Progressive Crop Consultant - March - April 2017

Progressive

Crop Consultant The Leading Magazine For Ag Professionals

March - April 2017 Biological Fungicides as Alternatives for Methyl Bromide Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue for Grapes Trapping In and Near Mating Disruption Orchards Regulatory Challenges Face New Administration

PUBLICATION

Volume 2 : Issue 2

Avoid Stale Soil–Activate™ It!

Activate™

Why Activate™?

• Highly concentrated, guaranteed species analysis • Naturally occuring root colonizing organisms, not genetically modified • Stimulates root and plant growth • Enhances nutrient cycling and a reduction in nitrogen needs • Reduces leaching of nutrients Tel: 559.564.1236 info@callnrg.com 34284-B Road 196 Page 00CA Progressive Crop559.564.1238 Consultant March/April 2017 www.callnrg.com Woodlake, 93286 Fax:

Product Manufactured by Natural Resources Group

Publisher: Jason Scott Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com Editor: Kathy Coatney Email: kathy@jcsmarketinginc.com Production: Logan Willems Email: logan@jcsmarketinginc.com Phone: 559.352.4456 Fax: 559.472.3113 Web: www.progressivecrop.com

Change of Address?

Visit our website to complete the change of address form under the subscriptions tab.

In This Issue Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially

6 Difficult During Drought Years

Contributing Writers & Industry Support

Biological Fungicides as Alternatives

Mark Bolda UCCE Farm Advisor, Santa Cruz County

Joshua Reger Department of Entomology, UC Riverside

10 for Methyl Bromide

Terry Brase Educational Consultant, Former Precision Agriculture Educator and Author

Ben Sacher Federal Government Affairs Analyst, Western Growers

14 for Grapes

Sara Scott Department of Entomology, UC Riverside

18 The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety

Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell Department of Entomology, UC Riverside Jeff Mitchell UCCE Cropping Systems Specialist Dan Munk UCCE Farm Advisor, Fresno County

Emily J. Symmes UCCE IPM Advisor, Sacramento Valley

Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue

Precision Ag RTK at West Hills

Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE President and CEO, AgSafe

24 Farm of the Future

Integrating Key Water Management

28 Information to Better Manage Irrigation

UC Cooperative Extension Advisory Board Kevin Day

County Director and UCCE Pomology Farm Advisor, Tulare/Kings County

David Doll

UCCE Farm Advisor, Merced County

Dr. Brent Holtz

County Director and UCCE Pomology Farm Advisor, San Joaquin County

Steven Koike

UCCE Plant Pathology Farm Advisor

Emily J. Symmes UCCE IPM Advisor, Sacramento Valley

Kris Tollerup

UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Parlier, CA

The articles, research, industry updates, company profiles, and advertisements in this publication are the professional opinions of writers and advertisers.

Progressive Crop Consultant does not assume any responsibility for the opinions given in the publication.

Page 4

Trapping In and Near Mating

32 Disruption Orchards

Progressive Crop Consultant

Regulatory Challenges Face New

36 Administration

Applied Association of IPM Ecologists

38 (AAIE) Conference Overview

March/April 2017

14

18 28

6

32

36

24

10

38

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 5

CITRUS

Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially Difficult During Drought Years

Biology of Citrus Thrips Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees and the hatching 1st and 2nd instar larvae (Photo 3) live on leaves and under the sepals of fruit. Some thrips pupate in the cracks and crevices of the tree and about 2/3 drop to the soil to pupate. The adults emerge, mate and begin laying eggs and the cycle continues. The first generation of citrus thrips attacks the new leaf flush and the 2nd and 3rd generations attack the new fruit. They damage the leaves and fruit when they repeatedly stick their needle-like mandible into the epidermal cells and then suck up the fluids that are released. Citrus thrips are thigmotactic, that is they like to be in tight places such as under the calyx of the fruit. The continuous piercing of cells is what leaves a scar and as the fruit grows so the ring scar grow. The 2nd instar larvae are more damaging than the first instar larvae and the adults cause little damage to fruit. Fruit that is heavily damaged will be downgraded from fancy to choice or even to juice grade, reducing returns for the grower. Fruit is susceptible to this type of damage from petal fall until it reaches about 1.5 inches in diameter and the cells become difficult for the thrips to pierce. The fruit sensitive period ranges from 6-10 weeks after petal fall.

Page 6

Progressive Crop Consultant

Natural Enemies of Thrips There are a number of natural enemies that can attack thrips, but because the eggs are imbedded in leaves, the pupae in underground and the larvae hiding in cracks and crevices, generalist predators generally don’t reduce thrips populations quickly enough or low enough to prevent scarring damage.

One of the best biological control agents is the predatory mite Euseius tularensis, which is naturally found on citrus

Managing Citrus Thrips in Young Citrus Trees While it is tempting to treat flush for Continued on Page 8 Photo Credit: Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell

itrus thrips is a common pest of California citrus, attacking leaves and the calyx end of newly forming fruit, when the epidermal cells are quite sensitive. In leaves, this causes distortion of the leaves and light lines of scarring (Photo 1). When they infest fruit, their feeding under the calyx at the stem end leaves a ring-shaped silvery scar that is retained when the fruit is mature (Photo 2).

trees and feeds on the 1st and 2nd instar larvae. However, because the predatory mite feeds on lots of other type of food (pollen, leaf sap, red mites) it does not always control citrus thrips at the level that growers need, and so often insecticides are necessary. If growers use insecticides that allow the predatory mites to survive, they can assist with citrus thrips control.

Photo 1. Distortion of the leaves and light lines of scarring from citrus thrips.

Photo 2. Feeding under the calyx at the stem end leaves a ring-shaped silvery scar that is retained when the fruit is mature.

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

C

The next 4-5 generations of thrips feed on leaf flush and the last generation lays the eggs that overwinter.

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell Sara Scott Joshua Reger Department of Entomology, UC Riverside

Photo 3. Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees and the hatching 1st and 2nd instar larvae live on leaves and under the sepals of fruit.

March/April 2017

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 00

Managing Citrus Thrips in Mature Citrus Orchards If a grove is more than three years old, leaf damage caused by citrus thrips should be ignored and the focus of management should be on the new fruit

during the period from petal fall till the fruit is 1.5 inches in diameter. Minimizing sprays is important for several reasons: 1) to reduce the impact on natural enemies needed for citrus thrips or other pests and 2) so that resistance to pesticides doesn’t develop in the thrips. The more generations of citrus thrips you treat, the faster resistance will develop. Starting at petal fall, Pest Control Advisors (PCAs) sample 100 fruit per site and determine the percent of fruit with immature citrus thrips. At petal fall this can be a bit tricky because western flower thrips will be present and this species does not damage citrus fruit.

The body shape and activity of these two species of thrips is very different—citrus thrips are quick moving, short and stout while western flower thrips move slowly in a serpentine fashion and have longer cigar-shaped bodies. It is important to wait till there are immature citrus thrips on the fruit, because in some years, petal fall does not coincide with the appearance of immature citrus thrips. During the organophosphate era, the recommendation for navels was treat when there were five percent of fruit infested

Page 8

March/April 2017

Continued from Page 6 citrus thrips to reduce leaf damage, studies of young navels and Valencia oranges conducted by Drs. Morse and Grafton-Cardwell in the 1980-90s demonstrated that continuously treating on to three year old trees did not improve the growth or yield of the trees. Citrus trees can tolerate extreme amounts of leaf damage and continue to grow and produce well. However, there are conditions where protection is helpful. For example, the combined impact of citrus thrips and citrus leafminer (arrived in California in 2000) on young trees needs to be studied. Secondly, we have had five years of severe drought and these hot, dry conditions promote citrus thrips populations which can then have an impact on trees that normally withstand their damage.

Progressive Crop Consultant

with immature thrips and if predatory mites were in sufficient numbers to assist (> 0.5 predatory mites/leaf) wait until there were 10 percent of the fruit infested. In the current era, of more selective and slower acting insecticides, the threshold for tolerance may be lower, but it is still important to wait till the thrips immatures are present on young citrus fruit before treating. No research has been done on the impact of citrus thrips on mandarin production and some varieties may be highly susceptible and need protection, while others may need no protection. Finally, citrus thrips are much harder to control in drought years than cool wet years. Wet weather helps to reduce the pupae in the soil, while hot weather accelerates thrips development and allows the pupae to survive in the soil.

Pesticide Resistance Citrus thrips are very prone to developing resistance. The developed resistance to DDT in the 1940s, the organophosphates and carbamates in the 1980s, and the pyrethroids in the 1990s. Some of these insecticides seemed to make the

thrips ‘mad’, as continued use actually made thrips populations reproduce more. Since about 1998, growers have used primarily the group 5 insecticides Success/Entrust (spinosad) and Delegate (spinetoram). Heavy reliance on this one mode of action is likely to eventually lead to resistance. Thus growers are encouraged to minimize insecticide use and rotate with other thrips effective insecticides such as group 28 Exirel (cyantraniliprole), group 6 Agri-Mek/ generics (abamectin) and the botanical Veratran (sabadilla). Efforts to monitor for resistance to Delegate and Agri-Mek are underway.

Citrus Thrips Trial - 2015 During 2015 our group studied the impact of multiple treatments of insecticides on the citrus thrips and the level of fruit scarring that resulted at the end of the season. The trials took place at Lindcove Research and Extension Center and consisted of four replicates of four tree plots per treatment. Two applications were made with the same insecticide, one at petal fall and one two weeks later.

We rated the outside fruit in August for the percent of severe, light and absence of scarring. The insecticides applied were Movento 10 fl oz + .75 percent oil, Sivanto 14 fl oz + .5 percent oil, Veratran D 15 lbs, Entrust 10 oz + 0.5 percent oil, Agri-Mek SC 3.5 oz + 0.5 percent oil, Delegate 6 oz + 0.5 percent oil, and Exirel 16 fl oz + 0.5 percent oil. The oil used was Omni 6E 415 oil. Treatments were randomly assigned to groups of trees and applied in 200 gallons of water per acre on 17 April and 4-6 May 2015 with a 100 gallon high pressure D30 diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical agitation with a hand wand sprayer containing a D6 nozzle. The three insecticides that provided the best control in terms of reducing the level of severe scarring caused by citrus thrips below one percent were Exirel, Delegate, and Agri-Mek (Figure 1). Other insecticide groups that reduced severe scarring to levels between one to three percent included Entrust, Veratran and Sivanto.

