Those of us living in the desert should know better than anyone that water is life.  Water is certainly the lifeblood of our existence in the desert.  Despite this obvious fact, it is often difficult to comprehend the full extent of the importance of water in our daily lives.
 
A good place to start is with the recognition that 60-70% of our body weight is made up of water.  We need plenty of water just to function properly and each person needs to directly consume approximately one gallon of water per day, as a basic metabolic minimum (Mayo Clinic, 2022).  
 
Each person’s water needs will vary depending on their diet, environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity, and a person's activity level among other factors.  For example, someone hiking in the desert on a warm spring day will need to consume at least one quart of water per hour to maintain proper hydration.
 
It is commonly estimated that the average American needs about 102 gallons of water daily for personal use, which includes water to drink, bathing, cooking, toiletries, etc. (Kobir, 2024; and Philadelphia City Government, 2024).  The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that the average American needs 80-100 gallons per day for basic use and consumption, commonly referred to as indoor use (USGS, 2019).  The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) estimates that Arizonans consume an average of 146 gallons of water per day (ADWR, 2024).
 
Fruits and vegetables contain large quantities of water in proportion to their weight.  When these foods are eaten, the water can be absorbed by the body.  Accordingly, diet is an important part of a person’s direct daily water consumption (Table 1).  Nutritionists and dieticians have often been the ones alerting people to how much water our food contains.
 

Fruits				Vegetables
Item	FoodWeight(g)	WaterWeight	PercentWater	Item	FoodWeight(g)	Water Weight	Percent Water
Apple	138	116	84	Broccoli	44	40	91
Apricot	106	92	86	Cabbage(green)	35	32	93
Banana	114	85	74	Cabbage (red)	35	32	92
Blueberries	145	123	85	Carrots	72	63	87
Cantaloupe	160	144	90	Cauliflower	50	46	92
Cherries	68	55	81	Celery	40	38	95
Cranberries	95	82	87	Cucumber	52	50	96
Grapes	92	75	81	Eggplant	41	38	92
Grapefruit	123	112	91	Lettuce(iceberg)	20	19	96
Orange	140	122	87	Peas(green)	72	57	79
Peach	87	76	88	Peppers(sweet)	50	46	92
Pear	166	139	84	Potato (white)	112	88	79
Pineapple	155	135	87	Radish	45	43	95
Plum	66	56	85	Spinach	28	26	92
Raspberries	123	106	87	Zucchini	65	62	95
Strawberries	149	136	92	Tomato (red)	123	115	94
Watermelon	160	146	92	Tomato(green)	123	114	93

 
Table 1.  Water content of common fruits and vegetables.  
 
Prepared by Sandra Bastin, Foods, and Nutrition Specialist and Kirn Henken, Extension Associate for ENRI. Information taken from Bowes & Church's Food Values.  In: Water Content of Fruits and Vegetables.  University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension.  1994.
 
Considering daily indoor use and diet, a person can develop estimates on their own personal daily water consumption and water footprint.  There are numerous calculators available on-line (i.e., Water Footprint Calculator) where we can develop personalized estimates on our water footprint.
 
Each of us consumes a lot more water daily than our daily indoor or direct consumption.  It takes water to produce all our food including fruits, vegetables, meat, bread, etc.  This is true for food products that are fresh or processed.  Most of the time we are oblivious to this aspect of water consumption through our food, often referred to as “virtual water”, but it represents a huge part of our personal water footprint.
 
It is commonly estimated that the daily diet of most people in the U.S. requires 800-1,500 gallons of water to produce (Anyabwile and Walker, 2019; Wheeler, 2022; Food Print, 2024; Michel, 2023; Smith, 2012).  If this estimate is expanded to clothing, appliances, vehicles, and other items in our common daily use the average water footprint for Americans easily equals or exceeds 2,000 gallons of water per day (ASPE, 2022).
 
We can consider the annual Arizona population’s dietary consumptive use of water using a range of averages of 800; 1,000; and 1,500 gallons per day to support the food we eat (Table 2).
 
If we use an average of 1,000 gallons per day to produce the food that we eat and consider the 7.4 M Arizonans living in our state today, we can gain a good general estimate of the annual water consumption level necessary to support the population for the State of Arizona as approximately 8.3 million acre-feet (MAF). 
 

Gallons/Day	800	1,000	1,500
Arizona Annual Water Consumption by Food (MAF)	6.6	8.3	12.4

Table 2.  Arizona annual water consumption from food considering four average daily water consumption rates per person.  MAF = million acre-ft.; 325,851 gallons/acre-ft.
 
Arizona’s statewide total direct wet water use is estimated to be about 7.1 MAF (ADWR, 2019).  Considering an average of 8.3 MAF as the water requirement to produce the food to support Arizona’s population, the State is in a deficit of 3.3 MAF beyond the amount of water used by the Arizona agricultural industry, which is approximately 5 MAF (approximately 70% of the total Arizona water use).  
 
If we consider that 2,000 gallons of water are required to support every Arizonan daily, which includes non-edible items (clothing, appliances, vehicles, etc.), Arizonans are responsible for the consumption of approximately 16.6 MAF per year.
 
Then of course we must also remember that the average person is directly responsible for the use of approximately 146 gallons of water per day for direct indoor use.  That comes to a total of approximately 1.2 MAF per year for the Arizona population.  That is much less than the reality of the total water required to produce the food we eat and support us in many facets of our life.
 
The main point from this discussion is that all of us in Arizona and across the nation use a lot more water than is commonly realized.  Many of the food products we consume come from out of state, which is interesting in relation to the concerns being voiced regarding the use of Arizona water to produce agricultural products that are being transported to other states or nations.
 
We are all clearly the net beneficiaries of not only the agricultural production in this state but also from many places and other water sources beyond the boundaries of Arizona.
 
References:
 
Anyabwile, A. and S. Walker.  2019.  5 Ways to put food on a water diet.  World Resources Institute.  https://www.wri.org/insights/5-ways-put-food-water-diet
 
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR).  2019.  Water Your Facts.  Arizona Water Facts.  https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts
 
Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR).  2024.  Conservation.  https://www.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources
 
ASPE.  2022.  New research shows most Americans are unaware of their daily water consumption.  ASPE Pipeline.  https://aspe.org/pipeline/new-research-shows-most-americans-are-unaware-of-their-daily-water-consumption/#:~:text=Most%20believe%20they%20use%20less%20than%20100%20gallons,indirectly%20%28e.g.%2C%20the%20water%20required%20to%20produce%20food%29.
 
Bastin, S. and K. Henken.  1994.  Water Content of Fruits and Vegetables.  University of Kentucky Cooperative Extension.  1994.
 
Food Print.  2024.  The Water Footprint of Food.  https://foodprint.org/issues/the-water-footprint-of-food/
 
Kobir.  2024.  How many gallons of fresh water do we use per day.  https://medium.com/rocklinca/how-many-gallons-of-freshwater-do-we-use-per-day-7987edf6b1bb
 
Mayo Clinic.  2022.  Water: How much should you drink every day?  https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/water/art-20044256
 
Michel, D.  2023.  Water and Food: How, When, and Why Water Imperils Global Food Security.  Center for Strategic and International Studies.  https://www.csis.org/analysis/water-and-food-how-when-and-why-water-imperils-global-food-security
 
Philadelphia City Government.  2024.  Gallons Used Per Person Per Day.  https://water.phila.gov/pool/files/home-water-use-ig5.pdf
 
Smith, T.  2012.  World Water Day: How much water do you use in a day?  Climate Home News.  https://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/03/22/world-water-day-how-much-water-do-you-use-in-a-day/
 
United States Geological Survey (USGS).  2019.  How much water do I use at home each day? https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/water-qa-how-much-water-do-i-use-home-each-day
 
Wade, M.  2024.  Where does our water wind up?  Ag Alert, California Farm Bureau.  7 February 2024.
 
Water Footprint Food Guide and Calculator. 2024.  https://watercalculator.org/water-footprint-of-food-guide/
 
Wheeler, M.  2022.  Did You Know’ Series: How Much Water Are We Actually Using?  Virginia Water Resources Research Center, Virginia Tech University.  https://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/2022/03/31/did-you-know-series-how-much-water-are-we-actually-using/

Hi, I’m Chris, and I’m thrilled to be stepping into the role of extension associate for plant pathology through The University of Arizona Cooperative Extension in Yuma County. I recently earned my Ph.D. in plant pathology from Purdue University in Indiana where my research focused on soybean seedling disease caused by Fusarium and Pythium. There, I discovered and characterized some of the first genetic resources available for improving innate host resistance and genetic control to two major pathogens causing this disease in soybean across the Midwest.

I was originally born and raised in Phoenix, so coming back to Arizona and getting the chance to apply my education while helping the community I was shaped by is a dream come true. I have a passion for plant disease research, especially when it comes to exploring how plant-pathogen interactions and genetics can be used to develop practical, empirically based disease control strategies. Let’s face it, fungicide resistance continues to emerge, yesterday’s resistant varieties grow more vulnerable every season, and the battle against plant pathogens in our fields is ongoing. But I firmly believe that when the enemy evolves, so can we.

To that end I am proud to be establishing my research program in Yuma where I will remain dedicated to improving the agricultural community’s disease management options and tackling crop health challenges. I am based out of the Yuma Agricultural Center and will continue to run the plant health diagnostic clinic located there. 

Please drop off or send disease samples for diagnosis to:
Yuma Plant Health Clinic
6425 W 8th Street
Yuma, AZ 85364

If you are shipping samples, please remember to include the USDA APHIS permit for moving plant samples.

You can contact me at:
Email: cdetranaltes@arizona.edu
Cell: 602-689-7328
Office: 928-782-5879

Thank you all very much. I look forward to meeting you all soon.

In the preceding issue of UA Veg IPM Updates, the article below was published with an incorrect link to the video mentioned. For those interested in the video, which contains trial results and insightful videos of the technologies in action, the article has been updated with the correct link and is being reposted.


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.

Last May we conducted our “Lettuce Insect and Weed Losses Survey”.  Thank you for participating and providing real world data that shows us what are the trends in herbicide usage. Arizona does not require complete reporting for private applicators, so we appreciate you providing this difficult to acquire information. In addition to herbicide use we included in the most recent survey questions related to other methods of weed control such as automated thinning, automated weeding, cultivation hand weed control. The results reflect data obtained from PCAs in more than 54,000 acres of lettuce scouted and we believe they accurately represent what goes on in the field. Results of the weed section for the 2022-2023 season appear in the chart below. Some highlights of last season (Figure 1) are that 79% of the acres were treated with Pronamide (Kerb), 53% with Bensulide (Prefar) and 19% with Benefin (Balan). This is consistent with a previous survey conducted in 2018-2019. Regarding grass herbicides, last season shows that 24% of the acres surveyed received an application of Clethodim products and 1% of Sethoxidim. With respect to automated thinning, it is interesting that it was used in 60% of the acres representing an increase from 2018-19, which was reported on 40% of the reported acres (Tickes 2019)¹.
Additionally, we can see that automated weeding was used in 6% of the acres, which could increase in the future as the industry prepares for possible scarce labor resources. The hand weeding and cultivation continues to be a control strategy that is used in most of the acres in our area with 91 and 71% respectively.

This time of year, John would often highlight Lepidopteran pests in the field and remind us of the importance of rotating insecticide modes of action. With worm pressure present in local crops, it’s a good time to revisit resistance management practices and ensure we’re protecting the effectiveness of these tools for seasons to come. For detailed guidelines, see Insecticide Resistance Management for Beet Armyworm, Cabbage Looper, and Diamondback Moth in Desert Produce Crops .

VegIPM Update Vol. 16, Num. 20

Oct. 1, 2025

Results of pheromone and sticky trap catches below!!

Corn earworm:  CEW moth counts declined across all traps from last collection; average for this time of year.

Beet armyworm: BAW moth increased over the last two weeks; below average for this early produce season.

Cabbage looper: Cabbage looper counts increased in the last two collections; below average for mid-late September.

Diamondback moth: a few DBM moths were caught in the traps; consistent with previous years.

Whitefly:  Adult movement decreased in most locations over the last two weeks, about average for this time of year.

Thrips: Thrips adult activity increased over the last two collections, typical for late September.

Aphids: Aphid movement absent so far; anticipate activity to pick up when winds begin blowing from N-NW.

Leafminers: Adult activity increased over the last two weeks, about average for this time of year.