Progressive Crop Consultant - March/April 2022

March / April 2022 APRIL 6, 2022

PECAN

DAY

WCNGG.COM/PD

Task Force Tackling INSV and Pythium Wilt in Lettuce Head-On 2021 Kern County Potato Variety Trial Soil Mapping for Fine-Tuned Nutrient Management

APRIL 7-8, 2022

See pages 46-47

Volume 7: Issue 2 Photo courtesy of Jaspreet Sidhu

UNTOUCHED THAT’S HOW CITRUS FEELS WITH MOVENTO.®

The same Movento® insecticide that manages red scale and nematodes also protects against Asian citrus psyllids, which can cause a devastating and fatal disease, Huanglongbing. With its unique two-way movement upward and downward, Movento provides allover protection for high-quality fruit and long-term tree health.

For more information, contact your retailer or Bayer representative or visit www.Movento.us.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. The distribution, sale, or use of an unregistered pesticide is a violation of federal and/or state law and is strictly prohibited. Check with your local dealer or representative for the product registration status in your state. Bayer, Bayer Cross, and Movento ® are registered trademarks of Bayer Group. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.BayerCropScience.us. Bayer CropScience LP, 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63167. ©2022 Bayer Group. All rights reserved.

2

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

PUBLISHER: Jason Scott Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com EDITOR: Marni Katz ASSOCIATE EDITOR: Cecilia Parsons Email: article@jcsmarketinginc.com PRODUCTION: design@jcsmarketinginc.com Phone: 559.352.4456 Fax: 559.472.3113 Web: www.progressivecrop.com

IN THIS ISSUE

4 8 14 20 26 34 42

Task Force Tackling INSV and Pythium Wilt in Lettuce Head-On

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS & INDUSTRY SUPPORT

2021 Kern County Potato Variety Trial

The Invasive Spotted Lanternfly and its Risk to California

4

Soil Mapping for Fine-Tuned Nutrient Management

Jaspreet Sidhu UCCE Vegetable Crops Farm Advisor, Kern County

Roland C. Bocco Assistant Specialist, UC Cooperative Extension

Amber Vinchesi Ph.D., UCCE Vegetable Crops Advisor, Colusa, Sutter and Yuba Counties

Matt Comrey Technical Nutrition Agronomist, Wilbur-Ellis Agribusiness, WRCCA Board of Directors Surendra K. Dara Entomology and Biologicals Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension

Zheng Wang UCCE Vegetable Crop Advisor, Stanislaus County Mary Zischke INSV/Pythium Task Force, Grower-Shipper Association of Central California

Margaret Lloyd UCCE Small Farms Advisor, Yolo County

Evaluating the Potential of Pyridate-Containing Herbicide in Basil: Impacts on Yield, Leaf Injury and Weed Control

Burrowing Rodents: Developing a Management Plan for Organic Agriculture in California

Roger Baldwin UCCE Specialist, HumanWildlife Conflict Resolution

8

UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ADVISORY BOARD Surendra Dara

Steven Koike Tri-Cal Diagnostics

Kevin Day

UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Stanislaus County

Director, North Willamette Research and Extension Center UCCE Pomology Farm Advisor, Tulare and Kings Counties Elizabeth Fichtner UCCE Farm Advisor, Kings and Tulare Counties

Evaluation of Automated and Mechanical Cultivators to Control Within-Row Weeds in Conventional Processing Tomatoes

Jhalendra Rijal

Mohammad Yaghmour

UCCE Area Orchard Systems Advisor, Kern County

Katherine Jarvis-Shean UCCE Orchard Systems Advisor, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo Counties

42

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.

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

3

Task Force Tackling INSV and Pythium Wilt in Lettuce Head-On

By MARY ZISCHKE | INSV/Pythium Task Force, Grower-Shipper Association of Central California

Common symptoms of INSV on romaine lettuce (photo courtesy USDA.)

I

’ve worked in agriculture on the Central Coast for many years, so I’ve witnessed several relatively slow-moving problems associated with lettuce plant pathogens, such as Verticillium and Fusarium. The lettuce industry in the Salinas Valley experienced something more akin to a runaway freight train that was responsible for cutting down field after field during the fall of 2020.

The vast majority of those fields had both Impatiens Necrotic Spot Virus (INSV) and Pythium Wilt (PW). Many fields exhibited disease damage so severe there wasn’t anything worth harvesting. Romaine was most impacted, followed by head lettuce, but there was damage in every type of lettuce.

What started as a tough season got a lot worse as these diseases cut a swath through the biggest lettuce production region in the country. The drop in demand due to the pandemic, three summer heat waves and smoke-filled air from wildfires in the nearby hills made 2020 a standout year for all the wrong reasons.

2021 and beyond, knowing that research projects and plant breeding would take some time to offer durable solutions to the problem.

Before describing the actions taken by the task force, we need to cover the basics about each disease. Much of the information presented here has already been presented in a longer form in several articles posted on the Salinas Valley Agriculture blog.

INSV

Symptoms Infected lettuce plants exhibit stunting, chlorosis and necrosis of the inner leaves and may have necrotic lesions at the base of the leaf ribs. Infection does not cause wilting, nor does it kill the plant. Immunostrips from Agdia are available for a quick method to confirm that observed symptoms are caused by INSV.

Host Range Many in the industry realized that this disease problem was This virus has a wide host range that includes many ornagoing to take a unified effort with everyone working together mental species, weeds and crops. This makes it very difficult to come up with solutions. There were so many things not to control once it is established in hosts growing in and understood about this massive outbreak. INSV has been around lettuce production. Our team of local scientists has around since 1995 and had caused problems in prior seasons, worked on a comprehensive sampling program to determine but never on the scale seen in 2020. PW was first identified which of our common weed species are hosts. This informain the Salinas Valley by Steve Koike in 2011 and there was tion has been vital in efforts to reduce sources of the virus. some notable damage observed in 2014 and 2015. But in 2016, Focusing on control of winter weeds when thrips are not field trials where Pythium had previously occurred resulted very active and lettuce plantings are not yet abundant should in no observable disease symptoms. reduce the amount of virus present in the environment at the start of the lettuce harvest season in the spring. An updatSo why were both diseases so prevalent and so destructive in ed list of weed hosts can be found on the UC ANR Salinas 2020? And what could we do to avoid a repeat of a problem Valley Agriculture blog. that impacted the industry to the tune of an estimated $70 to $100 million in lost gross revenue in just one season?

Vector The only known vector of INSV in the Salinas Valley is At a meeting held in September 2020, industry leaders agreed Frankliniella occidentalis, Western Flower Thrips. This has that a task force should be assembled to work on the probalways been a tough pest to control in lettuce for a number lem. Spearheaded by the Grower-Shipper Association of of reasons, including its habit of moving deep into plants, its Central California, a group of growers, shippers, scientists, wide host range, its constant influx from bordering areas and farm advisors, PCAs and others associated with the lettuce its high reproductive rate. With very few effective materiindustry agreed to meet regularly to share insights and als registered in California for thrips control, it has been a develop strategies to lessen the impact of these diseases in Continued on Page 6 4

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Our IPM solution doesn’t take days off.

IA L

BE

EFIC

Y

F

March / April 2022

L

I E N D

R

0

N

www.progressivecrop.com

5

Thrips monitoring data from 2019 to 2022. Lines represent average numbers of thrips captured per sticky card per week from 21 sticky cards located from Castroville to King City (courtesy D. Hasegawa.)

Continued from Page 4 constant battle to keep this vector from building to very high levels by the end of the season.

USDA Entomologist Daniel Hasegawa oversees a weekly thrips monitoring program. Results are posted on the UCCE Monterey County web site at cemonterey.ucanr.edu/Agriculture/ Thrips_Monitoring_Program/. Weekly updates provide a warning system for the buildup of thrips populations.

Dr. Hasegawa has noted that CIMIS data from a Salinas Valley station indicate that minimum air temperatures during the winter have trended higher. Thrips development, therefore, continues even in the winter, pointing to a year-round thrips “season” and the need for aggressive control of thrips weed hosts throughout the year.

Pythium Wilt

to the lettuce industry and because of its unpredictability, there is a lot we don’t know about its ability to cause disease. Other Pythiums are known to be most serious when host plants are under stress. We think this Pythium occurs when temperatures are above normal. Heavy irrigation events may also trigger infection. Research is needed to sort out whether the fungus prefers higher temperatures, or lettuce roots are more prone to infection when under stress, or that the heavier irrigation during heat spells can act as a trigger to disease development.

Host Range With only a small number of host range studies to rely on, lettuce is the only known susceptible crop species grown on the Central Coast. Pythium species are typically good soil saprophytes, surviving on organic matter in the absence of a susceptible host. We don’t yet know if that holds true for Pythium uncinulatum.

Symptoms Plants infected with PW (Pythium unci- Pathogen Dispersal nulatum) are subject to wilting, stuntPythium has mobile asexual spores, ing and yellowing. The inner leaves may zoospores, that move in water. They remain green and symptomless while can be transported by irrigation water the outer leaves are severely wilted. or during flooding events. Some have Feeder roots darken and eventually rot. theorized that the rain events known An obviously infected plant will not as atmospheric rivers, which often break off at the soil line when pulled on, result in localized flooding, may be which differs from a plant infected with the reason we have seen this pathogen Sclerotinia. Lettuce may become inspread to so many fields since it was fected with several different soilborne first identified. pathogens, so submitting samples to a diagnostic lab will aid in determining if This pathogen also forms oospores, Pythium is involved. which have the ability to survive in soil for long periods of time. Exactly how Because this pathogen is relatively new long we don’t know, but if it’s anything 6

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

October 2020 romaine field with INSV and Pythium Wilt (photo courtesy M. Zischke.)

like some of the other Oomycete pathogens, it’s probably years rather than months. If soil is transported out of an infested field on equipment, chances are oospores are being transported as well. USDA scientists are working on a rapid soil assay for this Pythium species to aid growers with planting decisions.

2021 Task Force Efforts

The task force members knew we needed to communicate in a succinct way with all involved. Not everyone had time to attend our frequent meetings.

Recommended Good Agricultural Practices were a good place to start: • Aggressively manage thrips • Aggressively manage weed hosts in lettuce plantings, in other crops on the ranch, in bordering areas • Disk harvested fields as soon as possible. INSV infected plants continue to harbor thrips that could move the virus to later plantings.

Pythium infected plants support the formation of soilborne spores that could infect subsequent plantings for several years • Report disease incidence. Scout for both INSV and Pythium. Know the key symptoms of both diseases The task force engaged with government officials and public agencies. We worked with our Monterey County Ag Commissioner to include a notice with Restricted Materials permits to stress the need for aggressive weed man-

agement. We also engaged with the Ag Commissioners in adjacent counties. The local weed abatement ordinance was used in a handful of locations where weeds had been allowed to go unchecked. And we worked with public agencies to encourage better weed management in rights of way, medians, utility yards, etc.

Our team of local researchers was always at the table, allowing them to react quickly as the diseases progressed over the season.

The INSV/Pythium Task Force wanted real-time information on how these two diseases were impacting the 2021 growing season. A group of growers representing about 25% of the industry agreed to report on disease occurrence over the length of the season.

2021 Outcomes

While we hardly came out of 2021 unscathed, damage from both diseases was less than in 2020. In order to document disease damage in a systematic manner, we divided the valley into 12 regions. We reported the number of fields in each region each week. We were able to tie this reporting to the weekly thrips monitoring project to better understand how INSV moved through the valley over time. By the end of the season, we estimated that nearly a third of all lettuce plantings had INSV levels of 1% or greater. Damage was most severe in the fall, similar to 2020. INSV prevalence correlated with higher thrips counts and with regions with the highest concentration of fall lettuce acreage. In all, nearly 800 fields had some level of INSV among the group of growers reporting in 2021. Double-digit yield losses were noted in many of those fields.

There were fewer reports of Pythium. We found that some PCAs had difficulty determining if symptoms were because of Pythium, Fusarium, or both, or perhaps another of our many soilborne diseases. We do know that results from some lab tests indicated that plant samples had both Pythium and Fusarium.

