Imperial County Agricultural Briefs

Transcription

1 Imperial County Agricultural Briefs Features From your Farm Advisors April, 2007 PRINCIPLES OF GOOD SILAGE MAKING... Juan N. Guerrero LYGUS BUG CONTROL IN ALFALFA GROWN FOR SEED.....Eric T. Natwick 2 4 FERTILIZING BERMUDAGRASS... Rick Bottoms, Ph.D. 10 WORM CONTROL IN ALFALFA Eric T. Natwick 12 INFORMATION FROM ALFALFA SEED PRODUCTION SYMPOSIA IS NOW AVAILABLE ON-LINE > Shannon C. Mueller, Fresno County 16 POSITION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT 17 CIMIS REPORT.. Khaled Bali and Steve Burch 18 Ag Briefs March,

2 Principles of Good Silage Making Juan N. Guerrero At the present time, good hay is hard to find and very expensive. Another option for the small size livestock producer is silage. In comparison to hay, silage has both benefits and negatives. Almost any forage or grain crop may be ensiled; corn, sorghum, triticale, barley, wheat, alfalfa, and any grass. Hay is usually plentiful (not now) in the desert Southwest. Silage making requires only one piece of specialized equipment; other than tractors, rakes, and a front-end loader; a forage chopper. Hay is usually good for livestock feed for one year and then it becomes very brittle and loses feed value. Silage, on the other hand, if kept covered, may keep for many years. I remember once uncovering a silage pit after 8 years, and the silage was still good! Silage negatives specialized equipment is needed (a forage chopper), very intense work is required during the ensiling period (often 18 h days), in the desert Southwest silage does not keep well in the feed bunk (it must be fed daily), silage making is unforgiving (it must be cut at the correct stage of growth, chopped into specific lengths and packed correctly), any minor deviation from established silage making rules usually has disastrous results Silage positives cattle, sheep, and goats relish silage, virtually all forage matter from the field is harvested into the silage pit (at best with hay making, 10 to 20% of forage dry matter remains in the field), silage keeps for extended periods of time in comparison to hay, silage making and feeding is easily mechanized, depending on climatic conditions and environment a large number of crops may be ensiled. In the desert Southwest, pits are probably the best option for silage. However, silage may also simply be mounded up, packed and covered. Silage may also be placed into bags, expensive but doable. It is of extreme importance that the silage crop be cut at the correct physiological state of growth. Grasses may be cut at the late boot stage, cereal crops may be cut from the late boot to early dough stage, and corn should be cut at the ¼ to ¾ milk stage. At these physiological states of the growth, the silage will have about 65% moisture; > 70% or < 60% moisture results in bad silage. Because of the aridity of the local deserts, from when silage is cut and chopped to when it is placed into storage must take place within several hours or the silage may become too dry. The correct length of chop is extremely important; silage must be chopped from ⅜ to ¾ in length to pack correctly. Longer pieces do not pack well, and shorter pieces do not provide adequate fiber to livestock. Whether in a mound or in a pit, the silage should be packed with wheeled vehicles, not with tracked tractors; wheeled tractors have better compaction. During the packing process, sometimes silage inoculants may be used to assist the fermentation process. I like spraying a 2

3 thin layer of molasses every two feet of silage to assist the fermentation process. Lastly the silage must be covered. For silage to ferment adequately it MUST be free of oxygen. The top of the silage may be covered with a plastic tarp and then old tires placed over the tarp. Losing the top 4 to 6 of the silage stack is normal, a very small percentage of the entire stack. Sometimes 4 to 6 of soil may be placed over the tarp. Depending on climate, the ensiling process may take from 4 to 6 weeks. Silage making is not easy work, but livestock respond well to silage; they love the stuff! 3