In years when thrips populations are low, or as second applications, or for varieties or sites that historically have low thrips populations, utilizing these insecticides in rotation with Exirel, Delegate and Agri-Mek will help to reduce resistance selection. Of the insecticides

Figure 1. The percentage of scarring that resulted after 2 treatments with each of the insecticides. All treatments were applied with 0.5 percent oil except for the Veratran. % Severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips Percent severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Untreated Movento

Sivanto

Veratran

Entrust

Agri-Mek Delegate

Exirel

Figure 2. The number of predatory mites per leaf after two treatments of citrus thrips sprays on April 17 and May 4-6, 2015.

Predatory mites per leaf

2.5

Untreated

Sivanto

Delegate

Agri-Mek

Exirel

Veratran

Movento

Entrust

2nd application 4-6 May

2 1.5 1 0.5 0

24-Apr

1-May

8-May

15-May

tested, those with the lowest impact on predatory mites were Veratran, Exirel and Sivanto and those hardest on predatory mites were Delegate, Agri-Mek and Movento (Figure 2). None of the pesticides completely eliminated predatory mites, but some reduced predatory mites below 0.5/leaf needed to assist with control. Delegate, Agri-Mek and Exirel have translaminar qualities that are improved with the addition of oil. Veratran should not be applied with nutrients and other chemicals that affect pH—Veratran needs a pH of 4.5 to be effective. Treatments should be applied in 200 gpa with reduced spray blower velocity with the goal of achieving outside coverage. See the UCIPM guidelines for citrus thrips March/April 2017

22-May

29-May

for more application details http://ipm. ucanr.edu/PMG/r107301711.html.

All of the insecticides used for citrus thrips, except for Veratran, are also effective against the Asian citrus psyllid.

When considering a petal fall spray, and if the grove is an ACP infested area, be sure to include one of these treatments to have an effect on both pest populations.

As treatments for Asian citrus psyllid increase, the selection pressure will increase the risk of pesticide resistance and it will become even more important to rotate insecticides to manage resistance for both of these pests. · · · · PCC

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 9

Photo Credit: Mark Bolda

BERRIES

Exploring Biological Fungicides as an Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation Mark Bolda UCCE Farm Advisor, Santa Cruz County

W

ith the recent prohibition of the fumigant methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation, California berry growers face very real challenges to their customary profitable crops of strawberries and caneberries in the years to come.

The disease complex formerly controlled by methyl bromide is creating trouble for these cropping systems. The well-known and widespread diseases caused by Verticillium and Phytophthora are now being joined in recent years by the pathogens Fusarium and Macrophomina. The threat to California berries, both actual and potential, is not insignificant.

While a decent amount of research has been done on methyl bromide alternatives such as formulations of chloropicrin and the yet to be registered Dominus (allyl isothiocyanate also known by some as “mustard seed oil”), the challenging mix of diseases currently in place means that researchers in the field must be considering all the options and in particular will benefit by investigating an integration of solutions and methods.

When we speak of integrating solutions, we are talking about using matePage 10

Progressive Crop Consultant

rials and methods alongside the methyl bromide chemical fumigant alternatives.

Some researchers have found promise with the use of a fumigant alternative followed by the incorporation of soil amendments such as rice bran, mustard seed meal or crushed crab shells, while others see success with the application of various mixtures of compost.

Another area which has garnered more than a little interest for the post methyl bromide era in the berry farming community has been that of using of biological fungicides. A biological fungicide is a formulation of organisms such as bacteria or fungi which can offer benefit to the plants and the soils around them.

While many different modes of actions to generate this benefit for these materials are claimed, in the main these organisms theoretically colonize the plant’s roots and the soil around them, facilitating the plant uptake of nutrients and in some cases offer a measure of root protection against pathogens by either competitively excluding pathogens or actively suppressing them.

UC Cooperative Extension in Santa Cruz County has not been idle over the past few years and has taken a very hard look at a number of these biological fungicides in the field, either when used March/April 2017

alone and in combination. These materials included formulations of Trichoderma asperellum and Trichoderma gamsii, bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, the actinobacterium Streptomyces lydicus and we have tested them both as plant dips as well as in season drip tape applications.

The first trial in 2012-13 was run in an organic field well infested with both Verticillium and Macrophomina, and tested a slate of biological fungicides, including Serenade, Double Nickel 55, Actinovate, Soilguard, Biotam and a group of formulations from the Tainio company. Transplants were initially dipped in suspension of water and the product for a few minutes and then held overnight, ostensibly to allow the biological fungicide to establish itself, and then planted the next day. In most cases, follow up applications of the same biological fungicide were injected through the drip system on a monthly basis after planting. The reason for monthly applications through the drip tape shared with me by manufacturers and distributors has been that these biologicals do not establish themselves very well in the soil and hence need to be augmented from time to time.

In this first test done in 2012-13, a number of materials clearly had an effect

on early strawberry plant performance.

Several treatments had larger plants in the first few months of development after planting in November than those left untreated, and the standout was both rates of Actinovate (one at the rate of 3 oz per acre and the other 6 oz per acre). This effect of larger plants for several of the treatments continued to fruit production in the first month and a half of fruit production (that being April and the first two weeks of May) and in particular the effect on more fruiting was most pronounced in the two Actinovate treatments. Nevertheless, this remarkable result did not translate to higher season total fruit yields nor immunity to the two soil diseases in any of the treatments – in fact, treatments using Actinovate collapsed by mid-July right along with the untreated control and other biological fungicide test plots.

Impressed sufficiently by this first year result that several biological fungicides, while not appearing to have the ability to protect strawberry plants from soil disease, were yet able to have a positive, if temporary, effect on plant performance, I proceeded to include some of these in other tests of methyl bromide alternatives.

With the above in mind, in the 20132014 season we applied several biological fungicides (those being Serenade, Actinovate, Soilguard, Double Nickel 55 and a suite of Tainio products) to a field subjected to the methyl bromide alternative method anaerobic soil infestation, the method of adding a carbon source to the soil, in this case rice bran at nine tons per acre, followed by the application of large amounts of water to induce an aerobic condition, and creating an environment less amenable to soil pathogens. The placement of these treatments in anaerobic soil disinfestation was mirrored by the same pattern of treatments in a portion of the field not subjected to this method.

Again, in this study fruit yield in areas of anaerobic soil disinfestation followed by plant treatment with Actinovate was significantly higher than any other treatment through the first two weeks of May. However, this effect did not persist through the season and total yields at by the end of the season were not significantly different between any of the treatments, whether or not they had been treated with a biological fungicide or not.

That said, all plots treated with anaerMarch/April 2017

obic soil disinfestation significantly out yielded those which had not been treated.

It appears then that at least through the early part of the season through May that combining anaerobic soil disinfestation with Actinovate would arrive at the most preferable result for that period of time.

In the 2014-2015 season, we placed Actinovate into a trial looking at amending soil treated with and without Dominus (allyl isothiocyanate or “mustard seed oil”) compared to a grower standard of methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. The results in this trial were different from previous results, in that early yield of strawberry fruit was less affected while over the whole season fruit yields of the untreated control with Actinovate added were positively affected.

In the 2015-2016 strawberry season, based on findings on other studies, we sought to amplify the efficacy of Dominus by following its application several weeks later with an application of 1.5 tons per acre of milled mustard seed meal. While early season effects on plant size were significant in Dominus plots followed by the Continued on Page 12 www.progressivecrop.com

Page 11

Continued from Page 11 mustard seed meal soil amendment, early season and season total fruit yields were not different between the treatments.

Neither did the addition of Actinovate in these treatments result in significantly higher early or season total yields of fruit.

Notably however, the addition of mustard seed meal or Actinovate to plots not fumigated with either the grower standard or Dominus resulted in significantly higher yields both in the early season and the whole season than those plots left alone.

In sum, in our own UCCE trials, I have not observed much in the way of defense against pathogens with any of these biological fungicides, but have observed early plant response in strawberry from some of them, in particular with the use Actinovate, (Streptomyces lydicus). Generally, plant response looks like significantly larger plants than those not treated in the first few months after transplant, followed by two months of significantly higher fruit production, usually in the range of 10 to 20 percent than in an otherwise untreated crop. Later on in the season, from June on in strawberries, the effect of these materials has not been noticeable.

To be clear, now that we have done research on a slate of biological control products for the last three years, I will state that these materials should NOT be considered as alternatives to our current fumigation and other soil pre-plant preparation practices. Rather we should be seeing these materials as being able to play a role in improving plant performance, especially in the early part of the season. With that in mind, I encourage growers to test them and find out for themselves which materials may or may not work for them in their particular situation.

The above article has been a description of the functionality of biological fungicides in improving strawberry plant performance in strawberry. While these materials are not pesticides, one needs to obey the instructions given on the label for each product, and consult the manufacturer or county Agricultural Commissioner should questions arise. If you have further questions on this topic, or any other topics concerning strawberry, raspberry or blackberry production, please contact Mark Bolda at UCCE Santa Cruz. · · · · PCC Page 12

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

K File #727

CROP

|

ALMONDS

PROBLEM

|

YIELD-DAMAGING CHLORIDE

the case against chloride Why Almond Growers Are Using Low-Chloride Protassium+ Growers know that potassium applications are essential in almond production. Since almond trees are extremely chloride-sensitive, it is paramount to apply the right K source for tree health, yield and quality.

Protassium+ premium sulfate of potash (0-0-50-17S) has less than 1% chloride and the lowest salt index per unit of K2O of all major potassium sources, helping ensure proper root function and nutrient uptake. Nourish your almond orchards with Protassium+, a premium K source that helps almond trees reach their full yield potential. ™

Contact your local retailer or Compass Minerals at 800.743.7258.

PROTASSIUMPLUS.COM ©2017 Compass Minerals. All rights reserved. 1 E.J. Reidel, P.H. Brown, R.A. Duncan, S.A. Weinbaum, Almond Productivity as Related to Tissue Potassium. Better Crops/Vol. 85, 2001, No. 3 Adapted from Edstrom et al., 2008. protassiumplus.com/surveying-the-need-in-almonds 2 Neal Kinsey and Charles Waters, Hands-On Agronomy, Acres U.S.A., August 1999. protassiumplus.com/a-study-of-sulfurs-role-in-almonds

SOLUTION

|

NOURISH WITH PROTASSIUM+TM

THE NEED FOR

POTASSIUM Almonds remove 90 lbs. of K2O per 1,000 lbs. of nuts produced1, so replenishment is vital. Once trees have a potassium deficiency, it can take years to rebuild K concentrations for optimum tree health.

TWO ESSENTIAL NUTRIENTS

K

Protassium+ provides almond trees with readily available sulfate sulfur.

Without the 17% sulfate sulfur found in Protassium+, orchards will lack the sulfur needed to produce top yields 2.

MORE TO OFFER Protassium+ is available in a wide variety of grades to provide application flexibility to any almond operation: • Granular • Soluble Powders • Certified Organic Powders • Premixed Liquid

THE PROTASSIUM+ DIFFERENCE Protassium+ nourishes almond orchards with high potassium and sulfate sulfur to promote greater nutrient uptake and better nut setting.

