contribution from the Univ. of Georgia, College of Agric. and Environ. Sci.