4 Lygus Bug Control in Alfalfa Grown for Seed Eric T. Natwick A 2006 alfalfa lygus bug control study was initiated at the UC Desert Research and Extension Center on bedded alfalfa using a RCB design with four replications and eleven insecticide treatments and an untreated control. Plots measured 50 x 13.3 (4 beds/plot) and insecticides were applied with a tractor mounted spray boom with 3 nozzles (TJ VS) / bed applying 53 gallons / acre at 40 psi on August 16. Test materials were applied on June 13 and 27, 2006 at the specified rate equivalencies listed below. Treatments: 1. Control (untreated) 2. Lannate 48.0 fluid 3. Carzol fluid 4. Lorsban fluid 5. Capture fluid 6. Warrior fluid 7. Novaluron 12.0 fluid 8. BAS fluid 9. BAS fluid 10. Endosulfan 42.7 fluid F dry 12. Furadan 32.0 fluid Novaluron is marketed in the U.S. as Rimon by Chemtura Corporation and does not have a label for use on alfalfa, but a 24c Label is pending at California DPR for use on alfalfa grown for seed. F DF is a Beleaf insecticide (flonicamid) developed for U.S. markets by FMC Corporation and does not have a label for use on alfalfa. BAS I (metafluizone) is an insecticide under development by BASF Corporation and does not have a label for use on alfalfa. Prior to trial initiation, the alfalfa was cut and irrigated for seed production. Pretreatment (PT) evaluations of insect populations in each plot were conducted on June 12, Post treatment evaluations were conducted on June 16, 20, and 26, and on July 3 and 10, During each evaluation, ten sweeps per plot were collected with a standard 15-inch diameter sweep net. Sweep samples were bagged, labeled, and frozen for later counting of lygus bug nymphs and adults (Tables 1-4). On July 24, 2006, alfalfa seed from 1 m 2 was harvested from each plot and cleaned to estimate yield. Additionally, mature seed pods were stripped from a few plants at random in each plot, hand-threshed to prevent loss of damaged seed and 100 seeds from each plot were examined under a binocular microscope for lygus damage, stink bug

5 damage, chalcid damage, water damage, damage from other insects (such as Lepidoptera), green seed and good seed (Table 5). Raw data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separated using Least Significant Difference Test (P=0.05) using MSTAT-C. Log (X+1) transformations were used, as needed, with back-transformed means presented in tables. Pre-treatment numbers of lygus bug adults and nymphs were similar (P=0.05) among treatments (Table 1-4). Post-treatment means for small lygus bug nymphs (1 st to 3 rd instars) were not significantly (P=0.05) lower in any insecticide treated plots, compared to untreated plots on June 16 and 20, 3-days and 7-days after the first treatment, respectively (Table 1). This was likely due to continual egg hatch over that time period. However, on June 26, 13-days after the first treatments, all insecticide treatments except F DF had significantly fewer small nymphs compared to the untreated control. On July 10, 13- days after the second application of insecticides, all insecticide treatments had significantly fewer small nymphs compared to the untreated control. All insecticide treatments had significantly fewer small nymphs compared to the untreated control for the post-treatment means (PTM), totals of all sampling dates after insecticide applications. Means for large lygus bug nymphs (4 th and 5th instars) were significantly (P=0.05) lower in all insecticide treated plots, compared to untreated plots on June 16 except Capture 2 EC, Warrior, Thionex 3EC, F DF, and Furadan 4F (Table 2). On June 20 all insecticide treated plots 5 had significantly lower means for large lygus bugs compared to the untreated control except Capture, Warrior and Furadan. Warrior had significantly more large lygus bug nymphs on June 26 than all but the untreated control and Capture. Only Monitor, Lorsban and Warrior did not have fewer large nymphs, on July 3, 6-days after the second application of insecticides. All insecticide treatments had significantly fewer large nymphs compared to the untreated control on July 10, 13- days after the second application of insecticides. All insecticide treatments had significantly fewer large nymphs compared to the untreated control for the PTM except Warrior. Means for lygus bug adults were significantly (P=0.05) lower in all insecticide treated plots, compared to untreated plots on June 16, 3-days after treatment (Table 3). All insecticide treated plots had significantly lower means for lygus bug adults compared to the untreated control except Lorsban, Capture, Warrior and Furadan on June 20 (7-days after first applications). Only Warrior and Capture did not have significantly fewer lygus bug adults than the untreated control on June 26, 13- days after applications. None of the insecticide treatments had lygus bug adult means that were significantly lower than the untreated control on July 3. However, only Monitor, Capture, Warrior and Novaluron did not have fewer lygus bug adults, on July 10, 13- days after the second application of insecticides.

6 All insecticide treatments had significantly fewer lygus bug adults compared to the untreated control for the PTM. Means for all lygus bugs (nymphs and adults combined) were significantly (P=0.05) lower in all insecticide treated plots, compared to untreated plots on June 16, 3-days after treatment, with the exception of Furadan (Table 4). All insecticide treated plots had significantly lower means for all lygus bug compared to the untreated control except Lorsban, Capture, Warrior and Furadan on June 20 (7-days after first applications). All insecticide treatments had significantly fewer lygus bugs than the untreated control on June 26, 13-days after applications. None of the insecticide treatments had lygus bug means that were significantly lower than the untreated control on July 3. However, all of the insecticide treatments had fewer lygus bug than the untreated control plots, on July 10, 13-days after the second application of insecticides and for the PTM. compared to the control with All of the insecticide treatments had significantly higher percentages of good seed compared to the untreated control plots, but there were no significant differences in seed yield. In conclusion, all insecticide treatments had some efficacy for control of lygus bug in seed alfalfa and reduced damage to alfalfa seed. However, Warrior, Capture, Furadan, Lorsban and Monitor were less efficacious against lygus bugs than Carzol. All insecticide treatments had significantly (P = 0.05) lower percentages of lygus bug damaged seed than the untreated control with the exception of BAS I, (Table 5). Even though Warrior and Furadan had higher lygus bug numbers than other insecticides, they had a couple of the lowest percentages of seed damaged by lygus bug, 8.5 and 7.0, respectively, Lygus Bug (Lygus Hesperus) 6

7 Table 1. Lygus Bug Nymphs (1 st to 3 rd instar) per Sweep in Seed Alfalfa. Holtville, CA Treatment oz/acre 12 Jun 16 Jun 20 Jun 26 Jun 3 Jul 10 Jul PTM z Untreated a 1.45 a 1.23 a 1.33 a 0.18 a 1.03 a 1.04 a Monitor a 0.83 a 0.58 a 0.53 bc 0.05 a 0.18 c 0.43 b Carzol 92 SP a 0.90 a 0.30 a 0.50 bc 0.05 a 0.05 c 0.36 b Lorsban 4 E a 0.30 a 0.75 a 0.68 bc 0.18 a 0.05 c 0.39 b Capture 2 EC a 0.58 a 1.25 a 0.65 bc 0.10 a 0.38 bc 0.59 b Warrior 1 CS a 0.68 a 0.73 a 0.63 bc 0.05 a 0.13 c 0.44 b Novaluron 0.83EC a 1.30 a 0.40 a 0.25 c 0.05 a 0.58 b 0.52 b BAS I a 1.10 a 0.88 a 0.50 bc 0.08 a 0.10 c 0.53 b BAS I a 0.85 a 0.83 a 0.38 bc 0.05 a 0.08 c 0.44 b Thionex 3EC a 0.38 a 0.40 a 0.68 bc 0.00 a 0.10 c 0.31 b F DF a 0.55 a 0.40 a 0.93 ab 0.00 a 0.13 c 0.40 b Furadan 4F a 1.05 a 0.88 a 0.70 bc 0.08 a 0.25 bc 0.59 b Mean separations within columns by LSD (P < 0.05). z Post treatment means. Table 2. Lygus Bug Nymphs (4 th and 5 th instar) per Sweep in Seed Alfalfa. Holtville, CA Treatment oz/acre 12 Jun 16 Jun z 20 Jun 26 Jun 3 Jul 10 Jul PTM x Untreated a 0.82 ab 1.45 a 2.20 ab 0.33 a 0.70 a 1.05 a Monitor a 0.25 c 0.40 b 0.98 c 0.25 ab 0.05 bc 0.39 c Carzol 92 SP a 0.36 c 0.35 b 0.73 b 0.03 c 0.10 bc 0.33 c Lorsban 4 E a 0.34 c 0.65 b 0.98 c 0.15 abc 0.05 bc 0.44 c Capture 2 EC a 0.43 bc 0.93 ab 1.38 abc 0.08 bc 0.15 bc 0.60 c Warrior 1 CS a 0.47 abc 1.38 a 2.38 a 0.15 abc 0.03 c 0.94 ab Novaluron 0.83EC a 0.29 c 0.40 b 0.43 c 0.08 bc 0.30 b 0.31 c BAS I a 0.43 bc 0.70 b 0.45 c 0.08 bc 0.15 bc 0.37 c BAS I a 0.40 bc 0.63 b 1.00 bc 0.10 bc 0.10 bc 0.50 c Thionex 3EC a 0.44 abc 0.53 b 0.78 c 0.03 c 0.00 c 0.38 c F DF a 0.56 abc 0.38 b 0.85 c 0.05 c 0.03 c 0.40 c Furadan 4F a 0.94 a 1.00 ab 0.63 c 0.08 bc 0.13 bc 0.63 bc Mean separations within columns by LSD (P < 0.05). x Post treatment means. z Log transformed data used for analysis and back transformed means reported. 7