GRAPES

Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue for Grapes Kathy Coatney Editor

P

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

owdery mildew is caused by the fungus Uncinula necator, and it has been a problem for California grapes since commercial production started over a century ago.

Powdery mildew is the most serious and widespread disease in California vineyards in terms of yield

loss and control. Even with consistent control measures, in some years, there can still be heavy losses, especially in susceptible varieties.

Lindsay Jordan, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Viticulture Area Advisor for Madera, Merced and Mariposa Counties, said, “It (powdery mildew) has been a serious and probably the single largest disease control

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

Scarring on canes resulting from powdery mildew shoot infection.

Powdery mildew, Erysiphe necator, on grape leaf.

Page 14

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

issue we have for the whole state.

And that has been the case for a long time, and it’s going to continue to be.”

Climate Powdery mildew thrives in temperatures between 70 and 85 degrees, Jordan said.

Vineyards that have high summer temperatures may have reduced problems with powdery mildew, but vineyards with moderate temperatures for extended periods of time, even with good control programs, may continue to have problems with powdery mildew.

Weather conditions do effect powdery mildew. “In general, the coast is going to be a little more subject to it (powdery mildew) than the hotter inland regions,” Jordan said.

“If you’re in a region that’s cooler, you just have more hours in that 70-85 degree range in the heat of summer,” Jordan said, and these areas are more susceptible because these are ideal temperatures for the fungus to thrive.

Powdery Mildew Powdery mildew does need some water or moisture at the beginning of the season to trigger spore release, Jordan said.

“It doesn’t technically need to be a rain event,” Jordan continued, adding it could be overhead irrigation used during a frost, heavy fog, or even mist.

Powdery mildew is unique in that the grape fungus does not need water to continue to propagate, Jordan said.

Powdery mildew also prefers new tissues. “That’s why when vines have young shoot growth they’re all very susceptible, because that young, green, succulent tissue is Continued on Page 16

Beautiful

FROM BLOOM TO HARVEST

From bloom to harvest, Luna® fungicide protects wine grapes throughout the growing season, improving plant health for beautiful crops and abundant grape harvests season after season. As a breakthrough systemic fungicide, Luna provides outstanding control of Powdery mildew, Botrytis and other problematic diseases. Make Luna a cornerstone of your fungicide program to consistently produce a high-quality crop – and more of it.

Find out what Luna can do for you at LunaFungicides.com/grape. © 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, and Luna are registered trademarks of Bayer. Luna is not registered in all states. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 15

Continued from Page 14

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

susceptible,” Jordan said.

The same is true after berry set, Jordan continued. “That’s new, young, juvenile tissue and powdery mildew can attack that.”

There is less concern about pow-

dery mildew at the end of the season, because of the hot summer days and a lack of new growth makes it less conducive to the disease—so long as the powdery mildew was successfully controlled early in the season, Jordan said.

“Obviously, if you get a bad in-

fection and it sticks around, that’s a different story,” Jordan said.

Susceptible Varieties Some varieties, like Chardonnay, are more susceptible than others, and they are just naturally more inclined to powdery mildew. But if it’s a high pressure year, any variety could have problems with the disease, Jordan said.

“I always say if it’s a bad powdery mildew year, it might be particularly bad on those very susceptible varieties. But ironically, those might be the growers who have a stronger control program in place,” Jordan said.

“Even if you’re growing a variety where it might not always be a problem, in a bad year it could become a problem for you very rapidly,” Jordan said.

“If you know you’re in a bad year, you do have a series of decisions you make in addition to, ‘Oh I need to go spray’,” Jordan said.

• •

Powdery mildew on Thompson Seedless grapes.

•

What’s your canopy look like?

What spray timing are you considering?

What products are you using?

Illustration adapted from Grape Pest Management. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3343.

If the rains continue into the spring this year, it could create problems with powdery mildew for all varieties, Jordan said.

Treatment “Sulfur is still widely and incredibly used throughout the grape industry. We’ve known about it for well over a century, probably closer to two centuries now. It works, there is no known resistance to it, and frankly, it’s affordable,” Jordan said.

There are issues with sulfur in terms of restrictions from wineries as well as environmental conditions, Jordan said.

“Synthetics (fungicides) offer us other tools for managing powdery mildew,” Jordan said.

“It’s always important to consider resistance management in a powdery mildew control program and look at rotating your modes of action,” Jordan said.

There are documented cases of

Powdery mildew life cycle on grape.

Page 16

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

resistance, and work is being done out of Washington State and UC Davis. They are looking specifically at resistance to powdery mildew, Jordan said.

Sprayer calibration is also important when making a spray application. “This is so vastly important and under talked about,” Jordan stressed.

• • • •

Is the spray being applied where it’s needed?

Are the nozzles angled correctly?

Is the fruit being hit by the spray?

Has shoot and leaf thinning been done for better spray penetration?

Preventative v Curative The best control for powdery mildew is a preventative program, Jordan said.

“Powdery mildew can be a problem on any variety if you don’t have the proper preventive management,” Jordan said.

“Frankly, there’s not a lot of really good options for curative treatment,” Jordan said.

“The biggest thing I think we have to remember with a lot of our fungicides programs is, they’re really preventative. We don’t have curative—no real true arsenal of curative options,” Jordan said.

“There’s a few things you can do, but those are things you don’t want to have to be doing. You want to be using your fungicide program effectively as a preventative measure before infection gets there,” Jordan said.

Make sure and stay on top of the spray intervals, and remember that vines don’t work off the calendar.

They work off seasonal climate conditions, Jordan said.

This could mean making spray applications earlier than is historically the norm, or later if it stays cooler, Jordan said.

Monitoring for powdery mildew in the field is also advised. I think it’s important to scout and look for visual signs of infection, Jordan said.

Going into a potentially high pressure year means it’s important to use preventative products effectively, and not scramble when there’s

rain in the forecast to get out in the field and spray, Jordan said.

“That should have already been a decision you’ve made because you know your interval was that date,” Jordan said.

“Realistically, knowing it’s been rainy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to you in your management, and it should be taken into account,” Jordan said, whether it’s using a product that has a longer interval period, or using a synthetic fungicide earlier in the season that hasn’t been used

before.

Oftentimes this can mean spending more money, but maybe that’s what fits the program as opposed to having to rely on every seven days or so for sulfur, Jordan said.

It all comes down to managing to the conditions that are there, Jordan said. · · · · PCC

AfriKelp® in Walnut Increase Set and Size

Spray 3-4 pts/ac foliar applications at catkin elongation and pistillate bloom..

Yield and Size in Chandler. 2012 - Chile

Control

AfriKelp ®

Yield (Ton/ac)

1.88

1.94

Kernel size (g)

6.39

8.23

Yield and Sizes on Chandler for 2 Seasons. 2015 and 2016. CA, USA

2015

Control

AfriKelp®

Yield

4098

4640

Jumbo

83%

84%

Large

5%

4%

Light color

81%

90%

Edible Yield

42.98%

45.8%

2016

Control

AfriKelp ®

Yield

3906

5122

Jumbo

58%

69%

Large

20%

15%

Light color

90%

91%

Edible Yield

43.72%

43.18%

www.afrikelpusa.com

1-877-AKUSA26

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 17

WORKER SAFETY

The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE President and CEO, AgSafe

I

n assessing the state of the industry, much of the focus over the last year has been on human resources-related issues—non-productive time and the safe harbor program, a change to worker overtime and much more. It’s easy to be caught up in those headaches and not realize issues relating to worker safety continue to be an ever-present part of our lives. We’ve struggled to varying degrees through our busy season with fairly route requirements and have sweeping new regulations looming on the horizon.

No matter how complicated things get with the business, these trends tell us that worker safety must always remain a high priority.

2016 Season Incident Trends The enforcement team at the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) was out

in full force throughout 2016, continuing to focus efforts on the issues they deem are most critical to agriculture, starting with heat. As in 2015, the industry struggled with addressing the paperwork side of the regulation that was changed last year. Many citations were issued for failing to include the details of that update in companies’ Heat Illness Prevention Plans, most notably not making the plan available to workers (or Cal/OSHA) in the field.

As an enforcement staff member noted, these plans should not be a secret. It is in the employer and employees’ best interest to make it available to anyone and everyone—the more who know, the better prepared they will be to respond in a heat-related emergency.

Another notable trend from last year’s inspections was the failure of companies to actually implement the elements outlined in their Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (IIPP), specifically with reference to hazard identification and control. A number of citations were issued to businesses

Lighting Distance 0.5 Foot-Candle

1.0 Foot-Candle

2.0 Foot-Candles

Locations Offices Locker Rooms Storage Yards Loading Areas Warehouses Corridors Washrooms (Bathrooms/Portable Bathrooms) Spray Booths Inspection Elevators Stairways Assembly Areas Layout Areas Engine Rooms Processing Areas Machine/Woodworking Shops Steel Metal Works

5.0 Foot-Candles

* Timeline as known at the time of publication.

Page 18

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

for including protocol around conducting hazard inspections and a process to address those issues but failing to actually follow any of those steps. There are two critical elements to note from this. The first is that hazard assessment and correction is a requirement of an IIPP so this must be addressed in some form or fashion. The second, and more critical execution lesson, is that companies should not include protocol that cannot be followed. Set your business up for success by creating a process that is both realistic and compliant.

A longer, more intricate policy is not necessarily better and, as many ag employers learned last year, can actually backfire if you’re not implementing the program. And don’t forget, this isn’t limited to hazard assessment—this important reminder applies to all your written safety programs.

Finally, Cal/OSHA spent time in 2016 beginning to educate the industry about impending penalty structure increases. As a result of Federal Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Cal/ OSHA will have to make changes to its penalty structure to ensure they are at least as effective as Federal OSHA. This means, for example, that General/ Regulatory Citations will increase from $7,000 to $12,400 and Willful/Repeat Citations from $70,000 to $124,000.

These maximums will also be annually adjusted for inflation. Based on current implementation estimates, these penalties should take effect in February 2017* but that is not a firm deadline.

AgSafe will continue to keep the industry apprised of these changes and when the date is confirmed.

Agricultural Night Work Regulatory Proposal The California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHASB) has been considering revising existing and creating

new regulations for agricultural night work. The working draft currently addresses issues including high visibility protective clothing for workers, specific illumination requirements within agricultural operations and the creation of specific traffic plans. Although these regulations are currently being developed, it is important for employers to be aware that a portion of these changes are to existing regulations that impact all industries.

Currently, the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3317, specific to illumination, defines night work as an activity taking place between one hour before dusk through one hour after dawn. That same regulation also provides stationary lighting requirements for all industries to follow.

