SPRING/SUMMER
Spring/Summer
2016 2013
www.aboutpeanuts.com
www.aboutpeanuts.com
VOL.64
60No.
No.2 4
VOL.
2015 State
Peanut Production Champions
Richard H. Linton, Ph.D., Dean
NC State University
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
North Carolina
A. J. Smith and Sons
Brandon, Phil, Daniel and Jeff Smith
104.7 acres 7,149.3 lbs. per acre
For the 2015 crop year North Carolina’s State Peanut Yield Champion
is again A.J. Smith and Sons of
Chowan County. The Smith Operation is truly a family farm.
The four brothers, Jeff, Larry, Fred
and Phil along with their mother
Doris have different responsibilities
on the diversified farm.
The next generation has joined the
operation with Daniel and Brandon
Smith. The Smiths plant peanuts,
corn, sage, watermelon, pumpkins,
cucumbers, snaps and small grains,
in addition to raising hogs and cattle. All are active in their church
and the NC Farm Bureau. Jeff is
Chairman of the Chowan County
Commissioners and a past President of the North Carolina Peanut
Growers Association.
Virginia
B & R Farms
Bobby and Renea Porter
89.6 acres 6,009 lbs. per acre
B & R Farms, owned and operated
by Bobby and Renea Porter, is a
diversified farming operation in the
Newsoms area of Southampton
County. The Porters raise the traditional crops of corn, cotton, soybeans and peanuts along with watermelons, cantaloupes, and cattle.
Both Bobby and Renea are third
generation farmers.
This is the second year in a row
that the state yield winner is from
Southampton County.
NC Plant Sciences Initiative
Takes Root
On behalf of the students, faculty, staff and Extension specialists at the College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences, thank you for
your enthusiastic support of the
NC Plant Sciences Initiative
(PSI) at NC State. The members
of the North Carolina Peanut
Growers Association were among
the first to publicly pledge support for this game-changing
plant sciences research endeavor.
Thanks to your great help, and
the combined efforts of more
than 40 agricultural organizations, state lawmakers included
the PSI in the Connect NC Bond
referendum in March. With the
bond’s overwhelming voter support, the PSI became a reality
and marked the largest investment in agricultural research in
the state’s history.
A Little History
1952 was the last time NC State
made capital investments in new
plant science research buildings.
Kilgore, Williams and Gardner
halls were built for $2.9 million –
roughly $26 million in today’s dollars. That investment 64 years ago
has fueled the research and Extension activities that now produce a
total annual economic impact of
more than $1 billion dollars for rural NC – supporting more than
10,000 jobs where they are needed
most. That’s a remarkable return
on investment.
Today, NC State peanut varieties
represent roughly 90 percent of the
state’s total crop, and in 2014 the
Continues on page 2
PAGE 2
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
Where Do New Peanut Varieties Come From?
some private-sector varieties, but
based on the 2015 crop year statistics collected by the Association of
Official Seed Certifying Agencies
(AOSCA), we estimate privatesector varieties occupancy of certified seed acreage to be only 2.3% of
the total.
Tom Isleib
Department of Crop Science
NCSU
Peanut growers typically also produce corn, wheat, cotton and/or soybeans, sometimes other crops, and
the sources of new varieties vary
with the crop. Wheat varieties a
mix of private- and public-sector
releases. For corn, soybean and
cotton, private-sector breeding programs are the source of most new
commercial varieties. Private companies exist to make money for
their shareholders, so they tend to
take a short-term view of variety
development. A program had better
produce marketable varieties in
fairly short order, or the breeder
will find him- or herself looking for
another job.
Public-sector breeders, i.e., university and USDA-Ag Research Service
types, have the luxury of not having
to pay for our programs through
seed sales. Up to now, we have
been subsidized to a greater or lesser degree by tax money. We should
be free to consider more than just
the short-term share of the seed
market occupied by our variety releases. A colleague of mine describes it as “the long arc of scientific investigation.” There are still
public-sector breeding/genetics programs in corn, soybean, and cotton,
but to a large extent they address
longer-term objectives other than
just variety development, itself a
fairly lengthy process. In peanut,
the variety development effort is
primarily public-sector with publicly supported programs in North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. There are
Okay, so most peanut breeding programs are public-sector. How exactly do those egg-headed university professors establish their breeding goals, that is, the things they
want to improve in new varieties?
We try to keep our eyes and ears
open and address production and
processing issues encountered by
our growers, shellers, and manufacturers. Keeping an open dialog
with and paying attention to your
peanut extension specialists are
very important. We do have some
objectives that are common across
programs.
In general, growers
make their money on tons of peanuts produced per unit of input. In
other words, on yield per acre, but
resistance to diseases, arthropod
pests (insects and mites), and abiotic stresses (drought, excessive rain,
cold or heat) and response to chemicals and fertilizers applied can also
save the grower money. The specific resistances or responses vary
from place to place and over time.
Whatever the specifics, these are
breeding objectives. Shellers want
bright shapely hulls and the right
mix of jumbo and fancy pods, superELK, extra large kernels, and other
shelled goods from the pods they do
not market as in-shells. These, too,
are objectives. Manufacturers used
to tell me they cared about only
three things: flavor, flavor, and flavor. More recently they have expressed their desire for high-oleic
peanuts, but that really gets back to
the issue of flavor and shelf-life.
High-oleic peanuts do not go rancid
nearly as rapidly as normal-oleic
peanuts, so they maintain better
flavor longer. These are objectives.
Every now and then a problem or
issue comes up that demands a
“drop everything” sort of approach,
say the TSWV outbreak of the early
2000s or the advent of high oleics.
Now it seems that we may have
gone too far on the grower’s behalf
in selecting varieties with higher
meat content that may have led to
the current problem shellers are
having with cracked and broken
pods. We may be able to address
the issue of hull strength without
impinging too much on yield.
A couple of things that I would like
to see improved but that will not
happen in the next few years while
I am still on the job are: (1) a very
high level of resistance to Sclerotinia blight and (2) tolerance to copper and zinc. These objectives are
not unreachable, but I simply do not
have enough time to attain them.
