<%BANNER%>

FLAG IFAS UFIR




PAGE 1

Agronomy Notes June 2011 Volume 35:6 Features: Forage: Areas of Control in Grazing Management ...........Page 3 Y. Newman, Extension Forage Specialist ( ycnew@ufl.edu) ; F. Fishel, Pesticide Information Officer ; D.C. Odero, Extension Weed Specialist (dcodero@ufl.edu); D. Wright, Extension Agronomist (wright@ufl.edu). The use of trade names does not constitute a guarantee or warrant of products named and does not signify approval to the exclusion of similar products. The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Employment Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to rac e, color, sex, age, handicap or national origin. For information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Offi ce. Florida Cooperative Extension Service/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences/University of Florida/Millie Ferrer Chancy, Interim Dean. Miscellaneous: Weeds and Pesticides: Released ..................................................................Page 4 Timing of Fall Panicum Control in Sugarcane ...............................................................Page 6 Calendar ................................................................Page 7 Crops: Drought and Planting Dates for Cotton and Peanut ................................................................................Page 2 Adequate Cotton Stand .........................................Page 2

PAGE 2

4 2 Drought and Planting Dates for Cotton and Peanut Spring of 2011 has been extremely dry with many areas receiving 10 inches or less than normal rainfall. Many growers have not planted cotton and peanut in early June and are concerned that yields will be dramatically lower with June planting. The forecast is not calling for rain until the middle of June. Cotton can still make high yields planted into the 3 rd week of June. In most years early July planted cotton will fruit well but is often damaged by an early freeze and does not produce profitable yields. Peanuts should be planted by the middle of June to keep from getting potential freeze damage at harvest. However, peanuts often do well if planted by the third week of June in years with late freezes. Cotton and peanut both require from 135 150 days from planting until harvest and grow quickly planted in June due to high temperatures but growth slows as temperatures cool in the fall and maturity is often delayed. Crops Dr. David Wright, Extension Agronomist North Florida REC, Quincy wright@ufl.edu Adequate Cotton Stand Many cotton fields have stands that are spotty with half the stands planted. High technology fees have pushed growers to minimize seeding rates for cotton. In a dry year as this year, minimal seeding rates may result in poor stands. However, cotton can compensate for low stands by making larger plants. This may delay maturity by a week or more and weeds may be more competitive. Even though we recommend 3 plants per foot of row, an average of one plant per foot of row is adequate for good yields with plants being bushy and having more bolls on each plant. Cotton has been planted in 2:1 skip row patterns for many years with yields being about 95% of solid planting even in good years. It is better to go with a marginal stand in many years than to plant or replant in July. Skips in cotton stands that has little impact on final yield. Photo: David Wright

PAGE 3

4 Forages Dr. Yoana Newman, Extension Forage Specialist ycnew @ufl.edu 3 Areas of Control in Grazing Management Grazing management can be used more or less intensively, or more or less extensively. Intensive grazing management usually brings more inputs such as labor, livestock, plant nutrients, etc to improve forage production and utilization. Extensive grazing management uses lower optimum inputs of labor, and resources toward the same goal of animal production. Which ever the case, there areas of control in grazing management include: a) grazing intensity (or residual stubble height in the pasture) b) grazing method (or the manner in which animals are stocked), and c) timing of grazing. tion for bahiagrass may not be adequate for other plants with accumulation of reserves in the lower section of the canopy as is the case with limpograss (Hemarthria spp), stargrass, Tifton 85 bermudagrass, or some of the summer or winter legumes. Under drought conditions, try to protect the stand by taking the cattle off before you graze the pastures too low. Grazing method refers to the manner in which animals are stocked or have access to the different pastures and paddocks. Choosing a grazing method is a separate decision from that of grazing intensity. Pastures can be stocked continuously, or they can be grazed rotationally. Is one method better than the other? Not necessarily. However, pastures that are rotationally stocked may be more productive because there is a better spread of the animals and recycled nutrients from manure and urine, and the forage is more uniformly grazed. Spot grazing observed in continuously grazed pastures is reduced when rotationally stocking. Timing of grazing is also critical, depending on specific grass type and situations. For example, removal of shade conditions by grazing winter annuals is critical for the emerging dormant warm season grass in the spring. Out of the three areas under your control, grazing intensity or stubble height is the most important. Stubble height (or grazing intensity) is more important than any other grazing management decision. Photo: Yoana Newman

