Weed Control in Onions and Garlic Dacthal (Dcpa) Basic Vegetable Onion Herbicide (Chloroxuron) Dinitro Select ( Dinoseb) Sulfuri

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Weed Control in Onions and Garlic Dacthal (Dcpa) Basic Vegetable Onion Herbicide (Chloroxuron) Dinitro Select ( Dinoseb) Sulfuri

WEED CONTROL IN ONIONS AND GARLIC Edward A. Kurtz Technical Director Basic American Foods Basic Vegetable Products Division King City, California The control of weeds in onion and garlic is a necessary factor in insuring the successful production of these crops. Although weed control is essential throughout production, two of the most critical periods are during the early season, to reduce competition, and prior to harvest. Weed control at the latter stages of crop production is especially critical on those acres of these crops which are harvested on a mechanical basis. The primary method for controlling weeds in these crops usually involves a combination of cultural and chemical techniques, with the current emphasis being placed on the use of chemicals designed to selectively suppress or elimi nate weed populations without impairing the development of the crop. The registration of chemicals for weed control on onions and garlic over the last 4 - 6 years has resulted in new materials becoming available that pro vide additional means of maintaining weeds at low population levels throughout the season. The following information is provided to indicate the progress that has been made in this area. PRIMARY REGISTERED HERBICIDES - CALIFORNIA - ONION 1979 1981 1983 DACTHAL DACTHAL DACTHAL (DCPA) (DCPA) (DCPA) BASIC VEGETABLE WEED OIL WEED OIL ONION HERBICIDE (CHLOROXURON) DINITRO SELECT ROUNDUP PARAQUAT ( DINOSEB) (GLYPHOSATE) SULFURIC ACID BASIC VEGETABLE ROUNDUP ONION HERBICIDE (GLYPHOSATE) (CHLOROXURON) TOK DINITRO SELECT BROMINAL (NITROFEN) (DINOSEB) (BROMOXYNIL) SULFURIC ACID BASIC VEGETABLE ONION HERBICIDE ( CHLOROXURON) DINITRO SELECT (DINOSEB) GOAL (OXYFLUORFEN) N-TAC SULFURIC ACID 113 PRIMARY REGISTERED HERBICIDES - CALIFORNIA - GARLIC 1977 1979 1981 1983 DACTHAL DACTHAL DACTHAL DACTHAL ( DCPA) ( DCPA) (DCPA) ( DCPA) FURLOE FURLOE FURLOE FURLOE ( CHLORPROPHAM) (CHLORPROPHAM) (CHLORPROPHAM) (CHLORPROPHAM) DINITRO SELECT BROMINAL/BUCTRIL WEED OIL WEED OIL ( DINOSEB) (BROMOXYNIL) BASIC VEGETABLE BROMINAL/BUCTRIL PARAQUAT ONION HERBICIDE (BROMOXYNIL) (CHLOROXURON) DINITRO SELECT BASIC VEGETABLE BROMINAL/BUCTRIL (DINOSEB) ONION HERBICIDE (BROMOXNYIL) ( CHLOROXURON) TOK DINITRO SELECT BASIC VEGETABLE (NITROFEN) ( DINOSEB) ONION HERBICIDE (CHLOROXURON) DINITRO SELECT ( DINOS EB) N-TAC TREFLAN (TRIFLURALIN) 114 .

