June 26, 2026 and

Nutrient and Management Tips for New Jersey Soybean Production

In New Jersey, soybeans generally do well in terms of productivity, but final yield largely depends on early-season soil conditions, balanced plant nutrition, and timely field management, particularly in sandy soil areas of the Coastal Plain and Southern part of New Jersey.

Importance of early-season establishment

The final yield potential (to be achieved later in the season) of soybean largely depends on how the crop established early in the season. If there is a poor emergence or is nutrient deficiency in early growth stages, it can decrease the final number of pods per acre and slow down the canopy growth. So, primary areas of focus during the early season are:

  • To ensure uniformity in planting depth and better seed-to-soil contact for better emergence/stand count.
  • To avoid planting into cold/wet soil to save emerging seeds from cold injury.
  • To ensure strong nodulation for better rhizobium activity.

Nutrients Management Considerations

Soybeans, being a leguminous crop, don’t need nitrogen (for the most part as they can fix most of their nitrogen needs by themselves), but they need other nutrients:

  • Phosphorus for early root development (to absorb water/nutrients and to anchor the plant in the soil) and nodulation. Very high (more than optimum) levels of phosphorus were seen in many New Jersey soils so, no phosphorus fertilizer is recommended for such soils. However, for the soils showing high/optimum phosphorus levels, it is still suggested to apply phosphorus at least in amount equivalent to that is removed by the soybean crop (40 lbs. P2O5/acre for a 40 Bu/acre of grain yield).
  • Potassium for water regulation and pod fill (determinant of final yield). To the soils showing potassium in high levels, it is still needed to apply 55 lbs. of K2O/acre for a 40 Bu/acre of grain yield, to account for the potassium removed by the soybean crop. For soils showing below optimum potassium levels, the rate of potassium is recommended to be higher than the 55 lbs. of K2O/acre, depending on what the yield goal is. For a yield goal of 40 Bu/acre, if potassium levels are below optimum, potassium recommendations are to apply between 70-170 lb. K2O/acre depending on the potassium levels (180-0 lbs. K/acre) shown in soil test (Mehlich-3). Also, it is important to mention the fields with soybean planted as a double crop, where potassium removal from the preceding small grain crop should be accounted for in fertilization planning by adjusting the soil test potassium results to avoid early season potassium deficiency. For example, a 45 Bu/acre soybean crop removes roughly 100–114 lb. K/acre (120–137 lb. K₂O/acre) from soil when potassium removed by the preceding small grain crop and its straw is also included with the potassium removed by soybean grain.
  • Sulfur has been increasingly becoming critical for last two decades, especially in highly leached, low organic matter, and sandy soils because of the decrease in natural sulfur deposits in soil owing to the stricter environmental regulations after the enactment of clean air act of 1990. Sulfur recommendations for soybeans are 20-40 lbs./acre (if broadcasted) or 20-30 lbs./acre (banded).
  • Manganese is the micronutrient that is seen deficient in most of the South Jersey’s coarse textured soils. The deficiency is visible in the form of green veins with yellowness appearing between the veins. For soils having the history of Manganese deficiency, recommendations are 15 lbs./acre (broadcast) or 5 lbs./acre (banded) of Manganese, if applied by soil. If a foliar application, recommendations are to apply three times (1st application as soon as the symptoms appear, 2nd application on later vegetative stage, and 3rd at early pod stage) with each application of 0.5-2.0 lbs./acre.
  • Maintaining pH between 6.2 and 6.8 is generally good for all nutrient’s availability. However, if pH is outside this range, the nutrients that are present in the soil still become unavailable to the soybean plant.

In many New Jersey soybean fields, mild potassium and sulfur deficiencies are more prevalent compared to visible nitrogen deficiency.

Management specific to the Southern New Jersey Soils

Southern New Jersey’s sandy soils lose nutrients rapidly due to high leaching, lose moisture faster during reproductive stages, and encounter nutrient stress even when soil test results say, “adequate level”. Therefore, split or targeted nutrient management and regular soil testing are very helpful.

In-season crop management

At R1 (flowering stage) to R3 (early pod set stage), it is suggested 1) to be watchful for yellowing on leaves or uneven canopy development, 2) to keep checking if nodulation working effectively (red/pink nodules signify better nitrogen fixation), and 3) to ensure no hidden potassium or sulfur deficiency, especially when high rainfall occurs (high leaching rate).

Takeaways (Summary)

Improved soybean yields in New Jersey are tied to 1) good early season establishment, 2) balanced nutrition of phosphorus, potassium (especially in double-crop soybean), sulfur, and manganese, 3) prudent monitoring of nutrient losses in sandy soils, and 4) timely field scouting during flowering and pod set. Taken together, productivity of New Jersey soybeans relies less on high inputs, but more on early-season balance (nutrition) and timely monitoring.

