DOCSLIB.ORG

Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004 Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004 Michigan Agricultural Statistics Michigan Department of Agriculture Michigan Department Of Agriculture 2003 Annual Report This bulletin is provided free to Michigan farmers and reporting agribusiness firms. Others may obtain copies at $5.00 each. Please make checks payable to USDA-NASS and send with your request to P.O. Box 26248, Lansing, MI 48909-6248. PRINTED BY AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC ACT 380 OF 1965, AS AMENDED TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES PRINTED: 1,000 TOTAL COST: $4,887.07 COST PER COPY: $4.89 Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2003-2004 Michigan Agricultural Statistics David D. Kleweno - Director Vince Matthews - Deputy Director Issued cooperatively by: Michigan Department of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture Executive Office National Agricultural Statistics Service Dan Wyant, Director Ron Bosecker, Administrator STATE OF MICHIGAN JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DAN WYANT GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR September 2004 The Michigan Department of Agriculture respectfully submits its Annual Report to the citizens and stakeholders of Michigan. This annual report is a record of the year’s accomplishments and initiatives which form the foundation for a strong food and agriculture industry – one able to effectively address current issues and issues that will be important to our state’s food and agriculture industry in the future. This report, combined with the 2003-2004 edition of Michigan Agricultural Statistics, outlines the important facets of Michigan agriculture, our state’s second-largest industry. In 2003, the department’s top priorities were: • Food Safety and Security • Animal and Plant Health and Protection • Environmental Stewardship • A Viable Agriculture Economy • Consumer Protection • Homeland Security These priorities have been aligned to ensure consistency with the Governor’s priorities of Education, Economy, Environment, Health Care and Homeland Security, and the State of Michigan values of Integrity, Inclusion, Excellence and Teamwork. The Michigan Department of Agriculture, created in 1921, has faced many challenges throughout the years, as technological advances, environmental issues and world events have shaped our lives and the way the food and agriculture industry conducts business. This year was no exception. The increased emphasis on the need to protect our food, land and water resources against the very real threat of bioterrorism has made the department’s mission even more important in today’s world. Additionally, the emergence of plant and animal diseases across the globe and right here in our state poses a challenge for our state’s food and agriculture industry. MDA continues to evaluate and improve its programs, focusing on four key areas: ensuring aggressive and comprehensive surveillance and inspection systems; effective consumer and industry education and communication; appropriate scientific and laboratory support; and well-organized emergency preparedness. MDA also remains committed to helping Michigan’s agricultural community thrive while ensuring a fair and honest marketplace for Michigan citizens. I hope you find this summary of the department’s 2003 accomplishments informative and valuable. If you have questions or comments, or would like additional information, please contact the department toll-free at 800-292- 3939, or e-mail us at [email protected]. Sincerely, Dan Wyant Director CONSTITUTION HALL y P.O. BOX 30017 y LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov y (517) 373-1104 Michigan Agricultural Statistics P.O. Box 26248 Lansing, Michigan 48909-6248 Phone: (517) 324-5300 Fax: (517) 324-5299 E-mail: [email protected] in cooperation with the Michigan Department of Agriculture Web: www.usda.gov/nass September 2004 Our mission at Michigan Agricultural Statistics is to serve agriculture with timely, accurate, and useful information. This can be accomplished only when there is strong cooperation and support from growers and agribusinesses. The factual summary contained in this publication reflects the outstanding contribution survey respondents made during the year. A special thanks is extended to each person who voluntarily took time to provide this information. The compiled survey data becomes current, factual, unbiased, third party information which then can be used by decision makers to improve, promote, and expand Michigan agriculture. Our message to those directly or indirectly associated with this great industry is that “Agriculture Counts.” Census information which came out on June 3 shows that Michigan’s 53,315 farms generated cash sales exceeding $3.8 billion in 2002. This level would have been higher but the fruit crop was devastated by freezing weather and low livestock prices. Additional information from the census shows there are fewer mid-sized farms with most either downsizing or expanding their operations. There has been a growth of more than 22 percent in operations selling directly to consumers. Organic sales, which were measured for the first time, exceeded $7 million. Additional information showing state and county results, summary highlights and profiles, and numerous demographic data can be obtained on the Internet at www.usda.gov/nass/ under 2002 Census of Agriculture. During the past year, programs have been realigned and reduced due to state budget constraints. As a result, the county estimates data