Copy Link

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]
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]
Nomenclature of Commonly Available Herbicides in India
NOMENCLATURE OF COMMONLY AVAILABLE HERBICIDES IN INDIA Prior to the widespread use of chemical herbicides, mechanical control and cultural controls, such as altering soil pH, salinity, or fertility levels were used to control weeds. The first widely used herbicide was 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, often abbreviated 2,4-D which kills many broadleaf plants while leaving grasses largely unaffected (high doses of 2,4-D at crucial growth periods can harm grass crops such as maize or cereals). The low cost of 2,4-D has led to continued usage today and it remains one of the most commonly used herbicides in the world. In 1950s triazine family of herbicides, which includes atrazine was introduced. Atrazine does not break down readily (within a few weeks) after being applied to soils of above neutral pH. Atrazine is said to have carryover, a generally undesirable property for herbicides. Glyphosate, frequently sold under the brand name Roundup, was introduced in 1974 for non- selective weed control. It is now a major herbicide in selective weed control in growing crop plants due to the development of crop plants that are resistant to it. Many modern chemical herbicides for agriculture are specifically formulated to decompose within a short period after application. This is desirable as it allows crops which may be affected by the herbicide to be grown on the land in future seasons. However, herbicides with low residual activity (i.e., that decompose quickly) often do not provide season-long weed control. List of herbicides with their common name
[Show full text]
Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil
TEXT SEARCHABLE DCOUMENT 2011 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PC Code: 118203 DP Barcode: 380638 and 381293 Thursday, April 07, 2011 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for Saflufenacil Section 3 New Chemical Uses as a harvest aid on dry edible beans, dry peas, soybean, oilseeds "sunflower subgroup 20B", oilseeds "cotton subgroup 20C", and oilseeds canola "subgroup 20A". TO: Kathryn Montague, M.S., Product Manager 23 Herbicide Branch Registration Division (RD) (7505P) FROM: ~ Mohammed Ruhman, Ph.D., Agronomist 2 :4- . ""=- ........ 04!tJt! (I neith Sappington, Senior Biologist/Science Adviso~.... Vd- Environmental Risk Branch V O'f/ .../ II Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) THROUGH: Mah Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch VI Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) This ecological risk assessment for saflufenacil new uses is relying on the attached previous assessment (Attachment 1). As shown in the usage summary (Table 1), the single and seasonal rate, for all the crops range from 0.045 to 0.089 lbs a.i/A are within the range application rates used in exposure modeling for the 2009 Section 3 New Chemical Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment (DP Barcode 349855). Therefore, risk findings determined for the 2009 assessment may be used in the assessment for this submittal. Specifically, the 2009 assessment found no chronic risks to avian and mammalian species at an agricultural use rate 0 0.134 lb a.i.lA. Acute risks were not determined for birds and mammals since saflufenacil was not acutely toxic at the highest doses tested.
[Show full text]
Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station
ORTMAL DO ;10T REMOVE 7.9 m FILE Special Report 354 April 1972 Agricultural Experiment Station Oregon State University, Corvallis I FIELD APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES--AVOIDING DANGER TO FISH Erland T. Juntunen Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon and Logan A. Norris Pacific Northwest Forestry Sciences Laboratory and Range Experiment Station Forest Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture Corvallis, Oregon April, 1972 Trade names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implieLl to products mentioned or omitted. Recommendations are not made concerning safe use of products nor is any guarantee or warranty of results or effects of the products intended or implied. ii Chemical weed and brush control with herbicides is an important land management practice in modern agriculture and forestry. In some cases, herbicides are applied directly to bodies of water for aquatic weed control. More commonly, herbicides are applied to lands adjacent to waterways for general weed and brush control. The responsible applicator will avoid damage to fishery resources by being fully aware of a particular herbicides potential hazard to fish. Herbicide applications should be considered hazardous to fish when there is the probability fish will be exposed to herbicide concen- trations which are harmful. This bulletin offers information that will aid in selecting the particular herbicides and formulations of least hazard to fish considering the toxicity of the herbicide and the poten- tial for its entry into streams, lakes, or ponds. Entry of Herbicides into the Aquatic Environment In aquatic weed control, the effective concentration of herbicide in the water depends on the rate of application, the rate of the spread of the chemical, the size and chemical composition of the body of water, the rate of degradation or adsorption of the chemical on sediments, and the rate of mixing of treated water with untreated water.
[Show full text]
Multi-Residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products)
Multi-residue Method I for Agricultural Chemicals by LC-MS (Agricultural Products) 1. Analytes See Table 2 or 3. 2. Instruments Liquid chromatograph-mass spectrometer (LC-MS) Liquid chromatograph-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) 3. Reagents Use the reagents listed in Section 3 of the General Rules except for the following. 0.5 mol/L Phosphate buffer (pH 7.0): Weigh 52.7 g of dipotassium hydrogenphosphate (K2HPO4) and 30.2 g of potassium dihydrogenphosphate (KH2PO4), dissolve in about 500 mL of water, adjust the pH to 7.0 with 1 mol/L sodium hydroxide or 1 mol/L hydrochloric acid, and add water to make a 1 L solution. Reference standards of agricultural chemicals: Reference standards of known purities for each agricultural chemical. 4. Procedure 1) Extraction i) Grains, beans, nuts and seeds Add 20 mL of water to 10.0 g of sample and let stand for 15 minutes. Add 50 mL of acetonitrile, homogenize, and filter with suction. Add 20 mL of acetonitrile to the residue on the filter paper, homogenize, and filter with suction. Combine the resulting filtrates, and add acetonitrile to make exactly 100 mL. Take a 20 mL aliquot of the extract, add 10 g of sodium chloride and 20 mL of 0.5 mol/L phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), and shake for 10 minutes. Let stand, and discard the separated aqueous layer. Add 10 mL of acetonitrile to an octadecylsilanized silica gel cartridge (1,000 mg) and discard the effluent. Transfer the acetonitrile layer to the cartridge, elute with 2 mL of acetonitrile, collect the total eluates, dehydrate with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and filter out the anhydrous sodium sulfate.
