Compact Fruit Tree, the journal of the International Fruit Tree Association (IFTA), is devoted to the publication of technical information for growers of deciduous tree fruits. It is published in April, August and December by IFTA.
Enhancing Business Visibility PR Firms in San Francisco
December 2014 Compact Fruit Tree
1. Compact Fruit Tree
INTERNATIONAL FRUIT TREE ASSOCIATION
Where fruit tree professionals grow.
Volume 47, No. 3
December 2014
ifruittree.org
2. 1.800.263.1287
905.563.8261
Beamsville, ON Canada A Bartlett Company
info@provideag.ca
Provide Agro
www.provideag.ca
Hol Spray Systems has developed sprayers
specifically for HD orchards, combining their
experiences with orchard equipment and new
technologies to make a high efficiency machine that
places product exactly where it needs to be. It uses
a low-noise radial two-speed fan to draw in clean air
for the unique distribution system that sends air
equally to all outlets. The overcapacity of the fan
makes it possible to operate with a slower PTO speed,
enabling you to “gear up and throttle down”,
reducing fuel consumption and noise. Excellent
coverage can be obtained with varying water rates
giving you custom control and flexibility based on
the target pest and product being used.
Sprayers are available in 1000, 1500, and 2000
Litre tanks with a 3 row option coming soon!
THE ORIGINAL TYROLEAN HEDGER
+25 Years Experience
Initiate
Fruit bud
formation on 1
year wood
Optional topper, skirter,
and windows pruning
attachments available.
Rotary saw blade
machines also available
Easily controlled
with joystick.
Requires 10-13
GPM (dependent
on options)
Quality built hedgers that
start at ~$8,000 USD
Precise, reliable sprayers
starting at ~$25,000 USD
GREEFA packing PERFECT mowers ORSI platforms FRUIT TEC blossom thinners PULSE water treatment BARTLETT custom HOL sprayers FAMA hedgers
Northern
2014
Italy
SnapshotsThe 2014 IFTA Study Tour to Northern Italy
Michigan growers Jim Engelsma, Chris Kropf and Steve Thome
enjoy the booths.
GREEFA packing line at MIVOR cooperative located in Latch, Italy.
A four leader multi-leader fruiting wall tree at “Maso delle Part”–
Fondazione E. MACH experiment farm in Italy.
Michigan District Fruit Educators, Robert Tritten and Amy Irish-
Brown pose,with the antique Porsche Tractor.
IFTA grower tour participants at Komiss family farm reviewing the
merits of machine assist harvest.
Young orchard (2nd leaf) of Tall Slender Spindle tree system at
Komiss farms.
4. 2 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Dan Boyer
Ridgetop Orchards
P.O. Box 113
Fishertown, PA 15539
Phone: (814) 839-4181
Fax: (814) 839-2034
Email: dan@ridgetoporchards.com
Jon Clements
UMass Cold Spring Orchard
393 Sabin Street
Belchertown, MA 01007
Phone: (413) 478-7219
Email: clements@umext.umass.edu
Jeff Cleveringa
Starr Ranch/Oneonta
P.O. Box 4640
Wenatchee, WA 98807
Phone: (509) 750-0060
Fax: (509) 655-8330
Email: jeffc@starranch.com
Sam DiMaria
Sam DiMaria Orchards
120 Mail Road
Kelowna, BC V1V-2H2
Canada
Phone: (250) 763-5433
Email: sdo13@shaw.ca
Bill Dodd
Fruit Growers Marketing Association
50336 Telegraph Road
Amherst, OH 44001
Phone: (440) 670-2883
Fax: (740) 498-8367
Email: bill@ohioapples.com
Rod Farrow
Lamont Fruit Farms
12703 Stillwater Road
Waterport, NY 14571
Phone: (585) 682-4749
Fax: (585) 682-0522
Email: rodf12786@aol.com
Wanda Heuser Gale
International Plant Management, Inc.
55826 60th Avenue
Lawrence, MI 49064
Phone: (800) 424-2765
Email: wanda@summittreesales.com
Chris Hedges
Martin’s Family Fruit Farm
1321 Windham Road 7 RR#3
Vanessa, ON N0E 1V0
Canada
Email: chrish@martinsapples.com
Lisa Jenereaux
Spurr Bros Farms Ltd.
639 Stronach Mountain Road RR#2
Kingston, NS B0P 1R0
Canada
Phone: (902) 765-4300
Email: lisa@spurrbros.ns.ca
Hank Markgraf
Okanagan Tree Fruit Company
880 Vaughan Avenue
Kelowna, BC V1Y 7E4
Canada
Phone: (250) 979-2612
Fax: (250) 763-7370
Email: hmarkgraf@bctree.com
Trever Meachum – Treasurer
High Acres Fruit Farm
60930 52nd Avenue
Hartford, MI 49057
Phone: (269) 621-4713
Fax: (269) 621-3852
Email: jalapeno@cybersol.com
Nathan Milburn
Milburn Orchards Inc.
1495 Appleton Road
Elkton, MD 21921
Phone: (443) 309-2077
Fax: (410) 398-4081
Email: nathan@milburnorchards.com
Terence Robinson
Dept of Horticultural Sciences –
NYSAES Cornell
630 West North Street
Geneva, NY 14456
Phone: (315) 787-2227
Fax: (315) 787-2216
Email: tlr1@cornell.edu
Phil Schwallier – President
MSU Extension
1185 Nine Mile Road NW
Sparta, MI 49345
Phone: (616) 490-7917
Fax: (616) 693-2317
Email: schwalli@msu.edu
Tim Welsh – Vice President
Columbia Fruit Packers
2575 Euclid Avenue
Wenatchee, WA 98807
Phone: (509) 662-7153
Cell: (509) 670-8080
Fax: (509) 662-0933
Email: tim@columbiafruit.com
2014 Board of Directors
Komiss Family Farms employee packaging dried
apple slices “Fruitty” product.
IFTA tour member,Win Cowgill, Rutgers Exten-
sion Agent from New Jersey, poses in Italy apple
orchards with a gorgeous view of the Alps.
Michigan growers Steve Thome, Jim Engelsma
and Chris Kropf view high-density orchard
equipment at IFTA’s 2014 Italy Study Tour.
5. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 3
Compact Fruit Tree
Letter from the President
tysburg Summer Study Tour and on to
$15,700 for 21 young grower scholar-
ships at the 2014 IFTA Kelowna, Brit-
ish Columbia Winter Conference.
A special thanks to Tara Baugher,
Nathan Milburn, Catherine Lara and
Alana Anderson for all their work on
this project. We want to continue
to provide and expand this program
into the future. Please contact us to
get involved this year and help us
expand the Young Grower Scholarship
program. Also, be sure to tell other
young growers about how they can
receive scholarships.
The IFTA Research Foundation is
getting off to a great start, thanks
to Ken Hall the foundation’s first
president. Two major goals have
occurred this year. First, the founda-
tion has raised more than $120,000
for the permanent endowment and,
to manage those funds, the trustees
engaged state-registered investment
adviser Bowers Wealth Manage-
ment, Inc. Second, the IFTA Research
Foundation recently received official
designation from the IRS as a 501(c)
(3) charitable organization. The IFTA
Research Committee, under the
leadership of Gary Mount, will con-
tinue to manage research proposals;
however, the IFTA Research Foundation
will provide future funds recommended
by the IFTA Committee.
Before you know it we will be at the
58th IFTA Annual Conference in Halifax,
Nova Scotia. This conference is being
planned by the capable leadership of
board member and program chair Lisa
Jenereaux and team members Larry
Lutz, and Chris Duyvelshoff. Honeycrisp
is a major part of this upcoming confer-
ence starting with an intensive work-
shop on Saturday. Then, we’ll top off
the educational conference and tours
through the beautiful countryside of
Nova Scotia’s Annapolis Valley includ-
ing Wolfville, Kentville, and the Bay of
Fundy. You won’t want to miss it, so get
your flights early.
Sponsors are needed for the 2015 Nova
Scotia winter conference and Washington
summer tour. Please consider being a
sponsor of an event, refreshment break,
speakers and especially Young Grower
Scholarships. My thanks to past sponsors.
See you in Halifax.
Regards,
Phil Schwallier
I hope the harvest was good for all
of you. Here in Michigan the crop
was not as large as predicted, but the
weather was absolutely outstanding.
Our picking crews were plentiful and
harvest wrapped up on schedule for
most growers.
The International Fruit Tree Association
(IFTA) continues to search for ways to
help support young growers who want
to attend the association’s educational
events but may not have the resources
to make it possible. Some of them are
just getting established in farming or
may have young families to support, so
finding the extra funds to attend these
events seems like a far cry.
Helping get young growers to the IFTA
Annual Conferences is an important
endeavor for the IFTA Board. The last
two years we have asked for sponsors
to step forward and provide scholar-
ships to young growers who want to
attend an IFTA event for the first time.
We have been very pleased and aston-
ished with the generous support that
came from many of you during that
time. Thank you so much.
We have asked some of the scholarship
recipients to write short essays for this
Compact Fruit Tree publication describ-
ing their experience (See past issues).
Because of numerous sponsors’ great
support toward this project (our first
sponsor: Northwest Michigan Horticul-
tural Research Foundation) $5,000 was
provided for five young grower scholar-
ships at the 2013 IFTA Boston Winter
Conference, which grew to 12 Young
Grower Scholarship recipients receiving
$2,400 combined in registration fee
assistance to attend 2013 IFTA Get-
IFTA President Phil Schwallier and Tour Leader Terence Robinson recognize the Italian
speakers who presented on Tuesday, November 18 at the 2014 IFTA Study Tour. Pictured
from left to right:Terence Robinson, Marcus Bradlwarter (SK, SudTYrol), Kurt Werth
(Kurt Werth Consulting), Phil Schwallier (IFTA President), Michael Oberhuber
(Director of the Laimburg Research Station), Jurgen Christanell (South Tyrol
Extension Service), Robert Wirdmer (South Tyrol Extension Service),and Walter Rass
(South Tyrol Extension Service). Photo credit: Win Cowgill
6. 4 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Since the start of the 2014 fiscal year, IFTA has
received many generous donations to its Perma-
nent Endowment Fund and Rootstock Research
Fund. IFTA wishes to recognize the following
individuals and companies for their contribu-
tions. Ongoing funding of research and asso-
ciation projects would not be possible without
the generous support of IFTA members.
The IFTA staff strives to ensure this listing is ac-
curate. If you would like your listing to appear
differently in future acknowledgements, or feel
there has been an error in this listing, please
contact the IFTA office at (636) 449-5083 or by
email at info@ifruittree.org.
Thank You to 2014 IFTA Research Foundation Donors
Dec. 1, 2013 – Nov. 30, 2014
(Fiscal year 2014)
PERMANENT Endowment
FUND*
Platinum Supporters
Donations of over $10,000
n Gary & Pam Mount, Terhune Orchards
n Ken & Barb Hall, Edwards Apple
Orchard, Inc.
n Wallace Heuser / Wanda Heuser Gale,
International Plant Management, Inc.
n Willow Drive Nursery, Inc.