It is important to note that the standard is written in foot-candles but most light bulbs are sold with their lumens count. There are 10.76 lumens in 1 foot-candle.

To assure compliance with these levels at all times, the initial reading needs to be higher in order to compensate for the decrease of light output of lamps with age and to the accumulation of dirt on lamps and room surfaces.

The California Code of Regulation, Title 8, Section 3441 details lighting requirements for tractors and self-propelled equipment, including ATVs. That standard notes that all equipment must have a minimum of one

headlight that will illuminate the area in front of the equipment at least 50 feet. There shall also be a minimum of one rear light illuminating the back of the equipment. Additional lighting shall be provided where the operation requires field adjustment or the operator’s attention, such as employees working in the vicinity of self-propelled equipment.

In addition, employers should ensure their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) addresses the unique issues of working at night. Worksites should be inspected under actual work conditions at night for potential hazards and those issues corrected accordingly. Workers should receive safety training for general conditions unique to night work, equipment, operations, and the plan for emergency situations given the differences at night. Emergency action plans need to be updated to reflect such circumstances as medical facilities available during the day may not be open at night.

Workers harvest grapes at night and are provided high visibility vests as well as supplemental lighting to ensure they can work safely at night.

March/April 2017

New Indoor Heat Illness Prevention Standard Coming In October 2016, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 1167, sponsored by Senator Tony Mendoza of Artesia. The bill directs the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) to adopt a standard that specifically addresses the heat-related hazards impacting indoor workers.

Cal/OSHA will begin the rulemaking process in January 2017 and must have a proposed regulation to the Cal/ OSHA Standard Board by January 1, 2019.

When addressing the creation of a new standard, the Cal/OSHA enforcement team will undertake a number of important steps. The first is to review data related to previous citations to help best identify the core issues. In speaking with a member of that team, he noted that Cal/OSHA has previously cited employers for indoor heat-related injuries and illnesses under the auspices of the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3203, Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (§3203).

Section 3203 very clearly states that an employer is responsible for identifying and correcting any occupational hazards. The division’s current enforcement has centered around employers’ failure to adequately identify the sources of indoor heat as a hazard and/or take the appropriate steps to mitigate this risk.

That being said, many employers have identified indoor heat as an issue and as such, there are two commonplace engineered solutions that will be critical elements in this new standard.

Cal/OSHA staff recognize that the use of heating, cooling and ventilation systems (HVAC) is the most common mechanism to mitigate indoor heat.

California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5142 specifically addresses mechanically driven HVAC systems to provide minimum building ventilation. It stands to reason that the new indoor heat illness prevention standard will reference and ideally compliment Section 5142 as one of the primary engineering solutions for minimizing this risk.

Continued on Page 22 www.progressivecrop.com

Page 19

ADVERTORIAL

THE NEMATODE THREAT TO

VINE LONGEVITY

NEMATODES CAUSED

& YIELD

157 B

$

GROWERS CAN’T SEE

IN YIELD LOSS WORLDWIDE1

NEMATODES BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES2

Nematodes are microscopic roundworms that feed on plant roots, causing devastating vigor and yield reduction across the vineyard. According to the University of California, above-ground symptoms of nematode damage are mostly unthrifty vines.

ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES CAUSED

Field evaluation and nematode sampling: It is crucial to identify the nematode species present and estimate the population size through nematode sampling.

IN ANNUAL LOSSES TO THE WINE INDUSTRY

Vineyard preparation pays off: Vineyard preparation can also include the use of fumigation, where suitable, to help lower nematode populations when initially planting a vineyard.

1 BILLION

$

Nematode infestations are commonly found in areas of the vineyard where vines lack vigor, growth and abundant yields. Effective nematode management relies on a variety of measures that can help enhance vine longevity and yield.

UCCE – Kern County four-year trials show:

Virus transmission considerations: Some nematodes are vectors to plant diseases that should be eliminated before establishing new vineyards.

NUMBER OF NEMATODES

MOVENTO® SUPPRESSES ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES BY 68% UNTREATED

ADMIRE® PRO 14 oz.

MOVENTO® 6 oz.

Crop protection products: Movento, applied as a foliar application, is a nematode management tool that will translocate to roots where nematodes feed, providing an easy way to manage nematodes.

Rootstocks: Plant only certified nematode-free or nematoderesistant rootstocks.

0

R-1

MA

-10

JUL

0 V-1

NO

1

R-1

MA

-11

JUL

1 V-1

NO

2

R-1

MA

-12

JUL

2 V-1

NO

3

R-1

MA

-13

JUL

Four-year trials show Movento insecticide/nematicide combined with Admire Pro insecticide from Bayer provides long-lasting efficacy against root-knot nematodes.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION TRIALS SHOW: Early May & post-harvest applications of Movento can help result in:

68%

SUPPRESSION OF ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES

1“Nematodes: “A Threat 2University of California

94%

CONTROL OF MEALYBUG

to Sustainability of Agriculture,” Satyandra Singh, Bijendra Singh and A. P. Singh.

Integrated Pest Management Program.

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, Admire, and Movento are registered trademarks of Bayer. Not all products are registered for use in every state. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

Root health: A healthy soil can help plant growth while providing organic matter decomposition, nutrient cycling, fertility and water purification, helping the plant better tolerate nematode populations.

Good weed management helps: Use herbicides at fallow since various weeds are hosts to nematodes.

Sanitation: Use appropriate sanitation practices. Avoid moving soil between fields. Clean equipment of soil before relocating to different fields.

Cultural practices: Manures and soil amendments can improve vine vigor and reduce the impact of nematodes.

LEARN MORE AT MOVENTO.US.

THAT’S HOW MOVENTO ® INSECTICIDE MAKES GRAPES FEEL. Movento® insecticide delivers powerful two-way movement within the vine to protect the parts pests seek most, from new shoot growth to roots. This results in long-lasting, reliable protection against above-ground pests like mealybugs and below-ground pests like nematodes and phylloxera. With Movento as part of your ongoing pest management program, you’ll have stronger, healthier vines that produce a higher quality crop year over year. For more information, contact your retailer or Bayer representative or visit www.Movento.us.

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, and Movento are registered trademarks of Bayer. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 00

Continued from Page 19

Now What?

While it’s all well and good to have a general understanding of how the new indoor heat-illness prevention standard will take shape, it’s logical to ask “so now what?” There are two critical action items to consider when moving forward in the coming year. The first is that the Cal/OSHA rulemaking process usually includes the creation of a voluntary advisory committee made up of stakeholders potentially impacted by the new standard. If Cal/OSHA does assemble a committee, it is critical that agriculture and food manufacturing have a large presence. Our trade associations and AgSafe will participate, as is customary, but you as growers, packers, shippers and processors have the greatest impact by being engaged.

Make this a top priority by setting aside the time and energy to ensure your needs are directly heard by those responsible for writing the regulation.

The second way to act immediately is to begin evaluating your business now for possible issues with indoor heat. We know that the two engineered

Photo Credit: Inspect USA

The other recognized engineered solution is commonly referred to as shielding. This involves the identification of specific sources of indoor heat, such as from a pasteurizer, and building a physical shield that creates a barrier from the source of heat.

Employers have also built workstations located throughout facilities with geographically widespread sources of heat that provide cooled areas for employees. For example, enclosed booths with air conditioning placed throughout a plant that allow workers to complete tasks—including monitoring activities in the plant—but in a cooled environment, is an appropriate mitigation of indoor heat risk.

While there are clear best practices that will become part of this new standard, many questions still linger.

For instance, the outdoor heat-illness prevention standard considers solar load component. This is the idea that you add 15 degrees Fahrenheit to the ambient temperature to account for the effect of the sun beating down on you. Currently there is no recognized equivalent to solar load component for indoor workers and understandably so. The variance across industries, since this standard will not be limited to agriculture and food manufacturing, along with the potential sources of heat

and type of work being done present a significant challenge to developing a universal and appropriate metric.

According to the staff member at Cal/ OSHA, a standard metric will need to be created to ensure consistency in the application of any regulation.

Wet Globe Thermometers, like the one seen here, are the most accurate at measuring temperatures indoors as they account for both the ambient temperature and humidity. As the indoor heat standard is developed, both of these factors will be critical in developing a consistent temperature metric similar to the solar load component in outdoor heat.

Page 22

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

solutions—HVAC and shielding—will be included in some capacity in this new standard. What are you doing now to utilize these options to mitigate your indoor heat risk? Perhaps you need to take a step back and conduct a hazard assessment of your operation to even determine sources for indoor heat risk. We often invest significant time, energy and resources into the cooler or plant but have you thought about your machine shop? What about your drygoods (boxes, crates, packing materials) storage building? You need to have a solid understanding of your existing sources for indoor heat exposure and create a plan for minimizing that risk.

Remember, Cal/OSHA currently has the authority to site you under the Injuring and Illness Prevention Program standard for failing to address this hazard. There is a well-documented history of the division successfully enforcing §3203 around this issue so don’t fool yourself into thinking this isn’t a problem yet. As an employer, it is incumbent upon you to regularly evaluate your business and create solutions, whether engineered or through behavioral change and training, that help eliminate workplace hazards. Use your knowledge of how this new standard may come to fruition as leverage in ensuring you are that much further ahead of the curve when the time actually comes.

As always, agricultural employers need to ensure they remain vigilant about protecting their workers from the hazards in our industry. Whether working in the heat inside or out, or at night, it is essential to develop realistic written programs, provide training specific to the hazards on the job, ensure proper documentation of protocol, and correct issues when found.

For more information about these or any worker safety related issues, please visit www.agsafe.org, call us at (209) 526-4400 or via email at safeinfo@ agsafe.org.

AgSafe is a 501c3 nonprofit providing training, education, outreach and tools in the areas of safety, labor relations, food safety and human resources for the food and farming industries.

Since 1991, AgSafe has educated nearly 75,000 employers, supervisors, and workers about these critical issues. · · · · PCC

BAICOR Liquid Nutrients

Call Today to Set-Up 2017 Trials High Phos TM

Zinc Shotgun TM

Nutra Green TM

A balanced formulation of essential nutrients containing organic and amino acids to stabilize the nutrients and facilitate their chelation, uptake, translocation and use.

Micronutrient package containing zinc, manganese, iron, and copper. The nutrients are readily absorbed by the plant for faster response. Designed for both foliar and soil application.

Contains the essential nutrients plants need in a completely balanced formula, ideal for optimal plant development. Rapidly absorbed into plant tissue to provide a rapid and sustained green-up.

8-25-3

Visit wrtag.com for more information or contact Joseph at (209) 720-8040

5-10-5

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 00

Precision Ag RTK at West Hills Farm of the Future

SmartNet RTK Cellular Base Station: on the right is the antenna and mast set on a concrete pillar for stability; on the left is the waterproof box for the electronics.

