uconn extension department plant science …€¦ · pesticide update ... monitored for the...

UCONN EXTENSION AND DEPARTMENT OF PLANT SCIENCE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE AND FRUIT CROPS NEWSLETTER VOLUME 12, ISSUE 2 - APRIL 2016

C ROP TALK In This Issue

Perimeter Trap Cropping for SWD Control………...1,3

Investing in Harvest and Post-harvest Aids…..…..2,10

Connecting Schools to Local Growers…………………..4

Pesticide Update…………..………………………………….….5

Vegetable IPM Training………………………………………..5

How to Make Sure Your Farm is in Compliance….6-8

Outstanding Young Farmers in CT….……………………..9

Questions for the Dept. Of Labor………………………….9

Partnering with Food Banks………………………………..10

Steward’s Wilt Warning for Sweet Corn……………...11

Produce Safety Email List…………………………………….11

Calendar of Events Free One-on-One Professional Agricultural

Advising Sessions Contact: [email protected],

860-875-3331 to sign up today

April 13– Rockville High School Ag Center

April 21– Wamogo High School Ag Center

April 27 - Tolland County Extension Center

June 15 –Pomological Soc. Twilight Meeting & Equipment Field Day 2PM @ Belltown Hill Orchards, S. Glastonbury Contact: Erica Teveris [email protected], [email protected], 860-486-6449

June 21 - New Advances for Biological Controls For Indoor and Outdoor Production of Ornamentals Contact: [email protected], 860-626-6240

July 12 -Twilight Meeting: Connecting Schools to Local Growers 5-7pm (page 4)

Nov. 9-10 - Northeast Greenhouse Conference & Expo 2016 Holiday Inn, Boxborough, MA. www.negreenhouse.org Contact: Delaney Meeting & Events, 802-865-5202 [email protected]

Nov. 17 – Growing in Tunnels Conference Tolland County Extension Center, Vernon, CT Contact: [email protected], 860-875-3331

Spotted wing drosophila (SWD) is an invasive insect pest that was first discovered

in the USA in California in 2008 and entered CT in the late summer of 2011. The

arrival of SWD caught CT growers and university and research staff off-guard re-

sulting in almost complete loss of late season blueberries and fall berry crops in

2011. The SWD lays its eggs in berries as they are maturing and the resulting lar-

vae then feed on berries making them unmarketable. This has wreaked havoc

particularly with berry crops that are harvested mid-summer through the fall as

the SWD populations increase exponentially throughout the growing season. Late

season blueberries, late summer blackberries and raspberries, fall brambles and

day-neutral strawberries (fall strawberries/ever-bearing strawberries) are some

of the preferred crops that now require pesticide applications once or twice per

week in order to maintain close to a SWD-free marketable product.

A variety of trap colors, styles and lures have been tested to try to determine an

effective method of monitoring SWD populations. In 2013, ‘trapping out’ was

tested in CT, RI and ME using baited traps throughout the plantings. It was not

successful or cost effective.

Proposed solution

Perimeter trap cropping (PTC) has been successfully utilized in vegetable crops for

many years. This project used that concept by using an established planting of fall

red raspberries as the trap crop for the SWD, planted around a day-neutral straw-

berry planting. A separate field of day-neutral strawberries was established with-

out the raspberries planted around them. The raspberries and strawberries were

monitored for the presence of SWD with traps and fruit inspections. Insecticide

applications were made only to the raspberries, spraying from the inside of the

block out, to avoid spraying the day-neutral strawberries. It was expected that the

raspberries would either intercept the SWD as they entered the field or the SWD

would find the raspberries more appealing than the strawberries, and the pesti-

cide applications would control them before they had a chance to infest the day-

neutral strawberries. If successful, PTC would provide another management tool

for berry growers to use to control SWD without applying pesticides to the straw-

berries.

Procedure

The trap crop plot consisted of five 350 ft. long double rows of Seascape day-

neutral strawberries planted in May 2014 on black plastic surrounded by an es-

tablished 365 foot long row of Caroline fall red raspberry 12 feet to the east, and

a 365 foot long row of Polana fall red raspberry 12 feet to the west of the Sea-

scape. A row of Caroline raspberries were planted across the ends of the straw-

berry row 6 feet to the north and south; The check plot consisted of five double

Continued on page 3

By: Mary Concklin, UConn Visiting Associate Extension Educator, Fruit IPM & Production

Perimeter Trap Cropping for Spotted Wing Drosophila Control

mailto:[email protected]






For those of you who missed the recent Extension workshop on

“Strengthening Your Wholesale Produce Business”, one of the most im-

portant facts that workshop teacher and former wholesale farmer, Atina

Diffley, mentioned was that up to 60% of the costs of producing a crop is

tied up in harvesting and post-harvesting operations, like cleaning and pack-

ing. We often find ourselves trying to save a few dollars per acre by skimp-

ing on this-or-that on the production side of growing a crop, or by mecha-

nizing a job by buying a new tool for our tractor, without actually consider-

ing that there is often much more money to be saved if you can reduce the

labor or improve the efficiency on the harvesting and packing end of the

operation.

One thing Atina suggested was the use of Peakfresh mineral-impregnated

polyethylene bags to help preserve the quality of your product and reduce

shipping costs at the same time. She claimed that these bin or carton liners

help remove ethylene, which causes fruit to age, and reduces moisture and

fogging, which causes it to mold or rot, from the bags during shipping, and

may allow you to reuse boxes at just pennies per container.

Whenever I see farm crews hand washing vegetables in a dunk tank, I al-

ways mention that every grower who has ever purchased a washing table

(Fig. 1), also known as a mechanical wet brush packing line, has kicked

themselves for not buying one the very first year they started growing and

selling. It just saves so much labor, time and energy compared with hand

washing that it pays for itself the first season. With salad greens, the clean-

ing process can be done much more efficiently with a stripped down wash-

ing machine and/or a motorized salad spinner (Fig. 2), which can accomplish

the same job in a fraction of the time that it takes a large crew to hand wash

greens.

A less common crop cleaning aid on farms is a barrel washer, which can do

a better job for certain root crops such as, potatoes, beets, carrots, rutaba-

gas, turnips and radishes. Paul Arnold, of Pleasant Valley Farm in Argyle,

NY, who spoke at the New England Vegetable & Fruit Conference in Decem-

ber, said that his barrel washer paid for itself in just two weeks because of

the volume of root crops that they clean and sell. Fred Monahan, of Stone

Garden Farm in Shelton, said their Grindstone Root Crop Barrel Washer

(Fig. 3) “saves us countless hours washing” “we use it for …all crops we

store for winter markets and CSA”. Fred also went through three renditions of a

salad spinner over the years. The first was powered by someone peddling a bi-

cycle frame hooked up to a spinner cage. The second was motorized, and the current model, which he had help designing and con-

structing from the students at Fairfield University, is much larger and more efficient for large loads.

Think about how much labor goes into your farm’s crop washing efforts and think about how you can streamline those efforts by

mechanizing some of these slow repetitive jobs. Then think about how you can lighten the load for your crew in the areas of har-

vesting and moving or loading your crops. Mules, or harvest conveyor belts (Fig. 4), can help pace your picking crew so that no-

body falls behind, while reducing wasted effort in bending and hauling of buckets and bags. Loading docks, with pallet jacks or fork

Saving Money and Time by Investing in Harvest and Post-harvest Aids

By: Jude Boucher, UConn Extension, Commercial Vegetable Crops

Figure 1: Nelson Cecarelli explains a washing table

to a UConn Vegetable Production class

Figure 2: Fred Monahan’s 3rd-generation salad

spinner

Figure 3: Grindstone Root Crop Barrel Washer

Continued on page 10

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 APRIL 2016

Perimeter Trap Cropping for Spotted Wing Drosophila Control (CONTINUED)

rows of Seascape strawberries planted 200.5 feet to the east of

the trap crop plot with mature apple and peach trees located

between the two treatments.

As mentioned above, insecticides were applied to the ripening

raspberries against SWD by spraying from the inside and blowing

outward. This reduced the chances of insecticide drift onto the

strawberries protected by the raspberry trap crop. No insecti-

cides were applied to either the trap crop-protected or check

plot strawberry blocks.

Mature strawberry and raspberry fruit were randomly sampled

weekly for the presence of SWD larvae beginning in mid-August

and continuing through October in 2014 and through September

in 2015.

Trece traps were set out in the raspberries and strawberries. The

drowning solution from the traps was collected weekly and

poured through coffee filters, which were then placed under a

microscope to make counting SWD adults easier.

