Assembled by L. G. Wilson (George Wilson@ncsu.edu) and Clarinda Carrington (Clarinda_Carrington@ncsu.edu). If you have any questions or comments, please contact us. We are always looking for feedback on VEG-I-NEWS.
NORTH CAROLINA RELATED MEETINGS:
(for details click here)
OTHER MEETINGS OF INTEREST:
Tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus (TYLCV) is an extremely damaging plant disease of tomatoes. In the early 1990's, this whitefly-transmitted virus was introduced from Israel into the Caribbean where it caused severe crop losses. It was first reported in the United States in Florida last July. Regulatory officials in Florida believe TYLCV entered southern Florida and spread from whitefly-infested tomato production fields to nearby plant produces. The virus then spread to other parts of Florida on infested tomato plants shipped to retail discount stores. At the current time, the only known establishment is in Florida; however, spread is possible through shipments of infested plants to other states. Plants such as tobacco may be symptomless carriers of the virus, while the ornamental plant lisianthus is a host.
In order to reduce the risk of virus movement out of the state regulatory officials in Florida, in cooperation with Southern Plant Board member states and USDA-APHIS-PPQ, have agreed to a special TYLCV certification plan for tomato, tobacco, and lisianthus plant producers. A copy of this protocol and compliance agreement between Florida and its plant producers who indicate they will be shipping out-of-state are attached.
FOR THOSE CONTRACTING WITH FLORIDA PLANT PRODUCERS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACCEPT ONLY TOMATO TRANSPLANTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY CERTIFIED AND TAGGED WITH A SPECIAL TOMATO/TOBACCO PLANT CERTIFICATE. North Carolina vegetable plant regulations requires transplants produced out-of-state to be inspected and tagged with a certificate; however, the presence of this special TOMATO/TOBACCO PLANT CERTIFICATE indicates extra measures have been taken to ensure infested plants are not being moved. An example is attached for your review. A copy of this certificate is to be supplied to the final destination of each plant shipment. Tomato plants from Florida without this special TOMATO/TOBACCO PLANT CERTIFICATE will be stop-saled when detected at retail locations by North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' personnel.
Florida producers with questions relating to this special certification process may contact Ms. Maria Peacock, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services at (353)372-3505, extension 155. Additional information relating to North Carolina activities may be obtained from Suzanne Spencer, NCDA&CS Plant Pathologist, at (919)733-6932.
Please also feel free to contact me, Frank Louws, Extension Plant
Pathologist, NC State University, 919-515-6689.
Field Test Reports
1. The report time of 8 minutes is:
too short--3 too long just right--20
2. Report discussion time of 2 minutes is:
too short--3 too long just right--19
3. The Test Reports, Plans and Discussion Session should be
Inservice Training for:
2 hours--2 4 hours--14 1 day--6
4. I plan to give a report and proceedings article in 1998:
yes--15 no--4 maybe--1
5. The Test Report session was:
of some value--6 of great value--17
6. The session on specialist update was:
of some value--4 of great value--4
7. The session on On-Farm Tests was:
of some value--4 of great value--16
8. Should schedule in 1998 include:
a. Session to coordinate field tests: yes--18 no--3
b. A social (i.e. breakfast, lunch, snacks): yes--13 no--7
c. Session to discuss critical issuses/concerns: yes--19 no--2
d. Reports and sessions open to agents from VA, SC, TN:
yes--12 no--9
9. This session should be held:
a. Wednesday 6:00-6:50 a.m. breakfast with Reports 6:50-9:00
a.m. -- 2
b. Tuesday 6:45-7:30 a.m. breakfast with Reports 7:30-9:45 a.m.
c. Wednesday 1-5:00 p.m. Reports and Session -- 12
d. Monday 9:00 a.m.-Noon -- 3
e. As a 1 day workshop in the Fall -- 7*
f. Test Reports as a concurrent session in EXPO -- 5
g. Other plans, issues, training resources as 2 hour session-- 4
h . As a distant learning session -- 3
Other: 1 more day after EXPO!
*Annual conference -- 8 (in additional to the prior 7 for e.
1 day workshop)
Late afternoon/evening
COMMENTS:
-- Did not keep to 8 minutes so sessions were too long. 8
minutes would be fine.
-- Let growers know their Ext. Agents are worth taxpayer
dollars.
-- How about having this session at Annual Conference.
-- A social at a Carolina Hurricanes hockey game would be
something different.
-- Presenters should have handouts (summaries)
-- Should be a part of expo with growers invited
-- I did not report my test results due to not enough time
-- I would like to see a regional hort. agent team work together
-- This was very good. I also need information on innovative
program delivery methods.
-- Dialogue -- expressions of "needs" by agents
-- Provide some time for long term planning _in the middle_ of the
Veg Exp Conference--with growers focused on long term planning,
5-12 year focus down the road
-- Allow all growers, agents and specialists to dialogue about
problems and proposed solutions to reach a unified strategy for
future economic growth
-- We may discuss plans such as:
. creating a joint marketing program into schools, volunteer
organizations which now raise funds selling out-of-state
products
. creating a plan to develop more direct markets that can
succeed in a systematic pattern statewide
. create a better plan to help commodity associations better
market hort. crops with wholesale growers
. create plans to attack quarantinable pests with coordinated
education, field recognition, agency invervention--fireants,
alligatorweed, clubroot, thrips, etc., noxious weeds
. creating green labels to be accepted by EU countries after
Global Transpark develops
. extend veg. expo _one more day_ to do this with growers
present?
