Archives for February 2020

North Jersey Commercial Vegetable & Fruit Growers Meetings

NORTH JERSEY COMMERCIAL

VEGETABLE GROWERS MEETING

February 26, 2020

8:30 am – 3:30 pm

Hunterdon County Complex

314 State Rt. 12, Building #1

Flemington, NJ

 

Program

Program Chair:

Peter Nitzsche, Agriculture and Resource Management Agent

Cooperative Extension of Morris County

 

8:30 – Registration – Coffee and pastry compliments of industry sponsors

9:00 – Welcome and Introductions

9:10 – Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Issues and Update

Kris Holmstrom, Research Project Coordinator, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

9:40 – Update on Farm Service Programs

Doreen Beruck, County Executive Director, Hunterdon Somerset Farm Service Agency

9:50 – Jersey Fresh Marketing, WIC & Seniors FMNP Update

William Walker, Division of Markets, NJ Dept. of Agriculture

10:10 – Update on Labor Issues

Ben Casella, Field Representative, New Jersey Farm Bureau

10:30 – Enhancing Fall ‘Albion’ Strawberry Production With Holiday Light Strings

Ed Durner, Associate Research Professor, Rutgers Department of Plant Biology and Pathology

11:00 – What is New from Industry

11:10 – Growing Goldenberries

Ed Durner, Associate Research Professor, Rutgers Department of Plant Biology and Pathology

11:40 – New Options in Your Toolbox for Managing Weeds in New Jersey Vegetable Crops

Thierry Besançon, Specialist in Weed Science, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

12:10 – LUNCHEON ($20.00 pre-registration required)

1:10 – Update on Disease Control in Vegetables

Andy Wyenandt, Specialist in Vegetable Pathology, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

1:40 – Postharvest Sanitation and Sanitary Design

Meredith Melendez, County Agent, Cooperative Extension of Mercer County

2:10 – Pesticide Regulations and Policies Update

Patricia Hastings, Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

3:00 – Update on Trials Evaluating Yacon as a Specialty Crop

Peter Nitzsche, County Agent, Cooperative Extension of Morris County

3:30 – Pesticide Recertification Credits and Adjourn

 

ANTICIPATED NJDEP PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION CREDITS

CORE – 1 units, PP- 4 units, 1A – 4 units, 10 – 1 unit

 

 

NORTH JERSEY COMMERCIAL

FRUIT GROWERS MEETING

March 4, 2020

8:30 am – 3:30 pm

Hunterdon County Complex

314 State Rt. 12, Building #1

Flemington, NJ

 

Program

Program Chair:

Megan Muehlbauer, Agriculture and Resource Management Agent

Cooperative Extension of Hunterdon County

 

8:30 – Registration – Coffee and pastry compliments of industry sponsors

9:00 – Welcome and Introductions

9:20 – Updates on the Tree Fruit Soil Fertility Management in New Jersey

Megan Muehlbauer, County Agent, Cooperative Extension of Hunterdon County

9:50 – ‘Many Little Hammers’ Approach to Weed Management: Implications for Soil Quality and

Productivity Kate Brown, Graduate Student, Cornell University

10:20 – Apple Fruit Rots: Biology and Control

Norm Lalancette, Specialist in Tree Fruit Plant Pathology, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

11:00 – Plant Growth Regulator Update and Review

Win Cowgill, Win Enterprises International, Emeritus County Agent, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

11:30 – Pollinator Stewardship in Orchards

Julianna Wilson, Tree Fruit IPM Outreach Specialist, Michigan State University

12:00 – LUNCHEON ($20.00 pre-registration required)

1:00 – What is New from Industry and the New Jersey State Horticulture Society

The New Jersey State Horticultural Society (NJSHS) is a group of fruit and vegetable farmers who come together to collaborate to improve production in the state of New Jersey. Our organization seeks to foster scientific research in our industry and improve the distribution of pertinent information to growers to further their success in growing. Please be sure to visit us at our table and receive a discount off of your 2020 membership when you register at the North Jersey Fruit Meeting!