Results:

In 2014, larval infestation (4%) in the strawberries protected by

the trap crop lasted for a single week which ended on October

2nd. The raspberry larval infestation occurred during a five week

period from September 4 through October 2, and ranged from

2% to 18%. The infestation in the check plot strawberries began

September 4 and continued off and on weekly through October

16, with infestations of 2%, 0%, 4%, 0%, 6%, 12%, and 24%.

In the strawberries protected by the trap crop, no SWD were

caught in traps the first three weeks although they were present

in the traps in the raspberries during this interval. Trap captures

began in the trap crop plot strawberries September 11, peaked

October 2 and continued in lower numbers through October 23.

Raspberry SWD trap captures were immediate, beginning on

August 21 and sustained throughout until Oct 23. Although SWD

were present in the trap crop plot strawberry trap, they ap-

peared to prefer the raspberry fruit over the strawberry fruit.

SWD trap captures in the check plot strawberries began August

29 and continued through October 23.

In 2015, larval infestation in the strawberries protected by the

trap crop occurred only during two weeks, ending on August 24

and September 8, at 2% each week. The raspberries were infest-

ed beginning August 24 and continuing through September 28

with a range of 2% to 14 %, with the sole exception of the week

ending on September 8 which had zero fruit infested. The check

plot strawberry infestation was almost identical to the trap crop-

protected strawberry infestation: two weeks at 2% each, the

remainder weeks had 0% infestation. Although there was a

difference between the strawberry fruit infestation in the two

plots in 2014, there was no significant difference in 2015.

Conclusions:

The goal for this project was to achieve at least 90% SWD-free

strawberry fruit in the trap crop protected strawberries. Based

on these results, the use of raspberries surrounding the straw-

berries made a difference in the strawberry fruit infestation of

SWD. Trap crop-protected strawberries never had less than 96%

SWD-free fruit in either year, so fruit were marketable through-

out the experiment.

Infestation rates of the check plot strawberries were expected to

be very high as no insecticides were applied. However, infesta-

tion rates in the check plot were lower than expected and well

within the 90% SWD-free goal, with the exception of the weeks

of October 9 and 16, 2014. During those two weeks in October,

SWD-free fruit dropped to 88% and 76% respectively – an unac-

ceptable level for commercial production. Those two weeks also

correspond to the highest SWD trap captures in the check plot.

It is possible the distance between the two plots at 200.5 feet,

even with tree fruit between, was not enough to overcome the

attractiveness of the raspberries in the trap crop plot, and result-

ed in low populations in the check plot strawberries.

Data from the two years of this study indicate that raspberry

fruit are more attractive to SWD than strawberry fruit and can

function as an effective trap crop for strawberries. This pilot

study shows promise for the use of PTC for SWD management.

Trials are needed at additional farms to discern if the relation-

ship holds in different environments.

Funding has been provided by the Specialty Crop Block Grant

Program of the Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, awarded and administered by the Connecticut

Department of Agriculture. Award # 6678

Photo: Trap Crop Plot

TWILIGHT MEETING: Connecting Schools to Local Growers in

Tolland and Windham Counties - July 12th

Sell your farm products to schools! Join UConn Extension to meet school food service administrators in Tolland & Windham counties and learn about options to ex-pand your wholesale markets into schools. We'll be talking about procurement procedures, establishing business relationships, as well as Put Local on Your Tray - a program for school cafeterias ready to feature locally grown fruits & vegetables. Food and bever-ages will be provided!

Speakers:

Samantha Wilson, New London Public Schools – Farm to School in CT really does work, and Sam Wilson, the Food Service

Director in New London will talk about the success she has had in buying directly from CT farms.

Monica Pacheco, State Department of Education – Procurement practices can help you establish reliable, sustainable

business relationships with schools, and Monica Pacheco from CSDE will present on the specifics of these guidelines.

Dana Stevens, Put Local on Your Tray – Some schools are starting small, with Put Local on Your Tray! Dana Stevens, the Pro-

gram Director, will speak about how this initiative focuses on one local item each month to be served in schools.

Joe Bonelli, UConn Extension – Farmers will also have Joe Bonelli available as a resource, to speak about crop insurance and

other risk management tools.

Tuesday, July 12th, 2016 5pm-7pm Captain Nathan Hale School, 1776 Main Street, Coventry This is a free event. Please RSVP to MacKenzie White ([email protected]).

