table of contents delete this line in table of contentsdb.nyfvi.org/documents/2995.pdf · terence...

2013 Eastern Apple Summit on Precision Orchard Management 1

WELCOME ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Program .................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Precision Apple Orchard Management: Terence Robinson ................................................................................. 5

Where are the Economic Opportunities in Apple Orchard Management? Suggestions for Improving Profitability: Alison De Marree ............................................................................................................... 8

How Much Money Are You Leaving on the Table?: Rod Farrow ..................................................................... 13

Precision Crop Load Management: Terence Robinson ...................................................................................... 20

Pruning for Precision Crop Load Management: Stephen A. Hoying and Terence L. Robinson ....................... 21

Precision Chemical Thinning: Terence Robinson: Alan Lakso, Duane Greene and Steve Hoying .................. 25

Hand Thinning for Precision Crop Load Management: Stephen A. Hoying and Terence L. Robinson........... 32

Precision Nutrient Management in Apple Orchards: Lailiang Cheng ............................................................. 34

Soil Management: Joe Dunn ................................................................................................................................ 46

Precision Irrigation Management: Terence Robinson, Alan Lakso and Leo Dominguez .................................. 57

Precision Weed Management: Deborah Breth .................................................................................................... 62

Apple Orchard Systems of the Future: Terence Robinson, Steve Hoying, Mario Miranda, Alison DeMarree and Leo Dominguez ................................................................................................................................ 71

Working Efficiently in the Orchard of the Future: Mario Miranda Sazo and Terence L. Robinson................ 81

Harvest Mechanization: Challenges and Outlook: Terence Robinson, Mario Miranda and Paul Wafler ........ 90

The Impacts of Hail, Frost, Sunburn and Deer: Mike Fargione ....................................................................... 96

Managing the Risk of Hail and Sunburn: Terence Robinson .......................................................................... 100

Frost Protection Methods: Mario Miranda Sazo and Terence L. Robinson ..................................................... 104

Helicopters .......................................................................................................................................................... 108

Precision Application of Pesticides in Orchards: Andrew Landers and Jordi Llorens Calveras ..........................

Precision Disease Management: Kerik Cox ............................................................................................................

Precision Insect Management Using Developmental Model Predictions: Arthur Agnello and Harvey Reissig .

Using Weather Data to Improve Pest Management: Bob Seem ...........................................................................

Improve Precision in Pest Management: Deborah Breth ......................................................................................

Precision Harvest Management: Terence Robinson ...............................................................................................

Apple Packer, Marketer Considerations for Precision Fruit Harvesting: James. Eve .......................................

Packing House Technology: Tyler Waller ................................................................................................................

Table of Contents

tlr1

Sticky Note

delete this line in table of contents

2 2013 Eastern Apple Summit on Precision Orchard Management

2013 Eastern Apple Summit on Precision Orchard ManagementHow Much Money Are You Leaving on the Table and Can Precision

Orchard Management Help Capture That Money?

Thursday and Friday March 14 and 15, 2013Ramada Inn, Geneva, NY

Welcome The members of the Cornell Fruit Team welcome you to the 2013 Cornell In-depth Fruit School. Each year the Cornell Fruit Program Work Team picks a topic for an in-depth course offered to interested fruit growers. This years topic is Precision Agriculture applied to Apple Orchard Management. We welcome growers from other eastern apple producing states and provinces. The planning committee decided that the breath of this topic and the potential impact on grower’s profitability warranted a broader discussion among growers in all of the eastern production areas. We hope this will help keep the different states on the same technological “page” and may lead to cross state cooperative efforts in research and extension to improve orchard management. We envision this school to be a summit of apple grower, research, and extension leaders from eastern apple production areas. We invite lively discussion throughout the program on where the greatest opportunities lie for research and implementation on farms in the East to increase orchard income and grower profitability. The objectives of the school are:1. Help apple growers understand the potential income from each orchard block and how to use precision

orchard management to capture that potential.2. Help apple growers plan future orchards to take advantage of precision orchard management strategies

to increase profitability. We hope the course will be helpful and spur improvements in orchard management to improve profitability.

Sincerely,The Cornell Fruit Team

COURSE INSTRUCTORSTerence Robinson, Professor of Horticulture, Cornell University, Geneva, NYSteve Hoying, Senior Extension Associate in Horticulture, Cornell University, Highland, NYLailiang Cheng, Associate Professor of Horticulture, Cornell University, Ithaca, NYArt Agnello, Professor of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NYKerik Cox, Associate Professor of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Geneva, NYRobert Seem, Professor of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Geneva, NYJordi Llorens, Post Doctoral Associate, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell University, Geneva, NYAlison DeMarree, Extension Educator, Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Univ., Newark, NYDebbie Breth, Senior Ext. Educator, Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Univ., Albion, NYMike Fargione, Extension Educator, Eastern NY Fruit Program, Cornell Univ., Highland, NYMario Miranda, Extension Educator, Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Univ., Newark, NYLeo Dominguez, Graduate Student, Dept. of Horticulture, Geneva, NYRod Farrow, Grower, Orleans County, NYPaul Wafler, Grower and Nurseryman, Wayne County, NYJames Eve, Crop Consultant, Wayne County, NYJoe Dunn, Precision Ag Specialist, Helena Corp.Tyler Waller, NM Bartlett Company, Ontario, Canada


Program

Thursday March 14, 2013

Registration and Continental Breakfast: 7:30-8:30am

Session 1: 8:30am-10:00am What is Precision Apple Orchard Management and Where are the Economics Opportunities of Precise Orchard Management (Session Chair: Terence Robinson)

8:30-8:45am Introduction to the School and Precision Orchard Management Terence Robinson8:45-9:30am Where are the Economic Opportunities in Apple Orchard

Management Alison DeMarree9:30-9:45am How Much Money are You Leaving on the Table Rod Farrow9:45-10:00am Discussion Robinson,

DeMarree, Farrow

Break: 10:00am-10:30am

Session 2: 10:30am-12:00noon Precision Crop Load Management (Session Chair: Terence Robinson)10:30-10:40am Introduction to Precision Crop Load Management Terence Robinson10:40-10:55am Precision Pruning Steve Hoying10:55-11:20am Precision Chemical Thinning Terence Robinson11:20-11:35am Precision Hand Thinning Steve Hoying11:35-11:45am Economic Implications of Fruit Size Alison DeMarree11:45-12:00noon Discussion Robinson, Hoying,

DeMarree

Lunch: 12:00noon-1:30pm

Session 3: 1:30pm-3:00pm Precision Nutrient, Water and Weed Management (Session Chair: Lailiang Cheng)

1:30-2:15pm Variety Specific Nutrient Management Lailiang Cheng2:00-2:20pm Precision Nutrient Management Joe Dunn2:15-2:30pm Precision Water Management Terence Robinson and

Leo Dominguez2:30-2:45pm Precision Weed Management Debbie Breth2:45-3:00pm Discussion Cheng, Dunn,

Robinson, Breth

Break: 3:00pm-3:30pm

Session 4: 3:30pm-5:00pm Efficient Tree Systems for Yield, Fruit Quality, Pruning, Thinning and Harvest (Session Chair: Terence Robinson)

3:30-3:45pm Orchard Systems of the Future Terence Robinson3:45-4:10pm Working Efficiently in the Orchard of the Future Mario Miranda4:10-4:30pm Harvesting More Efficiently Terence Robinson

and Paul Wafler4:30-4:45pm Economic Implications of Working more Efficiently Alison DeMarree4:45-5:00pm Discussion Robinson, Miranda,

DeMarree, Wafler


Social Hour and Cash Bar: 5:30pm-6:00pmDinner: 6:00pm-7:30pm

Session 5: 7:30pm-8:40pm Controlling Risks: Hail, Frost, Sunburn, Deer (Session Chair: Mike Fargione)

7:30-7:40pm The Impact of Hail, Frost Sunburn and Deer Mike Fargione7:40-7:55pm Economics of Deer Damage Mike Fargione7:55-8:10pm Economics of Hail and Sunburn Terence Robinson8:10-8:25pm Frost Protection Mario Miranda8:25-8:40pm Discussion Fargione, Robinson,

Miranda

Friday March 15, 2013

Hot Breakfast: 7:00am-8:00am

Session 6: 8:00am-10:00am Precision Spraying and Precision Pests Management (Session Chair: Debbie Breth)

8:00-8:30am Precision Spraying Jordi Llorens8:30-8:50am Precision Disease Management Kerik Cox8:50-910am Precision Insect Management Art Agnello9:10-9:30am Using Weather Data to Improve Pest Management Robert Seem9:30-9:45am How to Improve Pest Management on the Farm Debbie Breth9:45-10:00am Discussion Breth, Llorens,

Agnello, Cox, Seem

Break: 10:00am-10:30am

Session 7: 10:30am-12:00noon Precision Harvest Management (Session Chair: Terence Robinson)10:30-11:00am Precision Preharvest and Harvest Assessment Terence Robinson 11:00-11:25am Importance of Optimizing Fruit Quality at Harvest James Eve11:25-11:45am More Precision in the Packing House Tyler Waller11:45-12:00noon Discussion Robinson, Eve and

Waller

Session 8: 12:00noon-1:00pm Discussion of Where are the Opportunities and Rankings by growers, extension and researchers (Session Chair: Mike Fargione)

12:00-12:30pm Discussion All Presenters 12:30-12:45pm Ranking of priorities for Research and Implementation of

Precision Orchard Management Mike Fargione/ Debbie Breth

Summit ends: 1:00pm on Friday March 15.


Precision Apple Orchard Management

Terence RobinsonDept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University

Geneva, NY 13345

Precision Agriculture is a management philosophy that seeks to manage crop production in a precise manner to obtain the best possible economic outcome. Although precision agriculture tactics are more common in grain crops and less common in tree fruit crops, there may be some gains we can make in apple production by examining precision agriculture concepts within the context of apple orchard management. The purpose of this school is to present various concepts of precision agriculture applied to apple production in what we call precision orchard management.

Review of Grain Crop Precision Agriculture Precision agriculture began with grain crops in the 1980’s and grew out of the desire to improve the performance of grain crops across fields with variable soils. Since its inception precision agriculture with grain crops has focused on reducing variability in yield across a whole field by identifying small land units called a management unit that were homogeneous within the unit but different in some aspect from adjoining land units in the same field. By quantifying and identifying within-field variation and then modifying those individual management units separately, precision agriculture sought to obtain equal crop performance across a field. It has focused primarily on fertilization and seeding practices within a field. The core of precision grain crop agriculture is to measure the variability in yield, soil pH, nutrient levels or water stress across a field and then apply fertilizers, lime, water or tile to those parts of the field that need it to even out the yield. Key to this effort has been variable rate application of fertilizers. To assist in this effort new technologies have been implemented to make the job easier. These include on-board computers to process data, GPS guidance of the tractor, mapping of the field for soil characteristics and tying the map to GPS, GIS data management systems to develop field maps that are tied to GPS locations and variable rate fertilizer applicators that are computer controlled using the GIS maps to automatically apply different rates of fertilizer or lime to a field. To produce the field maps, which guide a variable rate applicator, the variation in the field must be measured. Two types of variation have been used: 1) variations in soil pH and nutrient levels and 2) variations in yield. Initially the variation in the field was measured by taking soil samples on a 2.5-acre grid and recording the GPS location of each sample. After analyzing the soil samples in the laboratory results of the soil tests were then tied to a GPS map through computer mapping software which an on-board


tractor computer could use to apply more lime where needed and less where not needed and similarly with N, P and K. The second measure of variation, yield, began to be measured with the development of yield recorders on grain combines. This allowed a map of yield to be developed which guided variable rate fertilizer applicators. Practitioners of precision row crop agriculture realized that all variability in the field could not be eliminated by variable rate fertilization or liming so they decided to then vary the rate of seeding to plant more seeds where they could increase yield and not waste seeds where the soil resources could not support increasing yield. These variable rate planters were also computer controlled using GPS maps to vary the rate of seeding.

Precision Orchard Management Precision apple orchard management is related to precision grain crop agriculture but has a broader focus. It has as its central focus to maximize orchard profitability and views each orchard management practice through the lens of what will be the impact of this practice on orchard profitability. With fruit crops there is substantially more management of the crop than with grain crops. These additional crop management efforts include canopy management (pruning and training), crop load management (thinning), fruit quality management (light distribution within the canopy) and fruit maturity management (harvest maturity management). This requires a broader definition of precision orchard management than the traditional precision row crop management of soil fertility, pest and weed control, water and yield. In addition precision orchard management may use different geographic scales than traditional precision agriculture, which uses a small land area called a management unit. With precision orchard management some management strategies my be focused on the whole farm as the management unit, while others on the individual field and others on one variety in a field and lastly some management strategies may focus on a small homogenous land area within a field (traditional management unit). We have identified 10 orchard management practices that could lend themselves to more precise management, which could improve profitability. They include: 1) crop load management, 2) nutrient management, 3) water management, 4) weed management, 5) orchard design, 6) labor management, 7) risk management, 8) disease management, 9) insect management, and 10) harvest management. In every one of the 10 management areas there has already been significant progress in the last 50 years with greater precision of management. This has made managing apple orchards quite complex. However, there are new methods being developed to improve the precision of management in each of the 10 areas that could impart significant financial benefits to apple growers. In addition we are facing a number of new technological advances that will make apple production more complex.

Economics of Precision Orchard Management The basic principle of precision agriculture is to measure something and acquire


data and then make a management decision based on the data. Some things, which must be measured to increase precision, can be done with little effort by the grower but other things will require significant effort by the grower. With everything we will talk about at this conference, someone will have to do something more than we are currently doing. There will be a cost. Nothing is free. Some apple growers will prefer to avoid the complexity of more precise management and can continue to successfully produce a crop with low management precision; however, other growers desire to manage their crop more precisely to reduce risk or capture greater profits. Today the question we want to face is how do we decide whether to invest in greater precision in some or all of the 10 management areas? For me the question of investing in new technology is answered positively only if additional precision adds significantly to the profitability of the orchard. There are some new technologies that are being developed that may not help improve profitability. If the new technology we want to adopt doesn’t make us money it must be considered a toy. Some technologies are fads or are just cool but in the end don’t improve the bottom line. Investment in toys is OK if a grower recognizes that they make the investment for fun not for profit. A related concept to questioning the economic value of investing in new technology is the concept of understanding what income are we losing or not capturing by not managing our crop better. For this school we want to ask the question “How much money are we leaving on the table and can precision orchard management help capture that money?

Objectives of the School: We have defined 2 objectives for this school for each grower.1. Help apple growers understand the potential income from each orchard block and

how to use precision orchard management to capture that potential.2. Help apple growers plan future orchards to take advantage of precision orchard

management strategies to increase profitability.

Structure of the School: We envision this school to be a summit of apple growers, research, and extension leaders to share ideas on where we are and where we should go in apple orchard management. For each management area we will present the state of the art in management and new precision orchard management technologies on the horizon. Each presenter will estimate how and when this improvement could be implemented and the economic impact of the costs of the proposed technology/management practice and the potential returns from the technology. We then plan a group discussion of where the greatest opportunities lie for implementation and research to increase orchard income and grower profitability. We will begin the school with presentations on the economic questions of apple production and of Precision Orchard Management.


Where are the Economic Opportunities in Apple Orchard Management?

Suggestions for Improving Profitability

A. De MarreeLake Ontario Fruit Team, Cornell Cooperative Extension

Newark, NY

Recordkeeping and analysis allows you to determine a baseline before setting goals. You need to know where you are at, before you can plan where you are going.

1. Improving Price Received by VARIETY is the single most effective method of improving profitabilitya. Get Fruit Picked on Timeb. Get fruit cooled immediately following harvestc. Keep Culls Out of the Bind. Divert 2nd Pack Fruit to Fresh Slice or Process Markets at HARVESTe. Focus on getting high value fruit picked before worrying about dropsf. Set a goal of increasing fruit size by one countg. Review packout statements – ask for info on culled fruit: WHY? – work on addressing

defects

2. Determine Yield per Acre by Variety & Block

3. Identify Reasons for Yield Not Meeting Potentiala. Lack of waterb. Over-thinningc. Weed control – weed seeds remove P from soil & other nutrients, as well as compete with the

treed. Biennial Bearinge. Under/over fertilization, pH, calciumf. Poor pollinationg. Missing trees

4. Identify & remove unprofitable/breakeven blocks with little potential to improve income (obsolete variety, poor coloring, spacing too wide for rootstock, etc.)

5. Managing Labor More Effectivelya. Cut down time lost in movement between orchards by planting new orchards near others of

similar harvest maturityb. Coach employees – provide constant feedback in a positive mannerc. Mechanization where feasible (financial/management) for your operation


2

Spreadsheet to Determine Potential Profit for: M9/Tall Spindle 1,210trees / A. New Apple Planting, planted Page 2Fresh Apple NPV Analysis GalaDiscount Interest Rate: 0.05 Space btwn rows: 12Cost to harvest a bushel of apples: $1.51 Space btwn trees: 3Value of land per ACRE: 4,500

Orig. 3,493 < Cum. Yld 1st 6 yrs TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Net Annual AccumBrng Yield Yield Gross GROWING FIXED HARVEST Annual N.P.V. N.P.V.

Year Trees bu./tree Bu. / A. Income Labor Mach Materials COSTS COSTS COSTS Cash Flow Profit of Profit4,500 -4500 (4,500) (4,500)

Preplnt 152.533 995 442 1,590 $957 $0 ($2,547) (2,547) (7,047)1 1,210 0.00 0 0 $1,604 666 12,540 14,810 $957 $0 ($15,767) (15,017) (22,064)2 1,210 0.16 190 1,669 $566 570 1,496 2,632 $957 $287 ($2,208) (2,003) (24,067)3 1,210 0.33 399 3,507 $715 570 1,478 2,764 $957 $604 ($817) (706) (24,773)4 1,210 0.60 726 6,377 $702 570 1,440 2,713 $957 $1,098 $1,609 1,324 (23,449)5 1,210 0.80 968 8,502 $993 570 1,504 3,067 $957 $1,463 $3,015 2,362 (21,087)6 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,287 $1,062 570 1,424 3,057 $957 $1,829 $4,444 3,316 (17,771)7 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,287 $1,130 570 1,456 3,156 $957 $1,829 $4,345 3,088 (14,683)8 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,287 $1,134 570 1,472 3,176 $957 $1,829 $4,324 2,927 (11,756)9 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,287 $1,129 570 1,446 3,145 $957 $1,829 $4,356 2,808 (8,948)

10 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,287 $1,134 570 1,414 3,117 $957 $1,829 $4,383 2,691 (6,258)11 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 2,232 (4,026)12 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 2,126 (1,900)13 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 2,024 12414 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,928 2,05215 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,836 3,88816 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,749 5,63717 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,666 7,30318 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,586 8,88919 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,511 10,39920 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,439 11,83821 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,370 13,20822 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,305 14,51323 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,243 15,75624 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,184 16,94025 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,127 18,06726 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,073 19,14027 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,022 20,16328 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 974 21,13629 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 927 22,06430 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 883 22,947

4,500 1,041 23,98830 Yr. Internal Rate of Return: 11.17% 15 Year N.P.V. of Profit > $6,053 15 Yr. Int. Rate of Return > 7.90% 20 Year N.P.V. of Profit > $13,534 20 Yr Int. Rate of Return > 9.87%

Growing Cost Detail

Table 1. Profitability analysis of a Tall Spindle Gala orchard with a fruit price of $10/bushel.


3

Spreadsheet to Determine Potential Profit for: M9/Tall Spindle 1,210trees / A. New Apple Planting, planted page 3Fresh Apple NPV Analysis GalaDiscount Interest Rate: 0.05 Space btwn rows: 12Cost to harvest a bushel of apples: $1.51 Space btwn trees: 3Value of land per ACRE: 4,500

%Orig. 3,493 < Cum. Yld 1st 6 yrs TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Net Annual AccumTreeBrng TreesYield Yield Gross GROWING FIXED HARVEST Annual N.P.V. N.P.V.

Year LossTrees Plantedbu./tree Bu. / A. Income Labor Mach Materials COSTS COSTS COSTS Cash Flow Profit of Profit4,500 -4500 (4,500) (4,500)

Preplt 152.533 995 442 1,590 $957 $0 ($2,547) (2,547) (7,047)1 1,210 0.00 0 0 $1,604 666 12,540 14,810 $957 $0 ($15,767) (15,017) (22,064)2 1,210 0.16 190 2,040 $566 570 1,496 2,632 $957 $287 ($1,837) (1,666) (23,730)3 1,210 0.33 399 4,288 $715 570 1,478 2,764 $957 $604 ($37) (32) (23,762)4 1,210 0.60 726 7,796 $702 570 1,440 2,713 $957 $1,098 $3,029 2,492 (21,270)5 1,210 0.80 968 10,395 $993 570 1,504 3,067 $957 $1,463 $4,907 3,845 (17,425)6 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,652 $1,062 570 1,424 3,057 $957 $1,829 $6,809 5,081 (12,344)7 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,652 $1,130 570 1,456 3,156 $957 $1,829 $6,710 4,769 (7,575)8 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,652 $1,134 570 1,472 3,176 $957 $1,829 $6,690 4,528 (3,047)9 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,652 $1,129 570 1,446 3,145 $957 $1,829 $6,721 4,333 1,285

10 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,652 $1,134 570 1,414 3,117 $957 $1,829 $6,749 4,143 5,42811 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 3,615 9,04312 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 3,443 12,48613 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 3,279 15,76514 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 3,123 18,88815 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,974 21,86216 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,832 24,69417 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,698 27,39218 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,569 29,96119 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,447 32,40720 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,330 34,73821 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,219 36,95722 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,113 39,07023 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 2,013 41,08324 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,917 43,00125 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,826 44,82626 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,739 46,56527 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,656 48,22128 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,577 49,79829 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,502 51,30030 1,210 1.00 1,210 12,994 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $6,183 1,431 52,731

4,500 1,041 53,77230 Yr. Internal Rate of Return: 17.06% 15 Year N.P.V. of Profit > $24,026 15 Yr. Int. Rate of Return > 14.82% 20 Year N.P.V. of Profit > $36,434 20 Yr Int. Rate of Return > 16.29%

Growing Cost Detail

Table 2. Profitability analysis of a Tall Spindle Gala orchard with large fruit size.


4

Spreadsheet to Determine Potential Profit for: M9/Tall Spindle 1,210trees / A. New Apple Planting, planted page 4Fresh Apple NPV Analysis GalaDiscount Interest Rate: 0.05 Space btwn rows: 12Cost to harvest a bushel of apples: $1.51 Space btwn trees: 3Value of land per ACRE: 4,500

%Orig. 3,130 < Cum. Yld 1st 6 yrs TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL Net Annual AccumTreeBrng TreesYield Yield Gross GROWING FIXED HARVEST Annual N.P.V. N.P.V.

Year LossTrees Plantedbu./tree Bu. / A. Income Labor Mach Materials COSTS COSTS COSTS Cash Flow Profit of Profit4,500 -4500 (4,500) (4,500)

Preplnt 152.533 995 442 1,590 $957 $0 ($2,547) (2,547) (7,047)1 1,210 0.00 0 0 $1,604 666 12,540 14,810 $957 $0 ($15,767) (15,017) (22,064)2 1,210 0.16 190 1,669 $566 570 1,496 2,632 $957 $287 ($2,208) (2,003) (24,067)3 1,210 0.33 399 3,507 $715 570 1,478 2,764 $957 $604 ($817) (706) (24,773)4 1,210 0.60 726 6,377 $702 570 1,440 2,713 $957 $1,098 $1,609 1,324 (23,449)5 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $993 570 1,504 3,067 $957 $1,829 $4,775 3,741 (19,708)6 1,210 0.50 605 5,144 $1,062 570 1,424 3,057 $957 $915 $215 161 (19,547)7 1,210 0.90 1,089 9,259 $1,130 570 1,456 3,156 $957 $1,646 $3,500 2,487 (17,060)8 1,210 0.60 726 6,173 $1,134 570 1,472 3,176 $957 $1,098 $942 638 (16,422)9 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,288 $1,129 570 1,446 3,145 $957 $1,829 $4,357 2,809 (13,613)

10 1,210 0.60 726 6,173 $1,134 570 1,414 3,117 $957 $1,098 $1,001 614 (12,999)11 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 2,232 (10,767)12 1,210 0.60 726 6,377 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,098 $298 166 (10,601)13 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 2,024 (8,577)14 1,210 0.60 726 6,377 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,098 $298 150 (8,426)15 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,836 (6,590)16 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,749 (4,841)17 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,666 (3,176)18 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,586 (1,590)19 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,511 (79)20 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,439 1,35921 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,370 2,73022 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,305 4,03423 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,243 5,27724 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,184 6,46125 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,127 7,58826 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,073 8,66227 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 1,022 9,68428 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 974 10,65829 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 927 11,58530 1,210 1.00 1,210 10,628 $1,134 570 2,320 4,024 $957 $1,829 $3,817 883 12,468

4,500 1,041 13,51030 Yr. Internal Rate of Return: 8.43% 15 Year N.P.V. of Profit > -$4,426 15 Yr. Int. Rate of Return > 2.73% 20 Year N.P.V. of Profit > $3,056 20 Yr Int. Rate of Return > 6.24%

Growing Cost Detail

Table 3. Profitability analysis of a Tall Spindle Gala orchard with biennial bearing.


5

Lbrty

pe

COST

OF

LABO

R AT

VAR

IOUS

SKI

LL L

EVEL

SUS

SSSK

Page

5So

c.W

orke

rsUn

emp

Heal

th$1

3.00

$16.

44$1

8.05

Sec.

Com

pIn

s.In

sura

nce

Empl

oyer

pd

%Re

gula

r Lab

orRa

tes

>0.

0765

0.06

0.05

5$1

4,00

0<

fam

ily p

olic

y31

%$4

,340

$5,4

00<

sing

le p

olic

y81

%$4

,347

Avg.

Avg.

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . c

ost p

er h

our .

. . .

. . .

. . .

