Archives for March 2021

Understanding Protectant Fungicides
(FRAC groups M01 – M11)

Protectant (contact) fungicides, such as the inorganics (copper, FRAC group M01) and sulfur (FRAC code M02); the dithiocarbamates (mancozeb, M03), phthalimides (Captan, M04), and chloronitriles (chlorothalonil, M05) are fungicides which have a low chance for fungicide resistance to develop. Protectant fungicides typically offer broad spectrum control for many different pathogens.

Why wouldn’t fungi develop resistance to protectant fungicides? Protectant fungicides are used all the time, often in a weekly manner throughout much of the growing season.

[Read more…]

Damping-off: Identifying and Controlling Pathogens in Transplant Production in 2022

It is extremely important to know which pathogen is causing damping-off problems and which fungicide to properly apply. The key to controlling damping-off is being proactive instead of reactive. Always refer to the fungicide label for crop use, pathogens controlled, and application rates.

Damping-off is caused by a number of important vegetable pathogens and is very common during transplant production. Damping-off can kill seedlings before they break the soil line (pre-emergent damping-off) or kill seedlings soon after they emerge (post-emergent damping-off). Common pathogens that cause damping-off include Pythium, Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia and Fusarium spp.

Control of damping-off depends on a number of factors. First, is recognizing the conditions which may be leading to the problem (i.e., watering schedule/greenhouse growing conditions) and second, identifying the pathogen causing the problem. Reducing the chances for damping-off always begins with good sanitation practices prior to transplant production.

Conditions Favoring Damping-off

Although all four pathogens are associated with damping-off, the conditions which favor their development are very different. In general, Phytophthora and Pythium are more likely to cause damping-off in cool, wet or overwatered soils that aren’t allowed to dry out due to cloudy weather or cooler temperatures. Conversely, Rhizoctonia and Fusarium are more likely to cause damping-off under warmer, drier conditions especially if plug trays are kept on the dry side to help reduce transplant growth. [Read more…]

EPA Releases Testing Data Showing PFAS Contamination from Fluorinated Containers

        [U.S. EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention sent this bulletin at 03/05/2021 01:58 PM EST] Note: This EPA OPP Update has been forwarded to all New Jersey Mosquito Control Agencies.  As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursues its mission to protect human health and the environment, addressing risks […]

IPM vs. PHC: Is There a Difference?

History

During the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was an approach to field crop management that farmers increasingly began to practice in the United States. It took barely a decade for farm agriculture to fully realize the problems associated with the over-reliance on pesticides when controlling pests. The classic example of the overuse of the chlorinated hydrocarbon (DDT) immediately comes to mind. Despite the astonishing success that synthetic pesticides usually have at killing pests, some have failed with disastrous results. This especially has occurred when the same material was used repeatedly over extended periods of time. For this reason, the IPM approach became necessary for US farmers managing extensive row crops. Approximately 20-25 years after farmers began implementing IPM methods, the landscaping or “green industry” started to gradually incorporate IPM methods into their service programs.

Tractor tilling a field

US Agriculture initially began to practice IPM with extensive row crop farming more than 60 years ago. (Photo Credit: Steven K. Rettke, Rutgers Coop. Ext.)

Sign denoting GMOs

The use of GMO’s with crops such as Round-Up Ready soybeans & corn is certainly an IPM tactic, but emerging complications are a concern. (Photo Credit: Steven K. Rettke, Rutgers Coop. Ext.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Read more…]

Value-Added Producer Grants in New Jersey

Grant.gov applications are due by April 29, 2021 and
paper applications must be postmarked by May 4, 2021

The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program administered by the USDA’s Rural Development Agency (RD), helps agricultural producers enter into value-added activities related to the processing and marketing of new products. The goals of this program are to generate new products, create and expand marketing opportunities, and increase producer income. [Read more…]

Assistance Needed: Sweet Corn Bird Damage Survey

This applies to all sweet corn producers. Researchers at the University of Rhode Island are currently distributing an online survey about fresh market sweet corn. If you grow fresh market sweet corn you are eligible to take this short 5-minute online survey.

Your participation and feedback are extremely valuable to the success of this research. The survey will gather information on growers’ bird damage levels to sweet corn and prevention methods used to deter bird damage.

To take this survey, please click here or paste the following link into your URL, https://uri.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8qBBeU2HAIwcKYl.

We thank you in advance for taking this survey. If you have further questions or interested in this study please see the contact information bQR codeelow.

For More Information contact:

Dr. Rebecca Brown at brownreb@uri.edu
Department of Plant Science and Entomology

Natalie Meyer at natalie_meyer@uri.edu
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics