2002 Tom Green County Cotton Harvest Aid Demonstration
Result Demonstration/Applied Research Report
2002 Tom Green County
Cotton Harvest Aid Demonstration
Cooperator: Chris Bubenik
Rick Minzenmayer, Extension Agent – IPM; Marvin Ensor, Tom Green County Extension Agent;
and Dr. Billy Warrick, Extension Agronomist (San Angelo, Texas)
Summary
Fifteen treatments were applied over the top cotton on September 13 to prepare cotton for harvest. The plot was established on Chris Bubenik’s Farm located across the street from the Wall Fire Station. The chemicals were applied to cotton that had 70 percent of its bolls open. Leaf shed was less than ten percent. When these plots were evaluated on September 25, 2002 (12 days after the treatments were applied) most of the treatments resulted in a significant increase in leaf defoliation and leaf desiccation of the cotton plants.
Objective
In the Concho Valley Area of Texas, cotton is usually planted starting in mid-May. Because of this planting date, many producers do not use harvest aids to terminate the cotton. When growing conditions are favorable, most of the cotton in this area is ready for harvest thirty days before the first killing freeze. The delay in harvest reduces the income of farmers due to the loss of lint yield and fiber quality. Even though the cost of several of the harvest aid treatments are expensive, there is usually a product that is economically justified that can be used effectively for crop termination. The intent of this field test is to: 1) determine the effectiveness of harvest aids at defoliating, desiccating, and opening bolls on cotton 2) provide producers the opportunity of observing how effectively the harvest aid materials work, and 3) determine the economic feasibility of using the harvest aid material.
Materials and Methods
Cooperating County Producer: Chris Bubenik
Location: Across the street from Wall Fire Station
Crop Production Information:
Variety Planted: Deltapine 458 B/RR
Planting Pattern: Two-in-1-out on 40 inch rows
Irrigation: Furrow
Number of Irrigations: Pre-water plus 1
Harvest Aid Application Information:
Date Applied: September 13, 2002
Wind Speed: 2.0 to 9.0 miles per hour
Wind Direction: South by Southwest
Air Temperature: 68 to 840 Fahrenheit
Relative Humidity: 56 to 72%
Carrier: 11.0 gallons of water per acre
Pressure: 32 pounds per square inch
Nozzle Size: 11002 extended range flat fan over the top; 20 inch centers
Boom Height: 40 inches
Cotton Height: 28 to 32 inches
Ground Speed: 4.0 miles per hour
Application Device: Self propelled rig with 13.33 foot boom
Plot Size: 13.33 feet X 200 feet
Test Design: randomized strip design
Plant Information
At the time of application, the upper most cotton bolls were cross-sectioned and the seed coats were dark and the cotyledons well developed. Cotton height ranged from 28 to 32 inches. Plants showed slight moisture stress and leaf defoliation was less than ten percent.
Results and Discussion
There was no significant difference in the percent of open bolls in this test. That is primarily due to the cotton already being 70 percent open at the times the harvest aids were applied and most of the bolls being mature. Leaf defoliation was higher than the check in all treatments and the increase ranged from 30 to 75 percent by the time of the evaluation conducted on September 25, 2002 (12 days after the treatments were applied). Leaf desiccation was high in most of the plots where Cyclone Max and a surfactant was applied. The information collected on September 25th is reported in Table 1. Table 1. Tom Green County Cotton Harvest Aid Test, 2002
(Note: By clicking on the underlined treatment names you can see the plot being rated.
The picture is taken in the center of two rows of that particular treatment.)
