- Author: Ben Faber
Growers are faced with an ever-changing list of commercial “tools”, each with the promise of providing some advantage to the farmer. Frequently, these are new fertilizer mixes presented as proprietary cocktails promoted and dispensed with promises of a multitude of profitable (yet improbable) benefits to the buyer. With the large number of new products available, and the number of salespeople promoting them, it is often difficult for growers to distinguish between products likely to provide real benefit, and those that may actually reduce the profitability of the farm.
In all situations when a company approaches the University or a commodity research board with a new product or technology for sale to California growers, these institutions act as grower advocates. They are charged with sorting through the available information; asking the right questions; getting the necessary research done if the available information warrants this pursuit; disseminating accurate information on these new technologies and products, and doing all that can help maximize grower profits now and in the future. When approached with a new product or technology it is obligatory to challenge claims with the following questions:
Is there some basic established and accepted scientific foundation on which the product claims are made?
Language that invokes some proprietary ingredients or mysterious formulations, particularly in fertilizers mixes registered in the State of California, raises red flags. A wide range of completely unrelated product benefit claims (such as water savings, pesticide savings, increased earlier yield) raises more red flags. Product claims that fall well outside of any accepted scientific convention generally mean the product is truly a miracle, or these claims are borderline false to entirely fraudulent. Some of the water treatment products on the market fall into this category and can easily be checked against some of the studies found at this site: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/index.html
Has the product undergone thorough scientific testing in orchards?
Frequently, products are promoted based on testimonials of other growers. While testimonials may be given in good faith, they are most often not backed up by any real scientific testing where a good control was used to compare orchard returns with and without the product.
A “test” where a whole block was treated with a product and which has no reliable untreated control does not meet accepted standards for conducting agricultural experiments. Also, a treated orchard cannot reliably be compared to a neighboring untreated orchard; and a treated orchard cannot be compared to the same orchard that was untreated the previous crop year. Even a test with half a block of treated trees and half untreated is not considered dependable by any known scientific standard of testing.
Only a well designed, statistically replicated, multi-year trial allows for direct comparison of untreated versus treated trees with statistical confidence. Verifiable data from tests that meet acceptable standards of scientific design, along with access to raw baseline (before treatment) yield data from the same trees (preferably for the two years prior) should be used to determine the validity of test results provided.
Are the test results from a reliable source?
If the testing were not done by a neutral party, such as university scientists, agency, or a reputable contract research company using standard scientific protocols, this raises red flags. If the persons overseeing the tests have a financial interest in seeing positive results from the product, it raises red flags.
Does the product have beneficial effects on several unrelated farm practices?
A product that increases production of trees, makes fruit bigger, reduces pests, reduces water use, and reduces fertilizer costs, is more than a little suspicious. In reality, if such a product really existed, it would not need any testing at all because its benefits would be so obviously realized by the grower community that it would spread rapidly by word of mouth and embraced by the entire grower community.
Are other standard and proven farm products put down in the new product sales delivery?
If a new product vendor claims that their product is taken up 15 times faster than the one growers are currently using, or is 30 times more efficient, it probably costs 15 to 30 times more per unit of active ingredient than the standard market price. Growers should always examine the chemical product label to see what active ingredient they are buying. There has to be a very good reason to pay more for an ingredient where previously there had been no problem supplying the same ingredient at a cheaper price to trees in the past.
So what is a grower to do ?
New products come and go. Snake oil products often disappear rapidly, when their efficacy fails to materialize after application. Products that confound their purported results with fertilizers or growth stimulators can persist, but eventually they too fail to live up to expectations at some point and will fade from popularity. Try to obtain some kind of consensus with university‐based research or other peer reviewed research reports, field efficacy trials that you run for yourself, and not on the testimonials of others. If you decide to conduct your own trials, they must be replicated and statistically analyzable, otherwise they are little more than anecdotal observations that have little value in quantifying the effects of a product or practice. For more help with trials, seek out University Extension advisors and specialists. This is their job, and they are willing partners in field research. After awhile, you will be able to ascertain the nature of the “oil” before you purchase it.
- Author: Ben Faber
Mandarins, also known as “zipper skins” and “easy peelers” can have very fragile peels/skins/rinds/exocarp that make them easily subject to more damage than most oranges and lemons. Some are a bit tougher skinned than others, but some are so fragile that any rough handling often prevents them from going through conventional packing operations.