. . .

Tota

lho

urs

wee

ksHo

urly

Soc.

Wor

kers

Unem

pHe

alth

Hour

lype

r wk

Wor

ked

Type

of L

abor

Rate

Sec.

Com

pIn

s.In

sura

nce

Oth

erCo

st50

Uns

kille

d La

bor *

$10.

91$0

.83

$0.6

5$0

.60

$13.

0045

49S

emi-S

kille

d La

bor

$12.

50$0

.96

$0.7

5$0

.26

$1.9

7$1

6.44

4848

Ski

lled

Labo

r$1

4.00

$1.0

7$0

.84

$0.2

5$1

.88

$18.

05

* Jan

201

3 A

EW

R

APPL

E HA

RVES

T LA

BOR

No. o

f 42

lb. b

ushe

ls p

er b

in >

20.0

Gal

aRo

und-

Cos

t of

. . .

. . .

. . .

cos

t per

bin

. . .

. . .

. . .

. .

Pick

ertri

ppr

ovid

edPi

ecer

ate

Labo

rra

teSo

c.W

orke

rsUn

emp

Bonu

s/Tr

avel

Cost

Cost

per

Trav

eltra

nspo

rtatio

npe

r bin

Sec.

**Co

mp

Ins.

stip

end

per b

inbu

shel

Bill:

durin

g ha

rves

tP

icki

ng a

pple

s$1

7.00

$1.3

0$1

.02

$0.9

4$2

4.14

$1.3

9$3

2,00

0$2

,500

Cre

w L

eade

r$0

.00

$0.0

0$0

.00

** N

o em

ploy

er c

ontri

butio

n of

Soc

. Sec

. for

H2A

wor

kers

. It m

ust b

e in

clud

ed fo

r dom

estic

wor

kers

Tota

l num

ber o

f bus

hels

to b

e ha

rves

ted:

177,

747

Num

ber o

f wee

ks o

f app

le h

arve

st:

6Ha

rves

t Sup

port

Avg.

Avg.

hour

sw

eeks

Hour

lySo

c.W

orke

rsUn

emp

Heal

thCo

st p

erTo

tal

per w

kW

orke

dHa

rves

t Lab

orRa

teSe

c.Co

mp

Ins.

Insu

ranc

eO

ther

hour

Cost

507

Sea

sona

l Qua

lity

Cnt

rl$1

2.50

$0.9

6$0

.75

$0.6

9$1

4.89

$4,4

68.1

350

48Fu

lltim

e Tr

k/Tr

ctr D

river

$14.

00$1

.07

$0.8

4$0

.19

$1.8

8$1

7.99

$5,3

96.8

450

8Fu

lltim

e Tr

acto

r Driv

er$1

4.00

$1.0

7$0

.84

$0.7

7$1

.97

$18.

65$7

,460

.97

457

Par

ttim

e Tr

ctr/T

rck

Driv

er$1

3.00

$0.9

9$0

.78

$0.7

2$1

5.49

$4,8

79.1

9To

tal

Supp

ort L

abor

Tot

al

>$2

2,20

5.13

Labo

r $Su

ppor

t Lab

or p

er b

ushe

l >

$0.1

2pe

r bin

:To

tal l

abor

cos

t per

bus

hel >

$1.5

1$3

0.24

PF

2013

NP

V T

all S

pndl

Gal

a $1

0 bi

enni

al 3

/10/

2013

9:1

5 P

MA

. DeM

arre

e - C

CE

Ta

ble

4. L

abor

cos

t of a

Tal

l Spi

ndle

Gal

a or

char

d.


Precision Crop Load Management


Geneva, NY 13345

Crop load management is the single most important yet difficult management strategy that determines the annual profitability of apple orchards. The number of fruit that remain on a tree directly affects yield, fruit size and the quality of fruit that are harvested, which largely determines crop value. If thinning is inadequate and too many fruits remain on the tree, fruit size will be small, fruit quality will be poor and flower bud initiation for the following year’s crop may be either reduced or eliminated. Consequently, poor or inadequate thinning will reduce profitability in the current year and result in inadequate return bloom in the following year. Over thinning also carries economic perils since yield and crop value the year of application will be reduced and fruit size will be excessively large with reduced fruit quality due to reduced flesh firmness, reduced color and a much-reduced postharvest life. Thus, management of crop load is a balancing act between reducing crop load (yield) sufficiently to achieve optimum fruit size and adequate return bloom without reducing yield excessively (Fig. 1).

Economic Impacts of Crop Load Calculations of crop value at various crop load levels using fruit size and yield as the main variables has shown in a number of experiments to that the relationship of crop value to crop load is curvilinear (Fig. 1). At very high crop loads (unthinned Gala trees) fruit size is often very small but yield is very high. Crop value in this situation is almost zero since the value of the fruit is often exceeded by the packing and storage costs. When crop load is reduced to more moderate levels through thinning, then crop value rises dramatically even though yield is lower due to larger fruit size, which has greater value. At some point crop value peaks and then with further reductions in crop load crop value declines due to lower and lower yield. Although fruit size continues to increase it does not compensate for the loss in yield. It is striking how narrow the crop value peak is in many situations. Identifying and then achieving this optimum crop

Fig. 1. Counter balancing responses of Gala fruit size and yield to crop load with the curvilinear response of crop value to crop load showing an optimum crop value at a crop load of ~8-9 fruits/cm2 TCA.

1

Fig. 1. Counter balancing responses of Gala fruit size and yield to crop load with the curvilinear response of crop value to crop load showing an optimum crop value at a crop load of ~8-9 fruits/cm2 TCA.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Yie

ld (b

u/ac

re)

100

120

140

160

180

200

Frui

t Siz

e (g

)

0 5 10 15 20 Crop load (fruit no/cm 2 TCA)


value is often very difficult for apple growers. It is difficult for fruit growers to know the economic impact of not achieving the optimum crop load without having various levels of thinning each year to construct the curves shown in Fig. 1. The difference between the optimum crop load and under thinning or over thinning can sometimes be a difference of thousands of dollars per acre. Thus growers often fail to capture the full crop value possible without knowing how much “money they left on the table”. More precisely managing crop load will help growers achieve the optimum crop load and maximize crop value.

Management Approaches to Precisely Managing Crop Load There are 3 management practices that have a large effect on crop load: 1) pruning, 2) chemical thinning and 3) hand thinning. In recent years growers have relied primarily on chemical thinning to adjust crop load with a lesser reliance on hand thinning to reduce labor requirements. In other countries hand thinning is still the primary means of adjusting crop load. A few progressive growers have also begun to view thinning as a means to adjust crop load. Precision crop load management utilizes all three management approaches to adjust crop load. It begins with precision pruning to leave on the tree a preset bud load, followed by precision chemical thinning to reduce initial flower number per tree to as close as possible to a preset fruit number per tree and ends with precision hand thinning to leave a precise number of fruits per tree. The economic impacts of achieving the proper crop load each year are large and justify a more intense effort to manage crop load to the optimum fruit number each year. In the next sections we will consider each of the three management tactics to precisely manage crop load.

Pruning for Precision Crop Load Management

Stephen A. Hoying and Terence L. RobinsonDept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University

Highland and Geneva, NY

Managing crop load using “Precision” techniques is a multistep process that normally includes pruning, chemical thinning, and thinning by hand. Today because of the adoption of full dwarf trees planted at densities reaching and exceeding 1000 trees per acre, we have the ability to use pruning to better produce the crop load and fruit quality that we desire. In the past, lack of uniformity of the trees and the massive absolute number of buds on a tree made accurately counting buds impractical if not impossible to estimate potential numbers of fruit on each tree. In addition, the desire to keep as many flower buds as possible to compensate for poor fruit set (frost, pollination, flower quality) prevented precise pruning for management of crop load and/or fruit quality. As a result pruning in existing orchards is considered more of an art form than a science since pruners estimate the amount of pruning necessary to reduce the size of the tree, open the tree for improved light distribution, and rarely to reduce the potential crop load on the tree. Removing fruit buds to reduce the amount of additional thinning or improving fruit quality has not been seriously considered as a management strategy. Today our ability to accurately estimate fruiting buds within the tree allows us to manage bud numbers by pruning off excess fruit buds and only keep those needed to set an adequate crop. In addition, we have the ability to select individual buds through selective pruning retaining only those


that are of the highest quality. By pruning to a specified bud number, we can start the process of fruit thinning to better target the specific fruit sizes of the highest returning fruit. By reducing the number of fruit buds on the tree early through pruning, we can reduce competition among flower and fruitlets resulting in increased resources for the remaining fruit and improved fruit size and quality. High tree density, small tree size, fewer numbers of buds per tree, and improved uniformity of each tree makes it is possible to more easily count a representative number of trees per variety to determine the “proper” bud load to set a full crop for each apple variety. Making accurate fruiting bud counts requires an investment in time, but this is a practice which can be implemented immediately and will have an immediate return on the investment of time required to count fruit buds. Determining the “proper” bud numbers per tree will depend largely on the fruiting characteristics of the variety but also on the yield and fruit size desired. Although it would be possible to use pruning to reduce fruiting buds to nearly the exact level required to set a full crop, additional buds must be retained to account for natural factors that cause buds not to set such as frost or freeze, poor pollination, and poor flower viability.

Suggested Procedure 1. Speak to your packer/marketer and review past pack-out sheets to determine the highest

returning size class of fruit. It might also be helpful to try to assess the future market to determine which fruit size will be in highest demand the coming season. For example, if you are expecting to have a very large national crop, fruit size across the country may be depressed resulting is an abundance of smaller fruit. This abundance could depress the price for this size fruit nationally and larger fruit could command a higher price in the market place. In this situation, it would be better to prune more aggressively to produce larger fruit.

2. Determine the size fruit you want to produce. This will determine how heavily you will crop the tree since greater fruit numbers on a tree results in smaller fruit and vice versa.

3. Select 15 uniform trees of the variety/strain/rootstock combination to be pruned. Select trees randomly in representative areas of the orchard. It is important to count each variety within the block separately since different cropping levels and growth habit will result in different number of buds per tree and the resulting pruning severity.

4. Count and record the entire number of fruit buds on each of the selected trees. Calculate the average number of fruit buds per tree. By multiplying the average number of buds by the number of trees per acre and assuming 1 apple per bud, we can estimate the potential number of apples that would be produced by this orchard.

5. Next we need to determine the number of apples we need on each tree to produce the yield of specific size fruit we are aiming for and the number of fruit buds that should be on each tree to accomplish this yield. Although we may only need a certain number of fruit per tree we will chose a bud number depending on variety that is higher than the number of fruit estimated to ensure that we do not over prune which would result in a lower yield than necessary.

6. Next we subtract the total number of buds counted from the total number of buds necessary. This results in the target number of buds that should remain on each tree.

7. Prune to remove excess buds above that target level that we have set. Pruning off buds should be selective removing first those buds that are of poor quality or positioned so that they will produce lower quality fruit such as those that are on larger branches that must be renewed, excessively crowded fruiting shoots, buds that are ones that are on pendant multiplying 900 bushels by 100 fruit per bushel we know that we want only spurs, or ones on branches that need to be columnarized.

8. After removing inferior buds remove additional buds to reduce bud level to target level.


9. After pruning several trees, recount bud numbers to assess success of pruning and readjust pruning methods to better reflect target levels. Regularly reassess pruning to ensure that target bud levels are being achieved. Different people, weather conditions, etc. can result in drifting away from the original goal and pruning methods will need to be readjusted through time.

An Example:1. The orchard is a Brookfield gala on M.9 planted 3’X12’ resulting in 1210 trees/acre. We have

determined that the best fruit size for this variety in 2014 will be larger sized fruits because we are expecting a larger than average national crop. We hope to target fruit size at the 100 count size or 100 apples per bushel and we determine that we will produce that size class by producing 1200 bushel to the acre. Because of Gala’s smaller fruit size and our moderately vigorous trees, we know that any more yield will result in smaller fruit size.

2. By multiplying 1200 bushels by 100 fruit per bushel we know that we want 120,000 apples in this block of fruit. By dividing the total number of fruit that we desire by the number of trees per acre the result is that we can achieve this by having only 100 apples per tree.

3. Our counts have shown that we have an average of 450 buds per tree. This means that to have 100 fruit buds remaining we would have to remove 350 buds on each tree. However, we know that we should leave additional buds in case that we have miss counted or that we have a weather event that kills additional buds, prevents pollination and puts us below the target flower and fruit number to achieve the crop load that we desire. The additional buds that will be required to provide “insurance” will depend on the variety. For example, early blooming varieties may be more at risk for frost damage and you may want to keep more buds than ones that bloom late and have a lower risk of fruitlet loss. In this example, with Gala we will leave 1.8 times the number of estimated buds we need to compensate for the potential crop loss. Therefore 1.8 X 100 buds = 180 fruit buds per tree. This means that after pruning off 350 buds we could still lose 44% of the remaining buds on the tree and achieve of target yield and fruit size. And since these calculations are all based on producing only one fruit per bud. Another compensating factor is the potential to produce more than one fruit per spur if additional fruit buds were lost.

4. Multiple fruit per spur and any of the insurance spurs that produce fruit would have to be removed later through chemical and hand thinning.

The beauty of using precision pruning is that we can implement this practice today to achieve higher profit levels. And with higher density orchards and uniform trees it should be a simple procedure to tag, and count bud numbers for each variety in each orchard estimating the pruning that should be done with very little risk or cost. It becomes more difficult as orchard tree numbers decline and vigor increases.

A Simple Economic Analysis Let’s quickly look at the potential amount of money you might be leaving on the table by not practicing “Precision Pruning”. Assumptions: We will be looking at the same block used in the above example: Gala M.9 1210 trees/acre, maximum yield for 80 count, 100 count and bags are 600 bushels, 1200 bushels, and 1500 bushels respectively. Hand thinning costs High set to low load = $1000/acre (production of 80 count Gala when there was no precision pruning), high set to moderate load = $500/acre (production of 100 count Gala with no precision pruning), High set to high load = $200/acre (production of 140 count gala with no precision pruning), Moderate set to low load = $500/acre (production of 80 count apples with precision pruning), moderate set to moderate load = $250/acre, moderate set to high load = $150/acre, Harvest cost is $1/bushel.


1. Return to grower after packing and storage: 80 count Gala $21, 100 count Gala $16, Bags Gala $14.

2. Yield/Acre for 80 count Gala 600 bushels, 100 count Gala 1200 bushel, Bag sized Gala 2000 bushel

3. Total Return 80 count = $12,600, 100 count = $19,200, 140 count = $15,0004. Subtract out hand thinning and harvest costs = 80 count = $11,000, 100 count = $17,700, Bags

= $13,4505. Potential difference $4350 between bags and 100 count fruit if no additional thinning is needed.

This analysis shows that pruning to reduce crop load could have a significant economic effect if we were able to reduce crop load to the optimum level only with pruning. Unfortunately, because of the uncertainty of crop set due to weather and other factors we cannot reduce the crop only by reducing the number of fruiting buds on the tree. We must retain additional fruit buds as mentioned earlier as insurance and other methods such as chemical and hand thinning will be needed to further reduce fruit numbers to acceptable levels. Therefore, the dollar estimates of return are higher than actual. There are many consequences of precision pruning that are not quantifiable such as the improved ability to chemically thin using lower rates and possibly a decreased in numbers of applications needed especially with Gala that normally requires multiple chemical applications for effective thinning.

Pruning Tall Spindle to Reduce Bud Levels Dwarf apple trees always have 4 to 5 times the number of fruit buds than needed to set a full crop of fruit. Aggressive but careful annual pruning can reduce this number to manageable levels without having to make accurate counts of buds and this has been the common practice among good tree managers. Simple rules for the Tall Spindle have been developed that include removing 1 to 3 limbs annually whose diameter reaches approximately 1inch, columnarizing and simplifying each remaining branch by removing large forks or side branches and finally removal of poor quality spurs.


Precision Chemical Thinning

Terence Robinson, Alan Lakso, Duane Greene and Steve HoyingDept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University

Geneva, NY 13345

For the past 50 years chemical thinning has been the primary method growers have used to achieve the proper crop load and consistent annual cropping but despite over 50 years of experience with chemical thinning, it remains an unpredictable part of apple production with large variations from year to year and within years due to weather. The interactions of environment with thinning have been observed for many years. Beginning in 2000, we began to study this variability by conducted annual spray timing trials in NY State, which showed extreme variation in timing of response and thinning efficacy between years over the 3 week period after bloom when chemical thinners are applied (Fig. 1) (Robinson and Lakso, 2004; Lakso et al. 2006). There are two major sources of this variability: spray chemical uptake and environmental effects on tree physiology. Variability in spray uptake includes the chemical thinner concentration, the environment at the time of application (temperature and humidity), application method and coverage, drying conditions, and leaf epicuticular wax. However, generally temperature and humidity largely compensate for one another in affecting drying time and uptake. A second and more important source of variation is the sensitivity of the tree itself, which is related to the level of bloom, how many fruits are present at the time of application, leaf area, temperatures, sunlight, and tree vigor. Many of these factors are directly related to the balance of carbohydrate supply from tree photosynthesis in relation to the demand for carbohydrates from all of the competing organs of the tree (crop, shoots, roots, and woody structure).

Carbohydrates and Fruit Growth Considerable research has examined the role of carbohydrates as a pivotal to the fate of young developing apple fruit. Carbohydrates are stored as reserves in the dormant tree but these reserves are depleted by bloom as tree use these to produce energy for pre-bloom growth and respiration. After fertilization young fruit require currently produced carbohydrates for continuous development and the extent of this demand appears to be associated with the stage of fruit development and level of light. Immediately after petal fall, demand for carbohydrates by developing fruit is only moderate during the initial lag phase of an expolinear growth pattern. However, when fruit reach 8-10 mm in diameter (about 1-2 weeks after petal fall), rapid fruit growth results in an ever-increasingly large carbohydrate demand which may not be met by current photosynthesis. At that time in spring considerable variation in temperature and light gives large variations in carbohydrate balance. Temperature, number of shoots, and number of fruit are important factors that control the demand for carbohydrates. With cool sunny days with a light initial crop, the balance of supply and demand carbohydrates is positive due to the high photosynthesis while the cool temperatures limit demand for carbohydrates by shoots and fruits. On the other hand, hot cloudy days with a heavy initial crop load have a negative balance of carbohydrates due to a reduced supply but the high temperatures drives up demand by stimulating growth rates of shoots and fruits. Chemical thinners are reputed to work by providing a transient stress on the tree during the rapid


1

Fig. 1 Variability in chemical thinner response in 4 years at Geneva, NY !

Fig. 1 Variability in chemical thinner response in 4 years at Geneva, NY

growth stage of shoots and fruits and when fruits are most susceptible to a carbohydrate deficit. Chemical thinners appear to have the capability to create a carbohydrate stress by reducing photosynthesis, increasing respiration or impeding carbohydrate movement to the fruit. Many have observed that the greatest fruit abscission caused by thinners is associated with periods of 3-5 days of reduced carbohydrate availability immediately following thinner application. These weather conditions are generally a combination of warm temperatures and low light. Unfortunately, these are empirical observations that have not been quantified to aid in prediction of thinner response or used to make thinner recommendations.

Apple Tree Carbohydrate Balance Model Alan Lakso at Cornell University has developed a simplified mathematical model that mechanistically estimates apple tree photosynthesis, respiration and growth of fruits, leaves, roots and woody structure. The model uses daily maximum and minimum temperatures and sunlight to calculate the production of carbohydrates each day and allocates the available carbohydrates to the organs of the tree. From these data the model calculates the daily balance of carbohydrates for a virtual tree based on an Empire/M.9 tree grown in Geneva, NY (Fig. 2). Although 50 years of experience with chemical thinning has taught us that what to expect with extreme weather conditions, the model is especially valuable in estimating carbohydrate balance in less obvious conditions such as cool and cloudy compared to hot and sunny and gives a quantitative value under all conditions. The value of the model in predicting chemical thinner efficacy has been studied since 2000 in both field and greenhouse thinning studies at Cornell University since 2000. In each year we identified periods during the 2-3 week thinning window where the model estimated either a carbohydrate surplus or a deficit and compared them to our observed thinning responses from the spray timing studies


mentioned earlier (Fig. 1). For example, in 2004 a very warm, cloudy period occurred shortly after bloom resulted in a net carbohydrate deficit during the first 10-14 days after petal fall followed by a sunny cool period of particularly good carbohydrate balance (Fig. 3). The poor carbohydrate balance period correlated well with the strongest thinning response while the least thinning response later during the good carbohydrate balance. In 2006, however, the carbohydrate balance was good initially after bloom corresponding to light-moderate thinning. The hot period beginning at about 21 days after bloom led to a poor carbohydrate balance that correlated with the strongest thinning effect. Other years showed similar correlations that explained many of the year-to-year variations shown earlier (Fig. 2). We have used the estimated supply-demand balance of the tree to predict or explain thinning response as follows: carbohydrate surplus will support fruit growth giving less thinning while carbohydrate deficits will limit fruit growth giving more thinning In 2008 we conducted a greenhouse study using potted apple trees where we imposed one of 3 temperature regimes (15/7.5°C; 22/15°C; 29/22.5°C with 30-35% of outside light) for a 5-day period immediately after thinner application of Napthaleneacetic acid (NAA)+Carbaryl or Benzyladenine(BA)+Carbaryl). The combined effects of the reduced light and temperature of the glasshouse were calculated as carbohydrate balance using the model. The 5-day average carbohydrate balance affected by temperatures and light was well correlated with fruit set in a strongly positive manner (Fig. 4). At all levels of deficit there was a strong added thinner effect with little difference between NAA+Carbaryl or BA+Carbaryl. Only when the carbohydrate balance showed no deficit did the chemicals thin moderately. We have used these results to develop simple decision rules based on carbohydrate balance for the day of thinning and the next 3 days (Table 1). In 2013 the carbon balance model was set up on a web server at Cornell University and linked to weather stations in NY, MA, VT, NJ and eastern PA for historical data and to improved weather forecasts for prediction. The server allows apple grower or consultants to run the model and receive suggestions in real time of carbohydrate balance and expected thinning efficacy. The carbohydrate model has potential to predict thinner responses prior to the application of thinners thus allowing

2

Fig. 2. General seasonal pattern of carbon availability to support crop growth and demands of light normal and heavy crops on reference trees.

15012090603000

50

100

150

200

250

Supply!From!

Canopy!or !

Fruit Demand!(g/day) !

Days After Bloom!

C Supply!

Light Crop!Demands!

Heavy!

Normal!

Fig. 2. General seasonal pattern of carbon availability to support crop growth and demands of light normal and heavy crops on reference trees.


3

Fig . 3. Predicted daily carbohydrate balance (line) at Geneva, NY in 2004 and 2006 and results of timing trials of thinning as % of the crop load on unthinned trees (square data points).

!

-80!

-60!

-40!

-20!

0!

20!

40!

60!

80!

100!

0! 10! 20! 30!

CH

O S

up

ply

-Dem

an

d (

g/d

ay)!

Days after Bloom!

2004!

!

-100!

-80!

-60!

-40!

-20!

0!

20!

40!

60!

80!

100!

120!

0! 5! 10! 15! 20! 25! 30!

CH

O S

up

ply

-Dem

an

d (

g /

da

y)!

Days After Bloom!

2006!

Fig . 3. Predicted daily carbohydrate balance (line) at Geneva, NY in 2004 and 2006 and results of timing trials of thinning as % of the crop load on unthinned trees (square data points).

growers to adjust thinner treatment and timing to achieve an optimal amount of thinning. However, it imprecisely assesses the real effect of the chemical thinner after application. A more precise assessment tool after application would be of value to growers in deciding whether to apply a second application of chemical thinner.

Apple Fruit Growth Rate Model A method of early assessment of thinning efficacy after chemical application based on fruit growth rate has been developed by Duane Greene, and others (Greene et al., 2005). The model is based on


the observation that fruitlets which have slowed growth rates (less than 50% of the fastest growth rates) are usually destined to abscise (Lakso et al., 2001b). The model requires the measurement of the diameter of fruitlets on 100 spurs (300-400 fruitlets) at 3 and 7 days after application of the chemical thinner to clearly differentiate abscising versus retained fruit. The growth rate of the fastest-growing fruitlets is used as reference to determine the percentage growth of fruitlets and what percent will abscise. Early estimates of thinning efficacy after application allow timely decisions about the need for a second chemical application if needed. In 2008 the fruit growth model was evaluated at NC and NY with several varieties. Thinning response to the thinner and final fruit set in NC was accurately predicted. In NY, initial fruit abscission response to the thinner was accurately predicted although a later cloudy period caused additional drop. As with the carbohydrate model this model needs additional validation in other climates, especially in arid climates like Idaho.

Precision Chemical Thinning In the last 3 years we have begun working on an improved method of conducting chemical thinning that utilizes both the carbohydrate model and the fruit growth model. We have named the method “Precision Chemical Thinning”. This method uses the carbon balance model as a predictive tool for predicting response prior to application and the fruit growth rate model for early assessment of thinning response immediately following application. The method begins with first calculating the final fruit number needed per tree (based on desired yield) and secondly assessing the number of flower clusters on the trees (after pruning) by counting 5 representative trees. Once the number of flower clusters/tree is known (each cluster with 5 flowers) and the final fruit number needed for the desired yield the percent of the initial flowers needed after thinning can be calculated. The optimum final fruit number per tree is different for each variety and

4

Fig. 4. Fruit set of trees with varying light and temperature, with and without chemical thinners, as a function of 5-day post-application carbohydrate balance.

!

!

Fig. 4. Fruit set of trees with varying light and temperature, with and without chemical thinners, as a function of 5-day post-application carbohydrate balance.


depends on genetic fruit size of the variety (Gala is small genetically and Jonagold is large genetically) and the price in the market (large Gala’s have a much higher price than small Gala’s while Jonagold’s that are too big have a lower market price) and the inherent bieniality of the variety (Honeycrisp are very biennial and must be managed at a lower crop load than Gala which is not biennial). An example of calculating the optimum fruit number per tree is given for Gala.

Calculation of Desired Fruit Number (Tall Spindle Example)1. Determine desired yield/acre (in this example I chose 1500 bu/acre) and desired fruit size (in this

example I chose 100 count fruit size ~175-180g)2. Calculate the desired number of fruits per acre (1500bu/acre X 100 fruits/bu=150,000 fruits/acre3. Calcualte the desired number of fruits per tree ((150,000 fruits per acre / 1210 trees/acre = 124

fruits/tree4. Count flowering spurs on 5 representative trees at pink. (In this example I counted flower clusters

on 5 trees, which had an average of 200 flowering cluster/tree 5. Calculate the number of potential fruits per tree (200 flowering spurs X 5 flowers per spur = 1,000

potential fruits/tree)6. Calculate percent of fruits needed after thinning which equals the thinning task (124 desired fruits

per tree/1000 potential fruits per tree = 12.4%) With the variety specific target of final fruit number per tree and thinning task in mind a precision thinning program is conducted by applying successive thinning sprays followed by rapid assessment of the results in time to apply a subsequent thinning spray and then an early re-assessment, followed by another spray if needed until the final target fruit number for each variety is achieved. In practice precision thinning begins with:1. A bloom thinning spray at 60-80% full bloom.2. The first spray is followed by a petal fall spray applied 2-4 days after petal fall (about 1 week after

the bloom spray) when fruits are 5-6mm in diameter. Before the petal fall spray the results of the carbohydrate model are used to guide the rate of chemical and the exact timing of the petal fall spray.

3. The first two sprays are followed by an assessment of the efficacy of those 2 sprays using the fruit growth rate model which indicates the percentage of thinning achieved with the first 2 sprays.

4. Then, if needed, a third spray is applied at 10-13mm fruit diameter (about 1 week after the petal fall spray). Before the petal fall spray the results of the carbohydrate model are used to guide the rate of chemical and the exact timing of the third spray.

4-day Av. Carb. Balance Thinning Recommendation

+20g/day to 0g/day Increase Chemical Thinning Rate by 30%

0g/day to -20g/day Apply Standard Chemical Thinning Rate

-20g/day to -40g/day Decrease Chemical Thinning Rate by 10%

-40g/day to -60 g/day Decrease Chemical Thinning Rate by 20%

-60g/day to -80 g/day Decrease Chemical Thinning Rate by 30%

< than -80g/day Do not thin (many fruits will fall off naturally)

Table 1. Decision rules for using the output of the carbohydrate model to adjust chemical thinning rate.


5. The third spray is followed by an assessment of the effectiveness of all previous sprays using the fruit growth rate model, which indicates the percentage of thinning achieved with all 3 previous sprays.

6. Lastly, if still more thinning is needed, a fourth spray is applied at 16-20mm (about 1 week after the third spray) to achieve the target fruit number.

Figure 5 shows a decision making tree we envision being used by growers to achieve the optimum crop load.

Precision Thinning in NY State in 2013 The precision thinning program can be implemented in 2013 by growers in NY, MA, VT, NJ and eastern PA. The carbohydrate model has now been mounted on a web-server at Cornell University and is available over the Internet at the NEWA site. This will allow apple growers or crop consultants can use the carbohydrate model to predict chemical thinner efficacy before applications of thinners at bloom, petal fall, 10-13mm and at 16-20mm. The fruit growth rate model requires laborious and time consuming fruit tagging and fruit diameter measurements. This aspect will discourage some growers from using this valuable tool. However, the economic impact of optimum crop load adjustment can be work $5,000-8,000 per acre. Thus a labor intense assessment of fruit thinning is justified and is much less expensive than hand thinning or the losses incurred by over thinning. A second problem is the many varieties grown by most growers in the eastern US. It may be impractical to apply the fruit growth rate model to all varieties. If a grower or consultant could make the fruit diameter measurements on 2 varieties (a hard to thin variety and an easy to thin variety) this data could then guide the decisions for other varieties. We suggest that growers and consultants use the fruit growth rate model on Gala and McIntosh in the Northeast. Lastly, precision thinning will be more easily applied to the simple trees in high-density orchards such as the Tall Spindle or Super Spindle where counting of whole trees is easier than large trees.

Fig. 5. Flow chart of precision thinning program to achieve a target crop load.


Hand Thinning for Precision Crop Load Management

Stephen A. Hoying and Terence L. RobinsonDepartment of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University,

Highland and Geneva. NY

Hand thinning to improve fruit quality is a common practice in the apple industry across the United States. It is viewed as the last chance to reduce crop levels to acceptable levels. Hand thinning is widely practiced because of the fear of over-thinning chemically. It is viewed as a necessary evil since especially for high valued cultivars such as Honeycrisp and Gala. However, when significantly more fruit remains than is needed to produce a quality fruit crop it can be very expensive. The object is to accomplish most of the thinning using pruning and chemical thinning with hand thinning as a final “touch up”. The practice of hand thinning can be beneficial to increase fruit size and color by singling fruit within the cluster, by balancing the number of resting spurs with fruitful ones ensuring return bloom, by improving pest control by exposing clustered fruit, and in young trees by balancing continued growth with cropping to help fill out the canopy. Hand thinning can take place anytime during the growing season between fruit set and harvest. Early hand thinning, before fruit bud initiation, will not only help prevent bienniality but give the maximum fruit size improvement. Hand thinning later in the growing season only helps to marginally increase fruit size and can be used to grade fruit by removing damaged fruit but will not contribute to return bloom.

Procedures for Precision hand Thinning1. Select 15-20 representative trees throughout the block to be hand thinned and count all the fruit

that remain on the tree after chemical thinners have had their effect.2. Refer to the previous calculations made prior to pruning that determined the total number of

apples desired per tree to achieve the fruit size and yield desired.3. Subtract the desired number of fruit from the total number of fruit counted per tree to determine

the number of fruit that need be removed from each tree.4. First single all fruit on the tree and then recount to see how close the number of remaining

apples is to the targeted fruit number. Calculate how many fruit still need to be removed to reach the target number of fruit.

5. Finish by removing additional apples to reach the final target. Remove the smallest apples first, then space fruit apart.

An example:1. Counts from 20 representative trees show that there are 154 fruit remaining on the tree after

pruning and hand thinning. The target number of fruit needed to produce 1200 bushels of 100 count fruit from the previous example was 100 fruit per tree.

2. By subtracting 100 fruit from the 154 fruit remaining we know we must remove 54 fruit.3. By singling fruit we find that we remove 36 fruit therefore we need to remove an additional 18

fruit in each tree.4. We then choose 18 more fruit to remove selecting those that are the smallest fruit or those that

are clustered and touching.


The simplest method for thinning is to use some sort of an area template so that people who are hand thinning know how many fruit there should be within a smaller but specific area of the tree. In trellised blocks this might be the area between two adjacent trees and two adjacent trellis wires. For example, a four wire trellis will have 3 sections between wires and a 5 wire trellis will have 4. The distance between the tree trunks equals the area occupied by an individual tree. Therefore counting all the apples between the tree trunks will equal all the apples on a single tree. From our previous example, we know that we want 100 apples on each tree. If we have 3 sections then we must have 33 apples in each section of the 4 wire trellis and 25 apples in each section of the 5 wire trellis (a few additional apples will be between the bottom wire and the ground and above the top wire). It is very simple to count the number of apples in each section and adjust the amount of hand thinning to achieve this target. To estimate apple numbers on individually staked trees is not as simple but because of the relatively small number of apples on each tree is not an onerous task. In this case, make quick counts of the number of fruiting shoots on each tree and divide the number of apple by the number of shoots to determine how many apples should be on each shoot. The typical tall spindle will have 20 -25 fruiting shoots per tree. Therefore if our target is 100 fruit per tree there should be 4 to 5 apples per shoot. Simply have people who are hand thinning reduce fruit numbers to 4-5 per shoot by first singling fruit on spurs then by spacing fruit where they are touching along each shoot. Recount and adjust hand thinning depending on the results to achieve the targeted number of fruit per tree. Hand thinning is not new and is widely practiced however implementing a procedures to count fruit and reduce fruit number to a targeted number is new for most growers. Improving precision by counting and targeting fruit numbers will improve profitability. Fruit growers could implement this or a similar method to accurately count fruit immediately and see an immediate impact on their profitability.

Economic Example Estimates are made and the targeted number of fruit that need to be removed are 54 fruit per tree. To get this estimate would require 1.5 hours of counting and recording data or about $15 which is essentially insignificant. Grower A counts fruit and readjust hand thinning to achieve his goal resulting in 1200 bushel of 100 count fruit for a return after packing and sales charges of $19,200. The cost of hand thinning for grower A was $500/acre so the net is $18,700/acre. Grower B does only touch up thinning to breakup multiple fruit per spur. This reduces the crop to 145 apples per tree and because of the high fruit number per tree fruit size is reduced to 140 count fruit with only a modest increase in yield to 1253 bushels per acre. This increase in yield and reduction in fruit size returns Grower B $17,545 in this example. His cost of hand thinning for this block was $100/acre. The net return then was $17,454. By not accurately counting apples and hand thinning to the most profitable crop load Grower B left more than $1,091 in the orchard! As is evident from this example the consequences of not accurately hand thinning is very costly!


Soil Management

Joe Dunn Helena Chemical Co

NUMBER 11

1 2

Soil Sampling the old

fashioned way

1 2


Grid Sampling Smart Sampling

Soil Type

Managing Soil Variability

HyGround Mapping (EC)

How it works… • Veris travels at regular

intervals (40 to 60 ft.) throughout a field.

• Data is then used to create a Management Zone map.

• Soil Sampling Sites can be placed according to variability. Generally 5-15 mph

Between 50 and 100 readings/Acre


Two Depth Readings

Shallow 0-12”

Deep 0-36”

HyGround Mapping (EC)

1 & 6

2 & 5

HyGround Mapping

One pair of coulter-electrodes injects electrical current into the soil, while two other pairs of coulter-electrodes

measure the voltage drop.

Veris Output

• Returns 1 data point per second

• Data points are geo-referenced

• Sandier Soils have lower conductivity values

• Clays have higher values


Veris Output

HyGround EC Management Zones

• Provide Guides for soil sampling

• Identify “Fields within Fields”

• Manage inputs and track productivity of any subset of the field


The primary EC response is due to soil texture (CEC)

not soil type EC and CEC should

have a positive correlation

Clay

Silty Clay Sandy Clay

% Sand

Loamy Sand

Sandy Clay Loam

Sandy Loam Sand

Silt Loam

Clay Loam

Loam

Silty Clay Loam

Silt

Heavy Soil Light Soil Higher CEC Lower CEC

High Buffering Capacity Low buffering cpacity More Reserve acidity Less Reserve acidity

Requires more lime to get to the same target pH

Requires less lime to get to the same target pH

Lime less frequently Lime more frequently Higher Organic Matter Lower Organic Matter

Requires more herbicide Requires less herbicide


Veris EC Classes Sampling

3 Samples


pH – Lime rec 2011 Crop Season




P205 – P rec 2011 Crop Season


K20 – K rec 2011 Crop Season




1500 - 2000

NONE

2000 - 3000

500 - 1500

3000 - 5000

Ag Lime Take the money

from here

It’s all about prioritizing resources

Put that money here

Advantages • Managing by Soil Zones • Precision Soil Sampling Method • Putting Your Money to the Best Use • Prioritize Fertility Needs and Placement • Information Useful for Other Practices • Information Useful for Other Practices VR Seeding, VR Nitrogen, VR Soil Applied Herbicide,

Site Specific Nematicide


Precision Irrigation Management

Terence Robinson, Alan Lakso and Leo DominguezDept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456

The ability to repeatedly produce high quality apples of the optimum economic size is critical to grower’s economic success. The two most important biological and management factors affecting fruit size are crop load and water stress. To repeatedly produce consistent crops of large fruit size requires precise control over crop load and tree water status. Irrigation is essential to preventing water stress in dry summers and small fruit size. The apple market expects growers to deliver large size apples (160-200 gram fruits). Growers attempt to achieve this fruit size by properly reducing crop load with chemical thinners in the spring but if the summer turns out to be dry they will still not achieve the desired fruit size and crop value will be severely compromised. To precisely manage fruit size requires precision in chemical thinning and precision in irrigation. A second critical value of irrigation is to improve and maximize tree growth you newly planted or young apple trees. The economic success of high-density orchards depend on obtaining significant yields in the third, fourth and fifth years to repay the establishment costs. To obtain the expected high yields requires excellent tree growth during the first 3 years after planting. However, one of the biggest problems we see with new high-density orchards is inadequate tree growth during the first 3 years. Gerling (1981) has estimated that when poor tree growth in the early years delays cropping of a new orchard, peak investment is increased by 20% and the total profits are reduced by 66% over the 20-year life of the orchard. Much of the problem of poor tree growth can be traced to inadequate water supply during the first 3 years. In an average growing season in the northeast rainfall is usually less than required for optimal tree performance during critical periods of tree establishment and growth. In addition during 3 years in 10, severe water shortages occur during the months of June, July and/or August. A third benefit of irrigation in the eastern US is to improve uptake of calcium and other nutrients from the soil. When the soil dries and the trees undergo water stress, uptake of many nutrients is limited since they must be in solution in the soil to be taken up by the plant. Work done at Geneva by Sergio Lopez and Terence Robinson showed that 2-week periods of poor water balance during different periods of the season resulted in more bitter pit with Honeycrisp. The most critical periods were in May during and after bloom and July. Precise management of irrigation could reduce bitter pit by ensuring a steady uptake of soil calcium. As a result of these 3 significant benefits of trickle irrigation (improved fruit size, better tree growth and yield of young trees and improved bitter pit control) many apple growers in the humid eastern growing areas who plant high-density orchards are increasingly adding trickle irrigation as an important ingredient to ensure the success of the new planting. However with both mature trees and young non-bearing trees the the amount of irrigation needed by apple orchards is difficult to estimate and often is estimated imprecisely by experience or “feel” or by using imprecise “rules of thumb” or models using crop coefficients.

Cornell Apple Irrigation Model In 2006, Alan Lakso and his graduate student Danilo Dragoni (Dragoni and Lakso, 2010) developed an improved mathematical model to calculate water use by apples trees. The model is based on the famous Pennman-Monteith model, which calculates water use by a field of grass using weather variables. The new Cornell apple evapotranspiration model more accurately estimates apple


orchard water use from a discontinuous orchard canopy than using the Pennman-Monteith model with corrections for orchards (crop coefficients Kc). In 2011 and 2012 we developed a web-based tool to use the output of the ET model to estimate for both young, medium aged and old apple orchards the amount of water needed each day or week. This web-based tool has been placed on the NEWA website and allows growers and consultants to daily or weekly access the model to estimate orchard irrigation requirements using local (on-farm NEWA) weather stations or regional weather stations (airports) to determine water needs. The website allows users to select a weather station close to their farm and then enter information on the spacing and age of the orchard (Fig. 1). The model will then calculate and display the amount of water needed for that orchard for each of the last 7 days and for the upcoming 6 days based on the weather over the last 7 days (from the weather station data) and from forecasted weather data expected over the upcoming 7 days (Fig. 1). The calculated water volume needed by the orchard is displayed in gallons/acre. If the number is negative the grower should add that amount of water to his orchard. If the number is positive it means that rainfall exceeded transpiration and more water is available than needed and no more water should be added. The website also allows a user to enter his own recorded

2

Fig. 1. Website of irrigation model with sample data from Williamson during the summer of 2012.


rainfall since rainfall varies considerably within short distances and the weather station data may not represent the actual rainfall at the farm. The Cornell ET model has the feature that rainfall is considered and subtracted from the water requirement of the trees. It also considers the effective rooting area of different age orchards to include only the portion of the rainfall that is available to the trees in the calculations of tree water requirement.

Precision Irrigation Management This new model and website will allow more precise management of tree water status in both wet and dry year than previously possible. Precisely managing soil water supply will require: 1. The grower or his consultant to weekly log onto the NEWA website and determine the daily water

requirement for his specific orchard (spacing and age) for the previous week and the upcoming week.2. Irrigate the orchard to fully replace the estimated water requirement of the particular orchard via

trickle irrigation. 3. To avoid oversaturating the soil when irrigation water is applied just before a large rainfall event or

just after a large rainfall event we suggest not applying the suggested irrigation amount for 1 day before a predicted large rainfall event (0.5 inches or more) or for 3 days after a large rainfall event (Fig. 2).

4. The frequency of adding the required water depends on soil type. With sandy soils water should be added either daily or every 2 days. With silt or clay soils the daily amount of water needed can be added up for several days and then added in one irrigation cycle.

5. In the early part of the season (early May to mid-June), we suggest that water be supplied once per week for both sandy and clay soils.

6. From mid-June until the end of August we suggest that water be supplied twice per week in clay soils and every other day with sandy soils.

Results from 2012 In 2012 we used the model to calculate transpiration and water balance for a mature and a newly planted tall spindle orchard in Western NY. The daily water requirement showed that in the early season

2

Fig. 2. Diagram of replenishing water in the soil to 90% of field capacity to avoid excessive water logging if large rainfall events occur.


transpiration was about 1,000 gallons per acre and progressed to about 4,000-5,000 gallons/acre in mid-summer (Fig. 3). A newly planted tall spindle orchard required much less water (never exceeding 500 gallons/day) due to smaller trees with a fraction of the leaf area of mature trees. Daily effective rainfall was quite variable but in general 2012 was a dry year with infrequent rains that exceeded ¼ inch (7,000 gallons/day) (Fig. 4). The effective rainfall for a newly planted trees was usually less than 1,000 gallons/day.

3

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

3/18

/12

4/1/

12

4/15

/12

4/29

/12

5/13

/12

5/27

/12

6/10

/12

6/24

/12

7/8/

12

7/22

/12

8/5/

12

8/19

/12

9/2/

12

9/16

/12

9/30

/12

Dai

ly R

ainf

all (

gal/a

cre)

Mature Tall Spindle Orchard 1st Year Tall Spindle Orchard

Fig. 3. Daily transpiration of a mature or a newly planted Tall Spindle Orchard in Williamson NY in 2012.

3

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

3/18

/12

4/1/

12

4/15

/12

4/29

/12

5/13

/12

5/27

/12

6/10

/12

6/24

/12

7/8/

12

7/22

/12

8/5/

12

8/19

/12

9/2/

12

9/16

/12

9/30

/12

Dai

ly R

ainf

all (

gal/a

cre)


Fig. 4. Daily rainfall received by a mature or a newly planted Tall Spindle Orchard in Williamson NY in 2012.


The difference between tree water requirement and rainfall is the water balance with a negative number indicating the need for irrigation and a positive number indicating too much water. In 2012 there were only about 20 days when water supply exceeded water requirement and more than 100 days where water supply was less than the need (Fig. 5). Accumulating the water balance values from bud break gives cumulative water supply and water demand. In 2012 the cumulative graph showed that water supply from rainfall was sufficient to meet water requirement by the tree until June 10 after which water needs of the tree far exceeded rainfall (Fig. 6). With newly planted trees the cumulative water requirement exceeded supply from rain earlier (27

4

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000 3/

18/1

2 4/

1/12

4/

15/1

2 4/

29/1

2 5/

13/1

2 5/

27/1

2 6/

10/1

2 6/

24/1

2 7/

8/12

7/

22/1

2 8/

5/12

8/

19/1

2 9/

2/12

9/

16/1

2 9/

30/1

2

Dai

ly W

ater

Bal

ance

(gal

/acr

e)


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

3/18

/12

4/1/

12

4/15

/12

4/29

/12

5/13

/12

5/27

/12

6/10

/12

6/24

/12

7/8/

12

7/22

/12

8/5/

12

8/19

/12

9/2/

12

9/16

/12

9/30

/12

Cum

ulat

ive

Tran

spir

atio

n an

d R

ainf

all (

gal/a

cre)

Transpiration Mature Trees

Rainfall Mature Trees

Transpiration 1st Year Trees

Rainfall 1st Year Trees

4

-5,000

-4,000

-3,000

-2,000

-1,000

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

3/18

/12

4/1/

12

4/15

/12

4/29

/12

5/13

/12

5/27

/12

6/10

/12

6/24

/12

7/8/

12

7/22

/12

8/5/

12

8/19

/12

9/2/

12

9/16

/12

9/30

/12

Dai

ly W

ater

Bal

ance

(gal

/acr

e)


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

3/18

/12

4/1/

12

4/15

/12

4/29

/12

5/13

/12

5/27

/12

6/10

/12

6/24

/12

7/8/

12

7/22

/12

8/5/

12

8/19

/12

9/2/

12

9/16

/12

9/30

/12

Cum

ulat

ive

Tran

spir

atio

n an

d R

ainf

all (

gal/a

cre)

Transpiration Mature Trees

Rainfall Mature Trees

Transpiration 1st Year Trees

Rainfall 1st Year Trees

Fig. 5. Daily water balance of a mature or a newly planted Tall Spindle Orchard in Williamson NY in 2012.

Fig. 6. Cumulative transpiration and rainfall in 2012 of a mature or a newly planted Tall Spindle Orchard in Williamson NY.


May) indicating the need to irrigate young trees earlier. From these data we see the significant need for irrigation in 2012. It also illustrates the need to regularly add water and precisely manage soil moisture. If growers delay adding trickle irrigation it becomes very difficult to “catch up” when the cumulative water deficit become large.

Summary Irrigation is essential to maximize fruit size at any given crop load. Water stress at any time of the season reduces fruit growth rate with a permanent in fruit size, which is difficult to recover later. Water stress also limits uptake of calcium into the fruit and can result in more bitter pit. With more precise water management growers will be able to limit plant water stress and more consistently achieve the optimum economic fruit size and calcium content for each variety. The new Cornell Apple Irrigation Model will allow growers to more precisely manage soil moisture in the humid and often rainy climate of the eastern US. In the future with automated electronic irrigation controls growers could precisely add the needed water each day based on the forecast for that day.


Apple Orchard Systems of the Future

Terence Robinson, Steve Hoying, Mario Miranda, Alison DeMarree and Leo Dominguez

Department of HorticultureNew York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University

Geneva, NY 14456, USA

There has been a steady increase in tree planting density over the last 50 years from 40 trees/acre to in some cases more than 3,000 trees/acre. Since the beginning of this planting system revolution growers in NY State have progressively moved from multiple leader trees on seedling rootstocks at 40 trees/acre to the central leader system on semi-dwarfing rootstocks at 200 trees/acre, to the slender spindle system on fully dwarfing rootstocks at 600 trees/acre, to small central leader trees on M.9/MM.111 interstem root systems at 400 trees/acre to the vertical axis system on dwarfing rootstocks at 500 trees/acre, to the super spindle system on dwarfing rootstocks at 2,200 trees/acre to the tall spindle system at 1,000 trees/acre.

Five Important Principles of Orchard Systems Throughout the evolution in planting density several important principles have been discovered which have guided this change. First, studies on light interception illustrated that to achieve high mature yields orchard canopies must intercept a high proportion of available light (70-75%). Pedestrian orchards with regular tractor alleys do not intercept more than 55% of available light unless tractor alleys are very narrow (7ft.). Thus requires that orchards be relatively tall (10-11 feet) with our current tractors and bins. Second, studies on light distribution have shown that thick canopies have too much heavily shaded area with poor fruit quality in those areas. Narrow canopies or planar canopies with a depth of no more than 3 feet have better light distribution. This has led the effort to narrow the canopy of modern orchards to no more than 3 feet deep. Third, the need for high early yield to pay back the initial investment to plant the orchard has prompted significant work on improving early yield. This has led to the use of use of feathered trees, planting higher tree densities, maximizing tree growth after planting with irrigation and fertigation, minimizing pruning at planting and in the first 3 years and branch bending to induce early cropping. With the use of highly feathered trees, significant yield can be achieved in the second year after planting. Fourth, simple and thin tree canopies are more adaptable to partial mechanization of some orchard management practices than thick, complex tree canopies. Fifth, orchard planting density is limited by the economic law of diminishing returns. As planting density is increased the additional benefit in yield is smaller and smaller with each additional tree. At some point the cost of additional trees is greater than the gain in yield.

Economic Analysis of Orchard Systems At the turn of the century there was a great disparity of opinion among USA growers on which system was the most profitable with some growers using densities above 2,200 trees/acre and some growers continuing to use densities below 200 trees/acre. To help guide the planting density decision we conducted an economic analysis of profitability and costs of the most promising orchard planting systems over a wide range of densities using data from our orchard systems trials in NY State.


Five common orchard systems were evaluated for profitability in NY State in 2003 and again in 2010. They included: Slender Pyramid, Vertical Axis, Slender Axis, Tall Spindle and Super Spindle (Robinson et al., 2007). They ranged in density from 340-2,200 trees/acre which represents a broad range of tree densities The analysis estimated Net Present Value (NPV) for each system over 20 years. The methods and results were reported previously (Robinson, et al., 2007). Optimum Planting Density. In general our results showed that the greater the planting density, the greater the investment cost to establish the orchard. However, due to higher early yield and higher cumulative yield, profitability was generally increased with increased tree density up to a point. Nevertheless, the law of diminishing returns which results in less gain in cumulative yield as more trees are planted per ha, meant that very high tree densities were not more profitable than more moderate densities. In addition, economists suggest that risk increases with increasing level of investment, thus making the very high-density systems riskier. When NPV of the accumulated profit over 20 years was calculated per unit land area the greatest profitability was at a tree density of 1,050 trees/acre when feathered trees were used (Fig. 1). When an alternative method to evaluating profitability (NPV per unit of capital invested rather than per unit of land area) the optimum tree density was slightly lower (around 950 trees/acre). 2

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Tree Density (trees/acre)

NP

V 2

0 y

ears

($/a

cre)

2010

2003

-15,000

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Tree Density (trees/acre)

NP

V 2

0 y

ears

($/a

cre) $10/bushel

$8/bushel

$6/bushel

Fig. 1. Effect of tree density on 20-year profitability calculated as Net Present Value per acre in 2003 and 2010 (top) and interaction of fruit price and tree planting density on 20-year profitability.


We repeated the analysis in 2010 and used higher tree prices and better early tree growth and yield in the first 5 years (due to advances in tree quality and better management methods after planting and NPV was significantly higher for each orchard system but the optimum planting density was 1,100 trees/acre (Fig. 1). Effect of Tree and Fruit Price. Fruit price had the greatest effect on the potential profit of each planting system. All systems were profitable at a fruit price of $0.30/kg ($0.14/lb.) (excluding packing, storage and marketing expenses). If fruit price was reduced to $0.25 ($0.11/lb.), none of the systems were profitable (Fig. 1C). If fruit prices were very high ($0.55/kg or $Opt0.25/lb.) such as with a new club variety the shape of the curve was asymptotic with the highest density system having the greatest profitability. A doubling of the fruit price from $0.30 to $0.55 resulted in a 9-fold increase in profitability. The high-density systems were more sensitive to price than the low-density systems. This means that under low prices they drop the most, but also under high prices they benefit the most. With low prices of $0.25/kg the optimum tree planting density was 2,450 trees/ha (1,000 trees/acre) while with moderately high fruit prices of $0.35/kg the optimum planting density was 2,800 trees/ha (1133 trees/acre). At very high fruit prices of $0.55/kg the optimum tree density was ~5,500 trees/ha (2225 trees/acre). Tree price and trellis cost had a large influence on profitability and optimum planting density (Fig. 1A and 1D). At low tree planting densities, tree price had only a small effect on profitability while at high planting densities, tree price had a very large impact on profitability. With high tree prices, profitability of all systems was low and the optimum tree density was 2,400 trees/ha (1000 trees/acre). As tree price was reduced, profitability of each system was increased and the optimum planting density increased. With an extremely low tree price of $2.00/tree, the optimum density was above 5,500 trees/ha (2,225 trees/acre). In general our economic study indicated an optimum tree density of 1,000-1300 trees/acre unless fruit price was very high and tree price was very low. This range of tree densities led to the development of a training system for this density we call the Tall Spindle.

The Tall Spindle System The Tall Spindle system is an amalgamation of the slender spindle, the vertical axis, the super spindle and the Solaxe systems (Robinson et al., 2006). This system utilizes the concept of high tree densities from the slender spindle system but utilizes lower planting densities than the Super Spindle (~1,0000-1,300 trees/acre). The system uses tall trees similar to the Vertical Axis but very narrow canopies like the Super Spindle. It also used highly feathered trees (10-15 feathers) and pendant limb angles like the Solaxe to induce cropping and reduce branch growth and vigor. The system also utilized minimal pruning at planting and during the first 3 years. In contrast to the slender spindle system, which included cutting of the central leader which resulted in a vigorous frame, the Tall Spindle utilizes no pruning of the leader. Without pruning of the leader and with feathers starting at 80 cm above the soil, the tall spindle tree can be allowed to crop in the second year, which gives natural bending of lateral branches, which keeps them weak. At maturity the Tall Spindle canopy has a dominant central trunk and no permanent scaffold branches. Limb renewal pruning is utilized to remove and renew branches as they get too large (>3/4 inch or >2cm diameter). Tree density with Tall Spindle orchards can vary from a high of 1,452 trees/acre (3 X 10 feet) to a low of 908 trees/acre (4 X 12 feet). The proper density considers the vigor of the variety, vigor of the rootstock, and soil strength. For weak and moderate growing cultivars such as Honeycrisp, Delicious, Braeburn, Empire, Jonamac, Macoun, Idared, Gala, NY674, and Golden Delicious we suggest an in-row spacing of 3 feet (Fig. 2A) For vigorous varieties such as McIntosh, Spartan, Fuji, Jonagold, Mutsu, etc. and tip bearing varieties such as, Cortland, Rome Beauty, Granny Smith and Gingergold


3

Width 2 ft.

Width 3-4 ft.

Fig. 2. Steps in developing a Tall Spindle tree. 1. Plant a highly feathered tree with 5/8” caliper (top

left), 2. Tie down feathers soon after planting (top right), 3. Grow the tree to 10 feet high by the end of the second year (middle left), 4. Do minimal pruning until the end of the 4th year (middle right), 5 Begin renewal pruning in the 5th year (note large branch in first tree in bottom left picture that should be removed), 6. Begin summer hedging in the 5th or 6th year (bottom right).


we suggest an in-row spacing of 3.3-4 feet. Between-row spacing should be 11-12 feet on level ground and 12-13 ft. on slopes. Dwarfing rootstocks such M.9, B.9 or the fire blight resistant dwarf rootstocks from Geneva® (G.11, G.41 and G.935) have been used successfully in Tall Spindle plantings. The weaker clones (M.9NAKBT337, M.9Flueren56, B.9 G.11 and G.41) are especially useful with vigorous scion varieties on virgin soil. The more vigorous clones (M.9Pajam 2, M.9Nic29, M.9EMLA, and G.935) are much better when orchards are planted on replanted soil or when weak scion cultivars are used. An essential component of the Tall Spindle system is a highly branched (feathered) nursery trees. The tall spindle system depends on significant 2nd and 3rd year yield, for the economic success of the system. If growers use whips or small caliper trees which do not produce significant quantities of fruit until year 4 or 5, often the carrying costs from the extremely high investment of the tall spindle orchard overwhelms the potential returns and negates the benefit of the high tree density on profitability. We recommend that the caliper of trees used in tall spindle plantings be a minimum of 5/8 inch and that they have 10-15 well positioned feathers with a maximum length of 1 foot and starting at a minimum height to 28 inches on the tree (Fig.2A). Generally nursery trees in North America have not had this number of feathers until recently. Many nursery trees have 3-5 long feathers instead of 10 short feathers (Fig 2B). The tree with fewer long feathers requires more branch management than the tree with more short feathers. One of the most significant differences between the Tall Spindle and the more traditional Vertical Axis and Slender Spindle systems is that the tall spindle tree typically has no permanent lower tier of branches. With the Tall Spindle all of the feathers are tied or weighted below the horizontal at planting to induce cropping and to prevent them from developing into substantial lower scaffolds (Fig 2A). The pendant position results in a weak fruiting branch instead of a scaffold branch. With the Vertical Axis and Slender Spindle systems the feathers are tied down a little above horizontal, which allows them to grow into scaffolds over the first 4 year. Growers who attempt to plant feathered trees at the Tall Spindle spacing but do not tie the feathers down often end up with limbs in the lower part of the tree that are too strong which requires severe limb removal pruning at an early age which invigorates the tree and makes long term canopy containment problematic. This simple change in feather management allows for long-term cropping of many feathers and little invasive pruning for the first 5-8 years at the very close spacing of the Tall Spindle system. After the initial tying down of feathers at planting, new lateral branches that arise along the leader do not need to be tied down. In most climates, moderate tree vigor results and lateral shoots arising along the leader often bend below horizontal with crop load in the third year. This creates a natural balance between vigor and cropping without additional limb positioning. However, in vigorous climates or where winter chilling is insufficient, often limbs become too large before they set sufficient crop loads to bend the branches down. In these climates, tying down of all vigorous limbs must be done annually for the first 3-5 years until the tree settles down and begins to crop heavily. However, in most traditional apple growing areas, growers often invest too much money in limb tying which should be limited to only the feathers at planting. Thereafter, the precocity of the rootstock induces heavy cropping and a natural balance is established. With precocious dwarfing rootstocks, young apple trees can often overset in the 2nd or 3rd year resulting in biennial bearing as early as the 4th year. This then results in increased vigor in the 4th year just when the trees have filled their allotted space and when reduced vigor is needed. Varieties differ in their biennial bearing tendency and this must be incorporated into the crop loads allowed on young trees. For annual cropping varieties like Gala, we recommend crop loads of 20-40 apples/tree in the second year, 60-100 apples/tree in the third year. For slow growing and biennial bearing varieties like Honeycrisp crop loads should be half that used with Gala.


4

Fig. 3. Mature Fruiting Wall orchard in France. (Photo courtesy of Michel Dela Sayette)

Good light distribution and good fruit quality can be maintained as trees age if the top of the Tall Spindle tree is kept more narrow than the bottom of the tree and if there is a good balance between vegetative growth and cropping. For the Tall Spindle system, maintaining a conic shape as the trees age is critical to maintaining good light exposure, in the bottom of the tree. In our experience, the best way


to maintain good light distribution within the canopy as the tree ages is to remove whole limbs in the top of the tree once they grow too long rather than shortening back permanent scaffold branches in the tops of trees. A successful approach to managing the tops of trees has been to annually remove 1-2 upper branches completely. To assure the development of a replacement branch, the large branch should be removed with an angled or beveled cut so that a small stub of the lower portion of the branch remains. From this stub a flat weak replacement branch often grows. If these are left un-headed they will naturally bend down with crop. A key feature of the Tall Spindle system is a simple pruning system that is less expensive than traditional “mold and hold” pruning or the complex pruning spur extinction and centrifugal pruning of the Solaxe. In addition, the cost of the simple pruning of the Tall Spindle can be further reduced by partial mechanization with orchard platforms. With the Tall Spindle, we have measured savings of 30% in dormant pruning costs with self-steering pruning platforms compared to

Fig. 4. Hedged Tall Spindle orchard in NY State.

6

traditional pruning with ladders (Miranda-Sazo et al. 2010). Motorized platforms can also reduce harvest, hand thinning and tree training costs.

The Seven Leading Planting Systems Around the World The 7 leading systems in the world are: Tall Spindle, Super Spindle, Vertical or V-trellis, Solaxe, Bi-Axis and Fruiting Wall (Fig. 2). All seven systems use high tree densities (900-2,200 trees/acre) and depend on early production to repay the initial investment. The Tall Spindle is the most common system in eastern North America with most growers using 1,000-1,300 trees/ha. It is simple to learn and requires moderate initial investments, has high early yield and is estimated to provide the highest profitability over 20 years. A few growers are planting Super Spindle orchards at 2,200 trees/acre but these are limited to growers who produce their own trees. The super spindle has a simplified pruning recipe and high fruit quality. The Organized trellis systems (V-trellis and Vertical trellis) are common in Washington but not in the East. These two systems are designed for precision pruning where bud numbers are reduced through pruning to a pre-calculated number. In addition growers claim less sunburn with these systems. The Solaxe system is common in southern France, parts of Spain and Chile but is not adopted in other parts of the world. It uses extensive limb bending and manual bud extinction to achieve a balance of vegetative growth and cropping even when vigor is excessive. The bud extinction also helps controls biennial bearing. The bi-axis system is new to North America but has been used in Italy for about 8 years. It uses a two-stem tree to achieve a very high number of leaders


per acre (1,800) with only a moderate number of trees per acre (900). It also distributes tree vigor to two leaders giving more moderate growth in each leader. The system has its greatest potential when tree vigor is difficult to manage with traditional Tall Spindle training. This system is well adapted to mechanical pruning. In NY we have one 6-year-old trial with Red Delicious using a multiple leader system that looks promising. The last system is the “Mur Frutiere” or Fruiting Wall from southern France, which has some adoption in Italy, Germany, Belgium and Spain. It uses mechanized sidewall shearing during the early summer to reduce pruning costs and achieve high yields and good fruit quality. It is interesting that some successful apple growers manage apple trees with complete precision of bud load as with the organized trellis systems while other successful apple growers use a completely mechanized system with no precision of bud management. This indicates that there are many ways to “skin a cat”.

Efforts to Reduce Costs Per Unit of Production Less Expensive Planting Systems. High-density systems are expensive to establish (Table 1). The greatest initial cost is for the trees. If the cost of trees could be reduced without reducing early yield then profitability could be increased. Several recent efforts have attempted to examine the impact

Item Number/haMaterial costs ($/ha)

Labor costs ($/ha)

Total cost ($/ha)

Trees 3,370 $21,200 $250 $21,450

Anchor poles (2m long) 20 $300 $250 $550

Inline poles (3.5m long) 110 $2,700 $1,360 $4,060

High-tensile wire 3,700m $700 $250 $950

Staples, tightners and crimps $120 $250 $370

Total $25,020 $2,360 $27,380

Labor Inputs

Traditional Vertical Axis Trees(1000 bu./ac with ladders)

Tall Spindle Trees(1500 bu./ac with platforms)

Dormant Pruning

60 hours/acre 20 hours/acre

Tree Training


Hand Thinning


Summer Pruning

40 hours/acre 1 hour/acre

Total Pre-harvest


Harvest

80 hours/acre(5 bins/person/day)

80 hours/acre(7.5 bins/person/day)

Total annual labor input =


Table 1. Establishment costs for 3 X 11 feet Tall Spindle Orchard (10 rows X 400 feet long).

Table 2. Potential labor savings with a Tall Spindle orchard mechanized with platforms, summer hedging and harvest assist machine.


of utilizing less expensive trees. Some growers have begun growing their own trees to reduce tree costs. This usually results in medium size un-branched trees instead of large caliper highly feathered trees. A few growers have planted fall budded rootstocks (sleeping eye trees) and others have planted spring grafted rootstocks (bench grafts). The initial cost of such orchards is substantially less than using feathered trees; however, early yields are also delayed by one year. The economic value of such a strategy has been studied in only one replicated experiment (Robinson and Hoying, 2005). In our study tree quality at planting had a significant impact on profitability (Fig. 2). Although large caliper feathered trees produced more fruit in the first few years, the yield benefit was somewhat offset by higher initial tree price. The more expensive large-caliper, feathered trees were more profitable when planted at low to medium-high densities while sleeping eye or 1 year grafts were more profitable at the very high densities. At the optimum planting density of 1,000 trees/acre (from our economic study), feathered trees were the most profitable while at densities from 2,000 trees/acre the less expensive sleeping eye or 1 year grafted trees were the most profitable. Mechanization. In addition to improving yield and thereby reducing production costs per unit of production through high-density orchard systems, apple growers have begun an effort to reduce costs through partial mechanization of orchard tasks including platforms for dormant pruning, and hand thinning and summer shearing for summer pruning. Motorized platforms are now common in NY and other eastern states. Significant acreage is currently managed with self-steering motorized platforms for dormant pruning, hand thinning trellis construction and tree training. Almost none are being used for harvest but we expect that over the next 5 years many growers will begin to use one of the various harvest assist platform. The delay in adoption of platforms for assisted harvest has been due to concern over greater bruising with the mechanized bin fillers and the modest gains in labor efficiency the platforms provide which brings into question the cost benefit ratio of harvest assist platforms. We see little possibility of harvest mechanization with robotic machines. Although considerable money has been spent in the last 4 years on this effort it will require many more years to build such a machine due to the extreme complexity of identifying the fruit location, detaching the fruit without bruising, and transporting the fruit to the bin without bruising. If such a machine is ever developed it will likely be too expensive and too slow with little or no gain in picking efficiency. We predict the cost benefit/ratio will be negative which will likely raise the cost to harvest a bushel to harvest apples with a robotic machine. A more near-term possibility is the use of robots to prune apple trees. This will require simple, single dimensional trees with no permanent branches such as the Tall Spindle the super spindle or the Fruiting Wall. It will also require machine vision to locate branches and map a pruning path and simple pruning rules. However, even if the feasibility of the robotic pruner is good, the economics of the idea may not be favorable. Just as with robotic harvest machines, the robotic pruning machine may be too expensive and too slow with little or no gain in pruning efficiency compared to human pruners on the self-steering motorized platforms and simple trees like the Tall Spindle. The cost benefit/ratio of a robotic pruning machine will have to be analyzed after the machine is built but it may well be negative which would raise the cost of pruning with a robotic machine.

Planting Orchards for the Future The planting of a new orchard is a 20-25 year commitment. Before planting a grower should consider the possible changes in orchard management that will occur in the next 25 years and try to plant the new orchard so he can benefit from advances in orchard management that are likely to occur. The 5 basic principles or orchard design outlined above (1. high light interception, 2. good light distribution throughout the canopy, 3. high early yields, 4. simple canopies are more adaptable to


partial mechanization, and 5. planting density is governed by the law of diminishing returns) will be a part of any future orchard system. 1. It is likely that the orchard systems of the future will be tall (10-11 feet) due to the need of intercepting 70-75% of available light. Shorter tree height are possible with very narrow rows but that will require a change in the tractor, spraying and bin handling system. Narrow row pedestrian orchards were evaluated in the mid 1980’s in the Netherlands but were not adopted due to the need for every row spraying. However, it is possible to imagine a future orchard planted with only 5-6 feet between rows (just a walking path) and with a 6 foot tall trees trained in a very narrow fruiting wall with the spraying done by a fixed over the row system. Pruning and harvesting could be done by over the row machines and bin handling done with over the row bin trailers. Although this idea is intriguing it is unlikely to occur due to little gains in yield or labor efficiency or profitability. 2. It is likely that orchard systems of the future will have narrow simple canopies no wider than 4-6 feet due to the need to have good light distribution in all regions of the canopy. In addition such narrow canopies will be more adaptable to machine pruning with shearing machines and will be easier to harvest with simple harvest aids. 3. It is likely that future orchards will continue to utilize highly branched trees for high early yields. The only exception to this rule will be those growers who choose to plant very high tree densities (>1,500 trees/acre) where the cost of feathered trees is too high and the value of feathers is less due to very small space between trees. However in our opinion such high densities will offer little additional profitability and little additional efficiency in labor or fruit quality. 4. Simple canopies will offer significant benefits in mechanization with simple platforms for pruning, thinning and harvesting. It is unlikely that complete mechanization will occur in either pruning or harvest but we believe low cost platforms for labor positioning will become the standard for both pruning and harvest. It is also likely that mechanization of summer pruning with shearing machine will become common but remedial hand pruning will be required every 2nd or 3rd year. The value of harvest assist machines will depend on the gains in labor efficiency and the cost of the machines. 5. It is likely that the optimum planting density will remain close to 1,000 trees/acre. As growers become more adept at managing this density they will likely plant slightly closer with densities close to 1,300 trees/acre. If they adopt summer shearing to reduce cost and to maintain a narrow canopy wall then they will slowly move from 12 feet between rows to 11, 10 or 9 feet between rows.

Conclusions The change in planting systems over the last 50 years has been dramatic. As we look to the future the current best system, the Tall Spindle, is likely to continue to be the best system with small modifications of a narrower canopy maintained by mechanical side wall shearing to reduce labor costs and to improve fruit quality and pruning and harvest efficiency.

Literature Cited:Miranda-Sazo, M., DeMarree, A. and Robinson, T. 2010. The platform factor – Labor positioning

machines producing good results for NY apple industry. NY Fruit Quarterly 18(2): 5-9.Robinson, T.L. 2003. Apple orchard systems. In: D.C. Ferree and I.J. Warrington (eds.). Apples:

Physiology, production and uses. CABI Publishing. Wallingford, Oxon, United Kingdom.Robinson, T.L. 2007. Effect of tree density and tree shape on light interception, tree growth, yield and

economic performance of apples. Acta Hort. 732:405-414.Robinson, T.L. 2008a. The evolution towards more competitive apple orchard systems in the USA.

Acta Hort. 772:491-500.

NUMBER 15

tlr1

Sticky Note

Delete the "NUMBER 15" overpirnt


Robinson, T.L. 2008b. Crop load management of new high-density apple orchards. NY Fruit Quarterly 16(2): 3-7.

Robinson, T.L. and Hoying, S.A. 2004. Which high-density orchard planting system for replant sites in NY is the most productive and profitable. Acta Hort. 636:701-709.

Robinson, T.L. and Hoying, S. 2005. Initial tree quality affects apple tree yield and orchard economics. Compact Fruit Tree. 38(2):10-14.

Robinson, T.L., A.M. DeMarree and S.A. Hoying. 2007. An economic comparison of five high density apple planting systems. Acta Hort. 732-481-490.

Robinson. T.L., Hoying, S.A. and Reginato, G.L. 2006. The Tall Spindle apple planting system. NY Fruit Quarterly 14(2)21-28.

Working Efficiently in the Orchard of the Future

Mario Miranda Sazo1 and Terence L. Robinson2

1Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Newark, NY2Department of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY

Over the last 5 years we have witnessed the rapid adoption of motorized platforms in many Tall Spindle apple orchards in NY State to reduce production costs. Cornell mechanization research and extension efforts have increased the awareness of the economic benefits of orchard mechanization. The simple, narrow, and very adaptable canopy of the Tall Spindle system has facilitated the use of motorized platforms for partial mechanization of several orchard tasks. During the last three years we have introduced several platforms to growers (self-propelled or pulled by a tractor and single row or 2-row types) at each of the pruning demos conducted in Western NY and in the Champlain and Hudson Valley fruit production regions. NY growers and employees are using platforms for pruning (with loppers, pneumatic pruners, or a chainsaw on a pole), hand thinning, tree training and trellis construction and repair. The use of platforms has increased worker efficiency and also improved the successful adoption of the horticultural techniques of limb renewal pruning, and tree height control. Our current research and extension efforts for orchard mechanization are proceeding along three fronts: motorized platforms to position human workers for greater canopy management efficiency, mechanical pruning with hedging machines and harvest aid machines to improve the efficiency of harvest. In this article we describe the current advances and future applications of (1) new motorized platforms for dormant pruning, hand thinning, tree training and trellis construction, (2) the Cornell concept for a fruiting wall via mechanical pruning and other fruit wall experiences from around the world, and (3) the potential benefits and future challenges of robotic pruning in the future. A future article will cover the current advances for mechanized apple harvest in NY and the US.

Labor-Positioning Motorized Platforms The use of motorized platforms for pruning was popularized by northern Italy growers in the South Tyrol region more than 20 years ago. However due to few tall, high-density orchards in the US and our system of contract pruning there were few platforms put into use here. With the rapid adoption of Tall Spindle orchards over the last 10 years, the use of motorized platforms has increased rapidly in New York State with approximately 50 platforms being used in NY Tall Spindle apple orchards. The platforms range from simple tractor pulled wagons built by growers to self-propelled single row or 2-row machines built in factories.


The simple wagon type of platforms built by growers have low cost (often built from scrap materials already on the farm) but have few adjustable features, require a tractor driver and often do not have adequate safety features. In contrast factory built machines have the proper safety features and adjustable features but are more expensive. There are currently 2 dealers of Italian factory-made platforms in North America (McQueen’s, of Wolcott, NY who sells the N-Blosi platforms and Bartlett’s of Beamsvillle, Ontario, Canada who sell the Orsi platform. There are also 3 platform manufacturers in the US (Lagasse Works, Lyons, NY, Phil Brown Welding, Conklin, Michigan and BlueLine Manufacturing, Yakima, WA). Each of the US manufactures has a self-propelled version, which are more expensive and a tractor pulled version, which are less expensive. With many of the tractor drawn platforms innovative tractor controls have been mounted on the platform to eliminate the need for a dedicated tractor driver. The widespread interest in platforms has resulted in 2 new platform prototypes for NY growers in 2012 (Figs. 1 and 2). Both platforms were designed and built (from the ideas of grower Scott VanDeWalle of Alton, NY) by LaGasse Works, of Lyons, NY, USA. Both are mounted on four-wheel drive tractors with the addition of a creeper gear in the transmission. Both have a 7 ft. x 9 ft. platforms mounted over the hood of the tractor from which two workers can prune adjacent trellis walls. The larger of the two has two additional 4 ft. x 5 ft. outboard platforms suspended from booms, which can be swung out, over the

1

Fig. 1. A 7 ft. x 9 ft. platform mounted over the hood of a tractor from which two workers can prune adjacent trellis walls. Notice the self-steering mechanism incorporated with the platform.


adjacent rows. Each of the outrigger platforms carries a single worker. Thus, with four workers, two rows of trees can be trimmed at once while the tractor creeps along. Steering, forward motion engagement, and emergency stop features are accomplished remotely from the platform. The two new platforms were first used during the 2012 dormant pruning season with good results and pruning efficiencies averaged between 25-30%. LaGasse Orchards is currently building three more of the single row platforms for three more Western New York fruit growers. The cost of the single row trimming platform is approx. $12,000. Market price for the over-the-row trimming platform is not determined yet. The same concept of using a platform mounted over the top of a four-wheel drive tractor was also recently developed by Burrows Tractor, Wenatchee, WA. Their self-propelled platform has a remote steering unit and can also be removed from the tractor, which allows the grower to use tractor for other orchard tasks the rest of the year. This “Burrows platform + tractor package” of a mounted platform on a 35hp New Holland tractor is offered at approximately $19,400 dollars. The main advantage of worker positioning platforms is the time and labor savings of not carrying ladders through the orchard, and climbing up and down to perform various jobs. In addition, there are two other potential advantages to using an orchard platform: (1) encouraging the same work speed of an entire work crew, with the intention of increasing productivity and preventing over/under pruning or hand thinning of trees that can happen when the rate of speed down the row is NOT controlled (as with ladders), and (2) human physical effort is reduced (if managed well), allowing a wider labor pool, people who could not climb up and down a ladder repeatedly during the day may now be able to perform this

2

Fig. 2. A 7 ft. x 9 ft. platform mounted over the hood of a tractor from which

two workers can prune adjacent trellis walls. It has two additional 4 ft. x 5 ft. outboard platforms suspended from booms, which can be swung out, over the adjacent rows. Each of the over-the-row platforms carries a single worker.


work. By using platforms, dormant pruning work is definitely less physically demanding for workers when they no longer have to climb ladders while carrying pruning tools. There may also be disadvantages to a motorized platform. If the person managing the platform crew and setting the work speed is not experienced the work speed may be too slow resulting in idle workers or may be too fast resulting in excessive stress on the workers. If jobs are not rotated throughout the day and care is not taken to prevent repetitive motion injury there may be more injuries from work on a platform. If there are no provisions for worker comfort or there are conflicts within the crew that are not addressed in a timely, effective manner worker satisfaction may be poor. Using an experienced team manager on the platform is critical to successful platform productivity and worker satisfaction. There are many jobs in addition to dormant pruning that can be completed using a platform: stringing and fastening multiple trellis wires; installing wire tighteners and vertical support wires; fastening trees to the wires, installing mating disruption dispensers, summer pruning, hand thinning, and harvest. U-Pick operations can harvest the tree tops while allowing the bottoms to be harvested by the U-pick customers. This will help avoid customers falling off ladders or ruining fruit and trees while trying to reach fruit in the upper portion of the tree. Miranda Sazo et al., (2010) studied labor efficiency with a platform and showed that dormant pruning time was reduced from 1.26 minutes/tree to 0.92 minutes/tree when the same workers utilized a platform and pruned mature Gala and McIntosh’s Tall Spindle trees on a dwarfing rootstock in Wolcott, NY. The pruning platforms reduced labor costs by about 27-30 percent. There was little difference in labor efficiency between the three types of platforms used. An economic analysis of investment in a platform, showed that the use of a motorized platform could save $102/acre, $104/acre, and $45/acre for dormant pruning, hand thinning and trellis installation respectively. A 2012 study (Miranda Sazo and Robinson, unpublished) compared the efficiency of hand thinning of four workers with a platform pulled by a tractor (self-steered) and measured a saving of $150/acre when the same workers hand thinned Gala trees with ladders.

