We recently compiled the surveys from our annual Lettuce Insect Losses Workshop and results continue to show interesting trends in insecticide usage on desert lettuce. In general, the most used insecticides in fall and spring lettuce correspond directly to the key pests that typically occur during these growing periods.  Overall, the pyrethroids applied both as foliar sprays and through chemigation at stand establishment were the most used insecticide class in conventional lettuce production.  No surprise there. Over the past 20 years, pyrethroid usage has remained steady and the reason is quite clear; pyrethroids are the most inexpensive and safe broad-spectrum insecticides available for effective control of beetles, crickets, plant bugs, and some Lepidopterous larvae and adults (cabbage looper and corn earworm).  The overall use of OPs and carbamates decreased this season. Methomyl (Lannate) and acephate usage declined by more than 20% compared to 2023 and was lower this year than the previous 5 years. In the past few years, OPs/carbamates have been increasingly replaced by several reduced-risk chemistries, of which the spinosyns are the most used class of selective insecticides. Radiant usage against both lepidopterous larvae and thrips has remained steady over the past 20 years, averaging about 2.5 sprays per treated acre, and remained high in 2023-24.  The Diamides (Coragen, Besiege, Minecto Pro, Exirel, Verimark, and Harvanta) were another commonly used selective chemistry in lettuce this season. Since they were first registered in 2008, PCAs have steadily incorporated this new chemical class into their management programs and were used on > 80% of the fall lettuce over the past 4 seasons. Among the diamides, Besiege, Harvanta, and Minecto Pro were the most used products. Another important class of chemistry used in fall and spring lettuce are the neonicotinoids (the 3^rd most used chemistry in lettuce in 2022-23) driven primarily by soil-applied imidacloprid for whiteflies and aphids. The usage of imidacloprid on both fall and spring lettuce decreased in 2023*24, treated on ~70% of the acreage. Foliar neonicotinoid usage decreased last season on both fall and spring acres. However, Movento was applied on almost 90% of spring acres in 2024 and was the most used product for sucking insect control due to heavy aphid pressure that occurred this season. Sequoia, Sivanto, Beleaf and Versys accounted for significant usage this spring, again due to aphids.  Torac usage was down last spring for thrips management and was used on less than 2% of the acreage. In organic lettuce, Entrust was the most commonly applied biopesticide. Like Radiant, it was applied more than two times on >95% of the fall and spring acres. Bts, Pyganic and azadirachtin/neem oil products were the next most used biopesticides on organic crops. Finally, among all insecticide chemistries, the broad spectrum, consumer–friendly pyrethroids have been the predominant chemistry applied to lettuce. However, for the past 12 seasons PCAs treated a greater percentage of their lettuce acreage with selective, reduced-risk products than with the broad-spectrum chemistries. To view the report of the estimated insecticide usage by chemical class, as well as the most used insecticides on fall and spring lettuce this past growing season, go to this link:   Insecticide Usage on Conventional and Organic Lettuce in the Desert, 2023-2024

It has been consistently recognized for several decades that over 90% of the leafy green vegetables consumed in the United States (US) and Canada from November through March each year are grown in the lower Colorado River Valleys, primary in the Yuma area valleys and the Imperial Valley (Renick, 2013 and Satran, 2017).  
 
In some recent articles published in the Agronomy Journal, Dr. Ashley McCarthy and her colleagues at the University of Vermont have evaluated the differences between nutritional recommendations in the US versus actual consumption.  They also studied vegetable crop production capacities in the US and total cropland requirements to meet vegetable crop production needs if everyone in the US consumed the recommended amounts of vegetables for good nutrition (McCarthy et al., 2022 and McCarthy et al., 2023).
 
In this project, McCarthy and her colleagues conducted a set of “thought” experiments.  To address their first question regarding our current capacity in the US to support Americans with diets complete with the daily recommended fruits and vegetables, they found that current domestic production would only provide 29% of the fruit and 53% of vegetable crops to meet that need.
 
They next examined climate, soils, topography, and other biophysical aspects of the land in the US.  From this they determined that the US has an abundance of land suitable for fruit and vegetable crop production, more than 741K acres (300M ha) among the contiguous U.S. states.  However, they do point out that less than half of the land they identified is currently used for crop production.  
 
They determined that of all the land in the US that could potentially go into fruit and vegetable crop production, 47% is currently in agriculture and 53% is not.  Many agronomists and soil scientists in the US would offer significant doubt about the realistic possibility of having that much land available for crop production, not to mention the difficulty of converting that land into agricultural production. 
 
The next question in their series of thought experiments was to evaluate the capacity in the U.S. to produce sufficient fruits and vegetables to make the nation self-reliant and not depend on imported fruits and vegetables.  From their analysis, McCarthy and her colleagues determined that U.S. could indeed become self-sustaining for fruit and vegetable crop production, even if all Americans consumed the daily recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables.
 
