AU2014274610A1 - Process for Preparing Herbicide Compositions - Google Patents

Abstract

Abstract A process for producing a herbicide-fertiliser composition is provided, comprising the steps of: applying a liquid herbicide formulation and an adhesive component to a fertiliser composition to produce a herbicide-fertiliser composition; and drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition; wherein the adhesive component adheres the herbicide formulation to the fertiliser composition in the dried herbicide-fertiliser composition until the herbicide-fertiliser composition is exposed to water. Also provided is use of the herbicide-fertiliser composition and methods for controlling weeds using the herbicide-fertiliser composition. Figure 1

Description

1 Process for Preparing Herbicide Compositions Technical Field [0001] The present invention relates to crop protection compositions and processes for their production which can be used against unwanted vegetation and comprise, as active compounds, a combination of at least one herbicide and a fertiliser. Background Art [0002] Herbicides are used to manipulate or control unwanted vegetation. The most frequent application of herbicides occurs in row-crop farming, where they are applied before or during planting to maximize crop productivity by minimizing other vegetation. [0003] Trifluralin (2,6-Dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4-(trifluoromethyl)aniline), a Group D dinitroanaline herbicide, was first introduced into the Australian cereal market in the 1960's. Given its ability to control broadleaf weeds, and particularly weed grass populations, and that alternatives did not exist at the time, trifluralin was adopted extensively. [0004] In the 1980's a variety of new grass herbicides were introduced to the Australian winter cereal market including diclofop-methyl and chlorosulfuron. These new products displaced much of the trifluralin market due to the post emergent activity of these products. However, over reliance of these new grass herbicides and other highly selective Group A and B herbicides throughout the 1980's and 1990's resulted in ryegrass populations developing resistance to these herbicides. The industry now has largely returned to trifluralin as the key herbicide to control ryegrass population in winter cropping systems. [0005] Trifluralin works through disrupting cell division in plants by interfering with microtubule polymerisation and spindle formation, thereby affecting mitosis. As a result, trifluralin is applied as a pre-emergent and a seedling must intercept the trifluralin as it grows through treated soils. That is, the 2 herbicide is applied to the soil to control target vegetation before emergence by inhibiting root growth. [0006] Trifluralin selectivity depends on the depth of incorporation into the soil, the different locations of weed and crop growing points, and an inability to be translocated. In addition, trifluralin binds more tightly to organic matter than clay which is of relevance in high residue systems. [0007] Conventional cultivation systems involving, for example tilling for seedbed preparation, simultaneously buries weed seeds throughout the soil profile. An alternative cultivation system used by many farmers is a no-till regime where weed seeds returns are left at or near the soil surface as opposed to being buried. Over time, the vertical distribution of weed seeds throughout the soil profile will shift towards the soil surface. Therefore, the need for deep and thorough incorporation of herbicides such as trifluralin is removed and weeds including ryegrass seed can be effectively controlled by applying the herbicide in a concentrated band near the soil surface and incorporated by sowing. In this regard, 'one pass seeding' may be employed, for example, with a knife point and press wheel which throws treated soil into the inter-row. This provides the benefits of (i) removing herbicide-treated soil from above the seed row, and (ii) covering the herbicide in the inter-row to prevent volatilisation and photo degradation. The removal of treated soil from above the seed row improves crop safety and application rates of herbicides including trifluralin can be increased. [0008] For agronomic reasons many farmers prefer to leave crop stubble on the surface after harvesting their crops and often, not bury or burn it. Current formulations of trifluralin and other such herbicides in the market are liquid formulations and emulsifications. However, trifluralin binds tightly to organic matter such as crop stubble and when sprayed out, a proportion of the active is absorbed onto the stubble. Trifluralin is also not water soluble so rain will not wash it off crop stubble it attaches to and onto the soil surface. As a result, the presence of crop stubble and other crop residue can significantly reduce the amount of active herbicide which may be available for use and hence reducing the efficacy of the product. Higher concentrations of trifluralin must 3 then be applied to achieve the desired effect, increasing the cost to the farmer and potentially causing a greater effect as a pollutant on the surrounding environment. Crop stubble in no-till farming therefore creates a challenge for farmers wanting to apply herbicides to the bare earth and not be absorbed by the stubble. Thus, new means for achieving an effective application of herbicides such as trifluralin to crop soil where residues such as stubble are present would be of considerable economic and environmental benefit. [0009] The preceding discussion of the background art is intended to facilitate an understanding of the present invention only. The discussion is not an acknowledgement or admission that any of the material referred to is or was part of the common general knowledge as at the priority date of the application. Summary of the Invention [0010] The present invention provides a process for producing a herbicide fertiliser composition, comprising the steps of: applying a liquid herbicide formulation and an adhesive component to a fertiliser composition to produce a herbicide-fertiliser composition; and drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition; wherein the adhesive component adheres the herbicide formulation to the fertiliser composition in the dried herbicide-fertiliser composition until the herbicide-fertiliser composition is exposed to water. [0011] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the fertiliser composition comprises ammonium sulphate. [0012] In considering alternative means for achieving a more efficient and effective application of trifluralin or another herbicide where crop stubble is present, the inventors developed a process for attaching a herbicide to a fertiliser and, importantly, maintaining long term stability of the herbicide fertiliser composition. This process produced a new solid-form herbicide- 4 fertiliser composition which could be readily distributed onto crop soil each season, and particularly crop soil containing crop stubble or other crop residue, irrespective of the moisture content of the crop stubble/residue. [0013] In contrast to the commonly used liquid formulations of trifluralin and other herbicides, the solid herbicide-fertiliser composition of the invention can be applied to crop soil to be treated with significantly less absorption of herbicide into crop stubble, particularly when applied during dry conditions. It can also be applied each season, and the ammonium sulphate or other fertiliser can incorporate into the soil providing a source of nutrients for the next crop. In the presence of moisture or water from dew, rain or an artificial source (for example from spraying or sprinklers) the herbicide can separate from the ammonium sulphate or other fertiliser making it available for incorporation into the soil. Herbicide Formulation [0014] The liquid herbicide formulation may comprise one or more different herbicides. The herbicides may include those that are commonly applied to bare earth. The one or more herbicides in the herbicide-fertiliser composition of the invention will preferably be present in concentrations which are effective to kill the weeds for which they are specific once incorporated into soil. [0015] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the herbicide formulation comprises trifluralin. The trifluralin in the herbicide formulation is preferably at a concentration of between about 400 g/L and 800 g/L. More preferably, the trifluralin in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 480 g/L. [0016] The herbicide formulation may comprise prosulfocarb (S-benzyl dipropyl(thiocarbamate)). Preferably, prosulfocarb in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 500 g/L and 900 g/L. More preferably, prosulfocarb in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 800 g/L. [0017] The herbicide formulation may comprise triallate (S-2,3,3-tricloroallyl di-isopropylthiocarbamate). Preferably, triallate in the herbicide formulation is 5 at a concentration of between about 400 g/L and 800 g/L. More preferably, triallate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 500 g/L. [0018] The herbicide formulation may comprise two or more of the herbicides selected from the group comprising: trifluralin, prosulfocarb, and triallate. Alternatively, the herbicide formulation may comprise one or more of the herbicides selected from the group comprising: trifluralin, prosulfocarb, and triallate, in addition to one or more other herbicides. [0019] The