Progressive Crop Consultant - September October 2024
September / October 2024
Convention Center
September 25-26, 2024 Win VIP Tickets to Thomas Rhett in Concert
Success of Pollinator Habitat Establishment is Affected by Weed Management Decisions
Visalia
Over 45 years of scientific trials show consistent yield increases above standard growers’ practice:
Ten good reasons why Kelpak is recommended by the world’s leading crop consultants.
The experts agree; Kelpak delivers maximum efficacy through it’s unique Cellburst® extraction process, where the highest levels of active compounds are included in the end-product. More than four and a half decades of scientific trials prove that Kelpak leads to increased abiotic stress tolerance, reduced transplant shock, better fruit-set, improved crop quality, as well as significant yield increases with an excellent return on investment for the grower.
4
First Detection of Red Leaf Blotch: A New Disease of Almond in California
California Sweet Cherry Water Use: Evapotranspiration, Postharvest Deficit Irrigation and Sweet Cherry Yield
10
Crop Performance with Biostimulants
Success of Pollinator Habitat Establishment is Affected by Weed Management Decisions.
Plant Stress Defense and Management How to Leverage Stress Response Mechanisms with Biostimulants
Developing an Effective Management Program for Roof Rats in Citrus
Outsmarting Your Fertilizer “Competition” to Improve Uptake Efficiency
2024 Crop Conference:Consultant Final Reminder
Improved Continuing Education, Priceless Networking Available to All
PUBLISHER: Jason Scott
Email: jason@jcsmarketinginc.com
EDITOR: Taylor Chalstrom
Email: article@jcsmarketinginc.com
PRODUCTION: design@jcsmarketinginc.com
Phone: 559.352.4456
Fax: 559.472.3113
Web: www.progressivecrop.com
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS & INDUSTRY SUPPORT
Alejandro Hernandez-Rosas Graduate Student, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis
Cameron Zuber UCCE Orchard Crops Advisor, Merced and Madera Counties
Dr. Karl A. Wyant CCA, Director of Agronomy, Nutrien
Eryn Wingate
Executive Board Member, Western Region Certified Crop Advisers, Lead Agronomist, Tri-Tech Ag Products, Inc.
Florent Trouillas
Associate Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis
Giulia Marino Associate Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Plant Sciences, UC Davis
Jarin Tasnim Anika Graduate Student, Horticulture and Agronomy Graduate Group, UC Davis
Kirk Van Leuven PCA, CCA, Biologicals Innovation Specialist, Corteva
Kosana Suvočarev
Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis
Marcelo L. Moretti
Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Oregon State University
Phoebe Gordon UCCE Orchard Systems Advisor, Madera and Merced Counties
Ryan J. Hill
UCCE Agronomy and Weed Sciences Advisor, Tehama County
Ryan Meinerz
Staff Research Associate, Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC Davis
Roger A. Baldwin
UCCE Human-Wildlife Conflict
Resolution Specialist, Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC Davis
Rosa Frias
Laboratory Assistant, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis
Tawanda Maguvu
Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis
UC COOPERATIVE EXTENSION ADVISORY BOARD
Surendra K. Dara Professor and Extension Entomologist, Oregon State University
Steven Koike Tri-Cal Diagnostics
Kevin Day UCCE Pomology Farm Advisor, Tulare and Kings Counties
Elizabeth Fichtner UCCE Farm Advisor, Kings and Tulare Counties
Katherine Jarvis-Shean UCCE Orchard Systems Advisor, Sacramento, Solano and Yolo Counties
Jhalendra Rijal UCCE Integrated Pest Management Advisor, Stanislaus County
Mohammad Yaghmour UCCE Farm Advisor, Kern County
The articles, research, industry updates, company profiles, and advertisements in this publication are the professional opinions of writers and advertisers. Progressive Crop Consultant does not assume any responsibility for the opinions given in the publication.
First Detection of Red Leaf Blotch: A New Disease of Almond in California
By FLORENT TROUILLAS | Associate Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ-ROSAS | Graduate Student, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, ROSA FRIAS |
Laboratory Assistant, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, TAWANDA MAGUVU | Postdoctoral Researcher, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis, CAMERON ZUBER | UCCE Orchard Crops Advisor, Merced and Madera Counties and PHOEBE GORDON | UCCE Orchard Systems Advisor, Madera and Merced Counties
Figure 1. Early symptoms of red leaf blotch include small, pale yellowish spots or blotches that affect both sides of the leaves (all photos by A. Hernandez and F. Trouillas.)
Red leaf blotch (RLB), caused by the fungal pathogen Polystigma amygdalinum, is one of the most important leaf diseases currently affecting almond trees in the Mediterranean basin, particularly in Spain, and regions of the Middle East. In late May 2024, unusual symptoms on leaves, including yellow spots and orange to dark red-brown blotches, were detected in an almond orchard (Nonpareil, Monterey and Fritz) on the border of Merced and Madera counties. The disease has since been observed in Madera, Merced, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties, suggesting it is somewhat widespread in the Northern San Joaquin Valley. Following field sampling as well as morphological and DNA/PCR analyses, our laboratory confirmed the detection of P. amygdalinum from symptomatic leaves. This is the first detection of P. amygdalinum from California almond, and the pest has formally been confirmed as being present in the state by both CDFA and USDA. Growers and PCAs should be on the lookout for RLB as it is new to California and a serious disease of almond.
Disease Symptoms and Biology
Symptoms of RLB initiate as small, pale yellowish spots or blotches that affect both sides of the leaves (Fig. 1). As the disease progresses, the blotches grow larger (1 to 2 cm) and turn yellow-orange with a reddish-brown center (Fig. 2). At advanced stages of disease development, leaves become necrotic, curl and drop prematurely. Mainly the leaves are affected, and premature defoliation of trees can occur, thus decreasing the photosynthetic capacity of the tree during the current and following growing season, leading to a general decrease in yield.
The disease is monocyclic, with only one primary infection cycle. The primary inoculum are ascospores that form in perithecia (sexual fruiting bodies) on fallen infected leaves from the previous growing season. Infection occurs after petal fall when young leaves emerge and spring rains occur. Rain is essential for the release and dispersion of ascospores from perithecia. The disease may not be noticed before late April to mid-May as infection remains latent for approximately 35 to 40 days. Infected leaves develop small yellow blotches that expand and become orangish to reddish-brown, with variable shapes and sizes, as the fungus colonizes more leaf tissue. During spring/summer, leaves contain the pycnidia (asexual fruiting bodies) of the fungus, which produce filiform conidia. These asexual spores do not cause new infection on leaves. Infection of leaves decrease drastically after June and with high summer temperatures. Rain combined with mild temperatures in spring and early summer generally lead to higher disease incidence.
Figure 2 .
Advanced symptoms of red leaf blotch include larger, yelloworange blotches (1 to 2 cm) that turn reddish-brown in their center.
Disease Management
Research and experience in Spain where RLB is more common have shown one preventive fungicide application at petal fall and two additional applications at two and five weeks after petal fall if rains persist are effective at controlling the disease (this exact timing is not critical but depends on the occurrence of rainfall.) This means fungicide applications and timings to control other common diseases of almond in California, such as shot hole or anthracnose, will likely also control this pathogen. Researchers in Spain also have shown FRAC groups 7, 11, M3, M4 and some FRAC3 chemistries are most effective. Cultural practices focused on eliminating the primary inoculum of infected fallen leaves also can help mitigate the disease. These consist of removing leaf litter or applying urea to accelerate its decomposition. However, such strategies are only effective when applied over a wide area. Fungicides applied during bloom and after symptoms are visible are not effective.
If you suspect that you have this new disease in your almond orchard, please contact your local UCCE farm advisor.
Mentioning of any active ingredients or products is not an endorsement or recommendation. All chemicals must be applied following the chemical label, local and federal regulations. Please check with your PCA to confirm rates and site-specific restrictions. The authors are not liable for any damage from use or misuse.
References López-Moral, A., Agustí-Brisach, C., Ruiz-Prados, M.D., Lovera, M., Luque, F., Arquero, O. and Trapero, A., 2023. Biological and urea treatments reduce the primary inoculum of red leaf blotch of almond caused by Polystigma amygdalinum. Plant Disease, 107(7), pp.2088-2095.
Torguet, L. 2022. El inicio del fin de la mancha ocre (Polystigma amygdalinum) como enfermedad clave del almendro. XIV Jornada Del Almendro. Les Borges Blanques, 22 septiembre 2022. IRTA.
Torguet, L., Maldonado, M., Miarnau, X. 2019. Importancia y control de las enfermedades en el cultivo del almendro. Agricultura 1026: 72-77.
Torguet, L., Zazurca, L., Martinez, G., Pons-Solé, G., Luque, J., Miarnau, X. 2022. Evaluation of fungicides and application strategies for the management of the red leaf blotch disease of almond. Horticulture 8, 50.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
California Sweet Cherry Water Use Evapotranspiration, Postharvest Deficit Irrigation and Sweet Cherry Yield
By KOSANA SUVOČAREV | Assistant Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resources, UC Davis, GIULIA MARINO | Associate Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept.
of Plant Sciences, UC Davis and JARIN TASNIM
ANIKA | Graduate Student, Horticulture and Agronomy Graduate Group, UC Davis
California fruit growers are concerned with water resource limitations due to increased drought frequency. UCCE and UC researchers are collaborating to address these concerns with science-based methodology to irrigation management. Many growers rely on pressure bomb measurements or crop coefficients from local UCCE offices to decide on irrigation demands of their crop. New technologies for modeling or remote sensing of evapotranspiration estimation are appearing to help navigate careful irrigation management for optimal yields.
Evapotranspiration and Crop Water Status
The losses of water from soil evaporation and plant transpiration combine into a process called evapotranspiration, or crop water demand. These water losses from liquid to gas need to be supplied through irrigation for healthy crops and optimal yield quantity and quality. We have methods that measure in air how much water is being used in agricultural fields. When we use these measurements (called biometeorological measurements) to develop irrigation recommendations, we call it ETbased irrigation. This might be somewhat misleading, because measured ET is not the straightforward quantity to be used. It needs to be increased to compensate for water losses along the irrigation network and make up for sections of the plots under the lower water distribution. If there was a rain event that supplied substantial water to the soil profile, irrigation should be lowered to account for that natural water supply. This makes ET-based irrigation complex to approach when it comes to orchards and vineyards. What makes irrigation decisions even more challenging are many additional factors that increase the uncertainty in developing universal
information even within the same perennial crop species. Some of the factors that influence variability in orchard/vineyard ET are crop density, fruit load, trellis system, soil type, crop age, row orientation, regulated deficit irrigation, salinity in soil or irrigation water, floor management, etc. To determine more closely perennial crop water demand, it is recommended in addition to biometeorological measurements we do also plant-based measurements to determine their water status. This helps us inform our measurements with the response of the plant to the meteorological, soil and irrigation conditions. Biometeorological measurements consider the biology of plants and provide information on water use at a landscape scale. Therefore, there is a benefit of independent checking of plant water status with more physiological-based methods like stem water potential (SWP) measurements. In our project, we tried to combine biometeorological approach to ET measurements and add soil moisture and SWP to better interpret the feedback between the soil, plant and atmosphere.
New Crop Coefficients from California Sweet Cherry Orchards
In response to one of the priorities of the sweet cherry industry, and thanks to the support from California Cherry Board, in 2019 we started a project in three sweet cherry orchards in San Joaquin County near Linden, Calif. to determine local irrigation needs for cherries. Our experiment included biometeorological measurements of ET (Fig. 1), pressure chamber measurements of SWP (Fig. 2) and shallow soil moisture. We also reached out to irrigation managers to use their data from neutron probe readings on root zone soil moisture taken manually across several
station for evapotranspiration measurements.
measurement points in each of the orchards. The experiment was hosted by the same grower, and the mature sweet cherry orchards were near each other, with the only differences in the three orchards being tree row orientation, tree density (from the densest at 16 ft x 16 ft, the medium sparse at 20 ft x 20 ft and most sparse at 22 ft x 20 ft), rootstock and the irrigation system (the most sparse orchard had sprinklers while the other two were drip irrigated.) Our main goal was to use these measurements to develop crop coefficients (Kc), the universal correction from the reference grass evapotranspiration (ETo) to the crop evapotranspiration (ETc). For that reason, part of the funding was used to install a new weather station over the reference grass near Linden as part of the California Irrigation Management Information System network (cimis. water.ca.gov/) of freely available weather and ETo data. We collected five years of
Figure 1 . Eddy covariance biometeorological
Figure 2 . Stem water potential measurements being taken.
data across the three orchards and used this rich dataset to develop the Kc curve of values as they change over the season and between different hydrological years and orchards.
Regulated Deficit Irrigation in California Sweet Cherry
Continued support from the sweet cherry industry helped us establish a new project in 2021 that builds upon the one we started in 2019. Whereas our initial goal was to develop the irrigation
recommendations for the fully irrigated orchards, the new project was focused on regulated deficit irrigation. Within the same three orchards where our measurements were already established, we started deficit irrigation in the postharvest period with closing the valves in one of the two driplines. Our monitoring again included SWP to check the water status between the trees that were fully irrigated (control) and those under postharvest deficit irrigation (PDI). To fully evaluate what PDI means for the sweet cherry in-
Registration Includes:
• 1.5 days of Seminars
• 2 Panel Discussions
• 2 Interactive Workshops
• Poster Reception
• CCA and CDFA-INMP CEUs
Fertilizer Research and Education Program www.cdfa.ca.gov/go/FREP
dustry, we collected samples of harvested fruits (Fig. 3) from PDI and control trees and compared the quality and quantity difference in two consecutive years.
Results
We developed a crop coefficient curve for sweet cherry in local California conditions. It relies on daily ETa data for five years and three orchards that are managed for full irrigation. By averaging these 14 curves (we reduced the number of orchards from three to two during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic) into one, we expected to represent different orchards and hydrological years for universal values to serve as outreach to the local sweet cherry industry. When we model ETc based on Kc values as an outcome of this measurement period, we noticed there was quite a bit of variability between different years and orchards. Therefore, our crop coefficient curve might be close to irrigation needs of sweet cherry but can also under or overestimate the (actual) ETa on a particular day.
Figure 3 . Harvest sampling and lab analyses by graduate student Jarin Tasnim Anika.
Our exploratory study with PDI shows there is potential for water savings in the postharvest period in sweet cherry (Table 1), between 26% and 50%. Our harvest data analyses show although there were some differences in yield, either increased or decreased yield quantity with the deficit, there was no significant difference between the control and PDI trees in yield and in most of the fruit quality parameters. Some of the differences we observed in fruit quality were not consistent between orchards, or the treatment.
We are developing outreach material for sweet cherry growers to both consider using our newly developed crop coefficient curve and to manage their PDI based on pressure chamber SWP measurements. We think using SWP helps carefully manage the amount of deficit crops are experiencing to reduce potential negative effects on the yield quality or quantity.
Study Limitations
Although we collected large amount of data to develop universal crop coeffi-
cient curve for local conditions, it only approximates the particular water use, due to complexity in orchard system water management.
Our results on PDI were very limited in sample size and duration (only two years), and the long-term effects cannot be evaluated based on such a short period of PDI. The sample size we collected was very laborious for the yield quality and quantity evaluation, but the large differences between the trees within the same treatment might mask the significance of the statistical differences.
Please use the information from our website on crop irrigation scheduling, frost protection and similar biometeorological materials at biomet.ucdavis.edu/.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
Table 1. Potential for water savings in postharvest sweet cherry irrigation
CROP PERFORMANCE with Biostimulants
By KIRK VAN LEUVEN | PCA, CCA, Biologicals Innovation Specialist, Corteva
How can we grow great crops when conditions are not great?
Crop performance is a combination of both managing stress and supporting plant growth. Plant systemic resistance to injury and stress has been studied for 100 years. Recently, gene mapping and molecular chemistry are helping us to understand these defenses and explain how signaling and feedback mechanisms conduct plant health. In some cropping years, environmental factors have a more negative impact on the crop than the typical pests and diseases we are more prepared to manage. The question in a lot of growers’ minds is how to harden crops in the field to be more resilient when it comes to problems like drought, heat, cold, salinity or other stress.
Biostimulants are defined as crop inputs for improved nutrient use efficiency and tolerance to environmental stress. These materials work systemically to keep the metabolic machinery in the plant functioning even when conditions in the field may not be favorable. By definition, biostimulants can improve crop nutrition regardless of the small amounts of essential nutrients in them and the low rate per acre at which they are applied. They help the crop pick up and assimilate nutrition. Some definitions of biostimulants include phrases like “botanically active substances” and refer to improved “crop quality traits.” These benefits provide economic value to the grower.
The genetic code of plants is set up to respond to the environment. In the planted seed, depending on conditions, when water is imbibed and hormone degrades and the hormone balance changes, the embryo activates and biochemical processes start up the machinery of growth, and the seed
Response of hormone synthesis, translocation or perception to developmental, environmental or biotic factors (source: Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, pg. 126).
Almond trees where hormone signaling is weak (left) due to chronic stress compared to trees with good hormonal balance (right) manifesting in larger leaves at the bottom and inside (photos courtesy K. Van Leuven.)
SAP ANALYSIS
Advancing Science-Driven NutritionSM to the next level
• Provides real-time insight into a plants nutritional status
• Recognizes pending deficiency or excessive nutrient levels - weeks before a traditional tissue test
5R’s
- Right nutrient - Right time - Right form
- Right mix
- Right location
• Enables targeted nutritional applications that maximize crop quality and yield, based on the Agro-K 5R’s of plant nutrition
Sap Analysis is empowering growers: all over the country
APPLES: Michigan
CITRUS: Florida ALMONDS: California
Find out how Sap Analysis is efficient and affordable.
SAP ANALYSIS MEASURES 24 NUTRITIONAL PARAMETERS
• Utilizes the industry standard NovaCropControl process
• Measures macro and micro nutrients, along with plant health and metabolic indicators
• Reports provide calibrated benchmarks for optimum ranges
The Science-Driven approach to nutrient management empowers growers to leverage the 5R’s of plant nutrition for efficient use of crop fertility to produce healthier plants.
Sap Analysis measures immediately available nutrient levels within a crop, providing growers a window to evaluate if the plants nutritional needs are being met, and the opportunity to make corrections before imbalances impact yield and quality.
sprouts. Growth is affected when hormone balance changes. More hormones are endogenously synthesized when the cells of new plant tissues are divided and grow. These hormones translocate and accumulate in the plant, or they can also degrade or become diluted. As the hormone balance and concentration changes, plant growth can speed up, slow down, transition to a different physiological stage, or the plant can set up defenses to create a
Nutrients are not picked up and used for growth unless they are called for by signals inside the plant. A soil test can tell us all the essential minerals are available and ready to be taken up, but the uptake of nutrients will not happen without hormone signaling to activate metabolism and growth processes. Biostimulant products can help create signaling for stress management or growth processes when hormones are
DPG POTASSIUM PLUS
28.3% as K2O (derived from potassium formate)
‘Biostimulant products work as natural partners to proactively preserve yield, or countermeasures in case of stress events, to enhance or preserve the genetic potential of the crop.’
Potassium Plus™ allows for higher amounts of potassium to be applied without risk of phytotoxicity. Apply with Con dence
advanced formulation of
Source-Sink Relationships
New leaves and other organs are sinks for energy and nutrition, which need to be supplied by more mature parts of the plant. A new leaf will size according to available growth hormones. It must develop its own organelles, pigments and vascular system. When fully developed it changes from being a sink to becoming a source for sugars and other solutes, which can be transported to new sinks calling for nutrition. Sinks can be leaves, buds, fruits, shoots or roots, and they can be strong sinks or relatively weak.
In the textbook Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, first published in 1986 by Horst Marschner, the authors thoroughly discuss the role of plant hormones in source-sink relationships in the fifth chapter. They discuss yield as a result of nutrition, light and dark cycles in metabolism, phloem loading and unloading, and the initiation and development of reproductive organs. It discusses how these source-sink relationships depend on the concentration and balance of hormones. And it discusses the role of nutrition and plant stress in affecting endogenous hormone concentrations. Knowledge of these principles predates any use of the term ‘biostimulant’ by 10 to 20 years. It was also long before gene mapping and molecular chemistry were able to tell us these processes are controlled by gene activity. We are now at a time when biostimulant
products are the primary tools being studied and used to manage sourcesink relationships in commercial agriculture.
Small Leaves and Weak Sinks
Small leaves and weak sinks make average crops. The first factor predetermining the size of a leaf or of a fruit is the number of cells in the organ. Cell division and cell growth depend on hormone balance and concentration. When conditions or vigor at the time of flowering and fruit set are limiting the hormones available for cell division, the potential size and quality of the leaves and fruit will also be limited.
For permanent crops, especially some deciduous crops like almonds and tree fruit,
Growth hormones cytokinin and auxin are synthesized in one part of plant and transported to other tissues where they interact to make a response.
Signaling hormones salicylate and jasmonate move through the plant to protect it in systemic acquired resistance and induced systemic resistance responses to stress.
cell division will be reduced. Cell division determines cell density and sink strength for attracting nutrient resources for growth. Cell division precedes cell growth and cell density in the fruit and seeds and is one of the main factors in the quality of the crop.
Systemic Signaling
Simply stated, hormones are produced in one part of the plant and transported to other tissues where they interact to make a response. Cytokinin produced in the root tips travels up with the water column to the tissues in the top where it contributes to cell division. Auxin produced at apical growth points is translocated downward and influences and initiates growth along the way. When auxin makes it all the way down to the roots, it causes branching and initiates more root tips, which in turn makes more cytokinin to flow up again to the top. Under good conditions, this feedback loop continues, and the crop progresses through each stage of growth as driven by the genetic code.
When stress impacts plant growth, other signals raise the defenses, and imbalances occur. Growth is slowed or interrupted. Stress signaling molecules, including ethylene, ABA, salicylic acid, jasmonates, terpenes and others, work to modulate growth processes and harden the plant for survival. Some stressors act to reduce photosynthesis, respiration and growth. They can damage cells with stress hormones, biproducts of incomplete respiration, oxidation and cellular breakdown. Wilting and senescence occur.
Restoring and Maintaining Balance
Healthy plants have evolved with multiple protective stress responses built in. Stress can strike aboveground or belowground. If either the roots or the canopy suffers, to the degree that it suffers, biofeedback signaling will be sent to the other parts of the plant, and the plant makes adaptations. Studies on acquired and induced resistance to stress have explained the systemic mechanisms of plant defenses. Like other processes in the life of the plant, defense against stress is also coded in the genes and uses hormone signaling.
Jasmonic acid and salicylic acid are hormones which act chemically in their own pathways and in crosstalk with other biochemicals to defend the plant against stress in a variety of ways. They regulate proteins and enzymes used in both defense and recovery from stress. Long ago, the stress responses involving these signaling compounds were given the names systemic acquired resistance and induced systemic resistance.
‘Biostimulant products can help create signaling for stress management or growth processes when hormones are in short supply or not naturally present.’
ABA is probably the main defense hormone, but it works by putting on the brakes and trying to preserve plant resources until conditions are better for the plant. Like cytokinin, it is produced in the roots and travels up the water stream to all parts of the plant. It works with calcium and potassium as a regulator of transpiration in the stomata. During
stress and at the end of the life cycle, it reduces the growth hormones and terminates growth.
Stress comes to crops in all forms these days. Understanding the signaling part of the growth processes and the signaling that occurs with stress at different crop stages helps us to know how to build in some resilience to yield- and quality-limiting events. We have tools when setbacks occur. Biostimulant products work as natural partners to proactively preserve yield, or countermeasures in case of stress events, to enhance or preserve the genetic potential of the crop. A single application of a biostimulant product may or may not be a game-changer (seed treatment can be a tremendous advantage) but when some of these products are layered together in season-long programs with good grower-standard practices, the resulting crop performace can be significantly better.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
September 25-26, 2024
Visalia Convention Center
Invest in Your Ag Future and Make Critical Connections:
Live Conference and Trade Show with 80+ Exhibits
60+ CEU hours with 11.0 CEU online pre-conference
First class dining and Mixer In the heart of California NEW! CEU Manager
Exclusive VIP Prize Giveaway: Tickets to Thomas Rhett Concert in Private Suite CCA of the Year Award by WRCCA and More...
Attendance is filling up fast and this is one conference you don’t want to miss! Get all your CEU for the year at the Crop Consultant Conference!
Your trusted ally for precision and reliability in the palm of your hand.
The MyAgLife App is now more essential than ever for navigating the conference. This year, we're excited to introduce the new CEU Manager feature, allowing you to effortlessly track all your annual credits directly within the app.
Wednesday, September 25
BREAKFAST Sponsored by SQM Specialty Plant Nutrition
Akif Eskalen, Professor of Cooperative Extension, Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC Davis
9:00 AM
Navigating Agricultural Challenges: Physiological Impacts and Innovative Solutions
Dr. Muhammad Ismail Siddiqui, Director R&D and Product Innovations, AgroPlantae
DPR TRACK Roof RatinManagement Citrus
Roger Baldwin, UCCE Human-Wildlife Conflict Res. Spec.
9:30 AM
CCA TRACK Continuous Fertigation
Devin Clarke, Agronomy Solutions Manager, Yara North America
10:00 AM TRADESHOW & BREAK
11:00 AM
Sustainable Solutions for Twospotted Spider Mites - Integrated Strategies for Strawberry Growers
Todd Burkdoll, Field Market Development Specialist, Valent USA Luis Mora, Sustainable Solutions Specialist, Valent USA 11:30 AM
Updates in Anaerobic Soil Disinfestation Efforts Joji Muramoto, CE Specialist, UC Santa Cruz
LUNCH Sponsored by Deerpoint Group 12:00 PM LUNCH
Searching EPA-Registered Pesticide Products More Effectively Siavash Taravati, UCCE Area IPM Advisor, Riverside County
Irrigation Strategies and Technologies for Navigating Water Curtailments
Cory Broad, Agronomic Sales Manager, AvidWater
Disease Management in Prune Orchards
Themis Michailides, Plant Pathologist, UC Davis
Artificial Intelligence and Farm Data Management
Zac Ellis, Sr. Director of Agronomy, Olam
Presentation of WRCCA’s CCA of the Year award, Scholarships and Honorariums 1:00 PM 1:30 PM
Nitrogen Stabilizers
Larry Stauber, Technical Development Manager, Verdesian Life Sciences
2:00 PM
Top 10 Pesticide Violations in 2022/23
Judy Brant, Inspector, Tulare Ag Commissioner’s Office 2:30 PM ADJOURN
Success of Pollinator Habitat Establishment is Affected by Weed Management Decisions
By RYAN J. HILL | UCCE Agronomy and Weed Sciences Advisor, Tehama County and MARCELO L. MORETTI | Associate Professor, Dept. of Horticulture, Oregon State University
Pollinator health has been a concern for many growers in the western U.S. in recent years. Pollinator insects are essential to produce many economically and nutritionally important crops grown in this region. These crops include blueberries, almonds, sunflowers, cucurbits and many others. Notably, almond pollination in California plays a vital role in the apiary industry, driving beekeepers to haul huge numbers of bee colonies to California for the few weeks in early spring when almonds bloom. Bees are selective of the pollen and nectar they forage, and diverse floral resources can allow bees to forage according to their nutritional needs. As pollinator health has grown as a concern, managing farmlands to promote pollinator health is often a goal for many land managers.
A common practice in many California orchards is to allow resident vegetation (weeds) to grow in row middles. This can reduce soil compaction and erosion, and sometimes, these resident weeds can also provide habitat for pollinators (if not mowed). However, these weedy species are often not of high nutritional quality for hungry pollinators, and species composition varies widely. As weedy species set seed, they can become a weed management headache. Resident weeds are resident for a reason, and it is often wise to keep them closely mowed to discourage seed production. An alternate option is to manage non-crop vegetation actively.
Active management of non-crop vegetation can involve cover cropping, conservation hedgerow plantings in field margins and establishing
wildflower meadows in regions adjacent to crop fields. For any of these options, species selection and weed management are two of the most important factors affecting success. Small-seeded wildflower species are especially sensitive to competition from annual and perennial weeds. This article summarizes our research on the interaction of weed control methods and species selection in fall-seeded pollinator habitats.
Locations and Treatments
Three locations in Oregon's Willamette Valley were selected for studies. Two were drip-irrigated hazelnut orchards, and one was a field with sprinkler irrigation. Each location received different soil preparation. The first orchard location (Corvallis) was not tilled, and soil compaction was an issue. The second orchard location (Amity) was power-harrowed, so the top two inches of soil were loosened. The third location (Lewis-Brown Research Farm) was plowed and disked.
All three locations were seeded in the fall with a set of flowering species with potential for pollinator habitat. These included hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) at 60 lb/A; lacy phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia) at 12 lb/A; California poppy (Eschscholzia californica) at 8 lb/A; and farewell-tospring (Clarkia amoena), globe gilia (Gilia capitata) and sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima) at 2 lb/A.
These species were planted in rows, and herbicide treatments were applied over the top perpendicular to planting rows (Table 1). Four herbicides were
Table 1. Trade name, active ingredient and rate of herbicides applied to pollinator habitat species. Eight herbicides were applied at planting, and four herbicides with post-emergent activity were applied 30 days after crop emergence.
applied after crop emergence, and the rest were applied one day after planting. Glyphosate treatments were only included in the orchard trials, and all other herbicides were selected because they exhibit some level of soil residual activity. Experimental plots were replicated four times at each location, and each species was treated as a separate experiment. A crop oil concentrate at 1% v/v was included for Motif (mesotrione) and Basagran (bentazon), while a
nonionic surfactant at 0.25% was included for Matrix (rimsulfuron) and Quinstar 4L (quinclorac). All post-emergent treatments (and glyphosate) included ammonium sulfate equivalent to 8.5 lb/100 gal.
In Amity, competition from perennial grasses resulted in inconsistent stand establishment. A grass-selective
Helping Farmers Grow NATURALLY Since 1974
Several species did well at the Amity location. Phacelia in the glyphosate
Figure 1. Herbicides applied just after planting improved the establishment of California poppy.
glyphosate's good control of perennial grasses that were not killed by the power harrow. Phacelia is also very competitive with annual weeds, so preemergent treatments were unnecessary. One drawback of phacelia is that it can out-compete other planted species when included in cover crops or wildflower mixes.
Lewis-Brown (LB) plots initially had the best crop establishment (75% to 100% coverage for all species) due to more extensive site preparation. However, this location had intense pressure from perennial weeds, so our good initial crop establishment did not translate to a long-term pollinator habitat. The plots at LB where indaziflam (Alion) was applied produced a good stand of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) by the end of the trial, which the bees loved.
Treatments Applied After Crop Emergence
Treatments at this application timing were challenging to evaluate for crop
safety. Weed control efficacy was inadequate. So, crop establishment was often not good enough to assess crop injury confidently.
One exception was hairy vetch. This species exhibited good tolerance to a post-emergent application of bentazon, a result seen at all three locations. The results from two trials also suggest farewell-to-spring tolerated post applications of quinclorac. Not enough data were collected to reach conclusions for the other four species.
Treatments Applied Prior to Crop Emergence
Preemergent herbicides often had inconsistent crop safety; however, several combinations seemed safe. Napropamide was safe for use with lacy phacelia, globe gilia, farewellto-spring and sweet alyssum, while flumioxazin and pendimethalin were safe with poppy (Fig. 1). All five species only had adequate crop establishment at two of the three locations. Hairy vetch
establishment was improved by simazine applications at all three locations, but crop coverage was not significantly different from the untreated control for this species. Hairy vetch was the only species where it seemed herbicide treatments or tillage added little benefit to its competitiveness. Figure 2 shows the treatment by species combinations that were sometimes safe versus the combinations that were consistently safe for the planted species.
The glyphosate application improved gilia, phacelia and poppy establishment. For phacelia, glyphosate was by far the best treatment, while for gilia and poppy, glyphosate was of similar efficacy as the non-injurious preemergent treatments (napropamide for gilia and flumioxazin/ pendimethalin for poppy).
All three trials were conducted on fine soils with organic matter content ranging from 2% to 7% (USDA-
Figure 2. Crop coverage pictures from two months after planting the Lewis-Brown research farm show the planted species (rows) tolerated several preemergent herbicides (columns). A black outline surrounds successful combinations seen in at least one of the other two trials. Combinations that were never seen to be successful again are surrounded by a red outline.
NCSS soil survey, websoilsurvey. sc.egov.usda.gov/). The safety of preemergent herbicides for pollinator species establishment may vary depending on soil characteristics.
This research broadly demonstrates something likely well understood already: that weed control prior to planting (whether through tillage or herbicide) should not be skipped. Pollinator habitat is not something that is usually intensively managed, and it can be tempting to cut costs. I have seen too often when corners are cut at establishment, you can end up exactly where you started: with a field full of weeds (and a monetary loss for the time and herbicides invested).
Soil compaction and perennial weeds must be addressed to have a successful pollinator habitat planting. Our research also shows certain preemergent herbicides can improve habitat establishment, but crop safety must be adequately established. This is especially true of different soil types and environments. In California's Central Valley, pendimethalin has been seen to occasionally cause injury in poppy plantings, which is in contrast with this study. This may be due to different soil characteristics affecting toxicity to the emerging seedlings. Preemergent herbicides like pendimethalin can also be used at a delayed preemergent timing, waiting until just after seedlings emerge to apply the herbicide. This is possible only if the herbicide has no postemergent activity on the treated crop.
Lastly, be careful using herbicides around pollinator habitats to protect the pollinator species from injury. Herbicides and surfactants can be toxic to insects and should not be used near flowering plants while bees are active.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
MGK’s Ask the Expert: Luis Mora
Advancements and Opportunities in Organic Agriculture
In its 120+ years of business, MGK has grown to be a worldwide leader in the formulation and manufacture of botanical insecticides. The company is committed to providing customers with both plant-based and conventional crop protection solutions to meet their unique needs. MGK’s partnership with Valent USA allows it to expand the product portfolio, offering numerous solutions that are compatible with organic and sustainable programs.
Luis Mora has witnessed firsthand the evolution of the agricultural sector. First as a PCA, then as a sales representative at MGK, and finally in his current role as a Sustainable Solutions Specialist at Valent, Luis has over 12 years of experience in this industry. In this interview, he shares insights into the evolving needs of crop producers and the innovative solutions that are shaping the future of sustainable agriculture.
HOW
DID YOUR JOURNEY IN
AGRICULTURE BEGIN?
I grew up in northern California in a farming community. My dad was a farm laborer until he became a foreman for a lettuce company, and as a kid I spent some time on the weekends helping him out. That’s where I started to get
into agriculture. Before I took my current role, I was an in-house PCA and agronomist for a large organic farm where I spent a lot of time on the farm scouting crops for pests, diseases and deficiencies. My background and experience has helped me take on this technical sales role. I'm able to relate to the issues farmers and PCAs are facing and help them find solutions.
WHAT SPARKED YOUR INTEREST IN BECOMING A PCA?
I discovered what a PCA was thanks to one of my neighbors. He started telling me about pest control and the different avenues there are in agriculture. That’s what broadened my view on the industry. For a lot of Hispanics, agriculture is picking fruit and farm labor, but he helped me realize there are a lot of other opportunities. I decided to start agriculture classes at my junior college and then pursued a bachelor's degree in plant science at Fresno State University. Working on the farm, along with various fellowships and internships, confirmed my passion for the field and its daily challenges. Agriculture is always evolving so you have to change with it and explore new opportunities. In organic farming specifically, you need to think outside of the box.
HOW HAS THE ORGANIC INSECTICIDE MARKET EVOLVED OVER THE PAST DECADE?
When I started, the organic industry had just a handful of pesticide options, but over the last 10-12 years, it’s grown with all the new botanicals. Organic operations
Agriculture is always evolving so you have to evolve with it, go with the trends, explore new opportunities.
have a lot of good tools now that are proven effective, even in conventional settings. A lot of these organic chemistries are starting to be adopted in conventional settings and helping conventional farmers. Many operators want to move to softer chemicals, and we’ve seen a lot of success in organic operations. The industry is evolving positively, with significant growth in the organic insecticide market.
CAN YOU RECOMMEND AN EFFECTIVE OMRI-LISTED PRODUCT YOU'VE USED?
Debug is an Azadirachtin and Neem Oil combination portfolio with four products varying in their percentages of active ingredient. It operates through multiple modes of action, serving as a suffocant, insect growth regulator and antifeedant all-in-one. I’ve used Debug Turbo for mites for a long time, applying the product in bands, followed by treatment with overhead sprinklers, effectively deterring the mites and allowing the onions to grow unaffected. Debug has been showing excellent results, not just in organic but also conventional settings.
STOP BY BOOTH #15 AT THE CROP CONSULTANT CONFERENCE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT DEBUG.
PLANT STRESS DEFENSE AND MANAGEMENT HOW TO LEVERAGE STRESS RESPONSE MECHANISMS WITH BIOSTIMULANTS
By ERYN WINGATE | Executive Board Member, Western Region Certified Crop Advisers, Lead Agronomist, Tri-Tech Ag Products, Inc.
Every season, crops must overcome environmental stressors from a range of biotic and abiotic conditions, including pest and pathogen pressure, drought, extreme weather or soil salinity. Abiotic stress alone can cause over 50% growth loss in most plant species, and disease pressure can cause even greater damage (Rejeb et al. 2014). Careful attention to crop protection and nutrition usually keeps crops healthy through periods of moderate stress, but with increasing production costs and tight regulations on ag chemical use, growers and consultants may benefit from additional materials to improve crop stress tolerance. Biostimulant products derived from natural plant compounds initiate defense mechanisms to control pests and pathogen pressure and
METABOLITES
Carbohydrates
(i.e. glucose, sucrose)
PRIMARY METABOLITES
Amino Acids and Proteins
(i.e. proline, ectoine)
Fatty Acids
(i.e. oleic acid)
Terpenoids
(i.e. gibbrelins, benzoxazinoids)
Phenolics
protect against abiotic stressors (Shiade et al. 2024). All plants have evolved protective mechanisms to prevent damage from environmental stress, and by leveraging those innate processes with biostimulant applications, we can improve crop health and minimize stress symptoms. Understanding plant defense mechanisms and the biochemicals involved will help managers differentiate between biostimulants on the market and determine how to integrate them into standard crop management practices effectively.
The Four Stages of Plant Defense Mechanisms
Exposure to biotic or abiotic stress initiates defensive pathways that plants carry out in four stages: stress sensing, signal
PLANT STRESS RESONSE ROLES
Osmotic regulation - drought and salinity tolerance
Table 1. Metabolites and their plant stress response roles. Primary and secondary metabolites are produced by plants in response to biotic or abiotic threats.
Reference: Seyed, et al., 2024
transduction, gene expression regulation and physiological adaptations to stress.
Stress detection
Immediately upon exposure to an environmental stressor, the plant must perceive the threat quickly to launch an effective defense. Plants identify stressors with molecular signal receptors, or by detecting other cellular changes caused by environmental conditions. Plants are equipped with many types of signal receptors to differentiate between individual threats in their environment. Stress is perceived when the sensory receptor binds with the threat signal molecule, causing a change in the receptor’s shape. Photoreceptors detect ultraviolet radiation and can trigger changes in growth according to light quality, intensity and duration. Hormone receptors and other types of molecular sensors can detect pathogens and pests or receive warning signals from soil microorganisms that initiate defense mechanisms (Shiade et al. 2024; Lal et al. 2023).
Plants also perceive stress when environmental conditions cause cellular changes, such as irregular ion flux or membrane fluidity. Increased calcium concentration and changes in osmolyte levels can indicate stress from drought, salinity or other adverse soil conditions. Cellular membrane fluidity fluctuates according to temperature, alerting cells to high heat or severe cold. These initial stress alerts trigger a defensive cascade that ultimately leads to genetic and physiological adaptations to protect the plant from the threat (Shiade et al. 2024).
Signal transduction
After the stressor is detected at the molecular level, the threat warning must be communicated within the cell, between cells and throughout the plant. Signal transduction pathways transmit the stress
warning through a series of chemical reactions that result in genetic regulation and physiological changes. Several signal transduction pathways have been observed following stress exposure, and the type of response launched depends on the particular stressor perceived (Rejeb et al. 2014). Initial threat detection increases the concentration of signaling molecules and phytohormones such as reactive oxygen species (ROS), abscisic acid (ABA), salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) that facilitate the defense response cascade. ROS rapidly increases in response to stress but serves different purposes for abiotic versus biotic threats. Pest and pathogen defense cascades are usually mediated by SA, JA and ET, while ABA directs abiotic stress defense (Shiade et al. 2024; Rejeb et al. 2014).
Gene expression regulation
Stress signal transduction often leads to changes in genetic expression that result in defensive biochemical or physiological changes within the plant. Stress signals are received by transcription factors (TFs) that can activate or suppress
certain genes to adapt to environmental stress. Researchers have identified several pathogen-related (PR) genes and proteins that induce resistance to fungal and bacterial infection. Some PR genes, such as the Botrytis Susceptible (BOS1) gene, offer both biotic and abiotic defense. Upon activation. BOS1 induces resistance to necrotrophic pathogens and provides protection from osmotic stress (Rejeb et al. 2014). PR genes are normally activated by pathogen attack perception, but sometimes abiotic stressors can upregulate the pathogen defense genes. Cold stress triggers an accumulation of TFs that upregulate expression of certain PR genes in addition to genes involved in cold protection (Rejeb et al. 2014).
Physiological change
Stress signaling and genetic regulation result in physiological changes that defend the plant against the stressor. Stress response signaling leads to biopesticide production, cell wall reinforcements and other measures to prevent damage from environmental stress (Rejeb et al. 2014). For example, plants respond to
drought stress by closing stomata and producing osmoprotectant compounds to conserve water. Rice plants prevent damage from soil salinity by increasing proline and other compounds that relieve osmotic pressure and toxicity (Shiade et al. 2024). Many other plants have similar adaptations to mitigate salinity and other adverse soil conditions. Plants confronted with pathogen pressure produce antimicrobial compounds and strengthen cell walls to deter attackers and prevent further infection (Shiade et al. 2024).
Leveraging Plant Stress Responses with Biostimulants
Plant stress defense researchers have identified many biochemicals that are critically responsible for protective mechanisms. These biochemicals include primary and secondary metabolites produced by plants in response to biotic or abiotic threats. Studies show that many metabolites offer stress protection when applied to crops as biostimulants or biopesticides. Integrating biologically based materials into standard crop management practices can improve
pest control efficacy and maintain plant health under stressful environmental conditions (Lal et al. 2023; Shiade et al. 2024; Rejeb et al. 2014).
Primary metabolites
Primary metabolites (PMs), critical to plant growth and development, include carbohydrates, amino acids, proteins, and lipids. They provide the plant’s energy source and act as building blocks for macromolecules and cellular structures. PMs can also aid in stress defense by detecting threats, serving as signaling
molecules, regulating osmotic potential and more. Carbohydrates including oligosaccharides, disaccharides and fructans accumulate in response to drought or salinity and alleviate stress through osmotic regulation. The protein proline also offers drought protection in addition to other functions, including pH buffering, protein structure stabilization and ROS scavenging. Lipids play important roles in stress perception and signaling, such as detecting changes in membrane fluidity due to extreme shifts in temperature. Many lipids also
serve as the precursors necessary to build secondary metabolites critical to plant defense (Shiade et al. 2024).
Secondary metabolites
Secondary metabolites (SMs) include tens of thousands of biochemicals responsible for a wide range of functions, including enzyme regulation, signaling within and between cells, communication with soil microorganisms and more. SMs are categorized into four groups: terpenoids, phenolics, sulfur-containing compounds and nitrogen-containing compounds. SMs play crucial roles in plant defense mechanisms, and many of these compounds effectively reduce stress symptoms when applied as biostimulants (Shiade et al. 2024).
Terpenoids are the most abundant group of SMs, carrying out many functions, such as growth regulation, pollinator attraction and plant defense. The terpenoid JA is a critical signaling molecule that activates defense genes to protect plants again pathogens (Rejeb et al. 2014). Many other terpenes are precursor molecules for phytohormones required to deter pests or protect against other stressors (Shiade et al. 2024).
YOUR YEAR-ROUND ORGANIC SOLUTION FOR WEED CONTROL & DESICCATION
SUPPRESS® Herbicide EC is the first and trusted leader for certified organic weed control. With years of grower-proven efficacy and university trials, SUPPRESS® consistently provides fast and effective broad-spectrum burndown on a wide variety of post-emergent grasses and weeds.
ADVANTAGES
■ Excellent tool in IPM programs
■ Helps break chemical resistance
■ No pre-harvest interval or MRLs
■ Low-foaming and easy-to-use
■ Highly effective pre-harvest desiccant
Contact us today to learn more.
(760) 599-8855 • www.san-agrow.com
Many phenolic compounds, such as courmarins, tannins, salicylic acid (SA) and lignin, have been identified as effective biostimulants for both biotic and abiotic stress prevention (Lal et al. 2023). Coumarins help provide protection against pathogenic fungi and herbivorous pests. Another phenolic, lignin, toughens cell walls and provides physical protection against biotic and abiotic stress. Several types of tannins serve as natural pesticides by killing or repelling insects and pathogens. SA primarily serves in pathogen and pest defense signaling but can also mitigate drought and other abiotic stressors (Banothu and Uma 2021). SA treatments provide resistance against sheath blight and other fungal pathogens in several crops. SA has also been shown to prevent drought stress in corn and mitigate toxicity from the heavy metal cadmium in Triticum aestivum (Lal et al. 2023.)
The S- and N-containing compounds comprise a smaller set of secondary metabolites, but research shows several
promising candidates for agricultural use. The S-containing compounds, including glucosinolates and related compounds, are found in brassicas and certain flowering plants. Foliar application of glucosinolate has been shown to control aphids on tomatoes and Spanish broom plants and may offer protection against other pests and pathogens on a variety of crops (Shiade et al. 2024).
Integrating Biostimulants into Standard Management Practices
Independent research at universities and biotech labs around the world corroborate biostimulant efficacy in crop protection and stress prevention. Many metabolites offer protection against both biotic and abiotic threats, while others offer protection against specific stressors. Plant species differ in their defense capabilities, so some metabolites may work well on some crops, but not others. Similarly, some antimicrobial compounds control a specific group of fungal or bacterial pathogens, while others offer control over a broad spectrum of organisms. Further research will improve our understanding of the circumstances best suited to various metabolites, but learning about the active ingredients in biostimulants already on the market will help growers and consultants determine the crops and field conditions most likely to benefit from application. Although biostimulants might not replace conventional crop protection products, they offer a valuable tool to enhance crop stress tolerance and improve fertilizer and pesticide efficiency.