PAGE 4

4 4 data collected during 2009. These data continue to demonstrate that the food supply in the U.S. is among the safest in the world. Before allowing a pesticide to be used on a food commodity, EPA sets limits on how much of a pesticide may be used on food during growing and processing, and how much can remain on the food you buy. Government inspectors monitor food in interstate commerce to ensure that these limits are not exceeded. EPA also sets standards to protect workers from exposure to pesticides on the job. AMS, through its Monitoring Programs Office (MPO), is responsible for the administration, planning and coordination of day to day PDP operations. MPO meets regularly with EPA and other government agencies to establish program priorities and direction. Sampling and/or testing program operations are carried out with the support of 12 States: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. These States have a prominent role in program planning and policy setting, particularly policies relating to quality assurance. vice. Sampling and testing of drinking water was conducted with personnel from various public utilities. State PDP commodity sampling is based on a rigorous statistical design that ensures the data are reliable for use in exand commodities to be included each year in the sampling are selected based on EPA data needs and take into account the types and amounts of food consumed by infants and children. The number of samples collected by point of consumption (i.e., distribution centers rather than at farm gate) and reflect what is typically available to the consumer throughout the year. Samples are selected without regard to country of origin, variety, or organic labeling. The monthly sampling rate is 62 samples per commodity, except for highly seasonal commodities. For seasonal commodities, sampling rates are adjusted to reflect market availability. Sampling rates for beef are based on production. ( Continues next page) Pesticides Dr. Fred Fishel, Pesticide Information Director weeddr @ufl.edu

PAGE 5

4 5 (Continued from page 2... Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables accounted for 81.5 percent of the total samples collected in 2009. Other samples collected included water samples, 6.7 percent; beef, 4.4 percent; catfish, 4.1 percent; and rice, 3.3 percent; fresh and processed fruit and vegetables tested include: apples, asparagus, canned beans, cilantro, cucumbers, grapes, green onions, lettuce (organic), oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, strawberries, sweet corn (fresh on the cob/frozen), sweet potatoes and tomato paste. Approximately 79 percent of samples were from U.S. sources, 20 percent were imports and 1 percent was of mixed or of unknown origin. Because PDP data are mainly used for risk assessments, PDP laboratory methods are geared to detect the smallest possible levels of pesticide residues, even when those levels are well below the safety margins (tolerances) established by EPA. Prior to testing, PDP analysts washed samples for 10 seconds with gently running cold water as a consumer would do; no chemicals, soap or any special wash was used. Results for more than 1.8 million analyses were reported by the laboratories in 2009, too numerous to be included in their entirety in this summary. PDP is a voluntary program and is not designed for enforcement of tolerances. However, PDP informs the U.S. Food and Drug Administration if residues detected exceed the EPA tolerance or have no EPA tolerance established. In 2009, residues exceeding the established tolerance were detected in 0.3 percent of the samples tested, and residues with no established tolerance were found in 2.7 percent of the samples. PDP laboratories also test foods for low levels of environmental contaminants that are no longer used in the U.S., but due to their persistence in the environment, particularly in soil, can be taken up by plants. PDP tracks these contaminants and provides the data to the Codex Alimentarius Commission. In 2009, 612 (treated and untreated) drinking water samples were collected at water treatment facilities in 11 States and 278 groundwater samples were collected at farm wells, school/daycare facilities and private residence wells located in 16 States. Low levels of detectable residues, measured in parts per trillion, were detected in both drinking water and groundwater. The majority of pesticides, metabolites, and isomers included in the PDP testing profiles were not detected. None of the detections in the finished water samples exceeded established EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels, Health Advisory levels, or established Freshwater Aquatic Organism criteria. PDP continually strives to improve methods for collection, testing, and reporting data. These data are freely available to EPA and other Federal and State agencies charged with regulating and setting policies on the use of pesticides and to all stakeholders by hard copy, Internet, or custom reports generated by MPO. PDP data are essential for the implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act that directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect pesticide residue data on foods that are highly consumed by infants and children. EPA uses PDP data as a critical component for dietary assessments of pesticide exposure. Results provide realistic exposure information to the EPA assessment process. More information about PDP and the full report may be reviewed at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091055. Pesticides Dr. Fred Fishel, Pesticide Information Director weeddr @ufl.edu

PAGE 6

6 Weed Science Dr. D. Calvin Odero, Extension Weed Specialist dcodero @ufl.edu Timing of Fall Panicum Control in Sugarcane Timing of post emergence herbicide application is very important for fall panicum control in sugarcane. Fall panicum is an annual that emerges in the spring and summer. In sugarcane, fall panicum typically reaches a height of 4 ft or more if not controlled. Actively growing fall panicum can effectively be controlled with Asulox at 6 to 8 pt/A plus NIS (0.25%v/v) in sugarcane at least 14 inches tall. Envoke at 0.3 lb/a plus NIS (0.25%v/v) will control fall panicum less than 6 inches tall. Larger fall panicum plants (< 12 inches tall) can be controlled using a tank mix of asulox and envoke applied at 4 pt/A and 0.3 oz/A, respectively along with NIS (0.25% v/v). herbicide combination for such populations. The combination is usually a tank mix of asulam and envoke at 8 pt/ A and 0.3 oz?A, respectively plus NIS (0.25% v/v). This treatment combination result in sugarcane injury especially during drier periods with high temperatures. It is important that timely application of these herbicides for fall panicum control be adhered to in order to minimize sugarcane injury. Consequently, making decisions on when to spray is very important. Always consider the cost of delaying weed control, i.e.., letting weeds to grow a much longer period and produce seed that will replenish the soil seed bank and be a source of infestation in subsequent years. Therefore, fall panicum should be treated when small and actively growing. Sugarcane injury from using hot combination of Asulam and Envoke. Photo by D. Calvin Odero

PAGE 7

7 Calendar June 12 15 American forage and Grassland Council 2011 conference. French Lick, IN http://www.afgc.org/ June 20 24 Marco Island, FL http://www.floridacattlemen.org/convention.html Jul. 3 9 Caribbean Food Crops Society meeting Two Mile Hill, St. Michael, Barbados,. http://www.cfcs2011barbados.org/ Jul. 15 17 Florida Small Farms and Alternative Enterprises Conference Kissimmee, FL. http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/smallfarms/index.html Oct. 3 5 Southeast Herbicide Applicator Conference Panama City Beach, FL http://conference. ifas.ufl.edu/sehac/index.html Oct. 16 19 American Society of Agronoy Annual meeting, San Antonio, TX https://www.acsmeetings.org


Agronomy notes
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00066352/00136
 Material Information
Title: Agronomy notes
Uniform Title: Agronomy notes (Gainesville, Fl.)
Physical Description: v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida Cooperative Extension Service
Publisher: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida.
Place of Publication: Gainesville
Publication Date: June 2011
 Subjects
Subjects / Keywords: Crops and soils -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Crop yields -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agriculture -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agronomy -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: serial   ( sobekcm )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
periodical   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Additional Physical Form: Also available to subscribers via the World Wide Web.
Additional Physical Form: Electronic reproduction of copy from George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida also available.
General Note: Description based on: January 1971; title from caption.
Statement of Responsibility: Florida Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
 Record Information
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000956365
notis - AER9014
System ID: UF00066352:00136

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

( PDF )


Full Text

UF UNIVERSITY of
U FLORIDA
IFAS Extension


A 0 0 0 *
I .6


Features:

Crops:


Drought and Planting Dates for Cotton and Peanut
............................................................................ Page 2
Adequate Cotton Stand.........................................Page 2

Forage:


Areas of Control in Gra*ing Management ...........Page 3


Weeds and Pesticides:


2009 Pesticide Data Program's Summary


cvx

SS2B


R released ................................................................. Page 4
Timing of Fall Panicum Control in
Sugarcane ............................................................Page 6

Miscellaneous:


Calendar ............................................................Page 7

The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Employment Opportunity-Affirmative Action Employer authorized to provide
research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function without regard to race, color, sex, age, handicap
or national origin. For information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension Office. Florida Cooperative
Extension Service/Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences/University of Florida/Millie Ferrer-Chancy, Interim Dean.


