AU751940B2 - Herbicide, crop desiccant and defoliant adjuvants - Google Patents

Description

P/00/011 Regulation 3.2

AUSTRALIA

Patents Act 1990

ORIGINAL

COMPLETE SPECIFICATION STANDARD PATENT Invention title: HERBICIDE, CROP DESICCANT AND DEFOLIANT ADJUVANTS The following statement is a full description of this invention, including the best method of performing it known to us: dxbm M01 1062749001 120338 21.02.2000 1 HERBICIDE, CROP DESICCANT AND DEFOLIANT ADJUVANTS Field of the Invention This invention relates to compositions that are used as adjuvants to facilitate the effectiveness of herbicides, crop desiccants and defoliants. More particularly such compositions have proved most effective against post-emergent weeds during the growing of corn and soyabean crops, the desiccation of potato and alfalfa foliage and the defoliation of cotton leaves.

Background to the invention In this specification, where a document, act or item of knowledge is referred to or discussed, this reference or discussion is not to be taken as an admission that the document, act or item of knowledge or any combination thereof was at the priority date: part of common general knowledge; or known to be relevant to an attempt to solve any problem with which this specification is concerned.

S 15 To maximise crop yields it has become essential to eliminate competing growths to allow ooeo the specific crops to grow unhindered. To this end the chemical industry has developed a range of herbicides to combat almost every weed. Similarly to facilitate mechanical harvesting it has been found necessary to either desiccate the foliage of potatoes and alfalfa eoeoe "or defoliate the cotton leaves before the cotton is plucked.

o*oo oooo 20 The man on the land knows however that no herbicide gives a complete strike rate so a burgeoning sub-industry has developed by which the efficacy of herbicides can be :'...improved. Many names have been used to describe such compounds including "surfactants", "spreaders", "crop oil concentrates" and "spray adjuvants".

To overcome the problem in general for the industry and in particular for its own herbicides the BASF organisation patented systems in 1989 (USP 4,834,908 "Antagonism Defeating Crop Oil Concentrates" and Australian Patent 625194 "Adjuvants for use with Crop Protection Agents"). These systems are based on a concentrate comprising in essence 20-90% of a fatty acid ester, 4-40% of an anionic surfactant selected from the partial ~sr sulphate and phosphate esters of ethoxylates and from 7-20% of a fatty acid. A 100 parts of 30 T vthis blend is added to 140 parts of a hydrocarbon.

In the field, the system has been by-passed by the use of the simple methyl fatty esters emulsified with surfactants.

Another approach has been disclosed in an article entitled "Small Grass and Grass Weed Response to BAS-514 with Adjuvants" (Manthey et al) in Volume 4 Issue 2 of Weed Technology. The use of methyl, ethyl and butyl esterified sunflower oil is discussed as adjuvants for BAS-514. This study showed enhancing of BAS-514 by their use. There was no noted significant difference in efficacy between methyl, ethyl and butyl esters.

It is recognised that even these products are not optimising the efficacy of the herbicides.

To facilitate the gathering of potatoes and alfalfa seed, current practice is to desiccate the growing plants' foliage before harvest. Certain cationic materials are recommended with products such as DES-I-CATE and DIQUAT HERBICIDE H/A being well known on the field. It has also been found that their effectiveness may be enhanced by use of adjuvants such as AD-IT which is based on emulsified methyl oleate.

Similar to the current adjuvants for herbicides neither the total effectiveness, nor the rate of 15 the desiccation is completely satisfactory for the farmer.

While the mechanical harvesting of crops such as cotton, tomatoes and beans has lowered o production costs, it has also created new problems. In the case of cotton, mechanical harvesting has created perplexing problems at gins and textile mills. Such mechanically harvested cotton absorbs moisture from the spindles of the harvester and contains o:.oo) considerably more than the normal 5 to 15 percent of trash present in hand-picked cotton.

Particularly bothersome is leaf material which is one of the most difficult types of trash to remove. This additional moisture and trash in mechanically harvested cotton frequently complicates ginning operations and raises the costs of textile manufacturing by requiring additional steps in cleaning the cotton at the mill.

Recent efforts have been directed toward the development of various chemical treatments for the crop plant in an effort to overcome the objectionable attributes of mechanically harvested cotton. For example, processes have been suggested in recent years which have as their objective to provide increased yields of the desired crop and/or to inhibit rank growth. Such processes have been effective in some respects. However, some of the prior Sart methods require the use of expensive surfactants in order to obtain satisfactory app plication of the chemical product to the plant. Other prior art methods produce an insufficient increase in the crop yield and/or decreases in rank growth for economic utilisation.

As the answer to this need, a plant growth regulator and its method of use were patented in 1984 "Plant Growth Regulator and Method for the Use Thereof' (USP 4,439,224). Whilst significant improvement was achieved, decreased trash limits continue to be set by the mills demanding further improvements in the level of defoliation.

Summary of the Invention Accordingly, an adjuvant composition is provided for use with a herbicide, crop desiccant or defoliant comprising: at least 50% by weight of the composition of one or more ethyl esters of fatty acids having a level of unsaturation of at least 40%; and a non-ionic emulsifier essentially in the absence of any other type of emulsifier in an amount sufficient to achieve synergy with the ethyl esters.

Preferably no other type of emulsifier is present.

15 The higher levels of unsaturated fatty acids are preferred, being more effective as penetrants.

There are innumerable variations of the preferred ethyl ester since the ethyl esters of fatty acids may be produced from the natural oils and fats such as lard, tallow and vegetable oils or from specific blends produced by fatty acid manufacturers or from fatty acids produced 20 by synthetic means. Readily available commercial vegetable oils such as canola, corn, sunflower and soyabean oils are also sources for fatty acids. Such fatty acids will generally :be described in this patent specification as unsaturated fatty acids or oleates.

The non-ionic emulsifiers are well known to those skilled in the art, and it is recognised there are a multitude of combinations. Preferably a non-ionic ester of the fatty acid moiety provides unexpected emulsification and coupling effects to furnish a finished homogeneous product.

The ethyl esters and non-ionic emulsifier work in synergy firstly to provide the right emulsification characteristics of the alkyl esters and secondly to modify the surface properties of the plant foliage to maximise the ingress of the active ingredient, i.e. the ~herbicide, desiccant or defoliant. The emulsifier may be a combination of two or more non- S .ic emulsifiers.

In another preferred embodiment, the non-ionic emulsifiers are a combination of alkylaryl ethoxylate and a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) ester of fatty acids. Preferably, the alkylaryl ethoxylate is octyl, nonyl or dodecylphenol with 3 to 13 moles of ethylene oxide, whilst the PEG ester is of molecular weight range 200-600 with either one or two moles of unsaturated fatty acids.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the emulsifiers outlined above cover a wide range of physical properties and provide wide ranging emulsification abilities, it is important to note that a balance between two quite different emulsifiers can produce a far greater effect than an intermediate emulsifier. With this in mind, many combinations of alkylaryl ethoxylates and PEG esters can provide adequate emulsification of alkyl esters of unsaturated fatty acids for adjuvant systems. A preferred combination is ethoxylated nonylphenol with 9 moles of ethylene oxide and PEG 400 di-ester in the ratio 1:2 by weight.

In another preferred embodiment, the non-ionic emulsifier is the ethoxylated soya-amine S.base. A preferred emulsifier would have 15 mole ethoxylation.

15 In other preferred embodiments, other non-ionic emulsifiers of interest are those based on the fatty alcohols. A preferred emulsifier would have 6 mole ethoxylation on the 12 carbon *oe* alcohol.

The present invention also extends to mixtures of the adjuvant composition with herbicides, crop desiccants, defoliants, or agricultural chemicals.

20 The adjuvant compositions are used to penetrate or soften the waxy protective layer of the plant's foliage. Several methods have been developed to determine an ingredient's •penetrative, "softening" or solvent power. The most appropriate laboratory technique o evolved by the petroleum oil industry is a method, called the Aniline Point, which is :i Specifically used to determine the solvent power of cleaners, thinners, etc. From multitudinous studies, it is well known that as the molecular weight of a paraffin oil increases, the Aniline Point increases and the solvent power decreases. By way of example.

set out below is information taken from "Exxon Chemical Performance Products for Pesticides".

