The Official Publication of The Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association
Biological Control in the Nursery
Part 3: Effective Use of Microbial Control Products
Plus, Highlights from the TNLA Golf Classic and Annual Awards Banquet
Shingle Oak
Autumn Blaze Maple 2” – 4”
October Glory Maple
Bur Oak
Red Pointe Maple 2” – 4”
Worplesdon Sweetgum
Princeton Elm
Willow Oak
Armstrong Maple 2” – 4”
Tulip Poplar
Heritage Birch, Single Stem
A Snapshot into Substrates: Costs Paid by Tennessee Producers
The Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association serves its members in the industry through education, promotion and representation. The statements and opinions expressed herein are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the association, its staff, or its board of directors, Tennessee Greentimes, or its editors. Likewise, the appearance of advertisers, or their identification as Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association members, does not constitute an endorsement of the products or services featured in this, past or subsequent issues of this quarterly publication. Copyright ©2024 by the Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association. Tennessee Greentimes is published quarterly. Subscriptions are complimentary to members of the Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association. Third-class postage is paid at Jefferson City, MO. Printed in the U.S.A. Reprints and Submissions: Tennessee Greentimes allows reprinting of material. Permission requests should be directed to the Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association. We are not responsible for unsolicited freelance manuscripts and photographs. Contact the managing editor for contribution information. Advertising: For display and classified advertising rates and insertions, please contact Leading Edge Communications, LLC, 206 Bridge Street, Suite 200, Franklin, TN 37064, (615) 790-3718, Fax (615) 794-4524.
Official Publication of The Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association
Winterthur Viburnum
American Boxwood
Green Giant & Nigra Arbs
Sullivan Cypress
Gem Box Inkberry
Nova Taxus
Green Mtn. Boxwood
Sprinter Boxwood
Excelsa Arb
Uptight Boxwood
Green Gem Boxwood Steeds Holly Popcorn Viburnum
Hicksi Taxus Chicagoland Green Boxwood
Firelight Hydrangeas & Sprinter Boxwoods Densiformis Taxus Pragense Viburnum
Wintergem Boxwood Polar Gold Arb & Sky Pencil Holly
TNLA would like to thank the following companies for being Membership Sponsors
GOLD Membership Sponsors
Arboras, LLC.
Barky Beaver Mulch & Soil Mix, Inc.
BASF
Blankenship Farms and Nursery
Botanico, Inc.
BWI of Memphis
Cam Too Camellia Nursery, Inc.
Delta Mulch and Materials, LLC
Drees Plant Wholesalers
Enviro-Scapes, LLC
Flower City Nurseries
Mid-South Nursery
NYP Corp.
Randall Walker Farms
Riverbend Nurseries, LLC
Swafford Nursery, Inc.
Swift Straw Tennessee 811
Tennessee Valley Nursery, Inc.
Turner & Sons Nursery
Warren County Nursery, Inc.
Youngblood Farms, LLC
Membership Sponsors
3F - Flanders Family Farm
Dayton Bag & Burlap Co.
Carpe Diem Farms
Cherry Springs Nursery
Kinsey Gardens, Inc.
Mid-South Nursery
Mike Brown’s Wholesale Nursery, LLC
Old Courthouse Nursery
Rusty Mangrum Nursery
Samara Farms
Scenic Hills Nursery
Star Roses and Plants
Woodbury Insurance Agency
The Looking Ahead
time has come for my last President’s message to you. I will give a brief year in review before looking ahead. As you are aware, we redesigned our website www.TNLA.com to improve the user experience, the management of programs and events, and increase the awareness of board members about events and membership status. We are also putting together a Buyer’s Guide for the first time in over a decade. Back in May we held our special Field Day event at the TSU Nursery Research Center where we had a day of education and vendor displays. In October, we held our Golf Classic at Fall Creek Falls on the beautiful Tennessee Golf Trail and followed up the next evening at The Magnolia Event Center with our annual awards banquet and membership meeting where we got to witness The Volunteers beat the Crimson Tide. State Senator Janice Bowling and Representative Paul Sherrill were also in attendance.
I want to leave you with a vision of the future. This year Terri Turner will serve as our second ever female Ex-Officio. Next year, Osvaldo Lopez will serve as our first ever Hispanic President. The markets are changing, the workplace is changing and so are we. Now I have to put you on excitement alert - on October 23-24, 2025 our TNGRO trade show will return to the Farm Bureau Expo Center, for more information visit https://tnla.com/TNGRO. Finally, TNLA is actively supporting the movement to build an Ag Expo Center right here in Warren, County with more to come as things advance. Big things are happening in our industry, in our state, and in our association. Stay tuned, the best is yet to come!