This program is a cooperative effort of UConn Extension, the Connecticut Department of Agriculture, USDA/ Risk Management Agency, and Put Local on Your Tray; and is funded in part by USDA – Risk Management Agency and the Connecticut State Department of Education.

These organizations are equal opportunity employers and program providers.


Pesticide Update


BeetleGone is a new organically-approved insecticide, containing Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies galleriae, which is regis-

tered to control weevils and scarab beetles, such as Japanese and Asiatic garden beetles and carrot weevil, on many different

vegetables and small fruit crops.

MyCotrol-O the insecticide containing the parasitic fungus Beauvaria bassiana, has lost its OMRI organic certification due to

one of the carriers in the formulation. BioWorks, the manufacturer, has announced that there will be two similar B. bassiana

certified products available in 2016: BotaniGard ESO and BotaniGard WPO. This fungus is very useful on organic farms as

rotational materials for tough to kill pests such as Colorado potato beetle and cabbage aphids, as well as many other pests. I

witnessed CPB resistance to Entrust last year on an organic farm in CT, and this is a product that you could use in rotation to

slow resistance or in place of Entrust if it has failed or is too expensive for your operation.

Proline is another resistance group 3 systemic fungicide option for cucurbit crops which can be used against powdery mil-

dew in place of other group 3 products such as Procure or Rally. Systemics are important in an effective powdery mildew

program because the disease starts on the underside of lower, older leaves where it is tough to get spray coverage, and be-

cause rotation among the different systemic families is critical since they are very prone to resistance problems. This is an

example of how it may be used in an effective resistance management and pumpkin fungicide program: Spray #1 Vivando +

Bravo; #2 Torino + Bravo; #3 Quintec + Cabrio or Dithane; #4 Proline + Bravo; #5 sulfur + Bravo.

Belt and Transform: The EPA has announced that the registrations for these two insecticides are being cancelled.

Paraquat: The EPA is proposing new rules and regulations for the use of paraquat due to the large number of poisonings

from ingestion and applicator exposure. Only certified applicator license holders (not workers) will be allowed to apply para-

quat and there will be a new prohibition from using hand-held or backpack equipment for this herbicide. This chemical will

only be sold in closed-system packaging to prevent the transfer of the product to unmarked containers and special training

will be required for licensed applicators to use the product. There will also be new warnings and instructions on the pesticide

label.


Vegetable IPM Training

If you have never participated in IPM field training on

your farm, here is your chance (and chances are running out…

this is my 30th year at UConn and I’m not getting any younger!). I will

be working one-on-one with a number of beginning farmers and small-

er organic farms this summer. However, I still have openings for a

couple of experienced farmers who own moderate-large, conventional

farms (>20 acres of vegetables) to balance out the program. You

would receive training on your farm in proper pest identification,

scouting and monitoring techniques, alternative control measures, and

pesticide selection and application. You would need to be able to walk

your fields with me and participate weekly, or every-other-week, in a

short “classroom” in your fields. First come, first serve. Not for previ-

ous program participants. To enroll in the training, send me your con-

tact info, email address, and short description of your crops/farm and

pest problems. [email protected] 860-870-6933


Federal Labor Laws and Farm to Institution Sales in New England: How to Make Sure Your Farm is in Compliance

New England farmers contribute to a robust regional food sys-

tem. Farmers provide healthful food to consumers, treat farm

workers fairly, and act as stewards of the region’s farmland,

while maintaining viable farm business operations. It can be

difficult to balance these many goals, particularly when new

opportunities to diversify your farm business may come with

new sets of regulations.

This article will address the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

(FLSA) and the conditions under which farm workers are and are

not exempt from time and a half overtime pay in certain Farm to

Institution marketing activities.

Definition of Agricultural Work

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 exempts employers

from paying certain workers from overtime pay ”when em-

ployed in agriculture or in certain related activities or in certain

operations with respect to agricultural or horticultural commod-

ities.” The Department of Labor interprets this as:

“Workers employed in “agriculture” (as defined in Section 3(f) of

the Act) are exempt from the Act’s overtime requirements un-

der 29 U.S.C. § 203(f). Section 13(b)(12) of the FLSA, which pro-

vides an exemption from the overtime requirements of the FLSA

for any worker employed in “agriculture.”

