Docstoc

Vermont Apple Newsletter - UVM Apple Orchard - University of

Document Sample
Vermont Apple Newsletter - UVM Apple Orchard - University of Powered By Docstoc
					               Vermont Apple Newsletter
M. Elena Garcia, Lorraine Berkett, Terry Bradshaw, Linda Boccuzzo, and Jessica
                                    Reardon,
                                March 30, 2001


Inside this issue:
Horticulture News (M. Elena Garcia)                                  2

  Assessment of foilar analysis throughout the state                 2
     Generic Fertilizer Schedule (by phenology) for Apple Trees      6
   USDA Farm Service Agency announces Apple Market Loss Pro          7
gram
  Letter to Secretary Veneman - School Lunch Purchases               9
   Introducing The Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship        10
(NECFE)
  Re-scheduling of the top-working and pruning workshop              13
IPM News (Lorraine P. Berkett)                                       14
  2001 Update to the New England Apple Pest Management Guide 14

   Be Prepared for Apple Scab … It will be a Significant Threat in   14
2001
  IPM Tools for 2001                                                 18
  How BIG are those trees?                                           19
  A “Primer” on Organophosphates and EPA’s Reassessment of           20
Residue Limits …
Contact Information                                                  21



  Note: We are trying to generate an e-mail list of growers and interested persons.
  The main objective for this list will be to facilitate communication between you,
  the growers, and us, the UVM Apple Team. If you have an e-mail address and
  wish to be put on this list, please write an e-mail to: elena.garcia@uvm.edu
Horticultural News
     M. Elena Garcia, Horticulturist


Assessment of foliar analysis throughout the state:                                  The
good, the bad, and the problems
This year, Vermont apple growers sent over sixty leaf samples to the UVM Agricultural
and Environmental Testing Laboratory to be analyzed. I was impressed by the in-
creased number of people sending their leaves to be analyzed for their nutrient levels. I
have summarized the results of these tests to give you an overall idea of the orchard nu-
trient status in the state.

Nitrogen and phosphorous: The majority of you are doing a great job at maintaining the
proper amounts of these elements to optimize yield, tree growth and fruit quality.

Potassium, calcium, magnesium, and boron: A few orchards in the state seem to have
foliar deficiencies in these elements. Boron appears at toxic levels in a few samples.

Zinc: Very few orchards are within optimum levels of this element. In many samples,
zinc is at toxicity levels. This makes me wonder if the leaves are being washed before
they are dried and sent to us for analysis. If you are using zinc containing fungicides,
there might be some residue left on the leaves that would contaminate the samples. In
our own samples from the UVM Horticultural Research Center (HRC) , zinc is deficient,
but the blocks that were tested received no zinc containing fungicides. Foliar deficiency
symptoms were seen in leaves of trees in our blocks.

Manganese: This element is deficient in almost all orchards except ours at the HRC
and a few other orchards throughout the state. It is difficult to explain the deficiency of
this element. Manganese availability is highly dependent on the soil pH. In soils with a
high pH, this element becomes deficient and in soils with a low pH manganese be-
comes toxic. Since there were very few soil analysis sent in to complement the leaf
analysis, interpretation of the foliar deficiencies are difficult to interpret.

Interpreting your results:
Along with the results of the amount of the various elements in the leaves, there are rec-
ommendations given to you to help you solve problems or to maintain.
The following is a list of things to remember when interpreting your foliar analysis re-
sults:


                 Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001           page 2
•   The standards values that are given as the optimum foliar nutrient levels have
    been developed to optimize yield, fruit quality, and tree growth. Optimum ranges
    may depend on which parameters are most important to you.
•   Optimal mineral nutrition is essential for high productivity and growers should be-
    come involved in the long-term management of the orchard nutritional needs in or-
    der to avoid problems of deficiencies and toxicities, maximize productivity, and re-
    duce the application of unneeded fertilizers.
•   Leaf analyses are by themselves of limited value if you do not have the results
    from a soil test that tells you the soil conditions.

Nitrogen (N):
•    Leaf N tends to be higher in samples from trees that are carrying heavy crop
    loads.
• Leaf N is reduced by drought or sod/weed competition.
• You need to consider tree vigor and crop load when interpreting N concentrations.
• The relationship between nitrogen and potassium is very important. A ratio of N/K
    of about 1.00-1.25: 1 (N:K) is about where the balance of these two elements re-
    sults in optimum fruit size, color, sugar content and firmness.
• Fruit color development is delayed when N levels are too high.
• Shoot growth vigor is often an additional guide to use to determine if your N fertili-
    zation program is adequate.
• N is needed by the tree earlier in the season, i.e., during bud development, fruit
    set, and bud initiation and differentiation.
• Late summer applications of N may predispose the tree to winter injury.

Potassium (K):
• Leaf K shows an inverse relationship with crop load.
• Leaf K levels decrease as the tree matures.
• Fruit size and color are positively correlated to leaf K levels. For McIntosh and Em-
   pire, levels in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 must be maintained to have optimum produc-
   tion and color.
• Leaf K might be reduced by drought or sod/weed competition.
• Lower soil temperatures such as it occurs under mulch increases K uptake from
   the soil.

Phosphorous (P);
• Foliar levels of P vary according to cultivars. McIntosh leaf samples generally con-
  tain less P than Delicious.

Calcium (Ca)
• Uptake of Ca from soil is restricted to the area just above the root tip.
• Soil absorption of Ca is limited, thus the need for foliar sprays.
• Ca is one of the most immobile mineral elements.




                 Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001           page 3
•   Sprays of calcium chloride have been successful in reducing or controlling some
    fruit disorders.
•   Ca foliar sprays do not increase fruit firmness.
•   Competition from other cations such as K, Mg, and NH4 reduce Ca root uptake.
    So, do not over-fertilize with these elements and compounds.
•   Quick responses to Ca treatments are only obtained when Ca is put directly on the
    fruit because Ca moves very slowly in the plant.
•   Encourage good pollination. Seed number affects fruit Ca. It appears that seeds
     help direct Ca to the fruit.
•   Do not grow excessively large fruit. Fruit Ca decreases with fruit size for any given
    cultivar.
•   Avoid water stress. For roots to absorb Ca, water must be present, and under se-
    vere water stress, the leaves can withdraw water and Ca from the fruit.
•   Do not pre-mix calcium nitrate with Solubor.