It’s been an honor to serve as your President a second time. Your Tennessee Nursery and Landscape Association is 119 years strong. Please participate by serving on the board or on a committee if you get a chance. We need your help to carry the vision forward and advocate on behalf of the real green industry! Thank you all.
Jon Flanders
TNLA President
TNLA donated $1,000 to the Hampton High School FFA for the rebuilding of their greenhouse after being destroyed by Hurricane Helene. Sam Kinsey, our 2nd Vice President, is pictured presenting the donation to students.
SILVER
The Tennessee Greentimes is the official publication of The Tennessee Nursery & Landscape Association, Inc.
115 Lyon Street
McMinnville, Tennessee 37110 (931) 473-3951
Fax (931) 473-5883 www.tnla.com
Email: mail@tnla.com
Published By
Leading Edge Communications
206 Bridge Street, Suite 200 Franklin, Tennessee 37064 (615) 790-3718 Fax (615) 794-4524
Email: info@leadingedge communications.com
Editors
Dr. Bill Klingeman
Dr. Amy Fulcher
Associate Editors
Dr. Karla Addesso
Dr. Becky Bowling
Dr. Midhula Gireesh
Dr. Nar Ranabhat
TNLA Officers
President
Jon Flanders Botanico, Inc. & 3F - Flanders Family Farm
1st Vice President
Ozzy Lopez
Ozzy’s Lawncare and Hardscape Services
2nd Vice President
Sam Kinsey Kinsey Gardens
3rd Vice President
Trista Pirtle Pirtle Nursery
Secretary-Treasurer
Bryan Tate
Mid-South Nursery
Associate Director
Todd Locke BWI of Memphis
Ex-Officio
Terri Turner Turner & Sons Nursery
Executive Director Danae Bouldin
HOOVER & SON INSURANCE
A 2024 TNLA Golf Classic
nother TNLA Golf Classic is in the books! This was our first tournament at Fall Creek Falls and it was GREAT! The golf course is beautiful. If you missed this year’s tournament, you definitely missed out! We couldn’t have asked for a better day. Thank you to our sponsors and players!
PRIZE WINNERS
CLOSEST TO THE PIN
Ron Farmer (not pictured)
Botanico, Inc.
LADIES’ LONGEST DRIVE
Kelly Taylor
Dayton Bag & Burlap
CLOSEST TO THE PIN
Logan Young
Bob Young Nursery
LONGEST DRIVE
Michael Taylor
Dayton Bag & Burlap
3F Flanders Family Farm
Botanico, Inc.
Buffalo Horticulture
BWI of Memphis
Thank You 2024 TNLA Golf Classic Sponsors !
Cultivate Sourcing Group
Dayton Bag & Burlap
Delta Mulch Materials
Gateway Tire Service Harrell’s
Heather Famrs Nursery
Kelley Konstruction
Kirby Real Estate
Mid South Nursery
NYP
Randall Walker Famrs
Scenic Hills Nursery
Tennessee Valley Nursery
TNT Farms
Triangle Nursery
Annual Awards Banquet and Business Meeting
held our Annual Awards Banquet and Membership Meeting in October at the Magnolia Event Venue. The board enjoyed networking and celebrating with all who were in attendance! Congratulations to our award winners!
HUGE THANKS to our Sponsors !
2024 AWARD WINNERS
Nurseryman of the Year
Bill Reilly Salesman of the Year
Eli Eldridge
H&R Agri-Power Farm & Turf
Landscape Contractor of the Year Caylor
Young
Magnolias donated by Mid South Nursery
Committee Chair of the Year
2024 Award Winners Continues on page 12
Windell Tate
Mid South Nursery
Nursery Professional of the Year
Bryan Tate
Mid South Nursery
Dr. Karla Addesso
Otis Floyd Nursery Research Center
Clayton Wilcher
Wilcher’s Nursery
Floyd MacDonald Scholarship
Carson Drake
Hall
Hall of Fame
Phillip Pelham
Cumberland Valley Nurseries, Inc.