References

  • Huddell, A. M., Thapa, R., Marcillo, G. S., Abendroth, L. J., Ackroyd, V. J., Armstrong, S. D., & Mirsky, S. B. (2024). US cereal rye winter cover crop growth database. Scientific data, 11(1), 200.
  • New Jersey Soybean Board. (n.d.). NJ Production Guide. https://njsoybean.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/50737-8-New-Jersey-Tech-Transfer-Guide_LR6.pdf
  • Rutgers Cooperative Extension. (n.d.). Soil fertility recommendations for soybean (FS102). Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.
  • Heckman, J. R. (1992). Successful double cropping requires adequate soil fertility. The Soil Profile, 2(2). Rutgers Cooperative Extension.
  • Sharma, R. K., Cox, M. S., Oglesby, C., & Dhillon, J. S. (2024). Revisiting the role of sulfur in crop production: A narrative review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 15, 101013.
Filed Under: Agrivoltaics, Commercial Ag Updates, Field, Forage & Livestock
May 19, 2026 , , , , , , , and

Vineyard Management Following Freeze Injury and Reduced Crop Potential 

Vineyard Management Following Freeze Injury and Reduced Crop Potential
What Caused the Widespread Freeze Injury?

The widespread freeze injury observed this spring followed several nights of below-freezing temperatures after unusually warm early-season conditions accelerated bud development throughout much of New Jersey. In many southern New Jersey production regions, temperatures dropped into the mid-20s°F, while in northern areas they were near or below 20°F. Clear skies and calm wind conditions likely intensified injury through radiational cooling and rapid heat loss from actively growing green tissue. Comparable freeze injury has been reported across much of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic this season, particularly in vineyards.

Damage severity varied substantially across vineyards depending on location, topography, vine developmental stage, and cultivar. Low-lying frost pockets generally sustained more severe damage, while elevated sites and some coastal areas sustained less damage. Vineyards with vines still in earlier developmental stages often escaped damage more successfully than vineyards with actively expanding shoots and flower clusters. Even within the same vineyard block, damage may vary considerably depending on local elevation changes, air drainage, and cold-air movement patterns. Because of this, management decisions should be based on detailed observations and adjusted in light of remaining crop potential and vine recovery. Although crop loss is the immediate concern in many vineyards, freeze injury may also alter canopy development, nutrient demand, disease pressure, and long-term vine productivity.

Evaluating Freeze Injury and Vineyard Recovery

The full extent of freeze injury is not immediately apparent. Injured shoots and flower clusters may continue to deteriorate for several days after freezing temperatures, and growers should avoid making rapid assumptions about final crop loss immediately after injury. In many vineyards, much of the damage only becomes evident as secondary buds begin to emerge and fruit set progresses. Some vines that initially appeared heavily damaged may still yield partial crops through surviving secondary buds, while others may continue showing delayed injury symptoms over the coming weeks.

Fortunately, grapevines recover from freezes through shoot growth from secondary and tertiary buds within count buds, release from inhibition of basal buds, and development of adventitious shoots from latent buds. These features give vines the capacity for recovery after freeze events.

Primary buds are generally the most productive and account for the majority of crop production. When primary shoots are damaged or killed, secondary buds may emerge within days to weeks, depending on weather conditions and vine vigor. Although secondary shoots often produce smaller clusters and reduced yields, they may still contribute meaningfully to crop recovery in some cultivars. Figure 1 provides an example of freeze injury where a frost-killed shoot from the primary bud is accompanied by new development emerging from a surviving secondary bud.

Figure 1. The frost-killed young shoot (right) of Chambourcin and a new bud developing from the secondary bud (left).

Figure 1. The frost-killed young shoot (right) of Chambourcin and a new bud developing from the secondary bud (left). Photo by H. Gohil

 

In many Vitis vinifera cultivars, secondary shoots may support only a fraction of a normal crop. However, several hybrid cultivars may retain greater productivity following freeze injury.

When both primary and secondary buds are damaged, tertiary buds may still produce vegetative shoots. While tertiary growth and adventitious shoots generally contribute little or no fruit, they remain critically important for rebuilding the canopy and maintaining vine productivity for future seasons.

Vineyards may also contain both primary and secondary shoot-derived clusters on the same vine, contributing to uneven crop development and maturity (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Vidal Blanc, a shoot from the primary bud, had a typical cluster; on the same cordon, a shoot from the secondary bud had a smaller cluster.

Figure 2. Vidal Blanc, a shoot from the primary bud, had a typical cluster; on the same cordon, a shoot from the secondary bud had a smaller cluster. Photo by H. Gohil

As recovery continues, vineyards may contain a mixture of surviving primary shoots, secondary regrowth, and delayed vegetative growth. Uneven canopy development may complicate pest management, fungicide timing, canopy management, and harvest timing later in the season.