Magnesium (Mg)
• There is a relationship between leaf potassium and leaf Mg. The ratio between
  these two elements should not exceed 4 (K) : 1 (Mg). Ratios higher than 4:1(K:Mg)
  are considered indicative of Mg shortage regardless of the actual Mg levels.
• Heavy applications of K can induce Mg deficiencies.
• Besides potassium, the presence of other competing cations such as ammonium ,
  calcium, and manganese can decrease the rate of Mg uptake from the soil.
• Ratios of Ca to Mg are important. Excess Mg can hinder Ca uptake.
• Mg is relatively immobile in the soil.
• Moisture stress in the soil limits availability and uptake of Mg.
• High Mg can accentuate bitter pit.
• Deficiency symptoms are more pronounced in young or trees with heavy crop loads
• Fruit Mg requirements are relatively high, and Mg is remobilized from spurs to the
  fruit and seeds as the fruit nears maturity.

Zinc (Zn)
• Heavy phosphorous applications decrease availability of Zn in the soil.
• High and low soil pH as well as low soil organic matter decrease availability.

Manganese (Mn);
• Mn is involved in the evolution of oxygen in photosynthesis.
• It functions in the chloroplast as part of the electron transfer system
• Mn concentration in leaves is strongly correlated to soil pH. Deficiency is accentu-
  ated by high pH
• Mn containing fungicides may contaminate leaf samples.
• If Mn is needed, an application of Mn sulfate (24%) at an annual rate of 5 lb/acre in
  the spring before growth starts is recommended.




                Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001          page 4
Boron (B):
• The major role of B in fruit trees involves fruit set. Apple, pear and cherry flowers
   are very high in B. If the B content is deficient, the flowers die.
• The B needed in the flower is transported mainly from the reserves in the adjacent
   branches and not from the roots during the development flower.
• Close attention to B levels is important because both low and high concentrations
   cause poor fruit quality.
• Low B results in short storage life with the fruit having a higher susceptibly to stor-
   age breakdown and fruit deformities.
• High B results in a higher incidence of internal disorders such as watercore and
     internal breakdown.



Check the following Vermont Apple Newsletters for information on specific orchard nu-
trition topics:




        Vermont Apple Newsletters Issue Topic
        March 98                               General Nutrition
        March 99                               Calcium
        April 99                               Magnesium
        October 99                             Fall urea application
        May 2000                               Generic fertilizer chart
        June 2000                              Boron
        July 2000                              Zinc
        October 2000                           Determining your orchard needs




                   Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001         page 5
T a b le 1 . G e n e r ic R e c o m m e n d a tio n s fo r F o lia r N u tr ie n t A p p lic a tio n s fo r a B e a r in g O r c h a r d b y P h e n o lo g ic a l S ta g e * * . T o b e u se d o n ly
w h e n le af a n d so il a n a ly se s h a v e n o t b e e n d o n e. T h e se re c o m m e n d atio n s c a n n o t a c co u n t fo r in d iv id u a l o rc h a rd situ a tio n s an d fo llo w in g th e se g u id e lin e s m a y re su lt in
d e fic ie n c ie s a n d /o r to x ic itie s. O r c h a r d sp e cific re c o m m e n d a tio n s ca n b e fo u n d o n le af a n d so il a n a ly sis re p o rts.
                                                                 G re e n
                                                                 T ip ! ½
                                                                 in c h                                                                                               7 -1 0 D a y s a fte r P e ta l G r o w in g S e a so n
                                                                                                                                                                               st                       nd
D o r m a n t ! S ilv e r T ip                                   G re e n      P in k                         B lo o m   P e ta l F a ll                              F a ll (1 C o v e r)            (2 ! F in a l C o v e r )
                                                                                            3                                             3
                                                                               N itr o g e n :                           N itr o g e n : U re a (4 5 %
                                                                               U re a (4 5 % N ): 3                      N ): 5 p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n
           1




