Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:21:37.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Extension Perspective on Grower Confusion in Adjuvant Selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Richard K. Zollinger*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5051
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: rzolling@ndsuext.nodak.edu.

Abstract

Lack of consistent regulation and marketing of adjuvants and complexity of the interaction among plant, herbicide, environment, water quality, and adjuvant have caused general confusion in adjuvant selection among growers. Choosing the best adjuvant is difficult. Growers must chose from thousands of commercial products and are confused by product descriptions with unfamiliar ingredients and functions. Confusing recommendations, aggressive marketing, and lack of unbiased research and educational information make matters even worse. Manufacturer lists of approved adjuvant products, guidelines that set minimum requirements to qualify adjuvants for use with herbicides, and packaging effective adjuvants with herbicides either in the herbicide formulation or packaged in a different container help reduce grower confusion. University adjuvant research and education have aided grower knowledge and understanding of adjuvants by field testing adjuvants and have influenced herbicide label wording and recommendations.

Type
Symposium
Copyright
Copyright © 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

AgrEvo USA Company. 1998. Betamix, Betanex, and Progress Herbicide (Supplemental Labels). Wilmington, DE. 1 p.Google Scholar
AgrEvo USA Company. 1999. Betamix, Betanex, and Progress Herbicide (Supplemental Labels). Wilmington, DE. 1 p.Google Scholar
Cenex/Land O'Lakes Agronomy Company. 2000. 2000 Crop Protection Guide. St. Paul, MN. 193 p.Google Scholar
[CPR] Crop Protection Reference. 1999 Supplement. 1999 Adjuvant Reference. New York: C&P Press. 76 p.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1999. Survey of Weed Control and Production Practices on Sugarbeet in Eastern North Dakota and Minnesota—1999. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 30: 3969.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G. and Luecke, J. L. 1998. Special Survey on Micro-Rate. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 29: 6471.Google Scholar
Dexter, A. G., Luecke, J. L., and Bredehoeft, M. W. 1998. Postemergence Herbicides at the Micro-Rate and Normal Rates in 1998. Sugarbeet Res. and Ext. Rpt. 29: 7175.Google Scholar
Foy, C. L. and Takeno, T. 1992. Effect of polysorbate surfactants with various hydrophylic-lipophilic balance (HLB) values on leaf surface ultrastructure and mobility of methazole in plants and soil. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 169186.Google Scholar
Gaskin, R., ed. 1995. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotorua, New Zealand. FRI Bulletin No. 193. 464 p.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Green, J. H. 1993. Surfactant structure and concentration strongly affect rimsulfuron activity. Weed Technol. 7: 663–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapusta, G. 1992. Compendium of Herbicide Adjuvants, 1st Edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 66 p.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Czajka, M., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1995. Nonionic surfactant properties affect enhancement of herbicides. In Pesticide Formulations and Application Systems 14: 278287. ASTM. STP1234.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Nalewaja, J. D., and Szelezniak, E. F. 1989. Esterified seed oils with herbicides. In Chow, P. N., Grant, C. A., Hinshalwood, A. M., and Simundsson, E., eds. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals II. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 139148.Google Scholar
Manthey, F. A., Szelezniak, E. F., Anyszka, Z. M., and Nalewaja, J. D. 1992. Foliar absorption and phytotoxicity of quizalofop with lipid compounds. Weed Sci. 40: 558562.Google Scholar
McMullan, P., ed. 1998. Adjuvants for Agrochemicals Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, Volume I. Memphis, TN. 519 p.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J.D., Koziara, W., Matysiak, R., and Manthey, F. A. 1995. Relationship of surfactant HLB to glyphosate phytotoxicity. In Hall, F. R., Berger, P. D., and Collins, H. M., eds. Pesticide Formulation and Application Systems 14. Philadelphia: ASTM. pp. 269277.Google Scholar
NDSU Experiment Station. 1980-2000. North Dakota Weed Control Research, Fargo, ND. Department of Plant Sciences, NDSU.Google Scholar
Retzinger, J. E. and Mallory-Smith, C. 1997. Classification of herbicides by site of action for weed resistance management strategies. Weed Technol. 11: 384393.Google Scholar
Schönherr, J. and Bauer, H. 1992. Analysis of effects of surfactants on permeability of plant cuticles. In Adjuvants for Agrichemicals III. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 1735.Google Scholar
Terra Industries, Inc. 1999. Riverside Adjuvant Technical Handbook. Sioux City, IA. 140 p.Google Scholar
Underwood, A. K. 1992. Concerns within the pesticide industry relating to spray adjuvants. In Foy, C. L., ed. Adjuvants for Agrichemicals. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 489501.Google Scholar
Wilfarm, L.L.C. 1999. Adjuvant and Surfactant Technical Guide. Gladstone, MO. 140 p.Google Scholar
Young, B. 2000. Compendium of Herbicide Adjuvants, 5th Edition. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University. 66 p.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. 1994. 1994 North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND: NDSU Ext. Serv. Ext. Circ. W-253. 82 p.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. 2000. 2000 North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND: NDSU Ext. Serv. Ext. Circ. W-253. 139 p.Google Scholar