series will no longer include potatoes, navy and other dry edible beans, beef cows, all cows, hens and pullets of laying age, and sheep. State funding will continue to support county breakouts for milk cows, milk production, hogs and pigs, and hay. Also, the number of print copies of this publication will be limited due to costs. Making the information accessible and easily obtained remains a priority of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service. It can be viewed and printed on the internet at www.nass.usda.gov/mi/. If this is not convenient or does not fit your need, feel free to call us at 1-800-453-7501. The Michigan office and enumerator staff appreciate your continued support and will work hard to provide you sound and reliable agricultural information. Call us anytime we can assist you in meeting your agricultural data needs. A parting thought to consider, “facts always outweigh perceptions or opinions”. Sincerely, David D. Kleweno Director 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 400, East Lansing, Michigan Contents Michigan Department of Agriculture Turfgrass................................ 52 Annual Report Turfgrass summary ....................... 52 Input costs .............................. 52 Fiscal Year 2003 Principal varieties......................... 52 Turf maintenance employees ................ 52 Michigan Agricultural Statistics Livestock, Dairy, & Poultry .................. 53 Record highs and lows ..................... 53 2003-2004 Cattle and calves ......................... 53 Poultry ................................. 55 Hogs and pigs ........................... 56 Honey .................................. 58 Farm Economics ........................... 1 Dairy ..................................58 National rankings .......................... 1 Mink................................... 62 Farm numbers and acreage .................. 2 Sheep and lambs ......................... 62 Farm income ............................. 2 Trout................................... 64 Prices received, livestock.................... 7 Farm marketings .......................... 8 County Estimates ......................... 65 Prices received, crops ...................... 9 County rankings .......................... 66 Production expenses ...................... 10 Field Crops ............................. 67 Farm labor .............................. 10 Barley ................................ 67 Agricultural Exports ....................... 11 Corn ................................. 68 Dry edible beans ........................ 72 Hay.................................. 74 Chemical Usage ........................... 12 Oats ................................. 76 Potatoes .............................. 78 Field Crops ............................... 21 Soybeans ............................. 79 Weather summary........................ 21 Sugarbeets ............................ 80 Area and value ........................... 21 Wheat ................................ 81 Record highs and lows ..................... 22 Livestock ............................... 83 Barley.................................. 23 Cattle................................. 83 Corn................................... 23 Hogs and pigs .......................... 85 Dry edible beans ......................... 26 Hens and pullets of laying age ............. 86 Hay and haylage ......................... 28 Dairy................................. 87 Maple syrup............................. 29 Sheep ................................ 88 Mint ................................... 29 Oats................................... 29 Customer Service Potatoes................................ 30 Agriculture internet sites.................... 89 Soybeans ............................... 31 Internet and other services .................. 90 Sugarbeets .............................. 34 Subscription form......................... 91 Wheat .................................. 34 Fruit .................................... 36 Record highs and lows ..................... 36 Apples ................................. 38 Blueberries .............................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • View Science Comments I
    March 11, 2014 Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road, Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737- 1238 RE: Docket No. APHIS-2013-0042 Comments to USDA APHIS on Dow AgroSciences LLC; Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide Resistant Corn and Soybeans Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I By: Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst Introduction These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of two sets of science comments from our organization. Legal comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end. These comments supplement and incorporate by reference our earlier two rounds of comments on the draft Environmental Assessments for event DAS-68416-4 (Enlist soybeans) and event DAS-40278-9 (Enlist corn), as well as all the references submitted previously. The previous CFS science comments on the draft EAs have been resubmitted as Appendix B, and will be cited in the text as “CFS Science Soy”, “CFS Science Corn I”, and “CFS Science Corn II.” References to the Appendix of the EIS cite the Appendix number followed by a hyphen then the page number (e.g. 4-29). Only references that are new to these draft EIS comments are listed in the References section at the end. Executive Summary The growing unsustainability of U.S. agriculture U.S. agriculture is becoming progressively less sustainable.