Weather played a big role. Summer and fall temperatures in 2020 were above normal and included three heat waves. 2021 was the opposite. Below-normal temperatures contributed to lower thrips counts, which led to less virus. And we suspect that cooler temperatures were responsible for less damage from Pythium.

Besides the cooler weather, increased attention on weed control, aggressive thrips management programs and planting schedule adjustments to avoid locations with high disease levels in 2020 all contributed to a better outcome in 2021.

Most of us believe that these diseases are here to stay and we are going to have to continue to utilize these strategies.

Future Work

Thrips management worries us. We have very few materials

that are effective against thrips. The repeated use of Spinosad/spinosyn-based materials could lead to resistance.

We are encouraging any and all efforts to develop the next generation of materials to control thrips. And we could put non-destructive trapping systems to good use. The ability to combine thrips monitoring with a quick and affordable INSV assay would allow for more strategic spray programs.

Plant breeding is going to play an integral role. We know that many seed companies are working to incorporate resistance to both diseases into new lettuce varieties. USDA is doing the same. But we know that pathogens are constantly changing.

Once resistant varieties are available, our industry will have to continue to control thrips and weed hosts to discourage new strains of INSV. We need to better understand the conditions that promote Pythium and find mitigation methods. Also, studies to elucidate the interplay of these two pathogens are on our list of needed research. Our task force will continue to seek answers to these and other questions during the 2022 growing season.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Beat the Heat & Care for Your Crops with:

Anti-Stress 550 ®

Frost & Freeze

Additional Environmental Stress Conditions that the product is useful for:

• High Temperatures & Extreme Heat • Drought Conditions • Transplanting • Drying Winds

What is Anti-Stress 550®?

A foliar spray that creates a semi-permeable membrane over the plant surface.

When to apply Anti-Stress 550®?

Optimal application period is one to two weeks prior to the threat of high heat.

When is Anti-Stress 550® most effective?

The coating of Anti-Stress becomes effective when the product has dried on the plant.

The drying time of Anti-Stress is the same as water in the same weather conditions.

*One application of Anti-Stress 550® will remain effective 30 to 45 days, dependent on the rate of plant growth, application rate of product and weather conditions.

559.495.0234 • 800.678.7377 polymerag.com • customerservice@polymerag.com Order from your PCA or local Ag Retailer / Crop Protection Supplier

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

7

2021 Kern County Potato Variety Trial

Project Provides Opportunity to See New Varieties Under Commercial Growing Conditions

By JASPREET SIDHU | UCCE Vegetable Crops Farm Advisor, Kern County

P

otato is the third most important food crop worldwide and the most important vegetable crop in the U.S. with a per capita consumption of 116 lbs. per year. In California, russet, red, white and specialty potatoes are planted or harvested almost every day of the year due to the diversity in its climate.

California is the ninth-largest potato-producing state and is the nation’s largest producer of spring potatoes.

The majority of these spring market potatoes are produced in Kern County.

Sustained potato production faces several constraints, such as variable environmental conditions, pest problems and market niches, requiring the development of cultivars that are either widely adapted to the region or suitable for specific production areas or markets.

Therefore, it is crucial to address the unique needs of the potato industry through sustained development and evaluation of new cultivars. Although California is a major producer of fresh market potatoes, the state currently lacks an organized statewide potato breeding program to accommodate the needs of California

Continued on Page 10 8

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Harvesting the trial crop on June 14, 2021 (all photos courtesy J. Sidhu.)

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

9

Continued from Page 8 potato growers. Therefore, the California potato industry works closely with USDA and the Southwest (Colorado, Texas and California) and Western Regional programs for potato variety development and evaluation.

This project provides an opportunity for growers and breeders to see the performance (improved yields, quality, and resistance) of new varieties under commercial growing conditions in Kern County because our growing conditions are significantly different (warmer and drier) compared to other potato growing regions in the U.S. The overall aim of this project is to evaluate the adaptability of these new varieties to Southern California growing conditions for improved yields and quality and to determine if any of the new varieties have improved resistance to common diseases, insects or environmental stress.

Potato tubers infested with southern blight and soft rot.

There were three subtrials in this project and these trials were conducted at a grower’s field in Bakersfield, Calif. Trials were categorized as ‘Southwest Regional Trial’ with ten entries, ‘Kern County Potato Variety Selection Trial’ with 13 entries and ‘Observational Trial’ with 73 entries.

Different Trials

Unlike all other potato production regions in the U.S., there are no USDA-ARS scientists with primary potato research responsibilities located in the Southwest. Therefore, potato research, specifically cultivar development, is the responsibility of the states within the region. A formalized agreement between the breeding and development programs in California, Colorado and Texas was

10

Progressive Crop Consultant

Cerata, a high-yielding variety from the Kern County replicated trail.

March / April 2022

Double Fun, a very interesting, variegated variety with purple flesh and yellow splashes.

A high-yielding chipper variety from the Southwestern trial.

Vegetable crops program team planting the trial on Feb. 15, 2021.

‘THE OVERALL AIM OF THIS PROJECT IS TO EVALUATE THE ADAPTABILITY OF THESE NEW VARIETIES TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GROWING CONDITIONS FOR IMPROVED YIELDS AND QUALITY AND TO DETERMINE IF ANY OF THE NEW VARIETIES HAVE IMPROVED RESISTANCE TO COMMON DISEASES, INSECTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL STRESS.’

established in 1997 to address the needs of the potato industry in the Southwest.

This trial in Bakersfield continues the association that the California potato industry has had with Colorado State University and Texas A&M University in the formation of the Southwest Region Trials. Advanced varieties are made available by Colorado State and Texas A&M each year for testing in regional trials. These varieties include russets, whites, reds and specialty types.

These varieties are replicated four times to minimize variations and are evaluated to have an accurate measure of their true potential for yield, quality and sometimes disease resistance.

The Kern County trial has a long history and has been going on for several decades. The Kern County trial primarily consists of varieties developed by various universities and private breeders from North America. Selections in the trial are replicated four times. Varieties in the trial could be dropped after

A Powerful New Fungicide 3 Preventative 3 Curative 3 Translaminar MRL Exempt 4 Hour REI 1 Day PHI

Attack Powdery Mildew and Botrytis with a New Mode of Action Fast Acting – Multi-site Control ProBlad® Verde fungicide delivers a completely new mode of action to disease management, providing decisive, multi-site disruption in a way no other fungicide can claim. ProBlad® Verde quickly targets all active disease life stages, stopping disease within 4-8 hours with translaminar activity. When you need to prevent, stop, or cure disease ProBlad® Verde can handle the toughest problems.

www.sym-agro.com

Continued on Page 12

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

11

Large, yellow-flesh, smooth-skinned Uniform, smoothtubers of variety skinned tubers of variety Almera.

Primabelle.

Continued from Page 11 the first or second year of evaluation or go into a final third year of evaluation based on performance.

Potato varieties with little history or data will be first looked at in the observational trial. It will consist of varieties from private and public breeders to test how they perform under Kern County conditions. Varieties that have proven merit in the observational trial will likely move up to the Kern County replicated trial the following year.

Figure 1. Marketable tuber yield of potato entries in the Southwest Regional Trial

Trial Details and Results

The 2021 Kern County Potato Variety Trial was planted on February 15, 2021 and harvested on June 14, 2021. The varieties available for these trials were planted on 20-foot-long plots with 27 seed pieces (27 hills) per plot. The trial received all standard agronomic practices of our grower-cooperator. After the trial was established, data was collected for plant emergence and percent stand count. At harvest, all plots were harvested, graded and evaluated for tuber size, total and marketable yield.

Overall, there were many varieties to consider trying on a small-acreage basis. Some of the selections, such as AC12080-4RU (Russet) and CO132325W (Chipper) from Southwestern trials, performed better compared to standard

12

Progressive Crop Consultant

Figure 2. Marketable tuber yield of potato entries in the Kern County Variety Trial.

March / April 2022

Specialty fingerling tubers of variety COO8062-3P

varieties Russet Norkotah and Atlantic (See Figure 1, see page 12) for yields and quality. AC12080-4RU is an early maturing russet type with a long tuber shape while CO13232-5W is a mid-season variety with medium vines and round-shaped tubers with white skin.

In the Kern County replicated trial (Figure 2, see page 12), varieties Cerata, Primabelle, Almera and Nectar showed good potential with high yields and tuber appearance. One of the chipper varieties, CO12235-3W from Colorado State, also performed well. Cerata is a high-yielding medium-late-maturing fresh market variety with red-skinned, white flesh, oval-shaped tubers. It has good resistance against common scab. Primabelle is an early maturing fresh market variety and has very attractive bright, smooth oval tubers with light yellow skin and light-yellow flesh. Almera emerged as one of the best varieties in the trial with a high yield and distinc-

‘THIS PROJECT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GROWERS AND BREEDERS TO SEE THE PERFORMANCE OF NEW VARIETIES UNDER COMMERCIAL GROWING CONDITIONS IN KERN COUNTY BECAUSE OUR GROWING CONDITIONS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT COMPARED TO OTHER POTATO GROWING REGIONS IN THE U.S.’

tive tuber appearance. This variety is suitable for the fresh market as well as the processing industry. Nectar is an early maincrop yellow flesh variety producing medium to large ovallong tubers and is excellent for both the fresh market and packing sector.

CO12235-3W is a medium maturing variety with round, white-skinned tubers.

In the observational trials, there were several outstanding performers for yield and quality. Some of these were Caprice, Torino, Constance and two advanced selections RP2011-2Y and COO8062-3PF/P. Caprice is a medium early table variety with round oval, medium-sized tubers and supposedly also has the potential to tolerate drought conditions. Torino produces smooth-skinned, red-colored tubers with a yellow flesh and has maincrop maturity. Constance is a promising early maincrop yellow variety with a uniform tuber size. RP2011-2Y is a yellow variety with a high yield and

March / April 2022

uniform small-medium-sized tubers.

COO8062-3PF/P is a specialty type fingerling potato and an advanced selection from Colorado State.

Please contact Jaspreet Sidhu for a copy of the full report along with pictures of these varieties. The potato report can be found at ucanr.edu/sites/Kern22/ files/356842.pdf .

The author would like to thank Kevin Johnston and Johnston Farms for their generosity in hosting the trial for the past several years. This work is funded

by California Potato Research Advisory Board, USDA NIFA (Potato Breeding Research, award no. 2019-3414130433), and Potatoes USA.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

www.progressivecrop.com

13

The Invasive Spotted Lanternfly and its Risk to California Mapping shows risk-prone areas based on cultivated and wild hosts.

By SURENDRA K. DARA | Entomology and Biologicals Advisor, UC Cooperative Extension and ROLAND C. BOCCO | Assistant Specialist, UC Cooperative Extension California has 22 cultivated and about 70 wild hosts of SLF, including several high-value crops such as apples, cherries, grapes and plums (photo courtesy S. Dara.)

T

he spotted lanternfly (SLF) [Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae)] is an invasive planthopper which causes significant damage to apples, grapes, stone fruit, trees used for timber and other hosts (Dara et al. 2015). Native to China, SLF was first reported in 2014 in Pennsylvania and has been rapidly spreading in the eastern U.S. and moving westward. California has 22 cultivated and about 70 wild hosts of SLF, including several high-value crops such as apples, cherries, grapes and plums. The tree-of-heaven, an invasive species, is a favorite host of SLF and is widely distributed in California. SLF is also a nuisance pest with hundreds or thousands of individuals infesting landscape trees and hosts in residential areas.

This pest deposits eggs on inanimate objects such as vehicles, furniture, stones and packages and is thus spread to other areas through the movement

of these objects. Awareness of the pest and its damage potential, ability of Californians to recognize and report the pest if found and the knowledge of control practices will help prevent accidental transportation of eggs or other life stages from the infested areas to California and prepare the citizens

to take appropriate actions. Outreach efforts have been made in California since 2014 through extension articles, presentations at extension meetings, videos, social media posts and personal communication (Dara 2014).

Wakie et al. (2020) modeled the estab-

lishment risk of SLF in the U.S. and around the world and indicated that many coastal regions and California’s Central Valley are among the high-risk areas. Considering the risk to several

Continued on Page 16

BOOT CAMP FOR BLOOM SUCCESS! To achieve greatness, you’ve got to put in the work.

