7/30/2019 Mulching Comparison for Sweet Potato Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mulching-comparison-for-sweet-potato-production 1/3
Page 1 of 3 January 2013PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWAwww.practicalfarmers.org
Horticulture
About the Cooperators
Andy and Melissa Dunham own and oper-ate Grinnell Heritage Farm near Grinnell,Iowa. They grow USDA-certied organicvegetables, owers and herbs on their 80acre farm which has been in the fam-ily for over 150 years. They also tend asmall herd of beef cows raised on pasture.They market their produce through a CSA(Community Supported Agriculture), IowaCity Farmers Market, and through selectgrocery stores.
Scattergood Friends School is a smallQuaker boarding school about 15 mileseast of Iowa City, with approximately 10acres of IDALS-certied organic gardensand orchards and about 30 acres of pas-tures, upon which they grass-nish beef and lamb. Scattergood also raises heritagebreed Guinea hogs, a small ock of tur-keys, occasional broiler ocks, and a layingock of about 100 chickens. Scattergoodprimarily grows food for their school, butalso markets some products through New
Pioneer Coop in Iowa City and Coralville.
Background
Weed control is one of the primaryconcerns in vegetable production as itis labor-intensive and time-consuming.Mulches are often used to suppress weedgrowth as well as to prevent soil erosionand conserve soil moisture. While plasticmulch has been a standard mulch optionby many farmers, it raises waste disposalconcerns (Ingman et. al., 2012). The
purpose of this study was to investigatean effective and affordable alternativeto plastic mulch appropriate for sweetpotato production. To do so, cooperatorskept records of weed count, yield, andlabor involved for different types of mulchapplication as well as for the control plot(bare soil).
Methods
For this project, cooperators tested baresoil (control), common black plastic mulch,and paper mulch (WeedGuardPlus©)
in sweet potato production (Table 1).Because BioTELO©, a biodegradablemulch, is still in process of being approvedfor organic use in the United States (it hasbeen approved in Europe and Canada)and both cooperators’ farms are certiedorganic, we did not test BioTELO© thisyear.
At Grinnell Heritage Farm, plastic mulchwas laid with a raised-bed shaper, plastic
mulch layer. They tried to lay the papermulch with the same machine, but themulch ripped at the edges of raised beds,so rolled it out by hand and buried theedges.
At Scattergood Farm, beds were preparedwith a Maschio rototiller and dripirrigation lines were laid out. A mulchlayer was used for both the paper andthe plastic. Adjusting the irrigation hosesunder the paper caused many tears, sothey simply laid an additional soaker hose
Mulching Comparison for Sweet Potato Production
ork n together, a lwa s learn ng
Staff Contact:Tomoko Ogawa – (515) 232-5661
Cooperators:• Andy & Melissa Dunham – Grinnell
• Mark Quee – West Branch
Funding By:
CERES
Web Link:http://bit.ly/pf_horticulture
Research
Sweet potato mulch trial at Scattergood Friends School farm, West Branch, Iowa.
In a Nutshell
• Weed control is one of the primaryconcerns in vegetable production as it
is labor-intensive and time-consuming.• Cooperators tested bare soil, common
black plastic mulch, and paper mulch(WeedGuardPlus©) in sweet potatoproduction.
• Cooperators planted four replicationsof sweet potato rows.
• Both mulches resulted in fewer weeds.
• The plastic mulch resulted in thegreatest yields.
Project timeline:
May 2012 - September 2012
7/30/2019 Mulching Comparison for Sweet Potato Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mulching-comparison-for-sweet-potato-production 2/3
Page 2 of 3 January 2013PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWAwww.practicalfarmers.org
for the paper treatments. Next they pokedholes in the mulches and transplanted
the slips by hand. Cooperators plantedfour replications of sweet potato rows.Grinnell Heritage Farm planted thevariety ‘Beauregard’, and ScattergoodFriends School planted ‘Beauregard’ and‘Georgia Jet’. Plots were 100 feet long for‘Beauregard’ and 60 feet long for ‘GeorgiaJet’ at Scattergood Friends School.‘Beauregard’ plots were 40 feet long atGrinnell Heritage Farm. Each row wastreated with different mulch options or wasleft bare as the control. There was three tofour foot spacing between the rows. Plotswere replicated four times. Sweet potato
seedlings were planted with 12-inchspacing between plants.
Mulches were laid manually. After layingthe mulches, holes were manually punchedto transplant sweet potatoes by hand. Thetime required to apply different types of mulch was also recorded. Cooperator AndyDunham took a weed count once duringthe season by counting four randomlyselected one square foot quadrates withineach treatment. Cooperator Mark Queedid not take weed counts but alternativelyrecorded the hours spent weeding. He also
kept observation notes.
Cooperators harvested sweet potatoeswhen they reached peak maturity, andtook measurements for marketable yieldand the number of marketable versus culltubers. At Scattergood Farm, no edge rowswere planted, as they did not have enoughslips to ll the allocated space. ThereforeMark Quee and his students collecteddata on all of the rows. They dug eightcrowns from each row and weighed themindividually. Then they used a potato plowon the tractor to retrieve the rest of thesweet potatoes.
At Grinnell Heritage Farm, two differenttypes of mulches were applied on5/18/2012 followed by sweet potatoplanting on 5/21/2012. At ScattergoodFarm, the mulches were applied on5/23/2012 and they planted sweetpotatoes one week later on 5/30/2012.
Results
Labor Hours
At Scattergood Friends School, cooperator
Mark Quee reported that laying the
paper mulch required about two hours
more labor than the other treatments
due to complications with laying it down
and trying to work around the drip tape.
