|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 350
CASE STUDY
8
Fresh Grapes in California and Arizona
Stephen Pavich & Sons
| N 1986, THE STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS operation included 1,432 acres, of which
823 acres are in the Harquahala Valley, Maricopa County, Arizona, west
of Phoenix; 467 acres are in the Delano, California, area; and another 142
acres are in Kern County, California, near Bakersfield (Table 11.
GENERAL DATA
Grapes are by far the most important crop grown by the Paviches, ac-
counting for 95.7 percent of their gross sales revenue in 1985. That year,
they harvested 1,105 acres of grapes. By 1986, this acreage had increased to
1,125 acres; the purchase of another 160 acres in 1987 brought their total
acreage to 1,285 acres of fresh grapes. On their land in Arizona (134 acres
in 1985 and 307 acres in 1936), the Paviches also grow other crops (Table 2~.
c~
Climate
Kern County lies at the south end of the San Joaquin Valley of California,
with most of the farmland just above 500 feet in elevation. This area is
naturally a desert, and irrigation is necessary to make crop production of
most crops feasible. Mean annual precipitation in Bakersfield is 5.7 inches,
with 89 percent falling between November and April (Table 3~. The heaviest
average monthly rainfall, about 1.03 inches, occurs in February. This area
typically is very hot in the summer; maximum temperatures exceed 90°F
an average of 110 days per year, and minimum temperatures fall below 32°F
only 11 days per year.
A similar climate is found in Tulare County, which is located near the
center of the San Joaquin Valley. The Pavich grape operation in Tulare
350
OCR for page 351
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
TABLE 1 Summary of Enterprise Data for the Stephen Pavich & Sons Farm
Category
351
Description
Farm size 1,432 acres of cropland in 1986
Labor and Stephen Pavich, Sr., works on production and marketing; Tom
management Pavich and wife, Tanya, manage marketing; Steve Pavich, Jr.,
practices manages field operations. Pest scouting is done by hired
entomologists on contract, plus the brothers. Twenty-five
Marketing strategies
Insect and nematode
control practices
Disease control
practices
Soil fertility
management
Irrigation practices
Crop and livestock
yields
permanent hired workers do pruning, vine dressing, and other
specialized duties. Approximately 350 seasonal workers are hired
for harvest.
The farm is a major marketing operation selling to 19 of the 20 top
retail chains in the United States plus several foreign countries.
Cold storage of a part of the crop brings seasonally high prices.
No premium price is asked as a result of alternative farming
methods except for about 3 percent of the crop, which is certified
and labeled as organic and sold through health food stores.
Weed control The Paviches use no-tillage methods with a perennial rye grass
practices and native weed cover crop, chopped periodically. Hand
weeding between grape vines is also used. No herbicides are
applied.
A natural parasite (the Anagrus wasp) is important for leafhopper
control but is not deliberately released. Nematodes are controlled
by fumigation and a 2- to 3-year fallow period. The Paviches use
IPM scouting for insect pests and occasional insecticide spot
spraying.
Sulfur dust is applied to prevent fungal diseases, and soils are
fumigated with methyl bromide before planting to suppress
pathogens and nematodes. Grapes in storage are fumigated with
sulfur dioxide gas.
About 2.75 tons of composted steer manure per acre provide about
94 pounds N. 85 pounds P2O5, and 138 pounds K2O per acre.
Grape vineyards are irrigated by flooding or using a modified drip
(fanjet) system. The grapes require 3 to 6 acre-feet of water,
depending on vineyard location, weather, winter precipitation,
and the intensity of the crop. Water for irrigation comes from
wells or rivers.
Grape yields per acre (653 boxes) exceed University of California
estimated normal yields for conventional production (522 boxes);
culls are 1 percent versus 15 to 30 percent for conventional
production. (Data may not be exactly comparable.)
Financial performance Producing about 1 percent of the U.S. table grape output, the
Paviches are earning a substantial net income. Their preharvest
cost per box of grapes ($2.12) is virtually identical to the
conventional norm. The Paviches incur somewhat higher costs
for some items (for example, soil fertility) and less for others
(chemicals). Profits are enhanced by higher-than-average yields,
extensive storage, and a nationwide marketing system.
OCR for page 352
352
TABLE 2 Land Use by Stephen Pavich & Sons, 1985 and 1986
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
Acres
Land Use
1985 1986
Grapes
Bakersfield area, California
Thompson Seedless 142 142
Delano area, California
Almeria 0 3
Calmeria 22 46
Emperor 156 219
Red Flame Seedless 20 20
Ribier 20 10
Thompson Seedless 229 169
Subtotal, California grapes 589 609
Harquahala Valley, Arizona
Exotic 12 12
Perlette 160 160
Red Flame Seedless 160 160
Thompson Seedless 184 184
Subtotal, Arizona grapes 516 516
Total grapes 1,105 1,125
Other crops
Arwona
Chili peppers 0 16
Cotton, pima 0 45
Cotton, short staple 0 105
Mixed melons 94 94
Squash 0 32
Watermelons 40 15
Subtotal, other crops 134 307
Total, all crops 1,239 1,432
Fallow, roads, buildings
Arizona 310 137
California 193 257
Total, all land 1,742 1,826
County is at an elevation of about 560 feet. At Porterville (15 miles north of
the Pavich grape operation), the normal precipitation is 11.2 inches per
year, occurring almost entirely from November to April (Table 4~. The max-
imum temperature exceeds 90°F on an average of 112 days per year; the
minimum falls below 32°F on 26 days per year.
The climate in the Harquahala Valley of Arizona is also hot and dry. At
Phoenix (about 70 miles east of the Pavich ranch), the normal precipitation
is 7 inches per year (Table 5~. The precipitation is more evenly distributed
here than in California, however, with the maximum rainfall (1.22 inches)
occurring in August. The elevation of the Pavich farm is about the same as
OCR for page 353
353
._
zip
U.
o
z
o
a ~
~ / ~
z ~
=- ~
~0
U' .
~0
Al
U]
._
-
o
._
a,
~4
o ~
.=
·X
Cal
:5
Cal ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~
Go ~ ~ O. 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ rat
o ~ o o o o o o o o o o
O O ~ ~ ~ Cal ~ Lo 00 ~4 ID O
Cat
Cal
O4 ~ O to 0 0 Lip [~ c{
Hi
Ct
o
-
a,
oc
n o.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~
L~ U~ ~ ~ ~ 00 00 ~ ~ U~ d1
- . ~ ~ oN
~ mi ~4 O~ ~o ~ 00 sD C'~ C~~ ~ o0
c~ ~ ~ ~ Lo
u~ ~ ~ u~ ~ Lr)
oo ~ ~ ~ ax
Co ~ ~ ~ ~ oO ~ u~ ~
ct
== ~ ~ ˘=, ~ ~ ~ ~a~o ~ `~ ~
~ o
~o ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ C ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
5-, s~
~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
C "C ~ ,S! ~L) E~
"c c ~ =~ ~ c
C ~; ~ C ~ C J~
~ ~ ~ ~ a' ~ ~
E ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~
~5 ~ o CC
"C O ~ ~ C C
. . ~ ~ . . ~ .
~i
rY
o
o
.
Ct
U]
. .
._
o
D
OCR for page 354
354
o
:=
Z
._
-
U
-
5-
o
-
o
·_
· -
·w
-
CD
to
J
a
z
en
US
~0
A1
U)
:^ ~
~4
O ~
~ ˘
.=
.
.
O ~ ~
so ~ co
C
Con O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Cal ~~ Cal ~ ~ O
IS\ 10 C{) ~ O O O ~ ID LO ~ ~ a, a,
. ~ . ,_,
~ ~ ~ ~ O O O O O O ~ ~ ~ A' O ~ O
O {~t
~ to
O ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ O ..
o
c ~ ~ ~ ~ a
m~ =~-e
˘ ~ a X 3
I tt (t
°
in ~ ,=
~ an =- a
', A, =-= 0
° ~ ~ =
b4 ct ~ o -o
ao ~ ~ oo ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ a' ~ u) ~ ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ ~ ~
L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~D ~ ~ ~ oO ~ ·m -
C~ ~ di ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ Lr) ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ _
u, co ~ ~ ~
>l c ~ o
·~- - ~ ~ c c
~ ~ ~ .-o ~
~ ~ =- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~
O O O O ~ ~ d4
c~ d4 ~ ~ ~ ~ d~
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
L~ ~ 00 ·n ~ ~ ~ Lo
L~ L~ ~ ~D ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ LO d4
00 L~ d4 oo ~ ~ ~ ~ d4 d4 C~
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
~ c~ oo In ~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
o
o
OCR for page 355
o
˘
x
o
r°-
· -
·=
cn
-
o
z
Lo
LL
m
6
._
~ .E
D _
_
~ ME ~
u,
.~ ~
to
to
~ A1
u,
o
u
._
Cal
._
.=
x
~0
E ~ E ° I, ~ ~
5: ~m it_ ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '
.. ~ if..
~~a
O ~ ~
O U) ~ al
O
04
be
m · ~ ~ 0
== >' E E ~ ~ E
~ ~ ° ~ O ~ {t
5 3 E O E E · s
=~ ~ ~(noza B 3 54 ~
C~ ~ ~ L~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~
00 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 ~ ~ In oo c~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ao
oo ~ di ~ ~ ~ O
~ C~ Lr) 00 ~ L~ C~ L~
00 00 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ oo
c~ ~ 00 ~ ~ oo 00
d4 ~ ~ ~ L~
o
-
ct
c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oo ~ oo I
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
L~ ~d~ ~ ~C~ ~ ~ ~ O
u~ u~ ~ ~ 00 ~ 00 0O ~ .o
oo oo ~ ~ ln 0 ~ ~ oo I
. .··········-
c~ ~ c~ ~ ~ oo IO
u~ In ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d.
oO oo ~ ~ ~ u~ ~ ~ di
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
d. ~ ~ ~ di ~ oO ~ ~ ~ ~
oo ~ o o o ~ Co ~ ~ oo
rY
o
o
o
u
co
. .
· -
o
5-
o
u)
ct
· -
o
oo
.
o
· -
ct
u,
· -
.e
˘
. -
co
o
˘
· -
~a
CJ
o
-
ct
o
· -
z
. .
o
~n
355
OCR for page 356
356
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
that of Phoenix 1,100 feet. Daily maximum temperatures exceed 90°F an
average of 165 days per year, and freezing temperatures occur an average of
12 days per year. Average relative humidity in June at Phoenix is 12 percent,
compared with 23 percent in Bakersfield.
PHYSICAL AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
Soil
The Pavich operation in the Delano area includes vineyards at both Rich-
grove and McFarland. The Richgrove vineyards have Exeter and Ducor loam
soils, underlain with a hardpan at 3 feet, and they require heavy ripping
before a vineyard can be established. The McFarland area vineyards have
much deeper soils of alluvial silt (Hanford loam) with no hardpan. Soils in
the Kern County vineyard are alluvial fan soils formed by the Kern River.
The soils in the Arizona vineyard are deep loess soils with no hardpan but
with an occasional rock outcropping.
Irrigation Systems
All of the Pavich grapes are grown using irrigation. Irrigation water for
the California vineyards is obtained from surface water; the Paviches' Ari-
zona vineyards are irrigated from wells.
The amount of irrigation water applied per acre varies widely from 3 to 5
acre-feet in California and from 4 to 6 acre-feet in Arizona. According to
Steve Pavich, factors that tend to increase the irrigation water requirements
for Arizona include lower-than-normal winter precipitation, higher-than-
normal summer temperatures, and extraordinarily heavy crops. For the
Tulare County vineyards, irrigation water costs $65.00 per acre-foot, com-
pared with $3.00 per acre-foot in Kern County. The 20-fold difference be-
tween the two counties in the price of water can be attributed to the age of
their respective water districts.
The construction of canals, dams, and other facilities was more heavily
subsidized by the federal government in older water districts, such as that
serving the Bakersfield area, as compared with more recently constructed
districts, which include the district serving the Delano area. Given the
average yield of grapes per acre in the Paviches' Tulare County vineyards
(653 boxes per acre in 1935), this difference in water prices adds about $0.10
per 23-pound box to the cost of producing grapes, or $0.04 cents per pound
of grapes.
In Arizona the Paviches irrigate their fields from four irrigation wells: one
is powered by electricity (200 horsepower, 440 volts), and three are powered
by 450-horsepower natural gas engines with gearhead motors. The approx-
imate cost of this irrigation water is $75.00 per acre-foot.
AD but 190 acres of the Paviches' California vineyards are irrigated by
grav*y-flood irrigation. Of those 190 acres, the Paviches use a conventional
OCR for page 357
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
357
drip irrigation system on 80 acres (1 gallon per hour per orifice); on the
other 110 acres (one vineyard), the Paviches use a fanjet system, which is a
modified drip irrigation system featuring a computer that controls the flow
of water to a series of hoses feeding fanjets. The Paviches report that the
fanjets distribute water uniformly throughout the vineyard at a rate of up
to 11 gallons per hour per orifice, with 622 orifices per acre. Liquid fertilizer
or other substances can be injected into the irrigation water at rates ranging
from 6 ounces per hour to 450 gallons per hour. The Paviches consider this
high maximum rate an important safety factor, reducing the risk of "getting
behind" in irrigating and thus suffering damage to crops.
Several advantages of the fanjet system, in comparison with flood irriga-
tion, are cited by the Paviches: (1) fanjets produce little or no compaction
of the soil; (2) they saturate the soil for a shorter time, which allows a
periodic drying of the soil and reduces the incidence of root rot; (3) they
provide uniform coverage of the entire vineyard; and (4) they are highly
cost-effective. The Paviches plan to expand the fanjet system to another 330
acres in the near future.
Buildings and Facilities
The Paviches have cold storage capacity for approximately 200,000 boxes
of grapes (half of this capacity is in Arizona and the other half is in Califor-
nia). They also have housing for 300 persons in Arizona and 100 persons in
California. Miscellaneous sheds and warehouses are also available for the
storage of equipment and materials.
Machinery
The Paviches have an extensive inventory of machinery and equipment,
including 11 wheel-type tractors, 9 half-ton pickups, 1 three-quarter-ton
pickup, 5 one-quarter-ton pickups, 7 2-ton trucks, 4 electric forklifts, 4
fertilizer spreader trucks, and miscellaneous implements (plows, disks,
grasscutters, a ripper, etc.~. Virtually all of the equipment is duplicated in
the California and Arizona operations.
~ , ~ , . . .
MANAGEMENT FEATURES
Soil Fertility
From 1966 until 1970 the Paviches applied commercial fertilizer to their
vineyards. They used 16-16-16 nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (NPK)
fertilizer or 15-5-25 NPK. Since 1971, however, they have not applied any
commercial fertilizer to their vineyards because they decided to switch to an
alternative fertilization method, relying on legumes (untiT recently) and
compost as their principal sources of nutrients. Their premise is that healthy
grape plants are achieved through a proper balance of nutrients in the soil,
OCR for page 358
358
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
TABLE 6 Nutrient Content of Four Batches of Compost Used in Pavich
California Vineyards
Percentage Nutrient Composition Median Pounds/AcreC
Nutrient 6126185a 7129185a 8114185a 11111186b (percent) (percent)
Nitrogen 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.7 94
Phosphate 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.55 85
Potash 3.7 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 138
Calcium 3.0 2.4 2.4 4.3 2.7 148
Magnesium 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.25 69
Sodium 0.7 NA NA 0.3 NA
Organic matter 32.9 30.4 32.5 NA 32.5
Water 16.0 34.4 27.8 NA 27.8
NOTE: NA indicates data were not available. A dash indicates a negligible percentage.
aDellavalle Laboratory, Inc., Fresno, California.
LA&L Western Laboratories, Modesto, California.
Based on median analysis and assuming 2.75 tons of compost applied per acre.
inclucling various trace elements. High priority is given to providing ample
calcium for plant nutrition and good water penetration.
The Paviches apply about 6,000 tons (about 2,000 tons in California and
4,000 tons in Arizona) of composted steer manure per year to their entire
farm. This translates to about 2.5 to 3.0 tons per acre of grapes and provides
approximately 94 pounds of nitrogen, 85 pounds of phosphorus (P2O5), and
138 pounds of potassium (K2O) per acre. (These figures are based on the
medians of laboratory test results; see Table 6.) The rate of nitrogen appli-
cation used by the Paviches is somewhat higher than the recommended
rate. The compost is spread by small trucks driven between the rows of
vines.
The Paviches purchase more than 2,000 tons per year of ready-made
compost from a local firm in California. The compost is produced from cow
manure, cotton gin trash, and an inoculant. The inoculant contains bacteria
and fungi selected to be resistant to high temperatures, an addition that
greatly expedites the completion of the composting process (about 45 days).
Laboratory tests of four batches of compost are summarized in Table 6.
Price quotations (not including hauling costs) were provided by the produc-
ers (Table 7~.
TABLE 7 Price of Compost for Pavich California
Vineyards
Tonnage of Compost
Dollars/Ton
<500
500-1,999
2 2,000
8.00
6.00
5.00
OCR for page 359
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
359
In Harquahala Valley, Arizona, this composting service is not available, so
the Paviches purchase about 4,000 tons of bovine manure ($1.00 per ton
plus $9.00 hauling cost) and compost it themselves, with improvised equip-
ment. Their comporting process takes about 90 days to complete.
For trace elements, the Paviches rely on a special preparation, an enzyme-
digested mixture of fish waste materials from a cannery, plus kelp, which
has an analysis of 5-1-1 NPK along with calcium and micronutrients. The
fish material is applied as a foliar spray at least once each year, with extra
applications when the vines are stressed by pests.
In previous years the Paviches grew a legume (fava beans) as a green
manure crop between the rows of the vineyards to produce nitrogen (Mad-
den et al., 1986~. This practice has been terminated, however, because
excessive nitrogen can be detrimental. Luxury consumption of nitrate can
lead to the overproduction of foliage and shading of the grape berries,
thereby reducing their market quality. In addition, producing such a thick
foliar mass may cause pest problems to become more severe. The Paviches
view the nutrient balance in plant tissue as an essential factor in determin-
ing the populations of certain pests. For example, Steve Pavich, Ir., has
observed that a very high nitrate content relative to calcium in plant tissue
encourages spider mite populations and various diseases. It may also cause
softer fruit, thereby reducing shelf life (Albrecht, 1975~. Further research is
needed to test these relationships.
