Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pickling Cucumber
Tuesday morning 9:00 am
Where: Gallery Overlook (upper level) Room E & F
MI Recertification credits: 2 (1B, COMM CORE, PRIV CORE)
OH Recertification credits: 0.5 (presentations as marked)
CCA Credits: PM(1.0) CM(1.0)
Moderator: Bernard Zandstra, Horticulture Dept., MSU
9:00 am Effective Use of Cucumber Herbicides for Pickle Production
Bernard Zandstra, Horticulture Dept., MSU
9:20 am Trends in Type and Cultivar Development for Pickling Cucumbers
Jos Suelmann, Breeder Pickling and Slicing Cucumbers, Bayer
CropScience, The Netherlands
9:50 am The Downy Mildew Report (OH: 2B, 0.5 hr)
Mary Hausbeck, Plant, Soil and Microbial Sciences Dept., MSU
10:20 am Pickle and Pepper Industry Update- Available Food Safety Program
Katie Hensley, Swanson Pickle Company, Ravenna, MI
11:00 am Session Ends
11/25/2015
1
Pickling Cucumber Weed Control
Bernard ZandstraMichigan State University
EXPO 2015Grand Rapids, MIDecember 8, 2015
Weed Control Experimentsin 2015
1. Single harvest cucumber
2. Multiple harvest processing pepper
Cucumber Experiment
1. Variety: Expedition2. Planting Date: 29 May 20153. PRE Application: 4 June 20154. POST Application: 22 June 20155. Harvest Date: 28 July 2015
(60 Days)
Curbit Treatments
Rate Visual Rating YieldTreatment lb ai/A 6/20 7/5 7/16 kg/plot1 Curbit 1.13 1.3 2.7 2 602 Curbit
Command0.750.375
2 3.7 3 52
3 Strategy 6 pt 2 3.3 2.3 634 Curbit
CommandSandea
0.750.250.023
2.7 3 2.7 45
Reflex Treatments Rate Visual Rating Yield
Treatment lb ai/A 6/20 7/5 7/16 kg/plot1 Reflex 0.25 6 7.7 7 182 Curbit
CommandReflex
0.750.250.125
4.7 5 4.3 42
3 CurbitCommandReflexSandea
0.750.250.1250.023 POST
5 6 5 34
4 Untreated 1.3 1.7 1.7 58
Dual Magnum and A16003 Treatments
Rate Visual Rating YieldTreatment lb ai/A 6/20 7/5 7/16 kg/plot1 Dual Magnum
Command0.50.25
2.7 4.3 4 37
2 Dual MagnumCommand
0.40.25
2.7 4.7 4.3 43
3 bicyclopyrone 0.033 1.7 2.7 2.3 47
11/25/2015
2
Summary of 2015 Research
1. Optimum Yield: CurbitCurbit + Command (or Strategy)Curbit + Command + Sandea POST
2. Potential Treatments:Curbit + Command + ReflexDual Magnum + Command
Processing Pepper Experiment
1. Varieties: Hungarian Hot WaxJalapeño M
1. Transplant Date: 28 May 20152. PRE-TP Application: 28 May 2015 3. POST Application: 22 June 2015 (Sandea)4. Harvest Dates: 4 Aug – 13 Oct 2015
Crop Tolerance and Yield (1)
Rate Visual Rating6/28
YieldTotal kg/plot
Treatment lb ai/A Banana Jalapeno Banana Jalapeno1 Prowl H2O 1.4 1 1 28* 31*2 Dual Magnum 0.95 2 2 27* 23*3 Reflex 0.25 1.3 1.3 26* 25*4 Command 1 1.7 1.3 38 445 Untreated 1 1 29* 24*
Crop Tolerance and Yield (2)Rate Visual Rating
6/28Yield
Total kg/plotTreatment lb ai/A Banana Jalapeno Banana Jalapeno6 Command
Dual Magnum10.95
1.3 1.3 38 39
7 Dual MagnumSandeaPoast
0.95 POT0.023 PO10.19 PO1
2.3 2 32 32*
8 A16003 0.033 4 3.7 19* 23*9 Zidua 0.133 3 2.3 16* 25*
Recommendations – Pepper (1)
Pre-transplant: Command 1 lb ai (2.7 pt)Reflex 0.25 lb ai (1 pt)Dual Magnum 0.95 lb ai (1 pt)Devrinol 50 DF-XT 2 lb ai PPI (4 lb)Prowl H2O 1.4 lb ai (3 pt)Treflan 1 lb ai PPI (2 pt)
Recommendations – Pepper (2)
Post-transplant: Dual Magnum 0.95 lb ai (1 pt)Prowl H2O 1.4 lb ai (3 pt)
- directed to soilLeague 0.19 lb ai (4 oz)
- between beds with plastic
11/25/2015
3
Recommendations – Pepper (3)
POST: Sandea 0.023 lb ai (0.5 oz)
- directed to soilPoast 0.19 lb ai (1 pt)
- grassSelect Max 0.12 lb ai (1 pt)
- grass
AcknowledgementsMichigan Pickle and Pepper Research CommitteeMichigan AgBio ResearchMSU ExtensionUSDA-NIFAUSDA-IR4Syngenta Crop ProtectionSeminis Seeds (Monsanto)CPSFMCGowan
Thank You for Supporting MSU Research
Bernard [email protected]
517-353-6637
Questions?
Jos Suelmann, plant breeder, December 2015
Trends in types and cultivation development for pickling cucumber
Breeding
Breeding is a slow process • Try to predict developments • Sometime able to initiate developments
