Pests and Diseases

Summer Annual Weeds Need Control Now

Avoid Allowing Summer Annual Weeds Going to Seed

By Chris McDonald UCANR Inland and Desert Natural Resources Advisor, San Bernardino County

As the summer heat is finally nearing its end, and its officially fall on the calendar, there unfortunately is a new crop of weeds flowering right now. Some of our summer annuls have started to go to seed, others are just about ready, and others are already starting to senesce. In order to manage these weeds, managers must stop the plants from reproducing. With our summer annuals that means stopping the plants from producing seeds, right about now, (or maybe three weeks ago).

However, treating a giant tumbleweed right now isn’t really my favorite activity. I’d rather spend my time treating small tumbleweeds and working more effectively and also using less labor and/or herbicides to do it in the process. (Well I’d rather not have any tumbleweed in the first place.)

If treating the weeds when they are small is more efficient and uses less pesticides, when can we treat them at the smallest? To answer this, we need to know when our summer annuals germinate. When do our summer annuals germinate? There are several different germination periods for ‘summer’ annuals. Some of our summer annuals actually germinate in the winter to early spring from January to March, others germinate in the spring from March through May.

Weeds like yellow star thistle and stinkwort germinate in the winter from January to March. Tumbleweed and goat’s head germinate in the spring (March to May). Despite their different starting times, they will all grow during the late spring and summer as small plants hiding under a crop of larger weeds or in open areas, until they get large enough in the mid-summer to grow tall and more noticeable than our long dead winter weeds.

Other summer annual weeds, like spurges (such as spotted spurge,Euphorbia maculata, and also some other spurges), can germinate throughout the spring and summer as long as the soil is moist and warm. This summer annual can be much shorter lived than the other summer annuals mentioned above. In the desert, spurges might germinate after a monsoon, in other locations they might germinate in areas that have been irrigated or receive a little extra moisture or where the soil is moist.

The summer annuals on your property might be growing right now because of insufficient weed management in the winter and the spring! Other summer annuals might have germinated with the onset of high temperatures and need to be controlled in the early summer.

This pattern does not hold true for all species and all conditions, especially if irrigation continues throughout the spring and summer, or if there is a late spring storm or if summer monsoons deliver rains early. Sometimes even some of our winter annuals which should have flowered in February to April, germinate late in the season, and flower in June. It’s unusual and it does also happen.

If you can figure out what species of summer annual weed you have, then you may be able to figure out when it germinated and prioritize your weed treatments for that time period, in the winter and spring for some species and in the heat of summer for other species. Hopefully you will save yourself some time instead of letting them all grow into bigger and harder to treat summer annuals.

2021-05-12T11:01:46-07:00October 8th, 2019|

Seeking a Better Understanding Regarding Cannabis Production

Survey Helps UC  Understand Cannabis Production Challenges in State

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

Results from a UC Cooperative Extension survey of registered and unregistered marijuana (cannabis) growers in California will help researchers, policy makers and the public better understand growing practices since cannabis sales, possession and cultivation first became legal for recreational use.

“This survey is a starting point from which UC scientists could build research and extension programs, if possible in the future,” said lead author Houston Wilson, UCCE specialist with UC Riverside. A report on the survey results was published in the July-December 2019 issue of California Agriculture journal, the research publication of UC Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Houston Wilson, UC Riverside Entomologist

The idea of the online survey, during the summer of 2018, was to characterize broadly the production practices that were being employed,” said Wilson

Wilson noted that since he is an entomologist, there were certainly questions about pest management, so the survey was more broad. “It included questions about style of production, plant density, harvest frequency, water use, diseases, and even labor and licensing,” Wilson said.

The survey was conducted by a collaborative group of scientists. Project co-authors were UC Berkeley visiting scholar Hekia Bodwitch, Nature Conservancy senior scientist Jennifer Carah, UCCE biocontrol specialist Kent Daane, UCCE natural resources specialist Christy Getz, UCCE climate and water specialist Theodore Grantham and UCCE land use science specialist Van Butsic. Daane, Getz, Grantham and Van Butsic are affiliated with UC Berkeley.

