handout-matt whiting-opportunities to improve sweet...

12/3/2014

1

Matthew Whiting

Opportunities to improve sweet

cherry production efficiency

What we have……• Aged genetics• Lengthy production cycles • Inefficient/static production

systems• Compartmentalized system

for production, processing, marketing

• Increasing competition• Increasing cost &

decreasing supply of labor• Inadequate education and

outreach

12/3/2014

2

Output vs. Input:

OUTPUT

INPUT

LO/LO

HI/LO HI/HI

LO/HI

Production systems

Innovations in cherry production

• Genetic• Orchard systems• Automation/mechanization

– Mechanical pruning– Mechanical harvest

• Precision management• Plant growth regulators

12/3/2014

3

Current orchard systemsFuture orchard systems

Pruning rules:

1.Remove all lateral wood (leave short stubs)2.Renew vigorous uprights (leave renewal sites)

Simplified Pruning of the UFO System:

12/3/2014

4

PAR interception of vertical and angled fruiting walls

Vertical UFO Y-trellised UFO

Mobile measurement system1 – AccuPAR LP-802 – LI-COR quantum sensor3 – I-O interface control box4 – Deere E-Gator5 – TRD-S encoder

12/3/2014

5

Diurnal trends of PAR interception of UFO and Y-trellis architecture. July 5th, 2011.

• Diurnal trend was nearly symmetric around solar noon

• Yield potential on angled canopies is greater than planar canopies

PAR interception of vertical and angled fruiting walls

Mechanical pruning

• Simplified planar systems – simplify pruning

• Investigated potential for mechanical pruning in UFO since 2010

12/3/2014

6

• Collard system • 7 (vertical) or 4 (horizontal) circular saw blades• 6-th leaf UFO • Hand vs. Mech. Vs. Mech + hand

Mechanical pruning

CONCLUSIONS

Hand pruning2 min 40 s per tree (1800 trees/ha = 80 hr/ha)

Full mechanical pruning:� 12.5-times faster (6.5 hr/ha)� Removed ca. 60% less wood than hand pruning

Mechanical + hand pruning: � 25% faster than hand pruning� Same amount of wood removed as hand pruning

Good potential to reduce pruning time/costs using mechanical systems.

12/3/2014

7

Objective

Determine best management practices

for pruning sweet cherry and apple mechanically,

by understanding equipment and orchard

requirements.

Mechanical pruning

• Gillison’s GVF Center Mount

Topper and Hedger

• Side shift ca. 1 .2 m on

either side of the tractor

• Height adjustment of 1 m to

6.5 m

• 360° rotation of cutting head

12/3/2014

8

Experiment outlineApple

Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning

Apple

Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning

Sweet cherry

Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning

Pre/postharvest topping

Sweet cherry

Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning

Pre/postharvest topping

Sweet cherry trials:

Trial block details

Variety Tieton

Rootstock ‘Gisela ®5’

Training system UFO

Tree age 8th leaf

Tree spacing 2.5 x 3.1 m

12/3/2014

9

Trial design:

3 treatments x 5 reps • 20 trees/rep• Completely randomized design• Post-harvest hedging and topping

Mechanical pruning vs. Hand pruning

YEAR 11. Hand pruning

2. Mechanical pruning (1)

3. Mechanical pruning (2)

YEAR 21. Hand pruning

2. Mechanical pruning

3. Mechanical pruning + Hand pruning

Data collection

• Time to prune

• Performance of the

machine

• Weight wood pruned

• Wood damage

• Economic evaluation

12/3/2014

10

Preliminary results (2014)

• Hand pruning removed 2 x wood removed than mechanical pruning• Hand pruning 10 kg/tree• Mechanical pruning 5 kg/tree• “Dirty cuts”

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Hand pruning Mechanical pruning

Kg

/cm

2Wood pruned

Results - Time

• Mechanical pruning 23 x faster than hand pruning (hedging and topping)• Hand pruning 374 sec/tree 6 min/tree• Mechanical pruning 16 sec/tree 0.3 min/tree• Tractor speed: 1.9 km/h

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mechanical pruning Hand pruning

Tim

e/re

p (

min

)

12/3/2014

11

Topping

Hedging

12/3/2014

12

Example

• Sweet cherry orchard trained toUFO training system

• Spacing: 2 m x 3.1 m• 8 h work/day• Mechanical pruning:

• 6 h/ha

• 1.3 ha/day• Hand pruning:

• 135 h/ha• 0.06 ha/day

Mechanical pollination

• Colony collapse disorder, variable environmental conditions, poor bloom overlap, insufficient pollenizers/pollinators all threaten ability to set a crop

For yield security and resilience to:

8.2 t/ha

12/3/2014

13

Proposed solution:

• Collect pollen• Suspend pollen• Apply pollen via sprayer

• Challenges:– Stigma is a small target!

– Pollen loses viability in liquid

Electrostatic sprayer

12/3/2014

14


‘Tieton’/ ‘Gisela 5’: 8 years old trained to UFO


12/3/2014

15


a

b

• Proof of concept study• Supplemental pollination• Sprayed pollen once at 50% bloom

• Fruit set improved 15%• Increased pollen deposition


• Proof of concept study• Replacement pollination• Sprayed pollen through bee

exclusion netting• Two applications (50% and 90%

)

• Yield similar to open-pollinated trees

a

b

01234567

Control TreatedFru

it y

ield

(kg

/tre

e)

12/3/2014

16


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Treated ControlF

ruit

set

(%

)

a

b

Mechanical shaking to transfer pollenSelf-fertile cultivars

Mechanical harvest

• Harvest costs are >50% of all• Labor cost increasing• Labor availability decreasing

12/3/2014

17

Mechanical harvest

• Taking short- and long-term approach using total systems approach– Mechanical assist (shake-and-catch)– Fully mechanical harvest

In domestic and export markets, stem-free cherries are accepted/preferred

12/3/2014

18

New packaging + marketing by Chelan Fresh

Plant growth regulators

• Post-bloom thinning• AVG for improving fruit set

12/3/2014

19

15 May

73 DBH

9.7 mm

22 May

66 DBH

13.4 mm

29 May

59 DBH

14.0 mm

8 June

49 DBH

14.5 mm

Post-bloom thinning response:

12/3/2014

20

Summary of 2012 trials• Ethephon is an effective post-bloom thinner• Efficacy is rate dependent• Early applications more effective• Quality improvements not assoc. with thinning

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

‘Lapins’

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Fruit quality – weight (g) vs. fruit per foot

Fruit per foot

Fru

it w

eigh

t (g)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

All treatmentsControl100 ppm Ethephon200 ppm Ethephon

• Continuing research on moderate Ethephon rates on quality

12/3/2014

21

‘Kordia’ in Tasmania

Treatment Fruit set (%) Fruit wt (g) Cracked fruit

(%)

Control 9.7 a 14.5 b 25.1 b

AVG 500 g/ha 15.3 b 12.9 a 14.0 a

(ca. ¾ pouch/ac)

Rate of AVG ns ns ns

Time of

application

ns ns ns

Collaboration with Dugald Close, Sally Bound; UTas

Increasing fruit set

Rate and timing studies

• Rates:– 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 pouches/acre– 0, 166, 333, 500 g/ac

• Timings:– Popcorn, 10% FB, 50% FB, ca. FB

Pacific Northwest, 2013

12/3/2014

22

‘Regina’ in Zillah

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

Control 0.5 AVG 1.0 AVG 1.5 AVG

10

% f

ull

blo

om

10

% f

ull

blo

om

10

% f

ull

blo

om

po

pco

rn

50

% f

ull

blo

om

full

blo

om

Fruit set - % available flowers

1.0 AVG

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Control Retain: 30 %FB

Retain: 65 %FB

Retain: 30 &65 % FB

Fru

it S

et (%

)

AVG Improves ‘Regina’ Fruit Set

• Surfactant� 0.1% v:v• Rate� 1 pouch per ac• Timing between 10 to 80% of full bloom

Data from Todd Einhorn, OSU

12/3/2014

23

• Product cost ~ $300/ac

Treatments Yield per limb Fruit per limb Avg. fruit weight

(lbs) (no.) (g)

Control 1.6 b 48 b 11.8

Retain @ 30 % FB 3.1 a 81 a 12.0

Retain @ 65 % FB 3.0 a 85 a 11.3

Retain @ 30 & 65 % FB 3.0 a 92 a 12.0

2011 Limb Trials

Treatment Yield Projected based on actual tree density

(lbs/tree) (tons/a)

Control 51.9 b 6.3

ReTain (1 pouch/a) 69.2 a 8.4

P>F 0.022

4 reps (RCBD), n=19

2013 Orchard Trials

Data from Todd Einhorn, OSU

AVG Improves ‘Regina’ Fruit Set

Recommendations:

• ReTain® applied at 10% to full bloom

• 333 g per acre

• Single application

• Particularly during warm weather

12/3/2014

24

Pruning severity

Light HeavyMediumPruning severity levels:• Light pruning: thinning cuts

and few heading cuts.• Medium pruning: balanced

thinning cuts and few heading cuts.

• Heavy pruning: many thinning cuts and heading cuts.

Pre-pruning

Post-pruning

Samples: 45 trees, 15 blocks with 5 trees of each, 3 blocks for each pruning level.

Data collection:• PAR interception of pre-

and post-pruning.• Length and diameters of

both ends of all branches in each tree pre-pruning.

• Length and diameters of both ends of all pruningsfrom each tree.

• Total weight of all pruningsfrom each tree.

Experiment

12/3/2014

25

12.3

20.2

27.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

light medium high

rela

tiv

e r

ed

uct

ion

of

lig

ht

inte

rce

pti

on

/tre

e (

%)

pruning level

b

cRelative reduction of light interception =

(light interception (pre-pruning) – light

interception (post-pruning))/light

interception (pre-pruning) * 100%

Relative reduction of VCA = (VCA

(pre-pruning) – VCA (post-

pruning))/VCA (pre-pruning) * 100%

y = 1.0692x

R² = 0.4547

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 10 20 30 40

rela

tiv

e r

ed

uct

ion

of

VC

A/t

ree

(%

)

relative reduction of light interception/tree (%)

y = 1.1032x

R² = 0.8393

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 10 20 30 40

rela

tiv

e r

ed

uct

ion

of

VC

A/b

lock

(%

)

relative reduction of light interception/block (%)

a

Significantly different

(P<0.05)

Light interception vs. wood pruned

Conclusion

• Adoption of innovation has been slow in cherry industry

• Market pressures will continue to force innovation

• Research at WSU at leading edge

12/3/2014

26

Questions? FB: WSUStoneFruitPhysiology

handout-matt whiting-opportunities to improve sweet...

Documents