Title: EVALUATION OF MH FREE CHEMICALS FOR SUCKER CONTROL
1EVALUATION OF MH FREE CHEMICALS FOR SUCKER
CONTROL
- Gary Palmer, Bob Pearce Andy Bailey
- University of Kentucky
2MH Free Tobacco - 2005
Trials were conducted in Jessamine County to
study the mechanical application of sucker
control chemicals that do not contain Maleic
Hydrazide. Control has been well documented with
methods that run Butralin, Flupro or Prime down
the stalk. However, such methods are slower and
labor intensive and not likely to be adopted by
larger growers.
3Spraying with Coarse Nozzles
4MH Free Tobacco Trial
5MH Free Tobacco Trial
6Summary - 2005
- Although initial results were encouraging, none
of the treatments provide acceptable control in
the end.
7MH Free Tobacco - 2006
- Chemicals Trial
- Topping Study
Not applied due to weather
8MH Free Tobacco - 2006
All treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack
with an over-the shoulder two row boom. Plots
were 40 ft by 2 rows (40 rows) in a randomized
complete block design with four replications.
9Comparison of Sucker Control Treatments on Degree
of Control Harrison Co. - Ricci Rowland Farm
RTMRoyal Tac M, ButButralin, MH Royal MH-30,
fbfollowed by at 7 days
10Comparison of Sucker Control Treatments on Yield
of Burley Tobacco Harrison Co. - Ricci Rowland
Farm
RTMRoyal Tac M, ButButralin, MH Royal MH-30,
fbfollowed by at 7 days
11MH Free Topping Study Harrison Co. - Ricci
Rowland Farm
12MH Free Nozzle Study Harrison Co. - Ricci
Rowland Farm
13Summary - 2006
- Although initial results were encouraging, none
of the treatments provide acceptable control in
the end except for the one containing MH.
14Sucker Control Trials - 2007
- The Regional Sucker Control Trials are conducted
under the auspices of the Regional Growth
Regulator Committee of the Tobacco Workers
Conference. Treatments proposed by the committee
were treatments 1-7. Treatment 8 was added for
this study only.
15Regional Sucker Control Treatments
16Comparison of Sucker Control Treatments at Two
Weeks after Application UK Spindletop Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check,
fbfollowed by at 7 days. Sprayer malfunctioned
17The Effects of Sucker Treatment on Sucker Number
per Plant UK Spindletop Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check
fbfollowed by at 7 days. Sprayer malfunctioned
18The Effects of Sucker Treatment on Sucker Weight
UK Spindletop Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check,
fbfollowed by at 7 days. Sprayer malfunctioned
19The Effects of Sucker Treatment on YieldUK
Spindletop Farm
20Summary
- A sprayer malfunction produced results that were
not characteristic of the past performance of MH
at 2 gal/a. - Treatments 3 (MH at 1.5 gal/a), 4 (MH at 1.5
gal/a Flupro at 0.5 gal/a), 5 (MH at 1.5
gal/a Butralin at 0.5 gal/a) were all excellent
treatments. - Both the Off-shoot T followed by Off-shoot T
Butralin at 0.5 gal/a Off-shoot T followed by
Off-shoot T Butralin at 1 gal/a were
acceptable, but not as clean as MH containing
treatments 3-5. - Butralin at 1 gal/a by itself was as good as when
Off-shoot T was added.
21MH Free Trials - 2007
- All Treatments were made with a West Texas Lee
high clearance sprayer using a three nozzle
arrangement in a TG-3 TG-5 TG-3 configuration
and an application volume of 60 gal/a.
Applicator speed was 2.4 mph at 30 psi. Plots
were 30 ft by 2 rows (42 rows) in a randomized
complete block design with four replications.
22MH Free Trails Treatments
23MH Free TrialsComparison of Sucker Control
TreatmentsUK Coldstream Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check (-)
followed by at 5 days.
24MH Free TrialsThe Effects of Sucker Treatment
on Sucker Number per Plant UK Coldstream Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
UTCuntreated check OOff-Shoot-T in (), (-)
followed by at 5 days
25MH Free TrialsThe Effects of Sucker Treatment
on Sucker Weight UK Coldstream Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check, (-)
followed by at 5 days.
26MH Free Trials The Effects of Sucker Treatment
on Sucker Weight UK Coldstream Farm
(MH Royal MH-30, FFlupro, BButralin,) in (gal)
OOff-Shoot-T in (), UTCuntreated check, (-)
followed by at 5 days.
27Summary
- Treatments with MH produced 100 control
- Results from Off-shoot T at 4 followed by a tank
mix of Off-shoot T Butralin at 1 gal/a followed
by Butralin at 1 gal/a were close to those
containing MH. - Results from the above treatment were not
statistically better than - Off-shoot T at 4 fb Off-shoot T 4 fb Butralin
1 - Off-shoot T at 4 fb Off-shoot T 4 Butralin 1
- Off-shoot T at 4 fb Flupro 1 fb Butralin 1
- Off-shoot T at 4 fb Butralin 1 fb Butralin 1
- A 3 concentration of Off-shoot T applied before
topping did not perform as well as a 4
concentration.
28MH-Free Nozzle Study - 2007
- Application technique changed a MH-Free sucker
control program from unsuccessful to successful.
Nozzle size was studied as part of the overall
application technique trial. While a rundown
method is known to work successfully, mechanical
application has proven difficult to achieve
acceptable results. All treatments were applied
with a CO2 backpack with an over-the shoulder
two row boom with a TG-(3-5-3) arrangement.
Plots were 40 ft by 2 rows (42 rows) in a
randomized complete block design with four
replications. - Treatments consisted of 4 Off-shoot T at
elongated bud followed by a combination of
Off-shoot T at 4 plus Butralin at 1 gal /a.
29MH-Free Nozzle Study Treatments
All treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack
with an over-the shoulder two row boom. Plots
were 40 ft by 2 rows (42 rows) in a randomized
complete block design with four replications.
Treatments consisted of 4 Off-shoot T at
elongated bud followed by a combination of
Off-shoot T at 4 plus Butralin at 1 gal /a.
30Effects of Nozzle Size on Sucker Control
All Nozzles were TG full cone nozzles
31Effects of Nozzle Size on Sucker per Plant
All Nozzles were TG full cone nozzles
32Summary
- Yields are not yet available
- Percent control and suckers per plant were not
significantly different
33Acknowledgement
- Financial Support
- Chemtura Corporation
- Establishment, Plot Maintenance, Data Collection
- Dr. Bob Pearce Edwin Ritchie
- Treatments
- Interns Austin Perkins Keith Johnson
- Equipment
- Dr. Kenny Seebold