Title: Vegetarian
ALL VOLUMES CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087399/00229
 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
Horticultural Sciences Department
Publication Date: January 1987
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087399
Volume ID: VID00229
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

Vegetarian%201987%20Issue%2087-1 ( PDF )


Full Text
INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


FLORIDA
COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERVICE


VEGETARIAN

A Vegetable Crops Extension Publication

Vegetable Crops Department 1255 HSPP G Cincsvillc, FL 32611 Tclcpholne 392-213z


Vegetarian 87-1


January 20, 1987


Contents


SI. NOTES OF INTEREST

A. Vegetable Crops Calendar

SII. COMMERCIAL VEGETABLES

A. How safe is your food supply?

B. Tomato minimum size raised

k C. Soil Testing Making it work for you

D. Ninth annual conference for technical and sales
representatives serving the commercial vegetable
industry

III. PESTICIDE UPDATE

A. Maneb products still labelled for use on vegetable
crops

IV. VEGETABLE GARDENING

A. Seed catalogs, harbingers of spring



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

The use of trade names in this publication is solely for the
purpose of providing information and does not necessarily
constitute a recommendation of the product.





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.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS, STATE OF FLORIDA, IFAS, UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, AND BOARDS OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COOPERATING








I. NOTES OF INTEREST


A. Vegetable crops calendar


April 24, 1987. State FFA Vegetable
ID Contest. University of Florida.
(Contact J. M. Stephens).


February 11, 1987. Strawberry Field
Day. AREC Dover. (Contact: Earl
Albregts).

February 14, 1987. FFA and 4-H
Horticulture Contest. Florida State
Fair, Tampa. (Contact: Bob Black
and Jim Stephens).


February 17, 1987.
Day. AREC Sanford.
J. M. White).


Carrot Field
(Contact:


February 17-18, 1987. 6th. Annual
Florida Seedsmen's Seminar.
University Centre Hotel Gainesville.
(Contact: D. J. Cantliffe).

February 23, 1987. Commercial
Vegetable Crops Extension In-Service
Training-Mulching, Quincy REC
(Contact Dr. Steve Olson).

February 24, 1987. Commercial
Vegetable Crops Extension In-Service
Training-Irrigation, Quincy REC
(Contact Dr. Dorota Haman).

February 27-28, 1987. Florida
Agribusiness Computer Short Course
and Trade Show, University of
Florida, Gainesville.

March 14, 1987. State FFA Vegetable
Training Session. University of
Florida. (Contact J. M. Stephens).

April 21-22, 1987. Commercial
Vegetable Crops Extension In-Service
Training. Vanderbilt Inn, Naples
(Contact Don Maynard or Reggie
Brown).

April 23, 1987. Commercial
Vegetable Crops Extension Program
Planning. Vanderbilt Inn, Naples
(Contact D. J. Cantliffe).


June 22-26, 1987. State
Horticulture Institute.
(Contact: Bob Black and
Stephens).


4H
Camp Ocala.
J. M.


II. COMMERCIAL VEGETABLES

A. How safe is your food
supply?

We are the best fed nation on
earth but without pesticide appli-
cations the number of people going
to bed hungry would increase about
10-fold. We have emerged from
"silent spring", the doomsday
philosophy, and now the cautious
acceptance of "legal residues".
After exhaustive testing, The Food
and Drug Administration has
established residue tolerances for
acceptable pesticides. THE BIG
QUESTION How closely is our food
supply monitored to determine
compliance with established regu-
lations? How much monitoring is
sufficient?
A report was just issued on the
General Accounting Office's probe of
FDA testing of imported and domestic
produce for pesticide residues. The
FDA still is in the midst of review-
ing the reports and is maintaining a
low-key stance; at this time their
official policy statement is "no
comment".
A summary of their findings of
illegal pesticide residues is con-
tained in the following tabulation:

Violation rates(%)
Year Imports Domestic
1979 6.2 3.9
1980 6.8 4.2
1981 8.2 2.8
1982 7.4 3.3
1983 4.7 3.6
1984 4.9 1.8
1985 5.5 2.5
Ave. 6.1 2.9







