- Author: Ben Faber
- Author: Jim Downer
Leaf analysis is the preferred method of guiding a fertilizer program for fruit tree crops. Soil testing is less important, since the tree has the capacity to store nutrients in its various parts – roots, trunk, stems and leaves. However, soil testing is a component of a plant nutrient management program and has been standard practice for growers to aid in adjusting fertilizer applications. Soil testing is performed not only to improve plant growth, but also to reduce over-application of fertilizers that may lead to nutrient toxicities, excessive leaching and consequent economic losses.
For maximum accuracy and benefit, soil testing must be conducted using reliable methods on correctly-sampled soils (if the user is not trained in obtaining representative soil samples, test results even from the same soil can vary greatly). Test results must also be properly interpreted for a specific crop. Interpretative guidelines are readily obtainable for many agronomic and horticultural crops, as well as landscape trees. Cost for laboratory analysis for pH, NO3-N, P2O5 (Olsen), and extractable K2O are typically under $20 per analysis, but frequently results take from 1-4 weeks to get back to the grower.
By contrast, many retail garden centers offer commercial test kits, ranging in cost from $10 to $50 for multiple tests, so that the cost per test can be relatively low. These commercial kits are also advantageous because results can be obtained within one to two days. Commercial kits typically use a colorimetric method for indicating macronutrient and pH levels. Soil is measured into a sample container, extractant is added, and after a specified time for the reaction, the user compares the color obtained to a color card corresponding to categorical nutrient and pH levels.
We have always wondered how well these kits performed, so we purchased five commercially-available test kits and compared their results to standard laboratory analysis of NO3-N, P2O5 (Olsen), extractable K2O and pH from the same soil type with three distinct cropping histories (Soils 1, 2, and 3). The objectives were to identify differences in accuracy, if any, among test kits and to suggest a kit that most closely corresponds to analytical lab results.
Four of the kits, “La Motte Soil Test Kit” (La Motte Co., Chesteron, MD); “Rapitest®” (Luster Leaf Products, Woodstock, IL); “Quick Soiltest” (Hanna,Woonsocket, RI); and “NittyGritty” (La Motte Co. Chesteron, MD) measured nitrate-N, P2O5, K2O and pH. “Soil Kit” (La Motte Co., Chesteron, MD) measured only nitrate-N, P2O5 and K2O. The kit results for macronutrients were categorical (high, medium, and low); pH results were numeric, rounding to half pH units for the Rapitest® and one pH unit for the other three kits. The manufacturers’ instructions for each kit were followed for soil testing.
Results show that pH measures from LaMotte Soil Test Kit and Rapitest consistently matched lab results. Soils 1 and 3 proved to be in the pH 6.5 range, but the pH of Soil 2 was 7.8, technically beyond the capacity of Rapitest (pH 4.5-7.5). NittyGritty did not match lab results at all. Quick SoiltTest generally indicated lower pH values than the analytical lab. Results from LaMotte Soil Test Kit, Rapitest, and Quick Soiltest consistently matched the analytical lab results for nitrate-N and P2O5, while Soil Kit and NittyGritty did not. Soil Kit and NittyGritty analyzed K2O content with greater accuracy than for the other nutrients; the commercial tests in total corresponded with the analytical lab 82% of the time for this test. For Soil 3; all the commercial test results matched the analytical lab results 100%.
Precautionary measures for these commercial kits may increase their accuracy. For Soil Kit and Nitty Gritty, the extracting powders that came with the kits dissolved poorly; these kits generally yielded inaccurate results, but pulverizing the tablets or powders may increase extraction potential. Interpretation of color development should be made only within the time specified by the kit instructions because color intensity could vary within minutes. Also, interpretation can occasionally vary depending on the user. In this study, the observers independently interpreted the same result for 91% of the tests; this would probably be an acceptable proportion for a home gardener or farmer individually conducting tests, but occasional independent interpretation by another source may change the result.
La Motte Soil Test Kit results corresponded to those from the analytical lab for pH and all nutrients (86% of the tests matched). This kit is suitable for growers because it proved to be very accurate even over a range of pH values and is housed in a hard-sided, padded container. Rapitest yielded accurate results 92% of the time for all nutrients and pH less than 7.5, and was comparatively easy to use and interpret. Quick Soiltest matched the analytical lab results only 64% of the time because pH and K2O values were inaccurate. Interpretation of values from this kit may have resulted in application of potassium in excess of the needs of Soils 1 and 2.
