Re: [apple-crop] agricultural drones
Actually, I just found this video which is much better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d6nQCgGTHwfeature=related Peter Jentsch, entomologist at the Hudson Valley Lab, sent me some web info on Yamaha drones used for spraying rice in Japan (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ds1BeKsZShofeature=related and http://www.barnardmicrosystems.com/L4E_rmax.htm). Another website indicated that these drones were already being used to spray 600,000 hectares of rice in Japan in 2005 (the last year included on that graph). apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ ___ apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
Re: [apple-crop] Best electric fencing materials - Deer
Hi, Mark -- The advantage of putting in the new section of fence at 8 ft is that you won't have to redo that section when you switch the rest of the fence to 8 ft :). As Mike Fargione indicated earlier, many growers in the Hudson Valley of New York started out with either slanted or vertical electrified deer fences 30 years ago. However, as our white-tail deer pressures increased, virtually everyone has switched to 8-ft woven wire. At our research station, we did this gradually because we could not afford to do it all at once. We put in the first 8-ft woven wire back around 1994 and then gradually replaced additional sections of the old slanted 7-wire electrical fence (originally installed about 1981) as we had the time and budget to do so. We finished the last of it about 3 yr ago. You may think that you can't afford the 8-ft woven wire fence, but my experience with the electrical fence suggests that electrical fences have the following hidden costs: 1. We blew out a $200 charger about once/yr due to lightening strikes, and that was even with a lightening arrestor installed. Sometimes we could send the damaged charger back and get it repaired by the manufacturer for $80 or $100, but other times they were a total loss. Eventually, we kept two units side by side so that when one got blown we could just switch to the other while we got the first one repaired or replaced. Our hill-top location may have made this problem worse for us than for most, but you will find that several miles of wire are pretty good at picking up lightning strikes, and we never succeeded in getting grounding and lightning arrestors that totally protected our chargers. 2. In our area with rain throughout summer, we had to herbicide beneath fences at least twice/yr, and sometimes three times. 3. Keeping down the weeds is essential to keep from grounding out the fence, but it also created erosion problems where the fence ran up/down hill. We had to invest time putting rocks and diverters into gullies beneath the fences that were created by rainstorms. We run our tree rows across hillsides to minimize erosion, but fences sometimes need to go straight up the hill. 4. Shrubs/trees from outside of the fence would grow over our fence, then short it out as branches drooped onto the wires. This can be avoided if you can leave room to mow on the outside of the fence, but we needed all the space we could get, so our fence was pretty close to hedgerows. We had to cut back trees at least every other year. Eventually we figured out how to chemically prune brush and tree limbs that grew into the fence from hedgerows by using an annual shot of Krenite. We still do this with the woven wire fence, but woven wire still works if we have occasional branches growing through it. 5. We used thin wood battens to keep electrified wires correctly spaced between the posts that were spaced about 50 or 60 ft apart, and these battens constantly needed adjustment or replacement after they broke. 6. I ended up getting jolted by the fence on numerous occasions, and with 5,000 to 7,000 volts in milisecond bursts, it was not a very pleasant experience. Usually this occurred because I tried some stupid shortcut, like crawling through the live fence to save time, knowing that my rubber boots or sneakers kept me from getting shocked (we had all 7 wires electrified), but then putting my hand down on the ground to catch my balance. Alternating hot and grounded wires would eliminate the temptation to crawl through the fence, but then I would have always had to walk back to a gate. At least with woven wire, I can climb over the fence anyplace there is a post. All in all, I would never want to go back to an electric fence if I expected that I would be farming long enough to recoup the costs of the woven wire. We've had a number of hedgerow trees drop onto our woven wire fence during windstorms, and the high-tensile woven wire available today is pretty good about popping back into place as soon as the fallen tree is removed. The fence never looks quite as straight and aesthetically pleasing after a tree drops on it, but it still serves to keep deer out. Putting in the woven wire is a lot of work and expense, but it's a great way to go if you can afford it at all, even if you have to spread it out over a decade. I have about another 1000' that I need to build fence from scratch. I could use an 8' tall fence for that, but I'm not sure how much good it will do to have part of the fence 6' tall and another part 8'. I'm thinking an electric fence is only as good as it's weakest/lowest point. Mark -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845
Re: [apple-crop] Abound usage and apples
Hi, Lorraine -- Gala, McIntosh, and anything with McIntosh background are cultivars that can be severely damaged by azoxystrobin. That is the simple answer. The degree of damage depends on a variety of factors including azoxystrobin concentration, time of year that the application is made, etc. The reason for the label restriction requiring separate sprayers is that azoxystrobin will burn susceptible apples even if the concentration of azoxystrobin is in the parts per billion range. Thus, it is almost impossible to assure that a sprayer is really perfectly cleaned and will have no azoxystrobin residues after it has been used to apply azosystrobin. You probably can get away with using the same sprayer after a thorough cleaning, but the company is saying that they won't buy your apple crop if you ruin it because your sprayer was not as clean as you thought it was. In the early days after azoxystrobin was released, ICI (who developed the product) ended up buying a lot of apples along Lake Erie because grape growers a mile away from the affected apple orchard applied azoxystrobin at night with an Agtec or Kinkelder sprayer (i.e., with low-volume sprayers that used highly concentrated azoxystrobin) during a time when there were inversions over the vineyards. That experience taught all involved that azoxystrobin drift in the form of non-visible spray droplets was still enough to totally ruin an apple crop. Given the label warnings on today's azoxystrobin packages and the variety-specific nature of azoxystrobin damage to apples, any off-site drift that damages a neighbor's apple crop can probably be traced to the guilty applicator and is likely to result in an expensive lawsuit. Thus, the key warning for anyone using azoxystrobin in apple producing regions is BUYER BEWARE!!! Hello everyone, A grower in Connecticut wants to use Abound (azoxystrobin), or Quilt Xcel (azoxystrobin plus propiconazole) for control of Boytryosphaeria on black currants. He has apples nearby and also uses the same sprayer for both crops. Both labels state that the products are extremely phytotoxic to certain apple varieties. What apple varieties are affected? If he uses Abound or Quilt Xcel, should he clean the sprayer with something special before he sprays the apples again? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Lorraine Lorraine Los Fruit Crops IPM Coordinator Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture, U-4067 University of Connecticut Storrs, CT 06269-4067 (860)486-6449 (Phone) (860)486-0682 (Fax) lorraine@uconn.edu Content-Type: text/plain; name=ATT1.c Content-Description: ATT1.c Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ATT1.c; size=224; creation-date=Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:23:15 GMT; modification-date=Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:23:15 GMT Attachment converted: davidrosenberger:ATT1.c (TEXT/MSWD) (001EEC0D) -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ ___ apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
Re: [apple-crop] western view of scab models.
Hi, Tom -- Thanks for the post about how you view scab periods in WA. I figured that you folks probably had to worry about scab with the same frequency that we get straight facts from our politicians. Just for the record, those who have studied night-time discharge tell me that discharge will be minimal if it is too dark to read a newspaper in the orchard when the rain begins. They didn't specify font size or age of the eyes involved. Nevertheless, it will probably work so long as you are in the habit of reading newspapers in your orchard at dusk. Many of us manage scab similarly to fire blight. Each block has high medium or low risk depending on the amount of scab carried into the current season. The WSU mills table does not consider many of the nuances of scab control. When comparing the details of using the WSU mills table to the information provided with the Belfort leaf wetness devices, the Belfort literature explained how to determine when to add dry periods together especially taking into consideration risk and humidity. Typically during primary scab season, we seldom can string together enough time with wet leaves to generate an infection period. Typically we don't have any carryover. In these conditions we can at least double the hours listed for a heavy infection before we even look up the choice of control materials. If there was scab last year AND the orchard is irrigated with overhead irrigation, then we start assessing the time between showers and the level of relative humidity that is present when the leaf wetness monitors say 'dry'. If relative humidity is above 50% during a 'dry' period, with high risk of scab, we add the infection periods together and use the 'light' infection period for appropriate temperature in the mills table. I prefer to look at the raw data and make the decision manually, not relying on the machine to understand my environment or my risk. I think the risk of determining 'how' dark is dark relative to ascospore release is a form of gambling with whole season's spray program. An ounce of prevention is worth pounds and pounds of 'cure'. Tom and Rose Auvil PO Box 408 Orondo, WA 98843 tau...@nwi.net -Original Message- From: apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Vincent Philion Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 9:10 AM To: Apple-crop discussion list Subject: Re: [apple-crop] spectrum instruments and infection models in general Hi! I agree with both Dave and Daniel, but let me add a grain of salt: All infection events are not equal. Plain infection models tell you nothing about ascospore availability discharge. Conditions may be right for spores to infect... but infection only occurs IF spores are both mature and ejected! Then, as Daniel underlines, the question of dry hours comes up. Does a short break during the infection kill all spores? A portion? Because there are many processes going on: Maturation, discharge, infection and each process has it's own rules (effect of light, temperature, drying, etc), none of the models included in these machines are a good reflection of what's actually going on. The only model I'm aware of that addresses each of these issues in a rational approach is RIMpro: (http://www.biofruitadvies.nl/RIMpro/rimpro_e.htm) It's been used in Europe for over 20 years and it integrates all the knowledge on spore maturation (Gadoury MacHardy), infection (revised Mill's), effect of light, drying, etc. It was actually developed by an entomologist that was fed-up with the never ending discussions of pathologist on each separate aspect, without a clear image of the big picture. (Me included!) The software was validated over many years and many countries. Nonetheless, development is still ongoing because some pathologists still argue and find small areas needing improvement. (pathologists are a feisty bunch... Me included) Vincent Le 2011-04-21 à 11:32, Daniel Cooley a écrit : Dave's right, the Mills model is Al Jones from about 1980. The WA model is actually the original Bill Mills model from the 40's, and the Cornell model is Gadoury, Stensvand and Seem's 1994 revision. Nice overview, Dave. I haven't checked, but there may be differences between the Cornell model and the other two in terms of split wetting periods, and that may be what's beyond the strange predictions in David D.'s wetting event. Two hours isn't very long, but may be enough for the WA model to call them distinct events, while the Cornell model did not. In general, I have found the black box approach used by Spectrum with their implementation of disease models to be less than satisfying at times. Their manual is pretty sketchy, and sometimes just wrong about what the published models say and what the SpecWare model does. More information about the way the models work would be very helpful. On Apr 21, 2011, at 11:13 AM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Hello, David -- I
Re: [apple-crop] Is it necessarily Powdery Mildew?
