2023 Wisconsin Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary Now Available!

/in , , , , , , /by

Brian Mueller, Researcher II, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Damon Smith, Professor and Extension Specialist, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Each year the Wisconsin Field Crops Pathology Program conducts a wide array of fungicide and disease management tests on alfalfa, corn, soybeans, and wheat. These tests help inform researchers, practitioners, and farmers about the efficacy of certain fungicide products on specific diseases and how to pair them with other disease management strategies. We hope you find this report useful in making decisions for the 2024 field season.

The 2023 Wisconsin Field Crops Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary is available by clicking here. These tests are by no means an exhaustive evaluation of all products available, but can be used to understand the general performance of a particular fungicide in a particular environment. Keep in mind that the best data to make an informed decision, come from multiple years and environments. To find fungicide performance data from Wisconsin in other years, visit the Wisconsin Fungicide Test Summaries page. You can also consult publication A3646 – Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops to find information on products labeled for specific crops and efficacy ratings for particular products. Additional efficacy ratings for some fungicide products for corn foliar fungicides, soybean foliar and seed-applied fungicides, and wheat foliar fungicides can be found on the Crop Protection Network website.

Mention of specific products in these publications are for your convenience and do not represent an endorsement or criticism. Remember that this is by no means a complete test of all products available.  You are responsible for using pesticides according to the manufacturers current label. Some products listed in the reports referenced above may not actually have an approved Wisconsin pesticide label. Be sure to check with your local extension office or agricultural chemical supplier to be sure the product you would like to use has an approved label.  Follow all label instructions when using any pesticide. Remember the label is the law!

Wisconsin Field Crops Disease Update, July 12, 2023

/in , , , /by

Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Here is southern Wisconsin we are finally getting some rains. These rains are appreciated and timely for the crops out there, but also timely for some important pathogens of wheat, corn, and soybeans. Let’s talk about where we are at with disease risk this week.

What’s up with Wheat?

Let’s talk first about wheat first. Folks have started harvesting the crop and bailing straw and I have been getting photos of sooty mold on heads. You can find out more about sooty molds on wheat by clicking here. Essentially sooty mold is caused by a number of opportunistic fungi that can come in and cause mostly aesthetic problems on wheat heads that might have matured early, died early, or had other stress. These fungi do not need to be controlled. However, you should harvest affected wheat as soon as possible. Occasionally if wheat with sooty mold is left in the field for a long time, these fungi can eventually find their way in to the kernel and cause a problem called black point which can lead to quality problems. Get out and get that crop in as fast as you can!

Should I be Spraying for Tar Spot?

Figure 1. A Screen shot of a map developed in the Field Prophet app showing risk for tar spot development in Wisconsin as of July 12, 2023.

The short answer is not yet! Be patient. Yes, there have been many recent confirmations of the disease across the Midwest. You can find the most recent updates on tar spot confirmations here: https://corn.ipmpipe.org/tarspot/.  Tarspotter is also showing mostly high risk across the state (Fig. 1). This means you should get out and scout! Remember, the best time to spray fungicide for tar spot is between the VT and R3 growth stages. We are not quite there yet and need to be patient to maximize the performance of our fungicides. You can learn more about managing tar spot by clicking here. If you think you found tar spot I would appreciate if you would let us know. We can enter the county level data into the Corn IPMPipe Map and contribute to the cause.  Again, be patient and get out there and scout and get your steps in!

What to Do About Soybean White Mold?

Figure 2. Sporecaster predictions for selected non-irrigated locations in Wisconsin for July 12, 2023.

Yeah, it’s bean dry, yeah soybeans are slow to canopy. If you didn’t plant soybeans in narrow rows, you need to be patient and let soybeans get to full canopy. If this happens before the R3 growth stage, then check Sporecaster and see what the risk is. As of today, risk is low to moderate in south and south-central Wisconsin, Southwest Wisconsin, while in east and northeast Wisconsin risk is high if soybeans are flowering and canopy is nearly closed (Fig. 2). Again, I know it has been dry, but we are getting some timely rains that are impacting risk and resulting in the increase in risk. I do think that we can be patient and wait to the R3 growth stage to make the fungicide application decision. Our data suggest that this is the best time to spray for white mold in Wisconsin in recent years. If you would like to learn more about white mold management, check out my previous article HERE.