Although we have made progress in
selecting new varieties with a little
less susceptibility to Sclerotinia
blight, all of our virginia-type varieties will get it to a greater or lesser
degree if conditions are right. The
cost of chemical control can be very
high. There are some lines used in
the Texas and Oklahoma programs
that have a different source of partial resistance. There is even a
Continued from page 1
Richard H. Linton, Ph.D., Dean
value of these varieties was more
than $98 million. Our research has
improved yields and increased
grower profits, but we know you
need new varieties with greater tolerance to pests, weeds and other
environmental challenges.
This will require new science from a
broader cross section of disciplines
and expertise. Our 64-year-old labs
have served us well, but we need
new space specifically designed for
a multidisciplinary approach to
plant science research and innovation. The PSI will not only provide
the space but also the educational,
research and Extension programming necessary to keep NC agriculture growing.
Next Steps
To help guide the initiative’s next
steps, four task forces consisting of
leaders from the university, agricul-
DNA “marker” that can be used to
track that resistance. We are hybridizing our most resistant lines
with theirs to see if we can find
“transgressive segregants” or lines
that have both forms of resistance
and are more resistant than lines
with only one or the other. For the
copper and zinc tolerance, it is a
matter of adapting hydroponic
screening methods that have been
used in other crops, getting the
sources of zinc and copper right
(which salts and what concentrations), and screening the US peanut
germplasm collection for tolerance.
It would be surprising if there was
no genetic variability for tolerance,
but tolerance to the two metals
could be separate, and it is possible
that good levels of tolerance exist
only in some agronomically awful
lines that would have to be crossed
and backcrossed to existing varieties to get anything commercially
useful. Those are potential objectives for my successor.
ture-related organizations and industries have begun work on recommendations in four areas: governance and leadership; research and
technology; advocacy and resource
development; and workforce education and consumer awareness. We
will continue to provide our partners frequent updates on our progress and encourage you to visit our
w e b s i t e
( h t t p : / /
harvest.cals.ncsu.edu) for the latest
information on the PSI and all
CALS activities.
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
PAGE 3
Springing Into Summer
first show was held in Washington,
DC where the Virginia Peanut
Growers Association held a booth
space. Dell Cotton, Gail Milteer,
and I gave out peanuts, dark chocolate peanut butter, peanut butter
spreaders, and recipe brochures.
This event was called Rock N’ Roll
DC Marathon and many runners
enjoyed our booth and learning
about peanuts grown in Virginia.
Marianne Copelan
Executive Director
Virginia-Carolinas Peanut Promotions
The past few months have gone by
so fast that if I were to turn my
head to look back at January, I
would probably get whiplash. It has
been a busy year for our growers
and will continue to be as we enter
into planting season.
January was filled with excitement
as we entered into a new year with
great expectations. The South Carolina Peanut Growers Annual meeting took place the last week of January. Many growers came to this
meeting to hear the good or bad
news on peanuts. This meeting had
many great speakers, offered door
prizes, and had over 400 people in
attendance. February was similar
in that the Virginia Peanut Growers Annual meeting took place with
many great speakers as well and a
large attendance.
After the grower meetings ended,
then came promotion time, starting
with the Southeastern Wild Life
Expo held in Charleston, SC. This
event had over 15,000 people attend
from all over the southeast, and in
our booth we gave out recipe cards
and packets of peanuts. This event
was outstanding, with many consumers interested in locally grown
products.
March is well known for National
Peanut Month and National Dietitians Month. We promoted peanuts
through various marketing outlets:
social media, print advertisements,
and promotional trade shows. Our
Two weeks after the marathon expo
came the Virginia Food and Beverage Expo in Richmond, Virginia.
Dell Cotton and I were there to encourage everyone to use peanuts in
many dishes. We gave out peanuts
and peanut butter, many recipe
cards, and nutritional information
provided by the Peanut Institute.
We also had a booth space at the
Charleston Cooper River Bridge
Run the last week of March. This
event is a large one where many
travel from all over the southeast to
run this particular race. We gave
out peanuts, dark chocolate peanut
butter, recipe cards, and nutritional
information. Buddy McNutty came
to the expo to meet and greet and
encourage everyone to eat peanuts
& peanut butter.
Last but not least, we created three
similar advertisements to promote
peanuts in Our State, Virginia Living, and The Local Palate magazine
publications during the month of
March.
Our advertisements focused on promoting peanuts
through a nutritional lens to consumers. We designed an inshell
heart-shaped peanut with nutritional facts all around it; the National Peanut Board’s PR team
helped with the design.
As we move into the summer
months, our advertisements will
shift directions to focus on those
who travel to destinations within
the southeast and all over the VC
region. I hope you have a wonderful
summer filled with family, friends,
and laughter.
Rock n Roll DC Health and Fitness Expo
PAGE 4
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
COOP NOTES
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
Recently USDA released its planting intentions acreage report for 2016.
This annual report covers all of the major crops and essentially comes from surveys conducted with growers across
the country. This report has never intended to be anything but a guide as to what may be planted. The NASS acreage report for peanuts is as follows:
Peanuts: Area Planted by State and U. S. (Estimated – March 31, 2016 NASS)
State
Thomas R. Cotton, Jr.
Manager
PGCMA
2016 U. S. PEANUT ACREAGE
FORECAST - Peanuts: Growers
intend to plant 1.48 million acres in
2016, down 9 percent from the previous year. The expected decrease
in planted area is largely drive by
price concerns due to the large supply of peanuts. Over the last two
years, growers increased peanut
acres in many States due to relatively low prices of other crops creating a large supply going into the
2016 crop year. In Georgia, the
largest peanut-producing State,
expected planted area is down 7
percent from 2015.
With the above chart in mind, let’s
look at some of the questions that
come to mind:
What are the chances that only
North Carolina will increase acres
above the 2015 level?
Ordinarily, I would say it’s a pretty
good chance that there will be acreage increases in other states above
last year. Everywhere we turn we
hear that peanuts are the only option due to commodity prices being
so low. The more one hears how
good peanuts are in relation to other commodities, the more likely one
will plant to take advantage of that
situation and, if for no other reason,
to get a payment. However, there
may be some deterrants that are
finally catching up to those who
have increased acres so dramatically. One is whether storage for your
peanuts is available. This is mainly
a problem in the Southeast. Believe it or not there are still those
Area Planted (1,000 acres)
2014
2015
2016
Percent Prev. Yr.