Beyond that, few differences in labor were
noted. Very little time was required for
weeding the mulched treatments but some
was required for the control treatment;
harvest times did not differ.
At Grinnell Heritage Farm, plastic mulchrequired the fewest hours overall (1.3 h),
followed by paper mulch (1.67 h) and bare
ground (1.82h). While bare ground did not
require installation or set-up time, more
time was spent weeding.
Weed Count
At Scattergood Farm, both mulch
treatments equally suppressed weed
growth. There were weeds present in
Descriptions of mulch products for the study
Product Description
Black plastic Black polyethylene plastic lm
WeedGuardPlus©Dark brown colored paper mulch. 100% biodegradable. Al-lows water, air and nutrients to permeate
Table 1
Average crown weight and yields between mulch
Mulch
‘Beauregard’ ‘Georgia Jet’
AverageCrown Weight
(lb)
Total RowYield (lb)
AverageCrown Weight
(lb)
Total RowYield (lb)
None (bare ground) 5.4 c 368.2 b 3.3 186.6
Paper 6.5 b 327.7 b 5.4 284.8
Plastic 8.5 a 522.4 a 10.1 354.2
Standard Error 0.57 42.13
P-value 0.0009 0.0634
Table 3
the bare ground control, but fewer than
normal due to the drought, according tocooperator Mark Quee.
At Grinnell Heritage Farm, weed counts
differed between the mulch types (P <
0.0001) and between the four replications
(P = 0.0037), as shown in Table 2. Bare
ground had the most weeds (89.9 per foot
of the bed), and like at Scattergood, the
mulches did not differ (7.3/ft for paper and
7.5/ft for plastic). Likely because of minor
soil gradients, there were more weeds
in the third rep than in other reps. Weed
counts in the bare soil varied between repsbut counts did not vary between reps in
either paper or plastic mulch
(mulch*rep P = 0.0149, data not shown).
Marketable Tubers and Yield
At Scattergood because of limited
replications within the ‘Georgia Jet’ variety,
results were unable to be included in
statistical analysis and are presented
as observations only. Eight randomly-
Marketable tubers, cull tubers, and weed cou
Mulch
MarketableTubers (#)
MarketableTubers (lb)
Cull Tubers(#)
Cull Tubers(lb)
WeedCount(per ft
None(bare ground)
41.8 38.5 b 0.5 b 0.5 c 89.9 a
Paper 39.8 38.3 b 1.5 ab 2.3 b 7.3 b
Plastic 41.5 42.3 a 2.0 a 3.8 a 7.5 b
Standard Error 2.47 0.49 0.37 0.45 3.85
P-value 0.8275 0.0020 0.0723 0.0064 < 0.000
Table 2
*means with different letters are statistically different
*means with different letters are statistically different
7/30/2019 Mulching Comparison for Sweet Potato Production
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/mulching-comparison-for-sweet-potato-production 3/3
Page 3 of 3 January 2013PRACTICAL FARMERS OF IOWAwww.practicalfarmers.org
selected crowns (vines and all attached
tubers) were weighed within each replicate
of each treatment. Average crown weight
for the ‘Beauregard’ plants differed between
mulches (P = 0.0009) but not between reps
(P = 0.7733), as shown in Table 3. A similar
trend was noted in the ‘Georgia Jet’ crowns.
Total yield of sweet potatoes differed between
mulches in ‘Beauregard’ plants, being greatest
for plastic, and not differing between bare
ground and paper mulch (P = 0.0634).
Similarly, ‘Georgia Jet’ with plastic mulch
yielded the greatest numerically, but statistical
difference cannot be determined. No data
was available for cull tubers or pounds of cull
from Scattergood.
At Grinnell Heritage Farm, the mulch treatment
did not affect the number of marketable
tubers (P = 0.8275) but did affect the total
pounds of marketable sweet potatoes (P =
0.0020), as shown in Table 2. The plastic
mulch resulted in more marketable pounds
than did the bare ground or paper mulch
treatments, which did not differ. As with weedcount, there were rep differences in the total
marketable yield (P = 0.0032, data not shown),
probably due to within-eld variation. Where
weed pressure was the greatest within a
replicate the sweet potatoes yielded the least
and vice versa in the other replicates.
Conclusions and Next Steps
Data from the two farms indicate that mulchin either a plastic or paper form results infewer weeds during sweet potato growth,and the increased labor of laying the mulchmay be balanced out by the reduced weeding
labor. However, Mark Quee noted that themulches tended to blow around, leaving therows and sometimes damaging the plants.At both farms, the plastic mulch resultedin the greatest yields. At Grinnell HeritageFarm, however, it also resulted in more cullplants, though this may simply be due togreater production and not a greater percentof cull tubers. Paper mulch did not seem toimprove yields in the same way that plasticmulch did, but did reduce weeds equally aswell. More replications in future trials andexperimentation with additional mulch typesmay elucidate more differences.
Porter, D.O. WVU Extension Service. Are Mulches a Good Idea? <http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/ageng/resource/mulch.htm>
Ingman, M., K. DiFrancesco, A. Doniger, T. Selko, D. Degeorge, I., Mil ler, and M. Anderson. 2012.Developing a Biodegradable Alternative to Plastic Mulch Film. Organic Broadcaster. Volume 20 • Number 3. Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Service.
< http://www.mosesorganic.org/attachments/broadcaster/obonline203.pdf>
References PFI Cooperators’ ProgramPFI’s Cooperators’ Program givesfarmers practical answers to ques-tions they have about on-farmchallenges through research,record-keeping, and demonstrationprojects. The Cooperators’ Programbegan in 1987 with farmers lookingto save money through more judi-cious use of inputs.
Mulch May 2012
Mulch and sweet potatoes June 2012
Sweet potatoes July 2012