"Agronomy Notes" is prepared by: Maria Gallo, Chair and Y. Newman, Extension Forage Specialist .. i. I ... I ... F. Fishel, Pesticide Information
Officer; D.C. Odero, Extension Weed Specialist .1.....1. i. ... .I I D. Wright, Extension Agronomist ,i ij !l. II. .1.. The use of trade names does
not constitute a guarantee or warrant of products named and does not signify approval to the exclusion of similar products.






Crops


Dr. David Wright, Extension Agronomist


North Florida REC, Quing


wright@ufl.edu


Drought and Planting Dates for Cotton and Peanut

Spring of 2011 has been extremely dry with many areas receiving 10 inches or less than normal rainfall. Many
growers have not planted cotton and peanut in early June and are concerned that yields will be dramatically lower
with June planting. The forecast is not calling for rain until the middle of June. Cotton can still make high yields
planted into the 3rd week of June. In most years early July planted cotton will fruit well but is often damaged by
an early freeze and does not produce profitable yields.

Peanuts should be planted by the middle of June to keep from getting potential freeze damage at harvest. How-
ever, peanuts often do well if planted by the third week of June in years with late freezes. Cotton and peanut both
require from 135-150 days from planting until harvest and grow quickly planted in June due to high temperatures
but growth slows as temperatures cool in the fall and maturity is often delayed.


Adequate Cotton Stand
Many cotton fields have stands that are
spotty with half the stands planted. High
technology fees have pushed growers to
minimize seeding rates for cotton. In a
dry year as this year, minimal seeding
rates may result in poor stands. How-
ever, cotton can compensate for low
stands by making larger plants. This may
delay maturity by a week or more and
weeds may be more competitive. Even <,
though we recommend 3 plants per foot '
of row, an average of one plant per foot
of row is adequate for good yields with
plants being bushy and having more bolls
on each plant. Cotton has been planted in
2:1 skip row patterns for many years with
yields being about 95% of solid planting
even in good years. It is better to go with Skips in cotton stands that has little impact on final yield.
a marginal stand in many years than to Photo: David Wright
plant or replant in July.


Is







Forages Dr. Yoana Newman, Extension Forage Specialist
ymew@ufl.edu




Areas of Control in Grazing Management

Grazing management can be used more or less intensively, or more or less extensively. Intensive grazing manage-
ment usually brings more inputs such as labor, livestock, plant nutrients, etc to improve forage production and
utilization. Extensive grazing management uses lower optimum inputs of labor, and resources toward the same
goal of animal production. Which ever the case, there areas of control in grazing management include:

a) grazing intensity (or residual stubble height in the pasture)
b) grazing method (or the manner in which animals are stocked), and
c) timing of grazing.

Grazing intensity or stubble height is the most important factor in grazing management decisions."How short is
too short?" should be a recurring question to avoid overgrazing pastures. A two inch stubble height recommenda-
tion for bahiagrass may not be adequate for other plants with accumulation of reserves in the lower section of the
canopy as is the case with limpograss (Hemarthria spp), stargrass, Tifton 85 bermudagrass, or some of the sum-
mer or winter legumes. Under drought conditions, try to protect the stand by taking the cattle off before you graze
the pastures too low.

Grazing method refers to the manner in which animals are stocked or have access to the different pastures and
paddocks. Choosing a grazing method is a separate decision from that of grazing intensity. Pastures can be
stocked continuously, or they can be grazed rotationally.- Is one method better than the other? Not necessarily.
However, pastures that are rotationally stocked may be more productive because there is a better spread of the
animals and recycled nutrients from manure and urine, and the forage is more uniformly grazed. Spot grazing
observed in continuously grazed pastures is re-
duced when rotationally stocking.

Timing of grazing is also critical, depending on
specific grass type and situations. For example,
removal of shade conditions by grazing winter
annuals is critical for the emerging dormant
warm-season grass in the spring.