Ken Sorensen
Entomology, NCSU
kenneth_sorensen@ncsu.edu
It is my impression that vegetable growers are a curious lot. They wonder about a lot of things and by saying wonder I guess I am saying that vegetables would like as much information as possible about any subject that is close to them. Thus I decided to come up with a vegetable grower's list of often asked wonders:
You may be asking why or how could anyone bother with such detail. Just because you wondered about these details, it was impractical to consider going to the extra work of record keeping to have this much detail on paper. That is until recently it was impractical, but electronics have made getting the answers practical and for relatively low cost, one can have all this information and more.
These systems of information tracking utilize an electronic button that can be programmed with a unique code for an individual or an operation or a site. When a worker begins an operation the button for the individual and the operation are entered into touch probe in less than second. Then each successive touch records each new basket a worker harvests and the time of the touch. The touch probe is put into a cradle at the end of the day and is downloaded into your PC. This information is then sent to the payroll program for cutting checks at the end of the week. The probe can be programmed not to repeat in less than a certain time and thus not double counting a given basket. With the software you can have a record of how often any individual harvested a unit, total units harvested and in how much time. There is no more of the problems with tokens, chips or punch cards. This method of record keeping has stood up under evaluation by various government agencies and has provided all the information needed, while eliminating the common difficulties associated with other methods. The use of the buttons on a worker ID make it fast and easy to keep accurate records with a simple touch each time the worker brings in a harvest unit. Various users have found that it cuts time spent on payroll by 80%.
At the same time one is gathering information on worker's activities, a section of the field can be part of the description of a site. Thus one can determine how many units were harvested around this site and at what time. When the data are summarized they can be used to generate a field map that gives yield by section of the field. For most horticultural crops we do not have a means of generating yield maps like one can with a machine harvested crop, but with this system yield maps can be generated. These data can also be integrated with GIS and GPS information into a Precision Ag or Zoned Ag model for making applications of various inputs dependant on these yield and soil maps.
These same buttons can be put on the manger's/foreman's clipboard such that each field or section of the field can be identified. Further, each operation can have its own button. Thus by pressing successive buttons with the touch probe, a record of activities for the section of a field can be maintained and computerized. At the end of a time period or the season the grower has a record of all the various operations were done, when they were done and how long it took to do each or the total time spent in a given field. With assignment of cost of these operations, the cost for crop production can be generated. With the operations cost, harvest cost and other associated costs, one can look at the budget for a specific crop, a variety, a field or a section of a field. This information is all useful in making decisions about how to proceed for next year. The information can also be used to make immediate decisions, like" was the yield great enough to warrant continued harvest such that workers can make a minimum".
With this system vegetable growers easily and inexpensively have a lot of the information they have been `wondering' about, but considered impractical to gather. (For more information about these information collection systems contact Agricultural Data Systems (714 363 5353, FAX 714 495 7066) or Doane Agricultural Services (800 367 7086, FAX 503 646 0622).
Doug Sanders, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
doug_sanders@ncsu.edu
A mail survey of North Carolina sweetpotato growers was conducted by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service in the Spring of 1997 to determine the use of pesticides and other pest management practices on sweetpotatoes in 1996. The survey provided valuable information on the use and benefits of pesticides and integrated pest management (IPM) in sweetpotato production in the state.
Twenty-two sweetpotato-producing counties in eastern North Carolina were selected for participation in a mail survey conducted according to methods described by Dillman (1978), Christenson (1975), and Salant and Dillman (1994). Mailing lists of growers in the selected counties were received from the North Carolina Consolidated Farm Services Agency and reviewed by the respective county Extension agents. All of the sweetpotato growers identified on these lists were included in the survey. A total of 613 sweetpotato growers in Brunswick, Chowan, Columbus, Cumberland, Duplin, Edgecombe, Greene, Halifax, Harnett, Johnston, Lee, Lenoir, Moore, Nash, Onslow, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson, Sampson, Wake, Wayne and Wilson counties were surveyed by mail in March and April 1997. On March 15, a cover letter signed by the county Extension agent, a questionnaire, and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope was mailed from the county Extension center to each sweetpotato grower. The 18-page questionnaire requested information regarding the chemical and non-chemical pest management practices used by growers in 1996. On April 1, a postcard from the county Extension agent was mailed to each grower as a reminder to complete and return the questionnaire sent previously. Finally, on April 15, another letter, questionnaire and stamped, self-addressed return envelope was mailed from the county Extension agent to those growers not responding to previous mailings. Information contained on survey questionnaires returned by sweetpotato growers was entered into a computer database and analyzed in the Department of Entomology at North Carolina State University.
