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
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
*
r^
VD
VO
r-»
o
•
•
«
O
rH
as
CO
00
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
-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
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 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
.
>
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— (
J2
re o
•r^
«
"*v^
3
o —
s
£
o
-^
V. >
MO
U
•M o
Ln
•
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
