Spring 2014 Citrus and Avocado Meeting Presentation

AG RX Spring 2014 AvocadoCitrus Meeting
March 4,5, 2014
David Holden
Topics for Today
• Soil Amendments – When to use gypsum,
sulfur, sulfuric acid, or sulfurous acid?
• Soil Adjuvants for water saving.
• NUE – Nutrient Use Efficiency. How to get
more from less.
• Observations on the effects of the this past
winter’s lack of rain and heat.
• Young tree establishment utilizing a
phosphate plus Transit Soil Program.
Amending your Soil
• When and why to use:
– Gypsum or possibly CaTs (calcium thiosulfate)
– Sulfuric Acid water amendment
– Sulfurous Acid water amendment (Sulfur
burners)
– Soil Sulfur
– Limestone
Gypsum
• Lack of water percolation and not enough
calcium in your soil dictates the need for
gypsum
• Based on simple laboratory soil test by
adding known amounts of gypsum to your
soil and seeing how varying rates improve
water infiltration
• By the way, gypsum does not acidify your
soil, but limestone does raise the pH of soils.
No need for Gypsum
Sulfuric Acid or Sulfurous Acid
• Both of these acids treat hard water and drop
the pH of that water
• The difference is Sulfuric acid is a “strong” acid
and the Sulfurous Acid is a “weak” acid
• With Sulfuric acid you can drop your water pH
to close to zero, with sulfurous acid, depending
on the buffering capacity of the water you can
only drop the pH to about 6.0-6.5
• Also sulfurous acid is made by burning sulfur in
a sulfur burner.
Sulfur Burner on Left, Sulfuric Acid
Injection System on Right
When to use either of these Acids
• High water pH and/or potential irrigation
system or soil clogging potential from hard
waters that produce limestone when dried.
• Blueberry production
• Additional elements to consider
– Chloride
– Boron
• Sulfur burners have also been utilized to lower
pond water pH and to help control algae in the
ponds.
What A Water Candidate Might
Look Like.
• Critical
Numbers
to look at
and
Why?
Resulting Solutions
Limited help from Sulfuric Acid in
this water.
Sulfuric Acid or Sulfur Burner
• Things to consider
– Environmental Issues - Safety
– Ease of handling
– Effectiveness
– Cost
Soil Sulfur
• Why would you choose soil sulfur over the
previous options?
• Where water is good, but soil pH is slightly
elevated due to low amounts of limestone or
other alkalinity issues.
Let’s Look how Soil Sulfur Works.
• On most of our soils 300-600 lbs per acre of
pure soil sulfur will lower the pH of a foot
of soil one whole point from say 7.5 to 6.5
• Depends on soil type and buffering capacity
• If soil has much limestone, it takes a lot
more soil sulfur to “burn up” that limestone
• Let’s se how it works.
Tigersul Dispersible Sulfur
• Comes in 90% S and 65% S plus 18% Zinc
• Finished two year project on new lemon replants
in 2010
• Rates of ½ lb to 1 lb/tree applied in 2009 and 2010
to the surface of the soil and scratch in.
• Significant pH change over two years and new tree
growth response
The movement
of Sulfur into plants.
• Uptake of S
– Plants take sulfur from the soil in the sulphate form ( SO4= )
– Small quantities of S0₂ can be absorbed through the plant leaves.
– Plants require a constant supply of S during it’s growing period, and
cannot move sulfur from it’s older leaves.
– sulfur in the elemental S form has to be oxidized to sulfate for plant
uptake.
Finely
Divided
Elemental
sulfur
+
Water
+
With
Sulfuric
Bacterial
Acid
activity
H2SO4=
Oxygen
3/5/2014
Copyright 2005-2006 Tiger-Sul Products
(Canada) Co.
17
To
help
prote
ct y…
5 Key Factors for Oxidization
of Elemental Sulfur (PNES)
1. Thiobacillus concentration
(Sulfur bacterium)
•Naturally in all soils
Sulfur
Microbe
•Elemental
Sulfur food source.
Glue
•100 – 1000 bacteria per gram of soil
< 1 micron
•Higher concentrations increase oxidation
•After PNES applied 6-8 weeks in good soil
conditions, population increases to approx.
3-3.5 million per gram of soil.
•Concentration will increase year after year.
Scanning Electron Micrograph Showing Thiobacillus attached
Copyright 2005-2006 Tiger-Sul Products
To3/5/2014
Sulfur Particle
(Canada) Co.
18
Why use a product like Tigersul?
Micronutrient and phosphate availability increases as pH is decreased from
basic to a neutral pH.
Data from Citrus Tree Establishment
Trial 2009-11
• Started at tree planting
• Repeated applications for two more years.
• Similar trial repeated in 2012-13, 2013-14 on
strawberries with very similar and positive
results.
Average increase in Tree Height
Chart 2: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura
County, Summer 2010 Tree Growth
45.0%
Percent Change in Height
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Untreated
10/26/2010
17.6%
c
bc
bc
abc
Tiger 90 1 lb/tree
21.9%
Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree
26.8%
Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
29.6%
Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree
33.2%
Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree
34.0%
Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
41.2%
ab
ab
a
Average Increase in Trunk Diameter
Chart 6: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura
County, Summer 2010 Tree Growth
Trunk Diameter Percent Change
90.0%
85.0%
80.0%
75.0%
70.0%
65.0%
Untreated
10/26/2010
73.9%
Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
76.3%
Tiger 90 1 lb/tree
76.4%
Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree
77.5%
Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree
82.0%
Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree
86.5%
Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
87.1%
Soil pH change in 2010
Chart 8: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura
County, Summer 2010 - Soil pH
7.6
pH
7.4
7.2
7.0
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6.0
5.8
5.6
10/16/2009
1/20/2011
Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree
7.4
6.3
Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
7.3
6.6
Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree
7.4
6.7
Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
7.3
6.7
Tiger 90 1 lb/tree
7.3
7.0
Untreated
7.4
7.2
Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree
7.3
7.2
Soil Zinc Levels
Chart 9: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura
County, Summer 2010 - Soil Zinc Level
250.0
200.0
PPM
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
10/16/2009
1/20/2011
Untreated
36.9
17.4
Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
41.2
24.8
Tiger 90 1 lb/tree
43.8
26.3
Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree
43.0
27.0
Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
25.8
87.9
Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree
21.1
171.0
Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree
26.9
191.0
Leaf Zinc Levels
Chart 13: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment Ventura County, Summer 2010 - Leaf Zinc Level
60
50
PPM
40
30
20
10
0
10/16/2009
11/9/2010
Untreated
36
22
Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree
44
22
Tiger 90 1 lb/tree
47
26
Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree
51
25
Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
55
23
Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree
55
29
Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree
57
29
How to Apply Tigersul Products
• Pre-plant worked into soil based on soil
analysis
• Post-plant under the sprinklers, raked in
would help, but not necessary.
• Rates determined by soil analysis, higher pH
or limestone, the more needed.
When to Use Limestone
• Almost never in Coastal California
• We generally have alkaline soils (high pH) and
as you learned earlier we make limestone with
our hard waters
• We generally want to lower our soil pH and
limestone raises the soil pH.
• So When?
– Some wine makers may ask for higher pH soils
– If your soil is very acid (below pH of 6.0)
– If your are growing brassicae type crops with Club
root present in the soil)
Tests with Water Adjuvants.
• Looked at five products in vegetables and
avocados, we will discuss the three best.
– Aqua Plus
– Kalo 3051 (Water Right)
– Integrate 20
• Applied early in irrigation Cycle
• Applied monthly
How do these Adjuvants Work?
• Some increase water percolation, while
others hold water
• The ones we are looking at hold water and
allow for volumetric fill, that is lateral
movement in the soil.
• Probably more effective in vegetables, but we
saw some good results in Avocados.
Results in Avocado
80.00%
Chart 8: Water Fill Improvement over time when compared to an Untreated Check.
Avocados. Best overall average at Day 14.
70.00%
7 Day Tensiometer Readings Prior to
Treatents
60.00%
7 Day Tensiometer Readings After
Treatents
Percent Improvement
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
6"
12"
Observations
• After each application noted the following
– We were able to extend the irrigation cycles from
seven to ten days after the first application, then
nine days after this irrigation, and eight days after
the second irrigation. By the fourth irrigation we
were back to the same cycle
– In theory this should give us about 6 extra days a
month without the need for water or about 70 days
a year.
– This would equate to a savings of about .25 to .5
acre foot of water per year.
Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE)
• What is it? Getting a better bang for our buck.
• Why?
– Nitrate loss to ground water, atmosphere, and
surface water
– Cost of materials
• I have conducted at least 40 separate trials this
past two years with over 20 different products
looking at utilizing nutrients more efficiently
and reducing nitrate leaching.
2012-13 Celery Trials
• Replicated sampling (8) of celery in season
as it sized.
• SPAD sampling in same order to measure
relative chlorophyll levels in the leaves
• In season soil and petiole samples (no
significant differences noted)
• End of season (two days prior to
commercial harvest) replicated sample
harvest of 8 replicates from each treatment.
Sizing Results
Chart 1: Multi Participant Trial on Celery in Ventura County, California
2012 -2013 Season - Whole Plant Weight
3.50
Pounds per Total Plant
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
All trimmed
for market
12/17/2012
1/3/2013
2/1/2013
2/26/2013
3/27/20134/1/2013(trimmed)
Grower Standard
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.59
2.14
2.56
G.S. at 75% N
0.01
0.02
0.13
0.54
2.62
2.63
G.S. at 75% N/Ocean Organics Exp
3
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.61
2.88
2.73
G.S. at 75% N/Kelpgrow
0.01
0.03
0.13
0.55
2.86
2.84
G.S. at 75% N/Algamin XT
0.01
0.03
0.14
0.49
2.87
2.86
G.S. at 75% N/Global Organics
Program
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.53
2.81
2.78
G.S. at 75% N/Steric P-S-K Program
0.13
0.55
2.80
2.63
G.S. at 75% N/Steric S-S-K Program
0.13
0.52
2.83
2.66
Financial Return Data
Chart 4: Multi Participant Trial on Celery in Ventura County, California
2012 -2013 Season - Net Return per Acre after Harvest Costs - Pre
25000.00
Cultural Costs
20000.00
15000.00
Percent
10000.00
5000.00
0.00
18's
24's
30's
36's
48's
Total
Return/acre
Grower Standard
$8,566
$3,919
$5,102
$823
$0
$18,410
G.S. at 75% N
$3,777
$9,787
$1,166
$1,694
$0
$16,424
G.S. at 75% N/Ocean Organics Exp 3
$7,845
$9,571
$1,211
$0
$0
$18,626
G.S. at 75% N/Kelpgrow
$12,221
$8,697
$629
$0
$0
$21,547
G.S. at 75% N/Algamin XT
$13,675
$8,132
$634
$0
$0
$22,441
G.S. at 75% N/Global Organics
Program
$11,961
$7,296
$1,847
$0
$0
$21,103
G.S. at 75% N/Steric P-S-K Program
$8,790
$6,896
$2,908
$0
$0
$18,594
G.S. at 75% N/Steric S-S-K Program
$10,154
$6,388
$2,939
$0
$0
$19,482
Soil Nitrogen
• Pre-Crop
– 92 ppm NO3 nitrogen
• Post Harvest
– Grower Standard 100%N – 39 ppm
– Grower Standard 75% N – 2 ppm
– Grower Standard 75% N with additives – 9 ppm (average for
all)
• Almost 75% less nitrogen left in the soil on average in the
75% nitrogen plots with additives when compared to the
Grower Standard at 100% nitrogen. That in theory is
120 less leachable pounds of nitrate nitrogen per acre,
with 7.5% on average better production ((13751280)/1280)!
How does this Apply to Avocados
• Use the proper timing when applying nutrients
– Nitrogen prior to leaf flushes particularly in April
and late June, July
– Phosphate in the winter when soil is cold and
phosphorus availability is limited
– Potassium and zinc when roots are actively growing
and can take it in between late April and September
• Don’t waste products to leaching when plant
cannot use the nutrient efficiently.
Winter 2014 Observations
• No rains really since the fall-early winter of
2012 until this past week.
• East winds, dry, and hot in January.
• Resulting effect, particularly on the
avocados, was not good and worse with
salty water.
This is what many of you are seeing!
Or Possibly this?
So what is the difference?
Salt in the Soil
Lime Induced Chlorosis
What salts
• Generally
– Chlorides
– Bicarbonates
– Sulfates
– Nitrates
– Phosphates
So Why does the lack of leaching
rain have these effects.
A Simple Solution?
What to do next year.
• Irrometers, a shovel or soil probe, and
irrigation scheduling calculator for water to
be found at avosource.com
• Maintaining good irrigation scheduling in
the winter, when the rains are not coming is
critical to tree health.
A little side information
• How does a windbreak
affect fruit size.