Growers should continue monitoring:

  • Primary and secondary shoot survival
  • Cluster development on secondary shoots
  • Variability within vineyard blocks
  • Low-lying frost pockets and delayed-growth areas
  • Trunk or cordon vascular injury
  • Sucker emergence and retraining potential
  • Overall vine vigor and canopy development

Management decisions may differ substantially among blocks depending on remaining crop potential.

Avoid Removing Frost-Damaged Shoots Prematurely

Although severely damaged shoots may appear unlikely to recover, removing frost-injured shoots too early often provides little benefit and may unintentionally reduce remaining crop potential.

In many situations, allowing vines time to recover naturally is the best approach, particularly when injury severity is still being assessed. Removal of damaged tissue too soon may eliminate secondary or latent buds capable of producing additional growth. Dead or injured tissues frequently dry and detach naturally over time without intervention.

Growers should therefore avoid making aggressive canopy removal decisions immediately after freeze injury unless tissue viability and recovery potential are clearly understood.

Vineyard Recovery Scenarios and Canopy Management Considerations

Primary Bud Loss with Secondary Regrowth

In vineyards where primary shoots were largely lost, growers should allow time for secondary buds to push before making major management decisions. Depending on temperatures and vine vigor, secondary shoots may emerge within days to weeks following injury.

Although crop potential will often be reduced, canopy development may still recover relatively uniformly. Delayed development should be expected, and management programs may need to be adjusted according to new growth stages rather than original seasonal timelines.

Dead tissues often fall naturally and may not require immediate removal unless they interfere with vineyard operations or pose a disease risk.

Partial Shoot Injury

Freeze injury is often uneven, even on the same vine. Some shoots may experience leaf injury while retaining healthy shoot tips and continue to grow normally. In these situations, little intervention may be necessary.

Figure 3. Epical meristem is actively growing (left) in Marquette and completely frost-damaged in Chardonnay (Right)

Figure 3. Epical meristem is actively growing (left) in Marquette and completely frost-damaged in Chardonnay (Right). Photos by H. Gohil

However, when shoot tips are killed, continued development may stop, and secondary buds near the base of shoots may begin to grow instead. Vineyard managers should carefully monitor which shoots remain viable and adjust canopy management accordingly. Careful evaluation of shoot tip survival can help determine whether shoots are likely to continue growing or whether regrowth from secondary buds should be expected (Figure 3).

Because vineyards frequently contain both surviving and injured shoots after freeze events, variability within rows and blocks should be expected.

Severe Injury and Cordon or Trunk Damage

In some vineyards, no primary, secondary, or tertiary growth may emerge from portions of the vine, indicating more substantial injury to cordons or vascular tissues. In these situations, strong suckers emerging from the trunk may offer opportunities for retraining vines for future production. Although current-season yields may be lost, maintaining healthy vegetative growth remains critical for long-term vineyard recovery and productivity.

Shoot Thinning Requires a Different Approach This Year

Canopy management recommendations following freeze injury may differ substantially from those of a normal season. Under normal conditions, shoot thinning improves airflow, reduces canopy density, and enhances fruit quality. However, in freeze-damaged vineyards, excessive shoot removal too early may unintentionally increase vine vigor and promote overly vegetative “bull cane” growth with limited fruitfulness. Retaining additional shoots may reduce excess vigor, help balance vine growth, and preserve vine structure for next season. Decisions regarding thinning should therefore be adjusted according to cultivar, remaining crop potential, pruning system, vine vigor, and recovery patterns.

Nitrogen Management Following Freeze Injury

One of the key management questions following widespread freeze injury is whether vineyard nitrogen (N) programs should be adjusted under reduced crop conditions.

In many New Jersey vineyards, nitrogen applications are not made annually and are often applied only every 3 to 5 years. Excessive vine vigor is frequently a greater concern than nitrogen deficiency, particularly in seasons with abundant precipitation. In addition, vineyard soils with moderate to high organic matter often provide substantial nitrogen through natural mineralization. As a general guideline, approximately 20 pounds of nitrogen per acre may become available annually for each 1% soil organic matter.

Following freeze injury, nitrogen demand may be substantially altered due to reduced fruit load. In vineyards where primary buds were lost and crop potential has been significantly reduced, nitrogen requirements are also likely lower than in a typical production year.

Excess nitrogen application under low-crop conditions may unintentionally stimulate excessive vegetative growth, resulting in overly vigorous canopies and increased management challenges later in the season. Excessive vigor may also reduce winter hardiness and negatively affect vine acclimation as vines enter dormancy.

Growers should therefore avoid making automatic nitrogen applications before crop potential becomes clearer.

Where petiole analysis from previous seasons indicated nitrogen deficiency, some nitrogen inputs may still be warranted. However, management decisions should be adjusted according to expected yield, vine vigor, and vineyard history.

It is also important to remember that much of the nitrogen supporting early-season growth from bud break through bloom originates from reserves already stored within the vine. Because of this, immediate nitrogen applications following freeze injury are generally unlikely to improve short-term recovery.

Nitrogen applications are typically timed from approximately two weeks before bloom through two weeks after bloom. In freeze-affected vineyards this season, delaying nitrogen decisions until bloom may allow growers to better evaluate secondary bud survival, crop recovery, and overall fruit potential before making fertility adjustments.

Reduced fruit load means reduced nitrogen demand. In many vineyards affected by freeze injury, a conservative nitrogen management approach may help avoid excessive vigor while supporting long-term vine health and winter hardiness.

Weed Management Following Freeze Injury 

The goal during a low- or no-crop year is not to maintain a completely weed-free vineyard floor, but to reduce perennial weed populations, prevent annual weed seed production, manage excessive vine vigor, and prepare for the following season. 

Low crop years provide a unique opportunity to address persistent weed problems that are often difficult to manage during seasons with normal fruit production. With reduced concerns about immediate crop losses, vineyard managers can shift their focus from protecting current yield to improving long-term vineyard floor management and reducing future weed pressure. 

Prioritizing Perennial Weed Management 

Perennial weeds should be the primary target during low-production years. Effective suppression of species such as mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), or goldenrod (Solidago spp.) typically requires a multi-year management approach. A season with little or no crop presents an ideal opportunity to target these species when they are actively growing and most susceptible to control measures. Directed applications of systemic herbicides or repeated mowing may help reduce underground reserves and limit re-establishment in subsequent years. 

Rethinking Annual Weed Management 

Unlike perennial weeds, annual weeds may not require complete season-long suppression during a low crop year. Moderate levels of annual weed growth within the row can provide some competition for water and nutrients, potentially helping to moderate excessive vine vigor that frequently develops when crop load is substantially reduced or absent. Excessive vegetative growth can increase canopy management requirements, reduce spray penetration, and create favorable conditions for disease development. For this reason, vineyard managers may be able to tolerate greater annual weed presence than would normally be acceptable in a full-crop season, provided weeds are prevented from producing seed. Mowing and mechanical suppression may therefore become more important management tools than repeated postemergence herbicide applications, particularly where annual weed populations are not interfering with vineyard operations. 

Preparing for the Following Season 

Although some annual weed competition may be acceptable during the growing season, vineyard floors should be as free of weeds as possible by late summer and early fall. Clean vineyard rows improve the effectiveness of fall weed management programs and allow timely application of residual herbicides where appropriate. Reducing existing vegetation before fall applications can improve soil coverage and help establish a cleaner vineyard floor entering the 2027 growing season. 

Scouting and Mapping Problem Areas 

Low crop years also provide an excellent opportunity to scout vineyards and document the location of troublesome perennial weed infestations. Mapping species composition and problem areas can improve future management decisions, facilitate site-specific applications, and help prioritize areas requiring more intensive intervention in subsequent seasons. Investments made in weed management during a low-production year can provide benefits that extend well beyond a single season.

Disease Management Following Freeze Injury

Although immediate concerns following freeze events often focus on crop loss, freeze injury can substantially alter disease risk throughout the growing season. Damaged shoots and leaves are more vulnerable to infection once warm, wet conditions return, while wounds in shoots and permanent wood may provide entry points for pathogens such as Botrytis and grapevine trunk diseases.

Even when crop potential is limited, disease management remains important. Maintaining healthy foliage supports carbohydrate storage, winter hardiness, and next year’s productivity. Disease priorities may shift away from fruit protection and toward preserving canopy health and minimizing inoculum for future seasons.

Remember, long-term vineyard health is the goal this season. Managing diseases that cause defoliation and negatively affect grapevine health remains critical, even in vineyards with little or no harvestable crop.

Key diseases to continue monitoring include:

  • Downy mildew
  • Powdery mildew
  • Black rot
  • Botrytis bunch rot
  • Phomopsis cane and leaf spot
  • Anthracnose in susceptible cultivars

Dense regrowth following freeze injury may increase canopy humidity and prolong leaf wetness periods, creating favorable conditions for disease development. Good canopy airflow and spray penetration remain important, and practices such as shoot positioning and, if needed, selective thinning may help improve canopy conditions. Management decisions should continue to be guided by vineyard history, weather conditions, canopy density, and ongoing regrowth patterns rather than calendar timing alone.

Insect Management Considerations Following Freeze Injury

Although freeze injury may substantially reduce crop potential, insect management should not be abandoned entirely. Reduced fruit load does not necessarily reduce insect pressure, and some pests may still negatively affect vine health, vegetative growth, or future productivity.

In vineyards with limited or no crop, management priorities may shift away from fruit protection and toward preserving canopy health, minimizing vine stress, and maintaining productive vines for future seasons. Continued scouting remains essential, particularly as secondary and tertiary growth emerges following freeze injury.