The results from the work of McCarthy and her colleagues are interesting but they are not without some significant points of concern or weaknesses in their argument.  For example, they recognize that to realize the projected capacities for fruit and vegetable crop production in the U.S. would require more than a doubling of the current land currently devoted to these crops.  Currently, approximately 11.6M acres (4.7M ha), or 3% of the U.S. cropland is devoted to fruit and vegetable crops.  To meet the objectives of these experiments, the U.S. would have to increase cropland devoted to fruit and vegetable production to 30M acres (12.2M ha).  
 
I am rather dubious of the capacity to convert nearly 20M acres (8M ha) from current crop production systems to a fruit or vegetable crop production system in the U.S.   As we know in the fruit and vegetable production systems in the southwest U.S., there is a tremendous amount specialized equipment, infrastructure, and expertise required to develop and manage systems of this type.  In addition, the labor requirements for fruit and vegetable crops are much larger than the large acreage commodity crops that are being grown on most of the farmland in the U.S.
 
Of the numerous questions that arise from a review of the experiments and conclusions of McCarthy and her colleagues, one major point that they do also recognize is the lack of consideration of water resources necessary to support this level of fruit and vegetable production in the US.  That point is a major limitation and it is exacerbated by the changing climate that we are experiencing throughout the western U.S.
 
There are some good points that come from studies like these.  For example, should self-reliance for food production be a strategic goal in the US?  Currently, the US imports a lot of food products, including many fruits and vegetables (non-leafy green vegetables).  Domestic production provides over 90% of the leafy green vegetables consumed in the US and Canada from November through March each year are grown in the lower Colorado River Valleys, primary in the Yuma area valleys and the Imperial Valley.  This production is totally dependent on irrigation water from the Colorado River.
 
If that last question is answered affirmatively, this would have a huge impact on preserving farmlands and shifting from urban to agricultural land development.
 
This also brings up the consideration of regional food production systems in the US.  For example, Arizona and certainly the southwestern region of the US could be self-reliant for food production if necessary.  Considering the diverse mix of crops and animals grown and produced for food systems in Arizona and the region currently, this is quite feasible for crop production systems in the Southwest.  Of course, the major limiting factor in providing this level of self-reliance in the desert Southwest is water.
 
These thought experiments have value, despite the practical flaws that can be identified.  Very importantly, they are constructive in helping us recognize the tremendous present and future value of the fruit and vegetable crop production systems in the desert Southwest we currently have today.  
 
Maintaining agricultural water allocations is important to support the production systems currently in place.  It is also important to consider the food and nutritional needs of Americans today and in the future and how and where those crops will be grown to support these needs.
 
Considerations for Colorado River water allocations to agriculture for the future are extremely important.  This is true not only to protect and support the systems currently in operation, but it is also an important aspect of food security for the US in the future.
 
 
 
References:
McCarthy, A. C., Griffin, T. S., Srinivasan, S., & Peters, C. J. (2023).  Capacity for national and regional self-reliance in fruit and vegetable production in the United States. Agronomy Journal, 115, 647– 657. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21305
 
McCarthy, A. C., Srinivasan, S., Griffin, T., & Peters, C. J. (2022). A geospatial
approach to identifying biophysically suitable areas for fruit and vegetable
production in the United States. Agronomy Journal, 114, 2845–2859. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.21138
 
Renick, O. 2013.  Freezing California Lettuce Boosts Salad Costs: Chart of the Day
Bloomberg, 3 February 2013.
 
Satran, J.  2017.  This Is Where America Gets Almost All Its Winter Lettuce Who knew?  Huffingtion Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/yuma-lettuce_n_6796398

This study was conducted at the Yuma Valley Agricultural Center. The soil was a silty clay loam (7-56-37 sand-silt-clay, pH 7.2, O.M. 0.7%). Variety: Deluxe (HMX2595) was seeded, then sprinkler-irrigated to germinate seed on March 20, 2024on 84 inches between bed centers. All other water was supplied by furrow irrigation or rainfall. Treatments were replicated five times in a randomized complete block design. Each replicate plot consisted of 25 ft of bed. Treatment beds were separated by single nontreated beds. Treatments were applied with a tractor-mounted boom sprayer that delivered 50 gal/acre at 100 psi to flat-fan nozzles spaced 12 in apart. 

Spray treatments were done on 05-21-2024, 05-31-2024, 06-07-2024 and 06-14-24. Powdery mildew was first seen on 06-05-24. Please see excel file for additional details.  