Mechanization of Summer Pruning by Hedging When managed correctly, the Tall Spindle apple system at maturity gives a narrow, tall fruiting wall with good fruit quality due to good light exposure in the narrow canopy. After year 5, partial mechanization of dormant pruning by using labor positioning platforms has increased dormant pruning labor efficiency by 25-40%. Further mechanization of pruning by using side wall shearing of the tree canopy in the summer with a cutter bar may offer further reductions in annual pruning costs of the tall spindle. Although mechanical pruning that was conducted in the 1960’s and 70’s it was generally unsuccessful because it resulted in excessive regrowth and poor fruit quality due to vigorous rootstocks and the cutting of large limbs. However, current NY high-density Tall Spindle orchards are now more suitable to mechanized pruning due to the use of dwarfing rootstocks, a better managed and calm tree, and the presence of more small pendant fruiting branches (15-18 branches) at year 5 or 6. The recent efforts to mechanize pruning were begun by Alain Masseron and Laurent Roche of CTIFL (Center for Techniques of Production and Distribution for Fruit and Vegetables in France) about a decade ago. They began mechanically shearing Tall Spindle trees in the early summer to develop a narrow fruiting wall they named “Le Mur Frutier” (The Fruiting Wall). The trees were sheared in early June (when shoots had about 8-10 leaves) about 15 inches from the trunk. The tops of the trees were also cut mechanically at 10-11 feet height. This left a tall rectangular tree which was confined to a space 32 inches wide by 10 feet tall. Little shoot regrowth occurred at this timing and especially when the trees were carrying a full crop which utilized much of the carbohydrates the tree produces for fruit growth. Some commercial fruit growers who have adopted this system prune only mechanically each year in June with no additional hand pruning. Other commercial fruit growers who have adopted this system implement a follow up dormant hand pruning every third year. The mature fruiting wall tree has many


weak and fruitful side branches within the rectangular space allowed by the hedging machine but no branches that extend out into the alleyway between rows. The initial good success of mechanized summer pruning conducted by CTIFL in France was followed by research trials in Italy (Alberto Dorigoni), Spain (Ramon Montserat), and Germany (Gerhard Baab). In 2011 and 2012 we began several hedging trials in NY State to study the benefits of mechanized summer pruning of NY Tall Spindle orchards. Our experiments involve both Tall Spindle trees and Super Spindle trees on M.9 or B.9 rootstocks. Our main goal of mechanized summer pruning is to have a narrow fruiting wall with good light distribution but not create a vigor response in the tree and reduce pruning costs by 2/3. A second important research objective is to study the shoot response of several important apple cultivars in NY State to mechanized summer pruning timings and severities. The ideal response to the mechanical summer cut is to generate a short shoot regrowth (3-8 inches long) with a terminal floral bud (Fig. 3) instead of a vegetative bud. The correct timing of mechanical summer pruning is critical for maximum floral bud initiation during the early part of the summer so a very a productive and efficient fruiting wall can be started.

Materials and Methods Initial exploratory hedging trials in 2011 led to 5 replicated trials in 2012 at the following sites: (1) VanDeWalle Orchards, Alton, NY with Tall Spindle Gala and McIntosh, (2) Lamont Fruit Farms, Albion, NY with Super Spindle Macoun, Honeycrisp, and Gala, (3) Crist Bros Orchard, Marlboro, NY with Tall Spindle Gala and Jonagold, (4) Everett Orchards, Peru, NY with Tall Spindle McIntosh and (5) at the Agricultural Experiment Station in Geneva, NY with Tall Spindle Gala, Jonagold, Golden Delicious and Fuji. For sites 1 and 2 the hedger cutting bar was positioned almost vertically along the hedge of the canopy (Fig. 4). The VanDeWalle site had two severities of hedging at 12 and 24 inches

Fig. 3 (above). Very little regrowth occurred after mechanical summer pruning and a new shoot was developed with a terminal floral bud. Shoot responses to mechanized summer pruning can vary according to cultivar, tree vigor, and time of cut during the summer.

Fig. 4 (right). With a Super Spindle tree and 10-11 ft. row spacing the hedging is done one ft. from the trunk (the fruit wall is very narrow).

2

2


from the trunk. The Lamont site had one severity of hedging at 18 inches from the trunk. For sites 3, 4, and 5 the hedger cutting bar was positioned at a slight angle along the edge of the canopy 24 inches from the trunk at the base of the canopy and 12 inches from the trunk at the top of the canopy (Fig. 5). In each study we evaluated the effect of timing of summer sidewall shearing (first week of June, first week of July and first week of August) on Tall Spindle apple trees. At the Lamont site (using mature Super Spindle apple trees) we also evaluated an earlier timing (first week of May) and at the Everett site we only evaluated the early August timing. Tops were not mechanically pruned. For all studies we evaluated proportion of shoots on the whole tree which were cut by the machine, number of fruits cut off, shoot re-growth, light intensity in the canopy at 3 heights and fruit quality at harvest. We plan to evaluate return bloom next spring (May 2013). At each location fruit yield was recorded at harvest and a fruit sample was collected to evaluate fruit color and sugar content.

Results Summer sidewall shearing was fast and left the trees with a “manicured” look (Figs. 4 and 5) The cost and time amounted to a fraction of the time (5%) to do manual summer pruning. At each of the summer timings the shearing cut an average of 30% if the growing points on the tree (range 24-44%) (Table 1). This means that about 70% of the growing points on the trees were not touched by the machine. When the sidewall shearing was done at bloom there were some flowers cut off but the grower viewed it as a dormant pruning. However, when the sidewall shearing was done in June, July or August some fruits were cut off and the growers were more concerned. Fruit counts showed that the number of fruits cut off about 5 fruits/tree (range 1-13%) (Table 1) and would be no more than dropped to the ground by hand thinning. PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) measurements at each site showed that the summer sidewall shearing improved light intensity in the lower part of the canopy by about 10%. There was little improvement of light exposure in the top of the canopy. The trees we used in these studies had canopies

3

Width 2 ft.

Width 4 ft.

Fig. 5. With a Tall Spindle tree and a row spacing of 12 ft. the hedging is done 2-3 feet from the trunk. A Tall Spindle canopy should be an angled wall of 4 ft. wide at the base and 2 ft. wide at the top.

Table 1. Effect time of summer hedging on percentage of shoots cut off, number of fruits cut off and shoot regrowth at Geneva, NY 2012.

% of Shoots Cut Off N of Fruits Cut Off Shoot Regrowth (cm)

Variety June July August June July Aug June July Aug

Fuji/M.9Golden/M.9Jonagold/M.9Gala/M.9

33.232.925.735.4

36.735.324.438.6

29.528.528.244.6

86713

21713

6252

24.114.328.220.2

13.612.422.65.7

0000

Average 31.8 33.8 32.7 8.5 5.8 3.8 21.7 13.6 0


already quite well shaped for good light distribution and the shearing removed only a small portion of the shoots and thus had a small effect on light distribution in the canopy. The sidewall shearing treatments did not induce vigorous shoot regrowth regardless of the timing of the mechanical pruning. However, with the early timing (early June) we saw the development of short re-growths (8 inches) with a terminal bud, which likely will be flower buds next spring. With the July timing regrowth was about 5 inches and at the August timing there was no regrowth at all (Table 1). At harvest there were no large differences in fruit color among treatments. However, the sidewall shearing treatments had slightly better fruit color than the unsheared controls.

Discussion Our first year results with summer shearing were positive but will require 2 more years to fully determine if this approach has long term positive results or if negative tree growth will negate the labor savings from mechanical sidewall shearing. If side-wall shearing in the summer can reduce summer pruning costs by 95% and improve fruit color without negative effects on return bloom or vigorous growth response it will also have a significant impact on orchard profitability. Results from 2012 are encouraging so far in that there was little or no regrowth from the sidewall shearing treatments with the Tall Spindle system. It appears that the early July timing was the best since it had short regrowth with terminal flower buds A long-term strategy that on grower in France (Pomanjou) has implemented is to use annual side-wall shearing of Tall Spindle trees for 3 successive years with no other dormant pruning but in the third year to add a dormant winter corrective pruning to remove limbs that have become large and are causing internal canopy shading and poor fruit quality (Fig. 6). Such a pruning strategy could reduce total annual pruning costs in Tall Spindle orchards by about 65% and help NY apple growers remain profitable and competitive. Bruno Billote, another French apple grower converted his orchard seven years ago to mechanical pruning. His orchard has only had a modest manual pruning input in three of the intervening years and had been able to keep a narrow wall with mechanized pruning. He prefers the early timing (March/early April). When he tried mechanical pruning in early June, mildew and scab became a problem. He concludes there are some limitations with a fruiting wall: (1) tree height is limited, (2) production (on Gala) is limited to 70-80 ton/ha, and (3) fruit size tends to be about 5 mm smaller. He suggests Golden Delicious performs well with a wall width of 60cm, Honey Crunch with a wall width of 70-80cm, Gala requires a wall width of 80cm, while Granny Smith requires a width of 1m. Alberto Dorigoni, an Italian scientist from the Agrarian Institute of Saint Michele suggests that different

5

Fig. 6. A Tall Spindle tree converted to a fruiting wall at Pomanjou, Angers, France. (Photo courtesy of Michel de la Sayette).


mechanical pruning timings could provide different benefits. Mechanical pruning in winter, could be used in moderate-growing orchards, with the aim of shaping trees for the following early summer shearing. Hedging at Pink bud is useful to prevent a little bit the regrowth, while early summer (8-12 leaves) to maximize flower differentiation and reduce regrowth. Mid-summer minimizes regrowth, and hedging pre-harvest increases fruit color, while hedging after harvest reduces regrowth and shape trees and the fruit wall for winter pruning. He is currently studying the use of a “Window Pruning Machine”, or WMP.

Robotic Pruning In the USA there are several efforts to utilize robotic technology in orchard tasks to reduce hand labor. In our opinion the current efforts to develop robotic harvesters will require many more years of research and development due to the extreme complexity of identifying the fruit location, detaching the fruit without bruising, and transporting the fruit to the bin without bruising and may not be practical. However we believe that robotic pruning has a greater potential for success for future Tall Spindle orchards for the following reasons: (1) leaves will not interfere since dormant pruning is done in the winter, allowing the tree structure to be highly visible, (2) the sparse nature of newer tree architectures such as the Tall Spindle allows branches to be visible and reachable by a robot, and (3) when branches are cut, they do not have to be handled with care, unlike fruit. The robotic pruning process will include sensing the tree with digital cameras, constructing a virtual three dimensional model of the tree, making pruning decisions based on branch lengths, diameters, and density and finally, directing a robotic arm with cutter blades to cut at the branch locations determined from the previous step. To facilitate such robotic pruning, we believe that future orchards for robotic pruners will basically need simple trees with no permanent branches such as the Tall Spindle or the Super Spindle, and one or two simple pruning rules. The Tall Spindle could be adapted to such robotic system since pruning could be simplified to the single rule of removing any branch that is larger than 2 cm in diameter. Such robotic pruning technology is possible and would be a valuable tool in orchard management. However, it value to apple growers must be evaluated in economic terms. If the technology is costly with only a small gain in efficiency it will not be of any significant value. If the mechanized shearing in the summer results in reduced costs with good fruit quality it will be much cheaper than a robotic pruner machine. The more costly, complicated and risky the technology, the more thorough the evaluation needs to be (O’Rourke, 2013).

Summary NY apple growers are rapidly adopting the Tall Spindle planting systems. This is allowing them to adopt motorized labor positioning platforms to reduce pruning, hand thinning and summer pruning costs. There are several new and innovative “design concept” for a motorized mounted platform mounted over a tractor initially developed in NY State, and more recently also available in Washington State. This type of equipment promises versatility, easy maneuvering in snow, higher efficiency, and a much lower investment. The cheapest mounted platform option with self-steering mechanism without considering tractor cost starts at approx. $12,000 dollars ($12, 300 dollars for a model with a self-leveling feature) with potential use for medium as well as high-density orchards. In the future pruning costs may be reduced even further with mechanized summer side-wall shearing. This technology works best with proper trellis design and with tree planting with GPS guided tractors for straight rows. A long-term mechanization strategy that we envision is to use annual side-wall shearing of Tall Spindle trees for 3 successive years with no other dormant pruning but in the third year to add a dormant winter corrective pruning with a motorized platform to remove limbs that have become large and are causing internal canopy shading and poor fruit quality. Such a pruning strategy with the use of a motorized platform in the winter and a hedger in the summer could reduce total annual pruning costs in


Tall Spindle orchards by about 65% (averaged over 3 years) and result in a narrow, tall fruiting wall (Fig. 7). The modification or adaptation of a Tall Spindle orchard system to a fruit wall concept could be well suited to the majority of NY apple cultivars. With some cultivars the system may involve a 2 stem tree (bi-axis) or a 3-stem tree (tri-axis) to manage vigor (Fig. 8). It could also allow for cheaper production of a similar quantity and quality of fruit (size, color, and eating quality) as from current mature Tall spindle apple orchards. Potentially, the size and color of the fruits could be more uniform as a result of better light penetration and distribution. The water volume needed for good spray coverage for pest control could also be reduced. The uniformity of chemical thinning could also be improved and the fruit wall could be thinned mechanically with the Darwin machine as long as we reduce the potential spreading of fire blight in the orchard during blossom. The fruit wall concept using Tall Spindle trees will increase even more the performance of motorized platforms, future harvest equipment, and worker efficiency. To take full advantage of these advances in mechanization, new orchards should be established at a spacing of 2.5-3ft x 11-12 ft. Trellises should use 12 ft. posts, a correct post spacing of not more than 30 ft., and a minimum of four or five wires.

AcknowledgementsThe authors thank the growers who served as cooperators for the four side-wall shearing studies conducted in NY in 2012.

Literature CitedO’Rourke, Desmond. 2013. Can Technology Save Agriculture? The World Apple Report. Vol. 20(1): 1

and 6.Miranda Sazo, M., A. De Marree and T.L. Robinson. 2010. The Platform Factor – Labor Positioning

Machines Producing Good Results for NY Apple Industry. New York Fruit Quarterly. Vol. 18(2):5-9.

6

4

Fig. 7. A fruiting wall of Pink Lady done by Ramon Montserat at IRTA research station in Lleida, Spain.

Fig. 8. A fruit wall of Pink Lady with tri-axis trees at Trento, Italy. (Photo courtesy of Alberto Dorigoni).


NUMBER 16

Harvest Mechanization: Challenges and Outlook

Terence Robinson1, Mario Miranda2 and Paul Wafler3

1Dept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 144562Cornell Cooperative Extension, Lake Ontario Fruit Team, Newark, NY

3Wafler Farms, Wolcott, NY

Harvest labor represents the largest annual cost of growing apples and accounts for about half the labor hours in an apple orchard. Goals to significantly reduce the costs of growing apples need to first focus on reducing the costs of harvest. This has been a goal of apple researchers and engineers for about 40 years.

History of Mechanical Harvesting of Apple In the early 1970’s there was concern over the availability of labor and there was a strong demand for mechanical harvest research on apples. The harvest of other crops had been mechanized but apple was still harvested by hand. The initial flurry of research resulted in mass removal trunk shaking machines, which detached the apples by applying a centrifugal force to the trunk, which detached the apples, which then fell onto a catching frame and were collected and transported to a bin with conveyor belts. This technology resulted in significant adoption of mechanical shake and catch harvesters in the largely processing growing regions of Western NY, Pennsylvania and Michigan. However, fruit bruising was substantial. Subsequent research dealt with modifying the catching surfaces and the conveying systems to reduce bruising, but the velocities imparted to the fruits in the shaking process still resulted in significant damage. A significant advance was made at Cornell University in the early 1980’s, which invented the impact trunk shake and the Y-shaped apple canopy in an effort to design the tree for the machine. The impact trunk shaker imparted much less energy to the fruits than the centrifugal shakers. With this system the tree moved rapidly away from the fruit, snapping the stem and the fruit basically fell straight down. The Geneva Y-trellis growing system allowed most of the fruit to borne in a single plane so that there were few fruit to branch impacts as the fruit fell. The best results showed only 10% fruit bruising with this system. However, this technology was never adopted by the apple industry. (More recently the impact shaker technology of Cornell made it way to USDA-Kearneysville and then to Washington State for use as a mass removal strategy for stem-less sweet cherries). By the late 1980’s the interest in mechanical harvest of apples in the US had waned as it appeared there would be an endless supply of migrant Hispanic workers who could harvest the crop relatively cheaply. In addition, apple processors became less willing to accept fruit from mechanical shaker harvesters and by the early 1990’s all of the commercial harvesting machines had been de-commissioned. In Europe a different approach was pursued to reduce harvest labor by developing harvest assist machines. As early as 1980, researchers in the Netherlands had built machines, which used humans to detach the fruit from the tree and then place it on conveyers to transport the fruit to a central mechanical bin filler. These machines were build as either single row or multiple row machines (up to 7 rows at once) using over the row fruit conveyers. Research showed that these harvest assist machines could improve labor efficiency by only 15-20%. This relatively small improvement in labor efficiency was not sufficient to justify the purchase of the machines and few were sold.


However, slowly over the years more and more European growers have purchased these harvest assist machines but they have never been adopted in the US. In the early 2000’s new concerns in the US over the cost of labor revived an interest in mechanical harvest and a new group of young growers and researcher who had not been through the mechanical harvest “war” of the 70’s and 80’s lobbied for significant resources to be used for a new round of harvester research based on robotics. This has resulted in significant developmental efforts over the last 4 years on robotic harvesters and harvest assist machines. The development of the robotic harvester has bee elusive and will take many more years but there have been several harvest assist machines developed and several European models have been sold in the US.

Challenges for Mechanical Harvesting of Apples As a veteran of the apple harvest “war” of the 1980’s, I feel it is important to step back and review the issues with mechanical harvest of apple. There are 4 steps in harvesting an apple: 1. Detachment of the Fruit. The big advances in agricultural mechanization of harvest (grain crop) have come from moving from a hand detachment of each ear of corn and then kernels from the cob to mass removal of corn with combines. This resulted in huge gains in labor efficiency and justified the purchase of expensive machines for harvest. (The benefit/cost ratio was very high.) Likewise the

1

Fig. 2. The Pluck-O-Trac harvest assist machine form the Netherlands which uses

conveyor belts to transport fruit to the bin.

1

Fig. 1. DBR harvest assist machine form Michigan, which uses suction tubes to transport fruit to the bin.


early research on apple focused on mass removal of fruits from the tree (trunk shaking). However unlike grains, fruit bruising is a major problem with apple and has made it almost impossible to consider mass removal techniques for apple. (The best possible is with a Y-trellis using impact shaking technology.) The delicate nature of the apple fruit has required the individual detachment of the fruit from the tree. This process is further complicated by the different detachment issues with each variety (short vs. long stems, detachment of spurs with the fruit, etc.) and with maturity of the fruit. The traditional harvest system using humans uses the fabulous human hand, eye and brain coordination, which has resulted in a very fast individual fruit removal system without bruising. Those who have pushed for investments in a robotic harvester with robotic arms and end effectors (hands) have assumed the issue of fruit detachment without bruising is an easily solvable problem

2

.

2

.

Fig. 3. Oxbow harvest assist machine form Michigan that uses suction to transport fruit to the bin.

Fig. 4. The Wafler-Cornell harvest assist machine form New York that positions the bins close to the pickers and uses humans to fill the bins.


and that computer vision issues of fruit position identification by machines was the major problem. However, veterans of the harvesting “war” warned that this was a naïve view and the detachment issue is the major issue in harvesting apples and may make robotic harvesting impractical. Others have viewed the human hand, eye, and brain systems as the most practical and efficient method of detaching the fruit and have focused their efforts on the subsequent steps in the harvest process. It is my view we should continue to build systems, which use humans to detach the fruit. 2. Conveying of Fruit to the Bin. The traditional human harvest system utilizes a picking bucket with an open able bottom to transport fruit to the bin. This system can have significant bruising if the picker is careless in putting the fruit in the bucket or when transporting to the bin. Good orchard managers have learned how to train and then supervise workers to minimize bruising with this system. However, significant labor inefficiency develops when the worker must climb up and down ladder and then walk to and from the bin. In an effort to improve this labor efficiency, harvest aid machines have been designed. The original Dutch built harvest aid machines used small conveyors to move the fruit to the bin, which have worked well, but bunching of the fruit at the collection point can be a problem. Other European machines (pruning platforms) are fitted with fork lifts on the front and back and bin rollers on the platform to allow pickers on the platform to pick the tops of trees into bins raised up to the deck of the platform and then when full the bins are lowered to the ground behind the machine. With these machines fruits are moved to the bin by human workers but the bin is close by. These platform harvest aid machines allow only the harvest of the top of the tree while the bottom must be harvested separately in the traditional manner. The recent wave of interest in harvest assist machines in the US has stimulated two companies that have developed innovative methods of conveying the fruit to the bin. The DBR machine from Michigan and the Oxbow machine from Washington utilize a suction system to move the fruit from the picker to the central bin filler. Both of these systems attempt to increase the labor efficiency by eliminating climbing up and down ladders by positioning workers on platforms and by eliminating walking to the bin by conveying the fruit in suction tubes. The systems work well and have been shown to have a low amount of bruising but on average slightly more than a well managed hand harvest system. An alternative idea has been developed by Paul Wafler, of Wafler farms (with little bit of support from us a Cornell). In the Wafler-Cornell machine, workers are positioned on a multi-level platform to eliminate the loss in efficiency from climbing up and down ladders but in addition the bins are moved close to the workers to eliminate the loss in efficiency due to walking to and from the bin. In this system the human picker conveys the fruit from the tree to the bin in a picking bucket. This system allows a one pass harvest of both the top and bottom of the tree. 3. Filling the Bin. The traditional human harvest system utilizes a picking bucket with an open able bottom to deposit fruit in the bin. This system can have significant bruising if the picker is careless in emptying the bucket. Good orchard managers have learned how to train and then supervise workers to minimize bruising with this system. When I watch a good picker of McIntosh empty a picking bucket it is a work of art. The original Dutch built harvest aid machines used a rotating bin fillers to deposit the apples in the bin. Several evaluations in Europe showed these bin fillers imparted very little bruising to the fruit even with Golden Delicious but evaluations in the US indicated greater bruising from the bin filler system. This difference in results has been one of the reasons why these machines have more accepted in Europe than in the US. The recently developed harvest assist machines in the US utilize central bin fillers based on a rotating head that indexes up as the bin fills and also that spreads the fruit to the different quadrants of the bin. The systems work well and have been shown to have a low amount of bruising but on average slightly more than a well managed hand harvest system.


The Wafler-Cornell harvest aid machine utilizes the traditional picking bucket to fill the bin and depends on the traditional worker training and supervision programs to eliminate bruising. The efficiencies are gained by the worker only having to turn around to empty his picking bucket. In addition the upper 3 bins of the 5 bins group are angled so that when the picker empties his bucket the floor and side wall of the bin form a V where the apples are deposited which reduces bruising. 4. Bin Handling. The traditional harvest system is based on pre-spreading the bins in the orchard so they are close to the picker and then moving the full bins out with a tractor and forklift. The moving of full bins one at a time is a significant labor and equipment cost. In the last 20 years most growers have tried to gain some efficiency by utilizing self loading bin trailers to work with groups of 5 bins instead of singly. The European and the new US harvest aid systems have little improvement over the single bins system and generally require more labor to handle the bins. These harvest aid machines generally require one worker to load and unload bins. In addition all the pickers on the platform (4-8) must stop picking while the full bin is unloaded and an empty bin is loaded wasting significant time for each bin. The single bin approach then requires a tractor with forks or a self loading bin trailer to move the full bins to the loading area in the orchard. With several of the European machines and the DBR machines, an empty bin trailer pulled behind the machine can be loaded at the end of the row with 5, 8 or 10 bins to allow the machine to work to the end of the row without running out of bins. This works well if the combination of yield X row length does not exceed the carrying capacity of the empty bin trailer. The Wafler-Cornell harvest aid system has a significant advance in bin handling. The machine handles 5 bins at a time and when the bins are full, the machine unloads 5 bins at a time. The machine is supplied by a supply trailer that hold 5 empty bins in reserve. After the supply trailer transfers its 5 bins to the harvest machine, the supply trailer is restocked on the fly by a tractor drawn bin trailer that regularly visits the machine to pre-load the supply trailer with 5 empty bins. The tractor drawn bin trailer also hauls the full bins (in 5 bins increments) back to the loading area. The machine can continue moving while unloading 5 full bins and re-loading 5 empty bins from the supply trailer.

Comparison of Harvest Aid Machines There have been no direct comparisons of the different harvest aid machines under identical conditions, which can guide apple growers to the most practical and cost effective machine. The differences among the machines summarized in Table 1. Some important differences among the machines are: 1. Picking the Whole Tree or Just the Top The pruning platforms (Blosi and Orsi) converted to harvest aid machines only allow picking of the top of the tree while the bottom of the tree is harvested in a separate operation in the traditional manner by pickers on the ground. Other European machines like the Pluck-O-Trac position pickers at multi levels to harvest both the top and the bottom of the tree. The 3 US harvest aid machines position workers on the ground and on multi-level platforms to allow one pass harvesting.