Growers should continue monitoring for key vineyard pests, including:

  • Grape berry moth
  • Japanese beetle
  • Spotted lanternfly
  • Phylloxera in susceptible vineyards
  • Leafhoppers and other sap-feeding insects
  • Mites during hot, dry periods
  • Grape flea beetle and climbing cutworms where injury is present

Secondary shoots and delayed regrowth may remain susceptible to feeding injury throughout the season, particularly when vines are already stressed from freeze damage. Insect feeding on recovering canopies may further reduce photosynthetic capacity and negatively affect carbohydrate storage needed for winter survival and next season’s productivity.

At the same time, reduced crop potential may allow greater flexibility in treatment thresholds in some situations. Vineyard managers should continue making management decisions based on scouting observations, pest pressure, remaining crop potential, and overall vine recovery rather than relying solely on calendar-based schedules.

Spotted lanternfly (SLF) deserves particular attention in freeze-affected vineyards. Heavy feeding by large populations can place additional stress on vines already recovering from freeze injury. Vineyards with a history of SLF pressure should continue monitoring and management efforts where warranted.

Even in vineyards with little or no fruit, maintaining healthy foliage remains important. Protecting functional canopy growth throughout the season will help support carbohydrate storage, winter hardiness, and productive growth in future years.

Final Considerations

As vineyard recovery continues over the coming weeks, management programs will likely need to remain flexible. The full extent of freeze injury may not become apparent until secondary growth progresses and crop potential becomes clearer.

Management decisions should therefore be adjusted based on remaining crop potential, canopy recovery, vine vigor, and vineyard-specific conditions rather than standard seasonal assumptions. Different blocks within the same vineyard may require substantially different approaches depending on injury severity and remaining productivity.

Even in vineyards with severely reduced crop potential, maintaining healthy foliage and vine structure remains critical for long-term productivity. Continued attention to canopy management, nutrient decisions, disease prevention, and insect scouting will help support carbohydrate storage, winter hardiness, and productive growth in future seasons.

Growers are encouraged to continue closely monitoring vineyard recovery and adjust management programs as the season progresses.

Filed Under: Fruit, Wine Grape Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
May 8, 2026 , , , , , , , , and

Managing Orchards Through a Season With Limited Yields 

The recent freeze event April 20-21, 2026, has had wide ranging impacts on fruit crops statewide, including but not limited to peaches, nectarines, cherries, apples, pears, and plums. Across the state, significant injury to blossoms and young fruit has been confirmed, with many orchards reporting substantial crop loss. The extent of damage remains highly variable by location, elevation, crop, cultivar, and ultimately phenological stage at the time of the freeze, with the most severe injury observed in low-lying areas and orchard blocks that were at full bloom or petal fall.  

Despite the reduced crop potential, continued pest monitoring and management remain important, particularly in blocks producing some fruit. Even where no fruit will be harvested, we need to adjust our approach to insect and disease management with a focus on maintaining healthy orchards for the next crop. Promoting tree health, maintaining low pest and disease inoculum, and supporting return bloom for the next season should be priorities for the remainder of this season. 

Orchard Tree Care 

Managing Crop Load in Apples 

  • If fruitlets are expanding, there is a good chance they will set fruit.   
  • Assessing internal browning of fruitlets shortly after a frost typically results in over estimation of damage; more time will be needed to determine both cropload and whether thinners will be warranted. 
  • If you saw damage to the fruitlets but they are holding on and growing you will likely have misshapen fruit. 
  • The most precise way to measure crop load THIS YEAR is to measure fruitlet diameter and input that data into the Cornell growth model (Malusim app). 
  • The best way to assess how many fruits you will have per tree is by using the fruit growth rate model (measuring diameters twice over a 5-day period). 
  • You should wait until fruits are 7mm before making the first measurement and then make a second measurement 5 days later and the model will predict what percentage of fruitlets are growing.   
  • When you make the first measurement, tag 15 spurs on each of 5 trees for a total of 75 spurs.   
  • When you enter the data in the Malusism app enter numbers for 5 fruits per spur even if the spur only has 1 or 2 fruits.  For the missing fruits enter a value of 0.1.   
  • The result after the second measurement will be a % fruit set.  To estimate how many actual fruits will be on the tree you need to do whole tree counts of flower clusters on 5 trees. 
  • If most of the spur flowers are killed and not growing, the bloom on one-year-wood should be preserved.  This is accomplished by waiting to apply thinners until the king fruit of those clusters is at least 12mm.  (By that time the fruits on spurs will be rather large, 16mm).  When the king fruits on the clusters from one-year-wood are 12mm, they are set well and will not thin off easily, but the lateral fruitlets on those clusters can still be thinned off.   
  • If by the time fruits are 16mm on spurs and 12mm on lateral bloom you determine that thinning is needed, you should thin according to the carbohydrate balance at that point in time.  Damaged fruits set with Promalin can be just as hard to thin off as undamaged fruits in a normal year. However, it is likely you will apply a reduced dose to make sure you do not overthin and then finish the thinning job with hand thinning in June and early July. 
  • There may be many fruits that have frost ring or russet or are misshapen.  These do not thin off easily. They can only be removed by hand thinning. 
  • Another Plant and Pest Advisory post with more in depth thinning and return bloom spray recommendations will be coming in the next few weeks so keep an eye out!  

