Tag Archives: mechanical

Hop Latent Viroid (HLVd) & Pathogen Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Overview

By Tassa Saldi, Ph.D.
1 Comment

Hop latent viroid (HLVd) has gained attention as the molecular cause of “dudding disease” and is causing significant economic losses in the cannabis industry.1,2 Estimates indicate that upwards of 4 billion dollars of market value are lost each year to this pathogen alone.3 The impact of HLVd on cannabis plants necessitates the development and implementation of effective pathogen diagnostics to mitigate its spread and minimize crop damage. With collaborative research efforts, we can gain valuable insights into the characteristics, spread, symptoms and preventive measures associated with HLVd in the cannabis industry.

Viroids: A Brief Overview

Figure 1: Virus vs Viroid

Viroids are unique infectious agents composed solely of genetic material, distinct from viruses. Unlike viruses, viroids lack a protective protein layer and solely rely on the host plant for replication and spread. Their stability and ability to persist in various environments make viroids a formidable threat to plant health.

Hop Latent Viroid: Origin and Global Spread

Hop latent viroid was initially identified in hop plants in 19884 and was found to be largely asymptomatic in this crop. Consequently, HLVd has spread worldwide, mostly unchecked by the hops industry. This pathogen has been identified on most continents and in some fields more than 90% of hops plants are infected.5 Hop latent viroid very likely jumped from hops into cannabis, due to similar genetics. The timing and mechanism of cross-species transmission to cannabis remains unknown, but the prevalence of HLVd suggests this viroid has been circulating within cannabis for an extended period. Data collected at TUMI Genomics indicates that HLVd is present in all states in the United States where cannabis is legal as well internationally including; Canada, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, Thailand, Austria and Switzerland.

Symptoms and Impacts on Cannabis Plants 

Figure 2: HLVd Symptoms

HLVd exhibits a wide range of symptoms, which can vary from severe to subtle, affecting the growth, leaf development, flower quality and overall vitality of cannabis plants. Understanding these symptoms is crucial for timely diagnosis and appropriate disease management strategies.  However, HLVd can also present asymptomatically, especially in vegetative plants. The only way to determine if your plants are infected is by routine molecular testing.

Modes of Transmission

Mechanical Transmission: HLVd primarily spreads mechanically through contact with infected sap during activities like trimming and handling. Additionally, transmission through contaminated water and the potential role of insects, fungal pathogens and seeds in spreading HLVd have also been observed.

Seed Transmission: Although no published studies exist in cannabis describing the frequency of seed transmission, HLVd does transmit through seeds in hop plants at a rate of around 8%.7 Preliminary studies performed by TUMI Genomics in collaboration with EZ-genetics suggest cannabis seed transmission does occur at variable rates depending on strain and level of infection of the parent plants.

Water Transmission: It has also been observed that viroids are in high concentration in the roots8 and can move from the root into runoff water.9 Plants sharing a common water source with infected plants, such as recirculating water systems or flood and drain procedures, are at risk for transmission of the viroid.

Insect and Other Vector Transmission: The jury is still out as to whether or not insects can transmit HLVd. However, multiple viroids are transmitted via insects, so it is likely that HLVd insect transmission occurs. Recent studies also indicate that fungal pathogens, like Fusarium, can transmit viroid infections.6 While pathogenic fungus is a major concern for cannabis growers in its own right, limiting the prevalence and spread of fungal pathogens in your facility could help limit hop latent viroid transmission as well.

Therefore, implementing proper sanitation practices and limiting pest access can help minimize transmission risks.

Preventive Measures

Prevention plays a vital role in safeguarding cannabis crops against HLVd. The STOP program, developed by TUMI Genomics, offers a comprehensive approach that includes maintaining a Sterile environment, Testing mother plants regularly, Organizing the facility to minimize pathogen spread, and Protecting the facility’s borders from introduction of infected plant material, insects and contaminated water. More details on these preventative measures can be found here.

Pathogen Diagnostics

Protecting your plants from hop latent viroid requires accurate identification and removal of infected plants before the infection spreads to other plants. To accomplish this, several critical factors should be considered:

Type of test: HLVd and all viroids can only be detected by a molecular test (a test that detects the presence of DNA/RNA). Among common molecular tests, PCR is generally the most sensitive and accurate method. PCR can provide both a diagnosis and an approximate viroid level, allowing informed management decisions. Other types of molecular tests, such as LAMP and RPA, can formally be as sensitive as PCR, but the classic versions of these assays often suffer from false positive/negative results, reducing accuracy.

Figure 3: HLVd Levels and Distribution

Tissue type: An important consideration for HLVd detection is the plant tissue selected for testing, especially when identifying low-level or early infections when HLVd is not yet systemic. Studies completed by TUMI Genomics and others show root tissue contains the highest levels of HLVd and is the most reliable tissue for detection of viroid infection. While upper root tissue appears to contain the highest levels of viroid, roots from anywhere in the root ball are predictive of infection. Samples taken from the leaves/foliage tend to have lower levels of viroid and may produce false negative results.

Figure 4: Testing Schedule

Testing frequency: Routine pathogen testing is standard practice in general agriculture and is critical to maintain a healthy cannabis crop. Testing of mother plants every 4-6 weeks for economically critical pathogens (such as HLVd) will help ensure a successful run and a high-quality product.

Disinfection Methods

Studies have shown that viroids can remain infectious for longer than 24 hours on most common surfaces11 and 7 weeks in water.10 Making effective disinfection methods essential to limit the spread of HLVd. While common disinfectants like alcohol and hydrogen peroxide are ineffective against viroids, a 10% bleach solution has shown efficacy in destroying HLVd. Proper tool sterilization practices, such as soaking tools in bleach for 60 seconds, are crucial to prevent transmission during plant handling.

Figure 5: Bleach Dilution

Hop latent viroid poses a significant threat to the cannabis industry, leading to substantial economic losses. Timely and accurate pathogen diagnostics, along with stringent preventive measures, are essential for minimizing the impact of HLVd. Regular testing, proper disinfection protocols and adherence to pathogen prevention programs can help ensure the health and vitality of cannabis crops in the face of this global pandemic.

References

  1. Bektas, A., et al. “Occurrence of Hop Latent Viroid in Cannabis Sativa with Symptoms of Cannabis Stunting Disease in California.” APS Journals, 21 Aug. 2019, doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-19-0459-PDN.
  2. Warren, J.G., et al. “Occurrence of Hop Latent Viroid Causing Disease in Cannabis Sativa in California.” APS Journals, 21 Aug. 2019, doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-19-0530-PDN.
  3. Cooper, Benjie. “Hop Latent Viroid Causes $4 Billion Cannabis Industry Loss – Candid Chronicle.” Candid Chronicle – Truthful, Straightforward, Blunt Cannabis News, 16 Aug. 2021, candidchronicle.com/hop-latent-viroid-causes-4-billion-cannabis-industry-loss/.
  4. Puchta H, Ramm K, Sänger HL. The molecular structure of hop latent viroid (HLV), a new viroid occurring worldwide in hops. Nucleic Acids Res. 1988 May 25;16(10):4197-216. doi: 10.1093/nar/16.10.4197. PMID: 2454454; PMCID: PMC336624.
  5. Faggioli, Franceso, et al. “Geographical Distribution of Viroids in Europe.” Viroids and Satellites, 31 July 2017, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128014981000449#bib47.
  6. Wei S, Bian R, Andika IB, Niu E, Liu Q, Kondo H, Yang L, Zhou H, Pang T, Lian Z, Liu X, Wu Y, Sun L. Symptomatic plant viroid infections in phytopathogenic fungi. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Jun 25;116(26):13042-13050. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1900762116. Epub 2019 Jun 10. PMID: 31182602; PMCID: PMC6600922.
  7. Singh RP. The discovery and eradication of potato spindle tuber viroid in Canada. Virus disease. 2014 Dec;25(4):415-24. doi: 10.1007/s13337-014-0225-9. Epub 2014 Dec 2. PMID: 25674616; PMCID: PMC4262315.
  8. Jama, Aisha, et al. TUMI Genomics, Fort Collins, CO, 2022, Hop Latent Viroid Levels and Distribution in Cannabis Plant Tissue.
  9. Mackie AE, Coutts BA, Barbetti MJ, Rodoni BC, McKirdy SJ, Jones RAC. Potato spindle tuber viroid: Stability on Common Surfaces and Inactivation With Disinfectants. Plant Dis. 2015 Jun;99(6):770-775. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-14-0929-RE. Epub 2015 May 15. PMID: 30699527.
  10. Mackie AE, Coutts BA, Barbetti MJ, Rodoni BC, McKirdy SJ, Jones RAC. Potato spindle tuber viroid: Stability on Common Surfaces and Inactivation With Disinfectants. Plant Dis. 2015 Jun;99(6):770-775. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-14-0929-RE. Epub 2015 May 15. PMID: 30699527.
  11. Mackie AE, Coutts BA, Barbetti MJ, Rodoni BC, McKirdy SJ, Jones RAC. Potato spindle tuber viroid: Stability on Common Surfaces and Inactivation With Disinfectants. Plant Dis. 2015 Jun;99(6):770-775. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-14-0929-RE. Epub 2015 May 15. PMID: 30699527.

Building An Integrated Pest Management Plan – Part 1

By Phil Gibson
No Comments

This is the first part of a series of articles designed to introduce an integrated pest management framework for cannabis cultivation facilities. Part one details an overview of the plan as well as pest identification. Part two comes out next week and will delve into the world of pest monitoring and record keeping. Stay tuned for more!

Figure 1: Integrated Pest Management Cycle

Background

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is a philosophy of pest prevention and control that integrates cultural, mechanical, physical and chemical practices to control pest populations within an acceptable degree of economic tolerance.

IPM encourages growers to take a step-wise approach to determine the most appropriate means necessary for avoiding pest-related economic injury through careful consideration of all available pest control practices.

When practicing IPM, less invasive non-chemical practices are given priority, until escalation necessitates otherwise.

This is Part 1: Pest Identification & Monitoring/Communications

Personal experience in a facility is a great place to start. Review your history and identify a list of pests that you have experienced in this or previous grows. Point out which pests currently exist where they were or are currently and possible sources of the contamination/infestation.

Figure 2: Healthy Aeroponic Mother Stock

Map out your facility with clear entry/exits, plumbing & drainage and air flow access to visually see and understand potential access points for crawling, flying or airborne pests.

From your nursery mother room to cloning and vegetation areas, what are the transfer methods as you move from one area to another. Are pests present in these areas? Where could they have come from? Oftentimes, a cultivator may not have the space for their own mother and cuttings/cloning space. In these cases, where did the outsourced clones come from? What are the IPM controls in place for these genetic sources? Are they carriers of the challenges transferred to your own facility? It is important to identify the possible source of pest potentials

Does your flower room have white flies or fungus gnats? Locating these and identifying the likely source is a good place to start if you have an ongoing infestation.

Figure 3: Example Aeroponic Facility Layout For IPM Planning

Powdery mildew is a routine challenge if air into your facility is not filtered and sterilized to eliminate these spores.

What is the Source of Your Irrigation/Fertigation Water?

Water is a crucial element for high-value indoor farms such as those that grow cannabis. However, water can also be a source of disease-causing microorganisms that can negatively impact the growth and yield of crops. Monitoring, filtering and sterilizing the biological contents of water is therefore crucial in ensuring the health and quality of high-value crops.

Unfiltered water can contain a range of pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites that can cause root, stem and bud rot. These diseases can cause significant losses in crop yield and quality, which can be devastating for indoor farmers growing high-value crops.

Figure 4: Precision Aeroponics at FarmaGrowers GMP Facility, South Africa

Monitoring the quality of water that is brought into the indoor farm is the first step in ensuring that the water is free from harmful pathogens. This involves regular testing of the incoming water for parameters such as pH, dissolved oxygen, TDS, nutrient content and microbial load. This allows cultivators to identify aspects of the incoming water they need to address before the water is provided to their crops to prevent potential problems.

Is your plumbing building biofilm that is feeding into your irrigation lines? Obviously, there are many potential sources when you go through an inventory of the risks for your facility. From that initial step, you will build your management team and label who should be contacted when a pest is found. Do you have an IPM specialist or is this a resource that needs to be contracted to address an infection?

Building this communications tree is your first step to fewer pest issues and higher yields and potency.

For the complete white paper on Integrated Pest Management Recommendations, download the document here. Part two comes out next week and will delve into the world of pest monitoring and record keeping. Stay tuned for more!

Why the Central Chiller Isn’t So Central to Grow Room HVAC

By Geoff Brown
6 Comments

There’s a better way to design HVAC for cannabis grow rooms, and it may seem a little odd at first.

Central chillers are a tried-and-true solution for projects requiring large refrigeration capacity. They’re found in college campuses, hospitals, office buildings and other big facilities.

While central chillers are a good default for most large-scale applications, they fall short in this industry. Grow rooms, with their need for tight, variable conditions and scalable, redundant infrastructure, have HVAC requirements that the central chiller model simply can’t deliver on.

Let’s unpack the shortcomings with the central chiller in this niche and explore some possible solutions.

What’s Wrong With Chillers?

Building a scalable HVAC system is essential for the cannabis industry as it continues to ramp up production in the U.S. and Canada.

Many growers are building their large facilities in phases. In Canada, this is common because growers must have two harvests before they can receive a production permit, so they build just one phase to satisfy this requirement and then build out the facility after the government’s approval.

This strategy of building out is less feasible with a central chiller.

solsticegrowop_feb
Indoor cultivator facilities use high powered lights that give off heat, requiring an efficient air cooling system.

A chiller and its supporting infrastructure are impractical to expand, which means it and the rest of the facility needs to be built to full size for day one, even though the facility will be in partial occupancy for a long time. This results in high upfront capital costs.

If the facility needs to expand later down the road, to meet market demand for example, that will be difficult because, as mentioned, it’s expensive to add capacity to a central chiller.

Additionally, the chiller creates a central point of failure for the facility. When it goes down, crops in every room are at risk of potentially devastating loss. Grow rooms are unusual because of their requirement for strict conditions and even a slight change could have big impact on the crop. Losing control due to mechanical failure could spell disaster.

One Southern Ontario cannabis grower met with some of these issues after constructing their facility, which uses a central chiller for cooling and dehumidification. The chiller was built for full size, but the results were disappointing as early as phase one of cultivation. While sensible demands in the space are being easily met, humidity levels are out of control – flowering rooms are up to 75% RH.

Humidity is one of the most important control aspects to growers. Without a handle on it, growers risk losing their entire crop either because there’s not enough and the plants dry out, or there’s too much and the plants get mold disease. This facility has fortunately not yet reported serious crop issues but is mindful of the potential impact on harvest quality.

By going unitary, capital costs scale on a linear basis.If tight control over humidity is what you need, then a chilled water system needs very careful consideration. That’s because typical chiller system designs get the coils cold enough to lower the air temperature, but not cold enough to condense water out of the air as effectively as a properly designed dehumidifier coil.

A chilled water system capable of achieving the coil temperatures needed for adequate dehumidification in a typical flower room will also require full-time reheat to ensure that air delivered to the plants isn’t shockingly cold — either stunting their growth or killing them altogether. This reheat source adds complexity, cost and inefficiency which does not serve growers well, many of whom are under pressure from both utilities and their management to minimize their energy usage.

How Do Unitary Systems Solve These Problems?

Compared to central chillers, a unitary setup is more agile.

A facility can commence with the minimum capacity it needs for start-up and then add more units in the future as required. They’re usually cheaper to install than a central system and offer several reliability and efficiency benefits as well.

The real business advantage to this approach is to open up the grower’s cash flow by spreading out their costs over time, rather than a large, immediate cost to construct the entire facility and chiller for day one. By going unitary, capital costs scale on a linear basis.

Talltrees
One of the flowering rooms in an indoor set up (Image: Tall Trees LED Company)

Growers can have more control over their crop by installing multiple units to provide varying conditions, room-by-room, instead of a single system that can only provide one condition.

For example, flowering rooms that each have different strains of crop may require different conditions – so they can be served by their own unit to provide variability. Or, rooms that need uniform conditions could just be served by one common unit. The flexibility that growers can enjoy with this approach is nearly unlimited.

Some growers have opted for multiple units installed for the same room, which maximizes redundancy in case one unit fails.

A cannabis facility in the Montreal area went this direction when building their HVAC system. Rather than build everything in one shot, this facility selected a unitary design that had flowering rooms served independently by a series of units, while vegetation rooms shared one. The units were sized to provide more capacity than currently required in each room, which allows the grower to add more plants and lighting in the future if they choose.

This facility expects to build more grow rooms in a future phase, so it was important to have an intelligent system that could accommodate that by being easy to add capacity to. This is accomplished by simply adding more units.Multiple, small systems also have a better return-on-investment.

The grower, after making a significant investment in this facility, was also averse to the risk of losing crop due to mechanical failure, which is why they were happy to go with a system of independent grow room control.

Multiple, small systems also have a better return-on-investment. Not only are they easier to maintain (parts are easier to switch out and downtime for maintenance is minimal) but they can actually be more efficient than a large, central system.

Some units include heat recovery, which recycles the heat created by the dehumidification process to efficiently reheat the unit’s cold discharge air and keep the space temperature consistent, without needing expensive supplementary heaters. There’s also economizer cooling, which can be used to reduce or even eliminate compressor usage during winter by running the unit on dry outside air only.

Demand for cannabis continues to increase and many growers are looking to expand their businesses by adding new facilities or augmenting existing ones. Faced with the limitations of the traditional chiller system, like the lack of flexibility, scalability and redundancy, they’re looking for an intelligent alternative and the unitary approach is earning their trust. It’s expected this option will soon become the leading one across North America.