AG RX Spring 2014 Avocado-

Citrus MeetingCitrus Meeting

March 4,5, 2014

David Holden

Topics for Today

• Soil Amendments – When to use gypsum, sulfur, sulfuric acid, or sulfurous acid?

• Soil Adjuvants for water saving.

• NUE – Nutrient Use Efficiency. How to get • NUE – Nutrient Use Efficiency. How to get more from less.

• Observations on the effects of the this past winter’s lack of rain and heat.

• Young tree establishment utilizing a phosphate plus Transit Soil Program.

Amending your Soil

• When and why to use:

– Gypsum or possibly CaTs (calcium thiosulfate)

– Sulfuric Acid water amendment

– Sulfurous Acid water amendment (Sulfur – Sulfurous Acid water amendment (Sulfur

burners)

– Soil Sulfur

– Limestone

Gypsum

• Lack of water percolation and not enough calcium in your soil dictates the need for gypsum

• Based on simple laboratory soil test by • Based on simple laboratory soil test by adding known amounts of gypsum to your soil and seeing how varying rates improve water infiltration

• By the way, gypsum does not acidify your soil, but limestone does raise the pH of soils.

No need for Gypsum

Sulfuric Acid or Sulfurous Acid

• Both of these acids treat hard water and drop the pH of that water

• The difference is Sulfuric acid is a “strong” acid and the Sulfurous Acid is a “weak” acid

• With Sulfuric acid you can drop your water pH to close to zero, with sulfurous acid, depending on the buffering capacity of the water you can only drop the pH to about 6.0-6.5

• Also sulfurous acid is made by burning sulfur in a sulfur burner.

Sulfur Burner on Left, Sulfuric Acid

Injection System on Right

When to use either of these Acids

• High water pH and/or potential irrigation system or soil clogging potential from hard waters that produce limestone when dried.

• Blueberry production

• Additional elements to consider• Additional elements to consider– Chloride

– Boron

• Sulfur burners have also been utilized to lower pond water pH and to help control algae in the ponds.

What A Water Candidate Might

Look Like.

• Critical

Numbers

to look at

and and

Why?

Resulting Solutions

Limited help from Sulfuric Acid in

this water.

Sulfuric Acid or Sulfur Burner

• Things to consider

– Environmental Issues - Safety

– Ease of handling

– Effectiveness– Effectiveness

– Cost

Soil Sulfur

• Why would you choose soil sulfur over the previous options?

• Where water is good, but soil pH is slightly elevated due to low amounts of limestone or elevated due to low amounts of limestone or other alkalinity issues.

Let’s Look how Soil Sulfur Works.

• On most of our soils 300-600 lbs per acre of

pure soil sulfur will lower the pH of a foot

of soil one whole point from say 7.5 to 6.5

• Depends on soil type and buffering capacity• Depends on soil type and buffering capacity

• If soil has much limestone, it takes a lot

more soil sulfur to “burn up” that limestone

• Let’s se how it works.

Tigersul Dispersible Sulfur

• Comes in 90% S and 65% S plus 18% Zinc

• Finished two year project on new lemon replants

in 2010

• Rates of ½ lb to 1 lb/tree applied in 2009 and 2010 • Rates of ½ lb to 1 lb/tree applied in 2009 and 2010

to the surface of the soil and scratch in.

• Significant pH change over two years and new tree

growth response

The movement

of Sulfur into plants.• Uptake of S

– Plants take sulfur from the soil in the sulphate form ( SO4= )

– Small quantities of S0₂ can be absorbed through the plant leaves.

– Plants require a constant supply of S during it’s growing period, and cannot move sulfur from it’s older leaves.

– sulfur in the elemental S form has to be oxidized to sulfate for plant uptake.

3/5/2014Copyright 2005-2006 Tiger-Sul Products

(Canada) Co.17

uptake.

Finely

Divided

Elemental

sulfur

+Water

+Oxygen

With

Bacterial

activity

Sulfuric

Acid

H2SO4=

To

help

prote

ct y…

Sulfur

5 Key Factors for Oxidization of Elemental Sulfur (PNES)

1. Thiobacillus concentration(Sulfur bacterium)

Glue

•Naturally in all soils

•Elemental Sulfur food source.

3/5/2014Copyright 2005-2006 Tiger-Sul Products

(Canada) Co.18

Microbe

< 1 micron

Scanning Electron Micrograph Showing Thiobacillus attached

To Sulfur Particle

•100 – 1000 bacteria per gram of soil

•Higher concentrations increase oxidation

•After PNES applied 6-8 weeks in good soil

conditions, population increases to approx.

3-3.5 million per gram of soil.

•Concentration will increase year after year.

Why use a product like Tigersul?

Micronutrient and phosphate availability increases as pH is decreased from

basic to a neutral pH.