    [Show full text]
  • Glufosinate (Ignite): a New Promising Postemergence Herbicide for Citrus
    Glirus Section Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100:58-61. 1987. GLUFOSINATE (IGNITE): A NEW PROMISING POSTEMERGENCE HERBICIDE FOR CITRUS Megh Singh and D. P. H. Tucker ported that the pattern of plant responses to glufosinate University of Florida, IFAS and glyphosate was distinctly different. Glufosinate has li Citrus Research and Education Center mited translocation to rootstocks and rhizomes, etc. of per 700 Experiment Station Road ennial weeds as compared to glyphosate. Therefore, even Lake Alfred, FL 33850 tual regrowth from these plant parts will occur. Glufosinate may be a useful herbicide for weed control Additional index words. Basta, Buster, Conquest, Finale, in no-tillage systems, for orchards and vineyards, and for HOE-00661, HOE-39866, glufosinate-ammonium. general weed control in rangeland and non-cropland situ ations. Kapusta (6) reported effective control of several weed species using glufosinate in no-till fields. Glufosinate Abstract. Glufosinate [ammonium (3-amino-3-carboxypropyl) at 1.0 to 2.0 kg/ha provided effective control of several methyl phosphinate] is a non-selective postemergence her annual and perennial weeds in vineyards, citrus, and other bicide for the control of a broad spectrum of grasses and fruit orchards as well as in uncultivated areas (3). Lawson broad leaf weed species. It is known worldwide by various names such as Basta, Buster, Conquest, and Finale. Glufosi and Wiseman (9) reported satisfactory runner control in nate controls both annual and perennial weeds. The activity strawberries without the adverse effect on the growth and of glufosinate is somewhat slower than paraquat but dis yield of the crop.
    [Show full text]
  • Interaction of 2,4-D Or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia Trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea Mays L.)
    fpls-08-01207 July 6, 2017 Time: 18:18 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 10 July 2017 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01207 Interaction of 2,4-D or Dicamba with Glufosinate for Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed (Ambrosia trifida L.) in Glufosinate-Resistant Maize (Zea mays L.) Zahoor A. Ganie and Amit J. Jhala* Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States Glyphosate-resistant (GR) giant ragweed is a problematic broadleaf weed in crops including maize and soybean in the Midwestern United States. Commercialization of crops with 2,4-D or dicamba and glufosinate resistance will allow post-emergence (POST) applications of these herbicides. Therefore, information is needed on how Edited by: 2,4-D/dicamba will interact with glufosinate in various rate combinations. The objectives Ilias Travlos, Agricultural University of Athens, of this study were to evaluate the interaction of glufosinate plus 2,4-D and/or dicamba for Greece control of GR giant ragweed, and to determine their effect on GR giant ragweed density, Reviewed by: biomass, maize injury, and yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 Milena S. Simic, Maize Research Institute Zemun Polje, in a field infested with GR giant ragweed in Nebraska, United States. The treatments − Serbia included POST applications of glufosinate (450 or 590 g ai ha 1), 2,4-D, or dicamba Yosra Menchari, at 280 or 560 g ae ha−1 applied alone and in tank-mixtures in glufosinate-resistant University of Jendouba, Tunisia maize. The results showed that dicamba applied alone resulted in 56 to 62% and *Correspondence: Amit J.