References
Lal, M. K., Tiwari, R. K., Altaf, M. A., et al., 2023. Editorial: Abiotic and biotic stress in horticultural crops: insight into recent advances in the underlying tolerance mechanism. Frontiers in Plant Science. 14:1212982.
Rejeb, I.N., Pastor, V., Mauch-Mani, B., 2014. Plant Responses to Simultaneous Biotic and Abiotic Stress: Molecular Mechanisms. Plants. 3, 458-475.
Shiade, S. R. G., Zand-Silakhoor, A., Fathi, A., et al., 2024. Plant metabolites and signaling pathways in response to biotic and abiotic stress: Exploring bio stimulant applications. Plant Stress. 12, 100454.
Banothu, V., Uma, A., 2021. Chapter: Effect of Biotic and Abiotic Stresses on Plant Metabolic Pathways. Intech Open.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@ jcsmarketinginc.com
METABOLITE APPLICATION EFFECT
Thymol Cadmium toxicity mitigation
Calliterpenone + Gallic Acid Enhanced plant growth and branching
Abiotic stress is the negative impact of non-living factors and can lead to biotic stress. Abiotic stress is caused by four fundamental factors: weather, soil health, nutritional imbalance, and oxidative stress. Yield and quality are reduced when abiotic stress occurs.
Redox technologies promote Abiotic Stress Defense. Our proven technologies provide highly focused and available nutrition, with the benefits of biostimulant compounds to mitigate seasonal stresses.
Table 2. Studies show many metabolites offer stress protection when applied to crops as biostimulants or biopesticides.
By integrating Primacy Alpha® for enhanced plant growth, Crop+® for stress tolerance and nutrient uptake, and Cyto-Red®+ for improved fruit quality, growers can synergistically maximize yield potential and ROI across their crops.
Foliar Biostimulant for Better Fruit Set
• Stimulates rapid plant growth and enhances crop quality for higher ROI
• Increases nutrient uptake, utilization, and delivery
• Promotes plant health and stress tolerance
• Optimizes flowering, fruit size, and fruit set
Foliar Abiotic Stress Mitigator
• Supports natural genetic expression in plants
• Reduces abiotic stress effects with high antioxidant activity
• Aids plant metabolism crucial for yield and crop quality
• Improves nutrient uptake and photosynthesis efficiency
Naturally Chelated K for Improved Yield
• Enhances fruit quality and early yield in various fruit & pepper crops
• Supports plant metabolic pathways naturally
• Delivers naturally chelated K for improved plant uptake
• Safe to handle with no abscisic acid or ethylene
FIELD-TESTED DATA-DRIVEN RESULTS
Each product speaks for it self bringing PROVEN benefits that collectively elevate crop health, yield quality and profitability. See the results for yourself:
Developing an Effective Management Program for Roof Rats in Citrus
By ROGER A. BALDWIN | UCCE Human-Wildlife Conflict Resolution Specialist, Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC Davis and RYAN MEINERZ | Staff Research Associate, Dept. of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology, UC Davis
Roof rats (Rattus rattus) can cause extensive damage in citrus orchards through direct consumption of fruit, feeding of the cambium layer leading to mortality of branches, chewing on irrigation infrastructure and by posing as a potential food safety risk. The UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines for citrus (ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/citrus/ Roof-Rats/) only list three management tools for roof rats: 1) cultural control, 2) rodenticide baiting and 3) trapping. Cultural control primarily involves removing vegetative materials from orchards to help deter roof rats, but the practicality of this approach is substantially limited in citrus given that the trees themselves provide ample cover for rats. This leaves rodenticides and trapping as the two primary tools for managing roof rats in citrus, although effective practices for each technique are unknown in citrus. Effective management of vertebrate pests also relies on quick and easy monitoring strategies to know when additional actions are needed to maintain low rodent density. Therefore, we initiated a series of studies in 2020 to develop an integrated pest management (IPM) program to manage roof rats in an efficacious and cost-effective manner. We summarize the findings from these studies in the following sections, ultimately providing a roadmap for an effective IPM approach for this invasive rodent pest.
Monitoring
Effective management of all pests requires quick and easy monitoring strategies. We tested a strategy that used systematically placed tracking tunnels (Black Trakka, Gotcha
Figure 1. Example of tracking tunnel used to monitor roof rat activity (all photos courtesy R. Baldwin.
Figure 2. Example of tracking card with roof rat footprints.
Traps, or traps.co.nz) that contained a tracking card and ink pad to detect roof rat presence throughout orchards (tunnels tied to board placed up in tree; Fig. 1). When a rat visits the tunnel, it leaves ink footprints on the tracking card (Fig. 2). We determined one tracking tunnel approximately every 230 feet yielded an accurate estimate of current roof rat activity. A lure helps to draw rats into the tracking tunnel. We tested several options, including peanut butter, Liphatech Rat and Mouse AttractantTM and Liphatech NoToxTM wax blocks, and found all were equally effective. Given the ready availability and cheaper cost associated with peanut butter, it may be preferred by some, although the pre-packaged nature of the other attractants could make them desirable by users as well.
Movement Patterns
We knew little about how roof rats moved throughout citrus orchards. Such knowledge is important to determine where to target
management strategies, to understand ideal spacing between traps and bait stations and to assess when roof rats were active in the orchards. To understand movement patterns in roof rats, we deployed a unique tracking system that used cellular technology to identify locations every few seconds. This allowed us to determine areas utilized by rats as well as how far they moved throughout the landscape. We determined roof rats exclusively used orchards (Fig. 3), indicating management efforts should be targeted within orchards rather than in adjacent habitats. We also determined roof rats had large home ranges that averaged 5.8 acres; minimum home range size was 1.8 acres. This equated to a radius of approximately 280 ft and 160 ft for
3. Overlapping roof rat home ranges that show the rats did not move out of the orchards.
within their home range. We also used remote-triggered cameras to determine when roof rats were active within orchards. Based on photo data, roof rats were active exclusively at night, with activity often peaking around midnight. If necessary, roof rat removal efforts could be targeted exclusively at night to eliminate non-
although such actions would likely be
Grape Powdery Mildew Fungicide Efficacy Trials
Figure
Test of Potential Management Tools
We focused our control efforts on the use of rodenticides and trapping as the only two techniques currently available that were likely to have a substantial impact on roof rat populations within citrus orchards. Previous research indicated the use of a 0.005% diphacinone-treated oat bait sold by many County Agricultural Commissioner’s offices in California (countyofkingsca.gov/home/ showpublisheddocument/27503/637667 104610630000) was effective at reducing
roof rat populations when used in elevated bait stations (Fig. 4) within almond orchards. However, almond and citrus orchards are very different both in the cover provided by the trees as well as the food sources available. As such, we needed to test this product in citrus to determine its utility.
Effective IPM programs rely on more than one technique to safely and effectively manage pests. As such, we were interested in using trapping as an additional tool to manage roof rats.
Historically, trapping in tree crops has relied on snap trapping, but snap traps are often viewed as too labor-intensive for use in production ag systems. The recent advent of the Goodnature® A24 trap had the potential to substantially reduce the amount of labor required to operate a trapping grid due to the long-lasting lure and use of a CO 2 cartridge that would allow for use for four to six months without having to relure or reset the traps.
Regardless of the tool used, spacing between each subsequent bait station or trap was important to ensure success while minimizing cost. We originally established trapping and baiting grids where individual units were separated by approximately 250 feet. However, initial testing across three separate orchards indicated this spacing was not effective for bait stations (efficacy = 12%), so we reduced the spacing to 160 feet for the final orchard to mimic the minimum size of a roof rat home range. This spacing resulted in much higher efficacy (77%), and we planned to use that spacing moving forward. Likewise, we did not find the A24 trap to be effective at reducing roof rat activity across our first three study sites; in fact, we observed an increase in rat activity at these sites (efficacy = –70%). After consultation with staff from Goodnature®, we placed a platform underneath each trap to assist the rats in pushing far enough up into the trap to activate it (Fig. 5). This modification increased efficacy for our final site (50%), so we planned to add this adjustment in subsequent trials.
Figure 4. Bait station secured to branch in orange tree.
