Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:26:53.998Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Labeling Herbicides with Their Site of Action: A Canadian Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Hugh J. Beckie ,
Fa-Yan Chang  and
F. Craig Stevenson
Hugh J. Beckie*
Affiliation:
Saskatoon Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 107 Science Place, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2
Fa-Yan Chang
Affiliation:
Alternative Strategies and Regulatory Affairs Division, Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada, 2250 Riverside Drive, A. L. 6607D, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0K9
F. Craig Stevenson
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A8
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Industry, public-sector researchers and extension agents, and growers were surveyed in 1998 to determine their perspectives on how labeling herbicides with their site of action (group number) would affect the herbicide use practices of growers. The crop protection industry in Canada represented by the Crop Protection Institute (CPI) generally supports herbicide resistance labeling but has some concerns regarding the wording of the labels, including the identification symbol. Most researchers and extension agents believe that labeling herbicides with their site of action will facilitate herbicide group rotation by growers who frequently use herbicides from the same group. Of the two-thirds of the 126 surveyed growers who were familiar with herbicide groupings, 58% practiced herbicide group rotation. Those who did not tended to lack understanding of the basis and purpose of herbicide classification. Grower responses were similar to those from the research and extension community, although only 29% of the growers who currently do not rotate herbicides from different groups believed that resistance management labeling would influence them.

Keywords

Surveysherbicide group rotationresistance management labelingCPI, Crop Protection InstituteECW, Expert Committee on WeedsEPA, Environmental Protection AgencyNAFTA, North American Free Trade AgreementPCA, principal components analysisPMRA, Pest Management Regulatory AgencyWSSA, Weed Science Society of America
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 655 - 661
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the 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.)

Footnotes

1

Contribution 1317 of the Saskatoon Research Centre, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 0X2

References

Literature Cited

Anonymous. 1999a. Pesticide Resistance Management Labelling. Draft: January 18, 1999. Ottawa, ON: Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Health Canada. 23 p.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1999b. Guide to Crop Protection 1999: Weeds, Plant Diseases, Insects. Bi-Provincial Publication: Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food; Winnipeg, MB: Manitoba Agriculture. 301 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1995. Algorithms for the PRINQUAL and TRANSREG Procedures. SAS Technical Report R-108. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 28 p.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1996. SAS/STAT User's Guide. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1176 p.Google Scholar
Stokes, M. E., Davis, C. S., and Koch, G. G. 1995. Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 512 p.Google Scholar