Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:37:36.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fungicidal Properties of Certain Spray-Fluids, VIII. The Fungicidal Properties of Mineral, Tar and Vegetable Oils

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

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

Extract

The following substances proved fungicidal for the conidial stage of the hop mildew (Sphaerotheca Humuli):

(1) Liquid paraffin at 2 per cent. emulsified with soft soap. The spray is harmless, or dangerous, to foliage according to the conditions (probably temperature) in the greenhouse.

(2) Medicinal paraffin, emulsified with 0·75 per cent. castor-oil soap, is not quite fungicidal at 3 per cent.

(3) “Summer solol”, a proprietary mineral-oil preparation containing 61·6 per cent. by weight high-boiling petroleum oils, is fungicidal at a concentration between 2·5 and 3 per cent. when 0·5 per cent. soft soap is added to confer satisfactory spreading properties. At this concentration no injury to the leaves was caused.

(4) “Volck”, a proprietary petroleum-oil preparation containing 80·0 per cent. by weight mineral oils, is fungicidal at 2·5 per cent. With either 0·5 per cent. soft soap or 0·5 per cent. Agral I. Injury may be caused under certain conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 1931 , pp. 638 - 658
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1931

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)Barker, B. T. P. and Lees, A. H.Ann. Rep. Agric. and Hort. Res. Sta., Long Ashton (1914), 73.Google Scholar
(2)Bateman, E. and Henningsen, G. Abst. in Rev. Appl. Mycol. (1926), 5, 398.Google Scholar
(3)Dehnst, . Z. angew. Chem. (1928), 41, 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(4)De Ong, E. R.J. Econ. Entom. (1928), 21, 697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(5)De Ong, E. R., Knight, H. and Chamberlin, J. C.Hilgardia (1927), 2, 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(6)Eyre, J. V. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1916), 7, 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Eyre, J. V., Salmon, E. S. and Wormald, L. K.J. Agric. Sci. (1919), 9, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(8)Goodwin, W., Martin, H. and Salmon, E. S.J. Agric. Sci. (1926), 16, 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Guba, E. F.Phytopath. (1928), 18, 847.Google Scholar
(10)Martin, H.J. Soc. Chem. Ind. (1931), 50, 91T.Google Scholar
(11)McWorter, F. P.Phytopath. (1927), 17, 201.Google Scholar
(12)Molz, E.Centr. f. Bakt. (1911), (ii), 30, 181.Google Scholar
(13)Staniland, L. N.Ann. Rep. Agric. and Hort. Res. Sta., Long Ashton (1926), 78.Google Scholar
(14)Staniland, L. N. and Walton, C. L.J. Min. Agric. (1929), 36, 517.Google Scholar
(15)Tutin, F.Ann. Rep. Agric. and Hort. Res. Sta., Long Ashton (1927), 81.Google Scholar
(16)Tutin, F.Ann. Rep. Agric. and Hort. Res. Sta., Long Ashton (1928), 96.Google Scholar
(17)Woglum, R. S. “Handbook of Citrus Insect Control for 1930”. California Fruit Growers Exchange Bull. No. 7, 1930.Google Scholar
(18)Woodman, R. M.J. Soc. Chem. Ind. (1930), 49, 193T.Google Scholar