An important limitation of all commercial test kits is the approximate or categorical value of nutrient content (i.e., low, medium, high). Analytical labs must be used when precise values are required. Nevertheless, commercially-available kits such as Rapitest and La Motte Soil Test Kit have shown to provide accurate, fast, and economical results and can help growers improve nutrient management.
- Author: Carol J Lovatt
- Author: Elizabeth J Fichtner
Alternate bearing is typically initiated by adverse climate. Once initiated, in the absence of additional environmental constraints affecting crop load, the bearing status of an orchard alternates between ON and OFF years, with ON years exhibiting less vegetative growth than OFF years. This biennial cycle, however, can be reset by adverse environmental conditions affecting bloom and fruit set. Adverse conditions 8-10 weeks prior to bloom may cause abortion of female flower parts, resulting in a high proportion of staminate (male) flowers that do not give rise to fruit. Additionally, adverse weather conditions at bloom may impact pollination and subsequent fruit set. Any conditions resulting in loss of crop during an anticipated ON year may render the season an OFF year.
For a fuller discussion of this topic, see the full article by Carol Lovatt at:
http://ceventura.ucanr.edu/newsletters/Topics_in_Subtropics45348.pdf
The Topics in Subtropics Newsletter
- Author: Gary Bender
Quite frankly, in a county where water is costing $700 to $1000 per acre foot, we though this practice would have been a common practice. Added to this is the increasing pressure to reduce nitrate leaching into creeks and ground water, where there is a serious problem developing. The natural response when water prices are high is to reduce water use, but we have seen groves where even a 10% reduction in water reduces the yield by 50%, and we have also seen quite a few growers irrigating too much with the belief that a couple of extra feet of water per acre will more than pay the cost of water in increased yield. Clearly we need to apply enough water to make the trees produce a profitable yield, How does a farmer accomplish this?
I believe every grower should be using tensiometers or some other kind of soil moisture monitoring equipment to determine when to water, and using CIMIS to determine how much to water. There, just simply, is no an easier, or a better method.
Some growers said that tensiometers don’t work. Well, they work just fine if they are installed correctly and serviced periodically. If the soil gets too dry (the reading goes above 80 cb) the device breaks suction from the soil, and they don’t work until they are removed, filled, pumped and re-installed. As for gypsum blocks, they work just fine also, but are not very accurate under wet conditions. Both work a lot better than just guessing. There are newer electronic devices that work very well if calibrated with the soil moisture, but they don’t work very well in rocky soil (rocks don’t hold water).
Using CIMIS
This assignment is to help you figure out the water use in your grove. The following is a step by step procedure that is not difficult. Several of our grove managers use this on a weekly basis to calculate the water requirement in each of their groves. We have one grower who has this task assigned to his child in the third grade…Really, this is not that difficult!
This assignment will demonstrate how to use CIMIS to calculate the irrigation requirement for an avocado grove in Escondido. ETo is called the reference evapotranspiration (defined as the water use for eight inch tall grass), and all crops in California are related to this water use by adjusting ETo with a “crop coefficient”. In this example you will see that the crop coefficient for avocado in November is 0.55. ETo data is gathered from the automated weather stations that are part of the CIMIS network in California. The irrigation calculator you will be using multiplies the ETo number by the crop coefficient and gives you Etc, the water use by the crop in question. This comes from the station in “inches” of water loss, and the calculator changes this into gallons per tree per day. The calculator then tells you how much water to apply to the avocados to replace the water they used during the last seven days.
Go the website www.avocado.org
Click on California Industry (on the top right side of the page)
Click on Growers
Click on Water
Click on Irrigation Calculator
Start with Evapotranspiration (ETo).
Click on Go To CIMIS
Use the drop down box and Click on San Diego
Click on Submit
Choose Escondido
Click on Daily Data
- “Select a Time Period”, in this example we will select the previous week; select November 15 through November 21
- In “Select Variables”, leave everything selected with the green checkmark.
- Leave “English Units” selected.
- Click “Retrieve Data”
Write down ETo for the last week. In this case it will be: 0.12, 0.11, 0.11, 0.10, 0.12, 0.12 and 0.10.
Add these up, and you get 0.78 (this is your ETo for the past week). Minimize this window.
You are now back to the Irrigation Calculator on the Avocado website.
- Evapotranspiration, delete the 0.22 and fill in your 0.78
- Under “Crop Coefficient”, just click on November in the drop down box.
- Leave “Distribution Uniformity” at 0.85.
- Leave trees at 109 per acre.
- Leave sprinkler output at 17 gal/hr. (of course, you can change this to match your sprinkler output, but for the sake of this example, leave this at 17).
- Click on Calculate.
You should get 138 gallons (this is the amount of water used by one tree in the last seven days) and a watering run time of 8 hrs and 8 minutes.
As I mentioned earlier, you should have tensiometers (soil moisture meters) set at the 8 inch depth (avocado) or 12 inch depth (citrus) to tell you “when” to water. In avocados, I like to irrigate when the shallow tensiometer reads 20-25 cb, and in citrus when the tensiometer reads 35 – 40 cb. You cannot rely on irrigating every seven days because the tensiometer may tell you the soil is getting dry by the fourth day. This often happens in the summer.
To review, CIMIS tells you how much to water, the tensiometer tells you when to water. Now, in actual use, you may find that, in a windy area or on the south side of a slope, your trees may need more water. Merely add a 10% increase to the run time, and keep making minor adjustments until you get this right for your grove. Or, if you have root rot, you may want to water 10% to 30% less water.
By the way, if you are using this calculator for citrus, merely put 0.65 into the crop coefficient for each month, and you can use the same calculator. Some people believe the crop coefficient in the avocado calculator might be too low. Both Ben Faber and I believe the coefficient should be 0.80, but we don’t exactly have good data to support this…just experience. At any rate, the calculator will put you in the ballpark…and it is a lot better than “guessing”.
Give this a try, and Good Luck!
Irrigation Calculator developed by Reuben Hofshi, Shanti Hofshi and Ben Faber.
- Author: Ben Faber
- Author: A. James Downer
South African plant pathologists were the first to show that root rot in avocado could be controlled by trunk injection with both phosphorous acid and the patented material Aliette®. Aliette was briefly registered in California in the late 1980’s, but theregistrant soon lost interest in pursuing a full pesticide registration when it became apparent that other researchers believed phosphorous acid could be registered as a fertilizer - a process much less costly and simpler than a pesticide registration. The company continued to hold on to the patents for the product and the breakdown products that were useful in root rot control. By holding onto the patent, this effectively stopped other companies from pursuing a pesticide registration for phosphorous acid. In 1990, a publication reported that phosphite could be used as a source of phosphorus fertilizer and this became the basis for the registration of phosphite as a fertilizer. Subsequently, when the original patent expired, at least two materials have been registered as fungicides containing phosphite – Fosphite® and Agri-fos®. There are, however, numerous phosphite materials that have been registered as fertilizers (for some brands see Brunings et. al., 2005, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS254), and every day seems to bring more brands onto the scene each making claims of having the best efficacy.
We wanted to see if we could detect an efficacy difference between Aliette, another registered phosphite fungicide and four different materials registered as fertilizers, for a total of six materials. In a greenhouse, three-month old ‘Topa Topa’ seedling avocados with cotyledons removed were planted into a Phytophthora cinnamomi -inoculated organic potting mix. A control was also planted without the inoculum, as well as an inoculated control. One of six different materials was then applied as a soil drench until draining from the bottom of the liner. The materials were applied at the equivalent phosphorous acid concentration. There were 20 replicates for each of the controls and treatments. The experiment was repeated twice.
At harvest, root fresh and dry weights were highest for the non-inoculated trees and lowest for the untreated, inoculated controls, in both trials. All treatments’ associated weights intermediate between these two were statistically the same. Even a repeat application of one of the treatment materials in trial II didn’t result in greater root weights than single application treatments. Shoot weight, both dry and fresh, was much less affected by root rot and treatments. There were no differences in fresh shoot weight in the second trial, not even between the inoculated and noninoculated controls. The root and shoot weights of all the treatments in the second trial were higher than in the first trial, indicating that either the inoculum was not as effective or that the trial was not continued long enough to produce as much damage.
Root rot studies often have dramatic effects on root weights while shoot weights may remain little affected. It is clear from our data that phosphites reduced the severity of root rot in this study, but that there was no benefit of a single source of phosphite relative to any other source.
Below: Healthy and decaying avocado roots.
- 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.
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.
There are impartial sources of such information available to farmers to help corroborate information provided by product vendors. Perhaps the most reliable and accessible impartial research and education resources for growers are their local Cooperative Extension Farm Advisors and commodity research boards.
When promising products emerge, local university Farm Advisors can advise growers on how to evaluate these products and may help design a small trial to test a particular product on a few trees under local orchard conditions. If in these pursuits a truly promising new product or technology emerges, research board funding may follow but only on the recommendation of that board's Research Committee.