[Show full text]
Diurnal Leaf Movement Effects on Spray Interception and Glyphosate Efficacy Author(S): Jason K
Diurnal Leaf Movement Effects on Spray Interception and Glyphosate Efficacy Author(s): Jason K. Norsworthy, Lawrence R. Oliver and Larry C. Purcell Source: Weed Technology, Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1999), pp. 466-470 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3989032 Accessed: 09-02-2018 21:24 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms Cambridge University Press, Weed Science Society of America are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Weed Technology This content downloaded from 160.36.239.64 on Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:24:07 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Weed Technology. 1999. Volume 13:466-470 Diurnal Leaf Movement Effects on Spray Interception and Glyphosate Efficacy' JASON K. NORSWORTHY, LAWRENCE R. OLIVER, and LARRY C. PURCELL2 Abstract: Time of day at which a herbicide is applied can affect efficacy, and variability may be attributed to leaf angles at application. Spray interception by hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata), sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa) under day and night conditions was quantified by measuring interception of a 2-M potassium nitrate solution.
[Show full text]
Decision Guidance Documents
OPERATION OF THE PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE FOR BANNED OR SEVERELY RESTRICTED CHEMICALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE DECISION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS Dinoseb and its salts and esters JOINT FAO/UNEP PROGRAMME FOR THE OPERATION OF PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT United Nations Environment Programme UNEP Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations OPERATION OF THE PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT PROCEDURE FOR BANNED OR SEVERELY RESTRICTED CHEMICALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE DECISION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS Dinoseb and its salts and esters JOINT FAO/UNEP PROGRAMME FOR THE OPERATION OF PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations United Nations Environment Programme Rome - Geneva 1991 DISCLAIMER The inclusion of these chemicals in the Prior Informed Consent Procedure is based on reports of control action submitted to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) by participating countries, and which are presently listed in the UNEP-International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals (IRPTC) database on Prior Informed Consent. While recognizing that these reports from countries are subject to confirmation, the FAO/UNEP Joint Working Group of Experts on Prior Informed Consent have recommended that these chemical be included in the Procedure. The status of these chemicals will be reconsidered on the basis of such new notifications as may be made by participating countries from time to time. The use of trade names in this document is primarily intended to facilitate the correct identification of the chemical. It is not intended to imply approval or disapproval of any particular company. As it is not possible to include all trade names presently in use, only a number of commonly used and published trade names have been included here.
[Show full text]
Of in Partial Fulfillment of the Of
CHEMICAL SEEDBED PREPARATION FOR ZERO-TILLAGE CROP PRODUCTION A Thesi s Submitted to the Facu ltY of Graduate Studi es The Uni versi tY of Manitoba by Larry hliI Iiam TaYlor In Partial Fulfillment of the Requi rements for the Degree of I4aster of Sc i ence Department of Pl ant Science t4ay L977 ''CHEMICAL SEEDBED PREPARATION FOR ZERO-TILLAGE CROP PRODUCTION'' by LARRY IdILLIAI4 TAYLOR A rlissertation submitted to the Facutty of Craduate Studics <¡f the University of Manitoba in partial fulfillment of the roquirements of tht' degree of MASTTR OF SCIENCE @ 1977 Pernlission hus becn gr:rntcrl to th'j LIB¡ìARY OF '¡'llU l''NlvUlì- slTY oF MANtTollr\ to lctr<l or selt copics <¡f this tlissertr¡liot¡' t() thc NATIONAL LIBR^RY OF (:ANAI)A to rtlicrofilm this dissertatir.¡n and to lend or soll copics of the l'ilnl, ¿¡nd UNtvtiRSlTY MICROFILMS to publish ru übstruct of this dissertation' The ¡utl¡or reserves other ¡rublicittion rights' and neithcr the dissertttion ttor extcnsive extr cts liom it rrlay be printcd or other- wise reproduccd without thc author's wt ittctl ¡rertttissiotl' 'll ABSTRACT Taylor, Larry hli1ìiam. M'Sc., The University of Manitoba' flay , 1977 . Chemi cal Seedbed Preparati on for Zero-ti I I age Crop Productìon. Major Professor; Elmer H. Stobbe' Field trials were conducted under zero-tillage conditions to study broadspectrum annual weed control with applications of paraquat and glyphosate. Broadleaf herbicides were mixed wìth the paraquat and glyohosate treatments to find their.impact on the effectiveness and cost for chemical seedbed preparation. Excellent broadleaf annual weed control resuited when 0'28 kglha of bromoxyni 1 was added to 0'42 kg/ha of paraquat.