Developments initiated by breeding
Parthenocarpy Spined varieties in Europe
Only successful if there was a benefit for our customers (growers, industry, consumers)
Pickle Production Surface
Surface in hectares
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Surface 2013 Surface 2023
Understanding the markets
# Ranking in Production (Tonnes) 1 United States 2 Russia 3 Germany 4 Mexico 5 Poland 6 Ukraine 7 India 8 Kazakhstan 9 Turkey
10 Vietnam
# Ranking in Production (Surface) 1 United States 2 India 3 Russia 4 Mexico 5 Ukraine 6 Kazakhstan 7 Poland 8 Kyrgyzstan 9 Turkey
10 Brazil
General
Factors affecting developments in pickling cucumber • Labor availability • Labor costs • Land availability • Land costs
• Preference of consumers
• GMO, biological production, home markets
• Product requirement
• Politics • Logistics • Investors/entrepreneurs
Production
• Small grades Low labor cost => Asia • Medium grades efficiency and high production => Europe • Large grades Mechanized harvesting => Americas
Small grades Asia
• Labor costs • Climate
• year round production • Organized processing industry • Availability of farmers • Support by government • No competition with local
demand
• High number of farmers • Span of control • Traceability
• Education level of growers • Increasing labor cost • Labor competition with
construction • Availability of water • Disease pressure
Strengths Threats
Small grades Europe
• Production cheap • Markets for all sizes (local or
export) • Climate
• Dry, warm, water available • Agriculture supported by
government • Closer to consumer markets
• Financial liquidity growers • Low investment in crop • No yield increase • Competition from Asia • Decreasing quality of labor
Strengths Threats
Developments small grades Asia • Increasing demand for small grades • New areas • Larger scale growing
Europe (=Turkey) • Shift to medium grades
Medium grades-high tech
• Knowledge level of growers • Availability of seasonal labor • Innovation • Efficiency
• cost price per kg produce product
• Most cultivation risk under control
• Stable and predictive yield • Market for all produced grades
• Increasing labor costs • Lack of land, narrow crop
rotation • Agriculture not supported by
government • Price pressure on product
Strengths Threats
Medium grades-low tech
• Huge domestic market • Tradition • Fresh market and processing
market • Very divers production methods • Low labor cost • West European market close by
• Politics • Lack of innovation
Strengths Threats
Development of medium grades
• Shift from Germany to surrounding countries • Focus on profitable grade • Continues increasing yield needed
High tech
Low tech • Many countries – many governments/politics
Large grades
• Labor “independent” • Knowledge level of growers • Liquidity and access to credits • Reliable and predictive
production • Brining possibility gives stable
supply
• Competition other crops • Lack of yield increase • Meeting consumer demands-
quality
Strengths Threats
Developments larger grades • Production price goes up
• Machines, seeds, fertilizers, crop protection • Intensified growth to increase productivity • Yield has to go up => intensify • Request for higher quality • More demand for smaller grades
Cultivation development summarized • Shift of culture to countries or areas where production cost is lowest
• Within those growing areas a shift towards less labor and higher
investments
• Anything that increases yield will be taken up
Effects from breeding • Presented info from the market • Variation available • Decide on breeding targets
• Most important factor are the markets where the crop will shift to
Meet the changing requirements
• development will be mainly on plant types
Increase productivity
Decrease costs
• either yield or financial yield
• less labor cost • more resistances • increase % most profitable grade • decrease waste
New types
Thank you!
