<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>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. </p></abstract>

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.

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

United States Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, N.C. State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.

Contributions to Tobacco & Nicotine Research

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

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...

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

Published Online: Aug 14, 2014

Page range: 120 - 126

Received: Dec 27, 1978

Accepted: Apr 09, 1980

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/cttr-2013-0479

© Beiträge zur Tabakforschung International

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.