Data from Citrus Tree Establishment

Trial 2009-11

• Started at tree planting

• Repeated applications for two more years.

• Similar trial repeated in 2012-13, 2013-14 on

strawberries with very similar and positive strawberries with very similar and positive

results.

Average increase in Tree Height

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%P

erce

nt C

han

ge

in H

eig

ht

Chart 2: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura County, Summer 2010 Tree Growth

10/26/2010

Untreated 17.6%

Tiger 90 1 lb/tree 21.9%

Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree 26.8%

Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 29.6%

Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree 33.2%

Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree 34.0%

Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 41.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Per

cen

t Ch

ang

e in

Hei

gh

t

c

bc

ab

abc

bc

ab

a

Average Increase in Trunk Diameter

85.0%

90.0%

Trun

k D

iam

eter

Per

cent

Cha

nge

Chart 6: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura County, Summer 2010 Tree Growth

10/26/2010

Untreated 73.9%

Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 76.3%

Tiger 90 1 lb/tree 76.4%

Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree 77.5%

Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree 82.0%

Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree 86.5%

Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 87.1%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

Trun

k D

iam

eter

Per

cent

Cha

nge

Soil pH change in 2010

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

pH

Chart 8: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura County, Summer 2010 - Soil pH

10/16/2009 1/20/2011

Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree 7.4 6.3

Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 7.3 6.6

Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree 7.4 6.7

Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 7.3 6.7

Tiger 90 1 lb/tree 7.3 7.0

Untreated 7.4 7.2

Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree 7.3 7.2

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

Soil Zinc Levels

150.0

200.0

250.0

Chart 9: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment - Ventura County, Summer 2010 - Soil Zinc Level

10/16/2009 1/20/2011

Untreated 36.9 17.4

Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 41.2 24.8

Tiger 90 1 lb/tree 43.8 26.3

Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree 43.0 27.0

Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 25.8 87.9

Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree 21.1 171.0

Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree 26.9 191.0

0.0

50.0

100.0PP

M

Leaf Zinc Levels

40

50

60

Chart 13: Tigersul Program for Lemon Planting Establishment -Ventura County, Summer 2010 - Leaf Zinc Level

10/16/2009 11/9/2010

Untreated 36 22

Tiger 18% Zinc 1/2 lb/tree 44 22

Tiger 90 1 lb/tree 47 26

Tiger 18% Zinc 1 lb/tree 51 25

Tiger 90 w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 55 23

Tiger 18% Zinc w/Humic Granules 1/2 lb/tree 55 29

Tiger 90 1/2 lb/tree 57 29

0

10

20

30

PP

M

How to Apply Tigersul Products

• Pre-plant worked into soil based on soil

analysis

• Post-plant under the sprinklers, raked in

would help, but not necessary.would help, but not necessary.

• Rates determined by soil analysis, higher pH

or limestone, the more needed.

When to Use Limestone

• Almost never in Coastal California

• We generally have alkaline soils (high pH) and as you learned earlier we make limestone with our hard waters

• We generally want to lower our soil pH and • We generally want to lower our soil pH and limestone raises the soil pH.

• So When?– Some wine makers may ask for higher pH soils

– If your soil is very acid (below pH of 6.0)

– If your are growing brassicae type crops with Club root present in the soil)

Tests with Water Adjuvants.

• Looked at five products in vegetables and

avocados, we will discuss the three best.

– Aqua Plus

– Kalo 3051 (Water Right)– Kalo 3051 (Water Right)

– Integrate 20

• Applied early in irrigation Cycle

• Applied monthly

How do these Adjuvants Work?

• Some increase water percolation, while

others hold water

• The ones we are looking at hold water and

allow for volumetric fill, that is lateral allow for volumetric fill, that is lateral

movement in the soil.

• Probably more effective in vegetables, but we

saw some good results in Avocados.

Results in Avocado

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

7 Day Tensiometer Readings Prior to Treatents

7 Day Tensiometer Readings After Treatents

Percent Improvement

Chart 8: Water Fill Improvement over time when compared to an Untreated Check.

Avocados. Best overall average at Day 14.

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

6" 12"

Observations

• After each application noted the following

– We were able to extend the irrigation cycles from seven to ten days after the first application, then nine days after this irrigation, and eight days after the second irrigation. By the fourth irrigation we the second irrigation. By the fourth irrigation we were back to the same cycle

– In theory this should give us about 6 extra days a month without the need for water or about 70 days a year.

– This would equate to a savings of about .25 to .5 acre foot of water per year.

Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE)

• What is it? Getting a better bang for our buck.

• Why?

– Nitrate loss to ground water, atmosphere, and

surface watersurface water

– Cost of materials

• I have conducted at least 40 separate trials this

past two years with over 20 different products

looking at utilizing nutrients more efficiently

and reducing nitrate leaching.

