Full text of "Fruit notes"

nnDDnnDnaDnnDDDDDonDnnDDDDDa

D
D
D

a
o

D
D
D
□
D
□

a
□

□ LIBRARY

D
D

a UNIVERSITY LIBRARY g

b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS □

AT a

a AMHERST R

B JUL 03^7 B

n g

§ SCIENCES LIBRARY §

BaDnGDanaDnDDnnDnnaDDDanDDna

»l/Morr.
er

B
54

Fruit Notes

Prepared by tJie Department of Plant & Soil Sciences. T^i

University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension System,

United States Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating<^

-n

ISSN 0427-6906

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

!>• en
CD

Volume 60, Number 1
WINTER ISSUE, 1994

Table of Contents

Apple Integrated Pest Management in 1994;
Insects and Mites in Second-level Orchard Blocks

Performance of Mcintosh Apple Trees
as Affected by Rootstock

Growing Gala Apples in Massachusetts

Pruning Gala Apple Trees to Increase Fruit Size and Quality

Effects of Pesticides on Pest Ecology in Blocks of

Scab-resistant Apple Cultivars

Tax Pointers for Farmers and Landowners in 1994

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the first day of
January, April, July, and October by the Department of Plant
& Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $8.00 for United
States addresses and $10.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-
year subscription begins January 1 and ends December 31.
Some back issues are available for $2.00 (United States ad-
dresses) and $2.50 (foreign addresses). Pa3rments must be in
United States currency and should be made to the University of
Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

University of Massachusetts

Amherst, MA 01003

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM POLICY:

All chemical uses suggested in this pubUcation are contingent upon continued registration. These
chemicals should be used in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. Growers are
urged to be familiar with all current state regulations. Where trade names are used for
identification, no company endorsement or product discrimination is intended. The University of
Massachusetts makes no warranty or guarantee of any kind, expressed or implied, concerning the
use of these products. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR TROPERTY
DAMAGE.

Issued by the University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension System, Robert G. Helgesen,
Director, in furtherance of the acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. The University of Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension System offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Apple Integrated Pest Management in
1994: Insects and Mites in Second-level
Orchard Blocks

Jennifer Mason, Ronald Prokopy, Starker Wright, Jonathan Black,
Christina Chang, Julie Cook, Sarah Goodall, and Yu Ma
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

Since 1991, the Apple IPM program at the University
of Massachusetts has been involved in a pilot project of
second-level IPM in commercial Massachusetts apple or-
chards. Under second-level IPM, orchard management is
integrated across all classes of pests: insects, mites, dis-
eases, weeds, and vertebrates, rather than focusing on a
single type of pest. Here we report results of the fourth and
final year of this pilot project.

Insect and mite management under second-level IPM
practices requires application of three to four selective
insecticide sprays from April to early June to manage
tarnished plant bug (TPB), European apple sawfly (EAS),
plum curculio (PC), green fruitworm (GFW), and the first
generations of codling moth (CM), lesser appleworm
(LAW), apple blotch leafminer (ABLM), and white apple
leafhopper (WALH). Insecticide application to the interior
of the block ceases after the final plum curculio spray in
early June, hopefully allowing populations of predatory
insects and parasitoids to increase to levels sufficient to
provide control of summer populations of foliar pests. In
full second-level IPM blocks, apple maggot flies (AMF)
are controlled by perimeter interception traps. In transi-
tional second-level IPM blocks, use of AMF interception
traps is replaced by perimeter-row spraying with Guthion'"
or Imidan™ every three weeks beginning in early July. In
both types of blocks, removal of unmanaged apple and pear
trees within 100 yards of each block is intended to reduce
immigration of CM and LAW. Removal of drops during
and after harvest discourages buildup of within-orchard
populations of AMF and CM.

It is our belief that in-depth studies of biologically based
control methods, such as used in our second-level IPM pilot
project, hold promise for apple growers facing the challenge
of growing fruit in a manner that is both environmentally
sound and financially feasible. Benefits could range from
a more marketable fruit, due to decreased residue to slower
development of insect resistance to pesticide. The main
purpose of the pilot project has been to evaluate low-spray
control methods to provide effective alternatives to Massa-
chusetts apple growers.

In 1994, we continued work in the same six full second-
level and five transitional second-level IPM test blocks used
from 1991 to 1993. Each second-level block was matched
with a nearby control block that was managed by the grower,
using first-level IPM methods.

Early-Season Fruit-injuring Pests

For control of early season fruit-injuring pests active up
to early June, second-level IPM is dependent on pesticide
treatment based on monitoring. Orchards were monitored
weekly beginning in mid-April and continuing through
mid-June. Five white sticky rectangular traps were hung in
early April in each block to monitor for TPB, and were
rehung prior to bloom to monitor for EAS. During PC
season, scouts examined fruit on perimeter trees for PC
injury, but growers were advised to make daily inspections
on their own. Recommendations for treatment of the
experimental block were made to the grower on the basis of
monitoring results.

Due to a lack of alternatives to pesticidal control of
early-season fruit pests, first- and second-level blocks were
managed similarly through early June, and therefore had
similar insecticide use until that time (Table 1). Combined
injury levels from early-season fruit pests at harvest in 1994
were similar in both first- and second-level blocks (full and
transitional) (Table 2). TPB injury levels were lower than
in 1993, while PC injury levels were higher, particularly in
the transitional blocks. EAS levels were also greater than
in 1993, although they remained lower than TPB and PC
levels. Pesticide use was similar to 1993 in all block types.

Summer Fruit-injuring Pests:
Full Second-level IPM

Odor-baited red sticky spheres were hung every five
yards on perimeter apple trees of each full second-level
block to intercept immigrating AMF. The spheres were
baited with both butyl hexanoate, a synthetic fruit odor
deployed in polyethylene vials, and ammonium carbonate,

Fru/t Notes, Winter, 1995

Table 1. Dosage equivalents (spray events in parenthe.

;cs) of insecticides and

acaricides

used in second-level

and first-level IPM blocks i

n 1994.*

Fruit

pests

Mites

Before

After

mid-

Other

Type of block

June

Oil

miticides

ABLM

Total

Full second-level

2.6

0.0

1.6

0.0

0.5

0.4

5.1

(3.2)

(0.0)

(2.3)

(0.0)

(0.7)

(0.5)

(6.7)

First-level

2.9

1.7

1.9

0.4

0.5

0.6

8.0

(3.8)

(2.9)

(2.6)

(0.5)

(0.8)

(11.4)

Transitional second-level

3.0

0.4

1.8

0.0

5.2

(3.1)

(0.8)

(2.8)

(0.0)

(6.7)

First-level

2.6

1.6

2.2

0.3

0.4

0.2

7.3

(3.0)

(3.5)

(3.2)

(0.2)

(0.4)

(0.2)

(10.5)

* LH = leafhopper; ABLM

= apple blotch leafminer.

Table 2. Average percent injury by early season insects pests in second-level and first-level IPM
blocks in 1994*

Type of block

TPB

HAS

GFW

Total

Full second-level

3.1a

0.6a

0.2a

0.1a

4.0a

First-level

3.4a

0.7a

0.6b

0.1a

4.8a

Transitional second-level

4.6a

1.9a

0.1a

O.Ia

6.7a

First-level

2.6a

4.5a

0.3a

0.1a

7.5a

*Mcans in each couplet in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different at
odds of 19:1. Two hundred fruit of each cultivar present in each second-level block were sampled
at harvest in both second-level and first-level blocks. All blocks contained at least one of the
following cullivars, and some contained up to four of these: Mcintosh, Cortland, Delicious,
Empire, Golden Delicious. Average number of fruit sampled per block - 500. When sampling a
cultivar for early-season fruit pests, we examined 10 fruit on each of 20 interior trees. TPB =
tarnished plant bug; PC = plum curculio; HAS = European apple sawfly; GFW = green
fruitworm.

Fruit Notes, Winter. 1995

Table 3. Season-long apple maggot lly (AMF) injury and trap captures in second-level IPM blocks and
first-level IPM blocks in 1994. *

Perimeter

AMF injury to

Interior monitoring

monitoring trap

Interception trap

fruit at harvest

trap captures per

captures per

Type of block

(%)

four traps

block

Full second-level

4.2a

18.0a

38.1a

12,588

First-level

3.0a

9.8a

18.9a

Transitional second-level

2.6a

8.9a

10.8a

First-level

2.7a

7.4a

7.9a

*Means in each couplet in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds of
19:1. Two hundred fruit of each cultivar present in each second-level block were sampled at harvest in
both second-level and first-level blocks. All blocks contained at least one of the followmg cultivars, and
some contained up to four of these: Mcintosh, Cortland, Delicious, Empire, Golden Delicious. Average
number of fruit sampled per block - 500. When sampling a cultivar, we examined 10 fruit on each of 20
interior trees. An additional 10 fruit on each of 10 perimeter trees (when cultivar present on a perimeter
row) were sampled for apple maggot fly and codling moth.

a synthetic food odor released through a small puncture in
a foil wrapped package. Traps were cleaned every other
week to maintain high capturing power.

Trap captures were up drastically from 1993 (and all
previous years), with interception trap captures averaging
12,588 flies per full second-level block, as compared to
5023 in 1993. It should be noted, however, that approxi-
mately 60% of all AMF captured on perimeter traps in 1 994
were captured in one orchard. Although the difference was
not statistically significant, AMF captures on four interior
unbaited monitoring traps were almost twice the number
captured in nearby first-level blocks (Table 3). AMF injury
in second-level blocks at harvest was considerably greater
than in 1993, but was not significantly different from injury
levels in first-level blocks (4.2 vs. 3.0%). While the higher
interior trap captures were a concern, the relatively similar
injury levels suggest the perimeter traps maintained a level
of control fairly comparable to first-level blocks. Better trap
positioning and an improved delivery system for food odor
bait, as well as movement of the interception traps to later
cultivars as earlier cultivars were harvested, may have aided
the effectiveness of the trapping program.

While AMF injury levels among fruit on the trees at
harvest were not a major concern, AMF levels in drops in
several orchards were cause for concern. Some cultivars,
especially Jersey Mac and Golden Delicious, had up to 50%

AMF infestation in dropped fruit at harvest. It has been our
policy to recommend immediate removal of drops after
harvest, a policy that is difficult if not impossible to imple-
ment on many farms, given labor and time constraints.
Research being conducted by a graduate student in our
program suggests that even if all drops were to be removed
immediately after harvest, such removal would have al-
lowed considerable AMF larval emergence to have occurred
before drop removal, because AMF larvae often leave fruit
soon after it drops. It appears that cultivars susceptible to
AMF could lead to infested drops and could cause difficul-
ties in a second-level IPM management program by allow-
ing within-orchard buildup of AMF.

Fruit injury by CM and LR was higher in second-level
than in first-level blocks, and was higher in 1994 than in
1993 (Table 4). CM was considerably more evident in 1994
than in 1991-1993 and was a problem in a number of more
traditionally-managed blocks across Massachusetts, as well
as in second-level blocks. We feel that removal of aban-
doned host trees from within 100 yards of a second-level
block provides good control of CM in average years. In
years when CM are forced to travel farther distances due to
limited wild host resources (as in 1994), however, tree
removal may not be sufficient to protect a low-spray block.
LR injury, while not much higher than 1993 levels, was
significantly greater in second-level than in first level

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1 995

Table 4. Fruit injury by codling moth (CM), leafroller (LR), and lesser
appleworm (LAW) in second-level and first-level IPM blocks in 1994.*

Type of block

LAW

Full second-level

0.4a

1.0a

1.8a

First-level

O.I a

0.1b

0.2a

Transitional second-level

0.1a

0.4a

First-level

0.0a

♦Means in each couplet in each column followed by a different letter are
significantly different at odds of 19:1. Two hundred fruit of each cultivar
present in each second-level block were sampled at harvest in both second-
level and first-level blocks. All blocks contained at least one of the following
cultivars, and some contained up to four of these: Mcintosh, Cortland,
Delicious, Empire, Golden Delicious. Average number of fruit sampled per
block = 500. When sampling a cultivar, we examined 10 fruit on each of 20
interior trees. An additional 10 fruit on each of 10 perimeter trees per
cultivar (when cultivar present on a perimeter row) were sampled for apple
maggot fly and codling moth.

blocks. Again, this observation suggests that lepidopleran
pests may provide a special challenge in low-spray orchard
situations.

LAW, a pest which first became a concern in 1993, was
a major concern in one second-level block in 1994. The
block had several rows of Cortlands bordered by a field of
young trees and shrubs, and migration from the field toward
the interior of the block seemed to have occurred. While the
average of LAW injury in second-level blocks was not
significantly higher than in first-level blocks, field observa-
tions suggested a direct link between low-spray manage-
ment and fruit injury. In addition, Cortlands seem far more
susceptible to LAW injury than Mcintosh, as Cortland and
Mcintosh fruit in the same location have shown very
different injury rates over the past two years. We plan to
conduct research on LAW beginning in the summer of
1995.

No insecticide was applied against fruil-injuring pests
after mid-June in second-level blocks. Growers applied an
average of 1 .7 dosage equivalents of insecticide against fruit
pests after mid-June in first-level blocks, spraying such
blocks an average of 2.9 times (Table 1).

Summer Fruit-injuring Pests:
Transitional Second-level IPM

Every three weeks after early June, perimeter row apple
trees in transitional second-level blocks were treated with

insecticide to control
AMF. The block interior
remained free of insecti-
cide directed toward fruit
pests after early June.
AMF injury was higher in
1994 than in previous
years of the pilot program,
but was comparable in the
second- and first-level
blocks (2.6 vs. 2.7%).
AMF captures on interior
unbaited monitoring traps
were similar in first- and
second-level blocks (7.4
vs. 8.9).

Injury by CM, LR, and
LAW was lower than in
1993, and levels were only
slightly higher in second-
level than in first-level
blocks (Table 4). LR injury
decreased from 0.7% in
1993 to 0.1% in 1994.
Blocks in which LR had
been a problem in the past
may have benefited by ear-
lier than usual picking of fruit, particularly of Cortlands.
Field observations suggest that significant LR injury in our
experimental blocks has usually occurred within the last few
weeks before harvest.

Total insecticide use after early June averaged 0.4
dosage equivalents in second-level blocks compared with
1 .6 dosage equivalents in first-level blocks (Table 1 ). Many
growers employed greater than usual pesticide spray events
in their first-level blocks, due mainly to high AMF numbers
and rainy weather.

Foliar Pests and Beneficial Natural Enemies:
Full Second-level IPM

Early season management of foliar pests relies on
monitoring and chemical intervention if initial pest popu-
lations are high. Two dormant oil applications were recom-
mended for control of overwintering ERM eggs. Five red
sticky rectangular traps were hung on tree trunks in each
block in mid-April to monitor for the emergence of overwin-
tering ABLM adults. Foliar sampling began in late April
and focused on ERM and WALH, as well as on the appear-
ance of ABLM eggs. If necessary, pesticide was recom-
mended to control early populations of any of these pests if
they existed at problem levels.

Seasonal averages for pesl mite populations in 1994
were a bit lower than in 1993. Unlike 1993, most locations

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Table 5. Seasonal average populations of pest mites and mite predators in second-level
and first-level IPM blocks.*

Mite presence (% of leaves)

Ratio of

ERM +TSM

Type of block

ERM -1- TSM

to Af

Full second-level

16a

3.6a

4.4a

4:1

First-level

20a

6.3a

2.1a

3:1

Transitional second-level

13.1a

4.1a

1:1

First-level

11a

4.1a

2.1a

3:1

* Means in each couplet in each column followed by a different letter are significantly
different at odds of 19:1. ERM = European red mite TSM = Two-spotted mite; Af =
Amblyseius fallacis; YM = yellow mite.

did not experience significant mite populations until late
summer. Mite populations in second-level blocks were
similar to those in first-level blocks (Table 5). A program
of double dormant oil applications in the spring was highly
effective in suppressing early mite populations, even in
cases where overwintering mite egg numbers were high. In
contrast to pest mites, phytoseiid mite predators were found
at 5 times the levels of 1993 (Table 5). The slow growth of
pest mites allowed for good late season biocontrol, as pest
mite levels did not peak until predators were present.
Amblyseius fallacis was at statistically similar levels in
first-level and second-level blocks, suggesting that the
presence of mite predators was not specific to blocks that
received no insecticide after early June. Yellow mites were
present in slightly higher numbers in second-level than in
first-level blocks, but the difference was not statistically
significant (Table 5).

Second-level blocks received slightly less dormant oil
and summer oil treatments than first-level blocks, and
received no miticides other than oil (Table 1 ).

Leafliopper populations of all types were abundant in
1994. WALH numbers were slightly higher in second-level
than in first-level blocks. One second-level block required
one summer insecticide application against WALH. PLH
proved more of a problem in 1994 than in 1993, and was
found in higher levels in second-level than in first-leve!
blocks. Rose leafhopper was significantly higher in second-
level than in first-level blocks. In one second-level block
requiring a summer insecticide treatment against RLH, we

suggested an application of Omite™^ as an alternative to
harsher chemicals. The results were acceptable, although
not exceptional. While RLH has not been a problem in all
second-level blocks, in those blocks surrounded by multi-
fiora rosebushes we have found it to be a consistent concern
(Table 6).

Second- and third-generation leafminer populations
were higher in 1994 than in 1993 and were similar in first-
and second-level blocks (Table 6). Continuing research on
ABLM parasitism rates in first-level and second-level
blocks again has shown a higher rate of parasitism of
second-generation ABLM larvae in second-level blocks (36
vs. 20%). We remain hopeful that parasitism can be proven
a successful means of ABLM control in a low-spray pro-
gram.

Green apple aphid populations were higher in 1994
than in 1993, as were levels of monitored aphid predators
(Table 6). We continue to be content with predator control
of GAA. Woolly apple aphid populations on watersprouts
were at lower levels than in 1993, and were present in
similar numbers in both types of blocks (Table 6).

Foliar Pests and Beneficial Natural Enemies:
Transitional Second-level IPM

Seasonal averages of mite populations were low in both
first- and second-level 1PM blocks (Table 5). One second-
level block with a high overwintering ERM egg count and
only one dormant oil application had very high niitc num-

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Table 6. Foliar insect pest average population levels in second-level and first-level blocks in 1994.*

Type of block

PLH

WALH

RLH

ABLM

ABLMP

GAA

GAAP

WAA

Full second-level
First-level

Transitional second-level
First-level

11a
4a

13a
3b

8a
5a

7a
2a

5a
<lb

3a
2a

23a
25a

10a
5a

36a

20b

36a
23b

47a
39a

32a
37a

23a
17a

12a

17a

la
4a

Oa
Oa

♦Means in each couplet in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds
of 19:1. PLH = potato leafhopper; WALH = white apple leafhopper; RLH = rose leafhopper; ABLM
= apple blotch leafminer; ABLMP = leafminer parasitoids; GAA = green apple aphid; GAAP = green
apple aphid predators: cecidomyiids and syrphids; WAA = woolly apple aphid. PLH, WALH, and
RLH data are average percentages based on bi-weekly samples of 100 or 200 fruit cluster or terminal
leaves or 100 watersprouts. ABLM data are the average number of (second and third generation only)
mines per 100 leaves based on bi-weekly samples of 100 or 200 fruit cluster or terminal leaves. GAA,
GAAP, and WAA data are percentage watersprouts infested based on bi-weekly samples of 100
watersprouts.

bers initially, and the grower chose to apply a summer oil.
Although there was no statistical difference, transitional
second-level blocks had greater numbers of phytoseiid
predators than any other type of block in 1994, and early
problem mite populations were brought under control by
predators by late summer (Table 5). Yellow mite popula-
tions in first-and second-level blocks were similar (2.1 vs.
4.1%) and also were similar to 1993 levels. Dormant and
summer oil applications were slightly lower in second-level
than in first-level blocks, as were non-oil miticide applica-
tions (Table 1).

PLH levels were significantly greater in second-level
than in first-level blocks, a difference from 1993 when
levels in both block types were almost identical. Both
WALH and RLH populations were higher in second-level
than in first-level blocks, although not significantly. In
1994, levels of all three types of leafhoppers were similar in
transitional and full second-level blocks (Table 6).

ABLM populations were higher in second-level than in
first-level blocks; mine levels were similar to those found in
1993 (Table 6). In general, the transitional second-level
blocks fared better than full second-level blocks in terms of
mine numbers, but corresponding differences in the two sets
of first-level blocks suggest that this may be specific to the
orchards chosen and not due to differences in IPM manage-
ment techniques. Parasitism rates in transitional second-
level blocks were the same as those in full second-level

blocks (Table 6).

Both GAA and aphid predator levels were greater in
first-level than in second-level blocks, although popula-
tions in both types of blocks were very similar (Table 6).
Predators provided good control of aphid populations in
both types of blocks. Woolly apple aphids were absent from
both types of blocks (Table 6).

Conclusions

With regard to full second-level IPM practices that
involve substitution of cultural, behavioral, and biological
control methods for insecticide use after early June, we
conclude the following after four years of implementation:

( 1 ) Little buildup of codling moth or ieafroUer beyond the
level existing in nearby firsl-level blocks;

(2) Noticeable buildup of lesser appleworm from 1991 to
1994;

(3) Consistently slightly greater injury by apple maggot
flies in second-level blocks, especially in late-ripening
cultivars;

(4) No buildup of pest mites under slightly reduced miti-
cide use but insufficient buildup of predatory mites to
permit truly substantial reduction in miticide use (prob-
ably as a consequence of negative effects of fungicide on
mite predators);

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

(5) Considerable buildup of parasitoids of leafmineis, pos-
sibly sufficient to reduce or eliminate need for spray
against leafminers;

(6) No buildup of apple or woolly apple aphids beyond that
in nearby first-level blocks but greater presence of
aphid predators;

(7) Slight buildup of white apple leafhoppers; and

(8) Considerable numbers of potato and rose leafhoppers in
second-level blocks after early June, causing foliar
damage to watersprouts and terminals (potato) and
excrement-spotting of fruit and nuisance to pickers
(rose).

With respect to transitional second-level IPM practices
that involve no application of insecticide to the block
interior after early June but rely on perimeter-row sprays
mstead of traps for controlling apple maggot flies, we
conclude the following after four years of implementation:

(i;

(2)
(3)

(4)

(5)
(6)

(7)

No buildup of codling moth and only a slight buildup of
leafroller beyond the level existing in nearby first-level
blocks;

Slight buildup of lesser appleworm from 1991 to 1994;
Similar level of injury by apple maggot flies in second-
and first-level blocks;

No buildup of pest mites under slightly reduced miti-
cide use but not enough buildup of predatory mites to
allow much reduction in miticide use;
Little buildup of parasitoids of leafminers;
No buildup of apple aphids, woolly apple aphids or
white apple leafhoppers beyond acceptable levels; and
No unacceptable populations of rose leafhoppers dur-
ing mid- and late-summer.

In sum, transitional second-level IPM offers an advan-
tage over first-level IPM in terms of a substantial reduction

in pesticide use during summer months. Transitional
second-level IPM does not appear to afford significant
biological control of leafminers and may allow buildup of
leafrollers and lesser appleworm over time. Full second-
level IPM is impractical for most growers at this time as it
is labor intensive and is still in need of additional work on
control of several pests. In the long run, we believe that if
pesticide-treated spheres can be developed and registered as
an inexpensive substitute for sticky spheres to control apple
maggot, full second-level IPM will be as economical to
employ and as effective in controlling pests as first-level
IPM while offering additional environmental benefits.

In 1995 we will begin work on specific areas high-
lighted as shortcomings over our four year second-level
IPM pilot project. Research will include intensive study of
pesticide-treated spheres, examination of rose leafhopper
immigration patterns from multiflora rosebushes into or-
chard blocks, and a study of the basic biology of the lesser
appleworm. Success in these areas is necessary for second-
level IPM to become economically feasible in a commercial
orchard setting.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Massachusetts Society
for Promoting Agriculture, the USDA Northeast Regional
IPM Competitive IPM Grants Program, State/Federal IPM
funds, and the Northeast Region Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program (formerly LISA). We
gratefully acknowledge this funding. We are also grateful
for the participation and support of the following growers:
Bill Broderick, David Chandler, Dana Clark, Dick, Greg,
and Kevin Gilmore, Tony Lincoln, Jesse and Wayne Rice,
Joe Sincuk, Dave Shearer, and Barry and Bud Wiles.

%T# •^ •X^ vi> *x»

•^ •^ •^ 0^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Performance of Mcintosh Apple Trees as
Affected by Rootstock

Wesley R. Autio, Duane W. Greene, and William J. Lord

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

The New England apple industry depends largely on
the cultivar Mcintosh, which accounts for more than 50%
of the planted acreage. Although New England environ-
mental conditions provide an ideal climate for producing
very high quality Mcintosh, giving the area a niche culti-
var, market competition both within New England and in
other parts of the country has kept the wholesale returns to
Mcintosh growers just above the production costs. Grow-
ers therefore must pursue all means of reducing input costs,
enhancing cost efficiencies, and increasing crop value.
Rootstocks, particularly those which result in fully dwarf
trees, can affect all of these conditions by reducing some
management costs and by enhancing precocity, yield effi-
ciency, and coloring.

A trial was established in April of 1985 to study the
relationship among various rootstocks with Mcintosh as
the scion cultivar. Summerland Red Mcintosh was included
on M.9/A.2 (Alnarp 2 as the root and M.9 as an interstem),
0.3 (Ottawa 3), M.7 EMLA, M.26 EMLA, M.7A, OARl

(Oregon Apple Rootstock 1), and Mark in a randomized
complete block design with seven replications. Spacing
was 12 X 20 feet. Trees were not allowed to fruit until
1988, when in their fourth leaf. All trees were pruned mini-
mally; however, because of vigorous spreading, some had
to be containment-pruned before the end of the experiment.
Trunk cross-sectional area was measured annually, and tree
height and canopy spread were measured at the end of the
study. Yields per tree were assessed annually. Samples of
fruit were taken each year from 1989 through 1994 to as-
sess fruit size, and in 1991, 1993, and 1994, fruit were
sampled to assess average red color development.

At the end often growing seasons, trees on M.7 EMLA
and those on OARl were the largest in the planting m terms
of trunk cross-sectional area, height, and spread (Table 1).
Trees on M.7A were similar in height and spread to those
on M.7 EMLA and OARl, but their mean trunk cross-sec-
tional area was significantly smaller than those on M.7
EMLA. Trees on M.26 EMLA and M.9/A.2 were similar

Table 1. Tree size at the end of the tenth growing season (1994) and projected density of
Summerland Red Mcintosh trees on seven rootstocks.*

Trunk cross-

sectional

Tree

Canopy

Projected

area

height

spread

density

Rootstock

(in=)

(ft)

(trees/acre)

M.9/A.2

9.1

8.8 cd

12.2 abc

237

0.3

6.9

7.5 d

11.0 c

278

M.7 EMLA

18.2

11.9 a

13.9 a

132

M.26 EMLA

10.2

9.4 be

11.8 be

237

M.7A

14.1

10.8 ab

12.9 ab

148

OARl

16.0

11.1 ab

12.4 abc

148

Mark

4.6

7.4 d

7.8 d

496

Within columns, means not followed by the same letter are significantly different at odds
of I9;l.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Table 2. Cumulative yield of Summerland Red Mcintosh trees on seven
rootstocks."

Cumulative yield (1988-94)

Per trunk cross-

Per

sectional area

planted area

Per tree

(efficiency)

(projected)

Rootstock

(bu)

(bu/in')

(bu/acre)

M.9/A.2

12.4 b

1.42 b

2930 ab

0.3

12.6 b

1.84 a

3500 a

M.7 EMLA

20.6 a

1.14 cd

2720 ab

M.26 EMLA

13.4 b

1.35 be

3170 ab

M.7A

14.6 b

1.04 d

2170 b

OARl

6.9 c

0.43 e

1030 c

Mark

7.5 c

1.71 a

3740 a

Within columns, means not followed by the same letter are significantly
different at odds of 19:1.

in size. Trees on 0.3 were similar in trunk cross-sectional
area and spread to those on M.26 EMLA and those on M.9/
A. 2 but were significantly shorter than those on M.26
EMLA. The smallest trees in the planting were on Mark.
Projected planting densities presented in Table 1 were based

partially on tree spread and on visual observation of the
canopy developement and vigor and represent a "best guess"
of the optimal density for these trees at the site on which
they where grown.

Trees on M.7 EMLA yielded the most per tree cumu-

Table 3. Average

box count of fruit from Summerland Red Mcintosh trees

on seven rootstocks. All

means were adjusted for the effects of crop load.'

Rootstock

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

M.9/A.2

98 a

123 a

116 a

110 ab

122 ab

0.3

102 ab

125 a

127 a

116 a

111 ab

116 a

M.7 EMLA

105 b

139 b

122 a

115 a

106 a

119 ab

M.26 EMLA

104 ab

125 a

120 a

119 a

106 a

121 ab

M.7A

104 ab

141 b

123 a

117 a

109 ab

118 ab

OARl

—

157 c

165 b

130 b

123 c

127 b

Mark

122 c

128 ab

125 a

132 b

116 be

126 ab

Within columns.

means not followed by the same

; letter are

significantly different at odds of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1 995

1200

1^ 1000 -

800

T3
0)

600

o
a

■o

400

(1)

200

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Figure 1. Projected annual yields per acre of Summerland Red Mcintosh trees on various rootstocks. Projected
yields were based on annual per-tree yields and projected tree densities (Tabic 1 ).

latively (Table 2) and also in most years. Trees on M.9/
A.2, 0.3, M.26 EMLA, and M.7A yielded similarly, and
trees on OARl and Mark yielded the least per tree.

To relate yield to tree size, it commonly is expressed
on the basis of trunk cross-sectional area and referred to as
yield efficiency. Efficiency was greatest for trees on 0.3
and Mark (Table 2). Trees on M.9/A.2 and M.26 EMLA
were the next most efficient, followed by trees on M.7
EMLA and M.7A. The least efficient trees were on OARl.

The best estimate of relative yield capabilities may come
from a projection of the yield per acre (Table 2, Figure 1 ).
This projection is partially subjective since it is based on a
projection of tree density per acre, but it gives some basis
for comparison that is rooted in a "real-world" measure-
ment. By this measurement, the most productive trees cu-

mulatively were on Mark, 0.3, M.26 EMLA, M.9/A.2. and
M.7 EMLA. The least productive were on OARl.

The effects of rootstock on fruit size varied from year
to year (Table 3); however, 0.3, M.26 EMLA, and M.9/
A.2 consistently resulted in fruit in the largest category.
OARl, on the other hand, consistently resulted in fruit in
the smallest category. M.7 EMLA, M.7A, and Mark were
not consistent in their effect on fruit size.

The effects of rootstock on fruit color also varied from
year to year (Table 4); however, Mark resulted consistently
in percent red color development in the highest category.
M.7A and M.7 EMLA resulted consistently in red color
development in the lowest category. Color development of
fruit from trees on OARl, M.9/A.2, M.26 EMLA, or 0.3
was inconsistent or intermediate.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Table 4. Surface red color (%) of fruit from Summerland Red
Mcintosh trees on seven rootstocks."

Rootstock

1991

1993

1994

M.9/A.2

81 b

68 b

76 ab

0.3

82 ab

66 b

70 be

M.7 EMLA

79 b

58 c

66 c

M.26 EMLA

82 ab

68 b

75 ab

M.7A

83 ab

63 be

69 be

OARl

89 a

68 b

81 a

Mark

83 ab

79 a

Within columns, means not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at odds of 19:1.

Conclusions

The ideal rootstock for any particular cultivar is the
one that results in the best return to the grower. Generally,
the best return is the result of high yields of fruit which are

of large size and good color.

In this trial, trees on Mark and those
on 0.3 were high yielding, in terms of
either yield efficiency or projected yield
per acre. They were not significantly
greater in terms of cumulative yield per
acre, however, than trees on M.26
EMLA, M.9/A.2, or M.7 EMLA. To
determine which of these rootstocks per-
formed the best, other factors, such as
size and color, must be considered. In
this study, 0.3, M.26 EMLA, and M.9/
A. 2 resulted in fruit size in the largest
category each year, and Mark tended to
result in fruit in the smallest category,
although not consistently. Color, on the
other hand, was consistently greater for
fruit from trees on Mark. M.7 EMLA
and M.7A resulted in the poorest color-
ing.

Although the results may not be ab-
solute, 0.3 appears to have performed
the best. It met the criterion of producing high yields of
large and relatively well colored fruit. M.26 EMLA and
M.9/A.2, however, also performed well. Mark's effects on
fruit size Vv-ere a significant detriment, as were M.7 EMLA's
and M.7A's effects on red color development.

•s^* •sL^ •^ •^ •^
•^ w^ •^ r^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Growing Gala Apples in Massachusetts

Duane W. Greene and Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Gala has been one of the most heavily planted apple
cultivars in the past few year. Now that some trees are in
full production, it is apparent that growth and manage-
ment, harvesting, and storage of Gala are different from
other cultivars that we are familiar with growing. This
paper summarizes some of the modifications and changes
that will allow us to grow large, premium quality Gala
apples.

Strains

Gala originated in New Zealand and the standard strain
is known as Kidd's D-8. The standard Gala is a very at-
tractive apple because it develops a beautiful orange-red
color when ripe. There are several other strains of Gala
that have been selected primarily for increased red color.
All red coloring strains develop more red color, and they
generally are more attractive than Kidd's D-8. All strains
of Gala appear to be somewhat comparable, except for the
slightly redder color and earlier ripening of Regal (Fulford)
Gala. Flavor and quality of red coloring strains appear to
be comparable to those of Kidd's D-8. You would not go
wrong with selecting any of the red coloring strains.

Growth Habit

Gala is a vigorous tree and it should be grown vigor-
ously. Trees should be staked since they sometimes have a
structural weakness at the graft union, particularly when
propagated on M.26 rootstock. Trees have willowy branches
that are brittle and bend very easily. Wc do not recom-
mend spreading branches of Gala trees at any age. If limb
spreaders are put in, limbs are frequently broken.

Pruning

Proper pruning is more important on Gala than on any
other cultivar that we grow. On most cultivars, aggressive
pruning reduces flowering and fruit set of apples. This
response is less prominent with Gala. It flowers heavily
even on upright wood. Many of these flowers set, so crop-
ping is not reduced by pruning. Gala has brittle wood. If
left unpruned or lightly pruned, the branches act like an
umbrella and layer themselves one on top of another. Fruit
do not size, color, or mature properly when this happens.
Spurs become weakened because of a lack of sun and this
predisposes them to produce small fruit in the future.

Shortening and stiffening branches is an important

procedure to prevent drooping and to reduce breakage.
More severe pruning than with other cultivars appears to
be appropriate. This practice does several things. It re-
moves some of the flowers from the tree. It stiffens branches
and allows much better light penetration. It stimulates
vegetative growth, and vigorous shoot growth is required
for good fruit size. It also renews fruiting wood. All hang-
ing branches should be removed. Summer pruning, done
at the traditional time in August, does not appear to be a
useful activity on Gala. Color, size, and packout are
notimproved substantially when pruning is delayed until
late in the growing season.

Flowering

Gala is a very precocious tree, thus it blooms and sets
fruit very early in the life of the tree. It produces flowers
on one-year-old wood and on spurs. The type of bloom
that we want (or most apples is spur bloom since that pro-
duces the largest fruit. Lateral bloom in most circumstances
is undesirable because it produces small inferior quality
apples that often have poor finish. Because of their loca-
tion at the ends of branches they pull branches down too
much. Pruning and thinning strategies should include re-
moving as many lateral flowers and fruit as possible.

Chemical Thinning

A key to good fruit size, high fruit quality and adequate
return bloom is good fruit thinning. We have worked and
continue to work on chemical thinning strategies. Car-
baryl is useful but frequently it is not potent enough for
Gala. Some combination of carbaryl with NAA seems to
be most appropriate. Aggressive thinning is required in
some years, whereas in others it is not. Since wc have been
unable to predict the situation where aggressive thinning
is appropriate, a more moderate approach to chemical thin-
ning is in order to prevent complete defruiting of trees.
Specifically. 3 ppm NAA plus I lb Sevin 50WP is a good
level to try, being aware that some had thinning may be
required. Accel'" does not appear to be very effective lor
either removing fruit or increasing fruit size with Gala.

Hand Thinning

As stated above. Gala may require some hand thin-
ning. Hand thinning is an opporiunily lo remove fruit on
one-year-old wood and lo space fruit on spurs for maxi-

Fruit Notes, Winter. 1995

mum light interception. It is our experience that hand thin-
ning pays for itself in higher fruit quality, larger fruit size,
and better packout.

Fruit Size Strategies

Gala naturally is a medium to small sized apple. Spe-
cial efforts are required to produce large Gala apples. Any
cultural activity that increases spur leaf area will increase
fruit size. Work in New Zealand suggests that increasing
the number of fruit borne on short shoots is important. Work
in Massachusetts suggests that fruit size on two- and three-
year-old spurs is comparable to fruit size on short shoots as
long as leaf area is comparable. Good chemical and hand
thinning is critical. Maintaining proper vigor of the tree is
important. Attention to thinning, ground cover manage-
ment, all aspects of pruning, fertilization, and pest man-
agement as it influences leaf quality are all required.

Harvest

Gala has the reputation for requiring several harvests.
To a certain extent this is true. Proper pruning to position
fruit in the appropriate light and good chemical thinning
followedby hand thinning will reduce the number of har-
vests. Using these techniques we have been able to reduce
the number of harvests required for Gala to just two.

Careful attention to the proper time of harvest is im-
portant. Gala can mature through the proper time of har-
vest very rapidly. Blocks should be monitored frequently
as harvest approaches. Red color is a very poor indicator
of maturity. Starch charts have a limited use. Careful moni-
toring of ground color is undoubtedly the best method. We

developed a ground color chart several years ago using
Pantone color charts. It appears to be a very reliable pre-
dictor of the proper time of harvest. On this chart half way
between green and yellow, nearly white, appears to be the
proper stage of maturity to harvest Gala.

Storage

Gala is not a long storing apple. There is a noticeable
loss of condition in storage after two months. It also loses
much of the aromatic character after extended storage. Gala
can be kept in CA storage but the atmospheres used can
kill the enzyme responsible for giving Gala the character-
istic aromatic flavor and fruitiness. It is not the same apple
out of CA storage.

One of the parents of Gala is Golden Delicious. Like
Golden Delicious, Gala shrivels in storage. We have seen
unacceptable shriveling in regular storage after one month.
The length of time before shriveling starts to occur depends
upon the year, and presumably wax components in and on
the skin. Gala should be stored in plastic bags, similar to
those used for Golden Delicious.

Hardiness

The 1994 winter was a test winter. In general Gala
proved to be hardier than anticipated. We would charac-
terize it as neither tender nor very hardy. However, Gala is
incredibly sensitive to cold temperature in the spring. If
leaves are damaged by frost, fruit set will be reduced. Gala
is the most sensitive cultivar I have seen to cold tempera-
ture, once buds start to swell and leaf tissue expands. Plant
Gala on sites that are not prone to spring frosts.

vl> •^ •X* •S^ *^

0^ 0^ 0^ rp» rj^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Pruning Gala Apple Trees to Increase
Fruit Size and Quality

Duane W. Greene, Joseph Sincuk, and James Krupa
Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Gala apples have been grown successfully in Massa-
chusetts since 1978. New England appears to have a fa-
vorable climate to produce attractive, high quality Gala;
however, they can be grown profitably only when fruit size
is large. Gala is an apple that normally has medium to
small fruit, so special tree management is necessary to pro-
duce large fruit that are well colored.

Pomologists for many years have recognized that dor-
mant pruning is a way to increase fruit size of apples. How-
ever, if trees are pruned heavily during the dormant sea-
son, vegetative growth usually is stimulated, which reduces
fruit set, lowers fruit quality, and reduces re-
turn bloom. Part of the problem is the shade
caused by the new shoots, but summer prun-
ing in July or August will help reduce this
effect.

In addition producing small fruit. Gala
trees are difficult to thin, they bloom and fre-
quently set a heavy crop on upright branches
and on one-year-old wood, and they have
wood that is very flexible and willowy. We
noted during the past few years, as we were
developing a strategy to grow large Gala, that
heavily pruned trees bore the largest and
highest quality fruit. Fruit on trees that were
lightly or moderately pruned were smaller
and had poorer color. On these less-pruned
trees, a larger number of fruit were borne on
one-year-old wood and weak spurs, and there-
fore were naturally smaller than ideal. Ad-
ditionally, limbs drooped and shaded each
other, reducmg fruit coloring.

An experiment was initiated to deter-
mine if heavy, yet appropriate, dormant and
summer pruning could be used as tools to
increase the fruit size and color of Gala
apples.

