Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society Vol. 15â1961 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society
94. Weed Control with Randox l T in Corn and Onions R. E. Althaus 2, Robert W. Langlois 3 and L. S. Gleason 2 Randox T is a combination of CDAA( or chloro-N,N-diallyl acetamide) ,.and tr1.chlorobenzyl ~hloride. This product is an outgrowth of Ranl dox '~hlch is used for weed control in corn and soybeans. Early research and developmEmt, work and later fleldexperience demonstrated that Randox (CDAA)wss particularly effective against grasses when applied as a pre-.emergence treatment. Broadleaf weed control is moderately good except. for smart-weed and lambsquarters.' In areas of the Midwest where foxtail (Setaria sP.) is the principal weed species, Randox is still the preferred-nerbicide, but in areas where broadleaves are troublesome~ practical weed control with Randox .i~ marginal., ',' The Monsanto Agricultural Research Laboratories discovered that it waa possible to combine trichlorobenzyl chloride (TCBC) and R8ndox'(CDAA)and'achleve broad spectrum. weed control which in cludes such weeds as foxtails, crabgrass, annual blue grass, sandbur, ragweed" annual, morning glory, smartweed, butterprint, pigweed, pur-alane, Russ'ian thistle~' Lambaquar-bez-e , mustard and groundl3el (1,2). Randox Twaslhtroduce~ commercfally 'in 1960 'for use on field corn both-as an emulsifiable,and as a granular formulation. Both formulations are equally efrective in .eed kill and crop tolerance and canb¢ usedln eIther form a.cpchd.lng"upon the growertspreference. " A survey was conducted'QY the Monsanto field sales force to evaluate the tield performance W).der·grOwe~ use ~ , ThEfsurvey was conducted in a manner suc~ that tbe data were recorded as the opinion of the farme;t"'s interviewed. This comp~i8ed interviews, wt.th '162 growers located in the 11 Midwestern states. The results are presented in Table I. lRegistered trademark of the Monsanto Chemical Company 2Monsanto Chemical Company, St. Louis, Missouri 3Assoc. County Agricultural Agent. Orange County, New York
95. Results Survey Table I of Handox T perform;:i"nce' 1n Eleven States 1960 RATING Excellent Good. Fair Poor Grass Control 68 64 18 12 Broadleaf Weed Control 87 51 16 8 The excellent rating is considered as near perfect control of all weeds, the good classification as a level of weed control in which scattere~ weeds were present in the field on band, the fair category as a level of weed control where the stand of weeds was reduced but where cultivation would be required to achieve complete control and the poor rating as when unacceptable weed control was obtained. It should be emphasized that some of the poor classification resulted from poorly prepared seed beqs or application on light or sandy soils, for which Randox T is not recommended. The results of this survey show a good record for commercial use in spite of the fact that environmental factors were not considered ideal for Randox T. Records from these same survey forms show that the average time of the first rain for all applications 1n all states was 3! days and was approximately 1 inch in amount. The range in rainfall was 0.1 to 5 inches for the first rain. These conditions are considered as above normal rainfall for the corn belt. Randox T has shown some promise for peas, carrots and onions at rates ranging from 4 to 8 qts. per acre. Excellent weed control was obtained in Canada (3) with Randox T on celery. Directedsprays caused slight initial tip burn of the lower leaves of celery but the plants recovered rapidly and gave the higbest yields of any or the plots.' Preliminary studies in M.innesota on onions demonstrated promise both from the standpoint of weed contrOl and crop tolerance. Toevaluatethls use more intensively, several experiments were initiated in 1960 in Orange County, N~w York. . , . Five grower sites were selected on the basi~ of varying muck soil types, different'seeding-dates, various lnsecticide:-f'ungicide treatments and different onton :varieties'. Replicated plots in a randomlzeddesign we~e set up on rowe adjacent.to ditch banks where weed density is high.
- 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 and 88: Table I. Weed control, plant stand,
- Page 89 and 90: Table 1 - Table Beets Pre-plant; Pr
- Page 91 and 92: 91. Chemical Weed Control in Onions
- Page 93: 93. Table I. l;ced control, plant s
- 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
- Page 139 and 140: - Simazine 2 and 2 1/2 lb./A and at
- Page 141 and 142: 141. Results - .l2.22 Table 2 shows
- Page 143 and 144: - !!!! Applications 143. The plots
95.<br />
Results<br />
Survey<br />
Table I<br />
of Handox T perform;:i"nce'<br />
1n Eleven States 1960<br />
RATING<br />
Excellent Good. Fair Poor<br />
Grass Control 68 64 18 12<br />
Broadleaf <strong>Weed</strong> Control 87 51 16 8<br />
The excellent rating is considered as near perfect control of all<br />
weeds, the good classification as a level of weed control in which<br />
scattere~ weeds were present in the field on band, the fair category<br />
as a level of weed control where the stand of weeds was reduced but<br />
where cultivation would be required to achieve complete control and<br />
the poor rating as when unacceptable weed control was obtained. It<br />
should be emphasized that some of the poor classification resulted<br />
from poorly prepared seed beqs or application on light or sandy<br />
soils, for which Randox T is not recommended. The results of this<br />
survey show a good record for commercial use in spite of the fact<br />
that environmental factors were not considered ideal for Randox T.<br />
Records from these same survey forms show that the average time of<br />
the first rain for all applications 1n all states was 3! days and<br />
was approximately 1 inch in amount. The range in rainfall was 0.1<br />
to 5 inches for the first rain. These conditions are considered<br />
as above normal rainfall for the corn belt.<br />
Randox T has shown some promise for peas, carrots and onions at<br />
rates ranging from 4 to 8 qts. per acre. Excellent weed control<br />
was obtained in Canada (3) with Randox T on celery. Directedsprays<br />
caused slight initial tip burn of the lower leaves of celery but<br />
the plants recovered rapidly and gave the higbest yields of any or<br />
the plots.' Preliminary studies in M.innesota on onions demonstrated<br />
promise both from the standpoint of weed contrOl and crop tolerance.<br />
Toevaluatethls use more intensively, several experiments were<br />
initiated in 1960 in Orange County, N~w York. . , .<br />
Five grower sites were selected on the basi~ of varying muck soil<br />
types, different'seeding-dates, various lnsecticide:-f'ungicide<br />
treatments and different onton :varieties'. Replicated plots in a<br />
randomlzeddesign we~e set up on rowe adjacent.to ditch banks<br />
where weed density is high.
Change language