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    page 6
Z in c : Z in c S u lfa te (3 6 % Z n ): 1 0 -1 4                              p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n               d ilu te e q u iv a le n t
p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n d ilu te e q u iv a le n t                         d ilu te e q u iv a le n t                ( 2 o f 2 a p p lic a tio n s)
                                                                               ( 1 of 2                                              4                                             4
                         1
                                                                                                                         B o r o n : S o lu b o r (2 0 .5 %           B o r o n : S o lu b o r (2 0 .5 %
M a n g a n e se : M an g a n e se S u lfa te                                  a p p lic a tio n s)
                                                                                                                         B ): ½ -1 p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n        B ): ½ -1 p o u n d s/1 0 0
(2 4 % M n ):                                                                                                            d ilu te e q u iv a le n t                   g a llo n d ilu te e q u iv a le n t
2 -4 p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n d ilu te e q u iv a le n t                                                              (1 o f 2 a p p lic a tio n s)                (2 o f 2 a p p lic a tio n s)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001
                                                                                                                         * D O N O T M IX
                                                                                                                         S O L U B O R w ith C a lc iu m
                                                                                                                         N itr a te
                                                                                                                                                5
                 2
                                                                                                                         M a g n e siu m : E ith e r
C o p p e r : C o p p e r S u lfate (2 2 % C u ):                                                                        M ag n e siu m S u lfa te (1 1 %
4 p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n d ilu te e q u iv a le n t                                                                 M g ) O R E p so m S a lts (1 0 %
O R B o rd e a u x M ix tu re s (fo llo w la b e l                                                                       M g ): 1 5 p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n s
ra te )                                                                                                                  d ilu te e q u iv a le n t
                                                                                                                                                                                       6
                                                                                                                                                                      C a lc iu m : C alciu m C h lo rid e (7 7 -8 0 % C a C l 2 ): 1 -4
P o ta ssiu m : N o fo lia r a p p lic a tio n .                                                                                                                      p o u n d s/1 0 0 g a llo n d ilu te e q u iv a le n t /sp ra y . C alc iu m
P o ta ssiu m m ay b e a d d e d v ia g ro u n d                                                                                                                      c h lo rid e sp ra y s sh o u ld c o n tin u e e v e ry 1 0 -1 4 d a y s o v er
a p p lic a tio n d u rin g fa ll o r e a rly sp rin g a s                                                                                                            th e c o u rse o f th e g ro w in g se aso n fo r a m a x im u m o f 8
m u riate o f p o ta sh (0 -0 -6 0 ): 1 5 0 -2 0 0                                                                                                                    sp ra y s. F o r d iffe re n t c alciu m fo rm u latio n s, c o n ta c t
p o u n d s/a cre /se a so n c a n b e a p p lie d .                                                                                                                  E x ten sio n p e rso n n e l.
S u l-P o -M ag (2 p o u n d s/tre e ) sh o u ld b e                                                                                                                                                 C o n tin u e C a C l 2 S p ray s
a p p lie d p re -b lo o m if M g a d d itio n is
a lso d esire d .
1                                                                                                                        5
    Z in c an d M a n g a n es e c an a lso b e fo u n d in s o m e fu n g icid e s -c h e c k p e stic id e la b el       T h is a p p lica tio n o f M g c a n b e rea p p lied a t 1 0 -1 4 d a y in terv a ls a fte r th e P F a p p lic a tio n , if
2                                                                                                                        d es ire d . M a x im u m o f th ree M g sp ra y s p er se as o n .
  C o p p er ca n a ls o b e ad d ed v ia C u -b as ed fu n g icid e s -c h e c k p e stic id e la b el.
C A U T IO N ! T h e se c o p p e r tre atm e n ts m ay b u rn lea v es a n d ca u se fru it ru ss etin g .              6
3                                                                                                                          A d d itio n a lly , M ag n es iu m a n d / o r C a lciu m ca n b e a d d e d v ia g ro u n d a p p lica tio n s o f lim e o r
  A ltern a tiv ely , N itro g e n ca n b e a p p lie d in a sp lit g ro u n d a p p lic atio n o f e ith e r
                                                                                                                         d o lo m itic lim e. T h is s h o u ld n o t b e d o n e w ith o u t a so il te st.
C a lc iu m N itra te (1 5 .5 % N ; 2 -4 p o u n d s/tree /ap p l) o r A m m o n iu m N itra te (3 3 .5 % N ; 1 -2
p o u n d s /tre e /ap p l). O n e ap p lic atio n p re-b lo o m , th e o th e r six w ee k s a fter b lo o m .
4
  A ltern a tiv ely , th is s p lit a p p lica tio n c a n b e rep la c ed b y a sin g le g ro u n d a p p lic atio n    * * I t is N O T r e c o m m e n d e d th a t fo lia r n u tr ie n ts b e a p p lie d w ith
o f g ra n u la r B o ro n d u rin g th e "D o rm an t-S ilv er T ip " p e rio d . In th is c as e, th e                 h o r tic u ltu r a l o ils .
re co m m en d e d a p p lica tio n is 2 -3 p o u n d s o f g ra n u lar b o ro n / y o u n g tre es an d 7 -8           F u rth e r in fo rm atio n : O rch a rd N u tritio n M a n ag e m en t. W a rre n C . S tile s a n d W . S h a w R eid .
p o u n d s o f g ra n u lar b o ro n /o ld er tree s.                                                                   C o rn e ll C o o p erativ e E x ten sio n B u lle tin # 2 1 9 .
                                                                                                                         P re p are d b y L in d a B o c cu z zo a n d T e rry B rad s h a w
USDA Farm Service Agency announces Apple Market Loss Pro-
gram.

(March 8, 2001) -The USDA Farm Service Agency county offices will begin taking applica-
tions immediately for an Apple Market Loss Assistance Payment Program (AMLAP), ac-
cording to FSA State Director. The signup period will continue through April 13, 2001. The
program provides the nation's apple growers with economic assistance for market losses
suffered in recent years. It is available to growers from apple orchards that produced and
harvested apples during the 1998 or 1999 crop year.

Congress appropriated up to $100 million for direct payments to apple producers. Since a
set amount of money is available, the amount each grower receives will depend on how
many growers sign up and the amount of production each grower claims. A national pay-
ment rate will be determined and announced after the end of the signup. FSA will base
payments on an apple operation's production for the higher of the 1998 or 1999 crop year,
up to a maximum of 1.6 million pounds per operation.
Production receiving market loss payments under any other federal program, with the ex-
ception of Federal Crop Insurance, will not be eligible for additional market loss payments
under this program. Growers receiving crop disaster payments are still eligible for the mar-
ket loss payments.
Individuals, partnerships, joint ventures and other legal entities are all eligible. An individ-
ual's payment will be based on the person's share in the operation. Only one application
need be submitted per operation.

Applicants may request a form to enroll in the program in person, by mail, phone or fax.
Forms (CCC-891) may also be obtained from the internet at http://www.sc.egov.usda.gov/
Forms must be completed and submitted to the county FSA office in the county where the
orchard exists ( or the primary orchard) by the program deadline of April 13.

Growers will need to provide production information for crop years) 1998 and/or 1999. Al-
though production records are not required at the time of signup, FSA conducts random
spot checks to ensure accountability .Growers should have verifiable documentation to
back up production claims.

As part of the application process, FSA staff will ask about highly erodible land and wet-
land conservation as it may apply to acres producing apples enrolled in the market loss
program. Completed applications will require signatures of all persons having a share in
the operation. Payments will be made by electronic funds transfer. An additional form will
need to be completed for this purpose.




                   Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001            page 7
need to be completed for this purpose.

