Mar_Apr_PCC_2017_Web
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Progressive<br />
Crop Consultant<br />
The Leading Magazine For Ag Professionals<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch - <strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
Biological Fungicides as Alternatives<br />
for Methyl Bromide<br />
Powdery Mildew Remains an<br />
Issue for Grapes<br />
Trapping In and Near Mating<br />
Disruption Orchards<br />
Regulatory Challenges Face<br />
New Administration<br />
PUBLICATION<br />
Volume 2 : Issue 2
Avoid Stale Soil–Activate It!<br />
Activate<br />
Why Activate?<br />
• Highly concentrated, guaranteed species analysis<br />
• Naturally occuring root colonizing organisms, not genetically modified<br />
• Stimulates root and plant growth<br />
• Enhances nutrient cycling and a reduction in nitrogen needs<br />
• Reduces leaching of nutrients<br />
34284-B Road 196 Tel: 559.564.1236 info@callnrg.com<br />
Woodlake, Page 00 CA Progressive 93286 Fax: Crop 559.564.1238<br />
Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il www.callnrg.com <strong>2017</strong><br />
Product Manufactured by Natural Resources Group
Publisher: Jason Scott<br />
Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com<br />
Editor: Kathy Coatney<br />
Email: kathy@jcsmarketinginc.com<br />
Production: Logan Willems<br />
Email: logan@jcsmarketinginc.com<br />
Phone: 559.352.4456<br />
Fax: 559.472.3113<br />
<strong>Web</strong>: www.progressivecrop.com<br />
Change of Address?<br />
Visit our website to<br />
complete the change of<br />
address form under the<br />
subscriptions tab.<br />
6<br />
In This Issue<br />
Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially<br />
Difficult During Drought Years<br />
Contributing Writers & Industry Support<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>k Bolda<br />
UCCE Farm Advisor,<br />
Santa Cruz County<br />
Terry Brase<br />
Educational Consultant,<br />
Former Precision<br />
Agriculture Educator<br />
and Author<br />
Elizabeth E.<br />
Grafton-Cardwell<br />
Department of<br />
Entomology, UC<br />
Riverside<br />
Jeff Mitchell<br />
UCCE Cropping<br />
Systems Specialist<br />
Dan Munk<br />
UCCE Farm Advisor,<br />
Fresno County<br />
Joshua Reger<br />
Department of<br />
Entomology, UC<br />
Riverside<br />
Ben Sacher<br />
Federal Government<br />
Affairs Analyst, Western<br />
Growers<br />
Sara Scott<br />
Department of<br />
Entomology, UC<br />
Riverside<br />
Emily J. Symmes<br />
UCCE IPM Advisor,<br />
Sacramento Valley<br />
Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE<br />
President and CEO,<br />
AgSafe<br />
10<br />
14<br />
Biological Fungicides as Alternatives<br />
for Methyl Bromide<br />
Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue<br />
for Grapes<br />
18 The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety<br />
24<br />
28<br />
Precision Ag RTK at West Hills<br />
Farm of the Future<br />
Integrating Key Water Management<br />
Information to Better Manage Irrigation<br />
UC Cooperative Extension Advisory Board<br />
Kevin Day<br />
County Director and<br />
UCCE Pomology Farm<br />
Advisor, Tulare/Kings<br />
County<br />
David Doll<br />
UCCE Farm Advisor, Merced<br />
County<br />
Dr. Brent Holtz<br />
County Director and UCCE<br />
Pomology Farm Advisor,<br />
San Joaquin County<br />
Steven Koike<br />
UCCE Plant Pathology<br />
Farm Advisor<br />
Emily J. Symmes<br />
UCCE IPM Advisor,<br />
Sacramento Valley<br />
Kris Tollerup<br />
UCCE Integrated Pest<br />
Management Advisor,<br />
Parlier, CA<br />
The articles, research, industry updates, company<br />
profiles, and advertisements in this publication are<br />
the professional opinions of writers and advertisers.<br />
Progressive Crop Consultant does not assume any<br />
responsibility for the opinions given in the publication.<br />
32<br />
36<br />
38<br />
Trapping In and Near Mating<br />
Disruption Orchards<br />
Regulatory Challenges Face New<br />
Administration<br />
Applied Association of IPM Ecologists<br />
(AAIE) Conference Overview<br />
Page 4 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
14<br />
18<br />
28<br />
6<br />
32<br />
36<br />
24<br />
10<br />
38<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 5
CITRUS<br />
Managing Citrus Thrips is Especially<br />
Difficult During Drought Years<br />
Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell<br />
Sara Scott<br />
Joshua Reger<br />
Department of Entomology,<br />
UC Riverside<br />
Citrus thrips is a common pest of<br />
California citrus, attacking leaves<br />
and the calyx end of newly forming<br />
fruit, when the epidermal cells are<br />
quite sensitive. In leaves, this causes<br />
distortion of the leaves and light lines<br />
of scarring (Photo 1). When they infest<br />
fruit, their feeding under the calyx at<br />
the stem end leaves a ring-shaped silvery<br />
scar that is retained when the fruit is<br />
mature (Photo 2).<br />
Biology of Citrus Thrips<br />
Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in<br />
leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees<br />
and the hatching 1 st and 2 nd instar larvae<br />
(Photo 3) live on leaves and under the<br />
sepals of fruit. Some thrips pupate in the<br />
cracks and crevices of the tree and about<br />
2/3 drop to the soil to pupate. The adults<br />
emerge, mate and begin laying eggs and<br />
the cycle continues. The first generation<br />
of citrus thrips attacks the new leaf flush<br />
and the 2 nd and 3 rd generations attack the<br />
new fruit. They damage the leaves and<br />
fruit when they repeatedly stick their<br />
needle-like mandible into the epidermal<br />
cells and then suck up the fluids that are<br />
released. Citrus thrips are thigmotactic,<br />
that is they like to be in tight places such<br />
as under the calyx of the fruit. The continuous<br />
piercing of cells is what leaves<br />
a scar and as the fruit grows so the ring<br />
scar grow. The 2 nd instar larvae are more<br />
damaging than the first instar larvae<br />
and the adults cause little damage to<br />
fruit. Fruit that is heavily damaged will<br />
be downgraded from fancy to choice or<br />
even to juice grade, reducing returns for<br />
the grower. Fruit is susceptible to this<br />
type of damage from petal fall until it<br />
reaches about 1.5 inches in diameter and<br />
the cells become difficult for the thrips<br />
to pierce. The fruit sensitive period<br />
ranges from 6-10 weeks after petal fall.<br />
Page 6 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
The next 4-5 generations of thrips feed<br />
on leaf flush and the last generation lays<br />
the eggs that overwinter.<br />
Natural Enemies of Thrips<br />
There are a number of natural enemies<br />
that can attack thrips, but because<br />
the eggs are imbedded in leaves, the<br />
pupae in underground and the larvae<br />
hiding in cracks and crevices, generalist<br />
predators generally don’t reduce<br />
thrips populations quickly enough or<br />
low enough to prevent scarring damage.<br />
One of the best biological control agents<br />
is the predatory mite Euseius tularensis,<br />
which is naturally found on citrus<br />
Photo 1. Distortion of the leaves and<br />
light lines of scarring from citrus thrips.<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
trees and feeds on the 1 st and 2 nd instar<br />
larvae. However, because the predatory<br />
mite feeds on lots of other type of food<br />
(pollen, leaf sap, red mites) it does not<br />
always control citrus thrips at the level<br />
that growers need, and so often insecticides<br />
are necessary. If growers use insecticides<br />
that allow the predatory mites to<br />
survive, they can assist with citrus thrips<br />
control.<br />
Managing Citrus Thrips in Young<br />
Citrus Trees<br />
While it is tempting to treat flush for<br />
Continued on Page 8<br />
Photo 2. Feeding under the calyx at<br />
the stem end leaves a ring-shaped<br />
silvery scar that is retained when the<br />
fruit is mature.<br />
Photo 3. Citrus thrips deposit their eggs in leaves, stems and fruit of citrus trees<br />
and the hatching 1 st and 2 nd instar larvae live on leaves and under the sepals of fruit.<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark Photo Credit: Elizabeth E. Grafton-Cardwell
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 00
Continued from Page 6<br />
citrus thrips to reduce leaf damage, studies<br />
of young navels and Valencia oranges<br />
conducted by Drs. Morse and Grafton-Cardwell<br />
in the 1980-90s demonstrated<br />
that continuously treating on<br />
to three year old trees did not improve<br />
the growth or yield of the trees. Citrus<br />
trees can tolerate extreme amounts of<br />
leaf damage and continue to grow and<br />
produce well. However, there are conditions<br />
where protection is helpful. For<br />
example, the combined impact of citrus<br />
thrips and citrus leafminer (arrived in<br />
California in 2000) on young trees needs<br />
to be studied. Secondly, we have had five<br />
years of severe drought and these hot,<br />
dry conditions promote citrus thrips<br />
populations which can then have an<br />
impact on trees that normally withstand<br />
their damage.<br />
Managing Citrus Thrips in Mature<br />
Citrus Orchards<br />
If a grove is more than three years<br />
old, leaf damage caused by citrus thrips<br />
should be ignored and the focus of<br />
management should be on the new fruit<br />
during the period from petal fall till the<br />
fruit is 1.5 inches in diameter. Minimizing<br />
sprays is important for several<br />
reasons: 1) to reduce the impact on<br />
natural enemies needed for citrus thrips<br />
or other pests and 2) so that resistance<br />
to pesticides doesn’t develop in the<br />
thrips. The more generations of citrus<br />
thrips you treat, the faster resistance<br />
will develop. Starting at petal fall, Pest<br />
Control Advisors (PCAs) sample 100<br />
fruit per site and determine the percent<br />
of fruit with immature citrus thrips. At<br />
petal fall this can be a bit tricky because<br />
western flower thrips will be present and<br />
this species does not damage citrus fruit.<br />
The body shape and activity of these two<br />
species of thrips is very different—citrus<br />
thrips are quick moving, short and stout<br />
while western flower thrips move slowly<br />
in a serpentine fashion and have longer<br />
cigar-shaped bodies. It is important to<br />
wait till there are immature citrus thrips<br />
on the fruit, because in some years, petal<br />
fall does not coincide with the appearance<br />
of immature citrus thrips. During<br />
the organophosphate era, the recommendation<br />
for navels was treat when<br />
there were five percent of fruit infested<br />
with immature thrips and if predatory<br />
mites were in sufficient numbers to<br />
assist (> 0.5 predatory mites/leaf) wait<br />
until there were 10 percent of the fruit<br />
infested. In the current era, of more selective<br />
and slower acting insecticides, the<br />
threshold for tolerance may be lower, but<br />
it is still important to wait till the thrips<br />
immatures are present on young citrus<br />
fruit before treating. No research has<br />
been done on the impact of citrus thrips<br />
on mandarin production and some<br />
varieties may be highly susceptible and<br />
need protection, while others may need<br />
no protection. Finally, citrus thrips are<br />
much harder to control in drought years<br />
than cool wet years. Wet weather helps<br />
to reduce the pupae in the soil, while hot<br />
weather accelerates thrips development<br />
and allows the pupae to survive in the<br />
soil.<br />
Pesticide Resistance<br />
Citrus thrips are very prone to developing<br />
resistance. The developed resistance<br />
to DDT in the 1940s, the organophosphates<br />
and carbamates in the 1980s,<br />
and the pyrethroids in the 1990s. Some<br />
of these insecticides seemed to make the<br />
Page 8 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
thrips ‘mad’, as continued use actually<br />
made thrips populations reproduce<br />
more. Since about 1998, growers have<br />
used primarily the group 5 insecticides<br />
Success/Entrust (spinosad) and Delegate<br />
(spinetoram). Heavy reliance on this<br />
one mode of action is likely to eventually<br />
lead to resistance. Thus growers<br />
are encouraged to minimize insecticide<br />
use and rotate with other thrips effective<br />
insecticides such as group 28 Exirel<br />
(cyantraniliprole), group 6 Agri-Mek/<br />
generics (abamectin) and the botanical<br />
Veratran (sabadilla). Efforts to monitor<br />
for resistance to Delegate and Agri-Mek<br />
are underway.<br />
Citrus Thrips Trial - 2015<br />
During 2015 our group studied the<br />
impact of multiple treatments of insecticides<br />
on the citrus thrips and the level of<br />
fruit scarring that resulted at the end of<br />
the season. The trials took place at Lindcove<br />
Research and Extension Center and<br />
consisted of four replicates of four tree<br />
plots per treatment. Two applications<br />
were made with the same insecticide,<br />
one at petal fall and one two weeks later.<br />
We rated the outside fruit in August for<br />
the percent of severe, light and absence<br />
of scarring. The insecticides applied<br />
were Movento 10 fl oz + .75 percent oil,<br />
Sivanto 14 fl oz + .5 percent oil, Veratran<br />
D 15 lbs, Entrust 10 oz + 0.5 percent<br />
oil, Agri-Mek SC 3.5 oz + 0.5 percent<br />
oil, Delegate 6 oz + 0.5 percent oil, and<br />
Exirel 16 fl oz + 0.5 percent oil. The oil<br />
used was Omni 6E 415 oil. Treatments<br />
were randomly assigned to groups of<br />
trees and applied in 200 gallons of water<br />
per acre on 17 <strong>Apr</strong>il and 4-6 May 2015<br />
with a 100 gallon high pressure D30<br />
diaphragm pump sprayer with mechanical<br />
agitation with a hand wand<br />
sprayer containing a D6 nozzle. The<br />
three insecticides that provided the best<br />
control in terms of reducing the level of<br />
severe scarring caused by citrus thrips<br />
below one percent were Exirel, Delegate,<br />
and Agri-Mek (Figure 1). Other insecticide<br />
groups that reduced severe scarring<br />
to levels between one to three percent<br />
included Entrust, Veratran and Sivanto.<br />
In years when thrips populations are<br />
low, or as second applications, or for<br />
varieties or sites that historically have<br />
low thrips populations, utilizing these<br />
insecticides in rotation with Exirel, Delegate<br />
and Agri-Mek will help to reduce<br />
resistance selection. Of the insecticides<br />
Figure 1. The percentage of scarring that resulted after 2 treatments with each<br />
of the insecticides. All treatments were applied with 0.5 percent oil except for<br />
the Veratran.<br />
% Severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips<br />
Percent severe fruit scarring due to citrus thrips<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
Untreated Movento Sivanto Veratran Entrust Agri-Mek Delegate Exirel<br />
Figure 2. The number of predatory mites per leaf after two treatments of citrus<br />
thrips sprays on <strong>Apr</strong>il 17 and May 4-6, 2015.<br />
2.5<br />
2<br />
1.5<br />
1<br />
0.5<br />
0<br />
24-<strong>Apr</strong> 1-May 8-May 15-May 22-May 29-May<br />
tested, those with the lowest impact on<br />
predatory mites were Veratran, Exirel<br />
and Sivanto and those hardest on predatory<br />
mites were Delegate, Agri-Mek and<br />
Movento (Figure 2). None of the pesticides<br />
completely eliminated predatory<br />
mites, but some reduced predatory mites<br />
below 0.5/leaf needed to assist with control.<br />
Delegate, Agri-Mek and Exirel have<br />
translaminar qualities that are improved<br />
with the addition of oil. Veratran should<br />
not be applied with nutrients and other<br />
chemicals that affect pH—Veratran<br />