Over the years, Steve Pavich, Ir., has had literally hundreds of tests done
to determine the nutrient needs of his vineyards, including both soil tests
and plant tissue (petiole and leaf) samples. He estimates that he has spent
approximately $20,000 for these tests, which he fincis accurate but limited
in value.
He offered the example of one tissue analysis that showed a nitrogen
concentration of 200 parts per million (ppm) compared with a standard of
800 to 1,200 ppm, clearly indicating that fertilizer was necessary. Yet, 1
week later following the irrigation of the vineyard, a second tissue analysis
showed the nitrogen concentration to be 1,600 ppm. No fertilizer had been
added to the vineyard between these two tests. His conclusion was that the
results of the laboratory tests must be interpreted very carefully and in the
context of other evidence such as the appearance of the vine's foliage and
the levels of nutrients already applied.
Planting and Tillage
Grapes are a perennial crop, and it is theoretically possible for them to
remain in production for many years. In a commercial fresh grape opera-
tion, however, it is important that the grape vines in a vineyard be uni-
formly productive, providing a high yield of quality grapes of uniform size,
in large bunches, and with minimal pest damage. Most fresh grape grow-
ers, including the Paviches, find it necessary to periodically replace the
OCR for page 360
360
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
vines in some of their vineyards because of low productivity or lack of
uniform fruit quality.
The process of removing and reestablishing a vineyard is expensive, typi-
cally exceeding $6,700 per acre (KTonsky, 1986~. First, the vines are removed
with heavy equipment, usually a backhoe or bulldozer, and taken out of the
vineyard. The soil is then ripped deeply in both directions (north and south
followed by east and west). The land is left fallow for 2 to 3 years; no weeds
or crops are permitted to grow on the field during this time. Populations of
nematodes and other pests are reduced by a combination of chemical fu-
migation and solar heating of the soil. The bare field is then fumigated with
chioropicrin and methyl bromide and ripped one more time in one direc-
tion. Following this treatment, grape vines are transplanted into the vine-
yard. Whereas the University of California grape enterprise budget recom-
mends planting 454 vines (roofings) per acre, using a spacing of S-by-12
feet (Klonsky, 1986), the Paviches plant 519 vines per acre, using a spacing
of 7-by-12 feet.
Weecl Control
Until recently the Paviches used a French plow for weed control. This
device is articulated so that it operates between the vines to scrape the top
layer of soil away and return loose soil onto the berm beneath the row of
grape vines. However, Tom Pavich's calculations proved French plowing to
be quite costly, and the Paviches now use a nonchemical, no-tilIage proce-
dure for weed control in their vineyards, using labor in place of conventional
herbicides (Flaherty et al., 1981~. This method is much less expensive than
the French plow.
After the vines are established in the vineyards the Paviches plant a
permanent cover of perennial rye grass (Lolium perenne). A berm or mound
of soil is shaped around the rows of vines; a bare berm is shaped in the
center between the rows of vines. In this way, the irrigation water is forced
to flow closer to the vines. A specially adapted grass chopper (with the
center flails set shorter in the middle to rise above the central berm) is used
periodically to chop the grass and native weeds of the permanent ground
cover. The Paviches also observe that the ground cover supports popula-
tions of various beneficial predators and parasites that feed on pests in the
vineyards. In addition to flail-chopping the ground cover, the Paviches hire
workers to hoe or puB weeds from among the vines.
Insect Control
Steve Pavich, Ir., reports that the primary insect pest in their vineyards is
the grape leafhopper (Erythroneura eZegantula). In addition to monitoring the
various vineyards himself, Steve Pavich hires entomologists on contract to
weekly monitor insect populations and the various conditions that indicate
trends in their numbers.
OCR for page 363
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
TABLE 9 Herbicide Costs per Acre for Conventional Production of Mature
Thompson Seedless Grapes, California, 1986
363
Amount/ Cost/Acre Application
Date Problem Material Vineyard Acre (dollars) Cost (dollars)
January-March Weeds, Diuron 0.5 pounds 1.65 8.00
preemergence, Simazine 0.5 pounds 1.65
and clean-up Paraquat 1.0 pint 6.00
Surfactant 0.2 gallons 2.81
May-lune Maintenance Glyphosate 1.0 pint 10.00 6.00
Surfactant 0.2 gallons 2.81
Subtotal 24.92 14.00
Total costs 38.92
SOURCE: Klonsky, K. 1986. Thompson Seedless Grapes for Table Use—Sample Costs to Establish a
Vineyard; Sample Costs for a Mature Vineyard. Davis, Calif.: University of California Cooperative
Extension.
and other management considerations. These budget items are designed to
be typical of good management practices.
The Paviches use an electrostatic sprayer (which emits electrically charged
droplets that adhere to the grape plants) when they apply foliar spray or
the occasional application of insecticide. This machine was redesigned at
their request in a local machine shop with an improved agitator and heavy-
duty pumps.
The Paviches' Arizona grape operation is isolated from other (conven-
tional) grape producers, but the California vineyards are literally sur-
rounded by conventional grape-growing operations. Steve Pavich, Ir., ob-
served that his neighboring California vineyards are heavily infested with
spider mites. In spite of the risks of infestation from neighboring vineyards,
however, the Paviches have found it necessary to spray only once in 15
years, on only 40 acres, to control the spider mites. Steve Pavich, Ir., be-
lieves that this is a result of their improved cultural practices, including (1)
expert vine dressing, (2) maintaining proper soil nutrient balances, (3) main-
taining a permanent ground cover to support beneficial insect populations,
and (4) obtaining the advice of qualified field entomologists.
Through the advice of these experts, the Paviches avoid unnecessary
applications of insecticides that would reduce the populations of natural
predators and parasites, especially the beneficial western vineyard mite
(Metaseulis occidentalis), which is a predator of the spider mite (Tetranychus
pacificus and Eotetrancychus willametti), and the beneficial Anagrus, which is
a parasite of the grape leafhopper (Erythroneura elegantula) (Dibble, 19821.