To obtain additional information or to signup for the program, contact the local Farm
Service Agency office at the county U.S. Department of Agriculture Service Center. A
listing of offices may be found at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/vt/cof.htm. Call the county
office for an appointment.


   Telephone number of some Farm Service Offices in your area or county
   Addison Co.                                                 802-388-6748
   Bennington and Rutland                                      802-775-8034 or 802-775-9965
   Chittenden and Washington Co                                802-879-4785
   Franklin Co                                                 802-527-1296
   Lamoille                                                    802-888-4935
   Windham Co                                                  802-254-9766
   Windsor and Orange Co                                       802-295-7942
   If the phone number of your county or area is not given, call the nearest office to
   you




The United States Department or agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and ac-
tivities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual ori-
entation, or marital or family status: (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons With dis-
abilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc} should contact USDA s TARGET
Center at 202- 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building. 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964




                       Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001                           page 8
Letter to Secretary Veneman - School Lunch Purchases
(The following was sent to S. Justis by J. Cranney from the USApple Association)

                                Memorandum
DATE: March 23, 2001

TO: State and Regional Apple Organizations

CC: USApple Board of Trustees

USApple Public Affairs Committee

FROM: James R. Cranney, Jr.

SUBJECT: Letter to Secretary Veneman – School Lunch Purchases

Attached for your information is a list of House and Senate members who co-signed
the Hastings/Hinchey and Craig/Levin letters to Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
requesting additional school lunch program purchases of apples and apple products.
Please distribute this list to your organization’s board members or relevant committee
members.
USApple recommends that you contact your state’s congressional members who co-
signed these letters to thank them for their support. Likewise, if your state’s congres-
sional members did not co-sign these letters, we suggest that you contact those mem-
bers to convey your disappointment and request that they co-sign the Hastings/
Hinchey and Craig/Levin letters to Agriculture Secretary Veneman contesting Korean
Fuji apple imports.
Please contact me by telephone at (703) 442-8850 or via e-mail at jcranney@usapple.
org should you have any questions or require additional information.



(I did not put the list of the House and Senate members . Both Senators Leahey and
Jeffords and Representaive Sanders co-signed the Hastings/Hinchey letter to Agricul-
ture Secretary Veneman urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to purchase more
fresh apples and processed apple products for the school lunch program and other do-
mestic feeding programs).




                 Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001          page 9
Introducing The Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship
(NECFE).
From: Dr. C. W. Donnelly, Associate Director

The Northeast Center for Food Entrepreneurship (NECFE), a collaborative effort be-
tween the Cornell University-Geneva campus and the University of Vermont, was es-
tablished in January of 2000 thanks to a $3.8 million award from the USDA Fund for
Rural America. The goal of the NECFE is to provide comprehensive assistance to en-
trepreneurs starting food manufacturing businesses thus promoting economic develop-
ment in rural communities in the northeast. The project will benefit the specialty food
industry by creating a scientific and technical resource for New York and New England
food processing companies, enabling the production of microbiologically safe, high-
quality food products. The Vermont NECFE offices are located in Carrigan Hall. Sena-
tor Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) office helped to secure the NECFE grant. Senator Leahy’s
office also helped establish the Center for Food Science in 1997 with funding from the
USDA Rural Business Enterprise Grants Program and matching support from the
State of Vermont Agency of Development and Community Affairs.

The Center provides services, outreach and research development opportunities in
four critical areas: assistance in business and product process development, product
safety, process/product technology transfer and product commercialization. Our serv-
ices can be accessed by calling (802)656-8300 or by visiting our website: http://www.
nysaes.cornell.edu/necfe. NECFE personnel at the Vermont site include an Associate
Director (Dr. Catherine Donnelly), an Outreach and Research Coordinator (Dr. Cecilia
Golnazarian), a Food Processing Authority (Todd Silk), a Marketing Specialist (Susan
Callahan), an Administrative Assistant (Pam Durda), a HACCP/Sanitation Specialist
(Dr. Todd Pritchard) an evaluation coordinator (Kevin Wiberg), and a Food Processing
Specialist (Brian Norder of the Food Venture Center, Fairfax, VT). Dr. Jane Kolodinsky
has replaced Dr. Catherine Halbrendt in the role as co-Principal Investigator for the
Vermont site and will provide input and oversight for the food product marketing as-
pects of our work.

To date, we have provided assistance to over 60 clients/companies. The nature of the
assistance provided varies. We have assisted with the development of Hazards Analy-
sis and Critical Control Points/Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (HACCP/
SSOP) programs for food processing establishments; provided labeling assistance to
meet the FDA Nutrition Labeling Act (NLA); worked with an agricultural cooperative to
target research and development of value-added agricultural products; provided facili-
ties for a specialty cheese manufacturing workshop; and worked with our State De-
partment of Agriculture in finding tenants for a vacated food processing facility. Our
personnel have established excellent linkages and cooperative working relationships
with colleagues from the Extension System in New England; developed a partnership
with New England Culinary Institute which allows chefs and food scientists to work col-
laboratively on issues of mutual interest; and worked with the Economic Development
Council of Northern Vermont which runs a commercial kitchen at the Food Venture

                Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001         page 10
personnel have established excellent linkages and cooperative working relationships
with colleagues from the Extension System in New England; developed a partnership
with New England Culinary Institute which allows chefs and food scientists to work col-
laboratively on issues of mutual interest; and worked with the Economic Development
Council of Northern Vermont which runs a commercial kitchen at the Food Venture
Center in Fairfax. In our rural agricultural state, we now have a physical facility, per-
sonnel and networks which can facilitate the development of new food products and
new food businesses which will help to diversify our agricultural economy and stimu-
late economic development.