Sweetpotato Production. Approximately 51% of the sweetpotato growers responded to the survey. A total of 200 survey respondents planted 19,609 acres of sweetpotatoes in 1996, with the majority of the acreage planted in Nash, Johnston, Sampson and Wilson counties. Beauregard was the most common variety planted (9,682 acres), followed by Hernandez (6,842 acres) and Jewel (1,816 acres). Respondents harvested 18,222 acres of sweetpotatoes in 1996, with an average yield of 255 bushels (127.5 hundredweight) per acre. Forty percent of survey respondents stored sweetpotatoes from their 1996 crop; these growers stored a total of 3,805,587 bushels of sweetpotatoes. Respondents also had 29,301,441 square feet of sweetpotato plant beds in 1996. According to Meadows (1997), North Carolina growers harvested 31,000 acres of sweetpotatoes in 1996. The average yield of sweetpotatoes in the state in 1996 was 140 hundredweight.
Pesticide Use. Herbicides were used by 70% of the survey respondents to manage grasses and broadleaf weeds in sweetpotato plant beds and fields in 1996. Crabgrass, lambsquarters, cocklebur, morningglory and ragweed were the most common grasses and broadleaf weeds for which herbicides were applied in sweetpotato plant beds. Crabgrass, cocklebur, lambsquarters, pigweed and ragweed were the most common grasses and broadleaf weeds for which herbicides were applied in sweetpotato fields. Survey respondents using herbicides indicated that the problems caused by grasses and broadleaf weeds in sweetpotatoes were reduced yield (51% of respondents), interference with harvest (37% of respondents) and reduced quality (grade) of sweetpotatoes (16% of respondents).
Approximately 66% of survey respondents used insecticides to manage insects in sweetpotato plant beds and fields in 1996. The primary insects for which insecticides were used by respondents in 1996 were wireworms, white grubs, whitefringed beetle larvae, flea beetles and flea beetle larvae. Nematicides were used by 61% of survey respondents in sweetpotato plant beds and fields in 1996. Thirty percent of the respondents used fungicides to manage diseases in sweetpotato plant beds and fields in 1996. The most common diseases for which herbicides were used by respondents were scurf, bedding root decay, bacterial soft rot and black rot.
Integrated Pest Management Practices. Approximately 56% of survey
respondents claimed that they practiced integrated pest management
(IPM) in growing sweetpotatoes in 1996. Ninety-three percent of
respondents considered IPM a good pest control practice, while 7%
considered IPM too risky. Crop rotation was practiced by 96% of
respondents, with tobacco, soybeans, corn and cotton the primary 
crops that growers rotated with sweetpotatoes.
Foundation/certified sweetpotato seed were grown by 17% of survey
respondents. For grass and weed management, 97% of respondents
cultivated their sweetpotato fields to manage grasses and weeds.
For insect management, 57% of respondents walked their fields to
scout for insects, while about 43% used sweetpotato weevil
pheromone traps in plant beds, fields and/or storage houses. To
manage nematodes and diseases, almost 70% of survey respondents
cut sweetpotato plants in beds above the soil, 33% took a soil
sample for nematode analysis, 14% planted resistant varieties of
sweetpotatoes, 14% used heat to manage diseases in stored
sweetpotatoes, and 11% added sulfur to the soil to reduce pox.
Only 4% used micropropagated sweetpotato seed. Eighty-eight
percent of respondents reported that they or a family member
scouted their sweetpotatoes for pests, while an employee (7% of
respondents) or professional scout/consultant (5% of respondents)
performed this activity. About 8% of respondents did not have
their sweetpotatoes scouted for pests.
Over 50% of survey respondents calibrated pesticide application equipment before use and used the lowest rates needed to manage pests. Approximately 45% of respondents kept record on the pesticides used and trained workers in the proper handling and application of pesticides in 1996. Only 23% chose pesticides less damaging to beneficial insects and 9% alternated pesticides to lessen the development of pest resistance.
Sources of information on pest management included other growers (54% of survey respondents), the Cooperative Extension Service (42%) and pesticide dealers (41%). Sixty-seven percent of respondents indicated that they would like to receive more information on IPM, with printed materials the preferred method of receiving the information.
Christenson, J. A. 1975. A procedure for conducting mail surveys with the general public. J. Community Development Society 6(1): 135-146.
Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 325 pp.
Meadows, B. C., ed. 1997. North Carolina Agricultural Statistics 1997. Report Number 187. North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Raleigh. 137 pp.
Salant, P. and D. A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 232 pp.
Stephen J. Toth, Jr., Extension Specialist
Entomology, NCSU
Steve_Toth@ncsu.edu
TOMATO (Lycopersicon esculentum "German Johnson")
EARLY BLIGHT; Alternaria solani
The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of backpack sprayers for management of early blight in small-acreage tomato fields compared to a tractor-mounted sprayer. The test was located on a commercial vegetable farm 3 miles south of Sandford, NC on a Fuquay soil. Transplants were field set 23 Mar. Plots were plastic mulched beds (6-in. high, 27-in. wide) on 60-in. spacing and 20 ft long containing 10 plants on 24-in. spacing. Fertility included 2000 lbs/A of 6-6-18 preplant and 16 lbs/A of 10-20-20 applied weekly via drip irrigation. Treatments were randomized in 4 complete blocks. Fungicide was applied weekly using Penncozeb 75DF (3 lb/A) + Kocide 75 DF (3 lb/A) up to harvest followed by Bravo 720 (2 pt/A) until 4 Sep. Fungicide was not applied (check) or applied by one of four methods: 1) spray applied over top of row using a backpack motorized hydraulic sprayer (to simulate a tractor mounted high pressure sprayer using overhead nozzles only); 2) tractor mounted high pressure drop nozzle sprayer (190 psi); 3) low-pressure, backpack hand-pump; 4) high-pressure, backpack motorized pump. Applications for both low- and high-pressure backpack sprays were applied to both sides of the row and once overhead to simulate a commercial application with three drop nozzles. Foliar disease ratings were done weekly beginning 13 Jun and continuing through 12 Sep using a modified Horsfall-Barratt scale of 0 to 12. The fruit was harvested weekly beginning 1 Jul to 12 Sep. Asana was used 4 times during the season for insect control.
