Result Demonstration/Applied Research Report
2004 Runnels County
Cotton Harvest Aid Demonstration
Cooperator: Mark Jacob
Summary Twelve treatments were applied over the top of cotton on September 14 to prepare for
harvest. The plot was established on Mark Jacob’s Farm located 5 mile south of Winters, Texas. The
chemicals were applied to Associated Farmers Delinting AFD3511 cotton that had 50 to 60 percent of its bolls open. Leaf shed
was less than one percent when the plot was established. When these plots were evaluated on
September 23, 2004 (9 days after the treatments were applied), most of the treatments resulted in
an increase in leaf defoliation and leaf desiccation. 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: Mark Jacob Location: 5 miles south of Winters, Texas Crop Production Information: Variety Planted: Associated Farmers Delinting AFD 3511 Planting Pattern: 2-in-1-out on 40 inch rows Irrigation: Dryland Production Number of Irrigations: None Harvest Aid Application Information: Date Applied: September 14, 2004 Wind Speed: 5.0 to 7.0 miles per hour Wind Direction: South Air Temperature: 80 to 860 Fahrenheit Relative Humidity: 50 to 65% Carrier: 16.5 gallons of water per acre Pressure: 32 pounds per square inch Nozzle Size: 11002 extended range flat fan over the top of each row and
one 8002 Extended Range nozzle on each side of the row. Boom Height: 40 inches Cotton Height: 26 to 34 inches Ground Speed: 4.0 miles per hour Application Device: Self propelled rig with 13.33 foot boom Plot Size: 6.67 feet X 60 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 26 to 34 inches. Plants
showed no sign of stress and leaf defoliation was less than one percent. Results and Discussion The cotton at the time of application was 50 to 60 percent open with most of the remaining bolls
being mature. The application of the harvest aids did impact percent defoliation and
percent desiccation. Factors that contributed to the success of the harvest aids applied were: 1) Chemical coverage was excellent due to gallonage, pressure used, and wind; 2) Air temperatures for the 10 days after application were warm enough to allow
for good cotton plant response. Leaf defoliation was higher than the check in all treatments and the
increase ranged from 11 to 81 percent on September 23, 2004 (9 days after the treatments were
applied). Leaf desiccation was high in several plots where the Gramoxone Max rates were above 10
ounces. However, none of the desiccation was high enough to be a concern. The data collected on
September 23 is reported in Table 1. Prior to making any application, the cotton plant was examined closely to determine if regrowth
was occurring. Since most harvest aids are contact materials, nozzle type, nozzle configuration, volume
of water applied and pressure are important considerations. One of the better nozzle arrangements
was used in this plot. It consisted of one nozzle over the top of the row and drops in the furrows with
one nozzle spraying each side of the plant. The volume of water and application pressure should be
high enough to get good coverage on the top and bottom portion of the leaf and penetrate the canopy
enough to properly cover the axilary and terminal buds, as well as the bolls. No regrowth was noted in the plot. However, some of the materials applied are known to be
better at desiccating or removing juvenile growth. These include Ginstar, ET and Aim. Gramoxone Max is a harvest aid used by most dryland producers to terminate their crop. The
effect of rate and type of tank additive were the focus of most of the treatments in the test. How
these combinations compared to other harvest aids were also studied in this test. To get a moderate
level of leaf defoliation, a minimum of eight ounces of material had to be applied. The 16 ounce rate
of Gramoxone Max preformed well, whether it was combined with a surfactant (Activator 90) or the crop oil concentrate (Herbimax). Increased boll opening was noted in the plots where ethephon and Gramoxone Max were applied. Please note that a crop oil concentrate was used in tank mixes that contained ET or Aim. For
maximum performance with these products that is an important part of the tank mix. 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 10 dollar per acre range 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.
Rick Minzenmayer, Extension Agent - IPM; and
Marty Gibbs, Runnels County Extension Agent
Dr. Billy Warrick, Extension Agronomist (San Angelo, Texas).
September 23, 2004 (9 days after treatments were applied)
Note: Treatment names that are underlined in the table below are linked to a picture of that treatment.
Harvest Aid Chemicals Applied |
Per Acre |
Cost of Harvest Aid Per Acre |
% Open Bolls |
% Defoliation |
% Desiccation |
6 oz. |
$8.88 |
70 |
85 |
0 |
|
4 oz. |
$5.92 |
70 |
75 |
0 |
|
1 oz. + 16 oz. + 32 oz. |
$2.50 + $4.32 + $2.31 |
80 |
40 |
30 |
|
16 oz. + 16 oz. + 32 oz. |
$6.00 + $5.00 + $2.31 |
75 |
65 |
1 |
|
16 oz. + 5.2 oz. |
$4.32 + $0.90 |
80 |
35 |
25 |
|
8 oz. + 5.2 oz. |
$2.16 + $0.90 |
75 |
50 |
10 |
|
1 oz. + 4 oz. + 32 oz. |
$2.50 + $1.08 + $2.31 |
70 |
50 |
4 |
|
1 oz. + 16 oz. + 32 oz. |
$5.62 + $5.00 + $2.31 |
75 |
50 |
3 |
|
1 oz. + 8 oz. + 32 oz. |
$2.50 + $2.16 + $2.31 |
75 |
45 |
5 |
|
1.5 oz. + 16 oz. + 32 oz. |
$3.75 + $5.00 + $2.31 |
80 |
40 |
3 |
|
6 oz. + 5.2 oz. |
$1.62 + $0.90 |
75 |
20 |
3 |
|
4 oz. + 5.2 oz. |
$1.08 + $0.90 |
80 |
15 |
0 |
|
-- |
$0.00 |
70 |
4 |
0 |
Acknowledgments
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.