Page 24

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

Photo Credit: Terry Brase

PRECISION AGRICULTURE

Photo Credit: Terry Brase

Terry Brase Educational Consultant, Former Precision Agriculture Educator and Author

T

wenty years ago it was hard to convince some west coast growers that RTK was necessary. After all, that was just something that was used by those large Midwest growers that had thousand acre fields to manage. But the whole concept of RTK is high accuracy (possibly sub-inch) and precision; that applies to large and small fields alike.

At West Hills College, the Farm of the Future was designed and built to serve as a practical learning farm for students but also to serve the agricultural community as a model demonstrating emerging technologies and how they could be applied to farms in the Central Valley. To do this and as part of the precision ag classes, we provide examples of RTK GPS. RTK stands for Real Time Kinematic and is a type of correction for GPS. The name comes from surveying and refers to its ability to maintain the calculation of a high accuracy position while on the move. Previously a surveyor would have to be in one position for an extended length of time to get a high accuracy position. Autonomous GPS (GPS without any corrections) at best has only 10 foot accuracy, not accurate enough to determine the location of specific trees, vines, tissue samples, irrigation controls, or pest locations. RTK provides the highest level of accuracy and repeatability for a position.

There are many methods of correcting GPS; Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), satellites, AM beacon receivers, and others. They all work in a similar way. All correction is based on having at least two GPS units: one serving as a “base” and the other serving as a “rover”. The GPS used as a “base” station is at a fixed location in which the coordinates are known.

Since the base GPS unit is on this known location, it is able to calculate distance and direction of the error included in the GPS calculated position. This difference between positions is known as an “error differential”. This Continued on Page 26

Author with the Trimble mobile RTK. Includes the tripod, GNSS antenna (large disk centered in tripod), receiver (Yellow box mounted on leg of tripod), SiteNet transmitting radio and antenna (tall antenna and yellow cylinder to the left of author), and display (held by author). Note abundance of cabling for data transfer between devices.

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 25

Continued from Page 25

to capture imagery from several fields.

In the same way students gain valuable experience using the RTK. Farm of the Future includes a mobile RTK station and a cellular network RTK. Though both are not necessary, each adds to community needs and student learning.

The components of the West Hills mobile RTK station include a Trimble GNSS antenna, a Trimble 750MSL GNSS base receiver, a SiteNet 900 radio transmitter with antenna, deep cycle 12 volt battery, Trimble FMX1000 display monitor, Trimble portable tripod, and cabling to connect it all. The mobile part of this RTK is the tripod that can be setup next to the field in which the signal will be used. This keeps the signal as close as possible to the rover and makes this the most accurate GPS correction.

The antenna, receiver, and transmitter are mounted somewhere on the tripod which is placed securely at a location next to the field. Cabling attaches the GNSS antenna to the receiver and another cable attaches the receiver, battery and transmitter. The battery needs to be a large tractor battery to provide power for at least 24 hours of power.

Connecting the cabling is actually the easy part. The system must be setup so that each component communicates Photo Credit: Terry Brase

error differential can be sent to another GPS unit, a “rover”, that is out in the field. This rover GPS unit is calculating a position with error, but can apply the error differential to this position and correct it. Thus it is known as differential correction.

Differences between types of differential correction are in how the base unit transmits the error differential to the rover unit. But what are the differences that make RTK so much more accurate than the other methods of differential correction? What must take place that accounts for the inch or less of accuracy?

Two main things account for RTK’s accuracy: the accuracy of the known position for the base station and the proximity of the base to the rover.

The accuracy of the known base position is determined during the setup of a RTK base station. Recording and averaging GPS positions for a 24 hour period provides a location coordinate with sub-inch accuracy. In addition receivers used to set up a base station are high quality units that also receive other GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite Systems). This means that besides using GPS satellites, they can also use GLONASS (Russian equivalent to

GPS) and Galileo (European) satellites, which increases the accuracy of the base location. The higher accuracy of the RTK base station location, results in the higher accuracy of a RTK calculated position.

The other aspect of RTK is the proximity between the base and the rover.

Other types of differential correction system cover 30 to 300 miles. Most RTK systems are designed for operation in a 10 mile or less distance. Some manufacturers will base estimates of accuracy on the distance between base and rover.

West Hills College has two specific methods of RTK differential corrections for use by students and the Farm of the Future. The Farm of the Future is 256 acres that was donated to West Hills College to serve as a model of advanced technology in agriculture. It includes a pistachio orchard, various field crops, equipment and an irrigation system. A solar field supplies all of the power for the farm. As new technology becomes available, it is researched or industry partners help provide the resources. For example, West Hills has received donations of a fixed wing and rotor UAS drones which are used as a part of industry demonstrations and for student lab exercises. Students were able to experience flying the UAS

The electronics for a SmartNet RTK include the receiver, cellular gateway, and power supply. The cellular antenna is on the outside of the waterproof box and can be seen on page 24.

Page 26

Progressive Crop Consultant

March/April 2017

Photo Credit: Terry Brase

with each other and that means the communications port and baud rate need to match. The communications port (commonly referred to as the “comport”) is the connection points within the receiver and the transmitter.

The baud rate is the speed at which the data moves between the receiver and transmitter; the input and output of each needs to match or no communication occurs. Most of the setup needs is done directly on the receiver display.

After these parameters have been set, the base location must be established. For the most accurate position the process is started and allowed to run for 24 hours. After 24 hours all the positions collected, approximate 86,400 of them, will be averaged for an error differential. It will automatically will be sent to the SiteNet 900 to be broadcast.

The other RTK base that we have at the Farm of the Future is a cellular RTK station. This base is part of a network of RTK bases called SmartNet that was installed by Leica, a GPS positioning company. It contains similar components: a GNSS antenna; a GNSS receiver, cellular modem instead of a radio transmitter with cabling and a power source. The antenna is mounted on a permanent 12 foot mast instead of a portable tripod. A coaxial cable connects the antenna to the receivers to calculate an error differential. Instead of a radio transmitting a few miles to a rover; the cellular modem transfers the error differential to a networked server in a remote location along with the error differentials from base stations across the US. At the same time, a tractor or other rover device that needs a RTK signal uses a cellular modem to call up the server and provide the rovers location. This location determines which of the base station’s error differential will be sent to the rover.

Users of network RTK units like this typically pay a yearly fee to access the correction.

On the rover side we use the RTK for an autoguidance system, a Trimble AutoPilot. This system replaces the tractor’s steering with an AutoPilot steering wheel. It is controlled by a FMX1000 display that is getting its location from an AgGPS 25 receiver that accepts the RTK differential signal for one to two inch accuracy. This level of

West Hills College is located in the Pleasant Valley area on the west side of the California Central Valley. It’s pistachio orchard is shown on the left of this photo and a newly planted garlic field to the right. accuracy is needed for several of the farm activities. First of all listing, the preparation of the soil bed requires at least two inch accuracy to maintain rows. Any operation after listing the beds such as spraying will also require the same two inch accuracy since the tractor will need to follow the wheel tracks to avoid ruining the beds.

Broadcast spraying normally doesn’t require two inch accuracy, but this level of accuracy does reduce overlap and gaps in the spray pattern that can be wasted materials or reduced yields.

The other rover we use with students is a TopConGR3 that accepts a cellular Sim card. This sim card provides access to the cellular network that SmartNet uses and thus to the SmartNet error differential. Though the antenna and placement is highly accurate SmartNet has a lower accuracy because of the distance and latency of the signal (rover to server; server back to rover).

Real time kinematic has value in providing higher precision for: calculating positions of objects in the field; guiding equipment through a field; and placement of sample locations.

Calculating accurate positions is required for orchards trees when planting them. RTK is used by many companies when planting trees; using those March/April 2017

RTK positions will allow for automated recordkeeping of individual trees. Another use is to more accurately manage irrigation by high accuracy positioning of valves, flowmeters and pumps.

Guiding equipment through field with RTK creates rows with straight lines. Now even though that may seem like a cosmetic purpose, it does have some economic value. Straight rows, first of all, allow tractors to follow the same track through a field without damaging the crop and limiting compaction. It also assures accurate placement and reducing overlap of chemical and fertilizer products.

Placement of samples with RTK allows the highest accuracy possible for marking the position of pest traps, tissue samples, soil samples and moisture sensors. This makes that data and the resulting analysis more valuable.

Doing precision farming is more than just applying products at a variable rate. There are hundreds of uses for the application of technology by a grower to be more efficient and economical. RTK provides the accuracy and precision for those uses. Availability of RTK is growing and becoming more common. It needs to be considered as a part of precision farming management. · · · · PCC www.progressivecrop.com

Page 27

Photo Credit: Dan Munk

IRRIGATION

Integrating Key Water Management Information to Better Manage Irrigation Miro-sprinkler irrigation system in a young almond orchard.

Surface irrigated plum orchard.

Dan Munk UCCE Farm Advisor, Fresno County Jeff Mitchell UCCE Cropping Systems Specialist

O

ver the past several years, few irrigated regions of the country have escaped the impacts of drought and in many places this has translated to increased costs and reduced availability of irrigation water. California growers in particular have experienced dramatic reductions in surface water deliveries and have increasingly turned to using groundwater to make up the surface water shortfall. Consequently growers have experienced unprecedented water table level reductions that have increased the price of pumping and maintenance on their water wells. Growers have also responded to the drought by increasing personal and personnel resources dedicated to water management and have increased their efforts to better understand the complexities of irrigation water management. Efforts to improve onfarm water management practices must include these key elements: Page 28

Progressive Crop Consultant

Post-filtration pressure monitoring in drip irrigation.

• •

•

Elevating irrigation system design and management expectations.

Better exploit our understanding of crop development and physiology including crop sensitivity to water stress.

Increasing our capacities to measure and manage soil water storage.

Proper evaluation and integration of these key water management elements can be complex but can result in operating whole farm and field irrigation systems at peak efficiency over time. For example, it may not help us to increase the monitoring and measurement soil moisture if we do not have a more complete understanding of how specific changes in soil moisture content influence crop water stress and crop performance. Similarly it would not be difficult to misinterpret plant water stress or soil moisture information in a field where water is not applied in a uniform manner. And how might field indicators of soil water availability be used in different field management settings? Interpreting soil moisture readings in a drip irrigated field that applies water multiple times per week will differ from that of a furrow March/April 2017

or flood irrigated field that is irrigated using two to three week intervals. These complexities help to point out that each field is unique from a water management standpoint and that irrigation decision makers should not rely too heavily on any one piece of information to guide their water management program without also considering broader systems information.

Irrigation System Design and Management Improperly designed irrigation systems are incapable of achieving high performance levels making efficient water management an impossibility regardless of how well water might be scheduled.

