Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:35:38.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evolution of Herbicide Programs in Sugarbeet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Windsor Griffiths*
Affiliation:
Market Development, NOR-AM Chemical Co., Wilmington, DE 19803

Abstract

During the early years of herbicide use, the total amount of ai applied per ha increased in attempts to obtain season-long weed control, peaking in the decade of the mid-1970's to mid-1980's. Since then, the chemical load applied for broadleaf weed control has shown a consistent, if not dramatic, decline. A much more significant reduction has occurred in grass weed control. Main reasons for the reduction are a move from PPI and PRE treatments to POST, the development of repeat low-dose herbicide techniques, and the introduction of more active postemergence grass herbicides. In general, this change has been achieved with a concomitant improvement in crop safety. These developments occurred as a coincident benefit in pursuing the target objective of giving growers more convenient and flexible weed control and not as a specific attempt to reduce chemical use. This paper discusses the evolution of weed control programs in the U.K., France, Germany, and the U.S.A. All show a similar trend, though the pace of change has been slower in the U.S.A.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Durgeat, L. A. 1982. Weed control. P. 5767 in 50 Years of Sugar Beet Research. International Institute for Sugarbeet Research.Google Scholar
2. Griffiths, W. and Swalwell, J. G. 1970. A programme for the control of annual broad-leaved weeds in sugar beet. P. 571577 in Proc. 10th Br. Weed Control Conf. Google Scholar
3. Mitchell, B. J. 1992. Combinations of low concentrations of fluazifop-P-butyl and adjuvants for short term suppression of Elymus repens in sugar beet. Aspects Appl. Biol. 32:5157.Google Scholar
4. Bellinder, R. R., Gummesson, G., and Karlsson, C. 1994. Percentage-driven government mandates for pesticide reduction: The Swedish model. Weed Technol. 8:350359.Google Scholar