Gold Supporters
Donations of $5,000 to $9,999
n Jamie Kidston
n TRECO
Silver Supporters
Donations of $1,000 to $4,999
n John Baugher, Adams County Nursery, Inc.
n Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited
Bronze Supporters
Donations up to $999
n Belltown Hill Orchards
n Blake Sarsfield
n Craig Nichols Farms
n Daniel & Lois Boyer
n Donald DeMarree Fruit Farm
n Doug & Leslie Balsillie
n Evan Milburn
n Jack Snyder, C & O Nursery
n Ken & Jan Engle
n Kym Green
n Larry & Janice Lutz
n Lutz Family Farm
n Lisa Jenereaux
n Matt Peters
n Milburn Orchards, Inc.
n Nathan Milburn
n Neal Manly
n Nova Scotia Fruit Grower’s Association
n Schwallier’s Country Basket
n Steve Applebaum
n Tanners Orchard
n Terence Robinson
n Van Meekeren Farms
n Washington White & Susan Butler
n Win Cowgill
*Cumulative donations since 2012.
2014 RESEARCH PROJECTS
Platinum Supporters
Donations of over $10,000
n Gisela, Inc.
n Willow Drive Nursery, Inc.
Gold Supporters
Donations of $5,000 to $9,999
n Cameron Nursery, LLC
n TRECO
Silver Supporters
Donations of $1,000 to $4,999
n Adams County Nursery
n Domaine de Castang, S.A.S.
n Gold Crown Nursery, LLC
n Luis Gutierrez
n Van Well Nursery
Bronze Supporters
Donations up to $999
n Arthur & Marlene Moyer
n Cheryl Hampson
n Denise Neilsen
n Donald DeMarree Fruit Farm, Inc.
n Eisses Farms Ltd
n Evan Milburn
n Gary Mount
n Indiana Horticultural Society
n Ken and Barb Hall
n Mark Shurtleff
n Maryland State Horticultural Society
n Milburn Orchards, Inc.
n Nathan Milburn
n New Jersey State Horticultural Society
n Schwallier’s Country Basket
n Susan Frank
n Tim Welsh
n Tuttle Orchards, Inc.
n Washington White & Susan Butler
n William Stevenson
n Wittenbach Orchards
7. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 5
introduction
For many apple growers in North Amer-
ica, the bacterial disease fire blight is a
serious threat to dwarf apple orchards.
Similarly apple replant disease limits tree
growth and economic performance of
many new high-density orchards. The
Cornell University/USDA apple rootstock
breeding project located at Geneva, New
York has developed rootstock genotypes
resistant to fire blight (Erwinia amylovora)
and crown rot (Phytophthora spp.) (Cum-
mins and Aldwinckle, 1983; Norelli, et
al., 2003; Russo, et al., 2007). Some have
been shown to have tolerance to apple
replant disease (Auvil, et al., 2010; Isutsa
and Merwin, 2000; Robinson and Hoying,
2005; Robinson, et al., 2012). Other trials
have evaluated the horticultural produc-
tivity and adaptability of the rootstocks to
soils in NY (Robinson and Hoying, 2005);
Washington (Auvil, et al., 2011); and
many other locations in the U.S., Canada
and Mexico (Autio, et al., 2008; Autio,
et al., 2011a,b: Marini, et al., 2006a,b;
Marini, et al., 2009; Robinson, et al.,
2003). Others have conducted trials in
France (Masseron and Simard, 2002); Po-
land (Czynczyk, et al., 2010); Switzerland
(Egger, et al., 2010); and New Zealand
(personal communication Stuart Tustin).
This report details research we are doing
Terence L. Robinson1
, Gennaro Fazio2
and Herb Aldwinckle3
1
Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, Geneva, NY, 2
USDA-ARS, Plant Genetics Resources Unit,
Geneva, NY, 3
Dept. of Plant Pathology, Cornell University, Geneva, NY
email: tlr1@cornell.edu
Presented to the IFTA Research Committee per IFTA Research Funding Agreement
resistant selection of Malus robusta).
Progeny from these crosses underwent
rigorous greenhouse screening proce-
dures at the small seedling stage to se-
lect for tolerance to fire blight and crown
rot. When seedlings were about 2.5 cm
tall they were inoculated via flooding of
the roots with a mixture of isolates of the
fungus Phytophthora cactorum. Surviving
seedlings were inoculated via injection
to the shoot tip with fire blight bacteria
(Erwinia amylovora). Surviving genotypes
were then tested for propagation char-
acteristics in the nursery, and productivity
and dwarfing at the New York State Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station in Geneva,
NY. Since 1991, the elite selections from
these crosses have been tested in field tri-
through an IFTA supported project, where
we are testing the field and nursery per-
formance as well as disease resistance of
elite Geneva®
rootstocks and other root-
stocks from around the world. As a re-
sult of this testing, we released four new
apple rootstocks in 2010: Geneva®
210,
Geneva®
214, Geneva®
890 and Geneva®
969. They have a range in vigor from M.9
size to MM.106 size. This report provides
some of the data concerning the new and
existing Geneva®
rootstocks.
Materials and Methods
In 1975 and 1976 Dr. James Cummins and
Dr. Herbert Aldwinckle of Cornell Univer-
sity crossed Ottawa 3 apple rootstock
with Robusta 5 (a cold hardy and disease
2013 Progress Report –
Characteristics of New Apple
Rootstock from the Cornell-USDA
Apple Rootstock Breeding Program
8. 6 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
als at various locations by Robinson, et al.
(2003, 2005 and 2011).
In 2001 a replicated field trials of seven
Geneva®
named and un-named elite root-
stocks and two Malling rootstocks (M.7,
and M.26), was planted at Wolcott, NY
(Western part of State) using Golden De-
licious as the scion cultivar. The plot was
laid out as randomized complete block
experiment with five replications and with
each block containing three to five indi-
vidual trees of each rootstock. All of the
plant material was grown in a common
nursery in Geneva, NY. The trees were
planted as unbranched whips at a spacing
of (1.8m X 4.5m) and were headed at 1m
after planting.
In 2004 a second replicated field trial of
eight Geneva®
named and un-named elite
rootstocks and three Malling rootstocks
(M.9, M.7 and MM.106) and one Buda-
govsky stock (B.9) as controls was planted
at Hilton, NY (Western part of state) us-
ing Honeycrisp as the scion cultivar. The
plot was laid out as randomized complete
block experiment with five replications
and with each block containing two indi-
vidual trees of each rootstock. All of the
plant material was grown in a common
nursery in Geneva, NY. The trees were
planted as unbranched whips at a spac-
ing of (2.4 m X 4.8m) and were headed
at 1m after planting.
In 2005, a third replicated field trial of
eight Geneva®
named and un-named elite
rootstocks and three Malling rootstocks
(M.27, M.9, M.26, M.7 and MM.106) and
one Budagovsky stock (B.118) as controls
was planted at Marlboro, NY (eastern
part of state) using Fuji as the scion culti-
var. The plot was laid out as randomized
complete block experiment with five rep-
lications and with each block containing
one to two individual trees of each root-
stock. All of the plant material was grown
in a common nursery in Geneva, NY. The
trees were planted as unbranched whips
at a spacing of (2.4 m X 4.8m) and were
headed at 1m after planting.
In 2010 a fourth replicated field trial of
14 Geneva®
and 3 Malling rootstocks and
two Budagovsky stocks was planted at
Geneva, NY using Honeycrisp as the scion
cultivar. The plot was laid out as random-
ized complete block experiment with five
replications and with each block contain-
ing one to three individual trees of each
rootstock. All of the plant material was
grown in a common nursery in WA. The
trees were planted as feathered trees at
a spacing of (1.2 m X 4m) and were not
headed at planting.
With the first three field trials, trees were
managed with the vertical axis tree train-
ing system while the last trial trees were
managed with the Tall Spindle system.
The trees were fertilized annually with ni-
trogen and potassium according to local
recommendations. Trees were supported
with a single wire trellis and a metal tube
tree stake. Tree survival, number of root
suckers and trunk circumference at 30cm
above the graft union were measured
annually in November. Fruit number and
yield were recorded annually at harvest
and fruit size (g) was calculated as the
ratio of fruit yield divided by the number
of fruit per tree. Cumulative yield effi-
Figure 1
FIGURE 1 – Tree size and yield efficiency of Golden Delicious apple trees on several
Geneva®
rootstocks over 10 years at Wolcott, NY.
Figure 2
FIGURE 2 – Tree size and yield efficiency of Honeycrisp apple trees on several Geneva®
rootstocks over seven years at Hilton, NY.
9. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 7
ciency was calculated by dividing cumu-
lative yield by final trunk cross-sectional
area. In the second experiment the bien-
nial bearing tendency of each rootstock
was assessed by calculating an alternate
bearing index (ABI) for each two years of
yield data using the formula: ABI = Abso-
lute Value of (Fruit Number Year 2 - Fruit
Number Year 1) divided by the Sum of
(Fruit Number Year 2 + Fruit Number Year
1). This index gives values ranging from
zero to one with zero equaling no bien-
nial bearing and one equaling complete
biennial bearing. Data were analyzed by
analysis of variance and crop load was
used as covariate to compare fruit sizes
independent of crop load.
Results
Experiment 1
After 10 years, tree size of Golden Deli-
cious was greatest on G.890 rootstock
followed in descending order by G.969,
M.7, CG.5087, G.214, G.41, M.26 and
G.11 (Fig. 1). Cumulative yield efficiency
was greatest for G.41 followed by G.11,
CG.5087, G.969, G.890, G.214, M.26
and M.7. All rootstocks had greater than
90% survival (data not shown).
Experiment 2
After seven years, tree size of Honey-
crisp was greatest on MM.106 rootstock
followed in descending order by M.7,
G.890, G.222, G.30, G.935, G.969, G.16,
M.9, G.214, B.9 and G.11 (Fig. 2). Cumu-
lative yield efficiency was greatest for B.9
followed by G.969, G.30, G.214, G.935,
M.9, G.890, G.11, G.222, MM.106 and
M.7. All rootstocks had greater than 90%
survival (data not shown). Biennial bear-
ing tendency was lowest for trees on
G.222 followed by G.969, G.935, G.30,
G.890, M.9, G.214, MM.106, B.9, G.16,
M.7, and G.11 (Fig. 3).
Experiment 3
After four years, tree size of Fuji was
greatest on G.890 rootstock followed in
descending order by B.118, G.210, M.7,
MM.106, G.935, G.222, CG.5087, G.969,
M.26, G.214, M.9, G.11 and M.27 (Fig. 4).
Cumulative yield efficiency was greatest
for G.969 followed by CG.5087, G.935,
G.214, G.222, G.11, M.9, G.890, M.27,
M.26, G.210, MM.106, B.118 and M.7. All
rootstocks had greater than 90% survival.
Experiment 4
The most dwarfing stocks were CG.2034
and B.9 which were both too dwarfing
for Honeycrisp. A more vigorous group
of rootstocks included G.11, CG.4003,
G.41TC and G.41N. This group had suf-
ficient vigor for a Tall Spindle planting
at three-foot in-row spacing. A slightly
larger group of rootstocks included
Sup.3, M.9Pajam2, G.935TC, M.9T337,
B.10 and M.26. A larger group included
only G.214. A fourth group which was
slightly more vigorous included G.935N,
CG.4013, CG.5202, CG.4004, CG.4814
CG.5087, G.202N, and G.202TC. The
most vigorous stock was CG.3001 which
was too vigorous for a high-density Tall
Spindle planting. The most yield effi-
cient stock was B.9, followed by G.41N,
B.10, Sup.3, G.11, CG.2034, CG.4003,
M.9T337, CG.4214, G.202N, CG.5087,
G.202TC, CG.3001, CG.4004, CG.5202,
M.9Pajam2, G.935TC, CG.4814, M.26
CG.4013, G.935N, and CG.41TC. Fruit
size was large with almost all stocks.
