Innovative ThinKing Progress with Two Mechanical Fruit Thinners Jim Schupp and Tara Baugher Penn State University Steve Miller USDA-ARS 2009
Jan 17, 2015
Innovative ThinKingProgress with Two
Mechanical Fruit Thinners
Jim Schupp and Tara Baugher Penn State University
Steve MillerUSDA-ARS
2009
GOAL: To Increase Crop Valueby Reducing Hand Thinning
and Increasing Fruit Size
GOAL: To Increase Crop Valueby Reducing Hand Thinning
and Increasing Fruit Size
o4 mechanical thinner prototypes
oPeach trees trained to perpendicular V (2007, 2008) or vase (2008)
Horticultural and Economic Evaluations
May 2008 covers: AFG, WFG & FGN
White Lady
Blossom Thinned with String Thinner
Hand Thinned
USDA Specialty CropResearch Initiative
Innovative Technologies for Thinning of Fruit PSU, UC Davis, Clemson, WSU, UMD, UIL, USDA
Non-Selective and Selective Thinning
Non-Selective Thinning Investigations
In Cooperation with WSU, UC Davis, Clemson, USDA
o Mechanical Thinning at Various Bud Stageso Modifying Pruning Practices to Improve Access by
Mechanical Thinnerso Various combinations of labor efficient thinning
methods
2009 – First Year of Trials for Multi-State Cooperators
-Second Year of Trials in 12 PA Orchard Blocks
New String Technology 2009
Four On, Four Off
VarietyRotations
Per Minute
Miles Per Hour
Red Haven 200 1
2 On, 2 Off
Variety TimingRotations
Per Minute
Miles Per
Hour
White Lady Pink 150 &
180 2
PF 17 Pink 180 2
2 On, 2 Off Opposing
Variety TimingRotations
Per Minute
Miles Per
Hour
Red Haven Pink 160 1
New Strings Compared to OldPerp V
Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2 on 2 off, opposing sides, 150 rpm
2 on 4 off, 180 rpm (old strings)
2 on 2 off, opposing sides, 180 rpm
Scaffold Portion
Perc
enta
ge o
f Blo
ssom
s Re
mov
ed
New Strings Compared to OldVase
Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
4 on 4 off, 200 rpm (old strings)
2 on 2 off, 150 rpm
Full 9 strings, 150 rpm
Selected Branch
Perc
enta
ge o
f Blo
ssom
s Re
mov
ed
Timing Study- 2008
• Blossom thinning with the string thinner more effective between 20% bloom and petal fall than at earlier bud stages – Flower removal– Fruit set– Hand thinning requirement
• All timings effective for increasing fruit size
Timing Study 2009
1. Hand thinned control2. String thin, 80% bloom3. String thin, pink, 1 pass4. String thin, pink, 2 passes5. String thin, petal fall
String Thinner Timing2009
Flowers Set Hand thin0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
80% FBP 150P 120PF%
Red
uctio
n
Timing Summary 2008-09
• Easier visual assessment of flower removal when bloom is open
• Pink (08): greater set - similar increase in size• Pink (09): more thinning than at 80% bloom• PF (09): more effective than earlier stages
Pruning Studies 2008-09Perpendicular V1. Standard, HTC2. Standard3. Fan4. Partial5. Detail6. Non-pruned
Open Center7. Standard, HTC8. Standard9. Partial10. Detail
Pruning EffectsPerp. V 2009
Flowers Set Hand Thinning0
10
20
30
40
50
60
NoneStandardDetail
Pruning EffectsOpen Center 2009
Flowers Set Hand Thinning0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
PartialStandardDetail
Perpendicular V and Open Center
Most Consistent Results
Detail Pruning
New Drum Shaker
Thinning Combinations, 2009
1. Hand thinned control2. String thin, 60% bloom3. NEW Drum Shaker, 60% bloom4. NEW Drum Shaker, 35 DAFB5. NEW Drum Shaker, 60% B + 35 DAFB
Peach Drum Shaker 2009
Fruit set Hand thinning time0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
DS 35 DAFBDarwin 60 BDS 60 BDS 60B + 35%
Red
uctio
n
Combinations Summary 2008-09
• String thinner at bloom / drum shaker for green fruit thinning an effective combo
• Need more work on drum shaker at bloom / drum shaker for green fruit thinning
• New drum shaker at green fruit stage more consistent than previous citrus shaker prototypes– Smaller rods, tilting drums, front or side-mount
Implications for Growers
• Mechanical thinners are consistent in both reducing labor costs and increasing fruit size
• Blossom thinning with string thinner is viable and commercially available option
• Green fruit thinning with drum shaker is promising/ under development
• In future, combinations of bloom and fruit thinners may – help growers better target fruit loads with little hand thinning– Reduce risk of over-thinning
Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research, extension, and resident education programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsements by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.
This publication is available in alternative media on request.The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State University. Direct all inquiries
regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY.
J. Schupp1,T. Auxt Baugher2, S. Miller3, K. Ellis2, Edwin Winseler1,
K. Reichard1, J. Remcheck2, S. Wolford3, M. Schupp1, C. Musselman2, A. Leslie2, R. Rohrbaugh2, J. Koan2, C. Anders2, E. Moore1, T. Kon1, C.
Kuntz1
1Penn State Fruit Research and Extension Center, Biglerville, PA2 Penn State Cooperative Extension in Adams County, Gettysburg,
PA3 USDA-ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station, Kearneysville, WV
The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of
A. Betz, S. Betz, D. Kilmer, R. Fitzpatrick, P. Baugher, S. Aguilar, C. Baugher, J. Cline, A. Diaz, B. Hollabaugh, D. Kuhn, K. Lesser,
J. Lott, D. Lott, C. McCleaf, D. Mickey, E. Rankin, T. Salada, D. Wenk, and B. Wenk The authors greatly appreciate the financial support of
The State Horticultural Association of Pennsylvania Extension Committee, the Washington State Tree Fruit Research Commission,
The USDA Specialty Crops Research Initiative Program, the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development First
Industries Program, the Penn State College of Agriculture Seed Grant and Sunday Grant Programs,
the Pennsylvania Peach and Nectarine Board, the California Canning Peach Association, and the Robert C. Hoffman Foundation
For more information, please visit
http://www.abe.psu.edu/scri/