@article{jordan_shew_brandenburg_anco_balota_2023, title={Summary of tillage practices in peanut in the Virginia-Carolina region of the United States}, volume={9}, ISSN={["2374-3832"]}, DOI={10.1002/cft2.20222}, abstractNote={Core Ideas Deep tillage in the form of moldboard plow decreased in peanut in North Carolina from 1998 to 2018. Reduced tillage was adopted by more peanut farmers in South Carolina and Virginia than in North Carolina. More farmers strip‐tilled peanut across all states rather than no till.}, number={1}, journal={CROP FORAGE & TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT}, author={Jordan, David L. and Shew, Barbara B. and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Anco, Dan and Balota, Maria}, year={2023}, month={Jun} }
 @article{anco_balota_dunne_brown_2021, title={Sound Splits as Influenced by Seed Size for Runner and Virginia Market Type Peanut Shelled on a Reciprocating Sheller}, volume={11}, ISSN={["2073-4395"]}, DOI={10.3390/agronomy11091869}, abstractNote={The objective of this study was to examine peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) kernel percent sound splits as a function of sound mature kernel seed size when shelled on a reciprocating sheller. Data were compiled from a total of 139 field experiments conducted in the Virginia-Carolina region and Georgia from 2005 to 2020. Runner and Virginia peanut market types were graded according to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) standards using standard sheller screens with upper grid sizes corresponding to the red pan from the pre-sizer of 10.3 × 19.1 mm (26/64 × 3/4 ″) and 13.5 × 25.4 mm (34/64 × 1 ″) with minimum bar grid clearances of 8.7 (11/32 ″) and 12.7 mm (1/2 ″), respectively. A subset of runner market type samples was graded using the Virginia sheller screen. Grade data per market type and sheller screen was analyzed separately. Among runner market types shelled with the standard runner-type screen, percent sound splits increased linearly with increasing seed size at the logit rate of 1.16 per sound mature kernel g (p < 0.001). Sound splits for Virginia and runner market types shelled on the standard Virginia-type screen did not significantly vary by kernel size (p = 0.939 and 0.687, respectively). Extra-large kernels (proportion) for Virginia types linearly increased with seed size at 1.91 per sound mature kernel g (logit scale) (p < 0.001). Runner market types sized 75 to 91 g/100 sound mature kernels (605 to 500 seed/lb) were estimated to have a 50% probability of a 2.3 to 4.5% or greater increase in sound splits when shelled with the standard runner-type screen compared to runner-type seed sized 55 g/100 sound mature kernels (820 seed/lb), respectively, equivalent to a potential deduction increase of 1.8 to 4.4 USD /1000 kg. For both Virginia and runner market types, seed weight linearly increased with pod weight at 0.169 and 0.195 g/g (p < 0.001), respectively. Results from this study may be used as a reference to suggest runner-type seed sizes above which larger reciprocating sheller screen utilization in line with USDA grading practices is warranted to reduce mechanically induced sound splits during grading and subsequent economic deduction penalties for corresponding farmer stock peanut.}, number={9}, journal={AGRONOMY-BASEL}, author={Anco, Daniel J. and Balota, Maria and Dunne, Jeffrey C. and Brown, Nino}, year={2021}, month={Sep} }
 @article{kaufman_jordan_reberg-horton_dean_shew_brandenburg_anco_mehl_taylor_balota_et al._2020, title={Identifying interest, risks, and impressions of organic peanut production: A survey of conventional farmers in the Virginia-Carolina region}, volume={6}, ISSN={["2374-3832"]}, DOI={10.1002/cft2.20042}, abstractNote={Crop, Forage & Turfgrass ManagementVolume 6, Issue 1 e20042 CROP MANAGEMENT—BRIEFS Identifying interest, risks, and impressions of organic peanut production: A survey of conventional farmers in the Virginia–Carolina region Amanda A. Kaufman, Amanda A. Kaufman Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid L. Jordan, Corresponding Author David L. Jordan david_jordan@ncsu.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-4786-2727 Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USA Correspondence Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695 Email: david_jordan@ncsu.eduSearch for more papers by this authorChris Reberg-Horton, Chris Reberg-Horton Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorLisa L. Dean, Lisa L. Dean Market Quality and Handling Research Unit, ARS, SEA, USDA, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorBarbara B. Shew, Barbara B. Shew Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Box 7613, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorRick L. Brandenburg, Rick L. Brandenburg Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Box 7613, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorDan Anco, Dan Anco Edisto Research and Extension Center, Clemson University, 64 Research Road, Blackville, SC, 29817 USASearch for more papers by this authorHillary Mehl, Hillary Mehl Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorSally Taylor, Sally Taylor Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorMaria Balota, Maria Balota orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-0193 Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorL. Suzanne Goodell, L. Suzanne Goodell Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorJonathan Allen, Jonathan Allen Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this author Amanda A. Kaufman, Amanda A. Kaufman Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorDavid L. Jordan, Corresponding Author David L. Jordan david_jordan@ncsu.edu orcid.org/0000-0003-4786-2727 Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USA Correspondence Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC 27695 Email: david_jordan@ncsu.eduSearch for more papers by this authorChris Reberg-Horton, Chris Reberg-Horton Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7620, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorLisa L. Dean, Lisa L. Dean Market Quality and Handling Research Unit, ARS, SEA, USDA, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorBarbara B. Shew, Barbara B. Shew Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Box 7613, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorRick L. Brandenburg, Rick L. Brandenburg Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Box 7613, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorDan Anco, Dan Anco Edisto Research and Extension Center, Clemson University, 64 Research Road, Blackville, SC, 29817 USASearch for more papers by this authorHillary Mehl, Hillary Mehl Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorSally Taylor, Sally Taylor Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorMaria Balota, Maria Balota orcid.org/0000-0003-4626-0193 Tidewater Agricultural Research and Extension Center, 6321 Holland Road, Suffolk, VA, 23437 USASearch for more papers by this authorL. Suzanne Goodell, L. Suzanne Goodell Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this authorJonathan Allen, Jonathan Allen Department of Food, Bioprocessing, and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University, Box 7624, Raleigh, NC, 27695 USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 14 June 2020 https://doi.org/10.1002/cft2.20042Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Volume6, Issue12020e20042 RelatedInformation}, number={1}, journal={CROP FORAGE & TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT}, author={Kaufman, Amanda A. and Jordan, David L. and Reberg-Horton, Chris and Dean, Lisa L. and Shew, Barbara B. and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Anco, Dan and Mehl, Hillary and Taylor, Sally and Balota, Maria and et al.}, year={2020} }
 @article{jordan_dunne_stalker_shew_brandenburg_anco_mehl_taylor_balota_2020, title={Risk to sustainability of pest management tools in peanut}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2471-9625"]}, DOI={10.1002/ael2.20018}, abstractNote={A diversity of pests can adversely affect peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) yield, quality, and financial return. Farmers rely heavily on applied chemicals to suppress many of the economically important pests present in peanut. The effectiveness of this approach to pest management may not be sustainable, however, due to evolved resistance in pests to chemicals, reluctance of basic chemical manufacturers to invest in product development because of the relatively small market for peanut compared with other crops, cost to initially register or re‐register chemicals, and the desire for peanut buyers and processors to capture international markets that may have varying agrochemical residue restrictions for peanut. Heavy reliance on chemical control could leave peanut production systems vulnerable to yield loss; thus, a more concerted research effort is needed to increase the number and availability of nonchemical tools that protect peanut from pests in order to ensure long‐term sustainability of peanut production systems.}, number={1}, journal={AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL LETTERS}, author={Jordan, David L. and Dunne, Jeffrey and Stalker, H. Thomas and Shew, Barbara B. and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Anco, Dan and Mehl, Hillary and Taylor, Sally and Balota, Maria}, year={2020} }
 @article{jordan_hare_roberson_ward_shew_brandenburg_anco_thomas_balota_mehl_et al._2019, title={Survey of Practices by Growers in the Virginia-Carolina Region Regarding Digging and Harvesting Peanut}, volume={5}, ISSN={["2374-3832"]}, DOI={10.2134/cftm2019.07.0057}, abstractNote={Core Ideas Harvesting peanut requires approximately twice as much time to complete as the time required for digging peanut. Fifty-six percent of growers predicted when optimum yield would occur based on the sample provided within the recommended timeframe. Reported yield was positively correlated with the use of prohexadione calcium.}, number={1}, journal={CROP FORAGE & TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT}, author={Jordan, David L. and Hare, Andrew T. and Roberson, Gary T. and Ward, Jason and Shew, Barbara B. and Brandenburg, Rick L. and Anco, Dan and Thomas, James and Balota, Maria and Mehl, Hillary and et al.}, year={2019}, month={Nov} }
 @article{jordan_johnson_hare_anco_chapin_thomas_monfort_balota_2018, title={Influence of Inoculation with Bradyrhizobia and Nitrogen Rate on Yield and Estimated Economic Return of Virginia Market-Type Peanut}, volume={4}, ISSN={["2374-3832"]}, DOI={10.2134/cftm2018.01.0002}, abstractNote={Core Ideas Bradyrhizobia inoculant increases peanut yield in new peanut fields and in fields with a recent history of peanut. Applied nitrogen is less effective than inoculation with Bradyrhizobia in new peanut fields. Return on investment from Bradyrhizobia inoculant occurs regardless of field history relative to peanut production. Adequate nitrogen (N) fixation by peanut ( Arachis hypogaea L.) is essential to optimize yield. In replicated trials in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia from 1998–2017, commercially available in‐furrow liquid or granular inoculant increased yield from 3460 to 4660 lb/acre in new peanut fields (52 trials) and 4280 to 4450 lb/acre in fields with a previous history of peanut plantings within the past 4 years (43 trials). The increase in economic value from inoculation treatment ($8/acre) at a peanut price of $535/ton was $318/acre and $41/acre in fields with these respective histories. In a second experiment, replicated trials were conducted from 2007–2017 in fields without a history of peanut production or fields not rotated to peanut within at least the past 20 years. Economic return based on peanut prices described previously was determined to reflect cost of N applied as ammonium sulfate ($0.28/lb ammonium sulfate) as a single application 45 to 60 days after planting when canopy foliage began to express N deficiency. A linear or quadratic response to rates of 0, 60, 90, 120, and 150 lb N/acre was noted in five trials with no response observed in the remaining four trials. When these experiments were included with five other experiments where non‐inoculated and inoculated controls were compared with one rate only (120 lb N/acre), yield and economic return were greater for inoculated peanut compared with peanut receiving N or the non‐inoculated and non‐fertilized control. Nitrogen increased peanut yield and economic return compared with the non‐fertilized control. Results from these experiments underscore the value of inoculation with Bradyrhizobia at planting regardless of field history and the limitations of applied N to correct N deficiencies in peanut.}, number={1}, journal={CROP FORAGE & TURFGRASS MANAGEMENT}, author={Jordan, David L. and Johnson, P. Dewayne and Hare, Andrew T. and Anco, Dan and Chapin, Jay and Thomas, James and Monfort, Scott and Balota, Maria}, year={2018}, month={Oct} }
 @article{anco_poole_gottwald_2015, title={Postharvest quarantine treatments for Diaphorina citri on infested curry leaves}, volume={99}, number={7}, journal={Plant Disease}, author={Anco, D. J. and Poole, G. H. and Gottwald, T. R.}, year={2015}, pages={926–932} }
 @article{anco_poole_gottwald_2014, title={Effects of postharvest treatments on recovery of Xanthomonas citri subsp citri in infected grapefruit leaves}, volume={62}, journal={Crop Protection}, author={Anco, D. J. and Poole, G. H. and Gottwald, T. R.}, year={2014}, pages={115–123} }