Rutgers Cooperative Extension
For a quick review on fungicides, FRAC groups, and managing fungicide resistance development please click on the links below.
Using tank mixes and fungicide rotations and information on FRAC group 4, FRAC group 7, and FRAC group 3 and FRAC group 11 fungicides.
There is a potential for new boxwood blight infections tomorrow in Southern NJ
Boxwood Blight risk-model information, considerations, and links:
| Boxwood Blight Risk Assessment as of 5/4/2022 | ||||||||
| Region | Location | CODE | 4-May | 5-May | 6-May | 7-May | 8-May | 9-May |
| Southern | Upper Deerfield | NJ50 | Low | Low | Very Low | Low | Low | Very Low |
| Southern | Vineland | NJ73 | Low | Low | Very Low | Low | Low | Very Low |
| Southern | Millville | KMIV | Very Low | Low | Very Low | Low | Low | Very Low |
| Southern | Bridgeton | D4116 | Low | Infection Risk- Sus. vars. | Very Low | Low | Low | Very Low |
| Please check your local boxwood blight risk at ___ CLICK HERE TO CHECK YOUR LOCAL PREDICTIONS | ||||||||
Fungicides;
Format: [FRAC code]: Chemical name (Trade names * no endorsement implied)
DISCLAIMER: The label is the law, always refer to it for allowable host crops, use-restrictions, application rates, reapplication intervals, re-entry intervals (REI), and mix compatibility information. Production and pesticide information on this site are for private/commercial pesticide applicators and landscape professionals only, and are NOT for home gardener use. Provided materials represent examples and do not cover all possible control scenarios. Trade-names listed do not imply endorsement and are used as examples only. Please contact your local agent or chemical sales representative for more information or to discuss additional pest management options.
Resources
Background on the pathogen:
Just a quick reminder hoping to see you tonight. In addition to the announced agenda below, newly appointed State Executive Director of USDA’s Farm Service Agency Bob Andrzejczak will be joining us to (re)introduce himself to the farm community.
Integrated Vegetable Crop Management Twilight Meeting
THURSDAY, April 7, 2022
6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
East Vineland Fire Hall
4931 Landis Ave., Vineland, NJ
across from the Savoy Restaurant
(please park behind the building and enter conference room door in rear)
6:30 pm Tools for Pesticide Safety & Regulatory Compliance for Growers & Pesticide Handlers
7:00 pm Understanding the New FSMA Water Rule
7:20 pm Cover-crops for Fertility Management
7:40 pm Cover-crops and Other Weed Management Strategies for Plasticulture Crops
8:10 pm Disease Control Options for Spring Vegetable Crops
8:40 pm Pepper Weevil & Early Season Diamond Back Moth Management Options
9:10 pm COVID-19 and New Roles for Extension Going Forward
9:30 pm Adjourn
Pesticide Recertification Credits
Hope to see you there!
Sincerely,
Richard VanVranken, Agricultural Agent, Atlantic County
Wesley L. Kline, Agricultural Agent, Cumberland County
Michelle Infante-Casella, Agricultural Agent, Gloucester County
Integrated Vegetable Crop Management Twilight Meeting
NOTE – change of date from earlier announcements
THURSDAY, April 7, 2022
6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
East Vineland Fire Hall
4931 Landis Ave., Vineland, NJ
across from the Savoy Restaurant
(please park behind the building and enter conference room door in rear)
6:30 pm Tools for Pesticide Safety & Regulatory Compliance for Growers & Pesticide Handlers
7:00 pm Understanding the New FSMA Water Rule
7:20 pm Cover-crops for Fertility Management
7:40 pm Cover-crops and Other Weed Management Strategies for Plasticulture Crops
8:10 pm Disease Control Options for Spring Vegetable Crops
8:40 pm Pepper Weevil & Early Season Diamond Back Moth Management Options
9:10 pm COVID-19 and New Roles for Extension Going Forward
9:30 pm Adjourn
Pesticide Recertification Credits
Hope to see you there!
Sincerely,
Richard VanVranken, Agricultural Agent, Atlantic County
Wesley L. Kline, Agricultural Agent, Cumberland County
Michelle Infante-Casella, Agricultural Agent, Gloucester County
Disinformation, misinformation, bad science, bad reporting… the public is becoming more aware that one of the toughest challenges faced these days is sorting out what is good reporting (and good science), versus what is misleading or untruthful. It seems ironic that after my post yesterday, the following article showed up in my inbox this morning – Perspective: This pesticide ‘research’ is short on data, big on hype .
In this post, the author, farmer-agronomist Jack DeWitt, critiques a commentary in Scientific American magazine that promotes a ‘study’ conducted by the same authors of the commentary, who happen to be the director and research assistant at the non-profit Center for Biological Diversity, an organization with a stated agenda. Their ‘analysis’ published online in Frontiers in Environmental Science appears to be a legitimate review of previous scientific studies concerning the effects of ‘pesticides’ on soil organisms, again the current often-cited gauge of “soil health”, though in this case they focused only on soil invertebrates (worms and insects, basically) and ignored fungi and bacteria.
Standard scientific journal formats require ‘materials and methods’ sections so that one can read how a study was conducted and determine if the results are analyzed and conclusions drawn appropriately from the data and how that was collected. If properly reviewed in the pre-publication stage, poorly conducted studies and/or inappropriate conclusions would be cause for rejection of the manuscript, or at least would require a significant revision and/or further explanation of how the data supports the conclusions. Scientists reading articles with such flaws scratch their heads in wonder how they were published, and in very rare cases, if there is enough negative reaction citing improper methodology, analysis and/or conclusions, an article is recanted after publication. In this case, going back to the original scientific review, DeWitt illustrates how carefully selected data are misinterpreted and/or misrepresented to support the authors’ cause, er … conclusions.
Moral of the story… don’t take scientific reporting as gospel, even from respected media outlets, until you consider the source, the funding, and take a careful look at the original article, if it’s available.
Sometimes (many times) following social media (SM) threads can lead down some interesting rabbit holes. With a lot of news, research, and programming these days focusing on soil health and ‘regenerative agriculture’ (which focuses on soil health impacts on climate – read more here and here), the following article from Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources (CSANR) caught my eye when it popped up in my Twitter feed. In this post, Irrigated Cropping Systems Agronomist Andrew McGuire reviews the scientific literature for the latest (although the post is actually 3 years old now) analyses of impacts of pesticides, especially herbicides compared to tillage, and fertilizers on microbiological activity, organic matter, and soil structure, i.e. soil health. It may be surprising to find the science doesn’t support the ‘chemicals kill the soil’ narrative being portrayed these days.
Comparing effects of herbicides, fertilizers, and tillage on the soil
Cooperating Agencies: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Boards of County Commissioners. Rutgers Cooperative Extension, a unit of the Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, is an equal opportunity program provider and employer.
Rutgers University is an equal access/equal opportunity institution. Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to direct suggestions, comments, or complaints concerning any accessibility issues with Rutgers web sites to: accessibility@rutgers.edu or complete the Report Accessibility Barrier or Provide Feedback Form.
Copyright © Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, an equal opportunity, affirmative action institution
Copyright © 2025 · Generate Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in