The Downy Mildew Report
Dr. Mary K. Hausbeck, 517-355-4534, and Alex Cook Michigan State University, Department of Plant, Soil & Microbial Sciences
Cucurbit downy mildew (DM). DM is a severe foliar disease of cucurbits (cucumber, melon, squash, pumpkin, zucchini) caused
by Pseudoperonospora cubensis, a fungal-like plant pathogen. Michigan is the #1 producer of cucumbers
for pickling in the U.S. Until 2005, DM was controlled by the use of resistant cultivars and the disease
had not been reported in Michigan for more than 25 years. However, in 2005, a new isolate of DM swept
across the state causing widespread losses of cucumber crops. In Michigan, the pathotypes that have been
examined are especially virulent and capable of causing disease on cucumbers and melons. The other
pathotypes that affect squash and pumpkins have been detected primarily in other regions of the U.S.
However, this year DM was problematic in winter squash fields of significant acreage. Although the Ps.
cubensis pathogen is unable to survive outside in regions that experience a frost, the increasing number of
greenhouses growing cucumbers for production could mean that inoculum is present all year. Oospores,
the overwintering survival structure for Ps. cubensis, have not been found in North America but they can
be produced in the laboratory and it may be just a matter of time until oospores become part of the
management puzzle. Lemon-shaped sporangia are produced in large numbers on the undersides of
infected cucurbit leaves; a minimum leaf wetness period of 2 hours is needed. Sporangia are formed,
mature during the night when the leaves are wet and are released into the atmosphere the following
morning as the environment dries.
Last minute rescue applications of fungicides fail to limit DM and protect the crop. Several
fungicides are no longer effective as a result of pathogen resistance. Field trials show that an infection
that is not effectively managed causes yield loss and fruit distortion. Plants must be protected
preventively. However, it is difficult for growers to know when to begin fungicide sprays. Spore
trapping has been a technique that Michigan has used for over a decade to detect an influx of DM
sporangia into a production area. Until an improved means of
rapidly sampling the air and identifying the particles within the
air is developed, the spore traps are one way that we have to
alert the industry that DM is present. An important reminder
from last year’s season is that when the weather conditions are
especially favorable for DM, timing of fungicide applications
becomes crucial. In our MSU field plots, when the plants
became infected almost immediately after emerging it was
challenging to limit disease development.
Spore trapping. Seven spore traps (Fig. 1) were operated from May to
August 2015 in fields in cucurbit-producing areas in the lower
peninsula of Michigan: east-central counties (Arenac, Bay,
Saginaw); central counties (Gratiot); and western counties
(Allegan, Berrien, Muskegon) (Fig. 1). Spore trap reels were
changed each week and nearby fields scouted. The reels were
Fig. 1. Map showing spore trap sites
(stars) and counties with confirmed
DM.
brought back to the lab and tapes prepared for microscopic examination and quantification of DM spores.