Machine Number of Workers

Bins per Day Acres/ Season Cost of Machine Cost/bin

harvestedPlatforms(Blosi, Orsi) 4 32 31 (tops only) ~$60,000 $3.90DBR 5 40 38 ~$100,000 $5.20Pluck-O-Trac 6 48 46 ~$100,000 $4.30WH-Cornell 8 80 77 ~$30,000 $0.80

Table 1. Preliminary estimates of harvest aid machine performance and cost per bin.


2. Transporting of the Fruit and Filling of the Bins by Humans or Machines. The DBR, Oxbow and several European machines like the Pluck-O-Trac are built around fruit conveyors (suction or belts) and mechanical bin fillers (rotating bins or rotating heads). The Wafler-Cornell machine and the pruning platform machines rely on humans to convey the fruit to the bin and have no mechanical fruit conveyors or bin filler. The Wafler-Cornell machine tilts the bin while it is being filled for less bruising when filling the bottom of the bin.3. Self Propelled or Pulled by a Tractor Almost all of the harvest aid machines are self propelled except the DBR machine from Michigan, which utilizes a tractor to pull the machine.4. Labor Efficiency No comparable labor efficiency measurements have been made with the different machines. Estimates from Europe with conveyor belt and bin filler machines or pruning platform machines indicate only a 15-20% improvement in labor efficiency while recent estimates in the US for the DBR are closer to 30% improvement in labor efficiency. We estimate the Wafler-Cornell Machine improves labor efficiency by 40%.5. Acres harvested by 1 machine Estimates of machine productivity indicate that in a 8 week harvest season with 6 working days per week (48 working days per year) and harvesting 50 bins per acre, the Wafler-Cornell Machine could harvest 77 acres while the Pluck-O-Trac could harvest 46 acres, the DBR machine-38 acres, and the pruning platforms – 31 acres.5. Cost of the Machine Many of the European pruning platforms with no fruit conveyors or bin fillers cost between $50,000-70,000. The more complex machines with fruit conveyors and bin fillers Pluck-O-Trac have a cost ~$100,000 which is the likely cost of the DBR. The Wafler-Cornell machine may cost ~$30,000.6. Cost per Bin The cost of the machine with a 10 year depreciation would give an annual cost of the machine of 10% of its purchase price. Assuming each acre of high density orchard has 50 bins to harvest then a rough estimate of the cost per bin of the DBR machine is $5.30 while the Pluck-O-Trac cost is estimated to be $4.30, the pruning platforms $3.90 and the Wafler-Cornell machine - $0.80. These numbers are a very preliminary estimate and need to be determined more rigorously with side by side infield time trials.

Outlook for Harvest Mechanization We see little possibility of harvest mechanization with robotic machines. Although considerable money has been spent in the last 4 years on this effort, it will require many more years due to the extreme complexity of identifying the fruit location by the machine, detaching the fruit without bruising, and transporting the fruit to the bin and depositing the fruit in the bin without bruising. If such a machine is ever developed it will likely be too expensive and too slow with little or no gain in picking efficiency. We predict the benefit / cost ratio will be negative which will likely raise the cost to harvest a bushel of apples. The picking aid machines like the Wafler-Cornell, the DBR, the Blosi, the Orsi, the Pluck-O-Trac or the Oxbow show much greater promise of being adopted. We expect that over the next 5 years many growers will begin to use one of the various harvest assist machines. Gains in labor efficiency will likely be in the 20-50% range. With this level of modest gains in labor efficiency the benefit / cost ratio of harvest assist platforms will depend on price and the number of acres one machine can harvest in a season.

Matching Orchards with Harvest Assist Machines The best canopies for harvesting with picking aid machines are narrow thin canopies that allow all or almost all of the fruit to be picked from one side. To improve efficiency new orchards should be planted with many rows of the same variety and using crabapple pollinizers.


NUMBER 18

The Impacts of Hail, Frost, Sunburn and Deer

Mike FargioneCCE ENY Horticulture Program, Hudson Valley Lab, Highland, NY 12528

Climate Considerations (after Rosenzweig et al. 2011)1. Some observed climate trends in NY:

a. Annual temperatures have been rising throughout NY State since the start of the 20th century.

b. State average temperatures have increased by approximately 0.6ºF per decade since 1970, with winter warming exceeding 1.1ºF per decade. Summer temperatures have been reported to increase at an average rate of 0.450F each decade from 1970-2008 at monitoring stations in NY’s 3 major apple growing regions.

c. Intense precipitation events (heavy downpours) have increased in recent decades.

2. Some predicted climate trends in NY:

a. Average annual temperatures are projected to increase across New York State by 1.5–3.0ºF in the 2020s, 3.0–5.5ºF in the 2050s, and 4.0–9.0ºF in the 2080s.

b. The state’s growing season could be lengthened by about a month, with summers becoming more intense and winters milder.

c. The total number of hot days in New York State is expected to increase as this century progresses. The frequency and duration of heat waves, defined as three or more consecutive days with maximum temperatures at or above 90ºF, are also expected to increase.

d. Regional precipitation across NY State may increase by approximately 0-5% by the 2020’s, 0-10% by the 2050’s, and 5-15% by the 2080’s. Much of this additional annual participation may occur during the winter months.

e. Although the increase in total annual precipitation is projected to be relatively small, larger increases are projected in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme precipitation events (defined as events with more than 1, 2, or 4 inches of rainfall per day).

Hail1. Hail damage results when spheres or irregular lumps of frozen rain become too heavy to stay

aloft in upper air currents and drop to the earth’s surface.

2. Direct impacts of hail include injury to apple fruit, leaves, shoots, and limbs.

a. Extent of damage depends on the size and firmness of the hail and the duration of the event.

b. Severe damage to vegetative growth may limit current-year tree growth and alter tree structure.


c. Crop damage can vary from negligible to a complete loss. In 2000, hail damage in NY’s Hudson Valley region was estimated to exceed 2 million affected bushels on over 7,000 acres (White and Fargione, 2001).

d. Increases in hail damage can be speculated if predicted increases in extreme precipitation events come to pass.

3. Hail damage results in additional need for pest management expenditures.

a. An application of streptomycin is recommended within 24 hours after hail to reduce the likelihood of the fire blight bacteria colonizing the wounds.

b. An application of a fungicide may be advisable under some circumstances to prevent fungal colonization of wounds, particularly when fruit damage occurs mid-late season and summer fruit rots are a concern.

4. Hail damage complicates crop management and force growers to make difficult decisions about harvesting for fresh utilization, harvesting for juice, or leaving fruit unharvested.

a. The economic decision to harvest should be based on expected receipts from sale of fruit exceed direct expenses for the remainder of the season.

b. Altered practices such as damage assessments, “cleaning-up” a hail-damaged crop by hand thinning, selective harvesting, field sorting and storing and packing hail-damaged fruit increase production costs, and should be considered when making decisions whether to harvest a hail-damaged crop.

c. Optimal decision on what to do with a hail-damaged crop also depends on expected crop prices and marketing alternatives available to individual growers.

5. Severely and widespread damage can interrupt business relationships, markets and may make it difficult to retain well-trained, essential employees.

6. Hail insurance is available and adds another production cost but provides a safety net under farm income so that catastrophic losses do not threaten business survival.

7. Mediation techniques include site selection (avoidance of “hail belts”), dispersal of blocks on multiple farms to reduce risk, hail cannons (?), hail nets.

Frost1. Frost damage occurs when water inside plant cells freezes and causes internal damage and cell

breakage.

2. Direct impacts of frost include injury to apple buds, flowers, fruit, spur and vegetative leaves.

a. Extent of damage depends on site characteristics, air drainage, tree phenological stage, minimum temperatures reached and the duration of the event.

b. Crop damage can vary from negligible to complete loss. Frost-related apple crop losses in NY probably approached 50% of the statewide crop in 2012.

c. Increased probability of frost events can be speculated if predicted milder winters and changes in growing season come to pass.


3. As with hail damage, frost injury complicates crop management and force growers to make decisions about harvesting for fresh utilization, harvesting for juice, or leaving fruit unharvested.

a. Frost injury often occurs early around bloom and complicates cropload management (thinning) decisions.

b. Severe damage with loss of the majority of the crop can allow excessive vegetative growth during that season which must be controlled by restricting fertilizer applications, summer pruning, and possibly application of growth-controlling hormone sprays.

c. Similar issues relating to the need for altered practices such as damage assessments, “cleaning-up” a frost-damaged crop by hand thinning, selective harvesting, field sorting and storing and packing damaged fruit must be considered when deciding to harvest frost-damaged blocks as with a hail-damaged crop.

4. Growers cannot ‘walk away’ from blocks after a lost crop since a minimum of pest management and horticultural practices must be continued to ensure that apple scab, mites, and vertebrate pests (deer and voles) do not reduce future productivity.

5. Similar to the impacts of severe hail, frost may interrupt business relationships and threaten the ability of growers to retain essential employees.

6. Crop insurance is available and adds another production cost but provides a safety net under farm income so that catastrophic losses do not threaten business survival.

7. Mediation techniques include site selection, habitat manipulation (such as removal of barriers to airflow), orchard heaters, overhead and under-tree irrigation, mechanical air movement using wind machines, helicopters, and cold air drains (fans).

Sunburn3. Sunburn results from excessive solar radiation that overwhelms natural protection systems of

fruit. Damage can result from both high levels of solar radiation and elevated fruit surface temperatures (Schrader, L.E. 2011).

4. Multiple types of apple fruit sunburn have been described or postulated:

a. Sunburn necrosis results when fruit surface temperatures exceed a critical temperature and heat-induced cell membrane damage and cell death occurs. Sunburn areas become dark brown or black a few days later. Direct sunlight is not needed (Schrader et al. 2001)

b. Sunburn browning can occur when apples reach a critical fruit temperature under high solar radiation. The same fruit surface temperature without solar radiation would not produce damage. Cell membranes remain intact and thermal death of cells does not occur (Schrader et al. 2001).

c. Damage levels of both forms of sunburn probably exist on a continuum with low levels existing that are not visibly detectable but still impact fruit quality.

d. Sunburn damage is more significant on open, high-density plantings on dwarfing rootstocks because their higher percentage of greater-exposed fruit.

e. Field observations suggest that, in addition to direct damage, sunburn may increase the susceptibility of apples to both black rot and bitter rot, thus further reducing grower pack-outs and profitability.


5. Until recently, sunburn has been thought of a problem primarily in hot, dry climates like Australia or Washington State where damage levels are reported to reach or exceed 10% of the crop where no protective measures are used.

6. Sunburn damage levels in NY have not been quantified but now appear to be significant in some areas (particularly the Hudson Valley) and some seasons. The author’s observations suggest damage has increased in recent years, perhaps correlated with our warming climate, and it can be speculated that further increases may be likely with predicted increases in the frequency of heat waves.

7. Suggested mediation techniques include maintaining adequate tree water relations with supplemental irrigation, application of particle films, cooling with overhead irrigation and reduced exposure to sunlight by the use of shade cloth or hail nets.

Deer1. Deer damage to apple trees includes feeding damage and antler rubbing:

a. Feeding involves browsing on buds, leaves, shoots and fruit which can occur in all seasons.

b. Feeding on young trees removes growing points, can reduce or eliminate tree growth, and can result in multi-stem “witches brooms” that destroy leader development and scaffold structure. Such feeding can set back trees from completely filling their allotted space for many years. One study (Curtis and Reickenberg 2005) reported that after 2 years, protected newly-planted trees had 3 times the cross sectional area and were 60% taller than unprotected trees.

c. Browsing of mature bearing trees can reduce yields and is particularly significant for high-density plantings on dwarfing rootstocks. One study (Curtis and Reickenberg ibid.) reported 21-115% reductions in yield per hectare on unprotected versus protected orchards.

d. Browsing has also been suggested to be a means to spread fire blight infections.e. The rubbing off of bark and branch breakage by antlered males during the fall is usually

more limited in frequency than feeding damage, but often results in the need to grow or replace individual trees.

f. Damage levels can vary greatly by location and season. Factors that influence the timing and severity of deer damage include deer population levels, availability of other food sources and the proximity of orchards to deer habitat. Annual deer damage to all tree fruit crops in NY was estimated to be 9.4 million in 1994 (Brown et al. 1994).

2. Damage mitigation techniques include population control, physical barriers, confined dogs, repellents and scare devices.

Literature CitedBrown, T.L., D.J. Decker and P.D. Curtis. 1994. Farmers’ estimates of economic damage from

white-tailed deer in New York State. Cornell Univ., HDRU Series No. 04-3, 44 pp.Curtis, P.D. and R Reickenberg. 2005. Use of confined dogs for reducing deer damage to apple

orchards. Proc. 11th Wildl. Damage Manage. Conf., pp 149-158.Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, A. DeGaetano, M. O’Grady, S. Hassol, P. Grabhorn (Eds.). 2011.

Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adaptation. Technical Report. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany, New York. www.nyserda.ny.gov.


Schrader, L.E. 2011. Scientific basis of a unique formulation for reducing sunburn of fruits. HortScience Vol. 46(1):6-11.

Schrader, L., J. Zhang, and W.K. Duplaga. 2001. Two types of sunburn in apple caused by high surface (peel) temperature. Plant Health Prog. doi. 10.1094.

White, G.B and M.J. Fargione. 2001. Managing risk: what did we learn in 2000 regarding the decision to harvest hail-damaged apples? NY Fruit Quarterly Vol. 9, pp 9-12.

Managing the Risk of Hail and Sunburn

Terence RobinsonDept. of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456

The risk of hail varies widely across the eastern apple production region. In Western NY along the shores of Lake Ontario the risk of hail is low, but in the Hudson Valley in Eastern NY the risk of hail is high. The frequency of hail storms varies widely from year to year and from decade to decade. Nevertheless, it appears that the frequency of hail in low risk areas might be increasing due to climate change but there is no scientific evidence that there is a long term trend.

Crop Insurance to Reduce the Economic Risk of Hail The US apple industry has the benefit of strong government support for crop insurance against hail and other risks with a 60% subsidy of the crop insurance premiums. The program has some deficiencies and the leaders of the apple industry continue to work with the risk management agency to improve the crop insurance program. Nevertheless, the program has been a great tool to limit catastrophic loses and bankruptcy due to hail. Surprisingly not all growers take advantage of the crop insurance program citing problems they had in the past to collect when they had damage. In 2012 NY State experienced catastrophic spring frosts that reduced the states crop to slightly less than 50%. Estimates of growers who purchased hail insurance were only about 50%. Those who had insurance were able to collect about $10/bushel on fresh fruit, which helped avoid having to close their business. With hail damage the program works even more favorably for the grower. With a total crop loss due to hail the grower can collect the $10/bushel payout from the insurance policy but then can sell the hail damaged fruit for processing or juice for potentially another $5/bushel. An associated problem with crop loss due to frost or hail is the loss of the market that year. Erratic supply to major markets builds a negative reputation that all marketers seek to avoid. Thus, being able to prevent crop loss due to hail or sunburn (or other risks) is an important management strategy. Similarly the cost of empty expensive storage building and idle packing equipment hurts growers or packing/sales companies who store and pack the fruit. The losses in 2012 in NY and Michigan were very large for the growers but also for the associated packing and storage businesses. With the rather large investments tied up in new high-density orchards it is an essential business practice to purchase crop insurance. We believe that every grower should invest in crop insurance to manage risk. The cost of the premium should be considered an essential business expense for precision orchard management.

The Risk of Sunburn A second risk with several varieties is sunburn damage. Historically sunburn has been a minor


problem for apple growers in the East. However, it seems to be a growing problem with hotter summers especially in the Hudson Valley of NY State. In several years in the last 10 years high temperatures in late August have resulted in significant sunburn damage on Honeycrisp, Mac, Cortland and other varieties. Sunburn is caused by solar heating of the fruit skin to damaging temperatures. Measurements of fruit skin temperature often show 15-20°F greater temperature than the air temperature on hot days with intense solar radiation. In practice when air temperature exceeds 95°F and there is high sunlight fruits can be damaged. Control measures against sunburn include over-tree cooling with water from microsprinklers or foliar spray products which coat the fruit to reduce heat load. With mircosprinklers, automatic control systems are used to turn on the system and cool the fruit any time air temperature exceeds 95°F. These measures are common in Western US growing areas but untested and unknown in Eastern growing areas. In the west high temperatures are always accompanied by intense solar radiation but in the east sometimes high temperatures are accompanied by humid hazy sky conditions, which don’t result in damaging fruit skin temperatures. To implement over-tree cooling in the east may need automatic controls based on both temperature and light intensity.

The Economic Risk with High Value Varieties The loss or damage of a high value variety like Honeycrisp or some of the new club varieties is not fully compensated by crop insurance. In the case of Honeycrisp where growers regularly expect $30/bushel farm gate value, the $10/bushel return from crop insurance and $5/bushel residual juice value only partially compensates for the loss due to frost, hail or other perils. In addition with a new club varieties, the marketers plan a marketing program for a given volume of crop to introduce the variety to the market. However if that volume of fruit is lost due to frost or hail, the entire club marketing program is jeopardized. In the case of a high priced variety or a new club variety investing in protection against frost, hail or sunburn with frost protection and hail nets is probably justified.

Hail Nets Hail nets are not common in the US (due to our strong crop insurance program) but in many other parts of the world they are very common. In some places growers receive incentives to put up hail nets and in other areas they is no government support but growers buy them anyway to control the risk of hail. In addition to reducing the economic risk of hail damage, hail nets have both positive and negative effects on the crop. On the positive side hail nets dramatically reduce the risk of sunburn since damaging light intensity is reduced 15-20%. In addition hail nets reduce plant transpiration thus reducing water stress and reduce soil heating which improves the performance of M.9 in stressful climates. However, hail nets reduce fruit color which can have large negative economic consequences. There are several types of hail nets used around the world. In Australia and South Africa, where snow is not common, “flat roof” designs are more common in which sections of hail net are connected to form large areas of net which are stretched flat over the orchard. In Europe, and Mexico the “gabled roof” designs are more common where long strips of hail net are spread down both sides of the row and connected with clips at the peak of the gable over the tree row and connected with plastic clips in the valley of the gable between rows (Figs. 1-4). The nets must be taken down or “hibernated” for the winter before snowfall. The best hail net design in my opinion is the gabled design where the hail net is left up year round but is “hibernated” by disconnecting the plastic clips in the valley of the gable between the rows and bunching the nets together, from both sides of the row, in a long coil at the peak of the gable.


2

3

2

Fig. 1. High-density apple orchard covered with black hail net using the gable system.

Fig. 2. High-density apple orchard covered with black hail net using the gable system showing the valley of the gable and the clips holding the nets from adjacent rows.

Fig. 3. Hibernated hail net during the winter showing cables forming the gable shape.

Managing nets requires significant labor to spread them out in the spring soon after bloom and then close them up (hibernate) immediately after harvest before the first snow. For October varieties when the risk of hail is very low in NY, the nets should be closed before harvest to avoid snow damage. There are several colors of hail nets with slightly different effects on the plant and the shade level. The most common color is black and last the longest but it has the most negative effect on fruit color. White nets give slightly less shading and less reduction in fruit color but are more expensive and deteriorate sooner with UV light damage (Fig. 5). The life expectancy of black nets is 15 years and 8 years for white nets.

Costs and Potential Returns from Hail Nets Installing hail nets requires taller trellis posts which are large expense if done on established orchards but is only a small additional expense if done when the orchard is planted. When installed on new plantings the hail net support post also serve as the trellis posts for the Tall Spindle orchard. For a new planting hail nets, posts, cables and installation was estimated in Spain at ~$7,500/acre. If the posts and cable system are already part of the trellis, the cost to erect hail nets is about $3,500 per acre. With the expected lifespan of the hail nets the annual cost of a black net is about $840/acre and for white nets about $980/acre. In the Spanish study they concluded that the relatively low cost of hail insurance compared to the high cost of the hail nets does not justify the investment in hail nets with traditional varieties like Gala. Although sunburn was reduced in their hot climate it was


not enough to pay for the hail nets compared to the low cost of insurance. The same would likely be true in the Northeast with our traditional varieties of McIntosh, Empire, Delicious and Cortland. However with high priced varieties the loss in income when the crop is lost due to hail can be very high and the payout from insurance only partially compensates the loss. With a yield of 1000 bushels/acre of Honeycrisp and a price of $30/bushel the crop value is $30,000/acre but the maximum payout from insurance (including the salvage value for juice) would be only $15,000/acre resulting in a net loss of $15,000 per acre. With the cost of the net structure estimated at ~$7,500 the cost of the hail net would be recouped in only one year of crop loss due to hail. In addition the reduction in sunburn on Honeycrisp (not yet measured in NY) would be accrued every year.

Summary The rather large investments tied up in new high-density orchards make it is an essential business practice to purchase crop insurance. We believe that every grower should invest in crop insurance to manage risk. For most varieties no additional investment in hail nets is warranted from the economic perspective of the farmer. However, with high priced varieties

Fig. 4 High-density pear orchard covered with black hail net using the gable system.

3

4

Fig. 5. High-density pear orchard covered with white hail net using the

gable system.

the additional lost revenue not compensated by crop insurance following a hail storm does justify investment in hail nets to protect the crop from hail and reduce sunburn.


Frost Protection Methods

Mario Miranda Sazo1 and Terence L. Robinson2

1Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Newark, NY2Department of Horticulture, NYSAES, Cornell University, Geneva, NY

Last year in Western NY site played a critical role in surviving the frost. Frost damage was more severe in low-lying areas where cold air settled, and in areas where wind and air movement were blocked by obstruction such as trees, hills, fences, and/or buildings. Locating and orienting tree rows to facilitate airflow can reduce the settling of cold air. For many years we have mentioned that the Western NY fruit region is one of the safest and most reliable places on the world for fruit production without the need for wind machines. However with the general warming of the climate, we are now questioning if the frost protection effect of Lake Ontario will be good enough in the future. If early springs and frost events become more common we should start planning for effective use of technologies before, during, or after a frost event.

The Use of Promalin After a Frost Event to Mitigate Frost Damage We conducted an experiment in the spring of 2012 at Geneva, NY to evaluate the use of Promalin after a frost event to mitigate frost damage to buds or flowers. The experiment was done in a 12 year old orchard of Gala/M.9, Jonagold/M.9 and Gingergold/M.9. Treatments were: (1) Untreated control, and (2) Promalin applied two times at 2 pt/100 gal (1st treatment applied on April 22 after frost on April 18 of 30 degrees, and 2nd treatment applied on May 1 after frost on April 28=27 degrees, April 29=31 degrees and April 30=29 degrees). Results: Applications of Promalin after frosts at pink and at full bloom significantly improved fruit number per tree of Gingergold and Jonagold and resulted in a non-significant increase with Gala. Yields of Gingergold were drastically reduced by the frost to only 50 bushels per acre. Promalin improved yield per acre of Gingergold slightly to 130 bushels per acre (80 bushel per acre increase). This increased crop value by $948/acre more than offsetting the cost of the Promalin spray. Yields of Gala were reduced to about half the normal level by the frost to only 561 bushels per acre. Promalin improved yield per acre of Gala slightly to 694 bushels per acre (133 bushel per acre increase). This increased crop value by $335/acre more than offsetting the cost of the Promalin spray. Yields of Jonagold were reduced by the frost to only 150 bushels per acre. Promalin improved yield per acre of Jonagold dramatically to 550 bushels per acre (400 bushel per acre increase). This increased crop value by $4897/acre more than offsetting the cost of the Promalin spray. There was no significant effect of Promalin sprays on fruit size.The results of this study support the use of Promalin immediately after spring frost at pink or full bloom to mitigate frost damage to flowers allowing more fruit to set.


NUMBER 20

Table 1. Effect of Promalin on Fruit Set, Yield, Fruit Size and Crop Value of 3 Apple Varieties at Geneva, NY in 2012.

Variety TreatmentFruit Set

(fruits/100 clusters)

Fruit Number per Tree

Fruit Size (g)

Yield (bu/acre)

Crop Value

($/acre)

Average of 3 Varieties

Untreated Control 22.6 66.6 202 289 3000Promalin (2pts) 40.1 99.8 196 503 5584LSD P≤0.05 9.7 20.4 16 80 804Significance * * NS * *

Gingergold Untreated Control 8.5 9 207 50 967Promalin (2pts) 25.4 23.6 198 141 1944LSD P≤0.05 23 9.3 39 60 825Significance NS * NS * *

Gala Untreated Control 39.9 167.6 133 664 5047Promalin (2pts) 49.4 200.3 132 797 5988LSD P≤0.05 20 73.8 13 254 1541Significance NS NS NS NS NS

Jonagold Untreated Control 18.3 19.8 268 148 2238Promalin (2pts) 45.6 70.8 257 550 8456LSD P≤0.05 22 20.1 45 160 2418Significance * * NS * *

The Effectiveness of Wind Machines in Western NY in 2012 On July 19 and 20, 2012, we evaluated the number of fruits per tree on several apple orchards where a new wind machine was installed last spring. A section of fifteen trees was evaluated located at 135feet, 235feet, 335feet, 435feet, 535feet, 635feet, and 735 feet from a wind machine (Table 1).


Table 2. Average number of apples per tree in a row located 135feet to 735feet from a wind machine installed in Wayne County (sites 1-5) and Niagara County (site 6).

