Developing Pest and Fertility Best Practices for Industrial Hemp

Progress report for ONE19-333

Project Type: Partnership
Funds awarded in 2019: $29,973.00
Projected End Date: 12/31/2021
Grant Recipient: University of Vermont
Region: Northeast
State: Vermont
Project Leader:
Dr. Heather Darby
University of Vermont Extension
Expand All

Project Information

Project Objectives:

This project seeks to understand production challenges industrial hemp growers face in the Northeast and begin to develop best management practices related to nutrient and pest management. The benefits to farmers are improved yield and quality of industrial hemp grown by local farms and ultimately higher profitability.

Objective 1. Develop optimum nitrogen rates for fertilizing industrial hemp in the Northeast.

Indications of success will include improved yields and profits through optimization of application rates and consistently producing compliant crops.

Objective 2. Identify viable biofungicides to control fungal diseases of hemp. Indications of success for farmers will include establishment of scouting protocols, management practices for diseases, and higher quality crops.

Objective 3. Qualify the species composition of arthropod and disease pest on industrial hemp on Vermont farms and quantify the impact of arthropod pests on industrial hemp. If successful, growers will develop scouting schedules and become effective in disease and arthropod identification and management leading to higher quality crops.

These research objective will result in the development of best management and the resultant information will be delivered to farmers and end- users through an extensive outreach program. The outreach materials will be delivered via guides, videos, web-based resources, and outreach events.

Introduction:

Hemp, a non-psychoactive variety of Cannabis sativa L, is a crop of historical importance and is re-emerging as a popular crop as it is sought out for a wide variety of consumer and industrial products. Hemp production is a rapidly growing industry in Vermont. In 2013, the Vermont state legislation established a regulatory framework for Vermont hemp farmers and in 2014, nine farmers registered with the state to grow 17 acres. As of April 2019, there are currently 300 farmers registered to plant 4500 acres of hemp (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 2019). The majority of the hemp grown in Vermont is grown for cannabidiol (CBD) oil production.

As the acreage of hemp increases in Vermont and growing practices are established, the impacts on crop loss due to lack of/or improper fertility, disease, and pest management are becoming more evident. Typically, hemp growers do not come from farm backgrounds and have minimal understanding of basic crop management including the ability to identify and manage pests.

With the passing of the 2018 Farm Bill, industrial hemp is now removed from the list of controlled substances and is considered a legal agricultural crop. The industry is growing rapidly and scientifically based research and education is critical to farmers succeeding with this new crop. According to a survey from the UVM Industrial Hemp Conference (February 8th, 2019), 88% of respondents (n=136), were new to the hemp industry. In this survey, hemp growers and industry members also indicated they needed to know more about pest management (34%) and soil management (55%) to be successful in hemp production. The respondents also emphasized the need for research based credible production information to help grow a sustainable hemp industry.

Dr. Darby and her team have been conducting industrial hemp variety and planting date studies as well as scouting for pests and disease in research trials. This information has been accessed widely by growers but is limited in scope and environment. Given the statewide expansion of the crop, it is imperative to scout and survey hemp in many locations and expand our agronomic research to meet the immediate needs of growers. Pest damage and diseases and improper fertility management affect the health of the plant and the quality of the product produced. Foliar diseases reduce photosynthetic leaf area, use nutrients, and increase respiration and transpiration within the infected plant tissues. A diseased plant typically exhibits reduced vigor, growth and quality. In rainy years there may be total crop loss due to fungal diseases. Arthropod pests can directly damage crops, reduce vigor and act as vectors to spread disease.

As industrial hemp production grows in Vermont, it is important that we are ready for the challenges that accompany the crop.  Although growing hemp is money and labor intensive, if a good crop and the final product can be well worth a farmer’s investment. The goal is to limit the risk a farmer faces by developing sound agronomic and pest management strategies that help farmers produce high yield and quality crops.