needs a pH of 4.5 to be effective. Treatments<br />
should be applied in 200 gpa with<br />
reduced spray blower velocity with the<br />
goal of achieving outside coverage. See<br />
the UCIPM guidelines for citrus thrips<br />
Predatory mites per leaf<br />
Untreated Sivanto Delegate Agri-Mek<br />
Exirel Veratran Movento Entrust<br />
2nd application 4-6 May<br />
for more application details http://ipm.<br />
ucanr.edu/PMG/r107301711.html.<br />
All of the insecticides used for citrus<br />
thrips, except for Veratran, are also<br />
effective against the Asian citrus psyllid.<br />
When considering a petal fall spray, and<br />
if the grove is an ACP infested area, be<br />
sure to include one of these treatments to<br />
have an effect on both pest populations.<br />
As treatments for Asian citrus psyllid<br />
increase, the selection pressure will increase<br />
the risk of pesticide resistance and<br />
it will become even more important to<br />
rotate insecticides to manage resistance<br />
for both of these pests.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 9
BERRIES<br />
Photo Credit: <strong>Mar</strong>k Bolda<br />
Exploring Biological Fungicides as an<br />
Alternative to Methyl Bromide Fumigation<br />
Page 10 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>k Bolda<br />
UCCE Farm Advisor,<br />
Santa Cruz County<br />
With the recent prohibition of the<br />
fumigant methyl bromide for preplant<br />
soil disinfestation, California berry<br />
growers face very real challenges to their<br />
customary profitable crops of strawberries<br />
and caneberries in the years to come.<br />
The disease complex formerly controlled<br />
by methyl bromide is creating trouble for<br />
these cropping systems. The well-known<br />
and widespread diseases caused by Verticillium<br />
and Phytophthora are now being<br />
joined in recent years by the pathogens<br />
Fusarium and Macrophomina. The threat<br />
to California berries, both actual and<br />
potential, is not insignificant.<br />
While a decent amount of research has<br />
been done on methyl bromide alternatives<br />
such as formulations of chloropicrin<br />
and the yet to be registered Dominus (allyl<br />
isothiocyanate also known by some as<br />
“mustard seed oil”), the challenging mix<br />
of diseases currently in place means that<br />
researchers in the field must be considering<br />
all the options and in particular will<br />
benefit by investigating an integration of<br />
solutions and methods.<br />
When we speak of integrating solutions,<br />
we are talking about using materials<br />
and methods alongside the methyl<br />
bromide chemical fumigant alternatives.<br />
Some researchers have found promise<br />
with the use of a fumigant alternative<br />
followed by the incorporation of soil<br />
amendments such as rice bran, mustard<br />
seed meal or crushed crab shells, while<br />
others see success with the application of<br />
various mixtures of compost.<br />
Another area which has garnered more<br />
than a little interest for the post methyl<br />
bromide era in the berry farming community<br />
has been that of using of biological<br />
fungicides. A biological fungicide<br />
is a formulation of organisms such as<br />
bacteria or fungi which can offer benefit<br />
to the plants and the soils around them.<br />
While many different modes of actions to<br />
generate this benefit for these materials<br />
are claimed, in the main these organisms<br />
theoretically colonize the plant’s roots<br />
and the soil around them, facilitating the<br />
plant uptake of nutrients and in some<br />
cases offer a measure of root protection<br />
against pathogens by either competitively<br />
excluding pathogens or actively suppressing<br />
them.<br />
UC Cooperative Extension in Santa<br />
Cruz County has not been idle over the<br />
past few years and has taken a very hard<br />
look at a number of these biological<br />
fungicides in the field, either when used<br />
alone and in combination. These materials<br />
included formulations of Trichoderma<br />
asperellum and Trichoderma gamsii,<br />
bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus<br />
amyloliquefaciens, the actinobacterium<br />
Streptomyces lydicus and we have tested<br />
them both as plant dips as well as in season<br />
drip tape applications.<br />
The first trial in 2012-13 was run in an<br />
organic field well infested with both Verticillium<br />
and Macrophomina, and tested<br />
a slate of biological fungicides, including<br />
Serenade, Double Nickel 55, Actinovate,<br />
Soilguard, Biotam and a group of<br />
formulations from the Tainio company.<br />
Transplants were initially dipped in<br />
suspension of water and the product for<br />
a few minutes and then held overnight,<br />
ostensibly to allow the biological fungicide<br />
to establish itself, and then planted<br />
the next day. In most cases, follow up applications<br />
of the same biological fungicide<br />
were injected through the drip system<br />
on a monthly basis after planting. The<br />
reason for monthly applications through<br />
the drip tape shared with me by manufacturers<br />
and distributors has been that these<br />
biologicals do not establish themselves<br />
very well in the soil and hence need to be<br />
augmented from time to time.<br />
In this first test done in 2012-13, a<br />
number of materials clearly had an effect
on early strawberry plant performance.<br />
Several treatments had larger plants in<br />
the first few months of development<br />
after planting in November than those<br />
left untreated, and the standout was both<br />
rates of Actinovate (one at the rate of 3 oz<br />
per acre and the other 6 oz per acre). This<br />
effect of larger plants for several of the<br />
treatments continued to fruit production<br />
in the first month and a half of fruit production<br />
(that being <strong>Apr</strong>il and the first two<br />
weeks of May) and in particular the effect<br />
on more fruiting was most pronounced in<br />
the two Actinovate treatments. Nevertheless,<br />
this remarkable result did not<br />
translate to higher season total fruit yields<br />
nor immunity to the two soil diseases in<br />
any of the treatments – in fact, treatments<br />
using Actinovate collapsed by mid-July<br />
right along with the untreated control and<br />
other biological fungicide test plots.<br />
Impressed sufficiently by this first year<br />
result that several biological fungicides,<br />
while not appearing to have the ability<br />
to protect strawberry plants from soil<br />
disease, were yet able to have a positive, if<br />
temporary, effect on plant performance,<br />
I proceeded to include some of these in<br />
other tests of methyl bromide alternatives.<br />
With the above in mind, in the 2013-<br />
2014 season we applied several biological<br />
fungicides (those being Serenade,<br />
Actinovate, Soilguard, Double Nickel 55<br />
and a suite of Tainio products) to a field<br />
subjected to the methyl bromide alternative<br />
method anaerobic soil infestation, the<br />
method of adding a carbon source to the<br />
soil, in this case rice bran at nine tons per<br />
acre, followed by the application of large<br />
amounts of water to induce an aerobic<br />
condition, and creating an environment<br />
less amenable to soil pathogens. The<br />
placement of these treatments in anaerobic<br />
soil disinfestation was mirrored by the<br />
same pattern of treatments in a portion of<br />
the field not subjected to this method.<br />
Again, in this study fruit yield in areas<br />
of anaerobic soil disinfestation followed<br />
by plant treatment with Actinovate<br />
was significantly higher than any other<br />
treatment through the first two weeks of<br />
May. However, this effect did not persist<br />
through the season and total yields at by<br />
the end of the season were not significantly<br />
different between any of the treatments,<br />
whether or not they had been treated<br />
with a biological fungicide or not.<br />
That said, all plots treated with anaerobic<br />
soil disinfestation significantly out<br />
yielded those which had not been treated.<br />
It appears then that at least through the<br />
early part of the season through May that<br />
combining anaerobic soil disinfestation<br />
with Actinovate would arrive at the most<br />
preferable result for that period of time.<br />
In the 2014-2015 season, we placed<br />
Actinovate into a trial looking at amending<br />
soil treated with and without Dominus<br />
(allyl isothiocyanate or “mustard seed<br />
oil”) compared to a grower standard of<br />
methyl bromide plus chloropicrin. The<br />
results in this trial were different from<br />
previous results, in that early yield of<br />
strawberry fruit was less affected while<br />
over the whole season fruit yields of the<br />
untreated control with Actinovate added<br />
were positively affected.<br />
In the 2015-2016 strawberry season,<br />
based on findings on other studies, we<br />
sought to amplify the efficacy of Dominus<br />
by following its application several weeks<br />
later with an application of 1.5 tons per<br />
acre of milled mustard seed meal. While<br />
early season effects on plant size were significant<br />
in Dominus plots followed by the<br />
Continued on Page 12<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 11
Continued from Page 11<br />
mustard seed meal soil amendment, early<br />
season and season total fruit yields were<br />
not different between the treatments.<br />
Neither did the addition of Actinovate<br />
in these treatments result in significantly<br />
higher early or season total yields of fruit.<br />
Notably however, the addition of mustard<br />
seed meal or Actinovate to plots not fumigated<br />
with either the grower standard<br />
or Dominus resulted in significantly higher<br />
yields both in the early season and the<br />
whole season than those plots left alone.<br />
In sum, in our own UCCE trials, I have<br />
not observed much in the way of defense<br />
against pathogens with any of these biological<br />
fungicides, but have observed early<br />
plant response in strawberry from some<br />
of them, in particular with the use Actinovate,<br />
(Streptomyces lydicus). Generally,<br />
plant response looks like significantly<br />
larger plants than those not treated in the<br />
first few months after transplant, followed<br />
by two months of significantly higher<br />
fruit production, usually in the range of<br />
10 to 20 percent than in an otherwise<br />
untreated crop. Later on in the season,<br />
from June on in strawberries, the effect of<br />
these materials has not been noticeable.<br />
To be clear, now that we have done<br />
research on a slate of biological control<br />
products for the last three years, I will<br />
state that these materials should NOT be<br />
considered as alternatives to our current<br />
fumigation and other soil pre-plant<br />
preparation practices. Rather we should<br />
be seeing these materials as being able<br />
to play a role in improving plant performance,<br />
especially in the early part of the<br />
season. With that in mind, I encourage<br />
growers to test them and find out for<br />
themselves which materials may or may<br />
not work for them in their particular<br />
situation.<br />
The above article has been a description<br />
of the functionality of biological<br />
fungicides in improving strawberry plant<br />
performance in strawberry. While these<br />
materials are not pesticides, one needs to<br />
obey the instructions given on the label<br />
for each product, and consult the manufacturer<br />
or county Agricultural Commissioner<br />
should questions arise. If you have<br />
further questions on this topic, or any<br />
other topics concerning strawberry, raspberry<br />
or blackberry production, please<br />
contact <strong>Mar</strong>k Bolda at UCCE Santa Cruz.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
Page 12 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
K File #<br />
727<br />
CROP | ALMONDS<br />
PROBLEM | YIELD-DAMAGING CHLORIDE<br />
SOLUTION | NOURISH WITH PROTASSIUM+ TM<br />
the case<br />
against chlori de<br />
Why Almond Growers Are Using Low-Chloride Protassium+<br />
Growers know that potassium<br />
applications are essential in almond<br />
production. Since almond trees<br />
are extremely chloride-sensitive,<br />
it is paramount to apply the<br />
right K source for tree health,<br />
yield and quality.<br />
Protassium+ premium<br />
sulfate of potash (0-0-50-17S)<br />
has less than 1% chloride and<br />
the lowest salt index per unit<br />
of K 2 O of all major potassium<br />
sources, helping ensure proper<br />
root function and nutrient<br />
uptake. Nourish your almond<br />
orchards with Protassium+,<br />
a premium K source that helps<br />
almond trees reach their full yield potential.<br />
Contact your local retailer or<br />
Compass Minerals at 800.743.7258.<br />
THE NEED FOR<br />
POTASSIUM<br />
Almonds remove<br />
90 lbs. of K 2O per<br />
1,000 lbs. of nuts<br />
produced 1 , so replenishment is<br />
vital. Once trees have a potassium<br />
deficiency, it can take years to rebuild K<br />
concentrations for optimum tree health.<br />
TWO ESSENTIAL<br />
NUTRIENTS<br />
K<br />
Protassium+ provides<br />
almond trees with readily<br />
available sulfate sulfur.<br />
Without the 17% sulfate sulfur<br />
found in Protassium+, orchards will lack<br />
the sulfur needed to produce top yields 2 .<br />
MORE TO OFFER<br />
Protassium+ is available<br />
in a wide variety of grades<br />
to provide application<br />
flexibility to any almond operation:<br />
• Granular<br />
• Soluble Powders<br />
• Certified Organic Powders<br />
• Premixed Liquid<br />
THE PROTASSIUM+ DIFFERENCE<br />
Protassium+ nourishes almond orchards<br />
with high potassium and sulfate sulfur<br />
to promote greater nutrient uptake and<br />
better nut setting.<br />
PROTASSIUMPLUS.COM<br />
©<strong>2017</strong> Compass Minerals. All rights reserved. 1 E.J. Reidel, P.H. Brown, R.A. Duncan, S.A. Weinbaum, Almond Productivity as Related<br />
to Tissue Potassium. Better Crops/Vol. 85, 2001, No. 3 Adapted from Edstrom et al., 2008. protassiumplus.com/surveying-the-need-in-almonds<br />
2<br />
Neal Kinsey and Charles Waters, Hands-On Agronomy, Acres U.S.A., August 1999. protassiumplus.com/a-study-of-sulfurs-role-in-almonds
GRAPES<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
Powdery Mildew Remains an Issue<br />
for Grapes<br />
Kathy Coatney<br />
Editor<br />
Powdery mildew is caused by the<br />
fungus Uncinula necator, and it<br />
has been a problem for California<br />
grapes since commercial production<br />
started over a century ago.<br />
Powdery mildew is the most serious<br />
and widespread disease in California<br />
vineyards in terms of yield<br />
loss and control. Even with consistent<br />
control measures, in some<br />
years, there can still be heavy losses,<br />
especially in susceptible varieties.<br />
Lindsay Jordan, University of<br />
California Cooperative Extension<br />
(UCCE) Viticulture Area Advisor<br />
for Madera, Merced and <strong>Mar</strong>iposa<br />
Counties, said, “It (powdery mildew)<br />
has been a serious and probably<br />
the single largest disease control<br />
Scarring on canes resulting from powdery mildew shoot infection.<br />
issue we have for the whole state.<br />
And that has been the case for a<br />
long time, and it’s going to continue<br />
to be.”<br />
Climate<br />
Powdery mildew thrives in temperatures<br />
between 70 and 85 degrees,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
Vineyards that have high summer<br />
temperatures may have reduced<br />
problems with powdery mildew, but<br />
vineyards with moderate temperatures<br />
for extended periods of time,<br />
even with good control programs,<br />
may continue to have problems with<br />
powdery mildew.<br />
Weather conditions do effect<br />
powdery mildew. “In general, the<br />
coast is going to be a little more<br />
subject to it (powdery mildew) than<br />
the hotter inland regions,” Jordan<br />
said.<br />
“If you’re in a region that’s<br />
cooler, you just have more hours in<br />
that 70-85 degree range in the heat<br />
of summer,” Jordan said, and these<br />
areas are more susceptible because<br />
these are ideal temperatures for the<br />
fungus to thrive.<br />
Powdery Mildew<br />
Powdery mildew does need some<br />
water or moisture at the beginning<br />
of the season to trigger spore release,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“It doesn’t technically need to<br />
be a rain event,” Jordan continued,<br />
adding it could be overhead irrigation<br />
used during a frost, heavy fog,<br />
or even mist.<br />
Powdery mildew is unique in that<br />
the grape fungus does not need water<br />
to continue to propagate, Jordan<br />
said.<br />
Powdery mildew also prefers new<br />
tissues. “That’s why when vines<br />
have young shoot growth they’re<br />
all very susceptible, because that<br />
young, green, succulent tissue is<br />
Powdery mildew, Erysiphe necator, on grape leaf.<br />
Page 14 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
Continued on Page 16
Beautiful<br />
FROM BLOOM TO HARVEST<br />
From bloom to harvest, Luna ® fungicide protects wine grapes throughout the growing season, improving plant health<br />
for beautiful crops and abundant grape harvests season after season. As a breakthrough systemic fungicide, Luna<br />
provides outstanding control of Powdery mildew, Botrytis and other problematic diseases. Make Luna a cornerstone of<br />
your fungicide program to consistently produce a high-quality crop – and more of it.<br />
Find out what Luna can do for you at LunaFungicides.com/grape.<br />
© <strong>2017</strong> 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<br />
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<br />
www.CropScience.Bayer.us.<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 15
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
Continued from Page 14<br />
susceptible,” Jordan said.<br />
The same is true after berry set,<br />
Jordan continued. “That’s new,<br />
young, juvenile tissue and powdery<br />
mildew can attack that.”<br />
There is less concern about pow-<br />
dery mildew at the end of the season,<br />
because of the hot summer days<br />
and a lack of new growth makes it<br />
less conducive to the disease—so<br />
long as the powdery mildew was<br />
successfully controlled early in the<br />
season, Jordan said.<br />
“Obviously, if you get a bad infection<br />
and it sticks around, that’s a<br />
different story,” Jordan said.<br />
Susceptible Varieties<br />
Some varieties, like Chardonnay,<br />
are more susceptible than others,<br />
and they are just naturally more<br />
inclined to powdery mildew. But if<br />
it’s a high pressure year, any variety<br />
could have problems with the disease,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“I always say if it’s a bad powdery<br />
mildew year, it might be particularly<br />
bad on those very susceptible varieties.<br />
But ironically, those might<br />
be the growers who have a stronger<br />
control program in place,” Jordan<br />
said.<br />
“Even if you’re growing a variety<br />
where it might not always be a problem,<br />
in a bad year it could become<br />
a problem for you very rapidly,”<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“If you know you’re in a bad year,<br />
you do have a series of decisions you<br />
make in addition to, ‘Oh I need to<br />
go spray’,” Jordan said.<br />
Illustration adapted from Grape Pest Management. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Agric. Nat. Res. Publ. 3343.<br />
Powdery mildew on Thompson Seedless grapes.<br />
Powdery mildew life cycle on grape.<br />
Page 16 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
• What’s your canopy look like?<br />
• What spray timing are you considering?<br />
• What products are you using?<br />
If the rains continue into the<br />
spring this year, it could create<br />
problems with powdery mildew for<br />
all varieties, Jordan said.<br />
Treatment<br />
“Sulfur is still widely and incredibly<br />
used throughout the grape<br />
industry. We’ve known about it for<br />
well over a century, probably closer<br />
to two centuries now. It works,<br />
there is no known resistance to it,<br />
and frankly, it’s affordable,” Jordan<br />
said.<br />
There are issues with sulfur in<br />
terms of restrictions from wineries<br />
as well as environmental conditions,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“Synthetics (fungicides) offer us<br />
other tools for managing powdery<br />
mildew,” Jordan said.<br />
“It’s always important to consider<br />
resistance management in a<br />
powdery mildew control program<br />
and look at rotating your modes of<br />
action,” Jordan said.<br />
There are documented cases of
esistance, and work is being done<br />
out of Washington State and UC<br />
Davis. They are looking specifically<br />
at resistance to powdery mildew,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
Sprayer calibration is also important<br />
when making a spray application.<br />
“This is so vastly important<br />
and under talked about,” Jordan<br />
stressed.<br />
• Is the spray being applied where<br />
it’s needed?<br />
• Are the nozzles angled correctly?<br />
• Is the fruit being hit by the spray?<br />
• Has shoot and leaf thinning been<br />
done for better spray penetration?<br />
Preventative v Curative<br />
The best control for powdery<br />
mildew is a preventative program,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“Powdery mildew can be a problem<br />
on any variety if you don’t have<br />
the proper preventive management,”<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“Frankly, there’s not a lot of really<br />
good options for curative treatment,”<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“The biggest thing I think we<br />
have to remember with a lot of our<br />
fungicides programs is, they’re really<br />
preventative. We don’t have curative—no<br />
real true arsenal of curative<br />
options,” Jordan said.<br />
“There’s a few things you can do,<br />
but those are things you don’t want<br />
to have to be doing. You want to<br />
be using your fungicide program<br />
effectively as a preventative measure<br />
before infection gets there,” Jordan<br />
said.<br />
Make sure and stay on top of the<br />
spray intervals, and remember that<br />
vines don’t work off the calendar.<br />
They work off seasonal climate conditions,<br />
Jordan said.<br />
This could mean making spray<br />
applications earlier than is historically<br />
the norm, or later if it stays<br />
cooler, Jordan said.<br />
Monitoring for powdery mildew<br />
in the field is also advised. I think<br />
it’s important to scout and look for<br />
visual signs of infection, Jordan<br />
said.<br />
Going into a potentially high<br />
pressure year means it’s important<br />
to use preventative products effectively,<br />
and not scramble when there’s<br />
rain in the forecast to get out in the<br />
field and spray, Jordan said.<br />
“That should have already been<br />
a decision you’ve made because you<br />
know your interval was that date,”<br />
Jordan said.<br />
“Realistically, knowing it’s been<br />
rainy, it shouldn’t come as a surprise<br />
to you in your management, and it<br />
should be taken into account,” Jordan<br />
said, whether it’s using a product<br />
that has a longer interval period,<br />
or using a synthetic fungicide earlier<br />
in the season that hasn’t been used<br />
2015<br />
Yield<br />
Jumbo<br />
Large<br />
Light color<br />
Edible Yield<br />
2016<br />
Yield<br />
Jumbo<br />
Large<br />
Light color<br />
Edible Yield<br />
before.<br />
Oftentimes this can mean spending<br />
more money, but maybe that’s<br />
what fits the program as opposed to<br />
having to rely on every seven days<br />
or so for sulfur, Jordan said.<br />
It all comes down to managing to<br />
the conditions that are there, Jordan<br />
said.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
AfriKelp<br />
®<br />
in Walnut<br />
Increase Set and Size<br />
Spray 3-4 pts/ac foliar applications at catkin elongation and pistillate bloom..<br />
Yield and Size in Chandler. 2012 - Chile<br />
Control AfriKelp ®<br />
Yield (Ton/ac) 1.88 1.94<br />
Kernel size (g) 6.39 8.23<br />
Yield and Sizes on Chandler for 2<br />
Seasons. 2015 and 2016. CA, USA<br />
Control<br />
4098<br />
83%<br />
5%<br />
81%<br />
42.98%<br />
Control<br />
3906<br />
58%<br />
20%<br />
90%<br />
43.72%<br />
AfriKelp ®<br />
4640<br />
84%<br />
4%<br />
90%<br />
45.8%<br />
AfriKelp ®<br />
5122<br />
69%<br />
15%<br />
91%<br />
43.18%<br />
www.afrikelpusa.com<br />
1-877-AKUSA26<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 17
WORKER SAFETY<br />
The Latest in Agricultural Worker Safety<br />
Amy Wolfe, MPPA, CFRE<br />
President and CEO, AgSafe<br />
In assessing the state of the industry,<br />
much of the focus over the last year<br />
has been on human resources-related<br />
issues—non-productive time and<br />
the safe harbor program, a change to<br />
worker overtime and much more. It’s<br />
easy to be caught up in those headaches<br />
and not realize issues relating<br />
to worker safety continue to be an<br />
ever-present part of our lives. We’ve<br />
struggled to varying degrees through<br />
our busy season with fairly route<br />
requirements and have sweeping new<br />
regulations looming on the horizon.<br />
No matter how complicated things get<br />
with the business, these trends tell us<br />
that worker safety must always remain<br />
a high priority.<br />
2016 Season Incident Trends<br />
The enforcement team at the<br />
California Department of Industrial<br />
Relations, Division of Occupational<br />
Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) was out<br />
Lighting Distance<br />
0.5 Foot-Candle<br />
1.0 Foot-Candle<br />
2.0 Foot-Candles<br />
5.0 Foot-Candles<br />
in full force throughout 2016, continuing<br />
to focus efforts on the issues they<br />
deem are most critical to agriculture,<br />
starting with heat. As in 2015, the<br />
industry struggled with addressing the<br />
paperwork side of the regulation that<br />
was changed last year. Many citations<br />
were issued for failing to include the<br />
details of that update in companies’<br />
Heat Illness Prevention Plans, most<br />
notably not making the plan available<br />
to workers (or Cal/OSHA) in the field.<br />
As an enforcement staff member noted,<br />
these plans should not be a secret. It<br />
is in the employer and employees’ best<br />
interest to make it available to anyone<br />
and everyone—the more who know,<br />
the better prepared they will be to respond<br />
in a heat-related emergency.<br />
Another notable trend from last<br />
year’s inspections was the failure of<br />
companies to actually implement the<br />
elements outlined in their Injury and<br />
Illness Prevention Programs (IIPP),<br />
specifically with reference to hazard<br />
identification and control. A number<br />
of citations were issued to businesses<br />
Locations<br />
Offices<br />
Locker Rooms<br />
Storage Yards<br />
Loading Areas<br />
Warehouses<br />
Corridors<br />
Washrooms (Bathrooms/Portable Bathrooms)<br />
Spray Booths<br />
Inspection<br />
Elevators<br />
Stairways<br />
Assembly Areas<br />
Layout Areas<br />
Engine Rooms<br />
Processing Areas<br />
Machine/Woodworking Shops<br />
Steel Metal Works<br />
for including protocol around conducting<br />
hazard inspections and a process to<br />
address those issues but failing to actually<br />
follow any of those steps. There<br />
are two critical elements to note from<br />
this. The first is that hazard assessment<br />
and correction is a requirement of an<br />
IIPP so this must be addressed in some<br />
form or fashion. The second, and more<br />
critical execution lesson, is that companies<br />
should not include protocol that<br />
cannot be followed. Set your business<br />
up for success by creating a process<br />
that is both realistic and compliant.<br />
A longer, more intricate policy is not<br />
necessarily better and, as many ag employers<br />
learned last year, can actually<br />
backfire if you’re not implementing the<br />
program. And don’t forget, this isn’t<br />
limited to hazard assessment—this<br />
important reminder applies to all your<br />
written safety programs.<br />
Finally, Cal/OSHA spent time in<br />
2016 beginning to educate the industry<br />
about impending penalty structure<br />
increases. As a result of Federal<br />
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Cal/<br />
OSHA will have to make changes to<br />
its penalty structure to ensure they are<br />
at least as effective as Federal OSHA.<br />
This means, for example, that General/<br />
Regulatory Citations will increase from<br />
$7,000 to $12,400 and Willful/Repeat<br />
Citations from $70,000 to $124,000.<br />
These maximums will also be annually<br />
adjusted for inflation. Based on current<br />
implementation estimates, these<br />
penalties should take effect in February<br />
<strong>2017</strong>* but that is not a firm deadline.<br />
AgSafe will continue to keep the industry<br />
apprised of these changes and when<br />
the date is confirmed.<br />
Agricultural Night Work Regulatory<br />
Proposal<br />
The California Department of Industrial<br />
Relations, Division of Occupational<br />
Safety and Health Standards<br />
Board (Cal/OSHASB) has been considering<br />
revising existing and creating<br />
* Timeline as known at the time of publication.<br />
Page 18 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
new regulations for agricultural night<br />
work. The working draft currently addresses<br />
issues including high visibility<br />
protective clothing for workers, specific<br />
illumination requirements within<br />
agricultural operations and the creation<br />
of specific traffic plans. Although<br />
these regulations are currently being<br />
developed, it is important for employers<br />
to be aware that a portion of these<br />
changes are to existing regulations that<br />
impact all industries.<br />
Currently, the California Code of<br />
Regulations, Title 8, Section 3317, specific<br />
to illumination, defines night work<br />
as an activity taking place between one<br />
hour before dusk through one hour<br />
after dawn. That same regulation also<br />
provides stationary lighting requirements<br />
for all industries to follow.<br />
It is important to note that the<br />
standard is written in foot-candles but<br />
most light bulbs are sold with their<br />
lumens count. There are 10.76 lumens<br />
in 1 foot-candle.<br />
To assure compliance with these levels<br />
at all times, the initial reading needs<br />
to be higher in order to compensate for<br />
the decrease of light output of lamps<br />
with age and to the accumulation of<br />
dirt on lamps and room surfaces.<br />
The California Code of Regulation,<br />
Title 8, Section 3441 details lighting<br />
requirements for tractors and self-propelled<br />
equipment, including ATVs.<br />
That standard notes that all equipment<br />
must have a minimum of one<br />
headlight that will illuminate the area<br />
in front of the equipment at least 50<br />
feet. There shall also be a minimum<br />
of one rear light illuminating the back<br />
of the equipment. Additional lighting<br />
shall be provided where the operation<br />
requires field adjustment or the<br />
operator’s attention, such as employees<br />
working in the vicinity of self-propelled<br />
equipment.<br />
In addition, employers should ensure<br />
their Injury and Illness Prevention<br />
Program (IIPP) addresses the unique<br />
issues of working at night. Worksites<br />
should be inspected under actual work<br />
conditions at night for potential hazards<br />
and those issues corrected accordingly.<br />
Workers should receive safety<br />
training for general conditions unique<br />
to night work, equipment, operations,<br />
and the plan for emergency situations<br />
given the differences at night. Emergency<br />
action plans need to be updated<br />
to reflect such circumstances as medical<br />
facilities available during the day<br />
may not be open at night.<br />
Workers harvest grapes at night and are provided high visibility vests as well<br />
as supplemental lighting to ensure they can work safely at night.<br />
New Indoor Heat Illness Prevention<br />
Standard Coming<br />
In October 2016, Governor Brown<br />
signed into law Senate Bill 1167,<br />
sponsored by Senator Tony Mendoza<br />
of Artesia. The bill directs the Department<br />
of Industrial Relations, Division<br />
of Occupational Safety and Health<br />
(Cal/OSHA) to adopt a standard that<br />
specifically addresses the heat-related<br />
hazards impacting indoor workers.<br />
Cal/OSHA will begin the rulemaking<br />
process in January <strong>2017</strong> and must<br />
have a proposed regulation to the Cal/<br />
OSHA Standard Board by January 1,<br />
2019.<br />
When addressing the creation of a<br />
new standard, the Cal/OSHA enforcement<br />
team will undertake a number of<br />
important steps. The first is to review<br />
data related to previous citations to<br />
help best identify the core issues. In<br />
speaking with a member of that team,<br />
he noted that Cal/OSHA has previously<br />
cited employers for indoor heat-related<br />
injuries and illnesses under the auspices<br />
of the California Code of Regulations,<br />
Title 8, Section 3203, Injury and<br />
Illness Prevention Programs (§3203).<br />
Section 3203 very clearly states that<br />
an employer is responsible for identifying<br />
and correcting any occupational<br />
hazards. The division’s current enforcement<br />
has centered around employers’<br />
failure to adequately identify<br />
the sources of indoor heat as a hazard<br />
and/or take the appropriate steps to<br />
mitigate this risk.<br />
That being said, many employers<br />
have identified indoor heat as an issue<br />
and as such, there are two commonplace<br />
engineered solutions that will be<br />
critical elements in this new standard.<br />
Cal/OSHA staff recognize that the use<br />
of heating, cooling and ventilation<br />
systems (HVAC) is the most common<br />
mechanism to mitigate indoor heat.<br />
California Code of Regulations, Title<br />
8, Section 5142 specifically addresses<br />
mechanically driven HVAC systems<br />
to provide minimum building ventilation.<br />
It stands to reason that the new<br />
indoor heat illness prevention standard<br />
will reference and ideally compliment<br />
Section 5142 as one of the primary<br />
engineering solutions for minimizing<br />
this risk.<br />
Continued on Page 22<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 19
UCCE – Kern County four-year trials show:<br />
MOVENTO ® SUPPRESSES ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES BY 68%<br />
NUMBER OF NEMATODES<br />
THE NEMATODE THREAT TO<br />
VINE LONGEVITY<br />
& YIELD<br />
Nematodes are microscopic roundworms that feed<br />
on plant roots, causing devastating vigor and yield<br />
reduction across the vineyard. According to the<br />
University of California, above-ground symptoms of<br />
nematode damage are mostly unthrifty vines.<br />
Nematode infestations are commonly found in<br />
areas of the vineyard where vines lack vigor,<br />
growth and abundant yields. Effective nematode<br />
management relies on a variety of measures that<br />
can help enhance vine longevity and yield.<br />
MAR-10<br />
JUL-10<br />
NOV-10<br />
MAR-11<br />
JUL-11<br />
NOV-11<br />
MAR-12<br />
JUL-12<br />
NOV-12<br />
MAR-13<br />
JUL-13<br />
Four-year trials show Movento insecticide/nematicide combined with Admire Pro<br />
insecticide from Bayer provides long-lasting efficacy against root-knot nematodes.<br />
68 %<br />
SUPPRESSION<br />
OF ROOT-KNOT<br />
NEMATODES<br />
GROWERS CAN’T SEE<br />
UNTREATED<br />
UNIVERSITY OF<br />
CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE<br />
EXTENSION TRIALS SHOW:<br />
Early May & post-harvest applications<br />
of Movento can help result in:<br />
94 %<br />
CONTROL OF<br />
MEALYBUG<br />
ADVERTORIAL<br />
ADMIRE ® PRO 14 oz.<br />
MOVENTO ® 6 oz.<br />
NEMATODES<br />
CAUSED<br />
$157 B<br />
IN YIELD LOSS<br />
WORLDWIDE 1<br />
ROOT-KNOT<br />
NEMATODES<br />
CAUSED<br />
$ 1 BILLION<br />
IN ANNUAL LOSSES<br />
TO THE WINE<br />
INDUSTRY<br />
NEMATODES BEST<br />
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 2<br />
Field evaluation and nematode<br />
sampling: It is crucial to identify<br />
the nematode species present<br />
and estimate the population size<br />
through nematode sampling.<br />
Vineyard preparation pays off:<br />
Vineyard preparation can also include<br />
the use of fumigation, where suitable,<br />
to help lower nematode populations<br />
when initially planting a vineyard.<br />
Virus transmission considerations:<br />
Some nematodes are vectors to plant<br />
diseases that should be eliminated<br />
before establishing new vineyards.<br />
Crop protection products: Movento,<br />
applied as a foliar application, is a<br />
nematode management tool that<br />
will translocate to roots where<br />
nematodes feed, providing an<br />
easy way to manage nematodes.<br />
Rootstocks: Plant only certified<br />
nematode-free or nematoderesistant<br />
rootstocks.<br />
Root health: A healthy soil can<br />
help plant growth while providing<br />
organic matter decomposition,<br />
nutrient cycling, fertility and water<br />
purification, helping the plant better<br />
tolerate nematode populations.<br />
Good weed management helps:<br />
Use herbicides at fallow since various<br />
weeds are hosts to nematodes.<br />
Sanitation: Use appropriate<br />
sanitation practices. Avoid moving<br />
soil between fields. Clean equipment<br />
of soil before relocating to<br />
different fields.<br />
Cultural practices: Manures and<br />
soil amendments can improve vine<br />
vigor and reduce the impact of<br />
nematodes.<br />
LEARN MORE<br />
AT MOVENTO.US.<br />
1 “Nematodes: “A Threat to Sustainability of Agriculture,” Satyandra Singh, Bijendra Singh and A. P. Singh.<br />
2 University of California Integrated Pest Management Program.<br />
© <strong>2017</strong> Bayer CropScience LP, 2 TW Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Always read and follow<br />
label instructions. Bayer, the Bayer Cross, Admire, and Movento are registered trademarks of Bayer. Not all products<br />
are registered for use in every state. For additional product information, call toll-free 1-866-99-BAYER<br />
(1-866-992-2937) or visit our website at www.CropScience.Bayer.us.
THAT’S HOW MOVENTO ® INSECTICIDE MAKES GRAPES FEEL.<br />
Movento ® insecticide delivers powerful two-way movement within the vine to protect the parts pests<br />
seek most, from new shoot growth to roots. This results in long-lasting, reliable protection against above-ground<br />
pests like mealybugs and below-ground pests like nematodes and phylloxera. With Movento as part of your<br />
ongoing pest management program, you’ll have stronger, healthier vines that produce a higher quality crop year<br />
over year. For more information, contact your retailer or Bayer representative or visit www.Movento.us.<br />
© <strong>2017</strong> 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<br />
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.<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 00
Photo Credit: Inspect USA<br />
Continued from Page 19<br />
The other recognized engineered<br />
solution is commonly referred to as<br />
shielding. This involves the identification<br />
of specific sources of indoor<br />
heat, such as from a pasteurizer, and<br />
building a physical shield that creates<br />
a barrier from the source of heat.<br />
Employers have also built workstations<br />
located throughout facilities with geographically<br />
widespread sources of heat<br />
that provide cooled areas for employees.<br />
For example, enclosed booths with<br />
air conditioning placed throughout a<br />
plant that allow workers to complete<br />
tasks—including monitoring activities<br />
in the plant—but in a cooled environment,<br />
is an appropriate mitigation of<br />
indoor heat risk.<br />
While there are clear best practices<br />
that will become part of this new<br />
standard, many questions still linger.<br />
For instance, the outdoor heat-illness<br />
prevention standard considers solar<br />
load component. This is the idea that<br />
you add 15 degrees Fahrenheit to the<br />
ambient temperature to account for<br />
the effect of the sun beating down on<br />
you. Currently there is no recognized<br />
equivalent to solar load component for<br />
indoor workers and understandably<br />
so. The variance across industries,<br />
since this standard will not be limited<br />
to agriculture and food manufacturing,<br />
along with the potential sources of heat<br />
Page 22 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
and type of work being done present<br />
a significant challenge to developing<br />
a universal and appropriate metric.<br />
According to the staff member at Cal/<br />
OSHA, a standard metric will need to<br />
be created to ensure consistency in the<br />
application of any regulation.<br />
Now What?<br />
While it’s all well and good to have a<br />
general understanding of how the new<br />
indoor heat-illness prevention standard<br />
will take shape, it’s logical to ask<br />
“so now what?” There are two critical<br />
action items to consider when moving<br />
forward in the coming year. The first is<br />
that the Cal/OSHA rulemaking process<br />
usually includes the creation of a<br />
voluntary advisory committee made up<br />
of stakeholders potentially impacted by<br />
the new standard. If Cal/OSHA does<br />
assemble a committee, it is critical that<br />
agriculture and food manufacturing<br />
have a large presence. Our trade associations<br />
and AgSafe will participate,<br />
as is customary, but you as growers,<br />
packers, shippers and processors have<br />
the greatest impact by being engaged.<br />
Make this a top priority by setting<br />
aside the time and energy to ensure<br />
your needs are directly heard by those<br />
responsible for writing the regulation.<br />
The second way to act immediately<br />
is to begin evaluating your business<br />
now for possible issues with indoor<br />
heat. We know that the two engineered<br />
Wet Globe Thermometers, like the one seen here, are the most accurate at<br />
measuring temperatures indoors as they account for both the ambient temperature<br />
and humidity. As the indoor heat standard is developed, both of<br />
these factors will be critical in developing a consistent temperature metric<br />
similar to the solar load component in outdoor heat.<br />
solutions—HVAC and shielding—will<br />
be included in some capacity in this<br />
new standard. What are you doing<br />
now to utilize these options to mitigate<br />
your indoor heat risk? Perhaps you<br />
need to take a step back and conduct a<br />
hazard assessment of your operation to<br />
even determine sources for indoor heat<br />
risk. We often invest significant time,<br />
energy and resources into the cooler or<br />
plant but have you thought about your<br />
machine shop? What about your drygoods<br />
(boxes, crates, packing materials)<br />
storage building? You need to have<br />
a solid understanding of your existing<br />
sources for indoor heat exposure and<br />
create a plan for minimizing that risk.<br />
Remember, Cal/OSHA currently<br />
has the authority to site you under the<br />
Injuring and Illness Prevention Program<br />
standard for failing to address<br />
this hazard. There is a well-documented<br />
history of the division successfully<br />
enforcing §3203 around this issue so<br />
don’t fool yourself into thinking this<br />
isn’t a problem yet. As an employer,<br />
it is incumbent upon you to regularly<br />
evaluate your business and create solutions,<br />
whether engineered or through<br />
behavioral change and training, that<br />
help eliminate workplace hazards. Use<br />
your knowledge of how this new standard<br />
may come to fruition as leverage<br />
in ensuring you are that much further<br />
ahead of the curve when the time actually<br />
comes.<br />
As always, agricultural employers<br />
need to ensure they remain vigilant<br />
about protecting their workers from<br />
the hazards in our industry. Whether<br />
working in the heat inside or out, or at<br />
night, it is essential to develop realistic<br />
written programs, provide training<br />
specific to the hazards on the job,<br />
ensure proper documentation of protocol,<br />
and correct issues when found.<br />
For more information about these or<br />
any worker safety related issues, please<br />
visit www.agsafe.org, call us at (209)<br />
526-4400 or via email at safeinfo@<br />
agsafe.org.<br />
AgSafe is a 501c3 nonprofit providing<br />
training, education, outreach and<br />
tools in the areas of safety, labor relations,<br />
food safety and human resources<br />
for the food and farming industries.<br />
Since 1991, AgSafe has educated nearly<br />
75,000 employers, supervisors, and<br />
workers about these critical issues.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong>
BAICOR Liquid Nutrients<br />
Call Today to Set-Up <strong>2017</strong> Trials<br />
High Phos TM<br />
8-25-3<br />
A balanced formulation<br />
of essential nutrients<br />
containing organic and<br />
amino acids to<br />
stabilize the nutrients<br />
and facilitate their<br />
chelation, uptake,<br />
translocation and use.<br />
Zinc Shotgun TM<br />
Micronutrient package<br />
containing zinc,<br />
manganese, iron, and<br />
copper. The nutrients<br />
are readily absorbed<br />
by the plant for faster<br />
response. Designed<br />
for both foliar and soil<br />
application.<br />
Nutra Green TM<br />
5-10-5<br />
Contains the essential<br />
nutrients plants need<br />
in a completely<br />
balanced formula,<br />
ideal for optimal plant<br />
development. Rapidly<br />
absorbed into plant<br />
tissue to provide a<br />
rapid and sustained<br />
green-up.<br />
Visit wrtag.com for more information<br />
or contact Joseph at (209) 720-8040<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 00
PRECISION AGRICULTURE<br />
Precision Ag RTK at West Hills Farm<br />
of the Future<br />
Photo Credit: Terry Brase<br />
SmartNet RTK Cellular Base Station: on the right is the antenna and mast set on a concrete pillar for stability; on the left<br />
is the waterproof box for the electronics.<br />
Page 24 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
Terry Brase<br />
Educational Consultant, Former<br />
Precision Agriculture Educator and<br />
Author<br />
Twenty years ago it was hard to convince<br />
some west coast growers that<br />
RTK was necessary. After all, that was<br />
just something that was used by those<br />
large Midwest growers that had thousand<br />
acre fields to manage. But the<br />
whole concept of RTK is high accuracy<br />
(possibly sub-inch) and precision; that<br />
applies to large and small fields alike.<br />
At West Hills College, the Farm of<br />
the Future was designed and built to<br />
serve as a practical learning farm for<br />
students but also to serve the agricultural<br />
community as a model demonstrating<br />
emerging technologies and<br />
how they could be applied to farms<br />
in the Central Valley. To do this and<br />
as part of the precision ag classes, we<br />
provide examples of RTK GPS.<br />
RTK stands for Real Time Kinematic<br />
and is a type of correction for<br />
GPS. The name comes from surveying<br />
and refers to its ability to maintain the<br />
calculation of a high accuracy position<br />
while on the move. Previously a surveyor<br />
would have to be in one position<br />
for an extended length of time to get a<br />
high accuracy position. Autonomous<br />
GPS (GPS without any corrections)<br />
at best has only 10 foot accuracy, not<br />
accurate enough to determine the<br />
location of specific trees, vines, tissue<br />
samples, irrigation controls, or pest<br />
locations. RTK provides the highest<br />
level of accuracy and repeatability for a<br />
position.<br />
There are many methods of correcting<br />
GPS; Wide Area Augmentation<br />
System (WAAS), satellites, AM beacon<br />
receivers, and others. They all work in<br />
a similar way. All correction is based<br />
on having at least two GPS units:<br />
one serving as a “base” and the other<br />
serving as a “rover”. The GPS used as<br />
a “base” station is at a fixed location<br />
in which the coordinates are known.<br />
Since the base GPS unit is on this<br />
known location, it is able to calculate<br />
distance and direction of the error<br />
included in the GPS calculated position.<br />
This difference between positions<br />
is known as an “error differential”. This<br />
Continued on Page 26<br />
Author with the Trimble mobile RTK. Includes the tripod, GNSS antenna (large<br />
disk centered in tripod), receiver (Yellow box mounted on leg of tripod), SiteNet<br />
transmitting radio and antenna (tall antenna and yellow cylinder to the left<br />
of author), and display (held by author). Note abundance of cabling for data<br />
transfer between devices.<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 25<br />
Photo Credit: Terry Brase
Continued from Page 25<br />
error differential can be sent to another<br />
GPS unit, a “rover”, that is out in the<br />
field. This rover GPS unit is calculating<br />
a position with error, but can apply the<br />
error differential to this position and<br />
correct it. Thus it is known as differential<br />
correction.<br />
Differences between types of differential<br />
correction are in how the base<br />
unit transmits the error differential<br />
to the rover unit. But what are the<br />
differences that make RTK so much<br />
more accurate than the other methods<br />
of differential correction? What must<br />
take place that accounts for the inch or<br />
less of accuracy?<br />
Two main things account for RTK’s<br />
accuracy: the accuracy of the known<br />
position for the base station and the<br />
proximity of the base to the rover.<br />
The accuracy of the known base position<br />
is determined during the setup<br />
of a RTK base station. Recording and<br />
averaging GPS positions for a 24 hour<br />
period provides a location coordinate<br />
with sub-inch accuracy. In addition<br />
receivers used to set up a base station<br />
are high quality units that also receive<br />
other GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite<br />
Systems). This means that besides<br />
using GPS satellites, they can also<br />
use GLONASS (Russian equivalent to<br />
GPS) and Galileo (European) satellites,<br />
which increases the accuracy of the<br />
base location. The higher accuracy of<br />
the RTK base station location, results<br />
in the higher accuracy of a RTK calculated<br />
position.<br />
The other aspect of RTK is the proximity<br />
between the base and the rover.<br />
Other types of differential correction<br />
system cover 30 to 300 miles. Most<br />
RTK systems are designed for operation<br />
in a 10 mile or less distance. Some<br />
manufacturers will base estimates of<br />
accuracy on the distance between base<br />
and rover.<br />
West Hills College has two specific<br />
methods of RTK differential corrections<br />
for use by students and the Farm<br />
of the Future. The Farm of the Future<br />
is 256 acres that was donated to West<br />
Hills College to serve as a model of advanced<br />
technology in agriculture. It includes<br />
a pistachio orchard, various field<br />
crops, equipment and an irrigation<br />
system. A solar field supplies all of the<br />
power for the farm. As new technology<br />
becomes available, it is researched<br />
or industry partners help provide the<br />
resources. For example, West Hills<br />
has received donations of a fixed wing<br />
and rotor UAS drones which are used<br />
as a part of industry demonstrations<br />
and for student lab exercises. Students<br />
were able to experience flying the UAS<br />
to capture imagery from several fields.<br />
In the same way students gain valuable<br />
experience using the RTK. Farm of the<br />
Future includes a mobile RTK station<br />
and a cellular network RTK. Though<br />
both are not necessary, each adds to<br />
community needs and student learning.<br />
The components of the West Hills<br />
mobile RTK station include a Trimble<br />
GNSS antenna, a Trimble 750MSL<br />
GNSS base receiver, a SiteNet 900 radio<br />
transmitter with antenna, deep cycle 12<br />
volt battery, Trimble FMX1000 display<br />
monitor, Trimble portable tripod, and<br />
cabling to connect it all. The mobile<br />
part of this RTK is the tripod that can<br />
be setup next to the field in which<br />
the signal will be used. This keeps the<br />
signal as close as possible to the rover<br />
and makes this the most accurate GPS<br />
correction.<br />
The antenna, receiver, and transmitter<br />
are mounted somewhere on the tripod<br />
which is placed securely at a location<br />
next to the field. Cabling attaches<br />
the GNSS antenna to the receiver and<br />
another cable attaches the receiver, battery<br />
and transmitter. The battery needs<br />
to be a large tractor battery to provide<br />
power for at least 24 hours of power.<br />
Connecting the cabling is actually the<br />
easy part. The system must be setup<br />
so that each component communicates<br />
Photo Credit: Terry Brase<br />
The electronics for a SmartNet RTK include the receiver, cellular gateway, and power supply. The cellular antenna is on<br />
the outside of the waterproof box and can be seen on page 24.<br />
Page 26 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
with each other and that means the<br />
communications port and baud rate<br />
need to match. The communications<br />
port (commonly referred to as the<br />
“comport”) is the connection points<br />
within the receiver and the transmitter.<br />
The baud rate is the speed at which the<br />
data moves between the receiver and<br />
transmitter; the input and output of<br />
each needs to match or no communication<br />
occurs. Most of the setup needs<br />
is done directly on the receiver display.<br />
After these parameters have been<br />
set, the base location must be established.<br />
For the most accurate position<br />
the process is started and allowed to<br />
run for 24 hours. After 24 hours all<br />
the positions collected, approximate<br />
86,400 of them, will be averaged for an<br />
error differential. It will automatically<br />
will be sent to the SiteNet 900 to be<br />
broadcast.<br />
The other RTK base that we have<br />
at the Farm of the Future is a cellular<br />
RTK station. This base is part of a<br />
network of RTK bases called SmartNet<br />
that was installed by Leica, a GPS positioning<br />
company. It contains similar<br />
components: a GNSS antenna; a GNSS<br />
receiver, cellular modem instead of a<br />
radio transmitter with cabling and a<br />
power source. The antenna is mounted<br />
on a permanent 12 foot mast instead of<br />
a portable tripod. A coaxial cable connects<br />
the antenna to the receivers to<br />
calculate an error differential. Instead<br />
of a radio transmitting a few miles to a<br />
rover; the cellular modem transfers the<br />
error differential to a networked server<br />
in a remote location along with the<br />
error differentials from base stations<br />
across the US. At the same time, a<br />
tractor or other rover device that needs<br />
a RTK signal uses a cellular modem<br />
to call up the server and provide the<br />
rovers location. This location determines<br />
which of the base station’s error<br />
differential will be sent to the rover.<br />
Users of network RTK units like this<br />
typically pay a yearly fee to access the<br />
correction.<br />
On the rover side we use the RTK<br />
for an autoguidance system, a Trimble<br />
AutoPilot. This system replaces the<br />
tractor’s steering with an AutoPilot<br />
steering wheel. It is controlled by a<br />
FMX1000 display that is getting its location<br />
from an AgGPS 25 receiver that<br />
accepts the RTK differential signal for<br />
one to two inch accuracy. This level of<br />
West Hills College is located in the Pleasant Valley area on the west side of<br />
the California Central Valley. It’s pistachio orchard is shown on the left of this<br />
photo and a newly planted garlic field to the right.<br />
accuracy is needed for several of the<br />
farm activities. First of all listing, the<br />
preparation of the soil bed requires at<br />
least two inch accuracy to maintain<br />
rows. Any operation after listing the<br />
beds such as spraying will also require<br />
the same two inch accuracy since the<br />
tractor will need to follow the wheel<br />
tracks to avoid ruining the beds.<br />
Broadcast spraying normally doesn’t<br />
require two inch accuracy, but this<br />
level of accuracy does reduce overlap<br />
and gaps in the spray pattern that can<br />
be wasted materials or reduced yields.<br />
The other rover we use with students<br />
is a TopConGR3 that accepts<br />
a cellular Sim card. This sim card<br />
provides access to the cellular network<br />
that SmartNet uses and thus to the<br />
SmartNet error differential. Though<br />
the antenna and placement is highly<br />
accurate SmartNet has a lower accuracy<br />
because of the distance and latency<br />
of the signal (rover to server; server<br />
back to rover).<br />
Real time kinematic has value in<br />
providing higher precision for: calculating<br />
positions of objects in the field;<br />
guiding equipment through a field; and<br />
placement of sample locations.<br />
Calculating accurate positions is<br />
required for orchards trees when planting<br />
them. RTK is used by many companies<br />
when planting trees; using those<br />
RTK positions will allow for automated<br />
recordkeeping of individual trees. Another<br />
use is to more accurately manage<br />
irrigation by high accuracy positioning<br />
of valves, flowmeters and pumps.<br />
Guiding equipment through field<br />
with RTK creates rows with straight<br />
lines. Now even though that may seem<br />
like a cosmetic purpose, it does have<br />
some economic value. Straight rows,<br />
first of all, allow tractors to follow the<br />
same track through a field without<br />
damaging the crop and limiting compaction.<br />
It also assures accurate placement<br />
and reducing overlap of chemical<br />
and fertilizer products.<br />
Placement of samples with RTK<br />
allows the highest accuracy possible<br />
for marking the position of pest traps,<br />
tissue samples, soil samples and moisture<br />
sensors. This makes that data and<br />
the resulting analysis more valuable.<br />
Doing precision farming is more<br />
than just applying products at a variable<br />
rate. There are hundreds of uses<br />
for the application of technology by a<br />
grower to be more efficient and economical.<br />
RTK provides the accuracy<br />
and precision for those uses. Availability<br />
of RTK is growing and becoming<br />
more common. It needs to be considered<br />
as a part of precision farming<br />
management.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 27<br />
Photo Credit: Terry Brase
IRRIGATION<br />
Integrating Key Water<br />
Management Information<br />
to Better Manage Irrigation<br />
Miro-sprinkler irrigation system in a<br />
young almond orchard.<br />
Photo Credit: Dan Munk<br />
Surface irrigated plum orchard.<br />
Post-filtration pressure monitoring in<br />
drip irrigation.<br />
Dan Munk<br />
UCCE Farm Advisor, Fresno County<br />
Jeff Mitchell<br />
UCCE Cropping Systems Specialist<br />
Over the past several years, few<br />
irrigated regions of the country<br />
have escaped the impacts of drought<br />
and in many places this has translated to<br />
increased costs and reduced availability<br />
of irrigation water. California growers<br />
in particular have experienced dramatic<br />
reductions in surface water deliveries<br />
and have increasingly turned to using<br />
groundwater to make up the surface<br />
water shortfall. Consequently growers<br />
have experienced unprecedented water<br />
table level reductions that have increased<br />
the price of pumping and maintenance<br />
on their water wells. Growers have also<br />
responded to the drought by increasing<br />
personal and personnel resources<br />
dedicated to water management and have<br />
increased their efforts to better understand<br />
the complexities of irrigation water<br />
management. Efforts to improve onfarm<br />
water management practices must<br />
include these key elements:<br />
Page 28 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
• Elevating irrigation system design<br />
and management expectations.<br />
• Better exploit our understanding of<br />
crop development and physiology<br />
including crop sensitivity to water<br />
stress.<br />
• Increasing our capacities to measure<br />
and manage soil water storage.<br />
Proper evaluation and integration of<br />
these key water management elements<br />
can be complex but can result in operating<br />
whole farm and field irrigation<br />
systems at peak efficiency over time. For<br />
example, it may not help us to increase<br />
the monitoring and measurement soil<br />
moisture if we do not have a more<br />
complete understanding of how specific<br />
changes in soil moisture content influence<br />
crop water stress and crop performance.<br />
Similarly it would not be difficult<br />
to misinterpret plant water stress or soil<br />
moisture information in a field where<br />
water is not applied in a uniform manner.<br />
And how might field indicators of<br />
soil water availability be used in different<br />
field management settings? Interpreting<br />
soil moisture readings in a drip irrigated<br />
field that applies water multiple times<br />
per week will differ from that of a furrow<br />
or flood irrigated field that is irrigated<br />
using two to three week intervals. These<br />
complexities help to point out that each<br />
field is unique from a water management<br />
standpoint and that irrigation decision<br />
makers should not rely too heavily on<br />
any one piece of information to guide<br />
their water management program without<br />
also considering broader systems<br />
information.<br />
Irrigation System Design and<br />
Management<br />
Improperly designed irrigation systems<br />
are incapable of achieving high performance<br />
levels making efficient water<br />
management an impossibility regardless<br />
of how well water might be scheduled.<br />
Application efficiency is a fundamental<br />
measure of irrigation system performance<br />
defined as the amount of beneficially<br />
applied water in relation to the<br />
amount of total irrigation water applied<br />
to the field. One of the biggest obstacles<br />
to developing field systems with high<br />
application efficiency comes from the<br />
fact that many irrigation systems do not<br />
apply water uniformly. Water applied in<br />
Continued on Page 30
ADVERTORIAL<br />
Ensure season-long control of<br />
pre- and post-emergent weeds<br />
WEEDS REDUCE TREE HEALTH<br />
AND CROP QUALITY.<br />
Weeds compete with trees and vines for<br />
nutrients, water and light and can impact yield<br />
and hinder harvesting practices. Weeds can<br />
even compete with target plants for uptake of<br />
insecticides and other chemicals, making the<br />
crop more susceptible to insects and disease.<br />
While cultural and mechanical practices can<br />
provide some help in managing weed pressures,<br />
most growers utilize herbicides to deal with<br />
major threats. Whether or not resistant weeds<br />
are currently present, having an integrated<br />
approach to weed control can mean the<br />
difference to bottom lines.<br />
Key weeds present in orchards and vineyards have been found<br />
to be resistant to glyphosate. A best practice to slow down weed<br />
resistance to herbicides includes using multiple effective modes<br />
of action in your pre- and post-emergent herbicide sprays.<br />
WEEDS RESISTANT TO GLYPHOSATE<br />
Alion ® and Rely ® 280 weed program from Bayer<br />
are complementary pre- and post-emergent<br />
herbicides for tree nuts, grapes and citrus that<br />
effectively eliminate tough grass and broadleaf<br />
weeds with long-lasting residual control and<br />
excellent crop safety. Together, Alion and Rely<br />
offer versatile application approaches to<br />
ensure you start and stay weed-free.<br />
Horseweed<br />
Hairy Fleabane Jungle Rice Russian Thistle<br />
CROP SAFETY<br />
Keep crop safety in mind when selecting a weed management<br />
program. Choose pre- and post-emergent herbicides that provide<br />
excellent season-long weed control without impact on roots, fruit<br />
or plant vigor.<br />
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA EXTENSION RESEARCH SHOWS:<br />
Using Alion ®<br />
and Rely ®<br />
together<br />
results in<br />
season-long<br />
weed control<br />
JUNGLE RICE CONTROL<br />
100%<br />
HAIRY FLEABANE CONTROL<br />
99%<br />
RYEGRASS CONTROL<br />
90%<br />
Application included Alion 3 oz. + Rely + Roundup ®<br />
Application included Alion 3.5 oz. + Rely<br />
Application included Alion 5 oz. + Rely<br />
University Trial for Jungle Rice Control by Brad Hanson,<br />
UC Statewide Weed Scientist in Chico, CA, 2014<br />
University Trial for Hairy Fleabane and Ryegrass Control<br />
by Brad Hanson, UC IPM, Arbuckle, CA, 2015<br />
Learn more at CropScience.Bayer.us<br />
®<br />
© <strong>2017</strong> 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<br />
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<br />
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<br />
Water meters are an essential system<br />
evaluation tool.<br />
Groundwater well development and<br />
re-development has become more<br />
common as groundwater levels decline<br />
and surface water availability is<br />
limited.<br />
Subsurface drip irrigation line configuration<br />
for vegetable crops including<br />
onions and garlic.<br />
Continued from Page 28<br />
a non-uniform manner which commonly<br />
leads to larger soil water deficits on low<br />
water application areas and over-irrigating<br />
areas of the field that have higher<br />
than average application rates. To maintain<br />
preferred soil moisture levels in all<br />
areas of the field, water managers typically<br />
compensate by over-applying water on<br />
portions of the field which causes losses<br />
to leaching or run-off both considered to<br />
be non-beneficial uses of water. Properly<br />
designed irrigation systems work<br />
to achieve a high degree of uniformity<br />
and deliver near equal amounts of water<br />
Page 30 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
throughout the field.<br />
One of the more challenging design<br />
issues in drip irrigation systems<br />
is achieving near uniform pressures<br />
throughout the field. Even when fitted<br />
with pressure compensating emitters,<br />
fields that have large differences in line<br />
pressure are susceptible to significant<br />
differences in emitter output causing<br />
non-uniform applications. This problem<br />
is more commonly associated with long<br />
field lengths which stretch the design<br />
capacities of our current drip irrigation<br />
products. And while many drip irrigation<br />
fields have relatively high distribution<br />
uniformity, maintenance and management<br />
issues continue to leave many fields<br />
with less than optimal efficiencies. Field<br />
lengths of less than 800 feet are less prone<br />
to this concern while it is a much more<br />
common issue in field lengths exceeding<br />
1100 feet. This emphasizes the need to<br />
carefully consider the products being<br />
purchased and the pressure requirements<br />
of that product. Uniformity issues can<br />
also be exagerated as the system ages or<br />
in systems that are not properly filtered<br />
and maintained to avoid biological and<br />
mineral contamination.<br />
Occasionally simple modifications in<br />
surface irrigation systems can also result<br />
in significant improvements in distribution<br />
uniformity and application efficiency.<br />
Many flood and furrow irrigated<br />
systems experience slow water advance<br />
times down the furrow or irrigated<br />
strip before the irrigation is completed<br />
resulting in long infiltration periods at<br />
the head end of the field relative to the<br />
infiltration period at the lower end of<br />
the field resulting in higher amounts<br />
of applied water at the head end of the<br />
field. Solutions to this problem have been<br />
achieved by increasing the on-flow rate<br />
of irrigation water, reducing the size of<br />
the irrigation check and by modifying<br />
the surface soil roughness to allow water<br />
to more freely move to the bottom of<br />
the field. These relatively modest system<br />
design changes can have a significant<br />
impact on delivering water with greater<br />
uniformity and efficiency.<br />
Crop Development, Physiology and<br />
Water Stress Management<br />
Crop sensitivities to water stress are<br />
not constant throughout the growing<br />
season depending on crop type, growth<br />
stage and atmospheric conditions. Most<br />
field and row crops are highly susceptible<br />
to the impacts of limited water availability<br />
during the germination and seedling<br />
development stages and require high<br />
soil moisture availability in the surface<br />
soil during this period. However, as the<br />
early vegetative growth period is initiated<br />
crops like cotton and small grains can<br />
go many weeks before the first seasonal<br />
irrigation water is required. This is<br />
partially due to the rapid root growth<br />
that occurs in these plants and soil water<br />
is more easily extracted during these low<br />
evapotranspiration days. Alternatively,<br />
many vegetable crops including tomatoes,<br />
carrots and the brassicas require<br />
more frequent irrigation events early<br />
season to relieve mild water stress during<br />
this period needed to support a rapidly<br />
expanding plant canopy. Later in the<br />
season when roots are well established<br />
and the lower portions of the soil profile<br />
are exploited, many deep-rooted crops<br />
are less sensitive to water stress and<br />
water management strategies can be<br />
incorporated that take advantage of deep<br />
soil water reserves resulting in delayed<br />
irrigation scheduling.<br />
Similar issues can be observed with<br />
the permanent crops as early season<br />
root flushes occur at different intervals<br />
allowing soil moisture to be exploited at<br />
varied depths depending on crop type.<br />
Generally, crop water stress sensitivities<br />
in permanent crops are often more acute<br />
during early leaf out periods if winter<br />
rains have not fully charged the soil<br />
profile and again during the rapid fruit<br />
growth periods. Monitoring the developmental<br />
stage of the crop often provides<br />
insights to the physiological periods of<br />
the crop that are more sensitive to water<br />
deficits and points to periods when water<br />
deficiencies are more likely to result in<br />
impacts to yield and quality. Understanding<br />
these more sensitive water stress periods<br />
also allows us to better plan on the<br />
time of year to increase crop water stress<br />
monitoring by using tools such as the<br />
pressure chamber or canopy temperature<br />
tools that are used to evaluate the relative<br />
degree of crop stress. And while water<br />
stress limits may differ during the growing<br />
season, using established water stress<br />
guidelines when available, can provide<br />
sound guidance on irrigation scheduling<br />
decisions.<br />
Managing and Measuring Soil<br />
Water Storage<br />
The measurement of soil water can
appear to be an uncomplicated process<br />
that involves placing soil moisture<br />
sensors in the soil and reading the values<br />
to provide an irrigation management decision.<br />
And while this may be satisfactory<br />
for relatively simple, uniform and well<br />
understood field systems, there is much<br />
that should be considered in developing<br />
an approach to soil moisture monitoring<br />
if the goal is to maximize the beneficial<br />
uses of applied irrigation water. Successful<br />
growers and consultants that regularly<br />
monitor soil water and use the information<br />
as an irrigation scheduling tool agree<br />
that there are several important questions<br />
to consider before purchasing, installing<br />
and using the sensors to make informed<br />
irrigation decisions. Before investing<br />
the time and resources in soil moisture<br />
monitoring, establish basic achievable<br />
goals with the understanding that the<br />
higher the expectation and more detailed<br />
the goal, greater effort and resources will<br />
be required.<br />
As goals are established for field<br />
monitoring, consideration of the type of<br />
sensor to be used is a good place to start<br />
as well as the price of those sensors and<br />
systems. Field soil moisture systems can<br />
start with an investment of a few hundred<br />
dollars or less and can run into several<br />
thousand dollars for a single monitoring<br />
site. Soil water sensors can monitor soil<br />
water content more directly or they can<br />
provide direct or indirect measures of<br />
soil water potential. Each sensor type can<br />
be useful depending on the goals and information<br />
needs established. Identifying<br />
a field location or locations and placing<br />
the sensors at appropriate depths is also<br />
important and care should be taken to<br />
select locations that are representative<br />
of soil water conditions in the crop root<br />
zone. Monitoring multiple soil depths<br />
can also provide information on soil water<br />
storage and percent soil profile water<br />
depletion level. Depending on the time of<br />
year, many growers have turned to using<br />
different soil depths as triggers to initiate<br />
irrigation events using sensors placed at<br />
more shallow depths to schedule early<br />
season irrigation events.<br />
Evaluating the readings from soil<br />
moisture devices also requires some<br />
experience and understanding of soil<br />
water retention characteristics of the field<br />
being monitored. Although estimated<br />
values of field capacity, permanent<br />
wilting point and plant available water<br />
can be referenced for various soil textural<br />
classes, these values are very generic and<br />
can misrepresent actual site values that<br />
can be used for irrigation scheduling<br />
purposes making the information less<br />
reliable. Developing individual field or<br />
soil type data for your fields often aids in<br />
providing more specific and repeatable<br />
information that can improve irrigation<br />
decision making.<br />
Integrating the Information<br />
Recognizing the need to integrate key<br />
water system information into a coherent<br />
field and farm water management plan<br />
system requires work and experience in<br />
evaluating multiple system elements and<br />
will assist in avoiding the tendency to<br />
place the focus and reliance on singular<br />
management indicators. Integration of<br />
these primary water management elements<br />
will have impacts on the time and<br />
amount of field applied water and can<br />
have significant impacts on farm water<br />
use by limiting the application of water<br />
that does not directly benefit the crop.<br />
Recognizing the importance of integrating<br />
appropriate information from<br />
multiple sources to manage farm water<br />
requires that we begin using the tools<br />
available to us to document and interpret<br />
a wide variety of information of our<br />
irrigation systems, soil systems and our<br />
individual cropping systems.<br />
Independent evaluations of an irrigation<br />
system performance can provide feedback<br />
on the current issues of concern for<br />
individual systems and can provide an<br />
assessment of whether system maintenance<br />
is badly needed or if help determine<br />
if the system requires improved<br />
pressure regulation, higher flow rates or<br />
other design modifications to operate<br />
more optimally. Water applied uniformly<br />
and with high efficiency limits water<br />
and nutrient losses to the groundwater<br />
and results in more uniform crop yield<br />
and quality. But information related to<br />
application efficiency or distribution uniformity<br />
can also aid in targeting locations<br />
for soil moisture monitoring sites and<br />
locating sites to monitor plant stress and<br />
crop growth.<br />
Using available knowledge of plant<br />
development and physiology can aid in<br />
identifying periods when the crop is particularly<br />
sensitive to water stress events<br />
and aid in irrigation scheduling decisions<br />
by either limiting the drawdown of soil<br />
moisture reserves during those periods<br />
or by extending the irrigation cycle. In<br />
Water flow monitoring is an essential<br />
system evaluation component.<br />
Tensiometer installation in a citrus<br />
orchard. Tensiometers provide a<br />
direct measure of soil water matric<br />
potential.<br />
a similar manner, the use of plant water<br />
stress indices can be used to hasten or<br />
delay irrigation events and help establish<br />
the intensity and duration of water stress<br />
events. Numerous university publications<br />
are available that provide sound information<br />
on the development and physiology<br />
of specific crops. This information often<br />
includes water management studies that<br />
can provide tools to identify crop developmental<br />
stage as well as information<br />
on water stress sensitivity and periods of<br />
relative tolerance to water stress.<br />
Establishing reasonable goals and expectations<br />
for monitoring soil water status<br />
and using soil sensor information for<br />
irrigation decision making purposes can<br />
assist in tightening irrigation schedules<br />
thereby reducing the likelihood of excessive<br />
losses while also reducing the risk of<br />
crop losses that result from elevated crop<br />
water stress levels. This information is<br />
particularly useful when combined with<br />
other irrigation scheduling tools such as<br />
crop evapotranspiration estimates and<br />
crop water stress indicators.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 31<br />
Photo Credit: Dan Munk
MATING DISRUPTION<br />
Photo Credit: Kathy Keatley Garvey<br />
how mating disruption effects the<br />
ability to monitor pests in orchards<br />
under MD as well as in orchards in<br />
proximity to MD blocks. In orchards<br />
where MD tactics are being used,<br />
pheromone-only monitoring methods<br />
will certainly be impacted. It<br />
is becoming increasingly apparent<br />
that traps in orchards near but not<br />
within MD blocks can be effected as<br />
well. In most cases, this is occurring<br />
without the added benefit of substantial<br />
disruption, and thus population<br />
and damage reduction. Researchers<br />
are currently investigating just how<br />
far-reaching the impacts of mating<br />
disruption are to nearby non-MD<br />
blocks.<br />
Disruption of sexual communication<br />
in moths is thought to function<br />
by the following broad types of<br />
behavioral mechanisms:<br />
• Competitive attraction<br />
(false-plume-following), in<br />
which males are diverted from<br />
orienting to females because they<br />
are attracted to competing ‘false’<br />
trails emitted by synthetic pheromone<br />
dispensers.<br />
• Non-competitive mechanisms,<br />
whereby exposure to synthetic<br />
pheromone inhibits or blocks the<br />
ability of males to sense and/or<br />
respond normally to pheromone<br />
emitted from females. These include<br />
camouflage, desensitization<br />
(i.e., adaptation and habituation),<br />
and sensory imbalance.<br />
• Combinations of these mechanisms.<br />
Navel orangeworm larva.<br />
Trapping In and Near Mating<br />
Disruption Orchards<br />
Emily J. Symmes<br />
UCCE IPM Advisor,<br />
Sacramento Valley<br />
Mating disruption options have<br />
improved in recent years,<br />
and orchards under mating disruption<br />
(MD) for certain key pests are<br />
becoming increasingly common. In<br />
particular, this article focuses on the<br />
effects of MD on trap-based monitoring<br />
of codling moth (CM) and<br />
navel orangeworm (NOW). With<br />
regard to codling moth, this can<br />
apply to walnuts, apples, and other<br />
pome fruits. For NOW, this information<br />
largely applies to almonds and<br />
pistachios.<br />
It is important to understand<br />
Page 32 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
While understanding the mechanism(s)<br />
underlying successful mating<br />
disruption is important to the development<br />
of products and best practices<br />
to maximize the effectiveness of<br />
this technology, one thing becomes<br />
clear in a practical sense—the presence<br />
of synthetic pheromone in and<br />
around the orchard environment,<br />
if effectively impacting mate location/mating<br />
success, will necessarily<br />
impact our surveillance methods. In<br />
particular, our ability to track population<br />
abundance and activity using<br />
pheromone lures. Fortunately, there<br />
are solutions to this problem in the<br />
form of alternative lures for trapping,<br />
albeit many pest control and crop advisers<br />
have less experience with these<br />
than the historical pheromone-only<br />
lure standards.<br />
For the two pests this article is<br />
focused on, CM and NOW, sex pheromones<br />
are emitted by females and<br />
elicit responses from males of the<br />
species. That means, with the exception<br />
of very low to negligible random<br />
catches of females, pheromone traps<br />
will predominantly track only male<br />
activity. One of the goals and indicators<br />
of successful MD for NOW and<br />
CM is trap shutdown (zero to very<br />
low male catches in pheromone traps<br />
relative to non-MD environments).<br />
If you are working in a MD environment,<br />
you certainly want to monitor<br />
pheromone-only traps so that
Scientifically proven to reduce<br />
female NOW populations and<br />
damage with Mass Trapping<br />
and Monitoring.<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
Adult codling moth.<br />
you can gauge this measure of MD<br />
effectiveness. However, traps with all<br />
zeroes or very few male moths only<br />
provide that one important piece of<br />
information. As a PCA/CCA in these<br />
situations, it is critical to be able to<br />
track the population cycles (‘flights’)<br />
and relative population abundance in<br />
the event that supplemental insecticide<br />
applications are deemed necessary,<br />
and to properly time those<br />
applications. There is also a distinct<br />
level of discomfort in ‘flying blind’<br />
so-to-speak, when little empirical<br />
data (i.e., trap counts) is available for<br />
decision making.<br />
The options for monitoring in/<br />
near MD then become based on the<br />
ability to overcome trap shutdown<br />
by (1) incorporating non-pheromone<br />
based lures to trap males, females,<br />
or both sexes; and (2) employing additional<br />
surveillance methods (nontrap-based)<br />
to gauge pest pressure<br />
and inform treatment decisions. For<br />
NOW and CM, there are options<br />
available to satisfy both of the two<br />
options noted above. The available<br />
lures are based on plant volatiles<br />
functioning as kairomones. Various<br />
non-trapping monitoring methods<br />
can and should be incorporated into<br />
your IPM program as well.<br />
NOW Options<br />
• Egg traps baited with almond<br />
meal and three to 10 percent<br />
crude almond oil. These are used<br />
to monitor female flights, specifically<br />
oviposition activity. Egg<br />
traps have been the historical<br />
standard for early season population<br />
detection and degree-day<br />
modeling. Drawbacks with the<br />
use of egg traps include reliability<br />
concerns in low population<br />
situations, possible competition<br />
with large numbers of mummies<br />
in the orchard early in<br />
the season, reduction in attractiveness<br />
as the in-season crop<br />
becomes increasingly attractive,<br />
and ease of use. However, these<br />
traps should not be impacted by<br />
MD environments, and despite<br />
potential limitations, can provide<br />
a piece of the pest management<br />
puzzle.<br />
• Lures comprised of mesh bags<br />
filled with ground almond and<br />
pistachio mummies in wing or<br />
delta traps (e.g., Peterson traps)<br />
are used to track female flight<br />
activity. Traps may catch some<br />
low levels of male moths, but<br />
numbers are predominantly female<br />
in these traps. As is the case<br />
with many plant-volatile based<br />
kairomone traps, these are less<br />
sensitive than pheromone traps<br />
in terms of abundance of moths<br />
caught (kairomones typically<br />
act at closer range than pheromones).<br />
In spite of this, these<br />
traps also should not be impacted<br />
by MD, and can be useful in<br />
discriminating moth flights and<br />
relative abundance when compared<br />
with historical and non-<br />
MD records.<br />
• Other lures for trapping NOW<br />
females, including phenyl propionate<br />
(PPO) and the five-component<br />
kairomone blend identified<br />
by John Beck, remain at<br />
the experimental/developmental<br />
stage. Neither is commercially<br />
available at this time, but these<br />
may provide additional options<br />
in the near future.<br />
• Monitoring crop phenology and<br />
concurrent oviposition activity<br />
can provide additional information<br />
as to pest pressure and need<br />
for treatment. This involves looking<br />
for NOW eggs on early splits<br />
(pea splits) in pistachio, and<br />
early hullsplit nuts in almonds.<br />
CM Options<br />
• Both female and male moths respond<br />
to pear ester. This is available<br />
in the CM-DA combo lure<br />
(contains codlemone, the codling<br />
moth pheromone, plus pear ester,<br />
the plant volatile-based kairomone).<br />
These lures should be<br />
used in orchards under MD in<br />
addition to pheromone only traps<br />
(baited with 1X or L2 lures), necessary<br />
to detect trap shutdown<br />
as a proxy for efficacy of the MD<br />
treatment. If you are concerned<br />
with the performance of pheromone-only<br />
CM traps in non-MD<br />
orchards, consider adding some<br />
CM-DA traps, particularly if you<br />
suspect you are in proximity to<br />
an MD block that is effecting<br />
your pheromone trap catches.<br />
• Another option is the three-way<br />
lure (CM-DA combo plus acetic<br />
acid, AA). Think of this as a<br />
‘super-charged’ lure, which can<br />
provide more robust capture in<br />
terms of numbers of males and<br />
females (in both MD and non-<br />
MD orchards). With both the<br />
CM-DA and CM-DA+AA lures,<br />
be cautious in your evaluation of<br />
Continued on Page 34<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 33
Having trouble finding<br />
Codling Moths?<br />
• Captures both male and female CM (vs)<br />
males only with CM pheromone alone.<br />
• Increases male CM capture by double<br />
or greater than the male/female lure<br />
(CM-DA COMBO) alone.<br />
• Increases female capture up to 6 X more<br />
than CM-DA COMBO alone.<br />
• Best product to use in orchards treated<br />
with DA-based mating disruption<br />
products like CIDETRAK CMDA COMBO<br />
MESO or Puzzle Piece.<br />
• Best lure to use in<br />
conventional and<br />
mating disrupted +<br />
orchards with low<br />
density CM abundance.<br />
Contact your local supplier<br />
and order now.<br />
Visit our website: www.trece.com<br />
or call 1- 866 -785-1313.<br />
Continued from Page 33<br />
trap numbers. Numbers may be<br />
higher or lower than pheromone<br />
trap catch numbers, depending<br />
on your particular environment<br />
(MD, non-MD, near MD), and<br />
may not directly correlate with<br />
the same moths/trap/night<br />
thresholds you are accustomed<br />
to.<br />
• Non-trapping methods for CM<br />
surveillance involves in-season<br />
damage/population estimates<br />
via dropped nuts and/or canopy<br />
counts.<br />
More information and details<br />
regarding monitoring and treatment<br />
options for these pests is available<br />
online in the UC IPM Guidelines for<br />
each pest and crop of interest<br />
(www.ipm.ucanr.edu).<br />
Some thoughts on best practices<br />
for lure-based trapping and monitoring<br />
in general.<br />
• Storage and handling. Always<br />
follow manufacturer guidelines<br />
for storage and handling of lures.<br />
Most lures are best kept refrigerated<br />
or frozen (in non-cycling<br />
freezers). Be careful when keeping<br />
lures long-term (multiple<br />
years), as their performance can<br />
be impacted. It is generally best<br />
to order fresh lures each year.<br />
Some lures can be particularly<br />
‘hot’ when initially deployed,<br />
which may lead to misinterpretation<br />
of activity peaks. If possible,<br />
pre-age lures for a day or so prior<br />
to deploying in the field. Avoid<br />
cross-contamination of lures and<br />
traps—it is easy to get in a hurry,<br />
but rubber gloves can go a long<br />
way in preventing strange bycatch<br />
in traps (catching species<br />
you don’t expect).<br />
• Interpreting catches and perceived<br />
failures. When good<br />
storage and handling practices<br />
are employed, many issues can be<br />
avoided. If you are encountering<br />
trap catch data that seems unusual,<br />
first consider any potential<br />
storage, handling, or contamination<br />
issues. Next consider what<br />
other factors may be involved<br />
(e.g., new MD blocks in proximity<br />
to the traps, or any other new<br />
or unusual environmental conditions).<br />
Most manufacturers have<br />
strict quality control practices in<br />
place, but if you have eliminated<br />
all other sources of the problem,<br />
contact your lure supplier to<br />
inquire further.<br />
• Adopting new trapping techniques.<br />
Certain situations and<br />
the availability of new trapping<br />
options may result in the desire<br />
or need to adopt new trap-lure<br />
combinations you might have less<br />
experience with. When possible,<br />
adopting new monitoring techniques<br />
should be a multi-year<br />
process, in which new trapping<br />
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
®<br />
INCORPORATED<br />
INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS<br />
Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.<br />
© <strong>2017</strong>, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK USA • TRECE, PHEROCON and CIDETRAK<br />
are registered trademarks of Trece, Inc., Adair, OK USA, TRE-1044<br />
Adult navel orangeworm.<br />
Page 34 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong>
Photo Credit: Jack Kelly Clark<br />
ENHANCED CODLING MOTH MATING DISRUPTION<br />
Clearly More Active Product…<br />
Lower Application Cost!<br />
Black egg trap for navel orangeworm.<br />
method(s) are introduced alongside<br />
those for which historical<br />
data is available. This will help<br />
you best understand how to use<br />
the information gained from the<br />
new traps/lures.<br />
• Ensure that you are accounting<br />
for any and all pesticide treatments<br />
and field activities when<br />
interpreting trap catches and<br />
population activity.<br />
• Interpreting data and making<br />
pest management decisions in<br />
the field is as much art as science.<br />
Although research and<br />
academic endeavors seek to<br />
provide concrete thresholds and<br />
black-and-white decision support<br />
for agricultural practitioners,<br />
the reality is that there is no<br />
magic bullet and every situation<br />
is different. Individual pieces of<br />
information, while valuable, often<br />
do not provide robust enough<br />
evidence to support the “treat”<br />
vs. “don’t treat” recommendation.<br />
Incorporating all of the available<br />
knowledge (trap data, orchard<br />
history, environmental conditions,<br />
pest pressure, etc.) is critical<br />
to developing effective pest<br />
management programs that you<br />
are confident in recommending.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
• 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.<br />
• Comparison of active ingredient delivered based on optional • Labor cost label may rates. vary with employee training experience and productivity.<br />
• Application cost based on growers assessment of commercial use at the labor rate of $12/hour.<br />
• Labor cost may vary with employee training experience and productivity.<br />
CIDETRAK ® CMDA COMBO Puzzle Piece (PP)<br />
Contact your local supplier and order now. Visit our website: www.trece.com or call 1- 866 -785-1313.<br />
PLEASE: ALWAYS READ THE LABEL<br />
CIDETRAK ® CMDA COMBO MESO <br />
The ONLY Mating Disruption Systems<br />
that disrupt both MALE…and FEMALE Codling Moth.<br />
INCORPORATED<br />
INSECT PHEROMONE & KAIROMONE SYSTEMS<br />
Your Edge – And Ours – Is Knowledge.<br />
®<br />
© <strong>2017</strong>, Trécé Inc., Adair, OK USA • TRECE, PHEROCON and CIDETRAK are registered trademarks of Trece, Inc., Adair, OK USA<br />
TRE-1034, 1/17<br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 35
WORKER SAFETY<br />
Photo Credit: Ben Sacher<br />
Regulatory Challenges Face New<br />
Administration<br />
Page 36 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
Ben Sacher<br />
Federal Government Affairs Analyst,<br />
Western Growers<br />
The onset of the Trump administration<br />
has started with fireworks in<br />
many areas, but what can be expected<br />
in the crop protection world? The<br />
Environmental Protection Agency<br />
(EPA) is under much scrutiny. As an<br />
early indication, the head of Trump’s<br />
EPA transition team advocated for a<br />
two-thirds cut in EPA’s staff levels. In<br />
the first 10 days on office, the Trump<br />
administration issued a “2-out-1-in”<br />
executive order that requires two old<br />
regulations be removed for every new<br />
one put on the books. For its part,<br />
Congress has taken interest in regulatory<br />
reform and is putting some environmental<br />
laws under the microscope.<br />
Some of this energy may translate<br />
into wins out of the gate, for example,<br />
clarifying that lawful pesticide applications<br />
do not require an additional<br />
clean water permit. Currently, applying<br />
pesticides over or near water requires<br />
a clean water act permit, duplicating<br />
federal pesticide regulations that<br />
govern their use over or near water.<br />