Average Number of Apples Counted per Tree from a Wind Machine

Wind Machine 135’ 235’ 335’ 435’ 535’ 635’ 735’Site 1HoneycrispMcIntoshSweeTango

29.4533.3314.53

6.3338.869.2

7.2636.934

6.2625.065.46

4.8178.53

4.66.464.46

4.63.4613.2

Site 2GalaFujiMcIntosh

12.530.330.53

5.9300.33

1.9300.13

1.8600

0.5300

0.8600

Site 3EmpireMacounSweeTango

1.337.222.53

0.0610.69.66

13.667.46 8.6

Site 4HoneycrispZestar

6.6620.33

35.6

1.062.53

2.660.6

Site 5GalaEmpireAceyMac

128.3320.33242

131.1362150

114.6662.3355

13652.6699

784283

10018.66

Site 6SweeTango 84.71 82 67.14 41.14

The Effectiveness of Helicopters in Eastern NY in 2012 Helicopters were very effective in the Hudson valley last year. Helicopters were able to reach higher (than a wind machine), made height adjustments, and found warmer air, which was pushed down and circulated, through the orchard floor. It was a successful but expensive frost protection method. This year we learned that (1) site selection for future plantings is very important, (2) most of the wind machines already installed worked, (3) helicopters worked better than wind machines, and (4) frost protection methods may become a necessity in WNY.


What’s Best for YOU?System Estimated cost/acre Pros Cons Points to considerWind machines

$35,000-37,000 dollars

Very popular in Washington orchards and v i n e y a r d s , Significant energy savings compared to other systems, Easy to manage

Does not produce heat; simply transfers warm air, Noisy, Will only work during inversion type frosts

System pulls warm air from above and circulates through orchard, Increases temperature by about half the difference between warm air above and cool air below (in other words, if it is a very cold night, a wind machine might not make a difference), Standard use for a vertical machine requires 125-160 horsepower to protect 10-12 acres.

Helicopters Review following narrative provided by grower Russell Bartolotta, Klein’s Kill Fruit Farm Corp., Germantown, NY

Can make height adjustments and easily move to different places within the orchard

High operation costs often limit it to emergencies

One way they are used is to place t h e r m a t i c a l l y controlled lights in the orchard, which go off when the temperature falls to a certain level and activate the helicopter to warm that area.


My Experience With the Use of Helicopters

Russell Bartolotta Klein’s Kill Fruit Farm Corp.

Germantown, NY

My name is Russ B. from KKFF in Germantown, NY. My farm consists of Apples, Pears, Peaches and Plums. We have 400 Acres of Cultivation for the Wholesale Mkt. In the last 30 years, we have used helicopters about 7 times. We are lucky to fly only one night usually but had to fly two consecutive nights on April 29th and 30th. The Helicopters used were Bell 407GX’s and R-22’s. This past season we used 5 Helicopters, some trees were at the last of full bloom but most were in petal stage. The first thing you would do is contact the local authorities and neighbors so they are aware of the flying of helicopters near their homes. The information we used to make a decision for using helicopters was from the national weather service, local newscasts and a few of the computer sites that zero in on our farm proximity. When they said the wind was going to die down to nothing and predicting freezing temperatures, we know that in the low spots we would have had damage, so we had to do something. The Weather forecasts stated that there would be good inversions on both nights. The night of April 29th, there was an inversion about 50-100ft from the ground. There was warm air from 38-42 degrees that the helicopters brought from the air down to the surface. We started flying around 5:30 am till about a half an hour past sun-rise at 7:00am. That night we were very successful because the cold weather didn’t last for long. The temperatures around 5:30am started to dip to 28-29 degrees and were sinking. The next night April 30th into May 1st was the colder night. The Inversion that night, Warm air was about 200-300ft from the ground but we only could raise the temperatures 5-7 degrees that night because the air was much colder. It was harder to keep the temperatures warmer on this night of course. The first helicopter went up at 2:00am and flew till 7:00am. The rest of the four helicopters went in the air at 3:30am and flew to 7:00am. That night Farms that didn’t get helicopters in the lowest spots came in at around 21-22 degrees and all we have to do is raise the temperatures around 5-6 degrees. Going too early at 32-33 degrees, you may waste the warm air at that temperature when you really need to go in the air when it is around 28-29 degrees. If you go into the air to early you may lose that warm air. U may need to have the helicopters go re-fuel at the most critical time in the night, thus leaving you wide open for falling temperatures while the helicopters are re-fueling. Coordination is very critical in the entire process. We had 5 different Helicopters on 5 different farms that evening. I had the main walkie talkie and we had cell phones with scouts in every block where we were flying. Thermometers in every block of course were also used. Coordination with the scouts in the different blocks was key to have temperature readings. Then my coordination with the helicopters then was important to find the warm air and bring the air to the surface. We used smudge pots to line the blocks so the helicopters had a boundary to follow so they could stay in that area. Helicopters’ arriving before dark is a good tool for the pilots to get a good feel of the farm and high trees and power lines. We happened to have 5 Helicopters in two nights, and 4 of them were Bell 407 GX (8 passenger helicopters) and (1) R-22. We have never used the large Bell Helicopters before but we were under the gun and many of the R-22’s are no longer in service and many of the owners have gone out of business as well. One thing positive that I can say about the Bell 407 GX is the tip speed (Propeller speed) of the helicopter produces probably 8-10 times more air to the surface than the R-22’s but the cost is 3 ½ times more! The Bell 407GX can comfortably do 50 acres where the R-22 can only do about 15

NUMBER 20 DELETE????

tlr1

Sticky Note

Make this just a major heading (section) of Marios article, not a separate paper


NUMBER 20 DELETE????Acres. In 2010 the other recent year I had used (7) R-22/R-44 helicopters. My 2010 crop ended up being down 29% from my record 2009 crop but roughly about 15% down from a normal crop. The total cost of the helicopters and the labor I had these nights was roughly $22,000 in 2010. That was the most we have spent on helicopters since we started using them in the last 30 years until this current year 2012. I spent $72,000 this year. The reason why it was so high was the cost of the 4 Bell 407GX, but in retrospect this probably saved my crop and also the cost was higher due to flying two nights instead of one. If I had to put an estimate on things we are about 70% of a normal crop currently. My peach and nectarine crop is one of the biggest I have had in recent memory and I would say it is 100% of a crop. I only could fly a helicopter on two Pear orchards because it was mixed in with the Apples but the other Pear Orchards where I did not fly has nothing. This is the only time in the 30-year history that we had to fly helicopters two nights in a row. In all the years of dealing with frost control, I wouldn’t even consider using helicopters unless it was late to full bloom or up to apple size of 25mm in size. We have used it in tight cluster and pink before and the apples tend to be heartier at that stage on average but temperatures around the state we have never had 18-22 degrees and we did not have that on our farm. The most susceptible stage is definitely late full bloom to 20mm because the apples are full of water. I feel that my site will not take on full damage unless we receive a full freeze warning. Some Farms would have cold on nights that we wouldn’t have because of our current site. In my opinion on all out Freeze temperatures Helicopters cover more ground than wind machines would. Wind Machines are good for low spots that tends to get cold even when there isn’t freeze warnings. Surveying my farms now, I would say that of the 70% of the Apple Crop I have, there is little sign of Frost Ring Damage on those apples. I either have good crops in spots or little or no fruit in the orchards that are bad. Of the 30% I lost there are very few apples hanging on the trees. Also in regards to Helicopters, Wind Machines and reform of Crop Insurance. As of right now the Government is paying 60% of the premium for our Industry and the Farmers pay 40% of the premium. There is a need for overall reform to the Crop Insurance because of the language of the deductibles before you get paid and other items that need to be addressed but Crop Insurance is still necessary in this day in age because the cost is so high to run a farm if you have a crop or not. You never make money on Insurance because of the expenses on the farm but it keeps you from going more into debt when you don’t have a crop for that year. What also needs to be accounted for are the Farmers that are trying to save their crop by trying to use Wind Machines and or Helicopters, etc. There should be a credit for those farmers going above and beyond to try to save their crop from disaster. We are like double insuring ourselves for frost damage. Whoever is on the advisory board, I would recommend putting this language in the Crop Insurance policies. Whenever the Insurance Company doesn’t have to go out and pay a farm for saving their crop, they have received the premium without downside to them. We could let our crop go, but we paid out the funds to try to save our crop in the meantime. For Example: If you have certain alarms in your own home you receive an insurance credit. This should be the same way with Crop Insurance on your farm. Also in this day in age to put $ in a farm bill to ask for disaster payments for specialty crops such as Apples, probably will not be approved again, because there are more important items to be addressed, so this insurance reform is very important for the growers. I would like to open for any questions you have and I will try the best to answer them.


Precision Application of Pesticides in Orchards

Andrew Landers and Jordi Llorens CalverasCornell University, NYSAES, Geneva, NY 14456, USA

AbstractIn many orchards, canopy sprayers frequently give rise to concern as they create drift which reduces deposition efficiency, affects off-target crops and creates environmental pollution and operator contamination. This paper details the progress to date in the development of liquid and airflow adjustment as a means to improve deposition and reduce drift. Novel methods have been deployed in an attempt to control the airflow resulting in up to 75% drift reduction. Liquid flow maybe adjusted according to canopy volume and drift maybe reduced by using air induction nozzles. Methods such as adjustable fan speed, air restriction at the air intake and outlet have proven to be very successful. Two novel airflow systems using louvres have been developed to adjust air output to ensure that spray only fills the target row and doesn’t blow through the canopy creating off-target drift. As drift is reduced so deposition is improved. GPS can be used to determine the location of the sprayer within the field in relation to known environmental hazards such as water courses, susceptible crops and neighbours, thus allowing air and liquid flow to be adjusted. GPS, in conjunction with a datalogger and flowmeters fitted each side of the sprayer allow recording of the amount of spray being applied, very useful for management purposes and traceability.

IntroductionThe application of pesticides has been of concern for many years, particularly methods of reducing drift and improving deposition. There are many inter-related factors which affect spray application depending upon the target, the efficacy of the spray, the attitude of the operator, the standard of management, the weather etc. The operation of the canopy sprayer often leaves much to be desired in orchards. Most growers know that there are three factors which affect application rate: forward speed, nozzle size and system pressure but often overlook the factors which help get the spray onto the target: airflow, liquid flow, forward speed and canopy structure. Adjusting both airflow and liquid flow to match the growing canopy as the season progresses is the key. Knowing how much spray has been applied is very useful for farm management purposes, to ensure every row has been sprayed and also for traceability to ensure no rows are double-dosed.

Liquid flow The selection of the correct nozzles to ensure good coverage is essential for precision spraying if sprays are to provide effective treatment of pests and diseases. Modern nozzle catalogues contain information on spray quality to allow growers to select the correct nozzles to match label recommendations on spray quality. Air induction nozzles reduce drift considerably and provided good coverage in the canopy, (Landers and Schupp 2001). Grower experiences of air induction (a.i.) nozzles, on both herbicide sprayers (flat fan a.i) and canopy sprayers (hollow cone a.i) confirm our trials.

Nozzle orientation, an inexpensive and simple adjustment to canopy sprayers, has proven a successful method of determining spray plume direction and thus applying sprays precisely to the canopy. Great success has been had using patternators for both research purposes and in extension activities. A simple design for on-farm construction has been developed at Cornell University.


Global Positioning Systems (GPS), in conjunction with a datalogger and flowmeters fitted each side of the canopy sprayer allows recording of the amount of spray being applied. A three year trial, (Landers and Larzelere, 2012) has shown how useful this system is for orchard management purposes and traceability. The system allows the grower to identify pesticide use, simplify record-keeping and provide solid evidence for traceability.

Current research at Cornell University is to develop methods to allow adjustment of liquid flow for an orchard sprayer (Llorens and Landers, 2013). This adjustment will be made using the information provided by one sensing system for scanning the vegetation comprising a multiple array of ultrasonic sensors. In general this project aims to follow the principles of variable rate technology (VRT). We have fitted an air-assisted sprayer, John Bean Redline 5284781 Tower sprayer (Durand Wayland, La Grange, GA, USA) with a Lechler VarioSelect® system for proportional liquid application. The mounted system is based on thirteen blocks (at five different heights or manifolds) each with space for four nozzles. Every manifold and combination of nozzle is activated in groups by a pneumatic system mounted on the sprayer. These nozzles can be operated individually or in groups.

Airflow adjustment in orchard sprayingMany canopy sprayers use some form of air assistance from fans which are frequently too large for modern, well-pruned training systems; the large diameter fan creates too much air for the target canopy. Ideally air volume should match the canopy volume. Air speed and volume need to be adjustable according to the growth stage of the canopy. There are a number of simple methods a grower can adopt to do this, such as changing PTO speed, fitting an air limiting system to the air intake (the ubiquitous Cornell doughnut) or outlet (the Cornell louvre) or using a variable speed hydraulic motor drive to the fan. Trials with various types of orchard sprayer have been conducted at Cornell University for the past decade, to study how changes in fan speed affect air speed, volume and direction (Landers 2011).

Figure 1. Drift reduction with adjusted louvre in a full tree canopy.


Case study #1 Trials with orchard sprayers at Cornell University, Landers and Farooq (2004) showed that adjusting airspeed can improve deposition considerably. Field trials were conducted using a sprayer operating at two fan speeds, 2076 rpm (540 rpm PTO) and a 25% reduction in speed at 1557 rpm (405 rpm PTO). Reducing fan speed by 25% with a slower PTO speed resulted in 75% less drift. Some manufacturers adjust the airflow by changing fan blade pitch or altering hydraulic or electricity flow to multi-head fan sprayers.

Case study #2Airflow is an extremely important part of the application process and excessive use is responsible for drift. Deposition and drift were examined in an apple orchard using a Rears tower air blast sprayer (Rears Manufacturing Co. Eugene, OR, USA) fitted with adjustable louvres to control the air outlet (Landers and Muise 2010). The trial was conducted in an orchard belonging to a cooperating grower, Kast Farms, Albion, NY. In Treatment 1 we adjusted the louvres to keep the spray plume within the canopy; spray was applied from one side of the canopy only. The test block comprised of var. Fortune apple trees in rows averaging 2.43m apart. The trunks were spaced 1.5m apart within each row and averaged 3.28m in height. The sprayer was operated at an application rate of 561 L ha-1 and traveled at a forward speed of 7.2kmh-1.

Case study #3Single-sided spraying in orchard allows the tractor, sprayer and operator to cover twice the orchard area, thus improving timeliness and reducing costs considerably.A sprayer from Vine Tech Equipment, Prosser, WA based upon the Croplands Quantum Mist® multi-head sprayer (Croplands, Adelaide, AUS) was used during a season-long trial at Lamont Fruit Farm Inc., Albion, NY. The sprayer utilized six Sardi® fans (three on each side). Deposition trials were conducted along a single row at 7.2km/h in an apple orchard during 2008. The sprayer was set to apply 650 L/ha, airflow was adjusted to keep the spray plume within the narrow canopy. The variety was Acey Mac on a super spindle trellis. Alternate rows (every other row) were sprayed, the trees receiving spray from one side only, all season-long.

Table1. Deposition differences within the single-sided spraying in apple orchard.Location average difference

Top Left to right -34%

Middle Left to right -24%

Bottom Left to right -21%

Centre Left center to right center -10%

While there were reductions in spray deposition on the side opposite of the sprayer during single-sided spraying, fruit quality was unaffected. Disease and insect inspections throughout the season showed no difference between every row and alternate spraying. Pack-out quality as remained high since 2008.

DiscussionPrecision application of pesticides in orchards provides the grower with better crop protection, less environmental pollution and better use of resources. Field trials conducted at Cornell University show that the use of mechanical and electrical techniques can significantly improve deposition and reduce drift.


Airflow adjustment on orchard sprayers improves deposition and reduces drift significantly in early and mid season canopies, when there is often minimum canopy to intercept the spray cloud. In full canopy the difference is less as the crop canopy is greatest and can intercept more spray. Adjustment of air volume, air direction and air speed are critical if the spray is to be deposited in the canopy and not drift across to other rows. Traditional airblast sprayers produce too much air for modern canopies which are narrow and less dense.

ConclusionsAttention to detail allows the operator to make adjustments to the sprayer. Changing airflow direction, speed and volume not only improves deposition but reduces drift. Novel techniques such as adjustable louvres allow air adjustment on the move and matches air flow to the changing canopy. Alternate row spraying throughout the season with a multi-fan sprayer within modern trellis canopies proves to be an acceptable practice providing the sprayer is correctly adjusted. Such a technique offers savings in time, labor and fuel or alternatively doubles the output of the sprayer. The narrow canopy, provided by spindle plantings is a necessity to ensure good penetration. As with all farm operations, spraying requires thorough preparation, attention to detail, and constant vigilance if mistakes are to be avoided and an efficient application is to be made.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to acknowledge technical assistance from Brad Muise and Bill Larzelere and the kind assistance of the co-operating growers, Gary Davey of Kast Farms, Albion, and Rod Farrow, Lamont Fruit Farms, Lyndonville, NY. Funding for the projects described in this paper was provided by the Viticulture Consortium-East, The New York Apple Research and Development Program.

References

Llorens, J. and Landers, A. (2013). Precision spraying: using fine tuning and electronics. In Proc. Empire State Producers Expo and Becker Forum. Geneva: Cornell University

Landers, A.J. and Larzelere, W. (2012) The development of a spray monitoring system as an aid to orchard management and traceability. NY Fruit Quarterly Vol. 20 (4) Winter pp. 21-24.

Landers, A.J. (2011). Improving spray deposition and reducing drift – airflow adjustment is the answer. NY Fruit Quarterly, Vol 19 (4) Winter. pp. 3-6.

Landers, A.J. and Muise, B. 2010. The development of an automatic canopy sprayer for fruit crops. In: Aspects of Applied Biology 99. International advances in pesticide application. pp. 29-34 .

Agnello, A., Landers, A.J. (2006). Current progress in the development of a fixed spray pesticide application system for high-density apple plantings. NY Fruit Quarterly Vol. 14 No. 4 Winter. pp. 22-26.

Landers, A.J. and Farooq M. (2004) Reducing spray drift from orchards – a successful case study. NY Fruit Quarterly 12 (3) Autumn pp. 23-26.

Landers, A.J. and Schupp, J.R (2001) Improving deposition and reducing drift in orchards. NY Fruit Quarterly. Vol.9 (1). pp. 3-6.


NUMBER 23


NUMBER 23Precision Insect Management

Using Developmental Model Predictions

Arthur Agnello and Harvey ReissigDept. of Entomology

Cornell University, NYS Agric. Expt. Sta., Geneva, NY 14456

Apple growers in the Eastern US have faced challenges in managing the complex of insects and diseases of apples using conventional pesticides during the last decade because of increasing pesticide regulatory restrictions, public concerns about food safety and environmental quality, and the development of resistance to older materials by key insect and disease pests. Growers are attempting to turn to newer reduced-risk pesticides, but these are more expensive and require more precise timing and use patterns because of their different modes of action.

In addressing the need for greater precision in the control of insect pests, it is instructive to examine the current state of implemention of the available technology in the light of new methods that could potentially improve on this facet of orchard management. In general terms, insect pest management currently follows a traditional process grounded in a well-established series of procedures. Growers first of all know what insect problems they have had in the past, and they have an idea of what they’ll have to manage in the current season. These expectations are based on: - Field history, focusing on specific varieties or sites where problems occur - Normal pest problems: - key pests; e.g., plum curculio (PC), apple maggot (AM), codling moth (CM), oriental fruit moth (OFM), obliquebanded leafroller (OBLR) - possible secondary pests (e.g., mites, aphids, scales) - transient or cyclic species (e.g., potato leafhopper, native stink bugs, Japanese beetle)


- New pests or potential threats, such as: - Brown marmorated stink bug - Spotted wing Drosophila - other invasives or anomalies (e.g., true armyworm was a surprise pest in 2012)The normal method of making control decisions is characterized by: - A fundamental reliance on the calendar and tree/fruit stage; i.e., a schedule - Current actual pest status (both in terms of presence and level of abundance) based on orchard evidence such as through traps, monitoring, scouting and inspection - Integration of the optimal management decision with normal operations

Some factors to keep in mind when asking how we can improve the precision of this process: - Key pests are the most predictable, and are the drivers of the management program; for most of these species, we need to know: - precisely when they show up - when they reach a certain stage (that is vulnerable to control) - when they start posing a threat to the crop (either through their behavior or abundance) - when they stop being a threatThe method we are proposing for improving efficiency of this process using temperature-based predictions: - Focuses on the key pests (PC, CM, OFM, OBLR, AM) - Retains a fundamental reliance on the calendar and tree/fruit stage - Estimates current actual pest status (more in terms of their potential presence than their level of abundance) based on orchard evidence such as traps and monitoring - Advises on the integration of the optimal management decision with normal operations For secondary pests, flare-ups, and incidental infestations, diligent efforts would still be required to keep informed of the need for rescue treatments.

During the last several years, an interdisciplinary group of researchers at Cornell University has developed a web-based, “Real-Time” Apple IPM Decision Support System that can deliver relevant, current information on weather data and pest populations to facilitate grower pest management decisions throughout the growing season. This system tracks seasonal development of key insect pests and diseases using Degree Day and Infection Risk models. The models indicate pest status, pest management advice and sampling options, and are linked to an interactive system that helps growers choose appropriate materials when pesticide use is recommended.

Insect pest developmental stages are calculated from Degree Day (DD) accumulations at NEWA (the NYS IPM Network for Environment and Weather Applications) and National Weather Service airport weather stations throughout the state. The insect pests addressed by this website are: apple maggot, oriental fruit moth, codling moth, plum curculio, obliquebanded leafroller, and spotted tentiform leafminer. Disease predictions are available for apple scab and fire blight, and a summer disease (sooty blotch and flyspeck) development model is due to be made available this summer.

Access to the Apple Insects models is through the “Pest Forecasts” list or the “Apples” link on the NEWA homepage (http://newa.cornell.edu). From the Apples homepage, clicking on the link that says “Apple Insect Phenology Models and IPM Forecasts” brings up a state map showing the available weather stations, plus pull-down menus on one side (Fig. 1). After the user selects a weather station, pest of interest, and the desired end date for weather data accumulation, pest DD models


and historical records are used to calculate: Tree Phenological Stage, Pest Stage(s), Pest Status, and Pest Management Information, all of which appears on a “Results” page (Fig. 2). The phenological stage can be adjusted according to field observations by selecting from a pull-down menu; this will generally change some of text provided in the advice boxes. Hyperlinks on this page can take the user to various other online resources, such as color photos of the bud development stages, NYS IPM

Fig. 1. Home screen for initial selection of pest and weather station of interest.

Fig. 2. Results page showing pest and crop developmental status and management information.


Fact Sheets of the pests in question, and when appropriate, sampling charts for use in conducting field samples of specific pest life stages (e.g., eggs, larvae, mines). When a pesticide spray is recommended, a “Pesticide Information” link in the “Pest Mangement” box takes the user to the Pest Management Education Program’s (PMEP) Tree Fruit IPM home page, where a pesticide decision filter helps users pick an appropriate material to use, based on anticipated pest severity and program type (Fig. 3).

A pesticide search returns a series of profiles of all the NY-registered products fitting the specified pest species and efficacy rating (Fig. 4). The profile gives the common and trade names, labeled use rate, re-entry and pre-harvest intervals, and EPA registration number of each product. Also included are some general remarks on the range of product efficacy, and any known effects on beneficial species. A “Details” link in each profile takes the user to a more extensive list of information, including notes on the active ingredient (including its mode of action classification), an overview of recommended use periods, and a link to a scanned copy of the NYS DEC-approved product label, which can be read or printed out.

All of the information presented is available online at various other university sites, but this website brings these resources together in one place that is more convenient and efficient to access. Predictions provided by the website can be refined and adjusted to reflect current insect activity by user-entered events obtained through field monitoring (such

Fig. 4. Example of an insecticide product profile generated as one choice by the pesticide filter.

Fig. 3. Pesticide decision filter for selection of appropriate choice based on pest pressure, product efficacy, and management program elected.


as pest biofix; i.e., the first sustained flight of a pest species). The pesticide selection filter uses Cornell University product efficacy ratings and the type of management program selected by the user (i.e., conventional, reduced-risk, non-organophosphate, organic).

The website uses DD information based on either historical records or user-entered biofix data, and includes: the start, peak, or progress of the oviposition or egg hatch period (for CM, OBLR, OFM, and STLM); the start, peak or end of the pest’s 1st, 2nd, etc., flight (for AM, CM, OBLR, OFM, and STLM); the first occurrence of adult or larval feeding, foliar or fruit damage, or mines (for OBLR and STLM). Insect monitoring traps were placed in all orchards and checked approximately once per week to monitor adult flights, and weekly fruit inspections were conducted starting in July to assess the incidence of any larval feeding damage to apples caused by leafrollers or internal feeding Lepidoptera such as codling moth or oriental fruit moth. All results of this insect monitoring were reported on a weekly basis to each respective grower and their consultant for use in determining appropriate management decisions in each block.

In field validation studies, we compared web predictions with population trends observed in the field for as many of the pest species as was possible, although not all populations of all species were large enough or distinct enough to make a practical assessment of the website’s accuracy in all cases. Predictions were generally fairly accurate, although some pest occurrences were predicted too early or too late. In general, the main sources of error in the website predictions were:

• Traps were sometimes set out too late, so that we missed the first flight, and therefore the biofix was wrong (STLM and OFM, especially).

• The trap check interval was sometimes too long to precisely identify moth catch trends; our 7-day schedule could have been shortened at times, to better track important events, such as dates near the anticipated first or peak catches.

• Some target insect populations were too low to make good predictions of their developmental events; this was generally a result of the cool, wet summer weather, and so was out of our control to remedy.

• The model predictions (based on historical data) were simply not precise enough to be accurate every time; for instance, we did not have extensive records on CM peak flight periods.

• The weather stations were often not numerous enough or close enough to individual sites to be representative of true DD conditions in the orchards. This would be difficult to rectify without investing in a large number of additional grower-owned ground weather stations, or else obtaining our DD information from national weather databases.

Current plans focus on the development of a national web-based Decision Support System for tree fruit IPM. In 2010-11, we were awarded a USDA Specialty Crops Research Initiative (SCRI) planning grant to explore the feasibility of such an undertaking, working together with specialists from Univ of Massachusetts, VA Tech, Michigan State Univ, Penn State Univ, Oregon State Univ, NC State Univ, Iowa State Univ, and the Northeast Regional Climate Center in Ithaca, NY. A full SCRI proposal submitted in 2012 was not funded; however, we plan to re-submit, incorporating input on improving the web design obtained from focus groups (growers, consultants, and industry). We plan to configure the platform based on the current NY website; using this structure, sites anywhere in the US: - could input actual local weather station data, or NWS digital data from GPS coordinates - would be customizable by researchers, extension personnel, and industry stakeholders


- would provide their own insect and disease occurrence and forecasting capabilities, crop growth information, management options and recommendations - would have the ability to optimize pesticide usage, integrate the newest IPM tactics and materials, and - would have access to regionally specific online information resources, pest alert notifications, etc. We intend to have the potential to augment this site with additional capacities such as thinning models, harvest windows, and post-harvest storage disorders.

AcknowledgmentsGrower Cooperators: Walt Blackler, Eric Brown, Jim Burch, Gary & Stephanie Craft, Bob DeBadts,

Mack Forrence, Todd Furber, Tré Green, Jerry & Josh Knight, Darrel Oakes, S&L Farms, Adam Sullivan, Pete Ten Eyck, Bill Truncali, Dave Van Fleet

Consultants: Jeff Alicandro, Peck Babcock, Jim Eve, Jim Misiti, Apple Leaf, LLC Web Programmers: Keith Eggleston, Bill ParkenTechnical Field Staff: Daisy Aguilera, Melissa Berger, Ashley Blackburn, Dave Combs, Lindsay

DeWitt, Sarah Dressel, Kate Fello, Jordan Gianforte, Tori Green, Lindsay LaValley, Jackie Mattick, Frank Zeoli

Funding Support: NY Farm Viability Institute, NY Apple Association, Northeast Regional IPM Program


Precision Harvest Management


Geneva, NY 13345

Precision management of apple trees (plus a favorable climate) will produce high quality apples. However, they must be picked at the optimum maturity for that quality to be realized and for growers to capture high returns for their fruit. For the past 50 we have relied on various visual and chemical tests to determine when to pick each variety and each block. In NY State, both the Eastern and Western NY Cornell Fruit Extension teams conduct a harvest maturity program each fall where fruit samples are collected from various orchards and analyzed for firmness, soluble solids, starch pattern and ethylene once per week. These harvest maturity evaluations have been invaluable to help fruit growers know when to pick each variety.

Assessing Quality of the Fruit at Harvest The regional harvest maturity programs conducted by extension are focused on assessing fruit maturity to determine the right time to pick. However, they do not focus on the quality of the fruit that we obtained that season. It is important to distinguish between fruit quality measurements and fruit maturity measurements. Measurements such as sugar content, firmness, dry matter concentration and fruit mineral concentration are all fruit quality measurements while ethylene evolution, change in color and background color and starch degradation pattern are fruit maturity measurements. Using fruit maturity measurements helps us pick the fruit at the correct maturity to ensure good postharvest performance, but the internal quality (what is in the package) is also important to assess at or just prior to harvest to guide decisions on what to do with the fruit. The internal quality of the fruit varies from year to year and from orchard to orchard but we do not assess it and use the information to make better decisions about what to do with the fruit (sell immediately, short term storage or long term storage). Work I did for my masters degree in the late 1970’s showed that some of the variability in fruit quality at harvest can explained by light distribution within the tree canopy. One of the reasons for the move towards intensive production on dwarfing rootstocks was to improve fruit quality by removing the shaded region in the lower, central parts of large trees. However, even on well-grown Tall Spindle tree, fruit internal quality can still vary considerably. More recent studies by John Palmer have shown that fruit dry matter concentration is a measure of fruit quality that integrates many of the events, which occurred during the growing season into one measure of quality. Fruit Dry Matter Concentration. Palmer et al. (2010) has recently shown that apple fruit dry matter concentration (DMC) can not only predict soluble solids concentration after storage but also, more importantly, consumer liking. In their research fruit DMC was more reliable predictor of total soluble solids after 12 weeks of air storage at 0.5 ◦C than TSS at harvest for both ‘Royal Gala’ and ‘Scifresh’ (Figs. 1 and 2). Fruit DMC was also positively related to flesh firmness, although this relationship was not as strong as that seen with soluble solids and was more dependent on cultivar. Consumer studies showed that consumer preference was positively related to fruit DMC of ‘Royal Gala’ apples (Figs. 3 and 4). Thus fruit DMC at harvest, can be used to predict the sensory potential for the fruit after many months of storage. In contrast, measurements such as firmness and titratable acidity are more dynamic


and change during maturation. The dynamic nature of these latter indices makes it difficult to predict storage responses from their measurement at harvest. However, this does not mean that the traditional harvest indices are useless, as they are indicators of harvest maturity; Instead, DMC can be viewed as a complementary quality index. Fruit DMC can be used to compare and contrast the future eating quality for different orchard blocks at harvest, while firmness and other quality indices can be used to monitor the progression of the fruit during the harvest window to pick at the optimum time so that the sensory potential is realized after storage. For example, a high DMC fruit will only achieve its high

1

1

Fig. 1. Effect of fruit dry matter concentration on fruit soluble solids after storage of ‘Gala’ apples in two years. (From Palmer, 2010)

Fig. 2. Effect of fruit dry matter concentration on fruit soluble solids after storage of 8 apple cultivars. (From Palmer, 2010)


sensory potential if it is harvested at the correct stage of maturity and then stored in a manner in which firmness and acidity are optimally conserved. It is very unlikely that a high DMC will compensate for poor firmness from late picking. Over the harvest period, fruit dry matter concentration changes little while other fruit characteristics such as soluble solids concentration flesh firmness, starch content, skin red color and background color can change quite rapidly. This allows DMC to be determined before harvest (one week before harvest) to be used to make decisions on the destiny of the fruit. Also this measure of fruit quality is easy to determine. It is determined by cutting 2 longitudinal slices from opposite sides of the fruit on each

2

2

Fig. 3. Effect of fruit dry matter concentration categories on consumer liking score after storage of ‘Gala’ apples. (From Palmer, 2010)

Fig. 4. Effect of fruit dry matter concentration on consumer liking score after storage of ‘Gala’ apples. (From Palmer, 2010)


fruit of a 10 fruit sample and then determining the fresh weight of the wedges before drying and the dry weight of the wedges after drying for 48 hours at 65°C in a forced air oven. Dry matter concentration can be influenced by cultivar, rootstock, season, crop load, water stress and position within the tree and can vary from 8 to 19% (Roen et al., 2009). However, the research of John Palmer suggests that for individual fruit within any cultivar, low fruit DMC will not give a good eating experience. On of the most important factors affecting fruit DMC is crop load, which is negatively related to fruit DMC (High crop load=low fruit dry matter content) (Fig. 5). With very high crop loads, the carbohydrates from the tree must be divided among many more fruits thus each fruit receives less dry matter. This is especially important with Honeycrisp, which when over cropped, does not develop good color or flavor due to low DMC. A second important factor, which influences DMC, is light level and temperature during the season. Shading studies with ‘Cox’s Orange Pippin’, (Jackson et al., 1977) showed that a shade of 66% post blossom reduced fruit DMC at harvest from 19.4% to 17.1%. Similarly, Chen et al., (1998) showed a season-long 60% shading treatment resulted in a reduction of fruit DMC from 14.5% in unshaded trees to 12.7% in shaded spindle trees of ‘Cox’ at harvest. Cloudy summers will have a negative effect on fruit DMC and will result in lower fruit soluble solids and quality after storage. This may also help explain differences in fruit quality from year to year and from sunny production regions to humid cloudy production regions. A third important factor, which influences DMC, is water supply. Reduced water supply due to drought can increase DMC because it is a ratio of dry matter to water content. Although restricting water supply might seem an obvious way of increasing fruit DMC, Palmers research (2013) suggest that fruit DMC increased by water stress does not elicit the same improvement in consumer response as seen where fruit DMC is increased by changing the carbohydrate supply by improving light level or lowering crop load. Thus the use of fruit DMC to predict fruit quality must be done in light of the effects of drought on DMC. We envision the use of fruit DMC as a way to segregate fruit below a certain quality standard.

3

150 200 250 300 350 40013

14

15

16

17

18

Frui

t dry

mat

ter c

once

ntra

tion

(%)

Mean fruit weight (g)

1993/94y = 10.6 + 0.013x

1994/95y = 10.2 + 0.022x

Fig. 5. Effect of crop load (expressed as mean fruit fresh weight) on fruit dry matter concentration of ‘Braeburn’/’M.26’ apples in two years. (From Palmer, 2013)


Mannering (2012) reports that measurement of fruit DMC has been rapidly taken up as a quality measuring technique by the New Zealand apple industry; with over 55% of the export crop now managed using fruit DMC (Mannering, 2012). The measurement of fruit DMC will be most useful in comparing fruit from different block of the same cultivar. With such comparisons blocks with high dry matter fruit of any cultivar will prove to be more acceptable to the customer than fruit from blocks with low dry matter. We could achieve large fruit size and high DMC fruit by earlier thinning, without excessive irrigation Although excessive use of irrigation to enhance fruit size will result in lower fruit DMC, but. With large-fruited cultivars, which are often over-cropped to reduce fruit size, an alternative approach could be later thinning to have a less negative effect on DMC. Fruit Mineral Concentration. Another measure of the internal quality of an apple at harvest if fruit mineral concentration. Work done in the 1980’s showed that some fruit disorders such as bitter pit could be predicted from fruit mineral concentration such as calcium. Later studies have shown the ratios of various elements in the fruit can be useful indicators of storageability, post storage fruit quality or susceptibility to disorders. The measurement of fruit Ca level is routine with Cox’s Orange Pippin in Great Britain to determine Bitter pit susceptibility. However fruit mineral testing is not done in the US. In our studies with Honeycrisp (Robinson et. al., 2019), crop load had a dominant effect on fruit quality, but fruit mineral nutrition also had a significant effect. High nitrogen soil fertilization increased fruit size but reduced fruit color; storage quality and crop value while vegetative shoot growth was increased. In contrast potassium fertilization improved yield, fruit size, storage quality, and crop value while reducing the incidence of storage disorders and storage rots. Thus, we recommend a moderate level of nitrogen fertilization (20-50 kg N•ha-1) and a relatively high level of potassium fertilization (80-100 kg K20•ha-1). Although nitrogen helps push growth it results in poorer color, more rots and storage disorders. High potassium results in increased yield, fruit color, less storage disorders and rots and greater crop value. Total water supply (irrigation amount plus rainfall amount) was related to the incidence of bitter pit and fruit rot incidence. The early season (mid May-mid June) was related to increased incidence of bitter pit and fruit rot incidence. This was likely due to poor Ca uptake in the early season of years with dry May and June. Thus, in dry years irrigation should be applied during the early season to ensure adequate Ca is absorbed by the plant and provided to the young fruitlets. In our studies there was no relationship between fruit Ca concentration and fruit firmness, incidence of disorders or storage rots. This is in contrast with other work on ‘Honeycrisp’ and other cultivars (Fallahi and Simons, 1996; Ferguson et al., 1992; Telias et al., 2006). We also could not show a benefit of fruit Ca sprays on fruit Ca levels or bitter pit incidence. Other foliar nutrient sprays (N, Mg, Zn, B) had little effect on yield, fruit quality, crop value, storage disorders or storage rots. However we did find a consistent relationship between fruit P concentration and incidence of disorders (primarily bitter pit). We also found a consistent relationship between fruit P:S ratio and fruit red color. Perhaps fruit mineral analysis may prove beneficial to determine fruit storability. We suggest examining fruit P, S, Ca and P:S ratio which is correlated to bitter pit and storage rot incidence. A system of sampling fruit from each block and each variety one week before harvest and getting fast laboratory service to measure both fruit DMC and fruit mineral concentrations would allow both fruit DMC and fruit mineral levels and ratios of minerals to be used to segregate fruit at harvest so that poor quality fruit is not put on the fresh market or stored long periods with poor results and storage disorders. Several commercial labs have fast turnaround systems and developed mineral nutrient standards that will allow growers in the US to begin measuring fruit mineral content before harvest which will help in segregating fruit at harvest. Also, we at Cornell are developing mineral nutrient standards for Honeycrisp. Information at harvest on fruit mineral concentration could be used in a complimentary fashion with fruit DMC to segregate fruit for different storage periods or uses.


Determining When to Pick the Fruit Block Specific Maturity Tests. The regional fruit maturity programs conducted by extension educators give variety specific maturity data for a region but they do not provide block specific information growers can use to determine when to harvest each variety in each block. Some farms already do extensive block-by-block maturity testing and use the information to determine when to pick each block. Others rely on the regional information from extension program. An increase in block specific maturity testing by growers (or their consultants) could significantly improve fruit quality after storage. This information can then guide how long the fruit should be stored. The DA Meter. An alternative method of evaluating fruit maturity is using differential absorbance of near-infrared radiation applied to the surface of the fruit to measure chlorophyll levels in the fruit was developed by Dr. Costa of the University of Bologna. He developed a hand held device named the DA meter which is an instrument that allows the measurement of chlorophyll content in a fruit skin which is a precise index of a fruit’s ripening state (Fig. 6). The DA-meter allows a quick measurement of ripeness by growers or their consultants, during the harvest period to identify the best time for the picking and to select representative fruits to show the pickers to guide them in the fruit selection process when doing multiple picks. The DA meter gives values from 0-1 and is termed a DA index. The values obtained from the DA meter are not dependent on the season like other parameters such soluble solids concentration. Sugar content is dependent on climatic conditions during he year. Poor light levels during the summer prevent fruit from reaching a high sugar level even at complete ripeness. As a consequence, the soluble solids index can indicate if the fruit tastes good, while the DA index indicates when the fruit, either good or bad tasting, has actually reached the optimal ripeness level. In favorable years, the exclusive use of soluble solids to decide when to pick the fruit would anticipate the harvesting too much, resulting in picking sweet fruits but not as sweet as they could be if picked up at the optimal ripeness point. In a bad season, at the opposite would be true of delaying harvest until sugar content improved but with over maturity and negative consequences on storability, and in many cases without ever reaching a satisfactory sugar level. The DA allows fruit to be picked at the optimal ripeness level, that is, when the fruit has reached the best sugar level possible given the climate that year but before losing storability. DA index varies through the whole season which allows DA index measurements to begin weeks before harvest and then charting the change in the index to provide a reliable indicator of fruit ripeness long before the moment of picking. The measurement of chlorophyll content with the DA meter is not affected by fruit red color (different wavelengths). Thus with high coloring cultivars or strains that get red before they are ripe, the DA meter provides a reliable indicator of the ripeness stage of the fruit itself. The measurement is non destructive and allows measurements of fruit directly on the tree. The DA meter has been evaluated for about 10 years in Europe but little tested and used in North America. John DeLong a researcher in Nova Scotia and Larry Lutz a field man in Nova Scotia have evaluated the DA meter for 3 years and have had excellent results predicting the optimum harvest date with Honeycrisp and poorer results with McIntosh and Empire. The DA meter has only been evaluated one year in NY State by Fran Doerflinger a graduate student with Chris Watkins. To fully implement

Fig. 6. The DA meter for measuring fruit maturity.

3

150 200 250 300 350 40013

14

15

16

17

18

Frui

t dry

mat

ter c

once

ntra

tion

(%)

Mean fruit weight (g)

1993/94y = 10.6 + 0.013x

1994/95y = 10.2 + 0.022x


the use of this machine in the Northeast will require more testing by researchers and growers. However, it offers the potential to increase the precision of block specific harvest maturity decisions.

Getting the Fruit Picked on Time Even if growers can more precisely pinpoint when to pick each variety in each block, having the labor to do the picking on time is a significant challenge for many growers. Managing labor during the picking season to always harvest each plot and each variety on time should be a very high priority for growers. Sometimes weather delays harvest or labor shortages affect the timeliness of harvest. However, precision orchard management requires better labor management to always get the job done on time. In the case of harvest maturity this can result in successfully capturing a high fruit price after a full season of precision orchard management or in losing the high fruit price at the last moment after investing significant effort to produce a high quality product.

Summary Precision harvest management includes assessing the quality of the fruit by measuring fruit dry matter content and fruit mineral concentration, then identifying the optimum fruit maturity for each variety and each block by using traditional fruit maturity indices or the new DA meter and then having the labor resources to harvest the fruit at the optimum moment. It is not an easy task but will help growers capture the high crop values they have generated from a season long effort in precision orchard management and not leave “money on the table”.

Literature CitedPalmer, J.W. 2011. Changing concepts of efficiency in orchard systems. Acta Hort. 903:41-49.Palmer, J. 2013. The future role of crop physiologists: a personal view. Acta Hort. (In press).Palmer, J.W., F.R. Harker, D.S. Tustin, and J.Johnston. 2010. Fruit dry matter concentration: A new

quality metric for apples. J. Sci. Food and Agric. 90:2586-2594.Robinson, T., and S. Lopez. 2009. Crop load and nutrition affect ‘Honeycrisp’ apple quality. NY Fruit

Quarterly 17(2): 25-28.

Apple Packer, Marketer Considerations for Precision Fruit Harvesting

James. EveEve Farm Service, LLC

Apple packer and marketing entities that handle our apple production and prepare it for consumer sales have numerous issues that must be addressed in their procurement activities. Monitoring produce quality is ever more important. The sales season is normally a year-long process. The market place demands consistently high standards throughout. It is becoming increasing important for timely decisions to successfully handle an apple crop. Marketers will sell our crop over a period of many months. Growers need to gather it in about 8 weeks in the fall. Growers have to determine what varieties will be shipped to certain packers. Apple packer markets can vary according to local needs and preferences. Within each variety, certain standards including fruit size will be required. Other considerations include fruit color, fruit firmness, and eating quality. There are specific markets that will require a minimal level of soluble solids.


Harvesting fruit at a time that optimizes the quality standards for a specific market destination is one of the most critical decisions that will be made during the harvest season. Handling of fruit post-harvest is another demanding activity. Storage regimes must be well thought out. Generally three categories are considered and apples are routed into storage situations that address short term fall sales, late fall and early winter, and long-term storage. Individual varieties have inherent characteristics that allow them to fit into these storage windows, some better than others, in our effort to maximize quality. We have learned to use such inputs as 1-MCP and well managed Controlled Atmosphere storages to help attain the most desirable quality for the market place.

Picking Date Of the several considerations effecting apple quality from harvest to consumer, one of the most important will be picking date. Capturing ideal fruit condition at harvest will provide the best opportunity to provide the desired quality at market delivery time. Fruit that is harvested too early likely will not store longer term satisfactorily; fruit that is harvested late will be soft and generally unacceptable in many markets. Monitoring fruit development through the final maturing process to harvest day becomes crucial. Our research, extension, and other field workers have developed information that allows us to measure and interpret fruit quality. These measurements include fruit firmness (pressure), starch conversion, fruit size, internal and external appearances, soluble solids, and presence of ethylene production. Understanding the importance of these measurements can contribute significantly to successful marketing management. We can quantitatively measure fruit size, firmness, starch conversion levels, and soluble solid levels in the field. Ethylene measurement must be done with sophisticated equipment and cannot be done as readily. However, the level at which fruit is producing ethylene is very important information and can have a serious impact on storage. Cornell Cooperative Extension has provided information in season regarding ethylene levels present in fruit for the area in which we work. Gathering this information systematically starting 3 weeks before anticipated harvest windows will allow a very good prediction of desired harvest windows for individual varieties. This information becomes extremely useful to schedule harvest activities. Internal and external appearance observation is subjective and comes with experience of evaluating fruit harvest readiness. External fruit color is most obvious and is often a guideline that packers/marketers will focus on. A good example would be the red color on the McIntosh variety. Buyers may state that certain percentage of the apple skin color must be red to be eligible for certain markets. In the case of Honeycrisp, we look for a red blush however a critical indicator of ideal fruit quality is the status of fruit background color, which is not red. Internal flesh color is also an important indicator of desired maturity. This characteristic can be very telling on most varieties but especially Jonagold, Fuji, and Honeycrisp. Ideal apple harvest dates need to consider all of the above. External and internal appearances cannot be used exclusively. Measurements that detail fruit firmness, size, and starch conversion contribute to predicting successful storage experiences. These assessments to determine harvest dates, storage regimes, and ultimately market decisions are guidelines that contribute greatly to our ability to optimize market opportunities and returns. As we have learned over the years, responses are not necessarily fixed or guaranteed. However, the more data that we generate we can improve predictability of proper harvest windows.

Storage and Marketing A number of considerations need to be appreciated when projecting harvest windows and subsequent storage and marketing regimes. These would include varietal information, and strain, rootstock,


location, soil fertility, and soil type variation. Fruit color and size development will be at least equally important. Weather conditions through the growing season and at harvest will have an impact in ultimate decisions. Every variety in every orchard site can and probably has a special “personality”. These variations can best be understood only by maintaining detailed and complete records of fruit maturity and harvest data. Such information will contribute to more precisely harvesting apple crops in a timely manner with the maturity characteristics desired. Apple packers need to monitor very closely fruit acceptance in the market place. What we decide in our harvest and storage operations can impact consumer likes and dislikes. Fruit flavor with great eating quality will drive repeat sales. It is possible that negative impacts from some of our storage activity and post-harvest treatments may occur. Consequently, constant vigil needs to be provided in active quality assurance efforts. If an unacceptable quality issue develops, it needs to be traced back to its probable cause as quickly as possible. At the moment, our best efforts to provide the quality that the marketplace demands are through constant measurements and observations that have been discussed. We have the tools and the methods to do much of this and with greater efficiency. Challenges of the future will demand more and better ways to provide necessary information. One of the more recently discussed applications is to measure maturity of fruit with an electronic device called a DA Meter. This device can be used to help pinpoint maturity development. The DA Meter measures chlorophyll content of fruit tissue. The developer of this instrument states that determining the chlorophyll content can be a very accurate measurement of maturity. Our group (Eve Farm Service) has had no experience with this technology to date but we are planning on doing so this season. Hopefully the future will provide us with more tools that can look into the chemical makeup, or internal characteristics, of apples in the field. This could help us to better determine precise quality characteristics as well as market place acceptability. Procedures which monitor fruit quality as it moves from the storage facility into packing and market situations will become increasingly important. Electronic equipment is now in use in packing houses that can internally scan for some fruit quality problems that are not visible externally. For the immediate future, an effort by growers to implement procedures that use “multiple-pick” harvesting can provide great benefit. This may afford the best opportunity to gather fruit of the most similar maturity characteristics. Fruit maturity in specific blocks and within individual trees does not necessarily have the same maturity level. This can be aggravated by long bloom/fruit pollination periods, among other issues, and translate into a wide range of specific maturity values per fruit. We have spot picked for color and size often in past seasons. We can expand this technique to address other questions such as fruit background color to meet ideal harvest and especially storage criteria. As we learn more about fruit maturity and its impact on storing and marketing, we have to remember that our efforts must not overcomplicate the harvesting process. All of the information that we develop has to be “translated” to a form that is understood by our harvest labor. It is possible that directives to our orchards workers could vary from day to day, or block to block. But it has to be as simple and straight forward as possible to enhance the pursuit of the quality goals that are necessary. It will take some time to implement new technology and translate it into useful information. For example, the data obtained from a DA Meter needs to be compared to our current methods for final decisions in harvest, storage, and market decisions. Our group also intends to study in more detail the variation of maturity that can occur within specific trees. Hopefully, we might learn of, or better understand, ways to mitigate this variation. For example, will specific tree training concepts provide the most consistent quality possible? Are there other practices that growers can use to achieve more uniformity? It is imperative that we understand these differences and then harvest accordingly. Marketing chains often will desire if not demand fruit that is similarly colored, and have specific range of size,


and have a minimum fruit pressure – all year! It is possible that different “picks” may have different market routes or end users. It is also possible that a portion of the crop may not be harvested at all due to the lack of a market that can justify the expense of harvesting and handling. Second (or other sequential) picks may not be justified because of a more pressing need to harvest another variety or block that could be worth more money that has suddenly reached its proper maturity. Such a block should take priority in the harvest schedule. Much thought and preparation must be part of harvest timing and storage decisions. Numerous considerations have been mentioned above. One more that is absolutely critical will be harvest labor and availability. Needs must be matched up with numbers of workers. The harvest season can also be complicated with weather issues. The harvest data maturity information will matter little if an adequate work force is not in place.

Packing House Technology

Tyler WallerNM Bartlett Company, Ontario, Canada

In the past 30 years, technology has evolved immensely affecting almost everybody, including the tree fruit industry. Markets are becoming increasingly more stringent when it comes to the fruit that they receive, forcing fruit packers to spend more money on hand labor to maintain a quality, finished product. With new developments in packing technology, electronic grading lines are allowing the packers to be more efficient and consistent, in turn saving them money. Some of these technologies include defect sorting. External defect sorting uses high-resolution cameras to analyze the external surface of the fruit. It will then classifies it to one of several possible grades. Internal defect sorting uses infrared technology enabling the machine to analyze the internal characteristics of every piece of fruit passing over the grader in a non-destructive manner. It will then remove the bad fruit based on the machine operator’s parameters. Both of these systems are able to function at high speeds to allow for maximum production efficiency. The weights of tray boxes and bags must not drop below the required weight or penalties and rejections can be imposed. However, being too far overweight means giving away product and lost revenue. Some machines now allow the operators to enter guidelines for automatic filling of bags and trays. These programs increase the consistency of the weight of the fruit going to the packaging area. When bagging, the machines measure the weight of every apple, calculate the best fit and fills bags with a lower average overweight per bag when compared to hand bagging. It will also do so at a faster speed. When filling tray boxes, the machines can constantly keep track of the average size and weight of the fruit. It will then automatically make adjustments to be sure that the trays are filled with consistent size fruit all while making sure the weight of the finished box remains on as close to the target as possible. Having machines with these options installed will allow the packers to continue to produce a consistently high quality finished product in a more efficient manner than the traditional methods.

table of contents delete this line in table of contentsdb.nyfvi.org/documents/2995.pdf · terence...

Documents