Major Consumption of Citrus; Post Harvest Losses

In a developing country like Pakistan, post-harvest losses of citrus fruits are in the range of 23-38% as against 5-10% in developed citrus growing countries like Brazil, USA, Australia, Spain, Italy and Israel. Primary factors of post-harvest losses in citrus are mechanical, physiological, pathological or environmental factors are directly responsible. Mechanical loss is caused by careless handling during harvesting, packing, transportation, storage etc. Some insects and birds are also responsible for the mechanical injury. A significant portion of losses during post-harvest period is attributed to diseases caused by fungi and bacteria. Besides attacking fresh fruits and vegetables, these organisms also cause damage to canned and processed products. Environmental factors, temperature, humidity, composition and proportion of gases in controlled atmospheric storage also play an important role. High temperature and relative humidity favors the growth of micro-organisms which cause extensive damage to the produce.

Read More

Where Do Insects Go in Winter?

By Debbie Hadley

An insect doesn’t have the benefit of body fat, like bears and groundhogs, to survive freezing temperatures and keep internal fluids from turning to ice. Like all ectotherms, insects need a way to cope with fluctuating temperatures in their environment. So how do insects survive the cold winter months?

Migration:

Some insects head to warmer climes, or at least better conditions, when winter weather approaches. The most famous migrating insect is the Monarch butterfly. Monarchs in the eastern U.S. and Canada fly up to 2,000 miles to spend their winter in Mexico. Many other butterflies and moths also migrate seasonally, including the gulf fritillary, the painted lady, the black cutworm, and fall armyworm. Common green darners, dragonflies that inhabit ponds and lakes as far north as Canada, migrate as well.

Communal Living:

There’s warmth in numbers for some insects. Honey bees cluster together as the temperatures drop, and use their collective body heat to keep themselves and the broodwarm. Ants and termites head below the frost line, where their large numbers and stored food keep them comfortable until spring arrives.

Torpor:

Certain insects, particularly ones that live in higher altitudes or near the Earth’s poles, use a state of torpor to survive drops in temperature. Torpor is a temporary state of suspension or sleep, during which the insect is completely immobile. The New Zealand weta, for example, is a flightless cricket that lives in high altitudes. When temperatures drop in the evening, the cricket freezes solid. As daylight warms the weta, it comes out of the torpid state and resumes activity.

Diapause:

Unlike torpor, diapause is a long-term state of suspension. Diapause synchronizes the insect’s life cycle with seasonal changes in its environment, including winter conditions. Put simply, if it’s too cold to fly and there’s nothing to eat, you might as well take a break (or pause). Insect diapause may occur in any stage of development:

Eggs – Praying mantids survive the winter as eggs, which emerge in spring.

Larvae – Woolly bear caterpillars curl up in thick layers of leaf litter for winter. In spring, they spin their cocoons.

Pupa – Black swallowtails spend winter as chrysalids, emerging as butterflies when warm weather returns.

Adults – Mourning cloak butterflies hibernate as adults for the winter, tucking themselves behind loose bark or in tree cavities.

Antifreeze:

Many insects prepare for the cold by making their own antifreeze. During the fall, insects produce glycerol, which increases in the hemolymph. Glycerol gives the insect body “supercooling” ability, allowing body fluids to drop below freezing points without causing ice damage. Glycerol also lowers the freezing point, making insects more cold-tolerant, and protects tissues and cells from damage during icy conditions in the environment. In spring, glycerol levels drop again.

Original Article Here

Scientists crack super moth's survival secret

GENETIC research has revealed why the diamondback moth is one of the world's worst agricultural pests, costing about $5 billion in crop losses and control measures each year.

An international consortium that included two Australian scientists has cracked the moth's genetic blueprint, showing how the caterpillars quickly develop resistance to insecticides.

Geoff Gurr, of Charles Sturt University, said the moth's evolutionary trick lay in its ability to detoxify the defence compounds produced by plants in the cabbage family, the same compounds that make mustard pungent and cabbage smelly.

''Remarkably, it appears that the very genetic adaptations that allow the diamondback moth to cope with these natural compounds also allow it to detoxify the insecticides used against it,'' Professor Gurr said.

Advertisement

Scientists believe cracking the moth's genetic code will allow new insecticide resistance-monitoring techniques and pest-management strategies to be developed.