8 Table 3. Lygus Bug Adults per Sweep in Seed Alfalfa. Holtville, CA Treatment oz/acre 12 Jun 16 Jun 20 Jun z 26 Jun z 3 Jul 10 Jul PTM xz Untreated a 2.20 a 3.61 a 2.33 a 1.53 a 1.55 a 2.30 a Monitor a 1.20 b 1.60 bc 0.74 cd 1.10 a 0.80 abcd 1.09 bc Carzol 92 SP a 1.18 b 1.63 bc 0.82 bcd 0.80 a 0.65 bcd 0.98 c Lorsban 4 E a 0.93 b 2.62 ab 0.71 d 0.83 a 0.43 cd 1.13 bc Capture 2 EC a 1.03 b 2.33 ab 1.44 ab 0.73 a 1.25 ab 1.42 b Warrior 1 CS a 1.30 b 2.18 abc 1.38 abc 1.38 a 1.25 ab 1.48 b Novaluron 0.83EC a 0.88 b 1.23 c 0.82 bcd 1.05 a 1.15 abc 1.06 bc BAS I a 0.80 b 1.52 bc 1.01 bcd 0.88 a 0.65 bcd 0.99 c BAS I a 1.10 b 1.72 bc 0.74 cd 1.25 a 0.38 d 1.07 bc Thionex 3EC a 1.00 b 1.97 bc 0.69 d 0.68 a 0.50 bcd 0.99 c F DF a 1.30 b 1.91 bc 0.56 d 0.95 a 0.70 bcd 1.13 bc Furadan 4F a 1.30 b 2.72 ab 0.84 bcd 1.08 a 0.75 bcd 1.33 bc Mean separations within columns by LSD (P < 0.05). x Post treatment means. z Log transformed data used for analysis and back transformed means reported. Table 4. Lygus Bug All Stages per Sweep in Seed Alfalfa. Holtville, CA Treatment oz/acre 12 Jun 16 Jun z 20 Jun z 26 Jun 3 Jul 10 Jul PTM x Untreated a 4.25 a 6.54 a 6.35 a 2.03 a 3.28 a 4.56 a Monitor a 1.94 bc 2.74 bcd 2.38 cd 1.40 a 1.03 bcd 1.97 bcd Carzol 92 SP a 1.69 bc 2.26 cd 2.20 cd 0.88 a 0.80 cd 1.75 d Lorsban 4 E a 1.45 c 4.10 abc 2.43 cd 1.15 a 0.53 d 2.04 bcd Capture 2 EC a 1.97 bc 4.05 abc 3.75 bc 0.90 a 1.78 bc 2.70 bc Warrior 1 CS a 2.34 bc 4.10 abc 4.45 b 1.58 a 1.40 bcd 2.89 b Novaluron 0.83EC a 2.34 bc 2.07 d 1.60 d 1.18 a 2.03 b 1.89 cd BAS I a 2.06 bc 3.06 bcd 2.13 cd 1.03 a 0.90 bcd 1.90 cd BAS I a 2.16 bc 2.88 bcd 2.13 cd 1.40 a 0.55 d 2.00 bcd Thionex 3EC a 1.77 bc 2.87 bcd 2.18 cd 0.70 a 0.60 d 1.68 d F DF a 2.17 bc 2.75 bcd 2.48 cd 1.00 a 0.85 cd 1.95 cd Furadan 4F a 2.94 ab 4.42 ab 2.25 cd 1.23 a 1.13 bcd 2.70 bc Mean separations within columns by LSD (P < 0.05). x Post treatment means. z Log transformed data used for analysis and back transformed means reported. 8