1:20 – Update on Farm Service Programs

Doreen Beruck, County Executive Director, Hunterdon Somerset Farm Service Agency

1:30 – Jersey Fresh Marketing, WIC & Seniors FMNP Update

William Walker, Division of Markets, NJ Dept. of Agriculture

1:40 – New Jersey Peach Promotion Council Updates

Jerry Frecon, Adams County Nursery Consultant, Emeritus County Agent, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

1:50 – Recommendation Updates for Tree Fruit Insect Management with Special Attention to Bee Safety

Dean Polk, State Wide Fruit IPM Agent, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

2:20 – Pesticide Safety Updates

Patricia Hastings, Pesticide Safety Education Program Coordinator, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

2:50 – Integrating Management for Key Orchard Pests

Anne Nielsen, Extension Specialist in Tree Fruit Entomology, Rutgers Cooperative Extension

3:20 – Pesticide Recertification Credits and Adjourn

NJDEP PESTICIDE RECERTIFICATION CREDITS ARE ANTICIPATED

 

DIRECTIONS – Hunterdon County Complex (same location as Hunterdon County Library)

FROM THE EAST SOMERVILLE AREA:

Take Route 80 to Route 287 South. Take the exit for Route 202/206 South. Stay on Route 202 South, over the Somerville Circle, to Flemington. At the Flemington Circle, take the second right‐hand exit onto Route 12 West. Stay on Route 12 past 2 more circles. The Route 12 Complex is on the left, approximately 2 miles from the last circle. Turn left into complex, make the 1st right and go to 1st building on right (blue glass silo)

FROM THE NORTH (CLINTONROUTE 78/22 AREA):

Follow Route 31 South toward Flemington. At the Flemington Circle, take the first exit onto Route 12 West. Stay on Route 12 past 2 more circles. The Route 12 Complex is on the left, approximately 2 miles from the last circle. Turn left into complex, make the 1st right and go to 1st building on right (blue glass silo)

FROM THE SOUTH TRENTON AREA:

Follow Route 31 North to the Flemington Circle. Go 3/4 of the way around the circle and get onto Route 12 West. Stay on Route 12 past 2 more circles. The Route 12 Complex is on the left, approximately 2 miles from the last circle. Turn left into complex, make the 1st right and go to 1st building on right (blue glass silo)

 

Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Cooperative Extension educational programs are offered to all without regard to race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, disability, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, military service, veteran status, and any other category protected by law. Rutgers Cooperative Extension encourages individuals with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. If you need special accommodations, have questions about physical access, or require alternate means for program information, please contact your local Extension Office. Contact the State Extension Director’s Office if you have concerns related to discrimination, 848-932-3584.

 

Registration form

Phytophthora-tolerant and -resistant bell pepper variety trial reports

Phytophthora blight caused by Phytophthora capsici is one of the most economically important diseases in pepper, tomato, and cucurbit production in New Jersey. Each year for the past few decades Rutgers has evaluated new bell pepper cultivars and breeding lines for their resistance to P. capsici in field trials at the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center (RAREC) near Bridgeton, New Jersey, and in some years at research trials on farms near Vineland, NJ. The pathogen, an oomycete – ‘water mold’ is favored by warm weather and wet soils during the production season and can survive between seasons in the soil as oospores. Once found in a field, the pathogen can establish itself, and be very difficult to control even with the use of fungicides. Fortunately, in bell pepper, phytophthora blight resistant/tolerant cultivars have been commercially-available for over 20 years now and have been used extensively by bell pepper growers throughout the state. Each year, as mentioned above, Rutgers evaluates these bell peppers for their resistance to P. capsici in heavily-infested fields as well as evaluate each for their fruit quality characteristics (e.g., color, wall thickness, number of lobes, and development of ‘silvering’). Some important points to remember. The pathogen is consistently evolving because of its sexual activity (i.e., mating types and oospore production). The more researchers look into the pathogen’s genetic diversity, the more they seem to find. The pathogen can develop resistance to important fungicides. Insensitivity to mefenoxam and copper resistance have been know for a very long time. Finally, phytophthora resistant cultivars such as Paladin which have been used extensively in southern New Jersey for the past 20 years appear to be breaking down. Over the past few years a number of new phytophthora resistant/tolerant bell peppers with new sources of genetic resistance have been released and evaluated by Rutgers. Some of these new bell peppers also have varying levels of resistance to bacterial leaf spot, with one – ‘Playmaker’ having X10R resistance to bacterial leaf spot and tolerance to P. capsici. Because of the increased reports of bacterial leaf spot and copper resistance in recent years and the difficulty in controlling it alone, all bell peppers grown in NJ at some point will need to have to have X10R resistance and phytophthora blight resistance. Importantly, for organic bell pepper growers, if you have not already done so, you should be evaluating these new lines to see if they meet your needs. The easiest way to mitigate both diseases are to start with genetic resistance. Below are the bell pepper variety reports going back to 2005 for review.