August was very dry with just over 1 in. of rain resulting in low disease pressure. Method of application did not impact total yield (data not shown), marketable yield or percent marketable fruit. All methods of application reduced AUDPC values compared to check plots. Fungicide applied using the tractor-mounted, high-pressure sprayer had the lowest AUDPC values and this was not significantly different than plots sprayed with the motorized backpack. The remaining two methods of application provided intermediate levels of control. These results suggest that small-acreage tomato producers are best advised to use tractor-mounted sprayers with drop nozzles or motorized backpack sprayers.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Foliar Marketable Percent
disease yield marketable
Method of Application (AUDPC) (lb) fruit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Check............................. 1072 a 166 52.7
Spray applied over the top
of row, motorized/backpack....... 726 b 196 53.3
Drop nozzle application,
tractor mount..................... 406 c 171 53.2
Low pressure, hand pump/backpack.. 815 b 191 55.9
High pressure, motorized/backpack. 628 bc 202 56.5
LSD (_p_ = 0.05)............... 244 NS NS
------------------------------------------------------------------
H-B scale used 0 = no disease observed; 1 = trace (<0.6%); 2
=0.6-3%; 3 =3-6%;4 =6-12%;5 =12-25%;6 =25-50%;7 =50-75%;8
=75-87%;9 =87-94%; 10 =94-97%; 11 =97-99%; 12=100_
J.T. Williams, J.G. Driver, F.J. Louws
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service and Dept. of Plant
Pathology, Box 7616, NC State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7616
Frank Louws, Asst. Professor
Plant Pathology, NCSU
frank_louws@ncsu.edu
The objective of this test was to evaluate the utility of the plant activator CGA 245704 (Actigard) and two pseudomonad strains for their impact on bacterial spot as compared to standard fungicide-based treatments. The test was located at the Horticultural Crops Research Station, Clinton, NC on an Orangeburg loamy sand. Two tomato hybrid cultivars were used; cv. Solar Set is susceptible to all known races of the bacterial spot pathogen that affect tomato while cv. Sun Leaper appears to be less susceptible based on previous field observations. Treatments were arranged in a split-plot design randomized in 5 complete blocks. Main-plots were plastic mulched beds (6-in. high, 27-in. wide) on 60-in. spacing and 24 ft long. Sub-plots comprised six plants of each cultivar spaced 24-in. apart. Plants were grown as plugs in 2-in. cell trays in the greenhouse in Raleigh and transplanted to the experimental site on 4 Aug. Plants of cv. Solar Set, inoculated with two copper-sensitive tomato race 1 strains on 19 Aug, were planted in the center of each main-plot on 26 Aug. The pseudomonad strains (cfu = 108 in phosphate buffer) were applied weekly commencing 12 Aug using a CO2 sprayer. Chemical treatments were applied with a backpack, motorized hydraulic sprayer at 90 psi (620 kPa) at the rate of ca. 60 gpa at weekly intervals commencing 19 Aug to 22 Oct. All sprays were applied to both sides of the row and once overhead (to simulate a commercial application with three drop nozzles). Foliar disease ratings were recorded 23 Sep, 30 Sep, 7 Oct and 21 Oct using a modified Horsfall-Barratt scale of 0 to 12. Fruit was harvested 29 Oct and sorted for percent number and weight of fruit with bacterial spot. Two applications of Bravo 720 (2.0 pt/A) were applied to plots receiving no fungicide on 7 and 22 Oct to limit early blight. Sevin XLR, Asana, or Thiodan were applied as needed for insect management. Soil fertility and other cultural practices were followed according to recommended standards. Overhead irrigation was used up to three times weekly in the later part of the study to encourage disease development. Rainfall incidence was 3.2, 6.6, and 3.4 in. for Aug, Sep, and Oct, respectively.
Sun Leaper yielded more fruit (107.8/plot) than Solar Set (92.6/plot; P=0.02) but total weight of harvested fruit did not differ for the two cultivars (data not shown). AUDPC, percent (by number and weight) of fruit with bacterial spot did not differ for the two cultivars (data not shown). Fungicide, plant activator and pseudomonad treatments did not affect AUDPC values (data not shown) or total weight. The pseudomonad biologicals, season long plant activator treatments and Mancozeb + Kocide offered the best control of bacterial fruit spot incidence. Fruit spot incidence was intermediate with Kocide only, Kocide followed by CGA 245704 and Bravo C/M.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Fruit with bacterial spot
-------------------------
Mean % Fruit % Fruit
yield by number by weight
Treatment and product/acre (lb/plot) (lb/plot)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Check ......................... 24.5 12.9 16.2
Kocide 61.4% DF, 2.9 lb ....... 22.1 7.0 9.4
Mancozeb 80WP, 1.5 lb ......... 20.5 4.4 6.7
+ Kocide 61.4% DF, 2.9 lb.
CGA-245704 50WG 1.0 oz ....... 23.6 4.6 6.4
*CGA-245704 50WG 1.0 oz ...... 19.9 2.4 3.7
+ Kocide 61.4% DF, 2.9 lb
**Kocide 61.4% DF, 2.9 lb..... 21.7 5.5 7.6
+ CGA-245704 50WG 1.0 oz
Bravo C/M, 4.0lb............... 21.6 7.3 10.6
_P.putida_ B56 ................ 21.6 2.4 5.4
_P. syringe_ Cit7 ............. 25.0 2.7 3.7
LSD (_p_ = 0.05) ........... NS 2.6 3.1
------------------------------------------------------------------
* applied as a tank mixture; ** begin with Kocide 61.4 DF, at
flower set begin applying CGA-245704 50WG and continue on a 7 day
interval for a total of 3 additional applications.
H-B scale used 0 = no disease observed; 1 = trace (<0.6%); 2
=0.6-3%; 3 =3-6%;4 =6-12%;5 =12-25%;6 =25-50%;7 =50-75%;8
=75-87%;9 =87-94%; 10 =94-97%; 11 =97-99%; 12=100
F.J. Louws, J.G. Driver
Dept. of Plant Pathology, Box 7616, NC State University, Raleigh,
NC 27695-7616
Frank Louws, Asst. Professor
Plant Pathology, NCSU
frank_louws@ncsu.edu
On October 25, 1997 I had the great pleasure of hearing Marlin Huffman, of Plantation Botanicals, give a talk on the production of St. Johnswort at the Second Annual Richter's Commercial Herb Conference. I would like to share some of the information he gave us at that meeting. Where appropriate I have also included information from other sources.
St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum L.) is native to Europe and naturalized throughout North America, Australia, Asia, and Africa. There are about 300 species of this attractive perennial. The one to three foot tall plant is composed of many branches with one inch long, oblong, pale, green leaves. In mid-summer it produces star-shaped, yellow flowers about one inch in diameter.
Although St. Johnswort is a valued medicinal herb and often used as an ornamental, in many parts of North America it is considered a noxious weed. This is particularly true for areas of rangeland and pastures. A natural biological control, in the form of the Chrysolina beetle, was introduced in California and Canada to help keep St. Johnswort under control. Besides being very invasive, the concern about St. Johnswort is due to its potential toxicity to livestock. The reaction is a phototoxicity which occurs in light-skinned animals. Before planting any St. Johnswort, check the local noxious weed laws. There are many places where it is illegal to sow St. Johnswort or where a permit must be obtained first.
According to Marlin, for St. Johnswort to thrive it must be grown between the 42nd and 47th parallels and within 200 miles of a big body of water. An altitude of 1800 feet or more is good. Marlin also stated that St. Johnswort prefers an alkaline soil. However, I have heard reports that it prefers a slightly acid soil.
Establishing a crop of St. Johnswort by direct seeding into the field is extremely difficult. Thus, Marlin recommends production from transplants. St. Johnswort has very tiny seeds, about 2.5 million per pound, which remain viable for many years. The seeds have a natural inhibitor making germination of fresh seed difficult. The best way that Marlin has found to remove the inhibitor is to put the seeds under running water for about 48 hours just prior to sowing. Exposure of seed to high temperatures (250 degrees F) for brief periods of time may also increase germination. However you treat your seed, when finished, sow in abundance by putting 8 to 10 seeds per cell in your transplant tray.
Producing by transplants will also lower seed costs compared to direct seeding. According to Marlin, a grower recently spent $380 for 2.5 ounces of high quality St. Johnswort seed to do some contract growing in the western United States.
To produce transplants, sow the seeds in the greenhouse in January. Use a well-drained, alkaline (pH 6.8-7.2) medium. St. Johnswort does not like wet feet, so drainage is essential. Temperatures should be 50-60 degrees F. Plants should be ready to field set in May.
If you insist on trying to direct seed in the field, sow in autumn. The snow, rain, freezing, and thawing helps to remove the inhibitor from the seed. A good field stand is 30,000 to 40,000 plants per acre.
Some people also report success with root divisions or cuttings taken in the spring or fall.
Young seedlings do not compete well with weeds, so keep the field clean. These young plants also need a constant supply of moisture. Marlin stressed this point several times. Although the mature plants are tolerant of drought, the young plants are not.
Marlin has tried several weed control strategies with various degrees of success. Fusilade and Poast do work for annual grass control, however, they are not registered for use on St. Johnswort. What he recommends is to sow the St. Johnswort in alternating rows with oats. The oats protect the young plants and provide some weed control. Plastic mulch is not feasible with St. Johnswort because the plants spread by rhizomes.
The first year of growth, you must spend irrigate and weed carefully. Fertilize with 50 pounds each of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash. There may be a small number of plants that flower that first year, but the plants will have very little hypericin, so don't harvest.
