DOCSLIB.ORG

Cannabis Sativa) Phytotoxicity, Biomass, and Seed Yield Brett A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cannabis Sativa) Phytotoxicity, Biomass, and Seed Yield Brett A View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by TopSCHOLAR Western Kentucky University TopSCHOLAR® Masters Theses & Specialist Projects Graduate School Fall 2016 Effects of Herbicides on Industrial Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) Phytotoxicity, Biomass, and Seed Yield Brett A. Maxwell Western Kentucky University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Biochemistry Commons Recommended Citation Maxwell, Brett A., "Effects of Herbicides on Industrial Hemp (Cannabis Sativa) Phytotoxicity, Biomass, and Seed Yield" (2016). Masters Theses & Specialist Projects. Paper 1742. http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/1742 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by TopSCHOLAR®. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses & Specialist Projects by an authorized administrator of TopSCHOLAR®. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EFFECTS OF HERBICIDES ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP (Cannabis sativa) PHYTOTOXICITY, BIOMASS, AND SEED YIELD A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Agriculture Western Kentucky University Bowling Green, Kentucky In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science By Brett Anthony Maxwell December 2016 i I dedicate this thesis to my parents, Scott and Wendy Maxwell. I would not be where or who I am today without your constant love and support. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my professors Dr. Todd Willian, Dr. Paul Woosley, and Dr. Becky Gilfillen for their constant support throughout this entire endeavor. I would also like to thank Dr. David Williams, Rich Mundell, and Leah Black for their help and cooperation in this project. I would like to thank the University of Kentucky for allowing us to use their land for this project. And I would like to thank Western Kentucky University and everyone else involved for their help with this project and for this excellent opportunity. iv PREFACE In 2014, Western Kentucky University first participated in the Hemp Pilot Program which was a particularly dry year. Due to the lack of moisture the hemp crop poorly established. This led to bare patches of soil resulting in heavy weed pressure. Perhaps, if the hemp had a better chance to establish and create a good canopy then, the weed pressure would not have been as great. It was also determined that if industrial hemp were to be legalized to grow as a commercial crop, producers would want a solution to weed issues in the crop, especially in seed or cannabidiol production where row spacing is wider and plant populations are lower. For these reasons, this research seemed necessary. The goal of this study was to test different herbicides in industrial hemp in order to identify what herbicides might be used in the future if the crop is legalized in the United States. v CONTENTS Literature Review………………………………………………....……………………… 1 A. Characteristics of Industrial Hemp………………………………………. 1 B. Uses of Industrial Hemp…………………………………………………. 4 C. Weed Control in Industrial Hemp………………………………………... 7 D. Current Legislation and Future of Industrial Hemp…………...………... 10 Materials and Methods………………….………...…………………………………….. 12 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………………...….. 14 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………… 23 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………………….… 24 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Preemergence and Postemergence Hebicides Applied in Bowling Green and Lexington……………………………………………………...…………………… 13 Table 2. Analysis of Variance Statistics for Hemp Phytotoxicity Data………………… 14 Table 3. Hemp Phytoxicity at Bowling Green as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment… 15 Table 4. Hemp Phytotoxicity at Lexington as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment……. 16 Table 5. Analysis of Variance Statistics for Hemp Biomass Data……………………... 17 Table 6. Hemp Biomass in Bowling Green as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment…… 17 Table 7. Hemp Biomass in Lexington as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment…………. 18 Table 8. Analysis of Variance Statistics for Weed Biomass Data……………………… 19 Table 9. Weed Biomass in Bowling Green as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment……. 19 Table 10. Weed Biomass in Lexington as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment………... 20 Table 11. Analysis of Variance Statistics for Seed Yield Data………………………… 21 Table 12. Hemp Seed Yields in Bowling Green as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment………………………………………………………………….………......... 