For more information on recommended bell pepper cultivars please visit the Pepper Section in the 2020/2021 Mid-Atlantic Commercial Vegetable Productions Recommendations Guide.

Pepper Tolerance 2005

Pepper Tolerance 2006

Pepper Tolerance 2007

Pepper Tolerance 2008

Pepper Tolerance 2009

Pepper Tolerance 2010

Pepper Tolerance 2011

Pepper Tolerance 2012

Pepper Tolerance 2013

Pepper Tolerance 2014

Pepper Tolerance 2015

Pepper Tolerance 2016

By: Andy Wyenandt and Wesley Kline

 

2019 Bell Pepper Variety Trial Report

The 2019 Bell Pepper Variety Trial Report for the evaluation of bell pepper cultivars with varying levels of resistance to bacterial leaf spot is now available on-line by clicking the link below. Bacterial leaf spot in bell (and non-bell) peppers causes significant problems each year. In recent years, a number of new bell pepper cultivars with resistance to ten races of the pathogen have become commercially-available; these cultivars are often referred to as having X10R resistance. Yield and fruit quality data from trials done at RAREC and at an on-farm site in Vineland, NJ last summer are included in the report.

For more information on bacterial leaf spot in pepper please click here.

BLS Final Report 2019

2020/2021 Mid-Atlantic Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations now available

The 2020/2021 Mid-Atlantic Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations guide is now available FREE on-line or can be purchased in hardcopy form through your county agricultural office in New Jersey. The complete 2020/2021 Vegetable Production Recommendations guide or specific sections can be downloaded depending on your production needs.

In 2019 alone, sections of the production guide were downloaded over 20,000 times by stakeholders in the state, region, and elsewhere.

Just in case you were wondering. Here’s the list and breakdown:

Section – download numbers:

Preface – 117

General Production Recs – 204

Soil and Nutrient Management – 545

Irrigation Management – 127

Pesticide Safety – 255

Pest Management – 260

Resources and Records – 98

Crop Sections:

Asparagus – 602

Beans – 1454

Beets – 318

Carrots – 221

Celery – 201

Cole Crops – 914

Cucumber – 1214

Eggplant – 949

Garlic – 217

Greens – 148

Horseradish – 147

Leeks – 270

Lettuce, Endive, and Escarole – 500

Muskmelons and Mixed Melons – 1365

Okra – 168

Onions – 935

Parsley – 224

Parsnips – 111

Peas – 792

Peppers – 510

Potatoes – 1618

Pumpkins – 791

Radishes, Rutabagas, and Turnips – 442

Specialty Vegetables – 272

Spinach – 235

Strawberries – 1120

Summer Squash – 444

Sweet Corn – 885

Sweet Potatoes – 713

Tomatoes – 905

Watermelons – 1475

 

 

 

The A-B-C’s of cucurbit downy mildew control

In 2004, cucurbit downy mildew (CDM) re-emerged in the US with a vengeance causing significant losses in cucurbit production. In most years prior to this, concern for CDM control was minimal, since the pathogen arrived late in the growing season (in more northern regions), or the pathogen caused little damage, or never appeared. After 2004, with significant losses at stake, and with very few fungicides labeled for its proper control, CDM became a serious threat to cucurbit production. Importantly, at the time, cucumber varieties with very good levels of CDM resistance were no longer resistant, suggesting a major shift in the pathogen population. Research done over the past 15 years has led to a better understanding of the pathogen. Recent research has determined that the CDM falls into two separate clades: Clade I and Clade II. Some CDM (Pseudoperonospora cubensis) isolates fall into Clade I which predominately infect watermelon, pumpkin, and squash, where CDM isolates in Clade II predominately infect cucumber and cantaloupe. Research suggests that isolates in Clade II can quickly become resistant to specific fungicides (NCSU). Most cucumber varieties are resistant to Clade 1 isolates, but there is no resistance currently available for Clade 2 isolates. For pickling cucumber the varieties, Citadel and Peacemaker, are tolerant to clade 2 isolates. For slicing cucumbers, the varieties SV3462CS and SV4142CL are tolerant to Clade 2 isolates. All organic and greenhouse growers are encouraged to use tolerant varieties since chemical control options are very limited (NCSU). An extended list of cucumber varieties with CDM resistance from the University of Florida can be found here. For the past decade, researchers from around the US have been closely monitoring and forecasting the progress of CDM through a website hosted by NCSU. The CDMpipe website is currently in the process of an upgrade and will now be hosted by Penn State University. All cucurbit growers are encouraged to sign up to the CDMpipe website to help them know what cucurbit crops are being infected (and where) and to follow the forecasting to know where the pathogen may move to next. As a note, in recent years, CDM control with certain fungicides has varied significantly depending on the cucurbit host and geographic region. This is extremely important since two clades of the pathogen are potentially present (affecting host range) as well as having a potential impact on control strategies. How do you know which clade may be present on your farm? Follow the reports. If CDM is mostly present in cucumber crops as it works its way up the east coast, then you are most likely to see it infect cucumber and melon on your farm first. Scout your fields regularly, especially if CDM is in the immediate region. Pay very close attention to symptom development and on what cucurbit crop(s) you see it on, this is especially important if you grow more than one cucurbit crop. Like cucurbit powdery mildew, once CDM arrives in the region preventative fungicide applications will be necessary.

