California Ag Network

Category: Pest/Disease Management

  • Do Ladybugs Help Your Garden Grow? Depends On Surroundings

    When cabbage looper moth larvae infest a field, sustainable growers will often try to control the pests by releasing large numbers of predators, such as ladybugs. That way they can avoid spraying expensive and environmentally harmful insecticides.

    Still, farmers have mixed results when they supplement their fields with beetles or other predators.

    Cornell impacting New York State

    A new study of cabbage crops in New York – a state industry worth close to $60 million in 2017, according to the USDA – reports for the first time that the effectiveness of releasing natural enemies to combat pests depends on the landscape surrounding the field.

    “The landscape context can inform how to better use this strategy in field conditions,” said Ricardo Perez-Alvarez, the paper’s first author and a graduate student in the lab of co-author Katja Poveda, associate professor of entomology. Brian Nault, an entomology professor at Cornell AgriTech, is also a co-author.

    The paper, “Effectiveness of Augmentative Biological Control Depends on Landscape Context,” was published June 17 in the journal Nature Scientific Reports. It showed that releasing pest predators led to fewer pests, less plant damage and increased crop biomass on farms surrounded by more forest and natural areas and less agricultural land. But on farms predominantly surrounded by other farms, the reverse was true, with more pests and plant damage and reduced crop biomass in spite of added predators.

    The reasons behind this phenomenon are complex, and depend on interactions between local predators and those that are added, which can vary on a case-by-case basis. The predators in primarily agricultural landscapes may be less diverse and may then attack the same pests, increasing the potential for competition and negative interactions. Predators also have fewer microhabitats (small-scale physical requirements of an organism or a community of organisms), which can intensify the competition for space and diet.

    Simple agricultural landscapes can also increase the likelihood that one predator species will prey on another predator species. For example, smaller predators become vulnerable to larger predators, which then affects the collective effect of multiple predators on pest control.

    “Landscape composition influences how predator species interact with one another and thereby mediates the potential consequences for biological pest control,” Perez-Alvarez said.

    A spined soldier bug nymph and a cabbage looper larvae on a cabbage plant.

    The study focused on cabbage crops and three cabbage pests (the larvae of the cabbage white butterfly, the diamondback moth and the cabbage looper moth), and their natural enemies. In central New York, there are 156 native predator species and seven parasitoid wasps that prey on these pests. Among these, two generalist predators are commonly used to augment fields with additional pest enemies: the spined soldier bug and the convergent ladybird beetle. These two generally complement each other well because soldier bugs feed on larvae and ladybugs feed on eggs.

    In the study, the researchers set up experimental plots on 11 cabbage farms in central New York, which together represented a range of surrounding landscapes from agricultural lands to natural areas.

    Each farm had two cabbage plots: one that was left alone so it was exposed to the naturally occurring predators, and another where soldier bugs and ladybugs were added. The researchers then collected a wide range of data that included surveys of pest and predator abundances, plant damage and final crop yields. They also conducted lab experiments to better understand the relationships between predators and how those interactions impact pest control.

    Given how complex these predator-predator and predator-pest interactions and their relationships to pest control can be, more study is needed to make specific recommendation to growers. Still, the paper is a first step toward understanding how landscapes influence the effects of augmenting farms with predators for pest control.

    The study was funded by National Institute of Food and Agriculture at the United States Department of Agriculture.

    By Krishna Ramanujan

  • Could CA Farmers Lose CalEPA & Science-Based Pesticide Regulation?

    Anti-pesticide sentiment has never been more prevalent, as California courts and anti-agricultural organizations frighten the public with non-science based claims of the harmful effects of crop protection materials such as glyphosate.  What farmers need to understand though now, is that much more than glyphosate is currently at stake.  The legislature is now being pressured to change the whole pesticide regulatory system as we know it.  Watch this brief interview with Michael Miiller, Director of Government Relations with the California Association of Winegrape Growers to learn more.

  • EPA Registers Long-Term Use of Sulfoxaflor While Ensuring Pollinator Protection

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a long-term approval for the insecticide sulfoxaflor— an effective tool to control challenging pests with fewer environmental impacts. After conducting an extensive risk analysis, including the review of one of the agency’s largest datasets on the effects of a pesticide on bees, EPA is approving the use of sulfoxaflor on alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains (millet, oats), pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, tree plantations, citrus, cotton, cucurbits (squash, cucumbers, watermelons, some gourds), soybeans, and strawberries.

    “EPA is providing long-term certainty for U.S. growers to use an important tool to protect crops and avoid potentially significant economic losses, while maintaining strong protection for pollinators,” said Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Today’s decision shows the agency’s commitment to making decisions that are based on a sound science.”

    “Today’s action ensures reduced risk to pollinators and the environment through crop-specific label restrictions and provides farmers with a critical pest-management tool needed to protect crops from invasive sugarcane aphids, plant bugs and other pests,” said Jim Gulliford, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 7. “Here in Region 7, the registration of sulfoxaflor will help prevent significant hardship for producers of sorghum, corn, cotton and other commodities attacked by devastating insects.”

    Sulfoxaflor is an important and highly effective tool for growers that targets difficult pests such as sugarcane aphids and tarnished plant bugs, also known as lygus. These pests can damage crops and cause significant economic loss. Additionally, there are few viable alternatives for sulfoxaflor for these pests. In many cases, alternative insecticides may be effective only if applied repeatedly or in a tank mix, whereas sulfoxaflor often requires fewer applications, resulting in less risk to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

    EPA’s registration also includes updated requirements for product labels, which will include crop-specific restrictions and pollinator protection language.

    Background

    Sulfoxaflor is an important and highly effective tool for growers that targets difficult pests such as aphids and tarnished plant bugs (lygus). These pests can cause significant economic loss leading several states to request emergency exemptions in recent years. There are few viable alternatives for sulfoxaflor. In many cases, alternative insecticides may be effective only if applied repeatedly, whereas sulfoxaflor typically requires fewer applications resulting in less risk to non-target pests and plants.

    In 2016, following a 2015 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the registration of sulfoxaflor citing inadequate data on the effects on bees, EPA reevaluated the data and approved registration that did not include crops that attract bees. The 2016 registration allowed fewer uses than the initial registration and included additional interim restrictions on application while new data on bees were being obtained. Today’s action, adding new uses, restoring previous uses, and removing certain application restrictions is backed by substantial data supporting the use of sulfoxaflor.

  • Five Shades of Gray Mold Control in Strawberry: Evaluating Chemical, Organic Oil, Botanical, Bacterial, and Fungal Active Ingredients

    Botrytis fruit rot or gray mold, caused by Botrytis cinerea, is common fruit disease in California strawberries. Botrytis cinerea has a wide host range infecting several commercially important crops including blueberry, grapes and tomato.  Fungal infection can cause flower or fruit rot.  Fruit can be infected directly or through a latent infection in the flowers.  Moist and cool conditions favor fungal infections and increased sugar content in the ripening fruit can also contribute to the disease development.  Initial symptoms of infection appear as brown lesions and a thick mat of gray conidia is characteristic symptom in the later stages of infection.  As chemical fungicides are primarily used for gray mold control, fungicide resistance is a common problem around the world. In strawberry, cultural control options such as removing diseased plant material or using cultivars with traits that can reduce gray mold infections may not be practical when the disease is widespread in the field or cultivar choice is made based on other factors.  Non-chemical control options are necessary to help reduce the risk of chemical fungicide resistance, prolong the life of available chemical fungicides, achieve desired disease control, and to maintain environmental health.  Although there are several botanical and microbial fungicides available for gray mold control, limited information is available on their efficacy in California strawberries.  A study was conducted in the spring of 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of several chemical, botanical, and microbial fungicides in certain combinations and rotations to help identify effective options for an integrated disease management strategy.

    Methodology

    Strawberry cultivar San Andreas was planted late November, 2018 and the study was conducted in April and May, 2019.  Each treatment had a 20′ long strawberry plot with two rows of plants replicated in a randomized complete block design.  Plots were maintained without any fungicidal applications until the study was initiated.  Table 1 contains the list of treatments, application rates and dates of application, and Table 2 contains the type of fungicide used and their mode of action.  Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae s.l. are California isolates of entomopathogenic fungi, isolated from an insect and a soil sample, respectively.  These fungi are pathogenic to a variety of arthropods and some strains are formulated as biopesticides for arthropod control.  However, earlier studies in California demonstrated that these fungi are also known to antagonize plant pathogens such as Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. vasinfectum Race 4 (Dara et al., 2016) and Macrophomina phaseolina (Dara et al., 2018) and reduce the disease severity.  To further evaluate their efficacy against B. cinerea, these two fungi were also included in this study alternating with two chemical fungicides.