    [Show full text]
  • Corn and Soybean Mode of Action Herbicide Chart
    By Premix Corn and Soybean This chart lists premix herbicides alphabetically by their trade names so you can identify the premix’s component herbicides and their respective site of action groups. Refer Herbicide Chart to the Mode of Action chart for more information. Component Repeated use of herbicides with the same Site of Premix Trade Active Action site of action can result in the development of Trade Name ® Name ® Ingredient Group* herbicide-resistant weed populations. Authority First ............... Spartan sulfentrazone 14 FirstRate cloransulam 2 Axiom ........................... Define flufenacet 15 This publication was designed for commercial printing, color shifts may occur on other printers and on-screeen. Sencor metribuzin 5 Basis . ........................... Resolve rimsulfuron 2 Harmony GT thifensulfuron 2 By Mode of Action (effect on plant growth) Bicep II Magnum .......... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 This chart groups herbicides by their modes of action to assist Bicep Lite II Magnum .... Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 AAtrex atrazine 5 you in selecting herbicides 1) to maintain greater diversity in Boundary ...................... Dual Magnum s-metolachlor 15 herbicide use and 2) to rotate among herbicides with different Sencor metribuzin 5 Breakfree ATZ ............... Breakfree acetochlor 15 sites of action to delay the development of herbicide resistance. atrazine atrazine 5 Breakfree ATZ Lite ........ Breakfree acetochlor 15 Number of atrazine atrazine 5 resistant weed Buctril + Atrazine ......... Buctril bromoxynil 6 atrazine atrazine 5 species in U.S. Bullet ............................ Micro-Tech alachlor 15 Site of Chemical Active atrazine atrazine 5 Action Product Examples Camix ........................... Callisto mesotrione 28 Group* Site of Action Family Ingredient (Trade Name ®) Dual II Magnum s-metolachlor 15 Lipid Canopy DF ..................
    [Show full text]
  • Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus Rudis)In Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology 2017 31:32–45 © Weed Science Society of America, 2017 Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Common Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis)in Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean Amit J. Jhala, Lowell D. Sandell, Debalin Sarangi, Greg R. Kruger, and Steven Z. Knezevic* Glyphosate-resistant (GR) common waterhemp has become a significant problem weed in Nebraska and several Midwestern states. Several populations of GR common waterhemp are also resistant to acetolactate synthase (ALS)-inhibiting herbicides, making them difficult to control with POST herbicides in GR soybean. Glufosinate-resistant (GFR) soybean is an alternate system for controlling GR common waterhemp, justifying the need for evaluating glufosinate-based herbicide programs. The objectives of this study were to compare POST-only herbicide programs (including one-pass and two-pass POST programs) with PRE followed by (fb) POST herbicide programs for control of GR common waterhemp in GFR soybean and their effect on common waterhemp density, biomass, and soybean yield. Field experiments were conducted in 2013 and 2014 near Fremont, NE in a grower’s field infested with GR common waterhemp. Glufosinate applied early- and late-POST provided 76% control of GR common waterhemp at 14 d after late-POST (DALPOST) compared with 93% control with a PRE fb POST program when averaged across treatments. The PRE application of chlorimuron plus thifensulfuron plus flumioxazin, S-metolachlor plus fomesafen or metribuzin, saflufenacil plus dimethenamid-P fb glufosinate provided ≥95% control of common waterhemp throughout the ≤ −2 ≥ growing season, reduced common waterhemp− density to 2.0 plants m ,caused 94% biomass reduction, and led to 1,984 to 2,210 kg ha 1 soybean yield.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program