Add Acadian® Organic to enhance crop quality and productivity.

• Enhanced abiotic stress tolerance • Improved plant establishment • Better nutrient uptake

• Increased photosynthesis and antioxidant levels • Boosted crop quality and yield

Applications of Acadian® Organic are the critical step that strengthens and conditions your plants to defend themselves against environmental stress and other factors limiting yield and quality.

Ensure your application program completes boot camp with Acadian® Organic! Get your product today!

acadianplanthealth-na.com 1-800-575-9100

© 2021 Acadian Sea Plants Limited. All rights reserved.

Acadian Plant Health™ and Acadian® Organic are trademarks of Acadian Seaplants Limited.

January / February 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

15

Continued from Page 15 high-value commodities and the presence of several wild hosts that are distributed all over California, mapping of the risk-prone areas based on the cultivated hosts, their acreage and

ISOMATE

value in different counties and the distribution of wild hosts was done to help both growers and other Californians prepare for potential invasion of SLF.

Methodology

The list of SLF hosts is continuously evolving with host specificity stud-

®

Superior Mating Disruption for the Two Key Pests Facing the Nut Industry ISOMATE NOW Mist 225+ days of Navel Orangeworm disruption in Almonds, Pistachios and Walnuts ISOMATE CM Mist Walnut Plus Innovative Technology for 180+ days of Codling Moth disruption

PACIFIC BIOCONTROL CORPORATION www.pacificbiocontrol.com

Jeannine Lowrimore Northern California 209.603.9244

ISOMATE® is a registered trademark of Pacific Biocontrol

16

Progressive Crop Consultant

Joe Devencenzi Central and Coastal California 209.642.0136

January / February 2022

ies in various places. Based on two published resources (Dara et al. 2015; Barringer and Ciafré 2020), 22 cultivated and 70 wild hosts appear to be present in California. Plant species that support some of the feeding life stages or all life stages were included in preparing these lists. The cultivated hosts include apples, apricots, basil, blueberries, butternut, cherries, cotton, grapes, hibiscus, hops, mock orange, nectarine, peaches, pears, persimmon, plums, pomegranates, roses, soybean, sponge gourd, tea and walnuts; and the wild hosts include Acacia sp., American hazelnut, Amur corktree, American linden, American sycamore, arborvitae, Argentine cedar, Asian white birch, bee balm, big-toothed aspen, black gum, black hawk, black locust, black walnut, Bladder senna, boxelder, chestnut oak, chinaberry tree, Chinese boxwood, Chinese juniper, Chinese parasol tree, Chinese wingnut, devilwoods, dogwood, Eastern white pine, edible fig, false spiraea, fireweed, five-stamen tamarisk, flowering dogwood, Forsythia, Glossy privet, greater burdock, grey alder, hemp, hollyhocks, honeysuckle, hornbeam, Japanese angelica, Japanese boxwood, Japanese maple, Japanese snowball, Japanese zelkova, jujubes, Kobus magnolia, Northern spicebush, Norway maple, lacquer tree, perennial salvia, Persian silk tree, plane tree, Poinsettia, poplars, princess tree, red

Continued on Page 18

Make your next move

your best move.

Winning seasons start with strong openings.

To beat opponents that are constantly evolving, like bloom diseases, you need a strategic game plan: • Make the first move with Scala® at pink bud • Followed by Luna Sensation® at bloom/petal fall • And close with Luna Experience® at two weeks post petal fall That’s check and mate.

Learn more at LunaScalaGamePlan.com.

ALWAYS READ AND FOLLOW PESTICIDE LABEL DIRECTIONS. Not all products are registered in all states and may be subject to use restrictions. The distribution, sale, or use of an unregistered pesticide is a violation of federal and/or state law and is strictly prohibited. Check with your local dealer or representative for the product registration status in your state. Bayer, Bayer Cross, Luna Experience,® Luna Sensation,® and Scala ® are registered trademarks of Bayer Group. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.BayerCropScience.us. Bayer CropScience LP, 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard, St. Louis, MO 63167. ©2022 Bayer Group. All rights reserved.

Continued from Page 16 maple, sapphire dragon tree, sassafras , sawtooth, serviceberry, silver maple, slippery elm, snowbell, staghorn sumac, sugar maple, tree-of-heaven, tulip tree, Virginia creeper, white ash, wild grape and willows.

A summary of county crop reports from the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA 2018) was used to determine the value and acreages of the cultivated hosts. To determine the distribution of wild hosts, various online resources were used. SLF risk levels were determined as very low, low, moderate, high and very high for the number of hosts, acreage and value of each cultivated host as well as other such parameters within each county. The highest risk value within each parameter was used to determine ‘very high’ category and 4/5, 3/5, 2/5 and 1/5 were used for high, moderate, low and very low categories, respectively. In other words, 0% to 20% risk was considered very low, 21% to 40% as low, 41% to 60% as moderate, 61% to 80% as high and 81% to 100% as very high for each measured parameter.

Data were entered into a spreadsheet and maps were generated using QGIS open-source cross-platform geographic information system application.

Risk-Prone Areas in California

The included maps show areas in California that are prone to SLF risk based on the distribution of cultivated and wild hosts, and the acreage and value of important cultivated crops.

Based on these maps, the entire state of California is at some level of risk. In addition to the commercially produced crops, several backyard or landscape plant species, such as roses, grapes, peaches, plums and others, are present throughout the state and can harbor SLF. Such host plants in residential and urban landscapes can serve as SLF sources for commercial crops. The tree-of-heaven is present throughout California and several such uncultivated hosts can serve as sources of undetected infestations. While researchers are working on appropriate biocontrol 18

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

solutions such as releasing natural enemies, other control options, such as synthetic and microbial pesticide applications, sticky traps, removal of egg masses and wild hosts and other strategies, can help manage SLF. In the meantime, Californians will benefit by knowing about this pest and its potential risk to the state. The ability to identify, destroy or capture as well as report the pest to county and state departments or UCCE offices will help prevent or delay SLF invasion and spread in California.

invasive pest in the United States. J. Integr. Pest Manag. 6: 20.

num=15861).

Dara, S. K. 2018. An update on the invasive spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula: current distribution, pest detection efforts, and management strategies. UCANR eJournal Pest News (https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=26349).

Wakie, T. T., Nevin, L. G., Yee, W. L. and Lu, Z. 2020. The establishment risk of Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae) in the United States and globally. J. Econ. Entomol. 113: 306314.

Dara, S. K., Barringer, L. and Arthurs, S. P. 2015. Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae): a new

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

California is at the risk of SLF invasion and spread. Depending on the number of cultivated crops, their acreage, value and the distribution of wild hosts, the risk level varies in various counties throughout the state. Outreach efforts are helping to alert Californians about SLF and its damage to cultivated crops and nuisance in urban and residential areas.

Refer to ucanr.edu/spottedlanternfly for additional information about the pest. If you happen to see this pest in California, please contact your local Agricultural Commissioner, California Department of Food and Agriculture or UCCE office to report.

Thanks to the California Department of Food and Agriculture for funding this study.

References Barringer, L. and Ciafré, C. M. 2020.

Worldwide feeding host plants of spotted lanternfly, with significant additions from North America. Environ.

Entomol. 49: 999-1011.

CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). 2018. California County Agricultural Commissioners’ Report Crop Year 2016-2017 (https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/ pdfs/2017cropyearcactb00.pdf).

Westbridge is now growing as SAN Agrow When the opportunity came to expand our reach, improve our customer’s bottom line and benefit the world at large, we took it. SAN Agrow remains here for you, offering experience, expertise and effective plant nutrients, biopesticides and specialty inputs to sustainably improve crop quality and yield.

ORGANIC

ORGANIC

®

®

®

G ARGOIL

®

Blossom Protect ™

Botector

Dara, S. K. 2014. Spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) is a new invasive pest in the United States. UCANR eJournal Pest News (https://ucanr.edu/ blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?post-

®

Visit www.san-agrow.com or call (800) 876-2767

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

19

Soil Mapping for Fine-Tuned Nutrient Management

By MATT COMREY | Technical Nutrition Agronomist, Wilbur-Ellis Agribusiness, WRCCA Board of Directors

Figure 1. Soil mapping coupled with a variable rate (VR) fertilizer application aims to maximize one of the 4 Rs: Right Rate (all photos courtesy M. Comrey.)

T

his year will likely prove as challenging a year as any from recent past due to supply chain disruptions, commodity pricing and drought here in the Central Valley. Growers who can weather this year’s uncertainty will be poised for success in the future due to an increased focus on efficiency and proper input management. From proper sprayer calibration to increased awareness of nutrient use efficiency, the incentive for improving input efficiency is particularly strong as the supply of inputs remains questionable at best.

Product placement when completing a fertilizer application is vital, particularly when deploying dry fertilizers in a

20

Progressive Crop Consultant

Figure 2. Soil Optix soil sensing tool helps map variability in the soil.

band and/or broadcast. The low solubility of many of the common dry fertilizers used up and down the state means nutrient release is slow and nutrient movement through the soil complex is low. This is particularly problematic for potassium- and phosphate-based fertilizers whose primary method of uptake is via diffusion. The 4 Rs of Nutrient Stewardship are helpful in guiding growers through the considerations associated with properly applying nutrients: Right Source, Right Place, Right Form and Right Rate. Turbulent times and uncertainty bring opportunities for growers to leverage new technologies in their ongoing pursuit to maximize efficiency.

March / April 2022

Using GPS and soil mapping technology isn’t a new strategy for soil nutrient management but has gotten more and more attention in the past few years due to rapidly increasing fertilizer costs.

Soil mapping coupled with a variable rate (VR) fertilizer application aims to maximize one of the 4 Rs: Right Rate by directly matching the fertilizer application rate with measured soil nutrient levels. This technology can effectively break a field or block into smaller management zones so different areas of the field ca n be treated differently. While this article highlights the use of GPS soil mapping as a tool

Continued on Page 22

’ s r o s i Adv The

Nutrient Use Efficiency People.®

Most people don’t see the amount of recommendations that go into a crop each year.

But the time you put in is more than a simple decision.

At Verdesian Life Sciences, we understand – that’s why we offer a full portfolio of yield-pushing solutions from seed treatments and fertilizer enhancers to nutrients and biostimulants. Talk to your retailer about how solutions from Verdesian Life Sciences can help maximize your profits through plant health.

800-868-6446 | VLSCI.COM Important: Always read and follow label use directions.

All TM/R © 2022 Verdesian Life Sciences. All rights reserved. VLS 22.0070

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

21

#5

#4

#3

Figures 3 -5. Maps can provide a course of action. Figure 3, raw measurements uploaded to software. Figure 4 shows the processed zone map. Figure 5 shows a potassium nutrient map.

Continued from Page 20 to direct fertilizer applications, there are other uses, such as identifying soil variability, interpreting yield variability and rootstock/variety selection.

GPS Guided Soil Mapping: How Does it Work?

The process of generating a soil map consists of pulling a specialized piece

of equipment across the target field or orchard, generating specific measurements that are later used to direct composite soil sampling. Figures 1 and 2 (see page 20) show two different pieces of equipment commonly used to generate soil maps. Soil mapping equipment vary in cost and can be quite sensitive to soil conditions, including but not limited to soil moisture, soil texture and/or salinity. Some

sensors can be very sensitive to metal located throughout the field, making equipment selection very important in crops grown in a trellis system like grapes. Once the field is mapped, the raw measurements must then be processed into ‘management zones’ for further evaluation.

Raw or initial readings/measurements generated from the equipment are typi-

Helping Farmers Grow NATURALLY Since 1974

FEATURING:

Office: 559-686-3833 Fax: 559-686-1453 2904 E. Oakdale Ave. | Tulare, CA 93274 newerafarmservice.com 22

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

cally expressed as color-coated individual measurements compressed together (Figure 3, see page 22). The result is a soil map that can seem pixelated and difficult to interpret and/or evaluate.