These skins were recently put to the test in the recent fires in Ojai. There was a mix of different varieties - ‘Pixie', ‘Gold Nugget', ‘W. Murcott', ‘Yosemite Gold', ‘Tahoe Gold' and others. Some of them were more sensitive than others, some were closer to the fire, all were affected by smoke to some degree. In Matilija Canyon where smoke was present for many more days than in the east of the Ojai Valley and possibly more ash, the trees have started flowering sooner. That might be temperature difference, either cooler or warmer, so it is hard to say how much effect the smoke has had versus, the ash and/or heat. Smoke has many different gasses in it, one of which is ethylene which is a naturally occurring ripening agent. Smoke not only has gasses, but it occludes the sun so less or more or altered light might have an effect on these fruit. It's not a controlled experiment, so some little scientist is going to have to come along and wriggle out these different effects. Whatever. Fire and smoke have an effect on mandarins as we have seen in other crops, such as cherimoya, avocados and other citrus.
Heat damage. Fruit facing the fire.
Ash effects on fruit coloring. Fruit was covered with ash for several days until rain washed it off. Might be a pH effect (ash is alkaline), temperature effect, uneven light radiation, or other…….
Same sort of uneven coloring, that actually looks like an ashy color, but the ash has washed off the cluster by rain
And here's something interesting where fruit facing the fire is much lighter colored than fruit facing away from the fire. Here are two pieces of fruit, one from the side directly facing the fire, and the other from the other side of the tree. The side of that fruit facing the fire was also lighter colored. So, it had an effect through the canopy (small tree). The canopy was otherwise intact, unaffected heat or flames.
Oh yeah, and there is the characteristic fruit drop from either the heat, smoke gases, water stress or ….
And then there's the fruit that looks like it had actual embers on the skin.
If the tree survives and keeps its green leaves, sometimes the fruit is affected in ways that don't appear for a while. The peel may be affected, but in many cases the fruit is just as sweet as it could be. It just looks terrible. That might even be a selling point. "Here have a wonderous piece of history that braved the horror of the Ojai fires."
- Author: Ben Faber
PULLMAN, Wash. Soil pathogen testing - critical to farming, but painstakingly slow and expensive - will soon be done accurately, quickly, inexpensively and onsite, thanks to research that Washington State University scientists plant pathologists are sharing.
As the name implies, these tests detect disease-causing pathogens in the soil that can severely devastate crops.
Until now, the tests have required large, expensive equipment or lab tests that take weeks.
The soil pathogen analysis process is based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests that are very specific and sensitive and only possible in a laboratory.
The new methods, designed by WSU plant pathologists, are not only portable and fast, but utilize testing materials easily available to the public. A paper by the researchers lists all the equipment and materials required to construct the device, plus instructions on how to put it all together and conduct soil tests.
Responding to growers needs
"We've heard from many growers that the time it takes to obtain results from soil samples sent to a lab is too long," said Kiwamu Tanaka, assistant professor in WSU's Department of Plant Pathology. "The results come back too late to be helpful. But if they can get results on site, they could make informed decisions about treatments or management changes before they even plant their crop."
Some diseases from soil pathogens may not be visible until weeks after the crop has sprouted, Tanaka said. That could be too late to treat the disease or could force farmers to use more treatments.
Magnetic breakthrough
WSU graduate student Joseph DeShields, a first author on the paper, said it took about six months of work to get their device to work in the field. It relies on magnets to capture pathogens' DNA from the soil.
"It turns out, it's really hard to separate and purify genetic material from soil because soil contains so much material for PCR tests," said DeShields "So we were thrilled when we made that breakthrough."
Rachel Bomberger is a WSU plant diagnostician who helped with the concepts of the machine testing. She said she's impressed by what Tanaka and the team accomplished.
"We removed a huge stumbling block when it comes to soil testing," said Bomberger, one of the co-authors on the paper. "We found the missing piece that makes the testing systems work in the field without expensive lab equipment or testing materials."
Worldwide application
The system was tested on potato fields around eastern Washington, Tanaka said, but it will work on soil anywhere in the world.