22 Table 13. Hemp Seed Yields in Lexington as Influenced by Herbicide Treatment……..22 vii EFFECTS OF HERBICIDES ON INDUSTRIAL HEMP (Cannabis sativa) PHYTOTOXICITY, BIOMASS, AND SEED YIELD Brett Maxwell December 2016 28 Pages Directed by: Dr. Todd Willian, Dr. Paul Woosley, and Dr. Becky Gilfillen Department of Agriculture Western Kentucky University Field studies were established in 2015 at Bowling Green and Lexington, KY to evaluate industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa) tolerance to various herbicides. Hemp was planted into conventionally tilled soils in mid to late June at a seeding rate of 39 kg/ha in Bowling Green and 22 kg/ha in Lexington. Five herbicide active ingredients were applied preemergence (PRE) the day of planting and six postemergence (POST) treatments were applied to 30 cm hemp with a CO2-backpack sprayer delivering 140 L/ha. Plots were 3.1 m wide by 6.1 m long and were sprayed with a 2.1 m boom sprayer leaving a 0.46 m visual check on either side of the sprayed area. A weed free check and a non-treated control were included and all treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design. Hemp phytotoxicity was evaluated at 14 days after treatment for both PREs and POSTs. Hemp above-ground biomass, weed above-ground biomass, and seed yield were also evaluated. PRE herbicides did not injure hemp as much as POST herbicides, especially at the Bowling Green location. Mesotrione was the most injurious PRE evaluated (> 90%) while bromoxynil and MSMA applications resulted in low phytotoxicity (< 15%). Above-ground biomass was higher in the PRE treated plots, with the exceptions of bromoxynil and MSMA. Weed above-ground biomass was higher in the POST treated plots with the exception of mesotrione. At Bowling Green, PRE viii herbicides resulted in comparable yields to the weed-free check, except mesotrione. Metolachlor increased seed yield compared to the weed-free check and MSMA and bromoxynil had comparable yields to the weed-free check at both locations. Results identified possible herbicides to include in a future integrated pest management weed control program for industrial hemp. ix LITERATURE REVIEW A. Characteristics of Industrial Hemp History of Industrial Hemp Cannabis sativa L. originated in central Asia and has been utilized for multiple products from the time it was domesticated. Cannabis sativa L. is divided into two subspecies, hemp and marijuana. They are similar in appearance, however the ratios of cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) are different. Hemp has more CBD than THC while marijuana has more THC than CBD. Legally, in order for a cultivar to be designated as hemp, it must have a THC content < 0.3 %. The use of hemp for fiber began around 2800 BCE by the Japanese. In the 7th century, the Japanese began to make paper from hemp (NRHA, 2014). It spread rapidly west to Europe where it was grown across the northern latitudes for its narcotic value. Hemp became an important crop in many societies, from a food ingredient to a rope source. Hemp made its way to North America around 1606 and was grown in Kentucky as early as 1775 (Kentucky Department of Agriculture, 2016). Between 1840 and 1860, hemp flourished in Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois due to its use in sailcloth and cordage. After the Civil War, the production of industrial hemp declined in the United States. In Post-Civil War U.S.A., most of the hemp was grown in Kentucky. In 1915, 8,400 acres of hemp was grown in the U.S., of that amount Kentucky was responsible for 6,500 acres. In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act caused hemp production to almost cease completely until the Second World War which saw a brief resurgence in hemp production (Marcus and Small, 2014). During World War II, the “Hemp For Victory” campaign (1942-1945) encouraged farmers to grow hemp to aid in the war effort. By 1943 acreage of hemp increased to 1 146,200 acres. The increased production was short lived and after the war only Wisconsin continued to grow hemp until 1958. In 1970 the Controlled Substance Act classified Cannabis sativa as an illegal Schedule I drug. At this point it was illegal to grow hemp in the United States without a DEA permit because the act did not differentiate between hemp and marihuana. The restrictions to grow hemp were so strenuous that only one grower was able to register with the DEA (Shweitzer, 2014). Canada made hemp illegal to grow under the Opium and Narcotics Act in 1938 while Europe and Asia continued to grow and export hemp. It was not until 1998 that Canada passed new legislation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that allowed for commercial development of a hemp industry (Marcus and Small, 2014). Currently there are about 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America that produce hemp. In 2011, 200,000 acres were grown globally and pounds of hemp produced has increased since 1999. China is one of the largest producers followed by an active market in Europe where production is centered in France and Great Britain. In 2010, the EU was reported to produce 26,000 acres of hemp (Johnson, 2015). Industrial Hemp Taxonomy and Morphology Industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) belongs to the family Cannabaceae and is an annual wind pollinated broadleaf (ITIS, 2014). Plants in the Cannabaceae family contain molecules called cannabinoids. Two of the main cannabinoids are CBD and THC. CBD is usually found in higher concentrations in hemp than in marijuana and is used in pharmaceuticals. THC levels are significantly lower in hemp than in marijuana. THC is used for its narcotic effects.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots
    Armenian Secret and Invented Languages and Argots The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Russell, James R. Forthcoming. Armenian secret and invented languages and argots. Proceedings of the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:9938150 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 ARMENIAN SECRET AND INVENTED LANGUAGES AND ARGOTS. By James R. Russell, Harvard University. Светлой памяти Карена Никитича Юзбашяна посвящается это исследование. CONTENTS: Preface 1. Secret languages and argots 2. Philosophical and hypothetical languages 3. The St. Petersburg Manuscript 4. The Argot of the Felt-Beaters 5. Appendices: 1. Description of St. Petersburg MS A 29 2. Glossary of the Ṙuštuni language 3. Glossary of the argot of the Felt-Beaters of Moks 4. Texts in the “Third Script” of MS A 29 List of Plates Bibliography PREFACE Much of the research for this article was undertaken in Armenia and Russia in June and July 2011 and was funded by a generous O’Neill grant through the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard. For their eager assistance and boundless hospitality I am grateful to numerous friends and colleagues who made my visit pleasant and successful. For their generous assistance in Erevan and St.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Cannabis in New Zealand Perceptions of Use, Users and Policy
    Cannabis in New Zealand perceptions of use, users and policy Geoff Noller A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Christchurch Aotearoa, New Zealand November 5, 2008 ABSTRACT Introduction Despite humanity’s lengthy relationship with psychoactive substances, their consumption in contemporary societies is perceived as highly problematic. Cannabis, the most commonly imbibed illicit psychotropic, has come to embody these concerns. Medical and scientific research informs notions of use and user, with these being further constructed in the public realm by law, the media and policy against a backdrop of health deficits and other harms including risk taking, criminality and deviance. With many studies drawing on clinical populations, e.g. high intensity users or those in treatment, a pathologized view of the user predominates. Where general population studies incorporate user data, these typically concentrate on the epidemiology of use: frequency, intensity, duration, and symptoms of abuse and dependence. This, however, tells us little about the meaning of use for users or why use continues despite universal official disapprobation. A lack of studies incorporating user perspectives thus ensures the limited focus of much present research and a policy accent on supply reduction at the expense of harm minimisation and safe use education. Those choosing to continue use are stigmatised as deviant or dependant. This has the effect of further bolstering enforcement, a strategy showing little evidence of efficacy. The present study sought a comparison between this dominant discourse on cannabis use and the perspectives of users, with a range of exploratory hypotheses being identified. Method Eighty cannabis-using respondents participated in open-ended face-to-face interviews, of which seventy-six successfully completed a follow-up questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • A Concise Dictionary of Middle English
    A Concise Dictionary of Middle English A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat A Concise Dictionary of Middle English Table of Contents A Concise Dictionary of Middle English...........................................................................................................1 A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat........................................................................................................1 PREFACE................................................................................................................................................3 NOTE ON THE PHONOLOGY OF MIDDLE−ENGLISH...................................................................5 ABBREVIATIONS (LANGUAGES),..................................................................................................11 A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MIDDLE−ENGLISH....................................................................................12 A.............................................................................................................................................................12 B.............................................................................................................................................................48 C.............................................................................................................................................................82 D...........................................................................................................................................................122
    [Show full text]
  • Marijuana Myths and Facts: the Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions
    MARIJUANA myths & FACTS The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY MARIJUANA myths & FACTS The Truth Behind 10 Popular Misperceptions OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.............................................................................. 1 Myth #1: Marijuana is harmless .......................................... 3 Myth #2: Marijuana is not addictive ................................... 7 Myth #3: Marijuana is not as harmful to your health as tobacco............................................................. 9 Myth #4: Marijuana makes you mellow............................. 10 Myth #5: Marijuana is used to treat cancer and other diseases...................................................... 11 Myth #6: Marijuana is not as popular as MDMA (Ecstasy) or other drugs among teens today...................... 13 Myth #7: If I buy marijuana, I’m not hurting anyone else......................................................... 14 Myth #8: My kids won’t be exposed to marijuana ............. 17 Myth #9: There’s not much parents can do to stop their kids from experimenting with marijuana ........... 19 Myth #10: The government sends otherwise innocent people to prison for casual marijuana use......... 21 Conclusion .............................................................................. 23 Glossary.................................................................................. 25 References ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Big Marijuana Claims Vs. the Science
    Big Marijuana Claims Vs. The Science Big Marijuana Claims Scientific Facts Legalization is about one thing: making a small number of business people rich. If it were about ending the War on Drugs, recent law changes would be limited to decriminalization. Rather, a host of business interests are getting involved with the legal marijuana trade in Colorado and elsewhere. Legalization is about getting rid of They have set up private equity the “War on Drugs” firms and fundraising organizations to attract investors and promote items such as marijuana food items, oils, and other products.We also know these industries target the poor and disenfranchised[i] – and we can expect the marijuana industry to do the same in order to increase profits. Science has proven – and all major scientific and medical organizations agree – that marijuana is both addictive and harmful to the human brain, Marijuana is not addictive. especially when used as an adolescent. One in every six 16 year-olds (and one in every eleven adults) who try marijuana will become addicted to it.[ii] To your brain, addiction is addiction. Different addictions have different symptoms, but whether its food, sex, marijuana, or heroin – your brain knows it wants more of that feeling of pleasure. Marijuana MIGHT be Just as with alcohol and tobacco, psychologically addictive, but its most chronic marijuana users who addiction doesn’t produce physical attempt to stop “cold turkey” will symptoms. experience an array of withdrawal symptoms such as irritability, restlessness, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and/or cravings.[iii] This signals that marijuana can be addictive. Science has shown that 1 in 6 kids who ever try marijuana, according to the National Institutes of Health, will become addicted to the drug.
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Herbicide-Resistant Weed Populations 100 Questions on Resistance
    Management of Herbicide-Resistant Weed Populations 100 questions on resistance Prepared by: Andreu Taberner Palou Servicio de Sanidad Vegetal, Unidad de Malherbologia DAR Generalitat de Cataluña Rovira Roure 191. 25198 Lleida Spain [email protected] Alicia Cirujeda Ranzenberger and Carlos Zaragoza Larios Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria Gobierno de Aragón Apdo. 727. 50080 Zaragoza Spain [email protected] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ VII PREFACE ..................................................................................................................... IX 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Interests and Objectives ............................................................................1 1.2 To whom is this publication useful?..........................................................4 1.3 Importance of herbicide resistance ...........................................................5 1.4 What is a resistant weed?..........................................................................6 1.5 Main species affected by problems of resistance.......................................7 1.6 Main herbicides causing problems of resistance ......................................9 1.7 Economic aspects of resistance...............................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • SR-112 Science of Hemp: Production and Pest Management