liquid herbicide formulation preferably comprises constituents in addition to the one or more herbicides. These other constituents can include solvents, surfactants, copolymers, and emulsifying agents, as some non limiting examples. [0020] The herbicide formulation preferably comprises at least one solvent. The herbicide formulation may comprise a variety of different solvents. In one non-limiting example, the herbicide formulation preferably comprises water as the solvent. [0021] In another example, the herbicide formulation preferably comprises the solvent, solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic (CAS: 64742-94-5). Preferably, solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 200 g/L and 600 g/L. More preferably, solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 409 g/L. [0022] In a further example, the herbicide formulation preferably comprises the solvent 2 ethylhexanol. Preferably, 2 ethylhexanol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 13 g/L and 33 g/L. More preferably, 2 ethylhexanol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 21.2 g/L. [0023] The herbicide formulation preferably comprises at least one surfactant. The herbicide formulation may comprise a variety of different surfactants. In one non-limiting example, the herbicide formulation preferably comprises the surfactant calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate (CAS: 26264-06- 6 02). Preferably, calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 50 g/L. More preferably, calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 31.8 g/L. [0024] In another example, the herbicide formulation preferably comprises the surfactant, alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated (CAS: 103818-93-5). Preferably, alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 35 g/L. More preferably, alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 26 g/L. [0025] The herbicide formulation may also comprise alkoxylated alkylphenol (CAS: 37251-69-7). Preferably, alkoxylated alkylphenol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 50 g/L. More preferably, alkoxylated alkylphenol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 32 g/L. [0026] In a preferred embodiment, the herbicide formulation comprises an emulsion in water. The herbicide formulation may be further diluted 1:1 in water before applying the formulation to the fertiliser composition. Preferably, the water is rain water or scheme (tap) water. Though filtered, purified or distilled water could be used, the additional cost of using such water may be prohibitive. Water obtained from, for example, ponds, rivers and other such unfiltered sources may contain particulates and other impurities that could affect the resulting herbicide-fertiliser composition, for example, in terms of the ability of the herbicide to adhere to the fertiliser and remain stable until applied to a crop. [0027] The herbicide formulation may also comprise an emulsion in solvent including as examples, those solvents described herein. Though an emulsion without water will likely be more costly and potentially cost prohibitive than an emulsion of herbicide formulation in water. Adhesive Component 7 [0028] The adhesive component may comprise one or more constituents which can adhere the herbicide formulation to the fertiliser composition, and preferably, when the herbicide-fertiliser composition has been dried, maintain long term stability of the composition. However, when the dried herbicide fertiliser composition is exposed to water, the adhesive component enables herbicide to detach or separate from the composition and form a solution or emulsion in the water. The solution or emulsion may also comprise other constituents that were in the herbicide formulation including solvents and surfactants, as some non-limiting examples. [0029] In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the adhesive component comprises an organosilicone. The organosilicone is preferably polyether modified polysiloxane. More preferably, the polyether modified polysiloxane is at a concentration of between about 25 g/L and 75 g/L, and even more preferably, at a concentration of about 50 g/L. More preferably, the adhesive component is added to a herbicide formulation already comprising surfactants such as those herein described. Fertiliser Composition [0030] The fertiliser composition can comprise one or more different fertilisers. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the fertiliser is ammonium sulphate. Preferably, the ammonium sulphate is in a solid form, and more preferably in granular or crystalline form. Even more preferably, the ammonium sulphate is in a form that includes small particle sizes including fines (small balls), powder, or nanoparticulate size. [0031] Fertilisers other than ammonium sulphate may comprise any other substance which can be added to soil, including crop soil, for the benefit of plant nutrition. These may include substances comprising the macro nutrients nitrogen, phosphorous and/or potassium, compounds comprising these elements, or some other such nutrient or compound combination. Some non limiting examples of fertilisers that could be used in the process of the invention comprise superphosphate, diammonium hydrogen phosphate (DAP), monoammonium phosphate (MAP), Agras*, Muriate of potash (potassium 8 chloride), sulphate of potash (potassium sulphate), potassium magnesium sulphate, or another commercially available fertiliser product. [0032] In one form of the herbicide-fertiliser composition of the invention, the value of the nutrient supplied in the fertiliser is less than the value of the herbicide in the composition. In another form, the value of the nutrient supplied in the fertiliser is more than the value of the herbicide in the composition. Application of Herbicide Formulation [0033] In one embodiment of the invention, the adhesive component is added to the herbicide formulation before being applied to the fertiliser composition. [0034] In another embodiment of the invention, the herbicide formulation is applied to the fertiliser composition by mixing the liquid herbicide formulation, adhesive component and the fertiliser composition, and wherein the fertiliser composition is in liquid form. In this embodiment, the adhesive component is added to the mixture as a separate ingredient to the herbicide formulation. In this embodiment, the herbicide formulation may be a commercial herbicide formulation which may be mixed with the adhesive component and fertiliser composition to produce the herbicide-fertiliser composition of the invention. [0035] In a further embodiment of the invention, the liquid herbicide formulation may be applied to the fertiliser composition by spraying it onto the fertiliser composition, and wherein the fertiliser composition is in solid form. In one non-limiting example, the herbicide formulation is applied by aerosol spray to the solid fertiliser composition. Drying [0036] The process of the invention comprises the step of drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition. The herbicide-fertiliser composition may be dried by a variety of means which are known in the art. Preferably, the herbicide-fertiliser composition is substantially dehydrated by the drying process. In one non-limiting example, the step of drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition comprises air drying. More preferably, the temperature during the 9 step of drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition does not exceed about 30 C. Drying may also be carried out using air blown across the composition. In another form, a fluid bed dry may be used. Herbicide-Fertiliser Composition [0037] The present invention provides a herbicide-fertiliser composition produced by a process as described herein. Preferably, the herbicide is present in the composition at a concentration that is effective for killing the vegetation for which it is active against when the composition is exposed to water and the herbicide is released into solution or emulsion and incorporated into soil and is taken up by the vegetation. Preferably, the concentration of herbicide in the herbicide-fertiliser composition is between about 0.1% and 5% w/w. More preferably, the concentration of herbicide in the herbicide-fertiliser composition is between about 0.5% and 2% w/w. Use [0038] The herbicide-fertiliser composition of the invention can be applied to soil. Preferably the soil is crop soil. More preferably, the crop soil contains crop stubble. The herbicide-fertiliser composition can be applied to the soil by means known in the art, including the same or similar means to which fertiliser is applied to soil. This may include top-dressing using appropriate farming equipment known in the art. The solid herbicide-fertiliser composition can sit on the surface of the soil or be incorporated into the top layer of the soil, as some non-limiting examples. [0039] When the herbicide-fertiliser composition is exposed to water, the adhesive component can no longer adhere the herbicide to the fertiliser composition and the herbicide can substantially separate from the fertiliser composition. The herbicide can then form a solution or emulsion of herbicide which can incorporate into the soil to which it has been applied and carry out its function against pre-emergent vegetation. The water may come from a variety of sources including moisture, dew, rain, or artificially sourced water such as from spraying or sprinklers.