Hi, Bill -- I'm curious as to whether anyone has actually ever controlled powdery mildew or any other apple diseases with Serenade. Back east, we think of Serenade somewhat along the lines of a deodorant: applying it makes you feel good about yourself, but we don't really expect it to stop any diseases! Of course, I know that it works really well when alternated with something like Rally :) Besides the powder PM also gives a sort of reddish cast to the leaves. You might want to consider alternating at least three different fungicides with different modes of action into your program. PM will develop resistance to just one form of control in one year. I'm fairly certain just using a couple more modes of action will clean it up fast. Bill Fleming Montana State University Western Ag Research Center 580 Quast Ln Corvallis, Montana From: apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-crop-boun...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Rye Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:51 AM To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: [apple-crop] Is it necessarily Powdery Mildew? Hi again folks, Sorry for all the separate email, just thought it would help to keep topics organized. I have been spraying weekly with Serenade ASO for Powdery Mildew. On all trees including those planted last year (second leaf?) and this years planting (first leaf?) I see white fuzz on new shoots and the twigs of leaves. The fuzz seems thicker on the second leaf trees than on the first leaf trees. All leaves themselves are coming in pristine and older wood is clean. The white fuzz does rub off if I rub briskly. I call it fuzz because it seems to be slender and erect on a barely visible scale. As opposed to the pastiness I saw in the Powdery Mildew on the dormant shoots in late winter. I need to continue spraying either way since new leaves are still popping, but I'm curious: Is that white fuzz still Powdery Mildew? Or is that something that naturally appears on young shoots? I'm tending to think PM, but not 100% sure. Thanks, Rye Hefley Future Farmers Marketer So. Cal. Content-Type: text/plain; name=ATT1..c Content-Description: ATT1..c Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=ATT1..c; size=224; creation-date=Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:07:34 GMT; modification-date=Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:07:34 GMT Attachment converted: davidrosenberger:ATT1. 11.c (TEXT/MSWD) (001C8035) -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ ___ apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
Re: [apple-crop] Copper Deficiency and Fire Blight
To follow up on a few items: 1. I would agree that controlling shoot blight is a lot more difficult than controlling blossom blight. We really know relatively little about the dynamics of shoot blight, except that it is almost always more severe if one does not control blossom blight. We know that bacteria are disseminated to new shoots by wind and rain so long as shoot are actively growing, but so far we have no good methods for controlling shoot blight. 2. In northeastern United States, we believe very strongly that using streptomycin during summer to control shoot blight will result, over a relatively short period of years, in the selection of strep-resistant strains of fire blight. Based on recommendations dating back to the early 1960's, strep has never been recommended in NY for summer sprays except when hail hits an orchard with existing fire blight infections. I believe that this strategy is responsible at least in part for the fact that we have never detected strep-resistant fire blight in NY except where it was introduced with nursery stock. By comparison, strep-resistant Erwinia is common in areas where growers in the past opted to use repeated applications of strep during summer to control shoot blight. 3. Copper sprays for controlling shoot blight have been tested by many scientists (including me), and as Dave Schmitt suggested, with only limited degrees of success. That doesn't mean that they never suppress blight, just that they are not consistently effective and that they rarely provide complete control. 4. If one reads the publication by Lewis and Kenworthy (for which Richard Bell posted the abstract), you will see that they actually had somewhat MORE blight in pear trees with high copper levels than in their control trees. Excess boron was especially detrimental (i.e., the trees got more blight), but high calcium levels were beneficial. However, trees in that trial were wound-inoculated, so we cannot be certain that results would be the same following natural dissemination to shoots in an orchard. And who knows if the same nutritional effects would hold true for apples and for all cultivars of apples? 5. I suspect, based on observations without any replicated trials to confirm it, that applications of copper at relatively high rates and/or in repeated applications may slow growth of newly planted trees. If and when that occurs, it might make those trees less susceptible to blight just because they are growing a bit more slowly. However, slowing the growth of newly planted trees is not generally desirable, so we're back to square one: we still have no reliable method for controlling the spread of shoot blight. Hi Lee, Copper is an excellent antibiotic. The reason it is seldom used during the growing season is because, as you have noted, it affects fruit finish and can be phtotoxic. A growers willingness to tolerate poor finish is directly related to the intended use of the fruit. Market growers cannot sell fruit with poor finish. Processing growers may have a greater tolerance for poor finish. We have experimented with summer copper applications in severely blighted blocks to stem the spread of the disease with limited success. We have also tried very low rates of copper hydroxide to prevent shoot blight, again with limited success. In my experience even at very low rates copper results in poor finish. What you are probably seeing is less a function of plant nutrient levels and more of copper's efficacy at suppressing or preventing shoot blight. On 4/17/2011 7:51 AM, lee elliott wrote: I might believe this theory but my orchard has constantly been replaced with new trees and top works so only 10% of the original trees planted in 1994 exist. I grow 800 or so nursery trees every year, not getting FB in the nursery either, Whether it's proved or not,I believe from personal experiance that FB susceptability is directly proportional to Copper deficiancy. My experiance with Streptomyacin has been it's a waste of time and money,It's shoots and suckers that get infected,not blooms very often, Strep is no help here, I put a small amount of fixed copper on at petal fall and first cover sprays,, I'm afraid to put too much, at what point will copper affect the finish? Works For Me, Lee Elliott, Apple Hill, Upstart Nursery, Winchester, Il --- On Tue, 4/12/11, Dave Rosenberger mailto:da...@cornell.eduda...@cornell.edu wrote: From: Dave Rosenberger mailto:da...@cornell.eduda...@cornell.edu Subject: Re: [apple-crop] Copper Deficiency and Fire Blight To: mailto:apple-crop@virtualorchard.netapple-crop@virtualorchard.net Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 7:59 AM I'm not aware of any evidence that copper status as determined from leaf analyses can be linked to fire blight susceptibility. (Someone correct me if I am wrong?) Copper is an excellent fungicide when applied as a fungicide
Re: [apple-crop] Vertical Scaffold Spacing
Concerning the spacing discussion below, it is worth noting that fertilizer and pesticide costs are not insignificant in the overall cost of orchard management. One can make some adjustments in pesticide rates based on tree size and (with a smart sprayer) by not spraying gaps between trees. Nevertheless, each added acre of orchard will add significant carrying costs. Pesticide/fertilizer costs alone, without the associated costs for labor and equipment, are now approaching $1,000/A for orchards in the northeast. (I'm sure some folks are doing it for less, of course.) Based on pesticide costs alone, I'd much rather grow 10,000 bushels of apples on 5 acres as compared to 5,000 bushels on 10 acres. At $1000/A, pesticide costs will average 50 cents per bushel for the high-yield orchard and $2/bushel on the low-yield orchard. Most NY growers 30 years ago were happy with 5,000 bushels from 10 A, whereas the better NY growers now average 10,000 bushels on 5 acres, and that will become more common in the future as older plantings are phased out. Someone direct-marketing their apples may be able to survive despite spending $2/bushel in pesticide costs. However, the carrying costs of low-density orchards will inevitably strangle producers hoping to compete in the wholesale market. Apple tree spacings recommended for NY orchards may not work in rich soils in the midwest, especially where the growing season is longer than in NY. However, I doubt that anyone can remain competitive in the wholesale apple market if their tree spacing does not allow for the high yields that are becoming common in other regions. The trick may be to move to rootstocks that are even weaker than those used in NY and WA. Besides pesticide costs, other factors may also limit profitability of older orchard systems in the near future. Labor and fuel are both likely to become increasingly scarce (perhaps $10/gal