Uncategorized

Retail Technology – What’s Trending?

I recently visited a local garden center and was excited to see that cash registers had been replaced with sleek iPads fitted with credit card swipers.  What’s so great about that?  Just think of all the benefits for the consumer – faster checkout times, receipts can be emailed instead of just printed, items can be paid for with cash, credit or even by Paypal account.  For the retailer, the simplicity of using touchscreens, smaller size and portability, and access to sales data at a moment’s notice provide huge advantages over traditional cash registers.  While I am not endorsing any company providing iPad POS systems, here are just a couple of examples of the types of products and services available: ShopKeep and SquareStand.

So where do we find out about advances in technology and how we can incorporate them into our businesses?  There are many avenues – tradeshows, trade magazines, fellow retailers and wholesalers on the cutting edge – as well as the internet!  I recently stumbled upon a blog titled “Retail Technology Trends” with tons of short but fascinating snippets of information on ideas and products in the market today – or one day in the future. If you have a few minutes to check it out – I suggest you do!  For example – a new trend is the use of “beacons” – an iBeacon fitted in sunglasses would alert your mobile device when you are more than 16 feet away!  The possibilities are endless….

 

Will Proposed Agritourism Laws Affect Your Horticultural Operation?

Agritourism legislation was recently introduced in the Ohio Senate – and could affect your horticultural operation.  Many greenhouse operations hold events and operate according to the proposed definition of “agritourism” described below.  OSU Extension’s Peggy Kirk-Hall has summarized the proposed legislation on OSU Extension’s AgLaw Blog. For more information and a link to the Senate bill, please visit http://aglaw.osu.edu.

Kirk-Hall writes:

An important component of the bill is its definition of “agritourism,” but the bill raises as many questions as answers in its attempt to clarify the activities and operations that would be subject to the proposed legislation.  For purposes of the above provisions, the proposal defines “agritourism” as:

“An educational, entertainment, or recreational activity that takes place on a working farm or agricultural or horticultural operation and that allows or invites members of the general public to observe, participate in, or enjoy that activity.  “Agritourism” includes historic and cultural agriculture activities, self-pick farms or farmer’s markets when they are conducted in conjunction with farm operations.”

 

 

 

Protecting plants from ethylene damage using 1-MCP

If you are shipping ethylene sensitive crops you should consider treating those plants with a product that includes 1-MCP (1-methylcyclopropene). 1-MCP is an ethylene inhibitor that protects the plant from both internal and external sources of ethylene (Figure 1). Even when plants are in the presence of ethylene, they do not respond to it. The plants have receptor proteins that must physically bind ethylene to cause leaf senescence, flower abscission and other symptoms. When plants are treated with 1-MCP, the 1-MCP binds to these receptor proteins and the “full” receptors can no longer bind ethylene. No ethylene binding, means no symptoms of ethylene damage. Plants are living things that are still growing and developing. Part of this growth process is the production of new ethylene receptor proteins. A one-time application of 1-MCP, therefore, only provides the plant with temporary protection from ethylene. Newly produced receptors can now bind ethylene and the ethylene can once again cause damage. In most instances a 1-MCP treatment will be effective for a few days to a week, and this is enough time to protect a crop during shipment. For plants with multiple flowers at different developmental stages, the flowers that open after the 1-MCP treatment was applied may not be protected.

 

Figure 1. 1-MCP treatment protects torenia from damage following exposure to ethylene gas.

Figure 1. 1-MCP treatment protects torenia from damage following exposure to ethylene gas.

 

 

Commercial 1-MCP based products currently include EthylBloc and Ethylene Buster. These products contain a powder that releases 1-MCP gas when mixed with a buffer solution or with water. Plants can be treated in any enclosed area including coolers, greenhouses, truck trailers, and shipping boxes or other containers. Treatment is most effective at 55 to 75° F. While plants could be treated in an area of the greenhouse, it is easiest and most economical to treat plants while they are in transit. This method does not require you to invest any extra time (besides preparing the 1-MCP) in the treatment.

Carefully follow the manufacturer’s recommendations to calculate the volume of your shipping container or truck trailer and determine how much 1-MCP you will need. The 1-MCP sachets, which look something like tea bags, can be used with orchids or other ethylene sensitive crops that ship in boxes (Figure 2). Truck kits are available for treating entire truck loads of plants. The sachets should be dipped in water to activate the release of 1-MCP, and then they must be immediately sealed in the box. The box should not have any vent holes. Similarly, 1-MCP is released from the truck kit as soon as the 1-MCP is combined with the activator buffer (or tablets), so it needs to be immediately closed up within the truck. Plants must be sealed in the truck or boxes with the 1-MCP gas for at least 4 to 10 hours (see manufacturer’s instructions for specific treatment times).

 

Figure 2. Plants can be treated in boxes with 1-MCP sachets or on carts in a truck with a truck kit.

Figure 2. Plants can be treated in boxes with 1-MCP sachets or on carts in a truck with a truck kit.

 

 

The proper postproduction care and handling of bedding plants and potted plants must include steps to prevent ethylene damage. Avoid exposing plants to potential external sources of ethylene and minimize internal ethylene production by the plants by reducing wounding and exposure to high temperatures. 1-MCP applications can provide very effective protection against the negative effects of ethylene and give you piece of mind when shipping ethylene sensitive crops.

 

 

Dr. Michelle L. Jones
D.C. Kiplinger Chair in Floriculture
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science
330-263-3885
Jones.1968@osu.edu
http://oardc.osu.edu/floriculture/
http://oardc.osu.edu/joneslab/

Preventing ethylene exposure and reducing ethylene production from plants during shipping and handling

Plants must be handled carefully during packaging and shipping to avoid mechanical damage. Wounded plants can produce significant levels of ethylene. Sleeving plants can also cause wounding. Make sure that the sleeving material has holes that allow the ethylene gas to diffuse away from the plant, otherwise the microclimate around the sleeved plant can quickly accumulate damaging levels of ethylene (Figure 1). Sleeve plants just before they are being shipped and remove the sleeves as soon as possible. Open carts are a great way to transport your finished crop because it is an efficient way to move plants without damage, and it allows for air flow around the plants within the truck (Figure 2). Use electric pull-carts to transport the plants from the production area to the loading dock. If you put shrink wrap around the carts to keep plants in place, this can also create a microclimate with high relative humidity and high ethylene levels. Minimize the time that plants are on these carts and make sure that the plants are held in place by the wrap, but not completely sealed in. Deadheading flowers and removing dying leaves makes the crop more attractive, but it also removes potential sources of ethylene. Dying flowers and leaves produce ethylene, and botrytis and other fungi that degrade dying plant material also produce their own ethylene.

 

Figure 1. Perforated sleeves allow ethylene to escape from packaging. This is especially important for ethylene sensitive crops like petunias.

Figure 1. Perforated sleeves allow ethylene to escape from packaging. This is especially important for ethylene sensitive crops like petunias.

 

Figure 2. Open carts are an ideal way to ship ethylene sensitive crops because it allows air movement around the plants and protects them from damage. Always use electric pull-carts to transport the plants to the shipping area. If carts are shrink wrapped (right photo), make sure the plastic is holding them in pace but not completely sealing them in.

Figure 2. Open carts are an ideal way to ship ethylene sensitive crops because it allows air movement around the plants and protects them from damage. Always use electric pull-carts to transport the plants to the shipping area. If carts are shrink wrapped (right photo), make sure the plastic is holding them in pace but not completely sealing them in.

 

 

Package and sort orders in a well ventilated loading dock area that is free of sources of ethylene. If possible, load trucks in the early morning hours when it is cooler. Plants not only produce more ethylene at higher temperatures, but they are more sensitive to ethylene damage at high temperatures. This means that lower amounts of ethylene are needed to cause damage at high temperatures. Do not let truck engines idle while loading and do not use propane or gas powered forklifts inside the trucks or enclosed areas where plants are being held. The combustion of propane, natural gas or gasoline can produce ethylene. Ethylene from external or non-plant sources can cause direct damage to plants, but it also causes the exposed plants to increase their own ethylene production.