    Table 1

    Table 2

    Treatments were applied with a CO2-pressurized backpack sprayer using 66.5 gpa spray volume.  Five days before the first spray application and 3 days after each application, all ripe fruit were harvested from each plot and incubated at the room temperature in vented plastic containers.  The level of gray mold on fruit from each plot was rated using a 0 to 4 scale (where 0=no disease, 1=1-25% fruit with fungal infection, 2=26-50% infection, 3=51-75%, and 4=76-100%) 3 and 5 days after each harvest (DAH).  Due to the rains, fruit could not be harvested after the 3rd spray application for disease rating, but was harvested and discarded after the rains to avoid cross infection for the following week’s harvest.  Data were analyzed using analysis of variance using Statistix software and significant means were separated using Least Significant Difference separation test.

    Results

    Gray mold occurred at low to moderate levels during the study period.  Along with B. cinerea, there were a few instances of minor fungal infections from Rhizopus spp. (Rhizopus fruit rot) and Mucor spp. (Mucor fruit rot).  Pre-treatment disease ratings were statistically not significant (P = 0.6197 and 0.5741) 3 and 5 DAH.  While the chemical standard treatment with the rotation of Captan, Merivon, Switch, and Pristine (treatment 2) appeared to result in the lowest disease rating throughout the observation period, treatments 3 and 5 after the 1st spray application, treatments 5 and 11 along with 3, 4 and 6 after the 2nd spray application, and treatments 3 and 5 along with 11 after the 4thspray application also had similar disease control at 3 DAH.  When disease at 5 DAH was compared, the lowest rating was seen in treatment 2 after the 1st and 2nd spray applications, and treatments 2, 3, and 11 after the 4th application.  Several other treatments also provided statistically similar control during these days.

    fruit diseases prior

    fruit disease after spray

    fruit disease after spray 2

    fruit disease after IV spray
    When the average disease rating for the three post-treatment observation events was considered, treatment 2, 3, 5, and 11 had the lowest disease at both 3 and 5 DAH. Treatments 4 and 12 at 3 DAH also had a statistically similar level of disease control to treatment 2.
    average fruit disease after 3 sprays
    In general, most of the treatments provided moderate to high control compared to the disease in untreated control when the post-treatment averages were considered. Only treatment 7 and 13 had lower control at 3 DAH.

    post treatment disease

     

    Discussion

    This study compared a variety of registered and developmental products along with two entomopathogenic fungi in managing B. cinerea.  Considering the fungicide resistance problem in B. cinerea in multiple crops, having multiple non-chemical control options is very important to achieve desirable control with integrated disease management strategies.  Since the active ingredients in the botanical and bacterial fungicides used in this study are not public, discuss will be limited on their modes of action and efficacy at this point.  Similarly, the active ingredient of WXF-17001 is also not known, however, an earlier study by Calvo-Garrido et al. (2014) demonstrated that a fatty acid-based natural product reduced B. cinerea conidial germination by 54% and disease severity in grapes by 96% compared to untreated control.  The product used by Calvo-Garrido et al. (2014) is thought to be fungistatic and reduce the postharvest respiratory activity and ethylene production in fruits.

    While chemical fungicides have a specific mode of action, biological and other products act in multiple manners either directly antagonizing the plant pathogen or by triggering the plant defenses.  For example, amending the potting medium with biochar resulted in induced systemic resistance in tomato and reduced B. cinerea severity by 50% (Mehari et al., 2015).  Luna et al. (2016) also showed that application of β-aminobutyric acid and jasmonic acid promoted seed germination and long-term resistance to B. cinerea in tomato.  Burkholderia phytofirmans, beneficial endophytic bacterium, offered protection against B. cinerea in grapes by mobilizing carbon resources (callose deposition), triggering plant immune system (hydrogen peroxide production and priming of defense genese), and through antifungal activity (Miotto-Vilanova et al. 2016).  Similarly, entomopathogenic fungi such as B. bassiana are also known to induce systemic resistance against plant pathogens (Griffin et al. 2006).  Compared to other options evaluated in the study, entomopathogenic fungi have an advantage of controlling both arthropod pests and diseases, while also having plant growth promoting effect (Dara et al. 2017).