Out of the three areas under your control, graz-
ing intensity or stubble height is the most im-
portant. . 2


Stubble height (or grazing intensity) is more important than
any other grazing management decision.
Photo: Yoana Newman


--w-






Pesticides Dr. Fred Fishel, Pesticide Information Director
weeddr(aufl.edu




2009 Pesticide Data Program's Summary Released


The most recent Pesticide Data Program's (PDP) annual summary was published for
data collected during 2009. These data continue to demonstrate that the food supply
in the U.S. is among the safest in the world.
Before allowing a pesticide to be used on a food commodity, EPA sets limits on how
much of a pesticide may be used on food during growing and processing, and how
much can remain on the food you buy. Government inspectors monitor food in inter-
state commerce to ensure that these limits are not exceeded. EPA also sets standards
to protect workers from exposure to pesticides on the job.


AMS, through its Monitoring Programs Office (MPO), is responsible for the administration, planning and coordi-
nation of day-to-day PDP operations. MPO meets regularly with EPA and other government agencies to establish
program priorities and direction. Sampling and/or testing program operations are carried out with the support of
12 States: California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, Ohio, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin. These States have a prominent role in program planning and policy setting, particu-
larly policies relating to quality assurance.


In 2009, program support for sampling of beef also was provided by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Ser-
vice. Sampling and testing of drinking water was conducted with personnel from various public utilities. State
health technicians and homeowners provided sampling for groundwater. Testing also was conducted by USDA's
AMS National Science Laboratory, USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Labora-
tory, and EPA's Analytical Chemistry Laboratory.



PDP commodity sampling is based on a rigorous statistical design that ensures the data are reliable for use in ex-
posure assessments and can be used to draw various conclusions about the Nation's food supply. The pesticides
and commodities to be included each year in the sampling are selected based on EPA data needs and take into
account the types and amounts of food consumed by infants and children. The number of samples collected by
the States is apportioned according to that State's population. Samples are randomly chosen close to the time and
point of consumption (i.e., distribution centers rather than at farm gate) and reflect what is typically available to
the consumer throughout the year. Samples are selected without regard to country of origin, variety, or organic
labeling. The monthly sampling rate is 62 samples per commodity, except for highly seasonal commodities. For
seasonal commodities, sampling rates are adjusted to reflect market availability. Sampling rates for beef are based
on production.


( Continues next page)


_1f_






Pesticides Dr. Fred Fishel, Pesticide Information Director
weeddr(aufl.edu



(Continued from page 2...

2009 Pesticide Data Program's Summary Released)


Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables accounted for 81.5 percent of the total sam-
ples collected in 2009. Other samples collected included water samples, 6.7 percent;
beef, 4.4 percent; catfish, 4.1 percent; and rice, 3.3 percent; fresh and processed fruit
and vegetables tested include: apples, asparagus, canned beans, cilantro, cucumbers,
grapes, green onions, lettuce (organic), oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, strawber-
ries, sweet corn (fresh on-the-cob/frozen), sweet potatoes and tomato paste. Approxi-
mately 79 percent of samples were from U.S. sources, 20 percent were imports and 1
percent was of mixed or of unknown origin.

Because PDP data are mainly used for risk assessments, PDP laboratory methods are geared to detect the smallest
possible levels of pesticide residues, even when those levels are well below the safety margins (tolerances) estab-
lished by EPA. Prior to testing, PDP analysts washed samples for 10 seconds with gently running cold water as a
consumer would do; no chemicals, soap or any special wash was used. Results for more than 1.8 million analyses
were reported by the laboratories in 2009, too numerous to be included in their entirety in this summary.
PDP is a voluntary program and is not designed for enforcement of tolerances. However, PDP informs the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration if residues detected exceed the EPA tolerance or have no EPA tolerance estab-
lished. In 2009, residues exceeding the established tolerance were detected in 0.3 percent of the samples tested,
and residues with no established tolerance were found in 2.7 percent of the samples.
PDP laboratories also test foods for low levels of environmental contaminants that are no longer used in the U.S.,
but due to their persistence in the environment, particularly in soil, can be taken up by plants. PDP tracks these
contaminants and provides the data to the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