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Disease Update – May 31, 2023

/in , , , /by

Damon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Diseases of wheat in Wisconsin have basically been non-existent this season. Dry weather is leading to virtually no disease issue with the exception of one disease. Like 2021, powdery mildew is starting to show up on susceptible varieties. This one fungal disease likes to break the rules of cool and wet. Let’s discuss this disease further and then dig in a bit on what you should do for disease management as we move through the rest of the 2023 winter wheat season.

Figure 1. Signs and symptoms associated with powdery mildew on a wheat leaf.

So, what’s up with powdery mildew

Powdery mildew of winter wheat is caused by the fungus Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici. The most notable sign of powdery mildew is the white, fluffy fungal growth that occurs on the surface of leaves (Fig. 1). Yellow spots may be present on the underside of the leaf. The white “tufts” might also have very small black pepper-like structures in them. Generally, the disease will start in the lower canopy, and if weather is favorable, will move up the canopy eventually reaching the flag leaf and even infecting heads on susceptible varieties.

The reason that powdery mildew has been an issue this year, despite the dry weather, is that it happens to like cool night-time conditions combined with high humidity and dew events. Warm days and cool nights often lead to dew and extended periods of leaf wetness (think semi-arid climates). This combined with temperatures less than 80 F, means the fungus can thrive on susceptible varieties where humidity has been high. Excessive rain events actually deter this particular fungus, as heavy rain events can wash spores from the leaf. So, it isn’t surprising that we are seeing powdery mildew right now given the weather we have had in parts of the state.

Should you spray fungicide for powdery mildew?

Most of the time I would say no. Often in Wisconsin, the weather begins to turn much warmer as we approach heading and the fungus will stop spreading and remain a novelty in the lower canopy. Remember, once daytime temperatures get above 80 F, the fungus will stop or slow in progression. The key in making the fungicide spray decision is to know the susceptibility of the variety you planted and watch the weather. If the weather remains conducive (temps below 80 F, no rain, but dew) and the variety is ranked susceptible, then spraying around flag leaf emergence might be warranted. You can consult the “Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Wheat Diseases” table for products rated with the best efficacy for powdery mildew. Note that most of the higher rated products are triazole compounds, or compounds with a triazole in their mix. No need to be fancy here, find something that fits your budget and has good efficacy. There should be ample choices.

Figure 2. FHB on some wheat heads. Note the bleached and reddened appearance of infected kernels.

I don’t care about powdery mildew, but what disease should I keep an eye on next?

Fusarium head blight (Fig. 2) has been a perennial problem for us in Wisconsin over the last few years. Not only have we seen significant damage and yield reductions due to the disease, but we have seen significant discounts at the elevator for levels of deoxynivalenol (DON or Vomitoxin) above 2 ppm. The one exception was 2021, which is sort of shaping up similar to 2023. However, it remains important to manage this disease actively here in Wisconsin.

Be sure you know the relative susceptibility of the varieties you have planted. We have excellent data showing significant reductions of FHB where we use a resistant variety and then layer a fungicide application on top. In 2019 we evaluated the susceptible variety, Hopewell, against the resistant variety, Harpoon. Figure 3 shows the FHB levels for the two varieties which were also subjected to a fungicide application. Clearly variety resistance works.

Figure 3. Fusarium head blight index (FHB Index) from a 2019 integrated management trial where the susceptible variety, Hopewell, and the resistant variety, Harpoon, were both treated with various fungicide programs or not treated with fungicide.

When it comes to fungicides for FHB, there are a few to choose from. These are Caramba, Prosaro, Miravis Ace, Prosaro Pro, and Sphaerex. Again the “Fungicide Efficacy for Control of Wheat Diseases” table shows the efficacy ratings of these products against FHB. Timing is everything when using a fungicide for FHB management. Be sure to time applications at the start of anthesis or within 5-7 days after the start. This is the ideal window of opportunity to control FHB and reduce DON levels in the finished grain. Spraying earlier than anthesis or later than about a week after the start of anthesis will result in lost efficacy, or no control of FHB. Also, these fungicides are effective against powdery mildew, so if that disease happens to be an issue for the variety you have chosen, a single application of fungicide at the anthesis timing should take care of both problems.

Should I spray for Fusarium head blight in 2023?

The answer to that question is a little complicated. However, there is a tool that can help with this decision. You can find the FHB prediction tool at http://www.wheatscab.psu.edu.This tool should be monitored frequently as your crop approaches anthesis and soon after. It can help you determine if your crop is at risk, based on the weather conditions. We are quickly approaching anthesis in the southern portion of Wisconsin. As of May 31, 2023, the risk for FHB in the whole state of Wisconsin is low, even on susceptible varieties. Again, dry weather leading up to this week has not been favorable for FHB. The 7-day forecast is also not looking conducive. Thus, the likelihood of a significant return on the fungicide investment is likely to be low this season. However, if you are risk adverse and would like to put an anthesis application of fungicide on, I would not be fancy with my choice. You might choose the cheapest product you can get ahold of, that is rated at least “G” on the fungicide efficacy table. This is not the season where you need to spend a lot of money on a fungicide, as the yield benefits are going to be lower due to the dry weather at heading. If you would like to study the performance of fungicide in wheat trials in Wisconsin, you can find trial data from my research going back 10 years by CLICKING HERE. Be sure to study multiple years and make sure a product was consistent in performance.

The ‘Take Home’ for wheat management over the next couple of weeks.

This can be cooked down to two main points. Here they are:

  • Don’t get too concerned about powdery mildew unless your variety is rated suscpetible
    1. If that is the case, then plan to apply a fungicide at anthesis for FHB (see below)
  • If you plan to apply an FHB fungicide application – especially on susceptible varieties
    1. Shoot for Anthesis or up to 5-days after the start of anthesis for any of the fungicides that are rated “G” in the fungicide efficacy table
    2. Can go slightly earlier (Feekes 10.5; Efficacy slightly reduced compared to typical timing) up to 5-days after the start of anthesis for Miravis Ace
    3. Watch the “Scab Alerts” – it isn’t perfect, but can help you make a decision (http://www.wheatscab.psu.edu)

2022 Wisconsin Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary Now Available!

/in , , , , , /by

Brian Mueller, Researcher II, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Damon Smith, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Each year the Wisconsin Field Crops Pathology Program conducts a wide array of fungicide and disease management tests on alfalfa, corn, soybeans, and wheat. These tests help inform researchers, practitioners, and farmers about the efficacy of certain fungicide products on specific diseases and how to pair them with other disease management strategies. We hope you find this report useful in making decisions for the 2023 field season.

The 2022 Wisconsin Field Crops Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary is available by clicking here. These tests are by no means an exhaustive evaluation of all products available, but can be used to understand the general performance of a particular fungicide in a particular environment. Keep in mind that the best data to make an informed decision, come from multiple years and environments. To find fungicide performance data from Wisconsin in other years, visit the Wisconsin Fungicide Test Summaries page. You can also consult publication A3646 – Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops to find information on products labeled for specific crops and efficacy ratings for particular products. Additional efficacy ratings for some fungicide products for corn foliar fungicides, soybean foliar and seed-applied fungicides, and wheat foliar fungicides can be found on the Crop Protection Network website.

Mention of specific products in these publications are for your convenience and do not represent an endorsement or criticism. Remember that this is by no means a complete test of all products available.  You are responsible for using pesticides according to the manufacturers current label. Some products listed in the reports referenced above may not actually have an approved Wisconsin pesticide label. Be sure to check with your local extension office or agricultural chemical supplier to be sure the product you would like to use has an approved label.  Follow all label instructions when using any pesticide. Remember the label is the law!

Are My Fungicides Messing with the Good (Microbes) Guys?

/in , , , /by

The following blog post was written as a part of a graduate level class assignment at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Of course much more work needs to be done in this area, but there is some interesting “food for thought” and should be considered the next time you might want to spray a fungicide.    ~Damon Smith, Professor and Extension Specialist

 

Kelly Debbink, master’s student, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Have you ever wondered if fungicides can negatively impact soil microbes? Since their job is to kill fungi, it seems logical that they may have this effect on the fungi in the soil, right? This thought process is exactly what led me into reading a few too many published studies related to the topic.

Background

Let me start with a bit of what we know about soil microbes (mainly fungi and bacteria). Some microbes form symbiotic relationships with plants, through which they can colonize the root system (rhizosphere), the above ground plant surfaces (phyllosphere), and even internal tissues (endosphere). These microbes can help plants access nutrients and water, fight off diseases caused by other pathogenic microbes, and deal with stressful environments. Many other types of microbes may not form direct relationships with plants, but still live in the soil and provide services, like breaking down nutrients.