The fact that the Pavich vineyards have a greatly reduced load of nonspecific
pesticides probably accounts for much of their success in avoiding second-
ary infestations, such as spider mites.
Steve Pavich, Ir., also attributes the natural control of spider mites to the
nutrient balance in the soil. He has observed that a deficiency of calcium in
OCR for page 364
364
U.
In
On
Us:
o
a
o
°
u
ho
°
o
u
Ago
U.
CO
u
o
o
C)
AD
~ '
·w .m
-
o U
_ ~
~ ~L,
In
o _
.Q ~
~ U.
~ U
~m
_
~ _
U ~
_ ~
a
o
Go
en
US ~ o o o ~ o o ~
`~= $oom~oo ~
· . . . . . . . · . . .
Go ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o
d4
o oooo o
U) L~ ~ O O U~
· . . . . .
ao
~4
cn O
C ~ C ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~—
o o ~ ~ ~ o ~=
oo
~5 a~
. ._ ·~ ·~ U)
^- ~ ~ ~
~ ~ C C ~'U ~ C ~ ~ ~'u
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= ~ ~ ~ =~ C3
C~ {15
E ' ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ '5 ~ ~
U.
~ (3, ~ ~ ~o
bO ~ _ C ~ .= ~ ~
un ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m
`0o4
U'
o
a,
-
UD
. ..
:^
U.
-
rD
Ct
U)
o
U.
U.
o
U.
~ w
o ~
o 1
~ w
u]
~ ~,
o w
.— .~}
.= ~ .
ct F4 o
~ ~o ·m
~ ~, w w
·> ~ ~ x
~ u, ~ ~
o w ~ ~
~ o ~ ~
D D. °J U1 c
a, ~ 0 .
C C {t
~ ~ ~ Ct
~ W O ~ ~
~W ~ ~ ~ O
s"
Ct-˘
C} ~ ~ ·m
C oo ~"C
~ W
CJ ~ W · ·
~ ~ ~ o C~
OCR for page 365
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
365
relation to nitrate in the plant tissue is often accompanied by a rapid growth
in the population of spider mites. This relationship has not been scientifi-
caDy established, but it is worthy of additional research.
In the fan of 1985 the Paviches began renting a 142-acre vineyard of
Thompson seedless grapes in Kern County near Bakersfield. Prior to their
rental of this vineyard, very few agricultural chemicals had been applied
there, although a limited amount of herbicide had been used. The Paviches
improved the pruning and other cultural practices in the vineyard. They
found that adequate nitrogen was already available. Water penetration in
the soil was very limited, however, as a result of poor drainage. Limestone
(2 tons per acre) was applied to provide calcium and to improve soil drain-
age. The 1985 crop yielded 825 boxes per acre, an abnormally high yield
that occurred in a year when the entire San loaquin Valley had record high
yields. This vineyard was sprayed once (with methomyI) in 1985 to control
leafhopper. During 1986 no sprays were applied.
During a tour of the Tulare County vineyards, a 40-acre vineyard of
Emperor grapes was observed. The extension entomologist who was accom-
panying the site visit recalled that during 1985 this vineyard had been
heavily infested with leafhopper. But in 1986 he noted that the population
of grape leafhoppers near harvest time was below the levels that would
cause economic damage. Many of the grape leafhopper eggs found under
the grape leaves were seen to be parasitized by the Anagrus wasp. Steve
Pavich, Ir., estimated that the yield in this vineyard would be 750 to 800
boxes per acre. No insecticide was applied to this vineyard in 1986.
Disease ant] Nematode Control
Many diseases afflict fresh grape production in the area of California in
which the Pavich vineyards are located. The Paviches apply sulfur several
times a year for disease control.
Nematode infestations are a major threat to the longevity of grape vines.
In addition to causing parasitic damage to the root system, nematodes are
also a vector for grape fanTeaf virus (Xiphanema). Although he is aware that
scientific evidence does not support his belief, Steve Pavich, Jr., strongly
suspects that the application of compost may suppress root knot nematode
(Meloidogyne spp.) and other soil-borne pests and pathogens in vineyards
(Kerry, 1981; Van Gundy, 19851. The Paviches also use the more conven-
tional method of controlling nematodes and other soil-borne pests: fumi-
gating the soil prior to planting the grapes (with chioropicrin and methyl
bromide) and maintaining the soil in a bare fallow condition for a period of
2 to 3 years between vineyard removal and reestablishment. Grapes held in
storage for a matter of weeks or months are fumigated with sulfur dioxide
gas, which is standard practice in the industry.
Labor
The management and operation of the Stephen Pavich & Sons farm
requires an extensive labor force. Stephen Pavich, Sr., who is semiretired,
OCR for page 366
366
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
works on all phases of the production and marketing operations; Tom
Pavich (who holds an M.B.A. degree) and his wife, Tonya (B.A., communi-
cations), are in charge of marketing operations; and Steve Pavich, Ir. (B.S,
viticulture), is primarily responsible for the management of field opera-
tions.
The labor force includes 25 regular hired workers. The Paviches empha-
size the importance of a permanent labor force, particularly in the case of
the highly skilled vine dressers. If the vines are not pruned properly, the
results can be disastrous for the vineyards. Approximately 350 seasonal
workers are also hired, primarily for the harvest period.
The University of California grape enterprise budget (K. Klonsky, Univer-
sity of California extension farm management specialist, interview, 1986)
indicated that field laborers were being paid $4.85 per hour, including
payroll taxes and fringe benefits. The Paviches pay $5.00 per hour as a base
wage, plus fringe benefits and incentives, bringing the average employee
wage to $6.00 and above per hour. They report that wages are higher in the
Delano area than in other areas of the state such as Fresno County. Tom
Pavich estimated that the higher labor costs add approximately $1.00 to the
cost of producing each box of grapes. A compensating factor, however, is
the very high yields and excellent quality obtained in this area.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Environmental Impact
In view of the fact that the Paviches use very little if any insecticide, no
herbicide, and only sulfur as a fungicide, their grape operation poses a
greatly reduced environmental threat with regard to residues of agricultural
chemicals in groundwater or on food, pesticide drift onto neighboring farms,
or injury to workers on the farm.