10 Herbicide-Adhesive Component Formulation [0040] In another embodiment, the invention provides a herbicide-adhesive component formulation comprising a formulation of a combination of a herbicide formulation described herein with an adhesive component described herein. The herbicide-adhesive component formulation is preferably maintained as an emulsion. Said emulsion can be applied to fertilisers by end users including farmers or fertiliser manufacturers to produce a herbicide fertiliser composition using, for example, a method described herein. Said herbicide-adhesive component formulation could be stored prior to use in appropriate containers as would be known in the art. [0041] The present invention further provides a method for controlling weeds using a herbicide-fertiliser composition as herein described. Preferably the weeds comprise Annual Ryegrass. Brief Description of Drawings The present invention will now be described, by way of example only, with reference to an embodiment thereof, and the accompanying figures, in which: Figure 1 is a bar graph illustrating the results of treatments of 480g active trifluralin on annual ryegrass/ circle for the high stubble plots; Figure 2 is a bar graph illustrating the results of treatments of 480g active trifluralin on annual ryegrass/ circle for the high stubble plots; Figure 3 is a line graph illustrating the results of ryegrass control with trifluralin forms in the presence of crop stubble; Figure 4 is a line graph illustrating the results of ryegrass control with trifluralin forms in the presence or absence of crop stubble; Figure 5 is a line graph illustrating the results of ryegrass control with trifluralin/ammonium sulphate forms in the presence of crop stubble; 11 Figure 6 is a line graph illustrating the results of ryegrass control with trifluralin crystal and liquid forms in the presence or absence of crop stubble. Description of Preferred Embodiments [0042] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the invention described herein is susceptible to variations and modifications other than those specifically described. It is to be understood that the invention includes all such variations and modifications. The invention also includes all of the steps, features, compositions and compounds referred to or indicated in the specification, individually or collectively and any and all combinations or any two or more of the steps or features. [0043] The present invention is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein, which are intended for the purpose of exemplification only. Functionally equivalent products, compositions and methods are clearly within the scope of the invention as described herein. [0044] Throughout this specification, unless the context requires otherwise, the word "comprise", or variations such as "comprises" or "comprising", will be understood to imply the inclusion of a stated integer or group of integers but not the exclusion of any other integer or group of integers. [0045] Other definitions for selected terms used herein may be found within the detailed description of the invention and apply throughout. Unless otherwise defined, all other scientific and technical terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood to one of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention belongs. [0046] The entire disclosures of all publications (including patents, patent applications, journal articles, laboratory manuals, books, or other documents) cited herein are hereby incorporated by reference. No admission is made that any of the references constitute prior art or are part of the common general knowledge of those working in the field to which this invention relates.

12 [0047] Features of the invention will now be discussed with reference to the following preferred embodiments. Example 1 Preparation of a Herbicide Composition [0048] A herbicide formulation was prepared using the constituents listed in Table 1. Chemical Name CAS g/L Range gIL 2,6-Dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-4- 1582-09-8 480 400-800 (trifluoromethyl)aniline (trifluralin) solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic 64742-94-5 409 200 - 600 alkoxylated alkylphenol 37251-69-7 32 20 - 50 calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate 26264-06-02 31.8 20 - 50 2 ethylhexanol 104-76-7 21.2 13-33 alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated 103818-93-5 26 20 - 35 polyether modified polysiloxane 203133-70-4 50 25-75 Table 1: Herbicide formulation and concentrations of constituents. [0049] The process for preparing a herbicide-fertiliser composition comprised the following steps: i. A herbicide formulation was prepared by adding to a container each constituent listed in Table 1, in order, slowly as the constituents in the container are mixed, at the concentrations specified in column 3 of Table 1 in tap water. ii. The herbicide formulation was further diluted 1:1 in tap water. iii. The herbicide formulation was added to a granulated form of ammonium sulphate and mixed by stirring. iv. The herbicide formulation-ammonium sulphate mixture was then air dried by blowing air into the container at a temperature not exceeding 30 0C until the coated ammonium sulphate granules were substantially dehydrated.