Spore counts were continually uploaded to the lab’s website. Confirmation by county of cucurbits
infected with DM were uploaded to a Michigan map at the lab’s website (Fig. 1). Detection of the first
DM spore via spore trap occurred on 27 May to 22 June, 11 June, and 29 May to 21 June in the east-
central, central and west areas, respectively (Table 1). Spore numbers peaked on 8 to 11 August, 3
August, and 3 to 14 August in the east-central, central and west areas, respectively. Peak spore numbers
ranged from 24 to 19,072; 1,695; and 16 to 4,168 in the east-central, central and west areas, respectively.
Two other traps were placed in Ingham (central) and Monroe (east-central) Counties later in the
season (Fig. 1, Table 1). Weekly spore totals for Ingham County were 71 (28 July to 3 August), 215 (4 to
10 August) and 190 (11 to 17 August).
Table 1. Spore trapping dates and numbers and confirmed DM dates by county.
Area East-central Central West
County Arenac Bay Monroe Saginaw Gratiot Ingham Allegan Berrien Muskegon
Trapping start date 5/20 5/20 6/26 5/20 5/20 7/28 5/19 5/21 5/19
First spore date 5/27 6/3 7/6 6/22 6/11 7/28 6/21 6/17 5/29
DM confirmed date 7/25 7/23 6/22 7/28 7/3 7/27 7/7 7/21 7/30
Peak spore date 8/8 8/8 7/14 8/11 8/3 8/7 8/14 8/3 8/9
Peak spore number 24 19,087 43 872 1,695 65 4,168 152 16
Trapping end date 8/18 8/18 7/16 8/18 8/18 8/17 8/17 8/19 8/10
Field Trials. MSU Trial #1: This study included 17 fungicides and an untreated control.
Rating #1: At the first evaluation of disease on 19 August, DM had become established on the
untreated control but was at a relatively low level. Several treatments were significantly better in
protecting the plants from DM than the untreated control and included the following: Bravo Weatherstik
SC, Ranman SC, Zampro SC, Gavel DF, Omega SC, Orondis, and V-10208. Fungicides including
Presidio SC, Previcur Flex, and Tanos had the same disease level as the untreated control that did not
receive any fungicides. Historically, Presidio, Previcur Flex, and Tanos had been included in
recommendations for DM. While Presidio and Tanos had been dropped from the 2015 recommendations,
Previcur Flex had remained based on 2014 field trial results. Rating #2: DM progressed significantly
from the first to the second rating that was taken on 31 August; the untreated control received a disease
rating of 7.3 (50 to 75% disease). Standout treatments included Orondis (1.0 = 0% plant tissue diseased),
and V-10208 (2.3 = 0 to 3% disease). Other effective products included Zampro SC, Omega SC, and
Koverall (mancozeb) with ratings of 3.3 to 3.5 (3 to 6% disease). A moderate level of control was
observed with Ranman SC and Gavel DF (4.0-4.3 = 6 to 12% disease). While several other fungicides
were determined to be better than the untreated control, the amount of disease observed on the tissue was
unacceptable with ratings of 5 or higher indicating at least 12% of the foliage was infected with a
maximum of 50% disease assessed. Fungicides that did not protect the plant any better than the untreated
control included the following: Cueva, Cabrio DG, Previcur Flex SL, Revus SC, Forum SC, and Priaxor
SC. Rating #3: The final rating was taken following a period of unseasonably warm weather that
prompted plant growth resulting in a decrease in the overall appearance of DM symptoms. As a result,
the rating of the untreated control was 6.5 (25 to 50% disease) that indicated less disease than what was
observed at the previous rating. The only fungicide treatment that scored a disease rating of 2 (0 to 3%
disease) was Orondis. However, several treatments kept DM limited to 3 to 6% disease and included
Koverall DG, Ranman SC, Zampro SC, Gavel DF, and V-10208. Presidio SC, Omega SC, and Bravo
WeatherStik SC were similar in their level of protection and resulted in disease ranging from 6 to 25%.
Treatments that were not effective and similar to the untreated control included the following: Priaxor
SC, Forum SC, Revus SC, Tanos DF, Previcur Flex SL, Cabrio DG, and Cueva.