Like conventional grape producers, the Paviches fumigate their cold-stor-
age grapes with sulfur dioxide and their soil with the highly toxic combi-
nation of chIoropicrin and methyl bromide. This soil fumigant is applied
roughly 2 to 3 years prior to the first harvest of grapes and poses no toxic
residue threat to consumers of the grapes. Sulfite residues on the grapes
resulting from their prolonged exposure to sulfur dioxide may cause health
problems for some allergy-prone consumers. However, Steve Pavich noted
that these grapes are labeled with an appropriate warning (correspondence,
19871.
Economic Performance
Pavich grapes are sold throughout the United States and in several foreign
countries: Canada, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New
Zealand, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Their
OCR for page 367
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
367
U.S. buyers include 19 of the top 20 retail food chains, plus several smaller
regional outlets and a few wholesalers.
Health food stores purchase 3 percent of the Pavich grapes, under the
brand name "Pavich." AD of the grapes sold to health food stores come
from acreage on which no pesticides have been applied for at least 2 years.
The Paviches charge these specialized outlets a 12 to 25 percent premium of
about $1.00 to $2.00 per 23-pound box for grapes certified as produced with
practices that comply with the state's law governing organic foods. Steve
Pavich, Ir., reports that the higher price is necessary to cover the additional
costs of certification and special handing and storage. The vast majority of
the grapes produced by the Paviches would qualify as organic according to
the existing legislation in California; and, in fact, all of the Paviches' Cali-
fornia and Arizona vineyards are in the process of being certified as organic,
pending at least a 2-year period in which forbidden chemicals are not used.
Tom Pavich reported in a 1986 interview that his family's 1935 production
of fresh grapes was 704,360 boxes (23 pounds per box) or 8,100 tons. This
was about 1 percent of the total U.S. production of fresh grapes.5 Tom also
said that the Paviches produced 26.4 percent of the fresh grapes grown in
Arizona, including 61.9 percent of the Flame seedless grapes. (This infor-
mation was corroborated by M. Shine of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Market News Service in Phoenix.) The total cash value of the Pavich grapes
in 1985 was $5.7 million or 1.7 percent of the total U.S. fresh grape sales.6
In 1986 the Paviches produced a substantially higher sales volume than in
1985, the result of increased production and higher prices for fresh grapes.
Their production exceeded 800,000 boxes, which was due to higher yields
compared with 1935 plus 20 additional acres in production. With an addi-
tional 160 acres purchased and new leases in 1987, the Paviches expected to
exceed 1 million boxes.
Grape production involves substantial outlays of capital. Table 11 lists the
expenses incurred in establishing an acre of Thompson seedless fresh
grapes, according to the University of California (UC) farm management
extension enterprise budget (Klonsky, 1986~. The Paviches use similar pro-
cedures for establishing a vineyard, with a few exceptions, and incur some-
what higher capital costs. In the first 2 years after the vines are planted, no
=~rapes are harvested; in the third year there is a light harvest (435 boxes).
The accumulated cost over the 3-year establishment phase is $6,711 per
acre.
The Paviches plant vines using a spacing of 7-by-12 feet, as contrasted
with the UC assumption of spacing of S-by-12 feet. Decreasing the size of
the spacing increases the number of plants per acre from 454 to 519 (al-
thou~h both of these spacings are considered standard [lOonsky, 19861~.
a
The Paviches also keep their land tallow tor ;5 years rather than the usual a,
which both increases operating costs and delays the beginning of produc-
tion 1 more year, as compared with the UC budget.
This delay in replanting is intended to further reduce pathogen popula-
tions (especially nematodes), thereby enhancing the longevity of the vine-
OCR for page 368
368
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
TABLE 11 Sample Costs per Acre to Establish a Conventional Thompson
Seedless Table Grape Vineyard in Califortua, 1986
.
Costs/Acre (dollars)
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Item
Cultural costs
Fumigation 460
Land preparation
4 hours chisel and labor 60
4 hours disk, float, and labor 72
Rootings: 454 at 37˘ (20 roofings, 2nd year) 168 7
Trim and store 36 2
Machine planting
(2 hours labor, 2nd year) 50 10
Stakes (treated): 454 454
End posts (treated): 11 50
Stake and set end posts 131
Wire 119
String four wires and staple 100
Attach crossarms and braces: 32 hours labor 155
Crossarms 177
Training and suckering: 24 hours labor, 2nd year;
18 hours labor, 3rd year 116 87
Prune and tie: 5 hours labor, 2nd year; 18 hours
labor, 3rd year 24 87
Rabbit control 15 8 19
Irrigation: 5 hours labor each year 29 29 29
Water power and/or district tax: 60 feet pumping 1,
2, 3.5 acre-feet at $32.70 33 65 114
Cultivation and irrigation preparation 60 72 72
Fertilizer: 30˘/pound (30 pounds N), 2nd year; 50
pounds N. 3rd year; $5/acre for application 14 20
Pest management and disease control, includes
mildew 17 27 293
Herbicides: materials and application 35 32 32
Miscellaneous labor, materials 34 29 34
Total cultural costs 1,069 1,288 1,120
Harvest costs
Contract at $45/ton, pick and haul 225
Total harvest costs, custom 225
Overhead costs
County taxes 39 39 39
Office end lousiness costs 30 30 30
Totaloverhead costs 69 69 69
Total cash costs 1,138 1,357 1,413
Accumulated cash costs 1,138 2,495 3,908
Depreciation
Building, equipment, and irrigation 65 65 65
Interest on investment at 12.5 percent
Building, equipment, and irrigation 55 55 55
Land ($3,000/acre) 375 375 375
Interest in accumulated cash cost 142 312 489
Total interest on investment 572 742 918
Total cash and fixed costs for the year 1,775 2,164 2,397
OCR for page 369
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
TABLE 11 (Continued)
369
Costs/Acre (dollars)
Item 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Credit for production at $75/ton for juice -375
Net cost for the year 1,775 2,164 2,772
Accumulated net cost 1,775 3,939 6,711
Yield (tons/acre)
Pesticide Costs During Establishment
1st Year: Sodium fluoaluminate 8.0 pounds
(for grape leaf skeletonizes
and omnivorous leaf roller)
Methyl bromide (fumigant)
2nd Year: Sodium fluoaluminate 8.0 pounds
(for grape leaf skeletonizes
and omniverous leaf roller)
Endosulfan 2.5 pounds
(for leafhopper)
3rd Year: Same as pesticide production cost for that particular variety
NOTE: Totals may not be exact because of rounding. Costs are based on a 120-acre unit, vines
spaced at 8-by-12 feet, and yield of 5 tons. Wages include Social Security, Workmen's
Compensation, and insurance. Skilled supervisory labor, $5.70/hour; unskilled labor, $4.85/hour;
tractor $6.48/hour.
