Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T15:17:59.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed Control Practices, Labor Requirements and Costs in Cotton Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

J. T. Holstun Jr.,
O. B. Wooten Jr.,
C. G. McWhorter and
G. B. Crowe
J. T. Holstun Jr.
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., in cooperation with the Delta Branch of the Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta., Stoneville
O. B. Wooten Jr.
Affiliation:
Agricultural Engineering Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., in cooperation with the Delta Branch of the Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta., Stoneville
C. G. McWhorter
Affiliation:
Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., in cooperation with the Delta Branch of the Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta., Stoneville
G. B. Crowe
Affiliation:
Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S.D.A., in cooperation with the Delta Branch of the Mississippi Agr. Exp. Sta., Stoneville
Get access

Extract

The cotton-producing industry today faces a real challenge in its attempt to control weeds in cotton. It is a problem with many facets. Differences in weed species, topography, soil type, scale of operation, rainfall, and many other factors make it difficult to develop single practices that work satisfactorily across large areas of the Cotton Belt.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weeds , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1960, pp. 232 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © 1960 Weed Science Society of America 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Arle, H. F., and Everson, E. H. The control of annual morning glory and summer grasses in cotton with CMU. Proc. SWC 7:101–104. 1954.Google Scholar
2. Arle, H. F., and Hamilton, K. C. Chemical control of weeds in cotton. Arizona Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 283. 1957.Google Scholar
3. Bingham, S. W., Easley, Tildon, Edwards, F. E., Harris, V. C., Holstun, J. T. Jr., Normand, W. C., and Wooten, O. B. Jr. Weed control recommendations. Mississippi Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 556. 1958.Google Scholar
4. Crowe, G. B., and Holstun, J. T. Jr. The economics of weed control in cotton. Mississippi Agr. Expt. Sta. Circular 179. 1953.Google Scholar
5. Foy, C. L., Hoyt, J., and Leonard, O. A. Comparative efficiency of CMU and other residual type herbicides applied at lay-by for late season weed control in irrigated cotton. Proc. SWC 7:93–96. 1954.Google Scholar
6. McWhorter, C. G., Wooten, O. B. Jr., and Crowe, G. B. An economic evaluation of weed control practices in the Delta. Mississippi Agr. Expt. Sta. Circular 203. 1956.Google Scholar
7. Porter, W. K. Jr., Holstun, J. T. Jr., Wooten, O. B. Jr., and Jones, J. K. The comparison and evaluation of chemical and mechanical methods of weed control in cotton. Proc. SWC 4:64–69. 1951.Google Scholar
8. Porter, W. K. Jr., Thomas, C. H., Curtis, L. F., and Melville, D. R. A critical evaluation of the use of pre-emergence herbicides for weed control in cotton. Weeds 5:237–242. 1957.Google Scholar