Treatment and rate/A, applied at 5- to 7-day intervals
Disease severity*
8/19 8/31 9/4 Untreated control........................................ 2.8 cd** 7.3 g 6.5 hi
Bravo WeatherStik SC 2 pt ........................ 1.3 ab 5.3 e 4.3 c-e
Koverall DG 2 lb ........................................ 2.0 bc 3.5 cd 3.5 b-d
Cueva SC 2 qt ............................................ 2.5 cd 7.0 g 6.3 hi
Cabrio DG 12 oz ........................................ 2.8 cd 7.0 g 6.8 i
Presidio SC 0.25 pt..................................... 2.3 c 6.0 ef 5.0 e-g
Previcur Flex SL 1.2 pt .............................. 2.8 cd 6.8 fg 6.5 hi
Ranman SC 0.17 pt .................................... 1.3 ab 4.3 d 3.3 bc
Zampro SC 0.88 pt ..................................... 1.3 ab 3.3 c 3.3 bc
Gavel DF 2 lb ............................................. 1.3 ab 4.0 cd 3.3 bc
Tanos DF 0.25 lb ........................................ 2.3 c 5.8 e 5.5 f-h
Curzate DG 5 oz ......................................... 2.0 bc 5.8 e 4.5 d-f
Omega SC 1 pt ........................................... 1.3 ab 3.3 c 3.0 ab
Revus SC 8 fl oz......................................... 2.8 cd 6.8 fg 6.0 g-i
Forum SC 6 fl oz ........................................ 3.3 d 7.0 g 6.3 hi
Orondis SC 1.64 fl oz ................................. 1.0 a 1.0 a 2.0 a
V-10208 SC 8 fl oz .................................... 1.3 ab 2.3 b 3.0 ab
Priaxor SC 8 fl oz ....................................... 2.5 cd 7.0 g 6.0 g-i *Rated on the Horsfall-Barratt scale of 1 to 12, where 1=0% plant area diseased, 2=>0 to 3%, 3=>3 to 6%,
4=>6 to 12%, 5=>12 to 25%, 6=>25 to 50%, 7=>50 to 75%, 8=>75 to 87%, 9=>87 to 94%, 10=>94 to
97%, 11=>97 to <100%, 12=100% plant area diseased. **Column means with a letter in common are not significantly different (LSD t Test; P=0.05).
MSU Trial #2: Nine treatments and an untreated control were included in this study.
Rating #1: At the first rating conducted on 24 August, the untreated received a rating of 4 (6 to
12%) and nearly all treatments provided complete DM control. Zing SC and Ranman SC were excellent
fungicides when used along or in alternation with other materials. Rating #2: On 14 September, a second
disease rating was assessed and disease had progressed in both the untreated and all treatments. The trend
was similar as that seen in rating #1 where Zing SC and Ranman SC either alone or in alternation limited
disease to commercially acceptable levels.
Treatment and rate/A, applied at 5- to 7-day intervals, application schedule Disease severity2
8/24 9/14
Untreated control....................................................................................... 4.3 c3 5.5 c
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz ............................................................................... 1.5 a 2.3 ab
Zing! SC 32 fl oz ....................................................................................... 1.3 a 2.8 ab
Zing! SC 36 fl oz ....................................................................................... 1.3 a 2.3 ab
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Koverall DF 2 lb + Act. 90, app 1
Zing! SC 36 fl oz, apps 2,4,6
Previcur Flex SL 1.2 pt + Bravo WS SC 1.5 pt, app 3
Orondis OD 1.64 lb + Koverall DF 2 lb, app 5
Zampro SC 14 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 1.5 pt, app 7 ................................... 1.8 a 3.0 b
PeKacid DG 1% v/v + Act. 90 SL ............................................................ 3.8 bc 5.8 c
PeKacid DG 1% v/v + Act. 90 SL + Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz ..................... 1.3 a 2.0 a
PeKacid DG 1% v/v + Act. 90 SL + Ranman SC 1.9 fl oz ....................... 1.0 a 2.3 ab
TKPP WP 1% v/v + Act. 90 SL ................................................................ 3.0 b 5.5 c
PeKacid DG 1% v/v + Act. 90 -alternate- TKPP WP 1% v/v + Act. 90 .. 4.0 c 6.3 c 1Bravo WS=Bravo WeatherStik. 2Rated on the Horsfall-Barratt scale of 1 to 12, where 1=0% plant area diseased, 2=>0 to 3%, 3=>3 to 6%,
4=>6 to 12%, 5=>12 to 25%, 6=>25 to 50%, 7=>50 to 75%, 8=>75 to 87%, 9=>87 to 94%, 10=>94 to
97%, 11=>97 to <100%, 12=100% plant area diseased. 3Column means with a letter in common or with no letter are not significantly different (LSD t Test;
P=0.05).
MSU Trial #3: This trial included seven treatments and an untreated control.
Ratings #1 and #2: For the first rating conducted on 25 August, disease in the untreated control
had reached a rating of 4 (6 to 12% disease). All fungicide programs were effective in keeping DM
nearly completely controlled. The same trend was observed for the second rating on 4 September. It was
notable that the treatment with Bravo WeatherStik SC applied alone was comparable to other alternating
fungicide programs that included Ranman SC, Gavel WG, Presidio, Zampro, and V-10208.
Treatment1 and rate/A, applied at 7-day intervals, application schedule Disease severity2
8/25 9/4
Untreated control ............................................................................................ 4.5 c3 6.0 b
V-10208 SC 8 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90 ....................................... 1.5 ab 2.0 a
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, apps 1,3,5
V-10208 SC 8 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, apps 2,4
Zampro SC 1.2 pt + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, app 6 ............................... 1.0 a 2.0 a
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, apps 1,3,5
-alternate- Zampro SC 1.2 pt + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, app 2,4,6 ....................... 1.5 ab 2.0 a
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, apps 1,3,5
Gavel WG 2 lb + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, apps 2,4
Zampro SC 1.2 pt + Bravo WS SC 2 pt + Act. 90, app 6 ............................... 1.0 a 2.0 a
Presidio SC 45 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, apps 1,3
Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, apps 2,4,6
Zampro SC 14 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, app 5 ........................................... 1.0 a 2.0 a
Zampro SC 14 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, apps 1,3,5
-alternate- Ranman SC 2.75 fl oz + Bravo WS SC 2 pt, apps 2,4,6 .............. 1.5 ab 2.0 a
Bravo WS SC 2 pt .......................................................................................... 1.8 b 2.3 a 1Bravo WS= Bravo WS. 2Rated on the Horsfall-Barratt scale of 1 to 12, where 1=0% plant area diseased, 2=>0 to 3%, 3=>3 to 6%, 4=>6 to
12%, 5=>12 to 25%, 6=>25 to 50%, 7=>50 to 75%, 8=>75 to 87%, 9=>87 to 94%, 10=>94 to 97%, 11=>97 to
<100%, 12=100% plant area diseased. 3Column means with a letter in common or with no letter are not significantly different (LSD t Test; P=0.05).
MSU Trial #4: This trial included eight treatments and an untreated control.
Rating #1: During the first rating, disease ranged from 25 to 50% on the untreated control. The
following treatments provided exceptional control and included the following: experimental fungicides
(2) from Valent, Ranman SC, Zampro SC, Gavel DF, and Orondis SC. Previcur Flex failed in limiting
disease and was similar to the untreated control. While Presidio was better than the untreated control, the
level of disease was not acceptable. Rating #2: Disease was reduced in the untreated control compared to
the first rating due to the unseasonably high temperatures that spurred new foliage. The pattern of
treatment efficacy observed in Rating #1 was observed in Rating #2. It was interesting to note that both
Presidio SC and Previcur Flex SL were statistically similar to the untreated control and did not limit DM
disease.
Treatment and rate/A, applied at 5- to 7-day intervals
Disease severity*
8/27 9/4
Untreated control........................................ 6.3 d** 5.5 c
Experimental SC 9.7 fl oz .......................... 2.0 ab 2.0 a
Presidio SC 0.25 pt..................................... 4.5 c 4.5 bc
Previcur Flex SL 1.2 pt .............................. 5.5 cd 5.5 c
Ranman SC 0.17 pt .................................... 1.0 a 2.0 a
Zampro SC 0.88 pt ..................................... 2.3 b 2.3 a
Gavel DF 2 lb ............................................. 2.3 b 3.0 ab
Orondis SC 1.64 fl oz ................................. 1.0 a 2.0 a
V-10208 SC 8 fl oz .................................... 1.8 ab 2.3 a *Rated on the Horsfall-Barratt scale of 1 to 12, where 1=0% plant area diseased, 2=>0 to 3%, 3=>3 to 6%,
4=>6 to 12%, 5=>12 to 25%, 6=>25 to 50%, 7=>50 to 75%, 8=>75 to 87%, 9=>87 to 94%, 10=>94 to
97%, 11=>97 to <100%, 12=100% plant area diseased. **Column means with a letter in common or with no letter are not significantly different (LSD t Test;
P=0.05).
Acknowledgement. This research was supported by funding from a Michigan Specialty Crop
Block Grant administered by the Michigan Vegetable Council, the Agricultural Research Fund, Pickle
Packers International, Inc., and the Pickle and Pepper Research Committee for MSU, Pickle Packers
International, Inc.
11/25/2015
1
FOOD SAFETY FOR GROWERSIndustry Update: New Food Safety Program Available to Growers and Grading Stations
Katie Hensley, Swanson Pickle Co., Inc.
Agenda- Food Safety For Growers• Current Food Safety Environment • Industry Response via Pickle Packers Int. (Task Force)• New Available Food Safety Program • Audit Options• MI Specialty Crop Block Grant• Summary • Going Forward
Food Safety Programs for Growers• Current environment:
• New FSMA rules have minimal direct impact on growers for further processing.
• However, customers/ end consumers are pushing food safety audit programs.
• Current programs have been designed for fresh produce, not for further processing.
Challenge for Growers
Current available food safety cater to for fresh produceNo consideration for kill steps
in further processing Overly cumbersome
Multiple standards cause redundancy and unnecessary complexity
No clear industry standard for a food safety audit program
Food Safety Programs for Growers• Industry response via Pickle Packers International (PPI):• Task force to establish an industry wide GAP program
which is available to industry growers.• Solution shouldn’t be a one-size fits all program.• Avoid mandating a bar which is unnecessarily high (i.e.
cumbersome/costly without providing a safer product).• Across the industry- in general- we believe we have a
safe process (we just don’t document things very well).
PPI GAP Task Force• Task Force Members:
• Janine Christensen, Bay Valley Foods• Phil Denlinger, Mt. Olive Pickle Company, Inc.• Tara Hartung, Hartung Brothers, Inc.• Katie Hensley, Swanson Pickle Co., Inc. (Chair)• Joe Korpan, Consultant, Chatham, ON • Brian Bursiek, PPI
• Scope:• Pickles and Peppers grown for further processing with a kill
step*• Growers• Grading Stations
*Fermentation, acidification, pasteurization
11/25/2015
2
PPI GAP Task Force• CANADA GAP framework selected as a starting point.
• Canada Gap is a commodity based food safety audit program for agriculture and direct extensions of agriculture (e.g. grading stations). It is normally used for fresh produce.
• http://www.canadagap.ca/manuals/manual-downloads/
• CANADA GAP is a good fit for our industry:• User friendly and simple (relatively speaking).• Technical review board willing to consider science based
exemptions to current manual.• GFSI recognized (depending on frequency of audit selected by
grower).• Multiple audit options available. Not a one size fits all solution.
PPI GAP Task Force- what we didUsing the CANADA Gap framework for fresh vegetables:
• We pre-populated the manual where possible.
• We trimmed down the manual as much as we could- documenting the removal of non-relevant items/sections.