    Rotating fungicides with different mode of actions reduces the risk of resistance development and using some combinations will also maintain control efficacy.  This study provided the efficacy of multiple control options and their combinations and rotations for B. cinerea.  This is also the first study demonstrating the efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi against B. cinerea in strawberry.

    By Surendra K. Dara

  • The Difference Between Fungicide Resistance & Sprayer Coverage/Calibration Issues

    Fungicide Resistance is a real issue in the grape industry in regards to powdery mildew control.  Growers need to take this seriously and be able to recognize signs of it in their vineyards; however, sometimes what may appear to be a resistance problem may actually be an issue of poor sprayer calibration/coverage.  Watch this brief video with Research Plant Pathologist with the USDA Walt Mahaffee as he explains and read more about it in American Vineyard Magazine.  Don’t currently receive the magazine?  Subscribe for free at: https://malcolmmedia.com/american-vineyard-subscriptions/

  • Increase of Early Almond Varieties Demands Evolution in the Industry

    One of the main concerns with recent almond acreage trends is in the exponential growth of earlier harvesting varieties and how the how that will impact early stockpiling at hulling and processing facilities.  Growers obviously want to harvest their crops as soon as possible, but Navel Orangeworm damage doesn’t stop as soon as the nuts leave the orchard.  Watch this brief video with Martin Pohl from Hughson Nut as he explains the situation and need for the almond industry to evolve with the trends.  Read more about it in Pacific Nut Producer Magazine.

  • Disrupting One Gene Could Be First Step Toward Treating Honey Bee Parasite Nosema Ceranae

    BELTSVILLE, MARYLAND, June 20, 2019—Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists have taken the first step towards a weapon against the major honey bee parasite Nosema ceranae.

    There is currently no treatment for this parasite.

    The scientists found that feeding honey bees a small amount of an interfering RNA compound (RNAi) could disrupt the reproduction of N. cerana by as much as 90 percent in the laboratory study, according to a study recently published in Insect Molecular Biology.

    This RNAi compound targets a single N. ceranae gene called Dicer, explained Jay Evans, research leader of the ARS Bee Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, who headed the study.

    “Dicer is a critical part of Nosema ceranae’s machinery for defeating honey bees’ immune responses to infestation by these parasites. It also encodes an essential protein in N. ceranae’s reproduction. So, it could be a double-barreled, practical route for attacking N. ceranae. Even better, RNAi against Dicer is specific to the parasite and will not interfere with the health of the honey bees,” Evans said.

    In earlier studies, the lab had looked at attacking N. ceranea genes that encodes for proteins that make N. ceranae a better parasite such as a polar tube protein that is important in the invasion of bee cells by the parasite.

    “But by striking at a single gene that affects N. ceranae reproduction and the ability of this parasite to counter honey bee immunity, I think we may have found an even better—an excellent avenue of attack,” Evans added.

    But this is just the first step toward a possible treatment. The researchers need to prove the concept in the field and beekeepers’ apiaries.

    Nosema ceranae is widespread problem of honey bees, although the impacts on colony health remain unclear. The best measure of the damage of Nosema comes from Europe where this parasite has been linked to long-term colony declines in Spain.

    A chemical treatment had been available, but it was taken off the market due to production challenges.

    The Agricultural Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s chief scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural research results in $20 of economic impact.

    By Kim Kaplan

  • Global E. coli Outbreaks

    The impact of an E. coli outbreak is far-reaching. It spreads through the entire supply chain, leaving consumers, farmers, and retailers in a bind. Losing 45% of your sales overnight is a massive loss to any industry. This is what happened in 2018 regarding the E. coli outbreaks in romaine. Struggling to boost consumer confidence to have another outbreak and lose another 20% of the market is just one example of how much an E. coli outbreak can cost an industry.

    These outbreaks don’t just happen in the United States. As food scientists are more critical of the food consumers eat, outbreaks have gained attention around the globe. Learning to prevent E. coli is the foundation food producers must now think about to avoid costly repercussions.

    It’s all history!

    Escherichia coli (E. coli) was first discovered in 1885 by German pediatrician Theodor Echerich. Since then, E.coli has become the most understood bacteria to the scientific community, because of its role in disease, and its ability to double its population every 20 minutes.

    What you should know about E.coli

    • E. coli is a facultative anaerobe (it can survive with or without oxygen).
    • E. coli survives best in temperatures of 98.6F to 120F (body temperatures), and some
      strains can move.
    • Most strains of E. coli are harmless and live inside the large intestines.
    • E. coli helps protect from harmful organisms, provides essential vitamins, and helps
      break down food.
    • One estimation is that 0.1% of your body microbiota are E. coli (~7,000,000 cells).

    E.coli 2                                          E.coli

     

    Why is E. coli Important?

    E. Coli is classified into six major groups based on virulence properties (aka how likely it is to harm humans). These groups may produce toxins. There are two methods to become ill with the toxins; ingesting the toxin itself (intoxication) or ingesting the bacteria which then produces the toxin. The most common E.coli pathogen is E. coli O:157 H:7, a strain of the group EHEC often connected to food or water contamination. E.coli 0157 is a Shiga toxin or STEC; this pathotype is the one most commonly heard about in the news in association with foodborne outbreaks. It is important to note that there are other strains such as E. coli O145 and E. coli O121:H19 which produce a Shiga toxin as well.

    Seafood Safety
    http://www.tamug.edu/seafoodsafetylab/Research/Non-potable%20Water%20Studies.html

    Major Global Outbreaks by the Numbers

    USA: From 1998 to 2007, 69% of all E. coli outbreaks traced back to food contamination, 18% from water, and 14% from animals or person to person. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimate about 265,000 E. coli infections happen a year, O157:H7 causing 95,400 of them.

    -2018: Romaine Lettuce and other Leafy Greens

    • 0157:H7: 235 cases; 130 Hospitalizations; 6 Deaths

    – 2018: Ground Beef

    • O26: 18 cases; 6 hospitalizations; 1 death

    – Other outbreaks: Soy Nut Butter (2017); Flour (2016); Sprouts (2016, 2014, 2012); Cookie Dough (2009); Hazelnuts (2011); Spinach (2012, 2006)

    European Union Outbreaks:

    – 2014: 5900 cases (1663 Germany, 1324 UK, 919 Netherlands)
    – 2015: 5929 cases (1616 Germany, 1328 UK, 858 Netherlands)
    – 2016: 6389 cases (1843 Germany, 1367 UK, 665 Netherlands)

    2010 Global Outbreaks

    SafeFoodAllianceMap

    Prevention!
    The easiest way to prevent E. coli in products is by having good manufacturing practices, heating, washing hands, and testing.

    How to Prevent E. coli

    1. Heat– At the manufacturing level, consumer level products must reach 160 degrees Fahrenheit to eliminate E. coli.This method is an effective form of prevention because E. coli can’t survive at high temperatures. Many companies use pasteurization which reduces bacterial loads if done correctly. It is essential to have validated and verified pasteurization procedures for each commodity.
    2. Testing– Testing to ensure the final product is free of E. coli is another way to gain confidence.
    3. Swabbing– Using swabs at the facility ensures proper sanitation processes and reduces cross contamination. Swabbing should be done on your equipment including your employees. Swabbing is a primary line of defense ensuring your zoning is functioning correctly, and the final product has less of a risk of contamination.
    4. Water Testing– Sampling for water is easily done and may be a requirement for your facility under the new FSMA regulations. Water testing is reported in Most Probable Number (MPN) to help you quantify your level of contamination
      if present. If you need water sample bottles, Safe Food Alliance can provide you with the sterile bottles to sample and will have results for you in 24 to 36 hours.

    Sending samples of your final product for testing-Safe Food Alliance utilizes industry-accepted methods for testing E. coli. Sending samples to one of labs gives you increased confidence that your final product may be free of E. coli. Testing is completed with fast turnaround times so you can make accurate, science-based decisions. Samples sent for testing should be well homogenized and a good representative of the lot being tested. Sample sizes vary on crop so please make sure to contact us for recommendations.

    By:  Joseph Nicholl, Safe Food Alliance

  • Managing Weeds is Key to Improving Yields & Orchard Health

    Almond Board of California — Weeds are a seemingly constant issue in the orchard. If not managed properly, they can create competition among young trees, clog micro-irrigation systems, use and generate uneven irrigation and contribute to a messy orchard floor during harvest. Good weed management, then, starts with identifying the weeds in your orchard, which requires constant, attentive monitoring.

    The University of California’s (UC) Integrated Pest Management (IPM) guidelines recommend the following actions for monitoring weeds:

    • Survey your orchard for weeds in late fall and again in late spring.
    • Monitor the orchard in a thorough fashion. Include the entire orchard as well as field margins, ditch banks and irrigation canals in your survey.
    • Examine all areas that are susceptible to weed infestation, like areas of high moisture. Collect important information such as weed species, location in the field, degree of control achieved with current program, and herbicides applied.
    • Record observations on a survey form that includes a map so the infested sites can be revisited for weed control. Pay particular attention to perennial weeds and other problem weeds and note their location on the map.
    • Record weeds found in rows and middles separately. Weeds in tree rows must be managed, but annual weeds in row middles — i.e. cover crops — may have some benefit as an orchard floor cover.

    Once you know what you’re dealing with, look to select herbicides or other control techniques based on what kinds of weeds are actually present in the orchard. The UC IPM website provides a comprehensive list of common and scientific names of weeds, along with photos and descriptions of each. You can find that list here.

    In the late spring, the most important invasive weeds to look out for are perennial weeds. These weeds can be a pervasive problem for almond growers, so weed management practices should be geared toward preventing their growth in the rows or row middles of the orchard. Common perennial weeds you’ll see are Bermudagrass, Johnsongrass, Dallisgrass, Nutsedges and White Clovers. Also, tufted perennial grasses such as threespike goosegrass are especially problematic during the beginning years of tree nut establishment due to their ability to reduce three growth by competing for water, nutrients and sunlight. Once the almond trees reach their fourth leaf, established plants can reduce harvest efficiency by making it more difficult to recover nuts from the orchard floor at harvest. The UC IPM website provides a late-spring weed survey form to help you identify these pests as June approaches.

    Once weeds are properly identified and the correct herbicides are applied, it’s vital to control herbicide resistance by using a variety of weed-control strategies. Failure to do so can result in the rapid loss of an herbicide’s effectiveness — and there are very few new herbicide technologies in the pipeline.

    Detecting resistance is the second step in preventing resistance. Patterns of herbicide resistance include patches of dense weeds with less dense populations radiating out from the central patch and weeds that have escaped control, scattered throughout the field.

    To combat resistance and reduce weed seed spreading, the UC IPM recommends the follow steps:

    • Rotate herbicides that have different modes of action and Weed Science Society of America (WSSA) group numbers.
      • Drew Wolter, UCCE Junior Specialist Horticulture Intern under Brad Hanson recently published an article on herbicide performance that helps demonstrate the importance of rotating applications.
    • Monitor for weed survival after an herbicide application.
    • Include non-chemical weed control methods such as cultivation or hand weeding.
    • Clean equipment after working in weed-contaminated orchards to prevent the spread of weed seeds.
    • Control weeds suspected of herbicide resistance before they can produce seed.
    • If weeds escape treatment, use shovels, hoes, and other hand tools to cut the plants below the soil surface to prevent flowering.
    • Use a pre-emergent herbicide before weeds appear. When the weeds emerge in fall and spring, consider splitting applications to meet the multiple emergence windows.

    Weed management is vital to a successful growing season and — with the right steps — can improve the yield and growth of established trees.

    For more resources regarding weed management, please visit the follow links on the UC IPM website:

  • Kevin Ball Joins Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Committee

    The Citrus Pest & Disease Prevention Committee (CPDPC) announces the addition of Kevin Ball as the new grower representative for the coastal district position. Kevin Ball will advise the committee on the latest citrus grower activities occurring in the coastal area.

    The CPDPC advises the Secretary and the agricultural industry about efforts to combat serious pests and diseases, like the Asian citrus psyllid and Huanglongbing, that threaten the state’s citrus crop.

    Ball brings decades of experience in the agricultural industry, most recently as vice president of orchard operations at Agland Services for the past 15 years. At the company he supervises the daily operations of 20 ranches in the Camarillo, Somis, Moorpark and Ventura areas while consulting on ranches throughout Ventura and Southern Santa Barbara counties.

    As a former executive committee board member at the California Avocado Society, Ball is also well versed in organizing, planning and implementing grower outreach programs and managing budgets for seminars, research and grower outreach. Beginning his career as a grower, Ball is experienced in the field, running irrigations, spraying weeds, maintaining equipment and more.

    Coastal area citrus growers may contact Kevin Ball with concerns/inquiries:

    Kevin Ball
    Vice President of Orchard Operations, Partner, Agland Services
    kevin.ball@aglandca.com