More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 3. Continued. 1998 - 2009 Verification Summary Verification Totals Verification Parish Totals Year Acres Pounds/A Acres Pounds/A Verification - Parish 1998 427.6 6018 475,103 5052 966 1999 320.3 6273 444,015 5502 771 2000 393.8 5780 385,824 5620 160 2001 489.1 7438 412,286 5794 1644 2002 433.6 7551 412,630 5764 1787 2003 462.7 7404 327,843 5843 1561 2004 455.7 6848 311,606 5582 1266 2005 538.7 6670 402,759 6165 505 2006 328.4 7040 185,249 5644 1396 2007 267.3 8293 183,357 6501 1792 2008 387.6 8228 258,845 6047 2181 2009 359.9 9078 246,793 6715 2363 Totals 4864.7 4,046,310 291
RICE WEED CONTROL WEED MANAGEMENT IN HERBICIDE-RESISTANT/TOLERANT AND CONVENTIONAL RICE Eric P. Webster, Sunny L. Bottoms, Justin B. Hensley, Tyler P. Carlson, and J. Caleb Fish Introduction and Justification Weed control studies were conducted at the Rice Research Station and producer fields in south Louisiana in 2009. A total of 53 studies were established with a total of 2,756 research plots. These studies indicate that weed control in rice will continue to be more effective as the new technologies and new herbicides become available to the producers. Many of these studies have been conducted over two to three years. However, several of these studies have one year of data and need to be repeated in order to verify the results over time. This project continues to work on different application methods for products in drill- and water-seeded rice, and it continues to supply data for herbicide development and aid in the expansion of current herbicide labels. Ammonium Sulfate Formulations Several studies were established in 2009 to evaluate different ammonium sulfate formulations. Ammonium sulfate has been used in spray solutions to buffer the water used as a carrier with high pH vales to lower pH values. Water with low pH values is important when applying Roundup and several other herbicides. The four formulations evaluated were the dry sprayable ammonium sulfate (AMS), Alliance, Quest, and Choice. Preliminary lab studies were established to determine the amount of pH adjustment of each formulation. Dry sprayable AMS and Alliance adjusted Rice Research Station tap water from 8.3 to 7.0 and 7.1, respectively. Choice adjusted the pH to 5.5 and Quest to 3.5. Data indicates all of the formulations are similar from a weed control standpoint. Dry AMS and Alliance appear to be the most consistent followed by Choice and then Quest. Quest may adjust the pH too low which may cause unforeseen problems. A pH of 3.5 can cause many things to occur in a spray mixture. If one chooses to use an AMS or AMS substitute to add to a spray mixture the use of dry AMS or the liquid formulation Alliance would be the most beneficial. Data indicate that Choice may be beneficial to a Clincher application. Ducksalad Control in a Rice Production System A study was established to evaluate several broadleaf herbicides for control of ducksalad. The area was conventionally tilled and a seeding flood was established in order to simulate a water-seeded system. Rice was not seeded in order to eliminate any competition from rice. The initial flood was removed 48 hours after flooding and herbicides with residual activity were applied 24 hours later as a preemergence/delayed preemergence application prior to ducksalad emergence. One postemergence timing was evaluated. The postemergence timing was applied to ducksalad in the cotyledon to first spoon leaf. The flood was removed for postemergence application to guarantee herbicide coverage. Permit and Grasp were evaluated along with three experimental herbicides. V-10142 applied preemergence did not control ducksalad at the level observed in 2007; however, a delayed preemergence treatment followed by a postemergence application provided suppression. The best ducksalad herbicide available is Grasp. Ducksalad control was 85% at 28 DAT for a delayed preemergence Grasp application to 96% with two applications of 2 oz/A. Permit Versus Halomax Several trials were established in 2009 to evaluate the activity of these two products with the same active ingredient. Data indicate the two products are similar in activity on sedges and broadleaf weeds. In 2008, a problem was observed with the activity of Halomax on hemp sesbania; however, this reduction in control was not observed in 2009. Newpath and Propanil Formulations and Application Timings A study was established in 2008 and 2009 to evaluate the addition of propanil to Newpath in a Clearfield rice production system. The standard program of two applications of Newpath applied at 4 oz/A was used. The first application was applied early postemergence (EPOST) and the second application was applied late POST (LPOST). The various propanil formulations were mixed with either the EPOST or LPOST applications of Newpath. The propanil formulations evaluated were Stam M4, Stam SC, Riceshot, Superwham, and Stam EDF. Weed control was similar for all combinations and application timings; however, yield was generally higher with all Newpath plus propanil applied at the EPOST timing. An economic analysis will be conducted for all treatments to determine the best propanil formulation to be used with Newpath based on economic returns. 292
Page 2 and 3:
101 st Annual Research Report RICE
Page 4 and 5:
Page RICE AGRONOMY (Continued) ....