"It's a really versatile method," he said. "You could use it for nationwide pathogen mapping or look at the distribution of pathogens around the country. We started small, but this could have huge implications for testing soil health and disease."
Tanaka said it was important for this discovery to be available in an open-access video journal.
"We're always concerned about helping every grower and the industry as a whole," Tanaka said. "We want everybody to look at this and use it, if they think they'll benefit from it."
###
The results were published in the Journal of Visualized Experiments, an open-access journal that includes a video showing how to assemble and used the system and a full list of materials needed to use their method.
This research is supported by the Northwest Potato Research Consortium and the Washington State Department of Agriculture - Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.
See the video here:
And the article here:
https://www.jove.com/pdf/56891/jove-protocol-56891-on-site-molecular-detection-soil-borne-phytopathogens-using-portable
- Author: Dani Lightle
This article first appeared in Sacramento Valley Orchard Source
Missing the Target: Why you Should Irrigate Potted Trees Directly onto Potting Media
or
Why Emitters Should be Placed on the Root Ball at Planting
Dani Lightle, UCCE Orchards Advisor, Glenn Butte & Tehama Counties
N.B. potted trees are standard commercial container grown citrus and avocado trees
Generally, when I am working with growers on a problem related to potted-tree establishment, the cause is lack of water movement into the potted media, creating tree stress. This results from the difference in soil particle size at the boundary between the orchard soil and the tree's potting soil. When you plant a potted tree in your orchard, it has a substrate – some mix of peat and vermiculite – that is very different than your soil type. The change in texture and pore size inhibits water movement from the surrounding soil into the potting media. As a result, Irrigation water applied outside the potted soil media isn't getting to the roots.
The sequence of photos in Figure 1 demonstrates this phenomenon. I set up a mock orchard condition with soil (Tehama series silty loam) next to a potted tree (potting soil) in a ½ inch wide frame. I then slowly added water to match the soil infiltration rate, similar to a drip emitter, approximately 4 inches away from the potting soil in the ‘orchard' soil.
You will see that the water does not move into the potting soil (Figure 1C & D). Two forces – gravitational pull and capillary action – move water downward and laterally in the soil. Since the potting soil is not below the orchard soil, gravity does not move water into the potting soil. Capillary action is not strong enough to move water into the potting soil because the difference in pore size is too great. So, irrigation water goes where it can easily flow – downwards and laterally into dry, native soil but not into the potting soil. More water does not solve the problem, it will just move past your newly planted trees and wet more native soil.
For about the first month of growth, irrigation emitters should be located at the base of the potted tree to ensure the potting medium receives water. Frequently check to ensure that the potting soil stays wet – not the soil somewhere else in the tree row or mound – before, after, and between irrigation sets. The best way to do this is with a small trowel and your hands. Water will need to be applied at the base of the tree until the tree roots grow beyond the potting soil and into your orchard's native soil. The time required for this to happen will vary depending on factors such as temperature, but it should take roughly a month.
Figure 1. This sequence of photos shows the movement of water applied to Tehama series silty-loam soil. Water was applied at the blue arrow, approximately 4 inches from the potting soil. Total elapsed time was 51 minutes. Water moved downwards and laterally but did not cross the boundary into the potting soil.
- Author: Ben Faber
So, this image comes across with the question of what is going on. It's a grapefruit, but what is going on with the leaves? It's happening to two grapefruit side by side or two different ages. It's not affecting other citrus nearby, and not a grapefruit several hundred feet away. Nothing like insect damage. It's not a nutrient deficiency because it's not following a clear pattern. It doesn't look like a chimera, which is common in citrus, because it's only a few outer leaves. It doesn't fit the pattern of an herbicide. It wouldn't be a contact or a drift spray because is both veinal and interveinal, and not strongly one or the other, so it's not consistent with a soil-applied herbicide either.
A plant pathologist and an herbologist (weed specialist) both asked if there had been a change in light -Different light exposure or more drought stress. Was a nearby tree removed or somehow the tree got more exposure than previously? Citrus Specialist, Peggy Mauk, nailed it, though. She said this type of coloration is characteristic of ‘Star Ruby' grapefruit when it is water stressed. And this can occur when the tree is more exposed to wind or light which is what happened here when a nearby hedge was pruned. The other citrus being less affected by such obvious symptoms, although probably stressed, as well.