For the last several years, Congress<br />
has considered legislation to lift the<br />
requirement to obtain a federal clean<br />
water act permit for chemicals already<br />
approved to be used near or in waters.<br />
The 115 th Congress might be the time<br />
to finally get this out of both chambers<br />
and signed by the President.<br />
Over the past several years, pesticide<br />
issues have moved up the priority<br />
list for agriculture advocates. A strong<br />
regulatory program is necessary to<br />
ensure access to tools that have been<br />
thoroughly reviewed for safety. However,<br />
pressure from activist groups<br />
is intense, and stakeholders like<br />
Western Growers have felt a policy<br />
shift in EPA’s approach to pesticide<br />
regulation. In some cases EPA seems<br />
to have diverged from long standing<br />
processes, or adopted new approaches<br />
without thorough vetting. While many<br />
recent activities are within the bounds<br />
of established scientific procedures,<br />
there is a laundry list of individual<br />
actions that have troubled stakeholders.<br />
Three of the most disruptive and<br />
broad challenges to the normal order<br />
in pesticide regulation are an inappropriate<br />
reliance on epidemiological<br />
studies, hyper-conservative drinking<br />
water modeling, and the relationship<br />
between endangered species and pesticide<br />
law driven to a boiling point by<br />
over a decade of lawsuits.<br />
EPA has made significant changes<br />
to how it conducts risk assessments<br />
without taking the time to vet and<br />
develop its approaches. One recent<br />
challenge to the registration process is<br />
an inappropriate reliance on epidemiological<br />
studies. Epidemiological studies<br />
have value in finding associations with<br />
environmental factors or other risks.<br />
However, a preference for epidemiological<br />
studies when carefully designed<br />
laboratory studies are available,<br />
particularly to establish quantitative<br />
regulatory standards, could upend<br />
EPA’s registration activities. EPA has<br />
proposed to revoke tolerances for the<br />
insecticide chlorpyrifos, primarily<br />
based on associations suggested in an<br />
epidemiological study done by public
health researchers. The Agency’s own<br />
Science Advisory Panel was highly<br />
critical of EPA’s approach, yet EPA<br />
moved forward without adequately addressing<br />
these concerns. This is not to<br />
say that epidemiological studies have<br />
no value. Epidemiological studies can<br />
certainly inform pesticide assessments,<br />
but it is concerning to see a choice to<br />
privilege them over laboratory studies<br />
that have traditionally formed the<br />
backbone of a scientific review.<br />
Another is the use of overly conservative<br />
approaches to estimating<br />
concentrations of pesticides in drinking<br />
water. To ensure human health is<br />
protected when considering dietary<br />
risk, EPA looks not only at food residues,<br />
but also any potential exposure<br />
in drinking water from surface and<br />
groundwater. Even when real world<br />
data is available, EPA has relied on<br />
models that make unrealistic assumptions<br />
resulting in massively overestimated<br />
exposure. For example, models<br />
often assume a single crop treated at<br />
maximum rate, with application taking<br />
place on the same day, and at maximum<br />
rates across an entire watershed.<br />
This layering of conservative assumptions<br />
leads to unrealistically high<br />
drinking water estimates, with one<br />
analysis showing that model predictions<br />
averaged 229 times higher than<br />
monitoring data, and 4500 times higher<br />
in a quarter of the comparisons.<br />
The administration will have its<br />
work cut out in ensuring a science<br />
based, risk-benefit approach to pesticide<br />
regulation. The consequences of<br />
a shift away from established procedures<br />
are real. Not only may individual<br />
products be made unavailable, but an<br />
unpredictable process puts a dampening<br />
effect on innovative new chemistries<br />
with better environmental and<br />
safety profiles.<br />
The Trump administration will also<br />
need to tackle a threat to pesticide<br />
regulation that has been building for<br />
years. This worrying roadblock is not<br />
driven by EPA, but by the unresolved<br />
conflict between federal pesticide<br />
law and the Endangered Species Act<br />
(ESA). In the western produce industry,<br />
the ESA is most known for<br />
restricting water allocations in an<br />
attempt to protect endangered salmon<br />
and the Delta Smelt. If unresolved, the<br />
tension between pesticide law and the<br />
endangered species act could also cut<br />
off access to new and familiar crop<br />
protection tools. In the mid 2000’s, activists<br />
began challenging whether EPA’s<br />
pesticide program was complying with<br />
the Endangered Species Act. Under<br />
the act, certain government agencies<br />
must consult with the Fish and<br />
Wildlife Service or National <strong>Mar</strong>ine<br />
Fisheries Service. Often these consultations<br />
center on well-defined projects<br />
with more discernable impacts, such<br />
as building a bridge or a dam. Historically,<br />
EPA has relied on its expertise<br />
in assessing ecological risks to ensure<br />
endangered species are adequately protected.<br />
After recent lawsuits, however,<br />
EPA and the Services have attempted<br />
to review several pesticides under a<br />
new endangered species evaluation<br />
process. Unfortunately, this process<br />
has not proven workable. The first part<br />
of an endangered species assessment<br />
of three chemicals has taken years and<br />
many thousand pages. Using such an<br />
approach going forward would require<br />
a massive commitment of new resources<br />
to the Services and EPA and bring<br />
needed innovation to a halt.<br />
Agriculture has been squeezed by<br />
regulatory pressure, and indeed EPA<br />
is charged with regulating pesticides.<br />
This oversight, however, plays an<br />
important role in enabling the safe use<br />
of these tools. EPA approval serves as a<br />
license to operate, and assures the public<br />
that crop protection materials have<br />
been carefully evaluated to be protective<br />
of human health and the environment.<br />
So while the focus here has been<br />
on the sticking points the agricultural<br />
community is working to address, it<br />
is worth reviewing the important role<br />
of EPA’s rigorous process for assessing<br />
pesticides.<br />
Registrants spend on average over<br />
eleven years and $300 million bringing<br />
a product to market. Registration relies<br />
on extensive data generated by peer<br />
reviewed-studies. Every 15 years, the<br />
Agency reevaluates products approved<br />
for use. Some of the key features of the<br />
pesticide regulatory system are that it<br />
is risk-based instead of hazard-based,<br />
and weighs the benefits of a product<br />
against risks. It makes use of data<br />
based on the best available science and<br />
perhaps most importantly, it takes a<br />
protective stance. Based on extensive<br />
data and thorough review, EPA must<br />
Photo Credit: Ben Sacher<br />
show that a pesticide will “not generally<br />
cause unreasonable adverse effects<br />
on the environment” and that there is<br />
a “reasonable certainty of no harm” to<br />
human health. Growers don’t always<br />
get or keep the tools they would want,<br />
but a reliable and science-driven process<br />
provides for both access to crop<br />
protection tools and environmental<br />
and health protection. In fact, it should<br />
be a priority for the regulated community<br />
to protect resources for the Office<br />
of Pesticide Programs at EPA, in a time<br />
where there are calls to dramatically<br />
cut EPA’s budget. So while agriculture<br />
might like to get EPA off its back, a<br />
better funded pesticide program can<br />
do the work needed to allow products<br />
to be brought to market. This arrangement<br />
is worth safeguarding.<br />
Congress and the new administration<br />
have a long to do list. For farmers<br />
everywhere, and anyone who depends<br />
on crop protection tools there is work<br />
to be done to ensure that EPA preserves<br />
its science based, risk-benefit<br />
approach to pesticides.<br />
While the broader issues surrounding<br />
pesticide regulation are complex,<br />
it is clear that there must be a re-set at<br />
the Agency to reaffirm an approach to<br />
pesticide regulation based on sound<br />
science. There are a number of things<br />
that can be done. For one, EPA can be<br />
sure to work with its sister agency, the<br />
U.S. Department of Agriculture. It can<br />
make sure that any new approaches are<br />
thoroughly and transparently vetted.<br />
The goal is not to stack the deck to<br />
favor of the industry, but to make sure<br />
that the important work of reviewing<br />
pesticides follows transparent and<br />
credible procedures to ensure the<br />
safety of crop protection tools growers<br />
depend on.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 37
IPM<br />
Applied Association of IPM Ecologists<br />
(AAIE) Conference Overview<br />
Attendees discuss growing the next generation of PCAs.<br />
Kathy Coatney<br />
Editor<br />
The Applied Association of IPM<br />
(Integrated Pest Management)<br />
Ecologists (AAIE) held a recent conference<br />
that covered a variety of topics.<br />
Pete Goodell, University of California<br />
Cooperative Extension (UCCE)<br />
statewide IPM advisor opened the conference<br />
by speaking on why the IPM<br />
program needs to be reinvigorated.<br />
IPM is a unique concept, Goodell<br />
said. “It’s a way of thinking about the<br />
world and approaching problems in an<br />
ecosystem, or a whole system sort of<br />
approach.”<br />
IPM is multiple approaches using:<br />
Page 38 Progressive Crop Consultant <strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong><br />
• An ecosystem based strategy<br />
• Seeks long term prevention of<br />
pests<br />
• Utilizes a combination of management<br />
techniques—biological<br />
control, cultural practices and<br />
chemical controls<br />
• Employs monitoring and evaluation<br />
of risk<br />
• Selects and applies pest control<br />
materials to minimize risks to<br />
human health, beneficial and<br />
non-target organisms and the<br />
environment<br />
IPM is not new, it can’t be implemented<br />
overnight, it is not a rigid<br />
program of management techniques<br />
and the programs are not universal,<br />
but it is a platform to consider options<br />
and launch solutions determined by<br />
the situation. It is also flexible to the<br />
situation.<br />
Overdependence on single control<br />
tactics leads to problems with:<br />
• Pesticide resistance<br />
• Overuse of pesticides<br />
• Widespread disruption of ecological<br />
balance<br />
• Increased concern about pesticide<br />
exposure<br />
Prevention is the key, and Goodell<br />
stressed the importance of building a<br />
culture of prevention that is as good<br />
at preventing pests as well as treating<br />
them.<br />
“If you prevent the problem, you<br />
don’t have to manage it. If you manage<br />
the problem, you don’t have to control<br />
it,” Goodell said.<br />
Franz Niederholzer, UCCE farm<br />
advisor did a session on sprayer calibration<br />
with UCCE farm advisors John<br />
Roncoroni and Lynn Wunderlich.<br />
They gave a general review on calibration,<br />
and they quizzed the audience<br />
on calibration. They also discussed<br />
droplet formation and atomization.
Most spray nozzles create a range of<br />
spray droplets, and there is a relationship<br />
between droplet diameter and<br />
droplet mass, Niederholzer said.<br />
“There’s a number of droplets that<br />
you generate, and then the volume<br />
of spray contained in those droplets<br />
across the spectrum,” Niederholzer<br />
said.<br />
It’s important not to over apply<br />
because that’s wasteful, and you don’t<br />
want to under apply either, Niederholzer<br />
said. “It’s not wasteful, but it runs<br />
the risk of being an ineffective application,<br />
and that’s hugely expensive.”<br />
“Growers are always concerned and<br />
rightfully so with costs, but if you end<br />
up not doing a good job—if you’re so<br />
focused on costs that you’re not doing<br />
a good job of control, then you really<br />
haven’t helped yourself at all,” Niederholzer<br />
said.<br />
“And if you miss a window that’s<br />
crucial, then whatever pest damage<br />
occurs, you’re playing catch up,” Niederholzer<br />
said, adding generally you<br />
have to be more aggressive with your<br />
rates and maybe mixing chemistries<br />
to effectively control an established<br />
infection.<br />
A one size fits all calibration on the<br />
sprayer means it has to be calibrated<br />
for that the worst case scenario, Niederholzer<br />
said.<br />
In almonds, it’s generally hull split<br />
timings or mite control. These are the<br />
applications that are basically applied<br />
between May and harvest, Niederholzer<br />
said. It is the same for coddling<br />
moth applications in walnuts, he<br />
added.<br />
Niederholzer explained that early<br />
in the season less spray may be needed<br />
simply because there isn’t that much<br />
area to cover, whereas later in the season,<br />
there will be more surface area to<br />
cover, especially with foliar sprays, and<br />
targeting mites, and diseases.<br />
Sprayer calibration is extremely<br />
important and oftentimes overlooked,<br />
Niederholzer said.<br />
Beth Grafton-Cardwell, IPM<br />
Specialist and research entomologist<br />
director of Lindcove Research and Extension<br />
Center spoke at a round table<br />
session on how the drought is affecting<br />
California red scale in citrus.<br />
Because of the drought, there have<br />
been extra heat units, water stressed<br />
Attendees visit with trade show vendors about ag solutions.<br />
trees and the insect has been behaving<br />
in ways Grafton-Cardwell hasn’t seen<br />
before.<br />
Red scale causes two kinds of damage,<br />
Grafton-Cardwell said. Heavy<br />
populations on the fruit will cause the<br />
fruit to be downgraded. The fruit can<br />
be high pressure washed, but it’s never<br />
cleaned up perfectly. Also, if there are<br />
heavy populations in the tree, there<br />
will be dieback of branches, which will<br />
impact yield.<br />
Usually red scale goes dormant<br />
in the wintertime, but the last two<br />
winters that didn’t happen. Red scale<br />
was found in all stages, all times of<br />
year and that’s a problem because in<br />
the spring the growers normally apply<br />
their pesticides when the population<br />
is just starting to get going, Grafton-Cardwell<br />
said.<br />
There wasn’t a biofix either, and the<br />
extra heat units also provided an extra<br />
generation of scale. That meant the<br />
chemicals that are normally sprayed<br />
every other year, weren’t holding the<br />
red scale populations, Grafton-Cardwell<br />
said.<br />
Because there was a colder winter<br />
and increased rainfall this year, Grafton-Cardwell<br />
thinks growers will have<br />
less problems controlling red scale in<br />
the coming season.<br />
· · · · <strong>PCC</strong><br />
<strong>Mar</strong>ch/<strong>Apr</strong>il <strong>2017</strong> www.progressivecrop.com Page 39
Helping Crop Advisers feed the<br />
world, one product at a time.<br />
For more information on Willowood USA products or to find a distributor near you contact us at:<br />
CORPORATE OFFICE:<br />
1600 NW Garden Valley Blvd #120 • Roseburg, OR 97471<br />
541-679-9963 • 877-679-9963 • Fax: 541-679-4650<br />
www.WillowoodUSA.com<br />
HERBICIDES | FUNGICIDES | INSECTICIDES | PGR’s