The genetic research took 40 scientists several years to complete and identified 18,000 separate genes.

Original Article Here

AGRICULTURE NEWS: NEW INVASIVE SPECIES NOW COMING INTO STATE

By Keenan Bishop, 

As prices for corn and soybean climb, more and more Franklin County farmers are plowing up pasture and hay for row crops. Kentucky’s cattle numbers and alfalfa acreage are actually decreasing for the first time in a long time even though cattle remain high and should do so for the foreseeable future.

For those planning to raise grain again next year or for the first time, the following are some tips gleaned from the Early Bird Grain meeting last week in Fayette County.

Weeds are an issue in every farming or gardening situation. I’ve had farmers tell me that Roundup Ready corn and beans are the greatest thing ever and I’ve had others say that they can grow grain just as cheap and easy conventionally. I think it comes down to management types.

Either way, if you are spraying herbicides you need to be concerned about resistance. We have it in glyphosate and it will just get worse. One way to combat this is rotation. Rotate crops, rotate fields and if nothing else please rotate herbicide mode of action. Most are labeled now with a group number on the jug.

Dr. JD Green, UK Weeds Specialist, says that many producers who don’t get expected weed control can blame it on timing. The first 2-4 weeks after planting are critical and can have a big effect on yield.

Another caution he raises is compatibility issues with tank mixed herbicides and insecticides. Check the label to be sure you’re not compromising one or the other. Another word of caution is to pay special attention to the labels of all the new herbicides and various formulations as some have restrictive rotations that limit your future options.

For all the details ask for AGR-6 “2013 Weed Control Recommendations for Kentucky Grain Crops” or visit http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/agr/agr6/01.pdf.

New bugs arriving

Insects are a whole other new issue especially now that we have new invasive species to look forward to. Doug Johnson, UK Entomologist, warns both farmers and homeowners to prepare for invasions of the brown marmorated stink bug and the bean plataspid.

These insects will swarm in large numbers and may cause new headaches. For home owners they will behave like the Asian lady bug, for farmers they will affect quality and yield. Watch the paper and our newsletter for updates and control methods.

The other insect issue to be aware of is B.t. resistance. Part of the agreement to planting B.t. corn is to plant refuge crops to avoid resistance. It gets complicated because the corn borer and the corn rootworm require different configurations of refuge and when you’re dealing with both you must take that into account as well. Pay attention to the label and requirements for planting B.t. corn.

Chad Lee, UK Grain Specialist, provides the following advice for general production according to UK research trials.

Plant corn the first week in May. The best population seems to be in the 24,000-30,000 range. Deeper more fertile soils can handle higher plant populations. Ideal row width is 30” but 36” is okay in a good year.

Soil compaction is a major concern so if you made silage or mowed your crop this year because of drought, keep compaction in mind. The ideal time to add nitrogen is when the plant emerges.

For soybeans Dr. Lee also warns of potential compaction issues for no-till. Research shows that plant population does not have a big effect on breakeven analysis. Populations between 100,000 and 240,000 all do about the same.

He recommends foliar fungicides when disease pressure is high but says not to waste your time or money on foliar fertilizers. For both beans and corn be sure to check the UK Variety Trials for the best variety for your situation (http://www.uky.edu/Ag/GrainCrops/varietytesting.htm) and remember that every year you don’t rotate your crops you’ll lose about 10-15 percent in yield.

Original Article Here

Elm Seed Bug Overwhelms Idaho

The state of Idaho has been inundated by an invasive species, the elm seed bug — and by calls from across the country from people afflicted by the foreign insects.

It all started a few weeks ago when locals noticed a particularly pesky bug crawling around.

“At first there were just a few here and there,” said Idaho resident and employee of the state’s Department of Agriculture, Stephen Cox. “I just assumed they were like the other box elder bugs in the area. I didn’t think much about it.”

But then, by the hundreds, the bugs began infiltrating Cox’s home.

“The numbers were getting bigger and bigger and then we had a heat wave. It was about 105 degrees and they decided to move into the house,” Cox said. “Hundreds and hundreds at a time and then thousands.”

What started out as a nuisance became what Cox describes as “a real problem.”

“I’d vacuum them up but they were on every door, every wall. The windows were covered,” he said. “They’d drop on your head every time you opened the door. They’d fall onto your plate in the middle of dinner.”

