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
*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

(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


Search: Advanced Search	UploadAnonymous User (login or join us)