Fungicides for CDM control

As with cucurbit powdery mildew control, there is no reason to begin a preventative CDM fungicide program until it has been detected in the immediate region. Cucurbit growers need to pay special attention to the reporting system mentioned above to see what cucurbit crops are affected by CDM and follow the forecasting system to see if CDM is an immediate threat.

Loss of efficacy in the control of CDM has also been documented in FRAC code 4 (mefenoxam), FRAC code 11 fungicides (azoxystrobin), FRAC code 28 (propamocarb HCL), and FRAC code 43 (fluopicolide) in the mid-Atlantic region and elsewhere. Insensitivity to fluopicolide (43) and propamocarb HCL (28) have been reported in multiple states (Thomas et al., 2018). In some cases, individual isolates of CDM were insensitive to both chemistries. Recent research in Michigan in a three year field study using pickling cucumber determined that cyazofamid (21), (ametoctradin, 45 + dimethomorph, 40), (zoxamide, 22 + mancozeb, M03), mancozeb (M03); chlorothalonil (M05), and oxathiapiprolin (49) alone or in a premix provided the best level of control (Goldenhar & Hausbeck, 2019). In a recent study evaluating different fungicide chemistries in field trials done in different states (OH, NY, & SC) determined that propamocarb HCL (28), cymoxanil + famoxadone (27 + 11), and fluopicolide (43) were ineffective in 1 or 2 states during both years of the trial (Keinath, Miller, & Smart, 2019). In one year of the study, famoxadone (11), dimethomorph (40), cymoxanil (21), and mancozeb (M03) were ineffective for CDM control (Keinath, Miller, & Smart, 2019). In bioassay studies done during this trial, cyazofamid (21), oxathiapiprolin (49) suppressed CDM >80%.

Most fungicides labeled for the control of CDM are at-risk for resistance development because of the specific modes of action. These include Ranman (cyazofamid, FRAC code 21), Gavel (zoxamide, 22 + mancozeb, M03), Zing! (zoxamide, 22 + chlorothalonil, M05); Curzate (cymoxanil, 27), Previcur Flex (propamocarb HCL, 28), Forum/Revus (dimethomorph, 40), Zampro (ametoctradin, 45 + dimethomorph, 40), Orondis Opti (oxathiapiprolin, 49 + chlorothalonil, M05), and Orondis Ultra (oxathiapiprolin, 49 + mandipropamid, 40). Importantly, just like with cucurbit powdery mildew control, there are a number of CDM fungicides with different modes of action from different FRAC codes to chose from. As noted in the paragraph above, the efficacy of individual fungicide chemistries may vary significantly by state or region. Thus, growers need to scout their cucurbit fields on a weekly basis, note the efficacy, or lack thereof, they are seeing in the field, and incorporate the use of as many different FRAC groups as possible to help mitigate fungicide resistance development.

Fungicide programs for CDM control

An example of a fungicide program for CDM control in the mid-Atlantic region might look like this, where a CDM specific fungicide from a different FRAC group is used on weekly basis:

A – B – C – D – E

where A= Gavel (zoxamide, 22 + mancozeb, M03); B= Orondis Opti (oxathiapiprolin, 49 + chlorothalonil, M05); C= Ranman (cyazofamid, FRAC code 21); D= Orondis Ultra (oxathiapiprolin, 49 + mandipropamid, 40); E= Curzate (cymoxanil, 27)

Not all of the fungicides listed above are labeled for all cucurbit crops. Some fungicides, such as the Orondis products have  limited number of applications. Growers will need to refer to local recommendations and the label for crop specifics. Remember, the label is the law.