Managing Foliar Growth in Trees with Little to no Crop Load 

  • If your crop was significantly damaged do not apply anymore nitrogen to your orchard this year. 
  • In a normal year a portion of the nitrogen fertilizer is applied for fruit trees pre-bloom and a second portion applied post-bloom or after the level of fruit set is known 
  • The 2026 season is not a typical year.  With fruit set in some orchards ranging from a normal load or towards a near total fruit loss due to frost damage, growers should reassess on a case-by-case basis to apply the normal amount or a reduced amount of recommended nitrogen fertilizer. 
  • For orchards where some nitrogen fertilizer was already applied pre-bloom and where there has been a total crop fruit loss due to frost, no further nitrogen fertilizer is recommended for the 2026 growing season. 
  • For orchards with good fruit set, apply nitrogen fertilizer as one would in a normal growing season. 
  • Perform leaf tissue analysis in July to assess nutrient levels (specifically nitrogen status), though do not apply anymore until 2027. 
  • The information provided by the analysis will be useful for guiding nutrient applications in the 2027 fruit growing season.   
  • There is likely to be significant shoot vigor this growing season if there is little to no crop load.  
  •  In apples, Kudos/Apogee (Prohexadione-calcium) can be applied to suppress excessive shoot growth.  Beginning at 1-3 inches of growth apply 8 oz/100 gal once a week for three consecutive weeks. This can also help manage insects like aphids that feed on succulent new growth and diseases like the shoot blight phase of fire blight.  
  • In peaches, consider summer pruning this year to help maintain tree shape and prevent excessive growth.  

Orchard Disease Management 

  • As development continues into petal fall and early fruit set, this remains a critical period for disease management, particularly for diseases like fire blight, bacterial spot, scab, powdery mildew, and cedar apple rust. 
  • Diseases that negatively impact and damage fruit, including rusty spot, brown rot, white rot, sooty blotch and flyspeck should not be a priority this season. However, diseases that can cause severe defoliation still need to be managed effectively. Orchards with low to no crop can use conservative spray programs with focus on using broad spectrum fungicides. 
  • For fire blight, infection can still occur through blossoms even if they are freeze damaged. 
    • Keep an eye on disease prediction models and apply antibiotics prior to infection periods when bloom is present
    • Actigard and Apogee/Kudos can be included for additional defense against shoot blight, especially in young blocks    
  • For bacterial spot, maintain coverage with low levels of copper to reduce inoculum building up on leaves and reduce the risk for infections for the following season.
    • Avoid combining copper with captan especially if it has been overcast for several days.
    • Refer to this guide published by Dr. Norm Lalancette for copper applications in early covers. 
  • Apple scab infections can persist on leaves in the orchards even without fruit, so it could be a good opportunity to knock down inoculum
    • To manage apple scab continue applications of Manzate at 6 lb/A or Microthiol Disperss at 10 lb/A prior to predicted infection periods to lower inoculum for the next season
    • If both powdery mildew and cedar apple rust are a concern, Manzate at 3 lb/A should be tank mixed with Microthiol Disperss at 10 lb/A. Manzate is effective on apple scab and cedar apple rust but not powdery mildew. Microthiol Disperss is effective on apple scab and powdery mildew but not cedar apple rust.
  • Peach scab should not be a concern unless there is a history of high disease pressure – lesions can form on this year’s fruiting shoots which will provide a source of inoculum next season. In this situation management is necessary, and Captan should be applied before a heavy rainfall event at 2.5 lb/A.
    • Management of fungal diseases is still needed to prevent a buildup of rot and leaf pathogens for next season.
  • Pear Scab and Fabraea Leaf Spot should be managed through applications of Manzate or Ziram through may and early summer to prevent defoliation and inoculum build up. Severe infections can weaken trees and impact return bloom.
  • Marssonina Blotch, Glomerella Leaf Spot, and Frogeye Leaf Spot should be managed as these diseases will cause defoliation and provide a source of inoculum for black rot and bitter rot next season.  Maintain coverage of Captan, Manzate, or Ziram prior to rain events through the growing season according to the cover spray rule of applications every 2” of rain or 14 days, whichever comes first.
  • Cedar apple rust and powdery mildew should be managed in orchards with a history of disease as severe infestations can cause stunted growth and stress.
    • For cedar apple rust, continue applying Manzate at 6 lb/A until the end of May
    • If conditions are optimal for cedar apple rust and powdery mildew, apply Manzate at 3 lb/A and Microthiol Disperss at 10 lb/A through July 
    • The pathogen causing powdery mildew of apple also causes rusty spot on peaches so it is especially important to control this disease to keep inoculum levels down for next year if apples are grown next to peaches