Computer software is used to generate “zones” based on parameters such as measurement ranges or soil texture (Figure 4, see page 22). Once the zones are created, composite soil samples can be taken to understand mineral composition throughout the management zone as well as the entire field.

rates, a VR controller file is needed. The VR controller file is generated from the zone recommendation and is formatted for upload into a VR controller (Figure 6, see page 24) mounted to a tractor which operates the application equipment, whether it’s a spreader or a sprayer (Figure 7, see page 24).

APRIL 6, 2022

PECAN

DAY

WCNGG.COM/PD

Continued on Page 24

Once soil sample reports are back from the lab, results are uploaded into the computer software. When results are uploaded, nutrient maps which effectively display nutrient levels across the field or block can then be generated (Figure 5, see page 22). Fully processed nutrient maps can be useful when determining whether different areas of a given orchard or field should be managed differently from the rest of the field. The example image in Figure 5 illustrates potassium levels (ppm) across a fully established walnut orchard. We see that areas in the “green” zone of the field consist of approximately 306 ppm while other areas of the nutrient map reflect much lower values. Now that potassium levels are mapped across the entire field, the grower can make some actionable observations and decisions concerning fertilizer applications.

Acting on the Information

After nutrient needs are identified and well understood across the field, a grower can now move to determine the appropriate product needed to treat the field. To take advantage of GPS variable rate technology, a zone recommendation that includes both product and application rate must be generated. The zone recommendation will simply outline how much of the product should be applied to the different management zones within the field while calculating total product needed per zone as well as for the entire field. Growers should discuss products and application rates with their local PCA or CCA. In order to fully leverage VR technology to optimize fertilizer application March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

23

Continued from Page 23 Now, the VR applicator will automatically adjust the fertilizer’s application rate based on the tractor’s location within the field. With this technology, we can now better match our fertilizer inputs to nutrient needs throughout the field or orchard with little alteration made to the fertilizer application itself.

Over the past decade, I have worked with and helped many growers explore this idea of VR fertilizer applications and feedback is overwhelmingly positive. Most growers that I’ve worked with were initially apprehensive but were soon able to see the value in better reconciling fertilizer inputs with crop needs. The process of creating the controller file seems daunting, but with the help of a skilled technician, can be done in a few days’ time and requires very little involvement from the grower.

While the true value of VR technology is the ability to properly place fertilizer products where they are needed, many times growers learn that by utilizing soil mapping and VR technology, they can see significant cost savings.

I’m reminded of when I worked with a particular grower that was seeing significant yield variability across a particular field of almonds. He attributed this yield variability due to both the variable soil texture as well as topography. He told me that he took an annual soil sample from the same general area of the field that he felt accurately reflected the average yield of the block.

After I had a chance to visit this field, the soil texture and topographic differences were difficult to ignore. There were several distinct soil types within this field and, while it wasn’t large, it contained distinct flat areas as well as rolling hills. I asked this grower for his most recent soil sample from that block which reflected very poor potassium levels. After explaining the various ways I believed soil mapping coupled with a VR application could benefit his operation, he begrudgingly gave me permission to map this field using EC measurements, pull GPS-guided

24

Progressive Crop Consultant

Figure 6. The VR controller file is generated from the zone recommendation and is formatted for upload into a VR controller.

Figure 7. VR controller mounted to a tractor operates this dry spreader for precision application.

soil samples and generate a fertilizer recommendation.

Once I completed the entire soil mapping process and a fertilizer recommendation was generated, I met back up with the grower to review the results. We found that potassium levels in the area he was sampling were quite low and did not reflect the average of the rest of the field at all. The grower used this same sample to generate an application rate of 700 lbs. of sulfate of potash (SOP) banded on the orchard floor across the entire field. The fertilizer recommendation I was able to generate and share with this grower

March / April 2022

suggested that many areas of the field need much more than 700 lbs. and many areas of the field need little to no SOP applied. We found that the average application rate across the entire field was significantly less than previously calculated, resulting in a large reduction in product needed for the field.

While these cost savings from implementing soil mapping are atypical, the real value is from improving the efficiency of our fertilizers by properly reconciling crop nutrient demand with our fertilizer applications.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Potassium AN Essential Nutrient for tree Nuts.

Almonds remove roughly 91.2 pounds of K20 per 1,000 kernel pounds each season. Replenishing this potassium for the next season is crucial as it plays a vital role in tree nut development and disease resistance. The efficient liquid formulation of KTS® allows for application via drip or sprinkler irrigation. Avoid potassium deficiencies. Apply KTS. Contact a Crop Vitality Specialist For assistance regarding application, blending and field trials.

Learn more about KTS AT WWW.CROPVITALITY.COM OR CALL (800) 525-2803 - EMAIL INFO@CROPVITALITY.COM March /Kerley, April Inc. 2022 ©2022 Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc. All rights reserved. KTS® is a registered trademark of Tessenderlo

www.progressivecrop.com

25

Evaluating the Potential of Pyridate-Containing Herbicide in Basil: Impacts on Yield, Leaf Injury and Weed Control

By ZHENG WANG | UCCE Vegetable Crop Advisor, Stanislaus County

B

asil is one of the most important herb spices for the diets of people in the Central Valley. Commercial basil in California is usually grown without the use of any herbicide after seedling emergence due to the lack of registered post-emergence herbicides. Most application occurs at pre-plant or immediately after seeding using a preemergence herbicide.

‘Devrinol’, a selective preemergence herbicide containing Napropamide as the active ingredient, was the only registered herbicide that had been used over the past 20 years. Consequently, growers have to deal with potential weed resistance and deploy tremendous amount of labor for hand removal if preemergence effects fail or decrease later in the season.

In addition to the labor cost for hand harvest, the input of manual weed removal significantly increases the total production cost. Therefore, screening existing but currently unregistered post-emergence herbicides and collecting their performance on weed suppression and plant injury will facilitate the use registration and help basil growers with more choices for post-emergence chemical weed control and the labor cost reduction for manual weeding.

Herbicide Trials

Two herbicide evaluation trials were conducted in 2021 on commercial basil fields of Ratto Bros, Inc. in Modesto, Calif. with the collaboration of IR-4. The purpose was to understand if two Pyridate-containing herbicides, ‘Tough 5EC’ and ‘Pyridate 30WG’, perform consistently on weed control and prevention of basil leaf injury.

Tough 5EC and Pyridate 30WG are currently used on field corn, chickpea and mints, but are not registered for use on basil. Both contain the active ingredient Pyridate (Carbonothioic acid, O-(6-chloro-3-phenyl-4-pyridizinyl) S-octyl ester) and are contact herbicides within Group 6. They are post-emergence herbicides for the selective control or suppression of actively growing annual broadleaf species. The active ingredient of Pyridate is absorbed by plant leaves. Neither offers any residual weed control. Therefore, weeds must have emerged at the time of spray and not grown beyond the proper application stage to prevent decrease of control.

Continued on Page 28 26

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Figure 1.1.

Daily high and low temperature the herbicide trialsduring in Modesto,the Calif. herbicide (May 25 to July 26 for Field A and June 2 to August 2 fo Figure Daily high and lowduring temperature trials in Modesto, Calif. (May 25 to July 26 for Field A and June 2 to August 2 ID % Sand % Silt % Clay Texture for Field B).

Field A

60

Field B IDField A

ID

18

% Sand

22

Oakdale sandy loam

% Silt

% Clay

Texture

76 %60Sand

13 18 Silt %

22 % Clay

Oakdale sandy loam Texture

FieldA B Field

6076

13 18

1122

Tujunga Oakdaleloamy sandysand loam

Field B

76

13

11

Tujunga loamy sand

11

Tujunga loamy sand

Table 2. List of treatments for field evalua6on trials in Modesto, Calif.

Table 1. Soil texture for Field A and Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Table 2. List of treatments for field evalua6on trials in Modesto, Calif.

Active

Rate of

Rate of active

Application

Spray

Trt# 2.Product(s) ingredient(s) formulated ingredient(s) Placement &SprayVolume Activeevalua6onRate ofin Modesto, Rate of active Application Table List of treatments for field trials Calif. product(s) ingredient(s) Timing& Volume Range Trt# Product(s) ingredient(s) formulated Placement Ac.ve Rate of Rate of ac.ve Timing Applica.on Range Spray product(s) 1Trt# Weed free N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Product(s) ingredient(s) formulated ingredient(s) Placement & Volume product(s) Timing Range 1 Weed free N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 6 oz/acre 0.23 lb ai/acre Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 12 Weed N/A N/A N/Alb ai/acre N/A broadcast 30N/A Toughfree 5EC + NIS pyridate 6 oz/acre 0.23 Foliar GPA 3 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 8 oz/acre 0.31 lb ai/acre Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 23 Tough NIS pyridate 68 oz/acre oz/acre 0.23lb lb ai/acre Foliar Foliar GPA Tough5EC 5EC ++ NIS pyridate 0.31 ai/acre broadcast 3030 GPA 4 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 12 oz/acre 0.47 lb ai/acre broadcast Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 4 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 12 oz/acre 0.47 lb ai/acre Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 3 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 8 oz/acre 0.31 lb ai/acre Foliar 30 GPA 5 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 24 oz/acre 0.94 lb ai/acre broadcast Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 5 Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate 24 oz/acre 0.94 lb ai/acre Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 66 4

Tough 5EC + NIS Pyridate 30WG ++NIS pyridate Pyridate 30WG NIS pyridate pyridate

7 7 5 88

Pyridate pyridate Pyridate30WG 30WG++NIS NIS pyridate Tough 5EC + NIS pyridate Untreated N/A Untreated- -Weedy Weedy N/A

12 oz/acre 0.47 Foliar 348 g/acre 0.23 0.23 lbai/acre ai/acre Foliar Foliar broadcast 30 GPA 348 g/acre lblbai/acre broadcast 3030 GPA GPA broadcast 469g/acre g/acre 0.310.31 lb ai/acre FoliarFoliar broadcast 469 lb ai/acre broadcast 30 GPA30 GPA 24 oz/acre 0.94 lb ai/acre Foliar 30 GPA broadcast N/A N/A N/AN/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pyridate 30WG +

pyridate

348 g/acre

0.23 lb ai/acre

Foliar

Pyridate 30WG + NIS

pyridate

469 g/acre

0.31 lb ai/acre

Foliar 30 GPA broadcast ScaleScale of weed of weed N/A N/A

6

GPA NIS2. List of treatments for field evaluation trials in broadcast Table Modesto, 30 Calif.

7 8

%%weed weedcontrolled controlled N/A N/A

Untreated - Weedy N/A

P-value

P-value

Field A

Field A

Field B

Field B

Herbicide rate <0.0001 <0.0001 Table 3. P values for both trials.

Herbicide rate for treatments and interac6ons <0.0001 <0.0001

Field A

Field B

<0.0001

0.0069

Field A <0.0001

Field B 0.0069

Days after application (DAA)

0.0011

0.3948

0.0018

0.0091

Herbicide x DAA

0.7486

0.999

0.9694

0.9382

Days after application (DAA) Herbicide x DAA

0.0011 0.7486

0.3948 0.999

0.0018 0.9694

Table 2. P values for treatments and interactions for both trials.

0.0091 0.9382

CONTROL

YOUR

LEGACY Vine Mealybug can destroy generations of success.

Fight back with the mating disruption more growers trust.

•

Most Effective

•

Longer Lasting

•

Trusted & Proven

Learn more at Learn more at www.suterra.com/vmb

www.suterra.com/vmb

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

27

Figure 2B. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 7 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif.

Weed-free

Tough 6 oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Tough 8 oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

24 oz/acre Tough 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Weed-free

Tough 6 oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Tough 8 oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

Tough 24 oz/acre 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Weedy

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Figure 2A. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 3 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif. (all photos courtesy Z. Wang.)

Weedy

Figure 2B. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 7 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif.

Figure 2C. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 14 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif.