9 Table 5. Percentages of Damaged Seed from Lygus Bug, Stink Bug, and Alfalfa Seed Chalcid, Percentages of Green Seed and Healthy Seed, and Pounds of Cleaned Seed per Acre. Holtville, CA, Treatment oz/acre Lygus Bug Stink Bug Seed Chalcid Other Insect Damage Water Damage Green Seed Good Seed Pounds Seed/Acre Untreated a c Monitor c ab Carzol 92 SP bc ab Lorsban 4 E bc ab Capture 2 EC bc ab Warrior 1 CS c a Novaluron 0.83EC c a BAS I ab b BAS I ab ab Thionex 3EC bc ab F DF c a Furadan 4F c a Mean separations within columns by LSD (P < 0.05). 9

10 Fertilizing Bermudagrass Rick Bottoms, Ph.D. Bermudagrass hay/seed production and value to the Imperial Valley continues to positively impact annual agriculture valley economy with revenues of nearly 44 million in Contributing to the overall sustainability is a continued demand for both domestic and foreign sales of quality hay and seed. Management considerations for the 2007 crop year should include timely irrigation, pest control, fertility and harvest management. The lack of an appropriate fertility program more than any other factor other then irrigation is typically the number one cause for bermudagrass decline and lack of sustainability. In addition, the increased vigor of the bermudagrass sod reduces weed competition and soil erosion. Bermudagrass, however, requires a high level of fertilizer input to maintain a competitive edge against other potential invading species such as wild oats, canarygrass and/or broadleaf weeds. The amount of fertilizer needed depends upon the intended use of the bermudagrass crop Bermudagrass is responsive to nitrogen (N) fertilization particularly when the soil moisture is not limiting. Research has shown a linear relationship to added nitrogen in terms of yield and quality of bermudagrass, but many times N is the only fertilizer input provided, if at all. Three valuable things generally occur as the nitrogen rate increases: 1. yields increase, 2. crude protein of the forage increases, 3. efficiency of irrigation in producing forage and seed improves. Fields producing hay exclusively may receive as much as pounds of nitrogen per acre for the growing season. Haying is a process that "mines" the soil. For each 1,000 pound bale that leaves a field it takes with it about 20 lb. of nitrogen, 3 lb. of actual phosphorus, and 20 lb. of potash. Other nutrients, such as sulfur, calcium, magnesium, and micronutrients, are also removed. In many cases the soil may supply most of these nutrients, except for nitrogen, for many years. The only way to avoid nutrient deficiencies is to soil test and fertilize accordingly. Fields used for a seed/hay combination will require lbs. less nitrogen for the season. Research from Prine and Burton (1956) showed a increase in nitrogen fertilizer from 0 to 900 pounds per acre results in an increase in height (2.5 inches to 6.5 inches), percent protein, yield (1.6 tons to 11.0 tons of hay), stem length (6.0 to 17.0 inches), internode length and node number, and a decrease in leaf percentage and seed head frequency (5% to 2%). An increase in nitrogen from 0 to 72 pounds per acre results in a 5 times greater above-ground biomass (Skousen et al. 1989). 10

11 Urea, UAN32, and anhydrous ammonia are the types of nitrogen fertilizer commonly applied. Other nutrients, however, play an important role in maintaining bermudagrass stands. Potassium (K), for example, has been shown to be an important nutrient for forage, stolon, and rhizome production, but is also associated with improving bermudagrass tolerance to both winter kill and diseases such as Helminthosporium leaf spot. Potassium is also known to help improve water use, thus improving drought tolerance. Phosphorus (P), another important soil nutrient for bermudagrass growth, some growers add phosphorus to their fertilizer program if soil tests show that levels of soluble phosphorus are lower than 10 parts per million. Additional information can be found at or Literature: Burton, G., and W. Hanna Burmudagrass. In M. Heath, R. Barnes, and D. Metcalfe ed. Forages the science of grassland agriculture. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 643 pp. Ivy, R. et al Bermuda grass fertility, Miss. St.Univ. Publ. S-007 Prine, G., and G. Burton The effect of nitrogen rate and clipping frequency upon the yield, protein content, and certain morphological characteristics of coastal Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Agronomy Journal 48: Imperial County Agricultural Crop & Livestock Report Imperial County Extension 11

12 Worm Control in Alfalfa Eric T. Natwick A 2006 alfalfa worm control study was initiated at the UC Desert Research and Extension Center on bedded alfalfa using a RCB design with four replications and twelve insecticide treatments and an untreated control. Plots measured 50 x 13.3 (4 beds/plot) and insecticides were applied with a tractor mounted spray boom with 3 nozzles (TJ VS) / bed applying 53 gallons / acre at 40 psi on August 16. Test materials were applied on August 16, 2006 at the specified rate equivalencies listed below. Treatments: 1. Control (untreated) fluid 3. Intrepid 6.0 fluid 4. Intrepid 8.0 fluid 5. XDE fluid 6. XDE fluid 7. XDE fluid 8. Novaluron 12.0 fluid ounces per acre fluid 10. Lorsban 32.0 fluid 11. Lannate 48.0 fluid 12. BAS fluid fluid XDE SC is a spinosyn insecticide under development by Dow AgroScience with the proposed common name of Spinetoram and will be marked under the trade names of RADIANT and DELEGATE. BAS I (metafluizone) is an insecticide under development by BASF Corporation. Pretreatment (PT) evaluations of insect populations in each plot were conducted on August 15, Post treatment evaluations were conducted on 27 and 28, and August 18, 24, and 31, 2006 or 2, 8, and 15 days after treatment (DAT), respectively. During each evaluation, ten sweeps per plot were collected with a standard 15-inch diameter sweep net. Sweep samples were bagged, labeled, and frozen for later counting of beet armyworm and alfalfa caterpillar larvae (Tables 1 and 2). To assess the impact on beneficial arthropods, the numbers of lady beetles, damsel bugs, minute pirate bugs, big-eyed bugs, spiders and lacewings were recorded, but results are not reported in tables. Raw data were analyzed using ANOVA and means separated using Least Significant Difference Test (P=0.05) using MSTAT-C. Log (X+1) transformations were used, as needed, with back-transformed means presented in tables. Pre-treatment numbers of beet armyworm (BAW) and alfalfa caterpillar (AC) were similar (P=0.05) among treatments (Table 1). Posttreatment means for BAW were significantly lower in all treated plots, compared to untreated plots 2, 8, and 15 DAT. There were on significant differenced among the insecticide treatment means for BAW 2-DAT. XDE

13 120 SC treatments, Novaluron 0.83EC, Lorsban 4E, BAS I, and Steward all had BAW means that were significantly lower than the mean for Warrior 8-DAT. The two highest rates of XDE SC had BAW means that were significantly lower than Lannate LV and BAS I 15-DAT. Post-treatment mean (PTM) total worm counts for BAW were lowest in the XDE fluid treated plots, with an average of 0.83 worms per plot which was significantly lower than the means for Warrior (3.92) and Lannate LV (5.0), but only Lannate LV had a BAW mean that was not significantly lower than the untreated plots (8.0). Post-treatment means for AC were significantly (P = 0.05) lower in all treated plots, compared to untreated plots 2, 8, and 15 DAT and for the PTM (Table 2). Steward (0.00) had a AC mean that was significantly lower than Intrepid 8.0 fluid (2.99), Warrior (2.79), and XDE fluid ounces per acre (2.55), 2-DAT. Intrepid 8.0 fluid, XDE and 7.0 fluid, Lorsban 4E, BAS I, and Steward all had AC means that were significantly lower than the mean for Warrior 8- DAT. Intrepid 6.0 fluid, XDE and 7.0 fluid ounces per acre, and Novaluron 0.83EC each had AC means that were significantly lower than Warrior and BAS I 15-DAT. The PTM total for AC were lowest in the XDE fluid treated plots, with an average of 0.17 worms per plot which was significantly lower than the means for Warrior (4.0) and BAS I (2.67), but all insecticide treatments had a AC mean lower than the untreated plots (15.5). Pre-treatment numbers and post-treatment numbers for all predaceous bugs and spiders in all insecticide treatments were not significantly (P = 0.05) different from the untreated control plots (Tables 3-8). In conclusion, all treatments were effective against lepidopteran pests, although Warrior was significantly less effective than some insecticide treatment. None of the insecticide treatments adversely affected beneficial arthropods. Photo courtesy of National Alfalfa Alliance 13

14 Table 1. Means w of Beet Armyworms per Ten Sweeps in Alfalfa, Holtville, CA, Treatment oz/acre PT x 2 DAT y 8 DAT 15 DAT PTM z Check a 6.25 a a 8.00 a Success b 1.50 bc 3.50 bc 1.67 cd Intrepid 2SC b 0.75 bc 5.50 bc 2.33 bcd Intrepid 2SC b 1.25 bc 9.50 abc 3.75 bcd XDE SC b 0.25 c 4.25 bc 1.50 cd XDE SC b 0.00 c 2.25 c 0.83 d XDE SC b 0.25 c 2.25 c 0.92 cd Novaluron 0.83EC b 0.25 c 6.00 c 2.25 bcd Warrior b 2.25 b 9.50 abc 3.92 bc Lorsban 4E b 0.50 c 8.50 abc 3.00 bcd Lannate LV b 0.75 bc a 5.00 ab BAS I b 0.00 c ab 3.67 bcd Steward b 0.50 c 5.25 bc 2.00 bcd NS P= LSD=1.24 P= 0.05 LSD=1.62 P= 0.05 LSD=7.36 P= 0.1 LSD=3.01 P= 0.05 w Mean followed by the same letter within columns are not significantly different. y Pretreatment mean x Days after treatment. z Post treatment mean. 14

15 Table 2. Means v of Alfalfa Caterpillar per Ten Sweeps in Alfalfa, Holtville, CA, Treatment oz/acre PT w 2 DAT xy 8 DAT y 15 DAT PTM z Check a a a a Success bcd 2.21 bc 3.50 bc 2.33 bcd Intrepid 2SC bcd 1.97 bc 1.00 c 1.08 cde Intrepid 2SC b 1.79 c 2.75 bc 2.17 bcde XDE SC cd 1.19 c 0.00 c 0.17 e XDE SC bc 1.86 bc 2.25 bc 2.08 bcde XDE SC cd 1.32 c 0.50 c 0.42 de Novaluron 0.83EC bcd 2.59 bc 0.50 c 1.08 cde Warrior bc 4.36 b 6.00 b 4.00 b Lorsban 4E cd 1.68 c 3.00 bc 1.42 cde Lannate LV bcd 2.00 bc 3.25 bc 1.67 cde BAS I bcd 1.32 c 5.50 b 2.67 bc Steward d 1.59 c 1.75 bc 0.92 cde NS P= 0.06 LSD=2.34 P= 0.05 LSD=2.36 P= 0.05 LSD=4.47 P= 0.05 LSD=2.15 P= 0.05 v Mean followed by the same letter within columns are not significantly different. w Pretreatment mean x Days after treatment. y Log transformed data used for analysis, back transformed means reported. z Post treatment mean. 15

16 Information from Alfalfa Seed Production Symposia is Now Available On-Line Shannon C. Mueller, Agronomy Farm Advisor, UCCE, Fresno County The 17 th biennial California Alfalfa Symposium was held in the Imperial Valley on March 6 th. A wealth of information was presented by seed industry representatives, USDA-NRCS, University of California, University of Arizona, and chemical companies. For those who were unable to attend the meeting, the information is now available on the web at In addition to the information presented this year, growers, PCAs, and other interested individuals can search through articles published in any of the proceedings from the last 16 symposia. Jerry Schmierer, farm advisor in Colusa County, has created a searchable database for alfalfa seed information. It is quick and easy to use. Begin by typing the web address shown above into your internet browser. Once the Alfalfa Seed home page is accessed, click on the link that says Symposium Proceedings. It is located in a column on the left side of the page. A window will open that allows you to search for information based upon key words in the title, a list of topics, or the year the information was presented. Enter the key word or select a topic or year from the drop down menus, and a list of titles will appear. articles on the subject will appear in the subsequent window. The first contains summaries from growers who used leafcutter bees for pollination in the early 1990s. The second two articles discuss research on management practices involving leafcutter bees in the Central San Joaquin Valley. If instead you select the topic Honey Bees and Pollination from the Topic search box, you will see 40 titles from articles on bees and pollination, including the three on leafcutter bees. Once you locate the article(s) you are interested in, click on the title and it will open it up on your computer. Copies of the articles can then be saved to your computer or printed directly from the screen. The web site also contains other seed production information as well as some photographs and links to other resources. If you have suggestions for improving this site, please contact us and we will try to accommodate your request. For example, if you visit the site and type leafcutter in the title key words box, three 16

17 Position: Vegetable Crops Advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension Location: Imperial County Education: Master s in horticulture or related field Experience: practical experience in vegetable crops Benefits: paid vacations, sick leave, health, dental, vision, sabbatical leaves Salary: See information below Application deadline: April 23, 2007 To request a UC-ANR Academic Application packet, contact us by either: ccsracadrecruitment@ucdavis.edu or Phone (951) For further questions on the Vegetable Crops position details, contact: Eric Natwick, County Director (etnatwick@ucdavis.edu) or Juan Guerrero, Search Committee Chair (jguerrero@ucdavis.edu) For questions on the Application Process, contact: Debora Felix or Cheryl Gneckow (ccsracadrecruitment@ucdavis.edu) PLEASE REFER TO POSITION #ACCSO IN ANY CORRESPONDENCE Salary: Beginning salary will be in the Cooperative Extension Assistant Advisor rank, commensurate with applicable experience and professional qualifications. For information regarding Cooperative Extension Advisor salary scales, please refer to the University of California website: 17

18 CIMIS REPORT Khaled Bali and Steve Burch* California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) is a statewide network operated by California Department of Water Resources. Estimates of the daily reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) for the period of March 1 to May 31 for three locations in the Imperial County are presented in Table 1. ET of a particular crop can be estimated by multiplying ET o by crop coefficients. For more information about ET and crop coefficients, contact the UC Imperial County Cooperative Extension Office ( ) or the IID, Irrigation Management Unit ( ). Please feel free to call us if you need additional weather information, or check the latest weather data on the worldwide web (visit and click on the CIMIS link). Table 1.Estimates of daily Evapotranspiration (ET o ) in inches per day Station April May June Calipatria El Centro (Seeley) Holtville (Meloland) * Irrigation Management Unit- Imperial Irrigation District 18