• Average weight of fruit
on March 2, 2013 at xx
distance from Eucs:
–
–
–
–
20 feet – 4.8 oz
35 feet – 5.1 oz
50 feet – 5.5 oz
No windbreak
influence – 5.9 oz
Fruit Sizing on March 2, 2013
Final Subject
• New Planting Establishment Trials
• Almonds
• Avocados
Fertilizer Rates - Almonds
• UTC – No fertilizer
• Grower Standard
– 1 oz/5 gallon planter of 19-8-13 6 month slow
release in March
– 25 ppm in water of P2O5 as a soil drench once
per month, March-June.
• Transit alone
– 12 floz/acre equivalent
• Grower Standard plus Transit
Transit Soil on Almond Trees Key Improvements
•
•
•
•
•
64% increase in whole tree weight
64% increase in root growth
19% increase in SPAD chlorophyll readings
significantly improved canopy growth
overall improvement in tree establishment
From left to right the treatments were untreated control, 2-16-16 @ 50 ppm only, Transit/Carbon Boost Soil only, and Transit/Carbon
Boost Soil + 2-16-16 @ 50 ppm. Transit/Carbon Boost Soil treated almond trees were significantly greater at the 99% confidence level.
Transit Soil on Almond Trees 95 days after transplant 3
applications applied
UTC
2-16-16 @
50 ppm
Transit/Carbon
Boost Soil
Transit/Carbon
Boost Soil +
2-16-16 @ 50 ppm
Second Year Trees
Untreated
Grower Standard Program
Transit/Carbon Boost
G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost
Final Results 2012
• On Average
– Trees treated with Transit had 10-22% higher
chlorophyll readings over both years when
compared to the untreated check (this was in
absence of any extra fertilizer)
– 88% increase in whole tree weight and root weight
when Transit was added to the grower standard
fertilizer program
– The Transit treatment increased leaf mass by 71%
over the untreated check and the grower standard
program plus Transit/Carbon Boost increased leaf
mass by 30% over the grower standard alone.
Two year old Almonds
Untreated
Grower Standard Program
Transit/Carbon Boost
G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost
Almond Leaves
Untreated
Grower Standard Program
Transit/Carbon Boost
G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost
AG RX/Holden Avocado
Establishment Trials – 2010-2012
January 2012
April 2010
April 2011
Avocado Planting Details
• Planted April 15, 2009
• Trial Started Spring 2010 at one year of age
• Soil is semi limey, with a calcium carbonate
rating of .5% and a pH of 7.5 and a cec of
28.7
• Soil is low in manganese, copper, and iron
Study Details
• Random Complete Block Design
• Ten single tree replicates, completely randomized
• Three treatment regimes
– Grower standard consisting of UN 32, KTS and Zinc 9%
EDTA chelate as a foliar.
– Advanced Grower Standard of UN 32,KTS, 2-16-16 and
Iron 4.5% HEDTA chelate all in soil along with foliar
applications of Nutri-Phite 4-30-8, Acadian SEL, and
Zinc 9% EDTA
– FB Sciences based program of UN 32, KTS, PhotogreenS and 2-16-16, all with Transit/Carbon Boost in the soil.
Foliar program of 2-16-16 and Zicron F with Kafe.
Results as of March 16, 2011
• Average Vigor Rating (1-5 Scale, 5 being the best)
– Grower Standard – 3.4 b
– Advanced Grower Standard – 4.2 a
– FB Sciences Based Program – 4.5 a
• Percent of Trees rated as a 5
– Grower Standard – 10% b
– Advanced Grower Standard – 30% ab
– FB Sciences Based Program – 60% a
• Separation of the means based on DMRT at 90%
confidence
Results as of March 16, 2011
• Trees not in bloom as an indicator of tree
health
– Grower Standard – 50% a
– Advanced Grower Standard – 10% a
– FB Sciences Based Program – 0% a
• Separation of the means based on DMRT at 90%
confidence
Average Fruit Load on July 4, 2012
• Grower Standard –
2.4 b
• Advanced Grower
Standard – 2.5 b
• FBS Program – 3.3 a
Final Production 2013
• Equivalency on a per Acre Basis for Four
Year Old Trees
– Grower Standard – 9030 lbs/ac
– Advanced Grower Standard – 9450 lbs/a (5%
increase over grower standard)
– FBS Program with 2-16-16 – 10770 lbs/a (19%
increase over grower standard)
Review
•
•
•
•
•
Soil Amendments
Soil and Water Adjuvants
Nutrient Use Efficiencies
Climate 2014
Tree establishment.
Thank you
David Holden
www.holdenresearch.com
110