The second year, apply fertilizer early, using the same rates as the first year. The plants will have begun to spread by rhizomes by the second year. By late June, the plants will put out leafy flower stalks, about 1-10 per plant.
Harvest the leafy flower stalks when the buds just start to open. A forage harvester works well for this. Then dry the plant material in a drier with temperatures no higher than 130 degrees F.
You may be able to get a second cutting from the plants that second year and definitely every year thereafter. Yields are very variable. Marlin gave estimates of 1000-1200 pounds per acre with two cuttings.
The market expects 0.1% - 0.2% hypericin in the buds and leaves of the St. Johnswort they buy. Keep the plant material, fresh and dried, out of the light which will destroy the hypericin.
Prices for dried St. Johnswort are currently at $6 per pound. Marlin expects the price to drop to $1-$4 over the next year or two as supplies increase. In order to be economically feasible, as much of the growing operation as possible should be mechanized.
St. Johnswort is used to treat wounds and bruises. It will also reduce swelling. However, the present high demand for the plant is due to reports from Europe that it is an effective antidepressant and natural alternative to Prozac. Others report it has mood-enhancing properties.
The Richter's Commercial Herb Conference was packed full of excellent presentations from growers, buyers, and researchers from the U.S. and Canada. Fortunately, for those of you unable to attend the conference, every talk was taped and is being transcribed. Proceedings from the conference will be available in the spring for $60. They can be ordered now by contacting Richters at orderdesk@richters.com or calling them at 905-640-6677.
Jeanine Davis, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, MHCREC, NCSU
Jeanine_Davis@ncsu.edu
As you can see from the list of natural occurring phytochemicals, vegetables have a lot to offer our publics. I think you can use this sort of information in your talks, but also in popular press articles. Ms. Garrett also quotes an article(Food Product Design 12/95) from Mark A. Braman where he challenges the food industry to consider several issues before launching nutraceutical products as follows:
Implications in the Marketplace
In an editorial in Food Product Design (12/95d), Mark A. Braman challenges the food industry to consider several issues before launching nutraceutical products:
Phytochemicals hold a lot of promise in helping to grow the market for fresh-cut produce if their claims can be substantiated. Keep your eyes on these products and familiarize yourselves with the new phytochemicals because fortune 500 companies like Colgate-Palmolive, Quaker Oats and Con-Agra may be calling you for a supply of broccoli, garlic or onions someday.
Medicinal Benefits of Fresh-cuts
Allum - reduces cholesterol (garlic)
Beta-carotene - reduces risk of cancer and heart disease (carrots and sweetpotatoes)
Capsaicin - keeps carcinogens from binding to DNA (red chili peppers)
Curcumin - may block cancer causing substances (mustard, curry)
Flavonoids - prevent the attachment of hormones to cell structures; combat oxidation of cholesterol and prevent formation of blood clots; may reduce risk of cancer (tea, red grapes as red wine)
Glycyrrhetinic Acid (GA) - cough suppressant properties; heals ulcers in humans and animals; has anti-inflammatory and antiarthritic properties; GA topical cream can treat skin inflammations such as antiviral compound and studies have shown it fights herpes simplex; fights disease causing bacteria and the fungus responsible for yeast infection; sprinkling on wounds may help healing; Asian studies have shown it helps control hepatitis but check with your doctor (licorice)
Isoflavones - inhibits cellular enzymes and suppresses the development of blood vessels that help cancers multiply; prevents small tumors from forming and moderates menopause symptoms. One of the isoflavones - genistein - may actually prevent other cancers as it is a potent antioxidant (soy)
Limones - shrinks breast cancer cells in animals (oranges, other citrus)
Lutein and Zeaxanthin - reduces age related macular degeneration (spinach, collard greens)
Lycopene - protects against cell cancer; an antioxidant related to carotene that may prevent prostate cancer (tomatoes, grapefruit)
Phenethyl Isothiocyanate - protects DNA from damage (cabbage, turnips)
Polyphenols - antioxidants that protect against cancer, reduce tumor growth (catechins in green tea, flavins in black tea)
Saponins - natural antibiotic in plants; enhances effectiveness of vaccines; antifungal and antiviral agent (beans and grains)
Sulforaphane - helps cancer fighting enzymes get rid of carcinogens in cells; detoxifies liver cells; reduces the risk of breast cancer in rats (broccoli, cauliflower)
For more information:
American Dietetic Association (312)899-0040
Foundation for Innovation in Medicine (908)272-2967
Texas A&M Vegetable Improvement Center (409)862-4521
Submitted Doug Sanders, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
doug_sanders@ncsu.edu
The California Tomato Growers Association is getting the message out to the public about the value of processing tomatoes to cancer prevention and the diet. In the July issue of the U.C. Berkeley Wellness Letter, a monthly newsletter of nutrition, fitness and stress management, an article entitled "We say to*ma*to" cited information from the CTGA's Health & Tomatoes panel discussion during the February Annual Meeting. Below is the article in its entirety...