2012-13 Celery Trials

• Replicated sampling (8) of celery in season as it sized.

• SPAD sampling in same order to measure relative chlorophyll levels in the leavesrelative chlorophyll levels in the leaves

• In season soil and petiole samples (no significant differences noted)

• End of season (two days prior to commercial harvest) replicated sample harvest of 8 replicates from each treatment.

Sizing Results

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Po

un

ds

per

To

tal P

lan

t

Chart 1: Multi Participant Trial on Celery in Ventura County, California 2012 -2013 Season - Whole Plant Weight

12/17/2012 1/3/2013 2/1/2013 2/26/2013 3/27/20134/1/2013(trimmed)

Grower Standard 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.59 2.14 2.56

G.S. at 75% N 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.54 2.62 2.63

G.S. at 75% N/Ocean Organics Exp 3 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.61 2.88 2.73

G.S. at 75% N/Kelpgrow 0.01 0.03 0.13 0.55 2.86 2.84

G.S. at 75% N/Algamin XT 0.01 0.03 0.14 0.49 2.87 2.86

G.S. at 75% N/Global Organics Program 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.53 2.81 2.78

G.S. at 75% N/Steric P-S-K Program 0.13 0.55 2.80 2.63

G.S. at 75% N/Steric S-S-K Program 0.13 0.52 2.83 2.66

0.00

0.50

1.00

Po

un

ds

per

To

tal P

lan

t

All trimmed

for market

Financial Return Data

10000.00

15000.00

20000.00

25000.00

Chart 4: Multi Participant Trial on Celery in Ventura County, California 2012 -2013 Season - Net Return per Acre after Harvest Costs - Pre

Cultural Costs

18's 24's 30's 36's 48's Total Return/acre

Grower Standard $8,566 $3,919 $5,102 $823 $0 $18,410

G.S. at 75% N $3,777 $9,787 $1,166 $1,694 $0 $16,424

G.S. at 75% N/Ocean Organics Exp 3 $7,845 $9,571 $1,211 $0 $0 $18,626

G.S. at 75% N/Kelpgrow $12,221 $8,697 $629 $0 $0 $21,547

G.S. at 75% N/Algamin XT $13,675 $8,132 $634 $0 $0 $22,441

G.S. at 75% N/Global Organics Program $11,961 $7,296 $1,847 $0 $0 $21,103

G.S. at 75% N/Steric P-S-K Program $8,790 $6,896 $2,908 $0 $0 $18,594

G.S. at 75% N/Steric S-S-K Program $10,154 $6,388 $2,939 $0 $0 $19,482

0.00

5000.00

10000.00

Per

cen

t

Soil Nitrogen

• Pre-Crop– 92 ppm NO3 nitrogen

• Post Harvest– Grower Standard 100%N – 39 ppm

– Grower Standard 75% N – 2 ppm

– Grower Standard 75% N with additives – 9 ppm (average for – Grower Standard 75% N with additives – 9 ppm (average for all)

• Almost 75% less nitrogen left in the soil on average in the 75% nitrogen plots with additives when compared to the Grower Standard at 100% nitrogen. That in theory is 120 less leachable pounds of nitrate nitrogen per acre, with 7.5% on average better production ((1375-1280)/1280)!

How does this Apply to Avocados

• Use the proper timing when applying nutrients

– Nitrogen prior to leaf flushes particularly in April

and late June, July

– Phosphate in the winter when soil is cold and – Phosphate in the winter when soil is cold and

phosphorus availability is limited

– Potassium and zinc when roots are actively growing

and can take it in between late April and September

• Don’t waste products to leaching when plant

cannot use the nutrient efficiently.

Winter 2014 Observations

• No rains really since the fall-early winter of

2012 until this past week.

• East winds, dry, and hot in January.

• Resulting effect, particularly on the • Resulting effect, particularly on the

avocados, was not good and worse with

salty water.

This is what many of you are seeing!

Or Possibly this?

So what is the difference?

Salt in the Soil

Lime Induced Chlorosis

What salts

• Generally

– Chlorides

– Bicarbonates

– Sulfates– Sulfates

– Nitrates

– Phosphates

So Why does the lack of leaching

rain have these effects.

A Simple Solution?

What to do next year.

• Irrometers, a shovel or soil probe, and

irrigation scheduling calculator for water to

be found at avosource.com

• Maintaining good irrigation scheduling in • Maintaining good irrigation scheduling in

the winter, when the rains are not coming is

critical to tree health.

A little side information

• How does a windbreak

affect fruit size.

• Average weight of fruit

on March 2, 2013 at xx on March 2, 2013 at xx

distance from Eucs:

– 20 feet – 4.8 oz

– 35 feet – 5.1 oz

– 50 feet – 5.5 oz

– No windbreak

influence – 5.9 oz

Fruit Sizing on March 2, 2013

Final Subject

• New Planting Establishment Trials

• Almonds

• Avocados

Fertilizer Rates - Almonds

• UTC – No fertilizer

• Grower Standard

– 1 oz/5 gallon planter of 19-8-13 6 month slow release in Marchrelease in March

– 25 ppm in water of P2O5 as a soil drench once per month, March-June.

• Transit alone

– 12 floz/acre equivalent

• Grower Standard plus Transit

Transit Soil on Almond Trees Key Improvements

• 64% increase in whole tree weight

• 64% increase in root growth

• 19% increase in SPAD chlorophyll readings

• significantly improved canopy growth

• overall improvement in tree establishment

From left to right the treatments were untreated control, 2-16-16 @ 50 ppm only, Transit/Carbon Boost Soil only, and Transit/Carbon

Boost Soil + 2-16-16 @ 50 ppm. Transit/Carbon Boost Soil treated almond trees were significantly greater at the 99% confidence level.

Transit Soil on Almond Trees 95 days after transplant 3

applications applied

UTC 2-16-16 @

50 ppm

Transit/Carbon

Boost Soil

Transit/Carbon

Boost Soil +

2-16-16 @ 50 ppm

Second Year Trees

Untreated Grower Standard Program Transit/Carbon Boost G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost

Final Results 2012

• On Average– Trees treated with Transit had 10-22% higher

chlorophyll readings over both years when compared to the untreated check (this was in absence of any extra fertilizer)

– 88% increase in whole tree weight and root weight – 88% increase in whole tree weight and root weight when Transit was added to the grower standard fertilizer program

– The Transit treatment increased leaf mass by 71% over the untreated check and the grower standard program plus Transit/Carbon Boost increased leaf mass by 30% over the grower standard alone.

Two year old Almonds

Untreated Grower Standard Program Transit/Carbon Boost G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost

Almond Leaves

Untreated Grower Standard Program Transit/Carbon Boost G. S./Transit/Carbon Boost

AG RX/Holden Avocado

Establishment Trials – 2010-2012

January 2012

April 2010

April 2011

January 2012

Avocado Planting Details

• Planted April 15, 2009

• Trial Started Spring 2010 at one year of age

• Soil is semi limey, with a calcium carbonate

rating of .5% and a pH of 7.5 and a cec of rating of .5% and a pH of 7.5 and a cec of

28.7

• Soil is low in manganese, copper, and iron

Study Details

• Random Complete Block Design

• Ten single tree replicates, completely randomized

• Three treatment regimes– Grower standard consisting of UN 32, KTS and Zinc 9%

EDTA chelate as a foliar.

– Advanced Grower Standard of UN 32,KTS, 2-16-16 and – Advanced Grower Standard of UN 32,KTS, 2-16-16 and Iron 4.5% HEDTA chelate all in soil along with foliar applications of Nutri-Phite 4-30-8, Acadian SEL, and Zinc 9% EDTA

– FB Sciences based program of UN 32, KTS, Photogreen-S and 2-16-16, all with Transit/Carbon Boost in the soil. Foliar program of 2-16-16 and Zicron F with Kafe.

Results as of March 16, 2011

• Average Vigor Rating (1-5 Scale, 5 being the best)

– Grower Standard – 3.4 b

– Advanced Grower Standard – 4.2 a

– FB Sciences Based Program – 4.5 a

• Percent of Trees rated as a 5• Percent of Trees rated as a 5

– Grower Standard – 10% b

– Advanced Grower Standard – 30% ab

– FB Sciences Based Program – 60% a

• Separation of the means based on DMRT at 90%

confidence

Results as of March 16, 2011

• Trees not in bloom as an indicator of tree

health– Grower Standard – 50% a

– Advanced Grower Standard – 10% a– Advanced Grower Standard – 10% a

– FB Sciences Based Program – 0% a

• Separation of the means based on DMRT at 90%

confidence

Average Fruit Load on July 4, 2012

• Grower Standard –

2.4 b

• Advanced Grower

Standard – 2.5 bStandard – 2.5 b

• FBS Program – 3.3 a

Final Production 2013

• Equivalency on a per Acre Basis for Four

Year Old Trees

– Grower Standard – 9030 lbs/ac

– Advanced Grower Standard – 9450 lbs/a (5% – Advanced Grower Standard – 9450 lbs/a (5%

increase over grower standard)

– FBS Program with 2-16-16 – 10770 lbs/a (19%

increase over grower standard)

Review

• Soil Amendments

• Soil and Water Adjuvants

• Nutrient Use Efficiencies

• Climate 2014• Climate 2014

• Tree establishment.

Thank you

110

Thank you

David Holdenwww.holdenresearch.com