Mar_Apr_PCC_2017_Web

Progressive 

Crop Consultant 

The Leading Magazine For Ag Professionals 

March - April 2017 

Biological Fungicides as Alternatives 

for Methyl Bromide 

Powdery Mildew Remains an 

Issue for Grapes 

Trapping In and Near Mating 

Disruption Orchards 

Regulatory Challenges Face 

New Administration 

PUBLICATION 

Volume 2 : Issue 2

Avoid Stale Soil–Activate It! 

Activate 

Why Activate? 

• Highly concentrated, guaranteed species analysis 

• Naturally occuring root colonizing organisms, not genetically modified 

• Stimulates root and plant growth 

• Enhances nutrient cycling and a reduction in nitrogen needs 

• Reduces leaching of nutrients 

34284-B Road 196 Tel: 559.564.1236 info@callnrg.com 

Woodlake, Page 00 CA Progressive 93286 Fax: Crop 559.564.1238 

Consultant March/April www.callnrg.com 2017 

Product Manufactured by Natural Resources Group

Publisher: Jason Scott 

Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Editor: Kathy Coatney 

Email: kathy@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Production: Logan Willems 

Email: logan@jcsmarketinginc.com 

Phone: 559.352.4456 

Fax: 559.472.3113 

Web: www.progressivecrop.com 

Change of Address? 

Visit our website to 

complete the change of 

address form under the 

subscriptions tab. 

6 

In This Issue 

Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially 

Difficult During Drought Years 

Contributing Writers & Industry Support 

Mark Bolda 

UCCE Farm Advisor, 

Santa Cruz County 

Terry Brase 

Educational Consultant, 

Former Precision 

Agriculture Educator 

and Author 

Elizabeth E. 

Grafton-Cardwell 

Department of 

Entomology, UC 

Riverside 

Jeff Mitchell 

UCCE Cropping 

Systems Specialist 

Dan Munk 


Fresno County 

Joshua Reger 

Department of 


Riverside 

Ben Sacher 

Federal Government 

Affairs Analyst, Western 

Growers 

Sara Scott 

Department of 


Riverside 

Emily J. Symmes 

UCCE IPM Advisor, 

Sacramento Valley 

Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE 

President and CEO, 

AgSafe 

10 

14 

Biological Fungicides as Alternatives 

for Methyl Bromide 

Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue 

for Grapes 

18 The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety 

24 

28 

Precision Ag RTK at West Hills 

Farm of the Future 

Integrating Key Water Management 

Information to Better Manage Irrigation 

UC Cooperative Extension Advisory Board 

Kevin Day 

County Director and 

UCCE Pomology Farm 

Advisor, Tulare/Kings 

County 

David Doll 

UCCE Farm Advisor, Merced 

County 

Dr. Brent Holtz 

County Director and UCCE 

Pomology Farm Advisor, 

San Joaquin County 

Steven Koike 

UCCE Plant Pathology 

Farm Advisor 




Kris Tollerup 

UCCE Integrated Pest 

Management Advisor, 

Parlier, CA 

The articles, research, industry updates, company 

profiles, and advertisements in this publication are 

the professional opinions of writers and advertisers. 

Progressive Crop Consultant does not assume any 

responsibility for the opinions given in the publication. 

32 

36 

38 



Regulatory Challenges Face New 

Administration 

Applied Association of IPM Ecologists 

(AAIE) Conference Overview 

Page 4 Progressive Crop Consultant March/April 2017

14 

18 

28 

6 

32 

36 

24 

10 

38 

March/April 2017 www.progressivecrop.com Page 5

CITRUS 

Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially 

Difficult During Drought Years 

Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell 

Sara Scott 

Joshua Reger 

Department of Entomology, 

UC Riverside 

Citrus thrips is a common pest of 

California citrus, attacking leaves 

and the calyx end of newly forming 

fruit, when the epidermal cells are 

quite sensitive. In leaves, this causes 

distortion of the leaves and light lines 

of scarring (Photo 1). When they infest 

fruit, their feeding under the calyx at 

the stem end leaves a ring-shaped silvery 

scar that is retained when the fruit is 

mature (Photo 2). 

Biology of Citrus Thrips 

Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in 

leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees 

and the hatching 1 st and 2 nd instar larvae 

(Photo 3) live on leaves and under the 

sepals of fruit. Some thrips pupate in the 

cracks and crevices of the tree and about 

2/3 drop to the soil to pupate. The adults 

emerge, mate and begin laying eggs and 

the cycle continues. The first generation 

of citrus thrips attacks the new leaf flush 

and the 2 nd and 3 rd generations attack the 

new fruit. They damage the leaves and 

fruit when they repeatedly stick their 

needle-like mandible into the epidermal 

cells and then suck up the fluids that are 

released. Citrus thrips are thigmotactic, 

that is they like to be in tight places such 

as under the calyx of the fruit. The continuous 

piercing of cells is what leaves 

a scar and as the fruit grows so the ring 

scar grow. The 2 nd instar larvae are more 

damaging than the first instar larvae 

and the adults cause little damage to 

fruit. Fruit that is heavily damaged will 

be downgraded from fancy to choice or 

even to juice grade, reducing returns for 

the grower. Fruit is susceptible to this 

type of damage from petal fall until it 

reaches about 1.5 inches in diameter and 

the cells become difficult for the thrips 

to pierce. The fruit sensitive period 

ranges from 6-10 weeks after petal fall. 

Page 6 Progressive Crop Consultant March/April 2017 

The next 4-5 generations of thrips feed 

on leaf flush and the last generation lays 

the eggs that overwinter. 

Natural Enemies of Thrips 

There are a number of natural enemies 

that can attack thrips, but because 

the eggs are imbedded in leaves, the 

pupae in underground and the larvae 

hiding in cracks and crevices, generalist 

predators generally don’t reduce 

thrips populations quickly enough or 

low enough to prevent scarring damage. 

One of the best biological control agents 

is the predatory mite Euseius tularensis, 

which is naturally found on citrus 

Photo 1. Distortion of the leaves and 

light lines of scarring from citrus thrips. 

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark 

trees and feeds on the 1 st and 2 nd instar 

larvae. However, because the predatory 

mite feeds on lots of other type of food 

(pollen, leaf sap, red mites) it does not 

always control citrus thrips at the level 

that growers need, and so often insecticides 

are necessary. If growers use insecticides 

that allow the predatory mites to 

survive, they can assist with citrus thrips 

control. 

Managing Citrus Thrips in Young 

Citrus Trees 

While it is tempting to treat flush for 

Continued on Page 8 

Photo 2. Feeding under the calyx at 

the stem end leaves a ring-shaped 

silvery scar that is retained when the 

fruit is mature. 

Photo 3. Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees 

and the hatching 1 st and 2 nd instar larvae live on leaves and under the sepals of fruit. 

Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark Photo Credit: Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell


Continued from Page 6 

citrus thrips to reduce leaf damage, studies 

of young navels and Valencia oranges 

conducted by Drs. Morse and Grafton-Cardwell 

in the 1980-90s demonstrated 

that continuously treating on 

to three year old trees did not improve 

the growth or yield of the trees. Citrus 

trees can tolerate extreme amounts of 

leaf damage and continue to grow and 

produce well. However, there are conditions 

where protection is helpful. For 

example, the combined impact of citrus 

thrips and citrus leafminer (arrived in 

California in 2000) on young trees needs 

to be studied. Secondly, we have had five 

years of severe drought and these hot, 

dry conditions promote citrus thrips 

populations which can then have an 

impact on trees that normally withstand 

their damage. 

Managing Citrus Thrips in Mature 

Citrus Orchards 

If a grove is more than three years 

old, leaf damage caused by citrus thrips 

should be ignored and the focus of 

management should be on the new fruit 

during the period from petal fall till the 

fruit is 1.5 inches in diameter. Minimizing 

sprays is important for several 

reasons: 1) to reduce the impact on 

natural enemies needed for citrus thrips 

or other pests and 2) so that resistance 

to pesticides doesn’t develop in the 

thrips. The more generations of citrus 

thrips you treat, the faster resistance 

will develop. Starting at petal fall, Pest 

Control Advisors (PCAs) sample 100 

fruit per site and determine the percent 

of fruit with immature citrus thrips. At 

petal fall this can be a bit tricky because 

western flower thrips will be present and 

this species does not damage citrus fruit. 

The body shape and activity of these two 

species of thrips is very different—citrus 

thrips are quick moving, short and stout 

while western flower thrips move slowly 

in a serpentine fashion and have longer 

cigar-shaped bodies. It is important to 

wait till there are immature citrus thrips 

on the fruit, because in some years, petal 

fall does not coincide with the appearance 

of immature citrus thrips. During 

the organophosphate era, the recommendation 

for navels was treat when 

there were five percent of fruit infested 

with immature thrips and if predatory 

mites were in sufficient numbers to 

assist (> 0.5 predatory mites/leaf) wait 

until there were 10 percent of the fruit 

infested. In the current era, of more selective 

and slower acting insecticides, the 

threshold for tolerance may be lower, but 

it is still important to wait till the thrips 

immatures are present on young citrus 

fruit before treating. No research has 

been done on the impact of citrus thrips 

on mandarin production and some 

varieties may be highly susceptible and 

need protection, while others may need 

no protection. Finally, citrus thrips are 

much harder to control in drought years 

than cool wet years. Wet weather helps 

to reduce the pupae in the soil, while hot 

weather accelerates thrips development 

and allows the pupae to survive in the 

soil. 

Pesticide Resistance 

Citrus thrips are very prone to developing 

resistance. The developed resistance 

to DDT in the 1940s, the organophosphates 

and carbamates in the 1980s, 

and the pyrethroids in the 1990s. Some 

of these insecticides seemed to make the 


thrips ‘mad’, as continued use actually 

made thrips populations reproduce 

more. Since about 1998, growers have 

used primarily the group 5 insecticides 

Success/Entrust (spinosad) and Delegate 

(spinetoram). Heavy reliance on this 

one mode of action is likely to eventually 

lead to resistance. Thus growers 

are encouraged to minimize insecticide 

use and rotate with other thrips effective 

insecticides such as group 28 Exirel 

(cyantraniliprole), group 6 Agri-Mek/ 

generics (abamectin) and the botanical 

Veratran (sabadilla). Efforts to monitor 

for resistance to Delegate and Agri-Mek 

are underway. 

Citrus Thrips Trial - 2015 

During 2015 our group studied the 

impact of multiple treatments of insecticides 

on the citrus thrips and the level of 

fruit scarring that resulted at the end of 

the season. The trials took place at Lindcove 

Research and Extension Center and 

consisted of four replicates of four tree 

plots per treatment. Two applications 

were made with the same insecticide, 

one at petal fall and one two weeks later. 

We rated the outside fruit in August for 

the percent of severe, light and absence 

of scarring. The insecticides applied 

were Movento 10 fl oz + .75 percent oil, 

Sivanto 14 fl oz + .5 percent oil, Veratran 

D 15 lbs, Entrust 10 oz + 0.5 percent 

oil, Agri-Mek SC 3.5 oz + 0.5 percent 

oil, Delegate 6 oz + 0.5 percent oil, and 

Exirel 16 fl oz + 0.5 percent oil. The oil 

used was Omni 6E 415 oil. Treatments 

were randomly assigned to groups of 

trees and applied in 200 gallons of water 

per acre on 17 April and 4-6 May 2015 

with a 100 gallon high pressure D30 

diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical 

agitation with a hand wand 

sprayer containing a D6 nozzle. The 

three insecticides that provided the best 

control in terms of reducing the level of 

severe scarring caused by citrus thrips 

below one percent were Exirel, Delegate, 

and Agri-Mek (Figure 1). Other insecticide 

groups that reduced severe scarring 

to levels between one to three percent 

included Entrust, Veratran and Sivanto. 

In years when thrips populations are 

low, or as second applications, or for 

varieties or sites that historically have 

low thrips populations, utilizing these 

insecticides in rotation with Exirel, Delegate 

and Agri-Mek will help to reduce 

resistance selection. Of the insecticides 

Figure 1. The percentage of scarring that resulted after 2 treatments with each 

of the insecticides. All treatments were applied with 0.5 percent oil except for 

the Veratran. 

% Severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips 

Percent severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips 

7 

6 

5 

4 

3 

2 

1 

0 

Untreated Movento Sivanto Veratran Entrust Agri-Mek Delegate Exirel 

Figure 2. The number of predatory mites per leaf after two treatments of citrus 

thrips sprays on April 17 and May 4-6, 2015. 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

24-Apr 1-May 8-May 15-May 22-May 29-May 

tested, those with the lowest impact on 

predatory mites were Veratran, Exirel 

and Sivanto and those hardest on predatory 

mites were Delegate, Agri-Mek and 

Movento (Figure 2). None of the pesticides 

completely eliminated predatory 

mites, but some reduced predatory mites 

below 0.5/leaf needed to assist with control. 

Delegate, Agri-Mek and Exirel have 

translaminar qualities that are improved 

with the addition of oil. Veratran should 

not be applied with nutrients and other 

chemicals that affect pH—Veratran 

needs a pH of 4.5 to be effective. Treatments 

should be applied in 200 gpa with 

reduced spray blower velocity with the 

goal of achieving outside coverage. See 

the UCIPM guidelines for citrus thrips 

Predatory mites per leaf 

Untreated Sivanto Delegate Agri-Mek 

Exirel Veratran Movento Entrust 

2nd application 4-6 May 

for more application details http://ipm. 

ucanr.edu/PMG/r107301711.html. 

All of the insecticides used for citrus 

thrips, except for Veratran, are also 

effective against the Asian citrus psyllid. 

When considering a petal fall spray, and 

if the grove is an ACP infested area, be 

sure to include one of these treatments to 

have an effect on both pest populations. 

As treatments for Asian citrus psyllid 

increase, the selection pressure will increase 

the risk of pesticide resistance and 

it will become even more important to 

rotate insecticides to manage resistance 

for both of these pests. 

· · · · PCC 


BERRIES 

Photo Credit: Mark Bolda 

Exploring Biological Fungicides as an 

Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation 


Mark Bolda 


Santa Cruz County 

With the recent prohibition of the 

fumigant methyl bromide for preplant 

soil disinfestation, California berry 

growers face very real challenges to their 

customary profitable crops of strawberries 

and caneberries in the years to come. 

The disease complex formerly controlled 

by methyl bromide is creating trouble for 

these cropping systems. The well-known 

and widespread diseases caused by Verticillium 

and Phytophthora are now being 

joined in recent years by the pathogens 

Fusarium and Macrophomina. The threat 

to California berries, both actual and 

potential, is not insignificant. 

While a decent amount of research has 

been done on methyl bromide alternatives 

such as formulations of chloropicrin 

and the yet to be registered Dominus (allyl 

isothiocyanate also known by some as 

“mustard seed oil”), the challenging mix 

of diseases currently in place means that 

researchers in the field must be considering 

all the options and in particular will 

benefit by investigating an integration of 

solutions and methods. 

When we speak of integrating solutions, 

we are talking about using materials 

and methods alongside the methyl 

bromide chemical fumigant alternatives. 

Some researchers have found promise 

with the use of a fumigant alternative 

followed by the incorporation of soil 

amendments such as rice bran, mustard 

seed meal or crushed crab shells, while 

others see success with the application of 

various mixtures of compost. 

Another area which has garnered more 

than a little interest for the post methyl 

bromide era in the berry farming community 

has been that of using of biological 

fungicides. A biological fungicide 

is a formulation of organisms such as 

bacteria or fungi which can offer benefit 

to the plants and the soils around them. 

While many different modes of actions to 

generate this benefit for these materials 

are claimed, in the main these organisms 

theoretically colonize the plant’s roots 

and the soil around them, facilitating the 

plant uptake of nutrients and in some 

cases offer a measure of root protection 

against pathogens by either competitively 

excluding pathogens or actively suppressing 

them. 

UC Cooperative Extension in Santa 

Cruz County has not been idle over the 

past few years and has taken a very hard 

look at a number of these biological 

fungicides in the field, either when used 

alone and in combination. These materials 

included formulations of Trichoderma 

asperellum and Trichoderma gamsii, 

bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus 

amyloliquefaciens, the actinobacterium 

Streptomyces lydicus and we have tested 

them both as plant dips as well as in season 

drip tape applications. 

The first trial in 2012-13 was run in an 

organic field well infested with both Verticillium 

and Macrophomina, and tested 

a slate of biological fungicides, including 

Serenade, Double Nickel 55, Actinovate, 

Soilguard, Biotam and a group of 

formulations from the Tainio company. 

Transplants were initially dipped in 

suspension of water and the product for 

a few minutes and then held overnight, 

ostensibly to allow the biological fungicide 

to establish itself, and then planted 

the next day. In most cases, follow up applications 

of the same biological fungicide 

were injected through the drip system 

on a monthly basis after planting. The 

reason for monthly applications through 

the drip tape shared with me by manufacturers 

and distributors has been that these 

biologicals do not establish themselves 

very well in the soil and hence need to be 

augmented from time to time. 

In this first test done in 2012-13, a 

number of materials clearly had an effect

on early strawberry plant performance. 

Several treatments had larger plants in 

the first few months of development 

after planting in November than those 

left untreated, and the standout was both 

rates of Actinovate (one at the rate of 3 oz 

per acre and the other 6 oz per acre). This 

effect of larger plants for several of the 

treatments continued to fruit production 

in the first month and a half of fruit production 

(that being April and the first two 

weeks of May) and in particular the effect 

on more fruiting was most pronounced in 

the two Actinovate treatments. Nevertheless, 

this remarkable result did not 

translate to higher season total fruit yields 

nor immunity to the two soil diseases in 

any of the treatments – in fact, treatments 

using Actinovate collapsed by mid-July 

right along with the untreated control and 

other biological fungicide test plots. 

Impressed sufficiently by this first year 

result that several biological fungicides, 

while not appearing to have the ability 

to protect strawberry plants from soil 

disease, were yet able to have a positive, if 

temporary, effect on plant performance, 

I proceeded to include some of these in 

other tests of methyl bromide alternatives. 

With the above in mind, in the 2013- 

2014 season we applied several biological 

fungicides (those being Serenade, 

Actinovate, Soilguard, Double Nickel 55 

and a suite of Tainio products) to a field 

subjected to the methyl bromide alternative 

method anaerobic soil infestation, the 

method of adding a carbon source to the 

soil, in this case rice bran at nine tons per 

acre, followed by the application of large 

amounts of water to induce an aerobic 

condition, and creating an environment 

less amenable to soil pathogens. The 

placement of these treatments in anaerobic 

soil disinfestation was mirrored by the 

same pattern of treatments in a portion of 

the field not subjected to this method. 

Again, in this study fruit yield in areas 

of anaerobic soil disinfestation followed 

by plant treatment with Actinovate 

was significantly higher than any other 

treatment through the first two weeks of 

May. However, this effect did not persist 

through the season and total yields at by 

the end of the season were not significantly 

different between any of the treatments, 

whether or not they had been treated 

with a biological fungicide or not. 

That said, all plots treated with anaerobic 

soil disinfestation significantly out 

yielded those which had not been treated. 

It appears then that at least through the 

early part of the season through May that 

combining anaerobic soil disinfestation 

with Actinovate would arrive at the most 

preferable result for that period of time. 

In the 2014-2015 season, we placed 

Actinovate into a trial looking at amending 

soil treated with and without Dominus 

(allyl isothiocyanate or “mustard seed 

oil”) compared to a grower standard of 

methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. The 

results in this trial were different from 

previous results, in that early yield of 

strawberry fruit was less affected while 

over the whole season fruit yields of the 

untreated control with Actinovate added 

were positively affected. 

In the 2015-2016 strawberry season, 

based on findings on other studies, we 

sought to amplify the efficacy of Dominus 

by following its application several weeks 

later with an application of 1.5 tons per 

acre of milled mustard seed meal. While 

early season effects on plant size were significant 

in Dominus plots followed by the 




mustard seed meal soil amendment, early 

season and season total fruit yields were 

not different between the treatments. 

Neither did the addition of Actinovate 

in these treatments result in significantly 

higher early or season total yields of fruit. 

Notably however, the addition of mustard 

seed meal or Actinovate to plots not fumigated 

with either the grower standard 

or Dominus resulted in significantly higher 

yields both in the early season and the 

whole season than those plots left alone. 

In sum, in our own UCCE trials, I have 

not observed much in the way of defense 

against pathogens with any of these biological 

fungicides, but have observed early 

plant response in strawberry from some 

of them, in particular with the use Actinovate, 

(Streptomyces lydicus). Generally, 

plant response looks like significantly 

larger plants than those not treated in the 

first few months after transplant, followed 

by two months of significantly higher 

fruit production, usually in the range of 

10 to 20 percent than in an otherwise 

untreated crop. Later on in the season, 

from June on in strawberries, the effect of 

these materials has not been noticeable. 

To be clear, now that we have done 

research on a slate of biological control 

products for the last three years, I will 

state that these materials should NOT be 

considered as alternatives to our current 

fumigation and other soil pre-plant 

preparation practices. Rather we should 

be seeing these materials as being able 

to play a role in improving plant performance, 

especially in the early part of the 

season. With that in mind, I encourage 

growers to test them and find out for 

themselves which materials may or may 

not work for them in their particular 

situation. 

The above article has been a description 

of the functionality of biological 

fungicides in improving strawberry plant 

performance in strawberry. While these 

materials are not pesticides, one needs to 

obey the instructions given on the label 

for each product, and consult the manufacturer 

or county Agricultural Commissioner 

should questions arise. If you have 

further questions on this topic, or any 

other topics concerning strawberry, raspberry 

or blackberry production, please 

contact Mark Bolda at UCCE Santa Cruz. 



K File # 

727 

CROP | ALMONDS 

PROBLEM | YIELD-DAMAGING CHLORIDE 

SOLUTION | NOURISH WITH PROTASSIUM+ TM 

the case 

against chlori de 

Why Almond Growers Are Using Low-Chloride Protassium+ 

Growers know that potassium 

applications are essential in almond 

production. Since almond trees 

are extremely chloride-sensitive, 

it is paramount to apply the 

right K source for tree health, 

yield and quality. 

Protassium+ premium 

sulfate of potash (0-0-50-17S) 

has less than 1% chloride and 

the lowest salt index per unit 

of K 2 O of all major potassium 

sources, helping ensure proper 

root function and nutrient 

uptake. Nourish your almond 

orchards with Protassium+, 

a premium K source that helps 

almond trees reach their full yield potential. 

Contact your local retailer or 

Compass Minerals at 800.743.7258. 

THE NEED FOR 

POTASSIUM 

Almonds remove 

90 lbs. of K 2O per 

1,000 lbs. of nuts 

produced 1 , so replenishment is 

vital. Once trees have a potassium 

deficiency, it can take years to rebuild K 

concentrations for optimum tree health. 

TWO ESSENTIAL 

NUTRIENTS 

K 

Protassium+ provides 

almond trees with readily 

available sulfate sulfur. 

Without the 17% sulfate sulfur 

found in Protassium+, orchards will lack 

the sulfur needed to produce top yields 2 . 

MORE TO OFFER 

Protassium+ is available 

in a wide variety of grades 

to provide application 

flexibility to any almond operation: 

• Granular 

• Soluble Powders 

• Certified Organic Powders 

• Premixed Liquid 

THE PROTASSIUM+ DIFFERENCE 

Protassium+ nourishes almond orchards 

with high potassium and sulfate sulfur 

to promote greater nutrient uptake and 

better nut setting. 

PROTASSIUMPLUS.COM 

©2017 Compass Minerals. All rights reserved. 1 E.J. Reidel, P.H. Brown, R.A. Duncan, S.A. Weinbaum, Almond Productivity as Related 

to Tissue Potassium. Better Crops/Vol. 85, 2001, No. 3 Adapted from Edstrom et al., 2008. protassiumplus.com/surveying-the-need-in-almonds 

2 

Neal Kinsey and Charles Waters, Hands-On Agronomy, Acres U.S.A., August 1999. protassiumplus.com/a-study-of-sulfurs-role-in-almonds

GRAPES 



Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue 

for Grapes 

Kathy Coatney 

Editor 

Powdery mildew is caused by the 

fungus Uncinula necator, and it 

has been a problem for California 

grapes since commercial production 

started over a century ago. 

