Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T01:36:20.082Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-Harvest Desiccation of Sugar Cane With Paraquat in Queensland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. C. Arvier
A. C. Arvier
Affiliation:
ICIANZ Ltd., Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In Queensland it is standard practice to burn sugar cane before harvest, but incomplete burns are common, due to the lush condition of the crop and the occurrence of weeds. Experiments conducted over seven seasons to dry out foliage of both weeds and cane, using bipyridylium desiccants, showed that paraquat was consistently more effective than diquat. After treatment of cane foliage, several days were necessary for fully effective desiccation, during which time a slight drop in sugar content could usually be detected. It is practical to spray cane leaves in the outside rows, adjacent to headlands (where weeds normally thrive). Treatment of this peripheral zone could affect no more than 10 per cent of a cane stand, and any loss of sugar would usually be more than offset by the benefits of desiccation, viz: a cleaner burn, quicker cutting, less trash, and fewer penalties.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 1970 , pp. 309 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

REFERENCES

Anon. (1955). Rep. Hawaiian Sug. Exp. Sta. 13.Google Scholar
Arvier, A. C. (1962). Proc. Qd. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech. 63.Google Scholar
Arvier, A. C. (1965). Proc. Qd. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech. 123.Google Scholar
Bates, J. F. (1960). Proc. Brit. W. Ind. Sug. Tech. 4.Google Scholar
Chen, J. C. P. & Liu, P. P. D. (1965). The Sugar Journal 22.Google Scholar
Cilento, R. W. (1936). App. to Ann. Rep. Health Med. Serv. Qd. 56.Google Scholar
Cotter, T. J. & Sawers, W. C. (1934). Med. J. Aust. 297.Google Scholar
Davidson, L. G. (1962). Proc. Int. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech. 319.Google Scholar
Evans, H. & Bates, J. F. (1962). Proc. Int. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech. 298.Google Scholar
Gosnell, J. M. & Thompson, G. D. (1965). Proc. Int. Soc. Sug. Cane Tech. 493.Google Scholar
King, N. J. (1960). Producers Review, April, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, W. A. (1944). Qd. J. Agr. Sci. 1, 1.Google Scholar
Myatt, O. W. D. (1967). Cane Gr. Quart. Bull. 30, 114.Google Scholar
Robson, J. W. & Proctor, G. C. (1963). World Crops 15, 264.Google Scholar
Tilley, L. G. W. (1968). Cane Gr. Quart. Bull. 31, 103.Google Scholar
Vallance, L. G. (1960). Ann. Rep. Bur. Sug. Exp. Stas. Qd. 60, 25.Google Scholar