| Harvest Aid Chemicals Applied (4 rows of each) |
Rate Applied Per Acre |
Cost of Harvest Aid Per Acre |
% Open Bolls |
% Defoliation |
% Desiccation |
Regrowth Rating Top, Bottom |
| Prep + Def/Folex |
16 oz. + 16 oz. |
$6.66 + 5.88 |
98 | 50 | 0 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Cyclone Max + Induce |
5 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$1.48 + $0.51 |
95 | 80 | 3 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Cyclone Max + Induce |
10 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$2.96 + $0.51 |
95 | 85 | 5 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Cyclone Max + Induce |
15 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$4.44 + $0.51 |
95 | 68 | 30 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Aim + Cyclone Max + Induce |
0.5 oz. + 6 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$2.81 + $1.78 + $0.51 |
95 | 85 | 1 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Aim + Cyclone Max + Induce |
0.5 oz. + 10 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$2.81+ $2.96 + $0.51 |
95 | 85 | 5 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Check | — | $0.00 | 95 | 10 | 0 | Top= 0 Bottom=0 |
| Aim + Finish + C.O.C. |
0.5 oz. + 8 oz. + 16 oz. |
$2.81+ $5.36 + $1.16 |
95 | 65 | 0 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Ginstar | 8 oz. | $11.75 | 95 | 85 | 0 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Ginstar + Cyclone Max + Induce |
4 oz. + 4 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$5.88 + $1.18 + $0.51 |
95 | 75 | 4 | Top= 1 Bottom= 0 |
| Ginstar | 4.0 oz. | $5.88 | 95 | 60 | 0 | Top= 0 Bottom= 0 |
| Cyclone Max + LI-700 |
16 oz. + 6.4 oz. |
$4.69 + $1.28 |
98 | 50 | 49 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Cyclone Max + Induce |
16 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$4.69 + $0.51 |
95 | 50 | 47 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Cyclone Max + TakeUp |
16 oz. + 24 oz. |
$4.69 + $$?.?? |
95 | 50 | 47 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Cyclone Max + Slingshot |
16 oz. + 16 oz. |
$4.69 + $2.00 |
95 | 40 | 59 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
| Aim + Cyclone Max + Induce |
1.0 oz. + 10 oz. + 3.52 oz. |
$5.63 + $2.96 + $0.51 |
95 | 85 | 5 | Top= 1 Bottom= 1 |
Results and Discussion (continued)
When these plots were evaluated on September 25, 2002 (12 days after the treatments were applied) most of the treatments applied had a significant difference in leaf defoliation and leaf desiccation. The amount of regrowth in the top and bottom portion of the plants varied between treatments, however, no regrowth was high enough to impact harvesting or ginning. Several discussion items are seen in this plot. In the treatment of Aim at 0.5 ounce plus Finish at 8 ounces plus a Crop Oil Concentrate increased leaf defoliation 55 percent over the check plot. That isn’t the highest in the test but it was impressively higher than when the Crop Oil Concentrate is left out of the mix. In plots established in Reagan and Runnels County earlier this season the level of leaf defoliation and desiccation was low. Just emphasizes the importance of adding a Crop Oil Concentrate when using Aim. Aim did not impact juvenile growth until a rate of 1 ounce or more was applied. Plots receiving Ginstar at 4 ounces alone or combined with Cyclone Max at 4 ounces had 50 to 65 percent more leaf defoliation than the check. The Ginstar rate of 4 ounces was not high enough to cause juvenile growth to abscise or desiccate. When the rate of Ginstar was increased to 8 ounces the juvenile growth was aborted or desiccated. Prep at 16 ounces plus Def at 16 ounces did not perform as well as expected. When compared to the check it was significantly better in leaf defoliation. However, it performance was only considered fair when compared to the best treatments in this test. Cyclone Max performed as expected. The day the treatments were applied was sunny and the 5 ounce treatment defoliated and opened bolls as well as any treatment in the test. The 10 and 15 ounce Cyclone Max treatments had levels of desiccation up to 30 percent.
Economic Analysis
This test can be used to document the results obtained from the use of harvest aids. If the same treatments are consistently at the top of the list for several years, then producers may want to incorporate those treatments into their cotton production program. Most of the treatments were in the 6 to 8 dollar range per acre and the use of several of these treatments should result in increased profits for producers. It is important to remember that a higher lint yield is not the only way of increasing profit from the use of a harvest aid. Other factors include: timely harvest, improved fiber quality, improved harvesting efficiency, and higher percent lint turnout at the gin.
Acknowledgments
I want to take this opportunity to thank Chris Bubenik for his help in plot establishment and management. I would also like to thank the companies that provided the chemicals for this harvest aid test, these included:
- Bayer Corporation provided the Def, Finish, Ginstar, and Prep
- FMC Corporation who provided the Aim
- Helena Chemical Company who provided the Induce
- Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. who provided the Cyclone Max
- Tri-State Chemical DBA United Agra Products (UAP) who provided the LI700 and Slingshot
Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only for better understanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or trade names is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and no endorsement by the Texas A&M University System is implied. Readers should realize that results from one experiment do not represent conclusive evidence that the same response would occur where conditions vary.