ARTICLES

Efficacy of Cyfluthrin, Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide, and Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Peanuts¹

Author: Frank H. Arthur

  • Efficacy of Cyfluthrin, Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide, and Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Peanuts¹

    ARTICLES

    Efficacy of Cyfluthrin, Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide, and Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Peanuts¹

    Author:

Abstract

Inshell peanuts were treated with 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 ppm cyfluthrin, each rate of cyfluthrin + 8.0 ppm piperonyl butoxide, and each rate of cyfluthrin + piperonyl butoxide + 25 ppm chlorpyrifos-methyl. After 10 months red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum (Herbst), populations in peanuts treated with 0.5 and 1.0 ppm cyfluthrin averaged 89.5 and 34.2 adults per 12.7 kg peanuts; populations in peanuts treated with 1.0 and 1.5 ppm cyfluthrin + piperonyl butoxide averaged 72.0 amd 41.5 adults per 12.7 kg peanuts. Populations in the remaining 8 treatments ranged from 0.5 to 7.2 adults. Indianmeal moth, Plodia interpunctella (Hbner), and almond moth, Cadra cautella (Walker), populations remained low in all treatments. At 10 months the percentage of insectdamaged kernels from cracked pods ranged from 8.7 to 28.8% in the cyfluthrin and cyfluthrin + piperonyl butoxide treatments, while the percentage of damaged kernels was 4.4 to 6.1% in the 4 treatments with chlorpyrifos-methyl.

Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature

Keywords: Arachis hypogaea, cyfluthrin, Tempo, piperonyl butoxide, chlorpyrifos-methyl, insects

How to Cite:

Arthur, F., (1994) “Efficacy of Cyfluthrin, Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide, and Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Peanuts¹”, Peanut Science 21(1), p.44-48. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-21-1-11

10 Views

3 Downloads

Published on
01 Jan 1994
Peer Reviewed

Author Notes

1Mention of a proprietary product does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.