Ethylene is such a problem during shipping, because it is a gas. If any plants in your shipment are producing ethylene it is released into the air and can move throughout the truck. If plants are sealed in a truck for 1 to 3 days (or more) levels of ethylene in the ppm range can accumulate and cause significant damage to the entire shipment.

 

Dr. Michelle L. Jones
D.C. Kiplinger Chair in Floriculture
Associate Professor
The Ohio State University
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science
330-263-3885
Jones.1968@osu.edu
http://oardc.osu.edu/floriculture/
http://oardc.osu.edu/joneslab/

SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES AND BEES: ARE WE RE-VISITING “SILENT SPRING?”

 

By Raymond A. Cloyd

Professor and Extension Specialist in Horticultural Entomology/Plant Protection

Kansas State University

Department of Entomology

Phone: 785-532-4750

Email: rcloyd@ksu.edu

 

Recently, there have been concerns associated with the potential direct and indirect effects of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on bees. The neonicotinoid systemic insecticides include imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, dinotefuran, clothianidin, and acetamiprid. These active ingredients are present in many products available to both professionals and homeowners. The concern is affiliated with exposure from foliar applications and exposure to pollen and nectar that may be contaminated via applications to the soil or growing medium. These insecticides have a higher selectivity for insects compared to mammals than other insecticides in the chemical classes, organophosphate and carbamate. The mode of action of the neonicotinoids is as agonists at the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors of insects. The specific proposed benefits of any systemic insecticide (not just the neonicotinoids) includes 1) plants are generally protected throughout most of the growing season without the need to make repeat applications, 2) minimal issues regarding drift (when applied as a drench or granule) compared to foliar applications of insecticides, and 3) less direct impact on natural enemies and bees.

Despite these benefits, there have been many sound scientific studies conducted, although primarily under laboratory conditions, that have demonstrated both lethal (direct mortality) and sub-lethal (affecting reproduction and/or survival) effects associated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on honey bees and bumble bees. However, this entire issue regarding the concern of how neonicotinoid systemic insecticides may directly and indirectly affect bees is related to two factors: one is the Oregon incident that occurred in June 2013 in which a landscaper sprayed 55 blooming European linden trees with dinotefuran (Safari) for control of aphids…so the use of the insecticide was mainly as a contact…and ended-up killing approximately 55,000 bumble bees in a Target parking lot in Wilsonville, OR. However, the label states specifically “This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on blooming crops or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds if bees are visiting the treatment area.” What should have been a great extension/outreach opportunity to educate people on the importance of reading the label was “twisted” into a means to promote the banning of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides. It is difficult to understand why the Oregon Department of Agriculture did not stress the point regarding the off-label use more. In fact, the landscaper was fined a modest $555.00 for killing 55,000 bumble bees and not reading the insecticide label…what is wrong here?

The second instance was related to a 2013 publication [Gardeners Beware: Bee-Toxic Pesticides Found In “Bee-Friendly” Plants Sold At Garden Centers Nationwide] by the Friends of the Earth based on an extremely poorly constructed preliminary study regarding the sampling of nursery plants treated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides from three locations (CA, Washington, D.C., and MN). Overall, this study demonstrated ‘nothing’ especially since the study failed to quantify the concentration of active ingredient in the pollen and nectar (they simply combined leaves, stems, and flowers). Furthermore, only seven out of thirteen (54 percent) of the plants sampled (tomato, squash, saliva, gaillardia, pumpkin, zinnia, and aster) tested positive for one or more neonicotinoid insecticide. Therefore, no general inferences can be justifiably made on the impact of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides on bees. However, this information was accepted as demonstrating that ornamental plants treated with neonicotinoid systemic insecticides are toxic to bees. So, this represents another instance of misinformation or lack of substantial reliable information.

It is important to remember that the impact of systemic insecticides (non-neonicotinoids) on bees and other pollinators is not new phenomenon. Below are three publications from studies that demonstrated the direct impact of certain systemic insecticides on bees.