To carry out many of these useful activities, microorganisms produce diverse groups of enzymes. They are proteins that work to facilitate different processes and are necessary in many services related to soil health, including decomposing organic matter, nutrient cycling, and degrading hazardous compounds. Enzyme amounts are sensitive to environmental factors like pH and soil organic matter as well as management practices like crop type, chemical use, and fertilizer use. Any alteration of the soil microbial community will lead to changes in enzyme production, so they are commonly used as a soil health indicator. Lower enzyme levels are generally tied to less fertile soil and less productive crops.

So, if microbes are responsible for all these services, could we be causing them harm and hindering some of these services when we apply fungicides?

In my search I was specifically hoping to find field research instead of lab research, so I could find information that was a closer proximation to real life conditions. I will admit that most studies I found on this topic were performed in the lab by removing soil from an agricultural region, dosing it with fungicides, and running soil health tests on it. I did find a few field studies in which treated and non-treated plots were compared in normal cropping systems. These studies were all a bit different in their approaches to measuring changes, and they tested many different fungicides with different modes of action, so I would not compare these studies side-by-side to each other, but I will share some general trends that appeared in their results.

Soil Microbes

To start, there do appear to be shifts in some of the fungal and bacterial communities related to fungicide treatments. In a study that looked at seed coatings (fungicides & insecticides), these did not appear to decrease the richness (total # of microbe species) but did shift the abundance of different groups of microbes. In another study, the number of culturable bacteria and fungi were decreased, which at least suggested a decrease in richness of the subset of microbes that are culturable on lab media. Other lab experiments showed declines or shifts in the fungal community, but differing results on the bacterial community (they may decline as well or may increase). In some conditions, bacteria may be able to thrive once they have decreased competition from fungi. In one field trial, the label application rate and 2x the label rate led to short-term declines in measures of viable microbes. These declines all recovered by harvest. Additionally, this study tested 10x the label rate, but in this treatment, microbes remained low through harvest.

Soil Enzymes

Shifts in soil enzymes related to microbial activity and nutrient cycling were observed in multiple field trials. The general trend appears to be that at lower fungicide application levels, like label rate and twice the label rate, these enzymes may shift up and down, but often return near normal levels by harvest time. In contrast, the study that applied 10x the label rate observed declines in most enzymes that did not recover by harvest. This suggests that improper overuse or accumulation of fungicides may be detrimental to soil functions like nutrient cycling.

Conclusion

Overall, there are many environmental conditions that play a role in soil fungal and bacterial populations and enzyme activity. Many management decisions can have an impact on these, like crop rotation, tillage, and fertilizer use. Chemical use, like fungicides and other types of pesticides, likely also play a role in at least short-term shifts in soil microbes and enzyme activity. Obviously, the main goal of these fungicides is to control disease, and they are certainly a useful and necessary tool to protect crop yields and minimize disease. However, these studies do help remind us that there can be negative soil health effects to their overuse, in addition to the increased risk of pesticide resistance. It’s a good reminder that fungicides are only one tool in the toolbox, and other management decisions like choosing resistant varieties can help us control disease with fewer necessary fungicide applications.

 

References:

Background

Turner TR, James EK, Poole PS. The plant microbiome. Genome Biol. 2013 Jun 25;14(6):209. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209. PMID: 23805896; PMCID: PMC3706808.

Chettri, D., Sharma, B., Verma, A. K., & Verma, A. K. (2021). Significance of Microbial Enzyme Activities in Agriculture. Microbiological Activity for Soil and Plant Health Management, 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2922-8_15

Field Trials

Hou, K., Lu, C., Shi, B., Xiao, Z., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Cheng, C., Ma, J., Du, Z., Li, B., & Zhu, L. (2022). Evaluation of agricultural soil health after applying pyraclostrobin in wheat/maize rotation field based on the response of soil microbes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 340, 108186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108186

Saha, A., Pipariya, A., & Bhaduri, D. (2016). Enzymatic activities and microbial biomass in peanut field soil as affected by the foliar application of tebuconazole. Environmental Earth Sciences, 75(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-015-5116-x

‌ Nettles, R., Watkins, J., Ricks, K., Boyer, M., Licht, M., Atwood, L. W., Peoples, M., Smith, R. G., Mortensen, D. A., & Koide, R. T. (2016). Influence of pesticide seed treatments on rhizosphere fungal and bacterial communities and leaf fungal endophyte communities in maize and soybean. Applied Soil Ecology, 102, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.02.008

