Crop Load Management for Consistent Production of Honeycrisp

Crop Load Management for Consistent
Production of Honeycrisp Apples
Energy Efficient
Fruit and Vegetable
Storages
Terence Robinson1, Sergio Lopez1, Kevin Iungerman2 and Gabino Reginato3
1
Department of Horticultural Sciences, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
Cornell Cooperative Extension, Balston Spa, NY
3
Universidad de Chile, Casilla 1004, Santiago, Chile
2
This work supported in part by the New York Apple Research and Development Program
T
he popularity and high fruit prices of the Honeycrisp apple
in the market are largely due to the unique eating experience from this apple. Most consumers of Honeycrisp are
impressed with
the flavor, crispThe extreme biennial bearing tendency
ness and juiciness,
of Honeycrisp leads the tree to produce
which Honeycrisp
delivers when it
very large crops followed by very low
is grown propercrops. With either high or low crop loads
ly. However, the
fruit quality is not optimal. Based upon
biennial bearing
the last seven years of field studies with
tendency of this
Honeycrisp we currently recommend a
variety leads the
multi-spray thinning program (a spray at
tree to produce
very large crops
either bloom or at petal fall followed by
followed by very
a spray at 10-12 mm fruit size), coupled
low crops. Fruit
with early hand thinning (when fruit size
quality is not opis 25mm) and a summer NAA program
timal with either
(four sprays beginning in late June) to
high or low crop
manage biennial bearing.
loads. We have
previously reported on the effect of
increasing crop load on tree growth, fruit size, fruit color, storage
disorders and return bloom (Robinson and Watkins, 2003).
Our previous research has shown that the crop load carried
by Honeycrisp trees had a large effect on tree vegetative growth in
the 3rd-5th years. As crop load on Honeycrisp trees increased tree
growth declined rapidly. In many Honeycrisp orchards excessive
crop loads in the early years stopped tree growth preventing young
orchards from filling the space allocated to each tree. To ensure
proper tree growth we recommend that during the developmental years of the orchard crop load of Honeycrisp be limited to no
more than 4 fruits/cm2 TCA to allow the trees to fill their space
(Robinson, 2008).
Our previous research has also shown that fruit size was reduced by increasing crop load in a curvilinear relationship. Fruit
size was reduced rapidly as crop load increased from 0 to about 7
fruits/cm2 of TCA. At a crop load of 7 fruits/cm2 TCA, fruit size was
about 175 g (100 count fruit size). Fruit size was 150 g at crop loads
of 10 fruits/cm2 or greater. This size is not commercially acceptable
for Honeycrisp, which is sold as a premium apple,. In contrast, at
very low crop loads, fruit size often approached 300 g, which is
considered excessively large by most marketers. In today’s market
a Honeycrisp fruit size between 200-220g is considered optimal.
To obtain that fruit size in our studies would have required a crop
“
”
24
load of 5-6 fruits/cm2 of TCA.
Crop load also has a large impact on fruit quality (Robinson
and Watkins, 2003). Fruit soluble solids content was lower in fruit
from heavy cropping trees than from light cropping trees. The
suppressive effect of high crop loads on fruit soluble solids is probably due to a shortage of carbohydrate supply for the developing
fruits on the heavy cropping trees. Fruit red color was poorer on
heavy cropping trees than light cropping trees. This was the most
striking visual evidence of the crop load effect on fruit ripening.
At harvest we observed that fruit from trees, which had in excess
of 10 fruits/cm2 of TCA did not develop commercially acceptable
fruit color. The curvilinear relationship between crop load and fruit
red color showed that red color was reduced slowly as crop load
was increased up to about 6 fruits/cm2 TCA. However the curve
became very steep at the higher crop loads. In addition, fruits from
heavy cropping trees were softer, had lower acidity, and higher
starch ratings. The poorer fruit color and reduced sweetness of the
fruit probably from heavy crop loads indicates a lack of adequate
resources to develop optimum quality. From a fruit quality perspective it would appear that crop loads around 5-6 fruits/cm2 of TCA
are optimum, resulting in good fruit color, good soluble solids and
medium acidity.
Our previous research also showed a very strong suppressive effect of increasing crop load on return bloom the next year
(Robinson and Watkins, 2003). The season following a heavy crop
is almost always followed by very little bloom the next year. The
trees became non-flowering when crop loads the previous year were
greater than 9 fruits/cm2 of TCA. Also surprising was the significant
variation about the trend line. There were some trees with relatively
low crop loads which we expected to have a high return bloom but
produced instead very few flower buds the following year. Many
trees had no return bloom following medium crop loads (6-7 fruits/
cm2 of TCA), which with other varieties would have resulted in
good return bloom. Management strategies to stimulate flowering
on 50-60% of the spurs are needed. Our objective with this project
has been to define appropriate crop loads and thinning treatments
that give adequate repeat bloom and also the best fruit quality.