The FLSA defines “agriculture” as including “farming in all its

branches and among other things includes the cultivation and

tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing,

and harvesting of any agricultural or horticultural commodities

(including commodities defined as agricultural commodities in

section 1141j(g) of U.S.C. Title 12), the raising of livestock, bees,

furbearing animals, or poultry, and any practices (including any

forestry or lumbering operations) performed by a farmer or on a

farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming oper-

ations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or

to market or to carriers for transportation to market.”1

How do I know when farm activities are “exempt”?

What does the Department of Labor consider to be a “relatively

large” farm operation? What does “agriculture or certain relat-

ed activities” mean for aggregation, processing, or cross-state

Farm to Institution sales? How do you know what “counts” as

agriculture and what does not?

Three important concepts guide whether or not your farm is

subject to Department of Labor federal minimum wage and

overtime exemptions: “Man Days”, “Mixed goods”, and

“Primary vs. Secondary agricultural activities.”

“Man Days”

The Department of Labor uses a concept referred to as “man

days” to first determine whether your farm operation is small

enough to be exempt from paying workers the federal minimum

wage (though not from your state’s minimum wage) and over-

time wages. Farms that use fewer than 500 “man days” in every

quarter of the previous calendar year are exempt from federal

minimum wages and overtime, while those who use more than

500 “man days” in any one quarter of the previous calendar year

are not exempt.

To calculate a “man day,” first exclude all workers who are im-

mediate family members of the farm owner. Each non-family

worker who performed agricultural work at least one hour on

any single day has worked a “man day.” Add each of these

“man days” together over each calendar quarter. If the number

is greater than 499, your farm operation is not exempt from

federal minimum and overtime wage requirements.

“Mixed Goods”

The term “mixed goods” refers to goods that are not produced

on your farm. Farm workers who handle “mixed goods” in the

course of their employment are NOT engaged in agricultural

work as defined by FLSA, and they are NOT EXEMPT from over-

time pay for the work week in which they handle these goods.

This can include, for example, peeling carrots for a neighbor’s

farm, buying and packing a neighbor’s potatoes with your own

to sell wholesale, or transporting other farmers’ products across

state lines.

“Primary vs. Secondary” Agricultural Activities

Primary – If a farm worker is engaged in a “Primary” function, it

does not matter where they do the activity or who employs

them – they are exempt from overtime. Primary activities in-

clude: Cultivation, tillage, dairying, harvesting, livestock, bees,

poultry, book keeping. Workers could be field workers, tractor

operators, loaders and drivers, or farm office personnel, for ex-

ample.

Prepared by Jill Ann Fitzsimmons, Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts Amherst


Secondary – A farm worker engaged in a “secondary function”

must be engaged in agricultural activities ON the land leased or

owned by their employer, and with products grown by that em-

ployer. Secondary activities include: Packing, processing, pre-

paring for market, first-stop-from- the-field delivery.

In addition, agricultural workers who transport product from the

field to the first place of marketing or processing, even if the

employer is not the farm, are excluded from overtime.

How do I calculate wages?

Minimum Wages

All workers must earn at least the hourly minimum wage rate,

regardless of whether they are paid hourly, salaried, or piece-

rate. Higher state statutory wage rates supersede federal wage

rates. As of January 1, 2016, non-H-2A agricultural minimum

wage rates are:

$9.60/ hour in CT, VT, and RI;

$8.00/ hour in MA;

$7.25/ hour in ME and NH.

For example, if a pieceworker in Connecticut earns $1 per box,

picks 300 boxes in a week, and works 50 hours in that week,

they are earning $6.00/ hour, which is less than Connecticut’s

$9.60 minimum wage.

In 2016, H-2A minimum wages are $11.74/ hour in all six New

England states, higher than the state minimum wages in each

state. If H-2A workers who will be engaged in aggregation, pro-

cessing, or transportation of goods, these activities must be in-

cluded in your H-2A application. As long as the activities are

included, the FSLA overtime exemption regulations noted above

apply to H-2A workers.

Overtime Wages

Unless your farm has met the 500 “man days” criteria for over-

time exemption, a worker must be paid time and a half overtime

for every hour worked above 40, if, during the course of that

week that worker:

1. handles mixed goods,

2. is engaged in a secondary activity with mixed goods

or not on the employer’s farm, or

3. transports products beyond the first place of mar-

keting or processing.

Corresponding Employment & the Adverse Effect Wage Act

(AEWA)

In addition, in compliance with the Adverse Effect Wage Act

(AEWA), “corresponding workers” — workers who perform the

same activities as H-2A workers — must receive the highest pre-

vailing wage among workers engaged in those activities. For

example, if “corresponding workers” work alongside H-2A

workers while unloading a truck, all workers must be paid at

least the H-2A minimum wage of $11.74/ hour.