Powdery mildew is the most serious 

and widespread disease in California 

vineyards in terms of yield 

loss and control. Even with consistent 

control measures, in some 

years, there can still be heavy losses, 

especially in susceptible varieties. 

Lindsay Jordan, University of 

California Cooperative Extension 

(UCCE) Viticulture Area Advisor 

for Madera, Merced and Mariposa 

Counties, said, “It (powdery mildew) 

has been a serious and probably 

the single largest disease control 

Scarring on canes resulting from powdery mildew shoot infection. 

issue we have for the whole state. 

And that has been the case for a 

long time, and it’s going to continue 

to be.” 

Climate 

Powdery mildew thrives in temperatures 

between 70 and 85 degrees, 

Jordan said. 

Vineyards that have high summer 

temperatures may have reduced 

problems with powdery mildew, but 

vineyards with moderate temperatures 

for extended periods of time, 

even with good control programs, 

may continue to have problems with 

powdery mildew. 

Weather conditions do effect 

powdery mildew. “In general, the 

coast is going to be a little more 

subject to it (powdery mildew) than 

the hotter inland regions,” Jordan 

said. 

“If you’re in a region that’s 

cooler, you just have more hours in 

that 70-85 degree range in the heat 

of summer,” Jordan said, and these 

areas are more susceptible because 

these are ideal temperatures for the 

fungus to thrive. 

Powdery Mildew 

Powdery mildew does need some 

water or moisture at the beginning 

of the season to trigger spore release, 

Jordan said. 

“It doesn’t technically need to 

be a rain event,” Jordan continued, 

adding it could be overhead irrigation 

used during a frost, heavy fog, 

or even mist. 

Powdery mildew is unique in that 

the grape fungus does not need water 

to continue to propagate, Jordan 

said. 

Powdery mildew also prefers new 

tissues. “That’s why when vines 

have young shoot growth they’re 

all very susceptible, because that 

young, green, succulent tissue is 

Powdery mildew, Erysiphe necator, on grape leaf. 


Continued on Page 16

Beautiful 

FROM BLOOM TO HARVEST 

From bloom to harvest, Luna ® fungicide protects wine grapes throughout the growing season, improving plant health 

for beautiful crops and abundant grape harvests season after season. As a breakthrough systemic fungicide, Luna 

provides outstanding control of Powdery mildew, Botrytis and other problematic diseases. Make Luna a cornerstone of 

your fungicide program to consistently produce a high-quality crop – and more of it. 

Find out what Luna can do for you at LunaFungicides.com/grape. 

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, and Luna are 

registered trademarks of Bayer. Luna is not registered in all states. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at 

www.CropScience.Bayer.us. 




susceptible,” Jordan said. 

The same is true after berry set, 

Jordan continued. “That’s new, 

young, juvenile tissue and powdery 

mildew can attack that.” 

There is less concern about pow- 

dery mildew at the end of the season, 

because of the hot summer days 

and a lack of new growth makes it 

less conducive to the disease—so 

long as the powdery mildew was 

successfully controlled early in the 

season, Jordan said. 

“Obviously, if you get a bad infection 

and it sticks around, that’s a 

different story,” Jordan said. 

Susceptible Varieties 

Some varieties, like Chardonnay, 

are more susceptible than others, 

and they are just naturally more 

inclined to powdery mildew. But if 

it’s a high pressure year, any variety 

could have problems with the disease, 

Jordan said. 

“I always say if it’s a bad powdery 

mildew year, it might be particularly 

bad on those very susceptible varieties. 

But ironically, those might 

be the growers who have a stronger 

control program in place,” Jordan 

said. 

“Even if you’re growing a variety 

where it might not always be a problem, 

in a bad year it could become 

a problem for you very rapidly,” 

Jordan said. 

“If you know you’re in a bad year, 

you do have a series of decisions you 

make in addition to, ‘Oh I need to 

go spray’,” Jordan said. 

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

Powdery mildew on Thompson Seedless grapes. 

Powdery mildew life cycle on grape. 


• What’s your canopy look like? 

• What spray timing are you considering? 

• What products are you using? 

If the rains continue into the 

spring this year, it could create 

problems with powdery mildew for 

all varieties, Jordan said. 

Treatment 

“Sulfur is still widely and incredibly 

used throughout the grape 

industry. We’ve known about it for 

well over a century, probably closer 

to two centuries now. It works, 

there is no known resistance to it, 

and frankly, it’s affordable,” Jordan 

said. 

There are issues with sulfur in 

terms of restrictions from wineries 

as well as environmental conditions, 

Jordan said. 

“Synthetics (fungicides) offer us 

other tools for managing powdery 

mildew,” Jordan said. 

“It’s always important to consider 

resistance management in a 

powdery mildew control program 

and look at rotating your modes of 

action,” Jordan said. 

There are documented cases of

esistance, and work is being done 

out of Washington State and UC 

Davis. They are looking specifically 

at resistance to powdery mildew, 

Jordan said. 

Sprayer calibration is also important 

when making a spray application. 

“This is so vastly important 

and under talked about,” Jordan 

stressed. 

• Is the spray being applied where 

it’s needed? 

• Are the nozzles angled correctly? 

• Is the fruit being hit by the spray? 

• Has shoot and leaf thinning been 

done for better spray penetration? 

Preventative v Curative 

The best control for powdery 

mildew is a preventative program, 

Jordan said. 

“Powdery mildew can be a problem 

on any variety if you don’t have 

the proper preventive management,” 

Jordan said. 

“Frankly, there’s not a lot of really 

good options for curative treatment,” 

Jordan said. 

“The biggest thing I think we 

have to remember with a lot of our 

fungicides programs is, they’re really 

preventative. We don’t have curative—no 

real true arsenal of curative 

options,” Jordan said. 

“There’s a few things you can do, 

but those are things you don’t want 

to have to be doing. You want to 

be using your fungicide program 

effectively as a preventative measure 

before infection gets there,” Jordan 

said. 

Make sure and stay on top of the 

spray intervals, and remember that 

vines don’t work off the calendar. 

They work off seasonal climate conditions, 

Jordan said. 

This could mean making spray 

applications earlier than is historically 

the norm, or later if it stays 

cooler, Jordan said. 

Monitoring for powdery mildew 

in the field is also advised. I think 

it’s important to scout and look for 

visual signs of infection, Jordan 

said. 

Going into a potentially high 

pressure year means it’s important 

to use preventative products effectively, 

and not scramble when there’s 

rain in the forecast to get out in the 

field and spray, Jordan said. 

“That should have already been 

a decision you’ve made because you 

know your interval was that date,” 

Jordan said. 

“Realistically, knowing it’s been 

rainy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise 

to you in your management, and it 

should be taken into account,” Jordan 

said, whether it’s using a product 

that has a longer interval period, 

or using a synthetic fungicide earlier 

in the season that hasn’t been used 

2015 

Yield 

Jumbo 

Large 

Light color 

Edible Yield 

2016 

Yield 

Jumbo 

Large 

Light color 

Edible Yield 

before. 

Oftentimes this can mean spending 

more money, but maybe that’s 

what fits the program as opposed to 

having to rely on every seven days 

or so for sulfur, Jordan said. 

It all comes down to managing to 

the conditions that are there, Jordan 

said. 


AfriKelp 

® 

in Walnut 

Increase Set and Size 

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

Yield and Size in Chandler. 2012 - Chile 

Control AfriKelp ® 

Yield (Ton/ac) 1.88 1.94 

Kernel size (g) 6.39 8.23 

Yield and Sizes on Chandler for 2 

Seasons. 2015 and 2016. CA, USA 

Control 

4098 

83% 

5% 

81% 

42.98% 

Control 

3906 

58% 

20% 

90% 

43.72% 

AfriKelp ® 

4640 

84% 

4% 

90% 

45.8% 

AfriKelp ® 

5122 

69% 

15% 

91% 

43.18% 

www.afrikelpusa.com 

1-877-AKUSA26 


WORKER SAFETY 

The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety 

Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE 

President and CEO, AgSafe 

In assessing the state of the industry, 

much of the focus over the last year 

has been on human resources-related 

issues—non-productive time and 

the safe harbor program, a change to 

worker overtime and much more. It’s 

easy to be caught up in those headaches 

and not realize issues relating 

to worker safety continue to be an 

ever-present part of our lives. We’ve 

struggled to varying degrees through 

our busy season with fairly route 

requirements and have sweeping new 

regulations looming on the horizon. 

No matter how complicated things get 

with the business, these trends tell us 

that worker safety must always remain 

a high priority. 

2016 Season Incident Trends 

The enforcement team at the 

California Department of Industrial 

Relations, Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) was out 

Lighting Distance 

0.5 Foot-Candle 

1.0 Foot-Candle 

2.0 Foot-Candles 

5.0 Foot-Candles 

in full force throughout 2016, continuing 

to focus efforts on the issues they 

deem are most critical to agriculture, 

starting with heat. As in 2015, the 

industry struggled with addressing the 

paperwork side of the regulation that 

was changed last year. Many citations 

were issued for failing to include the 

details of that update in companies’ 

Heat Illness Prevention Plans, most 

notably not making the plan available 

to workers (or Cal/OSHA) in the field. 

As an enforcement staff member noted, 

these plans should not be a secret. It 

is in the employer and employees’ best 

interest to make it available to anyone 

and everyone—the more who know, 

the better prepared they will be to respond 

in a heat-related emergency. 

Another notable trend from last 

year’s inspections was the failure of 

companies to actually implement the 

elements outlined in their Injury and 

Illness Prevention Programs (IIPP), 

specifically with reference to hazard 

identification and control. A number 

of citations were issued to businesses 

Locations 

Offices 

Locker Rooms 

Storage Yards 

Loading Areas 

Warehouses 

Corridors 

Washrooms (Bathrooms/Portable Bathrooms) 

Spray Booths 

Inspection 

Elevators 

Stairways 

Assembly Areas 

Layout Areas 

Engine Rooms 

Processing Areas 

Machine/Woodworking Shops 

Steel Metal Works 

for including protocol around conducting 

hazard inspections and a process to 

address those issues but failing to actually 

follow any of those steps. There 

are two critical elements to note from 

this. The first is that hazard assessment 

and correction is a requirement of an 

IIPP so this must be addressed in some 

form or fashion. The second, and more 

critical execution lesson, is that companies 

should not include protocol that 

cannot be followed. Set your business 

up for success by creating a process 

that is both realistic and compliant. 

A longer, more intricate policy is not 

necessarily better and, as many ag employers 

learned last year, can actually 

backfire if you’re not implementing the 

program. And don’t forget, this isn’t 

limited to hazard assessment—this 

important reminder applies to all your 

written safety programs. 

Finally, Cal/OSHA spent time in 

2016 beginning to educate the industry 

about impending penalty structure 

increases. As a result of Federal 

Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Cal/ 

OSHA will have to make changes to 

its penalty structure to ensure they are 

at least as effective as Federal OSHA. 

This means, for example, that General/ 

Regulatory Citations will increase from 

$7,000 to $12,400 and Willful/Repeat 

Citations from $70,000 to $124,000. 

These maximums will also be annually 

adjusted for inflation. Based on current 

implementation estimates, these 

penalties should take effect in February 

2017* but that is not a firm deadline. 

AgSafe will continue to keep the industry 

apprised of these changes and when 

the date is confirmed. 

Agricultural Night Work Regulatory 

Proposal 

The California Department of Industrial 

Relations, Division of Occupational 

Safety and Health Standards 

Board (Cal/OSHASB) has been considering 

revising existing and creating 

* Timeline as known at the time of publication. 


new regulations for agricultural night 

work. The working draft currently addresses 

issues including high visibility 

protective clothing for workers, specific 

illumination requirements within 

agricultural operations and the creation 

of specific traffic plans. Although 

these regulations are currently being 

developed, it is important for employers 

to be aware that a portion of these 

changes are to existing regulations that 

impact all industries. 

Currently, the California Code of 

Regulations, Title 8, Section 3317, specific 

to illumination, defines night work 

as an activity taking place between one 

hour before dusk through one hour 

after dawn. That same regulation also 

provides stationary lighting requirements 

for all industries to follow. 

It is important to note that the 

standard is written in foot-candles but 

most light bulbs are sold with their 

lumens count. There are 10.76 lumens 

in 1 foot-candle. 

To assure compliance with these levels 

at all times, the initial reading needs 

to be higher in order to compensate for 

the decrease of light output of lamps 

with age and to the accumulation of 

dirt on lamps and room surfaces. 

The California Code of Regulation, 

Title 8, Section 3441 details lighting 

requirements for tractors and self-propelled 

equipment, including ATVs. 

That standard notes that all equipment 

must have a minimum of one 

headlight that will illuminate the area 

in front of the equipment at least 50 

feet. There shall also be a minimum 

of one rear light illuminating the back 

of the equipment. Additional lighting 

shall be provided where the operation 

requires field adjustment or the 

operator’s attention, such as employees 

working in the vicinity of self-propelled 

equipment. 

In addition, employers should ensure 

their Injury and Illness Prevention 

Program (IIPP) addresses the unique 

issues of working at night. Worksites 

should be inspected under actual work 

conditions at night for potential hazards 

and those issues corrected accordingly. 

Workers should receive safety 

training for general conditions unique 

to night work, equipment, operations, 

and the plan for emergency situations 

given the differences at night. Emergency 

action plans need to be updated 

to reflect such circumstances as medical 

facilities available during the day 

may not be open at night. 

Workers harvest grapes at night and are provided high visibility vests as well 

as supplemental lighting to ensure they can work safely at night. 

New Indoor Heat Illness Prevention 

Standard Coming 

In October 2016, Governor Brown 

signed into law Senate Bill 1167, 

sponsored by Senator Tony Mendoza 

of Artesia. The bill directs the Department 

of Industrial Relations, Division 

of Occupational Safety and Health 

(Cal/OSHA) to adopt a standard that 

specifically addresses the heat-related 

hazards impacting indoor workers. 

Cal/OSHA will begin the rulemaking 

process in January 2017 and must 

have a proposed regulation to the Cal/ 

OSHA Standard Board by January 1, 

2019. 

When addressing the creation of a 

new standard, the Cal/OSHA enforcement 

team will undertake a number of 

important steps. The first is to review 

data related to previous citations to 

help best identify the core issues. In 

speaking with a member of that team, 

he noted that Cal/OSHA has previously 

cited employers for indoor heat-related 

injuries and illnesses under the auspices 

of the California Code of Regulations, 

Title 8, Section 3203, Injury and 

Illness Prevention Programs (§3203). 

Section 3203 very clearly states that 

an employer is responsible for identifying 

and correcting any occupational 

hazards. The division’s current enforcement 

has centered around employers’ 

failure to adequately identify 

the sources of indoor heat as a hazard 

and/or take the appropriate steps to 

mitigate this risk. 

That being said, many employers 

have identified indoor heat as an issue 

and as such, there are two commonplace 

engineered solutions that will be 

critical elements in this new standard. 

Cal/OSHA staff recognize that the use 

of heating, cooling and ventilation 

systems (HVAC) is the most common 

mechanism to mitigate indoor heat. 

California Code of Regulations, Title 

8, Section 5142 specifically addresses 

mechanically driven HVAC systems 

to provide minimum building ventilation. 

It stands to reason that the new 

indoor heat illness prevention standard 

will reference and ideally compliment 

Section 5142 as one of the primary 

engineering solutions for minimizing 

this risk. 



UCCE – Kern County four-year trials show: 

MOVENTO ® SUPPRESSES ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES BY 68% 

NUMBER OF NEMATODES 

THE NEMATODE THREAT TO 

VINE LONGEVITY 

& YIELD 

Nematodes are microscopic roundworms that feed 

on plant roots, causing devastating vigor and yield 

reduction across the vineyard. According to the 

University of California, above-ground symptoms of 

nematode damage are mostly unthrifty vines. 

Nematode infestations are commonly found in 

areas of the vineyard where vines lack vigor, 

growth and abundant yields. Effective nematode 

management relies on a variety of measures that 

can help enhance vine longevity and yield. 

MAR-10 

JUL-10 

NOV-10 

MAR-11 

JUL-11 

NOV-11 

MAR-12 

JUL-12 

NOV-12 

MAR-13 

JUL-13 

Four-year trials show Movento insecticide/nematicide combined with Admire Pro 

insecticide from Bayer provides long-lasting efficacy against root-knot nematodes. 

68 % 

SUPPRESSION 

OF ROOT-KNOT 

NEMATODES 

GROWERS CAN’T SEE 

UNTREATED 

UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE 

EXTENSION TRIALS SHOW: 

Early May & post-harvest applications 

of Movento can help result in: 

94 % 

CONTROL OF 

MEALYBUG 

ADVERTORIAL 

ADMIRE ® PRO 14 oz. 

MOVENTO ® 6 oz. 

NEMATODES 

CAUSED 

$157 B 

IN YIELD LOSS 

WORLDWIDE 1 

ROOT-KNOT 

NEMATODES 

CAUSED 

$ 1 BILLION 

IN ANNUAL LOSSES 

TO THE WINE 

INDUSTRY 

NEMATODES BEST 

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 2 

Field evaluation and nematode 

sampling: It is crucial to identify 

the nematode species present 

and estimate the population size 

through nematode sampling. 

Vineyard preparation pays off: 

Vineyard preparation can also include 

the use of fumigation, where suitable, 

to help lower nematode populations 

when initially planting a vineyard. 

Virus transmission considerations: 

Some nematodes are vectors to plant 

diseases that should be eliminated 

before establishing new vineyards. 

Crop protection products: Movento, 

applied as a foliar application, is a 

nematode management tool that 

will translocate to roots where 

nematodes feed, providing an 

easy way to manage nematodes. 

Rootstocks: Plant only certified 

nematode-free or nematoderesistant 

rootstocks. 

Root health: A healthy soil can 

help plant growth while providing 

organic matter decomposition, 

nutrient cycling, fertility and water 

purification, helping the plant better 

tolerate nematode populations. 

Good weed management helps: 

Use herbicides at fallow since various 

weeds are hosts to nematodes. 

Sanitation: Use appropriate 

sanitation practices. Avoid moving 

soil between fields. Clean equipment 

of soil before relocating to 

different fields. 

Cultural practices: Manures and 

soil amendments can improve vine 

vigor and reduce the impact of 

nematodes. 

LEARN MORE 

AT MOVENTO.US. 

1 “Nematodes: “A Threat to Sustainability of Agriculture,” Satyandra Singh, Bijendra Singh and A. P. Singh. 

2 University of California Integrated Pest Management Program. 

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow 

label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, Admire, and Movento are registered trademarks of Bayer. Not all products 

are registered for use in every state. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER 

(1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

THAT’S HOW MOVENTO ® INSECTICIDE MAKES GRAPES FEEL. 

Movento ® insecticide delivers powerful two-way movement within the vine to protect the parts pests 

seek most, from new shoot growth to roots. This results in long-lasting, reliable protection against above-ground 

pests like mealybugs and below-ground pests like nematodes and phylloxera. With Movento as part of your 

ongoing pest management program, you’ll have stronger, healthier vines that produce a higher quality crop year 

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

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, and Movento are 

registered trademarks of Bayer. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us. 


Photo Credit: Inspect USA 


The other recognized engineered 

solution is commonly referred to as 

shielding. This involves the identification 

of specific sources of indoor 

heat, such as from a pasteurizer, and 

building a physical shield that creates 

a barrier from the source of heat. 

Employers have also built workstations 

located throughout facilities with geographically 

widespread sources of heat 

that provide cooled areas for employees. 

For example, enclosed booths with 

air conditioning placed throughout a 

plant that allow workers to complete 

tasks—including monitoring activities 

in the plant—but in a cooled environment, 

is an appropriate mitigation of 

indoor heat risk. 

While there are clear best practices 

that will become part of this new 

standard, many questions still linger. 

For instance, the outdoor heat-illness 

prevention standard considers solar 

load component. This is the idea that 

you add 15 degrees Fahrenheit to the 

ambient temperature to account for 

the effect of the sun beating down on 

you. Currently there is no recognized 

equivalent to solar load component for 

indoor workers and understandably 

so. The variance across industries, 

since this standard will not be limited 

to agriculture and food manufacturing, 

along with the potential sources of heat 


and type of work being done present 

a significant challenge to developing 

a universal and appropriate metric. 

According to the staff member at Cal/ 

OSHA, a standard metric will need to 

be created to ensure consistency in the 

application of any regulation. 

Now What? 

While it’s all well and good to have a 

general understanding of how the new 

indoor heat-illness prevention standard 

will take shape, it’s logical to ask 

“so now what?” There are two critical 

action items to consider when moving 

forward in the coming year. The first is 

that the Cal/OSHA rulemaking process 

usually includes the creation of a 

voluntary advisory committee made up 

of stakeholders potentially impacted by 

the new standard. If Cal/OSHA does 

assemble a committee, it is critical that 

agriculture and food manufacturing 

have a large presence. Our trade associations 

and AgSafe will participate, 

as is customary, but you as growers, 

packers, shippers and processors have 

the greatest impact by being engaged. 

Make this a top priority by setting 

aside the time and energy to ensure 

your needs are directly heard by those 

responsible for writing the regulation. 

The second way to act immediately 

is to begin evaluating your business 

now for possible issues with indoor 

heat. We know that the two engineered 

Wet Globe Thermometers, like the one seen here, are the most accurate at 

measuring temperatures indoors as they account for both the ambient temperature 

and humidity. As the indoor heat standard is developed, both of 

these factors will be critical in developing a consistent temperature metric 

similar to the solar load component in outdoor heat. 

solutions—HVAC and shielding—will 

be included in some capacity in this 

new standard. What are you doing 

now to utilize these options to mitigate 

your indoor heat risk? Perhaps you 

need to take a step back and conduct a 

hazard assessment of your operation to 

even determine sources for indoor heat 

risk. We often invest significant time, 

energy and resources into the cooler or 

plant but have you thought about your 

machine shop? What about your drygoods 

(boxes, crates, packing materials) 

storage building? You need to have 

a solid understanding of your existing 

sources for indoor heat exposure and 

create a plan for minimizing that risk. 

Remember, Cal/OSHA currently 

has the authority to site you under the 

Injuring and Illness Prevention Program 

standard for failing to address 

this hazard. There is a well-documented 

history of the division successfully 

enforcing §3203 around this issue so 

don’t fool yourself into thinking this 

isn’t a problem yet. As an employer, 

it is incumbent upon you to regularly 

evaluate your business and create solutions, 

whether engineered or through 

behavioral change and training, that 

help eliminate workplace hazards. Use 

your knowledge of how this new standard 

may come to fruition as leverage 

in ensuring you are that much further 

ahead of the curve when the time actually 

comes. 

As always, agricultural employers 

need to ensure they remain vigilant 

about protecting their workers from 

the hazards in our industry. Whether 

working in the heat inside or out, or at 

night, it is essential to develop realistic 

written programs, provide training 

specific to the hazards on the job, 

ensure proper documentation of protocol, 

and correct issues when found. 

For more information about these or 

any worker safety related issues, please 

visit www.agsafe.org, call us at (209) 

526-4400 or via email at safeinfo@ 

agsafe.org. 

AgSafe is a 501c3 nonprofit providing 

training, education, outreach and 

tools in the areas of safety, labor relations, 

food safety and human resources 

for the food and farming industries. 

Since 1991, AgSafe has educated nearly 

75,000 employers, supervisors, and 

workers about these critical issues. 

· · · · PCC

BAICOR Liquid Nutrients 

Call Today to Set-Up 2017 Trials 

High Phos TM 

8-25-3 

A balanced formulation 

of essential nutrients 

containing organic and 

amino acids to 

stabilize the nutrients 

and facilitate their 

chelation, uptake, 

translocation and use. 

Zinc Shotgun TM 

Micronutrient package 

containing zinc, 

manganese, iron, and 

copper. The nutrients 

are readily absorbed 

by the plant for faster 

response. Designed 

for both foliar and soil 

application. 