Not Pictured
Floyd MacDonald Scholarship
Walker Harrell
Board Member Awards Our
Green Goods Distributor of the Year
Triple B Nursery
Not Pictured
2024 TNLA Board is absolutely wonderful! This board is made up of some of the best men and women in the industry. Their time and dedication to TNLA and the industry is PRICELESS! We have two board members with terms ending this year, Terri Turner and Todd Locke. Join us by congratulating and thanking them for their service to TNLA! Jon has served an excellent term as President this year. But hang tight! There’s more to come before the year ends!
2024
Biological Control in the Nursery
Part 3: Effective Use of Microbial Control Products
By Kripa Dhakal, Alfred Daniel J, and Karla M. Addesso
Tennessee State University, Otis L. Floyd Nursery Research Center, 472 Cadillac Lane, McMinnville, Tennessee, 37110, USA
InPart 3 of this three-part series, we discuss the effective use of microbial control products in pest and disease management programs. These products can infect and kill both plant pests and pathogens. They can serve as alternatives to broad-spectrum chemical pesticides or work together with them as part of an integrated management plan.
Microbial Control Products
Microbial products are naturally occurring, or genetically modified microorganisms used to control plant pests and disease. They include specific species of fungi, protozoa, viruses, and bacteria. These products are most effective as preventative treatments or under conditions of low pest or disease pressure and are less toxic to the environment and nontarget organisms. A range of problems can be managed using microbial products and are available for various applications, from professional to homeowner use. It is important to follow product labels for safe and effective application.
Microbial pesticides function through various mechanisms:
• Direct infection of target pests or pathogens with fatal diseases (Fig.1).
• Release of toxic substances to kill competing plant pathogenic microbes or arthropods.
• Outcompeting pathogenic microbes for space in soil or plant tissue.
The most well-known microbial product is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces a protein toxin in the gut of infected insects. The toxin creates holes in the digestive tract, causing the insect to starve to death.
Different Bt strains can target specific insect groups, such as those of mosquitoes, moths, flies, and beetles, while leaving other non-target insects, like pollinators, unaffected. In addition, different strains of naturally occurring nuclear polyhedrosis virus (NPV) are used against gypsy moth and helicoverpa larvae. This allows for a targeted treatment of the problem pest, while leaving beneficial insects unharmed.
Advantages and Challenges
Numerous advantages can be found in the utilization of microbial control products, including increased safety for humans and other nontarget organisms, reduction of pesticide residues in food, preservation of natural enemies, and increased biodiversity in managed ecosystems. However, live microbes need specific temperature and humidity conditions to thrive and can be vulnerable to sunlight degradation. Their performance varies based on environmental factors and narrow target ranges can limit their functionality against multiple pests. Continuous use can lead to resistance development as is seen with chemical pesticides, and some products have shorter residual activity, requiring repeated applications. Careful reading of all product labels is recommended to ensure that the product is properly stored, as some products require refrigeration. Microbial products generally have a shorter shelf life than conventional chemical pesticides.
Application Methods
Microbial pesticides, utilized mainly for prevention or when pest populations are low, are applied similarly to chemical pesticides. Depending on the specific formulation, these products can be used in conventional and organic production systems. They come in various formulations such as dusts, liquids, powders, or granules, and can be administered through spraying over foliage, soil drenching, or incorporation into media. Application methods include crop dusting, tractor-mounted sprayers, or backpack sprayers with droplet sizes adjustable to enhance efficacy. Soil applications are preferred for below-ground pests, aiming to transfer beneficial microbes to the root zone. Granular formulations may require activation through water. Importantly, equipment previously used for fungicides must be thoroughly cleaned to prevent harm to beneficial microbes since many beneficial microbes can also be killed by fungicides. Additionally, most biocontrol approaches benefit from being used in combination with cultural practices that optimize their success. Routine scouting can aid in timing re-applications of microbial products before stronger, curative measures are needed. These products can be used as the first line of defense to maintain pest populations below economic thresholds. Conventional pesticides can be used in rotation with microbial products or when curative control is necessary to bring population numbers down rapidly. Care must be taken to ensure that the chemical products are compatible with the microbial products in use. Table 1 provides examples of microbial products available for the control of arthropod pests and diseases in commercial nurseries.
Figure 1. a & b. Ant and Dipteran fly infected with fungal pathogens c. Caterpillar infected with nucleopolyhedrovirus.