13 [0050] The concentration of trifluralin included in the formulation produced a final concentration of 0.1 - 5 %w/w in the herbicide-fertiliser composition. The most effective concentration for trifluralin is proposed to be 0.5 to 2 %w/w in the herbicide-fertiliser composition. Example 2 Comparison of Trifluralin 480 EC against Trifluralin Granules for the pre-emergent control of ryegrass Abstract [0051] A trial was conducted near York, Western Australia, to compare 3 solid trifluralin crystal compounds with 4FarmersTM Trifluralin 480EC at comparative grams active per hectare rates for the control of Annual Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum). [0052] There was no significant impact of the treatment applications on the emergence and establishment of wheat in the trial, with no negative crop vigor reductions identified. All treatment applications significantly reduced Annual Ryegrass compared to the untreated control. In general, corresponding trifluralin application rates of different formulations provided statistically equivalent Annual Ryegrass control. Interestingly, the low trifluralin concentration crystals applied at 960 g a.i./kg provided significantly better control and lower panicle numbers than the corresponding Trifluralin 480EC treatmentl00 DAS. Aim [0053] Comparison of Trifluralin 480 EC against Trifluralin granules for the pre-emergent control of Annual Ryegrass. Methods [0054] Treatment List 14 . .. . . . . . . ..... .. ... .. .......... ...... .... .......... ..... ... .. ....... ...... .. .. ... .. . .. ............... ................ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ...... .. . ............. ............. ... ..... ..... .o .4~ .... .... ... .... ... .... ... .... a ~~~~....... Thkaiic u:Mdm04~A rW 480 t. . : .......... U ' ..... .:: j frf~ ~ ki Cr ~ ................ W W .... SC Aic * SO~A 2S0 kgha -- 0055]-- Trial------------------------ L ayout/R andom isation -------------- ------------------- T~~~~~~~~' '*klf)6 ,AI 80Rh 7 gh [0056 Exermeta Desig ............ ................ lsftrAT cryA;3 Hih 0-. "4IM UO 6ha 5 N [0057 Sit Details -058 C rop- and-----------------Sow ing ---------------------------- Details---------------- ---------- 15 * iOkha uOAP Pt~ Nono ;3ppuetar Kr.e poits and pr. w ees it och 5u l~hrtw 30f su n sufe covee frm oosso [0059] Experimental Application Details - lBS Application &30/06/2014 t4 Stat 1 1 D e Start 3 Fnsh . C Coars Sta UAO =SUntreatednCheck DAS= ay Ate SowiLnhg .. ... .... ... .. AssessmentData.Scornq.System [ 0 0 6 0 ].. .. . N o t a t i o n s.. ..... ..... .. ... ..... ..... . .... .... ..... .. Us e d :. .. ..... ..... .. ... ... UTC..=..Untreated... Check. DAA..=.Days.After.Application DAS =............... Da s ft r;Sowin 16 [0061] Crop Establishment: The numbers of plants on either side of a 50cm ruler were counted at five locations within each plot. Counts were then converted to plants/m 2 based on row spacing. [0062] Crop Vigour Reduction: A visual subjective assessment of crop vigour reduction was made in each plot, in comparison to the untreated control, and was expressed as a percentage (%) vigour reduction, where 0 = no crop vigour reduction and 100 = full crop death. [0063] Percent control: A visual subjective score was given to each plot based on the percentage of weed control as compared to untreated control plots, where 0 = no observed control and 100 = full weed control. [0064] Weed Counts: Four 33 x 33 cm quadrants were assessed within each plot and the resulting counts were converted to number of plants per square meter. [0065] Panicle Counts: The number of mature ryegrass panicles were counted from four 33 x 33 cm quadrats per plot, and converted to number of panicles/m 2 based on row spacing. Data Analysis [0066] All data analysis in this report was conducted using ARM (Agriculture Research Manager). An analysis of variance was used to determine statistical significant using the least significant difference method at 95% confidence level. Significance is represented by letters assigned to each mean. No letters are presented where significance was not detected at 95% confidence. [0067] Data transformation was conducted where the ANOVA assumption of homogeneity of error terms was not met. Details of specific transformations are given in table captions. Means presented are back- transformed; Is.d's not presented in these cases. Results [0068] Crop Establishment 17 Tn~~ .............. ct ...... .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .... .. ... .. ..... . .. ........ ..... .... .... .... ........... .. t .. .. .. .f ~ ............................... .5 ..... ........... ............................. ~ Trifkniin Ctis ............. 2.k.f .C / .. .. .. .. .. .. A Tr~.............a.....n ......... k..... SC/A 2$tI kg/bc I 1M'A~n Ctvsta $ Low 9b 2,5kgha A in 4hsanC~tgMdun90 .2m kgh. pC/ M/Om 480gi'W ~. Th1ffrwa Cvvytah high 480 d- k SC/A 220 kg 1' "f/A 250 k q'a Tctlrrvdn Crfla Lo-,a~ 960 22'i kg/h 0 S12 kg/ha . In"i Crv. jtals Hig h 45e2i ha3 Tabe 2 Crp sandcouts platS/2 2 DS [0069] Cro Effetd 0 ... .. k... ..... .a.. M OA .... .............. Mfpa. Crysta Hi. 9...0. IU ...... aM ....... A . ...... ... ha ... .. ... .. .. ... .. .... .. .. .. ... .. . .... ... .. .. ... .. .. ... .. .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ..... ... .. .. .. ... .. ... ... .. ... .. .... ... ... .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ...... ...... .... Table.... 3.Crp.viourredutio.(.)24.nd.6.DA [0070]........ Annual. Ryegra. control.

18 .. .... ..... .... ... . .. ... ... .... ... . ... ............. ....................... .......... .............. ............................ .......................... k... ........... ............. ~ T '~....................... NI~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ .k........ ..... 3~ J.Ia~ .t a L.... ....... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..

S.k..... WqA 2S0 keg ma SOA dkrO krw Cf-ow) Lo 4z.O . I.Ot ..... 250 kgtaa Trfvin 'qt~ Tfknaii 4820 TSat Lo 40 '/g $ AO ' kk'~ r~asMdu O ~ k~ "M~~lSt H i n 4r8tat 2ii S is kg Ig S04 2,2 kgt-a T&I? Liqui 9W2 2Vil SOA 2.0 50n4 T~fko3 Iyt rti Love at 8o 8'0 20ha t 4 &sA s Th fi 960ta Me 50u SO kg S04 01 0gd 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~' Tatr.'i 60ta HiSO. " t'S Table 4: Annual Ryegrass contso (%)G/ 2 ) 62 adAS0 AS [0072] Annual Ryegrass pauncet out 19 SQA 17 kg/h~ *Da prsne as ~ 2ak rnlomeBeas(Lgx+} Table... 6: Annual........ Rygrsspa iceco nt -(ance/ 2)10-D S Discussion/ [07] n trialwa cndted neaYrk WstenAsrla t opr h Ryeras (Lliu multilrum hen appiedimmdiael pro ooig Table56 Annual Ryegrass contrl cous signicntly impove byalAretmn [0073 (Tabe tria Wasl condueda nearl diffrc Wetween Autrifali tocoretet apicayiof 3ae soi trifralbcompoundsewcthbTtieenraorrespondingairifluralin rategracss ohe mudiferum) formulapions wasobrediael prohtowing.helo reducentiontilrln rsa i indicate significantlyfcs nrspnet threaten appiton0 [0075 Annual Ryegrass control was Dsinficaty ipoeduivalnc treatween corresponding) Whle oftiferenwsttedfrncbtwn trifluralin trmetin Tbl ) at ens Danicl Annunts RyegrAS counts 6), DASflected otrolasssen a bte corresponding.......... rates.... of........ difrn.rfuainfr uain .Tbl. ) aesao panicle~~~ ~......... cont.100DA.(abe6).rflctd. hecotolasesmet.t.h 20 same time, indicating the low concentration of trifluralin crystals (960 g a.i./ha) significantly reduced panicle numbers compared to the corresponding liquid application. This treatment effect was not observed in the 480 g a.i./ha application rate. Conclusion [0076] In this trial: * No crop safety issue related to trifluralin treatment applications were identified. * The majority of treatments exhibited bioequivalence with corresponding applications rates of different formulations. Example 3 Effectiveness of Trifluralin Crystals applied pre-emergence in wheat in controlling Annual Ryegrass Abstract [0077] A trial was conducted on a paddock near Walbundrie to test 4FarmersTM Trifluralin Crystals in controlling Annual Ryegrass in wheat. A split plot design was used to apply a low stubble cover treatment (20%) and a high stubble cover treatment (100%). Annual Ryegrass seed was broadcast over the plots to ensure a high ryegrass pressure. [0078] After the treatments were applied the site was sown using a 6 row plot seeder using knifepoints and press wheels using 300mm row width. Spitfire wheat was sown at 60kg/ha using 50kg/ha MAP. Treatments consisted of liquid Trifluralin 480 applied at 1.OL/ha and 2.OL/ha and three Crystal treatments (low, mid and max) applying the same rate of active ingredient/ha. Ryegrass counts and wheat plant population counts were done 33 days after sowing. [0079] Results showed no statistical difference in wheat plant numbers between treatments or between the high and low stubble cover. On the high stubble plots all treatments significantly reduced ryegrass numbers. The low 21 Crystal treatments gave the best ryegrass control for the high stubble treatments. Aims [0080] To evaluate the effectiveness of 4FarmersTM Trifluralin Crystals in controlling Annual Ryegrass in wheat by comparing with Liquid Trifluralin 480. [0081] To evaluate the crop safety of 4FarmersTM Trifluralin Crystals on Wheat. Weeds [0082] A trial paddock was used where Annual Ryegrass was spread at approximately 20kg/ha to ensure a high Annual Ryegrass pressure Crop [0083] A trial paddock was used where Annual Ryegrass was spread at approximately 20kg/ha to ensure a high Annual Ryegrass pressure. Materials and Methods [0084] Product List Product name Active Concentration Formulation Ingredient (ai) of ai 4F Trifluralin 480 Trifluralin 480g/L EC 4F Trifluralin Trifluralin 19.2g/kg Crystals Crystals Max (2000Grains/gr) 4F Trifluralin Trifluralin 6.4g/kg Crystals Crystals Mid (2000Grains/gr) 4F Trifluralin Trifluralin 3.84g/kg Crystals Crystals Low (2000Grains/gr) [0085] Treatment List No. Treatment Rate Application 22 Active schedule Rate Unit ingredient (g ai/ha) 1 Control nil 2 Trifluralin 480 1000 mL/ha 480 3 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 25 kg/ha 480 Applied pre sowing 4 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 75 kg/ha 480 Liquid applied 5 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 125 kg/ha 480 by boom sprayer, 6 Trifluralin 480 2000 mL/ha 960 crystals applied by 7 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 50 kg/ha 960 hand 8 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 150 kg/ha 960 9 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 250 kg/ha 960 [0086] Site Details Grower Alwyn Collins Location Alma Park road, Walbundrie, NSW GPS coordinates -35.648304S, 146.738700E Soil type Clay loam Crop Wheat Variety Suntop Sowing date 06/06/14 Trial design Randomised block Replications 3 Plot size 6 m x 2m [0087] Trial Plan (Low stubble) Low High Low High Low High stubble Stubble Stubble Stubble Stubble Stubble Control 1 1 3 3 Trifluralin 480 2 2 5 5 2 2 23 4F Trifluralin Crystals 3 8 8 8 8 Max 4F Trifluralin Crystals 4 4 1 1 6 6 Mid 4F Trifluralin Crystals 5 7 7 3 3 Low Trifluralin 480 6 6 4 45 4F Trifluralin Crystals 7 2 2 Max 4F Trifluralin Crystals 8 8 9 Mid 4F Trifluralin Crystals 9 6 6 Low [0088] Application Details - Spray Conditions Application equipment Method Low volume boom spraying Equipment 12V pump with 6m boom on back of Triton 4X4 Nozzles ALXR TeeJet nozzles Nozzle spacing 500 mm Spray volume 80 L/ha Pressure 250 kPa Ground speed 10 kph Treatment application Application number 1 Date 6/06/12 Time 11:00 Treatments applied all Temperature ( 0 C) 17.1 Relative humidity (%) 51 Cloud cover (%) 0 Wind direction E Wind speed (km/h) 7.2 Soil moisture Dry 24 [0089] Sub-Treatments: The treatments were applied to both a low stubble plot as well as a high stubble plot. The low stubble plot had < 20% stubble cover. The high stubble plot had wheat straw applied to fully cover the soil surface (100%) prior to applying treatments. [0090] Chronology of events: The trial site was pegged out on the 5 th June 2014. The straw was applied to the high stubble plots on the 5 th June. The treatments were applied on the 6 th June. The crystals were applied by evenly distributing the crystals over the plot by hand. A six meter boom spray mounted on the back of a utility vehicle was used to apply the liquid Trifluralin (80L/ha). The trial site was then seeded one hour later using a six row plot seeder using knife points and press wheels (10km/hr). Ryegrass and wheat plant counts were done on the 10 th July 2014. These were done in the middle of each plot using a circle (21 0mm diameter) for the ryegrass counts and a one meter ruler for the wheat plant counts. Results [0091] There was no significant effect on plant population with any of the treatments. There was no significant difference between the liquid Trifluralin and the crystals. There was no difference between the low rate of trifluralin (480g active) and high rate of trifluralin (960g active) in wheat plant establishment. There was also no difference in plant establishment between the high and the low stubble load. (Table 7). PLOT Treatment Low Stubble High Stubble 1 Control 21.0 29.6 2 1.OL/ha Trifluralin 480 27.3 26.6 3 25kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 34.0 37.0 4 75kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 33.0 39.0 5 125kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 35.6 39.0 6 2.0L/ha Trifluralin 480 31.6 38.6 7 50kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 36.3 37.3 25 8 150kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 34.0 34.3 9 250kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 39.0 36.0 MEAN 32.4 35.2 LSD NS NS F Prob 0.29 0.17 Table 7: Effect of Trifluralin treatments on plant establishment 33 days from applying (wheat plants /m row). [0092] In the low stubble treatment there was no significant difference between the number of Annual Ryegrass plants and the different treatments. Very few ryegrass plants germinated in these plots with the control only having 5.0 ryegrass plants per circle after 33 days from sowing. The soil surface was fairly dry at sowing and no rain fell until 8 days after sowing. The ryegrass that did emerge germinated mainly in the rows where the chemical had been removed by the tyne exposing untreated soil. [0093] With the high stubble treatment more ryegrass germinated than compared to the low stubble treatment, with the control having 21.6 ryegrass plants per circle. There was a reduction in ryegrass numbers with all the treatments but it was not significant (F Prob =0.44) for the low stubble treatments. The ryegrass in the low stubble treatments was mainly from ryegrass germinated in the row where the chemical had been thrown out by the action of the tynes. [0094] There was a statistical significant reduction in ryegrass numbers for all treatments in the high stubble plot (Table 8). PLOT Treatment Low Stubble High Stubble 1 Control 5.0 21.6 2 1.OL/ha Trifluralin 480 3.0 10.3 3 25kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 2,0 4.0 4 75kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 0.6 1.3 5 125kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 0.0 1.0 6 2.OL/ha Trifluralin 480 0.0 0.3 26 7 50kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Max 3.6 0.0 8 150kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Mid 1.6 2.0 9 250kg/ha 4F Trifluralin Crystals Low 7.0 0.0 MEAN 2.5 4.5 LSD NS 4.4 F Prob 0.44 <0.001 Table 8: Effect of Trifluralin treatments on Annual Ryegrass establishment 33 days from applying (number ryegrass plants /circle). Discussion [0095] The trial showed no significant effect on germination of the wheat plant. There was no difference between treatments indicating that they had no effect on emergence of the crop. There was no difference in plant establishment between the high and the low stubble treatment showing this had no effect on plant establishment. There were no visible signs of phytotoxicity or adverse crop effects from any treatment in this trial. [0096] For the low stubble treatments there were no significant differences in Annual Ryegrass numbers between control and treatments. This could have been due to the dry conditions at sowing and low rainfall after sowing. The ryegrass that did germinate was mainly in the row where the seeder had removed the chemical and had covered the seed. [0097] For the high stubble treatments there was a better germination of ryegrass in the control plots. The stubble would have assisted in keeping the soil surface damper longer. All treatments had significantly lower ryegrass than the control. The following trends were evident from the results: [0098] The Trifluralin Crystals had lower ryegrass numbers than the liquid Trifluralin at the same rate Figure 1. The best result was from the Trifluralin Crystals Low. [0099] The 960g active ingredient treatments gave slightly better ryegrass control (Figure 2). The best control was with the Trifluralin Crystals Low.

