Integrating nemade-resistant crops into sugar beet rotations

Project Overview

Project Type: Research and Education
Funds awarded in 1997: $113,184.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2002
Matching Federal Funds: $113.18
Region: Western
State: Wyoming
Principal Investigator:
David Koch
University of Wyoming

Annual Reports


  • Agronomic: sugarbeets


  • Crop Production: cover crops, double cropping
  • Education and Training: demonstration, extension, on-farm/ranch research
  • Farm Business Management: budgets/cost and returns
  • Pest Management: biological control, trap crops
  • Soil Management: green manures


    A whole-farm economic analysis in the Big Horn Basin, in which research results were incorporated, showed that by substituting trap crops in the rotation in lieu of nematicides, rate of return could be increased from 3.9 to 5.8% if trap crops were grown as green manure and to 9.5% if trap crops were grazed. In southeastern Wyoming, where different rotations are practiced, whole-farm analysis showed that use of trap crops in lieu of nematicides increased rate of return from 2.5 to as high as 6.3%. Both analyses decreased downside risk. Growing trap crops is less expensive than applying either of the nematicides commonly used and are safer to applicators and others, and are more environmentally friendly. Trap crops can reduce reliance on nematicides and help sustain the historically most profitable crop in the Rocky Mountain region, which generates at least $5 value-added income in processed products for every dollar of farm gate sales.

    Project objectives:

    1. Determine effectiveness of SBN-resistant trap crops in reducing SBN populations and nematicide use in several alternative sugar beet rotations and with several establishment methods.
    2. Determine yield effect, cost and returns of alternative rotations in which trap crops are used in lieu of nematicides.
    3. Develop an educational program to demonstrate benefits of trap crops and to encourage adoption of their use by sugar beet producers.

    Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.