Meadow orchrad in guava

Meadow orchard in

Contents

1) INTRODUCTION2) DIFFERENT TYPES OF PLANTING SYSTEM 3) CONCEPT OF MEADOW ORCHARD 4) COMPONENTS OF MEADOW ORCHARD 5) ESTABLISHMENT OF MEADOW ORCHARD 6) REVIEW OF LITERATURE7) CONCLUSION

2

INTRODUCTION Guava is an important fruit crop in tropical and subtropical regions of the country due to the hardy nature of its tree and prolific bearing even in marginal lands.

Its cultivation requires little care and inputs. But, of late, this crop has exhibited a paradigm shift in the production system, from subsistence farming to commercial production.

3

4

Major guava producing country in world

5

Major guava growing states in India

6

Production share of Guava in India

(Anonymous, 2013)

Country wise share of export of guava from India

7 (Anonymous, 2013)

Strength The country is endowed with climatic condition for large cultivation.

Number of cultivars and their adoption in different agro climatic condition make the guava produce available.

Network research infrastructure to support the development.

Different season of availability of guava crop.

Changing dietary habit with rise in income would need more guava produce.8

Weakness

9

Inadequate database in guava. Inadequate supply of quality plant material of improved cultivars.

Inadequate trained human resource for technology dissemination.

High incidence of pest and guava wilt (most destructive disease)

Lack of adoption of improved technology.

Why Meadow Orcharding ? The traditional system of cultivation has often posed problems in attaining desired levels of productivity due to large tree canopy hence a need arose to improve the existing production system, besides increasing its productivity.

Currently, there is a worldwide trend to plant fruit trees at high density to control tree size and maintain desired architecture for better light interception and ease in operations such as pruning, pest control and harvesting. Meadow Orcharding enhances production and quality of fruits.

10

Non intensive, age old planting system, trees planted at wide spacing, accommodating about 100-250 plants/ha.

Less input and care intensive, holds popularity among growers.

Output from orchard during early 5-10 years is less.

Pruning done at minimal level, orchard raised so as to favour maximum development of trees..Trees acquire commercial production potential after 7-10 year of planting.

1) Low density planting:

Different types of planting

11

Highly minimized distance covering 250-500 plants/ha.

Lead in output reliable growers to produce amenable fruit crops like pomegranate, citrus, guava, papaya, banana, etc.

Proper pruning undertaken to manage tree in desirable shape.More care intensive, labour requirement is more, obtained yield is also more.

2) Medium density planting


12

Very condensing planting with 500-5000 plants/ha.

Required heavy pruning. Yield as well as expenses per unit area is high.

Ultra-high density:– 2,000-5,000 plants/ha.

Medium high density:– 500-1,000 plants/ha.Optimum high density:– 1,000-2,000 plants/ha.

3) High density planting


13

Meadow-grassland, also known as Ultra-high density planting.

Heavy use of growth regulators as well as pruning

Plants intended to produce yield after 2 years age.

5,000-1, 00,000 plants/ha in order to maintain tree formSever top pruning is practiced similar to mowing of grassland.

4) Meadow Orchard


14

Planting system

Spacing (meter)

Density of plant /ha

Low density 8×8 156

Medium density 6×6 277

High density 3×3 1111

Ultra-High density 3×1.5 2222

Meadow Orcharding 2×1 5000

Table 1. Different spacing and density of plants/ha of guava

15

16CISH, Lucknow

The Meadow Orchard is a modern method of fruit cultivation.

There is a shift in farmers' perception from production to productivity and profitability.

Achieved through high density planting.

Concept of Meadow Orchard

17

Recently, there is a trend to plant fruit trees at closer spacing leading to high density or meadow orchard.Higher and quality production is achieved from densely planted orchards through judicious canopy management and adoption of suitable tree training systems.A comparison between meadow orchard system and the traditional system of fruit growing is necessary to evaluate the potentiality of this technique.

