Title: Vegetarian
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087399/00137
 Material Information
Title: Vegetarian
Series Title: Vegetarian
Physical Description: Serial
Creator: Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publisher: Horticultural Sciences Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Publication Date: June 1978
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087399
Volume ID: VID00137
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.


This item has the following downloads:

Vegetarian%201978%20Issue%2078-6 ( PDF )

Full Text




June 10, 1978

Prepared by Extension Vegetable Crops Specialists

J. F. Kelly

R. D. William
Assistant Professor

J. M. Stephens
Associate Professor

G. A. Marlowe, Jr.

M. E. Marvel

James Montelaro


FROM: M. E. Marvel, Professor & Extension Vegetable Specialists '-', .1t




A. Cultivation Injury to Crop Roots

B. Some Similarities Between War Strategy and Integrated Pest
Management Systems

C. Weeds that Vegetable Growers Should Know


A. Handling Spring Harvest Potatoes for Fresh Markets

B. Shipping Watermelons


A. June Gardening Roundup

B. Know Your Vegetables -- Rampion

NOTE: Anyone is free to use the information in this newsletter. Whenever
possible, please give credit to the authors.


The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 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, or national origin.




A. Cultivation Injury to Crop Roots

Vegetable growers generally are aware of potential root damage from
cultivation. The question is, "are they really aware of (1) how much
damage and (2) how inconspicuous it is to the casual observer?" The con-
sequence of root damage was demonstrated clearly by a study conducted re-
cently by Dr. J. M. White at AREC Sanford, Florida. In tests with cabbage
made at 3 planting dates, he studied the effects of sweep size, cultivation
depth and frequency of cultivation on marketable yield and head weight.

Table 1 shows that no cultivation was better than with 8-inch sweeps
which in turn was better than with the large sweeps. Not only were yield
and head weight reduced, but percent marketable heads at first harvest was

Table 1. First harvest marketable yield, average marketable head weight,
and percent marketable heads for three planting dates of cabbage
as affected by sweep sizes used in cultivation.

Size of Head
sweeps Yieldz Weighty PercentX

None 80.8w a 3.30 a 86

8 inch 69.8 b 3.03 b 79

22 + 18 inch 62.2 c 2.93 b 69

ZMarketable weight per plot (2.5 x 25 feet) in pounds.

YAverage marketable head weight in pounds.

XPercent of marketable heads on first harvest.

wMean separation of Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.



The similar results were obtained with depth of cultivation (Table 2)
and frequency of cultivation (Table 3). Yield, head weight and percent
marketable heads at first harvest were all reduced with increasing depth
and frequency of cultivation.

Table 2. First harvest marketable yield, average marketable head weight,
and percent marketable heads for three planting dates of cabbage
as affected by depth of cultivation.

Depth in Head
inches Yieldz WeightY Percentx

None 80.8w a 3.30 a 86

1 1.5 70.1 b 3.05 b 79

4 5 62.4 c 2.86 c 69

ZMarketable weight per plot (2.5 x 25 ft.) in pounds.

YAverage marketable head weight in pounds.
Percent of marketable heads on first harvest.

Mean separation of Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.

Table 3. First harvest marketable yield, average marketable head weight
and percent marketable heads for three planting dates of cabbage
as affected by number of cultivations.

Number of Head
cultivations Yieldz Weighty Percentx

1 80.8w a 3.30 a 86

3 75.6 b 3.15 a 82

5 65.3 c 2.95 b 73

ZMarketable weight per plot (2.5 x 25 ft.) in pounds.

YAverage marketable head weight in pounds.
Percent of marketable heads on first harvest.

WMean separation by Duncan's multiple range test, 5% level.



Vegetable growers, unlike some agronomic crop producers, do not
employ the "no-till" method. Obviously, some cultivation is necessary.
The question then is how to cultivate most efficiently to accomplish the
primary purpose of weed control (and other purposes occasionally) without
injuring the crop. No exact recommendations for all crops and conditions
can be made but a few "rules of thumb" should be of benefit to growers.
They are as follows:

1. Use herbicides and all other means of weed control available.

2. Reduce number of cultivations to as few as possible.

3. Cultivate as shallow as possible.

This study should serve to emphasize the importance of careful plan-
ning and execution in the use of cultivation in vegetables. Every time
cultivation is anticipated, attention should be directed to the need for
it and especially to selection, adjustment and operation of equipment.