A protectant fungicide such as chlorothalonil or mancozeb should be added (if not already included) to the tank mix with each high-risk fungicide to reduce selection pressure and to help control other important diseases such as anthracnose and plectosporium blight. All growers should follow use recommendations on labels and avoid overusing one mode of action, even if it works well. If loss of efficacy is present, the grower should avoid using that particular fungicide (FRAC group) for CDM control the rest of the growing season.

Growers should remember that fungicides specifically labeled for CDM control won’t control CPM, and fungicides labeled for CPM control won’t control CDM. Therefore, carefully following the disease monitoring and forecasting website, choosing varieties with CDM resistance, paying close attention to host crops, scouting fields on a regular basis, noting fungicide efficacy, and following proper fungicide resistant management guidelines remain critically important for successful CDM control.

For more information on the specific fungicides recommended for CDM control on cucurbit crops please see the 2020/2021 Mid-Atlantic Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendations.

The A-B-C’s of cucurbit powdery mildew control

Cucurbit powdery mildew (CPM), caused by Podosphaera xanthii, is one the most important diseases of cucurbit crops throughout the world. The pathogen is an obligate parasite, just like cucurbit downy mildew, meaning it needs a living host in order to survive. In northern regions that have a killing frost in the fall the pathogen will die out when the crop freezes. Not being able to overwinter, the pathogen must be re-introduced each spring or summer in the mid-Atlantic region. The pathogen accomplishes this by re-infecting cucurbit crops in the spring as they are planted up the east coast starting in Florida, then the Carolina’s, Virginia, and so forth. By late May, as soon as cucurbit crops begin to germinate in the mid-Atlantic region, the potential threat for potential powdery mildew infections begin.

The first step in mitigating CPM begins with planting powdery mildew tolerant (PMT) or resistant (PMR) cultivars if they meet your needs. It is important to remember that these cultivars are not “immune” to CPM; they will become infected at some point in the growing season depending on disease pressure. Hopefully, this will occur later in the season when compared to CPM susceptible cultivars. Organic growers hoping to mitigate losses to powdery mildew should always chose CPM tolerant or resistant cucurbit cultivars first. There are a number of OMRI-approved fungicides labeled to help suppress CPM development, these should always be used in concert with CPM tolerant or resistant cultivars and a preventative fungicide program. Cultural practices such as increasing in-row plant spacing to improve air flow and cultivation to keep weeds to a minimum will also be advantageous. Avoiding the use of overhead irrigation will help reduce disease pressure from another important pathogen, cucurbit downy mildew. Thus, growing cucurbits on a mulch with drip irrigation has its advantages, but also increases costs.

In the past, a typical conventional fungicide program consisted of rotating two different FRAC group fungicides every other week, such that the pattern looked like:

A – B – A – B – A – B

Often a protectant fungicide such as chlorothalonil or mancozeb is added to the tank mix on a weekly basis to 1) help control other important fungal diseases, such as anthracnose or gummy stem blight and 2) to help reduce selection pressure on the high-risk fungicide that was being applied. This type of preventative program was used for many years, because, in most cases there were just a few effective fungicides available for CPM control depending on the crop. An example of this would be:

A = (azoxystrobin [FRAC group 11] + chlorothalonil (MO5) rotated weekly with B = (myclobutanil [FRAC group 3] + chlorothalonil (MO5)

This type of control strategy worked extremely well as long as the pathogen didn’t develop resistance to either the FRAC group 11 (azoxystrobin) or FRAC group 3 (myclobutanil) fungicide. To better understand modes of action and how fungicide resistance develops in FRAC group 11 and FRAC group 3 fungicides please click here. Unfortunately, because of fungicide resistance development this type of program is no longer effective and is no longer recommended for CPM control.

Over the past 10 years, there have been a number of new fungicides released with new modes of action (i.e., new FRAC groups) for CPM control in cucurbit crops. Unfortunately, all have a moderate to high-risk for resistance development because of their specific modes of action. The good news are these new fungicide chemistries have less effects on humans, non-target organisms, and the environment.

These fungicides include:

  • FRAC group 13 (quinoxyfen)
  • FRAC group 39 (fenazaquin)
  • FRAC group 50 (metrafenone)
  • FRAC group U06 (cyflufenamid)
  • FRAC group U013 (flutianil)

Not all of the fungicides listed above are labeled for all cucurbit crops. Growers will need to refer to local recommendations and the label for crop specifics. Remember, the label is the law.