Weed-free

Tough 6 oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Tough 8 oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

Tough 24 oz/acre 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Continued from Page 26 Two commercial fields were double line seeded into 40-inchwide beds with the basil variety “Plenty” on May 25, 2021 (Field A, Figure 2) and June 2, 2021 (Field B, Figure 3, see page 31). According to soil tests and a USDA Soil Web Survey, the soil textures of both fields are Oakdale sandy loam and Tujunga loamy sand with different contents of sand, silt

Advertorial Calcium is a powerful flocculator that influences soil structure and contributes to the overall health of both soil and crop. The healthiest of soils have a flocculated structure, soil particles are clumped together to form aggregates. These aggregates stabilize soil and allow water to move through the large pores.

Sodium is a poor flocculator, in fact it closes the soil, increasing surface crusting and reducing water infiltration.

Calcium works to leach soil salts by replacing sodium on the cation exchange sites, bringing the salt into the soil solution where it can be leached with quality irrigation or rainwater.

Blue Mtn Minerals Limestone 640 lbs Ca per ton 90% Gypsum 420 lbs Ca per ton

Calcium needed to remove excess salts Soil Type

Sandy Loam 2,000 lbs/acre Loam 2,500 lbs/acre

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 2C. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 14 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif.

Figure 2D. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 28 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif. (note that weeds were hand removed.)

Weed-free

6Tough oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

8Tough oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

24 Tough oz/acre 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Source: USDA NRCS Document Salt-Affected Areas

Bottom line: when choosing your source of calcium, why pay more for less calcium per ton?

Ask for it by name Blue Mountain Minerals Naturally the Best!

For more information 209-533-0127x112

28

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 2D. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 28 DAA in Field A in Modesto, Calif. (note that weeds were hand removed.)

and clay (Table 1, see page 26). Another difference between fields is that Field A contained a higher weed seed density than Field B, according to the production history.

According to the experiment protocols, there are six herbicide treatments applied at various rates as a post-emergence control of broadleaf weeds. The study also included two controls leaving fields unweeded or weed-free (hand removal weekly) (Table 2, see page 26). In each trial, the study was implemented as a randomized complete block design with four replications. Each treatment plot was 20 feet long. Herbicides were tank mixed with a non-ionic surfactant (INDUCE, 90% Alkyl Aryl Polyoxylkane Ethers and Free Fatty Acids) and foliar broadcast on June 22 and June 30 for Field A and Field B (28 days after seeding), respectively, at 30 GPA. All fields were irrigated as needed for crop health and heat stress prevention using the sprinkler system throughout the growing season. Disease and pest control as well as fertilization followed the Ranch’s standard practice.

PLANT HEALTH & PEST MANAGEMENT

FIGHT WITH BIOLOGICAL BITE

Field Monitoring and Data Collection

At 3, 7, 14 and 28 days after application (DAA, June 25 and 30, July 6 and 20 for Field A; July 2, 12, 14 and 28 for Field B), a total area of 8 sq. ft (2 ft x 4 ft) was framed and pictured from each treatment within a block to evaluate weed control effects and basil leaf injury.

Percent weed controlled or with killing symptoms as well as a 0 to 5 scale were used to determine weed control effects.

The scale includes: 0 = no visible weeds in the frame area, 1 = visible weeds no more than 10% of the frame area, 2 = visible weeds between 10% and 25%, 3 = visible weeds between 25% and 50%, 4 = visible weeds between 50% and 75%, and 5 = visible weeds over 75%. Leaf injury was monitored based on visual assessment of herbicide damage symptoms, such as stand loss, leaf stunting, chlorosis, necrosis, discoloration, cupping or curling. The assessment was reported on a 0% to 100% scale, where 0 =

Control downy mildew with Jet-Ag + Stargus Biofungicide, powdery mildew with Jet-Ag + Regalia Biofungicide & aphids, thrips & other insects with Venerate XC Bioinsecticide. rotate with

TRANSPLANT

Jet-Ag at 0.5% v/v + Regalia Biofungicide 1 qt./A every 7-14 days

POST TRANSPLANT

rotate with

Jet-Ag 0.5% v/v + Stargus Biofungicide 2qt./A every 7–14 days

FIRST SIGN OF INSECTS Apply 2qt./A every 7-10 days

Learn more at MarroneBio.com/LeafyGreens

©2022 Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc

Continued on Page 30 March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

29

Product

Herbicide rate

% weed controlled

Scale of weed

Product

Herbicide rate

% weed controlled

Scale of weed

Weed free

100

0

N/A

Weed free

100

0

N/A

Tough 5EC

6 oz/acre

34.58

2

Tough 5EC

6 oz/acre

67.5

1.13

Tough 5EC

8 oz/acre

24.17

2.58

Tough 5EC

8 oz/acre

78.13

0.75

Tough 5EC

12 oz/acre

70.42

1.5

Tough 5EC

12 oz/acre

88.13

0.63

Tough 5EC

24 oz/acre

84.58

1.33

Tough 5EC

24 oz/acre

78.75

1.5

Pyridate 30WG

348 g/acre

40.42

2.5

Pyridate 30WG

348 g/acre

53.13

1.38

Pyridate 30WG

469g/acre

47.08

2.42

Pyridate 30WG

469g/acre

64.38

1

N/A

weedy

0

3.17

N/A

weedy

0

1.75

LSD0.05

19.92

1.01

LSD0.05

21.98

0.878

3

61.88

1.34

3

68.59

0.72

7

50.47

1.97

7

63.91

1.31

14

38.13

2.5

LSD0.05

10.99

0.439

LSD0.05

12.2

0.62

DAA

DAA

Table 4. Percent weed controlled and weed scale ratings among herbicide rate and date for Field A in Modesto, Calif.

Continued from Page 29

Table 5. Percent weed controlled and weed scale ratings among herbicide rate and date for Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Product Herbicide rate fields immediately Field A Field B weight was measured in the after harvest.

N/A Weed free 0 Weight from each plot was transferred to an acre basis0 before running statistical6 analysis.

Tough 5EC oz/acre 10.63 20.31

no damage and 100% = all plants within the framed area showing damage symptoms or being killed. Fields were Tough 5EC 8 oz/acre 20 24.38 harvested by hand on July 26, 2021 and August 2, 2021 by Data Analysis and Results 12 oz/acre 37.5 35.31 Progressive Crop Consultant Ads With No Banners 08132021 RRR.pdf 1 8/13/2021 9:27:37 AM Tough 5EC cutting the basil stems at four inches above soil. Total fresh Data from each field were analyzed separately using the Tough 5EC 24 oz/acre 73.13 57.5 ANOVA of SAS 9.4 to determine the difference between Pyridate 30WG 348 g/acre 23.44 22.81 herbicide treatments as well as interaction with picture date.

Mean comparisons were made using Fisher’s Protected LSD Pyridate 30WG 469g/acre 49.38 46.25 at PN/A = 0.05. weedy 0 0 LSD0.05

6.57

Daily Air Temperature and Precipitation

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

AllGro compost is generated from various organics in a tightly controlled process to provide growers with a high-value, Class A, Exceptional Quality, STA-Certified compost that: • Provides significant water and nutrient savings while increasing yield benefits in a variety of applications; • Improves water retention as much as 20% on irrigated and non-irrigated land, keeping water where it is needed; • Improves yields while helping to abate certain plant diseases and pests; and • Provides critical slow nutrient release over time, including micronutrients at a 25%-plus cost savings vs. chemical fertilizers.

Pound for pound, there is no better all-in-one amendment providing cost-effective critical soil needs for growers.

To learn more, contact Thomas Fantozzi by phone at 209.312.4016 or by email at tfantozzi@synagro.com.

Synagro is one of the largest private composters in California. www.synagro.com

30

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

5.05

According to data from UC IPM California Weather Data (ipm.ucanr.edu/WEATHER/wxactstnames.html#), the average daily high and low temperature in Modesto, Calif. during the trials (May 25 to August 2) was 91.2 degrees F and 57.1 degrees F, respectively, and total precipitation was zero inches (Figure 1, see page 26).

Weed Control and Ratings In both fields, over 90% of weeds are purslane (Portulaca oleracea) with a few common mallows (Malva neglecta).

Overall, percent weed controlled and weed ratings were significantly different among herbicide application rates in both fields. These variables also differed among DAA except for percent weed controlled in Field B (Table 3, see page 26). There were no interactions between application rate and DAA. Specifically, using Tough 5EC at 24 oz/acre in Field A and 12 oz/acre in Field B showed the best weed control effect (over 80% weed controlled) with the lowest weed ratings. Plots applied with the lower rates of Tough 5EC (6 and 8 oz/acre) had less than 35% weed controlled in Field A, but the control effect was moderate to comparable to the best control treatment in Field B (Tables 4 and 5). The weed rating followed the similar trend; however, it is clear to see

Figure 3A. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 3 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Figure 3B. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 7 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Weed-free

Tough 6 oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Weed-free

Tough 6 oz/acre 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Tough 8 oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

Tough 8 oz/acre 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 12 oz/acre 5EC: 12 oz/acre

24 oz/acre Tough 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Tough 24 oz/acre 5EC:

Pyridate 348 g/acre 30WG: 348 g/

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 3A. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 3 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Figure 3C. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 14 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif. (note that weeds were hand removed.)

Weed-free

Pyridate 469 g/acre 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 3B. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 7 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Figure 3D. QuadraFc pictures of basil foliage taken at 28 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

Tough 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Weed-free

Tough 5EC: 6 oz/acre

Tough 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 5EC: 12 oz/acre

Tough 5EC: 8 oz/acre

Tough 5EC: 12 oz/acre

Tough 5EC:

Pyridate 30WG: 348 g/

Tough 5EC:

Pyridate 30WG: 348 g/

Pyridate 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 3C. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 14 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif. (note that weeds were hand removed.)

Pyridate 30WG: 469 g/

Weedy

Figure 3D. Quadratic pictures of basil foliage taken at 28 DAA in Field B in Modesto, Calif.

that more visible weeds were found in Field A than in Field B. Compared among DAA, the weed control effect declined after 3 DAA. In Field A, less than 40% weeds were effectively controlled at 14 DAA. Basil Leaf Injury Not surprisingly, plots with the best weed control demonstrated the most serious basil leaf injury. When plots were sprayed with Tough 5EC at 24 oz/acre, 73% (Field A) and 57% (Field B) of basil plants showed herbicide injury symptoms, such as leaf yellowing, loss of germination, discoloration and curling (Table 6 and Figs. 2A to 3D, see page 32). For plots with lower percent weed controlled, less than 25% basils are

DRIP RACK

Continued on Page 32 March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

31

DAA 3

68.59

0.72

7

63.91

1.31

Continued from Page 31

found to be injured by herbicide applications. When LSD0.05 10.99 0.439 comparing among DAA, we found that plants were most seriously injured at 7 DAA and then rapidly grew out of the injury with more intact and fresh leaves, except for plants treated by Product

Herbicide rate

Field A

Field B

N/A

Weed free

0

0

Tough 5EC

6 oz/acre

10.63

20.31

DAA

Tough 5EC

8 oz/acre

20

34.38

28.44

Tough 5EC

712 oz/acre

37.5 37.5

52.03

35.31

Tough 5EC

24 oz/acre 14

26.2573.13

21.41

57.5

Pyridate 30WG

28 348 g/acre

8.91 23.44

1.41

22.81

Pyridate 30WG

LSD0.05

4.65

3.57

46.25

N/A

49.38

Fresh Biomass

24.38

3

469g/acre

Tough 5EC at 24 oz/acre (Table 7 and Figs. 2A to 3D). As we only cut the plants at three to four inches above the ground, lower parts of the plants with damaged leaves presumably did not impact the harvest quality/marketability.

weedy

0

0

LSD0.05

6.57

5.05

Table 6. Visual assessment of percent basil leaf injury among application rate and days Table 7. Visual assessment of percent leaf injury for each herbicide treatment at each date in both fields after application for both fields in Modesto, Calif. in Modesto, Calif.