Concept of Meadow Orchard

18

Attributes Traditional system Meadow system Bearing After two years From first year

Production Average yield is 12-20 t ha-1

Average yield is 40-60 t ha-1

ManagementDifficult to manage due to

large tree size

Easy to manage due to small tree size

Labour requirement

Requires more labour Requires less labour

Production cost Higher cost of

productionLower cost of production

Quality

Large canopy, poor sunlight

penetration and poor quality

fruits

Small canopy better air and sunlight penetration ,minimum disease incidence and high quality fruit with good colour development.

19

Table 2. Comparison between traditional system and meadow orchard system of guava

Singh (2010)CISH, Lucknow

Maximum fruiting branches.

Minimum structural branches.Better utilization of solar radiation.Increase the photosynthetic efficiency.Due to the dwarf tree minimum operation cost.More trees per unit area leading to higher income.

Advantage of Meadow Orcharding

20

Component for meadow orchard system

21 Singh (2013)CISH, Lucknow

Dwarf Suitable

to market

Varieties Root

stock Plant

utilize maximum light

Suitable to guava

well fertile

Near to source

Water INM IPM

True to type

Healthy Free from

disease & pest

Plant trained for making dwarf canopy

22

Establishing Meadow OrchardMeadow Orchard System is a new concept of guava planting which has been developed for the first time in India at Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture , Lucknow

Planting The planting is done at 2.0 m (row to row) x 1.0 m (plant to plant), which gives a density of 5000 plants ha-1.

23

First pruning The tree are pruned and trained three time in a year to allow maximum production of quality fruit during the first year.

A single trunk tree with no interfering branches up to 30-40 cm from the ground level is desirable to make dwarf tree architecture

After a period of 1-2 month of planting all the tree are topped at a uniform height of 30-40 cm from the ground level initiation of new growth below the cut and no side shoot or branch should remain after topping.

This is done to make a single trunk straight up to 40 cm height.

24

First pruning

Growth after first pruning

Topping at height of 30 to 40 cm from the

ground level

25

Second pruning After 15-20 days of topping new shoot emerge. In general, 3-4 shoot are retained from below the cut point after topping . As shoot mature generally after a period of 3-4 month, they are reduced by 50 percent of their total length so that new shoot emerge below the cut Point. This is done to attain the desirable tree canopy architecture and strong frame work.

26

Second pruning

CISH, Lucknow

27

Third pruning The emerged shoot are allow to grow for 3-4 month before they are again pruned by 50 per cent. After pruning, new shoot emerge on which flowering take place.It is emphasized that shoot pruning is done thrice a year. This leads to desired canopy development. Though fruiting starts in the same year. Pruning is continued so that plants remain dwarf. After a year, pruning operation is done especially in May-June, September-October and January-February.

28

Third pruning

CISH, Lucknow

Initiation of new shoot and flowering after shoot pruning

29CISH, Lucknow

Re-pruning of shoot (above the fruiting point) of shoot for initiation of new shoot

30CISH, Lucknow

New shoot emerge after re-pruning and flowering take place

31CISH, Lucknow

Pruned tree is heavily Fruiting

32CISH, Lucknow

33

Overview of meadow orchard

CISH, Lucknow

34



Continue..

37

Back pruning 50 per cent removal of entire plant

CISH, Lucknow

38

Growth pattern and fruiting under meadow orchard

1st year 2nd yearCISH, Lucknow

39

Growth pattern and fruiting under meadow orchard

3rd year 4th yearCISH, Lucknow

40

41

Varieties No of new shoot

Flowering(%)

Fruit set(%)

Yield (kg/plant)

Sardar 18.5 86.4 54.3 7.23

Sweta 17.0 44.0 49.1 8.14

CISH-G-5 15.0 51.4 49.7 8.39

CISH-G-6 14.4 57.8 51.0 7.11

Lalit 13.6 72.4 48.7 8.51Allahabad Safeda 13.4 64.4 48.4 7.16

Hybrid seedling 10.6 37.6 54.4 4.20

CD(0.05) 2.33 3.10 3.14 1.3

42

Table 3. Influence of topping hedging on no of new shoot, flowering, fruit set and yield of different

varieties of guava under meadow orchard.


