Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:33:34.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selecting Appropriate Weed Control Systems for Developing Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Douglas Young ,
Stanley Miller ,
Herbert Fisher  and
Myron Shenk
Douglas Young
Affiliation:
Washington State Univ., Pullman, WA 99163
Stanley Miller
Affiliation:
Int. Plant Protection Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Herbert Fisher
Affiliation:
Int. Plant Protection Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Myron Shenk
Affiliation:
Int. Plant Protection Center, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR 97331
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Herbicides can increase agricultural productivity and rural welfare where agronomic considerations or labor shortages favor their utilization, but ecological, social, and economic conditions in developing countries often favor alternative weed control methods. Traditional hoeing by peasant farmers in a Northeast Brazil upland region was found to be both effective and economical in comparison with other methods. In another Northeast Brazil region, government herbicide subsidies and payroll taxes were projected to encourage excessive use of herbicides at the expense of displaced workers with few alternative employment opportunities.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , May 1978 , pp. 209 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Curfs, H. 1975. Soil preparation and weed control for upland and irrigated rice growing. Pages 79–86 in Report on the expert consultation meeting on the mechanization of rice production. Int. Inst. for Tropical Agric., Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
2. Diaz, R. O., Pinstrup-Andersen, P., and Estrada, R. D. 1974. Costs and use of inputs in cassava production in Colombia: A brief description. Series EE-No. 5, Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. 40 pp.Google Scholar
3. Doll, J. and Piedrahita, W. P. 1976. Methods of weed control in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Series EE-No. 21, Centro International de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. 12 pp.Google Scholar
4. Druijff, A. H. and Kerkhoven, G. J. 1970. Effects of efficient weeding on yields of irrigated cotton in eastern Kenya. PANS. 16:596–605.Google Scholar
5. Faris, M. A., Mafra, R. C., Ventura, C. A., and de Araujo, M. R. 1976. Estudos preliminares de consorciacao de milho e sorgo, com duas leguminosas no Nordeste do Brasil. Bol. Instituto de Pesquisa Agropecuaria de Pernambuco. 3:153–167.Google Scholar
6. Furtick, W. 1969. Herbicides herald new era in weed control. War on Hunger. 3:12–15.Google Scholar
7. Goodman, D. E. and de Albuquerque, R. C. 1974. Incentivos a industrializacao e desenvolvimento do Nordeste. Instituto de Planejamento Economica e Social, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 397 pp.Google Scholar
8. Hammerton, J. 1974. Problems of herbicide use in peasant farming. Abstr., Weed Sci. Soc. Am., p. 57.Google Scholar
9. Haswell, M. 1972. The need for improved weed control on peasant farms – an economist's view. Proc. Brit. Weed Control Conf. 11:1061–1067.Google Scholar
10. International Rice Research Institute. 1975. Changes in rice farming in selected areas of Asia. Los Banos, Philippines. 377 pp.Google Scholar
11. Kasasian, L. 1971. The place of herbicides and weed research in tropical agriculture. PANS. 17:26–29.Google Scholar
12. Krochmal, A. 1966. Labour input and mechanization of cassava. World Crops. 18:28–30.Google Scholar
13. Moody, K. 1975. Weeds and shifting cultivation. PANS. 21:188–194.Google Scholar
14. Moody, K. 1975. Weed control systems for upland rice production. Pages 71–78 in Report on the expert consultation meeting on the mechanization of rice production. Int. Inst. for Tropical Agric., Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
15. Parker, C. 1972. The role of weed science in developing countries. Weed Sci. 20:408–413.Google Scholar
16. Randolph, J. W., Reed, I. F., and Gordon, E. D. 1940. Cottontillage studies in red bay sandy loam. U. S. Dep. Agric. Circular No. 540, Washington, D.C. 54 pp.Google Scholar
17. Scolari, D. and Young, D. 1977. Avaliacao agronomica e economica de sistemas alternativos de controle de ervas daninhas em milho e feijao no Agreste Pernambucano. Pesqui. Agropecua. Bras. Ser. Agron. (in press).Google Scholar
18. Soria, J., Bazan, R., Pinchinat, A. M., Paez, G., Matao, N., Moreno, R., Fargas, J., and Forsythe, W. 1975. Investigacion sobre sistemas agricolas para el pequeno agricultor del tropico. Turrialba 25:283–293.Google Scholar
19. Taylor, J. H. 1970. Pesticide research in developing countries. PANS. 16:423–433.Google Scholar
20. Ventura, C. A., Ferraz, L., Faris, M. A., and Lira, M. A. 1976. Ensaio de herbicidas com a cultura do sorgo granifero. Bol. Instituto de Pesquisa Agropecuaria de Pernambuco. 3:135–143.Google Scholar
21. Villegas, R. G. 1974. Control de malezas en cana de azucar planta con herbicidas pre-emergentes–cultivos y carpidas. Malezas y Su Control. 3:48–58.Google Scholar
22. Zandstra, B. H. and Nishimoto, R. K. 1975. Effect of undisturbed soil period on glyphosate control of Cyperus rotundus L. Proc. Asian-Pac. Weed Sci. Soc. Conf. 5:130–133.Google Scholar