B. Some Similarities Between War Strategy and Integrated Pest Management

War movies and history books tell us that some of the key factors in
a successful battle depend on knowing:

Who and where the enemy is,

When and where the action is to take place,

How many units are likely to be involved,

The strengths and weaknesses of these units, and

The effectiveness of the supply function.

When such information is lacking the strategist is not able to deter-
mine what size guns to use, how soon to start the bombardment, how many
units to activate, or what supplies are needed.

The modern view of integrated pest management (IPM) is very much like
battle strategy. IPM depends more on information and effective use of its
control tools than on merely blasting away at a partially known enemy with
guns often much too large for the purpose.



IPM systems were born out of a need and are just about the only
practical, economical, and environmentally sound alternative growers
may have for the future crop management programs. Pesticides may be-
come so restricted in number, so expensive, and so involved in bio-
logical problems that the use of chemicals alone may never again be
the primary weapon in pest control. IPM involves the wise use of chemi-
cals along with physical, biological, and crop management methods.

Integrated pest management, as a part of crop management, involves
an understanding of all of the biological factors that modify the growth
and development of the crop and its pests. These factors, collectively
called the crop ecosystem, interact in a very complex manner, some of
which we understand, yet much remains to be revealed by careful research.

To understand this ecosystem for IPM purposes we must know:

The numbers and types of pests that usually cause damage to the

The level of damage to the crop that can be tolerated economically.

The primary and secondary food sources of these pests.

The manner in which environment interacts with the pests and the

The manner in which the crop variety; nature and length of the crop
season; and cultural practices interact with these pests.

A detailed case history of the field in which the crop is to be grown
is an early and important part of IPM and crop management. Preventative
procedures such as modification of soil pH liming; reduction of nematodes,
weeds, and soil insects by fumigation, flooding, or fallowing; and correction
of potential nutrient deficiencies by proper fertilization are some good
management practices which may be needed as a result of indications in the
field history.

The vegetable grower using an IPM system needs frequent monitoring
of his growing crop in order to determine when a danger level or economic
threshold is at hand. This monitoring or scouting of crop fields must be
done by trained personnel who can observe and record the numbers and types
of pests present and other unusual field signs and symptoms. This informa-
tion is then summarized, evaluated and reported to the grower on the same
day. The evaluation should consider the economic threshold; the possible
influence of weather changes; the control tools available (including their
cost and effectiveness); the natural enemies of the pest; and the impact of
these control measures on the applicator, the crop, and other elements of
the environment.



A typical scouting procedure for fresh market tomatoes in Florida
serves as an example. The scouting and recording of pest type and number
begins as soon as the seedlings emerge and continues until harvest is al-
most completed. In the field, an observation area of 6 to 10 plants is
established for every 2 to 2 acres. Visits are made to these stations
twice a week. Records are made for the following:

Foliage Diseases

Early Blight
Late Blight
Southern Blight
Verticillium Wilt
Fusarium Wilt
Southern Bacterial Wilt

Fruit Insects


Nematode Injury

Wilting, Stunting
Nutrient deficiencies

Foliage Insects

Vegetable leaf miner
Arnyworm, S-F-B
Cabbage Looper
Cucumber Beetle
Flea Hopper

Fruit Disorders

Blossom End Rot
Mishapen Fruit


Dominant Species
Average Height
Percent Ground Cover



As soon as the scout completes these detailed field reports, the
results are summarized. A comparison is then made between present and
previous counts to indicate spread or decline of the pests observed.
With a crop such as tomatoes, in which worm-riddled fruit are not market-
able, a zero tolerance may be established. A low level of foliar insects
or diseases may be tolerated providing yield or quality are not decreased

The scouting reports provide the pest control specialist, county ex-
tension agent, or farm manager with the information needed to decide what
action must be taken. Consideration must be given to the target pests,
natural enemies of the pests, crop development, climatic conditions, etc.
Measures selected to reduce (not eliminate) target pests with least damage
to the natural enemies are usually recommended.

If a low level population of lepidopterous larvae (caterpillar) is
noted, a chemical of fairly low toxicity such as thiodan, or a biological
control such as Bacillus thuriengensis may be indicated. However, if a
threshold level is noted, a more comprehensive pesticide such as methomyl
may be indicated.

