Vol. 16—1962 - NorthEastern Weed Science Society

control. At the end of the third year we omitted tr.atment between the ralls
in one yard and regrowth becameve~y evident. wti thereby assume that Ithe
sterllent prOpertysbollld be continlied each year htorder to maintain cOdtrol
and, to date. we are following that practice. 1 do not want to imply that the
material that we use is the only o~ that will produ~ip ~~sults - 1 only report
what we have obtained.
'.'
'C:'>
..u
387
.' ,. ..' .;'., . ,,' c·' T
The'good ruultsthat we qbtained from use Of drY chemicals in yards
led to furth~'r.,a~Pt.te..atlotl.,s •... · We' d., ~s,~.i:.l.bute,thll, marte .•. :r.;".ia,~. around signals", ,,~o.ne
booths, relay-boxes a~d power ,wif~,~,macJ1ine •• b~ndlpgs. fuel tanks, ~~
beneathsor:ne bJi'idge structures.':!., also have distributed material ben8!~th,
pole lines that are not a~ceUlbfe,flom track. 111" tli\s ease a small handf~; of
material placed tna pn~at the 'ba•• of larger gro~~ will shortly remov,\tl\at
problem; You are aware that sol1..,.terilent type n\&~er,ials are rather ~on~
selective and that' care ~ust be:exe~cised in their,~:~~o as not, to dama~:
growth adjoining your properties,., However. we hare l.iand applled matel1ials
without harming apple and peacli'trees that were leeil than fifty feet away. We
have shared in:payi,~ claims af,ter~sing liquid ~.r~~h k~llers. but we l1ave had
no claims resulting'tre>m dry chemicals. 1 mlghq~ention one intere!lt~.complaint
that has resulted from our us.e; of dry chemic"ls and this was in the
vicinity of our grl..in elevator in~~lt.tmore. Weed growth was rather lux\l:­
riant in thi* area and ra~sfoUl1,dBo~dharbor. The~o,wth was ellminateji.
the rat population substantlally:?{creaeed, and thF,lI'mQVed further away for
harbor, many of them off our property. I'
. 1 have diverted from my,t'i.rfJ menUonof we:fld and grass control within
thebeI'm s.ctlonalol1,g our lineol r;oad. Our initifJrm.thod of control w~s
repeated the secondyea~ and ouroyerall results ~e still spotty, generia~ly
good, 'but with discouraging effect lolponseveral a~~s. The following ye~r we
added a thir~ cheJPic::al to our prev:iplol8 mix, namely,. Baron. 1 wanted to avoid
use of any trade names, butthech.mical terms loriAis product are too "pauch.
This was adde,1i at the rate of fOl.lf po,unds acid equly~1ent per gallon of concel1,­
trate and diluted at the rate of? 5,.,.,1l0ns of water~f This total combinatiqn
produced milch be~ter results b4!t ~ appropriatiol1,~,..a. not sufficient to,4over
the entire railr,oad a1)d we lost,onse. of 01&1' previo~ cQlltrol in these un~~.ated
locations. ,The following year 1lVeJ;'~verted to our i,l:tial program but 1&8814 an
aromatic 0\1 in ,s,o,me of pur le~JII. b;'o\lblesome are~,,, This oll was fortif~p
with rather small quantities of pe~chorophenola1l4 of Z,4-D. We were able
to hold the degree of control that we had developed but there was real room
.for improvement .• ,Early in thi'p'~r we had an in~fl ..ting e~perience.
I' .,., . ,,', " "j, ,'l ,- ,
One, of, the ~anufacturer. ,o!l;Iasic IlhemicaJ.f.;koew of our attempt~o
maintain a planned contr,ol program." We were askefl.to set aside 80me ail'"a.
of our most severe problems an,djc'ooperate with~~r research depart~nt in
test appl~atioDofvarious produ