Field A-percent leaf injury

Field B-percent leaf injury

Rate/Date

3 DAA

7 DAA

14 DAA

28 DAA

3 DAA

7 DAA

14 DAA

28 DAA

Weed free

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tough 5EC (6 oz/ 15 acre)

18.75

8.75

0

17.5

47.5

16.25

0

Tough 5EC (8 oz/ 26.25 acre)

27.5

25

1.25

25

56.25

16.25

0

Tough 5EC (12 oz/acre)

47.5

56.25

37.5

8.75

32.5

75

31.25

2.5

Tough 5EC (24 oz/acre)

80

85

75

52.5

81.25

92.5

51.25

5

Pyridate 30WG (348 g/acre)

37.5

41.25

13.75

1.25

15

57.5

17.5

1.25

Pyridate 30WG (469 g/acre)

68.75

71.25

50

7.5

56.25

87.5

38.75

2.5

weedy

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

LSD0.05

15.73

15.62

14.17

12.12

11.68

14.5

13.05

2.47

Table 7. Visual assessment of percent leaf injury for each herbicide treatment at each date in both fields in Modesto, Calif.

Table 8. Average yield for each herbicide applica6on treatment in both fields in Modesto, Calif.

Product

Herbicide rate

Field A (lbs./acre)

Field B (lbs./acre)

N/A

Weed free

18,913

31,797

Tough 5EC

6 oz/acre

16,528

27,900

Tough 5EC

8 oz/acre

15,833

27,296

Tough 5EC

12 oz/acre

14,281

26,046

Tough 5EC

24 oz/acre

9,706

23,325

Pyridate 30WG

348 g/acre

16,691

30,073

Pyridate 30WG

469 g/acre

16,773

24,346

N/A

weedy

18,725

28,448

LSD0.05

3,952

4,591

Table 8. Average yield for each herbicide application treatment in both fields in Modesto, Calif.

32

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Basil yield was closely associated with leaf injury in both fields. Also, the yield difference between fields was reflected by the difference of weed ratings showed in Tables 4 and 5, see page 30.

The rate of 24 oz/acre of Tough 5EC presented the lowest leaf biomass in both fields, followed by 12 oz/acre in Field A and 469g/acre of Pyridate 30WG in Field B (Table 8, see page 32).

Considering the performance of all variables in the trials, the application of the new granular product Pyridate 30WG at 348 g/acre conferred comparable yields and acceptable weed control and leaf injury.

Discussion

The products used in these trials are labeled to control post-emergence broadleaf weeds and do not have any residual effects. Therefore, the timing of application is most critical to confer optimal control effects.

Waiting for a majority of weeds to emerge and then spraying right before they reach the growth threshold is difficult in basil fields, especially when the field is sprinkler irrigated, causing the timing difference of weed emergence. For this scenario, the subsequent weeds will be left uncontrolled. In addition, the weed species in our fields were mainly purslane, which is not an upright growth habit weed species. Spraying before the weeds grow to three inches tall as the experimental protocol and product label requires may not fully apply to this species as the canopy can spread considerably when the tips are only three inches tall (Figs. 2A to 3D).

Generally speaking, a spray of preemergence herbicide (maybe at a lower rate) can be helpful before using these products to clean the subsequent germinated weeds. Alternatively, pre-wetting the field to boost weed germination can accommodate both weed abundance and growth stage uniformity to ensure an effective post-emergence control. For fields with known mixture of grasses and broadleaves, adding a post-grass herbicide may be needed.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you.

Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

®

IMAGINATION

INNOVATION

SCIENCE IN ACTION

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

33

Burrowing Rodents:

Developing a Management Plan for Organic Agriculture in California

By MARGARET LLOYD | UCCE Small Farms Advisor, Yolo County and ROGER BALDWIN | UCCE Specialist, Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution

Figure 1. Gopher snakes are a small but important that should be promoted to control rodents (photo by R. Baldwin.)

B

urrowing rodents can cause owl (Tyto alba) by installing nesting significant damage to farm opboxes. It is estimated that a single barn erations by destroying irrigation owl consumes 3,000 rodents annually lines, disrupting roots, girdling trees in California vineyards, indicating and building extensive burrow systems they are effective predators of rodents. that are hazardous to farmers, to name Importantly, barn owls are not overly a few. Although rodenticide baiting and territorial, which allows growers to burrow fumigation are regularly used artificially inflate barn owl numbers by for burrowing rodent control in conerecting more barn owl boxes. ventional agriculture systems, Vitamin D3 is the only rodenticide certified for It bears noting that barn owls are not use within organic systems. Even then, effective predators of ground squirrels it can only be used for roof rats (Rattus because barn owls are active at night rattus), Norway rats (Rattus norvegiand ground squirrels are active during cus) and house mice (Mus musculus), the day. Instead, raptor perches have and only indoors or within 50 feet of been promoted for ground squirrel a structure. Controlling burrowing control. However, there is little evirodents in organic systems requires dence to suggest that this approach combining multiple tactics that often is especially effective. Gopher snakes include biocontrol, habitat modification, (Pituophis catenifer; Figure 1) consume cultural practices, exclusion, trapping as little as 1.5 times their body mass and shooting. In this article, we will annually, making them unlikely to sigdiscuss how available tools can be imnificantly control rodent populations. plemented for management of ground Although raptors and gopher snakes squirrels, pocket gophers and voles in may not consume as many rodents organic production systems. For more as barn owls, natural predators are in-depth information, visit anrcatalog. an important part of the agricultural ucanr.edu/Details.aspx?itemNo=8688. landscape and should be promoted to the extent tolerable. Consider natural Biocontrol Using Natural Predators predators a valuable part of an IPM Natural predators can be used to conprogram, but do not rely on them trol rodent populations. The most com- exclusively to manage your rodent mon example is recruitment of the barn problems.

34

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Figure 2. Mowing rows and leaving bare soil around the base of vines reduce likelihood of vole damage (photo by R. Baldwin.)

Habitat Concerns and Modifications

Modifying rodent habitat has varying levels of effectiveness for differing rodent species but may be most effective against voles. Voles are very dependent on cover; without cover they are particularly susceptible to natural predation.

Cover removal and reduction can be implemented in many ways. If dealing with tree or vine crops, be sure to keep two to three feet of bare soil around the base of trees or vines and keep rows between trees and vines mowed low, preferably less than two inches (Figure 2). Litter produced by mowing can form a thatch layer that can serve as good cover for voles. Be sure to keep

Continued on Page 36

OPTIMAL CROP NUTRITION DOESN’T GET ANY EASIER THAN THIS Harvest More® Urea Mate is the simplified pathway to advanced crop nutrition all season long.

HARVEST MORE UREA MATE

Optimum plant nutrition 1 product, 11 key nutrients Research-proven, positive yield response

IF YOU'RE READY TO TAKE PLANT PERFORMANCE TO THE NEXT LEVEL YOU’RE READY FOR THE POWER OF STOLLER STOLLERUSA.COM

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

35

Are you interested in reading similar articles?

cover resources that burrowing rodents need. Avoiding cover crops that contain legumes and broadleaf plants with fleshy tap roots is a good strategy for reducing numbers of most burrowing rodents. For voles, planting bunch grasses is a good strategy to reduce preferred cover as well. For pocket gophers, the selection of lower-growing plants makes identification of gopher infestations easier. In both annual and perennial systems, incorporation of cover crops (e.g., by discing) is one of the best approaches for reducing rodent damage. However, when deciding on the timing of cover crop termination, one must consider the status of neighboring fields. A newly planted field is very vulnerable to rodent damage for it may become the next food source for displaced rodents.

Figure 3. Removing brush piles can reduce habitat for ground squirrels (photo by R. Baldwin.)

Figure 4. Deep ripping implements can be used to destroy old burrow systems (photo by Bob Beede, UCCE Emeritus.)

Continued from Page 34 this thatch layer away from the trunks of plants3 and mow more frequently to minimize this thatch layer. When plastic mulch is used in organic production systems to suppress weed growth, it can provide ideal cover for voles, leading to substantial problems associated with vole girdling of the stems of trees and vines. Removing the weed barrier, if possible, eliminates this problem.

Ground squirrels readily use brush and pruning piles as harborage sites within orchards and vineyards (Figure 3). Removing piles within 100 yards of fields can help reduce damage associated with ground squirrels.

Cover crops can provide food and

36

Progressive Crop Consultant

Planting native California flowering plants (hedgerows) as habitat on field borders is becoming more common as a means to attract natural enemies for pest control and native bees for pollination services. Although some have expressed concern that hedgerow plantings can harbor rodents and lead to food safety problems, studies have shown that field-edge habitat is too narrow on a landscape scale to serve as habitat for large numbers of rodents.

Rodents are everywhere in our agricultural lands; they need to be monitored and managed regardless of field-edge habitat type.

Cultural Practices

Two cultural practices that help reduce rodents are flooding fields and deep-ripping burrow systems with tractor implements. With the water shortages frequently experienced in California, flood irrigation has become less common. If flood irrigation is still an option, consider periodically using it as a tool to help reduce problems with ground squirrels, gophers and voles.

Deep-ripping of old ground squirrel burrow systems to a depth of at least 18 inches has been shown to substantially reduce reinvasion by adjacent populations of ground squirrels (Figure 4).

Shallower ripping efforts have proven to be ineffective. Burrow destruction should occur after ground squirrels have been removed from the site because burrow destruction in areas with extant ground squirrel populations has been ineffective. Admittedly, burrow destruction is not possible in perennial crop production systems while the crops are in place. However, this approach can be effectively used before replanting a field and on the perimeters of fields from which rodents often invade.

Burrow destruction has not been tested as a management tool for pocket gophers, but it is believed to be beneficial for this species as well. For gophers, a ‘best guess’ is that ripping efforts will need to extend for 12 inches in depth

‘ In organic production systems,

effective rodent management will rely heavily on ensuring that rodent populations do not build up to numbers that are too high to effectively manage with available tools.

’ March / April 2022

SUBSCRIBE TO

at wcngg.com/subscribe

to ensure destruction of most burrow systems. For voles, the depth of plowing and discing tested in studies was 18 to 20 inches, but burrow destruction as shallow as 6 to 10 inches may be effective because of the shallower nature of vole burrow systems, though this has not been tested. Frequency of tillage is generally dictated by replanting efforts, although discing of row middles in perennial orchard and vine crops, where possible, might provide some relief.

Exclusion Through Physical Barriers

Exclusion using fences, root baskets and tree protectors can be an effective tool to reduce damage caused by pocket gophers and voles. Exclusionary fencing is not generally effective or practical

for ground squirrels because of their digging and climbing capabilities. For gophers, field testing of buried perimeter fencing has not shown this approach to be effective. Wire baskets placed around the root systems of newly planted trees may provide some relief, but they are expensive and likely impractical over large acreage. When properly placed and operated, aluminum fencing can be effective at deterring vole movement into fields. Fencing should be buried at least 6 inches below ground and extend 10 to 12 inches above ground (Figure 5). For aluminum fencing to be effective, as much as possible of the perimeter around the field must

Continued on Page 38

MAXIMIZE YOUR YIELDS SOIL FERTILITY

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

CROP NUTRITION

Figure 5. Three-foot trench with a gopher tunnel system at the base illustrates the lack of effectiveness of fencing for keeping gophers out of fields (photo by D. Hannaford.)

BIOSTIMULANTS THAT ARE PROVEN TO ENERGIZE YOUR CROPS AND MAXIMIZE YOUR YIELDS. ORGANIC ACIDS

CROP PROTECTION

POWERED BY MICRO CARBON TECHNOLOGY ®

THE WORLD LEADER IN HUMIC SUBSTANCES AND HUMIC TECHNOLOGY WWW.HUMAGRO.COM/PCC322

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

37

(Figure 6). Tree protectors can also help protect against sunburn in young trees and mechanical damage from weeding near tree trunks. Tree protectors should be buried two to six inches belowground to reduce vole access. If the protector is not buried, growers can see an increase in damage as the protectors will shelter the rodents from predators while they feed on the tree cambium.

Figure 6. Plastic tree protectors are physical barriers that protect trees and vines from voles (photo by J. K. Clark.)

Trapping

Once rodents have become established, trapping becomes one of the few tools available to remove them. Trapping has variable applicability for burrowing rodents; it is highly efficacious and fairly cost-effective for pocket gophers, is moderately efficacious for ground squirrels and is a viable option for voles only when numbers are low.

Figure 7. Common examples of gopher traps include the Cinch trap, Victor Black Box, Macabee and Gophinator (shown clockwise from top left). Many other trap designs are also available (photo by R. Baldwin.)

Figure 8. Modified Macabee designed to increase capture success for larger pocket gophers (photo by R. Baldwin.)

Continued from Page 37 be fenced; otherwise, voles will simply travel down the fence line until they find a way in. This type of exclusionary approach will not eliminate problems with voles but will help to slow movement into and out of fields.

Vole damage to tree crowns can be overcome with plastic tree protectors

38

Progressive Crop Consultant

Gopher Most trap designs for gophers are either pincer-style traps or choker-style traps (Figure 7). Of the traps tested, the Gophinator trap appears to be one of the most effective because it can capture larger individuals at a higher rate compared to the popular Macabee trap16. For each 45-gram increase in size, Macabee traps were an additional 25% to 26% less effective than Gophinator traps16. Macabee trap effectiveness can be increased by placing a cable restraint (0.06 inches in diameter and 9 inches in length) at the front of the Macabee trap to help keep larger individuals from escaping (Figure 8).

For trap placement, probe near a fresh mound to find the main tunnel, usually 6 to 8 inches deep. Because it isn’t possible to know which side the pocket gopher is currently using, traps need to be placed in as many tunnels as are present (Figure 9, see page 39).

Once set, covering traps is unnecessary.

Various attractants have been tested and they do not appear to significantly increase capture success. Human scent also does not appear to influence capture success, so there is little reason to worry about handling traps with bare hands.

March / April 2022

Pincer-type traps can also be placed in lateral tunnels, which are tunnels that lead directly to the surface. To trap in laterals, remove the plug from a fresh mound and place the trap in the lateral tunnel so that the entire trap is inside the tunnel. Pocket gophers will come to the surface to investigate the tunnel opening and will be caught.

Ground squirrels Trapping for ground squirrels can be an effective approach and can be conducted year-round as long as the squirrels are active at the time the traps are in use (Figure 10, see page 39). Kill traps and live traps are available. In areas where nontarget captures such as pets are a concern, live traps may be preferred. Live traps generally require euthanasia, which should be done humanely (e.g., shooting or utilization of a carbon dioxide euthanasia chamber, see resources for more details.) Drowning is no longer considered a humane form of euthanasia and is illegal for dispatching animals in California, and translocation is neither legal in California nor scientifically advisable.

Because trapping for ground squirrels can be challenging, it is best when possible to plan trapping efforts for early in the year before young emerge aboveground. Body-gripping traps such as the Conibear 110 are ideal for this use. These traps are set in the burrow entrance (Figure 12, see page 40). They work best when the trap is flush to the surface of the soil. Some trappers note greater success when offsetting the trigger mechanism to the side somewhat to provide a less obscured view of the tunnel. One strategy for increasing the efficacy of this approach is to first plug up burrow entrances with soil, then come back the following day and set traps in entrances that have been reopened. One advantage of this style of trapping is that the trapper does not need to use bait to draw the ground squirrel into the trap. This is especially useful early in the year when ground squirrels actively feed on new plant growth, making baits less attractive and less effective. For other trap types,

® Figure 9. Example of gopher trap set (photo

by R. H. Smith.) re to Help We Are He 20.8040 Call: 209.7 AG.COM Visit: WRT

Zn

Figure 10. Major activity periods and food sources for California ground squirrels throughout the year.

Mn Fe Cu

Figure 11 . Example of a cage live trap frequently used to trap ground squirrels (photo by R. Baldwin.)

bait will generally be needed. Various baits can be used. Rolled oats are one of the simplest to use, but fresh fruit, vegetables and nuts work as well or better. Remember that the bait needs to be more desirable to squirrels than what they are already consuming. Ground squirrels can take several days to build up the courage to enter a trap. This can be overcome by prebaiting, or applying bait to traps without setting the traps.

Once you notice the bait is regularly removed from the trap, activate the trap.

Zinc-Shotgun® is a fertilizer that focuses on micronutrients to satisfy needs of customers seeking high zinc with manganese, iron and copper. The micronutrients are completely chelated with natural organic acids, amino acids, and carbohydrates that are readily bio-degradable and supply energy to the plant and soil microflora. Many soils are low in zinc and also require other micronutrients for the growth of good crops.

Complete, organically complexed micronutrient package containing essential elements to improve plant health and growth.

The nutrients are readily absorbed by the plant for a faster response.

Designed to be applied both by foliar application and fertigation practices and is also effective when applied directly to the soil.

Organically complexed with plant based amino acids, organic acids, and complexed polysaccharides.

Continued on Page 40 March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

39

Continued from Page 39 Additional details on this process can be found at the Ground Squirrel Best Management Practices website, groundsquirrelbmp.com Voles Generally, trapping is only used for voles when a small number of voles

need to be removed. Within targeted areas, look for vole burrows and runways in grass or mulch. Place standard mouse-size snap traps perpendicular along runways so that the trigger mechanism of the activated trap bisects the runway. Voles do not regularly deviate from their runways; the vole will run right over the trigger mechanism.

Bait is generally not used. Traps should be examined daily. Dead voles should Figure 12. Body gripping trap placed at a ground squirrel burrow entrance (photo by R. Baldwin.)

Do More With Less Water!

Integrate® 80+ ENHANCES WATER MOVEMENT and Gets MORE Applied Water To The Rootzone, and LESS To Run Off and Evaporation.

• PROVIDES Uniform Penetration and Lateral Movement of Water • ENCOURAGES Improved Rooting and Nutrient Uptake • IMPROVES Distribution and Effectiveness of Soil Applied Chemicals • SAVES WATER - Reduces Irrigation Requirements by Up To 25%

Other Innovative Products* From Belchim Crop Protection:

Visit:www.belchimusa.com

be removed and sprung traps should be reset as needed. Continue to trap in one location until you stop catching voles, then move the traps to a new location 15 to 20 feet away. 100 traps or more will likely be required when trapping even a relatively small area.

Shooting

Shooting can be effective at controlling ground squirrels if the effort is consistent, but it is labor-intensive. Be sure to understand and adhere to all federal, state and local ordinances for discharging a firearm.

In organic production systems, effective rodent management will rely heavily on ensuring that rodent populations do not build up to numbers that are too high to effectively manage with available tools. Implementation of multiple strategies will be the cornerstone of effective rodent management programs in organic fields.

References

Other Innovative Products From Belchim Crop Protection:

Kross, S. M., and R. A. Baldwin. 2016. Gopherbusters? A review of

Visit:www.belchimusa.com

the candidacy of barn owls as the ultimate natural pest control option. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 27:345–352. https://doi.org/10.5070/V427110691 Diller, L. V., and D. R. Johnson. 1988. Food habits, consumption rates, and predation rates of western rattlesnakes and gopher snakes in southwestern Idaho. Herpetologica 44:228–233. https://www.jstor. org/stable/3892521 Whisson, D. A., and G. A. Giusti. 1998. Vertebrate Pests. In C. A. Belchim Crop Protection USA, LLC 2751 Centerville Road | Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: 855-445-7990 Email: info.usa@belchim.com

40

Progressive Crop Consultant

March / April 2022

Ingels, R. L. Bugg, G. T. McGourty, and L. P. Christensen, eds. Cover cropping in vineyards: a grower’s handbook, 126–131. UC Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 3338. https://anrcatalog. ucanr.edu/Details.aspx?itemNo=3338

Sellers, L. A., R. F. Long, M. T. Jay-Russell, X. Li, E. R. Atwill, R. M.

and R. M. Engeman. 2013. The influence of trap type and cover

Engeman, and R. A. Baldwin. 2018. Impact of field-edge habitat

status on capture rates of pocket gophers in California. Crop Pro-

campaign=PDFCoverPages

on mammalian wildlife abundance, distribution, and vectored

tection 46:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2012.12.018

Salmon, T. P., and W. P. Gorenzel. 2010. UC IPM Pest Notes: Voles

foodborne pathogens in adjacent crops. Crop Protection 108:1–11.

Baldwin, R. A., A. Chapman, C. P. Kofron, R. Meinerz, S. B. Orloff,

(meadow mice). Oakland: UC Agriculture and Natural Resources

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.005

and N. Quinn. 2015. Refinement of a trapping method increases

Publication 7439. http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PDF/PESTNOTES/

Gilson, A., and T. P. Salmon. 1990. Ground squirrel burrow

utility for pocket gopher management. Crop Protection 77:176–180.

pnvoles.pdf

destruction: control implications. Proceedings of the Fourteenth

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2015.08.003

Vertebrate Pest Conference 14:97–98. https://digitalcommons.

Witmer, G., N. P. Snow, L. Humberg, and T. Salmon. 2009. Vole

unl.edu/vpc14/33/

problems, management options, and research needs in the

Marsh, R. E. 1992. Reflections on current (1992) pocket gopher

United States. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Manage-

control in California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference

ment Conferences 13:235–249. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/

15:289–295. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2j76r0pb

icwdm_wdmconfproc/140?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.

edu%2Ficwdm_wdmconfproc%2F140&utm_medium=PDF&utm_

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Jacob, J. 2003. Short-term effects of farming practices on populations of common voles. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95(1):321–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-8809(02)00084-1 Baldwin, R. A., D. I. Stetson, M. G. Lopez, and R. M. Engeman. 2019.

An assessment of vegetation management practices and burrow fumigation with aluminum phosphide as tools for managing voles within perennial crop fields in California, USA. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 26:18434–18439. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11356-019-05235-6 Salmon, T. P., R. H. Schmidt, and R. E. Marsh. 1990. An evaluation of fencing to exclude pocket gophers from experimental plots.

Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 14:95–96. https:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=vpc14 Davies, R. J., and H. W. Pepper. 1989. The influence of small plastic guards, tree-shelters and weed control on damage to young broadleaved trees by field voles (Microtus agrestis). Journal of Environmental Management 28:117–125. https://agris.fao.org/ agris-search/search.do?recordID=GB8905997 Marsh, R. E., A. E. Koehler, and T. P. Salmon. 1990. Exclusionary methods and materials to protect plants from pest mammals—a review. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 14:174–180. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9766f2h9 Baldwin, R. A., R. Meinerz, and S. B. Orloff. 2016. Burrow fumigation versus trapping for pocket gopher (Thomomys spp.) management: a comparison of efficacy and cost effectiveness. Wildlife Research 43(5):389–397. https://doi.org/10.1071/WR16037 Marsh, R. E. 1994. Current (1994) ground squirrel control practices in California. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 16:61–65. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpc16/35?utm_source=digital-

Crop Resilience Vineyards and orchards grow best in fungally dominant soil.

Fungal networks of mycelia and mycorrhizae extend the reach of roots to access nutrients and water.

Beneficial fungi also help suppress disease and mitigate abiotic stresses like drought, salinity and heat.

Biological fertility programs renew the soil with diverse fungi, which increases humus and water-holding capacity.

Pacific Gro provides fungal food: fish oil, chitin and micro-nutrients from the ocean. You can measure differences the first season, and you may even see mushrooms sprout or mycelia spread.

Vineyards, nut orchards, citrus groves, and cherry and apple orchards have had remarkable success with biological fertility programs including Pacific Gro. Please contact Andaman Ag for proven biological inputs.

commons.unl.edu%2Fvpc16%2F35&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages O’Connell, R. A. 1994. Trapping ground squirrels as a control method. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference 16:66–67. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti-

www.Andaman-Ag.com info@andaman-ag.com 415-785-7325

cle=1042&context=vpc16 Witmer, G., N. P. Snow, L. Humberg, and T. Salmon. 2009. Vole problems, management options, and research needs in the United States. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conferences 13:235–249. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ icwdm_wdmconfproc/140?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl. edu%2Ficwdm_wdmconfproc%2F140&utm_medium=PDF&utm_ campaign=PDFCoverPages Baldwin, R. A., D. B. Marcum, S. B. Orloff, S. J. Vasquez, C. A. Wilen,

Produced on the Washington coast www.pacificgro.com

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

41

Figure 1. The finger weeder, a relatively simple and low-priced mechanical cultivator designed to remove weeds within the crop row, is gaining popularity in the Central Valley (all photos courtesy A. Vinchesi-Vahl.)