Orchard Insect Management 

  • Any fruit remaining on trees will attract insects which will cause damage and continue to maintain populations in the orchards. 
  • Due to the reduced crop load, there may be more insects competing for individual fruit to complete their lifecycle so there may be more damage on a fruit by fruit basis 
  • If you are planning to retain a crop, you must continue to intensively manage insect pests as you would in a normal season  
  • In the event you choose not to harvest fruit this season, there are several insects that will only be targeting the developing fruit and therefore do not need to be managed including plum curculio, tarnished plant bug, brown marmorated stinkbug, native stink bugs, tufted apple bud moth, oblique banded leafroller, and thrips. 
  • Aphids, leafhoppers, and mites can feed extensively on foliage and terminals, causing leaf curling and stunting. This can impact next year’s fruit that will be set in this season. Without fruit, the trees may tolerate a higher threshold of these pests, but they should still be managed.
    • Beneficial insects may help reduce populations of these pests this season, making insecticides targeting them unnecessary.  
  • Pear Psylla can feed extensively on foliage and terminals causing defoliation. In heavy infestations this pest can cause stunting of the tree referred to as “psylla shock” which can reduce next season’s fruit set.
    • Intensive management should be continued in orchards with a history of this pest.  
  • Scale insects are generally controlled with a dormant oil or delayed dormant application; however, in severe infestations you can monitor using double-sided sticky tape on trunks and apply Esteem or Centaur at the crawler stage.
    • Beneficial insects including lady beetles and parasitoid wasps may control pest populations better in reduced spray programs.
  • Oriental fruit moth larvae do not require fruit to cause damage and should be managed in orchards without a crop. The first- and second-generation moths will lay their eggs in terminals and as the larvae develop, they will cause noticeable “flagging” damage.  This “flagging” damage can be particularly detrimental in young orchards.
    • This pest can be managed via mating disruption or well-timed insecticides for the first and second generations to knock populations down particularly in young blocks if there are high trap counts. If you have a history of high OFM pressure, mating disruption may be a more cost-effective option at ~$100/A versus a rotational insecticide program for the first- and second-generation degree day timings averaging ~$150-$200/A. If your orchard typically has low OFM pressure and you have not applied your mating disruption dispensers, it may be more cost effective to save your mating disruption in the freezer for next year and monitor populations. If your populations become higher than normal, one well timed insecticide application to target this pest can range from ~$8-$50/A.
    • Refer to this Plant & Pest Advisory post from Dr. Anne Nielsen on targeted pest management considerations for OFM and other key pests.
  • Codling moth require fruit to complete their lifecycle so it is possible that a season without fruit may be detrimental to their populations. However, this pest may be able to find fruit in the surrounding woodlot and then move back into the orchard the following season.
    • It will be important to monitor this pest via pheromone traps and apply a well-timed insecticide if populations are getting higher than usual.
    • If you have had trouble with this pest in the past, it may be a good year to reduce populations via mating disruption.
  • Borers such as dogwood borer (DWB), lesser peach tree borer (LPTB), greater peach tree borer (GPTB), and ambrosia beetle are indirect pests of tree fruit and will attack the tree regardless of the fruit load.
    • Continue monitoring with pheromone traps to determine if populations are present and time applications around peak flight activity.
    • Mating disruption is an effective strategy for managing DWB, LPTB, and GPTB.
    • Trunk sprays can be applied at well-timed intervals throughout the year.  

Orchard Weed Management During a Low Crop Year

Low crop production years in tree fruit present a different set of weed management priorities compared to typical seasons. While reduced yield may lessen immediate concerns about weed–crop competition, these seasons offer an important opportunity to reset weed pressure and improve long-term orchard floor management. 

Shift in Management Objectives 

In a low crop year, the focus should shift from protecting current yield to reducing weed populations and preventing future infestations. With fewer fruit sinks, trees often allocate more resources to vegetative growth, which can influence both competitive dynamics with weeds and crop sensitivity to herbicide injury. This is also an ideal time to scout and map weed populations across the orchard, documenting dominant species and problem areas. These records directly inform preemergence (PRE)  herbicide selection and placement in the following season. 

Strengthening Residual Programs 

PRE herbicides should play a central role in weed management during low production years. Maintaining a clean herbicide strip beneath the tree canopy throughout the season helps reduce weed seed production, limits early-season competition, and improves control consistency going into the following year. Where appropriate, consider using full labeled rates and tank mixtures of PRE herbicides with different sites of action to extend residual activity and manage resistance. Always read and follow the full label before use. 