Those which had smaller fruit size were
CG.4013 and CG.5087.
discussion
Eleven rootstocks genotypes have been
released from the Geneva apple rootstock
breeding program. They are G.65, G.30,
G.16, G.11, G.202, G.41, G.935, G.214,
Figure 3
FIGURE 3 – Biennial bearing of Honeycrisp apple trees on several Geneva®
rootstocks
over seven years at Hilton, NY.
Figure 4
FIGURE 4 – Tree size and yield efficiency of Fuji apple trees on several Geneva®
ærootstocks over four years at Marlboro, NY.
10. 8 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
G.210, G.890 and G.969. The last four
were released in 2010 based are:
Geneva®
214 is derived from a cross
made in 1975 between Ottawa 3 and
Robusta 5. G.214 was evaluated as
CG.4214. Field trials in NY indicate G.214
is a dwarfing rootstock similar in size to
M.26 with Golden Delicious (Fig. 1) and
Fuji (Fig. 2); however, with Honeycrisp
(Fig.3) it was similar in size to M.9. In all
three field trials, G.214 was highly yield
efficient, similar to M.9 and M.26. With
Fuji it was significantly more yield efficient
than M.9. Other experiments with this
rootstock have confirmed it is resistant
to fire blight, Phytophthora root rot and
woolly apple aphid. Nursery trials at Ge-
neva, NY and in WA have shown it is easy
to propagate in stoolbeds. G.214 is similar
in size to G.41 but is easier to propagate
in the stool bed. Field trials in WA have
shown G.214 like G.41 has tolerance to
apple replant disease (Auvil et al., 2011).
It is not free standing and requires a trellis.
G.214 like G.41 is a good replacement for
M.9 on replant sites.
Geneva®
969 is derived from a cross
made in 1976 between Ottawa 3 and
Robusta 5. G.969 was evaluated as
CG.6969. Field trials indicate G.969 is a
semi-dwarfing rootstock between the size
of M.26 and M.7 (Figs. 1-3). It is similar
in size to two other Geneva rootstocks,
G.935 and G.222. G.969 has very high
productivity similar to G.935 but is resis-
tant to woolly apple aphid while G.935
is not. G.969 as well as G.935 and G.222
appear to induce less biennial bearing
with Honeycrisp than other stocks (Fig. 4).
It is resistant to fire blight (Russo, et al.,
2007) and Phytophthora root rot and has
good anchorage in the orchard. It is easy
to propagate in stool beds. Its tolerance
to apple replant disease is not yet known.
G.969 may be an excellent rootstock for
use with weak scion cultivars like Honey-
crisp, SnapDragon, SweeTango and Spur
Red Delicious in high-density plantings.
Geneva®
210 is derived from a cross made
in 1975 between Ottawa 3 and Robusta
5. G.210 was evaluated a CG.6210. There
have been more than 20 field trials con-
ducted with G.210, which have shown it
is a highly productive semi-dwarfing root-
stock similar in vigor to M.7 (Robinson et
al., 2003). Often its yield efficiency is simi-
lar to M.9. It is resistant to fire blight (Rus-
so, et al., 2007), Phytophthora root rot and
woolly apple aphid. It also has very good
resistance to apple replant disease in field
trials in NY (Isutsa and Merwin, 2001) and
WA (Auvil et al., 2011). It is not free stand-
ing and requires a trellis for supporting the
trees, which can lean under wet soil con-
ditions. Its high tolerance of apple replant
disease suggests it is a good replacement
rootstock when weak scions are planted in
replant soils or for organic production.
Geneva®
890 is derived from a cross made
in 1976 between Ottawa 3 and Robusta 5.
G.890 was evaluated as CG.5890. Field tri-
als in NY indicate G.890 is a semi-vigorous
rootstock either slightly larger than M.7
(Figs. 1 and 2) or slightly smaller than M.7
(Fig.3). It is much more productive than
M.7 and is resistant to fire blight (Russo,
et al., 2007), Phytophthora root rot and
woolly apple aphid. It is easy to propagate
in stool beds and is free standing in the or-
chard. This rootstock is useful for medium
density plantings for the processing mar-
ket or for weak scions in replant soil.
CURRENT COMMERCIALIZATION
OF GENEVA®
ROOTSTOCKS
Over the last five years there has been a
boom of Geneva rootstocks production in
both stool bed and through tissue culture.
This winter (2013/2014) the American,
Canadian and Mexican stool bed produc-
ers have harvested a total of about three
million Geneva liners. These liners will
result in finished trees for growers in the
spring of 2015 and 2016. Apple growers
in the U.S., Mexico and Canada will now
be able to begin utilizing these improved
rootstocks in their orchards. The primary
rootstocks currently being grown and
available for fruit growers are:
Geneva®
41 is similar in size to vigorous
clones on M.9 such as Nic29 or Pajam
2. It is usually the most efficient dwarf
rootstock in our trials and reduces bienni-
ally with Honeycrisp. It has excellent fruit
size and induces wide branch angles. It
is highly resistant to fire blight (Russo et
al, 2007) and is strong against Phytoph-
thora and woolly apple aphids. It has
good tolerance of apple replant disease
(Auvil, 2011, Robinson et al., 2011) and
has good winter hardiness. In the stool
bed, G.41 is a shy rooter and requires
specialized rooting techniques including
tissue cultured stool bed mother plants
to improve its rooting (Adams, 2010). It
has brittle roots and a brittle graft union
especially with Honeycrisp, Envy and Pink
Lady and must be handled with care. We
believe its graft union strength with Hon-
eycrisp will be acceptable with a whip and
tongue graft, but with some more brittle
varieties it may be too brittle. We are cur-
rently studying cultural strategies to im-
prove its graft union strength. Its stellar
orchard performance in both eastern and
western North America indicate it will
be a good alternative to M.9 in high fire
blight prone areas, in replant disease ar-
Figure 5
FIGURE 5 – Production of rootstock liners of six Geneva rootstocks over the last
five years.
11. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 9
eas and in woolly aphid prone areas. Its
stool bed production in the U.S. in 2013
was about 1,200,000 liners. We recom-
mend this stock for replant soil.
Geneva®
11 is similar in size to M.9T337
in others. It is very precocious, has very
high-yield efficiency and reduces biennial-
ity with Honeycrisp. However, with weak
scions like Honeycrisp it should be planted
at less than three feet in-row spacing. It
is resistant to fire blight and Phytophthora
root rot, but it is not resistant to woolly
apple aphids and has only partial tolerance
to apple replant disease. G.11 produces
high-quality nursery trees. It is proving to
be an excellent replacement for M.9 in
North America and Europe. Its stool bed
production in the U.S. in 2013 was about
1,000,000 liners. We recommend this
stock for vigorous scion cultivars such as
McIntosh, Fuji, Mutsu and Jonagold.
Geneva®
935 is similar in size to M.26.
It is highly precocious and has very high-
yield efficiency. It induces wide branch
angles, is highly resistant to fire blight and
Phytophthora, and appears to have some
tolerance of apple replant disease. It also
appears to be very winter hardy, but it is
not resistant to woolly apple aphid. Fruit
size has been slightly smaller than M.9.
It is an excellent new rootstock for weak
growing cultivars like spur-type Delicious,
Honeycrisp, SweeTango or SnapDragon
(Robinson et al., 2010). Its stool bed pro-
duction in the U.S. in 2013 was about
400,000 liners. We recommend this stock
for high-density Red Delicious plantings
or other weak scion cultivars.
Geneva®
202 produces a tree slightly
larger than M.26. It has high-yield effi-
ciency and is precocious. It is resistant to
fire blight, Phytophthora, apple replant
disease and woolly apple aphid. It is use-
ful with weak growing cultivars and as an
alternative to M.26 in climates with wool-
ly apple aphid problems. It has become a
popular dwarfing rootstock in New Zea-
land. Its stool bed production in the U.S.
in 2013 was about 250,000 liners with
substantial new stool beds in Mexico. We
recommend this stock for high-density
Red Delicious plantings or for stressful
climates like California, Colorado or Chi-
huahua, Mexico.
Literature Cited
Auvil, T.D., T.R. Schmidt, I. Hanrahan, F. Castillo,
J.R. McFerson and G. Fazio. 2011. Evaluation of
dwarfing rootstocks in Washington apple replant
sites. Acta Hort. 903:265-271.
Cummins, J.N. and Aldwinckle, H.S. 1983. Breed-
ing apple rootstocks, p294-394. In J. Janick (ed.)
Plant Breeding Reviews. Westport CT, USA, AVI
Publishing.
Isutsa, D.K. and Merwin, I.A. 2000. Malus germ-
plasm varies in resistance or tolerance to apple
replant disease in a mixture of NY orchard soils.
HortScience 35:262-268.
Norelli, J.L., Holleran, H.T., Johnson, W.C., Rob-
inson, T.L. and Aldwinckle, H.S. 2003. Resistance
of Geneva and other apple rootstocks to Erwinia
amylovora. Plant Disease 8(1):26-32.
Robinson, T.L. and Hoying, S.A. 2005. Perfor-
mance of elite Cornell-Geneva apple rootstocks
in long-term orchard trials on growers farms. Acta
Hort. 658:221-229.
Robinson, T, Anderson, L., Azarenko, A., Barritt,
B., Baugher, T., Brown, G., Couvillon, G., Cowgill,
W., Crassweller, R., Domoto, P., Embree, C., Fen-
nell, A., Garcia, E., Gaus, A., Granger, R., Greene,
G., Hirst, P. Hoover, E., Johnson, S., Kushad, M.,
Moran, R., Mullins, C., Myers, S., Perry, R., Rom,
C., Schupp, J., Taylor, K., Warmund, M., Warner,
J. and Wolfe, D. 2003. Performance of Cornell-
Geneva apple rootstocks with Liberty as the scion
in NC-140 trials across North America. Acta Hort.
622:521-530.
Robinson, T.L., Hoying, S.A. and Fazio, G. 2011.
Performance of Geneva®
rootstocks in on-farm
trials in NY. Acta Hort. 903:249-255.
Robinson, T., W. Autio, J. Clements, W. Cowgill,
C. Embree, G. Fazio, V. Gonzalez, S. Hoying, M.
Kushad, M. Parker, R. Parra, J. Schupp. 2012.
Rootstocks differ in tolerance to apple replant dis-
ease for improved sustainability of apple produc-
tion. Acta Hort. 940:521-528.
Russo, N., Robinson, T.L., Aldwinckle H.S., and
Fazio, G. 2007. Horticultural performance and
fire blight resistance of Cornell-Geneva apple
rootstocks and other rootstocks from around the
world. HortScience 42:1517-1525.
TABLE 1 – Geneva 2010 Honeycrisp Apple Rootstock Trial (2013 Data).