Previous to 2014, hemp had not been grown in the US since The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 made cannabis, including non-psychoactive hemp, illegal at the federal level. Much of the agronomic information to grow hemp has been lost or is long-outdated. In order to successfully grow hemp that will meet quality standards and allow farmers to make a profit, it is important to understand fertility requirements and potential pest pressure. The federal ban on cannabis has greatly impacted the amount of research that has been performed in the US. Therefore, little information exists on best management practices, especially specific to the Northeast region. Since the 2014 Farm Bill, several universities in the Northeast have started research programs including University of Vermont, Cornell, Penn State University, and University of Connecticut. However, these research programs have been very limited in scope primarily focusing on variety, seeding rate, and planting date for grain production.

There is almost no understanding of effective fertility management and viable treatments when disease and pest problems occur. This information is of vital importance to farmers in the Northeast successfully grow high quality hemp.

Pest Management

There is strikingly little research on integrated pest management for the production of industrial hemp. European corn borers, hemp borers, and beetles lay their larva inside the stems, which feed on and weaken plant structure, potentially causing it to break (McPartland 1996b). When these insects severely damage the plant, yields decrease and seed development is prevented. Aphids, leafhoppers, and tarnished plant bugs suck fluids from the phloem, resulting in stunted growth and wilting.

Information on insect pests of hemp exists specific to regions such as Pakistan, (Mushtaque et al. 1973, Baloch et. al 1974), India (Nair & Ponnappa 1974), New Zealand (McPartland & Rhoda 2005), Canada (Canadian Hemp Trade Alliance 2017, Baxter & Scheifele 2009), and in the western US (Cranshaw & Schreiner 2019). Current insect surveys and scouting guides for North America are primarily focused on western regions (Cranshaw & Schreiner 2019). A survey of insect pests in New York was compiled in 2018 (Chartand, 2018). There is a lack of information and research on common hemp pests in New England.

Dr Darby and her team have collected preliminary data on arthropod populations via scouting their industrial hemp research trials at Borderview Research Farm in Alburgh, VT (Darby et. al 2017a-d, Darby et. al 2018a-c, Darby 2018). Thus far arthropods appear to cause minimal damage to plants. However, statewide assessments of disease and arthropods have not been completed in Vermont. There is a need to research and compile information about the most common pests industrial hemp growers in northern New England will encounter, and what damage they may cause the crop. This research is critical to formulating best management practices for mitigating pests in the northeast, and to disseminate that information to farmers.

There is also a lack of information on the use of fungicides to manage disease. The fungal diseases most frequently observed on hemp include botrytis, or grey mold (Botrytis cinerea) and white mold (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). (Baxter & Scheifele 2009, Punja et. al 2018). Grey mold thrives in temperate climates with cool to moderate temperatures, and has the potential to destroy the crop. Grey mold causes damping off in seedlings, chlorotic stems, cankers, and wilting (McPartland, 1996a). Fusarium and powdery mildew have also been found on hemp (Baxter & Scheifele 2009). The few fungicide trials conducted took place in the Netherlands (Van der Werf 1991, Van der Werf, & Van Geel 1994) and Manitoba (Kostuik et. al 2014). There are currently no pesticides approved for specific use on hemp in the U.S., and more research is needed.

Fertility Management

The majority of hemp fertility studies have been conducted in Europe (Amaducci et. al 2001, Campiglia et. al

2017, Iványi & Izsáki, 2009, Finnan & Burke 2013), and North American studies have primarily been conducted in Canadian provinces (Aubin et al. 2015, Vera et. al 2010). PennState Extension began to assess fertility in industrial hemp trials in 2017 (Roth, 2018). All of this research has been conducted on hemp being produced for grain or fiber. There even more limited information on fertility management for hemp being produced for CBD oil. Overall, more research is needed, along with recommendations and guidelines specific for the Northeast.

Development of effective nutrient and pest management options would be critical information for growers to optimize crop quality and yield.

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand
  • Chris Motyka (Researcher)
  • Roger Rainville (Researcher)

Research

Materials and methods:

Objective 1. Develop optimum nitrogen rates for fertilizing industrial hemp in the Northeast.

Nitrogen Fertility Trial 2020

The trial was initiated at Borderview Research Farm in Alburgh, Vermont (Table 1) and the experimental design was a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plots consisted of five plants spaced 5’ apart in the row and plot treatments consisted of five N application rates including a Control (0 lbs ac-1), 75, 100, 125, and 150 lbs ac-1.

Table 1. Agronomic information for the hemp variety trial 2020. Alburgh, VT.