Thirty two trees in a planting of eight-
year-old Royal Gala/M.26 were selected and
grouped into eight blocks (replications) of
four trees each at the Horticultural Research
Center in Belchertown, Mass. In March, two
trees in each block received moderately heavy

pruning while the remaining two were lightly pruned. On
heavily pruned trees, branches were thinned out and limbs
were stiffened by cutting into two- or three-year-old wood.
All hanging branches and some one-year-old wood were
removed. Light pruning consisted of completely removing
crowded branches and thinning the tops of trees. One
heavily and one lightly pruned tree in each block were sum-
mer pruned in August. Summer pruning consisted of re-
moving upright shoots to improve light penetration and
eliminating some hanging branches. The severity of sum-
mer pruning was considered moderate. Trees were thinned

Table 1 . Effects of dormant

pruning severity

on bl

oom, fruit

set, fruit size, and fruit color of Royal Gala

apples

in 1994.*

Heavy

Light

Measurement

pruning

Bloom density

(clusters/cm' limb

cross-sectional area)

Spurs

6.2 b

11.1 a

One-year-old wood

2.5 b

6.8 a

Total

8.7 b

17.9 a

Fruit set

(fruit/cm^ limb

cross-sectional area)

Spurs

4.3 b

6.1 a

One-year-old wood

0.5 b

1.5 a

Total

4.9 b

7.6 a

Fruit weight (g)

158 a

135 b

Red color (%)

78 a

73 a

Within rows, means not

followed by the

same

letter are

significantly different at odds

of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

chemically at petal fall with carbaryl at 1 lb/ 100 gal. and
again at the 10-mm stage of fruit development with a com-
bination of 5 ppm NAA and 1 lb/ 100 gal carbaryl. No
hand thinning was done.

At the pink stage of flower development, two limbs,
1.5 to 2.5 inches in diameter were selected and tagged.
Spur and one-year-old flowers were counted and recorded
separately. At the completion of June drop in July, all fruit
originating from spurs or one-year-old wood were counted.

At the normal harvest time, 30 fruit were harvested
from each tree: 15 from the upper portion of the tree and
15 on the periphery of the lower tier of branches. Fruit
were weighed and the percent of red color on the surface of
each apple was estimated to the nearest 10%.

Bloom on lightly pruned trees was heavy and over one-
third of this bloom was located on one-year-old wood (Table
1). Dormant-pruned trees had less spur and one-year-old
bloom. Fruit set on lightly pruned trees was excessive even
though the trees received two chemicalthinning treatments
that were deemed appropriate for the situation. Fruil set
on heavily pruned trees was nearly ideal (30% less than for
lightly pruned trees), and the amount of fruit on one-year-
old wood was reduced to one third of the number on lightly
pruned trees. Summer pruning of either lightly pruned or
heavily pruned trees had no measured effect (data not
shown).

Weight of fruit on heavily pruned trees averaged about
158 grams (2.81 inches diameter) while those on lightly
pruned trees averaged 136 grams (2.64 inches diameter)
(Table 1 ). No pruning treatment affected percent red color
(Table 1 ), but the color on all fruit was acceptable due to
good coloring conditions. Summer pruning did not affect
fruit quality (data not shown).

We have established that heavy pruning of Gala
achieved several important goals. First, dormant pruning

can be used in conjunction with chemical thinning to help
reduce crop load to an appropriate level. Furthermore,
heavy pruning eliminated much of the fruit set on one-year-
old wood, fruit which are small and of inferior quality.
Additionally, reduction of this fruit, which is located near
the ends of branches, reduces the drooping of branches and
shading of fruit below.

Part of the lack of effect of pruning on fruit color may
be attributed to sampling technique, which was a random
selection of fruit from the top and periphery of the tree. If
some fruit from the shaded portion of the tree had been
sampled, light pruning probably would have reduced red
color primarily by allowing branches to shade each other.
Although no data were collected, this result was observed
during harvest.

Summer pruning did not appear to be very useful for
Gala, since shading is the result of drooping branches, not
excessive upright growth. Summer pruning which short-
ens branches and eliminates some of the drooping will re-
move some fruit. This type of pruning must be done while
fruit are still small so as to reduce bruising caused by fruit
falling through the canopy.

The moderately heavy pruning used in this investiga-
tion did not stimulate excessive vegetative growth, even in
the tops of trees. Return bloom will be determined this
spring. Based upon observation of appropriate fruit set
and moderate vegetative growth, however, we speculate that
heavily pruned trees will have adequate bloom. Heavy set
on lightly pruned trees may result in reduced flower bud
formation.

We conclude that moderately heavy pruning of Gala is
a useful management tool to increase fruit size. Further
work will be required to determine possible long-term ef-
fects of heavy dormant pruning. Early summer pruning
should also be evaluated.

*X» •JLa •J^ •^ •X^

0^ 0^ 0^ 0J^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Effects of Pesticides on Pest Ecology in
Blocl<s of Scab-resistant Apple Cultivars

Daniel R. Cooley

Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts

Ronald J. Prokopy, Jennifer Mason, and Starker Wright
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

We have described previously our attempts to elimi-
nate orchard applications of insecticide and miticide after
early June and to limit the use of fungicide over the entire
growing season, utilizing second-level IPM and scab-re-
sistant cultivars [Fruit Notes 59(1): 8-12, 1994]. This ap-
proach may allow the increase of natural enemies of ar-
thropod pests to provide significant biological control. It
also may slow rates at which pests develop resistance to
pesticides and minimize potential risks from pesticide resi-
dues on fruit at harvest.

The study detailed here differs from those of second-
level IPM (see earlier article in this issue ) in that scab-
resistant apple cultivars (SRCs) are used, rather than com-
mercial cultivars. Presently the commercial acceptance of
SRCs does not make them suitable for wide-scale planting;
however, small plantings may serve very limited markets.
In addition, these plantings provide sites which allow us to
study the effects particularly fungicides on the orchard ecol-
ogy, since fungicides directed at scab can be eliminated
from the pest management program without affecting tree
and fruit development directly. We are particularly inter-

ested in the effects that fungicides may have on mites and
insects.

In our earlier article we described our reasons for sus-
pecting that fungicides may increase pest mite populations.
We know that one fungicide, benomyl, can sterilize preda-
ceous phytoseiid mites. We also know that there are natu-
rally-occurring fungi which can infect and kill msects and
mites, and that these fungi may be inhibited by fungicides.
While the mechanism behind fungicide effects on mites is
only crudely understood, work in Vermont confinns that
eliminating fungicides from an orchard can stimulate mite
biocontrol.

Unfortunately, eliminating fungicides in SRC blocks
comes with a few problems. Last year, elimination of fun-
gicides combined with second-level arthropod management
in blocks of SRCs produced fruit with acceptable levels of
arthropod damage, but not of flyspeck and sooty blotch,
which affected 1% and 4% of the fruit, respectively. In
blocks under standard fungicide management, the damage
levels were only 0.1% and 0.4%, respectively. In addition,
work in New York has shown that elimination of fungi-

Table 1 . Pesticide dosage equivalents (DE)

applied to sections of four blocks of scab-resistant apple

cultivars.

Fungicide
treatment

Arthropod
treatment

Fungicide DE

Insecticide DE

Miticides

Total
DE

Before
mid- June

After
mid-June

Before
mid-June

After
mid-June

Fungicide
Fungicide
None
None

First-level
Second-level

3.0
3.0
0.0
0,0

1.2
1.2
0.0
0.0

2,9
2.9
2.9
2.9

2.4
0.6
2.4
0.6

0.5
0.3
0.5
0.3

10.0
8.0
5.8
3S

Fru/t Notes, Winter, 1995

cides may lead to a sequence of events over two seasons,
beginning with premature defoliation in the fall and pro-
gressing to decreased fruit bud viability, decreased set and
decreased production. It thus appears that fungicides have
positive effects on fruit production which go beyond the
direct benefits of controlling common diseases.

Pesticide Treatment in Scab-resistant Blocks

In order to study the effects of pesticides on the ecol-
ogy of orchards, a block of SRCs in each of four commer-
cial orchards was selected and each was partitioned into
four sections. Treatments were divided randomly among
the four sections; 1) fungicide, insecticide and miticide
applications made using first-level IPM methods; 2) fun-
gicide applications made using first-level IPM, and arthro-
pod management done using second-level IPM; 3) no fun-
gicides, and arthropod management done using first-level
IPM; 4) no fungicides, and arthropod management done
usingsecond-level IPM. The second-level IPM techniques
used were described earlier in this issue, except that pesti-
cide-treated spheres were used to manage apple maggots.

Results and Discussion

Fungicide treatment and arthropod treatment each had
a significant effect on the total amount of pesticide used for
the season (p 0.05). Table 1 shows that on average 4.2
dosage equivalents (DEs) of fungicide were applied in fun-
gicide-treated sections. The rest of each block received no
fungicides. The first-level IPM sections of blocks received
5.3 and 0.5 DEs of insecticides and miticides, respectively,
while the sections under second-level IPM received 3.5 and
0.3 DEs, respectively.

As would be expected, omitting fungicides had a sig-
nificant effect on sooty blotch and flyspeck (Table 1). The
summer disease incidence was much higher in the sections

where no fungicide was used. The arthropod treatment,
either first-level or second-level IPM, did not have a sig-
nificant effect on summer disease, nor was there any inter-
action between the fungicide treatments and arthropod treat-
ments (data not shown).

There was also a significant negative correlation be-
tween the number of DEs of fungicide applied over the sea-
son and the incidence of sooty blotch (r=-0.83) and fly-
speck (r=-0.87), which means that the more fungicide that
was applied'Over the entire growing season, the lower was
the summer disease incidence. The DEs applied over the
entire season had higher correlation values with summer
disease than did the DEs after June 15, indicating that the
entire season's fungicide program has more effect on dis-
ease than the summer fungicide applications alone.

The application of fungicides also was significantly
related to European red mite populations. DEs of fungi-
cides applied after June 15 were positively correlated with
European red mite populations (r=0.62), indicating that
more applications of fungicide in the summer were related
to higher red mite populations in the blocks, as illustrated
in Figure 1. The DEs applied for the season were not as
highly correlated (r=0.27). The statistical strength of these
relationships mdicates that other factors are affecting the
red mite populations, as would be expected, but fungicides
do appear to play a role in growth of red mite populations.
The populations of the other major pest mite in orchards,
the two-spotted mite, were very low, approaching or at zero
in most orchards.

The major predator mite observed in these orchards
was the yellow mite. Fungicide use correlated with a sig-
nificantly lower yellow mite populations. While some or-
chards had few if any yellow mites, in those orchards with
these predators, populations were lower in fungicide-treated
sections.

Neither arthropod treatments nor fungicide treatments
had significant effects on several other foliar pests and ben-

Table 2. Percent of fiiiit with sooty blotch and flyspeck damage, and percent of leaves with mites and mite
predators, from sections of four blocks of scab-resistant apple cultivars.*

Treatment

Sooty blotch

Fly speck

ERM

TSM

Fungicide
No fungicide

0.3

11.7

0.7 a
13.4 b

29.8 a
21.5 b

0.1
0.0

4.2 a
3.9 a

3.9 a
10.0 b

Within columns, means not followed by the same letter are significantly different at odds of 19:1.
ERM=European red mite; TSM=Two-spotted spider mite; kV=Amblysehts fallacis; YM=yellow mite.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

<-•

^ ^

(1)

4->

tf)

10 tv-

1 2 3

Dosage Equivalents of Fungicide Applied After June 15

Figure 1. European red mite populations as a function of dosage equivalents of fungicide applied during the
summer in four blocks of scab-resistant apple cultivars.

Table 3.
1994.*

eficial insects: white apple leafhopper; rose leafhopper;
potato leafhopper; green apple aphid; leafminer; syrphid
fly; or cecidomiid fly. Fruit damage by insects was not
evaluated by fungicide treatment, but insect damage was
evaluated by arthropod treat-
ment. Of the fruit pests evalu-
ated (codling moth, European
apple sawfly, plum curculio, tar-
nished plant bug, leafroller,
green fruitworm, and lesser
apple worm) all damage was the
same regardless of arthropod
treatment. Fruit damage from
apple maggot fly was signifi-
cantly higher in the second-
level blocks using spheres than
in the sprayed blocks, with dam-
age levels at 6. 1 % and 3.1%, re-
spectively.

In one SRC block, we also
examined the amount of defo-
liation under the different pest
management strategies. The
number of leaves on a teiininal

at the end of October was counted. There were significantly
fewer leaves on trees which did not receive fungicides.
There were significantly more leaves on trees which were
treated with a full insecticide and fungicide program, while

Amount of defoliation on Liberty apple in Ashfield, Oct. 31,

Fungicide treatment Arthropod treatment

Number of leaves
per terminal

Fungicide
Fungicide
No Fungicide
No Fungicide

Standard
Second level
Standard
Second level

8.7
6.7
3.3
2.4

Within columns, means not followed by the same letter are signitlcantly
different at odds of 19:1.

Fruf'r Notes, Winter, 1995

treatments which received fungicides and second-level in-
secticide treatments had more leaves than the non-fungi-
cide treatments, but fewer than the full insecticide treat-
ments.

Conclusions

While it appears that eliminating fungicides may im-
prove mite biocontrol, there appear to be no beneficial ef-
fects of such elimination in terms of other pests and it is
abundantly clear that the cost of eliminating fungicides is
not small. Summer disease incidence increases greatly
without fungicide use. Furthermore, defoliation increases,
and may decrease subsequent fruit set. One solution to the
mite biocontrol vs. fungicide dilemma may be the reduced
use of fungicides, which has not been tried yet. Limited
fungicide applications, as opposed to no fungicide use, may

also benefit trees in terms of premature defoliation.

It is also a concern that the pesticide-treated spheres
did not control maggot as well as the standard insecticide
treatments. Wet weather made it difficult to keep feeding
stimulant on the spheres. This problem will need to be
remedied if the approach is to be effective.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the USDA Sustainable
Agriculture and Research Education Program (SARE), the
EPA Agriculture in Concert with the Environment Program
(ACE), the University of Massachusetts IPM Program, and
the Massachusetts Society for promoting Agriculture, in
cooperation with the following growers: William Broderick,
Dana Clark, Wayne Rice and Joseph Sincuk.

•X» •J^ •X* *1> *x#

0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Tax Pointers for Farmers and
Landowners in 1 994

P. Geoffrey Allen

Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts

Tax advice given below is intended as general advice
and is believed to be correct. It does not substitute for a
detailed review of the circumstances of an individual tax-
payer by a professional tax practitioner For more details,
you and your tax adviser may wish to consult the sources
referenced in the square brackets [thus] (see footnote) .

No new federal tax legislation was passed last year;
however, a number of provisions of the 1 993 Revenue Rec-
onciliation Act became effective on January 1, 1994.

Health Insurance

If you were a self-employed person in 1993 (or an S-
corporation shareholder) you were able to deduct (on line
26 of your 1993 Form 1040) 25% of your health insur-
ance premium. The bad news is that this provision ex-
pired on December 31, 1993 and is therefore not avail-
able for 1994. The good news is that Congress is expected
to extend the provision and will probably make it retroac-
tive. If so, you will need to file for a refund on Form 1 040X.
[I.R.C. §162(1)]

100% Medical Writeoff?

A number of tax advisers have been advertising a to-
tally legal way for a self-employed person to deduct 100%
of health insurance premiums. Basically, the taxpayer treats
his or her spouse as an employee entitled to health insur-
ance and purchases insurance for the employee that includes
health benefits for the spouse. There may be substantial
lax benefits, but the approach is not costless. The spouse
must be treated as a common law employee. As employer,
the sole proprietor now has to engage in all the paperwork
and actions associated with income tax withholdmg, de-
ductions for social security, etc. For a farmer who already
employs non-relatives, the additional paperwork would be
minimal. However, the health insurance may need to be
offered to all or most of the employees. The advice of a
professional tax planner is essential for anyone contem-
plating this approach. [I.R.C. §105]

Charitable Donations

Effective January 1, 1994, single charitable donations
of $250 or more may be deducted (on Schedule A) only if
the charity provides you with written substantiation, in-

cluding a good-faith estimate of the value of any good or
service that you provided. If you donated money, you may
not rely solely on a cancelled check as substantiation.

Separate payments to the same charity (e.g. by withhold-
ing from wages) will be treated as separate contributions,
even if they aggregate to more than $250. [IRS temporary
and proposed regulations T.D. 8544; IA-74-93 (published
May 27, 1994) relating to I.R.C. §170(0(8).]

As an example of the donation of the development
rights on a tract of land, a taxpayer made a donation that
was a qualified conservation contribution and claimed a
deduction on his return of the value of the development
rights. The IRS disallowed the entire deduction. The
TaxCourt allowed the deduction and specified that the de-
ductible amount was to be determined by comparing the
before value and the after value of the property. The before
value was the purchase price. The after value was the net
income (the land was used as a duck hunting club) capital-
ized at 4% to get the fair value. [Schwab vs Commissioner,
67 TCM, TC. Memo 1994-
232, May 25, 1994]

Depreciation Allowed or Allowable

A recent Tax Court case confirmed what most taxpay-
ers know: according to § 1016(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code, the basis of property, when computing gain must be
reduced by the depreciation allowed or allowable. In the
court case, taxpayers owned rental property that was fore-
closed. They reduced their basis by the amount of depre-
ciation taken ($43,000) and claimed a loss of $20,500 on
the sale. The IRS determined that the allowable deprecia-
tion was $95,123 resulting in a taxable gain of $31,623.
[Perry M. and Janice S. Brock vs Commissioner, 67 TCM,
T.C. Memo 1994-177, April 20, 1994]

Involuntary Sale of Land

The owner of a farm who was forced to sell was al-
lowed to use the entire proceeds to purchase and improve
new property. He thus deferred the entire capital gain

from the sale. As an example, the owner of an active tarm
.sold it to a city rather than have the land taken by eminent
domain. He bought other land and erected buildings on
the new property, similar to those that existed on the i)ld
farm. With involuntary conversion [I.R.C. §1033], gain can

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

be deferred on the sale of land when the proceeds are rein-
vested in like-kind property even though the taxpayer, to
fully reinvest the proceeds, will make substantial improve-
ments on the replacement property. (Gain can normally be
deferred until the end of the second tax year after the prop-
erty was disposed of or requisitioned.) [LTR 9421002]

Deductibility of Points

The immediate deductibility of points (prepaid inter-
est) now includes points paid by a seller. The same con-
ditions for immediate deductibility must be met (as out-
lined below) and the buyer must deduct the amount of seller-
paid points from the purchase price in computing the basis
of the residence.

The IRS will treat points paid by a cash basis tax-
payer as a deductible expense in the taxable year that they
are incurred, provided they are: ( 1 ) designated on the Uni-
form Settlement Statement (Form HUD-1) as payable in
connection with a loan, (2) computed as a percentage of
the amount borrowed, (3) charged under established busi-
ness practice, (4) paid for the acquisition of a principal
residence with the loan secured by that residence, and (5)
paid directly to the taxpayer from funds that have not been
borrowed for that purpose.

Cost of points may not be deducted immediately and
must be amortized over the life of the loan if: (1) the loan
is for improvement of the principal residence, not purchase,
(2) the residence is not the principal residence, or (3) the
loan is a refinancing, home equity, or line of credit.

The change is retroactive. If you have been amortizing
points paid during tax years beginning after December 31,
1990, and before January 1, 1994, and you qualify for
immediatedeductibility, as noted above, you may file an
amended tax return on Form 1040X for the appropriate
year. Taxpayers filing amended returns should write "Seller-
paid Points" in the top right margin of the amended return
and should attach a copy of Form HUD- 1 (or other settle-
ment statement) showing the amount of points paid by the
seller in connection with the transaction on Form 1098, or
on line 10 if the points were not reported on Form 1098.
[Rev. Proc. 94-27]

Selling of Processed Farm Products

Farmers who process their produce beyond that nor-
mally carried out on a farm may have to file both Sched-
ule F and Schedule C. The term "farming business" DOES
NOT include the processing of commodities or products
beyond those activities which are normally incident to the
growing, raising, or harvesting of such products. However,
the term "farming business" DOES include processing ac-
tivities which are normally a part of tiie growing, raising
or harvesting of agricultural products. For example, assume
a taxpayer is a fruit and vegetable grower. When the fruits
and vegetables are ready to be harvested, the taxpayer picks,

washes, inspects, and packages the fruits and vegetables
for sale. Such activities are normally a part of the raising
of these crops by farmers. The taxpayer will be considered
to be in the business of farming with respect to the growing
of fruits and vegetables, and the processing activities inci-
dent to their harvest. [Treas. Reg. I.263A-4T(4)]. Maple
syrup production is also a farming activity. Activities that
are part of the farming business appear on Schedule F. The
rest appear on Schedule C.

Example: Johnny and Jane Seed have an apple orchard
and they sell some apples to a wholesaler. They also sell
some apples through their roadside stand and make apple
cider that they sell to a grocery store. The receipts from the
wholesaler and from the roadside stand are reported on
Schedule F The sale of cider is on Schedule C.

Payment in kind to Agricultural Workers

Payment of non-cash wages to an employee may be a
legitimate way to share the returns from risk-taking or it
may be intended simply to lower the wages subject to FICA
and hence reduce the FICA taxes paid by both employer
and employee. The IRS will disallow the transaction if its
purpose is simply to avoid the payment of FICA taxes. Note:
it may not always be to the employee's advantage to reduce
FICA taxes since this can reduce social security benefits.
Wages not subject to FICA also are not subject to income
tax withholding; however they are still subject to income
tax (and must be reported on the employee's W-2 form but
not in box 3).

In two recent situations the IRS held that the circum-
stances indicated that wages paid to farm employees in the
form of grain rather than cash had no business purpose
other than to avoid payment of FICA. The IRS treated the
payments as though they were cash and were therefore sub-
ject to FICA. What makes a bona fide non-cash transfer to
an employee? Factors to consider include:

(1) whether there is documentation of the transfer,

(2) whether the in-kind payment was intended to be a sub-
stitute for cash,

(3) whether the employee negotiates the subsequent sale
independent of the employer,

(4) whether the risk of gain or loss (both of price and physi-
cal damage) is shifted to the employee,

(5) the length of time between employee's receipt of the
commodity and its subsequent sale,

(6) whether the employee bears the ownership costs (stor-
age, insurance, etc.).

For a bona fide transaction, the employee should bear
the ownership costs and must exert "dominion and con-
trol" over the commodity. The IRS is planning to issue
guidelines for meeting the requirements of the law that are
likely to be quite stringent. Affected taxpayers should note
that the conditions listed above are subject to revision,
possibly substantially. (I.R.C. §3121(a)(8)(A) as affected
by LTR 9428003 and LTR 9403001]

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Rental of Jointly Owned Farmland

It may be possible for a farmer to pay rent to a co-
owner spouse on land used for farming. The purpose is to
reduce the income subject to self-employment tax. The farm
income is reduced by the amount of the rent payment and
the spouse reports the rental income on Schedule E where
it does not attract self-employment tax. Note: it may not
always be advantageous to reduce self-employment taxes
since social security benefits may also be reduced.

The view of the IRS is that a deduction for rental ex-
pense is allowable only if the arrangement between spouses
is a bona fide landlord-tenant relationship. This would
require, among other acts, that the spouse owner avoid
material participation in the farm business (for definition,
see later section), that he or she issue Form 1099 for all
rent payments, that a formal written lease be executed, that
rents be at market rate and be paid regularly, and thus the
receipts be kept in a separate account. If the landlord spouse
is the sole owner, mortgage interest and property taxes
should be paid from a separate account. The spouse opera-
tor can be a co-owner (see the case of Cox vs Commis-
sioner described below) but a better situation would be pre-
sented if the operator was strictly a non-owner tenant.
Transactions between family members are likely to at-
tract close scrutiny by the IRS. Where the spouses are
co-owners, the IRS is most likely to disallow the rental
deduction, despite the Tax Court ruling in the Cox case.

In the Cox case, the husband, an attorney, rented space
in a building owned by himself and his wife as tenants by
the entirety. They reported rent of $18,000 on Schedule E
and mortgage interest deductions on the same form. The
husband reported deductible rental expenses on his Sched-
ule C. Because tenancy by the entirety is a separate le-
gal entity (the marital community) the Tax Court allowed
the wife to report one half of the $18,000 as income and
the attorney to deduct $9,000 rental expense. He cannot
deduct the other one-half because of his equity interest in it
(I.R.C. § 1 62(a) allows a deduction for all ordinary and nec-
essary expenses incurred to carry out a trade or business
including "(3) rentals or other payments required to be made
as a condition to the continued use or possession, for pur-
poses of the trade or business, of properly to which the
taxpayer has not taken or is not taking title or in which
he has no equity"). [Sherman and Maxinc M. Cox vs Com-
missioner, 66 TCM, July 22, 19931

Form 4835 or Schedule F?

Landowners who pay a share of the expenses of the
farm or who receive a part of the crop as rental payment
hut who do not materially participate in the business of
farming must file Form 4835. A landowner in the business
of farming files Schedule F and is subject to self-employ-
ment tax. A taxpayer filing Form 4835 who received con-

servation reserve payments would generally not pay self-
employment tax on them. The same taxpayer would gener-
ally be subject to passive activity rules that limit the deduc-
tion of losses. [I.R.C. § 1402(a)(1)]

Confused about Material Participation Rules?

There are two sets of material participation rules. A
taxpayer who is materially participating for the purposes
of self-employment tax may or may not be materially par-
ticipating for the purposes of passive activity loss rules.
The reverse is true: a taxpayer who materially participates
for the purposes of passive activity loss rules may not be
materially participating for the purposes of self-employ-
ment tax.

The Farmer's Tax Guide (IRS Publication 225) lists
the tests of material participation of a farm-landlord to de-
termine whether or not self-employment tax must be paid.
You are materially participating if you have an arrange-
ment with your tenant and you meet one of the following
tests:

Test No. 1. You do any three of the following: (1) pay or
stand good (e.g., sign for materials bought on
credit) for at least half the direct costs of pro-
ducing the crop; (2) furnish at least half the
tools, equipment, and livestock used in pro-
ducing the crop; (3) consult with your tenant;
and (4) inspect the production activities peri-
odically.
Test No. 2. You regularly and frequently make, or take
an important part in making of. management
decisions substantially contributing to or af-
fecting the success of the enterprise.
Test No. 3. You work 100 hours or more spread over a
period of 5 weeks or more in activities con-
nected with crop production. (Note: these
numbers do not appear in either the tax code
or the regulations.)
Test No. 4. You do things which, considered in their to-
tal effect, show that you are materially and
significantly involved in the production of the
farm commodities.
If you pass the test for material participation you file Sched-
ule F and arc subject to self-employment tax on the in-
come. [I.R.C. §1402. Treas. Reg. §1402(a)-4(6) gives six
examples]

Material participation for the purposes of passive ac-
tivity loss rules can be met by passing one of the following
seven conditions:

( 1 ) The individual participates in the activity for more than
500 hours during the tax year;

(2) The individual's participation in the activity for the
taxable year constitutes substantially all of the partici-
pation in such activity of all individuals (including in-
dividuals who are not owners of interests in the activ-

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

ity) for the tax year;

(3) The individual participates in the activity for more than
100 hours during the taxable year, and such individual's
participation in the activity for the taxable year is not
less than the participation in the activity of any other
individual (including individuals who are not owners
of interests in the activity) for such year;

(4) The activity is a significant participation activity for
the taxable year, and the individual's aggregate par-
ticipation in all significant participation activities dur-
ing such year exceeds 500 hours;

(5) The individual materially participated in the activity
(determined without regard to this test) for any five
taxable years (whether or not consecutive) during the
ten taxable years that immediately precede the taxable
year;

(6) The activity is a personal service activity and the mdi-
vidual materially participated in the activity for any
three taxable years (whether or not consecutive) pre-
ceding the taxable year (Note: this is a lifetime test, it
does not apply to farming); or

(7) Based on all of the facts and circumstances, the indi-
vidual participates in the activity on a regular, con-
tinuous, and substantial basis during the year and for
at least 100 hours.

If you pass this test, any losses from the fanning business
are not limited by passive activity loss rules. [Treas. Reg.
§1.469-5T(a)] (Note: If taxpayer is the surviving spouse of
a retired farmer the provisions of Treas. Reg. §1.469-
5T(h)(2) should be consulted.)

Treatment of Reforestation Costs

Certain reforestation expenses on land held for the com-
mercial production of timber qualify for investment tax
credit and amortization over seven years. Christinas tree
production does not qualify. The limit is $10,000 per year
on a joint return and $5,000 per year on a single return.
Expenditures must be for site preparation and planting or
seeding, including materials, labor, and share of deprecia-
tion of equipment. Expenditures for which the taxpayer has
been reimbursed under a government cost-sharing program
must be excluded unless the government payments are also
included in gross income. Most government cost-sharing
payments may be excluded from taxable income; however,
payments under the Conservation Reserve Program must
be included in taxable income. [IRS Publication 535]

Example Woody Forest spent $5,000 on fuel, labor,
seedlings, and depreciation to reforest 50 acres. He was ap-
proved for cost sharing by ASCS and received 65% of his
expenses or $3250. This amount showed on the CCC- 1 099-
G provided to Woody by the ASCS. Woody can exclude
from income the greater of the present value of ( 1 ) the right
to receive $2.50 per acre, or (2) the right to receive 10% of

the average income from the land for the previous three
years. [Treas. Reg. 16A.126-l(a)]. Since Woody had no
income from the land he used (1) and used 8% as the ap-
propriate interest rate in the present value calculation. The
value is then $2.50 ^ 0.08 = $31.25 per acre or $1562 for
the 50 acres. Therefore, he figures

Government payment $3250

Less excludable amount 1562

Amount included in income 1688

(Schedule F or C)
/l^ic/ Woody 's share of costs

($5,000-$3250) 1750

Total (enter on Form 3468, line 3) $3438

Line 3 of Form 3468 instructs Woody to take 10% or $344
as the amount of investment tax credit. The basis for amor-
tization must be reduced by half of the investment tax credit
or $172 ('/2X $344 = $172).

Total eligible expenses $3438

Less half of investment tax credit 172

Amortization basis $3266

Amortization must be taken over seven years using the half-
year convention. $3266 -^ 1 - $467 giving

Year 1 $232

Years 2 through 7 $467

Year 8 $232

The amortization amount is entered on Form 4562 line 39
or 40 and then transferred to ScheduleF line 34 or Sched-
ule C line 27a or write "Reforestation Amortization. See
attachment." on Form 1040 line 30 and enter the amount
on line 30.

The stewardship incentive program (SIP) has been
determined to be substantially similar to the type of con-
servation, restoration and reclamation programs described
in l.R.C. § 1 26(a)( 1 ) through (8) so that § 126 improvements
made in connection with small watersheds under SIP can
be treated in the way described above. The cost-sharing
payments are excludable from gross income. [Rev. Ruling
94-27]

Footnotes

Explanation of abbreviations in citations: [l.R.C. §],
Internal Revenue Code section number; [LTR], Internal
Revenue Service letter ruling; [Rev. Proc], IRS Revenue
Procedure; [Rev. Ruling], IRS Revenue Ruling; [TCM or
TC. Memo], Tax Court Memorandum; [Treas. Reg] IRS
temporary or final regulations.

Far their helpful comments, and without implicating
them in any way, I thank Robert Christensen, Department
of Resource Economics and Michael Whiteman. Depart-
ment of Accounting and Information Systems, both of the
University of Massachusetts, and Earl Bean, CPA, Rev-
enue Agent, Internal Revenue Service.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1995

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant^& Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION
UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

rr.

Fruit Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage Vo -^

Volume 60, Number 2
SPRING ISSUE, 1995

Table of Contents

Evaluation of Accel® as a Chemical
Thinner and Suggestions for Use in 1995

Released Typhlodromus pyri Show Success in Colonization
and Dispersion in Massachusetts Apple Orchards

How Rehable Are Sticky Red Rectangle Visual
Traps for Monitoring Leafminer Adults?

Growing Green, Selling Green: A Conference Exploring
Green Marketing Trends in the Food Industry

Perfonnance Over Five Years of Five Rootstock Cultivars in
Combination with Five Scion Cultivars in Massachusetts and Maine

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $8.00 for United States
addresses and $ 10.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $2.00 (United States addresses) and $2.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

All chemical uses suggested in ihis puhlicalion are ciintingent upon cdnlinucd registration.
These chemicals should be used in accordance with tcderal and state laws and regulations.
Growers arc urged to he lamiliar with all current state regulations. Where trade names arc used
lor identification, no company endorsement or product discrimination is intended. The
University of Massachusetts makes no warranty or guarantee of any kind, expres.scd or implied,
concerning the use of these product.s. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS FOR PERSONAL
INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.

I'isiied h\ UMiis.s F.Mcnsidn. Rahcrl (1 Hcli^excn. Director, iiifuilhciaiicc oflhe mis al Mii\ S ai\cl June M).
1914. ilMdss [i.ylciisiiiii oflers equal (ipporliDiily in iui>f;r(inis and emplayment.

Evaluation of Accel® as a Chemical
Thinner and Suggestions for Use in 1 995

Duane W. Greene and Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

The chemical thinner Accel® was made available
for the first time in 1994. It is an altered Promalin®
formulation. Both products contain the same amount
of the active thinning ingredient benzyladenine (BA),
but Accel contains 1/10 the amount of the other com-
mon ingredient, gibberellins A^^.^. They are different
products and they cannot and should not be used inter-
changeably.

Last year we outlined the responses one could ex-
pect from the use of Accel and made suggestions for
the use in 1994 [Fruit Notes 59(2): 18-20]. Much of
the information in that article still is appropriate. The
purpose of this article is to review 1994 research re-
sults and make revised suggestions for use in 1995.

1993 Thinning Results on Mcintosh

A block of Marshall Mclntosh/Mark were selected
at the Horticultural Research Center in Belchertown.
Accel at 20 g a.i./acre and NAA 3 ppm plus 1 lb Sevin
50WP/100gal were ap-
plied when fruit were
10.5 mm in diameter.
Temperature at and fol-
lowing application was
between 60" and 65"F. A
second application of
Accel at 20 g a.i./acre
was made at 16.2 mm
diameter to one group of
trees that previously re-
ceived Accel. Tempera-
ture at the time of appli-
cation was about 60"F.
Relative to the control,
no treatment caused fmit
thinning and no treat-
ment influenced fruit size
at harvest (Table 1). The
only treatment to in-

crease return bloom in 1994 was Accel applied twice.
Weather during thinning time in 1 993 was cool and
windy. The lack of thinning was not surprising since
chemical thinners generally do not perform well when
the temperature is cool during and immediately follow-
ing application. Accel increases cell division and cell
number in apples. Thus it can increase fruit size inde-
pendently of its effects on thinning. In 1993, neither
one nor two applications influenced final fruit size. We
conclude that warm temperature is required for Accel
to increase fruit size as well as to stimulate fruit abscis-
sion. Return bloom in 1994 illustrates that Accel has
the ability to increase return bloom even if it does not
thin.

1994 Thinning Results on Mcintosh

Thinning treatments in 1994 were applied to
Marshall Mclntosh/Mark either at petal fall when the
temperature was in the low 70's or at the 10 mm stage

Table 1. Effects of 20 g

a.i. Accel/acre and 5 ppm NAA plus 1 lb Sevin

50 WP/ 100 gal on fruit set.

fruit size, and return bloom of Marshall Mcintosh

apples in 1993.*

Fruit set

Return bloom

(fruit/cm^ limb

(clusters/

cross-sectional

Fruit size cm^ limb cross-

Treatment**

area)

(g) sectional area)

Control

8.8 ab

148 a 13.8 b

Accel 10 mm

7.3 ab

158 a 19.8 ab

Accel 10 mm + 16 mm

10.2 a

151 a 23.2 a

NAA + Sevin

6.9 b

161 a 19.2 ab

* Within columns, means not followed by

the same letter are significantly

different at odds of 19:1.

** Accel concentration = 48 ppm BA.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Table 2. Effects of 20

g a.i. Accel/acre, 1

qt Sevin

XLR/100 gal, and 5 ppm NAA on fruit set

and fruit

weight of Marshall Mcintosh in 1994.

Fruit set

Fruit

(fruit/cm- limb

weight

Treatment*

cross-sectional area)

(g)

Petal-fall Application

Control

8.5

113

Accel

7.3

123

Sevin

7.4

127

Accel + Sevin

5.6

129

10-mm Application

Control

9.2

116

Accel

7.7

131

Sevin

5.5

143

Accel + Sevin

5,2

157

Accel PF + 10 mm

7.8

131

NAA + Sevin

4.3

144

* Accel concentration

= 48 ppm BA.

treatment containing 5 ppm NAA plus 1 qt
Sevin XLR/ 100 gal. Accel plus Sevin ap-
peared to be a good combination for Mcintosh
at either petal fall or at the 1 0-mm stage. For
increased fruit size, application of this combi-
nation at the 10-mm stage is superior. Accel
used by itself is not a potent thinner when sued
at the current commercial rates.

1994 Thinning Results with Fuji

A block of six-year-old Akifu #1 Fuji was
selected at Chedco Orchard, Berlin, MA.
Accel at 20 and 40 g a.i./acre, Sevin XLR at 1
qt/ 100 gal, and 6 ppm NAA were applied alone
and in all combinations at the 10 mm stage of
fruit development. Accel alone did not thin
(Table 3). Sevin thinned only modestly when
used alone, but when combined with Accel it
thinned very well, which resulted in a large
increase in fruit size. NAA alone did not thin.
When combined with Sevin it thinned but fruit
size was increased only modestly. When NAA
was combined with Accel there was no thin-
ning and there was a dramatic reduction in fruit
size. Much of the decrease in fruit size was

when the temperature was about 80"F.
Petal-fall applications of either Sevin
or Accel alone were not very effec-
tive, but when combined, they reduced
fruit load to an appropriate level
(Table 2). Accel application at the 10
mm stage caused only modest thin-
ning, whereas Sevin or Sevin applica-
tion with Accel reduced crop load ef-
fectively. Accel plus Sevin at the 10-
mm stage increased fruit size to the
greatest extent. The standard thinning
treatment of 5 ppm NAA plus Sevin
was the most effective thinner, while
Accel plus Sevin increased fruit size
most. A double application of Accel,
at petal fall and again at the 10-mm
stage, was no more effective than a
single application at either time.
Warm temperatures at and following
application allowed thinners to work.
The best thinning treatment in this
experiment was the standard thinning

Table 3. Effects of Accel at 20 and 40

g a.i./acre, 1

qt Sevin

XLR/IOO gal, and 6 ppm NAA on fruit set

, fruit size, and pygmy |

formation of Akifu # Fuji apples in 1994.

Fruit set

Fruit

Pygmy

(fruit/cm' limb

weight

fruit

Treatment* cross-sectional area) (g)

(%)

Control 11.9

169

0.0

Accel 20 12.2

182

0.7

Accel 40 12.6

175

4.6

Sevin 10.6

183

0.0

Accel 20 + Sevin 8.5

215

0.3

Accel 40 + Sevin 6.1

230

0.3

NAA 12.8

164

4.1

NAA + Sevin 7.4

194

5.2

NAA + Accel 20 13,0

153

21.6

NAA + Accel 40 12.3

124

39.4

* Accel concentration: 20 g a.i./acre =

40 ppm BA

and 40 g

a.i./acre = 80 ppm BA.

Fru/r Notes, Spring, 1995

due to the increase in pygmy fruit produc-
tion.

The combination of Accel with Sevin
emerged again as a good thinning combina-
tion. The combination of NAA with Accel
was not acceptable because it increased
pygmy fruit formation without thinning. The
Accel and NAA combination on Delicious
produces a similar undesirable response and
thus it is not recommended. We previously
have combined NAA and Accel on Mcin-
tosh with acceptable thinning and no adverse
effects on fruit size or fruit characteristics.
As a rule-of-thumb, however, we suggest that
Accel and NAA should not be applied to-
gether on any apple that has Delicious as a
recent parent. Perhaps there are other culti-
vars that also react adversely to this combi-
nation but they are yet to be identified.

1994 Thinning Results with
Other Cultivars

Accel did not thin Gala when 37 ppm was applied
at petal fall or at 10 mm diameter Combination of
Sevin with Accel did not improve the thinning of Accel.
Accel did not improve fruit size. NAA at 6 ppm plus 1
qt Sevin XLR/100 gal severely over thinned Gala.

Accel did not thin Delicious when applied at the 10
mm stage at concentrations between 42 and 84 ppm.
The addition of Sevin did not improve the thinning re-
sponse above Sevin alone. Accel did not increa.se fruit
size.

Suggestions for the Use of Accel in 1995

Accel performed erratically as a thinner in 1994;
however, there may be several reasons for this result.

Concentration

There is a large body of experimental evidence gath-
ered over the past 15 years to suggest that the active
ingredient in Accel, BA, thins in a linear manner It is
critical to know the.concentration being applied and to
be aware of the concentration of BA that can cause
effective thinning. In general, Accel will not thin sig-
nificantly at concentrations below 25 ppm. The effec-
tive thinning range for easy-to-thin cultivars such as
Empire, Idared, Rome, and possibly Mcintosh is 50 to

Table 4. The re

lationship between

dilute gallonage

requirement and A

ccel concentrations.

Accel rate

(g a. i./ acre)

Dilute gallonage

requirement

(bottles*/acre)

(gal/acre)

0.5

0.75

1.25

1.5

Concentrat

ion (ppm)

106

132

159

100

150

200

250

300

* Accel formulation is

sold in 35.6 oz bottles.

75 ppm. Hard-to-thin cultivars such as Delicious or
Golden Delicious may require 75 to 100 ppm.

In 1994 the label limited application of Accel to 20
g a.i./acre or two applications that did not exceed 40 g
a.i./acre. The label has been changed for 1 995 to allow
up to 30 g a.i./acre per application and two applica-
tions totaling no more than 60 g a.i./acre. An increase
in the amount applied may result in better thinning.

Steps to Determine the Rate of Accel

1 . Calculate the tree row volume and dilute gallonage
requirement of the block of trees to be thinned.