The survey went to numerous growers via large grower organizations that are present in California. There were more than 100 respondents, and the researchers were able to use that data to characterize some of the production practices.

“As an entomologist, I was interested in the pest management aspects, and we got a kind of array of different insects that growers are dealing with and how they’re dealing with it,” said Wilson.

UC is Restricted To Help Cannabis Growers

The big limitation that’s on the university right now is it’s ability to actually physically visit farms, and talk to growers, and collect insects and sample plant materials. It’s not legal for research institution because of the federal support that the university receives. “So a remote online survey, was the best approach that we found to do this, at least at this stage,” said Wilson.

We’ve shown the data to the grower groups that we’re in contact with, and for the most part they’ve agreed that that it matches what they’re seeing. “We don’t think it’s a really skewed dataset, but we certainly need more detail in each of those areas of emphasis,” said Wilson. “What I’d like to do now is figure out a way to actually collect insects from some of these cannabis operations to confirm or deny the pest species that were indicated by the survey.”

One way to do that is find some opportunities with grower collaborators to have them collect the insects themselves and then bring that back to researchers. “We’re allowed to handle the insects, but we certainly can’t have any plant material on campus right now,” Wilson said.

“Like any cropping system you’re going to have insect problems. Generally speaking, cannabis production takes place indoor and outdoor, and those are in and of themselves going to have different pest complexes and different management options available to them,” noted Wilson. “But again, this similarly applies to other crops that are grown in or outdoors. So there’s kind of gray literature or white literature, whatever you want to call it, about cannabis production and pest management in particular.”

There is cannabis production information in books and online forums that have been published by non-university personnel. “There’s some good information, and there’s a lot of misinformation. However many of these growers have a lot of experience as they they’ve been growing, in some of these areas, for over 40 years,” Wilson said.

Ironically, cannabis is seen as new crop for university researchers, as if it’s a new type of apple. “So in that regard, we’re just trying to characterize how the crop is produced, and find out what are some of the basic agronomic features of it, what are the pest pressures, and how would you manage that,” said Wilson.

“The fact that it’s been this underground production model for so long is that when we come into the situation, and in my interactions with growers to date, I immediately acknowledge that I understand that they have a lot of experience with this crop. And I think these growers have a lot of knowledge about agronomic features, including the entomology aspects of it,” said Wilson.

As for the future UC work in the cannabis world—it’s to be determined.It certainly a secondary if not tertiary objective for me, he said.I work in perennial orchards and vineyard, so cannabis is very much outside what I am focused on, he said.But there was an opportunity to do a survey and so we did it.

The article in the UC California Agriculture journal is comprehensive look at who is doing what in the state right now with cannabis production. “Our production survey was certainly front and center in there as a background piece. And there were other articles that were getting into a specific issue with labor, or licensing, or other areas. Water use is a huge issue, as it is with any crop in California,” said Wilson.

Wilson noted that if cannabis were to become legal at the federal level, you might envision a future where UC creates a position that includes cannabis or is even specifically focused on that in terms of agronomic issues.