5 Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor modulator Spinosyns Spinosad
B. thuringiensis var. aizawai
B. thuringiensis var. israelensis
INSECTICIDES & MITICIDES
Blackhawk, Bonide Colorado Potato Beetle Beater, Captain Jack’s Deadbug, Conserve SC, Conserve Naturalyte, Entrust SC#, GF-120 NF Naturalyte#
11A Microbial disruptors of insect midgut membranes
Bacillus thuringiensis and insecticidal proteins
Bacteria
B. thuringiensis var. kurstaki
B. thuringiensis var. tenebrionis
Beetles, caterpillars, fire ants, leafminers, spider mites, thrips
Agree WG, XenTari# Caterpillars
Gnatrol WDG#, Teknar SC Black flies, fungus gnats, immature flies, larval stages of mosquitoes
Bactospeine, BT Now#, Caterpillar Killer#, Crymax, Deliver#, Dipel Pro DF#, Javelin WG#, Monterey B.t.#, Thuricide BT#, Foray 76B
Novodor, Trident
Most caterpillars
Colorado potato beetle larvae, elm leaf beetle
B. thuringiensis var. galleriae beetleGONE!, grubGONE!, grubHALT! Beetles, fungus gnats, white grubs
Chromobacterium subtsugae
Paenibacillus popilliae
(Bacillus popilliae)
Burkholderia spp. (A396 strain)
Beauveria bassiana
Fungi
Unclassified Unclassified MOA
Grandevo CG#, Grandevo WDG#
Grandevo PTO#
Colorado potato beetle larvae, white grubs
Aphids, broad mites, caterpillars, eriophyid mites, lace bugs, plant bugs, spider mites, thrips, whiteflies, white grubs
Milky Spore Granular, Milky Spore Powder Larvae (grubs) of Japanese beetle
Venerate XC#
Botanigard ES
Botanigard 22WP
Mycotrol, Naturalis-L
Metarhizium anisopliae (F52 strain)
Isaria fumosorosea (Paecilomyces fumosoroseus)
Heterorhabditis bacteriophora
Nematodes
Aphids, leafhoppers, mites, stink bugs
Aphids, flea beetles, lace bugs, leaf beetles, leafhoppers, plant bugs, psyllids, spider mites, thrips, weevils, white grubs, whiteflies
Aphids, foliar feeding mealy bugs, lace bugs, psyllids, thrips, weevils, white grubs, whiteflies
Aphids, broad mites, caterpillars, eriophyid mites, flea beetles, leaf beetles, leafhoppers, plant bugs, psyllids, shore flies, spider mites, thrips, weevils, white grubs, whiteflies
Met52, Tick-EX EC Spider mites, thrips, weevils
NoFly
Ancora#, Preferal#
B-Green, NemaSeek Pro Hb#, Nemasys G, Nemashield HB, Terranem
Aphids, leaf beetles, leafhoppers, plant bugs, psyllids, thrips, white grubs, whiteflies
Aphids, broad mites, caterpillars, flies and midges, moths, plant bugs, psyllids, spider mites, thrips, weevils, white grubs, whiteflies
Black vine weevil, caterpillars, Colorado potato beetle, white grubs ExhibitlineH, LarvaNem Weevils, white grubs Steinernema carpocapsae Millenium, NemAttack Pro SC#
Armyworms, caterpillars, clearwing borers, shore flies, weevils
Capsanem, Carpocapsae System, Exhibitline SC, Nematac C Caterpillars, thrips, white grubs
S. feltiae
EntoNem, Nemasys, NemAttack Pro Sf#, NemaShield, Steinernema System
Beetles, caterpillars, fungus gnats, thrips
S. kraussei Kraussei-System, Nemasys L Weevils
Virus Nuclear polyhedrosis viruses (NPV)
Gypchek, Helicovex
FUNGICIDES
Bacillus subtilis QST (713 strain)
MOAs including competition, mycoparasitism, antibiosis, membrane disruption by fungicidal lipopeptides, lytic enzymes, induced plant defense
B. amyloliquefaciens
B. pumilus (QST 2808 strain)
B. mycoides isolates J
CEASE#, Companion (GB03 strain), Rhapsody#
Double Nickel, Monterey Complete Disease Control#, Serifel, Stargus#, Triathlon BA#
Sonata
LifeGard WG#
Gypsy moth, Helicoverpa spp.
Alternaria leaf spot, anthracnose, bacterial leaf spot, black spot, fire blight, powdery and downy mildew
Cercospora leaf spot, gray mold, powdery and downy mildew, root and crown rot
Blights, mildews, mold
Blights, cercospora leaf spot, mildews, white mold
Streptomyces spp. Actinovate SP#, Mycostop# Alternaria leaf spot, common scab disease, damping off, gray mold, powdery and downy mildew, root and crown rot
Gliocladium virens (GL-21)
Fungi
Ulocladium oudemansii (U3 Strain)
Trichoderma spp.
SoilGard#
BotryStop#
RootShield Plus-Granules#, RootShield-WP#, RootShield Plus-WP#
Damping off, root rot
Gray mold, white mold
Damping off, fruit rot, root and crown rot, wilt
A SNAPSHOT into SUBSTRATES
Costs Paid by TENNESSEE PRODUCERS
By Walker Harrell 1, Alicia Rihn 2, Karl McKim 1, James S. Owen Jr.3, Amy Fulcher 1
1University of Tennessee, Department of Plant Sciences
2University of Tennessee, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
3USDA-ARS Application Technology Research Unit
This is part two of a two-part series reviewing substrate components and their costs in 2023 – 2024.
Pine Bark
P1
Hydrafiber
Peat
Coir
InPart I, “A Snapshot into Substrates: Components Used by Tennessee Producers”, we described how container substrates consist of organic soilless components such as pine bark, peat, coir, and compost, as well as the sources and processing related to these components. We also describe inorganic amendments such as lime and mineral nutrients that are often included in substrates. In Part II, we report the cost of substrate components and amendments.
Components: organic and inorganic materials that compose the bulk of the substrate volume, and along with container height, influence its physical properties
Amendments: agrochemicals that are added to a substrate to adjust or maintain pH, provide nutrients, or control pests. Amendments can influence the substrate solution’s electrochemical properties, for example pH, electrical conductivity and oxidation state.
In 2017, substrate components and associated labor and equipment costs were estimated to be 12.4% and 28.9% of the total variable costs when producing 3-gallon evergreen shrubs on the West Coast and East Coast, respectively (Ingram et al. 2016; 2017; Fig. 1). Since substrate has such bearing on crop outcomes and is a significant cost in the nursery industry, we sought the actual variability in substrate component and amendment costs from Tennessee nursery producers in 2023 and 2024. Our study aims to capture current substrate prices to provide a reference for Tennessee nursery producers. Identifying the current market rate of substrate components and amendments can inform purchasing decisions, possibly leading to lower costs and increased profits.
In the fall of 2023, we surveyed a small, pilot group of Tennessee nursery producers within a 117-mile radius of McMinnville, Tennessee. We collected data via email, contacting Tennessee nursery producers to identify each substrate ingredient used and its individual cost. Emails were supplemented with phones calls, as needed. Allied suppliers were contacted to obtain the price of coir because no Tennessee producers that we surveyed were using coir. Peat prices were obtained from a UT research program.
Holly East Coast
Boxwood West Coast
1 Prepared from Ingram, D.L., C.R. Hall, and J. Knight. 2016. Carbon footprint and variable costs of production components for a container-grown evergreen shrub using life cycle assessment: An East Coast U.S. model. HortScience 51(8):989–994.
2 Prepared from Ingram, D., C. Hall, and J. Knight. 2017. Comparison of three production scenarios for Buxus microphylla var. japonica ‘Green Beauty’ marketed in a no. 3 container on the West Coast using life cycle assessment. HortScience 52(3):357-365.
Substrate
Dolomitic Limestone
Fertilization
Container
Irrigation
Chlorination
Transplant Liners
Spacing
Gravel Surface
Ground Cloth
Overwintering
Applying Herbicides
Hand Weeding
Insecticides / Fungicides
Pruning
Pulling Orders and Loading
Energy Overhead
Figure 1. Production costs (materials, and associated labor and equipment) for producing #3 containers on the East 1 and West 2 Coasts of the U.S. Substrate components and amendments shown in brackets.
The anonymously entered data was converted to cost per cubic yard for components or per pound for amendments and minimum, maximum, median, and averages were generated across producers for ease of comparison. When only two data points were provided, the median and average were the same and when one data point was provided all values were the same. Responding nurseries ranged from less than 30 acres to over 100 acres in production. Delivery fees and fuel charges were excluded from the cost of each substrate component or amendment, except in one case in which the pine bark delivery charge was embedded in the grower’s cost. Embedding the delivery price in this one instance did not appear to skew the data as it was near the average. Pine fines and pine bark were treated as the same product and are referred to as pine bark.
Substrate component prices varied much more than anticipated. No two prices for the same component were equal across the Tennessee nursery producers. Tennessee nurseries paid an average $19.07 per cubic yard for pine bark (Table 1), ranging from $14.53 to $29.00 per cubic yard. This wide range of cost indicated some growers are paying nearly double, 99.7%, for pine bark. This difference appears to be due to volume discounts realized by medium and large growers. However, prices also varied across medium and large nurseries and within large nurseries. Prices for vermicompost ranged from $65 to $95 per cubic yard largely due to a substantial difference in volume purchased. Compressed coconut coir (pith fibers) cost on average $76.05 per cubic yard, 52% of peat ($145.46 per cubic yard),
while wood fiber-based substrate cost $68.57 per cubic yard, which was in the equivalent range of coir. At a hypothetical estimate of $70.00 per cubic yard, a peat “complement” or alternative costs 48% of the current market price for peat. Sand prices ranged from $36.00 to $44.40 per cubic yard.
Market Effects on Substrate Costs
While raw substrate component costs vary, they are also subject to other influences on price. Some substrate components are more subject to disruptions in availability due to weather or their extended supply chain. Increased demand for alternate uses can increase price, while regulatory action can restrict availability or otherwise increase prices for some natural resources. Peat requires optimal weather for harvesting, which has limited the amount harvested in recent years. Coir requires fresh water to process. Any restrictions in availability due either to weather or regulatory action can affect the supply of these substrate components. The supply and thus the price of pine bark is linked to the demand for forestry products by the construction sector and competition for energy. Peat sold in the US is harvested in Canada and a significant portion of coconut coir is harvested in Sri Lanka. Both must be imported, incurring additional costs. Use of any substrate component can be impacted by negative or positive consumer perceptions.
Substrates
Table 1. Microbial Products Available for Management of Pests and Diseases by Commercial Nursery and Landscape Professionals
Growers paid from $0.01 to $0.11 per pound for lime, over a 10-fold difference, yet lime is an input that is expected to be a small contributor (0.02% – 0.4%) to total production costs (Table 1; Fig. 1). Controlled release fertilizer is estimated to be 16.3% of a nursery’s total variable costs based on East Coast production of holly (Fig. 1). Tennessee producers paid between $1.12 and $1.32 per pound for controlled release fertilizer, nearly an 18% difference between operations (Table 1).
Labor-efficient Fertilizer Application
Growers may be able to optimize labor used to apply fertilizer, improve labor efficiency and avoid wasting fertilizer. Recent research at the University of Tennessee found that a mechanized fertilizer dispenser that deposits fertilizer directly into each container uses 40% less labor than hand applying fertilizer with a spoon and prevents wasted product as can occur with a belly grinder-type applicator. A new UT extension publication on this topic will be available soon!
Table 2 provides several scenarios of different costs associated with using the average substrate costs from Table 1. Across scenarios 1 – 4 the portion of the potting mix composed of pine bark, sand, lime and fertilizer is constant while the portion of peat and peat alternative components varied. Scenario 1 uses peat and exhibits the second highest cost per cubic yard (behind scenario 2 with vermicompost), while scenario 3 uses coir and results in the lowest cost per cubic yard. It should be noted that scenarios are purely for demonstration purposes and not recommendations on the best substrate for the grower’s situation, climate and crop(s). Costs may change depending upon the year, availability, etc.
Even with a small sample size and limited geographic range, these data reveal that the prices nurseries pay for the same substrate components and amendments vary greatly. Products that extend peat supplies, such as wood fiber, may cost less than peat and present an opportunity for growers to supplement their substrate with alternatives. When trying a new substrate component, growers are advised to do so on a small scale. Closely monitor crop health and growth, and test substrate chemical and physical properties. Then, adopt the component incrementally on more crops before adopting nursery-wide.
This article contains a snapshot of prices that a small group of Tennessee nursery producers experienced in 2023 and early 2024. The small sample size is a limitation that should be recognized when interpreting these data. More research is needed to reach a larger sample size of nursery producers in order to more definitively determine the price range growers are paying and the impact a nursery’s size has on the cost of substrate components and amendments.
The primary goal of this study was to provide price reference points that Tennessee nurseries are paying for substrate components and amendments. The information provided allows growers to consider how their overall substrate costs will be affected by changing substrate component and amendment prices. The information in this article could create awareness of the opportunity to lower production costs through substituting substrate components and amendments, partnering with larger firms to improve economies of scale, or improving the efficiency of fertilizer application.
The authors thank the seven Tennessee nurseries that provided their substrate costs in support of this article!
1 Cost is per cubic yard
2 Conversion rate of 3.8 cubic feet of compressed peat equals 8 cubic feet loose.
3 Conversion rate of 1 cubic feet of compressed coir equals 5 cubic feet loose.
4 Conversion rate of 1 cubic feet of compressed wood fiber equals 4 cubic feet loose.
Table 2. The impact of the cost of peat, vermicompost, coir, and wood fiber components on substrate price.
What Was Spied with Our (Microscopic) Eye:
Updates
on plant health problems diagnosed during peak months of 2023 and 2024
By Nar B. Ranabhat
,
Assistant
Professor, Extension Plant Pathologist, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee
Midhula Gireesh, Assistant Professor, Extension Entomologist, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, University of Tennessee Sylvia Moraes, Plant Diagnostician, UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center, University of Tennessee
Table 1. Top 10 TN counties from which diagnostic samples were submitted (out of 69 submitting counties). Results were based on total samples sent for diagnostics by the UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center lab from May to September in 2023 and 2024.
Table 2. Most frequently submitted plant host species (out of 102 plant/crop species submitted) from 453 (2023) and 517 (2024) total samples submitted for diagnostics from May to September.
Figure 1. Plant samples received for diagnostic analysis from different types of submitters.
Figure 2. Plant samples received monthly from May to September in 2023 and 2024.
UT Plant Pest Diagnostic Lab provides timely diagnostics of plant pests, including pathogenic microorganisms, insects, mites, and nematodes that are found in association with submitted plant samples. The mission of the lab is to provide accurate pest identification to support UT research and Extension personnel, commercial growers, landscape companies, and homeowners. When preparing to submit a sample, having as much information as possible is critical for most accurate diagnosis. When you are submitting a sample or if someone brings samples to their county Extension office, having a checklist will help to ask questions or to fill out alongside the sample will help in diagnosing plant health problems. A sample of checklist questions to fill during sample submission is available online at: https://ornamentalpathologylab. tennessee.edu/useful-resources
This article summarizes plant health related samples submitted to the UT Plant Pest Diagnostic Lab from May to September in 2023 and 2024. Understanding the problems reported in our state and the prevalence of these challenges in recent years can help inform and prepare scouts, growers, and Extension agents to be on the lookout for problems in upcoming field seasons at the locations and in the crops and plants they monitor in nurseries, managed landscapes, and home gardens.
From May to September, the UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center received a total of 463 samples in 2023 and 517 samples in 2024 (Figure 1). In 2023, Extension agents were the top submitters, accounting for 38% of the total samples, followed by landscaper and homeowners. However, in 2024, landscaper submitted 27%, homeowner 25%, and Extension agents 23% (Figure 1). Our Extension agents are doing a fantastic job assisting all clientele in submitting the samples to the diagnostic lab.
In 2023, August was the peak month for sample submissions, with the lab receiving a total of 120 samples. In 2024 higher numbers were submitted from May to July, with the peak in May (145 samples) (Figure 2). Early scouting and identification are crucial for managing these problems effectively.
Samples were submitted from 69 different counties across Tennessee, with Davidson County submitting the most samples (147 in 2023 and 210 in 2024) (Table 1).
Boxwood samples were the most frequently submitted, followed by maple ( Acer spp.), arborvitae ( Thuja spp.), oak ( Quercus spp.), tomato ( Lycopersicon spp.), and cherry, peach or plum samples from species in the genus Prunus . ( Table 2 ). The prevalence of plant health problems often depends on favorable weather conditions for pathogens. In general, wet, humid, mild temperature favors disease development.
West Greenhill Rd. McMinnville, TN 37110 (931) 939-2572 fax (931) 939-2577
mangrumfarms@benlomand.net
www.rustymangrumnursery.com
Most of the samples that were received by the lab in both 2023 (263 samples) and 2024 (294 samples) were woody ornamental landscape plant species (Figure 3). These samples most often were sent from the central and eastern regions of Tennessee. Other specimen host categories included small fruits, tree fruits, vegetables, tobacco and row crops (Figure 3). Row crop samples are primarily handled by the West Tennessee AgResearch and Education Center in Jackson, TN, where row crops are extensively grown.