We say to*ma*to
Submitted by Doug Sanders, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
doug_sanders@ncsu.edu
The grocery industry annually recycles more than 500,000 tons of corrugated containers and is working with suppliers to address a long-term solution to the problem of co-mingling waxed and unwaxed boxes for recycling. Proposed is a possible creation of a symbol to identify waxed cartons to ease separation. Grocery representatives estimate that they lose about 10% of recyclable corrugated containers due to confusion as to what's waxed and what isn't. A substantial amount of produce is shipped in waxed corrugated boxes and this is an important issue to receivers as well as shippers as the paper industry addresses box functionality and possible labeling. (Source: NY State Vegetable Growers Association, April 1997 News)
Submitted by Doug Sanders, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
doug_sanders@ncsu.edu
The long wait is over. An expert panel has approved ozone for use in food contact applications, giving growers, packers and processors another alternative to traditional chlorinated water for washing produce.
The green light to use ozone earlier this year was announced when an expert panel determined the powerful oxidant should be classified as GRAS (generally recognized as safe). Before that determination was made, ozone was recognized as safe for purifying drinking water but could not legally be used if it would touch food.
As an oxidizing agent, ozone is 52 percent stronger than chlorine, according to Dr. Brian C. Hampson of the Food Science and Nutrition Department at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. There may be some lessons to be learned in using ozone for produce wash, but it adds a sorely needed alternative to chlorinated wash systems.
"The widespread use of chlorine by the U.S. food industry is under scrutiny and the acceptance of chlorine as the primary sanitizing agent for food process operations is being reconsidered by many processors and regulators," according to a paper prepared by Hampson and Steven R. Fiori entitled "Application of Ozone in Food Processing Operations."
Testing Ozone Washes
The paper details Hampson and Fiori's research using ozone to sanitize fruits and vegetables in a 200-gallon test wash system.
"Research studies using ozone in pure water as a direct contact sanitizing agent have been conducted on several agricultural commodities and the results are promising," the researchers report. "Ozone is an effective germicide and many studies over the years have demonstrated greater lethality rates, however contact times may be too excessive for some fast-paced industrial operations."
Hampson and Fiori say they have not yet studied the relationship between time needed to kill bacteria and ozone concentration or combinations of ozone with other germicidal processes or pro-oxidants.
"Regardless, the use of ozone by the food processing industries will continue to grow, especially in light of the fact that ozone is gaining industry acceptance and limitations are being placed on the use of chlorine and other chemical sanitizing agents. Ozone does not leave a chemical residue and for some industrial sanitizing operations this may be seen as a disadvantage. But, when it comes to our food supply, no residual and fewer residual by-products is a distinct advantage."
Ozone for Drinking Water
In the 1980s, the state of California and the United States began taking advantage of ozone for treating potable water, according to the report. The city of San Luis Obispo and many other municipalities are using ozone for water treatment and swimming pool sanitation. A large food processing plant could potentially use as much water as a community of 5,000 to 15,000 people.
"Ozone is effective at killing microorganisms through oxidation of their cell membranes," the researchers report. "And most of the pathogenic food-borne microbes are quite susceptible to this oxidizing effect. During food processing operations, surface disinfection of raw or partially processed commodities is very important. It is believed approximately 30 percent of fresh produce is lost by microbial spoilage from the time off harvest, through handling, storage, processing and consumer handling up to the time of consumption."
At least 30 pathogens are associated with outbreaks of food- borne illness, but the researchers note the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) currently target four bacteria which are the most common causative organisms. They are E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteriditis, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter jejuni.Shigella spp. is also of much concern medically. Two recent USDA estimates place some of the costs associated with food-borne illness in the range of $5.5 billion to $22 billion annually.
Controlling Spoilage Organisms
"Most microorganisms associated with fruits and vegetables are harmless to humans," according to the researchers. "This includes the lactic acid bacteria, coryneforms, pseudomonads, xanthomonads, micrococci, many fungi and coliforms. These microorganisms do play an important role in the spoilage of food and dictate the shelf-life of fresh fruit and vegetables. Most healthy raw produce will have on them anywhere from a few thousand to millions of microorganisms per gram.
"The presence of many of these microorganisms is a concern for causing product spoilage and normal washing procedures may reduce the indigenous microbial load on the surface by up to 99 percent. Ozone is a very effective germicide; viruses, bacteria, yeast, mold, spores and amoebocytes are all killed with enough exposure.
It's believed that there are no lingering chemical residuals in ozone-treated water, since it dissipates rapidly into oxygen, according to the researchers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency research demonstrated that ozone is far more benign in generating toxic by-products when compared to chlorine and chlorine dioxide.
In their own tests, Hampson and Fiori washed carrots, broccoflower and broccoli in ozonated water to determine the time required to reduce the amount of bacteria present on the products by one log.
Time Versus Dosage
"The results of washing experiments demonstrate CT Values of 9.6 minutes per log-fold reduction aerobic microbial load for carrots, 7.5 minutes per log-fold reduction for broccoflower and 6.0 minutes per log-fold reduction for broccoli," the researchers write. "For all CT Values, the ozone concentration is standardized at 1 ppm. Six minutes may be too long for a fast-paced industrial wash process. Consequently, the flume water may require an ozone concentration of up to 2 ppm, thus reducing the time factor in half for an equivalent microbial kill. As evident from the data, every commodity is unique and will require a specific treatment to achieve a reasonable reduction in indigenous microbial load."