Location

Borderview Research Farm                        

 Alburgh, VT

Soil type

Benson rocky silt loam, 3-5% slope

Previous crop

Winter Canola

Plot size

5’ x 20’

Plant spacing (ft)

5’ x 5’

Plant material

Seedling

Planting date

9-Jun

Harvest date

8-Oct

 

The 4-week-old hemp seedlings (variety Lifter) were transplanted on 9-Jun into a seed bed prepared with conventional tillage.  A cover crop mixture of crimson clover and annual ryegrass was planted between rows on 15-Jun. Drip irrigation was setup to supply moisture as needed by the hemp plants. Plots received nitrogen fertility in split applications over an eight-week period starting on 26-Jun in the form of ammonium nitrate plus sulfur (URAN 28-0-0) applied directly to individual plants (Table 2).

 

Table 2. Weekly hemp nitrogen fertility rates (28-0-0).

Treatment

Application rate

 28-0-0

Weekly application rate

Weekly application rate

lbs ac-1

gal ac-1

gal ac-1

mL plant-1

0

0

0

0

75

23.1

2.89

6.27

100

30.8

3.85

8.36

125

38.5

4.81

10.5

150

46.1

5.77

12.5

Irrigation was applied on a weekly basis at a rate of 8000 gallons of water per acre delivered via drip tape. Irrigation duration and amount was modified based on weekly rainfall. Prior to harvest, plant height and width was measured from all harvested plants in each plot. From each plot, flower samples were taken from the top 8” of colas and were analyzed in UVM’s testing lab (Burlington, VT) for cannabinoid profiles.

For each plant harvested, the whole plant weight was recorded. On 8-Oct, all plants were harvested and were broken down into smaller branched sections and larger “fan” or “sun” leaves were removed by hand, while smaller leaves were left attached since they subtend from the flower bract. Remaining stems were then bucked using the BuckmasterPro Bucker (Maple Ridge, BC, Canada) and remaining leaf material and buds were collected. Wet bud and leaf material was then run through the CenturionPro Gladiator Trimmer (Maple Ridge, BC, Canada).  

Wet bud weight and unmarketable bud weight were recorded. The flower buds were then dried at 80⁰ F or ambient temperature with airflow until dry enough for storage without molding. A subsample of flower bud from each plot was dried in a small dehydrator and wet weights and dry weights were recorded in order to calculate the percent moisture of the flower buds. The percent moisture at harvest was used to calculate dry matter yields. Metrics were collected for each of the two harvested plants within each plot and a plot average was calculated.

The day prior to harvest (7-Oct) on plant per plot was harvested and chipped to be analyzed for whole plant nutrient concentrations. A subsample of chipped plants was taken, dried, and sent to Dairy One in Ithaca, NY for nutrient analysis.

On-Farm Trial with Sunset View Farm - 2020

As many conventional methods for pest control are currently not options for hemp farmers, the evaluation of other organic methods for weed and disease control are needed to determine best practices in hemp production systems. Cover cropping has the potential to provide numerous benefits including nutrient retention, improvement of soil structure, weed suppression, and disease control. Within hemp production systems, the use of various cultural control practices can be used with the aim of maximizing air flow and reducing weed competition while providing positive impacts on soil health.

In 2020, an on-farm cover cropping trial was implemented to determine the impact of various cover crop species on hemp plant health. The trial was implemented on 16-Jun at Sunset Lake CBD farm in Alburgh, VT. The experimental design was a randomized complete block with split plots and 4 replicates. The main plots were cover crop species mixtures (Table 3) and the split plots were seeding methods: broadcast and direct seeded. Plots were 5’x10’ planted between rows of Lifter hemp at Sunset Lake CBD. Plots that were direct seeded were planted at a rate of 10#/ac whereas broadcasted plots were planted at 20#/ac. Cover crop emergence was monitored in the week following planting and thereafter. Plots were trimmed and mowed throughout the season to reduce competition with hemp plants and to maintain airflow throughout the trial area.

 

Table 3. Cover crop treatments at Sunset Lake CBD Alburgh, VT 2020.