Application efficiency is a fundamental measure of irrigation system performance defined as the amount of beneficially applied water in relation to the amount of total irrigation water applied to the field. One of the biggest obstacles to developing field systems with high application efficiency comes from the fact that many irrigation systems do not apply water uniformly. Water applied in Continued on Page 30

ADVERTORIAL

Ensure season-long control of pre- and post-emergent weeds WEEDS REDUCE TREE HEALTH AND CROP QUALITY. Weeds compete with trees and vines for nutrients, water and light and can impact yield and hinder harvesting practices. Weeds can even compete with target plants for uptake of insecticides and other chemicals, making the crop more susceptible to insects and disease.

Key weeds present in orchards and vineyards have been found to be resistant to glyphosate. A best practice to slow down weed resistance to herbicides includes using multiple effective modes of action in your pre- and post-emergent herbicide sprays.

WEEDS RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE

While cultural and mechanical practices can provide some help in managing weed pressures, most growers utilize herbicides to deal with major threats. Whether or not resistant weeds are currently present, having an integrated approach to weed control can mean the difference to bottom lines.

Alion® and Rely® 280 weed program from Bayer are complementary pre- and post-emergent herbicides for tree nuts, grapes and citrus that effectively eliminate tough grass and broadleaf weeds with long-lasting residual control and excellent crop safety. Together, Alion and Rely offer versatile application approaches to ensure you start and stay weed-free.

Horseweed

Hairy Fleabane

Jungle Rice

Russian Thistle

CROP SAFETY

Keep crop safety in mind when selecting a weed management program. Choose pre- and post-emergent herbicides that provide excellent season-long weed control without impact on roots, fruit or plant vigor.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION RESEARCH SHOWS: Using Alion® and Rely ® together results in season-long weed control

JUNGLE RICE CONTROL

HAIRY FLEABANE CONTROL

RYEGRASS CONTROL

100%

99%

90%

Application included Alion 3 oz. + Rely + Roundup®

Application included Alion 3.5 oz. + Rely

University Trial for Jungle Rice Control by Brad Hanson, UC Statewide Weed Scientist in Chico, CA, 2014

Learn more at CropScience.Bayer.us

Application included Alion 5 oz. + Rely

University Trial for Hairy Fleabane and Ryegrass Control

by Brad Hanson, UC IPM, Arbuckle, CA, 2015

®

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, Alion, and Rely are registered trademarks of Bayer. Roundup is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Always read and follow label instructions. Not all products are registered for use in every state. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

Photo Credit: Dan Munk

Water meters are an essential system evaluation tool.

Groundwater well development and re-development has become more common as groundwater levels decline and surface water availability is limited.

Subsurface drip irrigation line configuration for vegetable crops including onions and garlic.

Continued from Page 28 a non-uniform manner which commonly leads to larger soil water deficits on low water application areas and over-irrigating areas of the field that have higher than average application rates. To maintain preferred soil moisture levels in all areas of the field, water managers typically compensate by over-applying water on portions of the field which causes losses to leaching or run-off both considered to be non-beneficial uses of water. Properly designed irrigation systems work to achieve a high degree of uniformity and deliver near equal amounts of water Page 30

Progressive Crop Consultant

throughout the field.

One of the more challenging design issues in drip irrigation systems is achieving near uniform pressures throughout the field. Even when fitted with pressure compensating emitters, fields that have large differences in line pressure are susceptible to significant differences in emitter output causing non-uniform applications. This problem is more commonly associated with long field lengths which stretch the design capacities of our current drip irrigation products. And while many drip irrigation fields have relatively high distribution uniformity, maintenance and management issues continue to leave many fields with less than optimal efficiencies. Field lengths of less than 800 feet are less prone to this concern while it is a much more common issue in field lengths exceeding 1100 feet. This emphasizes the need to carefully consider the products being purchased and the pressure requirements of that product. Uniformity issues can also be exagerated as the system ages or in systems that are not properly filtered and maintained to avoid biological and mineral contamination.

Occasionally simple modifications in surface irrigation systems can also result in significant improvements in distribution uniformity and application efficiency. Many flood and furrow irrigated systems experience slow water advance times down the furrow or irrigated strip before the irrigation is completed resulting in long infiltration periods at the head end of the field relative to the infiltration period at the lower end of the field resulting in higher amounts of applied water at the head end of the field. Solutions to this problem have been achieved by increasing the on-flow rate of irrigation water, reducing the size of the irrigation check and by modifying the surface soil roughness to allow water to more freely move to the bottom of the field. These relatively modest system design changes can have a significant impact on delivering water with greater uniformity and efficiency.

Crop Development, Physiology and Water Stress Management Crop sensitivities to water stress are not constant throughout the growing season depending on crop type, growth stage and atmospheric conditions. Most field and row crops are highly susceptible March/April 2017

to the impacts of limited water availability during the germination and seedling development stages and require high soil moisture availability in the surface soil during this period. However, as the early vegetative growth period is initiated crops like cotton and small grains can go many weeks before the first seasonal irrigation water is required. This is partially due to the rapid root growth that occurs in these plants and soil water is more easily extracted during these low evapotranspiration days. Alternatively, many vegetable crops including tomatoes, carrots and the brassicas require more frequent irrigation events early season to relieve mild water stress during this period needed to support a rapidly expanding plant canopy. Later in the season when roots are well established and the lower portions of the soil profile are exploited, many deep-rooted crops are less sensitive to water stress and water management strategies can be incorporated that take advantage of deep soil water reserves resulting in delayed irrigation scheduling.

Similar issues can be observed with the permanent crops as early season root flushes occur at different intervals allowing soil moisture to be exploited at varied depths depending on crop type.

Generally, crop water stress sensitivities in permanent crops are often more acute during early leaf out periods if winter rains have not fully charged the soil profile and again during the rapid fruit growth periods. Monitoring the developmental stage of the crop often provides insights to the physiological periods of the crop that are more sensitive to water deficits and points to periods when water deficiencies are more likely to result in impacts to yield and quality. Understanding these more sensitive water stress periods also allows us to better plan on the time of year to increase crop water stress monitoring by using tools such as the pressure chamber or canopy temperature tools that are used to evaluate the relative degree of crop stress. And while water stress limits may differ during the growing season, using established water stress guidelines when available, can provide sound guidance on irrigation scheduling decisions.

Managing and Measuring Soil Water Storage The measurement of soil water can

classes, these values are very generic and can misrepresent actual site values that can be used for irrigation scheduling purposes making the information less reliable. Developing individual field or soil type data for your fields often aids in providing more specific and repeatable information that can improve irrigation decision making.

Integrating the Information Recognizing the need to integrate key water system information into a coherent field and farm water management plan system requires work and experience in evaluating multiple system elements and will assist in avoiding the tendency to place the focus and reliance on singular management indicators. Integration of these primary water management elements will have impacts on the time and amount of field applied water and can have significant impacts on farm water use by limiting the application of water that does not directly benefit the crop.

Recognizing the importance of integrating appropriate information from multiple sources to manage farm water requires that we begin using the tools available to us to document and interpret a wide variety of information of our irrigation systems, soil systems and our individual cropping systems.

Independent evaluations of an irrigation system performance can provide feedback on the current issues of concern for individual systems and can provide an assessment of whether system maintenance is badly needed or if help determine if the system requires improved pressure regulation, higher flow rates or other design modifications to operate more optimally. Water applied uniformly and with high efficiency limits water and nutrient losses to the groundwater and results in more uniform crop yield and quality. But information related to application efficiency or distribution uniformity can also aid in targeting locations for soil moisture monitoring sites and locating sites to monitor plant stress and crop growth.

Using available knowledge of plant development and physiology can aid in identifying periods when the crop is particularly sensitive to water stress events and aid in irrigation scheduling decisions by either limiting the drawdown of soil moisture reserves during those periods or by extending the irrigation cycle. In March/April 2017

Photo Credit: Dan Munk

appear to be an uncomplicated process that involves placing soil moisture sensors in the soil and reading the values to provide an irrigation management decision. And while this may be satisfactory for relatively simple, uniform and well understood field systems, there is much that should be considered in developing an approach to soil moisture monitoring if the goal is to maximize the beneficial uses of applied irrigation water. Successful growers and consultants that regularly monitor soil water and use the information as an irrigation scheduling tool agree that there are several important questions to consider before purchasing, installing and using the sensors to make informed irrigation decisions. Before investing the time and resources in soil moisture monitoring, establish basic achievable goals with the understanding that the higher the expectation and more detailed the goal, greater effort and resources will be required.

As goals are established for field monitoring, consideration of the type of sensor to be used is a good place to start as well as the price of those sensors and systems. Field soil moisture systems can start with an investment of a few hundred dollars or less and can run into several thousand dollars for a single monitoring site. Soil water sensors can monitor soil water content more directly or they can provide direct or indirect measures of soil water potential. Each sensor type can be useful depending on the goals and information needs established. Identifying a field location or locations and placing the sensors at appropriate depths is also important and care should be taken to select locations that are representative of soil water conditions in the crop root zone. Monitoring multiple soil depths can also provide information on soil water storage and percent soil profile water depletion level. Depending on the time of year, many growers have turned to using different soil depths as triggers to initiate irrigation events using sensors placed at more shallow depths to schedule early season irrigation events.

Evaluating the readings from soil moisture devices also requires some experience and understanding of soil water retention characteristics of the field being monitored. Although estimated values of field capacity, permanent wilting point and plant available water can be referenced for various soil textural

Water flow monitoring is an essential system evaluation component.

Tensiometer installation in a citrus orchard. Tensiometers provide a direct measure of soil water matric potential. a similar manner, the use of plant water stress indices can be used to hasten or delay irrigation events and help establish the intensity and duration of water stress events. Numerous university publications are available that provide sound information on the development and physiology of specific crops. This information often includes water management studies that can provide tools to identify crop developmental stage as well as information on water stress sensitivity and periods of relative tolerance to water stress.

Establishing reasonable goals and expectations for monitoring soil water status and using soil sensor information for irrigation decision making purposes can assist in tightening irrigation schedules thereby reducing the likelihood of excessive losses while also reducing the risk of crop losses that result from elevated crop water stress levels. This information is particularly useful when combined with other irrigation scheduling tools such as crop evapotranspiration estimates and crop water stress indicators. · · · · PCC

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 31

MATING DISRUPTION Photo Credit: Kathy Keatley Garvey

cation in moths is thought to function by the following broad types of behavioral mechanisms: •

•

•

Navel orangeworm larva.