CG2034 4.9 80.0 27.5 7.5 5.5 55.5 13.9 2.92 282.4 6.5 2
Bud9 5.0 100 10 11.6 8.4 93.8 20.8 4.14 238.8 10 1.7
G11 7.8 100 15.5 7.7 7.8 101.7 23.7 3.08 252.9 7.8 1.4
CG4003 8.0 100 29 4.1 12.4 104.6 22.3 2.79 214.1 8.2 0
G41 8.6 90.9 15 9.5 5.7 120.5 29.8 3.46 264.4 7.6 0.8
Sup3 9.1 83.3 18 9.4 6.0 126.2 29.3 3.23 246 7.7 2.3
M9Pajam2 9.4 100 16.7 6.5 4.9 96.8 22.5 2.38 248.6 5.7 13.9
M9337 9.6 100 22.5 5.5 7.2 95.8 24.3 2.75 260 6.4 4.8
Bud10 9.8 88.9 18.8 7.6 7.9 134.8 31.8 3.29 246.9 7.7 1
M26 9.8 87.5 26.4 4.5 6.6 90.4 21.1 2.21 246.9 5.6 3.5
CG4214 10.9 100 20.6 8.3 4.2 121.6 29.7 2.75 260 6.2 5.5
G935 11.9 80 23.1 5.1 6.0 110.4 25.1 2.13 244.8 5.5 1.5
CG4013 12.1 100 22.5 7.8 2.4 102.8 22.4 2.14 267.9 5.1 5
CG5202 12.1 85.7 29.2 5.8 5.4 117.5 28.0 2.40 247.2 5.6 10.3
CG4004 12.7 80 16.3 8.6 3.4 134 29.8 2.41 250.1 6 4.5
CG4814 12.8 87.5 22.1 5.1 5.6 117.7 29.9 2.37 261.6 5.3 3.9
CG5087 12.9 1100 16.7 7.4 6.7 154 32.3 2.57 238.1 7 7.7
G202N 13.1 80 22.5 6.8 7.5 123.3 28.3 2.62 244.4 6.3 3.8
CG3001 14.4 100 23.3 7.2 3.2 139.7 36 2.55 275.7 5.5 1.7
LSD P≤0.05 3.2 29 8.4 4.1 4.6 36 7.72 0.88 33.3 2.23 5
Cum.
Fruit
No.Stock
TCA
2013
(cm2)
Tree
Surv.
2013
(%)
%
Leaf
Clorosis
2013
Crop
Load
2013
(no/cm2
TCA)
Cum.
Yield
(kg/
tree)
Cum.
Yield
Eff.
*Rootstocks ranked by Trunk Cross-Sectional Area increase 2010-2013.
Crop
Load
2012
(no/cm2
TCA)
Avg.
Fruit
Size
(g)
Avg.
Crop
Load
Cum.
Root
Sucker
Table 1
12. 10 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
The Steep Leader (SL) system was devel-
oped in the 1970s by growers in Wash-
ington State. By the 1980s it had become
widely planted throughout the state. The
SL system provides significant advantages
over the open vase system which it largely
replaced. One of the biggest advantages
was increased light penetration throughout
the tree, which encourages development
of high-quality fruit and reasonable yields
from the top to the bottom of the tree. In
addition, it increases labor efficiency by al-
lowing a systematic approach to pruning.
Finally, growers have the ability to use ei-
ther full-size or size-controlling rootstocks.
Trees trained to the SL system feature
three or four vertical leaders emerging
from the base of the tree with horizontal
scaffold branches. The tree develops a py-
ramidal shape. Fruit develops on tempo-
rary lateral branches that grow from the
vertical leaders and horizontal scaffolds.
Each leader mimics a spindle tree.
Training System Trial
To determine which training system, vari-
ety and rootstock combination produced
the greatest quantity of high-quality fruit,
a trial was established in Wasco County,
OR in 2006. Bing, Regina, and Sweetheart
cherries were grafted onto up to five root-
stocks including Mazzard, Gisela 6, Max-
Ma 14, Krymsk 5, and Krymsk 6. These
trees were then trained to the Kym Green
Bush (KGB), the Vogel Central Leader
(VCL), or the SL system. Records for yield,
fruit size, establishment labor, pruning la-
as well as other Mazzard training system
combinations, but had significantly lower
yields with Gisela 6 and MaxMa 14.
Bing fruit size on SL was similar to the oth-
er training systems when grown on Gisela
6, and similar in size to KGB on Mazzard.
However, SL fruit size trailed behind VCL
on MaxMa 14 (Figure 4).
Regina
Regina is a variety of low productivity that
bears a significant portion of fruit at the
base of one-year-old wood, rather than
spurs. All other tested varieties were spur-
types. The performance of the three train-
bor, and time to harvest were kept.
Bing
Bing is a variety of moderate productivity.
The performance of the three training sys-
tems with Bing is compared for yield and
fruit size in Table 1.
The Bing/KGB combination had the best
overall performance. It provided the high-
est yields when compared with the other
systems grown on Mazzard and MaxMa
14 (Figure 1). However, when Bing was
combined with Gisela 6 the Bing/KGB
combination trailed the yields provided by
VCL but out yielded Bing/SL. SL performed
The Steep Leader
Training System for Cherries
Lynn E. Long, Linda J. Brewer and Clive Kaiser
Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University
email: lynn.long@oregonstate.edu, linda.brewer@oregonstate.edu
and clive.kaiser@oregonstate.edu
Presented at the 57th Annual IFTA Conference, February 2014, in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Table 1
Rootstocks Highest Yields Largest Fruit Size
Mazzard KGB, SL KGB, SL
Gisela 6 VCL KGB,VCL, SL
MaxMa 14 KGB VCL
TABLE 1 – Yield and fruit size comparison of Bing on five rootstocks and three
training systems.
Table 2
Rootstocks Highest Yields Largest Fruit Size
Mazzard KGB,VCL, SL SL
Gisela 6 VCL, SL KGB,VCL, SL
MaxMa 14 VCL, SL KGB, SL
Krymsk 5 KGB,VCL KGB,VCL, SL
Krymsk 6 VCL KGB
TABLE 2 – Yield and fruit size comparison of Regina on five rootstocks and three
training systems.
13. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 11
ing systems with Regina is compared for
yield and fruit size in Table 2.
In evaluating yields, Regina/VCL performed
the best overall, producing among the
highest yields with all rootstocks. KGB
significantly underperformed with Gisela
6 and had the lowest yields of all three
systems with MaxMa 14. Regina bears a
significant amount of fruit on the base of
one year old shoots, which are removed
annually with the KGB pruning process. SL
was a steady performer on all but Krymsk
6 where it significantly trailed the other
two systems (Figure 2).
Regina/SL fruit were similar to or greater
in size than fruit from other training sys-
tems with all rootstocks except Krymsk 6
(Figure 4).
Sweetheart
Sweetheart is a highly precocious and
productive variety. See Table 3 for a com-
parison of Sweetheart performance with
the three training systems.
The Sweetheart/KGB combination pro-
duced the highest yields with all root-
stocks except Gisela 6, where it was
second only to SL. SL also produced the
highest yields with MaxMa 14, which did
not differ from Sweetheart on MaxMa 14
trained with KGB (Figure 3).
All training systems provided similar fruit
size across all tested rootstocks (Figure 4).
Labor requirements
Labor inputs for establishing this trial were
highest for VCL and lowest for KGB in
the early training years. However, by the
fourth leaf, labor inputs for the three train-
ing systems were similar and remained so
throughout the study (Figure 5).
Two densities of trees trained with SL
were compared to high-density plantings
(840 trees/ha) trained to KGB and VCL for
pruning efficiency. The SL high-density
trees, at 840 trees/hectare, were approxi-
mately three meters (10 ft.) tall. SL low
density trees, at 225 trees/hectare, were
approximately six meters (20 ft.) tall. Rou-
tine pruning labor was similar for all trees
planted at the higher density regardless
of training system. However, the lower
density SL trees (225 trees per hectare),
grown on Mazzard rootstock, required
less time per hectare to prune than the
high-density system trees (Figure 6).
Table 3
Rootstocks Highest Yields Largest Fruit Size
Mazzard KGB KGB,VCL, SL
Gisela 6 SL KGB,VCL, SL
MaxMa 14 KGB, SL KGB,VCL, SL
Krymsk 5 KGB,VCL KGB,VCL, SL
TABLE 3 – Yield and fruit size comparison of Sweetheart on four rootstocks and
three training systems.
Figure 1
FIGURE 1 – Fourth through sixth leaf cumulative yield of Bing sweet cherry on three
rootstocks and three training systems.
Figure 2
FIGURE 2 – Fourth through sixth leaf cumulative yield of Bing sweet cherry on three
rootstocks and three training systems.
14. 12 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Harvest efficiency was greatest on the
KGB system which was harvested without
ladders, compared to the VCL or SL which
were partially harvested from ladders.
More fruit was harvested per hour on the
pedestrian system high-density plantings,
trained to KGB—78 kg/hr (171 lbs/hr)—
than on standard density ladder-picked
trees—45 kg/hr (100 lbs/h)—using 3.7 m
(12 ft) ladders (Figure 7).
Summary
The SL system is a reasonable choice for
and VCL were not able to match the faster
harvest labor levels of the fully pedestrian
KGB system.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg
Johnson of The Dalles, Oregon for host-
ing the trial and IFTA for partial funding
of this work.
Additional resources:
Long, L.E. (2003). Cherry Training Systems: Selec-
tion and Development. PNW 543. Oregon State
University.
growers looking for a system suitable for
full-size or dwarfing rootstocks. The sys-
tem performed especially well with Re-
gina, where yields were among the high-
est on Mazzard, Gisela 6, and MaxMa 14
rootstocks. Regina trained to SL produced
some of the largest fruit on all rootstocks
except Krymsk 5.
Total establishment labor was similar to
KGB and much lower than VCL. Pruning
and harvest labor levels were similar to the
other two higher density systems but SL
Figure 3
FIGURE 3 – Fourth through sixth leaf cumulative yield of Sweetheart sweet cherry on
four rootstocks and three training systems.
Figure 4
FIGURE 4 – Average fruit size of three varieties on up to five rootstocks trained to
three systems.
The final form of the steep leader tree
should be a pyramid,allowing good
light distribution within the canopy
from the top of the tree to the base.
Illustration by Corianne Denby.
The steep leader tree consists of three
or four permanent upright leaders and
a horizontal base that produce fruit off
of renewable lateral branches. Photos
are used by permission and remain the
property of Oregon State University.
15. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 13
Figure 5
FIGURE 5 – Labor per year required to establish training systems, 2006 to 2013.
Tree yields and fruit quality data were
recorded for three varieties on up to
five rootstocks.
Stub cuts are made to regenerate
fruiting wood.
Figure 6
FIGURE 6 – Labor required to prune one hectare of mature trees.
Figure 7
FIGURE 7 – Average labor required to harvest one kg of Sweetheart cherries in
the fifth leaf by training system (840 trees/ha-1
).
16. 14 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
TH
Profitable Orchard Management
A Maritime Perspective
more ››
Schedule of Events
Saturday, February 21, 2015
8:00 am - 4:30 pm – Pre-Conference Honeycrisp Intensive Workshop
FEBRUARY 21-25, 2015 • HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
Photo: Destination Halifax/B.McWhirter
Photo: Communications Nova Scotia
Economics of High Density Honeycrisp
Alison De Marree, Cornell University
Honeycrisp is more expensive to bring into bearing, grow and har-
vest than other apple varieties. Honeycrisp also packs out lower than
other varieties due to bitterpit, color, stem punctures, over-cropping
and storage disorders. This presentation will compare potential
returns for 2-3 tree densities and review the additional expenses
required in establishing, growing and harvesting high quality Hon-
eycrisp (as compared to other apple varieties).
Soil Preparation for High Density Orchards in
Nova Scotia: What Have We Learned?
Keith Fuller, Agriculture & Agri Food Canada
Successful establishment of high density orchards on dwarfing root-
stocks in Nova Scotia has always been a challenge. This presentation
focuses on past successes and failures with an emphasis on soil
manipulation strategies to optimize soil health and maximize the
performance of young trees.
