Abstract
Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production in the Southern Coastal Plain of the U.S. is being impacted by increased use of broiler litter and by conservation tillage. There are no studies on the use of broiler litter for peanut grown in strip tillage and very little information on the use of starter fertilizers. Runner-type peanut was included in a 3 yr, double-cropped, irrigated rotation to determine the effects of broiler litter rates and starter fertilizers on disease development, pod yield, market grade, and gross economic value of runner market type peanut. Broiler litter rates of 0, 4.5, 9.0, and 13.5 Mg/ha were applied to the soil surface without incorporation prior to seeding. Within each broiler litter rate there were three starter fertilizer regimes (none, 93 L10-34-0/ha, and 93 L 12-22-5/ha) each with and without flutolanil {N-3-(1-methylethoxy) phenyl-2-(trifluoromethyl) benzamide}applied twice at 1.12 kg ai/haapplication. Over 4 yr, broiler Utter either decreased or did not affect pod yield, market grade, or gross economic value of peanut. Southern stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) incidence was not affected by broiler litter, but Rhizotonia limb rot (Rhizoctonia solani, AG-4) incidence increased with broiler litter rate, possibly accounting for some of the decreases in production variables. Broiler litter application was neither an agronomic nor economic best management practice for peanut in this strip-tilled study. Flutolanil increased pod yield, market grade, and gross economic value of peanut regardless of broiler litter rate by decreasing the incidence of southern stem rot and Rhizotonia limb rot. Starter fertilizer had little effect on any of the measured parameters.
Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea L, manure, plant nutrition, Rhizoctonia limb rot, Southern Stem Rot
How to Cite:
Gascho, G. & Brenneman, T., (2003) “Response of Strip-Tilled Peanut to Broiler Litter, Starter Fertilizers, and Fungicide in an Irrigated Cropping System”, Peanut Science 30(1), p.53-60. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/pnut.30.1.0011