fuel when the current upheavals in Arab countries reach Saudi Arabia??). High-density orchards will require both less fuel and less labor (at least when calculated on a per-bushel basis) than older lower-density systems. It's really hard to prune and harvest trees on 18-ft centers from a moving platform, and I suspect that moving platforms will become essential for improving production efficiency over the next 5 years. Widely spaced trees that get 20 ft tall may still be a great strategy for marketing apples to consumers who will pay you for the experience of walking through a traditional orchard to pluck apples from branches above their heads. Otherwise, I suspect that era is GONE !! _My experience, Spacing has to do with what you have to pay for land and how much you want to reduce labor,how important coloring is,, Wide planted trees are easier to prune,pick,good to color all around the tree,(lower cull rate),less transfer of fire blight and alot easier to get good spray coverage. As long as I have many unplanted acres left on my ground,I will space wide, I have Gala on B-9 and m-9 at 6 foot spacing, should have been 12 feet,Goldens on G11 at 8 feet, should have been 14.Some of my rows were 18 feet,just right, some were 14 feet,disaster, If you have reasonable priced land give yourself plenty of room.Quit thinking X number of bushels per acre,that;s a trap, think bushels per orchard. lee Elliott,, Winchester,IL apple-crop mailing list http://us.mc354.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=apple-crop@virtualorchard.netapple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crophttp://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ ___ apple-crop mailing list apple-crop@virtualorchard.net http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
Re: [apple-crop] Fwd: Re: Vertical Scaffold Spacing
Hi, George -- I probably am too gullible, and Terence is quite convincing, especially when you hear him 6 or 8 times a year at different fruit schools! However, a consultant that I respect told me last fall that some of the better NY growers were at or close to 2000 bushels/A on a repeating basis in some blocks and some cultivars. We don't yet have a lot of super high-density acres in full production in NY, but the math on these plantings suggests that 2000 bushels/A should not be out of reach. New plantings with trees spaced 3 ft X 10 ft need only 138 apples (100 count size ) per tree to arrive at 2000 bushels/A. That would be only 14 apples per vertical foot on each tree. And with none of those apples more than 18 inches from the trunk, sunlight exposure is pretty good throughout the tree so pack-out can be pretty high. That system is not for everyone. The learning curve can be rather steep, the up-front costs can cause insomnia, and 10-ft spacing between rows does not work on sloping land where there will be some side-slip when operating tractors on wet grass. But you better think about it carefully before you bet against it! Dave: With all due respect (I respect you a lot when dealing with plant pathology) I doubt that many (or perhaps any) NY growers are getting 2,000 bushels per acre, on a cntinuing basis, with any type of quality. Have you been listening to my good friend Terence too long? Be well my friend, George PS. I never will forget the amount of cedar apple rust on a scab resistant variety that I saw in Highland!! Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 18:42:49 -0500 To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net From: Dave Rosenberger da...@cornell.edu Subject: Re: [apple-crop] Vertical Scaffold Spacing Concerning the spacing discussion below, it is worth noting that fertilizer and pesticide costs are not insignificant in the overall cost of orchard management. One can make some adjustments in pesticide rates based on tree size and (with a smart sprayer) by not spraying gaps between trees. Nevertheless, each added acre of orchard will add significant carrying costs. Pesticide/fertilizer costs alone, without the associated costs for labor and equipment, are now approaching $1,000/A for orchards in the northeast. (I'm sure some folks are doing it for less, of course.) Based on pesticide costs alone, I'd much rather grow 10,000 bushels of apples on 5 acres as compared to 5,000 bushels on 10 acres. At $1000/A, pesticide costs will average 50 cents per bushel for the high-yield orchard and $2/bushel on the low-yield orchard. Most NY growers 30 years ago were happy with 5,000 bushels from 10 A, whereas the better NY growers now average 10,000 bushels on 5 acres, and that will become more common in the future as older plantings are phased out. Someone direct-marketing their apples may be able to survive despite spending $2/bushel in pesticide costs. However, the carrying costs of low-density orchards will inevitably strangle producers hoping to compete in the wholesale market. Apple tree spacings recommended for NY orchards may not work in rich soils in the midwest, especially where the growing season is longer than in NY. However, I doubt that anyone can remain competitive in the wholesale apple market if their tree spacing does not allow for the high yields that are becoming common in other regions. The trick may be to move to rootstocks that are even weaker than those used in NY and WA. Besides pesticide costs, other factors may also limit profitability of older orchard systems in the near future. Labor and fuel are both likely to become increasingly scarce (perhaps $10/gal fuel when the current upheavals in Arab countries reach Saudi Arabia??). High-density orchards will require both less fuel and less labor (at least when calculated on a per-bushel basis) than older lower-density systems. It's really hard to prune and harvest trees on 18-ft centers from a moving platform, and I suspect that moving platforms will become essential for improving production efficiency over the next 5 years. Widely spaced trees that get 20 ft tall may still be a great strategy for marketing apples to consumers who will pay you for the experience of walking through a traditional orchard to pluck apples from branches above their heads. Otherwise, I suspect that era is GONE !! _My experience, Spacing has to do with what you have to pay for land and how much you want to reduce labor,how important coloring is,, Wide planted trees are easier to prune,pick,good to color all around the tree,(lower cull rate),less transfer of fire blight and alot easier to get good spray coverage. As long as I have many unplanted acres left on my ground,I will space wide, I have Gala on B-9 and m-9 at 6 foot spacing, should have been 12 feet,Goldens on G11 at 8 feet, should have been 14.Some of my rows were 18 feet,just right, some were 14 feet,disaster
Re: Apple-Crop: Mystery disease?
14 2010 - The size of the apples on the picture is about 1 inch across - The apples didn't grow any bigger during fall - All the apples show the same symptoms - There is only one tree affected in the orchard (a small 1 acre orchard) - Affected variety: Wealthy (there are other Wealthy trees around that are normal) - This appeared about 5 years ago and reappears every year on this particular tree - The affected apples ripen later than normal - actually, they don't really ripen, but they stay attached on the tree until snow. - The foliage is otherwise healthy and the tree normally vigorous - Other trees about 20 feet away do not show any similar symptoms Thanks for looking at this. Claude Jolicoeur Orchardist and cider maker Zone 4, Quebec -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: RE:..and causes you to be fat too!
used pesticides are obesogens, and apples are one of the most pesticide-laden foods out there - then Ben's advice is way out of date I look forward to market saturday - David Doud - grower - indiana The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get started. William H Shoemaker, UI-Crop Sciences Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops St Charles Horticulture Research Center 535 Randall Road St Charles, IL 60174 630-584-7254; FAX-584-4610- - The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net/http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements mailto:webmas...@virtualorchard.netwebmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. --- --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net/http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements mailto:webmas...@virtualorchard.netwebmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. William H Shoemaker, UI-Crop Sciences Sr Research Specialist, Food Crops St Charles Horticulture Research Center 535 Randall Road St Charles, IL 60174 630-584-7254; FAX-584-4610 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/www.avg.com Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3025 - Release Date: 07/24/10 01:36:00 -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net/http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements mailto:webmas...@virtualorchard.netwebmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/www.avg.com Version: 9.0.830 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3025 - Release Date: 07/24/10 02:36:00 -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net/http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements mailto:webmas...@virtualorchard.netwebmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: RE:..and causes you to be fat too!
in greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sorry, but reducing greenhouse gasses will not be easy, and the major reductions are unlikely to come from agriculture unless we first agree that large-scale human starvation should be part of the solution. We need to continue doing our best to reduce energy inputs in agriculture, but we also need to convince consumers that not all food looks perfect and that none of life is risk-free. Finally, this is a personal bias, but I suspect that one might have greater success in finding options for rapid decreases in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions if one targeted the military-industrial complex rather than agriculture, but that might attract the ire of the fact-free media crowd! I think that is a good point about the kaolin,,, I know the non ag formulations for pottery have all kinds of warnings for cancer, inhalation threat, etc.. A simple particle mask would probably take care of most of it. Not that it is that much fun to wear a mask all the time while working in the trees.Of course there are lots of unknowns with chemicals as well. The problem we have is that the chemicals are extremely lucrative for giant companies who control much of the university funding, so much less research and development goes into non chemical methods. These methods could be much much cheaper. Considering that conventional ag is responsible for at least 40% of greenhouse gas emissions, mostly due to petroleum based fertilizer, conversion to an ecological organic ag system seems to be not only healthier, but a prerequisite for survival at this stage.. Some things that can help with the application of either organic or chem materials would be monitoring, understanding the disease/pest life cycle,, implementing and enhancing biological controls. These have come a long way, but the scale of the efforts is much higher on the end of the paradigm that wants growers to keep putting out chemicals whose ultimate cost is much more then the $ amount paid. Robert Kuljis Thomas Paine Farms -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: organophosphates
I appreciate US Apple's intelligent response to the organophosphate news story. I compiled the response below yesterday before I received the US apple response, but inadvertently hit reply and sent it only to David Doud who provided the first item in this thread. Since then several folks have mentioned parallels to Alar, but I think (hope??) the US public is a bit more wary of scare-mongering now than they were in the late 1980's. Nevertheless, both this story and the example noted in my last paragraph below illustrate that our country still has an abundance of folks who shroud themselves in ignorance so as to avoid reality, and that propensity is not limited by political affiliation or educational level. Message compiled yesterday: The organophosphate/ADHD report will undoubtedly raise many questions, but the information in the on-line links raises huge questions about the validity of the methods. I would certainly like to see the details of the methods and hear a discussion of this issue by other toxicologists. In my comments below, I don't mean to discount the importance of the findings: I am only indicating that what the news media is presenting basically makes no sense to me as a scientist. (Of course, given the quality of our media today, why should I expect that it would !!??) Following are some items from the on-line reports that require additional explanations: 1. One of the on-line reports indicated that that OP metabolite that was tested stays in the body only 3-5 days, and the report then went on to suggest that the fact that it was detected and correlated with ADHD probably means that these kids have a constant exposure. I would like to know from a toxicologist or from previous studies how much this OP metabolite level fluctuate in someone eating a normal diet who is tested every 3 days over a period of several weeks or months. It would seem to me that dietary exposure would be extremely variable from day to day. If there is a constant exposure, then it is more likely environmental than dietary: e.g., products used in the home, schools, home lawns, etc. 2. The kids examined were 8-15 yr old, but my impression (from my wife who is a nursery school teacher) has been that most kids with ADHD show symptoms beginning at a relatively young age. If there is a link to pesticides, then the cohort used for this study would seem totally inappropriate because the trigger for their ADHD would presumably have occurred at least four and perhaps 8-10 years prior to the analysis of urine samples. Thus, the need for more information on the natural fluctuations of this OP metabolite over time become even more important to understanding the results. Without that data, I'm not willing to believe that kids with a high OP metabolite level today are the same kids that had high chronic exposures during their prenatal periods or during their childhood from birth to 8 years old (the time periods when ADHD is presumably triggered). 3. So then the obvious questions are whether there may be alternative sources (other than OP pesticides) for the metabolite that was measured, or whether differences in body chemistry cause differences in how and where this metabolite shows up? Is there any chance that the body itself can produce this metabolite if a disorder like ADHD is affecting nerve cells? That may be a stupid question, but it is critical to understanding the results. This report needs considerably more detail before it becomes useful other than as a scare tactic. I recently heard that about 41 percent of tea party folks in the US don't believe that Barack Obama was actually born in United States. If those concerned about pesticides showed an equally healthy?? level of skepticism, then 99% would discount this report about an OP/ADHD link. Of course, in the real world, we know that won't happen. monday morning reading - it's going to be a long fall talking to people about this Led by Maryse Bouchard in Montreal, researchers based at the University of Montreal and Harvard University examined the potential relationship between ADHD and exposure to certain toxic pesticides called organophosphates http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989564,00.html?xid=rss-topstoriesutm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29utm_content=Google+Readerhttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1989564,00.html?xid=rss-topstoriesutm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29utm_content=Google+Reader David Doud grower - Indiana -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060
Re: Apple-Crop: Dodine and captane fungicides applied during bloom
Interesting article, but I'd like to see the peer-reviewed research. Nearly every statement in the article contains weazel words or wording that implies uncertainty (e.g., which SUGGESTED the sprays were toxic, the solutions COULD be more toxic, etc.). Very few of the ideas in the article come across as proven facts, although that might reflect the writing style of the author. I've become a bit skeptical of popular articles about bee problems because, in the barrage of early articles on Colony Collapse Disorder, beekeepers almost always blamed pesticides whereas later research either vindicated pesticides or listed them as only one among many contributing factors. Came across this article this morning and thought it quite interesting. http://westernfarmpress.com/mag/farming_fungicides_reduce_hinder/ Dennis Norton Royal Oak Farm Orchard 15908 Hebron Rd. Harvard, IL 60033-9357 Office (815) 648-4467 Mobile (815) 228-2174 Fax (609) 228-2174 http://www.royaloakfarmorchard.com http://www.theorchardkeeper.blogspot.com http://www.revivalhymn.com - Original Message - From: Jose Manuel Pereira Cardoso zemane...@gmail.com To: Apple-Crop apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 6:07 AM Subject: Apple-Crop: Dodine and captane fungicides applied during bloom Hi greetings to all I don't know if every one is aware that dodine and captane fungicides applied during bloom period have some affects on pollen germination, and reduction in fruit set is observed. I ask someone who have verified this or a have knwlodge of a paper discusssings this subject. -- JMP CARDOSO -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: sickness in the Pioneer Mac block
Hello, Mark -- The symptoms you describe sound exactly like a problem that appeared on Marshall McIntosh trees in New York and New England soon after that strain of Mac was introduced. On the Marshall Macs, the problem also appeared when trees were about 5-7 yr old. No one ever made a definitive diagnosis of the problem, but there was some evidence that trees at this stage (could we call them adolescents?) were particularly susceptible to winter damage following years that allowed them to grow late into the fall. Some folks in MA thought that fire blight might have been involved, but I think that hypothesis was mostly discarded. I thought that perhaps Botryosphaeria dothidea was involved in some of the die-back, perhaps by extending the cankers beyond the tissue that would have died from winter-kill, but I never proved that hypothesis either. Many growers in the Hudson Valley attacked this problem by apply a dormant copper spray in spring just as they would have done for fire blight, and I believe that some of them also used a copper spray in late fall. The problem disappeared after the copper sprays were applied, but we never had a controlled trial and it may well be that the problem would have disappeared without the copper applications. Folks have continued to plant some Marshall Macs and I've not seen this problem in later plantings. Thus, it seems that it was probably a combination of adolescent tree age and weather conditions that contributed to the problem. Hello all, In 08 a neighbor with a 5 yr old Pioneer Mac block on G30 saw extensive amounts of die-back in his trees, starting with trees hanging onto their leaves going into late fall. Spring of 09 showed that the most vigorous trees were affected to the greatest degree with whole limbs, leaders and some entire trees dying. Everything looked good in the spring of 09 in our orchard, which is 7 yr old P-Mac on M26. We wondered if our neighbor had a problem because of G30. Many experts looked at his trees and the consensus was winter injury. In early October we harvested our block and noticed nothing of concern (except scab). In mid-November we saw trees throughout the block with dark leaves that refused to fall. The most vigorous trees seem to be the most affected. Whole limbs seem to die from the tip to or near the truck. Leaders often turned dark brown down to just above the lower scaffold limbs. Trunks below this point are mostly unaffected. Most trees seem to be O.K. at this point in time but nearly 20% of the block has some degree of this malady. None of our other varieties have this problem. Does anyone have experience with this sort of situation? Any ideas would be appreciated. Mark Evans, Northwest Michigan -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: Attaching trees to trellis