Nutra Green TM 

5-10-5 

Contains the essential 

nutrients plants need 

in a completely 

balanced formula, 

ideal for optimal plant 

development. Rapidly 

absorbed into plant 

tissue to provide a 

rapid and sustained 

green-up. 

Visit wrtag.com for more information 

or contact Joseph at (209) 720-8040 


PRECISION AGRICULTURE 

Precision Ag RTK at West Hills Farm 

of the Future 

Photo Credit: Terry Brase 

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

is the waterproof box for the electronics. 


Terry Brase 

Educational Consultant, Former 

Precision Agriculture Educator and 

Author 

Twenty years ago it was hard to convince 

some west coast growers that 

RTK was necessary. After all, that was 

just something that was used by those 

large Midwest growers that had thousand 

acre fields to manage. But the 

whole concept of RTK is high accuracy 

(possibly sub-inch) and precision; that 

applies to large and small fields alike. 

At West Hills College, the Farm of 

the Future was designed and built to 

serve as a practical learning farm for 

students but also to serve the agricultural 

community as a model demonstrating 

emerging technologies and 

how they could be applied to farms 

in the Central Valley. To do this and 

as part of the precision ag classes, we 

provide examples of RTK GPS. 

RTK stands for Real Time Kinematic 

and is a type of correction for 

GPS. The name comes from surveying 

and refers to its ability to maintain the 

calculation of a high accuracy position 

while on the move. Previously a surveyor 

would have to be in one position 

for an extended length of time to get a 

high accuracy position. Autonomous 

GPS (GPS without any corrections) 

at best has only 10 foot accuracy, not 

accurate enough to determine the 

location of specific trees, vines, tissue 

samples, irrigation controls, or pest 

locations. RTK provides the highest 

level of accuracy and repeatability for a 

position. 

There are many methods of correcting 

GPS; Wide Area Augmentation 

System (WAAS), satellites, AM beacon 

receivers, and others. They all work in 

a similar way. All correction is based 

on having at least two GPS units: 

one serving as a “base” and the other 

serving as a “rover”. The GPS used as 

a “base” station is at a fixed location 

in which the coordinates are known. 

Since the base GPS unit is on this 

known location, it is able to calculate 

distance and direction of the error 

included in the GPS calculated position. 

This difference between positions 

is known as an “error differential”. This 


Author with the Trimble mobile RTK. Includes the tripod, GNSS antenna (large 

disk centered in tripod), receiver (Yellow box mounted on leg of tripod), SiteNet 

transmitting radio and antenna (tall antenna and yellow cylinder to the left 

of author), and display (held by author). Note abundance of cabling for data 

transfer between devices. 

March/April 2017 www.progressivecrop.com Page 25 

Photo Credit: Terry Brase


error differential can be sent to another 

GPS unit, a “rover”, that is out in the 

field. This rover GPS unit is calculating 

a position with error, but can apply the 

error differential to this position and 

correct it. Thus it is known as differential 

correction. 

Differences between types of differential 

correction are in how the base 

unit transmits the error differential 

to the rover unit. But what are the 

differences that make RTK so much 

more accurate than the other methods 

of differential correction? What must 

take place that accounts for the inch or 

less of accuracy? 

Two main things account for RTK’s 

accuracy: the accuracy of the known 

position for the base station and the 

proximity of the base to the rover. 

The accuracy of the known base position 

is determined during the setup 

of a RTK base station. Recording and 

averaging GPS positions for a 24 hour 

period provides a location coordinate 

with sub-inch accuracy. In addition 

receivers used to set up a base station 

are high quality units that also receive 

other GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite 

Systems). This means that besides 

using GPS satellites, they can also 

use GLONASS (Russian equivalent to 

GPS) and Galileo (European) satellites, 

which increases the accuracy of the 

base location. The higher accuracy of 

the RTK base station location, results 

in the higher accuracy of a RTK calculated 

position. 

The other aspect of RTK is the proximity 

between the base and the rover. 

Other types of differential correction 

system cover 30 to 300 miles. Most 

RTK systems are designed for operation 

in a 10 mile or less distance. Some 

manufacturers will base estimates of 

accuracy on the distance between base 

and rover. 

West Hills College has two specific 

methods of RTK differential corrections 

for use by students and the Farm 

of the Future. The Farm of the Future 

is 256 acres that was donated to West 

Hills College to serve as a model of advanced 

technology in agriculture. It includes 

a pistachio orchard, various field 

crops, equipment and an irrigation 

system. A solar field supplies all of the 

power for the farm. As new technology 

becomes available, it is researched 

or industry partners help provide the 

resources. For example, West Hills 

has received donations of a fixed wing 

and rotor UAS drones which are used 

as a part of industry demonstrations 

and for student lab exercises. Students 

were able to experience flying the UAS 

to capture imagery from several fields. 

In the same way students gain valuable 

experience using the RTK. Farm of the 

Future includes a mobile RTK station 

and a cellular network RTK. Though 

both are not necessary, each adds to 

community needs and student learning. 

The components of the West Hills 

mobile RTK station include a Trimble 

GNSS antenna, a Trimble 750MSL 

GNSS base receiver, a SiteNet 900 radio 

transmitter with antenna, deep cycle 12 

volt battery, Trimble FMX1000 display 

monitor, Trimble portable tripod, and 

cabling to connect it all. The mobile 

part of this RTK is the tripod that can 

be setup next to the field in which 

the signal will be used. This keeps the 

signal as close as possible to the rover 

and makes this the most accurate GPS 

correction. 

The antenna, receiver, and transmitter 

are mounted somewhere on the tripod 

which is placed securely at a location 

next to the field. Cabling attaches 

the GNSS antenna to the receiver and 

another cable attaches the receiver, battery 

and transmitter. The battery needs 

to be a large tractor battery to provide 

power for at least 24 hours of power. 

Connecting the cabling is actually the 

easy part. The system must be setup 

so that each component communicates 

Photo Credit: Terry Brase 

The electronics for a SmartNet RTK include the receiver, cellular gateway, and power supply. The cellular antenna is on 

the outside of the waterproof box and can be seen on page 24. 


with each other and that means the 

communications port and baud rate 

need to match. The communications 

port (commonly referred to as the 

“comport”) is the connection points 

within the receiver and the transmitter. 

The baud rate is the speed at which the 

data moves between the receiver and 

transmitter; the input and output of 

each needs to match or no communication 

occurs. Most of the setup needs 

is done directly on the receiver display. 

After these parameters have been 

set, the base location must be established. 

For the most accurate position 

the process is started and allowed to 

run for 24 hours. After 24 hours all 

the positions collected, approximate 

86,400 of them, will be averaged for an 

error differential. It will automatically 

will be sent to the SiteNet 900 to be 

broadcast. 

The other RTK base that we have 

at the Farm of the Future is a cellular 

RTK station. This base is part of a 

network of RTK bases called SmartNet 

that was installed by Leica, a GPS positioning 

company. It contains similar 

components: a GNSS antenna; a GNSS 

receiver, cellular modem instead of a 

radio transmitter with cabling and a 

power source. The antenna is mounted 

on a permanent 12 foot mast instead of 

a portable tripod. A coaxial cable connects 

the antenna to the receivers to 

calculate an error differential. Instead 

of a radio transmitting a few miles to a 

rover; the cellular modem transfers the 

error differential to a networked server 

in a remote location along with the 

error differentials from base stations 

across the US. At the same time, a 

tractor or other rover device that needs 

a RTK signal uses a cellular modem 

to call up the server and provide the 

rovers location. This location determines 

which of the base station’s error 

differential will be sent to the rover. 

Users of network RTK units like this 

typically pay a yearly fee to access the 

correction. 

On the rover side we use the RTK 

for an autoguidance system, a Trimble 

AutoPilot. This system replaces the 

tractor’s steering with an AutoPilot 

steering wheel. It is controlled by a 

FMX1000 display that is getting its location 

from an AgGPS 25 receiver that 

accepts the RTK differential signal for 

one to two inch accuracy. This level of 

West Hills College is located in the Pleasant Valley area on the west side of 

the California Central Valley. It’s pistachio orchard is shown on the left of this 

photo and a newly planted garlic field to the right. 

accuracy is needed for several of the 

farm activities. First of all listing, the 

preparation of the soil bed requires at 

least two inch accuracy to maintain 

rows. Any operation after listing the 

beds such as spraying will also require 

the same two inch accuracy since the 

tractor will need to follow the wheel 

tracks to avoid ruining the beds. 

Broadcast spraying normally doesn’t 

require two inch accuracy, but this 

level of accuracy does reduce overlap 

and gaps in the spray pattern that can 

be wasted materials or reduced yields. 

The other rover we use with students 

is a TopConGR3 that accepts 

a cellular Sim card. This sim card 

provides access to the cellular network 

that SmartNet uses and thus to the 

SmartNet error differential. Though 

the antenna and placement is highly 

accurate SmartNet has a lower accuracy 

because of the distance and latency 

of the signal (rover to server; server 

back to rover). 

Real time kinematic has value in 

providing higher precision for: calculating 

positions of objects in the field; 

guiding equipment through a field; and 

placement of sample locations. 

Calculating accurate positions is 

required for orchards trees when planting 

them. RTK is used by many companies 

when planting trees; using those 

RTK positions will allow for automated 

recordkeeping of individual trees. Another 

use is to more accurately manage 

irrigation by high accuracy positioning 

of valves, flowmeters and pumps. 

Guiding equipment through field 

with RTK creates rows with straight 

lines. Now even though that may seem 

like a cosmetic purpose, it does have 

some economic value. Straight rows, 

first of all, allow tractors to follow the 

same track through a field without 

damaging the crop and limiting compaction. 

It also assures accurate placement 

and reducing overlap of chemical 

and fertilizer products. 

Placement of samples with RTK 

allows the highest accuracy possible 

for marking the position of pest traps, 

tissue samples, soil samples and moisture 

sensors. This makes that data and 

the resulting analysis more valuable. 

Doing precision farming is more 

than just applying products at a variable 

rate. There are hundreds of uses 

for the application of technology by a 

grower to be more efficient and economical. 

RTK provides the accuracy 

and precision for those uses. Availability 

of RTK is growing and becoming 

more common. It needs to be considered 

as a part of precision farming 

management. 



Photo Credit: Terry Brase

IRRIGATION 

Integrating Key Water 

Management Information 

to Better Manage Irrigation 

Miro-sprinkler irrigation system in a 

young almond orchard. 

Photo Credit: Dan Munk 

Surface irrigated plum orchard. 

Post-filtration pressure monitoring in 

drip irrigation. 

Dan Munk 

UCCE Farm Advisor, Fresno County 

Jeff Mitchell 

UCCE Cropping Systems Specialist 

Over the past several years, few 

irrigated regions of the country 

have escaped the impacts of drought 

and in many places this has translated to 

increased costs and reduced availability 

of irrigation water. California growers 

in particular have experienced dramatic 

reductions in surface water deliveries 

and have increasingly turned to using 

groundwater to make up the surface 

water shortfall. Consequently growers 

have experienced unprecedented water 

table level reductions that have increased 

the price of pumping and maintenance 

on their water wells. Growers have also 

responded to the drought by increasing 

personal and personnel resources 

dedicated to water management and have 

increased their efforts to better understand 

the complexities of irrigation water 

management. Efforts to improve onfarm 

water management practices must 

include these key elements: 


• Elevating irrigation system design 

and management expectations. 

• Better exploit our understanding of 

crop development and physiology 

including crop sensitivity to water 

stress. 

• Increasing our capacities to measure 

and manage soil water storage. 

Proper evaluation and integration of 

these key water management elements 

can be complex but can result in operating 

whole farm and field irrigation 

systems at peak efficiency over time. For 

example, it may not help us to increase 

the monitoring and measurement soil 

moisture if we do not have a more 

complete understanding of how specific 

changes in soil moisture content influence 

crop water stress and crop performance. 

Similarly it would not be difficult 

to misinterpret plant water stress or soil 

moisture information in a field where 

water is not applied in a uniform manner. 

And how might field indicators of 

soil water availability be used in different 

field management settings? Interpreting 

soil moisture readings in a drip irrigated 

field that applies water multiple times 

per week will differ from that of a furrow 

or flood irrigated field that is irrigated 

using two to three week intervals. These 

complexities help to point out that each 

field is unique from a water management 

standpoint and that irrigation decision 

makers should not rely too heavily on 

any one piece of information to guide 

their water management program without 

also considering broader systems 

information. 