 

1) Glynee-Jones, G. D., and W. D. E. Thomas. 1953. Experiments on the possible contamination of honey with schradan. Ann. Appl. Biol. 40: 546-555.

2) Jaycox, E. R. 1964. Effect on honey bees of nectar from systemic insecticide-treated plants. J. Econ. Entomol. 57: 31-35.

3) Lord, K. A., M. A. May, and J. H. Stevenson. 1968. The secretion of the systemic insecticide dimethoate and phorate into nectar. Ann. Appl. Biol. 61: 19-27.

 

One question that needs to be addressed is—will the banning of neonicotinoid systemic insecticides in actuality preserve bees? In all likelihood producers and homeowners are going to use contact insecticides such as carbaryl (Sevin) and pyrethroid-based insecticides as sprays on a frequent basis, which in the long-term will be more detrimental to bees than systemic insecticides. In addition, there could be problems associated with pesticide drift, direct and indirect effects on natural enemies (e.g., parasitoids and predators), issues affiliated with residues on leaves and flowers, and the potential for insecticide resistance due to the selection pressure placed on insect and mite pest populations. 

Presently, the emphasis has been on the neonicotinoid systemic insecticides; however, what about other systemic insecticides such as acephate (Orthene), disulfoton (Di-Syton), and dimethoate (Cygon) that are still commercially available to homeowners although both disulfoton and dimethoate have or are being phased-out. Then what about chlorantraniliprole (Acelepyrn) and spirotetramat (Kontos)? Will these be the next targets?

What professionals and homeowners can do in regards to utilizing pesticides without harming bees is to use selective products (e.g., Dipel) with short residual activity, time applications accordingly when bees are less active such as the early morning or evening, and use plants in landscapes and gardens that are less susceptible to pests.

Below are a number of general comments and questions regarding neonicotinoid systemic insecticides that need to be taken into consideration:

1. Can neonicotinoid systemic insecticides (NSI) be absorbed into plants, and become present in pollen and nectar thus making floral resources toxic to bees?

2. Are NSI present in pollen and nectar at concentrations that cause lethal or sub-lethal effects?

3. Will exposure via pollen and nectar result in lethal, sub-lethal effects, or no effects?

4. Can NSI contaminate or accumulate in weeds and/or wildflowers?

5. Exposure to contaminated pollen and nectar may increase honey bee susceptibility to parasites and pathogens by compromising the immune system.  

6. What about interactions and multiple factors? For example, what about the effect of combination products and interactions with fungicides?

7. What about timing of application? In general, and based on scientific research, residues of the active ingredient may occur at higher levels in pollen and nectar when applications are made before or during bloom.

8. What about the effects of the metabolites, which tend to be more toxic to insects, associated with the NSI?

Some of the points mentioned above have been demonstrated based on scientific research. Furthermore, there are numerous factors that may influence variation in residue levels in pollen and nectar including timing of application, application method, application rate, number of applications (carry-over effect), formulation, water solubility, plant type and flower morphology, plant age and size, soil type and organic matter content, environmental conditions (e.g, light intensity), and bee age and size. This clearly highlights the complexity of the issue.

Also, it should be noted that honey bees can travel four miles from a hive and they typically gather nectar and pollen from a wide-range of flowers (in fact, the primary food source of the European honey bee is clover and alfalfa) during the season thus possibly diluting “contaminated” pollen and nectar by collecting from different flowers.

In conclusion, we need to be aware of the direct and indirect impact of all pesticides (e.g., insecticides, miticides, and fungicides) on bees. Furthermore, it is critical to read the label of any pesticide to determine if there are any effects on bees. We also have to understand that there is no clearly defined “smoking gun” because many factors may be contributing to bee decline globally including parasites such as the varroa mite (Varroa destructor), pathogens (e.g., Nosema cerane), loss of habitat, nutritional deficiencies, habitat fragmentation, intense management strategies (“bee feedlots”), poor beekeeping, and pesticides.