Hello, Ricardo -- First, it would be helpful to know in what geographic area and/or climatic region you wish to grow organic fruit. Options vary based on location, with disease control being MUCH simpler in arid production areas than in warm and humid production areas. I'm not certain that any pathologists have focused efforts on DISCOVERY of new products for organic tree fruit production. Since the 1950's, pesticide discovery has been mostly left to commercial enterprises because university scientists are poorly equipped to register and commercialize new products. Over the past 20 years, I am aware of perhaps a half dozen pathologists who have attempted to commercialize biocontrols, and most of these efforts have either gotten bogged down prior to commercialization or the final products were of such limited usefulness that they soon disappeared. However, I and several other pathologists at land grant institutions in the northeastern US have been EVALUATING new products for organic production over the past 15 years. Generally, we have looked at any promising candidates that gained EPA registrations, although I'm certain that there are some things that no one has yet evaluated because the manufacturers have been unable to provide even a shred of evidence or logic as to why their products should work. Some of these university evaluations have been done in certified organic orchards and some have been done via replicated plot studies within larger trials that included other non-organic pesticides. I think we all know that sulfur, copper, and lime-sulfur are effective against various diseases on tree fruit, and OMRI-approved formulations of these old stand-bys are available. Some other OMRI approved products may have reasonable activity against powdery mildews, but so does sulfur. Furthermore, mildews are usually only a minor part of the total disease picture for most tree fruit crops. Although there is a lot of advertising and hype about biocontrols and new organically acceptable products that will control fungal diseases, the simple fact is that we still have not identified any organically-acceptable fungicides are consistently effective for protecting apple leaves and fruit from fungal diseases (i.e., that work better than copper, sulfur, or lime-sulfur). I'm less familiar with recent research on stone fruits, but I believe that the same statement would apply. I know that some products such as Serenade are being used commercially, but most growers I speak to about these products either have no evidence of effectiveness (i.e., no controlled comparisons) or they admit that they include the biofungicides just to mollify certifying agencies even though they recognize that these products are relatively ineffective. If other readers have opinions and evidence that contradicts my perspectives, I'd certainly be interested in hearing about it. Is anyone aware of plant pathologists who may be working on the development of fungicides suitable for organic production of tree fruits? Thank you Ricardo Menendez -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
RE: Apple-Crop: Pesticide Rates and Tree Row Volume
Hi, Harold -- No, you should not deduct the drive-space of the untraveled row when spraying on an alternate row basis because that unused row middle is still a functional and essential part of the orchard (i.e., you drive that space on the next spray). Your trees occupy the space within the dripline plus half of the drive space on either side of the tree. The fact that you don't use the drive space on each trip does not negate the amount of space that your trees are utilizing. In research orchards, some of the wide space between trees serves no function except as a distance barrier between plots. Incidentally, I did not mean to imply in my comments that I favored alternate row spraying, even though I can understand why it is widely used in high-density plantings. In orchards where scab control is a concern (especially given the very high carry-over inoculum that is present in some northeastern NY orchards right now), I'm not certain that alternate row spraying will provide adequate fungicide coverage for sprays applied at bloom and petal fall, even in high-density orchards on narrow spacings. When the DMI fungicides (Rally = myclobutanil, Rubigan = fenarimol) were working well, missing a few leaves shadowed by the trunk on the non-sprayed row middles was not very important because the DMI fungicides would shut down those infections when they were hit with fungicide on the next spray. With widespread resistance to DMIs, we no longer can be certain of eradicating infections that get started due to incomplete coverage. I don't have a practical solution since most growers can't afford the time required to drive every row middle with trees on 10-14 foot row-middle spacings. So Dave I am wondering if your thinking has merit in commercial orchards. I spray alternate rows with 13 foot row spacings. And I do very much like the idea of driving half the miles. I calculate things on a per-acre basis because I don't feel comfortable at 30 or 40 gpa spraying alternate rows. I depend on drift to finish the coverage on my side of the second row over. Should I be calculating the acreage minus the unused driveway? (Eliminate the unused space here so to speak) Rather than spraying a 26 ft row I am in fact spraying one 20 ft wide (subtracting a 6 ft alley down the middle I am not driving). This would reduce my acreage to 77% of what it was. I would still use the full amount of water (I still want the drift) but calculate rates at 23% less. Forget the question mark a couple of sentences back. It's not fair to ask you to condone rate cutting. Is the logic there? Harold Schooley Schooley Orchards Limited Simcoe, Ontario, Canada -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-c...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Dave Rosenberger Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 9:54 PM To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Pesticide Rates and Tree Row Volume Hi, Rick -- Your method of testing insecticides and Duane Greene's comments about testing PGRs with airblast sprayers both make good sense. I know both of you are good scientists, so I don't mean to imply the following issue applies to your calculations of spray rates. However, it came to my attention recently that not all university researchers use the same method for calculating rates in airblast trials in research orchards even if one ignores TRV. The problems arise because many research orchards have wider spacings between tree rows than commercial orchards so as to minimize inter-plot interference from spray drift. However, one variable that is used to calibrate airblast sprayers is the spacing between rows. For example, growers might space apple trees on M.9 rootstock at 12 ft between rows whereas a test orchard might have 24 ft between rows. To spray one acre, the sprayer will need to travel twice as far in the commercial orchard as in the test orchard if one uses conventional calibration formulas. But if the applicator in the test orchard drives immediately adjacent to the test trees to apply fungicides (spraying from one side only into the test trees and then coming around to spray the opposite sides), then (s)he will be over-applying the product compared to a commercial orchard if the test-orchard sprayer is calibrated for a 24-ft row spacing. In my opinion, the correct calibration for research orchards is as follows: the sprayer should be parked in the drive row in the same position that will be used to spray the trees. One should measure from the tree trunk to the center of the sprayer fan and then double that number to determine the effective spacing between tree rows for the test orchard, and that number should be used for calibration rather than the real spacing in the orchard. Thus, in my experimental orchard with 24 ft between rows, I may allow my M.9 trees to get a bit wider than in a commercial orchard, so the limbs will extend outward 5 ft from
RE: Apple-Crop: Pesticide Rates and Tree Row Volume
Harold -- I don't doubt at all that you could use TRV or some other calculations to come up with rate reductions for smaller trees. The problem, as I see it, is that you if you wish to maximize your savings on pesticides you won't be able to use exactly the same rate reduction for every product. That is the reason that I am uncomfortable recommending TRV as a blanket approach for determining rates for smaller trees. The best growers that I have worked with over the past 30 years have done their own experimentation by gradually lowering rates of products like captan, mancozeb, and Guthion until they hit a break point (detected early via careful scouting), then bringing the rates back up slightly. They also adjust those minimum rates for weather, pest pressure, and tree growth stage. And they have confirmed from their own experimentation that one can cut rates of some products further than rates for other products. This kind of self-generated data is ideal because it is based on actual habits and practices of the growers involved. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time and effort, and the process needs to be repeated every time one gets new products or a different model of sprayer. Dave Alternate row spraying is attractive with today's equipment, labour and fuel costs. Years ago I sprayed rows 26 ft apart and it worked, so every other 13 ft seemed logical. Alternate row spraying has worked for me as long as I follow the rules I set out. Don't spray in the wind. Use enough water to drift to the next row (70-80 gpa is used). Drive slow enough to allow drift to the next row (3.5 mph or under). Don't do it on big trees especially when fully leafed out. I have a chart in the spray cab to switch from alternate to every row on the go if weather is not cooperating (switch gears, close nozzles) I am comfortable using EBDCs as a protectant with redistribution potential. I am comfortable with insecticides that don't necessarily require every leaf to be painted. I am not comfortable using it with systemic products, thinners, and miticides that require full coverage today. That brings up the fact again that registrations are now based on the lowest effective dose (at least here in Canada) and it gets us into trouble under adverse conditions. I still have the gut feel I am overspraying. Trees 8-10 ft tall 7 ft in diameter getting the same amount per acre as trees 16-18 ft tall and 20 ft wide. I have calculated the TRV of dwarf trees at 40% of the largest I once had. 2 rows would be 80%. Surely I can realize some efficiency cost here somewhere. Harold Schooley Schooley Orchards -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-c...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Dave Rosenberger Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:22 AM To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: RE: Apple-Crop: Pesticide Rates and Tree Row Volume Hi, Harold -- No, you should not deduct the drive-space of the untraveled row when spraying on an alternate row basis because that unused row middle is still a functional and essential part of the orchard (i.e., you drive that space on the next spray). Your trees occupy the space within the dripline plus half of the drive space on either side of the tree. The fact that you don't use the drive space on each trip does not negate the amount of space that your trees are utilizing. In research orchards, some of the wide space between trees serves no function except as a distance barrier between plots. Incidentally, I did not mean to imply in my comments that I favored alternate row spraying, even though I can understand why it is widely used in high-density plantings. In orchards where scab control is a concern (especially given the very high carry-over inoculum that is present in some northeastern NY orchards right now), I'm not certain that alternate row spraying will provide adequate fungicide coverage for sprays applied at bloom and petal fall, even in high-density orchards on narrow spacings. When the DMI fungicides (Rally = myclobutanil, Rubigan = fenarimol) were working well, missing a few leaves shadowed by the trunk on the non-sprayed row middles was not very important because the DMI fungicides would shut down those infections when they were hit with fungicide on the next spray. With widespread resistance to DMIs, we no longer can be certain of eradicating infections that get started due to incomplete coverage. I don't have a practical solution since most growers can't afford the time required to drive every row middle with trees on 10-14 foot row-middle spacings. So Dave I am wondering if your thinking has merit in commercial orchards. I spray alternate rows with 13 foot row spacings. And I do very much like the idea of driving half the miles. I calculate things on a per-acre basis because I don't feel comfortable at 30 or 40 gpa spraying alternate rows. I depend on drift to finish the coverage on my side
RE: Apple-Crop: For Discussion: Pesticide Applications Rates and Tree Row Vol...
, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? - Rodney King, 1992 - Glen Glen Koehler University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office 491 College Avenue, Orono, ME 04473 Tel: 207-581-3882 Email: gkoeh...@umext.maine.edu Web: http://pmo.umext.maine.edu/apple/ Fax: 207-581-3881 -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-c...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Dave Rosenberger Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 5:12 PM To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: For Discussion: Pesticide Applications Rates and Tree Row Vol... Hi, Dave -- Intimidation may by too strong a word, and I certainly have never felt any sense of intimidation concerning my expression of opinions or my selection of research projects. However, I think that all of us are just a bit reluctant to back away from cherished concepts that we viewed for many years as points of progress toward common goals (i.e., IPM, minimizing pesticide use, environmental progress, etc.). As a result, we may be too slow to admit when some of these strategies no longer work as intended. I probably should not have use the PC terminology to express this concern, but there is some of that involved. Ultimately, there can be little doubt that universities are backing away from the kind of applied research that is needed to address complex problems in agriculture. That fact is clearly illustrated by recognizing that Andrew Landers' program is perhaps the only university-supported program in northeastern United States that deals with issues of spray deposition despite the fact that virtually all other research on agricultural pest controls (whether biological, biorational, or traditional pesticides) are ultimately dependent on effective methods for getting the pesticide applied to the target. I think public universities are the locus of origin and propagation of much that has become politically correct in American culture, yet I am surprised by the suggestion (at the end of Dave Rosenberger's useful observations) that unspoken intimidation may now influence the content of university publications on spray recommendations. There could be no enterprise in which unbiased science is more essential than in its application to commercial tree-fruit culture. David Kollas Kollas Orchard Tolland, CT On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:45 AM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Tree-row volume is a complex subject that always generates widely divergent reactions. I'll add my personal perspectives to further muddy the water. First, as I recall, the TRV concept was introduced by horticulturists looking for a way to reduce variability in results when they applied chemical thinners, and it helped them to meet that objective. However, sprays applied to adjust crop load are different than pest control sprays because, with chemical thinners, there are significant economic penalties both for applying too much and for applying too little. With pest control sprays, you may pay a bit extra for the pesticides when products are over-applied, but you lose MUCH more if you under-apply and have a control failure. Thus, the risk-benefit ratio for implementing TRV changes significantly when one moves from thinning sprays to pesticide sprays unless one assigns high values to the social merits minimizing pesticide use, etc. Nevertheless, TRV worked pretty well for most pesticides when it was first introduced. I think that to some extent, this occurred because during the 1960s and 1970s we were in the habit of almost always applying pesticides at far higher rates than were generally needed. I recall being told at the start of my career in the 1970s that as scientists we needed to test products under the highest inoculum levels possible so as to arrive at generalized recommendations that would always work on commercial farms no matter how dire the situation. Given those conditions, applying pesticides with TRV rates involved very little risk because the high rates that we were using as a base allowed plenty of room for error without risk of control failures. Several big changes over the past 30 years have made the generalized formulas for TRV less reliable. Apple production statistics for NY indicate that over the past 30 years we have doubled production per acre, and at the same time we have probably reduced tree size by at least 50% if not more. Put those two together, and you will realize that we are now growing apples at least four times closer together on the trees than was the case when TRV was introduced. I'm not certain how fruit-to-leaf ratios differ between old standard trees and trees on M.9, but I suspect that we still need nearly as many leaves/fruit as we did 30 years ago, so we are probably growing our leaves 4 times as close together as we previously did. This creates problems for spray coverage. When I look at high-producing orchards on M.9
Re: Apple-Crop: For Discussion: Pesticide Applications Rates and Tree Row Vol...
aware of several cases in NY where I am convinced that using SI fungicides at TRV rates contributed to rapid development of resistance to SI fungicides. This concern about resistance development is one reason that some labels have statements indicating a legal minimum rate/A that must be applied. (Personally, I don't like to see minimum rate/A statements on labels, but I can understand the rationale for having them.) Using reduced rates with new products is especially risky. Pesticide companies have significant incentives for labeling products at the lowest possible rate per acre that will be effective. For most products, I suspect that product pricing is based on willingness to pay rather than on actual costs for making the product. Thus, if my new product is so good compared to competing products that growers will likely pay $35/A for it, then I can maximize profits by keeping the application rate just above the breaking point because I'm going to get the same income regardless of whether the product is labeled at 1 oz/A or at 3 oz/A. Labeling the product at lower rates also reduces the contribution of pesticide residues on apples to my risk cup, so I can label my product on more different crops. As a result of these factors, there is much less room for error in using new products compared to older products like Guthion, Captan, and mancozeb fungicides that seemed to work well with TRV. In summary, I still believe that TRV can be useful if it is done carefully, and I like Dave Kollas's suggestion of actually checking with water to determine what is required as a dilute base in your own orchards. Most growers, however, will not have the time or patience to do that for blocks of different sizes. Thus, for the majority of apple growers, and especially when using newer products, the safest bet will be to apply the recommended amount of product/A regardless of tree size. That suggestion runs counter to IPM philosophy and initially may seem illogical vis-a-vis minimizing pesticide use. However, as outlined above, I think that we have good scientific reasons for questioning the validity of the TRV formulas that were developed 30 years ago, but it is not politically correct to remove TRV recommendations from university publications. (Uh-Oh! perhaps that last statement went a bit too far?) Lots of input on this one Jonathan. It seems that some labels say not to go below a certain rate per acre. I am aware of at least one case where a pyrethroid failed to control apple maggot. I agree that the OPs give more room for error. It looks like pest management will get much more precise as we get into softer materials in terms of timing, monitoring and rates. Art Kelly Kelly Orchards Acton, ME -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
RE: Apple-Crop: UK: Organic nutrient levels 'no higher'
Many studies on nutritional differences are meaningless because of flawed methodology. For many fruits and vegetables (and especially for apples), the antioxidants and other beneficial compounds are found primarily in the skin or external tissues where they serve to protect plants from attack by insects and diseases. Given that scenario, it is easy to see that smaller fruits will have higher concentrations of these beneficial compounds than will larger fruits due to a higher surface-to-volume ratio for smaller fruits. Any study that does not match up fruit size when comparing organic and conventional health benefits should therefore be disregarded as flawed science unless one is willing to assume that organic fruit is always smaller. I have not surveyed the literature to determine how many studies have included this sizing factor in their comparisons, but I would guess that the majority have not. To follow this one step further, the blueberries in my home garden were subjected to a hailstorm in late May and the hail marks were very evident at harvest. As I picked these cosmetically flawed berries, I began to wonder if blueberries that sustained hail damage would have produced extra anti-oxidants as they healed off the hail damage. So perhaps someone should do a study to determine if hail-damage fruit is actually more healthy than cosmetically perfect fruit? These sorts of results must depend on which studies are included in the review. Also, on the perspective of the funder of the study--The UK Food Standards Agency has been saying for years that there is no nutritional difference between organically and conventionally grown foods. For another perspective, see: http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=viewreport_id=126 Brian Caldwell Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 905 Bradfield Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 ba...@cornell.edu 607-255-4747 Cell: 607-280-3652 Fax: 607-255-2644 -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Fireblight Update
with 450 varieties of apples. Because of our unique climate (largely freeze free yet high chill) we can grow a very large number of apples from low chill to high chill, and create interesting crosses. I am deeply concerned about fireblight in my orchard, given the large # of varieties, I have to be very careful and try to keep the orchard free of any potential vectors. We are not in a firebight prone area, since our late Springs are very cool and dry with night time temperatures well below 55F all the way into late June, this year was an exception, and a number of local growers experienced fireblight outbreaks due to a single week of warm and drizzly weather with night time temperatures in the 60's. The main thing I have learned from various off-line discussions is that the antibiotic coating is a waste of time, of course, except that it was useful for my experiment in that it demonstrated to me that the re-infection was coming from inside the tree. So now I understand that once fireblight has infected a tree, the fireblight bacteria is systemic in the cambium even if the tree shows no more signs of infection. Some of the articles I read suggest that the bacteria can travel some 5-6 feet below visible infection sites. So this leaves me with a number of questions: 1) How is it then that fireblight doesn't re-appear the next year given that the only control is to cut out visible infection in the Summer, cankers in the Winter, and blossom sprays + growth inhibitors in the Spring? 2) Doesn't cambium with high carbohydrate content inhibit bacteria growth? 3) what is the scientific method for detecting the bacteria? Microscope? -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Fireblight Update
was into still infected wood. Preferred disinfection is a field heat treatement disinfector, which should be used anyway to prevent any sort of disease spread. You wouldn't want the doctor not to disinfect his surgical instruments before treating you, a plant is no different. 4) Always observe for orange discoloration under the paste for the next 24 to 72 hours. If the orange discoloration returns, the cut was made into more infected tissue, and you have to cut further. 5) After any infected tissue is removed and discarded, the tree needs to be treated externally with an antibiotic to remove any residual bacteria. I cannot vouch that the above would work outside of Santa Cruz county; when I see the pictures of fireblight in the midwest, it makes me wonder how one would even deal with fireblight once it broke out, the only reasonable approach seems radical removal, and preventative spraying in the Spring. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Fireblight Update
My initial post was done in haste and was not very tactful. I have no interest in threatening anyone or in attempting to regulate pesticide use. I only wanted to be certain that readers recognize that home made remedies, while they may work, cannot be legally applied as pesticides in commercial orchards. I'm not certain, but I believe that EPA labeling is also required for chemical deer repellents. However, so long as Mo's Guiness Stout is used only to attract leprichauns and is not used directly as a deer repellent, we can probably assume that it will be exempt from labeling requirements. My comment about California in my earlier represented an unfinished thought: Given the state budget situations and government gridlock that seems to exist in both California and New York, both states may soon be expelled from the union and forced to survive as unstable and bankrupted 3rd world economies. Given that scenario, pesticide regulations may be the least of our concerns. Axel, I didn't read it as Dr. Rosenberger threatening you, merely explaining things. I learned something from his post. People are interested in experimental results. But understand, this list is geared toward commercial producers and researchers. That means these folks are professionals. Although I'm not a serious commercial grower myself (I sell a little fruit out my back door) I can tell you most folks on this list are very experienced, read up on the literature, and have been experimenting with blocks of hundreds of apple trees. Researchers on this list many times have multiple farms to use as an experimental base.. It doesn't mean your research is irrelevant. Research on one tree may have anecdotal value, and can lead to testing on a larger scale. But keep in mind fireblight has been researched for many many decades. I'm not trying to be unkind, but the truth is, it's likely your methods have been tried many times before. Mark Angermayer KS - Original Message - From: mailto:axel.kra...@yahoo.comAxel Kratel To: mailto:apple-crop@virtualorchard.netApple-Crop Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:36 PM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Fireblight Update Sorry, I meant to say use retromycin sulfate, which is perfectly legal to use on plants, and even has the right EPA label, I just used neosporin as a way to keep the powder on the cuts. I thought neosporin had bactrin in it, apparently it doesn't. It would work equally well with silicon paste or any other pasty substrate. But anyway, I am truly sorry I ever even posted this. If someone isn't even allowed to experiment and have someone on this list threaten with Federal law, well, then so be it, given that this is the second nasty E-mail I got, consider this to be my last post on this list. You people take yourself way too seriously. Good bye. From: Dave Rosenberger da...@cornell.edu To: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:24:09 AM Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Fireblight Update I've enjoyed reading the postings and opinions concerning how to manage fire blight in Alex's Ernst Bosch apple tree. Those of us who have worked with or experienced fire blight know that this disease is very difficult to understand and manage. What works on one cultivar, in one year, or in one location may fail to work on another cultivar/year/location and what is cost-effective for one apple grower may be totally implausible in other economic models. Thus, I'm not going to debate Alex's observations. HOWEVER, I feel obligated to point out that within the boundaries of the United States (and I believe that still includes California), application of an antibiotic paste to pruning cuts is a violation of federal law. Any product used in that manner would require a federal pesticide label from EPA. That requirement applies to homeowners and hobby farmers as well as commercial growers. So far as I know, no antibiotic pastes are labeled for use on tree fruits to control fire blight. There are good reasons for these regulations, but I won't take time to discuss them. The bottom line is that using human or veterinary antibiotics on fruit trees or other crop plants is both illegal and potentially dangerous. I posted a while back on an Ernst Bosch Apple tree that came down with fireblight. I wanted to share with the group what had happened, although I must say that after reading the latest Illinois Fruits and Vegetable Crop news, I am grateful not to have to deal with the fireblight outbreak that the Midwest is experiencing this year. We are not in a fireblight prone area due to our cool, dry conditions, but this year, fireblight has broken out in a number of local orchards thanks to a warm and humid, rainy and drizzly week in May. So this has been a learning experience for me. I finally figured out how to deal with the fireblight infection, here is what I did: Since only one of my 200 trees (of which
Apple-Crop: copper fungicides for organic apples?
Can anyone point me to a copper fungicide that is OMRI approved for organic farmers AND that also has a US EPA label that allows repeated applications to apples during summer. I know that I should be able to find this info on the OMRI web-site, but I found that site extremely confusing when I tried it a year or two ago. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: RE Cedar apple rust
Initial evaluations noted that strobilurin fungicides provided only fair control of apple rust diseases, but that was to some extent an artifact of the way that the strobilurins were initially tested in the US. When Flint and Sovran were introduced, we initially thought that we could use them as substitutes for sterol inhibitor fungicides (DMI's), and they were therefore tested and used by applying them at 10-day intervals. We now know that the strobies are NOT substitutes for the DMI fungicides in that they do not have anywhere nearly the same post-infection and presymptom activity against apple scab. They are really super protectant fungicides, but that means that they should be applied in schedules with spray intervals similar to those traditionally used for captan or mancozeb. When I have applied Flint in this fashion, I have had pretty good control of cedar apple rust and quince rust in my test plots that are exposed to extremely high inoculum loads for cedar rust diseases. So the bottom line is that I think that Flint will work well against rust so long as it is applied ahead of rust infection periods. I have less experience with Sovran as a protectant for rust diseases, so I don't know if it would be as effective against rust as Flint is. Hi Con, fair only for rust on the strobilurins -- see: http://ipmguidelines.org/TreeFruits/content/CH06/default-1.asp I also wanted to briefly comment on the rest of your post. Of course you are 'right,' but obviously we are not likely to change it. Same with the discussion about pesticide rate per 100 gallons (based on TRV) vs. rate per acre. Of course the former is more accurate and makes more sense than the latter, but all the new pesticide labels (well, most) are in rate per acre. I think we are just going to have to accept the new 'technology,' adapt, and hopefully continue to make some money. The current business environment is challenging for everyone... :-) Jon Jon Clements Extension Tree Fruit Specialist UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin Street Belchertown, MA 01007 VOICE 413.478.7219 FAX 413.323.6647 IM mrhoneycrisp Skype Name mrhoneycrisp On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Con.Traas wrote: PS. Would any of the strobilurins have helped for the cedar rust -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchardhttp://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and JonClements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not representofficial opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility forthe content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: RE Cedar apple rust
I have always suspected that, when compared at the same field use rates, Polyram might be a little less rain-fast than the mancozeb fungicides. However, I do not have data to prove that. For several years I compared Polyram and mancozeb fungicides in my test orchards to see if I could detect any differences, but we never really got the rainfall patterns that I think would have been required to see differences and we therefore did NOT detect any differences in activity between Polyram and mancozeb fungicides. Dave, do you have a read on whether Polyram is a bit less effective than the mancozeb products against rust? It's also worth noting that with a 77 day phi for the EBDCs, a harvest date of 1 Sep means a final application date of 15 Jun. In southern New England and much of the rest of the northeastern US, then the extended, low-rate EBDC schedule could be used through first or second cover, and they would deal with rust. On May 1, 2009, at 10:31 AM, Dave Rosenberger wrote: Initial evaluations noted that strobilurin fungicides provided only fair control of apple rust diseases, but that was to some extent an artifact of the way that the strobilurins were initially tested in the US. When Flint and Sovran were introduced, we initially thought that we could use them as substitutes for sterol inhibitor fungicides (DMI's), and they were therefore tested and used by applying them at 10-day intervals. We now know that the strobies are NOT substitutes for the DMI fungicides in that they do not have anywhere nearly the same post-infection and presymptom activity against apple scab. They are really super protectant fungicides, but that means that they should be applied in schedules with spray intervals similar to those traditionally used for captan or mancozeb. When I have applied Flint in this fashion, I have had pretty good control of cedar apple rust and quince rust in my test plots that are exposed to extremely high inoculum loads for cedar rust diseases. So the bottom line is that I think that Flint will work well against rust so long as it is applied ahead of rust infection periods. I have less experience with Sovran as a protectant for rust diseases, so I don't know if it would be as effective against rust as Flint is. Hi Con, fair only for rust on the strobilurins -- see: http://ipmguidelines.org/TreeFruits/content/CH06/default-1.asp I also wanted to briefly comment on the rest of your post. Of course you are 'right,' but obviously we are not likely to change it. Same with the discussion about pesticide rate per 100 gallons (based on TRV) vs. rate per acre. Of course the former is more accurate and makes more sense than the latter, but all the new pesticide labels (well, most) are in rate per acre. I think we are just going to have to accept the new 'technology,' adapt, and hopefully continue to make some money. The current business environment is challenging for everyone... :-) Jon Jon Clements Extension Tree Fruit Specialist UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin Street Belchertown, MA 01007 VOICE 413.478.7219 FAX 413.323.6647 IM mrhoneycrisp Skype Name mrhoneycrisp On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Con.Traas wrote: PS. Would any of the strobilurins have helped for the cedar rust -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchardhttp://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and JonClements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not representofficial opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility forthe content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchardhttp://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and JonClements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not representofficial opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility forthe content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant Pathology
Re: Apple-Crop: Indar and Inspire Super compared to Rally, Rubigan, Procure