Norpar 12, Norpar 13 and Norpar 15 are normal paraffins manufactured by Exxon. The numbers identify products with different boiling points.

Paraffin Content Molecular Weight (Avge) Aniline Point Norpar 12 99.1 163 82 Norpar 13 99.4 189 87 Norpar 15 99.1 212 92 Similar results are seen with the alkyl esters of the unsaturated fatty acids, in this case the oleates from canola oil. Because of these products' solvent power the test undertaken is the Mixed Aniline Point.

*r Molecular Weight (Avge) Mixed Aniline Point (oC) Methyl Oleate 296 -8.4 Ethyl Oleate 310 0.0 iso-Propyl Oleate 324 +5.4 n-Butyl Oleate 338 +10.0 Based on these results, it would be expected that the most effective oil blend would be based on methyl oleate. Against this. technical expectation, it has been surprisingly found that the preferred oil blend is based on the ethyl oleate as seen in the Examples.

Examples The effectiveness of the compositions of the invention have been subject to a series of trials.

6 Product blends were made as follows: Composition 1 Ethyl Oleate PEG 400 di-oleate Nonyl phenol ethoxylate (9EO) Composition 2 Ethyl Oleate Soya-amine ethoxylate (15 EO)

HASTEN

w/w) 76 16 8

VICCHEM

EOD

w/w) a a Composition 3

VICCHEM

EOA

Ethyl Oleate Fatty alcohol ethyoxylate (12A6) PEG 400 mono oleate Herbicides The results shown in the Tables are the mean results from experiments conducted. The compositions were assessed against various weeds velvet leaf, common lambs quarters, giant foxtail, pig weed, spring amath, ivy leaf, morning glory and prickly sida. Velvet leaf is of most concern to the farmer being the most difficult to control.

After the non-treated control, the proprietary adjuvants tested included X-77 (a simple surfactant of a non-ionic blend of a nonyl ethoxylate and oleic acid); CAYUSE the original water based product of a blend of ammonium sulphate and phosphate ester; CAYUSE R, PLUS designed to meet the herbicide manufacturer's nitrogen recommendation a blend of ammonium sulphate, ammonium nitrate and phosphate ester; SUN-IT or SUN-IT II methylated seed oil (methyl oleate) with nonionic emulsifiers; and HASTEN.

TABLE 1 Herbicide: Pursuit (imazethapyr) (25 gram/acre (62g/ha)) Visual Injury 14 Days After Treatment Velvet leaf Common Lamb Quarters Giant Foxtail 0 0

S

S.

0* 0 S.

0.00

S

S

S

S

*5*e

S

S

6

S

S

S.

S

Non Treated Control 0 0 0 X-77 41 45 46 CAYUSE (1 pint/acre (1.17 1/ha)) 67 44 68 CAYUSE PLUS (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 70 38 78 SUN-IT II 28% Nitrogen (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 73 45 81 HASTEN 28% Nitrogen (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 84 49 83 TABLE 2 Herbicide: Pursuit (imazethapyr) (25 gram/acre (62 g/ha)) Visual Injury 14 Days After Treatment Velvet Common Giant leaf Lamb Foxtail Quarters Non Treated Control 0 0 0 CAYUSE PLUS (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 73 56 69 SUN-IT II (1.5 pints/acre (1.75 1/ha)) 28% 71 49 89 Nitrogen (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) HASTEN (1.5 pints/acre (1.75 1/ha)) 28% 83 68 100 Nitrogen (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 8 TABLE 3 Herbicide: Pursuit (imazethapyr) (25 gram/acre (62 g/ha)) Visual Injury 14 Days After Treatment Velvet leaf Common Lamb Quarters Giant Foxtail *c