Trapping In and Near Mating Disruption Orchards Emily J. Symmes UCCE IPM Advisor, Sacramento Valley

M

ating disruption options have improved in recent years, and orchards under mating disruption (MD) for certain key pests are becoming increasingly common. In particular, this article focuses on the effects of MD on trap-based monitoring of codling moth (CM) and navel orangeworm (NOW). With regard to codling moth, this can apply to walnuts, apples, and other pome fruits. For NOW, this information largely applies to almonds and pistachios.

It is important to understand Page 32

Progressive Crop Consultant

how mating disruption effects the ability to monitor pests in orchards under MD as well as in orchards in proximity to MD blocks. In orchards where MD tactics are being used, pheromone-only monitoring methods will certainly be impacted. It is becoming increasingly apparent that traps in orchards near but not within MD blocks can be effected as well. In most cases, this is occurring without the added benefit of substantial disruption, and thus population and damage reduction. Researchers are currently investigating just how far-reaching the impacts of mating disruption are to nearby non-MD blocks.

Disruption of sexual communiMarch/April 2017

Competitive attraction (false-plume-following), in which males are diverted from orienting to females because they are attracted to competing ‘false’ trails emitted by synthetic pheromone dispensers.

Non-competitive mechanisms, whereby exposure to synthetic pheromone inhibits or blocks the ability of males to sense and/or respond normally to pheromone emitted from females. These include camouflage, desensitization (i.e., adaptation and habituation), and sensory imbalance.

Combinations of these mechanisms.

While understanding the mechanism(s) underlying successful mating disruption is important to the development of products and best practices to maximize the effectiveness of this technology, one thing becomes clear in a practical sense—the presence of synthetic pheromone in and around the orchard environment, if effectively impacting mate location/mating success, will necessarily impact our surveillance methods. In particular, our ability to track population abundance and activity using pheromone lures. Fortunately, there are solutions to this problem in the form of alternative lures for trapping, albeit many pest control and crop advisers have less experience with these than the historical pheromone-only lure standards.

For the two pests this article is focused on, CM and NOW, sex pheromones are emitted by females and elicit responses from males of the species. That means, with the exception of very low to negligible random catches of females, pheromone traps will predominantly track only male activity. One of the goals and indicators of successful MD for NOW and CM is trap shutdown (zero to very low male catches in pheromone traps relative to non-MD environments).

If you are working in a MD environment, you certainly want to monitor pheromone-only traps so that

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

Scientifically proven to reduce female NOW populations and damage with Mass Trapping and Monitoring.

Adult codling moth. you can gauge this measure of MD effectiveness. However, traps with all zeroes or very few male moths only provide that one important piece of information. As a PCA/CCA in these situations, it is critical to be able to track the population cycles (‘flights’) and relative population abundance in the event that supplemental insecticide applications are deemed necessary, and to properly time those applications. There is also a distinct level of discomfort in ‘flying blind’ so-to-speak, when little empirical data (i.e., trap counts) is available for decision making.

The options for monitoring in/ near MD then become based on the ability to overcome trap shutdown by (1) incorporating non-pheromone based lures to trap males, females, or both sexes; and (2) employing additional surveillance methods (nontrap-based) to gauge pest pressure and inform treatment decisions. For NOW and CM, there are options available to satisfy both of the two options noted above. The available lures are based on plant volatiles functioning as kairomones. Various non-trapping monitoring methods can and should be incorporated into your IPM program as well.

NOW Options • Egg traps baited with almond meal and three to 10 percent crude almond oil. These are used to monitor female flights, specifically oviposition activity. Egg traps have been the historical standard for early season population detection and degree-day modeling. Drawbacks with the

•

•

use of egg traps include reliability concerns in low population situations, possible competition with large numbers of mummies in the orchard early in the season, reduction in attractiveness as the in-season crop becomes increasingly attractive, and ease of use. However, these traps should not be impacted by MD environments, and despite potential limitations, can provide a piece of the pest management puzzle.

Lures comprised of mesh bags filled with ground almond and pistachio mummies in wing or delta traps (e.g., Peterson traps) are used to track female flight activity. Traps may catch some low levels of male moths, but numbers are predominantly female in these traps. As is the case with many plant-volatile based kairomone traps, these are less sensitive than pheromone traps in terms of abundance of moths caught (kairomones typically act at closer range than pheromones). In spite of this, these traps also should not be impacted by MD, and can be useful in discriminating moth flights and relative abundance when compared with historical and nonMD records.

Other lures for trapping NOW females, including phenyl propionate (PPO) and the five-component kairomone blend identified by John Beck, remain at the experimental/developmental stage. Neither is commercially available at this time, but these March/April 2017

•

may provide additional options in the near future.

Monitoring crop phenology and concurrent oviposition activity can provide additional information as to pest pressure and need for treatment. This involves looking for NOW eggs on early splits (pea splits) in pistachio, and early hullsplit nuts in almonds.

CM Options • Both female and male moths respond to pear ester. This is available in the CM-DA combo lure (contains codlemone, the codling moth pheromone, plus pear ester, the plant volatile-based kairomone). These lures should be used in orchards under MD in addition to pheromone only traps (baited with 1X or L2 lures), necessary to detect trap shutdown as a proxy for efficacy of the MD treatment. If you are concerned with the performance of pheromone-only CM traps in non-MD orchards, consider adding some CM-DA traps, particularly if you suspect you are in proximity to an MD block that is effecting your pheromone trap catches.

• Another option is the three-way lure (CM-DA combo plus acetic acid, AA). Think of this as a ‘super-charged’ lure, which can provide more robust capture in terms of numbers of males and females (in both MD and nonMD orchards). With both the CM-DA and CM-DA+AA lures, be cautious in your evaluation of Continued on Page 34 www.progressivecrop.com

Page 33

Continued from Page 33

Having trouble finding

Codling Moths?

•

trap numbers. Numbers may be higher or lower than pheromone trap catch numbers, depending on your particular environment (MD, non-MD, near MD), and may not directly correlate with the same moths/trap/night thresholds you are accustomed to.

Non-trapping methods for CM surveillance involves in-season damage/population estimates via dropped nuts and/or canopy counts.

•

More information and details regarding monitoring and treatment options for these pests is available online in the UC IPM Guidelines for each pest and crop of interest (www.ipm.ucanr.edu).

Some thoughts on best practices for lure-based trapping and monitoring in general.

• Captures both male and female CM (vs) males only with CM pheromone alone.

• Increases male CM capture by double or greater than the male/female lure (CM-DA COMBO) alone.

• Increases female capture up to 6 X more than CM-DA COMBO alone.

• Best product to use in orchards treated with DA-based mating disruption products like CIDETRAK CMDA COMBO MESO or Puzzle Piece.

Storage and handling. Always follow manufacturer guidelines for storage and handling of lures.

Most lures are best kept refrigerated or frozen (in non-cycling freezers). Be careful when keeping lures long-term (multiple years), as their performance can be impacted. It is generally best to order fresh lures each year.

Some lures can be particularly ‘hot’ when initially deployed,

+

Contact your local supplier and order now.

Visit our website: www.trece.com or call 1-866-785-1313. ®

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

© 2017, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK USA • TRECE, PHEROCON and CIDETRAK are registered trademarks of Trece, Inc., Adair, OK USA, TRE-1044

Adult navel orangeworm.

Page 34

Progressive Crop Consultant

•

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

• Best lure to use in conventional and mating disrupted orchards with low density CM abundance.

•

which may lead to misinterpretation of activity peaks. If possible, pre-age lures for a day or so prior to deploying in the field. Avoid cross-contamination of lures and traps—it is easy to get in a hurry, but rubber gloves can go a long way in preventing strange bycatch in traps (catching species you don’t expect).

Interpreting catches and perceived failures. When good storage and handling practices are employed, many issues can be avoided. If you are encountering trap catch data that seems unusual, first consider any potential storage, handling, or contamination issues. Next consider what other factors may be involved (e.g., new MD blocks in proximity to the traps, or any other new or unusual environmental conditions). Most manufacturers have strict quality control practices in place, but if you have eliminated all other sources of the problem, contact your lure supplier to inquire further.

Adopting new trapping techniques. Certain situations and the availability of new trapping options may result in the desire or need to adopt new trap-lure combinations you might have less experience with. When possible, adopting new monitoring techniques should be a multi-year process, in which new trapping

March/April 2017

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark

ENHANCED CODLING MOTH MATING DISRUPTION

Clearly More Active Product…

Lower Application Cost!

Black egg trap for navel orangeworm.

•

•

method(s) are introduced alongside those for which historical data is available. This will help you best understand how to use the information gained from the new traps/lures.

Ensure that you are accounting for any and all pesticide treatments and field activities when interpreting trap catches and population activity.

Interpreting data and making pest management decisions in the field is as much art as science. Although research and academic endeavors seek to provide concrete thresholds and black-and-white decision support for agricultural practitioners, the reality is that there is no magic bullet and every situation is different. Individual pieces of information, while valuable, often do not provide robust enough evidence to support the “treat” vs. “don’t treat” recommendation.

Incorporating all of the available knowledge (trap data, orchard history, environmental conditions, pest pressure, etc.) is critical to developing effective pest management programs that you are confident in recommending. · · · · PCC

• • •

• Comparison of active ingredient delivered based on optional label rates. • Application cost based on growers assessment of commercial use at the labor rate of $12/hour.

Comparison of active ingredient delivered based on optional label rates.

• Labor cost may vary with employee training experience and productivity.

Application cost based on growers assessment of commercial use at the labor rate of $12/hour.

Labor cost may vary with employee training experience and productivity.

CIDETRAK® CMDA COMBO™ Puzzle Piece (PP)

CIDETRAK® CMDA COMBO™ MESO™

The ONLY Mating Disruption Systems that disrupt both MALE…and FEMALE Codling Moth.

Contact your local supplier and order now. Visit our website: www.trece.com or call 1-866-785-1313. ®

INCORPORATED INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS

PLEASE: ALWAYS READ THE LABEL

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.

© 2017, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK USA • TRECE, PHEROCON and CIDETRAK are registered trademarks of Trece, Inc., Adair, OK USA

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

TRE-1034, 1/17

Page 35

Photo Credit: Ben Sacher

WORKER SAFETY

Regulatory Challenges Face New Administration Ben Sacher Federal Government Affairs Analyst, Western Growers

T

he onset of the Trump administration has started with fireworks in many areas, but what can be expected in the crop protection world? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is under much scrutiny. As an early indication, the head of Trump’s EPA transition team advocated for a two-thirds cut in EPA’s staff levels. In the first 10 days on office, the Trump administration issued a “2-out-1-in” executive order that requires two old regulations be removed for every new one put on the books. For its part, Congress has taken interest in regulatory reform and is putting some environmental laws under the microscope.