The researchers continue, "Every food processing facility is unique and many of these facilities will be able to adapt or retrofit their system to the use of ozone, removing the chlorine which is now in widespread use. If a system is retrofitted, and evaluation must first be performed to be sure safety issues are all addressed and that there are compatible materials used in the construction of the wash water system. In many cases, it may be advantageous to add a contact reservoir and some type of filtration apparatus to improve on ozone dissolution and contact and keep the level of non-target demand substances to a minimum."
Reducing organic load in the wash water is essential to facilitate the performance of an ozonated system, according to the researchers. Because of high organic loads on some produce items, multiple stage wash systems may be necessary to kill needed in a reasonable amount of time.
"In some systems, such as for tomatoes, the initial wash is at a temperature of 105 degrees F," report Hampson and Fiori. "The high temperature combined with high organic load makes ozonation of the first wash tank difficult"
Submitted by L. George Wilson, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
george_wilson@ncsu.edu
Alexandria, Va. -- The United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association and BASF Agricultural Products are teaming up to create a nonprofit organization, the United Research and Education Foundation.
BASF, a large chemical firm in Research Triangle Park, N.C., is acting as founding member of the new foundation. It will provide $250,000 over three years to get the foundation started.
The foundation will aim its education, research and seminars at fruit and vegetable growers and other produce segments to help make them more competitive in the marketplace.
"We need to bring the hottest topics to growers right in their own back yards," Stenzel said.
He said the educational portion may include such topics as fighting bacterial contamination and good agricultural practices.
The foundation is expected to become a coordinator for the scattered produce research conducted at universities and elsewhere. Stenzel said at some point the foundation may fund specific research projects.
Stenzel said the foundation's programs will not be aimed only at growers.
"The wholesalers and other segments of the produce industry also have tremendous needs," he said.
He stressed that in today's competitive business environment companies and producers are under pressure to become more efficient "or risk falling by the wayside."
Stenzel said on Jan. 6 that the foundation has no plans for raising funds at this time, but will rely for now on BASF money and United's own funds. "We want to create a structure," he said.
Representatives at BASF said they have made a commitment to the fruit and vegetable industry and its high-value products. The company has 10 new crop protection products coming on line, including fungicides, herbicides, miticides, growth regulators for fruits and vegetables.
Bryan Wilson, director of BASF's Coastal Business Area, said some of these compounds are expected to meet the Environmental Protection Agency's criteria for "safer or reduced risk" pesticides.
He said the new compounds meet rigid safety standards and growers and consumers should have "confidence in their safety."
Marty Mascianicha, BASF research and development director, said the company has been aided in its efforts by private-public partnerships, such as the IR-4 Project that helps register compounds for "minor use" pesticides on produce crops.
Stenzel said the new foundation is being set up under the tax-exempt rules for non-profit established by the Internal Revenue Service. He said this will offer tax advantages to those giving money to the foundation.
The details of the education program and seminars have not been announced.
"We need to find out from grower groups what they feel their needs are," he said.
Stenzel praised BASF for its assistance.
"We could not do this without their support," he said.
Submitted by L. George Wilson, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
george_wilson@ncsu.edu
Abstract:
Plant population, seedlings per hill, cultivar and plastic mulch were evaluated in 5 environments for their affect on watermelon yield, size and quality. Royal Jubilee outyielded Prince Charles in all environments, and the highest yields were associated with low % culls and high fruit numbers per hectare. Highest yields of marketable fruits(>4.5kg / melon) were obtained using mulch and areas per plant between 0.4-0.9/m. Unless there is a market for small fruits (<4.5 kg), optimum area per plant was one m/plant. Results for one plant/hill at one in-row spacing were similar to those for the alternative planting pattern of 2 plants/hill at half the in-row spacing, thus supporting the feasibility of using the more economical alterative planting pattern.
Doug Sanders, Extension Specialist
Hort Science, NCSU
doug_sanders@ncsu.edu
ORGANIC STANDARDS
Ag Department won't rush to deal with newest organic-standards flap. USDA wants more time to decide whether to extend its organic designation to include crops grown and food treated using new production technologies.
Some organic growers are crying foul. They are very unhappy that USDA is considering organic status for genetically altered crops, crops fertilized with municipal sludge or foods that have been irradiated.
Many food companies are also dissatisfied. Say USDA's hesitation to extend standards suggests unfairly that biotech, sludge fertilizer and irradiation are inherently unsafe and pose a risk to human health.
Marketplace approval of the new technologies will be the key. It may take a few years, but USDA will extend its organic designation after the public becomes more comfortable with these production methods.
FOOD SAFETY
White House wants more money for food safety. `99 budget request to Congress will seek $71 million more for meat and produce inspections, food-handling education efforts and gov't research on foodborne diseases.
Some lawmakers will resist. Food-industry friends in Congress will challenge the administration over a lack of input from processors, producers in gov't development of more stringent food safety guidelines. Others will argue that the money is being spread among too many agencies.
A third of the Clinton request would be aimed at imported produce. Some $25 million is earmarked for FDA inspection s of fruits and vegetables coming into the U.S. and for research on food production systems abroad.
Congress will want safeguards against unfair discrimination. Some members fear the administration's food safety concerns will be used by grower groups to protect domestic production against cheaper imports.
Web page last updated on February 2, 1998 by Stephen J. Toth, Jr..