In 2009, 612 (treated and untreated) drinking water samples were collected at water treatment facilities in 11
States and 278 groundwater samples were collected at farm wells, school/daycare facilities and private residence
wells located in 16 States. Low levels of detectable residues, measured in parts per trillion, were detected in both
drinking water and groundwater. The majority of pesticides, metabolites, and isomers included in the PDP testing
profiles were not detected. None of the detections in the finished water samples exceeded established EPA Maxi-
mum Contaminant Levels, Health Advisory levels, or established Freshwater Aquatic Organism criteria.
PDP continually strives to improve methods for collection, testing, and reporting data. These data are freely avail-
able to EPA and other Federal and State agencies charged with regulating and setting policies on the use of pesti-
cides and to all stakeholders by hard copy, Internet, or custom reports generated by MPO.

PDP data are essential for the implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act that directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to collect pesticide residue data on foods that are highly consumed by infants and children. EPA
uses PDP data as a critical component for dietary assessments of pesticide exposure. Results provide realistic ex-
posure information to the EPA assessment process.

More information about PDP and the full report may be reviewed at


http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSvl.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5091055.






W eed Science Dr. D. Calvin Odero, Extension Weed Specialist
dcodero@ufl.edu


Timing of Fall Panicum Control in Sugarcane

Timing of post emergence herbicide application is very important for fall panicum control in sugarcane. Fall
panicum is an annual that emerges in the spring and summer. In sugarcane, fall panicum typically reaches a height
of 4 ft or more if not controlled.

Actively growing fall panicum can effectively be controlled with Asulox at 6 to 8 pt/A plus NIS (0.25%v/v) in
sugarcane at least 14 inches tall. Envoke at 0.3 lb/a plus NIS (0.25%v/v) will control fall panicum less than 6
inches tall. Larger fall panicum plants (< 12 inches tall) can be controlled using a tank-mix of asulox and envoke
applied at 4 pt/A and 0.3 oz/A, respectively along with NIS (0.25% v/v).

Some growers wait for fall panicum to be 'big enough' before herbicide application. They typically use a hot
herbicide combination for such populations. The combination is usually a tank-mix of asulam and envoke at 8 pt/
A and 0.3 oz?A, respectively plus NIS (0.25% v/v). This treatment combination result in sugarcane injury
especially during drier periods with high temperatures. It is important that timely application of these herbicides
for fall panicum control be adhered to in order to minimize sugarcane injury. Consequently, making decisions on
when to spray is very important. Always consider the cost of delaying weed control, i.e.., letting weeds to grow
and be 'big enough.' Fall panicum allowed to be 'big enough' before spraying will compete with the sugarcane for
a much longer period and produce seed that will replenish the soil seed bank and be a source of infestation in
subsequent years. Therefore, fall panicum should be treated when small and actively growing.


__






Calendar


To follow the link, press "Ctrl" and put cursor over link, and "click."

June 12-15 American forage and Grassland Council 2011 conference. French Lick, IN
http://www.afgc.org/

June 20-24 2011 Florida Cattleman's Association Convention.. Marco Island, FL
http://www.floridacattlemen.org/convention.html

Jul. 3-9 Caribbean Food Crops Society meeting, Two Mile Hill, St. Michael, Barbados,.
http://www.cfcs2011barbados.org/

Jul. 15-17 Florida Small Farms and Alternative Enterprises Conference, Kissimmee, FL.
http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/smallfarms/index.html

Oct. 3-5 Southeast Herbicide Applicator Conference, Panama City Beach, FL
http://conference. ifas.ufl.edu/sehac/index.html

Oct. 16-19 American Society of Agronoy Annual meeting, San Antonio, TX
https://www acsmeetings.org


Florida Small Farms and

SAlternative Enterprises
CONFERENCE


.'l 15-17wo 2011
Ki:: .',' FLNr : -

Cultivating Networks, Opportunities and Sustainability


Southeast Herbicide
Applicator Conference


October 3-5, 2011
Edgewater Beach Resort
Panama City Beach, Florida
Join Our '.. *liiri List
: l oo1


--- -~


A ;J-,- fLU Ie -9Lctc- rQ,-napo-o nprp-O HLnt