SOURCE: Klonsky, K. 1986. Thompson Seedless Grapes for Table Use—Sample Costs to Establish a
Vineyard; Sample Costs for a Mature Vineyard. Davis, Calif.: University of California Cooperative
Extension.
Cost = $8.80 + $8.00 application cost
Cost = $460
Cost = $8.80 + $8.00 application cost
Cost = $10.00 + $8.00 application cost
yards. The Paviches expect their vines to continue in peak production for
30 to 40 years or longer, depending on soil qual*y, compared with a typical
longevity of about 20 years.
Table 12 lists selected operating expenses from the UC and Pavich budgets
for a mature vineyard of Thompson seedless grapes (Klonsky, 1986~. UC
budgets are available for several other varieties of grapes. Although the
Paviches provided detailed accounting data, the categories they use to re-
port their cost data are not comparable with several items in the UC farm
management extension budgets. Soil fertility costs were somewhat higher
on the Pavich operation than in the UC budget, but on the other hand the
Paviches incurred no expenses for herbicides. The differences are trivial,
however, as a proportion of total cash costs. The Pavich preharvest cost per
box ($2.20) is about the same as the UC enterprise budget cost ($2.14~.
Tom Pavich reports that labor accounts for about 55 percent of their grape
production costs. The UC budget contains several items that are custom
hired; the Paviches do all their own work except an occasional insecticide
application, which is generally done by a commercial applicator. The spe-
/
OCR for page 370
370
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
TABLE 12 Comparative Per Acre Costs of Pavich McFarland Vineyard and UC
Enterprise Budget: Selected Practices Used in Mature Thompson Seedless
Grape Vineyard, California, 1986
Pavich Farm,
McFarland Vineyard
(dollars)
Item
University of California
Enterprise Budget
(dollars)
Field labor wage rate, includes Social
Security, Workmen's Compensation,
insurance
Selected preharvest cash costs
Irrigation preparation and cultivation 48.72
Irrigation labor 29.10
Irrigation water 130.80
Chemical fertilizer (60 pounds N) 23.00
Alternative fertilizers (compost, foliar
sprays
Soil amendments
Herbicide
Ground cover maintenance
Growth regulator (gibberellic acid)
Disease and pest control materials
Application of pest control material
(gibberellic acid)
Biological pest control adviser
Pruning
Training
Suckering
Tying
Thinning
Girdling
Pull leaves
Brush disposal
Total preharvest cash costsb, excluding
interest on operating capital
Preharvest cash cost per boxb
4.85/hour
o
o
38.92
o
85.12
141.81
63.50
158.90
c
c
35.00
198.85
67.90
c
10.00
1,118.30
2.14
6.00/hour
c
4400
280.00
o
100.00
30.00
o
22.00
85.12
220.00
c
3.00
214.00
18.00
18.00
44.00
143.00
42.00
107.00
c
1,436.00
2.20
Vines/acre
Vine spacing
Percentage of culls
Yield, 23-pound boxes per acre (net of
culls)
aFoliar spray materials cost $20.00 plus $80.00 for compost ($15/ton x 5.33 tons/acre).
Totals and average costs per box may not be comparable due to differences in accounting
procedures. Totals may not be exact because certain data were not available or comparable.
CComparable category of data not available.
Data may not be exactly comparable.
SOURCES: Tom and Steve Pavich, Jr., interviews, 1986; Klonsky, K. 1986. Thompson Seedless
Grapes for Table Use—Sample Costs to Establish a Vineyard; Sample Costs for a Mature Vineyard.
Davis, Calif.: University of California Cooperative Extension.
454
8 x 12 feet
15-30 percent
522
519
7 x 12 feet
1.0 percent
653
OCR for page 371
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
371
cific herbicides and other pesticides assumed in the UC budget are listed in
Tables 9 and 10.
In interpreting the cost data, it is important to recognize that the nature
of the Pavich production system is such that it is virtually impossible to
place several expense items in a single category. For example, compost is
applied in part for its nutrient value as a fertilizer, but it is also intencled to
have a beneficial effect on the biological balance in the soil, enhancing
populations of pathogens, predators, and other antagonists that may help
to control certain pests (Cook, 19861. Consequently, the Paviches view com-
post not just as a fertilizer but also as a major part of their pest control
strategy.
Detailed accounting data from the Pavich operation have been examined,
but they are not reported here because of issues of confidentiality. The
income of the Pavich operation is clearly enhanced by the fact that the
family has an extensive marketing and storage system that enables it to
receive a higher price for its grapes than if it were seDing them through
another marketing firm. By holding about one-eighth of their total grape
production in cold storage for 2 months (unti! just before the Chilean grapes
enter the U.S. markets in December), the Paviches are able to earn a signif-
icantly higher price than growers who sell all of their grapes at harvest.
Without revealing confidential information regarding the profits of the
Pavich grape operation, it can be stated unequivocally that their manage-
ment and marketing practices are succeeding financially, in terms of cash
flow, market share (1 percent of the U.S. total crop of fresh grapes), and a
favorable debt-to-asset ratio.
ENDNOTES
1. The University of California enterprise budget for fresh (table) grapes
calls for 60 pounds of nitrogen per year. The extension recommendation for
this area ranges from 30 to 40 pounds for mature grapes in good health to
80 pounds for weak or unhealthy vines. In some locations, irrigation water
pumped from a depth of 400 to 500 feet contains 15 to 20 ppm of nitrate,
which provides the equivalent of 40 to 50 pounds of nitrogen with normal
levels of irrigation (information provided by W. Peacock, extension viticul-
ture farm adviser Tulare Countv, California, 19871.