    U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program Stream water-quality analytes Major ions and trace elements­schedule 998 (20 constituents) Pesticides ­­schedule 2437 (229 compounds) Alkalinity 1H­1,2,4­Triazole Arsenic 2,3,3­Trichloro­2­propene­1­sulfonic acid (TCPSA) Boron 2,4­D Calcium 2­(1­Hydroxyethyl)­6­methylaniline Chloride 2­[(2­Ethyl­6­methylphenyl)amino]­1­propanol Fluoride 2­Amino­N­isopropylbenzamide Iron 2­Aminobenzimidazole Lithium 2­Chloro­2',6'­diethylacetanilide 2­Chloro­4,6­diamino­s­triazine {CAAT} Magnesium (Didealkylatrazine) pH 2­Chloro­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine Potassium 2­Chloro­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine {CEAT} Total dissolved solids 2­Chloro­N­(2­ethyl­6­methylphenyl)acetamide Selenium 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­amino­s­triazine 2­Hydroxy­4­isopropylamino­6­ethylamino­s­triazin Silica e {OIET} Sodium 2­Hydroxy­6­ethylamino­4­amino­s­triazine Specific conductance 2­Isopropyl­6­methyl­4­pyrimidinol Strontium 3,4­Dichlorophenylurea Sulfate 3­Hydroxycarbofuran Turbidity 3­Phenoxybenzoic acid Vanadium 4­(Hydroxymethyl)pendimethalin 4­Chlorobenzylmethyl sulfoxide Suspended sediment 4­Hydroxy molinate 4­Hydroxychlorothalonil Nutrients­schedule 2430 (18 constituents) 4­Hydroxyhexazinone A Inorganic carbon, suspended Acephate Dissolved inorganic carbon Acetochlor ammonia + organic nitrogen (unfiltered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor oxanilic acid ammonia + organic nitrogen (filtered­Kjeldahl) Acetochlor sulfonic acid Ammonia as N, filtered Acetochlor sulfynilacetic acid nitrite, filtered Alachlor
    [Show full text]
  • CFS Science Comments I
    April 27, 2012 Docket No. APHIS–2010–0103 Regulatory Analysis and Development PPD, APHIS Station 3A-03.8 4700 River Road Unit 118 Riverdale, MD 20737-1238 Comments to USDA APHIS on Environmental Assessment for the Determination of Nonregulated Status of Herbicide-Tolerant DAS-40278-9 Corn, Zea mays, Event DAS- 40278-9 Center for Food Safety, Science Comments I – By Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst These comments submitted by Center for Food Safety are one of three sets of comments from our organization. Legal comments and a second set of science comments are also being submitted. The references cited have been uploaded as supporting materials. The filenames for these documents match the citations in the text, and are all incorporated as (e.g. Benbrook 2012). Full citations are included at the end of each section. THE IMPACT OF DAS-40278-9 ON CORN HERBICIDE USE Summary of herbicide use Dow’s DAS-402787-9 corn is genetically engineered for resistance to 2,4-D and quizalofop, and if deregulated would be marketed with additional resistance to glyphosate and likely glufosinate – fostering greater use of three to four herbicide classes. APHIS must assess DAS-42078-9 as Dow intends it to be used, as a weed control system. DAS-40278-9 eliminates the risk of crop injury that currently limits 2,4-D use on corn, and is thus reasonably projected to trigger an up to 30-fold increase in the use of this toxic herbicide on corn, equivalent to a four-fold increase in overall agricultural use of 2,4-D, by the end of the decade.
    [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]
  • Amaranthus Palmeri) in 2,4-D , Glufosinate-, and Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean
    Weed Technology Management of glyphosate-resistant Palmer – www.cambridge.org/wet amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) in 2,4-D , glufosinate-, and glyphosate-resistant soybean 1 2 3 4 Research Article Chandrima Shyam , Parminder S. Chahal , Amit J. Jhala and Mithila Jugulam 1 2 Cite this article: Shyam C, Chahal PS, Jhala AJ, Graduate Student, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA; Postdoctoral Research 3 Jugulam M (2021) Management of glyphosate- Associate, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA; Associate resistant Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus Professor, Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA and palmeri) in 2,4-D–, glufosinate-, and 4Professor, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA glyphosate-resistant soybean. Weed Technol. 35:136–143. doi: 10.1017/wet.2020.91 Abstract Received: 7 May 2020 Glyphosate-resistant (GR) Palmer amaranth is a problematic, annual broadleaf weed in Revised: 7 July 2020 soybean production fields in Nebraska and many other states in the United States. Soybean Accepted: 29 July 2020 TM First published online: 18 August 2020 resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate (Enlist E3 ) has been developed and was first grown commercially in 2019. The objectives of this research were to evaluate the effect of herbicide Associate Editor: programs applied PRE, PRE followed by (fb) late-POST (LPOST), and early-POST (EPOST) fb Kevin Bradley, University of Missouri LPOST on GR Palmer amaranth control, density, and biomass reduction, soybean injury, and ’ Nomenclature: yield. Field experiments were conducted near Carleton, NE, in 2018, and 2019 in a grower sfield 2,4-D chlorimuron-ethyl; cloransulam-methyl; infested with GR Palmer amaranth in 2,4-D–, glyphosate-, and glufosinate-resistant soybean.