Alabama
175.0
200.0
170.0
85%
Arkansas
(NA)
(NA)
18.0
(x)
Florida
175.0
190.0
150.0
79%
Georgia
600.0
785.0
730.0
93%
Mississippi
32.0
44.0
40.0
91%
New Mexico
4.5
5.0
5.0
100%
North Carolina
94.0
90.0
95.0
106%
Oklahoma
12.0
10.0
9.0
90%
South Carolina
112.0
112.0
110.0
98%
Texas
130.0
170.0
130.0
76%
Virginia
19.0
19.0
19.0
100%
U. S. Total
1353.5
1625.0
1476.0
91%
who believe that the government, or
someone, must provide me with
available storage if I plant. That
isn’t the case. Storage is nearly full
from multiple years of increased
planting. Secondly, you have to
think that the relaxing of proper
rotation practices is starting to
catch up to some as well. You can’t
increase acres in one commodity
year after year without it catching
up to you.
With supplies continuing to increase, what is consumption doing?
I haven’t really heard a good explanation as to why the consumption of
peanuts isn’t rising more than it is.
Peanuts should be as cheap as they
have ever been. The average price
of farm level sales over the past
year is in the $380 or so range.
Contracts for 2016 in many cases
are not even at this level when the
unpriced quantity is blended in
with the priced production. Yet,
consumption for all grades from
August to February of this year
compared to last year is up 2%.
More specifically, peanut candy
consumption is up 20.5% during the
same time period. Snack peanuts
are up 13.5%. Peanut butter, unfortunately, is down nearly 7%.
Inshells are up. If we aren’t consuming, then you hope we are exporting them. Well, exports of raw
shelled peanuts for essentially the
same period are down 2.2%. Peanut
butter and inshell exports are up
8.6% and 10.3%, respectively.
What happens to surplus peanuts
that are placed under loan? The
loan period is nine months. During
the loan storage period peanuts are
constantly redeemed. If not all are
redeemed at the end of the 9
months, they are forfeited. It is up
to USDA to sell forfeited peanuts.
Sometimes they are able to work
out barter transactions, trading a
finished product for a feeding program for farmer stock. In most cases they offer peanuts out on bid.
Typically the winning bidder is the
storing warehouseman at a price
acceptable to USDA. Thus surplus
peanuts are not crushed as they
were under prior programs. They
are purchased for markets just like
all other farmers stock, just for dif-
ferent prices.
This could be a dangerous year for
our industry. If we produce another three million ton crop, the ramifications will last well beyond this
year. What are the chances of a 3
million ton crop? IF the acres in the
chart above don’t increase, if we
average 4065 pounds per acre nationally we will reach it. The national average yield for the past
four years has been 4192 pounds in
2012, 4006 in 2013, 3912 in 2014,
and 3905 in 2015. If any state
plants more than is on the chart,
then the chances increase dramatically. My prediction is that we do
have yet another 3 million ton crop.
Time will tell.
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
which in turn leads to more skips or
empty seed cells. Everyone wants
to get the planting done as quickly
as possible, but you may be better
served by reducing ground speed a
little to guarantee the seed or plant
population you need.
Gary Roberson
NCSU
Planting Tips
Modern planters are fascinating
pieces of machinery, from an engineer’s perspective. It is a mechanical system designed to simulate
and greatly speed up the process of
picking up a single seed with your
fingers and dropping it in place in
the seed furrow. When you think
about how fast and how often the
planter has to do this in the field, it
is indeed an impressive piece of
equipment.
The effectiveness of the peanut
planter in the field is a function of
several issues: ground speed of the
planter, seed singulation, seed size
and shape, and seed rate.
The
farmer will lock in seed size and
shape when the variety is chosen.
Seeding rate is based on the recommendations published by peanut
specialists and seed producers.
That leaves ground speed and seed
singulation as items we can try to
control in the field.
The larger size of the peanut, compared to many other seeds, coupled
with the seed rate per acre are the
first issues to address. These two
factors make effective planter operation at higher ground speeds troublesome. Some growers report issues with seed bridging in the hopper, most likely just before entering
the metering housing, and with
blockage in the seeding tubes as
the seeds fall to the ground. While
I do not have access to studies conducted on Virginia peanuts, a
study in Georgia (Tubbs and
Sarver, 2013) conducted between
2010 and 2012 indicated that higher ground speeds resulted in lower
seed populations in the row.
In
other words, higher ground speed
means faster seed plate speed
Farmers that use the older plate
planters will notice a significant
increase in skips and damaged seed
as speed increases.
The plate
planters will perform well at lower
ground speeds but get increasingly
worse once the speed starts to increase above the optimum range.
Most planters used for peanut today are air planters which use either vacuum or air pressure to hold
a single seed in the cell and drop
them individually into the seed
tube. Air planters are not immune
to problems at higher speeds either.
Proper maintenance of the system
for all planters and adjustment of
the air pressure or vacuum on the
air planters is another key to making sure the seed rate is on target.
Some air planters use a PTO driven
air turbine which means air pressure will be a function of engine
speed. Some planters use a hydraulically driven turbine which
will let you adjust turbine speed
independent of engine speed. Air
leaks are particularly troublesome
for either system and may be hard
to find. Leaks that occur between
the air turbine and the seed meters
will reduce the effective pressure at
the seed meter which will in turn
effect seed singulation. Check the
equipment manual for the recommended air pressure or vacuum for
peanut for your planter. Make this
your starting point and fine tune as
needed.
PAGE 5
POSITIVE on PEANUTS:
After disaster in 2015, S.C.
growers hope demand increases in 2016
Minnie Miller
T&D Correspondent
Jan 31, 2016
It may have been the hope of gleaning knowledge to lift them out of a
devastating crop year or the fact
that it was a rainy day that saw a
record crowd of more than 400 turn
out for this year’s South Carolina
Peanut Growers’ Meeting Thursday
at the Santee Conference Center.
Either way, the atmosphere was not
of doom and gloom but of planning a
strategy to rebound from one of the
worst years for farmers that most in
attendance had ever seen.
Torrential rains at digging and harvest time resulted in monumental
losses for peanut growers, who face
limited resources for disaster aid.
Despite their losses, farmers were
looking ahead to the coming 2016
season, taking advantage of a large
trade show and presentations on
the latest research geared toward
increasing their profits in the year
to come.