To date, we have offered two educational workshops: Cornell’s Annual Apple Cider
Workshop, which was brought to UVM through videoconferencing on March 16, 2001;
and a Food Safety Workshop for Entrepreneurs, which was offered on March 22, 2001
in collaboration with UVM Extension. The Cornell Apple Cider workshop provided an
overview of the FDA HACCP Procedures for the Safe and Sanitary Processing and
Importing of Juice: Final Rule, which was published in the Federal Register on January
19, 2001. The workshop provided educational information on the impact of the rule on
cider producers; information on building a HACCP plan for apple cider production; and
development of HACCP plans for pasteurized versus UV treated cider. The new FDA
rules mandate the application of HACCP principles to the processing of fruit and vege-
table juices. Included in this mandate is use of control measures which will consistently
achieve a five log reduction of the population of the most relevant pathogenic microor-
ganism of public health significance in juice, which at this time is deemed to be E. coli
0157:H7. The FDA has approved pasteurization (160oF for 6 seconds; 160F for 11
seconds if more than 50% red delicious blend or 170oF for 2 seconds) and UV treat-
ment (14,000 microwatt exposure) as methods to achieve a five log reduction of bacte-
rial pathogens in fruit juice. A video-tape transcript of the conference is available for
viewing for those individuals who were unable to attend the workshop.

The impact of our work is significant. Food entrepreneurs in the rural northeast now
have a physical facility and personnel to provide assistance with food product develop-
ment and marketing needs. Most of the clients which we have assisted do not have
extensive financial resources, yet they need help with all aspects of product develop-
ment and commercialization. A key area where we have provided assistance is in the
food safety arena. By providing process reviews and conducting microbiological audits
of processing establishments, we are able to work to promote food safety and keep
hazardous products from causing harm to consumers. We have provided input to the
databases which have been constructed for the NECFE, and each client who has re-
quested assistance from our center is tracked through this database. The project will
include an effort to incorporate locally grown value-added products that originate in the
region. The grant will also help with job placement for students, enabling student in-
terns with experience in the food industry to become employed by local businesses.
Our ultimate goal will be to create new jobs and assist the specialty food industry in
the northeast with vibrant growth. We are confident that we can achieve this goal over
the next three years.


                Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001           page 11
Northeast Center for                          Food          Entrepreneurship
(NECFE) (summary)
WHAT: A new collaborative effort between University of Vermont and Cornell/ Geneva
campus to provide comprehensive assistance to entrepreneurs starting or expanding
food manufacturing businesses in the northeast for the purpose of economic develop-
ment. USDA grants runs until 2004.

GOAL: By becoming a scientific and technical resource for regional food processing
companies, our goal is to enable the production of microbiologically safe, high quality
food products and to market them with a sound business strategy.

SERVICES PROVIDED: Assistance in business and product process development,
product safety, process/product technology transfer and product commercialization.
Recent examples include: instruction in HACCP (hazard analysis critical control points)
for the apple cider industry, sanitation standard operation procedures (SSOP), research
and development of value-added agricultural products. Both sites conduct frequent
workshops and soon will have workshop proceedings on video (with lab manual) for
loan or sale.

CLIENTS: In a few short months of operation over 60 clients have been served. Assis-
tance ranged from developing HACCP plans and microbiological audits of processing
establishments to new product development with our partner, the Food Venture Center,
in Fairfax, VT (802- 849-2000).

WHERE:                      The University of Vermont
                             200 Carrigan Building
                                   Main Street
                              Burlington, VT 05405
                            Telephone: 802-656-8300

WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.NYSAES.CORNELL.EDU/NECFE
You’ll find lots of useful information here.




                 Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001           page 12
  Re-scheduling of the top-working and pruning workshop
  Due to the bad weather conditions, most of you who had signed up to attend the top-
  working and pruning workshops were unable to attend. I have re-scheduled this work-
  shop for Wednesday April 4. This time the workshop will be conducted in the morning
  only. In the first morning workshop, pruning principles and a pruning demonstration
  will be given by the UVM Apple Team. During the second morning workshop. Mr.
  Russ Allen from Connecticut Valley Orchards, an expert grafter, will be demonstrating
  the art of top-working, a technique used to change cultivars. In addition, we will dem-
  onstrate bridge grafting, a type of repair graft. You must sign separately to attend
  both workshops. Priority will be given to those individuals that had signed up for the
  March 22 workshops, but were unable to attend.



                         Fill out this form, detach it , and mail it to:
                                        M. Elena Garcia
                                     University of Vermont
                                     PSS Dept, Hills Bldg.
                                     Burlington, VT 05405
 If you have any questions, please call 802-656-2824 or 802-656-0490 or write an e-
 mail to:
     Mailto: Elena.garcia@uvm.edu


                                               Sign up for: workshops on April 4     Time
Name
                                                 Pruning Workshop                  8:30-10:00
Orchard or organization
                                                 Top Working Workshop              10:30-12:00
Address



Phone

 e-mail




                  Vermont Apple Newsletter- March 30, 2001          page 13
IPM News

  Lorraine P. Berkett, IPM Specialist

2001 Update to the New England Apple Pest Management
Guide

Enclosed is the 2001 Update to the 2000-2001 New England Apple Pest Management
Guide. Note that it is also available on the web at:

           http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/2001NEAPMGUpdate.htm

Be Prepared for Apple Scab … It will be a Significant Threat
in 2001

I hate to start off the season on a negative note but unfortunately, it was not difficult to
find scab in many Vermont orchards last year. Couple that with all the snow we have
had which has provided an insulating, wet blanket over the overwintering, infected
leaves and you have the makings for potentially high levels of inoculum this spring.
Plus, in years when the overwintering leaves are insulated by snow, ascospore matur-
ity is usually not delayed or, in other words, ascospores will be ready to be released
when green tissue is present. In years when the potential overwintering inoculum is at a
low level, the small percentage of ascospores that are mature at the very beginning of
the season is inconsequential. However, a small percentage of a large potential asco-
spore dose is serious. Be prepared !        Considering that it may be more difficult than
normal to get into the orchards to cover early infection periods because of wet ground,
this would be the year to have some alternative strategies planned for managing apple
scab.