The GAO investigation of
imported products revealed that the
FDA samples less than 1% of imported
produce, lacks knowledge of what
pesticides are used in other coun-
tries, and often fails to take
action against importers when
illegal residues are found. The
report did not reveal whether there
was a pattern as to specific prod-
ucts with illegal residue tolerances
or country of origin.
The offices's probe of the
domestic food supply also found
pesticide residue testing to be lax.
Among the findings of the domestic
investigation were a sampling rate
of less than 1% of domestic ship-
ments, a failure to test for many
residues that may pose health risks,
and a failure to stop foods with
illegal residues from reaching the
marketplace.
The United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association intends to
push for increased appropriations
for FDA pesticide inspection in the
100th Congress. The FDA has previ-
ously indicated it planned to shift
some funding to inspection. With a
larger sampling percentage, the
consumer should feel more assured
the food supply is safe.

(Gull Veg. 87-01)


B. Tomato minimum size raised

Tomato minimum size was raised
(effective December 1, 1986). In
September the Florida Tomato Commit-
tee recommended to the Secretary of
Agriculture that the minimum size of
tomatoes that could be shipped
outside of the regulated area be
raised to 2 8/32 inches in diameter.
This recommendation was published in
the Federal Register for comments
and some 40 repackers filed object-
ions to the change. After carefully
studying the proposal and the
comments filed, the U.S. Department
of Agriculure signed


an order raising the minimum size as
specified above.
This means that from December 1,
1986 to June 15, 1987, no person
shall handle any lot of tomatoes for
shipment outside of the regulated
area unless they are at least 2 8/32
inches in diameter and meet the
other requirements outlined in
Florida Tomato Committee Regulatory
Bulletin No. I dated October 3,
1986. The primary reason for this
change is to provide a better
product for the consumer. A high
percentage of the smaller tomatoes
have a tendency to be immature.
November 25, 1986, four
organizations filed suit against the
Secretary of Agriculture and
Director of the Fruit & Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, asking for
declaratory and injunctive relief to
stay regulations restricting the
importation and sale from Florida of
7x7 tomatoes. The complaint stated,
"Plantiffs will suffer irreparable
harm if enforcement of the final
rule is not stayed. Plaintiff
repackers and importers will be
forced to lay off a large number of
employees and take large, unre-
coupable losses due to the hasty
elimination of the 7x7 tomatoes."
The request was aired in court
and they ruled against the plain-
tiffs. Therefore, the order stands
which was signed originally in
November; 7x7 tomatoes cannot be
shipped from the regulated area
during the time specified.

(Gull Veg. 87-01)


C. Soil Testing Making it
work for you


The reliability of the fertil-
izer recommendation not only depends
on the quality of the soil sample,
but also of critical importance is
the laboratory chosen to analyze the
soil sample and to make the fertilizer








recommendation. Basically, all soil
testing laboratories use the follow-
ing steps in handling your sample:
extraction, analysis, interpreta-
tion, and recommendations.
In the extraction and analysis
phases, the soil sample is treated
with a solution to extract a portion
of the soil's nutrient reserve that
contributes to crop growth and
yield. In Florida, we use the
Mehlich I or double-acid extractant.
Almost any solution (soapy water,
salt water, tea, or Pepsi-Cola) will
extract nutrients from the sample,
however the amount removed might not
correlate with crop response.


Various labs use different extrac-
tion solutions, so it is critical
that the lab that you choose employs
an extraction solution that is
calibrated so that it's use will
permit accurate predictions of
fertilizer needs for your soil. As
an illustration of the differences
in extractable nutrients that are
possible, draw your attention to
Table 1.
The data are results from four soil
testing laboratories that analyzed
subsamples from the same batch of
soil. The soil was sent to four
soil testing laboratories and fer-
tilizer recommendations for
polyethylene-mulched tomatoes were
requested.


Table 1. Comparison of soil analyses from 4
("D" is the Univ. Fla Extension Soil Testing


soil testing
Laboratory).


laboratories


Laboratory


Test A B C D

pH (water) 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.4

Phosphorus (P) 17 ug/ml 20 Ib/A 8 to 10 ppm 12 ppm

Potassium (K) 0 meq/100 ml 40 lb/A 10 ppm 45 ppm

Zinc (Zn) 1 ug/ml 1.3 Ib/A 1.1 ppm 2 ppm

Manganese (Mn) 0.2 ug/ml 5 lb/A 2 ppm 1 ppm


Y __







Since most laboratories use
similar methods to analyze the
extracted solution, the differences
in values in Table 1 are due mostly
to differences in extraction solu-
tions used by the various labora-
tories. Notice also that not all
laboratories use the same units for
reporting the results. Since the
numbers in Table 1 are really soil
index values, the units are not as
critical to the grower as are the
interpretations and recommendations
discussed below.
The soil index values obtained
from the analysis phase require
interpretation which relies on field
research and experience. It de-
scribes the relation of the soil
index value to the relative
capability of the soil to supply
nutrients to the crop in amounts
suitable for optimum yield. A scale
ranging from "very low" to "very
high" is often used.
The interpretation of the soil
index values is used to make the
final fertilizer recommendation.
This recommendation should consist
of two parts: the amount of
fertilizer to use and the management
practices to be employed in applying
the fertilizer i.e. split appli-
cations, timing, placement, etc.
Recommendations must be based
on field research and experience for
a particular production area. They
are based on research "calibration"
data that links a specific soil
index value with expected yield. If
soil testing laboratories have
properly calibrated their laboratory
procedures, then similar fertilizer
recommendations should result even


under situations such as in Table 1
where different amounts of nutrients
were extracted.
To see how well our four
laboratories are doing in this
regard, we can look at the fertil-
izer recommendations made by these
laboratories in Table 2. Although
we can't compare the amounts of
extractable nutrients among labora-
tories in Table 1, we can and should
compare the fertilizer recommend-
ations. We see that the recommend-
ations vary tremendously. Of
particular concern are the excessive
amounts of fertilizer recommended by
laboratories A and C. Research in
Florida has indicated that these
high levels of fertilization do not
increase yield, and in some cases
actually decrease yield. In
addition, some laboratories do not
take into consideration the pesti-
cides used by tomato growers when
making a micronutrient recommend-
ation. Several fungicides and
bactericides contain micro-
nutrients such as copper, manganese,
and zinc. Use of these pesticides
at recommended rates often results
in ample foliar application of these
micronutrients.
Data in Table 2 point out the
problems we can get into unless we
take time to search out the soil
testing laboratory that can provide
a recommendation that is based on
calibration research for a specific
region. At the University of
Florida, we try to reduce these
potential problems by avoiding
testing samples from areas for which
we have no calibration data.







Table 2. Fertilizer and lime recommendations for mulched tomatoes from four
soil testing laboratories.

Laboratory

Test A B C D

Lime (T/A) 1.5 2.0 3.0 2.2

Nitrogen (lb N/A) 275 140 280 220

Phosphorus (lb P205/A) 300 180 360 100

Potassium (lb K20/A) 400 180 400 240

Zinc (lb Zn/A) 6 4 2 2

Manganese (lb Mn/A) 20 15 6 3


SUMMARY
Developing a good soil testing
program is just like any other
farming practice. It takes time and
effort to get it right. Ask ques-
tions of your local county agent and
extension specialists and get the
answers that will help you under-
stand the pitfalls associated with
soil testing. Make sure you avoid
these pitfalls. Use good sampling
procedures by following the manage-
ment unit concept and collecting
quality soil samples. Keep accurate
records on each management unit to
include soil test index interpreta-
tions, fertilizer amounts applied
and resulting yields. These records
will help you trouble-shoot problems
that might arise.
Finally, shop around for the
best soil testing laboratory. There
are many laboratories that can
extract and analyze a soil sample
but our task is to find the one that
can provide us with the most appro-
priate fertilizer recommendation for
our farm.