Postemergence Applications and Crop Safety 

Timely postemergence (POST) applications remain important to prevent escapes and seed production, even in low crop years. Registered POST options include glyphosate and glufosinate for directed applications, and clethodim for grass control. However, caution is warranted: 

  • Trees may exhibit altered physiological responses due to reduced crop load 
  • Stone fruits (peach, sweet cherry, tart cherry) are generally more sensitive to herbicide contact and root uptake of certain residuals than pome fruits (apple, pear) 
  • Young plantings and thin-barked trees are at greater risk of injury from bark contact 
  • Directed or shielded applications are strongly recommended to minimize contact with trunks, scaffold branches, and foliage 

Resistance Management 

Herbicide-resistant weed populations are an increasing concern in Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern orchards. Glyphosate- and paraquat-resistant horseweed (Erigeron canadensis) is well-documented in the region, and common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) has shown reduced sensitivity to certain herbicide classes. To reduce selection pressure, rotate herbicide sites of action across seasons, not only within a single season, and avoid exclusive reliance on any single POST chemistry for escapes and patch control. 

Opportunities for Targeting Perennial Weeds 

Perennial species should be prioritized during low crop years. With reduced concern about fruit loss, growers can target optimal application timing for systemic postemergence herbicides when weeds are actively growing and most susceptible. Key perennial species of concern in NJ and NY orchards include: 

  • Mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) 
  • Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) 
  • Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) 
  • Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) 
  • Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 
  • Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) 
  • Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) 
  • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 

Sequential applications or integration with mechanical tactics may be necessary to effectively reduce belowground reserves. Note that many of these species may require multi-year management programs and, in some cases, mechanical removal prior to herbicide application. 

Managing Tree Vigor 

Reduced crop load commonly results in increased vegetative growth. A clean orchard floor combined with reduced weed competition can further enhance vigor, which is not always desirable. Excessive shoot growth can complicate canopy management and increase disease pressure. Growers should monitor nitrogen inputs carefully, adjust irrigation to avoid overstimulating growth, and manage watersprouts and excessive shoot development through summer pruning as needed. Competitive cover crops in the alleyway can serve a dual role: suppressing weeds while moderating overall tree vigor through resource competition. 

Environmental and Regulatory Considerations 

Applicators should be familiar with required buffer zones and consult the NJDEP Pesticide Control Program  as well as Registrant database for current restrictions and state-specific requirements. Herbicide applications should always be timed to avoid bloom periods when pollinators are active in the orchard. 

Looking Ahead 

Effective weed management during a low crop year can significantly improve conditions for the following season. Reducing the weed seedbank, targeting difficult perennial species, and scouting to map problem areas positions growers to enter the next production cycle with lower pressure and potentially reduced input needs. 

Bottom line: Low production years should be viewed as an opportunity—not a setback—for improving weed management. Strategic use of residual herbicides, targeted control of perennial species, integration of alternative tactics, and thorough scouting can provide lasting benefits for orchard productivity and long-term sustainability. 

Always read and follow pesticide label directions. The label is the law. Herbicide registrations are subject to change; verify current registration status in New Jersey and New York before use. 

Filed Under: Commercial Ag Updates, Fruit, Tree Fruit, Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
August 21, 2023

Soil Fertility from Non-Commercial Nutrient Sources

All essential plant nutrients cycle through the ecosystem of soil, water, air, plant, microbe, and animal.  Agronomic information about the composition and beneficial use of waste materials and how the nutrients can be recycled can help growers reduce the need to purchase soil fertility inputs.  Many different types of non-commercial nutrient sources are available in New Jersey.  Examples include horse manure with bedding, shade tree leaves, lawn clippings, wood chips, food waste, coffee grounds, eggshells, wood ash and more.

With 43,000 horses in New Jersey, there is an abundance of horse manure produced.  One horse can produce about 65 pounds of manure plus bedding per day.  The quantity of horse manure is substantial on a statewide basis.  Unfortunately, sometimes horse manure goes to landfills when it should be used to build and sustain soil fertility.

The Soil Profile Newsletter 2023 issue posted at Rutgers NJAES explains how to build and maintain soil fertility harnessing the nutrient supplying ability of horse manure and many other types of non-commercial materials.  The chemical composition and soil fertility value of each material is presented for beneficial use.  Available on the web at Rutgers NJAES ‘The Soil Profile’: https://njaes.rutgers.edu/soil-profile/pdfs/sp-v28.pdf

Filed Under: Blueberry, Christmas Trees, Commercial Ag Updates, Cranberry, Field, Forage & Livestock, Fruit, Landscape, Nursery, & Turf, Nursery, Strawberry, Tree Fruit, Vegetable Crops, Wine Grape Tagged With: , , ,