Some of this energy may translate into wins out of the gate, for example, clarifying that lawful pesticide applications do not require an additional clean water permit. Currently, applying pesticides over or near water requires a clean water act permit, duplicatPage 36

Progressive Crop Consultant

ing federal pesticide regulations that govern their use over or near water.

For the last several years, Congress has considered legislation to lift the requirement to obtain a federal clean water act permit for chemicals already approved to be used near or in waters.

The 115th Congress might be the time to finally get this out of both chambers and signed by the President.

Over the past several years, pesticide issues have moved up the priority list for agriculture advocates. A strong regulatory program is necessary to ensure access to tools that have been thoroughly reviewed for safety. However, pressure from activist groups is intense, and stakeholders like Western Growers have felt a policy shift in EPA’s approach to pesticide regulation. In some cases EPA seems to have diverged from long standing processes, or adopted new approaches without thorough vetting. While many recent activities are within the bounds of established scientific procedures, there is a laundry list of individual actions that have troubled stakeholdMarch/April 2017

ers. Three of the most disruptive and broad challenges to the normal order in pesticide regulation are an inappropriate reliance on epidemiological studies, hyper-conservative drinking water modeling, and the relationship between endangered species and pesticide law driven to a boiling point by over a decade of lawsuits.

EPA has made significant changes to how it conducts risk assessments without taking the time to vet and develop its approaches. One recent challenge to the registration process is an inappropriate reliance on epidemiological studies. Epidemiological studies have value in finding associations with environmental factors or other risks.

However, a preference for epidemiological studies when carefully designed laboratory studies are available, particularly to establish quantitative regulatory standards, could upend EPA’s registration activities. EPA has proposed to revoke tolerances for the insecticide chlorpyrifos, primarily based on associations suggested in an epidemiological study done by public

endangered species act could also cut off access to new and familiar crop protection tools. In the mid 2000’s, activists began challenging whether EPA’s pesticide program was complying with the Endangered Species Act. Under the act, certain government agencies must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service. Often these consultations center on well-defined projects with more discernable impacts, such as building a bridge or a dam. Historically, EPA has relied on its expertise in assessing ecological risks to ensure endangered species are adequately protected. After recent lawsuits, however, EPA and the Services have attempted to review several pesticides under a new endangered species evaluation process. Unfortunately, this process has not proven workable. The first part of an endangered species assessment of three chemicals has taken years and many thousand pages. Using such an approach going forward would require a massive commitment of new resources to the Services and EPA and bring needed innovation to a halt.

Agriculture has been squeezed by regulatory pressure, and indeed EPA is charged with regulating pesticides.

This oversight, however, plays an important role in enabling the safe use of these tools. EPA approval serves as a license to operate, and assures the public that crop protection materials have been carefully evaluated to be protective of human health and the environment. So while the focus here has been on the sticking points the agricultural community is working to address, it is worth reviewing the important role of EPA’s rigorous process for assessing pesticides.

Registrants spend on average over eleven years and $300 million bringing a product to market. Registration relies on extensive data generated by peer reviewed-studies. Every 15 years, the Agency reevaluates products approved for use. Some of the key features of the pesticide regulatory system are that it is risk-based instead of hazard-based, and weighs the benefits of a product against risks. It makes use of data based on the best available science and perhaps most importantly, it takes a protective stance. Based on extensive data and thorough review, EPA must

show that a pesticide will “not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” and that there is a “reasonable certainty of no harm” to human health. Growers don’t always get or keep the tools they would want, but a reliable and science-driven process provides for both access to crop protection tools and environmental and health protection. In fact, it should be a priority for the regulated community to protect resources for the Office of Pesticide Programs at EPA, in a time where there are calls to dramatically cut EPA’s budget. So while agriculture might like to get EPA off its back, a better funded pesticide program can do the work needed to allow products to be brought to market. This arrangement is worth safeguarding.

Congress and the new administration have a long to do list. For farmers everywhere, and anyone who depends on crop protection tools there is work to be done to ensure that EPA preserves its science based, risk-benefit approach to pesticides.

While the broader issues surrounding pesticide regulation are complex, it is clear that there must be a re-set at the Agency to reaffirm an approach to pesticide regulation based on sound science. There are a number of things that can be done. For one, EPA can be sure to work with its sister agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It can make sure that any new approaches are thoroughly and transparently vetted.

The goal is not to stack the deck to favor of the industry, but to make sure that the important work of reviewing pesticides follows transparent and credible procedures to ensure the safety of crop protection tools growers depend on. · · · · PCC Photo Credit: Ben Sacher

health researchers. The Agency’s own Science Advisory Panel was highly critical of EPA’s approach, yet EPA moved forward without adequately addressing these concerns. This is not to say that epidemiological studies have no value. Epidemiological studies can certainly inform pesticide assessments, but it is concerning to see a choice to privilege them over laboratory studies that have traditionally formed the backbone of a scientific review.

Another is the use of overly conservative approaches to estimating concentrations of pesticides in drinking water. To ensure human health is protected when considering dietary risk, EPA looks not only at food residues, but also any potential exposure in drinking water from surface and groundwater. Even when real world data is available, EPA has relied on models that make unrealistic assumptions resulting in massively overestimated exposure. For example, models often assume a single crop treated at maximum rate, with application taking place on the same day, and at maximum rates across an entire watershed.

This layering of conservative assumptions leads to unrealistically high drinking water estimates, with one analysis showing that model predictions averaged 229 times higher than monitoring data, and 4500 times higher in a quarter of the comparisons.

The administration will have its work cut out in ensuring a science based, risk-benefit approach to pesticide regulation. The consequences of a shift away from established procedures are real. Not only may individual products be made unavailable, but an unpredictable process puts a dampening effect on innovative new chemistries with better environmental and safety profiles.

The Trump administration will also need to tackle a threat to pesticide regulation that has been building for years. This worrying roadblock is not driven by EPA, but by the unresolved conflict between federal pesticide law and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In the western produce industry, the ESA is most known for restricting water allocations in an attempt to protect endangered salmon and the Delta Smelt. If unresolved, the tension between pesticide law and the

March/April 2017

www.progressivecrop.com

Page 37

IPM

Applied Association of IPM Ecologists (AAIE) Conference Overview

Attendees discuss growing the next generation of PCAs.

Kathy Coatney Editor

T

he Applied Association of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) Ecologists (AAIE) held a recent conference that covered a variety of topics.

Pete Goodell, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE) statewide IPM advisor opened the conference by speaking on why the IPM program needs to be reinvigorated.

IPM is a unique concept, Goodell said. “It’s a way of thinking about the world and approaching problems in an ecosystem, or a whole system sort of approach.”

IPM is multiple approaches using: • • •

An ecosystem based strategy Seeks long term prevention of pests Utilizes a combination of man-

Page 38

Progressive Crop Consultant

• •

agement techniques—biological control, cultural practices and chemical controls Employs monitoring and evaluation of risk Selects and applies pest control materials to minimize risks to human health, beneficial and non-target organisms and the environment

IPM is not new, it can’t be implemented overnight, it is not a rigid program of management techniques and the programs are not universal, but it is a platform to consider options and launch solutions determined by the situation. It is also flexible to the situation.

Overdependence on single control tactics leads to problems with: •

Pesticide resistance March/April 2017

• • •

Overuse of pesticides Widespread disruption of ecological balance Increased concern about pesticide exposure

Prevention is the key, and Goodell stressed the importance of building a culture of prevention that is as good at preventing pests as well as treating them.

“If you prevent the problem, you don’t have to manage it. If you manage the problem, you don’t have to control it,” Goodell said.

Franz Niederholzer, UCCE farm advisor did a session on sprayer calibration with UCCE farm advisors John Roncoroni and Lynn Wunderlich.

They gave a general review on calibration, and they quizzed the audience on calibration. They also discussed droplet formation and atomization.

Most spray nozzles create a range of spray droplets, and there is a relationship between droplet diameter and droplet mass, Niederholzer said.

“There’s a number of droplets that you generate, and then the volume of spray contained in those droplets across the spectrum,” Niederholzer said.

It’s important not to over apply because that’s wasteful, and you don’t want to under apply either, Niederholzer said. “It’s not wasteful, but it runs the risk of being an ineffective application, and that’s hugely expensive.”

“Growers are always concerned and rightfully so with costs, but if you end up not doing a good job—if you’re so focused on costs that you’re not doing a good job of control, then you really haven’t helped yourself at all,” Niederholzer said.

“And if you miss a window that’s crucial, then whatever pest damage occurs, you’re playing catch up,” Niederholzer said, adding generally you have to be more aggressive with your rates and maybe mixing chemistries to effectively control an established infection.

A one size fits all calibration on the sprayer means it has to be calibrated for that the worst case scenario, Niederholzer said.

In almonds, it’s generally hull split timings or mite control. These are the applications that are basically applied between May and harvest, Niederholzer said. It is the same for coddling moth applications in walnuts, he added.

Niederholzer explained that early in the season less spray may be needed simply because there isn’t that much area to cover, whereas later in the season, there will be more surface area to cover, especially with foliar sprays, and targeting mites, and diseases.

Sprayer calibration is extremely important and oftentimes overlooked, Niederholzer said.

Beth Grafton-Cardwell, IPM Specialist and research entomologist director of Lindcove Research and Extension Center spoke at a round table session on how the drought is affecting California red scale in citrus.

Because of the drought, there have been extra heat units, water stressed

Attendees visit with trade show vendors about ag solutions.

trees and the insect has been behaving in ways Grafton-Cardwell hasn’t seen before.

Red scale causes two kinds of damage, Grafton-Cardwell said. Heavy populations on the fruit will cause the fruit to be downgraded. The fruit can be high pressure washed, but it’s never cleaned up perfectly. Also, if there are heavy populations in the tree, there will be dieback of branches, which will impact yield.

Usually red scale goes dormant in the wintertime, but the last two winters that didn’t happen. Red scale was found in all stages, all times of year and that’s a problem because in March/April 2017

the spring the growers normally apply their pesticides when the population is just starting to get going, Grafton-Cardwell said.

There wasn’t a biofix either, and the extra heat units also provided an extra generation of scale. That meant the chemicals that are normally sprayed every other year, weren’t holding the red scale populations, Grafton-Cardwell said.

Because there was a colder winter and increased rainfall this year, Grafton-Cardwell thinks growers will have less problems controlling red scale in the coming season. · · · · PCC www.progressivecrop.com

Page 39

Helping Crop Advisers feed the world, one product at a time.

For more information on Willowood USA products or to find a distributor near you contact us at: CORPORATE OFFICE: 1600 NW Garden Valley Blvd #120 • Roseburg, OR 97471 541-679-9963 • 877-679-9963 • Fax: 541-679-4650 www.WillowoodUSA.com

HERBICIDES | FUNGICIDES | INSECTICIDES | PGR’s