The following article by Dr. David Rosenberger from the Scaffolds Fruit Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 2, March 26, 2001, contains very useful information that you should consider while
developing your disease management plan for your orchard:

“Selecting and scheduling fungicides for apples involves many considerations. No single program can be
devised that is appropriate for all apple orchards. The information that follows may prove useful as apple
growers and consultants plan for the coming apple spray season. Note that throughout the following discus-

                           Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                page 14
sion, I have assumed that SI fungicides are still fully effective for controlling apple scab and powdery mil-
dew in the orchards under consideration. Many of the suggested strategies must be modified if SI-resistant
strains predominate in the orchard. Strategies for orchards with SI-resistance will not be covered in this
article.

Fungicide classes referenced in this article include -
1. Contact fungicides: copper sprays (for use at green tip), mancozeb fungicides (Dithane,
Penncozeb), Polyram, captan. Polyram is not a mancozeb fungicide. However, for the sake of simplicity,
any subsequent references to 'mancozeb' in this paper should be interpreted as including Dithan,Penncozeb,
and Polyram.
2. SI scab fungicides: Rubigan, Nova, Procure
3. Strobilurin fungicides: Sovran, Flint
4. Benzimidazoles: Topsin M and Benlate.

Decision #1: Copper sprays?

Copper sprays are strongly recommended in orchards where fire blight was present in either of the previous
two seasons. Sprays should be applied between silver tip and quarter-inch green. The objective of this cop-
per application is to create a copper residue on the tree that will release copper ions during rains and reduce
populations of the fire blight bacterium coming from overwintering cankers. Copper sprays are of question-
able value in orchards that have not had fire blight during the past two years since these orchards would
theoretically have neither blight cankers nor resident populations of the fire blight bacterium. However, grow-
ers with highly susceptible cultivars and rootstocks may still wish to apply copper as insurance against
blight infections that may have gone unnoticed the previous year.

In some seasons, copper sprays can cause russetting on apple fruit. This usually occurs when sprays are
applied after quarter-inch green and/or there is little or no rainfall between the time of application and the
time when trees reach open cluster. If too much copper residue is still present at open cluster, then rains
occurring after open cluster may redistribute the copper residue to the clusters and injure the tissue that will
later form the apple fruit.

If copper sprays are applied after quarter-inch green, then rates should be reduced to the minimum label
rate. Conversely, if the long-range weather forecast at the time of copper application suggests that heavy
rainfall is expected within the next week, then the high end of the labeled rate should be used to increase
the probability that some copper residue will still be present after the rain. In either case, copper rates per
acre should be adjusted for tree-row volume to prevent overdosing small trees.

A copper spray, even at the low label rate, will provide scab protection equivalent to that provided by a man-
cozeb fungicide applied at 1 lb of formulated material per 100 gallons. Copper sprays will not act as scab
eradicants.

Decision #2: Contact fungicide program vs. planned use of SI's or strobilurins at tight cluster

Excellent scab control can be achieved by using only mancozeb or captan sprays. Rates as low as 2-3 lb of
formulated mancozeb fungicides/A or 2-3 lb of captan 50W/A can provide excellent scab control if the fungi-
cides are applied just ahead of predicted rains. Higher rates are needed in very large and/or poorly pruned
trees or when fungicides are applied on a weekly schedule irrespective of rain events.

Programs involving only protectant fungicides (e.g., copper, mancozeb, Polyram, captan) can be inexpen-
sive, especially in dry years, but they are unforgiving because they offer no post-infection or anti-sporulant
activity. As a result, lapses in spray coverage will almost always result in at least a few scabby fruit. Cover-


                            Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                   page 15
age lapses may occur due to stretched spray intervals, wash-off during heavy rains, or spraying in windy condi-
tions. Furthermore, if summer weather remains cool and wet as it did in 1998 and 2001, then any scab that be-
comes established during April, May or early June will continue to spread during summer and will increase the
potential for late-season fruit infections that develop into pinpoint scab during storage. In wet years, attempting
to control scab with only contact fungicides can be both frustrating and expensive.

All growers should begin the season by using one or two applications of contact fungicides because there is
usually no reason to pay for an expensive fungicide prior to tight cluster. Growers planning to use only contact
fungicides through the entire scab season will need to be more conservative in covering ahead of predicted in-
fection periods than growers who plan to use SI or strobilurin fungicides during the peak scab season. Those
planning to switch to SI's or strobilurins can afford more risk because the SI and strobilurin fungicides will cover
minor lapses in coverage that may occur with prebloom applications of contact fungicides.

Decision #3: Knowing when to switch to SI's or strobilurins (the "power" fungicides)

The key to minimizing scab control costs is knowing exactly when to switch from a mancozeb or captan pro-
gram to the extra protection provided by SI's or strobilurins. In a dry year when contact fungicides can easily be
applied ahead of infection periods, contact fungicides alone may suffice for all sprays up to petal fall, especially
in blocks where mildew is a minimal problem. However, in years with heavy rains and extended wetting periods,
using SI's or strobilurins beginning at tight cluster may be the most cost-effective approach.

Regardless of the initial strategy chosen, it is absolutely essential that the first SI or strobilurin spray be applied
BEFORE there are any visible scab lesions in the orchard. Therefore, anytime that protection with contact fungi-
cides becomes suspect, either an SI or strobilurin should be applied within 12 days of the infection period in
question. For example, if heavy rains (more than 1.5 inches) at half-inch green remove mancozeb residues and
continued wind and rain prevent re-spraying ahead of the next infection period, then the best option is an SI or
strobilurin application within 72-96 hours, counting from the time that the mancozeb protection lapsed. Unfortu-
nately, cold fronts usually follow lengthy rain periods, and those cold fronts frequently bring winds that prevent
good spray coverage.

One must sometimes choose between getting an SI or strobilurin applied within 96 hours under poor spray condi-
tions or waiting beyond 96 hr for good spray conditions. I would usually opt for the latter choice when facing that
decision. During the prebloom period, SI's and strobilurins applied within 10-12 days of the infection period
should provide near-perfect scab control if they are applied so as to achieve near-perfect coverage. In fact, in
one of my field trials last year, scab control was better when these fungicides were applied 10-12 days after in-
fection rather than 5-8 days after infection. This means that one need not rush out to apply SI or strobilurin fungi-
cides immediately if one has already missed the 96-hr window of post-infection activity following an infection. I
believe that it is better to wait for good spray conditions during the following week than to attempt spraying in
less than optimal conditions. For missed infection periods during or after bloom, one cannot afford to delay appli-
cations more than 7-8 days because higher temperatures will result in a shorter scab incubation period.

The suggestion that scab can be arrested even 10-12 days after prebloom infection periods is not meant to im-
ply that prebloom contact sprays can be routinely omitted. Over-dependence on the post-infection and pre-
symptom activity of SI's and strobilurins almost certainly will result in both occasional control failures and in
rapid selection for fungicide-resistant isolates. Instead, the post-infection and pre-symptom activity of SI's and
strobilurins should be viewed as a safety net for situations where protection by contact fungicides might be com-
promised. Knowing that such a safety net exists allows one to take a few more risks in timing prebloom contact
sprays. But those taking the risks must also recognize that the safety net will be fully effective only if the SI or
strobilurin program is initiated before scab symptoms become visible. That latter point cannot be over-
emphasized. Strobilurins and SI's are much less effective when applied after scab is already visible on leaves
because the visible lesions raise inoculum levels to the point where complete control becomes improbable. “




                               Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                   page 16
IPM Tools for 2001
Now is the time to review the IPM tools which are available to you, some of which may
be new to you.
Partial List of IPM Resources



IPM Guides      2000-2001 New England Ap- You can receive a copy by sending a $15.00
                ple Pest Management Guide check payable to the “University of Vermont” to
                                          Mariann Steen, UVM, Dept. of Plant and Soil Sci-
                                          ence, Hills Building, Burlington, VT 05405 or see
                                          the web at:
                                                          http://pmo.umext.maine.edu/apple/PestGuidePDF/2000-

                A Pocket Guide for IPM                  It costs $11.00 and can be purchased from MSU
                Scouting in Michigan Apples Bulletin Office, 10-B Agric. Hall, MSU, East Lans-
                Although written for Michigan or-       ing, MI 48824. 517/355-0240. It is Extension
                chards, this small pocket guide has Bulletin E-2720. You can view sample pages
                excellent pictures of pests and benefi-
                                                        from the Guide at:
                cials found in Vermont and can be
                                                          http://www.msue.msu.edu/ipm/pdf/applepocket.pdf
                used in the field for identifying prob-
Apple Websites UVM Apple Orchard IPM Fo- http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/
               cus Web page – background in-
                formation on insects, mites, diseases,
                etc.; links to other IPM resources and

                Apple Information Manager http://orchard.uvm.edu/aim/
                (AIM) - gateway to New England
                apple information; links to all the Ex-
                tension apple newsletters in the re-

Thresholds      2001 IPM ‘Quick’ Summary [Included in this Newsletter and on the web at:
                for Monitoring Apple Arthro- http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/
                pod Pests
IPM Seasonal    IPM Checklist for Vermont                 [Included in this Newsletter and on the web at:
Reminders                                                 http://orchard.uvm.edu/uvmapple/pest/


IPM Consultants Kathleen Leahy                            Polaris Orchard Management, 364 Wilson Hill
                                                          Road, Colrain, MA 01340, 413/624-5104


                Glenn Morin and Robin                     New England Fruit Consultants, 66 Taylor Hill
                Spitko                                    Rd., Montague, MA 01351, 413/367-9578
                Eileen Reardon                            P.O. Box 404, Walpole, NH 03608, 603/756-9812


IPM Supplies    Gemplers                                  P.O. Box 270,Belleville, WI 53508
                                                          800/382-8473, http://www.gemplers.com/

                Great Lakes IPM                           10220 Church Road, Vestaberg, MI 48891
                                                          517/268-5693

                OESCO, Inc. (Orchard Equip- P.O. Box 540, Conway, MA 01341
                ment)                       800/634-5557, http://www.oescoinc.com
                       Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                           page 17
How BIG are those trees?
As the 2000-2001 New England Apple Pest Management Guide (NEAPMG) states— orchard
blocks with different size trees and row spacings have different requirements for dilute gal-
lonage per acre and, thus, pesticide dosage per acre. When was the last time you measured
tree height and width and calculated the Tree Row Volume (TRV) for each of your blocks?

The Sprayer Calibration section of the NEAPMG (pp. 102-107) contains information on how to
calculate the TRV and includes a Worksheet that may be useful when calculating TRV and
calibrating your sprayer.

On the topic of sprayers … the following is information from the article “Preparing the Airblast
Sprayer for Work” by Dr. Andrew Landers, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, from Scaffolds Fruit Journal (Vol. 10, No. 2, March 26, 2001). The article
outlines steps that should be taken in preparation for the growing season.


Checking the sprayer

Surveys have shown that many farmers are using inaccurate sprayers; faulty sprayers contribute to increased drift
levels and waste money through inefficiency and overuse of chemicals. Sprayers must be regularly checked over to
ensure that proper maintenance has been carried out and that no outstanding repairs need to be done. Before at-
tempting any work on a machine make sure that it is fully supported on stands and that all necessary protective
clothing is on hand.

The cost of replacing a faulty pressure gauge that has been indicating at 15% below the actual pressure is recouped
in around two hours' operation. Maintenance measures such as fitting a new set of nozzles at the beginning of each
season also save money. Even when there is overdosing by as little as 5%, the cost of a new set of nozzles would
be recovered in less than a day's work.

CAUTION

*Take great care when adjusting a sprayer while the tractor engine is running.
*Always ensure that the fan is stationary before approaching the rear of the sprayer.
*Engage the handbrake when leaving tractor seat.