27 [00100] The results indicate that with a high stubble cover the Trifluralin Crystals do give equal to or even better ryegrass control than the liquid applied Trifluralin. The best results appear to be with the higher rates of the lower load crystal. [00101] Larger on farm trials are required to confirm this trend. A disc seeder as well as a tyned seeder is required to see if Trifluralin Crystals could be used to improve ryegrass control on high stubble paddocks where minimum tillage is practiced. Conclusions [00102] The following was concluded: * None of the treatments reduced wheat establishment. * There were no visible signs of phytotoxicity or adverse crop effects from any treatment in this trial. * There was a statistical significant reduction in ryegrass control with the treatments with the high stubble cover. * The best Trifluralin Crystal treatment was the low formulation on the high stubble. Example 4 Investigating the field efficacy of Ammonium Nitrate as a trifluralin carrier Aim [00103] To determine if ammonium nitrate fertiliser is an adequate trifluralin carrier for effective control of Annual Ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) in modest stubble loads compared to conventional liquid trifluralin forms in Western Australian field conditions. Background 28 [00104] Previous studies (Examples 2 and 3) have shown that liquid formulations of trifluralin are less effective at controlling ryegrass than granular forms in the presence of thick stubble or residue. Liquid trifluralin is sprayed onto stubble to which it sticks. If that stubble is standing, then liquid trifluralin is prevented from reaching the ground and the weed seeds making it ineffective. In contrast, our previous studies found that dry granular trifluralin formulations did not stick to stubble but fell to the soil surface where it is was mostly covered by soil from no-till sowing. [00105] In this study, the efficacy of trifluralin treated ammonium nitrate crystals and granules were investigated for the control of Annual Ryegrass compared to liquid applied trifluralin formulation. Methods [00106] A field trial was established at Morawa to test the efficacy of two forms of ammonium sulphate fertiliser as carriers of trifluralin on the control of ryegrass. The trial design was a factorial design in a complete randomised block with three replicates. [00107] There were three forms of trifluralin carriers (crystal, granules and water) by two stubble loads (retained and burnt) by three rates of trifluralin (0, 480 and 960 gai/ha). The ammonium sulphate crystals content were at 1% trifluralin concentration, ammonium sulphate granules were at 0.5% concentration and the conventional liquid trifluralin formulation diluted with water to 70 L/ha. Treatments are shown in the results table. A basal rate of ammonium sulphate was applied at varying rates with each treatment to take the rate of nitrogen to a total 40 kgN/ha. [00108] Adequate ryegrass population was present in paddock number two where the trial was located. The trial site germinated a high number of ryegrass from 30 mm of rain that had recently fallen. Consequently, the whole trial area was sprayed with 2 L/ha of glyphosate the day before the trial was sown. Before the herbicides were applied, herbicide susceptible-ryegrass seed was top-dressed at 10 kg/ha to ensure enough ryegrass for the trial.