(and with proper dose, tankmix partner, and good coverage of course), with the only difference being, for now at least, better prospects for getting effective scab control with the newer materials? 3. In orchards where the first generation DMIs are still effective, is it preferable to keep using them as long as they work and save Indar and Inspire Super as a fall back position, or is it better to use the best DMI available (i.e. Indar or Inspire Super) to present the highest possible barrier to forestall a shift to DMI resistance in the local scab population as long as possible? Thanks for taking the time to ruminate on and reply to any of these questions. - Glen Glen Koehler University of Maine Cooperative Extension Pest Management Office 491 College Avenue, Orono, ME 04473 Tel: 207-581-3882 Email: gkoeh...@umext.maine.edu Web: PRONewEngland.org Fax: 207-581-3881 What we call the secret of happiness is no more a secret than our willingness to choose life. - Leo Buscaglia -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:apple-c...@virtualorchard.net] On Behalf Of Dave Rosenberger Sent: Friday, May 01, 2009 10:32 AM To: Apple-Crop Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: RE Cedar apple rust Initial evaluations noted that strobilurin fungicides provided only fair control of apple rust diseases, but that was to some extent an artifact of the way that the strobilurins were initially tested in the US. When Flint and Sovran were introduced, we initially thought that we could use them as substitutes for sterol inhibitor fungicides (DMI's), and they were therefore tested and used by applying them at 10-day intervals. We now know that the strobies are NOT substitutes for the DMI fungicides in that they do not have anywhere nearly the same post-infection and presymptom activity against apple scab. They are really super protectant fungicides, but that means that they should be applied in schedules with spray intervals similar to those traditionally used for captan or mancozeb. When I have applied Flint in this fashion, I have had pretty good control of cedar apple rust and quince rust in my test plots that are exposed to extremely high inoculum loads for cedar rust diseases. So the bottom line is that I think that Flint will work well against rust so long as it is applied ahead of rust infection periods. I have less experience with Sovran as a protectant for rust diseases, so I don't know if it would be as effective against rust as Flint is. Hi Con, fair only for rust on the strobilurins -- see: http://ipmguidelines.org/TreeFruits/content/CH06/default-1.asp I also wanted to briefly comment on the rest of your post. Of course you are 'right,' but obviously we are not likely to change it. Same with the discussion about pesticide rate per 100 gallons (based on TRV) vs. rate per acre. Of course the former is more accurate and makes more sense than the latter, but all the new pesticide labels (well, most) are in rate per acre. I think we are just going to have to accept the new 'technology,' adapt, and hopefully continue to make some money. The current business environment is challenging for everyone... :-) Jon Jon Clements Extension Tree Fruit Specialist UMass Cold Spring Orchard 393 Sabin Street Belchertown, MA 01007 VOICE 413.478.7219 FAX 413.323.6647 IM mrhoneycrisp Skype Name mrhoneycrisp On Apr 30, 2009, at 8:33 AM, Con.Traas wrote: PS. Would any of the strobilurins have helped for the cedar rust --- --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchardhttp://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and JonClements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not representofficial opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility forthe content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements webmas...@virtualorchard.net. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions
Apple-Crop: Rachel Carson's legacy
Check out the excellent article on Rachel Carson's legacy in today's NT Times on-line at the web-site noted below. (It will NOT say what you might expect from the Times!) If you go article, it is also worth checking out the link go to tierney lab which appears below the skeleton emerging from the egg-shell. I especially enjoyed the founding principles of the Tierney lab noted on the right-hand side of the page that appears when you click go to tierney lab. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/05/science/earth/05tier.html?_r=18dpcoref=slogin -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Apple-Crop: Re: BEES COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER
The only way to avoid possible negative ramifications of man's meddling with the natural order of things would be for us to revert to a hunter-gatherer social structure, and even that would have its impacts! All of agriculture including organic agriculture has negative impacts if one defines negative as being anything other than an untouched ecosystem. And if that is not where the line should be drawn, then who gets to decide where in fact the line does get drawn? Concerning bee activity, we have about 20 acres of research orchards at the Hudson Valley Lab and we have never brought in bees for pollination, nor am I aware of any neighbors within a quarter mile who keep bees. We still seem to get plenty of wild bees and other kinds of pollinators coming out of the woods that surround our orchards, although the honeybee population dropped off dramatically several years ago when the mite problems were killing both domestic and wild bees. This year, we had more honeybee activity than I have seen in many years. My point is that domesticated honeybees tended by beekeepers are not the only source of honeybee pollinators (or is it pollenizers? I can never remember). Managed hives are undoubtedly important on large farms, in areas where crops are grown in artificial climates (i.e., irrigated deserts), or in regions where agriculture has removed all of the natural habitat for wild bees. Nevertheless, my experience in watching bees suggests that wild bees would be around for many years even if all of the beekeepers suddenly collapsed over night. I suppose the possibility of Frankenbees exists and I would to hear from an expert about all the possible negative ramifications of mans medalling with the natural order of things. Jim Friedler -Original Message- From: apple-crop@virtualorchard.net [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Philip Smith Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:13 AM To: Apple-Crop Subject: Re: Apple-Crop: Re: BEES COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER Are you suggesting the possibility of Frankenbees? I can see an issue with bees spreading pollen from GM crops to non-GM crops, but I don't see what effect it would have on the bees, themselves. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
Re: Apple-Crop: Frozen Easter
In the Hudson Valley, we have also had a number of nights of temperatures of 20-23 degrees here in our research orchards, and we tend to have a warmer location than many growers. However, apples are still mostly at silver tip, although a bit of green is showing on early varieties and early locations. I'm assuming that apples here will come through even though there may be some damage. Stone fruits are certainly more questionable. Our apricots were not yet at pink, but the buds were pretty swollen and I'm certain they will take a hit. Peaches and sweet cherries: who knows? Since cold weather is predicted to continue for another 7-10 days, I figure there is no rush to make any assessments because the cold is not over yet in this area. A week ago we were setting record highs in the mid 70s and apricots were in full bloom. Frigid weather arrived on Wednesday with snow and highs near freezing for the next four days. We had low temps in lower 20's with a wind for 6, 8 and 12 hours on successive days. Lows near 20 occurred on Friday and Saturday mornings. Low temperatures were a few degrees higher close to Lake Michigan and the extreme cold did not last as long so they fared better but away from the Lake we got hit hard. We are not wiped out but many fruit crops were damaged by the freeze. It seems obvious to me that the entire eastern half of the nation has been hit hard and that fruit crops here in the east will be scarce, and a lot of growers will be looking to supplement their income. Does anyone south of Michigan have any fruit left? How are things in New York and New Jersey? The MSU Fruit Crop Alert Letter was posted today with initial reports from Michigan http://www.ipm.msu.edu/cat07fruit/f04-10-07.htm - Mark Longstroth SW Michigan District Fruit Educator Van Buren County MSU Extension 801 Hazen Street, Suite A Paw Paw, MI 49079 Bus (269) 657-7745 Fax (269) 657-6678 Email - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Check Out My Webpages http://web1.msue.msu.edu/vanburen/disthort.htm - --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content. -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/ --- The 'Apple-Crop' LISTSERV is sponsored by the Virtual Orchard http://www.virtualorchard.net and managed by Win Cowgill and Jon Clements [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Apple-Crop is not moderated. Therefore, the statements do not represent official opinions and the Virtual Orchard takes no responsibility for the content.
Re: Apple-Crop: Re: Time article
Several months ago I was asked to discuss organic options for apple disease control at one of our NY State fruit grower meetings. I had some hesitations about making the presentation despite the fact that organic disease control for apples is relatively easy to summarize. For apples, we still have no effective organically acceptable substitutes for sulfur, liquid lime-sulfur, and copper. (One might argue that disease-resistant cultivars are a viable option, but most growers still have difficulty marketing them.) Effective programs for using sulfur, liquid lime-sulfur, and copper were outlined in the 1930's and 1940's. Thus, it was not too difficult to dig out that historical material, update it with a few more recent studies, and then add the modern glitz by putting it into a Power Point presentation. My main hesitation about making the requested presentation was that organic farming is not (and never has been) based in science. Rather, depending on which proponents are involved in the discussion, it is either a personal philosophy, a marketing scheme, or both. I was concerning that asking a skeptical scientist to address organic farming might be somewhat similar to asking high school science teachers to provide theological explanations for the origins of man. I agreed make the requested presentation despite my hesitations, But in the interests of full disclosure, I decided that I should provide the audience with my own perspective on organic farming at the outset of the presentation. I devised the following statement to summarize my perspectives: As currently defined, organic farming is a mystical mixture of 1930's technology and new age religion designed to quell the fears of the gullible wealthy in their fruitless search for a risk-free life. Given that definition, it is not surprising that our public media (a subset of the gullible wealthy) constantly promotes organic while fastidiously avoiding any mention of the fact that organic farmers also use pesticides. I agree that the tide may be shifting from buy organic to buy local, but the false promises of organic will continue to attract a sizeable contingent for a long time to come. The more thoughtful segments of society are likely to make the transition to sustainable farming, and that will certainly allow for increased emphasis on local production. Some farmers (especially producers of annual crops) can still make a good living producing and selling organic produce. I don't have any problem with that, especially since our whole economic structure is based on meeting consumer demand. Furthermore, I believe that scientists often can help to improve production systems within any given set of constraints, no matter how nonsensical those constraints may be. Thus, scientists will continue to assist in improving organic agriculture so long as there is a demand for that production system. The problem arises when scientists themselves begin to formulate the artificial constraints and promote their value, thereby abandoning their commitment to objectivity and descending to the level of hucksters. Thus, I'm perfectly willing to provide advice on how one might grow organic apples. Just don't ask me to believe in them! -- ** Dave Rosenberger Professor of Plant PathologyOffice: 845-691-7231 Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab Fax:845-691-2719 P.O. Box 727, Highland, NY 12528Cell: 845-594-3060 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/faculty/rosenberger/