    [Show full text]
  • Mixture of Glufosinate and Atrazine for Ryegrass (Lolium Multiflorum Lam
    Research article http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/refame Mixture of glufosinate and atrazine for ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) control and its effect on seeds’ quality Mezcla de glufosinato y atrazina para el control de raigrás (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) y su efecto en la calidad de semillas doi: 10.15446/rfnam.v72n1.69093 1 2 3 4 André da Rosa Ulguim , Dirceu Agostinetto , Leandro Vargas , Jessica Dias Gomes da Silva *, Theodoro Schneider5 and Bruno Moncks da Silva6 ABSTRACT Keywords: Ryegrass management has been difficult by the occurrence of resistant biotypes to several herbicides Antagonism with different action mechanisms. Since herbicides mixes and rotations are an important alternative Glutamine synthetase for resistant weed management, the objective of this work was to evaluate the interaction of the dose inhibitor of the herbicides glufosinate and atrazine on ryegrass control and its seeds’ quality exposed to their Lolium multiflorum association. For this study, three experiments were carried out using factorial design in field, laboratory, Photosystem II inhibitor and greenhouse conditions. Two factors (A and B) were evaluated in each experiment, where factor A and B represented the doses of glufosinate and atrazine, respectively. Ryegrass control was evaluated in field experiment, while germination percentage and Emergence Speed Index (ESI), were obtained in laboratory and greenhouse analyses, respectively. The data were submitted to variance analysis (P≤0.05) and the significant results were analyzed through response surface graphs. For ryegrass control data, the effect of the interaction was analyzed by the Colby method; glufosinate provides efficient ryegrass control, but its association with atrazine reduces the efficiency, being characterized as an antagonism between molecules.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamesdanieljonesiiithesis.Doc-After Defense
    The Evaluation of HPPD-Inhibitors for Full-Season Control of Morningglory (Ipomoea) Species in Corn (Zea mays L.) by James Daniel Jones III A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama December 15, 2018 Keywords: Ipomoea, corn, HPPD, postemergence Approved by Dr. Dennis Delaney, Chair, Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Andrew Price, Affiliate Associate Professor, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences Dr. Audrey Gamble, Assistant Professor and Extension Specialist, Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences i Abstract Due to late-season morningglory harvest interference concerns in corn, field studies were conducted in 2017 and 2018 at the Prattville Agricultural Research Unit in Prattville, Alabama and at the Sand Mountain Research and Extension Center in Crossville, Alabama to evaluate late season control of morningglory species using HPPD- inhibitors postemergence (POST) applied alone, following atrazine preemergence (PRE), or in combination with atrazine. Additionally, Amaranthus spp. and Senna spp. were evaluated for control. An incomplete randomized design with a split-plot treatment arrangement with four replications was utilized. The trial was divided into two sections: one with a PRE application of atrazine and a second without a preemergence application of atrazine. Eleven herbicides were applied POST without atrazine including: tembotrione; mesotrione; topramezone+dimethenamid; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+glyphosate; tembotrione+thiencarbazone; topramezone; mesotrione+S- metolachlor+atrazine; mesotrione+S-metolachlor+atrazine+bicyclopyrone; mesotrione+nicosulfuron; isoxaflutole; isoxaflutole+thiencarbazone-methyl; non-treated with atrazine applied PRE, and a true non-treated check. The same herbicides, excluding the two treatments that contain atrazine in the premixture, were also applied with atrazine.
    [Show full text]