29 [00109] The minus stubble treatments had the stubble removed with burning, aided by octane. This made the level of residue reduction very even and efficient. The residue burnt was calculated by three random samples to total 3 t/ha of dry matter. The sites crop rotation was wheat; wheat; canola; wheat; wheat and wheat again in the trial year. [00110] The ammonium sulphate crystals and granules coated with trifluralin were top-dressed out before sowing using a "salt and pepper" type technique. Jars were used with lids drilled with holes to ensure an even spread of product. Practice of spreading was done on the buffer plots and each treatment was traversed three times each to ensure an even application. [00111] The plots were 2 m wide and 30 m long. The trial was sown when the soil surface was dry but the wheat was sown at 3 cm depth and into moist soil. The speed of sowing was 5 kph and was done across the direction of the plots. Wyalkatchem wheat was sown at 40 kg/ha with 40 kg/ha of DAPs fertiliser with Seed Hawk air-seeder on 30 cm row spacing. Radish was the only weed that needed controlling post sowing with 800 ml/ha of Tigrex*. Materials [00112] Crabtree Agricultural Consulting (CAC) sourced the introduced ryegrass, commercial quantities of trifluralin for trial use, pegs and 60 L of petroleum. 4FarmersTM provided the trifluralin/ammonium sulphate composition and a motorbike sprayer for the trial. Results and Discussion [00113] The wheat established well as it was sown onto moist soil. During the 6 weeks after seeding the rainfall was sparse, with only 4.5 mm falling in 4 separate events (1.0, 1.5, 1.2 and 0.8 mm). Therefore, the ryegrass did not emerge until after a significant rainfall of 13 mm was received. Plant counts of ryegrass occurred two weeks after this rainfall. [00114] The ryegrass counts at two weeks after emergence gave reliable data (as shown) with statistical significance. However, the ryegrass panicle data 30 that was collected in the November of the trial is not reliable. The reason for this is explained in the following paragraph. [00115] At the time of spraying glyphosate, before sowing the wheat, some ryegrass plants were still emerging. At the time of the first plant counts these emerging ryegrass were at the four-leaf stage. These mature ryegrass plants were unaffected by trifluralin and were easily distinguishable from the 1-2 leaf ryegrass. Therefore these mature ryegrass plants were not included in the early plant count data as they were not affected by the treatments. When the panicle data was collected these early established ryegrass swamped the treatment effects, rendering the panicle data unreliable. [00116] The early plant counts show useful treatment differences. The ryegrass control from the treatments is consistent with the adjacent trial and shows the percentage of weeds controlled is lower than is typical. However, this was a record dry June and July and normally the soil surface is wet and stays wet after sowing. Soil residual herbicides rely on moisture to activate them and germinate the weeds. If the soil remains dry then the herbicides are slowly deactivated by biological activity. [00117] Applied trifluralin gave 32 to 70% ryegrass control, increasing the rate increased control (P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the different trifluralin carriers (P<0.69) nor between with and without stubble (P<0.29). There was also no significant interaction between these treatments. However, there are clear trends and below is a discussion of trends only. [00118] The full graph (Figure 3) with all the treatments included shows the range of responses. The maximum level of control was 70%. [00119] Averaging treatments into plus and minus stubble removal shows a trend of better control of ryegrass with the burning of stubble (Figure 4). This effect has been reported elsewhere and it is usually in the order of 8-12% increase in control. This trial data shows similar results.

31 [00120] The liquid trifluralin gave the best level of ryegrass control while the crystal formulation gave the next best control (Figure 5). Granular trifluralin gave the lowest level of control. The low level of control of the granules was expected as the granules were not small enough to get a consistent number of granules in any area, despite a good spread pattern being achieved. Also, there was minimal moisture to activate the trifluralin and separate it from the ammonium sulphate in the composition. [00121] When the stubble was retained the crystal ammonium sulphate at 1% trifluralin coating gave respectable levels of control (Figure 6). Although this data set does not show it is significant, the data suggests a potential interaction between stubble retention and better efficacy of the crystals compared to the liquid formulation. [00122] It would be interesting to take this research further by comparing crystals coated at a lower concentration at say 0.5% or 0.75%. This would likely further increase the efficacy of the trifluralin due to increased number of active sites. Another consideration required to give this technology a chance at working is the moving of crystals through a three-bin seeder box. Some new technology would need to be invented to allow the crystals to not block the rollers. A belt drive would work, but this is not common in the new bins. Conclusion [00123] The trial results here are consistent with earlier findings that dry trifluralin carriers have the potential to adequately control ryegrass. This trial data shows that there was no significance in ryegrass control with these carriers, and is perhaps even better than liquid trifluralin where the stubble is retained. This data was obtained in very dry winter, in a modest wheat stubble load and ideally should be more effective in a more typical type of year.

Claims (49)

1. A process for producing a herbicide-fertiliser composition, comprising the steps of: applying a liquid herbicide formulation and an adhesive component to a fertiliser composition to produce a herbicide-fertiliser composition; and drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition; wherein the adhesive component adheres the herbicide formulation to the fertiliser composition in the dried herbicide-fertiliser composition until the herbicide-fertiliser composition is exposed to water.

2. A process according to claim 1, wherein the fertiliser composition comprises ammonium sulphate.

3. A process according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the adhesive component comprises an organosilicone.

4. A process according to claim 3, wherein the organosilicone is polyether modified polysiloxane.

5. A process according to claim 4, wherein the polyether modified polysiloxane is at a concentration of between about 25 g/L and 75 g/L.

6. A process according to claim 5, wherein the polyether modified polysiloxane is at a concentration of about 50 g/L.

7. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises trifluralin.

8. A process according to claim 7, wherein the trifluralin in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 400 g/L and 800 g/L.

9. A process according to claim 8, wherein the trifluralin in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 480 g/L. 33

10. A process according to anyone of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises prosulfocarb.

11. A process according to claim 10, wherein the prosulfocarb in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 500 g/L and 900 g/L.

12. A process according to claim 11, wherein the prosulfocarb in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 800 g/L.

13. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises triallate.

14. A process according to claim 13, wherein the triallate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 400 g/L and 800 g/L.

15. A process according to claim 14, wherein the triallate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 500 g/L.

16. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises at least one solvent.

17. A process according to claim 16, wherein at least one solvent is solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic.

18. A process according to claim 17, wherein the solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 200 g/L and 600 g/L.

19. A process according to claim 18, wherein the solvent naphtha (petroleum), heavy aromatic in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 409 g/L.

20. A process according to any one of claims 16 to 19, wherein at least one solvent is 2 ethylhexanol. 34

21. A process according to claim 20, wherein the 2 ethylhexanol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 13 g/L and 33 g/L.

22. A process according to claim 21, wherein the 2 ethylhexanol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 21.2 g/L.

23. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises alkoxylated alkylphenol.

24. A process according to claim 23, wherein the alkoxylated alkylphenol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 50 g/L.

25. A process according to claim 24, wherein the alkoxylated alkylphenol in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 32 g/L.

26. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises at least one surfactant.

27. A process according to claim 26, wherein at least one surfactant in the herbicide formulation is calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate.

28. A process according to claim 27, wherein the calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 50 g/L.

29. A process according to claim 28, wherein the calcium dodecylbenzenesulfonate in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 31.8 g/L.

30. A process according to any one of claims 26 to 29, wherein at least one surfactant in the herbicide formulation is alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated.

31. A process according to claim 30, wherein the alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of between about 20 g/L and 35 g/L. 35

32. A process according to claim 31, wherein the alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated propoxylated in the herbicide formulation is at a concentration of about 26 g/L.

33. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation comprises an emulsion in water.

34. A process according to claim 33, wherein the herbicide formulation is further diluted in water in a ratio of 1:1 before it is applied to the fertiliser composition.

35. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the adhesive component is added to the herbicide formulation before being applied to the fertiliser composition.

36. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the herbicide formulation is applied to the fertiliser composition by mixing the liquid herbicide formulation, adhesive component and the fertiliser composition, and wherein the fertiliser composition is in liquid form.

37. A process according to any one of claims 1 to 35, wherein the liquid herbicide formulation is applied to the fertiliser composition by spraying it onto the fertiliser composition, and wherein the fertiliser composition is in solid form.

38. A process according to claim 37 wherein the herbicide formulation is applied by aerosol spray to the solid fertiliser composition.

39. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the step of drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition comprises air drying.

40. A process according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the temperature during the step of drying the herbicide-fertiliser composition does not exceed about 30 C.

41. A herbicide-fertiliser composition produced by a process according to any one of claims 1 to 40. 36

42. A herbicide-fertiliser composition according to claim 41, wherein the concentration of herbicide in the herbicide-fertiliser composition is between about 0.1% and 5% w/w.

43. A herbicide-fertiliser composition according to claim 42, wherein the concentration of herbicide in the herbicide-fertiliser composition is between about 0.5% and 2% w/w.

44. Use of a herbicide-fertiliser composition according to any one of claims 41 to 43, wherein the herbicide-fertiliser composition is applied to soil.

45. Use of a herbicide-fertiliser composition according to any one of claims 41 to 43, wherein when exposed to water, the herbicide substantially separates from the fertiliser composition.

46. Use of a herbicide-fertiliser composition according to claim 45, wherein the water may comprise moisture, dew, rain, or artificially sourced water.

47. Use of a herbicide-fertiliser composition according to claim 45 or claim 46, wherein the herbicide forms a solution in the water and can be incorporated into the soil.

48. A method for controlling weeds using a herbicide-fertiliser composition according to any one of claims 41 to 43.

49. A method according to claim 48, wherein the weeds comprise Annual Ryegrass.