Page 6 and 7:
INTRODUCTION Research at the Rice R
Page 8 and 9:
RICE BREEDING GENETIC IMPROVEMENT O
Page 10 and 11:
Table 1. Grain and milling yields a
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
COMMERCIAL-ADVANCED YIELD TRIALS Th
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Table 3. Grain and milling yields,
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
PRELIMINARY YIELD TRIALS The prelim
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Table 5. Continued. ENT PEDIGREE VI
Page 38 and 39:
Table 5. Continued. ENT PEDIGREE VI
Page 40 and 41:
CLEARFIELD EXPERIMENTAL LINES S.D.
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Table 10. Grain and milling yields
Page 52 and 53:
Table 12. Grain and milling yields
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
DEVELOPMENT OF IMPROVED LONG-GRAIN
Page 60 and 61:
Table 2. Agronomic and milling perf
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Table 6. Continued. 61 Entry Pedigr
Page 68 and 69:
Table 6. Continued. 63 Entry Pedigr
Page 70 and 71:
Table 8. Yield, milling, and agrono
Page 72 and 73:
Table 9. Yield, milling, and agrono
Page 74 and 75:
DEVELOPMENT OF HYBRID RICE FOR LOUI
Page 76 and 77:
RICE GENETICS AND GERMPLASM DEVELOP
Page 78 and 79:
MARKER-ASSISTED BREEDING AND GENETI
Page 80 and 81:
Table 2. 2009 Field performance of
Page 82 and 83:
Table 5. Mini-core rice accessions
Page 84 and 85:
RICE NUTRITION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT:
Page 86 and 87:
Table 1. Continued. ENTRY COCODRIE-
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Table 2. Continued. ENTRY CYPRESS-D
Page 94 and 95:
Table 2. Continued. ENTRY CYPRESS-D
Page 96 and 97:
Table 5. Improvement in essential a
Page 98 and 99:
Table 1. Common abbreviations used
Page 100 and 101:
RICE NUTRITION RESEARCH D.L. Harrel
Page 102 and 103:
Rice Variety by Nitrogen Experiment
Page 104 and 105:
Table 2. Determine the agronomic re
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Table 11. Determine the agronomic r
Page 116 and 117:
111 Table 13. Determine the agronom
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Table 27. Evaluation the response o
Page 134 and 135:
Evaluation of Biagro Products Nutri
Page 136 and 137:
Determine the Effect of N Source, R
Page 138 and 139:
Ratoon Response of Rice Varieties t
Page 140 and 141:
Evaluation and Comparison of the Ag
Page 142 and 143:
Evaluation of Nondestructive Measur
Page 144 and 145:
139 Table 34. Evaluation of nondest
Page 146 and 147:
141 Table 35. Evaluation of nondest
Page 148 and 149:
143 Table 36. Nitrogen uptake model
Page 150 and 151:
Evaluation of Zinc Fertilization an
Page 152 and 153:
Table 37. Continued Crop Name Rice
Page 154 and 155:
Table 37. Continued. Crop Name Rice
Page 156 and 157:
Determine the Influence of Zinc Fer
Page 158 and 159:
Table 38. Continued. Crop Name Rice
Page 160 and 161:
CULTURAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH D.L. H
Page 162 and 163:
157 Table 1. Evaluation of the opti
Page 164 and 165:
Table 2. Evaluation of the optimum
Page 166 and 167:
Evaluation of the Interaction of Se
Page 168 and 169:
Table 4. Evaluation of the interact
Page 170 and 171:
165 Table 5. Evaluation of DERMACOR
Page 172 and 173:
Evaluation of Nutrient Losses from
Page 174 and 175:
Table 6. Evaluation of nutrient los
Page 176 and 177:
Table 6. Continued. Description Flu