Farm to Institution Marketing & Agricultural Activities

New England schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and colleges are

buying local vegetables, fruits, meat, poultry and other farm

products in record numbers. But these institutions are different

than other wholesale buyers – they may want product that is

processed, they may need a volume delivered that is too large

for any one farm to fill, or they may be interested in buying from

a farm in a neighboring state.

If your farm is relatively large and is engaged in any of the

above activities to satisfy orders from institutional buyers, then

there is a chance that your workers may NOT be engaged in

“agricultural work” as defined by labor law. If your workers are

not engaged in agricultural work according to this definition in

any given week, they are not exempt from overtime pay for that

week, and failure to pay overtime could result in expensive fines

to your farm, in addition to providing the affected workers back

pay.

In addition to the issues addressed in this article farm operators

must be in compliance with, and maintain records that demon-

strate compliance with, federal and state regulations that are

not discussed in this publication, including:

• Housing; Landlord/ Tenant Law; Workers’ Compensa-

tion and Safety; Food Safety; Field Sanitation; Occupa-

tional Health and Safety (OSHA); Family Medical Leave

Act (FMLA)

• Worker transportation, first aid, drinking water,

paycheck deductions, and child labor regulations also

covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA), the Mi-

grant & Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act

(MSPA), and additional H-2A regulations.

The information in this article is intended to provide a first step

to understanding whether your farm operation is in compliance

with labor law.

How to Avoid a Department of Labor Investigation:

1. Educate yourself about state and federal laws, particularly if your farm operation has recently engaged in new agricultural

activities.

2. Seek legal advice if you are concerned about your compliance.

3. Follow all guidelines received.

4. Maintain all worker- and employment- related records for three years.

5. These guidelines are not complete – if you are

concerned about whether or not you are in compli-

ance, you should consult with a lawyer.

(Left: Table Showing Worker Overtime Exemp-

tions)

New England Federal Department of Labor Wages

and Hours Division District Office of Connecticut

Hartford, CT District Office serves Connecticut &

Rhode Island

US Dept. of Labor Wage & Hour Division

135 High Street, Room 210

Hartford, CT 06103-1111

Many thanks to J.L. Stine, R. Buckleystein, E. Rum-

ley and the National Agricultural Law Center, and

U.S. Department of Labor Wages and Hours Divi-

sion personnel who kindly provided their expertise

for this research. Errors remain my own.

1 Kessler, J. (2006). United States Department of Labor Wages and Hours Division. FLSA2006-17NA.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/opinion/FLSANA/2006/2006_07_06_17NA_FLSA.htm

Many thanks to NESARE for research funding GNE

13-058

Production of this fact sheet supported by the

UMass Amherst Center for Agriculture, Food and

the Environment, home of UMass Extension.

Scenario Worker Exempt from Overtime?

Your farm peels and cubes all of the winter squash you grow for sales to a university. Your neighbor hires you to peel and cube her winter squash for sales to a local grocery store. One worker supervises the processing, and works 60 hours that week.

NO

You made a verbal agreement with a large hospital to deliver 1,500 lbs of paste tomatoes the third week of August. Howev-er, your tomato yield suffered from a blight and you can only provide 1,000 lbs. To make up the difference, your neighbor agrees to sell you 500 lbs of paste tomatoes. If you don’t meet the order, you will lose the hospital’s business in the future.

You pack up both your and your neighbor’s tomatoes at your farm and deliver the whole order.

Instead, you pick up your neighbor’s tomatoes at his farm, then deliver the whole order.

NO YES

Your farm is in a very rural area, and you aggregate products from other farmers in your region to deliver to schools. Your workers pick up products from other farms, bring them to your farm where you accept orders from schools, and pack different products from different farms into each school’s delivery. Your workers then deliver the products to schools across the region.

NO

You rent space in a commercial kitchen to make tomato sauce for a college. You use only your own tomatoes, peppers, and onions as ingredients in the sauce. You hire a chef to supervise your workers to cook and can the sauce in the rented kitchen.

NO

Your farm is located in Massachusetts, right on the border with New Hampshire. The nearest public school is in New Hampshire, right along a delivery route to your main wholesale grocery account. Your truck driver often drops off a box or two of produce to the school, and the school pays in cash.