Honeycrisp Systems for Maximum Performance
Bruce Allen, Chiawana Orchards, LLC
We’ll take a tour of Bruce Allen’s 15 years of experience with Axe, V,
Tall Spindle and 2-D training systems in search of the elusive best
system for Honeycrisp. The interaction of site and rootstock with
these systems will be explored.
Growing Trees
Jim Engelsma, J Engelsma Orchards, Inc.
Successful establishment of a new apple orchard is dependent on
good orchard management from the beginning. Jim Engelsma’s ap-
proach is to provide best management practices to the new orchard
at every step of tree growth and not allow any limitations to reduce
tree establishment. With correct soil management, proper trellising
structure, drip irrigation, foliar nutrition and tree growth manipu-
lation, the grower can be successful in the initial establishment,
maximum growth, increased early production of large, high-quality
fruit, and thus better grower return.
Register online today at www.ifruittree.org
17. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 15
Maximizing Potential of Young Orchards
Hank Markgraf, BC Tree Fruits Cooperative
Hank Markgraf will review key points to maximize the success of
a new young orchard including sharing successes and mistakes
made by British Columbia growers during this important stage
in the orchard’s life.
Nutrient Management for Honeycrisp
Lailiang Cheng, Cornell University
Honeycrisp is susceptible to bitterpit and biennial bearing, and
fruit quality is affected by cropload to a large degree. To produce
high quality Honeycrisp, tree nutrition must be carefully man-
aged. This talk will be focused on two key aspects of Honeycrisp
nutrient management: improve fruit Ca level to reduce bitterpit
and optimize nitrogen management to balance tree vigor, bien-
nial bearing and fruit quality.
Disease Management Strategies for Honeycrisp
David Rosenberger, Cornell University
Disease management for Honeycrisp apples presents unique
challenges because this cultivar is especially susceptible to
summer fruit rots and postharvest decays. Bitter rot has been
causing damage on Honeycrisp in growing regions where bitter
rot was never a problem on other cultivars. Honeycrisp has also
proven very susceptible to black rot and white rot decays in the
field and to blue mold and gray mold decays in storage. Some
of these diseases cannot be controlled using fungicides alone.
In this session, we will review integrated strategies for managing
fruit decays and other disease
problems on Honeycrisp.
Honeycrisp Pruning and Thinning for Optimum Quality
and Return Bloom
Terence Robinson, Cornell University
Our studies have shown three management factors have a large
impact on Honeycrisp fruit quality and should be managed by
growers very precisely. They are crop load, fruit nitrogen content
and irrigation. In this presentation Terence Robinson will explore
how to optimize each of these variables to reduce bitter pit and
improve fruit quality at harvest and after storage. Fruit thinning
with a combination of precision pruning and precision chemical
thinning should be used to optimize crop load.
Crop Load Management in Honeycrisp:
A Grower Perspective
Mike Robinson, Double Diamond Fruit
Plantings of Honeycrisp are expanding rapidly in Washington
State. Future profitability of the variety will be dependent on
our ability to manage crop load and its impact on tree vigor and
fruit quality. Mike Robinson will discuss current on-farm efforts
in pruning and tests of chemical, mechanical blossom and hand
blossom thinning techniques.
Saturday, February 21, 2015 (continued)
8:00 am - 4:30 pm – Pre-Conference Honeycrisp Intensive Workshop
Strategies for Thinning/ReTain on Honeycrisp
Phil Schwallier, Michigan State University
Getting the correct level of crop on Honeycrisp is not easy.
Return bloom will suffer if too many apples are on the tree and
too few will get you problems with bitterpit. Numerous thinning
trials conducted in Michigan will be presented as well as novel
approaches to Honeycrisp Precision Fruitset will be reviewed.
Thinning starts early at dormant pruning time.
Harvest Management of Honeycrisp
Larry Lutz, Scotian Gold Cooperative
There has never been a more profitable or problematic variety
grown in North America. Harvest management including
maturity monitoring, harvest techniques and fruit handling will
be discussed from an eastern Canadian perspective, with special
emphasis being placed on the recent development and use of
the DA meter.
Determination of Optimal Harvest Boundaries for
Honeycrisp Fruit Using a New Chlorophyll Meter Tool
John Delong, Agriculture & Agri Food Canada
A new chlorophyll measurement tool [the delta absorbance
(DA) meter] was used to develop an optimal harvest maturity
model for Honeycrisp fruit grown in Nova Scotia. The DA meter
values associated with the harvests having high commercial fruit
quality and the least collective expression of disorders, delin-
eated the optimal harvest boundaries. The DA model approach
is potentially applicable to all commercial apple cultivars, but
should be developed for each within a distinct growing region.
Honeycrisp Maturity Indicators and Optimization
of Postharvest Performance
Ines Hanrahan, Washington State University
Dr. Hanrahan will discuss methods of maturity assessment for
Honeycrisp destined for long term storage in Washington State
including, but not limited to: crop load, time of harvest, use of
common maturity indicators, titratable acidity and other ways to
determine maturity. She will emphasize the need for timely har-
vest to preserve excellent eating quality in storage and discuss
strategies for storage success. The discussion will be framed with
practical tips for growers and storage operators.
IFTA is excited to
be heading back
to Nova Scotia!
Here IFTA members
are enjoying the
maritime experi-
ence at the 2009
IFTA Study Tour
in Nova Scotia.
Register online today at www.ifruittree.org
18. 16 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
10:30 am - 3:00 pm – Optional Half-day Cultural Tours
Spend some time touring the area to learn about Nova Scotia history during the optional
half-day Cultural Tours before the Annual Conference Welcome Reception. Tickets for the
optional tours are included only with the Whole Fruit Pie registration, other conference
attendees can purchase tickets for either of these optional tours. Both optional sight-
seeing tours on Sunday need a minimum of 30 people to register or the tour will be
cancelled. In the event we do not have a minimum of 30 people registered for the tour
by February 1, we will contact the registrants and refund the registration fee for the tour.
See sidebar for more information on Sunday tours.
5:00 pm – Annual Conference Welcome Reception
See old friends and make new industry acquaintances as you join other conference
attendees for the 58th Annual IFTA Conference Welcome Reception. The Welcome
Reception will be held at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, just a short walk from
the host hotel, the Halifax Marriott Harbourfront.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
MONday, February 23, 2015
8:00 am - 5:00 pm – Educational Sessions
Welcome
Lisa Jenereaux, Spurr Brothers Farm, Conference Host Committee Co-Chair
Introduction to Nova Scotia
Larry Lutz, Scotian Gold Cooperative, Conference Host Committee Co-Chair
Being the oldest area producing tree fruit in North America, as well as one of the smallest
and with the shortest growing season, has presented some unique opportunities and
difficulties over the centuries. The history and evolution of the area and the industry, as
well as the impact that Honeycrisp has had on the industry will be presented. The cur-
rent status of the varieties and production systems used here will be explained as well.
Pear Rootstock and Systems for High Density Orchards
Stefano Musacchi, Washington State University
The main trend in European orchard design today is to increase planting density. High
density planting (HDP) in pear is expanding due to the widespread use of quince root-
stocks to reduce tree size and induce early bearing. However, since HDP entails high out-
lays, the break-even point occurs 5 to 8 years after planting. Stefano Musacchi will discuss
the latest research in pear rootstocks and training systems for high density pear plantings.
Optimal Weed Control in Young Orchards with New Herbicides
Debbie Breth, Cornell University
Weed control is essential for optimal tree growth and apple production. All previous
work in identifying critical weed free timing was done on Empire and Jonagold on M111
planted at 3 X 6 m spacing. Breth has tested the critical timing for weed free strips for
two seasons in the rows of new high density tall spindle plantings and has been able to
identify the best timing for optimal tree growth and relate that to potential yield. Results
of various herbicide trials will also be presented.
Register online today at www.ifruittree.org
Optional
Cultural
Tours
Halifax Highlights + Peggy’s
Cove w/ Lunch – 4 hours
Join your local guide for a fun-filled
ride through the streets of Halifax to
learn about the people and places
that have shaped one of the most
captivating cities in North America.
Your tour will lead you out of town
on the Lighthouse Route and on to
Peggy’s Cove, an artists’and explor-
ers’paradise for well over 150 years.
This village is located right on the
rugged Atlantic shoreline, standing
on solid rock above the crashing surf.
The coastline is famous for pirates,
shipwrecks, and rum-running while
the village is known for weather-
worn fishing shacks, colourful buoys,
lobster traps and awe-inspiring rock
formations that have been carved
out by the glaciers of the last Ice Age.
Enjoy a delicious two-course lunch
overlooking one of the most pho-
tographed lighthouses in the world
before returning to Halifax.
Historic Halifax + Alexander
Keith’s Brewery – 2 ½ hours
Join your local guide for an overview
of Halifax. Learn about the city’s war
years and of the role of the Citadel
Fortress, of the exploits and heroism
of the citizens who lived through the
devastating Halifax Explosion, and
of the local connection to the Titanic
Disaster. Next, step back in time
with a tour of the Alexander Keith’s
Brewery as it was in 1863. The great
Brew-master, and former mayor of
Halifax, is brought alive in song and
story as actors in period costume
and character show you everything
there is to know about Nova Scotia’s
favorite beer, Keith’s Pale Ale.
Register online today at www.ifruittree.org
Photo: Scott Munn, courtesy Nova Scotia Tourism Agency
Photo: Destination Halifax/B.McWhirter
19. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 17
Register online today at www.ifruittree.orgRegister online today at www.ifruittree.org
Past President Steve Blizzard returns as the Master of Ceremonies for the 2015 IFTA Awards Banquet. Banquet tickets are
included with Whole Fruit Pie registration, other conference attendees can purchase tickets for this year’s awards banquet.
Updates on Trials from NC140 and Their Applications
to Tree Fruit Industry
Terence Robinson, Cornell University
The NC-140 rootstock research group continues to evaluate
apple, cherry and pear rootstocks in multiple locations in North
America. Recent findings show the potential for dwarfing
cherry rootstocks planted at high densities with new pruning
strategies to produce large crops with large fruit size. The apple
trials are showing the potential of various new rootstocks
including the Geneva rootstocks to improve yield efficiency.
The pear rootstock trials have shown that the current OHF
stocks and the new Pyro 2-33 combined with new pruning
strategies have good potential in high density orchards which
should allow the North American pear industry to modernize
and adopt high density orchards.
Living Without Neonics in Tree Fruit
Art Agnello, Cornell University
Since their introduction in the late 1990s, the Neonicotinoids
have become the most widely used class of insecticides in the
world. The fruit industry has come to rely on this chemistry as
a replacement for many of the older chemistries including the
organophosphates. These products are now under intense
scrutiny due to suspected environmental impacts. This presen-
tation will address what the future may hold in the event that
we lose access to this class of insecticides.
Crop Adapted Spraying (CAS) for High Density Orchards
Jason Deveau, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Rural Affairs (OMAFRA)
After several years of trials, Crop-Adapted Spraying is a
promising decision-making model for reducing pesticide
requirements in apple orchards. As growers continue to shift to
high-density plantings, this method of sprayer calibration and
spray-coverage confirmation can potentially save as much as
50% of typical annual pesticide loads.
MONday, February 23, 2015 (continued)
The Retail Apple Landscape from an Eastern
Shipper’s Perspective
John Rice, Rice Fruit Company
New varieties of apples are being offered to retailers every
month. How are retailers reacting, and which varieties are likely to
be the long-term winners? What barriers do they face, and what
is the store apple section likely to look like five years from now?