‌Lab Experiments

Han, L., Xu, M., Kong, X., Liu, X., Wang, Q., Chen, G., Xu, K., & Nie, J. (2022). Deciphering the diversity, composition, function, and network complexity of the soil microbial community after repeated exposure to a fungicide boscalid. Environmental Pollution, 312, 120060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2022.120060

‌ Cycoń, M., Piotrowska-Seget, Z., & Kozdrój, J. (2010). Responses of indigenous microorganisms to a fungicidal mixture of mancozeb and dimethomorph added to sandy soils. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 64(4), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2010.03.006

 

2022 Badger Crops and Soils Update Meetings

/in , , , , , /by

The annual UW Agronomy, Pest Management and Soil, Water, and Nutrient Management meetings are moving to a new format this year and will be offered as a single day-long program. Two in-person sessions as well as a virtual option will be offered. In-person sessions in Green Bay and La Crosse will follow the same agenda. The virtual option will follow a similar but abbreviated agenda.

This year’s program will be focused on the theme of “Achieving a Positive Return on Investment in an Era of High Input Costs (a.k.a Small steps, Big change).” The meetings will present the latest information on agronomic, pest, and nutrient management research coming out of UW with a lens to on-farm application.

For details and to register for the event, please CLICK HERE or scan the QR code in the attached flyer. We are looking forward to seeing you and kicking off a busy winter meeting season!

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Disease Update – June 1, 2022

/in , , /by

Damon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

In Wisconsin, wheat diseases have been nearly non-existent up to this point. Cool weather has generally kept wheat disease at low levels. However, increase frequency of rain events and moderate temperatures over the next 7-10 days will likely increase disease risk, especially Fusarium head blight (FHB or Scab). 

Fusarium head blight risk for susceptible winter wheat varieties for June 1, 2022.

We are entering the window for fungicide applications for FHB here in Wisconsin. Currently the Fusarium Head Blight Risk tool is predicting more areas of moderate to high risk in Wisconsin for FHB than it did a week ago (Fig. 1). If highly susceptible wheat varieties were planted in Wisconsin, the current risk is high across most of the state. Rainy conditions in the next seven days will likely push this risk higher. Now is the time to consider a fungicide application to manage FHB in Winter wheat in the state.

In winter wheat in Wisconsin, research has demonstrated that the best time to apply fungicides is between the start of anthesis (first anthers out) to 7 days after the start of anthesis. This same research has demonstrated that waiting to apply fungicides 5 days after the start of anthesis, optimizes deoxynivalenol (DON or vomitoxin) reductions in finished wheat. This is due to the fact that head emergence in Wisconsin can be very uneven. Waiting 5 days after the start of anthesis may help with optimizing application timing to maximize heads flowering and receiving fungicide protection. Fungicide choice is also critical, with Prosaro, Caramba, and Miravis Ace providing the most consistent control of Fusarium head blight and reduction of DON in trials in Wisconsin. Fungicides containing strobilurin fungicides should be avoided after the boot stage of wheat as these products can increase DON levels in finished grain. Fungicide efficacy information from Wisconsin can be found at https://badgercropdoc.com/research-summaries/. National ratings for fungicide efficacy of small grains can be found HERE. Additional thoughts on using fungicide on wheat can be found in this Bumper Crops Video.

We also know that in Wisconsin, that a fungicide application targeted to manage FHB will pay for itself almost every time. You can find published research information on the probability of a return on fungicide investment by clicking HERE. Be sure to focus on comparing the “current” level of treatment to the “mid-level” of treatment in the publication. The only difference between these two treatment plans was the application of fungicide at Feekes 10.5.1 to manage FHB. The “mid-level” plan returned on average more than $120 per acre above the “current” management plan in our trials.

Keep scouting!

 

Wisconsin Winter Wheat Disease Update – May 24, 2022

/in , , /by

Damon L. Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Figure 1. Fusarium Head Blight Risk Map – May 24, 2022.

Winter Wheat is Wisconsin is in the “boot “or heading in the southern part of the state. Currently the Fusarium Risk Assessment Map is showing low risk for Fusarium head blight development (Fig 1). Rain is forecast for the next several days, thus, the risk is likely to climb as we approach wheat heading and flowering. Wheat farmers and consultants should pay attention to weather closely over the next several weeks as the decision to apply fungicide will need to be made during this time.

