Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
88. PRE-EMERGENCE WEEDCONTROLTESTS IN TABLEBEETS M. W. Meado~~(l), S. A.Anderson(2), L. E. Curtis(l). and R. P. Hargan(l) Problem: Weeds'pose a major problem in t~e table beet acreage of New York State., A nu~~r 'of' ~erbic~deshave been tested by research workers and used by growers -- few have been very effective in reducing hand weeding costs primarily due to inability of the chemicals to control lambsquarter without seriously injuring thebeets~ Materials - Expt. I was cond~cted on an Ontario Silt Loam soil at Gorham. N. Y. Detroit Red beets were planted June 30, 1960. Eptam and Stauffer 2061 were applied and disced into the soil on June 23. Pre-emergence materials were applied on the day of planting, June 30. Post emergence herbicides were applied July 18. Sprays were applied with a knapsack type sprayer at the rate of 60 gallons per acre. Fertilizer borate was dusted on with a hand duster. All herbicides were applied overall except Solubor and Fertilizer borate. These materials were applied in an 8 :inch band centered over the beet row. Expt. II was conducted on a Sandy Loam soil at Ithaca, N. Y. Eptam and Stauffer 2061 were ~pplied 7/8/60 on plots 6' x 30' that were randomly replicated 4 times. The materials were applied in 60 gallons of water per acre and immediately disced into the soil. Suc~essive plantings ,0£ beets were made 7/8/60; 7/15/60; and 7/26/60. A light spring tooth harrow was run over the soil in order to make the 3rd planting. Results: Expt. I Table 1 gives the results of weed control and beet injury. (1) G.L.F., Ithaca, N. Y. (2) Comstoek Foods, Inc., Newark. N. Y.
Table 1 - Table Beets Pre-plant; Pre-emergenc~ and Post-emergcnc~ W~ed Control on Table Beets Planted June 30, 1960; Pre-plant treatments June 23; Pre-emergence June )0; Post-emergence July 18, 1960. Data 7/18/60 and 8/1/60. Lb s , Active Acre MethC'd of Chemical Rate Ti,ming &'p'UCttion *Beets ._-- *Weeds Vegadex 4 Pre Spray 1.0 3.5 11 II " 6 2.3 4.2 w~"'Fcrtilizer Borate 13.8 " 8 11 band 0.7 3.2 II 27.8 " dusted on 1.2 3.2 II " 55.6 " 2.2 4.0 )\'*Solubor 13.8 " 8" band 0 1.5 II II 27.8 spray 0.8 2.8 II II tI 55.6 2.3 4.2 II 13.8 Post " 0.7 1.0 II II II 55.6 0.3 0.7 1I Diuron 0.4 Pre 2.7 4.3 II II Niagara 2995 2 2.8 4.0 II 4 II II 4.0 5.0 TD47 2 II II 0.3 . 0.3 II II II 4 0 0 II II TD62 2 0.7 1.0 II II II 4 2.7 1.3 Eptam 4 Pre-plant " 1.2 5.0 II II " 6 2.0 5.0 II II Stauffer 2061 4 1.3*** 3.8 II \I 6 " 0.7 5.0 Check 0 0 * Visual rating system o = No w,-,cd contro I - no crop injury. 5 = CompLet e weed cont;rol -completecrop' dee t ruc t Lon, We~ds - Primarily iambsquarter and redroot, a fe~ annual gra s ses and ragweed were present. ** The rates given for Fertilizer borate and Solubor ar~ based on elemental Boron and not manufactured product. Rates given refer to the rate per acre in an 8 11 band. The total rate ot Boron delivered per planted acre would be 1/3 of that reported in table 1. *** A majority of injury in on~ treatment was suspected to be due to competition of a hedgerow that was near one plot of this treatment Discussion: Expt. I Treatments worthy of note from the standpoint of weed control and lack of beet injury are as follows: 4 Ibs. Vegadex; 13.8 and 27.8 Ibs. Boron in Fertilizer Borate; 4 Ibs. Eptam pre-plant and 4 and 6 Ibs. Stauffer 2061 pr~plant.
- Page 37 and 38: The comparisons for lower leaves, s
- Page 39 and 40: 39. SUMMARY Tests using 2-C 14-1abe
- Page 41 and 42: 41. RECENTDEVELOPMENTS IN THEUSE OF
- Page 43 and 44: second application be made not late
- Page 45 and 46: 45. Combinations of vegadex-Randox
- Page 47 and 48: 11/ Persistence of Soil-Incorporate
- Page 49 and 50: Plot size varied from 9 sq. ft. to
- Page 51 and 52: Lower rates of R-1856 were tested o
- Page 53 and 54: greenhouse tests are listed below.