Treatment

Cover Crop

1

Control

2

Crimson clover

3

Balansa clover

4

Red clover

5

White clover

6

Berseem clover

7

Annual ryegrass

8

Crimson clover + annual ryegrass

9

Balansa clover + annual ryegrass

10

Red clover + annual ryegrass

11

White clover + annual ryegrass

12

Berseem clover + annual ryegrass

 

Objective 2. Identify viable biofungicides to control fungal diseases of hemp. Indications of success for farmers will include establishment of scouting protocols, management practices for diseases, and higher quality crops.

Disease Control Trial 2020

Hemp research plots were established in spring 2020 at Borderview Farm in Alburgh, VT (45.0111° N, 73.3071° W). Two rows of 20 ‘Boax’ cultivar plants on 10’ centers were used to compare two growing systems (low caterpillar and no covering) and evaluate four fungicides and a water control for foliage and bud disease incidence and severity. Four fungicides and one water control were applied to each hemp plant resulting in 20 treatment replications for each growing system. Five main branches encircling each plant, spread equidistantly were flagged. Of the flagged main branches, one vertical secondary shoot was selected 20 cm interior and was flagged for the fungicide treatment. Fungicides selected were based on those approved by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets for 2020 (Pesticide Use on Hemp in Vermont (6 VSA Chapter 87), VTAAFM DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HEMP PROGRAM) with the exception of the Copper Hydroxide.   The following OMRI-approved fungicides and a water control were applied weekly starting at flower formation (9.13.20; 9.24.20; 9.29.20; 10.7.20; 10.15.20) through harvest (10.23.20)at standard label rates: Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (DoubleNickle LC, Certis Corp.); Hydrogen Peroxide and Peroxyacetic Acid (OxiDate; Biosafe Systems); Copper Hydroxide (Kocide 3000-O, Certis Corp.); Bacillus subtilis (Cease, Arbico Organics). All treatments received spreader sticker.

Treatment 1-Red-Kocide .56gr in 1000 mls X 3=1.68 gr/3 liters

Treatment 2-Green Oxidate 6.26 mls X 3= 18.78 mls/3 liters

Treatment 3-Pink-Double Nickel-1.56 ml in 1,000 mls= 4.68 mls/3 liters

Treatment 4-Orange-Cease Same as Double Nickel= 4.68 mls/3 liters

Treatment 5-Yellow-water

All applications were applied using a calibrated handheld sprayer to deliver 25 mls material/shoot. Foliage and bud disease incidence (number of leaves affected) and severity (area infected) were assessed starting weekly by examining five leaves and five terminal buds down per vertical secondary shoot treatment at flowering through harvest. The Horsfall-Barratt scale (Horsfall and Barratt, 1945) was used to rate disease. severity on foliage and buds. Diseases assessed included powdery mildew, fungal leaf spots and Botrytis blight. Foliage from the Kocide 3000 treatments was be collected and analyzed for copper content at harvest. Additionally, samples from the Kocide, Double Nickel, and Control treatments were collected and analyzed for yeast and mold counts.

Objective 3. Qualify the species composition of arthropod and disease pest on industrial hemp on Vermont farms and quantify the impact of arthropod pests on industrial hemp.

Pest Survey 2020

Ten industrial hemp farms from throughout Vermont, representing eight different counties, were scouted. The farms enrolled the in the scouting program filled out a baseline production survey and provide their VT Hemp Registration Number. The ten farms were scouted for diseases and arthropod pests at two critical periods during the growing season; at flower development stage and just before harvest, since the type of diseases and pests will likely change over the course of the season. Three adjacent plants were scouted at five locations within each field in a W pattern to ensure all quadrants of the field are assessed. Five leaves were randomly selected including top, mid and lower sections on each of the three plants, as well as the terminal and 4 axillary cola buds, and evaluated for incidence (number of leaves affected) and severity (% total leaf damage) for each of the diseases and arthropod pests listed in the scouting form (See Disease and Arthropod Pest Scouting Forms). Stems, crown and root issues were also noted if present. When necessary, samples were collected and brought back to the UVM Plant Diagnostic laboratory for further diagnosis.

Research results and discussion:

Objective 1. Develop optimum nitrogen rates for fertilizing industrial hemp in the Northeast.

Nitrogen Fertility Trial 2020

Currently lab analysis is still being completed. Data will be analyzed and results made available to growers in winter of 2021.

On-Farm Trial 2020

Cover crops in this case were quickly outcompeted by warm season weed species primarily including pigweed and barnyard grass as the months of June and July offered little to no precipitation and higher than average temperatures. As a result, impact of cover crop treatments was not able to be evaluated past this point due to poor establishment as they were outcompeted by high weed pressure. Despite multiple efforts to knock back weeds through mowing and weed whacking, plots were not able to establish. The overall lack of moisture in June, with precipitation nearly 2 inches below average, led to exceptionally slow germination of the cover crops and in some cases patchy to non-existent stands.   While cover crops did not have the ability to outcompete weeds in this instance, ground cover in the form of those weed species remained. Through side by side observation, there may have been some apparent impact of ground cover on disease pressure from Septoria leaf spot. Adjacent rows to this trial appeared to have heavy pressure from the soil borne disease whereas rows with vegetation in between plantings had lesser observable disease. While individual cover crop impacts were not able to be evaluated, there may be additional benefits of disease control from ground cover that would reduce splash up of soil bone diseases. Additional evaluation in future years would be required to determine this impact.

Objective 2. Identify viable biofungicides to control fungal diseases of hemp. Indications of success for farmers will include establishment of scouting protocols, management practices for diseases, and higher quality crops.

Disease Control Trial 2020

9.13.30- No disease found on field plants foliage or buds. Powdery mildew rated at 50% in the tunnel. No insect injury on inside or outside. Darby and Hazelrigg.

9.24.20- No disease found on field plants foliage or buds. Powdery mildew rated at 50% in the tunnel. No insect injury on inside or outside. Hazelrigg and Bruce.

9.29.20- No disease found on field plants foliage or buds. Powdery mildew rated at 50% in the tunnel. No insect injury on inside or outside. Darby.

10.7.20- No disease found on field plants foliage or buds. Powdery mildew rated at 50% in the tunnel. No insect injury on inside or outside. Darby.

10.16.20- Some abiotic injury in outdoor plants (pictures above). Bud rot as follows:

  • Terminal bud rot on red on 5th plant in from FIELD. Kocide
  • Terminal bud rot on 3rd green in from ROAD-Oxidate
  • Terminal bud rot on 4th yellow in from ROAD- Water
  • Terminal bud rot on red 5th plant from the ROAD-Kocide

Powdery mildew rated at 50% in the tunnel, 25% outside. No bud rot inside tunnel.  No insect injury on inside or outside.

10.23.20-All flagged shoots were collected and the first terminal down 5 buds were assessed for incidence and severity of bud rot caused by Botrytis. Statistical analysis indicated that there were no differences between the treatments for incidence or severity of flower rot. The project did indicate that hemp grown under cover (low tunnels) had less flower rot but overall the incidence of rot was low for the entire project. The study will be repeated in 2021.

In the low tunnel there was very low infection rate with only 6/490 buds showing symptoms of rotting flower (1.225% incidence).

  • Kocide Trt 1                 0 buds/95 bud infected
  • Oxidate Trt 2                0 buds/95 buds infected
  • Double Nickel Trt 3       2 buds/100 buds infected. S=2@75%
  • Cease Trt 4                  1 bud/100 buds infected. S= 1@100%
  • Water Trt 5                3 buds/100 buds infected. S=2@25%,1@100%

In the field the total number of flower buds showing symptoms of rotting flowers was higher but still low overall. The total buds infected       was 40/485 buds (8.247% incidence).

  • Kocide Trt 1                  6/100 buds infected. S= 6@100%         
  • Oxidate Trt 2                8/95 buds infected. S=6@100%,1@25%,1@50%
  • Double Nickel Trt 3        7/95 buds infected. S-5@100%,1@ 50%, 1@25%
  • Cease Trt 4                  7/95 buds infected. S=6@ 100%, 1@25%
  • Water Trt 5                 12/100 buds infected. S=10 @100%, 2@50%

A subsample of the Kocide and Double Nickel treatments, low tunnel and field hemp flowers were collected for analysis of copper and microbial residues. There is concern that application of biological materials as well as copper can keep farmers from meeting regulatory standards for these quality measurements. Additional of a biological fungicide (Double Nickel) did increase the aerobic microbial count compared to the control.  Copper based fungicides (even those applied outdoors) substantially increased the copper concentration of the harvested flower buds. Further research needs to be conducted to understand market and safety concerns of the hemp products.