In winter wheat in Wisconsin, research has demonstrated that the best time to apply fungicides is between the start of anthesis (first anthers out) to 7 days after the start of anthesis. This same research has demonstrated that waiting to apply fungicides 5 days after the start of anthesis, optimizes deoxynivalenol (DON or vomitoxin) reductions in finished wheat. This is likely since head emergence in Wisconsin can be very uneven. Waiting 5 days after the start of anthesis may help with optimizing application timing to maximize heads flowering and receiving fungicide protection. Fungicide choice is also critical, with Prosaro, Caramba, and Miravis Ace providing the most consistent control of Fusarium head blight and reduction of DON in trials in Wisconsin. Fungicides containing strobilurin fungicides should be avoided after the boot stage of wheat as these products can increase DON levels in finished grain. Fungicide efficacy information from Wisconsin can be found at https://badgercropdoc.com/research-summaries/. National ratings for fungicide efficacy of small grains can be found HERE. Additional thoughts on using fungicide on wheat can be found in this Bumper Crops Video.

2021 Wisconsin Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary Now Available

/in , , , , /by

Brian Mueller, Researcher II, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Damon Smith, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, UW-Madison, Plant Pathology

Mimi Broeske, Distinguished Editor, UW-Madison, Nutrient and Pest Management Program

Each year the Wisconsin Field Crops Pathology Program conducts a wide array of fungicide and disease management tests on alfalfa, corn, soybeans, and wheat. These tests help inform researchers, practitioners, and farmers about the efficacy of certain fungicide products on specific diseases and how to pair them with other disease management strategies. We hope you find this report useful in making decisions for the 2022 field season.

The 2021 Wisconsin Field Crops Fungicide Test and Disease Management Summary is available by clicking here. These tests are by no means an exhaustive evaluation of all products available, but can be used to understand the general performance of a particular fungicide in a particular environment. Keep in mind that the best data to make an informed decision, come from multiple years and environments. To find fungicide performance data from Wisconsin in other years, visit the Wisconsin Fungicide Test Summaries page. You can also consult publication A3646 – Pest Management in Wisconsin Field Crops to find information on products labeled for specific crops and efficacy ratings for particular products. Additional efficacy ratings for some fungicide products for corn foliar fungicides, soybean foliar and seed-applied fungicides, and wheat foliar fungicides can be found on the Crop Protection Network website.

Mention of specific products in these publications are for your convenience and do not represent an endorsement or criticism. Remember that this is by no means a complete test of all products available.  You are responsible for using pesticides according to the manufacturers current label. Some products listed in the reports referenced above may not actually have an approved Wisconsin pesticide label. Be sure to check with your local extension office or agricultural chemical supplier to be sure the product you would like to use has an approved label.  Follow all label instructions when using any pesticide. Remember the label is the law!

2021 Wisconsin Pest Management Update Meetings (In-Person Events Cancelled; Virtual Offering Only)

/in , , , , , /by

After much deliberation, we made the difficult decision to pivot the 2021 Wisconsin Pest Management Update Meetings from a hybrid model to all virtual because of continued COVID-19 concerns and low registration numbers. Thus, the in-person events at Darlington (November 16, 2021), Chippewa Falls (November 17, 2021) and Kimberly (November 18, 2021) are now cancelled.

We will maintain the virtual offering on Friday November 19th(9:00 AM to Noon) and are adding a second virtual offering of the same program on Tuesday November 16th (1:00 PM to 4:00 PM) so participants can pick the option that best fits their schedule.

To register for one of the virtual events, please go to the following link: https://go.wisc.edu/8tufvc

This year’s speakers will include:

  • Mark Renz, Perennial Cropping Systems Extension Weed Specialist
  • Rodrigo Werle, Annual Cropping Systems Extension Weed Specialist
  • Nick Arneson, Extension Outreach Specialist, weeds
  • PJ Leisch Extension Entomology Diagnostician
  • Damon Smith, Extension Field Crops Pathologist

Topics will include updates in the area of weed, pest, and disease management along with a panel discussion and Q&A regarding the pest management challenges related to planting soybeans early.

Three (3) Pest Management CCA CEUs have been requested for this event.

Registration includes PDF of A3646 Pest Management In Wisconsin Fields.

We apologize for any inconvenience this decision may cause.

Pest Management Update Team