Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T00:41:14.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The fungicidal properties of certain spray-fluids, VI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. Goodwin ,
H. Martin  and
E. S. Salmon
W. Goodwin
Affiliation:
(Research Department, S.E. Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
H. Martin
Affiliation:
(Research Department, S.E. Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
E. S. Salmon
Affiliation:
(Research Department, S.E. Agricultural College, Wye, Kent.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The action of various forms of sulphur—ground sulphur, flowers of sulphur and colloidal sulphur—as fungicides against the hop powdery mildew (Sphaerotheca Humuli) was tested in a number of experiments.

When ground sulphur or flowers of sulphur was wetted by a soft soap solution and applied to the mildew patches in the form of a spray, the fungicidal action was always very marked and, under the conditions of the experiments, became complete with suspensions containing 5 gm. sulphur per 100 c.c. of 0·5 per cent, soft soap solution. Owing, however, to the settling of the sulphur particles during the process of spraying, the amount of sulphur actually applied to the fungus was not strictly in accordance with the strength of the suspension.

2. Striking differences in fungicidal action were obtained when gelatine or saponin were used in place of soft soap as a spreader. Spreaders of an acid nature, viz. gelatine and saponin, inhibited the fungicidal action. With alkaline spreaders other than soft soap, e.g. lime casein and soda casein and the dry-mix sulphur lime, the alkaline reaction favoured the fungicidal action of the sulphur.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1930 , pp. 18 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1930

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

(1)Eyre, J. V. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1916), 7, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2)Eyre, J. V., Salmon, E. S. and Wormald, L. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1919), 9, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Farley, A. J.New Jersey Agric. Exp. Sta. (1923), Bull. 379.Google Scholar
(4)Goodwin, W. and Martin, H.J. Agric. Sci. (1925), 15, 96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)Goodwin, W., Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1926), 16, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Goodwin, W. and Salmon, E. S.J. Min. Agric. (1927), 34, 517.Google Scholar
(7)Horton, E. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1922), 12, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Robertson, J.Trans. Hort. Soc. London (1824), 5, 175.Google Scholar
(9)Streeter, L. R.New York State Agric. Exp. Sta. (1927), Tech. Bull. 125.Google Scholar
(10)Tutin, F.Ann. Rpt. Long Ashton (1927), p. 81.Google Scholar
(11)Vermorel, V. and Dantony, E.Compt. Rend. (1910), 151, 1146.Google Scholar
(12)Young, H. C. Ann. Mo. Bot. Gard. (1925), 12, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar