2011 Proceedings - Pacific Agriculture · PDF file2011 . Proceedings . January 27-29 ....

53rd Annual

Horticulture Growers’ Short Course

2011

Proceedings

January 27-29

Editors:

Todd Kabaluk

Chaim Kempler

Lisa Frey

Sponsored by:

Lower Mainland

Horticultural Improvement

Association

The LMHIA acknowledges the support of the following in delivery of the 2011 Short Course:

LHMIA 2011 Board of Directors

Agribusiness

Noel Roddick

Grant McMillan

Heather Meberg

Blueberry

Mike Makara

Dave Gill

Sid Kwantes

Organic

Marjolaine Dessureault

Pat Harrison

Harvie Snow

Raspberry

James Bergen

Alf Krause

David Mutz

Strawberry

Mike Boot

Jeff Husband

Ed McKim

Vegetable

Trevor Harris

Ria van Eekelen

Bruce Wisbey

Ex Officio

BCMAL

Donna Anaka

Jenny Curtis

Gary Jones

George Geldart

Susan Smith

Mark Sweeney

Dave Woodske

Dave Trotter

AAFC- PARC

Sheila Fitzpatrick

Tom Forge

Todd Kabaluk

Chaim Kempler

Bob Vernon

Executive Director

Sandy Dunn

Foreword

These proceedings summarize three days of meetings and educational seminars at the 53rd

Lower

Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association Short Course held in conjunction with the 13th Annual

Pacific Agriculture Show from January 27-29, 2011 in Abbotsford, BC. There were 815 Short Course

Registrants and 114 presenters at the Short Course with 250 exhibitors and over 7,500 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, marketing, and agricultural programs and policies, and to explore 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

delivering such a high quality event. This year, 137 Short Course quality evaluations were received, with

93% of respondents rating both the choice of speakers and the topics as very good or excellent.

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 stands as

a resource of information for the horticulture industry as a whole, and a record of the state of development

of agriculture in BC. This year, the revenue generated by the Short Course enabled $35,650 to be

awarded to research projects in support of agriculture in BC.

We look forward to next years’ Short Course from January 26-28, 2012, and the enthusiasm in continuing

in the delivery of a high quality of education to BC’s horticulture industry.

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.

Table of Contents

Raspberries/Strawberries Alternative Management Strategies in Raspberry Production.......................................................9 Sean Kuchta, Denise Nelsen, Bernie Zebarth, Tom Forge and Craig Nichol Chateau Herbicide Use in Strawberries…………………………………………………………13 Tom Tregunno Innovative Berry Production in the Netherlands………………………………………………..16 Willem van Eldik New Raspberry Varieties for Now and the Future……………………………………………....19 Chaim Kempler, Brian Harding and Georgia Kliever New Strawberry Varieties for Now and the Future.……………………………………………..25 Chaim Kempler, Brian Harding and Georgia Kliever Strawberry Cultivars from USDA-ARS………………………………………………………....28 Chad Finn and Michael Dossett Innovative Approaches to Fumigation…………………………………………………………..35 Tom Walters Fumigation in Raspberries: Current Options and Future Regulatory Hurdles…………………..39 Madeline Waring Vapam Fumigation Program……………………………………………………………………..41 Brian Johnston, Madeline Waring and Mike Conway National Raspberry Council……………………………………………………………………...43 Karen Fenske Greenhouse Potential New Greenhouse Pests to Watch For………………………………………………….48 Tracy Hueppelsheuser BC Greenhouses and the Farm Energy Assessment Pilot Project……………………………….52 Emily MacNair and Sam Thomas 28th International Horticultural Congress Summary……………………………………………..56 David Woodske

2011 Horticulture Growers' Short Course 4

Potatoes BC Potato Variety Trial: From the Field to Secondary School………………………………….60 Heather Meberg and Lindsay Babineau Challenges in Potato Disease Management……………………………………………………...66 Dave Ormrod Recent Discoveries Concerning the Control of Potato Diseases…………………….…………..70

Rick Peters Field Vegetables Integrated Approach to Managing Carrot Diseases……………………………………………...75 Rick Peters and Kevin Sanderson Soil Sampling for Nutrient Management………………………………………………………...79 David Poon and Orlando Schmidt Phosphorus: Mechanisms of Loss from the Soil System and Effects to Slow these Losses and Increase Plant Availability……………………………………………83 Terry Tindall Newly Registered Aphicide Beleaf®…………………………………………………………….88

Adam Prestegord Fulfill® Insecticide for Aphid Control…………………………………………………….……..89 Ed Thiessen Building Business Success Diversification of Our Farm through Taking Stock……………………………………….…….92 Gary Snow and Susan Snow Do the Tough Things Right………………………………………………………………….…..95 Elaine Froese Ten Tools for Talking about the Tough Issues..............................................................................99 Elaine Froese Preparing for the Future: Emerging Trends and Impacts on the Food Chain………………….101 Al Scholz


Agri-Energy Forum These presentations are available at: http://www.ardcorp.ca/index.php?page_id=49 British Columbia‘s Feed-In Tariffs………………………………………………….…….Online Janice Larson Renewable Electricity Generation Acquisition Programs for Small Project……………...Online Laura Creech Terasen Gas Biomethane Program………………………………………………….…......Online Andrew McVie Milk More Cows on Less Acres…………………………………………………….……..Online Bill Vanderkooi Anaerobic Digestion: Lessons Learned in Vermont………………………….…….……..Online Michael Raker Geothermal Technology in the Agricultural Sector…………………………………...…..Online Barry Milner Wind Energy and its Applications for BC Agriculture Sector..………………………..….Online Nicholas Heap Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc……………………………………………………….…..…..Online Victor Krahn Feasibility Study Poultry Litter and Animal Carcass Gasification……………………......Online Rick Van Kleeck Bioenergy Feedstock Surveying Techniques…………………………….…..………...….Online Eric Camirand BC Biomass Trader………………………………………………………….………...…..Online Erin Nichols FCC Financing for Renewable Energy Products………………………...….………...…..Online Kimberly Ross Renewable Energy Financing Options……………………...…..……………...………….Online Reg Renner


http://www.ardcorp.ca/index.php?page_id=49

http://www.ardcorp.ca/index.php?page_id=49

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/file/RAEI/J%20Larson%20(Ministry%20of%20Energy).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/L%20Creech%20(BC%20Hydro).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/A%20McVie%20(Terasen).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/B%20Vanderkooi%20(BakerView).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/Raker%20(Vermont).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/B%20Milner%20(GeoSmart).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/N%20Heap%20(CANWEA).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/V%20Krahn%20(SunSelect).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/R%20Van%20Kleeck%20(IAF).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/E%20Camirand%20(Electrigaz).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/E%20Nichols%20(FFCF).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/K%20Ross%20(FCC).pdf

www.ardcorp.ca/userfiles/files/RAEI/R%20Renner%20(Atticus).pdf

All Berries/Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD) Researching Innovative Berry Cultural Practices……………………………………………..105 Fumiomi Takeda Biology of Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD)…………………………………………………109 Sheila Fitzpatrick Spotted Wing Drosophila: What Did We Learn from Monitoring in 2010?............................113 Tracy Hueppelsheuser Insecticide Efficacy: Trials and Grower Experience………………………………………….117 Lynell Tanigoshi, Bev Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler Spotted Wing Drosophila Management in BC Berry Crops………………………………….120 Mark Sweeney Keys to Effective SWD Management………………………………………………………...122 Tom Peerbolt Small Scale Food Processing – Resources Available to the Agri-Food Industry The Ever Evolving Food Safety Industry………………………………………………..……126 Phil Watney Value Chains Value Chains: What‘s in it for Me, and You and Us………………………………………….128 Bill Henderson Blueberries Root Weevils in Blueberry: a Hidden Threat?...........................................................................131 Tracy Hueppelsheuser Planning for Increased Production: a Blueberry Case Study……………………………….…132 Larry Lindquist Is Trapping a Practical Option for Reducing Starling Damage…………………………….....136 Doug Ransome National Blueberry Council………………………………………………………………...…138 Karen Fenske


Farm Direct Marketing Connecting With Your Customers through Social Media…………………………………...143 Kirstin Richter Niche Markets: Finding the Idea……………………………………………………………..146 Janice Ravndahl Alternate Crops/Agroforestry Silvopasture in BC: A Production Approach………………………………………………...148 George Powell Getting into Bigleaf Maple Syrup Production……………………………………………..…150 Jay Rastogi Organics Row Cover and Aphicide Trials……………………………………………………………...154 Marjolaine Dessarault Farm Management for Native Pollinators in Delta…………………………………………...157 David Bradbeer Raptors for Rodent Pest Control………………………………………………………………161 David Bradbeer Getting Your Biomass Together………………………………………………………………165 Erin Nichols

Research Grants Awarded by LMHIA 2011…………………………………………..167


Alternative Management Strategies in Raspberry Production and Their

Influence on Nitrate and Water Loss from Rootzone

Shaun Kuchta and Denise Nelsen, Pacific-Agrifood Research Centre, Summerland, BC Bernie Zebarth, Potato Research Centre Fredericton, NB

Tom Forge, Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre, Agassiz, BC

Craig Nichol, University of British Columbia Okanagan, Kelowna, BC

[email protected] Aquifer Background

The Abbotsford/Sumas aquifer is a 160 km2 unconfined aquifer located in south-western BC and north-western Washington, USA. This aquifer supplies freshwater to growing populations in the Abbotsford area and Washington State. The aquifer itself is comprised of coarse (sand and gravel) deposits and lacks a protective boundary layer to safeguard it from direct percolation from the overlying soil profile. The soil overlying the aquifer is productive when fertilized making it well suited for high value crops such as raspberry. All land use above the aquifer, including the management of the raspberry land use system can therefore have an impact on the quality of groundwater in the Abbotsford Aquifer. Based on data from 1960-1993 there is recharge of approximately 900mm/yr to the groundwater, mostly through high annual precipitation, with some contribution from irrigation during the growing season. At the end of the raspberry growing season any residual nitrate, a highly mobile anion in the soil, is leached from the rootzone by heavy over-winter precipitation and moved down towards the groundwater. Long term well monitoring indicates that the average nitrate-N levels in the Abbotsford Aquifer are consistently above the Canadian Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-N. This poses health and environmental risks. Past research attributed these levels to manure use, yet the transition to increased use of inorganic N sources (fertilizers) has not decreased the high nitrate content in the wells. It is, however, a challenge to link these nitrate values conclusively to non-point source surface land use and management. Research Question and Trial Design

Figure 1. Schematic of passive capillary wick sampler installations

Using lysimetry and capillary wick samplers (PCAPs, Figure 1) to sample passively the drainage losses directly under the rootzone of an established raspberry block (cv Saanich) and the associated alleyways, the objective of our research is to quantify the effects of conventional and alternative nitrogen, water and alley management strategies on nitrate and water loss from the root zone of perennial red raspberries. The wick samplers allow measurement of both the quantity of soil water drained over a sampling period and the analysis of this soil water through the collection of samples. This fulfills a gap in knowledge linking


Raspberries/Strawberries

surface management strategies in raspberry production to potential nitrate loading to the Abbotsford Aquifer. Plant measurements and soil sampling and monitoring are also being undertaken to measure the influence of our treatments on parameters of interest. The treatments included in our trial are outlined in Table 1 below. Table 1. Nitrogen, water and alley management treatments, Clearbrook substation red raspberry (Saanich) trial. Treatment Nitrogen (kg N/ha) Irrigation Alley

1 0 N Fixed Clean cultivated 2 100 N as manure Fixed Clean cultivated 3 100 N Fixed Perennial cover 4 100 N Fixed Barley cover 5 100 N Fixed Clean cultivated 6 50 N Fixed Clean cultivated 7 100 N Scheduled Clean cultivated 8 50 N fertigated Scheduled Clean cultivated

The control treatment of 0 kg N represents N supply from the mineralization naturally occurring in the soil. The 100 kg N rate in the trial was chosen based on soil testing in the experimental plots and follows industry practice for a field of that fertility. The rate of 50 kg N in some treatments reflects an attempt to address the application of surplus N and also the potential for increased efficiency in fertilizer uptake when delivered daily through the irrigation lines (Trt 8). The fixed (or conventional) irrigation schedule was determined in consultation with leading growers in the industry and was 0.6‖ (15mm) every second

day in 2009 (establishment year) and 0.8‖ (20mm) water every second day in 2010, the first fruit-bearing year. The scheduled irrigation treatment is a dynamic, evapotranspiration (ET) based method which matches daily delivery volumes with calculated plant water use from the previous growing day. Alley management treatments were designed to examine the effects of tillage and two different cover crops. The scheduled irrigation treatments applied 46 and 51% less water than the fixed irrigation in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Soil volumetric water content in the scheduled irrigation treatments was still maintained in the optimum range, but at a reduced level compared to the fixed irrigation treatment.

Preliminary Data

Figure 2. Soil Volumetric water content (%) in two different irrigation treatments (2010)



Maintaining soil moisture content closer to field capacity, as in the fixed irrigation treatment, has potential to accelerate drainage and therefore increase nitrate loss during irrigation and precipitation events. Dr. Tom Forge (AAFC) is also looking at the implications of these two different moisture regimes with respect to incidence of root disease. The row and alley sampler collection volumes in 2009 indicated that 91% of the total drainage was collected between October and March that year, agreeing with the data that the majority of the recharge to the groundwater occurs during the shoulders of the growing season. There was no significant difference in drainage volumes collected between the alternative and conventional management strategies in 2009. Data are pending on the concentration of nitrate in that drainage water, which is of utmost importance to evaluate treatment effects on nitrogen loss from the rootzone. In a highly efficient irrigation system which closely matches water delivery to plant water demand drainage losses should be low (<5-10%) during the irrigation season. In 2009, drainage losses under the fixed (grower based) irrigation treatments averaged 13% loss compared to 7% under the ET scheduled irrigation regime. As the crop moved from establishment to fruit bearing in 2010, the amount of water applied every second day in the fixed irrigation treatments was increased to match conventional practice. In 2010, drainage losses in the fixed irrigation treatments averaged 35% compared to only 5% in the scheduled irrigation regime. Analysis for nitrate concentration in the 2009 and 2010 samples is underway. Statistically significant plant response to the treatments in 2009 was limited, with the manure treatment showing the highest primocane N status (%) and the 0N treatment the lowest primocane diameter and shortest primocane lengths (Table 2). These small effects disappeared in 2010 when no treatment effects were apparent for the number of primocanes per plot or their diameter or length even for the treatment with no applied nitrogen (0N). This is an indication that the natural N mineralization was likely supplying the majority of the nitrogen required by the plant. Table 2. Red raspberry (cv Saanich) primocane N status and vigour in response to nutrient, water

and alley management treatments at Clearbrook in 2009. Treatment Cane N (%)

z Diameter (mm)y Length (m)

y 1. 0 N 0.68 bcx 8.60 c 2.03 d 2. Manure 0.81 a 10.09 ab 2.67 a 3. Perennial cover 0.66 c 9.73 ab 2.60 ab 4. Barley cover 0.72 bc 10.03 ab 2.58 ab 5. Conventional 0.74 b 10.42 a 2.65 ab 6. 50% N 0.71 bc 9.77 ab 2.41 bc 7. Scheduled 0.73 b 9.75 ab 2.46 abc 8. 50% N + scheduled 0.68 bc 9.37 bc 2.28 c

zSept 29/09 – Primocane peak N xMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level yDec. 15/09 – Measurement post leaf drop



Table 3. Effect of nutrient, water and alley management treatments on yield of red raspberry (cv

Saanich) at Clearbrook, 2010.

Treatment Yield (kg)

z 1. 0 N 5.10 cy 2. Manure 5.81 abc 3. Perennial cover 7.33 a 4. Barley cover 6.11 abc 5. Conventional 6.85 ab 6. 50% N 6.18 abc 7. Scheduled 5.64 bc 8. 50% N + scheduled 6.27 abc

Ztotal season yield on 12 picked canes yMeans within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level In the first fruit-bearing year (2010) yield effects were also limited with the 0N treatment resulting in the lowest production and the ‗Conventional‘ (clean cultivated, 100 kg N/ha broadcast ) and ‗Perennial cover‘

(perennial alley cover crop, 100 kg N/ha broadcast) treatments resulting in the highest production (Table

3). The yield increase observed in the ‗Perennial cover‘ treatment may be due in part to the observed

variability within that treatment and yet is an indication that yield is not being reduced by the presence of an alley cover.

Summary There is elevated nitrate in the Abbotsford Aquifer and the risk continues to be high consequently, human, animal, environmental health and the sustainability of agriculture are at risk. The experiment that is currently underway uses PCAPs and other measures to determine the link between management strategies and water and N movement. The overall objective is to establish management practices that will reduce N loading to the aquifer and improve water use while reducing grower input costs.



Chateau Herbicide Use in Strawberries

Tom Tregunno

Engage Agro, Guelph, BC [email protected]

Chateau is a new pre-emergent herbicide for use in a wide range of horticultural crops, including strawberries. When used correctly, Chateau can be a valuable tool for strawberry growers. Some growers have inquired about how to best use of Chateau herbicide for control of broadleaf weeds in strawberries. This write up will summarize the presentation given during the Growers Short Course on January 27, 2011. What is Chateau Herbicide?

Chateau is a group 14 herbicide that contains the active ingredient Flumioxazin, making it ideal for growers concerned about group 2 resistant weeds. Chateau is a PPO inhibitor which kills weeds by preventing the synthesis of chlorophyll. In addition, Flumioxazin creates a buildup of singlet oxygen which causes damage to cell walls. Chateau is tightly bound to the soil and will not leach. Once activated with at least ½ cm of water, Chateau will kill labelled, emerging weeds as they grow through the layer of soil treated with Chateau. Weeds will turn yellowish/white before they die.

How Long Will Chateau Control Labelled Weeds?

Under normal conditions, a fall application of Chateau should last beyond spring harvest. Chateau is broken down by microbial activity and the break down starts once soil temperatures rise above freezing. Soils with high organic matter (<5%OM) will break down Chateau faster than lighter soils. Chateau is still effective with soils with greater than 5% OM. However, you will see a slight reduction in the length of control. The largest factor contributing to the length of control is the application rate. Research has shown that lowering the application rate below the labelled rate will reduce the length of residual control. In addition, moisture is needed to keep Chateau active in the soil and controlling weeds. Chateau is locked tightly to the top layer of soil and therefore any mechanical incorporation or cultivation will severely reduce weed control.

How and When Do You Apply Chateau on Strawberries? Chateau can either be applied as a broadcast to dormant established strawberries or to non-dormant strawberries using a hooded sprayer to row middles before fruit set. It is recommended that you apply Chateau to dormant strawberries as a fall application. Apply at 210g/ha with enough water to get adequate coverage. When Are Strawberries Dormant? It is very difficult to give a set date. Weather fluctuations, variety and growing region all effect strawberry dormancy. Colour is not always a good indicator. There should be no new growth seen from the crown and several frosts should occur before strawberry dormancy is reached. Ultimately it is up to the grower to decide as every farm is different and they know their strawberries best. If you need assistance determining strawberry dormancy contact your local agronomist or an Engage Agro representative.



Application Guidelines

The goal is to minimize the amount of Chateau that comes into contact with the strawberry plant. The target is the soil, not the plant! For dormant applications, do not mix with an EC product or anything else with a sticker because this may cause injury on the strawberry plant. There are many acceptable tank mixes, contact your Engage Agro representative if you are concerned about a tank mix partner. For row middle applications to non-dormant strawberries, be mindful of your application speed as dust treated with Chateau can land on the strawberry and cause damage. If your fields are extremely wet or flooded, do not use Chateau.

Can I Apply Chateau Over Straw?

Keep in mind that soil coverage is extremely important. It may be difficult to achieve ideal coverage if you apply over straw and weed control may be reduced.

If Runners Come In Contact With Chateau, Will It

Kill the Mother Plant?

No, the damage will only occur on tissue that comes in direct contact with Chateau. Chateau will not move into the plant, so damage will be localized. What Is The Crop Tolerance Like? What Does Injury

Look Like?

It is difficult to kill a strawberry plant with Chateau, however, injury can occur if there is spray drift. Treated soil can splash onto non-dormant structures, and treated soil in dusty conditions can blow onto non-dormant structures. If injury occurs, the strawberry plant will grow out of it and you will see red spotting on leaf tissues. Injury will not occur if the strawberries are dormant.

Figure 1. Chateau injury (OMAFRA)

Figure 2. Row middle application four weeks after glyphosate follwed by Chateau herbicide



Tank Cleaning

It is important to clean your tank after you apply Chateau. Chateau residue left in the spray tank can cause injury in the next crop you spray.

Will Chateau Control Grasses?

Chateau can provide some suppression of grasses, but it is recommended that you use a grass herbicide if annual grasses are a major issue in your field. Since its introduction in 2009 Chateau herbicide has proven itself to be a valuable pre-emergent herbicide for strawberry growers. Chateau has excellent residual properties, it will not leach and it does not volatilize. If you have any questions about Chateau, please feel free to contact me.



Innovative Berry Production in the Netherlands

Willem van Eldik DLV Plant Team, Wageningen, NL

[email protected] DLV Plant is a world-class, independent advisory body and research partner within the global horticultural and arable sectors. Its activities are focused on advisory and research projects in the Netherlands and other countries. Through continuous innovation and the marketing of contemporary

services and products, DLV Plant creates added value for entrepreneurs in the agricultural sector. DLV Plant currently employs a total of 160 advisors, researchers and project managers. DLV Plant has its own offices in the Netherlands, Belgium, Russian Federation, Serbia and Great Britain, providing support to agri-business clients throughout Europe, North America, Africa and the Middle East. For more information on DLV Plant see our corporate website: http://www.dlvplant.nl/. The strengths of DLV Plant are the know-how development within the own organisation, the network within the agricultural and

affiliated sectors, and the range of services offered. The level of know-how of the advisors is kept up to date through: -exchange of know-how within the organisation itself -contact with Dutch and foreign research institutes -visits to conferences and symposia -utilisation of an extensive network On a daily basis, specialised advisers of DLV Plant visit strawberry/small fruit growing companies both at home and abroad. They advise on the production as well as the propagation and multiplication of plant material. They ensure optimum production through the effective use of smart instruments, such as plant sensors and growing models.



Climate Monitoring System for Strawberries

The systematic cultivation of strawberries is crucial to production yield. It is important to have good insight into the plant physiological backgrounds and into the plant‘s reactions to adjusted cultivation

conditions on climate, irrigation and fertilisation. In co-operation with the berry workgroups and the Netherlands Commodity Board for Horticulture, DLV Plant is working on a climate monitoring system. The core of the system is formed by growth models that are linked to plant sensors that record the plant‘s

reactions. Through ‗smart measuring‘, the plants themselves provide information on their activity (photosynthesis) and whether or not they are stressed. What growers have felt for generations intuitively now has an objective, data-based foundation. Mainly extremes in climate and plant reactions are examined. Based upon these and in consultation with the grower the climatic conditions can be adjusted. The model is expanded step-by-step and integrated into SQMS®. The continuous registration of plant vitality through sensor technology makes it possible to grow on the cutting edge. SQMS® Development

In the coming years, SQMS® will continue to develop. The programme will be offered online. The grower has at his disposal the latest update while the adviser keeps a watchful eye. The grower benefits from DLV Plant‘s on-going developments through a long-term relationship. Through applied research, new understandings of strawberry cultivation are achieved. These results are processed into the programme, and the support function of SQMS® for the grower is further strengthened and improved.

The Fruits Team is an enthusiastic and independent group of advisers with wide practical experience in top fruit, strawberry, small fruit, stonefruit and organic farming covering a work area in Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Growers are assisted in the nursery phase and later by applied research. The Fruits Team organises courses and issues topical newsletters. At the end of 2008, DLV Plant, together with PPO Fruit, started a practical oriented knowledge and innovation centre for small fruit. The objective of KICK is to perform research in these crops in order to optimise the cultivation and production yields. Every year, various demonstrations and tests are organised in a central location in the Netherlands together with partners from the small fruit production chain. KICK is also appropriate and suitable for fundamental and applied research with its modern laboratories and cooling facilities and its specialised researchers. In addition to crop protection, water dosage and fertilisation, innovations in cultivation systems for the small fruit sector are on KICK‘s priority list.





New Raspberry Varieties for Now and the Future

Chaim Kempler, Brian Harding and Georgia Kliever

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC [email protected]

Chemainus

Chemainus is a mid-season processing and fresh market cultivar that produces large-sized, medium-dark and very attractive berries. Chemainus produces high quality fruit that machine harvests very well and can be used for processing and IQF. The fruit is glossy, large and firm, perfect in shape with medium to fine drupelets, and so is very suitable for IQF and the fresh market. The plant has excellent vigour, producing plenty of replacement canes. Its primocanes are green with no spines and its laterals are short and strong with a good upright angle and well-spaced fruit. It is not resistant to RBDV, but it is resistant to the large raspberry aphid, Amphorophora

agathonica, a vector of the raspberry mosaic virus (RMV) complex. Chemainus appears to also show some degree of field resistance to root rot induced by Phytophthora fragariae, exhibiting good growth in comparison to Meeker and Malahat. Chemainus has been widely planted through the PNW with large acreages already in production.

Saanich

Saanich is a promising new release from the PARC breeding program. It is very productive, producing very high yields with a fruit size that is larger than Meeker and is suited for the fresh or processing markets. The excellent quality fruit are firm with medium gloss, very fine drupelets and a very pleasant sweet flavour associated with low acidity that is comparable to Tulameen. Because of its small drupelet size the fruit IQF extremely well holding its shape with no breakage. The canes are spineless with laterals that are short and bend easily without breaking and so are able to carry the high yield. In large growers‘ trials, the fruit

released well from the receptacle and harvested very well mechanically. This cultivar although exposed to high pressure of RBDV for many years, has been very slow to show RBDV infection and to date has not tested positive on any of the commercially planted fields. It was released because of its high productivity, suitability for machine



harvesting and exceptionally high fruit quality that makes it very suited for IQF. It produces medium-sized, medium-light-red firm fruit. Its very sweet flavor might also make it suited for specialty fresh fruit markets.

Ukee

Ukee is a new floricane-fruiting red raspberry cultivar from the PARC breeding program that produces high yields of firm large-sized fruit suited for both the fresh and processing markets. It machine harvests very well and is suited for individually quick frozen (IQF). Ukee exhibits an excellent degree of field and greenhouse resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi. It is also resistant to the large raspberry aphid,

Amphorophora

agathonica, a vector of the raspberry mosaic virus

(RMV) complex. Ukee, tested as BC92-6-41, was selected from a 1992 cross Chilliwack, and selection BC86-41-15. Chilliwack was selected from a cross between BC64-10-198 and Skeena. The other parent, BC 86-41-15, comes from a 2nd back cross from the North American wild raspberry R. strigosus (the Dalhousie Lake 4 clone). This clone was collected from Quebec and has a high level of resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi. Ukee floricanes are straight and strong. They are thinner than those of Tulameen, Malahat and Chemainus but similar to those of Saanich and Meeker. The canes are noticeably shorter than most other varieties but long enough for use in a ‗looped‘ trellis system. Ukee laterals are long and strong and carry

the yield very well; fruit is spread on the laterals and is well presented. The bark is colored cinnamon brown with minimal basal cracking. Spines are also cinnamon brown, 2 mm long, downward pointing and with no basal spot. The spines are plentiful on the lower 40 cm of the cane but reduced in number and length acropetally. Ukee primocanes turn brown to the tip and shed their leaves earlier in the fall than most other varieties. Ukee fruit have an excellent appearance; fruit are medium to large in size and conical with small drupelets. Fruit colour is medium to light red with low gloss and some dusty appearance. Ukee is productive and keeps good fruit size over its long harvesting season. The fruit colour is lighter than that of Meeker; it is acceptable for IQF and possibly for other types of processing where dark pigment is not required. In machine harvest trials, Ukee rated as suitable for machine harvesting, giving good fruit quality that is suited for IQF. In IQF trials it appears acceptable, but more testing is needed. The ripening season for Ukee is similar to that of Meeker. Because of its long laterals, Ukee fruit is exposed and therefore easy to hand harvest; the flavour is very good and the fruit size is larger than that of Meeker which makes Ukee very suited for the fresh market.



Ukee was selected for resistance conferred by the Ag1 gene to the common biotype of A. agathonica, the N. American large raspberry aphid vector of the RMV complex, and it has tested negative to RMV ever since the genotype was selected. Ukee first tested positive for RBDV in 2003, five years after it was planted in the field. This delay in getting infected with RBDV suggests that it is moderately tolerant. It has exhibited a high degree of field resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi and under extreme root rot pressure at WSU Puyallup it did not show symptoms. While not resistant to spur blight, (Didymella

applanata), Ukee has been rated as less susceptible than Meeker, Malahat, Chemainus or Tulameen. Ukee, Meeker, Saanich and Malahat have similar (low) susceptibility to cane Botrytis (B. cinerea) and show more resistance than Tulameen or Chemainus. Ukee is moderately susceptible to anthracnose (Elsinoe veneta), having a response similar to Meeker. Rudi

Rudi is a new floricane-fruiting red raspberry cultivar from the PARC breeding program. Rudi produces high yields of firm large-sized fruit that mature early and machine harvest very well. It is suited for processing and also for the fresh market. The Rudi cultivar exhibits some degree of resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi and is also resistant to the large raspberry aphid, Amphorophora agathonica, a vector of the raspberry mosaic virus (RMV) complex. It was named after Mr. Rudi Janzen on whose field this cultivar was first tested. Mr. Janzen played an important role in the testing and evaluation processes of the

cultivar. Rudi tested as BC90-4-23, was selected from a 1990 cross between Qualicum and selection BC86-41-15. Selection BC 86-41-15, comes from a 2nd back cross from the North American wild raspberry R. strigosus (the Dalhousie Lake 4 clone) collected from Quebec and has a high level of resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi. Rudi floricanes are straight and strong and thinner than those of Tulameen, Malahat and Chemainus but similar to those of Saanich and Meeker. When selected in 1994, it was noted as early ripening with long laterals, attractive appearance, nice flavour, firm fruit just over 4 g, only a few spines, easy to harvest, medium vigour and potentially resistant to the resistance-breaking biotype of the large raspberry aphid. Rudyberry laterals are long and strong and carry the yield very well; fruit is spread on the laterals and is well presented. The bark is colour light red-brown with no basal cracking. Spines are 3 mm long, downward pointing and with no basal spot. They are a bit longer and thicker than those of Meeker but less abundant on the basal 60 cm, they become reduced in number and length acropetally. Rudi is productive and maintains a good fruit size over its harvesting season. Rudi fruit have an excellent appearance; fruit are medium to large in size and conical with medium size drupelets. Fruit colour is medium to dark red with high gloss, similar to that of Meeker; it is acceptable for processing where dark pigment is required. It machine harvests very well with harvest starting a few days before Meeker and ending almost a week before Meeker. Rudi was selected for resistance conferred by the Ag1 gene to the common biotype of A. agathonica, the North American large raspberry aphid vector of the RMV complex, and it has tested negative to RMV ever since the genotype was selected. Rudi first tested


Raspberries/StrawberriesRaspberries/Strawberries

positive for RBDV in 2000, six years after it was planted in the field. It has exhibited some degree of field resistance to root rot caused by P. rubi. While not resistant to spur blight, (Didymella applanata), Rudi has been rated as less susceptible than Meeker, Malahat, Chemainus or Tulameen. Rudyberry, Ukee, Meeker, Saanich and Malahat have similar (low) susceptibility to cane Botrytis (B. cinerea) and show more resistance than Tulameen or Chemainus. Rudi is moderately susceptible to anthracnose (Elsinoe veneta), having a response similar to Meeker. Rudi is a multi-purpose cultivar that is suited for machine harvesting/processing and the fresh market. Because it shows some resistance to root rot and is early ripening it may be also suited for the early fresh market as replacement to the root rot susceptible cultivar Malahat. BC92-9-15

BC92-9-15 (Malahat x BC86-41-15): Productive selection that produces large size fruit that matures early and is suited for the fresh and processing markets. This selection stands very well to root rot and machine harvests very well. In machine harvest and fresh market grower trials it was identified as having the potential of replacing Malahat because of its fruit quality, stand against root rot, earliness and machine harvestability. It produces attractive, glossy, medium dark, large, pointed, firm fruit with

large drupelets that has good post-harvest quality. It originates from a 3rd back cross from R. strigosus via Skeena, Meeker, Comox and Malahat. It is resistant to aphids but susceptible to spur blight and RBDV.



BC96-22R-55

BC96-22R-55 [(Tulameen x R. strigosus) x (Cherokee x Qualicum)]: This selection is from a 1st back cross from R.

strigosus, collected from 8th Lake State Park Campground, Adirondack State Park, NY. The parent was selected because of its resistance to root rot. In machine harvesting trials, it harvested very well, producing fruit as dark colour as Meeker. The fruit is attractive and large in sized (4.7g). It is round shaped with large, coarse drupelets and a glossy red color. The plant growth habit is well adapted for machine

harvesting, with short, strong, upright laterals and good vigour. The harvest season of this selection starts later than Meeker‘s season and is short and concentrated. It has very good field resistance to root rot. It

tested positive to RBDV in 2009 after more than 10 year of exposure to the virus in the field. It is possible that it is slow in getting infected.



BC3-14-12

BC3-14-12 (Cowichan x Esquimalt) Very productive selection suited for the processing and fresh market. It ripens almost a week later than Meeker and produces large fruit with thick meaty walls and is shaped like a barrel. In field trials it stood very well to root rot pressure.


Raspberries/StrawberriesRaspberries/Strawberries

New Strawberry Varieties for Now and the Future

Chaim Kempler, Brian Harding and Georgia Kliever

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC [email protected]

Stolo

Stolo is the latest strawberry cultivar released from the Pacific Agri-Food Research Centre (PARC), Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Agassiz, BC. Stolo was selected by Chaim Kempler from a 1996 cross of Puget Reliance X Whonnock. Puget Reliance is a large-fruited and high yielding popular cultivar. The other parent, Whonnock, a cross between Sumas and Hapil, was released from the PARC program in 1999 for its high yield and resistance to root weevils and soil born disease. It has not been adopted in the Pacific Northwest because of its rough and unattractive fruit.

Stolo is a promising cultivar that has been planted in trials for several years. It is very productive and produces large, firm fruit of excellent quality, making it suitable for both the processing and fresh markets. Its fruit is glossy, nicely shaped and very attractive with a pleasant flavour. Its harvest season starts a day or two before Totem and lasts a few days longer. Plants are vigorous and healthy with sufficient runner production to create a satisfactory matted row. In the 2002 planting at WSU-Puyallup, it had the highest yield and the largest fruit size for the two harvest years following its planting. It was than



noticed that it escapes damage from root weevils and further investigation revealed that it is resistant to root weevil larva. It was especially noticed for maintaining high yield in its second and third year harvest, which is attributed to its tolerance to root weevils and possibly other pest and diseases, inherited from its parent, Whonnock. Plants are now available from Sakuma for planting on large grower‘s trails.

Nisgaa

The Nisgaa variety is from a cross between the red stele resistant variety Cavendish released from the AAFC breeding program in Kentville, NS and the excellently flavoured PARC variety Nanaimo. Nisgaa is a high yielding, large fruited variety that ripens three to five days earlier than Totem. Fruit is medium-dark red, firm and glossy with a pleasant sweet northern strawberry flavour. The calyx detaches easily which makes it suited for processing and it is also suited for the fresh market. Plants are small and moderately vigorous in comparison to Puget Reliance and Stolo, and they are very productive. Nisgaa preformed very well in replicated and growers trials and was among the top producers. Following PARC tradition, Nisgaa was named after the First Nations people that reside in the beautiful Nass River Valley of north western British Columbia.



Table 1. Yield, fruit weight and harvest season of Nisgaa, Stolo and other PNW cultivars



Strawberry Cultivars from USDA-ARS

Chad Finn and Michael Dossett

USDA-ARS Corvalis and Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR [email protected]

ORUS 2180-1

(Tentatively „Sweet Bliss‟)

• Dual Use: Fresh/Processing • Med-large size w/ excellent

flavor, color and appearance • Excellent plant • High yields (greater than

Totem) • Has done well for fresh in

Frazer River Valley • Caps, picks, and processes

well. • Will get crown rot (Phytophthora cactorum) and anthracnose but has

not been serious problem

Valley Red

• Dual Use: Fresh/Processing • Tested as ORUS 1790-1 • Anaheim x Puget Reliance • Yield > Totem • Fruit size > Totem, comparable to Puget Reliance • Caps, Dark, V. uniform size • Good flavor • Excellent open, vigorous plant • Concerns: color, flavor • Grower Trial comment: ―Seems to have the whole

package of color, flavor, yield‖

Tillamook (l) vs. Valley Red (r)



„Tillamook‟

• Dual fresh and processed uses

• High yields • Very large fruit • Very good quality fresh and

processed. • Excellent IQF; fair ice

cream formulations • Excellent yield and fruit

size even in 3rd harvest year • Open plant • Visible large fruit • Efficient to pick!

Slated for Release in 2012:

ORUS 2240-1

• Will release for 2012 • Puget Reliance x B 754 • Dual use potential • Large fruit= Tillamook • High yields= Tillamook • V. good, sweet flavor • Excellent vigor and open

plant • Held up very well to weevil infestation • Performed well in Grower Trials in 2010! • Available 2012

ORUS 2262-2

• BC 91-14-31 x WA 94023-1 • Processing • Totem size fruit • Large yields=Tillamook • Outstanding processing qual. • Excellent in bad fields • Vigorous plants but can be

picked efficiently • Main concern is fruit size ―Very impressive; Potential

Hood Replacement



Blackberry Cultivars Primarily for the Fresh Market

„Onyx‟

• Will be patented • Late, about 1 week later than Marion • Medium-large fruit with very uniform shape • Excellent flavor that is sweet and fruity • Firm with tough, glossy skin • Has shipped well in wholesale fresh market • Yield is comparable to Marion • Came through late freeze in 2006 with no damage • Vigorous thorny plant with long laterals • Available at nurseries

„Newberry‟

• Fresh or Processing • Thorny, vigorous • V. high yields of large fruit • Boysen color and look but not same flavor.

Grower: ―if blindfolded could not tell the

difference‖ • In California, wholesale fresh market, sold as

―Ruby Boysen‖ • Holds up fresh better than Boysen, less bleeding • Machine picks; Processes well • ―Different than others so sells‖ • Available at nurseries

„Obsidian‟

• Very early and productive • Has filled a wholesale niche in California; saw

in Oregon Farmer‘s market in late May 2010. • Large fruit stay black in refrigeration & freezer • Excellent flavor • Originally for early Fresh but number of growers

planting for processing due to very high yield and excellent fruit quality!

• Can be picked firm black with good flavor • Vigorous, thorny plant with long laterals • Ships fine in wet year (2005) • To watch: firmness/skin toughness • Available at nurseries



„Metolius‟

• Douglass x Kotata • Very early and very

productive. • Excellent flavor • Firm and very uniform shape,

Kotata size • Vigorous very thorny plant

with stiff laterals • Firmer in field than Obsidian

but may not respond as well to shipping

• Fresh Market • Available at nurseries

Fresh Market Blackberry Selections

ORUS 1939-4 - Will Name

• Fresh market - thorny • High yields: 20% greater than

‗Marion‘ • Large fruit – 6.4g • Glossy, firm fruit • Excellent sweet flavor • Held up well to late freeze in 2006 • Identified as promising by

commercial fresh packers • With or slightly earlier than

‗Marion‘ • Available at nurseries

ORUS 1793-1

• Fresh market – thorny, but not very thorny

• High yields: 20% greater than ‗Marion‘

• Large fruit – 6.6g • Glossy, firm, attractive fruit • Very nice flavor • Hard hit by late freeze in 2006 • 2-3 days earlier than ‗Marion‘ • Available at nurseries

Silvan Metolius Obsidian



ORUS 2736-5

• ‗Waldo‘ x ORUS 1371-1 • Fresh market – thorny • Large, firm, attractive fruit • Very erect for trailing

blackberry • High yields • A little later than ‗Marion‘ • Available at nurseries

ORUS 2707-1

• Thornless from ‗Lincoln Logan‘ • Outstanding yield • Machine harvests well • Excellent flavor and fruit quality • Processed or fresh • Concerns:

Can be purplish like ‗Marion‘

Sensitive to hot temperatures

• Being cleaned up for trial



„Nightfall‟

• Marion x Waldo • Thornless • Tart but in products w/sugar, has

excellent flavour • Machines • Similar season to ‗Marion‘ • High yield • Large fruit with acceptable firmness

and color • Tart flavor! Needs sugar blend

„Wild Treasure‟

• ―Thornless Wild‖; ‗Waldo‘ x Rubus ursinus

• Very Small!! ½ the size of ‗Marion‘

• Niche applications as ―wild‖ and bakery • Machine harvests

• May be best in AY as canes are thin and can break w/ rough training

• Selections combine best of ‗Waldo‘ and native R. ursinus i.e. thornless, foliar disease tolerant, and yield of Waldo with excellent flavor, growth habit and fruit size of wild.

• Available from nurseries

Floricane-fruiting Red Raspberry Selections

ORUS 1142-1 - Will name

• Dual purpose • Early, 3 days ahead of ‗Cascade Dawn‘ • Firm, glossy, bright beautiful fruit • Can be picked firm pink with good flavor • ‗Coho‘ size • Yield similar to ‗Meeker‘ • Appears to machine harvest well • Very good raspberry flavor Plants available for Trial



ORUS 1040-1

• Processing • Excellent yields of large,

dark fruit • Yields greater than

‗Meeker‘ • Appears to machine

harvest well, • Very good raspberry

flavor Plants being cleaned up

Primocane-fruiting Red Raspberry Selections

ORUS 2786-5 - Will name

• Fresh market – Primocane fruiting • Excellent flavor • ~1 week later than ‗Heritage‘ • Firm, glossy beautiful fruit • Can be picked pink with good flavor • 30% larger than ‗Heritage‘ • Yield similar to ‗Heritage‘ • Susceptible to Phytophthora Plants available

ORUS 1167-2

• Fresh market – Primocane fruiting • Very early • Begins ~Aug 11, peaks Aug 25 • Good eating, nice flavor • Cane be picked pink • Larger than ‗Heritage‘ • Good yield, but slightly less than ‗Heritage‘ • Concerns: firmness

Getting cleaned up for trial

ORUS 2786-5 vs. „Heritage‟



Innovative Approaches to Fumigation

Tom Walters

Washington State University – Mount Vernon NWREC, Mount Vernon, WA [email protected]

In Washington, most acreage being replanted to raspberries is fumigated. Because the amount of suitable land is limited, a fair amount is fumigated each year. Some of the best acreage is planted on relatively short (five production year) cycles, further increasing the acreage fumigated each year. The most common reasons to fumigate raspberry fields are raspberry root rot caused by Phytophthora

rubi, and the root lesion nematode Pratylenchus penetrans. Our post-plant options for managing these are limited: we can suppress P. rubi somewhat with metylaxyl (Ridomil), but this is expensive. Unlike in Canada, which has raspberry on the Vydate label, we can‘t use Vydate on raspberries in the US, so we

don‘t have a labeled, effective postplant treatment for P. penetrans. We encourage growers to take some data before deciding whether and how to fumigate. Soil tests can determine nematode types and population densities. Field history can be very helpful to determine likely pressures from root rot and weeds. Very few Washington berry growers fumigate their own fields. The equipment is specialized (like the cat with the plastic layer on the left), a special endorsement on the pesticide applicator‘s license is required,

and regulations are specialized and quite strict due to worker and bystander safety concerns. In Washington, the most common fumigation is with Telone C-35 (when disease is especially targeted) or Telone C-17 (when nematodes are the primary target), broadcast applied, without a tarp. The US Environmental Protection Agency developed decisions on the reregistration of most of the common soil fumigants, including chloropicrin, metam sodium, metam potassium and dazomet. This list does not include the Telone products, but they will be re-evaluated along with the other fumigants in 2013. The decisions amount to a series of rules that registrants will have to put on the label if they want to continue selling these products in the US.

Some of these rules have already been implemented, like the re-categorization of metam products as Restricted Use Pesticides. There are also new rules about following Good Agricultural Practices (like fumigating only when soil temperatures and moisture levels are appropriate), as well as some fairly significant worker protections. For most of the fumigants, handlers will be required to have a respirator available, be fit-tested and have medical clearance to work with a respirator. The changes coming later this year will have greater impacts still. Applicators will be required to develop fumigant management plans, specifying their compliance with all of the new regulations, and specifying plans for what will be

done if there is a problem. ―High-use areas‖ with high fumigant use (I don‘t know what these will be, but



Watsonville, California comes to mind) will have a requirement for responder and community outreach. More extensive applicator training will be required, and applications will be prohibited within 1/4 mile of ―hard-to-evacuate‖ areas, such as schools, nursing homes, hospitals and daycare facilities. There will be

buffers around fumigated areas that must remain unoccupied for 48 hours after fumigation is finished. The buffers must be posted and the perimeter must be monitored or neighbours must be notified. The buffer zones are EPA‘s way of putting distance between fumigants and bystanders. They‘re intended

to protect bystanders from emissions, and to provide a measure of safety in case there is an accident during fumigation or after (like if a tarp blows off). The buffer sizes depend on the fumigant, the rate, the application method and ―credits‖ you get for using impermeable tarps, high-organic matter soils, etc. The buffer zone is in force from start of application to 48 hours after the end of application. During that time, all non-handlers must be excluded, although transit is okay. So, a road is fine, but a bus stop is not. The RED‘s will mean a lot of extra regulation for fumigators, and will probably mean that fumigation will

be more expensive. You‘ll have to pay for the fumigator to provide a fit-tested handler with respirator (or maybe you‘ll have to hire that handler yourself). You‘ll have to either monitor the buffer perimeter, or

notify people within the area that fumigation is taking place. I think the buffers will be the most challenging requirement to meet. To reduce buffer size, you might choose a different fumigant (depending on what‘s available, and what your target is). You might want to fumigate a field in sections,

to keep buffer zone sizes at a minimum. You might be interested in bed fumigation, something I‘ll talk about in just a minute. You might consider non-chemical methods whenever you can, like solarization, seed meal amendments in the row, crop rotation and alleyway management.

Bed fumigation, shown below, is simply fumigating the planting bed only, not the alleyway. With bed fumigation, it is less expensive to lay a film over the fumigated area (because you‘re only covering the

bed). You can also use highly impermeable films, which keep the fumigant in the ground better. This makes the fumigation more effective (might let you use a lower dose), and reduces emissions and buffer zone size. About half of California‘s strawberries are bed

fumigated, and it works very well for this application. A similar situation exists in Florida (the other big strawberry state). Strawberries are grown as shallow-rooted, annual plants though, and we are talking today about protecting raspberries: deep-rooted perennials. Will bed fumigation protect raspberries for long enough? We know that strawberries and tomatoes use bed fumigation successfully. We also know from our nursery trials that bed fumigation does a fantastic job of eliminating common raspberry pathogens in the first year (better than conventional broadcast fumigation). We also know that a similar idea, ‗strip

fumigation‘, has been successfully adopted in other perennial crops (almonds and stone fruits). The costs

are a bit more than broadcast, non-tarped: my most recent cost for 35 gal/A Telone C-35 is $1099 US per acre; for the same rate of product in a bed fume, it would cost $958. Bed fume used to cost more, but fumigant costs have gone up, so the savings on fumigant now outweighs the cost of the film and a higher application cost. Nematodes move freely in the soil, so I‘d anticipate that when nematode populations are high, they could re-colonize beds pretty quickly. I think root rot will take longer. We think that fumigation protects a field for several years (maybe three-four), but we don‘t know how long bed fumigation will protect the plants.



We do know that the roots will venture outside of the beds in a couple of years. Bed fumigation does offer the advantage of planting earlier, because the beds are already made up before spring arrives. The bed is covered with a film, so it should be ready to plant. However, we don‘t know that for sure. Wonder how

much of an advantage that would be? We‘re pretty confident that weed control will actually be much

better, based on what we‘ve seen in our nursery trials. I think weed control is one of the weaknesses of

fumigation with a packed-earth barrier. We‘ve established a series of bed fumigation grower trials in NW Washington and in Watsonville, CA.

This past fall, we made the applications with cooperation from Trident and Trical. Now we will take samples from these plots and will evaluate P. rubi and P. penetrans periodically. The plots will be planted this spring, and we will also monitor growth and productivity over the next several years.

Here‘s one of our trials in Whatcom county, showing the alternating strips

of bed fume and broadcast fume. You‘ll see that we‘ve left a small section

nontarped in the bed fume zone. We are already learning a few good lessons about bed fumigation. On the left, you see a bed covered with Pliant Blockade VIF film. The film is stretched taut, and will stay in place. On the right, you see a bed covered with Raven‘s VaporSafe film, a film with even better impermeability than

Blockade. It would be a terrific film for flat fumigation, but you can see that it is wrinkled, and not taut on the bed. This film was not as elastic as Blockade, and the surface was quite slippery. Growers provided a variety of tractors to pull our bed fumigation unit for these trials. We‘ve learned that we can pull straighter beds with front

wheel assist and a tight three-point hitch. One grower provided us with a GPS-steer tractor, which gave us accuracy to within an inch. This tractor also has enough horsepower to pull two beds at once. That would be helpful, because we travel pretty slowly with the shaper/fumigator. Soil solarization can provide some benefits. Although it may be too erratic to use as a stand-alone preplant treatment, I think it will combine well with other treatments.

This graph shows accumulation of hours above 29 C at three depths, 15, 30 and 45 cm. 200 hours at 29 C are required to suppress P. rubi growth. You can see from the graph that we did this successfully at 15 cm, but not at 30 or 45 cm. The problem is, it doesn‘t take the plants long to

develop roots down to 30 or 45 cm, where P. rubi is probably alive and well. On the other hand, solarization did reduce P.

penetrans in roots and soil, especially when combined with Inline treatment.



Solarization alone reduced Agrobacterium in the soil, and the combination of Solarization and Inline did a fine job of reducing Agrobacterium, in fact better than Methyl Bromide did. I really appreciate all of the growers allowing us to set up these trials in their fields. It took a real leap of faith for them to let us pull beds in their fields, and they are taking the risks so that we can all see the benefits. I also want to thank Trident Ag products for their flexibility and support. They really went out of their way during a busy time of the year to help get these trials in place, Of course, I also want to acknowledge the funding agencies who are providing money for these trials. These include the USDA-Pacific Area Wide Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program, the USDA-RAMP Program, the USDA-PMAP Program, and the Northwest Center For Small Fruit Research.



Fumigation in Raspberries: Current Options and Future Regulatory Hurdles

Madeline Waring

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

There are currently three fumigants available for use for raspberry production. The pesticide product active ingredients are chloropicrin (e.g. Pic Plus), dazomet (e.g. Basamid) and metam-sodium (e.g. Vapam). All three are used as pre-plant, soil incorporated fumigants. Both chloropicrin and metam-sodium applications require special application equipment and are typically applied by commercial pesticide applicator services. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) of Health Canada registers pesticides in Canada. Only registered pesticide can be used. Every 15 years, the PMRA conducts a full review of all available data on a pesticide to make sure it still meets the current health, safety and merit requirements. Sometimes, after a full review, a pesticide may lose its registration if it fails to meet modern standards. However, it is more common to find uses removed from a label or the addition of mitigation measures when a particular use fails to meet acceptable standards. Mitigation measures can include removal of crops or pests from labels, reduction of rates or number of applications, addition of buffer zones and environmental protection measures or changes to re-entry intervals, pre-harvest times or personal protective equipment. The three pesticides that can be used for fumigation have recently been reviewed and the PMRA is proposing many changes. All three active ingredients (choropicrin, dazomet and metam-sodium) will continue to be available for use in berry production. However, additional mitigation measures are being proposed. These requirements include: • Reclassifying the products as ―Restricted‖. Therefore, a valid pesticide applicator certificate would

be required to purchase or apply them. • A reduction in the rates that could be used. • Prohibition of the application of dazomet (Basamid) with hand held equipment. • Very detailed and enhanced personal protective equipment requirements for everyone involved with

the application. • Keeping detailed application records for 2 years. • Requiring a Fumigation Management Plan. This is an organized written description of the all the

steps that will be followed to help ensure safe, legal and effective fumigation. The applicators and farm owners/employees would be responsible for the development of the management plan

• Monitoring concentrations of these pesticides in the air • Changes to re-entry requirements. • Special procedures for removal of tarps • Only applying in certain weather conditions and wind speeds. For example, winds must be a

minimum of 3 km/hr but must reach 8 km/hr. • Specific requirements for soil preparation, temperature and moisture content. • Buffer zones around the whole treatment area. They would be for the protection of people and the

environment. The proposed buffer zones would depend upon the field size, fumigant rate, soil type, application equipment used, type of tarp used, and location of buildings. The proposed buffer zone requirements appear to be very complicated.

• Posting information around the treated areas and the buffer zones.



There are many more proposed changes to the use of these products. More details are located at: Dazomet: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2010-13/index-eng.php Chloropicrin: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2010-12/index-eng.php Metam-sodium: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2010-09/index-eng.php Soil Fumigants: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2010-10/index-eng.php The re-evaluation notes the above links take you to were posted in August 2010. The comment period closed October 2010. The BC Ministry of Agriculture responded to the proposed changes by outlining the size and value of the berry industries, the critical need for fumigation and product effectiveness, producers need to maximize production due to the high land values, approximate number of acres fumigated in BC each year, measures that are too onerous, costly or unrealistic, the crippling impact of the proposed measures and suggestions of acceptable measures. The PMRA has not made a decision yet about the implementation of the proposed changes. They are currently reviewing and analyzing the extensive comments they received on the proposed changes. Once they have completed this task they will summarize and provide a response to the comments. They do not anticipate having this completed until at least late summer 2011. Thus, I do not anticipate any action will be implemented in 2011. However, you should anticipate changes at a later date.



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_rev2010-13/index-eng.php




Vapam Fumigation Program

Brian Johnston, TerraLink Horticulture Inc., Abbotsford, BC Madeline Waring, BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC

Mike Conway, Trident Ag Products, Woodland, WA [email protected]

Terralink Horticulture of Abbotsford has offered a custom fumigation service since the early 1990s. Although the application equipment was designed to apply two different fumigants at different soil depths, today only Vapam is applied through the custom built fumigator. The machine is based on a rotovate and roll design. Vapam is first applied through nozzles attached beneath duck feet blades, which are in turn affixed to shanks. The duck feet open a space into which Vapam is sprayed. The shanks can be adjusted to reach a depth of about 14‖. Behind the shanks, Vapam is also sprayed onto the soil surface then mixed thoroughly by a large rotovator. Finally a power roller packs the soil surface to seal in any gases. Vapam is not actually the fumigant. Once in contact with soil, the active ingredient (metam-sodium) decomposes to methyl isothiocyanate (MITC) within hours. MITC is the actual fumigant, a ‗biocide‘,

killing living organisms by interfering with respiration. MITC further breaks down to nitrogen, hydrogen and sulphur at a rate dictated by temperature and soil conditions. Conversion of metam-sodium to MITC will be faster in drier and warmer soils and higher pH conditions, and especially fine textured soils with higher clay or organic matter. The decomposition of MITC is promoted by contact with acids and metal salts that are naturally present in the soil. The typical target pest is the root lesion nematode (Pratylenchus penetrans) prior to planting raspberries. Other target pests include other nematodes prior to planting other crops, soil-borne pathogens prior to berries and other crops, and sometimes weed seeds, although in our experience Vapam has proven inconsistent as a weed control. This is likely because MITC controls organisms that are respiring, and a component of soils in the Fraser Valley is dormant weed seeds, which are not controlled while in a dormant state. Once dormant weed seeds are disturbed by cultivation (pre-fumigation soil preparation, rotovating during fumigation and further cultivation following fumigation) and are therefore exposed to the air and light, they may germinate. For this reason a new flush of weeds sometimes appears directly following fumigation. This happens inconsistently, so the Vapam fumigation program is not recommended for control of weeds by Terralink despite Vapam being labeled for this purpose. Soil Preparations and Field Inspection:

Fields are inspected prior to every fumigation order being accepted to determine the amount of large rocks and organic debris that might prevent a good seal at the surface. Large debris and rocks at or near the soil surface will result in ‗chimneys‘ (openings) through which gases may escape. The soil must be moist, at least at field capacity, and cannot be cooler than 5 degrees C. We try to not expedite orders when the soil is cooler than about 8 degrees C. The soil should also not be allowed to dry out for a long time prior to fumigation, as nematodes will migrate down into moister soil, possibly out of the treatment zone.



Human & Environmental Safety:

At no time is Vapam, or MITC, exposed to the air outside the system. As described, Vapam is pumped down tubing to nozzles beneath duck feet at the bottom of long shanks. The spray bar behind the shanks is completely covered, and Vapam sprayed on the ground is immediately mixed into the soil. The power roller seals the soil to prevent escape of any volatile material. The only way in Terralink‘s system for MITC to be exposed to the air is when volatilized product might escape through openings in the soil surface. The fumigator machine is completely covered. The person most exposed to Vapam or MITC is the machine operator, who may on occasion have to cease fumigating and raise the machine to unplug a nozzle. When fields to be fumigated are adjacent to public roads, we post warning signs at the entrances, showing the date of fumigation and a waiting period to help prevent access to the field until the MITC has had time to break down. Vapam is non-volatile although it is soluble in water. MITC however is volatile, hence the importance of sealing the soil. MITC is unlikely to contaminate ground water, however, because it has low leaching and fast degradation characteristics. Proposed Changes:

• The main market for Terralink‘s Vapam fumigation program is raspberries. An effect of any

regulatory changes of the scope proposed by the PMRA will be to increase the price to the grower. This is made worse with the reduction in raspberry acreage under cultivation, since our costs are largely fixed and become spread over fewer acres. Also, with the introduction of chloropicrin fumigation by Trident, our market is now split between us and of course that much smaller again.

• Like any capital equipment, TL‘s fumigator and tractor will have to be maintained and eventually replaced. This becomes more difficult with the onerous proposed regulatory changes, and with fewer acres to spread the cost.

• Because of the physical characteristics of Vapam and MITC, the design of the fumigator and the safety protocols we have put in place over the years, Vapam application is already safe as possible to bystanders and the environment. Many of the proposed changes seem to make very little sense, especially entitled ―mitigation measures‖. What needs mitigating?

• Extensive buffer zones seem illogical with regard to Vapam, since it is not volatile, and MITC will not move in ground water.

• Tarps, mentioned in the PMRA mitigation proposal, are not necessary. They only slightly increase the product effectiveness, which is why tarps have never been introduced to the Vapam program.

• The changes suggested related to documentation are cumbersome and onerous, as Madeline Waring has outlined in her part of this panel discussion.

NOTE: Technical information derived from registrants (Amvac, Stauffer), distributors (Zeneca Agro, Chipman) and California Environmental Protection Agency (―Evaluation of Methyl Isothiocyanate as a

Toxic Air Contaminant‖, August 2002).



National Raspberry Council

Karen Fenske

Stratpoint Solutions, Kelowna, BC [email protected]

Steady Change

You, as owners of your own operations, have the authority to implement change in the ―blink of an eye‖. To establish

something new, like a national program, in our country we need to research & prepare a proposal, gather support and vote for change. We continue to work steadily towards realizing a National Agency. Why Move Towards a National

Agency?

There are a variety of elements which impact the Canadian processed and fresh raspberry market and trends. These can be changed with enough resources.

The global raspberry market is growing. As of December 2009 Canadian raspberry market includes approximately 78,000,000 pounds of fresh and processed raspberries compared to 44,000,000 in 2006.Though the imported product market share increased by 6% from 2008 to 2009 the whole market has grown by 27%. This trend provides potential for domestic sales.

An equitable contribution system is needed to support

industry growth. Over 60% of the raspberries sold in Canada are from importers who do not do share the costs of any of the promotion, marketing and research done. Importers need to make equal investments in the cost of building raspberry markets as they do and will continue to benefit from local efforts. Think of what could be accomplished if importers contributed.

Canadian exports have decreased by 40%. As trade between countries increases with globalization, international economies become more intertwined, raspberry industries become more competitive, leading to more aggressive marketing. As the global supply of raspberries increases, the local industry faces stronger competition although the USA has seen 40% of their industry come from offshore, Canada has

Source: Statistics Canada Note: There are no data available for fresh imports prior to 1999.

Source: Statistics Canada. *HS codes 0811.200010, 0810.201910 and 0810.201920



seen a substantial decrease in its exports into that market. Raspberry producers can change this trend. As well, new markets could represent new opportunities, especially for processed products. What Makes It Possible?

The Canadian Farm Products Agencies Act provides the power for agencies under the Farm Products Council of Canada to implement a promotion and research plan to collect levies on farm products marketed in interprovincial, export and import trade.

Will This Be Competitive with Other Markets? The U.S.A. is home of the Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WRRC) which is developing a new program to implement a $0.01 per pound mandatory levy on both local produced and imported processed raspberries. They plan to apply the levy to frozen raspberries, raspberry juice, juice concentrate and purée by 2011. Who will be included?

• Importers and producers of frozen (uncooked/steamed/boiled) and fresh raspberries. Growers Acres Lbs in Fresh Proc‟d Notes Prod‟n Sales Sales

BC 100 4200 23,348,650 4% 96% 22 packer/processors

Alberta unknown 200-250 108,290 99% 1% few 10,000 lbs+/ a couple large prod/proc

Saskatchewan unknown 200 mixed 44,200 99% 1% 3-4 with 40-60 acres/ 1 large prod & 1 large proc

Manitoba unknown unknown 44,200 99% 1% 1 large prod & 1 large proc

Ontario 100 748 1,398,930 95% 5% 40-50 fresh 10,000 lbs+

Quebec 430 1688 2,645,370 98% 2% 121 fresh 10,000 lbs+

New Brunswick 28 150 90,610 100% 0% 1-2 fresh 10,000 lbs+

Nova Scotia unknown unknown 125,970 100% 0% 3 fresh 10,000lbs+

PEI 10 50 13,260 100% 0% none over 10,000lbs

Newfoundland 7 25 44,200 100% 0% none over 10,000lbs * Lbs in Production‖ data is from the Fruit and Vegetable Production 2010, Statistics Canada (22-003-X).

Implementing the Levy System

The levy, check-off or assessment rate is an amount which will be deducted from each sale. A business plan draft indicates that a levy rate of $0.005 per pound would provide the capacity to accomplish stated goals. Though a survey was sent out to raspberry stakeholders in BC last winter the returned surveys were too few to provide constructive recommendations. An exemption level for individual producers and importers, based most likely on production levels, will be recommended by industry.

Source: Statistics Canada. *Available data includes raspberries, mulberries, etc., uncooked, steamed or boiled in water, sweetened or not, frozen



The FPCC, Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are currently in discussions regarding the option to exempt an entire province if a province shows production under a negligible level. A key World Trade Organization (WTO) trade principle states that levies cannot be imposed on another country before a national collection system has been established for domestic product.

Processed ONLY National Levy

$.005/lb Proc & Fresh National Levy

$.005/lb

Source Lbs 0.005/lb Source Lbs 0.005/lb BC (97%) 23,000,000 $115,000 BC (85%) 23,960,000 $119,800 The rest of Canada (3%) 711,340 $3,557

Other Provinces (15%) 4,228,235 $21,141

Imports 16,663,469 $83,317 Imports 49,386,194 $246,931 Total 40,374,809 $201,874 Total 77,574,429 $387,872

Collecting the Levy It is proposed that the levy will be collected at the first point of sale by processors/ handlers/shippers and importers. In the case of the producer acting as its own first handler, the producer will be required to collect and remit its individual levies/ assessments. Domestic Collection: In BC, we expect RIDC to collect on behalf of the National; we will talk with the Ontario Berry Growers Association, and the Quebec‘s Strawberry and Raspberry Grower to see if we can arrange service agreements for them to collect on the National‘s behalf. For the other provinces that do not have a dedicated organization i.e. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and PEI, Newfoundland and Labrador the National Council will collect directly. Provincial agreements are being explored. A database is progress.

Import Collection: The most efficient process would involve the Canada Border Services Agency collecting on imported product; however, they do not have this system in place. Though it has taken some time various government departments have initiated action towards this new process. We will be working with the FPCC in Feb and March to review American systems. This research is expected to form the basis for further discussions with CBSA.

Organizing the Agency

The Agency Board of directors and alternates will be elected by eligible producers and importers. This organization will operate under Federal legislation and be structured as a not-for-profit organization. Finances will be audited annually by the Governor in Council. The Agency will remain accountable to its stakeholders via communicating tools and opportunities such as regular newsletters, electronic news, open meetings, events and an Annual General Meeting. The location of the Agency has yet to be determined but it has been suggested that RIDC and the national arrange a service agreement. The Farm Products Council of Canada, or an appointee, will review the program for effectiveness and success preferably after 5 years.



Using the Funds

All funds must be used for generic marketing, promotion and research, as opposed to Canadian or regional, in order to implement the import collection system. The National Board of directors will determine the allocation formula to be used for research, promotion, marketing and administration. Project proposals will be sent in to the National Agency for review.

What Have We Done So Far?

• Provincial and federal departments have been consulted. Other national levy programs i.e. the Canadian beef and the Washington program have been reviewed.

• To create the Canadian Raspberry Industry Chart all provincial fruit specialists and provincial organizations provided input.

• All above contacts have been contacted and informed on a regular basis. • CBSA has been contacted on our behalf by Mr. Ron Gerold, Director, Horticulture and

Special Crops Division, AAFC Market Industry Services. • Contacting importers is in progress. • BC Raspberry Packer/Processor had the opportunity to attend an informational meeting

November 2009, and had the opportunity to ask questions face-face November 2010. • BC producers attended PAS 2010 presentation, and RIDC AGM information report. • Raspberry reps attended an informational meeting March 2010 in Quebec. I will be meeting

with growers in Ontario and Quebec the end of Feb. A database of producers/processors is in progress.

• A survey was sent to 358 BC Raspberry stakeholders by mail in January 2010 and 25 were returned by May 9th and none since.

• A 24 page Case Brief was created and sent to federal departments and is used for further communication needs.

• A flyer was created for to distribute to their producers. • Articles have appeared in the National Grower out of Ontario, and BC Country Life

Magazine, and the RIDC newsletters. Further distribution is in progress.

Who Is Working On This?

• RIDC has contracted with StratPoint Solutions to research and write the proposal. • We are working in consultation with: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, BC Ministry of

Agriculture, the Canadian Beef Cattle Research, Market Development and Promotion Council (National Check-off Council), Farm Products Council of Canada, Investment Agriculture Fund of BC, and the Washington Red Raspberry Commission.

• You RIDC directors are discussing several details: • What should the individual exemption level be? • What should the levy rate be? • How will we collect the levy? • How could the Agency Board be organized? • How could the funds be allocated?

What Do We Need To Do?

• Continue informing producers, and importers, completing the databases • Map out domestic collection system • Map out the rebate program • Apply for new trade codes: fresh raspberries, juice, juice concentrate & purée



• Discuss working arrangements with other provinces & receive agreement ―in

principal‖ letters from other provinces. • Wait to hear final decision on provincial exemption • Write the proposal • April 30, 2011send proposal through RIDC approval process • May 31, 2011 RIDC to submit to IAF and FPCC • Farm Product Council of Canada FPCC will do inquires across the country and may

or may not hold a referendum. If FPCC is satisfied that it is a viable project FPCC sends recommendation report to AAFC Minister/ Cabinet. This could take up to 1 year.

• Provincial details will be finalized (we, with our lawyers, and the Department of Justice, draft the proclamation)

• The proclamation is sent to FPCC who forwards it to Cabinet for establishment.



Potential New Greenhouse Pests to Watch For

Tracy Hueppelsheuser, BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC

[email protected]

Following is a brief discussion of some pests which pose risk to greenhouse growers in British Columbia, strategies to prevent introduction, basic biology, and key symptoms to keep a look out for. Strategies to prevent introduction: Prevention is the most effective tool you can use. It includes practices such as good sanitation; clean planting stock, proper disposal of culls and plant debris. Ensure everyone who enters the property follows the bio-security guidelines, as pests can be transported from place to place by dirty boots, car tires, clothing, gloves, and equipment. Good weed control is always important, inside and outside the greenhouse, as pests can get established and over-winter on weeds. See link on Biosecurity Practices: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/biosecurity.htm Monitor for pests regularly: at least weekly during major crop production periods. Consider hiring a consultant or staff person who is trained in pest management. Watch for and record tell-tale signs for species of concern, and anything different from normal. Monitoring reports are very useful as reference material when planning for upcoming years, and allow for monitoring programs to be refined over time. Report any new or different insects or damage. There is support for insect/pest identification through various agencies, some official diagnostic services. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture Plant Lab: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/lab.htm. Federal government labs: Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), regional inspectors are good first contact. If a quarantine pest is suspected, CFIA needs to be contacted. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC), University labs/experts, Private labs, are all potential sources of information. Your first contact will likely be with your consultants and fieldmen. If so, they will be able to contact provincial or federal labs/experts for support. Spotted Wing Drosophila

Spotted Wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii, Diptera: Drosophilidae) (SWD): BCMA: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm Damaged, split or cull tomatoes may become infested with Drosophila of various species, including SWD. To date, there are no records of marketable tomatoes being infested. Adult flies are required for species identification. The male fly has one dark spot on the end of each wing, and is 2-3 mm long. The female is a large vinegar fly (3mm long) with a serrated ovipositor (egg laying organ) which is unique to SWD. She uses this ovipositor to cut through the skin of fruit and lay her eggs within the fruit. Most other drosophila fruit flies cannot do this and can only lay eggs in damaged or decaying fruit. The eggs, larvae, and pupae of SWD are not unique, and look like other Drosophila (vinegar) flies. Infested fruit becomes soft and collapses in the areas where larvae are feeding, and may remain on the bushes. In smooth skinned fruit like blueberries, small holes in the skin can be seen. These small holes are not evident in strawberry or raspberry. Fruit can appear bruised or dark in the infested areas. Larvae and eggs are moved in infested fruit. Larvae do not always remain within fruit to pupate, and can pupate outside of fruit. Soil and green plant parts are not considered pathways of introduction of the pest. SWD will not be regulated in North America or Asia, and likely not in Europe. It is, however, regulated in New Zealand and Australia. This pest is native to Asia, and is most active at 20oC. Four generations are expected per year in BC. Himalayan blackberries are good hosts for SWD. Generally good sanitation and host


Greenhouse

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/biosecurity.htm

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/lab.htm

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm

management is important for prevention of SWD. SWD can be monitored for using fly traps baited with apple cider vinegar. Continued monitoring is planned for 2011 in soft fruit growing areas. If you see any suspicious produce or flies, please contact Tracy Hueppelsheuser or David Woodske, BC Ministry of Agriculture. Tomato Leafminer

Tomato Leafminer or South American Tomato Moth (Tuta absoluta, Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae): CFIA: http://www.inspection.gc.ca As of 2010, Tomato leafminer is a regulated pest in Canada and the USA. Tomato Leafminer looks similar to a small leafroller. It is native to Central America, and spread through South America. In 2006, Tomato Leafminer was detected in Spain, and other Mediterranean and European countries, including Algeria, Morocco, Italy, France, and Tunisia. This pest has been found on imported tomatoes in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Tomato Leafminer is of concern to North America, particularly for greenhouse vegetables and field tomato production. Due to low temperature limitations, this pest appears limited to elevations below 1000 m. Green to pink larvae with brown heads mine into leaves, fruit, and stems of solonaceous plants. Larvae create serpentine and eventually blotch mines in leaves, apical buds, and fruit. Dark excrement from larvae can be seen in the mines or around exit holes. Secondary rots can enter plants via mines. Tomato is the primary host, where leaf, stem and fruit damage can occur. Larvae have recently been found infesting beans in Italy. Larvae will feed on leaves of potato (but not tubers), pepino, peppers, eggplant. Female moths lay eggs on plant parts. Larvae usually exit mines to form 6 mm long pupae, but pupation can occur on the soil, on a plant surface, or in a mine. Moths are small, up to 7 mm long, and are active at night and hide in the day. A generation takes about 1 month depending on temperature. There is no diapause, and generations overlap. There are other pest species on solonaceous crops in the same insect family that cause similar damage such as Tomato Pinworm (Keiferia

lycopersicella), also from Central America, which shows up in Ontario greenhouses from time to time, and is present in southern USA. Prevention of Tuta absoluta: Do not import solonaceous fruit/vegetables from infested countries for repacking in facilities adjacent to crop production areas (particularly greenhouses). Pheromone traps and lures are available for monitoring. Good sanitation is important as insects can reproduce in plant debris and culls, as well as in solonaceous weeds. Generalist predator bugs as biocontrol agents are being investigated for use in Europe. Be on the look-out and report suspicious symptoms to CFIA or Tracy Hueppelsheuser, David Woodske at BC Ministry of Agriculture. Duponchelia fovealis

Duponchelia fovealis (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Ontario: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca ; CFIA: http://www.inspection.gc.ca ; University of California, Davis: http://cesandiego.ucdavis.edu/files/82188.pdf (good photos of damage).

Duponchelia is found in USA now in many states. It is not regulated in North America. There have been detections in Canadian greenhouses which appear to have been eradicated. This pest has many hosts, including floriculture crops: begonia, gerbera, cyclamen, anthurium, kalanchoe, poinsettia, and rose as well as many other crops, aquatic plants. Vegetables: corn, greenhouse peppers. Duponchelia originates from the Mediterranean region. In recent years it has been found in European greenhouses. There is no diapause and several generations per year. Larvae feed on all plant parts including fruit, it bores into stems, and can survive in plant debris. Larvae are difficult to detect, prefers moist, low area of plants. Duponchelia may not survive winters outdoors in most of Canada, but there is more risk to coastal BC and greenhouses.


Greenhouse

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/

http://cesandiego.ucdavis.edu/files/82188.pdf

What to look for: webbing, frass, leaf damage or stem girdling from caterpillar feeding, usually low on the plant. Duponchelia adult moths have a 19-21 mm wingspan. Dispersal of this pest is via infested plants and fruit, and some natural spread by flight. Bagrada Bug

Bagrada Bug (Bagrada hilaris, Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Other common names: Harlequin bug, painted bug. http://cals.arizona.edu/crops/vegetables/advisories/docs/Bagrad_bug_2010_Palumbo.pdf http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ppd/PDF/Bagrada_hilaris.pdf Present in Arizona and Southern California. It is documented as a pest in cole crops, however, has been recorded on potato, maize, sorghum, cotton, capers, some legumes, and weeds. It prefers warm temperatures, optimally 30oC, evidenced by its origins: Africa, the Middle East, and India. It is not known if it will survive in BC, but possibly in greenhouses. Damage is from adult and nymphal feeding on the growing points and leaves, causing distortion and destruction of tissue. Brown Marmorated Stink Bug

Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (Halyomorpha halys, Hemiptera: Pentotamidae) (BMSB). http://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/brown-marmorated-stink-bug http://www.northeastipm.org/bsmb Recently CFIA intercepted this pest in shipments of poplar products from the State of Virginia coming into BC. It is present in eastern USA, and Portland Oregon since 2002. It has become a fruit pest in eastern North America. Initially, it tends to be detected as a nuisance to homeowners when bugs aggregate in fall/winter to find over-wintering sites. Later, it becomes a crop pest. It is commonly dispersed by ―hitch-hiking‖; it moves on/in vehicles and shipments along transportation corridors. Some

natural spread is apparent. The host range for BMSB is very broad, and includes fruit and vegetables: apples, peaches, figs, mulberries, citrus, persimmons, berries, grapes, ornamentals, legumes, peppers, tomatoes, corn, soybeans, and weeds. The nymphs and adults feed on leaves and fruit, causing distortion, cat-facing, necrosis, and corkiness. Additionally, this stink bug causes off-flavour in grapes. BMSB has distinct white banding on legs and antennae, as well as white patches along the edges of its body. However, on first glance, it looks like any other brown/grey stink bug. If you see a stink bug of concern, particularly if it appears to be causing crop damage or is aggregating in the fall, please contact Tracy Hueppelsheuser or David Woodske, BC Ministry of Agriculture. Tomato or Potato Psyllid

Tomato or Potato Psyllid (Paratrioza (=Bactericera) cockerelli, Homoptera: Psyllidae): University of California: http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu , Ontario: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca This insect pest was abundant in greenhouse vegetables (tomatoes, peppers) in 2007, but hasn‘t been

much of a concern since then. Surveys at that time revealed that psyllids were present in potato fields in late summer at low levels, however no damage was noted. Good greenhouse cleanout practices seemed to get rid of the pest in infested facilities. Potato psyllid is present annually in the southern USA, and is believed to be blown up to Canada via high level winds in mid-summer. Psyllids spread the organism that causes ―zebra chip‖ in potatoes, and will cause ―psyllid yellows‖ a condition in tomatoes if populations are very high. Besides contamination of fruit (which can be significant), no disease symptoms were evident in peppers in BC.


