where as pyroxasulfone at lbai/a and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (63% and 33% respectively)

Transcription

1 Sweet Potato Data Summary 1. TTRATMENTS a. UTC b. V (Pyroxasulfone) at 0.106, and lbai/a applied pre-transplant, post-transplant, and early preemergence c. Fierce (V-10204:pyroxasulfone at Valor SX:flumioxazin at lbai/a) applied just pre-transplant d. Valor SX(flumioxazin) at lbai/a applied just pre-transplant e. Dual II Magnum applied pre-transplant, post-transplant and early postemergence 2. PHYTOTOXICITY a. Pre-transplant i. At 15 Days after Treatment (DAT) pyroxasulfone at and resulted in minor injury (3.3%) ii. Pyroxasulfone at lbai/a did not cause any injury at 15 DAT iii. At 28 DAT the Pyroxasulfone treatments did not show any phytotoxicity iv. Fierce (pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) resulted in minor phytotoxicity (5%) at 43 DAT v. Dual II Magnum (Dual) at 1.2 lbai/a did not result in any injury at 43 DAT b. Post-transplant (3 leaf sweet potato) i. All three rates of pyroxasulfone, 0.106, and lbai/a resulted in minor injury ranging from 2 to 10% at 15 DAT and <7% at 43DAT ii. Dual Magnum exhibited very minor injury c. Early Postemergence (4 leaf sweet potato) i. At 14 DAT pyroxasulfone at resulted in 5% injury ii. At 29 DAT none of the pyroxasulfone treatments nor Dual resulted in any injury 3. QUALITY a. Crop quality i. There were not any difference among treatments or the UTC 126 days after the pre and post transplant applications and 112 days after the early postemergence application b. Percent deformed fruit i. There were not any difference among treatments or the UTC 126 days after the pre and post transplant applications and 112 days after the early postemergence application c. Percent culls i. There were not any difference among treatments or the UTC 126 days after the pre and post transplant applications and 112 days after the early postemergence application 4. Weed control a. Palmer Amaranth i. Pyroxasulfone at and lbai/a (76% and 82% respectively), Fierce (pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) (78%) and Valor at (71%) provided moderate control whereas Dual at 1.2 lbai/a and pyroxasulfone at 0.106lbai/A failed to provide even moderate control (47% and 32% respectively)

2 ii. The post- transplant pyroxasulfone treatments provided excellent weed control from 91% (0.106 lbai/a) to 99% (0.213 and lbai/a) at 43 DAT and Dual provided 82% control iii. None of the early postemergence treatments provided acceptable control b. Goosegrass i. Pyroxasulfone at and (99%), Valor at lbai/a (98%)and Fierce (pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) (98%) provided excellent control applied pre-transplant whereas pyroxasulfone at and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (63% and 66% respectively) at 43 DAT ii. At 43 DAT all pyroxasulfone post transplant treatments provided excellent control (99%)as did Dual (99%) iii. Pyroxasulfone applied early postemergence 29 DAT at and provided excellent control (95% and 94% respectively). The lbai/a rate of pyroxasulfone and the 1.2 lbai/a rate of Dual applied early postemergence failed to provide adequate control (60% and 33% respectively) c. Barnyardgrass i. At 43 DAT pyroxasulfone at and lbai/a(99%), Fierce (pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) (93%) and Valor at 0.094(90%) lbai/a applied pre-transplant provided excellent control whereas pyroxasulfone at lbai/a and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (62% and 66% respectively) ii. At 43 DAT all pyroxasulfone treatments and Dual applied post-transplant provided excellent control (99%) iii. At 29 DAT pyroxasulfone at and applied early postemergence provided excellent control (95% and 98% respectively) d. Carpetweed 5. Trial information where as pyroxasulfone at lbai/a and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (63% and 33% respectively) i. Pyroxasulfoneat and 0.426(99%), Fierce(pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) (99%) and Valor at lbai/a (99%) applied pre-transplant provided excellent control 43 DAT whereas pyroxasulfoneat lbai/a and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (63% and 66% respectively) ii. All post-transplant treatments provided excellent control (99%) at 43 DAT iii. Pyroxasulfoneat and applied early postemergence provided excellent control (93% and 97% respectively) at 29 DAT whereas pyroxasulfone at lbai/a and Dual at 1.2 lbai/a failed to provide acceptable control (63% and 33% respectively) a. All treatments received adequate rainfall or irrigation to activate the treatments b. State conducted: MS c. Design: Small plot RCB with 3 replicates d. Variety: Beauregard e. Soil: silt loam f. Application dates: for the pre-transplant and post-transplant treatments and 5-21 for the early postemergence treatments 6. Overall results

3 a. Pyroxasulfone at 0.106, and Fierce (pyroxasulfone at Valor SX at lbai/a) and Valor SX at lbai/a did not result in any objectionable phytotoxicity when applied pre-transplant. The post-transplant and early postemergence also did not cause any objectionable crop injury b. From a weed control aspect, the only advantage that the post-transplant applications of pyroxasulfone exhibited over pre-transplant applications was control of Palmer amaranth at 43 DAT. It appears that pyroxasulfone at and Fierce and Valor treatments broke about 28 DAT c. From an early postemergence aspect with the exception of Palmer amaranth control, pyroxasulfone at and lbai/a provided excellent weed control whereas the pyroxasulfone at lbaia failed to provide acceptable weed control d. None of the treatments resulted in any significant crop quality issues

4 PAGE: 1 FIELD TRIAL REPORT - PART 1 - GENERAL TRIAL DATA General: Design: Environmental Conditions: Responsible: M. OIRKPATRICK Trial Site Type: SMALL PLOT Cooperator: KIRKPATRICK,MATT Experimental Design: RCB Street Address: 3800 OLD LELAND RD Lattitude Longitude Town/County: GREENVILLE Number of Reps/Trt.: 3 / Seasonal Rain/Irrigation: NORM State: MISSISSIPPI Application: G Soil Texture: SILT LOAM Country: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Irrigation: SPRINKLER LATERAL Soil % O.M.:.50 CEC: 6.9 Region: NA, MIDSOUTH Statistics: DUNCANS at % Sand: 24 Soil ph: 6.50 Project Number: Tr. Registerability: 3 % Clay: 7 % Silt: 69 Protocol Number: 2007V10204 MD35.01 Coop. Reliability: 3 % Slop: 0 Plot Size and Unit: GLP Trial Number: --- Guidelines: Trial Number: 045 Confidential Report: No Trial Subcontracted: Reference Code: Preceding Crop: / Coop Affiliate: Coop Address: Initiation Date: MAY Completion Date: SEP Root Planting Planting Soil Planting Row Emergence CP# Crop_Name Variety_ Stock Rate &_Unit Date_ Moisture_ Depth Spacing Date_ 1 Potato, Sweet BEAUREGARD MAY E MOIST 2.00 IN Protocol Title: SWEET POTATO CROP TOLERANCE Trial_Objective: TO ESTABLISH CROP TOLERANCE OF V WHEN APPLIED PREEMERGENCE TO SWEET POTATOES. RSRPTTRD SCC GROUP OF COMPANIES DATE: AUG PAGE: 2 FIELD TRIAL REPORT - PART 1 - GENERAL TRIAL DATA Conclusions: THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY SHOWED THAT THERE WAS LITTLE TO NO INJURY FROM V10204 TO SWEET POTATO WHEN TREATMENTS WERE MADE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE TRANSPLANTING, IMMEDIATELY AFTER TRANSPLANTING, OR TWO WEEKS AFTER TRANSPLANTING. POOR WEED CONTROL, ESPECIALLY ON PALMER AMARANTH, WAS OBSERVED WITH THE PRE TRANSPLANT AND 2 WEEKS AFTER TRANSPLANT APPLICATION TIMINGS. AT THESE TIMINGS WEED CONTROL BROKE IN AS LITTLE AS 14 DAYS AFTER THE FINAL APPLICATION DUE TO THE HEAVY PALMER AMARANTH PRESSURE. THE POST TRANSPLANT (IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TRANSPLANT) APPLICATION TIMING SHOWED TO BE THE MOST EFFECT FOR WEED CONTROL REGARDLESS OF APPLICATION RATE. FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN SWEET POTATO ROOT QUALITY BETWEEN TREATMENTS.

5 PAGE: 3 FIELD TRIAL REPORT - PART 2 - PERTINENT TRIAL NOTES Pertinent_Trial_Notes: ANNUAL GRASSES, PIGWEEDS, MORNINGGLORIES Rainfall/Irrigation Date Amount Unit Type MAY IN Rainfall MAY IN Irrigation MAY IN Irrigation JUN IN Irrigation JUN IN Irrigation JUN IN Rainfall

6 PAGE: 4 FIELD TRIAL REPORT - PART 3 - TREATMENT INFORMATION TREATMENT Num Std Product_ Common_Name Conc. &_Unit FM VC# LOT_# Application_Rate Application_Codes Application_Method 1 UNTREATED CHECK UNTREATED CHECK.00 NA NA V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.106 LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 3 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.213 LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 4 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.426 LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 5 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.213 LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 5 VALOR SX FLUMIOXAZIN %W/W WG LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 6 S VALOR SX FLUMIOXAZIN %W/W WG LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 7 S DUAL II MAGNUM S-METOLACHLOR W/BENO 7.64 LBAI/GAL EC LBAI/A A PRE-TRANSPLANT 8 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.106 LBAI/A B POST-TRANSPLANT 9 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.213 LBAI/A B POST-TRANSPLANT 10 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.426 LBAI/A B POST-TRANSPLANT 11 S DUAL II MAGNUM S-METOLACHLOR W/BENO 7.64 LBAI/GAL EC LBAI/A B POST-TRANSPLANT 12 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.106 LBAI/A C EARLY POSTEMERGENCE 13 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.213 LBAI/A C EARLY POSTEMERGENCE 14 V PYROXASULFONE %W/W WG.426 LBAI/A C EARLY POSTEMERGENCE 15 S DUAL II MAGNUM S-METOLACHLOR W/BENO 7.64 LBAI/GAL EC LBAI/A C EARLY POSTEMERGENCE 998 COEFFICIENT OF VAR. COEFFICIENT OF VAR..00 NA NA 999 LEAST SIGNIF. DIFF. LEAST SIGNIF. DIFF..00 NA NA NOTE: STD OF 'S' INDICATES STANDARD TREATMENT

7 PAGE: 5 FIELD TRIAL REPORT - PART 4 - APPLICATION INFORMATION Air Soil APPLICATION Pressure Temp % Temp Soil --- #1 RN/IR --- Code Date_ Time_ Amount Unit Unit RH Unit Moist Dew Time_ Unit Unit Application_Equipment Wind_Speed/Direction Cld_Cvr_% A MAY : GAL/A 23 PSI 80 F F MOIST N 8 HOUR.06 IN TRACTOR HOODED SPRAYER 7.00 MPH S 0 B MAY : GAL/A 23 PSI 75 F F MOIST N 6 HOUR.06 IN TRACTOR HOODED SPRAYER 1.00 MPH S 0 C MAY : GAL/A 23 PSI 58 F F MOIST N 4 DAYS 1.30 IN TRACTOR HOODED SPRAYER 4.00 MPH S 0 Noz Num Band Boom Incor Incor Nozzle Spacing Noz/ Width Ht Speed Time Depth Spray Code Type Unit Boom_Row &_Unit &_Unit &_Unit Incorporation_Equipment (HR) Unit Carrier_ ph Propellant A 8002 FLAT FAN 20 IN IN 3.00 MPH WATER 6.80 COMPRESSED AIR B 8002 FLAT FAN 20 IN IN 3.00 MPH WATER 6.80 COMPRESSED AIR C 8002 FLAT FAN 20 IN IN 3.00 MPH WATER 6.80 COMPRESSED AIR

8 PAGE: 6 Eval #: 001 Crop: IPOBA Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: Pest Stage: Rating Type: PHYTOTOXICITY - GENERAL / INJURY C/P: C CP#: 001 Potato, Sweet Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: PLANT Ipomoea batatas Sample Size: PLANT / PLANT BIOMASS (includes Shrub, Tree, Turf) Rpt Std: % PHYTO-OVERALL Rpt Criteria: Comments: MAY MRV JUN MRV JUN MRV UTC.00 NA c.0000 a.0000 a 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET.0000 c.0000 a.0000 a 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET bc.0000 a.0000 a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET bc.0000 a.0000 a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET bc a a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET bc a a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET.0000 c a.0000 a 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP bc.0000 a a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP ab a a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a a.0000 a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP.0000 c a.0000 a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT bc.0000 a.0000 a 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT abc.0000 a.0000 a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT.0000 c a.0000 a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT bc.0000 a.0000 a 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA Application--- Development BBCH Min Max Subject Growth Rel Natural Code Date Stage Number Description Ht_ Ht_ Unit Density_ Unit Condition Pst_D Infestation A MAY LEAF IN LOW STRESS B MAY LEAF IN LOW STRESS C MAY LEAF IN ACTIVELY

9 PAGE: 8 Eval #: 002 Crop: IPOBA Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: Pest Stage: Rating Type: GRADE - NUMERIC SCALE C/P: C CP#: 002 Potato, Sweet Scale: 1-5 INDEX/SCALE Part Rated: Ipomoea batatas Sample Size: Rpt Std: CROP QUALITY (1-5) Rpt Criteria: Comments: SEP MRV UTC.00 NA a 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT a 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA Application--- Development BBCH Min Max Subject Growth Rel Natural Code Date Stage Number Description Ht_ Ht_ Unit Density_ Unit Condition Pst_D Infestation A MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes B MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes C MAY LEAF 12 2 true leaves, leaf pairs or w IN S/Y2 ACTIVELY HIGH Yes

10 PAGE: 10 Eval #: 003 Crop: IPOBA Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: Pest Stage: Rating Type: PHYTO. DEFORMATION (Cupping, Epinasty, L C/P: C CP#: 003 Potato, Sweet Scale: NUMBER Part Rated: FRUIT Ipomoea batatas Sample Size: 100 Fruit FRUIT Rpt Std: % DEFORMED FRUIT Rpt Criteria: Comments: SEP MRV UTC.00 NA a 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT a 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA Application--- Development BBCH Min Max Subject Growth Rel Natural Code Date Stage Number Description Ht_ Ht_ Unit Density_ Unit Condition Pst_D Infestation A MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes B MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes C MAY TILLER # IN S/Y2 ACTIVELY LOW Yes

11 PAGE: 12 Eval #: 004 Crop: IPOBA Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: Pest Stage: Rating Type: COUNT - PLANT PART C/P: C CP#: 004 Potato, Sweet Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: FRUUNM Ipomoea batatas Sample Size: FRUIT - UNMARKETABLE / FRUIT - CULLED Rpt Std: % CULLS Rpt Criteria: Comments: SEP MRV UTC.00 NA a 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT a 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA Application--- Development BBCH Min Max Subject Growth Rel Natural Code Date Stage Number Description Ht_ Ht_ Unit Density_ Unit Condition Pst_D Infestation A MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes B MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes C MAY TILLER # IN ACTIVELY HIGH Yes

12 PAGE: 14 Eval #: 005 Crop: Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: AMAPA Pest Stage: Rating Type: CONTROL - BURNDOWN / KNOCKDOWN C/P: P CP#: 005 Amaranth, Palmer Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: Amaranthus palmeri Sample Size: Rpt Std: % CONTROL Rpt Criteria: Comments: JUN MRV JUN MRV UTC.00 NA f.0000 f 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET bcd def 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET ab abc 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET abc ab 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET abc abc 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET abc abc 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET abc cde 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP ab ab 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP abc ab 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT de f 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT cd def 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT abc bcd 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT e ef 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA Application--- Development BBCH Min Max Subject Growth Rel Natural Code Date Stage Number Description Ht_ Ht_ Unit Density_ Unit Condition Pst_D Infestation A MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes B MAY PREEMERGENCE 00 dry seed (seed dressing). Wint IN Yes C MAY NODE IN ACTIVELY LOW Yes

13 PAGE: 16 Eval #: 006 Crop: Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: ELEIN Pest Stage: Rating Type: CONTROL - BURNDOWN / KNOCKDOWN C/P: P CP#: 006 Goosegrass Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: Eleusine indica Sample Size: Rpt Std: % CONTROL Rpt Criteria: Comments: JUN MRV JUN MRV UTC.00 NA c.0000 c 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a ab 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a ab 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a ab 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT b bc 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA

14 PAGE: 17 Eval #: 007 Crop: Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: ECHCG Pest Stage: Rating Type: CONTROL - BURNDOWN / KNOCKDOWN C/P: P CP#: 007 Barnyardgrass, Common Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: Echinochloa crus-galli Sample Size: Rpt Std: % CONTROL Rpt Criteria: Comments: JUN MRV JUN MRV UTC.00 NA c.0000 c 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a ab 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a ab 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a ab 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT b bc 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA

15 PAGE: 18 Eval #: 008 Crop: Group: BBCH Stage: Pest: MOLVE Pest Stage: Rating Type: CONTROL - BURNDOWN / KNOCKDOWN C/P: P CP#: 008 Carpetweed Scale: PERCENT Part Rated: Mollugo verticillata Sample Size: Rpt Std: % CONTROL Rpt Criteria: Comments: JUN MRV JUN MRV UTC.00 NA c.0000 c 2 A V WG.106 LBAI/A PRET a ab 3 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 4 A V WG.426 LBAI/A PRET a a 5 A V WG.213 LBAI/A PRET a a 6 A VALORSX WG.094 LBAI/A PRET a a 7 A DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PRET a ab 8 B V WG.106 LBAI/A PTTP a a 9 B V WG.213 LBAI/A PTTP a a 10 B V WG.426 LBAI/A PTTP a a 11 B DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A PTTP a a 12 C V WG.106 LBAI/A EPOT a ab 13 C V WG.213 LBAI/A EPOT a a 14 C V WG.426 LBAI/A EPOT a a 15 C DUALIIMA 7.64 EC LBAI/A EPOT b bc 998 CV.00 NA LSD.00 NA