Highlights of Survey Findings

  • Growing outdoors in open air with sunlight was the most common practice (41%). Twenty-five percent of growers combined outdoor and greenhouse production. Just 10% said they grow the crop entirely within greenhouses.
  • Total yield per plant varied by growing location. Outdoor crops yielded on average 2.51 pounds per plant (about 40 ounces per plant), greenhouse crops yielded about 10 ounces per plant, while plants grown indoors with artificial light averaged about 3 ounces per plant.
  • The average growing season for outdoor growers was 190 days and they harvested one crop per year.
  • In the fall of 2017, the average cannabis sales price was $853 per pound for flowers and $78 per pound for leaves and other non-flower parts.
  • The respondents reported using no synthetic pesticides in their cultivation of the crop, suggesting reliance on organic pesticides, biologicals and biocontrol.
  • Most growers reported that groundwater was their primary water source for irrigation. Of those, 97% of the water extraction happened from June to October. Many growers said adding water storage was either cost prohibitive or limited by regulatory constraints.
  • Growers reported using more than 30 different soil amendments and foliar nutrient sprays. The most common was organic fertilizer, followed by composts and various animal manures and meals, compost tea and worm castings.
  • Growers are dealing with 14 different insect pests, 13 diseases and nine vertebrate pests, including gophers, mice, rats, deer and wild boars.
  • Powdery mildew was the most commonly reported disease, and mites, thrips and aphids were the most commonly reported insect pests.
  • Growers who hired laborers for harvest paid a per-pound piece rate from $50 to $200. The growers who hired seasonal hourly workers offered a starting pay of $15 to $20 per hour.

2021-05-12T11:01:46-07:00October 7th, 2019|

New HLB Research Lab Opening For Citrus

Citrus industry, UC Riverside Celebrate Opening of New Research Lab 

 By Alyssa Houtby, CA Citrus Mutual Director of Government Relations
Recently, leaders from the California citrus industry and the University of California, Riverside gathered to celebrate the grand opening of a Biosafety Level-3 Lab that will be used by researchers to identify a cure for the devastating citrus plant disease Huanglongbing, or HLB.
The state-of-the-art lab is the product of a partnership between the State’s citrus growers and UC Riverside aimed to protect California citrus trees from the deadly citrus plant disease Huanglongbing, or HLB.
“HLB is the single greatest threat to the future of the California citrus industry,” says CCRF Board Chairman and General Manager Booth Ranches LLC, Dave Smith. “The Biosafety Level-3 Lab is a testament to the industry’s proactive and optimistic spirit. In a matter of months, the citrus industry raised over $8 million to fund the construction of this facility and now, together with our partners at UC Riverside, we are one step closer to finding a cure for HLB.”

Located just 2-miles off campus on Marlborough Avenue, the lab will allow researchers to conduct work with plant pathogens that previously couldn’t be done in Southern California.

ACP UC IPM

ACP (Source: ACP UC IPM)

Construction of the $8 million lab began in 2016 and was entirely funded by the California Citrus Research Foundation through donations by citrus growers and packers.
The grand opening was marked by a ribbon-cutting ceremony and Citrus Industry Appreciation Luncheon at which several university, government, and citrus industry leaders spoke about the significance of the lab to the future of the California citrus industry.
The disease, spread by an invasive insect called Asian citrus psyllid, has been detected in over 1,500 backyard citrus trees in Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside Counties. Citrus growers are proactively working to keep the disease out of commercial citrus groves until research finds a cure.
Casey Creamer, President of the non-profit grower advocacy group, California Citrus Mutual outlined the scope of the challenge and the extensive effort by citrus growers, federal, state, and local governments, and homeowners to protect all citrus trees.
“California is the largest citrus-producing region in the world that has not been ravaged by HLB. For over a decade, growers have worked proactively to protect the state’s $3.3 billion citrus industry and the millions of citrus trees in backyards. The construction of this lab and the partnership with UC Riverside is a significant milestone in the fight to save California citrus,” said Creamer.
Also represented at the event was the industry-funded Citrus Research Board (CRB). “The industry has invested millions of dollars over the past 10 years into research on Asian citrus psyllid and HLB,” said CRB Chairman Dan Dreyer. “However, research is useless without partners. I’m confident that the partnership between the Citrus Research Foundation, UC Riverside, California Citrus Mutual, and the Citrus Research Board will deliver actual solutions to the industry’s greatest challenge.”
UC Riverside has a long history of collaboration with the citrus industry and is home to the Citrus Variety Collection, the Citrus Clonal Protection Program, and the Citrus Experiment Station which was founded in 1907. 
“We are proud to continue the tradition of collaboration and partnership with the citrus industry as we work together to find solutions to HLB,” said UCR Chancellor Kim Wilcox. “Citrus is an iconic part of California’s history, and the Biosafety Level-3 Lab is a natural extension of the mission of UC Riverside to enrich the state’s economic, social, cultural, and environmental future.”
 