(Hochmuth, Veg. 87-01)


D. Ninth annual conference for
technical and sales representatives
serving the commercial vegetable
industry.

Thursday, February 19, 1987
Kendrick Auditorium
Manatee County Extension Service
1303 17th St. W. Palmetto, FL 33561

9 AM Registration, Coffee and
Doughnuts

Morning Session Minimizing
Pesticide Liability

An in-depth look at ways this
industry may be better able to deal
with their responsibilities both
within their company and with
growers to minimize user and envir-
onmental liability. We will look at
the label and such issues as
disposal, re-entry, extra label use,
etc. We will also address liability
in terms of new rules and laws to be
aware of as well as from a more
practical viewpoint.

9:30 Agrichemical Liability
Carlton R. Layne
Consumer Safety Officer
Environmental Protection Agency








10:15 The Pesticide Label
Dr. Don Dickson
Interim Pesticide Information
Coordinator
IFAS Gainesville

11:00 Common Enforcement Problems
Mr. Steven J. Rutz
Administrator, Pesticide
Enforcement
Florida Dept. of Ag. and
Consumer Services

LUNCH Box Lunch

Afternoon Session Drip Irrigation

The afternoon session will
focus on drip irrigation, a rapidly
expanding practice in vegetable
production. Get answers to your
questions on managing a drip
irrigation system, with particular
emphasis on fertigation. We'll also
look at solubility problems and
other concerns effectiveness of
various materials, mixes, costs,
etc.

1:00 Design and Management
Considerations for Drip Irrigation

Dr. Craig Stanley
Asscc. Prof. Water
IFAS G.C.R.E.C.

Dr. Gary Clark
Assist. Prof. Ag. Engineering
IFAS G.C.R.E.C.

2:00 Fertilization With a Drip
System

Dr. Steve Olson
Assoc. Prof. Veg. Crops
IFAS North Fla. Res. & Ed.
Ctr.

2:30 Working with Drip Irrigation-
A Growers Viewpoint

(Phyllis Gilreath, Veg. 87-01)


III. PESTICIDE UPDATE

A. Maneb products still
labelled for use on vegetable crops.

At the beginning of 1987,
numerous vegetable crops were to be
removed from maneb labels (Griffin
Maneb, Dithane M22 Special, Dithane
FZ, etc) because of existing data
gaps for chemical residues within
the crops in question. It is our
current understanding that labels of
these maneb products will continue
to contain those vegetables in
question through January of 1987 and
possibly through August of 1987.
Manzate products containing maneb
were voluntarily withdrawn from the
marketplace by Dupont in 1986 but
existing stocks in the marketplace
can be used as labelled. With the
able and competent cooperation of
the Florida Fruit & Vegetable
Association, Griffin Corporation,
and members of the Maneb Task Force,
we are still able to control plant
diseases that can not be controlled
adequately without maneb fungicides.
If residue data for turnips are not
submitted to the EPA by January 15,
1987 and accepted by the EPA by
January 31, 1987, turnips may be
removed from all maneb labels. The
loss of maneb on turnips would be
detrimental to producers of this
crop in the Southeast U.S.A. as no
other organic fungicide is labelled
for use on this crop as a foliar
spray. Some sulfur-containing
fungicides may be labelled on
turnips but I am not aware of such.
The situation for the future
use of maneb on vegetables has
improved slightly on a temporary
basis but with the protocol for the
reregistration standard still in the
future (August, 1987), we are
concerned. Certain regulatory
efforts are conducted under the
assumption that we are in a luxury
mode with reference to availability
of plant disease control chemicals.







Current development of plant disease
control chemicals generates
specific-type compounds that are
effective initially but are prone to
degrees of uselessness because
target organisms vary naturally and
"throw out" resistant strains that
persist over time. Broad spectrum
fungicides, like maneb, must be
maintained in the marketplace as
they have unique characteristics for
long term usage and their safety
record is similar to that of the
telephone.

(Tom Kucharek, Extension Plant
Pathologist, Veg. 87-01)


III. VEGETABLE GARDENING

A. Seed catalogs, harbingers
of spring.

Long before the melting of snow
and the unfolding of new buds signal
the arrival of spring, colorful
descriptive catalogs from seed
companies across the land arrive at
our mailboxes, heralding the
approaching gardening season. The
1987 issues are here, and as we
eagerly thumb the pages, the promise
of new gardening adventures abound
at every turn. The entries are so
tempting, we can hardly wait to


place our order. The soil cries out
to be turned, to bring to life those
glorious pictures. We ponder our
garden spot, visioning it in its
full productive prime. Alas, it is
so small! Too many wonderful things
we cannot plant, their mysteries
still unsolved. So many choices to
make! Yet, there is pleasure in
that task, so on to the next catalog
we go.
Last year we sent readers of
our newsletter a list of seed
company addresses. We hope many of
you wrote to them for a mail-order
catalog and are now enjoying the
fantasy of your 1987 spring garden.
I have already received several and
they are just as colorful and
rewarding as ever.
All of the varieties we suggest
for Florida are there, in one
catalog or another, and we are proud
of this source of planting material
whether it be seeds, plants, or
plant parts. But just as intriguing
and tempting are the less common
vegetables, which we call the minor
crops. It seems there are a lot
more items available in this
category of hard-to-find items than
before. Here are some examples
which I see just glancing through
three or four of these major seed
company offerings:


Ornamental peppers
Jerusalem artichoke
Garbanzo beans
Southern peas
Honeydew melons
Pak Choi
Popcorn
Garlic chives
Lemon cucumbers
Corn salad
Dandelion
Chicory
Garlic
Kale
Watercress
Romaine
Shallots


Asparagus
Herbs
Fava beans
Broccoli raab
Crenshaw melons
Cilantro
Ornamental corn
Celtuce
Gherkins
Sorrel
Arrugula (Roquette)
French endive
Elephant garlic
Ornamental kale
Florence fennel
Endive
Leeks


Globe artichoke
Dry beans (kidney, pinto)
Mung beans
Brussels sprouts
Chinese Cabbage
Celeriac
Chives
Armenian cucumbers
Dill
Garden cress
Radicchio
Collards
Horseradish
Kohlrabi
Parsley
Escarole
Mushrooms








Snow peas
Peanuts
Parsnips
Chinese radish
Spaghetti squash
Ornamental gourds
Swiss chard
Seedless watermelons
Rape
Capers
Chili peppers
Potato seed
Spud buds
Mamordica


Snap peas
Salsify
Rutabaga
Rhubarb
Luffa gourd
New Zealand spinach
Malabar spinach
Ice-box melons
Mustard-spinach
Miniature pumpkins
Sweet banana pepper
Flowering cabbage
Comfrey


Jalapenos
Root parsley
Naked-seeded pumpkins
Zucchini
Bottle gourds
Amaranth (gampala)
Cherry tomatoes
Edible soybeans
Jicama
Yard-long beans
Pimiento
Strawberry seeds
Ginseng


Some list, huh, folks?
Wouldn't it be fun to be able to
include all of them, along with the
standard favorites? And this is
just a sampling of a few catalog
offerings, not to mention all the
planting material that will be on
display in the local garden seed and
supply stores. It's shaping up to
be a big year for vegetable gardens.
Prognosticators say "yuppie gardens"
are "in" for 1987, so park your
"Bimmie" for awhile, and pore
through your newly arrived seed
catalogs. Get with it, and get
growing! By the way, this a
reminder that cultural information
on most of these vegetables is
included in the publication, "Know
Your Minor Vegetables." Each county
Extension office in Florida should
have a copy.

(Stephens Veg. 87-01)

Prepared by Extension Vegetable Crops Specialists


Dr. D. J. Cantliffe
Chairman


Dr. G. J. Rochmuth
Assistant Professor

Dr. S. M. Olson
Assistant Professor


Dr. D. D. Gull
Associate Professor

Dr. D. N. Maynard
Professor

Dr. W. M. Stall
Professor


Dr. J. M. Stephens
Professor




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