Figure 2. Despite the crop injury issues with the automated cultivator in 2021, the Robovator plots resulted in the highest % weed control and fastest hand-weeding times.

Figure 3. The finger weeder mechanism uses interlocking rubber fingers to remove small weeds in the plant row once transplants are established.

Evaluation of Automated and Mechanical Cultivators to Control Within-Row Weeds in Conventional Processing Tomatoes

By AMBER VINCHESI | Ph.D., UCCE Vegetable Crops Advisor, Colusa, Sutter and Yuba Counties

C

onventional processing tomato weed management in California often includes preplant herbicides (trifluralin and/or s-metolachlor), followed by cultivation and hand hoeing.

Rimsulfuron herbicide can also be used in conventional systems and can be applied either pre- or post-transplanting. Post-transplant applications of rimsulfuron can selectively remove nightshades if applied when the weeds are very young, no more than two true leaves; however, long plant-back restrictions may limit its use. Therefore, the use of hand crews is often needed to remove weeds that emerge in the plant row where standard cultivation equipment is ineffective.

Automated weeders, or robotic weeders, use cameras and computers to distinguish crops from weeds. They are equipped with either spray nozzles or cultivators to remove weeds within the crop row. Commercially available for about 10 years, these complex machines are very expensive but have shown promising results in transplanted crops in Salinas, Calif. and Yuma, Ariz. Gaining popularity in the Central Valley is the finger weeder, a relatively simple and low-priced mechanical cul-

42

Progressive Crop Consultant

tivator designed to remove weeds within the crop row. The mechanism was developed by K.U.L.T.-Kress in Germany. The system uses interlocking rubber fingers (Figure 1) to remove small weeds in the plant row once transplants are established. Finger weeders can also be adapted to and added to existing cultivators and modified for individual grower needs.

While both robotic cultivators and finger weeders have been used and evaluated in many vegetable crops, there has been little research evaluating these tools in processing tomatoes and how well they may complement or replace a traditional herbicide program.

The main objective of this project was to evaluate crop safety, weed control, time and costs associated with using mechanical cultivators as part of a conventional weed management program in processing tomatoes. This work is supported by the California Tomato Research Institute with assistance from grower cooperators.

Methods

This project was conducted in 2020 and 2021 in both Colusa and Merced counties. UCCE Vegetable Crops Ad-

March / April 2022

visor Scott Stoddard led project efforts in Merced County. Only the Colusa site data will be presented here. The Colusa County field site was located just north of Colusa, Calif. and the same site was used both years. The field was transplanted to double row tomatoes on 60” beds. Plot size was five beds by 250 ft length, except for Control (Treatment 4) which was five beds by 100 ft length to minimize impact. Each treatment was replicated three times. The following treatments were evaluated:

Figure 5. Average % control + SE for each treatment two weeks and four weeks post-treatment at the Colusa field site in 2020 (blue) and 2021 (orange).

Figure 4. The main weeds present in the field included bindweed, lambsquarters (middle), pigweed (right), puncturevine and thorn apple (left).

1) Rimsulfuron at 2oz/A (grower standard) 2) Automated cultivator (one bed/pass) 3) Finger weeder mechanical cultivator (five beds/pass) 4) Control: no in-row cultivation, no post-transplant herbicide.

The entire field, including trial plots, received a preplant application of s-metolachlor/trifluralin, standard

cultivation to remove weeds outside of plant row and s-metolachlor/trifluralin lay-by. Operations were the same for 2021. Plant stands were assessed before and after cultivator passes. Weeds were counted before treatment, two weeks and four weeks after treatment in the center bed of each plot. Crews hand-weeded one month before harvest in 2020 and seven weeks before scheduled harvest in 2021. Weeds were counted before and after hand-weeding passes. Cultivators and hand-weeding crews were timed as they moved

through the field.

Ten feet from the center bed of each plot was harvested by hand and sorted for red, green and culled fruit. Steve Fennimore, UCCE weed specialist, provided the Robovator automated cultivator, made by F. Poulsen Engineering ApS in Denmark (Figure 2, see page 42). The finger weeder was a 2020 purchase by the grower cooperator (Figure 3, see page 42). The main

Continued on Page 44

Contact us to see how we can help!

(559)584-7695 or visit us as www.superiorsoil.com Serving California since 1983

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

43

Continued from Page 43 weeds present in the field included bindweed, lambsquarters, pigweed, puncturevine and thorn apple (Figure 4, see page 43).

Results

Weed control results are shown in Figure 5, see page 42. In 2020, the Robovator and finger weeder did an excellent job of weed control on all plots.

In 2020, the Robovator worked very well, providing up to 85% control on average two weeks and four weeks after it was run, and we saw very little crop injury (Figure 6). However, in 2021, due to heavy winds in early May, the young tomato plants were not upright, and the robotic weeder had difficulty distinguishing where the stem of the plant was compared to the top of the plant. These plots suffered 11% to 19% crop loss, which also occurred at the Merced site in 2020 (Figure 7). Despite the crop injury, average weed control was 71% after two weeks in 2021 and there was no negative impact on yield.

The finger weeder provided 66% on average two weeks post-treatment in 2020. It is worth noting that by plot, the finger weeder provided over 90% control post-treatment in two of the plots.

The third plot showed poor control due to heavy bindweed pressure, therefore bringing the average down. The finger weeder also provided excellent control at the Merced site in 2020. In 2021, the finger weeder provided an average of 56% control two weeks after treatment and 66% control four weeks after treatment.

The grower standard herbicide treatment of rimsulfuron provided 34% and 44% control on average at two and four weeks after application in 2021, respectively, but it is worth noting this field did not have heavy nightshade pressure. Despite the numeric differences between treatments shown in Figure 5, see page 42, there was no significant difference between the cultivator treatments and the grower standard (rimsulfuron) for weed control in either year due to high variation in weed pressure between plots, which can be seen from the high standard error values.

44

Progressive Crop Consultant

Figure 6. In 2020, the Robovator provided up toTable 85%1.control on average two weeks and four weeks after it was run.

Figure 7. Some crop loss was experienced with the Robovator in 2021.

2020 Treatment

1 2 3 4

Rimsulfuron 2oz/A (Grower standard) Robovator Finger weeder No rimsulfuron or cultivation

Hand hoe hours/A

2021

Cost $/A

Significanc e

Hand hoe hours/A

Cost $/A

Significance

0:31

$41.88

b

1:29

$120.18

b

0:37 0:42

$49.98 $56.70

b b

1:03 1:29

$85.08 $120.18

b b

1:49

$147.18

a

2:39

$214.68

a

Table 1. Estimated time for six people to hoe one acre in Colusa field. Costs calculated based on $13.50/hour. Means in the same column with the same letter are not significantly different from one another, LSD 0.05.

In general, hand weeding provided 60% The finger weeder is gaining popularity to 100% control between 2020 and 2021. in the Sacramento Valley and proHand weeding times and costs were vides an option for in-row mechanical not significantly different between the cultivation without the expense of an grower standard (rimsulfuron), finger automated weeder. Timing is key when weeder or robotic weeder treatments using either type of in-row cultivator. in both years and all treatments The size of the tomato plant and the significantly decreased time and costs size of emerging weeds needs to be compared to the control plots (Table just right to avoid crop injury while 1). Weed pressure increased in 2021, also removing young weeds. The finger leading to higher weed counts and lon- weeder provided excellent weed control ger hand weeding times and associated in Colusa and Merced in 2020 despite costs compared to 2020. There were no poor bindweed control. The automated significant differences in yield between weeder provided excellent weed control plots in 2020 or 2021. at the Colusa site, but with high crop injury and technological challenges.

Summary

Field variation and weed species influenced weed pressure and control; some plots had >300 weeds and others only had ten. There was poor bindweed control from cultivators and hand-weeding crews, which was expected based on the biology of bindweed. Both in-row cultivators provided decent control in 2020. The finger weeder was able to cover five beds per pass and moved quickly through the field compared to the Robovator. All treatments significantly reduced hand weeding costs and time compared to the control in 2020.

Despite the crop injury issues with the automated cultivator in 2021, the Robovator plots resulted in the highest % weed control and fastest hand-weeding times.

March / April 2022

When working correctly, automated weeders provide accurate and precise weed control, though issues can arise when conditions are not as favorable.

In-row mechanical cultivators, like the finger weeder, are more economical, but automated weeders are becoming more prevalent in California for vegetable production systems.

Many thanks to the California Tomato Research Institute, Steve Fennimore, Scott Stoddard and our grower cooperators for working with us on this project.

Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com

Apply less, expect more?

Agriculture in this region is unlike anywhere else, and successful growers need a nutrition plan that meets the unique goals, climate and challenges we face. Get precisely the advanced products and agronomic knowledge you need to support your crops, your soil and a sustainable future.

Find an AgroLiquid dealer near you.

ApplyLessExpectMore.com

Sure-K® and Kalibrate® are registered trademarks of AgroLiquid. © 2021 AgroLiquid. All Rights Reserved.

March / April 2022

www.progressivecrop.com

45

April 7 - 8, 2022 Yuba-Sutter Fairgrounds

442 Franklin Ave, Yuba City, CA 95991 FREE EVENT

LIVE TRADE SHOW NETWORKING

FREE INDUSTRY LUNCH

2 DAYS TOTAL CE : �PR : 7.5� � ��A : 9.5� � ���P: 2. 0 ��

Register at WCNGG.COM/CWC BROUGHT TO YOU BY

In collaboration with

AGENDA CE TRACK Registration / Trade Show Where Your Production Research Dollars are Going and Why?

8:00 AM

BOT/Phomopsis

8:30 AM

Walnut Huskfly Panel: Why Does Huskfly Continue to Plague Walnut Growers and What Can They Do About It?

9:00 AM 9:30 AM

Integrating Information Into Irrigation Scheduling

Update on Walnut Mold and its Management in California

The Latest on Post-Harvest Research

Break / Trade Show

10:00 AM 11: 00 AM

Benefits of Delayed Irrigation in Walnuts

Spotlight on International and Emerging Markets

The Future of Pesticides in Walnuts

The Future of Walnut Varieties

11:30 AM 1:00 PM

State of the Industry

1:30 PM

Regulatory Issues Affecting Walnut Growers

2:00 PM

Break / Trade Show

3:00 PM

U.S. Retail Panel: Current Trends and the Opportunity for Walnuts

3:30 PM

SGMA - What It Means for You And Where It’s Coming From

4:00 PM

Adjourn

7:00 AM

We’ve

Walnut Industry Lunch

12:00 PM

pande x E

2AYS

o dt

APRIL 7, 2022 | DAY 1

7:00 AM

APRIL 8, 2022 | DAY 2

WORKSHOPS

D

Registration / Trade Show

8:00 AM

Impacts of Drought and Climate Change to Walnut Pests Including NOW

Using Social Media to Reach the Next Generation of Consumers

8:30 AM

Mites: A Growing Concern in Walnuts

Navigating the Challenges of Global Trade

9:00 AM

New Technologies in Spraying and Why Calibration Will Still Be Important

Biologicals: What Are They and Where Do They Fit?

9:30 AM

Crown Gall--Rootstocks, Treatments and Strategies

Living with Low Winter Chill in Walnuts

10:00 AM

Break / Trade Show

11: 00 AM

Walnut Blight- Moving Forward With a New Look at Bactericides for Disease Management

From Research to Purchase: Translating Evidence-Based Nutrition Science in Engaging And Actionable Ways

11:30 AM

At a Crossroads with NOW in Walnuts: What to Do, Where to Go?

Nitrogen Management in Walnuts

12:00 PM

Adjourn

THE BEST WAY TO MANAGE PATHOGENS BEFORE THEY BECOME AN ISSUE.

TriClor is chloropicrin based and can be used as a standalone or as a complement to Telone® depending on your orchard redevelopment needs. When targeting soil borne disease and nematodes, TriClor and Telone® can be applied in a single pass. This reduces application costs, promotes early root development, and improves soil health. For more information about TriClor and Telone or to schedule an application contact TriCal, Inc.

669-327-5076

www.TriCal.com Authorized distributor for Telone® *TriClor and Telone are federally Restricted Use Pesticides.