RESULTS Copper and Microbial Analysis

Treatment                                Copper Content  ppb          Aerobic count cfu/g     Yeast/Mold count cfu/g

 Inside Double Nickel                16885                                            33,350                             13,050

Outside Double Nickel              12493                                             6,164                             27,562

Inside Kocide                           408135                                              92                             12,375

Outside Kocide                        143025                                            184                               5,400

Inside Control                            14508                                            92                                6,525

Outside Control                          15765                                             0                                 3,600

Objective 3. Qualify the species composition of arthropod and disease pest on industrial hemp on Vermont farms and quantify the impact of arthropod pests on industrial hemp.

Pest Survey 2020

Leaf spots (overwhelmingly Septoria) were the most widespread disease found during flower development in Vermont, observed at half of the scouting locations (Table 3). Of the two locations where powdery mildew was seen during flowering, Alburgh-1 and Berlin, there was a relatively large number of leaves effected, 40% and 53.3%, respectively. Just prior to harvest, the incidence of powdery mildew increased such that it was seen at half of the locations, and as much as half of the scouted leaves at Alburgh-1 had powdery mildew. Leaf spots were also common, found at four of the ten locations, but only at Alburgh-2 was it severe – 77.3% of the scouted leaves had leaf spots.  Botrytis was present at relatively low levels (1-3% of the scouted buds showed signs of Botrytis) at three of the ten farms. Some of the other disease that were found at very low levels included Bipolaris leaf spots, Sclerotina stem rot, and powdery mildew affected flowers.

During flower development, six out of ten of the farms had flea beetles, up to 0.6/leaf (Table 4). Aphids and potato leafhoppers were present at relatively low numbers at some of the locations for that time-period. As the season progressed, aphid numbers predictably rose across most locations, though three out of ten farms didn’t have any aphids present when scouted prior to harvest.  On the seven farms where aphids were found pre-harvest, Berlin and Morrisville saw the greatest numbers, 1.91/leaf and 1.72/leaf, respectively. There were virtually no other insects found during that later scouting. A fair amount of feeding damage was seen at many locations throughout the season, we largely attribute the observed damage to flea beetles and plant bugs.

Table 3. The incidence (number of effected plants/total number of plants scouted) and average severity (percent of leaf/bud effected) of diseases commonly found on hemp plants, during two scouting periods, at Vermont hemp farms in 2020. 

    Flowering Pre-harvest
    Leaf spots Powdery Mildew Leaf spots Powdery Mildew Botrytis
Location Varieties Inc (%) Sev (%) Inc (%) Sev (%) Inc (%) Sev (%) Inc (%) Sev (%) Inc (%) Sev (%)
Addison Cat's Meow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Alburgh-1 Boax 0 0 53.3 20.6 0 0 52.0 16.3 0 0
Alburgh-2 White CBG 1.3 12.9 0 0 77.3 22.8 45.3 9.7 0 0
Berlin Honolulu Haze, Suver Haze, Green Mountain Cherry 0 0 40.0 10.3 4.0 0.5 26.7 4.0 0 0
Colchester White 17.3 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craftsbury Lifter 29.3 0 0 0 20.0 3.9 2.7 0.3 2.7 3.6
Morrisville Suvar Haze 25.3 2.7 0 0 23.0 2.9 0 0 3.0 0.8
Pittsfield Lifter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Putney Lifter, Electra, CBG, Suver Haze 0 0 0 0 0 0 21.3 2.1 1.3 1.3
Williston Suver Haze, Special Sauce, White CBG 9.3 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 4. Average number of individuals/leaf found on hemp plants, during two scouting periods, at Vermont hemp farms in 2020.

