1 / 33

Comparing Volatility of Three Forms of 2,4-D when Applied in the Field

Comparing Volatility of Three Forms of 2,4-D when Applied in the Field. Culpepper, Richburg, Sosnoskie, Braxton. Future Technology Herbicide Cost of $39/A. Technology of Today Herbicide Cost of $59/A. Sensitivity of Non 2,4-D Resistant Cotton to 2,4-D. 2,4-D resistant.

meryle
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Volatility of Three Forms of 2,4-D when Applied in the Field

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing Volatility of Three Forms of 2,4-D when Applied in the Field Culpepper, Richburg, Sosnoskie, Braxton

  2. Future Technology Herbicide Cost of $39/A Technology of Today Herbicide Cost of $59/A

  3. Sensitivity of Non 2,4-D Resistant Cotton to 2,4-D 2,4-D resistant

  4. Sensitivity of Vegetables to 2,4-D

  5. 2011 GA Vegetable Facts Approximately 200,000 acres 40 different vegetables grown 3rd largest vegetable producing state for A Farm Gate Value: $1,200,000,000

  6. Many of these crops are grown in the same areas often by the same growers.

  7. Off Target Movement Concern Physical drift Volatility

  8. Off Target Movement Concern Physical drift = related to someone most likely not following label recommendations Volatility = one can do everything perfect and there can still be a serious issue

  9. Objective Volatility needs to be eliminated or at least know exactly how far it could move 2,4-D Choline 2,4-D Amine 2,4-D Ester

  10. Sunbelt Ag Expo 2010 N 2,4-D Choline 2,4-D Amine 2,4-D Ester

  11. Sunbelt Ag Expo 2011 N 2,4-D Choline 2,4-D Ester 2,4-D Amine

  12. N NW NE W E SW SE S Potted cotton plants placed in all directions @ 5, 10, 20, 40, 80 and 160 ft Treated area = 90 foot by 90 foot

  13. Potted plants each year = 1728Four plants per location for 48 hrs, 1st 24 h, 2nd 24 h. N NW NE W E SW SE S

  14. Sunbelt Ag Expo 2011 N

  15. Methods Mix location: off site Rate: 2 lb ae/A glyphosate + 2 lb ae/A 2,4-D Application: FF 11002 DG, 25 PSI, 15 GPA Time of day: before 10 am Soil: 88% sand, 12% silt; pre-irrigated

  16. Controls for Methods Truck ride (2010, 2011): no damage Herbicide application (2011):no damage Plant contact (2011): no damage

  17. 2010 Temperature (F) Application Sept 9. 8 am 7 am Max soil temp range 99-103 F; mix of clouds and sun; max sustained wind 8 mph.

  18. 2011 Temperature (F) 8 am 7 am Application Aug 30. Max soil temp ranged 106-113 F; completely sunny; max sustained wind 11 mph.

  19. Visual Cotton Injury Heights Nodes

  20. Cotton Injury (%) as Influenced by Distance. In-field 48 hours. 2010. = Amine = Choline = Ester Form x distance (P ≤ 0.05) Ester > Amine, Choline, for all distances Ester: 5 > 10 > 20 > 40 > 80 > 160 Amine: 5 > 10 > 20–160 Amine 5–10 > Choline 5-10 53 45 38 20 5 0 20 80 5 10 40 160 Distance Data pooled over direction.

  21. Cotton Injury (%) as Influenced by Distance. In-field 48 hours. 2011. = Amine = Choline = Ester Form x distance (P ≤ 0.05) Ester > Amine, Choline, for all distances 73 69 Ester: 5 > 10 > 20 > 40 > 80 > 160 Amine: 5 > 10 > 20–160 Amine 5–10 > Choline 5-10 58 38 20 4 20 80 5 10 40 160 Distance Data pooled over direction.

  22. Ester Choline

  23. Cotton Injury (%) from Ester as Influenced by Distance & Time. 2010. = 0-24 h = 24-48 h = 0-48 h Time x distance (P ≤ 0.05) 0-48 h ≥ 0-24 h ≥ 24-48 h, for all distances 20 80 5 10 40 Distance (ft) Data pooled over direction.

  24. Cotton Injury (%) as Influenced by Duration In-Field. 2011. = 0-24 h = 24-48 h = 0-48 h Time x distance (P ≤ 0.05) 0-48 h ≥ 0-24 h ≥ 24-48 h, for all distances 20 80 5 10 40 Distance (ft) Data pooled over direction.

  25. Cotton Injury (%) by Ester as Influenced by Direction. In-field 48 hours. = 2011 = 2010 E S SW W N NE SE NW Direction Data pooled over distance

  26. 2011 Wind Direction. Day of Application Application to 2 pm (0 to 5.5 mph) N NW NE 2 to 5 pm (4-11 mph) W E SW SE 5 to 9 pm (11 to 0 mph) S

  27. Volatility Injury to Cotton: Tunnel Data 20 plants assigned a location number

  28. Cotton Injury (%) as Influenced by Tunnel. 2010. = 0-24 h = 24-48 h = 0-48 h 0-48 h: Ester > Amine > Choline 0-24 h: Ester > Amine > Choline 24-48 h: Ester > Amine = Choline Ester Choline Amine Data pooled over 20 plants for each herbicide and time interval.

  29. Cotton Injury (%) as Influenced by Tunnel. 2011. = 0-24 h = 24-48 h = 0-48 h 0-48 h: Ester > Amine > Choline 0-24 h: Ester > Amine = Choline 24-48 h: Ester > Amine = Choline Ester Choline Amine Data pooled over 20 plants for each herbicide and time interval.

  30. Conclusions • Ester formulation should not be applied in Georgia during similar conditions. • Choline formulation offers the lowest potential for off-target movement from volatility.

  31. Comments?

More Related