Other residents took notice too. Idaho State Department of Agriculture researchers determined that the bug wasn’t the box elder bug, which is common in the area.

“We got official confirmation on July 12 that the bugs are elm seed bugs,” said Pamm Juker, communications director for the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. “They come from central and southern Europe. We don’t have any idea how they got to Idaho at this point.”

Juker says the invasive insect is about a quarter inch long and brown, resembling the box elder bug in shape. If crushed, they emit an odor.

She also says that while the bugs are a nuisance, they are not harmful. They do eat the seeds from trees but not plants or the trees themselves.

“They may try to enter your home in the summer when it’s hot and in the winter to escape the cold, but they pose no threat to humans,” she said.

The Idaho Department of Agriculture has been overwhelmed by calls from people from all over the country claiming they have seen the bug.

“Just in the last few days, we’ve gotten calls from people in South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, Connecticut, California, Michigan, Washington, and Oregon,” she said.

Cox said that if you see an elm seed bug in your area, contact your local officials.

Original Article Here

A New Tool for Studying Insect-Plant Warfare

When an insect pierces the surface of a plant to feed, much of the action takes place in the plant's interior. A device called the Electrical Penetration Graph (EPG) is a critical tool for peering int

When an insect pierces the surface of a plant to feed, much of the action takes place in the plant's interior. A device called the Electrical Penetration Graph (EPG) is a critical tool for peering into the process.

Now a new type of EPG developed by U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) entomologists is giving scientists the clearest view yet of the wars waged between piercing-sucking insects and the plants they attack.

The EPG was developed by Elaine Backus at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Sciences Center, in Parlier, Calif., and her late partner William Bennett from the University of Missouri.

ARS is USDA's principal intramural scientific research agency, and this research supports the USDA goal of promoting agricultural sustainability.

To use an EPG, researchers connect the insect and plant to an electronic monitor that reads electrical charges produced by changes in voltage that occur as the insect feeds. At least eight different systems have been developed, and researchers who study aphids and other piercing-sucking insects have used them over the years to publish nearly 400 peer-reviewed papers. But the new EPG is much more versatile than any of its predecessors, and is being used by researchers around the country in ways expected to broaden understanding of how plant-feeding insects cause so much damage.

Traditionally, monitors have been designed to work with either AC or DC current. Because of the physics that govern electricity and the flow of electrical current, researchers have been likely to get best results using AC monitors when studying larger insects and DC monitors when studying smaller insects.

Ideally, a monitor should be capable of studying a variety of insect sizes. As the name implies, the team's AC-DC Monitor incorporates design features from both AC and DC monitors, making it more versatile. Researchers can adjust the settings to the sizes of any insect they are studying. Entomologists will be able to view the feeding process in detail for more insects than ever before. They also will be better able to compare the feeding habits of pathogen-bearing insects with those that are pathogen-free.

Backus and Bennett described the AC-DC Monitor in a recent issue of the Journal of Insect Physiology.By Dennis O'Brien

Original Article Here

GM debate between Take the Flour Back and Rothamsted Research

Dear Take the Flour Back,

We are glad that you have decided to enter into a dialogue with us and hope we can still resolve the situation before it is too late. Rothamsted is not a profit-making multinational company and has a 168-year tradition of providing agricultural research for public good. The chemical ecology group has expertise recognon ised across the globe for environmentally friendly agriculture and has many peer-reviewed publications in this field. We are seeking non-toxic biological solutions to protect crops from aphids (greenfly) for real environmental benefit. We imagine that reducing pesticide dependency is something we can all agree on. We are dismayed that you plan to destroy our crop before we can find out whether it works or not.

Our new wheat plants contain genes copied from nature and are planted in a highly controlled field trial that has been thoroughly evaluated, inspected and risk-assessed by independent scientists and government. The risk of cross-pollination was judged negligible. All experts agree wheat is self-pollinated not wind or insect pollinated. Wheat flowers fertilise themselves before they open. The pollen, which is heavy, only lives for a few hours and falls to the ground around the plant. Furthermore, this is a very small scale trial eight 6m x 6m plots. The smell the new plants make already occurs naturally in the aroma of more than 400 plant species including apples, hops and mint.