, . . · .
2. Flaherty et al. (1981) describe the Anagrus wasp's predation of the
. in. ~ ..
grape leafhopper as follows:
Egg parasite of grape leafhopper. The most important natural enemy of
the grape leafhopper in commercial vineyards is a tiny, almost micro-
scopic wasp called Anagrus epos (Girault). Its progeny develop within
the egg of the grape leafhopper, resulting in its death. Its size is about
0.3 mm (1/100 inch).
These parasitic wasps are particularly valuable because of their amaz-
ing ability to locate and attack grape leafhopper eggs. Also, their short
life cycle permits them to increase far more rapidly than do leafhopper
OCR for page 372
372
ALTERNATIVE AGRICULTURE
populations. Their nine to ten generations during grape growing season
make them capable of parasitizing 90 to 95 percent of all leafhopper
eggs deposited after July.
This parasite overwinters on wild blackberries, Rubus spp., on which
it parasitizes the eggs of a non-econom~c, harmless leafhopper, DiLrella
spp. These overwintering wasp populations tend to be along rivers that
have an overstory of trees sheltering both wild "Tapes and wild black-
berries. When the blackberries leaf out in February, the lush, new foli-
age apparently stimulates heavy oviposition by the Dikrella leafhoppers.
The Anagrus parasites increase enormously on these eggs so that by late
March and early April there is widespread dispersal of the newly pro-
duced Anagrus adult females. Fortunately, their dispersal occurs at the
same time that grape leafhopper females begin to lay eggs. Vineyards
located within a five- to ten-mile range will usually benefit immediately
from the immigrant parasites. Vineyards distant from actual refuges
may not show Anagrus activity until midsummer or later. (pp. 100-103)
University of California researchers D. Gonzales and T. Wilson are
currently conducting experiments with the introduction of several alterna-
tive strains of Anagrus wasp from Mexico and Colorado in search of an
effective parasite of the variegated leafhopper. This research is supported
by the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station with funds
provided by the California Wine Growers Association, the California Table
Grape Commission, and the Raisin Advisory Board (D. Gonzales, Division
of Biological Control, University of California, Riverside, telephone inter-
view, 1987~.
4. The toxicity of a pesticide is expressed by the terms oral and dermal
LD50. LD50 means the minimum single dosage needed to kill 50 percent of a
group of test animals, usually rats or rabbits; the lethal dosage is of the
pure compound and is given in so many milligrams of pesticide per kilo-
gram of the animaT's body weight.
Oral LD50 is a measure of the toxicity of the pesticide when adminis-
tered internally to the test animals.
Dermal LD50 is a measure of toxicity when the pure compound is applied
to the skin of the test animals. Generally, the oral application is more toxic
than the dermal.
5. The total volume of fresh (table) grapes produced in the United States
in 1985 was 781,090 tons (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 19871.
6. The total value of sales of fresh (table) grapes produced in the United
States in 1985 was reported as $225 million (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1987~. Presumably, this total is for the grapes only, excluding the cost of
boxes (about $1.50 per box). When the Pavich sales volume is adjusted to
exclude the cost of boxes, their sales volume is about $4.6 million, or 1.7
percent of the total U.S. sales of fresh table grapes.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, W. A. 1975. The Albrecht Papers, Charles Waters, ed. Kansas City, Mo.: Acres
U.S.A.
OCR for page 373
STEPHEN PAVICH & SONS
373
Cook, R. I. 1986. Interrelationships of plant health and the sustainability of agriculture, with
special references to plant diseases. Amer. I. of Alternative Agriculture 1~1~:19-29.
Dibble, J. E. 1982. Insect and Mite Control Program for Grapes. University of California
Cooperative Extension Leaflet 21102. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, Coopera-
tive Extension.
English-Loeb, G. M., D. L. Flaherty, L. T. Wilson, W. Barnett, G. M. Leavitt, and W. H. Settle.
1986. Pest management affects spider mites in vineyards. California Agriculture
40(3&4):28-30.
Flaherty, D. L., F. L. Jensen, A. N. Kasimatis, H. Kido, and W. I. Molter. 1982. Grape Pest
Management. Agricultural Sciences Publication No. 1405. Berkeley, Calif.:
Kerry, B. R. 1981. Progress in use of biological agents for control of nematodes. Pp. 79-90 in
Biological Control in Crop Production, Beltsville Symposium in Agricultural Research,
No. 5, G. C. Papavizas, B. Y. Endo, D. L. Klingman, L. V. Knutson, R. D. Lumsden, and
J. L. Vaugh, eds. Totowa, N.~.: Allanheld, Osmun.
Klonsky, K. 1986. Thompson Seedless Grapes For Table Use—Sample Costs to Establish a
Vineyard; Sample Costs for a Mature Vineyard. Davis, Calif.: University of California,
Cooperative Extension.
Madden, P., S. Dabbert, and J. Domanico. 1986. Regenerative Agriculture: Concepts and
Selected Case Studies. Staff Paper No. 111. University Park, Pa.: Department of Agricul-
tural Economics and Rural Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University.
Ridgeway, R. L., and S. B. Vinson, eds. 1977. Biological Control by Augmentation of Natural
Enemies. New York: Plenum Press.
Settle, W. H., L. T. Wilson, D. L. Flaherty, and G. M. English-Loeb. 1986. The variegated
leafhopper, an increasing pest of grapes. California Agriculture 40~7&8~:30-32.
Shine, M. 1986. USDA Market News Service in Phoenix. Telephone interview.
Teriotdale, B. L. and W. D. Gubler. 1984. Disease Control Guidelines for Grapes. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987. Agriculture Statistics 1987. Washington, D.C.
Van Gundy, S. D. 1985. Biological control of nematodes: Status and prospects in agricultural
IPM systems. Pp. 467-478 in Biological Control in Agricultural IPM Systems, Marjorie A.
Hay and Donald C. Herzog, eds. New York: Academic Press.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
steve pavich