Ten years from now? One of the largest Eastern apple packers
and growers weighs in.
Young Grower Session:
Encouraging Young Folks to Stay in This Business
Chris Duyvelshoff, Perennia, Moderator;
Adele Wunsch, Wunsch Farms;
Peter Eisses, Eisses Farms;
Jenny Crist Kohn, Crist Brothers Orchards;
Mark Stennes, Cascade Crest Organics
Four inspiring young growers will be featured from New York,
Michigan, Washington and Nova Scotia. Each will be discussing
their background, involvement on the farm, future plans and
what makes a successful young grower. These next generation
growers will ensure a vibrant tree fruit industry for generations
to come.
A Systems Approach to Mechanization: Grower Panel
Karen Lewis, Washington State University, Moderator;
Mo Tougas, Tougas Family Farm; Tim Welsh, Columbia Fruit
Packers; Rod Farrow, Lamont Fruit Farm; Dave Rennhack,
Rennhack Orchards; Mike Robinson, Double Diamond Fruit
Horticulture. Engineering. Economics. Discussion will be focused
on evaluating and adopting labor assist mechanical tools for
thinning, pruning and harvest. Can we optimize our horticultural
systems with mechanization? Is the engineering and marketplace
meeting our needs and demands? What is the economic bottom
line – mitigation of labor-related risks, improved fruit quality or
getting the job done well and on time? Five“early adopters”will
share their experiences with mechanization, their methods for
evaluating new tools and their efforts to develop a systems ap-
proach to mechanization.
6:00 pm – IFTA Awards Banquet
20. 18 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Canard Orchards – Gerry and Shonna VanOostrum
Originally started by Gerry’s father, Peter, this farm has always been
a leader in planting new high-density systems. Gerry now plants
almost exclusively M-9 and B-9, as they have performed very
well on this site. The main varieties grown are Gala, Honeycrisp,
Ambrosia, Jonagold, SweeTango and red strains of Cortland. We
will also see a variety of training and support systems, with new
plantings primarily trained to the tall spindle system.
Sarsfield Farms – Blake and Paulette Sarsfield
Sarsfield Farms is located in the shadow of Cape Blomidon, one
of the most scenic areas of Nova Scotia. Sarsfield Farms was one
of the first to plant Honeycrisp in Nova Scotia, as well as other
new varieties such as Ambrosia, SweeTango and Sonya. They also
have one of the largest cherry plantings in Nova Scotia, as well as
peaches, day neutral strawberries and high bush blueberries.
We will be looking briefly at some of the new plantings on M-9,
M-26, M7, M4 and Supporter 4. The main attraction at this stop
will be an inside display of orchard equipment including platforms,
mechanical thinners, harvest assists and other specialized
orchard equipment.
Eisses Family Farm – John and Trudy Eisses and Family
This was once a mixed operation with dairy cows, field crops and
tree fruit. John has concentrated more on the apple enterprise in
the last 25 years and has expanded and replanted extensively. In
recent years John has seen three of his children and their spouses
return to the farm, so the future looks bright indeed. We will also
view extensive planting of Honeycrisp, Ambrosia, SweeTango, So-
nya, Gala, and Gravenstein. Of special interest will be the progres-
sion of support systems and training methods, and the extensive
use of the new Cornell rootstocks such as G-11, G-16, CG-30 and
G-41. Extensive plantings on M-9 and older plantings of Honey-
crisp on M-7 will also be viewed.
Scotian Gold Cooperative Ltd.
Started in 1917 as the United Fruit Companies, Scotian Gold
Cooperative is the largest storage operator and apple packer in
Atlantic Canada. This grower owned facility in Coldbrook continu-
ously adds new CA facilities and has recently added new pre-sort
facility. The cooperative also operates a Farm Supply, Retail Market,
Fertilizer Plant and a Fresh Cut facility. The co-op services about
50 growers, handling both fresh and processing apples as well as
pears, peaches, cherries, potatoes
and strawberries.
Andy and Gail Parker
Andy and Gail started planting their orchard in the early 1980s
with semi dwarf M111’s and M26’s. The farm now consists of ap-
proximately 100 acres of orchard with the main varieties being Mc-
Intosh and Honeycrisp. About half of the Honeycrisp production
is from older trees that have been top worked. They have recently
started a renewal planting program based on the tree wall system
using a standardized 11 foot row spacing. The intent is to utilize
mechanized systems to achieve labor efficiencies where possible.
Most of the new plantings will be budded in place, on M26 root-
stock, to Pazazz, Honeycrisp and other higher value varieties.
TUESday, February 24, 2015
Van Meekeren Farms
Owned and operated by Stephen and Michael Van Meekeren, the
farm was purchased by their father Frank Van Meekeren in 1964
as a mixed fruit, vegetable and dairy operation. Since the mid-80s
the business has focused primarily on apples and pears. The farm
is about 100 acres. Some older plantings on MM111 still exist but
are continually being replaced by B9, G935, G11, and some M26
at a density of 1200-1400 trees/acre. The Van Meekerens have a
Controlled Atmosphere Storage and Packing facility that handles
the production from their own farm as well as those from other
growers in the Valley.
Register online today at www.ifruittree.orgRegister online today at www.ifruittree.org
21. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 19
Register online today at www.ifruittree.orgRegister online today at www.ifruittree.org
WEDNESday
Orchard
Tours
Spurr Brothers Farm – Bill, Gordon,
Lisa, Katie (and the rest of the family!)
Very diverse and ever evolving, this farm has
had apples since the mid 1800s and is now
heading into the sixth generation in the same
family. Always the innovators, they had one of
the first blocks of McIntosh in Nova Scotia as
well as one of the first commercial plantings
of Jonagold in 1985, and Honeycrisp in 1996.
The farm consists of about 100 acres of apples,
mainly on M-26, CG-30, M-9, B-9 and G-16.
The farm also grows and packs 400 acres of
potatoes, onions, and carrots. New to the farm
are a series of specialty crops such as strawber-
ries, garlic, Haskap berries and other vegetable
crops. Of special interest is a multi-leader block
of pears planted in 2012. These are primarily
the Fireblight resistant cultivars from the Vine-
land breeding program.
Birchleigh Farms – Waldo and
Judy Walsh
Originally started by Waldo’s father, Fred, the
Walsh family currently grow about 95 acres of
apples and pears. The main varieties grown are
Honeycrisp, SweeTango, Ambrosia, Gala, and
a host of traditional varieties such as Graven-
stein and Northern Spy. New plantings are
primarily on M-26 and Supporter 4 rootstock,
with consideration being given to some of the
stronger Geneva rootstocks to make up for the
fine textured soils at the home farm. The Walsh
family has been devoting a lot of effort to
become more labor efficient, utilizing close row
spacings, bin trailers, and a platform for prun-
ing, tree training and trellis installation.
Crisp Growers Inc.
Formed out the ashes of a corporate fruit farm
which dissolved in 2013, Crisp Growers is a
venture owned by a number of growers who
also happen to be growers for Scotian Gold
Cooperative. Originally encompassing some
240 acres of apples, mostly older varieties,
the orchard has mostly been removed and is
rapidly being replanted to newer high value va-
rieties such as Honeycrisp, Ambrosia, Gala and
Sonya. We will see some of the new plantings
and have a discussion of the unique business
model being followed.
Nova Scotia’s 2014 Fire Blight Epidemic
Chris Duyvelshoff, Perennia
Nova Scotia experienced its most severe fire blight outbreak in the province’s
history in 2014. Reasons for the severity of the outbreak will be examined using
graphic visual imagery. Lessons learned and questions for the future will
be discussed.
Fire Blight Management Considerations for 2015
George Sundin, Michigan State University
Fire blight is a destructive bacterial disease of pome fruit that caused significant
damage in eastern North America in 2014. This disease can be explosive under
conducive environmental conditions and is extremely difficult to control on
highly susceptible apple varieties. The reasons for the rapid onset of disease will
be outlined, and best management options for control of blossom and shoot
blight will be discussed.
Apple Biodiversity Collection/Breeding Implications
Sean Myles, Dalhousie University
The use of DNA sequence information can be used to accelerate the breeding
of improved fruit cultivars. Dr. Myles will explain why the use of genomics-assist-
ed breeding holds particular promise for tree fruits and what his research team
is doing to accelerate the development of improved apple varieties in Canada.
You Have to Dance With the One What Brung Ya
Steve Blizzard, Largomarsino Group
Carlson Lecture
A look in the rear view mirror of how a grower oriented,
grower financed organization influenced an entire industry,
not only in North America but all over the world.
Annual Conference General Session
The final day of the conference starts early! Attendees will be boarding
buses at the hotel at 7:30 am to travel back to the Annapolis Valley for
classroom sessions in the morning and more field learning in the afternoon.
The day concludes with a Traditional Nova Scotia Lobster Supper with buses
returning to the hotel around 9 pm.
WEDNESday, February 25, 2015
All conference speakers, topics and times subject to change.
22. 20 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Introducing New York’s First
Homegrown Club Apples
Mark Russell, Whittier Fruit Farm LLC
email: mwrussell1969@gmail.com
Presented at the 57th Annual IFTA Conference, February 2014, in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Bringing two great
apple brands to market,
the NYAG way
I’m here on behalf of NYAG to talk about
our partnership with Cornell, as well as to
introduce two great new apple brands and
New York’s first homegrown apple club.
I’m sure many of you were in Boston last
year and recall Dr. Susan Brown’s talk
about the development of these apples. I
plan to pick up where she left off.
I remember where I was when I first
learned about the club apple concept.
I was here, at IFTA in Kelowna in 2002.
Through a chance meeting I struck up a
conversation with Alan White from New
Zealand. He told me about a great new
apple they had called Jazz. But the im-
portant thing I learned was that he was
in charge of selecting the growers for
it, and it would not be available in New
York. I was fascinated by the idea of an
apple I wouldn’t be allowed to grow. It im-
plied the possibility for a medium-acreage
grower like me to have access to a limited
variety. I had a feeling I was seeing the fu-
ture of the industry, and wanted to know
how my operation could be a part of it.
A year earlier—again at IFTA—I had met
Dennis Courtier. Word was he was in
negotiations with the University of Min-
nesota for exclusive rights to a promising
Honeycrisp-Zestar! hybrid. After a lot of
research and conversation, I was glad to
be invited to join the Next Big Thing (NBT)
co-op, and plant the apple that would
become Minneiska and marketed as
SweeTango™
. This is where things get in-
teresting for New York growers. With the
advent of NBT, New York State got a front
row seat to what the club concept could
look like: only 15 New York growers were
invited and around 300 acres planted, but
Names and logos unveiled at Geneva field day. Photo credit: Mark Russell
23. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 21
it was enough for Cornell extension to be
involved in, and for the NYAA to support.
In a state with over 600 apple growers,
this served as a real wake-up call. If you
hadn’t known about the club concept,
you sure knew about it now.
The New York project began with a small
group of growers forming an apple vari-
ety task force. They knew Dr. Brown had
some promising varieties in the pipeline,
and they knew the old system for releas-
ing apples to the public was about to
end. So they set about making a plan that
would meet their two primary goals:
n Deliver value to New York growers by
negotiating exclusive rights to great new
apples.
n Support the Cornell breeding pro-
gram with a reworked, dedicated funding
stream.
Cornell sought an exclusive rights partner
for its new apples. NYAG LLC was formed
and a contract was drawn that gave
NYAG exclusive North American rights to
grow and market the apples, now named
NY-1 and NY-2.
NYAG went to work to form a growers’
organization to help meet their goals and
also to live up to their core values:
n Manage the production, quality, and
marketing.
n Allow any grower to join.
To do this we used the New York Apple
Marketing Order membership as a re-
source to make sure every grower was
invited twice. Growers were allowed to:
n Plant either or both apples.
n Choose how many acres to plant.
n Choose between direct or commercial
sales channels, or both.
This got us 144 grower-owners, covering
about 60% of the state’s production.
Orchard establishment was complicated
by the inconvenient fact of an industry-
wide planting boom that led to a deficit
of rootstock choices. NY-1 was a runty
tree that needed a boost. NY-2 proved to
be susceptible to fire blight. In a perfect
world, we would have access to all the
great new Geneva roots we needed. In-
stead, NY-1’s success as a tree will depend
mostly on NIC 29 and NY-2 on Bud-9.
With propagation underway the NYAG
organization started to take shape. A
Board of Directors leads the way with a
number of committees formed to handle
big picture issues, like marketing plans
and variety evaluation, as well as critical
details, such as orchard establishment,
administration and trademarking. All told,
about a third of our member farms have a
committee presence. This is an organiza-
tion dedicated to inclusiveness, communi-
cation and transparency.
NYAG’s founders brought a lot of experi-
ence and talent to the table—but none of
us was a marketing firm, so we hired one
to fill in the gaps. This firm helped turn
these apples into strong brands and cre-
ated the toolkit to reach our consumers.
We also hired a professional administrator
with a marketing and apple background.
At the same time we were also working
closely with Cornell. NYAG and Cornell
are partners in this venture. With partner-
ship comes strength and opportunity but
also compromise. Here’s what we got:
n North American production and mar-
keting rights.
n A seat at the table for new selections.
n A collection of royalties split 50/50
between NYAG and Cornell to endow a
dedicated revenue stream for Dr. Brown’s
breeding program.
The final result was a 50/50 royalty split
between NYAG and Cornell, with Cornell
agreeing to pass along a portion of their
funds directly to the apple breeding program.
Harvest gathering at Crist Bros. Orchards, Inc. in New York. Photo credit: Janet Baus.
24. 22 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
For NY-1 we chose SnapDragon™
.
One of our goals was to put some fresh
words in the apple category, and we
thought “crisp” had been played out. We
used “snap” as a stand-in for “crisp”, and
“dragon” brings with it imagination, ex-
citement and fun. Initial name recognition
from the public has been outstanding.
NY-2 will be sold as RubyFrost®
.
We wanted the name to express the beau-
ty of the fruit, in a luxurious way, while
frost stood in as a mouth-feel message,
suggesting the fruits’ crisp and refresh-
ing qualities. RubyFrost®
got immediate
attention from the public as a name too,
appearing in a “lip-gloss or apple-variety”
quiz on Bon Appétit’s website.
We love these names, and think they are
strong trademarks and worthy brands for
two of the finest apples available.
To introduce our brand names to the
growers and the public, we chose the
annual field day at the Geneva research
station, and invited all the members—and
the press—to join us in the celebration,
with Cornell’s public relations team help-
ing spread the word.
The name announcement got 158 unique
The partnership with Cornell has been
strong in so many ways. From research, Dr.
Brad Rickard conducted a taste test focus
group that studied the economic impact of
naming. We created a Cornell internship for
early market research. We put the project in
the classroom: an undergraduate business
class developed marketing plans and some
inventive names, and an MBA program’s
students conducted market analysis.
Best help of all was from the CALS faculty
and extension. They worked eagerly with
growers every step of the way. It’s been a
great advantage having Dr. Terence Rob-
inson involved in challenging the growers
toward excellence. There is an apparent
sense in New York’s fruit tree extension
that these are world-class apples and de-
serve to be done right.
The work of extension, through the East-
ern Horticulture team and Lake Ontario
Fruit teams, has been constant and invalu-
able. Even the new Director of Extension,
longtime friend of the industry Dr. Chris
Watkins, still finds time to do storage re-
search for both of these varieties.
Obviously, the most pressing task was
“naming” the apples, and having a mar-
keter involved made sure we built a co-
hesive brand definition with the apples’
associated emotion, target consumer and
placement up front. This was a big help in
informing the naming process.
Once we had our apples defined and
positioned, we needed to choose wor-
thy names for them. NY-1 was a superior
out-of-hand snack apple, with an excit-
ing crunch and an immediate, endearing
sweet flavor. NY-2 was a gorgeous apple
that elicited emotions of comfort and lux-
ury. It has a firm, crisp, juicy texture and a
delicate sweet-tart balance.
Finding suitable names is frustrating work
going through hundreds of options in
search of something more perfect. You
also have to avoid the tendency to gravi-
tate toward existing names. It can take a
lot of time—years, in fact. You can run out
of apples to eat and have to go months
working from your memory. A lot of fruit
needs to be eaten, a lot of brains need to
be picked, and a lot of words need to be
mashed around.
In the end, the apple brands were chosen
through a proprietary process, including
but not limited to brainstorming, thesau-
rus reading, focus groups, taste testing,
conference calls, coffee drinking, market
research, naming contests and Robert’s
Rules of Order. And remember: If it’s a
good apple, people will like the name you
pick anyway.
First pack of SnapDragon. Photo credit: Austin Fowler.
25. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 23
stories the first day, with more than 450
repeats of the Associated Press story and
local TV news coverage in nearly every
market in the state. We couldn’t be hap-
pier about the adulation and recognition
it brought to Susan Brown and Kevin Ma-
loney at the breeding program. It was a
snapdragons. Photo credit: NYAG LLC
long time coming and much deserved.
We parlayed all this strong press into a
direct marketing blitz for SnapDragon™
with the fruit from our commercial grow-
ers distributed to the member farm stands
to bolster quantity. Our website—snap-
dragonapple.com—directed folks to the
direct markets nearest them, and our
members did the rest.
For RubyFrost®
, our marketing debut con-
sisted of a test run at the retail level. Three
supermarket partners were chosen for the
test and about 3,000 bushels of fruit went
out late January to over 150 outlets. We
look forward to repeating that retail test
this October with SnapDragon™
.
Going forward our biggest challenges will
be nailing down harvest indices and stor-
age protocols, maintaining quality stan-
dards, and balancing retailer demand with
the growth of production. Marketing chal-
lenges include working with sales desks
and the constant fight to get shelf space.
Our old model is all about giving retailers
a 52-week supply, and they learned to ex-
pect it. With club apples they can’t neces-
sarily have that, so we have to find ways
that work to the growers’ advantage.
There’s a lot of unique supply chain issues
to sort out. Those are the consequences
when you invite every grower in the state.
I don’t think any packing house is going
to happy about handling and splitting out
105 grower lots, so there will need to be
some cooperation and coordination. The
folks working on this are busy people,
with their own businesses to manage and
they do this on a volunteer basis. So we
have some work to do.
Since the club concept first came into play
over a decade ago, there has been much
deliberation over all these new varieties in
the marketplace. “Surely there was not
enough shelf space to go around for more
than a few lucky winners” was the pre-
vailing wisdom. But as the emerging clubs
have come into view, it is apparent their
combined production plans are still far
below five percent of domestic volume…
and years away from exceeding that. It
could be just as likely that we have merely
entered a new, better era of what used
to be derisively called “niche” marketing.
The apple display is a big place. The win-
dow for a variety can be as long as a whole
year. There’s plenty of room to profitably
sell quality apples. And with the excite-
ment that all these new varieties are bring-
ing to the segment, new apple lovers will
be looking for something good to munch
on after this year’s SnapDragon™
and
RubyFrost®
are sold out. So don’t disap-
point them!
26. 24 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Cherry Rootstocks
for the Modern Orchard
Lynn E. Long, Linda J. Brewer and Clive Kaiser, Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University
email: lynn.long@oregonstate.edu, linda.brewer@oregonstate.edu and clive.kaiser@oregonstate.edu
Presented at the 57th Annual IFTA Conference, February 2014, in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Traditional rootstocks for commercial
cherry production include Mazzard and
Mahaleb. These rootstocks support a
moderate crop load, and with routine
care, a proper leaf to fruit ratio is gener-
ally easy to maintain. However, none of
them confer precocity, and all can be very
vigorous, making plantings more difficult
to manage and harvest.
Growers today have the advantage of
many fully- or semi-dwarfing rootstocks
that offer precocity, allow for high-density
plantings, and bring a faster return on
investment. These precocious rootstocks
include the Gisela®
series, the Krymsk®
series and MaxMa 14®
, among others.
Five sour cherry rootstocks from Michigan
State University are still under evaluation,
but have significant potential to transform
cherry growing practices.
All of these precocious rootstocks make
high-density plantings possible and en-
able new systems that are easily trained,
easily pruned and more easily harvested.
Higher early returns and more sustainable
yields through maturity are also possible.
In many cases labor demands are reduced
and efficiencies are increased.
Summary of rootstock
attributes
With the exception of the MSU rootstock
series mentioned above and two new
Gisela®
rootstocks, all of these rootstocks
have been grown commercially for at
least a decade. In that time a great deal
has been learned about their attributes.
Gisela 3
Prunus cerasus Schattenmorelle × Prunus
canescens
Gisela 3 is the most dwarfing of the Gise-
la series. Although it has gained accep-
tance by growers in northern Europe, it
has not been widely planted in the U.S.
or most other cherry production areas of
the world. Due to its very dwarfing nature
it is recommended for planting only in
Vogel Central Leader trees growing on five rootstocks.
27. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 25
deep, fertile soils. Reports from Germany
indicate Gisela 3 provides high early yields
and when intensively pruned and man-
aged can produce high-quality fruit.
Trees are free of suckers and produce
wide branch angles. Trees should be sup-
ported. Gisela 3 is recommended for very
high-density plantings such as the Super
Slender Axe system. Gisela 3 is particularly
well adapted to covered orchards.
Gisela 5
P. cerasus x P. canescens
Gisela 5 has gained wide acceptance in
northern Europe and in the northeastern
United States where summer tempera-
tures tend to be relatively cool. However,
Gisela 5 has failed to gain widespread ac-
ceptance in the major cherry production
areas on the west coast of the United
States, Chile or other hot summer regions.
Gisela 5 produces trees about 50% the
size of Mazzard. The medium-low vigor
of this rootstock coupled with very high
fruit production means that trees must be
pruned and managed intensively in order
to produce high quality fruit. This issue is
accentuated when Gisela 5 is combined
with productive cultivars such as Lapins
and Sweetheart. When properly pruned
and grown on deep, fertile soils, Gisela
5 may be suitable for very high density
plantings, especially when combined with
an extremely high-density system such as
the Super Slender Axe.
Gisela 6
P. cerasus x P. canescens
Gisela 6 is the most popular rootstock
for new plantings in the Pacific North-
west (PNW) of the U.S. Even though it is
a relatively vigorous rootstock, it is easy to
manage. Typical planting densities are 300
to 500 trees per acre (740-1235 trees per
hectare). Although it exhibits medium-high
vigor, it is also very precocious, producing
harvestable crops by the third leaf with full
production possible by the fifth leaf. High
production potential continues on Gisela 6
into maturity, so proper pruning is essential
to maintain adequate leaf-to-fruit ratio and
good fruit size. High fruit quality is possible
with cultivars of moderate-to-low produc-
tivity such as Bing, Skeena and Regina, but
more difficult with very productive cultivars
such as Lapins and Sweetheart.
Gisela 6 is well suited for a wide range
of soil types from light to heavy; however,
good drainage is essential. Anchorage can
be a problem, especially on windy sites,
although most growers in the PNW do
not provide support.
Gisela 12
(P. cerasus x P. canescens
Gisela 12 generally produces a tree with
slightly more vigor than Gisela 6 when
combined with Regina and several other
varieties, but it exhibits slightly less vigor
with Bing. Gisela 12 is both precocious
and productive, producing heavy early
crops, with full production possible by the
fifth leaf. Good fruit size and quality is
possible with proper pruning.
Gisela 12 is adapted to a wide range of
soils and is somewhat better anchored
than Gisela 6 although there have been
some reports of trees leaning in the wind.
The tree structure is open and spreading
and new branches form readily. Scion
compatibility has not been a problem.
Dormant pruning KGB trees.
28. 26 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
Gisela 13
Schattenmorelle x P. cansecens
According to information provided by
Gisela, Inc., Gisela 13 is similar to or
slightly more vigorous than Gisela 6 with
about the same yield capacity, although
both of these traits varied with the evalu-
ation site. These trees were reported to be
well anchored with few root suckers.
Gisela 17
P. canescens x P. avium
According to Gisela, Inc. (giselacherry.
com/), Gisela 17 produces a tree some-
what larger than Gisela 6 or Gisela 13 with
a yield potential similar to or somewhat
less than Gisela 6. They further reported
that Gisela 17 shows somewhat reduced
potential to over-crop compared to Gisela
5 or Gisela 6, suggesting this rootstock
would do well with the more productive
self-fertile cultivars. Gisela 17 is reported
to be less demanding as to soil and climat-
ic conditions than Gisela 5 and has per-
formed well in replant sites in Germany.
Krymsk 5
P. fruticosa x P. lannesiana
Krymsk 5 has been used in commercial
production in Oregon for more than 10
years. Tree size is similar to Gisela 12 but it
is neither as precocious nor as productive.
Commercial production of Lapins and
Skeena on Krymsk 5 through the twelfth
leaf in Oregon indicates premium quality
fruit can be consistently produced on this
rootstock when properly managed.
Krymsk 5 is adapted to a wide range of
soil types, with reports it will grow well in
heavier soils than Mazzard. Accounts from
Russia, where this rootstock originates, in-
dicate it is well adapted to cold climates.
In addition, it has performed well in the
hot climate production regions of the
western U.S. Trees are well anchored and
do not need support. Low-to-moderate
levels of crown suckers have been noted.
Trees grafted onto Krymsk 5 rootstock
are hypersensitive to prune dwarf virus
(PDV) and Prunus necrotic ringspot virus
(PNRSV).
Krymsk 6
P. cerasus x (P. cerasus x P. maackii)
Krymsk 6 produces a tree that is only 75
to 80% the size of trees on Krymsk 5 or
Gisela 12, so higher density plantings
are possible with this rootstock. In one
commercial orchard in Oregon, Lapins
and Skeena fruit size and quality on this
rootstock has been excellent through the
twelfth leaf.
Like Krymsk 5, Krymsk 6 rootstocks seem
to be adapted to both cold and hot cli-
mates as well as heavier soils. Trees are
well anchored, with low-to-moderate root
suckering. Tree form is good, with wide
crotch angles. Like Krymsk 5, Krymsk 6 is
hyper sensitive to PDV and PNRSV.
MaxMa 14
P. mahaleb x P. avium
Although MaxMa 14 has gained broad ac-
ceptance in southern France for its good
performance in calcareous soils, it has ob-
tained only moderate acceptance in other
production areas globally. A perception by
growers in Chile that it provides some resis-
tance to bacterial canker has encouraged
growers there to plant MaxMa 14. Some
growers in the PNW like its semi-vigorous
growth habit and moderate precocity.
MaxMa 14 shows good scion compatibil-
ity and a broad adaptation to soil types
and environmental conditions. Very little
suckering has been noted.
MSU rootstock series
Five sour cherry rootstocks are currently
being evaluated in Michigan and the PNW
for their ability to serve as sweet cherry
rootstocks. The five rootstocks, Cass, Clair,
Clinton, Crawford and Lake, have each
shown some very interesting character-
istics. In all cases these rootstocks are at
least as dwarfing as Gisela 5, while Clare
produces an even smaller tree. In addition,
all rootstocks trend towards more flowers
per leader cross-sectional area than Gisela
The variety, rootstock and training system trial being pruned.
29. Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014 27
5 or Gisela 6. However, after two years of
trials at Prosser, Washington, fruit size on
all rootstocks was similar to Gisela 5 and
Gisela 6 (Personal communication, Dr.
Amy Iezzoni, Department of Horticulture,
Michigan State University).
However, similar fruit size was only ob-
tained in 2012 because pea-sized fruit
were thinned by 50%. In 2013 fruit were
thinned to achieve standard crop loads
for each selection. In many parts of the
world, high labor costs would constrain
growers from using hand labor to thin
flowers or fruitlets. The use of pruning
and chemicals could reduce the demand
for hand thinning and allow growers to
obtain consistently high yields and reduce
annual yield fluctuations.
In addition, Lake, Cass and Clare signifi-
cantly advance fruit ripening by up to one
week. For some markets, this may be a
considerable advantage, providing growers
with higher returns and greater revenue.
Variety, rootstock, training
system trial
In order to grow consistently high-quality
fruit, these precocious rootstocks must
be well matched with the proper scion.
A trial was established in The Dalles, Or-
egon in 2006 with the goal of determin-
ing which rootstock, variety and training
system combinations produced the best
yields of high-quality fruit.
The first objective of this work was to as-
sess the influence of three training sys-
tems on fruit yield and quality of Bing,
Regina and Sweetheart trees. Training
systems included 1) a multi-leader bush
(Kym Green Bush (KGB)), 2) a spindle
system (Vogel Central Leader (VCL)) and
3) a tri-axe system (Steep Leader (SL)).
The second objective was to determine
the influence on yield and fruit quality of
up to five different rootstocks on Bing,
Regina and Sweetheart trees. The final
objective was to evaluate the influence
of the interaction of these cultivars, root-
stocks and training systems on yield and
fruit quality.
Regina scion-wood was budded onto
Mazzard, MaxMa 14, Gisela 6, Krymsk 5
and Krymsk 6 and planted in a commer-
cial orchard in 2006 in The Dalles, Oregon,
USA. Bing was budded onto rootstocks
Mazzard, MaxMa 14 and Gisela 6. Sweet-
heart was budded onto rootstocks Maz-
zard, MaxMa 14, Gisela 6 and Krymsk 5.
Each variety-rootstock combination was
Figure 1
FIGURE 1 – Relative tree size of Sweetheart grown on four rootstocks and trained to
three systems as expressed by trunk cross sectional area (cm2
).
Figure 2
FIGURE 2 – Fruit size on all training systems, Bing, Regina,and Sweetheart 4th
through 7th leaf.
30. 28 Compact Fruit Tree • December 2014
trained to each of three systems: the KGB,
VCL and SL.
Tree size
When combined with Sweetheart, Maz-
zard produced the largest trees with all
training systems (Fig. 1). Krymsk 5, MaxMa
14 and Gisela 6 produced trees that were
relatively similar in size with Gisela 6 trend-
ing slightly smaller than other rootstocks.
Yield and fruit size: Select
a rootstock to match the
variety and training system
Regina. With a variety of lower produc-
tivity, such as Regina, it is important to
choose rootstocks and training systems to
maximize productivity. Our trials showed
that Regina grafted to any of the root-
stocks produced fruit of the highest qual-
ity (Fig. 2).
The five rootstocks evaluated in this trial
with Regina produced the largest fruit on
the following systems (Fig. 2):
Mazzard SL
Gisela 6 KGB
MaxMa 14 KGB, SL
Krymsk 5 KGB
Krymsk 6 KGB
The greatest yields were from Regina on
Krymsk 6, Krymsk 5 and Gisela 6. Com-
pared to Mazzard the following root-
stocks, through the sixth leaf, produced
as follows (Fig. 3):
n 3.2 times greater yield on Krymsk 6;
n 3.1 times greater yield on Krymsk 5;
n 2.6 times greater yield on Gisela 6;
and
n 1.7 times greater yield on MaxMa 14.
Bing is a variety of moderate productiv-
ity with yields intermediate between the
low-yielding Regina and the high-yielding
Sweetheart. Highest yields were obtained
on Gisela 6 rootstock (Fig. 3).
The three rootstocks evaluated in this trial
with Bing produced the largest fruit on
the following systems (Fig. 2):
Mazzard KGB
Gisela 6 KGB, VCL, SL
MaxMa 14 VCL
Overall Gisela 6 was the best rootstock se-
lection to provide a good balance of yield
and fruit size. Compared to Mazzard the
following rootstocks, through the sixth
leaf, produced as follows:
• 6.9 times greater yield on Gisela 6;
• 5.1 times greater yield on MaxMa 14.
Sweetheart is a highly productive variety,
and proper pruning is critical on any root-
stock to obtain a balanced leaf-to-fruit
ratio and high-quality fruit. On Gisela 6
rootstock, Sweetheart bore fruits of excel-
lent size (Fig. 2).
The four rootstocks evaluated in this trial
with Sweetheart produced the largest
fruit on the following systems (Fig. 2):
Mazzard KGB, VCL, SL
Gisela 6 VCL, SL
MaxMa 14 KGB, VCL, SL
Krymsk 5 KGB, VCL, SL
Overall Gisela 6 was the best rootstock
selection to provide a balance of yield and
fruit size. Compared to Mazzard the fol-
lowing rootstocks, through the sixth leaf,
produced as follows:
n 2.3 times greater yield on Gisela 6;
n 1.5 times greater yield on MaxMa 14;
n 1.4 times greater yield on Krymsk 5.
Although Gisela 6 produced greater quan-
tities of high-quality fruit compared to the
other rootstocks, Sweetheart on Gisela
6 is a challenging combination for many
growers. The production of consistently
high-quality fruit is made difficult by the
productive nature of both the scion and
rootstock. Both MaxMa 14 and Krymsk
5 provide greater precocity than Mazzard
while more easily maintaining the proper
leaf-to-fruit ratio than Gisela 6.
Summary
With productive rootstocks, the impor-
tance of proper training and pruning can-
not be overemphasized. If mismanaged,
trees can quickly become imbalanced,
producing small, poor quality fruit. How-
ever, when properly managed, all of
these precocious rootstocks can provide
early high yields of premium quality fruit.
This research helps to identify the best
combinations of variety and training sys-
tem for a number of important, preco-
cious rootstocks.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Greg
Johnson of The Dalles, Oregon for host-
ing the trial and IFTA for partial funding
of this work.
Additional resources:
Long, L.E. 2007. Four Simple Steps to Pruning
Cherries on Gisela and other Productive Root-
stocks. PNW 592. Oregon State University Exten-
sion Service, Corvallis OR.
Long, L.E. and C. Kaiser. 2010. Sweet Cherry
Rootstocks for the Pacific Northwest. PNW 619.
Oregon State University Extension Service, Cor-
vallis OR. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/
bitstream/handle/1957/18464/pnw619.pdf
Figure 3
FIGURE 3 – Average per tree fourth through sixth leaf yield of three varieties
combined with four rootstocks.