- Page 55 and 56: PROGRESSREPORTON LAY-BYUEEDCONTROLI
- Page 57 and 58: 57. Table 1. Effect of sodium silic
- Page 59 and 60: Sheets (1959) studied, under labora
- Page 61 and 62: M, ',. • • •• • " ' Treat
- Page 63 and 64: Figure 1. Relative performance trea
- Page 65 and 66: A duplicate test was started August
- Page 67 and 68: 67. "he two tests which dealt with
- Page 69 and 70: 69. CONTROLOF WEEDSIN VEGETABLECROP
- Page 71 and 72: 71.' TABLE 3. RESPONSE OF VEGETABLE
- Page 73 and 74: 73. COHBIltit.TloNS' OF cnu:'PITH C
- Page 75 and 76: 75. Results The delay in applicatio
- Page 77 and 78: 77. Summary Logarithmic, tank-mixed
- Page 79 and 80: (' ( ( Table 1 Rates and Dates of H
- Page 81 and 82: ( ( ( Table 3 Effect of Post-Tran~l
- Page 83 and 84: ( ( ( Table 5 Effect of Lay-By Herb
- Page 85 and 86: Chemical Weed Control Charles J. No
- Page 87: Table I. Weed control, plant stand,
- Page 91 and 92: 91. Chemical Weed Control in Onions
- Page 93 and 94: 93. Table I. l;ced control, plant s
- Page 95 and 96: 95. Results Survey Table I of Hando
- Page 97 and 98: 97. Weed counts were made 3 weeks a
- Page 99 and 100: 99. Third applications were made on
- Page 101 and 102: 1t1. ~ata - Onion stand counts, wee
- Page 103 and 104: The data in table 2 gives the signi
- Page 105 and 106: The following effects were noted. 1
- Page 107 and 108: PRE-fREATINGSOILS, APOSSIBLE.TECfiN
- Page 109 and 110: · 109. Table 2. The influence of d
- Page 111 and 112: ..... 11 ... - Progress Report on W
- Page 113 and 114: 113. fndothal as a pre-planting inc
- Page 115 and 116: 115~ Table 3. Mean markebab l.e 9£
- Page 117 and 118: 1170 Chemical Weed Control Charles
- Page 119 and 120: 119. Table I .. Weed contrOl! plant
- Page 121 and 122: 121. '- The stand of plants of bo
- Page 123 and 124: 123. Table II. Weed control stand a
- Page 125 and 126: EFFECTOF SEVERALHERBICIDESONEARLYYI
- Page 127 and 128: Table 2. Calcula.ted ecre yields of
- Page 129 and 130: 129. - Treatment Average weight per
- Page 131 and 132: -- The herbicides were applied on J
- Page 133 and 134: 133. Table 2. Effect of pre-plant h
- Page 135 and 136: - 135. Dim tro for Weed Control in
- Page 137 and 138: PJ,OORESSREPORT:ON.:WEEJhCGNTROL IN
88.<br />
PRE-EMERGENCE WEEDCONTROLTESTS IN TABLEBEETS<br />
M. W. Meado~~(l), S. A.Anderson(2), L. E. Curtis(l). and R. P. Hargan(l)<br />
Problem: <strong>Weed</strong>s'pose a major problem in t~e table beet acreage of New York<br />
State., A nu~~r 'of' ~erbic~deshave been tested by research workers and used<br />
by growers -- few have been very effective in reducing hand weeding costs<br />
primarily due to inability of the chemicals to control lambsquarter without<br />
seriously injuring thebeets~<br />
Materials - Expt. I was cond~cted on an Ontario Silt Loam soil at Gorham.<br />
N. Y.<br />
Detroit Red beets were planted June 30, 1960.<br />
Eptam and Stauffer 2061 were applied and disced into the soil on June 23.<br />
Pre-emergence materials were applied on the day of planting, June 30. Post<br />
emergence herbicides were applied July 18.<br />
Sprays were applied with a knapsack type sprayer at the rate of 60 gallons per<br />
acre. Fertilizer borate was dusted on with a hand duster. All herbicides<br />
were applied overall except Solubor and Fertilizer borate. These materials<br />
were applied in an 8 :inch band centered over the beet row.<br />
Expt. II was conducted on a Sandy Loam soil at Ithaca, N. Y.<br />
Eptam and Stauffer 2061 were ~pplied 7/8/60 on plots 6' x 30' that were<br />
randomly replicated 4 times. The materials were applied in 60 gallons of<br />
water per acre and immediately disced into the soil.<br />
Suc~essive plantings ,0£ beets were made 7/8/60; 7/15/60; and 7/26/60.<br />
A light spring tooth harrow was run over the soil in order to make the 3rd<br />
planting.<br />
Results: Expt. I<br />
Table 1 gives the results of weed control and beet injury.<br />
(1) G.L.F., Ithaca, N. Y.<br />
(2) Comstoek Foods, Inc., Newark. N. Y.
Change language