Disease severity of powdery mildew (caused by Sphaerotheca fuliginea and S. fusca) severity was determined 6-17-2024 by rating 10 plants within each of the four replicate plots per treatment using the following rating system: 0 = no powdery mildew present; 1 = one to two mildew colonies on leaves  ;2 = powdery mildew present on one quarter of leaves; 3 = powdery mildew present on half of the leaves; 4 = powdery mildew present on more than half of leaf surface area ; 5 = powdery mildew present on entire leaf. These ratings were transformed to percentage of leaves infected values before being statistically analyzed.

The data in the table illustrate the degree of disease control obtained by application of the various treatments in this trial. Most treatments significantly reduced the final severity of powdery mildew compared to nontreated plants. Quintec, Merivon, Tesaris, Luna Sensation, and V6M-5-14 V gave the best disease control. Phytotoxicity symptoms were not noted for any treatments in this trial.

ANR Webinar 10/17 click link for details.

A couple years ago, we conducted evaluations of various “new” technologies for cultivating weeds in cotton as compared to conventional methods. The new technologies included 1) a camera-guided side-shift hitch and 2) finger weeders, an in-row weeding tool (Fig. 1). Camera-guidance of the maneuverable hitch allows cultivating tools to be positioned close to the seed row. In the study, the uncultivated band was 3.5" for the camera-guided system, and 6” for the conventional cultivator.  The aim of evaluating these technologies was to determine their efficacy in controlling herbicide resistant weeds. Trials conducted over 3 years showed that use of camera-guidance improved weed control by more than 30% and finger weeders removed about 45% of the in-row weeds. Overall weed control using the two technologies together was roughly > 90% for broadleaf weeds and about 85% for all weeds species.
Studies conducted by Texas A&M over two years showed similar results (Dotray et. al, 2021).

It is logical to think that similar type results would be realized in vegetable crops such as broccoli and cauliflower, plants that also have fairly long plant stems at the seedling stage of growth. A better than 40% reduction of in-row weeds would significantly lower hand weeding requirements. If you are interested in trying these technologies in vegetable or other crops on your farm, please contact me. We still have the equipment and I’d be happy to work with you.

A presentation given on the trial results and videos of the equipment used operating can be found by clicking here or on image below.

References
Dotray, P.A., Keeling, J.W., & Russell, K.R. 2021. Precision cultivation with finger weeder systems. Project No. 20-190 Final Report. Cary, N.C: Cotton Inc.

Acknowledgements
Project partially funded and supported by Arizona Cotton Growers Association, Cotton Inc., KULT-Kress, LLC and Keithly-Williams Fabrication. We thank them for their support.

Fig. 1. Technologies for precision cultivation and in-row weeding used in
efficacy trials included a a) a camera-guided side-shift hitch attached to a
cultivator and b) in-row weeding tools (finger weeders).

Fig. 2. Click on image above to watch presentation on precision cultivation and
in-row weeding technologies.

 

 

The following is the FIRST WEED SCIENCE ARTICLE OF THIS NEWSLETTER published January 13, 2010 by our friend Barry Tickes.

The selective grass herbicides are good rescue type treatments in vegetables for grasses that have gotten through Pefar, Kerb and Balan. These include Poast (sethoxydim), Select (clethodim) and Fusilade (fluazifop) and the generics of these products. These herbicides are all slow and even slower as temperature and day length drop. If you don't like weeds, you can have the satisfaction of watching them suffer for a long time. Treated grasses should stop growing immediately and will slowly turn yellow, red and gradually disappear as the crop grows. This will likely take 2 to 3 weeks. Poast is the slowest and Select is the fastest. All of these herbicides require the addition of a crop oil concentrate except for Select Max which you can use with either a crop oil concentrate or non-ionic surfactant. Some reports indicate that ammonium sulfate will help in cold weather. If you have used one of these products and don't see adequate control within 3 or 4 weeks, please contact us and we'll look at it with you.

As Barry promised in his 2010 article he will be looking at some field trials with me today!

Area wide Insect Trapping Network   VegIPM Update, Vol. 13, No. 5, Mar 9, 2022
 
Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches can be viewed here.
 
Corn earworm:            
CEW moth counts remain low across all locations; average for this time of the season. 
 
Beet armyworm:         
Trap counts decreased in all locations, and below average for late-January.
 
Cabbage looper:          
Cabbage looper trap counts remained low in all locations; below average for early February.
 
Diamondback moth:    
Adult activity increased slightly in some locations, particularly fields where trap is adjacent to with nearby brassica seed crops. Overall, activity is below average for this time of year. 
 
Whitefly:                      
Adult movement remained low in all locations consistent with previous seasons.
 
Thrips:                          
Thrips adult movement beginning to increase slightly in most locations. Activity a about average for mid-February.
 
Aphids:                        
Aphid movement increased in many locations, particularly in Yuma Valley. Trap captures about average for this time of year.   
 
Leafminers:                  
Adult activity increased in most areas, below average for this time of season.