Greenhouse

http://cals.arizona.edu/crops/vegetables/advisories/docs/Bagrad_bug_2010_Palumbo.pdf

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ppd/PDF/Bagrada_hilaris.pdf

http://ento.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/brown-marmorated-stink-bug

http://www.northeastipm.org/bsmb

http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/

Chilli Thrips

Chilli Thrips (Scirtothrips dorsalis, Thysanoptera: Thripidae). Other names: castor thrips, assam thrips, yellow tea thrips, strawberry thrips. Texas: http://chillithrips.tamu.edu/about.cfm Florida: http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/lso/thripslinks.htm Chilli thrips are much smaller than the regular flower thrips species that we commonly see in BC. Over 100 hosts have been recorded in the USA, including: chili peppers, strawberry, tea, tomatoes, eggplant, stone fruit, and various ornamentals. Chilli thrips were first detected in the USA in 2006. Currently they are present in Florida and Texas. It is a potential pest of south and west USA, including greenhouse crops. Disperal: likely introduced on infested produce or plants. Outside of the USA, chilli thrips is present in Central and South America, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Foliage feeding causes defoliation and crop loss. Damage looks similar to but is more severe than flower thrips: russetting, distortion, puckering, reddening.


Greenhouse

http://chillithrips.tamu.edu/about.cfm

http://mrec.ifas.ufl.edu/lso/thripslinks.htm

BC Greenhouses and the Farm Energy Assessment Pilot Project

Emily MacNair, BC Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative, Victoria, BC

Sam Thomas, Prism Engineering, Burnaby, BC [email protected]

Introduction

The BC Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative is an industry led project to support the agriculture sector in addressing the challenges associated with climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (adapting to a changing climate). In the summer of 2010, the Initiative released the three year BC Agriculture Climate Change Action Plan. Agricultural energy and fuel use, including improved efficiency and clean energy production, are a central element of the Plan. Relatively early in the life of the Initiative, we started looking at what support was available to agricultural producers to assist with energy efficiency improvements. Although BC Hydro and Terasen Gas offered standardized energy assessments to large energy users, neither offered energy assessments specifically designed for agricultural customers. Unsurprisingly, the standard assessments also focused exclusively on the one fuel or energy type. In most jurisdictions that have developed programs to support agricultural energy efficiency, a tailored approach has been developed. This is because agricultural operations tend to have unique equipment/technologies and often include multiple energy or fuel types which means that standard energy assessments don‘t necessarily provide a full picture of agricultural energy use. Around the same time, energy-related practices were being integrated into the Beneficial Management Practices Program for the first time but there was no planning or assessment tool available. To address these gaps, Ministry and Initiative staff jointly approached BC Hydro and Terasen Gas and proposed a partnership to develop and pilot an all fuels agricultural energy assessment tool and (at the same time) to evaluate energy use and efficiency opportunities on BC farms. The timing was right – both utilities were not only willing to participate, but contributed close to 100% of the project funding. We set out to do three key things with the pilot project and its follow-up:

• Develop a tool for high level agricultural energy/fuel assessments • Improve our understanding of the opportunities for increasing energy efficiency on BC farms and

share these opportunities with producers • Develop an integrated approach to supporting BC agriculture with energy/fuel assessments but

also with implementing changes - linking assessments to programs/incentives (improving what is available)

Overall structure of the pilot

In the summer of 2010, Prism Engineering began the pilot assessments and a total of twenty-seven farms from a range of commodities received assessments and farm energy reports.


Greenhouse

The BC Greenhouse Growers Association was particularly interested in the pilot project and brought additional funding (from the Investment Agriculture Foundation) to the table to increase the number of greenhouse operations included in the pilot. In total, 8 greenhouse vegetable and 3 greenhouse floriculture operations were included in the pilot.

The BC Farm Energy Assessment Tool

• BC Farm Energy Assessment (BCFEA) Tool • Objective of the tool – To provide a mechanism for farms to assess potential energy management

opportunities specific to their operation at a high-level. • BCFEA Tool is Excel based, has inputs (questions) and produces outputs (reports) summarizing

the recommendations for energy management opportunities • BCFEA Tool is still in development stage • All 27 farms assessed by Prism were analyzed using the BCFEA Tool, including 11 greenhouses

The Assessment Process

• Background research and literature review • Contact growers to obtain preliminary information • Site visit – approx. ½ day per farm

• Review historic energy data, • Discuss farming process specific to each grower, • Site tour of all energy related equipment (focus on heating plant), • Identification of energy management opportunities.

• Development of the BCFEA Tool • Assessment of farms using BCFEA Tool • Individual farm reports

Findings – Energy Use

• Average 2009 energy use intensity for vegetable greenhouses of 1.94 eGJ/m

2 (all energy types)

• Average 2009 energy use intensity for floriculture greenhouses of 1.27 eGJ/m2 (all

energy types) • Breakdown by energy type for vegetable greenhouses is shown by the graph below


Greenhouse


Greenhouse

Findings – Energy Management Opportunities

• Common energy management opportunities for greenhouses included: • Disable heating water zone pumps unless there is a need for heating in the zone; • Repair greenhouse glazing leaks; • Insulate bare sections of heating distribution pipes; • Install power factor correction equipment; • Replace T12 fluorescent lighting with T8 lamps and ballasts.

• Other energy management opportunities for greenhouses included:

• Isolate standby boilers, • Install heat recovery section (condenser) on primary boiler exhaust, • Increase capacity of hot water storage (CO2 production), • Install retractable thermal/shade curtain (crop dependent), • Install lighting controls.

Savings

• Approximate combined savings for the 11 greenhouses assessed using the BCFEA Tool: • 57,000 eGJ/yr (elec + fuels) • $500,000 /yr in savings • 2,800 tons/yr CO2 emissions • Energy savings varied considerably from site to site (<1 – 28% of overall energy use) • Large range of payback periods for measures identified • The project team is currently working on closing the gap between costs and incentives • Producers should still investigate recommendations made by the BCFEA tool in more

detail prior to making a final decision Conclusions/Next Steps

There will is a second Phase of the pilot project which is now underway. More information about Phase II will be made available in the very near future. Check www.bcagclimateaction.ca for updates. Programming and incentives

Over the next couple of months, we will be developing a Fact Sheet series to share the key efficiency opportunities identified for each commodity (to be posted on the website). We will also be developing a quick reference guide for cost-share and incentives that are available for implementation and in doing this we will identify where there are gaps. We are in the midst of a series of meetings amongst all of the partners to explore the options for delivering the assessment tool broadly to various parts of the sector and to look at how to effectively link to tool to incentives. We will engage with the BC Greenhouse Growers Association as we make progress and consult if we are looking at specific options pertaining to greenhouse operations.


Greenhouse

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/

28th

International Horticultural Congress Summary

David Woodske

B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

The 2010 International Horticultural Congress was held in Lisbon, Portugal from August 22 to 27. The Congress is held every 4 years and brings together the leading researchers from around the world in the field of horticulture science. There were 3,200 participants from 110 countries at the 2010 Congress. The event included 18 symposia, 14 seminars, 8 colloquia, 18 thematic sessions, 28 workshops, and several tours. In order to fit in all of these sessions, there were 20 concurrent sessions each day from 10:30 to 18:00. In addition, there were 2 colloquia per day from 8:30 to 10:00 and 11 to 17 concurrent workshops/business meetings from 18:00 to 20:00. This report provides a brief overview of the information presented in the 3-day symposium titled ―Greenhouse 2010: Environmentally Sound

Greenhouse Production for People‖. The symposium gave a snapshot of current research focused on

sustainable greenhouse production.

Environmental Sustainability was the theme of many presentations on the program. Dr. J. Montero, IRTA-Spain, presented information on the environmental impact (e.g. global warming potential, non-renewable resource depletion, eutrophication, etc.) of different aspects of greenhouse production using a Life Cycle Impact Assessment. The climate system (e.g. natural gas use) and greenhouse structure (e.g. glass and metal) accounted for at least 80% of the environmental impact in the 6 impact categories analyzed for a greenhouse in a temperate climate. The presenter concluded that greenhouses can lessen their environmental impact by: • increasing yields per m2, • more efficient use of inputs, • extending the lifespan of the greenhouse, • reducing the volume of substrate used per plant and recycling substrate, • increasing the use of renewable fuels in the production of electricity, and • using cogeneration which reportedly can reduce CO2 emissions by 50%.. It was noted that in 2010,

the greenhouse sector in the Netherlands produced 3,000 MW of electricity through cogeneration, which equals 10% of the total electricity used in the country.

Reducing energy consumption was a focus of many presentations at the symposium. A variety of different methods were presented to reduce energy consumption. • Temperature Integration: Climate control traditionally involves fixed heating set points to achieve

a desired average temperature over a 24-hour period. With temperature integration, the daily heating set point is permitted to vary within a defined range. This allows the heating set point to increase on sunny days and to decrease on overcast days. The desired average temperature is still maintained, but it is integrated over 2 or more days. Research conducted at Wageningen University showed that combining temperature integration (3 day integration period) and a 2oC lower night temperature reduced energy consumption by 37% for a cut alstroemeria crop. Temperature integration had no effect on yield and improved alstroemeria quality in the winter due to a lower incidence of necrotic leaf tip. The temperature integration treatment included a dehumidification system to counteract humidity problems associated with the reduced night temperature and the use of a second thermal screen. A second study presented data on the effect of temperature integration and a 2.5oC temperature drop at sunset on the production of greenhouse tomatoes. The temperature drop had no effect on tomato growth or yield, but did significantly reduce energy consumption.


Greenhouse

• Screen Opening: Delaying the opening of thermal screens by 30 to 60 minutes was shown to reduce energy consumption by 23% and to increase total yield of tomatoes by 6% with no negative effect on fruit weight.

• Cover Materials: Special cover materials that have improved transmittance, ability to scatter light, or change its spectral quality can increase yield while reducing energy consumption. NIR-absorbing films are effective at reducing greenhouse temperature, but can increase heating requirements in the winter. Skepticism was expressed of the value of permanent NIR reflective covers because they only reduce venting by 7-8% and NIR is desirable for greenhouse heating in the winter in northern climates.

• Greenhouse Insulation: Greenhouses with increased insulation can reduce energy consumption. Dr. G. Akyazi, Leibniz University in Germany, presented the early findings of a trial greenhouse with maximum thermal insulation were presented. The trial is part of the ZINEG project, which is a collaborative initiative between several universities and institutes in Germany to develop a low energy greenhouse. The 960 m2 experimental Venlo greenhouse combined triple energy screens, Groglass® glazing (argon gas filled and AR coating), and low temperature heat exchangers with hot water storage. The trial was conducted in Hanover, Germany. Solar energy was sufficient to heat the experimental greenhouse for 9 months of the year (from mid-February to mid-November), which was 3 months longer than for the control greenhouse. In addition, the average daily heat requirements from December to February were 0.75 kWh/m2 and 3.5 to 4.2 kWh/m2 for the experimental and control greenhouses, respectively. The maximum thermal insulation greenhouse significantly reduced the amount of additional heat required for crop production. However, the presenter stated that high humidity and reduced light transmittance due to the triple thermal screen system are challenges that need to be addressed.

In addition to saving energy, the greenhouse sector can improve their sustainability by improving Water

Use Efficiency. Water conservation is an increasing issue worldwide. Two speakers from the Netherlands commented that many growers in the country still discharge waste irrigation water, despite requirements to recycle drainage water since the late 1990s. There are many reasons why growers discharge the nutrient solution, such as growth inhibition, high salinity of supply water, unbalanced nutrient composition, and technical failures. Drain to waste occurs for 5-20% of greenhouse vegetable and 15-40% of rose growers. New regulations will require (almost) zero emissions from greenhouses by 2027, but how can greenhouses minimize discharge of waste irrigation water? This is particularly challenging in some regions (e.g. Westland area in the Netherlands) due to high levels of salts in surface and well water. Options presented included the use of Smart Irrigation Strategies and Advanced Oxidation, which combines hydrogen peroxide and UV treatment to reduce the level of growth-inhibiting compounds in the irrigation water. Other options to improve water use efficiency include adopting new approaches to determine the optimum timing of irrigation events, including the use of sensors that measure water content in the slab and methods that indirectly measure crop water status (e.g. ultrasonic acoustic emission sensors, plant reflectance indices, and variation in stem diameter). Dr. J.F. De Groot from Grodan® talked about irrigation control based on a water content simulation model. This approach is possible today with the development of more reliable and affordable moisture sensors. One advantage of the system is that the irrigation set point does not need to be changed throughout the year and the daily moisture content is more consistent relative to systems based on solar radiation. Research on greenhouse tomatoes has shown that yield can be increased by minimizing differences in moisture content throughout the day. It was concluded that this approach automates irrigation more easily and steers irrigation more consistently. The adoption of Innovative Technology is important for greenhouse operations to be competitive. An entire colloquium was dedicated to technological innovation in horticulture. The presenters talked about how information from sensors is now being collected by wireless networks in a central location where the


Greenhouse

data can be manipulated and changes can be made to the production system. It is more interesting that this technology is now being incorporated into autonomous prime movers, or robots. Research robots have been developed that can use camera systems to measure tree volume, fruit size, and even fruit ripeness to aid the grower to decide whether thinning is necessary and the optimum time to harvest the crop. Robots are also in development that can differentiate weeds from the crop and allow precise weed control, which can reduce the volume of herbicide applied by >90%. There is tremendous opportunity for further advancements in the application of automated and mechanized equipment to the production of horticultural crops, but will the technology be affordable and will timely tech support be available? Several different types of technology were presented in the greenhouse symposium, which included: 1) model-based decision support tools, 2) energy production systems, 3) Plant Factories, and 4) LED lighting. • Decision Support Models: There were numerous presentations on the use of computer-based models

to predict the impact of different factors on fertilizer use efficiency, energy consumption, fruit set in peppers, plant architecture, greenhouse climate, and pest management. Two commercial systems were discussed (e.g. Infogrow and IntelliGrow). Infogrow and IntelliGrow were developed by AgroTech in Denmark, which is a technological services institute. Use of the Infogrow system was shown to reduce energy consumption from 6-34% at 7 commercial greenhouses. Energy reduction was achieved largely by making the climate more dynamic (i.e. allowing greater fluctuations in temperature) or by changing screen settings. The system can help growers to understand the impact of changing climate settings on production and energy consumption. The company is working to integrate new wireless sensors to measure environmental conditions at the plant level. The IntelliGrow system uses data on hourly changes in energy prices, the weather forecast, and the light requirements of the crop to determine when supplemental lighting is required. The system has been shown to reduce energy requirements for supplemental lighting by more than 10% for roses, hibiscus, and euphorbia.

• Energy Production: Governments in Europe are providing a price premium for electricity generated

by roof photovoltaic systems, which has resulted in the production of numerous large greenhouse projects (some >100 ha). Unfortunately, the solar collector greenhouse operations are not currently being used to produce crops. Two systems to convert solar radiation into electricity were discussed by Dr. P. Sonneveld, Wageningen University. One system used moveable lamellae to reflect near infrared (NIR) radiation onto a stationary photovoltaic (PV) module that was mounted on the ridge of the greenhouse. NIR is not used by the plant and, therefore, its removal should not reduce crop growth. In addition, removing NIR will reduce heating of the greenhouse and thereby reduce cooling costs and water use. The prototype provided up to 232 MJ/m2 of annual thermal energy and 18 KWh/m2 of electric energy. Further improvements to the spectral range of NIR films and the focusing unit system could increase energy production by 50%. The second system used Fresnel lenses that focus direct solar radiation on to moveable PV modules positioned beneath the greenhouse cover. The system captures 40 to 80% of the direct solar radiation and is therefore best suited to the production of pot plants that are more tolerant of low light intensities. The thermal energy produced per year was 518 MJ/m2 and the electricity produced was 29 kWh/m2 but could be increased to 100 kWh/m2 with the use of anti-reflective glass and triple junction cells.

• Plant Factories were also promoted as a sustainable production system by two presenters. Plant

factories are self-contained growth rooms that enable total environmental control. In addition to reducing water use by up to 95%, plant factories have increased productivity without the use of pesticides and can be located anywhere. The first commercial units were built in 2004 and today there are about 100 production sites worldwide. The largest commercial unit is located in Japan and has a floor area of 476 m2 and a production capacity of 10 million plants. The systems are designed


Greenhouse

for the production of leafy vegetables, herbs, and transplants, although it was suggested that they will take over the production of greenhouse crops in the future.

• LED Lighting: Two presentations were made on the impact of different colors of LED light on the growth of lettuce and ornamental crops. Lettuce growth increased as the quantity of blue light increased (up to 40% blue light) and green light had no effect on lettuce growth. White LEDs produced growth most equal to natural sunlight. Blue light caused the greatest stem elongation and white light produced the most compact plants. Light from LEDs was effective for extending daylength to prevent flower initiation in short day ornamental plants. The presenter recommended the use of white LEDs because they produce more compact ornamental plants and provide a better working environment. He suggested that it is almost impossible to work under red and blue LED lights.

Information was also provided on Greenhouse Production in Portugal. As would be expected, greenhouses in the Mediterranean region use a lower level of technology than in northern regions, such as BC. There are approximately 2,200 ha of protected crop production in Portugal, but the sector is growing due to opportunities in export markets (e.g. France, Italy, Spain and Russia). The majority of the structures (75%) are metal, arch-shaped tunnels and only 10% of production is soilless cultivation. The two greenhouse tomato operations toured in the Oeste region of Portugal grow two crops per year. The first crop is planted in January and the second in mid-June. They train the crop to produce 7-8 trusses per plant (or stem) and the total annual yield is ~30 kg/m2. The average humidity in the summertime is 90%, which creates production challenges to manage foliar diseases such as cladosporium and botrytis. Rainfall provides sufficient irrigation in the spring and winter. Well water is relied on in the summer, but the quality is variable. There is a system of privately-owned vegetable auctions in Portugal that are important market channels for the growers. Growers pay a 10% commission to sell through the Hortorres auction. Tuta absoluta, or the tomato leafminer, is widespread in Portugal and symptoms were quite visible on the tomato crops during the greenhouse tour. The greenhouse estimated that damage caused by the leafminer reduces yields in the region by about 10%. They rely on a biological, Nesibug (Nesidiocoris tenuis) from Koppert, and insecticides (e.g. emamectin and abamectin) to manage the pest. Research presented showed that spinosad provides almost 100% control, followed by indoxacarb, metaflumizone, azadirachtin, and abamectin. A survey of greenhouse tomato growers in Italy found that spinosad, abamectin, azadirachtin, and Bacillus thuringiensis-based insecticides were most frequently used to control T. absoluta. The average number of insecticide treatments applied per year was 2.5 in 2008/09 and 3.5 in 2009/10. The 2010 International Horticultural Congress provided an excellent networking opportunity and an in-depth introduction to the innovative greenhouse research being conducted by leading horticulture professionals from around the world. As commercial greenhouses implement the innovative production systems and practices developed by the global research community, significant advances in energy conservation and sustainability will be attainable in the coming years.


Greenhouse

BC Potato Variety Trial: From the Field to Secondary Schools

Heather Meberg, E.S. Cropconsult, Surrey, BC

Lindsay Babineau, BC Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

The BC potato variety trial is conducted annually in Delta, BC for these purposes:

• Gather performance data on varieties under development by AAFC; • Evaluate developing varieties for future marketing in BC; • Showcase uncommon and potential new varieties to BC potato growers; • Further study selected varieties during cooking trials

The 2010 variety trial was hosted by Felix Farms Ltd., the field was located in the in the monastery fields off of Arthur Drive in Delta, B.C. The trial site was on the West edge of a field planted with Kennebec potatoes. Plots were hand-planted at 15cm depth on May 24, top-killed September 8 and again on September 15. The plots were harvested on October 6 using a two-row digger. Varieties were replicated four times in two rows x 5m long plots. Each plot contained 20 plants spaced 25-30cm apart within a row. The field received no irrigation and rainfall was above average (= 171.4mm). Due to the heavy rainfall late in the growing season, harvest conditions were quite muddy and there was a considerable amount of rot in some of the varieties (Figure 1). Whites, reds, yellows, russets, processing and specialty varieties were grown in the 2010 trial. Performance data collected included total yield and tuber set, colour of tuber skin and flesh, eye depth, tuber shape, uniformity of shape and size, and general appearance. Further to these tuber characteristics, cooking trial data were collected from four teaching kitchens (see Figure 2) studying the following varieties against the industry standards: Russet Norkotah with Blazer and Classic Russet; Yukon Gold with Orchestra and Agata; Chieftan with Winema and Kennebec with Niska. The varieties for the cooking trials were chosen prior to knowing their outcome in our field trials. These data, of selected varieties, are summarized below.

Figure 1. Muddy digging conditions

Figure 2. Chefs from teaching kitchens and Lindsay Babineau from BC Agriculture in the Classroom


Potatoes

Whites

No white varieties were included in the cooking component of the trial this year. All varieties had at least 8t/ac greater yield than the industry standard Norchip. The following varieties are ones that showed some promise in the field component of the trial:

Valor: A round white that performed fairly well in this trial. It is reputed that this variety stores well. Valor performed well in this trial.

Harmony: Another round white potato that had fairly good uniformity of size and shape. This variety yielded well but had more rot than the other white varieties.

Imola: This is a bright, longer white smooth skinned, white fleshed potato with excellent culinary qualities. Imola is a very nice looking potato with very little rot.

Figure 3. Imola, Norchip and Valor on the field day

Reds

The red potatoes in the trial this year had very little rot in them at harvest. The newer variety Winema was compared to the industry standard Chieftan in the cooking trials. Winema outperformed the industry standard, Chieftan, in our first round of cooking trials. Winema kept its skin colour and the flesh stayed firm during cooking, compared to Chieftan where the skin browned and the potatoes fell apart. The flavour of Winema was buttery and sweet compared to the starchy taste and grainy texture of the Chieftan. Most red varieties performed well. The following varieties performed particularly well in the 2010 field trial:

Winema: This PVMI potato is a nice round red potato with white flesh. It received positive comments at our field day and although the yields were a little low, we have to keep in mind that it was planted a little later than the other varieties.

Mozart: A waxy potato pale red skin and pale yellow flesh. This variety looked great in the field and many, who took home for personal taste tests, enjoyed its culinary qualities.

C-100: This potato received many comments on the field day. This is a round, dark red potato with white flesh. This potato seems to hold its colour in storage.

AR 2010-08: This potato is part of Agriculture Canada‘s accelerated release program. This is an oval

red with cream flesh and received many positive comments. The shape and size of tubers were very uniform.


Potatoes

Figure 4. Winema, Chieftan, C100-2 and Mozart at the field day

Yellows

Orchestra and Agata were compared with the industry standard Yukon Gold in the cooking trials. All yellows received positive comments and grading in the cooking trials. All had an earthy flavour, good texture and appealing colour. In the field portion of the trial there was a wide range of results especially in the percentage of rot category with Agria, Almera and Orchestra all having an unacceptable amount of rot in the field. The following is a summary of the field results for a few of the yellow varieties.

Agata: This was a nice round yellow with great shape and size uniformity. This variety had the highest yield of all the yellows, having 5 t/acre greater yield than the industry standard Yukon Gold.

AR2010-10: This potato is part of Agriculture Canada‘s accelerated release program. This is a round

pale yellow potato. This year, under extremely wet conditions, this variety had zero rotting potatoes at harvest.

Carlita: Another round yellow with good uniformity of shape and size. Carlita had very little rot at harvest and 4t/acre greater yield than the Yukon Gold. The one disadvantage of this variety was its slightly rough skin.

Orchestra: This is a round-oval yellow with bright skin. The variety performed well in most categories although there was some variability in shape and the plants started to chain tubers prior to harvest. Another disadvantage to this variety was the amount of rotten tubers at harvest being high at twenty percent.


Potatoes

Figure 5. Orchestra, Agata and Yukon Gold at the field day.

Specialty Varieties Only one specialty variety was outstanding in the trial this year. No specialty varieties were compared in cooking trials this year.

Nicola: A fingerling variety that yielded well, great uniformity in size and shape and had very little rot. This variety has yellow skin and light yellow flesh

Figure 6. Caribe, AR2009-05, Nicola and Smile at the field day

Chipping Varieties

Niska was compared with the industry standard Kennebec in the teaching kitchens. In the first round of cooking trials Kennebec outperformed the newer variety Niska. Niska did not hold its shape or stay as crispy as Kennebec. Only three varieties were grown in this category this year.

Niska: Had the least amount of rot in this class. It yielded comparably to the industry standard and had great uniformity in tuber shape and size. Overall this variety looked fantastic.


Potatoes

Figure 7. AC Ptarmigan, Kennebec and Niska at the field day.

AC Ptarmigan: Yielded comparably to the others in this class and had outstanding uniformity in size distribution. The one drawback was the lack of uniformity in shape.

Russets

The russet potatoes had very little rot in them at harvest. Classic Russet and Blazer Russet were compared with Russet Norkotah in the teaching kitchens. Both Blazer and Classic Russets outperformed Russet Norkotah in the cooking trial. Blazer and Classic both had a good flavour, which was mild and sweet. Both trial varieties kept their shape and had good colour after cooking. The Russet Norkotah was middle of the road on all parameters and fell apart after cooking. All but one variety in this category performed well this year in the field portion of the trials.

Blazer: This russet performed well in all categories this year, both in the field and in the kitchen. Blazer Russet also had an 8t/acre higher yield than the industry standard, Russet Norkotah. Due to its high yield combined with a bright skin and an early maturity the Blazer Russet shows great potential.

Classic: The Classic Russet had terrific uniformity in size and shape. The yield was 3t/acre greater than the industry standard; unfortunately there was a great deal of uniformity in the russeting.

Pacific: The Pacific Russet is a rounder, blockier russet than this area is use to; however, it performed well with great uniformity in size and shape. The yield of this variety was comparable to the industry standard.

Alta Crown: The Alta Crown russet, a nice looking potato, performed well in all categories and had many positive comments at our field day. The only disadvantage was a slight variability in russeting.

AC Stampede: AC Stampede performed well in our field trial with good uniformity in size and shape and nice russeting. AC Stampede also yielded 5t/acre greater than the industry standard.


Potatoes

Figure 8. Russet Norkotah, Blazer Russet and Classic Russet at the field day Although there many agencies and growers contribute to the BC Potato Variety Trial, there are some key partners who should be mentioned. The 2010 project was proudly supported by Growing Forward, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative. This trial could not have proceeded without the financial support of Growing Forward or the in-kind support from the BC Potato and Vegetable Growers Association and Felix Farms, who provided the field site, equipment and storage for the 2010 trial. The cooking portion of this trial was successful due to the hard work of Lindsay Babineau (BC Agriculture in the Classroom Foundation) and the terrific input from the chefs in the four teaching kitchens - Lori Pilling (DSS), Gerald Worobetz (SDSS), Daniel Lesnes (GSS) and Trevor Randle (MRSS). If you are interested in any of the above varieties, please contact Heather Meberg at E.S. Cropconsult Ltd., 604-841-0764 or Susan Smith at BCMAgri, 1-888-221-7141, and we will be pleased to help you find more information.


Potatoes

Challenges in Potato Diseases

Dave Ormrod

Consultant, Langley, BC [email protected]

The 2010 crop was lost to rain. Where do we go from here?

As we all know, 2010 was a difficult year for growing vegetable crops in the Fraser Valley. Spring weather failed to arrive on time and many growers could not plant until mid-June. In past years, a late spring was usually followed by sunny & dry weather in September and October. Hopes were high in 2010 until August 31 when the most rain ever to fall in a single August day saturated fields from Richmond to Agassiz. No-one was alarmed at first but then September turned out to be wet off and on so the soil never had a chance to dry out. At the Vancouver airport weather station there were 18 wet days in September and they were evenly spaced throughout the month. By the time this scenario played out, potato and carrot growers were resigned to losing all or part of their crops. October was only slightly better and a few growers were able to harvest part of their acreage. Some growers lost everything; overall about half the Fraser Valley potato crop was lost. The last time a major disaster similar to this occurred was in 1997. I had just retired from BCMAFF and I was hired by the Vegetable Commission to determine the extent of the potato crop loss throughout the province. The total crop loss that year was also about 50% but it was different in that half of that loss was due to late blight with the remaining half due to wet soil. In 2010, there was little or no late blight as the crops had already been top-killed and all of the loss was due to wet soil. Another difference was that West Delta escaped with little damage in 1997, whereas it was hard hit in 2010. To see if the weather patterns for 1997 and 2010 could explain the differences, I consulted the Environment Canada weather records for both Abbotsford and Vancouver. I found that Abbotsford (representing East Delta and as far as Sumas Prairie) had significantly more summer/fall rain than Vancouver (representing West Delta) especially in 1997. Also, June and July of 1997 were wet allowing late blight to thrive in the fields. By contrast, 2010 had a drought period extending through July and ending on August 31. As a result, late blight was not spreading in the fields and top-killing eliminated it as a threat in most fields. In over 100 fields that I examined in Delta in 2010, blight infected foliage was present in only three. Clearly, 2010 was a disaster for most Fraser Valley potato growers but I am sure that most will be able to plant at least one more time. Following are some points worth considering in order to deal with the situation as it exists in 2011: • Potatoes should not be replanted in fields where the 2010 crop was left in the ground. Of course, not all

growers will be able to find sufficient alternative acreage. With the recent decline in processing vegetable acreage, suitable land for potatoes is in short supply. • For the best-drained of the unharvested fields, expect lots of volunteers. These must be destroyed in whatever way you can do it, regardless of whether or not you are planting potatoes in the field again. Volunteers left to grow unattended can serve as a source of late blight, viruses, aphids and flea beetles for nearby fields and for future years. Unattended potato crops can continue to reproduce indefinitely into the future.


Potatoes

• For the poorest-drained unharvested fields, most of the tubers have rotted so there won‘t be many

volunteers. There could be high levels of Pythium and pink rot in some fields due to all the rotting tubers. If you must plant potatoes into any of these fields consider planting whole seed if you are able to get enough. Also, don‘t plant any seed with a high level of Fusarium infection. Using whole seed or top-quality fungicide-treated seed-pieces will help to prevent losses due to seed-piece decay in the event that it rains shortly after you plant. • If you had a field that was not safely top-killed before the wet weather hit, avoid planting potatoes in that field or nearby as it is a likely candidate for an early outbreak of late blight. Do your best to kill any volunteers as soon as the weather allows and keep it up throughout the growing season. • For the future of the potato industry in the Fraser Valley, I think the fall rain of 2010 was a wake-up call. Needless to say, if a similar disaster occurs in 2011, many growers will be forced out of business as their equity and credit will be exhausted. We cannot control the weather but we can improve our odds of survival by improving the drainage of the fields that we use. • Dairy farmers learned a long time ago that you cannot grow sufficient quantities of good quality forage on poorly-drained clay soils in the Fraser Valley. Meanwhile, potato growers have been using poorly-drained fields in the hope that they can plant and harvest during the ‗dry season‘ from mid-May until mid-October. If the ‗dry season‘ can no longer be relied upon, this philosophy of keeping your fingers crossed

while growing potatoes is likely to fail. The local industry is indeed on unstable ground if the main-season crops are lost more than one year in ten. • The two main differences between dairy farmers and potato growers is that dairy farmers have adequate

and reliable income and they own their land. Potato growers only make what the market will give them and they grow most of their crops on leased land. Most farm land available to lease for vegetable growing is owned by speculators and large corporations who have no interest in spending the funds necessary to drain the land for the benefit of the farmers. Most of them would prefer to have their land developed for uses other than agriculture. • More than just tile drainage and levelling of fields is required. Area-wide perimeter ditch maintenance is also necessary so that all of the fields can be drained quickly in the event of a high rainfall event. In the previous century, there were government programs to encourage and co-ordinate area-wide drainage systems. Now that we are in the 21st century, the various levels of government seem to be asleep at the switch as the BC field vegetable industry slowly disappears, field-by-field and crop-by-crop. That is not surprising given that all levels of government in BC are now influenced much more by developers and big business than they are by lowly farmers. • The following page shows some of the weather data and images of the 2010 main crop potato harvest in Delta.


Potatoes

0

50

100

150

200

250

May June July August September October

2010

1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Vancouver Airport - September, 2010 Rainfall (mm)


Potatoes


Potatoes

Recent Discoveries Concerning the Control of Potato Diseases

Rick Peters

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Summerland, BC [email protected]

There are many potato diseases caused by a wide variety of pathogenic agents. These diseases have serious impacts on potato yield and quality and ultimately on the economics of potato production. This presentation focused on recent research data concerning the biology and management of three important diseases, namely Fusarium dry rot and seed decay, silver scurf and late blight. Fusarium Dry Rot and Seed Decay

Fusarium spp. are important pathogens of potato that cause yield losses at planting and in storage following harvest. Spores of the fungus are found in all soils where potatoes are grown and can survive for many years. Seed potatoes infected with Fusarium can rot after planting (seed-piece decay) causing ―misses‖ in the field. Even if plants grown from infected seed do emerge, they often have reduced vigour and yield. The fungus can spread from infected to healthy seed during the cutting and handling process. After harvest, Fusarium spp. cause a dry rot in storage which reduces crop quality. Potatoes infected with Fusarium spp. develop a spreading external decay that usually becomes shrunken and wrinkled in appearance (Figure 1). When diseased tubers are cut open, the brown decay can be seen spreading into the internal tissues of the tuber. The internal decay is usually marked by open cavities which contain the mycelium of the fungus (Figure 2). Fusarium spp. can only infect potatoes through wounds. Thus, infection can occur when inoculum is spread from diseased to healthy seed during seed cutting and handling. As well, inoculum in soil attached to the surface of tubers can infect potatoes through wounds made during harvest and handling operations prior to storage. Although spores of Fusarium spp. can be found in all soils where potatoes are grown, our research has shown that diseased seed is the most important source of inoculum to infect daughter tubers. High levels of seed infection do not always translate into high levels of dry rot in storage, because the amount of tuber wounding at harvest is normally the biggest factor determining post-harvest dry rot. However, high levels of seed infection can lead to significant seed-piece decay with resulting yield impacts.

Our research has shown that the predominant Fusarium species found on seed pieces provide inoculum for infection of daughter tubers and therefore, these species are also the predominant ones found in

Figure 1. External symptoms of Fusarium dry rot Figure 2. Internal symptoms of tuber Fusarium dry rot infection with Fusarium spp.


Potatoes

storage. Surveys from 2007-2010 in Canada indicate that three Fusarium spp. are the most common as causal agents of seed-piece decay and dry rot. Results from these surveys showed that Fusarium

sambucinum is the most predominant pathogen, followed by Fusarium coeruleum and Fusarium

avenaceum. Although mixed infections of several Fusarium spp. did commonly occur, one species was usually clearly predominant in a particular sample of tubers (either seed tubers or samples taken from storage). Some other Fusarium spp. that were pathogenic to tubers were also recovered in the surveys including Fusarium acuminatum, Fusarium crookwellense, Fusarium sporotrichiodes, Fusarium

oxysporum and Fusarium graminearum. Fusarium graminearum, an important pathogen of wheat, was found for the first time in Canadian potatoes in several provinces in 2008. It is an aggressive pathogen of potato tubers, and we are continuing our monitoring to see if it becomes a more important potato pathogen in Canada, as it has in North Dakota, USA. Isolates of the various Fusarium spp. collected during Canadian surveys have also been tested for their sensitivity to thiophanate-methyl (Senator ® PSPT) and fludioxonil (Maxim® PSP - common potato seed piece treatments) and thiabendazole (Mertect ® SC- a common post-harvest treatment). In 2010, 84% and 76% of F. sambucinum isolates recovered in a seed survey showed resistance to thiabendazole and fludioxonil, respectively. Many isolates were resistant to both products. By contrast, most other Fusarium spp. were sensitive to these products. Isolates of Fusarium oxysporum recovered in these surveys were always sensitive to thiabendazole and thiophanate-methyl, but resistant to fludioxonil. Therefore, species composition in a tuber lot plays a large role in determining how effective a chemical treatment will be. In British Columbia, isolates of Fusarium sambucinum were more sensitive to fludioxonil than in other parts of the country. Results of chemical sensitivity testing for various species of Fusarium isolated from potato seed pieces in British Columbia in 2009 and 2010 can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Results of chemical sensitivity testing of isolates of various Fusarium spp. isolated from potato seed pieces from British Columbia in 2009 and 2010.* Species

No. of isolates

Fludioxonil (Maxim®PSP)

Thiabendazole (Mertect®SC)

Sensitive Resistant Sensitive Resistant 2009

F. sambucinum 8 7 1 2 6

F. coeruleum 7 5 2 7 0

F. avenaceum 2 1 1 2 0

2010

F. sambucinum 7 7 0 2 5

F. avenaceum 1 1 0 1 0

* Note: isolates resistant to thiabendazole (Mertect®SC) are also resistant to thiophanate-methyl (Senator®PSPT)

Field and storage studies were conducted in Prince Edward Island, Canada to ascertain the impact of fungicide-resistant strains on crop loss and to define potential management strategies. In all cases, treatment of potato seed pieces with mancozeb or difenoconazole completely controlled seed-piece decay caused by a multi-class resistant isolate of F. sambucinum. A 3-way mixture of difenoconazole, fludioxonil and azoxystrobin was also efficacious as a post-harvest treatment as potatoes enter storage to control Fusarium dry rot in storage. Based on our research, knowing the predominant Fusarium spp. in a particular seedlot and their sensitivities to various chemical products would provide growers with important information to use to make disease management decisions. Thus, diagnostic testing of samples of tubers from seedlots could be a useful tool in the management of this important disease. Since fungicide resistance is a concern, alternating products from different chemical classes becomes an important strategy. In our trials, mancozeb used as a seed treatment was able to control fungicide-resistant


Potatoes

strains. Down the road, difenoconazole and other products may become available for seed treatment and post-harvest application. Ultimately, the management of Fusarium dry rot and seed-piece decay depends upon an integrated approach that takes advantage of a number of control options and information generated by research studies. Silver Scurf

Silver scurf, caused by Helminthosporium solani, is characterized by silvery lesions on the surface of tubers (Figure 3). The spores of this pathogen can spread in storage, causing a build-up of disease during the storage season. Keeping storages disinfected and managing temperature and humidity are key factors in limiting disease spread. Surveys of pathogen populations across Canada in the last decade have recovered high incidences of strains of H.

solani resistant to thiabendazole, a post-harvest fungicide. This fungicide resistance has made post-harvest management of this disease very difficult, since alternative management tools have been scarce. In addition, recent surveys have recovered strains resistant to fludioxonil, a common seed-piece treatment fungicide. In the face of fungicide resistance, we have explored the efficacy of some new post-harvest treatment options. Although registered for the post-harvest management of pink rot and late blight tuber rot (see comments on late blight below), phosphorous acid-based products (currently available as ConfineTM in Canada) have been found to provide control of silver scurf when applied as a post-harvest spray. As well, the 3-way combination of azoxystrobin, difenoconazole and fludioxonil (not yet available to growers) has also been efficacious in our trials when applied as a post-harvest spray. We have seen disease reductions with these approaches, even after 8 months of tuber storage. Therefore, some new options are currently or will soon be available to growers in Canada to manage this difficult post-harvest disease.

Late Blight

Late blight, caused by Phytophthora infestans, is a devastating disease of potatoes and tomatoes that occurs worldwide and causes significant crop losses annually. In recent years, late blight has been very severe in Canada, and in 2009 and 2010, both potatoes and tomatoes were severely affected. Late blight symptoms can be found on the foliage (Figure 4) and serious epidemics can cause complete defoliation resulting in significant yield losses. Spores from infected leaves and stems can also wash into the soil during rain events to infect the tubers, leading to tuber rot in the field and in storage. Late blight control is challenging since the pathogen overwinters as mycelium in seed tubers, in tubers in cull piles, and in un-harvested diseased tubers which survive the winter and become sources of inoculum. Since new strains of P. infestans began to appear in Canada in the mid-1990s, disease control has become even more difficult. The new US-8 strain of P.

Figure 3. A tuber affected with silver scarf

Figure 4. Late blight in potato harvest


Potatoes

infestans which now dominates populations of the pathogen in central and eastern Canada is of the A2 mating type, very aggressive, can appear early in the season, and is resistant to metalaxyl-m (Ridomil Gold®), a systemic fungicide which was effective against the old A1 strain (US-1) of the pathogen which dominated pathogen populations in Canada prior to 1994. The US-8 strain was recovered from potato samples in British Columbia in 2008, however, western Canadian provinces have been dominated by new A1 pathogen strains, namely US-11 and more recently US-23. Some of these new strains appear to have been distributed on infected tomato transplants sold in local garden centres. Control of late blight still relies heavily on the use of protectant fungicides such as chlorothalonil (Bravo®), or mancozeb (Dithane® or Manzate®) which are applied frequently when weather conditions are conducive to disease development. However, more novel, specialty fungicides are now available for use when disease risk becomes high (due to climatic conditions or the reports of blight in the area). Over the past 6 years, we have conducted a number of trials that have examined the efficacy of phosphorous acid-based products (PA) for control of late blight tuber rot and more recently, control of foliar late blight. These products are mono- and dibasic sodium, potassium or ammonium salts of phosphorous acid, and when applied foliarly or as a root drench, can move systemically within the plant. An added bonus is that these products have a low environmental risk, compared to some of the more toxic protectant fungicides. They can act by directly inhibiting the growth and reproduction of the pathogen, but we also have acquired recent evidence that applying PA to the foliage can stimulate the production of natural defence chemicals within the potato plant that makes it less susceptible to disease. During harvest operations, pathogen spores can be splashed from diseased to healthy tubers before they enter storage resulting in potential rot during storage. Early work in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island with PA-based products showed that, when applied as a post-harvest spray to potatoes entering storage, complete suppression of late blight tuber rot and pink rot caused by these splashed spores could be achieved. It should be noted however, that tubers already infected in the field could not be cured with this approach. Also, it is important to apply the spray as soon after harvest as possible (preferably within 6 hours of harvest) to prevent the spores from germinating and infecting the tubers. Replicated field trials were established at the Cavendish Farms research farm in Prince Edward Island from 2007-2009. The initiation of late blight in the field plots was dependent on wind-blown spores from near-by natural field infections. The field experiments were established to assess the effect of PA (ConfineTM) alone and in combination with Bravo® (chlorothalonil) to suppress the development of late blight in foliage of both Shepody and Russet Burbank cultivars. The four treatments were: 1) untreated check (no fungicides applied), 2) Bravo® alone @ 2L product per hectare applied 10-11 times at weekly intervals, 3) PA alone @ 5.8L product per hectare, applied every second week for a total of 5 applications and 4) Bravo® + PA, similar rates as above, plots sprayed every week, alternating between Bravo® alone and Bravo® + PA. After the first evidence of disease symptoms in the plots, foliar disease was assessed on a weekly basis thereafter. As well, the effect of the fungicide treatments on tuber rot, at harvest and after storage was also assessed. Finally, healthy tubers were taken from each of the plots (10 tubers from each plot) and inoculated with either P. infestans (US-8 strain) or Phytophthora erythroseptica (pink rot - PEI strain). These tubers were then stored at 15°C and 95% RH for 2-3 weeks to encourage disease development. Following post-harvest inoculation and incubation, tubers were rated for the incidence and severity of pink rot and late blight tuber rot. Data was similar in all years of the study. The most extensive disease development occurred in the check plots. Within two weeks after detection in the check plots, symptoms started to appear in plots treated with PA. Later in the season, a slight amount of foliage damage caused by late blight occurred in the plots treated with Bravo® and Bravo® + PA.


Potatoes

When tubers were graded at harvest, rot was most extensive in the tubers from the check plots. As well, rot was more extensive in Shepody tubers than in Russet Burbank tubers (Table 2). There was a direct association between the extent of late blight in foliage and losses in total biological yield of tubers. Although extensive foliar blight eventually developed in foliage of plants/plots sprayed with PA, significantly less tuber rot was observed in these plots compared to the check plots (Table 2). Very little tuber rot was observed in plots where plants had been treated with Bravo® alone or Bravo® + PA. Following post-harvest inoculation, healthy tubers from plots receiving PA during the field season were significantly more resistant to the development of pink rot and late blight tuber rot in storage (Table 3).

Our studies indicate that PA-based products can provide significant disease control benefits when incorporated into a late blight and pink rot management program. PA, when applied alone, delayed foliar disease epidemic development in our studies. This could be an important benefit for growers during those times when application of protectant products in a timely fashion is difficult due to adverse weather conditions. The combination of PA with Bravo® was a particularly effective approach likely due to the synergies captured by combining a truly systemic (PA) with a protectant (Bravo®) product. In addition to achieving foliar disease suppression, the suppression of tuber rot achieved by incorporating a PA-based product into a late blight/pink rot management program must also be underscored. A note of caution – application of PA to seed potatoes, either as a post-harvest treatment, to cut seed or to the foliage of seed fields has been shown to have detrimental effects on seed sprouting and the vigour of plants grown from this treated seed and thus, these applications should be avoided until further research has been completed.

Table 2. Effect of fungicide treatments on tuber rot at harvest and potato yields.

Treatment % rot

Shepody % rot

Russet Burbank

Total

biological

yield

Shepody

(cwt/acre)

Total

biological

yield

Russet

Burbank

(cwt/acre) Check 67 53 191 206 PA 35 2 247 259 Bravo 2 1 280 292 Bravo + PA 3 0 287 302

Table 3. Effect of foliar fungicide treatments on percentage of tubers with rot following post-harvest inoculation of healthy tubers with late blight (LB) and pink rot (PR) pathogens.

Treatment Russet Burbank Shepody LB PR LB PR

Bravo 70 40 65 50 Check 68 60 72 81 PA 5 5 21 10 Bravo + PA 8 0 35 25

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the many fellow researchers, provincial specialists, industry representatives, technical support staff and potato growers across Canada that have contributed to portions of the research presented here. Without these collaborative efforts, none of this work could be carried out.


Potatoes

Integrated Approach to Managing Carrot Disease

Rick Peters and Kevin Sanderson

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Crops and Livestock Research Centre, Charlottetown, PE [email protected]

Each year carrot producers across Canada lose a substantial amount of their harvest due to Sclerotinia rot of carrots (SRC) caused by the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. It is a devastating disease destroying crop quality and making carrots unsuitable for human consumption. Although SRC often first becomes apparent in storage, the disease actually begins in the field. In mid-summer, the green canopy of one row of carrots will grow to the point where it meets that of the adjacent rows (row closure). As a result, air flow is restricted and sunlight cannot reach the soil, causing moisture levels to increase within the canopy. This creates conditions conducive for sclerotia (hard, black bodies) of the fungus that are in the soil to germinate, producing mushroom-like apothecia which release spores that land on and infect older, senescing leaves. Once leaves in the lower canopy become infected, the fungus can travel to the carrot crowns via petioles. Carrots infected in the field often do not show symptoms until they are in storage. As well, the fungus can spread from carrot to carrot and crate to crate within a storage causing serious yield losses. Until recently, there were no known effective controls for this serious disease. Addressing this problem was seen as critical to the continued success of the carrot industry globally. In 2003, we began researching factors that might impact on the incidence of SRC. Initial field trials demonstrated that as pre-plant nitrogen was increased, the number of diseased petioles found in the field and the number of carrots with SRC in storage was also increased. In addition, carrot seeding densities of 25 seeds per ft and higher significantly increased the number of diseased petioles in the field and infected roots in storage. These results provided the clue that controlling canopy density may be the key to managing SRC. Varieties also differed in their susceptibility to disease, usually because their canopy architecture differed (those with denser canopies were more susceptible to disease). Canadian researchers Mary Ruth McDonald, Greg Boland and Cezarina Kora, with the Department of Environmental Biology at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, reported that side trimming with or without removal of debris altered the canopy environment by reducing soil moisture and increasing the temperature within the crop, thereby creating conditions which were detrimental to the development of apothecia of S. sclerotiorum. In several trials from 2004-2006 in Prince Edward Island, we demonstrated that side trimming significantly reduced the incidence of SRC both in field and in storage. Similar to findings in Ontario, there was no reduction in yield from side trimming. Early in 2006, we secured funding through the Pest Management Centre in Ottawa for a project which resulted in the subsequent development of a prototype carrot foliage trimmer (CFT). The CFT (Fig. 1) is a 3-point hitch, PTO driven unit that makes use of spinning blades which cut off foliage from between the carrot rows while also lifting and removing petioles that are close to the ground. This opens the carrot canopy, allows in sunlight, reduces moisture and provides conditions that are not conducive to SRC development. The four-row trimmer is equipped with 8 carbide tip rotary saw blades that are 46 cm in diameter. The blades can be individually adjusted for row spacing and canopy width to define the severity of cut. The unit mounts on the back of a tractor and the blades are belt-driven. As the saw blades spin, they lift the carrot foliage and trim it back at the same time. The unit also has a series of lifter bars which lift older foliage lying on the soil surface prior to cutting with the blades. This ensures the removal of older senescing tissues that are most susceptible to infection. The cut carrot foliage trimmings fall between the rows and dry out which causes any fungi on the leaves to die. The trimmer has been tested using a 40 horsepower tractor. It is proving to be versatile and easily adaptable to conventional and


Field Vegetables

organic growing systems across Canada. Evaluation of the carrot foliage trimmer in 2006 and 2007 indicated that mowing at row closure significantly reduced the incidence of Sclerotinia rot in foliage and

carrots in storage by 80%. A trimmed canopy is shown in Fig. 2. The CFT is the first piece of equipment in the world which will trim the canopy where carrots are grown on a raised bed production system, but will also work on all bed systems. Field evaluation has demonstrated that the best time to trim the carrot crop is at row closure. This timing is very easy for a grower to assess and provides the maximum benefit for disease control.

The CFT has proven to carrot growers that this technology can greatly improve that quality of carrots both in the field and in storage. In 2006, the first year the CFT was demonstrated in field trials, local (PEI) carrot growers sustained a loss of $ 0.5M of stored

product obtained from the harvest of 300 ha of carrots. This technology not only improves the quality of fresh pack stored carrots, but is equally important to processing carrots, where quality from the field harvest to processing is critical to maximize pack-out and ultimately grower return. This technology is targeted to all conventional and organic carrot growers in Canada and other parts of the world and benefits will be realized by all end users. Although there has been and will be various trimmers designed and built, the resulting disease management and improved crop quality has been consistent.

In 2006, the CFT was demonstrated to the local industry and received much attention. During the initial evaluation of the CFT, the researchers partnered with fresh and processing carrot growers, namely Brookfield Gardens Ltd., Brookfield, PE, Oxford Frozen Foods, Oxford, NS and Patrykus Farms in Bancroft, Wisconsin, USA. Two commercial trimmer units were built and put into use during the 2007 field season. In Nova Scotia, Canada, Oxford Frozen Foods Ltd. built a nine-row disc version of the trimmer for use on about 400 ha of processing carrots grown on a shallow bed system. Patrykus Farms in Bancroft, Wisconsin, USA also constructed a nine-row unit very similar to the AAFC prototype for their 400 ha operation. Both trimmer units worked well and were very

effective in reducing SRC. These trimmers will trim about 40 and 30 ha per day, respectively. Growers

Figure 1. CFT constructed in 2006 ready for field evaluation

Figure 2. Darryl Lewis demonstrates canopy trimming using the CFT


Field Vegetables

using side trimming also observed that they reduced the incidence of other diseases such as foliar blights (Cercospora and Alternaria) and bacterial soft rot. In some cases, the number of fungicide applications used to control foliar blights could be reduced. They were most impressed with the ease of harvesting following trimming and did not notice any yield reduction. They also noted that the costs of the trimmer could be recovered in 1-2 seasons from reduced pesticide applications and improved quality and pack out. Verification of these observations became the focus of further trials that we conducted in 2008. Technical transfer of this research has resulted in additional commercial trimmers now being built in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Wisconsin, France, the UK, Germany and the Netherlands. In each case, the trimmer design is unique and adapted to the specific production area, but still based on the basic concept of disease control by altering canopy microclimate. Control of SRC has been a high priority for the carrot industry for many years. The development of the CFT and subsequent success in reducing the incidence of SRC both in field and in storage is now identified as an industry breakthrough for carrot production. It has resulted in a new standard agricultural practice for the carrot industry. As the CFT technology spreads globally, growers, industry and consumers are all witnessing how a severe disease problem has been resolved by an environmentally sustainable, pesticide-free control strategy developed by AAFC staff in Prince Edward Island, Canada. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the outstanding technical support of Darryl Lewis, Basil Dickson, Sylvia Wyand, Shelley Adams, Grace McIsaac, Kathy Drake, Ian Macdonald and Roger Henry. We also acknowledge funding provided by the Pest Management Centre‘s Pesticide Risk Reduction Program in

Ottawa.


Field Vegetables

Soil Sampling for Nutrient Management

David Poon and Orlando Schmidt

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

For nutrient management, soil sampling is done to collect a soil sample that represents the spatial area for which nutrient information (e.g. fertilizer recommendations) is needed. To do this many samples will be collected and mixed together to make one composite sample for each field. Any soil sample can be analyzed to give lab results but results are meaningful only if appropriate sampling and handling procedures are used. The results are used to help determine what level of additional nutrients, if any, are required. Soil testing can be done for different purposes and the purpose affects the sampling depth and time of sampling among other considerations (Table 1). To use the Nutrient Management Planning (NMP) software produced for the Canada-BC Environmental Farm Plan program, soil samples should be taken for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium for agronomic purposes. These elements are the focus of this factsheet. Table 1. Recommended depths and times for sampling soil phosphorus, potassium and nitrate-nitrogen. Component Purpose Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K) Nitrate-Nitrogen (NO3-N) Time Agronomic

- predictive Pre-plant (‗before growing season‘)

Humid with moderate winters: post-harvest (‗after growing season‘)

Dry with cold winters: pre-plant Forage corn: pre-sidedress - feed-back Post-harvest Post-harvest Environmental Post-harvest Post-harvest Monitoring Consistent: pre-plant or post-

harvest Consistent: pre-plant or post-harvest

Trouble shooting

Variable (depends on issue) Variable (depends on issue)

Characterization Variable (depends on issue) Variable (depends on issue) Depth General 0-15 cm (0-6‖) 0-30 cm (0-12‖)

When to Collect Soil Samples

Sampling Frequency

Sample every field at least once every three years. Fields in perennial crops should be sampled before they are seeded or planted. Consider sampling more frequently if the soil is coarse-textured or if crops have been grown that are heavy users of nutrients, since nutrient and pH levels tend to change more frequently than in fine-textured soils. More frequent sampling generates more data, making it easier to identify trends over time. For soil nitrate-N, annual pre- and post-harvest testing is recommended for certain situations – see the Feedback (agronomic) and environmental testing section below.


Field Vegetables

Times of Year Check with the chosen lab about their turnaround time for soil analysis. Each type of sampling described below should occur at approximately the same time in each year of sampling to help distinguish seasonal and sampling variation from actual changes in soil nutrients.

Predictive (Agronomic) Testing

This testing looks forward in time. The following times are recommended for samples that can be taken before or during the growing season (for which nutrient application decisions are being made): Pre-plant sampling in the spring is recommended. Samples should be collected before starting field work for annual crops and before a new flush of growth begins for perennial crops. These are the only results used in the current NMP software. Nitrate values are expected to be small at this time in south coastal BC. • Post-harvest nitrate values from the previous fall, after active crop growth has stopped or minimized,

can be substituted for pre-plant nitrate values (i.e. results can be used in the current NMP software) for soils of the Interior of BC (dry with cold winters), but not for soils of the south coast of BC (humid with moderate winters).

The Pre-Sidedress Nitrate Test (PSNT) is used to determine corn‘s sidedress nitrogen requirements. Soil samples are collected at the 6-leaf stage (usually mid-June), just before the crop takes up nitrogen rapidly. Although not used in the current NMP software, the PSNT is typically more reliable as a predictive test than pre-plant nitrate testing and should be considered to be a part of nitrogen management for corn. Feedback (Agronomic) and Environmental Testing

This is testing that happens at the end of a growing season to help plan nutrient applications the next growing season. It is most useful for nitrogen when there is 1) a history of post-harvest nitrate results and related information (e.g. crop yield and quality, manure application rate and history, weather, etc.), and 2) the cropping in the field has and will be consistent (i.e. there is a perennial crop or the same annual crop grown will be grown). A post-harvest nitrate test and interpretations have been proposed for grass hay/silage and silage corn fields in south coastal British Columbia. Very high post-harvest nitrate test values could indicate situations when nitrogen application rates could have been decreased or eliminated with low risk to the crop. Post-harvest sampling is recommended for environmental testing because it examines the nutrients left in the soil after crop uptake and before the usual time of highest risk of transport into ground and surface waters. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the main nutrients of environmental concern. Sampling for Other Purposes

Monitoring: If tracking nutrient trends across years, be consistent with respect to time, location and depth of sampling. Troubleshooting or Characterization: If sampling to troubleshoot suspected nutrient-related problems or to complete a soil description, sampling times vary according to the specific issue and objectives of sampling. Sampling Depth


Field Vegetables

Phosphorus, Potassium (and Ammonium-Nitrogen)

The recommended sampling depth is 15 cm deep (6‖). Most of the phosphorus and potassium are likely at

this depth. Although cultivation can be variable, 0-15 cm will include the most common minimum of a mix layer. Soil nutrient test interpretations for British Columbia soils have been based on this sample depth. Nitrate-Nitrogen

The recommended sampling depth is 30 cm (12‖). Note the approximate sample depth if you must sample at shallower depths. Plants usually root deeper than 15 cm and nitrate will move with water down the soil profile, so it is important to sample deeper than for phosphorus and potassium.

Tips for sample collection

Soil samples collected in perennial forage crops will have a layer of sod on top of the soil. Discard the top layer of dead leaves and roots above the mineral soil but not the roots that extend into the soil. When sampling in newly worked bare land, gently press down the soil with your boot before sampling to more accurately mimic the settled soil depth. Where to Sample

The objective is to ensure that a soil sample represents the area for which nutrient information is needed. Location of sampling is more important for phosphorus and potassium (and ammonium) than for nitrate; over time, the banding effect of nitrogen fertilizer will decrease. Before soil sampling, consider the variability within each field. There may be variability due to differences in manure or fertilization history, topography, drainage, eroded areas, sandy vs. clay-rich areas, or sections of a field that have previously been farmed separately over the years. Unusual areas should be avoided for routine sampling or they should be sampled separately. These include small, low, wet areas;

dead furrows; areas close to trees, roads and fences; manure piles; fertilizer storage; and livestock droppings. Use the information about the variability across your fields to create a field management map. Group sections that will be managed uniformly (i.e. fertilizer spread at a constant rate) into a sampling unit. Sampling units should be no more than 10 hectares (25 acres) or they can be larger if the characteristics and management of the field is known to be uniform. Assign a number or name to each sampling unit. Keep the same sampling units after the first year of sampling unless fields will be split. Record all pertinent information about the areas sampled. This information should include cropping history and desired crops to be grown, recent fertilizer or soil amendment applications, livestock use and any other relevant information about the site. Where Nutrients Are Broadcast (Applied Uniformly)

In each field or sampling unit, samples should be collected using a random or zig-zag pattern. Figure 1 above shows an example of a random soil sampling pattern (shown in yellow) and areas to avoid (shown in pink).

Figure 2. Random soil sampling


Field Vegetables

Where Nutrients Are Applied In Bands

Sampling methods from the post-harvest phase of the Fraser Valley Soil Nutrient Study 2005 and Okanagan Agricultural Soil Study 2007 are described below. These methods can be adapted for agronomic soil testing. Ultimately, you may choose a specific sampling method for which you have most historical data for the fields being sampled. Corn: If the location of the phosphorus fertilizer band is known, take samples at random locations between the fertilizer bands. If the location of the fertilizer band is unknown, take 30 to 40 cores per field from random locations or about twice as many as cores as for fields without fertilizer bands.

Raspberries: take pairs of samples (1) and (2) (Figure 2): • the centre of the fertilizer band between the plants along

the crop row • the centre of the cultivation/root mound between plants

in the crop row Blueberries: take pairs of samples (1) and (2) (Figure 3):

1) small plants - outside the drip line OR 1) large plants - midway between plants in the row 2) base of raised bed between plants and inter-row

Tree Fruits and Grapes: take samples at random locations from within the drip line of the tree or vines. Sampling Equipment A soil sampling probe (tube) or auger is recommended. A soil probe (Figure 4) works best in well cultivated soils without rocks but is difficult to use in rocky, very dry or very wet soil. An auger is better

for less well cultivated or rocky soils. If the soil texture is very coarse or there are many coarse fragments, a shovel can be used instead of a soil sampling tube or auger. When sampling with a shovel, make a V-shaped hole where the sample is to be taken. Take a 2-3 cm (1 inch) thick slice down one side of the hole to 15 cm (6‖), and trim the slice

to form a 2-3 cm (1 inch) wide core (Figure 5). Lift out the soil slice and place it into the sample bucket.

Ensure that the sampling equipment is clean. If sampling for micronutrients or metals, ensure there is no rust on it to prevent contamination. Latex gloves will prevent contamination from hands. A plastic bucket or clean bag in a bucket would be ideal to hold soil samples in the field.

Sample Handling

Composite samples are the mixtures of numerous individual samples that will represent a sampling area. To make a composite sample, collect at least 15 soil cores (or slices) in each sampling area. The

Figure 2. Sampling locations for raspberries

Figure 3. Sampling locations for blueberries

Figure 4. Soil probe


Field Vegetables

recommended maximum area is 10 hectares (25 acres) per 15 cores. Place all cores in a clean plastic pail or container. About 0.5 kg (1 lb) is usually more than enough. Then the sample must be mixed well and precautions need to be taken to minimize changes before lab analysis. There are two options to do this: 1) Keeping the soil cool (but not frozen) This assumes the sample is dry enough to be mixed well. After mixing the composite sample well, fill a bag or other clean container with soil. Clearly label samples with the date, field or sample unit name, and sampling depth (0-15 cm or other). Keep the samples cool (e.g. refrigerated in a cooler but not frozen) until they reach the lab and they should reach the lab as quickly as possible. Freezing soil samples is not recommended as soil nitrogen can change forms while freezing/thawing. 2) Air drying the soil Keep samples cool as described above until they can be spread on plastic sheets in a clean, ventilated room at room temperature. Dry thoroughly for one to two days, and then mix each sample well and send to the lab in clean and labelled containers. Ideally, prepare samples for analysis after drying and before sending to the lab: crush the dried soil, screen (sieve) it and then mix it well. Then you can send part of a sample to the lab and save another part for your own reference sample, in clean and labelled containers. A significant advantage of air drying before sending to the lab is the ability to save some reference samples, since the nutrients in air-dried soil samples will be stable for many years. Keeping some reference samples would be useful if you want to compare different labs‘ results or evaluate the analysis

quality of a lab. For a soil sample to be mixed thoroughly before it is analyzed, it is easiest to do this when the sample is dried first. Splitting a soil sample to send to different labs is not recommended unless it is first air-dried and mixed well. Lab Analyses to Request

To use the NMP software, the following soil test information is needed for a pre-plant soil sample taken in the spring: • nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) • available phosphorus (P) • available potassium (K) In addition, ammonium-nitrogen (NH4-N) is recommended. To be able to better interpret lab results, find out the lab methods for soil test phosphorus and potassium. See Factsheets 1 and 3 in the Nutrient Management Factsheet Series for more information. Commercial laboratories usually have soil fertility packages that will include the above analyses as well as other parameters including soil pH and other nutrients. Keep this information in your records. To use the NMP software, the fertilizer recommendations on a lab report are not required.

Figure 5. Shovel method of soil sampling


Field Vegetables

Phosphorus: Mechanisms of Loss from the Soil System

and Effects to Slow these Losses and Increase Plant Availability

Terry Tindall

J.R. Simplot Company, Boise, ID [email protected]

Nutrient management issues in British Columbia and other parts of North America associated with production agriculture are becoming more of a concern and a focal 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 has been 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 our nation and the global community whose population continues to increase at an alarming rate. 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 decrease the efficiency of N and 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 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizers. Phosphorus 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 limiting yield potential. Finally and maybe the most critical, is that higher fertilizer phosphorus (P) prices are likely to continue, 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 unaccounted for then we can improve phosphorus utilization and efficiency (Figure 1).


Field Vegetables

Figure 1. Fertilizer Phosphorus Efficiency in Soils--IPNI

Phosphorus is present in the soil in both the organic and inorganic form 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 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 (Figure 2).


Field Vegetables

Figure 2. Pathway of P fertilizer applied to soils and precipitates formed--IPNI

Research has demonstrated management tools such as banding or direct seed applications as well as enhanced N and P formulations can 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 appears to be just that. AVAIL Mode of Action

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. It has been expressed by some knowledgeable scientists that ―Avail maybe the most significant development in the phosphorus fertilizer industry in the last 40 to 50 years.


Field Vegetables

Mechanisms that Cause Soil N Losses and Decrease Nutrient Use Efficiency

While N was not an emphasis at the 2011 Conference, it is a focal point that needs to be addressed. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop production has been and is a goal of agronomists and crop producers since the beginning of commercial fertilizer use. Use efficiency can range widely but is seldom greater than 65-70% of applied N in the first year after application. Nitrogen carryover is possible but many factors influence the amount and the availability to the following crop. Nitrogen loss mechanisms include ammonia volatilization from ammonia injection or from urea, leaching of nitrate and denitrification (Figure 3). The magnitude of losses can be modified by method of N application. Subsurface banding, surface banding, mechanical incorporation into the soil and rain or irrigation shortly after application all lower N losses. Heavy soil surface residues tend to increase ammonia volatilization losses by preventing applied N from coming into contact with the soil and by their content of urease enzyme which mediates urea hydrolysis. Heavy residues also contribute to microbial immobilization of applied N in the decompositon of organic residues. The process of nitrification produces the nitrate anion which can move with water in the soil and depending on soil texture may move beyond the reach of plant roots. Nitrate-N is used as a terminal electron acceptor in place or oxygen by bacteria in water-logged soils leading to further N losses as elemental N2and nitrous oxide (NO). Slowed nitrification in the soil can modify the rate and magnitude of both leaching and denitrification. The fertilizer and chemical industries have sought to develop additives or coatings which can change the speed or outcome of these soil reactions. Classes of compounds include slow solubility compounds, plastic coatings, nitrification inhibitors, urease inhibitors and combinations of urease inhibiton and nitrification suppression materials which affects ammonia volatilization, the rate of nitrification and denitrification. NutriSphere-N Mode of Action

A nitrogen fertilizer additive patented by Speciality Fertilizer Products, Inc., Nutrisphere-N, has been shown in laboratory and extensive field reseach to affect soil N reactions, decreasing the concerns associated with weather and management by increasing yield and improving N use efficiency over a wide range of environmental conditions. Nutrisphere-N™ [butenediodic methylenesuccinic acid] is a complex

organic acid with a large negative charge (1800 meq 100 g-1). When impregnanted on an N fertilizer like urea, Nutrisphere-N™ on the fertilizer granule remains in microenvironment with the dissolved urea influencing N conversion processes. In the soil the high negative charge density of Nutrisphere-N sequesters nickel essential for bacterial production of the metalloenzyme urease. Without the urease enzyme the hydrolysis of urea into ammonium ceases. Since this mechanism is the primary pathway for conversion of urea N in the soil, the efficacy of urea plus Nutrisphere-N would be less sensitive to environmental or management conditions.


Field Vegetables

Figure 3. The Nitrogen Cycle-IPNI

Soil nitrogen in the ammonium form is subject to soil bacteria that will reduce it to the nitrate form of nitrogen. Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter bacteria which are responsible for the nitrification of ammonium in the soil require Cu and Fe. NutriSphere-N complexes with the Cu and Fe in the microenvironment near treated urea to inhibit the bacteria and slow the nitrification process. Keeping the nitrogen in the ammonium form longer in the soil increases the efficiency of the nitrogen by keeping it in a form that is less susceptible to leaching. This paper discussed and compared commercially available Enhanced Efficiency Products that increase the efficiency of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers. The J.R. Simplot Company and its distributors (Terralink in BC) are focused on AVAILTM for improvements of phosphorus and NutriSphere- NTM for improvements of nitrogen fertilizers. Both of these materials are registered trademarks of the Specialty Fertilizer Company of Leawood, KS. Additional information on the AVAIL and NutriSphere-N technologies can be found at www.simplot.com/agricultural/plant/products.cfm .


Field Vegetables

Newly Registered Aphicide Beleaf®

Adam Prestegord

FMC Agricultural Products, Balaton, MN [email protected]

Beleaf is a new, novel chemistry now available in Canada. Beleaf contains the new active ingredient Flonicamid. Flonicamid is a member of the pyridinecarboxamide class of chemistry and has been shown to be different from any other major class of insecticides. There are no known cross-resistance issues with other insecticide classes which means that the use of Beleaf makes it a key component of insect resistance management programs. Beleaf specifically targets aphids and lygus bugs. Within 30 minutes after an application, target pests stop feeding, stops piercing & sucking, honeydew development and eventually starve to death. With a rapid reduction in feeding, piercing & sucking, you are able to immediately stop the spread of viruses and diseases. The target pests can still be seen moving on the leaf surface for up to 3 days after an application but no feeding is taking place. Beleaf works on target pests by contact and ingestion provoking rapid and irreversible feeding cessation. It is not a true systemic but has translaminar activity. Beleaf works immediately on target pests and has 14 – 21 day residual activity. The rate of application is dependent upon the insect species present, the level of insect pressure, and the amount of foliage present. Beleaf controls aphids in potatoes, brassica, leafy vegetables, curcurbits, fruiting vegetables, hops, tuberous and corm vegetables, root vegetables, pome fruit and stone fruit. Beleaf is extremely soft on all beneficial insects, such as bees and predatory mites. This makes it a good fit for any IPM program. Beleaf is very environmentally friendly and ―practically non-toxic to fish and wildlife‖. Beleaf is available as a 50 percent water dispersible granular (WDG) from any of your local crop input dealers.


Field Vegetables

Fulfill® Insecticide for Aphid Control

Ed Thiessen

Syngenta Crop Protection Canada, Calgary, AB [email protected]

Product Information

The active ingredient in Fulfill is pymetrozine, a unique mode of action group 9B insecticide. Fulfill is effective against a wide range of aphid species including all aphid species that infest potatoes (Figures 1, 2 and 3). It is highly selective; Fulfill is not active against other major groups of insect pests and will not control other major potato pests.

Also, Fulfill has no activity against beneficial insects that naturally reduce aphid numbers as shown in the table below:

Table 1. Beneficial insects that naturally reduce aphid numbers. Beneficial Species Common Name

Chysoperla carnea Green lacewing Coccinella septempunctata Seven-spotted lady beetle Orius spp. Flower, pirate bugs Geocoris spp. Big-eyed bugs Bembidion spp. Ground beetles Amblyseius spp. Predatory mites Encarsia formosa Whitefly parasites

Inhibition of Virus Transmission

Controlling aphids with Fulfill not only minimizes the direct damage from aphids feeding on crops, it also has been shown to reduce the spread of some persistently transmitted plant viruses by controlling the aphid vector (Figures 4 and 5). Mode of Action

Fulfill has a direct effect on the aphid‘s nervous

system affecting feeding behavior. It is believed that pymetrozine affects the activity of cibarial muscles, the food pump and the salivary pump of the pest. It does not paralyze the aphids and has limited ―knockdown‖ effect unlike many other

insecticides. Thus aphids that have come into

Figure 1. Green Peach Aphid Figure 2. Potato Aphid

Figure 3. Melon Aphid

Figure 5. Potato Y Virus

Figure 4. Potato PLRV Virus


Field Vegetables

contact with Fulfill will remain alive and mobile for a few days after exposure but plant damage and virus transmission halts because aphids stop feeding immediately after coming into contact with Fulfill (Figures 6, 7, and 8). Within several days, aphids will die of either starvation or desiccation (Figure 9). It has been shown that adult aphids that are treated with Fulfill produce less offspring. Offspring that are produced are also unable to feed similar to the adults with the nymphs dying in 6-8 days without any additional exposure to Fulfill. Fulfill is effective against all life stages of aphids.

Uptake and Movement in the Plant

Fulfill has excellent translaminar movement into plant foliage; the product will move from the treated side of the leaf through to the untreated surface where aphids are often plentiful. It forms a reservoir of active ingredient within the plant and provides residual control for up to 14 days. Fulfill is rainfast as soon as the spray droplets are dried. There is significant systemic movement of Fulfill as well from the treated foliage into newly emerging leaves. The level of active ingredient from this systemic movement is sufficient to control aphids on the new foliage without requiring additional spray applications. Fulfill will move more readily in an upward direction with the plant xylem than it will in a downward direction in the phloem.

Application Recommendations

Ideal conditions for application include warm temperatures and high relative humidity; these conditions optimize plant uptake. Avoid application when temperatures are excessively high or when drought stresses the plants.

Figure 8. Aphids do not feed again and die due to starvation or desiccation within several days

Figure 7. Aphids become agitated and remove stylet from plant

Figure 6. Aphids are directly contacted by or ingest Fulfill while feeding


Field Vegetables

Apply when aphids first appear and before they begin to build to damaging levels. Utilize locally developed economic thresholds as a guideline for application. Do not wait until aphid numbers explode to high levels as crop damage from both feeding and virus transmission will have already occurred. Thorough spray coverage is essential for optimum performance. Always use an adjuvant that improves coverage and penetration of Fulfill into the plant (eg Agral 90, LI 700). Fulfill and IPM

Fulfill is compatible with Integrated Pest Management practices based on the following characteristics:

• Highly selective – has no activity against beneficial pests • Low use rates • Applied as a foliar spray only in response to pest populations • Unique mode of action compared to other aphicides • Excellent non-target safety profile

• ―reduced risk‖ status Fulfill Summary

Fulfill provides selective control only of aphids regardless of stage. Aphids that come in contact with Fulfill via direct spray application or from exposure to treated foliage will stop feeding immediately thus minimizing damage to plants from direct feeding or virus transmission. Fulfill has both translaminar and system movement providing complete control of both treated and newly emerging plant foliage; residual control for up to 14 days should be expected. Fulfill has an excellent IPM fit particularly because of its limited activity on non-target species such as beneficial insects.


Field Vegetables

Diversification of Our Farm through Taking Stock

Gary Snow and Susan Snow

LW Trustcott Farms/Tabletree Juice, Creston, BC [email protected]

My wife Susan and I are third-generation fruit growers in Creston. At least she is. Her grandfather planted his first orchard in 1910 and her dad has been in the business literally all his life. Susan returned to her hometown in 1996 when we moved to Creston to join the family cherry business. In 2004, we bought the farm from her mom and dad, Lew and Iva Truscott. Our home place is primarily Lapin cherries having been replanted in 1991 when Susan‘s dad and brother

both removed the apples on their own farms and introduced late cherries to the Creston Valley. When the first big Lapin crop was harvested in late July 1995 they were literally the only cherries on the market in the world bringing previously unheard of returns to the grower. That‘s not the case anymore with the

planting of later & later maturing varieties all over the world. Since we bought the farm lower returns, higher costs for growing packing and shipping, a far less favourable exchange rate (fruit on the export market is sold in US dollars), and the loss of the western Canadian domestic market to cheaper cherries from Washington have all made it really hard to return even the cost of production for our fruit. In 2009 with a poor market and non-stop rain during harvest that forced us to leave 200,000 of rain split cherries on the trees we lost over $400,000. We had to remortgage the farm and take out another loan just to pay off our operating loan, picking & packing costs, spray bill, tractor payment, etc. It‘s not just us

either...that should sound familiar to a lot of farmers regardless of what they grow. Tree fruits like berries are not like some ground crops where you can decide to plant a different crop or variety next year and get a harvest. It‘s 4 to 5 years before you see any returns from a new planting.

About 40% of what we grow are Lapins and we have to play the hand we‘ve been dealt. After years of knowing we had to do something to make our crop more valuable and basically save the family farm we took the big step diversifying into a value added product and Tabletree Juice was born. In 2009 along with 60 other companies we entered a competition for Commercialization of Agricultural Technology held by the BC Innovation Council to help with the creation of our juice company. Our innovation involved a proprietary extraction process for our juice involving the design and fabrication of extraction equipment unique to the commercial juice industry. After nine months of an incredible journey it all culminated in January 2010 with us taking second place in the competition enabling us to go forward in the commercialization of our juice business. That‘s where our participation in the Farm Business

Review Program began. From what we have gathered, most of the farmers who‘ve taken part in the program found it by word of

mouth or were referred by their banker. Our involvement came about in a different way, at the bottom of the escalator at the Hyatt Regency in Vancouver as we were leaving the BCIC awards ceremony. As we got off the escalator Tom Hobby, a fellow we‘ve come to know really well over the past several months

introduced himself and the Farm Business Advisory Service to us. We had never heard of the program before, but being committed to our diversification into the juice it was a no brainer to have a complete financial picture of our farm business. $100 for all Tier 1 of the program brought to us was a pretty good return on investment. It took a lot of work on our part to accumulate all the information Tom asked us for. He came to our farm several times over the summer and spent a lot of hours with us gathering information about every part of our business, both financial and operational for the past several years. We knew how the farm was


Building Business Success

trending, but it was one thing to know it, but another altogether to see it broken down into every conceivable category. The Taking Stock workbook was really something. We‘d advise you to pack a lunch when you start in on

the workbook, you‘re going to be there a while, because there are 90 pages of questions and exercises!

It‘s a lot to do, but it‘s one the best uses of time you‘ll ever make. It covers not only what you‘re doing

and how you‘re doing it, but it also asks you questions that really make you think. You might think you

know what your goals are, both personal and businesswise - but have you really ever talked them out with your significant other? Susan and I were pretty much together on our goals for the business, but we‘d never really thought in

terms of what our personal goals were as they related to the business. Our goals weren‘t a lot different

there either, but it hadn‘t dawned on us to relate them to the operation of the farm. Succession planning...who thinks about that? We have a son who has no intention of taking over the farm: ―no way...ain‘t gonna happen‖. But then again, someday it might. Susan and her brother both grew up in the orchards and neither one of them were ever planning to go into the business. They both now own their own farms and have diversified into other farm related businesses. We don‘t claim to have a

succession plan written in stone, but the workbook at least has us considering what might happen down the road. Even if the workbook was all there was to Tier 1, what you personally gain from the journey thru the workbook and having something written in hand reflecting that journey is worth way more than the $100. Receiving the detailed financial analysis of your farming business is icing on the cake. That being said, depending on the state of the business this financial analysis can be very sobering to put it kindly or possibly even a bit depressing, but in our case we took it as a challenge. We knew where we had been so it was no surprise our numbers were less than stellar over the past five years especially. Tom‘s analysis

showed where we have been. Now it‘s up to us to make sure that‘s not where we continue to go from here. Our Tier 1 report also included projections and recommendations to help us plan a different course. As an indication of how the Tier 1 report, however sobering, is not all gloom and doom. We have included it in the package we have submitted to our banker, FCC, and other lending institutions applying for financing for the expansion of our juice plant. We are just beginning Tier 2 of the program with Tom. For $500, there are a number of areas you can choose to focus on. We‘ve chosen to focus on Tabletree Enterprises to analyze our cost structure in

relation to the pricing of the juice to make sure we‘re selling at a price that will sustain the business.

Thanks to Tom‘s experience as a loan officer, the tier two report will be tailored to be included in our financial package for use in future negotiations with our bank for funding the expansion of Tabletree. All in all, that $600 was about the best investment we could ever make in our future. I was talking with a grower from here in the Abbotsford area on the way into the Tradex this morning about this program and others available for farmers to avail themselves of. He mentioned about how out of the loop he felt being all the way out here, an hour from Vancouver. I couldn‘t believe my ears when

he said that. I told him he wanted to feel out of the loop try being where we live five hundred miles – oops, I mean 800 km – east of here. I told him to imagine the medieval maps from back when the world was known to be flat. The ships got to the edge of the world and sailed over the edge to be gobbled up by the gruesome monsters and dragons waiting in the void. Quite often it seems Creston must be located about three inches to the east of the edge of the world on the government maps of B.C. when it comes to accessing government services, personnel, workshops and the like. Abbotsford and its surrounding area is a real hub of agriculture. There are ministry offices that can be accessed, there are personnel available, and there is an Agriculture Research Station at Agassiz, all right in your own backyard, more or less. If



there‘s anything a grower wants to find out or inquire about, if you want to know if there‘s help available

or any programs that might address a need an answer is really just a mouse click, phone call or a short drive away. For all our whining about Creston being off the map, the same holds true for us (except for the short drive part). We found through our efforts to start our juice company that we would talk to one person from an agency who would tell us about another program. We‘d contact that program and find out about something else

to look into and that would lead to another and on and on. One phone call to CFIA in October 2008 started the journey for us that led us to IRAP (Industrial Research Assistance Program), the BCIC (British Columbia Innovations Council), the Food Development Centre of Manitoba, for starters. There were numerous workshops and seminars put on by Community Futures, BC‘s Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the Small Scale Food Processors, and others. We accessed the expertise of numerous researchers at PARC in Summerland and the amazing webinars put on by various ministries about business in general, exporting, human resources, food safety. Farm Business Advisory Service. All this came on the heels of one phone call.



Do the Tough Things Right

Elaine Froese

Consultant, Boissevain, MB [email protected]

Farm entrepreneurs typically are wired to want to avoid mistakes, but these are the things you want to address for better family communication:

-power and control -lack of appreciation -ignoring financial details -overwork burnout -overwhelm in planning -never acting -unresolved family issues

• Identify what you want for your family and your business • Deal with the undiscussabull™, unspoken issues • Do a key challenges audit. You can download more copies at the farm succession page at

www.elainefroese.com Key Challenges Audit Sheet

Farm families find this Audit Sheet to be helpful in identifying areas in their business that need focus and coaching attention. Use the spaces to the left below to indicate with an ‗X‘ the challenges that your farm

family business is currently facing.

A better understanding of how to be fair to family members. Getting clearer about recognizing the value of contribution and sweat equity to the farm. Becoming better organized to have both my succession life plan and estate death plan in order. Explaining more effectively why certain decisions/family decisions are made

Recognizing the income stream that we require when the farm transfers. Dealing more effectively with residence needs. A better understanding of what is enough to live on. Hearing more about off farm income streams

Increasing my expertise at financial planning. Becoming more aware of what‘s risky in changing ownership of the farm.

Defining the actual financial snapshot of the viability of the farm operation. Becoming more aware of what‘s next for me after the farm transfers.

Having more fun in my life. Building a more workable succession plan. Better honouring of the timelines we have agreed to. Getting more ideas to expand options

Decreasing anxiety over the uncertainty of the future. Avoiding the typical mistakes farmers make in farm transfer planning. Becoming clearer about who does what in the daily farm operation. Greater understanding of who is the ultimate decision maker. Learning to better handle different responsibilities.



http://www.elainefroese.com/

Learn better conflict resolution skills. Better understand how to clarify my intent Express my thoughts more effectively Becoming a better listener Better understanding of how to build trust Dealing more effectively with resistance

Learning to deal with difficult feedback

Having more effective family business meetings

Be better equipped to identify tension triggers

Other Other

What Does Fairness Look Like To You? You need to talk about agreement of the business partners, the value of sweat equity, key visions for the farm and compensation structures. Dr. John Baker of the University of Iowa has a sweat equity spreadsheet tool that helps you calculate the net worth changes in the farm as the successor ages, the net worth at 25, 35, 45, for example. Notice how the farming heir helps create, capture, and keep the wealth. (Email Elaine for this tool.) Face Your Finances -Is the business viable? -Do business heirs know the numbers? -Do you have a learning plan for the new book-keeper? -Build a great team of trustworthy advisors -What will your family living costs be when your role changes? -What alternate non-farm income streams are there? Resistance Issues of the Head, Heart and Gut

-What don‘t you understand? (Head stuff) -What doesn‘t feel good? (Emotional heart issues) -What do you not trust? (Gut level resistance to change) How Are You Dealing With Muck?

-Unresolved conflict is costing you money -Regular business meeting planners are 21% more profitable -Do you need to take some conflict resolution training? -Are you avoiding conflict or working towards collaboration? -Understand the importance of the ―why‖: your intent, and what actions and effect that creates Does Your Business Have a Culture of Respect and Forgiveness?

-How do you intentionally encourage the heart of your business? -Do spouses have input and respect? -Ask for what you need



Family Inheritance Issues

-Do you want to die broke? What do you owe your kids? -Are your estate documents up to date: wills, power of attorney, health care directives? -What the expectations of your non-business heirs and how are you going to find out? Failure

-What are you really afraid of? (Spousal interference?) -Polarized thinking …either/or….keeps you stuck. -Are you manipulating your family with money? -Does your debt need mediation? Feeling Good…Fixing Your Stress Mess

-Communication of expectations will make you feel better -Work on your body, mind and spirit health -Connection time to renew is critical -Who is your emotional support? -You need healthy boundaries between farm and family time What Is Your Next Step to Do the Tough Things Right?

-Talking with spouse and business partners. -Conflict resolution training -Figure out sweat equity compensation -Meet with financial planner -Track family living costs -Meet with lawyer to draft new will -Hire a facilitator or coach for a family meeting What‘s the one thing you need to do now? _________________________________________



Ten Tools for Talking about Tough Issues™

Elaine Froese

Consultant, Boissevain, MB [email protected]

Build relational capital…what do you really want?

Get out of the neutral zone, a place of high stress and anxiety. What do you need to begin? Understand the power of ―WHY‖…your intent. You can‘t read minds to know intent or effects of your

actions. Discuss the undiscussabullTM

…tough issues. Make your own pack of cards, one issue per index card. Use

for family business meetings. What is the one thing you need to talk about at your business but are avoiding? Find Out Your Key Communication Style:

Action people want directness and results orientation Process people want options, order, and not be rushed People styles want relationship building before business talk Ideas people want to tell you the big picture without interruption Understand that Your Age has Certain Tasks that if frustrated cause conflict: Age 20: independence…the decade of making it Age 30: success, mastery…exhausted Age 40: taking charge…security, ownership and control Age 50: quality of life issues…simplify, competency Age 60: legacy, starting over…future income streams, health Age 70: mentoring… meaningful life Age 80: elderhood, blessing…deal with death Age 90: hand it all over Why Folks Won‟t Talk about the Undiscussabulls™: -scared -last great idea was shot down -emotional bank account is dry -self-worth is based on action or net worth -timing is different -avoid conflict at all costs What‟s Your Conflict Style?

avoidance accommodating competing compromising collaborating Is the resistance coming from the head, heart or gut? Understanding, emotion or trust issues?



Tools for Discussing the Undiscussabull™…the Tough Issues: 1. Take CHARGE…the bull by the horns

• Take responsibility for changing you. Only you change you. • Change is inevitable, but growth is optional. • Timeliness is key…greater options if time is with you.

2. Come from curiosity

• I‘m curious about…don‘t be judgemental or defensive • Identify your conflict style and possible triggers. Control anger. • Seed common ground and ―make a request‖. • Clarify, seek information, do reality checking, brainstorm and move from positions to

interest…What is important to you about that? 3. ASK DEEPLY

• Balance the speaking and listening…ask open-ended questions • Explain describing your own feelings and interests • Be soft on the person and hard on the problem…just like toilet paper!

4. Play with possibility

• Use a talking stick, have family biz meetings. • Avoid the downward spiral…be positive • Don‘t pre-judge other‘s goals and dreams

5. Really LISTEN. “When I listen, people talk.”

• Build understanding through checking out assumptions • Explore interests and feelings • Guess what is motivating the other person. • Check out thinkingforresults.com

6. Ponder and perk not prod.

• Digest, sift, and give yourself space and time to think. • Consider the other‘s perspective. • Ask ―is there anything else?‖ • Is that right?

7. Cultivate Trust

• Build confidence in the relationship • Walk your talk, accountability • Culture of fairness, respect, commitment

8. Respect boundaries

• Clear roles…dad or boss? Family or business role? • Guidelines for performance, jobs. • Be clear about expectations • Confidentiality • Cut gossip

9. We all end up in a box.

• Death will happen, come to terms with life, plan for it! • Face the aging process…sustain emotional & physical health



• Reconsider your future 10. Extend the olive branch.

• Create the legacy of open communication and relationship • Forgiveness to be able to move forward • Pass on authority and learn to let go.

Effective family business meetings: REGULAR, on the calendar !

-Talking stick and stress squeeze toys -Undiscussabull™ cards..on index cards -Guidelines for respect -White board agenda collector -Binder for advisor input -Notes with timelines for action and emails -Reading lists -Conflict resolution course graduates



Preparing for the Future: Emerging Trends and Impacts on the Food Chain Al Scholz, A.N. Scholz & Associates Inc., Saskatoon, SK

[email protected] How we farm will change very quickly in the next ten years. The new trend is ―sustainability‖. It isn‘t a

flavour-of-the-month. It‘s what consumers and our customers ―the urban crowd‖ is thinking about. We

need to understand the trends and be the leaders of our own change! I grew up on a beef and grain farm in Saskatchewan. Recently, my 85-year old mother was reminiscing about the magnitude of change in farming since her childhood in rural Saskatchewan. She is astounded by the transformation from immigrant pioneers to the large scale, high tech, and computerized-GPS farms of today. The truth is the scope and scale of change by 2020 will make my mother‘s life experience seem

incidental. The change in her life time was the ―mechanization‖ for farming. It produced ―industrial‖

volumes of commodities to large and undifferentiated global markets. Consumer demands at the time were for basic foods – basic meat and potato diets. My Dad was a meat and potato guy. When I was studying for my agriculture degree in Saskatoon in the 1970‘s my folks drove up for a visit. Following the standard Aggie diet of the time, we went out for pizza

and beer. My Dad had never had pizza before – and he didn‘t like it He was from a different time – he was a basic meat and potato guy. The 21st century is ―post-industrial‖ society – it‘s the information or knowledge economy. The

agricultural innovations and changes of today are IT-based and less visible. Urban consumers now demand highly differentiated and specialized exotic foods – and there are hundreds of sophisticated niche markets to serve. Still, the average farmer is producing commodities for undifferentiated markets – the meat and potato markets – there‘s no special pizza‘s on their marketing radar. The freight train of change is steaming up the tracks towards us – and it‘s increasing in speed. The

solution for the average farmer is continuous change and continuous improvement – in order to stay competitive and maintain a profit margin.

Here‟s one way of defining the “average farmer”

The function of a competitive market is to drive the economic return to the average producer to breakeven

through supply and demand responses in both input and output markets.

In equilibrium the top end are profitable and growing, the average are hanging in there, and the bottom

end are losing money and exiting the industry.

Business success and survival depend on continuous improvement at a pace necessary to stay in the front

half of the pack. Source: Danny Klinefelter, Texas A&M University

Here‘s the challenge. Urban consumers are becoming well informed. They are becoming more discriminating about their food choices. They are getting the IT tools and information to monitor food production. As farmers, what are we going to do about it?



Farming has to adapt. Regardless of what those involved in agriculture think, consumers are demanding it. The climate is changing – be it from greenhouse gases or long-term climate cycles, it will impact daily life and the way businesses are run. Farmers, however, do deserve credit for completing environmental farm plans, conservation tillage, soil fertility management and other actions to reduce their farm‘s carbon footprint – yet more will be demanded, and soon. The emergence of urban consumer trends of ―buy local‖ and ―food miles‖ within the context of a short

growing season adds another layer of complexity, particularly in Canada which is amongst the leading nations for agricultural exports. Is our agricultural system “sustainable” – and if so, how do we know – and how can we measure it? This is where the change factor comes in. There is a new environmental impact tool showing up across the global food chain. It is called ―life cycle assessment‖ or LCA. It will provide direction on the way we

farm, how food is processed and transported – and how consumers make their food purchase decisions. Best of all, this LCA tool can provide opportunities for Canada‘s farms to gain measurable premiums in

the market place – if the right adjustments and adaptations are followed. Developed by industrial engineers in the 1960‘s and 70‘s, LCA is a method to systematically break down

any manufactured item into its components and the processes that went into making it. LCA then measures with precision the total environmental impact - from the beginning of production all the way through to final disposal, a cradle-to-grave product inventory. Today, LCA can convert every food product into a single number that reflects everything including the carbon footprint of tractors, equipment, production inputs, chemicals, livestock feed, treatment of workers – the works. This will be the ―new math‖ used in business and farming across the globe. LCA is rapidly being adopted by agriculture and food production systems. Leading firms are already using LCA. For example, a California research group known as GoodGuide (www.goodguide.com) has developed software that allows shoppers to point their cell phone camera at the bar code of a consumer product. The picture is sent to the GoodGuide server and within seconds a three-bar rating is sent back of that very item. It reveals in red, yellow or green the relative impact of that product‘s life-cycle in terms of environment, health and society. Walmart took a leadership position in July 2009 when it launched the worldwide ―sustainable product

index‖ (See http://walmartstores.com/download/3879.pdf). The purpose is to measure the environmental sustainability of all products by making its suppliers subscribe to the system. The sustainable product index is managed independently by the Sustainability Consortium, co-managed by the Arizona State University and the University of Arkansas. More importantly, in October 14, 2010, Walmart unveiled its ―Global Sustainable Agriculture Goals‖.

The media release stated, ―This commitment to agriculture will help small and medium sized farmers expand their businesses, get

more income from their products, and reduce the environmental impact of farming, while strengthening

local economies and providing customers with long-term access to affordable high-quality fresh food.‖



http://www.goodguide.com/

http://walmartstores.com/download/3879.pdf

The Walmart sustainable agriculture strategy has three components: • Support farmers and their communities • Produce more food with fewer resources and less waste • Sustainably source key agricultural products

If successful, Walmart will lead the evolution of Canada‘s agriculture and food policy and single-handedly accomplish the ―sustainability and profitability‖ goals that many farm organizations strive for. This may seem unbelievable but Walmart is the largest company in the world – and whatever they do will impact everyone and everything. Note that Walmart Canada‘s goal is to purchase 30 percent of its produce assortment locally on an annual basis. This is a staggering amount and an exciting opportunity for innovative Canadian growers. It‘s not certain how Walmart will continue to provide food products at the lowest price and, at the same

time, help small and medium-sized farmers get more income from their products. However, the skeptics are falling away – and given Walmart‘s impressive track record on transforming the economy - astute farm managers will keep a sharp eye for new market opportunities within their value chain. Following in the Walmart path is Safeway, who in March 2010 was the first major US chain to join Walmart‘s Sustainability Consortium as a founding member – with the goal of applying LCA systems to all food products. In Canada, Galen Weston, the young CEO of Loblaws has ads across Canada focusing on buying more from Canadian farmers – but only if the carbon ―food print‖ is lower than alternative

suppliers. (Search You Tube for ―President‘s Choice – Grown Close to Home‖). This level of ―environmental transparency‖ will transform the food production system in favour of

products with lower carbon footprints. Why? Because it will be very easy for consumers to see – and to reach for – more environmentally friendly products. LCA is not always straightforward. Sometimes it gives surprising results. A classic LCA study, published in Science in 1991 , was an analysis of the merits of paper versus plastic cups. The study showed that a single paper cup consumes 33 grams of wood (four packs of toothpicks) while a Styrofoam cup uses only about four grams of fuel oil or natural gas (the equivalent of half a small lighter). Both require a handful of chemicals but in the end the paper cup consumed 36 times more electricity and produced 580 times more wastewater. Producing a paper cup had a much higher environmental cost in terms of production and disposal than plastic cups. While this was a surprise to many, it underscores the importance of accurate calculations to determine friendly from damaging when it comes to environmental impact. Watch for Tim Horton‘s

version of roll-up-the-rim on plastic cups. As the LCA system of full disclosure becomes more widely used, Canada‘ farmers can expect to be

penalized in the market place if they leave too big a carbon footprint by using too many petroleum-based inputs. On the other hand, farmers can expect to be rewarded by the market for production systems that are able to cycle and recycle energy and nutrients and reduce their carbon footprint, such as farms with a mix of livestock and crops that serve local markets and local processors. But what about Canada‘s export based agricultural economy? While LCA is clearly not a simple

calculation, it is getting easier to use with the recent emergence of several user-friendly software programs. To date there have been only a few applications for agriculture and food.



A recent study by scientists from Lincoln University in Christchurch New Zealand reported that lamb shipped to Britain from New Zealand has a carbon footprint just 25 percent that of British lamb. This is in part because most of the electricity in New Zealand comes from renewable sources and their climate, with ample rain and sun, means that New Zealand pastures require less fertilizer than in cloudy Britain. Although it requires shipping across the globe, the transportation footprint (the food miles) of containers from New Zealand turned out to be less than the local trucking in UK. The lesson is that no one should assume that local production is always more environmentally benign or, conversely, that imports always have a high environmental cost. Global trade will continue to be important in the future but the key competitive factors will increasingly move from price and quality to include environmental impact. What does LCA hold for the family farm business model in the next ten years? Farming will become much more intensive and focus on ways to reduce the use of inputs connected to fossil fuels. As an export-based agriculture, only processed products will likely stand the carbon footprint test of long transportation distances in the future. This may mean a marked reduction in the environmental viability of exporting raw commodities – not to mention their economic viability. The alternative is a shift to a combination of more domestic consumption (i.e. import substitution), increased livestock production and exporting products with higher value-added. This livestock trend runs counter to current market signals, which includes criticism of animal production by environmental activists and the consolidation of slaughter facilities. However, the newly established national beef traceability system will give Canadian farmers and ranchers a strategic advantage in the future. It is an example of clear leadership and direct action to anticipate future market requirements. There is still export potential for specialized cereals, oilseeds and pulse varieties, especially in boutique markets for these types of ―quality-plus‖ commodities with specialized features. But they still must meet the ―food print‖ environmental test for consumer acceptance and we won‘t really know much on this

impact until more LCA analysis has been done on Canadian agriculture and food systems. The good news is that these new trends give the individual more market power. The consumer can easier get detailed information about the source of food and the environmental ―footprint‖ - and make discriminating decisions. More importantly, the farmer can have more individual market power by embracing the ―new math‖ of production such as utilizing life cycle assessment tools to demonstrate to

the consumer that the food is healthy, safe and environmentally friendly – and charge a premium for that assurance! There are BIG opportunities on the horizon for Canadian agriculture and family farms, especially those that can adapt to the sweeping changes that technology allows and consumers now demand. It will be an interesting, fast-paced ride and by the year 2020, our agriculture will look (indeed it will have to look) very different. My mother intends to live to 100 years and has the genes to do it. She figures that no generation has seen as much change as she has in her lifetime, but the reality is that all she has experienced – and more -- will easily be condensed into the next ten years. Good luck in 2011 – and keep networking!



Researching Innovative Berry Cultural Practices

Fumiomi Takeda

USDA Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV

[email protected]

Small fruits require intensive labor and chemical inputs. Improvements in cropping efficiency and out-of-season fruit production of strawberries and blackberries are needed to foster commercial expansion of these small fruits and help mitigate production factors limiting profit potential. In the current global economic market, it is difficult for the small fruit industry in the United States to maintain a profitable operation with ever-increasing competition and market share by fruits being imported from countries to the south. Dr. Takeda has conducted research to determine the efficacy of novel cultural and chemical treatments to mitigate low temperature damage, and effects of primocane and environmental manipulations to accelerate and intensify floral bud initiation and subsequent reproductive development, improve the understanding of mechanisms controlling flower development in strawberry and blackberry, and growth processes involved in regulating the flower size and inflorescence development, and analyze the effects of plant material source and environmental conditions during transplant propagation to devise management strategies aimed at producing high quality, superior yielding strawberry transplants. Research into alternative production systems and evaluation of novel germplasm materials is expected to provide new technology and to create new opportunities to produce blackberries for fresh market. Research on season extension techniques for strawberries will provide new technology for the management of strawberries without the need for pre-plant soil fumigation and also opportunities to produce strawberries from October to December in the mid-Atlantic coast region. Technology transfer efforts resulting from this project are expected to improve viability of small fruit farming and rural vitality in several regions of the United States. Fresh market blackberry production is limited by the lack of hand labor in many parts of the United States and winter damage in the northern states. Blackberry canopy was dramatically modified with a unique trellis system and cane training. Using this system, the lateral canes are laid horizontally in late winter to let the flowering shoots develop upward in spring and then brought up beyond vertical after bloom. This results in all berries being positioned on one side of the hedgerow. In 2010, growers and cooperators in Georgia and California reported that by using the RCA trellis and cane training system, a) hand harvest efficiency was improved by 30% and b) almost all culls from sunburn damage was eliminated. In 2010, sunburn injury accounted for as much as 30% loss in fresh market pack-outs in Georgia. Recent studies demonstrated that the combination of laying lateral canes close to the ground and covering the plants with rowcover during winter protected blackberry plants from freezing temperatures. The ease in which the lateral canes can be positioned horizontally and vertically by using the RCA trellis and cane training system has stimulated blackberry production in the Midwest, Scandinavia, and Uruguay. Trellis Growing System received a Phase II NIFA SBIR grant funding to commercialize and market the USDA RCA technology. TGS which makes the fiberglass RCA trellis components reported that in 2010 it has sold RCA trellis to commercial blackberry growers (1- to 40-a size) in VA, OH, IA, OK, IN, MI, GA, and KY. ARS is collaborating with North Carolina State University to study the effects of row orientations and fruit locations in plant canopy on sun-related injury and whether growing blackberries on the RCA trellis can increase fresh pack-out by reducing sunburn damage in blackberry cultivars such as Natchez and Ouachita that were recently released by the University of Arkansas and expand the production areas for new blackberry cultivars such as ‗Onyx‘ and soon-to-be-named US-OSU 1939-4 and 1793-1 from the blackberry program at USDA-ARS-Corvallis, OR.


All Berries/Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD)

Blackberry has been traditionally propagated using vegetative methods including tip layering, cane (soft and hard) and root cuttings, and tissue culture. Recently, we reported on simple, inexpensive methods for propagating blackberry plants by hardwood or floricane stem cuttings. The RCA trellis and cane training system resulted in 3 to 5 times more production of propagation material from stock plants than with traditional methods. A method for root and flower shoot induction in one-node floricane cuttings has the potential to generate 3200 miniature plants from each stock plant and transplants that will fruit in just 2 or 3 months after delivery. This makes them attractive as house plants and for growing of fresh berries on Antarctica and the moon. Collaboration with the University of Arizona Controlled Environment Agriculture is being pursued. Also, a nursery in Japan has shown an interest in this technology. Tip-layering is laborious and the ratio of new transplants produced from each stock plant is usually low. With the RCA trellis and cane training system, 50 long cane plants to stock plant ratio is possible. A patent application (12/887,851) was filed on 9/22/2010. Collaborations are being developed with private companies for furthering ARS technology on propagation and to develop new and improved products. Control of flowering is important in strawberry production and the market requirement. In Florida, early blooms are desired for sustained winter fruit production. In the mid-Atlantic coast region, growers are motivated to produce fruit for the October-December off-season market window when there is good potential for high monetary returns. Our region lacks an environment such as southern California and central Florida that is favorable for fall-to-spring fruit production. Growers in the mid-Atlantic coast region have adapted plasticulture, high tunnels, and conditioned transplants to improve early and late season strawberry yields. In the nursery, flower buds are removed from mother plants to prevent flowering and fruiting stress on the plant and to promote runner production. In California, nursery flower removal is estimated to cost $500/ac. Light is a critical environmental factor for reproductive development. Selective filtering of solar radiation by the plant cover results in a preponderance of far-red radiation relative to red light reaching plant‘s apical meristem. This shift in spectral composition of light is biologically significant and can affect both vegetative development and flower bud initiation. Plug plants produced from runner tips harvested from a bench-top system has enabled several manipulations during the rooting phase to effect the flowering time. Research demonstrated that flower initiation in some short-day type strawberry cultivars occurs even under long-day photoperiod and at high temperatures and the potential for producing strawberries from fall to winter and again in spring in the mid-Atlantic coast region. Collaboration with scientists at North Carolina State University, University of Tennessee, University of Nebraska, USDA-ARS-Beltsville, and the University of Talca in Chile is under way for evaluating transplants produced by the AFRS method in a wide range of growing environments. Research agreements were developed with TerraSphere Systems and Sensor Electronics Technology to further ARS technology on transplant production for all-season strawberry production in a highly controlled production environment and incorporate specific wavelength LEDs to affect flowering and plant pests. Bruising is the most important cause for inferior quality in machine-harvested blueberries. Commercial blueberry harvesters typically are not padded. Detached fruit drop onto metal and hard plastic surfaces, besides being impacted by beater rods. Cultivar, padded surfaces, and drop heights can affect internal fruit damage. In ‗Farthing‘, ‗Sweet Crisp‘, and ‗Scintilla‘ blueberry we evaluated the extent of internal

bruising was less when fruit was dropped from 2 and 4 feet on plastic and soft padding material (Table

1).



Table 1. Internal bruised area of blueberry fruit during machine harvest. Bruised area (%) Cultivar Surface < 25 25-50 >50 Farthing Control 84 10 6 Hard 22 46 32 Soft 64 32 4 Sweetcrisp Control 92 10 6 Hard 30 49 21

Soft 76 14 4 Scintilla Control 98 10 8 Hard 12 48 40 Soft 68 22 10

Ground loss associated with the use of mechanical harvesters can be as much as 20 to 33% of the total crop. Positioning the fruit away from the crown or constricting the crown to reduce the gap between fishscales affect the amount of fruit falling between fishscales. One-year after pruning and canopy manipulation (e.g. crown restriction and spreading the canes with a trellis), plant yield was reduced by both treatments. Two years after treatments were applied, trellised- and crown-restricted plants were as productive as non-treated plants and ground loss was slightly reduced by both treatments (Table 2). Table 2. Ground loss with the use of mechanical harvesters Treatment Fruit harvested/plant (kg) Fruit on ground (g/plant) % Ground loss Control 2.7 0.52 7.4 Crown restriction 2.8 0.42 5.7 Crown restriction and trellis

3.0 0.39 5.1

The outcome of our recent research efforts is documented in the following papers. Takeda, F. and M. Newell. 2006. A method for increasing fall flowering in short-day ‗Carmine‘ strawberry. HortScience 41:480-481. Takeda, F., D.M. Glenn, and G.W. Stutte. 2008. Red light affects flowering under long days in a short- day strawberry cultivar. HortScience 43:2245-2247. Takeda, F., G. Krewer, E. Andrews, B. Mullinix, Jr., and D.L.Peterson. 2008. Assessment of the V45 blueberry harvester on rabbiteye and southern highbush blueberries pruned to V-shaped canopy. HortTechnology. 18:130-138. Takeda, F. 2008. Recent innovations in cultural practices in the mid-Atlantic coast region of the United States: Novel system for increasing fall fruiting in short-day type strawberry cultivars and out-of-

season fruit production, p. 32-37. In: F. Takeda, D.T. Handley, and E.B. Poling (eds.). Proc. 2007 N. Amer. Strawberry Symp., Kemptville, Canada.

Takeda, F., K. Demchak, M.R. Warmund, D.T. Handley, R. Grube, and C. Feldhake. 2008. Row covers



improve winter survival and production of western trailing ‗Siskiyou‘ blackberry in the eastern

United States. HortTechnology 18:575-582. Takeda, F., D.M. Glenn, A. Callahan, J. Slovin, and G.W. Stutte. 2010. Delaying flowering in short-day strawberry transplants with photoselective nets. Int. J. Fruit Science 10:134-142. Takeda, F., T. Tworkoski, C. Finn, and C. Boyd. 2011. Blackberry propagation by non-leafy floricane

cuttings. HortTechnology 20(2):xxx-xxx (in press). Takeda, F., and J. Phillips. 2011. Horizontal cane orientation and rowcover application improve winter survival and yield of trailing ‗Siskiyou‘ blackberry. HortTechnology 20(2):xxx.xxx (in press).



Biology of Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD)

Sheila Fitzpatrick

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Agassiz, BC

[email protected]

Introduction

Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) presents a considerable threat to berry-growing in western North America. Here I review current knowledge of SWD characteristics, life cycle, overwintering stage, and behaviour throughout spring, summer and autumn. I comment briefly on trapping and insecticide use for management of this new pest.

Characteristics for Identification

The two images show identifying characteristics of SWD (Figures 1 and 2). Males have one very dark gray or black spot on the outer margin of their wings and two black combs on the inside of their front legs. The position of the wing spot and the number of spines in the combs distinguishes SWD males from those of similar species. Females lack wing spots and leg combs, but have an egg-laying device called an ovipositor at the end of the abdomen. The ovipositor tip is visible. When the entire ovipositor is withdrawn from the abdomen, spines that give the edge a serrated appearance can be seen. The spines and robust nature of the ovipositor allow females to slit the skin of ripening or ripe fruit and slide eggs beneath the fruit skin. Male and female flies are tan-coloured in summer, and have red eyes. SWD flies are about 3 mm or 1/8 inch long. Females tend to be larger than males.

Figure 2. Female SWD

Figure 1. Male SWD



Life Cycle

Much of the information presented in this section is excerpted from two reports (1934, 1939) by Tsuneo Kanzawa, Scientific Officer at the Yamashi Prefecture Agricultural Experiment Station in Japan. The reports are available from Dr. Jana Lee (USDA, Corvallis, OR, [email protected]). Mated female flies use the ovipositor to pierce the fruit skin and guide a single egg into the slit. The egg remains just beneath the fruit skin (like a sliver in a finger). Two respiratory filaments protrude through the slit and allow the egg to acquire oxygen needed for metabolic processes. One female can lay several eggs, individually, in a fruit; several females can lay eggs in the same fruit. Egg hatch depends on temperature: duration of the egg stage is longer at cool temperatures than at warmer temperatures. One first-instar larva hatches from each egg. The larva feeds by using its rasp-like mouthparts on the inside of the fruit, and breathes through spiracles at the posterior end, which often protrudes through the oviposition slit. As the larva gets bigger, it molts to a second-instar larva, which feeds until big enough to molt into a third-instar larva. Larvae are mobile, and can change location in the fruit. When the third-instar larva finishes feeding, it becomes a pupa (inside or outside the fruit), which is the stage that metamorphoses into the adult fly. The time taken to complete each stage is temperature-dependent (Figure 3). Kanzawa reported that, at 15oC, eggs hatched in just under 2 days, larvae developed to pupation in 10 to 13 days, and the pupal stage took 10 to 11 days. At 25oC, eggs hatched in 3 to 25 hours, larvae developed in 3.5 to 5.4 days, and the pupal stage took 3.7 to 5 days. At 15oC, the average time from egg-laying to emergence was 22 days 17 hours; 25oC it was 9 days 15 hours. At temperatures above 25oC, the duration can be as short as 8 days. The following diagram summarizes the progression of stages and gives approximate durations of each stage in a typical summer in the Pacific Northwest.

Figure 3. Life Cycle of SWD



Overwintering

Adult SWD flies become dark-coloured, as shown in this photo taken by Stephen A. Marshall (University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada). This SWD male fly was feeding on pollen from a late-blooming flower in Stanley Park on November 1, 2010. Kanzawa (1939) reported that some males and most females that emerged in Yamanashi Prefecture (Japan) after September overwintered. Some flies survived until June the next year, and one fly lived for 301 days. The last

overwintered adult died on July 18. To paraphrase Kanzawa‘s statements about overwintering: ―When

the minimum temperature is about 5oC at the end of November, SWD starts to prepare for overwintering. In grape orchards, SWD adults hide under the bark on the south side of the plant. Later, when temperatures become much lower, SWD moves to unknown places, possibly burrowing into soil or between stones.‖ Overwintering female SWD are usually unmated and enter a state of reproductive diapause (communication in 2010 by M. T. Kimura, Hokkaido University, Japan, to M. Damus, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) during which ovaries do not develop. The environmental cue for reproductive diapause is probably decreasing daylength, in combination with decreasing temperature (as for Drosophila melanogaster; Saunders et al., 1989, Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, USA, 86: 3748; Schmidt et al., 2005, Evolution 59: 1721). I expect the onset of diapause in SWD to vary within and between populations at different latitudes. SWD Behaviour Through Spring, Summer and Early Autumn

SWD adults can fly at approximately 10oC (Kanzawa 1939). On days when temperatures approach or exceed 10oC in winter and early spring, surviving SWD adults will take flight in search of pollen and sap food sources. Females‘ ovaries will resume development in spring. As fruit hosts become available,

females will mate with males and seek fruit to lay eggs in. From June through September and early October, expect SWD males to stake out resources that females need for feeding and egg-laying. Males are commonly observed sitting on or near fallen red, blue or black fruit, waiting for incoming receptive females. Mating and egg-laying will occur at fallen fruit or ripening fruit that is still on the plant. Expect SWD males and females to fly considerable distances from fields where fruit hosts have been harvested to fields where fruit is ripening. SWD adults are strong fliers! Almost any ripening, ripe or fallen red, blue or black fruit is at risk from attack by SWD. Raspberries, blueberries and blackberries are excellent hosts for SWD. If preferred hosts are not available, searching SWD females can choose less-preferred hosts, like tomatoes (communication from R. Driediger, Driediger Farms, BC). In early October, 2010, many summer-form SWD flies were observed on the red fruit of Japanese dogwood, Cornus kousa, in Agassiz, BC.