The event was emceed by the Citrus Research Foundation Executive Director Joel Nelsen who praised the industry for its foresight and investment in research. “For over 10 years, citrus growers have partnered with government, homeowners, and the University to prevent HLB from taking hold. The construction of the Biosafety Level-3 Lab and our partnership with UC Riverside is an investment in the future of California citrus. I’m confident now more than ever that our future is bright.”
The collaboration between citrus growers and UCR drew praise by a number of local elected officials as well as State and Federal representatives in attendance.
“Not only does this lab pay homage to Riverside’s rich history in citrus cultivation and research dating back to the establishment of the Citrus Experiment Station in 1907, it builds upon that history to push us to the forefront of research critical to the survival and success of citrus cultivation in the state and nation,” stated Senator Richard D. Roth. “Thank you to UC Riverside, the California Citrus Research Foundation, and others in the industry for your partnership in this critical investment!”
Congressman Ken Calvert, unable to attend the event in person, said in a prepared statement, “The threat Huanglongbing poses to California’s commercial citrus industry cannot be overstated. The opening of the Biosafety Level-3 Laboratory for Huanglongbing Research at UC Riverside is welcome news and a critical step towards protecting our citrus from this devastating disease. All of our citrus stakeholders, including the federal government, must continue to provide the research resources necessary to end this existential threat.”
Four researchers have been approved to begin work in the Biosafety Level-3 Lab. The Citrus Research Foundation and UC Riverside will oversee the current projects as well as the selection of future projects.
2021-05-12T11:05:01-07:00October 3rd, 2019|

Help APG Advocate for Funding to Fight NOW

American Pistachio Growers Asking Industry to Help Fund Phoenix Facility

American Pistachio Growers (APG) has been integrally involved in obtaining federally funding for the Center for Health Science & Technology Laboratory in Phoenix, AZ. The facility was originally commissioned by the cotton industry to raise sterile pink bollworm for area-wide releases in an effort to suppress the pest.

The program was even more successful than planned and the cotton industry was recently able to declare pink bollworm eradicated. Now that the facility has excess capacity, pistachio, almond, and walnut industry leaders have made a push to start breeding sterile navel orangeworm (NOW) for aerial release in California. Unfortunately, at the end of this Federal Fiscal Year, federal funding for the facility ends, and unless a new funding appropriation can be made by Congress, the facility will close.

Many pistachio growers have asked how they can help in APG’s efforts to obtain federal funding. With current efforts being focused on the U.S. Senate, growers are encouraged to write a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) for her support. Sen. Feinstein sits on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, & Related Agencies, which is where APG is advocating for funding.
Here is a sample letter that can be used, or you can draft your own letter that incorporates the following talking points:

  • Navel Orangeworm (NOW) is an invasive and destructive pest harmful to tree nuts (almonds, pistachios, and walnuts).
  • As much as $800 million lost each year from lost product and consumer confidence.
  • NOW is a major vector for aflatoxin, which results in shipment rejections and food safety concerns, hurting our trade position in key markets.
  • Growers spend $150-$450 per acre every year to apply currently available tools to control NOW in orchards totaling more than $500 million annually.
  • Congress & USDA can co-invest with tree nut industries by appropriating $21 million to develop a sterile insect technology (SIT) pilot program for NOW.
  • The Center for Health Science & Technology Laboratory in Phoenix, AZ is perfectly set up to take on the pilot project, but will be shut down at the end of September unless adequate funding is provided.

Letters can be faxed to 202-228-3954, emailed to joe_petrzelka@feinstein.senate.gov or mailed to:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
303 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

2021-05-12T11:05:01-07:00September 20th, 2019|

Grants Available for Biological Integrated Farming

CDFA Offering Grants for Biological Farming Systems

 The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) is now accepting grant applications for its Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) Program and its Proactive Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Solutions Program, administered by the Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis (OPCA).