Dr. Dan Anco was introduced by
S.C. Peanut Board Chair Richard
Rentz as the new peanut specialist
with Clemson University. Rentz
encouraged growers to get with Anco, who began work at Edisto Research and Education Center this
past summer, and to take advantage of his extensive knowledge
of peanut production.
South Carolina Commissioner of
Agriculture Hugh Weathers, a peanut grower himself, spoke on the
current efforts to secure financial
assistance for farmers who suffered
devastating loses in 2016.
“We are working on getting financial relief from the federal, state
and private sectors,” Weathers said.
“We are trying to get additional
funds to come to South Carolina
farmers.”
Weathers pointed out that the impact of farmers on the state’s economy is significant. South Carolina
Agriculture and Forestry industries
have a $41.7 billion economic impact on the state, reflecting a 23
percent growth since 2006. These
industries account for more than
212,000 jobs, Weathers said.
Marianne Copelan, S.C. Department of Agriculture marketing specialist, gave an update on the success of 2015 promotions and a briefing on activities scheduled for 2016.
March is National Peanut Month
and promotions will be prevalent
across numerous media such as
newspapers, Facebook and Twitter,
Copelan said. South Carolina peanut product displays continue to be
a part of events across the state
that draw large crowds, such as the
Cooper River Bridge run and the
South Carolina State Fair.
Dell Cotton, manager of the Peanut
Growers Cooperative Marketing
Association, provided the latest figures on acres grown, yields and production of peanuts in South Carolina, the Southeast and other major
peanut-growing states. A total of
109,000 acres were planted in
South Carolina in 2015.
“2015 saw the second largest number of acres ever planted in the
Southeast even though we had a
much lower contract price,” Cotton
said. “United States acres were up
22 percent from 2014 to 2015”.
Cotton emphasized the need to not
only look at acres planted but to
take into account yields per acre,
which have steadily increased because of improved varieties and production methods.
“We just have to not grow too many
peanuts when we are going into a
season when we have a surplus on
hand,” Cotton said. “You also have
to know where your peanuts are
going to be stored – to have a home
for your excess.”
The mindset of peanut farmers is,
Cotton said, is “’What else am I going to grow?” We have to hope that
domestic consumption will increase
Continued on page 16
PAGE 6
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
SUTTER SEZ
Robert R. Sutter
Chief Executive Officer
North Carolina
Peanut Growers Association
It was in early March of 2009 that
Sharon Roland and Brad Dixon
from the 4-H Foundation met with
the Executive Committee of the
North Carolina Peanut Growers
Association. They came to talk
about Millstone 4-H camp and present an ambitious plan to remake
this historic camp.
To understand why they were talking to peanut growers about a
camp two hours west of Raleigh,
you have to go back in time to
1936. Rudolph Ellis was 16 years
old and had harvested his one acre
4-H peanut project. That year the
average yield in North Carolina
was 1,125 pounds per acre, but
Carl had produced 2,304 pounds
per acre. Because record keeping
was an important part of the project he knew exactly how much he
had spent on that acre of goobers;
$52.04. He was not happy with the
prospect of selling his crop for 3 ½
cents per pound. So he came up
with the idea of roasting the peanuts and selling them around
Fayetteville where the family farm
was located.
First he used his mother’s oven,
but his business grew quickly and
he had to make a roaster from an
oil barrel. He soon had to add a
trailer to his bicycle to deliver the
roasted peanuts. The third year he
planted 20 acres and bought half
interest in a car which allowed him
to expand. By the time he was 20
he was selling “Red’s Roasted Peanuts” in four counties and had
used profits from the business to
build a new home for his family.
Sadly, World War II called him,
which ended his peanut business.
Now fast forward to 2007. Carl’s
daughter, Dr. Sharon Ellis, contacted NC 4-H and offered the
home that Carl built with profits
from his peanut business to 4-H.
The Ellis family wanted to give
back to 4-H and to tell the success
story of their father and his 4-H
peanut project.
State 4-H Leaders wanted very
much to utilize the house and decided that the best place to do that
was at the Millstone 4-H Camp,
which is 60 miles east of Cumberland County in Ellerbe, NC. So
they put the house on a truck and
moved it to its new home at Millstone.
would be used as a 4-H History Center but would be a ready-made promotion for NC Peanuts. So the decision was made to support the effort
and pledge $100,000 over five years.
The benefits of this project will pay
dividends for years to come.
Thousands of school children and
campers will pass through the house
that peanuts built and learn how
peanuts are planted, grown, harvested, shelled and processed. One
wall of the front room (figure 2) lists
the many nutritional benefits of eating peanuts. A large state map
(figure 3) provides a tour of NC with
eight audio stops along the way
blending history, geography and
peanuts.
A Xoetrope (figure 4),
which is a view master on steroids,
shows how a peanut seed grows into
a plant full of peanuts. Teachers
will be provided a lesson plan which
covers the entire display.
The front of the house is entirely
devoted to peanuts. The rest of the
house is a 4-H history museum. The
House that 4-H Peanuts built is at
the center of the camp. It was formally opened April 10 along with
the new State Employees Credit Union 4-H Learning Center and the
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
Cole Foundation Auditorium.
North Carolina Peanuts are now
part of a great program to produce
leaders for the future. Leaders who
are in touch with the soil, know
how to use their head, hands and
heart in a healthy way.
So if you are ever close to Ellerbe,
stop by Millstone 4-H Camp and
see the House that 4-H Peanuts
Built. (Figure 1)
Figure 4- Giant View Finder show how
Peanut Plant Grows
So you can probably see where this
is going. It is March 2009 and Sharon and Brad are presenting sponsoring opportunities to the NCPGA
Executive Committee. The house
Figure 2 - Wall Panels Showcase Nutritional Value of Peanuts
Figure 1 - House that 4-H Peanuts Built
Figure 3 - Interactive map features peanut of tour of North Carolina
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
most challenging year weatherwise,
and to be able to not only produce
but actually harvest over 6000
pounds per acre was an accomplishment. B & R Farms did just that,
yielding 6009 pounds on 89.6 acres.
This is the third year in a row that
Virginia’s statewide winner has
produced over 6000 pounds per
acre, a trend we hope will continue.
Thomas R. Cotton, Jr.
