scholarly journals Efficacy of Botanical Pesticides Against Shoot and Fruit Borer, Leucinodes Orbonalis in Brinjal

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 721-725
Author(s):  
S. K. Dehariya ◽  
A. Shukla ◽  
S. K. Barde
Keyword(s):  
Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Neem Oil ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Leucinodes Orbonalis ◽  
Randomized Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Fruit Borer ◽  
Shoot Damage ◽  
The Cost

ABSTRACT: The experiment was conducted in randomized block design with 7 treatments and 4 replications, to evaluate the performance of some botanical products against the pest complex of brinjal.The treatments included Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04%,Neem oil 1 %,Achook 5 %,NSKE 5%, Karanj oil 1%,Eucalyptus oil 1% and an untreated control. Four spraying of each treatment were conducted starting 30 days after transplanting, at an interval of 15 days. Observation on shoot and fruit damage by Leucinodes orbonalis were recorded. The results revealed that Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04%,was significantely superior over all the botanical treatments shoot damage in different treatments & ranged between 3.9 to 10.1%.Highest healthy fruits yield (24.76q/ha) was recorded in the treatment of Triazophos 40E.C. 0.04% followed by the treatment of neem oil 1% (20.54 q/ha healthy fruits), and both the treatments were statistically at par Yields in remaining treatments were at par and ranged between 19.57 and 15.23 q/ha. Lowest yield (10.50 q/ha in healthy fruits) was registered in untreated control.Highest cost benefit ratio of 1:6. 31 was treatment of Triazophos 40 EC 0.04%. Application of neem oil 1% registered the cost benefit ratio of 1:1.79 and was found most economical.

scholarly journals Evaluation of new insecticide molecules for their effectiveness in the management of sugarcane early shoot borer, Chilo infuscatellus (Snellen)

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 434-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
H.G. Umashankar ◽  
V.N. Patel ◽  
T. Nagaraja ◽  
L. Vijaykumar ◽  
S. Sugeetha
Keyword(s):  
Cumulative Incidence ◽  
Agricultural Research ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Research Station ◽  
Chilo Infuscatellus ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Shoot Borer ◽  
Randomized Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio

An experiment was conducted at Zonal Agricultural Research Station, V.C farm, Mandya (Karnataka), India during 2015, to assess the chemical control of sugarcane early shoot borer (Chilo infuscatellus). Nine insecticides namely, Fipronil 0.3G, Chlorantraniliprole 0.4G, Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC, Spinosad 45SC, Flubendiamide 39.35SC, Cartap hydrochloride 4G, Phorate 10G, Carbofuran 3G, Chlorpyriphos 20EC, and compared with untreated (Check plot)using randomized block design with three replications. Significant differences were noticed among the treatments. Chlorantraniliprole 0.4G recorded lowest cumulative incidence (2.79 %) and highest per cent reduction over the control (85.78 %) which was followed by Cartap hydrochloride 4G (5.37% and 72.65%), Chlorantraniliprole 18.5 SC (5.95% and 75.62%), Flubendiamide 39.35SC (6.64% and 66.19%) and Fipronil 0.3G (6.83% and 65.22%) were found significantly superior in reducing the cumulative incidence of C. infuscatellus.In Co 86032 Cartap hydrochloride 4G was found to be the best insecticide in getting a highest cost benefit ratio (1:12.39). Other insecticides such as Fipronil 0.3G (1:8.84), Chlorantraniliprole 0.4G (1:6.96), Flubendiamide 39.35SC (1:5.42) and Spinosad 45SC (1:4.16) have also recorded better cost benefit ratio. Since Cartap hydrochloride 4G does not have crop label so we can recommend Fipronil 0.3G or Chlorantraniliprole 0.4G for the management of sugarcane early shoot borer.

Nitrogen coated fertilizer with controlled release for the maize crop

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Antonio Maior Bono ◽  
Herlones Wuilles Dos Santos ◽  
Silvia Rahe Pereira ◽  
José Francisco dos Reis Neto
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Release ◽  
Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Maize Crop ◽  
Randomized Block Design ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Coated Urea ◽  
Red Latosol ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Coated Fertilizer

Maize represents one of the most cultivated crops of cereals in the world, being used as a source of grain, silage and biofuel. Nitrogen is very required in the maize crop, making nitrogen fertilization a significant part of the production cost. The objective of this study was to evaluate the response of two sources of N, urea and coated urea of controlled release, regarding the productivity and the cost/benefit ratio in maize for 2nd harvest. The experiment was carried out in the field in soil classified as dystroferric Red Latosol and treatments distributed in experimental plots, following the randomized block design with four replications. The treatments were 40 kg N ha-1 of common urea; 60 kg N ha-1 of common urea; 40 kg N ha-1 of coated urea; 60 kg of N-coated urea and the control without application of N broadcast application in planting. The maize crop responded to the application of nitrogen at planting. However, the use of coated urea did not increase the grain yield in relation to the use of common urea. The economic analysis demonstrated a better efficiency of use of N and the best net revenues with the application of the dose of 40 kg N ha -1 of common urea in the planting of the crop.

Home Visitation Investment

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
NORMAN J. SISSMAN
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Home Visits ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Home Visitation ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Health Care Resources ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Cost

To the Editor.— Two recent reviews in Pediatrics1,2 provide much interesting information on the effect of home visits on the health of women and children. However, I was disappointed not to find in either article more than token reference to the cost of the programs reviewed. In this day of increasingly scarce health care resources, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating programs such as these without detailed consideration of their cost-benefit ratio.

scholarly journals Ultrasound scan as a potential source of nosocomial and cross-infection: a literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hadyme Miyague ◽  
Fernando Marum Mauad ◽  
Wellington de Paula Martins ◽  
Augusto César Garcia Benedetti ◽  
Ana Elizabeth Gomes de Melo Tavares Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Infection ◽  
Ultrasound Scan ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe authors review the main concepts regarding the importance of cleaning/disinfection of ultrasonography probes, aiming a better comprehension by practitioners and thus enabling strategies to establish a safe practice without compromising the quality of the examination and the operator productivity. In the context of biosafety, it is imperative to assume that contact with blood or body fluids represents a potential source of infection. Thus, in order to implement cleaning/disinfection practice, it is necessary to understand the principles of infection control, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of the measures to be implemented, and most importantly, to comprehend that such measures will not only benefit the health professional and the patient, but the society as a whole.

scholarly journals The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?

Public Choice ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 175 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 37-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen ◽  
Clau Dermont
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

An Economic Evaluation of the Introduction of Vaccination Against Hepatitis a in a Peacekeeping Operation: The Case of the United Nations Protection Force in Yugoslavia

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Vittorio Demicheli ◽  
David Wright
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marginal Cost ◽  
Hepatitis A ◽  
Passive Immunization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe costs and benefits of vaccinating troops on United Nations tours in Yugoslavia against hepatitis A were compared. The marginal cost of one case of hepatitis A avoided by vaccination was calculated and compared with the marginal cost of achieving the same outcome by passive immunization. The cost-benefit ratio (medium estimate) for troops at low risk of contracting hepatitis A was 0.01 and for those at high risk was 0.03.Vaccinating troops against hepatitis A for a single deployment appears to be an inefficient procedure, especially in troops at low risk. However, in professional troops from countries of low hepatitis A endemicity who are likely to be involved in several operational deployments, vaccination becomes more efficient the more times the same troops are deployed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document