BIFS GRANTS
The goal of the BIFS grant program is to fund on-farm demonstration and evaluation of innovative biologically-based farming systems that employ Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies. CDFA is responsible for supporting agricultural production in California by fostering innovative, efficient and scientifically sound practices.

Applications are due on 5 p.m., October 31, 2019. Detailed information on the Biologically Integrated Farming Systems program, including the application process and requirements, is available at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/opca/bifs.html.

OPCA received a one-time appropriation of $2 million for BIFS as part of the 2019-2020 budget that will be allocated in two blocks: $1 million in the current solicitation and another $1 million in 2020-2021.

PROACTIVE IPM SOLUTIONS GRANTS
The goal of the Proactive IPM Solutions Program is to anticipate exotic pests likely to arrive in California and to identify and test IPM strategies which can then be quickly implemented if the pests are detected. CDFA is responsible for preventing and mitigating invasive pests. Techniques resulting from this proactive approach will allow for rapid deployment of management plans.

Applications are due at midnight, October 31, 2019. Detailed information on the Proactive IPM Solutions Program, including the application process and application requirements, is available at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/opca/proactive-ipm.html

A total of $1.2 million amount is available for Proactive IPM Solutions in this grant cycle. Funds for the current Request for Proposal (RFP) come from two sources. First, OPCA received an annual appropriation of $544,000 for this and other research as part of the 2019-2020 budget. An additional $3.5 million was allocated in the 2019-2020 budget to specifically help California’s farmers transition away from chlorpyrifos, an insecticide that has long been used to combat newly-arrived invasive pests but is being phased out in California.

OPCA provides consultation to the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) on pesticide regulatory matters. The office’s consultative activities focus on potential pesticide regulatory impacts and pest management alternatives that may mitigate or prevent such impacts on production agriculture. OPCA staff is also involved in other projects relating to pesticide use and alternatives. Information on the Office of Pesticide Consultation and Analysis is available at https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/oefi/opca/.

2021-05-12T11:05:02-07:00August 29th, 2019|

Field Bindweed is A Struggle to Control

Field Bindweed Difficult to Manage

By Jessica Theisman, Associate Editor

Field Bindweed is a struggle in the summer months. Scott Stoddard, UCANR Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor, Merced County, discussed with California Ag Today how to manage the weed during the summer in annual crops.

“Field Bindweed is predominantly a summer weed, so we are trying to manage it more in our summer annual crops such as cotton, corn, melons, and tomatoes,” Stoddard said.

This weed has been documented back 100 years but only recently has become more of a problem for farmers.

“It did not seem to be as universally impacting people as much as it does now,” Stoddard said.

Farmers are asking themselves what they are doing irrigation-wise that impacts the weeds.

“Does drip irrigation favor this weed? Does conservation tillage favor this weed? There are all kinds of unknowns,” Stoddard explained.

Stacking herbicides can help and control the Field Bindweed.

“Herbicides in the annual crop systems are marginal and you have to stack them. You have to combine the Roundup with something like a Treflan and then combine that maybe with some applications of other herbicides,” Stoddard said.

Even with stacking the herbicides, they are still marginal. On the herbicide angle, this is one of the things that makes weeds so challenging.

2021-05-12T11:01:46-07:00July 26th, 2019|

Abnormal Weather, Temperatures, and Pests

A Year of Unusual Weather Affects Vegetable Crops

By Mikenzi Meyers, Associate Editor

A year filled with abnormal weather is starting to show its effects on vegetable crops. Tom Turini of the University of California Cooperative Extension Fresno County, who is a plant commodity specialist, shared some of the early seasonal problems he has witnessed.

“We had unusual weather this year—a very cool, late spring—and with the rains we’ve had, we expected to see some issues that are unusual. We just didn’t see the incidence of those problems that we would have expected,” Turini said.

Turini added that levels of beet curly top are relatively low and tomato spotted wilt is densely populated in some areas. He also noted that the early appearance of the consperse stink bug seems to be having a measurable impact on crops, specifically on the west side of Fresno County.

2021-05-12T11:01:47-07:00July 25th, 2019|

Pesticide Air Monitoring Shows Low Numbers

2018 Air Monitoring Shows Most Pesticides Below Health Screening Levels

News Release

 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released air monitoring results indicating that most of the pesticides monitored in the DPR air monitoring network in 2018 were found below levels that indicate a health concern.

However, data from a separate two-year study of the pesticide 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), a known carcinogen, shows air concentrations in Parlier (Fresno County) will require further action.  1,3-D is used to fight pests that attack a wide range of crops, including almonds, grapes, strawberries, and sweet potatoes.

“Air quality is fundamental for all Californians, and the latest data from DPR’ s air monitoring network shows levels of agricultural pesticides in most communities that are well within our public health standards,” said Val Dolcini, DPR acting director. “In many cases, the amount of pesticide in the air was negligible, but our scientists will continue to use this data to help DPR develop plans to reduce the presence of 1,3-D in the future.”

In 2018, DPR, with assistance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, monitored air concentrations of 31 pesticides and 5 pesticide breakdown products in eight agricultural communities. The monitoring stations are in Shafter (Kern County), Santa Maria, Cuyama (Santa Barbara County), Watsonville (Santa Cruz County) and Chualar (Monterey County), Lindsay (Tulare County), Oxnard (Ventura County) and San Joaquin (Fresno County).

The air-monitoring network, which began in 2011, was established to help expand DPR’s knowledge of the potential long-term exposure and health risks from pesticides in the air. California is the only state that monitors air as part of its continuous evaluation of pesticides to ensure the protection of workers, public health, and the environment.

The 2018 air monitoring report shows that of the 36 pesticides and breakdown products measured at the monitoring sites, most did not exceed screening levels or regulatory targets.

Other highlights include:
  • 8 pesticides were not detected at all and
  • 17 pesticides were only detected at trace level.

In January 2018, however, the air monitoring results showed that the pesticide 1, 3-D had a 13-week average concentration in Shafter of 5.6 parts per billion (ppb), which is significantly above the short-term (13-week) screening level of 3.0 ppb. A screening level is a level set by DPR to determine if a more detailed evaluation is warranted to assess a potential health risk.

DPR, along with the Kern County ag commissioner, investigated this detection and determined that it largely arose from a single application of 1,3-D made during this 13-week period. While this reading was not high enough to indicate an immediate health threat, DPR is consulting with other state agencies on next steps to reduce the exposures to 1,3-dichloropropene.

 

List of communities in the Air Monitoring Network

communities in air monitoring 2018 table.JPG

 

In addition to the 2018 annual air monitoring results mentioned above, DPR conducted a two-year air monitoring study of 1,3-D in Parlier (Fresno County) and Delhi (Merced County) from 2016 to 2018. The measured air concentrations in Parlier also exceed DPR’s screening levels and indicate that more mitigation is needed to reduce the exposures of this pesticide.

 These findings will be discussed at the next Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee (PREC) on July 19. The meeting will be live webcast.

Read the full 2018 air monitoring report here 

2021-05-12T11:01:47-07:00July 18th, 2019|

Food Safety Inspections Coming

Operations with More than $500,000 Are First

By Patrick Cavanaugh, Editor

Shelly Phillips is with the CDFA’s Produce Safety Program and supervises four inspectors with the eventual hiring of six more. She spoke about what to expect during a food safety inspection of farm operations at the recent Safe Food Alliance Conference in Monterey.

“These will not be surprise inspections. We will be calling and letting growers know that we want to inspect the operation and scheduling an appointment,” Phillips said.

From that point, an inspector will be following up with the farmer with logistic questions such as: “What are you growing?”, “When are you harvesting?”, and “What is the best time in terms of coming out to the operation?”