Executive Secretary
Virginia Peanut Growers Association
We have just finished up what is
always a busy time of the year at
the Association as well as for the
farmers. Winter is meeting time,
and we had yet another successful
state production meeting and Virginia Peanut Growers Annual
Meeting in February. With over
100 growers and others in attendance, interest in peanuts remains
strong for us. Capping off our portion of the meeting was the presentation of county and state yield winners from 2015, who you will see at
other places in this paper. I will
add my sincere thanks to Colonial
Farm Credit for their financial contribution to our trophies. My congratulations to all of our county
winners, and particularly to Bobby
and Renea Porter of Newsoms who
won the state award. This was a
This winter also saw our promotion
with University of Virginia sports
end. This promotion involved signage on LED screens at the football
stadium and at the basketball arena for all home games. We also had
a presence online with our advertising as well as on the radio. This
was our second consecutive year
with UVA.
In March, we again exhibited at the
Rock & Roll Marathon in Washington, DC. This was our fourth appearance at a Rock & Roll event.
We handed out nutritional information, giveaway items from the
National Peanut Board, and the
popular squeeze packs of peanut
butter from Peanut Butter & Co. of
New York City.
March also brought the bi-annual
Virginia Food & Beverage Show
held by Virginia’s Department of
Agriculture & Consumer Services.
The Association exhibited, and was
joined by many of the gourmet peanut companies and others in peanuts who also exhibited their own
products.
PAGE 7
seeding rate, crop stand and digging date; using traditional and
new technologies Dr. Maria Balota
In late April, I will exhibit at our
second Virginia Association of Nutritionists and Dieticians Annual
Conference. These are the professionals that people listen to, and
they are pleased to have our industry join them with the latest nutritional information on peanuts.
We will continue our efforts to promote peanuts wherever the Board
sees possibilities. You can see that
our venues are very varied but allow us to reach a lot of people. If
you ever have ideas or suggestions,
please let me know.
Finally, the Virginia Peanut Board
met in March and approved the
following research proposals for
Virginia Peanut Growers Association funds for 2016:
(1) Scouting and early detection of
peanut diseases using image technology Dr. Hillary Mehl
(2) Evaluation of conventional and
organic options for thrips control in
peanuts Dr. Ames Herbert
(3) Improving peanut production
through better management of
Virginia Food and Beverage Expo
Cathy Johnson, NPB
PAGE 8
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
2015 County Peanut P
North Carolina
Bertie County
Beasley Partnership
5,860.5 Pounds per Acre
609.2Acres
Duplin County
Warren Sloan
4,832 Pounds per Acre
50 Acres
Hertford County
S&S Farms
5,811.3 Pounds per Acre
207.2 Acres
Bladen County
Ward Farms
5,714.4 Pounds per Acre
316.4 Acres
Chowan County
A.J. Smith & Sons Inc.
7,149.3 Pounds per Acre
104.5 Acres
Columbus County
Alex & Ethan Jordan
5,718 Pounds per Acre
154.6 Acres
Edgecombe County
Rest-A-Bit Farms
4,561.7 Pounds per Acre
235.4 Acres
Gates County
Dennis Trotman
6,255 Pounds per Acre
679.4 Acres
Halifax County
JRK Farms
5,540.7 Pounds per Acre
226.1 Acres
Martin County
Ben Shepard Cowin
5,427.5 Pounds per Acre
141.9 Acres
Nash County
John Taylor
4,417.8 Pounds per Acre
97.1 Acres
Northampton County
MEB Farms
5,794 Pounds per Acre
110.7 Acres
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
PAGE 9
Production Champions
Perquimans County
Edward Winslow
5,024.3 Pounds per Acre
73.6 Acres
Pitt County
J.P. Davenport and Sons
3,946 Pounds per Acre
211.3 Acres
Washington County
Albemarle Beach Farms
5,553 Pounds per Acre
227.2 Acres
Wayne County
Stephen Grady, Jr.
4,764 Pounds per Acre
107 Acres
Virginia
City of Suffolk
Jason Holland Farms LLC
5129 lbs. per acre on 99.5 acres
Southampton County
B & R Farms Inc
Bobby & Renea Porter
6009 lbs. per acre on 89.6 acres
Dinwiddie County
Billy Bain
4385 lbs. per acre on 146.1 acres
Surry County
Calvin Clements
5775 lbs. per acre on 33.8 acres
Greensville County
Tom & Brandon Clements
4548 lbs. per acre on 173.2 acres
Sussex County
Old Hickory Farms
Randy Everett
5319 lbs. per acre on 57 acres
Isle of Wight County
John Allen
6028 lbs. per acre on 54 acres
PAGE 10
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
Disease Management Programs on New Cultivars
Barbara Shew
Plant Pathology - NCSU
We know that we can take advantage of the disease resistance in
Bailey and Sugg by growing them
with fewer inputs for disease control. These cultivars and programs
have been very successful, but we
don’t know if reduced input programs will also be appropriate for
the newest cultivars. For the past
two years, we have been testing
reduced input programs on the
newest cultivars, Sullivan, Wynne,
and Spain.
We did the research at the Peanut
Belt Research Station in Lewiston
and tested five disease management programs on Bailey, Sugg,
Sullivan, Wynne, and Spain.
The full management program is
recommended on susceptible cultivars such as CHAMPS (Table 1).
For this program, Proline was applied in furrow at planting and the
first of five leaf spot sprays was applied at R3. The five-spray program
included 2 applications of a soil fungicide with a leaf spot fungicide
(tebuconazole + Bravo) and three
applications of a leaf spot fungicide
(Tilt Bravo, Headline, or Bravo).
Plots were scouted for Sclerotinia
blight starting early August and
Omega was applied (full rate) at the
onset of disease and again about
three weeks later.
The specific fungicides used in this
study were selected so that we
could add or subtract fungicides
(such as tebuconazole) to control
each disease individually. A grower
could choose several other fungicides with similar or possibly better
results. For example, we could have
used Provost, Abound, or Fontelis
to control of soil and foliar diseases
instead of tebuconazole + Bravo.
The reduced management program is recommended for disease
control on resistant cultivars such
as Bailey and Sugg (Table 1). For
this program, no in-furrow fungicide was applied and the first of
four leaf spot sprays was applied at
R3+2 weeks. The four-spray program included only one application
of a soil + leaf spot fungicide
(tebuconazole + Bravo), plus three
applications of a leaf spot fungicide
(Tilt Bravo, Headline, or Bravo).