    Flowering Pre-harvest
Location Varieties Aphids Flea Beetles Leafhoppers Aphids Flea Beetles Potato Leafhoppers
Addison Cat's Meow 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.59 0 0
Alburgh-1 Boax 0 0 0 0.40 0.01 0
Alburgh-2 White CBG 0.37 0.09 0 0.16 0 0
Berlin Honolulu Haze, Suver Haze, Green Mountain Cherry 0.03 0 0 1.91 0 0
Colchester White 0 0.09 0 0 0 0
Craftsbury Lifter 0 0 0 0.09 0 0
Morrisville Suvar Haze 0.03 0 0.01 1.72 0 0
Pittsfield Lifter 0.15 0.19 0.00 1.07 0 0
Putney Lifter, Electra, CBG, Suver Haze 0 0.29 0 0 0 0
Williston Suver Haze, Special Sauce, White CBG 0 0.60 0 0 0 0
Participation Summary
11 Farmers participating in research

Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary

25 Consultations
2 Curricula, factsheets or educational tools
1 On-farm demonstrations
5 Published press articles, newsletters
7 Webinars / talks / presentations
1 Workshop field days
1 Other educational activities: The 2nd Annual UVM Industrial Hemp Conference

Participation Summary:

315 Farmers
258 Number of agricultural educator or service providers reached through education and outreach activities
Education/outreach description:

The 2nd Annual Hemp Conference was held on February, 2020 in Burlington, VT. There were 375 attendees from 10 states and 2 provinces. An online version of the conference was also held in conjunction. There presentations focused on pest and fertility management with UVM research projects highlighted. Hemp Conference Brochure - 2020

In the spring of 2020, a webinar series focused on hemp was delivered to stakeholders during the summer of 2020. There were 7 webinars held from June through September. The goal was to provide timely information to growers related to production and regulation. 

Hemp Webinars, Jun 11, 18, Jul 7, 30, Aug 6, 13, Sep 10, 2020, Information for growing hemp throughout the season, 7 webinar series, virtual event, 294 attendees, https://www.uvm.edu/extension/nwcrops/conferences-events-current-and-past 

Individual webinars are listed below with links to archived webinars.

The Vermont Hemp Rules with Stephanie Smith (11 Jun 2020) 212 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z02EyQkkN9U&feature=youtu.be 

Getting the Season Started with Heather Darby and John Bruce of the UVM Extension Northwest Crops and Soils Program (18 Jun 2020) 62 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ErgkuUwUUc&feature=youtu.be 

Identifying and Managing Arthropod Pests in Hemp with Heather Darby and Scott Lewins of the UVM Extension Northwest Crops and Soils Program (9 Jul 2020) 74 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbKbDkEwk2I&feature=youtu.be 

Identification and Management of Disease in Hemp with Ann Hazelrigg, UVM, and Chris Motyka (30 Jul 2020) 77 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wouZy-3Ioxk&feature=youtu.be 

CBD Post-Harvest Handling (Drying Focus) with Chris Callahan, UVM (6 Aug 2020) 829 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIPozbV-MuY&feature=youtu.be 

Hemp Sampling Pre-Harvest with Robert Shipman and Michael DiTomasso of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food & Markets (13 Aug 2020) 96 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NFlbdJyS-w&feature=youtu.be 

Hemp Testing at Certified Labs with Robert Shipman and Michael DiTomasso of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food & Markets (10 Sep 2020) 39 views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNw_4wQojB0&feature=youtu.be 

Due to the pandemic, we were unable to host in-person events during the growing season. Instead our team pulled together a series of Virtual Friday Field Days. Hemp was highlighted at the 14-Sep. Field Day Friday. The event was attended by 31 stakeholders and the archived video on YouTube has been viewed 71 times since it was posted. Virtual Field Day Fridays 2020

Several blog posts were developed and posted to the UVM OutCroppings Blog. There are 195 subscribers.

Crop Insurance for Hemp Growers (Jan 2020) https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2020/01/09/crop-insurance-for-hemp-growers/ 

Growing Hemp Update and COVID-19 (Apr 2020) Update https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2020/04/30/growing-hemp-update-and-covid-19-update/ 

Potato Leaf Hoppers Have Arrived! (Jun 2020) https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2020/06/24/potato-leafhoppers-have-arrived/ 

The European Corn Borer in Hops and Hemp (Jul 2020) https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2020/07/02/the-european-corn-borer-in-hops-and-hemp/ 

Determining the Sex of Hemp Plants (Jul 2020) https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2020/07/22/determining-the-sex-of-hemp-plants/ 

Information Products

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.