S

Non Treated Control 0 0 0 X-77 41 56 61 CAYUSE (1 pint/acre (1.17 1/ha)) 74 61 81 CAYUSE PLUS (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 70 43 74 SUN-IT II (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 28% N 81 71 (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) HASTEN (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha) 28 N 84 69 (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) TABLE 4 Herbicide: Pursuit (imazethapyr) (4 ozs/acre (280 g/ha)) All Visual Injury 10 Days After Treatment Velvet Pigweed Spring leaf Amath Non Treated Control 0 0 0 CAYUSE (1 pint/acre (1.17 1/ha)) 36.3 81.3 96.5 CAYUSE PLUS (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 31.3 77.5 96.5 HASTEN (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 28% N 51.3 85.8 99.5 (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 9 TABLE Herbicide: Classic/Pinnacle (chlorimuron/thifensulfuron) (0.25 oz/0.25 oz/acre (17.5 g/ha)) All Visual Injury Days After Treatment Velvet leaf Pigweed Prickly Sida

C

C

V

W c*

C

C

C

S

C

C.

Non Treated Control 0 0 0 CAYUSE (0.5 pints/acre (585 ml/ha)) 37.5 90.0 CAYUSE PLUS (1 pint/acre (1.17 1/ha)) 52.5 86.3 11.3 HASTEN (1/6 pints/acre;195 ml/ha)) 28% 50 83.8 12.5 (1 pint/acre (1.17 1/ha)) TABLE 6 Herbicide: Beacon (primisulfuron) (0.76 oz/acre (53 g/ha on corn crops)) All Visual Injury 26 Days After Treatment Velvet Ivy leaf/ Giant leaf Morning Foxtail Glory SUPERB (methylated seed oil) 88 65 (1 qt/acre (2.34 1/ha)) HASTEN (1 qt/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 93 85 TABLE 7 Herbicide: Pursuit (imazethapyr) (4 oz/acre (280 g/ha on soybean crops)) All Visual Injury 26 Days After Treatment Velvet Ivy Leaf Giant leaf Morning Foxtail Glory SUN-IT (1.5 pints/acre (1.75 1/ha)) 75 80 83 HASTEN (2 pints/acre (2.34 1/ha)) 77 90 TABLE 8 Herbicide: Accent (nicosulfuron) (0.023 pound active ingredient/acre (25.7g/ha)) /All Visual Injury 21 Days After Treatment ECHCG SETLU SETVI SETFA fee*: 0

S

0

S

0 0 0 *0 No adjuvant Iv /3 /u 3v SUN-IT (1 quart/acre (2.34 1/ha) 67 87 88 HASTEN (1 quart/acre (2.34 1/ha) 93 80 80 10 ECHCG Barn yard grass SETLU Yellow foxtail SETVI Green foxtail SETFA Giant foxtail All test results in Tables 1 to 8 (inclusive) show that the HASTEN composition caused the greatest percentage visual injury with a variety of weeds tested and in conjunction with a variety of commercially available herbicides.

Desiccants To facilitate the gathering of potatoes and alfalfa seed for example, current practice is to A4 esiccate the growing plants' foliage before harvest. Certain cationic materials are S. 00

S

S

S.

0@ 0 0 5.55 4 00

S.

0 0 6500

S

0 0

S

I S 0500 0 I SI 5* 0 11 recommended with products such as DES-I-CATE and DIQUAT HERBICIDE H/A being well known on the field.

Potato foliage was sprayed 10 to 14 days prior to harvest with, for ground application, about 600 ml per acre for DIQUAT HERBICIDE and around 9.6 litres per acre (23.7 1/ha) for DES-I-CATE in 96 to 480 litres of total spray.

To improve the efficacy of these desiccants AD-IT [a proprietary product from the Wilbur Ellis Company] was added to the solution to provide 9.6 litres of AD-IT adjuvant per acre (23.7 1/ha). AD-IT is a blend of methyl oleate and a mixture of nonionic emulsifiers.

A trial was conducted comparing this material against a composition known as VICCHEM EOD (see Composition 2) at the same usage rates noted above Visual rating was undertaken at 10 and 14 days. See Table 9.

TABLE 9 Visual Injury 10 days 14 days AD-IT average average VICCHEM EOD superior above average 15 Defoliants The traditional and still widely used method of defoliation of cotton uses sodium chlorate with or without the cationic PARAQUAT. In newer techniques specific defoliants such as DROPP, (thidiazuron, a substituted urea) and the organo phosphate FOLEX are used. At the time these defoliants are sprayed onto the cotton bushes several ingredients are 20 incorporated in the spray solution. These include PREP (a boll opener), BIVERT, a drift control and depostition retention agent), MOR-ACT (a crop oil concentrate based on petroleum oil and surfactants), SYLGARD 309 (an organo silicon surfactant), TRISERT CB (an organo nitrogen product providing 26% Nitrogen) and R-11 (a proprietary nonionic surfactant). HASTEN is that shown in Composition 1.

Defoliation figures show the leaves that have fallen from the plant. Desiccation shows the level of leaves still on the plant but expected to fall soon. The open bolls show the cotton ni &ods which are open and ready to be picked.

12 The first set of trials were undertaken in Shafter County, California. All treatments were applied at 20 gallons/acre (187 1/ha) by ground spray and results were assessed after 9 days.

See Table TABLE Treatment #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 DROPP (lbs/acre 0.2/ 0.2/ 0.2/ 0.2/ 0.2/ 0.2/ 224 224 224 224 224 224 PREP (qts/acre 1/2.34 1/2.34 1/2.34 1/2.34 1/2.34 1/2.34 BIVERT (pts/acre (ml/ha)) 0.75/ 0.75/ 0.75/ 0.75/ 0.75/ 0.75/ 877 877 877 877 877 877 MOR-ACT (pts/acre 1/1.17 1/1.17 SYLGARD (pts/100gal (1/800 2 4 2 4 TRISERT (gal/100gal (1/100 1 HASTEN (pints/100gal (1/800 4 8 Defoliation 58.9 50.9 68.9 71.4 80.9 83.6 Desiccation 0.7 1.0 1.0 7.5 2.6 10.0 Open bolls 84.0 86.8 91.5 89.0 94.9 94.6 13 A second set of trials were undertaken in Fresno County, California. All trials were applied at 30 gallons/acre (281 1/ha) by ground spray and results were assessed after 11 days. This was an extreme trial as the cotton plants had excess vegetation from over-fertilisation and watering. See Table 11.

TABLE 11 Treatment #1 #2 #3 #4 FOLEX (pints/acre 3/3.51 3/3.51 3/3.51 3/3.51 3/3.51 PREP (pints/acre 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 BIVERT (pints/acre 1/1.17 1/1.17 1/1.17 1/1.17 1/1.17 MOR-ACT (pints/acre 1/1.17 1/1.17 1/1.17 SYLGARD (pints/acre 4/4.68 4/4.68 TRISERT (gal/l00gal (1/100 1 4 HASTEN (pints/100gal (1/800 8 4 Defoliation 37.9 49.4 55.4 51.4 47.1 Desiccation 14.5 30.7 45.9 47.2 29.5 Open bolls 47.7 57.8 70.0 54.8 64.8 14 The third set of trials were again undertaken in Fresno County, California. All trials were applied at 20 gallons/acre (187 1/ha) by ground spray and results were assessed after 7 days.

See Table 12.

TABLE 12 Treatment #1 #2 #3 #4 FOLEX (pints/acre 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 PREP (pints/acre 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 2/2.34 BIVERT (pints/acre (ml/ha)) 0.5/585 0.5/585 0.5/585 0.5/585 0.5/585 R-11 (pints/100gal (1/800 2 SYLGARD (pints/100gal (1/800 2 2 4 4 HASTEN (pints/100gal (1/800 4 8 Defoliation 87.5 77.6 87.3 83.4 89.1 Desiccation 23.3 6.5 9.8 13.2 21.2 Open bolls 77.4 70.4 69.6 76.5 68.3

S

S

A major field trial was conducted at the K5 cotton field at "The Gardens" Wee Waa Australia. The field was divided into two 33 hectare blocks East and West. The western side was treated with the following formulation.

D C Tron Oil 2 litres/ha DROPP 100gm/ha Dimethoate 500ml/ha D C Tron Oil is an emulsified paraffinic petroleum oil and is used throughout the district.

The product was applied by aerial spray at a water volume of 20 litre/hectare. The to temperature was 20 0 C, humidity 75% and wind at a 5 knot northerly.

For the eastern side HASTEN (see Composition 1) was directly substituted for D C Tron Oil at the same volume.

SSignificant leaf defoliation differences were observed as follows where senesced leaf is classified as a leaf which falls from the plant when flicked with the finger. See Table 13.

TABLE 13 East-HASTEN West-D C Tron Green Leaf Senesced Leaf Green Leaf Senesced Leaf Pre-Spray 135 12 165 14 days 4 19 26 9 days 2 5 12 12 days 0 3 6 6 Percentage of Green Leaves Remaining East-HASTEN West-D C Tron Green Leaf Senesced Leaf Green Leaf Senesced Leaf days 3% 16% 9 days 1% 7% 12 days 0% 4% It was observed that green leaf drop was faster and more complete in the eastern side (ie.

treated with HASTEN). This was particularly obvious in the 5 day assessment.

Consequently as the defoliation was relatively quick, picking can commence earlier and also achieve better grades of cotton through the absence of foliage.

The word 'comprising' and forms of the word 'comprising' as used in this description and in the claims does not limit the invention claimed to exclude any variants or additions.

Modifications and improvements to the invention will be readily apparent to those skilled j R the art. Such modifications and improvements are intended to be within the scope of this

Claims (18)

1. An adjuvant composition for use with a herbicide, crop desiccant or defoliant comprising: at least 50% by weight of the composition of one or more ethyl esters of fatty acids having a level of unsaturation of at least 40%; and a non-ionic emulsifier essentially in the absence of any other type of emulsifier in an amount sufficient to achieve synergy with the ethyl esters.

2. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein there are no other type of emulsifiers present.

3. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is a combination of two or more non-ionic emulsifiers.

4. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) ester of fatty acids. 15

5. An adjuvant composition according to claim 4 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) with a molecular weight range of 200-600 esterified with either one or two moles of unsaturated fatty acids.

6. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is of the alkylarylethoxylate type. 20

7. An adjuvant composition according to claim 6 wherein the alkylarylethoxylate is octyl-, nonyl- or dodecylphenol with 3 to 13 moles of ethylene oxide.

8. An adjuvant composition according to claims 1 to 3 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is a combination of an alkylarylethoxylate and a polyethyleneglycol (PEG) ester of unsaturated fatty acids.

9. An adjuvant composition according to claim 8 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is ethoxylated nonylphenol with 9 moles of ethylene oxide and PEG 400 di-ester of unsaturated fatty acids in the ratio 1:2 by weight. RF

10. An adjuvant composition according to claim 9 wherein the unsaturated fatty acids are based on oleine. 17

11. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is ethoxylated soy-amine base.

12. An adjuvant composition according to claim 11 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier has mole ethoxylation.

13. An adjuvant composition according to claim 1 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier is of the fatty alcohol ethoxylate type.

14. An adjuvant composition according to claim 13 wherein the non-ionic emulsifier has 6 mole ethoxylated on the 12 carbon fatty alcohol.

A herbicide composition comprising: a herbicide; and an amount of an adjuvant composition according to any of claims 1 to 14, which is at least an equal weight of the active level of the herbicide.

16. A crop desiccant composition comprising: S a crop desiccant; and 15 an amount of an adjuvant composition according to any of claims 1 to 14, which is at least an equal weight of the active level of the desiccant.

17. A defoliant composition comprising: S. :i a defoliant; and an amount of an adjuvant composition according to any of claims 1 to 14, which is at least an equal weight of the active level of the defoliant. oo S.*

18. A method of enhancing the activity of a herbicide, crop desiccant or defoliant including the step of mixing the herbicide, crop desiccant or defoliant with an adjuvant composition comprising: at least 50% by weight of the composition of one or more ethyl esters of fatty acids having a level of unsaturation of at least 40%; and a non-ionic emulsifier essentially in the absence of any other type of emulsifier in an amount sufficient to achieve synergy with the ethyl esters. VICTORIAN CHEMICALS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD and WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 24 May 2002