Fitting the sprayer to the tractor

The selected tractor must always be powerful enough to operate the sprayer efficiently under the working conditions
that will be encountered. All its external services - hydraulic, electrical and pneumatic - must be clean and in work-
ing order. Tractors fitted with cabs must have efficient air filtration systems. All protective guards must be in place.
Trailed sprayers are often close-coupled to the tractor, so it is essential that the drawbar and the PTO shaft are cor-
rectly adjusted for turning. PTO shafts must be disengaged when making very tight turns.

Checking the operation of the sprayer




                                 Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                  page 18
Part fill the tank with clean water and move the sprayer to uncropped waste ground. Remove the nozzles. Al-
though not using any chemical at this point, get into the habit of wearing a coverall, gloves and a face visor when
working with the sprayer. Engage the PTO and gently turn the shaft, increasing speed slowly to operating revs.
Test the on/off and pressure relief valves, and check the agitation system. Flush through the spray lines, then
switch off the tractor. Refit the nozzles and check the liquid system again for leaks.

It is a valuable exercise to assess the spray deposits at various points in the canopy and on upper and lower leaf
surfaces of the trees to be sprayed. This is particularly important if the foliage is dense or if the trees are grown in
beds of three or more rows. Water-sensitive papers, food coloring or fluorescent tracers are available for this pur-
pose. An increase in spray volume or adjustment of the nozzles and their locations may be necessary in order to
achieve the correct deposits.

Pre-season maintenance

Follow these checklists before you begin spraying:

Hoses—Have you checked:
*for splits and cracks
*connections to ensure they are water-tight
*for hose chafe, particularly in routing clips
Action: Replace damaged hoses.

Filters—Have you checked:
*for missing filter elements and seals
*for leakage
*for blocked or damaged filters
Action: Replace any damaged or blocked filters.

Tank—Have you checked:
*for fractures and any other damage
*the tank sits firmly in its mount
*the securing straps are correctly adjusted
*the agitation is working
*the tank is clean
Action: See the supplier/manufacturer now about fractures and any other repairs.

Controls—Have you checked:
*the control circuitry (electrical, hydraulic or air) for correct operation
*valves for both internal and external leaks
Action: Replace leaky valves, which waste money and are potentially dangerous to operators and the environ-
ment.

Pump—Have you checked:
*lubrication levels
*for leaks
*the air pressure in the pulsation chamber (if fitted) is at the recommended level
*the pump rotates freely without friction or noise. Do so by rotating manually or starting at low speed   (corrosion
may cause seizing up)

Pressure Gauge
The pressure gauge is vital for indicating whether the nozzles are delivering the correct amount of chemical per
unit time while spraying. If you have any doubts about the pressure gauge, replace it or refer the problem to the


                                Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                  page 19
manufacturer or supplier.

Nozzles—Have you checked:
*all nozzles are the same
*all nozzles are in good condition, with no leaks around the body
*all nozzles are clean and free from obstruction (note: clean with a soft brush or airline - don't damage nozzles by
using wires or pins)
*all nozzles deliver to within + or - 5% of the manufacturer's chart value
Action: Always ensure the correct nozzles and operating pressure are selected before use. Have two or three
sets of nozzles in stock to meet different spray qualities at different volume rates. Inspect nozzles throughout the
season to avoid faults which could prove both costly and damaging to the environment if they develop unchecked.

Using water only, set to 'spray' at the specified pressure and collect the output from each nozzle in turn for a pe-
riod of 60 seconds. Record each output and replace those outside the 5% tolerance around the manufacturer's
chart value.

Calibration—Where your sprayer has automatic controllers to monitor the speed of the sprayer and the flow, pres-
sure and area sprayed, have you checked:
*they are in good condition and properly maintained
*they are frequently calibrated for accuracy, with calibration being checked after every 250 acres' use
for leaks, blockages, variations in pressure or any minor damage during spraying

A recommended calibration technique is summarized as:
* Read the label
* Measure the forward travel speed of the tractor with the booms out and over the field to be sprayed
* Calculate the nozzle output required
* Select the appropriate nozzle set
* Set the appropriate pressure
* Measure the nozzle output against time

The following checks should be carried out routinely:
* All hoses are tightly connected and free from sharp bends; cracked or damaged hoses must be replaced.
* All controls move freely and are fully adjustable.
* Pressure gauge reads zero.
* Pump can be turned over by hand.
* Fan turns freely and is not obstructed; bearings are sound and lubricated.
* Air pressure in pump accumulator (if fitted) is correctly adjusted.
* Drain plugs and clean filters are in position.
* Tires on trailed machines are sound and correctly inflated; wheel nuts are tight.




A “Primer” on Organophosphates and EPA’s Reassessment of
Residue Limits …
As I was looking at the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs’ website for new information about
the status of pesticides I came across an EPA document that gives background information on
organophosphates which you may find interesting. I have enclosed it in this mailing. It can be
viewed on the web directly at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/primer.htm


                              Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01                  page 20
Contact Information
A Commitment to Excellence and Service:
We are committed to excellence and service . If you have any questions or want to ar-
range for an orchard visit regarding your concerns, please call or write.

For horticulture questions contact:
M. Elena Garcia
Tree Fruit Specialist
Dept. of Plant & Soil Science
University of Vermont
Burlington VT 05405-0082
Phone: 802/656-2824
Fax: 802/656-4656
E-mail: elena.garcia@uvm.edu

For IPM questions contact:
Lorraine P. Berkett
Plant Pathologist and IPM Specialist
Dept. of Plant & Soil Science
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05405
Phone: 802/656-0972
Fax: 802/656-4656
E-mail: lorraine.berkett@uvm.edu




Where trade names or commercial products are used for identification, no discrimination
is intended and no endorsement is implied. Always read the label before using any pesti-
cide. The label is the legal document for the product use. Disregard any information
in this newsletter if it is in conflict with the label.

The Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Vermont Extension, and U.S.
Department of Agriculture, cooperating, offer education and employment to everyone
without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs,
and marital or familial status.




                         Vermont Apple Newsletter- 3/30/01            page 21

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:3/21/2013
language:Unknown
pages:21