________________________________________________
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
|
|
________________________________________________ Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences |
Southwest Florida Vegetable Newsletter
July — August 2001
September 18, 2001
Public Meeting--The Army Corp of Engineers and South
Florida Water Management. District representatives will
address citizens concerns regarding “water issues” - 2 pm. At
the Dallas Townsend Agricultural Center, 1085 Pratt Blvd.,
LaBelle. Contact 863-674-1163 for more information, (see
article "WATER-WATER-WATER below)
September 19, 2001
SW Florida Vegetable Research Investment Fund
Membership Meeting - 6 pm. At SW
Florida Research
and Education Center, State Road 29, Immokalee, FL.
Contact Gene McAvoy at 863-674-4092
for more information.
September 25, 26, 27, 2001
Restricted Use Pesticide Applicator Training Classes and
Testing. At the Dallas Townsend Agricultural Center. 1085
Pratt Blvd., LaBelle. Contact Sheila at 863-674-4092 to
register or for more information.
September 23-25, 2001
Annual Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association
Convention, Ritz Carlton, Amelia Island. Contact Charlie
Matthews or Rachelle Lucas at FFVA, 407-894-1351
September 28, 2001
WPS—Handler Training. At the Dallas Townsend
Agricultural Center, 1085 Pratt Blvd., LaBelle. Contact Sheila
at 863-674-4092 to register or for more information.
October 1, 2001
Train-The-Trainer. At the Dallas Townsend Agricultural
Center, 1085 Pratt Blvd., LaBelle. Contact Sheila at
863-674-4092 to register or for more information.
October 2-3, 2001
FACTS 2001. The Eighth Annual Florida Agricultural
Conference and Trade Show Lakeland Center, Lakeland.
Contact Kathy Murphy at 407-678-5337.
October 3, 2001
Florida Lettuce Advisory Committee Meeting, Drawbridge
Café, Belle Glade, FL. Contact David Basore, Florida Lettuce
Advisory Committee; 561-996-1655
Return to Index
|
|
Gene McAvoy
Vegetable Extension Agent II Hendry County Extension Office PO Box 68 LaBelle, Florida, 33975 863-674-4092 |
As a participant in the vegetable industry, ask yourself some questions. What will the future bring??? Will your needs be meet??? How will your needs be meet???
Challenges will continue to confront the industry. Foreign competition will undoubtedly increase. Our industry will never compete on the basis of cheap land or labor - we must compete on the basis of technological advances based on sound research.
Favorable climate, abundant land and water, as well as the tenacity and rugged individualism of our growers have all been major factors contributing to the long-term survival of the industry.
Much of the strength and progress in the vegetable industry can also be attributed to the partnership and collaboration between growers, government, educational institutions and the industry in conducting agricultural research.
Changing American demographics and the public’s perception of agriculture has eroded funding available to support agricultural research.
As traditional funding sources dry up, growers will need to pick up the slack. The citrus and sugar industries have come to this realization and have long established commodity based research efforts.
In response, the SW Florida vegetable advisory committee launched the “SW Florida Vegetable Research Investment Fund..” The fund is a partnership of growers and others in the vegetable industry that come together to pool their resources to address research needs of common concern. In it’s first year, 43 growers and industry partners have joined and contributed more than $34,000 to fund vegetable research.
To date, this fund has successfully funded two projects. Members have been enthusiastic about the successes of the first year’s progress. A J Nychyk of Nychyk Brothers Farm commented “the research fund marks the first time that vegetable growers have come together to attack common problems affecting all growers.” Chuck Obern of C and B Farm observed, “Grower directed research ensures that growers will receive a final product that is practical in nature and meets the industries needs.”
The SW Florida Vegetable Research Investment Fund is managed by its’ members who prioritize and fund research projects through a democratically elected advisory committee. Membership is based on contributions of one dollar per cropped acre per year or flat fee for industry partners. Contributors hold the purse strings and are free to choose from public or private research groups and hold researchers accountable for performance.
By participating in the SW Florida Vegetable Research Investment Fund, you will ensure that practical research that addresses the needs of local vegetable growers will be supported. The strength and future survival of not only the vegetable industry in southwest Florida but also every vegetable grower will depend on cooperation and unity within the industry.