Plant biotic problems, caused by disease-causing organisms including fungi, arthropods, bacteria, viruses, were the most common problems diagnosed in the lab during both years (Figure 4). Fungi were the most frequently identified pathogens occurring on submitted samples. An additional 10% of submitted problems were diagnosed as having abiotic causes, including issues attributed to nutritional deficiencies, and weather-related damage from frost damage, drought, or flooding. A “miscellaneous” category is included that refers to cases in which specimens were received in poor condition, inadequate sample collection (too little material, tissue from already dead host plant, or wrong plant tissues needed for diagnostics), or instances where improper shipping or delayed receipt negatively impacted sample condition. For guidance about how best to prepare and collect host plant samples and shipping instructions that yield best results, please visit UT Soil, Plant and Pest Center website:
https://soillab.tennessee.edu/plant-pests/plant-disease-diagnosis
General guidelines for horticulture pest management:
Early detection and accurate diagnosis are critical steps in efficient management of plant pests and diseases. For sustainable management, we always recommend integrated pest management (IPM). A single method of pest control may be effective initially, but it cannot manage pests in the long run. More importantly, once symptoms of a pest are evident, managing the pest can become costly, or even impossible or economically unfeasible. Therefore, some management practices can prevent pest problems from entering the production system. The following key precautions and management practices can reduce the likelihood of pest incidence and spread.
* Samples in the “Miscellaneous” category represent those that presented more than one plant health problem. For example, a sample which had both mites and fungus observed on the submitted portions of the specimen.
Figure 3. Count of horticultural categories versus other crop type samples received.
Figure 4. Percentage of major health problems diagnosed by the UT Soil Plant and Pest Center in 2023 and 2024.
a) Exclusion: Exclusion means preventing any form of pest entering the production system. Follow all the procedures that exclude pests and start with a “clean” system. Order seeds, bulb, or tubers, seedling with a pathogen-free or phytosanitary certificate. Purchase pasteurized planting substrate and prevent contamination.
b) Avoidance: Avoidance is the strategy in which pest problems are avoided (or prevented) even when the causal organism is present. For example, avoid damaging plants and their parts, as damaged areas provide entry sites for disease causing organisms. Additionally, understanding what, when and where to plant is very important. For instance, a wrong plant in the wrong place and time can attract diseases, insects, and unwanted wildlife. So, make sure you invest time in proper plant selection and alter planting times to avoid peak pest pressure during the growing season.
c) Scouting and monitoring: Regular monitoring is a key step of integrated pest management, as early detection can prevent economic loss. Document key pests and all management practices that help to make pest management decisions.
d) Cultural practices: Many cultural practices can be adopted that support the goal of limiting plant stressors that can increase host susceptibility to pests and plant diseases. For example, use proper sanitation practices to reduce unintentional spread of plant pathogens from diseased to healthy plants. Eliminate plant pathogen and pest reservoirs by discarding or destroying diseased or infested plants/plant parts and fallen leaves away from healthy plants. Disinfect hands and pruning tools between plants, crops, or production areas, as appropriate. Use drip irrigation that reduces the time that leaves and stems remain wet. Or, if overhead irrigation is the only available option, schedule irrigation for the morning. Remove weeds promptly before they compete with crops. Do not allow weeds to produce viable seeds. Follow crop and plant fertilization guidelines and adhere to labeled rates.
e) Resistance: Use pest resistant or tolerant cultivars if available.
f) Plant management and protection: Apply appropriate physical, mechanical, biological and chemical control measures to cure plants that are already infected. Preventive chemicals are available to protect the plants from pest incidence
(503) 645-1342
Fax (503) 645-6856
sales@motzandson.com
11445 N.W. Skyline Blvd. Portland, Oregon 97231 www.motzandson.com
STAINLESS COVERCROP SEEDERS
500 lb. capacity
Adjustable from 36" – 72" wide
Ground drive for consistent application
Linkage for positive height adjustment
Four easy change sprockets for feed rate adjustment
Stainless steel hoppers and metering system Approximate feed rates: 16-16-16
CULTIVATORS
Side shields float
Pneumatic gauge wheels
Works great for planting covercrop with seeder
or
INCREASE PROFITS WITH THE SPEED OF A DISC VERSUS A TILLER. SIZES FROM 34" – 40"
Greasable agriculture disc bearings
Shovel eliminates center line
12, 16" notched blades
Four adjustable cutting angles
float in rear 2 1/2 square tube frame
Adjustable side shields contain soil
Custom sizes up to 60"