[Show full text]
(12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,943,644 B2 Uhr Et Al
USOO794364.4B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 7,943,644 B2 Uhr et al. (45) Date of Patent: May 17, 2011 (54) STABILIZATION OF IODINE-CONTAINING (56) References Cited BOCDES BY MEANS OF SPECIAL AZOLE COMPOUNDS U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS 2,739,922 A * 3/1956 Shelanski ..................... 524,548 (75) Inventors: Hermann Uhr, Leverkusen (DE); 4,276,211 A 6/1981 Singer et al. ... 260/29.6 MN Johannes Kaulen, Odenthal (DE); 4.297.258 A 10/1981 Long, Jr. .............. 260f29.6 MN Thomas Jaetsch, Köln (DE); Peter 4,552,885. A 1 1/1985 Gabriele et al. .............. 514/316 Spetmann, Leverkusen (DE) 5,051,256 A * 9/1991 Barnes ........... ... 424/402 6,143,204. A 1 1/2000 Lutz et al. ...... ... 252/384 rsr rr 6.353,021 B1 3/2002 Gaglani et al. ... 514,478 (73) Assignee: NNESS putschland GmbH, 6,472,424 B1 10/2002 Gaglani et al. ... 514,478 everkusen (DE) 6,946,427 B2* 9/2005 Lutz et al. ...... ... 504,140 c - 2006/00 13833 A1 1/2006 Bartko ........... ... 424/400 (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 2007/0128246 A1* 6/2007 Hossainy et al. ............. 424/423 patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 18 days. FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS WO 98.22543 5, 1998 (21) Appl. No.: 12/281,163 WO 99.291.76 6, 1999 WO OOf 16628 3, 2000 (22) PCT Filed: Feb. 21, 2007 WO 2007 O28527 3, 2007 (86). PCT No.: PCT/EP2007/001480 OTHER PUBLICATIONS S371 (c)(1), Nomiya, Kenji, et al.
[Show full text]
2,4-Dichlorophenol AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR
United States Office of Water EPA 440 5-80-042 Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards October 1980 Agency Criteria and Standards Division Washington DC 20460 EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 2,4-dichlorophenol AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL Prepared By U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Water Regulations and Standards Criteria and Standards Division Washington, D.C. Office of Research and Development Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office Cincinnati, Ohio Carcinogen Assessment Group Washington, D.C. Environmental Research Laboratories Corvalis, Oregon Duluth, Minnesota Gulf Breeze, Florida Narragansett, Rhode Island DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. AVAILABILITY NOTICE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. ii FOREWORD Section 304 (a)(1) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including ground water. Proposed water quality criteria for the 65 toxic pollutants listed under section 307 (a)(1) of the Clean Water Act were developed and a notice of their availability was published for public comment on March 15, 1979 (44 FR 15926), July 25, 1979 (44 FR 43660), and October 1, 1979 (44 FR 56628).
[Show full text]
THE PESTICIDES and TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No. 12 Of
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No. 12 of 2008 [ Printed in the Official Gazette Vol. XXIX No. 10 dated 12th February , 2009. ] ________ Printed at the Government Printing Office, Antigua and Barbuda, by Eric T. Bennett, Government Printer — By Authority, 2009. 800—2.09 [ Price$11.70 ] The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. No. 12 of 2008 No. 12 of 2008 The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 ARRANGEMENT Sections 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Establishment and constitution of the Board. 4. Functions and duties of the Board. 5. Registrar of Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals. 6. Licence to exterminate. 7. Analysts, inspectors, medical examiners and others. 8. Controlled product. 9. Offences in regard to prohibited substance or product. 10. Regulation of prohibited substance or product. 11. Powers of inspectors. 12. Analysis. 13. Medical examiners. 14. Detention and forfeiture of articles seized. 15. Regulations. 16. Offences by corporations. 17. Evidence and sufficiency of proof. 18. Record keeping and reporting. 19. Confidentiality. 20. Notice of non-compliance. 21. Right of appeal. 22. Penalties. 23. Immunity. 24. Indemnity. 25. Application to the State. 26. Repeal. The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. No. 12 of 2008 Schedules Schedule 1 – Constitution of the Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Control Board Schedule 2 – Controlled products Schedule 3 – Prohibited Products No. 12 of 2008 The Pesticides and Toxic Chemicals Act, 2008. [L.S.] I Assent, Louise Lake-Tack, Governor-General. 31st December, 2008 ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA THE PESTICIDES AND TOXIC CHEMICALS ACT, 2008 No.
[Show full text]