One Bushel Crates
• COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION
• DESIGN, SALES AND SERVICE
• SERVING AGRICULTURE FOR OVER 30 YEARS
Free Consultation and Quote
Call Mike Mager at 585-343-2678
Well built and reliable, these boxes will
protect your produce. In bulk, $5.00 each
Hamlin Sawmill
REFRIGERATION CO. OF BATAVIA
www.arcticrefrigeration.com
1873 Redman Rd. Hamlin, NY 14464
585-964-3561
[email protected]
www.OneBushelCrate.com
Hand Thinning Studies to Improve Return Bloom
From 2004-2008 we conducted a series of hand thinning field studies with Honeycrisp to reducing biennial bearing. In a field study
planted in 2002 at Geneva, graduate student Sergio Lopez evaluated
the impact of different crop loads on return bloom of Honeycrisp.
In this study we hand thinned the trees shortly after petal fall to a
broad range of crop loads. Over the three years of the study (20042006) there was a consistent negative effect of increasing crop load
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2009
5
although some breakthrough
captures did occur, particularly for codling moth. Therefore, trap shutdown was not
absolute in all cases (Figures
5-7). Two sites with notable
CM catches were Ridgeway
and Newfield, where large
numbers of moths were
caught in the nondisrupted
Grower Standard plots during the last week of June. At
Ridgeway, CM catch was effectively suppressed in all the
pheromone treatments for
the entire season; at Newfield there was a slight breakthrough in the Isomate and
Puffer plots during this June
peak. CM pressure was not
as severe at Eagle Harbor, and
minor breakthrough catches Figure 4. Interior of Suterra CM/OFM
Puffer cabinet
occurred in all pheromone
treatments during the last
half of June. For these trials, all CM traps were attached to bamboo
poles and hung in the upper third of the tree canopies. Inasmuch
as flight activity in this species tends to be concentrated near the
tree tops, trap placement could have been a major factor contributing to the number of moths caught in the pheromone-disrupted
plots. Oriental fruit moth pressure was considerable at Eagle Harbor, but all treatments showed low trap numbers at all three sites
throughout the season. Lesser appleworm was very numerous at
Newfield, but the respective OFM pheromone treatments effectively depressed these trap numbers at all three sites as well.
The fruit sampling procedure was simple and convenient to
implement, requiring 10–15 min per plot, and appeared to effectively allow detection of low-level infestations at a very early
stage, so that the growers could be notified of any extra needed
control measures in a timely fashion. Incidence of fruit injury was
extremely low all season in all blocks until August, when damage
2007 Results
Trap catches of adults were generally suppressed to low levels in
all pheromone treatment plots during the mid- and late summer,
4
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
Following-year Fruit Set (fruits/cm2 TCA)
mone blends into the orchard. Puffer cabinets were suspended in
the upper one-third of the tree canopies at a rate of 1 per acre,
starting along the inside of the windward border edge and spaced
approximately 132 ft apart, with the remaining cabinets deployed
in a regular grid pattern in the orchard interior. The Isomate and
Duel plots were all approximately 5 acres in size, and the Puffer
plots were 7.3–10 acres in size. Because the puffers are recommended for use in plantings of 40 acres or more, these plots were
additionally ringed with Checkmate CM membrane dispensers
applied one per tree in every tree of the first two border rows
(and row ends) of each plot, to compensate for any potential edge
effects of the smaller-size plots.
The amount of time required for application of each type of
pheromone dispenser was: Isomate CM/OFM, 40 min/A/person;
Duel CM-OFM, 43 min/A/person; Puffer, 5 min/A (although plot
measurement and setup for the Puffers took 2-3 hours).
Pheromone treatment efficacy in depressing male moth catches in the traps was monitored by using nine large Delta-style traps
per plot (three each for CM, OFM, and LAW, located at either end
plus the center of a middle row), each baited with a standard 1X
rubber septum lure, and checked weekly from 7 May to 28 August.
A similar group of nine traps in a non-disrupted check plot nearby
was monitored at each farm as well to maintain information on
background levels of each of these species and for purposes of fruit
injury comparison at harvest. Lures in all traps were changed at
the end of June, and again for CM during the last week of July.
A fruit sampling protocol, consisting of weekly on-tree fruit
inspections, was conducted from 9 July to 13 August, comprising
300 fruits per plot (20 on each of 15 trees) during the first week
and 100 fruits per plot (10 on each of 10 trees) on subsequent
weeks, to detect the initial occurrence of any larval fruit damage
in time to curtail further infestation. An evaluation of larval fruitfeeding damage at harvest was made by taking random samples of
500 fruits from each plot (20 from each of five trees along each plot
edge, and 20 from each of five trees distributed throughout the
plot interior) and examining them for internal and surface injury.
Pre-harvest samples were taken between 12–18 Sept.
5
10
15
2
Cropload (fruits/cm TCA)
20
30
Return Bloom-Fruit Set
2004-2005
25
Return Bloom-Fruit Set
2005-2006
R = 0.83745
Poly.(Return Bloom-Fruit Set
2004-2005)
20
Poly.(Return Bloom-Fruit Set
2005-2006)
15
10
R = 0.80867
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
Return Bloom (%)
100
Figure 2. Effect of return bloom on return set of Honeycrisp apples at Geneva,
NY.
30
25
R = 0.71392
20
Difference Between Cropload and
Fruit Set 2004 - 2005
Difference Between Cropload and
Fruit Set 2005 - 2006
15
Poly.(Difference Between Cropload
and Fruit Set 2004 - 2005)
10
Poly.(Difference Between Cropload
and Fruit Set 2005 - 2006)
5
0
-5 0
-10
60
50
40
30
20
Cropload
10
20
0
5-4
5-24
6-13
7-3
7-23
8-12
Date
Figure 1. Effect of crop load in 2004, 2005 and 2006 on return bloom of Honeycrisp apples in 2005, 2006 and 2007 following early hand thinning
(early June) at Geneva NY.
Difference Between Cropload and FollowingYear Fruit Set (Fruit cm-2 TCSA)
Figure 3. Suterra CM/OFM Puffer
70
10
0
Figure 2. Checkmate CM-OFM Duel-membrane dispenser
80
Return Bloom (%)
Return Bloom in Subsequent Year (%)
2004***
2005***
2006***
Poly .(2004***)
Poly .(2005***)
Poly .(2006***)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
30
R = 0.6728
-15
Figure 3. Effect of crop load in year one on the difference between crop load
of year one and crop load of year two of Honeycrisp apples at Geneva, NY.
NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2009
Figure 4. Effect of time and severity of hand thinning in 2006 on return bloom
of Honeycrisp apples in 2007 at Ithaca, NY.
on return bloom the following year; it appeared however that with
increasing age of the tree the relationship was not quite so negative (Figure 1). In 2005 following the first cropping year (2004) a
return bloom of 50% of the spurs flowering required relatively low
crop loads of 4 fruits/cm2 TCA. In 2006, 50% return bloom was
achieved following a crop load of 5 the previous year and in 2007 a
50% return bloom was achieved following a crop load of 10 fruits/
cm2 TCA. Thus, it appears that with more mature trees it is possible to carry heavier crops and achieve a moderate return bloom.
With most varieties it is desirable to have more than 50% return
bloom but with Honeycrisp having 40-50% of the spurs flowering
is probably preferable to having every spur on the tree flowering
(snowball bloom indicated by points in the upper left hand side of
Figure 1) because such high flowering is almost always followed
by no flowers the following year.
We also evaluated return set (second year crop load) as a function of different levels of return bloom (Figure 2). As return bloom
increased return set also increased. However, the relationship indicated that to achieve a return set of 10 fruits/cm2 TCA (sufficient
for a good commercial crop) required only a return bloom of 30%
in 2005 and 40% in 2006. Thus, with relatively low return bloom,
Honeycrisp can still have a good commercial crop load because of
high return set.
Lastly we evaluated the effect of crop load on the variation in
yield from one year to the next (bienniality). Following low crop
loads in year one there was a large positive variation in second
year yield (strong bienniality) while with very high crop loads in
year one there was a strong negative variation in second year yield
(strong bienniality). With intermediate crop loads of 8-10 there
was little variation in yield between the two years (Figure 3). Thus
for growers to achieve the same yield every year, crop load should
be kept at ~8 fruits/cm2 TCA. In our study this crop load resulted
in significant variation in return bloom from one year to the next,
but the return yield varied little since even with a low return bloom,
Honeycrisp can set a good commercial crop.
In another study Gabino Reginato, a visiting scientist from
Chile, hand thinned Honeycrisp trees at various times throughout
the season of 2006. The next season, return bloom was greatest
when hand thinning the previous season was done at the earliest
25
26
Return Bloom (%)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
5ppm NAA+Sevin @ PF
50ppm Maxcel+Sevin @
10mm
5ppm NAA+Sevin @ PF
5ppm NAA+Sevin @ 10mm
LSFO @ PF 50ppm Maxcel
+Sevin @ 10mm
LSFO @ PF 5ppm NAA
+Sevin @ 10mm
50ppm Maxcel+Sevin @
10mm
5ppm NAA+Sevin @ 10mm
5ppm NAA+Sevin @ PF
Lime Sulfur+Fish oil @ PF
0.0
Unthinned Control
Figure 6. Effect of post bloom thinning treatments in 2005 on return bloom
of Honeycrisp apples in 2006 at Geneva, NY. (Vertical arrow indicates
least significant difference)
ATS @ FB, 1pt Sevin
@ PF, 50 ppm
Maxcel /Sevin@10mm
ATS @ FB, 1pt
Sevin@ PF, 7.5ppm
NAA/Sevin@10mm
ATS @ FB, 50ppm
Maxcel/Sevin@10mm
ATS @ FB, 7.5ppm
NAA/Sevin@10 mm
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50ppm Maxcel/
Sevin@10mm
Arthur M. Agnello and Harvey Reissig
Department of Entomology, NYSAES, Cornell University
Geneva, NY
NAA+Sevin @ PF, Maxcel+Sevin
@ 10mm
ATS @ FB, Maxcel+Sevin @
10mm
ATS @ FB, NAA+Sevin @ 10mm
50ppmMaxcel+ 1ptSevin @
10mm
7.5ppmNAA+ 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
7.5ppmNAA+ 1 pt Sevin @ PF
60.0
7.5ppm NAA/
Sevin@10mm
From 2004-2008 we conducted a series of field studies with
Honeycrisp of the effect of summer plant growth regulator
sprays (PGR’s) on return bloom. These included summer sprays
of either NAA (5ppm) or Ethrel (150ppm). In 2004 we evaluated a single spray or a series of three weekly sprays of NAA or
Ethrel applied beginning in late June on return bloom in 2005.
The trees were thinned at the 10mm fruit stage with either 5ppm
NAA plus Carbaryl or 50ppm Maxcel plus Carbaryl. Neither
70.0
Untreated Control
Summer PGR’s to Improve Return Bloom
Figure 5. Effect of bloom and post bloom thinning treatments in 2003 on return bloom of Honeycrisp apples in 2004 at Geneva, NY.
Return Bloom (%)
From 2004-2008 we conducted a series of chemical thinning
studies with Honeycrisp to reducing biennial bearing. In 2004
we evaluated both blossom and post bloom thinning treatments.
Return bloom was significantly improved by blossom applications of Ammonium Thiosulphate (ATS) (Figure 5). When an
application of ATS at full bloom was combined with an application of a low dose of Maxcel plus Carbaryl (Sevin) at 10mm
fruit size, return bloom the next year was greatest. Thus, early
thinning at bloom appears to be important for return bloom
of Honeycrisp
In 2005 we evaluated several petal fall thinning treatments
for their effects on return bloom. A combination of NAA plus
Sevin applied at petal fall was more effective than lime sulfur
plus fish oil but either petal fall treatment alone gave only a small
increase in return bloom (Figure 6). If either petal fall treatment
was combined with a 10mm fruit size spray of Maxcel plus
Sevin or a NAA plus Sevin spray, return bloom was increased
significantly compared to the untreated control.
In 2006 we again evaluated the combination of bloom, petal
fall and post bloom thinning treatments. Single sprays of either
NAA plus Sevin or Maxcel plus Sevin at 10 mm fruit size or the
combination of bloom plus 10 mm sprays were ineffective at
improving return bloom (Figure. 7). However, the three-spray
combination of ATS at full bloom, Sevin at Petal Fall and either
NAA plus Sevin or Maxcel plus Sevin at 10 mm fruit size significantly improved return bloom compared to the unthinned
controls.
In 2007 we evaluated a broad range of, petal fall and post
bloom thinning treatments at Chazy Orchards in the Champlain
Valley with the help of Tré Green and Gary Moore. In 2007
there was a snowball bloom in the test orchard and the thinning treatments were only partially effective in reducing crop
load in 2007. As a consequence return bloom was very low in
2008 and none of the thinning treatments from 2007 resulted
in a significant improvement in return bloom in 2008 (Figure
8). The only exception was an aggressive treatment at petal fall
of 10ppm NAA plus Sevin combined with a moderate treatment of 5ppm NAA plus Sevin at the 10mm stage. Thus, early
aggressive thinning appears to be important for return bloom
of Honeycrisp.
2.0galATS/ 100gal @ FB
Chemical Thinning Studies to Improve Return Bloom
Mechanically Applied Pheromone
Products for Mating Disruption of
Codling Moth and Oriental Fruit
Moth in Apples
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Unthinned Control
Return Bloom (%)
timing (petal fall) and declined as thinning was delayed later in
the season (Figure 4). The study also examined whether spur
occupancy had an impact on return bloom. When each spur
had one fruit, return bloom was less than when every other
spur had a fruit. The best return bloom was when every fourth
spur had two fruits. This indicates that having some spurs with
not fruits each year will give the best return bloom even if the
other spurs have more than one fruit.
Figure 7. Effect of bloom and post bloom thinning treatments in 2006 on return bloom of Honeycrisp apples in 2007 at Geneva, NY. (Vertical arrow indicates least significant difference)
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
T
“
he codling moth (CM), Cydia pomonella, and the oriental fruit moth (OFM), Grapholita molesta, are two internal-feeding lepidopteran (“worm”) pests that in the past
7-8 years have
developed into
the most serious
Codling moth and the oriental fruit
pests of eastern
moth have developed into the most
tree fruits, inserious pests of eastern tree fruits,
cluding
those
resulting in numerous loads of apples
in New York.
being rejected at NY processing plants
Since 2001, nusince 2001. We tested the use of
merous loads of
apples have been
several formulations of pheromones
rejected at NY
for mating disruption along with
processing plants
standard insecticides. The pheromone
because of unactreatments tested improved the overall
ceptable infestacontrol of the codling moth and the
tions by larvae of
oriental fruit moth but in some cases,
OFM and CM, as
well as lesser apcontrol was not perfect possibly due to
pleworm (LAW),
small plot sizes. Nevertheless, the SPLAT
G. prunivora, a
technology of applying pheromones
species related to
appears promising and offers great
OFM that is also
promise as a convenient and effective
capable of incurmethod of pheromone application over
ring fruit damage
(Reissig
2003).
large areas.
Because there is
a “zero tolerance”
for these larvae in most fruit markets, detection of one larva in a
load of processing fruit can result in a downgrading of the entire
load to juice quality, which reduces its value by 59%. In response
to the high economic risk of minimal fruit infestation, growers
tend to revert to the old approach of applying preventive cover
sprays at 10-day intervals. This is counter to IPM principles, but
a justifiable response for growers who feel there is no other adequate recourse for avoiding this risk.
The use of pheromones for mating disruption is one tactic
that has generated substantial interest and shown some promise,
but recommendations on their use have been hampered by the
lack of experience with this approach in NY. Over the past seven
years, we have conducted a number of assessments of different pheromone dispensing technologies available, to determine
their potential usefulness as supplements to grower insecticide
programs in controlling internal-feeding worms in NY apple
orchards. We have generally found that hand-applied dispens-
”
NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2009
ers such as polyethylene
ties or controlled release
membranes are very effective in suppressing moth
catches and lowering fruit
damage, but the economics of implementing these Figure 1. Isomate CM/OFM Twin-Tube tie
dispenser
approaches are not favorable on an individual
block scale (Agnello et al. 2006).
The improved efficacy of mating disruption when applied
on an area-wide basis against these pests has been demonstrated in the Northwestern US, as well as in Michigan and Pennsylvania (Brunner et al. 2001; Calkins & Faust 2003; Epstein et
al. 2007; Hull et al. 2008). The unique landscape of eastern orchards, in which a mosaic of tree fruits is planted in small blocks
interspersed among a diversity of managed and non-managed
habitats, is not conducive to the area-wide approach as conceived in the Northwestern US. However, whole-farm mating
disruption that targets localized or interbreeding pest populations should have the same suppressive effect. To circumvent
the labor-intensive aspects of hand-applied pheromones and
help promote greater efficiency over larger orchard areas, we
conducted trials during 2007–08 to assess the effect on CM and
OFM management programs of incorporating the use of two
different mechanically applied products.
2007 Trials
In 2007, three pheromone dispensing technologies were tested
in three “low-” to “high-risk” commercial orchards. The pheromone treatments, all applied between 9–11 May, were: 1. Isomate CM/OFM Twin Tube ties (CBC America Corp., Commack, NY; Figure 1); 2. Checkmate CM-OFM Duel membranes
(Suterra LLC, Bend, OR; Figure 2); and 3. Suterra CM/OFM
Puffers (Suterra, Figure 3), each applied against all seasonal
generations of CM and OFM. The OFM pheromones were directed additionally against LAW, as these two species have similar pheromone blends. In all cases, growers used their normal
pesticide programs against major insect pests in these blocks,
and the pheromone treatments were applied as supplements to
help in the management of internal-feeding caterpillars.
The Checkmate Puffer pheromone dispenser consists of
a plastic cabinet enclosing an aerosol canister containing CM
and OFM pheromone blends (Figure 4). Every 15 min between
5:00 pm and 5:00 am each day, a battery-powered timer activated a plunger, releasing a 40-mg puff of the combined phero3
40
NEW YORK
35
SPRING 2009 • VOLUME 17 • NUMBER 1
Return Bloom (%)
Fruit Quarterly
30
25
20
15
10
5
Jim Bauman, Bauman Farms
1340 Five Mile Line Rd., Webster, NY 14580
PH: 585-671-5857
Director
Director
2
John Ivison, Helena Chemical Co.
165 S. Platt St, Suite 100
Albion, NY 14411; PH: 585-589-4195 (W)
FX: 585-589-0257; CELL: 585-509-2262
[email protected]
Chuck Mead, Mead Orchards LLC
15 Scism Rd., Tivoli, NY 12583
PH: 845-756-5641 (W); CELL: 845-389-0731
FAX: 845-756-4008
[email protected]
Tony Weis, Weiss Farms
7828 East Eden Road, Eden, NY 14057
PH: 716-992-9619; [email protected]
Ted Furber, Cherry Lawn Farms
8099 GLover Rd., Sodus, NY 14551
PH: 315-483-8529
Dan McCarthy
NY State Dept. of Agriculture & Markets
10B Airline Drive, Albany, NY 12235
PH: 518-457-8857; [email protected]
NEW YORK
Fruit Quarterly
SPRING 2009 • VOLUME 17 • NUMBER 1
This publication is a joint effort of the New York State Horticultural Society,
Cornell University’s New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at
Geneva, the New York State Apple Research and Development Program,
and the NYSBGA.
Peter Ten Eyck, Indian Ladder Farms
342 Altamont Road
Altamont, NY 12009
PH: 518-765-2956; [email protected]
Matt Wells
4363 Route 104, Williamson, NY 14589
PH: 315-589-9695, Ext 314; [email protected]
Editors Terence Robinson and Steve Hoying
Dept. of Horticultural Sciences
New York State Agricultural Experiment Station
Geneva, New York 14456-0462
PH: 315-787-2227; FX: 315-787-2216
[email protected]
[email protected]
Subscriptions
& Advertising
Design &
Production
Karen Wilson
NYSHS, 630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456
PH: 315-787-2404; [email protected]
Communications Services, NYSAES, Geneva, NY
PH: 315-787-2248; [email protected]
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
10ppm NAA +1pt Sevin @ PF followed
by 5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
5ppm NAA + 2pt Sevin @ PF followed
by7.5ppm NAA + 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
5ppm NAA+ 2pt Sevin @ PF followed
by5ppm NAA + 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
2pt Sevin @ PF followed by 7.5ppm
NAA + 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
2pt Sevin @ PF followed by5ppm NAA
+ 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ PF followed
by 7.5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
5ppm NAA+1pt Sevin @ PF followed
by 5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
1pt Sevin @ PF followed by 7.5 ppm
NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
1pt Sevin @ PF followed by 5ppm
NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
7.5ppm NAA + 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
Figure 10. Effect of summer NAA or summer Ethrel sprays applied in 2004 on
return bloom of Honeycrisp apples in 2005 at Geneva, NY. (Vertical
arrow indicates least significant difference)
thinning treatment alone significantly improved return bloom
although Maxcel plus Sevin treatment had a higher numerical
return bloom (Figure 9). The addition of a single summer NAA
or a single summer Ethrel spray significantly improved return
bloom compared to the untreated control. However, increasing
the number of sprays to three of either NAA or Ethrel did not
further improve return bloom.
In 2005 we again evaluated summer NAA sprays following
a normal thinning treatment of 5ppm NAA plus Carbaryl or
50ppm Maxcel plus Carbaryl at the 10mm fruit stage. In contrast
to the year before, both the chemical thinning treatments at
the 10mm stage improved return bloom but the summer NAA
sprays did not further improve return bloom (Figure 10).
In 2007 we applied a series of three summer NAA (5ppm)
sprays on Honeycrisp trees with a wide range of natural crop
loads to determine if the summer NAA sprays would improve
return bloom better if crop load was normal or low compared
to excessively cropped trees. In 2008 there was no difference
in return bloom at any crop load between trees receiving three
sprays of NAA during the summer compared to those which
did not (Figure. 11). Thus, the results from the use of summer
NAA or Ethrel sprays to improve return bloom have been inNEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2009
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50ppmMaxcel/Sevin
@ 10mm, 5ppmNAA
3X June, July
Alan Tomion, Tomion Farms
3024 Ferguson Corners Rd., Penn Yan, NY 14527
PH: 585-526-5852; [email protected]
Mason Forrence
2740 Route 22, Peru, NY 12972
PH: 518-643-9527; [email protected]
50ppmMaxcel
+Sevin @10mm,
1/2ptEthrel @
June21, June28, and
July 5
Rod Farrow
3031 Densmore Road, Albion, NY 14411
PH: 585-589-7022
50ppmMaxcel
+Sevin @10mm,
1/2ptEthrel @ June
21
Greg Spoth, Greg’s U-Pick
9270 Lapp Rd., Clarence Center, NY 14032
PH: 716-742-4239; [email protected]
5ppmNAA+Sevin
@10mm, 5ppmNAA
@ June21, June28,
July 5
Steve Clarke
40 Clarkes Lane, Milton, NY 12547
PH: 845-795-2383; [email protected]
0
5ppmNAA+Sevin
@10mm, 5ppmNAA
@ June 21
Terry Mosher, Mosher Farms
RD #1 Box 69, Bouckville, NY 13310
PH: 315-893-7173; [email protected]
10
5ppm NAA/Sevin
@10mm, 5ppmNAA
3X June, July
William R. Gunnison
Gunnison Lakeshore Orchards
3196 NYS Rt. 9W & 22, Crown Point, NY 12928
PH: 518-597-3363 (W); 518-597-3817(H)
FAX: 518-597-3134; CELL: 518-572-4642
[email protected]
Alan Burr
7577 Slayton Settlement Road, Gasport, NY 14067
PH: 585-772-2469; [email protected]
20
50ppmMaxcel/Sevin
@ 10mm
Doug Fox, D&L Ventures LLC
4959 Fish Farm Rd., Sodus, NY 14551
PH: 315-483-4556; FX: 315-483-6025
[email protected]
Craig Michaloski, Green Acres Farm
3480 Latta Road, Rochester, NY 14612
PH: 585-225-6147; [email protected]
30
5ppm NAA/Sevin
@10mm
Tom DeMarree, DeMarree Fruit Farm
7654 Townline Rd.
Williamson, NY 14589
PH: 315-589-9698; FX: 315-589-4965
CELL: 315-576-1244; [email protected]
John Hand, Hand Melon Farm
533 Wilber Ave., Greenwich, NY 12834
PH: 518-692-2376; [email protected]
Walt Blackler, Apple Acres
4633 Cherry Valley Tpk. Lafayette, NY 13084
PH: 315-677-5144 (W); FAX: 315-677-5143
[email protected]
Chairman
40
Return Bloom (%)
Robert DeBadts, Lake Breeze Fruit Farm
6272 Lake Road, Sodus, NY 14551
PH: 315-483-0910 (W), 315-483-9904 (H)
FX: 315-483-8863; CELL: 585-739-1590
[email protected]; (Summer – use FAX only)
APPLE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ADVISORY BOARD 2008
50
Unthinned Control
Director
Roderick Dressel, Jr., Dressel Farms
271 Rt 208, New Paltz, NY 12561
PH: 845-255-0693 (W); 845-255-7717 (H)
FX: 845-255-1596; CELL: 845-399-6767
[email protected]
60
50ppmMaxcel
+Sevin @10mm
Jim Coulter, Coulter Farms
3871 N. Ridge Road, Lockport, NY 14094
PH: 716-433-5335; [email protected]
Director Dan Sievert
Lakeview Orchards, Inc.
4941 Lake Road, Burt, NY 14028
PH: 716-778-7491 (W)
FX: 716-778-7466; CELL: 716-870-8968
[email protected]
Director
5ppm NAA + 2pt Sevin @ 10mm
70
Bruce Carson, Carson’s Bloomin’ Berries
2328 Reed Rd.
Bergen, NY 14416
PH: 585-494-1187; [email protected]
Cornell Director Dr. Terence Robinson, NYSAES
630 W. North Street
Hedrick Hall, Room 125, Geneva, NY 14456
PH: 315-787-2227; FX: 315-787-2216
CELL: 315-521-0435; [email protected]
Director
Figure 9. Effect of various chemical thinning treatments applied in 2007 on
return bloom of Honeycrisp apples in 2008 in the Champlain Valley
at Chazy Orchards.
