There are a lot of compound certificates for glyphosate. The compound compounds are also diverse, and the effects produced are also different. Let’s not talk about other things here, just talk about "flulopidoxine" and "Triclopyr" is a matter of the two brothers.
Speaking of "floxacin", anyone who has been used as a selective herbicide will not be unfamiliar. This ingredient is used in paddy fields or dry fields, as long as it is used in gramineous crop fields. It is very common and very important. A post-emergence herbicide. But when it comes to killing and weeding, there are really few people who are concerned. This is one of the reasons why many glyphosate and clofloxacin certificates are idle. It is a pity to discard it and tasteless.
The compound "Triclopyroxyacetic acid" has been around for a certain number of years, but it is rarely used in crops, and more often used in the control of small shrubs. So until the market for glyphosate and triclopyr After the popularity, it became widely known.
The fame of fluroxypyr comes from its wide audience, while the fame of fluroxypyr comes from its ability to fight shrubs. Is there any big difference between the two?
Of course, there are some differences, but they are not as big as expected. Take the weed-killing spectrum as an example, the two are almost the same. Both are ineffective against grasses and have specific effects on broadleaf grasses, and fluroxypyr can also kill shrubs, but few people have paid attention before. Low temperature resistance characteristics, triclopyr has a lower low temperature adaptability than chlorflupir at 15°C, which is also its advantage; correspondingly, triclopyr has a slightly longer soil retention period, after use For a long time, it is impossible to grow broad-leaved crops such as watermelon and rapeseed.
Some people say that glyphosate has such a broad weed-killing spectrum, including broadleaf grasses, there is almost nothing that it can't kill, and these two compounds are systemic and conductive herbicides like glyphosate, and they take effect for a long time. Very long, it doesn't make much sense to compound.
It is true that glyphosate has many advantages, which are its characteristics, but its shortcomings cannot be ignored.
First, the low temperature resistance is poor, which causes glyphosate to be unacceptable in many cases. The reason why the once acid-added glyphosate and the current drip acid glyphosate are so popular is that acid solves the two problems of low temperature and quick-acting. Questions;
Second, the effect on some sedges and most vine broadleaf grasses is not ideal. Cyperaceae can also be solved by 2 methyl 4 chlorine or 2,4D, but vine weeds seem to be only solved by these two compounds.
Let's take a look at the formulations of these two compounds and glyphosate. Without exception, they are all powders. So what are the advantages of powders?
In fact, we can easily draw conclusions as long as we carefully consider where the main markets of glyphosate for powders and liquids are.
If the legendary genetically modified corn fields and soybean fields are excluded, almost all glyphosate is used in wastelands, barren mountains, arbor orchards, and woodlands in China. However, there are differences. On flat plains and slopes, the liquid form of glyphosate is still very popular. For no other reason, the transportation is more convenient, and the dilution tank mix is also very simple; but the terrain is more complex in the mountains. It is not the same. The means of transportation cannot go up the mountain and can only rely on manpower. At this time, the powder that is light and easy to handle is more acceptable. Imagine a piece of liquid glyphosate that weighs only 40 barrels of water with a weight of 8 kilograms, or a glyphosate that weighs 100 barrels of water with a weight of 5 kilograms, which is more convenient?
Therefore, in the mountainous areas of the south, including the southeast and southwest, glyphosate in powder or granules is still firmly dominant and it is difficult to shake. Similarly, with the continuous use of single-agent glyphosate, the original weak weeds, such as creeper, gynostemma, kudzu vine, field bindweed, etc., have gradually increased. A single single-agent glyphosate has been unable to meet the demand for weeding. There are many choices, but the responsibilities of the two brothers "Triclopyr" and "Chloflupirox" are quite heavy.
In the same way, when broad-leaved weeds dominate the grass phase during the low temperature period in the north, where single-agent glyphosate does not work well, is there another choice?