Omega was applied only once, at
the onset of disease.
The final three programs were the
same as the reduced management
program, but eliminated products
that control each of the target diseases: stem rot, Sclerotinia or leaf
spot. This allowed us to assess the
resistance of each cultivar against
each disease.
Results. In 2014, the differences in
management programs were consistent across cultivars for leaf spot,
defoliation, stem rot, Sclerotinia
blight, and yield. Incidence of Sclerotinia blight was extremely high,
particularly when no Omega was
applied, and in Spain, Sullivan and
Wynne (Tables 2 and 3). Bailey and
Sugg clearly had less Sclerotinia
blight than the other cultivars. In
contrast, leaf spot and defoliation
were low in all treatments, although Sullivan had less defoliation
than the other cultivars (Table 3).
Stem rot incidence was fairly low,
but was highest in the No Sclerotinia Control treatment (Table 2).
Bailey, Wynne and Sugg had the
lowest incidence of stem rot, but
Spain appeared to be susceptible
(Table 3).
Among management programs,
yields were lowest when no Omega
was used (Table 2) and yield was
strongly correlated with incidence of
Sclerotinia blight and stem rot.
Yields were highest in Bailey and
lowest in Spain, with the other cultivars intermediate (Table 3).
Results from 2015 were quite a bit
different from 2014. Leaf spot incidence was very high when no leaf
spot fungicide was used (Table 4),
particularly in Sullivan, Bailey, and
Sugg. Leaf spot and defoliation
were much lower in Spain and
Wynne than in the other cultivars.
In Spain and Wynne, management
treatment did not affect defoliation,
even in the treatment without leaf
spot fungicide. Sclerotinia blight
generally was low, with highest levels found in Spain or without Omega (Table 4; Table 5). Incidence of
stem rot was low overall, with lowest amounts in Sullivan and Sugg
and highest in Spain and in the program without Omega (Tables 5 and
6).
Leaf spot was the only disease variable negatively correlated with
yield in 2015. Averaged for all management programs, yield was highest in Spain, followed by Sugg
(Table 5). This unexpected result
for Spain was attributed to overmaturity and pod loss in the other
cultivars due to rains that delayed
digging. Sullivan’s yield was reduced when leaf spot fungicides
were not applied (not shown).
Bottom line: Comparison of Full
and Reduced programs. Our results from 2014 and 2015 indicate
that reduced management programs probably are suitable for all
partially resistant cultivars. Leaf
spot and defoliation were low and
equal among management treatments that included four leaf spot
fungicide applications for Bailey,
Sugg, Sullivan and Wynne. No differences between the full five-spray
and reduced four-spray programs
were observed for leaf spot, stem
rot, Sclerotinia blight, or yield in
2014 or 2015 (Tables 6 and 7).
However, some results were inconclusive. The difference between
years in leaf spot incidence and defoliation on Bailey and Sullivan is
cause for concern because it could
indicate erosion of leaf spot resistance in these cultivars. It also
appears that stem rot and Sclerotinia blight should be managed
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
more aggressively in Spain than in
the other cultivars, with two applications of a stem rot fungicide and
up to two applications of Omega
when Sclerotinia blight is active.
Growers should expect that their
disease control programs will continue to perform well, but keep
scouting to stay on top of unexpected leaf spot or other disease
problems. Disease advisories will
start on July 1 and can help you get
the most out of your control program on any cultivar.
In the meantime, we will continue
to do research to strengthen disease
control recommendations for new
cultivars and to monitor leaf spot
resistance in Bailey, Sullivan and
the other cultivars.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
PAGE 11
PAGE 12
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
Daniel J. Anco
Interim Peanut Specialist
Clemson University
Spring is in the air, and by now,
many peanuts will have made it in
the ground. This season got off to a
little wet start, in part thanks to
that “little boy” El Niño, and hopefully the rains have continued to
mellow out by the time this gets
printed.
In many ways, growing peanuts is
a race. We race with the weather
and field conditions for planting,
we race against diseases and pests
(and the weather again) for timely
management during the season,
and we race against over-maturity,
field conditions and, you guessed
it, weather yet again for timely
harvest at the season’s end. Most
of the time, races are won by being
faster than the competition. A good
example here is how the early bird
gets the worm. However, we also
know not all races are the same,
for while the early bird that gets
there first may get the worm, it’s
the second rat that gets the
cheese… Either way, timing is
huge, and certain situations demand different speeds. Now, while
we certainly want to be faster than
the competition (diseases, overmaturity, weather events keeping
us from the field) in much of peanut production, there are times
when a little “Whoa, Nelly!” to slow
the horses down can actually help
us get ahead. In this case, the
“horses” are how fast the peanut
are growing. Strong plant growth
is critical for a number of things.
Solid stands and quick canopy closure are vital in helping reduce
weed pressure and thrips/TSWV
risk. Quicker root growth in warmer soils and planting dates is also
important to decrease CBR susceptibility. Furthermore, good growth
is naturally linked to good yields
down the road. However, as with
“the bird vs. the rat” and most other things, there is a happy medium
beyond which more (or faster) is
not always better. If we have varieties with potential for highly prolific canopy growth (Bailey, for example), this makes it difficult for
growers without GPS guidance to
stay on the rows during digging.
Regardless of GPS being used or
not, too much plant material on
the surface after digging slows drying time and delays when we can
combine and finish the fields,
which is one of the most important
races we face during the season.
Growth Regulator Response
Aside from drought or TSWV infection, a less damaging way to limit
peanut growth is to use the plant
growth regulator prohexadione calcium (Apogee). This past year, one
of our trials looked at varying rates
of Apogee on four runner and four
Virginia type varieties for effects
on yield production and row closure. Yield from most of the varieties improved with growth regulator use, while Georgia 06G was the
only variety that showed no benefit. With the exception of FloRun
107, all other varieties had the
greatest yield with either two or
three half-rate applications. This is
valuable to know, since at about
$50/A, Apogee can be an expensive
product to apply, and where warranted, use at lower rates would
help reduce the cost of using it.
From the row closure results, we
can see that growth regulator use
with the slower growing Georgia
06G delayed row closure greater
than the varieties with more prolific growth (Bailey, Sugg, and TUFRunner 511, for example). As
mentioned earlier, if row closure is
delayed too much, increased weeds
and thrips/TSWV pressure can tip
the scales out of our favor. The
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
choice of two vs. three half-rate
applications should be determined
based on cultivar, presence of irrigation, weather conditions being
conducive to prolific growth, and,
while not examined here, use of
twin-row planting. In this test,
Sugg and Wynne showed the greatest improvement with growth regulator use: ~560 and 440 lb/A increases, respectively, from three
half-rate applications. It is good to
keep in mind these results are
from one year of data, and we’ll be
revisiting this again this year to
see how consistent everything is,
as well as comparing growth regulator use to bush hogging to see
which varieties get the most economic benefit from which management approach. As always, when
applying growth regulators and
other products, the label is the law.
See the Peanut Production Guide
for additional comments on growth
regulator use. I wish everyone a
great season and a successful peanut race!
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
Moving Forward With Confidence
years to the days when spider mite
outbreaks were very common in the
summer and a portion of this was
due to the fact that the older products did not fit the IPM concept as
well as sometimes their use resulted in other problems such as spider
mites.
Rick Brandenburg
Entomology Extension Specialist
North Carolina State University
As I get older I realize how often I
say things my dad used to say that
I swore I would never say! I even
long for the “good old days” at
times even though I’m not sure
what those were. Over time our
vision is often clouded and our
memory takes a vacation every so
often and our reflection on the past
isn’t always accurate.
My wife
knows I occasionally bring up
whether I made a mistake to leave
the farm over 40 years ago, but my
mom will quickly remind me of just
how hard it was at times.
Over the 35 plus years of being an
extension specialist, I can’t possibly
count the number of times I heard
farmers talk about the pesticides
we had back in the “good old days”
and how they wish we still had
them, I understand this completely, back in the “good old days” there
were some very good products. We
remember that they typically cost a
whole lot less than the pesticides
we use today and if our memory
serves us correctly, they worked
really well. I think that, for the
most part, that is accurate.
What is not accurate is that today’s
products are not as good. I disagree and in some cases today’s
products are better. In addition
today’s products perform at a higher level and do it with much less
risk to the environment, to our
health and the health of those who
work with us, fit much better into
the philosophy we use called Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
We don’t have to go back too many
I’m not saying the old products
weren’t good, quite the opposite is
true. They came about in the 1960s
and 70s and were really game
changers for farming. They reduced
labor costs, improved yields, AND
increased profitability. As I compare performance of the old products against how well the new one
works, one interesting fact emerges. The new pesticides typically
work as good as or better than the
old ones. Now if my dad was here,
he’d tell me I’ve spent too much
time in my office and not enough
time out in the real world. However, comparing studies over the
years confirms that our modern
pesticides are good at what we ask
them to do. It is hard to compare
products over 30 years unless they
were in side by side trials since varieties, weather, and farming practices vary over the years, but I
stand by my statement.
Part of this comes from the fact
that back in the early years of pesticides, they were so much better
than the “nothing” they replaced. I
remember these years as a boy on
the farm and just how much it
changed how we did business. Then
along came insecticides such as
synthetic pyrethroids with their
rapid knockdown which everyone
liked. Soon however, there were
reports of resistance issues with
some uses of pyrethroids and that
they had shorter residual life than
some previous products.
Every
new product that has come along
has had its strengths and weaknesses. Today’s new products due
to regulations and concerns from
society must always have one
strength and that is toxicity and
risk.
Times have changed and
agrichemical companies have delivered what the government and society has demanded.
Today’s new pesticides fit needs
that we have in our modern farming activities. If they are not better
than existing products in some way,
then they will never be profitable
and no company wants that. Occasionally a product is lost from the
market place and a “void” is created
or at least there appears to be a
loss of the best or preferred product.
This is what happened when the
registration for Temik (aldicarb)
was cancelled and suddenly many
growers had to find something else
to use at plant for protection
against thrips injury. There was a
hint of panic when news of the loss
of Temik spread throughout the
peanut producing states. Much of
this was due to the long-term success of Temik over many years and
that a lot of farmers had never used
anything else. So the concern was
to be expected.
Over the past few years, we have
seen great success with the use of
alternative products at plant and
post emergence for thrips control.
It took a year or two, but most peanut growers are satisfied with the
level of control they obtain out of
the alternatives. This is just in
time for the introduction of a
“generic” formulation of aldicarb
called Meymik 15G. It is my understanding that this product will
only be labeled for use in Georgia in
2016 and possibly other states in
coming years. Is it any good? Well
at this point I don’t know as none of
us in this area have had a chance to
work with it. Hopefully we will get
that opportunity this year and provide useful data to help you with
your decisions in the future. At
this time, however, the company
that produces this product has not
contacted us regarding any plans
for evaluation, so we will have to
wait and see before we can make
any recommendations. Regardless
of the future of this revival of a
product from the “good old days” we
do have good products that give us
the level of thrips control we need
to produce a profitable crop.
PAGE 13
Virginia Food
Bank Donation
In celebration of March being National Peanut Month, the Virginia
Peanut Board and the Virginia
Peanut Growers Association
teamed with Peanut Proud to donate peanut butter to local food
banks.
This is the fifth year that the growers of Virginia have donated during
March to encourage others to do
the same. The Association’s two
pallets (2880 jars) were increased
by a 6 pallet (8640 jars) contribution from Peanut Proud. Peanut
Proud, based in Blakely, GA, is an
industry sponsored charitable organization that accepts donations
to purchase peanut butter to be
given where the need exists,
whether it be in a natural disaster
area or for food banks in peanut
growing states.
Seven pallets went to the Federation of Virginia Food Banks with
each of the 7 regional facilities getting one pallet. A pallet also was
donated to the local Cooperative
Ministry in Franklin.
The continued generosity of Peanut
Proud is much appreciated. Anyone interested in contributing to
Peanut Proud is encouraged to visit
their web site.