2. Select the concentration of Accel that is appropri-
ate for thinning the block.

3. Determine if you can apply the concentration re-
quired to thin the block and still be within label
limits (Table 4).

For example, assume that you have a block of ma-
ture Mcintosh on M.7 that require 300 gal/acre for a
dilute spray. If you put the total amount of Accel in
that you are allowed to apply at one time, 30 g a.i. in a
tank with 300 gal of water, you will end up with a con-
centration of 26 ppm, a level near the minimum con-
centration to get a thinning response. The chances of
getting a good thinning response from Accel alone at

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

this concentration are remote.

Assume now that you have a block of Mcintosh on
M.26 that require only 150 gal/acre for a dilute spray.
If you put the same 30 g a.i. in the tank with 150 gal-
lons of water you will end up with a concentration of
53 ppm. Adequate thinning of easy-to-thin cultivars
with Accel alone is possible at this concentration. Fol-
lowing this procedure, orchardists will be able to deter-
mine if they are able to obtain adequate results by fol-
lowing label directions.

Double Applications

The label allows two applications of Accel with 30
g a.i. for each application. Research results on Mcin-
tosh for two years suggest that two applications are no
better than one for thinning. However, return bloom
was significantly increased with two applications of
Accel in 1993.

Time of Application

Application of Accel at petal fall is not as effective
as application at the 10 mm stage. More effective thin-
ning and larger fruit size is achieved when Accel is ap-
plied at the later date, when cell division is proceeding
at maximum rate and developing fruit are more suscep-
tible to chemical thinners.

orchardists apply Accel at any time between the 6- and
1 2-mm stage of fruit development when favorably warm
temperatures are predicted for at least three days.

Combination Sprays with Either
NAA or Sevin

The most effective thinning treatments have been
those in which chemical thinners have been combined.
Accel and Sevin have proved to be a very good combi-
nation. Accel and NAA have proved to be a very poor
combination on Delicious and Fuji. We have combined
Accel and NAA on Mcintosh and have achieved very
good results. Some growers have reported that NAA
and Accel worked well on Mcintosh in 1994. Proceed
with caution with this combination, especially when try-
ing it for the first time on different cultivars, in particu-
lar if they have shown a tendency to form pygmy fruit.

There is some reluctance to use Sevin in the thin-
ning program because of the potential to kill mite preda-
tors, about which there is a lack of consensus even
among experts. The specific predators present in the
orchard and the degree of resistance to Sevin by preda-
tors must be determined.

Cost of Application

Accel is the most expensive chemical thinner in

Temperature

All chemical thinners are
more effective when applied at
high temperatures. This maybe
particularly true of Accel. Or-
chardist cannot change the
weather; however, it may be pos-
sible to select a period of time
when temperatures are warm and
the chances of getting thinning
with Accel are improved. Disap-
pointing thinning can be expected
if temperatures at and following
application are in the 60's. Ac-
ceptable results can be expected
when temperatures are in the mid
to upper 70's and good results
often occur when temperatures
rise into the 80's.

Therefore, we suggest that

Table 5. Estimated cost/acre of applying Accel, Sevin, and NAA
alone and in combination to Mcintosh apple trees (dilute gallonage
requirement of 150 gal/acre) with one or two applications.

ing treatment

Number of applications

Thinn

Accel

* 30 g a.i.

$76.28

$152.55

NAA'

** 7.5 ppm

$5.97

$11.94

Sevin

XLR*** 1 pt/

100 gal

$4.54

$9.08

NAA

+ Sevin

$10.51

$21.02

NAA

+ Accel

$82.25

$164.49

Sevin

+ Accel

$80.82

$161.63

* Accel 20 g in 35.6 oz = $50.85.

** Fruitone N 1.25 lb container = $26.54.

*** Sevin XLR 1 gal = $24.20. I pt XLR = 1 lb Sevin 50WP.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

general use today (Table 5). Based solely upon cost, 2.
Accel does not appear to be a competitive chemical thin-
ner. However, Accel does have the potential to fruit
size in addition to the size effect attributed to thinning. 3
The economic value of apples in large size classes must
be considered when selecting a chemical thinner. Cost 4
of the chemical per se is not the only factor.

Based upon thinning efficacy and cost, it seems that
the most cost-effective way to use Accel may be in com-
bination with other thinners.

Conclusions

1. Apply Accel during the most favorable weather 7.
when fruit size is between 6 and 12 mm.

Consider petal-fall thinning if weather is favorable.
Chances are that you will have a second chance if
needed.

Warm temperatures are required for Accel to work
well.

Do not apply Accel alone at a concentration of less
than 25 ppm.

Consider increasing the activity of Accel by com-
bining it with other thinners.

Be careful when combining Accel with NAA.
Pygmy fruit or small apples may result. Accel and
NAA have worked well on Mcintosh.
Generally, Accel plus Sevin is a good thinning com-
bination.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Released Typhlodromus pyri Show
Success in Colonization and Dispersion
in Massachusetts Apple Orchards

Xingping Hu, Ronald Prokopy, Starker Wright, and Jennifer Mason
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

Phytoseiid mite predators frequently are efficient
biocontrol agents against pest mites in apple orchards
throughout the world. The phytoseiid predator most
prevalent in Massachusetts apple orchards is
Amblyseius fallacis, found in more than 80% of or-
chards sampled in a recent survey, but the next most
prevalent phytoseiid predator is Typhlodromus pyri,
which was found in fewer than 1 0% of orchards sampled
[Fruit Notes 59(2):10-11]. Our experience with A.
fallacis over the past two decades is that although it
may become highly effective in suppressing pest mites
during August and September, it generally is not effec-
tive in suppressing pest mites in May, June, or July.
There appear to be two principal reasons for this short-
coming of A. fallacis. First, according to Jan Nyrop
(personal communication) of the Geneva Agricultural
Experiment Station in New York, A. fallacis is unable
to survive winter temperatures lower than about -8_ F.
Second, A. fallacis are susceptible to several orchard

insecticides and fungicides. Even mass-releases of A.
fallacis in Massachusetts orchards in late June, after
most spraying has ceased, have failed to yield effective
biocontrol of pest mites.

The experience of Jan Nyrop with T. pyri in west-
em New York apple orchards over the past several years
indicates that it can survive very cold winter tempera-
tures much better than A. fallacis and that it can toler-
ate several orchard pesticides better than A. fallacis.
Shortcomings of T. pyri are its inability to respond to
increasing populations of pest mites as fast as A. fallacis
can and its inability to spread from tree to tree, block to
block, and orchard to orchard as well as A. fallacis.
Even so, T. pyri consistently has proven to be more
reliable than A. fallacis in providing season-long pest
mite control in many parts of the world, including New
York, so long as it is sufficiently abundant in early spring
and pest mites are not overly abundant at that time.

In one of the 12 second-level IPM blocks that we

Tabic 1. Average
released.

percentage of leaves containing predaceous mites

in two

blocks in which T. Pyri were

Release year

Sample year

Release trees

Adjacent trees

T. pyri

A. fallacis

T. pyri A. fallacis

1992
1993

1993
1994

0.5
2.0

2.5
11.5

4.0
5.5

7.0
9.5

0.0 6.0

8.5 11.5

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

have been studying since 1 99 1 , we have found substan-
tial numbers ofT. pyri and few pest mites during spring.
Pest mites usually remain very low until late July, when
they begin to increase in numbers but often are con-
trolled efficiently by A. fallacis in August. No pesti-
cide except prebloom oil has been required. Therefore,
we obtained T. pyri from apple trees in Geneva, New
York (courtesy of Jan Nyrop) and released them in two
second-level IPM orchard blocks in Massachusetts.
Here, we report results to date of these releases.

lease resulted in relatively low numbers in August and
September of 1 993, but they increased nearly 5-fold by
1 994. Seven of eight trees on which T. pyri were re-
leased in 1993 harbored T. pyri in 1994. The harsh
winter of 1 993-94 did not seem to have much of a det-
rimental impact on T. pyri survival. In addition, the
1 994 samples showed that T. pyri had spread in sub-
stantial numbers to adjacent trees. In contrast to T.
pyri, populations of A. fallacis on sampled leaves were
similar in 1993 and (Table 1

Materials and Methods

The Geneva population of T. pyri from which we
took individuals for release has a long history of high
resistance to Guthion^''' and Imidan"^"^', is naturally re-
sistant to Sevin^^', and is not affected by benomyl. In
1 992, we collected apple tree branches harboring T. pyri
from Geneva in July and placed them in eight trees in
two orchard blocks where T. pyri had never been found.
In 1993, foliage was collected in Geneva in July. Col-
lected leaves averaged about one T. pyri nymph or adult
each and were kept in a cooler during transport. Using
the suggestion of Jan Nyrop, we stapled 40 collected
leaves to 40 attached leaves per orchard tree. We did
this on four widely spread trees per block in the same
two orchard blocks as in 1 992. In August and Septem-
ber of 1993 and September of 1994, we examined 100
leaves from each tree on which T. pyri were released.
No leaves to which Geneva leaves were stapled in 1 993
were taken in the samples. In September of 1994, we
also examined 100 leaves from trees immediately adja-
cent to the release trees.

Results

The results (Table 1 ) show that T. pyri became es-
tablished in trees on which they were released. In 1992,
establishment was poor because of intense rain soon
after T. pyri release; however, numbers increased four
fold in these trees from 1993 to 1994. The 1993 re-

Concliisions

Moving T. pyri from infested leaves of a Geneva
apple orchard to previously uncolonized blocks in two
Massachusetts apple orchards was effective in estab-
lishing and spreading this important mite predator, pro-
vided that the transferred infested leaves were stapled
to leaves of uncolonized trees. Nyrop (personal com-
munication) has suggested an even more effective way
of spreading T. pyri: picking flower clusters in bloom
and using twist-ties to attach clusters to twigs on
uncolonized trees. T. pyri feed avidly on pollen and
seem to aggregate there during bloom. Perhaps the
ability of T. pyri to survive on alternate food, such as
pollen and fungi, in part explains its tendency not to
disperse vigorously to previously uncolonized sites. This
more sedentary life-style also might explain the tendency
of T. pyri to be more resistant to orchard pesticides than
A. fallacis. The strong natural resistance of T. pyri to
Sevin is an especially positive attribute for growers who
desire to use Sevin as a thinning spray. If T. pvri were
to become established in most Massachusetts orchards,
these predators would almost surely provide a substan-
tially, if not fully, effective level of mite biocontrol from
early to mid-season and possibly longer.

Acknowledgments

We are most grateful to Jan Nyrop for his insights,
encouragement, and assistance.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

How Reliable Are Sticky Red Rectangle
Visual Traps for Monitoring
Leafminer Adults?

Ronald Prokopy, Jennifer Mason, and Starker Wright
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

The newly-approved insecticide Provado™ against
leafminers offers hope that we now have for the first
time an effective and safe leafminer control agent that
is not harmful to beneficial predators and parasites.
Recent research in New York suggests that a single ap-
plication of Provado at petal fall may be all that is nec-
essary to prevent leafminer damage throughout the
growing season.

Deciding whether or not a petal-fall application of
Provado is needed requires estimating the size of the
leafminer population prior to the appearance of mines,
which usually do not become evident until two or three
weeks after petal fall. This means that it is necessary
to sample either leafminer adults or eggs prior to petal
fall to gain an estimate of population size. New York
researchers and extension personnel have long empha-
sized that monitoring the abundance of eggs will give a
more accurate prediction of numbers of mines than
monitoring the abundance of adults. We concur with
this conclusion; however, our experience has shown that
considerable training is required for a grower to be cer-
tain of the identity of leafminer eggs, particularly
hatched eggs. A much simpler though less accurate
method involves sampling the abundance of adults us-
ing visual traps. These traps are sticky red rectangles
stapled to south sides of apple tree trunks at the green
tip stage of bud development.

Here, we present data for four years (1991-1994)
during which we counted average numbers of first-gen-
eration leafminer adults on trunk traps in blocks of or-
chard trees and peak numbers of first-generation mines
in these blocks. Our intent is to portray the degree of
probability with which captures on trunk traps can pre-
dict population levels of miners.

Materials and Methods

Our study was conducted in 12 first-level and 12
nearby second-level IPM blocks, each 6-10 acres. At
green tip, we stapled a sticky red rectangle (Pest Man-
agement Supply Co., Amherst, MA) at knee height to
each of five trees per blocks, one near the center of the
block and one near each comer. We assessed cumula-
tive numbers of adults captured on traps per block
through tight cluster and through pink. We also as-
sessed peak numbers of first-generation mines by sam-
pling 20 leaves on each of 10 trees per block at a time
when miner abundance had reached its peak. We ex-
cluded all data for blocks in which an insecticide spray
was applied against first-generation adults or miners,
as such treatment could have altered dramatically the
relationship between adults and miners.

We express our findings in terms that the probabil-
ity of cumulative captures of adults at tight cluster or
at pink will predict the need to treat with insecticide
before bloom or at petal fall, based on a threshold of
seven mines per 100 leaves at the peak of first-genera-
tion miners. Put into other words, our findings are pre-
sented in terms of the power of trunk traps to predict
the need to treat against first-generation adults or eggs
to prevent first generation larvae from exceeding a
threshold level that could result in eventual crop dam-
age if leafminers were to go untreated throughout the
season. The first-generation larval threshold of seven
mines per 100 leaves is targeted at Mcintosh and is
based on an expected eight-fold population increase from
first to second generation and a five-fold increase from
second to third generation (a 40-fold increase overall,
which is characteristic of most years). Our experience

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Table 1. Threshold captures of leafminer adults on sticky red rectangle traps at tight cluster or pink as
prediction of reaching a threshold level of first-generation larvae.

Number of blocks where

the adult capture

threshold was reached

Number of blocks where

the adult capture
threshold was not reached

Number

Larval

threshold

threshold was

threshold

threshold was

Stage

Year

blocks

was reached

not reached

was reached

not reached

Tight cluster

1991

1992

1993

1994

Total

Pink

1991

1992

1993

1994

Total

indicates that 300 mines per 100 leaves (7.5 x 40) dur-
ing the third generation of leafminers in August can
result in 30% or more pre-harvest drop of Mcintosh in
dry years. Studies prior to 1991 provided data that we
used to construct tentative threshold cumulative cap-
tures of three adults per trunk trap by tight cluster and
nine adults per trunk trap by pink as being thresholds
that could translate into seven first-generation mines
per 100 leaves.

Results

For a threshold level of three adults per trap at
tight cluster, the results (Table 1 ) show that trunk trap
captures reaching or exceeding this threshold correctly
predicted the need to spray to prevent mines from reach-

ing a threshold of seven per 1(X) leaves in 100% of cases
(14 of 14). Trunk trap captures not reaching this level
correctly predicted the need not to spray in 77% of cases
(39 of 51). Overall, trap captures correctly predicted
the need to spray or not to spray in 8 1 % of cases (53 of
65).

For a threshold level of nine adults per trap at
pink, the results (Table 1) show that trunk trap cap-
tures reaching or exceeding this threshold correctly pre-
dicted the need to spray to prevent mines from reaching
a threshold of seven per 100 leaves in 88% of cases (17
of 19). Trunk trap captures not reaching this level cor-
rectly predicted the need not to spray in 80% of cases
(37 of 46). Overall, trap captures correctly predicted
the need to spray or not to spray in 83% of cases (54 of
65).

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Conclusions

Our findings are encouraging for those who wish
to employ trunk trap captures as a method of determin-
ing whether or not to spray against leafminers prior to
the appearance of miners in leaves two or three weeks
after petal fall. The data show that a grower has an
81% probability of making a correct decision using a
threshold of three adults per trap at tight cluster and an
83% probability of making a correct decision using a
threshold of nine adults per trap at pink. Nearly all
failures occur in cases where captures are below thresh-
old and do not correctly predict that mines will reach
threshold numbers. This is not a major problem, how-
ever, because it would still be possible to treat later
against first- or second-generation larvae that exceed
threshold levels.

Sticky red rectangles stapled to tree trunks may

become increasingly valuable as a leafminer monitor-
ing tool now that Provado is labeled for use against
leafminers. For maximum benefit against first-genera-
tion leafminers, it is essential that Provado be applied
at petal fall (no earlier due to toxicity to bees and no
later due to decreasing effectiveness). Waiting to apply
Provado against second-generation leafminers will al-
most surely require two back-to-back treatments to en-
sure effective control, thereby doubling the cost. If one
does not wish to sample leafminer eggs to determine
need for a petal-fall Provado treatment, using red rect-
angle trunk traps is a good next best bet.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Northeast Regional
IPM Competitive Grants Program and State/Federal
IPM funds.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Growing Green, Selling Green:
A Conference Exploring Green
Marketing Trends in the Food Industry

Craig HoUingsworth and William Coli

University of Massachusetts Cooperative Extension System

Vicki Van Zee

Connecticut River Valley Initiative for Sustainable Agriculture

"Green marketing," the use of environmental phi-
losophy and practice as a martceting tool, is gaining
greater acceptance throughout the world. However, the
use of integrated pest management (IPM) in a market-
ing strategy is a controversial issue within the North-
east apple industry. A number of surveys have been
conducted in the Northeast to investigate the attitudes
toward IPM marketing among consumers, growers, and
the food industry (Grant et al., 1990; HoUingsworth et
al., 1992; HoUingsworth etal., 1993). To explore fur-
ther the issues involved in this topic, the University of
Massachusetts Cooperative Extension System and the
Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture co-
sponsored a conference called "Growing Green, Sell-
ing Green," to bring together leaders of the New En-
gland food industry, including farmers, chefs, retailers,
wholesalers, and processors with consumer advocates,
educators, and government policy makers to discuss
opportunities and barriers for marketing produce grown
using IPM. The conference was held at Bentley Col-
lege in Waltham, Massachusetts on November 7, 1994
and included 54 participants from 12 states.

During the morning session invited speakers pre-
sented a number of IPM and marketing issues:

Jonathan Healy (Massachusetts Commissioner of
Food & Agriculture) challenged the conference by ask-
ing what kind of labelling consumers are willing to pay
extra for and how we can communicate the concepts of
IPM effectively to the consumer.

Jay Hellman (President of John E. Cain Company,
Ayer, MA) presented an example of a challenge from
the processing industry: selecting pepper varieties for
production and processing in Massachusetts.

William Coli (Massachusetts IPM Coordinator)
provided an explanation of the components and prac-
tices used in IPM, noting that Massachusetts farmers
using IPM have reduced their pesticide use by 25% to
70%.

George Dunaif (Campbell Soup Company,
Camden, NJ) described how Campbell's uses IPM its
system approach (see Bolkan and Reinert, 1994). The
company requires the use of IPM by participating grow-
ers, but also provides contract growers with significant
support, including grower education, pest and weather
monitoring, and evaluation of farm practices, coupled
with state-of-the-art residue removal processes and pes-
ticide residue evaluation at key stages of production
and processing.

James Brienling (Gerber Products Company, Fre-
mont, MI) showed how Gerber uses IPM and a system
approach in pursuit of eliminating pesticide residues in
its products. The program is based on its Hazard Analy-
sis at Critical Control Points system. Gerber Products
provides IPM information to consumers only by request.

Christine Briihn (Center for Consumer Research,
University of Califomia, Davis, CA) presented research
results indicating specific consumer concerns with food
safety and how consumer confidence in the safety of
the food supply can be influenced positively by educa-
tional material, in this case, a two-minute video describ-
ing IPM practices (Bruhn et al.,1992).

Nathan Reed (Stemilt Growers, Inc., Wenatchee,
WA) described two efforts in marketing IPM-grown
fmit: the Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) program used
in European Union countries and Stemilt's Growers for
Responsible Choice (GRC). In 1991, 1 74,000 acres of

Fru/t Notes, Spring, 1995

apples in 15 countries were included in IFP certifica-
tion programs. IFP is supported by European govern-
ment policies, subsidies, "green" taxes, and "green" mar-
keting, i.e. environmental education.

The Stemilt GRC system rates growers' pesticide
use based on efficacy, worker safety, environmental
concerns, potential consumer exposure, biological dis-
ruption, and effects on beneficial insects and mites. To
qualify for the GRC label, pesticide use must score an
appropriate number of points. While an assessment of
the impacts of the program has not been completed,
growers' pesticide use decreased in response to the pro-
gram. Stemilt GRC-labelled fruit currently are distrib-
uted nationally and can be found in Massachusetts
stores.

Alan Borst (Rural Development Administration,
USDA, Washington, DC) provided an over-view of
niche marketing for alternative agricultural products,
stating that this market currently includes less than 1 %
of U.S. food sales, but is growing annually by 20% to
30%. Eighteen large wholesalers were found to market
IPM-grown produce in the U.S. Excerpts from the
Federal Register during hearings of the Organic Food
Production Act of 1990 show that there is little chance
of federal standards for IPM-grown produce. The sec-
tion, "Low Input Label Demonstration Program," was
eliminated from the bill.

Julia Freedgood (American Farmland Trust,
Northampton MA) provided a national perspective and
response to the previous presentations. Freedgood stated
that while environmental concerns play an increasing
role in the way farmers do business, IPM-marketing
could be difficult. American consumers are not well
educated about where their food is produced, and while
they are concerned with protecting the environment,
convenience is a primary factor in selecting food. None-
theless, IPM-labelling may provide an opportunity to
educate consumers about how food is produced and what
growers are doing to protect the environment.

Freedgood suggested that reasons to engage in mar-
keting IPM include: 1 . educating the public; 2. estab-
lishing a growing standard; 3. allowing consumers a
choice; 4. recognizing and rewarding IPM growers; 5.
encouraging regulatory agencies to consider IPM prac-
tices instead of restricting pesticides; and 6. encourag-
ing future cost-sharing programs. Primary challenges
to marketing IPM which she identified include; 1 . adapt-
ing retail systems to another product; 2. educating con-

sumers and retailers; 3. confusing the food safety is-
sue; and 4. confusing the price issue (are premium prices
realistic?). She concluded that IPM certification and
marketing offer political and economic opportunities that
in the long run will exceed the short-run benefits of
market premiums.

The afternoon session was composed of structured
discussion groups with group members selected by their
position in the food marketing system: producers; pro-
cessors, wholesalers and retailers; representatives of
environmental, agricultural, and consumer advocacy
groups; and government policy-makers. First, homo-
geneous groups were asked to identify and rank the
benefits and barriers to marketing farmer use of IPM.

The producer group felt that the primary benefit of
IPM-labelling was to provide a platform for discussing
management practices between producers and consum-
ers, enhancing consumer education and increasing public
confidence in grower practices. Another potential ben-
efit was the possibility of increasing market share. Pro-
ducers also felt that IPM labellingcould identify grow-
ers as environmentally proactive, providing them with
a larger voice in the regulatory processes, especially
those affecting pesticide use. The primary barriers to
implementing IPM labelling from the producers' point
of view were educational, especially since consumers
might perceive products not labelled as IPM as being
unsafe. They also were opposed to potential increases
in government bureaucracy and regulation. The pro-
ducers cautioned that IPM labelling might not result in
a better price or market share for produce.

Processors, wholesalers, and retailers felt that the
primary advantages of IPM labelling were that it dis-
tinguished the product as environmentally friendly, and
that it educated consumers about how food is produced,
thus increasing customer confidence in health and safety
and improving relationships among farmers, buyers, and
customers. The primary barriers identified by this group
are the difficulties in implementing labelling standards,
due in part to regional, varietal, and climatic variables.
They also cited a general lack of receptivity to labelling
by retailers, concerns about verifying producer compli-
ance with IPM standards, and the lack of consumer
awareness of IPM.

Consumer, environmental, and agricultural advo-
cates noted that such labelling would help consumers
link their behavior with their attitudes, i.e. to vote with
their dollars. Labelling also would help to focus policy

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

needs that would assist farmers in implementing IPM.
Labelling also was seen as a vehicle for educating chil-
dren and providing growers with a way to be environ-
mentally proactive. The concerns of the advocate group
included insufficient rewards to farmers, lack of fund-
ing for grower education, and resistance by growers.
They emphasized the need to educate consumers as part
of the whole marketing strategy, not as an "add-on" to
other programs, while recognizing the difficulty and
expense in trying to explain a complex system ad-
equately. Barriers in the market place included retailer
resistance, consumer confusion, and the fact that "IPM,"
as a phrase, has little market appeal. Regulatory barri-
ers included red tape and costs of implementation, com-
plexity of developing standards, and enforcement.

The government policy group felt that IPM-label-
ling would build credibility in the food production sys-
tem, improve competitiveness, and potentially sell more
product. Policy-makers felt that the major barriers to
IPM-labelling were that the mere mention of "pesticide"
on a label may be perceived as negative, that IPM is a
difficult concept to convey, and that it brings up the
question, "Was the food supply unsafe before?" Addi-
tional barriers cited were the difficulties of enforcement
and implementation and the costs of implementing a
certification program.

The barriers identified above were categorized into
common themes, identified as educational, marketing,
and policy-related issues. Heterogeneous discussion
groups were formed which included representatives from
each of the above groups, and each group was asked to
propose potential solutions to the barriers within a given
theme. Below are the reports provided from each of
these groups.

The educational issues group suggested that farmer
education should be a coordinated effort of the North-
east regional market. They suggested that more educa-
tional materials be developed and that farmer educa-
tion should be encouraged through some type of reward.
Education of retailers and wholesalers should follow a
similar path. Consumer education should focus on chil-
dren, emphasizing a definition of IPM and using a logo
with a recognizable symbol (such as a ladybug).

The policy issues group .suggested that the IPM-
labelling program should be "goal-driven" not "list-
driven," that practices, not just farmer knowledge, must
be verified and thata labelling program should not add
to the burden of the farmer, especially with regard to

paperwork. It was suggested that some kind of reward
be offered to IPM-verified farmers, e.g. tax relief or
guaranteed access to state markets. Policies should sup-
port the development of an industry of private consult-
ants and should support marketers by providing fund-
ing for labelling and education. While management
practices vary among regions, IPM principles are uni-
versal. Thus, policy should not be limited to local or
state markets, but should be regional, bioregional, or
national in scope.

The marketing issues group addressed the problems
of developing a larger market share and creating con-
sumer demand. Resistance by retailers to IPM-label-
ling is due to a lack of educated store personnel and to
the logistic problems associated with multiple sources
of produce and limited space. The group recommended
convening an advisory board of retailers to address these
and related issues. Additional problems are largely edu-
cational: the lack of consumer awareness of IPM, po-
tential consumer confusion of concepts and labels, and
the term "IPM," which provides neither information nor
appeal to consumers. The group suggested emphasiz-
ing the environmental benefits of IPM and its associa-
tion with family farms as well as the use of the ladybug
as a recognized symbol.

Conclusions

The conference provided a sounding board on the
issue of farmers" use of IPM as a marketing tool. Many
participants came to the conference with some knowl-
edge of the issues involved in IPM-marketing and pre-
conceived attitudes toward the concept; some supported
the concept and some did not. The conference itself did
not appear to change attitudes in either direction. There
were also a number of participants who had little back-
ground in IPM or IPM-marketing. The conference pro-
vided these participants with an introduction to the is-
sues.

While participants represented different organiza-
tions and many different points of view, a number of
common themes were echoed by the participants, prin-
cipally the need for more public education about IPM.
Conference participants indicated that IPM labelling has
value as an education tool: to enhance the public's un-
derstanding of agriculture, to improve urban-agricul-
tural relationships, and to increase the public's confi-
dence in the food supply. Marketing their use of IPM

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

provides one method for farmers to participate in the
educational process.

References

Bollcan, H.A. andW.R. Reinert. 1994. Developing and
implementing IPM strategies to assist farmers: an in-
dustry approach. Plant Disease 78:545-550.

Bruhn, C, S. Petersen, P. Phillips, and N. Sakovidh.
1 992. Consumer response to information on integrated
pest management. Journal of Food Safety 12:31 4-326.

Grant, J., J. Tette, C. Petzoldt, and J. Kovach. 1990.
Feasibility in an IPM-grower Recognition Program in
New York State. New York State IPM Program Bull.

No. 3.

Hollingsworth, C.S., W.M. Coli, and V. Van Zee. 1992.
Massachusetts grower attitudes toward a certification

program for integrated pest management. Fruit Notes
57(4):7-ll.

Hollingsworth, C.S., M.J. Paschall, N.L. Cohen, and
W.M. Coli. 1993. Support in New England for certifi-
cation and labelling of produce grown using integrated
pest management. American Journal of Alternative
Agricutlure 8(2): 78-84.

Acknowledgements

We thank the discussion facilitators for their ef-
forts: Paul Fisher, Karen Hauschild, Ruth Hazzard,
Shirley Mietlicki, Alden Miller, Cathy Roth, and Sonia
Schloemann. Shirley Mietlicki provided training for
the facilitators. Bert Szala provided logistical support.
Partial financial support for this conference was pro-
vided through the Extension Service, United States
Department of Agriculture, under special project num-
ber 94-EPMP- 1 -0049.

Fru/t Notes, Spring, 1995

Performance Over Five Years of Five
Rootstock Cultivars in Combination witli
Five Scion Cultivars in l\/lassachusetts
and l\/iaine

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

James R. Schupp

Highmoor Farm, University of Maine

Clearly, the future of the New England apple in-
dustry rests with dwarfing rootstocks and high-density
plantings, and a major decision that each grower must
make is the appropriate dwarfing rootstock to use. To
aid in this decision, much research has been conducted
on dwarfing rootstocks, particularly by the NC-140
Technical Committee on Tree-fruit Rootstocks. How-
ever, much of this research has utilized a relatively small
number of scion cultivars, and before selecting a par-
ticular rootstock, it is important to understand its per-
formance with the particular scion cultivar of interest.
To this end, the NC- 1 40 Committee established in 1 990
a trial at 18 locations in the U.S. and southern Canada
to study the performance of five dwarfing rootstocks
and a number of scion cultivars. In this article, we will
detail the results to date from the plantings in Massa-
chusetts and Maine.

Materials & Methods

In May 1990, Smoothee Golden Delicious, Nicobel
Jonagold, Empire, and nonspur Law Rome in all com-
binations on M.9 EMLA, B.9. Mark, 0.3, and M.26
EMLA were planted at the University of Massachu-
setts Horticultural Research Center in Belchertown,
Mass. Jonagold on 0.3 was missing from the plant-
ing. A similar planting was established at the Univer-
sity of Maine Highmoor Farm in Monmouth, Me., ex-
cept Marshall Mcintosh was included as one of the scion
cultivars and no trees on M.9 EMLA were planted.
Additionally, Golden Delicious on B.9 and Jonagold and

Mcintosh on 0.3 were missing from the Maine plant-
ing. Each planting included five replications in a ran-
domized complete block/split plot design. Additional
trees were planted at the ends of rows and as guard
rows on both sides of the plantings. In Massachusetts,
Marshall Mcintosh trees on M.9 EMLA, B.9, or M.26
EMLA were planted as a trial with five replications in
the guard rows of the larger planting. All trees were
staked at planting and were maintained as slender
spindles. All developing fruit were removed during the
first two growing seasons. All fruit were harvested and
weighed in the third through the fifth growing seasons.
Trunk circumference was measured each October and
used to calculate trunk cross-sectional area. At the end
of the fifth growing season, tree height and canopy
spread were measured.

Results

In general at these two locations, the effects of root-
stock did not vary with scion cultivar; therefore, we
will discuss only the overall effects of rootstock or scion
cultivar.

Trunk growth varied with rootstock at both loca-
tions (Figure 1 ). After five growing seasons in Massa-
chusetts, trees on M.26 EMLA had the greatest trunk
cross-sectional area and those on Mark or B.9 had the
smallest. Trees on Mark experienced similar changes
in growth rate to those that we have observed previ-
ously, i.e. they grew rapidly in the first two seasons
when they were not allowed to fruit, after which their

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

3.5

-♦-M.9 EMLA

^3.0

^B.9

^Mark

/ y

S 2.5

*0.3

/yy^

15
§2.0

J) ^-5

(A
O

|i.o

♦M.26 EMLA

(

^^-^^^^

Massachusetts

0.0

1 1 1

1990

1991 1992 1993 1994

o.b

_3.0

<>*

S 2.5

—

re
§2.0

'■♦-'
o

V 1 5

(A
O

|i.o

•^0.5

Maine

0.0

1 1

1 1 1

1990

1991 1992 1993 1994

Figure I . Trunk cross-sectional area from

planting though the fifth growing season of trees on various rootstocks

in Massachusetts and Maine.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

3.5

^♦-Golden Del.

^3.0

■^ Jonagold

-^ Empire

S 2.5

-^ Rome

/ .^^ y^^^'

-*- Mcintosh

Trunk cross-section
ui b en b

^ — ^ Massachusetts

0.0

1 1 1 1

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

3.5

^3.0

S 2.5

— /yy^

w
§2.0

+^
u
a>

V> 1 C
(0

|l.O

•^0.5

^^^^^^^^^^^ Maine

0.0

1 1 1 1 1

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

Figure 2. Trunk cross-sectional area from planting through the fifth growing season of various cultivars in

Massachusetts and Maine. In Massachusetts, Mcintosh trees were not part of the main planting but

were

planted in the guard rows on M.9 EMLA, B.9, or M.26 EMLA.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

M.9 EMLA B.9

Mark

0.3 M.26 EMLA

Gold. Del. Jonagold Empire Rome Mcintosh

Figure 3. Height after the fifth growing season of trees on various rootslocks or of various cultivars in Massa-
chusetts and Maine. In Massachusetts, Mcintosh trees were not part of the main planting hut were planted in
the guard rows on M.9 EMLA, B.9, or M.26 EMLA. Bars within state that are not topped by the same letter are
significantly different at odds of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

growth rate declined. In Maine, trees in Mark grew
more vigorously than the other trees in the first two sea-
sons, similarly to trees on 0.3 or M.26 EMLA in the
next two seasons, and similar to those on B.9 in the
fifth season. Trunk cross-sectional area of trees on
Mark, 0.3, or M.26 EMLA were similar and signifi-
cantly greater than that of trees on B .9 at the end of the
fifth season.

Trunk growth also varied somewhat with scion cul-
tivar (Figure 2). By the end of the fifth growing season
in Massachusetts, Rome trees were larger than Empire
or Golden Delicious trees. Jonagold trees were inter-
mediate in trunk cross-sectional area. Although not
comparable statistically, Mcintosh trees were similar in
size to Golden Delicious trees. In Maine, there were no
significant differences among scion cultivars with re-
spect to trunk cross-sectional area after five growing
seasons.

With respects to
tree height after five
growing seasons (Fig-
ure 3), trees in Massa-
chusetts on M.9
EMLA, B.9. 0.3, or
M.26 EMLA were
similar and signifi-
cantly taller than those
on Mark. In Maine,
trees on M.26 EMLA
or 0.3 were the tallest,
followed by those on
Mark. Trees on B.9
were the shortest.
Scion cultivar did not
affect tree height in
Maine, but in Massa-
chusetts, Rome trees
were taller than all
other trees.

Canopy spread
was affected by root-
stock in both locations
(Table 1) and was very
closely related to dif-
ferences in trunk cross-
sectional area. Specifi-
cally, trees on 0.3 or
M.26 EMLA had the
greatest spread in Mas-

sachusetts and those on B.9 or Mark had the least spread.
In Maine, canopy spread of trees on Mark, 0. 3, or M.26
EMLA was similar and significantly greater than that
of trees on B.9. Scion cultivar did not affect spread in
Maine, but in Massachusetts, the canopy spread of
Empire trees was significantly greater than of other scion
cultivars.

Yield can be measured in various ways (Figure 4):
per tree, per trunk cross-sectional area, or per acre. Per
tree in Massachusetts, those on M.9 EMLA, B.9, Mark,
or M.26 EMLA yielded similarly for the period from
1992 through 1994. Only trees on 0.3 yielded more.
In Maine, trees on Mark yielded the most and those on
B.9 or M.26 EMLA yielded the least over the same
period. In Massachusetts, Rome trees yielded the most
and Empire trees yielded the least. In Maine, all scion
cultivars yielded similarly per tree.

Table 1. Measured canopy spread and calculated tree densities of five rootstocks
and five scions in Massachusetts and Maine. In-row spacing was calculated as 80%
of the tree spread after five years, and seven feet were added to the in-row spacing
to obtain the between row spacing.*

Calcu

lated

density

Canopy spread (ft)

(trees/acre)

Treatment

Mass.

Maine

Mass.

Maine

M.9 EMLA

8.7

460

B.9

8.5

6.2 b

501

777

Mark

7.9

7.2 a

537

608

0.3

9.6

7.6 a

407

574

M.26 EMLA

9.9

7.2 a

393

658

Golden Delicious

8.6

6.7 a

474

632

Jonagold

8.8

7.3 a

464

654

Empire

9.5

7.7 a

439

592

Rome

8.7

6.3 a

472

761

Mcintosh

8.5

7.3 a

484

615

Within rootstock or scion and within column, means not followed by the same

letter are significantly different at odds of 19:1.

Mcintosh data from Massachusetts were not compared statistically, since trees

were not replicated within the experiment, but were planted as part of a guard

row.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

M.9 EMLA

■ Mass.
Maine

iiP^B^'

B.9

Mark

HIHHH

^^^|b

y/////A-

0.3

y/M^

1 1

M.26 EMLA

^^^|b

^= , ,

1 1

Golden Del

Mcintosh

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cumulative yield, 1992-94 (bu/tree)

M.9 EMLA

B.9

Mark

0.3

M.26 EMLA

Golden Del.

V///A^

Jonagold

Empire

Wa^

1 1

Mcintosh

■■H^B*

^^ .

10 20 30 40 50 60

Cumulative yield, 1992-94 (lbs/in' TCA)

10 20 30 40 50 60

Cumulative yield, 1992-94 (lbs/in' TCA)

M.9 EMLA

B.9

Mark

0.3

M.26 EMLA

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Cumulative yield, 1992-94 (bu/acre)

Figure 4. Cumulative yield per tree, per trunk eross-sectional area, and per acre of trees on various rootstocks
or of various cultivars in Massachusetts and Maine. In Massachusetts, Mcintosh trees were not part of the main
planting but were planted in the guard rows on M.9 EMLA, B.9, or M.26 EMLA. Bars within state that are not
followed by the same letter are significantly different at odds of 19: 1 .

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Yield per unit of trunk cross-sectional area (or yield
efficiency) is a way to relate yield to tree size and pos-
sibly compare commercial yield potential. Using this
measurement (Figure 4), trees on Mark or 0.3 yielded
the most and those on M.26 EMLA yielded the least in
Massachusetts. In Maine, trees on B.9, Mark, or 0.3
yielded similarly and significantly more than those on
M.26 EMLA. In Massachusetts, the four scion culti-
vars in the study yielded similarly. Mcintosh appeared
to yield less, although it is not directly comparable. In
Maine, Golden Delicious trees yielded significantly more
that the other scion cultivars.

Clearly the best way to compare yield performance
would be to compare actual yields per acre. In a study
such as this one, per-tree yield and per-trunk-cross-sec-
tional-area yield can be measured directly; however, suf-
ficient land and labor is not available to establish and
maintain an experiment that could be used to compare
actual yields per acre. Therefore, per-acre yield
must be calculated from per-tree yield and an esti-
mate of tree density per acre. Table 1 gives esti-
mates of tree density based on canopy spread,
assumingthat in-row spacing should be approxi-
mately 80% of the canopy spread after five years
and that seven feet should be added to in-row spac-
ing to obtain an appropriate between-row spacing.
Clearly, this is an imperfect measure of yield be-
cause it is based on estimates of density rather than
trees actually planted at those densities, but it al-
lows comparison of an actual performance mea-
sure. Using this measure (Figure 4), trees on Mark
and 0.3 yielded the most and those on M.26 EMLA
yielded the least in Massachusetts. In Maine, trees
on Mark outyielded the others and trees on M.26
EMLA yielded the least. In Massachusetts, Rome
tree yielded the most and Empire trees yielded the
least. In Maine, Golden Delicious trees yielded
more than all others.

Tree size and yield are not the only measures
of tree performance. Fruit size also is a very im-
portant parameter. Fruit size was measured each
fmiting year of this study. These data are presented
in Table 2 as counts per 42-lb box. Rootstock did
not affect fruit size; however, cultivar differences
were dramatic, as would be expected. Rome and
Jonagold trees produced the largest fruit and Em-
pire trees produced the smallest.

Another interesting comparison that we have not
yet discussed is the difference between the two sites.
As we have seen with other plantings, trees in Massa-
chusetts were larger after five years (Figures 1 , 2, and
3 and Table 1). They also yielded more (Figure 4).
Overall, trees in the Maine planting appear to be one
year behind those in Massachusetts.

Conclusions

This article presents only the preliminary results
from this study. The study will continue for another
five years, giving a detailed picture of these scion culti-
vars on these rootstocks. After five years, however, it
is possible to make some generalizations about root-
stock performance. Specifically, the largest trees among
these rootstocks will be on 0.3 or M.26 EMLA. The
smallest trees will be on B.9 (or possibly Mark). Trees

Table 2. Size of fruit (as counts per 42-lb box) from
trees on five rootstocks or with five scions in
Massachusetts and Maine.*

Treatment

Mass.

