Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco

The effect of maleic hydrazide (MH) per se on bright tobacco was determined by comparing plants treated with MH to those without MH under conditions of good chemical sucker control. Sequential applications of each of five contact-type agents with MH one week later (Group I) were compared to dual app...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Seltmann Heinz
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sciendo 1980-07-01
Series:Beiträge zur Tabakforschung International
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2478/cttr-2013-0479
id doaj-21acf65296684c4395fceeb327ab1020
record_format Article
spelling doaj-21acf65296684c4395fceeb327ab10202021-09-06T19:22:12ZengSciendoBeiträge zur Tabakforschung International1612-92371980-07-0110212012610.2478/cttr-2013-0479Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright TobaccoSeltmann Heinz0United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.The effect of maleic hydrazide (MH) per se on bright tobacco was determined by comparing plants treated with MH to those without MH under conditions of good chemical sucker control. Sequential applications of each of five contact-type agents with MH one week later (Group I) were compared to dual applications of each of the same contact agents (Group II). In Group II suckers missed during applications were individually wetted to ensure excellent control. Sucker control was measured as 95 % for Group I and assumed to be 99 % for Group II. There were no agronomic differences between Groups I and II. In the visual warehouse appraisal, there was only a statistical difference for thin-bodied tobaccos between the two groups and a trend for slightly more heavy-bodied tobaccos in Group I. The chemical and physical analyses showed that filling value at 13 % moisture and equilibrium moisture content (EMC) measured at 60 % relative humidity were significantly lower in Group I than Group II. The result for EMC was questioned. Actual values for total alkaloids, total volatile bases minus nicotine, total ash, and alkalinity number of water-soluble ash were lower and reducing sugars were higher where MH was used. Except for EMC, the findings in this study reflected those established in studies where MH-treated and normally hand-suckered tobaccos were compared, but the differences here were generally not as great.https://doi.org/10.2478/cttr-2013-0479
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Seltmann Heinz
spellingShingle Seltmann Heinz
Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
Beiträge zur Tabakforschung International
author_facet Seltmann Heinz
author_sort Seltmann Heinz
title Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
title_short Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
title_full Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
title_fullStr Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
title_full_unstemmed Effects Attributed to Maleic Hydrazide when used for Chemical Sucker Control on Bright Tobacco
title_sort effects attributed to maleic hydrazide when used for chemical sucker control on bright tobacco
publisher Sciendo
series Beiträge zur Tabakforschung International
issn 1612-9237
publishDate 1980-07-01
description The effect of maleic hydrazide (MH) per se on bright tobacco was determined by comparing plants treated with MH to those without MH under conditions of good chemical sucker control. Sequential applications of each of five contact-type agents with MH one week later (Group I) were compared to dual applications of each of the same contact agents (Group II). In Group II suckers missed during applications were individually wetted to ensure excellent control. Sucker control was measured as 95 % for Group I and assumed to be 99 % for Group II. There were no agronomic differences between Groups I and II. In the visual warehouse appraisal, there was only a statistical difference for thin-bodied tobaccos between the two groups and a trend for slightly more heavy-bodied tobaccos in Group I. The chemical and physical analyses showed that filling value at 13 % moisture and equilibrium moisture content (EMC) measured at 60 % relative humidity were significantly lower in Group I than Group II. The result for EMC was questioned. Actual values for total alkaloids, total volatile bases minus nicotine, total ash, and alkalinity number of water-soluble ash were lower and reducing sugars were higher where MH was used. Except for EMC, the findings in this study reflected those established in studies where MH-treated and normally hand-suckered tobaccos were compared, but the differences here were generally not as great.
url https://doi.org/10.2478/cttr-2013-0479
work_keys_str_mv AT seltmannheinz effectsattributedtomaleichydrazidewhenusedforchemicalsuckercontrolonbrighttobacco
_version_ 1717772446728192000