Evaluation of Flair 50 EC Herbicide
for Weed Control in Rice Paddy
Fields
BY
MWANGI.J; WANJOGU R.K,
OWILLA B.P.O
Introduction
• Around 80% of Kenya’s national rice production is from
the national irrigation schemes controlled by NIB.
• Weed control is an important practice in crop
production as weeds compete with crops for nutrients
and soil moisture thereby affecting final yields realized.
• It costs approximately Kshs 3,000/= for one hand
weeding per acre.
• Under the circumstances it is prudent to consider
alternative ways for weed control in paddy fields
• In Kenya use of herbicides for weed control in paddy
fields is a relatively new phenomenon and very few
products have so far been screened for efficacy
OBJECTIVE:
 Evaluate the efficacy of FLAIR 50 EC herbicide in weed
control in rice fields
Examples of common rice weeds
Ludwigia adscendens
Scirpus juncoides (Bulrush)
Monochoria vaginalis
Leptochloa chinensis
Methodology
Rice Varieties:
• V1 = Basmati 370,
• V2 = BW 196,
• V3 = IR2793,
• V4 = ITA 310
Treatments
• The trial had 5 treatments as follows:
• Untreated control.
• Recommended rates for Satunil herbicide
• 1L/Ha Flair EC
• 1.5L/Ha Flair EC
• 2L/Ha Flair EC
The treatments were sprayed 3-5 days after transplanting
Methodology cont.
• Data Collection
• Ten (10) hills were randomly selected and the following data taken;
• Weed count
• Plant Height
• Efficacy of weed control (weed count, identification of weeds controlled)
Toxicity of herbicide on rice crop
•
Crop injury (Phytotoxicity) recorded on a scale of 0 – 5 where
• 0= No Phytotoxicity
• 1 = very slight Phytotoxicity (<5%)
• 2 = Slight Phytotoxicity (5 – 10%)
• 3 = Significant Phytotoxicity (10 – 20%)
• 4 = Serious Phytotoxicity (>20%
• 5 = Total burn-down of crop
Data was collected at 5th day after application and at interval of 5 days after
application for six times
• Yield from 5M2, at 14% MC
Yield Components
• Number of tillers/hill
• Number of productive tillers/hill
• Number of grains/panicle
• Number of empty grains/panicle
• 1000 grain weight (at 14% MC)
• Milling quality
Results for variety IR2793
Growth data Season 1
Untreated control
Satunil
1L/Ha Flair EC
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
18
16
No. of tillers
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
28DAT
56DAT
84DAT
Days after transplanting
Untreated control
Satunil
1L/Ha Flair EC
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
70
60
Height (cm)
50
40
30
20
10
0
28DAT
56DAT
Days after transplanting
84DAT
Season 2
Effect on weed count
Satunil
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
5DAA 10DAA15DAA20DAA25DAA30DAA35DAA40DAA45DAA50DAA
Days after chemical application
Untreated control
Satunil
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
1L/Ha Flair EC
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
No, of Leptochloa chinensis
weeds
No of Cyperus difformis
weeds
Untreated control
1L/Ha Flair EC
5DAA 10DAA 15DAA 20DAA 25DAA 30DAA 35DAA 40DAA 45DAA 50DAA
Days after chemical application
No of Oxalis satifolia weeds
Season 1
Untreated control
Satunil
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
1L/Ha Flair EC
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
5DAA 10DAA 15DAA 20DAA 25DAA 30DAA 35DAA 40DAA 45DAA 50DAA
Days after chemical application
No. of Cyperus difformis weeds
Season 2
160.0
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Untreated control
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
Satunil
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
1L/Ha Flair EC
OBS.1 OBS.2 OBS.3 OBS.4 OBS.5 OBS.6 OBS.7 OBS.8 OBS.9 OBS.10
Observations durations of 5 days
Satunil
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
14
No of Monochoraria vaginalis weeds
No of Spharanthus cyakuloides weeds
Untreated control
1L/Ha Flair EC
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
OBS.1 OBS.2 OBS.3 OBS.4 OBS.5 OBS.6 OBS.7 OBS.8 OBS.9 OBS.10
Observation durations of 5 days
Untreated control
Satunil
1.5L/Ha Flair EC
2.0L/Ha Flair EC
1L/Ha Flair EC
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
OBS.1 OBS.2 OBS.3 OBS.4 OBS.5 OBS.6 OBS.7 OBS.8 OBS.9 OBS.10
Observation durations of 5 days
Effect on yield
Season 1
Season 2
Dry weight (g)/plant
1000 GRAINS WGT
30
28
27
Weight (g)
Mass in grams
25
20
15
10
26
25
24
23
22
21
5
Untreated
control
0
Untreated
control
Satunil
1L/Ha Flair EC 1.5L/Ha Flair
EC
Treatments
2.0L/Ha Flair
EC
Satunil
1L/Ha Flair EC 1.5L/Ha Flair 2.0L/Ha Flair
EC
EC
Tretments
Conclusion
• From the results;
• Plots that were not sprayed with any chemical had
significantly lower number of tillers.
• The number of most of the weeds were significantly
and consistently low in satunil and flair EC treated
plots.
• However in most of the cases, there were no
significant differences on weed counts between the
different concentration of flair EC as well as satunil.
• Also plots treated with 1l/ha and 1.5l/ha of flair EC
had significantly higher numbers of filled grains
compared to Satunil and the control.
• This clearly indicates that Flair EC is a potential
effective herbicide in rice farming.
THANK YOU
FOR
LISTENING
END