Maine

M.9 EMLA

89 a

B.9

91 a

131 a

Mark

94 a

119 a

0.3

97 a

115 a

M.26 EMLA

88 a

120 a

Golden Delicious

101 b

127 be

Jonagold

77 a

113 b

Empire

118 c

141 c

Rome

71 a

91 a

Mcintosh

107 *

134 c

Within rootstock or scion and within column,
means not followed by the same letter are
significantly different at odds of 19:1.
Mcintosh data from Massachusetts were not
compared statistically, since trees were not
replicated within the experiment, but were
planted as part of a guard row.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

on M.26 EMLA will be the least productive and those
on 0.3 or Mark will be the most (on a commercial ba-
sis). Finally, for trees on any of these rootstocks, fruit
size will be good.

Rootstock evaluations which compare the relative
differences related to rootstock with different scion cul-
tivars are important. Although this study did not show
any significant variation in rootstock effects from scion
cultivar to scion cultivar, the whole study (over 1 8 sites)
does show some variation. Other studies also have
shown some significant variations, partially related to
incompatibilities. We have two other cooperative

projects dealing with the potential for the interaction
between rootstock and scion cultivars. One was planted
in 1991, again in Belchertown, Mass. and Monmouth,
Me., including Pioneer Mac, Marshall Mcintosh,
Rogers Red Mcintosh, and Chic-a-dee Mcintosh on M.7
EMLA, Mark, M.27 EMLA, or M.26 EMLA. The
second will be planted in Belchertown and Monmouth
this spring and includes Rogers Red Mcintosh, Pioneer
Mac, Cortland, and Macoun on B.491 . B. 146, P.2, P.22,
V.l, V.3, B.469, R16, B.9, M.9, M.9 NAKBT337, or
Mark. These studies should help growers select the
best rootstock for the scion cultivars grown locally.

Fruit Notes, Spring, 1995

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

Morr.

Fruit Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Depcirtment of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Eklitors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

9661 ^T?r-.'

cr-
c->

CO
CO

CD
>

Volume 60, Number 3
SUMMER ISSUE, 1995

Table of Contents

The Cool Late-summer Temperatures of 1994 Did Not
Change Scald Susceptibility of Apples in Massachusetts

Developing Apple Trees in the Super Slender Spindle System

Summer Pruning Increases Pesticide Coverage in Apple Canopies

Second-level 1PM for Pests in Apple Orchards:
Performance According to Type of Cultivar

Preharvest Strategies to Reduce Postharvest Pear Decay

Practices to Reduce Postharvest Pear Diseases

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $8.00 for United States
addresses and $10.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $2.00 (United States addresses) and $2.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

All chemical uses suggested in this publication are contingent upon continued registration.
These chemicals should be used in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations.
Growers are urged to be familiar with all current state regulations. Where trade names are used
for identification, no company endorsement or product discrimination is intended. The
University of Massachusetts makes no warranty or guarantee of any kind, expressed or implied,
concerning the use of these products. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS FOR PERSONAL
INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.

Issued by UMass Extension, Robert G. Helgesen. Director, infurtheranceoftheactsofMay8andJune30,
1914. UMass Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

The Cool Late-summer Temperatures
of 1 994 Did Not Change Scald
Susceptibility of Apples in
Massachusetts

William J. Bramlage and Sarah A. Weis

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

In Fruit Notes [59(3):6-10], we presented chusetts (Figure 1). In both cultivars, suscepti-
typical relationships between scald susceptibil- bility drops rapidly as fruit experience
ity of Cortland and Delicious apples in Massa- preharvest hours below 50°F. If Cortland are

100

:^ 60

^ Delicious
• Cortland

100 150 200 250 300 350

Hours below 50°F

Figure 1. Calculated changes in scald susceptibility (percent of fruit that
develop scald after storage) with increasing hours below 50°F between Au-
gust 1 and fruit harvest date.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

600

Hours at or below 54°F

— 1988-93 {1989 omitted) "1994

500

400

y /

/ /
1 /

300

200

y ^ ^ y
/ /

/ /

100

y /

^ " y

• y

y ^,y^
_ y ^_^.yy

_ _ _ •

^ _ ^^^^_^_^

/I 8/8 8/15 8/22 8/29 9/5 9/12 9/19 9/26 10/3 10/10

Date

Figure 2. Cumulative hours below 54''F from August 3 to October 15 in 1994 vs. the
average of five preceding years.

picked before they have experienced about 75
hours below 50°, you can expect that close to
100% of the fruit will scald after long-term air
storage. However, if they have experienced
more than 75 hours below 50°, their suscepti-
bility to scald has fallen, and by 200 hours be-
low 50°, less than 20% of the fruit are likely to
scald. For Delicious, about 100 hours below 50°
are required for susceptibility to decline, but by
250 hours, less than 20% of the fruit should
develop scald without any scald-prevention
treatment. This pattern has been consistent
since we began collecting data in 1986.

In 1994, late Summer and early Fall were
unusually cool. However, temperatures did not
fall below 50°F any earlier than usual, and once

they did, hours below 50° did not accumulate
any more rapidly than usual. The unusually
cool temperatures involved many hours in the
low 60's and the 50's. The question was, did
the unusually large number of hours in the 50's
in late Summer have a significant effect on the
tjrpical temperature-scald relationship seen in
Figure 1? We suspected that they would.

We begin counting hours below 50°F on
about August 1. The unusual coolness in 1994
is illustrated in Figiire 2, as the accumulated
hours below 54°F, in comparison with the aver-
age of the preceding years.

On September 28 and again on October 4
and 7, we harvested one-bushel samples of
apples from each of five trees of Cortland and

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

of Delicious. These fruit were
stored for 29 weeks at 32°F and
then kept at 70°F for seven
days, after which the percent
of fruit that had developed
scald was determined. Results
(Table 1) show that actual scald
development in 1994-95 was
about the same as would be
predicted from Figure 1, based
on hours below SO^F at harvest.
Therefore the unusually cool
season had no substantial ef-
fect on scald susceptibility
other than what would have
been detected by counting
hours below 50° before harvest.
Note: In this experiment
we determined scald on fruit
when they were removed from
storage, as well as after seven
days at room temperature. The
percent of Delicious with scald
on them was as high right out of storage as af-
ter seven days at room temperature, although
the scalded areas were darker in color after the
seven days. Thus, scald actually formed in stor-
age. This was not true for Cortland. Very few
of them showed scald at removal from storage;

Table 1. Comparis
Delicious apples in
from regression on
Belchertown, MA.

Dn of scald development on Cortland and

1994-95, with scald incidence predicted

hours below 50°F in historical data from

Harvest
date

Starch
score

Hours below
50"?

% Scald

Predicted

Actual

Cortland

9/28

4.3

101

10/4

5.7

168

10/7

6.1

224
Delicious

9/28

2.9

101

100

10/4

3.3

168

10/7

3.9

224

most scald appeared during the seven days at
70''F. It should be pointed out that these fruit
were kept in 32°F air for 29 weeks and so, they
were very senescent. We do not know if the scald
on Delicious would have been as fully developed
at removal from storage at earlier times.

*T# *T* vL» *3/» •Sa
rp» •^ •^ 0^ #Y*

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Developing Apple Trees in the
Super Slender Spindle System

Ronald Perry

Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University

The Super Slender Spindle (SSS) system is
one of the newest systems to reach North
America. It was developed several years ago in
Germany and in Holland, where growers
wanted to produce the most fi-uit possible and
in the shortest time period following planting
on small land holdings. Argument still lingers
as to its specific origin. Most attribute its steirt
on the German side of Lake Constance, where
several growers working with Fleuren Nursery
in Holland began planting trees on top of the
soil (known then as the Bodenzee system) at a
spacing of one to two feet by eight to ten feet.
The purpose then of planting on top of the
ground was to use stress to assist in canopy
vigor control. Since then, newer plantings have
tended towards planting stocks in the soil.

Initially, low priced lower quality trees were
planted in a four- to five-wire vertical trellis,
kept to a height of eight to nine feet. Today,
most new plantings have incorporated a T brace
with two outrigger wires and alternate trees
leaned at 15 degrees fi^om vertical to encourage
better light penetration. Trees in the SSS typi-
cally are planted at 2000 to 5000 trees per acre.
One of the primary constraints to this endeavor
is the total cost of trees and of trellis materials
per acre (Table 1). This is one reason why those
who want to try this system should contemplate
finding a way to reduce tree cost (or own a bank).
Some have reduced tree costs by making their
own trees, and other have tried planting "sleep-
ing eye" trees {Great Lakes Fruit Growers News,
November 1994, p. 63). Also, the trellis system
is expensive (Table 1) and must be strong
enough to support fully the trees and the crop.
There are only a few orchards that have begun
trying the SSS, so there is limited experience.

The oldest trees in North America on this sys-
tem can be found in British Columbia, where
there are four- to six-year-old orchards.

The greatest challenge to the grower is in
avoiding shading problems caused by inad-
equate vigor control, especially after the fourth
year. Trees are not pruned during the dormant
season and more time is spent summer prun-
ing to control canopy growth. Additionally, some
experienced growers are experimenting with ap-
plications of ethephon and NAA to aid in growth
regulation. Growers are being taught by Euro-
pean consultants to rip, tear, or break branches
with their hands for summer pruning rather
than using shears. Apparently, the wounding
stresses branches and decelerates growth. This
process is very quick, where vigorous upright
growth is torn off.

This system is very challenging and less for-
giving for the grower then other systems. Much
time and labor is spent on vigor control and the
system is likely not to exceed a life of 10 years.
It has the advantage of producing large quanti-
ties of fruit in the early years. Remember that
production in the first six to seven years in these
high density systems is directly related to the
number of trees planted per acre. We estab-
lished a small row of Bodenzee trees in 1992
(1.5' x 14') of Smoothee Golden Delicious on
various M.9-style stocks and found cropping per
tree in the third year to be slightly less than for
trees on the same stocks in the HYTEC {Great
Lakes Fruit Growers News, May 1995, p. 25).
If we had planted a full acre of these trees on
M.9 NAKB T337 (12 pounds in 1994) at a 1.5' x
10' spacing, we might have reached production
at 830 bushels. Many of these trees had three
to five pounds of finiit per tree in the second sea-

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Table 1 . Estimated cost per acre of materials in

establishing two different designs of the Super

Slender Spindle trellis.

Vert, trellis

"V" trellis

Quantity

(2904 trees/

(4356 trees/

Item

needed

acre)

Line posts, 4" x 12', 50' interval

$ 900.00

Anchors, 4" x 8', 9 rows

$ 90.00

Stakes, 1/2" bamboo

spacing = 1.5' x 10'

2904

$ 1,161.00

spacing = 1.0' x 10'

4356

$ 1,743.00

Wire, 9 rows x 500' x 4 strands

18000'

$ 270.00

Wire for V system, 5 strands

22500'

$ 337.50

Wire tensioners

$ 108.00

Wire clips, tape, and other supplies

$ 300.00

T Brace materials for V system

$ 300.00

Trees (@ $5/tree)

2904

$14,520.00

4356

$21,780.00

Total not including labor

$17,349.00

$25,191.00

$25,828.00

Adjusted total if trees cost $2.00

$ 8,637.00

$12,123.00

$12,760.00

son (the HYTEC and Guttingen V trees had
nofniit).

Remember that the philosophy in this sys-
tem is to maintain a canopy of temporary
branches. UnUke the Vertical Axe and the Slen-
der Spindle at wider spacings, no permanent
branch system is maintained. Therefore, a
branch is removed once it has borne fruit for
one to two seasons. Any strong branches lack-
ing in fruit are not allowed to stay.

Fireblight

This system has many drawbacks. Estab-

lishment cost is the primary problem in the SSS.
Additionally, the system depends on intensive
and frequent summer pruning to keep the
canopy vigor under control. Growers attempt-
ing this system will find that the practice of rip-
ping and tearing off branches is in direct con-
flict with suppression of the spread of fireblight
(FB). Dr. Paul Steiner at the University of
Maryland contends that bacteria reside on the
surface of bark and that it can readily enter the
vascular system in wounds such as those de-
veloped through the ripping or tearing process.
This happens frequently in the Midwest and
east following a hail storm. Sterilizing equip-

Fru;t Notes, Summer, 1995

ment or gloves will not avoid spread without
also sterilizing the bark on branches. Also, the
sterilization process may be ineffective because
the bacteria may already be in the vascular
system. He suggests that growers hold off any
summer pruning, especially with FB susceptible
cultivars like Gala, Jonagold, and Fuji, until
after the FB season passes. This likely would
be in July and August when conditions are dry
and FB strikes are less active. Another ap-
proach is to employ the "ugly-stub" cut in the
removal of two-year-old wood, leaving a four to
five inch stub (P. Steiner, personal communica-
tion). Additionally, we are experimenting with
the use of other methods to control vigor such
as growing trees on a fabric similar to a land-
scape weed mat to constrict rooting. Root prun-
ing may also be a viable option to control vigor
in conjunction with late summer pruning.

Support

The best time to install a support system is
as soon as possible after the trees have been
planted. Do not delay in installing at least the
stakes. The support that they provide will en-
sure maximum growth. It is recommended that
growers consider the use of individual 1/2" bam-
boo stakes for each tree in addition to four wires.
However, I have seen many growers attempt to
reduce costs and not use individual stakes. We
have done this and found at this point that the
wires are sufficient support. Wires should be
strung at heights of 24", 44", 64", and 84". With-
out bamboo stakes, more time will be spent try-
ing to tie trees to wires snugly enough to pre-
vent lateral slippage down the wire. Establish
a line post every 50 feet with adequate end
posts.

Plant so that the union is set within a mini-
mum of four inches above the soil line for me-
chanically planted trees and a minimum of six
inches above in augured holes. Prune the leader
12 inches above the uppermost feather (a
branch at least 10 to 12 inches long). Some
growers have had good experience with not
pruning the tree at planting. Instead, bend the
stem to induce branching. Remove any feath-

ers that arise from below 24 inches on the leader.
Do not whip trees. Keep all branches except
those that are more than one half the diameter
of the stem.

First Growing Season

- At three to six inches of growth, clothes pin
the new laterals to a flat angle.

Attach leader to metal tube, stake, bamboo,
or wires (directly) every 18 inches with plas-
tic tape (Max Tapener). Snake or bend
leader in June if cultivar does not branch
readily (e.g. Empire).

Second Growing Season

Do not prune in winter Keep terminal bud
intact. For more vigorous canopies, snake
or replace leader in July.

In June, remove fruit on leader and one-
year-old wood, and single fruits on spurs
spaced six inches apart.

In July, break or remove vigorous non-fruit-
ing branches with hands to tear tissue. This
needs to be done 2-4 times through first
couple weeks in August. Avoid if FB is ap-
parent and if weather indicates high risk for
FB spread, especially for FB-susceptible
cultiv£u-s, particularly in FB strike season.

Third Growing Season

In June, thin to six-inch spacing for fruits.

In July, break or remove vigorous non-ftuit-
ing branches with hands to tear tissue. This
needs to be done two to four times through
the first couple of weeks in August. Avoid if
FB is apparent and if weather indicates high
risk for FB spread, especially for FB-suscep-
tible cultivars.

Fourth Growing Season

In winter, concentrate on removing vigor-
ous growth which is more than one half the

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

diameter of the leader. Remove uprights.
Select new laterals or leader. If the top is
vigorous, accomplish this task in late June
or early July.

Follow third growing season steps.

For trees with the ultimate height of six to
seven feet, more snaking and lateral branch

replacement of the leader must be done, es-
pecially on vigorous trees, in order to reduce
tree vigor and keep height under control.

This article was modified from one that ap-
peared in Great Lakes Fruit Gowers News,
June 1995, p. 28.

*^ *^ *X^ •^ ^X^
#Y* *x* *T* *T* *T*

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Summer Pruning Increases
Coverage in Apple Canopies

Daniel R. Cooley and Susan Lemer

Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts

In previous articles, we have described re
ductions in flyspeck as a result of summer prun
ing of dense apple canopies. The reductions de
pend to some extent on changes
in relative hirniidity, drying time,
amd perhaps temperature in the
apple canopy brought about by
summer pruning. We know this
because there is as much as 50%
less flyspeck in summer-
pruned canopies even when no
smnmer fungicides are applied.

However, in spite of bringing
about significant reductions in
the amount of disease, summer
pruning alone does not control
flyspeck adequately. Summer
fungicide applications are neces-
sary to keep the disease at com-
mercially acceptable levels in
many orchards. We expect that
summer pruning may interact
with fungicides in terms of fly-
speck incidence, and that less
fungicide may need to be applied
in a summer-pruned orchard
compared with a non-pruned
one. We hypothesize that the
reduced disease pressure
brought about by the change in
canopy microclimate may re-
quire less fungicide to manage
the disease, either in terms of a
lower rate of fungicide per appli-
cation or less frequent applica-
tions. In addition, simimer prun-
ing probably improves penetra-
tion of fungicide into the canopy.
As a first step toward investigat-
ing the interaction of summer

pruning with fungicide applications, we inves-
tigated the effect of sunmier pruning on spray
deposition in the canopies of semi-dwarf apple

outer

11 ft

low

8tt

5ft

Figure 1. Placement of water-sensitive paper targets
in apple trees.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Pruned

trees.

We selected a set of 10 mature Mcintosh/
M.7 trees, spaced 20 by 30 feet, approximately
12 feet tall, with dense canopies. Trees were
divided into five pairs. One of each pair was
summer pruned on July 19 or 20,1994, while
the other was not pruned. A week later we hung
water-sensitive papers, or targets (1 in x 3 in),
on terminals in each tree. The papers turn fi^om
yellow to blue wherever water contacts the pa-
per, and therefore will show the pattern of spray
deposition where they are hung. The papers
were hung in a specific pattern in each tree, as
shown in Figure 1. The height locations were
designated "low", "mid", and "high", correspond-
ing to 5, 8, and 11 feet, respectively. Depth lo-
cations were designated "inner" and "outer", cor-
responding to less than two feet fi-om the trunk
and less than one foot from
the end of the outermost
branches, respectively. One
target was placed at each
location, both perpendicular
to the row and in line with
trunks in the row. Hence,
each tree had a total of 12
targets.

After we hung the tar-
gets, an air blast sprayer de-
livering 140 gal/A and trav-
eling at 2.5 mph applied
water to the trees. Patterns
such as those shown in Fig-
ure 2 developed on the tar-
gets. In order to measure
accurately the amount of
spray deposition on the tar-
gets, we created computer
images of each target and
measured the percent of a 1
in X 1.5 in rectangle which
had been darkened. The
spray deposition patterns
were digitized using a
flatbed scanner Then, digi-
tized images were analyzed
using public domain image
analysis software (NIH Im-
age 1.55) on a personal com-

puter.

The only positioning factor which signifi-
cantly affected spray deposition was height (Fig-
ure 3). Percent coverage of targets at the five-
foot level averaged 77%, while coverage at eight
feet averaged 47%, and that at 11 feet aver-
aged 34%. The experiment also confirmed our
hypothesis that simimer pruning enhanced cov-
erage, i.e. 60% and 46% coverage for sunmier-
pruned and non-pruned trees, respectively.
While the interaction between height and prun-
ing was not significant, it was apparent that
the differences occiured primarily in the middle
and upper canopies.

These findings have some practical impli-
cations. First, many problems with spray cov-
erage occur in the tops of relatively tall trees.
As the data show, deposition in the upper canopy

Not Pruned

11 ft

•■• ri^- «••

■ %

8 ft

5ft

Figure 2. Tjrpical spray patterns on water sensitive pa-
per placed in the outer canopies of pruned and non-pruned
apple trees. White areas on the left indicate areas cov-
ered by clothespin used to attach the papers to the termi-
nals.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

1 00

1 1 1

- — • Summer pruned

T" — ■ Not pruned

Coverage

- \1\

^ 40
a

1 J

_ — *- _

1 1 1

5 8 11 14

Target Height From the Ground

Figure 3. Coverage of targets placed at different heights in canopies of summer-pruned

and non-pruned mature Mclntosh/M.7 trees. Standard error bars represent the amount

of variabihty at each point.

is significantly less than that in the lower
canopy. Summer pruning improved the amount
of material deposited in the canopy, and almost
all of the improvement came in the middle and
upper sections, nearly doubling the area cov-

ered by spray. Summer pruning would improve
the deposition of any spray material, whether
insecticide, miticide, or fungicide. Hence one
might expect improved control of many pests
in a summer-pruned orchard.

*X» *X* *X* *X^ *J^

*^ #^ #Y* *v* *T*

Fru/t Notes, Summer, 1995

Second-level IPM for Pests in Apple
Orchards: Performance According
to Type of Cultivar

Ronald J. Prokopy, Jennifer Mason, and Starker Wright
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

Daniel R. Cooley

Department of Plant Pathology, University of Massachusetts

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Under second-level IPM, orchard manage-
ment is integrated across all classes of pests:
insects, mites, diseases, and weeds. Under the
concept of second-level IPM that we have envi-
sioned for Massachusetts apple orchards, trees
would receive pesticide sprays against insect,
mite, and disease pests only through early or
mid-June. Thereafter, non-pesticidal ap-
proaches such as cultural, behavioral, and bio-
logical controls would be employed as substi-
tutes for pesticides.

Recently [Fruit Notes 60(1): 1-7], we reported
our conclusions on four years of second-level
pilot project research in 12 commercial orchards.
In that report, we did not present information
on possible differences among apple cultivars
in effectiveness of second-level practices. Here,
we present a summary of three years of data
(1992-1994) from six orchard blocks on effects
of full second-level IPM practices for each of
three prominent cultivars: Mcintosh, Cortland,
and Delicious.

Methods & Materials

A full description of the pest management
methods used in second-level IPM blocks and
of the number of pesticide sprays applied in sec-
ond-level blocks compared with nearby grower-
managed first-level IPM blocks is given in Fruit

Notes [60(1): 1-7]. Briefly, up to early June, three
to four insecticide sprays, two oil sprays against
mites, and four to five fungicide sprays were
applied in second-level and first-level blocks
alike. Thereafter, in second-level blocks, baited
sticky red spheres were used to control apple
maggot flies, removal of wild apple trees within
100 yards of the orchard perimeter was used to
control codling moth and lesser appleworm,
naturally existing beneficial predators and
parasites were used to control mites, aphids,
leafminers, leaflioppers, and leafrollers, and
summer pruning in combination with reduced
fungicide use was used to control sooty blotch
and flyspeck.

It is the normal practice in biological sciences
to state that differences are truly significant if
the odds of those differences occiuring by chance
are less than one in twenty. This procedure
serves us well when studying practices which
have the potential to improve crop yield or crop
quality. However, in the case of second-level
IPM, we are not attempting to improve crop
jdeld and quality but are attempting to main-
tain them. Because second-level IPM utilizes
alternative practices with which we have had
minimum experience (not decades of experi-
ence), we should be conservative when judging
its outcome in comparison with first-level IPM
practices. Hence, for the purposes of this ar-

Fru/t Notes, Summer, 1995

tide we have chosen to take a more conserva-
tive approach than the normal statistical prac-
tice, in that we consider differences to be truly
significant if the odds of them occurring by
chance are less than one in eight. In this way
we are more likely to identify differences be-
tween first- and second-level practices, and be
alerted to possible negative consequences.

Results

For Mcintosh, no fruit-damaging pest
caused significantly greater injtiry in second-
level than first-level blocks. Among foliar pests,
only potato leafhoppers were significantly more
abundant in second-level blocks (Tables 1 and
2).

For Cortland, lesser appleworm, leafi-ollers,
white apple leafhoppers, rose leafhoppers, and
potato leafhoppers caused significantly greater
injury or were significantly more abundant in
second-level than first-level blocks (Tables 1 and

2).

For Delicious, apple maggot, codling moth,
leafrollers, and flyspeck caused significantly
greater injury and white apple leafhoppers, rose
leafhoppers and potato leafhoppers were signifi-
cantly more abundant in second-level than first-
level blocks (Tables 1 and 2).

Conclusions

We conclude that for Mcintosh, second-level
IPM practices achieve a level of fruit and foliar
pest control comparable to that achieved by
first-level IPM practices. The lone exception
was potato leafhoppers, whose adults annually
fly from sites of origin several hundred kilome-
ters to the south or west and invade orchards
in late June and July, well after residual activ-
ity of the last spray against plum curculio has
worn off We conclude that for Cortland, cur-
rent second-level IPM practices are short of pro-
viding needed levels of control of lesser

Table 1 . Percent fniit injured by pests in samples taken at harvest in second-level and first-level IPM
blocks. Data are combined for 1992, 1993, and 1994*.

Cultivar

Type of Block

AMF

LAW

Mcintosh

Second-level

0.7a

0.1a

0.2a

0.7a

0.9a

3.3a

First-level

1.0a

0.1a

0.3a

0.0a

1.7a

Cortland

Second-level

2.0a

0.1a

4.8a

1.2a

0.5a

14.0a

First-level

1.3a

0.3a

0.7b

0.3b

0.0a

8.4a

Delicious

Second-level

2.5a

0.3a

0.1a

1.0a

2.2a

10.7a

First-level

0.3b

O.Ob

0.0a

0.5b

0.2a

4.0b

♦Means in each couplet for each cultivar followed by a different letter are significantly different at
odds of 7: 1 . Two-hundred fruit of each cultivar (10 from each of 20 trees) in each type of block were
sampled each year at harvest. Number of blocks of each type containing each cultivar: Mcintosh (6
second-level, 6 first-level); Cortland (3 second-level, 2 first-level); Delicious (4 second-level, 3 first-
level). AMF=apple maggot; CM=codling moth; LAW=lesser appleworm; LR=leafrollers; SB=sooty
blotch; FS=nyspeck.

Fru/t Notes, Summer, 1995

Table 2. Average peak population levels of foliar pests in second-level and first-level IPM blocks. Data
are combined for 1992, 1993, and 1994*.

Type of

Cultivar

block

ERM

TSM

WAA

WALH

RLH

PLH

Mcintosh

Second-level

40a

58a

17a

26a

14a

18a

First-level

39a

56a

17a

13a

12b

Cortland

Second-level

45a

55a

38a

12a

13a

18a

First-level

44a

16a

52a

22a

Delicious

Second-level

52a

76a

40a

28a

21a

First-level

35a

81a

45a

*Means in each couplet for each cultivar followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds
of 7:1. Data represent the average peak percent leaves (for ERM, TSM, LM, WALH, RLH, PLH) or
watersprouts (for AA, WAA) infested in 200 leaves or watersprouts (10 from each of 20 trees) sampled
at bi-weekly intervals from early June through late August in each type of block each year. Number of
blocks containing each cultivar are given in footnote of Table 1. ERM=European red mites; TSM=two-
spotted mites; AA=apple and spirea aphids; WAA=woolly apple aphids; LM=leafminers; WALH=white
apple leafhoppers; RLH=rose leafhoppers; PLH=potato leafhoppers.

appleworm, leafrollers, flyspeck, and leafhop-
pers. For Delicious, pests not adequately con-
trolled under current second-level practices in-
clude apple maggot, codling moth, leafrollers,
flyspeck, and leafhoppers. It may or may not
be coincidence that pest problems under second-
level IPM were least for the earliest-ripening
cultivar (Mcintosh), intermediate for the
middle-ripening cultivar (Cortland), and great-
est for the latest-ripening cultivar (Delicious).
We intend to conduct further research to deter-
mine whether it is fruit-ripening time per se or
some peculiar chemical or physical property of
each cultivar that accounts for these apparent
differences.

At present, we can recommend with high
confidence the use of second-level IPM practices

for Mcintosh but withhold recommendation at
present of their use for Cortland and Delicious
pending further investigation.

Acknowledgments

This project was funded by the Massachu-
setts Society for Promoting Agriculture, the
USDA Northeast Regional IPM Competitive
Grants Program, State/Federal IPM funds, and
the Northeast Regional SustainableAgricultiu"e
Research and Education Program. We grate-
fully acknowledge the participation of these
growers in the project: David Chandler, Dana
Clark, Greg Gilmore, Tony Lincoln, Wayne Rice,
and Joe Sincuk.

•^ vL* •^ *X# vL»

r^ 0^ 0^ #y» w^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Preharvest Strategies to Reduce
Postharvest Pear Decay

David Sugar

Oregon State University Southern Oregon

Research & Extension Center, Medford

Robert Spotts

Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Agricultural

Research & Extension Center, Hood River

Decay continues to be one of the most seri-
ous challenges facing the pome fruit industry.
It is apparent that both the condition of the fruit
delivered to the packinghouse and the quality
of care and treatment in postharvest handling
affect the risk of decay developing during stor-
age. Decay control begins in the orchard. Many
decay control practices can be performed
throughout the growing season and are ex-
tremely important if the grower is to obtain a
good packout and storage quality. Results of
research on a multifaceted approach to pear
decay control indicate that postharvest decay
is affected at every step of the production pro-
cess from orchard fertilizer application to stor-
age atmosphere. The following discussion con-
tains practical information that growers can use
to help control decay.

Most fruit infections are caused by spores of
pathogenic fungi. All decay-causing fungi sur-
vive and multiply in the orchard and are found
in soil {Botrytis cinerea which causes gray mold,
Mucor piriformis which causes Mucor rot,
Phialophora malorum which causes side rot,
and several Penicillium species which cause
Blue Mold) or on the tree {Pezicula malicorticis
which causes bull's-eye rot). Many factors, in-
cluding soil temperature, moisture, and nutri-
ent availability, affect fungal populations. Most
fungal spores are in the top inch of soil or de-
bris in the orchard. These spores are extremely
small (about 1/2500 of an inch) and are spread
to the surface of fruit and to picking bins in and/
or by rain and irrigation water, dirt and debris.

and wind.

Little can be done by growers to alter soil
moisture or temperature in a way that will re-
duce decay. However, orchard sanitation is a
key in decay control. Fruit left on the orchard
floor after harvest serves as a source of nutri-
tion for fungi. Populations of fungi that cause
decay are much greater in orchards that have
half a dozen pears on the ground under each
tree than in orchards that have only an occa-
sional fruit under the trees. The grower should
remember that ftniit on the ground does not get
sold and only feeds fungi that will rot more of
their ftoiit in storage. Thus, careful supervi-
sion of the picking crew is important to mini-
mize the amount of dropped as well as punc-
tured fruit.

Several orchard conditions that affect
postharvest performance have been identified.
Fruit with high nitrogen (N) content is more
susceptible to decay (as well as to some other
fruit disorders) than ftniit with lower nitrogen
content. We have found that in pear trees which
need fertilizer, N applications approximately
one month before harvest minimize the amount
of fertilizer N in the fruit while providing ad-
equate nutrition for tree growth and the follow-
ing year's flower buds. Applications of fertil-
izer around bloom time resulted in relatively
high levels of fruit N at harvest. Fruit N may
also be lowered by reducing overall N availabil-
ity to the tree, reducing tree vigor, and promot-
ing dense and heavy cropping.

Fruit high in calcium presents a lower risk

fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

of decay than low calcium fruit. Calcium chlo-
ride sprays during the growing season are ef-
fective in increasing fruit calcium. Fruit cal-
cium also may be enhanced by reduction of tree
vigor and promotion of dense and
heavycropping.

For several tjrpes of postharvest decay, the
maturity of the fruit at the moment of harvest
has a critical effect on decay risk. Earlier har-
vest, within the range of acceptable maturity,
reduces decay risk. Earlier harvested fruit is
usually less prone to bruising during harvest,
and bruising may increase susceptibility to rot
during storage.

Most postharvest rots begin with infection
by a fungus through a small puncture in the
skin of the fruit. Punctures can happen on the
tree, during harvest, in transport, or during
packing. In a study of frmt punctures in field
liins of Bosc pears in the Medford district in
1994, fruit harvested by workers paid by the
hour had significantly fewer punctures than
finiit harvested by workers paid piecework.

In our research, several orchard and stor-
age factors have been combined into an inte-
grated program. Low fi-uit N, high ftmit cal-
ciiun, early harvest, and CA storage have all
reduced decay by several postharvest patho-
gens. When these treatments are combined,
their benefits add up to make a significant im-
pact on decay. Experiments have also shown
the value of integrating biological control and
thiabendazole (TBZ) fungicide treatments with
the orchard and storage factors described above.
This may be implemented when the biocontrol
agents we have tested experimentally become
products labeled for use.

One of the expected benefits of an integrated
approach is stability. Since the factors in an
integrated program are independent of one an-
other, each is unaffected by the performance of
the other factors. As additional techniques are
developed or new fungicides or biocontrol agents
become available, they can be integrated as new
elements of this program.

Growers also can work together with pack-
inghouse personnel in the area of bin sanita-

tion. It is the responsibility of the packinghouse
to provide clean bins, but it is the responsibil-
ity of the grower to keep them clean before and
during harvest and to send full bins back to the
packinghouse as free as possible of dirt and de-
bris. In both AustraUa and South Africa, fruit
growers harvest into bins placed on trailers. The
South Africans often connect several trailers
into a train which is pulled between the rows
and "loaded" by pickers from both sides. The
main point is that bins should be kept as clean
as possible. Bins pushed through the dirt or
mud with a fork lift will carry tremendous niun-
bers of spores into the packinghouse, only to be
washed into the drench or dump water and de-
posited on all fruit passing through the system.

In addition to the above decay reduction
measures, growers can reduce decay by appli-
cation of a preharvest fungicide. Several stud-
ies have been done on the effectiveness of
preharvest ziram and show an average reduc-
tion in decay of about 25-50% with a single ap-
plication. In some years, bull's-eye rot has been
reduced by over 80%. Preharvest ziram appli-
cation also has given over 90% control of an-
other decay, Coprinus rot {Coprinus
psychromorbidus), which appears similar to
bull's-eye rot and has been found on apples and
pears from Hood River to British Columbia.
Because ziram has good retention properties,
an application made two to four weeks before
harvest will still give a good residue at harvest.
Control of decay with aerial applications has
been better than when no fungicide is used but
is not as effective as a ground spray because of
poorer coverage.

An integrated approach is essential for good
control of decay. Both the grower and the pack-
inghouse personnel must use all the tools dis-
cussed above to the best of their ability if
healthy, high quality fruit are to be shipped to
market.

This article is reprinted with permission
from Washington State University Tree
Frxiit Postharvest Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2.

vl# •J^ *1^ *X* *sl^
•<j>» 0^ •Y* "T* "T*

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Practices to Reduce Postharvest
Pear Diseases

Eugene Kupferman

Washington State University Tree Fruit Research

& Extension Center, Wenatchee

Robert Spotts

Oregon State University Mid-Columbia Agricultural

Research & Extension Center, Hood River

David Sugar

Oregon State University Southern Oregon

Research & Extension Center, Medford

The fniit grower plays a critical role in de-
termining the quality of finiit delivered to the
consumer. This is true even in the area of dis-
eases that show up in the packinghouse. Grow-
ers must begin control procedures in the orchard
for fruit diseases which appear long after har-
vest. Preventing wounds, which are the sites
for disease infection, is a critical responsibility
of the grower.

Postharvest diseases cost everyone money -
- disease reduction in the orchard is less costly
than cullage after storage. Cullage means slow
movement of fruit in the packinghouse, an ex-
pensive job of repacking, or even rejection of lots
in the marketplace. We will review preharvest
factors affecting postharvest decays of pears and
discuss postharvest control within the storage
and packinghouse.

Information About the Diseases

The major postharvest diseases of pears are
caused by fungi. Especially important in the
Pacific Northwest are the diseases Gray Mold
(Botrytis cinerea), Blue Mold {Penicillium
expansum), Coprinus rot (Coprinus spp.), Mucor
rot {Mucor piriformis), side rot (Phialophora
malorum), and bull's-eye rot {Pezicula

malicorticis). In most cases orchard sanitation
and sprays will significantly reduce the amount
of diseased fi:^it in the warehouse.

Gray Mold (Botrytis cinerea^

Botrytis rot is a common decay of Anjou
pears. This fungus enters through punctures
and wounds. Minimize injury to fruit to reduce
the amount of decay from this fungus. How-
ever, Botrytis also enters through the stem ends
of Anjou pears, since the tissue at the tip of the
stem remains alive even after the finiit has been
picked. Researchers at the Mid-Columbia Re-
search Station hoped that Botrytis infection
could be reduced by drying stem tissue. Pears
were kept up to two weeks at room tempera-
ture or four months in cold storage. Unfortu-
nately, the stems did not heal. Stem ends ap-
parently remain a site for infection even long
into the storage period. Botrytis spores on the
stem end can grow down the stem and into the
fruit flesh, causing decay and eventually
Botrytis nest-rot.

The source of Botrytis spores is in the or-
chard. Fungus grows and sporulates abun-
dantly on dead and dying plant material found
in orchard cover crops, especially during cool,

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

moist weather. Botrytis spores are formed in
clusters and can become airborne. Millions of
very small spores can form in a short time. In
addition to causing stem enddecay and the in-
fection arising in wounds, Botrytis rot has the
ability to move from finiit to fruit during the
storage season. It can spread over time from
infected fruit to surrounding healthy fruit and
form a cluster or nest of decay. Hence, this dis-
ease has been called nest-
rot.

Blue Mold (Penicillium expansum)

Blue Mold caused hy Penicillium expansum
is a common and destructive rot found on fruits
in storage and at the market. Blue Mold spores,
like Gray Mold, can be airborne in tremendous
numbers.

Stem and neck rot develops from stem in-
fections in fleshy stemmed varieties such as
Anjou and Comice. Losses from this disease
have increased since use of polyethylene box lin-
ers has extended the storage season for pears.
The amount of decay that develops on a single
fruit depends upon the length of the storage
period. It may involve only the stem, the stem
and a small area at its base, or the entire upper
half of the fruit. High humidity within the poly-
ethylene box liner favors the development of the
white to bluish-green fungal mass of spores on
the surface of infected tissue.

Pinhole rot occurs mainly on Winter Nelis,
a pear variety with large, prominent lenticels.
It first appears as numerous minute spots of
decay scattered over the surface of the fruit;
infection apparently occurs at the lenticel. As
the disease progresses, the spots increase in size
and finally coalesce, and the entire fruit decom-
poses.

Blue Mold is generally considered a wound
parasite, but it can penetrate through lenticels,
particularly those near bruises. Late in the stor-
age season when fi-uit has become weakened
by ripening and aging, most varieties are sus-
ceptible to lenticel infection by Blue Mold. This
type of infection may result when rotted pears
are handled carelessly during repacking. En-
vironmental conditions such as moisture, ven-

tilation and temperature directly influence the
development of decay. The atmospheric mois-
ture necessary to prevent pears from shrivel-
ing is sufficient for Blue Mold development.
Lack of ventilation due to tight packing and lack
of air space in storage increases the moisture
around the fi-uit and slows the rate of cooling,
making conditions favorable for fungus devel-
opment.

Fungus diseases develop more rapidly at
temperatures higher than the usual storage
temperature for pears. Pears that are delayed
going into storage, cooled slowly in storage,
stored till late in the season, or held at warm
temperatures after removal from storage are
particularly subject to infection. Disease is not
necessarily prevented or arrested even at 30°
to 32°F. Rotten spots continue to enlarge, and
even new infections can be initiated at these
temperatures. Decay proceeds slowly in the
early part of the storage season when fi-uit is
firm and somewhat resistant, but during long
periods of storage it can cause serious losses.

Coprinus Rot

Another fungal disease is Coprinus rot,
which is often mistaken for bull's-eye rot.
Coprinus rot has appeared in both Hood River
and Wenatchee. This low temperature organ-
ism (mushroom fungus) will nest and spread
like Gray Mold. Spores come from a mushroom
in the orchard and appear to infect fruit during
the last month before harvest. One major dif-
ference between Coprinus rot and bull's-eye rot
is the presence, in cold storage, of a cobweb-
like, white fungal growth on the fi-uit surface
in Coprinus rot.

Mucor Rot

Mucor is a soil-borne fungus that grows well
even during the winter It is found in varying
amounts from orchard to orchard and varies in
quantity depending upon the time of year. For
example, immediately after harvest the spore
count in orchard soil increases. The Mucor fun-
gus is found in debris and litter on the soil sur-
face and most occur in the top two inches of soil.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Some orchards have high levels of Mucor which
is related to high soil moisture and an abun-
dance of fruit on the ground. When the bot-
toms of bins are in contact with contaminated
soil, a large number of Mucor spores can be
brought into the packinghouse in and on the
bins.

Pears which had fallen on the ground were
examined for evidence of fungal spores. Dur-
ing harvest most of the fruit on the ground had
begun to rot with Gray Mold. One month after
harvest most of the fruit was being decayed by
Mucor. One method of reducing the number of
spores on the orchard floor would be to pick up
any of the early maturing fruits (e.g., Bartletts)
Ijdng on the ground. These fruits provide nu-
trients for the buildup of high levels of fungal
spores, which may contaminate and infect later
harvested Anjou or Bosc pears. Rodents such
as mice and squirrels, as well as insects and
rain, are factors in spreading decay organisms
throughout the orchard.

Mucor spores are not easily airborne. This
is in direct contrast to Botrytis and Fenicillium
spores. To reduce the amount of spores going
into the packinghouse, growers can put a layer
of gravel or
wood chips on
the soil surface
to insulate the
bottom of the
bins in the
loading area.
Thoroughly
rinsing the
bottom of the
bins with wa-
ter to remove
contaminated
soil before the
bins go to the
packinghouse
also would re-
duce the num-
ber of spores.

problem in the Medford, Oregon pear-growing
district for the past several years. Though the
primary causal fungus, Phialophora, has been
found on decaying pears in Washington, it is
not currently an economic problem there or in
the Hood River district. Side rot has been found
on Anjou and Comice pears, but the most seri-
ous losses have occurred on Bosc. It is a prob-
lem of long-term storage; infections become vis-
ible in late Dec. or Jan., and incidence of decay
increases as the storage season continues.

Research at the Southern Oregon Experi-
ment Station has shown that side rot lesions
can be caused by two fungi, Phialophora
malorum and Cladosporium herbarum. Typi-
cally dark brown, dime-size decay lesions sepa-
rate cleanly from adjacent healthy flesh. The
color and texture of the decayed tissue vary with
the amount of drying due to skin breakage.
Both of these fungi are relatively slow-growing,
weak pathogens which apparently must wait
for fruit to weaken through age before infect-
ing. Cladosporium. is sensitive to thiabenda-
zole (TBZ), vfhile Phialophora is not. Most side
rot in fruit treated postharvest with thiabenda-
zole is caused by Phialophora.

Side Rot

Side rot
has been a

Table 1 . Decay in attached Anjou pear fhiits inoculated monthly during the
growing season in 1980 and 1981.

Percent decay* caused by

Week of inoculation
before harvest

Botrytis
cinerea

Mucor
piriformis

Penicillium
expansum

Pezicula
malicorticis

0"
6
9

82
14

100

'Decay is the total from evaluations conducted monthly during the growing
season, during storage, and after a one-week ripening period. Each value
represents the mean of 50 fruits. Researchers made two needle punctures per
fruit through drops of inoculum.

'Fruit were inoculated two days before harvest.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Fruit Susceptibility to Decay

Pathologists at the Mid-Columbia Research
Station studied changes in susceptibility of fruit
to decay throughout the growing season. In
summary, fruit becomes most susceptibleto the
fungal decay organisms during the last month
before harvest. However, infection by the bull's-
eye rot organism can occur any time from petal
fall to harvest.

Pears were wounded and inoculated
throughout the growing season with the differ-
ent decay-causing fungi. Fruit was harvested
and placed into storage for seven to eight
months. The decay was generally less than 10%
on fruit sprayed with fungal spores a month or
more before harvest (Table 1). Fruit treated
with decay organisms diuing the last few weeks
before harvest was seriously decayed during
storage. Consequently, growers should time
chemical control programs to cover fruit at least
two to three weeks before harvest, as it loses
its resistance to decay.

Harvest maturity is critical. Studies on Bosc
pears have shown dramatically that more de-
cay occurs on later picked fruit. By delaying
harvest two weeks after commercial harvest,
there was a significant rise in the amount of
infection in nonwounded fruit that was sprayed
with the fungal suspensions.

Sprays to Control the Diseases

Three factors are of primary importance in
designing a fungicide spray program. These
factors include 1) when spores of a particular
disease organism are present in the greatest
quantity, 2) when fruit is most susceptible to
infection and decay, and 3) when environmen-
tal conditions most favor infection.

Certain postharvest rots occur when infected
flower parts are trapped in the calyx end of the
fruit soon after bloom, i.e., caljrx-end infections
by Botrytis. A spray of Ziram, Manzate-200, or
Di thane M-45 within 10 days of petal fall helps
reduce infection. Growers in areas with bull's-
eye rot may need a second fungicidal spray if it
rains in August. Preharvest sprays of Ziram
also help reduce side rot incidence.

Cultural Practices to Reduce Decay

During the winter months, prune trees to
eliminate low hanging branches which might
set fruit in contact with cover crops or lie on the
ground. These fruit can easily come in contact
with soil-borne spores and become infected as a
result of the high hvunidity in the microclimate
of the cover crop.

During the summer months, it is important
to keep weeds and grass under control. Spores
can be released from the cover crop, which also
provides high humidity for germination. In
particular. Gray Mold and other Botrytis spe-
cies grow well on weakened or dead plant ma-
terial in the orchard. Periods of rainy weather
or excessive irrigation promote the growth and
sporulation of these fungi, which account for a
general increase in the incidence of Gray Mold
in wet years. Conversely, too little water may
promote dusty conditions, which result in spread
of the soil-borne spores of Mucor, Penicillium,
and Botrytis.

At harvest, growers can do a number of
things to reduce postharvest decay. Injury to
fruit during harvest and packing is probably the
most critical factor leading to postharvest de-
cay. Harvesting fruit at the proper maturity is
also extremely important. Pears harvested on
the immature side will abrade easily on the
packingline. Overmature fruit or fruit har-
vested late in the maturity range has reduced
storage life and is more susceptible to
postharvest diseases. Fruit is most susceptible
to diseases as it approaches maturity.

Proper handling becomes critical in prevent-
ing decay and bruising. Pickers should not pick
up "grounders" (fallen fruit), since that fruit is
likely to be infected as well as ripening prema-
turely. Volatiles produced by these fruit stimu-
late the ripening of adjacent fruit and reduce
storage life.

Avoid harvesting wet fruit, as it likely will
have spores adhering to the surface which may
germinate and infect. Allow fruit to dry before
harvesting.

Most postharvest rot organisms are soil in-
habitants and can be picked up on the skids or
sides of bins. Mow the cover crop or use saw-

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

dust or wood chips under bins rather than al-
lowing them to touch the soil. Do not skid bins
on the orchard floor, load the bins roughly, or
allow drivers to speed through the orchard.
Urge pickers to handle fruit delicately to pre-
vent bruising. Finally, immediately take picked
fruit to the packinghouse where it can be cooled
rapidly.

Control of Postharvest Disease
of Pears in the Packinghouse

Control of postharvest diseases in the pack-
inghouse is based on spore load reduction
through sanitation and killing spores with frin-
gicides. Minimize damage to fruit by thorough
padding of surfaces and overall maintenance of
equipment.

Controlling Spore Loctd in the
Dump Tank

Pear packinghouses use either chlorine or
SOPP (sodium ortho-phenylphenate) in the
dump tank and flumes. Chlorine can do a very
effective job of killing spores in a dump tank if
the concentration of chlorine is correct, the
amount of dirt in the water is minimized, and
all areas of the fruit are penetrated. Chlorine,
however, lacks the ability to provide long-term
coverage of fruit in storage or on its way to
market and cannot penetrate wounds well.

The concentration of spores in a dump tank
can be critical in terms of control of fungal dis-
eases in the packinghouse (Table 2). Several

Table 2. The effect of dirt on the ability of
chlorine to kill fungal spores.

Chlorine

% Decay*

ppm

50 ppm (dirty water)

50 ppm (tap water)

100

♦Combination of Mucor, Botrytis and Penicillium
spores.

organizations are available to monitor the num-
ber of spores in a dump tank. If monitoring is
used, 100 spores/ml should not provide a prob-
lem in a packinghouse; however, spore levels
over 300/ml should be avoided.

The pH of a solution in which chlorine is used
will influence the amount of killing that chlo-
rine provides. Flotation salts dramatically raise
the pH to the alkaline area in most cases. Op-
erators are warned not to acidify or reduce the
pH or chlorine when used with sodium silicate,
since the flotation salt solution will form a gel
and solidify. Disposal of 3,000 gallons of "Jell-
O" can be a problem.

Tests have been run on the fungicidal effects
of various flotation salts. Most of the flotation
salts have no fungicidal properties, that is, they
do not kill fungus spores. However, sodium
ligninsulfonate prevents germination of fungal
spores when used alone. When it was combined
with SOPP in the laboratory tests, no decay
spores germinated. Ligninsulfonate has a num-
ber of problems which must be considered.
First, SOPP measurements are difficult due to
the color of the solution. Second, fruit must be
thoroughly rinsed following treatment to avoid
injury. Operators should be aware that
ligninsulfonate and chlorine are not compatible
and should not be mixed.

Heat Treatment of Dump Tanks

Heat treatment of pear dump tanks is an-
other method of reducing spore load. Over the
past several years we have been experiment-
ing with heat sterilization of the dump
tank for those using SOPP in the sys-
tem. It appears that 130°F for 20 to
25 minutes kills spores in the dump
tank.

The procedure is to lay a stjTofoam
cover over the tank at night after all
the fruit is out to turn on the boilers to
raise the temperature. In commercial
trials it took about 4 hours to bring the
tank up to the ISO^F level. The boil-
ers then were turned off and the
styrofoam was removed. By morning
the water was back to 70°F, so the fruit
could be run without injury. Water loss

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Table 3. Sensitivity of common pear decay patiiogens
to thiabendazole.

Sensitive

Tolerant

Penicillium (Blue Mold)

Mucor

Botrytis (Gray Mold)

Phialophora (side rot)

Pezicula (bull's-eye rot)

Altemaria

Cladosporium

due to heating was about 10% and SOPP loss
about 25%.

We have done these trials with both silicate
and ligninsulfonate solutions. The tank con-
taining ligninsulfonate was reheated once
weekly for three to four weeks, during which
period of time it was not dumped and spore
count remained low.

Thus, this method reduces the number of
times during the season that tanks must be
emptied. However, organic matter and other
debris eventually accumulate in the tanks and
the tanks require cleaning.

Heating also will sterilize infected fruit at
the bottom of the tank. The calculated cost to
clean, empty and refill the tank was about $800,
while the cost to heat sterilize the tank was
about $200. Good ventilation of the packing-
house during heating is important.

Direct Control of Decay Pathogens

Spores of decay pathogens that survive
dump tank SOPP or chlorine treatments or
which contaminate the fruit after it leaves the
dump tank may be prevented from infecting by
application of a fungicide line spray. Commonly,
the benzimidazole fungicide thiabendazole
(TBZ) is applied but, unfortunately, not all
postharvest pathogens are controlled by this
fungicide. The following table lists common pear

decay pathogens according to their
sensitivity to thiabendazole.

Tank mixtures of TBZ + Captan
can improve control to a small extent
but do not significantly expand the
range of protection. However, the
use of Captan after harvest on pears
sprayed with oil during the summer
or wrapped in oil paper can develop
blotchy discoloration on the skin.

In recent years concern has been
raised about the development of re-
sistance to benomyl in decay patho-
gens. Resistant strains have been
found in all major pear-growing districts. A close
examination of this potential problem has been
made in the Hood River district, where records
show the incidence of resistant strains has been
stable for the past several years.

Postharvest Fungicides
for Decay Control

Fungicides such as thiabendazole (TBZ) and
Captan are of tremendous importance in decay
control. The fungicides are often applied in a
line spray, after fruit crosses the sorting tables,
and often in combination with wax. Frequent
use of benomyl or thiabendazole in the orchard
has resulted in buildup of resistant strains of
Botrytis and Penicillium in many parts of the
world; thus, orchard use of these fungicides
should be avoided. Limiting benzimidazole fun-
gicides to packinghouse applications is critical
to preserve its effectiveness. Sanitation to pre-
vent increase and spread of resistant strains
isalso important. In addition, new fungicides
are being evaluated for their potential in con-
trolling postharvest pathogens.

This article is reprinted with permission
from Washington State University Tree
Fruit Postharvest Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2.

*sL» *sT> vL* *kL* vL*
•^ r^ •^ •^ •^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1995

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

»rr.

Fruit Notes

Prepared by the Depgirtment of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Braxnlage

? S 5

>
^ ■§. -^

-'■ CO

Volume 60, Number 4
FALL ISSUE. 1995

Table of Contents

Grower-perceived Value of Second-level Apple IPM

Preharvest Conditions that Influence Scald Susceptibility
on Delicious Apples in Massachusetts

UMass Peach Cultivar Trial: Observations and Comments

How Good is Provado™ Applied at Petal Fall in
Controlling Leafminers and Leafhoppers?

Marketing Alternatives for Retail Apple Growers

Integrated Fruit Production (IFP): A Status Report

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $8.00 for United States
addresses and $10.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $2.00 (United States addresses) and $2.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

Issued by UMass Extension. Robert G. Helj^esen. Directar. in furtherance of the nets of May S and Jane 30.
1914. UMass Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Grower-perceived Value of
Second-level Apple IPM

Ronald J. Prokopy, Daniel R. Cooley, Wesley R. Autio,
and William M.Coli
University of Massachusetts

At our most recent meeting of the Apple IPM
Project Advisory Committee in November of 1994,
we asked Committee members to voice their per-
ception of the value of apple IPM to stakeholders.
The assembled Committee, comprised of seven grow-
ers, two private consultants, two environmental
health specialists, and one product market advisor,
generally agreed that to date perhaps the greatest
value of first-level IPM to growers has been reduc-
tion in the amount (and therefore the cost) of pesti-
cide use plus psychological assurance that pests are
unlikely to get out of hand before the beginning of
an attack has been detected. First-level IPM em-
phasizes monitoring pests and weather and spray-
ing a selective pesticide based on monitoring infor-
mation.

The next question put forward to the Commit-
tee focused on possible benefits of second-level IPM,
which, as presently construed, offers little or no
overall reduction in pest-management costs com-
pared with first-level IPM, because several of its
practices call for substituting pesticide use and cost
with labor use and cost. Second-level IPM calls for
substituting behavioral, biological, and cultural con-
trol methods for pesticide wherever possible but par-
ticularly after mid-June. The Committee put for-
ward several suggestions regarding the potential
value of second-level IPM to stakeholders. Inher-
ent in these suggestions was the assumption that
second-level IPM controls pests just as well as first-
level IPM does.

At three twilight meetings of apple growers in
May of 1995 (one each in western, central, and east-
em Massachusetts), we conducted a written sur-
vey of grower response to the Committee's ten sug-
gested potential values of second-level IPM. We
asked that only those who owned or operated an
apple orchard reply and that the ten suggested val-
ues of second-level IPM be ranked in order of per-
ceived importance. We also asked growers to indi-
cate if they perceived no potential value for second-
level IPM on their farms in the foreseeable future.

Results of the survey, presented in Table 1, show
that the greatest perceived potential value of sec-
ond-level IPM lies in creating a positive image with
the general public and legislators that apple grow-
ers are doing their very best to minimize pesticide
use. The second, third, and fourth greatest per-
ceived potential values concern the positive effect
of greater buildup of beneficial natural enemies,
reduction in pesticide residue on fi"uit at harvest,
and reduction in rate at which pests become resis-
tant to pesticides. The fifth-place perceived value
involves educating customers coming to roadside
stands that growers are being very environmentally
responsible in their pest-management practices.

If the greatest perceived value of second-level
IPM is one of building a more positive image of
apple-growing practices with the general public and
legislators, then apple growers in Massachusetts
and we in UMass Extension ought to be thinking of
concrete ways to advance image building. One ex-
cellent suggestion along this line was made by a
respondent to our questionnaire. The suggestion
was that growers who sell apples retail from orchard
or roadside stands make a display case showing the
risk of growing apples without any pesticide to-
gether with some of the tools of second-level IPM.
Risk is perhaps best demonstrated by displaying a
few gnarly infested apples from an unmanaged tree
— the consequences of no pest-management prac-
tices whatsoever. The tools might consist of an ar-
ray consisting of a weather monitor for tempera-
ture and leaf wetness used for timing apple scab
sprays, white rectangle traps for monitoring plant
bugs and sawflies, red rectangle traps for monitor-
ing leafminers, an optivisor for magnifying pests
and beneficials, a color close-up picture of an aphid
predator or a mite predator, a saw that symbolizes
the cutting down of wild apple trees, brambles, and
rose bushes within 100 yards of the orchard perim-
eter to reduce pest immigration, and an odor-baited
pesticide-treated red sphere for behaviorally con-
trolling apple maggot flies. Possibly a press

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Table 1. Apple grower response to a questionnaire on the potential value of second-level IPM
practices for Massachusetts orchardists. A total of 63 of growers responded. Responses are ranked
in the order of priority assigned by responders. Numerical values represent the comparative
strength of response, with highest values indicating the highest priority.

100 Helps create a positive image with the general public and legislators that apple growers
are doing their very best to minimize pesticide use. Could help forestall further legal
restrictions against pesticide use in orchards.

91 Buildup of beneficial natural enemies as a consequence of no sprays after mid June.

70 Reduces or eliminates pesticide residue on fruit at harvest.

62 Reduces rate at which pests become resistant to pesticide.

44 Helps educate customers coming to roadside stands that growers are being very environ-
mentally responsible.

33 Promotes worker safety and timely horticultural practices (for example, summer pruning
and mowing) by allowing worker entry into orchards at any time from late June to harvest
without restraint associated with abiding by mandated re-entry times.

32 Reduces incidence of pesticide drift into border areas, thus helping to allay fears of abut-
ting neighbors or helping to reduce legal liability from potential drift into lakes and streams.

27 Offers a way to preserve future markets for Massachusetts apples (that is, to avoid market
restrictions) in the face of increasing competition from "advanced IPM" or "green" apples
now being produced in Europe and the West Coast.

4 Reduces potential legal complaints from trespassers.

1 Reduces grower liability to customers in pick-your-own orchards.

Has no potential value.

photographer could be called in to photograph the ing a truly positive image of Massachusetts apple
display for distribution in the media. growers in the mind of the general public, and par-
Engaging in first-level IPM and especially in ticularly consumers of apples, if the tools of IPM
second-level IPM could go a long way toward build- are used as tangible symbols of the IPM process.

•^ *^ *^ *^ *^
0^ 0^ rp% #^ r^

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Preharvest Conditions that Influence
Scald Susceptibility on Delicious Apples
in Massachusetts

Sarah A. Weis and William J. Bramlage

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Superficial scald (scald) develops on apples dur-
ing or following long-term storage at about 32°F.
Many postharvest factors affect its development, but
the actual scald susceptibility of the fruit is deter-
mined by preharvest conditions and the maturity
of the fruit at harvest. Studies in England in the
1950s suggested that hot, dry weather during the
summer increased susceptibility while cool, dry
weather decreased it (Fidler, J. C. 1956. Food Sci.
Abstracts 28:545-554). Other studies in New Jer-
sey showed that cool temperatures (hours below
50°F) near harvest reduced susceptibility (Merritt,
R. H. et al. 1961. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 78:24-
34). It also has long been recognized that low-light
intensity results in greater susceptibility, as seen
by the strong tendency for scald to form on the green
side of the fruit. Likewise, it is well known that as
fruit become more mature before harvest, scald sus-
ceptibility declines.

In 1986, we began sampling apples and exam-
ining their scald susceptibility in relation to
preharvest conditions. In 1994, we published an
article [Fruit Notes 59(3):6-10] showing results of
experiments which demonstrated that low tempera-
ture, sunlight, and ripening all had independent
effects on scald susceptibility of Cortland and Deli-
cious apples.

We have obtained large amounts of data on scald
development in relation to preharvest conditions
from colleagues around the world, to attempt to
determine statistically the importance of preharvest
temperature, light, and rainfall, along with matu-
rity at harvest (judged by starch-iodine tests), un-
der commercial conditions among years and among
many geographical areas. This assessment would
give a good indication of the importance of these
conditions to growers, might provide the basis for
estimating the effects of "unusual" conditions, and
hopefully might lead to a reliable scald prediction
system at the time of fruit harvest.

Here we report on one small piece of these data:
the effects on scald susceptibility of Delicious in
Massachusetts. These data were collected over eight
years at the University of Massachusetts Horticul-
tural Research Center (HRC), Belchertown using
fruit from different blocks and of different strains.
Temperature and rainfall records were from the
HRC or from records of the Metropolitan District
Commission's weather station at the southern end
of the Quabbin Reservoir Light conditions were
estimated from the Quabbin records as full sun,
partly cloudy, or cloudy.

Starch scores were determined on the day of
harvest. A total of 344 lots of fruit were included in

Table 1. Effects of temperature
ceptibility of Delicious apples in

and maturity (starch score) on
Massachusetts. Total samples

scald sus-
= 273.

Measurement

Avg temp

Avg temp + days below 6°C
Avg temp + days below 8°C
Avg temp -1- days below 10"C
Avg temp + days below 12°C

0.16
0.53
0.50
0.47
0.25

+ Starch score
-1- Starch score
+ Starch score
+ Starch score

0.55
0.51
0.51
0.33

Fruit Notes, Fal

1995

Table 2. Effects of rainfall after August 24 and sunshine after September
3 on scald susceptibility of Delicious apples in Massachusetts. Total samples
= 273.

R2 fi-om Tabl

s 1' Measurement

Measurement R^

0.55
0.51
0.51
0.33

+ Rain
+ Rain
+ Rain
+ Rain

0.62
0.55
0.56
0.34

+ Sunshine 0.64
+ Sunshine 0.56
+ Sunshine 0.56
+ Sunshine 0.58

^ The combined effects of average temperature, days below 6, 8, 10, or 12°C,
and maturity (starch score).

this evaluation, with numbers of harvests and
samples per harvest varjdng among years.

An important point illustrated in our results is
that individual factors are correlated highly with
each other, i.e., are interwoven. For example,
changes in scald susceptibility associated with varia-
tions in average temperature from year to year are
correlated highly with changes associated with days
below 50°F, days above 86°F, rainfall, and sunshine.
Therefore, if we determine just the effect of aver-
age temperature, the value obtained will include
some of the effects of all the other variables, which
means that our results will exaggerate the effects
of average temperature. Conversely, if we deter-
mine the effects of average temperature and thenthe
effects of rainfall, the results may understate the
actual effects of both variables since some of the
affect of each is taken out through its correlations
with the other. Therefore, the statistical approach
cannot actually quantify the effects of variables, it
can only tell you how much variation in scald sus-
ceptibility can be accounted for by a series of mea-
surements.

Overall, scald susceptibility among samples
varied from 0% to 100%, averaging 35% of fruit in a
harvest developing scald after 20 to 25 weeks in
32°F air plus seven days at 70°F. Some years had
greater scald susceptibility than others, and of
course, scald decreased with later harvest in a year.

Table 1 shows the overall effects of low tempera-
ture on scald susceptibility of Massachusetts Deli-
cious apples. "R^" values can be interpreted as the
proportion of the scald variability among samples
that could be accounted for by a given series of
measurements. Average temperature after August
1 among samples accounted for 16%> (R^ = 0.16) of
scald variation, with lower temperatures decreas-

ing scald. When we then took into account the num-
ber of days from August 1 to harvest in which the
temperature fell to 6°C (43°F), we accounted for an
additional 37% of scald variability, bringing the to-
tal to 53% (R^ - 0.53). If we made the temperature
cut-off 8°C (46°F) or 10°C (50°F) we accounted for
slightly less of the variability, but if we made the
cut-off at 12°C (54°F) we accounted for very little
variability beyond that picked up by average tem-
perature.

What this means is that not only does low tem-
perature reduce scald susceptibility, but also that
specific low temperature events (days when it
dipped to 6°C, 8°C, or 10°C) had extra benefit in
making the fruit less scald susceptible. In the past
we have measured low temperature as "hours be-
low 50°F" but in our analyses here we found that
just counting days on which this happened gave
better results. The results in Table 1 show that it
does not make a great deal of difference whether
the cut-off is 43, 46, or 50°F.

When we measured fruit maturity at harvest
using a starch-iodine test, we accounted for very
little extra scald susceptibility (Table 1). This does
not mean that maturity is unimportant, because
we know it is. What it does mean is that in Massa-
chusetts, the effect of maturity is very closely linked
to low temperature events, so that when you mea-
sure temperature effects, you are also including the
effects of maturity. Apparently, in Massachusetts
the typical decline in temperature during the Fall
coincides so closely with Delicious maturation that
you cannot statistically separate the effects of fruit
maturity (starch score) on scald susceptibility.

In Table 2, the effects of rainfall after August
24 and sunshine after September 3 are added to
those shown in Table 1. These dates were chosen

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

arbitrarily because they gave the highest R^ values
for rainfall and sunshine data, i.e., best represented
the effects of these conditions. Rainfall generally
increased the R^ values significantly, showing that
more rainfall produced less scald. (It is usually
cooler when it is raining, but the effects on any as-
sociated low temperatures have already been re-
moved in the equations.) Sunshine had small ef-
fects on scald susceptibility, with sunnier days in
early Fall decreasing scald.

These results show that low temperature (es-
pecially below SCF), adequate rainfall, and sunny
days all reduce scald susceptibility of Delicious

apples grown in Massachusetts. Such years should
produce fruit with relatively low scald susceptibil-
ity; whereas warm, dry years will produce fruit with
more susceptibility, especially if it is cloudy (or if
trees have a thick canopy of leaves). Collectively,
we have accounted for about two-thirds of scald
variation with these measurements.

In follow-up articles we shall compare the rela-
tionships in Massachusetts with those inother parts
of the world, consider some cultivars, other than
Delicious, and examine the prospects for predict-
ing scald susceptibility from measurements such as
these.

vL* •sl^ •S^ •^ •^

•^ 0^ •^ •^ #^

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

UMass Peach Cultivar Trial:
Observations and Comments

Karen I. Hauschild

Tree- fruit Program UMass Extension

In the late 1980s, it became apparent that tree
fruit growers who marketed their crops primarily
through retail channels could benefit from increas-
ing their product mix. Adding or expanding a peach
planting, planting newer, better peach cultivars, or
adding nectarines or white-fleshed peaches each
could serve to increase cash flow, attract customers
earlier in the growing season, and provide an ex-
cellent alternative to over production of less popu-
lar apple cultivars.

Very little research on peaches was undertaken
in Massachusetts during the 1980s. Growers re-
lied on information provided by other areas - such
as New Jersey, Michigan, and the Southern states.
Cultivars that were recommended in those areas
often did not adapt well to our growing conditions.

Therefore, in 1990, funded by a grant from the
Massachusetts Fruit Growers' Association, I planted
a trial block of 15 cultivars (13 yellow-fleshed
peaches, one white-fleshed peach, and four nectar-
ines) at the University of Massachusetts Horticul-
tural Research Center in Belchertown. Trees were
planted, in groups of four per cultivar, at 10 by 20
ft. spacings.

The primary goal of this planting was to make
a "quick & dirty" evaluation of hardiness, quality of
fruit, and productivity for each cultivar. In 1993,
seven additional cultivars were added (four yellow-
fleshed and three white-fleshed peaches); however,
tree death has force abandonment of this planting.
In 1994, two additional nectarines and two white-
fleshed peach cultivars were planted. Additional
cultivars will be planted in the spring of 1996, in-
cluding those planted in 1993.

Cultivar choices were based on information pro-
vided by J. Frecon, Rutgers University, NJ, and from
Adams Co., Stark Brothers, and Hilltop Nurseries.
All trees were winter and summer pruned, fertil-
ized annually, and treated with insecticides, fungi-
cides, and herbicides according to conditions at the
Horticultural Research Center.

Following are observations and comments on
each cultivar in this trial that has been evaluated
to date. Listing of cultivars included in new
plantings also is included.

Yellow- fleshed Peaches

Jerseydawn

Redhaven

Salem™<A>

Flavorcrest

New Haven

Madison

Ripens early to mid-August.
Good size, fewer split pits
than other early cvs., flavor
variable from year to year -
good, but not exceptional.
Less than 30% bud survival,
winter '93-'94.

The most widely planted cv.
in MA orchards. Ripens mid-
August. First fruited in 1991.
Good size, flavor and skin
color. Less than 10% bud sur-
vival winter '93-'94.

Fruited first in 1991 (two
boxes from 4 trees)! Size is
medium-large, good quality.
Flavor in 1995 was excellent.
Flesh is melting, juicy and
firm. Very few flower buds
survived the winter of '93-'94.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
mid- late August. Size is
good; flavor is good - survived
the winter of '93-'94 well - 75%
bloom above 4 ft.; 25% bloom
4 ft. to ground level.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
mid-August. Size is good,
color is good, fruit flavor is
excellent - flesh is firm but
melting. After the winter of
'93-'94, 75% bud survival top
of trees, 10% at 4 ft. and be-
low.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
early September (should be
available Labor Day). Trees
are very productive, fruit has
good size, flesh is juicy, melt-
ing, and has excellent peach

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Bounty

Ernie's Choice

Harrow Beauty

Jim Dandee™'"'

Harcrest

Fayette

flavor. Madison was the har-
diest cv. during the winter of
'93-'94 with 85% bud survival.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
end of August - early Septem-
ber. Its size is its best quality.
Fruits are very large; flavor
is good. Trees are productive.
Bounty had less than 10% bud
survival after the winter of
'93-'94.

First fruited in 1991. Ripens
mid-August. Size is good,
fruit quality is disappointing
- little flavor Only a few buds
survived the vdnter of '93-'94.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
mid-August. Size is good,
flesh is firm and melting. Fla-
vor is good. Bud survival was
less than 10% after the win-
ter of '93-'94.

First fruited in 1991. Ripens
mid-late August. Fruit is
huge; color is good; flesh is
firm, melting, juicy, and has
excellent flavor; freestone.
Trees are productive. Bud
survival was low - 10% after
winter of '93-'94.

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
late August. Fruit size is good;
fruit quality is excellent -
melting, sweet flesh with
strong peach flavor, freestone.
Trees are productive. Bud
survival was good - 60% above
4 ft. and 10%^ below 4 ft. after
the winter of '93-'94.

First fruited in 1991. Ripens
early-mid September. Size is
good; color is good; fruit is
good to excellent. May be a
little late ripening for many
growers who are into apple
harvest. However, this is a
very good late-season peach.
Bud survival was poor - less
than 10% after the winter of
'93-'94.

Encore™'S)

First fruited in 1992. Ripens
mid-late September ( I har-
vested the last few peaches 9/
28/95.) Fruit size is good with
good color Encore has a re-
cessed stem end which makes
harvesting more difficult.
Fruit is firm, melting, good
flavor, with a somewhat as-
tringent aftertaste. Very late
for Mcintosh growers.

White- fleshed Peaches

Summer Pearl™'^'

First fruited in 1995. Fruit
was of good size, firm fleshed,
melting, juicy and excellent
flavor. ( A popular cv at the
Research Center!) Bud sur-
vival was low, about 10% af-
ter the winter of '93-'94.

Nectarines

Earliscarlet First fruited in 1991. Ripens

in early-mid August. Fruit
size is excellent, color also is
very good, great tasting nec-
tarine. Productive. Approxi-
mately 50%> bud survival af-
ter the winter of '93-'94.

Fantasia First fruited in 1992. Ripens

in mid September. Size and
color are outstanding. Flesh
is firm, melting with excellent
flavor. A cultivarthat is
grown extensively on the
West coast that also does very
well here. Very productive
trees. Approximately 50%
bud survival after the winter
of'93-'94.

Redgold First fruited in 1992. Ripens

early-mid September. Fruit
size is good, color is variable,
flavor is variable - in 1994 fla-
vor was mild, in 1995 flavor
was very good. Not as pro-
ductive as Earliscarlet. Ap-
proximately 40% bud survival
after '93-'94 winter.

Summer Beaut™'^" Fruit fruited in 1991. Ripens

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

mid-August. Fruits are me-
dium to large, color is vari-
able. Flavor is good. About
40% bud survival after the
winter of 93-'94.

1993 Planting

Yellow-fleshed peaches included Earlired,
Beekman, John Boy^'^''^', and Sentry. White-fleshed
peaches included Mountain's Rose, Lady Nancy''''^"^',
and Red Rose

1994 Planting

White-fleshed peaches included White Lady''"'^*'^'
and Sugar Lady'''""^'. Nectarines included
EasterngloT'«'A2) ^nd Sunglo.

In summary, there are several cultivars in this
trial that are appropriate choices for Massachusetts
growers. Flavorcrest, Newhaven, Madison, and
Harcrest should all produce at least a partial crop
after a cold winter (temperatures down to -20° F.)
and should be suitable for colder sites. Based on
fruit quality, Salem, New Haven, Madison, Jim

Dandee, Harcrest, and Fayette, were all good to
excellent. Summer Pearl is a very good white-
fleshed peach, but compared to yellow-fleshed cul-
tivars, it was much slower to bear a crop. (It will be
interesting to see how the newer white peach cul-
tivars compare - they are all described as being
firmer and easier to handle.) The nectarines were
hardier than the peaches, were very productive, and
generally had good quality. Earliscarlet and Fan-
tasia are both exceptional and can easily compete
with nectarines from the West Coast. Careful at-
tention to disease management can reduce greatly
the incidence of brown rot on nectarines, and thin-
ning practices will help ensure competitive size at
harvest.

TM(A) - Plant patented cultivar, Adams Co. Nurs-
ery, Inc. Aspers, PA.

TM(S) - Plant patented cultivar, Stark Pro's Nurs-
eries and Orchards Co., Louisiana, MO.
TM(H) - Plant patented cultivar, Hilltop Nurseries
(Newark Nurseries), Hartford, MI.
TM(Al) - Plant patented cultivar, Burchell Nurs-
ery, Inc. Modesto, CA.

TM(A2) - Plant patented cultivar, Dave Wilson Nurs-
eries, Hickman, CA.

•Xa •Xa ^Xa vL* *^

0^ 0^ 0^ 0^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

How Good is Provado™ Applied at
Petal Fall in Controlling Leafminers
and Leafhoppers?

Ronald Prokopy, Jennifer Mason and Starker Wright
Department of Entomologyy University of Massachusetts

In 1995, a new insecticide called Provado''''^
(common name imidacloprid) received a label for
use in controlling leafminers, leafhoppers, and
aphids on apple trees. Researchers in New York
have tested Provado for several years in experimen-
tal apple tree plots and have concluded that it has
excellent potential for controlling these three foliar
pests of apple. Fortunately, it appears to have rela-
tively little negative effect on beneficial predators
of mites and aphids.

Prior to 1995, we in Massachusetts have had
no experience with Provado as an orchard insecti-
cide. Here, we provide data on the effects of a single
petal-fall application of Provado against leafminers,
white apple leafhoppers, and rose leafhoppers. We
did not design tests specifically to evaluate effects
of Provado against these pests. Rather, the oppor-
tunity to gather meaningful data arose during the
course of experiments aimed at studying immigra-
tion patterns of rose leafhoppers into commercial
orchards.

Materials & Methods

In Orchard A, four plots of semi-dwarf trees re-
ceived a grower-applied spray of Provado at petal
fall at a rate of 2 ounces per 100 gallons (6 ounces
per acre). Four nearby similar plots received no
Provado. No other leafminer-controlling pesticide
was applied to any of the plots. On July 31, we
examined ten randomly selected leaves on each of
the five trees in each plot for evidence of leafminer
mines.

In Orchards A, B, and C, eleven one-half-acre
blocks of semi-dwarf trees received a grower- applied
spray of Provado at petal fall at the above rate. In
Orchards D, E, and F, eight similar blocks received
no Provado at petal fall. None of these 19 blocks
received any other insecticide aimed at controlling
leafminers. All were treated with an application of
Sevin as a thinning spray during the last week of

May. None received Sevin thereafter and none re-
ceived Thiodan or any other insecticide directed
against leafhoppers or aphids. During the first week
of June, we hung four yellow sticky traps in each
block to monitor numbers of rose leafhopper adults
immigrating from patches of rose bushes within 50
yards of the block perimeter. We counted captured
adults during the fourth week of June. During the
third week of July, we counted the number of rose
leafhopper nymphs and white apple leafhopper
nymphs on ten randomly selected leaves on each of
five trees per block. We did the same for leafminer
mines during the first week of August.

Results

Significantly more (22 times more) combined
first- and second-generation leafminer mines were
found in untreated than in Provado-treated plots of
Orchard A (Table 1). Similarly, significantly more
(27 times more) first- and second-generation
leafminer mines were found in untreated than in
Provado-treated blocks in Orchards A-F (Table 2).

Almost identical numbers of rose leafhopper

Table 1. Effect of a petal fall application of
Provado on apple blotch leafminer larvae in
Orchard A.

Treatment

Mean number
combined first- and second-
generation mines per leaf*

Provado
No Provado

0.05b
1.09a

* Means followed by a different letter are sig-
nificantly different at odds of 19:1.

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Table 2. Effect of a petal-fall application of Provado on leafminer mines and leafhopper adults
and nymphs in Orchards A-F.

Orchard Treatment

Combined first-
and second-
generation leafminer
mines per leaf

Rose

leafhopper

adults

per trap

Rose

leafhopper

nymphs

per leaf

White apple

leafhopper

nymphs

per leaf

A-C
D-F

Provado
No Provado

0.02b
0.53a

22.9a
24.1a

0.02b
0.45a

0.01b
0.38a

*Means in each column followed by a different letter are significantly different at odds of 19:1.

adults were trapped in blocks of Orchards A-F that
received Provado as in blocks that did not, possibly
suggesting no negative effect of Provado against rose
leafhopper adults (Table 2). However, significantly
fewer (only about 1/20 as many) rose leafhopper
n5Tnphs and significantly fewer (only about 1/40 as
many) white apple leafhopper nymphs were found
in Provado-treated than in untreated blocks (Table
2).

Conclusions

Even though the data reported here were gath-
ered from commercial-orchard blocks whose in-
tended experimental use was not for the express
purpose of measuring effects of Provado on insect
pests, the data nonetheless provide compelling evi-
dence that a petal-fall treatment of Provado can
provide excellent control of leafminers as well as
nymphs of both white apple leafhoppers and rose
leafhoppers. The excellent control of rose leafhop-
per nymphs surprised us, because we anticipated
that the effects of application of Provado at petal

fall during the third or fourth week of May would
not extend until mid- or late June to provide con-
trol of rose leafhopper eggs or nymphs, which did
not appear until mid- or late-June. The effect of
Provado could well have been on the eggs or njonphs
and not on the adults of rose leafhopper because
Provado did not reduce rose leafhopper adult abun-
dance as measured by trap captures. We conclude
from these 1995 data gathered in commercial or-
chard blocks that a single application of Provado at
petal fall has excellent potential for providing sea-
son-long control of substantial-to-high populations
of leafminers, white apple leafhoppers, and rose
leafhoppers while (according to New York findings)
posing comparatively little threat to beneficial
predators.

Acknowledgments

We thank Bill Broderick, Dave Chandler, Tony
Lincoln, Wayne Rice, Joe Sincuk, and Bob Tuttle
for their participation in the tests reported here.

•^ *^ •^ *^ •^

#^ *^ *^ *^ #^

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Marketing Alternatives for Retaii
Apple Growers

Karen I. Hauschild

Tree Fruit Program, UMass Extension

Farmstands, pick-your-own sales, and farmers'
markets are the three retail outlets that come to
mind when most growers consider retail market-
ing. There can be so much more to retail market-
ing than choosing one or more of these outlets, how-
ever. With annual competition for "apple dollars"
increasing geometrically, each grower needs to as-
sess his or her operation to determine strengths,
weaknesses, and potential retail marketing strate-
gies that could increase farm profitability and
sustainability.

Unless we are faced with an energy crisis (i.e.,
fuel costs skyrocketing with trucking costs increas-
ing as a result) global competition is a given. We
will continue to see apples from other parts of the
country and world impinging on local markets. Pro-
motion, the other side of marketing, costs money.
Those states that have apple marketing orders con-
tinue to use radio, television and the printed word
to encourage consumers to buy their apples over
your apples. When your bottom line is marginally
positive, you are unlikely to consider spending
money on advertising and promotion.

At the retail level, however several of the most
effective avenues of promotion and advertising are
virtually cost-free, the most important being satis-
fied customers who tell their friends about your
operation or just return frequently themselves (re-
peat business). Contacts with local media person-
nel frequently result in unsolicited articles or TV
spots about your farm. But, do not be afraid to call
your local newspaper, radio, or TV station to tell
them why they should visit your farm. A unique
product, a special event, even a special employee
may be worthy of media attention, and thus pro-
vide free advertising for you and your farm.

Satisfied Customers

Satisfied customers and repeat business do
not just happen. Several factors play a role.

1) Quality products must be the backbone of the
sales activity.

2) Consistency of quality (from visit to visit) is criti-
cal.

3) Value for the customer's money encourages re-
peat business.

4) Friendly, helpful, and knowledgeable employ-
ees are a must.

5) Employees with good eyes and ears, watching
customer behaviors and listening to their com-
ments, will give you insight into what you are
doing right and wrong. If you are hearing the
same negative comments repeatedly, correct the
problem immediately.

6) Provide what your customers want. For ex-
ample, if a customer wants a peck of Macouns
and you are out of Macouns, do not sell him or
her Mcintosh and call them Macouns. If you
have Macouns in the cooler, get them out. If
not, suggest an alternative, and if the customer
is unfamiliar wdth that alternative, have him
or her a sample slice or a whole apple. Most
customers are willing to at least try something
different. Satisfied customers, remember, tell
their friends. Unfortunately for you, so do un-
satisfied customers.

7) Provide a suggestion box for new products, new
varieties, etc., and if at all feasible, follow
through. At the very least, respond to the re-
quest.

8) Above all else, provide a safe, friendly, neat, and
orderly atmosphere for yourcustomers.

Promotion

Encourage customers to seek you out. Certainly
all of the above will help. Some activities are low
cost, but effective.

1) A unique logo for your farm that is consistent
from product to product, including your value-
added products (cider, jelly, etc.) and your pack-
aging (paper or plastic and mail order boxes).
Unique logos attract customers and if there is
quality inside the package as well these custom-
ers will return.

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

2) An advertisement in a weekly (shopper's) news-
paper does not need to be large, just eye-catch-
ing. The cost should be reasonable.

3) Encourage your town to develop "tourism" or
agriculturally-focused literature for free distri-
bution to visitors and residents.

4) Be sure to be included in any statewide listings
of pick-your-own, farmers' markets, or roadside
stands. These are distributed at tourist cen-
ters, via mail request, or often appear in articles
in major newspapers, that is advertising that
you would normally find expensive for free.

Be sure to include, in all of the above, whatever
it is that makes your farm different, unique, or es-
pecially attractive.

Basic Sales Approaches

Let us first consider the basic three basic forms
of retail marketing.

1) Roadside or farmstand is best situated on the
farm if the farm is easily accessible or on a well-
travelled highway but may be best off the farm
if it is in a remote location. This type of sales
often is done from a separate building that con-
tains a sales area, preparation area, perhaps a
kitchen, small seating area, and public rest
rooms (a real plus) and has ample parking area.
It could be quite expensive to build, and state
and town regulations apply.

2) Farmers' markets require a suitable truck,
displays, sales personnel, and market fees. The
right match of location of market and products
can be quite lucrative. Events staged at farm-
ers' markets have been very successful in boost-
ing sales; however, selling can be quite hectic
at times.

3) Pick-your-own. Liability factors, such as lad-
ders, uneven terrain, and big trees, are a major
concern. Transportation to picking sites and
standardized packaging can help prevent diffi-
cult situations from developing.

Consider one of the above as a new, or differ-
ent, retail marketing strategy. A word of caution:
If you are currently operating a farmstand and want
to consider an additional option, do not just do it,
ask yourself a few important questions first.

1) Do I have, or can I afford, the personnel needed,
or the transportation, or the time to do a farm-
ers' market?

2) Can I deal well with pick-your-own customers
or will I lose my temper? Can I afford the li-
ability insurance needed to protect my property?

3) What can I do that will fit in with what I am
already doing?

Alternative Marketing Approaches

Many alternative marketing approaches have
been proven to be successful in certain circum-
stances. Consider some of these approaches to your
sales.

1) Flea markets are similar to farmers' markets
but not specifically produce oriented. Gener-
ally, flea markets are havens for bargain hunt-
ers. Small bags of Extra Fancy fruit or larger
quantities of utility or orchard run fruit may be
your best options. Individual fruits, ciders, etc.
may be very attractive and healthy alternatives
to food concessions usually found at flea mar-
kets.

2) CSAs (consumer supported agriculture) are
becoming popular Consider leasing trees. Sell
shares of the farm's product mix (seasonal ft-uits
and veggies). A CSA can provide up-front
money, and a guaranteed product outlet.

3) Add-an-Event, like harvest festivals, holiday
festivals, apple tastings, cider tastings, are ini-
tially promotional, but if successful can become
yearly attractions and also create repeat busi-
ness.

4) Restaurant sales provide a "taste of your
farm" for local chefs and restaurant owners.
Many chefs prefer working with local, fresh,
seasonal products. This is especially true if the
restaurant's menu changes periodically. En-
courage restaurants to feature your products
(pies made from your fruits, etc.) on their menus.

5) Institutional sales. Work with your town's
officials to encourage buying local products for
schools, hospitals, jails, and businesses.

6) Grocery stores. Local or small chain stores
may be willing to feature your products. Work
with other area farmers to provide a mix of prod-
ucts delivered together, rather than having each
farmer deliver separately.

7) Other stands/farmers. Offer your products
to other farmers who retail through stands or
farmers' markets, and do not produce the same
product mix.

8) Mail order. Many growers already offer apple
packs. What about gift packs? Many businesses
give gifts to their clientele or employees at the

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

holidays. Often they are looking for something
different, but practical. Work with a local busi-
ness to develop a gift pack that is attractive to
them and unique to your farm operation. Do
not forget to include your name and address on
the packaging.
9) Value-added means turning raw produce into
a product of higher value, e.g., apples into apple
butter, pies, or cider. Most retail marketers sell
value-added products. What about something
different? Cider donuts have become very popu-
lar A grower in Tennessee decided to try apple
walnut fudge. It outsold both chocolate and pea-
nut butter fudge from the beginning. This
grower also makes apple cinnamon ice cream.

Survey your customers. What product would
they like to see made available? Can you provide
the requested items? If not, can you work with
someone who can?

Although there is little any one of us can do
individually to impact profitable sales of apples on
the wholesale market, undoubtedly there are other
ventures that could provide additional income at
the retail level. Listen to your customers and add a
little creativity of your own. This may be what your
farming operation needs to become more profitable.
Product quality and customer service are the keys
to success. Change should be occurring constantly.
Anticipate consumer needs and cater to them.

•Xa vL» •Xa k1^ •Xa

0^ 0^ 0^ #^ #^

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Integrated Fruit Production (IFP):
A Status Report

Craig HoUingsworth

Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

The International Organization of Biological
Control (lOBC) and the International Society for
Horticultural Science (ISHS), met in Cedzyna, Po-
land in September to discuss the status and ad-
vances in Integrated Fruit Production (IFP). Much
of the data presented in this report were summa-
rized from Jerry Cross' (Scientific Secretary of
lOBC/ISHS) presentation on the results of a sur-
vey of IFP practices in Europe presented at this
meeting.

Integrated Fruit Production (IFP) is the Euro-
pean counterpart to Integrated Pest Management
(IPM). IFP is defined by the lOBC as "the economi-
cal production of high quality fruit, giving priority
to ecologically safer methods, minimizing the un-
desirable side effects and use of agrichemicals, to
enhance the safeguards to the environment and
human health." This definition takes a stronger
environmental stance than many of the current
definitions of IPM. Some European scientists at
the lOBC/ISHS expressed the opinion that IFP-pro-
duced fruit was "safer" or "more nutritious" than
conventionally produced fi-uit. Given the standards

of horticulture and pesticide use in certain central
European countries, there may be some truth to this
suggestion.

General guidelines for IFP, sometimes referred
to as "Euro-guidelines," are developed by represen-
tatives from all participating countries, under the
guidance of the lOBC/ISHS. Guidelines include
expectations for grower training, conserving the
orchard environment, planting systems, soil man-
agement and tree nutrition, understory manage-
ment, irrigation, fruit thinning, and postharvest
handling. lOBC guidelines include requirements
for record keeping and farm, storage, and packhouse
inspections. Certain practices and pesticides (e.g.,
pyrethroid and organochlorine insecticide and
acaricides, persistent herbicides, and sjTithetic plant
growth regulators) are not permitted. Other prac-
tices or materials (e.g., benzimidazole and
dithiocarbmate fungicides and sulfur) are permit-
ted with restrictions. Pesticide residue analysis also
is recommended. Each participating country or IFP
organization uses the lOBC general guidelines to
develop appropriate guidelines for their region.

PRODOTTI NATURA I

^$110^

u f nun* cm u 01 haiux*

FRITOORICIN.UICONECOR

Figure 1. Labels for Italian IFP-grown fruit (from Lotta Integrata e Biologica, published
by the Ministero per le Risorse Agricole Alimentari e Forestall, Italy).

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Table 1. Integrated Fruit Production

participation in Western

Europe (summarized

from Jerry Cross' presentation).

Total area of

Number of IFP/QA

Pome fruit in IFP/QA

Country

pome fruit (acres)

organizations

programs (% of total)

Austria

14,500

Belgium

49,500

Denmark

8,500

France

185,500

Germany

95,500

Great Britain*

42,000

Italy

176,000

Netherlands*

52,000

Norway*

5,500

Portugal

63,000

Spain

83,000

Switzerland

15,000

TOTAL

790,000

* Quality Assurance Program.

Farmers who meet the guidelines developed for
their region are eligible to use the regional or na-
tional IFP label (Figure 1). Currently, 35% of the
pome fruit in western Europe is grown according to
IFP or Quality Assurance (a related program) guide-
lines (Table 1), but participation in IFP varies widely
among countries. Germany has 14 regional IFP or-
ganizations, certifying 79% of its apple crop, while
France has one small organization, certifying less
than 1% of its crop. In some regions (e.g., Switzer-
land, Germany, and Emilia Romagna, Italy) gov-
ernment or Europe Union grants provided incen-
tives for IFP, thus influencing participation.

Cross' survey indicated differences among the
various regional IFP guidelines, including depar-
tures from the established guidelines of the lOBC.
Significant departures from the Euro-guidelines
included postharvest treatment with antioxidants
for scald by five regions, the use of residual herbi-
cides in established orchards bytwenty regions, the
use of synthetic growth regulators in four regions,
and the use of a soil sterilant against nematodes in
one country. It was noted that most countries do
not seek endorsement from the lOBC, so these de-
partures from lOBC guidelines do not carry any
penalty.

A number of countries reported receiving price
premiums for IFP-grown fruit. Premiums varied
regionally. Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy re-
ported price premiums of approximately seven cents

per pound, while Austria reported a premium up to
44 cents per pound. Premiums varied throughout
the season and often were not sustained. Other
regions received no premiums but noted a market
preference for IFP-produced fruit.

Research and status reports from all countries
generally were positive about the growth and ac-
complishments of the IFP program. Participation
in the program has grown 40% since 1991. South
Africa has developed IFP guidelines, and programs
are under development in New Zealand, Australia,
and Argentina. In the United States, Stemilt Grow-
ers of Wenatchee, Washington have implemented a
program with the same aims as IFP, and market
their fruit under the label, "Growers for Respon-
sible Choice."

A number of scientists observed that IFP-en-
dorsement served as an incentive to growers, re-
sulting in improvement of horticultural and pest
management practices. lOBC is now working on
developing IFP guidelines for stone fruit (peaches
and cherries) and soft fruit (berries).

Acknowledgements

I thank J.V. Cross, Scientific Secretary of lOBC/
ISHS, for providing a copy of his presentation. The
complete report will be published in the proceed-
ings of the conference. B. Borsari, of Forli, Italy,
also contributed useful information.

Fruit Notes, Fall, 1995

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

'^Worr

Fruit Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

^^!VR '- '^ ■'

Volume 61, Number 1
WINTER ISSUE, 1996

Table of Contents

Pioneer Mac, the Mcintosh Strain of the Future?

Plum Curculio Responses to Unbaited Tedders Traps

Attraction of Plum Curculio Adults to
Host-plant and Pheromonal Extracts

Can Sprays of Fatty Acids Repel Plum Curculios?

New August-ripening Apple Cultivars that Are Alternatives to Paulared

Tax Pointers for Farmers and Landowners in 1995

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $8.00 for United States
addresses and $10.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $2.00 (United States addresses) and $2.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

Issued by UMass Extensi/m. Robert G Helf;esen. Director, in furtherance of the ads of May S and. June 30.
1914. UMass Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Pioneer Mac, the Mcintosh Strain
of the Future?

Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Pioneer Mac, technically, is not a Mcintosh
strain. It, however, is an open-
pollinated seedling of Mcintosh. It was found by
Ernest Greiner (Pioneer Fruit Farms) in Marlboro,
NY in 1976. Since that time, Adams County Nurs-
ery, Inc. has propagated it commercially. Even
though it is not a strain but is a new cultivar, I will
refer to it as a strain, since it is virtually indistin-
guishable from Mcintosh.

Is Pioneer Mac the strain of the future? Early
observations from New York suggested that Pioneer
ripened later and dropped fewer fruit than stan-
dard Mcintosh strains. When it was first released
in 1988-89 those were very desirable characteris-
tics, since we were in the midst of the Alar contro-
versy. In 1988, we established a trial with the goal
of characterizing the tree productivity, fruit ripen-
ing, fruit quality, and fruit drop of Pioneer Mac trees
in comparison with standard Mcintosh strains.

A trial was planted in the spring of 1988 at the
University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research
Center in Belchertown that included ten replica-
tions of Pioneer Mac, Rogers Red Mcintosh, and
Marshall Mcintosh all on M.26 EMLA. Tree size
(trunk cross-sectional area) and total yield were
measured throughout the experiment. Fruit size
was measured from 1992 through 1995, and red

color was assessed in 1992 and 1993. Ripening was
tracked with internal ethylene levels from 1990
through 1993, and natural drop was followed in 1994
and 1995.

Pioneer Mac trees were larger than Marshall
trees, but were not different from Rogers trees (Table
1). Yield followed the same pattern (Table 1), but
yield efficiencies of the three strains were similar
(Table 1). That is, differences in yield were the re-
sult of somewhat different tree vigors and likely
would not result in actual differences in yield per
acre. Crop loads (fruit number per unit of tree size)
were similar among the three strains for the four
seasons from 1992 through 1995 (Table 1). Rogers
produced the largest fruit over the same four-year
period (Table 1). Color was affected significantly
by strain (Table 1). Marshall fruit colored over a
greater percent of the fruit surface than did the
other strains, as would be expected. Pioneer fruit
colored slightly (but statistically significantly) more
than Rogers fruit. It is uncertain whether or not
the difference between Pioneer and Rogers is prac-
tically significant.

Ripening means represent relative ripening
date, that is the date when the average internal
ethylene concentration of fruit reached one ppm
(Table 1). Marshall fruit ripened on average three

Table 1. The effects of Mcintosh strain on tree size, yield, jdeld efficiency, crop load, fruit size, and
fruit color

Strain

Trunk
cross-
sectional
area, 1995

(in^)

Cumulative

yield

1990-95

(bu)

Cumulative

yield

efficiency

1990-95

(bu/in^ TCA)

Crop load
1992-95

(no/in^
TCA)

Fruit size
1992-95
(no./bu)

Red

color
1992-93

(%)

Averate
ripening

date
(1990-93)

Marshall

5.5 b

5.8 b

1.08 a

41.6

116

9/18

Pioneer Mac

6.9 a

7.7 a

1.15 a

47.2

117

9/21

Rogers

5.6 ab

7.3 ab

1.37 a

49.1

108

9/21

*Means within columns not followed by the same letter are significantly different at odds of 19 to 1.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

100

a 90

S 80
o

Q.
O

O 40

30
9/14

/-^

p ■ ■

«MBrBhsll Mcintosh

▲ Pioneer Mac

# Rogers Red Mcintosh

1994

9/20 9/26 10/2 10/8 10/14

100

q: 90

o
u

ra 80
o

5 60

E
o

30
9/13

■x^^

====*

*MarBhall Mcintosh

▲ Pioneer Mac

^ Rogers Red Mcintosh

1995

9/19

9/25

10/1

10/7

Figure 1. Cumulative fruit drop in 1994 and 1995 from Pioneer
Mac, Marshall Mcintosh, and Rogers Red Mcintosh.

days earlier than the other strains, but there was
no difference between Pioneer and Rogers.

Drop was counted under each tree weekly dur-
ing the harvest seasons of 1994 and 1995 (Figure
2). In 1994, fruit dropped earlier from Marshall
trees than the other two strains, but there were no
differences between Pioneer and Rogers. In 1995,
again Marshall trees lost fruit earliest. Rogers trees
lost them the latest, and Pioneer trees were inter-
mediate between the two.

From these data, it appears that Pioneer Mac
does not have delayed ripening or drop compared
to the standard strain, Rogers Red Mcintosh. Does
this result mean that it does not have a place in the
industry? No, Pioneer is a good Mcintosh. It pro-
duces a healthy tree with good productivity. Fur-
ther, it colors well, possibly better than Rogers, and,
although it was not measured here, there is some
indication that it will produce a firmer fruit, possi-
bly resulting in better condition out of storage.

•X^ •X* •si^ •^ •S^

^T^ 0^ #^ #^ #^

Fruit Notes, Winter. 1996

Plum Curculio Responses to
Unbaited Tedders Traps

1 Pi

Ronald Prokopy , Kathleen Leahy , Tracy Leskey ,
and Catherine Bramlage
Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts
^ Polaris Orchard Management, Colrain, Massachusetts

Over the past decade, several investigators in
eastern North America have evaluated numerous
kinds of traps for capturing plum curculio (PC)
adults (LeBlanc et al., 1984; Yonce et al., 1995). Only
one type has shown even marginal promise. It is
referred to as the "Tedders" trap and was developed
for monitoring pecan weevils in southeastern states
(Tedders and Wood, 1994). It is in the shape of a
tall thin pyramid, about 24 inches wide at the base
and about 36 inches tall, colored medium gray (Fig-

ure 1). The trap base is staked to the ground to
maintain an upright position. Weevils are captured
when, after arrival on the trap surface, they crawl
upward to the tip of the pyramid and enter a small
inverted screen funnel placed over the tip, from
which they cannot escape. As presently used for
monitoring pecan weevils, the trap is not baited. It
is placed beneath the canopy of pecan trees, where
newly emerging adults beneath the tree canopy fly
or crawl to the trap, apparently because they per-

-"-"*'^ ■ -^ ' ^

Figure 1. Tedders plum curculio traps in the field.

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Trap capture
Fruit scars
Both

ceive the trap as being the visual
equivalent of the trunk of a pecan
tree (Tedders and Wood, 1994).

To date, unbaited Tedders
traps have been examined for
monitoring PC adults in Georgia
(Mizell et al., 1995) and Vermont
(Schmitt and Berkett, 1995). In
the Georgia study, substantial
numbers of PCs were captured in
unbaited Tedders traps placed on
herbicide-treated ground between
peach trees, but no comparison
was made between first detection
of PCs in the traps and first de-
tection of PC feeding or egglajdng
activity in the trees. In the Ver-
mont study, Tedders traps were
placed on the ground cover be-
tween trees in rows of Mcintosh or Liberty apples
in an experimental orchard. In one of the ten plots,
a PC was captured in a trap before any oviposition
was observed, and in one other plot, captures and
oviposition coincided in time; but in eight plots, ovi-
position occurred before trap capture (or there was
no trap capture).

We repeated the Vermont study under Massa-
chusetts commercial orchard conditions. In addi-
tion, we conducted several experiments aimed at
finding out how PCs arrive at a Tedders trap (by
flying or crawling to it) and factors influencing the
probability of arrival.

Experiments and Results

Trap Effectiveness in Commercial Or-
chards. In each of 10 Massachusetts commercial
apple orchard blocks, one Tedders trap was placed
on the ground between two apple trees, within the
tree row. From petal fall until 3 weeks afterward,
data were collected weekly on trap captures of PCs
and evidence of PC injury to developing fruit in 5-
10 trees nearest the trap. The results (Table 1) were
very similar to results obtained in the Vermont study
by Schmitt and Berkett ( 1995). In one orchard, first
evidence of PC activity was capture in a trap. In
six orchards, first evidence of PC activity was feed-
ing or egglaying scars in fruit. In three orchards,
trap captures and fruit scars coincided in time.
These data suggest that information from a single
unbaited Tedders trap per 5-10 trees would not be a
reliable indicator of the need for insecticide appli-
cation to control PC.

Means of PC Arrival at Traps. We carried

Table 1. First post-bloom evidence of plum curculio activity
in apple orchards in Vermont and Massachusetts as
determined by capture of adults in a Tedders trap or feeding
or egglaying scars on fruit of 5 trees (Vermont) or 5-10 trees
(Massachusetts) nearest the trap.

Numbers of Sites

First evidenceof activity

Vermont*

Massachusetts

1
8
1

1
6

*Data from Schmitt and Berkett (1995)

out two experiments to determine whether PCs ar-
rive at unbaited Tedders traps by flying or crawl-
ing.

In the first experiment, conducted during the
last two weeks of June, four traps were placed in
short grass ( 1 inch tall) half-way between the trunks
and perimeters of each two large (standard root-
stock) unsprayed Mcintosh trees. Every other trap
received a thick coating of tangletrap at the base to
prevent PCs from crawling onto the trap. Trap po-
sitions were reversed after the first week. All 16
PCs captured were found in those traps without
sticky. None (significantly fewer) were found in the
traps with sticky. These data suggest that when
Tedders traps are placed beneath Massachusetts
apple trees whose canopies are large and whose
understory is short grass, responding PCs are likely
to arrive at the trap surface by crawling and not by
flight.

In the second experiment, conducted during the
first two weeks of July, field-collected PC adults were
released at different distances from Tedders traps
in a large open field of short grass (1-3 inches tall).
On each of five evenings about 2 hours before dark
(when PC adults begin to become particularly ac-
tive), an opened waxed paper cup containing 55 PCs
was placed half-way between two traps, whose dis-
tances from the cup were either 2, 4, or 6 yards. On
each test evening, the temperature was about 75"F
at time of release.

The results (Table 2) show that irrespective of
trap distance from point of PC release, only 3-47r of
released PCs were captured in traps (there was no
significant effect of distance). Of those PCs whose
flight after take-off was tracked by the observers

fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Table 2. Response of released plum curculio adults to pairs
yards from the point of release in an open field of short grass.

of Tedders

traps

2, 4, or 6

Parameter

2 yds

4 yds

6 yds

Total no. released

Total captured after 24 hours (no.)
Total captured after 24 hours (%)

Total with flightobserved after release (no.)

Total observed landing on traps (no.)
Total observed landing on traps (%)

275

10
4

2
8

275

11
4

1
4

275

7
3

for at least 6 yards, only 8, 4, and 0% respectively,
landed on traps 2, 4, and 6 yards away (Table 1).
PCs were observed to climb to tips of nearby blades
of grass, take off and fly in various directions. Sev-
eral were noticed passing within a yard or less of a
trap without landing. These data suggest that in a
field of short grass (possibly equivalent to space
between adjacent apple trees), only a very small
proportion of the PCs present is likely to arrive at a
Tedders trap two or more yards away, even when
environmental conditions are quite favorable for PC
activity. Some of these may arrive by flying onto
the traps, others probably by crawling.

Factors Influencing Arrival at Traps. We
studied the influence of two factors on the likeli-
hood of capturing PCs in unbailed Tedders traps:
height of vegetation and presence of fallen fruit in
the vicinity of traps. Each factor was studied over
a 2-week period from mid-August to mid-Septem-
ber and involved assessing responses of newly
emerged PC adults that originated from larvae
which infested fruit in June.

In the first experiment, four traps were placed
in short grass (1 inch tall) that comprised the ground
cover beneath half of the canopy of each of two
unsprayed Mcintosh trees. Another four traps were
placed in tall broadleaf vegetation (1 foot tall) that
comprised the remaining half of the ground cover
beneath the tree canopies. All fallen apples within
1 yard of each trap were removed. After 2 weeks, 9
PCs were caught in the traps in the short grass com-
pared with 8 PCs in the traps in the tall broadleaf
vegetation (no significant difference). These data
suggest that as long as ground cover vegetation of
some sort is present beneath the tree canopy, the
height of vegetation (up to 1 foot) may have little
effect on PC response to traps.

In the second experiment, eight traps were
placed in 1-foot-tall vegetation beneath the two
Mcintosh trees. Every other trap received 30 re-
cently fallen Mcintosh apples placed within 1 yard
of the base of the trap. The remaining traps were
kept clear of all apples within 1 yard. Treatment
positions were reversed after 1 week. In all, 22 PCs
were captured in traps surrounded by apples com-
pared with 8 in traps in areas without apples (a
significant difference). These data suggest that
presence of food-type stimuli in association with
traps could be an important contributing factor to
enhancing captures of PC adults.

Conclusions

Our findings parallel the findings of Schmitt and
Berkett (1995) on the current and potential value
of using unbaited Tedders traps for monitoring PC
adults in apple orchards: chances are high that PC
injury to fruit will occur before adults are captured
in the traps. Chances of capturing PCs undoubt-
edly could be improved by employing more than the
one trap per five trees used by Schmitt and Berkett
or the one trap per five-ten trees used here. Even
one unbaited trap per tree may not be sufficient for
accurate monitoring information, however

Our studies of the nature of PC responses to
unbaited Tedders traps suggest that only a small
proportion of PCs within 2-6 yards of a trap even-
tually arrives at the trap. (A cautionary note here
is that the data from which this conclusion is drawn
are from PCs that we had released; possibly they
were displaying escape behavior rather than tree
finding behavior). It appears that when such traps
are placed in open space (as would be the case when
between tree canopies), most PCs in flight bypass

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

the traps. When the traps are placed beneath cano-
pies of large trees, arrival on traps under Massa-
chusetts conditions is largely or exclusively by crawl-
ing and not by flight. Provided there exists vegeta-
tion adjacent to traps, height of vegetation up to 1
foot does not seem to influence trap captures.

Together, these findings suggest that under
Massachusetts conditions, most PCs captured in
unbaited Tedders traps placed in vegetation may
arrive at the traps more or less through accidental
encounters, and possibly only from very close range
of less than 2 yards. Success of using unbaited
Tedders traps for monitoring pecan vi^eevils and PCs
in the South may be due in part to placement of
traps on bare soil beneath or adjacent to orchard
trees. Conceivably, PCs can perceive the silhouette
of a Tedders trap much better when the ground be-
tween the PC and the trap is clean than when it
has vegetation. Another factor contributing to the
success of unbaited Tedders traps in the South could
be a much greater tendency for PCs in the South
than in the North to fly rather than crawl onto the
traps. Studies in Quebec have suggested that PCs
are much more prone to take flight when evening
temperatures are very warm (above 80°F, as would
be typical of southern evenings) than when they
are cooler (below 70°, as would be typical of north-
em evenings).

Our final experiment suggests that Tedders
traps accompanied by a resource (such as apples) of
value to PCs can lead to a significant increase in
trap captures. Toward this end, we are pursuing
the identification of host tree volatiles and phero-
monal compounds attractive to PCs so that eventu-
ally they can be used in conjunction with Tedders
traps or other types of traps to create a powerful

monitoring tool.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Edu-
cation Program (SARE), the USDA Northeast Re-
gional IPM Competitive Grants Program and the
New England Tree Fruit Growers Research Com-
mittee.

Literature Cited

LeBlanc, J.PR., S.B. HiU and R.O. Paradis. 1984.
Oviposition in scout apples by plum curculio and
its relationship to subsequent damage. Environ-
mental Entomology 13: 286-291.

Mizell, R.F., D. Horton, C. Yonce, and W.L. Tedders.
1995. The Tedders trap: a simple, low-cost method
to monitor plum curculio. Journal of Economic
Entomology (in press).

Schmitt, D. and L.P. Berkett. 1995. Evaluation of
a new trap for monitoring plum curculio in New
England apple orchards. Proceedings of the New
England Fruit Meetings 101: 109-113.

Tedders, W.L. and B.W 1994. A new technique for
monitoring pecan weevil emergence. Journal of
Entomological Science 29: 18-30.

Yonce, C.E., D.L. Horton, and WR. Okie. 1995.
Spring migration, reproductive behavior, monitor-
ing procedures and host preference of plum curculio
on Prunus species in central Georgia. Journal of
Entomological Science 30: 82-92.

•J>» •X* •X^ •^ vL»
•^ #^ ry^ 0^ ry^

Fru/t Notes, Winter, 1996

Attraction of Plum Curculio Adults to
Host-plant and Pheromonal Extracts

Tracy Leskey^ Catherine Bramlage^ Larry Phelan^,
and Ronald Prokopy^

^Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts
^Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

Plum curculios (PCs) use odor to locate indi-
vidual host fruit at close range (Butkewich and
Prokopy 1993, J. Chem. Ecol. 19:825-835). PCs,
like other weevils, also may be attracted to phero-
mones produced by the same or opposite sex. In
1995, we began to test PC attraction to various plant
odor and pheromonal extracts using a simple bioas-
say. In 1995, we conducted bioassays of PC re-
sponses to extracts of (1) host and nonhost plants,
(2) wild plum and Mcintosh fruit at different stages
of development, (3) parts of Mcintosh trees, and (4)
whole bodies of PC females and males.

Materials and Methods

Hexane extracts were made from fruit collected
two weeks after bloom from the following plant
types: Mcintosh trees, mountain ash trees, barberry
bushes, dogwood bushes, and honeysuckle bushes.
We also made extracts of blossoms or fruit collected
from wild plum and Mcintosh trees at the follow-
ing stages of development: bloom and one, two,
three, four, and five weeks after
bloom. Further, we made extracts
of Mcintosh fruit, twigs, and leaves
collected one and four weeks after
bloom. Hexane, pheromonal ex-
tracts were made from whole bodies
of female or male PCs starved for 24
hours.

PCs used in bioassays were col-
lected from unsprayed wild plum
and apple trees. For all plant odor
tests, PCs of mixed sexes were
starved 24 hours prior to testing.
Tests were conducted at the begin-
ning of darkness. One PC was
placed into each test Petri dish and
allowed to move toward volatiles
emitted from either a plant odor ex-
tract in hexane or hexane alone (as

a control). For all pheromonal extract tests, one
PC known to be female and starved 24 hours prior
to testing was placed into each test Petri dish and
allowed to move toward either a pheromonal extract
in hexane (amount equivalent to that extracted from
one female) or hexane alone (as a control). PCs were
allowed 2 hours to respond.

To measure the power of a treatment (i.e., the
power of a potentially stimulating odor) we used a
Response Index (RI). The RI was calculated by sub-
tracting the number of PCs responding to the con-
trol from the number responding to the treatment,
dividing this amount by the total number of PCs
tested, and multiplying by one hundred. The
greater the RI value, the more attractive was the
stimulus. We considered a RI value of 25 as the
minimum for suggesting attractiveness.

Results

Extracts of Mcintosh fruit two weeks after
bloom (RI = 38) proved much more attractive to PCs

Table 1. Numbers of adult plum curculios moving to the
treatment or control or remaining in the Petri dish, and
subsequent Response Indices, during 2 hours of exposure
to extracts of fruit of host (Mcintosh) and nonhost (all oth-
ers) plants two weeks after bloom.

Plant Treatment Control

Dish

Response
Index

Mcintosh 14 5
Mountain Ash 12 10
Dogwood 11 9
Barberry 8 6
Honeysuckle 10 11

38
8
8
8

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Table 2. Numbers of adult plum curculios moving to the

treatment

or control or remaining in

the Petri dish, and subsequent Response |

Indices, during 2 hours of

exposure

to extracts of Mcintosh or wild 1

plum fruit of different stages of development (bl

oom or

one to five

weeks after bloom).

Response

Fruit Stage Treatment

Control

Dish

Index

Mcintosh Bloom

One week

Two weeks

Three weeks

Four weeks

Five week

Wild plum Bloom

One week

Two weeks

Three weeks

Four weeks

Five week

than extracts of fruit of four nonhost plants two
weeks after bloom (RI = 0-8) (Table 1). Extracts of
Mcintosh blossoms or fruit at one, two, three or four
weeks after bloom were about equally attractive to
PCs (RI = 33-50) and were more attractive than ex-
tracts made five weeks after bloom (RI = 0) (Table
2). Extracts of wild plum fruit made one or two
weeks after bloom (RI = 58) were more attractive
than extracts of wild plum blossoms or extracts of
fruit made three or four weeks after bloom (RI =
25-29) or five weeks after bloom (RI = 4) (Table 2).
Extracts of Mcintosh fruit,
leaves and twigs were about
equal in attractiveness to
PCs when made one week
after bloom (RI = 39-44)
(Table 3). When made four
weeks after bloom, extracts
of Mcintosh fruit and leaves
were about equally attrac-
tive (RI = 42-48), whereas
extracts of twigs were rather
unattractive (RI = 17) (Table
3). Extracts of whole bodies
of PC females (RI = 45) and
males (RI = 31) were simi-
larly attractive to PC fe-
males (Table 4).

Conclusions

We postulated at the
outset that PCs could ex-
hibit greater attraction
toward extracts of host
fruit than extracts of
nonhosts fruit. Our re-
sults supported this hy-
pothesis and suggest that
host plants emit particu-
lar attractive compounds
or blends of compounds
that are not characteris-
tic of nonhost plants.
Peak attractiveness of
wild plum fruit (the na-
tive host of PC) occurred
one to two weeks after
bloom. Peak attractive-
ness of Mcintosh fruit ex-
tended to four weeks af-
ter bloom. Neither wild
plum nor Mcintosh fruit
were attractive five
weeks after bloom. Interestingly, compounds
present in Mcintosh trees attractive to PCs appear
to be emitted rather equally by fruit, twigs, and
leaves one week after bloom and by fruit and leaves
four weeks after bloom. Finally, the finding that
extracts of whole bodies of each sex of PC were at-
tractive to PC females suggest the existence of at-
tractive pheromone.

Together, the findings presented here strongly
suggest that synthetic equivalents of odors of host
plants (particularly of fruit, twigs and leaves one

Table 3. Numbers of

adult plum curculios moving to the treat-

ment or control or remaining in the Petri dish

and

subsequent 1

Response Indices, during 2 hours of exposure to extracts of Mcln- |

tosh twigs, leaves or fruit collected

one or four weeks after bloom.

Plant

Response

Stage

Part

Treatment

Control

Dish

Index

One week

Fruit

Leaves

Twigs

Four weeks

Fruit

Leaves

Twigs

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Table 4. Numbers of female adult plum curculios mov-
ing to the treatment or control or remaining in the
Petri dish, and subsequent Response Indices, during
2 hours of exposure to extracts of whole bodies of fe-
males or males.

Extracts Treatment Control

Response
Dish Index

Females
Males

37
34

5
11

29
28

45
31

tor or control PCs. If findings with other
weevils can serve as a guide, a combina-
tion of host plant and pheromonal odors
will prove more attractive than either
type alone. Our next step will be confir-
mation of the findings reported here, fol-
lowed by attempts to chemically identify
the attractive compounds.

Acknowledgments

or two weeks after bloom) and odor of PCs them-
selves have potential value for use in traps to moni-

This work was supported by grants
from the USDA Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program
(SARE), the USDA Northeast Regional
IPM Competitive grants program, and

the New England Tree Fruit Growers Research

Committee.

•Xa vL» •sl^ •sl^ •X^

0^ 0^ r^ ry^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Can Sprays of Fatty Acids Repel
Plum Curculios?

Tracy Leskey', Catherine Bramlage^ Larry Phelan^,

and Ronald Prokopy^

^Department of Entomology^ University of Massachusetts at Amherst

^Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

Some insects seem to be able to recognize same-
species death, possibly because of the presence of
unsaturated fatty acids in the remains. This recog-
nition has been shown by research with cockroaches,
ants, and earwigs. Conceivably, unsaturated fatty
acids may be useful as a pest-control agent. Here,
we applied different concentrations of unsaturated
fatty acids (oleic, linoleic and linolenic) dissolved in
methanol to freshly picked wild plums to determine
if these substances would repel feeding or oviposi-
tion by adult female plum curculios.

Wild plums were picked from trees located on
the campus of the University of Massachusetts and
brought directly to the laboratory. Fatty-acid solu-
tions were made from oleic, linoleic and linolenic
acid dissolved in methanol at four concentrations:
10.0 mg/ml, 1.0 mg/ml, 0.1 mg/ml, 0.01 mg/ml.
Twelve replications at each concentration were pre-
pared. For each replicate, the treated plum was
coated with a fatty-acid solution. The control plum
was left uncoated. A treated and an untreated plum
were placed under a small plastic cup together with
one adult female plum curculio. Each adult was
able to forage freely on either the treated or un-
treated plum. Plums were checked 24 hours later

for evidence of feeding or oviposition. Numbers of
plums with feeding and oviposition scars were
counted for each replicate.

Contrary to our proposed hypothesis, it appears
from our results that applications of fatty acids on
the surface of wild plums did not reduce feeding or
oviposition by adult female plum curculios (Table
1). Although other insect species may recognize fatty
acids present in dead individuals and be repelled
by such compounds, plum curculio adults in our
laboratory have been observed to crawl over and
feed in close proximity to such individuals. The fatty
acids tested here do not appear to elicit a repellent
response in plum curculio and have little or no prom-
ise as control agents for this important pest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants from the
USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Edu-
cation Program (SAKE), the USDA Northeast Re-
gional IPM Competitive grants program, and the
New England Tree Fruit Growers Research Com-
mittee.

Table 1.
treated.

Feeding and oviposition by adult female plum curculios on treated, un-
or both plums after treatment with different concentrations of fatty acids.

Treatme
(mg/ml)

Plums with feeding scars (no.)

Plums with oviposition scars (no.)

nt Treated Control

only only Both

Treated Control
only only

Both

10
1

0.1
0.01

6 7

7 2 2

8 1 1
5 5

6 7
5 1
3
3 6

1
5

•Xa •Xa •Xa •Xa •Xa
*^ #^ #T^ #T^ #^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

New August-ripening Apple Cultivars
That Are Alternatives to Paulared

Duane W. Greene and Wesley R. Autio

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Paulared is the most extensively planted apple
cultivar that ripens in late August. It is large, at-
tractive, and red, and at its very best, it is good.
Under many circumstances, however, it has only
fair quality. Recently, several new apple cultivars
have been named and released that ripen at a simi-
lar time to Paulared. The purpose of this article is
to present these as potential alternatives in the pre-
Mclntosh season.

Evaluations were done on fruit that were from
trees three to six years old. Evaluations were con-
ducted for three seasons. Within each season, ten
fruit were harvested from each cultivar at weekly
intervals for up to five weeks. At each harvest, flesh
firmness, percent red color, circumference, weight,
soluble solids, and starch degradation were mea-
sured. Also, fruit were evaluated for visual and
sensory characteristics. In 1994, some fruit were
harvested when the starch rating was four to five
and placed in regular storage for periodic
postharvest evaluation. Tables 1-6 summarize fruit
characteristics and storage results.

Paulared

Paulared is the first apple of the season to be
harvested in significant volume in New England.
It is large, blush red, and very attractive, and it is
probably the first good apple available that has the
potential to maintain good condition for more than
several days on grocery shelves. It is slightly tart
and it has no better than good flavor. Unlike many
other cultivars, keeping Paulared apples on the tree
until they reach full maturity does not improve their
flavor. Therefore, Paulared frequently is harvested
when it reaches an acceptable level of red color. It
has a moderately good storage life, but because qual-
ity is inferior to Jonamac or Mcintosh, Paulared
fruit remaining in storage after the start of Jonamac
or Mcintosh harvest is a liability.

Ginger Gold

Ginger Gold is the first and best, early yellow
apple. It can be harvested green in Paulared sea-

Table 1 . Characteristics of several

early-

maturing apple cultivars

Characteristics

Paulared

Ginger Gold

Sunrise

Sansa

Parentage

Seedling

Mcintosh X Golden
Delicious

Gala X Akane

Harvest

Aug 20-30

Aug 20-Sept 12

Aug 16-26

Aug 20-Sept 12

Skin color

Red blush

Green turning to
yellow

Red stripe

Blush red on
green yellow

Flesh color

White

Cream

White to cream

White to yellow

Freeze size

Medium to lai

Medium to large

Small to medium

Fruit shape

Round to oblate

Oblate

Oval-round

Round

Tree vigor

Vigorous

Very vigorous

Moderately

Slightly weak

fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

1 1

son or left on the tree to
mature and ripen to an
attractive lemon-yellow
color Ginger Gold has a
very mild flavor and a
smooth, nonrusseting
skin. Ginger Gold main-
tains condition on the
tree remarkably well
over a three-week period
(Table 3). Storage poten-
tial appears to be rela-
tively short. Fruit har-
vested on September 2
and kept at 32°F had a
firmness below 13
pounds and were only rated
later (Table 4).

Table 2. Sensory evaluations* of several early-maturing apple cultivars.

Cultivar

Attractiveness

Flavor

Overall

Paulared (8/23-8/30)

6.9

5.7

6.0

Sunrise (8/17-8/30)

7.2

6.6

6.8

Ginger Gold (8/23-9/11)

7.4

7.0

7.2

Sansa (8/23-9/11)

7.2

7.3

*5-6 = good, 6-7 = very good, 7-8 = excellent.

fair less than six weeks

Table 3.

Effects of harvest date on Ginger Gold.

Harvest

Starch

Firmness

Overall

date

(rating)

(lbs.)

rating

Aug. 24

1.0

22.3

6.2

Sept. 2

1.8

20.8

7.2

Sept. 7

2.2

21.0

7.8

Sept. 13

J.J

19.8

7.6

Sunrise

Sunrise is a very attractive apple that
matures to a beautiful striped red color. Like
many early-maturing apples, Sunrise has
limited storage potential when fruit are al-
lowed to develop good red color on the tree.
Fruit must be harvested when the ground
color is somewhat green, and even then, the
shelf life is limited. Sunrise has an extremely
mild flavor, and when harvested at the
proper time, is very crisp and juicy. The win-
dow of harvest anduse of Sunrise is narrow,
but when utilized during this period of time,
it is a very nice apple.

Sansa

Sansa ripens in late August through
early September Fruit quality is remark-

ably similar to Gala, not surprising since Gala
is one of the parents. It is only medium in size,
but it has outstanding flavor It is crisp, juicy,
and has very good flavor at the time when
Paulared is harvested. Like Ginger Gold, it
keeps well on the tree for up to three weeks
(Table 5). When tree ripened, it develops a very
fruity tropical taste and has a pleasant aroma.
It has a modest storage potential (Table 6).

Unlike many other apples, even when some-
what soft, it is still a pleasure to eat. When
flesh firmness approaches 12 pounds, Sansa is
very pear-like in feel and taste. Vegetatively,
the growth is moderately weak. It also carries
a gene for a mosaic leaf characteristic, which
further makes the tree appear weak.

Ginger Gold, Sunrise, and Sansa are three
newly-named cultivars that ripen in the
Paulared season. All three apples are vastly

Table 4.

Effects of t

ime in regu

ar storage on the quality

of Ginger

Gold

apples.

Flesh

firmness

Date

(lbs.)

Comments

Sept. 2

18.8

Excellent

Sept. 22

15.7

Softening (9.5-18 5)

Oct 13

12.9

Slightly grainy, fair

Nov. 18

11.5

Grainy, poor

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Table 5.

EtTects

of harvest date on Sansa

app

es.

Harvest

Starch

Firmness

Overall

date

(rating)

(lbs.)

rating

Aug. 24

2.5

16.7

7.5

Sept. 2

5.0

16.2

7.0

Sept. 7

5.6

17.8

7.3

Sept. 13

6.8

16.3

8.9

superior in taste to Paulared, and they provide
marketing potentials that should be explored.
Apples harvested during this period of time
should be evaluated for their potential in the sea-
son up to Mcintosh and Gala harvest. Sunrise
has the shortest shelf life so planting of this cul-
tivar should be limited to fruit that can be sold
within a two-week period. Both Ginger Gold and
Sansa hold well on the tree, and they maintain
outstanding quality on the tree. We strongly urge
growers to increase their potential for early
apples sales by planting some of these alterna-
tives now.

Table 6. Effects

of time in regu

lar storage on the

quality of Sansa apples.

Flesh

firmness

Date

(lbs.)

Comments

Aug. 26

17.2

Excellent

Sept. 15

15.9

Very good

Oct. 7

13.7

Very good

Nov. 18

12.6

Soft, good

vT^ vT> *si> •JL^ •X*

•^ 0^ 0^ #^ #^

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

Tax Pointers for Farmers and
Landowners in 1995

P. Geoffrey Allen

Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts

Tax advice given below is intended as general
advice and is believed to be correct. It does not sub-
stitute for a detailed review of the circumstances of
an individual taxpayer by a professional tax practi-
tioner For more details, you and your tax adviser
may wish to consult the sources referenced in the
square brackets [thus] (see footnote) .

New Tax Legislation

No new federal tax legislation was passed in the
last year. The most important tax bill, H.R. 1215,
passed the House on April 5, 1995. Portions of the
bill may appear in the final Budget Reconciliation
Act. The main proposals of the bill are well known
but may not become law in their original form. For
example, the proposed $500 tax credit for each
dependent child may be modified or eliminated.

In terms of planning, it seems reasonable to
expect that capital gains taxes (except on corpora-
tions) will be reduced in that 50% of long-term capi-
tal gains will be deducted from income. Long-term
losses will be deductible at a rate of $2 for each $1
of ordinary income up to an annual limit of $3,000
of ordinary income. Capital gains may or may not
be indexed. There is some remote chance that the
effective date of the change will be backdated to
1995, but the confusion for taxpayers and the need
to file amended returns makes backdating earlier
than January 1, 1996 unlikely. If you can delay a
sale that will subject you to capital gains or losses,
the best advice is to wait until legislation is passed
into law.

H.R. 1215 also contains provision for the Sec-
tion 179 deduction to be increased in steps up to
$35,000 in 1999 ($22,500 in 1996). While this is
unlikely to alter your planned capital investments,
you may want to consider the hint in the next sec-
tion.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has
passed a bill to permit the setting up of Limited
Liability Company (LLC's) and Limited Liability
Partnerships (LLP's) (H. 4045, signed by the Gov-
ernor, as Chapter 281 of the Acts of 1995 on Novem-

ber 28, 1995). Only one state (Vermont) has still to
pass similar legislation. From January 1, 1996, ex-
isting business entities and new ventures will be
able to set up as LLC's or LLP's. Owners gain the
protection of limited liability and the flexibility of
partnerships in making distributions and allocations
of income and assets. For an existing partnership,
conversion to LLC or LLP limits the liability of the
general partners. For an existing corporation, the
advantages of conversion are less clear. There will
be federal tax consequences for existing corpora-
tions (subchapter C or subchapter S) who choose to
convert to an LLC. Partnerships generally should
have tax-free conversion assuming all assets and
liabilities are transferred to the LLC, the LLC con-
tinues the activity or business and the partners have
the same ownership. The advice of a qualified tax
practitioner and of an attorney should be sought if
you are considering LLC or LLP status.

Repair or Improvement?

Taxpayers and the IRS often have different
views about whether an expenditure on an existing
building or machine is a repair or improvement.
Taxpayers would like the immediate deduction of
repair expense and the IRS would like to see the
expense depreciated over a number of years. A capi-
tal expense; adds to the value of the land, building
or machine, or substantially prolongs its life, or
adapts the property to a new or different use, or
restores the property. A repair: does not materially
add to the value of the property, does not apprecia-
bly prolong its life, and is an expense that keeps
the property in efficient operating condition [Treas.
Reg. 1.263 (a) and (b), 1.264]. Hundreds of tax court
cases have further refined the distinction. For ex-
ample, replacing a broken transmission in a tractor
with a used transmission is a repair. Rebuilding an
existing transmission using new or rebuilt parts in
place of existing worn parts is an improvement.

If the transmission rebuilding was relatively
inexpensive, you might claim that it did not mate-
rially add to the value of the tractor. For peace of

Fruit Notes, Winter, 1996

mind on such judgement calls, one IRS Revenue
Agent suggested the following. Treat expenses that
fall in the grey area between repair and improve-
ment as capital expenditures. Then, provided that
they are on property that qualifies for section 179
deduction, take the entire amount as a section 179
deduction.

Category

small

Small

Medium

Large

farms

Average Farmer Age

Percent of crop sold:

Wholesale

Retail

Number of full time

employees

0.5

1.0

1.1

3.6

—

Total number of acres

represented

122

426

918

2766

4232

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

100

Very Small Small Medium Large All Farms

Hobby/Retired
Partnership

Corporation
One Owner

Figure 1. Business types among Massachusetts fruit
growers responding to a mail survey in 1995.

wholesale (62%) rather than retail (38%). By farm
size category, the majority of production from very
small and small farms is sold retail, medium farms
sell approximately equal percentages wholesale and
retail, while large farms are predominantly whole-
sale operations. Not surprisingly, large farms em-
ploy the largest number of full-time employees.

Figure 1 describes the types of business orga-
nizational models most often used by Massachusetts
fruit growers. Although the survey was intended
to be sent only to active commercial fruit growers,
11% of very small growers and 3% of small growers
described their fruit growing operation as "hobby",
or "retired". As one would expect, none of the me-
dium or large growers described their business in
those ways. Regardless of farm size, the most fre-
quent type of business model reported used is "one
owner" (52%), followed closely by "partnership" and
"corporation", except for large farms, where corpo-
rations are most the most common model (39%), fol-

lowed by one owner and partnerships (32%
and 14%, respectively). In addition to the
above, a small number of respondents (3 %),
described their farm as either a Chapter S
Corporation, trust, or a school farm.

Computer Use

Another general question asked about
respondents use of computer technology on
their farms. Somewhat surprisingly, given
Massachusetts reputation as a "high-tech"
state, almost 47 percent of respondents re-
plied that they do not use a personal com-
puter on the farm. It is possible that this
percentage is even higher, given that 16 per-
cent of survey respondents left the ques-
tion blank, potentially indicating non-use.
Relatively low computer use may indicate
a need for Extension training in this area.
As noted in other questions, responses
varied greatly according to farm size. A
total of 61% of large farms reported com-
puter use, compared to only 24 % of very
small farms. Small and medium farms were inter-
mediate in reporting computer use (35% and 46%,
respectively).

Across all sizes of farms, payroll was the most
common sort of computer use (21%), followed by pes-
ticide record-keeping (17%), and inventory control
(14%). In spite of the popularity of the Internet,
and other on-line services, only 8% of respondents
said that they used a computer for telecommunica-
tion, and a still smaller percentage reported using
computers for keeping records of IPM monitoring.
A single individual replied that s/he used a com-
puter for IPM decision support (e.g., expert systems).
It remains to be seen if use of computerized IPM
decision support and record keeping would increase
if suitable software and use training were made
available, or if current low reliance on computers
for those purposes (as well as for telecommunica-
tion) is linked with the current age distribution of
Massachusetts apple growers.

vl> •3>^ •3^ •X* •Jt»
•^ 0^ r^ r^ •^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

1995 Tree-fruit Survey: Horticulture

Wesley R. Autio, Roberta Szala, and William M. Coli
University of Massachusetts

During the spring of 1995, the Extension Tree-
friiit Team conducted a survey of tree-fruit growers
in Massachusetts to determine what methods of
education they most Vcdued and what topics should
receive more or less attention by the Team.
Seventy-five percent of 210 growers responded to
the survey. In this article the results pertaining to
the horticultural questions are presented.

Figure 1 displays the perceived importance of
the various sources of horticultural information
generated by the Tree-fruit Team. In general

growers felt that the computer-based bulletin board
INFONET was less than somewhat important,
while they fouind maturity alerts, the Annual
Summer Meeting, and the irregularly scheduled
late winter meeting to be slightly more than
somewhat important. Respondents saw the New
England Fruit Meetings and personal visits by
Team members to be slightly less than important.
Fruit Notes and twdlight meetings ranked a slightly
more than important, and the New England Pest
Management Guide and the Tree Fruit Newsletter

N.E. Apple Pest Management Guide

Tree Fruit Newsletter

Fruit Notes

Twilight Meetings

New England Fruit Meetings

Personal visits

Maturity Alert

Summer Meeting of the MFGA

February/March meeting

INFONET

Figure 1. Grower ratings of the relative importance of various educational tools used by the
Extension Tree-fruit Team.

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Apples

Peaches

Pears

Plums

Cherries

Apricots

c
o

3
o

-n
CD

12 3 4 5

Figure 2. Grower suggestions of potential changes in the emphasis placed by the Extension Tree-
fruit Team on various tree-fruit crops.

were thought to be between important and very
important. Clearly, growers had distinct feelings
about the relative value of these various tools. It is
interesting to note that there were differences
between growers of small acreages and those of
large acreages with respect to a few of these
information sources. Generally, the larger the
grower, the more likely they were to find meetings
of greater importance, and the smaller the grower,
the more likely they were to find the Tree Fruit
Newsletter of greater importance.

Figure 2 presents the results regarding the
relative emphasis placed on horticultural aspects of
different tree-fruit crops. Specifically, growers
were asked if we should provide the same effort,
more effort, or less effort with respects to apples,
peaches, pears, plums, cherries, and apricots. The
average levels for pears, plums, cherries, and
apricots suggested that we should not emphasize
these crops any more than we currently do. The

responses for apples and peaches suggested an
interested in enhanced efforts. There were no
significant differences in recommendation with
regard to orchard size.

The next assessment related to various aspects
of horticultural management (Figure 3). For all
topics, growers suggested that the Team maintain
or increase current efforts, with very little
difference among topics. Nutrient management,
stop-drop chemicals, pruning and training semid-
warf trees, chemical thinning, and high-density
training received the highest ranking, and cultivar
evaluation, weed management, rootstock evalua-
tion, and maturity and harvest management
received the next highest. Storage management
received the lowest rating, but on average, growers
felt that the Team should maintain current levels of
activity. Some variation with orchard size was
seen. Specifically, as orchard size increased,
growers said that they would like to see a greater

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Much more

Same

Less

Much less

Nutrient management

Stop-drop chemicals

Pruning/training semidwarf trees

Chemical thinning

High-density training

Cultivar evaluation

Weed management

Rootstock evaluation

Maturity and harvest management

Storage management

12 3 4 5

Figure 3. Grower suggestions of potential changes in the emphasis placed by the Extension Tree-
fruit Team on various aspects of horticultural management.

emphasis on stop-drop chemicals, chemical thin- showed the Tree-fruit Team where it should be

ning, high-density training, maturity and harvest placing its subject-area emphasis and how it should

management, and storage management and a be disseminating information and providing

lesser emphasis on pruning and training semidwarf education. Adjustments in activities have occurred

trees. and will continue to occur based on this survey and

This survey was a valuable experience. It future, similar surveys.

*^ *X* *X* *sl-» *^

0^ #^ #^ 0^ #^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

1995 Tree-fruit Survey:
Disease Management

Daniel R. Cooley, Roberta Szala, and William M. Coli
University of Massachusetts

In the summer of 1995, the University of Mas-
sachusetts Extension Tree Fruit Team surveyed
apple growers in the state for their opinions and
practices regarding pest management in their apple
orchards. This article describes the survey results
related to disease management, largely addressing
extension programming.

Growers were asked to what extent they would
like to see efforts made concerning chemical con-
trol of tree fruit diseases. Table 1 lists the diseases
and responses for various sized orchards. Any re-
sponse above a 2 indicates that more effort was de-
sired, while less than 2 indicates less effort was de-
sired. Growers expressed the most interest in get-
ting new chemical disease-management information
for peach brown rot. Next came four apple diseases,
flyspeck, sooty blotch, scab, and fire blight. Finally,
there was marginal interest in getting more infor-
mation on summer fruit rots, calyx end rot, and re-
plant problems. Larger orchards were interested
in the Tree-fruit Team placing more emphasis on
storage disease management, while medium and

smaller orchards did not rank storage problems
highly. The smallest orchards were most concerned
about new information on scab control.

A similar question asked if the same set of dis-
eases should receive more or less effort with regards
to biological control (Table 2). The mean response
was generally higher than for chemical control,
likely meaning that growers felt that more biologi-
cal control information is needed for all disease prob-
lems. The most emphasized diseases were similar
to those for chemical control, with apple scab, fly-
speck and sooty blotch ranked most highly. Larger
farms ranked replant and storage highly, while
smaller orchards found these problems less impor-
tant.

The responses indicated that growers would like
to see an increased emphasis placed on developing
and learning about new methods of management
for peach brown rot, apple scab, flyspeck, sooty
blotch, and fire blight. The largest orchards would
like more information on management strategies
for orchard replant and storage diseases.

Table 1. Ranking of desired emphasis on new

chemical control

methods for

tree-fruit disease

problems relative to present efforts,

where 1=

less, 2= the same

, and 3 = more.

Oto5

5.1 to 20 20.1 to 50

50.1 or more

Disease

acres

All

Peach brown rot

2.8

2.3

2.2

2.3

2.5

Flyspeck & sooty blotch

2.3

2.4

2.3

2.4

Apple scab

2.4

2.3

2.0

2.3

Fire bhght

2.3

2.2

2.3

Summer fruit rot

2.1

2.3

1.9

2.0

2.1

Orchard replant disease

1.9

2.2

2.1

Calyx end rot

2.0

2.2

1.9

2.2

2.1

Collar rot

2.0

2.1

2.0

Storage disease management

1.8

1.9

2.3

1.9

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Table 2. Ranking of desired emphasis on new

biological control

methods

for tree-fruit disease

problems relative to present efforts,

where 1=

less, 2= the same

and 3 =

more.

to5

5.1 to 20 20.1 to 50

50.1 or more

Disease

acres

All

Apple scab

2.6

2.5

2.6

Flyspeck & sooty blotch

2.4

2.7

2.6

2.5

Peach brown rot

2.4

2.5

2.4

Fire blight

2.4

2.5

2.4

Summer fi-uit rot

2.3

2.4

2.2

2.3

Orchard replant disease

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.3

Calyx end rot

2.2

2.4

2.2

2.3

Collar rot

2.2

2.4

2.2

Storage disease management

2.0

2.1

2.3

2.4

2.2

•^ •^ •^ *^ •sL^

0^ 0^rm 0^r^ 0^r% 0^r%

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

1995 Tree-fruit Survey: Marketing

Karen I. Hauschild, Robert Szala, and William M. Coli
University of Massachusetts

The 1995 tree fruit survey included five
questions pertaining to marketing education:
either educating farmers in marketing or educating
consumers about agriculture/fruit production. The
first question asked growers to identify which
topics are most important to their overall orchard
management. Educating farmers in marketing was
ranked fifth of six possibilities. The second
question asked growers to identify those areas on
which they thought we should place more
emphasis. Educating farmers in marketing ranked
fifth out of six. The third question asked which area
should be emphasized to give more time to
educating consumers about agriculture. Educating
farmers about marketing ranked number one.
Clearly the survey results show that the
respondents do not feel that marketing education
should be a major focus of the Extension Tree-fruit
Team.

Another question asked the relative impor-
tance of various sources of information with
regards to marketing decisions. The top two
responses were the Tree Fruit Newsletter and
discussions at twilight meetings. Although
growers did not see marketing education as an
Extension priority, they did view the Newsletter
and twilight meetings as a source of information on
marketing issues.

Also it was asked on what topics within
marketing growers wished to see a greater
emphasis placed by the Tree-fruit team. In general,

growers felt that the same or more emphasis should
be placed on each activity. The top three responses
were developing consumer fact sheets, developing
press releases, and alternatives to the present
(marketing) situation.

Although growers perceive marketing to be
unimportant to Extension's Tree-fruit efforts, there
clearly is concern over consumer education on tree
fruit production and fruit availability (press
releases). Promoting the industry has not been a
traditional Extension activity, but rather has been
an objective of various other organizations,
including the Massachusetts Department of Food
& Agriculture, the NY-NE Apple Institute (and NE
Mcintosh Growers Association), the packing/
shipping brokers (e.g., J. P. Sullivan Co., VT Apple),
and of the Massachusetts Fruit Growers' Associa-
tion. For the marketing educational outreach of the
Extension Tree-fruit Team, it seems more
appropriate to develop informational fact sheets for
consumers and press releases regarding the tree-
fruit industry in Massachusetts. "Buying Local"
could be the underlying theme, but perhaps not the
direct focus of these efforts.

An issue that was not addressed specifically in
this survey is that marketing education has not
been a "traditional" effort for the Tree-fruit Team.
Massachusetts tree-fruit producers have a strong
"traditional" focus. They have not seen marketing/
promotion as an overall emphasis. This issue could
have had a significant effect on survey responses.

•^1> %1> vl> •3/» *X*
0^ 0^ 0^ 0J^ 0^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

1 995Tree-f ruit Survey: Insect Management

Ronald J. Prokopy, Roberta Szala, and William M. Coli
University of Massachusetts

As revealed in a preceding article on the 1995
Tree-fruit Survey, growers expressed the opinion
that insect pest management, like disease pest man-
agement and horticultural management, ought to
receive increased emphasis relative to our current
efforts in these areas. In this article, we first de-
scribe survey results of grower ranking of current
extension efforts most beneficial to insect pest man-
agement decisions. We then present grower rank-
ing of insects that should receive priority in terms
of our future research efforts on improved chemical
control and improved biologically-based control.

Current Extension Efforts

As revealed in Table 1, the annual ATeu; England
Apple Pest Management Guide and the annual 18
weekly pest alert messages were considered by "all"

growers (that is, growers across all farm sizes) to be
the most beneficial of all extension efforts in affect-
ing insect pest management decisions. These were
closely followed by the Annual March Message.
Somewhat further down the list, in descending or-
der of expressed value, were the annual twilight
meetings at growers orchards, personal visits by a
member of the extension team to a grower's orchard,
issues of Fruit Notes, the biannual Southern New
England Peach, Pear and Plum Pest Management
Guide, and the Tree Fruit Newsletter, Growers hav-
ing large farms expressed essentially the same or-
der of priority as "all" growers did. Growers having
medium-size farms gave comparatively higher rank-
ing to the Annual March Message and Fruit Notes,
whereas growers having small or very small farms
gave comparatively higher ranking to the weekly
pest alert messages.

Table 1. Grower ranking of current extension efforts most beneficial to insect-pest-

management

decisions. The lower the value

the greater the

importance.

Very small

Small

Medium

Large

Extension effort

farms

New England Apple Pest

2.8

3.7

2.5

3.0

2.9

Management Guide

Weekly pest alert messages

2.6

3.1

3.5

3.2

3.0

March Message

3.7

3.4

2.9

3.9

3.5

Twilight meetings

4.1

4.2

4.8

4.2

4.3

Personal visits by Tree-fruit

4.0

4.5

5.1

4.6

4.5

team members

Fruit Notes

4.9

4.2

5.6

4.7

Southern New England

4.1

5.2

4.5

5.5

4.7

Peach, Pear and Plum Pest

Management Guide

Tree Fruit Newsletter

4.7

4.5

5.4

6.0

5.0

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Table 2. Grower

ranking of insects that she

uld receive priority

for improved chemical control

efforts. The great

er the value,

the higher the

priority

Assigned \

values of 1, 2, or 3 =

= less, same.

or greater priority

relative to current efforts.

Very small

Small

Medium

Large

All

Insect

farms

Plum curculio

2.5

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.3

Peach pests

2.5

2.3

2.0

2.3

Mites

2.3

2.1

2.4

2.3

Leafminers

2.4

2.3

2.0

2.3

Apple maggot

2.4

2.2

2.1

2.2

Leafhoppers

2.1

2.2

2.1

2.2

2.1

Plant bugs

2.0

2.1

2.0

Leafrollers

2.2

2.0

1.9

2.0

CodUng moth

2.1

1.9

2.0

Sawfly

2.1

2.0

1.8

2.0

Aphids

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.9

Pear Pests

1.8

2.1

1.8

2.0

1.9

Plum Pests

1.9

2.0

1.7

1.8

Priority Insects for Improved
Chemical Control Efforts

As shown in Table 2, growers across all farm
sizes combined ranked plum curculio, peach pests,
mites and leaftioppers as priority insect pests for
increased chemical control efforts. These were
closely followed by apple maggot and leaftioppers.
Of lesser priority were plant bugs, leafrollers, co-
dling moth, and sawflies. Of least priority were
aphids, pear pests, and plum pests. Growers hav-
ing small farms expressed essentially the same or-
der of priority as "all" growers did. Relative to all
growers, growers having large farms gave compara-
tively higher priority to mites; whereas, growers
having very small farms ranked mites as being of
lesser priority than plum curculio, peach pests,
leafminers, and apple maggot.

Priority Insects for Improved
Biologically-based Control Efforts

As given in Table 3, growers across all farm sizes
combined ranked mites and plum curculio, closely
followed by leafroiners and apple maggot, as prior-
ity insect pests for greater effort in biologically-based

control. Next in priority were plant bugs and leaf-
hoppers, followed by peach pests, sawfly, aphids,
codling moth, and leafrollers. Of least priority were
pear pests and plum pests. Growers having me-
dium and large farms placed greatest emphasis on
mites; whereas, growers having very small farms
placed greatest emphasis plum curculio and apple
maggot.

Conclusions

We perceive the results of this survey to be of
great value in guiding the course of our future re-
search and extension efforts in insect pest manage-
ment on tree fruits in Massachusetts. The results
already have stimulated us to continue with vigor
our efforts to develop a monitoring trap for plum
curculio so that chemical controls can be timed bet-
ter, to continue to pursue our intent of developing a
biologically-based method of controlling apple mag-
got using odor-baited pesticide-treated spheres, to
expand our efforts to establish Typhlodromus pyri
mite predators in a greater proportion of Massa-
chusetts commercial orchards so as to enhance the
probability of biological mite control, and to initiate
research on improved chemical control of peach

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Table 3. Growe

r ranking of insects that should receive priority

for

improved biologically-based

control efforts.

The greater the value, the higher

the

priority.

Assigned values of 1,

2 or 3 =

less, same, or greater priority relative to current efforts

Very small

Small

VIedium

Large

All

Insect

farms

Mites

2.6

2.5

2.8

2.7

Plum curculio

2.7

2.5

2.8

2.6

2.7

Apple maggot

2.7

2.5

2.7

2.5

2.6

Leafminers

2.6

2.5

2.7

2.6

Plant bugs

2.5

2.6

2.5

Leafhoppers

2.5

2.7

2.6

2.5

Peach pests

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.3

2.4

Sawfly

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.4

Aphids

2.5

2.4

2.5

2.3

2.4

Codling moth

2.4

2.5

2.2

2.4

LeafroUers

2.4

2.1

2.4

Pear pests

2.3

2.4

2.1

2.3

Plum pests

2.2

2.3

2.1

2.0

2.2

pests, particularly plant bugs amd stink bugs. The
results also serve as a catalyst for our doing the
best possible job we can in contributing to an up-to-

date New England Apple Pest Management Guide
and in generating weekly pest alert messages and
the Annual March Message.

•Xa Vl^ •^ •sl^ •^

•^ rp» •^ •^ •^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

1995 Tree-fruit Survey:
Integrated Pest Management

William M. Coli, Roberta Szala, Wesley R. Autio, Daniel R. Cooley,
Karen I. Hauschild and Ronald J. Prokopy
University of Massachusetts

Identifying Research and Extension
Needed to Enhance IPM Adoption

In September, 1993, the federal administration
announced a joint USDA, EPA, and FDA policy en-
dorsing the use of IPM by agriculture and related
industries and setting a goal of 75% of U.S. crop
acreage under IPM by 2000. In response to setting
of this goal, the USDA announced a national IPM
initiative "based on the premise that: 1.) involving
farmers and practitioners in the development and
assessment of IPM programs increases implemen-
tation of IPM practices; and 2) increasing the use of
IPM systems enables farmers to achieve both eco-
nomic and environmental benefits." As part of the
USDA National IPM Initiative, university research
and extension staff nationwide have been asked to
better understand grower needs in the area of IPM.
It is hoped, that, by showing the US Congress that
the needs of constituents (voters) are being ad-
dressed by the Land Grant University System, cur-
rent levels of federal support can be maintained or
even increased. Another important component of
efforts to identify and prioritize key research, ex-
tension, or training needs is also to characterize IPM
systems that are now ready for adoption, as well as
current levels of actual adoption by the end user.

Assessing Current Levels of
IPM Adop tion

The whole question of how one measures IPM
adoption currently is a subject of intense discus-
sion and debate nationally. While measuring adop-
tion would seem relatively easy to accomplish given
a large enough sample size, in practice it turns out
to be much more difficult. For example, a study
conducted by MacDonald and Glynn of Cornell Uni-
versity, which allowed growers to "self define"
whether or not they used IPM, found large differ-
ences between the percent of growers who said they
practiced IPM, and the percent actually using such

key elements of IPM as pest monitoring and valid
action thresholds. Hence, some less subjective mea-
sure is probably needed.

Another way of measuring adoption was used
by the USDA Economic Research Service in a 1994
study of field crops, fruits and nuts, and vegetables.
For this study, which looked at cropping practices
for the years 1990-1993, USDA considered acreage
as under "low-level IPM" if decisions were based on
scouting and the use of thresholds. To be classified
as "medium-level IPM," USDA required that scout-
ing and adherence to thresholds be used plus an
additional one to two IPM practices from a list con-
sidered by USDA to be "indicative of an IPM ap-
proach." "High-level IPM" meant that scouting and
thresholds were used plus three or more other prac-
tices indicative of an IPM approach. Cle£u"ly, this
method is imperfect, given that IPM systems for
some crops can involve dozens of practices.

At a recent National IPM Symposium, Dr. Polly
Hoppin of the World Wildlife Fund suggested a very
different approach to determining adoption. The
World Wildlife Fund's approach is based largely on
the ratio of practices which rely on "...treatment-
oriented interventions with synthetic pesticides.. "
and "...prevention-based practices that reduce pest
pressure, increase plant competitiveness, and/or
enhance biological control processes..." According
to their model, simply monitoring pests and apply-
ing pesticides according to thresholds constitutes
"no IPM," given that it relies exclusively on a treat-
ment-based rather than prevention-based strategy.
A key difficulty with this approach is that growers
would get no recognition for use of what we in Mas-
sachusetts call "first-level IPM" (i.e., systems based
on monitoring and use of thresholds which take into
account all classes of pests, but which rely largely
on chemical pesticides). In order to be a "high-level
IPM" user according to the World Wildlife Fund, the
farmer would need to be functioning at Prokopys
"second stage" of IPM where behavioral, cultural,
and biological controls predominate, and broad-spec-

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

trum pesticides are avoided to the greatest extent
possible.

Still another approach to measuring adoption
is the use of the commodity-specific IPM guidelines
first developed in Massachusetts. By Usting all valid,
available IPM practices, the guidelines allow a very
simple assessment of how many are being used on
an individual farm, and a characterization of adop-
tion along a continuum ft-om low (e.g., up to 30% of
total practices), to medium (e.g., 30% to 70%), and
to high (e.g., over 70%). Because guidelines can be
updated to include new, biologically-based practices
as they are developed and found to be viable, they
allow growers to be recognized for use of both first-
and second-level IPM adoption. We continue to be-
lieve that IPM guidelines represent a useful and
objective tool for measuring grower IPM adoption,
and we will continue our efforts to use them for this
purpose.

Assessment of Grower Needs and IPM
Adoption in Massachusetts Orchards

Attempts to measure accurately both IPM adop-
tion and grower research/extension needs have been
the long-standing policy both of the Massachusetts
IPM Program, and the UMass Extension Tree-fruit
Team. Many readers undoubtedly have responded
to informal surveys for this purpose conducted by
team members at twilight meetings or other events.
Others have participated directly in meetings of the
Tree-fi-uit Advisory Committee. The statewide sur-
vey reported on in this and other related articles
was an attempt to formalize the process of needs
assessment, and provide data for the Tree-fruit Team
and the Advisory Committee to review and respond
to. In addition, Massachusetts has received a small
USDA grant for the purpose of determining the level
of adoption and of needs for apples and four other
crops in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states.
Here, we report on the responses to seven questions
ft-om the 1995 Tree-fruit Survey related to IPM.

In summarizing results of the tree-fruit survey,
responses were taken on face value. That is, re-
spondents were allowed to self define their use of
IPM, and no attempt was made to determine
whether or not individual practices were used in
one small block versus the whole farm or every year
versus only some years. No statistical analyses were
conducted, so that numerical rankings should be
considered a guide, rather than an absolute rank-
ing for a category.

Table 1. Percent of respondents to the 1995
Tree-fruit Survey that said that they did or
did not use IPM.

Farms size

Yes

All farms
Very small farms
Small farms
Medium farms
Large farms

77
66
73
82
100

13
16
20

Use of IPM

A large majority {11%) of all respondents said
that they use IPM on their farm (Table 1). (Note
that percentages in some categories do not total 100
due to rounding and because some respondents left
this and other questions blank.) Although a self defi-
nition, we have confidence in these numbers, given
that 13% honestly answered "no," and an additional
11% left the question blank, even when the obvious
"right" answer (i.e., the response an intelligent
reader could guess the surveyor might want) was
yes.

Further support for the validity of this result,
and confirmation of the trend evident in Table 1
that larger growers tended to define themselves as
IPM users more than smaller growers, is found in
answers to the next two questions. Over all farms,
72% of respondents reported engaging in direct ob-
servation of pests or beneficials, 69% selected pesti-
cides to conserve beneficials, 63% used insect moni-
toring traps, 56% calibrated their sprayer at least
once per season, and 54 % used action thresholds
and cultural controls such as summer pruning (tied).
Although only 23% reported that they used disease-
monitoring devices, this is higher than the number
reporting (in a subsequent question) that private
IPM scout/consultants do disease monitoring on the
farm (16% over all farms sizes). Thus it appears
that at least 7% of Mass. fruit growers see a value
in using disease monitoring devices on their own,
with no help from consultants.

Results of this question are even more interest-
ing when looked at according to farm size. In virtu-
ally every case, there was a clear trend toward
greater use of the practice in question on larger than
on smaller farms. For example, 93% of respondents

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Number of Insect Traps Used by Very Small Growers

Number of Insect Traps Used by Small Growers

Number of Insect Traps Used by Medium Growers

Number of Insect Traps Used by Large Growers

Figure 1. The percentage of each size category of orchard that monitored 0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, or 6 to
9 insect pests with traps, as reported in the 1995 Tree-fruit Survey. Very small = 0-5 acres, small
= 5.1-20 acres, medium = 20.1 to 50 acres, and large = 50.1+ acres.

from large farms said they select pesticides to con-
serve beneficials, compared to 79% of medium farms,
63% of small farms, and 58% of very small farms. A
similar result can be seen for direct observation of
pests and beneficials (86%, 82%, 73%, and 60%, re-
spectively), use of insect-monitoring traps (82%,
75%, 60%, and 50%, respectively), sprayer calibra-
tion (82%,71%, 65%, and 32%, respectively), cultural
controls (71%, 75%, 50%, and 40%, respectively), use
of thresholds (70%, 68%, 65%, and 36%, respectively).

Differences according to farm size are particularly
striking for keeping scouting records (61%, 64%,
33%, and 15%, respectively), and use of disease-
monitoring devices (54%, 43%, 15%, and 7%, respec-
tively).

Use of Traps for Insect Monitoring

Across all farms, it comes as no surprise that
the most common insect trap used is the red sphere

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Number Pest/Bcneficials Observed by Very Small Growers

Number Pests/Beneficials Observed by Small Growen

Number Pest/Benencials Observed by Medium Growers

Number Pests/Beneficials Observed by large Growers

Figure 2. The percentage of each size category of orchard that monitored 0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, or 6 to
9 pests or beneficials by direct observation, as reported in the 1995 Tree-fruit Survey. Very small
= 0-5 acres, small = 5.1-20 acres, medium = 20.1 to 50 acres, and large = 50.1+ acres.

trap for apple maggot fly (AMF), which are deployed
by 60% of all Massachusetts fruit growers. Next
most often used is the white tarnished plant bug
(TPB) trap (42%), followed by the red leafminer (LM)
trap (39%), and the white trap for European apple
sawfly (EAS) (36%). Least often used were any
pheromone trap (17%), San Jose scale (SJS) sticky
tapes (10%), and yellow board traps for AMF (10%).
Once again, use of individual traps was very

dependent on farm size. Three traps were used by
over 75% of large farms. It was somewhat surpris-
ing that the TPB trap was most heavily used (77%
of large farms), followed by the red LM trap and
the red AMF sphere (tied for use by 75% of large
farms). Fourth in use was the EAS trap (64%). The
only trap used by a relatively large number (50%)
of very small farms was the red AMF sphere.

It is interesting to note that, while 100% of large

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

growers reported that they used IPM in an earher
question, almost 18% of the same group left blank
the question on use of insect monitoring traps, a
key component of IPM (Figure 1). Evidently, large
growers felt that they were using other strategies
consistent with an IPM approach, even though they
were not monitoring insects with traps. Internal
consistency of the data from this question and the
previous one (asking which general sorts of IPM
techniques were used) is demonstrated by the find-
ing that the percentage of large growers respond-
ing that they do no use insect traps is identical to
the percent who left blank the same choice previ-
ously.

Use of Direct Observation of
Pests and Beneficials

Across all farm sizes, the most frequent use of
direct observation was to locate and assess plum
curculio (PC) injury (67% of respondents). This was
followed by mites (63%), leafminer mines (61%),
aphids (60%), leafhoppers (51%), leafhopper dam-
age (42%), and leafroller/green fruitworm foliar or
ftiiit injury (31%). Over one third of all respon-
dents reported observations for aphid predators
(37%) and mite predators (36%).

A similar correlation between farm size and use
of particular techniques reported earlier was again
noted in this question. Overall pests and beneficials,
86% and 89% of medium and large growers, respec-
tively, used direct observation to monitor levels;
whereas, only 61% and 80% of very small and small
growers, respectively, used direct observation (Fig-
ure 2). For medium and large growers, mites and
leafminer mines were tied for first place (86% and
89% for respective farm sizes) in direct observations
used, replacing PC (used by 79% of both sizes).
Observations of aphids (82% of large farms, 75% of
medium) and leaflioppers also was used frequently
(75% of both medium and large farms). It is also
clear that larger growers apparently find more value
in monitoring for mite predators (used by 64% of
large, 54% of medium) and aphid predators (82% of
large, 75% of medium) than do small or very small
growers.

Who Conducts Disease Monitoring?

Regardless of farm size, the person who most
often conducts disease monitoring is the survey re-
spondent (46% of all farms), followed by private con-
sultants (16%), some other farm employee (8%), or
some unspecified other person (3%). Not surpris-

ingly, use of a private consultant for disease moni-
toring was largely restricted to large (36%) and
medium (32%) farms, rather than small (13%) or
very small (2%) ones.

Source of Pest Thresholds

The University was the most commonly reported
source for action thresholds (50% of all farms), fol-
lowed by the grower's own threshold (18%) and those
provided by private consultants (16%). Consistent
with earlier responses, private consultant-provide
thresholds were more commonly used on medium
and large farms than small or very small farms.

Determining the Need for and
Timing of Sprays

Ultimately, all the monitoring methods described
above are conducted for one purpose: to provide
knowledge to the decision-maker, and help him or
her make better pest-management decisions. Con-
sequently, we were surprised that the choice "when
traps or observations indicate pests reach thresh-
olds" only ranked fourth in importance for making
pest-management decisions across all farm sizes
(used by 55% of respondents). Most important was
"the New England Pest Management Guide'' (68%),
which is a source of a large amount of information
related to IPM. In second and third place, respec-
tively, were "my own experience and knowledge of
the orchard" (67%) and "Extension pest messages"
(61%). Further down on the list were "general or-
chard observations" (46%), "IPM scout/consultant
recommendations" (26%), "time of year" (20%),
"chemical company field man recommendations"
(20%), "pest sampling other than traps" (17%),
"weather monitoring devices" (19%), and "label di-
rections" (14%).

Our Conclusions

Based on the data presented here and other di-
rect contact with growers and private-sector IPM
consultants, we are confident that the tree fruit in-
dustry in Massachusetts, especially the medium and
large farms representing the largest total acreage,
has already achieved the USDA goal for 2000 (Fig-
ure 3). We will continue our efforts to document
the extent of IPM use in the Commonwealth, and
do our best to see that the actual practitioners are
recognized for their outstanding levels of adoption.
However, given the continued loss of important crop
protection chemicals, the increasing difficulty and

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Number of IPM Practices used by Ver>' Small Growers

Number of IPM Practices Used by Small Growers

Number of IPM Practices Used by Medium Growers

Number of IPM Practices Used by Large Growers

Figure 3. The percentage of each size category of orchard that used 0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, or 6 to 10 IPM
practices. Very small = 0-5 acres, small = 5.1-20 acres, medium = 20.1 to 50 acres, and large =
50.1+ acres.

cost of managing such key pests as summer diseases,
plum curculio, apple maggot, and mites, and the like-
lihood that environmental advocates and regulators
will continue to push for use of production systems
which are biologically rather thanchemically based,
we recognize that much work still needs to be done.

The Tree Fruit Team will continue its efforts, alone
and in collaboration with other university special-
ists and the private sector, to better understand
grower needs relative to IPM, and work diligently
to develop and demonstrate apple pest management
and production systems for the 21st century.

•sl>* *sT># •^ •sL* •si^

0^ #^ 0^ •^ 0J^

Fruit Notes, Summer, 1996

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amiierst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

Account No. 3-20685

rl/Morr.

rult Notes

Prepared by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences.

UMass Extension, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and Massachusetts Counties Cooperating.

Editors: Wesley R. Autio and William J. Bramlage

FEB,2 5 1997

■~n ro :2D
3. o ^

Volume at, Ntimber 4
FALL ISSUE, 1996

Table of Contents

Evaluation of Odor Lures for Use with Red
Sticky Spheres to Trap Apple Maggot Flies

Predicting Poststorage Scald on Delicious:
Where Do We Stand?

Nutrient Management for Peaches. I. Introduction to
the Factors Affecting Nutrient Management

Nutrient Management for Peaches. II. Identifying Foliar
Deficiency S3rmptoms During the Growing Season

Nutrient Management for Peaches. III. Developing
a Nutrient-management Program for Your Orchard

Tax Pointers for Farmers and Landowners in 1996
and Planning Notes for 1997

Fruit Notes

Publication Information:

Fruit Notes (ISSN 0427-6906) is published the each January, April,
July, and October by the Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University
of Massachusetts.

The costs of subscriptions to Fruit Notes are $ 1 0.00 for United States
addresses and $ 1 2.00 for foreign addresses. Each one-year subscription
begins January 1 and ends December 3 1 . Some back issues are available
for $3.00 (United States addresses) and $3.50 (foreign addresses). Pay-
ments must be in United States currency and should be made to the
University of Massachusetts.

Correspondence should be sent to:

Fruit Notes

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences
205 Bowditch Hall
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA 01003

UMASS EXTENSION POLICY:

All chemical uses suggested in this publication are contingent upon continued registration.
These chemicals should be u.sed in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations.
Growers are urged to be familiar with all current state regulations. Where trade names are used
for identification, no company endorsement or product discrimination is intended. The
University of Massachusetts makes no warranty or guarantee of any kind, expressed or implied,
concerning the use of these products. USER ASSUMES ALL RISKS FOR PERSONAL
INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE.

Issued hv UMas.i Extension. Robert G. Heli>esen, Director, in furtherance of the acts of May H anil June JO.
1914. UMass Extension offers equal opportunity in programs and employment.

Evaluation of Odor Lures for Use with
Red Sticlty Spheres to Trap
Apple Maggot Flies

Alan H. Reynolds and Ronald J. Prokopy

Department of Entomology, University of Massachusetts

Red sticky spheres have shown promise as
an alternative to insecticide for control of apple
maggot flies in orchards. Such spheres
resemble ripe apples in size, shape, and color
and are visually attractive to maggot flies at
distances of up to about one yard. To increase
the effectiveness of these spheres, odor lures
also can be used, which serve to draw flies from
greater distances. In a study in 1995, we tested
two odor lures known to be attractive to apple
maggot flies in combination with red sphere
traps in commercial orchards. The odors were
butyl hexanoate (an odor emitted by ripening
apples) and ammonium carbonate (an odor
emitted from fly food sources such as bird
droppings). Butyl hexanoate is thought to be
more attractive to older, reproductively mature
flies (with a large egg load) seeking fruit in
which to lay eggs. Ammonium carbonate may
be more attractive to younger flies (with a small
or no egg load) seeking protein sources
necessary to achieve sexual maturity. We
hoped to discover which odor (or odors) would
optimally increase fly captures on spheres.

Materials & Methods

Each butyl hexanoate lure consisted of a
capped 15-ml polyethylene vial filled with
liquid hexanoate, which diffused through the
walls of the vial. Butyl hexanoate currently is
available from commercial sources as formu-
lated product in ready-to-use dispensers. Each
ammonium carbonate lure was a commercial
type (produced by Heath, Gainesville, FL),
consisting of a sealed plastic container with 1.7
grams of ammonium carbonate dispensed from
a small hole (a plastic flap covered the hole to

protect against rainfall). Although these
ammonium carbonate lures are not available
for widespread commercial use, they represent
prototype lures that could be obtained easily by
growers.

For our tests, four growers in central and
western Massachusetts generously agreed to
allow us to use trees in their orchards. In each
orchard, we selected plots of about 50 trees
(based on similarities in tree size and spacing)
which were located at the corners of larger
orchard blocks. Red spheres and lures were
hung on the perimeter trees of each plot at a
spacing of about five 5 yards between traps
(about 14 traps per plot). Traps were hung
about 5 feet above ground (depending on tree
size) so that there was no fruit or foliage within
8 inches of a trap (but as much as possible
outside of 8 inches).

We tested four combinations of odor lures:
(1) butyl hexanoate only, (2) ammonium
carbonate only, (3) both butyl hexanoate and
ammonium carbonate, and (4) no odor. Each
orchard plot was assigned one of these odor
treatments. Odor lures were placed within 8
inches of the spheres (usually on the same
branch).

Traps were deployed initially during the
first week in July and were maintained through
mid September. Once every 2 weeks, the traps
were checked and cleaned of captured apple
maggot flies and other insects. Odor baits were
replaced if necessary.

Results & Conclusions

The data from this experiment are
presented in Table 1. Red spheres baited with

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

butyl hexanoate consis-
tently captured more flies
than spheres baited with
ammonium carbonate or
no odor. This trend was
observed throughout each
of the five 2-week trap-
ping periods. Ammonium
carbonate was not effec-
tive, capturing only about
as many flies as the no-
odor treatment. In addi-
tion, spheres with both
ammonium carbonated
and butyl hexanoate were
no more effective than
spheres with butyl
hexanoate alone. A subsequent analysis of
captured females showed that there was no
difference in reproductive maturity of females
among odor treatments. For the most part,
females captured on all of the odor treatments
throughout the season were sexually mature (>
90%) and of high egg load (>20 eggs/female).

In a previous study in an artificial orchard
of potted apple trees, we observed that
ammonium carbonate increased maggot-fly
captures on red spheres when used alone or
with butyl hexanoate. However, this was not
the case in commercial orchards. There are
several possible explanations for the ineffec-
tiveness of ammonium carbonate in commer-
cial orchards. Part of the problem may stem
from the design of the dispenser. Typically,
under the hot summer orchard conditions of
1995, all of the ammonium carbonate would
dissipate within a week of deployment, leaving
an empty container for the duration of the 2-
week period. In addition, we observed that the
vast majority of captured females were
sexually mature. Once mature, maggot flies do
not require as much protein as immature flies,
and therefore may not respond to a protein food
odor such as ammonium carbonate. Such
mature flies (with a developed egg load) are
more interested in finding egglaying sites,
which may also explain the greater number of
captures on spheres baited with butyl

Table 1. Average number of apple maggot flies captured on

odor-baited or unbaited red spheres in commercial orchards.

For trapping periods "early" refers to the first 2 weeks of the

month, and "late" refers to the last 2 weeks of the month.

Butyl Ammonium

Both

Trapping period No odor hexanoate carbonate

odors

Early July 2.2 13.1 1.7

10.7

Late July 6.7 38.5 5.7

38.8

Early August 10.2 40.6 6.5

36.5

Late August 5.3 25.1

—

Early September 3.5 14.6

—

hexanoate.

These findings are important for several
reasons. First, ammonium carbonate should
probably no longer be considered as a viable
odor attractant for use with red sticky spheres
in commercial orchards. Second, butyl
hexanoate was shown to be very effective,
capturing four to six times more flies than
unbaited spheres throughout the growing
season. There was some concern that later in
the season, ripening apples might emit enough
natural butyl hexanoate to mask the butyl
hexanoate in the lures. This, however, was not
observed in our study. Based on the results of
this work, we conclude that in commercial
orchards, butyl hexanoate is an excellent lure
for use with red sticky spheres to capture
maggot flies, whereas ammonium carbonate is
not.

Acknowledgments

We thank Tony Lincoln, Dave Chandler,
Bill Broderick, and Wayne Rice for the
generous use of their orchards. We also thank
Andy Kaknes, Eric Quist, Jen Mason, Starker
Wright, Jon Black, and Mike Marsello for
outstanding technical assistance. This work
was supported by USDA CSRS NRI grant 95-
37313-1890 Cooperative Agreement 94-COOP-
1-0482.

^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), FaU, 1996

Predicting Poststorage Scald on
Delicious: Where Do We Stand?

Sarah A. Weis and William J. Bramlage

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

For some years we have been collecting data
relating to scald incidence on Delicious. The
major factors explored are 1) harvest date, 2)
number of preharvest hours/days in which the
temperature falls below SCF, and 3) starch
score at harvest. These factors have been
shown to influence scald susceptibility. Later
harvest, more hours/days below 50°F, and
higher starch scores (more mature fruit) all
result in less scald after storage. Harvest date
is an important factor, but since scald severity
varies greatly from year to year even when fruit
are harvested the same month and day, other
influences clearly are also important in

determining scald susceptibility.

Rather than trying to predict the exact
probability of a fruit developing scald (an
impossible task), we divide fruit into three
categories: lots from which more than 60% of
fruit are likely to scald, lots from which fewer
than 20% of fruit are likely to scald, and those
in between. A lot, for our current purposes, is a
bushel of apples harvested from adjacent (up to
5) trees of the same age, strain, and rootstock.
The idea behind these divisions is that if over
60% of fruit will scald without treatment, then
it is probable that in order to control scald
effectively, the maximum concentration of

100

> 60% Scald, prediction wrong

< 60% Scald, prediction wrong

< 60% Scald, as predicted

> 60% Scald, as predicted

HRC

Orchard 2 Orchard 3

Overall

Figure 1. Predicting severe scald (>60% of fruit) on Delicious, 1995. Equation was devel-
oped from data collected at the University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research Cen-
ter, 1988-93. If [8.4 - 0.32(day #) + 0.055 (days < 50"F) - 0.055(starch score)] > 0, then it
is predicted that > 60% of the fruit will scald.

Fruit Notes, Volumc 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

2000 ppm DPA will be needed. If fewer than
20% of fruit scald, the scald severity on
individual fruit is generally not as great as in
the "over-60%" group, and a DPA/fungicide
drench may not be recommended at all.

Using data from 213 lots of Delicious fruit
grown at the University of Massachusetts
Horticultural Research Center (Belchertown)
(HRC) from 1988 to 1993, equations were
generated to place fruit into the above groups.
Lots included fruit harvested from 14
September to 22 October, with starch scores
ranging from 1 to 7. From 3 to 39 preharvest
days below 50°F beginning 1 August were
recorded. The equations were used in 1995 to
attempt identification of scald-susceptible
(>60% of fruit) and scald-resistant (<20% of
fruit) lots of Delicious apples. Eight harvests
were made at the HRC and four harvests were
made at each of two other orchards. Equations
and results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Overall, the equations were quite effective
in identifying those fruit which were especially

scald susceptible or especially scald resistant.
The situations which potentially cause prob-
lems are those which are shown as x's in
Figures 1 and 2. Predicting less than 60%
(Figure 1) or less than 20% (Figure 2) scald
when more actually occurred could result in
undertreatment of fruit and subsequent fruit
loss. Savings could be made for the lots which
are shown in white, as these fruit could receive
less DPA than the standard treatment. This
possibility was examined in a further study
described below.

The fruit lots used to generate and test the
equations above received no postharvest
treatment, and were kept in cold storage for 20
to 25 weeks after harvest, then at room
temperature, about 70°F, for a week before
being rated for presence of superficial scald.
However, additional fruit were harvested in
1995 from the HRC and from Orchard 2 in
Wilbraham. These fruit were dipped in 500,
1000, 1500, or 2000 ppm DPA, stored, and scald
rated along with the other fruit. Figure 3 shows

O
(0

100

> 20% Scald, prediction wrong

< 20% Scald, prediction wrong

< 20% Scald, as predicted

> 20%. Scald, as predicted

P<XXXXXXXXXXXXX>|

HRC

Orchard 2 Orchard 3

Overall

Figure 2. Predicting reduced scald (<20% of fruit) on Delicious, 1995. Equation was
developed from data collected at the University of Massachusetts Horticultural Research
Center, 1988-93. If [-11.8 + 0.41(day#) - 0.030(days , 50"F) - O.VKstarch score)) > 0, then
it is predicted that < 20% of the fruit will scald.

Fruit Notes, V<.lunu- 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

100

■ No DPA

HsoOppm DPA

DlOOOppm DPA

SiSOOppm DPA

§2000ppm DPA
First bar in pair is
Wilbraham
Second bar is HRC

^Trfk^^Cfa ■7br>^&

Harvest =

Days <50F =

Starch =

Predict =

Sept 19/21

14/10

1.9/2.0

> 60%

scald

Oct 3/4
23/21
3.0/2.3

20-60%

scald

Oct 10/11

26/26

3.6/4.5

<20%

scald

Oct 17/19

32/32

4.9/5.9

<20%

scald

Figure 3. Effects of DPA concentration and harvest date on scald development , 1995.

how the dipped fruit fared after storage.

Based on these limited data from 1995, it
appears that the eariest harvested fruit needed
2000 ppm DPA to control scald, but none of the
others did. A 500ppm treatment was adequate
for the second harvest, and DPA provided no
benefit for fruit from the last two harvests. It
should be noted that rating fruit from the last
harvest was difficult since the fruit were in poor
condition, and probably not all superficial
browning was really scald.

All the data included here are from orchards
within 35 miles of the HRC [HRC and Orchards
2 (Wilbraham) and 3 (Storrs, CT) in the
figures], and they have climates similar to that
at the HRC, so it is not clear that these
equations will be appropriate for other areas.
The balance of calendar date, preharvest hours/
days below 50''F, and starch score is important

in generation of the equations. Some may
wonder that increasing the number of
preharvest days below 50°F would increase the
likelihood of scald incidence, and that
decreased starch score (less mature fruit) could
lead to reduced scald resistance. The reason for
this apparent contradiction is that these three
variables are themselves interrelated such
that, for example, scald may decrease with
later harvest, but the rate of decrease may slow
later in the season when the temperature is
cooler and fruit are riper. Because of the
importance of these relationships, and because
the relationships will be different in different
climates, we are expanding the area of data
collection this year to see how effective our
equations are in both cooler and warmer
regions, and we will report on Cortland as well
as Delicious. We should have some results in
the spring!

s^ s^ ^^ ^^ ^^
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

Nutrient Management for Peaches.
I. Introduction to the Factors Affecting
Nutrient iVIanagement

Karen I. Hauschild

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Nutrient management is not only related to
which elements to apply and when but also to
how ground cover, pH, and soil structure affect
nutrient availability and to the economics of
various management approaches. Proper site
management before planting plays an impor-
tant role in the success of an orchard block as
well.

Following is a discussion of the major
factors that affect nutrient availability in peach
orchards. For this discussion the focus will be
on mature plantings on a properly prepared
site.

Orchard- floor Management

Young peach trees are very poor competi-
tors for nutrients and for water. The use of
living ground covers - native or seeded - can
result in poor tree growth, reduced (availability
of) soil moisture, reduced leaf N levels, and
increased problems with insects, diseases, and
nematodes. Results of a study conducted in
peach orchards in North Carolina showed that
after two growing seasons, peach trees grown in
cultivated soil, 25% Bermudagrass, or 50%
Bermudagrass had greater trunk diameters
than peach trees grown with native weed
species, 75% Bermuda grass, or 100%
Bermuda grass. Trees in the smaller of the two
groupings were up to 67% smaller than those in
the larger grouping.

In the late 1980's, studies conducted in
West Virginia suggested that trees grown in
undisturbed killed sod (K-31 tall fescue) had
greater growth and fruit yield than trees grown
in a vegetation-free system. The killed sod
slowed the loss of soil organic matter, increased

water filtration rates, and reduced runoff.

Crop Removal of Nutrients from the
Soil

According to 1973 figures, peaches use the
following pounds of nutrients per acre per year:
79 lbs. nitrogen (N), 21 lbs phosphate (PPg), 90
lbs potash (Kp), 92 lbs calcium (Ca), and 23
lbs. magnesium (Mg). This is not necessarily
the amount of each nutrient that should be
applied. Efficiency of uptake greatly affects the
amount of each element that should be applied
(refer to paragraph below).

Effects ofpH on Nutrient Uptake

Each nutrient has a pH range at which it is
most efficiently taken up by plant roots (Table
1). Because soil pH plays a major role in
nutrient availability, frequent soil testing is
recommended in order to monitor soil pH. The
relative level of each nutrient, as reported in a
soil test analysis, indicates the amount present
in the soil, but not necessarily the amount
available to the plant roots. The pH alone and

Table 1. The effects of pH on the relative
efficiency of uptake of nitrogen (N), phos-
phorus (P), and potassium (K).

Overall

7.0

100

6.0

100

5.5

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

soil moisture level influence uptake. Analysis
results reflect not only what is present in the
soil, but also how available these nutrients
have been to the plants. For this reason, leaf
tissue analysis is a much more reliable
indicator of nutrient levels in the plant itself.

Effects of Water on Nutrient
Availability

All important elements, even under
optimal conditions, must be dissolved in water
(in solution) in order to be taken up by roots.
Fertilizer application is frequently suggested
just before a light rain or to be watered in for
this reason, as well as to avoid volatilization of
the materials applied. Therefore, since all
plants require water, drought stress not only
weakens trees directly but also affects nutrient
availability.

How Nutrients are Applied

In general, the long-term beneficial effects
of fertilizers result from applications to the soil.
Foliar applications, which apply a nutrient
solution onto the leaves or fruit, generally are
prescribed as a rapid way to green up the
leaves, add calcium to fruits, or cure
deficiencies quickly. Also, form of the nutrient
element - N in the ammonium form vs. the
nitrate form, for example - also affects
availability. Crops vary in which form of what
element is best utilized. (This issue will be
discussed in "Part III" of this series of articles.)

These are the major non-economic factors
that influence nutrient management for
peaches. Because each orchard is different,
programs need to be defined for individual
orchards and perhaps each orchard block as
well.

^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^

^^y ^^y ^Jy ^^y ^^y

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

Nutrient Management for Peaches.
II. Identifying Foliar Deficiency
Symptoms During the Growing Season

Karen I. Hauschild

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

Diagnosing nutrient deficiencies based on
observations of foliage and other plant parts is
not a perfect science. With peaches particu-
larly, symptoms of different elemental deficien-
cies can be similar and easily confused with
symptoms of disease or insect damage,
phytotoxicity, or even weather-related prob-
lems. Suspected deficiency must be confirmed
by leaf-tissue analysis. Although there is a fee
for this procedure, that fee is more than
recovered as a result of correcting the deficiency
or through savings from not applying
unnecessary materials. Leaf samples for tissue
analysis give the most reliable results when
leaves are selected just after growth stops but
before plants start translocating nutrients to
their roots for storage over the winter. For
Massachusetts orchardists, the optimal time
for sampling occurs between mid-July and mid-
August. For information on how to take a leaf
sample, contact the UMass Soil and Tissue
Testing Laboratory (413-545-2311), or the
author (413-545-5304).

The following information is presented in
order to aid growers in preliminary identifica-
tion of nutrient deficiencies in peach orchards.

Nitrogen (N)

N deficiency is the most commonly observed
deficiency of stone fruits. Symptoms include
pale-yellowish to light-green leaves, beginning
on older leaves. Leaves may also show red-to-
purple spots that die and drop from affected
leaves, giving leaves a "shot-hole" appearance.
Oldest leaves may abscise. Other s3rmptoms
include decreased shoot and twig growth, small
fruit, or early leaf drop. These symptoms may

be confused with potassium deficiency (see
below), X disease, or captan injury. X-disease
also results in "shot holing." Trees affected with
X-disease however, have tufts of green leaves at
the ends of shoot growth. Tufting is not
normally observed on N-deficient trees.
Captan can result in foliar damage on
susceptible cultivars. Rule out captan if it was
not applied or if the cultivar is known not to be
sensitive.

Phosphorus (P)

P deficiency is not commonly observed in
Massachusetts peach orchards. With defi-
ciency, older leaves appear mottled. Progres-
sive defoliation of older leaves occurs, and
stems and leaf petioles appear purple rather
than green. Yield and size of fruit may be
reduced. Aff'ected fruits are highly colored,
ripen early, have poor quality.

Potassium (K)

K deficiency is most often observed in early
summer on leaves in the middle of shoots.
These leaves become pale in color. There may
also be marginal browning of leaves or leaves
may roll inward. Reduced shoot growth and leaf
size often are a result of K deficiency. In
deficient trees, fewer flower buds are evident,
fruit size is small, and fruits do not color
normally, appearing dull or "dirty" orange. K
deficiency may be confused with N deficiency
(see above), zinc deficiency, or X disease. Zinc
deficiency, however, affects terminal leaves
rather than those in the mid-portion of the
shoot. Leaf spots, shot holes, and tufting are

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

S5rmptoms of X disease not normally associated
with K deficiency.

Magnesium (Mg)

Mg deficiency often occurs on sandy soils, or
in orchards that have received heavy applica-
tions of K. Symptoms include marginal
chlorosis. Chi orotic tissue may die, resulting in
necrosis of leaf margins. The center of the leaf
remains green in an inverted-V pattern. The
oldest leaves are most severely affected and
usually fall in late summer, leaving shoot bases
bare, but tufts of green leaves at shoot tips.
These symptoms may be confused with X
disease (see above), iron deficiency (see
description below), or manganese deficiency.
Manganese deficiency, however, results in
more interveinal chlorosis.

Manganese (Mn)

Mn deficiency is not commonly found on
peaches, but has been observed. Sjonptoms
include interveinal chlorosis fi*om midrib to leaf
margin. Bands of green remain along the veins,
resulting in a herringbone appearance to the
leaves. Symptoms appear throughout the tree.
These s5rmptoms may be confused with Mg
deficiency (see above), iron deficiency (see
below), or zinc deficiency (see below).

Boron (B)

B deficiency has been observed on peaches
in other sections of the United States. Since
peaches are highly sensitive to excess B,
however, boron has not normally been applied
to peach orchards. Symptoms of deficiency
include terminal dieback of twigs with weak
growth below the affected terminals. Buds do

not break in spring. These sjonptoms may be
confused with winter injury.

Iron (Fe)

Fe-deficiency symptoms are common when
pH is too high (sometimes referred to as lime-
induced chlorosis). Symptoms include
interveinal chlorosis with distinct green veins.
Leaves may turn almost totally white.
Terminal leaves are affected first. Symptoms
may be confused with Mn deficiency, Mg
deficiency, or Zinc deficiency. Symptoms of Fe
deficiency are more widespread throughout the
tree than those of Mn deficiency, and symptoms
of Mg deficiency are more prevalent on older
leaves rather than terminal leaves as with Fe
deficiency.

Zinc (Zn)

Zinc deficiency is fairly common, especially
in California. Symptoms include chlorotic,
Interveinal mottling on older leaves. As
severity increases, leaf and shoot growth are
stunted, resulting in a rosetting of little leaves.
Leaves may also show wavy, crinkly margins.
Symptoms may be confused with Mn deficiency
(see above).

Any suspected nutrient deficiency should be
confirmed by leaf analysis. Since deficiency
symptoms can be similar for different
nutrients, leaf analysis is the only definitive
method of confirmation. Note also that
weather factors (for example, drought),
overapplication of certain nutrients, as well as
pH can each affect availability and uptake of
other nutrient elements.

^^ ^j^ ^^ ^^ ^^

^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^

Fruit Notes, volume 61 (Number 4), FaU, 1996

Nutrient Management for Peaches.
III. Developing a Nutrient-management
Program for Your Orchard

Karen I. Hauschild

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences, University of Massachusetts

In Parts I and II of this series of
articles, I described inputs and criteria
that you can use to assess your peach
orchard's nutrient needs. In this
article, I will present information that
will help you provide for the nutritional
needs of your peaches based on all the
inputs given previously as well as on
leaf analysis standards, and on the
composition of alternative sources of
these nutrients.

As mentioned in the previous
articles, peach leaf analysis is the best,
most reliable method for determining
the nutritional status of your trees.
For the most comprehensive data, a
companion soil test will also give the
soil pH, amounts of nutrients in the
soil, and other factors that can help you
assess the most effective, efficient,
economical, and environmentally sound nutri-
ent-management program. To increase the
value of this effort on an orchard-wide basis, be
sure to take samples from all orchard blocks, or
at the very least from blocks that have different
soil types, planting histories, ground covers,
etc. It is essential for a nutrient-management
program to be custom designed for each orchard
block. Although such a process is time
consuming and may be cost ineffective early in
the process, over time this approach will be
beneficial to the trees, land, quality of fruit, and
your bottom line.

Table 1. A typical soil test result.

6.3

buffer pH

6.8

low medium high very high

Nitrogen(N)

XXX

Phosphorus(P)

xxxxxxxxxx

Potassium(K)

xxxxxxxxx

Calcium(Ca)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Magnesium(Mg)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Manganese(Mn)

0.7 ppm

Boron(B)

0.0 ppm

Iron(Fe)

1.2 ppm

Zinc(Zn)

0.3 ppm

Copper(Cu)

0.5 ppm

Soil Test

For tree fruits, soil tests are recommended

primarily to obtain soil pH, but soil tests
provide quidelines on the relative amounts of
major plant nutrients and other factors that
affect soil quality as well. Table 1 gives a
typical soil test.

For tree fruits, buffer pH is used to
determine liming needs. To make a
recommendation, we use species requirements,
soil type, and buffer pH to determine the
appropriate amount of lime that will be
required to bring the pH to 6.5. To decide what
type of lime to use, compare the relative levels
of calcium and magnesium in the soil test. If
the soil shows a higher level of calcium than
magnesium, you should use a high-magnesium
(dolomitic) lime. But if the level of magnesium
is higher than the level of calcium, it would be

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

preferable to use high-calcium lime. In
the past, it was common to apply lime
once every three years, needed or not.
Recently, more frequent application is
recommended on an as-prescribed basis.
The proper pH maintains the availabil-
ity of many of the nutrients that peach
trees require. Therefore, proper pH, and
periodic soil analyses are important to
your nutrient-management program.

In general, your soil test should show
pH or the amount of lime required to
reach a specific pH, and the amounts of
nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K),
calcium (Ca), and magnesium (Mg). These
levels should all be high to very high, except for
P. We normally are not concerned with P
unless the level is very low. P is applied prior to
planting, if needed, and then basically ignored.
Leaf-tissue analysis fine-tunes this informa-
tion and accurately determines the levels of
these elements in the plants themselves.

Leaf-tissue Analysis

For fruit trees, leaf-tissue analysis is the
best method for determining nutrient needs.
Table 2 gives the results of a typical leaf-tissue
analysis. The next step is to compare these
actual test results with standards that have
been developed for peaches (Table 3). The ones
we use were developed by Cornell University.
Boron is a controversial element with peaches.
The standard recommendation has been to
apply five pounds of borax per ton of fertilizer
before planting. More recent recommendations
are to apply a small amount of boron
periodically. The nutrient management
program for each tree or block of trees can now
be developed based on soil and tissue test
results that are presented here and other
factors that may be present in this test site.

A general rule of thumb is to increase/
decrease the past rate of each nutrient by 10%
for each 0.1 variation from the standards given
for that element. For example, the N level in
our sample is 2.30%. It should be between 3.0
and 3.5%. Therefore, the rate of N applied the
year of application that these tests will be based

Table 2. A typical leaf analysis result.

Element

Results

(%)

Element

Result
(ppm)

Nitrogen (N) 2.30

Phosphorus (P) 0.25
Potassium (K) 1.25
Calcium (Ca) 1.35

Magnesium (Mg) 0.45

Zinc (Zn) 22

Copper (Cu) 4

Manganese (Mn) 27
Iron (Fe) 47

Boron (B) 54

Table 3. Leaf tissue standards for peach
leaves.*

Element

Short Optimum Excess

Nitrogen 3.00 3.00-3.50 3.7

Potassium 1.25 1.50-2.50 2.50

Calcium 1.35 1.35-1.50 ?

Magnesium 0.25 0.35-0.50 0.50
Boron

Copper (ppm) 5 7-10 10

Manganese (ppm) 25 90-110 110

Zinc (ppm) 15 25-50 50

* SHORT: usually requires corrective

measures; deficiency symptoms should be
seen. OPTIMUM: the nutrient-manage-
ment program currently in use is adequate
to maintain nutrient levels required for
current tree and crop-load conditions.
EXCESS: amount of nutrient applied
should be reduced or eliminated until future
leaf-analyses indicate otherwise.

on should be at least 70% higher than that of
the previous year. The harder decision to make
is if the test results were 0.7 higher (4.2) rather
than lower than the standard level. For apples,
it commonly takes several years for N levels to
decrease where test results have shown them to
be very high. It may be wise to eliminate N in
fertilizer applications for at least one year if the
tissue tests show N levels to be 50% or more
above recommended levels. These decisions
also can be further complicated when

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

Table 4. Composition (by percent) of various

fertilizers.

Product

P.O,

K,0

B Mn

10-10-10

Ammonium sulfate

Diammonium phosphate
Urea

17
46

Concentrated superphosphate
Monammonium phosphate
Potassium chloride (muriate of potash)
Potassium magnesium sulfate (Sul-Po-Mag)
Potassium sulfate

60
22
50

Limestone (high-calcium lime)

Dolomitic lime (high-mag lime)

Gypsum

Magnesium sulfate (epsom salts)

Borate (fertilizer grade)

Borax

15
10

45
10
22

14
11

Solubor

Manganese sulfate

considering predicted crop load, levels of other
essential elements, and the history of that
particular tree or block of trees. Once you have
become familiar with your trees or orchard
blocks, it becomes easier to use the above
guidelines in determining the rates of nutrients
that are required by your trees. Other factors
that should be considered as well are soil type,
amount of water in the soil, or predicted rainfall
around the time you plan to apply nutrients.

Nutrient-management Plan

As described earlier in this series of articles,
peaches respond best to soil-applied nutrients,
and these should be applied as soon as possible
in the spring. For our growing conditions, this
usually means late April or even early May.
Once the frost has left the ground, we usually
have excessive soil moisture for some time
making it difficult to apply fertilizers with
ground equipment. Also, it takes a few weeks
for soil temperatures to warm enough for plant
roots to start functioning. Ideally, the
nutrients that are needed should be applied so
that when the roots are ready to start working,

the nutrients are readily available. Under our
growing conditions this time still is usually late
April to mid-May.

An additional factor to consider in
developing a nutrient management program is
whether or not the crop you are fertilizing
responds only to a specific form of any or all
nutrient elements. For example, some plants
respond to N only when it is in the ammonium
form, while others prefer nitrate N. Other
plants are highly susceptible to chlorine and
will not tolerate K in the chloride form. With
peaches, there is no evidence to show that
either form of N is preferable. However, stone
fruits are sensitive to chlorine. Therefore,
muriate of potash (KCl) generally is not
recommended for peaches. (There is some
evidence, though, that muriate of potash can be
applied safely if the application is made in the
fall rather than in the spring.)

Often it is possible to supply more than one
nutrient with only one nutrient source. It is in
many instances the cheapest, easiest method of
applying both these nutrients. For other
elements, the reverse may be true, i.e. it is
easier and may be less expensive to apply 10-

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

10-10 even though peaches do not require P
after planting.

To develop a nutrient-management plan for
your orchard rather than appl3dng pre-mixed
standard or orchard fertilizers, you should
consider the points mentioned above. Also,
realize that different nutrient sources are
available (Table 4). Also be aware of
environmental hazards and monetary loss
when overapplying nutrients. Remember, too,
that some nutrients can be toxic when levels
become too high (for example, boron). After
considering all the above, factor in cost. It may
cost a little more to apply what's required, but
in the long run, the financial cost may balance
out, and side effects such as environmental
pollution, toxicity, etc. will be avoided.

Using the information presented in this
series of articles should help you formulate a
nutrient management program that makes
efficient use of inputs for maximum effect on
your crop.

References (for the 3-article series)

Bennett, W.F. (ed.). 199S. Nutrient Deficiencies
and Toxicities in Crop Plants. APS Press, St.
Paul, MN.

Ferree, R.J. 1961. Peach Nutrition. In: Better
Crops with plant food. American Potash
Institute, Inc., Washington, D.C.

LaRue, J.H. and R.S. Jackson (eds.). 1989.
Peaches, Plums, and Nectarines: Growing and
Handling for Fresh Market. Pub. 3331, Coop.
Extension, Univ. of California, Oakland, CA.

Stiles, W.C. and W.S. Reid. 1991. Orchard
Nutrition Management. Info. Bull. 219, Cornell
Cooperative Extension, Ithaca, NY.

Walker, W.V. and D.M. Glenn. 1990. Peach tree
growth as influenced by grass species used in a
killed-sod planting system. HortScience 25:
514-515.

^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), FaU, 1996

Tax Pointers for Farmers and
Landowners in 1996 and Planning
Notes for 1 997

P. Geoffrey Allen

Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts

Tax advice given below is intended as
general advice and is believed to be correct. It
does not substitute for a detailed review of the
circumstances of an individual taxpayer by a
professional tax practitioner. For more details,
you and your tax adviser may wish to consult the
sources referenced in the square brackets [thus]
(see footnote) .

Follow Up from 1995's Tax Pointers

Neither the tax credit of $500 for each
dependent child nor the reduction in long-term
capital gains taxes passed into law in 1996.
This perhaps illustrates the unwiseness of
managing your business around future tax law
changes.

New Tax Legislation

Three pieces of legislation that between
them contain many tax-related provisions were
enacted into law in the last year. The
Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 establishes the
office of Taxpayer Advocate, intended to assist
taxpayers in resolving problems with the IRS,
and provides other taxpayer protections. If you
have to make installment payments, are
subject to collection, or have similar dealings
with the IRS, be sure that your tax preparer or
attorney is fully aware of your new rights under
the law. There is one minor obligation of the
taxpayer: where you previously gave your
name and address to a payee (on Forms W-2,
1099, etc.) you must now also include your
telephone number. [Rights 2, §1201). Changes
brought about by the Health Care Portabil-
ity and Accountability Act and the Small

Business Job Protection Act (also known as
the Minimum Wage Increase Act) are

described below.

Health Insurance for the Self Employed

If you are a self-employed individual
eligible to take a deduction for health insurance
(on Form 1040 line 26, in 1995 and 1996 at the
rate of 30%), then in 1997 you will be able to
deduct 40% of the cost of health insurance paid
for yourself and your family. The amount
increases to 45% in 1998 and ultimately (by
2006) to 80%. [Health Act §311].

Medical Savings Accounts (MSA's)

Beginning in 1997, MSA's are available to
employees covered under an employer-spon-
sored high-deductible plan (if the employer is a
small employer) and to self-employed individu-
als. With a structure somewhat like an
individual retirement account (IRA) an MSA is
intended to provide funds free of taxes for
medical expenses (not health insurance).
Within limits, contributions to an MSA by an
eligible individual are deductible from taxable
income, employer contributions are excludable
from income, interest earned on funds in the
MSA is not taxable, and distributions from the
MSA for medical expenses are generally
excludable from income. The dollar limits of
contributions and the terms italicized above
are defined in the Act. This is a pilot program
and the total number of plans that can be set up
nationwide in any one year is limited. Any self-
employed person or small employer not
participating by December 31, 2000, loses the

Fruit Notes, volume 6I (Number 4), Fall, 1996

right to set up an MSA. [Health Act §301].

Withdrawals from IRA's for
Medical Expenses

The 10% additional tax applied to
withdrawals from IRA's made before age 59.5 is
now waived if the withdrawn cash is used to
pay for medical expenses in excess of 7.5% of
adjusted gross income, (i.e. if there is, or would
be, a medical expense deduction on Schedule A
of Form 1040.) [Health Act §361(a)].

Long-term Care Insurance

Beginning in 1997, long-term insurance
premiums that do not exceed specified dollar
limits are treated as medical expenses and
deducted on Schedule A (subject to a floor of
7.5% of adjusted gross income). The eligible
amount is age dependent, ranging from $200
for individuals aged 40 or less at the close of the
tax year, to $2,500 for individuals aged over 70.
For self-employed individuals, eligible long-
term care insurance premiums are treated the
same way as health insurance. [Health Act
§§321-327].

S Corporations

There are many changes in laws affecting S
corporations including: (a) may have 75
shareholders [SBA§1301]; (b) a small business
that terminated S status before August 20,
1996 (date of enactment) may re-elect S status
without the five-year wait [SEA §1317]; and (c)
basis of S corporation stock acquired by
inheritance is treated the same way as an
inheritance from a partnership [SEA §1313].
Most changes are effective from January 1,
1997. In most cases, a small business
contemplating a change to S corporation status
will find that the simplicity and protection
afforded by a limited liability company (LLC)
makes the LLC a better option.

As an aside, a farm general or limited
partnership may want to consider forming a
Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). This gives
a general partner essentially the same
protection as a limited partner has now, while

retaining the ability to exercise management
control. Making a change to LLP could subject
a formerly limited partner to self-emplo5TTient
tax. The partner might begin to participate
materially in management while previously he
or she did not meet the material-participation
test for self-emplo3rment tax purposes. The IRS
taxes LLP's and LLC's in the same way as
partnerships.

FUTA Exemption Extended
Permanently

For labor performed on or after January 1,
1995, the Federal unemplo5rment (FUTA) tax
exemption for alien agricultural workers is
extended permanently. [SEA §1203].

Minimum Wage Increased

The minimum wage increased from $4.25
per hour to $4.75 per hour for the year
beginning October 1, 1996 and will increase to
$5.15 per hour beginning September 1, 1997.
[SEA §2104].

Section 179 Expensing Amounts
Increased

Starting January 1, 1997 there is a gradual
increase in the amount of personal property
used in a trade or business that can be
expensed. In 1997, it is $18,000 and $18,500 in
1998, rising to $25,000 in 2003. Horses that
meet the requirement of section 179(d) are
eligible for expensing. Euilding components are
not eligible (since they are not treated as
personal property). [SEA §llll(a) and
§1702(h)(19)]. Note that section-179 expensing
is taken on a property for the year that the
property is placed in service not for the year
that it is acquired. If you have used up all or
most of your section 179 amount during the
year, consider purchasing equipment just
before the end of the year, then waiting until
next year to start using it. Take a section-179
deduction for the year after the year you
purchased the equipment. (See also "Deprecia-
tion" below.)

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

Depreciation of Fruit and Nut
Trees and Vines

The difference between date purchased
and date placed in service is important.
Example: Andy Mcintosh purchased an
orchard of two-year-old apple trees in 1995 and
paid $20,000. He has $2,000 of pre-production
expenses. The trees are expected to produce
their first fruit in 1997. Andy will begin
depreciating the orchard in 1997 (as long as he
harvests some fi-uit) the year placed in service.
He can use straight-line depreciation over a 10-
year life under MACRS or over the alternative
MACRS life of 20 years. (If he elected out of
capitalizing pre-production expenses he must
use the alternative 20-year life. [IRC
§263A(d)(3)].) Note that Andy can claim up to
$18,000 section-179 expense deduction if the
trees are placed in service in 1997. [IRC
§179(d)(l), IRC §1245(a)(3)].

Capitalization of Nursery Stock

Conflict exists on the rules of whether
production costs must be capitalized or may be
deducted as current expenses. Pre-productive
costs of plants with a pre-productive period of
more than two years must be capitalized [IRC
§263A]. This is partly a question of intent. For
example, it is hard to conceive that a Christmas
tree would be sold after such a short period.
However, if plants (e.g., ornamental trees or
shrubs) have reached a marketable size and
stage of development and the market value is
known, then the maintenance costs are
currently deductible. Other than for Christmas
trees, current deductibility of costs would seem
to apply to every plant produced by a nursery.

Sale of Farm with Retained
Use of the Home

Selling a principal residence while retain-
ing the right to live there (a retained life estate)
precludes you from claiming the exclusion for
gain of sale of a principal residence. Example:
Florence Hadley, a 70-year-old widow, sold her
farm, including the house, but retained the
right to live in the house for the rest of her life.

The fair market value of the house at $150,000
exceeded the basis at time of purchase.
Florence has a taxable capital gain. She has
the right to use and benefit from the property
without paying rent. The sale of a principal
residence, for purposes of claiming the capital-
gains exclusion, is accomplished only when the
benefits and burdens of ownership are
transferred to the purchaser. [Roy vs.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1995-23 (January
18, 1995)].

Optional Self-employment Tax
for Farmers

You may have a very small amount of self-
employment income. However, you might want
to report more farm income than you actually
made, in order to qualify for certain social-
security benefits, to claim credit for child-care
or dependent expenses, or to increase the
amount of earned-income credit. You would use
the farm-optional method of reporting self-
employment income.

A materially participating farmer can
elect to use the farm-optional method if either
(a) taxpayer's gross farm income is $2,400 or
less, in which case the taxpayer can report 2/3
of the gross farm income as net farm self-
employment income or (b) taxpayer's gross
farm income exceeds $2,400 but net farm
profits are less than $1,733, in which case
taxpayer reports $1,600 as net farm self-
employment income. The election can be used
an unlimited number of times. [IRC §1402 (a)].
The provisions allow a taxpayer to earn up to
two quarters of coverage per year for social
security purposes. (In 1996, $640 of net self-
employment income is required to earn one
quarter of coverage). Check your past
employment history to see whether or not you
need the two quarters of coverage to be
currently insured or fully insured or both.
Within the social-security system, to receive
retirement benefits, you must be fully insured.
To receive disability benefits, you must be
currently insured. To receive survivor's
benefits or lump-sum death benefits, you must
be either fully insured or currently insured. To

Fruit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), Fall, 1996

be fully insured you must have either (a) 40
quarters of coverage (exceptions for workers
born before 1929) or (b) one quarter of coverage
for each year the worker is over 21 (not
counting the year of death), with a minimum of
6 quarters. To be currenly insured, if you are
aged less than 24 years, you must have six
quarters of coverage in the preceding three
years. If you are between 24 and 31, you must
have one quarter of coverage for each half year
over age 21 (example: if aged 26, 26-21=5 years,
requires 10 quarters coverage). If you are 31 or
older, you must have 20 quarters in the
preceding 10 years.

Example: John Grower had been farming
since 1988. Although he had gross profits in
some years and losses in others he and his tax
preparer had followed a tax planning strategy
that enabled John to report net farm losses for
every year. John was killed in a tractor accident
in July 1996, leaving a wife and two young
children. He was 32 years old. John never
elected the optional farm method of reporting
self-employment income, consequently he had
no quarters of social security coverage on the
day he died. His wife and children do not appear
to be eligible for survivor's benefits. However, if
the 1996 return will show a net farm income of
at least $2,560, then four quarters of SE
coverage are available under option (a). By
amending John's returns fi-om 1993 to 1995
(years whose statute of limitations for
amendment has not expired) and using option
(b), $1600 of net farm income can be reported
each year, giving two quarters of coverage for
each of those years for a total of 10 quarters of
coverage. This is just the amount needed to
provide for full coverage (fi-om age 22 to age 31,
using full coverage method (b) ). Note: if the
accident had left John permanently disabled,
he would receive no disability benefits from
social security since he cannot obtain the 20
quarters of coverage needed to be fully insured.

Employment Taxes for Farm Labor

Almost every farmer who employs a worker
for more than a few months a year (except for
harvest workers paid by piecework) will be
subject to FICA taxes and to federal-income-tax
withholding. A farmer who in any quarter
employs the equivalent of about four full-time
workers must also pay FUTA.

If total payroll in a year exceeds $2,500, all
wages, except those paid at piecework rates for
harvest, are subject to FICA taxes. The
employer must withhold 7.65% from employees
wages and also contribute 7.65% employer
share. (There are exceptions for an employee
paid over $62,700).

An employer must also withhold income tax
unless wages are exempt fi-om FICA. The
withholding amount should be calculated fi-om
information given by each employee on form W-
4 or, failing that information, at the highest
(emergency) rate.

If employment taxes are less than $500 in a
year, the entire amount may be paid with the
employment tax return (Form 943). If
employment taxes are more than $500 and less
than $50,000 in the lookback period (the
calendar year two years prior to the current
year) payment is monthly. If more than
$50,000, deposits must be made twice a week.

Footnotes

[Health Act], Health Care Portability and
Accountability Act (H.R. 3103, enacted as
Public Law 104-191 on August 21, 1996); [IRC],
Internal Revenue Code; [Rights 2], Taxpayer
Bill of Rights 2 (H.R. 2337, enacted as PubUc
Law 104-168 on July 30, 1996); [SBA], Small
Business Job Protection Act, also known as the
Minimum Wage Increase Act (H.R. 3448,
enacted as Pubhc Law 104-188 on August 20,
1996); [T.C. Memo], Tax Court Memorandum.'

* *^ ^^ ^^ *^
^* ^P ^^ ^^

FfUit Notes, Volume 61 (Number 4), FaO, 1996

Fruit Notes

University of Massachusetts

Department of Plant & Soil Sciences

205 Bowditch Hall

Amherst, MA 01003

Nonprofit Organization
U.S. Postage Paid

Permit No. 2
Amherst, MA 01002

SERIAL SECTION

UNIV. OF MASSACHUSETTS LIBRARY

AMHERST MA 01003

1
I

59 53

Account No. 3-20685

ACME

BOOKBINDING CO., INC.

JUN 2 1997

100 CAMBRIDGE STREET

Qtimjosiomimst