The goal is to have the inspection be collaborative between the farmer and inspector. It needs to be done during harvesting and handling conditions.

If an operation is unwilling or unresponsive, there could be an unannounced inspection.

“If we have called a grower three or four times and there are no return calls, and we have tried to reschedule multiple times, we may do an unannounced inspection because there might be a reason for the push back,” Phillips explained.

Also, if there are uncorrected produce safety issues, there could be an unannounced follow-up inspection.

“This will happen if we have been out to a farm under an announced inspection and there have been corrective actions that need to be observed, and there needs to be a follow-up; then there could be an unannounced inspection,” Phillips said. “We can also come out in response to a complaint or a foodborne outbreak investigation.”

Arriving On The Farm

“Let’s say the inspector arrives on a Tuesday … his or her identification will be shown, as well as a notice of inspection,” Phillips said. “They will want to speak to someone who is directly in charge. That person will be a farm manager or food safety manager, instead of someone not responsible for anything on a day-to-day basis.”

The inspector will explain the scope of the inspection based on what the grower is doing on the operation.

“If the grower is harvesting or packing, then we will be looking at that. We also want to see the grower training, [and] health and hygiene records.”

There is no set time length for the inspections, as it will depend on the size of the farming operation, as well as what the farm has prepared ahead of time for the inspector. Being prepared means having all food safety records available, and knowing where all water sources are. Also, if there are many observations that need to be corrected, then that could extend the inspection time.

2021-05-12T11:01:47-07:00July 16th, 2019|

Citrus Growers’ Response To Huanglongbing

Industry Committee Endorses Voluntary Best Practices

News Release

To provide California citrus growers with a strong toolbox of science-supported strategies and tactics to protect their orchards from Huanglongbing (HLB), the Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Committee endorsed a set of best practices for growers to voluntarily employ in response to HLB in California.

Adult Asian citrus psyllid, Huanglongbing

Adult Asian citrus psyllid (Photo by J. Lewis). Courtesy of Citrus Research Board

The recommendations—which were developed based on a grower’s proximity to an HLB detection—represent the most effective tools known to the citrus industry at this time and are meant to supplement the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s required regulatory response. The best practices were developed by a task force consisting of growers from various regions across the state and scientists, all of whom were nominated by the Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Committee.

Voluntary best practices were developed for growers in the four following scenarios:

  • Scenario 1: Orchards outside of an HLB quarantine area
  • Scenario 2: Orchards located between one and five miles of an HLB detection (within an HLB quarantine area)
  • Scenario 3: Orchards within one mile of an HLB detection but not known to be infected
  • Scenario 4: Orchards with HLB

The best practices vary in each scenario but all address: awareness, scouting for the Asian citrus psyllid, controlling Asian citrus psyllids with treatments, protecting young trees and replants, employing barriers or repellents, visually surveying for HLB, testing psyllid and plant material for HLB using a direct testing method like polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and tending to trees’ root health. The voluntary best practices in all four scenarios can be found at CitrusInsider.org.

While HLB has not yet been detected in a commercial grove in California, the disease continues to spread throughout residential communities of Los Angeles, Orange, and Riverside counties. HLB has infected more than 1,400 citrus trees, and 1,003 square miles are currently in an HLB quarantine area.

“Our state’s citrus industry has held the line against HLB since the first detection seven years ago. We should commend our efforts but must not forget the devastating impact HLB could have on our orchards and our livelihood,” said Jim Gorden, chair of the Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Program and a citrus grower in Tulare County.

“We know the cost to manage the Asian citrus psyllid is far less than any potential costs or loss to the industry should HLB take hold throughout our state. These voluntary best practices are meant to serve as a box of tools so growers can use as many as are feasible for their operation in order to limit the spread of the psyllid and disease,” said Keith Watkins, chair of the task force that developed the best practices and vice president of farming at Bee Sweet Citrus.

2021-05-12T11:01:47-07:00July 3rd, 2019|
Go to Top