OPTIMIZE CROP PERFORMANCE
Patented foliar fertilizer
Amplified formula maximizes plant potential
Enhances nutrient use e ciency
Mitigates abiotic stress
Easy to Use: Low use rate, flexible timing & tank mix friendly
Develop and Test IPM Strategies
Taking information already learned, we developed an IPM strategy that used elevated bait stations at 160-foot spacing that contained 0.005% diphacinone-treated oats to initially knock down populations. Baiting typically lasted four weeks. We followed this up with two weeks of snap trapping using trapping tunnels tied to boards and placed in trees (Tomcat® Tunnel™ Trapping System, Motomco; Fig. 6). The trapping tunnels were targeted in areas with remaining rat activity to further reduce the population. Following completion of snap trapping, we deployed A24 traps for the remainder of a six-month period in an
attempt to maintain low rat densities. We compared these results to that of a bait station-only approach (hereafter bait station) to determine which was most effective. Initial bait applications substantially reduced roof rat activity (efficacy = 73%), but neither the IPM nor bait station approaches adequately slowed reinvasion of the study sites (two-month post bait application efficacy: bait station = –5%, IPM = 13%; 5-month post bait application efficacy: bait station = 24%, IPM = 43%). As such, we developed a second IPM approach that again incorporated bait stations to knock down populations. We followed this up with a snap trapping program, again using trapping tunnels. For this approach, we spaced the trapping tunnels in a grid pattern with the traps 245 feet apart. These trapping tunnels were operated for the remainder of a six-month period. This approach was very effective, with rat activity decreasing over time (two-month post bait application efficacy: bait station = 34%, IPM = 88%; 5-month postbait application efficacy: bait station = 85%, IPM = 93%). In total, we removed 97 rats via snap trapping in IPM plots during this part of the trial, again indicating the effectiveness of this approach. For bait station plots, rats quickly rebounded two months after the completion of the baiting program, indicating the IPM approach was more effective. Interestingly, rat populations again declined in the bait station plot for unknown reasons (no additional bait was used for the remainder of the study), although the IPM plots were always more effective. From an efficacy perspective, the IPM program was the better approach given the importance of using multiple tools to maintain long-term efficacy of management programs.
We also collected information on the cost of these management programs to better inform which were most practical. The IPM plots that used A24 traps were by far the most expensive ($48.41/acre), primarily given the substantial cost associated with each trap (a minimum of $152/ trap). Given this high cost and the limited efficacy of this approach, management programs using A24 traps were deemed impractical for use in citrus orchards.
As expected, the bait station plots were the least expensive ($11.10/acre), but they were also less effective. Conversely, the
Figure 5. Goodnature® A24 trap with platform underneath.
Figure 6. Roof rat captured in trapping tunnel containing two snap traps.
IPM plots that relied on bait stations and trapping tunnels were more efficacious but also were more expensive to operate ($19.71/acre). However, this cost was far more reasonable when compared to trapping programs that included A24 traps. Furthermore, the primary difference in cost between bait station plots and IPM plots that used bait stations plus snap trapping was due to the cost of the trapping tunnels.
Assuming trapping tunnels could be used for several years, the cost for all subsequent years of this IPM program would essentially be the same as the bait station plots (bait station = $3.72/ acre, IPM = $4.01/acre). Although we have no direct quantifiable data on crop losses associated with roof rats, this IPM cost seems justifiable. For example, assuming a price of $20 for a box of fancy lemons (115 lemons per box) or naval oranges (72 per box), then only around one half to one box of fruit would have to be saved per acre per year to justify management
costs for the first year, and a minimal amount of fruit would need to be saved to justify expenditures for subsequent years. This price does not account for infrastructure damage associated with rats nor the potential food safety risks associated with their presence in orchards, further increasing the value of this management approach.
Management Recommendations
We recommend the following IPM strategy for managing roof rats in citrus:
1. Conduct initial monitoring using tracking tunnels separated by 230 feet to determine an uptick in roof rat abundance.
2. When roof rat activity is high (based on grower-defined thresholds (no official threshold yet established)), implement a baiting program (0.005% diphacinone-treated oats) using elevated bait stations separated by 160 feet. Operate bait stations until bait consumption is minimal.
3. Place trapping tunnels in a grid pattern, with tunnels spaced approximately 245 feet apart. Check traps approximately every three weeks to rebait and reset as needed.
4. Operate tracking tunnels every three months to determine the status of the roof rat population. Additional bait applications can be used as necessary.
Please note not all diphacinone products have the same label specifications. To our knowledge, only the CDFA product tested in our studies is allowable for use within orchards during the bearing season. Also, regulations surrounding rodenticide use often change. Be sure to check up-to-date regulations surrounding the use of any rodenticide before using.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
Outsmarting Your Fertilizer “Competition” to Improve Uptake Efficiency
By DR. KARL A. WYANT | CCA, Director of Agronomy, Nutrien
One fortunate aspect of working in agriculture is that hot summer days are soon followed by harvest season and the onset of nicer weather. Now is the time to start thinking about postharvest soil fertility maintenance. Dry, granular phosphorus and potassium fertilizer products (e.g., monoammonium phosphorus (MAP:11-52-0); sulfate of potash (SOP: 0-0-60); and muriate of potash (MOP: 0-0-50)) are popular choices for postharvest fertility work and a cornerstone of annual nutrient budgets for many crops.
These fertilizer formulations are popular with growers as they can apply bulk nutrients to help maintain soil fertility and get a jump start on supporting the next crop cycle. A goal for growers and their advisor network is to manage the applied nutrients so that much of it ends up in the crop and fertilizer uptake efficiency is optimized. With that in mind, there are various sources of “competition” that prevent the uptake of the nutrient by the plant, which leads to inefficiency in fertilizer use (Fig. 1).
In a perfect world, 100% of your fertilizer application would be used by the crop to produce yield and fertilizer losses would be minimized. However, as Figure 1 shows, use efficiency of fertilizers vary greatly by nutrient category. In this article, we will name the various efficiency loss pathways, or “competition”, for your phosphorus and potassium fertilizer applications so you can work with a crop advisor to try and work around them. Before we jump in, let’s start with some phosphorus and potassium 101.
SOIL-APPLIED FERTILIZER EFFICIENCY
Nitrogen Fertilizers
30% to 70%
Phosphorus Fertilizers 5% to 30%
Potassium Fertilizers
Micronutrient Fertilizers
to 60%
to 70%
Figure 1. Estimates of soil-applied fertilizer efficiencies (amount used by crop relative to how much was applied total to the soil.) Phosphorus and potassium have a relatively lower use efficiency compared to nitrogen due to some of the factors listed in this article. Anticipating and counteracting soil “competition” can help push up fertilizer use efficiencies and drive a higher return on investment for the grower (Fixen et al. 2014).
Why Crops Need Phosphorus and Potassium
Phosphorus and potassium are plant macronutrients that are required in large quantities by the crop to produce a high-quality yield. However, phosphorus and potassium play different roles in the plant. Phosphorus is a crucial component for converting solar energy into food, fiber and other plant products. Furthermore, phosphorus also plays a key role in the metabolism of sugars, energy storage and transfer, cell growth and the transfer of genetic information. An
interesting bit about phosphorus is that one can point out the element embedded in the actual chemical structures the plant is using to create yield. For example, you can point to the actual phosphorus that is used to build the biological currency plants use to “pay” for work (ATP) and the phosphorus backbone that all crops use to construct their genes (DNA).
On the other hand, potassium is much more difficult to point out in the crops’ molecular portfolio. However, we do know that potassium is still needed by the plant to support high yields. Briefly, potassium increases crop yield, improves crop quality, reduces disease and decreases risk of lodging and branch breakage, etc. Except for nitrogen, plants often require more potassium than any other nutrient as it plays vital roles in crop growth and development.
Understanding the Competition
With the basics out of the way, we can now turn our attention to the factors that reduce your fertilizer uptake efficiency by the crop. I will refer to the factors as “competition” because these factors interfere with your best laid fertilizer plans and will reduce your crops’ ability to use the nutrient. This will impact the return on your fertilizer investment when harvest comes around.
Phosphorus Competition
Phosphorus can be a tricky nutrient to manage because it interacts with other soil elements that will reduce overall fertilizer use efficiency (Fig. 2). Due to these interactions, the fertilizer use efficiency range can be quite low. For example, only 5% to 30% of the fertilizer might get used by the crop during the growing season (Fig. 1). The rest is lost to the competition.
Slow Diffusion Rates
Diffusion refers to the movement of phosphorus from the bulk soil toward the roots by way of a concentration gradient. Other plant uptake pathways exist but diffusion is the major pathway for phosphorus. For example, research shows that corn acquires ~93% of its phosphorus needs for the season via diffusion (Barber 1995; Fernandez 2016). What’s the catch? The rate of diffusion is sensitive to several factors that reduce the speed of how fast the process, or rate, can occur. These soil factors include cold temperatures, compaction, saturated or dry conditions. When these factors reduce the diffusion rate, they can compete with your fertilizer application by not allowing the crop to be adequately supplied with phosphate.
Mineral Antagonisms
In some cases, the over application of other nutrients can prevent plant uptake of phosphorus, which will reduce fertilizer use efficiency. For example, research shows that excessive applications of calcium and magnesium can interfere with the crop’s ability to use phosphorus (Better Crop 1999).
GLUTAM-K
EMPOWERS PLANTS TO BUILD ENERGY - BOOSTING YELD AND QUALITY
GLUTAM-K
GLUTAM-K
Figure 2. Five competitors that reduce your phosphorus fertilizer use efficiency by the crop. A crop advisor can help you understand how to best work around the competition and get more phosphorus into the crop (Fixen et al. 2014).
Soil pH
Competition for your phosphorus fertilizer efficiency can be influenced by soil pH and the conditions that result. For example, when soil calcium and phosphorus fertilizer come together under alkaline conditions (pH >7), they form a hard mineral called apatite, which is the same mineral that your bones and teeth are made of. Once this mineral fixation happens, the bound phosphorus is now unavailable for plant uptake, with reduces use efficiency. Figure 3 shows just how much soil phosphorus is made unavailable by the calcium complexes (up to 80% to 90% reduction in availability).
Figure 3. Most soil phosphorus is tied up by calcium in the Western U.S. due to elevated soil pH (>7 or alkaline soil). Note the small fraction of phosphorus that is available for plant uptake in alkaline soils. Source: Soils - Part 6: Phosphorus and Potassium in the Soil – University of Nebraska Extension Service.
Runoff/Erosion
Phosphorus can bind to soil particles and move off the field during rainfall or during snowmelt. When soil leaves the field (erosion), it is more than likely carrying some phosphorus with it, reducing use efficiency. This impact is more pronounced on sloped fields or in areas where heavy rainfall occurs.
Poor Recommendations
This might not be an obvious source of competition, but how your local ag lab analyzes the pool of soil phosphorus matters. Briefly, soil phosphorus can be measured by three different methods: Bray, Mehlich and Olson. Your local soil pH should determine the extraction method as each works best within a certain pH range. A mismatch in method will overestimate or underestimate the phosphorus supply. The wrong test will lead to a bad fertilizer recommendation, which can be inefficient. In this case, your competition is bad information.
Potassium Competition
Now let’s turn our attention to the competition for potassium. Crops are generally able to use more of the potassium provided by a fertilizer application relative to phosphorus. For
Figure 4. Five competitors that reduce your potassium fertilizer use efficiency by the crop. A crop advisor can help you understand how to work around the competition to ensure the potassium gets into the plant (Fixen et al. 2014).
example, 30% to 60% of potassium fertilizer might get used by the crop (Fig. 1). The rest is lost to the competition (Fig. 4)
Potassium ‘Tie Up’ by Clays
Soils differ in their relative amounts of sand, silt and clay particles (e.g., texture), and this distribution impacts several important soil properties. For example, clay-dominated soils tend to have a high cation exchange capacity (CEC), which is the relative ability of a soil to store positively charged nutrients. However, nutrient release rates are inversely related to the CEC value. In this sense, high clay soil will release stored potassium back to soil solution at a slower rate relative to sandy soil. Thus, clays can temporarily ‘tie up’ potassium fertilizer applications by storing it and then only slowly releasing it back to the soil for plant use, which can decrease efficiency.
Potassium Fixation
This next competitor occurs under unique circumstances and has a longer lasting impact on your fertilizer program. Certain clay minerals can scavenge potassium from the soil, including your potassium fertilizers, and render the nutrient unavailable for plant use. This process is called potassium fixation. Strong potassium fixation capacity is typically associated with the presence of vermiculite and mica-based materials in soil, in a specific age class, and from soils derived from granite parent material (Pettygrove and Southard 2003). Fixed potassium, once tied up, is no longer available for plant use during the growing season and can have a serious impact on fertilizer use efficiency.
Leaching
Sandy soils are poor at storing nutrients (e.g., low CEC). Furthermore, they also have a high nutrient release rate back to the soil. Under these conditions, potassium fertilizers can leach out of the root zone, which reduces the fertilizer use efficiency. Thus, excessive rainfall or irrigation sets on sandy, low-organicmatter ground can compete with your crop for potassium.
Dry Soils
Unlike phosphorus, ~20% of potassium is moved to the plant through the soil moisture in a process called mass flow (Barber 1995; Fernandez 2016). Excessively dry soils at any depth throughout the rooting zone will prevent potassium from reaching the plant and reduce the fertilizer use efficiency.
Antagonisms with Sodium
This section applies to those struggling with excessive sodium in the irrigation water or soil. In this case, the sodium can compete with your potassium fertilizer plan by interfering with the crops’ ability to acquire the nutrient. Wakeel (2013) recently summarized the antagonistic effect of sodium on potassium uptake in detail. Briefly, excess sodium makes it difficult for potassium to be
Up" by Clays
taken up by the crop and sodium also increases potassium leakage from the crop, which reduces use efficiency.
Outsmarting the Competition
Now that we have named the competition, we can work to manage them to minimize their impact and get more of your applied nutrients into the crop where it belongs. Where to begin? Much of the competition mentioned above can be identified through routine soil testing and from sound advice from a local crop advisor. By using an updated soil report, you and your advisory team can be on the lookout for conditions that might give your fertilizer competition a leg up in the field so you can manage them appropriately. For some other situations, a call to the local lab can confirm they are using the right extraction method and generating the correct fertilizer recommendation. Local geological and soil series reports, if you suspect potassium fixation, can be invaluable for understanding conditions in your field that could be competing for your potassium. As reviewed here, several competitors are working to reduce the use efficiency of your expensive fall fertilizer applications. If you are concerned about improving nutrient uptake in the crop and keeping the phosphorus and potassium
out of the hands of the competition, consider contacting a local crop advisor to help develop a field-specific management plan. Once your competition is formally identified, using this article as a guide, it can be better managed on your farm and fertilizer use efficiency for phosphorus and potassium can be increased.
Dr. Karl Wyant serves as the Director of Agronomy at Nutrien. Please visit www.nutrien-ekonomics.com for the latest in nutrient management topics and other free resources.
References
Fixen et al. 2014. Nutrient/Fertilizer Use Efficiency: Measurement, Current Situation and Trends
Better Crops/Vol. 83 (1999, No. 1). Phosphorus Interactions with Other Nutrients
Wakeel 2013. Potassium–sodium interactions in soil and plant under saline-sodic conditions
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
2024 Crop Consultant Conference: Final Reminder Improved Continuing Education, Priceless Networking Available to All
By TAYLOR CHALSTROM | Editor
It’s looking to be another banner year for the Crop Consultant Conference, with attendance filling up and a record number of exhibitors already confirmed for the trade show floor. Hosted by JCS Marketing Inc. in collaboration with Western Region Certified Crop Advisers, the conference will offer improved continuing education units (CEU) with the new CEU Manager,
a place to organize all earned units from the Crop Consultant Conference and other JCS events, and networking opportunities for PCAs/CCAs, growerapplicators and industry stakeholders/ researchers not found at similar events.
We spoke with JCS Marketing Inc. CEO and Progressive Crop Consultant publisher Jason Scott
about the abundance of unique opportunities at this event and why it’s never one to miss.
New CEU Manager
“We've built a new CEU Manager where you can track all your CEUs that you've attended at JCS Marketing,” Scott said. “There's 60.5 CEUs available before, during and after the conference. So, if you attend the conference, ideally you can get your hours for both years right in one shot, so more than enough hours available.”
Before the conference, all registered attendees have access to 11.0 hours of online courses covering essential topics. The conference will provide 12.5 hours of in-person CEUs through a variety of expert-led sessions and hands-on presentations. Additionally, postconference, registered attendees will have access to an extensive range of online courses, bringing the total to over 60 CEU hours, enough to meet all annual requirements. All online CEU courses will remain open until Dec. 31, 2024.
The CEU Manager is part of the MyAgLife app, available for both IOS and Android.
“We couldn't make it any easier. Get all your hours and then manage all your hours. You're able to print out your certificates and track it all, and we turn it into the governing bodies for both DPR and for Western Region CCA,” Scott said. “If there's any deficits or overages or anything you need to address with the governing bodies, you can print it out, you
The Crop Consultant Conference will take place on September 25 and 26 at the Visalia Convention Center in Visalia, Calif. (all photos by K. Platts.)
The exhibit hall is set to feature a record-breaking number of sponsors and exhibitors.
can look at what you've completed, and it makes it really easy.”
Sponsor and exhibitor numbers are at an all-time high for the 2024 Crop Consultant Conference, highlighting the impact of this event and industry’s commitment to being available for consultants and grower-applicators.
“It's incredible what's happening,” Scott said. “There are so many sponsors this year, more exhibitors than we've ever had.
Scott attributes the growth of the event to three things: low cost per CEU, location and unique networking opportunities.
With the cost of registration at $395, that brings the per-CEU cost to about $6.60, well below the industry standard.
“It’s super affordable,” Scott said.
The conference is also strategically positioned at the Visalia Convention Center in the heart of the Central Valley. The high-density surrounding areas of Fresno and Tulare counties are home to a high percentage of the state’s consultants, making the conference convenient for travel.
“Easy traveling for the locals, they can be in their own bed,” Scott said. “If you do have to travel, if you're coming from Northern California or Southern California, hotel rates are very inexpensive and affordable, and it's just an easy way to do business.”
While there are multiple opportunities for fun at the Crop Consultant Conference, Scott iterated that it’s not a “party conference.”
“That's not to say this isn't a really
positive and fun experience,” he said. “I think there's a big difference between a party conference and having fun. There's a lot of fun. There's a lot of networking. There's a lot of after-hours gatherings... But it does have a more serious undertone to it, and the group of individuals are here to really grow their businesses.
“This is really the place to do big business, and if you're not here, you're missing out on some of the biggest opportunities to network with independent [consultants], researchers and ag retailers,” Scott added.
The 2024 Crop Consultant Conference will take place on September 25 and 26. Register today at progressivecrop.com/conference.
Comments about this article? We want to hear from you. Feel free to email us at article@jcsmarketinginc.com
PROTECT YOUR BATTLEFIELD HERBICIDES INSECTICIDES
FUNGICIDES
IGRS PGRS
Bootstrapped and ready to serve, Atticus delivers battle-tested chemistries and an experience like no other. Proud to be 100% American-owned and operated, our mission is to help you grow every step of the way.
BATTLE TESTED CHEMISTRIES
For managing pests in specialty crops, our Debug® portfolio of unique, tank-mixable azadirachtin/neem oil formulations deliver superior dual mode-of-action performance.
• Affects insects at all stages of growth
• Labeled for a wide variety of crops
• Broad-spectrum insect control
• Short REI and PHI
Stop by Booth #15 at the Crop Consultant Conference to learn more about Debug.