Like the effective battlefield commander, the grower should not use
heavy artillery when automatic rifles will do the job. Overuse of heavy
artillery pesticides can destroy natural enemies as well as target pests,
upset more of the ecosystem than is really necessary and waste a rather
valuable input money.

Time is a prime consideration in an IPM program. The scouting reports
must be accurate and current, the summarization and evaluations meaningful,
and the information must be relayed to the decision maker in time for cor-
rective action to be taken. As a well-meaning, bright young tomato grower
said in a recent grower meeting explaining IPM: "A report on Friday show-
ing some crisis developing in my fields doesn't help me a bit, because I
can't get a spray crew out on weekends". For this reason monitoring should
be done as early in the week as possible, reports returned to growers
quickly, and pests should be encouraged to take it easy over the weekend.


C. Weeds That Vegetable Growers Should Know

Crop production using similar cultural practices and technologies often
causes major weed shifts. For example, repeated use of the same herbicide
or planting the same crop for several years will result in a few resistant
weed species that begin to predominate. Worldwide, there are 18 weeds that
predominate in row crops, plantation crops, aquatic environments, etc.
Table 1 contains a list of 12 weed species that commonly infest vegetable



fields, both in Florida and around the world. In addition, many of these
weeds are known to host other plant pests that cause serious economic
crop losses.

Table 1. Selected listl/of the "world's most troublesome weeds" that are
common or troublesome pests and probable host of other plant
pests in Florida's vegetables.

Other Pest Supported
Weed Name Nematodes Diseases Viruses

Nutsedge Yes Yes Yes
(Cyperus rotundus)

Nutsedge (Yellow) NR2/ NR Yes
(Cyperus esculentus)

Bermudagrass Yes Yes Yes
(Cynodon dactyton)

Barnyardgrass NR Yes Yes
(EchinochZoa crusgalli)

Junglerice grass Yes Yes Yes
(Echinochloa calona)

Goosegrass Yes Yes Yes
(EZuesine indica)

Johnsongrass NR Yes Yes
(Sorghum halepense)

Purslane Yes Yes Yes
(Portulaca oleracea)

Lambsquarter NR NR Yes
(Chenopodium album)

Crabgrass Yes Yes Yes
(Digitaria sp.)

Smooth amaranthus Yes NR Yes
(Amaranthus hybridus)

Spiny amaranthus Yes NR Yes
(Amaranthus spinosus)

1/ Adapted from Holm, et.al., 1977. The World's Worst Weeds: Distribution &
Biology. Part I. University of Hawaii Press.
2/ NR = Not Reported.



In Florida, five of the "most common" weeds in vegetable fields (Table
2) are also listed in the "world's most troublesome weeds". However, only
3 of Florida's "most troublesome" weeds are on the world's list. Perhaps,
the cultural practices, crop rotations, and technologies commonly used in
Florida's vegetable industry allow for a different group of weeds to pre-
dominate. Whatever the reason, growers and professional agriculturists
need to concentrate their efforts on improving weed management strategies
aimed at controlling the "most troublesome" weeds in vegetables. Success-
ful control will involve a combination of management practices designed to
suppress or kill the various types of "troublesome weeds." Continuous
modification of these management practices will be necessary as the weed
species continue to shift in response to the weed management strategies

Table 2.

Florida's "most troublesome"

and "most common" weeds in vege-

Most Most
Weed Name Troublesome Common

(Approximate ranking in list)

Nutsedge (Cypeius rotundus) 1 7
Goosegrass (Eluesine indica) 2 2
Common ragweed (Ambrsia artemisiifolia) 3 6
Burning nettle (Urtica ureus) 4 10
Narrowleaf singalgrass (Brachiaria sp.) 5
Texas panicum (Panicum texaurn) 6 -
Black nightshade (SoZanmn nigrum) 7 8
Wild celery (Apium ZeptophylZum) 8
Buttonweed (Diodia sp.) 9 -
Spiny amaranthus (Amaranthus spinosus) 10 5
Crabgrass (Digitaria sp. ) 1
Purslane (Portulaca oleracea) 3
Florida puslay (Richardia scabra) 4
Cutleaf evening primrose (Oenothaa Zaciniata) 9

of Southern States.


1/ Adapted from McCormick, L. L. 1977. Weed Survey
So. Weed Sci. Soc. Res. Rept. pgs., 196 & 210.




A. Handling Spring Harvest Potatoes for Fresh Market

It has been reported that there are currently decay problems with
Florida potatoes in terminal markets. An investigation has determined
that several factors have contributed to this problem.

1. Freshly harvested potatoes are being run through packinghouses
without being dried properly before bagging.

2. Sizable quantities are being bulk-loaded in closed trailers for
shipment to repackers in the north. Loadings observed were wet and no
refrigeration could adequately cool or dry these potatoes.

3. Some packinghouses have removed driers for economy reasons.
Wooden rollers have been a source of breakdowns and cause excessive skin-
ning and abrasion of tubers.

4. Several loads of potatoes from the Hastings area that had excess
decay at the terminal were dug immediately following heavy rains (up to
4 inches), the tops having been killed several days prior to the rain.
These factors in combination contribute to increased incidence of transit

The following points are apparent following a literature review and
discussions with knowledgeable people.

"Bacterial Soft Rot of Potatoes in Southern Florida", University of
Florida AES Technical Bulletin 348 by George D. Ruehle has very valuable
information that has not been improved on even though the research was
conducted in 1936-1940 at Homestead. For example:

1. Bacterial soft rot developing in transit and storage begins in the
field as a secondary organism and follows late blight tuber rot, Fusarium
tuber rot, or other infections. It may be a carryover from seed piece
decay or lentical infection from waterlogged land.

2. Exposure of harvested tubers to a dry atmosphere stops surface in-

3. Harvesting when fields are dry reduces decay.

4. Drying potatoes thoroughly and rapidly after washing reduces decay.

5. Pre-cooling is less reliable than drying in the prevention of rot.

6. Dip treatment in a chlorine solution is of little or no value without
thorough drying following treatment and is no better than drying alone.



7. Washing increases susceptibility to decay and infection especially
in the presence of decayed tissue in the wash water.

8. Drying with heated air of 1300F to 1500F for 3 to 4 minutes is the
best treatment with a minimum of weight loss.


B. Shipping Watermelons

The following report was prepared by Alice Dow, Biological Laboratory
Technician, ARS, USDA, Orlando, Florida, to be a part of the May, 1978
Vegetarian article on handling watermelons and it was omitted. Since the
information is so important and timely we are putting it in this issue.

A growing European market for Florida watermelons and the extended
shipping times involved have increased the importance of finding the optimum
conditions for the shipment of quality melons. Temperatures, field treat-
ments, and varieties were investigated as the specific variables applicable
to domestic as well as foreign shipments.

Small lots of melons were held at 450, 500, and 600F for 4, 7, and 14
days to simulate the temperatures and times involved in overseas shipments.
The melons were then held at 70 F for 1 week to simulate retail shelf-life
and the home environment. From this preliminary experiment, the cultivar
Charleston Gray and the breeding line #75-1 were selected over Smokylee and
Crimson Sweet for further testing. Decay incidence increased with the lengt
of time stored, and was less at 60 F than at the lower temperatures.

In a subsequent experiment, fungicidal sprays in the field were added to
the variables and larger numbers of Charleston Gray and #75-1 were used. Th
following conclusions were drawn from this experiment:

1. The optimum shipping temperature for watermelons is 600F.

2. Charleston Gray was the superior cultivar for shipping of those

3. Field treatments with Dithane M-45 five weeks and two weeks and
Difolatan 4F five days prior to harvest reduced postharvest decay incidence
by 26%.

4. Breeding-line #75-1, if field treated as above and held at 600F, can
be shipped acceptably.





A. June Gardening Roundup

June is a busy month for Florida vegetable gardeners. While many of
the extreme south Florida gardens are about done for the season, those in
central through north Florida are still in the production stage. Since
most vegetables have been in the garden for two or three months, now is the
time to take a look at some of the developments, problems, and rewards.

Insect and disease pests have not been overwhelming in most areas. In
general, gardeners have had to do little or no spraying. Most serious in-
sect pests have been aphids, cabbage worms, squash borers, corn bud worms,
and tomato or corn fruit worms. Other insects have fed on a variety of vege
tables, but their damage has not been severe so far.