I urge you to consider joining this worthwhile
initiative. Can you really afford not too?
Return to Index
|
|
 |
The new programs help farmers who lost income due to weather-related disasters that caused loss of crop quality. Some specialty crops are not eligible, such as ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, aquaculture, honey, turf grass sod, maple sap, and ginseng.
To qualify for a QLP payment, farmers must provide USDA proof of quality for their harvested crop. Examples of acceptable documentation include grading receipts, sales receipts, or university lab tests showing quality losses. The QLP was authorized for 2000-crop-year crops by the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, (P.L. 106-387).
The QLP payment is calculated by multiplying 65% of the affected production by 65% of the loss in value due to quality. For example, a farmer sells 1,000 bushels of a crop whose value was reduced by $1.00 per bushel due to poor quality. The payment to this farmer is calculated as follows:
1,000 x 65% = 650
$1.00 x 65% = $.65
650 x $.65 = $422.50 (payment to farmer)
Apple and potato farmers can file for a quality loss payment for both the 1999 and 2000 crops. Payments are calculated by multiplying 65% of the affected production by 100% of the loss in value due to quality. This program also provides payments for losses due to unharvested production.
Under the 2000 Crop Disaster Program, payments USDA has already issued to farmers included, in some cases, loss adjustments because of quality problems. If a farmer already earned a benefit payment under the CDP because of such adjustments, the calculated payment under the new programs will be reduced by the portion of the CDP payment already attributed to quality losses.
Combined total payments issued for QLP and CDP are limited to $80,000 per “person” (as defined by USDA regulations). Also, “persons” whose gross revenue exceeded $2.5 million for the 1999 tax year are ineligible for QLP. Neither of these limitations applies to payments to apple and potato growers.
QLP payments to farmers should begin soon after they sign up. Quality loss payments for apple and potato growers cannot be issued until signup ends because of the fixed level of funding for these crops. If the total value of all approved apple and potato applications exceeds the funding level, payments may be prorated. The ending date for signup has not been set.
For more information on these and other USDA programs, please contact your local USDA Service Center or Farm Service Agency office.
Farmer & Rancher
August 2001
|
|
 |
Now, a state group has come under fire from a lawsuit challenging its validity. The Florida Department of Citrus is being sued by five multinational corporations over the board's assessment of product imported into the state for juice and processing.
Lakeland, Fla. attorney Kristen Gunter filed the suit on behalf of the companies and is basing the challenge on the U.S. Supreme court's decision in favor of the mushroom producer who challenged the federal tax on the industry.
http://www.vegetablegrowersnews.com/pages/news_01_08/news_promo.html
|
|
 |
PAY ATTENTION to the cumulative risk process! Examine the reports and take the time to comment. These discussions will establish the rules for the organophosphates and all other pesticide groupings (e.g., the carbamates) that will follow. A meeting of the Committee to Advise on Reassessment and Transition (CARAT) is scheduled for June 28.
Georgis Pest Management Newsletter - July 2001 - 3
|
|
 |
The effects of flooding have often been partially or entirely counteracted by addition of nitrogen (N) fertilizer to overcome N deficiency (Hodgson and MacLeod, 1988; Haq and Mallarino, 2000) natural or synthetic hormones to correct hormone imbalances (Drew et al, 1979), and of fungicides to control soil-borne pathogens (Mason et al., 1987).
Fungicides
Flooding increases the severity of diseases (Wilcox and Mircetich, 1985; de Siva et al., 1999; Faloon et al, 2001). The susceptibility of flooded plants to disease, and particularly root rotting fungi, will depend on the relative abilities of the microorganisms and plants to grow in anaerobic conditions. Some fungi depend on high soil moisture to complete many stages of their life cycle, to release zoospores, and to ensure their mobility (Duniway, 1979; Schaffer et al., 1992). The abiotic environment influences the three-way interaction involving the pathogens, microbial competitors of the pathogen on or within the roots, and the roots (Baker and Cook, 1974). The symptoms of diseased roots are discoloration, rotting of the root, and the premature death of the plant. The damage reduces the ability of the root systems to obtain mineral nutrients or perform other functions essential to the shoot (Cook, 1984). Phytophthora and Pythium cause greatest damage to roots in poorly rained soil (Stolzy et al., 1965).
Application of fungicides may reduce the incidence of disease in flooded plants and increases plant tolerance to flooding. Bean was less affected by low oxygen levels when soil pathogens were controlled (Miller and Burke, 1975). However, application of fungicide (Benlate and Ridomil for control of Pithium and Fusarium) on corn did not relieve flooding effects (Mason et al., 1987). Lack of literature in relation to recovery of flood stressed plants from disease by fungicide application mandates the need for our study.
Nitrogen Fertilizers
Flooding causes a significant decrease in N content and rate of N accumulation in plants due to reduced root activity. Yellowing of leaves due to loss of chlorophyll from leaves within two to three days of flooding is attributed to N deficiency. Thus, a strategic use of N fertilizer prior to flooding may alleviate N deficiency.
Foliar and soil application of N as an ameliorant has been reported in cotton, corn, barley and soybean (Drew et al., 1979; Hodgson and MacLeod, 1987; Haq and Mallarino, 2000). Application of calcium nitrate daily on submerged barley plants resulted in no flooding damage (Drew et al., 1979). Additions of nitrate to the soil surface allowed superficial roots to continue to absorb nitrate, as well as other nutrients. Nitrate provides a substrate for the N metabolism of growing shoot tissues, is necessary in roots for the synthesis of cytokinins and their transport to shoots and the delay of premature leaf senescence (Yoshida and Oritani, 1974). Foliar application of 3-8-15 at a rate of 28 liter/ha was successful in increasing soybean yields without causing any leaf injury (Haq and Mallarino, 2000). Foliar application of potassium nitrate and urea caused net accumulation of N and shoot concentrations of N and fewer declines in chlorophyll, thereby alleviating leaf chlorosis (Trought and Drew, 1981).
Growth Regulators
Various plant growth regulators have also been associated with alleviation of flooding damages, but there is a void in the information available on their effects on flooded vegetable crops. Spraying shoots with a synthetic cytokinin (6-benzylaminopurine [BAP]) reduced injury to shoots of dicotelydons in flooded soil by improvements in leaf extension and retarded premature loss of chlorophyll in older leaves (Drew et al., 1979). This was related to application of BAP compensating for the restricted transport of natural cytokinin from the root system (Even-Chen and Itai, 1975), affecting metabolism of gibberellins (Reid and Railton, 1974), and antagonizing the inhibitory action of abscisic acid on growth (Milborrow, 1974). Foliar application of BAP together with gibberellic acid can be effective in partially offsetting the inhibitory influence of poor aeration in roots on stem elongation, transpiration, and the increase of fresh and dry weight in leaves and stem (Selman and Sandanam, 1972; Jackson and Campbell, 1979). Soaking soybean seeds in kinetin solution alleviated the flooding damage by overcoming deficiency of natural cytokinin (Vorobeikov and Anikina, 1977). Pretreating of corn seedlings with abscisic acid (ABA) improved the flooding survival of plants 10 fold (VanToai, 1993). Seedling treatments with synthetic cytokinin like Uniconazole have also helped to delay the chlorosis and senescence induced by flooding (Leul and Zhou, 1998). Foliar sprays of urea and Mixtalol at flowering stage in winter rape and rice alleviated plant damage by flooding by retarding chlorophyll and nitrogen degradation, increasing superoxide dismutase and catalase activities and root oxidizability, and improving yield components and seed yield (Ni et al., 1995; Zhou et al., 1997).
A of quantitative information on growth responses of various vegetable crops to flooding and the impact of fertilizers, fungicides, and growth promoters on alleviating flooding damage, emphasizes the need for research in this area. Research in these areas could provide better insight on how to manage these flooded vegetable crops and maximize their production.
(Renuka Rao and Li, - Vegetarian 01-08)
|
|
 |
According to an article in Science magazine, the plant is able to emit a chemical which alerts predatory bugs that it is under attack by the five-spotted hawkmoth, which primarily feasts on tobacco plants.
Ian Baldwin is a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Biology in Germany and co-author of the study. He says the chemical released by the tobacco plant helps the predatory bugs locate their food and also discourages future attacks by the egg-laying moth.
“Our study demonstrates that the volatile bouquet that is released after the attack is very complex,” he told Science magazine. “Predators are attracted, and egg-laying moths are repelled.”
Several other plants also emit chemical signals to keep pests away. For example, corn provides a chemical signal for wasps, which lay eggs inside armyworms that feed on the corn plant. The wasp eggs hatch into larvae, which attack the armyworms.
Lima bean, cotton, pear and oilseed plants use similar chemical defenses, Baldwin notes.
Baldwin says the study indicates that what he calls “indirect defenses” may be engineered into plants and become more successful at controlling pests than chemical spraying. He notes that insects can develop a resistance to pesticides, but not against natural predators.
http://www.ipmalmanac.com/solutions/200108 /chemical.asp
|
|
 |
During the past year, EPA has been conducting an exhaustive scientific assessment of registered Bt products as part of a larger process on behalf of the federal government to ensure that the use of biotechnology does not pose unreasonable risks to public health or to the environment. Continuing to review the latest ecological and human health data allows EPA to maintain the best scientific information as a foundation on which to base regulatory decisions concerning Bt products. Throughout the current assessment, EPA has considered extensive public comments, requested peer review from the Agency's independent panel of scientific experts, consulted other Federal agencies, and worked with industry, public interest groups and other concerned stakeholders.
This revised assessment will have direct bearing on how the Agency proceeds regarding the conditional Bt corn and cotton registrations scheduled to expire on September 30. There is a 45-day comment period beginning July 17 on both the revised assessment and regulatory options EPA is considering regarding the expiring registrations.
For more information, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biol If you care about Bt crops, you should take the time to review the documents and comment.
The area of genetic modification is very controversial;
both sides of the issue need to make their
voices heard.
Georgia Pest Management
August 2001
|
Labeled for Use in Cucumbers |
 |
Many cool season crops such as mustard, collard, red beets etc. are very sensitive to the herbicide. Crops such as watermelon, muskmelon, squash, tomato pepper, beans etc. are fairly tolerant for plant back. Residue studies for most of these crops are at EPA for potential future labeling.
I have been informed that Sandea is being shipped
into the state and should be available shortly.
(Stall - Vegetarian 01-08)
|
|
 |
That’s where “YOUR” tax dollars are being “USED”!!! The IMPACT GROUP has prevailed in getting Curt Thompson of The Army Corp of Engineers with the South Florida Water Management District representatives to attend a Public Meeting, September 18, 2001, at the Dallas Townsend Agricultural Center, Pratt Blvd., in LaBelle at 2PM.
This Meeting is intended to address the “many” unanswered questions, posed to the Corps and the district, on June 12, 2001, in Clewiston, and on July 12, at the BOCC meeting in LaBelle.
We know from our countywide contacts that, you the Taxpaying citizens of Hendry County want those, and many other questions about “WATER”, answered!!
The Corps and the District, are making themselves available to answer “YOUR” questions.
We have established a phone number in LaBelle to receive question, 863-674-1163, and a mail address: IMPACT c/o Henry Spang, 595 Caloosa Estates Dr., LaBelle, FL 33935.
We are making this announcement, well in advance of the September 18, 2001 meeting date, to allow ample time for you, the “concerned” Taxpaying Citizens to have your questions answered.
Don’t let this “OPPORTUNITY” escape, since the current “out of pocket” $63.1 million, is only a “Drop” in the “Bucket” of the Corps and the Districts continuing Water Projects impacting Hendry County’s Tax Paying Citizenry.
The “Water Meter” is running, & it’s “YOUR MONEY”!!!
At the same time IMPACT is excited to be opening up it’s membership for new members, consistent with “serving” that “Silent Majority”, that, up to now, did not think their questions and concerns could be heard, and addressed.
Call, or write the listed number and address, above to obtain Membership Application and join the IMPACT GROUP!!
We are “listening”!!
T. W. Neville
The IMPACT GROUP
Return to Index
|
Monoxide |
 |
There is even an organization called the “Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division” that is devoted to this ban. They can be found at: http://www.dhmo.org/ This is a must.
Dr Norm Nesheim
Pesticide Information Coordinator
|
|
 |
Although some portions of the RED have been given to the group to review, the EPA is still addressing worker and ecological risk issues, as well as a benefit analysis. Perhaps the most vexing issue is that endosulfan was classified as an endocrine disruptor in an Environmental Fate and Effects Division draft risk assessment. The assessment then stated that the EPA has not yet developed criteria to characterize endocrine disrupting substances. The Task Force logically concluded that since the criteria have not been selected, endosulfan should not currently be placed in this category.