Bob Brown III, Brown’s Berry Patch
14264 Rooseveldt Highway, Waterport, NY 14571
PH: 585-682-5569
Admin Assistant Karen Wilson
630 W. North St., Geneva, NY 14456
PH: 315-787-2404; FX: 315) 787-2216
CELL: 315-521-0852; [email protected]
Director
7.5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
Executive Secretary Paul Baker
665 Sara Court, Lewiston, NY 14092
PH: 716-754-4414 (W); FAX: 716-754-4424
CELL: 716-807-6827; [email protected]
Executive Director Paul Baker
665 Sara Court, Lewiston, NY 14092
PH: 716-754-4414 (W); FAX: 716-754-4424
CELL: 716-807-6827; [email protected]
Director
Untreated control
Tony Emmi, Emmi Farms
1572 S. Ivy Trail, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
PH: 315-638-7679; [email protected]
5ppmNAA+Sevin
@10mm
Treasurer/Secretary Bruce Kirby, Little Lake Farm
3120 Densmore Road Albion , NY 14411
PH: 585-589-1922; FAX: 585-589-7872
[email protected]
Treasurer
5ppm NAA + 1pt Sevin @ 10mm
Vice President Peter Barton
55 Apple Tree Lane, Paughquag, NY 12570
PH: 845-227-2306 (W); 845-227-7149 (H)
FX: 845-227-1466; CELL: 845-656-5217
[email protected]
0
Dale Riggs, Stonewall Hill Farm
15370 NY Rt 22, Stephentown, NY 12168
PH: 518-733-6772; [email protected]
Chair
Unthinned Control
President Walt Blackler, Apple Acres
4633 Cherry Valley Tpk. Lafayette, NY 13084
PH: 315-677-5144 (W); FAX: 315-677-5143
[email protected]
NYS BERRY GROWERS BOARD MEMBERS
Return Bloom (%)
2008 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
Figure 11. Effect of summer NAA sprays applied in 2005 on return bloom of
Honeycrisp apples in 2006 at Geneva, NY. (Vertical arrow indicates
least significant difference)
consistent. In 2004 there was a clear benefit of these sprays but
in 2005 and 2007 there was no improvement in return bloom
from summer NAA sprays.
27
Conclusions
Over the past five years our studies with Honeycrisp have shown
that biennial flowering is strongly related to crop load the previous year. Relatively low crop loads are required to ensure a strong
return bloom each year with young trees requiring a low crop
load of 4 fruits/cm2 TCA but with older trees higher crop loads
of 6 fruits/cm2 TCA give good return bloom.
Our studies have shown that Honeycrisp has a very high
return set and can set a commercial crop with as low as 20-40%
return bloom. Thus even in an off year when bloom is light, good
commercial crops can be achieved. Our data show that to achieve
annual cropping with Honeycrisp a crop load of 7-8 should result
in little variation from year to year in yield. There will still be a
high flowering year followed by a low flowering year. In the high
flowering year, aggressive thinning will be required to lower
crop load to 7-8 fruit/cm2 TCA while in the low flowering year
little thinning will be required to achieve the target of 7-8 fruits/
cm2TCA.
Our chemical thinning studies have shown that very early
(bloom or petal fall) aggressive chemical thinning is essential
for good repeat bloom of Honeycrisp. Trials in 2007 showed
that aggressive petal fall thinning (10ppm NAA+Sevin) gave the
best return bloom of 14 treatments. Later thinning sprays at the
10-12mm stage or hand thinning later in June or July have been
less effective at improving return bloom than either bloom or
petal fall sprays. However, if Honeycrisp trees are to be hand
thinned, the earlier in the season it can be completed, the greater
the improvement in return bloom. The best time to hand thin
Honeycrisp is as soon as fruits reach 25mm which is about three
weeks after petal fall.
Some trials have shown benefits of using summer NAA or
Ethrel treatments to stimulate better return bloom but in other
trials there has been no benefit. The use of Ethrel in July has led
to increased pre-harvest drop and advanced maturity. The inconsistency of summer NAA or Ethrel sprays indicates that they are
only part of the answer and must be combined with aggressive
bloom or petal fall thinning to achieve annual bearing.
Based upon the last seven years of trials with Honeycrisp we
currently recommend a multi-spray thinning program coupled
with early hand thinning and a summer NAA program to man-
age biennial bearing. The first thinning spray should be applied
at either bloom with an application of 2 gal ATS/100 gal or at
petal fall with an application of 4oz NAA + 1pt Sevin XLR. This
initial spray should be followed by a spray of 2-3oz NAA/100
gallons + 1pt Sevin XLR/100 gallons at 10-12 mm fruit size if
needed. About 14 days after the last thinning spray is applied
all Honeycrisp trees should be hand thinned to 8 fruits/cm2
TCA. This will require growers to measure trunk circumference
and calculate the total fruit number per tree to achieve 8 fruits/
cm2 TCA. The chemical and hand-thinning program should be
coupled with a summer NAA spray program of four sprays of
3oz NAA/100 gallons every 10 days beginning on June 21. This
program is especially important during the heavy blooming year
to ensure at least 40% return bloom. In the light blooming year,
a less aggressive thinning program can be performed but early
hand thinning should be done to ensure that crop load does not
exceed 8 fruits/cm2 TCA.
References
Robinson, T.L, and C.B. Watkins. 2003. Crop load of Honeycrisp
affects not only fruit size but also many quality attributes. New
York Fruit Quarterly 11(3): 7-10.
Robinson, T.L. 2008. Crop load management of new high-density
apple orchards. NY Fruit Quarterly 16(2): 3-7.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the support of Tré Green and Gary
Moore of Chazy Orchards who cooperated on several of the studies
on Honeycrisp return bloom.
Terence Robinson is a research and extension professor at Cornell’s
Geneva Experiment Station who leads Cornell’s program in high-density
orchard systems and plant growth regulators. Sergio Lopez is a graduate
student from Puebla Mexico who recently completed his PhD degree working
on Honeycrisp management with Dr. Robinson. Kevin Iungerman is a
regional extension educator in Northern NY who cooperated on several of
the studies on Honeycrisp return bloom. Gabino Reginato is a professor of pomology from the University of Chile who spent a sabbatical leave
at Geneva, NY in 2006.
NEW YORK
Editorial
The Need for Research Continues
Fruit Quarterly
n 1990 the apple growers of New York
voted on, and passed the New York
Apple Research and Development
Order, which required a contribution of
two cents per bushel from every apple
grower in the state to go into a fund to pay
for research on the production of apples.
That marketing order has been revoted
and approved twice since 1990, but with
no increases in the rate per bushel. The
time has come to take a hard look at the
amount we are contributing.
they do. While a lot of things have come
together in the last few years to make
apple farmers better off financially, much
of our success can be attributed to better production practices that resulted
from the research paid for by our ARDP
money.
I
What did one dollar buy in 1990? A
lot more than it buys today! Remember
when Captan was one dollar a pound?
Now it is more like triple that price. The
cost of doing research has also escalated.
The value of our two cents per bushel
contribution has been greatly reduced by
inflation since 1990, and research for the
apple growing industry is suffering from
the lower value of the dollar.
Has research helped you grow apples
better in 2009 than you did in 1990?
You bet it has. Compare your eight
foot by sixteen foot planting of 1990 to
your 800 or more trees per acre of 2009.
Compare the resistance management
program of today to the early IPM programs of 1990. The tower sprayers being
3
used today are replacing the high blasting
sprayers of the past, and the apples coming out of storage have lost only one pound
of firmness after six or eight or ten months
of storage. These were all innovative practices when they began in the orchards of a
research farm, and were carefully studied
for several years before being introduced to
the industry. They are now common practice on our farms.
Has the implementation of these new
practices been beneficial for New York
farmers? Indeed it has, the results have
been more fruit of better quality on fewer
acres. The statewide average yield in 1990
was about 400 bushels per acre, and by
2008 has increased to almost 700 bushels per acre. In the near future I think we
will see a statewide average yield of 1000
bushels per acre. In 1990 fruit of two and a
quarter inches diameter was the accepted
minimum size, while today the minimum
size is two and a half inches, and the fruit
we produce today is certainly a more popular variety and in better condition than that
which we we shipped in 1990.
Do increased yields, better size, better insect and disease control, better fruit condition, and better varieties give better financial results to apple growers? Yes, of course
11
17
20
SPRING 2009
One last question. Do you think these
improvements in our apple growing industry were worth two cents a bushel?
Yes, that two cents a bushel was the biggest bargain on the farm! That question
leads me now to ask the big question. Is
two cents a bushel enough for us to be
spending on production research today?
Not really. I believe there are many more
issues ahead of us that can benefit from
research. Given that the cost of research
has gone up over the years, that we are
producing more apples of better quality
on less land, and that our past research
investment has greatly improved the lot
of New York apple growers, now is the
time for apple growers to invest an increased amount in research and for the
future of our industry.
Walt Blackler
Chairman, ARDP
Apple Acres, LLC
Lafayette, NY
24
Contents
3 Mechanically Applied Pheromone Products for
Mating Disruption of Codling Moth and Oriental
Fruit Moth in Apples
Arthur M. Agnello and Harvey Reissig
11 The New Face of New York Berry Growers:
Insights From the 2007 NYS Berry Growers
Survey
Rebecca Harbut, Cathy Heidenreich, Laura McDermott
and Marvin Pritts
28
NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY
17 Fire Blight and Streptomycin: The Reality of
Resistance
Nicole L. Russo and Herb Aldwinckle
COVER: High density Tall Spindle Honeycrisp
orchard, with pheromone dispenser inset.
20 Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolic
Phytochemicals in Black Raspberries
Heidemarie Gansch, Courtney A. Weber and Chan Y. Lee
24 Crop Load Management for Consistent
Production of Honeycrisp Apples
Terence Robinson, Sergio Lopez, Kevin Iungerman and
Gabino Reginato
NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY . VOLUME 17 . NUMBER 1 . SPRING 2009
1