Trapping and Insecticide Use

SWD adults are attracted by odours of ripe or fermenting fruit. Odour baits can be used in home-made or commercially available traps to detect SWD adults. One such trap, developed in British Columbia, is the Spotted Wing Drosophila Trap (www.contech-inc.com). In May and early June 2010, more female than male SWD were caught in traps; thereafter, the female: male ratio was approximately 50:50 until late summer, when it became male-biased. Because female SWD do not have spots on their wings, it is

Figure 3. Adult SWD fly



http://www.contech-inc.com/

important to use a microscope or magnifier to examine drosophilid flies in the traps. Look for the tip of the saw-like ovipositor at the end of the female abdomen. When using registered insecticides against SWD, be aware that Drosophila species readily become resistant to insecticides. If the same insecticide is used repeatedly, individual SWD that can detoxify or tolerate the insecticide will survive. These individuals will reproduce. Their offspring will probably inherit the mechanism of resistance. Repeated use of one insecticide will select for resistant SWD.

Summary Statement

Many entomologists and IPM consultants in North America are working to develop management techniques for SWD on its numerous host plants. The Spotted Wing Drosophila website hosted by Oregon State University (http://swd.hort.oregonstate.edu/) is an excellent source of up-to-date research and extension information.



http://swd.hort.oregonstate.edu/

Spotted Wing Drosophila: What Did We Learn from Monitoring in 2010?

Tracy Hueppelsheuser

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Agassiz, BC

[email protected] Management recommendations for SWD are presently ‗best estimates‘ from literature, basic fly biology,

and what other regions are doing. We need BC data and experience to increase confidence and refine these ‗best estimates‘. A quick review of best management practices for SWD include field/farm sanitation and cull management (reduce feeding and breeding sites), and hedgerow management (some wild plants are good SWD hosts). Take an area-wide approach: think beyond your fields. Include monitoring with traps to detect SWD presence. Use well-timed sprays to control flies; remember that flies plus ripe fruit equals risk. Consider adjusting picking intervals and fruit handling procedures to decrease susceptible fruit and culls. Collaborations include industry (BC Blueberry Council, Raspberry Industry Development Council, Strawberry Growers Association, E.S. Cropconsult Ltd.) and government resources (Growing Forward/Biosecurity and Traceability, DIAP, British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency). Biology of SWD: The male fly has one dark spot on the end of each wing, and is 2-3 mm long. The female is a large fruit fly (3mm long) with a serrated ovipositor (egg laying organ) which is unique to SWD. She uses this ovipositor to cut through the skin of fruit and lay her eggs within the fruit. Most other drosophila fruit flies cannot do this and can only lay eggs in damaged or decaying fruit. The eggs, larvae, and pupae of SWD look generally like drosophila (vinegar) flies; features are not unique. Adult flies are required for species identification. Infested fruit becomes soft and collapses in the areas where larvae are feeding, and may remain on the bushes. In smooth skinned fruit like blueberries, small holes in the skin can be seen where the female cut through to lay eggs. These small holes are not evident in strawberry or raspberry. Fruit can appear bruised or dark in the infested areas. Japanese references indicate that adult flies emerge in the morning, will walk at 10oC, are most active at 20oC, and less active at 30oC. Flies live for 21-99 days, but fall-emerged adults overwinter and live until spring. Over-wintering begins in November at 5oC in sheltered places. Flies lay ~2 eggs per fruit, 7-16 per day, ~384 eggs per female. Eggs can be laid April-November in ripe fruit (Japan). CFIA climate model predicts up to 4 generations in south western British Columbia. Larvae and eggs are moved in infested fruit. Larvae do not always remain within fruit to pupate, and can pupate outside of fruit. Soil and green plant parts are not considered pathways of introduction of the pest. When does SWD show up in Fraser Valley berry fields? In order to answer this question as well as to compare two baits, we initiated trapping in early June until mid-September, 2010, in 14 blueberry fields in 6 blueberry growing regions of BC. There were 2 fields per region, 4 traps per field (2 on field edges, and 2 at least 50 m inside the field), 2 with each bait type totalling 56 traps. Scouts checked traps, re-baited, and counted flies weekly. Baits tested were yeast + sugar solution, and apple cider vinegar. Both baits had previously been demonstrated to be suitable SWD baits. SWD was first caught by June 10 in 3 regions. For the first 5 weeks (June 10-July 9) only 10-15% of traps caught any flies. Of the traps that caught flies, the average number of flies caught per week was 2-4 during July when fruit damage was first occurring in commercial blueberries (Figure 1).



Figure 1. Mean number of SWD flies caught per week for positive traps (traps that caught no SWD flies are not included) in blueberry fieldsSignificant damage reported, late July

First fruit detection reported and verified, early July

From July 23 to August 13, over 60% of traps caught SWD flies, and by August 20, over 90% of traps were catching SWD. By July 23, we were catching SWD in all 9 regions. Both baits performed equally: Both baits caught flies starting June 10, and there was no clear difference in number of total flies caught by either bait. There was a significant sex ratio bias; we caught up to 80% females from June 10 until August 6. By mid-August, sex ratio was about 50/50 until trapping stopped in mid-September. This has implications for monitoring. Scouts will need to check for female ovipositors on vinegar flies with no spots, which takes more time and requires a lab or a steady hand-held magnifier. If only males with spots are counted, SWD could be underestimated. A second trapping study endeavoured to answer the questions: Is there a difference in SWD catches within a farm, i.e. hedge vs. field edge vs. field middle? If so, can a progression into the field over time from outside of it be shown i.e. from hedge to field? Trapping was done June 9-Aug 6 in 3 raspberry field sites (Abbotsford, Langley), and July 9-Sept 6 in 3 blueberry field sites (Abbotsford, Surrey). There were 16 traps per farm, 4 per location on each farm. The 4 trap locations were: building site, hedgerow, field edge, field middle (50 m in from edge). Traps were baited with apple cider vinegar, checked once per week and bait replaced. Male and female SWD were counted and recorded. Results: The most SWD were caught in the bush near fields with wild hosts (Rubus spp.) within, followed by mixed vegetation hedgerows with blackberry or cedar, then field edges, then field middles, building sites with hosts, and finally building sites with no hosts. This gradient was most evident in June (raspberry), and not as clear in July (blueberry). Does SWD move from hedges into berry fields? In June in 2 out of 3 raspberry farms, there was a 1 week lag



between first SWD catch (in hedge or building site) and when SWD was caught in the field. However, this lag was not apparent in July during blueberry trapping. For practical purposes, growers should expect that from June onwards, if SWD are being caught outside the field there is a good chance they will be inside the field, too. How many flies are too many? Based on this trapping study, a starting place for initiating sprays is when 10% or more traps catching SWD, 2-3 SWD flies per trap, and ripening fruit (raspberry, blueberry). The first occurrence of this was in mid- to late June, but only for some fields. For other fields, it was later. CAUTION: This is only one year of information. We need more years of information to see if this guideline will remain consistent. Remember: flies + ripening fruit = RISK. Larvae can be monitored for in harvested fruit. Called the ‗Fruit dunk‘ or ‗larvae float-out‘ method, this

can be used to assess fruit quality before receiving, packing or shipping fruit. For use in BC blueberries, I set out to test which solutions recover the most larvae, are easiest to use, and most cost effective. I chose test solutions based on what was being used or talked about in the industry (Table 1). Table 1. Treatment solutions Treatments With 20 L water 1 CFIA Sugar 3.5 Kg brown sugar 2 Low Sugar 1 Kg granulated sugar 3 Salt 1.27 Kg table salt 4 Tap water --- Ripe fruit was put in flat containers (~80g, or 30 fruit), solution was added, the mixture was stirred, and the number of larvae that floated to the top were counted a few minutes afterward. After the first count, the berries were squished, the mixture stirred a second time, and then a second count of floating larvae was done. This was replicated 5 times. A confounding factor in counting floating larvae effectively is if the solution causes the fruit to float. Floating fruit makes it is more difficult to see the floating larvae. Sunken fruit and floating larvae is optimal. Assessments of whether the fruit floated were done for each solution. Results: Larvae floated up almost immediately in ―CFIA sugar‖ and ―Salt‖ solutions. The ―CFIA sugar‖

and ―Salt‖ always resulted in the most larvae floating to the top, and clearly better than just water or the ―low sugar‖ solution. Squishing berries didn‘t appear to increase the number of larvae floating up.

Squishing actually appeared to decrease the number of larvae, possibly because the larvae were destroyed. Observations on fruit floating or sinking revealed that the ―CFIA sugar‖ solution caused the fruit to float.

The ―low sugar‖ solution caused the fruit and larvae to disperse throughout the sample vessel. The ―Salt‖

solution caused most fruit to sink and most larvae to float. Tap water caused both the fruit and larvae to sink. Conclusion for larval monitoring in blueberry with float out solutions: Salt solution gives consistent results with limited drawbacks. Salt is cheaper than sugar, less messy, and you need less of it. There is no need to squish blueberry fruit. Winter trapping with apple cider vinegar for SWD began in late October until December 31. It has resumed again in late January and will continue until April. Trapping commenced on 4 farms (Delta, Surrey, Langley, Abbotsford) with a history of SWD: 2 farms with blueberry fields, 2 with raspberry fields. There were 6 traps per farm, 2 per location. The 3 locations on each farm were: hedgerow, within the field (at least 50 m from the edge), and against a building site (East or South facing wall). Traps were checked every 10 days and bait replaced. Males and females were counted and recorded. Results: Trap



catches were consistently higher in hedgerows than in adjacent field areas or building sites (lowest catches) on all farms in October. The magnitude of trap catches varied considerably from farm to farm but the trends were the same. Mean SWD fly counts from all four farms and all trapping locations decreased steadily from October 28-December 30. Freezing temperatures from November 18-25 resulted in a sharp decrease in mean trap counts. SWD trap catches began to rebound slightly from December 1-30 in all trapping locations, particularly in hedgerows, where numbers rebounded sooner and to higher levels. Narrow hedgerows with limited vegetation had fewer SWD in traps than thick multi-species hedgerows or bush. No SWD flies were caught after December 1 in building sites. A low level of flies was caught in berry fields in late December. Is there a relationship between trap catches and level of blueberry fruit infestation? To address this question, fruit collection was done 3 times around the trapping sites in 10 blueberry fields, 1 week apart, during harvest (August). The fruit samples were kept at 20oC for 15 days, frozen, and then the number of emerged flies counted. Results: In at least the 3 fields shown, there is a very close relationship between the average number of SWD flies caught in traps and the average number of SWD flies emerging from fruit. Therefore trap catches may be a useful predictor of SWD risk to fruit quality. In summary, what have we learned? Hedgerows and bushes are significant SWD refuges. Monitoring with wet traps is a useful tool for determining SWD populations and can help with treatment decisions. There is a relationship between trap catches and infestation levels in ripe blueberry fruit. Larvae populations can be efficiently monitored for in harvested fruit. Plans for 2011: Continued collaboration in order to monitor in raspberry, blueberry, strawberry fields with traps and fruit collections. The intention is to start earlier (May), and trap in different fields. Monitoring should be done in grapes; there isn‘t a good understanding of SWD impact on grapes. So far,

however, wine grapes damage has not been reported. Outreach and awareness activities with industry will continue including update of info-sheets and websites. Events such as industry meetings will be planned for spring and summer. Any ideas for outreach or events are welcome. Basic monitoring guidelines for SWD: Buy traps or make your own. Place at least 2 traps per field, put on field edges by mid-May. Check traps weekly: Count SWD flies, replace apple cider vinegar, record the number of SWD flies. To verify fly identification, or learn how to identify them, contact the BC Ministry of Agriculture, your consultant, or a web identification guide. SWD Monitoring and Identification Useful Web Links:

• SWD Pest Alert: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm • Monitoring: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_monitoring.pdf • Fly Identification: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_identification.pdf • SWD Field Guide from BC Blueberry Council



http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd.htm

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_monitoring.pdf

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_identification.pdf

Insecticide Efficacy: Trials and Grower Experience

Lynell Tanigoshi, Bev Gerdeman and Hollis Spitler

Mount Vernon Northwestern Washington Research & Extension Centre, Washington State University, [email protected]

Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) was first detected in the United States in California beginning in 2008 and by 2009 it had spread northward into the Pacific Northwest, which includes Oregon and Washington in the United States, as well as British Columbia in Canada and as far east as Florida, North Carolina, New Jersey and Michigan. In 2010, growers and researchers alike acquired experience and knowledge of the pest population dynamics as the season progressed. Following our first entire year working with SWD, we now have a better understanding of its economic injury potential. While there were no reports of damage to Washington‘s commercial strawberry in 2010, both red raspberry and blueberry experienced measurable mid-season and late economic injury, respectively. Spotted wing drosophila is now the key pest for both red raspberry and blueberry in the state of Washington. Red raspberry industry consensus, following the 2010 season, concluded management options were adequate and susceptible gaps could be eliminated through adjustments in timing of insecticide applications to ensure future season-long protection. Successful management requires early season detection of adult SWD in apple cider vinegar traps followed by rapid application of a conventional insecticide to ripening fruits. Subsequent applications of protective treatments will be necessitated when traps indicate post-application populations approaching provisional economic tolerance levels as determined by growers for their respective cultivars and associated horticultural and environmental conditions. Grower‘s must rotate chemical classes

through a SWD generation of ~14 days to delay resistance development while being cognizant of REI, PHI and MRL‘s for their target markets. Dawn or dusk applications are preferred for good coverage on

fruits and foliage pending environmental conditions. Our 2010 research efforts at the WSU Mount Vernon Northwestern Washington REC to manage SWD in strawberry, red raspberry and blueberry focused on: 1) Lab and field efficacy of labeled small fruit insecticides, including experimental mode of action (MOA) compounds for adult contact, systemic larval and ovicidal activity; 2) determining chemical rotational partners and combinations to minimize resistance selection; and 3) determining timing to initiate a protective treatment program at <1 SWD adult/apple vinegar cider trap during preharvest ripening and subsequent intervals during harvest. Status of SWD on strawberry. SWD trapping in strawberry field sites in western Washington in 2010 was similar from south to north locations. Fourteen sites in NW counties and 33 sites in SW counties trapped SWD adults after harvest between the 6th and 27th of July with highest counts occurring on the 3rd to 10th of August. Simply, overwintered SWD adults were not problematic as expected during the June harvest period for June bearing strawberries in western Washington. Status of SWD on red raspberry. Red raspberry SWD trap counts plotted along with berry development indicated overlapping, susceptible periods of fruit ripening, when protective adulticidal contact applications are required. It also indicated SWD were present in the WSU NWREC red raspberry field long before berries were fully formed. The 2010 red raspberry harvest was free of maggots in berries until the latter part of harvest. Growers who followed the suggested guidelines of keeping berries protected with the traditional clean-up spray, and twice afterwards (7-10 day intervals, followed by a late season application), incurred little economic injury. Growers who procrastinated, or missed the 2nd or 3rd cover spray, experienced economic injury and downgraded product. Following a clean-up spray on a mature ‗Meeker‘ field on 24 June 2010 by a Skagit County farm using

Brigade at 0.1 lb(AI)/acre, fifty ripe berries were sampled after 1 and 3 days posttreatment. These fruits



were isolated individually in 2 oz ventilated condiment containers and mortality measured 24 hours later. On 5 July 2010, a Whatcom County farmer applied a tank mix of 0.1 lb(AI)/acre bifenthrin and 1.5 lb lb(AI)/acre Malathion 8EC in 135 gallons/acre, 350 psi and 3 mph with a 300 gallon hydraulic sprayer. Fifty ripe berries were sampled after 1, 3 and 8 DAT and isolated in ventilated condiment containers as above. Both grower applied fields indicated precision applications with our field-based bioassays measuring 70 and 100 percent mortality for the Skagit County site and 94, 98 and 70 percent mortality for the Whatcom County site. The failure to apply a protective treatment during mid-harvest by another Skagit County grower for SWD adults, resulted in an economic level of fruit contamination during the last picking. Because of the cool and wet spring and the concomitant red raspberry fruit infestation, the commercial and fresh market industries diverted much of that fruit to puree and frozen loose packs. Months of lab conducted dip bioassays with multiple iterations of arena designs and ventilation systems have provided us with a reliable laboratory protocol when confining the very active SWD adults to 2 and 4 oz ventilated condiment containers. Based on 2009 lab studies, we focused our 2010 field efficacy trials on 11 different insecticides. These include the OP Malathion, three pyrethroids (Brigade, Asana, Mustang Max), three neonicotinoids (Provado, Actara, Assail), the spinosyn Delegate, the diamide Altacor and two unregistered combinations of a neonicotinoid and pyrethroid (Endigo, Leverage). The pyrethroids, Malathion, Delegate and both experimental combination formulations consistently performed better than the other compounds as contact and ingestion toxicants. The adulticidal potency of the neonicotinoids, although slow, is justified due to their potential curative activity, targeting eggs and larvae inside the red raspberry, which compliments their combination with the other mode of action compounds. Status of SWD on blueberry. Five bioassays conducted from December 2009 to March 2010 with fruit purchased in food markets were combined to provide a grand average of the means discussed below. The insecticides bioassayed are registered for blueberry and included three pyrethroids (Brigade 2EC/WSB, Mustang Max, Asana), three neonicotinoids (Actara, Assail, Provado), the spinosyn Delegate, and OP Malathion. The average 24-hour mortality of 125 SWD adults of both sexes for the listed insecticides showed the contact activity of the three neonicotinoids was significantly less than the other three MOA insecticides at the 5% level. Under lab conditions, mortality for the neonicotinoids was 59-80% compared with other insecticides at 94-100%. Fully ripened ‗Duke‘ berries were collected on 15 July and dipped for 5 sec and air-dried in a climate-controlled greenhouse at 65-78 0F. Twelve treatments were replicated 5 times with 2 treated fruit per 2 oz ventilated condiment cup. Three adults were placed in each arena with a cotton water wedge and mortality assessed after 24 hours. High field rates of Brigade, Asana, Mustang Max, Delegate and Malathion provided 100% contact mortality within 1 DAT. Mortality was: 94% (Assail), 75% (Actara), 36% (Provado), 73% (Altacor), 88% (unregistered Leverage), 79% (unregistered Endigo) and 7% (UTC). These data indicate blueberry recommended insecticides would provide quick knockdown as contact harvest treatments by ground or aerial applicators or in combination with the systemic neoniotinoids. Trials were conducted near La Conner, WA in a late season ‗Liberty‘ field. Plots were single plants

replicated three times in a RCBD. Treatments were applied with a CO2 backpack sprayer equipped with an 8002VS nozzle, delivering 100 gal/ac at 60 psi. All treatments contained the R-56® spreader sticker. Ten mature blueberries were picked at 1 and 7 DAT from each plot and evaluated for adult mortality after 24 hours. Two berries were placed in 2 oz ventilated condiment cups that included a cotton water wedge and one of the treated berries cut in half to provide nutrients. A single adult SWD was placed in each arena for a total of 15 individuals per treatment. Rain occurred after 1 DAT and possibly reduced efficacy of our applications. Mortality for Malathion (100%), Delegate (80%) and Brigade (80%) were significantly different from the neonicotinoids Provado (53%), Actara (20%) and Assail (13%) after 1 DAT. Delegate (80%) and Malathion (67) continued to show good field residual after 7 DAT. Mortality for the UTC was 7% at both posttreatment dates.



Northern highbush, the most popular commercial Pacific Northwest varieties, have the longest fruit season (i.e., late June-September) of all small fruits in the region. Concurrent red raspberry, wild Himalayan blackberry and late season caneberries provided a reservoir for re-infestation throughout the blueberry season in 2010. The 2-5 weeks ripening period for each variety makes Northern highbush particularly vulnerable to SWD attack, necessitating prolonged spray coverage. Even though our lab bioassays and field trials provided growers with a list of 11 different compounds representing 5 toxicity categories effective against SWD in blueberry, periodic applications of these protective cover treatments to mature plantings becomes a major challenge. The heavy berry-laden branches restricted row width and hampered traditional ground applications. Growers responded to this logistical challenge by employing helicopter applications. Future strategies include, additional trellis wires to draw in berry-laden branches, adjusting future row spacing, investment in hydraulic lift sprayers capable of applying 5-10 row boom applications and investigations into sprinkler/misting applications. As industry develops more accurate methods for larval detection such as the salt disclosing solution currently being used to test harvested berries, farmers will benefit from actively monitoring and evaluating their own SWD management methods to prevent substantial losses and maintain consumer confidence. Some of the pesticides discussed in this (publication or presentation) were tested under an experimental use permit granted by WSDA. Application of a pesticide to a crop or site that is not on the label is a violation of pesticide law and may subject the applicator to civil penalties up to $7,500. In addition, such an application may also result in illegal residues that could subject the crop to seizure or embargo action by WSDA and/or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It is your responsibility to check the label before using the product to ensure lawful use and obtain all necessary permits in advance.



Spotted Wing Drosophila Management in BC Berry Crops

Mark Sweeney

BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

The 2010 growing season was the first full season experience with the spotted wing Drosophila (SWD) and berry growers in BC were not really sure what to expect. The area-wide monitoring program first detected flies in early June and counts remained fairly low for most of the month. However, numbers increased dramatically after mid-July and by mid-August exploded – counts of several hundred flies per trap were not uncommon. The June strawberry crop was early enough to avoid the SWD population increase and escaped without treatment or injury. Raspberries were initially protected by the pre-harvest clean up treatment, but those growers who neglected a second spray in mid-July ended up with some level of larval infestation. Early blueberry varieties such as Duke were mostly unaffected, but Bluecrop and Elliot and other mid-season and late varieties, if not sprayed, were prone to infestation. A few growers and packers learned the hard way that this pest is a real, serious threat from which fruit needs to be protected. In spite of considerable research efforts throughout the western fruit growing regions, much is yet to be learned about the behaviour of this pest. Of great concern is the fact that adult flies continue to be trapped through the winter in spite of several spells of temperatures below -10 C. This combined with the fact that the 2011 season ended with trap counts over a100 times higher than the season before is cause for concern for the 2011 crops. Pest pressure could well be heavier than in 2010. In addition, numbers may build to damaging levels earlier in the season and present a greater threat to early maturing crops like June strawberries and early raspberries and blueberries. Growers need to be prepared for this onslaught and should be developing a management strategy. There are four components to a SWD management plan. Control will be most effective if all growers within an area participate. • Monitoring

• Alternate Host Management

• Sanitation

• Pesticides

• Monitoring

Widespread field monitoring was conducted throughout the Fraser Valley, the Okanagan and other fruit growing areas. This area-wide trapping will be continued in 2011. From a research standpoint this has been extremely valuable to understand the insect‘s life history and population

dynamics. However, not enough is known about behavior and thresholds to make this a really useful management tool. Growers are certainly encouraged to work with their consultants and/or field reps to trap in their fields. But, once SWD adults are detected on your farm or within your area, and if ripe fruit, is present, a spray program should be begun to protect the fruit through the end of harvest. As was done last year trapping results will be available in the weekly blueberry IPM newsletter and Tom Peerbolt‘s Small Fruit Report.

• Sanitation

SWD adults are particularly attracted to over-ripe and rotten fruit. California raspberry growers have found the careful removal and disposal of cull fruit has reduced pest pressure. On hand-



harvested farm, this may be feasible and advisable. However, in mechanically harvested fields there is no really practical way to dispose of dropped fruit.

• Alternate Hosts

SWD has an amazingly wide host range. In the Fraser Valley there are many crops and non-crop plants that can provide breeding and feeding sites. Early fruiting plants such as Indian plum, salmon berry and seedling cherries are a concern. Their early fruit provides a site for the overwintering generation to increase before crops begin to ripen. Late fruiting berries such as Himalayan and evergreen blackberries are a concern because they are very invasive and widespread, providing food and breeding sites from July through November. In addition, blackberries are believed to be a key overwintering site. It is certainly not feasible or maybe even desirable to eradicate these plants from our fruit growing area. However, it is probably beneficial for growers to make an effort to control these alternate hosts in areas immediately adjacent to fields. They can be mowing or treated with herbicides such glyphosate in the fall. Herbicides should not be applied near to watercourses.

• Pesticides

Until other effective control strategies are developed, insecticide sprays will be the key method of control. In 2011, emergency registrations of four products were obtained – Ripcord, Malathion, Delegate and Entrust (for organic fields). Based on research trials and field experience, these products are believed to be effective in preventing fruit infestation. Sprays are applied when flies are detected and when ripe fruit is first present. Adult fruit are the target – flies are killed by direct spray and by being exposed to spray residues on leaves and fruit. It is important to get spray penetration through the canopy, but required water volumes should be less than what would be required for control of other foliar pests and diseases. Flies can rapidly re-infest fields from outside, so spray protection through the harvest period on 7-14 day intervals is required. Rotation of products is essential to limit buildup of pest resistance. It is advisable to apply a post-harvest spray to fields if they are adjacent to later crops as the fruit remaining unharvested or on the ground can act as SWD breeding sites. Strawberries and raspberries are relatively easy to spray with conventional equipment. However, mature blueberries represent a major challenge as the heavy canopy makes it very difficult to access the field without causing significant damage and fruit drop. Growers need to come up with some creative approaches. Larger growers are considering investing in high clearance field sprayers capable of straddling a row and covering up to 10 rows at a pass. Custom sprayers are another option – there is some capacity in the Fraser Valley which could be expanded. For smaller growers, small air-blast sprayers with small, narrow-profile shielded tractors or even ATVs may work to allow access with minimal crop damage. Some growers are using cannon sprayers, but there are concerns with obtaining adequate coverage and controlling drift. Helicopter spraying is being used in the US, but coverage is a concern and aerial will not likely be an option in the Fraser Valley. For ground spraying, better pruning and training is required to keep fruiting area upright to allow improved field access. For 2011, emergency registrations are again being sought. Further information will be available later this spring and will be posted at: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_management.pdf



http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/swd_management.pdf

Keys to Effective SWD Management

Tom Peerbolt

Peerbolt Crop Management, Portland, OR [email protected]

Introduction

Toward the end of the 2009 growing season, Oregon berry and stone fruit growers reported damage by the previously unknown Spotted Wing Drosophila (SWD), which resulted in crop rejections and economic losses throughout the western part of the state. It is believed that SWD originates from eastern Asia. It was recorded in Hawaii in 1988 and in California in 2008, where some growers reported between 25 and 50% crop losses in caneberries, and some cherry growers reporting near total crop loss. There were also reports of crop loss in Washington and British Columbia in late season berry crops. The sudden appearance of this pest in Oregon fields presented growers with no easy, reliable methods for judging the potential economic risk facing them during the forthcoming (2010) season. However, as information was gathered, our research community engaged, and the pest‘s impacts in other regions became known, it became clear that there existed a high potential of very significant losses to berry and stone fruit crops. Development of Response Plan in Oregon

In early 2010, Eric Pond, an organic grower of blueberries, and Stuart Olson, a Willamette Valley berry and stone fruit grower, rallied a group of growers, consultants, and researchers (at Oregon State University and the USDA-ARS Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research) to seek emergency funding from the state of Oregon with the following objectives:

• Scout Oregon berry and stone fruit crop fields for the presence of SWD in 2010. • Study appropriate management materials. • Alert and educate Oregon growers.

In listening to and reviewing these grower and industry concerns, the Oregon legislature responded by approving $225,000 for ―Short Term Disaster Support‖ to fund an industry/USDA/OSU cooperative

effort. This report reviews the progress and how the above objectives were met. 2010 SWD Scouting and Information Dissemination Plan

One of the first elements deemed necessary to effectively respond to SWD was a data collection and retrieval system that would allow growers and researchers to monitor real time population dynamics in Oregon berry and stone fruit fields and orchards from April 1 through August 31, 2010. The following steps were taken to accomplish this:

• A draft of scouting and monitoring protocols was developed. • The hiring of five seasonal scouts who would monitor approximately 150 locations, with each

scout assumed to be monitoring 30 locations. Three scouts covering the northern and central Willamette Valley were hired and supervised by PCM. One scout each was hired and supervised by the OSU Southern Oregon and the OSU Mid Columbia Extension and Research Center administrators.



• Scouts, most with undergraduate degrees in agricultural related fields, were trained to monitor fields and service the traps weekly.

• Over 100 Oregon growers, representing a wide range of Oregon berry fields and stone fruit orchards, were enlisted to participate by having SWD monitoring traps installed in their fields.

• Grower/field anonymity was strictly maintained by using field/site codes and designating their location only by their county quadrant (e.g. SW Multnomah, NE Marion).

• An online database system was developed, implemented, and managed by Peerbolt Crop Management (PCM) that would make it possible for scouts to enter their monitoring results on the same day they scouted the fields. It also archived this data. http://www.peerbolt.com/swd .

• This data was immediately available to OSU to present in real-time charts and available to the general public, aiding in decision-making regarding management of SWD.

• Researchers were also provided with password protected access to the real-time data in spreadsheet form to view and/or download for their use.

Number of Fields Monitored for SWD During the 2010 Season & General Maps of Area Covered

Report on Monitoring Program for Northern and Central Willamette Valley

(Three Full-Time Project-Funded Scouts)

Peerbolt Crop Management supervised three scouts funded by this project in addition to three scouts funded by their grower and processor clients. These scouts covered the fruit growing areas from western Washington County to eastern Multnomah County in the north, and down the I-5 corridor on both sides of the Willamette River as far south as Corvallis. Not knowing how early SWD would emerge in 2010, an emphasis was placed on having scouts trained and in place by April, especially in cherries and strawberries, the earliest crops that could potentially be affected. As harvests finished in some crops and ripening, vulnerable fruit appeared in others, the monitoring program migrated into those crops most at risk, while leaving most of the fields that had completed harvest.

Crop # of fields

Blueberry 130

Strawberry 88

Blackberry 70

Raspberry 60

Grape 29

Peach 29

Cherry 27

Black Rasp. 7

Him. Black. 3

Plum 3

Kiwi 3

Fig 2

Boysenberry 1

Tayberry 1

Gooseberry 1

Salmonberry 1

In 2010 swd

database

454 fields in total



http://www.peerbolt.com/swd

The first issues confronting scouts in the fields was proper identification, for it soon became apparent that there were a number of SWD "look alikes" showing up in the traps. Female SWD, in particular, were difficult to distinguish from some of the other species. A half-day training session to strengthen SWD identification skills was set up at ODA with Josh Vlach. A second issue that compounded the identification problem was the trap design that originally included a yellow sticky card (see photo). Female SWD in particular were very difficult to identify on these cards. Consensus was reached to discard the sticky card in the trap design and opt for a liquid-only attractant design to increase our ability to correctly identify SWD.

Several SWD population dynamic factors were identified by the monitoring program that greatly aided growers in minimizing crop loss and insecticide application. However, it is important to remember that these factors come from a single season of data collection only. Degree day accumulation, overwintering conditions, and many other seasonal factors will greatly influence SWD in ways that are as yet unknown. The 2010 growing season was one of the coolest seasons in recorded history and this most likely impacted SWD numbers and overall population dynamics in the fields.

General Comments on the 2010 Season Monitoring Program:

• SWD populations were very low in June-bearing strawberries and growers did not need to treat. • Wild cherry trees were quickly identified as an early SWD host that could be a source of the

insect‘s spread into nearby fields. • Cherry is a preferred host that needs careful monitoring to prevent infestations. • There were some SWD ‗hot spots‘ in the early season with moderately high trap counts, while

most fields had very low numbers well into July. • Raspberries and mid-season blackberries, which began harvest in early to mid-July, found that a

program of an insecticide application just before harvest (standard practice) plus an application in late July/early August was adequate for management in most cases. Very little SWD losses were reported in these crops.

• During July 20 to 25, SWD began reaching population levels that threatened to cause major damage to ripening fruit, and regular spray programs were initiated by commercial growers to mitigate the threat.

• Raspberries appear to be a preferred host. Cherries and blackberries are also very attractive to the pest. Blueberries are a host, but are not as preferred as caneberries. Strawberries are susceptible but were not at as great a risk as others during the 2010 season.

Comments On Economic Losses from SWD in 2010:

• In northern Washington & B.C. it appears there were a lot more contaminant problems with SWD in machine harvested raspberries than in Oregon due to later harvests, picking directly into barrels & SWD‘s preference for raspberries over other berries. (Cherries are also ‗preferred‘



• It looks like, around July 20th-25th, SWD populations reached a critical level from California all the way into B.C. causing losses through to the end of the season, to varying degrees in strawberries, blackberries, blueberries and raspberries.

• U-Pick, fresh market, organic, backyard/hobby growers were more heavily impacted in Oregon due to resistance/inability to use a full spectrum of insecticide tools in a timely manner.

• Some indirect economic SWD losses were caused by: • Chemical damage from certain tank mixes and/or application methods. • Overseas rejection of fruit due to MRL problems. • Overuse/miss-timed insecticide applications.

• Sales losses due to public perceptions?? No way to accurately measure. Additional Comments:

• If this year‘s degree day models run a week or two earlier than last year, there would be a much greater risk of major issues in the Willamette Valley.

• We need much better monitoring tools. Right now there‘s no way to set thresholds. It‘s mostly by

just ‗presence/no presence‘ of both the insect and ripening fruit leading to calendar sprays. • Short term—we‘ve got the insecticides that can give adequate SWD management although organic

growers are in a much bigger bind. • Mid to long term—resistance management is a very serious concern. This is an insect that goes

through many generations each year with very high ability for developing resistance. • The EPA buffer strips lawsuit issue could become a major driver in limiting SWD management

options. • Marketing issues related to public perceptions, MRL‘s and customer resistance to insecticide

applications are also major factors to manage to limit economic losses.

Raspberry--60 fields

Strawberry--88 fields

Blackberry--70 fields

Blueberry--130 fields

Total Trap Counts from Scouting Database

(Oregon & SW Washington fields)

April through August

Very differentscales !

5,000

800

100

80

Red= Females Blue = Males

Begin harvestEnd harvest

Duke

Marion

Meeker

Totem




• Similar overall pattern between

crops:

o Females appear first.

o Geometric increase in late

season.

• However—very significant crop

differences in total trap numbers.

• Insecticide applications apparently

suppressed numbers during caneberry

harvests.

• Any late season crops were at much

greater risk.



The Ever Evolving Food Safety Industry

Phil Watney

BCAGRI, Abbotsford, BC [email protected]

Food Safety is Changing:

• Increasing marketplace demand • Government regulations are changing • The rise of industrial 3rd party standards

New approaches are needed. • There are new opportunities to make money • Food safety can be sustainable and profitable

20th

Century Food Safety Model: • Safety by end product testing/inspection by government • Media attention on recalls in newspaper/TV • Increasing public health concern • Increased government (re)action • Increased regulation and inspection • Increased cost and effort for suppliers

20th

Century Food Safety Outcomes:

• Mixed or reluctant industry uptake • Food Safety Systems put in place, but not designed to last or pay for themselves

21st Century Food Safety Pressures

• Globalization

(Distribution, cold chain, emerging pathogens, foreign food) • New technologies

(HPP, MAP and other packaging advances) • Public pressure on government

(Media + internet = empowered customers)

• Government continues to increase regulations

(L. monocytogenes) • International trade requirements are rising

(BTA, FSMA)

• Recalls take place immediately in public on the internet


Small Scale Food Processing

• Larger Retailers are asking suppliers for proof of food safety

(i.e.: audits, HACCP certification) • A difficult economy requires finding competitive advantages and cost savings, not expenses!

21st Century Food Safety Outcomes

• Many companies must meet 3rd party standards to make sales, regardless of government

regulations. • Companies which put in place FS are getting sales (7:1 return on food safety investment) • However…this competitive advantage won‘t last forever • Many firms make the sale but do not design the FS system to be self-sustaining or return on

investment. The Future of Food Safety • Food safety is here to stay

• You will use FS to get new customers

(gluten-free, non-GMO, peanut-free, allergen-free) • Operational savings will be a big gain

(reducing waste, increased consistency, JIT, etc.)

• Government regulations will align more closely with industrial GMP/HACCP/GFSI systems

• The list of commonly accepted HACCP standards will be shortened (GFSI)

• Food safety standards will have more “whole circle” requirements

(sustainability, carbon footprint, animal welfare, social welfare, etc.)

• Food safety will become a tool to make money as well as safe food

I would like to acknowledge the following:

• LMHIA • BC Ministry of Agriculture • Agriculture & Agrifood Canada • Every food manufacturer who feeds me


Small Scale Food Processing

Value Chains: What‟s in it for Me, and You and Us

Bill Henderson

Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC, Victoria, BC [email protected]

It comes as no surprise that the BC agri-food industry is recognized as one of the most diverse in North America and is composed of mostly small operators at every sector and level of the food supply chain. While, on the surface, this diversity may look like a good thing it means that the fragmentation of the industry has left the majority of farmers with no economy of scale, no product differentiation, and little room to increase profits. They operate as ―price- takers‖ (whoever you sell to in the supply chain sets

your price for you) with no competitive advantage in the market place. This is a significant factor that makes it extremely difficult for our small and mid-size growers to compete in the industrialized global food system. The consumer doesn‘t realize that our farmers are in a fight for market share with the big global players, but a scan of the shelves and coolers in even the smallest BC town uncovers food products from the other side of the globe, directly competing on price, which is their competitive advantage, with local products from just down the road. But all businesses are in competition, either with other nearby businesses, or with businesses in more distant locations. If businesses are not the low price provider, (or don‘t want to be) they must create a competitive advantage of some kind if they are to succeed in the long term. As the market, technology and other aspects of the business environment change, each player must adapt in order to create and keep their competitive advantage. Agriculture businesses are no different but have been slow to move away from the lowest price, commodity mindset and into the realm of differentiating their products. There is an old truism that states; "If you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting". We should add that in today‘s fast moving world, you are likely to get even less

than ―what you were getting‖. Contributing to the gradual shrinkage of BC‘s family farms is the

frustrating struggle to earn a decent living in commodity agriculture with a ―price-taker‖ position and tiny

margins. Too often, this leads to a ―get big or get out‖ race to the bottom. Enter value chains.....but just what are they? There are value chains in every industry throughout our economy (example below: commercial fisheries) and they share a common business model based on collaboration. Companies communicating and working together to produce products that are in demand.


Value Chains

More specifically, an agri-food value chain is a partnership between producers, processors and marketers created to improve quality, increase efficiencies and to develop and market differentiated products with the result that all partners are more profitable. Value chains allow members to be more competitive by seeking market opportunities and by linking production and processing requirements to meet consumer demand.

The following chart illustrates the difference between the traditional ―supply chain‖ method of doing

business and a ―value chain‖. Although the differences in all eight categories are important, the core

concept is that the consumer will buy more, and pay a premium for, a product that meets their preferences. Producers who decide what‘s good for the market place (because that‘s what they grow) are

destined to remain in a supply chain relationship with the commodity market competing on price alone.

Value Chain Traditional

Communication Extensive Little or None Value Focus Value/Quality Cost/Price Product Differentiated Product Commodity System Driver Consumer Pull Production Push Organizational Structure Interdependent Independent Business Relationships Collaborative Adversarial Source of Supply Known and Traceable Anonymous Sources of Risk Relationships Market and Price

Here‘s a little quiz. What do the terms fresh, tasty, local, safe, natural, sustainable, family farm and traceability have in common? Right! They‘re all features that today‘s consumer looks for when they buy

food. If you can satisfy some of those demands with a high quality product and a compelling ―story‖, you

can command a premium at the cash register.


Value Chains

Creating a competitive advantage; that‘s where value chains shine. In a value chain, a product is produced, processed, and marketed by companies with expertise in each area. Partner companies communicate at a deep level to ensure that information gets to the links in the chain where the consumer-driven changes need to be made. The partnerships created in a value chain mean the risks and rewards are shared across the chain, allowing for a quick response to changing consumer needs while keeping the value of the product high. Information is far cheaper than inventory.

The bottom line goal of a value chain is higher profits for all value chain partners. The task is to

create a “competitive advantage” that capitalizes on market opportunities and delivers a quality

product that consumers demand.

So, here are the first few steps in building a value chain:

• Find out exactly what consumers of your type of product really want. They are the final arbiters of value and will ultimately determine who wins or loses the competitive battle for their dollars.

• Find out if YOU can provide what that consumer wants. If not, what changes have to be made; by you...or by others along the existing ―supply chain‖ in which you operate.

• Identify and approach other businesses in your supply chain that you could work closely with to make value-driven changes.

• Create a small team of like-minded individuals and begin to plan. Resources: call Bill Henderson, Investment Agriculture Foundation‘s Value Chain Coordinator, at 250 356-1675 for a free ―situational assessment‖ of your products and your business‘ value chain potential.


Value Chains

Root Weevil in Blueberry: a Hidden Threat?

Tracy Hueppelsheuser

BC Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford, BC

[email protected]

Why worry about Weevils? Weevil larvae feed on and girdle the roots, causing plants to decline, reduce yields, and can kill young plants. Weevil Adults feed on new growth, which can kill new buds and branches. Washed blueberry roots will reveal extensive ‗tracking‘ from larval feeding. Adults feed on one-year old wood and will girdle stems and branches. This can kill new plants. Blueberry plant crowns can be girdled from weevil feeding, particularly if the plants are buried too deep. The BC Ministry of Agriculture undertook a small survey in 2007 to determine the main species of weevil that blueberry growers were experiencing. Sixteen fields throughout the Fraser Valley were monitored weekly. Of these, 43% of the fields had confirmed weevils. Four species were recovered in summer: Black vine weevil, Strawberry root weevil, Rough strawberry weevil, Obscure root weevil. An early spring feeding species, Clay coloured weevil, was also detected. The following is general weevil life cycle information. Weevils have 4 life stages, and each species has slightly different timing of each life stage. Any management approach needs to consider the unique timing of the species of weevil being dealt with. Weevils are primarily nocturnal, feeding in the evening and night and seek cover during the hot daytime temperatures in the soil, or deep in the plant foliage. Weevils do not fly, but are strong walkers. There is one generation a year. Adults can live for more than one year. Of the main weevil species we are seeing, weevils are female, and lay viable eggs without mating (there are other weevil species that do have both males and females; just not the ones of concern in berries). There are 6-7 larval instars. Weevils spend about 10 months in the soil as larvae and pupae. Which weevils do what damage and when? Clay Coloured Weevil: new adults emerge from the soil in March and feed on new buds and bark on 1-year old wood. Adults are relatively inactive in the summer; there is limited evidence of feeding activity. Black Vine Weevil: A common species in many crops including berries and ornamentals. It over-winters mainly as larvae, but about 10-15% as adults. Significant root damage occurs in early spring from over-wintering larvae. Larvae pupate in May, and new adults emerges by mid-June, feed on foliage (‗notching‘), and lay 100+ eggs from mid-July through August. Obscure Weevil: Life cycle timing is similar to Black Vine Weevil. Obscure weevils are smaller, slender, brown & tan in colour, with distinct wavy patterns on their backs. Strawberry Root Weevil: smaller (about 5 mm long), black to plum-coloured, with a rough surface and no spots; it appears ‗shiny‘. Adults generally appear later than Black Vine Weevil but can be found throughout the summer.

Rough Strawberry Weevil: Medium size, deep brown colour, with a similar life cycle to Clay Coloured Weevil. Adults are relatively inactive during July to mid-August, and tend to feed in spring and fall. Rarely observed feeding on foliage at night; and can find adults in soil, at base of plants. Carabid beetles are predators of pests, and can be confused with weevils. They are active in evening and night on the ground. They are various sizes, most are bigger than weevils, but not all. They are fast movers (have long legs). Don‘t spray them! Some observations that we have made in blueberries in 2007 and afterward: Small plants can be heavily impacted by weevils. Big plants can experience decline and under-production. It can be difficult to find larvae in root systems, but damage on roots is relatively easy to find. Plant decline appears to be a result of the complex of various factors including sub-optimal soil and site, weevils, disease organisms, etc.


Blueberries

Recommendations: If weevils are present in your fields, consider taking an aggressive approach to monitoring and managing them. Particularly new plants need the best chance possible to get well established. Decline in older plants can be halted or prevented with good weevil management. Monitoring: Talk to your field scouts about weevils to ensure they are looking for damage and insect presence. Feeding symptoms: Adults ‗notch‘ leaves, however, this is sometimes difficult to notice on

blueberries. Check at the base of plants as notching may be more likely in low growth. Soil sampling for larvae is useful for determining presence or absence of weevils. Dig around the base of plants in the top 2 inches of soil. Adults are often found this way. Sampling for adults (after dusk is best) can be done using a drop sheet and shaking plants, or a beating tray and rapping branches over it. Numbers collected from any approach cannot be used to predict damage levels. However, change over time is useful, i.e. Is weevil presence increasing or changing locations in a field? What species is here? From Raspberry IPM Guidelines in Washington State, usually 1 or 2 weevils per 10 beating tray samples indicates enough adult emergence to consider spraying. This is a good place to start for blueberries as well, as an action threshold specifically for blueberries has not yet been determined. Management: Weevil management is ongoing, year-round. It is best to take an Integrated Pest Management approach: use multiple tools, as no single tool will solve the problem, but every little bit will help! Cultural and Biological Control: If weevils are present before planting, plow field and plant a non-host crop such as cereals or cole crops. Plant stock that is free of weevils. Check soil/roots of new blueberry plants before planting. Control weeds to eliminate alternate hosts for the larvae. Larvae are susceptible to natural enemies in the soil including nematodes, carabid and staphylinid beetles, and fungi. However, these generally cannot be relied upon to keep weevil populations low. Chemical Control: Consider fumigation pre-plant to control several soil pests. There are no registered insecticides for controlling the larvae (i.e. drench). Insecticides are directed against the adult weevils in order to reduce the next generation of larvae. Sprays should be timed to kill adult weevils after most of them have emerged from the soil but before egg laying has started. For Black vine weevil, early July is usually the best time to spray as the most adults are present and egg laying has not commenced. Weevil adults are more active in the evenings, so sprays in the evening usually kill more weevils. Fungi: Metarhizium (F52) is registered now (ornamentals). Control of weevils in container production has been good. This may be possibility in future nursery production of new blueberry plants. Beneficial nematodes are available for weevil larvae management and may be useful in nursery production to prevent weevil proliferation in pots. Available insecticides: Actara (thiamethoxam): Registered as a foliar spray in blueberry for adult weevils. Growers‘ experience shows that it works well. Malathion is

registered for weevils. Admire for aphids may have some impact on adult weevils. There is a USA residue tolerance for Admire. Where to get more information: BC Ministry of Agriculture, Washington State University.


Blueberries

Planning for Increased Production: A Blueberry Case Study

Larry Lindquist

Lindquist Professional Services, Edmonton, AB

[email protected]

Introduction

Thinking of making changes to your farm operations? See how the BC Farm Business Advisory Services Program can help.

This presentation features a fictitious Case Study prepared to illustrate the process and benefits of

completing a financial review through the BC Farm Business Advisory Services Program. The situation

presented is one that may be representative of a small developing blueberry farm in British Columbia.

This Case Study illustrates how a Tier I Farm Financial Assessment is conducted, and in this example, is

followed by a Tier II Business Strategy analysis. The Case Study shows the type of analysis that results

and how the work done can assist you in making decisions about your business. The purpose of this Case

Study is not to recommend a particular course of action, rather to illustrate the process, and the kind of

information that can come out of it. Individual results may vary.

The Farm Operation:

The hypothetical farm in the Case Study involves 20 acres, all in blueberry production except for a small area where the house and outbuildings are located. The blueberries were planted 3 years ago when the property was purchased, so the plants are in their 4th year, or 2nd year of production. Both husband and wife of the farm couple featured have non-farm jobs to generate extra income. The Financial Issue

When the farm was purchased, a significant down payment was made. In addition to the balance of the purchase cost, funds were borrowed to finance the blueberry planting. Money was retained from the net proceeds from the sale of their previous property to supplement cash flow until the blueberries started to produce. Unfortunately, the situation now is that the cash reserve is depleted, and with increased operating costs, low blueberry prices, and lower than expected production, there will be insufficient cash flow in the coming year at least, to meet financial demands. Non-farm income is sufficient to cover living costs, but not all the payments. Goals

Personal Goals:

• to reduce the level of non-farm employment • to be able take annual holidays and spend more time on leisure activities • to continue to live in the country and be involved in the rural lifestyle • to have a business that will provide a retirement income or pass on to children

Business Goals:

• to have a business that will provide an income sufficient to cover the farm‘s expenses and

payments, at least, and ideally, be sufficiently profitable to meet all financial demands including living expenses


Blueberries

• to continue to develop the farm, and improve efficiencies to maximize production and minimize expense

• to buy into a mechanical harvester to reduce labour costs • at some point, update and upgrade their facilities and equipment and when feasible, expand

operations further. Farm Financial Assessment (Tier I):

The purpose of this part of the review is to gain information about where the operation is currently, and what can be expected financially if no changes are made.

Before Change Statement of Assets and Debts

The financial indicators and ratios developed show an asset/debt structure that is weak in some areas, but that is common in situations where there is significant non-farm income. Projections done, however, indicate that if no changes are made, the financial indicators will likely deteriorate by the end of the upcoming year. There is significant net worth but still a large debt load for the scale of operation and where the business is in the development of the planting, given current blueberry prices. Before Change Income and Expense Summary This is a developing blueberry operation that won‘t be into full production for likely another 4 years. The

Income Expense Projections prepared provide further insight about what could be expected financially if the business is to continue as is, without making any changes:

• With the production, blueberry prices and operating expenses as projected for the upcoming 3 years, net incomes, after depreciation, are expected to be negative in all 3 of the next years, but improving as production increases.

• Even with the non-farm income being earned, with the debt carried, at the terms presently in place, there appears to be insufficient repayment ability in each of the years projected. As with income, however, it improves over time to the point where in 3 years, there should be sufficient debt service capacity to service just over half of the present payment requirement. Rough projections done indicate that in 5 years when the farm should be in full production, debt service will likely be adequate to meet all financial demands.

• The losses projected in the upcoming years will result in accumulation of short term debt because of the shortfall in ability to service the debt as it is presently structured. Equity is projected to erode over these years but in 3 years it should start to stabilize. Again, rough projections done indicate that in the following years as production increases further, equity should improve.

• If all payments are to be made during the next few years, additional debt will be required, either on a term basis, or accumulation on a short term basis.

Development of a Strategic Plan (Business Strategy, Tier II, Specialized Business Planning):

The ―Change Plan‖ developed in this case includes: • Asking the lender to change the repayment terms on the long term loans to interest only for

another 2 years. • Using equity in the land to obtain an additional term loan to inject cash into operations. • Increase the operating loan facility to allow for additional operating funds. • Engage a consultant to review and adjust some cropping practices to improve production.

Operations were projected for 3 years again, based on these changes. Some comments about these ―After

Change‖ results are as follows: • Converting the long term loans to interest only payments for 2 more years reduces payment

demand until production and income are at higher levels.


Blueberries

• The additional term loan provides additional funds to help with the cash flow shortfall in the short term.

• With the increased income, reduced financial demands and injection of cash from the new term debt, the increased operating loan is sufficient to allow for all financial demands to be met in the years going forward.

• With the increased production, net income increases over the ―no change‖ scenario, to the

point where it is positive in 3 years‘ time.

Summary

This Case Study illustrates how, using in the BC Farm Business Advisory Services Program, producers may be able to assemble the information necessary to assess where they are at presently financially and operationally, and make informed decisions about changes they need to implement to meet their goals and attain viability. Note: The full Case Study with summary financial information, and income, expense and cash flow projections has been prepared and will be published shortly. Watch for it! To arrange for a Farm Financial Assessment, call the BC Ministry of Agriculture at 1-877-702-5585 or visit http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/busmgmt/FB_Advisory_Services.html.


Blueberries

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/busmgmt/FB_Advisory_Services.html

Is Trapping a Practical Option for Reducing Starling Damage?

Douglas Ransome

DBR Forestry-Wildlife Management, Burnaby, BC [email protected]

Executive Summary

In British Columbia, starlings have been identified as a significant damaging agent to orchards and vineyards in the Okanagan, and blueberry crops in the Lower Mainland of B.C. As a consequence of this damage, trapping programs have been initiated to reduce abundance of starlings in Whatcom County, Washington and the Okanagan. Given the establishment of these trapping programs north and south of the Lower Mainland, there is interest in initiating a similar trapping program in the Lower Mainland. However, before establishing a trial program, it is important to identify if a trapping program would be effective in reducing the abundance of starlings. This unknown was addressed by reviewing previous reports that examined population reduction of starlings. In addition, a review and analysis of data retrieved from the National Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) was examined for indications whether the current trapping programs in Whatcom County and Okanagan have been successful in reducing the relative abundance of breeding starlings on routes adjacent to the trapping programs. A review of the available literature showed that there were no reports that provided a strong scientific assessment of the benefits or weaknesses of control programs to reduce the abundance of starlings. Other than one report, assessment of the effects of control programs were based on number of birds removed and/or qualitative assessment of changes in their abundance or the damage they caused. However, a number of generalizations can be made. Winter Control Programs: A trapping program aimed at the long-term reduction in abundance of starlings in the Lower Mainland is unlikely to be successful, especially if the emphasis is placed on winter trapping. Although significant short-term reduction in abundance of birds can be obtained during winter (primarily with a starlicide or surfactant), it appears that long-term reduction in either damage or abundance of starlings in winter is not well supported. Those reports that monitored the abundance of starlings following treatments indicated that their abundance quickly returned to pre-removal levels. Previous winter control programs appeared to provide little long-term reduction in abundance of starlings; although, some short-term reductions were noted. Summer Trapping Programs: Although no reports documented changes in abundance of birds resulting from a summer trapping program, they consistently confirmed that trapping captured primarily juvenile birds, resulting in little change in abundance of adult birds (breeding segment of the population). Data from BBS failed to indicate a consistent decrease in relative abundance of breeding starlings on routes within the effective trapping areas when compared to those outside of the trapping areas. Thus, there was little evidence available to support the idea that a summer trapping program could result in a long-term reduction in the resident population of starlings in the Lower Mainland. However, a number of reports have found that a summer trapping program was very effective at reducing damage to summer crops, including blueberries in Connecticut. Previous reports had identified flocks of juvenile starlings as causing significant damage to summer crops. Therefore, implementing an intensive trapping program from late May-early June to August, targeting juvenile starlings, may reduce a significant number of juvenile starlings and the damage they cause to summer crops while the program is being conducted. A summer trapping program has merit, if the primary goal is to reduce damage, rather than long-term population reduction of starlings. If a trapping program was implemented, it is strongly recommended that a thorough and reliable monitoring protocol be implemented to evaluate whether the program is being


Blueberries

successful and if the level of trapping is sufficient. A monitoring program would permit modification of the program as an adaptive-management approach, enhancing effectiveness and efficiencies of the trapping program.

Photo Credit: Philip Heron

Acknowledgements

This review was funded by the Developing Innovative Agri-Products Program under Growing Forward, a federal-provincial-territorial initiative; the BC Blueberry Council; and the BC Milk Producers Association. I wish to thank Bert van Dalfsen and Mark Sweeney (Ministry of Agriculture, Abbotsford) for introducing me to the topic, supplying numerous documents & discussions on starling control, and for reviewing previous drafts of the report. This report has been greatly improved through their suggestions and knowledge of the topic. Many thanks to Jenny Soganic, Librarian for the Ministry of Agriculture, for assisting with the literature review. Also, many thanks to Henry Bierlink for creating the map of the Whatcom County control program, and to both Henry and Connie Bielert (Okanagan control program) for supplying current data on their programs.


Blueberries

National Blueberry Council

Karen Fenske

Stratpoint Solutions, Kelowna, BC [email protected]

Steady Change

You, as owners of your own operations, have the authority to implement change in the “blink of an eye”.

To establish something new, like a national program, in our country we need to research and prepare a

proposal, gather support and vote for change. We continue to work steadily towards realizing a National

Council.

Why Move Towards a National Council?

There are a variety of elements that impact the Canadian highbush blueberry market and trends are what can be changed with enough resources.

Statistics Canada and the Fruit and Vegetable Production 2010 Statistics Canada (22-003-X)

Highbush blueberry production is increasing and new domestic and global markets need to be

accessed. In 2005 BC produced 58 million pounds of highbush blueberries, in 2009 total production was up to 89 million pounds (35 million pounds of processed berries and 54 million pounds of fresh berries) and by 2013 production will be over 120 million. Though other provinces production rates are less, they have doubled since 2005.

An equitable contribution system is needed to support industry

growth. Over a third of the highbush blueberries sold in Canada are from importers who do not share the costs of any of the promotion, marketing and research we do. Importers need to make equal investments in the cost of building highbush blueberry markets as they as they do and will continue to benefit from local efforts. Remember the USA collects $12 per ton on berries going across their border.


Blueberries

Sell more in Canada. BC produces 95% of all highbush blueberries in Canada. Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia produce most of the remaining 5%. Though the east coast provinces produce primarily wild/lowbush blueberries, there is a growing interest in highbush production. Alberta, Saskatchewan and

Manitoba do not produce highbush blueberries.. With more domestic advertising and promotion Canadians could buy more of your product.

Derived from information provided by provincial specialists and producer organization members * Estimated at 4000 pounds per acre What Makes It Possible?

The Canadian Farm Products Agencies Act provides the power for agencies under the Farm Products Council of Canada to implement a promotion and research plan to collect levies on farm products marketed in interprovincial, export and import trade.

Will This Be Competitive with Other Markets?

The U.S.A., Canada‘s main trade partner, is the home of the United States Highbush Blueberry Council

(USHBC) which has had their levy program in place since 2001. They collect a levy of $12 per ton on both producers and importers of fresh and frozen highbush blueberries and they have tried to increase this. The Canadian lowbush/wild blueberry industry has been working with the Wild Blueberry Association of North America (WBANA) for years to fulfill promotional and marketing needs. Recently they have been granted $750,000.00 of federal government funding.

Who Will Be Included?

Importers and producers of:

• 0810.40.10.22 cultivated, fresh, in their natural state, certified organic, • 0810.40.10.23 cultivated, fresh, in their natural state, not certified organic, and • 811.90.9013 cultivated, o/t pulp, frozen, uncooked/steamed/boiled, sweet/not highbush blueberries.


Blueberries

Implementing the Levy System

The levy, check-off or assessment rate is an amount which will be deducted from each sale. Your input into the survey last winter helped highlight an acceptable rate of .005 or .008 cents per lb. A business plan draft indicates that a levy rate of $0.005 per pound or higher cents would provide the capacity to accomplish stated goals. An exemption level for individual producers and importers, based most likely on production levels, will be recommended by industry. The FPCC, Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade are currently in discussions regarding the option to exempt an entire province if a province shows production under a negligible level. A key World Trade Organization (WTO) trade principle states that levies cannot be imposed on another country before a national collection system has been established for domestic product.

National Levy Options Total Production (lbs) $ 0.005/lb $ 0.008/lb $0.01/lb

Canada 93,953,730 $469,769 $751,630 $939,537 Imports 52,398,914 $261,995 $419,191 $523,989 Total 146,352,644 731,763 1,170,821 1,463,526

Collecting the Levy

It is proposed that the levy will be collected at the first point of sale by processors/ handlers/shippers and importers. In the case of the producer acting as its own first handler, the producer will be required to collect and remit its individual levies/ assessments. Domestic Collection

In BC, we expect BCBC to collect on behalf of the National; we will talk with the Ontario Berry Growers Association, and the Ontario Highbush Blueberry Growers Association, the Bleuets NB Blueberries in New Brunswick, and the Horticulture Nova Scotia Association to see if we can arrange service agreements for them to collect on the National‘s behalf. For the other provinces that do not have a dedicated organization i.e. Quebec, the National Council will collect directly. Provincial agreements are being explored. A database is progress. Import Collection

The most efficient process would involve the Canada Border Services Agency collecting on imported product; however, they do not have this system in place. Though it has taken some time various government departments have initiated action towards this new process. We will be working with the FPCC in Feb and March to review the American system. This research will form the basis for further discussions with CBSA.

Organizing the Council

We expect the national organization to be called the CANADIAN HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY COUNCIL (CHBC). The Council Board of directors and alternates will be elected by eligible producers and importers. This organization will operate under Federal legislation and be structured as a not-for-


Blueberries

profit organization. Finances will be audited annually by the Governor in Council. The Council will remain accountable to its stakeholders via communicating tools and opportunities such as regular newsletters, electronic news, open meetings, events and an Annual General Meeting. The location of the Council has yet to be determined but it has been suggested that BCBC and the national arrange a service agreement. The Farm Products Council of Canada, or an appointee, will review the program for effectiveness and success preferably after 5 years. Using the Funds

All funds must be used for generic marketing, promotion and research, as opposed to Canadian or regional, in order to implement the import collection system. The National Board of directors will determine the allocation formula to be used for research, promotion, marketing and administration. Project proposals will be sent in to the National Council for review and acceptance at the director level. What Have We Done So Far?

• Provincial and federal departments have been consulted. Other national levy programs (i.e., the Canadian Beef and the USBHC) have been reviewed.

• To create the Canadian HBBB Industry Chart all provincial fruit specialists and provincial organizations provided input.

• All above contacts have been contacted and informed on a regular basis through a Canada e-news.

• CBSA has been contacted on our behalf by Mr. Ron Gerold, Director, Horticulture and Special Crops Division, AAFC Market Industry Services.

• Contacting importers is in progress. • BCHBBB Packer/Processor had the opportunity to attend an informational meeting

November 2009, and had the opportunity to ask questions face-face November 2010. • BC producers attended PAS 2010 presentation, and BCBC AGM information report. • HBBB reps attended an informational meeting March 2010 in Quebec. Nova Scotia

producers have met with BCBC reps. I will be meeting with Ontario HBBB growers in Ontario the end of Feb. A database of producers/processors is in progress.

• A survey was sent to 662 BC Blueberry stakeholders by mail in January 2010 and 57 were returned by May 9th

• A 24 page Case Brief was created and sent to federal departments and is used for further communication needs.

• A flyer was created for to distribute to their producers. • Articles have appeared in the Ontario National Grower out of Ontario and Country Life

Magazine, and the BCBC newsletters. Further distribution is in progress. Who Is Working On This?

• BCBC has contracted with StratPoint Solutions to research and write the proposal. • We are working in consultation with: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, BC Ministry of

Agriculture, the Canadian Beef Cattle Research, Market Development and Promotion Council (National Check-off Council), the Farm Products Council of Canada, Investment Agriculture Fund of BC, and the United States Highbush Blueberry Council

• Your BCBC directors are discussing several details: • What should the individual exemption level be? • What should the levy rate be? • How will we collect the levy? • How could the council Board be organized?


Blueberries

• How could the funds be allocated?

What Do We Need To Do?

• Continue informing producers, and importers, completing the databases • Map out domestic collection system • Map out the rebate program • Discuss working arrangements with other provinces and receive agreement in

principal letters from other provinces • Wait to hear final decisions on provincial exemption • Write the proposal • April 30, 2011 send proposal through BCBC approval process • May 31, 2011 BCBC to submit to IAF and FPCC • Farm Product Council of Canada FPCC will do inquires across the country and may

or may not hold a referendum. If FPCC is satisfied that it is a viable project FPCC sends recommendation report to AAFC Minister/Cabinet. This could take up to 1 year

• Provincial details will be finalized (we, with our lawyers, and the Department of Justice, draft the proclamation)

• The proclamation is sent to FPCC who forwards it to Cabinet for establishment


Blueberries

Connecting With Your Customers through Social Media

Kirstin Richter

The Social Agency, Burnaby, BC [email protected]

What is Social Media?

It‘s a conversation… that takes place online. To clarify that, traditional media can be viewed as a monologue while social media is more of a dialogue. With traditional media, the audience is passive – we can watch the commercial or read the ad but we can‘t

really participate. With social media, the audience is active – we can comment on an online news story, we can share a video on YouTube, we can like a link on Facebook. Social media covers a lot of space. Some of the main sub categories include: - Blogs (Blogger, WordPress) - Micro-blogging (Twitter, Tumblr) - Wikis (Wikipedia) - Social and professional networking (Facebook, LinkedIn) - Location-based social networks (Foursquare) - Photo and video sharing (Flickr, YouTube) Blogs:

Here are some tips for company blogs: • Be personable: Most blogs use a first person tone to reach out on a more informal level. • Keep it updated and be link-friendly: People love to see themselves linked and will likely be happy to return the favour. • Use tags: These are descriptive terms to describe the contents of your post. They also help people find your post. They can also help improve your search standings.

Figure 1: Wordcloud Example

Wordcloud (see Figure 1): ―a visual depiction of user-generated tags, or simply the word content of a site, typically used to describe the content of web sites. Tags are usually single words and are normally listed alphabetically, and the importance of each tag is shown with font size or color.‖ (source:

Wikipedia)


Farm Direct Marketing

Twitter

Twitter has grown immensely since launching in 2006. Stats show that there are currently anywhere from 145 – 190 million registered Twitter accounts. Twitter is sometimes described as the ―SMS of the Internet‖ because it only allows users to post short updates, called ―tweets‖ and due to the restriction of 140 characters, tweets are similar in length and often grammar to what one might send as a text message. It is estimated that there are over 65 million tweets sent out via twitter daily. On Twitter you can follow anyone who has a public account – once you follow them, their tweets appear on your homepage as they post them. The goal on Twitter, especially in business, is to get your message out as far as possible which means gaining followers is a good thing. However, we often stress to our clients that you want to focus on quality of followers over quantity. Trends or ―trending‖ is the jargon for what‘s currently the hot topics on Twitter. If you go to the Twitter

homepage, even without an account, you can see what topics are getting the most mentions in people‘s

feeds. And if you want to look up something on Twitter you can – there is a search function In fact, there are over 800,000 searches done on Twitter each day – it‘s kind of like a mini Google in that sense. On Twitter your name begins with the @ symbol and you are restricted to 15 characters. You can‘t use

any dashes or periods, but you can use an underscore. Twitter Lingo:

• @replies: by putting the ―@‖ symbol in front of someone‘s name (no spaces), you can speak to anyone

on Twitter directly as that post will come up for them regardless of whether they are following your account. • retweets (RTs): this is when you re-send someone else‘s tweet to your followers. You can type ―RT‖

before the message or simply hit the ―retweet‖ button • #hashtag: these are what tags are called in Twitter. By attaching a hashtag to your tweet, you are giving it context or placing it with a group of other tweets on the same topic. • Follow Fridays (#FF): A nice way to make new friends on Twitter or acknowledge some of your favourites. Just add the hashtag #FF on a Friday and the name of the person or people you would like to promote. • URL shortener (bit.ly): Due to the limited space allocated for tweets, it is advisable to use a URL

shortener like bit.ly if you are wanting to share a website address. You can also track the number of click throughs. Facebook

• 500 million+ active accounts: it‘s definitely the most popular and seems to attract the broadest reach.

Currently the fastest growing demographic on Facebook is women aged 55-65. • Ensure your personal profile is client-proof: Make sure you are comfortable with clients reading your updates or viewing your photos as they may wish to connect with you on Facebook if you begin to use it as a promotional tool. • Pages vs Groups: Groups are kind of a thing of the past with the rise of Pages (formerly called Fan

Pages). You can easily invite your network to ―Like‖ your page and ask your contacts to do the same.



• Content is King: Because so many people are using Facebook and there are so many Pages, you provide content that people are going to be continued to be excited about. And you need to regularly update! • Facebook ads: Easy to set up and you set the price so it can be incredibly affordable. You can delve into the demographic of your choice: eg. you can choose gender, city or province, age range, likes or interests and it will tell you how many people you are potentially reaching. You also pay only on the clicks you get. Note: Facebook has recently introduced very strict rules about doing contests or promotions on their site. For example, you can no longer do a prize giveaway to certain members of a Page or by asking people to comment to be entered. If you are planning some kind of promotion on Facebook, just make sure you read their rules carefully.

Tips for Getting Started

• Be a good listener. Join the networks you are interested in and pay close attention to how people are using them. What lingo are they using, how frequently are the updating, what is the etiquette. Most importantly, what are your competitors doing? What can you do better? Which platforms are best suited to your business?

• Find your friends and make new ones. This is not the time to be shy. Seek out friends – new and old. You never know who is going to be interested in what you have to say and who might help you spread the word.

• Invest the time required. Social networking requires a commitment. Don‘t set up a Twitter

account that you are only going to update when you are having a sale. You need to be a regular contributor to reap the rewards. It‘s also not a 9-5, M-F type of thing. Luckily there are many mobile apps out there that enable you check and update easily from your phone.

• Track your progress. See how your followers are growing on a weekly basis. Note how many

RTs or mentions or likes or comments you are receiving. Set goals and figure out the best plan for achieving them. Double check against your website traffic stats to see how your social networking efforts are helping to bring new visitors to your site. Ask people how they heard about you.

• When in doubt, ask Google. If you see someone use a term that you unfamiliar with, Google

it. Stay on top of trends by simply subscribing to or checking out sites like Mashable or Wired to see what‘s new. Read the how to sections on the sites you are using: they generally

have a FAQ section that is very likely to address any issues or questions you have. Or, you can always hire a social media strategist to help you determine the best approach for your company ☺



Niche Markets: Finding The Idea

Janice Ravndahl Sezmu Meats, Westbank, BC [email protected]

Finding The Idea

Sezmu Meats created its most mouth-watering beef by sharing the wine with the cattle. Our cattle drink a one litre glass of red Okanagan wine every day for 60 day before they are processed. The greatest thing about finding a niche is that you have targeted your audience. You may have pared down your customer base but you have also opened it up. Sezmu Meats can‘t compete with the likes of

Cargill and Excel. They can produce more beef in a day that I can even fathom. They will take care of all the main stream customers the way they always have. What they can‘t do is stop production of their

facility to put through a small amount of wine-fed beef. It‘s not economically feasible. Being flexible is your strong point. You can‘t compete with the large companies. Don‘t even try. You

can tailor a business to solve a problem that a product has, or do something to enhance a product and market it to a smaller group of like-minded people. If you can do one of those things you will not only find people to purchase but they will usually pay a bit more. The challenge is the idea itself. Where do you get these ideas for a great niche in your industry? At Sezmu, we created a new niche that no one knew they needed. When the inspiration struck I know that chefs believed that animals that eat better taste better. I also heard people criticizing beef in Canada. These people had just moved to Canada from Europe. That was great information. I hardly ever eat beef that is not off of our farm so I really had no idea what they were talking about. We knew that if the wine affected the beef in a positive way we would have a market. Creating a niche is one way to go and it is totally doable. All you need to do is test your market place. Testing the market is how to differentiate is your niche is inspired or not. The best inspiration is going to come from your customers themselves. My customers have started out as gourmets and foodies with a taste for the exotic. When we started my only concern was if we could make this go in Canada. Canadians are becoming more and more discerning in their food choices. Thanks to Sezmu, we now also have a few cows with a more refined pallet too. I had spent countless hours watching the food network, reading food and wine magazines, and going on culinary excursions. I had been eating in the types of restaurants that I would be targeting as my client base. Through these experiences I had met a few well renowned chefs and these were the people I contacted when I started testing my market place. I didn‘t just start doing this when I had the idea of

wine-fed beef – it‘s always been an interest of mine so I had been doing it for years. Draw on your past experiences. There is gold in there somewhere. You want to be honest about your product. Inspiration may sit in the product itself. Does it have any flaws? What are people doing with a product? Is there something they wish was being done with a product. Can it be enhanced in any way? Whoever thought of peeling carrots and selling them washed and peeled was a genius. Think of the end users of a product. Who are they? What do they value? There are several ways to get this information:



1) Magazines - Magazines have their finger on the pulse of what their target market is currently interested in, and what they are becoming interested in. If you see a group of articles, or even one interesting article, that catches your eye in a magazine, chances are there‘s a market for that subject.

Magazines would go out of print if they didn‘t consistently put out articles that appealed to their target

market. 2) Internet – The internet is great way to see what is going on with your industry. Blogs are a fascinating area and even better if they accept comments. You can see what people are saying in your industry. Hearing what their frustrations are gives you a lot of opportunity to solve problems and blogger love to voice their frustrations. Great when looking for niche ideas. 3) Newspapers – For more timely and up and coming niches, turn to newspapers. Newspapers have their finger on the pulse of what, not just a particular niche demographic is interested in, but the whole world! New breakthroughs, entertainment new, technological advances, as well as interesting cultural happenings will all be reported through newspapers. There are niches to be mined there. 4) Movies – Many niches relate to interests and hobbies. Pay attention to unusual interests, job, or hobbies that characters have in movies. Pay attention when they talk to one another. If something has been included in a movie or a television show, chances are it is because it resonates with a large enough segment of the population to be interesting. A side note to this category is documentaries. It‘s a great

way to see how your products are being represented by the media. Two documentaries that are important to me are Food Inc. and Frankensteer. A great resource for this is a website called www.watchdocumentary.com. There are many documentaries there that you can download and watch for free. 5) Conversations - When you talk to the people in your life, listen to what they talk about with a marketer‘s ear. When they are talking about your product what are they saying. Did they just hear about a medical condition that is helped by a particular product that you just produce or package? How do you adjust your marketing to reach those people? If you don‘t believe this works ask the chia seed farmers

how their year was last year. In fact, Chia Pets are a great example of someone creating a niche. But the cost of Chia seed went up dramatically when Dr. Oz told Oprah‘s viewers that they were one of the best

sources of Omega three‘s and he eats them every day. Don‘t dismiss any ideas at this point. When we first had the idea to start feeding the cattle wine I met

with some prominent men in the cattle industry. Every last one of them told me that this idea would never work. They even had many itemized reasons as to why it wouldn‘t work. I left the meeting feeling

a little down, but after some thought I realized that I would never sell beef to cattle producers. Be sure that is where your focus is. On the people who will be purchasing your product. It was time for the most important key in establishing a niche. ACT! So many people have a great idea but never act on it. Get out there and test your market.



http://www.watchdocumentary.com/

Silvopasture in BC: a Production Approach

George Powell AgForInsight.com, Quesnel, BC

info@agforinsight

Silvopasture, like all agroforestry opportunities, has tremendous potential to leverage production, environmental, economic and social benefits through integration. However, like any system with many parts and complex interactions, if they are not structured and managed properly they may be doomed to failure and you can be far worse off than if you had keep things separate. Beneficial management practices (BMPs) in silvopastures revolve around structuring and managing the system to promote positive (facilitative) interactions and minimize negative (competitive) processes between the three major components: livestock, forages and crop trees. It is also equally important to understand that the nature of the interactions will vary as the silvopasture matures. We can separate silvopasture development into three distinctive phases based on the growth and development of the crop trees:

1. In the Herbaceous Phase, tree seedlings are subject to strong, direct competition with the forage crop, and most are susceptible to direct livestock impacts;

2. Once at the Intermediate Phase, trees have extended their canopy above the forage layer and competition between trees and forages is generally limited to soil-based resources (water and nutrients). Most potential livestock impacts on trees are also diminished, although this varies greatly with livestock species and their preference for feeding on the crop trees relative to the other forage and browse options available; and,

3. In the Arboreal Phase, mature trees become the dominant elements in the system in terms of both

size and resource use, and they control the availability of most resources and the understory microclimate. Livestock have limited impact on trees at this stage.