Chemical Regulation Reporter, Vol. 25, No. 25
|
|
 |
If you see a chemical listed that is important to your industry, get involved as soon as possible. Do not wait. Collect information about how the pesticide is used, including amounts, timing, key pests controlled, etc. Relay this information to EPA and to the pesticide registrant.
REDs (Reregistration Eligibility Decisions)
When EPA completes the review and risk management decision for a pesticide that is subject to reregistration (that is, one initially registered before November 1984), the Agency generally issues a Reregistration Eligibility Decision or RED document. The RED summarizes the risk assessment conclusions and outlines any risk reduction measures necessary for the pesticide to continue to be registered in the U.S.
IREDs (Interim Reregistration Eligibility Decisions)
EPA issues an IRED for a pesticide that is undergoing reregistration, requires a reregistration eligibility decision, and also must be included in a cumulative assessment under FQPA. The IRED, issued after completing the individual pesticide's risk assessment, may include taking risk reduction measures- for example, reducing risks to workers or eliminating uses that the registrant no longer wishes to maintain to gain the benefits of these changes before the final RED can be issued following the cumulative assessment.
EPA issues a TRED for a pesticide that requires
tolerance reassessment decisions but does not require a reregistration
eligibility decision at present because:
1) the pesticide was initially registered
after November 1, 1984, and by law is not included within the scope of
the re-registration program;
2) EPA completed a RED for the pesticide before
FQPA was enacted on August 3, 1996;
3) the pesticide is not registered for use in
the U.S. but tolerances are established that allow crops treated with the
pesticide to be imported from other countries.
Like ITREDs, some TREDs will not become final until EPA considers the cumulative risks of all the pesticides in the cumulative group.
Georgia Pest Management Newsletter - August 2001 - 6
|
|
 |
Source: Weekly NMPRO e-mail for July 31, 2001
|
|
  |
Populations of animals and plants possess the ability to respond to sustained changes or stresses in their environment in ways that enable the continued survival of the species. Such environmental stresses include physical factors (e.g. temperature or humidity), biological factors (e.g. predators, parasites or pathogens) and environmental contaminants. In any population, a small percentage of individuals will be better able to respond to new stresses because of unique traits or characteristics that they possess. Consequently, those individuals will survive and reproduce. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as "survival of the fittest."
Resistance to pesticides develops through genetic selection in populations of pests, including insects, pathogens, and weeds. Certain individuals in a pest population are less susceptible to a pesticide than other individuals. These less-susceptible pest biotypes are more likely to survive a pesticide application and produce progeny that are less susceptible. After repeated applications over several generations, the pest population consists primarily of resistant or less-susceptible individuals. Applying the same pesticide, or other chemicals with the same mode of action, is no longer effective.
Many pest species are exceptionally well equipped to respond to environmental stresses because of their short generation time and large reproductive potential. The use of chemical sprays to control insect and mite pests creates a potent environmental stress. There are now many examples of pests that have responded by developing resistance to one or more pesticides. Pesticide resistant individuals are those that have developed the ability to tolerate doses of a toxicant that would be lethal to the majority of individuals.
The mechanisms of resistance can vary according to pest species and/or to the class of chemical to which the pest is exposed. Resistance mechanisms include an increased capacity to detoxify the pesticide once it has entered the pest's body, a decreased sensitivity of the target site that the pesticide acts upon, or a decreased penetration of the pesticide through the cuticle. A single resistance mechanism can sometimes provide defense against different classes of chemicals and this is known as cross-resistance. When more than one resistance mechanism is expressed in the same individual, this individual is said to show multiple resistance.
Because the traits for resistance are passed from one generation to the next, continued stress from a pesticide may, over time, create resistance in the majority of individuals in a population. From an operational perspective, this process would be expressed as a gradual decrease and eventual loss of effectiveness of a chemical. Resistance to a particular chemical may be stable or unstable. When resistance is stable, the pest population does not revert to a susceptible state even if the use of that chemical is discontinued. When resistance is unstable and use of the chemical is temporarily discontinued, the population will eventually return to a susceptible state, at which time the chemical in question could again be used to manage that pest. However, in this situation, previously resistant populations may eventually show resistance again.
Of the factors that affect the development of resistance, which include aspects of the pest's biology, ecology and genetics, only certain operational factors can be effectively manipulated by the grower. The key operational factor that will delay the onset of resistance, and therefore prolong the effective life of a compound, is to limit the number of applications of the same or similar materials to one per season. Rotation of chemicals from different classes within or between years may further reduce the likelihood that resistance to any one material will develop. If resistance to a particular chemical does develop in a pest population, use of that material and materials in the same class, should be discontinued.
The best way to manage pesticide resistance is to focus on three strategies: avoid, delay, and reversal.
Avoid the development of pesticide resistance problems with the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs, which reduce reliance on chemical control. Delay resistance by using pesticides only when needed, as indicated by monitoring, and when pests are at a susceptible stage. Delay can also be achieved by using pesticides from different chemical classes (e.g., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, biologicals, etc.) and by rotating their use. Reversal of some resistance can occur by allowing time between applications of a class of pesticide to permit resistant populations to become diluted by pesticide-susceptible individuals. Key elements of resistance management include minimizing pesticide use, avoiding tank mixes, avoiding persistent chemicals, and using long-term rotations of pesticide from different chemical classes.
Minimizing pesticide use is fundamental to pesticide resistance management. IPM programs incorporating pest monitoring in California, New York, Maryland, Canada, and elsewhere have demonstrated 25 to 50% reduction in pesticide use with an increase in crop quality. Ask your extension agent or consult a crop care advisor for information on setting up and maintaining an IPM monitoring program. Such a program will help determine the best application timing for pesticides (when they will do the most good), thus helping to reduce the number of applications.
The use of non-chemical strategies, such as pest exclusion (e.g. purchasing disease free transplants), host-free periods, crop rotation, biological control, and weed control may reduce the need to use chemicals and consequently slow the development of pesticide resistance.
Avoid tank mixes. Never combine two pesticides with the same mode of action in a tank mix (e.g., two organophophates such as acephate and chlorpyrifos). Such a ‘super dose' often increases the chances of selection for resistant individuals. In some cases, mixing pesticides from two different classes provides superior control. However, long-term use of these two-class pesticide mixes can also give rise to pesticide resistance, if resistance mechanisms to both pesticides arise together in some individuals. Continued use of the mixture will select for these multiple-pesticide-resistant pests.
Avoid Persistent Chemicals. Insects with resistant genes will be selected over susceptible ones whenever insecticide concentrations kill only the susceptible pests. An ideal pesticide quickly disappears from the environment so that persistence of a ‘selecting dose' does not occur. When persistent chemicals must be used, consider where they can be used in a rotation scheme to provide the control needed and with a minimum length of exposure.
An example of a class of persistent materials that cause some concern with regard to vegetable pest resistance management are the new neonicotinoid compounds used to control silverleaf whitefly in tomatoes. Growers are advised to follow label recommendations carefully to avoid prolonged exposure to these materials which could lead to the buildup of pest resistance.
Resistance management strategies for insects, weeds, and fungal pathogens all include rotating classes of pesticides (e.g., pesticides with the same mode of action such as pyrethroids, organophosphates, carbamates, etc.). However, the strategies used in rotations differ. For example, with fungicides, it is suggested that classes be rotated every application. With insecticides, it is sometimes suggested that longer-term rotations be used. This means that a class might be used for two or three consecutive applications, depending on the target pest, before rotating to a new class of materials. If insecticides are switched with every application, individuals are being subjected to numerous pesticides and selection for multiple resistance may occur. Short-term rotations of insecticides can basically function as a tank mix.
If there is only one chemical that is effective against a pest and other available products are only marginally effective, a good strategy to follow is to use the marginally effective materials at times when pest pressure is less severe and to reserve the effective material for those periods of time when control must be most effective.
|
|
 |
|
Florida Postharvest Horticulture Institute |
 |
The Postharvest Institute is designed for produce industry professionals, educators, researchers and students involved in such diverse areas as field and packinghouse management, wholesale and retail sales and import/export. The $40.00 registration fee covers admission to the Institute, lunch on Tuesday, a reference notebook and entrance to the FACTS exhibit areas. A discounted registration fee is available for county faculty who wish to participate.