YES

Last year you employed 6 non-family workers. In the first quarter (Jan-March, or 13 weeks) only one worker was employed, and she worked 2 days per week (26 “man days”). In the second and fourth quarters (April-June and Oct-Dec), three workers each worked 2 days per week (156 “man days”). In the third quarter (July-Sept), all 6 workers each worked 4 days per week (312 “man days”).

YES




Congratulations to Connecticut’s Outstanding Young Farmer for 2016, Bruce Gresczyk, Jr. of Grescyzk Farms in New Hartford. (Left) With Bruce are his wife Amy and son Bruce III, CT Agricultural Commissioner Steven Reviczky and Erin Pirro of Farm Credit East (March, 2016).

Outstanding Young Farmers In Connecticut!

Congratulations to Joe DeFrancesco III of DeFrancesco Farm in Northford, who was Connecticut’s Outstanding Young Farmer for 2015 and is pictured, (right) with his wife, accepting the award in Ohio as a National Top 10 Finalist for Outstanding Young Farmer (Feb., 2016).

Questions for the Department of Labor?

At the CT Veg & Small Fruit Growers’ Conference in January we invited two In-

spectors from the U.S. Dept. of Labor to make a presentation on “Labor Standards

in Agriculture” and to answer your questions about what is legal and what isn’t.

Understandably, some folks were reluctant to approach the inspectors with ques-

tions and identify themselves or their farms. Recently, a farmer sent me three

questions for the Inspectors, and I volunteered to act as the go-between to pre-

serve his anonymity. The Inspectors answered those questions and are now will-

ing to have me send more, which they will answer, and I will forward back to you.

I will also compile the questions and answers into a fact sheet (no names will be

used), which I will distribute to our mailing lists and post on-line, so everyone can

benefit. This is your chance to get your labor questions answered and get some

piece of mind by knowing that you are in compliance and should pass an inspec-

tion, if the “fickle-finger-of-fate” should land at your doorstep! Send me your

Labor questions before April 30th and we’ll try to get them answered.

[email protected], 860-870-6933


Sometimes, no matter how carefully growers plan, they are faced with surplus crops. And sometimes, ordinary people are faced with hard times and can’t put food on the table. That’s where Foodshare and the Connecticut Food Bank step in- to efficiently match surplus produce with food pantries, shelters and community kitchens that distribute it to families in need.

Numerous Connecticut growers are already working with their local food bank, but more farmers are needed to donate crops! Fortunately, there has never been a better time to do that.

Until recently, only C Corporations using the accrual method could receive a federal tax deduction for product donated to food banks. That has changed. In December 2015, as part of the PATH ACT, several changes were made to the federal tax incentives for food donations that now allow for non c-corporations using the “cash method” to take advantage of these tax incentives. Furthermore, the new law changes the way the Fair Market Value is determined, allowing for product that is out of specification or overproduced to be valued at the same price as similar food items sold.

Lastly, the new incentive allows the grower to receive a nominal payment for the donation to recover some of their costs. Allow-able costs include those associated with harvesting, storing, washing, packaging and delivery.

Foodshare and the Connecticut Food Bank are hoping that these new tax incentives will encourage local growers to consider do-nating instead of plowing under an unsellable crop. They are also hoping some will consider growing for the express purpose of donating.

Foodshare acquired over 2 million pounds of produce from out-side Connecticut in 2015. “Each year we set aside funds to cover the cost to transport produce from out of state,” says Paula Siebers, Food Sourcing Manager at Foodshare in Bloomfield.

“We would love to direct those funds toward our local growers whenever possible.”

The process is simple. Just call or email the food bank assigned to your county to discuss your donation and whether you would like to drop off or have it picked up. Upon receipt the food bank will provide a receipt for your tax records. At year end you will also receive a letter listing your total donations for the year. Your accountant will use this letter when calculating your year end taxes.

To know more about working with Foodshare (Hartford and Tolland Counties):

Paula Siebers

Foodshare

Food Sourcing Manager

[email protected]

860-286-9999 x 123

To know more about working with the Connecticut Food Bank (Fairfield, Litchfield, New Haven, New London, Middlesex and Windham Counties)

Linda Hutchings

Connecticut Food Bank

Procurement Coordinator

[email protected]

203-741-9201

There Has Never Been a Better Time to Partner with Food Banks

lifts can help minimize how many times your crew has to lift the same weight.

I often hear farmers say how difficult it is to get farm labor these days, but

have you ever thought about how you can make it easier for your crews to

get their jobs done, which in return reduces the amount of labor you need on

the farm and helps to retain good workers. The bottom line here is that these

days nobody wants to do repetitive work that can be more efficiently done by

a machine, and it pays not to have 10 people doing what could be accom-

plished by one or two people and the right harvest or post-harvest aid.

Figure 4: Workers using a conveyor

belt harvest aid

Saving Money and Time by Investing in Harvest and Post-harvest Aids (Continued)



Steward’s Wilt Warning for Sweet Corn


The Iowa State University Model uses the average monthly temperature for December, January and February to predict the preva-

lence of the bacterial disease Stewart’s Wilt on sweet corn. The bacteria is spread to the corn seedlings by flea beetles. Large

numbers of flea beetles survive during warm winters and we just experienced the warmest winter months in recorded history. In

the SW Disease Risk map below, everything south of the white and green mountains received a red (high risk) rating for 2016. Bac-

teria clogs the vascular system of the plant and prevents fluid and nutrient movement causing yellow stripes to form on young

leaves. Internal tissue may rot at the soil line which leads to stunting or death of young plants. Back in 1991, CT farmers lost 20-

25% of all their susceptible early sweet corn plants to this disease. The disease can be controlled by preventing the flea beetles

from feeding on seedling

with row covers or in-

secticide. However, the

use of resistant varieties

is usually the most suc-

cessful management

method.

Figure from Cornell’s

NEWA system (Network

for Environmental and

Weather Applications)

GAP/FSMA/Produce Safety Rule/Safe Growing, Harvesting and Post-Harvest Handling of Fruits and Vegetables

Diane Hirsch, UConn Extension Food Safety Educator, invites you to join the Produce Safety Email list so that you can continue to

be informed of developments and training opportunities in produce safety. Email Diane at [email protected] if you would

like to be on the list


Crop Talk Editors / Contributors

Jude Boucher, Commercial Vegetable Crops, UConn Extension,

(860)870-6933, [email protected]

Mary Concklin, Commercial Fruit Crops, UConn Department of Plant

Science and Landscape Architecture (860)486-6585,

[email protected]

MacKenzie White, Newsletter Layout, [email protected]

Administrative Officers

Gregory Weidemann, Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Michael P. O’Neill, Associate Dean and Associate Director, UConn

Extension

Bonnie E. Burr, Assistant Director & Department Head, UConn Extension

Cameron Faustman, Associate Dean for Academic Programs and

Director, Ratcliffe Hicks School of Agriculture, Storrs Agricultural

Experiment Station

Richard McAvoy, Department Head, Department of Plant Science and

Landscape Architecture

The information in this newsletter is for educational purposes. The recommendations contained are based on the best available knowledge at the time of publication. Any reference to commercial products, trade or brand names is for information only, and no endorsement or approval is intended. The Cooperative Extension System does not guarantee or warrant the standard of any product referenced or imply approval of the product to the exclusion of others which also may be available. All agrichemicals/pesticides listed are registered for suggested uses in accordance with federal and Connecticut state laws and regulations as of the date of printing. If the information does not agree with current labeling, follow the label instructions. The label is the law. Warning! Agrichemicals/pesticides are dangerous. Read and follow all instructions and safety precautions on labels. Carefully handle and store agrichemicals/pesticides in originally labeled containers, out of reach of children, pets and livestock. Dispose of empty containers immediately in a safe manner and place. Contact the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for current regulations. The user of this information assumes all risks for personal injury or property damage.

UConn Extension

24 Hyde Avenue

Vernon, CT 06066

An Equal Opportunity

Employer and Program

Provider

2016-2017 New England Vegetable Management Guide

NOW AVAILABLE

*New—Updated lifecycle and cultural information section for each pest. When you purchase a copy of the 2016-2017 Guide you can also receive the 2014 edition of the Northeast Vegetable and Strawberry Pest Identifi-cation Guide (almost 400 colored pictures). For a hardcopy, order online at www.store.uconn.edu or call 860-486-3336.

Address: UConn CAHNR Communications Resource Center 3624 Horsebarn Road Extension U-4035, Storrs, CT 06269-4035.

uconn extension department plant science …€¦ · pesticide update ... monitored for the...

Documents