• We added notes/colors to make it easier to follow. • Special thanks to Hartung Brothers (Tara Hartung and Eric Wansitler)
for this effort, among many other things!
1
2
3
PPI GAP Task Force- what we did• We asked Canada GAP for exemptions to the current manual
based on the kill steps of further processing in our industry.
• Canada Gap Response:
Fully Granted• Non-potable water acceptable for
cleaning field equipment. • Water in the grading pit does not
need to maintain potablity.
Not Granted• Irrigation water is not exempt from a
risk analysis.• Manure application interval remains
at 120 days.• Grader can only buy produce which
is Canada Gap certified (or has another recognized third party audit).
Refrigerated Pickles• Canada GAP exemptions do not apply to refrigerated
pickles.• Growers can still use the manual PPI created- but for the
exempt sections they need to follow fresh produce standards.
11/25/2015
3
Alternatives to hand washing with water Agenda- Food Safety For Growers• Current Food Safety Environment • Industry Response via Pickle Packers Int. (Task Force)• New Available Food Safety Program • Audit Options• MI Specialty Crop Block Grant• Summary • Going Forward
No one likes the word AUDIT• Third party audits are a requirement when using the official Canada GAP Program (with Canada GAP Registration).
• However, supplier verification (2nd
party audits) could still be an option for our industry, depending on customer requirements.
Audit Scenarios (non-exhaustive)
Grower AUses Manual but
Does Not Register with Canada Gap
No Canada Gap Audit
Grower BCanada Gap Registration
Audit Every 4 Years
Grower CCanada Gap Registration
Annual Audit
Key Points:• Growers choose their audit frequency when they register with Canada Gap. • Grower A could still have a buyer audit (2nd party)- if acceptable to customers. • Grower B could be audited in off years if part of the 10% random audit group or
if grower triggers an audit.• Grower C will have GFSI recognition.
No one likes the word AUDIT• Canada Gap Audit details (rough estimates):
• Approximately 4 hours long.• ~$500 annual fee , and ~$800 per audit (for actual
audit expenses).• Supplier Verification (2nd party audit) may still be an option, depending on customer demands:• A grower can still utilize the manual and implement
it on his/her farm but not register with Canada Gap.• Audits could come from buyers.
Agenda- Food Safety For Growers• Current Food Safety Environment • Industry Response via Pickle Packers Int. (Task Force)• New Available Food Safety Program • Audit Options• MI Specialty Crop Block Grant• Summary • Going Forward
11/25/2015
4
MI Specialty Crop Block Grant• We have been awarded a $100,000 Michigan
Specialty Crop Grant to help growers transition to this new Food Safety Program!!!
• This money will be used to help growers use the manual correctly and prepare for an audit (of some form):1. 11 regional training seminars in the main growing states (3-
MI,1-WI 1-NC, 1-DE, 1-OH, 1-TX,1-CA, 1-FL, 1-AL). 2. Website to provide materials and promote Food Safety
program.3. Create/produce educational materials.4. Continuing education/updates (grant from 2015-2017).
Agenda- Food Safety For Growers• Current Food Safety Environment • Industry Response via Pickle Packers Int. (Task Force)• New Available Food Safety Program • Audit Options• MI Specialty Crop Block Grant• Summary • Going Forward
In Summary: Change is Not Easy• This new tailored CANADA GAP program will give industry
growers a way to get started.
• Having this program available to the industry will help avoid having multiple standards which is costly and confusing for the whole industry.
• Biggest changes come in terms of documentation. Most things growers are already doing things in some form.
• The manual creates a lot of extra paperwork. It is big. This will be a big change for some growers and grading stations.
• This is feasible.
Questions Going Forward & Next Steps• Roll out of workshops and website (via MI Specialty Crop
Block Grant).• Workshops Jan/Feb/March• Consultant Joe Korpan will conduct workshops
• Opportunity to petition Canada Gap further:• 4 hour audit seems long- is that necessary for our industry?• Other items
Change isn’t bad, it is inevitable!
QUESTIONS?