For more information, contact Ms. Abbie Fox, Institute Facilitator at 352-392-1928, ext. 235 or by e-mail at ajfox@mail.ifas.ufl.edu.
Vegetable Grower’s Newsletter
September-October 2001
|
Insecticides Registered |
 |
“Growing vegetables is an intensive job, so pest control advisors and growers need tools they can rely on for a wide range of crops and conditions,” says Coby Long, Syngenta insecticide brand manager. “Platinum can be applied several ways, yet it protects plants faster compared to other soil treatments. Actara provides extended residual control as a foliar treatment with minimal impact on beneficial insects and a wide margin of worker safety.”
Platinum is registered at 5 to 8 ounces per acre to control aphids, whiteflies, Colorado potato beetles and flea beetles. Platinum may be applied in-furrow, banded or as a drench. It may also be applied through drip irrigation or shanked-in at lay-by alone or with liquid fertilizer. Actara may be applied by air or ground at very low use rates of 2 to 4 ounces per acre to control aphids, whiteflies, flea beetles, Colorado potato beetles and pepper weevils.
“Platinum performs consistently better because it moves into plants much faster than other soil treatments—even when soil moisture is low,” says Dr. Steve White, Syngenta insecticide technical brand manager. “Actara is rain fast as soon as spray material dries and provides long-lasting protection with a unique combination of translaminar and locally systemic activity we call transstemic action.”
Platinum and Actara have minimal impact on most beneficial insects, so they are well suited for integrated pest management programs.
The Tomato Magazine
August 2001
|
|
 |
While not yet law, the bill is a step in the right direction, according to United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association. The measure approved by the Committee allocates $73.4 billion in mandatory funding over the next 10 years addressing a number of produce industry priorities.
“The bill as passed by the Committee today is certainly a step in the right direction and provides greater focus in targeting assistance and enhanced policies to meet the unique needs of the produce industry,” said Donna Denison, United's director of government affairs.
The provisions that directly affect the fruit and vegetable industry include:
|
|
 |
“China is very concerned about raising yields of crops to enhance its food security. Biotechnology offers high hopes,” according to a Chinese agronomist quoted in a Reuters report. The government also hopes the biotech industry will continue to lure back Chinese scientists who left the country to study and work abroad.
China’s biotech industry is dominated by government research institutes and universities, some of which are developing state owned enterprises to market their products. Only a few foreign firms have contracted with Chinese institutes to conduct biotech research because of China’s weak intellectual property laws. Several foreign seed companies have formed joint ventures with Chinese state owned enterprises, a requirement for selling seeds of major food crops in China. Most are currently focused on the conventional seed market, but Monsanto and Delta and Pine Land have established a joint venture with the Hebei Provincial Seed Company to sell GE cotton seed.
Transgenic Bt cotton is the most widely grown GE crop in China, with estimates ranging from over 700,000 hectares to one million hectares, or about one-third of the total cotton crop. GE proponents in China point to the success of Bt cotton in greatly reducing pesticide use, and reducing overall production cost for farmers by 20%. However, according to some reports, the cotton bollworm has already developed resistance to Bt in two provinces in China.
Other commercialized GE crops include tomato, sweet pepper and petunia. Recent biotech research and development in China has spawned many more not-yet-commercialized products, including two species of Bt rice engineered to be resistant to the pyralid moth. In July, China announced development of genetically engineered tomato, eggplant and hot pepper plants that could be irrigated with seawater. Additional research is targeting rice, canola and wheat. By transferring genes of salt-tolerant plants like the mangrove into fresh-water crops, Chinese scientist claim that transgenic plants have survived seawater irrigation for four generations.
Pesticide Action Network Updates
Service
August 31, 2001
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
Beginning in the June issue of Citrus and Vegetable Magazine, license holders will be able to read an article on pest management or pesticide safety topics. They can then request (online or by phone) corresponding set of questions from FDACS. The completed questions will be mailed back to the Florida Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Licensing Division. Upon grading and a successful completion, a completed CEU form will be sent to the license holder. License holders can earn 1 Core CEU for each question set completed. This will be a six-month trial program, which is scheduled to run June, July, August, October, November, and December of 2001.
|
|
 |
Have you ever wondered:
