(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Fruit notes"

B\CLO' 



•fti 



D 

a 

D 

D 

a 
a 

a 

D 

a 
a 

D 

n 

D 
D 

a 
a 
a 
a 

D 
D 
D 

a 
a 

D 

o 

D 

□ 
a 

D 

a 
□ 

D 

□ 

D 

□ 

n 
a 

D 
D 




JUUUUUUU _ 

ftuG mi 



DDDnnonnannnanDnDDonnnnnnDna 

D 

a 

D 
D 
D 
□ 
D 
D 



SCIENCES 



S.IBHARY 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 
LIBRARY 



n 
a 
a 
a 

D 
D 

a 
a 
a 

D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
O 
D 
D 

a 
n 

D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 
D 

DDDDDnDaaDDDaDDDDDUDDDDannna 



FRUIT p,- 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Vol. 48 No. 1 
WINTER ISSUE, 1983 

Table of Contents 



FRUIT NOTES Subscription 

Varieties of Grapes for Massachusetts 

Varieties of Peaches for Massachusetts 

Performance of Disease Resistant Apples 
in Massachusetts 

Disease Management for Apples in Massachusetts: 
1982 Results and Summary of the Five-Year Program 

Factors Affecting Nutrient Content of the Foliage 
and Fruits of Apple Trees 

Pomological Notes 

Integrated Management of Apple Pests in Massachusetts, 
1982 Results: Insects 



Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service, Daniel I. Padberg, Director, in furtherance 
of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1 91 4; United States Department of Agriculture and 
County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 
opportunity in programs and employment. 




The cost of publishing FRUIT NOTES has become a significant 
portion of the Smith-Lever allocation for my extension 
program. If we continue to send it free- of - charge very 
little money will be left for travel, attendance at meetings, 
and supplies. Thus, starting with the Spring Issue, FRUIT 
NOTES will be on a subscription basis at $3.00 per year for 
4 issues. Hereafter, the subscription year will commence 
with the Winter Issue. A notice for renewing your subscription 
will appear in the fall issue of the previous year. 

To subscribe to FRUIT NOTES, complete and mail the following 
form with your check for $3.00. 



William J. Lord 
William J. Bramlage 
Editors, FRUIT NOTES 



WJL/pm 



Name 



Mailing address 



Town, State, Country zip 

Make checks payable to: FRUIT NOTES ACTIVITY ACCOUNT 

Send subscription form and check to: William J. Lord 

Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 
French Hall 

University of Massachusetts 
Amherst, MA 01003 



VARIETIES OF GRAPES FOR MASSACHUSETTS 

James F. Anderson 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



The following is a list of varieties that are currently 
recommended for planting in Massachusetts. Many new seeded and 
seedless varieties have been introduced in recent years. Some 
of these may be equal to or better than the one listed. Those 
growers interested in grapes for wine should obtain a copy of 
the Catalog of New and Notev\forthy Fruits from the New York State 
Fruit Testing Cooperative Association, Inc., Geneva, NY 14456. 
This catalog offers a description of the French-hybrid and 
other varieties suitable for wine production. 



Variety 



Recommended for 



Harvest Season 



Schuyler 

Himrod 

Van Buren 

Ontario 

Seneca 

Suffolk Red 

Fredonia 

Buffalo 

Delaware 

Lakemont 

Worden 

Blue Boy (Cook) 

Niagara 

Concord 

Steuben 

T = Trial 



T 

H 
C& H 

H 

H 

T 
C& H 

H 
C&H 

T 
C&H 
C&H 
C&H 
C&H 

T 

H = Home garden 



late-August 

late August— early September 

late August— early September 

late August— early September 

late August— early September 

late August— early September 

early September 

early September 

mid-September 

mid-September 

mid-September 

mid-September 

late-September 

late-September 

late-September 

C = Commercial 



All varieties are not necessarily equally adapted to all sections of the state. Late ripening varieties are recommended 
only for those areas with a sufficiently long growing season to permit satisfactory ripening of the fruit. 



Variety Notes 

Schuyler — A very early, high-quality, black grape. The clusters are medium to large and moderately compact. The 

berries are medium in size, tender, and juicy. The vine is vigorous, productive, and medium in hardiness. 
Schuyler require severe pruning to prevent overbearing. 

Himrod — An early-ripening, seedless grape resulting from a cross between Ontario and Thompson Seedless. Its 

clusters are large and rather loose. The berries are medium, oval, sweet, yellow, vinous, and good. The 
vine is not completely winter-hardy under our conditions and should be restricted to the more favored 
sites. 

Van Buren - An attractive, black grape of good to excellent quality. The vine is vigorous and productive. It is particu- 
larly susceptible to downy mildew. 



An early-ripening, white grape of high quality. The plust^rs are medium in size and tend to be loose. The 
berries tend to shatter considerably within a few days after harvest. The vines are medium in vigor and 
productivity, and are hardy. 

An early-ripening, white grape with a thin, tender, adherent skin. The berries are medium in size, oval, 
and have excellent flavor. The clusters are medium in size and compactness. Seneca is susceptible to win- 
ter injury. 
Suffolk Red - A bright-red, seedless grape. The clusters are medium in size and tend to be loose. The berries are medium 
in size, round, and have very good quality. The vine is medium in hardiness. 



Ontario — 



Seneca 



Fredonia — A good-quality, black grape especially recommended for the roadside stand trade. The clusters are com- 

pact and medium in size. The vine is vigorous, hardy, and productive. It should be pruned less severely 
than Concord. 

Buffalo — A black grape with medium to large size, sweet, vinous flavor and good adherence. The clusters are large 

and tend to be loose. The vine is vigorous and productive, and the fruit holds very well in storage. Buffalo 
tends to overbear and to be susceptible to winter injury if not properly pruned. 

Lakemont — A yellowish-green, seedless grape. Its clusters are medium to large and moderately compact. The berries 
are medium to small in size, oval, tender, juicy, and sweet. The vine has moderate vigor and hardiness. 
Tends to overbear. 

Delaware — A high-quality, red grape with small clusters and berries. The vines are hardy and are moderate in vigor 

and production. Delaware would add to the attractiveness of displays on a roadside stand. 

Worden — Similar to Concord, but ripens a week to ten days earlier. While slightly superior to Concord in quality 

and attractiveness, it has a tendency to crack when ripe and shatters badly within a few days after it is 
harvested. A desirable variety for local trade and the home vineyard. 

Blue Boy — This is an attractive, black grape with an abundance of bluish bloom. Adherence of the berries is good and 
(Cook) the quality is excellent. Vines are productive and the fruit holds in storage unusually well. Recommended 

for commercial planting and is a desirable variety for the home vineyard. 

Niagara — A white grape of high quality with large compact clusters. Would add to attractiveness of display on a 

roadside stand. Ripens with Concord. 

Concord — The particular merits of Concord are its adaptability to a wide variety of soils, its productiveness, hardi- 

ness, vigor, and shipping quality. Concord requires a growing season of approximately 160 days for 
proper ripening of its crop. 

Steuben — Those growers who can mature Concord might wish to try this variety. The grapes are bluish-black in 

color, medium in size, and have very good quality. The clusters are medium to large, compact, and attrac- 
tive. The vines are usually hardy, vigorous, and productive. 



■A ********* 



Variety 



■ A- 



VAR urn lis 0|- PHACIIHS for MASSACimSr.TTS 

.James F. Anderson 
nepartmcnt of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Recommended for 



2 

Flesh color 



Approximate harvest date 



3 



Harbinger 

Candor 

Garnet Beauty 

Sweethaven 

Brighton 

Harbelle 

Reliance 

Raritan Rose 

Redhaven 

Harken 

Harbrite 

Velvet 

Jayhaven 

Glohaven 

Eden 

Richhaven 

Canadian Harmony 

Cresthaven 

Jerseyglo 

Autumnglo 

C — Commercial 



1 



C Y 

T Y 

C Y 

T Y 

T" Y 

C Y 

H Y 

C W 

C Y 

C Y 

C Y 

C Y 

T Y 

C Y 

T W 

C Y 

C Y 

C Y 

T Y 

T Y 

H — Home garden 



-30 
-20 
-13 
-13 
-13 

-8 

-4 

-2 


+3 

+5 

+7 

+7 
+10 
+11 
+12 
+16 
+21 
+26 
+30 



T - Trial 



All varieties are not necessarily equally adapted to all sections of the state. 

2 V - Yellow flesh 
W - White flesh 

Based on harvest date for Redhaven (approximately August 20, but can vary from location to location and season 
to season). Minus sign indicates number of days before; plus sign indicates number of days after Redhaven. 



Harbinger — 

Candor* — 
Garnet Beauty — 

Sweethaven* — 



Variety Notes 

An attractive, small to medium-sized clingstone peach. The flesh is yellow, firm, melting, and has 
very good flavor for this season. The tree is vigorous, productive, and equal to Redhaven in bud 
hardiness. 

The fruits are well-colored, and small to medium in size. The flesh is yellow, firm, and juicy and 
the stone is semi-cling. The buds are hardy and the tree vigorous and productive. 

A bud-sport of Redhaven. Resembles Redhaven in color and texture. It is a semi-clingstone. The 
tree is vigorous, productive, and hardy. 

An early, yellow-fleshed, semi-clingstone peach. The fruits are medium in size, roundish, and well 
colored. The flesh is juicy, slightly fibrous, but soft. The tree is vigorous, productive, and similar 
to Redhaven in bud hardiness. 



Brighton* — 

Harbelle — 

Reliance — 
Raritan Rose — 
Redhaven — 
Harken — 

Harbrite — 
Velvet - 
Jayhaven* — 
Glohaven — 

Eden* - 

Richhaven — 
Canadian Harmony 
Cresthaven* — 

Jerseyglo* — 
Autumnglo* — 



An attractive, high-quality, yellow-fleshed peach. The fruit is roundish, uniformly medium in 
size, and highly colored. The flesh is medium firm, juicy, with very good flavor. The pit is semi- 
cling. The tree is vigorous, productive, and medium-hardy. 

The fruit is large, attractive, with deep-yellow ground color and a bright-red blush. Flesh is a rich 
yellow, medium in firmness, of good quality. The stone is semi-free. The tree is productive, and 
medium in vigor and bud hardiness. 

A medium-sized, roundish, yellow-fleshed freestone peach of fair to good flavor. Reliance is 
recommended as a very hardy variety for the home fruit planting. 

The fruit is large, round, attractive. The flesh is white, firm and juicy. The tree is large, upright- 
spreading, and productive. Bud hardiness is above average. 

The medium-sized fruit is highly colored, attractive, and has firm flesh and fair flavor. The tree 
is very productive and requires heavy thinning. 

A large attractive, yellow-fleshed peach. The flesh is firm, juicy, of good quality and the stone is 
free. The tree is vigorous, productive, and equal to Redhaven in bud hardiness. 

A large, attractive, yellow-fleshed peach. The flesh is medium-firm, juicy, and of good flavor. The 
stone is free. The tree is very productive, hardy and moderately vigorous. 

A medium-to-large, attractive, freestone peach. The flesh is yellow, firm, juicy, and has very good 
flavor. The tree is moderately bud hardy. 

A medium-large, round, bright-colored freestone. The flesh is yellow and melting. The tree is 
more bud hardy than Glohaven. 

A large, roundish, mostly red peach with very little fuzz. The flesh is yellow, very firm, and has 
very good flavor. The stone is free. The tree is medium in bud hardiness, but is vigorous and pro- 
ductive. 

The fruit is large, roundish, with 60 percent red on a creamy white ground color. The white 
flesh is thick, firm, juicy, smooth, and very good in flavor. The stone is free. The tree is vigorous, 
equal to Redhaven in bud hardiness, and very productive. 

A large, attractive, highly-colored freestone of very good quality. The tree is large, vigorous, 
and productive. Bud hardiness is above average. 

A large, highly-colored, yellow-fleshed peach. The flesh is firm, juicy and of good flavor. The 
tree is vigorous, productive, and about equal to Redhaven in bud hardiness. 

A large, oblate-shaped peach with a dark-red blush. The bright yellow flesh is firm, juicy and 
slightly fibrous. There is some red at the pit. The flavor is very good. The tree is vigorous, pro- 
ductive, and medium in hardiness. 

The fruits are large, attractive, and freestone. The flesh is yellow and firm. The trees are vigorous 
and productive, and about equal to Redhaven in bud hardiness. 

A large, round, highly-colored freestone. The flesh is yellow, firm, and melting. The trees are 
vigorous, productive, and are equal to Redhaven in bud hardiness. 



A A A ft A A A A A A 



■6- 



PERFORMANCE OF DISEASE RESISTANT APPLES IN MASSACHUSETTS 

Christopher M. Beckerl Daniel R. Cooley, 
and William J. Manning3 

Department of Plant Pathology, 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 

A number of apple cultivars, with immunity to apple scab, and varying 
degrees of resistance to rusts, powdery mildew and fireblight, are currently 
available from commercial nurseries. As these cultivars have potential use 
in apple disease management programs, designed to reduce fungicide usage, we 
established a block of disease resistant apple cultivars at the Horticultural 
Research Center in the spring of 1978 to determine their performance in Mass- 
achusetts. Fruit were harvested in 1982 for the first time. 

Eight cultivars were planted. Prima, Priscilla, and Sir Prize were developed 
by the Purdue, Rutgers, and Illinois (PRI) Agricultural Experiment Station co- 
operative apple breeding program. MacFree and Nova Easy-gro were developed in 
Canada and Liberty and NY61345-2 by the New York Agricultural Experiment 
Station. Disease-susceptible Imperial Mcintosh was used for comparisons. Trees 
were obtained from either the New York State Fruit Testing Cooperative or Stark 
Bros. Nurseries. 

Cultivars used have been described by their developers as follows: 

Prima: 2-1/2 to 3". 60-80% bright red, over yellow ground color. 

Rich flavor and crisp texture, with mild subacid flavor. 
Flesh, light cream color. Little tendency for fruit to drop 
before harvest. Fruit matures 1 month before Red Delicious, 
and will retain its flavor for up to 1 month at 34 F. Trees 
are spreading and vigorous. Immune to apple scab, susceptible 
to cedar apple rust, slightly susceptible to powdery mildew, 
and resistant to fire blight. Excellent dessert apple. 

Priscilla : 2-1/2 to 3". 75-90% bright red, over yellow ground color.. 
Crisp texture and pleasant aromatic flavor. Texture and 
flavor maintained for 2-3 months at 34 F. 2 weeks before 
Delicious (10 days after Prima) . Little tendency for fruit 
drop before harvest. Trees are moderately spreading and 
vigorous: terminal growth frequently determinate, ending in 
a flower bud. Trees and fruit are immune to apple scab, 
and resistant to cedar apple rust, and fire blight. Fine 
dessert quality. 

Sir Prize : 3 to 3-1/2". Yellow, russet free. Ripens with Golden 

Delicious (4 weeks after Prima). Juicy flesh, fine grained 
texture with thin skir^ that is easily bruised with rough 
handling. Waxy skin does not shrivel in storage. Very good 
keeping quality through the winter season. Trees are vigorous, 
triploid and produce an annual crop. Immune to apple scab, 
moderately resistant to cedar apple rust and powdery mildew, 
trees have shown little fire blight. Excellent for home 
planting or use with direct sales or pick-your-own. 



1 9 

Disease Management Technician ^ Extension Technician 

3 Professor of Plant Pathology 



Macfree: 2-3/4", 75% medium to dark lively red, slightly stripped, 

over greenish-yellow ground color. Juicy white flesh, sometimes 
tinged with green. Slightly course, tough texture, moderate 
acidity and firm; pleasant flavor. Ripens a few days before 
Red Delicious, Stores 3 months at 32 C. Vigorous spreading 
tree: fruit borne throughout. Resistant to apple scab. 

Nova Easy-gro : 2-1/2", blushed or stripped medium red over pale greenish- 
yellow ground color. Creamy white flesh, firm, crisp, moderately 
juicy, subacid; pleasant. Matures with Cortland, keeps well. 
Trees are moderately vigorous, and spreading, with fruit borne 
throughout the tree. Fruit resistant to apple scab. (Multigenic 
resistance from Russian seedling) . 

Liberty : 2-3/4", deep bright red, stripped on greenish-yellow ground 
color. (Mcintosh parentage easily recognizable.) Flesh pale 
yellow, nearly white; crisp, juicy, slightly coarse in texture. 
"Sprightly", subacid; browns rapidly upon exposure to air. 
Keeps well under refridgeration until January and stores very 
well as juice, cider and sauce. Trees are "precocious"; out- 
yielded Mcintosh and Red Delicious on similar topworked trees. 
Vigorous growth, round topped and spreading: very productive 
with fruitbuds terminally and laterally on shoots of current 
year's growth and spurs. Immune to apple scab and cedar apple 
rust; resistant to powdery mildew and fire blight. 

NY 61345-2 : 2-7/8", 90% red blush. Crisp, juicy, slightly coarse; sprightly. 
Tree: vigorous and upright. 2 days before Red Delicious. Immune 
to apple scab, moderately resistant to cedar apple rust and 
powdery mildew. 

Standard insecticide sprays were applied from 1978-1982, but no fungicides 
were used. Natural inoculum for apple scab and cedar-apple rust was abundant 
in all years. 

In mid-September, 100 randomly-chosen leaves per tree were evaluated for 
per cent apple scab, cedar-apple rust, and frog-eye leaf spot (black rot). Fruit 
were evaluated at harvest for scab and other diseases. Results are summarized 
in Table 1. 

All of the disease resistant cultivars were completely free from fruit 
and foliar scab. Imperial Mcintosh, however, had 48.5% foliar and 28.3% fruit 
scab. While all the disease resistant cultivars had less foliar cedar-apple 
rust than Imperial Mcintosh, Macfree and Sir Prize had more foliar infection 
than Nova Easy-gro, NY 61345-1, Priscilla, and Liberty. The original Prima 
trees died before 1982. Several younger Prima trees were completely free from 
scab, but had extensive cedar-apple rust on leaves. One Prima fruit also had 
a rust infection spot. All cultivars had frog-eye leaf spot, with Sir Prize 
having the highest incidence. Frog-eye leaf spot on Sir Prize, however, consists 
primarily of small purplish flecks, rather than more typical symptoms. 

To determine fruit quality. Nova Easy-gro, Liberty, Macfree, NY 61345-2, and 
Imperial Mcintosh fruit were harvested and stored at 34 F. in a conventional 
cold storage. After one month of storage, fruit were removed, sliced, and 
offered to 29 randomly-chosen students, secretaries, faculty and technicians. 



Most tasters found little difference between Imperial Mcintosh, Macfree, and 
Nova Easy-gro. While all had similar textures Nova Easy-gro, and Macfree were 
judged to have slightly less flavor than Imperial Mcintosh. Wi 61345-2 was 
generally agreed to be a tasty and slightly tart apple. While not as firm as 
Imperial Mcintosh, NY 61345-2 was rated as the first choice of most tasters. 
Liberty compared well with Imperial Mcintosh, but was not as sweet and did 
not store as well. 

When tasters were shown nonlabelled fruit of all the cultivars, all comments 
were favorable. More than 80% of the tasters agreed that they would purchase 
the fruit if available in roadside stands or in supermarkets. 

In 1983, we will be adding the following new cultivars to our planting: 

Redfree: Redfree is a medium size (2-3/4") apple with 90% good red 

color and smooth, waxy, russet-free skin. Flesh is white, 
crisp and juicy. Retains quality for two months or more in 
storage. Fruit ripens 3 weeks before Prima and 7 weeks before 
Delicious. Immune to scab and cedar rust, moderately resistant 
to fire blight and mildew. 

Jonaf ree: Closely resembles and matures with Jonathan. Fruits are 
2-1/2 to 2-3/4", 75% medium red, with a smooth russet-free 
skin. Flesh is pale, crisp, and juicy. Immune to scab and 
resistant to fire blight and cedar-apple rust. Moderately 
susceptible to mildew. Fruit hangs well to maturity and do 
not develop Jonathan spot. 

King Luscious : A very large, highly-colored apple with good keeping, eating 
and cooking qualities. The skin is a deep red with a beautiful 
bloom. The flesh is pure white, with excellent flavor. Season 
of ripening is with Rome Beauty and Stayman, although it may 
be picked sooner for cooking purposes. The tree is a young 
and annual bearer, blooming a week after Rome Beauty, to 
make it almost completely frost-proof. The tree is semi- 
dwarf in habit, sets it scaffold branches well, and needs 
little pruning. Both tree and fruit are resistant to apple 
scab. U.S. Plant Patent No, 1994. 

Redfree and Jonaf ree are being obtained from Hilltop Nurseries. King 
Luscious will come from Bountiful Ridge Nurseries. 

All of the trees in the Disease Resistance block will be labelled this 
spring by name. Please feel free to examine them when you visit the Horticultural 
Research Center. For additional information on disease resistant apple trees, 
contact Dr. William J. Manning in the Department of Plant Pathology. 

This activity is supported by the Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service. 



Table 1. Performance of young disease resistant apple trees in Massachusetts 
in 1982. 











% foliar disease 


No. 




No. 




(100 


leaves 


evaluated/ tree) 




trees 


Cultivars 


Scab 




Rust 


Frog-eye 


fruit 


% Scab 


2 


Macfree 


■ 




18.5 


22.5 


35 





4 


Nova Easy-gro 







0.5 


15.5 


16 





4 


NY 61345-2 







0.5 


23.3 


16 





2 


Priscilla 







4.0 


15.0 


3 





2 


Sir Prize 







32.0 


75.5 








3 


Liberty 







1.3 


11.3 


35 





2 


Imp. Mcintosh 


48.5 




44.0 


20.0 


19 


26.3 



-10- 



DISEASE MANAGE^fENT FOR APPLES IN MASSACHUSETTS: 
1982 RESULTS AND SUMMARY OF THE FIVE-YEAR PROGRAM 

Christopher M. Becker,^ Ted R. Bardinelli,2 
Daniel R. Cooley,^ Kristin G. Pategas,^and 
William J. Manning^ 

Department of Plant Pathology 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 

The five-year pilot program to develop and evaluate new and innovative 
apple disease management practices in Massachusetts terminated in 1982. Our 
results for 1982 and a summary of the entire program are presented here. 

1982 Results 

In 1982, 13 commercial apple orchards were involved in the program. Four 
followed traditional disease management practices and served as controls for 
comparisons. The other 9 were visited by scouts on a regular basis and ap- 
plied fungicides to manage apple scab (and other diseases) on a "post-infection" 
basis only. Hygro thermographs were used to determine when infection periods 
had occurred and when fungicides should be applied. A more complete descrip- 
tion of the disease management program can be found in Fruit Notes 46(1) pp. 3-4. 

Like many growing seasons in Massachusetts, 1982 was unusual. New green 
apple leaves emerged at the same time that mature ascospores of the scab fungus 
were available. Two extensive Infection periods occurred in late May with heavy 
inoculum released. Primary scab season ended on 4th June. A complete summary 
of wetting and infection periods for 1982 is given in Table 1. 

Fungicide usage and fruit disease incidence for disease management orch- 
ards are given in Table 2. Results for control orchards are In Table 3. 
Disease management orchards averaged one less fungicide application. Reduc- 
tion in dosage equivalents (2.6 fewer than controls), however, resulted in 
savings of $32 per acre for fungicides. Disease management orchards had a 
slight increase in per cent diseased fruit at harvest when compared to con- 
trols. Savings realized with reduced fungicide costs, however, more than 
offset the slight increase in costs due to a few more diseased fruit at 
harvest. 

Paired t-tests were used to compare results from disease management and 
control orchards (Table 4). No significant differences (P = 0.05) were found 
between the number of fungicide applications, per cent diseased fruit at har- 
vest, and dollar losses from disease. There was a significant difference 
between actual fungicide usage, or dosage equivalents, and fungicide costs 
per acre. Disease management growers used less fungicide without significant 
increases in fruit diseases at harvest. 

Variation in the number of fungicide sprays (8-14) and dosage equivalents 
(5.67-11.88) in IPM orchards is closely related with both efficiency in timing 
of scab sprays, and the necessity for fungicide applications for diseases other 
than apple scab, especially the rusts, and powdery mildew. When post- infec- 
tion scab sprays were too late to Inhibit apple scab infections, or poor cover- 
age was achieved by spraying during windy weather, additional fungicide appli- 



llPM Technician 1981-82 ^IFH Technician 1978-80 3Extension Technician 
^IPM Scout ^Professor of Plant Pathology 



-11- 

cations at high rates were necessary to "burn-out" or eradicate scab lesions. 
Where rust control was essential, protective sprays were necessary before 
all wetting periods (over 4 hours in length) as post-infection applications 
of fungicides are not possible for rust management. 

Five- Year Summary 

A cost/benefit analysis for the five-year program is presented in Table 
A. In each year of the program, disease management growers made fewer fungi- 
cide applications, with fewer dosage equivalents, and reduced fungicide costs, 
compared to control growers. Per cent diseased fruit at harvest in disease 
management orchards was either comparable to or only slightly higher than in 
control orchards. Disease management benefits per acre were variable, but 
always positive for cooperating growers. 

When we examined the results for a five-year period, three trends became 
evident to us. The first was that disease management benefits are most likely 
to occur at a higher dollar level in dry spring seasons, as in 1980, rather 
than in wet ones, as in 1982. With fewer wetting periods, greater efficiency 
can be achieved in timing post-infection sprays. 

The second trend is that continued benefits from disease management de- 
crease in magnitude with time. Fungicide sprays and dosage equivalents can- 
not be further reduced in number every year. Many control growers have also 
begun to adopt disease management practices, obtained from the numerous Ex- 
tension education programs we have been involved in over the past five years. 
It is becoming increasingly difficult to find control orchards where only 
traditional methods are used. 

Per cent disease incidence for the five-year period is summarized in 
Table 5. Apple scab incidence has been reduced. The trend for calyx end 
rots, however, is increasing slightly. Timing sprays only for scab manage- 
ment may have increased infection possibilities for end rot fungi before 
or after bloom. Using fungicides that are good for scab management may also 
mean that they are not as good for end rot management. Anytime a practice 
is changed, we can expect that new problems may develop. The use of one or 
more sprays of a protective fungicide, rather than a "post-infection" or 
"kick-back" material, from tight cluster to petal fall, should eliminate 
calyx end rot problems, especially during wet growing seasons. 

Acknowledgements : 

We have been able to obtain considerable information about apple disease 
management during the last five years. We could not have done this without 
the enthusiastic and generous support and cooperation of the participating 
Massachusetts fruit growers. 

This program was supported by special funds from the USDA, by the Massa- 
chusetts Cooperative Extension Service, and the Massachusetts Fruit Growers 
Association. 



12- 



Table 1. Wetting and infection periods for the apple scab fungus at the Horticultural 
Research Center in Belchertown, MA in 1982 





Apple 
growth 


Wetting Periods 




Rain 


% Mature 
apple scab 


Potential 




Hour 


Duration Mean Temp. 


primary- 


Date 


stage 


began 


(hrs . ) 


CF) 


(mm) 


ascospores 


scab infec- 


















tion 


















severity 


A/17/82 


Green tip 


20 


8 


50 


17.2 


5 




None 


4/21/82 


Green tip 


8 


5 


48 


4.5 


10 




None 


4/24/82 


1" green 


22 


8 


52 


0.01 


23 




None 


4/26/82 


1" green 


13 


24 


52 


23.5 


25 




Heavy 


4/27/82 


Tight cluster 


23 


12 


40 


4.6 


25 




None 


5/8/82 


Early bloom 


24 


9 


51 


0.7 


55 




None 


5/19/82 


Petal fall 


23 


4 


67 


7.8 


55 




None 


5/22/82 


Petal fall 


22 


58 


44 


16.1 


53 




Heavy 


5/29/82 


Late petal 


















fall 


1 


34 


56 


70.8 


50 




Heavy 


5/30/82 


1/4" fruit 


24 


14 


58 


0.5 


30 




Moderate 


6/1/82 


1/4" fruit 


21 


15 


60 


24.5 


5 




Moderate 


*6/4/82 


1/4" fruit 


17 


91 


52 


93.2 


3 




Heavy 



*End of primary scab season. 



13 



Table 2. Cost/benefit analysis of fungicide usage and fruit quality in disease 
management orchards in 1982 



Orchard 


% Diseased 
fruits at 
harvest 


$ Loss to 
disease per 
acre 


Number of 
fungicide 
sprays 


Dosage 
equivalents 


Fungicide 
cost per 
acre 


1 


0,1 scab 

0.1 end rot 


7.70 


11 


8.26 


$ 81.75 


2 


0.1 scab 
0.1 black rot 
1.1 end rot 
1.1 quince rust 


92.40 


11 


11.76 


$122.72 


3 


0.1 scab 

0.2 quince rust 

1.8 end rot 


80.85 


11 


10.2 


$100.40 


4 


0.3 scab 
0.1 quince rust 
2.3 end rot 
0.1 black rot 


107.80 


14 


11.88 


$113.46 


5 


0.2 scab 


7.70 


14 


10.32 


$121.28 


6 


0.1 scab 
0.1 quince rust 
0.1 bitter rot 
2.8 end rot 


119.35 


10 


8.80 


$ 95.01 


7 


0.1 scab 


19.25 


11 


8.48 


$ 97.14 


8 


0.4 end rot 


15.40 


11 


9.44 


$122.31 


9 


0.1 end rot 


3.85 


8 


5.67 


$ 66.18 


Avg. 


0.11 scab 
1.00 end rot 
0.16 quince rust 
0.04 other 

1.31 TOTAL 


50.48 


11.20 


9.42 


$102.25 



14 



Table 3. Cost/benefit analysis of fungicide usage and fruit quality in control 
orchards in 1982 





% Diseased 


$ Loss to 


Number of 


Dosage 


Fungicide 


Orchard 


fruits at 


disease per 


f ungic ide 


equivalents 


cost per 




harvest 


acre 


sprays 




acre 


1 








12 


13.64 


$149.10 


2 


0.10 scab 


3.85 


12 


11.64 


$133.44 


3 


0.60 scab 












0.30 end rot 


77.00 


12 


9.81 


$106.38 




0.10 black rot 










4 








14 


13.0 


$148.29 



Average . 53 



20.21 



12.5 



12.02 



$134.30 



15- 



00 
0\ 



•a 

3 
O 

u 



00 



0) 

u 

3 
Xi 

u 
CO 



o 

c 
<u 

"O 
•H 
U 

c 

•H 

(U 
(0 
OJ 
(U 
CO 
•H 

<u 

00 

rt 

CO 

3 

(U 
'O 
•H 

O 
•H 

00 



O 
>4-l 

03 

CO 

I-l 

a 

CO 



a 



CO 

o 
u 






00 
CTS 



a 

c« 

VI 

O 
P- 
(U 



M-l 
O 

CD 
U 
CO 

(U 
>> 

>i 
,Q 

CO 
4J 
i-l 

3 
CO 
(1) 

Pi 



00 





* 


* 


o 


CM 


O 


to 


O 


m 


• 


• 


» 


CM 


csl 


<■ 


iH 


iH 


CO 


CM 


CM 


m 


CN 


•* 


CM 


• 


• 


• 


iH 


o\ 


CM 


iH 




O 



u 



o 

CO 



u 






00 

CTl 



3 
•H 

&q 

CO 
>^ 



m 


iH 


m 


CM 


• 


• 


o 


O 




CM 


rH 


r-~ 


n 


-» 


• 


• 


I-l 


o 




u-| 



O 


sr 


o 


o 


(T. 




o 


o 


o 


CM 


r-. 




• 


• 


• 


• 


• 




n 


CM 


o 


o 


cy. 




H 


rH 










O 


CO 


CM 


r>. 


00 


CJ\ 


o 


VO 


t~. 


r~ 


CM 


r^ 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


i-H 


<yi 


\o 


o 


m 


r^ 


rH 




o 




CO 





vO 


o 


00 


Ov 


o 




CO 


00 


in 


a\ 


CO 




o 


00 


-4- 


o 


VO 




rH 




o\ 




m 




in 


iH 


VO 


00 


i-H 


i-H 


<■ 


iH 


CM 


00 


CO 


CO 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


• 


CTi 


00 


m 


o 


o 


in 






00 




m 


i-H 



O 


rH 


00 


O 


rH 


VO 


* 


• 


• 


CO 


iH 


00 


rH 


rH 


00 


>* 


r^ 


VD 


VO 


r-» 


o 


• 


• 


« 


O 

rH 


as 





CO 


00 


<j\ 


<!• 


• 


• 


o 


CO 




^ 


C3N 


00 


<T> 


CM 


• 


• 


o 


VO 




o- 





o 


00 




CM 






in 


rH 


1 


CO 




u 


• 


• 


1 


• 


1 




CM 


CM 


1 


rH 


1 




rH 


rH 






1 




O 


-* 


+ 


m 


+ 


•K 


00 


O 


1 


>* 


1 


a 


• 


• 


1 


• 


1 




rH 


CM 


1 


CO 


1 




rH 


iH 









u 

•H CO 

M C 

C O 

3 -H 

M-l 4J 

CO 

4h O 

O -H 

rH 

• Pu 

O P. 

!3 CO 



§ 

rH 

3 
cy 

0) 

0) 
00 
CO 
CO 

o 
P 



u 
o 

CO 



CO 

o 
o 

0) 



60 

c 

3 



3 
u 

ItH 

0} CO 
CO 0) 



> 
>H 



CO to 

•H ^ 
4-1 

e^ to 



a 
to 

<u 

CO 
CO 
(U 
CO 

•H 



CO 
CO 



a\ 



C~J 

CO 



C! 


Q) 


CU 


U 


e 


O 


(U 


CO 


60 




CO 


V4 


C 


4) 




ft 




(0 


Q) 


•U 


CO 


•H 


CO 


iw 


CU 


Q) 


CO 


c 


•H 


CU 


Q 


^ 



a 

CO 

o 
>-l 

D. 
MH 

o 



CO 
>-4 



c 
to 



o 

c 



to 
o 



CO 

,c 
o 
n 
o 



o 

4J 

c 
o 

o 

II 

u 



13 

to 

u 
u 

o 



(U 

a 

60 



to 

to 

CU 

to 



3 

CO 
CU 

a 
o 



"V 

<u 
V( 

CO 

o 
o 



c 

CU 

u 
CU 

14H 

CU 
•H 



(3 
CO 
CJ 
•H 
UH 
•H 

& 






-16- 



Table 5. Per cent disease incidence at harvest in apples from disease 
management orchards in Massachusetts for a five-year period 



Disease 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 

Apple scab 
Calyx end rots 
Rusts 
Black rot 
Bitter rot 
Fly speck 
Other* 

Total 3.45 0.99 0.90 0.77 1.31 

*0ther includes sooty blotch, moldy core and white rot. 



2.88 


0.66 


0.46 


0.13 


0.11 





0.08 


0.19 


0.14 


1.00 





0.06 


0.07 


0.03 


0.17 


0.44 


0.07 


0.08 


0.02 


0.02 


0.02 


0.05 


0.02 


0.04 


0.01 


0.06 


0.06 


0.04 


0.04 





0.05 


0.01 


0.05 


0.37 






-17- 

FACTORS AFFECTING NUTRIENT CONTENT OF THE FOLIAGE 
AND FRUITS OF APPLE TREES 

William J. Lord and William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Ideas as to what constitutes a desirable fertilizer program 
have changed several times during the last 80 years. At one 
time it was thought that orchards needed only phosphorous (P) 
and potassium (K) containing fertilizers. Very little, if any, 
nitrogen (N) was recommended. The use of N, only, was the next 
concept for meeting the nutrient need of trees. By 1950 annual 
applications of N and occasional applications of K, magnesium 
(Mg) and boron (B) were being recommended in Massachusetts. Witli 
the exception of N, Mg was considered the element most likely 
to be deficient in our orchard soils. P was not considered a 
limiting factor in orchard soils and there was no evidence that 
apple trees suffered from lack of calcium (Ca) . 

In the mid-1950's, Weeks et al . in Massachusetts reported 
that Mcintosh trees with a medium level of leaf N and a high level 
of leaf K produced fruit with more red color than those with high 
or medium N and low K, and growers were advised to use less N 
and more K. By this time the detrimental effects of high N on 
pre-harvest drop, flesh firmness and storage life of fruits was 
well recognized. Leaf analysis now was considered a more useful 
diagnostic tool than soil analysis for determining the nutritional 
needs of apple trees. 

During the last 2 decades even greater attention has been 
given to the effects of nutrition on the quality of harvested 
fruits. Calcium deficiency was found associated with some physio- 
logical disorders of apples. These findings have continued to 
stimulate considerable research emphasis on the roles of both 
macro- and micro-elements in the postharvest quality of fruits. 
An area of particular interest in England and Massachusetts is 
determining the usefulness of fruit analysis for predicting 
storage life. Hence, it is obvious that the scope of apple nutri- 
tion has widened from theconcern about the tree to achieving 
optimum nutrition for both the tree and the fruit. Unfortunately, 
the needs of the tree and fruit may differ and a compromise is 
necessary in some instances. Here we review the factors affect- 
ing the nutrient content of the trees and fruit, and the relation- 
ship between nutrition and fruit quality. 

Crop Size 

The effects of crop size on vegetative growth, nutrient uptake, 
and leaf and fruit nutrition are shown in Table 1. 



-18- 



Table 1. The effects of cropping on growth, and leaf and fruit 
nutrition of apple trees. 



Measure 



Heavy cropping trees in comparison to 
non-bearing or light - cropping trees 
will have: 



Vegetative growth 
Nutrient uptake 

Leaf N 
Fruit N 

Leaf K 
Fruit K 

Leaf Ca 
Fruit Ca 
Leaf Mg 
Fruit Mg 
Leaf P 
Fruit P 



Less shoot and root growth . 

Less uptake of elements because of 
restriction oi' root growth. 

Higher leaf N 

No effect but if fruit N too high 
quality will be reduced. 

Lower leaf K 

Lower fruit K because of large demand 
of fruits for this element 

High leaf Ca 

Higher fruit Ca 

Slightly higher leaf Mg 

Little, if any, effect 

Little, if any, effect 

Little, if any, effect 



Leaves from a large crop tree may contain 0.2 to 0.3-0 more N 
than when the same tree has a light crop. K in leaves may decline 
as much as 0.4% in a heavy crop year. Leaf Ca follows the same 
trend as N and exhibits about the same difference as N in leaf 
content between the light and heavy crop years. Leaf Mg is slightly 
higher in a heavy crop than in a light crop year. Crop size has 
little, if any, effect on leaf P. 

Total K absorbed and the total dry matter produced is similar 
for fruiting and non-fruiting trees but in heavy-cropping trees 
is translocated into the fruits. Thus, the demand of a large crop 
for K is great and both the tree and fruit may be deficient in 
this element. Leaf injury because of K deficiency can cause pre- 
harvest drop and reduce fruit size. In contrast, light cropping 
trees are probably much higher in K than is needed because of 
"luxury" uptake. 



-19- 



A very small amount of Ca moves into the fruits in compari- 
son to the amounts of Mg , N, P and K. Nevertheless the presence 
of adequate Ca in the soil does not assure sufficient uptake by 
the tree and translocation especially to the fruit; nor does 
adequate Ca in the tree ensure optimum Ca levels in the fruit 
because there is competition between leaves and fruits for this 
clement and leaves are a stronger competitor. The high leaf/fruit 
ratio on light cropping trees tends to increase fruit size which 
dilutes the Ca content of the fruit. In contrast, heavy cropping 
reduces the excessive vegetative demand for Ca and makes this 
element more available to the fruit. Fruit size may be reduced 
by heavy cropping; smaller fruit have more Ca than larger fruit. 

Fruits which constitute the greater part of the total dry 
matter iii fruiting trees, have a much lower N concentration in 
their dry matter than is found in the new growth of non-fruiting 
or light- fruit ing trees. Therefore, N deficiency is most likely 
to occur on non- or light - fruiting trees which have large demand 
for this element for root and top growth, than on a heavy- cropping 
tree. Mg tends to accumulate at a uniform rate in the fruit and 
any reduction in Ca accumulation is reflected by a higher ratio 
of Mg and/or K to Ca . 

It is clear from above that the nutrient needs differ greatly 
for the non- or light-cropping tree in comparison to the heavy- 
cropping tree. Except for uptake of K, which is very mobile, the 
uptake and transport of nutrients is suppressed by heavy fruiting. 
Also with the exception of K the demands for the other nutrients 
is much less in heavily bearing trees in comparison to those 
with no crop or a light crop. What does this mean in regard to 
fertilization? 

Young non-bearing trees require heavy fertilization with N 
to stimulate growth and only moderate amounts of K, and P is not 
considered a limiting factor in orchard soils. N levels should be 
reduced in bearing trees (1.80 - 2.00% "leaf N is optimum for most 
varieties) and moderate levels of K, Mg , B and high levels of 
Ca should be maintained. Unfortunately, sufficiently high levels 
of Ca generally are possible only by spray applications of CaCl^. 
And, as discussed later, soil management practices may have greater 
influence on tree nutrition than fertilization. 

Interaction Among Elements 

Ca deficiency can occur independently of its availability in 
the soil because excess K can affect uptake, and after uptake the 
distribution within the tree. Thus, the Ca/K ratio may be as 
important as the availability of the Ca. Researchers in South Africa 
believe that leaf Ca level of 1.60% and a K/Ca ratio of 0.65 are 
necessary to minimize the incidence of bitter pit under their 
conditions . 



20- 



An excess of N increases the need for Ca. In young leaves 
of rapidly j^rowing shoots most of the Ca may be tied up in the 
form of calcium oxalate and the supply of this element may tlius 
be low for other functions. 

Leaf Mg is apt to be suppressed by high leaf K but in fruits 
there is a positive correlation between K and Mg , showing that an 
increase in one element is accompanied by an increase in the otlicr. 
At Ca levels below a certain threshold value, Mg may substitute 
for Ca . However, increasing Mg from a deficient to an adequate 
level can actually increase Ca uptake because breakdown of the feeder 
root system, essential foi- nutrient uptake, is the first effect of Mg 
de f iciency . 

Roots and Soil 

The growth and function of the roots are closely linked to 
those of the shoot. The roots are dependent on the shoots for 
assimilation whereas roots produce hormones and remove from the soil 
elements essential for shoot activity. An important factor re- 
stricting root development is the aeration status of the soil. 
Roots of fruit trees will avoid regions of poor aeration. Thus, 
on soils with a high water table, the trees will be shallow rooted. 
Nutrient uptake may be sufficient on these soils, however, shallow- 
rooted trees will suffer from drought sooner than those with deep 
roots. A drought will lower the availability of nutrients to the 
roots, restrict root growth, and may decrease the absorptive 
capacity of the roots quite markedly. 

Far more insidious conditions occur in soils subject to tempor- 
ary water logging because of the presence of a hardpan near the soil 
surface. This occurs on a Wethersfield soil at the Horticultural 
Research Center where trees will become severely weakened or die 
for lack of soil oxygen because of temporary water saturation within 
20 inches of the soil surface in the spring. 

Not all horizons in the soil are equally able to supply nutrients 
to the tree. The concentrations of most elements are highest at 
the soil surface and decrease with depth, but the rate of decrease 
differs between elements. For example, there is a strong vertical 
difference in K status in soil, K being highest near the surface. 

Under drought conditions the permeability of the roots to water 
uptake decreases very rapidly; reduction in water permeability 
reduces the uptake of all ions. In Massachusetts we arc particularly 
concerned about K and B deficiency and reduced fruit size in drought 
years . 



21- 



Soil Management 

Soil-mulch systems . When apple trees are heavily mulched, it is 
necessary to adjust fertilizer programs, especially aTter the 
mulch commenced to decay. While the material applied as mulch 
varies considerably in chemical content, the average hay mulch 
contains approximately 1% N, 0.41 P, and 1.3% K. On this basis, 
33 pounds of hay mulch is equivalent to 1 pound of ammonium 
nitrate in respect to the N added to the soil. The heavy appli- 
cation of mulch eventually adds large quantities of K and N to 
the soil. In addition to adding K to the soil, mulch makes more 
readily available the soil's reserve supply of K. 

Mulching presents a dilemma in regards to nutrition. Hay 
mulch can suppress grass and weed growth, improve soil structure, 
conserve moisture, and is a source of N and K. Calcium mobility 
might be greater under mulched trees becaus'e this element is 
carried by water. High K is favorable for red color development 
and the need of this element is high in heavy- cropping trees. 
In contrast, high K can suppress Ca uptake and mulch might pro- 
vide excessive N. 

Cult ivation . This system of soil management is generally practiced 
only in young plantings when land has been cleared from woods 
or when an old orchard site is renovated. After a year or 2, 
grasses and weeds are allowed to re-establish themselves between 
the rows or the land is re- seeded. 

Cultivation under the trees can affect nutrient level because 
it destroys the roots in the surface soil which is particularly 
high in K and P. Grass and weed competition are reduced by 
cultivation, thus soil moisture is conserved and N is more avail- 
able because grass competes with the trees for N. 



Chemical Weed Control . Considerable attention has been given to 
the effect of herbicides on nutrition. A number of workers have 
reported that sub-lethal concentrations of simazine will increase 
leaf N of apple trees. In contrast, in our field studies, no 
differences in nutrient levels or in growth of apple trees could 
be attributed to simazine. However, in greenhouse studies, we 
found th'at low concentrations of soi 1 - incorporated simazine did 
increase leaf N of Mcintosh apple trees grown in 30 lb. cans. We 
believe the lack of a response under our field conditions is 
because most of the simazine is adsorbed by the organic matter in 
the upper 3 inches of the soil and not available to tree roots. 



The effects of herbicide strips on root growth and nutrient 
uptake have recently received much attention in England and Europe 
The studies at East Mailing Research Station show that apple trees 
produce most of their roots in and obtain most of their mineral 
nutrients from the soil of the herbicide strip. Root growth under 



22- 



the grassed alley appeai'ed deeper and more sparse. 

Herbicides indirectly affect the nutrition of fruit trees 
because killing of vegetation under the trees reduces the com- 
petition between the grass and tree roots for minerals and 
water. Furthermore, herbicides will decrease soil pH and ad- 
versely affect earthworm populations and thereby soil structure. 

Effects of Fertilization on Fruit Quality 

Calcium : In 1936 bitter pit was found to be related to low Ca 
levels in apples. Thirty years later it could still be stated 
that "Inspite of the very low Ca status of many orchards soils., 
there have been few reports of direct responses by bearing apple 
trees to Ca . . . " ( Temperate to Tropical Fruit Nutrition , Norman 
F. Childers, Editor) . Today , however , there is strong concern 
about Ca levels in apples and pears just about anywhere in the 
world that they are grown . 

At first, this concern was directed at bitter pit and cork 
spot but today we know that many physiological disorders may be 
at least partly related to low Ca levels in the fruit. In Vv-armer 
fruit growing areas, cork spot and bitter pit remain the most 
serious effects of low Ca, but in cooler areas various forms of 
internal breakdown are the most serious Ca-def iciency problem. 
In British Columbia, Canada, the 'Spartan' apple industry was 
almost destroyed by breakdown problems before methods of raising 
fruit Ca levels were successfully developed. 

Nitrogen : Excessive amount of N in the tree and fruit can severely 
reduce fruit quality. The vigorous growth that it encourages 
reduces the Ca level of the fruit. Moreover, the high N fruit 
tend to be larger, greener, softer, more subject to preharvest 
drop, and to have more cork spot and bitter pit. These fruit 
also tend to develop greater amounts of scald, bitter pit, inter- 
nal browning, and internal breakdown during and after storage. 

Excessive N levels are probably very common but deficient 
levels rarely occur. In the Pacific Northwest it has been esti- 
mated that 50 to 751 of apple orchards and a smaller percentage 
of pear orchards, are excessively high in N. The effects of high 
N on apples are perhaps being masked at harvest by use of growth 
regulators, especially Alar, but growth regulators cannot mask 
their consequences after storage. 

Potassium : K deficiency has only a mild effect on fruit quality, 
reducing acidity of the fruit and reducing red coloration. Ex- 
cessive amounts of K in fruit are a greater danger to fruit quality, 
since they lead to increased scald, bitter pit, and internal break- 
down after storage. 



-23- 



Magnesi um : There is little evidence that either too little 
or too much Mg directly affects fruit quality. However, excess 
Mg interferes with Ca just as does excess K, so excessive amounts 
of Mg will produce Ca deficiency effects in fruit. 

Phosphorus : P deficiency can reduce tree growth and yield, and 
in several parts of the world it has also been shown to cause 
increased amounts of breakdown of apples during storage. How- 
ever, in North America there has been very little evidence f6r 
P deficiency in fruit. We have recently found that high levels 
of P in apples, especially in combination with low levels of 
Ca, greatly increased breakdown of apples during storage. 

Boron : B deficiency has occurred over much of North America, 
causing both internal and external cork development in fruit. 
Excessive levels of B in fruit can cause earlier maturation and 
increased amounts of water core at harvest, and increased amounts 
of breakdown after storage. Thus, a moderate level of B is 
important for good fruit quality. 

B also influences Ca movement in the tree. If it is deficient, 
less Ca is moved to the fruit and Ca deficiency can result. It 
is therefore important to maintain adequate B levels as a part of 
a program to avoid Ca deficiency. 



POMOLOGICAL NOTES 

For Those Who Care To Know . The first mimeographed copies of 
FRUIT NOTES was issued in March, 1936 with Bill Thies, Editor, at 
about the time of the spring flood. (The spring flood of 1936 is 
well remembered by some of us older folks.) With an exception 
of a few months when no issue was prepared, it has appeared at 
regular intervals from 1936 to the present time. William Lord be- 
came Editor in 1955 and William Bramlage, Co-editor, in 1966. We 
have a mailing list of approximately 1600 and it is mailed to 
19 foreign countries. 



24 



W . M . 



INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT OF APPLE PESTS IN MASSACHUSETTS, 
1982 RESULTS: INSECTS 

Coli , R. Zahnleuter , D. Gordon , K. Leahy , J. Parella , 
D. Roberts and R.J. Prokopy 



Summary of Results. 

In 1982, 36 IPM blocks received 11% fewer insect- 
icide and 171 fewer miticide but 201 more aphicide 
dosage equivalents than check blocks. Insect 
injury to fruit at harvest in IPM blocks averaged 
4.2-0, versus 3.5% in the checks. Growers completely 
implementing IPM specialist recommendations (100% 
cooperator blocks) realized a net benefit of $56.95 
per acre from IPM. 

Number of orchard blocks scouted . 

In 1982, each week from April 12 to September 15, field 
staff visited 36 IPM blocks (about 400 acres) in 20 commercial 
orchards throughout the state. Growers received a written scouting 
report and were contacted in person or by telephone by the IPM 
specialist regarding the need for spraying, recommended materials, 
rates and timing. 

Four commercial check blocks were monitored for presence of 
aphids and mites and their predators 2 or 3 times during the season. 
In addition, on-tree harvest surveys and comparisons of spray records 
were performed in 7 commercial check orchards. 

Grower financial support . 

All participating IPM growers were charged $20 per scouted acre 
for insect and mite scouting and advising. A minimum charge of $400 
was instituted for growers v^ho wished to be on the program but who 
signed up less than 20 acres. The charge for disease scouting, 
weather monitoring stations and grower advising was $200 per orchard 
in 1982. 



Pest Management Specialist 
2 
Senior Field Scout 

Field Scout 
4 
Extension Entomologist 

Reduced spray programs on apples have been discussed in previous 
issues of Fruit Notes : 41(1), 41(2), 41(3), and 43(3) , and our 
1978, 44(6) , 45(6) and 47(1). 



25 

Total grower contribution to the IPM program was $9,500 in 

1982, up from $8,500 in 1981. This money was placed in an Extension 

Activity Account earmarked for Apple IPM program uses (scout sala- 
ries , etc . ) . 

We would like to extend special thanks to Mr. David Chandler, 
Meadowbrook Orchards for his generous donation of a 1975 Buick sta- 
tion wagon for IPM use. The addition of this fine vehicle should 
enable us to extend the useful life of other IPM vehicles previously 
donated by the Massachusetts Fruit Growers Association. 

The extent of grower financial support of the Apple IPM pro- 
gram has been commendable and will serve as a standard by which to 
gauge levels of support of new IPM projects serving other commodity 
groups in the state. 

On behalf of all IPM program staff past and present, we wish to 
express our sincere appreciation for the support and cooperation our 
pilot program has received. 

Sampling methods . 

We have discussed our monitoring techniques in previous issues 
of Fruit Notes . One major addition to these techniques was continued 
field testing of a visual trap for Tentiform leafminer. As we report- 
ed in 1981, preliminary results are encouraging. These results will 
be discussed in a later issue of Fruit Notes . 

Degree of cooperation with IPM specialist advising . 

The extent of grower cooperation with specialist spray recommend- 
ations was excellent in 1982, averaging 831 cooperation (range 43 - 
100%). While this is somewhat lower than last year when cooperation 
averaged 891, in 1981 only 11% of IPM blocks (4 36 blocks) com- 
pletely followed specialist advising, but in 1982, 42% of IPM blocks 
(15 out of 36) completely implemented specialist recommendations. 

Such blocks had substantially lower harvest injury in spite of 
fewer insecticide spray applications when compared to all partial co- 
operator IPM blocks (Table 1). 

Table 1. Percent insect injury and number of insecticide dosage 

equivalents (DE) in 1001 vs. partial cooperator IPM blocks, 1982. 

Previous Year 
All IPM Blocks IPM Blocks only 





% Insect 
Injury 


Insecticide 
DE 


No. 
Blocks 


% Insect 
Inj viry 


Insecticide 
DE 


No. 
Blocks 


100% 
Cooperators 

Partial 
Cooperators 


3.4 
4.7 


4.9 
6.2 


15 
21 


2.8 
5.6 


4.6 

6.4 


12 
12 



we 



RESULTS ^^ 

New or unusual occurrences . 

Some blocks again experienced a problem with gypsy moths (GM) 
blowing in during bloom. Very little fruit injury resulted from GM 
feeding this year, however, and control with petal fall sprays was 
excellent. Few growers experienced problems with large, late instar 
larvae migrating from adjacent defoliated oak stands in 1982. 

Spotted tentiform and apple blotch leafminers (STLM/ABLM) were 
,.^11 below treatment levels in many IPM blocks where 1981 mine counts 
had been high. Although some IPM groivers used Vydate* (oxamyl) at 
pink, others who elected to wait for results of mine counts were 
able to withhold leafminer treatments for the entire season without 
the harmful polulation increases that occurred in past years. 

The reasons for this drop in leafminer pressure are unclear, 
and our present knowledge does not allow us to predict the potential 
for leafminer problems in 1983. 

Both syrphid fly and cecidomyiid midge aphid predators were 
abundant in IPM blocks in 1982 (Table 3). In spite of this, honey- 
dew accumulation was extensive enough to warrant aphicide sprays in 
10 such blocks. 

Fruit injury . 

Fruit injury at harvest in Previous -year IPM, First-year IPM 
and check blocks averaged 4.3, 3.8 and 3.5%, respectively (Table 2). 
The somewhat higher injury level in Previous -year blocks was due 
largely to sooty mold fungus growing on aphid honeydew observed on 
21% of sampled fruit in one IPM block. 

This injury resulted from a late season (August) infestation 
of green aphids on watersprout regrowth in the top center of tree 
canopies. It is doubtful that such injury is of economic signifi- 
cance in this case, however, as the grower typically wipes and pol- 
ishes fruit prior to display in the apple sales room at the farm 
and should be able to remove most of this injury. 

Of insects causing non-removable injury, San Jose Scale (SJS) 
was most troublesome and difficult to control in many commercial 
block samples (Table 2) . For the first time in recent memory av- 
erage injury from SJS surpassed that of the tarnished plant bug, 
(TPB) normally the single most injurious apple pest in Massachusetts. 

Lack of adequate SJS control can be attributed to several fac- 
tors. These include: (a) reduced usage of semidormant oil sprays; 
(b) frequent and heavy rain showers when treatment was required for 
1st generation SJS crawlers; (c) grower reliance on concentrate 
sprays (30-50 gals, per acre) on large trees in hot, dry weather 
when treating for 2nd generation crawlers; and (d) substantially 
reduced use of microencapsulated methylparathion (Penncap-M*) in 

n 

Trade Name 



27 

response to pesticide board regulations governing its use. 

In one block with a long history of SJS problems, Diazinon*pro- 
vided excellent SJS control in combination with an aggressive oil 
program, pruning to enhance spray penetration, and frequent grower 
scouting. This program resulted in 01 SJS injury in 1982 compared 
to 91 such injury in the block in 1980. 

European apple sawfly (EAS) injury was substantially higher in 
all blocks checked in 1982 than in previous years (Table 2). This 
finding, also observed by IPM personnel in Vermont, may have been 
due largely to higher EAS populations in several blocks (cumulative 
average of 43 EAS per trap in one case, 27 per trap in another, for 
example) . 

This apparently higher than normal EAS injury may also be re- 
lated to our continued efforts to distinguish between TPB "dimples" 
and EAS "stings" which are similar in appearance. Inasmuch as most 
EAS injury in 1982 consisted of "stings" rather than well developed 
larval burrows, most EAS injury was not of economic significance. 

Tarnished plant bug injury was somewhat lower in 1982 than in 
recent years. As we have noted previously and as researchers in 
New York State have recently confirmed, the majority of TPB injury 
consists of "dimples" in the fruit calyx which will not adversely 
affect fruit grade. 

In 1982, based on use of white TPB traps, 21% of IPM blocks 
were able to withhold pre-bloom TPB sprays while sustaining 1.1% 
injury from this pest, compared to 0.83% injury in the sprayed 
checks . 

Plum curculio (PC) injury was lower on average in all blocks in 
1982, accounting for 0.43, 0.37 and 0.26% average injury in Previous- 
year IPM, First-year IPM and checks, respectively (Table 2). 

Much of the observed PC injury occurred in late June with an 
unexpected burst of PC activity and most injury was confined to 
block peripheries. Several blocks achieved good PC control using 
border sprays subsequent to an initial block-wide PC treatment ap- 
plied in response to first observation of this pest's activity in 
commercial blocks. 

Combined injury from Gypsy moth, Apple maggot fly (AMP), Leaf- 
rollers (LR) , Codling moth (CM), White apple leafhopper (WAL) and 
Green fruitworms (GFW) was low in 1982, accounting for a total of 
0.04, 0.12, and 0.09% injury in Previous -year IPM, First-year IPM 
and check blocks, respectively. 

Private scout/consultants (New England Fruit Consultants) 
report a possible case of resistance in Green Fruitworm to organo- 
phosphate insecticides. Such resistance in GFW has been noted in 
the Hudson Valley of New York and points out the need for continued 
monitoring of pests which are presently of minor significance in 
New England. 



Trade name 



28 

Table 2. Average I insect injury on fruit at harvest in Previous 
Year IPM, First-Year IPM and Check commercial orchards in 
Massachusetts, 1982. 



1982 Injury ("a) 



Previous-Year'^ First Year 
IPM blocks IPM blocks 
Pests (25 blocks) (11 blocks) 





Check 


(7 


blocks) 




0, 


.83 




0. 


,26 




1, 


,86 




0. 


,47 




0. 


,0 




0. 


,0 




0. 


,04 




0. 


,0 




0. 


,04 




0. 


,01 




0. 


,0 



Tarnished Plant Bug 1.12 

Plum Curculio 0.43 

San Jose Scale 0.84 

European Apple Sawfly 0.87 

Gypsy Moth 0.01 

Apple Maggot Fly 0.01 

Leaf Roller 0.02 

Codling Moth 0.0 

IVhite Apple Leafhopper 0.0 

Green ^ruitworm 0.01 

Sooty Mold fungus 1.00 



0, 


.76 


0, 


.37 


1. 


.61 


0. 


.83 


0. 


.06 


0, 


.0 


0, 


.04 


0, 


,0 


0. 


.0 


0. 


.02 


0, 


.12 



Total % injury 4.31 3.81 3.51 

Based on on-tree survey of 600-2,000 fruit per block at harvest (100 
fruit per tree from each of 2 trees adjacent to each trapping station), 

■^Orchards which have been on an IPM program one or more years. 

Mite populations . 

Table 3 contains results of mite sampling performed in IPM and 
check commercial orchards in 1982. Relatively high numbers of mites 
per leaf in IPM orchards probably have more to do with sampling methods 
than with any differences in control efficacy among blocks. 

In IPM blocks samples were taken on a weekly basis proximal to 
"hot spots" and were initiated when signs of bronzing or active mites 
were observed. Samples in Check orchards, on the other hand, were 
collected at random intervals, often after growers had treated for 
mites . 

There is an apparent association between higher prey mite numbers 
and higher predatory mite numbers. However, from a pest management 
perspective, 1982 was not a good year for biological mite control in 
Massachusetts. In most IPM blocks the early part of the growing season 
(through early July) saw few mite problems. Heavy rainshowers apparent- 
ly washed adult mites off the leaves and cool wet weather was not con- 
ducive to mite reproduction. Bronzing was mild at this time and trees 
were growing vigorously. 

In July and August, however, hot dry conditions resulted in rapid 
mite buildup in many blocks. ERM numbers above treatment level con- 
tinued in some cases into September. Red mite eggs were observed in 



29 

Table 3. Mean abundance of pest and predaceous arthropods at peak 

sample populations on foliage in Previous-Year IPM, First-Year IPM, 
and Check blocks, 1982. 



Species^ 



Mean abundance/Sample unit' 



Previous 


IPM Blocks 


47. 


,1 


1. 


,4 


0. 


,02 


43. 


,0 


8. 


.4 


11. 


,7 


0. 


,31 


0. 


,39 


0. 


,65 



New 


Check 


IPM Blocks 


Blocks 


51.8 


1.1 


3.0 


0.4 


0.04 


0.01 


39.9 


16.0 


21.0 


5.7 


21.5 


2.0 


0.19 


0.0 


0.36 


0.0 


0.36 


0.0 



European red mite 
Two spotted mite 
A. f allacis 
Green aphids 
A. aphidimyza 
Syrphid spp. 

Leafminers' 



(1st 


gen 


(2nd 


gen 


(3rd 


gen 



Sample unit = Individual leaves for mites and leafminers, and foliar 
terminals for aphids and aphid predators. 

^In 1982, mite sampling was performed near "hot spots" when initial 
leaf bronzing or numerous active mites were noticed. In check blocks, 
trees were sampled randomly. 

■'^First generation mine counts in 21 previous and 9 new IPM blocks; 2nd 
generation mine counts in 20 previous and 11 new IPM blocks; 3rd gen- 
eration mine counts in -23 previous and 12 new blocks. 



the fruit calyx in significant numbers in 2 blocks. Amblyseius 
fallacis , our major predatory mite, was present in low numbers in 
1982, a phenomenon reported by other Northeast and Canadian tree fruit 
entomologists. A. fallacis was first observed on August 4, after 
red mite and two spotted mite populations had reached treatment levels 
at several sites. A. fallacis was ultimately found in 211 of IPM 
blocks, but the highest recorded sample had only 0.3 predators per 
leaf. IPM blocks averaged 0.03 A. fallacis per leaf compared to 0.01 
per leaf in the checks. 

We are not able to explain why predator mite numbers were low in 
1982 (down from an' average of 0.2 per leaf in 1981). However, 
A. fallacis appeared too late and in too few numbers to affect red 
and two spotted mite numbers in monitored orchards. 



Insecticide, aphicide 



and miticide use , 
blocks (average 6 



Previous-Year IPM blocks (average 6.3 insecticide sprays, range 
4 to 10) and First-Year IPM blocks (average 7.0 insecticide sprays. 



30 

range 4 to 10.4) received 28% and 20% fewer insecticide spray 
applications, respectively, than check blocks (average 8.8 sprays, 
range 4 to 12) (Table 4). Check blocks received no aphicide sprays. 
Previous-Year IPM blocks averaged 0.2 aphicide applications and 
First-Year IPM blocks averaged 0.4 such sprays. Miticide spray 
applications were 32% and 43% lower in Previous -Year and First-Year 
IPM blocks, respectively, than in checks, due in part to grower 
interest in preserving and encouraging predatory mites. 



Dosage equivalents of pesticides that were used followed sim- 
ilar patterns. DE of insecticide used in Previous-Year or First- 
Year IPM blocks were 30% and 21% less than in the checks. DE of 
miticide used were 17% and 9% less than those of the checks. DE of 
aphicide used were 20% and 30% more than those of the checks, however, 



Table 4, Numbers of pesticide treatments and dosage equivalents of 
pesticide applied for insect and mite pest control in IPM and 
check blocks, 1982. 





Previous Y 


ear 




First Year 


Check 


Treatment 


IPM 


blocks 


(24) 


IPM blocks 


(12) 


blocks (7) 


Oil 




0.8 






1.0 




0.6 


Insecticide 




6.3 






7.0 




8.8 


Miticide 




1.3 






1.1 




1.9 


Aphicide 




0.2 






0.4 




0.0 


Dosage 
















Equivalents 
















Oil 




0.7 






1.0 




0.6 


Insecticide 




5.5 






6.2 




7.8 


Miticide 




1.0 






1.1 




1.2 


Aphicide 




0.2 






0.3 




0.0 


Dosage equiva 


lent ■■ 


= Actual 


pesticide 

t: t: ^ 


rate/100 

-:r^ i ^T-^. . 


gal. 


J 



Amount recommended in New England 
Pest Control Guide 



Cost benefit analysis . 

Both Previous-and First-Year IPM blocks realized substantial 
savings in insecticide spray materials and spray application costs 
compared to check blocks (Table 5), However, cost inputs for oil, 
aphicide and miticide materials were higher in both types of IPM 
blocks compared to the checks. In addition, higher levels of fruit 
injury resulted in $34.65 and $11.55 more fruit lost due to insect 
injury compared to the checks in Previous -Year and First-Year IPM 
blocks, respectively. Cost savings from IPM practices averaged 



31 



$17.64/A in Previous -Year IPM blocks, and $3.25/A in First-Year 
IPM blocks. 

It is interesting to note that in 1982, the most favorable 
cost/benefit ratio existed in 15 1001 Cooperator IPM blocks. While 
the cost of oil, miticide and aphicide sprays was greater in such 
blocks compared to the checks, substantial per-acre savings in 
insecticide materials and application costs, combined with a slight 
reduction in the value of fruit lost due to insect injury, resulted 
in an average net benefit from IPM of $56.95 per acre. 

This finding may illustrate the potential value to growers 
from complete rather than partial implementation of an IPM system. 
This is particularly true with regard to the use of reduced pesti- 
cide rates and the need for cooperation between pest manager and 
grower to insure optimal spray timing. This latter factor is of 
particular significance inasmuch as IPM spray decisions frequently 
are made when pest levels have reached an action threshold level. 
Substantial delays in spray application beyond this point may 
result in higher levels of injury than if growers had followed a 
traditional preventative program. 

Pesticide use, insect injury and cost benefit analysis, 1978-1982 . 
Figure la details trends in dosage equivalents of insecticide 
used in IPM vs. check blocks since the inception of the Apple IPM 
pilot program. Check insecticide use remained near the level used 
prior to IPM program initiation while cooperating IPM blocks have 
experience an overall 26% reduction in insecticide DE used. Similar 
results are evident in Figure lb, detailing miticide DE used from 
1978-1982. In this case, IPM blocks have used an average of 54% 
fewer such materials than check blocks. 

Fruit injury at harvest was lower in IPM blocks in 3 out of 5 
years in spite of lower pesticide use, averaging 13°6 less fruit 
injury than checks. 

Table 6 contains results of cost benefit comparisons performed 
from 1978-1982. Data from 1980 to 1982 are subsets of all IPM blocks 
which account for degree of cooperation with specialist recommenda- 
tions, a parameter which may strongly influence program results. 

Over the 5 year span of the pilot program, highly cooperative 
IPM growers realized an average net benefit of about $82.00 per 
acre, exclusive of scouting costs. Private scout consultants 
presently are offering IPM services to growers for $20-$30 per acre, 
indicating a potential savings to growers for continued IPM effort. 
Growers who plan to perform their own scouting will be able to save 
even this scout/consultant fee and should be able to realize a more 
favorable net benefit. 



' v. 

o o 

> 3 






O 
o — 



o — 



o c 





ra 


^-^ 


1- 


VI 


Oi 


o 


•-' 


'J 


o 




o 




•-' 


Ln 


-o 










O 


c 



o 

o-s re 
C2 ^ SI 
O 01 c 
—1 Q..— 
O 

o 



>i w c 
w — 



— i^ 

— ra 

0) 



•<-* 


0^=' ovo <AO (i-o 


> u 


u-i QO r-J C 


GJ CJ 


r^l rvj ro r ] 


U OJ 


+ < 1 + 


C- >- 








o - s: 

= 0) c 






•-H u 

— o 



X '^ w 1 



> 1- 

o n 



0\0 CftO o\0 o\0 

^r O sD ^ 
r-« to rsj r^ 



^ O C O 



o^ e^ o^* *■* 

O O rsi o 
'T rv} «-r ^f 



^ CO O 

• - < 

O 00 ^ 



r^ rg ^a- 1^- 

O xO — O 



O O r-H -^g- 

-H r- — c 



00 rO ^0 <^ 
O O ^ O 



5^0 cfr* «1» O^® 

O -H CC O 



o ° cW^ o* 0-.° 

•^ CTi r-~ w 



O oo rg 

O r- ^ 



r^ O rsj rg 

C U^ -H O 



O rvj .-H ro 

^ O 1— I O 



r^ lo o f~-j 



O f^ r-- ro 00 
hO o^ Ki fO 1— " 



— . .— . O f*^ CM 



oo o O Ki r- 
Wi ut —• r^ <^ 



30 u-j K) \0 r^ 
■%^ ■fe^ <»e- -fc"^ -t.^ 



L/l O O 00 rg 
ld ^T f^J — oo 



<— t r- ^H rvj O". 



<»e- •«>*>■ **i- to- <^^ 

+ ' + + ■ 



i/l O^ lTI 

vO \0 rg 



r- r-- (Ni 

-^ r-) fvj 



«»e-*^*e- 



LO r-- r^ hO 



OO Ln oo rn rg 

— r-- rg rg 






Kl (Tl .-H hO T-t 
1— I .-H TT CM fO 



*0 rM ld \o 
rs) o rvj 



■*!*>■ -bo- ■va- 1^ 



o o^ un GO 
r-i rs] TT — 



O^ O 1^ rvj 
— CO rs] 






^ O 

rz u dJ Qj 

a, 4_» — .^ 

X U 'J u 

= O — ' -^ 



(_> O (U 

.^ -a -T3 



< 



u u 'J 

> j.— < X *J J= 



H' 



4-> 


1/1 


tn 


r-^ 


O 


M 


o 


.^ 




u 




o 


aa 


4J 


> 


c; 


< 





u (U (u 

— -3 TJ 

U 'J U 

(U -^ -rt 

— r. *-• ^ 



o. 









o 






>, 










^^ 






3 


*-t 


4-) 




■'-1 


■ ^ 


U 


> 


c 


3 


o 


^ 


s 


• •H 


u 


in 


• fH 


G. 




Uh 


c 


U-i 


H- 


*-i 




■ ^ 


(U 




'J 


< 




c 


£ 


V 


■~^ 


o 


a> 


o 


tn 


D 


■M 


^ 


u 


c 


3 






%^ 


.^ 


r-^ 


0) 


■M 






ra 




o 


V. 


QvO 


> 


T3 




o 


. 




<n 


3 


'-^ 


M 


oo 


t/l 


-^ za 




> 


> 


O 


c > 


V- 


< 


< 


^^ 


h- < 


o 



0) 
3 



— -3 



c 



3 



C^' — . 



o 
< 



o 


-b^ 




— 




L. 


0) 






^ 




4J 


c 


• 




^ 




V, 


CO 


^ 


. 


O 




■ — 




VI 


X 


O 




— 


s 


o 


u 






■ -• 


c 


•■J 


3 


C' 




B 


1— 




• r-, 


■fa^ 




-3 




;. 


C 






re 


>, 


o 


• -H 


C£i 






M) 










» 


O • 


"in 


^— s 


4^ 




o 


^ (/I 


.— 


-3 


— 






o ^ 




^^ 


— 




-^ 


= u 


i~ 


O 


U 




o 


o o 


j; 


c 


u- 




> 


w ^- 


^^ 






. 


re 


c ^ 


Ln 


>^ 


>-< 


^ 


aj 


~ 


•(-> 


•J 


-»^ 


4-» 


S 


• 


O 


c 


3 




o c- 


o 


o 


re 


^ 


•• 


4-1 — 


-v> 


VI 


u. 


O 


c 


Ui ~ 


- 




CO 


Ln 


ra 


c s 


lU 


oo 


= 


Ln 


u 


.-. o 


u 


< 






4-' 


■3 >- 


u 


(U 


.. 


Um 




^ 1 


a 


^— ' 


C: 


O 


• 


O -u 






ro 




00 


U in 


o 


u 




V) 


^ 


U !- 


^ 


-H 


• 


-3 


••- 


re •— 


o 


^ 


D. 




4^ 


l:_ 




re 


O 


O 


3 


>. 


>v 


> 


CO 


■ ^ 


O 


^-^ r^ 


re 


o 




>, 


U 


O 


u 


cr 


i« 




V) 


■M -O 


c 


5 


o 






o c 


•A 


(- 




OO 


L- 


^ ra 






tr. 


> 


O 


c 


O 


•^ 


re 


re 




= s- 


w 


c 






4-> 


O re 




re 


VI 


-3 


VI 


U 0) 


VI 




dj 


C 


o 


>- 


V 


4-> 


3 


re 


u 


-O ' 


4-' 


c 


t— ( 






<D tn 


3 


o 


ra 


3 


o 


■M 3 


C 


c 


> J2 




re o 


•r^ 


« 




"*v^ 


3 


o — 


s 


£ 




o 


-^ 


V. > 






MO 


U 


•M o 


Ln 


<u 


> 


• 


c 


^ 


T>H 


a. 


ra 


rsj 


• r« 


« c 








^^■ 




^ 


c 


VI 


c 




4-1 


U f^ 


o 


o 


o 


s; 


o 


O -H 




•3 






3 


r-^ 


•3 


3 


"3 


*- 




^ = 


O 


*— 


O 


— 


V. 


5 


w 


•J 


VI 


3 


H> 


Ln ^ 


re 


Z 


re 


« 


o 



33 



Table 6. Cost/benefit analysis of arthropod pest control practices 
in IPM vs Check blocks, 1978-1982. 







Difference IPM vs 


Check 






1978 


1979 


1980^ 


1981^ 


1982^ 


Cost of materials 












Oil 
Insecticide 

Miticide 
Aphicide 


- $5.81 
-$12.51 
-$15.83 
0.0 


+$ 0.23 
-$51.64 
-$14.59 
-$ 0.11 


-$ 2.84 
-$42.50 
-$19.49 
-$ 4.30 


-$ 2.62 
-$37.01 
-$16.85 
0.0 


+$ 1.30 
-$51.92 
+$ 6.37 
+$ 3.33 


Cost of pesticide 
application 


-$ 9.64 


-$16,05 


-$ 7. 32 


-$ 8.96 


-$12.18 


Value of fruit lost 
due to insect injury 


-$53.37 


-$40.46 


-$16.42 


+$25.26 


-$ 3.85 


Avg. net benefit 
from IPM 


+$97.16 


+$122.83 


+$93.37 


+40.18 


+$56.95 



Five year average net benefit from IPM +82.10 



'1980 data = Complete cooperator blocks. 

1981 data = Previous- Year IPM blocks. 

1982 data = Complete cooperator IPM blocks 



OD 


9 






C 
CI 


8 


> 


7 




6 


u 




u 


S 


Clt 




ID 




CD 


4 


O 




Q 






J 



Figure 1. Trends in Pesticide Usage and Insect Injury to Fruit, 1977-1982. 



34 



Insecticide Usage 
IPM»— — • X - 6.3 
CHECK O O X • 8.5 



b. Hiticide Usage 

CHECK O O ^ ~ ^-^ 



(8) 



(9) (7) 



-N. 




V- 


■^-^ 


(8) 


(16)^ 




'''(19)-""^ 

(36) 


1 


1 


(18) 

1 


—i 1 



on 



o 

a 




•77 '78 '79 '80 '81 '82 
<? 26Z reduction in IPM Blodcs 



-4- 



-I- 



■+- 



'78 '79 '8b '81 '82 
54J reduction in IPM Blocks 



1 ■■ 



Total Insect Injury to 
Fruit at Harvest 




tS '7^ ^iJ ^81 

@ 132 reduction in IPM Blocks 



Cooperative Extension Service 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 
University of Massachusetts 
Amfierst, Massachusetts 01003 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
AGRICULTURE 
AGR 101 




BULK THIRD CLASS MAIL PERMIT 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Vol. 48 No. 2 
SPRING ISSUE, 1983 

Table of Contents 

FRUIT NOTES Subscription Form 

Nutritional Problems in 1982 and Suggestions for 
Fertilization of Apple Trees in 1983 

Effects of Type of Nitrogenous Fertilizer Applied 
Under Sturdeespur Delicious Trees on Exchangeable 
Elements in the Soil 

Preliminary Findings From the Multi-State 
Cooperative Apple Interstem Planting 

Future of Tree Fruit IPM in Massachusetts 

Publication Available 

Sampling Soil for Nematodes 

Pruning Plum Trees 

A Visual Monitoring Trap for the Apple Blotch 
Leafminer 

Are High Density Strawberries on Ridges For You? 

Suggestions for Use of Calcium Sprays in 1983 

An Up-date on Calyz-end Rot, and Report of an 
Apple Leaf Spot Caused by the Fungus 

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 

Use of Promalin to Increase Branching of Young Trees 



I Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service, Daniel I. Padberg, Director, in furtherance 
I of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914; United States Department of Agriculture and 

County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 

opportunity in programs and employment. 




NIITRTTTONAL PROBLEMS IN 1982 
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FERTILIZATION OF APPLE TREES IN 1983 

Wi lliam J . Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Prospects for a heavy bloom in 1983 are not too likely follow- 
ing the large crop in 1982. However, there are ample flower buds 
for a good crop in 1983. 

The analysis of leaf samples from commercial orchards showed 
that potassium (K) and magnesium (Mg) was deficient in many 
orchards in 1982 and boron (B) was generally low. Visual obser- 
vations of Mg deficiency were quite prevalent on both apple and 
pear trees, which is unusual, and perhaps resulted from leaching 
of this element by the heavy rainfall in June (9.6 inches at the 
Horticultural Research Center). It is possible that leaching of 
K and Mg occurred both from the leaves and soil. Mineral analysis 
of Mcintosh fruits from 24 orchards sampled shortly prior to 
harvest in 1982 showed that calcium (Ca) levels were low. Two 
blocks of trees in each orchard were sampled. Only 5 of the 24 
orchards produced fruit in both blocks with Ca levels high enough 
to clearly predict that their fruit had a high potential for long- 
term storage of good quality fruit. 

Information on the Leaf Analysis Reports indicated that some 
growers continue to apply a "complete fertilizer". Cost could be 
reduced by using fertilizer that contains no phosphorous (P) since 
there is no evidence that our apple trees need this element beyond 
what is present in the soil. 

With the above observations in mind, we present the following 
suggestions as a guide for fertilization in 1983. 

Nitrogen (N) : Most orchards had a large crop in 1982, there- 
fore! the trees may be low in available N for utilization this spring, 
We suggest higher rates than normal of N this year unless the trees 
were excessively vigorous in 1982 or were heavily pruned this past 
winter. 

Potassium (K) : Over 901 of the leaf samples were deficient, 
probably due to the demand for this element by the large crop, and/or 
leaching because of heavy rainfall. 

The leaf scorch symptoms of K deficiency may be confused with 
the leaf margin burn from calcium chloride sprays. However, unlike 
leaf burn from calcium chloride sprays, the scorch of leaf margins 
due to K deficiency progresses from the older leaves to the younger 
leaves of current season shoots as the season advances. The scorch 
may turn gray in color and leaf fall may occur late in the growing 
season . 



-2- 



The K requirements of apple trees with a large crop are high 
because the fruit utilizes about 3 times as much K as N. Since 
the quantity of K stored by the tree is extremely small, it seems 
important to supply adequate K this spring on trees that had heavy 
fruit set in 1982. 

The requirements of apple trees for K (expressed as K2O), based 
on potential yields, are as follows: (a) less than 15 bu: 1.3 lbs. 
/tree; (b) 15 to 25 bu: 1.3 to 2.7 lbs/tree; and (c) more than 
25 bu: 2.7 to 4.3 lbs/tree. It is necessary, however, to maintain 
a balance among the essential nutrients for apple trees. For 
example, excessive levels of K can reduce both leaf and fruit Ca. 
Therefore, we strongly urge that you participate in our leaf 
analysis program to more accurately determine the K needs of your 
apple trees . 

Calcium CCa) : Our suggestions for meeting the Ca needs of apple 
trees can be found in another article in this issue of FRUIT NOTES. 

Boron (B) : B can be supplied to apple trees either by foliar 
or soil applications. Use the most economical and convenient 
method. However, it is safest to apply all elements as a fertilizer 
except in emergency situations . 

Soil applications of boron should be applied to orchards every 
3 years. The rate of application per tree vary with tree age and 
size. In low density orchards, apply h pound of borax (11.1° 
actual B) or its equivalent under young trees coming into bearing , 
h to 3/4 pound to medium age and size trees and 3/4 to 1 pound to 
large or mature trees. Be sure to note the percent actual B in 
the fertilizer being used to supply this element . B containing 
fertilizers vary from approximately 11 to T\\ actual B. 

In medium and high density orchards (115 trees/acre or higher), 
it might be best to apply B on an acre basis. We suggest the follow- 
ing rates per acre of borax (11.1% actual B) or its equivalent: 
(a) trees 4 to 7 years of age - 12 lbs; (b) trees 8 to 15 years of 
age - 12 to 24 lbs; and (c) trees 16 to 30 years of age - 24 to 
48 lbs. 

When the soil application of B is followed by a wet spring, 
it may be advisable to apply 2 foliar applications of B the follow- 
ing year. 

Many growers now rely on annual foliar applications of B. The 
usual practice is to add Solubor to the first 2 cover sprays. 
Fertilizer grades of borax may contain grit and should not be used 
in a sprayer. Mature trees should receive 4 pounds of Solubor per 
acre each year. Consequently, the goal is to apply about 2 pounds 



per acre in each of the 2 applications. For young orchards, the 
addition of 1/2 pound of Solubor per 100 gallons (dilute basis) 
to the first 2 cover sprays meets the B requirements of these 
trees. Reports of New York State indicate that sprays can be con- 
centrated up to 8X with satisfactory results. 

Leaf samples from orchards treated with Solubor have indicated 
adequate leaf boron levels but the fruit was deficient in this 
element . Whether or not B applied as a fertilizer more adequately 
meets the B requirement of apples than foliar applied B is not 
known by us. 

Magnesium (Mg) : Deficiency symptoms of this element are char- 
acterized by necrotic (brown) areas between the veins. The older, 
basal leaves on shoots and spurs are usually affected first, and 
as the season progresses the injury symptoms appear on the younger 
leaves. The deficiency symptoms frequently become apparent in 
late July and early August. By late summer, the shoots on which 
leaves show Mg deficiency may be defoliated except for a few 
leaves near their terminals. Mg deficiency increases fruit drop 
at harvest. 

Weather conditions may have been responsible for the frequent 
symptoms last year and the question is what to do if you suspect 
or know that you had trees low in Mg. If you have been applying 
a dolomitic limestone on a regular basis (dolomitic limestone con- 
tains magnesium), no corrective procedures should be necessary. 
However, take leaf samples again for analysis in 1983. 

If you have not applied dolomitic limestone recently and you 
suspect low Mg levels in your trees, we suggest applying this kind 
of lime this spring. 

Manganese (Mn) : Apple leaves from trees showing Mn deficiency 
in 1978 had 12 to 15 ppm of this element which is much below the 
desired levels of 30 to 60 ppm. Mn deficiency symptoms are char- 
acterized by interveinal fading of chlorophyll with the veins re- 
maining green. For those who are unfamiliar with the symptoms of 
Mn deficiency, we refer vou to the photograph that appeared in the 
May/June 1978 Issue of FRUIT NOTES. 

Mn deficiency should be corrected on trees sho\\ring considerable 
foliage damage. Although we have no definite proof, Mn deficiency 
appeared to be associated with excessive fruit drop on a few trees 
in orchard in 1977. Mn deficiency can be corrected by foliar 
applications of manganese sulfate or of a fungicide containing Mn. 
Apply manganese sulfate at about first cover at the rate of 3 lbs. 
per 100 gallons of water. If using a Mn-containing fungicide, 2 or 
3 applications are necessary with timings about petal fall, first 
and second cover. 



-4- 

Zinc (,Zn): Based on optimum levels of Zn established by Warren 

Stiles7~Cornell University (See FRUIT NOTES 47(2):20-26, 1982] some 

of our orchards continue to be low in this element. W. Stiles believes 

that apple trees require approximately 2 lbs. of Zn per acre annually 

if applied as inorganic salts in dormant sprays or approximately 0.2 

to 0.3 lbs. of actual Zn applied as foliar sprays of EDTA chelates 

(3 to 5 lbs/acre) . 

********** 

EFFECTS OF TYPE OF NITROGENOUS FERTILIZER APPLIED UNDER STURDEESPUR 
DELICIOUS TREES ON EXCHANGEABLE ELEMENTS IN THE SOIL 

William J. Lord, John Baker and Richard A. Damon, Jr. 

In a previous issue of FRUIT NOTES (Vol. 45, No. 4), we reported 
our findings on the effects of calcium nitrate (Ca(N02)2' amnionium 
nitrate (NH.NO^) or potassium nitrate (KNO^) applied annually from 
1972 through 1979 on soil pH , the nutrient levels in leaves, on bitter 
pit, and fruit calcium (Ca) levels. To briefly review these findings, 
neither Ca(N0^)2 nor KNO, affected soil pH , whereas NH-NO^ increased 
soil acidity. Nitrogen [N) source had little influenc? on N, potassium 
(K) , magnesium (Mg) , or Ca content of leaves, no appreciable influence 
on fruit Ca and no effect on the incidence of bitter pit. 

Here we present our findings on the effects of N sources applied 
annually since 1972 on exchangeable Ca, Mg and K in the soil (Table 1) . 

Table 1. Effects of N sources applied annually since 1972 on 
exchangeable Ca, Mg and K in the surface 6 inches of soil. 



Meq/100 g in soil of: 



Treatment 



Ca Mg 



1978 



2 

Control 
KNOj 
NH^NOj 
Ca(N02) 2 



Control 
NH^NOj 

Ca(N02)2 



6. 


, 40ab^ 


6. 


,00b 


4, 


.04c 


7. 


,44a 


7, 


.34a 


5, 


.36b 



2, 


. 35a 


2 


.06a 


1 


.02b 


1 


.45b 




1981 


2 


.90a 


1 


.57b 



0. 


,26b 


1. 


,30a 


1, 


,15a 


0. 


.98a 


0, 


.ISb 


0, 


.73a 



8.33a 1.50b 0.77a 



z 

Untreated soil between trees. 
y 

Numbers in a column for each year followed by a different letter 

are significantly different at odds of 19 to 1. 



-5- 

In 1978 soil treated with NH^NO^ for 7 consecutive years had 
less exchangeable Ca and Mg than untreated soil from between 
the trees. In contrast exchangeable Ca was similar in untreated 
soil and in soil fertilized with KNO^ or Ca(NO,)^. Soil K was 
higher under the trees than between the trees out N source did 
not influence K, which had been applied equivalently under all 
trees . 



the 



The 
el imi 
or 



NH^NOj 
secut ive 
those obt 
tially in 
our study 
tree and 
applied i 



original experimental design was changed in 1980 with 
nation of the KNO, treatment but with the continuation of 

i(N0,)2 applications. Our data in 1981 after 10 con- 
annual applications of Ca(N0,)2 are in agreement with 
ained in 1978 (Table 1) in tnat its use has not substan- 
creased the amount of exchangeable Ca in the soil. Thus, 
continues to emphasize the difficulty of affecting soil, 
fruit Ca when fertilizing with CaCN0,)2 because the amount 

s small when it is based on the N needs of the trees. 

******* 



PRELIMINARY FINDINGS FROM THE MULTI -STATE 
COOPERATIVE APPLE INTERSTEM PLANTING-"- ' ^ 

William J . Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



The preliminary results from a cooperative interstem plant- 
ing established in 10 states in 1976 are published in the Fruit 
Varieties Journal, 1982 (Vol. 36, No. 1) and authored by David 
Ferree of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, 
Wooster, Ohio. The purpose of this multi-state planting is to 
study the growth and yield potential of 2 scion cultivars with 
an M9 interstem for dwarfing on 3 vigorous rootstocks under a 
diversity of climatic conditions. 

Trees for the plantings were propagated by double grafting 
a 6-inch stempiece of M9 on scions of Sturdeespur Delicious or 
Empire and on rootstocks of MMlll, Ottawa II or Antonovka Seed- 
lings. Ottawa II and Antonovka rootstocks were selected because 
they provide good anchorage and cold hardiness. MMlll served as 
the control. This rootstock has shown good soil adaptability 
but lacks precocity when used as the understock on 2-piece trees, 



States cooperating in this study were Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and 
Wiscons in. 



Editors Note. The trees for the Massachusetts planting were 
exceptionally poor, causing tree loss the year of planting, poor 
growth of surviving trees and lack of fruitfulness . Other inter- 
stem trees were planted on this site in 1979, and no tree loss 
has been experienced and growth is vigorous. 



■6- 



The data from the multi-state plantings, summarized by 
Ferree after the first 5-years of study showed that tree losses 
occurred at all sites except in Illinois and Iowa. The highest 
tree losses were experienced in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. 
The losses were attributed to poor tree quality. Trees on the 
Kentucky site experienced severe frost heaving in 1978. Regard- 
less of rootstock, the growth on the trees was weak in 1979 and 
they were removed in 1980. 

Tree size based on cross- sectional area was quite variable 
among the planting sites. In general, the trees in Illinois, 
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Ohio were larger than those in Massa- 
chusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana. Those on the Indiana 
site were smallest. 

Compilation of the data from the 9 sites indicated that the 
trees on MMlll were 15-201 smaller than those on Antonovka seed- 
ling or Ottawa II. The trunk circumference and branch spread of 

the Empire trees were larger than those of Sturdeespur on com- 
parable rootstocks. 

The trees were planted with the stempiece 2 inches above 
the soil line and the development of root suckers had been of 
concern on all sites. Trees on Ottawa II have tended to pro- 
duce fewer root suckers than Antonovka or MMlll, particularly in 
Kansas, Massachusetts and Ohio. Trees in Missouri and Ohio 
produced nearly twice as many suckers as in other states. Of 
particular interest in areas where fireblight is of major concern 
is the fact that several states observed fireblight strikes on 
Antonovka root suckers in 1981 . 

The trees produced their first crop in 1979 and the Empire 
trees showed the tendency to bear earlier than Sturdeespur Deli- 
cious. However, adequate data are yet not available to evaluate 
the yield efficiency of the various scion/rootstock combinations. 

Ferree summarized the preliminary findings from the multi- 
state interstem planting by stating "...it is clear that signi- 
ficant differences exist in root suckering potential of vigorous 
rootstocks used as root systems for interstem trees. An assoc- 
iation also appears to exist between increased suckering and 
vigorous scion growth. We have also confirmed that producing inter- 
stem trees through double grafting should be avoided because of 
poor tree quality and general lack of vigor is considered as a 
major factor contributing to poor early tree performance in 
several of the test sites". 



«« 7b #« «« « 



Future of Tree Fruit IPM in Massachusetts 

17 7 

W.M. Coli , R.J. Prokopy" and W.J. Manning 

As we have stated previously, 1982 was the final year of 
the Apple IPM pilot program. We anticipate the future of tree 
fruit IPM in the state to be two fold: 

1) Continued extension involvement - Federal funds for 
IPM will continue to come to the state on a formula 
basis at least through FY 1983. While no one can accu- 
rately predict the level of funding or the security of 
such funds given the cost-cutting emphasis of the present 
administration, IPM monies are a high priority item in 
USDA's budget and appear to be reasonably safe from the 
"budget axe." 

The 1983 growing season will see the implementation 
of IPM programs in cranberries, forage crops, and potatoes, 
thereby substantially reducing the amount of USDA money 
available for continuing an apple IPM program. 

Nonetheless, the Extension administration has ac- 
cepted a proposal to continue a part-time IPM Specialist 
position at the University for the purpose of maintaining 
a scaled-down apple program effort, A major factor in 
this decision was the willingness of many large and small 
growers throughout the state to pledge their financial 
support of such an effort. As of this writing, $3,500 
has been pledged by growers, for which we extend our 
thanks . 

Mr. William Coli will remain in his present capacity 
of Tree Fruit IPM Specialist, with additional responsibil- 
ities in the area of peach and pear pest management and as 
overall coordinator of the multi-crop Massachusetts IPM 
program, Mr. Coli will serve as a resource person for 
pest management related questions. In addition, he will 
continue to take principal responsibility for development 
of the twice-weekly insect and disease pest status messages 
based on his own scouting in commercial orchards at several 
locations as well as on reports from cooperating private 
scout/consultants, and regional fruit specialists. As in 
the past, apple scab spore maturity information will be 
provided by W,J, Manning, Dan Cooley and Chris Becker in 
the Department of Plant Pathology. 



Extension Pest Management Specialist 

2 

Extension Entomologist 

Extension Plant Pathologist 



-8- 

2) Private sector implementation - During the course of 

tlie apple pilot program, numerous growers have received 
IPM training or have assigned some member of their 
orchard staff to receive such training. In most cases, 
these individuals will be able, with some support from 
extension, to continue with an IPM approach on their own. 

For other growers, there presently are 3 individuals 
offering private IPM scouting/consultant services in the 
region. These three, and a fourth person who recently 
announced similar plans, all received their initial IPM 
training with the Massachusetts apple IPM program and 
should provide growers with an excellent choice of avail- 
able services. 

The individuals we refer to and their addresses are: 

Clarence Boston 
242 Cayenne Street 
West Springfield, MA 

David Gordon 
51 Pond View Drive 
Amherst, MA 01002 
(413) 523-5293 

Glenn Morin/Dr. Robin Spitko 

D.B.A. New England Fruit Consultants 

P.O. Box J 

Lake Pleasant, MA 01347 

(413) 367-9578 



PUBLICATION AVAILABLE 

The Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service Publi- 
cation - 4 entitled "Trickle Irrigation in the Eastern United States" 
may be obtained by writing to the Cooperative Plan-Service, Agri- 
cultural Engineering Building, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 
MA 01003. There is a $1.50 charge for the publication. Make checks 
payable to: Cooperative Extension Activity Fund. 

Dr. Donald Elfving, Research Scientist, Simcoe, Ontario referred 
to the above publication during his talk on trickle irrigation of 
apple trees at the New England Fruit Meetings in January, 1983. 
Elfving stated that NRAES-4 is a valuable guide for tree fruit and 
small fruit growers interested in trickle irrigation. Information 
is presented on advantages and potential problems; plant-soil-water 
relationships; system components, specific crop recommendations; system 
planning; designing laterals and submains ; preventing line clogging, 
and water application calculations. 



-9 



SAMPLING SOIL FOR NEMATODES 

Dr. Richard Rohde 
Department of Plant Pathology 
University of Massachusetts 



The best time to take soil samples for counts of nematode 
populations is mid-May through early-July and in mid-September 
through October. Nematodes are distributed in clusters 
through the field, thus it is important to collect soil from 
several areas. For each 5000 sq. ft. area take 10 or more 
sub-samples. Samples should be taken at soil depths of 2-10 
inches and can be collected with a trowel, spade or soil sampl- 
ing tube. On sites sampled prior to planting, obtain the soil 
samples where you think the tree rows will be located. When 
sampling an established orchard, obtain the soil for nematode 
counts from the root zone of the fruit trees. The sample should 
also include small roots of the fruit trees since lesion nema- 
todes, the most common orchard nematode in our area, is in the 
roots during part of its life cycle. 

Mix the soil in a bucket and then put 1 quart of the mixed 
soil in a plastic container. Samples can be stored in a refrig- 
erator for several months but should not be exposed to high 
temperatures such as could occur in a plastic bag lying in 
direct sunlight or in a car trunk on a hot day. Also, dried- 
out soil is useless. 

The soil samples for nematode counts should be sent to your 
Regional Fruit Specialist, or directly to Dr. Richard Rohde, 
Department of Plant Pathology, Fernald Hall, University of 
Massachusetts, .Amherst 01003. 



******************** 



PRUNING PLUM TREES 

James F. Anderson 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

There has been an increased interest in the production of 
plums in Massachusetts, especially on the part of growers oper- 
ating farm markets. Since the apple is the major tree fruit 
in Massachusetts, most research and extension activity has been 



-10- 

dcvotcd to that crop and little attention has been given to tlic 
pi uni . 

Tlie discussion that follows is offered as a brief guide to 
the training and pruning of plum trees. 

Training Young Trees 

There is a marked difference in the growth habit of plum 
trees depending on type and variety. Some are decidedly up- 
right while others are distinctly spreading in growth habit. 
Regardless of growth habit, most are probably best trained as 
a central or modified central leader tree. 

The plum tree should have 5 or 6 scaffold branches spaced 
about 6 inches apart and spirally around the leader. On upright 
growing trees, it would be advisable to spread the branches to 
improve the trees structure. Excessively long branches should 
be shortened, preferably by cutting it back to an outward grow- 
ing lateral. Heading-back cuts may be used when necessary to 
shorten and/or stiffen the scaffold branches. 

Pruning Bearing Trees 

Flower buds are formed laterally on current seasons growth 
and on the extension growth of spurs. The flower buds are sim- 
ple, containing 1 to 3 flowers, but no leaves. The terminal 
bud of both shoots and spurs are leaf buds. European varieties 
fruit more heavily from spurs; Japanese types fruit heavily from 
both shoots and spurs. The shoot of a Japanese plum is similar 
to the peach in flower bud development. 

Annual pruning helps to maintain a supply of new wood on 
which the flower buds can form. For the Japanese varieties, an 
annual shoot growth of 10 to 20 inches for young trees and 10 to 
12 inches for older bearing trees is desired. European varie- 
ties should average 9 to 18 inches of annual shoot growth for 
young trees and 6 to 10 inches for older bearing trees. After a 
plum tree begins bearing, an annual thinning out of watersprouts 
and branches growing towards the center of the tree will con- 
stitute the major part of the pruning operation. The tree should 
be kept open to allow for good light penetration, air movement 
and spray coverage. Control of brown rot will be much easier if 
the tree is prevented from becoming too dense. Keeping the trees 
open will also maintain fruiting throughout the lower and inner 
portions of the tree. Some heading-back cuts may be necessary to 
shorten and/or stiffen the scaffold branches. 

Removal of Black Knots 

The plum is particularly susceptible to the fungus disease, 
black knot, which may be identified in the dormant season by 



11 



black swellings or cankers on the branches. The principal control 
for this disease is to prune off and burn these knots. Remove 
small brandies entirely. On larger branches, cut to an outward 
growing lateral. In any case, the cut should be made at least 
six inches below any evidence of the disease and all diseased wood 
should be removed from the orchard. This may necessitate more 
drastic pruning than would be recommended ordinarily. 

*********** 

A VISUAL MONITORING TRAP FOR THE APPLE BLOTCH LEAFMINER"^ 

2 3 4 

Thomas Green , William Coli , Geoffrey Hubbell , 

and Ronald Prokopy 
Department of Entomology 

For the past 3 years, we have attempted to develop a visual 
monitoring trap for the apple blotch leafminer, Phyllonorycter 
crataegella . This insect, an organophosphate-resistant pest of 
apple foliage, is implicated in premature leaf and fruit drop 
and reduction in fruit set the following season. A pheromone 
trap is available for a related species, P. blancardella (spotted 
tentiform leafminer) , but this pheromone is not effective in 
attracting P. crataegella , the predominant species in Massa- 
chusetts commercial orchards . We theorized that if a visual moni- 
toring trap were available for P. crataegella, the need for a 
pre-bloom insecticide application against the overwintering gener- 
ation adults might be determined from trap capture levels. Here, 
we present a brief summary of our research on the development and 
utility of a visual trap for P. crataegella . 

Results 



In 6 experiments , we determined the number of P. crataegella 
captured on sticky-coated (=Tangle-Trap^) traps painted with 
commercially available paints of various colors. The consistently 
highest captures in these experiments were on traps painted with 
Sherwin-Williams Tartar Red DarkR Enamel. Results of 2 of the 
experiments are presented in Table 1. 



1 
We wish to express our appreciation to the following IPM field 
scouts for assistance with data collection: David Gordon, Kath- 
leen Leahv, Joseph Parella, Douglas Roberts, and Roy Zahnleuter 

2 
Extension Technician 

3 
Extension Pest Management Specialist 

4 
Research Assistant 

5 
Extension Entomologist 



-12- 

Table 1. Comparison of P. crataegella captures on 20 x 30 centi- 
meter* (cm) horizontal ( s t i cky - s i de - up ) traps of various colors 
positioned 1.5 meters** (m) above ground in the interior part 
of the tree canopy. 





Experiment 


1 






Experiment 


2 




Color 


Avi 


erag( 


2 number 


Color 




Avi 


erage number 


of 


P. 


crataegella 


of 




P. 


crataegella 


trap 




per 


trap 


trap 






per 


trap 


Red 








610 


Red 










1580 


Green 








548 


Green 










1267 


Orange 








500 


Light 


Gray 








1200 


Gray 








486 


Black 










1141 


Foil 








470 


White 










1126 


White 








467 


Medium 


Gray 








1113 


Yellow 








447 


Dark G 


ray 








976 


Blue 








411 














Clear 








368 














Black 








356 















One centimeter = 2.54 inches 
One meter = 39.37 inches 

The next step in the development and utilization of a visual 
trap was to evaluate the influence of the orientation of the trap 
on its effectiveness in capturing P. crataegella . The orientations 
tested were: (1) horizontal, sticky-side-up ; (2) horizontal, sticky- 
side-down; (3) vertical; (4) 90 degree (tent- shaped) , sticky-side- 
up; and (5) 90 degree (V-shaped), sticky-side down. Captures were 
higher on the horizontal, sticky-side-up traps than on those with 
the vertical or sticky-side-down orientations (Table 2). 

Table 2. Comparison of P. crataegella captures on 20 x 30 cm red 
traps of various orientations, positioned 1.5m above ground 
in the interior part of the tree canopy. 

Orientation of trap Average number P. crataegella per trap 

Horizontal, sticky- 
side-up 131 

90° (tent-shaped) , 

sticky-side-up 85 

Vertical 12 

90° (V-shaped) , 

sticky-side-down 10 

Horizontal , 

St icky- side-down 5 



13- 



on horizontal 
positions within 

block of semi- 
iameter. The in-tree 
alfway between the 
alfway between the 
top, halfway between 
ove ground, . 5 m 
ground, 0.5 m in 
he trunk and 1.5m 
st leafminers (Table 



Table 3. Comparison of P. crataegella captures on 20 x 30 cm 
horizontal red traps ( s t i cky - s i de - up ) at various positions 
within the tree. 



We then 


compared P, 


. crataegella 


captures 


(sticky-side- 


up) red traps placed at 


various 




the tree. Th 


lis ex 


periment was conducted in 


a 


dwarf trees, 


ca. 5 


m in 


height and 4 


.5 


m in 


d 


positionings 


were : 


(1) 


0.5 m above 


ground , 


h 


trunk and dri 


pline 


; (2) 


1.5m above ; 


ground. 


h 


trunk and dri 


.pline 


; (3) 


0.5m below 


the tree 




the trunk and 


[ outermost 


foliage; (4) 


1, 


. 5 m a 


lb 


out from the 


tree 


trunk ; 


; and (5) 1.5 


m 


above 


i 


from the drip 


• line . 


Traps placed 0.5 


m 


from 


t 


above the ground ( 


position 4) captured 


the mo 


3). 















Position of trap 



Average number P. crataegella per trap 



1.5m height , 

0.5 m out from trunk 

1.5m height , 
halfway between 
dripline and trunk 

0.5 m height , 
halfway between 
dripline and trunk 

1.5m height , 

0.5 m in from dripline 

0.5 m from tree top, 
halfway between trunk 
and outermost foliage 



161 

125 

96 
87 

11 



In the spring of 1982, the red horizontal (sticky- side-up) 
traps were used in 21 IPM orchard blocks in Massachusetts. The 
traps were placed 1.5 m above the ground and ca. halfway between 
the tree trunk and dripline. Each week, as part of the regular 
field scouting routine, leafminer adults were counted and removed 
from the traps, and foliage was sampled to determine the average 
number of mines per leaf. Cumulative average trop captures were 
highly positively correlated with the number of mines per leaf 
in the 21 blocks sampled. Figure 1 represents a regression of 
mines per leaf on trap captures through 2 weeks after petal fall and 
illustrates a prediction of 0.13 mines per leaf (the first gener- 
ation Economic Injury Level for stressed trees) at a cumulative 
average of 12 P. crataegella per trap. 



14- 



Conclusions 



Sticky-coated, 20 x 30 centimeter red traps, hung at 
height inside the canopy o£ apple trees, were effective fo 
itoring P. crataegella adults. We recommend that the trap 
at a rate of 1 per 0.8-1.2 hectares*, and that a pesticide 
(oxamyl or fenvalerate) against the adults be applied befo 
white shows on the flower petals if cumulative pre-bloom c 
(from silver-tip through late pink) reach or exceed 6 adul 
trap. This tentative action threshold is conservative, al 
for both the reproductive potential of P. crataegella and 
stress due to drought, calcium chloride burn, and/or mite 
Additional work is planned for the 1983 season to further 
this threshold and to develop an additional action thresho 
unstressed trees. This trap should be valuable in reducin 
need to wait until first generation mines appear before a 
spray decision can be accurately made. 



chest 
r mon- 
s be used 

treatment 
re any 
aptures 
ts per 
lowing 
for tree 
injury, 
validate 
Id for 
g the 
leafminer 



0.6r 



0.5 - 



0.4 - 



AVG 

MINES 

PER 

LEAFo.3 



0.2 



0.1 



O ^ 




15 



45 60 75 

NO. LM PER TRAP 



H. 



00 211 



Figure 1. Regression of first generation mines per leaf on 

visual trap captures in 21 commercial orchard blocks 



One hectare = 2.471 acres 



-15- 

ARE HIGH DHNSriY STRAIVRERRIES ON RIDGES FOR YOU? 

Dominic A. Marini 
Regional Fruit and Vegetable Specialist 
Plymouth Countv Extension Service 
Hanson', MA 02341 

High density systems with up to 58,000 plants per acre 
planted three inches apart on ridges 8 to 12 inches high and 3 
feet apart are presently receiving a great deal of attention. 
Yields of up to 45,000 quarts per acre are reported; and many 
grovvers are wondering if they should adopt this system. Here 
are a few things to consider in arriving at a decision. 

Is your soil suited to the ridge system? A fairly level, 
well-drained site is a necessity. Breaking up the soil to a 
depth of 16 to 18 inches vvfith a subsoiler, followed by deep 
plowing, 10 to 12 inches deep, is practiced by growers who use 
the system successfully. Specialized, expensive equipment is 
needed for leveling the soil and constructing the ridges. 

Soil fumigation is recommended for any system of growing 
strawberries. It is essential to prevent losses from black 
root rot and other soil-borne diseases in order to obtain the 
high yields possible with this system. Overhead irrigation for 
frost protection and to maintain ample soil moisture is also 
recommended for all growers, but is more essential for the 
ridge system since the ridges dry out much faster than level 
beds. More frequent nitrogen fertilization is necessary with 
the ridge system because of the leaching of nitrogen resulting 
from irrigating more often. And greater attention to insect, 
disease and weed control, and winter protection must be given in 
order to obtain high yields. Maintaining the winter mulch is 
more difficult because of the sloping sides of the ridges. 

Extremely high yields are possible with the high density 
ridge system of growing strawberries for large scale, top notch, 
specialist strawberry growers with the proper site and soil 
conditions. For the average grower operating on a small scale, 
growing a variety of crops on hilly, rocky. New England soils, 
such yields are not very likely. Most growers are probably bet- 
ter off with the more conventional systems of matted row or 
some sort of spaced runner system on 4 to 6 inch high raised 
beds . 

AAA***** 



-16- 

SUHGESTIONS FOR USE OF CALCIUM SPRAYS IN 1983 

Mack Drake and William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Calcium chloride fCaCl-,) foliar sprays are recommended in 
Massachusetts for all apple growers to increase the flesh calcium 
(Ca) content. Higher flesh Ca can markedly reduce bitter pit, 
cork spot and fruit breakdown during storage. 

Apply foliar sprays of CaCl2, beginning 3 weeks after petal 
fall and repeat at 2 week intervals totaling 6 to 8 applications. 
Apply 6 pounds CaCl2 per acre per spray until mid-July. After mid- 
July apply 8-10 pounds per acre per spray. Continue foliar CaCl2 
until fruit are ready for harvest. Use a technical grade of CaCi-;, 
such as Allied Chemical Dow Plake, 77-801 CaCl^. Other brands may 
be equally suitable. 

Experience in Massachusetts has shown that CaCl^ can be com- 
bined with pesticide sprays. However, some growers nave observed 
that the combination of Captan or Guthion (azinphos methyl) 50 WP 
and CaCl^ may increase foliar burn. DO NOT MIX CaCl^ AND SOLUBOR 
SPRAYS! ALWAYS DISSOLVE CaCl2 IN A PAIL OF WATER and add this 
last, when the spray tank is nearly full, to insure that the CaCl2 
is completely dissolved before spraying begins. 

Foliar CaCl2 sprays may be applied as dilute (300 gallons/acre) 
or up to lOX concentration (30 gallons/acre). In our research, 
apple flesh Ca was increased more by concentrated than by dilute 
sprays . 

CaCl2 sprays can cause burn of leaf margins. Foliar injury 
has been more serious on Mcintosh than on Delicious or Cortland. 
Apple leaves are less susceptible to CaCl-, burn after mid-July. 
Mcintosh growing on M7 may be more susceptible to foliar burn than 
those on standard rootstock. Weak or injured trees may be more 
susceptible to CaCl^ burn than healthv trees" To reduce the chance 
of leaf burn, DO NOT REPEAT A FOLIAR CaCl^ SPRAY UNLESS ONE-HALF TO 
ONE INCH OF RAIN HAS FALLEN SINCE THE LAST APPLICATION'.' 

In 1982, 3 different materials were compared as suppliers of 
foliar Ca at the University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research 
Center. One was commercial CaCl^; the second was a proprietary 
formulation of CaCl^; and the thnrd was a chelated Ca compound. 
Rate of application^was 86 grams Ca per tree in a total of 8 appli- 
cations. Fruit Ca was 115, 165, 155 and 158 parts per million 
respectively, for control, CaCl2, Formulation 1 and Formulation 2; 
the amount of the breakdown was 33, 7, 7 and 11 percent, respectively, 
for fruit air stored at 32°F for 5 months and then held at 74°F for 
7 days. These results agree with those of previous years, and show 



-17' 

the positive effect of increased fruit Ca in reducing storage 
breakdown of Massachusetts-grown Mcintosh apples. We do not 
recommend long term storage of Mcintosh apples with less than 
150 ppm flesh Ca. 

Questions have been asked about possible accumulations of 
chloride (CI) in the soil. Chloride salts are highly soluble. 
Research in the Netherlands showed that there was no annual build- 
up or accumulation of chloride where annual rainfall exceeded 
30 inches per year. Rainfall in all areas of Massachusetts 
exceeds 30 inches per year. 

Annual application of muriate of potash (potassium chloride) 
for corn silage, vegetable crops and alfalfa in Massachusetts 
usually exceeds 200 pounds per acre, supplying about 100 pounds 
of chloride per acre. Only 35 pounds of chloride are applied 
per acre when our recommendations for foliar CaCl-, sprays are 
followed. Also, it is important to note that this 35 pounds of 
chloride is applied in 6 to 8 increments of 4 to 6 pounds per acre 
foliar application as compared to the 100 pounds of chloride in 
one application for corn, vegetables and alfalfa. 

WARNING : The initial pH of commercial CaCl^ in water is 10.3, 
since small amounts of free CaO form Ca(OH) in water. There is 
evidence that the high pH may reduce effectiveness of some pesti- 
cides. It is therefore recommended that 2 quarts of 5% vinegar 
be added per 100 pounds of CaCl2 to neutralize the excess (OH) 
and bring the reaction of the spray solution to about pH 6.0. 

********** 



AN UPDATE ON CALYX- END ROT, AND REPORT OF AN 

APPLE LEAF SPOT CAUSED BY THE FUNGUS 

SCLEROTINIA SCLEROTIORUM 

12 3 

Christopher M. Becker , Daniel R. Cooley and William J. Manning 

Department of Plant Pathology 



Calyx-end rot of apple, caused by the fungus Sclerotinia 
sclerotiorum , has been observed in Massachusetts orchards in recent 
years. A report on fruit symptoms and losses in 1980 was published 
in FRUIT NOTES 46(1) :l-3. During the 1982 growing season, calyx- 
end rot was again prevalent in many Massachusetts orchards. S. 
sclerotiorum was also found to cause a previously unreported leaf 
spot . 



1 

Research Assistant 
2 

Extension Technician 
3 

Professor of Plant Pathology 



-17a- 
ADDENDUM 

After this issue of FRUIT NOTES had gone to press, it came to 
our attention that the recommendations for use of CaCl2 appear to 
be in conflict with statements in the "Annual March Message to Massa- 
chusetts Fruit Growers (1983)", issued by Ronald Prokopy, William 
Coli and Thomas Green of the Department of Entomology. To avoid 
confusion from "mixed messages", the following additional comments 
are presented: 

Beginning about 1975, in Massachusetts we recommended separating 
the applications of CaCl2 and pesticides. However, for the past 5 
years many Massachusetts growers have combined CaCl^ with pesticide 
sprays without observed reduction in effectiveness of pesticides. 
Nevertheless, as we warn on page 17, addition of CaCl2 can signifi- 
cantly raise the pH of the spray solution, which theoretically can 
reduce the effectiveness of the pesticides. 

This past year. Dr. George Greene conducted experiments at Big- 
lerville, PA which showed that while CaCl^ raised the pH of water 
it caused no measurable increase in disease or insect damage to apples 
when combined with the pesticides he was using. It should be noted, 
however, that some other researchers have reported evidence of reduced 
effectiveness of pesticides at these high pH ' s . 

In 1982 a number of Massachusetts growers added vinegar to lower 
the solution to about pH 6, as recommended on page 17, to their mix- 
ture of CaCl2 and pesticides. There was no dissatisfaction with 
results . 

Nevertheless, since some researchers and some states have issued 
warnings of possible ineffectiveness of vinegar as a remedy, the 
following additional steps can be taken if a grower feels that they 
are necessary . 

1. Use CaCl^ of a higher purity grade. Technical grade (77- 
80l)CaCl2 will affect pH somewhat more than high purity 
grade materials. However, the higher purity grade is 
much more expensive and less available. 

2. Apply CaCl2 sprays separately from pesticides. 

3. Use a commercial buffer rather than vinegar to lower the 
pH. Some concerns have been published that acetic acid, 
the chief component of vinegar, may not be stable over 
long periods in the spray mixture. However, it should 
also be noted that some commercial buffers may cause Ca 
to precipitate from solution, thereby reducing the value 
of the CaCl2 sprays. 

It should be recognized that we are not recommending the above 
steps. We are alerting growers to concerns that have been raised 
elsewhere, and to steps that can be taken if they feel that these 
concerns warrant extra precautions. 

William J. Bramlage, William Coli and Mack Drake 



18- 



the 

man- 

an 




Fig. 1. Developing Mcintosh fruit 
with calyx-end rot. 



In mid-June, 2-81 of the Mcintosh fruit observed in 8 of 
10 orchards visited by disease management scouts, were developing 
calyx-end rots CFig« 1) • 
Delicious, Cortland, and 
Macoun also had end rots, 
but at lower rates. Most 
infected fruits ripened 
prematurely, or dropped 
by mid-August. Despite 
premature drop, disease 
agement scouts recorded 
average of 1.001 infected 
fruit in 10 orchards dur- 
ing a harvest survey 
CFRUIT NOTES 48(1) :11) . 

All orchards with 
calyx-end rotted fruit 
in mid-June developed a 
previously undescribed 
leaf spot. Spots were 
1-3 cm in diameter, 
light brown, and vis- 
ible on both sides of 
the leaf (Fig. 2) . 
These lesions were not 
bound by veins. Some 
lesions were noticed 
next to non-pollinated, 
wilted blossoms, and 
several lesions had 
developed following 
contact with young end 
rotted- fruit . Numerous 
other spots contained 
an antherl in the center 
of the lesion. Infected 
leaves seldom had more 
than one spot per leaf, 
with lesions typically 
larger than frog^eye 
leaf spot (caused by 
Physalospora obtusa ) or 
"captan spot". In con- 
trast to typical frog- 
eye leaf spot, the 
Sclerotinia lesions 
were an even than with- 
out concentric darkened 
areas. Most infected 
leaves turned yellow 




Fig 



Mcintosh leaf with 
tinia leaf spot. 



Sclero- 



from an apple blossom 



-19- 

within several weeks and dropped by mid-July to mid-August. 

Isolations from the center or edge of these foliar infections 
onto sterile petri plates of potato carrot agar consistently 
yielded the fungus Sclerotinia sclerotiorum . This was the first 
reported isolation of the fungus from apple foliage. Controlled 
laboratory studies were conducted to determine the conditions 
necessary for foliar infection by S. sclerotiorum . Results 
showed that not only would the fungus infect wounded leaves , but 
that unwounded leaves developed lesions providing that continuous 
moisture was present. 

The life cycle of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum is well known on 
beans, lettuce and many other vegetable crops. However, to date 
no successful studies have been done on how the fungus infects 
apples. It is presently believed that spores, released during 
spring rains, infect blossoms. It is further thought that pro- 
longed wet weather encourages the fungus to continue growth into 
developing fruit with an end rot resulting. It is likely that 
foliage infections occurred directly from spores, or following 
contact with young fruit infected with S. sclerotiorum . It may 
be possible that fungal spores are present on anthers or pollen 
grains, thus, explaining many of the foliar infections described 
above. 

At this time, the fungus does not seem to present an economic 
threat to apple foliage. However, end rots have been increasing 
during the past 3 years (FRUIT NOTES 48 (1) : 10- 16) . Current apple 
scab fungicide programs may not provide adequate control of calyx- 
end rots and no fungicides are currently registered for the disease 
When prolonged infection periods exist between pink and first 
cover, applications of captan and benomyl may be helpful. 

In attempts to gain more information about the disease on 
apples, the Department of Plant Pathology hopes to monitor develop- 
ment of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum under controlled conditions in the 
field next season. 

********** 



-20- 

USE OF PROMALIN TO INCREASE BRANCHING OF YOUNG TREES 

Duane W. Greene 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Abbott Laboratories has been granted final label registration 
for Promalin to improve branching on apple trees. There are sever- 
al varieties and strains such as Macoun, Empire, Macspur and other 
spur-types that branch sparsely, which limits their productive cap- 
acity. Promalin*may increase lateral bud break and total shoot 
growth per tree and improve branch angles on non-bearing trees. 
Promalin may also reduce the potential return bloom for the season 
following application. Therefore, Promalin is primarily recommended 
for non-bearing trees to enhance early scaffold branch growth and 
development and to provide a better tree framework. 

Application Methods and Rates Suggested on Label 

Foliar sprays . Use one-half (0.50) to one CI) pint of Promalin 
per 5 gallons of spray solution to attain a concentration of 250 
ppm of Promalin in the final spray solution. Wetting, spray cover- 
age and subsequent absorption can be improved by the addition of a 
wetting agent such as Buffer-X, Tween 20, or Glyodin. The wetting 
agent should be added to the spray tank before Promalin. The final 
spray should not be alkaline. If you have reason to suspect that 
your water may be alkaline, then it may be advisable to add a buffer 
such as Sorba Spray, vinegar or a buffered surfactant such as 
Buffer-X. 

Latex applications . Use one-third (0.33) pint of Promalin per one 
(1) pint of interior flat latex paint to attain a concentration of 
7500 ppm. Mix thoroughly. A buffered wetting agent such as Buffer-X 
or Tween-20 should be added to the tank mix at a rate of 0.5 to 1.01 
prior to the addition of the Promalin. This practice will improve 
the solubility of Promalin in the latex paint and will also improve 
wetting and absorption through the waxy layers on the bark surfaces. 

Research in Massachusetts showed that sometimes too many branches 
are stimulated following a Promalin application. This is especially 
true when 500 ppm Promalin is used on very responsive varieties, such 
as Macspur and Empire, at a time when growth is rapid and environmental 
conditions favor foliar penetration. This situation can be overcome 
by: 1) using lower rates of Promalin; 2) using the high rate of 
Promalin, then returning about 3-4 weeks after application and remov- 
ing the unwanted developing shoots. 

Method of Application Suggested on Label 

Foliar sprays . Uniformly apply the Promalin spray mixture with a 
pressurized hand sprayer, hand gun attachment to an airblast sprayer, 
or an airblast sprayer to thoroughly wet the bark and foliage sur- 
faces. Do not apply to point of runoff. It is suggested that 

"S 

Trade name 



-21- 

approximately five to ten (5-10) gallons of spray mixture will 
treat an acre of non-bearing (1-5 year old) trees on a 12 x 12 
spacing (310 trees). Spray volume should be adjusted to tree size 
and density. 

On small trees we have found a small (2-3 gal.) hand sprayer 
very useful. Branching is stimulated only on portions of the tree 
that are sprayed. The spray can be directed only to the areas of 
the tree where branching is desired. 

Latex applications . Uniformly apply the Promalin- latex mixture 
with a brush or sponge to thoroughly cover the bark surface. Apply 
only to one-year-old dormant branches. 

Under Massachusetts conditions we believe that foliar sprays 
should be the first choice of application. Foliar sprays are 
easier to apply and may be more effective. The exception to this 
might be during the first year the trees are in the ground. 

Timing of Application 

Foliar sprays . Application of Promalin should be made during the 
period when there are from one (1) to three (3) inches of new ter- 
minal shoot growth. This period generally coincides with a timing 
of one (1) to two (2) weeks after full bloom. There are a few var- 
ieties such as Spur Rome that can be stimulated to branch beyond 
this period. Nursery stock should be treated after trees attain 
a terminal height at which the first lateral scaffold branches are 
desired (i.e., greater than 30 cm). 

Latex applications . Since this treatment is intended primarily for 
stimulating lateral growth from vegetative buds on one-year-old 
dormant wood, applicaton of Promalin should be made in late April 
and early May depending on season and locality. A useful guide is 
to make the application just as the terminal buds on shoots or spurs 
are beginning to break. Applications after lateral buds have broken 
may cause some injury to the tender shoot tips and fail to promote 
continued shoot growth from that point. 

Application Considerations 

Since Promalin is a plant growth regulator that must be absorbed 
by the plant to be effective, best performance can be expected with 
good absorption conditions. Furthermore, not all varieties respond 
equally well to Promalin; Spur-type Mcintosh and Empire respond very 
well, Delicious is intermediate and Northern Spy and Paulared are 
almost unresponsive. 

Do not treat trees of low vigor. Results will always be dis- 
appointing. Promalin will not stimulate growth or branching on low- 
vigor trees or trees suffering from drought, winter injury or low 
fertility. Promalin is mot effective when used on healthy, vigorously 



-22- 



growing trees. 

Promalin at the rates recommended can thin the crop the year 
of application and prevent flower bud formation for the following 
year. Therefore, whole tree treatments should be limited to young 
non-bearing trees. However, a localized application on one-year- 
old wood in either latex paint or by a directed spray may be done 
without reducing flower bud formation on spurs. Localized appli- 
cations would be useful to stimulate branches for a 2nd or 3rd 
whorl of scaffold limbs or to stimulate branching on portions of 
a limb. 

Promalin is not effective in stimulating branching on limbs 
with blind wood. Most branching that occurs following a Promalin 
application results from stimulation of growth of healthy spurs 
having a large leaf area or from large buds on 1-year- old-wood. 

********** 



Cooperative Extension Service 
U. S. Department of Agriculture 
University of Massachusetts 
Amherst, MA 01003 



Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use, $300 



WES AUTIO 
FRENCH HALL 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF 
AGRICULTURE 
(AGR 101) 



BULK THIRD CLASS MAIL PERMIT 




FN 



01003 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS. UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Vol.48 No. 3 
SUMMER ISSUE, 1983 

Table of Contents 

Leaf Analysis Service and Standards 
for Nutrient Levels 

Gypsy Moth as a Pest of Highbush Blueberry 
in Massachusetts 

Marketing Your Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

NRAES-16 Planning Farm Shops 

Why, When and How to Summer Prune 
and Results to Expect 

Extent of Damage by Major Apple Fruit 
Injuring Insects in Massachusetts 



Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service, Daniel I. Padberg, Director, in furtherance 
of the Acts of May 8 and June 30. 1 91 4; United States Department of Agriculture and 
County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 
opportunity in prograrns and employment. 




LEAF ANALYSIS SERVICE AND STANDARDS FOR NUTRIENT LEVELS 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Leaf analysis is an effective guide to more economical and 
efficient fertilizer practices; and as an aid in diagnosing 
specific problems in individual orchards. The accuracy of 
diagnosis depends upon accuracy of sample collection. Thus, 
it is important that the procedures described below are followed. 

The leaves are analyzed for nitrogen, potassium, phosphorous, 
calcium, magnesium, manganese, iron, copper, boron, zinc and 
sodium. Nutrient sprays of calcium, manganese, zinc, copper, and 
boron leave residues which make analyses for these micronutrients 
meainingless without carefully washing the leaves prior to wilt- 
ing, to remove the residue. Washing procedures to remove this 
residue require specific laboratory procedures which cannot be 
provided by or compensated for by this service. Therefore, 
leaves from trees sprayed with these micronutrients cannot be 
used for micronutrient analyses. 

Sampling Procedure 

1. Sampling Individual Trees to Diagnose Problem. ( Leaves from 
each tree constitute the sample . ) 

Select a minimum of 3 trees of the same variety in a block 
showing the condition in question. Then as an aid in diag- 
nosing, select a minimum of 2 trees of this variety not 
showing the condition in question. Now sample each tree 

separately the leaves from each tree will constitute a 

sample. A leaf sample consists of: apple trees (50 leaves 
per tree); peach tree (80 leaves per tree). 

Analysis of leaves from individual trees in a block is more 
expensive, but is more meaningful than a composite sample 
from several trees . 

2. Composite Sample to Diagnose Problem. ( Leaves from several 
trees are combined into one sample ) . 

Obtain 10 leaves from each of 5 or more trees of the same 

variety in a block showing the condition in question and put 

them together as one sample. Then, obtain a similar sample 
from trees not showing the condition in question. 



3. Composite Sample to Determine Genera] Nutritional Level. 

( When no problem is apparent and the knowledjje of the general 
nutritional level is desired . ) 

Select If) trees of the same variety which represent, as nearly 
as possible, the general vigor and crop load of the block 
being sampled. Collect 10 leaves from each tree to make up 
a single sample. 

Sampling Instructions 

1. Collect all leaf samples between July 15 and August 15. Sample 
when leaves are dry. 

2. The leaf samples should be restricted to tlie healthy leaves 
on trees suspected of being deficient of some nutrients. All 
leaves should be free from insect, disease, or mechanical 
injury. Be sure the trees are free of mouse injury . 

3. Select all leaves from the middle of current terminal or 
lateral shoots. Do not select spur leaves. Not more than 
two (2) leaves should be taken from any one shoot. Sample 
around the periphery of the tree at a mean height of five 
feet from the ground. 

4. Remove the leaves in such a way that the stem of the leaf 
is attached. 

5. Label or make a map so that the trees sampled can be located 
at any time in the future. This will enable you to sample 
the same tree in tow or three years to determine any change 
in nutritional status as a result of a fertilizer program 
adjustment . 

6. Place the leaves in bag purchased from the SOIL AND PLANT 
TESTING LABORATORY, 240 BEAVER STREET, WALTHAM, MA 02254. 

Standards For Nutrient Levels 

On the next 2 pages are our leaf analysis standards for nutrient 
levels in: (1) young, non-bearing apple trees; (2) bearing apple 
trees; and (3) peach trees. When using these standards as a guide 
for fertilization, remember that the crop size on the trees at time 
of sampling influences greatly the nutrient level of the leaves. For 
example, leaves taken from an apple tree with a large crop may be 
0.2 to 0.3% higher in N than when the same tree has a light crop. 
The factors affecting nutrient content of the foliage and fruits of 
apple trees were discussed in the winter 1982 issue of FRUIT NOTES 
(Vol. 48). 



Table 1. Leaf analysis standards for nutrient levels in young, non-bearing 
apple trees. 



Element 



Ni t rogen (N) 
Potassium (K) 
Cal ci urn (Ca) 
Magnesium (Mg) 
Manganese (Mn) 
Boron (B) 
Copper (Cu) 
Zinc (Zn) 



Shortage 
(Below) 


2 
Optimum 

(Within) 


Excess 
(More than) 


2.00% 


2.00-2.50% 


2.50% 


1.00% 


1.20-1.50% 


1.50% 


1.00% 


1 .25-1.80% 


7 


0.20% 


0.25-0.^40% 


0.50% 


20 ppm 


25-75 ppm 


75 ppm 


25 ppm 


35-50 ppm 


80 ppm 


A ppm 


6-10 ppm 


10 ppm 


15 ppm 


25-50 ppm 


50 ppm 



1 

Shortage: Corrective measures needed. 
2 

Optimum: Applications should be continued as present rate or increased 
to tree age. 
3 

Excess: Amount applied should be decreased or eliminated. 
k 

Don't be concerned about low B levels until trees begin to fruit. 

Young trees, particularly those on weak size-control rootstocks, are 

eas i ly i njured by B. 



Table 2. Standards for nutrient levels in leaves for bearing apple trees. 



E 1 emen t 


Shortage 
(Below) 


2 

Optimum 

(Within) 


Excess 
(More than) 


h 
Nitrogen (N) 


1.70% 


1.80-2.00% 


2.20% 


Potassium (K) 


1.00% 


1.20-1.50% 


1.50% 


Calcium (Ca) 


1.00% 


1.25-1.80% 


? 


Magnesium (Mg) 


0.20% 


0.25-0.^0% 


0.50% 


Manganese (Mn) 


20 ppm 


25-75 ppm 


75 ppm 


Boron (B) 


25 ppm 


35-50 ppm 


80 ppm 


Copper (Cu) 


A ppm 


6-10 ppm 


10 ppm 


Zinc (Zn) 


15 ppm 


25-60 ppm 


50 ppm 



1 

Shortage: Corrective measures needed, 
2 
Optimum: Applications should be continued at present rate or adjusted 
according to anticipated crop size. 

3 
Excess: Amount applied should be decreased or eliminated. 

^4 

N levels of 2.0-2.50% for non-bearing trees and trees of firm-fleshed 
varieties (Empire, Spartan, Delicious, Idared, etc.) are satisfactory. 
On Golden Delicious 1.70-1.80% is best. 



-k- 



Table 3. Standards for nutrient levels in peach leaves 



Element 


2 
Shortage 

(Less than) 


Optimum 
(Within) 


Excess 
(More than) 


Nitrogen (N) 


3.00% 


3.00-3.50% 


3.70% 


Potassium (K) 


1.25% 


1.50-2.50% 

# 


2.50% 


Calcium (Ca) 


1 . 35% 


1.35-1.50% 


7 


Magnesium (Mg) 


0.25% 


0.35-0.50% 


0.50% 


Boron (B) 








Copper (Cu) 


5 ppm 


7-10 ppm 


10 ppm 


Manganese (Mn) 


25 ppm 


90-110 ppm 


110 ppm 


Zinc (Zn) 


15 ppm 


25-50 ppm 


50 ppm 



1 

Young trees should mai<e about 18 inches of new terminal growth 
annually; 12-15 inches are sufficient for mature trees. 
2 
Shortage: Corrective measures needed. 

3 
Optimum: Applications should be continued at present rate of adjusted 
according to anticipated crop size. 

k 
Excess: Amount applied should be decreased or eliminated. 

5 
Peach trees are very sensitive to excessive B. According to Ernest Christ, 
former Extension Specialist of Pomology at Rutgers University in New Jersey 
fertilizer with 5 pounds of borax per ton is satisfactory for peaches. 
No additional B is ever needed or added. 



■5- 



GYPSY MOTH AS A PEST OF HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY IN MASSACHUSETTS ' 



Charles F. Brodel 
Extension Entomologist 
Cranberry Experiment Station 
East Warehara, MA 



Highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L., is one of many 
plant species occasionally used as food by the gypsy moth (GM) . 
In most years, it escapes serious damage because GM larvae prefer 
to feed on deciduous trees such as oak, willow, poplar, apple, 
and certain types of birch. From 1979 to 1982, however, GM larvae 
were numerous enough to defoliate millions of acres of deciduous 
forest in the Northeast. Supplies of preferred foliage were ex- 
hausted in many locations, forcing partly developed larvae to 
seek non-preferred plants. Also, in the spring of each year, 
countless newly hatched larvae were blown from treetops within 
infested areas to previously uninfested sites. 

As small fruits extension specialist, I wanted to learn what 
impact these unusual GM outbreaks have had on the Mass. highbush 
blueberry industry. At their annual meeting this past December, 
members of the Mass. Cultivated Blueberry Growers' Assoc, willing- 
ly filled out a questionnaire concerning their experiences with 
GM during the last 4 years. The following report summarizes and 
evaluates their responses. 

The average highbush blueberry planting in southeastern Mas- 
sachusetts occupies an area of 1.46 acres, ranging between '^ and 
4 acres. Plantings are rather uniformly distributed, with 4 being 
situated on or near Cape Cod, 5 in the New Bedford-Fall River 
area, 5 in the Franklin-Holliston area, and 8 in the Brockton- 
Plymouth area. The northwestern perimeter of the blueberry growing 
region seems to be formed by a line of 4 plantings extending from 
Dudley in the south to Carlisle in the north. 

Of the growers who returned questionnaires, 37% reported hav- 
ing no problem with GM from 1979 through 1982. In most cases. 



Many thanks are extended to the members of the Mass. Cultivated 
Blueberry Growers' Assoc, whose cooperative support made this 
evaluation possible. 

2 

Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recom- 
mendation for use. 



their plantings were located on the Cape or along the southern 
coastal region. The remainder of growers experienced problems 
with GM in 1 or more years. 

None of the plantings was infested in 1979, and only 2 
plantings were infested in 1980, a year in which 5.1 million 
acres of forested land in the Northeast were defoliated by GM. 
However, in 1981, 71% of the blueberry plantings infested during 
a 4-year period experienced noticeable GM populations. The 
problem continued in 1982, when 6 of 17 infested plantings had 
sizable numbers of GM. 

A common concern of growers is whether or not a planting 
infested with GM one season is likely to be infested the fol- 
lowing season. Questionnaire responses do not provide a clear- 
cut answer. On one hand, 2 plantings infested with GM in 1980 
were reinfested in 1981. On the other, only 1 of 12 plantings 
infested in 1981 was reinfested in 1982. These observations 
indicate that an answer should only be attempted for particular 
plantings after the following questions have been considered. 
Were areas around the planting treated with insecticides? Were 
surrounding woodlands defoliated by mid to late June or was a 
considerable amount of foliage left after GM feeding? Were GM 
moths observed in the woodlands and/or planting in August? 
Were egg masses observed in the woodlands or planting in the 
fall? 

Another matter often pondered is whether or not the pres- 
ence and composition of woodlands around plantings influences 
the likelihood of an infestation. Again, questionnaire res- 
ponses do not enable a definite answer, but do provide a few 
clues. Regarding borders, responses showed that 15 plantings 
where GM was a problem had woodland on at least 1 side. Ten 
plantings not infested by GM likewise were bordered on at least 
1 side. Contrary tc popular belief, the directional relation- 
ship of woodland to a planting had no apparent bearing on the 
likelihood of infestation. Interestingly, 2 plantings not 
bordered by woodland became infested with GM. It would seem, 
then, that woodland borders do less to affect the probability of 
an infestation than the presence or absence of GM in the general 
locale of the blueberry planting. 

The composition of adjoining woodland does not seem to mat- 
ter either, given that GM has accepted the tree species as food 
plants. In 15 of 17 infested plantings, woodlands consisted of 
deciduous species only or a mixture of deciduous and coniferous 
species. In 2 other plantings, however, infestations originated 
from solid stands of conifers, food plants that are known to be 
less favored by GM. 



-7- 



The actual damage done to plantings by the larvae was of 
interest. Growers were asked to estimate the percentage of 
blossoms lost when larvae consumed either blossoms or blossom 
stems. A summary of responses is given in Table 1. These esti- 
mates should be viewed as conservative because in many instances, 
control measures were undertaken during the initial stages of 
larval feeding. Clearly, GM reduced potential crops in 1981 and 
1982 and temporarily superseded the blueberry maggot as the most 
important insect pest of blueberry. 

Table 1. Feeding damage by gypsy moth larvae in southeastern 

Mass. blueberry plantings, 1980-1982. 

Percent 

flowers Number of plantings 

consumed 1980 1981 1982 



9-25 5 3 

26-50 10 

51-75 13 

76-100 110 



Insecticide usage ranks alongside damage as a leading indi- 
cator of pest status. A glance at Table 2 should leave no doubt 
about the impact GM feeding had on the minds of most blueberry 
growers from 1980 through 1982, During that period, half of the 
growers who applied insecticide used Sevin , 5 treated with for- 
mulations of the bacterium. Bacillus thuringiensis , and 3 treated 
with malathion. On average, 3 applications were made prior to 
and during bloom by each grower, with 10 being the maximum number. 
Opinions about the results of these applications were mixed 
(Table 2). Dissatisfied growers lamented the insecticides' lack 
of residual activity and the ineffectiveness of Dipel^ and Thuri- 
cide^ against older GM larvae. Only positive opinions were re- 
corded by lone users of methoxychlor, Guthion^, and Imidan^. A 
planting deliberately left untreated despite damaging levels of 
GM lost an estimated 75% of its flowers. 

Insecticide applications during bloom are potentially harm- 
ful to native and rented pollinators. New Jersey has overcome 
the problem somewhat by obtaining a state local need registra- 
tion for Dylox^, an insecticide reported to be less harmful to 
pollinators than Sevin. The questionnaire alluded to this issue 
by asking if additional insecticides are needed in Massachusetts 
to control GM larvae during bloom . Ten growers responded posi- 
tively, 10 were negative, and 7 had no opinion. 



Table 2. Use and perceived efficacy of insecticides against 
gypsy moth larvae by Mass. blueberry growers, 1980- 

1982. 

Opinion on efficacy 
Pos . Neq. Unsure 





No. of 


Insecticide 


growers 


Sevin 


11 


Dipel/Thuricide 


5 


Malathion 


3 


Methoxychlor 


1 


Guthion 


1 


Imidan 


1 



9 

1 
2 
1 

1 
1 



2 
3 

1 





1 




In summary, GM has been the most important regional insect 
pest on highbush blueberry during the last 2 years. It has in- 
fested about 65% of the plantings in southeastern Massachusetts, 
causing considerable loss of crop via cons\imption of flowers and 
flower stems. It has compelled growers to apply insecticides an 
average of 3 times per season to reduce losses. Its distribu- 
tion and population levels in the region have not been predict- 
able from year to year; however, the south coastal region seems 
to have been least affected. 



********** 



MARKETING YOUR FRESH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES 

Donald R. Marion 
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics 



How would 
fruits and vege 
doing so might 
There is no que 
possibly the mo 
fresh fruits an 
result, growers 
with a bit of c 
good crops . Un 
financially sue 
themselves. Th 



you like to increase your income from growing fresh 
tables? If you would (and who wouldn't) the key to 
very well lie in improving your marketing program, 
stion that marketing is an important consideration., 
st important. The technical aspects of producing 
d vegetables have become quite scientific. As a 
are able to control most pests and diseases and, 
ooperation from the weather, are able to produce 
fortunately, it takes more than a good crop to be 
cessful because the products often don't market 
e old adage about a better mouse trap is a familiar 



one, but not very useful in many cases today. Tf you only built 
a better mouse trap, what very well might happen is that, instead 
of the world beating a pathway to your door, the pathway could 
grow full of weeds. The reason is competition. In most situations 
in the U.S. there is not just one mouse trap builder per area, 
but instead several, perhaps many. That means that buyers have 
a choice to make and, if all the mouse traps are of reasonably 
good quality, that choice may be based upon something other than 
the quality of the mouse trap (e.g. , convenience of availability, 
price, nature of customer service, etc.); that is marketing. 

Mouse traps and fresh fruits and vegetables may have little 
in common, but the basics of effective marketing programs for the 
two products would be surprisingly similar. 

Important as the topic of marketing is, it is difficult to 
be very specific to a group of growers because there is usually 
no single, best solution for all. Individual situations are enough 
different to call for som.ewhat different marketing programs in 
each case. 

Many of the differences in the marketing programs of individual 
growers are small or subtle, and might easily be overlooked - but 
those fine differences are important. That "fine tuning" often 
marks the difference between success and failure. As suggested 
earlier, to be successful, each grower must be better than other 
growers in some respect that consumers view as important; that is, 
he must give customers some reason to come to his place of busi- 
ness and buy his products, rather than to buy from another seller. 
In marketing jargon, that is called a "differential advantage". 
It is necessary because a business firm does not automatically get 
some particular quota or amount of business just by its existence - 
it has to be earned - over, and over and over again. The pres- 
ident of a small food chain in Massachusetts says that doing busi- 
ness with food shoppers is like a long romance - - you must romance 
them, and romance them, and romance them -- continuously. A large 
successful pick-your-own strawberry operator says you have to reach 
out to customers; you can't sit back and wait for them to come 
to you because of your superior product. 

Furthermore, no individual seller can expect to attract all 
types of buyers. Some seldom ever buy from roadside stands, some 
never pick their own, and so on. It is important to identify and 
focus your attention upon that set of shoppers that represents the 
best potential market for you - - your "target market". 

And so, a first recommendation might be - 

1. Get to know your customers and those in your target group - 
who they are and what their needs and preferences are - 
and then extend your business toward them by trying to 
meet those needs and preferences. 



-10- 

Marketinp success is largely a matter of attitude. Let 
your customers see a positive attitude; make it clear that you 
appreciate their business. 

But simply rcacliing out to potential customers is not 
enough - you must have something to offer. That "something" 
should be a "good" product. Don't forget that a "good" product 
is not limited to the physical product itself, but includes an 
assortment of services that are involved in the sale of the 
physical product. Some specific examples will help to illustrate 
this point. 

-have products available in reasonably abundant quantities 
and of "good" condition. Incidentally, it is very important 
to judge quality from the customer point of view. For 
example, many shoppers think that a Mcintosh or Red Delicious 
apple must be solid red to be of "good" quality, and that 
tomatoes should be uniformly red and perfectly round, and 
that "good" sweet corn must be bi-color. Growers, of 
course know that those characteristics are not exactly- 
necessary to a "good" product but, until customer attitudes 
and preferences have changed, they will not be completely 
satisfied unless those conditions are met. 

-make sure your equipment and facilities used in selling the 
product are clean and wel 1 -appearing . 

-provide adequate supervision and orderly handling of cus- 
tomers from the parking area to the checking out area. 

-use signs generously to: 

1. lay out policies and regulations 

2. post prices, etc. 

3. give directions to product locations, to the check- 
out area, etc. 

And remember, signs are one part of the image that a business 
projects to customers; make certain that your signs represent 
you well. 

-in handling customers be sure to give the impression that you 
really want to satisfy them with your product. 

For pick-your-own operators there are some additional consider- 
ations. Surveys of 'pick-your-own customers indicate that they 
appreciate the availability of toilet facilities, that ready-picked 
fruit and/or other crops for sale adds variety and convenience 
that is appreciated by pickers, and a special area provided for 
children (playground and/or picking area) will enable pickers with 
children to be more relaxed, and will help to avoid conflicts witli 



-11- 

other pickers and damage to crops and plants. 

And so, the second suggestion offered is - 

2. Provide customers with a really "good" product (includ- 
ing related services) -a product that will please them. 

The third suggestion is - 

3. Price realistically and with conviction . This means 
a "fair" price - not too high and not too low - and 
don't be timid about it. No matter how low prices might 
be set, some customers would surely complain that they 
are too high. Unfortunately, that is the nature of some 
customers. But if, in fact, your prices are fair there 
is no reason to feel apologetic or to "pussy foot" about 
them. Quite the opposite; customers are more likely 

to feel assured that prices are reasonable when sales 
personnel are quite positive and forthright in talking 
about them. 

To do a good job of setting prices, a grower must know 
his costs well, to know what price is necessary. Doing 
so has become difficult in recent years, with herky- jerky 
but generally rapid changes in operating costs. As a 
result, a grower must work his records harder than ever 
before to be certain of maintaining a financially healthy 
position . 

It is also important to keep abreast of market conditions 
to have a sense for prices elsewhere in the market and, therefore, 
what customers will consider to be a reasonable price. Probably 
the most important prices to stay in touch with are those at the 
wholesale market and at supermarkets in your area. Many growers 
object to the suggestion of using supermarket prices as at least 
part of the basis for setting their own. However, it is a super- 
market that is the principal competitor for most growers who are 
retailing, and because of frequent visits there, it is supermarket 
prices that most shoppers are likely to be familiar with. Further- 
more, using supermarket prices as a pricing guide does not necessar- 
ily mean following them exactly. 

Special mention should be made of the problem of pricing for 
a "bumper crop". As background, a very brief lesson in the 
economics of demand and supply would be helpful. For most agri- 
cultural products, a relatively small change in the quantity avail- 
able in the markets results in a relatively large change in market 
prices. That is, a 10 percent decrease in the supply of a 
particular commodity would result in a price increase of more than 
10 percent, and vice-versa. In the jargon of economics, that 
condition is referred to as a relatively inelastic demand . The 



-12- 

dcmand for most agricultural products is of that nature and that 
is a major part of tlic reason that many of our farm programs, 
used to support agricultural commodity prices, operate on the 
basis of government purchase of surplus supplies. Removing a 
relatively small quantity of a commodity from the marketing sys- 
tem, results in a relatively larger increase in the market price 
for that product. 

For individual growers that means that prices usually would 
have to fall by a fairly large amount to clear the market in times 
of a modest increase in market supplies available. In other words, 
price-cutting or price-wars must be quite severe for very large 
crops to stimulate consumer buying enough to sell the entire crop. 
Likewise, during those same times, selling less, by grading more 
selectively or simply not taking the surplus to the market, would 
have a relatively greater effect on the market price and, therefore, 
would increase total revenue. Most growers have probably noticed 
this effect in times of short crops resulting from adverse weather 
conditions , etc. 

Of course, for this result to occur, essentially all growers 
must follow the same practice so that market supplies are, in 
fact, reduced. Each grower must choose to follow such practices 
independently and voluntarily, however, since agreements of this 
nature among producers would be a voilation of antitrust laws. 

Realistically there is not a single price, but instead, pro- 
bably a narrow range of prices that could be used successfully. 
Where in that range a grower sets his price is a matter of policy 
and philosophy, and also a matter of long run plans. Some mar- 
keters have a philosophy of taking all they can get - charging 
"what the market will bear" - while others are content to get wh„^ 
they need. Obviously, if you plan to be in business for some time 
it is important that your prices create a favorable image among 
shoppers, but must also provide a reasonable profit (return- to- 
your investment in the business) in addition to a satisfactory 
wage for the time devoted to that part of the business. 

Most growers perfer a single price for all customers. Cer- 
tainly, that is a simple and straightforward policy and may help 
to avoid hassles over who is entitled to a reduced price. Per- 
sonally, I prefer a multiple-pricing system that offers customers 
an incentive to buy larger quantities for preserving, especially 
in times of large crops. 

No matter how good your product, nor how attractive your 
price, it will all go for naught if consumers don't know about it. 
Advertise freely in newspapers and on radio - even TV for large 



at 



-13- 

operations. Also explore .ill possible opportunities for free 
publicity via press releases, feature articles, public service 
broadcasts, etc. Some other suggestions that might bear con- 
sideration are - 

- consider preparing a "standing ad", that is ready to be 
used, before the marketing season. During the harvest 
period it is often difficult to find time to prepare an 
ad, but that could be just what is needed during the time 
of surplus supplies. Having an ad prepared in advance 
might, under those circumstances, be very helpful. 

- consider special promotions such as a strawberry festival, 
a cherry pie baking contest, a corn roast, an apple festi- 
val , etc. 

- print up hand-out materials on the handling and preparation 
of the commodities you sell, with recipes. 

- use telephone recorded information on prices, hours of 
business, etc. , when the volume of telephone inquiries is 
high. 

The fourth suggestion offered, then, is - 

4 . Promote your business adequately 

Recapping the suggestions offered - 

- get to know your customers and extend your business to 
them 

- provide all customers with a "good" product 

- set prices realistically and with conviction 

- promote your business 

To be sure, the preceding discussion is a brief and simpli- 
fied treatment of the subject of marketing. Much has been omitted 
and of the suggestions offered, most could be discussed in much 
greater detail. However, it was not the intent of this article 
to "dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's" with respect to 
marketing, but rather, to briefly review some of the important 
considerations for a successful marketing program. Serious atten- 
tion to the suggestions offered should help most growers to develop 
a more effective and, therefore, more profitable marketing program 
for their operation. 



14- 



Lines 



SPUR BLIGHT OF RASPBERRIES 

Daniel R. Coolcy, C. M Becker^ 
and W. J. Manning 

Department of Plant Pathology 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 

Spur blight is a disease of raspberries caused by the fungus 
Didymella applanata . The fungus infects buds, nodes and sometime: 
the internodal regions of raspberry canes during the summer. The 
disease surreptitiously depresses berry yields, for canes are seldom 
Killed, yet some bearing nodes and transport tissue on each cane 
may be destroyed. Serious epidemics can reduce yields by 30%, 
though light infections may not depress yields at all. It is'also 
thought that spur blight makes canes more susceptible to winter 
injury . 

Symptoms 

Spur blight first appears on new canes, usually near the base, 
m late spring or early summer. In Massachusetts, the first lesions 
should appear in June. Brown or purplish soots develop around areas 
where leaves are or were attached. These spots may enlarge to cover 
the cane for 4 or 5 inches, but usually lesions are limited to an 
area around the leaf petiole. These lesions turn to gray areas with 
tiny black spots on the cane in the second (fruiting) year. Buds in 
the affected area are weak, and some buds fail to develop at all. 
Laterals in the area are weak and yellowed, and may wither and die. 

The grey lesions are similar to those caused by another disease, 
anthracnose. However, anthracnose has a characteristic bulls-eye 
pattern of dark rings in the lesion. Spur blight lesions are more 
scattered, and are almost always associated with leaf nodes. 

Disease Cycle 

The spur blight fungus produces two similar kinds of fruiting 
bodies. These occur together on lesions. There are differences in 
the length of time during which each type of fruiting body releases 
spores. However, spores of one type or the other are present from 
early spring to late fall. 

One type of spore is called an ascospore, which is produced in 
a fungal fruiting structure called a perithecium. Perithecia are 
found in lesions on second year canes. The majority of ascospores 
are released when new canes are emerging in April or May. The spores 
are released largely during and after rain, though low levels may 
be released by dew. Most ascospores are released by the end of 
June. While these spores cause new infections on first year canes, 
they do not cause all primary infections, and they are not the only 
type of overwintering spore. 



1 



1 7 "5 

Extension Technician "^Research Assistant Professor of Plant Patholog 
The authors would like to thank Paula Saucier for the illustration, 
and Dr. William Lord for advice on pruning techniques. 



-15- 

A second kind of spore is released over a larger part of the 
growing season. These spores are called pycnospores and they are 
borne in another type of fruiting body called a pycnidium. Pycnidia 
appear as tiny black pustules in the old infections. As with the 
ascospores, the pycnospores mature over the winter and are ready 
for release during the next season. Pycnospores are mature and 
may be released from March to October. However, the bulk of the 
pycnospores appear to be released from June to mid-August. It is 
during this period that most new infections occur, indicating the 
importance of these spores in the disease process. 

Once released, both types of spores are wind-carried to the 
leaves and buds of canes. Senescent tissue is most susceptible. 
One theory states that the lower leaves are preferentially infected 
because they begin to senesce in June. The infection then travels 
down the leaf stem and infects the node. Others feel that buds and 
laterals in the lower part of the planting provide relatively moist 
niches for fungus development. 

Once the spores have germinated they infect and injure or kill 
an area around the leaf petiole and its base. There is little in- 
formation as to what stimulates pycnidial formation versus perithecial 
formation. The fungus overwinters in the infected tissue producing 
pycnidia and perithecia. The next spring these structures release 
spores which infect new plants. The life cycle is shown in Figure 1. 

Management 

The first decision a grower should make is whether there is a 
serious spur blight problem in a planting. As mentioned, serious 
outbreaks can reduce yields by 301. If the problem is causing eco- 
nomic damage, there are a number of steps which can help manage the 
disease. When growing summer-bearing raspberries in the narrow 
hedge-row system, cut out old canes immediately after harvest. Also 
remove weak and diseased canes, and thin the rows. The rows sliould 
be no more than 1 ft. wide at ground level. There should be about 
25 canes growing in every 10 feet of row. Good weed control is 
also essential for maintaining good aeration and spur blight control. 

1. Insure proper ventilation in the planting. This is important 
in managing other fungus diseases, particularly fruit and cane blight 
( Botrytis ) and anthracnose ( Gloeosporium ) . Too dense a row inhibits 
drying and spray penetration, and encourages fungal development. 

2. Do not overfertilize, or push growth too fast. Raspberries 
are a vigorous plant and respond well to fertilization. However, 
too much growth causes dense foliage (see 1. above) and increases 
senescence in the lower leaves. This increased number of senescent 
leaves increases the number of places where infection can occur. 
There is a practice which advocates applying a controlled amount 

of contact herbicide to the first flush of cane growth in spring to 
reduce overall growth and promote cane health through the rest of 
the year. This practice is still experimental, but illustrates how 



-16- 

a slower growing raspberry plant will often have less disease pro- 
hlems . 

3. Apply fungicides at the correct intervals. Fungicides 
(Table 1) are useful in reducing spur blight when applied as pro- 
tectants during the growing season, and as eradicants on dormant 
canes . 

During the growing season, use captan or ferbam. Apply the 
first spray when new canes first appear. Apply subsequent sprays 
at 14 day intervals, up to 2 weeks before harvest. If rain is 
particularly heavy, that is, in excess of two inches, it may be 
necessary to reapply the fungicide before 14 days have elapsed. 
This treatment usually requires 4 or 5 sprays in a season. The 
most critical stage is at early bloom. A spray should be scheduled 
at early bloom for maximum effect. 

At bud swell, and when canes are dormant in late fall, a lime 
sulfur treatment may be applied. Bordeaux (3-3-50) may be applied 
when new canes are 8 to 12 inches high. These applications are 
designed to kill the fungus in bearing canes. 

Future Developments 

Unfortunately, there are no raspberry varieties resistant to 
spur blight. However, sources of resistance have been found, and 
resistant varieties are being bred. Resistant varieties should 
provide the best solution to spur blight problems. 

Table 1. Fungicides for Spur Blight 

Dormant and Early Spring 

Fungicide Amt/100 gal Timing 

Lime sulfur 1 to 4 gal No later than bud break 

or 
Bordeaux 6 lbs spray lime No later than 12 in. of 

plus growth on new canes 

6 lbs copper sulfate 



Bud Break Through Harvest 



* 



Fungicide Amt/100 gal Timing 

Captan 501 WP 2 lbs At 10-14 day intervals; 

or maintain good coverage 

Ferbam 761 WP 2 lbs especially at early bloom 

Apply approximately 200 gal/acre in mature plantings. In small 
plantings, spray until plant surfaces are throughly covered. 



Figure 



I'Lsen.sc cvcle of rasni-.errv utiir hli'-,l:t. 



1 7- 




From 
spring through 
summer mature 
spores are released 




CIDCHDt 




During winter, spores develop in 
infected tissue in plants Infected 
canes are weakened 



Spores land on 
susceptible tissue and Invade 
First symptoms are dark areas 
in leaves 




Purple lesions develop on the base of new canes, 
especially around petioles, during sum mer 



-18- 

NRAi:S-16 PLANNING FARiM SHOPS 

Rick Grant 
nepartment of Food Engineering 
University of Massachusetts 

With equipment needing maintenance and various construction 
and/or fabrication projects going on, every farm needs a good 
and efficient farm shop. A good shop consists of work areas for 
machinery, metal, repair, and woodworking along with a storage 
area. So to have a good and efficient shop means careful planning. 
Now careful planning means consideration of shop location on farm- 
stead, type of structure, space requirements for each work area, 
and locating tools near their respective work area. As each 
area requires different tools, proper storage for easy accessibility 
must, also, be taken into account. 

Northeast Regional Agricultural Hnginerring Service (NRAES) 
has published a new booklet entitled, "Planning Farm Shops". 
In this booklet, NRAES very carefully covers various aspects in- 
volved in designing the proper shop for the need. It contains 
sections on building designs, utilities, space requirements, tool 
and parts storage, equipment and tool specifications, shop safety, 
plus an appendix on equipment templates. To elaborate more, 
let's look into what each section has to consider. 

Section one is on building design. Subjects covered in this 
section deals with tlie fundamental components of the shop's struc- 
ture as well as shop location and orientation. After locating the 
shop, the type of building frame has to be chosen. Structural 
materials to be used in construction has to be thoughtfully selected 
especially in light of making the shop fire resistant. How well 
insulated is the shop to be? What type of insulation should be 
used? What type and how many doors and windows should there be? 
What type of floor and should the possible use of a foundation be 
considered? All these aspects must be carefully and thoughtfully 
included in planning. 

In the next section, the various utilities are discussed. After 
a detailed floor plan has been laid forth, the different environmental 
systems can then be intelligently planned in light of work area lo- 
cations. Are enough electric circuits provided? Is the amperage 
and voltage enough to run the equipment in each area? Is the light- 
ing sufficient for each area? Is an adequate heating system installed? 
If some type of plumbing is needed, is it sufficient to do the job? 
How about ventilation? Has it been properly provided for? If a 
hoist is to be installed, has the structural system been designed to 
carry the load? All these utilities are vital to any shop and need 
to be carefully incorporated into the design. 



19- 



When considerini: space requirements, three basic types of 
work should be kept in mind. They are metal, engine and machinery, 
and wood. Within these types of work are various pieces of 
equipment. Kach piece of equipment has tliree space requirements 
to consider. They arc the equipment itself, operator's space, 
and workpiece space. So this section takes a look at planning 
templates, template arrangement rules, and equipment and area 
arrangement . 




The next two sections deal with specifications of equipment 
power hand tools, and hand tools. Suggestions are given as to 
the quantity of tools and the capacity of various tools to cover 
possible projects that may well be carried out in the shop. Guide- 
lines for lists of hand tools are given for various areas of main- 
tenance and construction. 

A small one-page section on shop safety gives some pointers 
in keeping the shop a safe place to work. 

The appendix has templates of various pieces of equipment 
which can be cut out and used in laying out the shop floor plan. 
These are valuable aids in showing how large the shop must be for 
the equipment to be placed in it. In addition, it allows for the 
farmer to see exactly where electrical outlets, lighting, and 
other environmental systems should be located to make the shop func- 
tion properly. 

As you can see, there is a lot to consider when planning a 
farm shop. NRAES-16, "Planning Farm Shops" provides you with the 
essentials you need when planning a shop for your farm. This book- 
let may be obtained by writing to the Cooperative Plan Service, Agri- 
cultural Engineering Building, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 01003. 

There is a $2.00 charge for the publication. Make the check payable 

to the Cooperative Extension Activity Fund. 



20- 



WHY, WHKN, AND HdW TO SUMMER PRUNI; AND RF.SIJLTS TO EXPECT 

William .1. Lord and Duanc W. Greene 
Depart men t of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Last year we discussed the results of our summer pruning 
experiments (FRUIT NOTES 47(3) :l-6, 1982). In the article below 
we have answered the following questions about summer pruning: 
(1) why, when and how; (2) what results to expect; and (3) advan- 
tages and disadvantages. 

Whj£. Recent results from England, South Africa, Europe, and 
Massachusetts indicated that late summer pruning can restrict 
growth, increase red color on fruit, increase leaf Ca, reduce 
the incidence of bitter pit, increase fruit flesh Ca , and reduce 
internal breakdown in storage. In England Preston pruned by the 
established spur method. This involved the removal of strong 
laterals not needed for new branches and shortening of weak ones 
to 3 inches to induce spur formation. Laterals of medium vigor, 
mainly on the tree periphery, were not pruned. Subsequently, 
these were shortened to a spur, or removed when crowding occurred 
or they became too large. Laterals from spur systems or induced 
spurs were shortened to 1 inch. In Massachusetts, the trees were 
summer pruned by removing all current season's shoots. Terblanche 
et al. in South Africa removed all current season's growth of the 
bearing units as well as excessive shoot growth. Only sufficient 
shoots were left to serve as future bearing units. Utermark in 
West Germany drastically reduced leaf area by removing growth 
beyond the outermost fruiting spur on each branch. 

The summer pruning techniques that enhanced fruit quality 
seem severe and time consuming, and contradictory findings have 
been reported. Thus, our experiments were designed to compare 
effects of summer pruning with winter pruning and to evaluate 
methods that fruit growers might adapt. The experiments were 
established on young bearing trees of: (1) Mcintosh on seedling 
roots; (2) Cortland on M7a; and C3) Red Prince Delicious on MM106 
rootstock. 



When and How to Summer Prune . August is the best time to summer 
prune because of less regrowth than from earlier pruning. We 
believe that the need to summer prune can be reduced with contain- 
ment and corrective pruning during the winter to restrict tree 
spread and height. The following procedures are suggested during 
dormant pruning. 

1. Branches that crowd those of adjacent trees will have to be 
removed or cut back to a weaker side branch. (Cuts made only 
to maintain the desired outer profile of the tree compounds 
rather than alleviates tree containment problems, Such cuts will 
produce vigorous growth which by the end of the next growing 
season may extend as far as the original branch was before 
shortening, and may cause more shading within the tree than did 
the original uncut branch.) 



-21- 

2. Maintain conical tree shape by removing large limbs in the 
top third of the tree or cutting back to a very much weaker 
side branch. 

.3. Initiate a limb rotation program in the top 1/3 of the tree 
by retaining weak branches, spreading desirable watersprouts 
which in turn may have to be removed when they become too 
large. 

4. Remove watersprouts which are not needed to protect branches 
from sunscald or to provide for branch renewal. Those retained 
for branch renewal generally require spreading. 

5. Remove weak drooping branches which are severely shaded and 
have few fruiting spurs. 

6. Reduce the height of excessively tall trees by stubbing to 

a strong outward growing lateral branch originating at a lower 
level on the leader. 

7. Frequently a strong scaffold branch with a narrow crotch angle 
develops in the upper 1/3 of the tree. If this branch is not 
removed or its growth restricted, the tree will become a 
multiply leader tree. Trees of this type are much more diffi- 
cult to prune when practicing containment pruning or lowering 
tree height. 

8. Delicious trees are subject to weak crotches, and branches are 
prone to develop whorls and to droop. The ends of drooping 
branches should be removed back to a lateral growing in a 
somewhat upright position. This will shorten and stiffen the 
branches. The tip of the lateral on a pruned drooping branch 
should be higher from the ground than any other portion of the 
branch. This should reduce the problem of suckering. 

9. Cortland produce many small lateral branches. Detailed pruning 
is required to reduce the number of these branches. Remove 
slender hanging branches. Thin out the remaining branches on 
each scaffold limb. 

During August remove 1 to 3 year old wood that is causing shad- 
ing. Concentrate efforts in the tree's periphery and particularly 
in the upper crown area of the tree. Remove watersprouts, risers 
and shorten drooping limbs that are too close to the ground. If 
the trees have not been pruned well during dormant pruning, it 
may be necessary to remove a few large limbs at their point of 
origin on the trunk in the lower two-thirds of the tree canopy. Avoid 
thinning or stubbing large branches in the top 1/3 of the tree. 
When these branches fall they cause bruising and drop of some fruit 
on the lower branches. 



-22- 

We have one grower in Massachusetts who has summer pruned 
with a tractor-mounted sickle bar for the last 3 or 4 years. 
He believes red color is increased on the hedged trees and that 
the practice reduces the cost for winter pruning. 

Resulte. We compared the effects on growth and fruit quality from 
winter pruning and summer pruning. The fruit quality measurements 
include fruit size, soluble solids (sugar content), fruit flesh 
firmness, fruit flesh calcium content, and senescent breakdown 
during storage. 

The corrective winter pruning or corrective winter pruning-plus- 
summer pruning procedures reduced the problem of tree crowding in 
the block of Red Prince Delicious trees. However, corrective 
winter pruning-plus - summer pruning in comparison to corrective 
winter pruning had little or no effect on growth or fruit quality. 

Summer pruning has been suggested as a technique for devital- 
izing trees in crowded plantings. The overall growth of the Cort- 
land trees, as indicated by trunk circumference increase, was 
reduced by summer pruning. Nevertheless, terminal growth the year 
following summer pruning was greater than on the dormant-pruned 
trees. The Red Prince Delicious trees also were not devitalized 
by summer pruning. The only consistent beneficial effect of summer 
pruning was improved red color of Mcintosh apples from trees 
receiving the dormant-type mechanical hedging, or the cutting to 
the first fruiting spur summer pruning treatments. 

Advantages of Summer Pruning 

1. Increase red color development on some varieites. 

2. Could provide work for employees experienced in pruning during 
the slow season, in some orchards, prior to harvest. 

3. Reduce the amount of pruning necessary during the winter months. 

Disadvantages of Summer Pruning . 

1. Finding the time to prune. 

2. It may not reduce terminal growth the year after pruning which 
is the primary cause of tree crowding. 

3. In most cases, there may be either no effect of summer pruning 

or the responses may not be consistent from year to year, or they 
may be undesirable. Smaller fruits, lower soluble solids (sug.T 
content) , more storage scald, bitter pit and cork spot are 
examples of undesirable responses in our experiments. 



-23- 

4. Woolly apple aphids may colonize at the pTuninj; cuts. 

5. Some regrowth may occur after summer pruning and leaf drop 
is later on this wood. Delayed leaf drop is an indicator of 
delayed maturity of wood, which increases the risk of winter 
injury and has been one of the concerns with summer pruning. 
Raymond Granger, CD. A. Research Station in Quebec reported 
that summer pruning, among other factors, appeared to increase 
severity of winter injury to apple trees during the winter of 
1980-81. 

6. The summer pruning practices of R.P. Marini and J. A. Barden 
in Virginia reduced the amount of bloom on 2-year-old wood. 

Cone lusions Majority of trees in Massachusetts are on vigorous- 
size controlling rootstocks and the responses to summer pruning, 
with the exception of improved red color, may be slow to develop. 
Summer pruning can reduce the amount of pruning necessary during 
the winter months and possibly improve work efficiency during 
the summer. However, it is doubtful that summer pruning will 
become a common practice except in a few situations of severe 
tree crowding. Summer pruning will be mainly practiced for tree 
training in non-bearing blocks and has the potential for improv- 
ing fruit color in crowded bearing trees. 



********** 

EXTENT OF DAMAGE BY MAJOR APPLE FRUIT INJURING INSECTS 

IN MASSACHUSETTS 

R.J. Prokopy, W.M. Coli and G. Morin 
Department of Entomology 

Now that the 5-year (1978-1982) pilot integrated pest manage- 
ment (IPM) program on apples has ended in Massachusetts, we take 
the opportunity to present here a summarized account of insect 
injury to fruit which we and the IPM field scouts encountered at 
harvest in the various IPM and check commercial orchards that were 
sampled . 

The data in Table 1 have been reported previously as portions 
of other articles in FRUIT NOTES [V.44(l), V. 44(6), V. 45(6), V. 47 
(1); V. 48(1)]. They are offered here, in condensed form, to pro- 
vide an overview of the major insects which directly injure apple 
fruit in Massachusetts. They were obtained via on-tree surveys at 



-24- 

liarvest: 100 fruit per tree on 6-24 trees per block, depending 
on block size. Each sampled fruit was examined carefully, and any 
insect injury, no matter how slight, was recorded. The data in- 
clude about 151,000 apples sampled over 5 years from 87 "good- 
cooperator" I PM blocks and about 64,000 apples sampled over 5 
years from 40 check blocks. Sampled I PM and check blocks were 
scattered from east-central to west-central portions of the state. 

The data show that total insect -caused fruit injury averaged 
3.18% in the IPM blocks versus 3.80% in the check blocks. The 5 
most injurious pests in the IPM blocks were, in decreasing order 
of importance, tarnished plant bug, plum curculio, San Jose scale, 
European apple sawfly, and apple maggot. Together, these 5 pests 
accounted for 98% of all insect - inj ured fruit in IPM blocks. 
These same 5 pests accounted for 95% of all insect - injured fruit 
in the check blocks, with plant bug again being the most injurious. 

Do all insect injuries detected on trees at harvest by field 
scouts result in downgrading of fruit in the packing shed? To help 
answer this question, we refer to a packout survey published in 
FRUIT NOTES 46(3). This survey involved examination of about 
400,000 apples by packing shed personnel and about 60,000 of the 
culls by Glenn Morin. It was conducted in 16 Massachusetts packing 
sheds on 1980-grown fruit. Some of the orchards and blocks sampled 
in the packout study were the same as those sampled for on-tree 
injury in 1980, but several were not. Although this lack of 
direct correspondence of sampled blocks does not permit accurate 
direct comparison of on-tree injury with packout injury, the 
substantial number of orchard blocks and apples sampled by each 
method may be suggestive. 

The packout survey of 1980 fruit showed a total of 0.63% of 
the fruit culled owing to insect injury, or about 15% as much as 
the average of 3.9% insect injury from 1980 on-tree surveys in 
IPM and check blocks combined. In the packout survey, the most 
injurious insects, in decreasing order of importance, were tarnished 
plant bug (0.23%), San Jose scale (0.21%), plum curculio (0.10%), 
and European apple sawfly (0.07%). Together these 4 pests accounted 
for 97% of all insect -culled fruit at the packing shed. These were 
the same 4 pests found to be the most injurious in the on-tree sur- 
vey. Apple maggot egglaying stings, difficult to see with the 
unaided eye but indicative of probable infestation by larvae in 
the fruit flesh, were very rarely detected in the packing shed, 
even though this insect caused injury to an average of 0.12% of 
tree-sampled fruit in 1980. 

Together, these findings indicte that among insects which dir- 
ectly attack apple fruit, Massachusetts researchers, extension per- 
sonnel, and fruit gorwers should be concerned primarily with the 
aforementioned 5 species. For the past several years, we and/or 
Drs. R.W. Weires and W.H. Reissig of New York have been conducting 
research on improved ways of monitoring and controlling plant bug, 
scale, curculio, sawfly, and apple maggot. We hope that continued 
research progress will result in decrease of future injury from 
these pests. 



-25- 

Table 1. Percent insect - injured fruit in on-tree surveys conducted 
in integrated pest management (IPM) and check orchards, 1978-1982 



Damaging insect 




% 


injured 


fruit in^'^- 




Avg. 
inj ur 








1978 


1979 


198 


1981 


1982 


ed fruit 








IPM 


blocks 








Tarnished plant bug 


1.60 


2.74 


1.44 


1.25 


1 .12 


1 


.63 


Plum curculio 


.17 


.39 


1.19 


.61 


.43 




.56 


San Jose scale 


.03 


.33 


.72 


.27 


.84 




.44 


European sawfly 


.68 


.03 


.24 


.16 


.87 




.40 


Apple maggot 


.13 


.12 


.10 


.05 


.01 




.08 


Leafroller 


.01 


.01 


.02 


.05 


.02 




.02 


Fruitworms 





.02 


.01 





.01 




.01 


Codling moth 


.01 





.04 










.01 


Other 


.01 








.11 


.01 




.03 


Totals 


2.64 


3.64 


3.76 
Check 


2.50 
blocks 


3.31 


3 


.18 


Tarnished plant bug 


2.33 


3.10 


1.44 


1.20 


.83 


1 


.78 


Plum curculio 


.17 


.17 


.87 


.47 


.26 




.59 


San Jose scale 


.96 


1.07 


1.43 


.23 


1.86 


1 


.11 


European sawfly 


.54 


.04 


.11 


.02 


.47 




.24 


Apple maggot 


.08 


.23 


.14 


.01 







.09 


Leafroller 


.05 


.04 


.03 


.01 


.04 




.03 


Fruitworms 


.59 


.07 


.07 


.03 


.01 




.15 


Codling moth 





.01 
















Other 
Totals 




4.72 




4.73 



4.09 


.04 
2.01 




3.47 


T. 


.01 
.80 



z 
Number of blocks sampled: IPM - 1978(8), 1979(16), 1980(18), 
1981(20), 1982(25). Check- 1978(8), 1979(9), 1980(9), 1981(7), 

and 1982 (7) . 

y 

Number of fruits sampled: IPM - 1978(16,000), 1979 (32,000), 
1980 (20,000), 1981 (30,000), 1982 (33,000); Check - 1978(16,000) 
1979(18,000), 1980 (10,000), 1981 (11,000) and 1982 (9,000). 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Vol. 48, No. 4 
FALL ISSUE, 1983 

Table of Contents: 

Cycling Fans in Apple Cold Storage Rooms 
Can Be a Good Way to Conserve Energy 

Effects of Mineral Nutrition on Keeping Quality 
of Massachusetts Mcintosh: Results of a 
Four-Year Survey 

The Apple Markets from 1967 through 1982, 
Locally and Nationally 

Cider Notes 

Pomological Paragraph: What Are Genetic Dwarfs? 

The Starch Test Guide for Apple Maturity 

Pomological Paragraph: Storage Temperature 
for Mcintosh in CA 

Postharvest Calcium Chloride Treatment 

Acid Rain Affects Apple Maggot Fly Egglaying 

New Publications Available 

FRUIT NOTES Index for 1983 



issued by the Cooperative Extension Service in furtherance 

of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914; United States Department of Agriculture and 
County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 
opportunity in programs and employment. 




FRUIT NOTES SUBSCRIPTION 

The Fall issue of FRUIT NOTES is the 4th and last issue for the 
year. Now is the time to renew your subscription for 1984. The 
question has been asked about multi-year subscriptions. This 
would be desirable but the Editor of FRUIT NOTES retires in 1985 
and the fate of this publication after this date is unknown. 

To subscribe to FRUIT NOTES complete and mail the following form 
with your check for $3.00. (Canadian subscribers please send a 
U.S. postal money order.) 



William J. Lord 
Editor, FRUIT NOTES 



Name 



Mailing Address 



Town, State, Country ZIP 

Make checks payable to: FRUIT NOTES ACTIVITY ACCOUNT. 

Send subscription form and check to: 

William J. Lord 

Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

French Hall 

University of Massachusetts 

Amherst, MA 01003 



CYCLING FANS IN APPLE COLD STORAGE ROOMS 
CAN BE GOOD WAY TO CONSERVE ENERGY* 



Gilbert E. Yost 
Agricultural Engineer 
USDA-ARS, Tree Fruit Research Laboratory 
Wenatchee, WA 



Energy used to operate fans in 'Red and Golden Delicious' 
apple cold storage rooms could be cut nearly in half by using 
a fan cycling scheme. 

Refrigerated storage of apples in the Pacific Northwest re- 
quires a large amount of electrical energy. Cost of electrical 
energy has increased rapidly and future trends indicate it will 
go higher. 

USDA's Agricultural Research Service and the fruit industry 
are looking for ways to reduce electrical energy input to save 
energy and reduce costs. 

Fans and refrigeration must run continuously in storage rooms 
from harvest until the field heat is removed from the apples and 
proper storage temperature is attained. At this point in time, 
cycling fans and refrigeration could still maintain proper fruit 
temperatures and save energy (Fig. 1). Fans cycled half of the 
time use 52 to 601 of the energy used to run them continuously. 

Five years of monitoring different fan cycling schemes such 
as 12-hours on, 12-hours off; 6-hQurs on, 6-hours off; 8-hours on, 
16-hours off; and 16-hours on, 8-hours off, in storages ranging 
from "antiquated rooms to those featuring the latest state-of-the- 
art in construction and equipment", show that "over all" the 6- 
hours on, 6-hours off seems to be the best scheme. 

Cycling 6-hours on, 6-hours off fits well with storage manage- 
ment. This scheme compensated for the outside air temperature 
fluctuations in the fall and spring and maintained the proper 
average fruit temperature in different rooms in which it was tested 

The cycling scheme could be scheduled around "peak load" hours 
of the local utility company (some utility companies have a special 
rate for customers that do not use power during these times) and 
this adjustment would not interfere with the maintenance of the 
fruit temperature. 



n 

This article appeared in the January 15, 1983 issue of the GoodFruit 
Grower. Reprinted by permission of the author. 



In a 1000-bin (800 pounds per bin) room held at 30-32°F 
there are 800,000 pounds or 400 tons of apples. According to 
"Modern Refrigeration and Air Conditioning" by Althouse, Turn- 
quist and Braccinao, the heat of respiration of a ton of apples 
at 32 F is 700 BTU's in 24 hours and 1/3 horsepower fan motors 
give off 4250 BTU's per horsepower per hour. 

Assuming this room contains twelve fan motors, the heat 
produced by the motors would be 408,000 BTU's in 24 hours while 
the heat of respiration would be only 280,000 BTU's for the same 
time period. There would be 1.45 times more heat produced by 
the fan motors than by the heat of respiration from the apples. 
There are other factors involved but this example illustrates 
one of the major areas for energy cost savings. 

On-going research at the USDA Tree Fruit Research Laboratory 
in Wenatchee, Washington includes monitoring and recording of 
'Red and Golden Delicious' fruit temperatures during commerical 
regular and CA apple storage rooms. The data collected over a 
five year period showed: 

(1) once a room was loaded with bins of apples the air pattern 
established at the time remained the same throughout the 
storage season. 

(2) average fruit temperatures were maintained between 31-32 F 
in cold rooms tested when the fans were run continuously 
1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 of the time (by maintaining the fruit 
temperatures, adjusting the cycling time to compensate 

for the physical conditions of the room, and maintaining 
proper fruit temperatures, the most efficient cycle time 
can be established) . 

(3) there was a fruit temperature gradient from the coldest 
to the warmest sensored apple of 3-4 F; 

(4) in rooms where the coils were located above the bins, 
with air being blown out over the bins and filtering down 
through the fruit and bins and then pulled back through 
the stacks of bins to the coils, the apples in the top 
bins were the coldest; 

(5) the fans and refrigeration could be off up to 36 hours 
before average fruit temperature rose 1 F (this could 
vary depending upon the physical condition of the rooms) ; 

(6) data from fruit quality evaluation tests indicted no signi- 
ficant difference was detected between apples held in 
noncycled rooms over the cycled rooms (however, during 
periods of extreme cold weather (0 to -10 F or colder) 
for several weeks it would be a wise practice to run the 
fans continuously to restore some of the heat being lost 
from the room to the outside atmosphere. 



-3- 



Most apple storages use cold room air temperature readings as 
a guide to apple temperatures, but these do not give a true pic- 
ture during storage. 

Many cold storage rooms hold over a quarter-million dollars 
worth o£ apples, and whether or not the rooms are cycled, both 
air and apple temperatures should be monitored. 



A system to do this c 
probed for temperature mo 
each bin, and put bins in 
across the back, three ac 
o£ the room; (2) use at 1 
front of the coils and on 
flow of the room; (3) con 
ing device that automatic 
four times every 24 hours 
for "back-up" temperature 



ould be to (1) use n 
nitoring placed abou 

the top layer of th 
ross the middle and 
east two air tempera 
e behind the coils o 
nect all air and fru 
ally prints out temp 
; and (4) use severa 

readings in case of 



ine bins with an apple 
t 6-inches deep in 
e stack of bins, three 
three across the front 
ture probes, one in 
r in the return air 
it probes to a record- 
eratures at least 
1 regular thermometers 
electronic failure. 



This type of cold room instrumentation can give management a 
better insight on which to base their storage operation decisions 
for each type of cold room. 

Fan and refrigeration cycling will work. It will save energy, 
lower energy costs and still maintain optimum apple temperatures 
during storage. 

Editors note - The author would like to express his thanks to the Washington 
State Tree Fruit Research Commission, Tree Top, Inc., Pacific Power and Light 
Company, City of Cashmere Light Department, Blue Star Growers, Snokist Growers, 
Skookum, Inc., Stemilt Growers and to the personnel of the USDA-ARS, Tree Fruit 
Research Laboratory for their cooperation in this study. 



KWH 
X 1000 



150 - 



100 



50 



SEPT. OCT. 



— I 1 — 

NOV. DEC. 



JAN. 



79-80 



81 82 




,1 



Figure 1. This chart 
shows the amount of 
energy used in a six-room 
apple storage facility for 
three seasons. After the 
initial fruit cool-down per- 
iod the fans and refrigera- 
tion were cycled at 6-hours 
on, 6-hours off during the 
1981-82 season. During the 
months of November, December 
and January of the 1981-82 
season a savings of approx- 
imately 100,000 KWH over the 
same months of the 1980-81 
seasons was evident. This 
would amount to a $1000 sav- 
ings if the power rate was 
one cent per KWH. 



Figure 1, 



•4- 



EFFECTS OF MINERAL NUTRITION ON KEEPING QUALITY 
OF MASSACHUSETTS McINTOSH: RESULTS OF A FOUR-YEAR SURVEY 

W.J. Bramlage, M. Drake, S,A. Weis, and C.A. Marmo 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



During the past 4 years we have been sampling commercial Mc- 
intosh orchards in Massachusetts and comparing the mineral con- 
centrations in fruit at harvest with their keeping quality after 
storage. Full details of the procedures and of the results with 
apples from regular air storage have been published in the Proceed- 
ings of the 1983 Massachusetts Fruit Growers' Association, Inc. 
Annual Meeting; only the thrust of those findings will be presented 
here . 

Between 1979 and 1982, a total of 172 orchard blocks of Mc- 
intosh were sampled. Samples came from 6 counties in Massachusetts. 
Fruit samples for analyses were taken 2 weeks before harvest, and at 
the start of commercial harvest 2 bushels of fruit were taken from 
each block. These 2 bushels were stored at the Horticultural Research 
Center in Belchertown, 1 bushel at 32°F in air storage, and 1 bushel 
in CA storage. Only results for air storage are reported here. 

The air-stored fruit were removed in late January or early Feb- 
ruary and placed at 70-80 F. After 1 day they were tested for firm- 
ness and after 1 week they were examined for the occurrences of break- 
down, scald, rot and bitter pit. Bitter pit was so infrequent that 
data for it have been omitted. The average Ca and Mg concentrations 
were quite uniform across the 4 years, and the concentrations of K 
and P were only slightly more variable (Table 1). The concentrations 
of N changed dramatically, however, falling by nearly 50% between 
1979 and 1981. The cause of this decline is not known, but no com- 
parable reduction of leaf N has been observed during this period. 

The ranges of mineral concentrations among orchards are also 
shown in Table 1. For Ca , in each year there were very broad ranges, 
with some samples containing twice as much Ca as other samples. Many 
of these orchards used calcium chloride foliar sprays during this 
period, which likely contributed to this wide range. For K, P and 
N there were approximately 50% ranges, i.e., some samples contained 
50% more of the element than other samples. For Mg , less than 
a 50% range existed in all years but 1980. Thus, Ca was the most 
variable element in fruit from these orchards. 



-5- 



Table 1. Averages and ranges of concentrations of 5 minerals 
(ppm, dry wt . basis, outer cortex tissue) in Mcintosh apples 
from commercial orchards in Massachusetts, 1979-1982. 



Mineral 


1979^ 


1980 


1981 


1982 






Average 






Ca 


145 


153 


145 


152 


K 


4909 


5459 


5300 


5100 


P 


360 


438 


358 


392 


Mg 


243 


283 


256 


262 


N 


2665 


2227 
Range 


1500 


1500 


Ca 


103-183 


101-240 


110-252 


105-208 


K 


3880-6110 


4200-6750 


4000-6400 


4000-6000 


P 


291-444 


335-551 


288-482 


343-460 


Mg 


214-278 


241-367 


216-288 


222-310 


N 


2300-3300 


1700-2900 


1000-1800 


1250-1870 



z 
Numbers of samples: 1979 = 34; 1980 = 49; 1981 = 41 
1982 = 48. 



Relationships between mineral concentrations in fruit at 
harvest and the occurrences of breakdown, scald, and rot after 
storage are illustrated in Table 2. For each element, 4 groups 
of samples were established at arbitrary points within the 
range for that element, in order to demonstrate the patterns of 
relationships that appeared to exist. 

Samples with increasing Ca concentrations developed de- 
creasing amounts of breakdown after storage. In addition, with 
increasing Ca concentrations, the frequencies of scald and of 
rot also seemed to decline, though to a lesser extent than did 
the amount of breakdown. 

Most of the orchards sampled produced fruit with moderate 
concentrations of K, but a few samples were relatively high in 
this element. These high-K samples appeared to develop slightly 
more breakdown and substantially more scald and rot than the rest 
of the samples, but statistical analyses showed that due to large 
variations within these groupings, only the effect on scald was 
real. 

As with K, most orchards produced fruit containing moderate 
concentrations of P. However, a few samples had relatively low 
P, and statistical analyses showed that these samples developed 
relatively large amounts of breakdown and rot. For Mg , a few 



-6- 



Table 2. Relationships between concentrations of 5 minerals 
in Mcintosh apples, and the occurrences of internal break 
down, scald, and rot in samples from Massachusetts orcharc 
after storage in 32°F air for 5 months followed by 1 week 
at 75°F. . 1979-1982. 



Ppm, dry 
wt .basis 



Number of 
samples 



Breakdown 



Scald 



Rot 
(I) 



Calcium 



Less than 










126 




27 


30 


59 


126-150 




69 


15 


51 


151-164 




34 


9 


42 


Greater th 


an 








164 




42 


7 
Potassium 


37 


Less than 










4750 




30 


13 


46 


4750-5200 




62 


13 


43 


5201-5800 




60 


15 


47 


Greater th 


an 








5800 




20 


21 
Phosphorus 


61 


Less than 










325 




15 


20 


63 


325-400 




93 


12 


45 


401-450 




42 


15 


37 


Greater th 


an 








450 




22 


7 
Magnesium 


46 


Less than 










241 




26 


17 


45 


241-270 




89 


17 


49 


271-300 




44 


13 


47 


Greater th 


an 








300 




13 


7 
Nitrogen 


46 



Less than 

1500 45 

1500-2000 57 

2001-2500 42 
Greater than 

2500 27 



19 
16 
12 

8 



51 
43 
50 

47 



9 
6 
6 



7 
7 
6 

13 



9 
5 
9 

10 



7 
7 
9 

10 



4 

7 

10 



samples contained relatively high concentrations, and these 
samples developed relatively small amounts of breakdown and rot, 
although the effect on rot was not evident in the averages on 
Table 2 due to the presence of a couple of high-rot samples in 
this group. There was also a significant relationship between 
N concentration in fruit and the occurrence of breakdown, with 
higher N being associated with lower frequency of breakdown. 

Fruit firmness is a crucially important quality character- 
istic for apples, especially Mcintosh. It is therefore import- 
ant to know if mineral composition of the fruit affected firmness. 
There was no significant relationship between any of these elements 
and fruit firmness, either at harvest or after storage. Thus, 
differences in fruit firmness among these orchards could not be 
attributed to differences in their mineral composition. 

In 1980 and 1981, 5 micronutrients within the fruit were 
also surveyed: boron (B) , zinc (Zn) , manganese (Mn) , iron (Fe) 
and aluminum (Al) . The relationships between their concentrations 
in fruit andquality of the apples after storage were generally 
quite low. The strongest relationship was between low B and 
increased breakdown in 1981 (though not in 1980) , but this effect 
was much less than that of low Ca on breakdown. 

The 4-year time period and the wide geographical distribution 
of the orchards sampled in this survey produce an excellent view 
of the effects of fruit mineral composition on the storage life 
of Massachusetts Mcintosh apples. These findings indicate to 
us that inadequate Ca in fruits is the primary nutritional factor 
influencing quality of Mcintosh apples in Massachusetts, and that 
this factor is expressed mostly in the occurrence of breakdown 
after storage. Although excessive N and K in the fruit can cause 
severe reduction in fruit quality, very few samples in our survey 
appeared to be excessively high in these elements. Few samples 
contained Mg concentrations that appeared to impair fruit quality, 
and while low P did seem to be detrimental, only a small number 
of samples contained detrimentally low P concentrations. 

The relationship between low Ca and occurrence of breakdown 
is further illustrated in Figure 1, where post-storage breakdown 
in each of the 172 samples was plotted against its Ca concentration. 
Regardless of their concentrations of other elements, samples 
very low in Ca (e.g., less than 130 ppm) almost invariably developed 
more than 10% breakdown, which we consider to be unacceptable 
quality. In contrast, samples high in Ca (e.g., more than 175 ppm) 
almost never developed lO";; breakdown. At intermediate Ca concen- 
trations, it appeared that the fruit were susceptible to break- 
down but whether or not it developed was determined by other 
factors, one of which may have been the concentration of another 
element. It appears that when Ca concentration was high, the 



> -8- 

apples were resistant to breakdown regardless of the concentrations 
of other elements. 



100 



o 
o 

< 

UJ 

q: 



< 
z 

UJ 



80 



UJ 
O 

tr. 

UJ 
Q. 



r • -.401 




• • • » staff i\*»|^.»«* • • 



^ 



100 130 160 190 " 250 

ppm CALCIUM, OUTER CORTEX TISSUE 



Figure 1. Scattergram showing percent breakdown after air storage 
in relation to the Ca concentration in fruit at harvest 
for each of the 172 commercial samples surveyed, 1979- 
1982. 

Our study reaffirms the importance of establishing adequate Ca 
concentrations in Mcintosh apples if they are to be stored for long 
intervals. There are 2 feasible approaches to this: foliar and post- 
harvest applications of Ca. Application of a total of approximately 
75 lbs. of CaCl2 per acre during the growing season can raise fruit 
Ca concentrations by about 50 ppm, and a postharvest dip in 4% CaCl2 
can increase it by about 35 ppm. It is evident that many commercial 
samples did not contain adequate Ca concentrations and that they would 
have benefited from the above treatments. 



The 
are rest 
and rot. 
after st 
inf luenc 
ly soft 
and soft 
storage 
harveste 
temperat 
exhibit 
position 
manageme 



effe 
ricte 
Pro 
orage 
ed by 
fruit 
ening 
manag 
d ove 
ure o 
infer 
s doe 
nt. 



cts of m 
d to the 
bably th 
is the 
variati 
is unac 
of the 
ement . 
rmature, 
r at the 
ior qual 
s not re 



ineral nutrition 

occurrence of d 

e most significa 

firmness of the 

ons of any of th 

ceptable, whethe 

fruit is control 

Regardless of th 

cooled improper 

wrong atmospher 

ity after storag 

duce the need fo 



on apple quality recorded here 
isorders (breakdown and scald) 
nt attribute of Mcintosh quality 
fruit, and fruit firmness was not 
e minerals surveyed. An excessive 
r or not it develops disorders, 
led primarily by harvest and 
eir mineral concentrations, apples 
ly, or stored at too high a 
ic composition are likely to 
e. The best of mineral com- 
r careful harvest and storage 



THE APPLE MARKETS FROM 1967 THROUGH 1982, LOCALLY AND NATIONALLY 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



We have summarized yearly since 1967 the apple production in 
the United States and in Massachusetts, and the F.O.B. prices at 
Country Shipping Points in Massachusetts for 120 counts, U.S. 
Fancy or better Mcintosh apples^. This information, which is pre- 
sented in Table 1, indicates some of the factors that affect the 
profitability of a marketing season. 

Marketing Seasons 

1967-68 and 1968-69 . Nationally these were "short" crop 
years and prices for Massachusetts grown apples were good. The 
fruit were in good condition and the demand for CA Mcintosh was 
strong. 

1969-70 . The national crop was the second largest in 30 
years'^ This contributed to lower wholesale prices for Massachusetts- 
grown apples than for the 2 preceding marketing seasons. Apple 
growers in the western states of the U.S. produced about 17 million 
more bushels in 1969 than in 1968 but received $41 million less 
for their crop2. In Massachusetts, "Soft Mcintosh Problem" was 
encountered after CA storage and wholesale prices remained low for 
the entire season. 

1970-71 . The hot summer and fall reduced fruit quality in New 
England, Appalachia and Hudson Valley and many growers had low pack- 
outs because of poor fruit color and condition. In Massachusetts 
the returns for the large sizes of Delicious were better than in 
1969-70 and prices for CA Mcintosh finished strong. 

1971-72 . The 3rd consecutive national crop greater than 50 
million was produced. U.S. growers asked the Secretary of Agri- 
culture to appoint a team to study the marketing problems of the 
apple industry because of low net returns during these years. (A 
report of the team's findings with their recommendations as to 
needed action was published in 1972. The team did an excellent 
job of identifying the marketing problems of the apple industry, 
most of which still persist.) 

Slow color development in Massachusetts delayed the harvest 
and marketing season and resulted in the harvest of too many large, 
soft, poorly colored apples. Massachusetts growers harvested 



1 

Taken from the Special Apple Market Report published by the Division 
of Markets, 100 Cambridge St., Boston, MA. 
2 
The Good Fruit Grower, Sept. 15, 1970. 



10- 



through the entire month o£ October. Prices for Mcintosh apples 
from regular storage averaged only slightly higher than in 1970-71 
and most growers lost money on bagged apples. During May and June, 
1972, some Massachusetts growers again encountered the "soft 
Mcintosh Problem". Low prices for CA-Mclntosh through the remainder 
of the marketing season reflected the market concern about fruit 
softness , 

1972- 75 . A small crop was harvested in Massachusetts and in 
the U.S. as a whole. Prices in Massachusetts were $0.75 to $1.00 
higher for regular storage Mcintosh than during the previous year. 
Stored Mcintosh kept exceptionally well, no soft Mcintosh were 
encountered and prices reflected this quality. 

1973- 74 . The U.S. apple production was higher than in 1972 
but the New England apple crop was the smallest since 1956 because 
of frost and poor pollination weather. Massachusetts experienced 
extremely hot weather from August 27 through September 4, 1973 
and fruit probably softened rapidly. After September 4, the weather 
became favorable for color development. 

Due to a short Mcintosh crop, a light crop in eastern U.S., 
and an increasing demand for juice and sauce, prices were very 
favorable for apples from regular storage. Most growers made money 
on their bagged apples, which is not a common occurrence. 

In early March of 1974, some storage operators again encoun- 
tered soft Mcintosh, especially with larger sizes. Although the 
problem was not as serious as other years the market reflected its 
concern. 

1974-75 . The national crop again exceeded 150 million bushels 
and in New England it was 30% larger than in 1973. Mcintosh apples 
in Massachusetts were smaller than usual, but the harvest season 
was favorable for good color development. 

Prices for regular storage Mcintosh were only slightly higher 
than during the previous season. The prices for bagged and juice 
apples were lower than in 1973, and those for CA Mcintosh reflected 
the sof t-McIntosh problem encountered the previous year. Mean- 
while, production and marketing costs increased drastically because 
of the energy crisis. 

1975-76 . The national crop was a record 178 million bushels 
with 52 million from Washington alone. The early crop forecast for 
New England was a 15% increase from 1974. However, rains delayed 
harvest and drop was excessive in some orchards. Consequently, 
storage holdings in Massachusetts were less than the previous season. 

Prices for 120 counts were $0.75 to $1.00 less than during the 
previous season for regular storage Mcintosh and somewhat less for 



11- 



those from CA storage. Consequently, growers who sold mainly 
wholesale lost money. 

New York and Washington growers also had no profit from the 
record apple crop of 1975. New York had its largest apple crop 
in 50 years, but apples were left unpicked because of heavy carry- 
over of processed apples, the bumper crop, and financial problems 
of processing plants. 

1976-77 . The national crop decreased to 154 million bushels, 
but in Massachusetts it was somewhat larger than during the previous 
year. Prices for both regular and CA storage Mcintosh in Massa- 
chusetts were very favorable throughout the 1976-77 marketing sea- 
son. No soft Mcintosh were encountered and prices of those from 
CA reached $11.00 in May and June. 

1977-78 . A national crop in excess of 160 million bushels 
was harvested. The New England crop was up 101 over 1976. In 
Massachusetts frost reduced the Delicious crop. Wholesale prices 
in Massachusetts were about the same as in 1976 for regular storage 
Mcintosh but a strong demand for CA apples pushed prices higher 
later in the season. 

The 1977-78 marketing season was the 2nd consecutive profitable 
year for most Massachusetts growers. The market for apples con- 
tinued to improve during the late 1970 's because of increased 
demand for fresh fruit and a growing demand for apple juice and 
cider . 

1978-79 . The national crop was about 101 higher than in 1978 
with the increase being greater in the eastern and central states 
than in the western states. Harvest in Massachusetts was 10-14 
days later than in 1977. However, weather during harvest was ideal 
with warm days and cool nights and no rain. 

Marketing started about 10 days later than usual in Massachusetts, 
but movement was good and the prices received were higher than dur- 
ing the previous marketing season. 

1979-80 . Massachusetts crop was down about 101, whereas the 
national crop was larger. Some drop of Mcintosh was experienced in 
late-August but weather became cooler and drop was not troublesome 
thereafter. Many growers had an "umbrella" crop of Mcintosh, thus 
they harvested many less fruits than originally anticipated. 

Apple prices remained at the same level as in 1978-79. How- 
ever, no soft Mcintosh were encountered from CA storage and the 
price for these apples in April and May finished strong. 

Nationally, this was the 4th consecutive large national crop 
marketed without encountering the burden of over supply. One 



12- 



reason these large crops were manageable was the strengthening of 
the export market. Market opportunities developed in the Middle 
East, Latin America, and the Far East. In 1979-80, U.S. apple 
exports reached 12.4 million bushels. In the 1960's the U.S. was 
exporting only about 2 million bushels, with Canada taking close 
to half of those. 

1 980-81 . The U.S. apple industry encountered an oversupply 
due to a national crop in excess of 210 million bushels. However, 
the crop size in Massachusetts was similar to that of the previous 
year. The harvested fruit was small in some Massachusetts orchards 
due to dry weather. The season was 10-14 days late but rain did 
not interfere with harvest. 

Apple prices were quite favorable for 120 count Mcintosh in 
September (approximately $11.00) but they declined to about $9.00 
by early December. Basically, the poor movement and decline in 
prices was caused by the supply pressure from Michigan and Washing- 
ton. The prices for 120 counts increased $0.50 with the opening 
of CA storages but remained at this level for the remainder of 
the marketing season. 

1981-82 . It was estimated that the New England apple crop 
would be 201 less than in 1980. Massachusetts experienced a 
freeze on April 22 and most orchards had poor pollinating weather 
at bloom. Thus, few orchardists had a large crop. 

New York state apple crop decreased from 26 million in 1980 
to about 19 million in 1981. Production also decreased in Mich- 
igan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. 

Prices for U.S. Extra Fancy Mcintosh 120 count started at 
$11.00 in September, increased to $12.25 in October and $13.25 
in December. Mcintosh were scarce in April and CA Mcintosh fin- 
ished in middle May at $14.75 for 120 counts. 

The large Washington state crop and small fruit size hurt 
the New England's bagged Delicious market. The Washington crop 
suppressed sales in the 1982 crop of Paulared. 

1982-85 . Less apples were harvested than anticipated because 
of the presence of small, seedless fruits on trees in many Massa- 
chusetts orchards. Fruit color developed rapidly in late August 
and Friday prior to Labor Day (Sept. 3) some growers picked Mcin- 
tosh apples for CA storage. Unfortunately, color developed slowly 
thereafter. The early market in September was "soft" in Massa- 
chusetts because of carry-over of the 1981 Washington crop. The 
carry-over hurt the sales of Paulared and September sales of 
Mcintosh. 

This and other factors including a large national crop of 
apples and oranges, poor fruit color, and storage disorders were 



-13- 

largely responsible for the unfavorable prices during the 1982-83 
marketing season (Table 1). In October, 1981 prices quoted for 
Mcintosh Extra Fancy 120 counts in the Special Apple Market Report 
averaged $11.00 and by December had risen to #13.25. In contrast, 
apples started at $8.75 in October, 1982 and prices were virtually 
unchanged fro the remainder of the 1982-83 marketing season. 



Summary 

For the 5-year period from 1964-68 the national crop averaged 
about 132 million bushels. From 1973-77 it averaged 158 million, 
a 19% increase. The average production for the 5-year period 
1976-80 increased to 178 million, 12% over that of 1973-77. The 
production nationally fluctuated from a low of 128 million bushels 
in 1967 to a high of 210 million bushels in 1980. To the contrary, 
apple production of Massachusetts remained quite stable from 1967 
through 1982. 

Over supply occurred during the 1969-70, 1970-71, 1975-76, 
1980-81 and 1982-83 marketing seasons. Due to heavy plantings, 
especially in Washington, it is possible that we may again have 
devastating surpluses which will depress prices, increase wastage, 
reduce interest in new plantings and cause orchard abandonment. 

During the period from 1967 through 1982 many factors affect- 
ing the profitability of a marketing season were evident. These 
include the size of the national crop, the regional distribution 
of the crop, weather prior to and during harvest, the keepability 
of stored apples, the demand for processing apples, the export 
market and the earliness or lateness of the marketing season. 

Table 1. Apple production in the United States and for Massachusetts 
and F.O.B. prices at country shipping points in Massachusetts, 
1967 through 1982. 



Year 


Crop size 
U.S. 


(million bu.) 
Mass. 


Avg 


price for 
. Storage 


season ($) 
CA 


CAj 


)rice 




Start 


End 














of 


of 














season season 


1967 


128 


2.5 




4.58 


5.83 


5.00 


6.75 


1968 


129 


2.1 




5.00 


6.28 


5.75 


7.00 


1969 


159 


2.4 




4.17 


4.46 


4.60 


4.50 


1970 


151 


2.6 




3.75 


5.10 


4.75 


6.00 


1971 


152 


2.7 




3.59 


3.19 


5.10 


5.25 


1972 


139 


2.2 




5.18 


6.31 


5.60 


7.50 


1973 


147 


1.8 




7.23 


7.85 


7.75 


8.15 


1974 


154 


2.2 




7.64 


8.02 


8.00 


8.40 


1975 


179 


2.0 




6.72 


7.70 


7.35 


8.00 


1976 


152 


2.2 




7.89 


7.70 


8.65 


11.00 


1977 


164 


2.1 




8.16 


9.59 


8.75 


13.00 


1978 


182 


2.4 




9.24 


9.98 


10.25 


11.25 


1979 


193 


2.3 




9.28 


7.81 


9.75 


13.40 


1980 


210 


2.3 




9.52 


9.50 


9.50 


9.50 


1981 


182 


2.0 




12.27 


14.41 


13.75 


14.75 


1982 


195 


2.4 




8.78 


8.73 


8.25 


9.75 



-14- 



CIDER NOTES 
Kirby M. Hayes 
Department of Food Science and Nutrition 

A question that often arises is how to make good cider. 
Although there is no easy answer, or hard and fast rules, two 
of the most important factors to consider are maturity and 
variety. 

Maturity 

Firm, ripe apples- - those that are ripe enough to eat out of 
hand- -make the best cider and give the highest yield. Immature 
or overripe apples lower the quality. Early-maturing varieties 
should be allowed to ripen sufficiently to yield a high-quality 
juice . 

Variety 

The best cider is usually made from a blend of different var- 
ieties of apples. A blend provides an appealing balance of sweet- 
ness, tartness, and tang, as well as aromatic overtones. 

A single variety of apple seldom makes a satisfactory cider. 
However, "Mcintosh" has been used alone successfully, but only at 
the peak of its maturity. 

Sometimes the desired fullness and balance can be obtained 
from two varieties. A blend of three or more varieties is better. 
Using several varieties, permits greater latitude in varying the 
proportions to obtain the desired blend, and also allows practical 
management of the available supply. 

Many commercially important varieties may be separated into 
four groups according to their suitability as cider material: 
Sweet subacid, mildly acid to slightly tart, aromatic and stringent, 
A strict classification is not possible because many varieties have 
a number of different flavor characteristics. For example, "Deli- 
cious" may be listed in both the sweet subacid and aromatic groups. 
Moreover, varieties differ in their characteristics from one area 
to another. 

Varieties in the sweet subacid group are grown primarily for 
eating raw; they usually furnish the highest percentage of the 
total stock used for cider. 

Varieties in the aromatic group have outstanding fragrance, 
aroma and flavor that are carried over into the cider. 



-15 

Crabapples, in the astringent group, provide tannin - a 
constituent difficult to obtain in making a high-grade cider. 
The juices of this astringent group also are highly acidic. 
Only a small quantity of these apples should be used in the 
blend. 

Use of the following list as a guide in selecting the right 
blend of varieties. 

Sweet subacid group: Baldwin, Delicious, Cortland, Spartan, 

Empire, Macoun. 

Mildly acid to slightly tart group: Winesap, Jonathan, 

Northern Spy, R.I. Greening, Roxbury 
Ru s s e t . 

Aromatic group: Delicious, Golden Delicious, Mcintosh, 

Empire. 

By fitting the above suggestions to your operation, using 
sound clean apples, pressing in a clean mill, and storing and 
displaying the finished product under refrigeration, you can 
keep your customers coming back for more. 



POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

What are genetic dwarfs ? This question is common now that genetic 
dwarf varieties of peach, apricot, nectarine and apple are avail- 
able to commercial orchardists. Genetic dwarfs are selections of 
natural mutants or mutants induced by radiation that produce trees 
smaller than typical. Thus, the dwarfing is induced by the scion 
variety rather than the rootstock. Trees of Starkspur Compact Mac 
and peach and nectarine varieties are very small and could be grown 
in a tub on a patio. The internodes on these trees are so short 
that the wood is flat and thickened. In contrast, trees of the 
genetic dwarf Compact Red Delicious (Cascade strain) has "normal" 
appearing wood because of greater internodal spacing and may be 
10-12 feet in height when on a seedling rootstock. We are currently 
testing the Compact Red Delicious , Starkspur Compact Mac and some 
dwarf nectarine varieties at our Horticultural Research Center in 
Belchertown. 



16- 



THE STARCH TEST GUIDE FOR APPLE MATURITY 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Once apples begin to ripen, a large portion of the potential 
benefit from CA storage is lost, since CA has the capability of 
suppressing the beginning of ripening. It is therefore very help- 
ful in harvest management to know which apples are and which are 
not yet ripening. The most precise measure of the onset of ripen- 
ing is through ethylene analyses since ripening is accompanied by 
a huge burst of ethylene production. Unfortunately, methods for 
measuring ethylene production during commercial harvesting have 
been hampered by many technical difficulties and few observers 
feel that ethylene measurements are commercially feasible today. 

It has long been known that as apples ripen, their starch is 
rapidly converted to sugar. Starch concentrations, starch pat- 
terns, and starch conversion rates vary among varieties and are 
influenced by environmental conditions, yet for some varieties 
the changes can be very clear and dramatic. Mcintosh is such a 
variety. At the University of Guelph, in Ontario, extensive stu- 
dies led to the development of a very simple procedure for 
measuring the progress of ripening in Mcintosh by following the 
loss of starch from the fruit. 

The test is based on the fact that starch, but not sugar, 
will react with iodine to form a blue-black color. To perform 
the test, a random sample of 10 to 20 fruit are cut open and half 
of each apple is immersed briefly in a shallow dish containing an 
iodine solution. The apples are allowed to sit a minute or 2 to 
allow the color to develop, and the color is then matched to a 
chart which tells whether the apples were "immature," "mature," 
or "overmature." For "finer tuning," each of these classes is 
subdivided into 3 numerical classes. 

This very simple, rapid test allows growers to see for them- 
selves the stage of development of their fruit. Periodic sampling 
of fruit from different blocks can give them an ongoing view of 
where ripening is occurring fastest, and help in determining when 
and where to pick. The test also can be a very important guide 
in deciding which fruit should be directed into Ck storage. Cer- 
tainly, batches of fruit in which a large percentage of the 
apples are scoring as "overmature" should not be placed in CA, as 
they are too ripe to hold up during and following storage. 



17- 



All that is needed to perforin the starch tests are (1) a 
chart with instructions; (2) some iodine and potassium iodide 
crystals; (3) a shallow dish; and (4) a pocketknife. A chart is 
available, entitled "Evaluating apple maturity. Using the 
starch-iodine test." It can be obtained free from Dr. E.G. 
Lougheed, Horticultural Science Department, University of Guelph, 
Guelph, Ontario, Canada NIG 2W1. The chart also contains 
instructions for testing apples. 

The chemicals can be obtained from a pharmacist, who may 
have to order them for you. Although they are expensive, small 
quantities go a long way. The chart described above includes a 
recipe for making up the chemicals, but a simpler recipe has been 
suggested by Dr. M.E. Saltveit, Jr., formerly at North Carolina 
State University. It is as follows: "First dissolve 1 level 
teaspoon of potassium iodide crystals in approximately 1/8 cup 
clean water in a 1-quart container. Gently swirl the container 
until the crystals dissolve. Next, add 1/4 teaspoon of iodine 
and swirl the container until the iodine dissolves. Finally, di- 
lute this solution with clean water to make one quart. 

This solution is sensitive to light and should be kept in a 
dark container, such as a glass jar wrapped in aluminum foil. 
Fresh solution should be made every season." 

The above chart is designed for use on Mcintosh, and the 
brochure contains an accompanying chart for use with Delicious. 
North Carolina also has a brochure available with charts for De- 
licious, Golden Delicious, and Law Rome. ("Determining the matu- 
rity of North Carolina apples. The starch- iodine staining 
technique." Publication AG-282). It ws prepared by M.E. Salt- 
veit, Jr. and Susan A. Hale, Dept. of Horticultural Science, 
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27650. 

We strongly urge growers to try the starch- iodine test for 
apple maturity, and to see for themselves the clear changes that 
are portrayed by the tests. We believe that the tests will pro- 
vide information that will make it easier for growers to make 
wise decisions during a very stressful period. 



POMO LOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

Storage temperature for Mcintosh in CA . The correct temperature 
for holding Mcintosh in CA is 36-38-F. Growers operating their 
rooms at less than 36 -F are increasing the risk of low temperature 
injury, as occurred during the 1982-1983 storage season. Symp- 
toms of low temperature injury this past storage season were a 
brownish-gray discoloration around the stem-end of the apple 
and/or internal browning of the flesh near the core of the apple. 



-18- 



POSTHARVEST CALCIUM CHLORIDE TREATMENT 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Our orchard surveys have shown that approximately one-third 
of the commercial samples of Mcintosh apples in Massachusetts are 
at such low calcium (Ca) concentrations that they possess a high 
risk of developing breakdown after storage. Most other samples 
contain Ca concentrations that carry a lower risk of breakdown, 
but they could still benefit from some additional Ca. 

There are 2 feasible ways of successfully applying Ca to 
apples: tree sprays and postharvest drenches. Even when a con- 
scientious tree-spray program has been followed, apples can 
usually still benefit from postharvest treatment. Thus, posthar- 
vest Ca treatments have potentially wide benefit for the fruit 
industry. 

A postharvest Ca application is viewed as a food-additive 
process by the Food and Drug Administration. That agency has 
stipulated that "Brining Grade" calcium chloride, containing 94% 

^^^^2, is acceptable for postharvest use. The technical flake 
CaCl? commonly used for tree sprays is still acceptable for tree 
sprays, but it may not be used for postharvest treatments . 
There for e~| anyone wishing to use postharvest CaCl2 treatments 
must obtain the Briner's Grade material, which is now readily 
available from suppliers. 

CaCl2 may be combined with scald inhibitors and fungicides 
in the postharvest treatment solution. Cornell University has 
recommended the following mixture for postharvest treatment of 
Mcintosh: 

21 lbs of CaCl2 per 100 gal of water 

h lb of Benlate* or 16 fluid ounces of Mertect* 

1 lb of Captan 

1000-2000 ppm DPA 
We suggest that h quart of vinegar also be addded to this mixture 
in 100 gallons of water. The vinegar neutralizes the CaCl2, 
which otherwise makes the solution alkaline. There is evidence 
that the alkaline solution may cause the fungicides to break down 
rapidly in solution, and the addition of vinegar can protect 
against their alkaline degradation. 



Trade names 



-19- 



In use of postharvest CaCl2 drenches, it is important to 
understand that little or no Ca enters the fruit during the 
drenching process. The purpose of the drench is to leave a resi- 
due of CaCl2 on the fruit. Ca is slowly absorbed by the apple 
from the residue during storage. Therefore, the drench is never 
followed by a rinse, which would remove the residue. Further- 
more, for Ca to be absorbed from the residue, the residue must 
not dry out. The apples should not be allowed to air-dry before 
storage. If the storage is operating at the desired relative 
humidity (90-95%), the residue should not dry out. However, if 
the storage is operated at less than 90% relative humidity the 
residue may dry out and no Ca uptake will occur as a result of 
the drench treatment. 

We have encountered no difficulty from this residue when 
apples are removed from storage. It will be removed if apples 
are water-dumped, but even with hand-packed fruit no difficulty 
has been reported. 

CaCl2 drenches can cause fruit injury, which occurs as tiny 
black spots on the surface of the fruit. Generally, these spots 
are concentrated in the calyx cup of the apple and are not objec- 
tionable, although under some circumstances they may coalesce 
into more unsightly blotches or may occur at the lenticels on the 
cheeks. Do not exceed the recommended CaCl2 concentration, as 
risk of this injury escalates rapidly at higher concentrations. 

CaCl2 is also corrosive, so equipment should be thoroughly 
cleaned at completion of treatment. However, with appropriate 
rinsing corrosion should not be a concern. 

The purpose of the postharvest application of CaCl2 is to 
reduce the risk of breakdown, rot, and scald during but especial- 
ly after storage. The recommended treatment will not make fruit 
firmer, but will improve their ability to hold up during market- 
ing. Treatments will be of greatest benefit to mature fruit des- 
tined for long-term storage. Overripe fruit cannot be expected 
to benefit significantly from a CaCl2 treatment. 



-20- 

ACID RAIN AFFECTS APPLE MAGGOT FLY EGGLAYING 

Averill and Ronald J. I 
Department of Entomology 



1 2 

Anne L, Averill and Ronald J. Prokopy 



Acid rain occurs when airborne sulfur and nitrogen oxides 
originating from combustion of fossil fuels are washed to the 
earth during rainfall as sulfuric and nitric acids. In addition 
to being a popular topic in magazines and newspapers, this phen- 
omenon is a complex political issue: although Massachusetts has 
the most acidic precipitation in the country, many scientists be- 
lieve that the bulk of our rain's contamination emanates from 
Midwestern smoke stacks. Residents of the Northeast have become 
progressively concerned and bitter as an increasing number of 
scientific studies demonstrate detrimental effects of acid rain, 
especially on aquatic ecosystems, soils, and crop and forest 
vegetation. 

In the course of studies of apple maggot fly egglaying be- 
havior, we noted a particularly intriguing effect of acid rain. 
Our observations suggested that a host fruit exposed to acid 
rain was less acceptable to the flies for egglaying than was an 
unexposed fruit. To test this possibility more thoroughly, we 
are hanging clean fruits in trees during each of this summer's 
rains, with some fruits protected from rainfall by plastic hoods. 
These fruits are brought to the lab, and by observing the number 
of flies which attempt egglaying, we can evaluate the influence 
of rain exposure on fruit acceptibility . Acidity (pH analysis) 
of each rain event is determined by Dr. O.T. Zajicek of the Depart- 
ment of Chemistry at UMASS. Thus far, most rains have fallen into 
1 of 2 categories: those with pH values well below 4 (3.6-3.8) 
and those with pH values above 4. These categories largely reflect 
the dominant weather pattern at the time of the storm. Usually, 
the more acidic contaminated storms (pH 3.6-3.8) move into our 
region from the Midwest and the less contaminated storms move in 
from elsewhere. The data available to date (Table 1) show that 
apple maggot egglaying was not influenced when fruits were washed 
by rains with a pH above 4, whereas egglaying was significantly 
decreased when fruits were washed by rains of pH 3.6-3.8. 

This phenomenon may be explained by the fact that apple mag- 
got flies have contact chemical receptors (hairs) which are loca- 
ted on the bottom of their feet. Via these receptors, a fly may 
receive cues emanating from the fruit to control steps in fruit 
acceptance and egglaying. The presence of acids on the fruit 
surface may interfere with perception of these cues, or may ac- 
tually damage or destroy the chemical receptors. 

Whatever the explanation for our observations, it is possibly 
to our advantage, and to the disadvantage of the apple maggot fly, 
that acid precipitation is most severe in the summer months during 
peak fly activity. 



2Graduate Student 
Extension Entomologist 



-21 



Table 1. Percent arriving apple maggot flies attempting egglay- 
ing into fruits exposed to summer rain storms. Non 
rain-exposed fruits were protected from rain under 
plastic hoods. 

-a ^ 

Rain with Attempted Rain with Attempted, 

pH 4.0-4.2 egglaying^ pH 3.6-3.8 egglaying 

Non rain-exposed Non rain-exposed 

fruits 50 fruits 65 

Rain-exposed Rain-exposed 

fruits 55 fruits 46* 



, Average of 6 storms 
Average of 3 storms 
*Signif icantly less than egglaying into non rain-exposed fruits 



NEW PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE 

Two new publications are available to the public. 

One, entitled "Postharvest disorders of apples and pears," 
was prepared by S.W. Porritt and M. Meheriuk of the Agriculture 
Canada Research Station, Summerland, British Columbia, and by 
P.D. Lidster of the Agriculture Canada Research Station, Kent- 
ville. Nova Scotia. It contains excellent color prints of various 
disorders along with very useful information about the disorders. 
It is available free, as Publication 1737, from the Communications 
Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C7. 

The second publication was prepared by CD. Blanpied and 
R.M. Smock of Cornell University and is entitled, "Storage of 
fresh market apples." It contains a great deal of information on 
current thinking about apple storage management, and is available 
as Information Bulletin 191 for a fee from Distribution Center C, 
7 Research Park, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14850. The 
fee is $4.50 per copy. Send a check or money order payable to 
Cornell University. Be sure to print your name, complete address, 
and ZIP code clearly on your request for the publication. 



■22- 



FRUIT NOTES INDEX FOR 1983 



(This index of major articles has been prepared for those who 
keep a file of FRUIT NOTES. The number in parenthesis indicates 
the pages on which the item appears.) 

WINTER ISSUE - Vol. 48, No. 1 

Varieties of Grapes for Massachusetts (2-3) 

Varieties of Peaches for Massachusetts (4-5) 

Performance of Disease Resistant Apples in Massachusetts (6-9) 

Disease Management for Apples in Massachusetts: 1982 Results 

and Summary of the Five-Year Program (10-16) 
Factors Affecting Nutrient Content of the Foliage and Fruits 

of Apple Trees (17-23) 
Integrated Management of Apple Pests in Massachusetts, 1982 

Results: Insects (24-34) 

SPRING ISSUE - Vol. 48, No. 2 

Nutritional Problems in 1982 and Suggestions for Fertilization 

of Apple Trees in 1983 (1-4) 
Effects of Type of Nitrogenous Fertilizer Applied Under 

Sturdeespur Delicious Trees on Exchangeable Elements in 

the Soil (4-5) 
Preliminary Findings from the Multi-State Cooperative Apple 

Interstem Planting (5-6) 
Future of Tree Fruit IPM in Massachusetts (7-8) 
Sampling Soil for Nematodes (9) 
Pruning Plum Trees (9-11) 

A Visual Monitoring Trap for the Apple Blotch Leafminer (11-14) 
Are High Density Strawberries on Ridges for You? (15) 
Suggestions for Use of Calcium Sprays in 1983 (16-17) 
An Up-date on Calyx-end Rot, and Report of an Apple Leaf Spot 

Caused by the Fungus Sclerotinia sclerotior ium (17-19) 
Use of Promalin to Increase Branching of Young Trees (20-22) 

SUMMER ISSUE - Vol. 48, No. 3 

Leaf Analysis Service and Standards for Nutrient Levels (1-4) 
Gypsy Moth as a Pest of Highbush Blueberry in Massachusetts (5-8) 
Marketing Your Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (8-13) 
Spur Blight of Raspberries (14-17) 
NRAES-16 Planning Farm Shops (18-19) 

Why, When and How to Summer Prune and Results to Expect (20-23) 
Extent of Damage by Major Apple Fruit Injuring Insects in 
Massachusetts (23-25) 



23- 



FALL ISSUE - Vol. 48, No. 4 

Cycling Fans in Apple Cold Storage Rooms Can Be a Good Way 

to Conserve Energy (1-3) 
Effects of Mineral Nutrition on Keeping Quality of Massachu 

setts Mcintosh: Results of a Four-Year Study (4-8) 
The Apple Markets from 1967 through 1982, Locally and 

Nationally (9-13) 
Cider Notes (14-15) 

The Starch Test Guide for Apple Maturity (16-17) 
Postharvest Calcium Chloride Treatment (18-19) 
Acid Rain Affects Apple Maggot Fly Egglaying (20-21) 



Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

French Hall 

University of Massachusetts 

Amherst, MA 01003 

3-20028 



Non-Prof it Org. 

U.S. POSTAGE 

PAID 

Permit No. 2 
Amherst, MA 01002 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Vol.49: 1 

WINTER ISSUE, 1984 

Table of Contents: 

Subscription to FRUIT NOTES 

A Report on the 1983 Apple IPM Program 

Variations in Tree Form in an Eight-Year-Oid Spur-Type 
Mcintosh Planting 

Height Containment on Spartan and Idared Trees 

Pomological Paragraph - Increased Interest in Cherry Growing 

Response of Interstem Trees to Planting Depth 

Using W Clips to Train Fruit Trees 

Effect of Mineral Nutrition on Keeping Quality of 
CA Mcintosh in Massachusetts 

Pomological Paragraph - Differences between M7 and M7a 



Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service in furtherance 

of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, United States Department of Agriculture and 
County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 
opportunity in programs and employment. 




FRUIT NOTES SUBSCRIPTION 



To subscribe to FRUIT NOTES complete 
and mail the following form with your check 
for $3.00 (Canadian subscribers, please send 
a U.S. postal money order). 



William J. Lord 
William J. Bramlage 
Editors 



Name 



Mailing Address 



Town, State 

Country _zip 

Make check payable to: FRUIT NOTES ACTIVITY ACCOUNT 

Send subscription form and check to: William J. Lord 

Department of Plant and Soil Science: 

French Hall 

University of Massachusetts 

Amherst, MA 01002 
1984 



-1- 



A Report on the 1983 Apple IPM Program 
W.M. Coli-^, R.J. Prokopy-^, and W.J. Manning' 

1983 was a year of transition for Apple IPM in Massachusetts, during 
which program emphasis shifted from providing scouting and pest management 
advisory services for a limited number of growers toward a stronger 
educational and information transfer effort for all the state's growers as 
well as support of private sector IPM implementation. 

Grower interest in and support of IPM continued to be excellent, with 
informal surveys indicating that over 2/3 of the state's total apple 
acreage is presently under some form of integrated management (e.g. private 
sector scout/consultants, grower scouting, careful attention to proper 
timing of pesticide application, or selection and use of IPM-compatible 
pesticides). In FY 1983, growers contributed $3200 toward the continuation 
of the program and apple IPM specialist position — a substantial 
committment when one considers that many of these same growers also paid 
@$20/acre for private scout/consultant services. Further, a mechanism was 
established to lease to private parties 9 hygrothermograph units. 

Extension faculty and professional staff conducted or participated in 

12 IPM training sessions (usable for pesticide certification credits) (4 in 

each of the three major fruit-growing regions of the state.) 

Entomology Department 
Plant Pathology Department 

Acknowledgments: We wish to thank Ms. Kathleen Leahy for scouting and 
computer-related assistance. 

Special thanks to Glenn Morin and Roberta Spitko for providing a 
substantial portion of the harvest injury survey data which is compiled in 
Table 2. 



-2- 

In addition, the Entomology IPM Specialist performed weekly scouting 
in six commercial, orchards to collect data and samples on insect/mite and 
disease pest status. With the cooperation of Plant Pathology staff (Mr. Dan 
Cooley and Dr. W. Manning), Mr. Coli was primarily responsible for 
maintaining a frequently updated (2 x weekly), computer-based message 
system accessable by terminals in regional fruit specialist offices. These 
messages also contained information gathered by other extension staff (Jim 
Williams, Tom Green and Ron Prokopy), private sector scouts (Glenn Morin, 
Roberta Spitko, Breck Parker, Wayne Rice and Ed Roberts Jr.) and from 
weekly access to New York State's excellent computerized information system 
(SCAMP). Regional specialists sent this information to growers via weekly 
newsletters and 24 hour code-a-phone devices (over 1370 calls were made to 
these code-a-phones in 1983, an increase of 20% in utilization over 1982). 
Numerous favorable grower comments have been received concerning the 
quality of the 1983 pest messages and their value to growers as management 
aids. 

Table 1 is a graph of weekly totals of calls received on Jim Williams' 
and Karen Hauschild's code-a-phones during the 1983 season (data from Dom. 
Marini's region are not available since his code-a-phone has no counter.) 
Total calls received in these regions were 1222. There are several 
interesting points to note in this graph, including: 

1. A six-fold increase in use from week 1 to week 2 as the pest control 
season began in earnest, particularly with regard to frequent wetting 
periods and changes in fungal spore maturity. 

2. A substantial drop in calls during bloom, followed by a major peak in 
usage during late May - early June. This peak coincides with the 



-3- 

approaching end of primary scab season, as well as the onset of sprays 
against plum curculio and 1st generation leafminer larvae. 

3. Another peak during the week of June 21 when 1st generation San Jose 
scale (SJS) crawlers first became active. 

4. Increased calling from July 12-July 19 following the first reported 
apple maggot (AMF) capture in an early developing commercial orchard 
(7/11) . 

5. A final period of high usage from July 26 to August 9, a time of 
decision-making with regard to 2nd generation leafminer (LM) in many 
areas. 

6. It is somewhat surprising to note the relatively low number of calls 
received thereafter, in spite of the impending activity of 2nd 
generation San Jose scale crawlers. 

Other IPM-related information was published in the form of four "Fruit 
Notes" articles, a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mass. Fruit 
Growers Association (co-authored by SJV. Weis, Plant and Soil Science and 
Dr. J.M. Clark, Entomology) and a symposium talk presented to the Eastern 
Branch ESA Meetings in Hartford Connecticut (co-authored by F. Drummond, T. 
Green and R. Prokopy, Entomology Dept). The Entomology Specialist, in 
collaboration with Dr. Clark, recently applied for and received a $1200 
grant from the M.F.GJ^. to perform laboratory work to further investigate 
effects of spray mix pH on pesticide stability and effectiveness. 

An additional accomplishment was the receipt of a $6850 grant from 
USDA to be used to publish a photographic manual of IPM techniques for use 
on apples in New England. This publication, an expansion of the Apple 
Insect/Mite Photo manual which many growers have seen at IPM training 



-4- 

sessions, will contain over 100 4-color photographs with text on major 
insect/mite, disease and vertebrate pests of apples as well as a segment on 
integrated management of orchard cover crops. 

Insect Pest Injury, 1983 - Direct Pests - Table 2 contains results of on 
tree harvest injury surveys conducted by extension and private sector IPM 
personnel. It is interesting to note that tarnished plant bug (TPB) again 
accounted for the majority of fruit injury observed just prior to harvest. 
However, with the exception of a few blocks where TPB injury to individual 
fruit was severe (similar to "cat-facing" injury on peaches), much of this 
"injury" would pass through a grading line with no effect on fruit grade. 

While many growers appear to be achieving good San Jose scale (SJS) 
control, largely due to improved monitoring and better spray coverage, SJS 
ranked second in importance in monitored blocks (range 0-4.3% injury) in 
1983. As was the case last year, SJS crawlers continued activity well into 
September, when pre-harvest interval considerations made treatment 
inpossible. 

European apple saw fly (EAS) injury was about at average levels for the 
last 5 years (0.40% in IPM blocks, 1978-1982). In 1983, however, much EAS 
injury consisted of a "dimple" in the fruit calyx, which would likely not 
affect fruit grade. 

Green fruitworm (GFW) injury, which will probably result in fruit 
culling, was up from 5-year averages, largely due to suspected resistance 
to Guthion and Imidan in several blocks. Growers who experienced 
substantial injury from GFW in spite of pink and/or petal fall sprays of OP 
compounds should consider use of other materials (carbamates, for example) 
in the spray program next year. Most other direct pests were of minor 
importance in 1983. 



-5- 



Indirect Pests - Injury from 2 indirect pests, white apple leafhopper 
(WAL) , and aphids, was substantial in some blocks. 2nd generation WAL 
populations reached outbreak levels immediately prior to Mcintosh harvest 
in at least one monitored orchard (active stages exceeding 10 per leaf). 
Injury to leaves and excrement on fruit was extensive in this case. A 
further problem was the annoyance factor of leafhoppers flying into 
picker's faces during harvest. While aphids were controlled by predators 
at many sites this year, substantial sooty mold growth on honeydew (as high 
as 43% of fruit in one case) can probably be explained by lack of 
significant rain showers in many areas. 

Pyrethroid insecticides (e.g. Pydrin) provided excellent control of 
leafminers in almost all cases. Interestingly, growers who used 
pyrethroids averaged only 1.6 percent TPB injury versus the state average 
of 2.52%, reinforcing our earlier research plot data which suggested that 
pyrethroids may be excellent materials for integrating controls of a key 
direct pest (TPB) and a key indirect pest (ABLM/STLM). Growers who applied 
carbamate materials against 1st generation miners generally experienced 
excellent control results. Where 1st and 2nd generation controls were not 
adequate, 3rd generation moth flight was quite large, as expected. A few 
growers applied sprays for miners of this generation, even though such 
sprays may be more harmful then helpful. 

Spider mites (European red mites, two spotted mites) were a problem at 
many locations throughout the year, due to hot, dry weather. Frequent 
reapplication of miticide was needed in some cases to achieve control. 
Even where controls were applied, some locations experienced late mite 
outbreaks with renewed hot weather in early September. Levels of our major 



-6- 

mite predator Amblyseius fallacis ^ were lower than normal this year 
possibly owing to low overwintering numbers of this beneficial mite or to 
the effects of pyrethroid or carbamate insecticides directed at other 
pests. 

Plans for 1984 - It appears that funding for apple IPM, as well as for IPM 
programs begun in Mass. in 1983 in other commodities, will continue at 
present levels in 1984. Based on this premise, we plan to continue with a 
similar apple IPM effort, focusing particularly on the IPM training 
sessions and maintenance of an extensive, frequently updated, tree fruit 
pest message system. We welcome grower suggestions and comments on the 
pest messages to ensure that grower needs are met. 

As mentioned above, we expect to publish a field manual of IPM 
techniques prior to the 1984 growing season. We feel that this publication 
will provide growers with a comprehensive field reference to 
identification, life histories, damage, monitoring and control measures 
for the major New England apple pests. 

In addition, Massachusetts will be one of a group of states 
participating in a national study on IPM program impact. This study, under 
the leadership of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, will examine overall 
social and economic benefits of IPM implementation to the state's apple 
growers. We will be one of two states in the Northeast (New York is the 
other) to focus on apples. It is hoped that this study will provide 
information which will be useful in justifying further Federal support for 
IPM and in determining areas where program modifications are required to be 
more responsive to private sector needs. 



-7- 



m 



o 



iia- 



loa- 



Total calls = 




14 19 25 29 3 6 10 13 19 24 1 7 10 14 21 26 1 8 12 19 22 26 9 19 31 

April May June July August 

DATES 

Table 1. Code-a-phone use. Northeast and Western regions, 1983. 



-8- 



Table 2. Percent insect injured fruit in 
on-tree surveys of 48 IPM commercial orchard 
blocks. 1983^ 



Insect pest 

Tarnished plant bug . 2.52 

San Jose Scale 0.49 

European apple sawfly 0.41 

Fruitworms 0.38 

Plum curculio 0.17 

Leafrollers 0.07 

Apple maggot 0.03 

Codling moth 0.00 

Total Injury - Direct Pests 4.07 

White afple leafhopper 0.22 

Sooty mold 1.06 

Total Injury - Indirect Pests 1.28 



■^Data from 38 blocks receiving private IPM 
scouting/consultant services from New 
England Fruit Consultants, Mr. Glenn Morin 
and Dr. Roberta Spitko. Samples consisted 
of 50 fruits per tree on 6-16 trees per 
block . 

Data from 10 other commercial blocks 
collected by Extension IPM staff. Samples 
consisted of 100 fruits per tree on 4-10 
trees per block. 



9- 



VARIATIONS IN TREE FORM IN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD 
SPUR-TYPE McINTOSH PLANTING 

C.G. Embree 
Agriculture Canada, Kentville, N.S. 



Editor ' s Note. The growth habits of Maaspur and Morspur trees are 
variable in Massachusetts. Thus, it is of interest to note that 
the same difficulty is being encountered with Starkspur Ultra Mac 
under Nova Scotia conditions . 



Nova Scotia apple 
type strains of commer 
size control is provid 
rootstock such as the 
can be used. These tr 
adopted 155 (14 x 20) 
seedling stock that ha 
and orchards in Nova S 
other seedlings, hardy 
tosh and Cortland. 



growers have a keen interest in the spur- 
cial apple cultivars. When considerable 
ed by the cultivar a more vigorous reliable 
locally grown Beautiful Arcade seedlings 
ees are not expected to outgrow the widely 
planting system. Beautiful Arcade is a 
s performed well in experimental trials 
cotia, being productive, smaller than many 

and a promoter of early yields with Mcln- 



Early indications of spur-type variants of Mcintosh from B.C. 

coincided with 
the development 
of a mother or- 
chard for the 
production of 
virus-free, 
true-to-name 
propagation 
material by the 
Nova Scotia 
Fruit Growers 
Association. 
Following in- 
vestigations of 
the various 
strains it was 
decided that the 
Dewar strain was 
most appropriate 
for this region. 
Negotiations with 
Mr. Dewar led to 
his forwarding a 
sample of scion 
wood to the Re- 
search Station 
for testing with 
possible inclu- 
sion in the mother 
orchard . 




Fig. 1. Dewar Mcintosh on Alnarp II in P. Van 
Oostrum Orchard planted in 1974 exhib- 
iting spur- type growth habit. Photo 
taken May, 1983. 



-10- 



Thc scion wood was grafted on Alnarp II roots at about 14" 
above the rootzone and grown in a nursery for one year. They were 
planted in a growers' demonstration trial in the sprini; of 1974. 
Trees were spaced at 15 x 22 at 50 trees per row in two adjacent 
rows. Early productivity has been good, as have been fruit color 
and size, when compared with other trees in the block. However, 
the strain has since been sold to Stark Brothers Nursery and re- 
leased as Starkspur Ultra Mac. 

Variation in growth habit has become obvious in the Nova 



Scotia planting (Figures 1^2) 



In 1983 trees with considerable 

branching and 







Fig. 2. Dewar tree in same block as shown in 

Figure 1 but with standard type growth 
habit (non-spur) . 



side shoots 
represented 21% 
of this plant- 
ing. Forty-six 
percent of the 
trees had typ- 
ical spur-type 
growth habit 
with virtually 
no side branches 
on the main 
limbs. The re- 
maining 33% of 
the trees had 
some degree of 
spur-type char- 
acter but some 
side branching 
was also present 
Detailed records 
of the number of 
spurs per meter 
of growth and th 
amount of extens 
growth will be 
recorded in 1984 
prior to pruning 



e 

ion 



Reports of variation in spur-type tree from have been observed 
in other strains and cultivars in Nova Scotia orchards but no ratings 
have been done at this time. 



It is of interest to note that some trees in this block had 
little or no bloom in 1983. This is also true of Idared on MMlll 
and Spy on M26. It should be noted that the soil in this planting 
is quite coarse and excessively drained. This coupled with the 
very dry harvest season and heavy crop in 1982. appears to have 
accentuated an inherent biennial bearing tendency. Concerns of 
this tendency in the spur types are described in 1973 publication 
titled, "Spur-Type Apple Trees" and is available from the author. 



-11- 



HEIGHT CONTAINMENT ON SPARTAN AND IDARED TREES 

William J. Lord and Anthony W. Rossi 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



In the January/February, 1980 issue of FRUIT NOTES we dis- 
cussed our progress with height containment of Spartan and 
Idared trees on M7a rootstocks. The objective of this demon- 
stration was to answer 2 questions: (1) What is a suitable 
pruning method for containing tree height?, and (2) What is 
the influence of height reduction on yield? Below we have: 
(1) summarized previously reported findings through harvest in 
1979, (2) included our data and observations for the last 3 
years, and (3) described containment pruning. 

Summary of Previous Findings Through Harvest, 1979 

Limb rotation in the top third of the crown of Spartan and 
Idared trees on M7a rootstock was a suitable procedure for con- 
taining tree height. The pruning demonstration was initiated 
in February, 1976, and after dormant pruning in February, 1979, 
the average height of the control trees was 2.5 feet greater 
than that of the height- restricted trees. In spite of the 
height difference, yields were not consistently reduced from 
1976 through 1979 on the height-reduced trees (Table 1) . 

Table 1. Influence on yield from height reduction of Spartan 
and Idared trees . 



Year 



Spartan^ 
Height 



reduced 



control 



Idared' 



Height 
reduced 



control 



1976 
1977 
1978 
1979 
1980 
1981 
1982 

Cumulative 
yield 



6.0a 

4.0b 

10.4b 

9.6h 

6.5a 

14.0a 

13.1b 

64b 



w 



Bushels/tree 



8.0a 

5. 3a 
12.5a 
12.2a 

6. 3a 
16.3a 
14.4a 

76a 



6.2a 


7.5a 


4.1a 


4.8a 


10.2a 


12.4a 


8.9b 


11.4a 


8.2a 


9.5a 


9.3b 


11.7a 


14.2b 


15.2a 



61b 



73a 



y 



Trees planted in 1964; trial started in February, 1976. 

T 

Tree height 3/79: Control, 11.4 ft.; height-reduced trees, 

8.9 ft. Height 3/82: Control, 12.5 ft.,; height-reduced trees, 

8.5 ft. 



Tree height 3/79: Control, 10.6 ft.,; height - reduced trees, 
8.3 ft. Height 3/82: Control 11.8 ft.; height- reduced trees, 
8.1 ft. 

Means in any row for each variety followed by different letters 
are significantly difference at odds of 19 to 1. 



w 



12- 



Results Through Harvest of 1982 and Conclusions 

Containment pruning to restrict tree height continued to 
be successful. The height difference (measured at top of 
central leaderj between the control Spartan and Idared trees 
and the height-restricted trees of these varieties now averages 
4.0 and 3.7 feet, respectively. Although the influence of 
height restriction on yield still is not consistent (Table 1) , 
the cumulative yields for the 7 years have been 12 bushels 
less per tree on the height-restricted trees. 

The harvest crew has expressed its preference for the 
height-restricted trees but the yield reduction may be unaccept- 
able to most growers. Theoretically, yields per acre of the 
height-restricted and control trees would be similar if the 
shorter trees were spaced 20% closer. For example, the trees 
in this trial are spaced 20 feet x 30 feet (72 trees/acre) . To 
increase tree numbers by 20% (86 trees/acre) one would plant 
the trees at 18 x 28 foot spacing. 

Containment pruning will work on many varieties but certain 
varieties are much more vegetative than others. We have en- 
countered no difficulty in maintaining the Idared and Spartan 
trees on M7 at 8.3 feet and 9 feet, respectively. However, tree 
height of 9 feet is too low for the innate vigor of non-spur 
Delicious on M7 at our Horticultural Research Center. In con- 
trast, spur-type trees of Delicious on M7a could be easily 
maintained at 9 feet (height of central leaders) . 

Procedures Suggested to Contain Tree Size 

1. Branches that crowd those of adjacent trees will have to be 
removed or cut back to a weaker side branch. (Cuts made 
only to maintain the desired outer profile of the tree com- 
pounds rather than alleviates tree containment problems. 
Such cuts stimulate vigorous growth and by the end of the 
next growing season, the limb may extend as far as the 
original branch did before shortening, and may cause more 
shading within the tree than did the original uncut branch.) 

2. Maintain conical tree shape by removing large limbs in the 
top third of the tree or cutting them back to a very much 
weaker side branch. 

3. Initiate a limb rotation program in the top third of the 
tree by retaining weak branches or spreading desirable water 
sprouts, which in turn may have to be removed when they be- 
come too large. 

4. Reduce the height of excessively tall trees by cutting them 
back to a strong outward growing lateral branch originating 
at a lower level on the leader. 



-13- 

5. Frequently a strong scaffold branch with a narrow crotch 
angle develops in the upper third of the tree. If this 
branch is not removed or its growth is not restricted, 
the tree will become a multiple leader tree. Trees of 
this type are much more difficult to prune when practicing 
containment pruning or lowering tree height. 

6. Delicious trees are subject to weak crotches, and branches 
are prone to develop in whorls and to droop. The ends of 
drooping branches should be removed back to a lateral grow- 
ing in a somewhat upright position. This will shorten 

and stiffen the branches. The tip of the lateral on a 
pruned drooping branch should be higher from the ground 
than any other portion of the branch. This should reduce 
the problem, of suckering. 

********** 

POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Increased Interest in Cherry Growing . Interest in cherry grow- 
ing has increased in Massacnusetts because of labeling permitting 
use of Mesurol* for repelling birds. While sour cherries are 
relatively winter hardy, sweet cherries may be severely injured, 
if not killed, by low temperatures. However, sweet cherries 
can be grown successfully with limited amounts of nitrogenous 
fertilizer. To eliminate or reduce injury to sweet cherry 
trees caused by low temperatures, the soil under the trees should 
not be cultivated. 

Sour cherry trees are smaller than sweet cherry trees and are 
better suited for U-pick operations. At this time we cannot 
recommend the use of dwarf rootstocks for either sweet or sour 
cherry trees. 

Several sweet cherry varieties you may want to consider are 
Emperor Francis, Schmidt, Hedelfingen and Windsor. Montmorency 
is the most popular sour cherry variety; other varieties are 
EArly Richmond, English Morello, North Star, and Meteor. North 
Star and Meteor produce much smaller trees than the other varieties 



a 

Trade name 



14 



RESPONSE OF INTERSTEM TREES TO PLANTING DEPTH 

1 2 

William J. Lord and Joseph Costante 



The responses of Empire, Rogers M 
Oregon Spur Delicious trees on M9/MM 
planting depth were investigated in 
at the Green Mountain Orchards, Putn 
Joseph Costante, Extension Fruit Spe 
author. The planting depth treatmen 
line approximately 2 inches below th 
union; (B) the soil line at the mid- 
and (C) the soil line approximately 
piece/variety union (see diagram bel 
the trees was 7 inches. The i'nforma 
findings at the completion of the st 



cintosh, Macspur and 
106 or M9/MM111 to 
an experiment initiated 
ey, Vermont in 1976 by 
cialist and the senior 
ts were: (A) the soil 
e stempiece/rootstock 
section of the M9 stempiece; 
2 inches below the stem- 
ow) . The stempiece on 
tion below summarizes the 
udy in November, 1982. 



variety 




SOIL LINE 



Planting depth A 



Planting depth B 



Planting depth C 



-15- 

Cultural Problems . 

Tree training difficulties were experienced particularly 
with Empire because the central leader lost its dominance. 
Leader leaning, which was corrected by staking, appears assoc- 
iated with the growth characteristics of Empire on interstem 
trees on M26 rootstock rather than due to cropping. None of 
the trees needed staking because of poor anchorage. 




The burrknots on the M9 stempieces on trees particularly 
at the (A) and (B) (the soil line at the mid-section of the stem- 
piece) planting heights were the entry sites of apple bark borer 
larvae in 1981. These were eradicated manually by probing for 
the larvae with a knife as well as scraping with a wire brush. 
Observations here, and at other locations have led us to conclude 
that the problem is associated with the use of mouse guards made 
of plastic which impede adequate coverage of pesticide sprays on 
the tree trunks. 

Crovvfth and Yield 

Burying or partially burying the stempiece tended to decrease 
the number of root suckers and increase the trunk cross- sectional 
area (TCA) and yield efficiency, but did not affect tree height 
and spread. Trees with the stempiece exposed had smaller trunks 
than those with the stempiece buried, but trees with the stempiece 
partially exposed did not differ in TCA from those at the other 
planting depths. Trees with the stempiece exposed produced the 
most root suckers regardless of the cultivar/inter stem/rootstock 
combination. These findings support the claim of Carlson in Michi- 
gan that deeper planting reduces the tendency of interstem trees 
to produce root suckers. 

Since root suckering was most severe when the stempiece was 
exposed, the question was posed whether the amount of suckering 
affected tree growth. There was a negative correlation between 
number of suckers and trunk circumference (r = -.15, p = .02). 
Because tree size varied across rootstock and cultivars, each 
rootstock and cultivar were evaluated separately. The number of 
suckers correlated negatively with trunk circumference for M9/MM106 
(r = -.23, p = .01) and the Macspur (r = -.33, p = .01) and Mcin- 
tosh (r = -.48. p = .001). Ferree in Ohio reported a positive 
correlation between number of root suckers and trunk circumference 
on interstem trees with the lower union of the stempiece 5 cm above 
the soil line. 



-16- 

The trees were slow in coming into production partly due to 
poor tree quality at planting and poor growth in the orchard. The 
first crop was harvested from the Empire, Macspur, and Mcintosh 
trees in 1980 and from Oregon Red Spur Delicious in 1981. Thus, 
the yield data was still inadequate at the completion of the study 
in 1982 for a good evaluation of the influences of planting depth 
on yield and this problem was confounded by the fact that the 
orchardist inadvertently harvested the Macspur and Mcintosh in 
1982, Preliminary data for the Empire and Delicious show that 
trees with the stempiece exposed have produced less per TCA than 
those with the stempiece buried. Yield efficiency of trees with 
the stempiece partially exposed was not different from the others. 
Both the growth and limited yield data support the suggestion that 
interstem trees will be weakened and bear less if the stempiece is 
above the soil line. 

The rootstock and/or cultivar had more effect than planting 
depth on several factors. Tree spread was greater for trees on 
M9/MM106 than on M9/MM111. Delicious trees were smaller and had 
less bloom than the other cultivars. Macspur had less branch spread 
than Mcintosh or Empire. 

Roots from burrknots were present on all but 3 trees with the 
stempiece buried. Conditions were considered very favorable for 
rooting from the burrknots because the soil had been heavily mulched 
with hay since 1980 and rain was ample for optimum grov;th. Never- 
theless, 26% of the stempieces had only short, fibrous roots less 
than 18 cm in length. Since the trees were not dug up, the original 
roots could not be observed but it does seem that this rooting may 
be too limited to entirely replace the original roots as was 
observed by Rogers and Parry in England. Rootstock and cultivar had 
no influence on the amount of rooting. 

After 7 growing seasons, interstem trees of Oregon Spur Red 
Delicious are smaller and less productive than similar trees of 
Empire, Macspur and Rogers Mcintosh. It appears that because of 
the upright branching nature and small leaf surface, the spur-type 
Delicious strain is slow to develop. 

Summary 

Production of root suckers by interstem trees can be reduced 
by deeper planting. Our limited observations lead us to conclude 
that interstem trees will require more care than those on vigorous 
size-controlling rootstocks and that the stempiece is a site for 
possible difficulty with weather, rodents, insects and disease. 
Further testing is needed before we can recommend planting of inter- 
stem trees other than for trial. 



-17- 



USING W CLIPS TO TRAIN 



FRUIT 
1 



TREES 



George M. Greene' 
Associate Professor of Pomology 
Pennsylvania State University 
Fruit Research Laboratory, Biglerville, PA 





Most frui 
with the use o 
pins to spread 
shoots of upri 
vars. The use 
help good crot 
and will help 
becoming trapp 
leader and the 



t growers are familiar 
f spring-type clothes 

young 2-4 inch long 
ght growing apple culti 

of this technique will 
ch angles to develop 
prevent dead bark from 
ed between the central 

lateral scaffold limbs 



Unfortunately many upright grow- 
ing cultivars need additional branch 
spreading in years 3 through perhaps 
6. Most fruit growers are familiar 
with the use of wooden spreaders 
(with nails in the ends) to spread 
laterals away from the central leader 
into a more horizontal position. This 
spreading tends to reduce the vigor 
and increase the fruitfulness of the 
spread branch. In addition, if 
lateral branching can be encouraged 
on the spread scaffold limbs, trees 
will tend to be more productive since 
more sunlight can be intercepted by 
the enlarged tree canopy. The author 
saw VI clips being used in England in 
1979 to spread branches but no source 
of the clips in the U.S. was known. 
However, hop growers in Washington use 
this style of clip to help construct 
the string trellises to support hop 



1 



Pennsylvania Extension Hort Series II: 
permission of the author. 



140, 1983. Reprinted by 



•18- 




plants. For fruit trees, the clips 
can be used to hold plastic ba'ler 
twine in the ground to spread 
scaffold limbs and to hold erect, 
young trees that have leaned. A 
loop is placed in the end of the 
twine and the loop is placed onto 
the W clip that has been placed on 
the end of the applicator. In the 
spring when the soil is moist, the 
^^ clip can fairly easily be forced 
6-10 inches into the ground. The 
plastic baler twine can then be used 
to straighten up a tree trunk or to 
spread a branch. The advantage the 
W clips over wooden spreaders is 
that the point of application of the 
spreading force can be placed any- 
where along a limb. By moving the 
point of spreading force further out 
on the limb, some of the spreading 
action can be placed onto the limb 
itself and less placed on the crotch. 
The flexibility in being able to 
move the point of attachment seems 
to be a major advantage over wooden 
spreaders. In addition, for those growers interested in spreading 
peach and other Prunus species, the W clips and baler twine have an 
advantage in that no nail holes are made in the bark where cytospora 
canker could enter the tree. 




On the negative side, the twine coming out of the ground up to 
the branches must not be hit with equipment. Using an offset nozzle 
at the end of the weed boom should allow herbicides to be applied 
without hitting the trees. 



Supplies : 
Source : 



W clips - 2000 
Applicator - 4 



per carton, 22 lbs 
lbs. 



Hop Growers Supply Co., Inc. 

PO Box 325 

Toppenish, Washington 98948 

Attn: Jim Owens 

Phone: (509)865-3731 



Cost 



1 



1 carton (2,000 w clips) 
1 clip applicator 
U. P. S . on cl ips 
U.P.S. on applicator 
Handling 



$18.40 

10.90 

10.06 

3.51 

10.00 

$52.87 



Editor's Note: 



Cost of supplies based on quotes received July, 1983 
At press time we were informed that Orchard Equipment and Supply 
Company, Conway, MA 01341 sell W clips and twine. 



-19- 

EFFECTS OF MINERAL NUTRITION ON KEEPING QUALITY 
OF CA McINTOSH IN MASSACHUSETTS 

W.J. Bramlage, M. Drake and S.A. Weiss 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

In the previous issue of FRUIT NOTES (Fall Issue, 1983) 
we reported results from a four-year study showing relation- 
ships of mineral nutrition to keeping quality of Mcintosh apples 
kept in air storage. We now have the results from this study 
showing how mineral nutrition is affecting keeping quality after 
CA storage. 

As described previously, 172 orchard blocks were sampled 
over a 4-year period. One bushel of apples from each block was 
stored in CA at 31 Oj, S% CO2, and 36°F for approximately 8 mon- 
ths, then kept 70-80 degrees F. After 1 day firmness was measured 
and after 1 week the apples were examined for the occurrence of 
breakdown, rot, scald, and bitter pit. However, scald and bitter 
pit were too infrequent on these samples for any relationships to 
mineral concentrations in the fruit to be established. 

Maintaining fruit firmness is vitally important to quality of 
Mcintosh after storage. In these tests firmness was measured at 
harvest and after storage. As we reported previously for air 
storage, mineral concentrations had no relationship to firmness 
after CA; all correlation coefficents were non- significant . Fruit 
maturity at harvest and postharvest conditions, not mineral concen- 
trations, are what regulated fruit firmness in these tests. 

Although the fruit were stored 3 months longer in CA than in 
air storage, the CA samples generally developed less breakdown and 
rot than did- the air-stored samples because CA greatly slows down 
changes in apples. Therefore, with smaller amounts of these problems, 
relationships of minerals to them tended to be lower than were the 
relationships to the same problems after air storage. This is 
illustrated in Table 1. Correlation coefficients express these 
relationships in such a way that the larger the number (whether it 
is positive or negative), the closer is the relationship. It can 
therefore be seen that in nearly every case, the relationship be- 
tween a mineral and a problem is somewhat less for CA-stored than 
for air-stored samples. 

Table 1 shows that mineral concentrations affected the occurr- 
ence of rot after storage. In this relationship, P concentration 
was more important than that of Ca. However, rot can generally be 
controlled by use of fungicides in postharvest treatments, which 
were not used in these tests. 



-20- 



For breakdown after CA-storage, Ca was twice as important as 
any other element. This relationship is shown graphically in 



any otner element. inis reiatiunsnip ib snown grapnicaiiy in 
Figure 1, where the percent ofthe fruit that developed breakdown 
after CA storage is plotted in relationship to the Ca concentration 
in the sample at harvest. This graph is virtually identical to 
the one presented in our previous article on Air-stored fruit. As 
pointed out then, samples very low in Ca (e.g., less than 130 ppm) 
almost always developed breakdown in more than 101 of the fruit, 
while samples high in Ca (e.g., more than 175 ppm) almost never 
developed breakdown in 10% or more of the fruit. Between these 
extremes, the lower the Ca the more likely the fruit were to develo 
excessive amounts of breakdown, although other factors probably 
determined whether or not these intermediate-Ca apples actually 
developed breakdown. These results show once again the importance 
of Ca in preventing breakdown of Mcintosh apples during and after 
long-term storage. 

Table 1. Correlation coefficients relating mineral concentrations 
in apples at harvest to occurrences of internal breakdown and 
rot after storage in air at 320F for 5 months, or after CA 
storage at 360F for 8 months. 



Element 




Breakdown after 




Rot 


after 




A 


ir storage 


CA storage 


Air storage 


■ CA storage 


Calcium 




-.40*** 


-.37*** 


-.19** 




-.14* 


Phosphorus 




-.33*** 


-.16* 


-.31*** 




_ 27*** 


Magnesium 




-.22** 


-.14* 


-.22** 




-.14* 


Potassium 




+ .12 


-.13* 


.00 




.00 


Nitrogen 




-.35*** 


-.18** 


+ .06 




-.17* 



Asterisks indicate the statistical odds that a real relationship 
exists : 

Odds of 19:1; **Odds of 99:1; ***Odds of 999:1 



-21- 



100 



o 

Q 

< 

LJ 

m 



q: 

UJ 



UJ 

o 
cr 



80 



60 - 



40 - 




r --.37*" 







• \» ••#i^» • • • • •*. •• — -:~- 

, •• • * *^ #••• J • «» « 



» 



100 



130 160 190 

CALCIUM, OUTER CORTEX TISSUE(ppm) 



2 50 



Figure 1. Relationship between occurrence of internal breakdown in 
Mcintosh apples after CA storage and the concentration of 
calcium in the samples at harvest. Points represent 172 
samples taken over a 4-year period. 



********** 
POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

V/illiam J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Differences between M7 and M7a . Occasionally we are asked what is 
the differences between Mailing (M) 7 rootstock and M7a rootstock. 
The rootstocks are similar except that M7a has been selected for its 
freedom from the so-called "latent viruses". These are viruses that 
are commonly present in apple varieties and include stem pitting, 
chlorotic leaf spot, platycarpa scaly bark and apple stem grooving. 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Volume 49 No. 2 
SPRING ISSUE, 1984 

Table of Contents 

Heading Cuts on Apple Trees Reduce Yields 

Pomoiogical Paragraph — Soil and Plant Tissue Testing 

Recommendations for Fertilizing Apple Trees and 
Increasing Calcium Content of Fruit 

Care of Trees on Arrival from the Nursery 

Practicality and Longevity of Hardpan Modification 

The Apple Maggot in Massachusetts, Michigan and 
West Coast States 

Gala — An Apple Variety Worthy of Trial 

The Use of Promalin to Improve the Shape of 
Delicious Apples 

Freedom: A New Disease-Resistant Apple 

Performance of Disease-Resistant Apples 

Gray Mold on Strawberries 



Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service in furtherance 

of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914; United States Department of Agriculture and 
County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers equal 
opportunity In programs and employment. 



M 


^■^S> ^^^^^^^^^^^^H 


y 


^v^^H^t JL ^^H 






^P^M M 


B 


B 



HEADING CUTS ON APPLE TREES REDUCE YIELDS 

W.J. Lord, R.A. Damon, Jr., J. Sincuk, and K.E. Slossepl 



University of Massachusetts 

In the past there was a general agreement in most fruit growing areas in the East on 
the basic principles and procedures recommended for training young apple trees. A 
central leader or modified central leader tree was usually favored, such a tree had the 
scaffold branches spaced 8 or more inches apart and spirally around the leader. To 
develop this tree thinning cuts were most often used; heading cuts were suggested only 
when necessary to balance the length of the scaffold limbs. We define pruning cuts as 
follows: Heading, reducing the length of 1-year-old wood by 25%; Stubbing, reducing 
the length of the branches with cuts made into 2-year-old or older wood; Thinning, remov- 
ing an entire shoot or branch at its junction with another shoot, branch or leader. Since 
the early 1970's pruning by heading cuts increased drastically in apple orchards throughout 
northeastern United States. On young, non-bearing trees, heading cuts are being used to 
stiffen branches, increase the length of the extension shoot of structural limbs, and 
particularly to increase secondary branching from structural limbs. In bearing orchards 
branches are headed to control size and shape of trees particularly when too closely 
spaced. The cuts are made with hand held tools and machines. 

During the last 7 years we have made extensive studies of growth and fruiting responses 
of Redspur Delicious trees to heading cuts. Our findings are summarized below. 

Methods and Materials 

The trees used in this experiment were planted in 1976, during the first growing season 
pruning was limited to the removal of branches arising within 18 inches of the ground. In 
March, 1977 the following pruning treatments were established and continued through 1982: 
(1) control[(conventional) Fig. la]; (2) thinning limbs to develop tiers and dormant heading 
cuts on I-year-old wood [(Tiers and Heading) Fig. IB]; and (3) minimum pruning (Slender 




Fig. 1A. 



Fig. IB. 



Two year old tree being pruned by standard prun- 
ing procedures. The lowest limb should be 18 to 
20 inches from the ground, all others spaced 4 to 
8 inches apart vertically on the trunk and each 
one about 90° around the trunk from the one 
below it. 

Two year old tree being pruned as suggested by 
the USDA. It has 2 layers of limbs. The leader 
will be headed annually [heavy marks ( — ) indi- 
cate heading cuts] . The one year old wood on the 
branches is headed annually until branches on 
which this wood is borne start to fruit. 



^Extension Fruit Specialist, Statistician, and Technical Assistants, respectively. 



-2- 



Spindle). All trees were trained to the central leader, free-standing pyramidal form. 
Limbs that required positioning were spread to a 45° to 60° angle to promote strong 
crotches and early bearing. 

Procedures followed in training trees to the Conventional system were as follows: 
(1) removing branches with narrow crotch angles; (2) removing undesirable branches to 
eliminate whorls and thus permitting only 1 branch to develop at a given level; (3) main- 
taining the dominance of the leader by suppressing or removing competing leaders; 
and (4) restricting too rapid development of certain structural (scoffold) limbs by stubbing- 
back to an outward horizontal shoot or branch. The objective was to develop a central 
leader tree with structural limbs symmetrically arranged around the vertical axis of the 
leader and spaced 8-12 inches verticallywith none directly above one another. Most cuts 
were thinning and stubbing cuts. 



Trees trained by the Tiers and Heading system received heading cuts on 1-year-old 
wood each dormant pruning season, starting in March, 1977, to shorten by 25% (a) the 
extension shoot of the central leader; (b) the extension shoot of each structural branch; 
and (c) each lateral shoot longer than 20 cm on structural branches (Fig. 2) . These cuts 



MOW TO GET IMt HIGH DENSITY T«EE OFF TO A GOOD STAIT. 
HEAVY MASKS SHOW WHEII PRUNING CUTS SHOULD «E MADE 




1-y«ar-otd itttion R«mov« oil 
compiling ihooti Hcod bock l«r- 
minal ihoot 

3-y»or-old lethoo Sel«(t and 
h«od lof«rol bron<h«i R«n<ov« 
unnacciiary lat«raU 

3-y«of-old i«cf<on Spfcod broncH- 
»t, remov* foiksd termtnaU 'o o 
lingl* ihoot and htod thol ihoof. 
H*ad fidt ihoott 

4-yaor old f«ction Spraod branch- 
• t. f«move loried t«m\inoli to o 
lingle ih»et and hood thol thool 
Hood fid* ihoolt 

S-yoor-old lOclton ond oldor If 
ffoe hoi fillod ollotlod tpoco, 
hood botk whofo noioiionr into 
I yoor old wood to on yntioodod 
lido ihoot Avoid hooding cult 
into l-y«Of-old ihooti ont.l tho 
Iroo It fruiting woll 



Fig. 2. A diagram of the "constructive training" program suggested by Dr. D.R. Heinicke in \JSDA Agriculture Handbook 
No. 458 entitled "High Density Apple Orchards— Planning, Training and Pruning." (Reproduced with permission of 
the author.) > 



were made to encourage development of lateral shoots which eventually became structural 
branches originating from the central leader or secondary branches as suggested by D.R. 
Heinicke and illustrated in Fig. 2. The lateral shoots on the central leader were thinned to 
create tiers of structural limbs spaced 20 to 24 inches apart. The headed wood generally 
produced a cluster of vigorous shoots directly behind the cut during the following growing 
season. Each summer when these shoots were 4 to 6 inches long, one was selected for the 
permanent extension shoot and 2 competitors were removed by hand to simulate the growth 
on a non-headed branch and to prevent excessive proliferation of the extension shoots. 



-3- 



On Slender Spindle trees the strong vertical leader was removed during dormant 
pruning and a weaker, upright-growing competitor was retained for the new extension 
shoot to weaken growth in the top of the tree. All lateral branches developing from 



I 




Fig. 3. Structural branch from 'Redspur Delicious' trees on which no heading cuts 
have been made. The secondary branching is shorter than on the branch 
shown in Fig. 4 but it has more fruit spurs and has been more productive. 



-4- 



the central leader were utilized unless they iiad narrow crotcli angles or competed 
with the central leader. 




Fig. 4. Structural branch from 'Redspur Delicious' tree on which heading cuts were 
made annually for 4-consecutive years. The white lines mark where heading 
cuts were made. The bearing surface on this limb is slightly greater than on 
the "typical" non-headed branch shown in Fig.3 but the procedure eliminated 
many potential fruiting spurs. 



-5- 

Results and Discussion 

Heading all of the 1-year-old shoots during dormant pruning followed with removal 
of 2 shoots directly below each heading cut during the growing season to leave 1 
terminal extension shoot, increased lateral growth some years but not others (Fig. 3 
and 4). However, yields were reduced on the Tiers and Headed trees in comparison 
to the Conventional and Slender Spindle Trees (Table 1). 

Table 1. Effects of pruning systems on tree size, and yield of redspur Delicious trees 
on M26. 



Variable 


Year 


Conven- 
tional 


Increase in trunk 






circum. (cm) 






. 


1977 


3.73aZ 




1978 


3.62a 




1979 


2.74a 




1980 


3.04a 




1981 


3.32a 




1982 


2.50a 


Yields (bushels) 


1979 


0.2ab 




1980 


0.8a 




1981 


l.Oab 




1982 


3.4a 


Cumulative Yield 






(bushels) 


1982 


5.4a 


No. scaffold 






limbs/tree 


1982 


13a 


Tree height (ft) 


1982 


10.8a 


Tree spread (ft) 


1982 


9.6a 



Pruning Treatment 

Tiers & Slender 

heading spindle 



3.06b 


3.41ab 


3.44a 


3.72a 


3.04a 


2.68a 


3.13a 


3.20a 


3.10a 


3.54a 


3.09a 


2.48a 


0.1b 


0.3a 


0.4b 


0.8a 


0.8b 


1.2a 


2.6b 


3.5a 



3.9a 



5.8a 



2a 


13a 


L7a 


10.7a 


8.2b 


10.0a 



^Mean separation in rows by Duncan's range test, 5% level. 



The decreased productivity of the Tiers and Headed trees was clearly a result of 
the heading-back cuts since the number of structural limbs per tree and tree size 
at the completion of the study, with the exception for branch spread, were smiliar 
among treatments (Table 1). The spread of the Tiers and Headed trees was less than 
that of Conventional and Slender Spindle trees because the branches were more up- 
right due to lighter cropping. Heading cuts reduced the length of 1-year-old wood, 
forced some lateral buds to produce vigorous shoots rather than flower buds; and removed 
the most productive section of the wood because the apical sections have more blossom 
clusters and fruit than the more basal sections of wood. 



-6- 

Our findings agree with a similar study conducted by Lord and Sincuk (2) with Spartan 
apple trees and with experiments of Elfving and Forshey in New York state (1). The latter 
workers used heading cuts of various severity on vigorous 1-year-old wood of a non-spur 
Delicious. Increased severity (removal of a greater fraction of 1-year-old wood) produced 
increased shoot growth from 1 and 2-year old wood. Fruitfulness decreased as severity increased. 

It is of interest to note in Table 1 that yields on the Conventional and Slender Spindle 
trees were comparable. However, the annual practice of removing the strong extension 
shoots of the central leader and using a weaker upright growing competitor as the new 
extension shoot on Slender Spinle trees to produce a zig-zag growth pattern was discontinued 
after the 1979 dormant pruning season due to difficulty in maintaining leader dominance. 
Trees on M26 seem to react more to unfavorable growing conditions tha those on more vigorous- 
size controlling rootstocks and the central leaders often require support but we also encounter- 
ed problems with apical dominance with Spartan trees on IV17a rootstock trained as Slender 
Spindles (2). These results and observations in a trial with Gardiner Delicious on MM106, 
IVIYa and M26 suggest that pruning the leaders to develop a zig-zag growth pattern and to 
reduce growth should be delayed on free standing trees until the leader nearly attains 
the height desired for the tree. 

Summary 

In todays economic climate of high interest rates growers must obtain a return on 
capital investment as soon as possible. The key to early fruiting is the planting of a well- 
feathered (branched) tree and the rapid development of a productive bearing surface. 
The grower has little control over the quality of the nursery stock, except to reject inferior 
trees; but has no one to blame but him/herself if early yields are reduced by improper 
pruning, especially an excessive number of heading cuts. Emphasis should be on training 
rather than pruning young trees since fruiting is the key to control of vegetative growth. 

Certainly, some pruning is necessary but the majority of cuts should be thinning rather 
than heading cuts on trees of all ages. Thinning cuts usually improve light penetration 
into the tree, thus increasing carbohydrates that encourage flower bud initiation. Heading 
cuts encourage vegetative growth which may increase shading in the interior of the tree and 
reduces fruitfulness. 

Fruiting decreases from the exterior to the interior of the tree and much of the wood 
4 years or older may have few, if any, flowering spurs. Thus, the 2- and 3-year-old wood 
is of great importance to the fruitfulness of apple trees and should be subjected to only 
modest pruning using thinning rather than heading cuts. 

Literature cited 

1. Elfving, D.C. and C.G. Forshey. 1972. Growth and fruiting responses of vigorous 

apple branches to pruning and branch orientation treatments. J. Amer. Soc. 
Hort. Sci. 101:290-293. 

2. Lord, W.J. and J. Sincuk. 1980. Progress report: Pruning effects on growth and 

fruiting of Spartan apple trees. Massachusetts Agr. Ext. Serv. Fruit Notes 
45(5):l-8. 



-7- 

POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



Soil and Plant Tissue Testing. Occasionally we receive inquiries from persons 
from other states about having leaf samples and/or soil samples analyzed at 
the Suburban Experiment Station in Waltham, Massachusetts. 

The service is avilable to all persons regardless of residence. To receive 
containers for soil and/or leaves, individuals desiring this service should complete 
and mail the following form with a check made payable to Soil Testing labor- 
atory. Send form and check to Suburban Experiment Station, 240 Beaver Street, 
Waltham, MA 02254. 

Soil is analyzed for pH and elements. Leaves are analyzed for 16 major and 
minor elements. 



Order form 

Please send me the following kits: 

Soil @ $5.00 each. 

Leaf sample @ $10.00 each. 

Enclosed please find $ . 

Name:_ 

Address 

_^ ^^^ zip 



-8- 



RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FERTILIZING APPLE TREES 
AND INCREASING CALCIUM CONTENT OF FRUIT 

William J. Lord and W.J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

NITROGEN (N) 

Many apple orchards are established in sod although we suggest eliminating the 
sod by plowing and disking or if the soil is extremely stony, by herbicides. If the 
site has been properly prepared and pH and nutritional problems have been corrected, 
no fertilizer may be needed the year of planting. However, trees planted on hay 
fields or pastures without extensive land preparation should receive N. Those planted 
on land previously in forest generally should receive a fertilizer containing both major 
and minor elements. 

Non-bearing trees. Lime but not fertilizer or manures can be put in the planting 
hole with the roots. Fertilizer, a complete fertilizer, or one containing N, potassium 
(K„0) and minor elements, should be applied after a rain has firmed the soil around 
the roots of the newly planted tree. Fertilize at the rate If 1/3 - 1/2 pound of 
ammonium nitrate (33% N) or its equivalent by spreading lightly in a wide circle around 
the tree (8 to 12 inches from the tree trunk). 
12 inches from the tree trunk). 

Table 1. Fertilizers, their nitrogen (N) content, and pounds that must be applied to 
equal a certain amount of actual N. 

Fertilizer % N Approximate pounds that must be applied to be 

equivalent to the following pounds of actual N. 

0.3 lb .6 lb 1.0 lb 

2.2 

3.0 

6.3 

6.3 

20.0 

12.5 

10.0 



It is extremely important to obtain good growth on the trees in their non-bearing 
years. However, water rather than N may be the limiting factor some years on some 
sites. 

N is usually applied at high rates to stimulate growth of trees while non-bearing. 
For example, at our Horticultural Research Center in Belchertown, MA, young, 
non-bearing trees may receive 0.3 - 0.6 lb of actual N/tree whereas bearing trees 
receive 0.0 - 0.3 lb of actual N/tree. 

After the year of planting, fertilizer, either nitrogen (N) alone, a complete 
fertilizer, or a fertilizer containing N and potassium (K„0) and minor elements, should 
be applied 3 to 4 weeks prior to bloom and at a rate of 1/3 pound of ammonium nitrate 
or its equivalent for each year of age. 



Urea 


45 


0.7 


1.3 


Ammonium nitrate 


33 


0.9 


1.8 


Sodium nitrate 


16 


1.9 


3.8 


Calcium nitrate 


16 


1.9 


3.8 


5-10-10 


5 


6.0 


12.0 


8-16-16 


8 


3.8 


8.0 


10-20-20 


10 


3.0 


6.0 



-9- 



Reduce or omit N on young, vigorous Mcintosh trees when they start to bear fruit, 
if the trees appear very vigorous, to avoid excessively large, poorly colored apples. 
With this cultivar and all other cultivars, start participating in the Leaf Analysis 
Program when the trees start to fruit in order to determine the fertilizer requirements 
of the trees. (Information concerning the Leaf Analysis Program and specific details 
on orchard fertilization can be obtained from your County Extension Service.) 

Bearing trees. There is no way to go broke faster than by producing high yields of 
soft, green apples that bruise easily and keep poorly. On older, bearing Mcintosh trees, 
N levels of 1.8 - 2.0% appear optimum. If the leaf analysis shows that the N level 
is above 2.0%, adjust the fertilizer program according to tree vigor, productiveness 
and fruit color, as experience indicates. High leaf N levels fall very slowly even when 
no additional N fertilizer is supplied because large reserves of the element accumulates 
in the soil, sod and tree. Therefore, it may take several years to bring an excess N 
level down to the normal level. 

Our data shows that the total amount of N being applied is usually more important 
concern to fruit quality than whether the N is supplied by applying ammonium nitrate, 
sodium nitrate, calcium nitrate, etc. 

Fertilizer Placement Under Bearing Trees. The mass of the secondary root system 
of apple trees lies between 2 and 3 feet in depth and within half the distance from 
the tree trunk and its dripline. This explains why our studies show that more efficient 
use of N and other elements can be obtained by application within a limited area closer 
to the tree trunk rather than by application near the tree's dripline or a broadcast 
application under the entire spread of the tree. Recent studies in England show that 
under herbicide-strip management and with a wide in-row spacing, as in common in 
Massachusetts, there was little N uptake from the grassed alley. 

POTASSIUM (K) 

Generally N is the only element required by non-bearing trees. However, experience 
has shown that K is needed by non-bearing trees on land cleared from forests and on 
sites with sandy or gravelly soil, or very acid soil. 

Not all horizons in the soil are equally able to supply nutrients to the tree. The 
concentration of most elements are highest at the soil surface and decrease with 
depth, but the rate of decrease differs between elements. For example, there is a 
strong vertical difference in K status in soil, K being highest near the surface. 

Under drought conditions the permeability of the roots to water uptake decreases 
very rapidly; reduction in water permeability reduces the uptake of all ions. In Massa- 
chusetts we are particularly concerned about K and B deficiency and reduced fruit 
size in drought years as was experienced during the summer of 1983. 

Total K absorbed and the total dry matter produced is similar for fruiting and non- 
fruiting trees of the same size but in heavy-cropping trees K is translocated into the 
fruits. Thus, the demand of a larger crop for K is great and both the tree and fruit 
may be deficient in this element. 



-in- 

Tree requirements for K. K„0* needed to meet the K requirements based on potential 
yields are as follows: (a) less than 15 bushels: 1.3 lbs/tree; (b) 15 to 25 bushels: 1.3 
- 2.7 lbs/tree; and (c) more than 25 bushels: 2.7 - 4.3 lbs/tree. The K„0 requirements 
can be supplied by applying muriate of potash, a "complete" fertilizer or Sulpomag**. 
Increasing the K level in the trees will further reduce IVIg. Therefore, Sulpomag is 
suggested when trees are low both in K and Mg because the elements must be kept 
in balance. This fertilizer contains not less than 21% of potash (K2O), nor less than 
53% of sulfate of magnesia. Mature trees below normal in K will require 200-300 
of K or 600 lbs of Sulpomag per acre. FERTILIZERS SIMILAR TO SULPOMAG MAY 
BE AVAILABLE AND EQUALLY SUITABLE. 

CALCIUM (Ca) 

If Ca is below normal, continue to apply 3 tons of limestone per acre every 2 to 
3 years. Where high magnesium lime was used in the last application, the use of a 
more soluble high Ca, low Mg lime (5 - 7% MgO) will act more rapidly and will provide 
more Ca. 

Apply foliar sprays of CaCl2, beginning 3 weeks after petal fall and repeat at 2 
week intervals totaling 6 to 8 applications. Apply 6 pounds CaCl2 per acre per spray 
until mid-July. After mid-July apply 8-10 pounds per acre per spray. Continue foliar 
CaCl2 until fruit are ready for harvest. Use a technical grade of CaCl2 such as Allied 
Chemical Dow Flake, 77-80% CaCl2. Other brands may be equally suitable. 

Experience in Massachusetts has shown that CaCl2 can be combined with pesticide 
sprays. However, some growers have observed that the combination of Captan or 
Guthion (azinphosmethyl) 50 WP and CaCl2 may increase foliar burn. DO NOT MIX 
CaCl2 AND SOLUBOR SPRAYS! ALWAYS DISSOLVE CaCl2 IN A PAIL OF WATER 
and add this last, when the spray tank is nearly full, to insure that the CaCl2 is 
completely dissolvedbefore spraying begins. 

Foliar CaCl2 sprays may be applied as dilute (300 gallons/acre) or up to lOX 
concentration (30 gallons/acre) . In our research, apple flesh Ca was increased more 
by concentrated than by dilute sprays. 

CaCl2 sprays can cause burn of leaf margins. Foliar injury has been more serious 
on Mcintosh than on Delicious or Cortland. Apple leaves are less susceptible to CaCl2 
burn after mid-July. Mcintosh growing on M7 may be more susceptible to foliar burn 
than those on standard rootstock. Weak or injured trees may be more susceptible to 
CaCl2 burn than healthy trees. To reduce the chance of leaf burn, DO NOT REPEAT 
A FOLIAR CaCl2 SPRAY UNLESS ONE-HALF TO ONE INCH OF RAIN HAS FALLEN 
SINCE THE LAST APPLICATION. 

We also urge growers to seriously consider supplementing CaCl2 sprays with 
post-harvest CaCl2 dips or drenches especially fruit intended for long-term storage. 
A postharvest Ca application is viewed as a food-additive process by the Food and Drug 
Administration. That agency has stipulated the "Brining Grade" CaCl2 containing 94% 
CaCl2 is acceptable for postharvest use. The technical flake CaCl2 commonly used 
for tree sprays is still acceptable for tree sprays, but it may not be used for postharvest 
treatments. Therefore, anyone wishing to use postharvest CaCl2 treatments must obtain 
the Briner's Grade material, which is now readily available from suppliers. 



* 
Potassic fertilizers are usually guaranteed in terms of their content of the oxide of 

potassium (K2O). The commonly used potash salts are the refined muriate or chloride 

containing 50-60% K2O. 
** 

Trade name 



-11- 

Calc2 may be combined with scald inhibitors and fungicides in the post-harvest 
treatment solution. Cornell University has recommended the following mixture for 
postharvest treatment of Mcintosh: 

21 lbs of CaCl2 per 100 gallons of water 

1/2 lb of Benlate or 16 fluid ounces of Mertect 

1 lb of Captan 

1000 - 2000 ppm DPA 

We suggest that 1/2 quart of vinegar also be added to this mixture in 100 gallons 
of water. The vinegar neutralizes the CaCl2, which otherwise makes the solution 
alkaline. There is evidence that the alkaline solution may cause the fungicides to 
break down rapidly in solution, and the addition of vinegar can protect against their 
alkaline degradation. 

In use of postharvest CaCl2 drenches or dips, it is important to understand that 
little or no Ca enters the fruit during the treatment. The purpose of the drench is 
to leave a residue of CaCl2 on the fruit. Ca is slowly absorbed by the apple from 
the residue during storage. Therefore, the drench is never followed by a rinse, which 
would remove the residue. Furthermore, for Ca to be absorbed from the residue, the 
residue must not dry out. However, if the storage is operated at lesss than 90% relative 
humidity the residue may dry out and no Ca uptake will occur as a result of the drench 
treatment. 

We have encountered no difficulty from this residue when apples are removed from 
storage. It will be removed if apples are water-dumped, but even with hand-packed 
fruit no difficulty has been reported. 

CaCl2 drenches can cause fruit injury, which occurs as tiny black spots on the surface 
of the fruit. Generally, these spots are concentrated in the calyx cup of the apple 
and are not objectionable, although under some circumstances they may coalesce into 
more unsightly blotches or may occur at the lenticels on the cheeks. Do not exceed 
the recommended CaCl2 concentration, as risk of this injury escalates rapidly at higher 
concentrations. 

CaCl2 is also corrosive, so equipment should be thoroughly cleaned at completion 
of treatment. However, with appropriate rinsing corrosion should not be a concern. 

The purpose of the postharvest application of CaCl2 is to reduce the risk of 
breakdown, rot, and scald during but especially after storage. The recommended 
treatment will not make fruit firmer, but will improve their ability to hold up during 
marketing. Treatments will be of greatest benefit to mature fruit destined for long-term 
storage. Overripe fruit cannot be expected to benefit significantly from a CaCl2 
treatment. 

MAGNESIUM (Mg) 

Mg deficiency is closely associated with very acid soils. The pH in most orchards 
is higher than 25-years ago because liming programs and the change from sulfur to 
organic fungicides; thus, Mg deficiency is now not common. 

Dolomitic lime (high Mg lime) is the least expensive source of Mg for orchards. 
It can be applied anytime during the year. If the Mg level in leaves is below 0.25% 
apply 3 tons/A of dolomitic lime to maintain a soil pH of 6.0 - 6.5. If the Mg level 
is below 0.20%, we also recommend 2 or 3 Epsom salt sprays at 15 to 20 lbs per 100 
gallons dilute at approximately petal fall, first, and second cover. We suggest that 
the Epsom salt sprays be applied as separate applications. However, pomologists in 
other fruit growing areas in eastern United States believe that Epsom salts are 
compatible with most pesticides up to 15X concentration. 



12- 



MANGANESE (Mn) 

Mn is the most frequently deficient element in apple trees. Mn deficiency should 
be corrected on trees showing considerable foliage damage. Although we have no 
definite proof, Mn deficiency appeared to be associated with excessive fruit drop 
on a few trees in orchard in 1977. Mn deficiency can be corrected by foliar applications 
of manganese sulfate or of a fungicide containing Mn. Apply manganese sulfate at 
about first cover at the rate of 3 lb per 100 gallons of water. If using a Mn-containing 
fungicide, 2 or 3 applications are necessary with timings about petal fall, first and 
second cover. 

BORON (B) 

B can be supplied to bearing apple trees either by foliar or soil applications. Use 
the most economical and convenient method. However, it is safest to apply all elements 
as a fertilizer except in emergency situations. 

Soil applications of boron should be applied to orchards every 3 years. The rate 
of application per tree vary with tree age and size. In low density orchards, apply 
1/4 lb of borax (11.1% actual B) or its equivalent under young trees coming into bearing, 
1/2 to 3/4 pound to medium age and size trees and 3/4 to 1 lb to large or mature trees. 
Be sure to note the percent actual B in the fertilizer being used to supply this element. 
B containing fertilizers vary from approximately 11 to 21% actual B. 

In medium and high density orchards (115 trees/acre or higher), it might be best 
to apply B on an acre basis. We suggest the following rates per acre of borax (11.1% 
actual B) or its equivalent: (a) trees 4 to 7 years of age - 12 lbs; (b) trees 8 to 15 years 
of age - 12 to 24 lbs; and (c) trees 16 to 30 years of age - 24 to 48 lbs. 

When the soil application of B is followed by a wet spring, it may be advisable to 
apply 2 foliar applications of B the following year. 

Many growers now rely on annual foliar applications of B. The usual practice is 
to add Solubor to the first 2 cover sprays. Fertilizer grades of borax may contain 
grit and should not be used in a sprayer. Mature trees should receive 4 pounds of Solubor 
per acre each year. Consequently, the goal is to apply about 2 pounds per acre in each 
of the 2 applications. For young orchards, the addition of 1/2 pound of Solubor per 
100 gallons (dilute basis) to the first 2 cover sprays meets the B requirements of these 
trees. Reports of New York State indicate that sprays can be concentrated up to 8X 
with satisfactory results. 

Leaf samples from orchards treated with Solubor have indicated adequate leaf 
B levels but the fruit was deficient in this element. Whether or not B applied as a 
fertilizer more adequately meets the B requirement of apples than foliar applied B 
is not known to us. 

ZINC (Zn) 

Based on optimum levels of Zn established by Dr. Warren Stiles, Cornell University 
(See FRUIT NOTES 47(2):20-26, 1982) some of our orchards continue to be low in this 



-13- 



element. W. Stiles considers optimum Zn leaf levels to be 35 - 50 ppm with 
concentrations below 15 ppm being deficient. He has stated that "annual requirements 
for Zn are approximately 2 lbs per acre if applied as inorganic salts in dormant sprays 
or approximately 0.2 - 0.3 lbs of actual Zn applied as foliar sprays of EDTA chelates 
IT to 5 lbs/acre). Amounts of Zn required to correct severe deficiencies may be 4 
to 5 times these amounts. Zn-containing fungicides provide some benefit but are not 
adequate to supply the total need." 






CARE OF TREES ON ARRIVAL FROM THE NURSERY 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

A local nurseryman expressed concern last year about grower care of trees prior 
to planting. He was particularly concerned with storage of trees with apples and about 
soaking trees in water for 2-3 weeks. 

If trees from the nursery arrive in bad condition from drying in transit, pomologists 
years ago suggested soaking the entire tree in a brook or a pond for a day or two. We 
have seen no comments concerning the effect of soaking trees for longer periods of 
time! Due to the possibility of tree injury from the lack of oxygen, we suggest soaking 
the roots in water no longer than a day or two. 

Our recommendations for care of trees on arrival from the nursery are as follows: 

1. Check the trees to determine if tree count and cultivar/rootstock and size agrees 
with order and to determine if injury to the trees might have occurred in handling 
and shipping. Do this where it is cool and the roots will not dry out. 

2. If planting conditions are not suitable, open the bundles of trees and store them 
in a cool, well-ventilated area and be sure the roots are kept moist, or heal them 
in a shady area, or cover the roots with wet soil, peat or sawdust in an open shed. 

3. DO NOT STORE trees with apples or where they have been stored. It is possible 
that residual ethylene in the storage atmosphere might break dormancy of the trees 
and when planted they may fail to grow properly or even die. Pear trees are especially 
sensitive to injury. 

4. If the roots of the trees are dry, soak the roots in water for 2-24 hours prior to 
planting. 



-14- 

PRACTICALITY AND LONGEVITY OF HARDPAN MODIFICATION 

Peter L.M. Veneman 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

About 40% of the soils in Massachusetts have a hardpan within 3 ft of the soil surface. 
Considering the fact that a large number of our orchards are located on drumlins 
(elongated or oval hills of glacial drift), I estimate that between 50 to 60% of the 
Massachusetts orchard soils have a hardpan within 3 ft depth. The presence of this 
pan is well known to most fruit growers as it often necessitates sub-surface tile drainage. 
The low water permeability is due to a high bulk density of the pan material. This often 
inhibits root proliferation as well, which may result in increased susceptibility to 
midsummer droughts and excessive frost heaving during the winter. 

Modern, size-controlling rootstocks seem especially sensitive to the presence 
of this hardpan. The dwarfing effect not only occurs above-ground, but is also evident 
from a less prolific root system as compared to that of standard rootstocks. In addition, 
size-controlling rootstocks such as M7a are in full production after about 10-12 years, 
while the standard trees take much longer to become productive. The longer time period 
permits the establishment of an extensive root system before this becomes strained 
under the demands of a maturing fruit crop. Even though economic conditions dictate 
the need for early production, tree vigor and the need to sustain long-term production 
capacity necessitate the establishment of a healthy and extensive root system prior 
to the onset of production. 

This article reviews the pertinent literature concerning the long-term persistence 
of soil profile modifications and discusses practical methods which may improve root 
vigor of fruit trees in hardpan soils. 

A variety of experiments have been carried out in past years to evaluate the effects 
of soil profile modification on drainage, water availability, frost heaving and crop yield. 
In general, the deeper and more extensive the initial soil disturbance is, the better the 
results (Unger 1979). Various experiments (Mech et al. 1967, Bradford and Blanchar 
1977) found that mixing the top soil with sub-surface layers, and additions of lime, 
fertilizer or even sawdust significantly increased yields of alfalfa and sorghum. It is 
reasonable to assume that such an improved growth environment also will foster the 
development of fruit trees, both above and below ground. Recent research reports 
(Unger, 1979) stress the importance of mixing the topsoil with the subsoil to obtain lasting 
results. Studies in New York indicated that modification of a hardpan by mechanical 
disturbance alone, resulted in re-establish ment of dense soil layers in less than 11 years 
while buried topsoil remained less dense even after that period (Fritton and Olson, 1972). 
Researchers in Pennsylvania found that additions of organic matter wiU delay the 
soil's return to its original bulk density for a period of 7 to 8 years (Fritton et al. 1983). 
That study also reported the ineffectiveness of subsoiling and deep tillage when the 
topsoil was not mixed with subsoil. 

The use of topsoil from old orchards for new plantings may be less desirable when 
the soil is suspected to contain large numbers of nematodes. Thorough mechanical 
mixing may reduce the nematode population susbstantially (R. Rohde, personal 
communication). Use of non-orchard topsoil, hay or peat will prevent a nematode problem 
and give the young trees a head start, although this method probably is more costly. 



-15- 



A comparison of various apple planting methods in West Virginia (Auxt et al., 
1980) showed that tree vigor was best when procedures were used which resulted in 
a large disturbance of the soil. Trees planted by backhoe or tree planter were most 
successfully established, while a conventional 24" soil auger resulted in less tree vigor 
and anchorage. It was found that use of 12" or 24" augers resulted in significant soil 
compaction, which negatively affected tree growth. The West Virginia soils contained 
more clay than most Massachusetts orchard soils, but smearing of the soil can be a 
significant problem in this region as most of the trees are planted during early spring 
when the soil often is extremely wet. 

While the long-term effects of soil profile modification are debatable, the 
short-term benefits are beyond doubt. These include improved drainage, aeration and 
water holding capacity, and less problems with frost heaving. When planting fruit trees 
it is generally a good practice to make the planting hole as large as possible. When 
the soil contains a hardpan at shallow depth this procedure is even more important to 
provide the tree with an environment for optimum growth. Mixing topsoil with the 
subsoil, and additions of lime, fertilizer and organic matter such as hay and peat, will 
prolong the effect of soil profile modification and thus lengthen the period of root 
prolification. Smearing of the soil should be prevented, but is especially important 
when augers are used. When smearing in the borehole is evident, remove the smeared 
surface with a knife. Never plant the trees in waterlogged planting holes. Wait until 
the soils dry out or plant the trees in the fall. If excessive wetness is a reoccuring 
problem at the future planting site, ensure proper drainage first and select rootstocks 
which can endure wet feet. Anybody can plant a tree. Planting of a tree which will 
last and prosper takes considerable time and care. 



References Cited 

1. Auxt, T., S. Blizzard, and K. Elliott. 1980. Comparison of apple planting methods. 
J. Am. Soc. Hort. 105:468-472. 

2. Bradford, J.M. and R.W. Blanchar. 1977. Profile modification of a Fragiudalf to 
increase crop production. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 4:127-121. 

3. Fritton, D.D., and G.W. Olson. 1972. Bulk density of a fragipan soil in natural and 
disturbed profiles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 36:686-689. 

4. Fritton, D.D., F.N. Swader, and K. Hoddinott. 1983. Profile modification persistence 
in a fragipan soil. Soil Sci. 136:124-130. 

5. Mech, S.J., G.M. Horner , L.M. Cox, and E.E. Cary. 1967. Soil profile modification 
by backhoe mixing and deep plowing. Trans. Am. Soc. Agri. Eng. 10:775-779. 



-16- 



THE APPLE MAGGOT IN MASSACHUSETTS, MICHIGAN AND WEST COAST STATES 



Ronald J. Prokopy 
Department of Entomology 



Massachusetts apple growers are all too familiar with the apple maggot and the 
type of fruit injury that this pest can cause. During our pilot integrated pest management 
(IPM) program on apples in Massachusetts from 1978-1982, we used sticky-coated red 
wooden spheres to monitor the time and extent of maggot activity in 16-60 commercial 
orchard blocks each year. Without exception, at least a few maggot flies were captured 
annually in each block. In some cases, several hundred were caught in a single block. 

Our experience shows that 99.9% or more orchard maggot fly populations in 
Massachusetts originate from wild or abandoned host apple or hawthorn trees within 
a few hundred yards of the orchard. On only 2 occasions have we found maggot flies 
emerging from within a commercial orchard itself. In both of these, maggot-infested 
early-maturing varieties such as Puritan and Astrachan were not harvested the previous 
year. 

Despite the continuous pressure that maggot flies exert on our Massachusetts 
orchards, only 0.08 and 0.09% of harvested fruit showed maggot injury in IPM and check 
orchards, respectively, during the 5 years of the pilot IPM program [see FRUIT NOTES 
48(3)]. The principal reason for this comparatively low fruit injury is the high sensitivity 
of the adults to even low dosages of pesticide. Moreover, as shown by the work of Dr. 
Harvey Reissig of Geneva, New York, some pesticides such as Guthion are highly effective 
not only against the adults but also kill the eggs and young larvae, just beneath the 
fruit skin. 

Our experience reveals that so long as growers rely on red sphere trap captures 
to determine need and timing of maggot fly sprays, there is very little chance of any 
injury occurring. Most of the maggot injury detected in Massachusetts has been on late 
varieties such as Delicious and Golden Delicious in cases where substantial fly 
immigration occurred 2 or more weeks after spraying ceased for the year. 

Michigan apple growers in 1983 experienced more apple maggot injury than at 
any time during the past 2-3 decades. According to Michigan fruit entomologist Dr. 
Gus Howitt, fruit of late varieties such as Jonathan had more than 5% maggot injury 
in many orchards. Dr. Howitt told me that hundreds of thousands of bushels have been 
rejected for fresh fruit market and for processing because of excessive maggot injury. 

Dr. Howitt attributed the severe maggot problem in Michigan in 1983 to the very 
dry summer, which precluded summer emergence of flies from overwintering pupae. 
Emergence didn't begin in full force until just after heavy rains in late August and early 
September. By that time, most of the summer-maturing fruits on wild or abandoned 
trees had fallen, thereby stimulating extensive immigration of flies into commercial 
orchards. The warm September was favorable for fly egglaying in late varieties. Also, 



-17- 



red spheres were used by only a handful of Michigan growers to monitor fly activity, 
and most spraying had ceased by early to mid-August. This combination of events 
undoubtedly explains the maggot fly problem which occurred in Michigan. It should 
serve as a reminder to us that the comparatively little effort required to emplace and 
examine red spheres for monitoring maggot fly abundance can pay very large dividends. 

Eastern and midwestern growers are not the only ones who must be concerned 
with apple maggot. In 1979, a homeowner near Portland, Oregon brought some rotting 
apples to the local extension service which were diagnosed as being heavily infested 
with apple maggot larvae. Subsequent trapping and fruit injury surveys on the west 
coast showed that apple maggot is more or less continuously distributed from southern 
Washington to northern California. Numerous wild apple and hawthorn host trees in 
presently infested areas appear capable of supporting substantial fly populations. 

Just how far the fly can penetrate into the major apple growing regions around 
Yakima and Wenatchee in Washington is uncertain. The very dry summers in the 
Washington state fruit growing areas coupled with the relatively low numbers of wild 
host trees, are factors arguing against the widespread establishment of apple maggot 
much beyond the northern border of Oregon. Nonetheless, a concerted and expensive 
effort is now underway to maintain a buffer (fly-free) zone around the present infestation 
area in Washington to prevent any further northward movement. The buffer zone, about 
15 miles wide, is trapped heavily (50-80 traps per square mile) for maggot flies. Imidan 
is sprayed extensively in locales surrounding sites of trap captures. In addition, there 
is an intensive host tree removal program within the buffer zone. 

In Oregon, the apple maggot is now so entrenched (it may have been there, 
undetected, for 10-20 years prior to 1979) that no feasible means exists of exluding it 
from the vicinity of any of the apple growing areas. However, buffer zones, similar 
to those in Washington, have been erected immediately around certain locales of intensive 
apple growing, such as the Hood River Valley. 

Possibly California apple growers believed the fly would never be so bold as to 
move south across the Oregon border. But on August 24, 1983 the first flies were detected 
in traps about 50 miles into California. Within 2 months, the area of known infestation 
reached about 150 miles south into California. Actually, it shouldn't be surprising that 
the apple maggot was found in California. During the past 30 years apple maggot (in 
the form of larvae in infested fruit) was intercepted by Border Station Inspectors more 
often than any other insect pest entering that state. 

In mid-October, 1983 1 was asked to chair a panel of scientists to go before officials 
of the California Department of Agriculture, growers, and the public to make 
recommendations as to what to do about this "sudden" invasion of the fly. Because 
of the near hysteria caused by the Mediterranean fruit fly invasion of California in 
1981, 1 was very reluctant to accept this charge. But it proved to be a highly informative 
and relatively calm experience. 

Our panel concluded that the apple maggot fly had probably been in California 
for at least 5 years. Scouts were finding it nearly everywhere they looked, although 



-18- 



never in very large numbers at any one site. Possibly the apple maggot will have 
difficulty building into high populations in more southern regions such as California. 
At present, its southernmost distribution lies only a hundred miles or so north of one 
of the major California apple producing areas. 

For several biologically-based reasons, our panel concluded that it was virtually 
impossible to eradicate the apple maggot from California, given its already widespread 
distribution in that state and neighboring Oregon and given the fact that a major part 
of the present area of infestation lies in the heart of the California marijuana growing 
region. Marijuana is the largest "agricultural" crop of California, even exceeding cotton, 
and is worth more than 1.3 billion dollars per year. It is very dangerous for state 
employees to explore terrain within this region (often laden with land mines to deter 
unwanted visitors) to seek out maggot flies and host trees to eradicate. Hence we 
recommended adoption of buffer zone procedures similar to those used in Washington 
and Oregon. Whether this recommendation will in fact be adopted remains to be seen. 

Thus, 1983 was a big year for the apple maggot in Michigan, Washington, Oregon, 
and California. We are fortunate that 1983 was not a problem year for apple maggot 
in Massachusetts. 



Gala - An Apple Variety Worthy of Trial 

James F. Anderson 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Gala, a variety from New Zealand has been receiving much favorable attention. 
This variety resulted from a cross between Kidd's Orange and Golden Delicious and 
was introduced in 1960. We have fruited Gala for 4 seasons. The fruit has been medium 
to large in size on these trees planted in 1978. The fruits are generally round-conic 
in shape. The skin is smooth and the color golden-yellow overlaid with about 80% red. 
The flesh is yellow crisp and has a very good flavor. The fruit in our Belchertown orchard 
has been harvested during the second and third week of September, the fruit hangs well 
on the tree. The fruit stores well for a fall apple. Gala appears to be a productive 
variety and merits trial by those growers operating farm markets. 



-19- 



THE USE OF PROMALIN TO IMPROVE THE SHAPE OF DELICIOUS APPLES 

Duane W. Greene and William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Promalin is a plant growth regulator that has been used for several years in 
Massachusetts orchards to increase the length (L/D ratios or typiness) of Delicious apples 
(Figure 1). Promalin contains equal amounts of gibberellins (GA4 and GA7) and a 
cytokinin, 6-benzyladenine. We previously reviewed research results and made suggestions 
for the use of Promalin (FRUIT NOTES 43(3):4-7, 44(3):4-8 and 45(3):8-12). The purposes 
of this article are to summarize results from several years of research results with 
Promalin, and to make suggestions for successful use of Promalin to enhance the shape 
of Delicious. 




Figure 1. The effect of Promalin on shape of Delicious apples. The apple on the left 
was treated with I2 pt Promalin per acre and the one on the right was 
unsprayed. 



Coverage. When using plant growth regulators it is generally emphasized that uniform 
spray coverage is essential for satisfactory results. This is especially true when using 
Promalin. In both 1978 and 1979 the greatest increase in L/D ratio occurred only when 
Promalin came in direct contact with the portion of the flower that develops into the 
fruit (receptacle and calyx end of the receptacle). Application to the pedicel (stem) 
was much less effective (Table 1). 



-20- 

Table 1. Effect of the site of Promalin application on the L/D ratio of Richared 
Delicious apples. 



Treatment^ 








L/D Ratio* 




(Microliters) 


1978 




1979 


Check 






0.93cX 




0.91c 


Petals, 25y 






0.94c 




0.91c 


Petals, 150 






0.99b 






Receptacle surface. 


25 


1.03a 




1.03a 


In Calyx end, 


, 25 




1.03a 




1.04a 


Pedicel, 25 










0.97b 


Spur leaves. 


250 








0.90c 



^50 ppm solution containing 0.05% X-77 applied at fullbloom. All blossom clusters 
reduced to one flower and then hand-pollinated with Early Mcintosh pollen. 

YA 25 microliter droplet was large enough to wet the receptacle or pedicel surface 
with no runoff. 

'^Numbers in a column followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds 
of 19 to 1. 



Petals at the normal application time account for a substantial portion of the flower 
surface area. However, they appear to be relatively unimportant as a vehicle for 
absorption. Even 150 pi applied to the petals (the volume comparable to a dilute 
application) was only moderately effective at increasing the L/D ratios. Spur leaves 
were totally ineffective as sites of Promalin absorption. Therefore, not only must 
Promalin be directed uniformly to all parts of the tree but droplets must also come 
in direct contact with the receptacle of each flower for the maximum response. 

Use of surfactants and adjusting pH of spray solution. Surfactants frequently increase 
the penetration of growth regulators. However, the use of surfactants is generally 
not recommended with growth regulators, since most formulated growth regulators 
(e.g.. Alar 85, Fruitone N, e.tc.) already contain a surfactant. In contrast, the Promalin 
formulation contains no surfactant, so we thought that the use of a surfactant with 
Promalin might increase the Promalin effect on fruit L/D ratio. In addition, the ability 
of gibberellins to enter the plant may be regulated by spray pH. Reduction of the pH 
of the spray from near neutrality (pH 7.0) down to near pH 4.0 should enhance penetration, 
but field effects have not been well documented. 

A trial was conducted using a combination of surfactants and a reduction in spray 
pH was done on Royal Red Delicious. Glyodin, Biofilm and Buffer-X served as surfactants 
and the pH was reduced in 2 treatments with the nutrient spray Sorba Mg. Buffer-X 
contains a buffer to reduce pH (pH 4.8 in this trial). The combined sprays of a surfactant 
with the commercial buffer tended to increase the L/D ratio beyond that produced 
by Promalin alone (Table 2). Growers must be cautioned, however, that the enhanced 
response with surfactants and/or buffers also increase the chance of thinning. 



L/D = Length/diameter ratio. An apple with an L/D ratio of 1.04 is longer and more 
"typey" than one with a ratio of 0.90. 



-21- 

Table 2. The effects of surfactants and pH modification on the performance of 
Promalin applied to Royal Red Delicious, 1978. 



Treatment^ 


Fruit 




Fruit 




per cm 




weight 




limb circ. 


L/D ratio 


fe) 


Check 


7. lay 


0.95c 


154abc 


Promalin 


G.Oab 


1.00b 


142b 


Promalin + Sorba (Mg)+ 








Glyodin 


4.9bc 


1.04a 


146bc 


Promalin + Sorba (Mg)+ 








Biofilm 


4.8bc 


1.03a 


156ab 


Promalin + Buffer-X 


4.1c 


1.02ab 


161a 



^l pt of each chemical was used per 100 gal. of water. Treatments applied at 
rate of 125 gal/acre at petal fall of the king blossom. 

yNumbers in a column followed by different letters are significantly different at 
odds of 19 to 1. 



Fruit set following Promalin application. Within 2-3 days following a Promalin appli- 
cation, calyx swelling and closing is apparent, first on the king blossom and then on 
lateral blossoms. Promalin merely accelerates that which normally occurs on pollinated 
flowers. Ten to 12 days after application, Promalin appears to have increased fruit 
set. However, about 15 days after bloom, yellowing of the pedicels occurs on many 
of the developing fruit in the cluster. By 3 weeks after bloom most of the less vigorous 
fruit have dropped and within 4 weeks after bloom fruit set has been determined and 
subsequent drop is minimal. 

Thinning due to Promalin application. It is well documented that Promalin can thin. 
However, in most cases where Promalin has thinned, label directions were not followed. 
Causes of thinning include: 

1. Overapplication. The most frequent cause of thinning due to over-application is 
poor sprayer calibration. Portions of a tree also may be overthinned due to poor 
spray distribution within the tree. Lower, weaker spurs thin more easily than more 
vigorous spurs located in the tops of trees. 

2. Application during hot weather. If Promalin is applied when temperatures exceed 
85°F, the likelihood of thinning is dramatically increased. 

3. Application on young trees. Treatment of young trees frequently results in complete 
removal of the crop. This is particularly detrimental on young Delicious trees just 
coming into bearing since even a small crop is quite useful to bring down branches, 
help slow growth and encourage consistent fruiting. 

Nevertheless, thinning due to Promalin may also be more apparent than real. Pro- 
malin may merely accelerate young fruit abscission that would normally occur during 
the early 'June-drop' period. It would certainly appear that Promalin was increasing 
thinning if you assessed fruit set 2-3 weeks after bloom. However, in most situations, 
it appears that Promalin has advanced the 'June-drop' by about 2-3 weeks, thus giving 
only the impression of thinning. While Promalin can indeed cause thinning, caution 
should be exercised in concluding that this has happened on your trees. 



-22- 



Use of chemical thinning following Promalin application. Promalin applied by itself is 
capable of thinning. A chemical thinner, generally Sevin, is often used during the 
post-bloom period on Delicious. Frequently, increased thinning is observed when 2 
different thinning agents are applied. Therefore, it is particularly important to know 
if Promalin-treated trees are thinned to a greater extent than unsprayed trees when 
chemical thinners are applied. We have attempted to answer this question with 5 different 
experiments over the past 4 years using both Sevin and NAA as chemical thinners. Results 
of a typical experiment are shown in Table 3. When applied as a dilute spray during the 
bloom period, Promalin thinned. Sevin thinned Promalin-treated or untreated trees 
comparably. In no experiment did the combination of Promalin with either chemical 
thinner reduce the crop load below that on trees treated with either Promalin or the 
chemical thinner alone. Very 'typey' fruit with large L/D ratios were harvested from 
both Promalin and Promalin-plus-chemical thinner trees. 

Table 3. Effect of Promalin, Sevin, and naphthaleneticetic acid (NAA) on fruit set, fruit characteristics anc 
yield of Double Red Delicious apples. 
1982. 







Blossom 

clusters/ 

cm limb 

circum. 

1982 




Fruit 


Fruit 
wt. 

(g) 


L/D 
ratio 


Seeds/ 

fruit 




Treatment^ 
(ppm) 


per cm 

limb 
circum. 


per 100 
blossom 
clusters 


Yield 
(bu/tree) 


Check 




10.1a 


7.6ab 


75.7b 


169a 


0.96b 


6.3a 


11.0a 


Promalin 25 




10.1a 


5.1c 


56.3bc 


179a 


1.04a 


5.6b 


8.9b 


Promalin 25 + 


Sevin 1200 


9.9a 


A.lc 


/i0.3c 


176a 


l.OAa 


4.5c 


6.1c 


Promalin 25 + 


NAA 6 


9.6a 


6.3bc 


66.9b 


123b 


1.03a 


1.7d 


7.2bc 


Sevin 1200 




9.0a 


ii.lC 


55.0bc 


176a 


0.96b 


4.0c 


6.5c 


NAA 6 




9.6a 


9.1a 


100.7a 


122b 


0.93c 


1.9d 


6.8bc 



^Promalin applied 5/12/82 (full bloom 5/13/82) as a dilute spray with 1 pt/100 gal. Glyodin. Sevin and NAA 
applied as a dilute spray on 5/30/82. 

Weather conditions following chemical thinner application were cloudy and moist 
thus favoring foliar penetration. Complete drying of spray droplets did not occur for 
24 hours. Trees treated with NAA soon showed typical leaf epinasty (twisting) and the 
development and retention of many small and seedless 'pygmy' fruit became apparent. 
It is for this reason that NAA appears not to have thinned and that average fruit size 
on these trees was considerably smaller (Table 3). Although 'pygmy' fruit were observed 
only one year, this illustrates the potential danger of using NAA as a chemical thinner 
for Delicious. 



It should be noted that Promalin did not increase fruit weight (Table 3). We have 
never observed an increase in fruit size following Promalin application unless the treatment 
caused significant thinning. The increase in fruit length caused by Promalin was 
accompanied by a corresponding reduction in fruit diameter. The reduced fruit diameter 
is attributed to a reduction in seed number. 



-23- 



Uniformity of Promalin response on the tree. The L/D ratio of fruits will vary considerably 
on a tree. This is due to the location of the fruit on the tree and their origin within the 
blossom cluster. The L/D ratio distribution of fruits from untreated and Promalin-treated 
trees is similar (Figure 2). This indicates that a Promalin application increases the L/D 
ratio of all fruits on the tree equally. Therefore, a grower can expect to find some rather 
flat-looking Delicious on Promalin-treated trees at harvest time although there should 
be fewer than on check trees. 




I .20 



Figure 2. The L/D ratio distribution of fruits from trees receiving a 25 ppm dilute spray 
of Promalin and from Control trees. 



Variable Promalin response. It has been observed that the L/D ratio following Promalin 
application is sometimes less than expected. We believe that there are at least two 
reasons for this. Weather, and especially high temperature during and following the 
bloom period, can influence fruit shape. Undoubtedly, part of the diminished response 
can be attributed to high temperature during and following Promalin application. It 
is known that temperature during and following bloom can have a direct effect on cell 
division and expansion in the calyx end of fruit. Based upon several experiments over 
several years where Promalin was placed directly in the calyx of fruit it is concluded 
that Promalin always elongates fruit. Promalin promotes at least 2 independent processes: 
fruit elongation and fruit thinning. In situations where a diminished response is observed, 
Promalin may be thinning from the cluster the fruit that have been elongated. 



-24- 



Effect of Promalin on pollinizers. Delicious is not the only cultivar that can be elongated 
with Promalin. If pollinizers are located within the rows of Delicious being sprayed you 
can expect elongation of these fruit also. Increased length of such cultivars as Mcintosh 
and Cortland in most cases would not be desirable. Therefore, when applying Promalin 
attempts should be made to avoid spraying pollinizer trees where increased calyx-end 
length is not wanted. 

Suggestions for Promalin use 

1. Calibrate your sprayer. Thinning due to Promalin has often been traced to 
overapplication because of improper sprayer calibration and nozzle adjustment. The 
margin of error with Promalin is not great. The label suggests that Promalin should 
be applied in 100-200 gal/acre. Therefore, an error in application of only 50 gal/acre 
can result in a 50% increase in the amount of Promalin applied. 

2. Do not apply more than \i pts/acre of Promalin. 

3. Do not apply Promalin when the temperature exceeds 85° F. Excessively warm 
temperatures may increase the thinning response without a corresponding increase 
in the shape response. 

4. Do not apply Promalin on young trees. A good rule-of-thumb is not to apply this 
growth regulator on any tree until it is bearing heavily enough to consider chemical 
thinning. 

5. Apply Promalin as soon after opening of the king blossom as weather permits. This 
is earlier than we have suggested in the past. It is our feeling that the reduced leaf 
surface at this earlier timing may reduce the possibility of thinning. 

6. The addition of surfactants or spreader stickers increases both the fruit shape and 
thinning response to Promalin. On trees where bloom is heavy and the use of a chemical 
thinner is anticipated, the addition of a surfactant or spreader sticker is suggested. 

7. Promalin may thin as well as accelerate the normal fruit abscission process. Therefore, 
before using a chemical thinner on Promalin-treated trees, check initial set to see 
if additional thinning would be desirable. It is possible that no chemical thinner is 
needed on Promalin treated trees. If a thinner is used on Promalin-treated trees 
it is unlikely that thinning will be excessive. 

8. Leave a few untreated and representative trees in the Promalin-treated block. Initial 
fruit set, subsquent drop and fruit shape are never constant from year to year. 
Therefore, the only way to accurately assess the performance of Promalin in your 
orchard is to leave a few untreated trees in the same block to indicate what would 
have happened in the absence of the Promalin spray. 



-25- 



FREEDOM: A NEW DISEASE-RESISTANT APPLE 

William J. Manning and Daniel R. Cooley 
Department of Plant Pathology 

The New York State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva has released a 
new disease-resistant apple named Freedom. The new cultivar is described by Professor 
Robert C. Lamb, Freedom's originator, as a "very productive, large attractive apple 
of good quality that can be used either for the fresh market or for processing." Like 
Liberty, Freedom (formerly NY58553-1) is immune to apple scab and moderately 
resistant to powdery mildew, but slightly less resistant to cedar apple rust and fire 
blight than Liberty. 

Freedom blooms at midseason in Geneva and has been shown to be a good pollen 
source for other cultivars. Fruit ripen with Delicious, around October 5 at Geneva. 
They are described as being large (3g in.), oblate, with 80% bright red stripes over 
yellow background. The fruit are medium fine, firm, tender and juicy, subacid, with 
cream-colored flesh. Freedom will hold in normal refrigerated storage until January. 

Freedom will be available (patent is pending) through licensed nurseries or from 
the New York State Fruit Testing Cooperative, Geneva, N.Y. 14456. We plan to add 
it to our disease-resistant test block at Belchertown. 



********** 

PERFORMANCE OF DISEASE-RESISTANT APPLES 

William J. Manning and Daniel R. Cooley 
Department of Plant Pathology 

In 1978, we planted a block of disease-resistant apples at the Horticultural Research 
Center at Belchertown. Fungicides have never been used in this block and only a 
minimal insecticide program has been followed. Fruit were harvested for the first 
time in 1982 and observations made and cultivar descriptions were published in FRUIT 
NOTES (Vol. 48 No. 1, Winter, 1983, pp. 6-8). 

Performance evaluations of the disease-resistant cultivars were continued in 1983. 
Disease pressure was high in the spring due to long periods of cool wet weather and 
near drought conditions and high temperatures were experienced during the summer. 

During the second week in August, leaves were examined for symptoms of black 
rot (frog-eye leaf spot) ( Physalospora obtusa ), cedar apple rust ( Gymnosporangium 
juniperi-Virginianae), and scab (Venturia inaequalia). Twenty five leaves, on randomly- 
selected terminals, were evaluated on each of 3 trees. Leaves were counted as having 
significant symptoms if 2 or more spots of black rot, cedar apple rust or scab were 
observed per leaf. Results were expressed as % of leaves with symptoms per 75 leaves 
examined (Table 1). 



-26- 
Table 1. Evaluation of disease-resistant apples in Massachusetts, 1983. 



Leaf symtpoms^ 



Cultivar 


Black rot 


Imperial Mcintosh 


13 


Liberty 


21 


Macfree 


46 


Nova Easy-gro 


24 


NY613452 


35 


Priscilla 


10 


Sir Prize 


10 



Cedar apple rust 



Scab 







4 

48** 



100*** 









% of 75 leaves on 3 trees with 2 or more spots/leaf- 

5 or more spots/leaf. 
**Both leaves and fruit. 

All of the leaves and fruit of Imperial Mcintosh had significant scab lesions, while 
all others were completely free from scab (Table 1). Sir Prize is very rust susceptible, 
and respond accordingly. A few small, non-functional rust lesions were noted on 
NY613452. Foliar black rot symptoms were more extensive than in 1982. An occasional 
apple with black rot was observed for Macfree, NY613452, and Liberty (Table 1). This 
may be a potential future concern if black rot innoculum continues to increase. For 
comparison. Table 2 shows the disease-resistance ratings and commonly grown apple 
cultivars from a test in New York State (Cornell University) published in 1983. 

Table 2. List of disease resistance of some apple varieties from New York test, 1983. 



Cultivar 



Resistance rating 



Apple scab Cedar apple rust fire blight Powdery mildew 



Cortland 


4 


Delicious 


3 


Empire 


4 


Freedom 


1 


Golden Delicious 


3 


Idared 


3 


Jerseymac 


4 


Liberty 


I 


Macfree 


I 


Macoun 


4 


Mcintosh 


4 


Mutsu 


4 


Northern Spy 


3 


Nova Easygro 


1 


Paulared 


3 


Prima 


1 


Priscilla 


1 


Sir Prize 


1 


Spartan 


3 



3 
1 
2 
2 
4 
3 
1 
1 
3 
2 
1 
3 
3 
1 
2 
4 
1 
3 



3 
2 
2 
3 
3 
4 
3 
2 
2 
3 
3 
4 
2 
2 
3 
2 
2 
4 



4 
2 
3 
2 
3 
3 



3 
3 
4 
3 
3 
3 
2 
3 
2 
2 



1 = very resistant. No control needed. 

2 = resistant. Control needed only under high disease pressure. 

3 = susceptible. Control usually needed where disease is prevalent. 

4 = very susceptible. Control always needed where disease is present. 

Acknowledgements: We thank Tony Rossi and others at the Horticultural Research Center 
for maintaining the block and applying insecticides. This activity is supported by 
the Massachusetts Cooperative Extension Service. 



-27- 



GRAY MOLD ON STRAWBERRIES 

Daniel R. Cooley and William J. Manning 
Department of Plant Pathology 

One of the most aggravating and economically damaging strawberry diseases is 
gray mold. It strikes after primary investments in plants have been made, and presents 
an ever-present, difficult to manage, disease problem. A conservative estimate gauges 
yield lost from fruit rots in general at about 10%. In the Northeast, the majority 
of this loss is caused by Botrytis cinerea, the gray mold fungus. Gray mold is a 
particular problem because, unlike most other berry rots, it often attacks living plants 
in the field as well as the harvested fruit. 

The pathogen is well-adapted for survival. Botrytis occurs on a wide-range of 
hosts, and while an isolate from a different host may not be as virulent as a strawberry 
isolate, in most cases B. cinerea isolates can cause some degree of gray mold. Botrytis 
also has the ability to colonize dead or living tissue. The fungus will often establish 
itself on dead or aging plant tissue and move from that tissue to healthy areas. Petals 
and other parts of older flowers are likely to be colonized first. These infections 
may destroy the developing fruit immediately, or may remain latent until the fruit 
is well-ripened or harvested. As the fruit ripens, it becomes easier for the fungus 
to attack it, because endogenous enzymes in the fruit break down mechanical barriers 
to fungal infection. Substrates for fungal growth become more available, and 
biochemical defenses decrease as the fruit ripens, making a ripe strawberry an excellent 
habitat for Botrytis and other rotting fungi. 

Botrytis cinerea inoculum is very common. In strawberry plantings in the Northeast, 
Botrytis usually overwinters in dead leaves and other decaying plant tissue, using 
survival structures called sclerotia. In spring, as the temperature warms, the sclerotia 
germinate and produce spores. These spores are carried about strawberry plantings 
by air currents, splashing moisture or insects. In the presence of free water on the 
plant, the spores germinate. Though the fungus is active over a wide range of 
temperatures, optimum conditions for a Botrytis epidemic occur when temperatures 
are approximately 60 to 70° F, and relative humidity exceeds 90%. If temperatures 
and humidity are optimal, an epidemic can occur in as little as 28 hours. One of the 
driving forces behind this rapid disease development is the prolific reproductive 
capacity of the fungus. Gray mold is an example of what is called a 'compound interest 
disease'. That is, each reproductive unit, in this case a condium or spore, can produce 
hundreds of new spores, which can each produce hundreds more spores, and so on 
as long as environmental conditions are favorable. Each generation progresses rapidly 
in warm, humid weather. With conidia multiplying at a high 'interest' rate, disease 
pressure becomes severe. Add to this the fact that initial inoculum is virtually always 
present, and gray mold becomes extremely difficult to manage. Figure 1 shows a 
diagram of the disease cycle for gray mold. 

Most management efforts aimed at gray mold rely heavily on fungicides. To be 
effective, fungicides must be applied at proper times. Most effective programs attempt 
to prevent initial infections in the spring, and concentrate on protecting the plant, 
particularly the flowers and fruit, from infections when environmental conditions 
favor the disease. To be effective, a layer of fungicide must be kept on the plant 



-28- 
surface. A minimum spray schedule involves 3 applications, one at 10% bloom, one 
at 50% bloom and one at tiie end of bloom. Where gray mold has historically been 
a problem, applications should start at white bud, then the 3 bloom applications should 
be made, and then applications should be made during fruit development at 5 to 10 
day intervals. To maximize the protection it is wise to time spraying according to 
plant development and weather. Rapid plant growth leaves tissue unprotected until 
the next application, and heavy rain for more than 24 hours washes fungicides off 
and provides an excellent infection environment. Therefore, in addition to the 
prescribed applications, additional sprays should be made after 24 hours if rainy periods 
occur. 

Such intensive fungicide spraying can and has led to resistance to some chemicals. 
Specifically, the systemmic fungicides, benomyl (Benlate®), thiophanate-methyl (Topsin 
M®) and vinclozolin (Ronilan®) can become ineffective if used alone or too heavily. 
The broad-spectrum contact fungicides, captan and thiram, are not likely to produce 
the same problems. As a consequence Benlate®, Topsin-M® or Ronilan® should be 
used in combination with a half-rate of captan. This reduces the risk of resistant 
Botrytis developing, while enabling growers to use one of three very effective 
chemicals. The rates for these chemicals are given in 'Managing Diseases and Insects 
on Small Fruits in New England', available from the Massachusetts Extension Service, 
Cottage A, University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003. 

There is another problem with the systemic fungicides in that they do not control 
Rhizoctonia , Phytophthora , Rhizopus and Mucor , fungi which also cause berry rots. 
In some cases, post-harvest rots caused by Rhizopus and Phytophthora have actually 
increased where Benlate or Ronilan were the only fungicides used. 

Cultural practices can reduce the amount of inoculum which contacts plants, 
and reduce the free moisture on plants necessary for infection. Mulching with straw 
or plastic keeps berries from contacting soil, hence reducing inoculum pressure and 
improves fungicide coverage. Narrower rows promote air circulation and drying, 
minimal weeds accomplishes similar goals. There is some evidence that adding 
micronutrients may decrease gray mold, though the interaction of nutrition and the 
disease has not received much study. 

Some cultivars are more resistant to gray mold than others. In general, berries 
which are firmer are more resistant. A recent study at Cornell rated the following 
cultivars in decreasing order of susceptibility to berry rots: Honeoye, Guardian, 
Canoga, Tenira, Surecrop, Holiday, Veestar, Vibrant and Earlidawn. Of these, the 
first three cultivars were significantly more resistant than the others. Plant breeders 
are continuing to develop gray mold resistant cultivars. 

Finally, an experimental approach to control has been tried using the biological 
control fungus Trichoderma . Preliminary results were not as consistent as control 
achieved by fungicides, but Trichoderma may yet be developed into an effective 
alternative to fungicide control. In the future, it may be possible to reduce or eliminate 
fungicides by using a combination of resistant cultivars, biological control agents 
and careful management of horticultural practices. 

Obviously, these measures are aimed at reducing field incidence of gray mold. 
These practices will, as a consequence, reduce post-harvest disease incidence. 
Refrigeration is an option most small growers use to further reduce post-harvest 
gray mold. Beyond one or two days after harvest, strawberries become increasingly 
susceptible to rot, and the best strategy is to use or process them as soon as possible 
after harvest. 

Acknowledgment: Special thanks to Paula Saucier for the illustration. 



-29- 




spore 
mass 





/< 



In so'ing moisture encourages sderolia 
to grow and produce spores 





Fungus overwinters in plant debris, such 
as dead leaves 



When plants are wet. spores rapidly 
intecl unprotected llorai parts 




Infections cause browning and death in some 
tlowers, or remain latent in developing Iruit 




i^ 




Alter harvest the potential lor rot increases greatly, 
limiting storage to one to lour days 



As llowers age and Iruit ripens, their susceptibility 
to gray moid increases Older inlections are gray and 
luzzy 



GRAY MOLD ON STRAWBERRY, 
BOTRYTIS CINEREA 



Department of Plant and Soil Sciences Non-Profit Org. 

French Hall U.S. POSTAGE 

University of Massachusetts PAID 

Annherst, MA 01003 Permit No. 2 

3-20028 Amherst, MA 01002 



: 



FRUIT 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Volume 49 No. 3 
SUMMER ISSUE, 1984 

Table of Contents 

Factors Influencing DPA Residues on Apples 

Pomological Notes — Response to Chemical Thinning 

Harvesting, Storing and Ripening Pears 

Apple Fruit Growth 

The "Marshall" Mcintosh 

Pomological Paragraph 

Pomological Notes 

Predicting Harvest Size of Mcintosh Apples 

A Survey of the Cost of Growing and Harvesting Apples 
in Eastern New York in 1983. 

Daily Activity of Apple Blotch Leafminer Adults 



ssued by the Cooperative Extension Service, E. Bruce MacDougall, Dean, in further- 
ince of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914; United States Department of Agriculture 
ind County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers 
squal opportunity in programs and employment. 




FACTORS INFLUENCING DPA RESIDUES ON APPLES 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Most apple growers in New England use diphenylamine (DPA) as a postharvest dip 
or drench to control scald on apples. Although these treatments have been generally 
effective in controlling scald, results of a given treatment are not always the same. 
One reason for this is that fruit vary considerably in their susceptibility to scald, 

depending on variety, fruit maturity, fruit nutrition, and growing conditions especially 

the temperature that occurred during the days shortly before harvest. 

Another reason for variable results is that a number of factors affect the amount 
of residue left on fruit by a treatment. (It is this residue that protects the fruit from 
scald during and following storage.) A recent study by Drs. Shih-Lo Lee, Asela Carag, 
and Hesh Kaplan of Decco Tiltbelt Division, Pennwalt Corporation, Monrovia, California 
(1) demonstrated some important factors influencing this residue. 

Most of their studies were with Granny Smith apples, which are very sensitive to 
scald, and most employed No Scald DPA EC-283®, 31% a.i., as the test material. Their 
results can be summarized as follows: 

1. Effect of DPA solution temperature. Cold apples were dipped in solutions at 41°, 
55°, 70° and 95° F for 30 seconds, 1 minute, or 2 minutes. When dipped for 30 
seconds, solution temperature had no effect on DPA residue, but when dipping 
time was 1 minute a solution temperature of 95° F. doubled the residue left by 
solutions at the lower temperatures. It should be noted that solutions of 41°, 55°, 
and 70° F. all left approximately the same residue regardless of solution temperature 
or treatment time. 

2. Effect of fruit temperature. Cold apples were kept at 40°, 55°, or 72° F. for 10 
to 12 hours to warm before dipping in a 70° F. solution for 1 minute. The coldest 
apples (40° F) retained the least residue, but there was no difference between those 
at 55° and 72° F. 

3. Effect of dipping time. Apples were dipped for periods varying from 15 seconds 
to 4 minutes. A dip of only 15 seconds produced less residue than the other dipping 
periods, but all periods of 30 seconds or more produced the same residue. 

4. Effect of DPA concentration. When apples were dipped in concentrations of DPA 
varying from 500 to 2500 ppm, the amount of residue increased with concentration. 
There was twice as much residue from 2500 ppm as from 500 ppm, but perhaps 
of greater interest is the finding that there was about one-third more residue from 
2000 ppm than from 1000 ppm, since our recommendation usually calls for use of 
"1000 to 2000 ppm". 



® 
Trade name 



-2- 



5. Effect of additives. Addition of calcium chloride at 24 lbs. per 100 gallons did 
not affect DPA residue, and neither did the addition of a surfactant. 

6. Differences among varieties . The authors compared Granny Smith apples with 
Golden Delicious, Delicious, Jonathan, and Rome Beauty. When the fruit were 
all dipped under identical conditions, the residues were similar on all varieties 
except Delicious, which retained almost twice as much residue as did the other 
varieties. 

7. Effect of DPA formulation. Three different commercial formulations of DPA 
were tested under identical conditions, and one of the formulations left twice as 
much residue as did the other 2 formulations. 

Conclusions 

These results indicate that apples should be treated for at least 30 seconds, but 
that prolonged periods provide no additional benefit unless the dipping solution is hot. 
They also show that cold apples will retain less residue than warm ones. However, 
the temperature of the dip solution is of little consequence unless a quite warm solution 
is used, which will greatly increase the amount of residue. They also illustrate that 
the same treatment can protect different varieties to different extents, and that 
different DPA formulations can produce different results. Within the solution itself, 
DPA concentration was highly important, but addition of CaCl2 or surfactant had 
no effect on DPA residue. Addition of fungicides to the solution was not tested. 

The results of this study should be of considerable interest to apple growers, who 
are frequently concerned about how treatment conditions affect scald control. 



Literature Cited 

1. Lee, S-L, A. Carag, and H.J. Kaplan. 1984. Factors influencing the uptake of 
diphenylamine by apples. HortScience 19(l):94-95 



POMOLOGICAL NOTES 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Response to chemical thinning. The primary effect of chemical thinning is a reduction 
in the number of smaller apples rather than a large increase in the size of the remaining 
fruits. Thinning does not change a potentially small apple into a large fruit but helps 
to insure that a potentially large apple will size properly. 



-3- 



HARVESTING, STORING AND RIPENING PEARS 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Pears are not a major crop in New England, yet many growers have modest plantings 
of them. Most of the crop is mari<eted locally by the grower, especially on roadside 
stands. We are not presently conducting research on pears at the University of 
Massachusetts, but we have periodically assessed the recommendations from other 
areas to keep growers updated on developments. Here is our present view of the 
requirements for marketing high quality pears. 

Harvesting. Unlike most other fruits, pears cannot be tree-ripened or they will develop 
core breakdown and will often become "gritty". They must be picked green, and most 
importantly, they need to be picked at the correct stage of greenness. Unlike with 
apples, for pears firmness is a reasonably good index of maturity. It can be measured 
in the orchard with a penetrometer such as a Magness-Taylor pressure tester, but 
because of the hardness of pears, it must be done with the 5/16 inch penetrometer 
head, not the 7/16 inch head used on apples. The following firmness values have proven 
to be resonably indicative of optimum maturity of pears in Massachusetts: Bartlett, 
20-17 pounds; Bosc, 15-12 pounds; Anjou, 15-13 pounds; Comice, 13-11 pounds; Gorham 
and Flemish, 14-12 pounds. 

If pears are picked too immature, they tend to shrink in storage and to develop 
poorer quality when ripe. However, the greater danger is from picking them at too 
advanced a maturity, for this will greatly shorten their storage life and increase their 
susceptibility to core breakdown, rotting, and CO2 injury. Perhaps the greatest problem 
with pears is that growers do not pay close enough attention to picking them at the 
correct time. It has been observed in England that a good key to pear maturity is 
to note the ripening pattern of early apple varieties. If they are ripening unusually 
early or unusually late, then pears are probably maturing in a similar pattern and their 
expected harvest season should be altered accordingly. Maturity can then be monitored 
more precisely with a pressure tester. 

During packing, pears should be handled with care. Their hardness is misleading; 
bruises incurred during harvest often do not show up until the pears ripen. Any two-inch 
drop onto a hard surface will almost certainly produce a bruise. 

S torage . If pears are to be stored, they should be cooled as quickly as possible. A 
core temperature of 40° F. should be achieved in no more than 2-3 days, and the core 
should be at storage temperature in no more than 10 days, or serious loss of storage 
life will result. 

Pears benefit greatly from storage as close to their freezing point as possible. Their 
freezing point is between 27°F. and 29°F., and their recommended storage temperature 
is 30-31° F. Obviously, that temperature requires great care in storage operation, but 
the life of pears drops rapidly as storage temperature exceeds this recommendation. 
For example, storage life of Bartletts is 3096 more at 30°F than at 32°F, and is 40% 
more at 30°F than at 34°F. 



-4- 



Pears have clear limits on how long they can be stored and still retain their ability 
to ripen properly after storage. In general, Bartletts seldom keep well in air beyond 
December or early January; Bosc beyond February, and Anjou beyond March. If stored 
longer than this in air, they will not ripen properly. Anjous present another requirement, 
in that they will not ripen properly unless they have been kept at a low temperature 
for close to 2 months. 

Pears respond very well to CA for longer storage times. In some areas 1% O2 is 
recommended. Pears can be very sensitive to CO2, so less than 1% CO2 in the storage 
atmosphere is often recommended, especially in combination with 1% O2. CA studies 
with pears in New York led to the recommendation of 2.5% O2 and less than 2.5% 
CO2 for Bartlett and Bosc, so these conditions probably represent the best 
recommendation for pears grown in the Northeast. 

Pears are very susceptible to shrivel. Since it is difficult to maintain high enough 
humidity in storage to avoid significant water loss and shrivel if pears are to be stored 
for long, perforated polyethylene liners or bags are often used with success. At the 
very least, it is desirable to place polyethylene sheets over the tops of bins before 
storing pears. With a relatively high humidity to control shrivel, unacceptable amounts 
of rots can develop on stored pears. Furthermore, pears (especially Anjou) may be 
susceptible to scald. Protection against rot can be provided by a preharvest drenching 
or dipping of the fruit with benomyl 50% WP at 8 ounces/100 gal. and if scald is a risk, 
2700 ppm ethoxyquin can be added. 

Ripening . For pears to achieve high quality, they must be properly ripened after storage. 
They will ripen at 60-65°F, but if the humidity is low they can shrivel quickly during 
this time. It is therefore necessary to either ripen them in a humid area or to cover 
them with a polyethylene sheet during ripening. 

If pears have been stored too long, they will not ripen properly regardless of 
treatment. If it is intended to keep pears to the limit of their storage life, then you 
should periodically remove samples from storage and test their ripening time. If it 
takes less than 5 days for them to reach full ripeness, they are in danger of losing 
their ability to ripen and should be stored no longer. Maturity at harvest and storage 
temperature will markedly influence their maximum storage life. 

Conclusion 

Pears can be a very high quality commodity, but to produce this quality special 
care is required. They must be harvested at the proper stage of maturity, handled 
carefully, stored correctly and then ripened properly after storage if premium quality 
is to be achieved. Many consumers are wary of pears due to unfavorable experiences 
with them. When you are marketing your own pears locally, you have the opportunity 
to educate your customers to the potential quality of pears, and to greatly increase 
repeat sales. 



-5- 

APPLE FRUIT GROWTH 
Franklin VV. Southwick^ 



There is often some confusion about the growth of apples, particularly concerning 
the year-to-year variation in fruit shape and the growth during the harvest season. 
During and shortly after bloom apparently is a critical stage in fruit development 
because fruit size is primarily due to cell number, and cell division ceases about 3 
weeks after full bloom. Thus, an apple with a greater number of cells at bloom, or 
shortly thereafter, has the potential to become larger in size by harvest than one with 
fewer cells. 

Apple fruits increase in length and diameter after bloom. In 1914, J.R. Shaw in 
Massachusetts reported on the relationship between shape of Ben Davis and Baldwin 
apples and the temperature following bloom; the cooler the temperature, the more 
elongated the apple. He concluded that during the post-bloom period, temperature 
variations between the 6th and 16th day after full bloom fitted the observed variations 
in shape more closely than did temperature variations during any other period. As 
most growers know, distribution of seeds in fruit influences shape. Apples with a small 
number of seeds are frequently lopsided, with the less fleshy side being the one lacking 
seeds. The "king" fruit generally is larger than "side-bloom" fruit. 

From approximately 3 weeks following bloom to harvest fruit growth is by cell 
enlargement. Figure 1 shows typical growth curves for Early Mcintosh and Golden 
Delicious apples plotted on the basis of fruit diameter and volume (assuming the fruit 
to be a perfect sphere). It can be noted that the growth rate is constant with no "final 
swell". In fact, when one plots the growth curve on the basis of diameter it appears 
that the rate of apple fruit growth tends to slow down as the fruit approaches maturity. 
This apparent slackening of growth rate is more pronounced for the later maturing 
Golden Delicious than for the earlier maturing Early Mcintosh. If the data are calculated 
on the basis of volume increase, however, it is apparent that the growth rate actually 
accelerates in July and may not taper off appreciably for early apples and only slightly 
before harvest for late varieties. Thus, there is no periods of accelerated or decelerated 
growth as with the stone fruits. Fruit volume increases rapidly as fruit become larger 
because progressively more volume is required to add a given increment to the fruit 
diameter. This is shown in Table I where it can be seen, for example, that an increase 
in diameter of 0.1 inch on a 2.60 inch apple represents a volume increase of 18.51 cubic 
centimeters as compared to a 17.19 cubic centimeter increase in volume of a 1.50 inch 
apple that has grown another 0.25 inch in diameter. Also, a 0.25 inch increase on a 
3.00 inch apple represents an increase in volume almost equivalent to the entire cubic 
contents of a 2.00 inch apple. 

Since Mcintosh may grow at the rate of 0.07 to 0.10 inch in diameter per week 
in September, the addition of 0.15 inch diameter on a 2.50 inch apple represents a 19.1 
percent volume gain or a 17.2 percent increase in volume on a 2.75 apple within two 
weeks. In other words, the delay in harvest of 2 weeks can add materially to the volume 
of Mcintosh picked and to individual fruit size. 



^Professor Emeritus, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



-6- 



Under optimum conditions the rate of fruit growth is so consistent that apple fruit 
size at harvest can be predicted with reasonable accuracy as early as 35 days after 
full bloom. However, a period of moisture stress can drastically reduce fruit growth. 
The amount of growth lost from a soil moisture deficit or some other factor, causes 
a non-recoverable loss in fruit size. Trickle irrigation is becoming a cost effective 
practice to prevent loss in fruit size. 



Table 1. The relationship of diameter increase to volume increase of apples (assumed to 
be perfect spheres). 





Apple 




Increase in cubic 


Diameter 


Volume 
ubic centimeters 


centimeters per 


Inches 


Centimeters c 


diameter increase 


0.5 


1.27 


1.07 




0.75 


1.91 


3.65 


2.58 


1.00 


2.54 


8.58 


4.93 


1.25 


3.18 


16.84 


8.26 


1.50 


3.81 


28.97 


12.13 


1.75 


4.45 


46.16 


17.19 


2.00 


5.08 


68.67 


22.61 


2.25 


5.72 


98.21 


29.54 


2.50 


6.35 


134.12 


35.91 


2.55 


6.48 


142.53 


8.41 


2.60 


6.60 


150.59 


8.06 


2.65 


6.73 


159.67 


1:11) '-' 


2.70 


6.86 


169.10 


2.75 


6.99 


178.89 


9.79 


2.80 


7.11 


188.27 


9.38 


2.85 


7.24 


198.78 


10.51 


2.90 


7.37 


209.69 


10.91 


2.95 


7.49 


220.10 


10.41 


3.00 


7.62 


231.76 


11.66 


3.05 


7.75 


243.82 


12.06 \ 


3.10 


7.87 


255.32 


11.50/ 


3.15 


8.00 


268.19 


12.87) 


3.20 


8.13 


281.64 


13.45 \ 63.43 


3.25 


8.26 


295.19 


13.55 / 



When apples grow from 
diameter % volume 

(inches) increase 



2.50 

i 

2.65 

2.75 

i 

2. 90 



19.1 



17.2 



-7- 



70 



60 



^ 50 

E 



IE 

c 

- 40 

E 
o 

o 



30 



20 




O £. Mc I ntosh- Diameter 
D G. Delicious- Diameter 
• f. Mc Intosh-Volume 
■ (?. Delicious- Volume 



- 160 



- 140 



- 120 



< 

00 3 

o 

c 
o- 

80 o' 
O 

3 



60 % 



40 



20 



13 
June 



27 



II 21 
July 



I 12 25 

August 



29 
September 



Figure 1. Fruit growth rate for Early Mcintosh and Golden Delicious. 



-8- 



THE "MARSHALL" McINTOSH 

William J. Lord and William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

In recent years, tliousands of Marsiiall Mcintosh trees have been planted in New 
England. The demand has exceeded the supply because until recently the only source 
of this strain was a small nursery in Maine. We have described below the origin, growth 
habit and fruit of the Marshall Mcintosh because of inquiries about the strain from 
other Mclntosh-growing areas. 

Marshall Mcintosh is a non-spur strain that originated on a branch mutation of 
Mcintosh in the orchard of the Marshall Farm, Inc., 340 Marshall Road, Fitchburg, 
Massachusetts 01420. The mutation was noticed in 1967 when the fruit developed red 
color 2 or 3 weeks earlier than those on the rest of the tree. 

The Marshall brothers have found that the Marshall strain can be harvested earlier 
than other Mcintosh strains, and can also be pici<ed on the "normal" harvest dates without 
adverse consequences. They report that the fruit stores well in both air and CA storage, 
but believe more information is needed concerning the harvest and storage of the strain. 

We at the University of Massachusetts as yet have little information about the 
Marshall strain. However, we think it has real potential for CA storage because of 
early coloring; that it will increase pack-out because of more red color; and that planting 
of the strain will make the harvest season more orderly because the number of days 
that Mcintosh can be harvested will be extended. 

Our limited data show that at the Horticultural Research Center, Belchertown, 
Massachusetts on September 6, 1978, 72% of the Marshall Mcintosh fruit were Extra 
Fancy for color. On this date only 40% of the Cornell strain of Mcintosh was Extra 
Fancy. On August 30, 1979, 75% of the Marshall were Extra Fancy in comparison to 
43% of the Cornell fruit. Lastly, on September 4, 1980, 53% of the Marshall Mcintosh 
were Extra Fancy and only 16% of the Cornell Mcintosh fruit were of this grade for 
color. We also believe that the red color is more intense on Marshall than on other 
strains of Mcintosh. Our data suggested that the maturations of Cornell and Marshall 
strains were similar as indicated by flesh firmness and sugar content of the fruit. Thus, 
limited observations suggested that Marshall Mcintosh is an early coloring strain, not 
both an early coloring and early maturing strain. 

In 1979 we established a planting in which Marshall Mcintosh is being compared 
with 6 other strains of the variety. Hopefully, we shall be able to obtain more reliable 
and complete information on the maturation of these strains and on their keepability 
in air and CA storage. 



-9- 



In 1983, the trees for the first time bore sufficient fruit for some evaluations. On 
three dates. ..September 1, 7, and 14. ..fruit on trees of all seven Mcintosh strains were 
visually evaluated for red color. It should be recealled that August and early September 
were very hot in 1983, and that red coloration was very slow. On both September 1 
and 7, two-thirds of the Marshall Mcintosh had at least 5096 of their surface colored 
red. This was far superior to the coloring on any of the other strains. By 
mid-September, 84% of the Marshall were well colored, and only one other strain had 
close to that amount of color. Thus, even under growing conditions unfavorable to 
red color development, Marshall Mcintosh developed color earlier than other strains. 

On September 7 and 14, samples of fruit were picked from these trees and measured 
for firmness and for starch disappearance. At the first picking Marshall Mcintosh 
were neither firmer nor softer than those of any other strain. At the second picking 
they were firmer than Macspur, Eastman, and Gatzke Mcintosh, none of which was 
as red as Marshall. At neither picking did Marshall have either more or less starch 
than any other strain. 

These results must be evaluated with great care as they represent fruit from young 
trees, with the fruit varying in size but tending to be unusually large. It will not be 
until the trees are bearing consistent and representative crops that reliable conclusions 
can be drawn, but the indications in 1983 were consistent with earlier observations: 
Marshall Mcintosh appear to color early, but not to mature early. 



Table 1. Influence of Mcintosh strain on red color of fruit and fruit maturity, 1983. 



Strain 



Percentage of fruit with 
sufficient color for 
Extra Fancy grade^ 

""971 Wt 97TT 



Fruit 



Firmness 
(lbs) 



9/9 



9/17 



Maturity 
(l-9)y 



9/9 



9/17 



Morspur 

Marshall 

Imperial 

Macspur 

Eastman 

Gatzke 

Rogers 



17b 


20b 


57bc 


64a 


67a 


84a 


15b 


23bc 


68ab 


8bc 


33b 


56bc 


Ic 


6c 


25d 


9bc 


17c 


53bc 


8 be 


28b 


39cd 



1 5 . Sab 

1 5 . Sab 

15.3ab 

14.7b 

14.8b 

15.3ab 

16.0a 



14. Sab 
14.9a 
14.4abc 
13. Bed 
13. 6d 

1.40bcd 
14.5abc 



1.9ab 

1.9ab 

1.7ab 

1.9a 

1.36b 

1.8ab 

1.5ab 



2.5a 
2.8a 
2.7a 
2.6a 
2.8a 
2.3a 
2.3a 



^At least 50% of fruit surface with red color typical of the variety, 
y Based on Starch-Iodine test: 1-im mature; 9-overmature 



-10- 

POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Measuring temperatures in cold storages. We have frequently urged storage operators 
to stop relying on a single thermometer placed near the door to measure storage 
temperatures. Totally unnecessary risks result from this method of monitoring storage 
temperature. A better method is to use remote sensing devices, such as thermocouples 
or thermistors, located at key positions within the storage. 

A recent publication, prepared by J. A. Bartsch and G.D, Blanpied of Cornell 
University, gives step-by-step instructions for installing and using a thermocouple 
system for measuring storage temperatures. We urge any storage operator who is 
not presently using remote temperature measurement to obtain this publication and 
to use it as a guide for installing such a system. A small error in temperature control 
can cause a very large loss in fruit quality. A storage operator needs to have as precise 
a measure of storage temperatures as he can get. The publication, "Temperature 
Monitoring System for Cold Storage" is Extension Bulletin 430, and can be obtained 
by writing Helen Rogers, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Cornell University, 
Ithaca, New York 14853. 



:j(:^:^;t:^>t:4:4::f::t= 



POMOLOGICAL NOTES 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Plastic bags filled with dirt aid in tree training. According to the Great Lakes Fruit 
Growers News (April, 1983) Paul Friday of Coloma, Michigan is using small plastic 
bags with 2 to H lbs. of dirt as tree training aids for young peach, apricot, and tart 
cherry trees. The dirt-filled plastic bags are fastened with 2 clothespins to the ends 
of branches requiring spreading. Mr. Friday believes that wide crotch angles on peach 
trees, as a result of limb positioning, has reduced the number of canker-infested 
crotches. 

Producing your own fruit trees. Until recently fruit growers experienced difficulty 
in obtaining trees from nurseries. Because of this problem, many growers began to 
propagate their own trees. However, it is now evident that most of us are producing 
low quality trees which in the long-run will cost us more because of poor performance 
in the orchard than those purchased from a commercial nursery. Reasons for our lack 
of success in propagation include poor soil for a nursery, lateness of lining-out the 
rootstocks, and/or neglect of the nursery. 



-11- 

PREDICTING HARVEST SIZE OF McINTOSH APPLES 
F.W. Southwickl 

It is known that apple fruit size at harvest from healthy trees can be predicted with 
reasonable accuracy by measuring fruit size much earlier in the growing season. 
Therefore, measurements of fruit diameters in July or later can be used to accurately 
estimate average fruit size of Mcintosh in early- mid- or late-September, assuming 
severe drought conditions do not develop during July or August. By taking some early 
size measurements a grower can determine whether or not he should consider doing 
some hand thinning to improve the overall size of the persisting fruit at harvest. The 
earlier hand thinning is done after completion of the June drop, the greater the 
improvement in size of the persisting fruit and the smaller the decrease in total yield. 

Data in Table 1 can serve as a guide, showing the approximate harvest size of Mcintosh 
on September 15 when fruit diameters were measured on July 15 and August 1. It is 
assumed that the Mcintosh were sprayed with Alar-85 in mid-July at a concentration 
of 1000 ppm for pre-harvest drop control. To determine average fruit size, measure 
at least 25 fruits a random on several trees in each block. A suitable measuring device 
for measuring fruit diameters (Cranston Calpher) can be purchased from the McCormack 
Fruit Tree Co., Inc., 611-A Englewood, Yakima, Washington 98908. 

Table 1. Prediction of fruit diameter (inches) of Mcintosh apples on September 15, 
based on size on July 15 or August 1. 



Fruit diameter 


Predicted fruit 


July 


15 


diameter on 
September 15 


1.4 




2.45 


1.5 




2.55 


1.6 




2.65 


1.7 




2.75 


1.8 




2.85 


1.9 




3.00 


2.0 




3.10 



Fruit diameter 


Predicted fruit 


August 1 


diameter on 




September 15 


1.8 


2.25 


1.9 


2.35 


2.0 


2.55 


2.1 


2.65 


2.2 


2.78 


2.3 


2.95 


2.4 


3.05 


2.5 


3.15 



Professor Emeritus, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



-12- 



A SURVEY OF THE COST OF GROWING AND HARVESTING 
APPLES IN EASTERN NEW YORK IN 1983 

William D. Gerling^ 

Regional Extension Specialist 

Hudson Valley Lab, Highland, New York 

This is a survey and analysis of the cost of growing and harvesting apples for eight 
operations in Eastern New York, It includes operations from throughout the Hudson 
and Champlain Valley apple producing region. The objective of this study is to assist 
growers in identifying and analyzing that portion of their total expenditures which 
can be associated with the growing and harvesting portion of their business. The data 
contained within the study is thought to be representative of what better-than average 
growers are doing. 

Method of Obtaining Data 

Throughout the 1983 growing season, the growers in the survey were asked to keep 
a record of where labor was used. In early 1984 the eight operations were mailed survey 
forms to collect the labor information and other needed information. A short time 
later, each operation was visited to pick up the forms and collect any additional 
information that was required. 

The operations included ranged in size from 41 acres of apples to 585 acres. The 
fruit produced by these growers account for approximately 8% of the apples produced 
in Eastern New York. 

The sample of operations that is included in this study is neither a stratified nor 
random sample. The purpose of this study is to provide growers with a management 
tool with which to analyze their business. While the data contained in this report is 
useful in evaluating a growers operation from a management standpoint, it may not 
be representative of average costs in Eastern New York for other purposes. 

Orchards Included in the Survey 

For this study, acreage of bearing trees include all mature trees, even though they 
may not have produced a crop or the crop may have have been harvested. It also includes 
all young trees that produced enough fruit to make harvesting economically feasible, 
even though the volume of apples might not have been sufficient to cover the cost 
of growing the fruit. Using this method of determining a bearing acre can have a major 
impact on a growers average yield, since the number of bushels of apples harvested 
are divided by the total number of acres considered to be bearing. If a grower has 



^Reprinted with the permission of the author. 



-13- 

a large acreage of young trees just coming into production, his average yield may be 
considerably less than a grower who is dealing only with mature trees. This may also 
increase both his growing and harvesting cost per bushel in the short run. However , 
if a grower is going to maintain a productive orchard over the long run, it is desirable 
and even necessary that he constantly plant young trees. If a new planting is expected 
to have a useful life of from 20-25 years, then approximately 4-5% of the total acreage 
should be replanted each year. Replanting about the same number of acres each year 
is desirable from several standpoints: 

1. It insures that the productive base of the farm is constantly being renewed. 

2. It makes it much easier to provide the labor and equipment needed for the operation 
as compared to planting larger acreages on an irregular basis. 

3. The cash flow needs of business are more constant. It costs from $6,000-$10,000 
per acre to plant and care for a young orchard until it begins to pay its own way. 
When replanting is done on a regular basis this cash flow drain is also more constant 
and more easily planned for. 

This year, data was again collected to show the age breakdown of the trees on 
each operation. This is summarized in Table 1. It illustrates the importance that these 
growers have placed on establishing new orchards in recent years. However, it also 
illustrates that orchard replanting has been a very sporadic activity on several of the 
operations in the study, rather than a regular activity. Many of these operators have 
now recognized the need to plant approximately the same number of acres of young 
orchards each year. 

This year we collected information on the number of acres pruned, average number 
of sprays per acre, number of acres receiving herbicides, average number of times 
each grower mowed his orchard and information on irrigation practices. This data 
is summarized in Table 1 also. Hopefully, it will provide growers with a better 
understanding of how their cost might compare to the figures contained within this 
publication. 

Summer pruning includes all pruning activities done in the bearing orchards during 
the time from petal fall to harvest, including suckering. The number of sprays per 
acre include the average of all the sprays to an orchard for insect and disease control, 
growth regulations, thinning, and foliar fertilizers. The number of bearing acres 
receiving herbicides include those acres that received some type of herbicide treatment. 
Some of these may have been treated more than once. 

All the costs associated with the production of the apple crop on acres of apples 
considered to be bearing acres are included in Table 2. In some cases, it was easy 
to identify those expenses associated with the growing phase of the operation, for 
others it was necessary to estimate what percent of the total expenditure was associated 
with growing the crop. An example of the latter is the management salary. On none 
of these operations was one person in charge of only growing the apples. Therefore, 
it was necessary to estimate what portion of the manager's salary should be charged 
to the growing phase of the operation. Also, it was necessary to separate the costs 
of caring for the young non-bearing acres and the costs associated with the bearing 
acres. 



-14- 



The return on investment for orchards, building and equipment recognizes the cost 
of having capital tied up in the business. If a grower is relying on borrowed capital 
to finance the ownership of the orchards, buildings and equipment, this cost of capital 
is an easily identified cost. It is the interest he must pay his lender. However, this 
cost exists, even if a grower is using his own money. The dollars invested in the business 
have an earnings potential of their own. These dollars could be invested in the bank 
or elsewhere and produce some income. This earnings potential must be recognized 
as an opportunity cost of capital, when a grower invests his money in his own business. 
His business must earn a profit, over and above the basic earning potential of his capital, 
to be profitable in a real sense. In this publication the return on investment or 
opportunity cost of capital is calculated at the rate of 1296 of the value of orchard, 
buildings and equipment. 

The value of the orchards, buildings and equipment was obtained by asking each 
grower to estimate the market value of bearing orchards, buildings used in the growing 
phase of the business and equipment used to grow the apple crop. The return on 
investment for the orchards and buildings is included in the orchard overhead group. 
The return on investment for the equipment is included under equipment on Table 
2. 

The real estate tax represents the taxes actually paid on the bearing orchards and 
the taxes on the buildings used to store growing equipment and materials. In most 
cases it was necessary to break these out from a total tax bill. 

Rentals includes the payment made for orchards or buildings not owned by the 
grower. Five of the participating growers rent some orchards and/or buildings. 

The category "other" under orchard overhead in Table 2 includes insurance, short 
term interest, and any miscellaneous cost associated with the growing phase of the 
business. The short term interest includes only the interest on loans made to produce 
the crop, typically they might include loans for pruning, materials, etc. It does not 
include interest on loans for the purchase of equipment, buildings, orchards, etc. This 
type of interest would be covered under the return on investment. 

The labor costs in Table 2 includes the gross wages paid the employee plus the 
employer's share of social security, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance 
and the cash cost of any fringe benefits. 

Harvesting Cost 

Table 3 illustrates the costs associated with the harvest operation. Many of these 
costs, unlike those in the growing costs, vary directly with the amount of fruit harvested. 
Therefore, they are shown on a per bushel basis, rather than a per acre basis. 

The picking and other labor categories includes the gross wages paid for harvesting 
apples plus any bonus and/or incentives. They also include the employer's share of 
social security, workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance and any other benefits 
paid other than housing and transportation. The harvesting costs include the cost of 
harvesting all fruit, including drops. 



-15- 



Summary 

The average 1983 growing cost was $1,231.61 per bearing acre. This was up 12% 
from $1,100.97 in 1982. Most of this increase can be attributed to the weather 
experienced throughout the 1983 growing season. The major increase occurred in the 
labor and materials categories. The mild winter we experienced allowed growers to 
prune more trees which increased the amount of labor cost associated with pruning 
and brush removal. The cold, wet spring made it necessary for a number of growers 
to apply more fungicides. The very hot and dry period of July, August, and early 
September caused a number of growers to increase their use of insecticides and 
miticides. This same weather pattern also meant that many growers had to irrigate 
more than in past years. 

The average per bushel growing cost was $2.67 in 1983 as compared to $2.10 in 1982. 
This increase of 27% was due in part to the increase in the per acre costs but more 
importantly to a decrease of 64 bushels in the average yield per acre. This yield 
decrease can also be attributed at least in part to the weather. 

The harvesting cost for 1983 was $1.50, approximately the same as the $1.48 in 1982. 
The combined growing and harvesting cost for 1983 was $4.17 as compared to $3.58 
in 1982 and $4.25 in 1981. The major reason for the changes in the per bushel costs 
over the past three years has been the fluctuation in the average yield. 

Fruit Quality 

It should be remembered that these figures are an attempt to measure the cost 
of growing and harvesting apples. One major factor, which impacts the profitability 
of an operation, which has not been discussed, is fruit quality. This is a factor which 
growers cannot afford to overlook when they are evaluating their yields and costs. 
It is very possible for a grower with higher production per acre and lower costs to 
be less profitable than his neighbor. This is because the increase in production and 
reduction in costs may come at the expense of quality. 

In using the figures contained in this article to analyze his business, a grower must 
keep the concern for fruit quality foremost in mind. A growers ability to produce 
high quality fruit at a reasonable cost will determine his success. 



Table 1. Eight operations, 1983 



-16- 



Total acres of apples 
Acres of bearing apples 
Percent of non-bearing 


Total 
1,936 
1,558 


Average 
242 
195 
20 




Range 

41-585 

21-473 

7-49 


Tree age (% of total acreage) 

1-5 years 

6-10 years 
11-15 years 
16-20 years 
21-30 years 

over 30 years 






24 
23 
9 
14 
11 
19 




6-59 
2-38 
2-20 
0-25 
1-20 
0-39 


Apples harvested (bu.) 
Picked fruit 
Drops 


717,615 

640,598 

77,017 


89 

80 

9 


,702 
,075 
,627 


10 
10, 


,385-162,115 
151-154,175 
234-28,561 


Total estimated crop 


724,615 


90 


,577 


10 


,885-162,115 


Percent of crop harvested 






99 




95-100 


Yield per acre (bu. harvested) 






461 




343-685 


Percentage of crop harvested as drops 






11 




2-23 


Number of bearing acres pruned 
Dormant 
Summer 


1,268 
783 




159 
98 




NA 
NA 


Percentage of bearing acres pruned 
Dormant 
Summer 






81 
50 




31-100 
0-100 


Average number of sprays per acre 






13.5 




10-17 


Number of bearing acres receiving herbicides 




161 




20-473 


Average number of times mowed 






3.8 




3-5 


Number of acres irrigated 


347 




43 




0-180 


Average number of times acres irrigated 






1.23 




NA 



-17- 



Table 2. Growing cost (dollars per bearing acre) eight operations, 1983 



Orchard overhead 
Real estate tax 
Return on investment 
Rental 
Other 



Management 
Salary 

Accounting/secretarial 
Office expense 



Labor 

Pruning & brush removal 

Spraying 

Orchard floor management 

Irrigation 

Other 



Equipment 
Depreciation 
Return on investment 
Fuel 

Repairs & maintenance 
Other 



Materials 
Fungicides 
Insecticides 
Miticides 
Spray oil 

Growth regulators 
Herbicides 
Lime and fertilizer 
Other 



Total 



Total 



Total 



Total 



Total 



Total growing cost per bearing acre 
Yield per acre (bu.) 
Cost per bushel 



Average 

$23.37 

214.82 

18.31 

50.59 

$307.09 



$113.87 



$273.66 



Range 



$15.08 - 28.30 

83.52 - 545.14 

0.00 - 98.34 

8.00 - 113.81 

$206.85 - 662.67 



$86.41 


$34.15 - 


187.07 


22.73 


5.13 - 


87.17 


4.73 


2.37 - 


11.76 



$55.99 - 276.61 



$147.10 


$77.02- 


233.00 


38.14 


12.55 - 


56.48 


30.07 


15.30 - 


55.07 


8.29 


0.00 - 


49.71 


50.06 


9.44 - 


146.15 



$166.31 - 366.00 



$50.33 


$31.34 


- 112.10 


60.40 


37.61 


- 134.52 


47.79 


16.28 


- 68.81 


75.32 


34.21 


- 105.71 


7.60 


0.00 


- 13.00 


$241.44 


$157.08 


- 409.81 


$75.93 


$49.99 


- 115.38 


54.32 


30.25 


- 90.32 


53.13 


36.49 


- 77.38 


6.71 


0.00 


- 17.61 


29.53 


17.10 


- 44.80 


8.88 


2.18 


- 16.89 


28.57 


7.56 


- 49.21 


38.48 


13.42 


- 68.86 


$295.55 


$209.67 


- 441.32 


$1,231.61 


$977.43 


-1,836.38 


461 


343 


- 685 


$2.67 


$1.72 


- 3.96 



-18- 



Table 3. Harvesting costs (dollars per bushel) , eight operations, 1983. 



Equipment 
Depreciation 
Return on investment 
Fuel 

Repairs and maintenance 
Other 



Total 



Containers 
Depreciation 
Return on investment 
Repair and maintenance 



Total 



Housing for pickers 
Depreciation 
Return on investment 
Repairs and maintenance 
Insurance 

Fuel and electrical 
Real estate tax 
Supplies 

Total 

Picking Labor 

Picker transportation 

Other labor 
Supervision 
Fruit handling 
Accounting/secretarial 

Total 

Other harvesting costs 

Total harvesting cost per bushel 



Average 

.03 
.04 
.03 
.04 
.02 

.16" 



.09 
.10 
.03 

~J2 



.02 

.06 

.03 
* 

.02 
.01 
.01 

lis" 

.59 
.09 

.13 
.11 
.02 

'J26 

.03 

1.50 



Range 



.02 - 


.06 


.03 - 


.08 


.01 - 


.05 


* 


.10 


* 


.06 


.07 - 


.33 


.05 - 


.12 


.06 - 


.14 


* _ 


.11 


.13 - 


.30 


* 


.05 


.01 - 


.12 


* 


.10 


* 


* 


.01 - 


.05 


.00 - 


.01 


* _ 


.01 


.07 - 


.30 


.48 - 


.87 


.03 - 


.13 


.05 - 


.23 


.07 - 


.17 


* _ 


.05 


.14 - 


.40 


.00 - 


.08 


1.12 - 


1.98 



Less than .01 per bushel 



-19- 



DAILY ACTIVITY OF APPLE BLOTCH LEAFMINER ADULTS^ 



T.A. Green and R.J. Prokopy 
Department of Entomology 



Over the past 8 years, the Apple Blotch Leafminer (ABLM), Phyllonorycter 
crataegella, has become a serious pest in commercial apple orchards east of the Hudson 
River, High populations of this organophosphate resistant insect have been associated 
with reduced fruit size, premature fruit ripening, and reduced fruit set the following 
year in some cultivars. 

In a previous issue of FRUIT NOTES (Spring, 1983) we reported on the development 
of a visual monitoring trap for ABLM adults. Concurrent with that work, we conducted 
a study of the behavior of ABLM moths in and around commercial apple orchards. Our 
study has thus far been restricted to the second and third adult flights, occurring in 
early July and late August, respectively. 

To determine the location and activity of ABLM adults, we performed 1 minute 
observations of various tree structures including the upper leaf surface, lower leaf 
surface, fruit, trunk, and ground cover, at 1 hour intervals. We recorded the numbers 
of ABLM observed at each location. In like fashion, we observed the tree canopy for 
flight activity. 

Our results are presented in Figure 1. We found the primary location of stationary 
ABLM throughout the day to be the lower leaf surface. We observed a number of mating 
pairs, again predominantly on the lower leaf surface, and exclusively before 11:00 AM. 
We also observed several ovipositing females, all on the lower leaf surface, and all in 
the late afternoon and evening. 

We found flight activity to be concentrated during two periods of the day, from 
sunrise to 3-4 hours after sunrise, and from 3-4 hours before sunset to sunset. The number 
of flights observed per minute during the AM flight period was approximately 2.5 times 
that of the PM flight period. During the AM flight, landings on the upper leaf surface 
outnumbered lower leaf surface landings by a 2 to 1 margin. This ratio was reversed 
in the evening. 

To further investigate the differences observed between the two flight periods, 
we captured flying ABLM and determined their sex. We employed three capture methods: 



^ We wish to express our appreciation to research assistants Geoffrey Hubell and Martin 
Rose, and to the following families for use of their orchards: Jack DeLuca, Ed Roberts, 
Dave Shearer, Harvey and Marvin Peck, Ray Davis, and Cameron Sewell (in New 
Hampshire). 



-20- 



visual traps; net sweeps; and captures of moths by an aspirator immediately after landing. 
These results are presented in Figure 2. All three methods indicated that the AM flights 
were virtually all made by males, whereas the PM flights were made predominantly 
by female moths. 

We found the same general pattern of activity to occur on non-host trees adjacent 
to orchards, but far fewer ABLM and no ovipositions were observed there. 

In summary, then, our study indicates that at least during the second and third 
generations, male ABLM moths fly from first light to approximately 9-10 AM, probably 
searching for females to mate. Virtually all mating occurs during this time. This strategy 
may be designed to minimize wind disruption of sex pheromone trails emitted by females, 
by taking advantage of the lower wind speeds usually associated with this time of day. 

From mid-morning to approximately 5 PM, ABLM adults are largely inactive and 
are located in relatively concealed and shaded areas, possibly to avoid desiccation and 
predation. In the evening, females are in flight, probably foraging for ovipostion sites. 

On the basis of our results, we recommend that insecticide applications for adult 
ABLM be timed to coincide with the evening flight period. This will maximize both 
the effectiveness of any fumigant action and contact of females with fresh insecticide. 
This season we plan to investigate the effect of temperature on oviposition rates, and 
to extend our observations to the overwintering generation of adults. 



I 



-L 



-21- 



22.87 



Number . 
ABLM ' 
Dbserved 

Sunrise 
10 AM 



I 1 



I i 



9.24 



iQ 



Number , 
ABLM ' 
Observed 

10 AM to 
5 PM 1 



JZZL 



nn 



8.24 



lea 



8.81 



Number 

ABLM 3 
Observed 

5 PM to 
Sunset . 



Lower 

Leaf 

Surface 



Upper 

Leaf 
Surface 



Fruit 



Trunk 



Ground 
Cover 



Flight 



Figure 1. Number of ABLM adults observed per minute at various 

locations during three different time periods. 



-22- 



-L 



5.13 



Number 2 
of ABLM 
Captures 

Sunrise to 
10 AM 1 



cTU 

9^ 



K33L 



Number 
of ABLM 
Captures 

5 PM to 
Sunset 



:si 



^ 



:^ 



:^ 



I — ^ 




_ r> . Sweep Net . 

Trap Captures Captures Aspirations 

Per Hour Per Minute Per Minute 



Figure 2. Number of ABLM adults captured by three different 



methods during morning and evening flight periods. 



a UJ O 

•; (J) CVJ .- 

°< oS 

- t- O 2 < 

° O < t: f. 

11. a. CL E t; 



E 
< 



O M 

CO ji 

CO t') 5i 

Q. ro «— 

O ^ < 

S- s; E E S 

Q LL D < PO 



I 



FRUIT pr 
NOTES 



PREPARED BY 
DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCES 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, 
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS, UNITED 
STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND 
COUNTY EXTENSION SERVICES COOPERATING. 

EDITORS 
W. J. LORD AND W. J. BRAMLAGE 



Volume 49 No. 4 
FALL ISSUE, 1984 

Table of Contents 

Fruit Notes Subscription 

Bigger Apples, Less Calcium, More Problems 

Photographs of Nutrient Deficiencies and Toxicities 
and Heat Stress 

Pomological Paragraph — 

New Apple Rootstock Available 

The Consumer's View of Fresh Pears 

Pomological Paragraph — Harvest Indices 

Do Fungicide Residues Affect 
Apple Maggot Fly Egglaying? 

Effects of Rootstock and Stempiece/Rootstock 
Combinations on Growth, Leaf Mineral Concentrations, 
Yield and Fruit Quality of "Empire" Apple Trees 



Issued by the Cooperative Extension Service, E. Bruce MacDougall, Dean, in further- 
ance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914; United States Department of Agriculture 
and County Extension Services cooperating. The Cooperative Extension Service offers 
equal opportunity in programs and employment. 




FRUIT NOTES SUBSCRIPTION 

The Fall Issue of FRUIT NOTES is the 4th and last issue for the year. Now is 
the time to renew your subscription for 1985. The question has been asked about 
multi-year subscriptions. This would be desirable but the Editor of FRUIT NOTES 
retires in 1985 and the fate of this publication after this date is unknown. 



To subscribe to FRUIT NOTES complete and mail the following form with your 
check for $3.00. (Canadian subscribers please send a U.S. postal money order.) 



William J. Lord 

Editor, FRUIT NOTES 



Name 



Mailing address_ 



Town, State, Country Zip 



Make checks payable to: FRUIT NOTES ACTIVITY ACCOUNT. 

Send subscription form and check to: William J. Lord 

Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 
French Hall 

University of Massachusetts 
Amherst, MA 01003 



-2- 



BIGGER APPLES, LESS CALCIUM, MORE PROBLEMS 

William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 



It has frequently been observed that large apples do not store as well as small 
apples within a given variety. When storage problems occur, they tend to be much 
more prevalent on the largest apples within a box. 

This relationship of storage disorders with fruit size is largely a reflection 
of the fact that within a sample of fruit, calcium (Ca) concentrations are lower 
within the larger fruit. For example, Dr. Mack Drake recently analyzed some 
random samples of different sizes of packed Mcintosh apples. The results (Table 
1) showed a marked reduction of fruit Ca as size increased. We have seen many 
times that differences in Ca concentration of this magnitude can lead to quite 
different amounts of breakdown, rot, bitter pit, and even scald on Mcintosh after 
storage. 



Table 1. Calcium concentration in Mcintosh apples of different sizes, 1983. 



Box Fruit Average Ca concentration^ 

count circumference fruit weight (ppm dry wt.) 

(g) 





Fruit 






circumference 




(inches) 




2 


.5 - 


2 


6 


2 


.7 - 


2 


8 


2 


.9 - 


3 


.0 


3 


.1 - 


3 


.2 



160 2.5 - 2.6 100 129 

140 2.7 - 2.8 122 119 

120 2.9 - 3.0 154 HI 

96 3.1 - 3.2 186 90 

^Ca concentration in outer cortex tissue on calyx half of the fruit. 



The relationship between fruit size and fruit Ca concentration in apples has 
been studied extensively by Michael A. Perring at the East Mailing Research Station, 
Kent, England. In bulk samples, he has found that the relationship is very dramatic 
(Figure 1). The main reason for larger fruit having lower Ca concentrations is 
that the amount of Ca transported by the tree into developing apples is very small, 
and as apples enlarge their cells get larger and the concentration of Ca in them 
becomes diluted by water and other cellular constituents. Large apples have larger 
cells, hence their Ca is more diluted. 

Another reason for the fruit size: Ca relationship is that relatively large fruit 
generally come from low-yielding trees, or areas of trees. With light cropping 
more vegetation is produced, and what Ca is available in the tree is preferentially 



-3- 



transported to the vegetation; in general, the more vegetation there is per apple, 
the less Ca is available for the fruit. 

The pattern shown in Figure 1 can be expected when examining bulk samples 
of apples. However, when you measure individual apples the pattern is not as 
distinct (Perring and Jackson). A large apple does not always have a low Ca 
concentration, and a small apple does not always have a high Ca concentration. 



I 20 

H— 

O 

g 

E 






O 

3 

O 

_) 
< 



■ •••■»;•' • •-. 



.-• • >.'; • v. -.•...•.•:•■ •..'.■ 



-L 



50 100 150 

MEAN WEIGHT PER APPLE (g) 



200 



-4- 

even when the fruit all come from the same tree on the same date. Obviously, 
there are factors that affect the movement of Ca into individual apples, since 
apples of a given size and variety can vary considerably in the total amount of 
Ca they contain (Perring and Jackson). 

Perhaps the most dramatic variation from this pattern is found with very small 
apples. Perring has observed that very small apples (which should have high Ca) 
sometimes are heavily afflicted with bitter pit. We have also observed that very 
small Mcintosh and Delicious are sometimes severely broken down. We have also 
noted that these small apples with breakdown often contain no, or almost no, 
plump seeds, and in a recent study we found that in Delicious, fruit Ca concentration 
decreased as seed number decreased, even when the fruit were all the same size. 
We have also noted that Mcintosh with few or no seeds tend to mature earlier 
than ones with many seeds, as as is well known, more mature fruit tend to 
deteriorate faster than less mature fruit. Thus, seed number may be one cause 
of the variation in Ca concentration among fruit of a given size. Poor pollination 
may contribute to low fruit Ca. 

The absolute relationship between apple size and Ca concentration changes 
somewhat from year to year (Perring and Jackson) and also varies considerably 
from variety to variety (Perring), even when bulk samples are analyzed. For 
example, Perring found that for a given size of fruit, Mutsu contained a higher 
Ca concentration than did Cox, although in both varieties the general pattern 
of Figure 1 was displayed. 

These findings demonstrate that while there is not an absolute fruit size: fruit 
Ca relationship, there certainly is a strong and highly important general relationship. 
When growing conditions are such that average fruit size is increased for a variety, 
average fruit Ca can be expected to be lowered, and with this lowering of fruit 
Ca concentration there is increased potential for fruit disorders during and after 
storage. 

This situation creates a paradox for apple growers. Production of larger fruit 
can increase yield substantially, thereby increasing potential income substantially. 
However, this greater fruit size creates a greater Ca problem, and needs to be 
accompanied by remedial actions to prevent reduced storage life of the fruit that 
have been produced. Production of larger fruit increases then need for foliar 
applications of Ca and/or for postharvest Ca treatments to the fruit. 

It is the opinion of many investigators that the "calcium problem" of apples 
that exists world-wide today is one that has been created by intensive production 
methods that have increased average fruit size and yield. It is unlikely that the 
need for high productivity will diminish with time, and so it is also unlikely that 
the need for Ca treatments will diminish with time. 

Literature Cited 

1. Perring, M.A. 1979. The effects of environment and cultural practices on cal- 

cium concentration in the apple fruit. Commun. Soil Science and Plant 
Anal. 10:279-29 3. 

2. Perring, M.A. and C.H. Jackson. 19 75. The mineral composition of apples. 

Calcium concentration and bitter pit in relation to mean mass per apple. 
J. Sci. Food Agric. 26:149 3-1502. 



-5- 



PHOTOGRAPHS OF NUTRIENT DEFICIENCIES AND TOXICITIES AND HEAT STRESS 

William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

In the past, we occasionally published in FRUIT NOTES photographs of nutrient 
deficiencies. Last year when we had numerous problems - severe scab outbreak in 
some orchards, hail, russetted apples, small fruit, an extremely wet spring, a dry 
summer, slow color development on fruit of some varieties, etc. - it became apparent 
that confusion existed concerning nutrient deficiency symptoms. Deficiency symptoms 
recognition that caused problems were mainly boron (B), potassium (K) and magnesium 
(Mg). Therefore, for your information we have again published photographs and brief 
descriptions of some nutrient deficiencies of apples and pears. 

Calcium (Ca). Bitter pit and cork spot are visual evidence of low Ca in apples and 
are more prevalent on some varieties and years than others. Bitter pit is common 
on Cortland, Baldwin and Northern Spy whereas cork spot is much less prevalent but 
can be found on Delicious and Golden Delicious in New England. 

The Delicious on the left in Figure 1 shows bitter pit and the one on the right 




Figure 1. Symptoms of calcium deficiency on Delicious fruit. 



-6- 

has cork spot. Bitter pit is most frequently associated with the calyx end of the apple 
and its severity may increase in storage. Cork spot is not localized and will appear 
anywhere on the apple. The spots are more pronounced than bitter pit, being much 
deeper and wider. In some cases the cork spot resembles the inner cone of a miniature 
volcano, with the depressed skin area containing green or dark red pigment. Cork 
spot does not increase in severity in storage. 

Magnesium (Mg) Deficiency. Mg deficiency of apple and pear trees has been more 
prevalent in orchards the last 2 years probably due to excessive rainfall early in the 
growing season. These visual observations were supported by leaf analysis which 
indicates that Mg is exceptionally low in some instances. 

Mg symptoms are characterized necrotic (brown) areas between the veins (Figures 
2, 3). The older basal leaves on shoots and spurs are usually affected first and as the 




Figure 2. Magnesium deficiency symptoms on apple leaves. 



-7- 

season progresses the injury symptoms appear on the younger leaves. The deficiency 
symptoms frequently become apparent in late July and early August. By late summer, 
the shoots on which leaves show Mg deficiency may be defoliated except for a few 
leaves near their terminals. Mg deficiency increases fruit drop at harvest. 




Figure 3. Magneisum deficiency symptoms on pear leaves. 




Figure 4. Heat stress symptoms on pear foliage. 



-8- 



Heat stress symptoms on pear foliage (Figure 4) are sometimes confused with Mg 
deficiency. Symptoms of heat stress (scorch) appear suddenly after a period of intense 
heat. The scorch generally can be found on spur and terminal leaves of several or 
more branches throughout the trees, the leaves being partially brown or black. There 
is no progression of symptoms from the older to the most recently-formed leaves on 
terminal shoots as with Mg deficiency. Frequently, the majority of injured leaves 
drop as the growing season progresses. The Bosc variety may be more susceptible 
to heat stress than other pear varieties commonly grown in New England. 

Potassium (K). Figure 5 shows leaf margin burn caused by K deficiency. This symptom 
can be easily confused with the leaf margin burn from calcium chloride sprays and 
sometimes confused with Mg deficiency. However, unlike leaf burn from calcium 
chloride sprays, the scorch of leaf margins due to K deficiency progresses from the 
older leaves to the younger leaves of current season shoots as the season advances. 
The scorch may turn gray in color. Fraying and tattering of the leaves may occur 
due to loss of the dead areas along their margins. When the deficiency is severe leaf 
drop commencing with the older leaves of current season's terminal growth, is evident 
in the latter part of the growing season. Nevertheless, leaf analysis is sometimes 
necessary to confirm the problem is K and not calcium chloride burn. 




Figure 5. Potassium deficiency symptoms on apple leaves. 



Total K absorbed and the total dry matter produced is similar for fruiting and 
non-fruiting trees but in heavy-cropping trees is translocated into the fruits. Thus, 
the demand of a large crop for K is great and both the tree and fruit may be deficient 
in this element. Leaf injury because of K deficiency can cause pre-harvest drop and 
reduce fruit size. In contrast, light cropping trees are probably much higher in K than 
is needed because of "luxury" uptake. 



K deficiency symptoms are apt to be more frequent in dry years because drought 
conditions reduces uptake of elements. 



-9- 



Boron Toxicity (B) . Toxicity symptoms of this element are observed in a few orchards 
each year. Symptoms occur on bearing trees sprayed with a foliar application of B, 
on trees fertilized with B the year of planting, or bearing trees that received excessive 
rates of B containing fertilizer. Figure 6 shows typical foliar symptoms of B toxicity. 
The symptoms are characterized by loss of chlorophyll (green coloration) from along 
the midrib and larger lateral veins. The symptoms are first apparent at the base of 
the leaf blade. In severe cases, loss of chlorophyU is more extensive than shown in 
the picture. 

Boron Deficiency (B) . Occasionally B deficiency is so acute in pear trees that the 
fruits become malformed and cracked (Figure 7). B deficiency on apple trees is less 
common than B toxicity. It is very easy to prevent, thus it is embarassing to have 
the disorder. It certainly hurts financially because all the fruit where deficiency exist 
should be sold only for cider. 

The most common symptom of B deficiency is found internal in fruit being characterized 
by brown, round or irregular shaped lesions of about 5 inch diameter (Figure 8). The 
dead cell masses become dry, hard and corky before harvest. Fruit affected with the 
disorder will have a pebbled surface (particularly noticeable on Cortland), open calyx, 
and abnormally dark color as they mature. However, frequently the first recognition 
of the problem is excessive preharvest drop. 




Figure 6. Boron toxicity symptoms on apple leaves. 



-10- 




Figure 7. Symptoms of boron deficiency in pear fruit. 




-u- 



Manganese Deficiency (Mn). This element is found deficient in several orchards each 
summer. As shown in Figure 9, apple leaves having Mn deficiency have interveinal 
fading of chlorophyll with the veins remaining green. In the past we have analyzed 
Mcintosh apple leaves from trees showing Mn deficiency and found the leaf of this 
element to be 9 to 14 ppm. Mn levels of this magnitude are critically low in comparison 
to the desired standard of 50-100 ppm set by other states for apple trees. 

Manganese Toxicity (Mn) is implicated with the problem of "apple measles" shown 
in Figure 10. The twig from Delicious at the top of the photograph shows severe 
symptoms of measles while the twig below has normal bark. Measles can severely 
injure or kill young Delicious trees. An over-application of a dormant-oil spray can 
induce symptoms similar to that shown in Figure 10. 




Figure 9. Symptoms of manganese toxicity on apple leaves. 



-12- 





Figure 10. Bark on three year-old wood from Delicious trees showing measles (top 
of photograph) as compared to normal bark (bottom of photograph). 



:jc])e:te:jt:je4:3(c^^4:3t: 



POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 



William J. Lord 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

New Apple Rootstock Will Soon Be Available. Mark a new size-controlling rootstock, 
one of a series of rootstocks developed by Dr. Robert Carlson, Michigan State University, 
Professor emeritus of Horticulture, will soon be commercially available. Trees on 
Mark (formerly designated MAC-9) are reported to be well-anchored, precocious and 
between M9 and M26 in size. Thus, Mark under Michigan conditions, shows great promise 
as a size-controlling rootstock that enhances early fruit production and requires no 
support because of poor anchorage or brittle roots. 

We have Starkspur Supreme Delicious on Mark at our Horticultural Research Station 
in Belchertown but the trees are only 4 years old. Nevertheless, the trees on Mark 
presently appear to be well anchored, precocious and somewhat larger than those on 
M26. In contrast, unsupported Starkspur Supreme Delicious trees on M9 or EMLA27 
are leaning badly or have broke at the scion-rootstock union. 

It is reported that limited quantities of trees on Mark will be available for purchase 
during the winter of 19 86-87. By this time Mark will have been more thoroughly tested 
because it has been included in the North Central Region Cooperative Rootstock Trial 
established in 1980-81 at 25 locations in the United States and 2 in Canada. 



-13- 

The Consumer's View of Fresh Pears 
William J. Bramlage 
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

A ripe pear can be a true delicacy, yet consumption of pears ranks far 
below that of fruits such as oranges, apples, and bananas. Why don't we eat 
more pears? A very interesting picture emerges from a study conducted in 
England, entitled "The Pear Situation 1976" and published by The Apple and Pear 
Development Council. As a part of this study housewives who were regular buyers 
of fruit were interviewed, including ones who purchased pears frequently, irre- 
gularly, or not at all . 

Why buy pears ? Consumers purchased fruit for the following purposes: as a 
dessert; as a snack; for inclusion in lunch boxes or picnic baskets; and for 
casual eating, such as while watching TV. The main reasons for not ordinarily 
purchasing pears were that the consumers either did not like them or because 
they considered pears unsuitable for certain of these purposes, especially for 
inclusion in lunch boxes and for casual eating. 

Pears were considered unsuitable for lunch boxes primarily because they 
were thought to be too fragile, while the main objection to them for casual 
eating was that you cannot casually eat a ripe pear! Unlike apples or bananas, 
pears usually require a plate, a knife, and a napkin when eaten. This point was 
emphasized by mothers with young children, who felt that the most satisfactory 
way to serve pears to a child was to peel, slice, and core the fruit. 

Selecti on . In the store the consumers were searching for a basis on which 
to predict the quality of pears. The most obvious possibilities are the 
appearance and the variety name. However, variety names are not conspicuously 
promoted and even when they are few consumers have sufficient knowledge to 
relate quality with variety. Therefore, appearance is the al 1 -important factor 
in choice of pears. Yet, consumers had little understanding of what to expect 
from a pear's appearance. As a result, purchase of pears was very risky. Many 
of those interviewed were unwilling to subject themselves to criticism from the 
rest of the family, so they tended to avoid this risk and make a "safe" purchase 
of other fruit. 

What is so unpredictable about pears? First, their tendency to be hard 
when the consumer wants them to be soft. A substantial portion of those inter- 
viewed had little idea that pears could be ripened in the home, much less 
knowledge of how to ripen them. Second, there was little perception of exactly 
when a pear should be eaten. Therefore, when pears were purchased it was only 
in small quantities and if the purchase proved disappointing the buyer usually 
skinned pears for some time afterward. 

Acceptabi lity . Consumers were generally well aware of the health-giving 
properties of apples and oranges, but they questioned the nutritional value of 
pears. Housewives were particularly anxious to provide their children with 
good, wholesome, fresh fruit and were unclear of the nutritional role of pears. 

There was also an image that pears tend to be more expensive than apples, 
for example, and that pears therefore were a luxury item. This image plus the 
uncertainty of quality were strong deterrents to regular purchases of pears. 



-14- 

Quite interestingly, there was strong indication that favorable disposition 
to pears was often acquired early in life. Many of the consumers who were 
enthusiastic ai^out pears were strongly encouraged to eat them as children. 
Children were particularly strong motivators of fruit purchase, so it seemed 
reasonable to conclude that pear buying would be stimulated by giving mothers a 
good reason for buying them for their children. 

The Ideal Pear . The housewives interviewed found it much easier to 
describe what they did not like about pears than what they did like. The most 
prominent dislikes were dryness and hardness, commonly thought to go together. 
Other prominent dislikes were grittiness, tendency for bruises to appear during 
ripening, and browning in the core. 

The majority of those interviewed were seeking a pear that had an attrac- 
tive smooth skin, was juicy, and had a smooth internal texture. (It should be 
noted, though, that some consumers prefer hard pears, and that in the U.S. there 
is reputed to be a growing preference for hard green peas among young 
consumers.) There was a preference for clear skinned, green to yellow pears with 
a true "pear shape", and opposition to ones with a brown ground color, which was 
associated with tough pears having a leathery skin. 

Conci usions . Although this study was conducted in England and is about 10 
years old, it is likely that the perceptions revealed by the interviews are 
widespread and still relevant. The study strongly suggests that pear sales and 
consumption could be improved considerably by better promotion and information, 
and especially by providing the consumer with more consistent quality, and with 
information about how to handle pears once they have been purchased. 

POMOLOGICAL PARAGRAPH 

Wil 1 iam J. Lord 

Department of Plant and Soil Sciences 

Harvest Indices . Changes in firmness of flesh, surface color, seed color, size 
of fruit, ground color, ease of separation from spur, days from full bloom, the 
Starch-Iodine test, calendar date and ethylene production are indices of 
maturity that a grower may follow to determine when to harvest his apples. 
Ethylene level in the fruits clearly is the best measure to assess maturity, 
ripening and storability but our experiences with a portable instrument to 
measure this gas has been less than satisfactory. Among the indices that are of 
little or no value are seed color, fruit size and fruit color. The seeds may 
change color from light green to brown weeks before other indices indicate 
picking maturity. Surface color is of no value with red strains because their 
entire surface may redden when still wery immature. 

Recently, there has been renewed interest in using the Starch-Iodine Test for 
evaluating apple maturity. As apples mature and ripen, the starch in the imma- 
ture fruit changes to sugar. This decreasing level of starch can be measured by 
treating the fruit with an iodine solution. Contact your Regional Fruit 
Specialist for further information concerning the Starch-Iodine tests. 

Picking at the proper stage of maturity is particularly important if the 
fruit is to be stored. But this is confounded by color required for sale, type 
of storage and length of storage. Therefore, there is no such thing as optimum 
maturity stage for all fruit. Fruit for long-term storage should be harvested 
and stored before they gain the capacity to produce large quantities of ethy- 
lene. However, those intended for shorter storage can and should be allowed to 
remain on the trees longer to gain extra quality and sales appeal. 



-15- 



DO FUNGICIDE RESIDUES AFFECT APPLE MAGGOT FLY EGGLAYING? 
Susan B. Oppl, Susan L. Butkewich^, and Ronald J. Prokopy-^ 
Department of Entomology 



In previous issues of FRUIT NOTES, we described some of our studies 
on the effects of various substances on apple maggot fly egglaying. For 
example, we found that a substance (pheromone) released by female flies 
following egglaying deters other females from attempting to lay an egg in 
that fruit (Vol. 42, No. 1). We also found that sodium chloride (table 
salt) Vol. 45, No. 5) and acid rain (Vol. 48, No. 4) deter egglaying, 
while calcium chloride has no such effect (Vol. 45, No. 5). 

Recently, we decided to test some of the fungicides commonly applied 
to apples to control mid- to late-season diseases for possible effects 
of their residues on apple maggot fly egglaying. We felt that an 
egglaying deterrence from fungicides applied during the months of peak 
apple maggot fly activity might affect grower choice of fungicides for 
use against diseases. 

We tested at field rates 9 organic fungicides currently recommended 
for apples and 1 fungicide (Bordeaux mixture) no longer applied to 
apples. Unfortunately, our laboratory trials showed no effects of any 
of the organic fungicides on apple maggot fly egglaying. Only the 
inorganic fungicide Bordeaux mixture significantly deterred fly 
egglaying (Table 1). Before the introduction of organic fungicides, 
Bordeaux mixture was widely used as an orchard fungicide. However, it 
is phytotoxic and is not compatible with many other pesticides, and thus 
is no longer recommended for orchard use. 

It is also interesting to note that even the fungicides which left 
visibly heavy residues on test fruit (such as sulfur) or had a 
disagreeable odor (such as fenarimol ) did not deter fly egglaying. We 
are reminded that insects may react in ways which differ dramatically 
from what we might expect. 



Graduate student. Entomology 

Extension Technician 
^ Extension Entomologist 



-16- 



Table 1. Percent of arriving females attempting egglaying into 
hawthorn fruits treated with fungicide or spring water control. 



Experiment Rate of formulated Egglaying 

material (lb/100 gal ) attempts (%) 



1) 

Control - 39.2 

Captan (50WP) 2.0 49.1 

2) 

Control - 58.2 

Maneb (80WP) 1.5 62.5 

Dodine (65WP) 0.375 54.2 

3) 

Control - 42.8 

Benomyl (50WP) 0.375 43.8 

Sulfur (actual ) 5.0 56.6 

4) 

Control - 67.5 

Thiram (65WP) 2.0 67.3 

5) 

Control - 65.4 

Metiram (80WP) 2.0 49.1 

Dikar (80WP) 2.0 60.0 

6) 

Control - 49.2 

Ferbam (76WP) 1.5 70.0 

Fenarimol (12.5EC) 3 oz. 50.9 

7) 

Control - 66.7 

Bordeaux mi xture 3-11 12.1* 
(copper sulfate-1 ime) 

*Significantly less than egglaying into control fruits. 



-17- 



Effects of Rootstock and Stempiece/Rootstock Combinations on Growth, Leaf Mineral 
Concentrations, Yield and Fruit Quality of 'Empire' Apple Trees! 

W.J. Lord, D.W. Greene, R.A. Damon, Jr. and J.H. Baker 
University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01003 

A study of 8-year duration was recently completed in which we studied the 
vegetative growth, leaf mineral concentrations, fruiting and fruit quality responses 
of 'Empire' apple trees on M26, M9, M27, M9/MM106, M9/MM111, M27/MM106 and 
M27/MM111. The stempieces were 8 inches (20 cm) in length. Our summary and 
conclusions from this study are below. 

Growth. It was difficult to train, without temporary support, trees on M26, 9/106, 
9/111, 27/106 and 27/111 because of leader leaning. Leader leaning appeared associated 
with the growth characteristic of 'Empire' rather than an excessive crop load. Since 
this problem also has been encountered with other varieties on M26 or interstems, 
we concluded that it may be frequently necessary to provide support for the central 
leader until the trees have obtained the height and volume desired. 

Interstem trees on MMlll produced more root suckers than those with MM106 as 
the understock. Trees on M27 produced no root suckers. The root suckering was 
not particularly troublesome on the interstem trees probably because all but 2 inches 
of the stempiece was planted below ground and maintained by periodic removal or 
addition of top soil. Costante et al. in Vermont showed that interstem trees planted 
with most of the stempiece beneath ground had less root suckers and problems 
associated with burrknots on the stempieces. 

Height and spread of trees on M26, 9/106, 9/111, 27/106 and 27/111 were similar, 
and they were larger than those on M9 and M27. The data disagreed with the suggestion 
by nurserymen that a M27 stempiece on either MM106 or MMlll will produce a tree 
approximately the size of the same cultivar on M9 rootstock. 

M27 appears too dwarfing to be of value under less than extremely favorable 
growing conditions and a high level of management. However, Tukey in Pennsylvania 
predicts off bright future for this rootstock as the industry shifts to virus-tested 
rootstocks which induce high vigor. 

Leaf mineral concentrations. The rootstock and stempiece/rootstock combinations 
influenced leaf phosphorous, magnesium, boron, manganese, and aluminum in 'Empire' 
scion foliage but the differences were small except for manganese levels in trees 
on M27. Manganese level in leaves from trees on M27 was much higher than those 
for trees on the other rootstock and stempiece/rootstock combinations. 



This study was funded in part by grants from the International Dwarf Fruit Tree 
Association. 



-18- 



Effects of rootstock on nutrient uptake and movement may vary among locations 
due to orchard conditions, tree age, variety and crop load. Nevertheless, appropriate 
preventative measures may be necessary before planting trees on M27 rootstocks 
where manganese has been associated with internal bark necrosis on Delicious apple 
trees. 

Fruitfulness and fruit size. No rootstock or stempiece/rootstock combination 
consistently influenced bloom or fruit set although it is well known that M9 rootstock 
can induce early precocity and limited data show that rootstocks can influence fruit 
set. The trees fruited in their 3rd growing season but yields were low until the 6th 
growing season. After 8 growing seasons it was found that trees on M26, 9/106 and 
27/106 were more productive than those on 9/111, 1V19 and M27. However, when 
fruitfulness was related to trunk girth, production efficiency did not differ among 
the trees on the various rootstock and stempiece/rootstock combinations. There 
was no consistent influence of rootstock or stempiece/rootstock combinations on 
fruit size of 'Empire' in this study. 

Individual trees within the rootstock and stempiece/rootstocks combinations became 
somewhat biennial. Heavy cropping during the 7th or 8th growing seasons combined 
with the tendency of 'Empire' to produce small fruit, indicated the need to chemically 
thin this variety to enhance fruit size and to prevent biennial bearing. 

Fruit maturity. Fruit from trees on 27/111 ripened later than those from trees on 
the other rootstock and stempiece/rootstock combinations. However, the delay in 
ripening was small and probably of no commercial importance. 

Data cited above indicated that IV127 and M9 were equally suitable as stempieces. 
No interstem combination showed an advantage over the lower-priced singly-worked 
trees on M26 although MMlll is reported to be adapted to a greater variety of soils 
than M26. We concluded that interstem trees will require a higher level of management 
that is usually given trees on more vigorous size-controlling rootstocks in northeastern 
United States. 



w>C-no 

■& -J. 
on ■* 

-» OJ X 

SS 3 
= § 

iS a 
"* o ■ 

SI 

3 t 

n 



> 
3 



C2 



3982' 



060 



o 
o 
to 



3 ■03; 
to 

- Si 



ACME 
BOOKRlNOiNG CO.. INC. 

JUL 1 6 1987 

100 CAMemOGE STREET 
CHA^<LESTOWI^!. MASS.