DOCSLIB.ORG

Vegetable Production Handbook Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

VegetablePRODUCTION HANDBOOK for FLORIDA 2013-2014 DR. BIELINSKI M. SANTOS DR. GARY E. VALLAD Associate Professor of Horticulture, — editors — Associate Professor of Plant Pathology, Gulf Coast REC, IFAS, University of Florida Gulf Coast REC, IFAS, University of Florida Authors Daniel A. Botts, Director, Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association - Maitland Peter J. Dittmar, Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department - Gainesville Nicholas S. Dufault, Assistant Professor, Plant Pathology Department - Gainesville Michael D. Dukes, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department - Gainesville Mary L. Lamberts, Extension Agent IV - Miami-Dade County - Homestead Guodong Liu, Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department - Gainesville Eugene McAvoy, Extension Agent IV, Hendry County, Labelle Joseph W. Noling, Professor, Citrus Research and Education Center - Lake Alfred Stephen M. Olson, Professor, North Florida Research and Education Center - Quincy Monica Ozores-Hampton, Assistant Professor, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center – Immokalee Mathews Paret, Assistant Professor, North Florida Research and Education Center - Quincy Natalia Peres, Associate Professor, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center - Wimauma Richard N. Raid, Professor, Everglades Research and Education Center - Belle Glade Pamela D. Roberts, Professor, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center - Immokalee Bielinski M. Santos, Assistant Professor, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center - Wimauma Eric H. Simonne, Professor, Office of District Extension Directors - Gainesville Hugh A. Smith, Assistant Professor, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center - Wimauma Scott A. Smith, Coordinator, Economic Analysis, Food and Resource Economics Department - Gainesville Crystal A. Snodgrass, Extension Agent I, Manatee County - Palmetto Gary E. Vallad, Associate Professor, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center - Wimauma Susan E. Webb, Associate Professor, Entomology and Nematology Department - Gainesville Alicia J. Whidden, Extension Agent II, Hillsborough County, Seffner Vance M. Whitaker, Assistant Professor, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center – Wimauma Shouan Zhang, Assistant Professor, Tropical Research and Education Center - Homestead Lincoln Zotarelli, Assistant Professor, Horticultural Sciences Department - Gainesville Cover photo: Tomato Chapter formatting and composition Cover photo: Emmanuel A. Torres Bielinski M. Santos and Michelle D. Middleton Acknowledgements The purpose of this book is to provide the best and most up-to-date information available to the primary users of this book - the Florida vege- table industry. This is possible because of the efforts of many University of Florida faculty in several locations around the state. The editors grate- fully acknowledge their contributions. The editors also wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following faculty who have retired or are no longer involved in extension: Richard P. Cromwell, Kent E. Cushman, Craig K. Chandler, James P. Gilreath, George Hochmuth, Chad Hutchinson, Freddie Johnson, Thomas A. Kucharek, Andrew MacRae, Donald N. Maynard, O.N. Nesheim, Kenneth Pernezny, James Price, Kenneth D. Shuler, Allen G. Smajstrla, William M. Stall, David Sui, Charles Vavrina. Disclaimer We appreciate the financial support of Dow AgroScience in the production of this publication. The use of trade names and advertisements in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information. It is not a guarantee or warranty of the products named, and does not signify that they are approved to the exclusion of others of suitable composition. Use pesticides safely. Read and follow directions on the manufac- turer’s label. IFAS info The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer authorized to provide research, edu- cational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handi¬cap, or national origin. For information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Service office, Florida Co- operative Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida (Nick Place, Dean). See our web sites with electronic extension publications at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu and for more information visit “Solutions for Your Life” at http://solutionsforyourlife.ufl.edu. ii 2013 Vegetable Production Handbook Contents Chapter 1. Vegetable Production in Florida . Page 1 B.M. Santos, G.E. Vallad, S.M. Olson, G. Liu, E.H. Simonne, M.D. Dukes, L. Zotarelli, J.W. Noling, D.A. Botts, P.J. Dittmar and S.A. Smith Chapter 2. Cole Crop Production. .Page 7 L. Zotarelli, P.J. Dittmar, G.E. Vallad, S.E. Webb, S.M. Olson and N.S. Dufault Chapter 3. Cucurbit Production. .Page 19 E.J. McAvoy, L. Zotarelli, M. Ozores-Hampton, P.J. Dittmar, P.D. Roberts, S.E. Webb and S.M. Olson Chapter 4. Eggplant Production. .Page 37 B.M. Santos, E.J. McAvoy, M. Ozores-Hampton, P.J. Dittmar, S.E. Webb and M. Paret Chapter 5. Leafy Vegetable Production . Page 47 M. Ozores-Hampton, B.M. Santos, P.J. Dittmar, R.N. Raid, S.E. Webb and S.M. Olson Chapter 6. Legume Production . .Page 63 M. Ozores-Hampton, E.J. McAvoy, P.J. Dittmar, S.E. Webb and S. Zhang Chapter 7. Specialty and Minor Vegetable Crop Production. .Page 75 M.L. Lamberts, M. Ozores-Hampton, B.M. Santos, L. Zotarelli, E.J. McAvoy, P.J. Dittmar, S. Zhang, S.E. Webb, R.N. Raid, A.J. Whidden, C.A. Snodgrass, M. Paret and S.M. Olson Chapter 8. Pepper Production. .Page 121 B.M. Santos, E.J. McAvoy, M. Ozores-Hampton, P.J. Dittmar, G.E. Vallad, S.E. Webb and S.M. Olson Chapter 9. Potato Production . .Page 133 L. Zotarelli, B.M. Santos, P.J. Dittmar, P.D. Roberts and S.E. Webb Chapter 10. Strawberry Production . Page 145 B.M. Santos, N.A. Peres, V.M. Whitaker, P.J. Dittmar, H.A. Smith and S.M. Olson Chapter 11. Sweet Corn Production. Page 153 M. Ozores-Hampton, E.J. McAvoy, P.J. Dittmar, S.E. Webb, R.N. Raid and S.M. Olson Chapter 12. Tomato Production. Page 161 B.M. Santos, E.J. McAvoy, M. Ozores-Hampton, G.E. Vallad, P.J. Dittmar, S.E. Webb, H.A. Smith and S.M. Olson Appendix 1. Biopesticides . Page 181 G.E. Vallad, S.E. Webb and H.A. Smith 2013 Vegetable Production Handbook iii Page intentionally left blank Chapter 1. Vegetable Production in Florida Bielinski M. Santos, Gary E. Vallad, Stephen M. Olson, Guodong Liu, Eric H. Simonne, Michael D. Dukes, Lincoln Zotarelli, Joseph W. Noling, Daniel A. Botts, Peter J. Dittmar and Scott A. Smith Introduction and Objective non-regulatory, and incentive-based measures. Best Management Vegetable production in Florida, including melons and strawberry, Practices (BMP) are specific cultural practices aimed at reducing the occurred in approximately 176,000 acres and generated more than load of a specific compound, while maintaining or increasing econom- $1.5 billion in gross sales in 2011, which ranks second among all the ical yields. They are tools available to vegetable growers to achieve states (13% of the total U.S. value). Growing seasons are well defined the TMDL. BMP are intended to be educational, economically sound, by the peninsula geography, allowing Florida to serve as the main veg- environmentally effective, and based on science. It is important to etable supplier during late fall, winter, and early spring months to the recognize that BMP do not aim at becoming an obstacle to vegetable U.S. Although more than 40 vegetable crops are commercially-planted production. Instead, they should be viewed as a means to balance in the state, Florida ranks in the top three on production value of economical vegetable production with environmental responsibility. tomato, bell pepper, snap bean, squash, sweet corn, watermelon, cab- The BMP that will apply to vegetable production in Florida are bage, cucumber, and strawberry (Table 1.1). described in the ‘Agronomic and Vegetable Crop Water Quality/Wa- ter Quantity BMP Manual for Florida’. This manual was developed between 2000 and 2005 through a cooperative effort between state Table 1.1. Vegetable production acreage and value in Florida. agencies, water management districts and commodity groups, and Crop Planted acres Value (million US$) U.S. rank under the scientific leadership of the University of Florida’s Insti- Tomato 32,000 564.7 1 tute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS). The manual has Strawberry 9,900 366.3 2 undergone a thorough scientific review in 2003 and was presented Bell pepper 18,700 247.7 2 to stakeholders and state commodity groups for feedback in 2004. Sweet corn 50,500 174.2 1 The manual was adopted by reference in 2006 and by rule in Florida Potato 36,400 144.8 n/a Statutes (5M-8 Florida Administrative Code) and may be consulted Snap bean 46,000 131.3 1 on-line at http://www.floridaagwaterpolicy.com/PDFs/BMPs/ Watermelon 25,900 111.9 1 vegetable&agronomicCrops.pdf. BMP are 1-to-3 page long chapters Squash 12,500 94.9 1 that include a picture, a working definition of the topic, list specific Cabbage 8,800 65.0 3 things to do (BMP) as well as things to avoid (pitfalls), and present ex- Cucumber 10,000 52.0 1 isting applicable technical criteria together with additional references. Source: Vegetables-2011 summary, NASS, USDA. Vegetable growers may get one-on-one information on1) the benefits for joining the BMP program, 2) how to join it, 3) how to The objective of this publication is to provide updated information select the BMP that apply to their operation and 4) record keeping on crop cultivars, pesticide labels, and certain practices for vegetable requirements by getting in con- tact with their county extension agent production in Florida. Suggested practices are guidelines for growers or their local implementation team. to plan farm activities and are always subjected to review using the The vegetable BMP have adopted all current UF/IFAS recom- latest scientific data available. mendations; including those for fertilizer and irrigation management (see BMP no.
Recommended publications
  • Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers

    Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers

    Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers 2019 Illinois University of Illinois Extension C1373-19 Indiana Purdue Extension ID-56 Iowa Iowa State University Extension and Outreach FG 0600 Kansas Kansas State University Research and Extension MF3279 Michigan Michigan State University Extension E0312 Minnesota University of Minnesota Extension BU-07094-S Missouri University of Missouri Extension MX384 Lincoln University of Missouri Cooperative Extension and Research LUCER 01-2019 Ohio Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 948 Stay Current For the most up-to-date version of this publication, visit: mwveguide.org Changes will be made throughout the year as they are received. Abbreviations Used in This Guide PHI pre-harvest interval — the minimum allowable time in days between the latest pesticide application and crop harvest AI active ingredient COC crop oil concentrate D dust formulation DF, DG dry flowable or water dispersible granule formulation E, EC emulsifiable concentrate F flowable formulation G granular formulation L, LC liquid concentrate formulation NIS nonionic surfactant REI re-entry interval RUP restricted use pesticide SC suspension concentrate W, WP wettable powder formulation Cover photo: Although a large proportion of broccoli Americans consume is produced in the western U.S, many Midwestern vegetable growers have been able to find local or regional markets for this crop. Health benefits include a high fiber content, vitamin C, vitamin K, iron and potassium. See the Cole Crops and Brassica Leafy Greens section, page 103. Insect, disease, and weed control recommendations in this publication are valid only for 2019. If registration for any of the chemicals suggested is changed during the year since the time of publication (December 2018), we will inform all area and county Extension staff.
  • Snap Pea Salad Cream of Asparagus Soup

    Snap Pea Salad Cream of Asparagus Soup

    Snap Pea Salad Cream of Asparagus Soup Serves 4. Serves 4. Ingredients: Ingredients: Lemon vinaigrette (recipe follows) 2 pounds asparagus 1 pound sugar snap peas, trimmed and strings 1 Tablespoon butter removed 1 medium onion 3 ounces spring greens 4 cups reduced sodium chicken broth 2 Tablespoons low fat sour cream or yogurt Lemon Vinaigrette: Salt and pepper, to taste 3 Tablespoons olive oil 3 Tablespoons lemon Directions: juice, preferably fresh 1 teaspoon fresh or ½ 1. Wash asparagus. Remove tough ends. Cut teaspoon dried oregano in half. 1 garlic clove, minced 2. Melt butter in a large saucepan. Add onion and cook until soft, about 2 minutes. Directions: 3. Add asparagus and chicken stock to saucepan. Bring to a boil, cover and cook on 1. Lemon Vinaigrette: In a small jar or bowl, low for about 20 minutes or until tender. combine all ingredients. Cover and set Remove from heat. Using either a blender or aside. This can be made one day in immersion blender, puree until smooth. advance. Refrigerate until ready to use. 4. Top each serving with one teaspoon of sour 2. Wash and trim the peas. Slice in half on the cream or yogurt. diagonal. Set aside. Wash and dry greens. 3. Fill a 2-quart sauce pan half-full with water. Note: If using a blender, you will need to blend in Cover and bring to a boil. two batches. Since hot liquids expand, hold a 4. Add beans and blanch for 2 minutes. Drain. towel over the blender. Cover in cold water. Drain. 5. Stir together the vinaigrette.
  • Anthonomus Eugenii Pepper Weevil

    Anthonomus Eugenii Pepper Weevil

    Pest specific plant health response plan: Outbreaks of Anthonomus eugenii Figure 1. Adult Anthonomus eugenii. © Fera Science Ltd 1 © Crown copyright 2020 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected] This document is also available on our website at: https://planthealthportal.defra.gov.uk/pests-and-diseases/contingency-planning/ Any enquiries regarding this document should be sent to us at: The UK Chief Plant Health Officer Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Room 11G32 National Agri-Food Innovation Campus Sand Hutton York YO41 1LZ Email: [email protected] 2 Contents 1. Introduction and scope ......................................................................................................... 4 2. Summary of threat................................................................................................................. 4 3. Risk assessments ................................................................................................................. 5 4. Actions to prevent outbreaks ............................................................................................... 5 5. Response ..............................................................................................................................
  • North Dakota Department of Agriculture $2605577.54 (Pdf)

    North Dakota Department of Agriculture $2605577.54 (Pdf)

    FY15 Specialty Crop Block Grant Program- Farm Bill North Dakota Department of Agriculture Final Performance Report USDA Agreement # 15-SCBGP-ND-0026 CONTACT: Deanna Gierszewski, Specialty Crop Grant Administrator 600 E Boulevard Ave #602 Bismarck, ND 58505-0020 Phone: (701) 328-2191 Email: [email protected] Submitted: November 16, 2018 Resubmitted: January 29, 2019 Table of Contents: 1. Enhancing the Safe Use of Specialty Fruit and Vegetable Crops from Field to Table .......3 2. Development of improved fungicide application strategies for managing Sclerotinia head rot in confection sunflowers...............................................................................................10 3. Pea and Lentil Market Analysis .........................................................................................14 4. Optimizing agronomic practices for faba bean production in North Dakota.....................17 5. Optimizing fungicide application strategies for improved management of Sclerotinia in dry edible beans .................................................................................................................21 6. Enhancing Tree Selection and Evaluating Tree Species in Western North Dakota ..........26 7. State-wide screening of green foxtail for herbicide resistance ..........................................32 8. Identification of Pathogen, Soil and Plant Factors Important to Root Rot Development in Field Pea.............................................................................................................................35
  • Tolerance of Vegetable Crops to Salinity M.C

    Tolerance of Vegetable Crops to Salinity M.C

    Scientia Horticulturae 78 (1999) 5±38 Tolerance of vegetable crops to salinity M.C. Shannon*, C.M. Grieve U.S. Salinity Laboratory, Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, 450 W. Big Springs Road, Riverside, CA 92507, USA Abstract Global constraints on fresh water supplies and the need to dispose of agricultural, municipal, and industrial waste waters have intensified interest in water reuse options. In many instances, the value of the water is decreased solely because of its higher salt concentration. Although quantitative information on crop salt tolerance exists for over 130 crop species, there are many vegetables which lack definitive data. Vegetable crops are defined as herbaceous species grown for human consumption in which the edible portions consist of leaves, roots, hypocotyls, stems, petioles, and flower buds. The salt tolerance of vegetable species is important because the cash value of vegetables is usually high compared to field crops. In this review some general information is presented on how salinity affects plant growth and development and how different measurements of salinity in solution cultures, sand cultures, and field studies can be reconciled to a common basis. The salt tolerance of vegetables has been condensed and reported in a uniform format based on the best available data. Discrepancies and inconsistencies exist in some of the information due to differences in cultivars, environments, and experimental conditions. For a great number of species little or no useful information exists and there is an obvious need for research. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. Keywords: Salt tolerance; Ion composition Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................ 7 1.1.
  • Seed Catalog V3

    Seed Catalog V3

    Stillwater Valley Farm Seedlisting 2021 Hello and welcome to my third annual attempt at a descriptive catalog/formal seedlisting! In the past I have only used namelistings of seed, expecting that buyers do their own homework – but it is my hope that the descriptions on these pages will be of assistance, especially to those who may simply be curious. The purpose of this first page is to establish background and “ground rules”. I have always been a “farmer” ever since chewing down dirty carrots in my dad‟s garden, though I entered into seedkeeping after college. My beliefs and educational background established indigenous causes as something close to my heart, and beyond my basic self-sufficiency desires, the connection I feel to my seed is spiritual. It is something I take extremely seriously. I am not in this for profit; I am in this as “heart work” and a calling. I am a lone, economically challenged grower and I process and ship all of my seed by hand with no help. Therefore, I do not have a system for „buy it now‟ seeds and everything here is subject to my own whims and is only based on what I personally grow and provide. If you wish to obtain samples, these details will explain how. I understand they are long, but I ask you to read and respect them all. Informationals: – Varieties are offered in small quantities. I cannot provide poundage; please don‟t ask. A normal distribution of corn is approx. 200 seeds. A normal bean distribution is 20-30.
  • Kale—Brassica Oleracea L. (Acephala Group)1 James M

    Kale—Brassica Oleracea L. (Acephala Group)1 James M

    HS617 Kale—Brassica oleracea L. (Acephala group)1 James M. Stephens2 Kale is cool-season cooking green somewhat similar to col- attractive for landscape planting and is edible, but not very lard and nonheading cabbage. Kale is also called borecole. palatable. The term “flowering” derives from the shape and “Kale” is a Scottish word derived from coles or caulis, terms coloration of the plant, which resembles a flower, and does used by the Greeks and Romans in referring to the whole not refer to actual flowers. cabbage-like group of plants. The German word “kohl” has the same origin. The Scotch varieties have deeply curled grayish green leaves. Kale is native to the Mediterranean or to Asia Minor. It was introduced to America from Europe as early as the 17th century. Kale is not a big commercial crop in Florida, but is found in about one out of ten home gardens. Most southern gardeners, including Floridians, prefer collards to kale. Culture and Use Kale produces seed in the second year. It is grown from seed as an annual. Culture is similar to that for cabbage and collards. Throughout Florida, it can be seeded or transplanted from September through March with fairly good results. For best results, it should be planted so that harvest takes place in the coolest months. For home use, Figure 1. Kale (flowering) Credits: James M. Stephens some of the leaves are stripped off as needed; the plants then continue to produce more leaves. It takes about 2½ to 3 months from seeding to harvest. The main problems are those that occur on cabbage and collards.
  • Biology of Diamondback Moth, Plutellae Xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) of Cauliflower Under Laboratory Condition

    Biology of Diamondback Moth, Plutellae Xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) of Cauliflower Under Laboratory Condition

    Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(1): 866-873 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 8 Number 01 (2019) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.801.094 Biology of Diamondback Moth, Plutellae xylostella (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) of Cauliflower under Laboratory Condition G. Harika1*, S. Dhurua2, N. Sreesandhya2, M. Suresh2 and S. Govinda Rao2 1DAATTC, Vizianagaram, AP, India 2ANGRAU, Agricultural College, Naira, A.P, India *Corresponding author ABSTRACT K e yw or ds Biological studies conducted during 2017-18 at the Post Graduation Research laboratory, Department of Entomology, Agricultural College, Naira on Diamondback moth, Plutellae Biology, Plutellae xylostella (L.) (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) revealed that the egg period (incubation period) xylostella , varies from 2 to 4 days (Av. 3 ± 0.5 days). The larva passed through four different instars. Cauliflower The first, second, third and fourth instar larva lived for 2 to 3 days (Av. 2.5 days), 2 days (Av. 1.5 days), 1 to 3 days (Av. 1.75 ± 0.25 days) and 2 to 4 days (Av. 2.75 ± 0.25 days), Article Info respectively with a total larval period of 7 to 12 days (Av. 9 days). The pre-pupal and Accepted: pupal stage lasted for 1 - 2 days (Av. 1.5 ± 0.5 days) and 3 to 5 days (Av. 4.25 ± 0.25 07 December 2018 days), respectively. The adults lived for 3 to 7 days (Av. 4.5 ± 1 days) and the entire life Available Online: span under laboratory conditions varied from 13 to 22 days (Av.
  • Relationships Among Climate, Forests, and Insects in North America: Examples of the Importance of Long-Term and Broad-Scale Perspectives

    Relationships Among Climate, Forests, and Insects in North America: Examples of the Importance of Long-Term and Broad-Scale Perspectives

    161 Relationships among climate, forests, and insects in North America: Examples of the importance of long-term and broad-scale perspectives Talbot Trotter1 Forest structure is strongly influenced by distur- they inhabit. The extensive body of available bance, agents of which can include fire, weather, research on forest insects, particularly economically mammals, annelids, fungi, insects, and increasingly important forest pests, further facilitates the study with the advent of the Anthropocene, climate. of these interactions in the context of anthro- Currently, climate change represents one of the pogenic climate change. broadest threats to natural systems, including forests, with the potential to directly alter forest As work continues to evaluate the interactions structure and function through mechanisms such as between a changing climate and forest insects, it is drought induced tree mortality (Allen et al., 2010), critical that the discussion extends beyond simple changes in tree species distribution (Allen and increases in mean temperature. While the popular Breshears, 1998; Neilson and Marks, 1994), densi- term ‘global warming’ captures the fundamental ty (Allen et al., 2010), and composition (Allen and process of anthropogenic changes in the global cli- Breshears, 1998; Mueller et al., 2005). mate (i.e. a net increase in mean global tempera- ture), it represents a gross generalization of local Although the direct effects of climate on trees often manifestations of climate change, and oversimpli- produce the most readily apparent
  • Pepper Pest Management

    Pepper Pest Management

    Pepper Pest Management Kaushalya Amarasekare Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Entomology Dept. of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences College of Agriculture Tennessee State University University of Maryland Nashville, Tennessee Extension snaped.fns.usda.gov Goal The goal of this training is to educate stakeholders on arthropods (pest insects and mites) that damage peppers and methods to manage them using integrated pest management (IPM) techniques Objectives Upon completion of this training, the participants will be able to 1) teach, 2) demonstrate and 3) guide growers, small farmers, backyard and community gardeners, master gardeners, and other stakeholders on management of pest arthropods in peppers Course Outline 1. Introduction: background information on bell and chili pepper 2. Pests of pepper a) Seedling Pests b) Foliage Feeders c) Pod Feeders 3. Summary 4. References Introduction Bell /sweet pepper Peppers • Family Solanaceae • Capsicum annum L. • Bell/sweet peppers and chili agmrc.org Peppers: consumed as • Fresh • Dried chili pepper • Ground as spices • Processed (canned, pickled, brined or in salsas) 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu Bell Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of fresh bell peppers ~ 11.4 lbs./person • High in vitamin C and dietary fiber • Provide small amounts of several vitamins and minerals • Usually sold as fresh produce Maturity Sugar Content Chili Pepper • 2017: U.S. consumption of chili peppers ~ 7.7 lbs./person • High in vitamin C • Small amounts of vitamin A and B-6, iron and magnesium 570cjk, Creative Commons wifss.ucdavis.edu • Sold as fresh produce and dried (whole peppers, crushed or powdered) pepperscale.com Myscha Theriault U.S. green pepper production • U.S.
  • Sweet Peppers

    Sweet Peppers

    Crop Protection Research Institute The Benefits of Insecticide Use: Sweet Peppers Pepper Maggot Adult Misshapen Green Bell Pepper, Possible Damage from Pepper Weevils Pepper Weevil Larvae Damage European Corn Borer Damage March 2009 Leonard Gianessi CropLife Foundation 1156 15th Street, NW #400 Washington, DC 20005 Phone 202-296-1585 www.croplifefoundation.org Fax 202-463-0474 Key Points • The pepper maggot feeds only on solanaceous crops and has damaged up to 90% of unsprayed pepper crops. • In the early 1900s the pepper weevil caused a 33% loss in the U.S. commercial pepper crop in the U.S. • Sprays for European corn borer control increased pepper yields by 2 to 4 tons per acre. • A near zero tolerance exists for peppers with a pepper weevil, pepper maggot, or European corn borer present. Technical Summary Growers in California and seven southern and north central states (Fl, GA, MI, NJ, NC, OH, TX) produce 1.7 billion pounds of sweet peppers with a value of $585 million on 66,000 acres annually. Insecticides are used on 85-100% of the pepper acres [21]. In Georgia, 10 insecticide applications are made to pepper acres annually [19]. The total cost of the pepper insecticide spray program in Georgia is estimated at $186 per acre out of a total cost of $8935 for producing an acre of peppers (2%) [20]. In Florida, New Jersey, and Michigan, the costs of insecticides are $322/A, $76/A, and $52/A respectively, representing 2-4% of the cost of producing sweet peppers [28]-[30].In California, insecticide costs are $120-$340/A[38][39].
  • Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii French, in Southwestern Michigan

    Mitchell's Satyr Butterfly, Neonympha Mitchellii Mitchellii French, in Southwestern Michigan

    Mitchell’s Satyr Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement This Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement, effective and binding on the date of last signature below, is between U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s East Lansing Field Office Project Leader and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Permittee: Scott Hicks, Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service East Lansing Field Office 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 101 East Lansing, Michigan 48823 (517) 351-2555 The Service designates the following as the Agreement Contact: Laura Ragan, Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990 Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-1458 Tracking Number: Summary of Purpose of the SHA: The purpose of this agreement is to outline conservation actions that participating property owners will implement and monitor on their enrolled properties for Mitchell’s satyr (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii). The goal of the agreement is to encourage property owners to engage in conservation actions for the Mitchell’s satyr that provide a net conservation benefit to recovery. 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Safe Harbor Program (64 FR 32717) provides regulatory flexibility to non-federal landowners who voluntarily commit to implementing or avoiding specific activities, over a defined timeframe, that are reasonably expected to provide a net conservation benefit to species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In exchange for this commitment, enrolled landowners (Cooperators) receive assurances from the Service that no additional future regulatory restrictions will be imposed or commitments required for species covered under a Safe Harbor Agreement.