Irrigation System Design and 

Management 

Improperly designed irrigation systems 

are incapable of achieving high performance 

levels making efficient water 

management an impossibility regardless 

of how well water might be scheduled. 

Application efficiency is a fundamental 

measure of irrigation system performance 

defined as the amount of beneficially 

applied water in relation to the 

amount of total irrigation water applied 

to the field. One of the biggest obstacles 

to developing field systems with high 

application efficiency comes from the 

fact that many irrigation systems do not 

apply water uniformly. Water applied in 

Continued on Page 30

ADVERTORIAL 

Ensure season-long control of 

pre- and post-emergent weeds 

WEEDS REDUCE TREE HEALTH 

AND CROP QUALITY. 

Weeds compete with trees and vines for 

nutrients, water and light and can impact yield 

and hinder harvesting practices. Weeds can 

even compete with target plants for uptake of 

insecticides and other chemicals, making the 

crop more susceptible to insects and disease. 

While cultural and mechanical practices can 

provide some help in managing weed pressures, 

most growers utilize herbicides to deal with 

major threats. Whether or not resistant weeds 

are currently present, having an integrated 

approach to weed control can mean the 

difference to bottom lines. 

Key weeds present in orchards and vineyards have been found 

to be resistant to glyphosate. A best practice to slow down weed 

resistance to herbicides includes using multiple effective modes 

of action in your pre- and post-emergent herbicide sprays. 

WEEDS RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE 

Alion ® and Rely ® 280 weed program from Bayer 

are complementary pre- and post-emergent 

herbicides for tree nuts, grapes and citrus that 

effectively eliminate tough grass and broadleaf 

weeds with long-lasting residual control and 

excellent crop safety. Together, Alion and Rely 

offer versatile application approaches to 

ensure you start and stay weed-free. 

Horseweed 

Hairy Fleabane Jungle Rice Russian Thistle 

CROP SAFETY 

Keep crop safety in mind when selecting a weed management 

program. Choose pre- and post-emergent herbicides that provide 

excellent season-long weed control without impact on roots, fruit 

or plant vigor. 

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION RESEARCH SHOWS: 

Using Alion ® 

and Rely ® 

together 

results in 

season-long 

weed control 

JUNGLE RICE CONTROL 

100% 

HAIRY FLEABANE CONTROL 

99% 

RYEGRASS CONTROL 

90% 

Application included Alion 3 oz. + Rely + Roundup ® 

Application included Alion 3.5 oz. + Rely 

Application included Alion 5 oz. + Rely 

University Trial for Jungle Rice Control by Brad Hanson, 

UC Statewide Weed Scientist in Chico, CA, 2014 

University Trial for Hairy Fleabane and Ryegrass Control 

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

Learn more at CropScience.Bayer.us 

® 

© 2017 Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, Alion, and Rely are registered trademarks of Bayer. Roundup 

is a registered trademark of Monsanto Technology LLC. Always read and follow label instructions. Not all products are registered for use in every state. For additional product 

information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER (1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.

Photo Credit: Dan Munk 

Water meters are an essential system 

evaluation tool. 

Groundwater well development and 

re-development has become more 

common as groundwater levels decline 

and surface water availability is 

limited. 

Subsurface drip irrigation line configuration 

for vegetable crops including 

onions and garlic. 


a non-uniform manner which commonly 

leads to larger soil water deficits on low 

water application areas and over-irrigating 

areas of the field that have higher 

than average application rates. To maintain 

preferred soil moisture levels in all 

areas of the field, water managers typically 

compensate by over-applying water on 

portions of the field which causes losses 

to leaching or run-off both considered to 

be non-beneficial uses of water. Properly 

designed irrigation systems work 

to achieve a high degree of uniformity 

and deliver near equal amounts of water 


throughout the field. 

One of the more challenging design 

issues in drip irrigation systems 

is achieving near uniform pressures 

throughout the field. Even when fitted 

with pressure compensating emitters, 

fields that have large differences in line 

pressure are susceptible to significant 

differences in emitter output causing 

non-uniform applications. This problem 

is more commonly associated with long 

field lengths which stretch the design 

capacities of our current drip irrigation 

products. And while many drip irrigation 

fields have relatively high distribution 

uniformity, maintenance and management 

issues continue to leave many fields 

with less than optimal efficiencies. Field 

lengths of less than 800 feet are less prone 

to this concern while it is a much more 

common issue in field lengths exceeding 

1100 feet. This emphasizes the need to 

carefully consider the products being 

purchased and the pressure requirements 

of that product. Uniformity issues can 

also be exagerated as the system ages or 

in systems that are not properly filtered 

and maintained to avoid biological and 

mineral contamination. 

Occasionally simple modifications in 

surface irrigation systems can also result 

in significant improvements in distribution 

uniformity and application efficiency. 

Many flood and furrow irrigated 

systems experience slow water advance 

times down the furrow or irrigated 

strip before the irrigation is completed 

resulting in long infiltration periods at 

the head end of the field relative to the 

infiltration period at the lower end of 

the field resulting in higher amounts 

of applied water at the head end of the 

field. Solutions to this problem have been 

achieved by increasing the on-flow rate 

of irrigation water, reducing the size of 

the irrigation check and by modifying 

the surface soil roughness to allow water 

to more freely move to the bottom of 

the field. These relatively modest system 

design changes can have a significant 

impact on delivering water with greater 

uniformity and efficiency. 

Crop Development, Physiology and 

Water Stress Management 

Crop sensitivities to water stress are 

not constant throughout the growing 

season depending on crop type, growth 

stage and atmospheric conditions. Most 

field and row crops are highly susceptible 

to the impacts of limited water availability 

during the germination and seedling 

development stages and require high 

soil moisture availability in the surface 

soil during this period. However, as the 

early vegetative growth period is initiated 

crops like cotton and small grains can 

go many weeks before the first seasonal 

irrigation water is required. This is 

partially due to the rapid root growth 

that occurs in these plants and soil water 

is more easily extracted during these low 

evapotranspiration days. Alternatively, 

many vegetable crops including tomatoes, 

carrots and the brassicas require 

more frequent irrigation events early 

season to relieve mild water stress during 

this period needed to support a rapidly 

expanding plant canopy. Later in the 

season when roots are well established 

and the lower portions of the soil profile 

are exploited, many deep-rooted crops 

are less sensitive to water stress and 

water management strategies can be 

incorporated that take advantage of deep 

soil water reserves resulting in delayed 

irrigation scheduling. 

Similar issues can be observed with 

the permanent crops as early season 

root flushes occur at different intervals 

allowing soil moisture to be exploited at 

varied depths depending on crop type. 

Generally, crop water stress sensitivities 

in permanent crops are often more acute 

during early leaf out periods if winter 

rains have not fully charged the soil 

profile and again during the rapid fruit 

growth periods. Monitoring the developmental 

stage of the crop often provides 

insights to the physiological periods of 

the crop that are more sensitive to water 

deficits and points to periods when water 

deficiencies are more likely to result in 

impacts to yield and quality. Understanding 

these more sensitive water stress periods 

also allows us to better plan on the 

time of year to increase crop water stress 

monitoring by using tools such as the 

pressure chamber or canopy temperature 

tools that are used to evaluate the relative 

degree of crop stress. And while water 

stress limits may differ during the growing 

season, using established water stress 

guidelines when available, can provide 

sound guidance on irrigation scheduling 

decisions. 

Managing and Measuring Soil 

Water Storage 

The measurement of soil water can

appear to be an uncomplicated process 

that involves placing soil moisture 

sensors in the soil and reading the values 

to provide an irrigation management decision. 

And while this may be satisfactory 

for relatively simple, uniform and well 

understood field systems, there is much 

that should be considered in developing 

an approach to soil moisture monitoring 

if the goal is to maximize the beneficial 

uses of applied irrigation water. Successful 

growers and consultants that regularly 

monitor soil water and use the information 

as an irrigation scheduling tool agree 

that there are several important questions 

to consider before purchasing, installing 

and using the sensors to make informed 

irrigation decisions. Before investing 

the time and resources in soil moisture 

monitoring, establish basic achievable 

goals with the understanding that the 

higher the expectation and more detailed 

the goal, greater effort and resources will 

be required. 

As goals are established for field 

monitoring, consideration of the type of 

sensor to be used is a good place to start 

as well as the price of those sensors and 

systems. Field soil moisture systems can 

start with an investment of a few hundred 

dollars or less and can run into several 

thousand dollars for a single monitoring 

site. Soil water sensors can monitor soil 

water content more directly or they can 

provide direct or indirect measures of 

soil water potential. Each sensor type can 

be useful depending on the goals and information 

needs established. Identifying 

a field location or locations and placing 

the sensors at appropriate depths is also 

important and care should be taken to 

select locations that are representative 

of soil water conditions in the crop root 

zone. Monitoring multiple soil depths 

can also provide information on soil water 

storage and percent soil profile water 

depletion level. Depending on the time of 

year, many growers have turned to using 

different soil depths as triggers to initiate 

irrigation events using sensors placed at 

more shallow depths to schedule early 

season irrigation events. 

Evaluating the readings from soil 

moisture devices also requires some 

experience and understanding of soil 

water retention characteristics of the field 

being monitored. Although estimated 

values of field capacity, permanent 

wilting point and plant available water 

can be referenced for various soil textural 

classes, these values are very generic and 

can misrepresent actual site values that 

can be used for irrigation scheduling 

purposes making the information less 

reliable. Developing individual field or 

soil type data for your fields often aids in 

providing more specific and repeatable 

information that can improve irrigation 

decision making. 

Integrating the Information 

Recognizing the need to integrate key 

water system information into a coherent 

field and farm water management plan 

system requires work and experience in 

evaluating multiple system elements and 

will assist in avoiding the tendency to 

place the focus and reliance on singular 

management indicators. Integration of 

these primary water management elements 

will have impacts on the time and 

amount of field applied water and can 

have significant impacts on farm water 

use by limiting the application of water 

that does not directly benefit the crop. 

Recognizing the importance of integrating 

appropriate information from 

multiple sources to manage farm water 

requires that we begin using the tools 

available to us to document and interpret 

a wide variety of information of our 

irrigation systems, soil systems and our 

individual cropping systems. 

Independent evaluations of an irrigation 

system performance can provide feedback 

on the current issues of concern for 

individual systems and can provide an 

assessment of whether system maintenance 

is badly needed or if help determine 

if the system requires improved 

pressure regulation, higher flow rates or 

other design modifications to operate 

more optimally. Water applied uniformly 

and with high efficiency limits water 

and nutrient losses to the groundwater 

and results in more uniform crop yield 

and quality. But information related to 

application efficiency or distribution uniformity 

can also aid in targeting locations 

for soil moisture monitoring sites and 

locating sites to monitor plant stress and 

crop growth. 

Using available knowledge of plant 

development and physiology can aid in 

identifying periods when the crop is particularly 

sensitive to water stress events 

and aid in irrigation scheduling decisions 

by either limiting the drawdown of soil 

moisture reserves during those periods 

or by extending the irrigation cycle. In 

Water flow monitoring is an essential 

system evaluation component. 

Tensiometer installation in a citrus 

orchard. Tensiometers provide a 

direct measure of soil water matric 

potential. 

a similar manner, the use of plant water 

stress indices can be used to hasten or 

delay irrigation events and help establish 

the intensity and duration of water stress 

events. Numerous university publications 

are available that provide sound information 

on the development and physiology 

of specific crops. This information often 

includes water management studies that 

can provide tools to identify crop developmental 

stage as well as information 

on water stress sensitivity and periods of 

relative tolerance to water stress. 

Establishing reasonable goals and expectations 

for monitoring soil water status 

and using soil sensor information for 

irrigation decision making purposes can 

assist in tightening irrigation schedules 

thereby reducing the likelihood of excessive 

losses while also reducing the risk of 

crop losses that result from elevated crop 

water stress levels. This information is 

particularly useful when combined with 

other irrigation scheduling tools such as 

crop evapotranspiration estimates and 

crop water stress indicators. 



Photo Credit: Dan Munk

MATING DISRUPTION 

Photo Credit: Kathy Keatley Garvey 

how mating disruption effects the 

ability to monitor pests in orchards 

under MD as well as in orchards in 

proximity to MD blocks. In orchards 

where MD tactics are being used, 

pheromone-only monitoring methods 

will certainly be impacted. It 

is becoming increasingly apparent 

that traps in orchards near but not 

within MD blocks can be effected as 

well. In most cases, this is occurring 

without the added benefit of substantial 

disruption, and thus population 

and damage reduction. Researchers 

are currently investigating just how 

far-reaching the impacts of mating 

disruption are to nearby non-MD 

blocks. 

Disruption of sexual communication 

in moths is thought to function 

by the following broad types of 

behavioral mechanisms: 

• Competitive attraction 

(false-plume-following), in 

which males are diverted from 

orienting to females because they 

are attracted to competing ‘false’ 

trails emitted by synthetic pheromone 

dispensers. 

• Non-competitive mechanisms, 

whereby exposure to synthetic 

pheromone inhibits or blocks the 

ability of males to sense and/or 

respond normally to pheromone 

emitted from females. These include 

camouflage, desensitization 

(i.e., adaptation and habituation), 

and sensory imbalance. 

• Combinations of these mechanisms. 

Navel orangeworm larva. 






Mating disruption options have 

improved in recent years, 

and orchards under mating disruption 

(MD) for certain key pests are 

becoming increasingly common. In 

particular, this article focuses on the 

effects of MD on trap-based monitoring 

of codling moth (CM) and 

navel orangeworm (NOW). With 

regard to codling moth, this can 

apply to walnuts, apples, and other 

pome fruits. For NOW, this information 

largely applies to almonds and 

pistachios. 

It is important to understand 


While understanding the mechanism(s) 

underlying successful mating 

disruption is important to the development 

of products and best practices 

to maximize the effectiveness of 

this technology, one thing becomes 

clear in a practical sense—the presence 

of synthetic pheromone in and 

around the orchard environment, 

if effectively impacting mate location/mating 

success, will necessarily 

impact our surveillance methods. In 

particular, our ability to track population 

abundance and activity using 

pheromone lures. Fortunately, there 

are solutions to this problem in the 

form of alternative lures for trapping, 

albeit many pest control and crop advisers 

have less experience with these 

than the historical pheromone-only 

lure standards. 

For the two pests this article is 

focused on, CM and NOW, sex pheromones 

are emitted by females and 

elicit responses from males of the 

species. That means, with the exception 

of very low to negligible random 

catches of females, pheromone traps 

will predominantly track only male 

activity. One of the goals and indicators 

of successful MD for NOW and 

CM is trap shutdown (zero to very 

low male catches in pheromone traps 

relative to non-MD environments). 

If you are working in a MD environment, 

you certainly want to monitor 

pheromone-only traps so that

Scientifically proven to reduce 

female NOW populations and 

damage with Mass Trapping 

and Monitoring. 


Adult codling moth. 

you can gauge this measure of MD 

effectiveness. However, traps with all 

zeroes or very few male moths only 

provide that one important piece of 

information. As a PCA/CCA in these 

situations, it is critical to be able to 

track the population cycles (‘flights’) 

and relative population abundance in 

the event that supplemental insecticide 

applications are deemed necessary, 

and to properly time those 

applications. There is also a distinct 

level of discomfort in ‘flying blind’ 

so-to-speak, when little empirical 

data (i.e., trap counts) is available for 

decision making. 

The options for monitoring in/ 

near MD then become based on the 

ability to overcome trap shutdown 

by (1) incorporating non-pheromone 

based lures to trap males, females, 

or both sexes; and (2) employing additional 

surveillance methods (nontrap-based) 

to gauge pest pressure 

and inform treatment decisions. For 

NOW and CM, there are options 

available to satisfy both of the two 

options noted above. The available 

lures are based on plant volatiles 

functioning as kairomones. Various 

non-trapping monitoring methods 

can and should be incorporated into 

your IPM program as well. 

NOW Options 

• Egg traps baited with almond 

meal and three to 10 percent 

crude almond oil. These are used 

to monitor female flights, specifically 

oviposition activity. Egg 

traps have been the historical 

standard for early season population 

detection and degree-day 

modeling. Drawbacks with the 

use of egg traps include reliability 

concerns in low population 

situations, possible competition 

with large numbers of mummies 

in the orchard early in 

the season, reduction in attractiveness 

as the in-season crop 

becomes increasingly attractive, 

and ease of use. However, these 

traps should not be impacted by 

MD environments, and despite 

potential limitations, can provide 

a piece of the pest management 

puzzle. 

• Lures comprised of mesh bags 

filled with ground almond and 

pistachio mummies in wing or 

delta traps (e.g., Peterson traps) 

are used to track female flight 

activity. Traps may catch some 

low levels of male moths, but 

numbers are predominantly female 

in these traps. As is the case 

with many plant-volatile based 

kairomone traps, these are less 

sensitive than pheromone traps 

in terms of abundance of moths 

caught (kairomones typically 

act at closer range than pheromones). 

In spite of this, these 

traps also should not be impacted 

by MD, and can be useful in 

discriminating moth flights and 

relative abundance when compared 

with historical and non- 

MD records. 

• Other lures for trapping NOW 

females, including phenyl propionate 

(PPO) and the five-component 

kairomone blend identified 

by John Beck, remain at 

the experimental/developmental 

stage. Neither is commercially 

available at this time, but these 

may provide additional options 

in the near future. 

• Monitoring crop phenology and 

concurrent oviposition activity 

can provide additional information 

as to pest pressure and need 

for treatment. This involves looking 

for NOW eggs on early splits 

(pea splits) in pistachio, and 

early hullsplit nuts in almonds. 

CM Options 

• Both female and male moths respond 

to pear ester. This is available 

in the CM-DA combo lure 

(contains codlemone, the codling 

moth pheromone, plus pear ester, 

the plant volatile-based kairomone). 

These lures should be 

used in orchards under MD in 

addition to pheromone only traps 

(baited with 1X or L2 lures), necessary 

to detect trap shutdown 

as a proxy for efficacy of the MD 

treatment. If you are concerned 

with the performance of pheromone-only 

CM traps in non-MD 

orchards, consider adding some 

CM-DA traps, particularly if you 

suspect you are in proximity to 

an MD block that is effecting 

your pheromone trap catches. 

• Another option is the three-way 

lure (CM-DA combo plus acetic 

acid, AA). Think of this as a 

‘super-charged’ lure, which can 

provide more robust capture in 

terms of numbers of males and 

females (in both MD and non- 

MD orchards). With both the 

CM-DA and CM-DA+AA lures, 

be cautious in your evaluation of 



Having trouble finding 

Codling Moths? 

• Captures both male and female CM (vs) 

males only with CM pheromone alone. 

• Increases male CM capture by double 

or greater than the male/female lure 

(CM-DA COMBO) alone. 

• Increases female capture up to 6 X more 

than CM-DA COMBO alone. 

• Best product to use in orchards treated 

with DA-based mating disruption 

products like CIDETRAK CMDA COMBO 

MESO or Puzzle Piece. 

• Best lure to use in 

conventional and 

mating disrupted + 

orchards with low 

density CM abundance. 

Contact your local supplier 

and order now. 

Visit our website: www.trece.com 

or call 1- 866 -785-1313. 


trap numbers. Numbers may be 

higher or lower than pheromone 

trap catch numbers, depending 

on your particular environment 

(MD, non-MD, near MD), and 

may not directly correlate with 

the same moths/trap/night 

thresholds you are accustomed 

to. 

• Non-trapping methods for CM 

surveillance involves in-season 

damage/population estimates 

via dropped nuts and/or canopy 

counts. 

More information and details 

regarding monitoring and treatment 

options for these pests is available 

online in the UC IPM Guidelines for 

each pest and crop of interest 

(www.ipm.ucanr.edu). 

Some thoughts on best practices 

for lure-based trapping and monitoring 

in general. 

• Storage and handling. Always 

follow manufacturer guidelines 

for storage and handling of lures. 

Most lures are best kept refrigerated 

or frozen (in non-cycling 

freezers). Be careful when keeping 

lures long-term (multiple 

years), as their performance can 

be impacted. It is generally best 

to order fresh lures each year. 

Some lures can be particularly 

‘hot’ when initially deployed, 

which may lead to misinterpretation 

of activity peaks. If possible, 

pre-age lures for a day or so prior 

to deploying in the field. Avoid 

cross-contamination of lures and 

traps—it is easy to get in a hurry, 

but rubber gloves can go a long 

way in preventing strange bycatch 

in traps (catching species 

you don’t expect). 

• Interpreting catches and perceived 

failures. When good 

storage and handling practices 

are employed, many issues can be 

avoided. If you are encountering 

trap catch data that seems unusual, 

first consider any potential 

storage, handling, or contamination 

issues. Next consider what 

other factors may be involved 

(e.g., new MD blocks in proximity 

to the traps, or any other new 

or unusual environmental conditions). 

Most manufacturers have 

strict quality control practices in 

place, but if you have eliminated 

all other sources of the problem, 

contact your lure supplier to 

inquire further. 

• Adopting new trapping techniques. 

Certain situations and 

the availability of new trapping 

options may result in the desire 

or need to adopt new trap-lure 

combinations you might have less 

experience with. When possible, 

adopting new monitoring techniques 

should be a multi-year 

process, in which new trapping 


® 

INCORPORATED 

INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS 

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge. 

© 2017, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK USA • TRECE, PHEROCON and CIDETRAK 

are registered trademarks of Trece, Inc., Adair, OK USA, TRE-1044 

Adult navel orangeworm. 



ENHANCED CODLING MOTH MATING DISRUPTION 

Clearly More Active Product… 

Lower Application Cost! 

Black egg trap for navel orangeworm. 

method(s) are introduced alongside 

those for which historical 

data is available. This will help 

you best understand how to use 

the information gained from the 

new traps/lures. 

• Ensure that you are accounting 

for any and all pesticide treatments 

and field activities when 

interpreting trap catches and 

population activity. 

• Interpreting data and making 

pest management decisions in 

the field is as much art as science. 

Although research and 

academic endeavors seek to 

provide concrete thresholds and 

black-and-white decision support 

for agricultural practitioners, 

the reality is that there is no 

magic bullet and every situation 

is different. Individual pieces of 

information, while valuable, often 

do not provide robust enough 

evidence to support the “treat” 

vs. “don’t treat” recommendation. 

Incorporating all of the available 

knowledge (trap data, orchard 

history, environmental conditions, 

pest pressure, etc.) is critical 

to developing effective pest 

management programs that you 

are confident in recommending. 


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

• Comparison of active ingredient delivered based on optional • Labor cost label may rates. vary with employee training experience and productivity. 

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

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

CIDETRAK ® CMDA COMBO Puzzle Piece (PP) 

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

PLEASE: ALWAYS READ THE LABEL 

CIDETRAK ® CMDA COMBO MESO 

The ONLY Mating Disruption Systems 

that disrupt both MALE…and FEMALE Codling Moth. 

INCORPORATED 

INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS 

Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge. 

® 

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

TRE-1034, 1/17 


WORKER SAFETY 

Photo Credit: Ben Sacher 

Regulatory Challenges Face New 

Administration 


Ben Sacher 

Federal Government Affairs Analyst, 

Western Growers 

The onset of the Trump administration 

has started with fireworks in 

many areas, but what can be expected 

in the crop protection world? The 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) is under much scrutiny. As an 

early indication, the head of Trump’s 

EPA transition team advocated for a 

two-thirds cut in EPA’s staff levels. In 

the first 10 days on office, the Trump 

administration issued a “2-out-1-in” 

executive order that requires two old 

regulations be removed for every new 

one put on the books. For its part, 

Congress has taken interest in regulatory 

reform and is putting some environmental 

laws under the microscope. 

Some of this energy may translate 

into wins out of the gate, for example, 

clarifying that lawful pesticide applications 

do not require an additional 

clean water permit. Currently, applying 

pesticides over or near water requires 

a clean water act permit, duplicating 

federal pesticide regulations that 

govern their use over or near water. 