With the onset of the rainy season and warmer nights, this is expected
to change. Tomato or corn fruit worms and pickle worms probably will reach
a stage of destructiveness such that spraying will be necessary. Likewise,
gardeners should be on the lookout for plant diseases to reach a severe leve
Severely diseased individual plants should be pulled out of the garden and
disposed of. Remaining plants should be sprayed weekly with a good garden
fungicide. At this stage, spraying will not be helpful in controlling such
diseases as wilts and virus mosaics.

Some gardeners are concerned that the mosaic virus diseases in their
vegetable garden may spread onto their nearby fruit trees. There should be
little concern here, for the virus involved is quite specific to its host
plant. It generally attacks only plants closely related to the plant on
which it lives in the garden. Weeds in and around the garden should be re-
moved, for some of them are hosts for the virus.

June is a good month to evaluate some of those varieties that were
selected at random from the seed catalogs back in the winter or early spring
Gardeners should determine how well new varieties compared with the old re-
liables. Some questions should be asked. Did the trial variety produce a
strong, vigorous plant? If a root crop, did the roots form and enlarge as
desired? How about quality of the edible product? Were the bean pods
straight and plump, or were they mishapen and dwarfed.

What about disease resistance? Gardeners should record which varieties
performed well in order to plant them in another season.

Mulching effects are readily apparent in June. While weeds in unmulched
gardens are difficult to deal with, mulched gardens should have few weeds.
Nematode injury is obviously reduced by mulching. While nematodes attack
mulched vegetables, the effects are not too severe due to the better condi-
tions existing in the root zone. Perhaps the most striking benefits of



mulching to be observed is soil moisture control. While vegetables growing
on unmulched, hot, sandy Florida soils droop and wilt readily, those in
mulched gardens are standing tall. Mulching definitely pays.

Some of the mulching materials observed have been newspaper, oak leaves,
pine straw, hay, wood shavings, old carpets, gravel, rocks, peanut hulls,
and plastic.

One innovation worth noting is the use of old tires in the garden. The
tires are placed flat on the ground, and tomato plants (2 or 3 per tire)
are planted inside the hole in the tire. The tires form a support for the
plants, and more importantly the fruits rested on the tires rather than on
the soil, reducing fruit rots.

Another observation has been the use of black plastic mulch placed in
the bottom of the furrow. Irrigation water is run down the furrow and seeps
through small holes punched in the plastic. Furrow irrigation, wherever pos
sible with or without plastic, shows good results compared to overhead

One gardener struck on a great idea for getting the full, delightful
benefits of her 'Silver Queen' sweet corn. She pulled the ears of corn from
her garden, went directly to the kitchen, and placed two unshucked ears into
the microwave oven. After 6 minutes in the oven, she removed ears and
shucked them. The marvelous part was that all the silks came off with the
shuck leaving nothing but clean, white, shimmering rows of kernels, with
all the juicy taste and flavor long associated with 'Silver Queen'.


B. Know Your Vegetables Rampion

Rampion (Campanula rapunculus) is a biennial plant grown as an annual
vegetable for its leaves and roots.

Rampion, a native of Britain, was once used much more widely. It is
seldom, but occasionally, grown in Florida gardens. People in Asia and
Africa in addition to some areas in the United States and Europe grow it.

The leaves are entire and long-oval in shape, 6 inches or more in
length. They form a rosette at the root crown. The roots are up to 1 foot
long, slender, white, and sweetish. Roots may be cooked or eaten raw, as
are some forms of radish, and the tops may be eaten raw as in salads or as
a cooked green. An old Elizabethan recipe suggests the roots should be
boiled and stewed with butter and oil and sprinkled with black pepper. The
flavor is more nutty than radishes. The flavor is disagreeable to many who
try it. The roots often are scraped before using.



Culture is similar to the ordinary radish. Although a biennial, the
Rampion plant will sometimes go to seed in a hot summer. Therefore, for
best results, it should be sown from seeds September through March in

Rows should be spaced nine inches apart, with 3 to 4 inches between
plants. Roots can be stored under refrigeration for later use. Seeds are
available in herb company seed catalogs.


Statement: "This public document was promulgated at a cost of $ 138.97
or 23 4 per copy, for the purpose of communicating current technical &
educational material to extension, research and industry personnel."

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs