Late-season fieldwork is where strong consultants separate themselves by documenting sensitive sites, tightening application windows, evaluating outcomes and turning the season’s evidence into a better plan for the grower.
September can feel like the point when we, as PCAs and CCAs, can finally begin to exhale. Harvest is underway, many in-season pest decisions have already been made and the urgency of spring and summer is starting to ease. But after 45 years in the field, I can tell you this is exactly when we must resist the temptation to mentally close the season.
Just because it is the end of the season does not mean you are done. You still have to be out there.
For consultants, the September field visit is not just a final check. It is an opportunity to identify weak areas, document the reasons behind an outcome, reduce regulatory exposure and demonstrate value that goes well beyond writing a pesticide recommendation.
Keep Walking the Field
The first item on my September checklist is simple: continue evaluating the orchard. Look for weak areas, uneven growth, early defoliation, pest injury, irrigation problems and sites that deserve follow-up. Determine whether trees are recovering appropriately after harvest and whether the nutrient program needs a timely adjustment before dormancy.
Late-season scouting also establishes the starting point for dormant and next-season decisions. Scale pressure may be less widespread than it was 10 or 15 years ago, but that does not mean we can stop looking. The same principle applies to vertebrate pests. I have seen voles damage the trunks of young trees in November and December because an orchard was treated as though the work had ended.
We should also record where a monitoring program failed to predict harvest damage. Green stink bug was a particularly difficult example for me this year. We found damage at harvest even in orchards that had been treated. That tells me we need to compare monitoring, timing, application and final crop outcomes rather than evaluating any one piece in isolation.
Make Every Recommendation Defensible
Regulatory documentation deserves renewed attention before we issue late-season and postharvest recommendations. We must track label changes, but I believe one of our greatest areas of exposure is how we identify and address sensitive sites.
A general statement such as “do not allow drift” may not be enough. The recommendation should identify the specific sensitive sites and demonstrate that the consultant considered the conditions surrounding the application. DPR and county regulators may review not only the applicator’s actions but also the PCA’s written recommendation. A weak recommendation can create liability for everyone involved.
Timing language should be equally precise. A recommendation with an application window stretching months or even a full year does not communicate when the treatment is most likely to work. If biological timing allows only a few days, the written recommendation should say so. A narrow, agronomically justified window helps the grower execute correctly and provides a clearer record if the result is later questioned.
When a Treatment Misses, Investigate the Whole Chain
A treatment that did not produce the expected result should trigger an investigation, not an assumption. Was the application made on the date recommended? Did the grower delay it? Was the product applied at the correct rate and to the correct target? Were coverage, equipment setup and environmental conditions appropriate? Was the original recommendation issued early enough?
As PCAs, we have to evaluate application practices in the field. The written recommendation is only one link in the chain. By reviewing how and when it was executed, we can distinguish among a timing failure, an application problem, unusual pest pressure and an incorrect recommendation. That discipline improves future performance and creates a more credible conversation with the client.
Turn the Year’s Evidence Into a Client Strategy Session
September is also an ideal time for a broader business conversation. I recommend sitting down with the grower to review the entire program: tissue analyses, fertilizer inputs, pest management, herbicides, irrigation and harvest damage. Ask three direct questions: What worked? What did not? What should change before next season?
For CCAs, fertility planning is an obvious place to lead. For PCAs, the opportunity is to connect pest recommendations with the crop’s overall condition and the grower’s operating priorities. The consultant who brings together field observations, grade sheets, tissue results and application records is no longer perceived as someone who only writes recommendations. That consultant becomes a strategic partner.
The field does not stop producing information when harvest begins.
The discussion should end with a short list of decisions, not a stack of undigested data. Identify the blocks needing deeper investigation. Mark the applications that require different timing. Document sensitive sites more explicitly. Schedule the soil, water or tissue testing required to answer unresolved questions. Agree on the postharvest actions that cannot wait.
A Strong Finish Protects Next Year
The best September work is both agronomic and professional. It protects tree health, improves the next recommendation and strengthens the documentation supporting the consultant’s judgment. It also gives the grower something increasingly valuable: a clear explanation of what happened and what the operation should do next.
To every young consultant entering this profession, remember this lesson: the field does not stop producing information when harvest begins. Problems continue to develop, and the evidence needed to improve next season may be visible for only a short time. Stay in the orchard, sharpen the record and finish the year with the same discipline you used to begin it.
When a Second Perspective Can Help
Growers should not hesitate to ask difficult follow-up questions about their crop program. Does the written recommendation clearly identify sensitive sites and the correct application window? If a treatment missed, was the cause timing, coverage, execution, unusual pest pressure or the original recommendation? What does the harvest damage tell us that our in-season monitoring did not?
If you are a grower who wants a second independent perspective, or a PCA or CCA working through a difficult result, I welcome the opportunity to talk. Call me while the records and field conditions are still available. My goal is not to second-guess anyone. It is to help ask the right questions, strengthen the documentation and make the next recommendation more precise, defensible and useful to the farming operation.
Publisher’s Take
The Big Picture: What to do Next
1. Keep scouting after harvest begins
Late-season field conditions can reveal weak areas, pest injury, irrigation problems and other issues that should shape postharvest and next-season decisions.
2. Make recommendations defensible
Identify sensitive sites specifically and use application windows that reflect biological timing rather than unnecessarily broad date ranges.
3. Investigate treatment failures
When a treatment misses, review the entire chain, including recommendation timing, application date, rate, coverage, equipment, environmental conditions and pest pressure.
4. Connect field observations with the records
Bring together monitoring results, application records, tissue analyses, grade sheets and harvest damage to understand what happened.
5. Leave the grower with a plan
Finish the season by identifying problem blocks, needed testing, timing changes and postharvest actions that should carry into next year.