Agroforesters need to carefully manage three critical interactions over these phases to ensure synergies and production gains are developed: • Tree-forage interactions in the herbaceous phase • Livestock-tree interactions in the herbaceous phase • Tree-forage interactions in the arboreal phase For managing the tree-forage interactions in the herbaceous phase, species selection is the first and best tool to avoid competitive interference that can set back tree growth. Use large, vigorous tree stock that will grow rapidly above the herb layer. And choose forages that are slower to establish, are short-statured, shallow rooted, or grow at a different time of year than the crop tree, thus separating competitive resource use. In circumstances where you are growing tree species that are poor competitors, or where soil moisture deficits are predictable, it may be necessary to keep a 1- to 2-m vegetation-free buffer around the crop trees. This will inevitably drive up costs whether using mulches, chemical, manual or mechanical weeding. Tightly controlled grazing can also be used to alleviate competition, but be vigilant because tree seedlings are also most vulnerable to browsing and trampling damage at this stage.


Alternate Crops/Agroforestry

Indeed, all trees are susceptible to trampling until they are at least 0.5-m tall. It is advisable to exclude or minimize use of the silvopasture until the mean tree height exceeds this threshold. Similarly, some minor browsing is to be expected (generally less than 2% of the plantation) until the terminal branches on the trees are inaccessible to livestock. Severe damage can occur when no other forage or browse is available, or if tree is a preferred species, so it is important to use livestock with higher preference for the forage species present than crop trees. Rotational grazing may also restrict time trees are exposed to grazing, resulting in lower trampling and browsing damage. But in cases where the livestock density or preferences make damage unavoidable, you many need to employ individual tree barriers (e.g. plastic tubes or mesh), or temporary fencing to protect tree clusters or rows. Chemical deterrents sprayed onto the trees may provide effective protection, but also need to be reapplied after heavy precipitation events. For managing the tree-forage interactions in the arboreal phase, it is necessary to manipulate tree form or density to maintain understory growth. Forage production can taper off after the overstory exceeds 30 to 35% canopy cover, and trees should be thinned in advance of this threshold or, alternatively, they could be planted a low starting density. The major drawback to thinning / low density plantations is that for many tree species when grown in the open (i.e. without other tree neighbours) tend to have greater stem taper and more branches. Both of these characteristics are undesirable for log quality and value. Therefore if the trees are being grown for clear lumber or veneer products they should be pruned after thinning. Pruning will reduce branches, maintain tree form and also increase light and precipitation input to the understory forage crop and can ease livestock movement through the silvopasture. In all other respects, use BMPs for conventional livestock, forage and timber management and you can reap the benefits of integrated production. Read more about silvopasture and agroforestry at http://www.agforinsight.com/?cat=5



http://www.agforinsight.com/?cat=5

Getting into Bigleaf Maple Syrup Production

Jay Rastogi The Land Conservancy of BC, Victoria, BC

[email protected] Tapping the Bigleaf Maple The leafless maples may appear to resting until spring, but the stirrings of spring have already begun! And now is the time to get in on the action. The roots have stored the sugars produced last summer by the leaves and now the process of transferring those sugars mixed with water and minerals from the soil to the buds which will produce the new leaves is beginning. By drilling a small hole in the trunk and inserting a spile, we can intercept a small amount of the sap for making syrup, teas, cooking and baking.

Sap Flow

The practice of tapping sugar maple (in eastern North America) is well known and popular. This is not the case with bigleaf maple on the west coast – though there are accounts of tapping it during World War II and a few people have continued to tap. Its popularity – especially on Vancouver Island – has been increasing steadily since 2001 and people are now tapping on a commercial scale and hundreds more on a hobby scale. Sap flow in trees is a bit of a mystery. There is much we do not understand about this; however, we think temperature fluctuation, pressure and suction are important in the flow of sap. The fluctuation in air temperature is thought to be vital to the flow of sap in maple trees (ideally above and below freezing). When the trees are dormant and day temperatures rise, pressure develops in the tree (positive pressure). This pressure causes the sap to flow out of the tree through a wound or a tap hole. During cooler periods suction develops (negative pressure) which draws water into the tree through the roots. This replenishes the sap in the tree. The carbohydrates stored in the roots are there as a result of the previous summer‘s photosynthesis. These

carbohydrates are converted to sucrose. This becomes sap when dissolved in the water and nutrients the roots draw in. This stored energy is used by the tree to produce new foliage. This energy becomes very evident if you cut down a bigleaf maple in an effort to eradicate it. The new and numerous shoots (known as a coppice) grow vigorously and can get to be a meter or more long in a single season.



The fluctuation in air temperature is thought to be vital to the flow of sap in maple trees (ideally above and below freezing). When the trees are dormant and day temperatures rise, pressure develops in the tree (positive pressure). This pressure causes the sap to flow out of the tree through a wound or a tap hole. During cooler periods suction develops (negative pressure) which draws water into the tree through the roots. This replenishes the sap in the tree. The carbohydrates stored in the roots are there as a result of the previous summers photosynthesis. These carbohydrates are converted to sucrose. This becomes sap when dissolved in the water and nutrients the roots draw in. This stored energy is used by the tree to produce new foliage. This energy becomes very evident if you cut down a bigleaf maple in an effort to eradicate it. The new and numerous shoots (known as a coppice) grow vigorously and can get to be a meter or more long in a single season.

Sap flows through the outer portion of the trunk (sapwood). Activity in the cells of the sapwood during the day produces carbon dioxide. This carbon dioxide is released into the spaces between the cells causing pressure to build. Pressure also develops as a result of the sugar and other substances dissolved in the sap. When the carbon dioxide cools it contracts and creates suction. Suction also develops when carbon dioxide becomes dissolved in the sap or when some of the sap freezes. This helps draw water in through the roots and when temperatures rise the sap begins to flow again. My favourite way to use the sap is to concentrate it a little bit (by boiling, or partially freezing and removing the ice) and simply drink it like water or boil and make a yerba buena, mint or ginger tea. Tapping is an easy skill – though this does not mean getting sap is simple or predictable. On a slight upward angle (so the holes do not fill in with water when you pull out the spile), drill 5-6 cm into the tree so that the spile you have will fit snugly in. Tap the spile with a hammer and hang a pail on the hook or attach a tube to carry the sap to a container. Spiles come in a number of designs and I‘ve converted from

the more traditional aluminum spile (as shown in the sketch) to plastic ones which attach to tubing. Having a more closed system keeps the sap cleaner and also slows down the processes of injury compartalization and thus allows the sap to flow for a longer period of time. Holes drilled during periods of sap flow will yield more than those drilled when sap is not flowing. Periods of freezing followed by thawing tend to produce the best flows, but this is not the only factor involved. Moisture availability and air pressure seem to play an important role and there are likely to be other factors which we don‘t yet

know. Choosing good trees can be more complex with bigleaf maples than it is with sugar maple. With sugar maples the trees tapped are generally larger than 30 cm, but with bigleaf maples this is not necessary. Some of my best successes early in my experimentation were with coppiced trees of 15 to 20 cm diameters, but this has not been the case every year. Several years of experimentation and comparison with others tappers gives no firm rules for tree selection though generally trees with large canopies and good moisture availability in exposed location have highest sap flows. Tapping does not appear to have adverse effects on the health of the bigleaf maple. This is quite different from the experience of tappers in eastern North America who tap the sugar maple. Bigleaf maple has the ability to coppice, so even cutting a tree does not kill it. First Nations in the geographical range of bigleaf maple regularly employed fire to



manipulate the landscape and we might speculate that the maples ability to produce adventitious shoots would have helped it persist and grow rapidly after the fire. Evaporating

Most of the interest in bigleaf maple is currently directed towards boiling or evaporating the sap into maple syrup. The choice of equipment is key to determining the scale at which one works. To get a litre of two of syrup you may be able to get away with a campstove or even a kitchen stove (if the exhaust fan can keep up with the rate of evaporation), but for larger volumes better equipment and facilities are needed. The sap to syrup ratio will vary depending on the sugar percentage in the sap. At one percent sugar, the ratio is 86 to one. At two percent it is 43 to 1. This is commonly called the rule of 86. Divide 86 by the sugar content of the sap to get your sap to syrup ratio. There are a great range of evaporators in use – a testimony to the creative abilities of farm and forest folk. The key to syrup quality is the quality of the sap. If the sap is discoloured or milky looking do not use it, as this will produce bitter syrup. Fresh sap is best.

You can freeze sap without diminishing its quality. Cleanliness is also important – leaves and twigs will flavour the syrup. As the sugar content increases the boiling temperature rises and the size of the bubbles in the pan get smaller. It is considered syrup at 66.5 percent sugar. At lower sugar contents the syrup may mold and at higher it will produce crystals. A refractometer or a hygrometer can be used to measure the sugar content or use a thermometer to measure the boiling temperature of the syrup. At 4 degrees Celsius (7 F) above the boiling temperature of water, it is syrup. As the sugar content gets above 50 percent it gets easy to burn the syrup, so choose a pot or finishing pan where the syrup has some depth in the pan so that it doesn‘t burn as readily – and from this point on monitor it very carefully. Many people filter once or more through the process to remove impurities and keep the syrup clearer. Filtering at the end also helps remove some of the sugar sand. It is also possible to let the sugar sand settle out. Sugar sand can be used in cooking and baking. In the early 1900s, sugar sand (from sugar maple) was worth as much as maple syrup because it was rich in calcium bi-malate, an ingredient for manufacturing baking powder and malic acid (considered beneficial for boosting the immune system and aiding with muscle pain). Conclusion

Recently bigleaf maple has started receiving greater consideration for its contribution to maintaining diverse, productive and resilient ecosystems. We now recognize its importance as food, cover and nesting sites. The bark supports lichen and moss communities which do not harm the tree. These epiphytic communities are a rooting medium for other plants and a food source for arthropod communities.



It also provides important ecological services such as reduction in temperatures and enriching soils. Its utilitarian values have typically been poorly valued, expect for those individual trees with ―figure‖ in its

grain. However, in the last decade the tapping of trees for sap has been increasing dramatically (particularly on Vancouver Island) and this is changing the view of maple as a weed tree. The distribution of bigleaf maple and the suitable climatic conditions indicate that there is substantial potential to increase the practice of maple tapping. This might mean a species which has typically been maligned by foresters (because it competes with the more economically valuable confers) will be better valued and stewarded and contribute economically and ecologically to our landscape.



Row Cover and Aphicide Trials


E.S. Cropconsult Ltd., Surrey, BC [email protected]

Pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) and cabbage aphids (Brevicoryne brassicae) are major pests of peas and cole crops respectively and few effective control tools are available for organic production. Heavy aphid infestations cause severe economic losses for two main reasons: reduce crop yield and crop contamination for processing or fresh market. The objective of this study was to examine the efficacy of potential biological, physical and chemical control tools for aphid management in organic pea and cole crops. Firstly, we evaluated the efficacy of augmentative releases of the predatory midge Aphidoletes

aphidimyza (Aphidoletes) with and without the added food resources provided by insectary plants for pea aphid control in peas. Secondly, we evaluated the potential of two types of row covers - Agryl P17 (Fiberweb Inc.) and Protecknet (Dubois Agrinovation, QC) compared with the industry standard of soap sprays and an untreated control for cabbage aphid control. Finally, we evaluate the efficacy of three organic insecticides for aphid control in peas and cole crops 1) Botanigard (Laverlam International Corp.), 2) Purespray Green (Petro Canada) and 3) Influence (AEF Global Inc.) against the industry standard 4) Soap (cole crops only) and 5) a water control. All of our trials were conducted in agricultural fields during the 2010 field season. The main findings from these trials were as follows. Biological Control

We did not observe any impact of Aphidoletes releases on pea aphids nor did we find any Aphidoletes larvae (released or native) on peas in the weeks following release. Further, the insectary plants (mix of alyssum, carrot, phacelia, yarrow coreopsis, dill and rhudbeckia) that were introduced in fields did not support increased activity of Aphidoletes or other naturally occurring enemies (e.g. ladybugs, syrphids, parasitoid wasps). Higher release rates than those used in our field trials may be needed in order to obtain aphid control. Also higher densities of insectary plants may provide better attraction and retention of natural enemies in fields, at the beginning of the season.

Physical Control

We found that both types of row covers were equally effective at keeping aphids off of the crop and overall provided more consistent and longer duration of aphid control than Soap, which provided inconsistent control (Figure 1a). We also saw that the row covers could be effective at excluding caterpillars from the crop as well (Figure 1b). Finally, yield was significantly higher in Agryl P17 plots than the Control or Soap plots in one our field (early planted one) showing that this type of row cover has the potential to increase yield in early season crops.

Chemical Control

In both peas and cole crops we observed efficacy of products when the pre-treatment aphid counts were quite low (i.e. < 30 aphids/plot in peas and < 10 aphids/plot in cole crops). Under these starting conditions the two products that were consistently effective were Purespray, Influence and Soap (in cole crops) (Figures 2 and 3). Also in our trials, none of the treatment had an effect on beneficial populations.


Organics

Figure 1. Effect of two types of row cover and industry standard treatment of Soap on a) cabbage aphid infestation, b) aphid predator activity and c) caterpillars in cole crops (cabbage). Each point represents the mean ± s.e. of six replicates/treatment (total N = 24).

Acknowledgements

Renee Prasad is the co-author of this project. We thank Fraserland Organics and the Snow Farms for supplying field space. This trial was funded by Certified Organic Association of British Columbia, Organic Sector Development Program, Processing Vegetable Trust Fund, Lower Mainland Horticultural Improvement Association and Lower Mainland Organic Grower Association (in-kind).


Organics

Figure 2. Effect of three insecticides on pea aphid infestation in Field 3 (peas). Each point represents the mean ± s.e. of six replicates/treatment (total N = 24).

Figure 3. Effect of three insecticides and the industry standard soap on cabbage aphids in Field 2 (cabbage). Each point represents the mean ± s.e. of six replicates/treatment (total N = 24).


Organics

Farm Management for Native Pollinators in Delta

David Bradbeer

Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, Delta, BC [email protected]

The Value of Pollinators

Pollinators are very important to humans as they are necessary for many of the crops we eat. Most wild plants also require pollination. Some crops require pollinators to fertilize their flowers in order to set fruit, and some have an increase in yield or quality due to the activities of pollinators. Several staple crops such as wheat, rice, and potatoes are self-fertilizing and do not require pollination. A study by Klein et al. (2007) found that 35% of global crop production absolutely requires pollination. Worldwide, 43 major crop plants—each producing over four million metric tons per year—are either highly dependent on or require pollinators for their productivity. The crops that require or benefit from pollinators in Delta include blueberries, cranberries, raspberries, zucchinis, squash, pumpkins, strawberries, and tomatoes. These are not small potatoes: the blueberry industry in the Fraser Valley generates over $40 million farmgate per year. Another $12 million is produced from cranberries, $6 million from strawberries, and over $30 million from raspberries. British Columbia alone generates $4 million from squash and pumpkin, and another $2 million from field tomatoes. Add it all up and pollinators are helping to produce almost $100 million of income for British Columbians each year. Aside from this strong economic reason, you could argue that pollinators contribute to the availability of fresh, healthy food, a service which cannot be measured in dollars.

Our Native Pollinators

There are several types of native pollinators that work on agricultural crops, including bumblebees and solitary bees. They are not pollinating out of good will though; they also benefit from the relationship by gaining food from the pollen and nectar of flowering plants. They use these substances to feed themselves and their progeny. There are 31 species of bumblebees in British Columbia. Bumblebees are social, meaning that they have a queen and a colony, with worker bees that forage on flowers and then return to the colony. Their hairy bodies enable more pollen to stick to them as they move from flower to flower thereby making them exceptional pollinators. There are also a number of solitary bees that pollinate agricultural crops, and do not have a colony. Some common solitary bees on farms in the Fraser River area include alfalfa leaf-cutting bee (Megachile

rotundata), blue orchard mason bee (Osmia lignaria), and other bees in the Osmia genus. They deposit their egg along with some nectar and pollen in a cavity, and then leave it to fend for itself. However, sometimes females will locate their nests close to one another, called gregarious nesting. If suitable nest sites are created, solitary bee populations will likely increase. Benefits to Local Agriculture

Studies have shown the benefit that bumblebees and solitary bees can have on fruit yields. For example, fruit size (druplet numbers and weight) increased by pollination from honeybees and a native solitary bee, known as Osmia aglaia, in Oregon and California (Cane 2005). The authors posited that O. aglaia could be sustainably managed in cane fruit production, with noticeable improvement in fruit quality.


Organics

A study (Ratti et al. 2008) of honeybees and wild bees in blueberry and cranberry fields in the Fraser Valley found that fruit mass was related to abundance of bumblebees, but not honeybees or other wild bees, leading the researchers to recommend bumblebees as pollinators for those crops. Another study by Aras et al. (1996) about honeybees in low-bush blueberry fields found that seed set, fruit set, berry weight, and maturation rate were all highly correlated with an increase in the density of honeybees. A different study (Brewer et al. 1969) about honeybee density in high-bush blueberries wielded similar results, with increased pollinator densities causing increased fruit set and fruit yield. Although these studies focused on managed honeybee populations, the positive effect of pollinators is applicable to native pollinators as well. Bee Trouble

Unfortunately some species of pollinators are experiencing declines. The Western Bumblebee (Bombus

occidentalis) was the most common bumblebee species in blueberry fields in 1981, and in 2003/2004 it accounted for less than one percent (Colla and Ratti 2010). One of the suspected reasons is diseases transferring from cultivated bees to wild bees. Spraying pesticides during times that plants are flowering often results in the death of pollinators including bumblebees and solitary bees. This is especially the case for broad spectrum pesticides. The following organically approved sprays are also harmful to bees: beauveria bassiana, diatomaceous earth, insecticidal soap, horticultural oil, pyrethrins, rotenone, sabadilla, spinosad (Entrust), copper sulphate, and sulfur (Mader 2009). Though this summary is focused on native pollinators, it is difficult to discuss them without mentioning the problems facing managed honeybees. Starting in 2006 and continuing today, a large number of honey producers noticed that all or most of their adult worker bees were dying in a way that they did not recognize as any existing diseases, a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). The verdict is still out on what exactly causes CCD, but some likely contributing factors include pests, pathogens, chemicals, and/or a combination of these factors. Pollinator Habitat Requirements

Bumblebees and solitary bees have certain habitat requirements. Firstly they require feeding habitat, in form of flowering plants and secondly, these pollinators need nesting habitat. Solitary bee populations in particular are sensitive to the availability of suitable habitat. Prior to European contact there would have been a diversity of flowering forbs and bushes that would flower at different times in the season providing pollinators with pollen and nectar for an extended time period. Some flowers that bees feed on include clover, fireweed, thistle, huckleberry, goldenrod, rhododendron, elder, and willow. However with residential and industrial development wild flowering habitat has decreased. Farmland is one of the few parts of our landscape that generates income and can provide pollinator habitat on a large scale. Pollinators vary in their nesting requirements. Bumblebees tend to make their colonies in clumps of old vegetation such as old rodent nests, bird nests, or patches of dead vegetation. Thus they require undisturbed areas with dead vegetation and abandoned mammal or bird nests. Solitary bees lay their eggs in cavities in dead vegetation, such as logs or inside hollow reeds, or underground. They require undisturbed sites, and also access to mud for sealing their egg cavities.


Organics

How to Benefit Pollinators In order to increase populations of native pollinators, suitable habitat must be available. It seems that a mosaic of habitat types across the landscape is the best for increasing pollinator populations; with diversity comes nesting habitat and a succession of flowering plants to keep them fed. A study from SFU on canola fields has shown that the amount of pastureland available has a large influence on the abundance of bumblebees (Morandin et al. 2006). Bumblebees were found to be more present in areas with more pastureland and within fields that were surrounded by a variety of crop types. A study by Klein et al. (2007) on the global importance of pollinators recommended adding flowering plants to crop rotation, especially in intensified agricultural landscapes. They also recommended connecting habitats with flowering strips and hedgerows, and forgoing the use of broad spectrum insecticides during blooming periods. How the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust Helps

Several of the Stewardship Programs at the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust (DF&WT) directly benefit native pollinators by providing feeding and nesting habitat. Within Delta the Hedgerow Program provides $300 per acre to farmers wishing to plant a mix of trees and shrubs on their property. Currently there are five kilometres of hedgerows in Delta, with shrubs that flower in the spring to early summer. In the early spring bumblebee queens are just beginning to build their colony and need sources of pollen and nectar to feed their growing colony. In addition to providing pollen and nectar, these hedgerows are suitable sites for bumblebee colonies or solitary bee nests. The Grass Margin Stewardship Program is similar to the Hedgerow Program but instead of planting field margins with shrubs and trees, a mix of forage and clover is seeded to the outer edges of a field. These areas provide nesting habitat adjacent to field crops, and also often contain clover thus providing bees with a food source. Another DF&WT program that benefits native pollinators is the Grassland Set-aside Program; Grassland Set-asides are fields that a farmer has planted to a mix of forage grasses and clover, and are left undisturbed for up to four years. Set-asides are known to increase the organic matter in the soil, which is great for soil fertility and drainage, and are also beneficial for farms transitioning to organic production. In Grassland Set-asides the Townsend's Vole population increases which provides food for raptors, such as the Short-eared Owl, Barn Owl, Peregrine Falcon, Rough-legged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, and Northern Harrier, as well as wading birds, like the Great Blue Heron and American Bittern, and other birds such as the Northern Shrike. In addition to the soil and avian wildlife benefits, Grassland Set-asides are excellent pollinator habitat. Set-asides are undisturbed and provide nesting habitat, and they contain many abandoned vole nests which are excellent sites for bumblebee colonies. The seed mix for set-asides also includes clover, which flowers throughout the season from late spring to early fall, thereby providing abundant nectar and pollen to bumblebees. Recently the DF&WT has been promoting clover as a cover crop in the Winter Cover Crop Stewardship Program, paying farmers $45 per acre. Clover is seeded either at the same time or shortly after a grain crop as a relay crop, and after the grain is harvested the clover grows higher. Clover flowers in the early fall, providing pollinators with a late-season source of nectar.


Organics

Through using these methods, the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust strives to create and maintain suitable habitat for native pollinators while ensuring a healthy and productive relationship with local farmers. For more information on the Stewardship Programs offered by the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, or to see how you can get involved please visit our website at http://www.deltafarmland.ca/. References

Aras, P., D. De Oliveira, and L. Savoie. 1996. Effect of a Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Gradient on the Pollination and Yield of Lowbush Blueberry. Journal of Economic Entomology, 89:1080-1083.

Brewer, J.W., R.C. Dobson, and J.W. Nelson. 1969. Effects of Increased Pollinator Levels on Production

of the Highbush Blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum. Journal of Economic Entomology, 62:815-818.

Cane, J.H. 2005. Pollination potential of the bee Osmia aglaia for cultivated red raspberries and

blackberries (Rubus: Rosaceae). HortScience, 40(6):1705-1708. Colla, S.R., and C.M. Ratti. 2010. Scientific Note: Evidence for the decline of western bumblebee

(Bombus occidentalis Greene) in British Columbia. Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 86:32-34. Klein, A., B.E. Vaissiere, J.H. Cane, I. Steffan-Dewenter, S.A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, and T.

Scharntke. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes of world crops. Proceedings of

the Royal Society B, 274:303-313. Mader, E. 2009. Organic approved pesticides: minimizing risk to pollinators. Xerces Society fact sheet.

Portland, OR. Morandin, L.A., M.L. Winston, V.A. Abbott and M.T. Franklin. 2006. Can pastureland increase wild bee

abundance in agriculturally intense areas? Basic and Applied Ecology, 8(2):117-124. Ratti, C.M., H.A. Higo, T.L. Griswold and M.L. Winston. 2008. Bumble bees influence berry size in

commercial Vaccinium spp. cultivation in British Columbia. Canadian Entomologists, 140:348-363.


Organics

http://www.deltafarmland.ca/

Raptors for Rodent Pest Control

David Bradbeer

Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, Delta, BC [email protected]

Raptors and Agriculture on the Lower Fraser River Delta

Raptors are predatory birds and in this text "raptor" is used to define birds from the orders Falconiformes (hawks, eagles, and falcons) and Strigiformes (owls). Raptors are present in the agricultural landscapes of the Fraser River valley and the Fraser River delta. During the winter the highest densities of raptors in all of Canada are found on the lower Fraser River delta (Butler and Campbell 1987). The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust is a non-profit based out of Delta, British Columbia that works to conserve wildlife habitat and farmland on the lower Fraser River delta. Raptors are one of the target species of the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust's Stewardship Programs. Vertebrate Pests in Farming Systems

Vertebrates can be substantial pests in farming systems, especially rodents such as rats and mice. Rodents consume crops in the field and in storage, including grain, root crops, and squash, and can consume significant quantities of grain used to feed livestock. Stored crops may be contaminated by their feces, requiring extra washing of produce or disposal. Rodents also chew plastic, damaging electrical wiring and increasing the risk of a power loss or electrical fire. In the Fraser River valley and lower Fraser River delta, the primary rodent pests associated with farm yards and barns are the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and black rat (Rattus rattus), as well as the house mouse (Mus musculus) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatis). They feed on stored crops, contaminate stored food with feces, and damage wiring. In fields, the primary rodent pests are rats and voles (Microtus spp.). Rats find shelter in buildings and under debris, and can consume crops if these shelters are too close to crop fields. Voles are more prevalent in tall grass and shrub habitats, and can girdle small shrubs such as blueberries, potentially killing the plant. They also feed on the seeds of squash fruit and root crops growing at the surface of the soil. Chemical Rodent Control and Effects on Raptors

Poison baits are used to minimize rodent populations, especially rats, around farm yards. Poisons can be desirable when mechanical controls (e.g., snap traps) will be insufficient to reduce numbers and when cultural controls (e.g., removing structures) are impractical. A variety of chemicals is available to conventional farming operations, including brodifacoum, bromadiolone, chlorophacinone, diphacinone, difethialone and warfarin (Albert et al. 2010). However, recent analyses of owl carcasses has shown that up to 70% of owls contain traces of these rodenticides (including Barn Owls, Barred Owls, and Great Horned Owls) and that the poison can be lethal to the owl (Albert et al. 2010). The inadvertent poisoning of raptors with rodenticides can remove these birds as potential rodent controls from agricultural systems.


Organics

The Role of Raptors in Controlling Vertebrate Pests

Organic growers are restricted in the practices they may employ for controlling rodents, since chemical poisons are not permitted in organically certified production. Growers may consider encouraging the presence of raptors on their farms to contribute to rodent control. But rodents have high reproductive rates and it is unlikely that raptors can completely control rodent populations. Several studies have investigated the ability of raptors to control rodent pests. In soybean production, artificial perches were erected around field replicates, and the number of house mice in the field, as well as raptor abundance, was measured (Kay et al. 1994). Raptors were more abundant when there were perches present, and house mice had lower population growth rates and lower overall densities when there were perch poles installed. However, other studies have shown that when rodent populations surpass a threshold, predators such as raptors are unable to regulate their numbers. In Australia, raptors and other predators were able to limit the growth of a rodent population when the initial densities were low, but not when rodent densities were higher (Sinclair et al. 1990). Barn Owls for On-farm Rodent Control

If a farm has problems with rats around barns and sheds, consider erecting several nest boxes for Barn Owls. In Canada, Barn Owls are only found in south-western British Columbia, where they are a threatened species, and southern Ontario, where they are an endangered species. They are not able to withstand freezing temperatures and in Canada they require enclosed structures for roosting and breeding. Barns can provide excellent roosting and breeding sites for Barn Owls, and the habitat value of these sites can be increased by placing an enclosed nesting box inside the barn. A nest box could also be put on a pole on the property. To increase on-farm rodent control, there is value in erecting several Barn Owl boxes. This will encourage the maximum number of owl pairs to move onto the property, ensuring overlapping coverage of the property. Boxes should be placed inside of structures, or on the outside of buildings. When building a box outside, ensure that the opening to the box is no more than 6" wide to keep predators like Red-tailed Hawks and Great Horned Owls from stealing young Barn Owl chicks. Also consider building an anti-chamber on all outdoor boxes to prevent predator entry. Boxes should be positioned so that cats and racoons are unable to climb to them. To ensure that Barn Owls are not killed by ingesting poisoned rodents, refrain from using poison baits. Alternative lethal baits may be used in place of poison baits; a mixture of 3 parts oatmeal and 1 part plaster of paris will be appealing to rats and mice (J. Schuster pers. comm. December 2010). Once ingested, the plaster will harden in the rodent‘s stomach, killing it. Barn Owls that ingest these rodents

will be unharmed by the plaster as they will regurgitate it with the bones and fur. Other Raptors for On-farm Rodent Control

Various other raptors may contribute to rodent control on farms. In field crop production, voles will likely be the main pest rodent, although rats may be abundant as well. The Short-eared Owl is a threatened species in British Columbia which thrives on voles for food. Northern Harriers, Red-tailed Hawks, Snowy Owls, and Rough-legged Hawks also hunt many Townsend‘s Voles. Creating ideal raptor habitat is one

way to manage pest species. Large stands of trees surrounding open areas provides roosting habitat for raptors, including the Rough-legged Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Great Horned Owl, Barred Owl, and Long-eared Owl. Old fields such as Grassland Set-asides administered by the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust provide roosting habitat for Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers, two of the most prolific vole hunters in Delta‘s landscape.


Organics

American Kestrels, European Starlings, and Farms There are many novel examples of raptors used in pest control. In the Fraser River valley of south-western BC and the Whatcom County in Washington State, European Starlings are pests of blueberry fields and dairy farms. The birds will flock to blueberries and consume large quantities, requiring active scaring measures. Starlings can be difficult to haze because they rapidly become accustomed to scare tactics. Scare tape, raptor recordings, and propane cannons are only effective when they are moved frequently. But recently researchers from Trinity Western University have been experimenting with American Kestrels as a means of controlling European Starlings around dairy farms and blueberry fields. American Kestrels are small falcons that occupy open, grassy habitats. They prey on small birds, small mammals, and large insects, and will hunt starlings. Researcher Karen Steensma began the project by installing 10 Kestrel nest boxes in Lynden, Washington; there are now over 50 locations in Whatcom and Skagit counties with nest boxes (Whatcom Farm Friends 2008). Results from the study will indicate whether the Kestrels are effective at scaring starlings from blueberry fields. Growers who are interested in establishing nest boxes for American Kestrels on their property should consider the need for habitat to support the birds. Grassy areas containing voles and insects are ideal habitats for Kestrels, as are dead or live old trees for perching next to open meadows. Stewardship Programs

Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust administers Stewardship Programs in the Municipality of Delta and the City of Richmond. Through these programs, local farmers are eligible for cost-share funding when they establish wildlife habitat and/or invest in the long-term fertility of the soil on their farm. Several of these programs, including the Grassland Set-aside, Grass Margin, and Hedgerow Stewardship Programs, provide direct benefit to raptors, in the form of roosting habitat and access to prey animals. The Grassland Set-aside Stewardship Program provides cost-share funding ($250-300/acre) to farmers when they leave fields of grass and clover in an untended state for up to four years. The habitat created during this period supports a dense population of small mammals, especially Townsend's Voles. The vole is an important dietary component for many raptors and wading birds, including the Rough-legged Hawk, Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl, Red-tailed Hawk, Barn Owl, American Kestrel, and Great Blue Heron. Grassland Set-asides also provide roosting habitat for Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls. Similarly, the Grass Margin Stewardship Program provides farmers with cost-share funding ($300/acre) when they establish grass margins two to five meters wide at the edges of their farm fields. Perching sites for raptors are provided through the Hedgerow Stewardship Program. Hedgerows also provide habitat for songbirds, which in turn are prey to Sharp-shinned Hawks and Cooper's Hawks. Land owners may apply to the Hedgerow Program to have linear strips of native trees and shrubs planted on their property at a cost-share rate of $300/acre. Ensuring that suitable habitat is present for raptors to thrive may help to alleviate existing or potential pest situations. Building nest boxes or enrolling in stewardship opportunities, such as the Grassland Set-aside, Hedgerow, or Grass Margin programs offered through the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, to enhance raptor activity are ways to maintain a healthy coexistence between man and wildlife. If you are interested in getting involved, or would like to read more, visit our website at http://www.deltafarmland.ca/.


Organics

http://www.deltafarmland.ca/

References

Albert, C.A., L. K. Wilson, P. Mineau, S. Trudeau, and J.E. Elliott. 2010. Anticoagulant Rodenticides in Three Owl Species from Western Canada, 1988–2003. Archives of Environmental Contamination

and Toxicology, 58:451–459. Butler, R. W. and R. W. Campbell. 1987. The birds of the Fraser River Delta: populations, ecology and

international significance. Occasional Paper No. 65, Canadian Wildlife Service, Delta, British Columbia.

Kay, B.J., L.E. Twigg, T.J. Korn, and H.I. Nicol. 1994. The use of artificial perches to increase predation

on house mice (Mus domesticus) by raptors. Wildlife Research, 21:95-105. Sinclair, A.R.E., P.D. Olsen, and T.D. Redhead. Can Predators Regulate Small Mammal Populations?

Evidence from House Mouse Outbreaks in Australia. Oikos, 59:382-392. Whatcom Farm Friends. 2008. Bird Research Update. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from

http://www.wcfarmfriends.com/go/doc/1579/216272/.


Organics

Getting Your Biomass Together

Erin Nichols

FarmFolkCityFolk, Vancouver, BC [email protected]

www.BiomassTrader.org/bc

Since 1993, FarmFolkCityFolk has been working with farm and city to cultivate a local and sustainable food system. We saw the Biomass Trader as an opportunity for those in agriculture and food production to have an additional income stream. The Biomass Trader is a BC-wide trading site for agriculture and food processing ―waste.‖ Composters

are looking for quality materials to create soil amendments and the emerging bioenergy sector needs manure and other feedstocks in order to produce methane, biodiesel and other bioenergy products. A biomass trader isn‘t a new idea. There are 2 Biomass Traders in the US in Pennsylvania and in New

York. The BC Biomass trader is the first in Canada. This online exchange:

• Provides a tool to enhance the trade of residual biomass • Supports composting companies and the emerging bioenergy sector • Helps municipalities reduce the amount of organic waste directed to landfill

Residual biomass feedstocks are fast being recognised as a resource rather than waste material. Organic matter that in the past has either been ploughed under or sent to landfill can now be traded on the Biomass Trader. The Biomass Trader offers free classified ad space. Website Basics

Members can sign-up for free, list residual biomass feedstocks that are Available or Wanted, post workshops and other events and receive email notifications about potential matches. Those who live in remote areas like that the site is accessible on dial-up. The Biomass Trader is completely open, so anyone visiting the site is potential customer and can search for products. Product Categories Include:

• Abattoir residue (non-SRM) • Bakery residue • Biofuels • Businesses for sale • Chicken, Poultry and Egg Industry residue • Coffee grounds • Compost • Contracts • Dairy • Dry Dog Food • Ethanol and starch residue • Equipment and Supplies

• Fats • Fin fish & shellfish residues • Food residue • Harvest residue • Landscaping residue • Manure • Municipal Liquid Waste • Municipal Solid Waste • Services • Soil and Soil Amendments • Vegetable and fruit, processing residues • Woody residue


Organics

http://www.biomasstrader.org/bc

Contracts for feedstocks can be secured by posting and ad for Contracts Wanted or Available. This is of particular importance to those wanting to start either a bioenergy or composing business, as showing secure feedstocks is part of a solid business plan which is needed when approaching banks for financing. Equipment suppliers who provide products for bioenergy and composting can post ads as can those who provide services like hauling or facility design.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Matt Dickson from ARDCorp for inviting FarmFolkCityFolk to be part of the Agi-energy Forum at the 2011 Pacific Ag Show.


Organics

Research Project Grants Awarded by LMHIA for 2011

Project title Researcher and

Institution

Amount

approved

Red raspberry cultivar development Chaim Kempler

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)

4,000

Evaluation and development of strawberry varieties Chaim Kempler 2,000

Cultivars – blueberry breeding and evaluation trials Chaim Kempler 1,000

Innovations for wireworm management – Year 3 Todd Kabaluk

AAFC

3,000

Broccoli variety trials for the BC processing industry Mike Wallis

Private Consultant

1,000

Brussel‘s sprout variety trials for the BC processing industry Mike Wallis 1,000

Surveying pests of vegetable and berry crops for naturally occurring insect pathogens which could be developed into new microbial pesticides

Deborah Henderson

Kwantlen Polytechnic University

3,000

Control of aphid-vectored non-persistent viruses for organic seed potato production


ES Cropconsult

2,000

Biopesticides to control Botrytis bean diseases in organic production Marjolaine Dessureault 2,000

Caterpillar control for organic cole crop production – alternatives to Entrust

Marjolaine Dessureault 2,000

Clubroot control tools – field trials for 2011 Brock Glover

ES Cropconsult

1,000

Development of a pheromone-based monitoring system for raspberry crown borer

Carolyn Teasdale

ES Cropconsult

2,000

Late blight control options for organic production Dessureault/Glover 2,500

Post-harvest control of silver scurf on potatoes in storage Dessureault/Glover 2,000

Blueberry premature fruit drop, mosaic and necrotic ring blotch viruses Bob Martin

Corvallis University

2,500

Investigation of canker diseases Siva Sabaratnam

BC Ministry of Agriculture

2,000

Swede midge monitoring program for Brassicae vegetable crops Tracy Hueppelsheuser

BC Ministry of Agriculture

650

Representative for BC berry and vegetable growers at annual minor use meeting, Ottawa

2,000

TOTAL APPROVED 35,650


Date post:	24-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	votram
View:	217 times
Download:	4 times

2011 Proceedings - Pacific Agriculture · PDF file2011 . Proceedings . January 27-29 ....

Documents