Treatment

Fruit Weight

(g)

Fruit lengt

h(cm)

Fruit width(cm)

TSS Brix

Acidity(%)

Ascorbic

acid(mg

100/g)

Total sugar(%)

Sardar 165.0 7.2 7.0 11.3 0.31 162.6 8.2Sweta 142.6 6.9 6.9 12.0 0.29 180.0 8.3

CISH-G-5 126.0 6.2 6.3 10.90 0.34 169.3 8.6CISH-G-6 138.5 6.8 6.9 12.1 0.27 165.0 8.4Lalit 113.0 5.5 7.2 11.4 0.31 171.3 8.4

Allahabad Safeda 150.0 6.8 6.7 9.9 0.34 169.3 7.5

Hybrid seedling 91.0 4.9 4.6 10.0 0.34 189.2 7.4

CD (0.05) 2.92 0.38 0.22 0.78 0.05 11.03 0.3743

Table 4. Influence of topping and hedging on fruit quality of different varieties under meadow orchard.


44CISH, Lucknow

Spacing

45

Densities

1st Year

2nd Year

3rd Year

4th Year

5th Year

6th

Year7th

Year1.5×3.0

m 26.0 38.0 47.0 52.0 55.0

3.0×3.0 m 18.0 26.0 30.0 35.0 38.0

6.0×3.0 m 11.0 17.0 24.0 28.0 31.0

6.0×6.0 m 6.0 12.0 15.0 19.0 27.0

2.0×1.0 m 13.0 25.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

46 Singh (2008)

Table 5. Guava yield obtained under different densities (tonnes/ha).

CISH, Lucknow

47

Spacing(m)

Cost Benefit Ratio

1st year

2nd year

3rd year

4th year

5th year

6th year

7th year

2.0 x 1.0 2.68 3.38 3.44 3.67

3.0 x 1.5 1.56 1.72 1.95 2.16 2.34

3.0 x 3.0 1.79 1.89 1.96 2.02 2.13

6.0 x 3.0 1.18 1.46 1.86 1.88 2.02

CISH, Lucknow Singh (2008)

Table 6. Economic analysis of B:C ratio of one hectare at different spaced planting.

47

Year

Total expendit

ure

Production

(tonne)

Gross return

Net income

Cost benefit ratio

1st 161183 13 78000 0 0

2nd 40711 25 150000 109289 2.86

3rd 54686 40 240000 185314 3.38

4th 67507 50 300000 232493 3.44

5th 76945 60 360000 283055 3.67

Table 7. Economic analysis of establishment, maintaining, and return from one hectare meadow orchard spaced at 2×1 m (5000 plant ha-1)

CISH, Lucknow Singh (2008)48

49

Trea

tmen

t

Number of flowers shoot-1

Fruit set (%) Fruit retention (%)

2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008

I0 (no pruning ) 35.47 41.67 42.02 44.03 41.09 43.22

I1(pruning of 25% previous season

growth)47.53 54.33 42.42 44.37 41.50 43.39

I2 (pruning of 50% previous season growth)

42.73 49.20 43.68 45.06 42.25 44.60


growth)37.12 43.67 44.51 46.43 42.99 46.09

SEm ± 0.757 0.866 1.053 0.529 0.757 0.388

CD 5% 2.136 2.480 3.015 1.514 2.169 1.110

Table 8. Effect of pruning intensity on number of flowers shoot-1 ,fruit set and fruit retention in guava

under meadow orchard.

50MPUAT, Udaipur Pilania Shalini (2009)

Table 9. Effect of pruning intensity on number of fruit and fruit yield (q/ha) in guava under meadow orchard.

Treatment

Number of fruits /plant

Yield (kg/plant)

Yield (q/ha)

2007 2008 Pooled Pooled

I0 (no pruning ) 40.0 52.0 4.18 240.48I1(pruning of 25% previous season

growth)31.80 41.20 4.68 254.26

I2 (pruning of 50% previous season

growth)37.20 45.60 3.13 256.27


growth)40.87 51.0 4.94 275.71

SEm ± 0.349 0.137 0.003 0.006CD 5% 0.781 0.349 0.009 0.044


Trea

tmen

t

Fruit diameter

(polar) (cm)

Average

fruit weight(g)

Ascorbic acid (mg

100 g-1 pulp)

Total sugar (%)

Pooled Pooled Pooled 2007 2008

I0 (no pruning ) 4.45 101.36 214.83 10.68 14.827I1(pruning of 25% previous season

growth)4.57 106.15 218.01 10.78 14.95


growth)4.86 121.83 222.20 11.27 15.63


growth)4.93 127.79 227.48 11.03 15.30

SEm ± 0.010 0.746 0.769 0.0124 0.0172CD 5% 0.029 2.120 2.166 0.036 0.049

Table 10. Effect of pruning intensity on fruit diameter, average fruit weight, ascorbic acid and total

sugar in guava under meadow orchard.


Table 11. Effect of pruning intensity on TSS , acidity, average pulp weight and pulp: seed ratio in guava under

meadow orchard.Treatment

TSS (%)

Acidity (%)

Average pulp weight (g)

Pulp: seed ratio

Pooled

Pooled

Pooled 2007 2008

I0 (no pruning ) 14.53 0.48 96.73 18.72 24.84I1(pruning of 25% previous season

growth)14.66 0.50 101.5

3 20.32 25.11


growth)15.32 0.43 117.9

3 28.39 31.68


growth)15.00 0.43 123.8

4 29.61 33.61

SEm ± 0.012 0.006 0.741 0.369 0.576CD 5% 0.034 0.071 2.087 1.056 1.651


54

Trea

tmen

t

No of flowers/plantSummer Season Rainy Season Winter

Season

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

T1 104.44 45.00 97.31 56.63 14.25 48.75

T2 72.85 22.42 90.59 28.65 17.63 32.76

T3 74.60 25.69 102.42 23.39 18.39 32.86

T4 93.67 21.74 101.99 25.78 11.26 28.06

T5 85.63 15.85 100.35 14.56 7.72 18.42

T6 93.38 15.75 99.94 33.25 20.13 33.88SEm 15.40 8.28 20.27 13.55 3.40 7.85CD at 5%

NS NS NS NS 8.26 NS

Ranchi, Jharkhand Maheta Sarita et al. (2013)

Table 12. Effect of pruning on no of flower plant -1 of different season crop of guava cv. Sardar.

T1No pruning

T2

80% pruning in May

T3

60% pruning in May

T4

80% pruning in October

T5


T6

Pruning at three time in year

54

Trea

tmen

t

Yield (t/ha)Summer Season

Rainy Season

Winter Season

Total yield

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

T1 1.76

2.92

13.58

3.29

6.92

20.06

25.76

28.26

T2 1.56

5.01

12.71

2.91

10.12

22.56

24.39

30.48

T3 1.34

4.09

9.21

3.07

10.29

20.58

20.83

27.73

T4 1.69

5.60

17.56

4.61

6.48

12.11

25.73

22.32

T5 1.37

3.55

16.86

3.18

5.62

9.25

23.85

15.98

T6 3.73

9.07

16.48

4.92

5.03

23.26

34.88

37.24

SEm 0.61

1.26

1.26

0.90

0.46

1.26

2.53

1.82

CD at 5%

1.49

3.06

3.95 NS 1.1

33.06

6.14

4.43

Table 13. Effect of pruning on yield of different season crop of

guava cv. Sardar.T1

No pruning

T2

80% pruning in May

T3

60% pruning in May

T4


T5


T6


55Ranchi, Jharkhand Maheta Sarita et al. (2013)

Trea

tmen

t

Average fruit weight (g)Summer Season Rainy Season Winter

Season

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

2009-2010

2010-2011

T1 119.76

102.06

113.72 99.22 136.6

8108.25

T2 130.51

108.82

117.50

107.12

157.66

122.32

T3 131.85

110.02

119.32

105.36

142.03

119.45

T4 128.59

103.36

120.21

110.20

153.57

129.94

T5 131.38

106.77

118.40

115.23

150.74

130.01

T6 135.15

117.06

117.21

105.03

106.68

110.60

SEm 4.72 7.72 2.54 6.07 8.17 3.72CD at 5%

NS NS NS NS 19.86 9.04

Table 14. Effect of pruning on average fruit weight of different season crop of guava cv. Sardar.

T1No pruning

T2

80% pruning in May

T3

60% pruning in May

T4


T5


T6


56Ranchi, Jharkhand Maheta Sarita et al. (2013)

57

58

Varieties No of new

shoots

% Flowering

% Fruit Set

Yield (kg/plant)

Sardar 13.5 90.5 56.3 7.38

Sweta 18.4 50.3 54.2 8.46

CISH-G-5 16.3 52.0 49.1 8.53

CISH-G-6 14.4 57.8 51.0 7.34

Lalit 11.7 73.0 50.4 8.60

Allahabad Safeda 13.6 73.2 44.4 7.66

Hybrid seedling 12.5 46.4 54.3 6.14

CD(0.05) 2.33 3.10 3.14 1.3

58

Table 15. Influence of topping, hedging with black plastic mulch on flowering and yield of different

varieties of guava under meadow orchard.


Treatment

Fruit Weight

(g)

Fruit

length(cm)

Fruit width(cm)

TSS

Brix

Acidity(%)

Ascorbic

acid(mg

100/g)

Total

sugar(%)

Sardar 187.0 7.6 7.3 13.4 0.26 166.6 9.3Sweta 167.3 7.2 7.4 15.2 0.22 191.6 8.4CISH-G-5 140.0 6.9 6.5 13.9 0.25 187.6 8.9CISH-G-6 157.0 7.3 7.4 13.0 0.29 193.2 9.1Lalit 140.0 7.4 7.3 12.9 0.29 194.3 9.0

Allahabad Safeda 169.0 7.7 7.5 12.0 0.29 181.3 8.0

Hybrid seedling 97.6 5.1 4.8 11.6 0.31 194.4 8.1

CD(0.05) 2.92 0.38 0.22 0.78 0.05 11.03 0.37

Table 16. Influence of topping and hedging with black plastic mulch on fruit quality of different variety

under meadow orchard.


Treatment No. of new shoot

Flowering shoot (%)

Fruit set(%)

Yield (t/ha)

Black mulch 13.1 78.0 63.0 63.5

Banana leaf mulch 13.1 77.5 62.7 62.5

Paddy straw 13.5 73.5 63.9 62.0

Grass mulch 13.2 72.6 63.0 62.0

Control (No-mulch) 12.7 70.6 61.1 60.0

CD (0.05) 2.94 4.09 1.79 2.23

60 Singh (2009)

Table 17. Flowering, fruit set and yield in relation to different mulch under meadow orchard.

CISH, Lucknow

Treatment

Fruit weight(g)

Fruit length(cm)

Fruit diamet

er(cm)

TSS0Brix

Ascorbic acid(mg/100g pulp)

Acidity(%)

Total sugar(%)

Black mulch 235.0 7.1 6.97 13.0 176.8 0.32 9.3

Banana leaf mulch

250.0 7.9 7.20 12.8 177.7 0.34 6.9

Paddy straw 225.0 6.7 7.20 12.0 166.8 0.34 6.7

Grass mulch 220.0 6.0 6.90 12.0 175.8 0.33 7.8

Control (No-mulch)

215.0 6.0 6.06 11.7 162.2 0.35 6.7

CD (0.05) 31.44 1.72 1.06 1.12 15.27 0.025 2.25

Singh (2009)

Table 18. Response of different mulches on fruit quality under meadow orchard.

CISH, Lucknow 61

Conclusion

62

India is the largest producer of guava in the world but the productivity is very less as compared to developed countries because of the absence of improved production and protection technologies.

Meadow orchard planting system is one of the improved technologies with use of improved cultivars, cultural practices like canopy management and mulching leads to revolutionize the guava industry by enhancing productivity coupled with reduction of production cost along with best quality fruits.

Thus, it is clear that farmers should have to adopt this technology for improving its productivity.

Thank You

Meadow orchrad in guava

Documents