Page 178 and 179:
Table 6. Continued. Description BOD
Page 180 and 181:
Agronomic Results for the Main Effe
Page 182 and 183:
Table 9. Selected physical and chem
Page 184 and 185:
Table 11. Main effect results for M
Page 186 and 187:
Evaluation of Multiple Fungicides o
Page 188 and 189:
Evaluation of Two Sweet Sorghum Var
Page 190 and 191:
185 Table 2. Continued. Description
Page 192 and 193:
Table 3. Multi-state, multi-locatio
Page 194 and 195:
Seedbed preparation of foundation f
Page 196 and 197:
191 Table 1. Annual environmental c
Page 198 and 199:
EFFECT OF SUPPLEMENTAL STOCKING OF
Page 200 and 201:
Parameters: Crawfish (and aquatic p
Page 202 and 203:
Table 5. Average number of crawfish
Page 204 and 205:
Feed: Objective A: A commercial sin
Page 206 and 207:
Table 1. Mean results for several o
Page 208 and 209:
Burrows Flagged: June 16 to July 13
Page 210 and 211:
EVALUATION OF A NEW MARKING TECHNIQ
Page 212 and 213:
While the cause for the missing cra
Page 214 and 215:
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS OF CAPTURE
Page 216 and 217:
Figure 1. Representation of the sha
Page 218 and 219:
Y=129.67 * Ln (X) + 26.50 R 2 =0.28
Page 220 and 221:
Release Events: Releases occurred i
Page 222 and 223:
A-1 B-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 L a t e r a
Page 224 and 225:
Table 3. Recapture rates of marked
Page 226 and 227:
are analyzed and used by rice breed
Page 228 and 229:
Table 2. Disease reaction of variou
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
2009 Sheath Blight Fungicide Trial
Page 238 and 239:
2009 Sheath Blight Fungicide Trial
Page 240 and 241:
Table 11. Effect of various fungici
Page 242 and 243:
Table12. Effect of varietal resista
Page 244 and 245:
Table 13. Effect of varietal resist
Page 246 and 247: Table 14. Effect of varietal resist
Page 248 and 249: Table 15. Effect of fungicide appli
Page 250 and 251: Table 16. Effect of various fungici
Page 252 and 253: Table 1. Estimated Rice Breakeven P
Page 254 and 255: RICE INSECTS RESEARCH RICE INSECT C
Page 256 and 257: Results: Results of a small-plot ev
Page 258 and 259: Sampling Dates: July 15 (22 dpf), J
Page 260 and 261: Treatments: 1) Untreated check 2) K
Page 262 and 263: Results: There was an average of 11
Page 264 and 265: Figure 1: A) Seed production plots
Page 266 and 267: Table 1. Average yield and number o
Page 268 and 269: Table 4. 1000-seed weight of PolyC1
Page 270 and 271: LOUISIANA RICE RESEARCH VERIFICATIO
Page 272 and 273: Table 1. 2009 Louisiana Rice Resear
Page 274 and 275: ACADIA PARISH The field in Acadia P
Page 276 and 277: AVOYELLES PARISH The field in Avoye
Page 278 and 279: CALCASIEU PARISH Because the field
Page 280 and 281: CONCORDIA PARISH The field in Conco
Page 282 and 283: EAST CARROLL PARISH This field prov
Page 284 and 285: EVANGELINE PARISH The field in Evan
Page 286 and 287: MADISON PARISH If we had imposed th
Page 288 and 289: ST. LANDRY PARISH CL161 was drilled
Page 290 and 291: VERMILION PARISH Because the grower
Page 292 and 293: Table 3. Twelve-Year Louisiana Rice
Page 294 and 295: Table 3. Continued. 2004 Verificati
Page 298 and 299: SafeGuard: A Safener for Pendimetha
Page 300 and 301: S T A T I O N P E R S O N N E L (Co
Page 302: COOPERATING PERSONNEL (Continued) C
show all

CONTENTS

Create successful ePaper yourself

CONTENTS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?