For the last several years, Congress 

has considered legislation to lift the 

requirement to obtain a federal clean 

water act permit for chemicals already 

approved to be used near or in waters. 

The 115 th Congress might be the time 

to finally get this out of both chambers 

and signed by the President. 

Over the past several years, pesticide 

issues have moved up the priority 

list for agriculture advocates. A strong 

regulatory program is necessary to 

ensure access to tools that have been 

thoroughly reviewed for safety. However, 

pressure from activist groups 

is intense, and stakeholders like 

Western Growers have felt a policy 

shift in EPA’s approach to pesticide 

regulation. In some cases EPA seems 

to have diverged from long standing 

processes, or adopted new approaches 

without thorough vetting. While many 

recent activities are within the bounds 

of established scientific procedures, 

there is a laundry list of individual 

actions that have troubled stakeholders. 

Three of the most disruptive and 

broad challenges to the normal order 

in pesticide regulation are an inappropriate 

reliance on epidemiological 

studies, hyper-conservative drinking 

water modeling, and the relationship 

between endangered species and pesticide 

law driven to a boiling point by 

over a decade of lawsuits. 

EPA has made significant changes 

to how it conducts risk assessments 

without taking the time to vet and 

develop its approaches. One recent 

challenge to the registration process is 

an inappropriate reliance on epidemiological 

studies. Epidemiological studies 

have value in finding associations with 

environmental factors or other risks. 

However, a preference for epidemiological 

studies when carefully designed 

laboratory studies are available, 

particularly to establish quantitative 

regulatory standards, could upend 

EPA’s registration activities. EPA has 

proposed to revoke tolerances for the 

insecticide chlorpyrifos, primarily 

based on associations suggested in an 

epidemiological study done by public

health researchers. The Agency’s own 

Science Advisory Panel was highly 

critical of EPA’s approach, yet EPA 

moved forward without adequately addressing 

these concerns. This is not to 

say that epidemiological studies have 

no value. Epidemiological studies can 

certainly inform pesticide assessments, 

but it is concerning to see a choice to 

privilege them over laboratory studies 

that have traditionally formed the 

backbone of a scientific review. 

Another is the use of overly conservative 

approaches to estimating 

concentrations of pesticides in drinking 

water. To ensure human health is 

protected when considering dietary 

risk, EPA looks not only at food residues, 

but also any potential exposure 

in drinking water from surface and 

groundwater. Even when real world 

data is available, EPA has relied on 

models that make unrealistic assumptions 

resulting in massively overestimated 

exposure. For example, models 

often assume a single crop treated at 

maximum rate, with application taking 

place on the same day, and at maximum 

rates across an entire watershed. 

This layering of conservative assumptions 

leads to unrealistically high 

drinking water estimates, with one 

analysis showing that model predictions 

averaged 229 times higher than 

monitoring data, and 4500 times higher 

in a quarter of the comparisons. 

The administration will have its 

work cut out in ensuring a science 

based, risk-benefit approach to pesticide 

regulation. The consequences of 

a shift away from established procedures 

are real. Not only may individual 

products be made unavailable, but an 

unpredictable process puts a dampening 

effect on innovative new chemistries 

with better environmental and 

safety profiles. 

The Trump administration will also 

need to tackle a threat to pesticide 

regulation that has been building for 

years. This worrying roadblock is not 

driven by EPA, but by the unresolved 

conflict between federal pesticide 

law and the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). In the western produce industry, 

the ESA is most known for 

restricting water allocations in an 

attempt to protect endangered salmon 

and the Delta Smelt. If unresolved, the 

tension between pesticide law and the 

endangered species act could also cut 

off access to new and familiar crop 

protection tools. In the mid 2000’s, activists 

began challenging whether EPA’s 

pesticide program was complying with 

the Endangered Species Act. Under 

the act, certain government agencies 

must consult with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service or National Marine 

Fisheries Service. Often these consultations 

center on well-defined projects 

with more discernable impacts, such 

as building a bridge or a dam. Historically, 

EPA has relied on its expertise 

in assessing ecological risks to ensure 

endangered species are adequately protected. 

After recent lawsuits, however, 

EPA and the Services have attempted 

to review several pesticides under a 

new endangered species evaluation 

process. Unfortunately, this process 

has not proven workable. The first part 

of an endangered species assessment 

of three chemicals has taken years and 

many thousand pages. Using such an 

approach going forward would require 

a massive commitment of new resources 

to the Services and EPA and bring 

needed innovation to a halt. 

Agriculture has been squeezed by 

regulatory pressure, and indeed EPA 

is charged with regulating pesticides. 

This oversight, however, plays an 

important role in enabling the safe use 

of these tools. EPA approval serves as a 

license to operate, and assures the public 

that crop protection materials have 

been carefully evaluated to be protective 

of human health and the environment. 

So while the focus here has been 

on the sticking points the agricultural 

community is working to address, it 

is worth reviewing the important role 

of EPA’s rigorous process for assessing 

pesticides. 

Registrants spend on average over 

eleven years and $300 million bringing 

a product to market. Registration relies 

on extensive data generated by peer 

reviewed-studies. Every 15 years, the 

Agency reevaluates products approved 

for use. Some of the key features of the 

pesticide regulatory system are that it 

is risk-based instead of hazard-based, 

and weighs the benefits of a product 

against risks. It makes use of data 

based on the best available science and 

perhaps most importantly, it takes a 

protective stance. Based on extensive 

data and thorough review, EPA must 

Photo Credit: Ben Sacher 

show that a pesticide will “not generally 

cause unreasonable adverse effects 

on the environment” and that there is 

a “reasonable certainty of no harm” to 

human health. Growers don’t always 

get or keep the tools they would want, 

but a reliable and science-driven process 

provides for both access to crop 

protection tools and environmental 

and health protection. In fact, it should 

be a priority for the regulated community 

to protect resources for the Office 

of Pesticide Programs at EPA, in a time 

where there are calls to dramatically 

cut EPA’s budget. So while agriculture 

might like to get EPA off its back, a 

better funded pesticide program can 

do the work needed to allow products 

to be brought to market. This arrangement 

is worth safeguarding. 

Congress and the new administration 

have a long to do list. For farmers 

everywhere, and anyone who depends 

on crop protection tools there is work 

to be done to ensure that EPA preserves 

its science based, risk-benefit 

approach to pesticides. 

While the broader issues surrounding 

pesticide regulation are complex, 

it is clear that there must be a re-set at 

the Agency to reaffirm an approach to 

pesticide regulation based on sound 

science. There are a number of things 

that can be done. For one, EPA can be 

sure to work with its sister agency, the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. It can 

make sure that any new approaches are 

thoroughly and transparently vetted. 

The goal is not to stack the deck to 

favor of the industry, but to make sure 

that the important work of reviewing 

pesticides follows transparent and 

credible procedures to ensure the 

safety of crop protection tools growers 

depend on. 



IPM 

Applied Association of IPM Ecologists 

(AAIE) Conference Overview 

Attendees discuss growing the next generation of PCAs. 

Kathy Coatney 

Editor 

The Applied Association of IPM 

(Integrated Pest Management) 

Ecologists (AAIE) held a recent conference 

that covered a variety of topics. 

Pete Goodell, University of California 

Cooperative Extension (UCCE) 

statewide IPM advisor opened the conference 

by speaking on why the IPM 

program needs to be reinvigorated. 

IPM is a unique concept, Goodell 

said. “It’s a way of thinking about the 

world and approaching problems in an 

ecosystem, or a whole system sort of 

approach.” 

IPM is multiple approaches using: 


• An ecosystem based strategy 

• Seeks long term prevention of 

pests 

• Utilizes a combination of management 

techniques—biological 

control, cultural practices and 

chemical controls 

• Employs monitoring and evaluation 

of risk 

• Selects and applies pest control 

materials to minimize risks to 

human health, beneficial and 

non-target organisms and the 

environment 

IPM is not new, it can’t be implemented 

overnight, it is not a rigid 

program of management techniques 

and the programs are not universal, 

but it is a platform to consider options 

and launch solutions determined by 

the situation. It is also flexible to the 

situation. 

Overdependence on single control 

tactics leads to problems with: 

• Pesticide resistance 

• Overuse of pesticides 

• Widespread disruption of ecological 

balance 

• Increased concern about pesticide 

exposure 

Prevention is the key, and Goodell 

stressed the importance of building a 

culture of prevention that is as good 

at preventing pests as well as treating 

them. 

“If you prevent the problem, you 

don’t have to manage it. If you manage 

the problem, you don’t have to control 

it,” Goodell said. 

Franz Niederholzer, UCCE farm 

advisor did a session on sprayer calibration 

with UCCE farm advisors John 

Roncoroni and Lynn Wunderlich. 

They gave a general review on calibration, 

and they quizzed the audience 

on calibration. They also discussed 

droplet formation and atomization.

Most spray nozzles create a range of 

spray droplets, and there is a relationship 

between droplet diameter and 

droplet mass, Niederholzer said. 

“There’s a number of droplets that 

you generate, and then the volume 

of spray contained in those droplets 

across the spectrum,” Niederholzer 

said. 

It’s important not to over apply 

because that’s wasteful, and you don’t 

want to under apply either, Niederholzer 

said. “It’s not wasteful, but it runs 

the risk of being an ineffective application, 

and that’s hugely expensive.” 

“Growers are always concerned and 

rightfully so with costs, but if you end 

up not doing a good job—if you’re so 

focused on costs that you’re not doing 

a good job of control, then you really 

haven’t helped yourself at all,” Niederholzer 

said. 

“And if you miss a window that’s 

crucial, then whatever pest damage 

occurs, you’re playing catch up,” Niederholzer 

said, adding generally you 

have to be more aggressive with your 

rates and maybe mixing chemistries 

to effectively control an established 

infection. 

A one size fits all calibration on the 

sprayer means it has to be calibrated 

for that the worst case scenario, Niederholzer 

said. 

In almonds, it’s generally hull split 

timings or mite control. These are the 

applications that are basically applied 

between May and harvest, Niederholzer 

said. It is the same for coddling 

moth applications in walnuts, he 

added. 

Niederholzer explained that early 

in the season less spray may be needed 

simply because there isn’t that much 

area to cover, whereas later in the season, 

there will be more surface area to 

cover, especially with foliar sprays, and 

targeting mites, and diseases. 

Sprayer calibration is extremely 

important and oftentimes overlooked, 

Niederholzer said. 

Beth Grafton-Cardwell, IPM 

Specialist and research entomologist 

director of Lindcove Research and Extension 

Center spoke at a round table 

session on how the drought is affecting 

California red scale in citrus. 

Because of the drought, there have 

been extra heat units, water stressed 

Attendees visit with trade show vendors about ag solutions. 

trees and the insect has been behaving 

in ways Grafton-Cardwell hasn’t seen 

before. 

Red scale causes two kinds of damage, 

Grafton-Cardwell said. Heavy 

populations on the fruit will cause the 

fruit to be downgraded. The fruit can 

be high pressure washed, but it’s never 

cleaned up perfectly. Also, if there are 

heavy populations in the tree, there 

will be dieback of branches, which will 

impact yield. 

Usually red scale goes dormant 

in the wintertime, but the last two 

winters that didn’t happen. Red scale 

was found in all stages, all times of 

year and that’s a problem because in 

the spring the growers normally apply 

their pesticides when the population 

is just starting to get going, Grafton-Cardwell 

said. 

There wasn’t a biofix either, and the 

extra heat units also provided an extra 

generation of scale. That meant the 

chemicals that are normally sprayed 

every other year, weren’t holding the 

red scale populations, Grafton-Cardwell 

said. 

Because there was a colder winter 

and increased rainfall this year, Grafton-Cardwell 

thinks growers will have 

less problems controlling red scale in 

the coming season. 



Helping Crop Advisers feed the 

world, one product at a time. 

For more information on Willowood USA products or to find a distributor near you contact us at: 

CORPORATE OFFICE: 

1600 NW Garden Valley Blvd #120 • Roseburg, OR 97471 

541-679-9963 • 877-679-9963 • Fax: 541-679-4650 

www.WillowoodUSA.com 

HERBICIDES | FUNGICIDES | INSECTICIDES | PGR’s

Mar_Apr_PCC_2017_Web

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?