PAGE 14
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
David Jordan
Extension Peanut Specialist
NC State University
As we move into May and then
June there will be a lot to think
about and react to. After obtaining
a good stand, controlling thrips and
getting ahead of weeds will be essential. For thrips control, be ready
within the first 3 weeks after planting to make a foliar application of
acephate. For weeds, be prepared
to make a timely application of paraquat if weeds break through the
preplant and preemergence treatments. We really do need to minimize selection pressure on the PPO
-inhibiting postemergence herbicides (Ultra Blazer, Cobra, and
Storm). And too, we need flumioxazin (several formations) as a
preemergence treatment in peanuts. In the future the value of par-
aquat will increase but the weeds
need to be small for paraquat to be
effective. Timeliness is essential!
June will bring decisions on when
to apply gypsum (essential for the
jumbo runners we are growing and
Virginia types). Even though vines
will have some size on them, late
June continues to be the best timing for gypsum. Going too early
can be a risk if we get heavy June
rains.
Speaking of risk, I wanted to point
you to the two peanut sites we
have. One is our Cooperative Extension site or “Peanut Portal” (https://ipm.ces.ncsu.edu/ipmpeanuts/). There is valuable information on that site. This is also
linked to the “Peanut Information
for the Carolina and Virginia” site
(www.peanut.ncsu). Each time I
look at these I realize there are
some items that are out-of-date and
need to be updated with new information. These sites are a work in
progress, so don’t be discouraged if
you find current information that is
helpful beside dated information.
We are currently working toward
making these sites more effective,
and that takes time. With that
said, with the help of Dr. Gail
Wilkerson in our department, we
have just updated the “Peanut Risk
Management” component of the
site. While this site is designed to
help you make decisions prior to
planting, there is also information
that can be of value as you move
through the season. The site ties
practices for individual pests together to give you a sense of overall
risk. The value of this tool is that it
helps us see the practices that contribute to increased or decreased
risk of the pest. The program also
ties the cost or savings of the program to changes in practices.
For example, spider mites became a
major issue for some growers in
2015. The site describes strategies
that can affect the likelihood of
having a mites (image 1). Other
pests include southern corn rootworm (image 2), Sclerotinia blight
(image 3), and leaf spot diseases
(image 4). When you pull all of
these together, you are then able to
determine the overall risk of your
production and pest management
plans and how that practice changes the cost of production (image 5).
Keep in mind that when we talk
about these we are not stating that
you will or will not have an issue
this year if you incorporate certain
practices into your production system. What the risk management
approach does is help you stack
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
things in your favor if that particular pest becomes an issue. There
are a number of things, especially
field history and environmental
and soil conditions, that affect pest
presence and the impact of these
pests on crop yield. There is certainly a great deal of year-to-year
and field-to-field variation, but
minimizing risk with proven practices can help a great deal.
The information on the web at the
peanut risk management site is not
designed to substitute for the Peanut Information book we prepare
each year. But what it does is allows you to look at your plans for
all pests at one time and see just
how much risk you are taking.
Many of you have vast experience
at growing peanuts and have your
own (and effective) “risk management” program in your head. But
with all you have to deal with pertaining to peanut and other crops
in your operation, the site might
help you make a change or two.
One more thing, we are really concerned about the chance we will
have PPO-herbicide resistance
showing up in a substantial way.
Be as proactive as possible and
Continues on page 15
SPRING/SUMMER 2016
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
make sure pigweed and ragweed that escape flumioxazin, Ultra Blazer, Cobra, and Storm don’t reproduce. Especially for Palmer amaranth, resistance in a field can get out-of-hand in a very short period of time!
Peanut Pasta Salad
Find this recipe at www.aboutpeanuts.com
PAGE 15
PAGE 16
Continued from page 5
and count on exports going up significantly.”
Wesley Porter, Clemson Extension
precision agriculture and irrigation
specialist with the University of
Georgia, spoke on the importance of
irrigation scheduling in peanuts.
Even though it may seem odd to
talk about irrigation when we have
just been through a year with so
much rain, scheduling is important
in both dry and wet years.
Scheduling irrigation involves determining how much water is needed and when to apply it to the field
to meet crop demands, Porter said.
The main purpose is to increase
profitability and/or quality of the
crop by increasing the efficiency of
using water and energy or by increasing crop productivity.
Porter pointed out that many growers base their decisions on when to
apply water by looking for visible
stress, which is often too late for
best results. Farmers need to be
aware of the differing soil types in
their field as that is also a crucial
determining factor in scheduling
the frequency and depth of irrigation.
Nathan Smith with Clemson University covered the 2016 cost and
returns outlook. He encouraged
growers to pay close attention to
their input costs and to think about
what to plant as well as whether to
plant on unproductive land.
“Production has caught up with demand and that’s keeping prices
down,” Smith said. “It would take
some type of production event or
increase in exports for this to
change. This is where we are right
now.”
Anco gave a summary of research
conducted in 2016 at Edisto REC,
including variety trials, fungicide
updates and thrips/virus-control
options. Attendees were given a
copy of the Peanut Money-maker
2016 Production Guide, which included all the latest recommendation for growing peanuts. The publication is available with this story
and in The Spot at TheTandD.com.
VIRGINIA-CAROLINAS PEANUT NEWS
Other presentations were:
• Ryan Lepicier with the National
Peanut Board discussed the organization’s plans to market peanuts to
the next generation – the millennials. Though consumption is high
among this age group, they also
have to deal with conflicting information about peanut allergies.
• Patrick Archer, president of the
American Peanut Council, gave an
update on the organization’s activities.
• Marshall Thomas with the South
Carolina Farm Bureau spoke on
current efforts to get more funding
for farmers who had suffered losses
in 2015.
• Sarah Adams filled in growers
and industry reps on changes that
will affect peanut-buying stations,
including training regarding certified seed. Tyrone Spearman with
the Spearman Agency in Tifton,
Georgia, covered “Peanuts, Politics
and Markets.”
• Mike Marshall with Clemson University gave a weed-control update
and Kendall Kirk covered precision
agriculture applications in peanut
production.
• Jay Chapin, who served as the
state peanut specialist for many
years, was honored with a plaque
followed by several prize drawings.
South Carolina Peanut Board members include Richard Rentz, chairman; Harry Wimberly, vice chairman; Dupree Atkinson, Brent Cogdill, Brent Crapse, Tommy Lee,
James W. Mole and Marianne Copelan, marketing specialist. National
Peanut Board representatives include Bud Bowers and Steven Neal
Baxley, Jr. (alternate).
SPRING/SUMMER 2016