These fungicides offer new strategies when it comes to controlling and mitigating losses to CPM. Instead of rotating two fungicides with a moderate to high-risk for resistance development every other week ( A – B – A – B), growers now have option to reduce the total number of times any single fungicide might be applied during the production season; further reducing the risk for resistance development to any one mode of action. For example, in pumpkin, a new CPM preventative fungicide program may look like this:

A – B – C – D – E – A – B – C – D – E

Where A=(FRAC group 3);B=(FRAC group 13); C=(FRAC group 50); D=(FRAC group U013); E=(FRAC group 11)

A protectant fungicide such as chlorothalonil or mancozeb should be added to the tank mix with each high-risk fungicide to reduce selection pressure and to help control other important diseases such as anthracnose and plectosporium blight.

In this type of CPM preventative program any one high-risk fungicide would only be applied twice per growing season and 5 weeks apart greatly reducing the risk for fungicide resistance development. Importantly, for cucurbit growers, the easiest method to mitigate the potential for fungicide resistance development are to reduce the total number of applications of any one high-risk fungicide during the production season.

When to start spraying for CPM

Initiating a preventative spray programs begins with paying attention to Extension reports, scouting, and when the crop was seeded. If the crop is seeded the early-spring (i.e., early to late May) there is a very good chance CPM is not present in the mid-Atlantic region. If CPM is not present, there is no need to initiate a spray program using high-risk fungicides. In this instance, general protectant fungicides such as chlorothalonil will help mitigate other foliar diseases. As cucurbit crops are seeded into early to mid-June (and afterward) the risk for CPM development will rise in the mid-Atlantic region. This is when scouting and paying close attention to Extension reports becomes important. The first application should be done when CPM has been detected in the immediate region or when it is detected by scouting (e.g., with one lesion found on the underside of 45 mature leaves per acre). This will help reduce the use of unwarranted high-risk fungicide applications early in the production season. Importantly, the use of PMR or PMT cucurbit varieties will also help delay the onset of CPM development as well. Once CPM preventative fungicide programs are initiated, applications need to occur at every 7 to 10 days (at the latest) for as long as you expect to harvest (e.g., summer squash) or hold the crop (e.g., pumpkin and winter squash). During harvest, growers need to pay careful attention to pre-harvest intervals because they may vary significantly between different FRAC groups or fungicides within the same FRAC group (a good example are fungicides in FRAC group 3). Once harvest is complete, those blocks or fields need to be destroyed immediately to help reduce the spread of CPM to other blocks or fields that are scheduled to be harvested later in the production season. This is especially important for other diseases such as cucurbit downy mildew.

In some instances, rotating between many different FRAC group fungicides are not an option because the chemistries aren’t available for use. An example would be leaf spot control in spinach, where FRAC groups (7, 11, 7 + 11, 7 + 12, and 9 + 12) are available. In this example, options for control might look like this:

A – B – C – D

Where A=(FRAC group 7); B=(FRAC group 9 + 12); C=(FRAC group 11); D=(FRAC group 7 + 12)

Here, we have maximized the use of as many different FRAC groups as possible and spread their use as far apart as we can during the production season. Its important to remember that fungicides with more than one active ingredient (e.g., 7 + 11) should also be rotated as far apart as possible with fungicides that contain the single active ingredient (e.g., FRAC group 7 or FRAC group 11).

Monitoring fungicide efficacy

With the use of high-risk fungicides, all growers need to monitor fungicide efficacy accordingly. Once the lack of efficacy is detected there is a chance that fungicide resistance might be present. Importantly, the lack of efficacy should not be misconstrued with poor applications or waiting too long between fungicide applications. Reports of poor efficacy from Extension personnel from one region may not reflect fungicide efficacy in another region. Therefore, fungicide efficacy needs to be done at the farm level and the only way to accomplish this is to scout your fields and know what is and isn’t working for you.

The principles mentioned above also extend to other important diseases in vegetable production where there are multiple FRAC groups with high-risk fungicides available to control specific diseases. As a general rule, growers need to rotate as many different modes-of-action (i.e., fungicides from different FRAC groups) as possible during the production season to help mitigate fungicide resistance development in conjunction with best management practices.

For more information on fungicide use, FRAC groups, and specific control recommendations please see the 2020/2021 Mid-Atlantic Commercial Vegetable Production Recommendation Guide.