Our approach is fully compatible with agro-ecological farming and biocontrol because the smell we engineered into wheat attracts natural enemies of pests to fields instead of killing them with broad spectrum pesticides. It could work well with field margins and conservation biocontrol.

This is public research for the public and the results would made freely available. We find it sad that our chemical ecology research on insect repellent wheat is being targeted for destruction by you when it is actually part of an alternative vision for sustainable agriculture. We ask you to call off your plans to destroy our publically funded research, and instead come and protest peacefully.

Please could you explain why it is justifiable to proceed to destroy crops when you have declined our offer of a public debate on neutral ground? We would have preferred to have met you face-to-face, rather than this debate by correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

John Pickett and team

Dear John Pickett and team,

It's evident from your own application for this trial that you recognise open-air planting of a crop which can cross-pollinate with common couch grass does present a contamination risk. The example of Bayer's 2006 rice trial in America shows that low-pollination risk crops on a supposedly secure small trial site can escape and widely contaminate the food chain. British farmers must be protected from this.

Concerns about the health implications of GM in the food chain are too readily dismissed and we believe they should be thoroughly assessed before any open field trials are approved. In this case they were dismissed in a cavalier manner. We must look at the real problems caused by GM crops already grown, not try to create more.

You claim your experiment represents "part of an alternative vision for sustainable agriculture". In which case the very first question should be, is this particular intervention/input needed? As no one, anywhere in the world, currently buys GM wheat – or seems likely to; and effective long term non-GM methods and non-pecticide methods for dealing with aphids already exist, the answer is no.

So why is Rothamsted determined to run this trial? Because it is the best way to achieve sustainable farming? Or is it connected to the fact that it is committed to a biotech, patent and high technological product driven vision that puts the food system, farmers and citizens even firmly in the hands of multi-national agri-business.

We too have a vision of sustainable agriculture. It is shared by Via Campsina, the world wide union of smaller farmers, which numbers some 20 million members, and the IAASTD (A major UN-funded study, produced by 400 scientific and agricultural experts and endorsed by 58 governments) as well as citizens throughout the world who do not want their food subject to GM and its associated corporate control.

Our vision is for an agro-ecology based farming involving using appropriate technology available to even the poorest farmers. On a food system that is not contaminated by GM or pesticides.

From Brazil to India small farmers have risked their freedom to defend their crops against GM contamination. The time for public debate was before this crop went in the ground. The concerns of scientists, public bodies and the general public were ignored then - and so we are left with our protest action.

Yours,

Take the Flour Back

[after a planned attack on the crop was prevented by police]

Dear Take the Flour Back

We are pleased that your protest passed peacefully although we would welcome you removing your continuing threat to "decontaminate" our experiment.

We must emphasise again, Rothamsted Research is an independent charitable company providing the science to develop more environmentally sustainable solutions for farming. We are not a large corporation, this work has no commercial sponsor and the results will be given away freely. Illegally destroying this publically funded research will push this science towards the big multinational companies and therefore promote the very problems you seek to avoid.

We have already tried to address your many concerns extensively in public, eg through live online Q&A, numerous interviews and articles, including a magazine edited by an associate of Jyoti Fernandes (your BBC Newsnight representative). If you still feel safety is an issue, please note that another independent inspection of our experiment, by the Food and Environment Research Agency on 17 May 2012, concluded they "did not identify any risks to human health or the environment".

We have spoken extensively with many different people about our work, including groups unsupportive of the trial, an offer extended to you in early April. It's unfortunate that you declined this offer as well as the offer for a public debate, which you asked for and we arranged (details on our website). Seven days' notice was unfortunately not enough time for you to find 2-3 speakers. It's a shame that you have chosen thisword-limited, debate-by-correspondence instead.

The views you expressed at Sunday's protest included large corporate ownership, farming systems, other socio-political dimensions, concerns over GM potatoes and GM rice. We therefore conclude that focusing on scientists conducting a small-scale field trial of wheat will not address all of your expressed concerns.

As we have said to you previously, there needs to be bigger wide-ranging debate on GM with a chance to present factual evidence and take questions and contributions from a public audience from many backgrounds. Recent surveys suggest the public is largely neutral on GM issues, possibly because they are open to learning more. Scientific research can help that process, a view shared by the 6,000+ people who have signed a petition supporting our research over the last four weeks, also strong support from the "largest farming organisation in the UK", the NFU.

We now offer you the last word in this exchange.

Yours sincerely

John Pickett and the team at Rothamsted Research.

Dear John Pickett and team,

We are glad that you also recognise that the wider socio-political implications of GM are questions that cannot be addressed by scientists alone, or indeed by ourselves as growers. However, we are baffled that in this forum you present your research as the abstract pursuit of knowledge, despite repeated discussions of its commercial application in the farming press. Why will you not address the inevitable consequences of such a process? Empirical evidence shows that GM crops simply cannot co-exist with non-GM crops, so the choices we are making now have vital implications for future generations. Even the very limited growing of GM maize in Spain demonstrates this graphically - their organic sweetcorn market having imploded as a result of cross contamination.

As we are sure you are also aware, science does not operate in a vacuum. The decision to fund this trial, was made by an administration which has declared it's intention to be the most pro-GM government ever. A policy position which was challenged just a few weeks ago by a cross party group of MPs - the Environmental Audit Committee. Your own chief executive, Maurice Maloney, (himself the owner of over 300 biotechnology patents) stated on BBC news that if the trial is successful there would be corporate interest from around the world.

We disagree that the public is neutral on GM issues, all recent polls both in the UK and Europe continue to show that serious concern remains around the technology, as the lack of GM ingredients in UK supermarkets testifies. But this concern is also global, it is a shame you were not able to come and listen to these concerns on Sunday. Gathuru Mburu director of the African Biodiversity network, responded to your claims that GM was needed to feed Africa: "we need a diversity of genetic traits in food crops in order to survive worsening climates. Above all, people need to have control over their seeds".

We regret that the 24 hours we were given to agree to your "public debate" was not sufficient to confirm speakers - we feel that voices from around the world are essential in giving the practical experience of GM crops. We hope we can both bring independent experts to the table once your trial is no longer in the ground, enabling people to raise concerns without being vilified as "nazis" or "zealots". As always, we welcome further dialogue.

Yours sincerely,

Take the flour back

Warm spring brings more insects to Prairies

By: Terryn Shiells

A warm spring across the Prairies is bringing larger insect populations to crop-growing regions this season.

Manitoba and Alberta canola crops are seeing increasing populations of flea beetles this spring. The insects feed on multiple parts of the plant and can be very damaging for canola in its early development stages. Both provinces have already received reports of damage from the insects this year.

"The problem with the flea beetles in canola is some individuals seeded quite early this year and the seeds they put in the ground have a seed treatment that's supposed to protect the plant from flea beetles. But, that seed treatment only lasts for about a month," said John Gavloski, entomologist with Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives at Carman.

Scott Hartley, entomologist with Saskatchewan Agriculture in Regina, said the province hasn't seen any flea beetles yet because seeding in many areas was delayed due to wet fields and crops aren't developed enough to be affected by the insects.

Leafhoppers and aphids overwintered in Minnesota because of mild temperatures in the U.S. Midwest. They're now blowing into Manitoba and Saskatchewan but entomologists from both provinces said it's not a big concern for their crops.

"There were some worries that there were aster leafhoppers, which are the ones that are responsible for disease, but so far it hasn't been affecting fields," Hartley said.

Saskatchewan and Alberta are worried about pea leaf weevil right now. The insect only feeds on the growing points and leaves of pea crops but can cause significant damage.

"They've been moving in to the fields because it's been above their flight threshold temperatures," said Scott Meers, insect management specialist with Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development at Brooks.

Cutworms have been present in scattered areas across the Prairies this season, but Meers said the pest numbers are way down compared to this time last year.

Some cutworm species feed on canola stems while others feed on the leaves, but they can all cause significant damage to plants.

Hartley recommends farmers scout fields often for all insects in order to protect their crops.

"It's not one of those things that you can just walk through the fields and observe. You might have to get down and actually look at undersides of leaves, and at young stems for flea beetles. Farmers also need to watch for feeding notches from pea leaf weevil," he said.

Higher populations of diamondback moths, which target canola and mustard crops, were also detected across the Prairies this spring and entomologists will be monitoring their activity throughout the season.

Diamondbacks have the potential to cause a lot of damage because they feed on multiple parts of plants.

Hartley said bertha armyworms, whose larvae feed on the undersides of leaves, are also expected to be an issue for canola and mustard crops later in the growing season.

Original Article Here