    University of Kentucky College of Agriculture, Food and Environment Agricultural Experiment Station SR-112 Science of Hemp: Production and Pest Management Science of Hemp: Production and Pest Management October 10 –11, 2019 Agricultural Kentucky Tobacco Research and Development Center | Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory | Division of Regulatory Services | Research and Education Center Experiment Station Robinson Forest | Robinson Center for Appalachian Resource Sustainability | University of Kentucky Superfund Research Center | Equine Programs emp (Cannabis sativa with <0.3% THC content) is grown for fiber, grain, and cannabinoid extraction in Asia, Europe, and the Americas. Until recently, HCannabis sativa has been classified as a Schedule 1 controlled substance in the US. The Agricultural Act of 2014 (Farm Bill) allowed for reintroduction of industrial hemp under a pilot research program. Acreage increases and addition of state legislation resulted in over 78,000 acres of hemp grown in 23 states by the end of 2018. Hemp became a legal commodity under the 2018 Farm Bill, and by the end of 2019, over 500,000 licensed acres were documented across 45 states. Canada re-introduced the crop in 1998, and in 2018, almost 78,000 acres of hemp were licensed and planted. With this increase in acreage and the lack of modern scientific data, university and government agricultural specialists began to work on various components of production and a range of realized challenges. This new information, however, had either not been shared or was not readily accessible to the scientific community, especially early results and nonpublished data. The first annual meeting of the Science of Hemp: Production and Pest Management was held on October 10-11, 2019 at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, KY.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • EOF 2019 AGM Speeches
    ASX ANNOUNCEMENT ASX: EOF ____________________________ 14 November 2019 Ecofibre Limited Annual General Meeting Speeches Ecofibre Limited (Ecofibre, Company) (ASX:EOF, OTC – Nasdaq Intl Designation: EOFBF) Please find attached the Chairman and Managing Director addresses, and the accompanying slides, to be presented at Ecofibre Limited’s Annual General Meeting today in Sydney. Jonathan Brown Company Secretary 1 ASX ANNOUNCEMENT Investor Relations and Media please contact: Jonathan Brown, Company Secretary, Ecofibre Limited Level 12, 680 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000 [email protected] About Ecofibre Ecofibre is a provider of hemp products in the United States and Australia. In the United States, the Company produces nutraceutical products for human and pet consumption, as well as topical creams and salves. See www.anandahemp.com and www.anandaprofessional.com. In Australia, the Company produces 100% Australian grown and processed hemp food products including protein powders, de-hulled hemp seed and hemp oil. See www.anandafood.com. The Company is also developing innovative hemp-based products in textiles and composite materials in partnership with Thomas Jefferson University (TJU) in the United States. See www.hempblack.com. The Company owns or controls key parts of the value chain in each business, from breeding, growing and production to sales and marketing. Our value proposition to customers is built on strong brands and quality products. Authorisation This document is authorised to be given to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) by Eric Wang, Managing Director. 2 Ecofibre Limited Annual General Meeting Thursday, 14 November 2019 Chairman and Managing Director’s Address Chairman’s Address Ecofibre listed on the ASX on 29 March 2019 at a price of $1.00 per share and a total value of just over $300m.
    [Show full text]
  • ILRP Pesticides Evaluation Protocol 1 Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Land Regulatory Program Prioritizing and Selecting Pe
    ILRP Pesticides Evaluation Protocol 1 Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Land Regulatory Program Prioritizing and Selecting Pesticides for Surface Water Monitoring The following protocol has been developed for evaluating pesticides that are used on irrigated agricultural lands and to identify those that warrant surface water monitoring under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). The protocol includes step-by-step instructions and attachments (i.e., list of pesticides with reference values, list of degradates, and groups). Introduction and Background The Central Valley Water Board adopted a series of Waste Discharge Requirements for irrigated lands, which include Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements for the third-party groups (i.e. Coalitions). Under the MRP Orders, pesticides to be monitored are to be identified by the third- party using the list of pesticides (Executive Officer (EO) List) and a set of evaluation factors and an evaluation process provided by the Central Valley Water Board Executive Officer. Furthermore, the MRP Orders state “The pesticides marked as to be determined […] shall be identified as part of a process that includes input from qualified scientists and coordination with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.” Central Valley Water Board staff convened a Pesticide Evaluation Advisory Workgroup (Workgroup) to provide input on the process for evaluating and identifying pesticides that may require monitoring. The Workgroup consisted of thirteen qualified scientists1 selected by the Executive Officer through a nomination and selection process. Six meetings of the Workgroup were held in 2014 and early 2015. All Workgroup agendas, meeting materials and summary notes are available online: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/regulatory_information/stakehold er_advisory_workgroup/index.shtml The pesticide evaluation protocol is based largely on the Workgroup discussions and materials developed by the Workgroup during and outside of the formal meetings.
    [Show full text]