2014 Proceedings 56th Annual Horticulture Growers’ Short Course
2014 Proceedings
January 30 – February 1
Editors: Todd Kabaluk Lisa Frey
Sponsored by:
Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association
The LMHIA acknowledges the support of the following in delivery of the 2014 Short Course:
2012/2013 LMHIA Board of Directors
President: David Mutz Vice-President: James Bergen Secretary: Susan Smith Treasurer: Mark Sweeney
Mike Boot Marjolaine Dessureault Trevor Harris Jeff Husband Brian Johnston Alf Krause Jordan Krause Sid Kwantes Ed McKim Grant McMillan Mike Makara Ria van Eekelen Bruce Wisbey Harvie Snow Lydia Ryall Heather Meberg
Ex Officio Directors Donna Anaka Jenny Curtis Michael Dossett Sheila Fitzpatrick Elsie Friesen Gary Jones Todd Kabaluk Dave Trotter Bob Vernon Dave Woodske
Executive Director Sandy Dunn
Foreword
These Proceedings summarize three days of meetings and educational seminars at the 56th Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association Short Course held in conjunction with the 16th Annual Pacific Agriculture Show from January 30 - February 1, 2014 in Abbotsford, BC. There were 863 registered for the Short Course and 96 for the Ag-Energy session, and 105 presenters, along with over 250 exhibitors and over 7,000 general attendees at the Pacific Agriculture Show. The Short Course provides an opportunity for participants to learn about the recent progress in research and development, sustainability and innovation, marketing, agricultural programs and policies, and the ever-changing face of the horticulture industry in BC. This event is organized by the LMHIA Board of Directors, which includes growers, agribusinesses, government and university personnel – all of whom deserve credit for its delivery. Short Course evaluations this year indicated a very high rating for both the choice of speakers and the topics presented. Last year the introduction of Twitter (#pacagshow) was so successful that we expanded our social media presence, with the following sites planned for use into the future:
Twitter: www.twitter.com/pacagshow Facebook: www.facebook.com/pacificagricultureshow Instagram: www.instagram.com/pacagshow
This volume contains summaries written by the speakers themselves. The LMHIA Board, and all others involved in the Short Course acknowledge and appreciate the widespread participation of the speakers in drafting summaries of their presentations to be included in these Proceedings. The Proceedings stand as a resource of information for the horticulture industry as a whole, and a record of the state of development of agriculture in BC. Revenue generated by the Short Course enables the LMHIA to award research projects in support of agriculture in BC.
Finally, we wish a satisfying retirement life to Proceedings Editor and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Plant Breeder, Chaim Kempler. Chaim has been an enthusiastic proponent and active editor of these Proceedings for many years.
We look forward to seeing you at next year’s Short Course from January 29 - 31, 2015.
The Editing Committee
The summaries presented in this volume were submitted by the presenters themselves. The BC Ministry of Agriculture, the LMHIA, and the editors of this publication do not assume liability for crop loss, animal loss, health safety or environmental hazard caused by the use of information described in this publication.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 4
Table of Contents
Raspberries/Strawberries
Vericillium: Is it a Problem in Red Raspberries?………………………………...... …………. 10 Jerry Weiland
Recent Weed Control Trials in Blueberries and Raspberries………………………………...…...... 14 Tim Miller and Carl Libbey
Update on PARC Raspberry and Strawberry Trial…………………………………………...…...... 23 Michael Dossett
Strawberry and Raspberry Cultivar Development…………………………………………...…...... 27 Patrick P. Moore
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Raspberries: 2013 Findings…………………………………...…...... 30 Tracy Hueppelsheuser
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Berries: 2013 Findings…………………………………...... …...... 35 Lynell Tanigoshi, Bev Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler
Working Toward Better Raspberry and Strawberry Establishment……………………….....…...... 38 Eric M. Gerbrandt
Soil Fumigation in BC: Upcoming Challenges…………………..……………………….....…...... 41 Brian Johnston
2014 Raspberry Market Outlook……………...…………………..……………………….....…...... 44 Jen Dhaliwal
Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Agroforestry Initiative: Demonstration Highilights & Resources Available………………...…...... 48 George Powell
Alley Cropping with Black Walnut and Pawpaw…………………………………………….…...... 52 Brenda Dureault
Agroforestry in the Kootenay Region: Integrating Streamside Shrub Products with Honey Bees…………………………………………………………….…...... 54 Michael Murray
Agroforestry Demonstration in the Gulf Islands…………………………………………………………. 57 Sonja Zupanec and Jeff Rietkerk
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 5
Potatoes
In Search of a Quality Potato: It Starts Before Planting……………………………………..…...... 60 Kiara Jack
Managing Tuber Damage at Harvest…………………..……………………………………..…...... 61 Kiara Jack
Thrips Management – Developing a Threshold for Control………..………………………...…...... 65 Wim van Herk, Bob Vernon, Kiara Jack and Heather Meberg
Only Plant Pathologists Appreciate Scurfy Potatoes………..………………………...... …...... 72 Lynn Woodell and Nora Olsen
Greenhouse Vegetable
Progress in Developing Methods for Reliable and Sensitive Detection of Clavibacter and Salmonella in Tomato Irrigation Water…….………………………………...... 75 Sally A. Miller, J. LeJeune, X. Xu, F. Baysal-Gurel, M.L. Lewis Ivey, S. Ilic and C. Vrisman
Efficacy of Disinfectants Against Fungal, Bacterial, Virus and Viroid Pathogens of Tomatoes on Greenhouse Tools……………………………………………….. 78 Sally A. Miller and Fulya Baysal-Gurel, Kai-Shu Ling and Rugang Li
Priva TopCrop……………………………………………………………………………...... …...... 81 Kevin de Kok
Field Vegetables
RNA Interference Technology: Applications for Agriculture………………………………..…...... 83 Guus Bakkeren
Recent Weed Control Trials in Vegetable Seed Crops: 2013 Report………...……………...…...... 87 Tim Miller and Carl Libbey
Improvements in Phosphorus Use Efficiency for Crop Nutrition…..………...……………...…...... 97 Terry A. Tindall and Galen Mooso
Production and Pest Management of Beets in BC…………………..………...……………...…...... 102 Bruce Wisbey
Floriculture
How to Get it Right: Top 10 Reasons Why Your Pest Management Didn’t Work………….…...... 104 Brian Spencer
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 6
Innovations in Greenhouse Pest Management………………………………………………..…...... 108 Rose Buitenhuis
Agri-energy Forum
Summaries available at: http://www.bcac.bc.ca/ardcorp/program/renewable-agri-energy
2014 Building Farm Business Success – A Lens on Agriculture
Sustainability: What is that?………………………………………………………………….…...... 111 Brett Wills
The Bright New Future of Agriculture………………………………………………………………… 113 Jay Lehr
Farm Direct Marketing
Cooperation, Collaboration, and Creativity in Marketing………………………………………...... 115 Heather Stretch
Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
Lower Mainland Surface Water Research – What Did We Learn?…………………………..…...... 117 Stephanie Nadya, Kevin Allen and Pascal Delaquis
Reality Check-Up on Growing Forward Funding………………………………………………...... 120 Bill Weismiller
Nursery
Organic Matter in Horticulture – A Report from Scientific Meetings.……………………….…...... 122 Mario Lanthier
Robotics and the Horticulture Industry……………………………………………………….…...... 127 John Van de Vegte
Keeping Trees, Shrubs (and You) Stress-Free: What Works, What Doesn’t and Why……………………………………………………….…...... 132 Linda Chalker-Scott
Precision Irrigation in Greenhouses and Nurseries: Improving Production and Increasing Profits………………………………………………………………………...…...... 134 Marc W. van Iersel, Matthew R. Chappell and Paul A. Thomas
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 7
All Berries
Potential Fungicides for Control of Downy Mildew of Blackberry………………………….…...... 136 J. F. Elmhirst, J. R. Hayes, S. Pissonnier and S. Sveinson-Dyer
Why Berry Growers Need to get on the Food Safety Ball in 2014…………………………..…...... 140 Victor Martens
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug: Why You Need to Be Prepared…………………………...... 141 Tracy Hueppelsheuser
What is the Real Story Behind Declining Bee Health………………………………………..…...... 144 Elizabeth Elle
Promising New Blueberry Cultural Practices – 2013 Trials………………………………....…...... 145 Eric M. Gerbrandt
Are Blueberry Growers Making the Most of their Nitrogen………………………………....…...... 149 David Poon
Blueberries
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Blueberries: Lessons Learned in 2013……………………………...... 151 Tracy Hueppelsheuser
The Blueberry Market in 2014: Will You Wipe Out in the Blue Wave?………………………………. 157 John Shelford
Communicating a Positive Public Image for BC Blueberries……………………………………………161 Norm Hartman
What You Need to Know About Blueberry Nutrient Management For Yield, Quality and Sustainability…………………………...……………………………………… 163 Bernadine C. Strik
Update on PARC Blueberry Trials……………………………………………………………………. 168 Michael Dossett
How to Keep on the Good Side of Environmental Regulators When Developing Fields for Production of High Value Crops……………………………………………………………. 171 Kim Sutherland
Organics
Surviving Pest Wars in Organic Vegetable Production……..………………………………………… 177 Harvie Snow
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 8
Organic Blueberry Production – Yielding Conventional Results……………………………………… 181 Bernadine Strik, David Bryla, Dan Sullivan and Amanda Vance
Organic Blueberry Production in BC: Barriers and Solutions…………………………………………. 187 Kristine Ferris
Natural Products for Organic Weed Control………………..…………………………………………. 189 Tim Miller
Hazelnuts
Life After Blight………………………………………………………………………………………….193 Richard Birkemeier
A Trial to Evaluate New Hazelnut Cultivars in British Columbia…………………………...…………. 197 Thomas O’Dell
Hazelnuts are Back!…………………………………………………………………………..…...... 200 Haley Argen and Thomas O’Dell
New Varieties and Orchard Care Techniques………………………………………………………….. 203 Richard Birkemeier
LMHIA Board-Approved Research Projects in March 2013.…………………...... 210
2014 Horticulture Growers’ Short Course Program……………………….……….....211
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 9 Raspberries/Strawberries
Verticillium: Is it a Problem in Red Raspberries?
Jerry Weiland USDA-ARS Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR [email protected]
Why Conduct Research on Verticillium in Red Raspberries?
For several years, red raspberry growers have been noticing symptoms that did not appear typical of Phytophthora root rot as caused by Phytophthora rubi. Symptoms of Phytophthora root rot often include the sudden wilting and death of floricanes just as the fruits begin to ripen in June. Primocanes may also collapse and die, but this tends to occur early in the growing season when field soils are cool and moist. In severe cases, many plants within a row or across adjacent rows may be killed. In contrast to the aforementioned symptoms, many growers have noticed sudden wilting and death of primocanes in late summer (Figure 1) when P. rubi is supposed to be relatively inactive. In other cases, growers are seeing field sites where most of the plants in the area are stunted and off-color (Figure 2). Both of these types of symptoms are typical of Verticillium wilt of red and black raspberry caused by Verticillium dahliae, a soilborne fungus. In 2012, plant and soil samples collected from several locations exhibiting these symptoms were sent for laboratory analysis and some came back positive for the presence of Verticillium.
Figure 1. Wilting primocane in Figure 2. Stunted and off-color red raspberry plants. early September
A second indication that Verticillium might be a problem on red raspberry comes from research in our laboratory, where we have been screening black raspberry genotypes for resistance to V. dahliae. As part of the experimental design, we included the red raspberry cultivar Meeker as a resistant genotype because there is some published information that indicates red raspberries are generally resistant to V. dahliae. Surprisingly, the plants of ‘Meeker’ that we inoculated with V. dahliae soon developed symptoms of stunting, yellow leaves, wilting, and primocane death (Figure 3). Some plants were even completely killed. This has been a consistent observation in inoculated ‘Meeker’ plants for the three years that we have been conducting the screen, so the results are repeatable.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 10 Raspberries/Strawberries
Figure 3. Range of symptoms in inoculated ‘Meeker’ red raspberry plants. Healthy, noninoculated plant on the far left for comparison. Symptoms may appear only as a slight reduction in cane growth (2nd plant from left) to complete plant death (far right).
Finally, there is historical evidence that V. dahliae has been a problem in red raspberry. William H. Lawrence, the first plant pathologist in Washington, first isolated V. dahliae from red raspberry over one hundred years ago in 1912. In the 1920s and 1930s, the pathogen was found to affect up to 40% of the plants in some red raspberry fields, but there is little to no information since that time to indicate whether the pathogen is still an issue in production fields.
Based on these observations, it seems reasonable to suspect V. dahliae might be responsible for some of the symptoms observed more recently in production fields. However, more evidence is needed to confirm this. Additionally, the 2012 field sample analyses pointed out two more issues that needed to be addressed. First, some plant and soil samples were sent to different diagnostic laboratories and sometimes the results were contradictory: In some cases, one laboratory would detect V. dahliae when the other would not. It turns out that there are two main methods of detecting V. dahliae used by diagnostic laboratories and the results may differ on which method is used and how the results are interpreted. Second, in several cases, V. dahliae was not detected in either the plant or soil sample associated with a diseased plant, so it remained unknown what pathogen was causing the problem. It quickly became apparent that other analyses needed to be conducted to determine if other pathogens were present. Therefore, the main objectives of our research are to:
Survey red raspberry production fields for V. dahliae to determine how common it is and whether it is causing disease. Evaluate the two main methods for detecting V. dahliae and determine which method is more sensitive and accurate. Determine whether other pathogens are associated with diseased and dying red raspberry. Screen red raspberry cultivars to determine if they are resistant or susceptible to V. dahliae.
What is Verticillium dahliae?
Verticillium dahliae is a soilborne fungus that can survive for years in the soil. It infects through the roots and colonizes the xylem, the water-conducting tissue of plants. As the pathogen spreads into the xylem, water transport is blocked and the plants wilt and die. Verticillium dahliae has a huge host range including: red and black raspberries, strawberries, cherry, mint, potato, spinach, and a number of ornamental plant species. It is a difficult pathogen to manage once it is present in the soil, and is generally
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 11 Raspberries/Strawberries
considered impossible to eradicate even with soil fumigation or crop rotation. Therefore, most disease management research from other susceptible crop species has focused on disease resistance.
Verticillium Survey
To date, plant and soil samples have been collected from 25 sites in Washington with symptomatic red raspberry plants. Five sites were sampled in 2012 and 20 sites were sampled in 2013. We avoided areas with a history of Phytophthora root rot and focused solely on sites where wilt symptoms appeared in late summer and/or where plants were chronically stunted and chlorotic. Additional sites will be surveyed in 2014.
We are testing two methods to detect V. dahliae. The first is a cultural method based on placing plant and soil subsamples on selective media in petri plates and then incubating the plates to see if V. dahliae grows out. The second is a DNA-based method, where we extract DNA from plant and soil subsamples and then determine if DNA from V. dahliae is present through quantitative PCR (qPCR). So far, we have completed all analyses based on the cultural method and are busy working to get the DNA-based method running in our lab.
To determine if other pathogens were present, plant subsamples were placed on different types of selective media. If enough roots were available in the soil sample, Inga Zasada, a research nematologist, tested for the presence of root lesion nematodes (Pratylenchus penetrans).
Verticillium Survey Results
Out of the 25 sites sampled, we have detected V. dahliae from five sites (Figure 4). Even though we focused on sites where Phytophthora root rot was not suspected to be present, we were still able to detect Phytophthora species at over half of the sites sampled. Work is in progress to confirm whether these are P. rubi or some other Phytophthora species. We did not begin looking for other potential fungal pathogens or nematodes until 2013. Nevertheless, we consistently isolated Fusarium, Alternaria, and Pratylenchus from over half of the 20 sites sampled in 2013. Both Fusarium and Alternaria are fungi that can either be pathogenic or nonpathogenic depending on the species, so we don’t know yet if they are pathogenic or not. Work is in progress to identify the Fusarium and Alternaria isolates that we obtained and to test their pathogenicity.
Figure 4. Pathogens and nematodes detected at 25 sites (in black) or 20 sites (in red). Results based on the cultural method only.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 12 Raspberries/Strawberries
Red Raspberry Cultivar Disease Screen
We inoculated 35 red raspberry cultivars with V. dahliae in 2013. Black raspberry cultivar ‘Munger’ served as a susceptible control and noninoculated plants were included for each cultivar for comparison. Disease symptoms have not been as severe as expected, so we are carrying the entire experiment through another growing season and will reinoculate later in spring 2014. Nevertheless, we have observed that inoculated plants are often significantly shorter than healthy, noninoculated plants. We should have final results by winter 2014.
Conclusions
We found five sites where Verticillium dahliae is present in association with diseased plants. Phytophthora is widespread. It’s important to note how often we were able to isolate Phytophthora from primocanes wilting in late summer from relatively dry sites where P. rubi was not suspected to be a problem. In addition to Phytophthora, there is a consistent association of diseased plants with Alternaria, Fusarium, and Pratylenchus penetrans. ‘Meeker’ is susceptible to V. dahliae based on field and greenhouse observations, but other red raspberry cultivars need further evaluation.
Collaborators
Inga Zasada: USDA-ARS, Corvallis, OR. Wendy Hoashi-Erhardt: WSU, Puyallup, WA. Pat Moore: WSU, Puyallup, WA. Chris Benedict: WSU Extension, Bellingham, WA.
Funding for this research is through: Washington Red Raspberry Commission USDA Crop Germplasm Committee USDA-ARS CRIS Project 303-5358-12220-003-00D
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 13 Raspberries/Strawberries
Recent Weed Control Trials in Blueberries and Raspberries
Tim Miller and Carl Libbey WSU Mount Vernon – NWREC, Mt. Vernon, WA [email protected]
2013 Report: Blueberries
Young ‘Draper’ blueberries, transplanted in September, 2011 (Craig Ford, South Alder Farms, Lynden, cooperator), were treated with directed sprays of Callisto (mesotrione), Matrix (rimsulfuron), Sandea (halosulfuron), Sinbar (terbacil), Stinger (clopyralid), Treevix (saflufenacil), Karmex (diuron), Lorox (linuron), Reflex (fomesafen), Alion (indaziflam), Dual Magnum (s-metolachlor), Gramoxone (paraquat), and Velpar (hexazinone) either during late dormancy (March 4, 2013) or post bud break (April 30, 2013; POST). The same plots were treated with the same herbicides in 2012. Plots in the first replicate were also inadvertently treated by the cooperator with a directed spray of Callisto in mid-April. Percent weed control from dormant-season applications was estimated April 24, 2013 and for all plots on May 13 and 28 and September 14, 2013. As these were young blueberry plants, no berries were harvested from these plots. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replicates. Means were separated using Tukey’s HSD (P < 0.05).
Some weeds were emerged at the time the dormant application timing (early March). Primary weed species in the plots were common chickweed (Stellaria media), shepherd’s-purse (Capsella bursa- pastoris), purple deadnettle (Lamium purpureum), white clover (Trifolium repens), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), spring whitlowgrass (Draba verna), and annual bluegrass (Poa annua). Other weeds included prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), panicle willow-herb (Epilobium ciliatum), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), quackgrass (Elymus repens), and corn spurry (Spergula arvensis). Weed control at about 6 weeks after the dormant treatment (April 23) was excellent, ranging from 87 to 100% (Table). Note that products listed as “POST” in the Table were not applied until May 2, 2013 but those plots had received the same treatment during the 2012 season. Those treatments ranged from 62 to 88% control, although none differed significantly. Weed control at the May 13 evaluation ranged from 48 to 100%, with Reflex at 1 pt/a or Stinger alone (during dormancy or POST) or POST with Sandea resulting in <72% weed control. By May 28, the only treatments resulting in <70% weed control were the same treatments as well as Treevix at 2 oz/a, Reflex at 2 pt/a; control with Sandea + Stinger POST had improved to 87% at that timing. There were still no significant differences in weed control among the treatments by September, although it was clear that the rows had been treated with Gramoxone by the cooperator during the summer to control emerged weeds throughout the plots. No treatments caused visible blueberry foliar injury at any evaluation.
Based on these data, continued testing of these product combinations is warranted. In particular, Treevix and Alion remain as high priorities for registration in nonbearing and newly-planted blueberry, and Reflex also appears to be a good fit for these uses.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 14 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table. Weed control after treatment with several herbicides in second-year ‘Draper’ blueberry (2013). Weed control a a Treatment Rate Timing Apr 24 May 13 May 28 product/a % % % Sandea 2 oz Dormant 95 ab 82 ab 73 a-d Stinger 5.3 fl.oz Dormant 87 abc 50 cde 38 ef Callisto 6 fl.oz Dormant 93 abc 85 ab 77 a-d Matrix 4 oz Dormant 95 ab 88 ab 90 a-d Sinbar + Lorox 2 lb + 1 lb Dormant 100 a 95 ab 93 abc Sinbar + Lorox 2 lb + 2 lb Dormant 100 a 98 ab 95 abc Sinbar + Karmex + Lorox 2 lb + 1 lb + 1 lb Dormant 100 a 100 a 100 a Sinbar + Karmex + Lorox 2 lb + 2 lb + 2 lb Dormant 100 a 100 a 98 ab Sinbar + Callisto 2 lb + 6 fl.oz Dormant 98 a 97 ab 95 abc Sinbar + Matrix 2 lb + 4 oz Dormant 100 a 100 a 100 a Velpar + Sinbar + Karmex 1 lb + 1 lb + 1 lb Dormant 100 a 98 ab 97 abc Treevix + mso + ams 1 oz + 1% + 2% Dormant 98 a 85 ab 70 a-e Treevix + mso + ams 2 oz + 1% + 2% Dormant 93 abc 82 ab 67 b-e Alion + Gramoxone 2.5 fl.oz + 2 pt Dormant 98 a 90 ab 80 a-d Alion + Gramoxone 5 fl.oz + 2 pt Dormant 98 a 92 ab 82 a-d Reflex 1 pt Dormant 93 abc 72 bcd 60 def Reflex 2 pt Dormant 92 abc 77 abc 65 cde Reflex + Dual Magnum 2 pt + 1 pt Dormant 95 ab 85 ab 80 a-d Reflex + Callisto 2 pt + 3 fl.oz Dormant 98 a 87 ab 78 a-d Sandea 2 oz POST 85 a-d 87 ab 87 a-d Stinger 5.3 fl.oz POST 68 a-d 48 de 32 fg Callisto 6 fl.oz POST 53 d 75 a-d 87 a-d Matrix 4 oz POST 73 a-d 85 ab 92 a-d Sandea + Matrix 2 oz + 4 oz POST 77 a-d 90 ab 97 abc Sandea + Callisto 2 oz + 6 fl.oz POST 65 bcd 72 bcd 87 a-d Sandea + Stinger 2 oz + 5.3 fl.oz POST 78 a-d 75 a-d 82 a-d Stinger + Matrix 5.3 fl.oz + 4 oz POST 83 a-d 85 ab 92 a-d Stinger + Callisto 5.3 fl.oz + 6 fl.oz POST 88 abc 88 ab 85 a-d Matrix + Callisto 4 oz + 6 fl.oz POST 72 a-d 82 ab 95 abc Sandea + Matrix + Callisto 2 oz + 4 oz + 6 fl.oz POST 75 a-d 80 ab 95 abc Sandea + Matrix + Stinger 2 oz + 4 oz + 5.3 fl.oz POST 73 a-d 75 a-d 92 a-d Sandea + Callisto + Stinger 2 oz + 6 fl.oz + 5.3 fl.oz POST 82 a-d 83 ab 93 abc Matrix + Callisto + Stinger 4 oz + 6 fl.oz + 5.3 fl.oz POST 65 bcd 77 abc 97 abc Nontreated check ------62 cd 28 e 0 g Means within a column followed by the same letter or with no letters are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aDormant applications were made March 8-9, 2012 and POST applications were made May 2, 2012; plots were maintained in 2013, with dormant applications made March 4, 2013 and POST applications made April 30, 2013; all treatments were mixed with nonionic surfactant (0.25%, v/v) prior to application.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 15 Raspberries/Strawberries
2013 Report: Red Raspberries
The trial was conducted on established ‘Nootka’ red raspberry near Lynden, WA. Products were applied at three timings: preemergence to primocanes (PRE), at time of primocane burning (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and to 3-ft tall primocanes (POST). Herbicides were applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo), and May 29 (POST), 2013 using a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer. Herbicides and rates are provided in Tables 1-3 (new herbicide trial) and Tables 4-6 (Prism/Matrix trial). All primocanes in the new herbicide trial were removed using Aim at 6.4 fl.oz/a, including the nontreated checks. Primocane injury and weed control were evaluated April 11 and 24, May 13 and 28, and June 13. Berries were sampled by hand on July 6 and 7. The design was a randomized complete block with three or four replicates (new herbicide and Prism/Matrix trials, respectively).
Results:
New Herbicide Trial
There was no visible floricane injury resulting from any treatment (data not shown). Calliso PRE caused slight to moderate whitening of primocane leaves at about one month after treatment for two of the three Callisto treatments tested (Table 1). These primocanes were subsequently removed by the cane burning application (April 11); replacement primocanes did not display symptoms typical of Callisto. No treatment had visible primocanes April 24 (including plots not treated with residual herbicides), but all new primocanes were 53 to 85% of new growth in nontreated plots (Table 1). There were no differences in second-crop primocanes due to herbicide treatment at any evaluation date; injury ranged from 0 to 15% on May 28 and from 0 to 5% on June 13.
Weed control was uniformly excellent for all treatments in this trial, ranging from 90 to 100% control at all evaluation timings (Table 2). The primary weed in the plots was common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris), with quackgrass (Elymus repens), fringed willow-herb (Epilobium ciliatum), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) also present in some of the plots.
Total berry yield and fruit size was similar for all treatments (Table 3). On a per acre basis, the single sampling averaged about 1300 lbs/acre. Fruit size ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 g/berry.
These results indicate that the herbicides used in this trial were safe for established red raspberry. Callisto PRE cause temporary whitening of primocane leaves in some plots, but new growth appeared normal and berry yield was not negatively affected. Testing of Zeus, Alion, Treevix, and quinclorac, alone and in combination with other herbicides, should continue to be a high priority for ultimate registration in red raspberry.
Prism/Matrix (rimsulfuron) Trial
There was no visible floricane injury resulting from any treatment (data not shown). Rimsulfuron applied to dormant raspberry plants did not cause visible injury to primocanes at about one month after treatment, a similar result as that observed from simazine + diuron (Table 4). Rimsulfuron applied to 6-inch primocanes caused 55% injury of those primocanes about two weeks after the application (April 24); by May 13, these primocanes, as well as newly-grown primocanes in those plots, were similar across all treatments (66 to 80% injury as compared to non-treated plots) and raspberry plants had fully recovered by May 28. If rimsulfuron was mixed with cane burning herbicides (Goal or Aim) and applied to 6-inch primocanes, no subsequent primocane injury was noted beyond cane burning alone. Rimsulfuron applied to 3-foot primocanes caused 10 to 13% injury to those canes by two weeks after treatment (June 13).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 16 Raspberries/Strawberries
Weed control was very good for all treatments in this trial, ranging from 81 to 100% control from April through May (Table 5). Weed control only differed by treatment on June 13, and then the poorest treatment was providing 89% weed control and most treatments did not differ from each other. The weeds in the plots were as described in the new herbicide trial above.
Total berry yield and fruit size was similar for all treatments (Table 6). On a per acre basis, the single sampling averaged about 1010 lbs/acre. Fruit size ranged from 2.0 to 2.3 g/berry.
Currently, rimsulfuron is labeled in USA (trade name Matrix) to be applied only to dormant raspberry plants. The product has displayed good crop safety and efficacy when used alone or in combination/sequence with other herbicides. These data indicate that slight to severe injury of raspberry primocanes can result if rimsulfuron is applied to emerged foliage. When used alone and applied to 6- inch primocanes, rimsulfuron severely damaged primocanes for about the same length of time as cane burning products. Rimsulfuron applied alone at that timing gave only about half the primocane defoliation as cane burning products either used alone or mixed with Matrix prior to application. This may represent an application method/timing that warrants consideration for a change in labeling.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 17 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 1. Primocane injury following application of several herbicides in red raspberry (2013). Primocane injuryb Treatmenta Rate Timing 4/11 4/24 5/13 5/28 6/13 product/a % % % % % Zeus + Gramaxone 8 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 0 b -- 80 8 0 Zeus + Gramaxone 12 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 0 b -- 75 6 0 Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 0 b -- 53 5 0 Callisto 3 fl.oz Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 0 b -- 65 0 0 simazine 4 qt Gramoxone 2 pt PRE 0 b -- 70 9 0 Alion + Gramoxone 5 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 0 b -- 80 7 0 Alion + Gramoxone 10 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 0 b -- 80 2 0 Treevix 1 oz PRE 0 b -- 73 7 0 Treevix 2 oz PRE 0 b -- 67 5 0 Alion + Treevix 5 fl.oz + 1 oz PRE 0 b -- 75 15 0 Alion + Sinbar + 5 fl.oz + 1.5 lb + PRE 0 b -- 78 2 0 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + simazine + 5 fl.oz + 2 qt + PRE 0 b -- 77 3 0 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + diruon + 5 fl.oz + 2 lb + PRE 0 b -- 80 15 0 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + Callisto + 5 fl.oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 10 b -- 85 8 0 Gramoxone + 2 pt Treevix + Sinbar 1 oz + 1.5 lb PRE 0 b -- 78 3 0 Treevix + simazine 1 oz + 2 qt PRE 0 b -- 77 2 0 Treevix + diuron 1 oz + 2 lb PRE 0 b -- 78 13 0 Treevix + Callisto 1 oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 0 b -- 85 10 0 Quinclorac 12 fl.oz POST ------0 Quinclorac 1.5 pt POST ------0 (Alion + Gramoxone) (5 fl.oz + 2 pt) (PRE + PRE) 0 b -- 78 7 3 fb Quinclorac fb 12 fl.oz fb POST Treevix fb Quinclorac 1 oz fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 0 b -- 75 3 0 Sinbar fb Quinclorac 1.5 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 0 b -- 77 3 5 Simazine fb Quinclorac 2 qt fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 0 b -- 75 3 0 Diuron fb Quinclorac 2 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 0 b -- 77 7 3 Callisto fb Quinclorac 3 fl.oz fb 12 PRE fb POST 27 a -- 80 7 0 fl.oz Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by”. bPrimocane injury on April 24 was not estimable because primocanes had not yet grown back from cane burning application (treated April 11); quinclorac was not applied until May 29, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 18 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 2. Weed control following application of several herbicides in red raspberry (2013). Weed controlb Treatmenta Rate Timing 4/11 4/24 5/13 5/28 6/13 product/a % % % % % Zeus + Gramaxone 8 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 99 100 99 100 96 Zeus + Gramaxone 12 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 99 98 96 94 100 Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 100 100 100 99 100 Callisto 3 fl.oz Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 98 100 99 99 100 simazine 4 qt Gramoxone 2 pt PRE 99 99 95 96 98 Alion + Gramoxone 5 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 100 100 100 100 100 Alion + Gramoxone 10 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 100 100 100 100 100 Treevix 1 oz PRE 98 100 98 98 95 Treevix 2 oz PRE 100 100 100 98 95 Alion + Treevix 5 fl.oz + 1 oz PRE 98 100 100 98 98 Alion + Sinbar + 5 fl.oz + 1.5 lb + PRE 100 100 100 100 100 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + simazine + 5 fl.oz + 2 qt + PRE 100 100 100 100 100 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + diruon + 5 fl.oz + 2 lb + PRE 97 98 97 97 95 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + Callisto + 5 fl.oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 100 100 100 100 100 Gramoxone + 2 pt Treevix + Sinbar 1 oz + 1.5 lb PRE 98 98 98 98 98 Treevix + simazine 1 oz + 2 qt PRE 100 100 98 97 93 Treevix + diuron 1 oz + 2 lb PRE 98 100 100 98 93 Treevix + Callisto 1 oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 97 100 98 98 92 Quinclorac 12 fl.oz POST ------97 Quinclorac 1.5 pt POST ------90 (Alion + Gramoxone) (5 fl.oz + 2 pt) (PRE + PRE) 97 100 100 100 100 fb Quinclorac fb 12 fl.oz fb POST Treevix fb Quinclorac 1 oz fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 90 93 92 92 98 Sinbar fb Quinclorac 1.5 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 93 95 97 97 100 Simazine fb Quinclorac 2 qt fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 97 100 98 97 98 Diuron fb Quinclorac 2 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 90 100 100 98 98 Callisto fb Quinclorac 3 fl.oz fb 12 PRE fb POST 95 100 97 97 93 fl.oz Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by”. bQuinclorac was not applied until May 29, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 19 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 3. Red raspberry yield and fruit size following application of several herbicides (2013). Treatmenta Rate Timing Berry harvestb Berry weightb Product/a g/m g/berry Zeus + Gramaxone 8 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 567 2.9 Zeus + Gramaxone 12 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 477 2.8 Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 459 2.7 Callisto 3 fl.oz Zeus + Gramaxone + 12 fl.oz + 2 pt + PRE 486 2.6 simazine 4 qt Gramoxone 2 pt PRE 407 2.5 Alion + Gramoxone 5 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 372 2.2 Alion + Gramoxone 10 fl.oz + 2 pt PRE 467 2.8 Treevix 1 oz PRE 319 2.7 Treevix 2 oz PRE 532 2.7 Alion + Treevix 5 fl.oz + 1 oz PRE 405 2.8 Alion + Sinbar + 5 fl.oz + 1.5 lb + PRE 452 2.9 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + simazine + 5 fl.oz + 2 qt + PRE 429 2.8 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + diruon + 5 fl.oz + 2 lb + PRE 248 2.6 Gramoxone 2 pt Alion + Callisto + 5 fl.oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 479 2.6 Gramoxone + 2 pt Treevix + Sinbar 1 oz + 1.5 lb PRE 390 2.6 Treevix + simazine 1 oz + 2 qt PRE 468 3.0 Treevix + diuron 1 oz + 2 lb PRE 318 2.7 Treevix + Callisto 1 oz + 3 fl.oz PRE 445 2.8 Quinclorac 12 fl.oz POST 384 2.8 Quinclorac 1.5 pt POST 370 2.6 (Alion + Gramoxone) (5 fl.oz + 2 pt) (PRE + PRE) 408 2.8 fb Quinclorac fb 12 fl.oz fb POST Treevix fb Quinclorac 1 oz fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 465 2.7 Sinbar fb Quinclorac 1.5 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 478 2.6 Simazine fb Quinclorac 2 qt fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 433 2.0 Diuron fb Quinclorac 2 lb fb 12 fl.oz PRE fb POST 366 2.2 Callisto fb Quinclorac 3 fl.oz fb 12 PRE fb POST 468 2.2 fl.oz Nontreated check ------364 2.1 Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by”. aCallisto and Callisto tank mixtures were applied March 25 (PRE), Stinger was applied June 3 (POST), 2012; “fb” = “followed by”. bBerries were sampled (1 m of row) July 5 and 6, 2014.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 20 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 4. Primocane injury following application of several herbicides in red raspberry (2013). Primocane injury Treatmenta Rate Timing 4/11 4/24 5/13 5/28 6/13 product/a % % % % % Rimsulfuron fb Goal 4 oz fb 2 pt PRE fb primo 0 100 a 80 a 3 0 b Rimsulfuron fb Aim 4 oz fb 6.4 fl.oz PRE fb primo 0 100 a 66 a 3 0 b (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 74 a 9 0 b Goal 2 pt primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 74 a 0 0 b Aim 6.4 fl.oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 55 b 66 a 0 0 b rimsulfuron 4 oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 74 a 5 0 b (rimsulfuron + Aim) (4 oz + 6.4 fl.oz) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 76 a 3 0 b (rimsulfuron + Goal) (4 oz + 2 pt) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 69 a 5 10 a Aim fb rimsulfuron 6.4 fl.oz fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 0 100 a 79 a 0 13 a Goal fb rimsulfuron 2 pt fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) (2 qt + 2.2 lb) (PRE + PRE) 0 0 c 0 b 0 0 b Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by”; primocanes not cane burned in simazine + diuron treatment.
Table 5. Weed control following application of several herbicides in red raspberry (2013). Weed control Treatmenta Rate Timing 4/11 4/24 5/13 5/28 6/13 product/a % % % % % Rimsulfuron fb Goal 4 oz fb 2 pt PRE fb primo 81 100 99 100 98 ab Rimsulfuron fb Aim 4 oz fb 6.4 fl.oz PRE fb primo 81 98 96 94 89 b (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 90 100 99 98 99 a Goal 2 pt primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 100 100 100 98 96 ab Aim 6.4 fl.oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 95 100 100 100 98 ab rimsulfuron 4 oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 99 100 100 98 96 ab (rimsulfuron + Aim) (4 oz + 6.4 fl.oz) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 100 100 100 100 98 ab (rimsulfuron + Goal) (4 oz + 2 pt) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 98 100 100 100 98 ab Aim fb rimsulfuron 6.4 fl.oz fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 100 100 100 100 99 a Goal fb rimsulfuron 2 pt fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) (2 qt + 2.2 lb) (PRE + PRE) 86 90 95 98 95 ab Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by”. bWeed control estimated on May 2 were prior to Stinger application.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 21 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 6. Red raspberry yield and fruit size following application of several herbicides (2013). Treatmenta Rate Timing Berry harvest Berry weight product/a g/m g/berry Rimsulfuron fb Goal 4 oz fb 2 pt PRE fb primo 339 2.1 Rimsulfuron fb Aim 4 oz fb 6.4 fl.oz PRE fb primo 327 2.1 (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 296 2.2 Goal 2 pt primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 338 2.2 Aim 6.4 fl.oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 315 2.1 rimsulfuron 4 oz primo (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 300 2.2 (rimsulfuron + Aim) (4 oz + 6.4 fl.oz) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 311 2.2 (rimsulfuron + Goal) (4 oz + 2 pt) (primo + primo) (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 363 2.0 Aim fb rimsulfuron 6.4 fl.oz fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) fb (2 qt + 2.2 lb) fb (PRE + PRE) fb 376 2.3 Goal fb rimsulfuron 2 pt fb 4 oz primo fb POST (Simazine + diuron) (2 qt + 2.2 lb) (PRE + PRE) 331 2.2 Nontreated check ------251 2.1 Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not significantly different (P < 0.05). aHerbicides applied March 15 (PRE), April 11 (primo, 6-inch primocanes), and May 29, 2013 (POST, 3-ft primocanes); “fb” = “followed by” ; primocanes not cane burned in simazine + diuron treatment.. bBerries were sampled (1 m of row) July 5, 2014.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 22 Raspberries/Strawberries
Update on PARC Raspberry and Strawberry Trials
Michael Dossett Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC [email protected]
The PARC-Agassiz berry breeding and genetics program is continuing its transition with the announcement on January 22, 2014 of funding through AAFC’s Growing Forward 2 initiative through March of 2018. This funding will enable industry to hire a breeder to continue evaluating germplasm in cooperation with AAFC as well as continue efforts at developing new germplasm geared towards the competitiveness and sustainability of berry growers in the Fraser Valley. Through the next 4 years, the programs efforts will be split as follows: ~50% raspberry, ~40% blueberry, and ~10% strawberry.
In addition to improving yield and fruit quality, the main objectives of the raspberry program include: Machine-harvestability Resistance/tolerance to root rot and soil-borne pathogens Resistance to Raspberry bushy dwarf virus (RBDV) Resistance to aphids/aphid-vectored viruses Better resistance/tolerance to cane diseases Identify and incorporate other traits of interest for future development from novel germplasm.
With these goals in mind, the program has shifted towards evaluating all of the yield and observation plots of new selections with a mechanical harvester for yield, firmness, cohesion, and color as the primary criteria before selections move forward in the program. The program is also continuing its major effort to improve on the ability to reliably screen selections for resistance to Phytophthora root rot in the greenhouse and develop markers for resistance to RBDV so that these can be identified at earlier stages. New germplasm is also being evaluated and has given the program additional sources of resistance to root rot, RBDV, and aphids, particularly from wild sources.
While a number of selections looked very promising in the latest machine-harvested yield plots, some with 50% more yield than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’, are expected to have no resistance to root rot infection based on their pedigree. Despite this, there are a few things in the pipeline with potential, and many selections were made in 2013 that combined sources of root rot resistance with RBDV resistance.
At the LMHIA Short Course, we announced ‘Squamish’ as the name of a newly released selection, BC 92-9-15. ‘Squamish’ is expected to replace ‘Malahat’ for early season fresh market production. It is about 5 days later than ‘Malahat’, but is firmer and has much better tolerance to soil-borne diseases. ‘Squamish’ also represents an improvement in aphid resistance, being resistant to aphid biotypes A-E while ‘Malahat’ is only resistant to A and B. ‘Squamish’ machine-harvests very cleanly, and is expected to have adequate, but not particularly high yields. Yields in test plots have been similar to healthy ‘Malahat’ plants, but a little less than ‘Chemainus’. ‘Squamish’ is susceptible to RBDV and spur blight. There are a small number of plants still available for 2014 planting, and more will be available from the nurseries next year.
Other selections that have looked promising and will be available for limited grower trial in the near future:
BC 96-22R-55: There is no doubt that this will hold up well to root rot and has dark fruit that machine- harvests OK. It is later than Meeker and susceptible to RBDV. I question whether this will have sufficient firmness to merit release.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 23 Raspberries/Strawberries
BC 5-11-1: Dark and moderately firm with good flavor. Machine-harvests well and has some root rot resistance. Yields in 2012 were significantly less than ‘Saanich’ and ‘Chemainus’, but were equal to these in 2014. It looks like the plot may have been slow to establish. This looks promising but will require further testing to determine whether it will have adequate yield.
BC 5-34-24: Fruit looked very nice in the machine harvest trial in 2012 and 2013. High quality and attractive with color that is borderline, but probably OK. Yields were slightly higher than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’. Greenhouse root rot screening gave intermediate results, so not strongly resistant but may hold up OK on some marginal sites.
BC 6-22-44: Absolutely beautiful fruit, machine-picked very well in 2013 and 2012 with yields about 20- 30% higher than ‘Chemainus’ and ‘Saanich’. Flavor is only OK. This was probably the most impressive fruit in 2012 and 2013 in our machine-harvest trials, but the plants don’t look particularly healthy or aggressive. Based on pedigree, will not have root rot resistance.
BC 6-22-35: Yielded 50% higher than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’ in 2012, but yields were off noticeably in 2013. Fruit is very nice quality with OK flavor and a dusty appearance. Based on pedigree, will not have root rot resistance.
BC 6-27-41: Exceptionally high yielding with about 50% higher yields than ‘Saanich’ or ‘Chemainus’ in 2012 and also significantly higher in 2013. Fruit is very attractive and machine-harvests extremely well. Color may be borderline and flavor is only borderline (similar to ‘Saanich’). Unfortunately it looks likely to be susceptible to root rot. Plants were planted at the WRRC machine-harvest trial in Lynden in 2012.
BC 6-50-41: Dark fruit machine-harvests very cleanly and with about 30% higher yields than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’ in 2012 and very strong yields in 2013 as well. Fruit holds shape well and looks good in a machine-harvest tray, but may be on the soft side? Flavor is OK to good. Both parents sensitive to root rot.
BC 6-50-44: Very similar to BC 6-50-41 but with berries slightly smaller. Dark fruit machine-harvests very well with yields about 30% higher yields than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’ in 2012 and very strong yields in 2013 as well.
BC 6-64-75: Very high yielding (~35% higher than ‘Chemainus’ or ‘Saanich’ in 2012) with nice large good quality fruit. Some crumbly fruit in plot seems to correlate with plants becoming positive to RBDV, otherwise fruit is very nice, but probably too light for processing. Might have a spot in Fresh Market as well, and may have some root rot tolerance from ‘Cascade Delight’.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 24 Raspberries/Strawberries
Figure 1. BC 10-3-9 is a very productive half wild raspberry selection with large (4-5g) soft fruit and vigorous canes. It carries a novel source of aphid resistance, and is expected to have excellent root rot resistance and be a good breeding parent.
Strawberries
The strawberry program has started to shift gears— in part because of reduced funding and in part because of the shift in our industry toward fresh-market production. At present, we have suspended crosses in short-day (Junebearing) strawberries and are evaluating selections for dual-purpose or fresh- market potential. We evaluated just over 4k strawberry seedlings in 2013 and made just over 30 selections. These will be evaluated along with prior selections to whittle down the most promising. At the same time, we are starting to develop procedures to streamline our ability to do proper evaluations on day-neutral strawberries in the future. We have a number of day-neutral selections under evaluation and are working out the timing for crosses and propagation with the hope that future funding will allow us to scale up efforts in day-neutrals while phasing out short-day strawberries.
Promising strawberry selections from the program at present include:
BC 3-128-9: (ORUS 2019-1 x WSU 2411) A large, attractive, very firm berry, albeit with a slightly dumpy/rounded shape. It ripens with or slightly later than ‘Puget Reliance’ and has an intense flavor with high sugars and acids and aroma. In 2013, this was less apparent and the fruit lacked the aromatic quality and intensity of past years, perhaps because of the poor weather. Some went out for grower trial this year. It is a good quality berry, but I’m not sure whether the rounded shape will be a detraction or not. Yields appear to be average and similar to other PNW varieties.
BC 9-21-22: High yielding early-midseason selection with medium dark fruit. Caps easily for dual- market potential. Biggest concern is whether flavor will be good enough for people to be interested.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 25 Raspberries/Strawberries
BC 9-4-16: (‘Stolo’ x ‘Seascape’) A beautiful, glossy mid-season berry (pictured below) with nice large fruit, attractive caps, and very good flavor. This selection was also one of our top yielders in 2013. This selection appears to be more vigorous than ‘Stolo’, though I question whether or not it will be firm enough. A few plants will be available for grower trial next year and we will be looking at this one more closely.
BC 9-59-51: Early, high yielding (our tops for yield in 2013) flavor OK to good. Fruit is attractive, but size may be too small.
ORUS 2427-4: This selection comes from the USDA breeding program in Corvallis Oregon. It was very high yielding, had good size, was very attractive and had excellent flavor. This was easily the most impressive selection in the 2012 planting and has excellent fresh-market potential. It will continue to be evaluated.
Figure 2. Fruit of BC 9-4-16 showing its attractive appearance. BC 9-4-16 was also one of the highest yielding selections in our 2013 plots.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 26 Raspberries/Strawberries
Strawberry and Raspberry Cultivar Development
Patrick P. Moore WSU Puyallup Research and Extension Center, Puyallup, WA [email protected]
Strawberries
Objective: To develop short-day strawberry cultivars that are adapted to the PNW for processing and fresh use and have higher picking efficiency than current industry standards. Breeding day-neutral strawberry cultivars for fresh market use has been added to the WSU breeding program and crosses have been made and seedlings and selections are being evaluated.
Puget Reliance (1994) This cultivar was the result of a cross of an aphid resistant WSU selection with a BC selection. Although ‘Puget Reliance’ did not inherit aphid resistance, it is vigorous, large fruited (by 1994 standards) and highly virus tolerant. Although some newer cultivars have larger size, ‘Puget Reliance’ has found a place in the industry, primarily as a fresh market cultivar.
Puget Crimson (2010) This cultivar has many of the same characteristics as ‘Puget Summer’ (one of its parents). They both ripen at the same time, have excellent flavor and are susceptible to powdery mildew. However, unlike ‘Puget Summer’, ‘Puget Crimson’ has large fruit in both first and second fruiting season. Size of ‘Puget Crimson’ fruit is similar to ‘Tillamook’. Early fruit can average 35 g or more. ‘Puget Crimson’ has been patented (USPP 22,781) and Plant Breeders’ Rights for Canada was granted January 3, 2014, certificate No 4689.
Raspberries
Objective: To develop processing red raspberry cultivars that are adapted to the PNW and that are machine harvestable. Additional traits to incorporate into new cultivars are RBDV resistance and root rot tolerance.
Cascade Delight This cultivar was released by Washington State University in 2003 as a late season, fresh market cultivar with large, firm fruit and good field tolerance to root rot. The fruiting season and productivity is very similar to ‘Tulameen’ when both are grown on a good site. Fruit size and firmness are greater than ‘Tulameen’. However, ‘Cascade Delight’ will perform well on sites where ‘Tulameen’ is killed from root rot. ‘Cascade Delight’ is very vigorous with long fruiting laterals and fruiting laterals may break at the attachment to the cane. ‘Cascade Delight’ is recommended only for fresh use.
Cascade Gold (2010) WSU 991 was recommended for release in 1993 as an early season, summer fruiting, yellow fruited raspberry for fresh use. A virus was detected in the planting stock and it was not released. It was difficult to obtain virus negative plants, but virus negative plants were available for a research test planting in 2007. These plants were planted in replicated plots at WSU Puyallup and harvested in 2009 for the first time (after clean up). These plants produced large, firm fruit with very good yields and excellent flavor. Fruit of ‘Cascade Gold’ releases easily, even at a relatively light fruit color. Evaluation in root rot plots indicated ‘Cascade Gold’ is susceptible to root rot.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 27 Raspberries/Strawberries
Cascade Harvest WSU 1507 has been released as ‘Cascade Harvest’ this winter. The cross for ‘Cascade Harvest’ was made in 1998 and it was selected in 2001. ‘Cascade Harvest’ has been evaluated in several machine harvesting trials in Burlington and Lynden and fruit releases very easily. The fruit flavor has been very good, with sweetness equal to or greater than ‘Meeker’, with similar pH. In root rot trials at Puyallup, four plants of each cultivar are subjectively evaluated for vigor on a severe root rot site. Raspberries are assigned a rating from 0 to 5, with 0 = dead and 5 = healthy and vigorous. Three years after planting, ‘Cascade Harvest’ had a rating of 5.0 and ‘Willamette’ 1.5 and ‘Meeker’ 0.5. Plants of ‘Cascade Harvest’ were tested for RBDV resistance by graft inoculation and tested resistant to RBDV. ‘Cascade Harvest’ has been in plots at WSU Puyallup since 2002 and has never tested positive for RBDV. In hand harvested plots at WSU Puyallup, ‘Cascade Harvest’ has had yield similar to or greater than ‘Meeker’. In a small plot with a commercial grower, ‘Cascade Harvest’ had much greater yield than ‘Meeker’. ‘Cascade Harvest’ combines machine harvestability, root rot tolerance, RBDV resistance with high yield potential and very good flavor. With the easy fruit release, ‘Cascade Harvest’ may be suitable to either processing or fresh market uses.
Fruit of Cascade Harvest being machine harvested.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 28 Raspberries/Strawberries
Promising Selections
Machine harvesting trials for the WSU program were planted for the first time in 2002 and new plantings have been established annually. There are a number of selections that have machine harvested very well in these plantings and may be released in the near future. Three WSU selections and ‘Rudi’ were planted in grower trials with cooperating growers in Oregon and Washington in 2012. One of the WSU selections in these trials was released as ‘Cascade Harvest’ this winter. A “baby” crop was harvested in a few locations in 2013 and the first full evaluation will be in 2014. A second grower trial of four WSU selections will be planted in 2014. These four selections have only been tested in grower trials for one or two fruiting seasons. All four selections pick very cleanly and all have firm to very firm fruit. All four have good flavor, with all of them with acidity similar to ‘Meeker’ or higher and three with soluble solids similar to ‘Meeker’ or higher. Two selections combine high anthocyanins, high sugar and high acids which should be a desirable combination for a new processing cultivar. These selections will be planted in 2014 and harvested in 2016 and 2017. Additional testing for disease resistance and performance in hand harvested plots will also be conducted at Puyallup. Selections that perform well could be released after the 2017 fruiting season.
2012-2013 Plant Sales
Thanks to Lassen Canyon Nursery, Norcal Nursery, Northwest Plants, North American Plants, Nourse Farm and Spooner Farms for providing the plant sales information.
Strawberry
Strawberry plant sales in the Pacific Northwest (PNW) increased 4.9% from 2012 levels and 18.2% in BC. ‘Totem’ has been the most widely planted strawberry in the PNW since the first time plant sales were collected (1985). In 2013, plant sales for ‘Totem’ in the PNW were only 15.3% and it was number three behind ‘Albion’ (17.7%) and ‘Tillamook’ (16.8%). There were distinct regional differences in cultivars planted. In BC, 41.6% of the plant sales were ‘Albion’, while only 2.1% of the plantings were ‘Totem’ and ‘Tillamook’ had only 1.7%. In Oregon, 28.2% were ‘Tillamook’ and 25.7% were ‘Totem’ and only 7.9% were ‘Albion’.
Raspberry
Raspberry plant sales in the PNW decreased 14.5% from 2012, much less than the 30% the decrease previous year. Sales in the PNW have decreased 56.7% from a peak in 2009. In BC plant sales fell 26.3% from 2012 and 81.2% from a peak in 2009. Although still the most widely planted raspberry in the PNW, ‘Meeker’ sales in the PNW decreased to 41.9%. The second most planted raspberry was ‘Wakefield’ with 25.3%, with almost all being in Washington. ‘Chemainus’ had the next greatest with 9.8%. In BC, ‘Meeker’ sales were 31.4% with ‘Rudi’ (15.1%) the second most planted followed by ‘Chemainus’ (12.0%).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 29 Raspberries/Strawberries
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Raspberries: 2013 Findings
Tracy Hueppelsheuser British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (SWD) male flies have one dark spot on the end of each wing, and is 2-3 mm long. The female does not have wing spots, and is a robust tan coloured fruit fly (3mm long) with a serrated ovipositor (egg laying organ), unique to SWD, which she used to lay eggs under the skin of ripening fruit. Infested fruit becomes soft and collapses in the areas where larvae are feeding. Based on CFIA models, there could be up to 4 generations in south western British Columbia. Larvae and eggs are moved to new areas in infested fruit. Larvae do not always remain within fruit to pupate, and can pupate outside of fruit. SWD do not inhabit soil or green plant parts.
Early fruit collection can indicate if and when SWD is actively laying eggs. In 2013, early raspberries collections as well as non-commercial fruit (haskap, red elderberry, currant, cherries) revealed SWD larvae by June 20, which is early compared to previous years. Commercial raspberry fields were impacted to various degrees of severity over the season.
An area-wide trapping survey was undertaken in 2013, as in previous years (2010-2012) in 10 commercial raspberry fields, 4 traps per field, 2 edge traps, 2 middle traps (at least 50 m from field edge), in the Abbotsford and Langley area (central Fraser Valley). Traps were set up, maintained, and contents collected weekly from June 6 to August 30 (Edge traps were removed after July 26). As in previous years, we used Contech Fruit Fly Traps (Contech Inc.), baited with 30 ml of apple cider vinegar (Heinz). SWD flies were caught in both edge and middle traps by June 14 (the first week of trapping) at low levels (Figure 1). Edge traps caught more flies in most weeks, until their removal July 26. Trap catches seemed to increase in a stepwise progression; June 14-July 5 less than 0.5 flies/trap were caught, from July 12-26 between 2 and 4 flies/trap were caught, and after August 2, fly numbers increased dramatically to 78 flies/trap by August 30. Raspberry harvest occurred from late June through early August.
We ran our first year of case studies to try to answer the question: “When should I spray again? 7 days, 10 days, or other?” Four conventional raspberry fields, machine harvested, in south Abbotsford. Contech traps were placed in each plot (4 per field) to verify SWD presence in the field. During harvest, 2-3 days after each spray, and then every 2 days afterward, ripe marketable fruit was collected (200 fruit per plot, 4 plots per field = 800 fruit). Four hundred raspberry fruit weighs about 2 lbs (early-mid season fruit). Fruit was weighed (average weight of 100 fruit= 94 to 328 g over season) and brix tested (average brix = 13%). Fruit was assessed two ways: fruit mixed in salt solution (4L water to 0.25 kg table salt) to release and float out larvae, and fruit incubation for 15 days to recover SWD flies.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 30 Raspberries/Strawberries
Figure 1. Spotted wing Drosophila fly trapping, area-wide survey, raspberry fields, Abbotsford and Langley, June 6-August 30, 2013.
Results of two of the fields are shown in Figures 2 and 3. In general, the number of SWD flies incubated from fruit and the number of larvae floated out mirror each other, however, the incubation of fruit usually reveals significantly more flies than the float out. This is because eggs and small larvae will not be detected by float out, but will grow into flies in incubation containers. Field #2 (Figure 2), is a good news story. In addition to the pre-harvest bifenthrin clean up spray (June 23), the SWD sprays were applied at 5-6 day intervals (July 6, 11, 17), and there were almost no larvae or fly detections in fruit until after July 23 (late harvest), and no packer detections from this field. Field #3 (Figure 3) shows a slightly different experience. In mid-July, some flies and larvae were found in fruit. We suspect it occurred in part due to the long interval between sprays (13 days). Still, the packer did not detect larvae from this field until late July.
What were our conclusions from the first year? In-field trapping alone is not a good indicator of SWD risk. Area-wide survey traps give a better overall view of regional fly numbers. Early sprays seem to be important (third week June onward). A tight interval between sprays seems to be better (maximum 7 days) during harvest. There are still many questions and a second year of raspberry case studies will be done in raspberries in 2014.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 31 Raspberries/Strawberries
Figure 2. Raspberry fruit collection; flies emerged from incubated fruit and larvae floated out in salt solution, Abbotsford and Langley fields, July 5-31, 2013.
Figure 3. Raspberry fruit collection; flies emerged from incubated fruit and larvae floated out in salt solution, Abbotsford and Langley fields, July 2-30, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 32 Raspberries/Strawberries
In order to optimize your SWD management program, be sure to supplement a good spray program with great field and farm sanitation, short harvest intervals, and careful fruit handling. Incorporate both chemical and non-chemical (cultural and mechanical) practices. The goal is to break the life cycle, and keep SWD from completing a generation, prevent hosts for egg laying, and prevent feeding and breeding sites.
Can we predict SWD risk? If so, how? Several projects have been initiated that are contributing to a better understanding of SWD dynamics and are informing decision making. As we generate data and gain experience over the years, we will be in a better position to anticipate or predict when and how significant the SWD impact could be, allowing growers to take appropriate and timely action.
Since 2010, we have been surveying for SWD during the winter and early spring in the Fraser Valley. Our fourth winter survey is underway: traps were set January 6, 2014, in hedgerows beside 3 raspberry and 3 blueberry fields. Traps are maintained and contents will be collected every two weeks until April 30. SWD flies are recovered from the apple cider vinegar, counted, and gender confirmed with the aid of a microscope. Thick and diverse hedges with fruiting plants (blackberry, elderberry, etc.) tend to catch the highest number of SWD. In winters 2010 and 2011, SWD catches dropped to almost nil from late January to late May. However, in 2013, SWD fly numbers were 8 times as high through late winter and spring (1-2 flies per trap, compared to 1 fly every 8 traps). Ultimately, 2013 was a very high pressure SWD year in berry crops. Temperature affects survival and activity of SWD over the winter. We are hoping that winter data (fly catches and temperature) will be able to show us what to expect, and allow growers to proactively make management decisions.
Insects develop at different rates depending largely on temperature. A degree day (DD) model adds up the accumulated heat or degrees over a lower threshold temperature (for SWD is it 10oC). Major biological activities, such as start of egg laying of peak adult emergence, can be anticipated based on recorded heat accumulation. A DD model for SWD designed at Oregon State University is available online at http://uspest.org/cgi-bin/ddmodel.us?spp=swd.
It doesn’t predict magnitude of the population, but it does give timing of SWD life stage events. We know that fly populations build over the summer (Figure 1), so earlier fly activity means more risk. As well, earlier or later will help predict which crops/varieties might be impacted. For example, if SWD is early, raspberries will be at more risk. If SWD is late, raspberries will be largely safe from SWD. Degree day models are another monitoring tool to be used with other monitoring tools to inform decisions on pest management. This article describes the SWD model (Coop, Dreves, 2013), and models in general for monitoring and information: http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ipm/swd/documents/Article_DDModel.pdf.
There can be significant temperature variability from year to year, resulting in quite different timing of life events. For example, life events are listed in Table 1 for 2012 and 2013. During 2013, egg laying and adult emergence occurred at least 13 days earlier than in 2012. The spread increased as the season went on to over 3 week difference between the years.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 33 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 1. Timing of SWD life events in 2012 and 2013 based on temperature in Abbotsford, information from the degree day model located at: http://uspest.org/cgi-bin/ddmodel.us?spp=swd How many days SWD Activity 2012 2013 earlier in 2013?
1st egg laying by overwintering (OW) females May 24 May 11 13 days earlier Peak (50%) egg laying by OW females, June 27 June 12 15 first adult emergence of 1st generation (new) First egg laying by 1st generation (new) females July 1 June 17 14 Peak adult emergence 1st generation July 15 July 1 14 Peak egg laying by 1st generation females July 31 July 15 16 Peak adult emergence 2nd generation Aug 14 July 29 16 Peak egg laying by 2nd generation females Aug 29 Aug 12 17 Peak adult emergence 3rd generation Sept 18 Aug 26 23 Peak egg laying by 3rd generation females Nov 2 Sept 10 54
If we look again at Figure 1, we can see that the ‘steps’ match up well to the model calculations and anticipated life events.
Step one (June 6-July 5, about 4 weeks): Peak egg laying by overwintering females; new (1st generation) adults emerging and laying eggs.
Step two (July 5-Aug 2, about 4 weeks): Peak egg laying by 1st generation (new) females; peak 2nd generation adult emergence, which are now laying eggs.
Step three (Aug 2-Aug 30, about 4 weeks): Peak egg laying by 2nd generation females; peak adult emergence by 3rd generation.
In warm years like 2013, peak egg laying by 3rd generation females can occur (Sept 10), however in cooler years, this may not happen, and SWD doesn’t complete a full 3rd generation.
Berry Projects will continue in 2014: Area-wide winter & summer trapping/fruit collections, insecticide interval case studies in raspberries, and incorporate DD model into weekly SWD updates.
The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture website, as well as other sites in B.C. and elsewhere have factsheets on biology, prevention, management and monitoring of SWD: http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm
Acknowledgements
Industry: Grower/ Industry Cooperators, British Columbia Blueberry Council, Raspberry Industry Development Council, Fraser Valley Strawberry Growers Association, E.S. Cropconsult Ltd. Government resources: Growing Forward 2, Growing Forward/Biosecurity and Traceability, Developing Innovative Agri-Products Initiative (DIAP), British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 34 Raspberries/Strawberries
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Berries – 2013 Findings in Washington State
Lynell Tanigoshi, Bev Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler WSI Mount Vernon Northwestern Washington Research & Extension Center, Mount Vernon, WA [email protected]
Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) has established itself as the most economically damaging pest to blueberry and caneberry production in the Pacific Northwest. Growers have responded to the challenge of controlling SWD through calendar spray programs and attempted resistance management (IRM). To maximize profit, growers maintain market flexibility by initially adopting the most restrictive spray program followed by a cautious re-introduction of insecticides to meet changing field conditions and market demands. Access to degradation curves will allow growers the ability to utilize a wider range of insecticides including those with more marginally acceptable tolerance levels, through careful seasonal application timing and PHI adjustment to safely reach target MRL levels.
Despite its predictable late season population build-up, SWD damage in early and mid-season blueberry varieties still remains problematic. Management of this vinegar fly in the Pacific Northwest can be especially challenging due to concurrent berry crops such as red raspberry, wild Himalayan blackberry and late season caneberries which could provide a reservoir for re-infestation throughout the blueberry season. Data gathered over the past few seasons from lab bioassays and field residue tests have provided a list of insecticides effective against SWD:
We studied the efficacy of rotational sequence partners, possessing different mode of action chemistries, applied with an over-the-row hydraulic sprayer (red raspberry) and airblast (blueberry) with our foliar bioassay method in 2013.
Red Raspberry Rotation Trial
Applications were applied with a tractor-mounted Rear’s hydraulic plot sprayer equipped to deliver 150 gpa at 4 mph. Treatments were replicated 4 times in a RCBD in 30’ by 10’ plots. Posttreatment evaluations were made by sampling 5 random, mature primocane leaflets per plot from the spray swath. A leaflet was placed topside up in a disposable 100x15 mm Petri dish with a 5 mm3 of diet media and 5-8 even-aged SWD adults from our lab colony. Adult mortality was evaluated after 24 hr exposure to leaf residues. Because of the brief harvest season for the 8 year-old ‘Meeker’ on the research center, only 3 rather than the 5 rotational schemes were implemented for 7 or 8 day treatment intervals (Table 1).
Percent mortality of SWD to cumulative exposure for the 3rd spray rotation for the 5 different rotational schemes to 7 DAT, strongly showed residual persistency beyond 7-8 days for the pyrethroids Mustang Maxx and Danitol when rotated with Malathion 8F and Delegate.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 35 Raspberries/Strawberries
Table 1. Insecticide spray rotational combinations representing grower options for a shortened 4-week red raspberry harvest, 2013, Mount Vernon, WA Rotations Rotation 1 Days Rotation 2 Days Rotation 3 Dates 9-July Between 16* & 17^ July Between 24-July
#1 Mustang Max 8 Mustang Max^ 7 Brigade EC #2 Brigade EC 7 Malathion F8* 8 Delegate WG #3 Danitol 2.4EC 7 Mustang Max* 8 Malathion 8F #4 Mustang Max 8 Brigade EC^ 7 Mustang Max #5 Brigade EC 7 Mustang Max* 8 Danitol 2.4EC UTC
See
Blueberry Rotation Trial
The Rears dilute orchard airblast sprayer used at the Pan-American Berry farm in Salem, OR was equipped with 6 D-3 hollow cone nozzles per side to deliver 50 gpa at 100 psi at 6.5 mph at the Pan- American Berry farm, Salem, OR. Foliage samples from 8 year-old ‘Aurora’ bushes were collected from high and low positions in designated, alternative rows one day before (-1) and at 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 days after treatment (DAT) for foliar bioassays. Bioassay arenas consisted of two blueberry leaves placed topside up in 100x15 mm Petri dishes with 5-8 even-aged SWD adults replicated 10 times. Mortality was evaluated after 24 hours. Two rotations of Malathion 8 Aquamul and Mustang Maxx were applied on 7- day rotations beginning on 28 July and a Danitol applied on 1 September. These data provided a quantitative understanding of how calendar spray rotations with different MOA insecticides, can provide season-long fruit protection by creating a toxic habitat. This resulted in cumulative exposure while protecting ripening berries at or below MRL tolerances for target export markets.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 36 Raspberries/Strawberries
could be applied as the first knockout application of the season as well as the clean-up treatment at the end of harvest. Scheduling more persistent chemistries preceding shorter residual materials such as spinosad or OPs could fortify contact residuals of these insecticides. It is conceivable that we will soon have the knowledge to develop rotation schemes that would even delete a rotation because of its long persistency or because SWD populations were below the economic threshold by the 3rd or 4th rotation in a long and late maturing cultivar such as ‘Aurora’.
Figure 1. Danitol’s surface area concentrations. 120 40 % mortality ug/g 35 100 30 80 25 ug/g
60 20
15 Danitol
% SWD Mortality 40 10 20 5
0 0 0 DAT 1 DAT 4 DAT 8 DAT 12 DAT 15 DAT
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 37 Raspberries/Strawberries
Working Toward Better Raspberry and Strawberry Establishment
Eric M. Gerbrandt Pacific Berry Resource Centre, University of the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, BC [email protected]
Raspberry Establishment
British Columbian raspberry plantings are traditionally established using bare-root plants that are grown in field nurseries in California, Oregon or Washington. These plants are delivered to growers frozen, wrapped in polyethylene bags and stored in cardboard boxes at -10C. Though certified virus-free, and produced in fields subjected to fumigation, nurseries may not be able to entirely remove the pest and pathogen load that is then potentially carried along with bare-root plants as they are dug from the field and delivered to grower fields in Canada. With the risk that pests and diseases are being brought into the field, the plants may never be able to reach their genetic potential. This is made even worse under routine fumigation, which kills the endemic microbes that compete against pathogenic microbes. It is possible that contamination of planting material is a contributing factor to progressive yield declines as a result of pest and disease build-up. These yield declines necessitate early field replacement, resulting in loss of production efficiency and farm revenue.
Evaluation of alternative planting dates and materials for raspberry has recently received attention from researchers across the Pacific Northwest. Adoption of soil-less plant materials via tissue culture poses an important solution to the issue of contaminated plant material since greenhouse conditions can be used to grow essentially pest- and disease-free plants. Adoption of these alternative planting materials and dates will require re-evaluation of the horticultural methods used to establish fields. In fact, evaluation of new planting dates and materials stands to result in dramatic improvements in the efficiency of field turn-over practices through facilitating soil operations and labour allocation while reducing dependence on early spring weather conditions. The potential to increase the health and vigour of first year plantings, as well as give an early boost to yields and fruit quality, requires investigation under unique BC’s climatic conditions and production practices. These investigations require evaluation of locally-produced plant materials grown under locally-relevant production practices.
To evaluate fall (October 1, 2012) and spring (March 23, 2013) plantings of ‘Chemainus’ and ‘Saanich’ raspberry tissue culture (TC) plugs, as planting materials that are pest- and disease-free, various plug sizes were compared with standard spring-planted bare-root (BR) plants (Figure 1). Cane number, length and girth were measured at the end of the season to evaluate differences in first-year establishment. Combined length of all canes and total number of canes per plant, average cane height and diameter and average height and number of long (>30 cm) canes for each planting date and material combination were compared. Fall plantings of 50- and 60-cell TC plugs, as well as spring plantings of 50-cell TC plugs, performed better than the standard spring planting of BR plants. Smaller 112- and 77-cell TC plugs were inferior to the standard and to the larger calibers of TC plugs. Overwintering 50-cell TC plugs in an outdoor nursery was far inferior to the use of cold storage (-10C) over the winter.
An unreplicated comparison planting conducted in the spring under plastic mulch performed much better than any trial plot, though nematode levels were increased significantly. Therefore, a second year of trials were established on October 1, 2013 under plasticulture to compare 50-cell TC plugs in the fall and spring to BR plants in the spring (Figure 2). In moving toward a comprehensive set of management practices for these new planting dates and materials, the use of bed fumigation, alternative biofumigants and storage of BR plants over the summer are raised as potential avenues of future research.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 38 Raspberries/Strawberries
Figure 1: Side-by-side arrangement of plug sizes used in planting trials. From left to right: 60-cell (plastic tray), 112-cell (stryo-block), 77-cell (styro-block) and 50-cell (plastic tray).
Figure 2: 50-cell plastic tray ‘Saanich’ tissue culture plug plants growing through plastic mulch after planting on October 1, 2013 (photo taken January 15, 2014).
Strawberry Establishment
British Columbian strawberry plantings are traditionally established using bare-root plants that are grown, primarily, in field nurseries in California. These plants are delivered to growers frozen, wrapped in polyethylene bags and stored in cardboard boxes at -10C until the time of planting. As for raspberry, evaluation of alternative planting dates and materials for strawberry has recently received attention from researchers in the Pacific Northwest. Planting in summer/fall could result in greater early yields of fruit during May and June. This stands to provide increased local produce sales at a time when fruit can be
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 39 Raspberries/Strawberries
sold at a higher price, permitting diversified farm operations with fresh product that will attract customers for a few additional weeks at the start of the season. This could effectively extend the season, increasing farm-gate revenue and the potential for longer-term, stable contracts with retailers interested in replacing imported food with local food.
Late summer/early fall plantings of ‘Albion’ were compared with traditional spring planting dates; and runner-propagated plantlets were compared with standard bare-root plants on two locations in the Fraser Valley. Fruit were harvested for 15 weeks in 2013 to determine fruit number, yield, weight and revenue for these treatments. In comparison with bare-root plants established in the spring (the industry standard), fruit number, yield and revenue were lower for runner-propagated plantlets established in the spring; comparable for plantlets established on September 30; and greater for plantlets established on August 30 and September 15 (Figure 3). Average fruit weight was greater for all three summer/fall plantings in comparison to the spring plantings.
A second set of trials were established to evaluate an even earlier planting dates in August; the use of bare-root plants held over the summer in cooler storage (Figure 4); and the use of runner material from potentially virus-infected plant material sourced from a grower’s field. Two more years of data collection will determine whether these production innovations provide a market opportunity for nurseries and an economically viable alternative to strawberry growers.
Figure 3 (left): Runner-propagated soil-less plug before planting on August 30, 2012. Figure 4 (right): Bare-root (Frigo) plant held over by the nursery for the summer and planted on August 12, 2013. Notice active growth, and subsequent etiolation, that occurred during storage.
Acknowledgements
Collaborating growers; Mark Sweeney (Provincial Berry Specialist, BC Ministry of Agriculture); Maria Jeffries (Plant Diagnostics Lab, BC Ministry of Agriculture); Tom Baumann, Garion Loehndorf and Andrew Gerbrandt (Expert Agriculture Team Ltd.).
Funding provided by Raspberry Industry Development Council, British Columbia Strawberry Growers’ Association and PRT Growing Services Ltd.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 40 Raspberries/Strawberries
Soil Fumigation in BC: Upcoming Challenges
Brian Johnston TerraLink Horticulture Inc., Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
This talk is about some upcoming regulatory challenges to soil fumigation in BC. These challenges are in the form of significant label changes to the chemical soil fumigant products available to growers in BC.
As an introduction for those who are not familiar with soil fumigation, here are some fundamentals:
In BC, in particular the Fraser Valley, soil fumigation can be used to reduce the soil-borne pest load prior to planting in several crops. In the last several years, in the Fraser Valley at least, the main crops for which soil fumigation is beneficial, and the primary target pests, are as follows: Nematodes and soil-borne pathogens in raspberries and field floral crops. Biotic agents of Apple Replant Disease (Apple Replant Disease is thought to be caused by both biotic as well as non-biotic agents). At times, nematodes in grapes (Okanagan).
As in control of pests in other crops, we should always attempt to use Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and use cultural and chemical control methods for nematodes and soil-borne pathogens before, instead of, and/or along with chemical controls.
The 3 primary chemical soil fumigants that have been used in BC in recent years are Vapam (metam), Basamid (dazomet) and chloropicrin.
In 2010, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) announced the re-evaluation of soil fumigant products. This re-evaluation will result in significant changes, imposed on the registrants of soil fumigants and their labels, but which of course will have significant effects “downstream” on you the growers. The label changes are intended to limit exposure of fumigants and fumigant by-products to users, bystanders and the environment. They will be based on similar recent revisions to soil fumigant labels in the USA introduced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These changes will be in effect starting September 2014.
Although there will be numerous label changes, there are 5 major ones, and these additions can be summarized as follows: Detailed instructions for mandatory Good Agricultural Practices. Respiratory protection for “handlers” and “Stop Work Triggers”. A Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) must be created prior to EACH application. Mandatory Buffer Zones. Buffer zones could be different for each field. Mandatory air monitoring or notification of neighbors when buffer zones are bigger than 8 meters.
Now we will go through these major changes in a little more detail:
Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs)
GAPs are application practices that improve the safety and efficacy of soil fumigation, related to aspects of weather conditions, soil preparation, soil sealing following treatment, environmental monitoring. Essentially, GAPs are detailed written instructions stating how to do things properly. Mostly they are
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 41 Raspberries/Strawberries
common sense and you probably know most of them. Now they will be on the label. For example, GAPs on weather conditions might include when to begin monitoring the weather and how you do that, how often to record it, under what weather conditions to stop the soil fumigant application, etc.
Respiratory Protection and “Stop Work Triggers”
There will be restrictions stating when the field may be re-entered following the fumigation treatment. “Handlers” are those people who work with the fumigant or the equipment. There will be detailed label instructions on what Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Handlers must wear, and when to wear it.
“Stop Work Triggers” are based on the degree of sensory irritation experienced by Handlers. A “Stop Work Trigger” means you probably stop and leave the area when the trigger occurs. Hitting a “Stop Work Trigger” will likely mean an evacuation plan must go into effect for surrounding neighbors. If this happens you also must notify the appropriate Emergency Response contact. This would be as a release of a toxic product into the environment and public domain. These new label changes will force stakeholders to plan for what nobody wants to happen, and then be ready for it, just in case.
Fumigation Management Plan
A Fumigation Management Plan (FMP) must be written for EACH soil fumigation event and kept on file for two years. It must include the following: Detailed information on the location of the field. The location and size of the buffer zones. Detailed information on the soil conditions. Detailed information on the application method used to apply the fumigant. An EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN. The names and contact information of the Applicator and the Handlers.
Buffer Zones
Defined as an area around the perimeter of each treated field. It has to be the same distance from each side of the field. The minimum buffer zone allowed is 8 meters. The actual size depends on a number of factors: Method of application. Application rate. The more applied per acre, the bigger the buffer. Size of the field to be fumigated. Soil temperature. Soil organic matter. Soil clay content. Only the Applicators and the Handlers are allowed entry while buffer zones are in effect. Not only the treated field but ALSO the buffer zones must be sign-posted, separately from the treatment area.
Mandatory Air Monitoring
Buffer zones are in effect for no less than 48 hours after completion. For fields with buffer zones greater than 8 meters, neighbors must be notified, or mandatory air monitoring must be conducted for at least two days.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 42 Raspberries/Strawberries
What Does This Mean to YOU?
As of September 2014, these new requirements will be on a RESTRICTED label. A special Fumigator Applicator Certificate will be required. Sales of Restricted chemicals are recorded and must be reported to the BCME by dealers. The PMRA will follow up on all sales of soil fumigants. The new regulations will apply to any applicator of a soil fumigant, whether a custom applicator or an individual grower.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 43 Raspberries/Strawberries
2014 Raspberry Market Outlook
Jen Dhaliwal Pacific Coast Fruit Products Ltd., Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Review of 2013 Season
Last season was the best raspberry harvest the ladies can remember! And we know you all needed it – especially after that miserable 2012 season! It would have been even better if we could have sold the processed fruit at better prices – we had really hoped to see it a little higher – but it is sold and at reasonable levels. And we are in good shape for the new season.
There were a couple of new projects from customers in the spring of 2013 that helped to clean up the excess 2012 fruit so we entered the season empty. Then, Mother Nature cooperated very nicely giving us such perfect weather during the harvest! Growers kept up with their spray programs for the most part, keeping most of the pests other than SWD at bay. SWD remains a huge issue for us all.
Fresh market quality was good - between that and the IQF people maximizing their production, our perfect raspberries had good homes and we processors weren’t overwhelmed with raw material at any point. It was very well balanced incoming.
Comparing the 2013 daily receipts with 2012 and 2011 shows how we saw such huge peaks and we were inundated with fruit!
Pacific Northwest Raspberry Production
Production in Washington and BC was just over 65 million pounds in 2013. BC’s portion of that was just over 16 million pounds that went to processing.
PNW Plant Sales
Plant sales are down again and Sharmin tells us we have lost another 500 or so acres of raspberries here in BC. We now sit at around 2500 acres of raspberries. Of course, most fields are going into blueberries – this is happening worldwide.
US Red Raspberry Holdings
At just over 65 million pounds, the November 30th Cold Storage Holdings in the US are 17% higher than the 5-year average. This inventory is mostly sold or committed.
Cumulative Raspberry Usage
The usage is down about 12% from last year and based on this and the inventory, it seems like we have about a 3 month “oversupply”. So our inventory now should cover the usage through September. We don’t see this as a bad thing particularly – there always needs to be a little cushion of supply in case of late crops and so on.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 44 Raspberries/Strawberries
Worldwide Processed Raspberry Production 2013
You can see that we are quite small players on this global stage. But WE think we are important players – we have good land, great growers, responsible packers and processors and various levels of government support – and we believe that there are plenty of opportunities for our Raspberry industry to flourish.
Other Regions – Europe
In some ways Europe could be said to be in a state of permanent overproduction. But they have weather issues every year. There will be a huge crop in Europe if they ever have the perfect season!
Another challenge for the European packers is that they are discovering the presence of both Norovirus and Hepatitis A in frozen berries. It is a huge concern that this could continue to affect IQF sales throughout the region and globally.
In Serbia they have been having very hot summers that last year caused a short crop and quite small fruit. They don’t have any crumbles to offer to speak of and the thought is that they maybe have 30 - 40% of their whole raspberries unsold. Serbia is kind of a country of speculators though – so you often don’t really know what they have until they all of a sudden either flood the market or make some type of move. We expect them to come out with pricing once Chile starts quoting into Europe from their second bloom. Serbia grows primarily the ‘Willamette’ variety.
Poland grows primarily the autumn variety ‘Pollana’. Poland has been having very rainy wet weather in the fall during harvest so they have not seen a good quality raspberry crop in a while. There does not appear to be much available now from Poland, but what is available are the lower grades – our sources think maybe 5-10% of their pack.
We mention Bulgaria because they are a little different. They have newer fields, their production is increasing – in 2012 they had 40 million lbs, this year 55 million lbs. And the packers there seem to be more commercially minded, less speculative than both Poland and Serbia.
The European market is quite slow at this point. They do expect sales to improve once Chile is on the market again.
Speaking of Europe, we would certainly like to see support for the new Free Trade Agreement with the EU. And for that matter – we should have a FTA with Korea by now. We are behind both Chile and the US. Let’s keep on top of our government representatives to push these through before the next century!
Chile
South America experienced a series of severe frosts in November that devastated some of Chile’s crops and delayed and perhaps “compressed” some other crops including raspberries. The packers were not getting a very good ratio of whole fruit vs. crumbles in the first bloom. They like to see 70% but were ending up with 60 – 65% whole. It has been quite hot, and very dry. The berries are small and they have seen quite a bit of the albino drupelets and sunscald so far. The second bloom is just beginning now and pricing is opening at around USD 2.00/lb, but is expected to increase.
Demand remains strong for Chilean Raspberries – Europe and Asia especially – and, of course, the US and Canada.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 45 Raspberries/Strawberries
Scandinavian countries in particular are declining European fruit in favour of the Chilean because the Chilean packers are providing a Norovirus-Free guarantee!
Chilean facilities are packaging more and more retail bags for domestic use and for export. They have always done a lot of berry blends – but now several companies are also importing tropical fruit in order to expand their product lines. Chile, like North America continues to experience labour issues getting hand pickers for their fields when the timing of the raspberry crop conflicts with another higher-yielding or better-paying crop.
Market Influences
Negative influences and risks
SWD is still a major threat to our crops. Some growers just give up and stop spraying. This is not helpful to our industry! We do have our work cut out for us to figure out a solution to this issue. Our Agricultural Chemical residue levels differ from country to country. This is an issue that also needs to be addressed. Emerging pathogens – it is thought that the Norovirus and Hepatitis A virus have always been present but that we are now developing tests that are finding them. As you are aware there have been some major recalls in North America already for products with Hepatitis A. Weather – well, the weather can be a negative influence or a positive!
Positives
The current inventories in North America are well balanced. We aren’t sitting on the wrong pack style. Usage is still healthy while raspberries are affordable. New projects are still on the go here in North America and worldwide consumption is expected to grow. Plant sales are down in the Pacific Northwest. Chilean crop is expected to be on the short side.
Market Outlook for 2014
Strong prices are expected to carry into our 2014 crop. We had been seeing a lot of resistance to the concentrate pricing but so far this price has remained and even increased so even juice prices should go up a bit!
We expect the grower prices to increase in 2014.
Final Thoughts
There was a serious Hepatitis A outbreak last year in North America and we’ve seen multiple outbreaks of Hepatitis A and Norovirus in Europe in recent years. The causes were determined to be in frozen berries. Please remember that this could just as easily have happened with fruit from BC or the US.
These outbreaks are a sharp reminder that we need to make sure we are following the safe food handling practices taught in our GAP courses. We all have to do more than just tick off the boxes on the forms.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 46 Raspberries/Strawberries
We need to KNOW that each and every water supply on our farm is foodsafe. We need to TEACH our employees they MUST use the toilet facilities and they MUST wash their hands properly after using them! Soap and water MUST be provided and replenished in our on-farm facilities.
I’m very serious.
We as processors and you all as growers absolutely MUST BE LIVING our Food Safety programs and our GAP. No whining about it. No bragging about it when you are just paying it lip service.
This is our industry, our livelihood. If we don’t grow and pack the best possible fruit, there is always Chile and maybe even Bulgaria coming on that will give the customers what they want.
We are all in this industry together and we need to continue to do everything we can to sustain it, protect it and grow it.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 47 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Agroforestry Initiative: Demonstration Highlights & Resources Available
George Powell BC Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative, Quesnel, BC [email protected]
The British Columbia Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) has been supporting the development and adoption of agroforestry practices for the benefit of all British Columbians. The AIDI provided cost-share funding for projects addressing our strategic goals of:
Developing the Business Case for Agroforestry in BC; Improving Agroforestry Market Connections; Demonstrating Agroforestry Practices; Improving Agroforestry Awareness, Extension and Education; Expanding and Strengthening Agroforestry Partnerships.
With AIDI support, our partners have completed 17 projects during this initiative between 2011 and 2013. These included implementing 7 new agroforestry demonstrations, 3 market/business development support projects, and 7 projects aimed at increasing agroforestry awareness, extension, education and outreach.
Highlights of the Demonstrations
Cold Climate Food Forest Demonstration
Clear Sky Farm, near Fort Steele developed a 1-acre food forest on an old hayfield to test diverse food plant varieties arranged into multiple canopy layers and alleys for Climate Zones 3 and 4. This demonstration has shown the potential for innovative design in blending trees, shrubs and herb crops, with an emphasis on diversifying production and supporting local and regional food security. The food forest design and implementation methods reports are available.
Small-lot Agroforestry Demonstration - Gulf Islands
Just Another Weed Patch Farm, on Gabriola Island established a diverse nut and timber tree grove grown in combination with livestock and annual vegetable and flower crops. This example of agroforestry for small-lot agriculture blended specialty crops from the trees, and in the alleys between the trees, with a focus on producing for farm-gate sales to the local market. A decision matrix documenting their experience in setting up the agroforestry system is available and farm shared their experience in a blog at http://justanotherweedpatch.com
Integrated Riparian Management: Streamside Honeybees
Murray Family Woodlot, in Slocan have demonstrated riparian management that is providing multiple production benefits (including honey), production of shrub crops (cascara, high bush cranberry and tall Oregon grape) for the natural health products market and conservation of watershed and biodiversity values. The Murrays have produced a cost-benefit analysis, video and extension note on their work.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 48 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Agroforestry Practices for Devil’s Club Cultivation
Pacific Reishi Ltd, in Powell River have developed cultivation methods for Devil’s Club (a potential specialty crop for restoration or natural health products markets) in greenhouse, nursery and forest settings. A website has been developed with information on seed germination and vegetative propagation protocols: http://www.devilsclublund.com
Best Silvopasture Management Practices - Christmas Trees
Kootenay Tree Farms of Cranbrook tested management methods to increase tree and forage production in a silvopasture setting, while reducing incidence of Rhabdocline disease in the Douglas-fir Christmas trees using cultural methods that also benefit forage production and wildlife. Reports on a detailed cost-benefit analysis, disease control and the integrated forage/tree production potential are available.
Alley Cropping Demonstration – Okanagan
Curly Frog Farm in Kelowna established an alley cropping system utilizing black walnut and pawpaw trees among other diverse tree and shrub plantings on the farm. Curly Frog hosted site tours and the first ever Okanagan Agroforestry Field Day in 2013.
Cariboo Silvopasture Demonstration
Zirnhelt Ranch, in Beaver Valley within the Cariboo Region, has established a silvopasture on cut-over private forestland using low-cost management innovations for brushing, fencing and water developments. This agroforestry land use can be used as a model for exploring the integrated timber-forage production potential in the Central Interior. A report discussing the methods and potential for expanding this system design in areas impacted by pine beetle is available.
Agroforestry Market Research and Business Support Tools
Practitioner Sales Channel Assessment for Hawthorn
The Naturally Grown Herb & Spice Producers Cooperative (HerbPro) has completed an evaluation of the potential for sales of raw hawthorn ingredients and value-added products through direct sales to natural health products practitioners. This work supports opening new agroforestry markets and further value chain development.
Agroforestry Production Development Tool
Brinkman & Associates with UBC Farm have created a Microsoft Excel-based decision-making tool for producers to assess the feasibility of new agroforestry enterprises. This tool can aid in assessing the multitude of considerations necessary in agroforestry planning to better anticipate costs, revenues, challenges and benefits of a specific endeavour. The tool comes with supporting documentation and a tutorial video and is available from the either the AIDI or UBC Farm websites.
Agroforestry Business Development Guide
The Splatsin First Nation have compiled the steps and general considerations involved in agroforestry business planning. This guide can help current or prospective Interior agroforestry producers to understand their information needs or where to look for additional support as they plan their agroforestry venture.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 49 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Resources - Agroforestry Extension
All of the agroforestry demonstrations funded through AIDI included extension in the form of tours, on site workshops or training events. Additionally, the AIDI supported many stand-alone extension, education and outreach projects. And, though now completed, some of these projects have summary materials, photo albums, videos and other resources available for those unable to attend.
BC Cattlemen’s Association 2013 Education Day
With over 140 in attendance last summer in the North Okanagan, this was one of the largest agroforestry tours ever held in Canada. Photos and summaries of the tour presentations are available.
Agroforestry Capacity Building in Northern BC
Resources North Association in Prince George, has workshop summaries and other extension materials available highlighting agroforestry potential in the north half of BC.
Cultivating Sustainable Agroforestry Through Collaboration, Demonstration, and Extension
UBC Farm with the Delta Farmers Institute held a highly successful workshop in Vancouver in 2012 and have produced a reference guide summarizing agroforestry trends, opportunities, practices, marketing considerations, and challenges.
Agroforestry Sessions at the Horticulture Growers Short Courses
The Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Association has included the agroforestry sessions' information in the proceedings from the 2012 and 2013 Horticulture Growers’ Short Courses, held in conjunction each year with the Pacific Agriculture Show.
Riparian Stewardship Through Agroforestry
The Farm Riparian Interface Stewardship Program (FRISP) with other delivery partners hosted three workshops with tours across the interior of BC, highlighting the potential uses of agroforestry to blend conservation with production in riparian stewardship. The workshop and tour summaries with photo albums are available.
BC Agroforestry Web Atlas
Access to all project information and results from AIDI Phases I & II (2004 - 2013) are being compiled in a new online resource. The Atlas will allow users to search, sort and access BC-based agroforestry information by: Agroforestry system; Geographic area; Project type; Ecological / production zones; and, Products available.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 50 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
All of the proceeding information and resources can be accessed through the AIDI's websites: www.agroforestry.info or www.woodlot.bc.ca/agroforestry
Funding for the Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In British Columbia, this program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC. The Province of British Columbia provides in-kind support to the AIDI. The Federation of BC Woodlot Associations administers the AIDI with the guidance of the Agroforestry Management Committee.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 51 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Alley Cropping with Black Walnut and Pawpaw
Brenda Dureault Curly Frog Farm [email protected]
In 2000, I moved from the city of Kelowna to the outskirts of town to begin a life of farming. We moved 2 houses, all services and infrastructure onto 26 acres of pasture grass and carried on with the traditional livestock/ hay operations. Over time the farm became more and more saturated with water as surrounding areas filled in their properties for development. In 2004 I lost farm status as I was unable to keep livestock in those conditions.
It was time for a new vision. Through self-directed research and studies, I developed new goals Increase land value and economic return; Human-scaled and sustainable farm; Resilient and practical operations; Devote energy to intensive farming and family.
These goals would be realized through the alley cropping system of agroforestry. My selected crops were black walnut and pawpaw trees as their growing conditions are similar to my site conditions.
To avoid herbicide during field prep, I used strips of cardboard and/or tarps anchored down with soil and/or U-shaped nails which all proved to be too labour intensive considering the area to be prepped. In the end I resorted to using 2 to 3 applications of herbicide to eliminate the pasture grass. Rows were machine-trenched and amended with native soils and peat in fields which previously had fill brought in. A water license to irrigate from the creek on the property was granted and irrigation installed with sprinkler heads. A layer of wood chips was used as mulch in addition to various plants to add N, beneficial insects, IPM and biodiversity.
Black Walnut Particulars
Grown for: -high timber value – veneer quality, furniture, specialty crafts; -nuts valuable for food, husks for dye, shells for abrasives, cosmetics; -wildlife value, E. screech owl, birds, biodiversity.
Root system is compatible with other agroforestry crops.
Seed source was selected for high timber value and fast growth (30 to 40 years harvest).
In 5 gallon buckets, seeds were layered with moistened soil and left outside over the winter for cold stratification.
Checked for signs of tap root germination in spring and transplanted into 1 gallon containers (short term only because of tap root growth) or directly into field 15 feet apart.
Alder tree were planted on either side of black walnut to add N and as a nurse tree. (It will eventually succumb to juglone toxicity or be cut for firewood.)
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 52 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Pruned for maximum earning potential by developing size and quality. Objective is to grow a straight, branchless, defect-free, minimum 10-foot log.
Trained leader with 6-foot bamboo pole and removed competing leaders and branches larger than 1 to 2 inches. Do not remove more than 1/3 of branches as they are needed to add diameter growth.
Can be coppiced when young, if tree is too disfigured.
Pawpaw Particulars
Grown for: -fruit higher in protein than most other fruits, good source of calcium and vitamin C, creamy, tropical flavour; -leaves and stems researched for anti-cancer drugs and as a natural pesticide; -ornamental tree, seedling sales, seed sales; -wildlife value, zebra swallowtail butterfly.
Seeds were ordered online through Kentucky State University, Gardens North, JL Hudson (known cultivars and wild collected).
Seeds cold were stratified in zip lock bags with moistened soil/peat in fridge crisper for 90 days.
Old dresser drawers with drainage holes drilled in and then filled with moistened soil were used to plant seeds for germination.
Checked for taproot germination in early to mid-summer and transplant to 1 gallon (or longer to accommodate tap root) pots.
I left pots in greenhouse over winter and planted out the following spring and summer. Some suffered sun scald, but survived.
Pawpaws were planted in between the black walnut (8 feet away) within the rows.
Other trees grown on farm using an alley cropping system are english and black walnut, trazel and mulberry interplanted with christmas trees. White oak and chestnut interplanted with pawpaw and yellowhorn (xanthoceras). I also maintain a willow plantation (6 species) for on-site reclamation, farm gate sales and classes offered in live willow structures, twig furniture and willow sculpture/crafts.
Future plans include expanding agroforestry operations and agri-tourism focused on education and conservation.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 53 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Agroforestry in the Kootenay Region: Integrating Streamside Shrub Products with Honey Bees
Michael Murray Murray Woodlot, Slocan, BC [email protected]
Scattered across British Columbia are numerous small private woodlot owners who manage forests associated with streams. These riparian corridors are rarely utilized, yet can provide multiple benefits when managed with care.
Agroforestry is a concept that can be easily applied to riparian areas. It’s a management approach that integrates familiar and new agriculture and forestry practices into land management systems which contribute to diversification and sustainability of production. Riparian zones can generate products for extra income while being carefully managed to protect these biodiverse habitats.
Integrated Riparian Management is an agroforestry system that relies on a steady source of production while caretaking unique sensitive and remarkable ecological attributes. Because riparian areas are prone to soil and surface water impacts, the land owner must choose crops and harvesting systems which will not cause significant impacts. Example of products that may be cultivated without adverse soil and vegetation disturbance include florals, wreaths, Christmas trees, berries, nuts, timber, and bee products. Another consideration is which of these products have a good market demand. Thus, a source of income is gained.
To gain enhanced benefits, a well-designed and implemented riparian management scheme will integrate more than one component. For example, partial shade provided from tree canopies are a preferred sunlight condition for huckleberries. By selectively harvesting trees and maintaining perpetual tree cover, huckleberry production is enhanced while limiting soil and forest disturbance which can impact streams.
Design and Establishment
Currently, there are market demands for many naturally grown products in BC such as berries, bark, evergreen boughs, and honey. It’s useful to consult experts such as agroforestry specialists (e.g. within the BC Ministry of Agriculture), purchasers of products (e.g. grocery co-ops), farm market coordinators, or even local cultivators about what is in demand. Particular plants that aren’t widely regarded as valuable for cultivation may actually have uses which are in-demand. Once marketable species are identified, you should make sure they are a good match for the soil, sunlight, moisture, and temperature conditions of your property. Although riparian zones can be assumed to have ample water availability, the amount of water can vary widely based on distance to stream, or during the course of the growing season. Perennials are usually a better choice due to lower maintenance needs than annuals, as well as less frequent soil disturbance. Although not imperative, by choosing plants that are native to the region, certain risks are lessened. For example, native species will typically be better adapted to the climate and pests in the region. When integrating with honey bees, it’s also useful to research which plants may be of higher value to bees. Long-time beekeepers and various published forage guides can better ensure a good match.
A Kootenay Demonstration
A demonstration site was recently established in the Slocan Valley where there is a substantial demand for locally grown products. The shrub species selected for this system have markets both within and
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 54 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
outside the region. Cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) is a tree which grows to about 10 meters tall. Its bark is in demand as a natural laxative ingredient. High bush cranberry (Viburnum opulus var. americanum) is needed for a variety of medicinal uses as well as for its berries. Demand for tall Oregon-grape (Mahonia aquifolium) is also rising. It is used as a substitute for goldenseal which has international trade restrictions due to conservation concerns. Its berries are increasingly used in food products and the foliage is a popular landscaping product. These three native species were planted on about 1.5 acres of riparian habitat during 2012-13. The three species vary in habitat requirements and were planted accordingly. This has resulted in greater than 90% survivorship at the end of their first growing season.
In 2013 an existing bee yard was expanded to a capacity of 10 hives during the riparian shrub plantings. The back side of the bee yard abuts a forested riparian zone which serves as a useful windbreak. The bee yard meets a large forest opening on its south margin with full sun exposure – this creates a favorable microclimate for bee survival during the cold months. During berry season, it’s necessary to temporarily extend the bee yard’s electric bear fencing to encircle the berry plants. This is done mostly with temporary step-in fence posts and a lighter grade of wire.
Integration
One of the greatest virtues of this agroforestry system is how the different components are blended to interact and complement each other. Water associated with the streams can ensure good productivity of the cultivated plants. Their canopies help shade the streams keeping the water temperatures from overheating to the detriment of aquatic life while stabilizing soil. The cool clean water is maintained for wildlife and drinking water. Honey bees drink directly from streams and often transport it back to hives for use in evaporative cooling. The taller vegetation associated with riparian zones serves as a windbreak for hives – especially valuable during the cold winter months. The carefully chosen cultivated plants will be frequented by bees. The pollination that results may lead to enhanced berry production and reproduction of new plants. In return, the pollen and nectar provided to honey bees will enhance yields of honey. In fact, by choosing bee-valued plants, lessor-known native bees can benefit. Both imported honey bees and native bees are critical for plant production, yet their numbers are declining worldwide.
Plan
Investigate the demand for herbal products and whether the particular species are a good match for your riparian area site conditions. If you’re not familiar with beekeeping, take a course or contact your local beekeeping group for a mentor to help decide if it’s right for you. Consider travel time from your home. Bees need to be tended nearly every week during the spring. Sketch a layout of your area for cultivation. Calculate the number of plants to acquire based on spacing requirements (e.g. 10 ft).
Prepare
Prepare planting area by pruning lower tree branches and carefully thinning competing woody species.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 55 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Order plants and bees during the winter for spring arrival. Having a registered business with Revenue Canada will significantly reduce prices (wholesale) with nurseries. Ensure vehicle access to the bee yard and install electric fencing before hives are established.
Planting and Tending
Planting during the dormant season (early spring or fall) often results in better survivorship of seedlings. Monitor plants and bees for pest damage and respond as needed.
Acknowledgments
This publication is based on information from a project headed by Michael Murray (Murray Woodlot) and funded by the BC Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative. Funding for the Agroforestry Initiative is provided by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia through support it receives from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. The Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations administers the British Columbia Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative.
Disclaimer
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) is committed to working with industry partners. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AAFC.
www.murraywoodlot.weebly.com
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 56 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Agroforestry Demonstration in the Gulf Islands
Sonja Zupanec and Jeff Rietkerk Just Another Weed Patch Farm, Gabriola Island, BC [email protected]
Farm Plan
Our goals for our farm (Just Another Weed Patch Farm – Gabriola Island, BC) include 1) growing diverse, organic, seasonal cut flowers for the local market; 2) growing and processing Styrian pumpkins and other seed crops; 3) supplying the community with fresh pastured chicken eggs; 4) providing leased pasture grazing for owners of livestock that need to rotate animals or give their pasture a break and 5) growing and harvesting a wide variety of nuts in the long term as the farm transitions from annual crops to tree nuts. All on less than four acres!
We are practical and realistic about our abilities, strengths and interests, and purposely set out to implement a farm plan that produced value added crops that were labour intensive to start, but slowly transitioned to physically less demanding over the next 15 years. As there are no cut flower growers on our island, nor nut producers or growers of seed oil crops, we determined that we wanted to build this market locally over the next decade, while establishing a diverse, organic nut tree orchard as the backbone of the entire farm. By 2025, we hope to transition to a focus on quality, organic nuts from our small orchard, with a lesser emphasis on cut flowers, seed oils and eggs (which are currently very labour intensive). We hope to retire under the shade of enormous chestnut, walnut and hazelnut trees, with bushels full of delicious, local, sustainably grown nuts raining down upon us, pre-paid by the locavores who just can’t get enough of Gabriola’s bounty!
Our cut flower CSA program, as well as our eggs, are all prepaid well in advance of harvest by local customers on the island who value the products we offer who wish to secure their ‘share’ for the season. We anticipate using this model for our nuts once production ramps up by 2023 – having the bulk of sales secured well before the nuts even hit the ground. Currently there is growing demand for any local produce, including nut crops, and we are optimistic that this is not a fad, but a growing trend towards small scale, diverse, unique and nutritious options for local food security.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 57 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
We consider ourselves very fortunate to have partnered with Agroforestry BC in order to put 250 nut trees in the ground within 19 months. Without their support we would be slowly planting trees over the next decade as finances allowed, instead of within a fixed timeframe to allow rapid growth and development of what is the backbone of our farm. We strongly believe the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, and the second best time is right now. Thank you for helping us cultivate our dream!
Nut Tree Orchard 250 nut trees – six varieties for nuts and timber
Just Another Weed Patch Farm Silvopasture Alleycropping 5 mobile coops Use of space for 40 laying between rows of hens; pasture for nut trees for seasonal grazing annuals and rotation of perennials sheep/pigs
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 58 Agroforestry/Alternate Crops
Project Decision Matrix: http://www.agroforestry.info/p/projects.html
Website: www.justanotherweedpatch.com
Facebook: www.facebook.com/justanotherweedpatch
Funding Acknowledgement
Funding for the British Columbia Agroforestry Industry Development Initiative (AIDI) has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In British Columbia, this program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC.
The Province of British Columbia provides in-kind support to the AIDI. The AIDI is administered by the Federation of BC Woodlot Associations with the guidance of the Agroforestry Management Committee.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) is committed to working with industry partners. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AAFC.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 59 Potatoes
In Search of a Quality Potato: It Starts Before Planting
Kiara Jack ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC [email protected]
Damage on tubers can greatly reduce their quality. There are many types of damage and different reasons for these. The main impact tuber damage has on growers is related to disease and marketability. Many of the main or serious diseases found in storage here either enter directly through wounds in tubers, or wounds greatly increase the chances that the disease can enter. Some of these serious diseases include bacterial soft rot (Erwinia carotovora), late blight (Phytophthora infestans), Fusarium dry rot (Fusarium spp.), Pythium leak (Pythium spp.), pink rot (Phytophtora erythroseptica), and silver scurf (Helminthosporium solani). Diseases will also spread in storage; so initially, there was one wounded tuber which made disease entry easy, and in the end there may be a number of diseased tubers surrounding it. Diseased tubers either reduce marketability or become completely unmarketable.
The economic loss related to damaged tubers can be very high. Here’s an example for some perspective: If potatoes are selling at $13.50 per 50 lb unit or $540/ton, and you have 1,000 tons of potatoes, and 10% of them are damaged, you could lose $54, 000. As far as I have seen, 10% damage is not uncommon. A good goal to strive for is 2-3% damage or less. On top of tubers being unmarketable because of damage, there will be further losses due to disease and labour costs for sorting. In addition to losses discovered at the farm, there may be further losses if customers complain or reject shipments. People like perfect looking potatoes and if tubers are damaged or diseased, you can lose consumer trust.
See the tuber damage management worksheet for best practices to minimize damage throughout the whole growing season.
We have worked with a handful of growers in the Fraser Valley over the past few years on damage reduction at harvest, working in differing soil types and weather. The greatest increase in damage on Grimmes appears to occur between the field and the primary chain, between the primary chain and the secondary, and between the picking table and the truck (see Figure 1).
Average percentage of damaged tubers on a Grimme harvester
35 30 25 20 15 total damage 10 total bruising 5 0 hand primary secondary multi-sep picking boom truck harvested chain chain table table
Figure 1. Mechanical damage of tubers at harvest
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 60 Potatoes
Managing Tuber Damage at Harvest
Kiara Jack ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC [email protected]
The act of harvesting and processing potatoes can physically damage tubers which results in economic losses to growers. Damaged tubers increase the risk of disease and shrinkage loss in storage, increase the cost of labour required for sorting, and reduce the quality and value of stored tubers. Damage susceptibility while harvesting potatoes depends greatly on a wide range of factors - many of which occur well before harvest. The following is a list of best management practices which can help reduce tuber damage.
Pre-Planting
Choose fields with optimal soil conditions where soil is not compacted, water holding capacity is not an issue, and where planting depth and drill profile are consistent. Cultivate in fall to break up hard pans. Remove rocks before planting. Cultivate in spring under dry soil conditions, especially in heavy clay and break up clods using appropriate machinery. Choose varieties which are least susceptible to bruising. ‘Agata’, ‘Dakota Pearl’, ‘GemStar Russet’, and ‘Red La Soda’ are a few varieties with some bruise resistance. If planting susceptible varieties, avoid sandy soils. Handle and transport seed carefully.
Planting
Choose dates to ensure sufficient time for crop maturity. Plant when soil temperature at seed depth is at least 9°C (48°F). Plant with sufficient fertilizer, especially calcium and potassium. Plant up and down slopes rather than across them, and design planting to reduce machinery turning during harvest. Ensure planting of straight rows and proper row spacing. Ensure even spacing and depth between seeds. Check that clods are not being brought into seed bed.
Growing Season
Sufficiently irrigate and fertilize fields to avoid stress. Do not spray, irrigate or go through field unless necessary in order to reduce compaction and clod formation. Do not excessively fertilize, as this will delay plant maturity and then increase skinning, blackspot bruising and shatter bruising (see Table 1). Assess petiole nitrate-nitrogen levelslevels should be down to 15,000ppm or lower by mid- August.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 61 Potatoes
Vine Kill
Kill a minimum of two to three weeks before harvesting, but consider weather conditions as skins mature slower under cool or wet soil conditions. Guarantee vine destruction so tubers easily separate from stolons during harvest. Keep soil moisture greater than 60% from the time vines are killed to harvest. Irrigate one week prior to harvest if soil is dry and tubers are dehydrated.
Figure 1. Blackspot (dry conditions) and shatter bruise (wet conditions) susceptibility potential as they relate to tuber hydration of ‘Russet Burbank’ potatoes, adapted from Thornton et al.
Harvest
Assess a row or two of each field for bruising and skinning the day before intended harvest using a harvester. Ensure tubers are not overly hydrated or dehydrated. Harvest when tuber pulp temperature is between 10°-16°C (50°-61°F). If applicable, correctly align diablo rollers over hills so as to not cut or crush tubers. Angle digging blades so that tubers do not bump into primary chain. Base conveyor speeds on ground speed. Chains can be coated with soft materials if this will not affect soil elimination requirements for a given field. Maintain a flow of soil up to the second chain. Minimize tuber rollback on second chain. Avoid using chain shakers, if possible. Ensure vine fingers prior to multi-sep table are well-padded. Aim to remove not more than 60-70% of vines coming through harvester, as removing more may cause excessive damage to potatoes. If applicable, use tank water above multi sep table on red, yellow and white potatoes especially. Keep drop from boom end to truck as low as feasible.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 62 Potatoes
Truck
Avoid stepping on potatoes in the truck when covering with tarp.
Piling
Maintain minimum distance between boom end and potato pile, no greater than 15cm (6’). Pile potatoes in a step manner.
Storage
Complete wound healing within one to two weeks. Ideally 95% humidity and temperatures between 13°-16°C (55°-60°F) should be maintained. Maintain high humidity, unless disease concerns require drying.
Washing, Grading and Packing
Prior to handling tubers coming out of storage, warm potatoes to 7°C (45°F). Ensure potatoes are not bagged while wet or when condensation can form inside of bags.
All Harvesting and Washing and Packing Equipment
Ensure drops are kept below 15cm or 6’. Install padding wherever potatoes may be damaged. Run machinery at full capacity. Regularly inspect equipment for issues or sources of damage.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 63 Potatoes
Regular assessment of potatoes during harvest and post-harvest handling is a good way of reducing problems which cause bruising or other types of damage. Ensuring all employees understand their role in producing damage-free potatoes is key in an effective quality control management system on your farm.
(All information compiled from Canadian Food Inspection Agency 2011, Potato Council 2011, Pringle et al. 2009, Johnson 2008, Boswall and Glencross 2007, Bohl 2006, National Potato AntiBruise Committee of the Potato Association of America 1998, O’Leary and Iritani 1969.)
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 64 Potatoes
Thrips Management—Developing a Threshold for Control
Wim van Herk and Bob Vernon, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Agassiz, BC Kiara Jack and Heather Meberg, E.S. Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC [email protected]
Introduction
Thrips in Potato Fields
Thrips damage to field grown potatoes can be characterized as sporadic, unpredictable, and at times devastating (Westmore 2012). Species known to cause damage to potato include the Western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), the onion thrip, Thrips tabaci Lindeman, and the melon thrip, T. palmi Karny. A typical thrips life cycle is shown in Figure 1. The main species found in southwestern BC is F. occidentalis (Paliwal 1976). Large numbers of thrips occasionally enter potato fields from neighboring crops (e.g. cereals, soybean) or weeds when these are disturbed or begin to senesce towards the end of the growing season (Lee 1996).
Type of Damage
Thrips rasp potato leaf surfaces and suck the cell contents. Damage to the lower (abaxial) leaf surface begins with a shine that only appears when the leaf is held towards the light, turns to a general glossy appearance spotted with thrips frass as the feeding damage becomes deeper and more widespread, and eventually causes the leaves to russet and bronze (Figure 2). Damage to the top (adaxial) surface of the leaf typically begins by scarring along the central vein, and later causes rough-edged, light-coloured patterns (Figure 3). Heavy thrips damage causes early plant senescence, with plants beginning to die within two weeks of a heavy infestation. It is not known if the amount and type of damage varies with potato cultivar or thrips species. The amount of yield reduction caused by thrips-induced early senescence is also unclear. Potatoes can lose a considerable amount of leaf surface without yield reduction (Alyokhin et al. 2012).
Where
Damage to potato plants from high populations of thrips has been reported in eastern Washington (T. tabaci: Powell and Landis 1965; F. occidentalis: Jensen et al. 2013), and the Fraser Valley of BC (KJ & HM, pers. obs.). In BC, thrips (F. occidentalis) are typically found by professional pest management consultants (i.e., ES Cropconsult) in both organic and conventionally grown potato fields, beginning in July, when the weather is hot and dry. Both the thrips and leaf damage typically appear first along outside edges of the fields, particularly when fields adjacent to these edges are seeded to cereals or grass. As in Washington (Jensen et al. 2013), there are currently no established thresholds or scouting techniques for thrips in potatoes in BC.
Thrips as Virus Vectors
Several species of thrips, including T. tabaci, T. palmi, F. occidentalis, and the tomato thrips, F. schultzei Trybom, are known to vector tospoviruses such as the groundnut bud necrosis virus (GBNV) and the tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). These viruses can cause considerable plant and tuber damage and yield loss. GBNV is not known to occur in Canada or the USA (Pappu et al. 2009), but TSWV is widespread in weeds and crops in southwestern BC (Bitterlich and MacDonald 1993) and has recently
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 65 Potatoes
been reported to cause significant damage to potatoes in North America. TSWV has occasionally reached epidemic levels in potato production in many areas, including Australia, Brazil, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa.
The spread of TSWV has closely coincided with the spread of F. occidentalis (Kirk and Terry 2003). Being highly polyphagous, larvae pick up TSWV from weeds or other crops (adults are not able to pick it up), and spread it to nearby field grown vegetables when they move (Coutts et al. 2004; Pappu et al. 2009). Thrips dispersal (and the TSWV perpetuation risk) is highest during the warmest part of the season, and is affected by the wind (thrips are weak fliers). The risk of infecting a potato crop with TSWV from nearby weeds and other crops depends on the size of the thrips population in these areas (Coutts et al. 2004). A high vector population density is required to transmit TSWV to potato, but populations need not be high for long (German 2001).
Thresholds for Thrips
Despite the considerable amount of research into F. occidentalis and its ability to vector TSWV to field grown vegetables, we have not been able to find literature describing this species’ distribution in potato fields. Some work has been done on T. tabaci in potato in Washington (Powell and Landis 1965), and for T. palmi, however. It appears prudent that we develop a better understanding of how F. occidentalis are distributed in potato fields in BC, how their presence is related to leaf damage, and what risk they might pose as vectors of TSWV into potato fields. Our current study focussed on the first two objectives, and looked at ways of using sticky cards to monitor thrips presence and establish action thresholds for thrips in potatoes.
Methods
Location
The study was conducted on two adjacent organic potato fields in Delta, BC. Also adjoining these fields were two fields of organically grown barley. These fields were arranged in a block of four, with the same crops located kitty-corner to each other. The potatoes in both fields were flowering on July 25, the plant canopies were closed by August 9, and flowering had ended by August 21. The barley in both fields was harvested on August 21 and the barley stubble disked under on August 26. Potato plants were mowed on August 29.
Visual Counts of Thrips
Five transects were established, 10m apart, across the rows, in the centre of each of the two potato fields. On three dates (July 25, August 1 and 9) four or five trained field scouts walked along these transects and took potato leaf triplets (the three terminal leaflets on a leaf) from every fifth row. Triplets were taken from both the bottom and the top of the plant, and the number of dark and light thrips counted on both the lower and upper surfaces of the leaves. A visor was used to assist in thrip detection.
Visual Assessment of Leaf Damage
Along the five transects mentioned above, leaf damage was assessed on five dates (July 25, August 1, 9, 21 and 27) by removing and inspecting triplets from both the bottom and top of the plants. One trained field scout conducted all leaf damage inspections.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 66 Potatoes
Card Counts of Thrips
Two sticky card transects were established across each field, 20m apart, in the same location as the two middle transects mentioned above. These cards collected thrips from Aug 1-9, 9-21, 21-26, and 26-28 in one of the potato fields, and for the two middle periods in the other field. These dates are significant, considering the barley was harvested on August 21 and the stubble disked under on August 26.
Statistical Methods
The data lends itself to a number of applications and analyses. We have obtained sufficient data to compare the thrips counting accuracy on triplets and sticky cards between IPM scouts, and the time required to train scouts to effectively use sticky cards for thrips counts. We are also comparing thrips numbers to leaf damage, and are determining how many cards need to be placed in a potato field for thrips monitoring and the thresholds at which action needs to be taken. Most of the data analysis remains to be done, however.
Results and Discussion
We only present a very small selection of data, and only from one potato field.
Thrip Numbers
On all three dates that visual counts were conducted along the transects, the highest number of thrips were found along the edge of the field bordering the barley field (Figure 4). There was no apparent increase in overall thrips numbers between July 25 and August 9. However, the number of thrips collected on sticky cards indicated a considerable increase in the per-day catches from August 1-9 (mean = 16.0 thrips/card) to August 9-21 (82.5). There was a further increase on these cards after the barley was harvested (August 21-26: 148.7), but the largest increase came after the barley stubble was disked (August 26-28: 399.7). During the first three periods the distribution across the field was relatively uniform, but after the stubble disking there appeared to be a “wave” of thrips entering the potato field from the barley field (Figure 5).
Leaf Damage
The amount of leaf damage was low on the first three dates, and there was little increase in damage between July 25 and August 9 (Figure 6). This correlated well with the number of thrips recorded from the visual counts on the same days. Of some concern was the absence of thrips on leaves that did show feeding damage, as this indicates a better method of monitoring for thrips may be needed than visual counts done in the field. The leaf damage increased sharply to both the upper and lower surfaces of the top triplet on August 21 (Figure 6), which corresponded with the increase in thrips as recorded by the sticky cards (Figure 5). Damage was highest at the field edge near the barley field on this date. By August 29 thrip damage had increased dramatically and the damage to the upper surface of the leaf reflected the influx of thrips from the barley field after the stubble disking (Figures 5, 6). This presents compelling evidence that F. occidentalis can cause considerable leaf damage to potatoes, and will move into potato fields from neighbouring crops when the latter senesce or are disturbed, as had been observed previously with T. palmi.
Conclusion
The risk of infecting a potato crop with thrips-vectored TSWV from adjacent areas is affected by both wind direction and the size and disturbance of the thrips population in these areas (Coutts et al. 2004). Hence the potential of a thrips influx into potato fields (as reported above) is of interest to BC potato
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 67 Potatoes
growers, particularly as TSWV is widespread in weeds and crops in southwestern BC, and its main vector, F. occidentalis, is the predominant thrip species. However, the actual risk of TSWV to local potato crops remains to be determined, as does the yield loss from direct feeding damage. Action thresholds for thrips management can be developed once these risks are known.
References
Alyokhin A, Udalov M & Benkovskaya G (2013) The Colorado potato beetle. In: Giordanengo P, Vincent C & Alyokhin A, editors. Insect Pests of Potato: Global Perspectives on Biology and Management. Academic Press, Oxford, UK. Pp. 11-29
Bitterlich I & MacDonald LS (1993) The prevalence of tomato spotted wilt virus in weeds and crops in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Plant Disease Survey 73:137-139.
Coutts BA, Thomas-Carrol ML & Jones RAC (2004) Patterns of spread of Tomato spotted wilt virus in field crops of lettuce and pepper: spatial dynamics and validation of control measures. Annals of Applied Biology 145: 231-245.
German, TL (2001) Tomato spotted wilt virus. In: Stevenson WR, Loria R, Franc GD & Weingartner DP, editors. Compendium of Potato Diseases, Second Edition. The American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, Minnesota. Pp. 72-73.
Jensen A, Schreiber A & Bell N (2013) Irish Potato Pests. In: Hollingsworth CS, editor. Pacific Northwest Insect Management Handbook [online]. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. http://pnwhandbooks.org/insect/vegetable/irish-potato (accessed 12 February 2014).
Kirk WDJ & Terry LI (2003) The spread of the western flower thrips Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande). Agricultural and Forest Entomology 5:301-310.
Lee GS (1996) Seasonal occurrence of Thrips palmi Karny (Thysanoptera : Thripidae) in open fields in Cheju Island. Unpublished MSc thesis, Seoul National University, South Korea.
Paliwal YC (1976) Some characteristics of the thrip vector relationship of tomato spotted wilt virus in Canada. Canadian Journal of Botany 54:402-405.
Pappu HR, Jones RAC & Jain RK (2009) Global status of tospovirus epidemics in diverse cropping systems: Successes achieved and challenges ahead. Virus Research 141:219-236.
Powell DM & Landis BJ (1965) A Comparison of Two Sampling Methods for Estimating Population Trends of Thrips and Mites on Potatoes. Journal of Economic Entomology 58:1141-1144.
Westmore G (2012) Thrips vectors and resistance to Tomato spotted wilt virus in potato. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Tasmania, Australia.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 68 Potatoes
Figure 1. Typical thrips life cycle. Thrips life cycle From BCMAL: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/thrips.htm 1. 2.
3. 4.
Stage Notes Days (at 20 C) 1. Egg Inserted in leaves, flowers, stems 2-4 2. 1st, 2nd larval instar Feed on plant tissue, very mobile 2-4 (each) 3. Prepupa Often on or below ground 1-2 3. Pupa Often on or below ground 2-3 4. Adult Poor fliers, but easily carried by wind 30-35
Figure 2. Thrips damage to the bottom of potato leaves.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 69 Potatoes
Figure 3. Thrips damage to the top of potato leaves.
Figure 4. Thrip numbers in a potato field in Delta, BC, in late July. Shown is the sum of five visual transects. Thrips populations were highest at the edge of the field bordering the barley field. 60
50
40
30
20 Number ofthripsNumber
10
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Distance into field (rows)
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 70 Potatoes
Figure 5. Number of trips collected per day in a potato field in Delta, BC, during four monitoring periods. Shown are the means of two sticky card transects. Thrips populations increased rapidly after barley stubble was disked under (August 26), indicating large numbers were moving in from the bordering barley field. Aug 1-9 Aug 9-21 Aug 21-26 Aug 26-28
800
700
600
500
400
300 number of thrips of number 200
100
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 distance into field (rows)
Figure 6. Damage to the upper surface of triplets collected from the top of potato plants in a field in Delta, BC. Shown are the means of five visual transects for assessments done (bottom to top) July 25 – August 29. Damage increased when the barley was harvested, and mirrored the distribution of thrips into the field (cf. Figure 5). Jl 25 Ag 1 Ag 9 Ag 21 Ag 29
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4 Degree of damage of Degree
0.2
0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Distance into field (rows)
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 71 Potatoes
Only Plant Pathologists Appreciate Scurfy Potatoes
Lynn Woodell and Nora Olsen University of Idaho, Kimberley, ID [email protected]
No matter if you are growing for your road-side market or a fresh market packing shed consumers will avoid potatoes with silver scurf lesions. These blemishes do not affect the tuber tissue but the unsightly skin decreases marketability.
Silver Scurf Biology
Silver scurf is caused by the fungus Helminthosporium solani and is primarily considered a seed-borne disease even though the fungus can survive in the soil more than a year. The infection occurs in the field during the growing season when growing developing tubers are in close proximity to infected seed. Initial infection is usually near the stem end. The infection may or may not be noticed at harvest, but can significantly increase with storage. Secondary spread of silver scurf in storage occurs when warm, moist conditions favor germination of conidia – which are then spread by ventilation. This is especially true when free moisture or condensation is present in the storage.
Silver Scurf Management
The management of silver scurf on potato is not a one-step procedure but a season-long program. It includes all of the following:
Plant clean seed Use an effective seed treatment Minimize time between vine kill and harvest Sanitize storage facilities Apply post-harvest fungicides
Current Fungicide Efficacy Research on Silver Scurf
For over 12 years, researchers from the University of Idaho, Oregon State University and Miller Research have been evaluating the efficacy of different chemistries to be used as a post-harvest spray to control Helminthosporium solani (silver scurf) on naturally infected tubers in storage. Silver scurf infection was encouraged by not doing the first three management tools mentioned above in the silver scurf management section. Highly infected Russet Norkotah seed was planted without seed treatment and left in moist ground for at least one month after vine kill. Tubers harvested from this infected seed were brought into storage and sprayed using 2.1ml/kg (0.5 gal/ton) of treatment. Tubers were stored either 3 or 6 months at 5.5-8.8°C (42-48°F), incubated approximately 21 days at 25C (77°F) and 95% RH to encourage sporulation and then evaluated for percent silver scurf incidence and severity at Oregon State University using a dissecting microscope to differentiate from black dot.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 72 Potatoes
Results from 2002-2004 indicated consistent reduction of silver scurf incidence and severity when using azoxystrobin in a post-harvest application. Refer to the American Journal of Potato Research article, Effect of post-harvest fungicides and disinfestants on the suppression of silver scurf on potatoes in storage for more details on chemistries and results from these years. Research continued during 2005-2008 bringing in new chemistries and combining chemistries with azoxystrobin. Azoxystrobin based treatments continued to perform consistently better than bio-controls, fungicides or disinfectants included in the study. These results showed silver scurf reduction in incidence (44-100%) and severity (36-100%) with azoxystrobin application regardless of the rate or mixture. Testing in 2009-2013 focused on a three- way mixture of azoxystrobin, difenoconazole and fludioxonil. Treatments were refined and additional chemistries selected to maximize efficacy, for resistance management and control of other diseases. The 3-way mixture reduced the incidence (26-93%) and severity (0-92%) of silver scurf. These studies resulted in a consistent suppression of silver scurf in long-term storage using post-harvest azoxystrobin based applications. Combining all years’ results showed 36% silver scurf incidence in the not-treat controls stored 3 months and 11% silver scurf in tubers treated with azoxystrobin based products and 42% and 10%, respectively, in tubers stored 6 months. This product can be another tool in the systematic approach to control silver scurf.
Another chemistry that also showed efficacy on silver scurf is phosphorous acid, sometimes referred to as phosphonate, phosphite, etc. Tested since 2006 at the label rate for late blight and pink rot control, phosphorous acid products showed 45% silver scurf incidence in the not-treated controls stored 3 months and 13% silver scurf in tubers treated with phosphorous acid based treatments and 30 and 16% respectively, in tubers stored 6 months. Again, this is another tool that can be used to control
silver scurf.
A decision on which product to use as a post-harvest spray may depend on product registration, cost or on the product’s effectiveness against another potential pathogen problem in a storage. Stadium™, 3-way mixture offered by Syngenta, is labeled for silver scurf and Fusarium dry rot. Confine™ Extra is a phosphorous acid product labeled for control of silver scurf and oomycetes such as late blight and pink rot. Phostrol™ is labeled for late blight and pink rot but not silver scurf.
Pre-Harvest and Post-Harvest Fungicides
A one year University of Idaho study looked at silver scurf incidence on inoculated seed after application of a standard program or a premium program. The standard program consisted of a seed treatment stating efficacy on silver scurf but with no field applications of fungicides showing efficacy against silver scurf. The premium program consisted of a different seed treatment stating efficacy against silver scurf plus difenoconazole, along with an in-furrow and a foliar application of azoxystrobin based products. All other field amendments were consistent with both programs. Water or Stadium™ was then applied as a post-
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 73 Potatoes
harvest fungicide as described earlier. The standard seed treatment with water as the post-harvest spray resulted in 47% incidence in silver scurf. When the post-harvest Stadium™ spray was applied, silver scurf incidence was reduced to 14%. The premium seed treatment with water applied post-harvest resulted in 14% silver scurf incidence and premium seed treatment tuber with Stadium™ applied post-harvest resulted in only1% incidence of silver scurf.
Remember, management of silver scurf in potatoes is not a one-step procedure. It begins with identifying clean seed, sanitizing storage facilities, and applying effective seed treatment. and continues with good planting practices, field management, harvest practices and tuber storage.
Citation:
Miller, J. S., Hamm, P. B., Olsen, N., Johnson, D. A., and Geary, B. D. 2011. Effect of post-harvest fungicides and disinfestants on the suppression of silver scurf on potatoes in storage. American Journal of Potato Research 88:413-423.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 74 Greenhouse Vegetable
Progress in Developing Methods for Reliable and Sensitive Detection of Clavibacter and Salmonella in Tomato Irrigation Water
Sally A. Miller, J. LeJeune, X. Xu, F. Baysal-Gurel, M.L. Lewis Ivey, S. Ilic, C. Vrisman Ohio State University – OARDC, Wooster, OH [email protected]
Tomato bacterial canker, caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm), is one of the most important diseases threatening greenhouse tomatoes. Several outbreaks of bacterial canker in tomato propagation and production greenhouses in the US, Canada, Mexico, and Guatemala in the last decade have caused serious losses. The management of tomato bacterial canker is primarily preventative, and depends on the utilization of pathogen-free seed and strict sanitation procedures during transplant production and crop growing. Contamination of greenhouse irrigation water by Cmm can occur directly at the water source (surface water) or at points along the distribution path that may come in contact with infested plant waste. Early and accurate detection of Cmm in the greenhouse is critical as these bacteria are quickly transported to neighboring healthy plants though the irrigation water system.
Salmonella enterica is the most common foodborne bacterial pathogen in North America and consumption of Salmonella-contaminated tomatoes has been linked to many Salmonellosis outbreaks. As is the case for Cmm, irrigation water is a potential source of Salmonella. Enteric pathogenic bacteria, such as Salmonella, can enter surface water sources via soil run-off, animal intrusions or dust. Once in the water, these bacteria can survive in bottom sediments. As water is pumped out of the source water the sediments are disturbed, which may allow for Salmonella to enter the distribution system.
Diagnostic tests are available for Cmm or Salmonella detection, however there are no protocols adapted to detect these pathogens in large volumes of greenhouse irrigation water. Reliable screening of water for the presence of Cmm or Salmonella is difficult for many reasons: Cmm and Salmonella are typically present at low concentrations relative to the volume of water, which makes it difficult to collect representative yet manageable volumes of water; sampling time and location can be difficult to ascertain because contamination events are sporadic and pathogens are not uniformly dispersed in the water; bacteria bind tightly to organic matter present in water resulting in reduced assay sensitivity; processing water samples is time consuming due to selective concentration steps required for sensitive detection, and; saprophytes dominate the samples, potentially resulting in false negatives when culturing methods are utilized.
Successful recovery and detection of Cmm and Salmonella require an initial method to concentrate the pathogens (Figure, below). Enrichment using selective and differential media, centrifugation, immunomagnetic separation, and filtration can all be used to increase the probability of detecting plant and human disease causing pathogens in water. However, current enrichment, centrifugation and filtration assays are not well suited for routine greenhouse based testing of water because they are time consuming, costly, and require specialized laboratory equipment. In addition, filtration, which is the most commonly used method to concentrate bacteria, is unpredictable due to the presence of organic matter and other microorganisms that may be present in the water. Our research project focuses on identifying a rapid sampling and detection protocol to reliably detect Cmm and Salmonella in greenhouse water.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 75 Greenhouse Vegetable
Project Objectives
The objectives of this study are to: evaluate methods to concentrate Cmm and Salmonella from source and production water; verify the sensitivity and specificity of available detection assays in detecting Cmm and Salmonella in water; determine minimum sampling volumes, replications, locations and frequency required to optimize the probability of detecting Cmm and Salmonella in water and; determine the cost of sampling water using the recommended sampling protocol and diagnostic assays.
Preliminary Results
Current efforts have been focused on detection of Cmm in water. Filtration methods to concentrate Cmm in tap water and greenhouse irrigation water were assessed using a bioluminescent Cmm strain used to contaminate water samples at low levels. Filtration through Nalgene small-pore (0.2 µm) filters resulted in concentration of Cmm and detection by culturing at a level of 102 living cells per liter of tap water. However, direct testing by amplification of Cmm DNA (Polymerase Chain reaction Assay: PCR) of concentrate from the filters was less sensitive than culturing in detection of Cmm, resulting in a detection threshold of 104 cells per liter. Enrichment of the concentrated sample increased sensitivity by PCR assay to 102 Cmm cells per liter of tap water. With greenhouse irrigation water, sensitivity of detection was 103 cells per liter by direct plating and enrichment followed by culturing. Addition of a surfactant increased the number of live Cmm cells recovered.
Since Cmm (and Salmonella) may be present in greenhouse water samples at very low levels, it is likely to be necessary to test larger volumes of water. The Nalgene filters proved to be ineffective for water samples larger than 1 liter, and further efforts are being focused on disposable inline filters to concentrate Cmm, with or without subsequent enrichment. Our preliminary studies indicated that large volumes of greenhouse water containing particulates could be reliably filtered through inline filters without clogging.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 76 Greenhouse Vegetable
We also tested the efficacy of a DNA amplification assay that can be used on-site to detect Cmm. Initial evaluations of DNAble® LFD isothermal DNA amplification assay (Envirologix Inc., Portland, ME, USA) indicated good agreement (82.4%) with other detection methods for this pathogen.
Next Steps
We will focus on concentration of Cmm in large (5 L) volume greenhouse water samples using inline filters, and complete evaluations of Cmm detection assays. Similar studies will be conducted to detect Salmonella in water samples. Once sensitive methods have been identified, we will develop protocols for sampling in greenhouse irrigation systems. The goal is to develop effective, sensitive assays that reduce the cost of water testing for these important pathogens, leading to improved prevention strategies.
Acknowledgments
We thank the British Columbia Greenhouse Growers Association, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Growing Forward 2 program for financial support of this research.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 77 Greenhouse Vegetable
Efficacy of Disinfectants Against Fungal, Bacterial, Virus and Viroid Pathogens of Tomatoes on Greenhouse Tools
Sally A. Miller and Fulya Baysal-Gurel, Ohio State University – OARDC, Department of Plant Pathology, Wooster, OH Kai-Shu Ling and Rugang Li, USDA Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Vegetable Research Center, Charleston, SC [email protected]
The intensive hands-on activities of greenhouse tomato propagation and production favor the spread of mechanically transmitted diseases, including bacterial canker, Botrytis grey mold, and certain virus and viroid diseases. Sanitation is therefore extremely important in greenhouse activities to limit the spread of these diseases. Tools used in crop work may build up sap that can be contaminated with one or more tomato pathogens, and spread the pathogens from plant to plant if not disinfected properly. Suitable disinfectants 1) should require very short contact time, 2) should be broadly effective against viruses, viroids, bacteria and fungi, 3) must not be dangerous to workers, corrosive to infrastructure or phytotoxic to plants and (5) must be economical. Typically available disinfectants include alcohols (e.g. ethanol), halogens (e.g. chlorine bleach), peroxides (e.g. Virkon) and quaternary ammonium compounds (e.g. KleenGrow).
Bacterial Canker
Bacterial canker, caused by Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis (Cmm) is one of the most destructive and economically significant diseases of greenhouse tomatoes worldwide. The pathogen is seed-borne, and once introduced spreads rapidly via grafting, crop work and water. There are no resistant varieties, highly effective bactericides or other control products available. Cmm survives on the tomato seed coat, and a percentage of seed (probably very small) also harbors Cmm under the seed coat. Cmm populations originating from infested seed exist epiphytically on tomato seedlings until environmental conditions favor infection. The pathogen enters the host plant through wounds and natural openings. It can also spread mechanically via grafting, pruning and harvesting tools, machinery and workers’ hands and clothing during crop handling. Grafting and topping are likely critical control points in tomato propagation for Cmm and other pathogens as well. Tools and integrated approaches to managing this high-priority pathogen are critically needed.
Botrytis Grey Mold
Botrytis gray mold is probably the most common disease of greenhouse tomatoes worldwide. The fungus affects all above-ground plant parts and is both a pre-and post-harvest problem. Routine crop work increases plant susceptibility to gray mold stem infections and, if not diagnosed and treated immediately, often results in plant mortality. There are few fungicides labeled for the management of gray mold in greenhouse tomatoes. Recent research has identified several products with efficacy against gray mold, but inadequate disease suppression was commonly observed.
Diseases Caused by Viruses
Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) has become an endemic disease for many greenhouse tomatoes in Europe, North and South Americas. All major North American greenhouse tomatoes are at risk due to its seed- borne nature and highly mechanical transmissibility through crop work. PepMV may interact synergistically with viroids to cause very serious disease in greenhouse tomatoes.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 78 Greenhouse Vegetable
Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV) and Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) are similar viruses that can cause systemic infections in tomatoes, followed by mosaic patterns, stunting and loss of productivity. Both are very stable viruses that are easily transmitted from plant to plant by mechanical means through infected sap.
Viroid Diseases
A serious tomato stunting chlorosis disorder causing significant yield losses was found for the first time several years ago in large greenhouse tomato production facilities in North America. At least three viroids, including Tomato chlorotic dwarf viroid, Mexican papita viroid (MPVd) and Potato spindle tuber viroid (PSTVd) were identified in these outbreaks in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Viroids are the smallest plant pathogens, consisting of only a short stretch single-stranded RNA. All seven currently characterized tomato-infecting viroids are classified in the Family Pospiviroidae, Genus Pospiviroid with type member PSTVd. TCDVd has been shown recently to be seed-borne, but very little is known about transmission or management of viroids in tomatoes.
Efficacy of Disinfectants against Tomato Pathogens
A wide range of disinfectants have been tested for efficacy against Cmm, Botrytis, PepMV and viroids at The Ohio State University and the USDA ARS U.S. Vegetable Research Center. Several disinfectants were effective against tomato pathogens on contact. KleenGrow, Green-Shield, BioSide, Des-O-Germ, Virkon (2%), Menno Florades and Menno Terforte at labeled rates and 10% Clorox killed Cmm and Botrytis on contact. However, Vortexx and Lysol were effective on contact against Cmm, but required a 60 second exposure to kill Botrytis spores. Virkon (2%), 10% Clorox, 20% non-fat dry milk and 50% Lysol inactivated PepMV, ToMV, TMV and PSTVd. Only 10% Clorox and 2% Virkon were effective against all pathogens on contact. Diluted Virkon and Clorox could be stored 30 days without losing activity.
Delivery of Disinfectants to Tools
Greenhouse tomato operations vary widely in practices adopted for sanitation. The time required to sanitize tools must not be excessive, as it will significantly slow crop work such as pruning, de-leafing, and harvesting. Ideally, tools should be sanitized after exposure to each plant. However, this may not always be practical during routine crop work. Several tools are available that deliver disinfectant to the cutting surface as the tool is being used. Knives with small, attached reservoirs (e.g. Menno Knife, Royal Brinkman, The Netherlands, [email protected]; Metallo-Germo Knife, http://www.metallotools.nl/) are available commercially. Clippers attached with tubing to a larger reservoir (Felco 19 Shears with spray device, Felco SA Switzerland, www.felcostore.com/pruners) deliver disinfectant with each cut but are relative expensive (~$220 US). We evaluated the Felco shears with Greenhouse Guardian (8 oz/55 gal), Virkon (0.5, 1.0 and 2.0%), 10% Clorox and KleenGrow (4 ml/L) for ability to stop the spread of bacterial canker in greenhouse tomatoes. All of the disinfectants except Greenhouse Guardian significantly reduced the spread of bacterial canker from an infected source. Both 10% Clorox and KleenGrow completed stopped disease spread. The effective disinfectants also reduced or eliminated the buildup of sap on the shears.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 79 Greenhouse Vegetable
Conclusion
Amongst the many disinfectants available for use in greenhouse tomatoes, very few are effective on contact against the full range of tomato pathogens, including fungi, bacteria, viruses and viroids. Both 10% Clorox and 2% Virkon were highly effective against all pathogens tested, but both are known to be corrosive. Non-fat dry milk (20%) is a safe and effective material for inactivating viruses on tools and can also be used safely on hands. However, it is not effective against Cmm or Botrytis. Similarly, several common disinfectants, including quaternary ammonium compounds, are very effective against bacterial canker and Botrytis, but ineffective against viruses and viroids. Growers need to consider the risks of particular diseases when choosing disinfectants and means of delivery of these products to tool surfaces. Frequency of disinfection may differ depending on circumstances – disinfection practices should be much more stringent in quarantined areas in which diseased plants were found and removed than in other areas of the greenhouse. Convenience of automated delivery of disinfectants to tools via attached reservoirs must be weighed against costs of these products.
Acknowledgments
Research reported in this summary was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Specialty Crops Research Initiative Program (SCRI- 2010- 600-25320). We thank Chester Kurowski, Monsanto Vegetable Seeds, for valuable advice.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 80 Greenhouse Vegetable
Priva TopCrop
Kevin de Kok Priva, The Netherlands [email protected]
Priva TopCrop is a new climate control system in the horticulture industry. The plant is the central focus of the computer. And YES we can control the climate with this new system.
In the unveiling presentation, there was a short video, please click the link to view the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XCypTdpDAU Or search on YouTube for: “Priva TopCrop”.
With the advances in horticulture, there is a lot of information collected during the growing season in horticultural practices. But what is actually useful information? And what data is reliable? A lot of this data can be used in computer controlled systems. TopCrop is actually the first system which can measure and control the greenhouse climate. Other common systems can only measure and provide the information in a database, where there should a follow-up action on this information.
The strategy of a company has different inputs which have an effect on the crop. Growers mainly have to deal with the economic choices and the production and quality targets of the management team. In the end, the grower is responsible for the crop and his decisions to reach the targets.
The climate and installation of a greenhouse have the biggest influence on (the) targets for the grower. Most importantly, the grower has to feel if the climate is beneficial or not. The “green thumb” feeling should help the grower to make his decisions. TopCrop helps the grower make decisions and to get the maximum results out of his crop.
The system is equipped with six common sensors on three different levels. One plant camera and a measuring box on the bottom of the plant. One plant camera and a measuring box in the middle layer and one plant camera and a measuring box on the top of the plant. The bottom (lowest) measurement is a reference for the middle layer and should be warmer than the middle layer. The middle layer is the layer where the system measures the activity of the plant. This layer is the adiabatic cooler of the plant. The top measurements are the input of energy to the plant. The TopCrop system is used to measure the activity of the plant and it gives a good insight into the balance between uptake and usage of water in the plant. This is important to know if the plant is feeling healthy or not.
With the crop measurements, TopCrop can physically measure the activity, disease pressure and the water uptake capacity. It is important to involve the plant at the moments when this is needed, with a pulse- action on pipe and vent. The same installation is used when the disease pressure is high, then with a different purpose.
The new indicators are collected in the status bar which has been introduced with Priva TopCrop. The status bar indicates where the lack of growth in the plant comes from. With a lack in crop activity or disease pressure the pipes and vents are being used to get the crop back on track. If the plant has a lack of water then a pulse in the irrigation system is initiated. There are two levels of inhibited crop status and the grower can set different pulses in these two levels. The pulse is a correction mechanism with the aim to change the crop status in the status which is set.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 81 Greenhouse Vegetable
In this new system, it is required to “think” differently. The climate in the greenhouse should be stable and not a big difference between compartments otherwise the climate itself is a “pulse”. In this new system, there are no influences involved from outside because they can interrupt the TopCrop system. Priva has gained much experience in 2013. The ease of control has shown up as a result in the field tests. Tomato growers who get the same result in yield as in their “common” compartments. The Rose growers can control their production more easily and can actually see if their strategy is the best.
This new concept Priva TopCrop has been tested in the Netherlands and this will be continued in 2014. For many growers, it is a new experience to grow this way. The new interface gives a new “wheel” to control the plants. More growers are equipped with Priva TopCrop. Some remarks with this new system are that the plant is within control, so the measurement-spot must be representative and the system is no auto-pilot to replace the grower. The grower must determine the strategy and the settings for the computer.
Subscribe to the Priva TopCrop newsletter on our website! www.priva-international.com/topcrop
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 82 Field Vegetable
RNA Interference Technology: Applications for Agriculture
Guus Bakkeren Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Summerland, BC [email protected]
Ever wondered what “RNAi” (aka “RNA silencing”) is and what the technology could mean for pest management in horticulture? Hear about this from a molecular plant pathologist.
Introduction
RNA interference describes the ability of double-stranded RNA molecules to inhibit expression of genes they “match with”, that is, to which they have sequence homology. It is a general, very ancient defense mechanism, present in most, but not all, organisms to protect its cells from incursions of foreign DNA or prevent certain elements that exist in high numbers in its own DNA from multiplying uncontrollably as to prevent destruction of its own genetic material. RNA interference results in the destruction of foreign “invaders”, and “silencing” of specific genes and elements within its cells. By introducing into organisms such double-stranded RNA molecules designed to silence specific genes, certain traits and processes can be altered. When targeted to important genes in pests and pathogens, novel strategies for control can be designed. In a way, plants can be “immunized” against their pathogens. Many examples, mostly at the research stage, already exist and major companies have invested heavily in this technology.
General Principle
In the general dogma for life in cells, genetic information coded on the DNA molecules (chromosomes) resides in genes which are expressed when needed for the production of a certain protein, or the execution of a process or trait. Such gene is then “transcribed” into a messenger RNA (mRNA) which then is “translated” into the corresponding protein. When a stretch of RNA is available in the cell with a sequence which exactly complements such mRNA molecule (“A” pairs with “T”, or “U” in RNA, and “G” pairs with “C”), the formed double-stranded RNA is recognized as a potential threat. Such double- stranded RNA molecules can also be formed during the replication of invading viruses. The cell responds by dispatching a protein, called “Dicer”, which attaches to these double-stranded RNA molecules and cuts them in to small double stranded pieces, the siRNA or “silencing” molecules. With the help of another protein complex, mRNA or viruses that exactly match these small siRNA molecules are destroyed. As a result, infection is halted or no protein is produced and the process or trait in which this protein played a part, is compromised (Fig. 1).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 83 Field Vegetable
Fig.1. RNA “silencing” as an inherent protection mechanism in cells. The presence of double-stranded RNA, either through replication of viruses (a), or introduced as engineered molecules (e.g., a “hairpin structure”, b), leads the host cell machinery to chop this up by an enzyme called ‘Dicer’ (c). Only one strand of the small stretches are then captured in the so-called ‘RISC’ (RNA-induced silencing complex), a protein complex of which ‘Argonaute’ is a member (d). This can then find the exact complementary stretch in messenger RNA (e) which normally produces proteins in a cell, or in viruses, and all are subsequently chopped up.
By the end of the 20th century, it was realized that organisms (cells) had an inherent defense mechanism to cope with “foreign”, invading DNA and RNA (such as viruses), but also to keep certain elements that exist in high numbers in its own DNA, in check. For their discovery of ‘RNA interference - gene silencing by double-stranded RNA and having postulated a clear overarching mechanism’, Drs. Fire and Mello were awarded the 2006 Nobel Price for Physiology and Medicine. It was soon realized that this mechanism could be taken advantage off and “tweaked” into tools for research (to study gene functions), but also for applications.
Examples
By “targeting” with engineered “matching” RNA molecules specific genes, the production of their coded protein or the metabolic pathway they’re involved in (leading to a certain process, or toxin, or allergen, or unwanted product), could be decreased or almost completely stopped. As a visible “proof-of-concept”, when targeting a gene involved in carotenoid biosynthesis in plants (PDS, or Phytoene desaturase), whitish leaves ensued showing this pathway leading to pigment formation was successfully inhibited. Table 1 gives some examples of actual achieved metabolic changes and changed traits (most at research stage).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 84 Field Vegetable
Table.1. Some examples of traits and processes modified through “targeting genes” by “silencing”. Metabolic engineering: - Reduce caffeine content in coffee - Reduce anti-nutrient/toxin levels, e.g., reduce gossypol content in cotton seed yields health benefits - Changed oil composition in seeds for cooking applications - Reduce gluten content in rice and wheat, allergens in peanut - Change starch composition in maize improves quality - “Tearless” onion - Increased flavonoid content in tomato, health benefits
Other traits: - Generate male sterility for hybrid seed production - Reduced ripening speed in tomato, longer shelf life - Anthocyanin biosynthesis to change color in petunia, market value
Increased resistance to pests & pathogens - Virus diseases - Plant-parasitic cyst and root knot nematodes - Boll worm - Crown gall (Arabidopsis or thale cress) - Powdery mildew and rust on cereals
Applications for Pest and Pathogen Control in Crops
Several research papers show successful control of insect (larvae) and nematode development by feeding them “poisonous” RNA interfering molecules mixed with their natural diet. For example, RNA molecules that target specific genes involved in the central nervous system, or preventing the production of a virulence factor essential for infection. In this sense, the engineered RNA molecules can be considered very specific bio-pesticides with a very narrow specificity. In agriculture settings, delivery of such molecules could be envisaged in direct sprays or produced and secreted by engineered, non-pathogenic biocontrol microorganisms that are normally ingested by pests. As indicated in Table 1, many research papers report the successful control of pathogens and pests on model plant species but also on crop plants, using silencing approaches under laboratory conditions. For several applications, the generation of genetically modified plants expressing very specific targeted siRNAs is envisaged. To minimize chances of pathogens and pests adapting to these control measures, the use of multiple targets (such as when controlling diseases in humans), or in combination with other approaches such as Bt toxin, is needed to obtain long-lasting control.
Future for Pest Management in Horticulture
A fact of life is that microorganisms, and other (insect) pests, have high multiplication rates or generation times, much faster than our crop plants. This means that they can evolve much faster and in most cases have been around for much longer than the higher organisms (plants or animals/humans) they infect. In general, resistance introduced into crops by breeding, or pesticides developed against pests, are often overcome within a relatively short period of time. RNA silencing is not a “silver bullet” but a novel and additional arrow in the arsenal for crop protection. When targeted to genes essential to pathogens (their “Achilles heel”) and/or when targeting multiple genes at once, and in combination with other resistances, the RNA interfering (silencing) technology could be a very powerful addition to pest control. As with fighting human diseases (e.g., HIV), choosing multiple targets in the pest at the same time would greatly diminish the chance of this pest mutating and evolving to overcome this. Using therefore such combined technologies will lead to more durable resistance.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 85 Field Vegetable
Sprays to deliver mass-produced silencing molecules to pests to feed on, although successful under laboratory conditions, may not be feasible practically. The use of environmentally safe, non-pathogenic microorganisms to produce such molecules, possibly as a spray, might become an option. Crop protection using biocontrol agents is a common practice. The likely most-effective way of delivery is their production by the own genetic information of the crop plant. Several examples exist in the research literature of the RNA silencing technology being used this way and successfully decreasing disease levels in crop plants when targeted to nematodes, insects, bacteria and fungi. An advantage of the RNA silencing technology is that it does not rely on the production of proteins to have an effect, thereby eliminating the chance of possible allergic reactions (in animals or humans). One interesting proposed technology for woody perennials is the use of root stock which produces the silencing molecules in root stock which are then transferred into the scion; the scion (and fruits) are not genetically modified. There might be fears that RNA silencing molecules linger in plants (fruits) meant for consumption. The human (mammal) gut is a very hostile place for small RNA molecules so these are not likely to survive there to cause unintended (adverse) effects. However, more research needs to be done to study such possible effects. The availability of complete genome sequences of hosts (plants) and pathogens and pests allows comprehensive computer searches for targets that are very specific only to the pathogen or pest to be controlled with minimal chances of so-called “off-target effects”, where the engineered silencing RNA molecule affects unintended genes in other species. In mammals, successful studies report the use of relatively low doses of siRNA molecules without causing significant side effects. However, this is still an active area of research to understand all factors involved.
In an article in the Western Producer from May 2nd, 2013, by Robert Arnason, about the RNA silencing technology, several quotes from scientists give some insight into its possible success:
“Delivery (of double stranded RNA) has been the biggest hurdle facing the human therapeutic side. Just getting these things into cells and functioning … is terribly complicated.” & “When you’re dealing with insects and plants, that delivery hurdle is significantly lower. In certain types of insects, they can just eat the stuff.” -Doug Macron
“We don’t really expect off-target effects, but you have to go through all the precautionary steps.” -Marcé Lorenzen
Conclusions and Take Home Lessons
RNA silencing is a natural, very old defense mechanism in cells/organisms
The natural RNA silencing mechanism in plants can be “tweaked” for metabolic engineering, to change important traits, and to fight pathogens (“immunizing” plants)
Various engineering solutions exist to deliver or express these “tweaking or immunizing molecules” in crop plants
Pathogens tend to outsmart anything put in their way, so multiple targets for silencing in conjunction with other approaches may have to be used to obtain durable resistance
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 86 Field Vegetable
Recent Weed Control Trials in Vegetable Seed Crops: 2013 Report
Tim Miller and Carl Libbey WSU Mount Vernon – NWREC, Mt. Vernon, WA [email protected]
2013-14 Cabbage Seed Herbicide Screen
Seven cabbage seed lines were transplanted at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC in September 20, 2013. Herbicides were applied prior to transplanting, also on September 20, 2013. Crop injury and weed control was estimated September 27, 2013. The trial was a split-block, randomized complete block with three replicates.
Table Beet Greenhouse Screen
Red beet seedlings were transplanted into pots containing moist field soil from WSU Mount Vernon NWREC December 12, 2012. Pre-plant incorporated (PPI) treatments were simulated by removing soil from the top two inches of appropriate pots, placing it in a plastic tray, smoothing it to a uniform depth, applying the proper amount of herbicide, thoroughly mixing the soil, then refilling the pots with the treated soil. Pre-transplant (PRETR) herbicides were applied immediately prior to transplanting red beet seedlings into appropriate pots, while post-transplant (POSTR) treatments were made immediately following transplanting of red beet seedlings. PPI, PRETR, and POSTR treatments were applied December 13, 2012. Initial injury was estimated the day after transplanting to more accurately estimate herbicide injury over time. One more POSTR application was made to appropriate pots December 20, 2012. Additional beet injury ratings were made December 21 (PPI, PRETR, and POSTR), and December 28, 2012 (POSTR + 7d), and January 30, 2013 (all). Weeds germinating in each pot were counted on January 4, 2013 and those weeds removed by hand. One beet seedling for each treatment was clipped at the soil level on January 31, 2013 and foliage was bagged, dried at 75 C for three days, and weighed. The trial was a completely random design with four replicates.
Results
Initial beet injury at one day after transplanting ranged from 31 to 44% (Table 2). Injury was due to leaf mortality within the original seedling trays, and all were statistically similar to that for nontreated plants at that timing (38%). Seedling injury did not differ by treatment at one week after treatment. By January 30, however, injury for four treatments exceeded that of nontreated beet seedlings (2%): Command applied PPI and PRETR (25 and 17%, respectively) and Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger applied POSTR and POSTR + 7d (9 and 14%, respectively) (Table 2). Injury symptoms with Command were moderately to severely whitened leaves, while injury with the “micro-rate” treatments were slightly to moderately rolled leaves, presumably due primarily to the Stinger component of the herbicide tank mixture. These symptomatic plants did not differ in final dry weight compared to nontreated seedlings, however (Table 3). The only treatment that reduced seedling dry weight was Dual Magnum PRETR, which reduced dry weight from 0.34 to 0.27 g/plant. Weed count was relatively variable, and most treatments did not differ in total weed seedlings as compared to nontreated pots (Table 3). Only Dual Magnum POSTR reduced weed number compared to nontreated pots (0.2 and 1.0 weeds/pot, respectively).
Table Beet Steckling/Seedling Trial (WSU Mount Vernon NWREC)
Red beet stecklings and seedlings were transplanted April 29-30, 2013 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Preplant-incorporated (PPI) treatments were applied April 26 and preemergence (PRE) May 2, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 87 Field Vegetable
Crop injury and weed control was estimated May 25, June 6 and 26, and July 16, 2013. Beet seedlings were removed from the plots prior to flowering to prevent inadvertent cross pollination. One surviving steckling from each plot were pulled from the plots September 9 and 10 and plants placed in a screenhouse and forage dryers until dry. Plants were then threshed and seed cleaned and weighed. The trial was a split-block, randomized complete block with four replicates.
Results
Seedling injury in May (about 3 weeks after treatment, WAT) exceeded 20% for most applications, except for linuron at 8 fl.oz/a, diuron at 8 oz/a, metribuzin at 6 oz/a, and for Ro-Neet or Dual Magnum used alone, and for the combination of Ro-Neet fb linuron (Table 4). By June 6 (5 WAT) injury with linuron at 1 pt/a was reduced to 16%, and Ro-Neet fb metribuzin and Dual Magnum + linuron had declined to 13%. By June 26 (8 WAT), beet seedling injury had declined to acceptable (15% or less, statistically similar to hand weeded checks) levels for all treatments except linuron at 2 pt/a, diuron at 1 or 2 lb/a, metribuzin at 1 lb/a, and all treatments containing Velpar. Steckling injury was hard to estimate in 2013, given variable and poor emergence (data not shown).
Weed control at 3 WAT was excellent with all treatments except Velpar a 8 oz/a (Table 5); control with that treatment increased to 96% by 5 WAT. Weed control with the other Velpar treatments also increased during that interval. Control with linuron at 8 fl.oz/a was beginning to fail by 5 WAT, although other treatments exceeded 85%. By 8 WAT, diuron at 8 oz/a and 1 lb/a was no longer providing adequate weed control, as were Ro-Neet and Dual Magnum used alone; combinations of diuron with Ro-Neet or Dual Magnum and Ro-Neet fb linuron were <85%. The only treatments still providing adequate weed control at the July 16 evaluation (3 months after treatment, MAT) were linuron at 2 pt/a, diuron at 2 lb/a, metribuzin at 11 oz/a or more used alone or with Ro-Neet or Dual Magnum, and all treatments containing Velpar. Seed yield from one surviving steckling did not differ by treatment (Table 4).
When considering both beet seedling injury and weed control, it appears that liuron between 8 and 16 fl.oz/a, diuron at 8 oz/a, and metribuzin at 6 oz/a warrant further testing. In addition, combinations of these products with Ro-Neet or Dual Magnum are of interest, although rates with one or both products need to be reduced to achieve initial crop safety. These base products should also be tested with midseason herbicide applications to extend the season of control.
Table Beet Seedling Trial (WSU Mount Vernon NWREC)
Red beet seedlings were transplanted April 29, 2013 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Preplant- incorporated (PPI) treatments were applied April 30, postemergence (POST) May 9, and a second postemergence (POST2) June 11, 2013. Crop injury and weed control was estimated May 24 and June 6 and 26, 2013. Plots were tilled between rows in early June, and all beet seedlings were removed from the plots prior to flowering (mid July) to prevent inadvertent cross pollination. The trial was a split-block, randomized complete block with three replicates.
Results
Beet seedling injury never exceeded 10% for any of the treatments in this trial at any evaluation (Table 6). Weed control was excellent in late May with single applications of Dual Magnum and Nortron. One or two applications of these products were inadequate for weed control by early June, however, as neither exceeded 70% control. One or two applications of Betamix resulted in 92% weed control by June 26, similar to single applications of Asulox, Asulox + Stinger, and Asulox + Stinger + UpBeet. Visual weed control by one or two applications of Dual Magnum and two applications of Nortron was improved in late June by tillage between beet rows, ranging from 82 to 87%.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 88 Field Vegetable
Table Beet Steckling/Seedling trial (Johnson Farm, La Conner)
Red beet stecklings and seedlings were transplanted by the grower approximately April 28, 2013. Preemergence (PRE) applications were applied May 2, 2013, although a few weeds were in the cotyledon stage of growth at the time of application. Postemergence (POST, POST2) treatments were applied May 9 and May 24, 2013 and layby treatments were applied between crop rows June 11, 2013, shortly prior to rototilling. Crop injury and weed control was estimated May 23 and 31, June 10, and July 12, 2013. The trial was a split-block, randomized complete block with four replicates.
Results
No treatments caused more than slight damage to either stecklings nor seedlings (<10% injury; data not shown). Weed control from Dual Magnum followed by the first POST application of either Betamix or Asulox was only fair to poor (May 23, Table 7). Weed control was maximized after POST2 applications (May 31 evaluation), with Betamix providing 84 to 87% control and Asulox ranging from 65 to 71% control. By June 10, just prior to layby treatments, there was little difference between most treatments (61 to 74%) and all these treatments failed to adequately control weeds (52 to 62% control by July 12). The exception was the Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger treatment, which provided 83 and 82% weed control June 10 and July 12, respectively; this treatment provided the best weed control at the July evaluation. The Betamix combination generally controlled common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) better than Asulox, although Asulox provided better control of smartweed/knotweed (Polygonum spp.); a combination or sequential application of these two products would likely perform better than either product used alone once or twice. The Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger also was a little weak on common lambsquarters, so including Betamix in that mix would likely result in better control of that species.
Table Beet Seedling with PRE Herbicides Trial
Red beet seedlings were transplanted August 21, 2013 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Preemergence (PRE) herbicides were applied August 20, 2013. Crop injury and weed control was estimated September 5 and 20, 2013. The trial was a split-block, randomized complete block with three replicates.
Results
Crop injury from Goal and GoalTender treatments was relatively high at 2 WAT, ranging from 8 to 22% (Table 8). Damage from these treatments was reduced growth and leaf area, as well as necrotic spotting on most major leaves. Injury increased for both herbicides over time, ranging from 12 to 47% by 4 WAT. The lowest rate from each herbicide was generally equal to the lowest injury seen at both timings, however, indicating that there may be a safe dose for beet seedlings. Chateau and Spartan generally caused less injury than the higher doses of Goal and GoalTender, with injury rated from 3 to 8% at 4 WAT.
Broadleaf weed control was uniformly excellent at 2 WAT, although control with Goal at 8 fl.oz/a, GoalTender at 4 fl.oz/a, and Spartan at 3 fl.oz/a was beginning to fall off by 4 WAT (Table 8). These products are mostly considered broadleaf weed herbicides, although grass control with higher rates of Goal, GoalTender, and Chateau at 4 WAT was better than expected.
Chateau caused very little loss in seedling biomass by 7 WAT (Table 8). Biomass of beets treated with 2 oz/a rate of Chateau was statistically equal to nontreated beets, while the 1 oz/a slightly reduced beet biomass. This difference due to rate is considered to be statistical error, as it is unlikely that the higher rate would cause less damage than the lower rate. Spartan did not cause visual injury, but beet biomass
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 89 Field Vegetable
was reduced with both Spartan treatments, statistically equal to treatments with Goal at 8 fl.oz/a or 1 pt/a. Goal and GoalTender both reduced beet biomass more at the higher rates, with most damage from Goal at 2 pt/a or higher and with GoalTender at 1 pt/a or higher (equivalent to oxyfluorfen at 0.5 lb/a). Based on these data, Chateau looks like a promising herbicide for this use.
Spinach Seed
Spinach was seeded May 9, 2013 at WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Preplant-incorporated (PPI) treatments were applied May 8, preemergence (PRE) May 9, and postemergence (POST) June 3, 2012; a second POST (POST2) was applied June 11, 2013. Weed control and crop injury were estimated May 24, June 6 and 26, and July 16. Spinach plants were pulled from the soil September 11-12, 2013 and plants placed in a screenhouse and forage dryers until dry. Plants were then threshed and seed cleaned and weighed. The trial was a randomized complete block with four replicates.
Results
Spinach injury May 24 was slight to moderate with most treatments (Table 9). The most injury at that date was seen with Command at 10.7 fl.oz/a PPI, whether alone or in combination, and Command PRE treatments. By June 6, the majority of treatments were causing in excess of 15% injury, with seven treatments causing over 30% injury. By June 26, however, injury from all treatments was <10%, with the exception of Ro-Neet followed by Asulox + Stinger + MSO, which was causing 15% injury. Based on symptomology, most of the damage from this treatment on this spinach line was due to Stinger.
PPI and PRE applications were providing excellent control through May 24 (Table 10). By June 6, however, weed control with Ro-Neet alone, Nortron alone, Dual Magnum alone, or Command PPI at 6.4 fl.oz/a alone or followed by Nortron was ranging from 44 to 86%. Treatments with POST or POST2 treatments improved broadleaf weed control by June 26, and continued to provide excellent weed control through mid July. Other treatments providing greater than 90% weed control by July 16 were Ro_Neet, Nortron, or Dual Magnum with Define, and the high rate of Command (6.4 fl.oz/a) PRE alone or in sequence with Nortron or Dual Magnum.
Seed yield differed among treatments, but did not really provide much information as to herbicide injury (Table 9). Most treatments did not significantly reduce seed yield in comparison to hand-weeded spinach, although four combinations increased seed yield: Ro-Neet followed by one or two applications of Asulox, Nortron followed by two applications of Asulox, and Dual Magnum followed by one application of Asulox.
When considering both spinach injury and weed control, it appears that base treatment with Ro-Neet, Nortron, or Dual Magnum followed by one or two Asulox applications were the best treatments. The higher rate of Asulox (3.6 pt/a) applied twice provided nearly complete weed control while causing less than 10% spinach injury.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 90 Field Vegetable
Table 1. Crop injury and weed control from several herbicides applied prior to transplanting seven cabbage seed lines (2013-14). Crop injury Grass control Brdlf. Control Treatmenta Rate Oct 9 Oct 9 Oct 9 product/a % % % Simazine 0.9 0 b 85 a 99 b Goal XL 2 pt 0 b 100 a 100 a GoalTender 1 pt 0 b 100 a 100 a Callisto 3 fl.oz 12 a 23 b 100 a Spartan 3.2 fl.oz 0 b 95 a 99 b Chateau 2 oz 0 b 98 a 100 a Means within a column followed by the same letter, or without letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aCabbage was transplanted September 20, 2013; herbicides were applied prior to transplanting, September 20, 2013.
Table 2. Percent red beet injury after treatment with various herbicides in the greenhouse (2012-13). Beet injury a a Treatment Rate Timing Dec 14 Dec 21 Dec 28 Jan 30 product/a % % % % Command 6.4 fl.oz PPI 35 b 28 --- 25 a Command 3.4 fl.oz PRETR 38 ab 32 --- 17 b Dual Magnum 2 pt PRETR 32 b 29 --- 2 d Dual Magnum 2 pt POSTR 37 ab 32 --- 2 d Nortron 1.5 pt PRETR 37 ab 26 --- 2 d Nortron 1.5 pt POSTR 35 ab 31 --- 2 d Betamix 3 pt PRETR 32 b 26 --- 2 d Betamix 1.5 pt POSTR 35 ab 29 --- 2 d Asulox + UpBeet + 1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + POSTR 31 b 28 --- 9 c Stinger + MSO 1.3 fl.oz + 1.5% Asulox + UpBeet + 1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + POSTR + 7d 44 a 27 24 14 bc Stinger + MSO 1.3 fl.oz + 1.5% Nontreated check ------38 ab 27 --- 2 d Means within a column followed by the same letter or with no letters are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aPre-plant-incorporated (PPI), pre-transplant (PRETR), and post-transplant (POSTR) applications were made December 14, 2012; POSTR + 7d application was made December 20, 2012; MSO = methylated seed oil.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 91 Field Vegetable
Table 3. Weed counts and red beet seedling dry weight after treatment with various herbicides in the greenhouse (2012-13). Beet dry Treatmenta Rate Timinga Weed countb weightc product/a no./pot g/plant Command 6.4 fl.oz PPI 1.4 a 0.32 abc Command 3.4 fl.oz PRETR 0.7 a-d 0.28 bc Dual Magnum 2 pt PRETR 0.4 cd 0.27 c Dual Magnum 2 pt POSTR 0.2 d 0.32 abc Nortron 1.5 pt PRETR 0.8 a-d 0.31 abc Nortron 1.5 pt POSTR 0.6 bcd 0.31 bc Betamix 3 pt PRETR 1.2 ab 0.38 a Betamix 1.5 pt POSTR 1.1 abc 0.33 abc Asulox + UpBeet + 1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + POSTR 0.5 bcd 0.28 bc Stinger + MSO 1.3 fl.oz + 1.5% Asulox + UpBeet + 1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + POSTR + 7d 1.0 abc 0.29 bc Stinger + MSO 1.3 fl.oz + 1.5% Nontreated check ------1.0 a-c 0.34 ab Means within a column followed by the same letter or with no letters are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aPre-plant-incorporated (PPI), pre-transplant (PRETR), and post-transplant (POSTR) applications were made December 14, 2012; POSTR + 7d application was made December 20, 2012; MSO = methylated seed oil. bWeed counts made January 4, 2013. cBeets were harvested January 31, 2013.
Table 4. Table beet injury, beet steckling stand, and steckling seed yield after treatment with several herbicides (2013). Seedling injury Beet seed Treatmenta Rate Timingb May 24 June 6 June 26 Beet standc yieldc product/a % % % no./plot g/plant Linuron 8 fl.oz PRE 10 gh 5 h 0 f 2.8 90 Linuron 1 pt PRE 20 fg 16 gh 0 f 3.8 92 Linuron 2 pt PRE 73 ab 80 bc 56 cd 2.5 102 Diuron 8 oz PRE 11 gh 11 h 0 f 2.0 79 Diuron 1 lb PRE 51 cd 54 e 20 e 2.3 78 Diuron 2 lb PRE 80 ab 93 ab 89 ab 3.3 54 Metribuzin 6 oz PRE 13 gh 4 h 0 f 2.0 44 Metribuzin 11 oz PRE 31 ef 35 f 0 f 2.5 115 Metribuzin 1 lb PRE 73 ab 60 de 74 bc 3.3 63 Velpar 8 oz PRE 43 cde 71 cd 74 bc 3.0 22 Velpar 1 lb PRE 71 b 100 a 100 a 2.5 6 Velpar 2 lb PRE 86 a 100 a 100 a 0 0 Ro-Neet 2 qt PPI 0 h 0 h 0 f 2.5 147 Ro-Neet fb linuron 2 qt + 8 fl.oz PPI fb PRE 13 gh 10 h 0 f 3.0 78 Ro-Neet fb diuron 2 qt + 8 oz PPI fb PRE 30 ef 30 fg 3 ef 3.5 92 Ro-Neet fb metribuzin 2 qt + 6 oz PPI fb PRE 20 fg 13 h 0 f 2.5 71 Ro-Neet fb Velpar 2 qt + 8 oz PPI fb PRE 30 ef 73 cd 76 b 3.5 115 Dual Magnum 2 pt PRE 0 h 0 h 0 f 1.5 11 Dual Magnum + linuron 2 pt + 8 fl.oz PRE + PRE 21 fg 13 h 0 f 3.5 93 Dual Magnum + diuron 2 pt + 8 oz PRE + PRE 38 de 34 f 8 ef 2.5 88 Dual Magnum + metribuzin 2 pt + 6 oz PRE + PRE 53 c 36 f 14 ef 2.5 16 Dual Magnum + Velpar 2 pt + 8 oz PRE + PRE 54 c 76 bcd 55 d 2.5 93 Hand weeded ------0 h 0 h 0 f 2.0 26 Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or with no letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). a“fb” = followed by. bTable beet stecklings and seedlings were transplanted April 29-30, 2013; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied April 26, 2013); PRE = preemergence (May 2, 2013). cSurviving stecklings counted and one steckling harvested September 9-10, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 92 Field Vegetable
Table 5. Weed control in table beet after treatment with several herbicides (2013). Weed control Treatmenta Rate Timingb May 24 June 6 June 26 July 16 product/a % % % % Linuron 8 fl.oz PRE 90 de 84 f 50 f 10 i Linuron 1 pt PRE 95 a-d 95 a-d 89 a-d 73 a-e Linuron 2 pt PRE 100 a 99 ab 99 a 91 a-d Diuron 8 oz PRE 91 cde 90 de 61 f 15 hi Diuron 1 lb PRE 91 cde 88 ef 76 e 44 fg Diuron 2 lb PRE 100 a 100 a 98 ab 93 a-d Metribuzin 6 oz PRE 94 b-e 95 a-d 86 b-e 70 c-g Metribuzin 11 oz PRE 96 abc 100 a 99 a 96 abc Metribuzin 1 lb PRE 98 ab 100 a 100 a 100 a Velpar 8 oz PRE 81 f 96 abc 94 abc 91 a-d Velpar 1 lb PRE 90 de 99 ab 100 a 100 a Velpar 2 lb PRE 98 ab 100 a 100 a 100 a Ro-Neet 2 qt PPI 89 e 86 ef 55 f 6 i Ro-Neet fb linuron 2 qt + 8 fl.oz PPI fb PRE 98 ab 96 abc 84 cde 66 d-g Ro-Neet fb diuron 2 qt + 8 oz PPI fb PRE 98 ab 94 bcd 83 cde 68 d-g Ro-Neet fb metribuzin 2 qt + 6 oz PPI fb PRE 98 ab 99 ab 96 ab 94 a-d Ro-Neet fb Velpar 2 qt + 8 oz PPI fb PRE 94 b-e 98 ab 94 abc 84 a-d Dual Magnum 2 pt PRE 93 b-e 91 cde 75 e 43 gh Dual Magnum + linuron 2 pt + 8 fl.oz PRE + PRE 93 b-e 95 a-d 90 abc 68 d-g Dual Magnum + diuron 2 pt + 8 oz PRE + PRE 94 b-e 90 de 78 de 55 efg Dual Magnum + metribuzin 2 pt + 6 oz PRE + PRE 98 ab 99 ab 99 a 99 ab Dual Magnum + Velpar 2 pt + 8 oz PRE + PRE 94 b-e 94 bcd 94 abc 89 a-d Hand weeded ------0 g 0 g 0 g 71 b-e Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or with no letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). a“fb” = followed by. bTable beet stecklings and seedlings were transplanted April 29-30, 2013; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied April 26, 2013); PRE = preemergence (May 2, 2013).
Table 6. Crop injury and weed control in table beet seedlings after treatment with several herbicides (2013). Crop injury Weed control Treatmenta Rate Timingb May 24 June 6 June 26 May 24 June 6 June 26 product/a % % % % % % Dual Magnum 2 pt PRE 2 0 0 92 a 63 bc 82 c Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb 2 pt PRE fb POST 0 0 2 95 a 69 bc 85 c Dual Magnum Nortron 1.5 pt PRE 0 0 0 90 a 47 c 75 d Nortron fb Nortron 1.5 pt fb 1.5 pt PRE fb POST 0 0 0 93 a 65 bc 87 bc Betamix 3 pt POST --- 0 0 --- 73 ab 92 ab Betamix fb Betamix 3 pt fb 3 pt POST fb --- 0 0 --- 82 ab 92 ab POST2 Asulox 3 pt POST --- 0 7 --- 95 a 95 a Asulox + Stinger 2 pt + 1 fl.oz POST --- 0 3 --- 93 a 93 a Asulox + Stinger + 1 pt + 1 fl.oz + POST --- 7 5 --- 95 a 95 a UpBeet 0.1 oz Nontreated ------0 0 0 0 b 0 d 0 e Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or with no letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). a“fb” = followed by; Betamix, Asulox, Asulox + Stinger, Asulox + Stinger + UpBeet treatments mixed with methylated seed oil (MSO) at 1.5%, v/v prior to application. bTable beet seedlings were transplanted April 29, 2013; PRE = preemergence (PRE) treatments were applied April 30, 2013; POST = postemergence May 24, 2013; POST2 = a second POST June 11, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 93 Field Vegetable
Table 7. Table beet injury after treatment with several herbicides (off-station, 2013). Weed control Treatmenta Rate Timingb May 23 May 31 June 10 July 12 product/a % % % % Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 84 a 86 a 74 ab 52 c Betamix fb Betamix fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Prowl 2.5 pt Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 78 a 84 a 66 bcd 50 c Betamix fb Betamix fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Diuron 1 lb Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 81 a 87 a 74 ab 55 bc Betamix fb Betamix fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Chateau 2 oz Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 81 a 85 a 73 abc 54 bc Betamix fb Betamix fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Define 1 pt Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 56 b 65 b 64 cd 61 b Asulox fb Asulox fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Prowl 2.5 pt Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 59 b 71 b 61 d 53 c Asulox fb Asulox fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Diuron 1 lb Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 56 b 69 b 60 d 58 bc Asulox fb Asulox fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Chateau 2 oz Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 59 b 71 b 64 cd 62 b Asulox fb Asulox fb 3 pt fb 3 pt fb POST fb POST2 fb Define 1 pt Layby Dual Magnum fb 2 pt fb PRE fb 77 a 88 a 83 a 82 a (Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger) fb (1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + 1.3 fl.oz) fb POST fb (Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger) (1.5 pt + 0.1 oz + 1.3 fl.oz) POST2 Nontreated ------12 c 9 c 0 e 0 d Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or with no letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). a“fb” = followed by; (Asulox + UpBeet + Stinger) applications were mixed with methylated seed oil (MSO) at 1.5%, v/v, prior to treatment. bTable beet stecklings and seedlings were transplanted in late April, 2013; PRE = preemergence applications were made May 2, 2013; POST = postemergence (May 9, 2013); POST2 = second postemergence (May 24, 2013); Layby applied June 11, 2013.
Table 8. Effect of pretransplant herbicides on beet seedlings and weeds. Crop injuryb Broadleaf controlb Grass controlb Beet dry weightc Treatmenta Rate 2 WAT 4 WAT 2 WAT 4 WAT 4 WAT 7 WAT Reduction product/acre % % % % % g/plant % Goal 8 fl.oz 8 de 12 e-h 100 ab 86 cd 42 def 5.8 cd 44 Goal 1 pt 12 cde 18 def 100 a 93 abc 63 bcd 5.5 cde 47 Goal 2pt 17 abc 22 cde 100 a 99 a 88 ab 4.4 ef 57 Goal 3pt 15 a-d 33 bc 100 a 100 a 95 a 3.8 f 63 Goal 4 pt 22 a 47 a 100 a 100 a 93 a 3.9 f 62 GoalTender 4 fl.oz 10 cde 15 d-g 100 a 87 cd 33 ef 6.3 c 39 GoalTender 8 fl.oz 12 cde 22 cde 100 a 96 ab 62 bcd 5.1 de 50 GoalTender 1 pt 13 bcd 27 cd 100 a 100 a 85 ab 4.4 ef 57 GoalTender 2 pt 20 ab 42 ab 100 a 100 a 87 ab 3.7 f 64 Chateau 1 oz 5 ef 5 gh 100 ab 100 a 50 cde 8.4 b 18 Chateau 2 oz 0 f 3 gh 100 a 99 a 73 abc 9.7 a 6 Spartan 3 fl.oz 5 ef 5 gh 99 b 82 d 18 fg 6.5 c 37 Spartan 5 fl.oz 10 cde 8 fgh 100 a 90 bcd 32 ef 6.4 c 38 Nontreated --- 0 0 0 0 0 10.3 a --- Means within a column and followed by the same letter, or with no letters, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aTable beet seedlings were transplanted August 21, 2013; herbicides were applied August 20, 2013. bCrop injury and weed control was estimated September 5 and 20, 2013 (2 and 4 weeks after treatment (WAT), respectively). cTopgrowth of beet seedlings harvested October 9, 2013 (7 weeks after treatment, WAT; reduction in growth as compared to nontreated seedlings).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 94 Field Vegetable
Table 9. Crop injury in spinach seed after treatment with several herbicides (2013). Spinach injury Seed Treatment Rate Timinga May 24 June 6 June 26 weightb product/a % % % g/plot Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 6.4 fl.oz PPI + PPI 9 e-i 16 g-k 0 d 319 a-e Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 10.7 fl.oz PPI + PPI 13 c-f 25 e-h 3 cd 366 a-d Ro-Neet fb Dual Magnum 1.3 pt + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 10 d-h 18 g-j 4 cd 279 b-g Ro-Neet fb Define 1.3 pt + 1 pt PPI + PRE 13 c-f 43 cd 9 b 293 b-f Ro-Neet fb 1.3 pt fb PPI fb 3 hi 16 g-k 9 b 307 a-e (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) (POST) Ro-Neet fb 1.3 pt fb PPI fb 4 ghi 6 j-l 15 a 152 fg (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) fb (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) fb (POST) fb (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) (POST2) Ro-Neet fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3 pt PPI fb POST 1 i 4 kl 0 d 407 ab Ro-Neet fb Asulox fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PPI fb POST 5 f-i 5 jkl 0 d 444 a fb POST2 Command fb Nortron 6.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 13 c-f 16 g-k 0 d 287 b-g Command fb Nortron 10.7 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 19 bc 29 efg 4 cd 309 a-e Command + Nortron 3.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 18 bcd 33 def 0 d 278 b-g Command + Nortron 6.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 29 a 56 ab 9 b 249 c-g Nortron + Dual Magnum 4.6 fl.oz + 5.9 fl.oz PRE + PRE 13 c-f 23 fgh 6 bc 143 g Nortron + Define 4.6 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 11 c-g 56 ab 10 b 266 b-g Nortron fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 8 e-i 0 l 0 d 298 a-f Nortron fb Asulox fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST 1 i 4 kl 0 d 391 abc fb POST2 Command fb Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 10 d-h 26 efg 0 d 297 a-f Command fb Dual Magnum 10.7 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 19 bc 24 fgh 3 cd 291 b-f Command + Dual Magnum 3.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 18 bcd 26 efg 3 cd 304 a-e Command + Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE +PRE 28 a 60 a 10 b 216 efg Dual Magnum + Define 8.4 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 8 e-i 46 bc 6 bc 269 b-g Dual Magnum fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 6 e-i 9 i-l 0 d 390 abc Dual Magnum fb Asulox fb 8.4 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST 3 hi 6 jkl 3 cd 335 a-e Asulox fb POST2 Command 6.4 fl.oz PPI 8 e-i 13 h-l 0 d 215 efg Command 10.7 fl.oz PPI 14 b-e 21 f-i 0 d 349 a-e Command 3.4 fl.oz PRE 4 ghi 1 l 0 d 314 a-e Command 6.4 fl.oz PRE 21 ab 38 cde 0 d 271 b-g Hand weeded ------3 hi 0 l 0 d 241 d-g Means within a column followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aSpinach was seeded May 9, 2013; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied May 8, 2013); PRE = preemergence (May 9, 2013); POST = postemergence (June 3, 2013); POST2 = a second postermergent application (June 11, 2013). bSpinach plants harvested September 11-12, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 95 Field Vegetable
Table 10. Weed control in spinach seed after treatment with several herbicides (2013). Weed control Overall Overall Grass Broadleaf Overall a Treatment Rate Timing May 24 June 6 June 26 June 26 July 16 product/a % % % % % Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 6.4 fl.oz PPI + PPI 99 ab 86 a-e 94 a-f 75 d-g 65 ghi Ro-Neet + Command 1.3 pt + 10.7 fl.oz PPI + PPI 98 ab 90 a-d 90 a-g 78 d-g 65 ghi Ro-Neet fb Dual Magnum 1.3 pt + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 96 ab 81 a-f 100 a 76 d-g 49 ij Ro-Neet fb Define 1.3 pt + 1 pt PPI + PRE 99 ab 100 a 98 abc 95 ab 85 a-e Ro-Neet fb 1.3 pt fb PPI fb 96 ab 74 c-g 96 a-d 86 a-d 78 c-h (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) (POST) Ro-Neet fb 1.3 pt fb PPI fb 94 b 73 d-g 95 a-e 96 ab 95 abc (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) fb (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) fb (POST) fb (Asulox + Stinger + MSO) (1.8 pt + 2.7 fl.oz + 1.5%) (POST2) Ro-Neet fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3 pt PPI fb POST 95 ab 58 gh 93 a-f 94 abc 91 a-d Ro-Neet fb Asulox fb Asulox 1.3 pt fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PPI fb POST 95 ab 80 a-f 96 a-d 96 ab 98 ab fb POST2 Command fb Nortron 6.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 95 ab 76 b-g 88 c-g 68 fg 53 ij Command fb Nortron 10.7 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PPI + PRE 95 ab 90 a-d 86 d-g 71 efg 60 hij Command + Nortron 3.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 95 ab 94 abc 95 a-e 76 d-g 63 g-j Command + Nortron 6.4 fl.oz + 4.6 fl.oz PRE + PRE 96 ab 96 ab 93 a-f 96 ab 84 a-f Nortron + Dual Magnum 4.6 fl.oz + 5.9 fl.oz PRE + PRE 96 ab 63 fgh 93 a-f 40 h 24 k Nortron + Define 4.6 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 100 a 100 a 99 ab 94 abc 85 a-e Nortron fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 95 ab 44 h 45 h 93 abc 91 a-d Nortron fb Asulox fb Asulox 4.6 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST 99 ab 45 h 80 g 96 ab 95 abc fb POST2 Command fb Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 96 ab 90 a-d 99 ab 84 b-e 66 f-i Command fb Dual Magnum 10.7 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PPI + PRE 94 b 91 a-d 96 a-d 80 c-f 66 f-i Command + Dual Magnum 3.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE + PRE 99 ab 99 a 94 a-f 89 a-d 80 b-g Command + Dual Magnum 6.4 fl.oz + 8.4 fl.oz PRE +PRE 96 ab 98 a 96 a-d 94 abc 84 a-f Dual Magnum + Define 8.4 fl.oz + 1 pt PRE + PRE 99 ab 99 a 96 a-d 94 abc 89 a-e Dual Magnum fb Asulox 8.4 fl.oz fb 3 pt PRE fb POST 94 b 69 efg 89 b-g 95 ab 91 a-d Dual Magnum fb Asulox fb 8.4 fl.oz fb 3.6 pt fb 3.6 pt PRE fb POST 100 a 86 a-e 98 abc 99 a 99 a Asulox fb POST2 Command 6.4 fl.oz PPI 95 ab 73 d-g 84 fg 65 g 46 j Command 10.7 fl.oz PPI 96 ab 95 ab 91 a-f 85 a-e 79 c-f Command 3.4 fl.oz PRE 96 ab 93 a-d 85 efg 83 b-e 73 e-h Command 6.4 fl.oz PRE 98 ab 98 a 90 a-f 89 a-d 76 d-g Hand weeded ------0 c 0 i 0 i 0 i 74 d-g Means within a column followed by the same letter, or not followed by a letter, are not statistically different (P < 0.05). aSpinach was seeded May 9, 2013; PPI = pre-plant incorporated treatments were applied May 8, 2013); PRE = preemergence (May 9, 2013); POST = postemergence (June 3, 2013); POST2 = a second postermergent application (June 11, 2013).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 96 Field Vegetable
Improvements in Phosphorus Use Efficiency for Crop Nutrition
Terry A. Tindall and Galen Mooso J.R. Simplot Company, Boise, ID [email protected]
Introduction
Nutrient management issues including phosphorus associated with production agriculture are becoming more of a concern and a point of discussion. Management considerations are no longer focused on just meeting yield goals or improved crop performance, but now include questions on how their use on agriculture lands impacts surface water, watersheds, soil quality, long-term health benefits and economic viability for the producer.
It is estimated that 30 to 40 % of production inputs are associated with purchasing and applying commercial fertilizers. Inputs of commercial fertilizer are essential to meeting food requirements of Canada and the rest of North America. The population continues to increase at an alarming rate with increases forecast at over 9 billion by 2050. Few people would also argue that every individual should have access to safe, nutritious foods in feeding the people who inhabit the world now and in the foreseeable future. Without the availability of this precious resource of fertilizers the demand for raising the needed amount of food simply cannot happen. Many involved in global markets also recognize the relationship between global food security and the availability of inorganic fertilizer related to a countries food production goals and that countries sustainability.
However, the question has been asked and continues: Can we as a responsible community involved in production agriculture and specifically soil fertility do a better job at developing fertilizers products that improve the efficiency of those nutrients needed for sustainability of our population as well as address concerns for the environment and the far reaching impacts of our soil fertility recommendations.
Healthy productive soils have biological and chemical processes occurring simultaneously that may impact the efficiency of P fertilizers. This paper makes an attempt to address some of these issues and makes a case for the need to improve fertilizer applications by considering the use of AVAIL®, an enhanced efficiency product for improving P efficiency manufactured by Specialty Fertilizer Products of Leawood, Kansas
Phosphorus is essential and plays a critical role in all crops. Phosphorus influences photosynthesis, respiration, energy storage and transfer, cell division, cell enlargement, and other plant processes including the hastening of maturity that may very well improve water use efficiency. Plants must have adequate P applied at the right time and the right form in order to complete production cycles without compromising yield potential. Finally and maybe the most critical, is that fertilizer phosphorus (P) prices are likely to fluctuate, which is one reason why improved P efficiency is critical in obtaining higher crop yields, sustained profitability and improved environmental stewardship. If we are able to move more P into a plant with less being tied up by antagonistic cations then we can improve P utilization and efficiency.
Phosphorus is present in the soil in both the organic and inorganic forms and is absorbed by the plant from P within the soil solution. The most common form of plant available P is inorganic (ortho- phosphate). Organic matter will also mineralize P similar to N and provide available P from background levels of organic matter as well as from the breakdown of manure and compost. It should be noted that many of our western soils with high P concentrations are a direct result of copious amounts of manure
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 97 Field Vegetable
being applied. Immobilization or precipitation of fertilizer P also occurs reducing the concentration of inorganic P into soil solution. Phosphorus can be lost from the soil through erosion as well as crop removal. Phosphorus is also lost from some fields through soil solution and subsequent losses from a field in runoff. Reducing these losses or management of P fertilizer is a part of stewardship that each crop advisor, researcher and grower should both recognize and manage for improvements.
With all of these losses of P as factors to consider, the greatest loss in P efficiency is the fixation of P by antagonistic cations. Rapid reaction of applied P fertilizers with antagonistic soil cations of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) in alkaline soils to form Ca and Mg phosphates and aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), oxides in acid environments to form Al and Fe phosphates. It has been estimated that there are over thirty phosphate combinations that are involved in this process known as P-fixation. This phenomenon is a worldwide concern that keeps efficiency of applied P fertilizers at relatively low levels and increases production costs. The efficiency of applied P fertilizer and initial year’s recovery has been estimated at between 5 to 25 percent of the applied P the year of application. Increased crop production inputs and an environmental awareness of the fate of applied P fertilizers have increased the need for improved P efficiency.
Research has demonstrated management tools such as banding or direct seed applications as well as enhanced P availability in many cropping systems improve yields and nutrient use efficiency. Most of these techniques have been understood and demonstrated for many years and may also increase the efficiency of applied P fertilizer. Although P availability is considered to be near its maximum level at a near neutral pH (pH range 6.8 to 7.2) soils, there continues to be appreciable amounts of P fixation taking place. These efforts will continue, but there appears to be an improved chemistry that impacts the reactions of precipitates at a reactionary scale. This is surrounding the Phosphate granule or within the band itself. AVAIL polymer applied with P fertilizer has demonstrated increased P efficiency and increased yields in several crops (Dunn and Stevens, 2008; Mooso et.al, 2012, Stark and Hopkins, 2013 and Tindall and Mooso, 2011).
AVAIL is a complex organic acid of maleic-itaconic acid copolymers and a patented family of dicarboxylic acid products. It is designed to sequester antagonistic metals (Al, Fe, Ca, Mg etc) in the soil around the fertilizer granule to reduce the “tie-up” of P and keep it in a plant-available form through most of the growing season of many annual crops. AVAIL is distributed world-wide by Specialty Fertilizer Products. Third party research trials including many western based University, Governmental and grower demonstrations have indicated wide consistency in improving P use efficiency that would be measured as either: improved yield, quality, tissue P concentration or improved soil P availability within the growing season. The polymer is impregnated on to a wide array of dry granule P fertilizer or also formulated to be included in liquid formulations like ammonium polyphosphates or ortho-based liquid formulations that can be used in starter formulations. Data sets also include the applicability of applying AVAIL through drip or under some fertigation systems.
A recent study describes how P use efficiency can be improved with the AVAIL polymer. A calcareous soil (Idaho) and an acid Oxisol (Brazil) were used in the initial phase of this study. The soil characteristics for the two soils are presented in Table 1. Petri dishes where filled with each soil type (Replication = 5) to prepare for receiving the P treatments. Monoammonium phosphate (MAP 42 mg/dish), diammonium phosphate (DAP 43 mg/dish) and ammonium polyphosphate (APP 40 uL/dish) were placed in the center of each dish. Another set of dishes were prepared with each P source treated with the AVAIL polymer applied at the recommended rate (2 quarts/ton for MAP and DAP or 2 quarts / 100 gal for APP). Untreated controls samples of each soil type were also prepared. All samples were incubated at 77 degrees F for 35 days. At the end of the incubation period, the petri dishes were analyzed based on the distance from the point of application (0 to 7.5 mm, 7 to 13.75 mm, 13.75 to 25mm and 25 to 53.5 mm). The pH of each sample was measured to determine the effect of P source and AVAIL on
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 98 Field Vegetable
soil pH. Samples were also transported to the Argonne Lab near Chicago, IL to perform X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure Spectroscopy (XANES) using the synchrotron to determine P reaction products (Pierzynski et. al., 2012). Dr. Ganga Hettiarachchi is one of only a few scientists in the world that has developed this methodology to use the synchrotron to be able to identify the P reaction products in the soil.
Table 1. Soil Characteristics of two soils evaluated with X-ray Absorption Near Edge Structure Spectroscopy (XANES) Analysis
CEC Sample pH Ca ppm meq /100g OM % Fe ppm Mn ppm Al ppm N ppm P ppm
Calcareous ID 8.0 3376 19.6 0.6 2.4 3.6 ND 403 468
Oxisol BZ 4.3 49 12.4 3.7 52.9 2.2 79.5 1243 237
Results and Discussion
The P fertilizer source had a greater effect on soil pH on the calcareous soil than on the acid soil; from Brazil. Effect of P fertilizer source decreased as the distance from the point of application increased. On the calcareous soil, all of the P sources decreased soil pH APP with AVAIL had the greatest overall effect on soil pH compared to the control (Figure 1). On the Oxisol soil, all P sources increased pH near the point of application.
Brazil Oxisol Soil pH Summary SW Idaho Soil pH Summary
7.0 8.4
Control 6.5 MAP 8.2 DAP APP 6.0 MAP+AVAIL 8.0 DAP+AVAIL APP+AVAIL 5.5 7.8
pH pH 5.0 7.6 Control MAP 4.5 7.4 DAP APP MAP+AVAIL 4.0 7.2 DAP+AVAIL Col 15 vs APP+AVAIL 3.5 7.0 0-15 15-27.5 27.5-50 50-87 0-15 15-27.5 27.5-50 50-87 Diameter (cm) Diameter (cm)
Figure 1. The effect of P fertilizer source without and with AVAIL on soil pH as affected by distance (mm) from the point of application.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 99 Field Vegetable
The P reaction products for the untreated controls and the three P fertilizer sources without and with AVAIL for the calcareous and acid soils are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. The P reaction products are sometimes referred to as P speciation which is the actual mineral compounds which were formed during the 35 day incubation period. For the calcareous soil the Apatite and Hydroxy Apatite are relatively insoluble forms of p and would not be plant available. Aluminum Phosphate, Ferrihydrite Adsorbed P and Vivianite would be relative soluble forms of P. It is interesting that when APP was applied to the soil it had the lowest percentage of insoluble P reaction products and the greatest percentage of soluble P reaction products. For each P source, AVAIL increased the percentage of soluble P reaction products across both Oxisol and Calcareous soils.
Table 2. Effect of three phosphorus sources without and with AVAIL copolymer on P reaction products obtained from XANES (inner-most section, 0-7.5 mm radius from the point of application) on a calcareous soil (Idaho).
Hydroxy Aluminum Ferrihydrite Red. Chi Treatment Apatite Apatite Phosphate Adsorbed P Vivianite Square Control 20.4 48.2 - 31.4 - 0.06 MAP 59.2 - - 31.0 9.8 0.02 DAP 64.1 - - 35.9 - 0.04 APP 27.8 - - 48.2 24.0 0.04 MAP + AVAIL 37.7 5.5 - 36.6 20.2 0.06 DAP + AVAIL 57.1 - - 42.9 - 0.06 APP + AVAIL 32.0 - 7.1 61.0 - 0.16
For the acid soil, aluminum phosphate, alumina adsorbed P and ferrihydrite adsorbed P would be relative insoluble P reaction products and not plant available. Strengite and vivianite would be relatively soluble P reaction products and available for plant growth. Both DAP and APP produced highest percentages of relatively available P. The AVAIL polymer increased the relatively soluble P reaction products for MAP, DAP and APP on this strongly acid soil.
Table 3. Effect of three phosphorus sources without and with AVAIL copolymer on P reaction products from XANES (inner-most section, 0-7.5 mm radius from the point of application) on an Oxisol soil (Brazil)
Aluminum Alumina Ferrihydrite Red. Chi Treatment Phosphate Adsorbed P Adsorbed P Strengite Vivianite Square Control 13.9 - 64.1 - 21.9 0.27 MAP - - 72.1 - 27.9 0.32 DAP - 47.3 - - 52.7 0.04 APP - 43.6 - - 56.4 0.02 - 24.1 - 75.9 0.02 MAP + AVAIL DAP + AVAIL - 33.7 - - 66.3 0.01 APP + AVAIL - 21.4 - 78.6 - 0.00
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 100 Field Vegetable
Summary
The efficiency of P fertilizers is significantly impacted by the source of the P fertilizer and the soil characteristics. P reaction products are different for P fertilizer sources applied to acid soils than the same P fertilizers applied to calcareous soils. AVAIL a polymer developed to improve the efficiency of P fertilizers increased the soluble P reaction products in both the acid and the calcareous soil. The increase in soluble P reaction products corresponds with improved crop production that has been observed in a number of studies that will be reviewed during the Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement program for 2014.
References
Dunn, D.L. and G. Stevens. 2008. Response of Rice Yields to Phosphorus Fertilizer Rates and Polymer coating. Crop Management doi 10.1094/CM-2008-0610-01-RS
Mooso, G.D., T. A. Tindall, G. Jackson and H. Zhang. 2012. Increasing the Efficiency of MAP and Urea Applied to Winter Wheat in Montana with AVAIL and NutriSphere-N. In Proceedings of Great Plains Soil Fertility Conference 14:209-212. Denver, CO. International Plant Nutrient Institute. Brookings, SD.
Pierzynski, J., G. Hettiarachchi and R Khatiwada. 2012. Mobility, Availability and Reaction Products of MAP, DAP and APP Fertilizers. Abstract Soil Science Society of America. http://scisoc.confex.com/scisoc/2012am/webprogram/Paper72238.html
Stark, J and B Hopkins. 2013. Fall and Spring Phosphorus Fertilization of Potato Using a Dicarboxylic Acid Polymer (AVAIL). Journal of Plant Nutrition. (accepted for publication)
T. A. Tindall and G. D. Mooso. 2011. Nitrogen and Phosphorus: Mechanisms of Loss from the Soil System and Effect to Slow the Losses and Increase Plant Availability. In Proceedings of Western Nutrient Management Conference 9:155-159. Reno, NV. International Plant Nutrient Institute. Brookings, SD.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 101 Field Vegetable
Production and Pest Management of Beets in BC
Bruce Wisbey Wisbey Veggies, Abbotsford, BC
Production
In BC, production of beets has increased from just over 100 acres 12 years ago, to 190 acres in 2013. Currently, there are 12 registered growers in British Columbia. Generally, crop yields are 12 to 15 tonnes of marketable beets per acre with a gross value of $10,000 to $12,000 per acre. On Wisbey Farms, golden beets and red beets are grown at a 1:10 ratio, with golden beets valued relatively higher at $21 per 25 pounds vs. red beets at $11.00 per 25 pounds.
Marketing
Storage beets are a regulated product in the main production areas of BC, which means that quota is required to produce them. Quota is allocated to a producer based on the historic 3 year average shipment for the month. Leftover storage crop (beyond quota allocation) is shipped after established growers have shipped their allocated product. In this way, quota allocation increases over time with increases in a producer’s historic average.
For Wisbey Farms, other ways table beets are marketed include direct sales to the farmers market and the roadside stand. Baby beets are sold for pickling with cylindrical beets moving three times more quickly than round ones. Because of demand, bunch beets are stocked about 3 times the level of carrots at the roadside stand. By contrast, the demand for beet roots (tops chopped off) is different with the supply ratio at the farmstand being 100lbs potatoes: 40lbs carrots: 10 lbs beet roots.
Nutrient Management
This includes annual soil tests carried out by a private consultant taking soil samples to measure pH, macro- and micro-nutrients. Optimal pH is 6.5 to 7, preferably at the lower end to reduce the likelihood of scab. Soil-boron levels are important to monitor. Chicken manure is applied based on soil tests and fertilizer recommendations. Supplementation with phosphorus is not necessary.
Field Preparation
We start by spraying down the cover crop (usually winter wheat) and then spreading manure at 10 to 12 yds/acre. It is important to pay attention to the 120 day interval between manure application and crop harvest which is required for food safety. A broadcast pre-plow application of fertilizer is made targeting the root zone and avoiding the top 2 inches of soil. Final preparation for the seedbed includes plowing and power-harrowing.
Seed
Thiram-treated seed is used to control diseases such as seedborne Phoma. Seeding occurs from March to mid-July, with a minimum soil temperature of 5° C necessary for germination. Red beet varieties grown include ‘Red Ace’, ‘Detroit Supreme’, ‘Alto’ and ‘Cylinder’. Golden varieties planted include ‘Touchstone Gold’, ‘Golden’ and ‘Boldor’.
Seeding
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 102 Field Vegetable
Wisbey Farms uses a Stanhay Belt Seeder, applying 4 rows between the tractor tires. Each row has 2 seed lines set 3 inches apart. 225,000 to 275,000 seeds per acre are required for a seed spacing of 2.5 to 3 inches.
Weed Control
Round-up is used to clean up any perennial weeds and the cover crop. For mineral soils, Ro-Neet (mentioned earlier in Tim Miller’s vegetable presentation) used to be registered in Canada as a pre-plant incorporated option. Dual Magnum is used pre-emerge to the weeds and the crop. This product needs 0.5 inch of water via rain or irrigation, but not too much water. Pyramin can be used once per season, either pre-plant incorporated, pre-emergence or post-emergence. Betamix is applied when the crop stage is at least at 2 true leaves and with the weeds at no more than the 4-leaf stage. For ease of harvest and to reduce weed-seed load in the field, hand-weeding is necessary for weed-escapes.
Pests
Cercospora Leaf Spot and Leafminer are issues for bunch beets.
Irrigation
The goal is to maintain even growthtoo much irrigation creates a situation where mowing the tops becomes necessary to slow growth.
Harvest
This occurs from July to October for beets which are stored short-term (two weeks). The storage crop is harvested in October as the temperatures cool and before heavy rains occur. A cover crop is broadcast- seeded just prior to harvest. Wisbey Farms uses a single-row harvester that cuts off the tops.
Washing and Sizing
Beets are run over a dirt eliminator and washed in water treated with chlorine. The sorter separates the crop into medium (2 -3” diameter), large and extra-large sizes. Due to limited storage space, undersized beets are discarded.
Storage
Beets are stored in bins and held in the cooler at 0 to 1°C and are misted once per day. The cooler should have a large enough evaporator fan to reduce the temperature differential to reduce dehydration of the crop.
Packing to Market
From November to February, when an order is received, stored beets are re-washed, trimmed and bagged. Since white mould can be an issue after February, orders after this time are washed and dry-packed. To ensure a quality product, chlorination in wash water at 150ppm is very important at this time.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 103 Floriculture
How to Get it Right
Brian Spencer Applied Bio-nomics Ltd., Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
While flying back from an IOBC meeting in England a few years ago, I came up with this idea for a talk, taking liberally from David Letterman. It was first tried at Margret Skinner’s Tri-State meeting, and, it was a big success, in that it got people talking and interacting. It has since been presented about 10 times, each time being successful, and each time coming up with many more reasons. I have decided to stay with the original 10 however, as it is quite universal and appropriate for ornamental growers, hothouse vegetable growers and field crop growers.
You Didn’t Get the Pest Right
This is a surprising one on the surface, but, after you have spent as many years as I have chasing insects, all I have now is respect and awe for their ability to adapt and dodge our attempts at identification and control. Aphids can be cute little suckers on your leaves, ugly demons clinging to your roots and virtual blizzards of tiny flies swarming baseball games. And, this is just one species!
Never ID an arthropod based on colour. You are what you eat. Swirski eating Aphidoletes is red. Aphidoletes eating whitefly is yellow. Fallacis eating red mites, is red.
Each pest has a unique lifecycle, optimum temperature range, preferred host plant, day length requirements, pesticide resistance, humidity range and whatever else. It is important to be able to know what you are dealing with. The slide is just aphids, but the sloughed off exoskeletons look a lot like whitefly. Applying Encarsia formosa would be a mistake.
You Ignored the “Modus Operandi” of the Beneficial
Beneficials have preferences and situations suitable. Encarsia and Eretmocerous work best preventatively. They parasitize the 3rd and 2nd instars of the whitefly, respectively. The whitefly have adapted to them by enhancing the sticky honeydew which slows down the tiny wasps, and predatory mites. Applying mites and wasps to an established, sticky whitefly hotspot of 4th instars is very inefficient.
Spider mites spin defensive webbing to thwart preventative mites such as fallacis and californicus, but persimilis has adapted to the webbing and actually uses it as a highway to the pest. So, applying fallacis or californicus to an existing spider mite hot spot is a mistake.
Your Beneficials Don’t Play Well with Others
Over the years our industry has developed many great beneficials, but, some of the best ones are no longer available. This is because many of them were disruptive with other beneficials.
Many of you will recall A. barkeri. It was considerably better at eating thrips, and had a very wide temperature and humidity range. But, its favourite food, before even thrips, was persimilis eggs. Growers who were getting great thrip control were losing their crop to spider mites. So, we dropped it. Degenerans was dropped because their favourite food was Aphidoletes eggs. Limonicus was dropped, originally, because its favourite food was everything, including itself.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 104 Floriculture
Some currently available ones cause serious negative interactions. Californicus loves persimilis eggs, so, there is a negative interaction that can be seen sometimes. Swirski loves Aphidoletes eggs. And, limonicus loves everything. All of these products can be used effectively if the interactions are anticipated and compensated for. Time will tell if they are still around in 5 years.
Your Bios Were Improperly Applied
This slide made it because of Atheta. When the rove beetle, Atheta was launched, it surprised everyone, and continues to surprise. They go down drains, they climb to the tops of Pepper to eat spider mites, and they go everywhere. And, they persist. Unlike any other beneficial, Atheta tend to stay in the structure, so, as you move plants in and out, it is a mistake to continuously reapply Atheta.
Because spider mite damage is permanent, I frequently see spider mite predators being applied to crop that is free of spider mite, but, still looks bad. Modify your flagging system to note pests, but also pest treatments. This will save you a lot of money.
If you are using Atheta, you shouldn’t be applying predatory mites in “breeder” piles. Atheta make a bee- line for breeder piles and scoot through them to eat the cucumeris or other predators and then, the bran mites.
Temperature Range
For ornamental growers, this can be one of the big ones. Our entire industry was based on developing products primarily for the hothouse vegetables. It should be no surprise that the optimum temperature range of most of the “old standards”, such as persimilis, cucumeris, Encarsia etc. is somewhere between 20 and 25 Celsius. Some of the newer ones that have come out of the Mediterranean basin, such as swirski, have even higher optimum ranges.
For ornamental growers, many of the temperature ranges fall well under the optimums for the majority of the bio’s. Fortunately, the industry is addressing the needs of ornamental growers by changing their storage conditions to expand the range of parasitoids (we don’t store any of our products anymore), by finding new biocontrols, such as Micromus (which will cycle at 4 C), and modifying their strategies, such as providing supplemental light for Aphidoletes. Some tropical biocontrols are well adapted to ornamentals as they don’t notice the temperature, although they may be quite slow, like Delphastus and persimilis.
Getting the Numbers Right
This is where you need to be realistic. If you haven’t effectively prevented the pest, you need to figure out how much product is required to get the pest back under control. For spider mites, this is critical, as damage is permanent and every day of delay costs you money. The general rule I use is 200 to 1. If you have 100 million aphids and you want to get them under control in 2 weeks, 10 trays of 1,000 Aphidoletes isn’t going to help you much. If nothing else, this exercise will demonstrate how important prevention is. This exercise also shows you when, and how to use chemicals.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 105 Floriculture
Recognizing Success
This may seem like a lightweight to be ranked so high, but it happens so often that it deserves its ranking. When you see a healthy persimilis on every leaf, you are done, there is no need to apply any more persimilis to the spot. When you see 75% parasitism, drop down to the base rate of release for Encarsia and other parasitoids, never completely stop applications of parasitoids. As a rule, with beneficials, we never put enough in at the beginning, and we always put too much in, at the end.
Poor Quality Beneficials
This is a very big point. You must develop a simple method of quality assurance at your facility. With the high cost of labour, you can’t afford to spend 50 person hours spreading out dead mites. Ask your supplier to give you a simple technique to assure yourself that the bios are fit. The ultimate proof is “in the pudding”, they have to work. The industry needs your involvement in this also. The only way we can improve our packages and handling techniques is to get your timely feedback.
The storage of biological controls can have some very serious, negative effects. In parasitoids, any exposure to temperatures below 8 Celsius, even for just 4 hours, permanently removes the wasps’ ability to search. Prolonged storage of mites causes stress, and mites tend to react to stress by sexual cannibalism, so, you end up with a significant sex ratio shift, which impairs reproduction, which is the single most important factor in efficacy.
Just seeing movement in a bottle doesn’t tell you if the sex ratio is balanced or the wasps have lost their searching ability, but, it’s a start. If they aren’t moving the way you are familiar with, call your supplier before you waste your valuable time.
Chemical Interference
This is my favourite. All chemicals have an effect, usually negative. Certainly, chemical insecticides or miticides have a huge, if not devastating effect. Residual chemicals always have some sub-lethal effect, such as irritation, repellency, feeding inhibition, and ? Never think a chemical is safe for your Biocontrol program. Even soaps and smells such as garlic repel many important beneficials. Our strategy is to avoid chemicals, and only go to them as a last resort. If you have to restart a biological program, after chemicals, take the few remaining “side effects” charts, and multiply the timing by 3.
Remember, persimilis always works 100%, 100% of the time, unless it has been interfered with.
Timing
Biological control works best as a preventative. Unlike your chemical training, there is no “economical” threshold for bios. You must shoot before you see the white(fly) of their eyes.
With generalist mites, such as swirski, fallacis, californicus and cucumeris, you should establish them mildly as soon as your history shows the arrival of the pest (always keep a diary), or, if you have a crop that is producing pollen early, you may establish these mites, and should, when the pollen appears, as pollen attracts the pests also and more so.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 106 Floriculture
Parasitoids of whitefly must be in place, before the first whitefly is, or else you will be chasing whitefly for the rest of the year.
For aphids, fresh, searching capable Aphidoletes can find a single aphid from a single release point per hectare. Properly timed Aphidoletes releases will prevent any aphid establishment.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 107 Floriculture
Innovations in Greenhouse Pest Management
Rose Buitenhuis Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Vineland Station, ON [email protected]
A Systems Approach to IPM
In pest management, we tend to concentrate on single pest species, finding solutions specific to each pest. However, achieving the best management outcome depends on many things and seemingly unconnected events can influence the success of your pest control strategy.
Biocontrol-based pest management relies on the strategic selection of several biocontrol agents, combined with innovative approaches to enhance their effectiveness. Any combination should be evaluated to provide the most effective and economical solution.
When designing your pest management program, the following should be considered: interactions between biocontrol agents used for the same pest; interactions with other pests in the greenhouse and their biocontrol agents; effects of all pesticide/fungicide treatments and residues; crop species and stage; production practices (e.g. spacing, maintenance); production inputs (e.g. environmental conditions, water, fertilizer, growth regulators); origin of the plant material (pest management practices at propagator); destination of the plant material (visible residues, consumer preference).
Understanding the effects of all these pieces on pest dynamics and the response of the biocontrol agent will aid selection of the most suitable biocontrol agent(s) and the most compatible components for the plant production system.
To illustrate some of the above mentioned principles, I present two case studies: greenhouse poinsettia and potted chrysanthemum.
Greenhouse Poinsettia: Clean Start
Key considerations: origin of plant material, effect of pesticide treatments and residues.
Historically, poinsettia cuttings shipped into Ontario from offshore production facilities have carried very low levels of immature Bemisia. These have been successfully controlled by preventative releases of parasitoids (Encarsia formosa, Eretmocerus mundus). In 2012, though, cuttings arrived into Ontario carrying large numbers of Bemisia eggs and nymphs. Although parasitoid releases proceeded as normal, they failed to regulate whitefly populations and multiple pesticide treatments were required. However, endemic whitefly resistance (owing to heavy pesticide pressures in offshore production facilities) means that pesticides registered in Canada frequently have reduced efficacy. Furthermore, pesticide residues on imported material can have a direct effect on parasitoid survival and performance, which can further impact control efforts. To ensure greater sustainability in poinsettia production, new methods of control are required that can be applied to cuttings to prevent pest populations developing beyond the ‘capacity’ of the parasitoids used, and to ensure that effective biological control systems can be maintained through the crop production cycle. Several biopesticide treatments, applied to infested cuttings by dipping
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 108 Floriculture
immediately prior to sticking, have been tested to assess their relative effectiveness against whitefly, ensure compatibility with parasitoids, and that they are not phytotoxic. The project has allowed effective treatments to be identified that can be readily implemented on a commercial scale.
Potted Chrysanthemum: So Many Options
Key considerations: crop stage, origin of the plant material, interactions between biocontrol agents, interactions with other pests in the greenhouse and their biocontrol agents, production practices, production inputs.
Use of biocontrol in greenhouse ornamentals, such as potted chrysanthemums, has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. One major factor driving this change was control of western flower thrips. When this pest developed resistance to spinosad, Canadian growers were left with few effective pesticide options. Biological control strategies for thrips have to be devised to accommodate many factors and a preventative approach is required for their management. The following paragraphs describe research that has helped optimize thrips biocontrol strategies in greenhouse ornamentals.
Assume the cuttings arrive infested with low numbers of thrips. To start clean, cuttings can be immersed in reduced risk materials or biopesticides before sticking. Under misting and in long days, weekly Botanigard sprays and broadcast applications of predatory mites will control foliar stages of thrips, while weekly nematode sprenches (heavy spray) to the soil will manage thrips pupae in the substrate. Note that it is increasingly difficult to apply nematode sprenches to the substrate as the plant canopy grows and covers the soil. Combining nematode applications with another entomopathogenic fungus, Met52, incorporated in the soil will cause even higher thrips mortality.
When plants are then spaced, they form small isolated islands. Predatory mites will not easily spread from pot to pot unless the plant canopies are touching. Growers in Ontario have had good success using slow- release mini sachets. When using sachets, they should be placed in the plant canopy where they are protected from the sun. Direct exposure to sun in the summer raises the temperature and lowers the relative humidity inside the sachets, which significantly reduces the number of predators produced and the ‘lifespan’ of the sachets. The two main predatory mites used in Canada for thrips control, Neoseiulus cucumeris and Amblyseius swirskii, are very similar. However, in summer, A. swirskii performs better due to better survival under hot greenhouse conditions.
The generalist predator Orius insidiosus is not normally considered for use in greenhouse ornamentals because production cycles are relatively short. This does not provide enough time for populations of the predator to establish and the lack of an alternative food source (e.g. pollen) further limits population growth. The use of ornamental peppers (cv. Purple Flash) as banker plants solves both these problems, providing a long-term refuge for the predator combined with a pollen source. Orius populations will develop on these banker plants, and migrate into the main crop where they will contribute to thrips control.
Finally, the use of biocontrol for thrips necessitates the use of biocontrol for other pests as well, due to the limited availability of compatible pesticides.
Final Thoughts
Although details are important, take a step back from time to time to look at the big picture. The solution to a problem might not be where you expect it to be.
For more information on any of the presented materials, please contact Rose Buitenhuis.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 109 Floriculture
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Michael Brownbridge, Angela Brommit, Taro Saito, Paul Côté, Graeme Murphy, Les Shipp and Cynthia Scott-Dupree. Investment in the poinsettia project has been provided by AAFC through the CAAP. In Ontario, this program is delivered by the Agricultural Adaptation Council. The research on thrips biocontrol has been supported over the years by a variety of funding sources through Flowers Canada, AAFC, OMAF&MRA and the University of Guelph.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 110 2014 Building Farm Business Success - A Lens on Agriculture
Sustainability: What is that?
Brett Wills Green Enterprise Movement Inc., Toronto, ON [email protected]
Understanding Sustainability
Sustainability is about continuously improving social, environmental and economic performance across the value chain. An enhanced approach to the traditional business model that focuses purely on the financial bottom line, Sustainability focuses on the triple bottom line of Social, Environment and Economic.
Social Sustainability People: Developing long term careers for employees through training, well-being, health and safety. Partners: Developing long term relationships with partners which include Suppliers, Customers and other key stakeholders such as banks, Government, NGO’s etc. Goal is to become supplier of choice to customers and customer of choice to suppliers. Community: Strengthening the communities in which we operate by strategically aligning philanthropic efforts to core business values.
Environmental Sustainability: Satisfying 3 system conditions: Do not extract resources from the earth’s crust faster than they can be regenerated. Do not discharge toxins or pollutants into the earth’s atmosphere faster than the earth can clean them or deal with them. Do not destroy surface-level resources faster than they can be regenerated.
Economic Sustainability: continually providing value for customers by focusing on innovation, fiscal responsibility, agility and resilience.
Why Companies Should Care
Market landscape is changing and consumers are demanding more sustainable food choices. Increasing pressure from food service and retail organizations who are demanding their suppliers be focused on driving sustainability in their own organizations. Regulations for social and environmental responsibility are expanding and becoming increasingly more demanding. Employee expectations are rising around sustainability. They are looking to work for organizations that are committed to Sustainability. Proactively managing and mitigating risk requires a focus on identifying social and environmental risks across the value chain.
Business Case for Sustainability
Cost Reductions: reducing environmental and social impact reduces cost. For example, using less energy results in spending less money. Employee Retention and Attraction: employees are seeking out organizations that are focused on sustainability.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 111 2014 Building Farm Business Success - A Lens on Agriculture
Customer Retention and Attraction: Soon sustainability will be a requirement from customers, similar to food safety and quality. Risk Mitigation and Management: incorporating social and environmental impacts into the risk assessment process. Increased Shareholder/Stakeholder Value: stakeholders are beginning to require that organizations focus on Sustainability.
The Sustainability Journey has 5 Stages
(1) Pre-Compliance: do not meet regulatory requirements; (2) Compliance: meets regulatory requirements; (3) Beyond Compliance: small efforts beyond regulatory requirements; (4) Integrated Strategy: sustainability integrated into daily decision making; (5) Purpose & Passion: embedded into everything the organization does and all decisions are based on the triple bottom line impacts.
Quick Wins: See Presentation Slides for Details
Energy Water Waste Materials Transportation Social Economic
Next Steps
Sit down with your team and dialogue about sustainability: How could we use less: energy, water, materials, etc.? What is one thing we could do to improve the workplace? How can we give back to the community and drive our business? What is our biggest risk? Set goals; Develop short-term action plan to realize some quick wins; Talk about it regularly; Make a Public Commitment; Celebrate successes.
Closing Comments
Sustainability is a journey not a destination. There are many resources available to help organizations get started. Start with small wins and celebrate each one. Investigate what others are doing.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 112 2014 Building Farm Business Success - A Lens on Agriculture
The Bright New Future of Agriculture
Jay Lehr The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL [email protected]
It is an honor to have been asked to keynote this outstanding conference. I am no stranger to British Columbia having spent a summer working years ago on Vancouver Island. I have skied your great Whistler Blackcomb area and worked much of my professional life among all the provinces of this great country. Having spent the bulk of my half-century career in agriculture around the world, I have never been more optimistic over our place in the world and our ability to feed that world a more nutritious and economic diet than ever before.
While I will be focusing on the world economy and how it affects agriculture in British Columbia, I must first comment that this exposition of farm knowledge and equipment is among the very best I have experienced in the past 10 years. From Robot Milkers and manure handling technology, to all terrain vehicles, the show is an educational bonanza. On top of this, I have found that the various publications made available by the BC Ministry of Agriculture are the very best I have reviewed of any government body in the world attempting to arm their farmers with the very best knowledge to place them in a competitive position in the world market.
North America is on the verge of experiencing a strong economic push, leading the world during the remainder of this decade because of our vast energy reserves superior to anywhere else in the world. While the world has experienced a difficult economy in recent years, average family income has increased in the past 20 years, as has their desire for animal protein in their diets. They look to North America to fill their food needs. We are more than capable of doing this. British Columbia has the disadvantage of high land prices due to pressures from urbanization. However, the pursuit of increasing yields and higher quality produce, milk, flowers, berries and mushrooms offers a continuing opportunity to have a healthy agriculture economy in BC.
You have made amazing advances in yields in greenhouse vegetables and in mushroom operations. Advances in equipment for harvesting blueberries and raspberries have placed you among the world’s leaders. Your milk should sell for premiums because of extremely low somatic cell counts, as the province controls your quantities and focus has been on quality.
Your problems have been, however, the great cost of inputs in British Columbia as compared to other countries and thus the lower costs of competing products. You must recognize that you are in a globalized world market where prices are determined by production costs all over, yield numbers across the world and even crop failures or extravagant success in competing countries. Your country cannot depend on success entirely through exports; you must turn inward and develop a desire among all your countrymen and women to buy your products for good reason. Your quality is superior, even if your prices are not. Every single agriculture product in BC should carry a simple label: BUY BC, perhaps with a cornucopia of your food and flowers flowing from it. The nation must grow to understand that your entire economy benefits from buying home-grown products, in addition to what I believe is their superiority.
This home loyalty for your products has proved effective elsewhere in the world. New Zealand became the leader in production of lamb many years ago when the industry was going through a difficult period by creating a focus on quality, where cost became quite secondary.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 113 2014 Building Farm Business Success - A Lens on Agriculture
In addition to establishing, over a period of years, the desire among British Columbians to buy products produced here, an understanding of the tremendous advances in technology and protocols regarding your agriculture must be taught to your citizens, your friends and neighbors, who are not involved in production agriculture. Each and every farmer must recognize an obligation to spend two hours a month describing your understanding of farms to friends and neighbors and schools and newspapers, exactly what is modern farming in British Columbia. Without that understanding, they will be less likely to adopt the joy, passion and loyalty to their countrymen and women supplying them with outstanding food and flower products in this great province.
There are those in BC who do not appreciate what you do, who are impressed by anti-agriculture environmental groups into thinking that your farming is not sustainable or that you unnecessarily erode soil, pollute air and water or mistreat animals. We know how untrue this is, but if we do not weigh in with our time and money to alter this incorrect thinking, who is going to do it for us? At the same time we want to impress upon our fellow citizens that farming is on the cutting edge of advancing technology. We want to impress upon our children that careers in agriculture are as rewarding and exciting as any other career they could possibly follow.
The future of Canadian agriculture is very bright indeed.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 114 Farm Direct Marketing
Cooperation, Collaboration, and Creativity in Marketing
Heather Stretch Saanich Organics, Saanichton, BC [email protected]
Co-Operation… with Other Growers
And ad you pay for together in a supplement of a local paper (Saanich Peninsula Farmers have a bumper crop of strawberries this year! And recipes and a list of farmers markets) Pitch a story about agriculture in your region. (Farmers in our valley are excited about… Farmers in the valley are struggling with…) Start a farmers market Sell products grown by other farmers (add a meat freezer in your retail space, honey , etc) Why? Grow the pie! Save money! Seeing farmers cooperate helps promote a positive emotional connection for customers.
Collaboration… with Allies in the Wider Community
Cross-promote with restaurants, food writers, cooking instructors. - Know of an athlete in your community? Talk about sponsoring them. Cross-promote with authors who have written about food related or health related issues in your area. This can be as simple as re-tweeting and sharing each other’s posts or writing about each other. Or it could be featuring a cook-book by a local person at your farmers market table. Note, keep your ears to the ground for people writing books that aren’t out yet… they’ll likely only get significant attention for a brief time. The ideas for cross-promotion lead us to…
Creativity… Keep your Mind Open to Ideas
It can be frustrating to hear “You should…” but try not to block out those voices. (use the upick basil example) Events work better than ads. Use the media. Work with schools. (plant school gardens, hand out brochures). Coupon codes. Weed Dating. Social Media contests In General: Become an expert at something (land use issues, undocumented labour in tomato fields in Florida, school gardens, economic impacts of farmers markets, the most nutritious variety of kale). Maybe this is just ice-breaker conversation material, maybe it becomes the reason media calls you for interviews, maybe it becomes the reason your customers remember you. It’s the hook that sets you apart. Keep your story positive. People like to back a winner, and you don’t want customers to think they’re doing you a favour! We’re not charities, we’re businesses. By supporting you, they’re part of something ___ fill in the blank for yourself (e.g. good, exciting, healthy, growing, important, etc.)
Above all, think about who you are, what you do, and why you do it. Authenticity is key. Worth the time to wirte a mission statement.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 115 Farm Direct Marketing
If you’re a sole operator, have a visioning session with yourself. (or ask a friend to be your sounding board). With every marketing decision, ask yourself “is this who I am?” “why am I doing this”. Everything you do is building your brand. Build it carefully.
You are your own best marketing asset. People want to see farmers (just think about all those truck and blue jean ads, or look at the beautiful website http://www.farmher.com/,) You may be thinking “but I’m not polished and tv-ready” but this could also be an asset. Polish isn’t necessarily good in our business. -This may sound obvious to you, but it wasn’t to us… tell people not only what you do, but where they can buy from you. In day to day interactions, if people are asking, it’s because they want to know (ie, you’re not being pushy!) At public events always have a clipboard with a sign-up list for your email newsletter. Mailchimp is popular for newsletters.
Your employees should also be a marketing asset. Treat them well. Make them want to talk about their workplace.
Social media. This is mandatory. At the very least, a website, but better yet use Facebook and Twitter to keep people engaged. You can make this a task of a young farmhand, or take turns. Use the example of how any given weekend one of us is at a market, another teaching a workshop, another resting. We can be everywhere getting our story out because there are 3 of us. You can do this too by empowering employees, which may increase their job satisfaction! Just make sure whoever is doing it has a good sense of your brand. I’m a fan of websites, but some farms are using Facebook only, not even maintaining their own site. In social media, as with your Newsletter (if you do one), consider your reader. If you’re always and only using it to advertise, people will tune out. You may not know this because you still may be “liked” or “followed” but people may not be reading anymore. Consider what you are posting, sharing, and retweeting. It should be relevant to your business but also of broader interest. For example, not posting pictures of your kids, unless they’re doing something farm-related.
Sharing info about other community events, recipes, political issues may also keep people interested in your site. http://theruminant.ca/ not an example of good marketing, but a great source for lots of cool knowledge http://www.thehomesteadorganicfarm.ca/homedelivery/ The whole website is good, but the creative use of video is fantastic. http://youngagrarians.org/ amazing example of engaging design and great use of social media. They do a great job on Facebook and Twitter https://www.facebook.com/pages/Omnivore-Acres/213903668626605?fref=ts Omnivore Acres uses Facebook really well. And they’ve done a good job connecting with other online resources, such as farm listings, family-oriented blogs etc. http://www.roostfarmcentre.com/ Not slick, but if you’re considering branching out into bakery, restaurant territory, whatever The Roost is doing is working! It’s very popular but has retained an authentic feel. http://windwhippedfarm.com/ Nice site, nice Facebook use.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 116 Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
Lower Mainland Surface Water Research – What Did We Learn?
Stephanie Nadya and Kevin Allen, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Pascal Delaquis, Pacific Agri-Food Research Center, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Summerland, BC [email protected]
Introduction
Poor irrigation water quality is a well-known food safety risk factor in the production of fresh fruits and vegetables. Human pathogens including Salmonella, pathogenic Escherichia coli, enteric viruses or parasites such as Cryptosporidium can survive and be carried over long distances in surface waters. Because large volumes may be applied repeatedly to a crop over a production cycle, water can serve as a vector for the transfer of such hazards to the production environment or the crop itself, by overhead irrigation for example. Consequently, food safety programs such as the CanadaGAP™ require assessment of potential microbiological hazards in irrigation water sources and the development of preventative measures to lessen the associated risk.
The assessment of potential hazards requires knowledge about the types of pathogens likely to be present in irrigation water and their ability to survive on a crop or in the production environment. Information about the types of pathogens in surface waters used to irrigate crops in British Columbia is scarce, notably with respect to regional differences or seasonal variation in their prevalence. Furthermore, there have been few attempts to determine which pathogens are likely to be found on fresh produce grown in the province. The present summarizes on-going research to determine the seasonal prevalence and characteristics of verotoxigenic E. coli (VTEC) in irrigation waters and on fresh produce from the lower mainland of BC. The VTEC are transmitted to humans primarily through contaminated food or water and have been responsible for a number of outbreaks linked to fresh produce, particularly leafy vegetables. Individuals infected with VTEC may develop severe disease, including haemorrhagic colitis (bloody diarrhea) and haemolytic uremic syndrome (kidney failure). To date, over 400 serotypes of VTEC have been described. E. coli O157:H7 is the most significant, being responsible for 30-50% of VTEC infections in North America. The pathogenicity of the species is due to the presence of virulence genes, particularly the eaeA and hlyA, vt1 and vt2 genes. vt1 and vt2 genes control the production of verotoxins 1 and 2 which are responsible for the more severe symptoms of infection with VTEC.
Approach
Water samples were collected once a month from five sampling sites in four different locations across the lower mainland, including Abbotsford (Sumas watershed), Surrey (Nicomekl and Serpentine watersheds) and Richmond (irrigation ditches) from November 2012 to November 2013. The sampling sites were in close proximity to produce farms. Locally-grown leafy vegetables and berry fruits were obtained from seven farm markets during the summer months (June – September 2013). A hydrophobic grid membrane filtration (HGMF) - Vt immunoblot method was used to detect and isolate VTEC in samples of water and produce. The presence of eaeA, hlyA, vt1 and vt2 virulence genes was determined by PCR and confirmed isolates were serotyped by the Public Health Agency of Canada laboratory in Guelph, ON.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 117 Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
Observations to Date 160 140
120 21 (15.7%) 16 (13.3%) 100 80 60 26 (34.2%) 113 (84.3%) 104 (86.7%) 40 No. of Water Samples Water ofNo. 20 50 (65.7%) 0 Winter Spring/Summer Fall Negative Positive
Figure 1. Prevalence of VTEC in winter, spring/summer and fall months from November 2012 to November 2013.
VTEC were isolated from 63 of 330 (19.1%) water samples with 9.2% (n=65), 21.6% (n=97) and 21.4% (n=168) positive in Richmond, Abbotsford and Surrey areas respectively. As Figure 1 shows, the prevalence of VTEC varied with season, ranging from 34.2% to 15.7% and 13.3%, in winter, spring/summer and fall months, respectively. These findings suggest that weather events, such as precipitation and the resulting run-off from adjacent lands, may contribute to the contamination of surface waters. Isolates recovered from water included 9 (4.2%) of serotypes O157:H7 or O157:NM (non-motile), 29 (13.6%) of non-O157 “priority” serogroups O26, O103 and O111, and 176 (82.2%) of 31 other serotypes (Figure 2).
The VTEC isolates recovered from water were randomly distributed among 11 distinct virulence gene patterns (Figure 3). Virulence gene patterns consisting of the eaeA, hlyA and vt1 genes and eaeA, hlyA, vt1 and vt2 genes were detected in 23 and 10% of the isolates, respectively. These patterns are significant because they are often observed in VTEC strains that cause human disease. In addition, isolates lacking the eaeA gene which aids in the attachment of E. coli to intestinal cells (hlyA, vt1 and vt2 (18%) or vt2 (15%)), were also common. VTEC lacking the eaeA gene but capable of producing verotoxin 2 encoded by the vt2 gene have been a cause for concern since a large outbreak caused by contaminated fenugreek sprouts in Germany in 2012. The implicated strain, E. coli O104:H4, lacked the eaeA gene but was capable of producing verotoxin 2.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 118 Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
eaeA, vt vt , vt 2 1 2 eaeA, hlyA, 1% 1% eaeA, vt1 vt2 2% 9 (4.2%) 29 (13.6%) 1% hlyA, vt O157:H7, O26, 1 O103, hlyA, vt2 3% O157:NM eaeA, hlyA, O111 7% vt 1 23% eaeA, hlyA,
vt1 and vt2 10%
vt vt 2 1 15% 19% 176 (82.2%) hlyA, vt , 31 Other non-O157 VTEC 1 vt2 18%
Figure 2 . VTEC serotypes isolated from water Figure 3. Virulence patterns (based on eaeA, hlyA, vt1 and samples in the lower mainland of British Columbia vt2 genes) of VTEC isolates (n=214). (n=214)
In contrast, VTEC were not recovered from 105 samples of produce (79 vegetable, 26 berry) collected from farm markets located within the sampled watersheds. However, it should be noted that the number of produce samples analysed to date is small and that current analytical method are not easily applied to fresh produce.
Conclusions and Future Research
Frequent recovery from irrigation water indicates that the watersheds under study are subject to contamination with VTEC. Given the wide diversity of isolates recovered it is highly probable that the VTEC originate from multiple sources. More detailed analysis of the isolates (by DNA sequencing) will be performed to examine similarities and/or differences between the isolates to clarify their origin. We also anticipate improvement of methods for analysis of fresh produce and expanding future sampling plans to more accurately define the risk that crops grown in these watersheds can become contaminated with VTEC.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 119 Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
Reality Check-Up on Growing Forward Funding
Bill Weismiller BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Panel Members: Vic Martens, ARDCORP, and Alison Speirs, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC
Before Growing Forward 1, an industry stakeholder event was held. This event was held to provide information for our food producer stakeholders and to get a sense of the agricultural sectors needs to facilitate the adoption of food safety practices on the farm. This information was invaluable in determining where the funding provided by Growing Forward should be directed. We found out what their needs were, how our sector wanted to get the information, and in what form the information should be provided.
We took this feedback and developed many of the tools and programming for which the BC Ministry of Agriculture has become known.
Some of the requests were for: translated materials; easy language (literacy is an issue); field days; videos; workshops; incentive programs; one manual; basic hygiene information; regional events, etc.
What Came from these Requests?
1) BC Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Guide, for producers not ready for a national OFFS program, written in easy to understand language, full of useful information, great employee training resource. This guide contains decision trees, blank forms, etc. and has been translated into a variety of languages. A CD was produced and the guide is available online. 2) Posters Hand washing Visitors must report Hand washing Important phone numbers Remember you are working with food Large information poster 3) We created a video on composting for food safety 4) We hold GAP workshops around the province, sometimes in different languages 5) We attend tradeshows and educational events
In November, we had another check-in session with our stakeholders to go over what we were able to accomplish, to find out if we should continue what we are doing, should we go about our approach in a different way, or should we focus on different areas.
The Results from this Event:
Face-to-face/one-on-one still wanted and needed Customized and hands on There is still the need for easy to understand translated materials We need to focus on the food chain, buyers, packers, transportation, retail and consumers Look for ways to include the early adopters Electronic educational resources e-learning, webinars, on-line info, emails, and apps
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 120 Agricultural Water and Safe Food Production Realities
Educational offerings to youth 4H, college Cost/benefit We need to partner, be a team: government, industry, academia
Barriers to food safety training Language Literacy Money/cost benefit Time Knowing the importance No incentive Geography Lack of buy in
What Lies Ahead?
We will take this advice and once again utilize this feedback to determine how we should design, develop and offer programming within the GF2 framework.
If you were not part of this stakeholder event and would like to provide input on a how to improve educational programming that we offer through the ministry, whether it be a new techniques, a potential risk not addressed, an emerging issue, please get a hold of me:
Alison Speirs Food Safety Specialist Food Safety and Inspection Branch BC Ministry of Agriculture Abbotsford, BC (604)556-3091
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 121 Nursery
Organic Matter in Horticulture – A Report from Scientific Meetings
Mario Lanthier CropHealth Advising & Research, Kelowna, BC [email protected]
Scientists working in specific disciplines will meet on a regular basis to exchange notes, report on current projects and raise questions for future research. These meetings, although technical in nature, are open for all to attend. It is a good place to catch up on the latest thinking from the people most involved in the topic.
This presentation covers three scientific meetings attended by our company in the past two years. All events were sponsored by the International Society of Horticulture (ISHS, website www.ishs.org). By coincidence, the common thread was soils and management of organic matter. For this report, an emphasis is placed on information most useful for practical use in horticulture, especially nursery production of trees and shrubs.
2nd International Symposium of Organic Matter Management and Compost Use
This event was held in October 2013 in Santiago, Chile. Attendance was 120 persons from 18 different countries, the largest contingent being from the host country. The 4-day symposium included 12 keynote presentations, 58 technical talks, 12 posters, a small trade show and a full day of visits to organic farms using compost.
Composting is the biological decomposition of organic substances under controlled conditions. The large molecules are broken down into simple molecules that can be utilized for plant growth. The finished product is a biologically stable, humus-like product that is rich in microbial flora.
How Much Compost To Use?
For short term research projects, scientists apply compost at 20 to 50 dry metric tons per hectare of soil (10 to 25 short tons per acre), incorporated 20-cm deep in the soil profile. On sites where compost is applied repeatedly over many years, application rate of 5 to 10 dry metric tons per hectare (Mg/ha) are sufficient. “Dry” refers to moisture content below 40% by volume.
If used on a volume basis, plant residue compost can be applied 2.5 to 5.0 cm-deep, equivalent to 250 to 510 cubic meters per hectare (or, a 1 to 2-inch layer is equivalent to 135 to 270 cubic yards per acre or 3 to 6 cubic yards per 1000 square feet). Lower rates (170 m3/ha) are used where soil quality is good, and higher rates (up to 750 m3/ha) on soils with a high content in sand or clay.
Compost made from animal manure should be applied at lower rates as soluble salts (EC) may exceed 1.25 dS/m and be injurious when placed in direct contact with plant roots.
Of note, the US Compost Council suggest aiming for 5% organic matter in the soil to derive most of the benefits (see http://compostingcouncil.org/strive-for-5/).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 122 Nursery
Quality Standards for Compost Products
A laboratory program was established in 1998 at Colorado State University to evaluate precision in laboratory methods for testing of compost. Three times every year, participating laboratories are sent compost materials for testing. Results are compiled and accuracy determined as 95% confidence limit of the median for all lab results.
The “Compost Analysis Program” (CAP) is under the umbrella of the US Composting Council (see http://compostingcouncil.org/compost-analysis-proficiency-program/).
Results indicate the best inter-lab proficiency (measures most reliable) are: For inorganic methods: dry matter, total organic carbon, phosphorus, potassium and zinc; For biological methods: seed germination, seedling vigor, respirometry.
Results indicate the worst inter-lab proficiency (measures least reliable) are: For inorganic methods: EC (an excellent test but variable from lab to lab), NO3 and NH4; For biological method: pathogens (an excellent test but no standard to measure amounts).
Carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) is a useful measure of finished compost quality, but there is variation across laboratories, thus a result of 15 could mean anywhere from 12 to 20.
Using Soil Microbes for Decontamination of Soil with Hydrocarbons
Near the City of Mexico, a refinery complex was closed in 1988 after 70 years of operation. Pemex, the largest oil company in the country, was responsible for decontamination of petroleum residues in the soil.
One method of soil remediation was the use of Pseudomonas putida, a bacteria with the ability to degrade organic solvents. The bacteria produces natural surfactants which increase the solubility of the pollutants and allow their desorption from the soil. Coffee grains were used as bulking agents as this Pseudomonas species can live on pure caffeine and break it into inert components.
Compared to untreated soils, the use of P. putida removed 41% of the petroleum hydrocarbons when used alone and up to 61% when used in combination with nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients.
The 55-hectare site was opened in 2010 as the Bicentenario Park. A technical paper is found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3833165/pdf/bjm-44-595.pdf.
Food Safety and Organic Amendments
Waste products from animals or humans may contain pathogens with a potential to cause human illness such as E. coli and Salmonella. These waste products include animal manure, biosolids, leftovers from meat and fish processing, etc.
Studies indicate high variations in the risk of infection. At one farm, some animals are more susceptible to infection and may shed more pathogens in their waste. Also, virulence varies within a pathogen population. Thus, a problem at one farm may not be a problem under similar conditions at another farm.
Methods to minimize the risks of human pathogens in organic waste: Strict sanitation at the farm, for example discarding animals identified with infection; Compost the materials with hot temperatures, then store 50 to 60 days before using;
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 123 Nursery
Test the waste products using a large sample size to find spot infection locations.
More information available at http://www.ugacfs.org/faculty/erickson.html.
2nd International Symposium on Organic Greenhouse Horticulture
The event was held in October 2013 in Avignon, France. About 120 persons attended, including 6 from Canada.
Soil management is important in organic production. Soiless media, the standard growing medium in conventional greenhouses, is not accepted by many organic certifying agencies. Organic greenhouse production has to be “in natural soil”.
Soil Fertility Management in Organic Greenhouse Crops
Organic farming is about “Feeding the soil, not the plant”. The goal is to reach equilibrium between the soil capacity and other production factors. Thus, the goal is not to maximize the yields, but higher yields are necessary to recoup the financial investment.
Organic growers need to improve plant fertilization. Incorporation of excess compost at planting is inappropriate as it may result in high salts (EC) near plant roots. Top dressing after planting is effective if the material is mineralizing rapidly, but may lead to leaching of nutrients in the soil profile.
The answer may be to fine tune the nutrient supply-and-demand via irrigation scheduling. The grower can use liquid fertilization (compost applied as a liquid after planting) or fertigation (application of fertilizers via the irrigation system).
Composts to Improve Soil Fertility and Plant Health
Soil steaming is a fumigation method used in organic production to clean the soil of pathogens. Steaming creates a void in soil biology that may lead to a rapid recolonization by plant pathogens. The problem can be prevented by using compost immediately after steaming, which will recolonize the soil with the beneficial microbes found in the compost.
However, not all composts are created equal. Some composts immobilize nitrogen while others release nitrogen. Composts can also differ in their salt content and some have high pH, leading to iron deficiency in the plant tissue.
Managing Root-knot Nematodes in Organic Greenhouses
In Southern France, 40% of farms are damaged by root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp). Plants most affected are salad winter crops, cucurbits and spring solonaceous crops. Usual methods to decrease nematode numbers include soil sterilization or steaming, green manure, selection of resistant cultivars or use of non-host crops.
In controlled trials, solarization + green manure (sorghum-Sudangrass) lowered the number of root-knot nematodes, but the soil was recolonized by nematodes surviving in deeper soil depths, or in untreated borders, or multiplying after sowing a sensitive crop.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 124 Nursery
Influences of Vermicompost as Growth Medium for Seedlings
Vermicompost is a by-product of specialized worms digesting plant and food residue. It can be used as an alternative growing media in seedling production as it increases water-holding and is rich in NPK compared to peat or field soil.
Trials done in Turkey in organic greenhouse cucumber production found the highest yields and longest plant lengths in growing media made of 40% vermicompost + 60% peat moss, with second best in a mixture 20% + 80%, compared to the control of 100% peat moss.
1st World Congress on the Use of Biostimulants in Agriculture
The event was held in November 2012 in Strasbourg, France. It was attended by 705 persons from 50 countries, a large audience that reflects the growing importance of this topic for academics, growers, manufacturers and fund investors (looking for upstart companies).
The word “biostimulant” is relatively new. It is meant as a classification for products that regulate and enhance plant physiological processes. Biostimulants are not fertilizers but they improve plant nutrition. They are not pesticides but they protect from disease infection. They are not growth regulators but they stimulate plant growth.
Research on biostimulants is fairly new and the science is not fully developed. Under controlled conditions, the impact is most obvious when the plant is under stress, but it is unclear the products are useful under optimized growing conditions.
What Are Biostimulants?
The products are usually derived from natural sources such as seaweed extracts, humic acid, amino acids, plant extracts, soil microorganisms, silicates, trace elements or manure fermentation. They are complex molecules that may contain plant hormones, leading to multiple and synergestic effects. They are applied in small quantities to influence plant respiration, photosynthesis, nucleic acid synthesis and nutrient ion uptake.
A report was prepared in 2012 looking at 250 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The author concluded: “Biostimulants are defined more by what they do than by what they are, since the category includes a diversity of substances. They stimulate growth, but they do much more. Stress tolerance is perhaps the most important benefit”. See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/fertilizers/final_report_bio_2012_en.pdf
The Science of Biostimulants
Generally, plants recognize a pathogen attack with a genetic response that leads to production of proteins to increase cell wall thickness, act as antibiotics or physically isolate the pathogen. Commercial products of biostimulants try to mimic one of these pathways.
The effects from biostimulants may not be seen until 4 to 6 weeks after application. There is a drawback: if the plant defense system is activated in absence of stress, too much resources may go to production of defence proteins at the expense of food production.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 125 Nursery
Biostimulants can be effective in the lab but not in the field. This is because of genetic variability in the host plant, the pathogen adapting rapidly to a modified host, or different environmental conditions. For a grower to adopt a commercial product, it is important the supporting research be based on field experiments.
Seaweed Extracts As Biostimulants
Dr. B. Prithiviraj is based at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. He is recognized as “the most reputable researcher on the topic” in the world. His work was done with the brown seaweed, Ascophyllum nodosum. Results published in scientific journals indicate that: Seaweed improved growth and vigour of barley seedlings; Seaweed induced tolerance to frost stress and salinity stress in the plant Arabidopsis; Seaweed protected against oxidative and thermal stress in spinach.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 126 Nursery
Robotics and the Horticulture Industry
John Van de Vegte Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Vineland Station, ON [email protected]
Introduction
The objective of the Robotics and Automation Program at the Vineland Research and Innovation Centre is to develop automated systems and other technologies which serve to reduce production costs and improve quality for the horticulture industry in Canada. As indicated in the pie charts below, labour costs constitute the largest component of production costs within the horticulture industry. In order to remain competitive within the global market without eroding profit margins, solutions must be found that reduce the labour component costs.
Orchard Production Greenhouse Production Costs Costs Plant Labour 19% Material 26% Purchases 27% 49% Labour Fertilizer 3% 30% 3% Sprays 12% Fuel 6% 9% 3% 3% 10%
[1] Fresh Market Peach Source: OMAFRA 2010 [2] Greenhouse Horticulture Source: Statistics
The increased use of robotics and automation within the Canadian horticulture industry can be an opportunity to provide solutions. Automated equipment is already commercially available for a variety of applications. For example, automated grading systems have been available for years to support the tree fruit and greenhouse vegetable sectors. New automation solutions are being released by global companies such as the HV-100 material handling robot developed by Harvest Automation for the nursery sector. There are, however, many opportunities for new technology to be developed. Luckily, we are able to take advantage of robust automation components and technologies that have been developed in support of other industries. Robots were first used by General Motors on their production lines in the 80s. Since that time, the automotive industry has continuously pursued increased use of automation in their production process to reduce cost and control quality. Therefore, the robots, actuators, sensors and system controllers to be used in automation solutions for the horticulture industry already exist. In addition, the expertise required to employ and support these key technology components in new solutions also already exists in Canada.
Development Process
Once an opportunity for a new automated system is identified, an intensive process is required to complete the entire development and prototype testing process.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 127 Nursery
System Engineering System Manufacture Functional Purchasing Specification Project Mechanical
Planning Assembly
Electrical R & D Assembly
System Design Integration
3D System
Model System Testing
Mechanical Performance
Design Testing
Electrical Acceptance Design Software
Development
The key consideration here is that this process should not be undertaken lightly. Due diligence is required up front to confirm that the proposed automated system to be developed will fulfill the growers expectations in terms of functionality, productivity and return on investment.
Automated Solution Feasibility
In order for an automated equipment solution to be successful, it must be feasible in two areas:
Functional
The automated equipment must be able to provide the functionality required by the grower. It must: Achieve productivity in parts per hour. Manage material variation. Provide acceptable quality. Provide robust performance without significant downtime or maintenance requirements. Integrate with systems and equipment already in the growers facility.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 128 Nursery
Financial
The automated equipment solution must have a cost target that aligns with an acceptable return on investment for the grower. This cost target must be set early and tracked throughout the development process. If the automated equipment concept is exceeding the cost target, its design must be re-thought in order to stay below the target.
Vineland Program
The development of a new automated system for the horticulture can require a significant investment. In order to control this risk, the Robotics and Automation Program at Vineland employs a partnership model to conduct the development of new technologies. For example, the case study project described below has been partially funded by the Federal Development Agency of Southern Ontario. The balance of the necessary development funding has been achieved through cash and in kind contributions from grower partners and technology company partners. The grower partners [Pioneer Flower Farms, Sunrise Greenhouses, Westbrook Floral and Monaghan Mushrooms] provided their production expertise to clearly define system functionality as well as sample materials to test prototype system performance. The technology companies [AEMK Systems, CMP Automation, Harvest Robotics and John G Wilson Machine] provide expertise in the specific technologies required within the prototype system.
Case Study – Planting System Development
The development of this planting system was driven by the need to reduce planting labour costs for ornamental greenhouse growers. Input from growers highlighted the following points: Seedling plug transplant equipment currently commercially available is not flexible enough to process the variety of trays and pots being used by the growers. Existing cuttings planting equipment is too expensive and geared toward high volume production. A combined seedling plug transplanting and cuttings planting system would improve system utilization throughout the year and thereby improve the return on investment.
The objective of this project was to develop a flexible, automated planting system which addresses the above concerns. Working together with our grower and technology partners, a system concept was modelled in 3D. The 3D model allowed component sizes, robot work envelope and tooling configuration to be confirmed before any manufacturing took place. Multiple design review sessions were conducted with the team and designs tweaked until everyone approved the design and prototype manufacture could commence.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 129 Nursery
There were key areas within the design where research and development was required to overcome specific challenges.
Quick Change-over Gripper Tooling: A means to quickly change the robot gripper between seedling plug transplanting and cuttings planting was required to minimize changeover time. An interchangeable gripper mounting design was developed that allows the system operator to quickly swap out grippers without the use of tools or the need to swap out hoses and cables.
Vision System to Locate Cuttings: A vision system was developed to automatically locate the stems, leaves and grip positions for mini-rose and chrysanthemum cuttings. This data was then employed to direct the robot to the correct grip position and how to manipulate the cutting in order to plant it correctly.
Robot Flexibility: The seedling plug transplanting operation employed a 4-axis robot to transfer the seedling plugs between trays and pots. The cuttings planting operation demanded additional robot flexibility in order to manipulate the cuttings into the correct planting orientation. In order to control system costs, instead of introducing a separate, more flexible robot to the system, an additional servo- motor driven mechanism was added to the 4-axis robot to provide the necessary flexibility.
Ultimately, the prototype planting system was completed and testing conducted. The seedling plugs transplanting operation was tested in a greenhouse environment with 35,000 seedlings transplanted at a rate of approx 2,000 per hour. The cuttings planting operation will commence final testing in the next few weeks.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 130 Nursery
Once all testing has been completed, this flexible planting system will be made available to the horticulture industry to reduce planting costs.
Conclusion
Experience with the automated planting system confirmed the following: It is possible to develop customized automated equipment to address specific needs within the Canadian Horticulture Industry. The expertise and capability to design, manufacture and operate this equipment does exist in Canada. There remain many opportunities to introduce technology to the industry to address high labour costs so much more work remains to be done.
Acknowledgements
AEMK System Inc., CMP Automation Inc., Harvest Robotics, John G Wilson Machine Ltd., Monaghan Mushrooms Ltd., Niagara College, Pioneer Flower Farms, Sunrise Greenhouses, Westbrook Floral
Funding for this project has been provided by the Federal Development Agency for Southern Ontario.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 131 Nursery
Keeping Trees, Shrubs (and You) Stress-Free: What Works, What Doesn’t, and Why
Linda Chalker-Scott Washington State University, WA [email protected]
General plant stress symptoms: Wilting; Chlorosis; Necrosis and dieback; Suckers; Unseasonal leaf reddening.
Symptoms of chilling and freezing: Flaccid, water-soaked appearance; Chlorotic mottling; Marginal browning and necrosis especially in younger tissues; Delayed symptoms; Discolored, mushy root tips in containerized plants.
Preventing low temperature stress: Keeping a weather log; Selection: Site of origin, Variability, Quality of stock; Management: Placement, Light, Temperature, Water, Fertilizer application, Mulches; Products: Antitranspirants, Cryoprotectants, Tree wraps.
Symptoms of heat stress: Wilting; Chlorotic mottling or necrotic lesions; Trunk burn on the southwest side in thin-barked trees.
Preventing heat stress: Selection - quality of stock; Management: Placement,
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 132 Nursery
Preconditioning, Water, Mulches.
Symptoms of drought: Wilting, especially in young tissues; Tip and marginal necrosis; Overall growth rate decreases; Mature leaf size decreases; Premature leaf senescence.
Preventing drought stress: Selection: Site of origin; Quality of stock. Management: Media; Placement; Water; Seasonal considerations; Mulches; Crown pruning; Products: Antitranspirants, Hydrogels, Mycorrhizae, Phosphorus.
Symptoms of hypoxia (includes flooding, compaction and improper soil amendment): Indirect water stress as roots die; Leaf reddening, dieback, and reduced leaf size; Adventitious roots; Root tip dieback.
Preventing hypoxia stress: Management; Media; Placement; Water; Mulches.
For more information: Linda Chalker-Scott, PhD, Associate Professor and Extension Urban Horticulturist, WSU Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.theinformedgardener.com Blog: http://www.gardenprofessors.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheGardenProfessors Books: http://www.sustainablegardensandlandscapes.com
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 133 Nursery
Precision Irrigation in Greenhouses and Nurseries: Improving Production and Increasing Profits
Marc W. van Iersel, Matthew R. Chappell, and Paul A. Thomas Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, GA [email protected]
Managing global water resources is one of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century. Population growth and increased urbanization have increased competition for water by agricultural, industrial and domestic users. Agricultural water use in many areas of the world is not sustainable. To meet the long- term needs of the world’s population, it is crucial that the efficiency of agricultural water use be increased, and science and technology must play a role in addressing problems arising from regional and global water shortages.
The greenhouse and nursery industry is not immune from these issues, and improving irrigation efficiency must be part of making production more sustainable. Legislation regulating agricultural water use and quality is increasing. Some legislation requires greenhouses and nurseries to develop nutrient management plans describing efforts to reduce non-point source pollution. Sustainable horticultural irrigation practices are important for greenhouse and nursery production around the world.
Good irrigation management is an important best management practice (BMP) in greenhouse and nursery production, reducing runoff of nutrient- and pesticide-rich water from production sites. Better control of irrigation can have other benefits as well: better plant quality, more compact plants and reduced damage from root pathogens.
A promising approach for improving irrigation practices is the use of real-time sensing technology to detect the water status of the soil or substrate and to use those measurements to control irrigation. In collaboration with other universities and companies, we have developed wireless sensor networks for improved irrigation control in greenhouses and nurseries. These networks consist of multiple nodes and each node has the ability to measure up to five soil moisture sensors and control irrigation based on soil moisture sensor readings using a web-based graphical user interface (GUI). Growers can use this GUI to determine what time of day a node determines whether a crop needs to be irrigated, a volumetric water content (θ) threshold that triggers irrigation, and irrigation duration. This approach to irrigation can maintain θ at or above a particular user defined θ and automatically adjusts irrigation frequency as plants get larger or environmental conditions change. Figure 1 shows a diagram of a wireless sensor network.
Our trials in commercial nurseries have shown import advantages of wireless sensor networks over traditional methods of irrigation control: Water savings of up to 85% Shorter production cycle, especially with Gardenia jasminoides Prevention of root diseases Increased profits
The reduction in water use is not a surprise, since these sensor networks detect when crops need water and will irrigate only when needed, and will apply only the amount of water required to rewet the substrate. The drastic shortening of the production cycle of gardenia was unexpected, but repeatable. Using sensor-controlled irrigation, the production cycle of gardenias in a collaborating commercial nursery has been approximately halved. Shortening the production cycle reduced the production cost and thus increased net profits. Profits were further increased by elimination of losses due to root pathogens. In this particular crop, the nursery typically loses 20-30% of the crop because of root diseases. Using sensor-
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 134 Nursery
controlled irrigation, crop losses because of root pathogens were completely eliminated, resulting in more salable plants than expected. The combined effect of a shorter production cycle and having more salable plants resulted in an increase in annualized net profit of $2.80/ft2.
Since sensor-controlled irrigation greatly reduces leaching, it seems likely that fertilizer application rates can be reduced (we estimate by 50%), which will result in additional cost savings. The feedback from the growers who have collaborated with us on this project have been unanimously positive. They all indicated that they consider buying such a system for their nursery would be a sound investment.
Figure 1. A diagram of a sensor network. The production area is divided into multiple irrigation zones, with one sensor node in each zone. Each node can measure up tofive sensors and open and close an irrigation valve. The nodes transmit the collected data by radio to a local computer, which runs the software controlling the system. This computer also creates a web site, which growers use to monitor and control the system. The web site can be accessed through any internet-capable device, including cell phones and tablets. Growers can use the website to monitor the data, change irrigation settings, and configure new nodes.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 135 All Berries
Potential Fungicides for Control of Downy Mildew of Blackberry
J. F. Elmhirst, J. R. Hayes, S. Pissonnier, and S. Sveinson-Dyer Elmhirst Diagnostics & Research, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Introduction
Downy mildew (“dry berry”) caused by the oomycete Peronospora sparsa, causes serious losses to commercially-grown blackberry crops in British Columbia, annually and world-wide. The pathogen overwinters inside dormant blackberry canes and reddish, angular leaf lesions appear in late spring after leaves flush out. Leaf lesions do little damage to the crop, but produce sporangia that spread to other leaves and developing fruit. Young berries become brown, dry and shrivel before ripening and infected berries that do ripen often split in two, and have brown drupelets and an off-taste. Many desirable blackberry cultivars, such as ‘Loch Ness’ and ‘Obsidian’, are highly susceptible to this disease and fruit loss can be more than 50% when cool, wet weather conditions are favourable for disease development.
Photos (left to right): Blackberry downy mildew sporangia, leaf lesions and fruit damage: J. Pscheidt, Oregon State University
Peronospora sparsa is the same pathogen that causes downy mildew of rose and, in recent years, fungicides such as PREVICUR, PRESIDIO, ACROBAT (dimethomorph), ZAMPRO (ametoctradin +dimethomorph), REVUS, and phosphite (phosphorous acid) products such as PHOSTROL, CONFINE EXTRA and RAMPART have been registered for control of downy mildew on vegetables, grapes and ornamental crops in Canada.
No fungicides are registered for control of downy mildew of blackberry in Canada. US growers can use phosphorous acid products such as FOSPHITE (RAMPART) and CONFINE EXTRA up to 1 day to harvest, as well as RIDOMIL GOLD+COPPER, up to the day of harvest, for control of this disease on blackberry. TANOS 50 DF (famoxadone + cymoxanil) is registered in both the US and Canada for control of other diseases of blackberry, such as botrytis; its effect on downy mildew of blackberry is unknown, but, at the time of this trial, it had an emergency label for control of downy mildew of greenhouse cucumber in Canada. ALIETTE is registered in both countries but with a PHI (pre-harvest interval) of 60 days, which is too early to control downy mildew during blackberry fruiting and harvest, while a label expansion for RIDOMIL GOLD+COPPER in Canada was deemed unlikely due to the high risk of resistance when this product is used alone.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 136 All Berries
The objective of this trial was to generate efficacy and crop tolerance data to obtain label registrations of effective downy mildew fungicides for BC growers, as soon as possible. The US is a major market for BC blackberry sales. Thus, only products already having an established maximum residue limit (MRL) on blackberry in the US were considered: these are TANOS 50® DF, because TANOS® 50 DF is already labelled for control of other foliar diseases of blackberry in Canada and the US, and CONFINE EXTRA and RAMPART which are registered for control of downy mildew of blackberry in the US. Both registrants were contacted and the registrant of RAMPART®, Loveland Products Canada, Inc., indicated that they would support a minor use label expansion for control of downy mildew of blackberry in Canada, if the efficacy and crop tolerance data supported this use. (At the request of the BC Ministry of Agriculture, an additional treatment with ZAMPRO SC™ was included, since the Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada Pest Management Centre (AAFC-PMC) Minor Use Program has flagged this as a potential fungicide to be evaluated in 2014).
Methodology
The trial was conducted from May to September 2013, in a 12-year-old commercial field of blackberry cv. ‘Loch Ness’ in Abbotsford, British Columbia, using natural inoculum. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block (RCB) design with 4 replicates per treatment (2 replicates of ZAMPRO SC). Each plot measured 6m long with 8 plants per plot in a single row, with replicates 1 to 4 oriented from south to north. Row spacing was 3m (10 ft.) centre to centre, for a total plot area of 18 m² /plot.
RAMPART was applied at 2.9 L/ha, 5.8 L/ha, and 9.0 L/ha; TANOS 50 DF at the label rate of 840g/ha; and ZAMPRO at the rate of 1.0L/ha (as for downy mildew of grape and hops). Applications were made at 14-21 day intervals throughout the growing season, from May 16 to August 20, 2 weeks before the final harvest on Sept. 3. All products were applied as a foliar sprays to cover using a CO2 backpack sprayer at 207 kPa (30 psi) using a triple nozzle boom and Teejet 8004 VS nozzles; plots were sprayed with 900mL solution on each side of the row for a total of 1.8L of solution applied to each plot (a solution volume of 1000L/ha). Check plots were sprayed with water alone on each application date.
In each plot, the central 3m of row was assessed weekly for percent diseased leaves and percent diseased berries on the Horsfall-Barratt rating scale of 0-100%. Starting on July 22, and every 5-7 days up to Sept. 3, diseased and healthy ripe berries from each plot were picked and weighed separately and summed to obtain total marketable and non-marketable yield over the season. (Berries in the 1.5 m at the end of each plot were removed before they ripened to prevent accidental harvesting by commercial pickers. This did not reduce disease pressure in the trial, which was very high throughout the season.)
Results
TANOS 50 DF and RAMPART at 2.9 L/ha suppressed downy mildew on leaves but not on fruit. RAMPART at 5.8 L/ha controlled downy mildew on leaves and fruit throughout the growing season and resulted in an 80% reduction in leaf lesions and a 181% increase in marketable fruit, compared to the untreated (water) check. RAMPART was no better at 8.0 L/ha than at 5.8 L, but the higher rate did not cause any visible injury to the leaves or fruit. ZAMPRO at 1.0 L/ha suppressed fruit disease initially, but control broke down in mid-August, when disease pressure increased. Of ripe fruit, the percentage of diseased berries was only 15% with RAMPART at 5.8-8.0 L/ha, compared to 44.5% in the check (Figure 1).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 137 All Berries
First Harvest: July 22, 2013
CHECK RAMPART at 5.8 L/ha
Figure 1. Mean total, marketable and non-marketable yield of ripe blackberries: July 22-Sept. 3, 2013.1
Mean Total Yield (lbs/acre)
a (a) ab (a)
b (ab)
bc (ab)
c (b) c (b)
1 Columns with the same letter are not significantly different in Duncan’s, (Tukey’s HSD) at P=0.05.
Conclusions
Under high downy mildew disease pressure, in a commercial planting of highly susceptible blackberry cv. ‘Loch Ness’ in Abbotsford, BC in the 2013 growing season, RAMPART (phosphite, 53.6%) at 5.8 L/ha sprayed every 14-21 days from May 13 to August 20 reduced downy mildew leaf lesions by 80% and “dry berry” of blackberry fruit significantly compared to the water check (different in Tukey’s HSD at P=0.05) and increased marketable yield by 181% over the check. In the treatment with RAMPART at 5.8 L/ha, only 15% of ripe berries had “dry berry” compared to 44.5% of ripe berries in the control. RAMPART was similarly effective at 8.0 L/ha and no phytotoxicity was observed. At 2.9 L/ha,
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 138 All Berries
RAMPART reduced dry berry and increased marketable yield by approximately 50%, but was not statistically different from the check. TANOS 50 DF (famoxadone + cymoxanil) at 840 g/ha suppressed leaf lesions but did not control downy mildew of fruit. No phytotoxicity was observed in any treatment.
ZAMPRO SC (ametoctradin + dimethomorph), applied to two plots only at 1.0 L/h, appeared to be less effective than RAMPART at 5.8 L/ha but increased marketable yield and reduced dry berry compared to the check and is a potential rotation fungicide with phosphite. (NOTE: the ZAMPRO data was from 2 replicates only and should not be considered statistically valid in comparison to the other treatments).
The final report, raw data and appendices have been submitted to the LMHIA and the registrant, Loveland Products Canada, Inc., with a request that a Minor Use Label Expansion be made to the Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) to expand the RAMPART label in Canada to include control of blackberry downy mildew, with a product application rate and interval similar to that on the US label. This will allow BC blackberry growers to apply the same effective product for control of this disease as US growers and improve the overall health and productivity of the BC Fraser Valley blackberry industry.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project was provided by the BC Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association (LMHIA), individual berry growers in the BC Fraser Valley and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In British Columbia, this program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation (IAF) of BC. The researchers would like to thank Berry Haven Farms for donating their crop and hosting the trial, and Berry Haven, Bergen, Driediger, Krause and South Alder Farms for cash contributions which were matched by IAF. Thanks to Sandy Dunn, LMHIA Executive Director, for coordinating funding and communication between IAF, the researcher, registrant and growers; to United Agri-Products, Langley, BC for donating the RAMPART fungicide for the trial and to Mark Sweeney, the BC Ministry of Agriculture Berry Specialist, for his valuable advice and support of this project.
Disclaimer
“Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) is committed to working with industry partners. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and not necessarily those of AAFC.”
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 139 All Berries
Why Berry Growers Need to get on the Food Safety Ball in 2014
Victor Martens ARDCorp, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Food safety – is it important? More than ever, growers need to have a formal food safety program to satisfy the marketplace. What has changed? Isn’t our food safe like it has always been? We’re not doing anything different. I thought that we were improving. We’re doing a good job, aren’t we? We need to realize that consumers have changed: they are more discerning; some are more susceptible to food hazards; there are new food hazards. Consumers are putting pressure on buyers, who then require more from packers and producers.
Buyers have also changed. They listen more to consumers. They look at things in addition to food safety such as environmental impact, no GMOs, worker treatment. The producer’s word is not good enough – buyers require third party audits. Producers and packers must be able to track their product from field through shipping to facilitate recall where necessary. It’s a global market – we are competing with producers from around the world!
So what are buyers asking for? They want food safety systems that are audited by third parties. These systems include Global GAP and Canada GAP, which prove that things are being done right. Environmental plans such as the BC EFP can show that you are being good stewards of our natural resources. Worker welfare plans give them a picture as to how you are treating your workers. The aspect of food defense (i.e. protecting your product against malicious acts) is required to ensure that your products reach the consumer without being compromised.
How can you meet buyer demands in today’s market? First, you need to carry out Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) improvements such as proper pesticide storage and using safe water. Then, develop an On-Farm Food Safety (OFFS) system which provides a preventative approach to keeping your product safe. This includes: knowing what hazards may be present in your product and on your farm; knowing where these hazards might come in contact with your product, and; developing procedures to keep those hazards out of your product.
Part of this system is good record-keeping of using approved pesticides correctly, testing water and produce, using clean packaging, and tracking the produce from field to shipped produce. Your OFFS system should include: a physical plan of your operation; policies and procedures that apply specifically to your operation; and records that show your compliance with the OFFS system requirements.
When selecting an auditable OFFS system, make sure that it meets the requirements of your buyers. These may include certification under Canada GAP (CFIA-approved) or Global GAP (GFSI-approved). Buyers may sometimes be satisfied with a supplier audit carried out by firms such as GFTC, SGS, Primus or AIB).
There is help available. Work with your commodity group to develop solutions across your sector. Apply for funding assistance. ARDCorp administers funding for OFFS improvements, traceability and environmental upgrades. Make sure that you use qualified and experienced consultants to develop plans with you. Use resources found through the internet such as government websites or suppliers.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 140 All Berries
Brown Marmorated Stink Bug: Why You Need to Be Prepared
Tracy Hueppelsheuser British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) (BMSB) is a true bug, native to Asia. It is a homeowner nuisance, as it aggregates in the fall in buildings and homes to overwinter. BMSB has caused crop damage in Japan, Korea, and China particularly in last decade. In Asia, it is distributed throughout Korea, China, Japan, and Taiwan.
BMSB is present in several states in the eastern USA (initial detection and establishment in Pennsylvania, in 1996), and Portland Oregon since 2004. The very first detection in North America was in1993. BMSB is now established in a port area of Hamilton Ontario. It was first confirmed in 2010, and in 2012, eggs were found, indicating establishment. No known crop damage has been identified yet, but the bug is still limited to urban area. New detections have been confirmed in various urban locations in southern Ontario in 2013, and still no signs of it in rural cropping areas. The origin of North American populations is likely the Beijing area of China (Xu et al. 2013; Gariepy et al. 2013).
BMSB is a “hitch-hiker”; it moves on vehicles along transportation corridors to new areas, in addition to natural spread out from established areas. There have been random interceptions in B.C. For example, bugs were found in shipments of poplar products from the State of Virginia coming into BC, November 2011, and TV monitors shipped from Virginia to Surrey in the summer 2012. In Alberta, there have been shipments of recreation vehicles from eastern USA, and bugs were found in a motorhome after returning from traveling in the eastern USA.
The Host range of BMSB is very broad, fruit and vegetables (over 170 plants recorded in North America) including: Vegetables: legumes, peppers, tomatoes, corn, soybeans, snap beans. Fruit: apples, peaches, cherries, figs, mulberries, citrus, persimmons, raspberries, blackberries, grapes. Ornamentals, trees: holly, mountain ash, maple, ash, elm, oak, locust, buddliea, Virginia creeper, cedar, and many weeds. Spring hosts where adults are often found are likely to be tree of heaven, sumac, cascara (Rhamnus) or buckthorn, or butterfly bush (Buddleia), based on experience in Ontario and Oregon. See this link for more details: http://www.stopbmsb.org/where-is-bmsb/host-plants/
First detections in new areas are expected to be by homeowners in urban areas, as the bugs aggregate in the fall to overwinter in groups in sheltered areas (i.e. homes and buildings). It then takes several years for BMSB to establish and spread out to rural agriculture areas where it eventually becomes an agricultural pest.
The number of generations per year varies depending on climate, with 1 generation expected in Ontario, and more in southern USA. BMSB adults become active in spring, mate, lay eggs in late spring/early summer, nymphs hatch and grow through summer and moult into adults in late summer. Later in the fall, adults aggregate and spend the winter in sheltered places, which, besides buildings, is in wooded areas and standing dead trees. BMSB pierces into plant tissue with needle-like mouthparts, and causes damage to foliage, fruit, and vegetables by this feeding. The nymphs and adults feed on leaves, stems, and fruit, causing distortion, cat-facing, necrosis, and corkiness. Additionally, presence of the bugs will causes off- flavour, i.e. wine grapes. BMSB appears to prefer green fruit (unripe) rather than fully ripe, and other green plant parts.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 141 All Berries
Crop injury was first reported in Pennsylvania 2008, about 7+ years after the initial detection (apples, etc), and damage has gotten worse in recent years. Damage is significant in some Asian countries. In 2011, the first report of fruit damage to raspberries and hazelnuts in Oregon (just south of Portland). While the pest continues to be detected in new areas in Oregon, it still is only causing limited impact in crops, and is not detected in fields until late in the season.
Bugs that look like BMSB include: other species of stink bugs (green, brown, rough, etc), spined soldier bug (a beneficial predator), western conifer seed bug, and box elder bug. All these insects already occur in B.C. and can be easily confused for BMSB.
Research is underway in USA and Ontario on BMSB biology, detection, and management including biological control and pesticides. To date, there are no good traps or lures for first detections. Beating trays are useful if you are in an area where the bug is already known to be established (not B.C.!).
Insecticides can be used to control nymphs and adults, but the bugs are highly mobile and can re-invade after sprays. For homes and buildings, the best approach is to seal up gaps so the bugs cannot find access points.
Scientists in the USA, Canada, and Europe are searching for and testing appropriate biological control agents that could help decrease the impact of BMSB and provide long term population control. This approach is promising, but still years away from implementation. Currently involved in these efforts are: United States Dept of Agriculture, Universities (Oregon State, and others), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (Dave Gillespie, Tara Gariepy, Peter Mason), and CABI (Tim Haye) http://www.cabi.org/projects/project/21003
Everyone can help watch out for BMSB in B.C. by collecting samples and submitting any suspect stink bugs that are grouping together in the fall and winter in buildings, or might be found in groups in the spring on favourite plants. We are looking for any first detections; check spring host plants (possibly tree of heaven, sumac, holly, catalpa, cascara). In the fall (Sept/Oct), watch for stink bugs amassing together in buildings, preparing for winter.
If you think you might have seen Brown marmorated stink bugs, collect some and bring or send them to me at the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture Plant Health Lab, Abbotsford: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/lab.htm. Suspected new species can be submitted for identification at no cost.
Plant Health Laboratory, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford Agriculture Centre, 1767 Angus Campbell Road, Abbotsford B.C., V3G 2M3 Tel: 604 556-3126 (directly) or 1-800-661-9903 (main office). Fax: 604 556-3154
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 142 All Berries
Acknowledgements
Thank you to several colleagues who provided information and slides to me in preparation of this presentation: Susanna Acheampong, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Kelowna; Hannah Fraser, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Vineland; David Gillespie, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz; Tim Haye, CABI Switzerland; Nik Wiman, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Tom Peerbolt, Peerbolt Crop Management, Portland.
Web Resources for BMSB
British Columbia: http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/bmsb_alert.pdf Ontario: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/bmstinkbug.htm United States Department of Agriculture, Invasive Species: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/animals/stinkbug.shtml Stop BMSB (eastern USA): http://www.stopbmsb.org/ Oregon: http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/content/about-brown-marmorated-stink-bug-project http://horticulture.oregonstate.edu/content/about-brown-marmorated-stink-bug-project
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 143 All Berries
What is the Real Story Behind Declining Bee Health?
Elizabeth Elle Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC [email protected]
Pollinators are essential for the production of berry fruit. Our research in blueberry has demonstrated that losses (in fruit number and weight) due to insufficient pollination can cost growers $6000/acre. One reason pollination is of increasing concern is because of pollinator declines.
Managed honey bees are the main pollinator of berry crops, brought to fields in large numbers during bloom. Prior to 2006, average winter honeybee losses in Canada were about 15%. Since then, the average has been closer to 30%. The main reasons are diseases, exposure to pesticides, and habitat loss.
1. Mites are one of the biggest problems for honey bees, and they became resistant to the most commonly used chemical controls in the early 2000—and honey bee declines followed soon after. Honey bees also suffer from a large number of viral, fungal, and bacterial diseases.
2. Pesticides are essential to control pests like spotted wing Drosophila, fungal diseases, and so on. But, they can have negative effects on beneficial insects like bees, which is why following label directions about timing of spraying is so important. Some sprays like neonicotinoids appear to have especially concerning effects on the ability of bees to learn—and “learning” is essential for bees to find flowers and return to the hive, which is what pollination is about. Avoiding sprays of neonics during and prior to bloom is important for this reason. Some labels indicate it is OK to spray neonics prior to bloom but they do have residual effects on bees and can accumulate in the soil—it’s not a good idea to use prior to bloom if you can find an alternative. New research is showing that spray adjuvants and fungicides can also affect bee learning, but we don’t know enough yet to make recommendations on what you should and should not spray. If you can, spray fungicides at night when bees aren’t active.
3. Bee diet is important for their health and activity levels. Unfortunately when they eat a single- pollen diet (as on crop monocultures) colonies grow less fast and the probability of surviving when infected with disease is lower. We are looking into whether having alternative food available for bees during crop bloom is feasible, or if it will just ‘distract’ bees from crop pollination.
4. Wild bees, especially bumble bees, also contribute substantially to the pollination of berry crops in BC. They have the same problems (disease, pesticides, diet). Pesticide exposure is the main aspect under the control of growers and so following label instructions and avoiding neonicotinoids prior to and during bloom is important.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 144 All Berries
Promising New Blueberry Cultural Practices – 2013 Trials
Eric M. Gerbrandt Pacific Berry Resource Centre, University of the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack, BC [email protected]
Five research projects were conducted in the fields of collaborating blueberry growers in the Fraser Valley in 2013. The primary goal was to evaluate cultural practices for their potential to provide better management and marketing of blueberry fruit while decreasing costs and/or increasing revenue on a per acre basis.
Gibberellic Acid (GA) as a Supplement to Fruit Set
GA is used in various crops to set parthenocarpic fruit and supplement pollination in years when pollination conditions are sub-optimal. From 2009 to 2012, FruitSize, a commercially available GA3 product registered for cherries, was investigated for its potential to increase fruit yields in highbush blueberry in the Fraser Valley. These studies focused on measurement of fruit weight and estimation of yield via yield component analysis. In 2013, validation of improvements in yield estimate was conducted through harvest and measurement of total fruit yield. Average fruit weight was also measured from replicated blocks of sprayed and non-sprayed ‘Liberty’, ‘Draper’ and ‘Bluecrop’ in Abbotsford, Langley and Matsqui, respectively.
Despite high levels of pollination in these three fields in 2013, significant increases in fruit weight were observed for all three varieties. While yield data was not collected for ‘Liberty’, due to adequate levels of pollination, a significant increase in the fourth harvest yield of ‘Bluecrop’ did not result in a significant increase in total fruit yield and there was no statistically significant increase in ‘Draper’ fruit yield.
In years with more adverse weather conditions during pollination, the potential benefits of GA are expected to be statistically significant. How the plant responds to GA applications is complex in terms of yield components and the portions of crop load that are affected and when they come ripe. More precision in the recommendable rates and dates of application are further avenues of research that will continue to improve the bottom line for producers as the point of maximal return is determined. Growers must be able to make treatments at the proper time and rate or else no effect can be expected.
Gibberellic Acid (GA) as a Flower Bud Inhibitor
Research at the Oregon State University has shown that young blueberry plants that are deblossomed in early years produce greater yields in the long-run due to increased focus on vegetative growth during establishment. The labor cost associated with deblossoming young blueberry plantings is considerable, adding to the financial burden of field establishment. GA application during the late summer has been shown to effectively reduce or eliminate the production of flower buds in other regions on a limited range of varieties. Previous work compared GA applications under containerized production. The utility of these applications to a field planting of ‘Liberty’, ‘Aurora’, ‘Draper’, ‘Bluecrop’, ‘Elliott’ and ‘Duke’ was investigated using four replications of four plant plots for each variety and treatment combination. With three weekly applications each, three timings of sprays, starting on August 19th and 26th and September 2nd, were compared with a single late application on September 23rd, a water-spray control and a no-spray control. Average number of floral buds per plant were compared statistically and the effects on plant health and growth observed.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 145 All Berries
These trials demonstrated that GA applications in late summer can be used to effectively inhibit floral buds under field conditions as in containerized production, which stands to save a considerable amount of money during field establishment. The average number of buds remaining on effectively treated plants varied from plant to plant and across varieties, but was generally restricted to one or two floral buds per plant on average. These results can be considered as close to complete as is possible under physiological conditions since even manual removal of flowers during the spring tends to leave several flower clusters per plant. In comparing treatment timings, early-, mid- and late-timings were effective in ‘Aurora’, ‘Bluecrop’, ‘Duke’, ‘Elliott’ and ‘Liberty’. ‘Draper’ was the only variety in which partial effectiveness was seen for the late-timing, though the early- and mid-timings were just as effective as in other varieties. The very late single application only had a noticeable effect in ‘Liberty’ in comparison to the repeat applications, but even this effect was not significantly different either of the controls.
Observations of damage to vegetative and reproductive tissues was variety-specific. ‘Aurora’ only sustained considerable damage with the late-timing; ‘Bluecrop’ at the mid-timing; and ‘Duke’ at none of the timings tested in this trial. ‘Draper’ sustained high levels of damage during early-, mid- and late- timings; ‘Elliott’ during the mid- and late-timings and moderate damage at the early-timing; and ‘Liberty’ sustained high damage at the mid-timing and moderate damage at the early-timing.
With proof of concept that GA can be used in field-grown plants to effectively inhibit floral bud formation in a range of varieties, future work should focus on determining more variety-specific recommendations. Decreasing rates of application, to avoid detrimental effects while maintaining adequate levels of inhibition, would be worthwhile. As well, the interaction of a range of cultural factors and across a range of production environments and plant ages/grades deserves closer attention.
Fall Application of Ethylene
‘Duke’ blueberries are the earliest mainstream variety on the market and there is an abundance of plantings in the Fraser Valley. Packers/processors are challenged in their ability to handle the local supply of fresh fruit, which means that some producers are unable to market their valuable product. ‘Draper’ is a newer variety, yielding high-quality fruit somewhat later than ‘Duke’, but still in the first half of the season. Ethrel is a commercially available product registered on blueberries that releases ethylene, which facilitates even colouring of late fruit loads, increasing marketable yields. Alternatively, the potential to apply ethylene later during the season (September to November) as a means of delaying bloom in the following spring stands to delay the harvest of ‘Duke’ fruit by several days. As demonstrated in southern highbush blueberry, if fall applications of ethylene can be shown to speed of dormancy induction then delayed bloom and ripening in the following season may be possible. This would increase opportunities for producers to market all of their fruit, increasing producer, packer and processor profits overall. Delay of ‘Duke’ and ‘Draper’ fruit harvest by four or more days will result in a more even distribution of fruit harvest; decreased pressure of packers/processors; and increased ability of producers to market more of their fruit and at a higher grade due to optimal ripeness upon harvest.
Two fields of ‘Draper’ and two fields of ‘Duke’ were used to evaluate the effect of ethylene applications on leaf senescence in the fall of 2013. In comparison to a no-spray control, a single, high rate of 600 ppm Ethrel was applied via backpack sprayer twice (two weeks apart) with three different timing treatments, starting on September 9 and 30 and October. Three whips (i.e., basal shoots of the current season’s growth) and three primary branches (i.e., the current season’s growth from two or three year old canes) were selected from replicated plots for each treatment on each variety and farm location. These whips and primaries were labelled with flagging tape. The immediate effects of these applications were evaluated through measurement of photosynthetic activity at biweekly intervals starting on the day of the first application. A hand-held “SPADD-502 Plus” chlorophyll activity meter was used to measure photosynthetic activity from the same leaves (on labelled branches) over the course of the fall.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 146 All Berries
Statistical comparison of these treatments showed no significant effect on plant dormancy induction and no likely subsequent impact on spring bloom and harvest dates. Therefore, based on these initial trials, no further investigation into the use of ethylene for dormancy induction in northern highbush is warranted as it bears little hope of producing a useful horticultural tool. Other management techniques stand a better chance of meeting the same ends and could be investigated in the future, including modifications in irrigation and fertility management late in the season.
Cooler Storage of ‘Draper’
As a new variety, ‘Draper’ fruit quality in cooler storage has been called into question. Packers have observed that changes in fruit firmness may limit the use of cooler storage. It is unclear whether this is significantly different from other varieties such as ‘Duke’ and ‘Chandler’; whether it is true for both machine-harvested and hand-harvested fruit; and whether different harvests respond in the same fashion. The industry’s ability to use cooler storage to extend the marketability of ‘Draper’ fruit requires comparison of fruit quality to the industry’s standard for high-quality, firm fruit. Determining the extent of ‘Draper’ shelf life in comparison with ‘Duke’ will establish the limits to which this variety can be fresh marketed. When this is properly understood, producers and their packers/processors will be better able to coordinate the harvesting and marketing of their early mid-season crop, bridging the gap between early ‘Duke’ and later ‘Bluecrop’ fruit.
In collaboration with a local fruit producer/packer, samples of fruit were taken from shipments of ‘Duke’, ‘Draper’ and ‘Chandler’ harvested by hand and by machine over three ‘Draper’ harvest periods. Fruit was delivered to the packer by five different growers in Abbotsford and Chilliwack. Fruit samples from each shipment were placed in a breathable, plastic clamshell. Weight of the sample before and after subsamples of 25 berries were removed (at weekly intervals for five weeks) were used to track changes in fruit weight. The 25 fruit subsamples after 0, 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 days of cooler storage were measured for firmness and diameter using a FirmTech II machine. Summary graphs were produced to compare the trends in weight, diameter and firmness changes over time in storage for each sample.
This study showed that the initial fruit size and quality of the fruit being delivered to the packers most likely plays a larger role in the rate of decline and final fruit firmness than whether it was hand-harvested or machine-harvested on its own. The different varieties perform variously under cooler storage and fruit gathered at different times of the season behave differently as well. The limited number of samples that were compared in this trial cannot provide any definitive answers as to the causal factors leading to changes in fruit quality for all possible types of shipments, but it can be stated that initial fruit firmness is of paramount importance in delivering a top-quality product after any length of time in cooler storage. Based on this measurement of fruit quality (and there are others to consider), there is no indication that ‘Draper’ is less suited to relatively longer-term cooler storage than ‘Duke’. Neither is there an indication of important differences in the relative changes in firmness over time between hand-harvested and machine-harvested shipments. Rather, from a practical standpoint, it is likely that specific harvest conditions that determine initial fruit size and firmness upon delivery to the cooler that are the primary factors that determine differences in shelf-life. These factors include whether it is first or second (or third) pick; the time left hanging before harvest; prevailing weather (both temperature and precipitation) conditions before and during harvest; and the time before which picked fruit is brought to cooler temperatures.
Pruning Management of ‘Liberty’ Growth Habit
Management of ‘Liberty’ plants is problematic due to the lanky and overly-vigorous growth habit. Clearly, the variety cannot be managed in the same fashion as most standard varieties. Evaluation of alternative pruning strategies is a high priority to avert losses in yield and fruit quality in this variety.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 147 All Berries
Development of alternative pruning strategies for ‘Liberty’ may result in higher yields of better quality fruit; a more manageable growth habit that poses less trouble for field operations with machines; and perhaps even decreased dieback due to disease through control of plant vigour.
For the second year in a row, alternative pruning strategies were conducted to determine their effects on fruit yield and quality. Standard (control) pruning treatment of an established ‘Liberty’ field was conducted by the farm’s labour crew as a matter of course during the yearly maintenance cycle. Subsequently, pruning treatments were experimentally applied to determine effects on yield in the summer to follow. Four replications in a randomized complete block design used single post lengths as plots. The first alternative pruning treatment was an increase in wood removal, primarily removing smaller branches within the canopy to thin the overall plant structure. The second alternative pruning treatment was a more drastic increase in wood removal through removal of additional canes from the base of the plant. Yield estimates were made at the pre-harvest stage using yield component analysis while average fruit weight, firmness and diameter were via two samples of 50 fruit from each plot.
No significant differences were observed in fruit weight, yield estimate, fruit firmness, fruit diameter, variability in fruit firmness or variability in fruit diameter in response to either of the alternative pruning management strategies. Therefore, once plant architecture is significantly altered by an alternative management scheme, ‘Liberty’ shows the ability to adjust to the same high yields with no noticeable impact on fruit quality. This, in the end, was the aim of this project as it is the gangly and overly- vigorous growth habit of ‘Liberty’ that poses a challenge to growers. These alternative management strategies can, therefore, be safely recommended as alternatives. These alternatives may work to decrease fruit losses during tractor operations; facilitate more effective spray penetration in a less-dense canopy; and increase the ease of harvest due to a more controlled growth habit.
Collaborators: Participating growers; Mark Sweeney (Provincial Berry Specialist, BC Ministry of Agriculture); Karina Sakaluskas (BC Blueberry Council); Tom Baumann, Garion Loehndorf and Andrew Gerbrandt (Expert Agriculture Team Ltd.); Michael Dossett and Marine Gaudin (Agriculture & Agri- Food Canada)
Industry funding: BC Blueberry Council; The Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association; Berry Haven Farms Ltd. and Terralink Horticulture Inc.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this project has been provided by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (CAAP). In British Columbia, this program is delivered by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC.
Disclaimer: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) is committed to working with industry partners. Opinions expressed in this document are those of the BC Blueberry Council and not necessarily those of AAFC.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 148 All Berries
Are Blueberry Growers Making the Most of Their Nitrogen?
David Poon BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Excess nitrogen (N) raises several concerns for blueberry production: Favours a late flush of growth at the end of the season, which in turn, - increases risk of cold or frost injury, and - reduces fruit bud set. Increases chances of diseases. Results in greater nitrate leaching.
An objective of the 2012 Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Study (FVSNS) was to measure an indicator of excess nitrogen and risk of water contamination under different crops across the Lower Fraser Valley, including blueberry fields. Excess N indicates opportunity to improve nitrogen use efficiency. With blueberries, excess N also indicates opportunity to increase crop yield or quality.
What Was Done?
The indicator of excess N was post-harvest soil nitrate (NO3). Unlike most other crops, NO3 is a form of N that is not useful to blueberry plants at any time (Figure 1). Soil sampling methods were taken from the 2005 FVSNS study when 16 blueberry fields were sampled: after removing the mulch, paired samples were taken from within the cane/bush rows and drip line (Figure 2). Three depths were taken (0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, and 30-60 cm). In 2012, soil samples were taken from 30 blueberry fields using this method.
Organic nitrogen (unavailable) Ammonium, NH4 (available) Nitrate, NO3 (unavailable) Figure 2. Simplified conversions of nitrogen (N) in the mulch/soil and the availability of N forms for blueberry plant uptake.
Figure 3. Locations of paired soil sampling in blueberry fields.
What was found?
The majority of fields sampled had a high or very high amount of post-harvest NO3 (greater than 100 kg NO3-N/ha) in both study years: 74% in 2012 and 50% in 2005 (Fig. 2). Mean NO3 was high across all study regions (West Delta, Mt. Lehman/Bradner, South Abbotsford, and Sumas) in 2012, when the overall mean was 140 kg N/ha and the median was 119 kg N/ha for the 0-30 cm depth. In the south coast
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 149 All Berries
of BC, post-harvest soil NO3-N is likely lost from leaching and denitrification over the winter, regardless of soil type or subregion.
Figure 4. Distribution of post-harvest soil nitrate (NO3), 0-60 cm across 4 classes in blueberry fields in the Lower Fraser Valley.
The FVSNS was not designed to investigate specific reasons for excess N, but possible explanations are not limited to the annual amount of N (fertilizer) applied: Timing of release:. Nitrogen release from soil organic matter late in the season is difficult to predict and can cause excess N. Warm soil temperatures in the late summer of 2012 would have favoured this late release of N (Table 1). Form of N: N can be immobilized (i.e. tied up as organic N) by the mulch and subsequently released at rates that depend on the quality and quantity of the mulch. The 2012 FVSNS fields that had received fresh sawdust within 3 years of soil sampling tended to have less excess N.
Table 1. Weather conditions in the Lower Fraser Valley relative to the long-term average (Environment Canada) and during the sampling period of the 2012 Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Study. Pre-season Growing season Sampling period Sampling period weather Cool and wet spring/early 16°C avg. air temp Typical summer Aug 21 – Oct 3 6-8 mm precipitation Hot and dry late summer
Factors other than N can affect the plant’s ability to take up soil nutrients. For example, blueberry plants require a lower soil pH range than most other crops. In the 2012 FVSNS, soil pH was not in the optimal range (4.5-5.2 at 0-30 cm) in 30% of the fields sampled. If there were limitations from pH (and resulting effects on metal toxicity), drainage/aeration, or diseases, changes to N fertilization would not have addressed the limitations.
The blueberry results highlight the need for improved understanding of N management in blueberry production. There is opportunity to avoid excess N for better crop production and lower risk of nitrate leaching to groundwater.
The complete factsheet, prepared by Clare Sullivan, will be uploaded in early 2014 at http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/NutrientMgmt/: “Results from the 2012 Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Study – Blueberry.” January 2014. Order Reference No. 631.500-10
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 150 Blueberries
Spotted Wing Drosophila in Blueberries: Lessons Learned in 2013
Tracy Hueppelsheuser British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Spotted wing drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) (SWD) male flies have one dark spot on the end of each wing, and are 2-3 mm long. The female does not have wing spots, and is a robust tan coloured fruit fly (3mm long) with a serrated ovipositor (egg laying organ), unique to SWD, which she used to lay eggs under the skin of ripening fruit. Infested fruit becomes soft and collapses in the areas where larvae are feeding. Based on CFIA models, there could be up to 4 generations in south western British Columbia. Larvae and eggs are moved to new areas in infested fruit. Larvae do not always remain within fruit to pupate, and can pupate outside of fruit. SWD do not inhabit soil or green plant parts.
Early fruit collection can indicate if and when SWD is actively laying eggs. In 2013, early raspberries collections as well as non-commercial fruit (haskap, red elderberry, currant, cherries) revealed SWD larvae by June 20, which is early compared to previous years. Commercial raspberry fields were impacted to various degrees of severity over the season.
An area-wide trapping survey was undertaken in 2013, as in previous years (2010-2012) in 28 commercial blueberry fields, 4 traps per field, 2 edge traps, 2 middle traps (at least 50 m from field edge), in the Fraser Valley, from Delta to Chilliwack. Traps were set up, maintained, and contents collected weekly from June 6 to September 30 (Edge traps were removed after July 26). As in previous years, we used Contech Fruit Fly Traps (Contech Inc.), baited with 30 ml of apple cider vinegar (Heinz). SWD flies were caught throughout the survey, from June 6 (the first week of trapping) onwards (Figure 1). Edge traps caught more flies in most weeks, until their removal -July 26 (Figure 2). Trap catches seemed to increase in a stepwise progression; June 7- July 5 less than 0.5 flies/trap were caught, from July 12- August 23 between 3 and 10 flies/trap were caught, and August 30 onwards, fly numbers increased dramatically to 40 flies/trap by September 13. Blueberry harvest occurred from mid-July through late September.
We ran our first year of case studies to try to answer the question: “When should I spray again? 7 days, 10 days, or other?” We chose conventionally managed fields; 3 ‘Duke’ fields, 4 ‘Bluecrop’ fields, and 4 ‘Elliot’ fields in Abbotsford and Langley areas. Contech traps were placed in each plot (4 per field) to verify SWD presence in the field. During harvest, 2-3 days after each spray, and then every 2 days afterward, ripe marketable fruit was collected (200 fruit per plot, 4 plots per field = 800 fruit). Four hundred blueberry fruit weighs just over 1 lb. Fruit was weighed and brix tested. Fruit was assessed two ways: fruit mixed in salt solution (4L water to 0.25 kg table salt) to release and float out larvae, and fruit incubation for 15 days to recover SWD flies.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 151 Blueberries
Figure 1. Spotted wing Drosophila fly trapping, area-wide survey, blueberry fields, Fraser Valley, B.C., June 6- September 13, 2013.
Figure 2. Spotted wing Drosophila fly trapping, area-wide survey, field edge traps compared to field middle traps, blueberry fields, June 21 to July 26, 2013
Results for ‘Duke’: Average Brix = 13.3%; 2-3 sprays per field (malathion and Ripcord), applied between July 12 and July 30 (18 days). There were 5-7 collections per farm (July 18 to Aug 6) over the harvest period. SWD were caught in traps during this time. We did not find any larvae in fruit float-outs, and only 1 fly emerged from all fruit (7200 fruit = 16 lbs in total incubated). This result of ‘Duke’ fields having very low levels of SWD during the main harvest period has been consistent over the last three years of harvest time monitoring. Packers have also reported almost no contamination issues with ‘Duke’.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 152 Blueberries
Results for ‘Bluecrop’: Average Brix = 14%, average weight = 103-144g per 100 fruit, 1-4 sprays per field (mostly malathion and Ripcord, one use of Delegate). Harvest: August 1 until early September. We collected August 2-21, or as long as September 9 in one field. Length of harvest was variable. Contech traps caught some SWD in all fields. Two of the ‘Bluecrop’ fields are shown in figures 3 and 4. In general, the number of SWD flies incubated from fruit and the number of larvae floated out mirror each other, however, the incubation of fruit usually reveals significantly more flies than the float-out. This is because eggs and small larvae will not be detected by float-out, but will grow into flies in incubation containers.
Field #2 (Figure 3.), is a good news story. The SWD sprays were applied at 10, 6, and 5 day intervals (August 6/7, 17, 23, 28), and there were relatively low larvae and fly detections in fruit through mid- August onwards, and no packer concerns with this field. Field #3 (Figure 4.) shows a slightly different experience. Only one spray was done August 6 (malathion), and SWD numbers grew rapidly in fruit from August 16 onwards.
Figure 3. Field #2, ‘Bluecrop’ Blueberry fruit collection; flies emerged from incubated fruit and larvae floated out in salt solution, Abbotsford area, August 2-September 9, 2013.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 153 Blueberries
Figure 4. Field #3: ‘Bluecrop’ Blueberry fruit collection; flies emerged from incubated fruit and larvae floated out in salt solution, Abbotsford area, August 2-21, 2013.
What were our conclusions from the first year for ‘Duke’ and ‘Bluecrop’? In-field trapping alone is not a good indicator of SWD risk. Area-wide survey traps give a better overall view of regional fly numbers. ‘Duke’ was relatively free from SWD. ‘Bluecrop’: plan for regular sprays and pick as often and as early as possible. This is a high risk variety, particularly from mid-August onwards. A tight interval between sprays seems to be better (maximum 7 days) during harvest. Definitely, more than one spray is needed in ‘Bluecrop’; 3 sprays is likely optimal, depending on length of harvest, size of plants, and fruit load. There are still many questions and a second year of blueberry case studies will be done in 2014.
Results for ‘Elliot’: Average brix= 12%, average weight = 145 g for 100 berries. Harvest commenced mid-August until late September. All fruit was hand harvested. SWD traps in plots indicated high populations of SWD flies. Three to four sprays in all fields were done (malathion, Ripcord, and some Delegate). Spray intervals were about 10 days, which seemed a bit long; considering that mid-late August has been a high risk time for blueberries in previous years of study. The infestation level in fruit started to increase from September 2 onwards, and a tighter spray interval then seems to bring the fly numbers down somewhat. Some growers and packers had issues with fruit quality as a result of SWD from early September onward. Would a shorter interval (i.e. 7 days) earlier have lowered this spike or delayed it? Possibly. This was the first year with significant SWD damage in ‘Elliot’. Likely, this was due to warm temperatures over the season, allowing SWD to continue to proliferate, and allowing ripe ‘Elliot’ to be present in mid-late August, which is considered a high risk time for SWD (based on what we have seen in ‘Bluecrop’).
In order to optimize your SWD management program, be sure to supplement a good spray program with great field and farm sanitation, short harvest intervals, and careful fruit handling. Incorporate both chemical and non-chemical (cultural and mechanical) practices. The goal is to break the life cycle, and keep SWD from completing a generation, prevent hosts for egg laying, and prevent feeding and breeding sites.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 154 Blueberries
Can we predict SWD risk? Several projects have been initiated that are contributing to a better understanding of SWD dynamics and are informing decision making. As we generate data and gain experience over the years, we will be in a better position to anticipate or predict when and how significant the SWD impact could be, allowing growers to take appropriate and timely action. Insects develop at different rates depending largely on temperature. A degree day (DD) model adds up the accumulated heat or degrees over a lower threshold temperature (for SWD is it 10oC). Major biological activities, such as start of egg laying of peak adult emergence, can be anticipated based on recorded heat accumulation. A DD model for SWD designed at Oregon State University is available online http://uspest.org/cgi- bin/ddmodel.us?spp=swd. It doesn’t predict magnitude of the population, but it does give timing of SWD life stage events. We know that fly populations build over the summer (Figure 1.), so earlier fly activity means more risk. As well, earlier or later will help predict which crops/varieties might be impacted. For example, if SWD is early, raspberries will be at more risk. If SWD is late, raspberries will be largely safe from SWD. Degree day models are another monitoring tool to be used with other monitoring tools to inform decisions on pest management. This article describes the SWD model (Coop, Dreves, 2013), and models in general for monitoring and information: http://whatcom.wsu.edu/ipm/swd/documents/Article_DDModel.pdf.
Table 1. Timing of SWD life events in 2012 and 2013 based on temperature in Abbotsford, information from the degree day model located at: http://uspest.org/cgi-bin/ddmodel.us?spp=swd How many days SWD Activity 2012 2013 earlier in 2013?
1st egg laying by overwintering (OW) females May 24 May 11 13 days earlier Peak (50%) egg laying by OW females, June 27 June 12 15 first adult emergence of 1st generation (new) First egg laying by 1st generation (new) females July 1 June 17 14 Peak adult emergence 1st generation July 15 July 1 14 Peak egg laying by 1st generation females July 31 July 15 16 Peak adult emergence 2nd generation Aug 14 July 29 16 Peak egg laying by 2nd generation females Aug 29 Aug 12 17 Peak adult emergence 3rd generation Sept 18 Aug 26 23 Peak egg laying by 3rd generation females Nov 2 Sept 10 54
Peak adult emergence corresponds to high damage times that we detected in commercial fields: late July, high SWD in raspberries, and late August/early Sept in blueberries. Risk increases through July and August. However, there is generation overlap so larvae and adults can still be found anytime during the summer season.
There can be significant temperature variability from year to year, resulting in quite different timing of life events. For example, life events are listed in Table 1 for 2012 and 2013. During 2013, egg laying and adult emergence occurred at least 13 days earlier than in 2012. The spread increased as the season went on to over 3+ week difference between the years (see red box in Table 1). In warm years like 2013, peak egg laying by 3rd generation females can occur (Sept 10), however in cooler years, this may not happen, and SWD doesn’t complete a full 3rd generation. The higher heat accumulation allowed both the ‘Elliot’ crop to ripen sooner (providing egg laying sites), and SWD to complete another generation,
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 155 Blueberries
creating a situation where ‘Elliot’ was at higher risk in 2013. In previous (cooler) years, ‘Elliot’ did not experience significant SWD contamination.
Berry projects will continue in 2014: Area-wide winter & summer trapping/fruit collections, insecticide interval case studies in raspberries, and incorporate DD model into weekly SWD updates.
The B.C. Ministry of Agriculture website, as well as other sites in B.C. and elsewhere have factsheets on biology, prevention, management and monitoring of SWD: http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm
Acknowledgements
Field staff: Carolyn Teasdale1, Kristine Ferris1, Thilaka Krishnaraj2, Carly Stromsten2, Samuel Glasgow2. Industry: Grower/ Industry Cooperators, British Columbia Blueberry Council, Raspberry Industry Development Council, Fraser Valley Strawberry Growers Association, E.S. Cropconsult Ltd.1 Government resources: Growing Forward 2, Growing Forward/Biosecurity and Traceability, Developing Innovative Agri-Products Initiative (DIAP), British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture2, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 156 Blueberries
The Blueberry Market in 2014: Will You Wipe Out in the Blue Wave?
John Shelford Shelford Associates, Naples, FL [email protected]
Blueberries, the “Little Blue Dynamos,” continue their historic market run. There are some risks to blueberry producers from what I call the “Blue Wave.” But blueberry growers can ride the wave to sustained profitability by seizing market opportunities while overcoming threats and managing risks.
Industry Strengths & Growth
The blueberry industry boasts a long history of collaboration, notably through the North American Blueberry Council (NABC) and U.S. Highbush Blueberry Council (USHBC). That collaboration has resulted in product promotion and public relations efforts yielding an extraordinary publicity for blueberry health benefits. Blueberries are the antioxidant poster child: they are naturally healthy, taste good and are easy to eat. Add to that daily fresh market availability – and consistent producer profitability – and it is no wonder that blueberries continue their run.
In the U.S., according to research commissioned by USHBC and conducted by Hebert Research, more than half of Americans have seen news stories about the health benefits of blueberries. The percentage of U.S. households purchasing blueberries in the past month increased from 38% in 2008 to 69% in 2013; consumers were more than twice as likely to buy blueberries as they were nine years ago. Consumers say the top benefits of blueberries are their health benefits, taste and convenience. The most popular ways for U.S. consumers to enjoy blueberries is over yogurt (54%), followed by in smoothies (49%) and over cereal (48%) – and 29% of women, ages 25 to 44, simply like to eat frozen blueberries as a snack! The research found almost all (99%) of consumers view blueberries as a healthy food, and 58% think menu items including blueberries are healthier.
Blueberries have also emerged as the U.S. consumer’s preferred fresh fruit, according to USHBC research. Almost half (47.7%) of consumers preferred fresh strawberries in 2008, with 21.5% preferring blueberries. But in 2013, 36.6% preferred blueberries and 29.5% preferred strawberries.
This consumer strength is supported by the fresh/process market channel equilibrium. The channel pricing variance moves blueberry supply to best fulfill demand and maximize sales dollars, with the processing market supporting fresh prices. In 2009, for example, frozen blueberry prices increased value to the fresh channel by 10%. The percent of North American crop to the fresh channel has increased from 50% in 2006 to 56% in 2013, with highs of 61% to 63% from 2009-11. Labor, regulations, variety and process price will all affect the proportion of the blueberry crop sold for fresh market in the future.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 157 Blueberries
The Demand Challenge
Berries have been a superstar growth category in produce, and blueberries have led both fresh and frozen berry category growth. Blueberries increased 1.6% in sales value between Dec. 2012 and 2013, with volume increasing 1.8%. This trend – higher growth in sales volume than in value – was the same between 2011 and 2012.
Frozen blueberries were the highest frozen berry in sales dollars for 2012 – $109.5 million compared to $107.7 million for frozen strawberries. But strawberry volume was much greater, 37.5 million pounds compared to 24.3 million pounds of blueberries. Frozen blueberries and mixed berries both gained U.S. market share over frozen strawberries in 2012, according to the California Strawberry Commission and Fresh Look Marketing.
Despite the value added by the process sector, fresh blueberry prices have trended lower. That is the challenge for producers. After such robust growth in consumer demand for blueberries, it will be much more challenging over the coming decade to improve consumer value perception, increase household penetration, increase purchase frequency, and increase product convenience.
There are Opportunities to Move the Demand Curve…
Since 2000, all blueberry producers – from low- to high-cost – have succeeded. As prices level out, even decline, how can producers continue to thrive? There are definite opportunities: Blueberries are well-suited for increased mechanization. Variety development continues, improving flavor and yield. Consumers are more attentive to health care costs, motivating a greater selection of “good for you” blueberries, like blueberries in a diabetic diet. There are growing opportunities for product differentiation, as customers are increasingly willing to pay premium for premium product. Furthermore, process pricing stability equals increased highbush blueberry usage. Highbush sales are also not being threatened by wild lowbush. The lowbush category has grown more slowly, with the wild/highbush frozen price variance continuing greater than $.30/lb. Export markets also offer significant growth opportunity. Western Europe maintains the highest packaged food sales, but there is huge growth potential in packaged foods in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. For fresh product, Asia Pacific consumes about 65% of the world’s fresh food, according to California’s Specialty Crop Trade Council. Continued market penetration in these growing economies is essential for blueberry industry growth.
…but with Opportunities to Move the Demand Curve come Threats
Blueberry producers are well aware of labor availability, cost and regulatory challenges; labor will continue the push toward greater mechanization. For exports, maximum residue level (MRL) challenges continue, especially for products used to manage spotted wing drosophila (SWD). Production input costs will continue increasing, resulting in financial failure for higher-cost producers.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 158 Blueberries
The U.S. regulatory environment is also uncertain, particularly around the Food Safety and Modernization Act. Polybag requirements for frozen are an indicator of future fresh requirements. And when will a “kill step” be required for fresh berries? Uncertain policy creates an unstable business environment.
Producers may also be threatened by pending industry consolidation. There are more sellers than ever on the supply side, and there is more concentration among fresh sellers than frozen. There is no first-level packer/producer with even a 10% supply share. This indicates a need for supply side consolidation to sustain industry growth; such consolidation would likely only come out of a profit crisis. Product quality will play a part in this: if product is not Premium, the value is substantially reduced, and that gap is widening. Traditional “A” is not the “New A”! The price gap is becoming $.20 and greater.
Finally, in addition to slowing demand growth and uncertain U.S. government policy, USDA cold storage holdings are growing. This softens the price trend between fresh and frozen. Lowering prices with increasing cold storage holdings are indicated in the June 30 holdings chart. The other chart illustrates that, as North American process pack has increased, prices have trended downward.
Meeting the Challenges
So how will producers counter the challenge – with blueberries continuing to be attractive for consumer purchase, but growth slowing; with production challenges and risks; lowering prices; and an uncertain regulatory environment? How can one avoid wipeout in the “Blue Wave?”
First: have a sustainable marketing program. Ask yourself: Are new plantings tied to a confirmed marketing plan? Does that marketing plan represent 75% or more of your annual production? Is there a track record of reliable products and reliable deliveries to a stable customer base? Are you asking the customer how to better meet his needs? Are you pricing on a sustainable basis?
Second, be a low cost producer – every day! My observation is that well-resourced producers are also low cost producers. The highest sustainable yields per acre require high inputs; the result is production with the lowest cost per pound of marketable blueberries. And the lowest cost/pound of blueberries marketed will be needed to survive in the next ten years.
Export to Asia is also an essential part of a blueberry marketing plan that is positioned for growth over the next ten years. And, more than ever, the blueberry producer’s food safety program must be solid.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 159 Blueberries
Producers who pay careful attention to these areas, all which are tied to marketing and managing costs, will be best positioned to keep riding the Blue Wave and not wiping out.
John Shelford wishes to credit those which supplied resources and/or provided information used while preparing his presentation: the Lord God, Naturipe Foods LLC, US Highbush Blueberry Council, North American Blueberry Council, California Strawberry Commission, DFA of California, Industry Colleagues, researcher Matt Ernst.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 160 Blueberries
Communicating a Positive Pubic Image for BC Blueberries
Norm Hartman TMT Worldwide, Inc., San Francisco, CA [email protected]
News accounts tend to focus on what a reporter or editor believes is wrong or not working as it should be. Seldom do you see stories about the economic impact of the blueberry industry, the dollar value of the annual blueberry crop and how it impacts the area or the other contributions blueberry growers make to the community.
Rather, we see reports that children are working in the fields during harvest, that chemicals are being used excessively or improperly or that a handful of growers are using noisemaking devices to scare birds away.
That’s the nature of news reporting now and it likely will change little in years to come.
Today, however, it’s not just the bona fide reporters and editors who are publishing. Not by a long shot. Anyone with a cell phone and access to the Internet can be a reporter and his or her accounts can be seen around the globe within a minute or two after the button in pushed. Unlike newspapers and some broadcasters who make an effort to check the validity of their reports, “citizen journalists” often have no such restraints. Their views and opinions – often reported as fact – go unverified, and the audience may not differentiate between what the “cell phone journalist” reports and what is really happening.
Worse yet, reporters for responsible publications may pick up these postings, believing (or hoping) they have at least a grain of truth. When that happens, you likely start from a position squarely behind the 8- ball.
How do you protect yourself and your image in today’s fast-moving world of journalism? What should you do when a reporter calls, or when you see a seasonal employee taking pictures with a cell phone in your packing facility, or when a flock of reporters appears at your doorstep minutes after a worker was seriously injured?
In these situations you may be tempted to shift to a defensive mode, hoping that the problem will just go away. “If I don’t answer the reporter’s call, they won’t have a story,” you say to yourself. Or, “I’ll just establish a policy that workers cannot have cell phones on the property. That will stop them.” When reporters show up following an accident, your inclination may be to say, “No comment. You’ll have to leave the property immediately. We’re too busy to talk right now.” The public view of you in these situations is very likely to be, “guilty as charged.”
What can you do to lessen the chance of a media problem? There are several things: Advise all employees that they are not authorized to talk to reporters. Advise employees that they are not to photograph on your property. Immediately screen all visitors. Limit media to non-operational areas. Do not allow visitors or photography in your processing/packing areas. Identify one spokesperson for your operations and let that person handle all public and media contacts. (That insures continuity in responses.)
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 161 Blueberries
Here are some guidelines for working with reporters – yes, even the cell-phone wannabes:
1. Monitor the media. Know what is being said about you and by whom. Establish media monitoring using (at minimum) Google Alerts (alerts.google.com) and pay regular attention to them, especially during harvest. If something tragic has happened, expect media coverage very soon.
2. When a reporter calls, ask questions first. Before you say a word, ask: What is your story about and what do you know about the situation What information do you want from me? Who else are you talking to about this story?
3. Buy a little time to think. Tell the reporter you need to gather some information that that you’ll call back within a few minutes. Then do it.
4. Have some positive statements about what you are doing to handle the situation.
5. If people have been injured or killed, start with a statement of compassion. “Our thoughts (and prayers) are with the family and friends of our worker. We are beginning an investigation and will cooperate with the authorities to determine what happened so that we can prevent similar occurrences in the future.”
6. “I just read your on-line story and wanted to take a moment to correct a couple of facts. Here’s what really happened...”
7. Offer a positive message about your operations. (Be sure it is related to the subject of the story.) “We have an extensive safety training program for all our workers. We are cooperating with the investigation and if changes are indicated, we will move quickly to make them.”
8. If you don’t know the answer to a reporter’s question, say so and promise to get it. Ask about the reporter’s deadline (it may be only a few minutes away) and then get back to the reporter as quickly as possible. By tomorrow, this will not be a story.
9. Ask for help. Your association (USHBC and NABC) have expertise in handling media situations. They understand media and crisis communication and how to respond in any situation. Contact the association without delay if you are in doubt or if you feel you need assistance.
Important Blueberry Industry Emergency Contacts:
BC Blueberry Council Debbie Etsell 604-864-2117 [email protected] USHBC/NABC Mark Villata 916-983-2279 [email protected] (EMERGENCY-Nights/Weekends) Norm Hartman 916-717-0480 [email protected]
Copyright © Norm Hartman, TMT Worldwide, Inc. 2014. All right reserved.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 162 Blueberries
What You Need to Know About Blueberry Nutrient Management for Yield, Quality, and Sustainability
Bernadine C. Strik Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR [email protected]
This summary is a supplement to the nutrient management guide available online at Oregon State University (http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/): Nutrient Management for Blueberries in Oregon, EM 8918. I encourage everyone working with commercial berry crops to access this and other publications on soil sampling, modifying soil pH etc.
Key questions that need to be answered with regard to any nutrient management program are: How much nutrient should be applied? When is the best time to apply the nutrient? What source of the nutrient or what material is best to apply? And what method of application is best?
How Much Nutrient to Apply
How much nutrient to apply is often estimated using soil and plant tissue testing, experience, observations of plant growth, and information on the amount of nutrient generally required for good growth and production. Nutrient availability and plant nutrient status are assessed by soil and tissue testing. I will focus most on this aspect of developing and adjusting a nutrient management program.
Soil Testing
Soil testing is important to adjust soil nutrient status prior to planting. This not only gets plants off to a good start, but is the only way to effectively increase soil pH. Pre-plant incorporation of nutrients that are immobile or do not move readily into the rooting zone with a surface application is very effective.
Base nutrients to be incorporated prior to planting on recommended levels (Table 1). Testing soil to predict nitrogen (N) application rates is not advised. Note that high soil N concentration in late summer/fall can be an indicator of excessive N fertilization.
In blueberry, be conservative on addition of sulfur to acidify the soil, as raising the pH to the target range if too much sulfur (S) was incorporated is difficult. Be aware that standard fertilization programs lead to acidification of the soil in the row – the pH will thus decrease over time in all perennial berry crops. Generally, for every 100 lb N/acre/year applied (as urea), soil pH will decrease 0.1 unit per year in our soil. For these reasons the target pH for newly planted berry crops should be at the top of the recommended range (Table 1).
After planting, annual soil sampling is not needed unless you are correcting a problem. We recommend soil samples be collected every two to three years to monitor changes in soil nutrient status (Table 1). In established fields, sample at the same time of year so that years can be more easily compared. Do not collect soil samples in spring right after fertilization has occurred. Collect soil samples in the plant row (where the fertilizer is applied) and, in drip irrigated fields, sample at a similar distance from the emitter and plant in all sub-sample locations. If mulch is present, remove the mulch layer before taking the soil sample. In blueberries, sample from the soil surface to about 1 ft deep.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 163 Blueberries
Table 1. Suggested critical levels for soil nutrient content in blueberry
Nutrient Unit pH (2:1; in water) target: 4.5 to 5.5
Deficient at less than:
Phosphorus (P; Bray) ppm 25 to 50 Phosphorus (Olsen) ppm 10 Potassium (K) ppm 100 to 150 Calcium (Ca) ppm 1000 Magnesium (Mg) ppm 60 Manganese (Mn) ppm 20 Boron (B) ppm 0.5 80 EC dS/m 2
Recommended Application Rates
Berry crops require adequate amounts all nutrients to grow and produce fruit. Recommended rates vary with berry crop grown, planting age, soil nutrient status, and growth, vigor or planting productivity. Use recommended nitrogen (N) application rates in the nutrient management guide as a starting point. Additional N may be needed when fresh mulches with a high carbon to N ratio (e.g. sawdust) are applied; split applications or fertigate (see below). Application of other fertilizer nutrients should be based on soil and tissue analysis.
Tissue Testing
Leaf tissue analysis provides information on the nutrient content of the plant – sometimes even when soil nutrient content is adequate, the plant is not able to take up the nutrients required (e.g. soil pH is incorrect; dry or saturated soil; weather; and cultural issues such as high or low irrigation, etc.). Tissue standards have been developed using results from research experiments and estimated from large databases that relate tissue nutrient levels to good yielding fields for each crop (OSU).
In all berry crops, leaf tissue nutrient concentration changes throughout the season. The recommended time of sampling leaves for tissue analysis is related to a period of time when the leaf nutrient concentration is most stable in late July-early August in the Pacific Northwest.
Tissue nutrient levels will also change with location or age of the leaf and what type of leaf it is. In blueberries, the best leaves to sample are from shoots that are going below the fruiting zone – not from whips.
When collecting tissue samples: Sample at the correct time (late July/early Aug.); published tissue standards are NOT correct if sampled at any other time of the season. If you are seeing problem plants at any time of the year, collect leaves from affected and “normal” looking plants and compare tissue analysis results for clues as to the cause. Collect the right tissue – most recent, fully expanded leaves on shoots below the fruiting zone in blueberry.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 164 Blueberries
Do not wash leaves, as some nutrients can be leached with washing. Note that any micronutrients in fungicide applications, foliar nutrient applications, and dust on leaves can lead to “higher” than typical nutrient results (keep records). Sample cultivars separately. While there is little data on cultivar specific standards, we do know that cultivars differ – one reason may be fruiting season. Keep excellent records on cultivars and blocks sampled, time of year sampled and any associated yield or fruiting season information. It will be important to look for trends over time. Tissue analysis and observations of plant growth are best used to plan for and adjust nutrient management programs for the following year. Do not use just tissue N concentration to adjust N fertilizer programs. Use recommended fertilizer application rates as a starting point and adjust programs based on observations of plant growth and tissue N. Be aware that tissue nutrient concentrations that are below or above the recommended levels (Table 2) may indicate a soil problem (e.g. high tissue Mn may mean soil pH is too low).
Symptoms of nutrient deficiency are sometimes apparent and vary with type of nutrient and its mobility within the plant. Nutrients in the plant move in either the xylem (with water – this tissue is dead) or the phloem (with “food” – this tissue is alive). Nutrients that move in the xylem are not mobile within the plant as they simply move with water to the leaves (not from leaves to the fruit or from old leaves to new leaves, for example). Nutrient deficiencies of immobile nutrients (S, Fe, Mn, Cu, Zn, Ca, and B) are in the new leaves. Nutrients that move in the phloem are mobile within the plant. The nutrients that are mobile in the plant are: N, P, K, Mg, and Cl; symptoms of deficiency of these nutrients are on the older leaves.
If tissue testing indicates a nutrient is deficient, fertilization with this nutrient may be required. Efficiency of plant uptake of a fertilizer is affected by plant age (depth and width of root zone), presence of a surface mulch, amount of coverage of the in-row area (plants that fill the row space have a greater efficiency of uptake than those that do not), method of application (efficiency varies with granular, liquid, or foliar applications), and the amount and timing of fertilizer applied. Recommended rates thus may vary among application methods and plant age. Applying higher than recommended rates of fertilizer can have adverse effects on plant productivity, fruit quality and the environment.
When to Apply Fertilizer Nutrients
In blueberries, apply fertilizer N from early bloom through mid-June to mid-July, depending on soil fertility, growing region, and method of application and rate of N being applied. Blueberry plants will NOT take up N fertilizer that is applied in late winter – N fertilizer uptake starts at bloom. Base fertilization with phosphorus (P), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) on soil and tissue test results. If needed, apply these nutrients as granular fertilizers in fall or late winter to promote their availability (rainfall). If tissue testing indicates plants have a micronutrient deficiency (most commonly boron, B, in the PNW), then fertilize with a granular product (Borax) in the fall or with foliar products (e.g. Solubor) just prior to leaf fall in autumn or just prior to bloom in the spring.
Source of Fertilizer
There are two sources of N which are found in inorganic fertilizers – ammonium (NH4) or nitrate (NO3). Blueberry plants only take up the ammonium form of N (found in urea and ammonium sulfate). Organic sources of fertilizer contain ammonium N.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 165 Blueberries
Table 2. Recommended tissue sufficiency levels for blueberry (shoots) sampled in late-July to early August.
Nutrient Blueberry
Nitrogen (%N) 1.76 to 2.0 Phosphorus (%P) 0.11 to 0.4 Potassium (%K) 0.41 to 0.7 Calcium (%Ca) 0.41 to 0.8 Magnesium (%Mg) 0.13 to 0.25 Sulfur (%S) 0.11 to 0.16 Manganese (ppm Mn) 30 to 350 Boron (ppm B) 30 to 80 Iron (ppm Fe) 60 to 200 Zinc (ppm Zn) 8 to 30 Copper (ppm Cu) 5 to 15
Common inorganic fertilizer blends contain N in the nitrate form and potassium in the potassium chloride form (muriate of potash). Berry plants are sensitive to high rates of chloride – avoid fertilizing with high rates of muriate of potash.
Soil pH affects nitrification – or the rate an ammonium-N fertilizer is nitrified to nitrate-N. At a soil pH of 6.0, fertilizers containing ammonium-N (e.g. urea, ammonium sulfate) are rapidly nitrified to nitrate-N (80% converted in 6 weeks). In contrast, at a pH of 5.5, nitrification is much slower (30 to 40% in 6 weeks). Blueberry plants take up ammonium-N; keeping soil pH at 4.5 to 5.5 delays nitrification, keeping the ammonium fertilizer in a form that can be taken up by the plants.
Use of fresh manures is not recommended as a fertilizer source in berry crops. Organic growers may use compost (yard debris or chicken) as a surface applied mulch/fertilizer product. Fish emulsion (applied as tank spray or through the drip system) or feather meal (granular) are good sources of N (also contain other nutrients) for all berry crops. If you are using fish fertilizer, dilute the product 1:10 (v/v fish:water) before applying to avoid burning the plants (straight fish has an EC of ~ 20 ds/m). We have found the N in these products to be available quickly. Apply fish at the same rate (of N) and timing as for the inorganic products. Apply feather meal (at same total rate of N) in a split application where half is applied in early March and the other half in mid-April – applying this product too late reduces N availability to the plants. Other organically-approved products may be available.
Nutrient “Removal”
Nutrients that are removed in harvested fruit and prunings, depending on the crop, in addition to the nutrients needed for plant growth need to be considered when planning nutrient management programs. Our research has shown that nutrient removal in fruit harvest varies with berry crop and yield (Table 3). For example, an estimated 14 to 20 lb N/acre is removed in a 10 ton/acre blueberry crop and 14 lb N/acre in the prunings (mature planting). In blueberry, nutrients from flailed prunings are not returned to the plant over time because there are no blueberry roots in the row middles.
It is clear from these data that blueberry plants do not have a high nutrient demand compared to many crops. The nutrients removed most in the fruit and prunings are nitrogen and potassium. Even if one considers that some nutrients are needed for growth, it is clear that blueberry plants do not require much N fertilizer. Our research has shown that there is no added yield response from N fertilization rates greater
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 166 Blueberries
than 50 lb N/acre in an eight-year-study in Elliott. Fertilizing with rates of N that are in excess of plant needs have been observed to lead to late shoot growth and reduced fruit bud set (thus reducing yield the following season). Late shoot growth also delays dormancy and increases the plant’s susceptibility to damage from early cold spells. Even though fertilizers with ammonium-N are applied to blueberry fields, nitrification (changing ammonium to nitrate-N) occurs, albeit slowly at the low soil pH found in blueberry fields. Fertilization with excess or late ammonium fertilizers can lead to excess soil nitrate in the fall.
Table 3. Amount of nutrient removed per ton of fresh fruit harvested and nutrient removed per acre when pruning raspberry & blueberry (adapted from research done by Strik). Refer to Table 2 for correct time of sampling and tissue
to sample. Macronutrients (lb) Crop N P K Ca Mg S
Fruit (per ton harvested) 1.3 - 2.7 0.2 - 0.3 1.4 - 2.2 0.1 - 0.2 0.08 - 0.12 0.2 - 0.3
Prunings (per acre) 14.0 1.5 6.5 3.0 0.9 1.0 Micronutrients (oz) B Cu Mn Zn Fe Al Fruit (per ton harvested) 0.02 - 0.04 0.01 - 0.02 0.06 - 0.12 0.02 - 0.04 0.08 - 0.23 0.78 - 1.0
Prunings (per acre) 0.2 1.0 12.0 0.5 1.1 - 1.4 1.1 - 1.4 Blueberry cultivars range provided for: Duke, Bluecrop, Draper, Liberty, Aurora, Legacy, Elliott Note: nutrients in prunings are not returned to blueberry plant if flailed in row middles
Acknowledgements
I appreciate the contributions of John Hart, Extension Soil Specialist, Dept. Crop and Soil Sci., OSU, the graduate students in my program who have contributed to this body of work (Paula Mohadjer, Hannah Rempel, Renee Harkins, Javier Fernandez-Salvador, Emily Dixon, Pilar Bañados, and Denise Nemeth), Gil Buller and Amanda Vance (Research Assistants), research colleagues (David Bryla, USDA-ARS, HCRU; Tim Righetti, formerly OSU; and Dan Sullivan, OSU), and grower collaborators.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 167 Blueberries
Update on PARC Blueberry Trials
Michael Dossett Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC [email protected]
The PARC-Agassiz berry breeding and genetics program is continuing its transition with the announcement on January 22, 2014 of funding through AAFC’s Growing Forward 2 initiative through March of 2018. This funding will enable industry to hire a breeder to continue evaluating germplasm in cooperation with AAFC, as well as continue efforts at developing new germplasm geared towards the competitiveness and sustainability of berry growers in the Fraser Valley. Through the next 4 years, the programs efforts will be split as follows: ~50% raspberry, ~40% blueberry, and ~10% strawberry.
The overarching goals of the blueberry breeding program are to develop varieties with improved fruit quality and adaptation to the Fraser Valley. Firmer fruit with better flavor and improved shelf-life will be needed for growers to stay competitive in the ability to grow and market fresh blueberry fruit in the future. At the same time, the Fraser Valley has relied on varieties developed from outside of the Pacific Northwest for production. While this has served the industry well in the past, increased competition along with the low number of outside varieties that have proven to be adapted for this region means that breeding blueberries for the Fraser Valley is needed. In addition to yield, firmness, flavor and shelf-life, we are working towards improving resistance to fungal pathogens and better understanding factors influencing flower bud initiation in the fall for more stable yields from season to season.
The blueberry breeding program is still in its infancy, especially when compared to the history of raspberries and strawberries developed in Agassiz. To date, the program has evaluated a total of only ~2,000 seedlings, but will be evaluating 6,000 next year and more the following year, so the efforts are being ramped up. Only 1 or 2 seedlings out of every 10,000 is expected to have the combination of traits needed to be truly successful. That said, a number of selections in the program are showing early promise, though are still a few years away from being ready for grower trial.
BC 10-2-5: is an early-midseason specialty type with jumbo-sized fruit. The fruit have decent flavor and eye-popping size averaging around 4.5g, with some exceeding 6g and being large enough to cover a toonie. Firmness is moderate – better than ‘Bluecrop’ and ‘Chandler’, though not as firm as ‘Duke’. My main concern at this stage is that while there is potential for very large fruit, there is also a significant proportion of more modestly sized berries.
BC 11-14-10: This selection produces large open clusters of firm berries over a very concentrated season. The berries are about the size of ‘Draper’, with firmness similar to ‘Duke’. My main concerns at this stage of testing are whether the scar is too large and whether the flavor will be good enough.
BC 12-6-35: This selection is one of a series we tested for firmness and storage life this summer in cooperation with Eric Gerbrandt and Berry Haven Farm. This was the best performing of the group with excellent firmness maintained throughout storage – about 40% firmer than ‘Draper’. The next best were all similar to ‘Duke’ and ‘Draper’ in storage, or started out firm and softened quickly. This bush probably won’t have adequate yield to be a commercial success, but will be trialed and is expected to be a good parent for fruit quality.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 168 Blueberries
Figure 1. End-of-season fruit of BC 10-2-5 showing large size.
Figure 2. BC 11-14-10 - a productive selection with large, attractive and firm fruit, but with a medium-large scar and only modest flavor.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 169 Blueberries
Figure 3. Firmness at harvest and through cold-storage of ‘Duke’, ‘Draper’, ‘Bluecrop’, and the blueberry selection BC 12-6-35 in 2013. Firmness After Cold Storage of Hand-harvested Blueberry Fruit 200
180
160
140 BC 12-6-35 Bluecrop 120 Draper Duke 100 Firmness (g/mm deflection) (g/mm Firmness
80
60 Harvest 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 28 Days 35 Days Days in Cold Storage
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 170 Blueberries
How to Keep on the Good Side of Environmental Regulators When Developing Fields for Production of High Value Crops
Kim Sutherland BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]
Environmental Rules
Preparation of land for intensive crop production often requires activities such as land clearing, leveling, drainage, improving field access, creating on-farm roads and soil conditioning or mulching. High value crops generally require irrigation and drainage. Woodwaste is commonly used as a soil amendment and crop mulch. There are several environmental rules in place to protect soil and water that govern all these activities. Farmers are required to know what the rules are and to apply for permissions and approvals before preparing their land for crop production.
A field that is starting to be A field that that has been cleared, developed for planting of a high leveled and drained for high value crop value crop production
Necessity of Advance Planning
Advance planning is critical. Farmers should start planning and seeking permissions from government agencies a minimum of six months and ideally about a year in advance of before they start clearing, leveling, planting, etc. If the plan is to prepare the field and plant the crop over the fall and winter, farmers will need to be even more careful to ensure that their activities do not cause damage to their fields through soil compaction and erosion, and that soil or woodwaste leachate does not escape to adjacent watercourses. Failure to comply with environmental regulations can result in severe charges and penalties, and pleading ignorance of environmental requirements does not free farmers from their legal obligations.
Following environmental rules and carefully planning works on a site not only ensures that farmers do not incur heavy penalties and that the environment is protected; it also helps create a positive public perception of agriculture and support for their commodity and agriculture as a whole.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 171 Blueberries
The Water Act
Clean watercourses are highly valued by British Columbians. The Water Act is designed to ensure that water remains clean and abundant for all users and to protect valued fish and aquatic life.
Salmon spawning in a natural stream
Under the Water Act, private landowners are required to get permission from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations through Front Counter BC before doing any works in and about a stream. This includes works in a stream and also works beside a stream that may affect the stream in some way.
The definition of a “stream” in the Water Act is very broad and includes a natural stream; a channelized stream; and a lake or pond of any description, a creek, river, spring, ravine, gulch and swamp or swale. Some constructed ditches are also included in this definition. The Water Act can apply to streams that are not fish habitat if they provide water, food or nutrients to fish-bearing streams, even if they do not contain fish or if they have only temporary or seasonal flows. The Water Act also applies to streams that do not contain fish habitat, but that may support populations of amphibians or rare and endangered species. They may also fulfill some important and complex ecosystem functions.
A natural stream A channelized stream
A notification or an approval under the Water Act is required if a farmer is planning on doing works that may modify the nature of the stream, including the land, vegetation, natural environment or flow of water within the stream or any activity or construction within the stream. A notification is required for less intrusive works, including, for example, removal of vegetation beside a stream, filling in a swale, building a bridge across a stream and managing a beaver dam. The notifications process requires farmers to submit a completed notification form and supporting material before starting their planned activities.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 172 Blueberries
Approvals are needed under the Water Act for typically significant works that permanently alter the direction, pattern or flow of a stream’s path. These may be works such as some types of culvert installations, watercourse or channel realignment, retaining wall or bank protection installation, dredging, construction of a sediment sump, etc. The farmer will have to submit a fee along with an application for an approval. The approval process can take up to six months or longer, and may require the farmer to submit detailed plans and assessments.
A water license is required to construct a dam, pond, divert water or do anything else that may affect water users. The process for applying for a water license is the same as that for a notification or approval and is also facilitated by Front Counter BC.
Farmers need to make their applications through Front Counter BC at 1-877-855-3222 or through their website: http://www.frontcounterbc.gov.bc.ca. There are several Front Counter BC locations throughout the province, where staff can be reached in person.
Failure to obtain appropriate notifications, approvals or licenses can result in severe penalties under the Water Act. It is very important that the planning work is done in advance and that permissions are in place before starting any works.
Soil Preparation
Fields used for high value crop production may require some significant intervention to ensure that the site is well drained and that there is access to the crop throughout the growing season, including at times of the year that are typically wet, such as the spring, fall and in some cases, through the winter. It is very important to ensure that soil structure and fertility is maintained (or improved) or yields can be significantly compromised.
Some farmers apply fill to, or remove soil from their fields before planting. There are many instances where soil is removed or fill is applied in spite of the fact these works are not in a farmer’s best long-term interests; particularly when he/she is planning on planting a high-value crop to produce over the long term. Good quality fill is generally subsoil, which lacks the structure and fertility to produce good crops. It often drains poorly, has what is known as a “massive” structure, which does not supply air to the roots and it does not have the organic material and humus typically present in the upper layers of natural soil that make a soil fertile and productive. These natural elements cannot be artificially replaced through, for example, drainage tiles and application of fertilizers. A crop planted in subsoil will never reach the performance of a soil planted into natural soil. In addition, fill is often a poor way to resolve issues such as drainage limitations on a field, and fill applications may cause flooding on another landowner’s property, which is illegal.
Permission from the Agriculture Land Commission is required before depositing fill on a site. Many local governments post signs for the public to report illegal fill dumping activity, and bylaw officers in these jurisdictions will enforce bylaws that prohibit unauthorized dumping of fill. The same applies for removal of soil; it is very detrimental to the productivity of a field if the fertile surface layer of soil is removed. Permission from the Agriculture Land Commission needs to be obtained before soil can be removed from a site.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 173 Blueberries
A fifteen year old blueberry crop planted on one meter of fill. The plants A ten year old blueberry crop in the adjacent are short, sparse and much lower in field planted into natural soil. It is twice the productivity than they would be if they height and very healthy compared to the had been planted into natural soil. This adjacent crop shown on the left that is illustrates how damaging fill can be to planted on fill. long-term productivity.
Permission to add or remove soil from a site needs to be sought about three months before works are scheduled to begin. Not having permissions in place and posted on the worksite is very risky in that many Local Governments have their own soil removal bylaws and also enforce Land Commission rules regarding soil deposits on agriculture land. Many Local Governments have signs posted for the public to report all soil depositing activities to their bylaw officers.
Farmers need to be careful not to cause compaction and soil erosion when planting fields. It can be very difficult to plant a field in the fall as rain is frequent and heavy equipment can easily compact the field if the soil is wet. In addition, inter-row cover crops may need to be established and drainage installed to ensure that soil erosion does not occur with heavy rains. Soil erosion can damage the long-term productivity of the crop as the portion of the soil that is carried away with water or wind is the part that provides the most structure or “tilth” of the soil, enables the roots to remain aerated, and carries the most nutrient. Installing drainage and applying fertilizer cannot compensate for the loss of soil structure and fertility from compaction and erosion. It is essential to maintain and build soils in order to grow a productive crop.
Leave setbacks to ditches and plant permanent cover between the edge of the cropped field and the ditch, to ensure that soil does not get washed into drainage channels. Soil entering drainage channels not only causes extra maintenance, but it can also degrade adjacent watercourses in a manner that will violate the Water Act. Soil erosion and water degradation from soil erosion can also create a poor public image for agriculture and for the commodity under production.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 174 Blueberries
Soil eroding down a slope between rows of Soil from eroding field entering a crop channelized stream
If a farmer is planning on applying fill to their land or remove soil from their property, they need to seek permission from the Agriculture Land Commission to do so.
Storage and Use of Woodwaste
The use of woodwaste in agriculture is regulated under the Agriculture Waste Control Regulation, a regulation under the Environmental Management Act. Woodwaste can generate leachate that is toxic to fish and aquatic life in surface water and can have a deleterious impact on groundwater. Some wood, such as tree stumps or treated wood is not allowed to be used for agriculture purposes.
Woodwaste is primarily used as a soil conditioner, as mulch and to create on-farm access ways in fields being prepared for high value crop production. It is useful for agriculture operations as it is biodegradable, readily available and easy to handle and transport. However, due to the environmental damage it can cause, there are restrictions on its use. Woodwaste cannot be used as an envelope around tile drains, to level a site, as fill, or to create access through a swale or waterway. Woodwaste should be stored carefully; at least 15 meters away from surface water, and leachate needs to be contained due to its high toxicity. Information on the use of woodwaste in agriculture applications can be found on the BC Ministry of Agriculture’s FACTSHEET on Woodwaste. http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/fppa/refguide/activity/870218-61_Woodwaste.pdf
Developing Drainage in a Field
Many fields developed for intensive production may require drainage improvement. Drain tiles may need to be installed and ditches may need to be developed. Understanding the many steps to improving drainage on a field and developing better drainage infrastructure is explained in the Drainage Maintenance Guide which is part of the Environmental Farm Program administered by the British Columbia Agriculture Council. https://www.google.ca/#q=drainage+guide+efp+program+bc
The Drainage Management Guide assists farmers in designing a drainage management plan, understanding watercourse classification and understanding what works require contacting government agencies for approvals and what works do not require agency approval. It helps with the design of ditches and with planning ditch maintenance, etc.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 175 Blueberries
Summary
Developing fields for intensive agriculture production often requires clearing a field, leveling, installing tile drains, improving field access, using woodwaste and more. All these activities require careful advance planning and in many cases require approvals and permissions from various government agencies. It is incumbent upon the farmer carrying out these works to be aware of the environmental rules they must follow and apply for approvals and permissions well in advance of starting works.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 176 Organics
Surviving Pest Wars in Organic Vegetable Production
Harvie Snow Snow Farms Ltd., Delta, B.C. [email protected]
This presentation is to report on the insect and disease management practices we use on our mixed vegetable farm.
Our most expensive pest, however, is weeds. We spend in excess of $100,000 on manual weed control, on top of extensive use of mechanical methods. We have learned that the critical time to eliminate weed pressure is around two weeks from seeding or two weeks from transplanting. If you can get the weeds before they are taller than the crop, you stand a good chance of significantly reducing competition and allowing for optimal yields, if you are doing everything else right. Our relatively high manual weed control bill reflects our determination to eliminate weed competition early on in the development of the crop.
Major insect pests on our farm include: Cabbage aphid (brevicoryne brassicae) - affects all of our crops in the cabbage family; Caterpillars (Lepidoptera spp.) - affects cabbage family, lettuce and celery; Leaf miner (liriomyza spp.) - affects spinach and beets; Currant aphid (nasanovia ribisnigri) - affects lettuce; Crucifer flea beetle (phyllotera cruciferae) - affects crops in the cabbage family.
We use IPM specialists (ES Cropconsult) to monitor the most significant insect problems, primarily in our cole crops (cabbage family) and lettuce. The crops are monitored on a weekly basis and recommendations are provided when intervention is required. We have found that action thresholds for some our pests may be different than those on conventional farms.
We have experimented with beneficial insect releases in our cole crops and lettuce. Results to date may be inconclusive, but we will continue as we believe this could be a key factor in our insect pest management program. Spraying is expensive.
We have begun developing natural beneficial insect habitat in field margins using native and introduced plants. We hope that a strong natural predator population will reduce the crop pest populations. We are evaluating management of alternate hosts in field margins. We may rogue weeds that are alternate hosts or simply mow tall grasses and weeds on field margins once or twice a year.
We have found that maintaining optimum crop health is an important tactic. Keep the crop growing as quickly as possible. All plants have natural defence mechanisms that work to some degree. Healthy crops should be able to withstand some pest pressure.
Keep weeds to a minimum. Some weeds are alternate hosts to insect pests. Eliminating these can reduce pest pressure. Heavy weed pressure will affect the growth of the crop, causing stress and consequently higher pest pressure.
We grow approximately 20 acres of cole crops. Insect pest management begins in the cold frames used to rear our seedlings for transplant. While insect infestations in the seedlings may be relatively rare, we have the occasional outbreak that must be treated immediately. At this time we may spray the seedlings
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 177 Organics
with the appropriate material, but we are looking at using predator insect releases supported by “banker plants” which harbour a similar, but non-specific pest.
Field monitoring for insect pests begins one week after transplanting. Predator insect releases begin one week after transplant. We will do up to three releases in a crop. We use aphidius (a predatory wasp) and aphidoletes (a predatory midge) at the recommended rates.
At some point, we have to spray a recommended material to reduce pest populations in the crop. We have found Entrust to be effective for caterpillar and flea beetle control. Marketable crop damage in our cole crops is less than 1%. We have very low thrip damage in our cole crops and this may be a side benefit to using Entrust as well.
Damage from root maggot is low. We used to plant after the first flight of the flies peaked as a mechanism to reduce this pest in our cole crops. Now we plant 2 – 3 weeks earlier and have very low infestation levels. We find more damage in cabbage heads in the fall, but again the incidence is very low.
We apply insecticidal soap when the first cabbage aphid is reported by the IPM scouts. This pest can build its population in the crop quite quickly in the right conditions. We have found that we can cope with this pest when we start spraying early and maintain a 7 day spray interval. We use the soap at a rate of 1:50 with water. The soap solution is applied at a rate of 400 litres per acre at a pressure of 200 psi.
We have a bit of a love-hate relationship with growing cauliflower because of aphid pressure. Some years we find this crop to be a very expensive trap crop. On occasion we have been able to significantly reduce aphid populations by dropping down a gear and applying 50% more material.
Soap applications in our system do not eliminate cabbage aphids. We can keep the population in check to harvest. We may have to do some extra trimming of the product or extra rinsing prior to packing, but we are able to obtain a relatively high retrieval rate for the crops. Some harvested heads may be heavily colonised with aphids and these will be rejected in the field. Storage cabbage may have more decay on the outer leaves, due to aphid infestation, but these can be removed to produce a “clean” head. Infestation levels in the marketable portion of the crop are usually quite low; if we don’t see the pest, then the consumer will not likely see the pest.
Our aphid management strategy in kale is handled a bit differently. Weekly sprays are carried out, but we find if we do not harvest the first leaves within two weeks of them reaching harvest size, then we may have to discard some of them. This becomes an important strategy, as we can reduce pest pressure on crops that require multiple harvests, by simply removing heavily infested leaves. We had to suspend harvest in a planting of kale last year due to the presence of high numbers of parasitized aphids on the leaves, which did not wash off.
While aphids provide a definite impact on our cole crops, we still manage to produce yields near those of good conventional crops in our region.
Aphid management in other crops such as celery and leaf lettuce is more simple. We can usually attain good control levels with only three applications of soap. Leaf lettuce is usually in the ground for only 5 weeks or so, while celery requires up to three months of growth to harvest. It is important with crops such as lettuce to till in the residue of an old crop immediately, to reduce the transfer of the pest from to younger plantings.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 178 Organics
We noted some phytotoxicity with soap on leaf lettuce this past year from early morning applications that allowed the solution to pool on lower leaves. The injury was expressed by a bronzing on the leaves. These lower leaves are generally removed at harvest, so there was limited impact on the harvested portion.
Another significant pest includes leaf miner on spinach, chard and beets. There are no effective organic controls at this time. It is economically viable to remove infested leaves in chard, less so in spinach and beets. The pest is of limited economic impact on beets if the crop is grown for marketable roots. We have been forced to plough down spinach plantings if the pest infestation is severe.
Our major crop diseases include: Powdery mildew Erysiphe cichoracearum - affects cucurbits; Downy mildew peronospora and bremia spp - affects lettuce, cole crops, spinach; Late blight phytophthera infestans - affects potatoes and tomatoes; Septoria blight - affects celery and celeriac; botrytis (grey mold) is most serious in greenhouse seedlings.
Our disease management strategy relies on management techniques first as there are few registered fungicidal products for organic growers. The most important strategy is to keep the crop as healthy as possible. Maintain optimal soil nutrition and moisture levels. Vegetable crops have some natural defences to disease infections and healthy crops are the most resilient. We usually cope with low levels of some diseases in most of crops.
Use care in seedling production. Problems that start in the nursery can explode in the field under the right conditions. We may have to treat seedlings in the cold frames, but this is rare. We have more issues with botrytis molds in our crops on occasion than some of the more common field diseases. This usually starts during seedling production in our cold frames.
Keep weeds to a minimum. Good air flow through the crop canopy is the most important factor in reducing disease levels in crops. Weeds will interfere with the air flow and can aggravate disease outbreaks.
Crop rotation is important. We target a four-year rotation. We believe this technique keeps pest pressure to a reduced level. Isolation is important as well. Keep crops away from potential sources of infection, if possible.
Diseased crop refuse is best composted. If this option is not available, then incorporate the diseased material into the soil as soon as possible.
Disease resistant varieties are available for some crops. These will produce viable crops more reliably in high pressure disease situations.
We will use prophylactic spray applications as they apply to specific crops. There are few options, but we have found reasonable results with microbial sprays such as Serenade Maxx, plant extract Regalia Maxx and mineral formulations such as Milstop. We have found that these materials will not eliminate the pest in conditions of high pressure, but will keep the disease to a manageable level. Our strategy for powdery mildew control in summer squash, for example, is to apply Regalia Maxx when the male flower buds first appear. Serenade Maxx is then applied 10 – 14 days later, followed by Milstop at a similar interval. These materials are then rotated, at intervals as little as 7 days depending on pest pressure.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 179 Organics
Thorough irrigation is important in managing powdery mildew in cucurbit crops. Moisture-stressed crops will be very susceptible to the disease. The spray applications are virtually useless in this situation.
Downy mildew is managed primarily by management techniques. We believe the microbial sprays have limited impact on the disease and rarely use them. Serenade Maxx seems to be effective in curtailing botrytis in some crops, if it becomes as problem.
Late blight in potatoes and septoria blight in celery can be effectively managed most years with rigorous applications of registered copper compounds allowable by organic standards. This will require an intensive spraying regime of weekly applications from crop emergence to top removal in potatoes. If septoria blight pressure is expected in celery, then we begin applications 4 – 6 weeks after transplant and continue to harvest. This disease has become persistent in all of our production fields and we cannot obtain a decent crop without using the copper sprays.
In summary, we have found ways to produce relatively high yields from our crops by aggressively pursuing the major pests. Correct timing of intervening strategies is extremely important. We have certainly learned from experiencing catastrophic failures in some crops due to serious pest pressure and we still carry out plough-downs of some crops every year due to major pest infestations that we cannot control. Our crop successes exceed our failures, so we manage to survive in this business. We hope that at some time in the future our operation will attain a healthy balance in which no pest provides serious pressure. This will be the result of a comprehensive management approach which reflects what the term “organic” really means.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 180 Organics
Organic Blueberry Production – Yielding Conventional Results
Bernadine Strik, Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR David Bryla, USDA-ARS, HCRU, Corvalis, OR Dan Sullivan, Dept. Crop & Soil Sci., Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR Amanda Vance, NWREC-OSU, Corvalis, OR [email protected]
We have been studying various production systems in a certified organic field from planting establishment (Oct. 2006) to present at Oregon State University’s North Willamette Research & Extension Center. The long-term goal of this project is to develop organic production systems that maximize plant growth, yield, and fruit quality, facilitate weed, water, and nutrient management, and provide economic benefit to blueberry growers. This one-acre trial was in its seventh growing season in 2013.
Bernadine Strik in organic blueberry research trial, 2012. Photo courtesy Oregon State University.
We are comparing production on raised beds to flat ground, ‘Duke’ and ‘Liberty’, two fertilizer sources (fish emulsion or feather meal) at a low (25 lb N/acre from 2007-09; 50 lb N/a from 2010-12; and 65 lb N/a in 2013) or a higher rate (50 lb N/acre from 2007-09; 100 lb N/a from 2010-12; and 125 lb N/a in 2013) and three weed management treatments: “Sawdust” (3” deep sawdust mulch with only hand weeding); “compost+sawdust” (1.5” of yard debris compost topped with 2” sawdust with organic contact herbicides and hand weeding); and weed mat (porous landscape fabric). Feather meal was applied as a granular, split into half in March and half in May. Fish emulsion was diluted 1 part product:10 parts water with the total rate of nitrogen (N) split into 7 applications from mid-April to early July. Plants were
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 181 Organics
fertigated starting in 2011 (under the mulches). Plants are set at 30” in the row with 10 ft. between rows. This article summarizes key aspects of what we’ve learned so far.
Is Planting on Raised Beds Recommended?
Plants are performing better on raised beds than on flat ground, even though we have a very good “blueberry soil” at the research site. Cumulative yield, over six fruiting seasons (2008-2013) was 22% higher on raised beds than on flat ground. It seems clear from this study that planting on raised beds improves plant growth and yield.
What’s the Best Fertilizer Source and Rate?
Plant Growth
Visually, ‘Duke’ plants fertilized with either rate of feather meal or the low rate of fish emulsion are larger than those fertilized with the high rate of fish emulsion. It’s hard to visually see differences among ‘Liberty’ fertilizer treatments at this stage.
Yield
To date, there has been no effect of fertilizer source or rate on cumulative yield of ‘Liberty’ (Figure 1). However in ‘Duke’, fertilization with feather meal produced the highest yield and fertilization with the low rate of fish emulsion led to greater total yield, over the six fruiting seasons, than with the high rate of fish.
16 a a a ab 2008-13 14 b b 12 c 10
8 d Duke 6 Liberty
Yield per plant (kg) plant per Yield 4
2
0 Low Feather Low Fish High Feather High Fish
Figure 1. Effect of fertilizer source and rate on cumulative yield (2008-13) of ‘Duke’ and ‘Liberty’ (averaged over mulch type and raised vs. flat ground); 0.5 kg/plant = approx. 1 ton/acre.
Fruit Quality
Fertilizer has had no consistent effect on berry size or weight in either cultivar. In 2013, plants fertilized with fish emulsion produced larger fruit (2.3 g) than those fertilized with feather meal (2.2 g). There was no effect of fertilizer source on the percent soluble solids (Brix) of fruit. Plants fertilized with the low rate of feather meal produced less firm fruit than those fertilized with the high rate of feather meal or fish emulsion.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 182 Organics
Leaf Nutrients
We have analyzed treatment effects on all tissue nutrients. Treatment effects on leaf %N were complicated in 2013 with interactions between planting method and mulch type, fertilizer and mulch, and cultivar differences. Leaf tissue %N has been below recommended standards for many or all treatments (depending on year). Leaf %N (based on current standards) has not been correlated with yield, despite most treatments having “commercial” yields. For example, plants fertilized with the high rate of fish emulsion (lowest yielding ‘Duke’ fertilizer treatment) have had the highest %N.
Soil pH
High rates of fertilizer, particularly with fish emulsion, have reduced soil pH over time. This may cause problems in the long-term if soil pH drops too low for optimal plant performance. It is often difficult to increase soil pH in established plantings and may be even more troublesome when the planting is organic.
Overall, our results have illustrated that establishing blueberry plants can be “over-fertilized” (the higher rate is either wasted or reduces yield) in organic systems (similar to what we’ve shown in conventional systems). Fertilizer source may impact fruit quality, but more work is needed to understand why and to determine if the treatment effects persist as the planting matures.
What Mulch Type has Worked Best?
Weed Control
We have controlled weeds, as needed, to make sure weeds have not competed with the blueberry plants. There was relatively little weed pressure in the first growing season, but weed presence has increased as the planting has aged. Only hand weeding has been used in the sawdust mulch and weed mat (around plant crown) treatments. In the compost+sawdust mulch we have tried to use organically-approved contact herbicides on weeds when they are still small. In the early years, we used Weed Pharm® (20% vinegar) and more recently Avenger AG® (formerly GreenMatch Burndown Herbicide®; citrus oil) as a targeted direct application. The contact herbicides were generally effective when weeds were small and when the application was followed by one or two days of dry, hot weather. When the contact herbicides were ineffective, hand weeding was used to remove weeds. Table 1 shows the labor hours required to spray herbicide (compost+sawdust only) or hand remove weeds (all mulches) from 2007-2013.
Weed mat has been the best option for weed management while compost+sawdust mulch has resulted in the most weeds and the highest weed-control cost so far. The compost we used did not contain weed seeds. While we expected the sawdust on top of the compost to minimize weed seed germination, the
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 183 Organics
sawdust eroded off of the compost in places over time (wind, weed pulling, etc.); we suspect that weed seeds germinate quite readily in the nutrient-rich compost.
Soil pH and Organic Matter
Soil pH has declined over time in most treatments and was lowest in the sawdust mulched plots and highest in the weed mat in 2013; the soil pH is still within acceptable range for blueberries. Mulching with compost+sawdust increased soil organic matter relative to all other treatments, a desirable trait for a blueberry compost. In contrast, organic matter has declined over time under the weed mat.
Soil Nutrients
Yard debris composts are often high in potassium (K); little is known about any possible effects of long- term use of compost on soil and plant health in blueberry production. In our study, soil K in the compost+sawdust mulch was almost 60% greater than in the sawdust or weed mat treatments – a dramatic effect considering we only have a 1½ inch depth layer of compost (applied in 2006, 2011, and 2013). We still need to determine if the higher soil K under compost mulch may have detrimental effects on uptake of other nutrients (e.g. Ca and Mg).
Plant Growth
We found that plants grown with weed mat had less root growth and larger canopies than the other mulch treatments after two growing seasons (we have not dug up plants since). Plants mulched with weed mat also required additional irrigation to maintain the same soil water content as those mulched with sawdust or compost+sawdust, especially when grown on raised beds. More research is needed on the long-term effects of weed mat on root growth and sustainability of the planting.
Yield
Plants mulched with compost+sawdust or with weed mat produced greater yield than those mulched with sawdust in many years (Figure 2). Note that average yield was lower in 2013 than in 2012 due to relatively heavy loss to birds.
Figure 2. Effect of mulch type on yield from the second through the seventh fruiting season (averaged over Duke and Liberty and raised vs. flat ground).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 184 Organics
How Well are these Cultivars Adapted to Organic Production Systems?
Cultivars continued to differ in yield, particularly in 2013 (Figure 3). We had difficulty controlling birds on our early ripening ‘Duke’ in 2013 and we feel the loss in ‘Duke’ yield this past season was almost exclusively due to bird depredation.
Figure 3. Effect of mulch type on yield from the second through the seventh fruiting season (averaged over mulch, fertilizer, and raised vs. flat ground).
Summary
This planting would be considered “mature” next season. To date, growth and yield for many treatments have been similar to what is commonly observed in conventional systems. In general, the best treatments so far have been growing plants on raised beds with a low rate of fish emulsion or a high rate of feather meal on either weed mat or compost+sawdust mulch. The high weed management costs of using compost as a mulch (likely because weed seeds germinate readily in the nutrient rich compost) need to be carefully considered for organic management. Also, the long-term impact of higher soil K (and any adverse effects on plant uptake of other cations, e.g. Ca and Mg) with use of compost needs further study. Conversely, the negative impacts of weed mat use on soil organic matter also requires further investigation.
Work on shoot growth rate, fruit bud set, tissue and soil nutrient status (all nutrients), weed management, production economics, root growth and development of a compost suitable for blueberry were also conducted in 2009-2013 but are not presented here.
We have kept track of costs and have calculated the economic impacts of these production systems on planting establishment. The highest yielding treatment combinations improved cumulative net returns as much as $7,825/acre over 3 years over the poorest performing treatments. Our work on determining the cost differences among treatments continues.
In the meantime, we have estimated the cost of production for a well-managed, newly established, 20-acre organic blueberry planting in the Willamette Valley (fish emulsion fertigated, weed mat mulch, compost addition every 2 years) – this information is available in an OSU Extension publication:
Blueberry Economics: The Costs of Establishing and Producing Organic Blueberries in the Willamette Valley (Julian, Strik, Pond, Yang), July 2011. You can download it for free at:
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 185 Organics
http://arec.oregonstate.edu/oaeb/
Our plan is to continue our organic research study until the planting is mature and to work toward answering questions that our results have raised.
Acknowledgements
We’d like to thank our other collaborators on this study, including Emily Vollmer and Gil Buller (Research Assistants, B. Strik), Luis Valenzuela-Estrada (Post-doctoral Assoc., Bryla and Strik), the students who have worked on this project, and our advisory board members. We appreciate the support of the organizations that have provided funding for this project: The Oregon Blueberry Commission, the Washington Blueberry Commission, the Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, the NIFA-OREI program, and industry contributors.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 186 Organics
Organic Blueberry Production in BC: Barriers and Solutions
Kristine Ferris E.S. Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC [email protected]
Organic blueberry production in BC is limited, with fewer than 15 certified organic growers registered with the British Columbia Blueberry Council. However, organic production in other areas of the Pacific Northwest is significant. For example, over 55% of the organic blueberries produced in the US in 2008 were from Washington State alone (USDA 2010). The market for organic produce in BC is the strongest in Canada, representing 22% of national organic sales, and 66% of BC residents buy some organic produce on a weekly basis (MacKinnon 2013). This thriving market for organic produce coupled with the growing interest in locally produced food points to an untapped market for organic blueberries in BC. The objectives of our project were to find out a) what barriers are limiting organic blueberry production in BC and b) the potential solutions to these barriers.
Methods
Project activities included a series of surveys. The first survey was aimed at industry, i.e. packers/ processors and distributors of organic produce. The second survey was aimed at conventional BC blueberry growers. The third survey was aimed at organic blueberry producers or industry experts in BC, Washington and Oregon. Surveys were distributed via email, mail, or direct meetings.
Survey formats: the survey directed at industry was a short series of questions about the buying and processing of organic berries. Packers/processors/distributors were asked if they were interested in buying locally produced organic blueberries or expanding their volumes of organic blueberries. The survey of conventional and organic growers was split into two sections. The first section asked growers to rank a list of factors from 0 (not a barrier) to 3 (a major barrier) to successful organic production. The second section asked growers to indicate their familiarity with a list of commonly used organic control tools – i.e. whether they had used a product/method before and if they still used it, if they had heard of it but had never used it, or if they were not interested in the product or did not think it would work. The survey of organic growers included a third section of questions about managing an organic blueberry farm – i.e. how berries were marketed, the expected price premium for organic blueberries, as well as insect/mite, disease, weed and nutrient management.
Response rates: three of the seven packers/processors/distributors contacted for the industry survey responded. Response rates were low for the survey of conventional growers, with only 8 growers returning the survey. This represents 1% of registered BC blueberry growers. Possible reasons for poor response rate include the timing of survey distribution – surveys were sent out in August and this is a busy time for growers. The low response rate may also indicate the level of interest in organic production amongst BC blueberry growers. A language barrier may have also been an issue – surveys were sent out in English only, and there are many non-English speaking blueberry growers in the Fraser Valley. Five of eighteen organic growers/industry experts contacted responded to the organic survey. The growers that responded to the organic survey were mostly small scale producers, with a total of 112 acres represented.
Results
Industry survey: all three survey respondents expressed interest in buying or expanding their volumes of locally produced organic blueberries. The minimum volume required varied by packer, but the minimum volume required was 20,000 lbs (equivalent to ~5 acre planting if 5,000 lbs/acre yield is assumed).
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 187 Organics
Survey of conventional growers: the three highest ranked factors (barriers) to organic blueberry production from a conventional grower’s standpoint were: 1) Decrease in yield or quality (with an average ranking of 2.71); 2) Insect/mite management (average ranking of 2.57) and 3) Disease management (average ranking of 2.25). Conventional growers were familiar with 17 of the 19 organic control tools listed, and the majority of growers were interested in using biological control tools.
Survey of organic growers/industry experts: the three highest ranked factors (barriers) to organic blueberry production from an organic grower’s standpoint were: 1) Weed management (ranked at 2.00); 2) Labour costs (ranked at 1.80); and 3) Organic management knowledge (ranked at 1.80). Organic growers were familiar with all of the organic control tools listed.
The results from the surveys of conventional and organic blueberry growers are interesting because there was no overlap between the three highest ranked factors - conventional growers’ perceived barriers to organic production do not appear to be reflected in practice. Also interesting is the difference between how high individual factors were ranked – the highest average ranking of a barrier to organic production from organic growers was 2.00, whereas the highest average ranking of a barrier to organic production from conventional growers was 2.71.
Pest management: the insect pest of most concern to both organic and conventional growers is Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD). SWD is of particular concern in organic production because Entrust (spinosad) is the only effective product registered. Organic growers rely on extensive monitoring, regular picking intervals and optimizing spray timings to manage SWD. While acknowledged as a major issue in organic production, the feedback from growers and industry experts was that SWD is “not putting anyone out of business”. The disease of most concern to both organic and conventional growers is mummyberry. Organic growers have a number of organic-approved fungicides to suppress mummyberry, and also rely on cultural controls like mulching and raking to disturb/cover mummies. Once again, mummyberry was named as a major issue but not one that precludes organic blueberry production. Weed management was the highest ranked concern amongst organic growers. Labour costs also ranked high, which makes sense as organic growers rely on manual labour for hand weeding. Other weed control options listed by organic growers include Avenger (citrus oil), horticultural vinegar, the use of a specialized cultivator, and weed mats.
Conclusion
The results of the surveys indicate that the biggest perceived challenges to organic blueberry production in BC are not necessarily reflected in practice, which is encouraging for conventional BC blueberry growers interested in transitioning to organic production. Additionally, while identified as significant issues, SWD and mummyberry do not preclude organic blueberry production and can be managed with a combination of chemical and cultural control tools.
Future research related to organic blueberry production should focus on developing weed control programs, SWD management programs that include more products so growers can rotate bioinsecticides, improved monitoring systems for SWD, registration of more biofungicide products for disease control, and development of effective application methods of nematodes for weevil control.
Literature Cited
MacKinnon, S. 2013. The BC Organic Market: Growth, Trends and Opportunities. 2013. Canada Organic Trade Association.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 188 Organics
Natural Products for Organic Weed Control
Tim Miller WSU Mount Vernon NWREC, Mt. Vernon, WA [email protected]
There is much interest in “natural” herbicides among farmers, gardeners, landscapers, and vegetation management personnel. This interest is particularly true for public grounds maintenance personnel, who find themselves with the daunting task of controlling weeds without the use of synthetic chemicals. In this report, several natural herbicides and organic amendments will be discussed, particularly regarding reports on their ability to control weeds.
As there is for conventional herbicides, there are two main categories for natural herbicides: those applied before weed seedlings emerge from the soil (preemergence products) and those applied after weed seedlings emerge from the soil (postemergence products). This bulletin will discuss the major products that are available in both categories.
Preemergence Products
These natural products are applied before weed seedlings emerge from the soil. Because of the quantity of material usually applied (1 to 50 lbs/1000 ft2), these can be thought of as soil amendments that contain compounds that potentially kill weed seedlings immediately following germination. Mulches differ in that they control weeds primarily by preventing light from reaching the soil surface which reduces weed seed germination and, if applied thickly enough, weed emergence.
Brassicaceous Seed Meals
Some species in the plant family Brassicaceae are grown for production of edible or industrial oil (canola, rapeseed, radish, etc.). After the oil is extracted from the seed, the resultant meal contains 6 to 10% nitrogen and has been used for animal feed and fertilizer. Some seed meals also may contain glucosinolates that break down in the soil to form isothiocyanate and other chemicals. If present in sufficiently high concentrations, these chemical can decrease weed seed germination and injure vegetative reproductive structures of plants, as well as reducing populations of nematodes, soilborne pathogens, and insects. Glucosinolates are also found in Brassicaceous plant leaves and stems, but at a much lower concentration. Another source of Brassicaceous seed meal is mustard bran, which consists of the seed coat of mustard that is removed prior to the preparation of condiment mustard. Its attributes are otherwise the same as mustard seed meal (MSM).
High glucosinolate MSM from yellow mustard (Sinapis alba) has been the primary product tested for weed control in strawberry, raspberry, tree fruit, potatoes, mint, vegetable crops, and container nursery plants in the Pacific Northwest. A second MSM comes from brown mustard (Brassica juncea), although this meal seems to be more active on soil-borne pathogens than on weeds. MSM is normally applied to the soil surface at a rate of 46 lbs/1000 ft2, and then incorporated mechanically or with irrigation/rainfall. There are only a few reports on the pesticidal effects of MSM as contrasted with green manure leaf/root residues. MSM has caused a wide range of injury in many crops, from slight or no damage to established perennials to severe injury of some annuals. At the same time, MSM has provided from 30 to 90% weed control, including some postemergence control of small weed seedlings. More research is needed to determine the best way to use this product in various crop and landscape situations.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 189 Organics
Corn Gluten Meal (and Distillers’ Grain)
When corn is wet-milled, it is separated into four components: carbohydrate, germ, fiber, and protein. Corn gluten meal (CGM) is the protein fraction resulting from this process, containing approximately 10% nitrogen. CGM and has been used for animal feed and as both a fertilizer and weed control product. CGM breakdown products inhibit root formation during germination, resulting in weed seedlings that are less likely to survive periods of water stress. Distillers’ grain is another corn-based meal; a byproduct remaining after carbohydrate in corn seed is converted to ethanol in the biofuel distilling process. Presumably any ability of distillers’ grain to control weeds is due to the same factors involved with CGM. Several formulations are sold as turf and garden herbicides, recommended at an application rate of about 20 lbs/1000 ft2.
In greenhouse trials, CGM applied at equivalent rates to 67 lbs/1000 ft2 reduced seedling survival of several weed species. In field trials, CGM incorporated into soil prior to seeding is generally more effective at slowing seedling growth than was a surface application at the same rate. Still, weed control with CGM has been extremely variable. In one report, CGM applied preplant-incorporated at rates from 1 to 4 lb/1000 ft2 reduced weed cover 50 to 82%, but similar applications in other studies resulted in no observable reductions in weed seedling density while increasing the time required for hand weeding. CGM applications may allow land managers to reduce the rate of conventional herbicide used. In established turf, CGM applied at rates from 0.4 to 1.3 lb/1000 ft2 reduced the amount of pendimethalin (Pendulum) required to provide 75 to 85% control of large crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis) from 2 pints/acre to 0.7 pint/acre.
A bacterial hydrolyzation process has been tested in an effort to concentrate the active ingredient of CGM and reduce the amount of product necessary to adequately control weeds. This process increased herbicidal activity in greenhouse trials while also transforming the meal into a water soluble product that could be sprayed through conventional application equipment. The root-inhibiting compounds in corn gluten hydrolysate (CGH) was isolated and identified as a blend of dipeptides (two amino acids joined together), the most important of which seemed to be alaninyl-alanine and glycinyl-alanine. In field applications to strawberry, however, CGH only reduced dicot weed number in one of four years, so this CGH may not yet in practice offer improved weed control.
Wheat Gluten
Wheat has been identified as producing compounds in straw or from root exudates which are allelopathic to other plant species. While growth of weeds mulched with wheat straw may be reduced by allelopathic leachates, growth is also inhibited by changes in temperature, moisture, and light resulting from the mulch itself, making actual allelopathic effects difficult to measure. Over half a century ago, water extracts from wheat seed coats and fruits were shown to inhibit germination and growth of several plant species. More recently, wheat gluten (WG) has been reported to inhibit weed seedling growth. The two major proteins in WG, gliadin and glutenin, become highly elastic when mixed with water, trapping the CO2 released from yeast fermentation in dough and causing bread to rise. Depending on the “hardness” of the wheat that is used, flour may range from 8 to 15% N, making WG a potential fertilizer.
In greenhouse trials, WG applied at 0.9 lb/1000 ft2 reduced root length of several species of weed seedlings. As noted with CGM, shoot growth was not inhibited as much as root growth in these trials. In separate studies, WG at 0.25 lb/1000 ft2 reduced perennial ryegrass seed germination 56%, while hydrolyzed WG at the same rate reduced germination 94%. In field experiments in the PNW, however, WG banded over strawberry rows at 14.3 lb/1000 ft2 did not influence strawberry or weed growth, In fact, weeding time was increased 9% after treatment with WG while strawberry yield was not affected.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 190 Organics
Postemergence Products
These natural products are applied to weeds after they emerge from the soil. Natural postemergence products directly affect plant leaves, resulting in loss of cellular integrity, followed by tissue desiccation and, provided damage is severe enough, seedling death. These products are nonselective, causing injury to most foliage with which they come into contact whether weed or landscape plant. Consequently, if postemergence products are used, care must be taken during application to prevent over-spraying foliage of desirable vegetation.
Acetic Acid
Acetic acid is the compound in vinegar that most likely accounts for any postemergence control of treated weeds. Distilled white and cider vinegars available in grocery stores contain approximately 5% acetic acid in water. Formulations with higher acetic acid concentrations (up to 25%) are available as herbicides. Acetic acid is sometimes formulated with citric or other acids, or listed as an inert ingredient (with no percentage content given) on some labels.
Published studies regarding the use of acetic acid as a herbicide are few; of these, many are found as internet articles. One such study found that acetic acid in concentrations from 5 to 20% provided 80 to 100% control of weed seedlings from 3 to 9 inches tall. Top-kill of Canada thistle in this study using 5% acetic acid was also reported, although in another trial, five applications of 20% acetic acid resulted in leaf kill but reduced overall shoot growth by only 56%. When applied twice to blackberry, 10% acetic acid provided no more than 5% leaf burn. Conversely, 20% acetic acid gave 89% defoliation of yellow archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon), although the weed was 65% recovered from two applications after six months. Vinegar has been used with some success to control liverwort and silver thread moss growing in ornamental plant containers. In turf, one to three applications of 20 to 25% acetic acid in August resulted in 82 to 99% weed control at 5 weeks after treatment. On bare ground, 20% acetic acid applied twice to cotyledon to three-leaf broadleaf weeds provided up to 95% control, while 5% acetic acid gave only 10% control.
In greenhouse trials, 2 to 3 gallons/acre of 5, 10, and 20% acetic acid provided >90% weed control but <5% injury to oat, indicating that acetic acid could potentially provide selective broadleaf weed control in cereals. A field trial using 10% acetic acid prior to seeding spring wheat gave >80% broadleaf weed control when applied at 170 gallons/acre or higher. If applied postemergence, 10% acetic acid resulted in >80% broadleaf weed control when applied at 85 gallons/acre or higher, although wheat was injured at volumes >43 gallons/acre. Application volumes of 43 to 85 gallons/acre resulted in wheat yields better or similar to wheat following pre-seeding treatment with glyphosate (Roundup) and followed by bromoxynil + MCPA (Bronate) applied postemergence.
Acetic acid may be more effective for perennial weed control when used as a drench. Acetic acid at 2.5 to 5% applied as a drench to dry irrigation canals inhibited sprouting of hydrilla tubers by 80 to 100%. In weedy blackberry, pouring 1 pint of 10% acetic acid over the pruned crown reduced re-sprouting by 67%. Drenching of established perennial broadleaf weeds with 1 gallon of 5% acetic acid has shown excellent results in cranberry.
Essential Oils
Essential oils are natural plant products containing natural flavors and fragrances that provide characteristic odors. Several essential oils have been shown to exert substantial biological activity on pest organisms, including cinnamon, clove, savory, summer savory, rosemary, and thyme. Target pests are several disease organisms, insects, and mites. They also can be used as antioxidants and as fish
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 191 Organics
anesthetics and they also affect seed germination and inhibit potatoes from sprouting in storage. The major chemical constituents of several essential oils have been identified. Eugenol was found to be a primary constituent of both cinnamon and clove oil (Matran is a clove oil product). The major constituents of summer savory oil were found to be γ-terpinene and carvacrol, while primary constituents of thyme oil were identified as thymol, linalool, and carvacrol. Major terpenoids of pine oil (extracted from four species of pine) were α- and β-pinene, myrcene, and limonene. Limonene bears further mention, as it is currently used in some natural product formulations, often in combination with acetic acid (All Down, among others). The two main forms of limonene are L-limonene, which is extracted from pine and possesses a strong turpentine-like odor, and D-limonene, which is extracted from citrus rind and possesses a strong orange-like odor.
Although anecdotal reports of the use of essential oils as herbicides are relatively common, very few reports have been published. In greenhouse experiments, dandelion leaf cell membrane permeability was increased by applications of 1 to 2% concentrations of essential oils from cinnamon, clove, summer savory, and thyme, an indication that plant desiccation could result after their application to leaves of weeds. These same essential oils caused injury to several weed species when applied at 1%, and killed these weeds at concentrations of 5 to 10%. Pine oil applied to Indian mustard and oat at 5 to 17% was selective only at volumes of 5.3 gallons/acre or less, with good control of mustard resulting. Testing in western Washington indicates that these products must be applied at 15% to 20% to weed seedlings from cotyledon to three or four leaves in order to cause enough damage to result in control. On bare ground, 20% clove oil applied twice provided up to 40% control, while 20% pine oil gave 70% control. In other field studies, shoot reduction of Canada thistle after five applications of 20% clove or pine oil was only approximately 30%. When applied twice to blackberry or raspberry, 20% clove or pine oil provided no more than 50% leaf burn. Conversely, 20% clove oil gave 88% defoliation of yellow archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon), although the weed was 52% recovered from two applications after six months.
Pelargonic Acid
Pelargonic acid (Scythe) is a naturally-occurring fatty acid that has substantial herbicidal activity. It has also shown an ability to kill fungi and certain insects, but those uses are limited by its high degree of phtytotoxicity. Pelargonic acid has shown about twice the herbicidal activity as other postemergence natural herbicides, so pelargonic acid at 5 to 10% provides a similar level of control as from 15 to 20% acetic acid or essential oil herbicides. In the greenhouse trial mentioned above, pelargonic acid applied to Indian mustard and oat was not selective at 3 or 6%, and was more active than acetic acid at 5 to 20% or pine oil at 5 to 17%. And like acetic acid, pelargonic acid has been shown to aid in control of liverwort and silver thread moss in greenhouse containers. Pelargonic acid at 0.5 to 3% mixed with glyphosate (Roundup) or glufosinate (Finale) did not improve herbicide effectiveness on annual or perennial weeds in the greenhouse. When mixed with glyphosate or glufosinate and applied to herbicide-resistant soybean in the field, pelargonic acid improved yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) control, but only at 6 days after treatment; soybean growth and yield were not significantly affected by these applications.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 192 Hazelnuts
Life After Blight
Richard Birkemeier Birkemeier Farms, Inc., Canby, OR [email protected]
This talk made me stop to think of where we’ve been. I had to look back 25 years to the time that started for us with Eastern Filbert Blight. I found this brochure that lists the 99th year of the Hazelnut Industry of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. We have always considered British Columbia a part of the industry we are involved in.
There aren’t too many photos. Most people dealing with blight don’t like to take pictures. They are a bad reminder of an unpleasant experience.
I feel like we have a lot to be thankful for in looking back. Events that took place during that time period have a great influence on us today that we didn’t recognize at the time. 6 years ago we hosted our 3rd farm tour at Birkemeier Farms. I was sharing about coming out of long dark struggle. It had been 20 years since we found EFB on our farm and I was able to say, “We are still here!”
I’d like to weave together some of the events that have lead us to where we are now. In 1962, my Dad bought his first orchard. It was also the year of our Columbus Day storm, which blew over 2/3rds of the trees during our first harvest. So my Dad had started his career in the filbert industry with an element of hardship. In 1967, the year I graduated from high school, I went to a summer tour with my Dad. Dr. Maxine Thompson was proposing doing research to breed an improved kernel hazelnut variety. There were lots of research projects for expenditures; fertilizer rates, pruning techniques, flail and orchard floor management. So when this expensive proposal for a breeding program came along there was a lot of debate. People felt they didn’t need a breeding program, they had Barcelona. One of them said they had to do it. There was a nod of agreement and they went on their way. That really impacted me that they would invest in my future. A future they would never see. There has been an element of that ever since: old men willing to invest for a future they will never see the results of. I feel the industry has an obligation to continue that.
In 1974, Eastern Filbert Blight was discovered in Washington. I remember the panic at the time about the consequences of this disease, but it was a Washington problem. They believed the Columbia River would be natural barrier to keep blight from entering Oregon. A lot of Oregon research on Eastern Filbert Blight was conducted in Washington in 70’s. How it got there no one knew. That was the beginning of the industry denial about blight. In 1986 Dr. Maxine Thompson retired, and Dr. Shawn Mehlenbacher took over as the plant breeder. In a few months EFB was found in Oregon in the Damascus area, about a 15- mile drive from our farm. They discovered that it had been there from 3-5 years and was well established in Oregon. The OSU breeding program changed its priority to incorporate genetics into breeding for a genetic solution to Eastern Filbert Blight. Dr. Maxine Thompson had made some Gasaway crosses from the early days of EFB in Wash. Shawn gave us a pathway toward genetic resistance for the future, the first of which would be available by 2005 to give our industry hope for future.
In the summer 1987 we found it on our farm. We had a large acreage of ‘Ennis’ variety; a beautiful, large in-shell nut, but extremely susceptible to EFB. I was struck by a feeling of doom. It was like a kick in the stomach. In looking around, we found it be very extensive on our farm. It had been there for 3-5 years. There was an undercurrent in industry of denial and a vacuum of information about EFB. Even our friends in the industry thought that if we Birkemeiers would just take out our orchards, the rest of the industry might have a chance. They would just as soon see us destroy our orchards.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 193 Hazelnuts
As more information came out on the nature and spread of the disease, things settled down. People were always finding it 3-5 years after had arrived on their farms. We were all in this together. It was an industry problem. These were very difficult times. Fear does strange things within a farm industry. The ODA got involved with quarantines on nuts and debris for fear the disease would spread. We got through those. We bought a pruning tower to travel each tree row, cutting out all the blight we found. We learned we had to cut 3 feet below all visible signs to get it all, like cancer. We struggled with that, in the beginning they didn’t know what sprays to use or when to This is our 'Ennis' orchard. It is beautiful, but a magnet for blight. apply them. We used Bordeaux, copper sulfate and lime. Later it was decided the most effective time was in spring at bud swell. We were doing some good with pruning and copper sprays. For a number of years we thought we were doing well.
Six or seven years went by. It was a lot of work but we thought, “We can do this”. Then one year we had a bad year when EFB blew up on the farm. There was no way to cut it out. I developed a flag system marking where each cut had been done with the knot on the tape, so I could keep track of what it was doing.
Summer, in the early 90’s, we hosted our first farm tour. Growers wanted to know what blight looked like and what we were doing about it. They wanted to see for themselves. That is the same year blight blew up on us. It was everywhere. I was standing in our ‘Ennis’ orchard addressing about 150 people, and they were looking at trees that looked healthy. I was explaining that the orchard was riddled with blight in the canopy. I had now found it on our whole 140-acre farm. There The tree in this photo is doomed. were 30-40 strikes in the top of each tree. It made a very dour report. It was a real downer. As a grower you get attached to your orchard, to your trees. We were in serious trouble. After people drove away, Dr. Shawn Mehlenbacher gave me a card with 3 numbered varieties written on it. He told me to try these. They didn’t have immunity but they were better than ‘Barcelona’. And as a matter of fact, I had them on our farm as experimental trees. That started our foray into the nursery business. We grafted scion onto anything we could find for rootstocks and started
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 194 Hazelnuts
replanting these numbered selections. Several years later, two were released as ‘Lewis’ and ‘Clark’. The 3rd one was never released. I ended up with 200 ac of ‘Lewis’, mostly grafted on ‘Barcelona’ rootstock. The ‘Barcelona’ orchard in front of our house suffered in the flood of EFB spores from our own ‘Ennis’ orchard. Planted 22’ by 22’, and 50 foot tall, it was a struggle to get the tower, or spray, to the tops. Yields in that orchard went down quickly. The pollinizers were ‘Davieana’ and ‘Duchilli’, both very susceptible and riddled with blight. There was no pollen. Yields went down to 800 lbs per acre. Dead limbs littered the orchard floor every time there was a breeze. Price was 34 cents per pound for nuts. That was the bottom for our farm. That year we decided to pull the plug. It was necessary to put our efforts, money and time on orchards making the most money: ‘Ennis’. With much agonizing the orchard came out.
They tip over real easy. We hooked each tree with a tractor, lined them up and cut hundreds of cords of firewood. It was a lot of work. It was hard tearing out something someone before me had started. Part of me died when I tore it out, but there was not lot of choice. There is no easy way to take out orchards. We have dehorned, cut wood and burned the tops. On smaller trees, we cut them down, drag with gator, line them up and cut firewood. In the beginning we would grind stumps with a stump grinder. I hated that. Ours was slow and I always had a stiff neck at the end of the day. We ended up buying a track hoe, which is now an integral part of farm machinery. It is very slick to pluck a stump out, and shake off the dirt.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 195 Hazelnuts
We handle the stumps separately. We leave them in a pile in the back of the farm to burn next summer. That lets them dry down well.
We replanted 200 acres in ‘Lewis’. I was committed to the hazelnut business. Our problem now was that we had ‘Lewis’ at the same time as very sick ‘Ennis’ orchards. We continued spraying as best we could. There were many instances where I was finding 4-year-old ‘Lewis’ trees with blight. We planted ‘Lewis’ on a 10x20 spacing to get as many trees as possible per acre and get into production as quickly as possible. The plan was to take every other tree out as they became crowded, but now I had sick ‘Lewis’ trees. I was taking out temporary trees and in many instances cutting out healthy trees and leaving a sick one in a permanent spot. I shifted my strategy to flagging the sickest trees only, leaving healthy trees and only replanting the permanent places. My replacement trees are the newest and best option available from the breeding program, all with the Gasaway gene.
That is our transition. It became obvious that ‘Lewis’ was not sustainable because it was caving under blight pressure. Today we have ended up planting another 100 acres to a numbered selection. In 2000, I was given permission to plant out a trial the commission did with micropropagation. We ended up planting another 100 acres. The variety ended up being released several years later as ‘Yamhill’.
The future is all about new varieties in Oregon. There is a new surge of interest in an industry that has been stagnant for 25 years. Now the OSU breeding program is providing better EFB resistant varieties. This is a 40-year crop. There is a lot of investment before a return. There is a resurgence of interest in planting Hazelnuts in Oregon.
This industry has always treated us well. Up here you are facing some of the same issues we have, you are just a few years behind. There is life after blight. There are no shortcuts. It is important that you continue your own variety trials since the varieties may perform differently here. They were developed in Oregon for Oregon. I encourage you to keep in touch. I commend Thom and Haley for all the work they are doing and Peter and others for having experiment plots.
EFB defies simple answers and explanations – everyone has their own idea. There are no rights and wrongs. Everyone must make their own decisions on how to go forward. The blighted orchards will become uglier and uglier. For me there was an emotional component, numbers were important but I couldn’t stand the ugly. It was discouraging picking up all those limbs throughout the year. We may have fungicides you don’t have available. I don’t know some of your options. Spraying is a tool in the box. It is expensive and time-consuming. You will have to dodge the weather. It is not the only answer. How much are you willing to spend? Because in the end, you still have a sick orchard. For me, long term, making the transition to new varieties is the better option.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 196 Hazelnuts
A Trial to Evaluate New Hazelnut Cultivars in British Columbia
Thomas O’Dell Nature Tech Nursery, Langley, BC [email protected]
Background
Hazelnuts, the fruit of the hazelnut tree, are sought worldwide as a delicious and healthful source of protein and oil with diverse end uses as candy, nut butter, protein powder and face cream. Despite a robust industry in Oregon, the U.S. imports over one-half of its hazelnuts and Canada is among the top ten importers in the world. While there are many species of hazelnuts, we focus on the cultivated European hazelnut (Corylus avellana).
Hazelnut trees prefer well-drained, fertile soils but can tolerate a wide range of conditions. More important is climate; nut production requires mild winters for pollination, but with adequate chilling for dormancy requirements. This limits commercial production to areas near large water bodies, such as the Black Sea and Pacific Ocean. Also required for pollination are at least two different varieties. These must be genetically compatible and must have overlapping pollen shed and female flowering. Current recommendations are to plant “three pollinizer varieties (early, mid, and late) in an orchard so pollen is available throughout the extended period of time during which female flowers appear”1. Many orchards are planted with pollinizers every third tree in every third row (11% of trees), but higher proportions may increase nut production.
Hazelnuts were introduced to B.C. in the early 1900’s and commercial orchards were established by the 1930’s. By 2000 there were at least 800 acres in commercial production in the Fraser Valley, mostly around Chilliwack and Agassiz, where processors are located. In 2003 Eastern Filbert Blight (EFB) was found in B.C. having made its way northward from Oregon and Washington. This, despite a quarantine on importation of trees (other than in tissue culture). Even though it failed to stop the introduction of the disease, this quarantine continues to be a useful tool to slow its spread2.
Other management strategies for coping with EFB include programs of spraying and pruning. In the long run, resistant varieties are key to coping with the disease. These are produced from a breeding program now in its 5th decade at Oregon State University. Classic selective breeding using superior parents has led to many new cultivar releases with excellent yields, nut qualities and high levels of EFB resistance3. A trial to evaluate the suitability of some of these new varieties to British Columbia began in 2010 with support from the BC Hazelnut Grower’s Association, the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC and Nature Tech Nursery, Ltd. of Langley, BC.
1 Olsen, J. 2013. Growing Hazelnuts in the Pacific Northwest: Pollination and Nut Development. EM-9074-E. Oregon State University Extension Bulletin. Accessed on line 2-6- 2014. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/43809/em9074.pdf
2 Molnar, T.J., et al. 2010. First Report of Eastern Filbert Blight on Corylus avellana ‘Gasaway’ and ‘VR20-11’ Caused by Anisogramma anomala in New Jersey. Plant Disease, Vol. 94, p. 1265. 3 Jeff Olsen, J. Mehlenbacher, S., McCluskey, R. and D. Smith. 2013. Growing Hazelnuts in the Pacific Northwest: Hazelnut Varieties. EM-9073-E. Oregon State University Extension Bulletin. Accessed on line 2-8-2014. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/43808/em9073.pdf
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 197 Hazelnuts
Cultivar Trial
The goals of the trial are: To demonstrate the suitability of EFB resistant hazelnut cultivars to Fraser Valley. To compare performance of three EFB resistant hazelnut production cultivars and three pollinizer varieties at six sites in SW BC. To share information on cultivar performance with growers.
About 500 trees per site were planted at six sites in the lower mainland and Hornby Island in 2011 and 2013 (see map). Plantings are at double density (9x18’ to 10x20’) and were initially with containerized plants in 3.5” pots. Due to delays in obtaining propagative material from Oregon, and a decision to switch to larger (#1 pot) plants to reduce losses, the remaining trees were planted in 2013. All sites received the six varieties ‘Eta’, ‘Gamma’, ‘Jefferson’, ‘Sacajawea’, ‘Theta’, ‘Yamhill’ with pollinizer varieties (‘Eta’, ‘Gamma’, ‘Theta’) at 20 percent of the mix. We describe these varieties more fully in Argen & O’Dell (this volume) and additional details are available in Oregon State University extension publications4.
The sites and their upkeep for the trial are voluntarily hosted by the owners in exchange for the trees (and knowledge). Five of six sites are existing hazelnut orchards, of which two required significant clearing of productive hazelnut trees by the owner to make way for this trial. Each planting is managed according to owner preference for exact spacing, pruning, fertilization, etc., but all have irrigation. We expect that the variation in site characteristics and management will result in a range of results representing the potential for these varieties in SW BC.
Over the next few years at each site we will monitor growth and health of the trees, time of flowering of catkins (or tassels) and pistillate (nut-producing female) flowers, time of nut harvest, nut yield and nut quality (% blank, spoiled or defective, % kernel weight).
Current Status and Results so Far
Participants finished site preparation in 2013. Trees planted in 2011 are up to 2” diameter and a few nuts were produced from 2011 planting.
We observed no symptoms of EFB on any of the new varieties (in nursery or trial plantings) even though most of the trial plantings adjoin infected orchards. One trial site had three ‘Barcelona’ planted in a row of ‘Jefferson’; only the ‘Barcelona’ have cankers characteristic of EFB.
A few ‘Jefferson’, ‘Eta’ and ‘Theta’ flowered in winter/spring, 2013; more varieties are flowering this year (2014).
The first full monitoring of flowering (weekly visits to each site) is underway this winter. Nut harvest data collection is scheduled for fall 2014 through fall 2016. So far, it seems that flowering starts later in the season here than reported for Oregon.
Nature Tech Nursery has supplied trees to a wider cliental than just the trial participants. We will share what we learn from them as well.
4 Ibid.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 198 Hazelnuts
How (Hazelnut) Trees Can Save the Earth
Human population growth continues apace, and to feed the billions more food will be grown. However, humans are changing the environment in ways that challenge our food production systems with climate change and other stresses. Furthermore, food production and transportation contributes about 1/3 of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, we need to grow more food closer to home with fewer inputs, while sequestering carbon. Tree crops are perfect for these goals because, as long-lived perennials, they sequester carbon while producing a crop with relatively low inputs. Hazelnuts are an excellent source of high food-value protein and oil. Basic food security should point us toward diversifying local agriculture with nut crops. This trial will demonstrate the value of new hazelnut varieties in British Columbia food production.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided, in part, by the BC Hazelnut Growers Association and Investment Agriculture Foundation of British Columbia.
We thank the following individuals and organizations for making this work possible: Participating farmers: Peter Andres, Walter Esau, Pentti Hanninen, Helmut Hooge, Charlotte Spencer and Neal teBrinke. LMHIA. Mark Sweeney, Fruit and Berry Specialist, Ag. BC. Dr. Shawn Mehlenbacher, Rebecca McCluskey & David Smith, OSU.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 199 Hazelnuts
Hazelnuts are Back!
Haley Argen and Thomas O’Dell Nature Tech Nursery, Langley, BC [email protected]
Nature Tech Nursery Ltd was started in 2010, and grew out of a passion for sustainable and permanent agriculture, and a long-term interest in nut trees in particular. There was at that time no nursery in BC producing hazelnut trees for sale, and the BC Hazelnut Growers Association was looking for someone to produce Eastern Filbert Blight (EFB) resistant trees for replanting orchards affected by the disease. It was an opportunity to invest in something that could be important to food security in our local region while providing meaningful work we love. Nature Tech Nursery is focused on growing hazelnut trees; we also produce a few other complementary and useful perennial plants.
Hazelnuts are produced by trees and shrubs of the genus Corylus of which there are 10 to 20 species worldwide, with commercial production almost entirely based on selections from the wild. In North America the native species are Corylus cornuta, which is native to much of North America, with two recognized varieties (cornuta and californica), and C. americana, which is native only to eastern North America and is the primary host for Anisogramma anomala, the fungus causing EFB while remaining without symptoms itself. These native species produce small and few nuts, but have been useful in breeding programs to confer hardiness and disease resistance. Selections of C. avellana provide the large majority of hazelnut production the world over, but most of the older varieties are susceptible to EFB, resulting in virtually no commercial nut production in eastern North America.
Hazelnuts can be produced in a relatively narrow range of climatic conditions, where winters are mild enough for pollination to occur but cold enough to provide for chilling in the range of between 800 and 1600 hrs below 7 degrees C. Most production is therefore found near large bodies of water in temperate regions, but land which is unsuitable for other crops can be used to grow hazelnuts where the climate allows. In Turkey, the world’s largest producer of hazelnuts, most production is on (sometimes steeply) sloping land, while in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, the center of North American production, most production is on prime valley bottom land that offers well-drained, fertile and deep soils. Better quality land and higher fertility results in larger yields. The Fraser Valley and islands off the coast of BC offer ideal climatic conditions for this crop.
The first orchards in Oregon were planted in the 1890’s. In BC, David Gellatly planted nuts on his Okanagan farm around 1905 and had a breeding program aimed at developing hardier varieties for colder climates; his trees’ genetics are still used in breeding programs today, including the one at Oregon State University. By the 1930’s there were commercial orchards in BC, eventually reaching over 800 acres of production. Many of these were established in the 1980’s in the Fraser Valley, and are comprised of primarily the variety ‘Barcelona’, with some ‘Ennis’ and ‘DuChilly’ as the main nut-producers.
Then along came EFB. It was first discovered in Washington State in the 1970’s, and spread over the ensuing decades to Oregon, arriving in BC more recently around 2003. EFB primarily infects new, fresh growth in spring from windborne spores, but it can take two to three years for obvious symptoms to appear. Often the first symptom to be noticed is twig dieback from the top, and upon further inspection the characteristic rows of black cankers below.
Management strategies include quarantines to reduce disease spread, aggressive pruning to remove branches two to three feet below the cankers, and spray programs that aim to prevent or reduce further infection. Some orchards can be kept productive for years using this approach, but it is costly in terms of
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 200 Hazelnuts
labour and inputs. Most susceptible trees will eventually succumb entirely or at least become less productive so that it is no longer profitable to maintain them. Ultimately the best strategy is to replace diseased trees with new resistant varieties.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) implemented a quarantine at the request of hazelnut growers before EFB was found here, to restrict the importation of trees from anywhere where the disease exists (the US as well as eastern Canada). Some people question why we should keep this quarantine in effect now that EFB has arrived. Current evidence suggests there was only a single introduction and there exists only one strain of the disease in western North America. If more of the hundreds of strains found in eastern North America arrive here it increases the likelihood of developing more aggressive and virulent infections that could evolve to overcome the genetic resistance bred into the new varieties. Oregon maintains a quarantine to protect their industry on the advice of plant pathologists, and the quarantine should be maintained in BC for the same reason.
Oregon State University’s Hazelnut Breeding Program was begun in 1969 to develop better varieties of Corylus avellana for the Pacific Northwest, but with the introduction of EFB in the 70’s, developing varieties with EFB resistance became a high priority. Dr. Shawn Mehlenbacher heads the program, and it takes his team approximately 17 years from the initial cross to bring a worthy new variety to the point of release. The program is widely credited with saving the Oregon hazelnut industry after the decimation inflicted by EFB. The Nut Growers Society of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia have been collaborating partners from the early years, and Oregon growers in particular have substantially supported the program financially through a contribution formula based on volume of nuts processed in that state. In recent years, the BCHGA has donated directly to it, and Nature Tech Nursery makes regular donations based on number of trees sold in BC.
What makes a better hazelnut tree? Anything that improves yields or quality qualifies. Pest and disease resistance is important, as is pollinizer compatibility and timing of flowering and ripening that complement the cycles of local climate. Nut qualities like how well the nuts fall free of the husk at harvest, appearance of the shell, size of the kernel and how well it blanches, the percentage of the shell that is filled with kernel, and let’s not forget flavour! Most important with orchards dying from EFB infection is a high resistance to this serious and aggressive disease, even when exposed to significant disease pressure. The new cultivars released from OSU have been shown to provide many improvements in these areas, as well as smaller tree stature for ease of maintenance and higher yields per acre (at least in the early years after orchard establishment, as there is no longer-term data available yet). In the meantime, the Oregon nursery industry has been revived and is now vibrantly growing with more than 3000 acres being planted in each of the last three years.
Recent releases include the main nut-producing varieties ‘Jefferson’, ‘Yamhill’ and ‘Sacajawea’, and the pollinizers ‘Eta’, ‘Theta’ and ‘Gamma’. Newer releases are patent protected and will only become available outside the US by license after a period of several years to allow the Oregon producers who have supported the effort to benefit first from the new developments. The first six are now being produced by Nature Tech Nursery Ltd in BC.
‘Jefferson’ has a larger nut, about like ‘Barcelona’, and is harvested about the same time, but flowers quite late. ‘Eta’ and ‘Theta’ are pollinizer varieties released specifically for the latter part of ‘Jefferson’ flowering. ‘Sacajawea’ has a medium-sized nut, suitable for in-shell or kernel markets, and is harvested 10 to 14 days earlier. It flowers mid-season, with ‘Gamma’ and ‘Yamhill’ as recommended pollinizers. ‘Yamhill’ is a highly productive variety for the kernel market; it flowers early to mid-season and harvest is 10 to 14 days before ‘Barcelona’. Recommended pollinizers for ‘Yamhill’ include ‘Gamma’ and
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 201 Hazelnuts
‘Jefferson’, and ‘Sacajawea’ is also compatible. Again, these recommendations and observations are from Oregon5; we will learn more about flowering and harvest timing in BC over the next few years.
From the beginning of the multiplication process in the tissue culture lab it can take two to three years to finish a #1 pot. This is a good size for direct field-planting as it balances cost with an excellent chance for successful establishment. Nature Tech Nursery has trees available for planting in 2014, but with uncertain demand for trees that can’t be held indefinitely in inventory, preordering trees well in advance is the best way to ensure availability of trees when needed. Trees for larger plantings are best custom- grown and quoted based on orders placed with enough time to produce them.
There are many opportunities for hazelnut production, and hazelnut trees have many attributes that make them valuable in a variety of ways. They can be used in large scale production orchards as a primary crop, but are also valuable in agroforestry and permaculture systems, to diversify farming operations, or in suburban backyards. While Corylus avellana is usually grown for more mechanized production as a standard tree (typical in orchards in North America), it can also be managed in a multi-stemmed hedgerow (more common in Turkey). Hazelnuts make excellent shade trees that can be used to help cool buildings, the new varieties are fast-growing enough to produce commercial yields within five years, and trees remain production for 50 to 80 years or more. Relatively low inputs are required to grow hazelnuts compared to many other crops; this is valuable to full-time farmers as well as part-time or retired landowners who want to grow a crop to maintain their farm tax status. The nuts are easy to harvest off the ground after they fall, are an excellent protein source and have a very high nutritional value for people and animals. They also keep well at room temperature for an extended period of time once washed and dried. Intercropping works well, especially during orchard establishment, and the new trees are well- suited to high-density plantings, which is useful to enhance profitability early on. Permanent tree crops provide many ecosystem and environmental benefits, like carbon sequestration that can offset high greenhouse gas emissions and water and nutrient uptake from runoff, both of which are significant issues in many agricultural systems. Hazelnuts can be used in many value-added products - examples include candies, oils, nutritional supplements, processed foods and natural cosmetics. Finally, as a crop especially well-suited to BC (at least the more southern parts), producing hazelnuts contributes to food security and is well-aligned with the growing local food movement.
The hazelnut industry has been challenged by a number of factors in recent years. The introduction of Eastern Filbert Blight over the last decade means many orchardists have been concerned for the future of their farms. The high cost of land in BC means farmers here are looking for cost-efficient and high-value crops, and the quarantine on importation of trees meant for a few years that there was no supply of trees appropriate for planting anyway. Now we have solutions: trees with increased yields, earlier harvests, and most of all resistance to EFB, and pollinizers developed for optimal compatibility, are now available in BC from Nature Tech Nursery Ltd, and there are new and even better varieties are on the horizon. With demand in Canada and globally outstripping supply, and the large majority of hazelnuts consumed in North America still being imported from other countries, now is an excellent time to consider planting hazelnut trees.
5 Jeff Olsen, J. Mehlenbacher, S., McCluskey, R. and D. Smith. 2013. Growing Hazelnuts in the Pacific Northwest: Hazelnut Varieties. EM-9073-E. Oregon State University Extension Bulletin. Accessed on line 2-8-2014. http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/43808/em9073.pdf
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 202 Hazelnuts
New Varieties and Orchard Care Techniques
Richard Birkemeier Birkemeier Farms, Inc., Canby, OR [email protected]
The handout was an outline I put together for a summer tour concerning new plantings. It doesn’t give you a lot of answers so much as to help you ask the right questions.
This is a ‘Jefferson’ tree about 7 years old. We have about 60 different Gasaway hybrids in an experimental planting on our farm. There are 4 of each variety. I give them little special care so I can get a composite picture of how they grow naturally. ‘Jefferson’ is a grower friendly variety, very upright.
‘Yamhill’ is a horizontal growing tree. It’s a kernel variety with good yields. It is precocious, which means it bears well in early years. Let me mention that micropropagated plant material has a high level of juvenility (similar to embryonic tissue in the animal world) closest to the original seed. We call this the cone of juvenility. It has different properties than mature material. It has a stronger rooting capacity, is more vigorous and grows faster. It will always be with the plant. One of the effects of juvenility: it will not set pollen or flowers during the first 3 years. Micropropagation reintroduces juvenility to the tissue.
‘Dorris’ has an open growth habit. It is a smaller tree which is quite grower friendly.
‘York’ was released as a pollinizer variety. It has good compatibility with a lot of the new varieties. Yields are not really high, but it has a good nut.
‘Felix’ is a new pollinizer. They are having a difficult time with it in micropropagation. It is not available yet to growers but we hope to get it this spring in Oregon. It is compatible with a lot of varieties. It has late pollen. It is a very vigorous tree. It is not a precocious yielder.
Keep in mind that the advance selection trials are only 8 years. That is not a lot of time for a tree to mature. It results in weak data concerning yield. We really need a few more years for the trees to settle into production. Harvest dates are also weak. Younger trees act differently. Take ‘Yamhill’ for example. We learn a lot as growers, years down the line, after they go to grower’s plantings. Just because the college releases them with information doesn’t mean we’re done learning about them.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 203 Hazelnuts
People are rejuvenating old orchards with interplants. There are a lot of traps to be aware of. If there is much growth left in your ‘Barcelona’, it lends shading and competition to the new tree. While reaching for light, it grows spindly with a small caliper. What you don’t see is the roots are also light and spindly. When you remove the ‘Barcelona’ you have a spindly tree left. Besides that you are planting in the worst-case scenario in terms of blight pressure. Some % of the new trees will show symptoms of blight. When you ultimately want to take out the big tree, getting out all that brush is problematic. It doesn’t take much scuff to damage the little trees. It is more efficient to take out the orchard when there is nothing in the way and planting back with no competition for light or moisture.
On our farm we have a ‘Lewis’ orchard where we are removing diseased trees as they cave. I walk through with a paint can and make judgments in August which trees to mark to take out. In winter it is hard to tell a healthy tree from a sick one when all the leaves are off. We remove the tree, remove the stump and replant a new tree by the end of January. The new whip is cut off at 32”and painted or protected with a tree collar. I like tree collars to see where you are in the orchard because I am only replanting in the permanent spots. I can look across and see my pattern more easily. It is easy to be afraid to remove diseased trees for production loss. It didn’t set us back nearly as much as I was worried about because of increased light.
This is an example of EFB in a young ‘Jefferson’ tree. You can see the recessed tissue up the center. There are very few stroma that would release new spores. The tree is trying to grow over the top of the disease. We need to understand that the Gasaway gene for resistance expresses itself differently with each new hybrid. These all get blight back in New Jersey. There is no such thing and immunity to EFB. In Oregon with our strain of EFB, they hold up well. It has been shown there are very limited consequences that don’t hold up.
This is a numbered variety. You can see it has blight under the bark. It takes 2-3 years to cover it up. In almost every case the strikes are within the first year or 2 in the field, in the original scaffold of the tree. ‘Jefferson’, and ‘Yamhill’ are the same. No one can tell us why. From what we have observed, Dr. Jay Pscheidt has made the suggestion that trees be sprayed with fungicides if you are in a high spore load area.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 204 Hazelnuts
Here is another ‘Yamhill’ with blight. Again, the original strike was in the crotch of tree. Out of 20,000 ‘Yamhill’, close- planted on our farm, I used to know where there were 20 with blight. That is 1 out of 1,000 trees. Over time I lost track of where they were. Now I can’t find any of them.
This is the same tree. You can see the yellowing but I can’t find it today.
This is a ‘Lewis’ orchard that is about 20 years old. Just over a year ago I was looking down a draw to the north and noticed lots of open space and varied ages of trees.
When I turned around, this is what I saw looking south. This stimulated my memory to the year it was planted.
Here is an aerial view of this field. The north side is dead. The south side is healthy. When we planted this field, the ground was soft from being worked. The top half was a steep hillside. I didn’t want to take the sprayer down hill, making ruts and getting into trouble, so I sprayed the bottom and not the top. After that first year it was all done the same. What we see are the consequences of the 1st year decisions. This shows us that sometimes there are long lasting consequences of decisions you make in the beginning. This also supports Jay Pscheidts’ suggestions to spray that first year.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 205 Hazelnuts
This is the natural growth habit for the ‘Yamhill’ tree. We call it a satellite dish or birdbath. We can compensate for this growth habit with pruning.
You need to understand that Shawn’s job as plant breeder is to give us options. We as growers need to learn how to plant them, grow them and deal with them. ‘Yamhill’ requires specialized pruning.
At the end of the first year in field you must prune your trees to establish the scaffold. The general rule is to leave 3-5 scaffold limbs. We chose 4. Once you pick the ones you want to keep, balanced around the stem and separated, and cut them back by ½, you cut off all the rest. You really must cut on a filbert tree. It is a mistake not to. The more growth points you leave the less each point will grow. We plant a whip and cut it back to 32”. Some like to leave them up to 36”. The higher you leave it, the less each growth point will grow. If you don’t cut it back, each bud will only grow a few inches.
Micorpropagated trees are very uniform. These examples are pretty uniform. Some trees need a lot of artistic imagination and a need to improvise.
You prune to make a ‘Yamhill’ tree more upright. If you tip them the first year, they grow up. As long as you can reach the top, tip them back and they will continue to grow upright. When you can no longer reach, they will go horizontal, but you have them up where they belong. When a sucker gets away, it grows up and explodes out the top. This may be a way to manage ‘Yamhill’ growth in an orchard. This shows stubs where the cycle-bar hedger made cuts. Each stub grew into an elbow and went up. ‘Yamhill’ center tends to stall out, so this could be the future tree.
When ‘Yamhill’ crowd, branches curve up as the trees begin to compete for space. These are planted 10x20. They are 10 years old. Last year we removed interplants from 9 rows from this orchard. We saw a much heavier catkin and bloom set as a result of added space and light in one season. We are now removing the interplanted trees in the entire ‘Yamhill’ orchard. It’s pretty easy when they are this size. You cut them off, yard them out with gator and burn them. It goes very fast.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 206 Hazelnuts
If the interplanted trees are left too long, so they are too close, it will result in fewer nuts per cluster, more blanks and other defects, and lower oil content. When the permanent tree shows signs of deforming, it is time to take the temporary out.
The question needs to be asked; “Do you want to plant close-planted in the beginning?” I don’t think it is for everyone. My dad was about the first to close-plant ‘Barcelona’ in the late 60s. He could see the math that he could make back the expense of tree very quickly. The problem was when we got to 10-11 years, the trees grew together and production stabilized. The permanent tree was fan shaped and deformed. We got to arguing about what to do. Dad saw a perfectly healthy tree that he didn’t want to cut out. I could see that it was damaging the tree next to it. The job of removal gets bigger every year. I don’t wish that argument on any family. It is important to sit down and make a plan when you are deciding whether to plant double density. I did the work and cut them down. Leaving them too long makes it a lot more work. I prefer taking them out sooner rather than later to avoid the problems. It is easier, faster and more efficient to remove them earlier.
Question: Logistics of transplanting. You will transplant in the wintertime. The soil will be soft or muddy. If you are moving them very far it is time consuming. You have to severely cut back the tree you move – and you have severely damaged the roots by digging it - and it is expensive. I would just as soon get it out as efficiently as possible and start with a new tree with best new variety out there. It is more efficient from scratch. There is no right or wrong way. There is no right or wrong answer. Each grower needs to decide what works for him.
Close-planting is not for everyone. We had a retired oilmanwealthy, view property, heavy setwho was told he needed to put in close-planted hazelnuts. That was where the money was. I took one look at him and asked him how much work he wanted to plan into his life 10 years down the road. He decided he was going with a permanent planting from the beginning. It was the right choice for him. There are other places you can invest your money. Having said that, close-planting with today’s prices pencils out.
Some varieties are more precocious than others. That is, they bear at an earlier age. ‘Lewis’ and ‘Yamhill’ are two examples. When they produce earlier, you get more years of production before you have to take them out for crowding. Late bloomers might not produce until year 6 or so. There is not as much time to reap the benefit of close-planting before they crowd.
Some trees are too big to remove. I decided to slab them back, then remove them the next year. Wherever you make a cut, you get vigorous sucker growth. In one season you can get more growth than you cut off. You can make cuts toward the center of scaffold, so the growth will go straight up; then it doesn’t crowd the permanent tree. If you leave it too long you set yourself back. When you slab, you must cut out the tree the next year because of all the new growth.
These examples are ‘Yamhill’, planted in 2003. I planted whips like you have here and cut them off at 32”. We painted them and put in a planting stake. When a tree is grown in a greenhouse, the wood is soft and there is no wind to help strengthen the stem, so we stake it. Today we use a 3/8” bamboo stake that is 5’ tall. That way you can shove it deep and it stays anchored. This one wasn’t tied to the stake in time.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 207 Hazelnuts
Or they can funnel or swing in the wind and break off. The tie must be high on the whip and in the middle. A tall stake might help keep the birds from landing on the tree, breaking off the tender limbs.
This is an example of the consistency of micropropagated trees. From tree to tree they grow the same.
This is the same field several years later. They are consistent.
This is an organic ‘Sacajawea’ orchard. A beautifully maintained field and a good example of using shallow tillage to conserve moisture.
I have been asked about plant collars vs. painting. I have used both. This is an example of how the paint cracks as the tree grows. If you look closely, you will see that inside the cracks it is tender, green material.
If you use herbicides, you can burn the trunk. Chemical burn shows up as a kind of alligator skin.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 208 Hazelnuts
The tree tissue can get soft allowing the tree to bend.
For a herbicide, Gramoxzone is pretty hot. Rely is softer for the plant and the people applying it.
Here is an example of critters coming out of the woods and chewing on the trunk. All the young animals like to chew trees. Might be a good time to use tree collars. I don’t like them because of suckers growing underneath them. They are troublesome to clean up. If you are the least bit concerned about mixing chemicals and applying them, use tree collars.
For ground cover, do you have voles or field mice? Put a plastic out in a field and pick it up after a year. What do you find? Mice and slugs. I had a man that used weed cloth around the base of his newly planted trees. During the course of that first year, they girdled almost all of his 30 acres. Be sure you know what is going on under that cover.
Filberts have always been good for us. We love the crop, the lifestyle, the industry and the people. We wish you all the luck in the world as you move through this challenge of blight. Just remember, there is life after blight and your friends to the south are pulling for you.
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 209
LMHIA Board-Approved Research Projects in March 2013: $32,000
Project Title Researcher(s) Approval
1 Red raspberry cultivar development Dossett $4,000
2 Evaluation and development of strawberry varieties Dossett $2,000
3 Cultivars – blueberry breeding and evaluation trials Dossett $1,000
4 Testing carrot varieties for nematode tolerance (greenhouse Prasad $2,000 component)
5 Understanding of potato virus Y complex in Canada and Dessureault/ $4,500 development of a comprehensive on-farm management survey Singh
6 Cabbage maggot management: resistance survey, efficacy testing, Prasad $1,000 and application efficacy
7 Field testing XenTari (Bta) as a tool to manage caterpillar pests in Prasad $2,000 cole crops
8 Educating public, gardeners, and producers on importance of Dessureault/ $2,000 managing late potato blight Prasad
9 Develop a degree day model to predict RCB egg hatch and timing of Teasdale/ $1,000 insecticide drenches Ferris
10 Potential fungicides for control of downy mildew of blackberry: Elmhirst $1,000 efficacy & crop tolerance
11 2013 broccoli variety screening trials for the BC processing industry Wallis $500
12 2013 Brussel’s sprout variety screening trials for the BC processing Wallis $1,000 industry
13 Increasing raspberry yields via soil nutrient and health management Gerbrandt $2,000
14 Wireworm management in potatoes: biocontrol/monitoring/survey Kabaluk/ $3,000 Vernon 15 Determining causes of poor fruit set and yield loss in blueberry Button/ $2,500 cultivars Liberty and Draper Sakalauskas
16 Blueberry production innovations via PGRs, cooler storage, and Gerbrandt/ $2,000 pruning Baumann
Contingency $500
Horticulture Growers' Short Course 210 211 Thursday Morning January 30, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room Raspberries/Strawberries Potatoes Greenhouse Vegetable Chair: Tom Baumann, UFV, Chilliwack, BC Chair: Leisa Yee, BC Potato and Vegetable Growers Chair: Linda Delli Santi, BC Greenhouse Growers’ Sponsor: Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Sponsor: BC Potato & Vegetable Growers Assoc. Association Assoc. Sponsor: BC Greenhouse Growers’ Association 8:50-9:20 Potato Pest Research in BC – National in Scope 9:00-9:20 9:00 - 9:25 Bob Vernon, AAFC, Agassiz, BC Managing the Quantity and Quality of Light Entering New Pesticide Registrations for Raspberries and Marjolaine Dessureault, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC your Greenhouse Strawberries Wireworm and PVY are a sampling of new and nationally Peter Heemskirk, Mardenkro North America Ltd., Caroline Bedard, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC funded potato research projects to be launched in 2014. Chilliwack, BC Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC The evolution of liquid shading compounds, from basic 9:20-9:45 An update of new products for 2014 and a peek at what is chalk to high-tech pigments that can reduce light in In Search of a Quality Potato – It Starts Before Planting coming down the pike. certain parts of the light spectrum and therefore create Kiara Jack, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC customized shading. 9:25-9:45 The time to think about prevention of bruising starts long Verticillium – Is it a Problem in Raspberries? before harvest. Bruise damage occurs along the life of the 9:20-9:45 Jerry Weiland, USDA-ARS, Corvallis, OR potato - how to mitigate, from before planting right through Progress in Developing Methods for Reliable and There are many potential causes of dieback and decline in to storage. Sensitive Detection of Clavibacter and Salmonella in raspberries. Here is another potential concern for growers. Tomato Irrigation Water 9:45-10:05 Sally Miller, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 9:45-10:25 Thrips Management – Developing a Threshold for Control Can irrigation water compromise crop productivity and food Innovative Raspberry and Strawberry Production in Wim van Herk, AAFC, Agassiz, BC safety as a carrier of plant and human pathogens? This Quebec Thrips are tricky to monitor for and their effect on potato presentation will summarize preliminary efforts to develop Rejean Demers, Les Productions Horticoles Demers Inc., crops is poorly understood. Work is being done to better reliable and sensitive approaches to detect important Saint-Nicolas, QC understand thrips movements in fields, and attempts to pathogens in irrigation water. Learn how this Quebec farm is improving season-long develop control thresholds for this foliar pest. productivity of fresh raspberries and strawberries using 9:45-10:10 10:05-10:15 Refreshment Break various novel techniques. Efficacy of Disinfectants Against Fungal, Bacterial, 10:15-11:00 Virus and Viroid Pathogens of Tomatoes on Greenhouse 10:25-10:40 Refreshment Break Only Plant Pathologists Appreciate Scurfy Potatoes Tools 10:40-11:00 Lynn Woodell, University of Idaho, Kimberley, ID Sally Miller, Ohio State University, Wooster, OH Raspberry and Strawberry Weed Control – New The fresh market industry in BC is always on the lookout Mechanically transmitted pathogens spread easily from Potential Products for information to improve management of post-harvest plant to plant via contaminated hands, gloves and tools Tim Miller, WSU, Mt. Vernon, WA disorders in potatoes such as silver scurf. Current disease during crop work operations. Information on efficacy of Tim continues to carry-out trials to evaluate new herbicides research from Idaho and storage management tips improve various disinfectants against these pathogens will be for use on berries. the bottom line. presented. 11:00-12:10 11:00-11:30 10:10-11:00 Developments in Raspberry and Strawberry Genetics Growing Potatoes and Leaving the Weeds In the Dust Priva TopCrop: A New Plant-Controlled Concept for and Varieties Pam Hutchinson, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID Greenhouse Process Control Michael Dossett, PARC, Agassiz, BC With the risk of control tools disappearing, management Kevin de Kok, Priva, Netherlands Chad Finn, USDA-ARS, Corvallis, OR and control options for broadleaf weeds are a concern to TopCrop integrates crop water balance into the control Pat Moore, WSU, Puyullap, WA the industry. New research from Idaho has helpful weed loop for greenhouse climate and irrigation. Learn about Tom Baumann, UFV, Chilliwack, BC management options. the novel features of the system and the results of pilots An update on the status of the BC breeding program and a conducted at commercial greenhouses. 11:30-noon look at available new varieties and interesting material in Targeting the Weeds and Not the Crop 11:00-11:30 the pipeline. Pam Hutchinson, University of Idaho, Aberdeen, ID Temporary Foreign Worker Program Re-certification Credits: 1.0 New information and practical tips on prevention of Matthew Wong, Service Canada, Vancouver, BC herbicide carry-over in potatoes. Differences in program uptake between the provinces and the future of the program in Canada will be discussed. Re-certification credits 2.5 FCC Loft 11:30-12:10 Using Biochar as a Medium Component for Greenhouse Agroforestry/Alternate Crops Vegetable Crops Chair: Dave Trotter, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 10:15-10:45 Nick Savidov, Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, Agroforestry in BC focuses on complementing current Agroforestry Production Development Tool (APD Tool): Edmonton, AB on-farm management with alternate crops and practices; An Agroforestry Decision-making Tool for Producers Biochar is produced by heating organic feedstocks in a low diversifying cash-flow and labour; providing supplemental Kate Menzies, UBC Farm, Vancouver, BC oxygen environment to prevent combustion. The findings of income; and enhancing long-term sustainability. A business support tool for producers considering an 6 yrs research on the use of biochar as a medium for the agroforestry venture on their land. 9:00-9:30 commercial production of greenhouse vegetables will be Agroforestry Initiative – Demonstration Projects and 10:45-11:15 presented. Resources Available Integrating Apiculture with Riparian Buffers Re-certification Credits: 0.75 George Powell, Agroforestry Industry Development Michael Murray, Murray Family Woodlot, Nelson, BC Initiative, Quesnel, BC The use of a family woodlot to demonstrate the benefits of Hghlights of the demonstrations and resources available to blending apiculture in an integrated riparian management producers. system. 9:30-10:00 11:15-11:45 Alley Cropping with Black Walnut and Pawpaw Agroforestry Approaches on a Small Agricultural Lot Brenda Dureault, Curly Frog Farm, Kelowna, BC Sonja Zupanec and Jeff Rietkerk, Just Another Weed Patch An overview of lessons learned in Farm, Gabriola Island, BC establishing black walnut and pawpaw trees in an alley An innovative approach to the development of a diverse nut cropping system on a small lot farm. and timber tree grove grown in combination with livestock, 10:00-10:15 Refreshment Break annual vegetable and flower crops. 212 Thursday Afternoon January 30, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room Raspberries/Strawberries Field Vegetables Floriculture Chair: Sharmin Gamiet, Raspberry Industry Development Chair: Susan Smith, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Chair: Cary Gates, Flowers Canada Council, Abbotsford, BC Sponsor: Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Sponsors: United Flower Growers, Flowers Canada Sponsor: Raspberry Industry Development Council Assoc. and Koppert Canada 1:30-2:10 1:30-2:15 1:00-1:10 SWD in Raspberries – 2013 Finding Rots and Blights of Vegetables Introduction and Message from the Sponsors Tracy Hueppelsheuser, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Mary Hausbeck, Michigan State U., East Lansing MI Dean Shoemaker, Flowers Canada, Ontario Lynell Tanigoshi, WSU, Mt. Vernon, WA Learn more about novel and integrated management 1:10-1:40 Learn what researchers discovered about SWD in strategies as a way of tackling important diseases that How to Get it Right: the Top 10 Reasons why your raspberries in last year’s challenging season. afflict a variety of field vegetables including cucurbits, Biocontrol Approach Didn’t Work tomatoes, carrots and more. 2:10-2:35 Brian Spencer, Applied Bio-nomics Ltd., Saanich, BC Lessons from the Worst SWD Year Ever – Panel 2:15-2:45 Brian has played a considerable role in the development Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC RNA Interference Technology – Applications for and adoption of biocontrols in the Canadian ornamental Steve Phillips, Berryhill Foods, Abbotsford, BC Agriculture industries. His presentation will focus on the use of Chuck Mouritzen, Southwest Consulting, Yarrow, BC Guus Bakkeren, AAFC, Summerland, BC biocontrol systems and the most common mistakes Sukh Kahlon, Kahlon Farms, Abbotsford, BC Ever wondered what “RNAi”( aka “RNA silencing”) is and growers make when using biocontrol agents. After a year of record losses, learn some practical things what the technology could mean for pest management in 1:40-2:25 that you can do to ensure your 2014 crop is protected. horticulture? Molecular plant pathologist, Guus Bakkeren, Research Activities at the Vineland Research and will explain. 2:35-2:55 Innovation Centre Working Towards Better Raspberry and Strawberry 2:45-3:15 Rose Buitenhuis, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Establishment CRM in Brassicaes – How Long Will Chlorpyrifos Work? Niagara Region, ON Eric Gerbrant, UFV, Chilliwack, BC Bob Vernon, AAFC, Agassiz, BC The presentation will highlight research conducted on A look at some innovative work with plug plants, timings Renee Prasad, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC managing pests through the introduction of predatory and mulches for getting a good, healthy start with new The latest results of cabbage root maggot resistance mites (including A. swirskii), the use of banker plants in plantings. surveys in select growing regions of BC and what greenhouse pest management and cutting dips to reduce this means going forward. New chemistries are being the risk of importing pests on vegetative cuttings. 2:55-3:15 investigated as well as alternatives including a proposed Present and Future Challenges with Soil Fumigation 2:25-3:00 national row cover study. in BC Aphids 101 – Everything You Didn’t Know You Need to Brian Johnston, TerraLink, Abbotsford, BC 3:15-3:45 Know About Aphids With more restrictive regulatory hurdles, fumigation Stuck in the Weeds? Dave Gillespie, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC is becoming more difficult. Is it still a viable option for Tim Miller, Washington State University, Mt. Vernon, WA Aphids attack many of the commonly grown floriculture growers? Adapting to the loss of weed control tools is a reality for crops, and can be extremely difficult to manage. Identifying field vegetables. Hear the latest findings on weed control key aphid species in floriculture crops, and knowing about 3:15-3:35 in a variety of vegetables including beets, brassicaes, their biology and life history are keys to running successful Bed Fumigation – An Option for Living with New cucurbits and more. management programs against these important pests. Regulations Hear about the various approaches that could be drawn on Tom Walters, Walters Ag Research, Anacortes, WA Re-certification credits: 1.75 to develop a management program for aphids. Tom has conducted several years of research with this technique that holds promise for raspberry growers. 3:00-3:50 New Tools and Advances to Battle the Mildews 3:35-3:55 Mary Hausbeck, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI Raspberry Market Outlook Powdery and downy mildews are increasingly challenging Dianne Klatt, Pacific Coast Fruit, Abbotsford, BC to control for ornamental growers. With new host diseases The market finally improved modestly in 2013. Will this being encountered, growers need to be vigilant and have trend continue in 2014? a discerning eye to identify and control these diseases in Re-certification Credits: 1.75 a timely manner. This presentation will provide a summary of new and emerging tools to identify and control powdery and downy mildews. Re-certification credits: 2.5 Pesticide Recertification Credit Program LMHIA members holding a Pesticide Applicators Certificate may collect credits towards re-certification as an option to re-writing an exam at the end of the 5 year certificate. Growers may participate in the short course and other pre-approved educational events to collect the required Opening Reception credits (20) over the five year period of their certificate to become re-certified. Sessions at 4 pm Thursday the Short Course which are eligible for pesticide re-certification credits are indicated with Everyone Welcome a ladybug logo. To participate in the program a grower must: • Maintain membership in the LMHIA (i.e. register for the short course each year) • Possess a current & valid 5 year certificate in the agriculture general category Cover photo credit: • Be able to read and comprehend English pesticide labels Mark Sweeney, Berry Specialist, Registration forms for the credit program will be available at the registration desk during the Growers’ Short BCAGRI Abbotsford Course. Collect Pesticide Credits!! Watch for the sessions with a ladybug logo. The total credits for eligible sessions are indicated at the bottom of each session.
213 Friday Morning January 31, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room 2014 Building Farm Business Farm Direct Marketing Nursery Chair: Donna Anaka, BCAGRI, Vancouver, BC Chair: David Woodske, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Success - A Lens on Agriculture Sponsor: BC Landscape & Nursery Association Chair: Jennifer Curtis, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 9:05-9:15 Sponsor: BCAGRI Business Knowledge and Strategic Welcoming Remarks 9:00-9:30 Adaptation - A Growing Forward 2 Initiative Murray Siemens, President, Fraser Valley Farm Direct Pest Update Marketing Association, Abbotsford, BC Dave Woodske, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 9:00-9:45 An update on Boxwood Blight and Ramorum Blight and Sustainability: What Does That Mean? 9:15-10:00 Dieback, two pathogens that continue to be problematic for Brett Wills, Director Green Enterprise Movement, Toronto, ON Co-operation, Collaboration, and Creativity the nursery sector. Going green has long been viewed as a “nice to do” in Heather Stretch, Saanich Organics, Saanichton, BC good times but that thinking is rapidly changing as more An open mind can be more effective than a large advertis- 9:30-10:15 companies discover the power of green as a way to cut ing budget. Heather will share her experiences at Saanich Optimizing Your Soilless Media costs, increase revenues and gain competitiveness. Learn Organics in a lively, creative environment to re-invigorate Lance Lawson, Horticulture Specialist, Premier Tech what it takes to go green, the challenges you will face our marketing strategies. Horticulture, Utah and how to overcome them, making your business more Recommended physical and chemical properties of a 10:00-10:15 Refreshment Break successful. www.greenenterprise.ca soilless growing media and the benefits of incorporating 10:15-11:00 microbial additives, such as biofungicides and mycorrhizae 9:45-10:30 Making Bucks and Sense of Farmers Markets products, in the media. Cultural (R)evolution in Agriculture Jon Bell, BC Assoc of Farmers’ Markets, Sechelt, BC Maureen Geddes, geddesglobal.ca, Chatham, ON 10:15-10:30 Refreshment Break Farmers’ Markets can make sense for small scale farms Who is an agricultural employee today? Local is looking and new farmers. Market shoppers are looking to connect 10:30-11:10 more global – and a “stranger” is but a friend you have yet with farmers to learn about growing food. Learn how to Organic Matter in Horticulture around the World to meet… or the best employee you never imagined hiring. position your farm stand and maximize your returns. Mario Lanthier, CropHealth Advising & Research, Kelowna, Learn fun and practical ways to engage with the cultural BC (r)evolution so you can prevent complaints, improve 11:00-11:50 Summaries from 3 scientific meetings held recently in productivity, and lead your team with wisdom. Seeing Where the Value is in Becoming “Value-Added” Europe and South America. Topics include compost in 10:30-10:45 Refreshment Break On-Farm and Family: A Success Story field production, potting mixes in organic greenhouse Emma and Kerry Davison, Golden Ears Cheesecrafters, horticulture and emergence of biostimulants as 10:45-12:00 Maple Ridge, BC commercial products. Practical use of recent research The Bright New Future of Agriculture Discover how a hundred year old legacy was re-born as findings will be highlighted. Jay Lehr, Economist and Futurist, The Heartland Institute, an artisan Cheese making venture. The Davison family of Chicago USA 11:10-noon four works together to produce award winning handcrafted Dr. Jay Lehr combines 5 decades of expertise and Robotics and Automation in Horticulture artisan cheeses for a clearly defined and growing customer experience in Agricultural Economics, Agronomy, John Van de Vegte, Vineland Research and Innovation base. Learn how your vision and company focus can Environmental Science and Business Administration with Centre, Niagara Region, ON increase sales and profits. the most contagious enthusiasm for the future of the Farm. The development of new technologies and equipment His extensive work within the farming industry has given in the horticulture industry to improve productivity and/ him a highly sought after crystal ball which he predicts the or product quality. The main topic points: Overview of future based on precise knowledge of the past as well as key technology components; Identifying areas where the distinctive current trends. This presentation will address development of new technology is justified; Technology the key drivers of Agri-business and impact of advancing development process and review a Case Study. technologies on the local and global economy.
FCC Loft 10:00 Refreshment Break Agricultural Water and Safe Food 10:10-10:35 Post Harvest Waters – Strategies to Mitigate and Production Realities Ensure Safe Products Dr. Jay Lehr Chair: Elsie Friesen, BCAGRI, Food Protection Branch, Greg Komar, NSF CanadaGAP Technical Advisor, Salinas, CA Jay Lehr is the Science Abbotsford, BC Director of the Heartland 10:35-10:45 Institute, a 29-year-old 9:00-9:10 Regulatory Modernization – and its Effect on Grower national nonprofit research Lower Mainland Surface Water Research – What Did Operations organization dedicated to We Learn? Elsie Friesen, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC finding and promoting ideas Stephaine Nadya, UBC Master’s Candidate, Vancouver, BC 10:45-11:15 that empower people. He 9:10-9:25 Reality Check-Up on Growing Forward Funding received the first Ph.D. in Surface Water Research and How it Impacts A panel discussion on the successes of Growing Forward Ground Water Hydrology Agricultural Products 1 funding, and what’s coming in GF2 from the University of Arizona and taught at the Pascal Delaquis, AAFC Researcher, Summerland, BC Moderator: Bill Weismiller, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC University of Arizona and Ohio State before becoming Panel Members: Vic Martens, ARDCORP, Abbotsford, BC the Executive Director of the National Ground Water 9:25-9:50 Alison Speirs, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Association and the Association for Ground Water Field Water Impact on Produce Safety Scientists and Engineers for 25 years. Greg Komar, NSF CanadaGAP Technical Advisor, Salinas, 11:15-11:40 CA Insurance and Food Safety: Handling a Risky Situation He has spoken to hundreds of groups and has written Pre-Farm Gate Environment (Farm, Harvest, Field Pack) Kathryn Britnell, Reliance Insurance, Vancouver, BC 30 books. He is well known for his athletic prowess and the risks associated with water use. How do recalls affect the financial picture of a farm? having completed nine Hawaiian Ironman Triathlon 9:50-10:00 11:40-12:00 World Championships and holding the world’s longest Irrigation Water Research – an AGRI and UBC Mock Recalls and How They Add Value to Your streak of monthly skydives. Partnership Project Operation UBC Post Doctoral Fellowship Candidate, and Elsie BCIT Instructor, Burnaby, BC Friesen, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 214 Friday Afternoon January 31, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room All Berries Field Vegetables Nursery Chair: Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Chair: Noel Roddick, retired agrologist, Delta, BC Chair: Dave Woodske, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Sponsor: MNP LLP Sponsor: Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Sponsor: BC Landscape & Nursery Association Assoc. 1:30-1:50 1:10-1:40 Downy Mildew of Blackberry – Management Options 1:30-2:15 Recipe for Prevention: How to Manage Pests on Janice Elmhirst, Elmirst Diagnostics and Research, Improving Nutrient Utilization Cuttings Abbotsford, BC Terry Tindall, J.R. Simplot Co., Boise, ID Rose Buitenhuis, Vineland Research and Innovation Centre, Blackberry growers have been hit hard by downy mildew Nutrisphere-N is an innovative solution to efficient Niagara Region, ON in recent years. Janice has been investigating some utilization of soil applied nitrogen. Hear more about New pests or pesticide-resistant pests can be introduced promising control options. how it works and what the advantages are for vegetable on imported cuttings. Regardless of whether you import production and also the environment. Hear also an update or use a local source of cuttings, there are benefits 1:50-2:10 on how Avail improves utilization of phosphorus. to managing pests on cuttings prior to sticking. This Why Berry Growers Need to Get on the Food Safety presentation will summarize the findings of research on Ball in 2014 2:15-2:50 the use of cutting dips to manage arthropod pests on Vic Martens, ARDCorp, Abbotsford, BC Panel Session: Expanding the Potential for Carrot vegetative cuttings. More than ever, growers need to have a formal food Production in BC safety program to satisfy the marketplace. There are Moderator: Heather Meberg, ES Cropconsult, Surrey, BC 1:40-2:40 resources and funding to help. Renee Prasad, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC Keeping Trees, Shrubs (and you) Stress-free: What Randy Sihota, Canadian Farms, Surrey, BC Works, What Doesn’t, and Why 2:10-2:30 By expanding processing options, the carrot industry in Linda Chalker-Scott, Associate Professor, Washington State Brown Marmorated Stink Bug – Why You Need to Be South Western BC has the potential to grow. Hear the University, Puyallup, WA Prepared results of a new trial that is assessing agronomic, post- The two most common environmental stresses in Tracy Hueppelsheuser, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC harvest and culinary performance of carrot varieties grown nurseries, gardens and landscapes are water and Not another new pest! This one is now in Washington last year on the Sumas. temperature. Take preventative action by understanding State and moving north. how plants respond to drought, flooding, and high and 2:50-3:35 2:30-2:50 low temperatures, and by using appropriate practices and Production and Pest Management of Beets in BC What You Need to Know About Armillaria Root Rot products. Bruce Wisbey, Wisbey Veggies, Abbotsford, BC Siva Sabaratnam, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Renee Prasad, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC 2:40-3:30 This disease is now impacting dozens of blueberry Learn from a Fraser Valley grower about growing this Precision Irrigation in Greenhouses and Nurseries: fields. Learn how to identify and manage this emerging crop and the advantages and production challenges it Improving Production and Increasing Profits problem. presents. Hear also about a new project underway to better Marc van Iersel, Department of Horticulture, University of 2:50-3:15 understand the pest issues of this crop from the field Georgia, Athens, GA What is the Real Story Behind Declining Bee Health? through to storage. Soil moisture sensors can be used to trigger irrigation Elizabeth Elle, SFU, Burnaby, BC when needed, resulting in more efficient irrigation. The 3:35-4:00 The media has been buzzing with stories about benefits of efficient irrigation go well beyond reducing What’s New in the BC Production Guide? disappearing bees and the negative impacts on crop water use; it can also improve production and increase Susan Smith, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC pollination. Is this concern real? What should growers do profits. Case studies from commercial nurseries show how Highlights of recent production guide updates for BC field to protect their bees and their crops. growers can benefit from this technology. vegetable growers. 3:15-3:35 3:30-4:00 Re-certification credits: 1.0 Promising New Blueberry Cultural Practices - 2013 Precision Irrigation in Greenhouses and Nurseries: Trials 3:45 LMHIA Business Meeting Improving Production and Increasing Profits Eric Gerbrant, UFV Berry Resource Centre, Chilliwack, BC Terralink Room - Everyone welcome Beatriz Ramos, Len Thorburn & Bill Lightowlers, OCION Eric is working with the Pacific Berry Resource Centre at Water Sciences Group, Richmond, BC UFV on a range of production trials with potential benefits Water reservoirs provide a habitat for algae and for growers. waterborne plant pathogens. Maintaining water quality and clean irrigation lines is essential for optimum functioning of 3:35-3:45 Thank you to our generous irrigation systems in nurseries and greenhouses. Are Blueberry Growers Making the Most of their Nitrogen? meeting room sponsors: Re-certification Credits: 0.5 David Poon, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 3:45 LMHIA Business Meeting A 2012 survey of post-harvest nutrients found high BASF (Engage Agro) Terralink Room - Everyone welcome levels of nitrates in blueberry fields. Do we know what BMO Bank of Montreal it means? Re-certification Credits: 1.25 Direct Solutions 3:45 LMHIA Business Meeting Farm Credit Canada Everyone welcome Terralink Horticulture Inc
Thank You! • Student volunteers from University of the Fraser Valley • Flowering plants from Nick Heemskerk, UFV, JRT Nurseries Inc. and Treeline Nursery
215 Saturday Morning February 1, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room Blueberries Organic Hazelnuts Chair: Rhonda Driediger, Driediger Farms, Langley, BC Chair: Gary Jones, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Chair: Peter Andres, BCHGA, Agassiz, BC Sponsors: Berryhill Foods Inc and Driediger Farms Langley, BC Sponsor: BC Hazelnut Growers Association Sponsor: Fraser Valley Organic Producers Assoc. 9:00-9:20 9:00-9:45 Lessons Learned from BC’s Worst SWD Year Ever 8:55-9:15 Life After Blight - Is there a Future for the Family Farm Tracy Hueppelsheuser, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Managing Diseases in Beans after EFB? Tracy’s research group tracked weekly SWD pressure in a Marjolaine Dessureault, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC Rich Birkemeier, Birkemeier Farms, Canby, OR number of blueberry fields and learned some key practical Schlerotinia and botrytis can often plague a bean field. A testimony of his experiences - facing the challenges and insights. Hear more about work being done to provide organics with the emotional roller coaster that is Eastern Filbert Blight. some defensive tools against these challenging diseases. 9:20-9:55 9:45-10:30 Managing Spotted Wing Drosophila in Blueberries – 9:15-9:35 A Trial to Evaluate New Hazelnut Cultivars in British the Michigan Experience Caterpillar Control in Organic Brassicae Crops Columbia Rufus Isaacs, MSU, Michigan Renee Prasad, ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC Thom O’Dell, Nature Tech Nursery, Langley, BC While SWD was a late arrival to Michigan, it came with a Learn more about the potential for Xen Tari (Bt) to manage Learn about the preliminary information that has been vengeance. Some practical tips from the Michigan industry caterpillar pests in cole crops. gained from field trials with EFB resistant varieties. on managing this pest. 9:35-10:05 10:30-10:45 Refreshment Break 9:55-10:20 Pest Wars On a Mixed Vegetable Farm in Delta 10:45-11:30 New Pesticide Registrations for Blueberries and How Harvie Snow, Snow Farms, Delta, BC Business Meeting (AGM) of the BC Hazelnut Growers to Use Them Hear some insights learned through the “school of hard Association Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC knocks” to alleviate pest pressure in field vegetables. Everybody: members and non-members, welcome to Caroline Bedard, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC 10:05-10:15 Refreshment Break attend An update of new products for 2014 and a peek at what is Hear reports, financial statement, levy vote for 2014-15 coming down the pike. 10:15-10:30 and election of officers. Managing Beneficials 101 10:20-10:35 Refreshment Break Jim Matteoni, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Langley, BC 11:30-noon 10:35-11:00 Concepts of biocontrol - attracting and maintaining Hazelnuts are Back! The Blueberry Market in 2014 – Will You Wipe-out in beneficials. Haley Argen and Thom O’Dell, Nature Tech Nursery, the Blue Wave? 10:30-11:20 Langley, BC John Shelford, Shelford Associates, Naples, Florida Panel Session: Tips to Enhancing the Beneficials You A look at new available varieties and those coming in The 2013 season saw some unusual market pressures. Have future years - research information on pollination, growth With more supply expected in 2014 and beyond, what’s in Moderator: Jim Matteoni, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, habit, production and stock availability, costs, scheduling store for the BC and global blueberry industry? Langley, BC orders, etc. 11:00-11:30 Andrea Davenport, Koppert Canada, Surrey, BC Communicating a Positive Public Image for BC Paul Koole, Biobest Canada/The Bug Factory, Langley, BC Blueberries Brian Spencer, Applied Bio-Nomics, N. Saanich, BC Norm Hartman, TMT WorldWide, San Francisco, CA Hear tips to making the best use of products available from In the new world of social media, information, both positive suppliers of biological controls. and negative, can spread instantly. Learn what individual 11:20-noon growers and industry organizations can to do to build and Biodiversity in Agricultural Habitats to Promote maintain a solid industry reputation. Beneficials 11:30-12:10 Bill Snyder, Washington State University, Pullman WA What You Need to Know about Blueberry Nutrient Learn about some on-farm examples of how biodiversity in Management for Yield, Quality and Sustainability the field complements biocontrol. Bernadine Strik, OSU, Corvallis, OR Bernadine has conducted years of research into the nutrient needs of the blueberry plant and provides a summary of what we know. Re-certification Credits: 1.25
Look for pesticide applicator re-certification points at the PMRA booth and other participating booths. BERRYHILL FOODS INC. Get your record card at the registration desk. See us at PMRA for more information. Proud supporter of the 2014 Horticulture Growers Short Course
www.berryhillfoods.com 216 Saturday Afternoon February 1, 2014
TerraLink Room BASF Gallery Direct Solutions Room Blueberries Organic Hazelnuts Chair: Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC Chair: Harvie Snow, FVOPA, Delta, BC Chair: Peter Andres, BCHGA, Agassiz, BC Sponsor: Berryhill Foods Inc and BC Blueberry Sponsor: Fraser Valley Organic Producers Assoc. Sponsor: BC Hazelnut Growers Association Council 1:00-2:00 pm 1:15-2:00 1:30-1:50 Organic Blueberry Production – Yielding Conventional Management Techniques in New High Density Orchards Blueberry Bird Management - New Regulations Results Rich Birkemeier, Birkemeier Farms, Canby, OR Debbie Etsell, BCBC, Abbotsford, BC Bernadine Strik, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Proven techniques, based on Rich’s experience, including This issue continues to be a major challenge for the The results of an 8 year certified organic blueberry pruning of new varieties. industry. Learn how to comply with the changes. research trial where much has been learned and success 2:00-2:45 has been achieved using Duke and Liberty varieties under 1:50-2:30 Panel: Question and Answer Period a range of management regimes including how to best Keys to Better Quality BC Blueberries Peter Andres, BCHGA president, Agassiz, BC establish plantings, nitrogen fertilizer management and Karina Sakalauskas, BCBC, Abbotsford, BC – moderator Rich Birkemeier, Birkemeier Farms, Canby, OR weed control using mulches and approved herbicides. Debbie Etsell, BCBC, Abbotsford, BC Haley Argen & Thom O’Dell, Nature Tech Nursery, Langley, BC David Mutz, BerryHaven Farms, Abbotsford, BC 2:00-2:45 Information on organic production and processing of Parm Bains, Westberry Farms, Abbotsford, BC Organic Berry Production Challenges hazelnuts, value-added products and increasing farm How are BC growers doing when it comes to quality? Panel moderator: Marjolaine Dessurealt, ES Cropconsult income. What do growers need to do to maintain and improve the Ltd., Surrey, BC 2:45-3:10 international reputation of BC fruit? Fraser ValleyKristine Ferris, Organic ES Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC Wrap-up Session and Closing Bernadine Strik, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 2:30-2:45 Peter Andres, BCHGA president, Agassiz, BC ProducersTing AssociationWu, Formosa Farms, Maple Ridge, BC How to Keep on the Good Side of Environmental There is no doubt that organic production challenges are Regulators real when managing a berry crop. The panel discusses Kim Sutherland,Proudly BCAGRI, Abbotsford, certifying BC BC Producers and Processors a recent survey of growers and experts in the Pacific More and more regulations pertaining to wood waste, FVOPA is a leading edge Organic Certification Agency whichNorthwest delivers regarding an ISO 65organic program berry production management stream protection and species at risk are impacting Refreshment Break Sponsors compliant with the National Standardschallenges of Canada. and perspectives on how to overcome. blueberry farm development.FVOPA’s certification What you program need to isknow. recognized in Canada, USA and EU. • BC Blueberry Council 2:45-3:25 2:45-3:15 FVOPA provides year-round efficient and professional certification services for High Tunnels and Season Extension in Mixed • New DevelopmentsLivestock, Crop in BCand Blueberry Processing/Handling Breeding, New operations of all sizes. FVOPA’s Inspectors Berryhill Foods Inc. Vegetables Variety Releasesare highly of Interest qualified and IOIA trained. File transfers are arranged confidentially. To request an application or for more information pleaseCarol visit Annour websiteMiles, Washington www.fvopa.ca State U, Mt. Vernon, WA • BMO Bank of Montreal Michael Dossett, PARC, Agassiz, BC or email the Administrator at [email protected] tunnels can provide solutions to disease challenges Peter Boches, Fall Creek Nursery, Lowell, OR • Country Life in BC when growing crops such as field tomatoes – it’s all inFVOPA the The BC program with new funding and direction is [email protected] style of the tunnel, and (of course) management. • alreadyFVOPA showing some promising selections. Learn about Phone 604.789.7586 Oct 2013Grodan Inc. the newPO Box variety 18591 releases from Fall Creek. 3:25-3:55Message 604.607.1655 2 COLUMNS• Penergetic X Canada 3.5” Delta, BC V4K 4V7 Weed ManagementFax: 1-866-230-0322 – Tools for Organics 3:15-3:35 Tim Miller, Washington State University, Mt. Vernon, WA • RBC Royal Bank Agriculture & The Great Disappearing Crop of 2013 – Where Did the www.fvopa.caHear about work in Washington State on organic sprays, Yield Go? There’s never a better time than NOW to apply includingfor Organic vinegar, Certification for weed control in both berries and Agribusiness Team Mark Sweeney, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC vegetables. The BC crop saw a shortfall in production of over 10 million lbs. Why did it happen and can it be prevented?
BMO Room Small Lot Agriculture - 9 am to 4 pm Sustainable Agriculture, Institute of Sustainable Food Education Session Sponsors Systems Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Langley, BC • BC Blueberry Council • BC Greenhouse Growers Association Fraser Valley Organic • BC Hazelnut Growers Association Producers Association • BC Landscape & Nursery Association • Berryhill Foods Inc. Proudly certifying BC Producers and Processors • Driediger Farms FVOPA is a leading edge Organic Certification Agency which delivers an ISO 65 program • Farm Credit Canada compliant with the National Standards of Canada. FVOPA’s certification program is recognized in Canada, USA and EU. • Flowers Canada FVOPA provides year-round efficient and professional certification services for • Fraser Valley Organic Producers Association Livestock, Crop and Processing/Handling operations of all sizes. FVOPA’s Inspectors • Growing Forward 2, A Federal-Provincial- are highly qualified and IOIA trained. File transfers are arranged confidentially. To request an application or for more information please visit our website www.fvopa.ca Territorial Initiative or email the Administrator at [email protected] • Koppert Canada [email protected] • Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement FVOPA Phone 604.789.7586 PO Box 18591 Message 604.607.1655 Assoc. Delta, BC V4K 4V7 Fax: 1-866-230-0322 • MNP LLP www.fvopa.ca • Raspberry Industry Development Council There’s never a better time than NOW to apply for Organic Certification • United Flower Growers 217 Registration information:
Register ON-LINE at www.agricultureshow.net OR Download the pdf registration form online Registration fees: $75.00 (by January 13) or $100.00 (after January 13)
2012 / 2013 LMHIA Your Course Registration Fee includes: Board of Directors • Annual Membership in the LMHIA President: David Mutz • Attendance in any or all educational sessions Vice-President: James Bergen • Admittance to the Pacific Agriculture Show Secretary: Susan Smith • Admittance to Thursday afternoon welcome reception Treasurer: Mark Sweeney • Participation in the Pesticide Applicators License Re-certification Program Mike Boot Marjolaine Dessureault For further information Phone: 604-556-3001 Trevor Harris or 604-857-0318 Jeff Husband or www.agricultureshow.net Brian Johnston Alf Krause Jordan Krause Sid Kwantes Ed McKim Grant McMillan Mike Makara Heather Meberg Lydia Ryall Harvie Snow Ria van Eekelen Bruce Wisbey Ex Officio Directors Donna Anaka Jenny Curtis Michael Dossett Sheila Fitzpatrick Elsie Friesen Gary Jones Todd Kabaluk Dave Trotter Bob Vernon Dave Woodske
Executive Director The Horticulture Growers’ Short Course is produced jointly by the Sandy Dunn British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and the Lower Mainland Horticulture Improvement Association in partnership with the Pacific Agriculture Show
Platinum Sponsors
218